Loading...
05/12/198822795 BARTON ROAD o GRAND TERRACE, CA 92324-5295 • CIVIC CENTER -- (714) 824-6621 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE 4 n REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS GRAND TERRACE CIVIC CENTER 22795 Barton Road * Call to Order * Invocation - * Pledge of Allegiance * Roll Call May 12, 1988 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS COUNCIL ACTION CONVENE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 1. Approval of Minutes 4/14/88, 4/28/88 Approve 2. Approval of Check Register No. CRA 051288 Approve ADJOURN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CONVENE CITY COUNCIL 1. Items to Delete 2. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS 1. Presentation by the City of Colton Present regarding La Cadena Beautification Plan. 2. Presentation by the City of Colton Present regarding temporary expansion of the sewer plant. 3. PROCLAMATION - "Hulda Crooks Day" Present May 19, 1988 4. PROCLAMATION - "Driver Appreciation Day" Present May 18, 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. 4 11 COUNCIL AGENDA 05/12/88 - Page 2 of 2 A. Approve Check Register No. 051288 B. Ratify 4/28/88 CRA Action C. Waive Full Reading of Ordinances on Agenda. D. Accept Gage Canal Easement. E. Approve Minutes of 4/14/88 PU 4. BLIC PARTICIPATION 5. ORAL REPORTS A. Committee Reports 1. Parks & Recreation Committee (a) Minutes of 3/7/88 (b) Minutes of 4/4/88 B. COUNCIL REPORTS 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS - 6:30 P.M. 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. An overall revision of the City's General Plan including landuse designations, circulation and housing density issues (GP-87-4), and Master Environmental Analysis/Environmental Impact Report on proposed General Plan Amendment for General Plan 87-4 (E-87-1). (Will be discussed pending reply from FPPC on Council participation). B. Parkland Acquisition STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Approve Accept Approve 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Appoint member & alternate to the San Appoint Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District Advisory Commission. ADJOURN THE NEXT REGULAR CRA/CITY COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE HELD ON MAY 26, 1988 AT 5:30 P.M. ----------------------------- AGENDA ITEM REQUESTS FOR THE 5/26/88 MEETING MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE BY NOON ON 5/18/88. COUNCIL ACTION CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - APRIL 14, 1988 DRAFT 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 April 14, 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 (60 Randy Anstine, Assistant City Manager Juanita Brown, Secretary David Sawyer, Planning Director Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney Joe Kicak, City Engineer ABSENT: NONE APPROVAL OF MARCH 24, 1988 CRA MINUTES CRA-88-12 MOTION BY VICE CHAIRMAN PFENNIGHAUSEN, SECOND BY AGENCY MEMBER GRANT, CARRIED 5-0, to approve March 24, 1988 CRA Minutes. APPROPRIATION FOR TRUSTEE'S FEES ON REFUNDING CIVIC CENTER ISSUE. 4W CRA-88-13 MOTION BY VICE CHAIRMAN PFENNIGHAUSEN, SECOND BY AGENCY MEMBER SHIRLEY, 5-0, to approve appropriation for Trustee's Fees on refunding Civic Center Issue. Chairman Matteson adjourned the CRA Meeting at 5:35 p.m. until the next regular meeting which will be held Thursday, April 28, 1988 at 5:30 p.m. CHAIRMAN7of the City of Grand Terrace SECRETARY of the City of Grand Terrace "A NO. ra � CITY OF GRAND TERRACE DRAFT U SAL COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - APRIL 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 April 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 David Sawyer, Planning Director Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney Joe Kicak, City Engineer ABSENT: Juanita Brown, Secretary APPROVAL OF CHECK REGISTER NO. CRA042888 CRA-88-14 MOTION BY VICE CHAIRMAN PFENNIGHAUSEN, SECOND BY AGENCY MEMBER SHIRLEY, 5-0, to approve approve Check Register No. CRA042888. Chairman Matteson adjourned the CRA Meeting at 5:33 p.m. until the next regular meeting which will be held Thursday, May 12, 1988 at 4W 5:30 p.m. CHAIRMAN -of the City of Grand Terrace SECRETARY of the City of Grand Terrace CRA AGtldDA ITEM NO.l COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Ce OF GRAND TERRACE D MAY 12, 1988 CHECK REGISTER NO: CRA051288 CHECK OUTSTANDING DEMANDS AS OF: MAY 12, 1988 NUMBER VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 18334 COLTON JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL PROGRESS PAYMENT ON SPRINKLERS AT TERRACE HILLS JR. HIGH $24,376.99 TOTAL: $24,376.99 I CERTIFY THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE AFORELISTED CHECKS FOR PAYMENT OF CRA LIABILITIES HAVE BEEN AUDITED BY ME AND ARE NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE EXPENDITURES FOR THE OPERATION OF CRA. THOMAS SCHWAB TREASURER c: S- I (�ity at" 015;rav,�4', i "HULDA CROOKS DAY" May 19, 1988 c l jai-w � F WHEREAS, on May 19, 1988, Hulda Crooks, who is one of the best-known citizens of the Inland Empire, will be celebrating her 92nd birthday; and WHEREAS, Hulda Crooks is affectionately known as "Grandma Whitney" in the United States and "Grandma Fuji" in Japan; and WHEREAS, Hulda Crooks has successfully climbed Mt. Whitney 23 times in the past 25 years, as well as Mt. Fuji in Japan; and WHEREAS, Hulda Crooks is an ardent promoter of physical fitness and personifies a healthful livestyle, an ideal held by many citizens; and x WHEREAS, Hulda Crooks is truly an "Ambassador of Good- will and Healthful living," NOW, THEREFORE, I, BYRON R. MATTESON, Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace, California, on behalf of the City Council, do hereby proclaim May 19, 1988 as: i "HULDA CROOKS DAY" -in this community and urge all of our citizens to join with me in commending this outstanding individual for her many contributions to physical fitness and healthful living and to wish her well in all her future endeavors. Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace and of the City Council thereof. This 12th day of May, 1988 �`1'�: I�I � �lF'/ ':ufh�\'F� ) �l � h 11•�.$N:^��''(y.l,'i � `1�-. Njil critu of (1)"rtauil OTCrrato,-, "DRIVER APPRECIATION DAY" May 18, 1988 WHEREAS, OMNITRANS Coach Operators have consistently improved their safety records in each of the last four years; and WHEREAS, OMNITRANS Coach Operators have won the 1987 National Safety Council's Fleet Safety Award; and WHEREAS, this is the second consecutive year OMNITRANS has received a first place award for fleet safety; and WHEREAS, the public's understanding of the Coach Operator's job responsibility should be enhanced; and WHEREAS, Coach Operators need to be made aware that their driving and public relations skills are valued and recognized; and .: WHEREAS, such recognition enhances operator perform- ance:andjencourages professional pride, and Y' WHEREAS, the American Public Transit Association has declared -Wednesday, May 18, 1988, as: "MAT ,IONAL BUS DRIVER APPRECIATION DAY" as part of the celebration of National Transportation Week, May 15 through 21, 1988. NOW, THEREFORE, I, BYRON R. MATTESON, Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace, California, on behalf of the City Council, do hereby issue this Proclamation to express gratitude to OMNITRANS Coach Operators for the safe, courteous, and reliable service they provide on a daily basis and urge all citizens to join me in congratulating them on their outstanding safety record. Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace and of the City Council thereof. This 12th dau of May, 1988. pNr��1G CITY APPROVAL PPROVAL r CITY OF GRAND TERRACE DA MAY 12, 1988 \ ,ECK REGISTER NO: 051288 CHECK OUTSTANDING DEMANDS AS OF: MAY 12, 1988 NUMBER VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT P5630 CITY CLERK'S ASSOCIATION OF CA P5631 SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY P5632 SOUTHERN CA GAS COMPANY P5633 SOUTHERN CA GAS COMPANY P5634 SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY P5636 SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY P5637 SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY P5638 SOUTHERN CA GAS COMPANY P5639 POSTMASTER—COLTON P5640 SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY P5641 SOUTHERN CA GAS COMPANY P5642 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY P5643 SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY P5644 SOUTHERN CA GAS COMPANY P5645- ALL PRO CONSTRUCTION 18313 SO. ESTRN CONF. OF S.D.A. 18314 IED/LEAGUE OF CA CITIES 18315 YUCAIPA PARKS & RECREATION 18316 DONALD CLODFELTER a? 18317 DALE A. REILE 18318 HAROLD RANK 18319 GRIFFIN DEVELOPMENT 18320 LAWRENCE ZIMMERMAN 18321 MICHAEL MERCER Q 18322 ACCENT PRINT & DESIGN CITY CLERK HANDBOOK $ 75.00 CASH PAYMENTS, 4/22/88 263.75 CASH PAYMENTS, 4/22/88 153.31 CASH PAYMENTS, 4/25/88 72.33 CASH PAYMENTS, 4/25/88 155.03 CASH PAYMENTS, 4/26/88 15.59 CASH PAYMENTS, 4/27/88 176.19 CASH PAYMENTS, 4/27/88 75.14 POSTAGE FOR MAILING MACHINE 2,000.00 CASH PAYMENTS, 4/29/88 106.71 CASH PAYMENTS, 4/29/88 35.75 SHERIFF STAR AND I.D. FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER 53.00 CASH PAYMENTS, 5/3/88 251.92 CASH PAYMENTS, 5/3/88 155.39 OVERLY CITY STREETS, VARIOUS LOCATIONS 33,255.00 REFUND, OVERPAYMENT ON PRE —ALTERATION PERMIT 10.00 ANNUAL WORKSHOP 4/19/88, RIVERSIDE 20.00 DAY CAMP & PLAYGROUND WORKSHOP, RECREATION 20.00 REFUND, WASTEWATER DISPOSAL 12.00 REFUND, WASTEWATER DISPOSAL 8.00 REFUND, WASTEWATER DISPOSAL 6.13 REFUND, WASTEWATER DISPOSAL 29.14 REFUND, WASTEWATER DISPOSAL 16.00 REFUND, WASTEWATER DISPOSAL 8.00 ART SHOW POSTERS AND INVITATIONS 98.66 1 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE DA ' MAY 12, 1988 rECK REGISTER NO 051288 CHECK OUTSTANDING DEMANDS AS OF: MAY 12, 1988 NUMBER VENDOR DESCRIPTION 18323 ACCURATE JANITORIAL 18324 AMERICAN BUSINESS SYSTEMS 18325 AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SERVICE 18326 BASTANCHURY BOTTLED WATER 18327 CAIFORNIA SKATE-G.T. 18328 CASH REGISTER SYSTEMS OF CA 18329 NORMAN T. CAOUETTE 18330 CONSTANCE CHAPMAN 18331 CHEMLAWN 18332 GERALD COLE 18333 CITY OF COLTON 18335 DICKSON CO. OF THE INLAND EMPIRE 18336 EDEN SYSTEMS USERS GROUP 18337 EWING IRRIGATION SUPPLIES 18338 FOOTHILL JOURNAL 18339 GRAND VIEW BAPTIST CHURCH 18340 STANLEY HARGRAVE 18341 JERRY HAWKINSON 18342 SUSAN KAUFFMAN STRIP & WAX FLOORS, CIVIC CENTER SUPPLIES FOR POSTAGE MACHINE REPAIR IRRIGATION SYSTEM, GRIFFIN PARK RENT COOLERS AND BOTTLED WATER FOR CIVIC CENTER AND DAY CARE CENTERS ROLLER SKATING INSTRUCTIONS, DAY CARE REPAIR CASH REGISTER STIPENDS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS, NOVEMBER, 1987- APRIL, 1988 CLEAN RESTROOMS AT PARK (4 DAYS) FERTILIZATION OF TERRACE HILS PARK, GRIFFIN PARK, AND CIVIC CENTER STIPENDS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS, NOVEMBER, 1987- APRIL, 1988 WASTEWATER DISPOSAL SERVICES FOR MAY, 1988 AND CONNECTIONS FOR APRIL, 1988 STREET SWEEPING FOR APRIL, 1988 MEMBERSHIP FOR 1988 IRRIGATION SUPPLIES FOR PARKS CITY NEWS, 4/21, 4/28, AND 5/5/88 RENT CHUCH FOR DAY CARE 4/9-6/17/88 STIPENDS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS, NOVEMBER, 1987- APRIL, 1988 STIPENDS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS, NOVEMBER, 1987- APRIL, 1988 LOW IMPACT AEROBICS AND TODDLER EXPRESS INSTRUCTOR AMOUNT $ 125.00 38.16 51.00 90.55 191.25 62.50 200.00 80.00 874.00 225.00 22,690.36 2,460.82 25.00 27.80 750.00 787.50 175.00 200.00 163.50 2 CIT OF GRAND TERRACE DA MAY 12 1988 CCK REGISTER NO: 051288 CHECK OUTSTANDING DEMANDS AS OF: MAY 12, 1988 NUMBER VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 18343 KICAK AND ASSOCIATES ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR 4/4-5/l/88 $ 10,878.13 18344 LOMA LINDA DISPOSAL TRASH PICK-UP FOR MAY, 1988, PARK AND CIVIC CENTER 76.70 18345 MCKINZIE COMPANY TYPING ELEMENTS 58.35 18346 RAY MUNSON STIPENDS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, NOVEMBER, 1987- APRIL, 1988 200.00 18347 JEAN MYERS CROSSING GUARD, 4/11-4/22/88 63.60 18348 OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY MAINTENANCE ON ELEVATOR FOR MAY, 1988 193.88 18349 PAGING PLUS RENT ON PAGERS FOR MAY, 1988 58.00 18350 PETRA ENTERPRISES ENVELOPES AND FORMS FOR FINANCE 425.83 18351 RIVERSIDE HIGHLAND WATER COMPANY OVERLAY BRENTWOOD (CITY PORTION) 13,300.00 18352 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO DUMPING CHARGES FOR 3/28-4/13/88 20.00 18353 SCHUBERT LANDSCAPING REPAIR IRRIGATION SYSTEM AT BARTON/PALM 83.88 18354 RAELENE SEARLE STENCILING WORKSHOP INSTRUCTOR 100.00 18355 JIM SIMS STIPENDS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS, NOVEMBER, 1987- APRIL, 1988 225.00 18356 SMART & FINAL IRIS COMPANY SUPPLIES, DAY CARE 44.24 18357 SOLANO PRESS MAPS FOR PLANNING 52.58 18358 SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY BALL PARK LIGHTS AND SPRINKLERS AT PARK 247.61 18359 THE SUN NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS AND AD FOR RECREATION SUPERVISOR 575.35 18360 SUN BADGE COMPANY BADGE FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER 59.36 18361 UNION OIL COMPANY OF CA FUEL FOR CITY TRUCK AND EQUIPMENT 82.77 18362 UNIVERSITY PROMPT CARE PRE -EMPLOYMENT PHYSICAL 48.00 18363 FRAN VAN GELDER STIPENDS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS, NOVEMBER, 1987- APRIL, 1988 225.00 PAYROLL FOR APRIL, 1988 77,358.65 TOTAL: $170.666.41 3 A I CERTIFY THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE AFROELISTED 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 DATE: May 6, 1988 S T A F F R E P O R T CRA ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (xx) MEETING DATE: May 12, 1988 SUBJECT: ACCEPT GRANT OF EASEMENT -- CANAL STREET- 6 BARTON ROAD TO GRAND AVENUE 4 FUNDING REQUIRED NO FUNDING REQUIRED As Council is aware, the City had to enter into condemnation to negotiate a settlement with Gage Canal to provide easements across their right-of-way at the Gage Canal for the developments in that area. The Grant of Easement has been provided to the City and we must accept the Easement. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT 6W COUNCIL ACCEPT THE GRANT OF EASEMENT FROM THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE DESCRIBED AS ATTACHED. TS:bt When recorded mail to: City Clerk's Office City of Grand Terrace City Hall, 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace, Ca 92324 Project: Canal Street -Barton Road to Grand Avenue GRANT OF EASEMENT 1' • 1'1 � 1 1 1� THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE, a municipal corporation, Grantor, FOR VALUABLE r CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, does hereby grant to the CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, a municipal corporation, Grantee, an easement and right-of-way for public street and highway purposes and public utility purposes, together with all rights to construct and maintain utilities, sewers, drains and other improvements consistent with the use as a public street and highway, in, under, upon, over and along that certain real property in the City of Grand Terrace, County of San Bernardino, State of California, described as follows: All that portion of the Right -of -Way of the Gage Canal, as shown by map on file in Book 7 of Records of Surveys at Pages 88 thru 92 inclusive (bw thereof, records of San Bernardino County, California described as follows: Parcel 1 A strip of land, 62.00 feet wide, lying 31.00 feet on each side of the following described centerline: COMMENCING at the intersection of Canal Street with McClarren Street as shown by Tract 13364, per map on file in Book 203 of Maps, at Pages 89 thru 92 inclusive thereof, records of San Bernardino County, California; THENCE North 69' 43' 40" East, a distance of 17.50 feet to the westerly right-of-way line of the Gage Canal, and the Point of Beginning; THENCE continuing North 69 43 40 East, a distance of 50.00 feet to the easterly right-of-way line of the Gage Canal, and the end of this centerline description. Page 1 Parcel 2 A strip of land 62.00 feet wide lying 31.00 feet on each side of the following described centerline, commencing at the centerline intersection of Canal Street and Carhart Avenue as shown by Tract 5852, per map on file in Book 74 of Maps at Pages 41 and 42 thereof, records of San Bernardino County, California; THENCE North 27' 28' 30" West (recorded as North 27° 56' 48" West) along the centerline of Canal Street, a distance of 213.97 feet; THENCE North 62° 31' 30" East, perpendicular to said centerline of Canal Street a distance of 17.50 feet to the westerly right-of-way line of the Gage Canal, and the Point of Beginning. THENCE continuing North 62" 31' 30" East a distance of 50.00 feet to the easterly right-of-way line of the Gage Canal and the end of this centerline description. Parcel 3 A strip of land, 62.00 feet wide, lying 31.00 feet on each side of the following described centerline; COMMENCING at the northwest corner of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 9448, as shown by map on file in Book 103 of Parcel Maps at Pages 43 and 44 thereof, records of San Bernardino County, California, said point being on the east right-of-way line of the Gage Canal. THENCE North 29° 45' 29" East (recorded North 29° 47' East), along said east right-of-way line, a distance of 81.50 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. THENCE North 60° 14' 31" West, a distance of 50.00 feet to the west right-of-way line of said Gage Canal and the end of this line description. Parcel 4 A strip of land, 17.00 feet in width, as measured at right angle, lying southerly of, adjacent to, and parallel with the southerly line of Barton Road (formerly Palm Avenue), 66 feet wide and lying between the easterly and westerly right-of-way lines of the Gage Canal, as said canal is shown by map on file in Book 5 of Records of Surveys, at Pages 25 thru 29 inclusive thereof, records of San Bernardino County, California. Parcel 5 That portion of that certain 50 foot wide strip of land labeled "Gage Canal Right of Way" as shown by Map on file in Book 7 of Records of Survey at Pages 88 thru 92 inclusive thereof, Records of San Bernardino County, California, being more particularly described as follows: Page 2 BEGINNING 'at the southwest corner of said 50 foot strip of land, being a point on the northerly right-of-way line of Barton Road (formerly Palm Avenue) 66 feet wide; THENCE northerly, northwesterly and northeasterly along said Gage Canal right-of-way line the following twelve (12) courses: (1) THE14CE North V 59' 30" West, a distance of 354.00 feet; (2) THENCE northwesterly along a tangent curve to the left having a radius of 425.00 feet, concave southwesterly, through a central angle of 20' 29' 00", an arc distance of 151.94 feet; (3) THENCE North 27' 28' 30" West, along a line tangent to the last described curve, a distance of 792.41 feet; (4) THENCE northerly along a tangent curve to the right, having a radius of 125.00 feet, concave easterly, through a central angle 460 of 22° 13' 00", an arc distance 48.47 feet; (5) THENCE North 50 15' 30" West, along a line tangent to the last described curve, a distance of 50.25 feet; (6) THENCE northerly along a tangent curve to the right, having a radius of 325.00 feet, concave easterly, through a central angle of 20° 41' 00", an arc distance of 117.32 feet; (7) THENCE North 15° 25' 30" East, along a line tangent to the last described curve, a distance of 93.36 feet; (8) THENCE northeasterly along a tangent curve to the right, having a radius of 325.00 feet, concave southeasterly, through a central angle of 14' 21' 30", an arc distance of 81.44 feet; (9) THENCE North 290 47' 00" East, along a line tangent to the last described curve, a distance of 437.24 feet; (10) THENCE northeasterly along a tangent curve to the right, having a radius of 325.00 feet, concave southeasterly through a central angle of 200 31' 30", an arc distance of 116.42 feet; (11) THENCE North 500 18' 30" East, along a line tangent to the last described curve, a distance of 438.54 feet; (12) THENCE North 51° 28' 30" East, a distance of 1016.77 feet to the intersection of said Gage Canal Right -of -Way line with the southeasterly Right -of -Way of Grand Avenue (60' Wide) as shown by Map of Resubdivision of Grand Terrace Tract on file in Book 1, Page 33, of Records of Survey, Records of said County; Page 3 THENCE North 73' 43' 10" East, along said southeasterly right-of-way line a distance of 9.19 feet to the intersection of said southeasterly line with the westerly right-of-way line of Mt. Vernon Avenue (66' Wide), as shown by said Map of Resubdivision of Grand Terrace Tract; THENCE South 00° 11' 30" West, along said Westerly right-of-way line a distance of 33.54 feet, to a point in a non -tangent curve, concave southeasterly, through which point a radial line bears North 11' 18' 23" West; THENCE southwesterly along said curve, to the left, having a radius of 193.27 feet, through a central angle of 270 13' 07", an arc distance of 91.81 feet, to a point in a line parallel with and distance 8.25 feet southeasterly of as measured at right angles to said northwesterly line of said Gage Canal Right -of -Way; THENCE, along said parallel line, the following twelve (12) courses: (1) THENCE South 510 28' 30" -West, along a line tangent to the last described curve, a distance of 915.81 feet; (2) THENCE South 50" 18' 30" West, a distance of 438.46 feet; (3) THENCE southwesterly along a tangent curve to the left, having a radius of 316.75 feet, concave southeasterly through a central angle of 20° 31' 30", an arc distance of 113.47 feet; (4) THENCE South 29° 47' 00" West, along a line tangent to the last described curve, a distance of 437.24 feet; (5) THENCE southwesterly along a tangent curve to the left, having a radius of 316.75 feet, concave southeasterly through a central angle of 14' 21' 30", an'arc distance of 79.38 feet; (6) THENCE South 15° 25' 30" West, along a line tangent to the last described curve, a distance of 93.36 feet; (7) THENCE southerly along a tangent curve to the left, having a radius of 316.75 feet, concave easterly through a central angel of 20' 41' 00", an arc distance 114.34 feet; (8) THENCE South 5° 15' 30" East, along a line tangent to the last described curve, a distance of 50.25 feet; (9) THENCE southerly along a tangent curve to the left, having a radius of 116.75 feet, concave easterly, through a central angle of 22° 13' 00", for an arc distance of 45.27 feet; (10) THENCE South 27' 28' 30" East, along a line tangent to the last described curve, a distance of 792.41 feet; Page 4 (11) THENCE southeasterly along a tangent curve to the right, having a radius of 433.25 feet, concave southwesterly through a central angle of 20' 29' 00", an arc distance of 154.89 feet; (12) THENCE South 6° 59' 30" East, along a line tangent to the last described curve, a distance of 318.24 feet; THENCE leaving said parallel line, South 480 34' 45" East, a distance of 29.43 feet, to a point in a line parallel with and distant 50.00 feet northerly of, measured at right angles to, the centerline of said Barton Road; THENCE North 89' 50' 33" East, along said parallel line, a distance of 22.37 feet, to the intersection of last said parallel line with the easterly line of said Gage Canal Right -of -Way; THENCE South V 59' 30" East, along said easterly Right -of -Way line, a distance of 17.12 feet to a point in said northerly Right -of -Way line of Barton Road (66' Wide). THENCE South 89' 50' 33" West, along said northerly Right -of -Way of Barton Road line a distance of 50.36 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING therefrom those portions included within Parcels 1, 2 and 3, hereinabove described. Contains 0.740 acres, more or less. (32,323.4 square feet). Within the easements above -described, Grantor maintains an operating, covered 4 canal (pipeline) for the transmission of water known as the Gage Canal. The above -described easements are granted to allow Grantee to obtain three public crossings of Grantor's Gage Canal for roadway and utility purposes and are made pursuant to that certain Agreement by and between Grantor and Grantee dated December 23, 1986, and are subject to all terms and conditions imposed upon Grantee contained in said Agreement including, but not limited to the following: (a) Grantee shall install all facilities over and across the Gage Canal in a manner so as to provide adequate protection to the water pipeline located therein. Such protection shall be reinforced concrete bridge, a minimum of 36" of dirt cover in addition to the paving, or alternatives approved in advance by the Gage Canal Company and Grantor. Any improvements, construction or installation of facilities over or across the Gage Canal shall have the prior approval of the Gage Canal Company and Grantor. Page 5 (b) Grantee shall provide alternate ingress and egress or provide for such for those properties currently licensed and/or actually using private crossings over the Gage Canal between Barton Road and Grand Avenue in the City of Grand Terrace. (c) Grantee shall indemnify and hold harmless Grantor and the Gage Canal Company, and their agents and employees, from and against all losses and all claims, demands, payments, suits, actions, recoveries and judgments of every nature and description brought or recovered against them by reason of any act or omission of Grantee, its agents and employees, in the execution or performance of activities or responsibilities arising out of or as a result of this Grant of Easement or the aforementioned Agreement. Dated i.f C 9,F City of Riverside t.ANo S A11 By: ayo r pro Tempore GEORGE P. HUTCHINSON Attest:�.� L. S. 3593 C, ty Clerk v� EA(P 6/90 `P OF CA0 CONSENT TO RECORDATION THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the interest in real property conveyed by the within instrument to the City of Grand Terrace, California, a Municipal Corporation, is hereby accepted by order of the City Council, and the grantee consents to the recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer. Dated 11 311.2/m - SURVEY.502/n Page 6 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE By Gity er 5 iT Yn CITY OF GRAND TERRACE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - APRIL 14, 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 April 14, 1988, at 5:35 p.m. PRESENT: Byron Matteson, Mayor Barbara Pfennighausen, Mayor Pro Tem Hugh J. Grant, Councilmember Dennis L. Evans, Councilmember Susan Shirley, Councilmember Thomas J. Schwab, City Manager/Finance Director ow Randy Anstine, Assistant City Manager Juanita Brown, Deputy City Clerk David Sawyer, Planning Director Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney Joe Kicak, City Engineer ABSENT: None The meeting was opened with invocation by Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Councilmember Grant. ITEMS TO DELETE None. fir SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS A. Proclamation read by Mayor Matteson regarding "Victims' Rights Week," April 18-24, 1988. B. Proclamation read by Mayor Matteson regarding "Soil and Water Stewardship Week," April 21 thru May 1, 1988. C. Sgt. Pat English of the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department gave a slide presentation regarding the Computer Assisted Dispatch System at the Emergency Operation Center. CONSENT CALENDAR CC-88-48 MOTION BY MAYOR MATTESON, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM PFENNIGHAUSEN, CARRIED 5-0, to approve the Consent Calendar. POUNCIL Ag4Nf)A n-DA 83E A. APPROVE CHECK REGISTER NO. 041488 B. RATIFY APRIL 14, 1988 CRA ACTION C. WAIVE FULL READING OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS ON AGENDA D. APPROVE MARCH 24, 1988 MINUTES E. APPROVE SOLICITATION PERMIT FOR U.S. MISSION/HUDSON HOUSE F. APPROVE CONTRIBUTION TO COLTON HIGH SCHOOL'S BASEBALL TEAM G. APPROVE COMMITTEE POLICY MANUAL H. APPROVE CITY MANAGER'S ATTENDANCE AT THE ANNUAL LEGISLATIVE SEMINAR IN SACRAMENTO, MAY 12, 1988 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION None. ORAL REPORTS 5A. COMMISSION/COMMITTEE 1. CRIME PREVENTION COMMITTEE Council accepted Crime Prevention Committee Minutes of March 14, 1988. Dick Rollins, reported on the upcoming Safety Fair being held on Sunday April 17, 1988, at Terrace Hills Jr. High School and reported on problems regarding the Citizens Patrol Committee. 2. PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE Barbara Conley, 22285 Dove, Chairman, reported on the activities of the committee. (a) ACCEPT RESIGNATION FROM ALLYN KRUSE CC-88-49 MOTION BY MAYOR MATTESON, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER GRANT, CARRIED 5-0, to approve resignation from Allyn Kruse and directed staff to send a letter of regret. (b) APPOINT SYLVIA ROBLES AS A REGULAR MEMBER OF PARKS & RECREATION COMMITTEE CC-88-50 MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM PFENNIGHAUSEN, SECOND BY MAYOR MATTESON, CARRIED 5-0, to appoint Sylvia Robles as a regular member of the Parks and Recreation Committee. Council Minutes - 04/14/88 Page 2 (c) T.J. AUSTYN PARK SITE Barbara Conley, asked for clarification regarding ustyn Park Site being brought back to Council again and again and why it was put on the Agenda as an action item. Community Services Director Anstine clarified that changes to the initial meetings warranted that the last time the plan went before the Parks and Recreation Committee it was rejected; it has been revised by the developer and now the Committee has accepted it. 3. EMERGENCY OPERATIONS COMMITTEE 4W (a) Council accepted EOC Minutes of December 21, 1987 (b) Council accepted EOC Minutes of January 18, 1988 (c) Council accepted EOC Minutes of February 15, 1988 B. COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Shirley, reported that she represented the City of Grand Terrace at the Omnitrans Budget Hearing. Councilmember Grant, reported that he represented the City at the County Transportation Commission of the SANBAG Board. He explained what comprised the City Selection Committee and that only one candidate, Councilman Riley of San Bernardino, has indicated a desire to be on the commission. He informed the date, time and place where the committee would be selecting the new principal member of the Local Agency Formation Commission as well as an alternate, indicating Council may wish to proceed in a similar fashion to the way they did last year when this same kind of issue came up. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 7A. DRAINAGE PROBLEM FIELD SURVEY RESULTS Assistant City Manager Anstine gave an overview of the drainage problem and asked for Council's direction. CC-88-51 MOTION BY MAYOR MATTESON, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER GRANT, CARRIED 5-0, to follow staff's recommendation to determine available funds within the storm drain and street funds and submit a priority list with the FY 1988/89 Budget. Council Minutes - 04/14/88 NEW BUSINESS 8A. SCE PICO PARK SITE Assistant City Manager Anstine gave staff's recommendation regarding Pico Park Site and asked for direction from Council as to how to proceed with the development. Barbara Conley, quoted certain past dates and motions regarding the Pico Park Site and questioned certain changes and asked why staff was again asking for Council approval for expending more funds when they had already been approved. Mayor Matteson, explained staff was asking Council for direction on which way to go because staff has come up with a proposal for a dirt lot instead of paved parking and expressed his feelings regarding the organization. City Manager Schwab, explained that conditions have changed since the lease was accepted. Councilmember Evans, explained his reason for asking that this item be placed on the Agenda because of questions that had arisen regarding the cost and expressed his feelings regarding recreational facilities for this community and questioned whether it was felt that the organizations would use the site as it is currently being proposed and if not the reason. Tony Petta, 11875 Eton Drive, expressed his ideas regarding Pico Park Site. Councilmember Shirley, gave her views regarding parkland. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen, gave her views regarding park sites and the preparation of the sites. Assistant City Manager Anstine, explained unofficially what the organizations have made staff aware of regarding their views about the park site. CC-88-52 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SHIRLEY, SECOND BY MAYOR MATTESON, to go with staff's recommendation to make this into a ball park with grass, delete the paved parking lot and appropriate $9,500.00 to bring the amount for improvements of this park to $59,500.00. Councilmember Grant, shared his views regarding the park and after explaining his views, felt that the part of the motion which indicated grass area should be eliminated to some extent. Council Minutes - 04/14/88 Page 4 MOTION CC-87-52 CARRIED 3-2 (COUNCILMEMBER EVANS AND MAYOR PRO TEM PFENNIGHAUSEN VOTED NOE). 8B. PALAllOLO CONSTRUCTION CO. (VALLEY HOMES) REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION RM RESIDENTIAL MORATORIUM - SOUTHER-7 EXTENSION OF PASC . L AVENUE, NORTH OF VAN BUREN STREET. Planning Director Sawyer explained Palazzolo Construction Company was asking to be allowed an exemption from the residential moratorium so that they may pull additional building permits for homes that have already been approved on the Final Map. He reported on the Planning Department's recommendation. CC-88-53 MOTION BY MAYOR MATTESON, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER SHIRLEY, CARRIED 4-1 (COUNCILMEMBER GRANT WAS ABSENT), to move for exemption. 4W Recessed at 6:28 p.m. Reconvened at 6:45 p.m. 1988-89 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) ALLOCATION Assistant City Manager Anstine gave an overview of the Community Development Block Grant Program, indicating the Seniors Community Center and Michigan and Barton Road Street Improvements as the two projects being considered, and asked Council for their consideration. CC-88-54 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER EVANS, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM PFENNIGHAUSEN, CARRIED 5-0, to prioritize the two items with street improvements at Michigan and Barton Road as No. 1, Senior Community Center as No. 2, and if the Barton Road and Michigan Street improvements take all of the money, so be it at this particular time. 6B. GP-87-4 AN OVERALL REVISION OF THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN - LA D USE DESIGNATIONS, CIRCULATION HOUSING DENSITY ISSUES. E-87-1 - MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ON PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT. Planning Director In March, 1987, the City Council retained the Planning Sawyer and Engineering Firm of Willdan Associates. The purpose was to update the City's General Plan. At the time the contract was executed, the City Council requested that the analysis and recommendations for the western portion of the City (area west of the 215 freeway) be completed first. As a result, in September 1987, the City Council adopted Ordinance 110, making certain changes on the land use map for the area west of the freeway in changing residential density categories in the text to the General Plan. Council Minutes - 04/14/88 Page 5 Planning Director In January 1988, the Consultant completed the revision of, Sawyer the General Plan for the remainder of the City including changes to the Land Use Map infrastructure recreational resources and the Community Development Elements. On February 2, 1988, the 30-day public review period for the General Plan and its Environmental Impact Report (EIR) started and subsequently concluded on March 3, 1988. During this period certain comments were received regarding the EIR and as required by CEQA these comments have been responded to and are to be included in the Draft EIR. On March 21, 1988, the Planning Commission was presented the Consultant's proposed General Plan and Draft EIR. On April 4, 1988, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council to approve the proposed General Plan and EIR with certain changes to the Land Use Map. Unlike the previous hearings for the west side, we are not amending the Zoning Ordinance or the Zoning Map at this time, we are only considering changes to the General Plan. Once the General Plan is completed, staff will then recommend appropriate changes to the Zoning Ordinance. However, it should be noted that all of the changes to the General Plan which were made for the west side later last year are included in the proposed General Plan at this time. Ross Geller Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, this has been a preverbal Willdan long haul, it certainly has, we have been working on this Associates plan for over a year now. As David mentioned, our first task was the western portion of the City and that program was somewhat easier in that we took care of the General Plan and followed through with the zoning at the same time. This portion of the General Plan deals with the General Plan Land Uses and because we are talking about new categories, we don't have the opportunity to describe the development standards at this time and you can't actually take what is shown on the map and actually translate it into physical development at this time. Our approach that we took was to come up with the concept and that is what we are talking about tonight in the major southwest portion of the City, it's a concept of the City, a concept for the future. When we took on this assignment, our basic direction was to deal with the western portion of the City because the moratorium was in affect at that time and the City Council requested some land use directions in terms of the long-term land uses for everything west of the 215 freeway. The other major portion of the study was the southwest portion of the City. Over the course of the program, we met with the Council people individually and we certainly got Council Minutes - 04/14/88 Page 6 Ross Geller input over the long course of the public hearings that we've had up to this point. Our direction was to give an independent non -bias examination of the potential for this area and come up with some long-term land uses that we felt could be satisfied in the area and would have the most benefits to the City. Along with the land uses, other issues surfaced during the General Plan Land Use Study. Issues that needed to be discussed or analyzed either directly or indirectly by whatever we proposed in the southwest portion of the City in as much as it represents the last remaining large vacant area of the City. The community and the members of the Council discussed the need for improved parks and recreation throughout the community and the need for a community level park was discussed on the various levels in the process. Circulation issues needed to be addressed as they related to some of the 6 land use changes that we were proposing. The horizon year for the plan is 2,010 and beyond. It's a 20-year plus plan and the land use changes that we are talking about are going to be incremental changes and none of the changes are going to happen overnight, this is a concept plan. Staff, Planning Commission and City Council are still going to have to work out the details in terms of the types of developments and the development standards, particularly if the business park concept is followed through as part of this plan, because right now there are no development plans for a business park. During the course of our studies on the western portion of the City, the land use designation particularly for residential has been changed as part of the General Plan and has already been adopted. Low density residential, now within the City of Grand Terrace reflects development at between one to five -dwelling units an acre. Medium density development, which is the highest density development permitted in the City, now goes from six -dwelling units an acre to a maximum of 12-dwelling units an acre. The highest standard multiple -family project that could be built in the City at this particular time based on the land use change, is 12-units an acre, which is a relatively low density for multi -family. There is also a 25-percent bonus which would take up to 15-dwelling units an acre which has to be made before the bonus can be given. If the City Council and Planning Commission recommends and can make certain findings relative to certain improvements that a developer agrees to do as part of his development is the density bonus. The improvements that are given to allow the density bonus are something that the community as a whole is going to benefit from, not just the individuals of that development. Either they can partake in the development of a community level park or some other participation in the community level park benefit. Council Minutes - 04/14/88 Page 7 Ross Geller The other finding that needs to be made before the density bonus can be given is a finding that the existing infrastructure, including the surrounding roadway system, can support the increase density to 15-dwelling units an acre. So on the standard multi -family projects have been basically downgraded to a maximum of 12-dwelling units an acre and then again the 25-percent bonus for these other community level benefits. To describe the plan and describe what I did and what we are proposing here tonight, we recognize that the community has a lot of needs or a lot of wants and that became clear through our hearing process. To receive some of those needs, particularly the community level park and other things, there was some gaps in financing. What we proposed to do and what the plan reflects are shown on the Land Use Map on the wall is to designate a portion of this City for business and commercial. What we are talking about in terms of of business and commercial is high quality development. I can't be that specific with the development standards, I can only sell a concept to you tonight. The concept that I am talking about is high single users, large high quality buildings, generating employment that's going to have other rippling affects in the community in the terms of economics. The City of Grand Terrace has historically been a bedroom community and bedroom communities are fine. The City has some wants and needs and not the finances at this time to realize those needs, so what we tried to do is come up with a plan that generated some types of revenues so that some of these needs could be met in the future. The City is a redevelopment agency, the entire City is and the manner in which the Redevelopment Agency can receive funding based on tax increment, provided an opportunity to realize some high quality uses that would return some tax increments over the coming years. The basic area of change is within the southwest portion of the City and the Business Park use is the basic premise of the changes in that area. I brought some slides to show the type of development or the quality of development that I foresee in this area. We feel there is a need for business uses, certainly within the community to create this type of commerce use. We have done some discussions with commercial brokers within the general area that have stated that there is a need for high quality business uses in this area, and they feel that these types of uses can be successful. Council Minutes - 04/14/88 Page 8 Ross Geller We felt that the Grand Terrace name, which is somewhat separate or distinctive from the San Bernardino name and the surrounding communities names, could provide an area where you could attract the high quality users, the cooperate users to this area. And so for all of these reasons we proposed this business use. I also talked about spin-off economic benefits. For a long time this area was shown as regional commerce down here, and I think that the Council came to the realization that it was going to be a long time coming, if ever, for some sort of regional commercial activity to occur in this area. There are also a lot of commercial shown along Barton Road, basically that hasn't been changed on this General Plan, but we've seen since the City incorporated up to this point, that there hasn't been a lot of interest in developing commercial uses, and that's a product. I believe I sat in a public hearing when a developer described the fact that the numbers just don't shake out right now to develop a community level center within the City, that just doesn't support it at this particular time. There are two ways to answer that. One way is to increase density throughout the community or encourage residential development to produce the numbers, the spendable income to generate the numbers to support a commercial development. The other way that it can be done is to get the daytime users here, the businesses, the commerce in the community, get the daytime people to come in, use the services; the spin-off services from the business park type of uses. You get all of the benefits and not necessarily have to provide all of the services that come with multiple family or increased residential development. (He went over to the board) I would like to go over the land use changes throughout the City, not just the southern portion of the City. Basically, the existing General Plan as it exist today is shown on this map over here, this is the proposed Land Use Map as the plan is proposed today. I think the important part, particularly when we look at the southwest portion of the City, is to look at the difference in land uses of the General Plan as it's shown today and understanding that the type of commercial that they were talking about there is a very intensive regional commercial vs the General Plan as we are showing for this area here (indicating on the map). The dark blue represents the business park, the main business park area as we proposed in this plan, we see this as being the primary area, probably the Phase I of the business park and everything else happening after that in one way or another. This for the most part represents an existing industrial use in this area (indicating on the map), there's industrial uses down here. During the Planning Commission meeting, there was much discussion about an existing industrial use that exists right here (indicating on map). Council Minutes - 04/14/88 Page 9 Ross Geller We've shown on the General Plan the land use change there that basically separates the existing lumber yard activities. Again, this is a long-term plan, but we felt that changing the land uses in this area represents the best choice in terms of long term land use to deal with the existing residential here (indicating on map). We can't go back and change things that have happened over time, this residential exist and this plan needs to some how protect that residential island as it impedes into that area or projects into that area. This area down here was shown previously as industrial, we are showing it as single-family residential. The area to the north basically is changed, we are showing it as commercial from Commerce to DeBerry on the proposed General Plan, and that's just a minor change from the existing General Plan. The other major change is the 20-acre piece that is located on the west side of Mt. Vernon Avenue, north of Barton Road, we changed that to tv single-family. We feel that the size of that parcel lends itself to being able to be developed, I mean a single-family type of use. In terms of the circulation, we show Commerce Way coming through the center of the area, and that's different than the previous General Plan showed. There was much discussion during the Planning Commission about the exact precise alignment of this street. This conceptual alignment as it's shown here (indicating on map), the Planning Commission has made some recommendations for changes to that. I think Mr. Sawyer will go over those proposed changes in his following discussion. We've also made some changes of the parks and recreation element to reflect some of the wants and needs that were 40 discussed over the quotes of our General Plan Hearings. The current General Plan, as it exists today, their goal is to have a 3-acres of parkland per thousand people. However, at this time, we have already exceeded our standard. However, the community has voiced a need for a community level park. When we introduced this plan about a month and a half ago, I stated that with the type of development that I'm talking about in the southwest portion, we feel that a park could be provided for in this area, we had discussed over a long period of time whether a park should be actually shown or whether we should pick the site out as part of the General Plan process and actually show it. It was decided, from a legal standpoint, not to do that on the General Plan Land Use Map because it would represent a taking of peoples property to show it as a public use. So we haven't shown it on the Land Use Plan. However, with the type of high quality development that we are talking about in the southwest portion, we feel a park can serve a number of purposes in that area and fit in and be compatible in that Council Minutes - 04/14/88 Page 10 Ross Geller area. Not only will it serve the community needs and provide a large area for community level recreation facilities, but it could also provide noon time leisure activities for people that work within the business park. Also the peak hours for recreational type uses are much different than the peak hour for business type uses. I have some slides that show that exact thing where a community level park is located within a business park area and it does work well because of the off-peak hours. (Showing the slides) I want to differentiate the normal thought of a business park as a tilt -up building with a number of roll -up doors and a lot of truck activities as such, that's really not what I'm talking about in terms of a business park use. I'm talking about high -quality buildings; corporate offices; office types of activities; large setbacks; heavily landscaped; entry statements; a lot of amenities to the development. Again, even in our General Plan, we show the projection of residential land uses went into this area, based on some of the recommendations that came from the Planning Commission to preserve some of the residential areas that exist are going to surround it. We still feel that these types of uses can interact together and not create a negative impact because of the manner in which they are developed. Again, we feel that if the City makes the move now and does proactive planning rather than reactive planning in the future, there is a great opportunity to attract the types of users that we are talking about. These are all just variations on the theme (indicating on the slides) - This is a community level park in the City of Cerritos that is adjacent to an industrial area, and it works very well because of the manner in which the business park area has been developed. (Indicted several different slides of uses). Planning As a result of the changes that the Planning Commission did Director make to the Land Use Map, that was presented to Council with Sawyer two alternative Land Use Maps for the General Plan. These maps along with two other maps are presented to you to the right. You have an existing Land Use Map which shows what is physically out there today. Alternative 1 represents the Planning Consultant's presentation proposal which is identical to the map which is on your left. Alternative 2 is the Planning Commission's recommendation and the Planning Department's recommendation is to the right of that. The Alternative 2 is the Planning Commission's recommended Land Use Map and this alternative also calls for widening of Barton Road from the 100-foot right-of-way to a 120-foot right-of-way and for the reduction of Michigan Street from a 88-foot right-of-way to a 64-foot right-of-way. Both alternatives calls for these changes. The differences Council Minutes - 04/14/88 Page 11 Planning between these two changes is that Alternatives 2 specifies Director that the alignment of Commerce Way, south of Van Buren, Sawyer should be defined in a specific plan to be completed at a later date and that certain residential property shall remain residential. Alternative 2 also recommends that the properties owned by Southern California Edison be designated for light industrial use and that a new study be completed. Looking at the feasibility of a freeway off -ramp to be located at DeBerry Street and that will be a study for an off -ramp only, not an on -ramp. Further study also should be completed regarding widening of Barton Road. The Southern California Edison property that was mentioned, being changed from a Business Park to light industrial and the residential areas here and here, remaining residential (indicating on the map). Commerce Way alignment is the same coming down Van Buren in concept is similar, those are the only changes. The Planning Department is in support of the concepts which are presented in the Consultant's Alternative 1. However, after the consideration of the Planning Commission's Public Hearing and deliberation, both the Planning Department and the Planning Consultant feel the Planning Commission's recommendation, Alternative 2, is workable and does not detract from the basic concepts of Alternative 1. It should be noted, however, that if any other areas or additional areas of land are removed from the business park designation, the ultimate success of such a concept could be hindered and would need to be reevaluated. Therefore, the Planning Department is in support of both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. However, keeping in mind that the purpose of the General Plan is the long term planning of the community, the Planning Department recommends the City Council approve the MEA/EIR and the proposed General Plan as presented in Alternative 1 with the exception that the eight residential properties on the west side of Michigan, south of Van Buren, remain designated as low -density residential. Mayor You were talking about on Michigan reducing the right-of-way Matteson from 88 feet to 64 feet. Do we presently have a 88-foot right-of-way? Planning Presently, in the General Plan as it exists now, it is Director called to be widened whenever there is development to an 88-foot right-of-way. Mayor Does the City have the property? Matteson Council Minutes - 04/14/88 Page 12 Planning No, currently, the new proposal is calling for the 66 foot Director ROW and the actual paved area on a 66-foot ROW is 44 feet Sawyer and the majority of Barton Road as it exists today, has enough pavement to meet that 40-foot paved area. Mayor How much right-of-way does the City have now on Michigan? Matteson City Attorney Mr. Mayor, it varies throughout, it's slant in some areas we Hopkins have 44-foot half streets which would be the beginning of what would be a 88-foot ROW. It varies throughout the length of Michigan Street, some areas is 44 on one side and 33 on the other. There are some areas that do have 88-foot width, but very small. It is my understanding that the proposal is that 66 feet of ROW would be south of DeBerry and 88 feet north of DeBerry to Barton, so we need to differentiate that. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Jerry Haas I was the staff member responsible for the traffic in the Willdan transportation element of this study. We were asked at the Associates beginning of the project to analyze the past plan, from an overview standpoint to determine whether the proposals for especially the freeway interchanges that were proposed on 215, are the modifications between Iowa and Barton Road were necessary with the proposed changes in the General Plan usage. We were also asked to look at the feasibility of a new interchange at Newport and 215. Look at the Master Plan of streets and highways as they existed on the past plan. Two other specific issues that we were asked to look at was Commerce Way as to its viability in the Plan location as a preferential street at that time plan commercial use. Also we were asked to look at the extension of Observation Drive as a collector street south to Main Street. This analysis was to provide a starting point for the next goal which was to develop methods to accommodate projected traffic to year 2010 and compare the needs based on the increased traffic volume that would be generated with development at that time. There were some other issues that were issued during the study period. We were asked to also investigate bike ways. We looked and talked with the community about bike ways and after analyzing the size of the community and what was available as far as bike use and interest was concerned, it appeared to us that a regional plan would be much more in line with the needs of the area than a City Plan because of the limited needs and use. There was a recommendation that we look at a more of recreational type bike route along the Canal. However, it did not have any transportation significance and it would be very difficult to use even as a recreation facility. Council Minutes - 04/14/88 Page 13 Jerry Haas The interchanges that were expensive. Some of the c( had been done in the past ran to somewhere between r accomplish this additional Barton Road and Iowa Street that is the concept of puts Street. We investigate( feasibility. However, tf Administration and Caltran ramp not really possible t, people that we heard fron week, I had a discussion confirmed that in fact the certain requirements and along freeways. The one r that has been mentioned meetings, is in fact their ramp, such as the one prop( the FHWA and the alternati proposed by the past plan were very st analysis that we looked at that tnd some revised figures that we did ine and fifteen million dollars to access via 215 to the area between Additional situation surfaced and ing in an additional ramp at DeBerry that from a standpoint of its e policies of the Federal Highway concerning this issue, made that construct under the desires of the concerning that ramp. This past with a Caltrans staff member and Federal Highway Administration has ;riteria on interchanges and ramps ile separation between interchanges n the past and discussed at past policy. The policy of an isolated sed for DeBerry, is not permitted by ves to that situation would include two possible alternatives. One would be providing an additional on -ramp that would be in conjunction with the off -ramp at the same location. However, that would also require the loss of the northbound off -ramp at Barton Road. The other alternative is what we call a split -diamond interchange, where two ramps would be at Barton, two ramps at DeBerry, but there would also have to be another freeway separation between DeBerry Street and the freeway to accomplish that alternative. There would have to be frontage or collector roads parallel to the freeway to connect the areas between the two half -diamond interchanges. In looking at the traffic volumes and the overall scope of what is being proposed as far as development in this area, it would be very difficult to justify the cost of these projects from a needs standpoint. The discussion with a Caltrans employee also included the concept of Barton Road and our analysis of the traffic volumes that we anticipate by year 2010 indicate that regardless of the needs to the southwest as far as interchange improvements are concerned, Barton Road Interchange will more than likely need to be improved to a probably five -lane section crossing Barton Road unless that split interchange concept is built. However, I did a very quick analysis and it appears to me from that analysis that the cost would be much greater to put in the split -diamond interchange to accommodate the traffic increases. It would still require the widening of Barton Road because of some of the turning movement problems that occur during the peak hour. Jerry Haas The big ambitious interchange situations that were propose for additional access capability into the area, I don't think there is any way in the world the economic impact of that major Council Minutes - 04/14/88 Page 14 Jerry Haas project can be supported by the gains that you would get from that, especially with the change in land use proposed by this plan. Another issue that was brought out by the Caltrans employee is that any proposal that would be considered as far as changes in the freeway agreements, as far as ramp locations, will have to go through an extensive needs analysis to determine whether in fact any of these alternatives have merit. My personal opinion from the traffic volumes generated in the overall needs for the community to have access from Barton Road, I personally recommend that the Barton Road entrance be improved. I think that this is an opportunity for the City of Grand Terrace to have a feasible project in the future that you can set up as a goal to try to establish funding mechanisms to improve the access to this area. The Newport Interchange that we said we would take a look at had some specific problems with the spacing, it is not a mile and it also has some problems with interfering with the existing Barton Road ramp situation. Even if it were constructed and the substation, the height of the cut section within the right-of-way makes this project a very costly proposal. After analyzing the traffic that would be collected to the freeway and captured into an interchange at that point, it would be a very tough justification to even consider, even if FHWA would allow it to be constructed in less than a one -mile spacing. When we did the analysis back at the beginning of the existing distribution and traffic trips that were generated, it seemed from our analysis that was done focused very much on the new interchanges on Route 215 and did not focus enough on the existing Barton Road Interchange. We found some traffic distributions and assignment figures that we felt that apparently they just overlooked putting some of the traffic back on Barton Road because the traffic that we anticipated on Barton Road with the reduced land use generators that are being proposed by the new plans indicate that we will have more traffic on Barton Road than the past plan did with the large retail center that was proposed. When we finally got al.l of these major issues to the southwest pretty well set up, then we started looking at the opportunities and alternatives of the rest of the Master Plan of streets and highways and tried to look at a level of service that would be acceptable to the residents of the community and make recommendations to provide roadways that would provide a high level of service along these various streets. For instance, we looked at Observation Drive and determined that from the use, the collection in that area, it really wasn't even required because from the local street system that whole area, the traffic can be collected and put into the local street system without an adverse affect to the level of those services in that area. We also looked at Council Minutes - 04/14/88 Page 15 Jerry Haas Michigan Street traffic volume to determine what street was necessary to provide a high level of service, and still at the same time, maintain a high level of service. Also take into consideration that most of the area of Michigan is developed to a single-family residential area and the set backs on the houses, the structures along the street are not sufficient to provide a secondary highway construction in that area without major impacts to the houses along the street. When we looked at Commerce Way, we tried to envision a street that would provide both for the circulation and collection of traffic by the proposed Land Use Plan that would again take away traffic from the Michigan corridor so that we could make recommendations in reducing that corridor and at the same time service all of the land uses in the area. The Barton Road corridor which is planned on the present Land Use Plan to be a 100-foot right-of-way street with no median island. We looked at it from three standpoints, safety standpoint, of what the advantages one gets by putting in median island; the study standpoint is the fact that it's the main entrance into the City and also the capacity level of service concept and the traffic volumes that we generated, thus we made the 120-foot ROW recommendation for Barton Road from the Route 215 structure to the east of Mt. Vernon to provide the transition east of Mt. Vernon. Mayor Pro Tem Mr. Haas, I need some clarification or input from you. If Pfennighausen indeed Commerce Way is stopped at Van Buren and just conceptually dotted through to Main Street, and if indeed the business park should develop and Commerce Way not reach the ultimate extension to Main Street, how would you envision that affecting Michigan south, due to the fact that we have lost the alternative way to go out of the City to the south out of the business bark. Jerry Haas Well there is an alternative way. If Commerce Way is constructed to Van Buren because you can gain access to Taylor Street and still get to the Iowa Street interchange. There is a at grade railroad crossing in that area so there probably would be some times when you couldn't make that turn. However, assuming that the area does not develop south of Van Buren, most of the traffic in that northern area should access to the north and west via 215 so that I would suspect that the level of service on Michigan and the traffic volumes would be at a sufficiently low level to still stay at the lesser classification street. Mayor Pro Tem Mr. Haas could you point out to me where the access exists Pfennighausen presently from Van Buren and ties into Taylor Street? Jerry Haas Pointed out on the map. Council Minutes - 04/14/88 Page 16 Mayor Pro Tem With that in mind, do you still consider that no additional Pfennighausen upgrade of Michigan would be necessary were the extension of Commerce Way not developed south of Van Buren? Jerry Haas I still think Michigan Street could stay at its lower classified level. I do think that there would have to be additional local streets built so that you still could get access to Pico and to the southern end of the City. Now, that is assuming that you have development all down in that area. I still think that you could develop from Van Buren north with no street connecting and it still would suffice as far as the lower area of Michigan. My view is that the vast majority of the traffic would access that area via Barton Road. Mayor Matteson Are there any questions from the audience as far as what the General Plan is now, what is proposed by Willdan, what is proposed by the Planning Commission? Chester Easter I have a question for the Consultant and staff regarding 21963 Tanager nonconforming uses of land that has undergone a zone change in the General Plan. David Sawyer, Planning Director, said on February 5, 1988 that problems would be created for land owners if the land use changed. He said that our legal counsel has interpreted that the nonconforming uses change be replaced with if it is destroyed by fire or that kind of situation. However, he said, our Code is specific where it says that you cannot extend a nonconforming use. Therefore, if someone wanted to add onto a building or increase the value of their property, they would have problems getting a permit as the Code is written now. When asked of David what someone will have to do to get a permit, he replied, first of all we wouldn't let them get a permit as per Code and they would have to go to Council for the type of exception they would be able to do legally other than change the Code. It appears that there are other problems for a homeowner if this land use is changed. Since the real estate law now requires a disclosure of property and there is a land use change for that property from a homeowners R-1 zone use, how could someone sell a house as a home, or get a financial loan on it or for someone to get financing to purchase it as a home. Secondly, if a person had to move because of his work and that person needed the equity from his home in order to purchase a new home where he has relocated, would he not have to take a sever loss. Planning Director I would like to answer that by clarifying a nonconforming Sawyer use section in our Code. Our Code is broken down and deals with nonconforming uses of land and also the nonconforming use of building. Under the section that does deal with nonconforming use of building, it reads that the lawful use of the building existing at the time of the adoption of the Council Minutes - 04/14/88 Page 17 Planning Director ordinance in this title may be continued, although such use Sawyer does not conform to the regulations specified by the district in which the building is located. So even though we changed the zone on a certain piece of property if that use was being conducted at that time you can continue. It continues on to say the nonconforming use of a portion of a building may be extended throughout the building, provided that in each case a use permit shall first be obtained, that's a Conditional Use Permit. If they want to expand, they have a large building and a nonconforming use is in a portion of that building, it can be expanded in that building and not with additional square footage with the Conditional Use Permit that needs to go to the Planning Commission. It continues on and says the nonconforming use of the building may be changed to a use of the same or more restricted nature; provided, that in each case a use permit shall first be obtained. Again, the use can change, they can sell it or a new tenant can come in and use the same type of business, the same type of... for instance a cabinet shop in the building that's in a residential zone can continue as a cabinet shop, if it is sold or a new tenant comes in and uses it as cabinet shop. It then goes on with no use permit is required for the following: Ordinary maintenance and repairs may be made to any nonconforming building, provided that no structural alterations and/or additions are made; provided further, that such maintenance and repairs do not exceed fifteen percent of the fair market value of the building in any one-year period. So they can make repairs and maintenance projects on their buildings if it doesn't go over fifteen percent of the value of the building in one year. So, if they came in for a Building Permit tomorrow, they could do that, but not do it again for another one-year period from the day of issuance of the Building Permit. Any repairs necessary to bring a nonconforming building into compliance with City Codes such as Health Codes or Building Codes, does not need a permit, special use permit either. A use permit is required for the following: Ordinary maintenance and repairs to any nonconforming building which exceeds fifteen percent of the fair market value of the building in any one period; any structural alterations and/or additions, provided that the total floor area of the building shall not be increased by more than twenty percent or one hundred twenty square feet, whichever is greater; as a condition to any use permit granted pursuant to these sections, the building shall be brought into conformity with Council Minutes - 04/14/88 Page 18 Planning Director those City Codes deemed necessary to protect the health, Sawyer safety and welfare of the present and/or future inhabitants thereof. So, in other words if they want to go over the fifteen percent limit, they can if they come in for a Conditional Use Permit. However, they can't go over the twenty percent or the one hundred square feet limit, whichever is greater. So, they can make additions to it, but with limit. City Attorney The other part of Mr. Easter's question I believe was Hopkins whether or not that would have to be disclosed. While certainly you will have to consult your own attorney in that regard, I would suspect that, yes, a disclosure would be required under the new law. Councilmember What you read was from nonconforming use. Does a homeowner Evans whose home was currently R-1 have to get a Conditional Use 4, Permit if it remains R-1 to do any of these improvements? Planning Not normal repairs or additions, they would not, no. Director Sawyer Council member So, if it were to remain essentially R-1 or residential, it Evans would not have anywhere near the problems that they would have if they went nonconforming? Planning They would not have to go through the same process. Director Sawyer Mayor Matteson If it burned, could he rebuild? City Attorney I've indicated in the past that yes, in my opinion, they could rebuild if their home was destroyed. Mayor Pro Tem David is that a policy relatively unique to our City? Is it Pfennighausen your experience that the leniency with nonconforming uses being allowed to remain and transfer ownership is a wide spread concept? Planning I can't speak for too many cities, but the city which I Director worked for prior to my coming here, it was not allowed to Sawyer have a building rebuilt if it was burned down or to be sold as that continued use. However, our Code is slightly different from theirs. That city did not have a section regarding nonconforming use of buildings to the specificity that ours does. It was more of a general section on nonconforming use of land. It is rather unique, but our Code is unique also. Council Minutes - 04/14/88 Page 19 Mayor Pro Tem Mr. Easter also had another portion to his question and I Pfennighausen would ask if there is anybody in the audience that is familiar with financing procedures or probably specific to real estate financing. If there is anybody that we could ask this question of. Mayor Matteson We had one case here last year where Mr. Gray had this problem where he had a second resident, it was a nonconforming use and he could not get a loan. Mayor Pro Tem Mr. Petta could I ask you and then Mr. Hendricks just came Pfennighausen in the room and I understand that this area is his area of expertise, so I would ask Mr. Hendricks if he would elaborate. If a person is attempting, for instance, Inland Lumber Company. If we changed the land use designation on Inland Lumber Company and then we changed the zoning to make it consistent, and Inland Lumber Company would try to sell their property for its present use, which is industrial, you as a realtor trying to secure financing for the sale and transfer of that property, what would be the likelihood that you would be able to get it with that nonconforming use there? Mr. Petta Let me point out first that all zoned regularities or 11875 Eton Dr. irregularities must be disclosed. It's a new law as of January 1988. Anything that is known to the seller or the agent whether it be zoned in building regulations or whatever, has to be disclosed to the new buyer. As far as acquiring financing on a piece of property where the zone would not allow the future buyer to have the use of the facility totally, I would say the buyer wouldn't have a prayer of getting a loan. Mayor Pro Tem Mr. Hendricks would you concur with that conclusion? Pfennighausen Mr. Hendricks As a senior loan consultant for a major savings & loan in the Inland Empire, I run across this situation quite often. The situation is a change in zoning whereas a person has a home or residence, in particular, that has changed zoning and property around it has changed from residential to a commercial or industrial use. The problem that we have as lenders is the nonconforming use. It is a very difficult loan to make, in fact, more times than not, it's almost impossible to make. It's interesting, I just got over here, I was watching the proceedings here, I think I heard the question and I said I better hurry and get over here as my roof was leaking in front of the TV set. I better get over here and make a statement, what is happening here may even prohibit me from putting a new roof on my house on Michigan. So yes, that's a very viable problem. Council Minutes - 04/14/88 Paqe 20 Mayor Pro Tem So it isn't the matter of our Code would prohibit, but if Pfennighausen you were to try to get financing to do that then you are further impacted by that nonconforming? Mr. Hendricks Yes, especially for instance on the home that I'm in at the present time, I have FHA financing on it and I know from the past from dealing with government loans 99 percent of the time, that is a loan that will not be made for that reason. Councilmember In light of the discussion, Ivan, in reference to what we've Evans heard, there is a major area that is being considered to be changed, there are a number of homes in that area. I would assume at this particular moment, that if this materializes and these homes are placed into a nonconforming use, that it's now going to make their home very difficult to sell at a later date. That's assuming that they would want to sell, most people come in here because they want to live here. tv But assuming that they wanted to sell in the future, it sounds as if they would be having a considerable burden being placed on them. In light of recent case decisions that have come down in reference to land use and the municipality handling this, would that not be viewed as a taking of their property and thus have to be compensated? City Attorney Of course, we are assuming that the value would be Hopkins downgrading of the property rather than upgrading and in some cases it might be upgraded, but lets assume it will be downgraded or at least maintaining a similar level. I don't think that would be a taking under the current law although, that's a area of law that is changing rapidly as you are all aware. Right now the only decision and I assume the one you are focusing on is been regulatory taking in which there is no use that can be made properly and in that particular case the U.S. Supreme Court held that that amounted to a taking and that's a far fetch from what we have here, but that does not mean that that will not be the law in the future. Councilmember Would that not be viewed as a inverse condemnation? Evans City Attorney No, sir. Hopkins Councilmember Why not? Evans City Attorney I just don't think the elements are there that Courts are Hopkins consistently held that down zoning is not a taking and is not inverse condemnation. Council member However, from what you are saying land use law or case Evans decisions are rapidly changing so it could conceivably be viewed possibly in the near future as a taking. Council Minutes - 04/14/88 Page 21 City Attorney Conceivably, yes. Hopkins Councilmember To stand on what legal counsel said all of the questions Shirley have been supposing that the land would be resold under the nonconforming use and there has really not been much consideration made for the fact that the land probably would also be sold or more likely be sold for the conforming use of the rezoning of the property. I don't have all of the figures in my head, but there was a case in Rialto where there was a small bar located at some property that the Price Club was considering. The owner of the establishment did not want to move her business or sell it. Had she agreed to do so, the new building would have been built for her under condemnation and her business would have been relocated. Had she chosen also to sell her business, but not go back into business, they would have had to reimburse her for the value of her property and the money that she would have earned in that property and that would have amounted far in excess of a million dollars. So I think these things need to be considered too, not just reselling it at the nonconforming use. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Kent Van Gelder As a public agency, we have formally responded in writing to Coordinator the proposed General Plan and would like to offer the of School following comments and clarifications. The study has facilities initially used a district wide average student generation Colton Unified factor which has since then been revised by us and has been District incorporated into the School General Plan. In Grand Terrace the student generation factor is currently .54 for single-family homes with a .12 factor for apartments, this is based on current enrollments divided by the number of housing units. If the City adopts a plan to add 1,060 new homes to Grand Terrace and 460 multiple -family units, the projected number of students generated is for a total of 627. The breakdown is as follows: age K-6 for elementary - 339 grade 7 & 8 - 94; 9 through 12 - 194. At the present time, Grand Terrace Elementary School has an enrollment of 587 and Terrace View has 523 students. Terrace Hills Jr. High includes 608 students and Colton High School enrollment is 1,967. The Board of Education has directed staff to cap elementary schools to 700, Jr. high schools to 800 and high school enrollment to 2,500. Using this criteria, there are plans to accommodate an additional 113 students in Grand Terrace, 177 at Terrace View, 192 at Terrace Hill and 533 students at Colton High. The addition of 339 elementary students at maximum city build -out exceeds the combined capacity in the elementary schools in Grand Terrace by 49 students. However, there is a total of 52 children from outside of these attendance areas who have grandfathered Council Minutes - 04/14/88 Page 22 Kent Van Gelder into this system as these students graduate, they will make room to accommodate the difference in projected enrollments. Based on current demographic patterns there appears to be adequate space to accommodate G.T. students at maximum build -out by adding relocatable classrooms to existing schools. This assumes that: (1) there are no major change in student generation factor for apartments or single-family homes in Grand Terrace; (2) that adequate revenue sources are available to finance the addition of relocatable classrooms in the district schools; (3) the district is able to build additional schools in a timely manner in the communities of Colton, Grand Terrace, Bloomington, parts of Fontana, Rialto, San Bernardino, Loma Linda and unincorporated areas continued to grow. The addition of new schools is a long term solution to school impaction as it provides an opportunity to lower enrollment by re -drawing attendance boundaries. Right now the total city enrollment is 1,508 students at maximum city build -out. We would project 2,135. There is one aspect of the General Plan that has the Board of Education and the district concerned and that is the proposal to widen Barton Road. Yesterday, I delivered several copies of a letter from our attorney, Mr. Clayton Parker, to City Hall for distribution to the Council and the City Attorney. I would like to read parts of that into the record. The General Plan proposes widening of Barton Road which boarders the Grand Terrace School. The Grand Terrace School is over 35 years old and provides educational instructions for grades K-6. A widening of Barton Road, as proposed, would presumingly require the City of Grand Terrace to commence eminent domain proceedings to acquire the additional property from the Colton Joint Unified School District (CJUSD). The Colton Joint Unified School District seriously questions the proposal to expand Barton Road to six lanes. Barton Road throughout its length presently varies from between two to four lanes. The proposal to widen the road to six lanes adjacent to the Grand Terrace School property will not, in the opinion of the school district, substantially improve traffic conditions in as much as there will be reduced capacity of Barton Road both east and west of the proposed widening. The Grand Terrace School does not have sufficient acres, at present, and any taking of school district property will seriously impede the provision of adequate school facilities at that site. The cost of relocating the school, including acquiring sufficient land within reasonable distance of the existing school, is estimated to be in excess of ten million dollars since it will require the condemnation of existing homes. Any widening of Barton Road will also promote increased traffic resulting in increased noise and lessen the educational quality at Grand Terrace School. All of the Council Minutes - 04/14/88 Page 23 Kent Van Gelder property of the Grand Terrace School is presently devoted to public use. The CJUSD seriously questions whether a court will determine the widening of Barton Road is among a necessary public need or better use than being used for public school purposes as provided in the Code of Civil Procedure Section 1240.61. In summary, the CJUSD seriously objects to the adoption of any General Plan or any General Plan Amendment whereby a taking of property presently devoted to public school purposes at the Grand Terrace School site is proposed for student purposes. On behalf of the CJUSD, it is requested that that portion of the General Plan Amendment proposing widening of Barton Road facing the Grand Terrace School be deleted. Very truly yours, Clayton Parker. As a follow-up to this letter, we would like to remind you that the District's original response to the City is General Plan was based on building out Grand Terrace School for a maximum of 700 students. The viability of this Plan is depending upon keeping all of the acreage on the site. With 8.75 acres, this school is the smallest elementary campus in the District. Today, the kindergarten unit is only 45 feet away from the road. By the time the City obtains the funds for a boulevard, there in all probability will not be another school site available in Grand Terrace, as a result, the City Council needs to be prepared to accept the responsibility that elementary school children in Grand Terrace may be bussed to surrounding communities where land for school sites is more available and affordable. Under current law, the State of California must approve all school site locations. Whether or not it funds a project. The process involves a number of separate license appraisals and a detailed site analysis. Based on past experience, the State will not approve an elementary school site located within or adjacent to commercial development including industrial parks. In Grand Terrace today, there is not an ideal school site left in the City and even if there was, the School District and the State do not have the funds to purchase it. The School District is not suggesting the relocation of Grand Terrace School. In fact, the phone calls we have been getting at the District Office for the past several weeks have been nothing but supportive. The people who we talked to do not want to see the school relocated because it is a historical site, especially for those of us who grew up here and went to school from kindergarten through eighth grade with the same classmates. And while times have changed, the values our teachers and parents have taught us and not, in 1972 the Women's Club planted the Freedom Tree and Plaque in front of the school to commemorate and celebrate the release of the prisoners of war from Hanoi. The inscription on the plaque reads with "revision of universal freedom for all man kind, this tree is dedicated to Lt. Col. Raymond Merit and all prisoners of war missing in action." Yet according to the Council Minutes - 04/14/88 Page 24 Kent Van Gelder General Plan it states that "it appears that the most economical way to widen Barton Road is to widen the over -crossing on the north side and continue the widening to the east, the south side curb and sidewalk could remain in the existing plan location with the widening mainly on the north side." We would encourage the Council to seriously weigh the ramifications for such a plan and join with us in our belief that courage and patriotism are issues that cannot be mitigated to a level of nonsignificant. To widen the bridge, at least to a bottleneck, is a waste of millions of taxpayers dollars and come through the expense of your school children. Students should not be force to pay the price of development and we believe the judicial system would agree. Mayor Pro Tem I have a question on your number of student statistics. The Pfennighausen number of students that you record as coming from Grand 00 Terrace, are they all residents of Grand Terrace? Kent Van Gelder The 1,508? Mayor Pro Tem Right. Pfennighausen Kent Van Gelder Yes. Mayor Pro Tem They are all residents within the City of Grand Terrace? Pfennighausen Kent Van Gelder Of the total on Page 2 of our initial response 1,508, yes. If you are asking the question do we have students outside of the City who attend schools in Grand Terrace, the answer is yes. Mayor Pro Tem If it became necessary and all students that do not reside Pfennighausen within our City (I am going to give two alternatives and I want you to respond to both of them), that if as we grow certain alternatives have been given; Year-round schools; bussing students out to some place else or building more schools. This variety of educational mode has been proposed in the past. If the students that do not reside within the City of Grand Terrace were removed from those schools and our City population would top out at 14,500 in that neighborhood, would our schools be able without the outside impact, be able to absorb that additional school population? Kent Van Gelder Yes, that's the way I calculated it. The 700 cap, the two elementary schools for each build -out at 700 that's 1,400 kids. You add all of totals, the projected total from the increases in your development plus the existing kids within the system and we are right there at the cap. Council Minutes - 04/14/88 Page 25 Mayor Pro Tem Our school system then could without our children being Pfennighausen taken out of Grand Terrace, other than our high school kids, which have traditionally gone out of Grand Terrace, they could be housed and educated within our community. Kent Van Gelder Based on current demographic patterns, yes. Councilmember I was wondering if you had any figures of how many students Shirley from Grand Terrace are not attending the Colton School System? Kent Van Gelder No, we don't monitor that. Mayor Matteson I just want to say that I reported to this Council almost four years ago that moving the school was prohibited and I don't know why the talk keeps lingering around about moving the school. It's just not feasible and it's ridiculous to even discuss it, going over and over it, it's the same thing, it's not going to happen. Councilmember Evans Kent Van Gelder Councilmember Evans Kent Van Gelder Councilmember Evans Your projections, right now, Ken, as it relates to current demographics, you feel that the school will be able to absorb the students? Provided we can maintain the integrity of our sites, yes. But assuming that the demographics would change, there is some consideration of a problem in the future? In what way, I mean if you are talking about... If the demographics were to change that would increase the student population obviously, it would place a burden on the system. Kent Van Gelder That is true, but what's in your General Plan, if anything, would point the other direction. The larger the size of your lots the higher the price of your property, the fewer kids are generated. Councilmember One question I have for you is the concerns that you Evans addressed as it currently exists now. You cited the proximity of the kindergarten classroom to the street and your concerns for any potential widening of this document was adopted. What is the School District proposing to do even if the streets were not to be widened to the proposal to handle the noise impaction that you spoke of, the traffic safety that has been identified in reports over past years and your concern, if at a later date, it came for the potential of bussing the kids out? Council Minutes - 04/14/88 Page 26 Kent Van Gelder I think the major concern right now is the proximity of the kindergarten unit to the street and their adjoining play area. We would like to discuss with staff what kind of mitigation affects are available. In the General Plan it does not address it at all, it says that it's an issue that has to be mitigated. Well we would like have a better idea of how the City plans on mitigating that before you adopt the plan. Councilmember Why is it the City's responsibility and not the School Evans District's? Kent Van Gelder Because it's your proposal to do so. If you are asking do we have some ideas that could help mitigate the situation, possibly. Councilmember We are talking about potential street widening. I'm saying Evans if the street were not widened, you can refer back to what you submitted on comments, just the increased traffic of I-215 and any potential increased traffic along Barton Road, you cited noise impaction as well as the traffic safety problem, potential bussing of students outside the City. I'm just asking you, it's just like you are throwing the burden to the City, what is the School District doing since the schools are within your ball park. Kent Van Gelder Okay, we addressed the General Plan which is proposing the widening of the road, that's where our comments are. I think that we would be interested in discussing the possibility of some continuation measures and we are not experts in that. Councilmember So you don't have any mitigating proposals. Evans Kent Van Gelder No, not at this point, no. Mayor Matteson You mentioned that if we widening Barton Road and it takes ten feet off the noise would be too great for the students in there. If the noise .is so great, why hasn't the school put up some kind of buffer, shrubs or something to mitigate the noise at the present level? Kent Van Gelder We would like to discuss that in the next RDA Agreement with you. Martin O'Brien A lot of time has been spent talking about the growth and I 12476 Warbler believe the growth is a necessary evil in every community. Avenue However, I have a lot of concern for the residents of Grand Terrace. I cite an example, we live on Warbler and up at the end of Van Buren they are doing a development, they've nicely paved the street. The heavy trucks, instead of Council Minutes - 04/14/88 Page 27 Martin O'Brien coming down the new street, they come down Cardinal and over Warbler. Well they are destroying our streets. What impact will all of this new development have on streets that were built 10, 20, 30 years ago? Are we looking at this, are we considering the people on street cleaning, on additional police patrolling. I heard a lot of talk about we need this, we need that, industrial parks. What about the residents that live here that have supported the City over many years. Nothing has been mentioned once about the existing citizens or the community as a whole. Mike O'Brien What are you going to do about the storm drains in all of 12476 Warbler the new areas. Are you going to put any in or are you just Avenue going to let the streets turn into rivers and let the old ones clog up or what? City Engineer The General Plan does address the issue of the storm drain Kicak problem. As you well know, there is actually a proposed plan to construct the facilities that would go through the vacant land. I would think that any development that would occur in that particular area, I'm talking about the area that we are discussing, generally west of Michigan, would have the responsibility for the construction of those storm drain facilities through the areas that are run-off from the upper portions of the Terrace. The balance of the system would have to be funded by the City and although, we recognize that the Capitol Improvement Funds which has been collected over the years from the individuals, home building and what nots are insufficient to construct that facility. It will decrease the impact on the City if the portion of the storm drain west of Michigan is constructed by developments that occur. Mike O'Brien What about the rest of the .... City Engineer The fact is that public streets are designed to carry the Kicak storm run-off as long as there's no harm to private property. When the public streets and right-of-ways are exceeded as far as the flow is concerned at that point the storm drains were constructed. I think that you will find that in general, the storm drains that are now existing are and the streets are functioning fairly well with respect to, let me finish sir. The areas where the storm drains have been constructed, I would say that very seldom if ever, is there an overflow of the flood water from the street ROW onto the private property. In the areas where there are no storm drains and they are Master Planned, I totally agree with you, we know, we have sandbagged, we have went and cleaned up after the storm. Again, the major portion is down in the southwestern portion of the City. I don't know if I answered your question or not, the point is we have a major facility that is planned generally along Van Buren, Council Minutes - 04/14/88 Page 28 City Engineer the extension all the way out to the railroad, up Michigan, Kicak southerly towards Pico, Pico all the way up to Oriole and the later on Mt. Vernon, both ways sir, they both cannot be funded at this time. Mike O'Brien Do you have anything planned for Van Buren all the way up to Blue Mountain? Do you have any storm drains planned for up in that area of new homes that they are putting up? City Engineer The area from Van Buren down to Mt. Vernon and that potion Kicak of the run-off should be carried into the street section all the way down to the storm drain at approximately Mt. Vernon, sir. Mike O'Brien All the way down to there. That's the only storm drain you want to leave? I mean that's the only one, you are saying all of the water from the mountain should just run down the street to Mt. Vernon? City Engineer I'm suggesting that the street capacities easterly of Mt. Kicak Vernon to the foothills and any run-off that is tributary to Van Buren towards Mt. Vernon the street section is adequate to carry the run-off without entering onto the private property, sir. I may agree with you that that street under some conditions will appear like a river, but it has been taken into consideration that under the worst of storms majority of the water is carried into the street before it is dumped into the storm drain and when the street is exceeded, that's when the storm drain is needed. Dorothy Farley City Councilmembers, I'm Dorothy Farley, 12513 Michigan 12513 Michigan Street, of the southeast corner of Michigan and Van Buren Street where I've lived for nearly thirty-eight years and where I think I would like to remain for quite a few more years unless of course, the surroundings change too drastically. When we moved to Grand Terrace, it was a unincorporated area and apparently we felt the advantages of a rural community outweighed the disadvantages. I now hope the advantages of an incorporated area will not be outweighed by the disadvantage. We did not come to Grand Terrace for job opportunities or to seek financial gain in land development. We came to make it our home in a peaceful quiet place. Michigan Street has been and still is being used largely as residential area and I would like it to remain that way. I think it is better to keep the street for one purpose only, rather than for a dual purpose. I see no reason why the center of Michigan Street or its west curb has to be the dividing line between residential and commercial property. It seems to me it could just as well be a line at the back of the house lots on the west side of Michigan. I have the feeling that people object less to having commercial property next to the rear of their homes Council Minutes - 04/14/88 Page 29 Dorothy Farley than staring them in the face directly across the street. That is partially due to the fact that there are things which they can do to their own property to shield them, but there is little they can do about someone else's property across the street. I may be wrong here, but I've gotten a couple of different answers about the four lots north of DeBerry on the west side of Michigan. What I found out lately were that those were going to remain residential and I'm in a quandary as to just why those four lots are to be retained on the west side of Michigan north of DeBerry and not between DeBerry and Van Buren. It seems appropriate to continue the house lots the rest of the way down Michigan. I would like to see improvements in the appearance of Michigan Street, but I do not think this would require widening it. Curbs and perhaps sidewalks and a few trees would help and encouragement and perhaps some financial aide to several of the properties. I would hate to see the beautiful palms at the curb in front of my house go, but if that had to be, at least I would not have to pay for trimming them and removing the dates from them every year as I have been doing. If the properties west of Michigan become commercial, it will mean this area will be vacated at night. I am sure the other residents on the east side of Michigan would feel somewhat as I do about this. We would prefer to have neighbors across the street rather than empty buildings. This would be a place to harbor undesirable elements we do not want in our area. Somehow I have the notion that perhaps some of the residents on Mt. Vernon and east of Mt. Vernon perhaps they are not very concern about what happens down on Michigan Street, but I would remind them that whatever happens to Michigan Street will impact the rest of the residents of Grand Terrace. If the southwest corner of Grand Terrace becomes a place for unsavory groups to congregate, all of Grand Terrace will feel the results and it's just possible that the newer homes on the east side just might be a more attractive target than some of the older ones on Michigan Street. I hear the police helicopter overhead all too often as it is, I do think the idea of extending Commerce down to Main Street may be good planning. However, I do not believe it needs to bicep the lumber company. I think it would be feasible to connect with Taylor Street west of the lumber company. We already have too many large trucks using Michigan and I think heavy trucks should be banned there and then they could use Commerce. Of course if I could just wish for what I would really like in the southwest corner of Grand Terrace, I'd like a little bit of country somewhere near by and then perhaps I could image Grand Terrace a little bit the way it used to be, a quiet residential community in the county, but I suppose getting back to reality, my other concern is Barton Road. I believe it would be a gross error to make it a six lane plus turning -lane road. I took Council Minutes - 04/14/88 Page 30 Dorothy Farley Central east of the freeway in Riverside as I went to the Riverside Plaza. I took a good look at just what a street that width would look like. That is appropriate for the City of Riverside, but out of place in Grand Terrace. Our community is less than four square miles. We should not split it asunder with any such highway. Barton Road in Grand Terrace is essentially for the use of the residents of this four square mile community. If there is too much traffic on Barton, it's because people who do not live here and pay no taxes here, are simply using our City streets to avoid the congestion down on Washington Street. For people coming from Loma Linda, Reche Canyon and other points east to the Riverside Freeway, Washington Street is the most direct route, but Washington Street is Colton's problem, not Grand Terrace's. Colton is collecting the taxes from the Washington Street area and is making sure they do quite well in that area. Let's let Colton build the multi -million to dollar bridge and the on and off ramps. Why should we do it for Colton. Of course if they think we are stupid enough to do it, they would gladly wait for us to. Lets just be a little bit more patient, let it be inconvenient for the traffic to funnel up through Grand Terrace rather than making it easier for even more heavy traffic to come this way and eventually Colton will have to do something. Also, I do not believe Grand Terrace needs anymore off ramps from the freeway. I use the ramps at Barton Road all the time and seldom leave or enter Grand Terrace any other way and I do not have any trouble getting on or off at Barton Road. I believe the on and off ramps at Barton Road and down at Highgrove would be sufficient for Grand Terrace. One last concern, I do hope our community can remain largely single-family dwellings without many more apartments, simply because this would make a more stable community. Apartment dwellers are not usually as permanent residents as property owners and consequently are less concerned about the decisions made regarding the development of the area. So City Councilmembers I have responded to your encouragement to become involved and tell you exactly how I feel about the issues which you face as you make decisions regarding the future of Grand Terrace. I'm glad you are willing to listen to us because you have been chosen to represent us and have a great responsibility, a solemn obligation to protect our interest and our investments which we have made in our homes, please do not sell us out for financial profit. Kim Stromwall I agree with everything she said, we bought our home to live 12522 Michigan there and I know that the year 2010 sounds like a long way off, but I'm young enough, I think I'm going to see it, and I hope to live in the home on Michigan. What the Consultant has done is come in and taken our home away, we can't put a pool in unless we come here and have a special consent or we can't put in a room addition, whatever we want on our Council Minutes - 04/14/88 Page 31 Kim Stromwall property that we bought here in Grand Terrace. It's like you have just taken our home away. If this Business Park is so important and such a marvelous idea and businesses are just clamoring to come into Grand Terrace, how come we don't have IBM, Motorolla or whatever standing outside waiting to build this property. I like to see Grand Terrace stay as a little bedroom community and not turn into Riverside and San Bernardino. Glenda Pollard I came here tonight because I talked to Mr. Grant. We live 21958 Pico right on the corner of the Edison property and that is why I am here tonight. I don't like the idea of all the noise, the mess that this park is going to create. I don't understand where you can say that this park is not going to create a problem, it already has created a problem. We didn't hear about this park, only through a neighbor who had come to a meeting. Now, we were never notified, never consulted, all we wound up with was they were going to have ow a park, now if you live on an area where you have an open space, you move there for that reason, you want to stay where it's country, you don't want to live in a booming factory town, that's why we moved here. Now, we wind up with this park. As far as the kids are concerned, that's fine, noise you can put up with, but dirt no, that's what we had already. I don't know if Mr. Grant or Barbara has told you, I had her to come out and look at our property, it was a mess just from mowing that grass. We had bugs you wouldn't believe, I called the City, and they told me to wait a day and it will go away, that's what we have in City Hall. Now, I would like to know when you are going to do something like this, why we weren't notified, why weren't the neighbors consulted? They mowed that grass about two weeks ago or so, we had a pool full of mud, we had bugs galore, nothing was done about it. Mayor Matteson It's a park, it's going to have grass on it, it's going to be watered and mowed and you won't having any of those problems. Glenda Pollard Okay, I called the other day and said why didn't they wet down that property before they mowed? We don't have access to the water I was told. Mayor Matteson Not yet, but we will have. Glenda Pollard They should have come down and seen the mess that they had made. When I called, I was just told the bugs would go away, well the bugs didn't go away, we had to have an exterminator, had to have a guy come and clean the pool, full of mud. How long do you think the neighbors are going to put up with that? Not too long, you're going to have a lot of lawsuits. Council Minutes - 04/14/88 Page 32 Mayor Matteson Hopefully the problem will be corrected when the park is developed. Glenda Pollard Well alright, while you are building it, what do we do about our pools and our homes? Mayor Matteson What do you do now when the farmer plows his field? Glenda Pollard We haven't had one problem with that farmer. He keeps that property so wet before he does anything that none of us had any complaints, not one of us and I live right next door to that farmer where he works everyday and no problem. Since the City has taken over and leased it from Edison, we've had nothing but problems, first we had the tall grass that nobody bothered with. We had to complain to get them to mow it and then nobody bothered to come down to see what the mess was they were going to make after they mowed it. The man went across that field like you wouldn't believe, got on that tractor and just flew around there and on a windy day. What I would like to know is before you do something like this, we moved here because we like to live in the country and I like to see it kept as it is and I agree with all of these people. Mayor Pro Tem Mr. Mayor, I did go out to Mrs. Pollard's house and I viewed Pfennighausen all of the things that she said. It was inexcusable on our part that those people should be inconvenienced. And if that property indeed is used and not fully developed, that's going to be an ongoing problem. Back to Pico Park, saga forever and ever. Tony Petta I'd like to point out that there have been a number of 11875 Eton Dr. meetings prior to this, some private, some not so private and then the Planning Commission. What I want to point out is that I have attended all of the meetings that I've been allowed to attend and in those meetings that I've attended, there were many people who also attended and certain concerns were addressed and some of those concerns have already been pointed out by others here. In essence the main concerns were widening of Michigan and it appears that would not be a good situation for the people living on Michigan. I attended the Planning Commission meeting and it appears that the recommendation that they are making to the Council remedies that situation. The other concern was the impaction that the so-called business park would have on the existing residences, and as we know, there are several clusters of homes west of Michigan. I can't pinpoint the street specifically, one is Tanager, Pico, in clusters of developed subdivisions. The business park, as was recommended includes those subdivisions, that was one of the main concerns of the people who attended the previous meetings. I attended the meeting of the Planning Commission Council Minutes - 04/14/88 Page 33 Tony Petta a couple of weeks ago and it appears, but I can't be sure because I have not seen the resulting map, it appears that the recommendation of the Planning Commission to the Council is to exclude those clusters of homes from this type of a zone. Let's face it, those homes will be there for fifty -plus or more years and the chances of those being converted are virtually nill, so why include those homes in this zone. It doesn't make since, if the recommendation is not to exclude, again from observation of the Planning Commission, it appears that they have excluded, if they have not, I would say that they should be excluded because it doesn't make since to impact those homes. Now, having said that, I also must point out that as all other cities, this City is committed to establishing a long range income from tax base, meaning sales tax base, so as to be able to provide services from now and into the future. What kind of services are we talking about, we are talking about road, parks, fire protection, police protection, flood control, all of which will increase in price as we go on, they always have in the past and we can expect they will increase. The City Council and the Chamber of Commerce are committed to provide dependable tax base for this City. We need to know how much will this City need now and in the future to operate. I don't know if I've heard that figure, but we need to know the answer to that question. Once we know the answer to that question, then we must provide for that sales tax base because there are two ways to get taxes. One is by assessing taxing the people and that's a no no, I'm not for it. The previous Council has not been for it and the people will not stand for that type of operation in the City. The other way to approach it is through a sales tax, let the people who spend the money, pay for these services, we all spend money, but unfortunately we don't spend it in Grand Terrace. I spend it in other places, as most of the people here do, why, because there aren't any services or facilities here to spend it here and so our tax dollars go to build facilities and pay for services in other cities. Now I will address the areas specifically, the area in question, the southwest corner, the area between DeBerry and Van Buren. I will limit the area that I will address to the area from the point where the use store business presently is and west to the freeway from DeBerry and south to Van Buren. Now, what do we have there now, the south side of Van Buren is already developed, we have Wilden Pump, the Harbor Development which is already developed commercially and it's a successful business. It's all built up and filled up and next to that is a dry wall company and then to the north on Van Buren on the corner, there is a meat packing company and there is a service store. To the north of DeBerry, it's already zoned as commercial. So what we have in reference to this particular area, which is essentially a vacant piece of property, what we have is an Council Minutes - 04/14/88 Page 34 Tony Petta area that is surrounded now by commercial. To the south and to the east and to the north, which is north of DeBerry. It is the only remaining vacant property that can provide an income for this City and I'm pointing this out very specifically because this area is essentially vacant property, it will not impact a residential area. The point that I am making is this, the designation is for a business park and definition of business park as I understand it is, major corporation headquarters, now that will not bring in sales tax. That's a commercial development, but it will not bring in sales tax, it will not create the tax base that this City is looking for. It will not solve the economical problem of this City. My recommendation is that to include in the definition of a business park or at least not exclude a business that will produce tax for this City. Having said that, I shall say something else, we all know the horrendous congestion that we now presently have on Barton Road. We have a very small shopping center, so called Stater Bros. Shopping Center and that small little center is creating quite a congestion in that one block. Now, after that, future houses that will be built and there will be, if we are going to have a build -out population of 14,000 to 15,000 population, there are going to be more houses. Add the traffic that those additional houses will increase, add to that the traffic that the now under construction apartments on Mt. Vernon will create, there are 248 units plus an additional 98 units behind the Professional Center, 348 units plus they are proposing another 308. The City Council has been wise in their decisions so far, but we're adding several thousand more cars. Add to that, what traffic do you propose so called Barton Road corridor will add, right up the freeway, back to the bank. What I'm saying is this, is that I can't see how we can allow any major development in this community without first addressing our traffic circulation. We must face that problem now before it happens, we must be sure that the people will be able to move in and out of this City without much problem. If we are going to have development, there will be some development, unquestionably, this will build out sooner or later, this is the time to plan for circulation. I'm not in favor of approving any major development until we resolve the traffic problem. Henry Jay The widening of Barton Road from the first agreement that 22181 Barton the City gave us property owners when we dedicated our Road property to the City is I guess. If the six lane on Barton Road goes through with a flower pot in the middle, then that will kind of have to go after more property evidently. The next time around is going to cost you money, we gave it to you this time, but it seems like if you don't go through with this agreement that we had at first for the 50 feet that you wanted, then that property ought to be given back Council Minutes - 04/14/88 Page 35 to us if it's going to take another couple of years to build this six lane, it's already taken you two years to do nothing yet. City Engineer If the proposal is adopted, that is 120 ft. ROW width, then Kicak there would be a requirement for an additional 10 ft. on a north and a south side if it was cemetrical for additional ROW. To address your question with respect to existing agreements and where that stands, the Southern California Edison Company has started doing some field work, they are out to bid and they will probably be beginning construction shortly on the undergrounding of the facilities that we have discussed, that is Edison as well as the telephone. We, the City, until they are completed, there is nothing we can do, although, the plans that we have completed today is the basis for which they used for data design. Henry Jay That will all have to be redone again too if you go ahead and take 10 more feet, then they got their vaults, underground stuff there will that have to be moved, well, if you are sure everything will have to be moved again. City Engineer The way that Edison Company plans are right now, yes, their Kicak vaults and what not are behind the curb. If in fact, it is widen, they will have to modify their plans and additional ROW will have to be acquired. Henry Jay We had an agreement to dedicate the property to the City, you would in turn widen Barton Road, that's for the agreement on the 50 feet. Now, if you go ahead and disregard that and start another project, then you haven't completed your agreement with us. City Engineer I'm very much aware of that sir. Kicak Counci 1 member Mr. Jay, possibly I can shed some light and I have some Evans concerns in reference to the widening of Barton Road. I don't know if it was a year and a half or two years ago that we started taking a look at improving Barton Road at that point, I think the authorized width was 100 feet. Until we now got the suggested proposal from the current Consultants, I believe all the members of this Council have been contacted by Ms. Sue Noreen, who is the Southern California Edison Representative. She expressed some real concerns regarding the improvement of Barton Road if the six lanes were to be approved by this Council and those concerns were: With six lanes, it would require a complete reengineering of the underground. Right now, although, they are behind their schedule, they are near going out to bid to do the construction, but now that we have the problem with the General Plan, the proposed widening, she has put everything Council Minutes - 04/14/88 Page 36 Councilmember on hold until a decision is made. Depending on what that Evans decision is, we are either going to go ahead with the improvements to Barton Road or we will just put everything on stop. Her concerns were right now, we have the money, we being Edison, and most of the cost for that improvement of undergrounding is coming from a special fund that Edison gives to communities. We are buying into several years in the future so that we can improve that. They have budgeted money to do Barton Road. We right now on their priority list are number one. If we adopt the six lane concept, she feels that everything will just be scratched, we start from square one and we have no guarantee that there will even be funding available next year, so it's extremely important on Barton Road improvements what this Council does tonight. I don't know if any of the others have any insight that they would like to share. + Henry Jay It's needed very badly real quick, we want to get that turning lane in there. Councilmember I agree with you, I'm just sharing with you what's been Evans shared with me and I have understood that all the other Councilmembers have been apprised of this concern. Jackie Perkins The Land Use Designation shown for our property is business 22038 Van Buren park. For the past number of years, probably fifteen years we have been under various zones, Land Use Designations and overlays which affected our use of our own property, now they tell us they want to put us in a nonconforming use which will make it virtually impossible for us to sell our property and at our age we have to start to think about that kind of thing. I think there's been a little bit of discrimination shown inasmuch as the area on the northwest corner of DeBerry and Michigan has been redesignated R-1, at least in one of the Plans. The houses fronting Michigan from Van Buren south to the R-1 designated area have been redesignated R-1 in the Plan, but there are 17 houses on Michigan, DeBerry and Van Buren east of the Use Store. Some of those houses are on fairly good size parcels. We have two acres, there are a number of places with more acreage than that, I imagine, although I don't know and some of them are smaller. We bought that property because we wanted to have a horse, a garden and wanted a semi -rural atmosphere and I'm sure most of our neighbors bought for the same reason. We have young people there who plan to raise their children. Our next door neighbors have 3 children, they plan to stay there, they would like to stay there. I'm sure there are other young people in the same position. It just seems to me that Grand Terrace has sort of been unrealistic in their projection that corporate offices would ever be interested in locating in Grand Terrace where the property is fairly high priced. When we have corporate offices in Council Minutes - 04/14/88 Page 37 Jackie Perkins south San Bernardino standing vacant, we have hundreds of corporate offices going in in Riverside, I think that the Colton Cooley Ranch Area has plans and probably has buildings for corporate businesses and our little 46 acre patch, including our residences is a mighty small area when you stop to think about the good parking that is required for those kind of offices, the landscaping which Willdan Associates showed us on some of their slides, all of that takes room. How much room will there really be for corporate offices in the first place? I know we need a sales tax base, and I'm not sure that our area is any more fitted for that, but I do think that the residents do deserve a little bit of consideration and some of our neighbors apparently feel the same way, even though they are only affected by not wanting to be across the street from the industrial or business park, they still would like to have us remain residential. Councilmember Mrs. Perkins I would like to address some of your concerns. Shirley I honestly feel that one of the reasons that this was proposed as a business park was to slow down development in Grand Terrace and to put aside a piece of property that will be a long time in developing. I think you are very right to say it is unrealistic to project that large corporate offices are going to come into Grand Terrace. We do have very high-priced real estate, maybe they will, but I don't know, but I do like the idea of setting aside a piece of property that probably won't be developed for a long time. Certainly would not have residences built it, would not increase our population, traffic flow or our need for services and that is just my opinion. Jackie Perkins A large part of that property has been tied up so that people were not able to build a house, not add a room to their existing residence, but now we are being penalized. Two experts have told us. Now does the City want to buy our property at a fair market price in order to maintain the hopeful posture that they have. Do they want to buy our property and hold onto it for 20 or 25 years? We can't afford to just sit there and not have any way of selling our property if it becomes necessary. Some of these young people work for businesses where they have to be mobile, what are they going to do. If they own a house and they are transferred to Las Vegas or San Francisco, they can't sell their property because they can't get financing for a buyer, those people will be penalized. I don't think that anything that penalizes a large number of people is a fair situation at all. Council Minutes - 04/14/88 Page 38 Planning I would like to comment and point out that all of the homes Director that are currently located on Van Buren Street are already Sawyer nonconforming homes, that property is zoned commercial now and would not affect their nonconforming status either way, they are already nonconforming. William Lewis As I came here tonight and listened to Mrs. Farley recall Inland Lumber how she would like to see Grand Terrace remain a very rural Company community kind of quiet residential, reminds me of how it was when I came here in 1947. Also the concern from the gentleman from the School District about the Grand Terrace Elementary School. Mrs. Pfennighausen, I believe said that she helped plant a tree there, well I go back a little farther than that when we actually had a three classroom school and constructed the entire current addition there when we were on the School Board, but that's not why I'm here. I represent Mr. Fred Thompson of Thompson Equities, doing business as Inland Lumber Company and the Terry Company is doing business as the Inland Timber Company, they own the properties on the north side of Main Street west of Michigan in Grand Terrace which are the subject of the zone change recommendation by the Grand Terrace Planning Commission as part of the General Plan. We have furnished the Council with a letter dated April 11, 1988, which sets forth the objection of Inland Lumber Company properties to the recommendation by the Grand Terrace Planning Commission for this change of zone from industrial to residential and we will attempt to briefly discuss the reasons for the opposition to this recommended change of zone. First, the Draft General Plan for the City of Grand Terrace prepared by the professional company, Willdan Associates states in its planned summary at Page 2.1 "the City shall promote the development of labor and intensive light nonpolluting industry which is compatible with the present land use pattern." A lofty well -stated purpose to which the Inland Companies concur and would like to apply to the present situation. Prior to Inland Lumber Company locating its plant on Main Street in 1965. This area was zoned M-1 by the County of San Bernardino. It was an ideal location, near to freeway access with proper zoning that prompted Inland Lumber Company to move its plant from Bloomington, California to the Grand Terrace area where it constructed extensive office buildings, warehouses and a lumber mill to accommodate its wholesale lumber and building material business. When Grand Terrace became a City, this industrial use was in place and continued at the present time at the same location in an industrial zone. Now, we're confronted with a situation whereby the Grand Terrace City Planning Commission has recommended a change of zone from industrial to residential for this particular property now occupied by the building warehouse and facilities of the Inland Lumber Company. I would like to direct your attention to the area Council Minutes - 04/14/88 Page 39 William Lewis map which now delineates the newest and finest residential property in Grand Terrace as proposed by the Planning Consultants and the Planning Commission. Now, of course before it can be used for that, we'll have to tear down a nice office building, a lumber mill and four warehouses. You need only to examine this arial photograph of the plant facilities of the Inland Lumber Company to observe the permanent buildings in place constructed for the sole purpose of use as a lumber and building materials business. These buildings in place are hardly compatible with the residential use proposed by the Planners and the Planning Commission. A residential use for this particular location could only come into being upon total destruction of all of the existing facilities. Is that what your Planning Commission would have the City Council undertake by this change of zone? In other words, as expressed to me personally by the Planning Director, when I expressed my concerns about this, he indicated that this is the way that the City can execute and exert control over this property. Is that the American way, I think not. To put it in its mildest term, the recommended change of zone from industrial to residential is indirect violation of the basic principal of planning, that you do not put residential use next to industrial use unless you want problems. As some of you will remember, that's what happened when the San Bernardino County Planning Commission allowed residential use to encroach on the north of that plant, directly involved a number of houses were put there, not when this was a City, but by the County allowing them there. Maybe some of you will recall the Noise Ordinance adopted by the City of Grand Terrace pricisely because those people living very close to the plant objected to the noise generated by its forklift trucks and the like. So now our Planning Commission recommends that we put more residential use right next door to the plant and the plant itself. Thereby, setting the stage for more problems. When you examine this recommendation by the Planning Commission in light of all of the circumstances, it is totally illogical. Another and more important reason against this recommended rezoning and reclassification of the Inland Company properties is that it will depreciate value of the properties since they will be conducting a nonconforming industrial use in a residential zone classification, thereby, making it utterly impossible to sell or transfer this property or business to a prospective buyer in the future. You heard a gentleman who preceded me indicating to you that to obtain a loan for a new buyer for any portion or all of this particular property would be a total impossibility with the change of zone classification now proposed by the General Plan. I don't have to tell you or the City Attorney that there are a number of cases going Council Minutes - 04/14/88 Page 40 William Lewis through our courts under similar circumstances wherein the municipalities have been charged with inverse condemnation of the property by rezoning the classifications which depreciates the value of the properties. I won't take time to discuss or cite all of these cases, but they are there. As the courts rule on these, the rules are changing and the attitude of the courts are changing regarding the exerted influence and the attempt to control private property by municipalities and other civil governments. It is my understanding here, there is a proposal to rezone a parcel of vacant land, approximately 10 acres, situated at the northwest corner of Michigan and Main Street. I don't know whether that's part of the recommended General Plan or not, but it's been discussed, I noticed in the paper and otherwise, this proposal might be worth consideration by the Council since it would form a buffer zone between existing residential use and the now existing industrial use. That corner is vacant, it is not being used, if you are going to change something, direct your attention to that which in turn might form the very basis by which you could reduce some of the problems of the area. Whether or not that's under consideration at this point, I do not know, but if it hasn't been thrown out for your consideration, I would like to leave it with you at this point so that you will have that to discuss for a possible change of the Plan as it becomes available. It is our purpose here to simply convince the Council of the City of Grand Terrace to reject this recommended General Plan and zone classification as unjust and simply leave the industrial zoning of the Inland Lumber and the associated properties in that area as it is at the present time unless you have some thoughts regarding the vacant 10 acres at the corner of Michigan and Main. r Recessed at 9:15 p.m. Reconvened at 9:30 p.m. Faith Kelly I did come prepared with lots of ideas to share, but 22017 DeBerry everybody covered them. Ms. Perkins described my family to a tee. I have a son who attends Grand Terrace Elementary, I have a young daughter, we've lived here about a year and a half. We bought our property to stay here for life. I'm looking at a Plan that tells me that my property is no longer going to be residential, even if I do want to stay here for a long period of time, I'm going to have a hard time developing my property in the way that I have envisioned. I have 3/4 of an acre and I have a lot of visions for that 3/4 acre, I'm going to have a hard time with it. If I do decide to sell, I'm going to have a hard time selling my property from what I understand this evening. I'm afraid there is a lot of people in this area who are going to be in the same position. In addition, Council Minutes - 04/14/88 Page 41 Faith Kelly looking at that, when we set aside an area, I think you have to consider the people that are there, not just the vacant land. It's not just a piece of property, I think it's people we are setting aside. I've also not heard yet from any body that there is a major developer standing in the wings ready to buy the properties. If our projection isn't until 2010 or 2015 or the year 2000, does that mean that the people are going to be sentenced to staying on their property for that length of time until a developer can come along and give us the money that our property is worth? In addition to that, can anyone in Grand Terrace guarantee me that I will be able to get the value for my property? Can you guarantee me that at this time? It was suggested earlier this evening that perhaps I can make two million dollars on my property, maybe I could, but can you guarantee me that. In addition to that we have a number of uses in our area that has been changed over a period of time from what I understand and there is some property in question, I think it's in the north end of town, that had been zoned for apartments and then was rezoned and I believe there are some pending concerns over that. That property from what I understand was rezoned because the people had asked for that rezoning, is that correct. As many people here tonight asking you to consider the zoning of their property, to consider their interest and concern, I request that you do that as you've do so for other areas. James Coffin I live in Redlands, I own my own company, C-Y Development 1140 W. Company and I own two parcels of property on Commerce Way. Highland Ave I have applied for a small retail center which I plan to Redlands build and operate myself for income investment. The parcels I own, one is on the corner of Michigan and Commerce Way. The other one lays between the roller-skating rink and Orco Tool, which is the one that I have made application for a small commercial center, about 24,800 sq. ft. I think it is small and viable and could materialize in the near future and provide some sale tax revenue that the City seems to desire. Until I made the application and received the staff report, I didn't involve myself with the General Plan and I apologize for perhaps not being at the public hearing before the Planning Commission and expressed those concerns instead of taking your time this evening. The staff report would indicate that I would have to dedicate eight more feet and widening the street 2 ft. at that location. I don't know whether you are aware that Commerce Way presently where it is developed in that small commercial subdivision has lots of an acre and an acre and a half, the dedicated ROW is 72 ft. and the curb separation, paving is 60 ft. The ones that have put in sidewalks are 6 ft. for sidewalks and utility. If your General Plan is adopted as proposed and it is designated as a secondary highway, I would loose a considerable amount of property and I would have to revise Council Minutes - 04/14/88 Page 42 James Coffin my plans and curtail them until I can up with a new plan for that small commercial center. I feel that the street is wide enough as it is, 60-ft. pavement with a 6-ft. sidewalk on either side and that is installed in front of Orco Tool and also is partially installed at the skating rink, some of the pavements have been torn up and missing, but I'm sure it could be reinstalled. I have somewhat of a concern that Commerce Way will ever be extended to Van Buren. It doesn't appear from the testimony that I've heard this evening that it is remotely feasible and I applaud the community for being so involved with the General Plan. I wish the people in Redlands would take that opportunity because I think that's where the real planning should occur instead of letting someone who wishes to take a permit for a project and then comes an object, now is the time to express your concerns. I hear the community saying that they don't perhaps want more traffic going into the community, that they would like the streets to serve their community as it is, so designating Commerce Way as a secondary highway and drawing additional traffic off of Van Buren and dumping it out onto Michigan, it seems it would be counter productive to the concern of the community and I would as a property owner oppose a designation of Commerce Way as a secondary highway. I think it's wide enough as it is and will serve the commercial property that is now zoned at the end of Commerce Way, the existing Commerce Way and the park that is designated for commercial on this proposed General Plan. It would serve all of the needs of the residents here. If we did have to widen the street on each side, it would require some relocation of Edison vaults, fire hydrants and other facilities and then we will have jog in the street between the roller skating rink and Orco Tool. I'm not sure what will happen to the corner lot, it would just have to be widened. There is only one other property owner that is involved that owns two lots across from me. I did talk with him, he had a representative here, but he had to leave, but he did tell me that he wanted me to express his concerns and that he would object to a secondary highway. We are perfectly willing to leave the 72 ft. ROW which seems to be an oddball size. It doesn't fit the collector street or the secondary highways, there. are no standards, it doesn't quite fit them. We feel that with the hardship to us in that property that's been developed that we paid a sizable price to have to dedicate 8 more ft. as well as a 25 ft. CPD overlay setback, puts the building so far back from the street, it would require redesign of our project that we've already submitted. We have asked for continuance of that project because of the staff's heavy load in getting through this General Plan and because of all of the hearings. The only reason that I am here is I would like to object to that secondary highway designation and drawing more traffic into your community from the freeway perhaps and off of Main Street. Council Minutes - 04/14/88 Page 43 Frances Carter I also own some property on Michigan. It's the west side 11938 Arliss north of Van Buren and it's approximately the sixth lot. Drive Presently, it's zoned commercial and that's the way we would prefer that it, we don't want it back to residential designation. I find that the business park designation is a long term development and we are not planning on waiting that long to develop it and I don't think you should zone down an area hoping to delay the development. Our property was purchased prior to Cityhood and at that time, it was designated by the County as MRT. There were hearings at that time to have that area rezoned residential and it was denied by the County. In the original plan there were hearings to rezone it residential and that was denied also. It seems like we come before the government body every four years to keep it commercial. Maybe four years from now we will be looking at another General Plan and I will be here again. We have much publicity regarding our area, but not about the other areas that are being changed. The Arliss Drive parcel behind the market, I don't know that those property owners are aware of that change and I know that you don't have to notify property owners, but I think as a courtesy we really should, that's proposed to be commercial. You take for granted that citizens are knowledge about our governmental processes and they are not. I think that those people should have been identified so that they could speak to that also. Mayor Matteson Frances one point of clarification, the property you are talking about on Arliss Drive is not recommended as a change by the Planning Commission, it was only something that was supported by the Chamber of Commerce and it is not ... Frances Carter It wasn't on this plan at all? Mayor Matteson No. Bill Darwin The portion of the General Plan that I would like to address 23172 Palm Ave. is the two lots, the northwest corner of Barton Road and Canal Street. My wife and I own those two lots. It is currently zoned C Zone and the proposal in this General Plan passed down by the Planning Commission is to down zone that property to AP -Zone, office commercial and of course we would like to see it stay Zone C. We thought it was commonly known that we have for a long time planned commercial development on that corner. We had planned for 14,000 sq. ft. of commercial space along with 70 off-street parking places and I would like to show the Council a rendering that. Now there currently are two office projects across the street from this property, one was developed about fifteen years ago and has ever since that time had a vacancy problem. The other one is the building next to the bank which is about seven or eight years old and part of Council Minutes - 04/14/88 Page 44 Bill Darwin that building is still uncompleted inside and never has been developed and they've brought the price down to fifty-nine cents a square foot, still doesn't have tenants. Given the market value of the land, current construction costs and the cost of money, to develop commercial office space on my property will have to charge about one dollar to one dollar and quarter a square foot, there is no demand. This is an economic suicide for an investor. I'd like to give you a brief history of what's happening on this corner. We acquired the property in 1972 and for awhile we lived there, we could see it going commercial and we went through a General Plan Study back in the late 70's, it went on for months and it was finally zoned commercial. We spent money on Architectural Studies and a Plot Plan and on renderings and working with the Planners at that time, we wound up dedicating along the front of Barton Road, now this is the first lot, we didn't at that time have two lots, we wound up 40 dedicating 19'X133' on Barton road, 12 1/2'X315' along Canal Street and just recently, we dedicated another 17'X100' on the second lot from the corner, that's a total of 7,200 ft., about 1 City Lot, that we've donated in order to get this project going. We did a Economical Feasibility Study and an Architectural Study on the first lot on the corner, it's a 3/4 acre lot, runs 315 feet down Canal Street and 133 feet down Barton Road and after the Architect looked at it and we worked on it for awhile, we determined that as a result of the land that we had to dedicate and the setbacks that we were required to keep, that it wasn't practical to develop this one lot. So, we went out and bought another lot, the second one from the corner, this brought the total land up to about an acre and a quarter, then we came to the City of Grand Terrace who at this time had become a City, and applied for a zone change on the second lot. I have here the documents indicating that there was no negative environmental impact, that we had complied with the T-standards at that time, the original lot. This is the Public Notice that the Planners had expanded the commercial space on Barton Road, this is an issue of the Sun. This is the Notice that went out, a schedule of the Planning Commission in Grand Terrace at this time, announcing the zone change and here is a list of the charges. We paid about $460.00 for the processing that went to the Grand Terrace Planning Department at that time, so I'd like to have you take a look at those if you want to. So then we went back to the drawing board, now we have two lots, 1-3/4 acre of land to develop and develop the current Plot Plan, the one that you just saw the rendering of. We spent some more money this last year rearranging financing so that we might accommodate a construction lender because they don't want to be in second position and we are in that position now so we could go ahead. It's obvious we've spent a lot of time, effort and money on this project, so I'm here to ask Council Minutes - 04/14/88 Page 45 Bill Dawin you to let this project live, let us keep our zoning which we applied and paid for. I think finally if you do, that everybody concerned can win. (1) the investor can have a project that can pencil out; (2) the City will have plenty of opportunity to control the developments through the planning process. Barney and I live here in Grand Terrace and we are interested in having a project that looks nice and is a credit to the community. We're interested in a good looking project too; (3) if you let us have our C Zone we will be able to develop the type of usage that is highly taxed productive which office space isn't. So I ask you to leave this project in tack and leave us to keep our C Zone. Marylou Williams I live between Canal Street and the old school and as Mr. 22270 Barton Jay expressed himself, we have fought a battle here quite Road often here with the City Council in regards to widening of the street. Recently, we dedicated our property and was promised that the street will be widened, the utilities put underground and a left turn lane would be provided which would help the flow of traffic in that area. We realize the need for that. We realize the need for sidewalks and we have no objections to that, but we see no need for a median in that street. At the present time, for the safety of the community and the safety of the residents on that street, we need to go ahead with the current plan. We do not want a median. We have previously discussed this, voted it down and have asked you before, to decline this type of plan and we hope you will not adopt this plan which would mitigate our previous commitment. Kirk Turner Tonight I'm speaking to you, representing myself and my wife 22054 DeBerry Jennifer. I wish to state our opposition to the existing of Street the proposed zoning for the incorporated areas of our City west of Michigan. We have had our house threatened by a shopping mall, we have had our right to keep our horses revoked and now it is proposed to rezone our neighborhood to commercial light industry. For the most part we are a residential neighborhood and we would like to keep it that way. I would like to see the proposed zoning changed to residential excluding those developed businesses. I feel that this is more in keeping with the existing residential nature of our neighborhood and better serves our City. We are a small City and there is no reason nor no crime in keeping it residential. Rex Edmundson I'm a local businessman, I've lived here 33 years, raised my 22111 Newport family, I'm not in favor of the median on Barton Road due to getting in and out onto Barton road onto the business would prompt you in considering the zone C-1 on Barton Road from AP. Council Minutes - 04/14/88 Page 46 Richard Siegmund For the sake of record, we prepared a letter and a couple of Sigland & maps, I'm representing Mark Hendrix, who resides at 12394 Associates Michigan Avenue, his property is presently zoned Associates 364 Orange Show single-family. The property is proposed to be in the Lane, San Business Park which would make his house a nonconforming Bernardino use. His property size is basically 330 deep, 138 foot wide, it doesn't appear that this will make it very easy to develop for a business use so actually what you would be doing is rendering his parcel of less value. The second sheet shows his parcel in proximity to the other streets, it's west of Michigan between DeBerry and Van Buren. Page 3, shows the tentative map that we had prepared. We had two or three meetings with Dave Sawyer and about a week later, you proposed a moratorium and I've had this in my file for several months now not being able to file that subdivision. Page 4, I would propose, my firm does survey engineering, land planning, buying developed property. I sit on the San Bernardino County Land Development Advisory Committee and I also sit on an Advisory Committee of the City of San Bernardino and I've seen many General Plans go through. I've fought through Yucaipa, Lake Arrowhead and several others, very seldom have I ever seen a General Plan go through where you take the land uses that are presently being used, say we really don't like your use, we're going to make you a nonconforming use, we're going to put your land into suspension for X-number of years. I have to commend the Willdan Associates who took a look at the piece of property and came up with proposed land uses, I think that they are very fine if you didn't have buildings on some of those parcels. To show you an example of what you are going to do to a piece of property, go back to Page 3, you see a tentative map, seven residential lots, it's a very good use of the property. The adjoining property is also suitable to fronting on that piece of property. If you determine that this piece of property should have a General Plan Designation of business park as we've already talked before, his house would be nonconforming, he's limited on what he can do with that. His piece of property is limited in size with anybody for a corporation headquarters or any other type of business park use could purchase. So, he will be stuck with that piece of property unless he sells it to an investor who therefore, probably will rent it until he could buy several other pieces and put it into one large parcel. One thing that hasn't been addressed, is what parcel size is going to be needed for a business park. You look at Page 2, you are going to see that in this particular block, the largest parcel you have is about 2.3 acres, many of them are smaller. In previous meetings I heard that financial needs were a problem, you can solve your problem of bringing those pieces of properties together and if you had a Redevelopment Agency that had a lot of money. The business park designation as shown in the booklet on Council Minutes - 04/14/88 Panes 47 Richard Siegmund Page 610, this designation is intended to be applied near major transportation quarters and in a consolidated pattern. If you think that those nineteen parcels are consolidated, I missed something somewhere. So what you are going to do, from what planning I've ever been associated with where you are going to make that area a difficult area to do anything with unless where the small parcels are, where I designated in yellow, allow those to be residential. I understand your needs for raising taxes, but money, may I suggest that Beverly Hills has the right idea, they require very large expensive homes and this allows the assessment to be much higher. Maybe my suggestion would be to require everybody in town to remodel their house and then it could be reassessed and you're probably double your assessments. Mark Hendrix In listening to everything that everybody has been saying 12394 Michigan here this evening, I go back to my travels in my business. I've seen various commercial properties and business parks throughout the Inland Empire. I see a tremendous amount of vacancy right now. What makes anybody think that a developer would develop this proposed business park. There is too much space available, this is a bedroom community. I think that it's a shame that certain people feel that it would be necessary to assign this area of Grand Terrace to be held for 10 to 15 years long range planning. In essence you are penalizing the people there, myself being included. Now, I think that if you have that in mind it would be very nice of you to follow your dreams and plans and buy me out as well as everybody else that has a residential property that will be impacted by this. I would like to see it remain R-1. I would like the City of Grand Terrace to be a bedroom community. A community that people are proud to drive home and live. James Roberts Everybody here pretty well has said what I think should be 22009 DeBerry said, I don't want my property changed. Chester Easter Members of the Council, fellow residents, several topics regarding the General Plan. (1) the Thompson Equities, which includes Inland Timber, modern materials in Thompson Equities. The property is MR-1 and MR-T, it's changed a little bit over the years. We have had our differences, being that I'm the north resident that was referred to earlier. I would like to set the record straight, it was documented that we were there long before the lumber company. In fact, our houses were there, some of the residents who still live there saw the grading being done for the property. I'm here on behalf of Mr. Thompson, we've had our differences with noise and so forth, but I cannot see destroying something that has existed for so many years and contributed to the community as far as labor goes. The Council Minutes - 04/14/88 Page'48 Chester Easter square footage of the property that has the storage sheds, the buildings and the offices and covered with asphalt to be purchased. The square footage on that would be horrendous. To say that it would be changed to R-1 is ludicrous. I think a more reasonable thing to do rather than cut the property in half where the Inland Timber starts and the Inland Lumber Company use to exist, cutting Commerce Way through there, cutting the railroad spur, literally obliterating a mill which has been in existence there since roughly 1966 and been in operation, is way out of proportion of what it should be. If the property were to be bought as residential, I'm sure that zone change would be applied for to change it to R-2 or R-3 being that that would be a more profitable way to go. The vacant property at the corner of Michigan and Main Street would probably be included in that. I don't want apartments or condominiums at the back of my house and having people looking over my fence to see what I'm doing. I enjoy the lumber company being there, so I would urge you not to change that portion of the General Plan. I would also like to refer back to the Forest Dillon Property which has been changed from R-2 and R-3. It has been mentioned earlier that we are going to have a lawsuit over that and it's been applied for. My comments to this is lets change it back to what it was so that each resident will not have a lawsuit applied against them because the City cannot pay off a lawsuit of three or four million dollars. We will have to include that lawsuit as a disclosure on our property if we try to sell it and if we sell it, we will probably have to settle losing somewhere between $10,000 per person and in my particular case, my houses it would be $40,000.00. I urge you to change the General Plan back to what it was and that particular property and go forth with something that already had bonding on it before you decided to change it. What we are asking for is not being changed, there is no bonding on it, it is as it is, we would like for it to stay that way. There was also several comments made by Mr. Petta in regard to property down there. When he was elected Mayor of this community, I had the pleasure of being in attendance at the City Council meeting as probably one of the first people to cause a Public Hearing and that was in regard to noise. At the break, all of us residents on Tanager Street were told that that property had major designs in our area, in the southwest portion of the City and our homes were history. Five years later as I came back again for the Noise Ordinance more prepared, having documented all of the facts as to why the lumber company was there, why we were there, how it all came about and yes it was a County screw up, I agree with Mr. Lewis. We were again told by Mr. Petta our houses were all history. I'm glad to see today, he's changed his opinion around 180 percent and says it should be basically residential. Mr. Petta, I hope you stick to your Council Minutes - 04/14/88 Page 49 Chester Easter words. Maybe it isn't so grand in Grand Terrace after all. City Attorney Mr. Mayor it may be that since that was the information that Hopkins Mr. Easter and I, I enjoy Mr. Easter and he certainly has his facts on many occasions very straight and has a lot of information. Unfortunately, some of his comments tonight did not have that. I'm simply referring to the lawsuit. Obviously, if the City of Grand Terrace is sued, and we have been sued, the liability does not go to the citizens nor to their properties and so the comments that each property owner could stand to lose $10,000.00 or whatever just simply is not correct, the liability of the City is not transferable to its citizens. In addition, the lawsuit that has been filed does not ask for those kind of damages and that's the only thing I wanted to correct. That's not true, that's not factual, there is no liability, no matter who takes it over and you certainly are municipal corporation, but I just wanted to clarify that so that all of the citizens don't think that they are looking down at that kind of liability. Lee Swertfeger I didn't move to Grand Terrace, I was born in Grand Terrace 12438 Michigan 44 years ago and when I grew up my dad had trucks here. We Avenue had cows, chicken, pigs, all of the things they talked about here tonight and we always thought Grand Terrace was special. I still think Grand Terrace is special and I don't see why this can't be worked out. Maybe there are rules that I don't know about, but it seems to me that if Grand Terrace is so special, we could go to these people that have homes in this area and tell them that we can draw a plan where they can keep their house, they can build onto their house, they can sell their house, they can do whatever they want to with their house, but when the time comes and a large buyer wants to come in and buy it, that's his problem. He can get his commercial zone or industrial zone or whatever he wants, but he's got to buy these houses, but don't let them build any more houses down there and cause more problems. I can't see that and I think there should be a way to work this out. Jamie Butler I haven't heard anything said about Terrace Pines Mobile 12135 Michigan home Park tonight or at the Planning meeting. What I would Space #32 like to ask tonight as I see in the Plan that that is zoned commercial. If that is zoned commercial and it stays commercial that means that a mobile home park isn't planned for there, what happens to us then, what are you going to do with us? Most of the mobile homes in that park cannot be moved. Does anyone have an answer for that? Mayor Matteson Mainly we're just taking input now Jamie on this to expedite all of the input on this, but ... Council Minutes - 04/14/88 Page 50 Mayor Pro Tem Mr. Mayor could I please speak on this due to the fact that Pfennighausen this is a citizen who has asked a question and I think she has a right to an answer. It would be nice to know that the members of this Council were sensitive to the needs of the people in that mobile home park. We did address that particular need at our "private, secret meeting" that half the world new about, but certainly the people in that mobile home park have been a concern of our for four years. That land use was designated commercial in the last General Plan Update and I think that this Council owes it to those people before they make their decision, to consider carefully the fact that the units within that mobile home park most of them, if not all of them, are unmovable and that this Redevelopment Agency has an obligation to the people in that park. If we do indeed displace them for commercial development, to see that they are relocated. It won't work if we don't look down the line and see the special needs of these people who need to be close to public transportation. They are west side residents and that's the only place they can be relocated and I doubt if the east side residents wants them anyway because they are not going to reside in a 2,200 square foot house. We don't seem to want to have any kind of thing that they can afford to move into, so lets keep them on the west side, give them a place to live, we want them over there and give us a place where we can put them in because right now you've taken all of the land away that we could put them on and you've called it all business park. We're telling IBM that we want them here and we want the people in the trailer park gone. Mayor Matteson I think like Mr. Hopkins was saying to Mr. Easter, you better get your facts straight before you say things like that. Council member Mr. Mayor, I certainly appreciate your admonition to us Grant originally, that we were going to let the people speak and we were not going to speak. Mrs. Pfennighausen was able to crack that one. First of all, the very idea of attempting to move those old trailers is ridiculous, they will fall apart, a lot of them. The second idea of moving that park down in the south west area, which is going to be twice to three times as far for those people to walk to the Stater Bros. Shopping Center and a lot of senior citizens there, it's total ludicrous and cruel. The best solution is to leave that trailer park exactly where it is and don't screw around with it, that's all there is to it. Jamie Butler I agree with Mr. Grant, I think many of the people in that park as you can see are not here tonight. The reason for that is that they've been to meetings and they've heard things, they think they're alright, they don't think they have anything to worry about, but apparently they do and Council Minutes - 04/14/88 Page 51 Jamie Butler that's why I'm here because I live there too. I agree, we're tired of the stories, we've heard 2010 and all of these other projections. I would just like the City Council to consider changing us back to a mobile home park and leave us alone. Marjorie I have a northern horse ranch on Pico Street where I have McCroery resided for 19 years. I came to Grand Terrace to establish 2227 Pico the Morgan Horse Farm, and I did. I built beautiful barns, it's a horse palace. My house doesn't amount to much, but I have 3 1/4 acre where I can put them out to pasture and I enjoy every minute of it. Now, I suddenly find myself older and not very well, I may have to sell out and on that map up there you have decided that you are going to make me into a nonconforming use, to change me from agricultural zone to low density residential. When I heard this before, I immediately got a developer out to see if maybe that would be okay, maybe I would come out alright, but when the developer looks at a $150,000.00 worth of horse buildings and a little house that he has to knock down and then try to fit a subdivision into a triangle shaped piece of 3 1/4 acres, its impossible, he can't give me enough to enable me to move and buy me a small place. Now, I have buyers looking who want to do what I'm doing, they would use my facilities, they would give me the price I want, but with a nonconforming use, if you make me into that, they cannot get the financing. I beg of you to leave me agricultural zoned. You can always change it if somebody wants to knock the buildings down. Barney Karger I'm supposed to be an expert in land, building, I'm a real 11668 Bernardo estate broker and a builder and I want to tell you I have Way seldom if ever seen a worse Master Plan, General Plan in my entire life and I've been around most of the Southern California Counties and a little bit of Texas. The whole Master Plan, the guy must have been smoking some sort of funny weeds because there is no continuity to it, there is no Master Plan to it at all. He is taking Inland Lumber and making houses out of it, we've already evidenced that that's totally unacceptable, financially unfeasible, there's no good idea about that whatsoever, that whole idea of housing down there is completely stupid. I talked to Bill DeBenedet, he built all of Honey Hills. We looked at that park area there, Blue Mountain, and said that we can't build on that, that's malarkey, that is buildable. Before you are all in your graves, you will see million dollar estate houses up there sometime in the next twenty-five years if the City doesn't stop it. That's where your tax money is going to come from because you only have a couple of kids, couple of adults, you have a million dollar tax base instead of one hundred thousand dollar tax base, so that should not be zoned rural open space, impossible to build on. We have Council Minutes - 04/14/88 Page 52 Barney Karger had a couple of people ask for C-1 on Barton Road. Bill Darwin had that C-1 forever and before him there was a cabinet shop there, which was also manufacturing commercial, for at least 30 years, probably before that, now you want to turn that into AP. That's not very bright, it doesn't bring in tax dollars, it is impossible to rent offices there at least for a proper amount of money, so again we better throw that out. Rex is in the process of buying a duplex on Barton Road, that's zoned AP, it should be zoned C-1 because that's what he needs for a barber shop and that's what he wants to move there. He's only been in Grand Terrace since he was a pup. Good planning we do not have. I'm going to try and forget that I ever heard of Willdan Engineering because I don't want to ever do business with them if they came up with all of this stuff. Part of you won't like this, but it is not good planning to have apartments to the left of you, to the north, apartments to the south and low density residential in the middle, that is not good planning. Up there at the west end of Grand Terrace, there is a couple of mobile home parks. When I first moved here 29 years ago, they weren't high dollar mobile home parks then, they have not been improved and you have cut a man out who was going to build some very nice apartments there, which would have totally improved the area in between the two mobile home parks. It's not good planning, you are also putting low density housing on Newport. Newport has duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes on it and you are trying to say that those things should be cut down and not be repaired, should let them deteriorate until we can take them out and put in low density housing, that's not good planning. The median on Barton Road, that's not good planning. We need commercial to bring in tax dollars. If you have to go to the corner, fully U-turn or go completely around the block to make a U-turn on a residential street to get into the business that you want to go to, you're going to figure on going some place else like down Jap Hill, to where the new shopping center is going to be because we can get in and out of there, I think we are going to figure on a way to get in and out easy, that's not good planning. Inland Lumber Company does own a piece of property there on the corner of Michigan and Main Street, that it is feasible to take away from the manufacturing area, it's not good for housing, it might be great for a business park. At least something should be designed there besides another Inland Lumber on that one 10-acre parcel and besides apartments or something like that. It should be thought out, something should be brought up, some use for that particular parcel than just say, that's going to be houses, that's not feasible. Council Minutes - 04/14/88 Page 53 Barney Karger I've been here for 29 years, I like the rural atmosphere. I just sold one of my two horses; I like having horses; I like having an illegal amount of dogs; I like not having my neighbors yell at me because I yell at my kids or somebody else, but we are no longer a rural lifestyle. Grand Terrace's rural lifestyle is dying, it's on it's death bed, it's not what I like to see, it's not what I moved here for, it's not the way I want to live. The rural lifestyle in Grand Terrace and the entire San Bernardino Valley is dying. One of the things I've learned in the last couple of years, is that everything in life changes, nothing stays the same. The house you bought is worth either more or less, your health gets better or worst and whatever you thought was going to stay there, it moves or change, so we have to plan not for our rural lifestyle, but for a city lifestyle that we are going to like. Something that we can live with, some way to mix our rural wants with the fact that Los Angeles is moving here and there is nothing that we can do to stop it, you think you can stop it, you can't, it's 'going to change. You can delay it a few years, but as the dollar values change, things change and all of sudden what you had thought was good is no longer good and we are going to have to plan for that. This plan does not plan for that, this plan is a bunch of trash. For the people down below there, those of you who have half acres or smaller lots, it doesn't matter whether you have a zone for housing, whether you have it zoned for commercial, whatever you do, it's a fact, you're not going to get much more money for what you can get right now, 10 or 20 years from now. If you have three, five or ten acres, yes, you are going to make a big profit, but. if you have a half acre or smaller lot you've got problems and the best way to get out of problems is to sell find some area where you can live in your rural lifestyle that you want. Good planning is everything in this life, whether it's how we live, how we move and we have not planned very well in our City Council. My rule is that if you have one lawsuit pending, you might have a little problem. If you have two or three lawsuits pending, you have problems with yourself. We have one lawsuit with Forest City Dillon. Forest City Dillon is a little tiny outfit who owns several thousand units of apartments and is trying to build another 350 here in Grand Terrace. They're the kind of cheap job outfit that owns the Victor Mall. They also own, I believe 19 more malls. They can buy Grand Terrace out of petty cash, the entire city and they are the ones who filed the first lawsuit. We have another man here in the audience, Mr. Austyn, which I believe is trying to avoid a lawsuit, that's the second one pending. If we rezoned Inland Lumber, and they have a few dollars, I think we are going to have another lawsuit. Three strikes and you're out folks, I think we better think about throwing this Plan out, redesigning it, having the proper meetings and listening to Council Minutes - 04/14/88 Page 54 Barney Karger the people that come up here. The rule of politics is that we cooperate, we compromise, we figure out a way to make all of these people less miserable. Right now you have a lot of miserable acting people and they're going to get more miserable because you are not going to do what they want if you adopt this General Plan. Mayor Matteson Thank you Barney, you did fail to mention thing and that is Forest City Dillion's property is your property and you plan to make a profit if they build the 300 units, right. It's sold, the money is in my pocket, it is gone, I don't care if they ever build apartments there are not, I made my profit. Council member Mr. Mayor at the last City Council meeting, Mr. Petta Evans approached the Council in reference to a "potential conflict of interest." In light of that and due to the lateness of the hour, I would like to continue this meeting because it doesn't not only affect me possibly, but at least three other members of this Council and until we've had an opportunity to get some more specific directions from the Fair Political Practices Commission as to what each and everyone of our responsibilities will be on here I think we should continue in for the discussion. Mayor Matteson Mr. City Attorney do you wish to add anything to that? City Attorney No, I certainly have no quorums about continuing the meeting Hopkins and there are some problem areas as I've indicated in my memo to the Councilmembers. I think it is a splendid idea if that is something that Council would like to do, continue the meeting, then we can get more definite thoughts from the Fair Political Practices Commission Legal Division Staff. Mayor Matteson For the benefit of the audience what Mr. Evans is referring to is The Brown Act. The Brown Act prohibits any Councilmember from participating in any decisions or discussions that might benefit him financially. It so happens that Mr. Grant, each Councilmember that lives within the area that we are planning on changing is either adjacent or on the property, so to get the written findings from the Fair Political Practices Commission. Mr. Evans has suggested that we get a written opinion before we decide who's going to vote on what. Councilmember I would like to point out and bring up for clarification a Evans couple of things. In 1974, the State Legislature adopted what is called a Political Reform Act and the intent of that Act at that particular time was to ensure that anything that took place within the municipality would not directly impact financially a decision that that elected official may Council Minutes - 04/14/88 Page 55 Councilmember participate in. Because of that, there's been a lot of Evans opinions that have been written from the Fair Political Practices Commission. They have laid out their laws and one dealt with financial impact. He then read Section 87103 regarding financial interest which outlines the official participating in any way or using his official position to influence a governmental decision if he know he has a financial interest. It goes on to say that if it is reasonably foreseeable that the decision will have a material, financial affect distinguishable from its affect on the public generally on the official of his/her immediate family on. It lists out business interests, real property, source of income. I'm only going to address Section B which deals with any real property in which the public official has a direct or indirect interest worth $1,000.00 or more. Well, all of us own property in this City. I'm sure that the value of their property is well in excess of a $1,000.00. However, when you go over to 87206 in reference to disclosure of your investment or interest in real property. When an investment or interest real property is required to be disclosed under this article, the statement shall contain and then it states what it shall contain. Now it's my opinion and interpretation of this particular Section that when we go back to 87103, real property interest does not include your home that you live in. Going down in this disclosure Section "S" states, for purposes of disclosure under this article, interest in real property does not include the principal residence of filer or any other property which the filer utilizes exclusively as the personal residence of the filer. I don't own any property other than my home. Unfortunately, I didn't ask that this General Plan be adopted and the question has been raised as to whether or not I could participate. It was very interesting because I think it's known as pay back, that I could raise some of the questions of potential conflict on Mr. Petta's part since 1982. I personally feel I don't have a conflict. However, three other members I think have a potential and until this whole thing has been ironed out and we have an official written opinion from the Fair Political Practices Commission, I don't feel comfortable in going any further. I don't because this General Plan is crucial to this City, it's going to have some major impacts within the next 5 to 10 years in my opinion and if I have the right to vote on it, I'm going to vote on it. CC-88-55 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER EVANS, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM PFENNIGHAUSEN, to continue this issue until we can get a written opinion from the Fair Political Practices Commission. Mayor Matteson One question Mr. City Attorney, can you give us a time table? Council Minutes - 04/14/88 Page 56 City Attorney I was just discussing that with Mr. Schwab. As I discussed Hopkins earlier in the meeting with Councilmember Evans and somewhat with you Mr. Mayor, I can propose a draft request and I think I will just hand carry it up there and meet with the staff up there so that we can get a written opinion from them rather quickly. We must have it prior to a 30-day period when we continue this. While we may not be able to have it at your next council meeting, I certainly can know in advance whether we can, but we would certainly have it by the next meeting. Mayor Matteson My concern is the Public Notice. City Attorney You are continuing this, there's no more notice given. Hopkins Mayor Matteson We'll continue it until not the next meeting, but the following meeting? City Attorney No, I would suggest that you continue it to the next meeting Hopkins so that in the event that we have that written opinion you can then ask, the Public Hearing has been closed unless you want to reopen it at that time, but in any event I would just continue it until your next meeting and it may be if we don't have it by then you'll have to continue it till the next succeeding meeting, but no later than that and that's why I think we can expedite it by hand carrying it. City Manager April 28, 1988. There's no longer a requirement to Schwab advertise it, is that what you are saying. City Attorney We've met that requirement. Hopkins Mayor Pro Tem In order to sit at this time and in this position, you must Pfennighausen be a resident in this City and if you are a resident in this City which is only 3.7 square miles, we assume you probably own a house. One of the two things are you either live in a rental or you own a house. All five members of this Council owns a home in this 3.7 square miles. Therefore, we can sit here because we are residents and we own a home. And because of that, we are prohibited from doing something that by law we've been mandated to do. This is really stupid when in reality, the person that raised the question was never questioned about where he lived, only what he bought to make money with and therefore, no decisions can be made here tonight nor can it probably be made two weeks from now. The process had to stop while somebody 600 or more miles away from here is going to sit and tell us what we can do in our City. I bought a house a year ago and I happen to buy it across from the lumber yard. Now because I bought a house, and no zoning is changed and no land use designation Council Minutes - 04/14/88 Page 57 Mayor Pro Tem change is designated because they are trying to do it across Pfennighausen the street from me, I have a potential conflict of interest or at least that is what is being indicated. I think Mr. Lewis, who spoke earlier, made it very very clear when he was talking to us when he in a community of 3.7 square miles, it's pretty dam hard to get away from any kind of problem as long as it's the house that you live in. Folks give that some thought. Tony Petta Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, it is easy to throw names 11875 Eton Dr. around. We have a City Attorney sitting at this table. If there are any questionable legalities, that's the individual to address it to and he's the individual who makes the recommendations to the Council. So address the question to the City Attorney and allow him to either answer you or get the answers that you need and then lets talk about it. Mayor Matteson We have a motion on the floor to continue this until April 28, 1988. MOTION CC-88-55 CARRIED 5-0 Mayor Matteson reported that Council will go into closed session to discuss litigation Forest City Dillion vs the City of Grand Terrace. Mayor Matteson informed that the City was in closed session and we discussed the litigation of Forest Dillion vs the City of Grand Terrace. No action was taken. ORDER OF ADJOURNMENT Mayor Matteson adjourned the City Council meeting at 11:10 p.m. until the next regular City Council meeting which will be held on April 28, 1988 at 5:30 p.m. DEPUTY CITY CLERK of the City of Grand Terrace MAYOR of the City of Grand Terrace Council Minutes - 04/14/88 Page 58 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE PARKS & RECREATION COMMITTEE MEETING MONDAY, MARCH 7, 1988 M I N U T E S MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Barbara Conley, Mike Breckenridge, Lennie Frost, Dick Rollins MEMBERS ABSENT: Allyn Kruse, Dave Widor CITY STAFF PRESENT: Randall Anstine, Renee McCarthy GUEST: Councilman Hugh Grand, Councilwoman Barbara Phennigheausen, Tony Petta, Sylvia Robles, Louis Vasquez, Dick Weeks CALL TO ORDER: 7:10 p.m. ITEMS 1. Louis Vasquez, Little League President, asked the Committee to request from Council 1/3 or $500 subsidy for light usuage by the Grand Terrace/Colton Little League. ACTION ITEM SUBMITTED TO CITY COUNCIL 2. GRIFFIN PARK UP -DATE --Randall Anstine informed Committee that the DWR has not responded to rough draft drawings submitted by GT City yet. Committee will be kept informed of any comments. 3. The motion to accept Dick Weeks as a Committee Member and Sylvia Robles & Tammy Barr as alternate/associate members was rescinded. Dick Rollins made the motion to accept Dick Weeks as a Committee Member and Sylvia Robles as a Alternate member was seconded by Barbara Conley. All ayes. ACTION ITEM SUBMITTED TO CITY COUNCIL. It was further decided that the Committee should request from Council clarification on the proper utilization and definition of Associate/Alternate members. Committee)As also requested an up -dated Committee roster with explanation of term ending dates. 4. SNACKBAR STATUS --Council approved the Committee request of $5,500 for Chuck Vahovek to complete snackbar. 5. COMMITTEE/COMMISSIONER TERMINOLOGY --At the present time the terms Committee Member and Commissioner are synonymous. G"INCiL. AGENDA ITEM WSA1r�`' 6. Councilwoman Barbara Pfennighausen stated that no Citizen, or Committee Member should ever state they are representing the City on any Official business unless they have been authorized to do so. 7. PARKLAND ACQUISITION STATUS --Council elected that an ''Ad hoc'' Committee of GT Real Estate Brokers work together identifying open space and purchase cost. Some confusion by Committee whether Real Estate brokers have been contacted, yet. Dick Rollins made the motion that Committee should request Council to select brokers to form a Committee to find property and made a sub -committee to ascertain cost of land. Mike Breckenridge seconded. Motion rescinded since it was made known that Council had in fact already accomplished this fact. Lennie Frost made the motion that Council make appropriation to take an option on Church property until appropraite measure is taken with parkland acquisition. Dick Rollins seconded. All ayes. ACTION ITEM SUBMITTED TO CITY COUNCIL. Committee also wishes that Council establish a time frame for Ad Hoc Committee. 8. T.J. AUSTYN--Randy Anstine submitted to Committee T.J. Austyn's newest plan for their park. Apparently T.J. Austyn has added some toddler equipment and benches. Lennie Frost made the motion that Council accept T.J. Austyns' newest proporsal for their park. Seconded by Barbara Conley. All Ayes. ACTION ITEM SUBMITTED TO CITY COUNCIL. 9. SCHOLARSHIP --It was brought up at the February meeting that Chairman Conley inappropriately requested, and received a vote from Council to approve Scholarship even though Committee had voted in December not to give out scholarship. Chairman Conley explained that the Committee had already budgetted, and Council approved, budget for Scholarship. Committee was not required in December to vote for or against scholarship. Chairman Conley explained, that as an ndividual she explained to Council that the 1987 Tour de 'errace diet not matte *11 , 000 , but that the scholarship was already budgeted for and wanted Council's blessings to go ahead. Never at any time did Council vote on the subject. 10. 1988 TOUR DE TERRACE --Due to conflict of other area bike rides, it was suggested that the 1988 Tour de TErrace be held on October 2, 1988. Barbara Conley made the motion that Council accept the date change to October 2, 1988. Seconded by Lennie Frost. All ayes. ACTION ITEM SUBMITTED TO CITY COUNCIL 11. CPRS RECAP --Chairman Conley notified Committee that various Conference tapes were available for Committee members to peruse. 12. RULES & POLICIES --Tabled until April Meeting. 13. Dick Rollins reminded Committee that on April 17 the Crime Prevention Officer has scheduled the 1988 Safety Fair at the CDF Department. 14. Lennie Frost suggested that all members receive and read a brochure on how to be more effective Committee members. A copy of this will be forwarded to all Committee members. 15. Renee McCarthy informed Committee that the Spring Brochure is out. April 2 is GT's annual Easter egg hunt at 10:00: am. Meeting adjourned at 9:09 pm. 60 NEXT MEETING: APRIL 4. 1988 AT 7_00 PM. Respectfully submitted, Barbara M. Conley Chairman/Recording Secretary CITY OF GRAND TERRACE PARKS & RECREATION COMMITTEE MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 4, 1988 M I N U T E S MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Barbara Conley, Mike Breckenridge, Lennie Frost, Dick Rollins, Sylvia Robles, Dick Weeks MEMBERS ABSENT: Dave Widor CITY STAFF PRESENT Randall Anstine, Renee McCarthy GUEST: Jerry Newcombe CALL TO ORDER: 7:06 p.m. ITEMS 1. AQUA MANSA PRESENTATION --Presentation by Jerry Newcombe describing tentative plans for Aqua Mansa. Currently at Planning stage and all city's that may benefit from potential park site are presented the information. Possible financial contribution may depend on city population and council's decision to participate. Many possibilities exist, and committee will be kept abreast of developments. 2. PARKLAND ACQUISITION STATUS --Thomas Schwab stated in memo to committee that a compiled report would be forthcoming to the council at next council meeting. Some discussion over whether Parks & Recreation would get to peruse this report before it would get to Council. Chairman Conley will look into this further. 3. COMMITTEE MEMBER RESIGNATION --Due to personal time constraints, llyn Kruse has elected to resign from the Parks & Recreation Committee. Lennie Frost made the motion to accept Allyn Kruse's resignation and appoint Sylvia Robles (Alternate Member) to fill the opening. Barbara Conley seconds. All ayes. ACTION ITEM SUBMITTED TO CITY COUNCIL. 4. GRIFFIN PARK UPDATE--DWR has rejected plans sent to them concerning Griffin Park since they were not drawn and submitted by an Engineer. Material has been sent back. Committee would like to impress upon the City Engineer the importance of completing these plans for us so they may be re- submitted for DWR approval. City Engineer will be contacted over this. 5. BUDGET --After careful consideration, the following Parks & Recreation Budget will be submitted to the City Manager. It was determined that Teen programming should be given a top priority in 1988/89. It was further decided that 3 Commissioners should represent Grand Terrace at the 1989 CPRS Conference. 4,01 �C.:� ,^(_LNDA 1T 0.5A�(b} Office Expense $ 100 Tour de Terrace 20,000 Recrea.Survey/ Teen Programming 600 Membership Dues 120 Travel/Conf/Meeting 3,300 (Please note: After looking carefully at the 1987 expenses, only $10,000 is actually needed for 1988 TdT. My error for stating $20,000. $10)000 is the figure submitted in Memo to City Manager) MEMO SENT TO CITY MANAGER Additional discussion was had about the necesity of scheduling a workshop with the City Council and Parks & Recreation Committee to discuss parkland and general concerns. Chairman Conley will check into this. 16. SCHOLARSHIPS --No Scholarships submitted to date. Deadline has been extended until June 1, 1988. 7. HERSHEY'S YOUTH TRACK MEET --Renee McCarthy is checking the necessary information on putting a local meet on in Grand Terrace. Winners here would progress to the state meet in San Bernardino representing Grand Terrace. More information at our next meeting. 8. RULES & POLICIES DRAFT --Agreed that the Parks & Recreation Policies draft be submitted to City Manager and City Clerk for their input and approval. 9. Lennie Frost stated she will have a copy of "Commissioner Effectiveness" copied and sent to all Commissioners for their own information. 40. Mike Breckenridge suggested that larger trees be planted at the park. Randy Anstine explained that the trees at the park were chosen because they were fast growing and part of an overall landscape theme. Open space was deemeded necessary and shade near the play equipment was elected necessary at the time and for future use of park. 11. It was also asked why the baseball diamond is not kept up as nice as the park. The baseball diamond is part of the School District and thus their responsibility to maintain, however they see fit. Meeting adjourned at 8:53 pm. NEXT MEETING: MAY 2. 1988 AT 7:00 EM— Respectfully submitted, X�A e�v Barbara M. Conley Chairman/Recording Secretary STAFF'REPORT DATE: 4/11/88 C R A ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (X� AGENDA ITEM NO. MEETING DATE: April 14, 1988 SUBJECT An overall revision of the City's General Plan including landuse designations, circulation and housing density issues GP-87-4, and Master Environmental Analysis/Environmental Impact Report on proposed General Plan Amendment for General Plan 87-4 (E-87-1) FUNDING REQUIRED NO FUNDING REQUIRED `..X� TO: City Council FROM: David Sawyer, Planning Director DATE: April 14, 1988 SUBJECT: Staff Reports, GP-87-4 and E-87-1 APPLICANT: City of Grand Terrace LOCATION: Entire City REQUEST: An overall revision of the City's General Plan including land use designations, circulation and housing density issues (GP-87-4), and ;laster- Environmental Analysis/Environmental. Irnpact Report on proposed General Plan Amendment for G)'-r1;-,,.,(E- 87-1). BACKGROUND: In ',larch 1.987, the City ('oil ii,ci 1 retained the pl an++i nti and engineering firm of Wil.dan and Associates to update the City's General Plan. At the time the contract- was executed, the laity Council requested that the analysis and rer.ommendattun for the Western portion of the City (area west of the 215 Freeway) he completed first. As a result, in Septeuiber 1.987, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1.1.0 malting certain changes on the; landuse rnap for the west side of the freeway and changi.na residential density categories in the text of the General Plan. In January, the consultant completed the revision of the General Plan for the rernainder of the City including; changes to the 1.-induse rnap, t-he infrastructure, recreationnal resources rind -they community development elements. On February 2, 1988 the 30-day public review period for the + General Plan and its EII2 started and subsequently concluded on March 3, 1988. During this period certain corriment.s were received regarding the EIR and as required by ('EQA these commel-,i_s have been responded to and are to he included in. the Draft F_1R (see Attachment A). On March 21, 1988, the Planning Commission was presented the consultant's proposed General Plan and draft EI.R. 01-1 April 4, 1988, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council approve the proposed General Plan and EIR with certain changes to the landuse map. Unlike the previous hearings for the west: side, we are not amending the Zoning Ordinance or the zoning map at this time, we are only considering changes to the General Plan. Once the General Plan is completed staff will then recommend appropriate changes to the Zoning Ordinance. It should however he noted that all of the changes to the General Plan which were made for the west side are included in the proposed General Plan a-r this time. DISCUSSION: Alternatives: As a result of the changes the Planning Commission made to the landuse map, staff is presenting ,your Council with two (2) alternative landuse maps for the General Plan. Each of the alternatives is adequately covered by the EIR. ALTERNATIVE #1 Alternative One is the consultant's proposed landuse map (see Attachment B). This alternative calls for the widening of Barton Road from a 100' right of way to a 120' right of way and for the reduction of Michigan Street from an 88' right of way to a 64' right of way. Proposed landuse changes are as presented to your Council in your previous workshop on this issue. ALTERNATIVE #2 Alternative Two is the Planning Commission's recommended, landuse map (see Attachment C). This alternative also calls for the widening of Barton Road from a 100' right of wav to a I-lo' right of way and for the reduction of Michigan Street from an htt' right of way to a 64' right of way. ]'lie differences bet%teen t he two alternatives is that Al ternati.ve Two spec ties that i- he ; i ),,nrnenI of Commerce Way south of Van Buren sholl I d b(� d(,t specific plan at a later date 'lud l-halt certisIIs re 1dell Iri! properties remain res i den-t 1 a I . A i t,�rnili i ve 1 wo o f -:)) r!•; u;uln( ncl the properti es owited t)N Soul horn ( ai i 1 1 urn, i Ed 1 gull fw tit—, ) gnot of for Light I ntus t-ri a l U S e land that it new ~ t nd\- i)e c lut) ; ):l C.0 Iool,ing at t:lie feaslhL I itv of a t r e e w a V o1 t- rallll) t.o 1)e !O("iied iii De Berry Street and furt her study 01 t 1)e wl devil li OI- hilt': till !ioijd. An actl on Summary o(it 1 l.n 1 lag the varl oils IIIOI 1 ons .1c 1 (!(i llj)oll regarding this ell t.erllat:] ve is at t-ached Ci i Al t ac:hfli(:111 Il .lilt: i t 1 S Aijti�ipa�ed tjitlt i. draft copv of f11e Plannin; g �'omrnI ,sic,�'� ).nu e . or t u s i- c>nt wt I l ire a'va i 1 ah 1 e for Votlr r•(-v1 PW 1)1 1 01• 1 , your meeting. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department: is in support of tl-1e concepts presented in the Consultant's Alternative One. However-, after to consideration of the Planning Commissi.onIs Public Hearing and deliberation both the Planning Department and the Pianni_ng Consultant feel the Planning Commission's recommendation is workable and does not detract from the basic concepts of Alternative One. It should be noted however, that if any.- other areas of land are removed from the Business Park designatinti the ultimate success of such a concept could be hl.ndered and would need to be reevaluated. Therefore, the Planning Department is in support or boil; Alternative One and Alternative Two. However, keeping in mind that the purpose of the General Plan is the long term planning of the community, the Planning Department recommends the City Council approve the MEA/EIR and the proposed General Plan as presented in Alternative One with the exception that the eight residential properties on the west side of "lichi.gan south or Vail Buren remain designated as low density residential. (see Attachment E). Respectfully Submitted, �]TavI d R. Sawyer Planning Director DRS/mcm DATE: Apr 5, 1988 S T A F F R E P O R T CRA ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (xx) MEETING DATE: May 12, 1988 SUBJECT: ACQUISITION OF PARKLAND -� S FUNDING REQUIRED NO FUNDING REQUIRED X At the City Council Meeting of April 28 Council directed staff to place the parkland acquisition item on the agenda for May 12. The Parkland Ad Hoc Committee had identified four parcels in the attached copy of the April 28 Staff Report. Staff disclosed in closed session the potential negotiated price for the parcels. In discussion it was determined that, generally, the most favorable sites, both in terms of cost and utilization, were parcel Nos. 1 and 4. Staff recommends that Council consider the acquisition of park- land and, if a motion to acquire parkland is made, the Council should direct staff to negotiate and acquire parcel No. 1, to pursue owner financing and bring the final negotiated price back to Council for an appropriation to buy. With owner financing, the City would have no expenses such as it would if we had certificates of participation. This would allow an initial outlay of $100,000 for a payment schedule of $2,000 to $3,000 per month, depending upon the rate of interest and length of the loan negotiated. Staff feels that the acquisition of parcel No. 1 would, with Terrace Hills Park and Pico Park, provide all the parks that this City can afford to purchase, improve and maintain. In regard to parcel No. 4 staff feels that Council must consider the development of Pico Park site as serving the needs of the people in this area. If serious consideration is given to parcel No. 4, thought must be given to modify the direction to fully improve Pico Park which would be located less than 500 yards from the site. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT: COUNCIL CONSIDER ACQUISITION OF PARKLAND. DETERMINE THAT FROM A PRACTICAL ECONOMIC STANDPOINT THAT ONLY PARCELS WE CAN AFFORD AND DESIRE WOULD BE PARCELS NOS. 1 AND 4. IF A PURCHASE OF PARKLAND IS DESIRED BY A MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL, DIRECT STAFF TO NEGOTIATE A FINAL PRICE FOR PARCEL NO. 1 FOR COUNCIL ACTION. TS:bt COUNCIL AGLNDA HIM DATE: Apr 21, 1988 S T A F F R E P O R T CRA ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (xx) MEETING DATE: Apr 28, 1988 SUBJECT: CLOSED SESSION -- REVIEW OF FINDINGS ON POTENTIAL PARKLAND ------------------------------------------------------------------ FUNDING REQUIRED NO FUNDING REQUIRED In accordance with Section 54956.8 of the Government Code, the City will enter into an executive session for the purpose of discussion of the potential prices of identified parkland parcels. Prior to the closed session, staff will make brief comments as to the locations of the parcels and the matter of the negotiations. After the closed session, should Council wish to direct staff to further pursue actual purchase of a property, discussion and decision making -to that end shall be discussed in open session. TS:bt MEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable Mayor DATE: April 21, 1988 and City Council FROM: Thomas Schwab ,{!� City Manager SUBJECT: PARKLAND ACQUISITION AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT The Parkland Acquisition Ad Hoc Committee met three times to determine the availability of potential park sites for purchase and their approximate costs. In most cases the cost figures were determined by owner contact. In one case, where a property owner was unavailable, we used the approximate price of an adjacent parcel as a reference. The ;Committee did research on four available potential sites which are listed as 1 through 4. Area No. 1 is a 4.7 acre parcel at the southeast corner of Mt. Vernon and Grand Terrace Road. The parcel is owned by Mr. John Roberts and he was located out-of-state in Oregon. Contact was Made with the property owner and an approximate price has been established. Final negotiations will be required to nail down a firm price. The slender parcel sandwiched between Mr. Roberts' property and Terrace View Elementary School is currently not for sale. The owner's elderly mother resides i.n the house on the *nroperty and at this time they do not desire to sell the parcel, :ut .could possibly be acquired in the future to allow access to -the school property.. Area No. 2 is an irregularly shaped parcel adjacent to Barton Road west of Grand Terrace Road. The parcel is 5.0 acres and is owned by Mr. and Mrs. Stafford Cooley and is currently publicly listed for sale for $500,000. Area No. 3 consists of three parcels: One is a 8.45 acre parcel owned by Judith Hubbs and the other two are owned by DiNardo of Fullerton which totals approximately 15 acres. Area No. 4 is a 4.5 acre parcel at the southeast corner of Michigan and Pico. This site is currently owned by the Foursquare Gospel Church. The Ad Hoc Committee has negotiated directly with the owner in all cases but in the instance of the DiNardo parcel, and it was suggested that the price range would probably be in the same range as the Hubbs' Parcel. TS:bt CC: Parks & Recreation Committee Parkland Acquisition Ad Hoc Committee DATE: Apr 5, 1988 S T A F F R E P O R T CRA ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (xx) MEETING DATE: May 12, 1988 SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER AND ALTERNATE TO THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT ADVISORY �y COMMISSION ON WATER POLICY ------------------------------------------------- ---------------- tw FUNDING REQUIRED NO FUNDING REQUIRED x At the Council Meeting of August 27, 1987 the City Council appointed Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen as member and Councilman Evans as the alternate to the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District Advisory Commission to advise the Board of Directors on Water Policy. Their terms end on June 30, 1988. Council must, therefore, appoint a member and alternate for the terms to begin July 1, 1988 to June 30, 1989. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT COUNCIL APPOINT A MEMBER AND ALTERNATE TO SERVE ON THE SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMISSION TO ADVISE THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS ON WATER POLICY FOR THE TERMS BEGINNING JULY 1, 1988 AND ENDING JUNE 30, 1989. TS:bt COUNCII: AGENDA ITEM 5 6A