Loading...
07/28/198822795 BARTON ROAD o GRAND TERRACE, CA 92324-5295 • CIVIC CENTER — (714) 824-6621 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS GRAND TERRACE CIVIC CENTER 22795 Barton Road * Call to Order * Invocation - Pledge of Allegiance * Roll Call Cl CITY OF GRAND TERRACE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA July 28, 1988 5:30 P.M. CONVENE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 1. Approval of Minutes (a) 6/23/88 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS COUNCIL ACTION Approve (b) 7/14/88 Approve 2. Approval of Check Register No. CRA 072888 Approve 3. Community Redevelopment Agency Investment Policy. ADJOURN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CONVENE CITY COUNCIL 1. Items to Delete 2. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS 1. Presentation to Recipients of Parks & Present Recreation Committees' First Annual Athletic Scholarships - Cathy Sigestad & Tony Lopez Jr. 2. Present Certificates of Commendation for Present Community Service to: Hector Calderon Eric Rigney Mark Palencia Mark Kane Matt Finazzo COUNCIL AGENDA 7/28/88 - Page 2 of 3 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. A. Approve Check Register No. 072888 B. Ratify 7/28/88 CRA Action C. Waive Full Reading of Ordinances and Resolutions on Agenda D. Approve (a) 6/23/88 Minutes (b) 6/27/88 Minutes E. Investment Policy STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Approve Approve Approve Approve Approve F. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE Adopt CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA, AUTHOR- IZING THE SUBMITTAL OF THE FY 1988/89 TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT CLAIM. G. Agreement to Defer Public Improvements on Approve Single Family Home Located at 11870 Burns Attachment B Ave. H. Request for Program Funding for Seniors I Approve 4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 5. ORAL REPORTS A. Committee Reports 1. Crime Prevention Committee (a) Accept resignation of James Singley Accept (b) Minutes of 5/9/88 2. Historical & Cultural Committee (a) Minutes of 7/11/88 COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA Staff 7/28/88 - Page 3 of 3 Recommendations Council Action B. COUNCIL REPORTS 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. General Plan Schedule and Consultant Authorization. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Appropriation to Alleviate Drainage Problem on Arliss Way. B. Appropriation for Final Payment of City Attorney's Costs for Fiscal Year 1987/88. 8. CLOSED SESSION - T.J. AUSTYN VS. CITY OF GRAND TERRACE - LITIGATION I;V-iwfilifi►i THE NEXT REGULAR CRA/CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS WILL BE HELD THURSDAY, AUGUST 11, 1988 AT 5:30 P.M. AGENDA ITEM REQUESTS FOR THE 08/11/88 MEETING MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE BY NOON ON 8/03/88. Appropriate Appropriate CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES N REGULAR MEETING - JUNE 23, 1988 A regular meeting of the Communitv Redevelopment Agency, City of Grand Terrace, was held in the Council Chambers, Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, on June 09, 1988, at 5:30 p.m. PRESENT: Byron Matteson, Chairman Barbara Pfennighausen, Vice Chairman Hugh J. Grant, Agency Member Dennis L. Evans, Agency Member Susan Shirley, Agency Member Thomas J. Schwab, Executive Director Randy Anstine, Assistant City Manager Juanita Brown, Secretary David Sawyer, Planning Director Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney Joe Kicak, City Engineer ABSENT: None APPROVAL OF JUNE 09, 1988 CRA MINUTES CRA-88-21 MOTION BY VICE CHAIRMAN PFENNIGHAUSEN, SECOND BY AGENCY MEMBER GRANT, CARRIED 5-0, to approve June 09, 1988 CPA Minutes. APPROVAL OF CHECK REGISTER NO. CRA062388 CRA-88-22 MOTION BY VICE CHAIRMAN PFENNIGHAUSEN, SECOND BY AGENCY MEMBER GRANT, CARRIED 5-0 (AGENCY MEMBER EVAMS ABSENT ON VOTE), to approve Check Register No. CRA062.388. A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRWE, CA., ADOPTING A BUDGET OF ESTIM ED REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES FOR FISCAL YEAR 1988-89. CRA-88-23 MOTION BY AGENCY MEMBER SHIRLEY, SECOND BY AGENCY MEMBER GRANT, CARRIED 4-1, (WITH MAYOR MATESON VOTING NOE), to adopt a budget and approve a Resolution for FY 88/89 Budget. 0 N Chairman Matteson adjourned the CRA Meeting at 5:35 p.m. until the next regular City Council/CRA meeting which will be held Monday, June 14, 1988 at 5:30 p.m. CHAIRMAN of the City of Grand Terrace CRA Minutes - 06/23/88 Page 1 SECRETARY of the City of Grand Terrace CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - JULY 14, 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 July 14, 1988, at 5:33 p.m. PRESENT: Byron Matteson, Chairman Barbara Pfennighausen, Vice Chairman Hugh J. Grant, Agency Member Dennis L. Evans, Agency Member Susan Shirley, Agency Member ,► Thomas J. Schwab, Executive Director Randy Anstine, Assistant City Manager Juanita Brown, Secretary David Sawyer, Planning Director Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney Joe Kicak, City Engineer ABSENT: None APPROVAL OF CHECK REGISTER NO. 071488 CRA-88-24 MOTION BY VICE AGENCY MEMBER EVANS, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM PFENNIGHAUSEN, CARRIED 5-0, to approve Check Register No. 071488. Chairman Matteson adjourned the CRA Meeting at 5:35 p.m. until the 4br next regular City Council/CRA meeting which will be held Thursday, July 28, 1988 at 5:30 p.m. SECRETARY of the City of Grand Terrace CHAIRMAN of the City of Grand Terrace COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CHECK NUMBER VENDOR Amk CITY Or GRAND TERRACE DATE: JULY 28, 1988 CHECK REGISTER NO: CRA072888 OUTSTANDING DEMANDS AS OF: JULY 28, 1988 DESCRIPTION 18764 DENNIS EVANS STIPENDS FOR JULY, 1988 18770 HUGH GRANT STIPENDS FOR JULY, 1988 18782 BYRON MATTESON STIPENDS FOR JULY, 1988 18791 BARBARA PFENNIGHAUSEN STIPENDS FOR JULY, 1988 18798 SANWA BANK TRUSTEE FEES REVENUE BONDS, VILLA DE ANZA PROJECT 12/2/87-6/1/88 18802 SUSAN SHIRLEY STIPENDS FOR JULY, 1988 TOTAL: AMOUNT $ 150.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 314.86 150.00 $ 1,064.86 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 Ca l El'1:,i.1 %u _... . - YaL DATE: July 21, 1988 S T A F F R E P O R T CRA ITEM (xx) COUNCIL ITEM ( ) MEETING DATE: July 28, 1988 SUBJECT: STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY S COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY tar------------------------------------------------------------------ FUNDING REQUIRED NO FUNDING REQUIRED x Section 53600 of the Government Code requires the Agency Treasurer to render to the governing body an Annual Statement of Investment Policy. The Investment Policy for the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) of Grand Terrace is a conservative version of the model adopted by the California Municipal Treasurers' Association. The policy is substantially the same as the initial version drafted in 1985. The CRA of Grand Terrace maintains a very conservative investment strategy with safety of the principal being the most important criteria for selection of an investment. The investment philosophy is to ensure the safety of the portfolio, maintain a sufficient liquidity for ongoing cash needs while yielding the highest return possible. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT: COUNCIL ACCEPT THE ATTACHED STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY AS SET FORTH BY THE AGENCY TREASURER. TS:bt ATTACHMENT CRA INC). COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY 1988-89 PURPOSE This statement is intended to provide guidelines for the prudent investment of the Agency's idle cash and to outline the policies for maximizing the efficiency of the Agency's cash management system. The ultimate goal is to enhance the interest earnings of the portfolio while ensuring the safety of the pooled cash. OBJECTIVE The Agency's cash management system is designed to accurately monitor and forecast expenditures and revenues, thus enabling the Agency to invest funds to the fullest extent possible. The Agency attempts to obtain the highest yield obtainable as long as investments meet the criteria established for safety and liquidity. Investments may be made in the following media: Securities of the U. S. Government or its Agencies Certificates of Deposits or Time Deposits placed with Savings and Loans or Banks that are fully insured by the FDIC or FSLIC. Negotiable Certificates of Deposits Bankers' Acceptances Commercial Paper Local Agency Investment Fund (State Pool) Repurchase Agreements Passbook Savings Accounts CRITERIA FOR SELECTING INVESTMENTS AND THE ORDER OF PRIORITY: 1. SAFETY. The safety and risk associated with an investment refers to the potential loss of principal, interest, or a combination of these amounts. The Agency only operates in those investments considered very safe. 2. LIQUIDITY. This refers to the ability to convert to cash with minimal chance of losing some portion of principal or interest. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PAGE TWO STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY 3. YIELD. Yield is the potential dollar earnings an investment can provide, otherwise known as rate of return. SAFEKEEPING Securities purchased from broker dealers shall be held in third party safekeeping by the Trust Department of the Agency's bank or other designated third party trust. The Agency strives to maintain the level of investment of all funds as near 100 percent as possible. Idle cash management and investment transactions are the responsibility of the Finance Department under the direction of the Agency Treasurer. The basic premise underlying the Agency's Investment Policy is to ensure the absolute safety of the portfolio, maintaining sufficient liquidity for ongoing cash needs while achieving the highest return possible. c_ Thomas Schwab, Agency Treasurer COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE C IT Y OF GRAND TERRAC1_ DA I L JULY 28, 1988 CHECK RLGISITP 110: UI/t r;t CHECK OUTSTANDING DEMANDS AS OF: JULY 28, 1988 NUMBFR VFNDDR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT J P5748 SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY P5749 SOUTHERN CA GAS COMPANY P5750 GRAY DAVIS, STATE CONTROLLER P5751 PETTY CASH P5752 SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY P5753 CITY/COUNTY PLANNING P5754 INLAND CALIFORNIA CHAPTER AMERICAN INSTITUTE/ARCHITECTS P5756 SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY P5757 SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY P5758 SOUTHERN CA GAS COMPANY P5759 SUSAN KAUFFMAN P5760 SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY P5761 SOUTHERN CA GAS COMPANY P5762 REALTY WORLD MT. RESORTS rs P5763 SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY P5764 SOUTHERN CA GAS COMPANY r P5765 IVAN HOPKINS A; P r P5766 SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY P5767 SOUTHERN CA GAS COMPANY 'w 18745 RICHARD THOMAS .:° 18746 JANET DAKE 18747 SHELLY HENDERSON 18748 MACHELL DUKE CASH PAYMENTS FOR 7/11/88 CASH PAYMENTS FOR 7/11/88 FEE FOR CONFIRMATION TO AUDITORS REIMBURSMENT FOR DAY CARE CASH PAYMENTS FOR 7/12/88 SUMMER CONFERENCE SEMINAR 7/20/88 CASH PAYMENTS FOR 7/14/88 CASH PAYMENTS FOR 7/15/88 CASH PAYMENTS FOR 7/15/88 LOW IMPACT AEROBICS AND TODDLER EXPRESS INSTRUCTOR CASH PAYMENTS FOR 7/18/88 CASH PAYMENTS FOR 7/18/88 PLANNING DEPARTMENT WORKSHOP 8/12-14, 1988 $100.00 REFUNDABLE CASH PAYMENTS FOR 7/19/88 CASH PAYMENTS FOR 7/19/88 LEGAL SERVICES FOR MAY, 1988 CASH PAYMENTS FOR 7/20/88 CASH PAYMENTS FOR 7/20/88 RECREATION CLASS REFUND RECREATION CLASS REFUND RECREATION CLASS REFUND RECREATION CLASS REFUND ki 99.67 42.67 70.00 255.06 55.50 28.00 13.00 33.32 128.35 119.07 388.80 394.37 288.52 308.65 119.47 68.59 3,670.54 133.41 31.25 40.00 40.00 30.00 12.00 CITY f GRAND TERRACE op DATE: JULY 28, 1988 CHECK REGISTER NO: 072888 CHECK OUTSTANDING DEMANDS AS OF: JULY 28, 1988 NUMBER VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 18749 18750 18751 18752 18753 18754 18755 18756 18757 18758 18759 18760 18761 18762 18763 18764 18765 18766 18767 18768 18769 18770 CENTER/URBAN POLICY RESEARCH REMARKABLE PRODUCTS ROBERT BAKER JAMES WING JOHN ELGER JACK MURPHY HAROLD LIMBURG MORTGAGE GUARANTY INS. CORP. ALL PRO CONSTRUCTION RANDALL ANSTINE CONSTANCE CHAPMAN INGRID CLARK COLTON JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL COMPUTER SYSTEMS PROFESSIONALS DIAMOND SECURITY SYSTEMS DENNIS EVANS FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP. FOOTHILL JOURNAL GRAND TERRACE AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE G.T. MAILERS GRAND TERRACE URGENT CARE HUGH GRANT PUBLICATIONS FOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT REMARKABLE CALENDARS, PLANNING DEPARTMENT REFUND, WASTE WATER DISPOSAL REFUND, WASTE WATER DISPOSAL REFUND, WASTE WATER DISPOSAL REFUND, WASTE WATER DISPOSAL REFUND, WASTE WATER DISPOSAL REFUND, WASTE WATER DISPOSAL PATCH STREETS, VARIOUS LOCATIONS, FINE GRADE LOT AT PICO PARK, REPAIR IRRIGATION AT PICO PARK, AND STREET REPAIRS AT MT. VERNON AND BARTON ROAD. AUTOMOBILE ALLOWANCE FOR JULY, 1988 CLEAN RESTROOMS AT PARK, (9 DAYS) SIGN LANGUAGE INSTRUCTOR CUTODIAN FOR SAFETY FAIR PACKARD BELL MONITOR SECURITY MAINTENANCE FOR CIVIC CENTER, 8-10, 1988 STIPENDS FOR JULY, 1988 EXPRESS MAIL, CITY MANAGER CITY NEWS FOR JUNE, 1988 GRANT 1ST QUARTER OF 1988/1989 MAIL PICK-UP FOR JUNE, 1988 PRE -EMPLOYMENT PHYSICAL STIPENDS FOR JULY, 1988 61 79.90 47.80 8.00 2.67 2.67 8.00 6.13 5.60 6,730.00 200.00 180.00 100.00 81.90 699.60 75.00 150.00 14.00 1,250.00 7,500.00 25.00 48.00 150.00 I CITY f GRAND TERRACE DATE : _ JULY 282_ 19f3 Ed CHECK REGISTER II(1: 07%trll io CHECK OUTSTANDING DEMANDS AS OF: JULY 28, 1988 NUMRFR VFNDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT J 18771 JOHN ROBERT HARPER 18772 WILLIAM HAYWARD 18773 HEALTH NET 18774 HYDREX PEST CONTROL 18775 HYDOR-SCAPE PRODUCTS, INC. 18776 KAREN JENCKS 18777 DONNA JACOBS 18778 LAFFERTY & ASSOCIATES 18779 KELLIE GRIFFITH LEMON 18780 MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS 18781 MASTER LEASE CORPORATION 18782 BYRON MATTESON 18783 MORGAN AND FRANZ 18784 WENDY MORRIS 18785 MARIA MUETT 18786 NCR CORPORATION 18787 PACIFIC TELEPHONE 18788 PADDEN COMPANY 18789 PAGING PLUS 18790 PETRA ENTERPRISES 18791 BARBARA PFENNIGHAUSEN 18792 CATHY PIERSON 18793 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPANY 18794 JERI WEISS-RAM 18795 ADRIAN REYNOSA LEGAL SERVICES FOR JUNE, 1988 KARATE INSTRUCTOR HEALTH INSURANCE FOR AUGUST, 1988 PEST CONTROL, CIVIC CENTER, JULY, 1988 SUPPLIES FOR PICO PARK ROLLER SKATING INSTRUCTOR CALIGRAPHY INSTRUCTOR EARTHQUAKE PREPAREDNESS HANDBOOKS CREATIVE DANCE INSTRUCTOR LONG DISTANCE PHONE LEASE LARGE COPIER FOR AUGUST, 1988 STIPENDS FOR JULY, 1988 LIFE INSURANCE FOR AUGUST, 1988 FLORAL ARRANGEMENT INSTRUCTOR CLASS ON PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION SOFTEWARE SUPPORT FOR AUGUST, 1988 PHONE FOR DAY CARE, COMPUTER MODEM, AND PAY PHONES LEASE MAILING MACHING AND OLYMPIA FOR AUGUST, 1988 RENT PAGERS FOR JULY, 1988 NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH LETTERS FOR JULY, 1988 STIPENDS FOR JULY, 1988 GYMNASTICS INSTRUCTOR NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING MILEAGE SCOREKEEPER FOR SLO-PITCH SOFTBALL 1,127.00 313.50 1, 49,1. 96 48.00 1,629.72 360.00 175.00 5,830.00 93.75 43.01 556.15 64.65 97.75 125.00 202.50 47.70 107.72 179.17 58.00 31.80 64.65 307.20 88.16 21.00 277.50 CITY GRAND TERRACE DATE: JULY 28, 1988 li CHECK, REGISTER NO: 072888 CHECK OUTSTANDING DEMANDS AS OF: JULY 28, 1988 NUMBER VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 18796 RIVERSIDE BLUEPRINT 18797 SHERIFF FLOY TIDWELL 18799 DAVID SAWYER 18800 THOMAS SCHWAB 18801 SECURITY PACIFIC BANK 18802 SUSAN SHIRLEY 18803 SIGNAL MAINTENANCE CORP. 18804 SIMPLER LIFE 18805 SOUTH COAST RUBBER STAMP 18806 SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY 18807 SOUTHERN CA GAS COMPANY 18808 t STULTS ELECTRIC 18809 THE SUN 18810 SYNDISTAR, INC. 18811 TRI COUNTY OFFICIALS 18812 UNION OIL COMPANY OF CA RECORD MAPS AND BLUELINE PRINTS, PLANNING LAW ENFORCEMENT AND CRIME PREVENTION OFFICER FOR JULY AND AUGUST, 1988 AUTOMOBILE ALLOWANCE FOR JULY, 1988 AUTOMOBLIE ALLOWANCE FOR JULY, 1988 AIR FARE, MATTESON (PRIOR YEAR EXPENDITURE ON MASTERCARD) STIPENDS FOR JULY, 1988 REPAIR SIGNALS AT BARTON/ MT. VERNON, BARTON/PRESTON, BARTON/MICHIGAN, AND SIGNAL MAINTENANCE FOR JUNE, 1988 SUPPLIES FOR EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER BADGES AND NAME PLATES ELECTRIC FOR CITY BUILDINGS, CIVIC CENTER, BARTON/PALM, 2 LIGHTS AT PARK, SIGNALS, AND STREET LIGHTS GAS FOR CITY BUILDINGS AND CIVIC CENTER ELECTRICAL REPAIRS AT CIVIC CENTER AND INSTALL ELECTRIC AT CONCESSION STAND AT PARK NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND LEGAL AD SLIDE PROGRAMS FOR CRIME PREVENTION COMMITTEE UMPIRES FOR SLO-PITCH SOFTBALL FUEL FOR CITY TRUCK AND EQUIPMENT TOTAL: $ 51.83 120,555.00 200.00 200.00 233.00 150.00 1,900.59 375.41 71.15 6,845.80 312.26 5,095.00 214.78 298.00 340.00 121.40 $174,046.62 I CERTIFY THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE AFORELISTED CHECKS FOR PAYMENT OF CITY LIABILITIES HAVE BEEN AUDITED BY ME AND ARE NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE EXPENDITURES FOR THE OPERATION OF THE CITY. L CITY OF GRAND TERRACE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - JUNE 23, 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 June 23, 1988, at 5:30 p.m. PRESENT: Byron Matteson, Mayor Barbara Pfennighausen, Mayor Pro Tem Hugh J. Grant, Councilmember Dennis Evans, Councilmember Susan Shirley, Councilmember ABSENT: Thomas J. Schwab, City Manager/Finance Director Randy Anstine, Assistant City Manager David Sawyer, Planning Director Juanita Brown, Deputy City Clerk Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney Joe Kicak, City Engineer (arrived at 6:25 p.m.) None The meeting was opened with invocation by Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Councilmember Shirley. ITEMS TO DELETE NONE CONSENT CALENDAR CC-88-121 MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM PFENNIGHAUSEN, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER SHIRLEY, CARRIED 3-2 (COUNCILMEMBER EVANS AND MAYOR MATTESON VOTED NOE), to approve the Consent Calendar with the removal of Item D -- Approve 06/09/88 Minutes. A. APPROVE CHECK REGISTER NO. 062388 B. RATIFY JUNE 23, 1988 CRA ACTION C. WAIVE FULL READING OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS ON AGENDA E. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CA., ADOPTING A BUDGET OF ESTIMATED REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES FOR FISCAL YEAR 1988-89. �G C0UiLC1'L P.Gt.;1DA eilo�ioS F. ACCEPT AGREEMENTS, BONDS, CASH DEPOSIT & FINAL TRACT MAPS 13205-1 and 13205 FOR T.J. AUSTYN. G. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CA., CALLING THE ELECTION OF NOVEMBER 8, 1988. G. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CA., TO CONSOLIDATE WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO FOR THE ELECTION OF NOVEMBER 8, 1988. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR DISCUSSION D. Approve June 9, 1988 Minutes Councilmember Evans stated he wasn't here so he would oar abstain from voting. CC-88-122 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SHIRLEY$ SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER GRANT, CARRIED 4-1 (COUNCILMEMBER EVANS ABSTAINED), to approve June 9, 1988 Minutes. Ll PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ORAL REPORTS Deborah Mueller, 22608 LaPayce, reported that the Crime Busters are required to do a good deed a month and then proceeded to read a few of the deeds done by the Crime Busters. Mayor Matteson commended Ms. Mueller on the good job that she is doing and thanked one of the Crime Busters, Jodie Nicki, for the good deed she had done. A. Committee Reports 1. Historical & Cultural Activities Committee A. Accept resignation of Kathryn Harmon. CC-88-123 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER GRANT, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM PFENNIGHAUSEN, CARRIED 5-0, to accept the resignation of Mrs. Harmon and direct the Deputy City Clerk to post the vacancy and advertise the application to fill the vacancy and accept this resignation with deep regret. Council Minutes - 06/23/88 Page 2 B. Minutes of June 6, 1988 Meeting Council accepted the Historical & Cultural Activities Committee Minutes of June 6, 1988. 2. Crime Prevention Committee A. Council accepted the Crime Prevention Committee Minutes of May 9, 1988. 3. Parks & Recreation Committee A. Council accepted the Parks and Recreation Committee Minutes of May 2, 1988. B. Council Reports Councilmember Grant, reported that he attended the Local Agency Formation Commission meeting on June 15, 1988. NEW BUSINESS A. Request from Fieldcrest Homes for Moratorium Exemption CC-88-124 MOTION BY MAYOR MATTESON, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER SHIRLEY, CARRIED 5-0, to approve the request from Fieldcrest Homes for Moratorium exemption. B. Request by Mr. Ron Garret for Waiver of Site & Architectural Review Fee Community Development Director Sawyer explained that they had received an application from Mr. Garret for a fee waiver of $702.00, which is required for Site & Architectural Review (S&A), explaining that this property was recently involved in a Conditional Use Permit Application and was approved by the Planning Commission for a dry cleaning business. Since then, the dry cleaning business has decided not to go forward with it. Therefore, since all the conditions and requirements that were placed on that application are no longer valid for the property, Mr. Garret is now requesting that a S&A Application be considered. The Planning Department recommendation is that since much of the staff work has already been done, the fee be reduced from $702.00 to the $100.00, as represented in the Staff Report. CC-88-125 MOTION BY MAYOR MATTESON$ SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER SHIRLEY, to approve the request by Mr. Garret to reduce the fee for waiver of Site & Architectural Review from $702.00 to $100.00. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated that it appears that the fee schedule we have is the same fee no matter what the project was and that did not seem reasonable. She stated that she talked to Community Development Director Council Minutes - 06/23/88 Page 3 Sawyer about reviewing the fee schedule for this type of thing and he's indicated that at the direction of the Council he will review it and bring back his updated recommendations. She suggested that it be placed on the Agenda for action of Council to give direction to the Planning Department for review of that particular fee ordinance. Mayor Matteson requested that the fee schedule be placed on the next Agenda. City Manager Schwab explained that it can come as a mandate from Council, but it has already been requested from the City Manager's Office and the Community Development Director currently has that as one of his priority items to redo the entire fee schedule. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen had concerns that this would be one of the things that will be put on a back burner and a year from now Council will be asking about it, and felt it was imperative that this adjustment is made. City Manager Schwab replied it will be agendize with a schedule included for Council. Motion CC-88-125 carried 4-1 (COUNCILMEMBER GRANT VOTED NOE), to approve the request by Mr. Garret to reduce the fee for waiver of Site & Architectural Review from $720.00 to $100.00. C. Award Contract for Traffic Signal at Mt. Vernon & Barton Road City Engineer Kicak reported that six bids were received from contractors yesterday for the installation of the signal at the intersection of Barton Road and Mt. Vernon. He explained that the proposals varied from tt96,582.00 to $110,498.00, indicating that he contacted two cities, as well as Caltrans regarding the performance of the contractor who is the low bidder. All three agencies expressed satisfaction of the performance of this particular contractor, therefore, staff is recommending that City Council award the contract for the installation of the traffic signal to W.H. Moore Construction Company in the amount of $96.582.00. Councilmember Evans questioned when would they actually start construction? City Engineer Kicak estimated that the construction could start in about 3 weeks and should be completed within 3 calendar months or 60 working days. Council Minutes - 06/23/88 Page 4 Councilmember Evans this is the upgrade and Barton Road with stated so everyone understands, of the signalization at Mt. Vernon left turn arrows. CC-88-126 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER EVANS, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM PFENNIGHAUSEN, to award the contract to W.H. Moore Construction Company in the amount of $96,582.00 to upgrade the traffic signalization at Mt. Vernon and Barton Road. Mayor Matteson questioned what was budgeted for that? City Manager Schwab replied, it was budgeted for $100,000.00 in the current budget. Motion CC-88-126 carried 5-0. 46r D. Award of Annual Landscape Maintenance Agreement Assistant City Manager Anstine reported that the existing agreement between the City and Los Amigos Landscape Contractors will be expiring. Staff is recommending that Council approve renewing the contract with the current vendor based upon the quality of his work that he has produced in the past two years in addition to the money he is requesting. Mayor Matteson questioned the increase of $100.00, pointing out that the increase happens to be a 16 2/3 percent increase. Assistant City Manager Anstine stated that based on the estimates received last year, the second lowest bid was $750.00, so even with the increase he is still $50.00 under what last year's lowest bid was. CC-88-127 MOTION BY MAYOR MATTESON, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER EVANS, CARRIED 5-0, to renew the contract with Los Amigos Landscaping Company. E. Amend Schedule B to Schedule C of City Engineer's Fee Schedule City Manager Schwab reported that he has obtained, from the City of Highland, the proposal for the provisions of engineering services, which they just went out to bid for. The IRA rates proposed by the four individuals for Highland are significantly higher than what Mr. Kicak is requesting, so staff is recommending that Council adopt the proposed schedule fee. Mayor Matteson asked how is it reflected in the bidget? Council Minutes - 06/23/88 Page 5 City Manager Schwab explained that he took the potential increase into consideration when the budget was adopted, pointing out that engineering is an item that is a pay as you go basis and generally as the activities are generated the fees are paid for the services. He explained projecting a certain level and generally at mid -year staff comes back to Council and adjusts that level. Mayor Matteson felt you have to consider that too when redoing the fee schedule. If you reduce the fee schedule and you are raising the cost, then that's loss of income to the City and has to be taken into consideration. City Manager Schwab felt the primary emphases in the fee schedule is to try and build in some fairness for the people who just want to build on a room addition. Councilmember Evans stated so he was clear, when staff prepared the budget, this anticipated increase was factored in. City Manager Schwab explained requesting the same as last year for engineering, but it was based on a projection of what our activities would be which will probably be less. But, yes, this was factored in with everything that we knew at the point when we developed the budget. Councilmember Evans asked if he felt comfortable with it? City Manager Schwab replied "yes." CC-88-127 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER GRANT, SECOND BY MAYOR MATTESON, CARRIED 5-0, to amend Schedule B to Schedule C of City Engineer's fee schedule. F. Appropriation for Park and Appraisal Fee City Manager Schwab reported that May 26, 1988, in closed session, Council directed staff to obtain an appraisal for the potential acquisition of the Robert's parcel for a park; staff came back with estimates in the range of $2,000.00 to $2,500.00; Council directed staff to solicit additional bids and gave staff a couple of companies to contact in San Bernardino; staff did so and it appears an appraisal may be obtained for $1,500.00; staff will need an additional $1,000.00 to the $500.00 that's already been appropriated if Council wishes staff to do an appraisal. Council Minutes - 06/23/88 Page 6 CC-88-128 MOTION BY MAYOR MATTESON, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER GRANT, CARRIED 5-0, to approve appropriation of $1,000.00 for the appraisal fee. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Sandy Collins, 22697 Brentwood, thanked Council and staff for removing the stop sign at Brentwood and Preston and reported the manhole left on Brentwood and asked if something could be done about it. CLOSED SESSION Council went into closed session to discuss the pending lawsuit between Forest City Dillion and Grand Terrace at 6:00 p.m. ow Council returned from closed session at 6:35 p.m. Mayor Matteson reported that all of the input that Council has received on this last General Plan from the previous public hearing will still stand and be taken into consideration. He explained that anyone wishing to speak must fill out a card with their name and address. William Lewis, Attorney, representing Fred Thompson and the Inland Lumber Company, was here to emphasize the fact that the Thompsons and Inland Lumber Company on Lots 57, 58 & 59 on the north side of Main Street are seriously opposed to any change in their current zone classification as industrial. We know they recommended a residential zone for these properties which would simply give you another big headache as being a non -conforming use. Regarding to Lot 60, which is the undeveloped corner parcel, we would like to recommend to Council that they seriously consider a commercial zone re-classification for that parcel, it's logical. It's needed to provide additional tax revenue for the City of Grand Terrace and he can say that they do have interested prospects -for commercial activity at that corner. To zone it as shown on the General Plan as residential will be totally out of context and against all rules and principals of good planning. Jim Coffin, 222 E. Olive Avenue, Redland, CA, owner of CY Development Company, Redlands CA., regarding two parcels of commercial property that he owns on Commercial Way, that portion of the street that is completed from Michigan. The General Plan provides for an increased right-of-way of what the improvements presently are, so he asked City Council to amend that and leave the standards or make the standards as it is improved. The 72 ft. right-of-way and the 60 ft. of paving. It would create a hardship on those Council Minutes - 06/23/88 Page 7 small parcels where all the street improvements are in and all the infrastructure. The only thing I have to do on mine is put the sidewalk in, all the other utilities and drainage, sewer, water, electric, lighting underground, all the improvements are complete. I would like to go forward with the project, but I'm waiting until this decision is made because I will have to re -design if you won't amend that portion of Commercial Way. Jackie Perkins, 22038 Van Buren, asked Council to seriously consider not putting in a business park in the area that they have designated for that use, stating "I think I speak for the majority of the residents on DeBerry, Michigan and Van Buren and I think all of them feel the way that I do that a business park is not appropriate, it's a hardship on the people who own property and live there to hold that property in a no -win situation for 20 or 25 years. I seriously urge that you change the present zoning from commercial to residential because a large part of the property is not suitable for commercial and I think if Grand Terrace can get enough commercial to fill up the other areas that are zoned commercial right now, the City would be fortunate. I don't think there is enough commercial interest in this area, I don't believe it can ever happen and I do think that the people who are living there who have residences should be allowed to sell their property without worrying about financing and I think that residential is the most practical use for that area." Leon Olszewski, 12458 Michigan Avenue, concurred with Jackie Perkins stating, lets try to keep it residential, we are not looking for a business park. Keep 660 feet from Michigan to the back -end as residential, if you want the vacant land back there as business park, go right ahead. Ton Py etta, 11875 Eton Drive, asked if the purpose of this meeting was to reiterate from the last public hearing? Mayor Matteson explained, basically, to keep in consideration of what we heard at the last meeting. This meeting is for new input or for anybody who didn't get to speak last time. Mr. Petta stated that he did not have any particular new input, stating that at the last meeting there was extreme concern by people in general as to the widening of Michigan and the fact that some property was being Council Minutes - 06/23/88 Page 8 impacted on Michigan. He felt there was no need to impact those properties because Michigan appears to be wide enough to carry the traffic and it seemed appropriate that if left as is, will not impact and will not be detrimental to this City either. He explained there was some concern of people on Michigan being impacted by commercial. He pointed out that along Michigan where there is a concentration of residential clusters, there appears to be no need to change that into commercial because those houses will be there perhaps for the next 30, 40 or 50 years. He pointed out that he will be addressing the area on DeBerry between the U-store and the freeway and then south to Van Buren, explaining that the south side of Van Buren is already developed into a commercial industrial with Wilden Pump and Harber Development that goes almost down to the end of Van Buren to the Edison property; to the north of Van Buren Harber owns most of that also and he has plans to continue with the same type of development; the north of that to DeBerry is a strip where it appears to be the only logical thing to do is to go on the basis of the recommendation because north of DeBerry is zoned commercial. He explained that his only concern is that the retail aspect is deleted or forbidden, and if we are going to have any kind of commercial, why forbid an operation that will bring in sales tax to the City. Lee Swertfe er, 12438 Michigan, explained that last time he did not say too much about his history, but the reason he bought the property was because it was an M-1 zone and he wanted to have a small industrial type business. He stated that there were two different water companies who owned wells next door to him, neither one are active right now, but if they were active, they would be making noise all of the time and they are right up front by his house. He pointed out that Wilden Pump is not that far away and he can hear their machines running all of the time. He pointed out that he had a small grocery store, a meat processing company which was located real close and he could not understand it if Council changed the zoning. Danny Stouffer, 548 Main Street, indicated that the property— that's owned by Inland Lumber at the corner of Main and Michigan, if that is zoned residential he felt it should be kept commercial, explaining that one of the reasons he purchased the house that he is in was because that was commercial or industrial and felt it should be left that way. Council Minutes - 06/23/88 Page 9 Daniel Green, 745 So. Hope Avenue, Pasadena, CA, pointed out that .he owns the property on Pico and it was his understanding that it is intended that the proposal would put a street directly through the property that I now own and up until the end of April, he had no knowledge of this, he was never notified and it came as a big surprise to him. He recommended that the feet widening not go beyond Pico because the property he owns would be totally useless for any future development and it would take all but 22 feet of the property. Mayor Matteson asked where his property was located, between Pico and what. Mr. Green replied, right off of Royal Avenue. far Community Development Director Sawyer pointed out on the map where this property was located. Mr. Green felt that from the review of the parcels in the area, it doesn't appear that any other parcel is so affected as his in the terms of being made useless by the extension of Commerce and for that reason he's opposed to Commerce being extended beyond Pico. He stated that the other properties in the area would be enhancedby such widening in the future. It is his understanding that the reason for this plan is to enhance development in the area. However, it would adversely affect my property as compared to all of the others in the area. Mayor Matteson asked if his property was vacant. Mr. Green replied it is presently vacant. Mayor Matteson stated that if that street goes through his property you would have to be reimbursed for the value of the land, it's not going to be taken from you. Mr. Green stated that presently the property is on the market and he has had parties who are interested in it. However, his concern is that while these discussions are going on it does adversely affect the sale of the property, and at this point, he did not know if the City Council had any time -table for compensating or determining when the street would be widened. At present, he has not been given a time -table as to when this might happen. The Planning people have told him that they don't know, and that it's just something he will have to live with and he didn't feel that was fair. Council Minutes - 06/23/88 Page 10 Councilmember Evans had a question from Legal Council for this gentleman in reference to the extension through his property, we do have correspondence that he had sent to us. Assuming that this document were to be approved with the extension all the way down to Main as originally proposed, and although there are no projects ultimately planned right now, we just heard the gentleman state that he has it on the market, would that not complicate things for the sale of that property as far as disclosure? City Attorney Hopkins replied it could conceivably complicate things .... Councilmember Evans asked how about his argument of a potential taking. Although it is designated as such here, we are not taking it for a project right now, does he have a legitimate argument that that could be construed as a taking. City Attorney Hopkins replied if he is precluded from any use of the property, that would be a valid argument, yes, if however, they did not preclude reasonable use of his property, he did not think that would be a taking. You have in any General Plan a circulation element, you have certain amounts of property that are going to be taken by the City at such time as any development occurs and that has not been considered to be a taking. Councilmember Evans stated if he understood Mr. Green's correspondence, if the street is designated as such or a secondary highway which was the right-of-way 88 ft. that's all but 22 ft. as far as your property would be taken. Mr. Green replied, "that's correct." Councilmember Evans stated so you would have a strip that would be 22 feet in width and about 312 feet in length. Mr. Green replied that the frontage is 110 and the depth is 312. Councilmember Evans stated so you would have a strip of land that would then have .... Mr. Green stated with the normal setback, the land would be useless. Councilmember Evans stated so you are going to have a strip of land 22 X 212. Mr. Green responded "yes," and as indicated in the correspondence, the property is on the market for sale and there are buyers ready and willing to enter into an agreement with him based on it being on the market. Council Minutes - 06/23/88 Page 11 Being there was no more public participation, Mayor Matteson reverted back to City Council for discussion. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated that she would like to make the following general statements and hoped that she would not have to pull the book apart because she literally could do that one page at a time through the three elements that she was going to address. She felt in the circulation element to widen Barton Road to the width of 120 ft. and construct a median is ludicrous, indicating spending a huge sum of money widening Barton Road to 100 ft. here, there isn't anyway we could possibly go back and extend this section and then we would have a road going through our City that is a main road that is two widths, and we have too much of that going on anyway. She reported that in her investigation into the serviceability of a median strip, found a median strip, as recorded in eight surrounding cities, was a killer to retail commercial and would from the input she received from the residents along there, heavily impact them, so the widening of Barton Road to 120 ft. and installing a median strip is something that she could not support and hoped that this Council would not either. She felt Commerce Way extension should stop at DeBerry, explaining if it does extend past that, it becomes a culdesac, you are stopped at Van Buren, it's a non -reality to run through the Edison property due to the fact that it's going to bicep a park that we are presently spending a great deal of money on and Edison is not going to develop it and we are not going to take the property away from them, so why put it on a map and say it's going to be there and that most assuredly solves Mr. Green's problem and therefore, we get out of that one all together. If it stops at Van Buren that's the end of that and those are her concerns with the circulation element. In the land use element she had many concerns that she has already listed, but she cannot conceive of this Council adopting a plan that becomes punative to the people that pay the property taxes and will shop in the stores and any of the number of things that go on in the City. She stated that she could not imagine putting multitudes of homes in non -conforming so that they will have to allow them to deteriorate to a slum because they are not allowed to do anything positive to them, they can't sell them and they can't get permits to upgrade them. She stated she could not support the business park, explaining recently receiving correspondence from Jamie Butler who said that this Council had been negligent in not addressing the re -location of the mobile home park and she couldn't agree more. However, Councilmember Evans Council Minutes - 06/23/88 Page 12 and she did address that in a plan that they showed and her conscience is clear. She realizes that someday the trailer park is going to have to go because it is in a highly desirable commercial area and that the people had to be considered, feeling it is the responsibility of this Council to address that. She stated that her last concern was the housing element, realizing that there was no direction from Council for the general plan consultants to upgrade housing elements and if they had left the housing element totally alone she would have no problem with that because they could just say you didn't tell us to do anything with it so we left it alone. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated that at the appropriate time we'll address the other things within tar the housing element that are absolutely ridiculous, explaining that she could not possibly vote approval of a document that has so many inaccuracies in one of the three major elements of the General Plan. She stated that she will hold other comments for specific elements within the General Plan because she is prepared to take those elements apart. Mayor Matteson explained doing the General Plan first and then the circulation and that he divided this up into five quadrants because there are so many concerns and it is easier to take it a piece at a time. He stated that the first quadrant that we will talk about will be east of Mt. Vernon and south of Barton Road to the county line and the City limits. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen asked wasn't the hillside the only area of concern? She reported on a confrontation with one of the representatives of a developer up on the side of the hill and they did not understand her concern regarding their development. She expressed concern regarding the San Jacinto fault which happens to run right through Reche Canyon. She had concerns and it was based on that that she did vote on some things precisely the way she did. She thanked the General Plan Consultants for pointing that out, feeling it is something that we have to address as we look at that hillside and below the hillside properties. She stated that she would like to see space between those houses very specific and flood control type plans implemented before that hillside area is opened up and that some kind of overlay does need to be put on it. Mayor Matteson felt that would be addressed when addressing the zoning. Council Minutes - 06/23/88 Page 13 Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen wanted to know if that is the only time that could be addressed? Community Development Director Sawyer replied we could put general comments as far as adding to the goals and policies that are included in the General Plan, but those then would be carried out by an overlay zone which would be done in a zoning map and the zoning ordinance. CC-88-129 MOTION BY MAYOR MATTESON, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER SHIRLEY, CARRIED 5-0, to approve Quadrant 1, as presented by the Consultant. Mayor Matteson stated that the second quadrant would be east of Mt. Vernon and north of Barton Road to the City limits, indicating having no major changes in that fav area. CC-88-130 MOTION BY MAYOR MATTESON, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER SHIRLEY, CARRIED 5-0, to approve Quadrant 2, as presented by the Consultant. Mayor Matteson reported that the third quadrant would be between Michigan and Mt. Vernon and Barton Road south to the county line and did not feel there were any changes in that area either. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated there was one change that we dealt with in the last General Plan Update and that was the designation of single-family residential of a horse -ranch property that is on Pico. She explained that the area on all sides of the horse ranch is single-family residential and she did not understand. The resident is in failing health, but still wanted the horse -ranch designation. She stated that the resident understood that as long as she had horses at the time it changes, she could keep horses and, therefore, she did not see that as a problem in that area. Mayor Matteson stated that again will be in with the zoning and it is still residential. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated, no, she had an agricultural designation in that little triangle. Community Development Director Sawyer explained that the General Plan designation is currently residential and we are not changing that, again that will be a zoning issue. The zoning is A-1 and when we come back for the zoning to bring that zoning map into conformance with this map, we will be looking at what Council Minutes - 06/23/88 Page 14 properties should be A-1 and which should not have that designation on it; this will not keep us from doing either way later on. Councilmember Grant referenced the mobile home park on Michigan, stating the total area vertually to Mt. Vernon is being proposed as general commercial, asking if the mobile home park is incompatible with the commercial designation. Community Development Director Sawyer replied the residential use would be non -compatible with the commercial use. Of the residential uses that we could have single-family on down the line, mobile homes would probably be the best or high -density apartments next to the commercial, but residential ideally would not want to be next to that. Councilmember Grant stated that mobile home park is obviously not a commercial designation and it is obviously easier to eliminate a mobile home park, if it is designated commercial, than it is if it's not, is that correct, procedurally. Community Development Director Sawyer replied procedurally, yes, less steps. Councilmember Grant stated for that reason he would be opposed to the designation of that area where the mobile home park is located as being commercial. Councilmember Evans asked if all of the homes along Barton Road on the south side, are they not non -conforming right now between Michigan and Canal? Community Development Director Sawyer replied, "that's correct." Councilmember Evans asked if he knew when those homes were changed to a non -conforming use? Community Development Director Sawyer replied, not off hand, he was not sure if they were done in the 1984 revision or when we adopted the General Plan. Councilmember Evans stated so they've been sitting there for some period of time without any problems. Community Development Director Sawyer replied, at least since 1984. CC-88-131 MOTION BY MAYOR MATTESON$ SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER SHIRLEY, for approval of Quadrant 3 without any changes. Councilmember designating the located between Canal? Council Minutes - 06/23/88 Page 15 Evans questioned the purpose of single-family homes that would be DeBerry, Van Buren, Mt. Vernon and Community Development Director Sawyer replied, that staff and the Consultant took a look at that area as far as the existing facilities that are out there and most of that property would fit into the existing R-3 development pattern. He stated that currently there are multi -family developments on those properties, a church property. Staff looked at the existing development there and felt that was the most appropriate zoning. Councilmember Evans stated and yet there are homes along the north side of Van Buren. Ross Geller stated there are no changes from the existing General Plan, the existing General Plan shows OW there's multi -family .... Councilmember Evans asked what is the current zoning for that whole area. The response was "R-3." Councilmember Evans asked if we are going to go under the premise that's come up in discussion regarding difficulties that people could possibly experience, would it not be better to allow those homes to be designated R-1 to preclude any future potential problems or hardships to these people? Community Development Director Sawyer replied that he did not think that staff had come up with that for the basis for recommendations. Councilmember Evans stated he was just asking because ' some of the discussions that had gone on in previous meetings and again this evening. Mayor Matteson asked how many apartment units are there right now? Community Development Director Sawyer stated that he doubted if he had an exact count right now. Mayor Matteson asked if he could give an estimate? Community Development Director Sawyer replied you can count them on the aerial. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen reported that Terrace Mesa had 228 apartments, complex on DeBerry and Mt. Vernon; condo project further down Mt. Vernon are all rental units .... Community Development Director Sawyer indicated the areas on map. Council Minutes - 06/23/88 Page 16 Councilmember Evans questioned the estimated acres, the single-family homes. The response was approximately 10 acres. Councilmember Evans asked what in land use planning is considered a significant size parcel? Community Development Director Sawyer replied for single-family homes our minimum size parcel is 7,200 sq. ft.; for a church, minimum acreage required is 3 acres; for an apartment project, depending on what we are looking at, I think we would want to see 2 or 3 at a minimum. Councilmember Evans asked Mr. Sawyer in his opinion, would he consider that a fairly sizable area for single family? Community Development Director Sawyer replied there are a number of lots that are already subdividing that, of course 10 acres of property is a sizable piece of property. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated if she recalled in the last General Plan Update, those people came in and - had little negative to say about their re -designation as R-3. She wasn't sure that we have a problem in that area unless somebody has been in contact with one of the other Councilmembers. Motion CC-88-131 carried 3-2 (COUNCILMEMBERS EVANS AND GRANT VOTED NOE). Quadrant 4 Mayor Matteson stated the boundaries for Quadrant 4 will be north of Barton Road, west of Mt. Vernon to the freeway, it covers from the liquor store, that whole section down to the freeway and everything north of Barton Road. He reported having two items of concern on this one. One, the down zoning from R-3 to R-2 on Mt. Vernon for the apartments; the other one is low density, it could be R-1 or R-2, located on the corner of Barton Road and Canal, down zoning that from C-2 to AP. Councilmember Evans stated as it stands right now Mr. Bill Darwin owns two parcels on the northwest corner of Barton Road and Canal, if he reads this correctly, he is in an AP Zone, is that correct? Community Development Director replied staff has been interpreting that as an AP Zone, pointing out that if you look at the map, it has two designations that are Council Minutes - 06/23/88 Page 17 very similar to each other and when the map was drawn up they were not divided or separated and identified as separate pieces, so on our zoning map, yes, it is identified as AP and that is how we've looked at it during the staff review of the General Plan. Councilmember Evans believed there was other correspondence in reference to the areas between Vivienda and Canal, north of Barton Road, that's the AP, and thought that many of those people would like to see that go commercial. Community Development Director Sawyer replied he was only aware of Mr. Darwin's request to have that changed to commercial, indicating there was another request received up north along Vivienda Avenue and at the corner of Vivienda Court in the residential area that they had requested their lot be changed first to commercial property and then subsequently to a higher density residential property designation. Councilmember Evans stated Council received some correspondence from Mr. Lee Grable of Grable Company, dated June 15, 1988, indicating his specific concern is the median along Barton Road. He also sent a copy to Mr. Bill McKeever, Civil Engineer. Councilmember Evans asked Mr. McKeever if he knew what Mr. Grable's position is as far as the land -use designation in that area? Mr. Bill McKeever, 12714 Blue Mt. Court, replied they would like to retain a commercial designation on that property. Councilmember Evans stated in your opinion, and I'm assuming that what is currently AP would be changed to commercial designation. The response was, we would like to see that, yes. Mayor Matteson asked the Consultant to give his opinion on this particular area. Mr. Ross Geller stated they had proposed an office designation, explaining there was an awful lot of commercial along the Barton Road corridor, so to balance with the other services, there are established offices in the area, they proposed to continue offices between Canal and Vivienda. He pointed out other things that were worthy to note in terms of the office designation in the General Plan, indicating when you get into the zoning aspect, the AP Zone does allow some types of commercial use, so it's not exclusive all Council Minutes - 06/23/88 Page 18 office type uses, although, the overall balance is intended to be offices. Councilmember Shirley asked what type of commercial uses were compatible with that? Community Development Director Sawyer explained that the permitted uses that are allowed in the AP Zone are different types of offices, and with the Conditional Use Permit, you can have a Veterinarian Clinic, Mortuaries, clubs, restaurants and various retail stores, including a bakery, barber shop, book stores, beauty shop, candy stores, clothes, cleaning establishments, hardware, drug store, florist, jewelry stores, shoe stores, tailors, photographers. *so Mayor Matteson pointed out that it opens it up quite a bit. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen asked if it was zoned C-2 commercial, can offices with lesser use be put into a C-2 Zone? Community Development Director Sawyer replied that our C-2 Zone allows professional offices to go in, but it does not allow some of the other types of offices such as medical offices or dental offices. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen questioned doctors and dentists are not considered professionals? Community Development Director Sawyer replied, not according to our codes, explaining that it is broken down in a very general sense for the C-2 use and then in our AP Zone is is broken down very detailed and fine, it does call out a professional office as a permitted use in an AP Zone and then goes down and identifies medical and dental offices as a more sub -category of professional offices, so then interpreting the code in order to be consistent throughout the code, we would then read the fact that the C-2 Zone is allowing professional offices, we would interpret it to mean that it would be just the type of professional offices that would not include medical and professional.... Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen asked what offices are we talking about? The response was retail offices, insurances offices, real estate offices, financial investment offices. Council Minutes - 06/23/88 Page 19 Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen reported having a letter from Bill Darwin regarding properties that are in the area that we are discussing at the present time. Bill was here at the last public hearing and she stated it was her understanding that he was not going to be able to be here for this one. She read the correspondence received from Mr. Darwin regarding the two properties (approximately 1 1.4 acres) located at 22324 Barton Road and 22310 Barton Road, north west corner Barton Road and Canal Street. A copy of the correspondence will be filed in the City Clerk's Department. She felt that we definitely need retail commercial more than we need more office spaces to set open and hoped that Council would allow that property to remain in C-2. Councilmember Grant felt that Mr. McKeever and Mr. Darwin have certainly attempted to set this Council straight on the reasonableness of commercial development in the area which is being proposed for office commercial. He agreed that this town is saturated with empty offices that are not being filled up and the rates that are being charged for available office space is going down in a desperate attempt to fill them. He agreed we are in desperate need of retail and sales tax in this community and felt that that part of Barton Road was very appropriate for this purpose. He opposed the recommendation that was indicated here by the Consultant for office commercial and would support general commercial. He stated that Mr. and Mrs. Darwin had also indicated to other areas of concern to them and the part of their concern that interested him the most is the large number of multi -family dwellings according to their statement, on the north side of McClarren Street. He asked if it was correct that out of the 13 lots 7 are duplexes? Mayor Matteson stated that this will be addressed in the Zoning .... Councilmember Grant replied he realized that, he would just pretty much like to .... Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen felt that Councilmember Grant had a point, that we are talking about land use designation, they are designating this as a single-family use and .... Mayor Matteson replied, no they are not, they are designating as low density which could be R-1 or R-2. Council Minutes - 06/23/88 Page 20 Councilmember Evans asked the Community Development Director to clarify that, does it make much difference if it is reflected R-1 or R-2? Community Development Director Sawyer replied, no not at the General Plan level. The General Plan low density residential designation would then allow us to zone property either R-1, R-140, R-172, R-120 zone or R-2. He explained that the difference between our low density designation and our medium density designation is basically, the medium density is going to be zoned R-3, pointing out that we have all the flexibility that's remaining in the code for the low density. Mayor Matteson questioned so we do have to consider this other parcel whether it's going to be low density or medium density in this General Plan, is that correct, the one on Mt. Vernon that we have changed here showing that it is reduced to R-2 property? Councilmember Evans, speaking to the Community Development Director, stated that Mr. Darwin indicates that the current zone on his parcels is C-2 and I thought you said it is AP, what is it? Community Development Director Sawyer replied, in preparing the General Plan that is before Council tonight, we did not go back and research the history of every single parcel in the City, we worked off of the Zoning Map and the Zoning Map indicates that that parcel is AP. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated that the General Plan, if you go back and you do research it, you will find that that was clearly designated as C-2 and there was discussion as regards to that corner at that time. CC-88-132 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER EVANS, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER GRANT, that that strip currently designated between Canal, Vivienda and Barton Road, north to whatever the distance would be, currently AP, move that it reflect general commercial. Mayor Matteson asked him to repeat those boundaries, are you talking about Vivienda on up to Canal or are you talking .... Councilmember Evans stated Canal west of Vivienda, the north side of Barton Road what is currently designated in AP or office commercial. Mayor Matteson asked regarding the doctors office down there, would he be in a non -conforming use? Council Minutes - 06/23/88 Page 21 Community Development Director Sawyer replied, we are now, changing o wito s our we are rcurrent interpreting codhe the cwoul d right be now, y non -conforming. Mayor Matteson asked if that would prohibit him from every selling his practice? Community Development Director Sawyer replied, no, not according to the you we are sell the use aseting t e useiur s non-conforming use, can currently. Mayor Matteson asked if it prohibits him from any expansions. The response was, any major expansion, yes. Councilmember Shirley asked if we changed that to C-2 would that mean there would be no restaurants in that area? The response was, it would allow restaurants. Councilmember Shirley questioned if it would allow some of the other things that the AP would allow, such as, bakery, small retail store? Community Development Director Sawyer explained that what we are talking about now is changing it to a general retail use which would allow all of those uses plus more, it would restrict some of the office type uses that could go in there, but the general every day business offices would be allowed in there. 4, Councilmember Grant stated that in terms of capability and technicality, he would like to extend, and hoped that the maker of the motion would be willing to modify the motion to also provide for that part of the land at the corner of Canal and Barton to extend to McClarren adjacent to Canal. Councilmember Evans pointed out that that has already been designated. Motion CC-132 carried 5-0. Mayor Matteson stated that the next item is the density between Mt. Vernon and Canal. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen inquired if that was before City site, feeling it was time that the City Attorney brief the people in the audience on what's happening on that site. Council Minutes - 06/23/88 Page 22 Councilmember Evans requested City Attorney Hopkins to give the potential on that site of what it is right now. City Attorney Hopkins reported that the Superior Court upheld the petition of Forest City versus Grand Terrace, indicating that the City Council in the past through contract had approved the development of the apartment project known as Phase II and that they can, therefore, in accordance with that judgment, proceed with the development. That would be in non-conformance with the General Plan designation which is proposed R-1. However, they may proceed, in fact, the judgment would be prior to your changing the designation to R-1 and so it would be in conformance with the current General Plan and that's what the judgment indicates that it would proceed with the proposal as approved by the Planning Commission in September 1987. If the judgment stands and you do not appeal it then, or if you appeal it and the judgment is upheld, then that would not be in conformance, it would be a non -conforming use to the General Plan. However, it would proceed if that continues, with or without the change of designations. Mayor Matteson asked how did he suggest Council should proceed this evening? City Attorney Hopkins replied that unfortunately the Council has not made a determination as to what they want to do with the judgment, but felt it ought to continue as the current designation and not be changed. Councilmember Grant stated that Council has not really made a decision on what we are going to do as a result of this decision by this one judge. In terms of what a person's chance is and the probabilities of success on appeal, you can go by the educated advice and opinion of those that we depend on and you can make a decision based on that or make a decision on the fact that it would be a different court, a court of a higher level, you will have to take into consider the other extenuating side affects that could result whether we pursue this beyond the decision of this court or remain where we are succumb to this decision, it's a legal decision and at this moment it certainly has very binding qualities to it. We are being asked as result of that information from the court to permit this Phase II area, which the people of this community made very clear that they did not want apartments there. We are being asked now to continue that present zoning due to the decision of this court and what the repercussion Council Minutes - 06/23/88 Page 23 could conceivably be for this City if we do not choose to do that. He felt we have fought long and hard to prevent that, explaining that he was not prepared to change his last vote on this, he was firm and he would like this to continue to be as is proposed in the General Plan Land Use Map, and that it should continue to be a down -zoned to R-1. Notwithstanding what we may find out and discuss in the next several days or whenever the Council again convenes, he was not prepared to change his mind and was still opposed to that area being multi -family. City Attorney Hopkins said the he did not know if it substantial or any affect because if the development proceeds and it stays as R-1, all we have is a designation, it's not conforming, if you change the land use zoning to R-1, then you have a non -conforming development so that they could not substantially expand it. Quite frankly, the Phase II is expanded to its ultimate in any event so the perpetuity would simply be a non -conforming use. Councilmember Grant stated that is true, what he is saying is that they may very well build apartments on land that has been designated as single-family dwelling s and if that ultimately occurs, so be it, he will bedisappointed and unhappy, but that's the way it goes. In the meantime, until this Council decides on what it's going to do in terms of an appeal, he was not prepared to throw in the towel on this. Mayor Matteson reported on having a special meeting on Monday to decide which way we are going to go, we are going to adjourn this meeting to that meeting. We can hold this one item off and make the decision at that time after our decision on which way we are going to go. Councilmember Shirley stated that in light of the input that we've had from this town and input from our legal council, if the court mandates that we allow the apartments in there, they are going to go in there anyway and she would like to place her vote with the desires of the people of this community and maintain that as a low -density area at this time. Mayor Matteson stated so then our decision will be after we decide whether or not we are going to appeal it and if we are going to appeal it, then we can down -zone it at Monday night's meeting. Council Minutes - 06/23/88 Page 24 Community Development Director Sawyer stated regarding Quadrant 4, he was asking Council to consider that we've got a small portion of the north side of Barton Road as AP, that's Town & Country Center and that's the only piece of property on Barton Road that's left AP in that area. You may want to consider continuing the C-2 Zoning through there. That center has been designed for AP -type uses. However, there's a mixture in there now and he was aware of only on dental office that sits in there now that would be affected by any non -conforming uses, so before we pass, since we've made the change further down the street, you may want to consider that. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen asked because the dentist is already there and he's professional, can he stay? Community Development Director Sawyer replied, he would be a non -conforming use just as the dentist would be that's further up that we just changed. Mayor Matteson stated that he was in favor of this, his concern is are we going to lock out all of the AP and limit any medical facility that wants to come into the City. Community Development Director Sawyer replied, we would be doing that in that area right there, but when we redo the Zoning Code we can change the C-2 to allow more of those uses to come in there. We would be putting a limitation on it temporarily until we look at the C-2 Zone, we can adjust the C-2 Zone to allow the uses that you feel would be appropriate in it. CC-88-133 MOTION MATTESON, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER GRANT, CARRIED 5-0, to change that to C-2 to conform with the rest of Barton Road. Quadrant 5 Mayor Matteson explained that Quadrant 5 would be from Barton Road south, from Michigan west, to the county line and to the freeway. He suggested starting from the southside with the Thompson property. He explained that at the present time it is industrial and the General Plan is recommending that we go residential. Councilmember Shirley stated that in light of what is already on that property and the magnitude of the development there she would highly recommend that the remain light industrial. Council Minutes - 06/23/88 Page 25 Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen asked if the owner of the property is requesting that it be down -zoned to a lesser use which would be retail commercial, if indeed that does happen, she would like to call to Council attention that valuable retail sales tax dollars are sitting immediately across the street with 146 new homes coming in and many hundreds more potential with no place to shop and they could realistically leave their tax dollars in the City of Grand Terrace and leave no tire marks on our streets. Councilmember Grant concurred with Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen, at least that portion, we are talking about two areas, the narrative indicates three, but on our Land Use Map there are two, but that portion specifically adjacent to Michigan would be extremely valuable commercial property and we have a tremendous customer to the south of this county line and felt it would be a great idea. Mayor Matteson felt that parcel should be split because you already have an industrial unit going down in the east end and if we made it all commercial, they would be non -conforming. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated she was talking strictly about the vacant ten acres. Councilmember Grant concurred with Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen. Mr. Ross Geller stated that there was a lot of discussion at the Planning Commission relative to changing that particular parcel to commercial use and when it came up, ten acres is a substantial shopping center, we are not talking really talking about our Stater Bros. with a Oscar Drug, ten acres is a lot of land to fill up in terms of commercial use and it's above a community level shopping center in terms of the size of that parcel, so that's something else that should be considered rather than a blanket change on that whole entire parcel, it is a big parcel and would take a lot of commercial uses and a substantial center there to fill up a ten acre parcel. Mayor Matteson asked Mr. Thompson and Mr. Lewis if they would address this issue, you requested that to become commercial, what is your purpose. Mr. Lewis stated that Mr. Tom Thompson, of Caldwell Bank, was present and they were requesting that Lots 57, 58 & 59, which are presently industrial use, be left as is, indicating if the Council wants to buffer that industrial use property with a commercial use, Council Minutes - 06/23/88 Page 26 they have an excellent chance. He suggested designating vacant lot 60 at the corner of Michigan and Main as commercial which would in term offer to the area an additional possibility for commercial development and thereby bring the tax dollars that you are looking for. He felt we had enough bedrooms here, but you could use commercial and that is a good spot for it to serve that area that Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen has indicated that there is going to be a need for some commercial property. He stated that Mr. Thompson .... Mr. Thompson stated that ten acres is too big for commercial, but that's alright, lets keep it simple and we will deal with that when it comes up, we will leave the Inland Lumber Company property as a industrial property as it is and perhaps we can develop some commercial there for the benefit of Grand Terrace in the future. Mayor Matteson stated it does work out as a good buffer even if it may not ever develop as such because of the problems we've had with the residential homes against that lumber yard already. CC-88-134 5-0, toleaveOtheA luEmber ya dONiOndustrOiUa CIa dMBhe northwestCcorneDr 5 0, commercial. Edison Property Mayor Matteson indicated the Edison property located between Van Buren and Pico. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated there is one portion of the Edison property that was recommended to be residential and the other part of it is a park and the other part of it is heavily impacted with easements and the remainder is a buffer or expansion property for Southern California Edison. Mayor Matteson asked for some boundaries. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated we are talking about the Edison property north of Pico, between Van Buren and Pico, the portion that they have zoned residential is the little flip part over to the east. Mayor Matteson stated that is accepted, but we can still put the park in a residential zone, right. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen replied it doesn't make sense, in the first place it is theirs and they are leasing it to us, we don't own it, so it's kind of ridiculous to her to take one little piece of their Council Minutes - 06/23/88 Page 27 property, designate it as residential on a piece of property that is not big enough to develop residentially and have the rest of it industrial, it's nonsense, the rest of the Edison property needs to remain as industrial, that's the kind of use they are never going to do anything else with it. Mayor Matteson stated that they were not requesting it to be industrial, they are requesting it to be a business park. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen replied, no, Edison Company is requesting that it is industrial. Mr. Geller, pointed out that the terms of zoning, which are going to implement the business park, the City has not even taken that step to define what is allowable and what is not allowable in a business park designation. A good example of that is the discussion we just had with the general commercial versus the AP in the zoning at the next level. We found out through the Community Development Director's research that a lot of commercial uses are allowed within the AP Designation and felt before throwing everything out, the overall plan for this area is to create a commerce center for the City for the long-term viability of the City and that's what the plan proposes. He stated that the exact detail in terms of designs, terms of size of buildings, terms of allowable uses, there is nothing to say that when you start creating a development standard, you can't allow something that Edison might want to do with the property in the future, allowed within that zone, it's wide open right now. He felt in the overall sense, everything west of Michigan Avenue, we are really talking about a concept. Are we going to save this for future development or some sort of employment base and taxes for the City or are we going to start cutting the he whole area up and allow other things to happen. stated this is a long-term plan and we haven't worked out the specifics of how it's going to come together; when it's going to come together; if there was going to be any special conditions for the existing residents there, explaining that's all zoning, that's all at the next level. He felt first and foremost, we have to decide whether we think this is a good idea and if we don't think it's a good idea and you don't want any employment base in the City and you don't want additional tax base in the City, then it probably is a good ideal to go ahead and start chopping the whole area up and forgetting about the concept. If the concept has any viability at all, you still have Council Minutes - 06/23/88 Page 28 additional levels of review; they are still going to work with the Community Devlopment Director in creating a zoning specifying what's allowed there; the manner in which it's going to be allowed there; whether the Redevelopment Agency is going to get involved; what level of involvement the agency is going to have and to see a program for an equal transition for this area into the future. He felt none of that stuff has been tied down now and all we are talking about is basically a concept. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen felt it is a stinking plan and she did not like the business park concept period, and why put a designation that will never become a reality for the simple reason that the amount of land necessary to make it successful and viable does not exist. She stated there is a whole area in the Edison property and you can't do anything because of the high -power lines, it just tears that property up, it's vacant sitting in the center of it. If we talk about listening to the people and the people that have testified up to this point about the area from Van Buren to DeBerry, have expressed their opinion that they would like to see that area remain or go to residential. She stated that the members of this Council have to decide what people it is that they listen to. Councilmember Evans reported that in 1979 shortly after we incorporated, there was a course of action that was set upon by the powers to be at that particular time, to bring in major commercial development to this City, massive scale development into this City. He felt that that type of development was going to radically impact the type of character of this City, bring a lot of problems to this City, maybe bring in some money, questioned whether or not it would, but we need to take a look at commercial development that is compatible with our size. This was blown totally out of proportion, we are now asked to take a look at a concept, if you are dealing with just straight, pure, undeveloped vacant land, maybe the concept is good. However, we are now being asked to do something again major called business park development which he felt would have a negative impact as to what the character of Grand Terrace is all about and if it's residential he did not feel it was a crime to emphasize residential development. He felt that when you drew this plan up you did not get the pulse of this City and if he reads the general concensus of the community correctly, there is nothing wrong with residential development, they want to retain that atmosphere and anything that we Council Minutes - 06/23/88 Page 29 bring in of a massive scale would change that, therefore, he could not support the business park concept. Councilmember Grant concurred that the business park is an inappropriate recommendation and would be an inappropriate action for this Council to take for several reasons. He agreed that the realization and the fulfillment of such a project would be in such a distant future that we may not even be around when that kind of thing materializes. He felt more important to him is the recommendation of the geography of this business park, feeling the recommendation to go right up to Michigan was nonsense. He felt if you would like have anything, whether it be business park or commercial or anything of that nature, it certainly should not go that far to the east. He has heard and believes that the business park is not going to provide the type of revenue that this little community desperately needs. It's not designed for that purpose. You are not going to get sales and use taxes out of that kind of thing. He felt one way to alleviate this thing was to first ask ourselves if we want residential, if so, do we want apartments down there, explaining that hasn't been proposed and he did not know of any Councilmember who was proposing that, but it's not too far, we are seeing it now happening on the north area. He explained that he was not in favor of this kind of proposal for a business park at all, particularly to the area to the east up to Michigan, pointing out that those people and houses are going to be there for a long time to come and the idea of doing that is unrealistic. Mayor Matteson stated that it made sense to him and if you look at the overall plan, it is very sound and a very well planned thing, but the problem is you are dealing with the human element and they are the ones who put us here and they are the ones who want us to answer for them and so we have to respond to that. He felt the concept was great and could concur with Mr. Geller. Councilmember Shirley concurred with Mayor Matteson indicating liking the idea of the business park, taking into consideration what he just said and the Consultant just said about the zoning which would, if it ever happens, determine the use of that business park. She stated she liked the idea of maintaining a large composite price of real estate within Grand Terrace for some type of future development, but she has to concur totally with what the Mayor has said because the people Council Minutes - 06/23/88 Page 30 of Grand Terrace have spoken and after all, we all live here and this is our town. She stated that she liked the concept, but felt for Grand Terrace it is not the time and place for it. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated it is true that when we are dealing with present problems and current developments that will exist well into the time and past the time when your plan is to be in affect. She explained that if indeed IBM or whatever large corporation came in saying that they would like to locate in Grand Terrace and they wanted all of the property west of Michigan, south of DeBerry and north of Van Buren and could convince all of those people that they wanted to sell to them and would give them what it was that they were asking, they could immediately come to Council and request a General Plan Amendment and they could put in their business park facility. Mayor Matteson disagreed. Mr. Geller stated in the planning efforts the first step is the land use and everything filters down after that, pointing out that there has been a lot of concern about non -conforming aspects. He explained and listed the system of implementation that has to be taken, indicating that the General Plan is a long-term land use tool, it sets out the direction, it's a statement. He explained that the point he wanted to make was that there are a lot of tools that are available to Council after there is an agreement. He stated that there are ways to placate everybody and if you wanted to work your way through as a recommendation to the Planning Commission, there's ways to deal with existing residential areas and setting up a phasing program which is the last area after everything's developed and projected in terms of buffers and development of the area based on the development standards that haven't been established yet. He stated there is a lot of planning that needs to be done, so in his own defense he has thought that through. Councilmember Evans stated that in concept, he agreed with all of Mr. Geller's comments made as far as the different vehicles, indicating that one vehicle, City's RDA. He stated that this City, as far as the Redevelopment Agency, can't do dilly -squat and the reason for that is that the Redevelopment Agency has over a $2,000,000.00 debt to the City. He stated that with the size of the City, it takes a lot of what we are going to be able to do so whatever course of action Council Minutes - 06/23/88 Page 31 we set out, we have to think it out very thoroughly. He stated that this year is the first year that the City did not have to loan to the RDA money to make its payment on this Civic Center and over the next 10 to 20 years they are going to have to start paying back the principal on that loan, that's money that will be able to go into the General Fund to help provide services and some of the other major projects. Although in concept he could agree with everything Mr. Geller said, in reality you don't understand the pulse of this City and what you have presented to us is not going to resolve those problems. Mayor Matteson told Mr. Geller that part of this is the lack of knowledge and experience on this City Council to put the programs in effect that you are talking about like some of the neighboring cities have and one of the reasons is we are a small city and we don't have that expertise. Mr. Geller stated there is a contradiction even in what Councilmember Evans said, and just based on the fact that we had commercial there in the past, we know that that doesn't work, yes it produces sales tax dollars, but what's the reality in terms of the cost of the benefit to see a regional shopping center happen there, we know that's not going to happen. We know that residential is going to be a further burden on the revenues of the City in terms of providing services in the long term. His concept, even though we haven't decided on how we are going to do it, what manner we are going to do it, is to do something that does produce revenues for the City, does produce a daytime population to spend money in the City; and it's an alternate to (a) it's not going to happen and (b) it's going to be a further burden on the City. Mayor Matteson indicated the area north of DeBerry between Michigan and the freeway. The area that the Consultant has recommended be all commercial. He stated that the Planning Commission gave an alternate, cutting out that corner at DeBerry and Michigan as residential area. CC-88-135 MOTION BY MAYOR MATTESON, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER GRANT, to accept that area as the Planning Commission has provided us, Alternate 2 for that particular area. Councilmember Evans asked Mrs. Dotson if her parcel of land was currently on Alternate No. 2, general commercial? Council Minutes - 06/23/88 Page 32 Councilmember Evans stated that's what is being proposed. Patricia Dotson, 21974 DeBerry, I am also representing our mother Helen Dotson, 21992 DeBerry. Councilmember Evans stated in your letter that we received in April 1988, you indicated that you were in objection to the change from R-1 to commercial on your property. The response was, "right." Councilmember Evans stated right now, today, have you changed your position on that. The response was "yes." Councilmember Evans asked what was her position in reference to her property? Mrs. Dotson replied, they want it to go ahead and be zoned commercial. Motion CC-88-135 carried 5-0. Edison Property Mayor Matteson indicated the Edison property, 40 acres between Van Buren and Pico. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated that Edison owns a piece of property adjacent to the Thompson property on the south side of Pico. Mayor Matteson stated that we just want to address the part that is proposed to be changed. r CC-88-136 MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM PFENNIGHAUSEN, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER SHIRLEY, CARRIED 5-0, that the Edison property located between Van Buren and Pico be zoned light industrial, therefore maintaining consistency with the rest of their property. Mayor Matteson indicated the property between Van Buren and DeBerry and Michigan west. Community Development Director Sawyer asked for clarification of the property from the last motion. Mayor Matteson replied that the Edison property remains as it was. Community Development Director Sawyer stated all of the Edison properties.... Mayor Matteson said industrial, south of Van Buren, it was light industrial before, was it not? Council Minutes - 06/23/88 Page 33 Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen replied at one time it was commercial and they requested it be changed back and she thought they were told we were going to do a General Plan Update, indicating not being sure that what you are being told is true. Community Development Director Sawyer made indications on the map. Mayor Matteson stated that the Planning Commission had recommended that that be industrial also so that 2e don't have that break in there, on Alternate No. He asked Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen if that was her motion. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated that her motion was for all of the Edison property be light industrial, so whatever that includes, that includes. Mayor Matteson asked if the second concurred on that? Councilmember Shirley replied, "yes." Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated that the Wilden property and the Harber property is presently light industrial and her motion would include for that to remain as such. City Engineer Kicak stated that beginning just west of Garden Street where you have, just north of Pico and west of Garden, the residential development, that little yellow strip right there (indicating to the map), that's Edison property, and there is one parcel that does not belong to Harber or Edison and that is that thin parcel just to the right (making indication on the map). Councilmember Shirley stated that the second concurred with that. Motion CC-88-136 carried 5-0. Mayor Matteson referenced the area between Van Buren and DeBerry. Councilmember Shirley stated that in light of what the Consultant has said about phasing in the project, she would like to know if there was someway that we could make a phased -in plan that would move from the west to the east, leaving the existing residential for last. She asked if we could make an overlap of the existing residences so that they could be R-1 or business park Council Minutes - 06/23/88 Page 34 or whatever designation, indicating liking the idea of keeping the vacant land there a composite so that it could be used as a large whatever rather than breaking it up into small pieces, but also keeping the existing residences at this time and for as long as they want it with the ability to sell them as residences. Mr. Geller replied, that he was not going to give a yes or no answer, you have asked a very complex question with a lot of components to it. He said the way to accomplish what you are saying is to not make any changes on the majority of the residential properties today, leave them as they exist today, not even as they exist because in a great extent a lot of them are already non -conforming, but try to come up with some logical boundaries that leave the residential closer to Michigan designated low -density residential. He stated that the areas where the large vacant parcels are, you're going with this light industrial category, perhaps when you go through the zoning you could specify a minimum parcel site so that you don't see a little 1-acre or 1/2-acre industrial type project going in there and chop the area up. He stated that the first step would be to save or create a Specific Plan that ties all of that property together. The larger parcels through a designation, and as the area expands and develops and interest gains in the area, then you can start looking at re -designating some of those residential areas, that is the only way to do it at this point. Mayor Matteson stated you can do a Specific Plan overlay for the larger parcels. Community Development Director Sawyer replied that he did not know if overlay would be the right terminology. He felt that Mr. Geller was saying that we would zone it industrial and then develop a Specific Plan to cover how that property is to develop and in what phases, timing and manners .... Mayor Matteson asked Mr. Geller if he was saying that the residential along Michigan be residential? Mr. Geller said he was saying if that is Council's direction. He explained that the question was "is there a way that we can phase it." He felt that the Planning Commission or at one of the earlier Council meetings, we talked about a concept similar to that, indicating to focus in on an area, plant the seed for the type of development that we are looking for. Council Minutes - 06/23/88 Page 35 Mr. Geller agreed with Councilmember Shirley that if you are going to do it, do it on a level where you are going to create some significant development that's going to provide for the future. Mayor Matteson reported that that block has multiple -residential, commercial, single-family residential and light industrial, how do you handle that. Mr. Geller asked how is it shown right now. Community Development Director Sawyer replied, it is C-2, it's a mix. He stated that right now the General Plan and the Zoning Map shows the majority of it as the C-2 with the CPD Overlay and a small 10-acre portion of that overall block is residential. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated that since the Dotson's have expressed an interest in having their property commercial and if you would come straight down past their property going along the U-Store, straight down taking all of the properties east of that where the major portion of them are residential of some sort with the exception of Lee Swertferger, who should be allowed to run his trucks in and out. The little store on the corner that does a vital service by giving some place for the Wilden and the Harber people and everybody to go and get their afternoon refreshments, that we could have all of that property west of that line as industrial or whatever it is we want to call that. Commerce Way for the time being should be stopped at DeBerry until something opens up in that area, stating Council has already voted to take the trailer park out and we have given no place to put it. Mayor Matteson replied we have not taken the trailer park out, there are no plans for there and until we come across that, I think you are misinforming the people when you tell them that. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen asked where are you going to put them? Mayor Matteson replied we will have a developer come in and make a plan, then we will work on that, but to say right now, take it out because it's commercial, felt it was irresponsible. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated she was not saying take the people out, I'm saying where are you going to take the people when you take it out. Council Minutes - 06/23/88 Page 36 Mayor Matteson replied when we come to a developer that wants to put a project in, then that's what we will have to work on. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated if you've no place to put them, what are you going to do? Mayor Matteson jokingly replied, "kill them," explaining that when the problem comes up, you take care of the problem, you can give hypothetical solutions for all of these things all around, that trailer park might be there forty years from now, we don't know that, just because we zone something doesn't mean it's going to be developed. Mayor Matteson asked what was the plan to make the area 41I closest boarding Michigan R-1? Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen indicated on the map what she was referencing. Mayor Matteson indicated having a problem with that corner on Van Buren and Michigan, pointing out you've got commercial in there; trucking company; it should be commercial in there with the trucking company, Swertfeger's property should be commercial and on down to the corner. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen suggested not changing what's existing in there, leave it the way it is, Lee should be able to run his trucks until IBM wants to buy his property. Mayor Matteson replied if you took .that corner, the horizontal line that runs up to Michigan, we took the one side and made it residential and the other side commercial. He asked the Community Development Director to go to the map and point to that horizontal line that runs to Michigan all the way down to the south, follow the white line south, indicating everything above that is residential and everything below that should be commercial. City Manager Schwab replied which is exactly what is in the existing General Plan if you look up there. Community Development Director Sawyer suggested changing our thinking of what the business park is and change the emphases of it from large corporations to a retail commerce, we can then consider the small properties that you are talking about on the east side of the yellow line that we've just drawn. He stated we Council Minutes - 06/23/88 Page 37 could go basically with what the General Plan is now, we can establish the upper residential as residential and the commercial as not a CPD regional shopping center commercial, but we can establish it as a commercial ...., we can come up with a name for it, for a new designation and in our General Plan it could be just commercial, just as it is now. Mayor Matteson asked the Community Development Director to go to the map and show them exactly what he is talking about. Community Development Director Sawyer indicated it on the map. CC-88-137 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SHIRLEY, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER GRANT, CARRIED 4-1 (COUNCILMEMBEP EVANS VOTED NOE), to LEAVE IT ALONE AND COME UP WITH A NEW DESIGNATION AT THE TIME OF THE ZONING CHANGE. Councilmember Evans stated for clarification, you are going to have that small pocket again surrounded by commercial in what would be the southeast quadrant. Community Development Director Sawyer replied, both the southeast quadrants, there would be two pockets adjacent, that area is going to be surrounded by commercial. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated for clarification, so she understood that what is residential has remained residential. 4W Community Development Director Sawyer replied that all of the residential property in that quadrant that we are talking about that was zoned residential is still zoned residential with the exception of the Dotsons. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated so all of the other residential uses that exist now .... Community Development Director Sawyer replied, not necessary uses, but zoned property. Barton Road Mayor Mattesor stated that the recommendation is to go Circulation to a 120 feet. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated Mrs. Perkins' property now is commercial and all of the people along Van Buren are commercial. Council Minutes - 06/23/88 Page 38 Community Development Director Sawyer pointed out some of the things he felt that needed to be covered (indicating on the map). All of the properties that are zoned residential in this area are still going to be zoned residential with the exception of the Dotson's property, there are, however, scattered residential properties that are now non -conforming that are located in that area. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen replied, yes, everything from the meat locker west. Community Development Director Sawyer explained this larger area here (indicating on map) one house on this one piece of property, two duplexes on this small piece of property and one house on this large piece of r property and we've got ten units here that are now going to be commercial and have been commercial, no changes, they are still non -conforming. Lee Swertfeger, stated that Fran Carter to the north of him wanted her property commercial also. Mayor Matteson replied that, yes, hers is commercial. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen reported that she liked her line the way she drew it in the beginning and if there is anyway, I'm going to withdraw my vote from that approval. She felt that line needed to be clean all the way down just the way she had it before, without coming around the corner. She stated she would prefer to see Mr. Swertfeger run his trucking business non -conforming because he is still going to run trucks and he can do that forever or until he decides to do something major industrial on the property, so I withdraw my vote from that because I'm supportive of the residential all the way down to Van Buren. Mayor Matteson referenced the Barton Road circulation. Councilmember Evans asked if a motion was needed on the area just discussed. The response was, "yes." CC-88-138 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER EVANS, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER SHIRLEY, CARRIED 5-0 to remain residential. Mayor Matteson asked Community Development Director Sawyer to address the Barton Road Circulation. Council Minutes - 06/23/88 Page 39 Community Development Director Sawyer stated that staff's, as well as the General Plan Consultant's and Planning Commission's recommendation was that Barton Road be widened to 120 feet, but since then, they have met in a workshop session and with the concensus of the property owners was recommending 100 feet. He stated staff also is now recommending a 100 foot right-of-way for Barton Road, as long as the six lanes previously talked about are obtained. CC-88-139 MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM PFENNIGHAUSEN, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER EVANS, CARRIED 5-0, that the ultimate right-of-way on Barton Road be developed to 100 feet, therefore, continuing with the area that we've already improved, and that no median be installed in that area. 4W Recessed at 8:40 p.m. Reconvened at 8:50 p.m. Mayor Matteson indicated that the next item would be the circulation on Commerce Way, Michigan south. Councilmember Shirley stated before going to that she would like to re -address Sector 2 and finish the vote on that so that we get the .... Mayor Matteson stated Quadrant 4. Councilmember Shirley stated Quadrant 4, which is the area north of Barton Road and west of Mt. Vernon to the freeway. Mayor Matteson asked the parcels that are being recommended for low residential. 4r CC-88-140 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SHIRLEY, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER GRANT, that it be accepted as designated with the changes that we've already made. Councilmember Grant asked for clarification of what Councilmember Shirley was saying. Councilmember Shirley stated that what was recommended go to low -density residential, go in as low -density residential. Councilmember Evans stated that whole area is a very complicated problem and it has now been intensified with the lawsuit that has been adjudicated against us and saying that apartments are going to go in there no matter what. So, it's academic what we put in there, it will be up to this Council to decide to appeal the decision. He stated that the appeal in itself creates some potential problems for us financially and something that each one of us is going to have to Council Minutes - 06/23/88 Page 40 decide whether or not we want to take the risk. He reported that the whole problem goes back to 1984 when the Council adopted the General Plan that allowed the apartments to start. They should have had the courage once that plan had been made to tell the people why that area was zoned multi -family. They have deceived the people for the past four years, they should have at least had the courage to tell the people why it has to be multi -family, so he can't support this because of the previous input that went in in 1984 for that General Plan and in light of that lawsuit that has gone against us. Motion CC-88-140 carried 3-2 (Councilmember Evans and Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen voted NOE). ,► Community Development Director Sawyer stated that Alternate No. 2 was the Planning Commission's recommendation. He stated that Alternate No. 1 was the original recommendation that came from the Planning Consultant and staff and went to the Planning Commission and that was Commerce Way be aligned to come down through this (indicating on the map), the property alignment that is existing now all the way to Main Street. There would be a secondary highway and be designed to make the traffic that was generated from this area of industrial uses off of Michigan; Michigan would then be reduced from a secondary highway down to the major collector past Commerce Way, that went to the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission then recommended that the alignment remain the same and the width remain the same down to Van Buren; from Van Buren south, the Planning Commission recommended that a Specific Plan be designed and implemented that would determine where Commerce Way should come all the way down to Main Street. They felt it should come to Main Street, but did not know exactly how or where, but that should be determined at a later date. He stated that the Planning Department recommendation at this time, after all that was through remains that the width and alignment be the same as Alternate No. 1 was. We do recognize this is an acceptable alternative and can go with Planning Commission's recommendation. He stated that was before we changed the land use designation in that area and felt that was something we would want to talk about and perhaps question Mr. Hauss regarding the traffic generation whether or not this still needs to be widened, whether or not we still have the intent of taking that traffic off of Michigan. Councilmember Evans asked the current width of the street referring to Commerce Way north of DeBerry? City Engineer Kicak replied, 60 feet. Council Minutes - 06/23/88 Page 41 Councilmember Evans asked what was the recommendation for the street to go to? The response was 64. Councilmember Evans said so we are talking about 4 additional feet, 2 feet on each side. Are you not kind of creating a little squiggly in the road if we went from 60 to 64 to currently where it stops down to DeBerry? Mr. Geller felt the whole aspect of the circulation needs to be re-examined based on the action of this Council today, he felt we had some major changes there. He stated theoretically when the street is built out, it will be 64 feet everywhere, whether there's a need for 64 feet are unknown at this point. r" Councilmember Evans felt it would be a little presumptuous for us to think with the existing infrastructure that is in that will ever go over 64 feet that is currently in from Michigan where it dead ends, don't you. Mr. Geller felt it would depend on the level of activity in that area, to say whether that street needs to be widened, but probably not ..... Councilmember Evans felt realistically anybody that's going to come in with a project will be excused the two feet depending on lot size. He felt as far as Commerce Way is concerned to extend it down to DeBerry we should follow with the consistent 60 foot. Do you have any problems with that? Mr. Geller replied, no. Mayor Matteson questioned why it was designed for 60 feet to begin with, if it requires 64 feet in that area. Mr. Geller explained that the General Plan called for it to be 64 in the previous General Plan, it was built to 60 feet.... Jim Coffin stated that when Walkie & Merrill filed a plan, there was a specific alignment done at that time for Commerce Way and it was decided by the County that that width should be 72 ft. right-of-way and 60 ft. paved section and that was just prior to incorporation and so Walkie proceded with his engineering and built a street that was determined by the County. Council Minutes - 06/23/88 Page 42 Mayor Matteson asked if the County foresaw that street going all the through at the time that they did that? Mr. Coffin replied, yes, they did a specific alignment which went down close to the freeway, the old alignment of Commerce Way, Industrial Way at that time. Mayor Matteson asked why would it require 64 ft. versus 60 ft.? Jerry Hauss, Willdan & Associates, stated that 60 ft. curb -to curb really is an industrial street width, it's mainly based upon providing capacity and turning movement necessities for trucks in an industrial area. He explained that the past General Plan called for it to to be 64 ft. curb -to -curb thinking in terms of it being a commercial street instead of an industrial street. He stated from a realistic standpoint, capacity turning movement and everything concerned, the loss of 2 ft. on each side could be made up of lane width, reduced lane width, prohibiting parking, there are all kinds of solutions to traffic capacity that you can get at least a 4-lane section through on a 60 ft. curb -to curb. Councilmember Evans asked Mr. Hauss if he was saying a 64 ft. width curb -to -curb is for industrial development generally in an area, is that correct? Mr. Hauss felt that has to do with County standards. Councilmember Evans stated that explains why it is 60 ft., because prior to incorporation, the biggest percentage of that area was all designated as industrial, so when their projects came in they were complying with what was in the code at that particular moment. Mr. Hauss stated that if he understood correctly, the man on the floor before him, it was a Specific Plan based probably on the anticipated growth more than just industrial, they probably took into consideration the whole plan. Councilmember but probably asked if he DeBerry. The asked if we The response Council Minutes - 06/23/88 Page 43 Evans replied they show the extension, felt it would build out at 60 ft. He had any problems going to 60 ft. to response was, no. Councilmember Evans could take just that section right now. was, "sure." CC-88-141 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER EVANS, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM PFENNIGHAUSEN, that the section of Commerce Way, if extended to DeBerry, be at the width of 60 ft. curb -to -curb right-of-way and 72 ft. existing right-of-way just to the north curb of what would be DeBerry, and follow the alignment as designated by the Consultant. CC-88-142 MOTION BY MAYOR MATTESON, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER GRANT, CARRIED 4-1 (COUNCILMEMBER EVANS VOTED NOE), to amend the motion to carry it down to Van Buren. Councilmember Evans questioned what was just done. City Attorney Hopkins replied, you voted to amend the motion, we now have an amended motion before you that 60 you need to act on. Councilmember Evans stated you have no problem with 60 ft. to DeBerry right now, is that correct? Mr. Hauss stated that from the original plan, the original study standpoint of what we looked at on traffic generation with the industrial park, the overall situation, I have no problems with the 60 as compared to the 64. The capacity looked at should be able to handle the turning movements with the trucks and everything should be handled with a 72 ft. right-of-way street. However, you, by your action tonight, have changed substantially the anticipated traffic generation for this area starting with the approximate 10-acre site at Main and Michigan, especially the non -change of the existing commercial zone, which I told you previously had a few problems with that situation before on the other plan in taking a look at numbers. For me to say that this 60 ft. will handle the whole situation as we presented to you in the overall plan, I think it's kind of an error, but to say that it will work under the other plan that we submitted as far as land use traffic generation, fine. I do suggest there has been substantial changes different than what we used when we did traffic generation in that area to try to determine the need for both east/west and north/south trips in that area bounded by Michigan west. Councilmember Evans stated so to understand the motion that we are going to be asked to vote on now, is to extend Commerce Way as reflected on the Consultant's plan, down to Van Buren and at 60 feet with a right-of-way. Council Minutes - 06/23/88 Page 44 Mayor Matteson replied, that's right", indicating if the heaviest traffic is going to be at Michigan and Commerce Way, so if it's going to be opened there, the traffic would get less and he could not see widening the street down there. Councilmember Evans stated that the gentleman just said that his traffic studies were done with the business park land use. He is suggesting, if I understand him correctly, that since you have changed the land use, it will necessitate possibly re-evaluating and having a wider street down into that area. He stated his recommendation was going to be to stop Commerce Way at DeBerry and just let any potential developer in the future come in and let them show what the best course would be for Commerce Way because they then would be able to utilize that land and see how the circulation element would fit into their overall development. He suggested instead of going down to Van Buren, we stop it at DeBerry and any future developer ati er then will ill have to present a plan for approval nto consideration the best circulation in that area given the land use. Mayor Matteson stated if we don't designate that that street is going through, somebody could develop in there and block that whole area and then we would never get it through. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen asked if that is true, they can just go in there and do anything, stating we do have ultimate right of review. City Engineer Kicak replied, no, should a development occur anywhere south of DeBerry, the development would have to go through the planning process and the planning process determines what is actually needed in the way of circulation and everything else. It would be more or less a Specific Plan and would have to tie into whatever is in up above. Mayor Matteson asked if it wouldn't be better to show that that street is going to go down there? City Engineer Kicak stated that his major problem of going down to Main Street is what it was doing to the parcels just north of Main Street, but what you are really doing about adopting that particular alignment is ,you are really setting a very specific location for the center -line of Commerce Way even through it's only a General Plan. Council Minutes - 06/23/88 Page 45 Mayor Matteson asked if he felt it was better not to do that? City Engineer Kicak replied if, in fact, we are talking about commercial development in that area, he somewhat agrees that we know that there is no other way to go between Michigan and DeBerry except the way it has been started, and smooth out the curb coming to DeBerry. If there is no large development and the parcels on both sides of that black line south of DeBerry came in, if that line goes down to Van Buren as proposed right now, he would have to request, based on the General Plan, that that parcel dedicate a minimum of half -street and that would be the alignment you would set. If there is no line there, then he felt that determination would be made at the time of the planning process. Community Development Director Sawyer stated that's true and the only problem he can see with that is that you are really going to be putting something on the Planning Commission for an on -the -spot decision whether or not this property should have a road on it or not and if we are not real careful, we can get to the situation where whoever gets in first doesn't have to put the road in and what properties are left to get in last are the ones who are going to get stuck with the road going through it. That's exaggerating, but that would be the problem in not designating a road so that staff would have something to say, yes, the road goes here or at least a general description of it. 6 City Attorney Hopkins stated, in addition, it would be difficult for anyone to deny the development of that property and to require a road if they are consistent with the General Plan, and they would be in that instance, they would be consistent with the General Plan which has no road designated in it. Councilmember Evans stated that he has some problems in taking it down to Van Buren as it is currently reflected, because where does it go south. He stated if you are going to stay with a general commercial designation, there is only one way in off of Michigan and Commerce Way down or down Michigan and then in. He stated if he understood what Mr. Hauss was saying about the land use, it's going to change traffic patterns and there is a very great potential that that will now be designated to 4-lane traffic, is that a safe statement? Council Minutes - 06/23/88 Page 46 Mr. Hauss replied without doing an actual number crunching effort on it, he can't really answer whether 4 lanes is appropriate or not. However, he could see two issues raised by the changes that you've come up with and that is not only the north/south problem, but the east/west. Even if you develop more traffic on Michigan, whatever the situation is, you're still going to have to maybe consider some other alternatives for the east/west streets in that area. Another thing is that the other plan that had a little bit more commercial area in it had an additional freeway The interchange as a mitigation to all of those trips. plan diverted the vast majority of those trips out of that commercial area into that freeway area. All I am saying is that we need to do some number crunching on it before I say what number is necessary as far as the number of lanes. You changed the ball game, attraction of commercial as compared to industrial for the residential on the eastside of Michigan is changed if you make that commercial in there. Councilmember Evans stated that he was convinced that Mr. Hauss' study will show that it has to be 4-lanes and he based that statement on the 1975 General Plan that was done under the County auspices which shows Commerce Way, at that time, going down into that general area and they had designated Michigan with all the residential development still designated as generally this evening, then Michigan would have to be 4-lanes, that's 1975. We incorporated in 1978 and now we come to a General Plan in 1984, felt that between that time there has been consideration for the shopping mall to go in, that you are going to have a 4-lane Commerce Way, feeling they could stay consistent with Michigan. The 1984 General Plan with all this commercial, they show that it's a 4-lane roadway. He felt Mr. Hauss' study will show, given the land use that we have come down with, will go to 4-lanes. That is a concern that he has had all along, if we try to bring major, whether commercial or industrial or call it business development in there and you are going to change the entire completion of things, we are a residential community. Mayor Matteson stated with 60 feet, can you have two -lanes going each way plus the center -divider lane of 12 feet that gives you 60 feet? Mr. Hauss replied you might not want to stripe it that way, but you could have a "5-lane section with no parking." Council Minutes - 06/23/88 Page 47 Mayor Matteson could not conceive requiring any more traffic and any more streets than traffic getting in and out of that area. Mr. Hauss stated when the Community Development Director covered their goal with extending Commerce Way with its connection to Main Street in his beginning statements and the fact that we were trying to use Commerce Way to reduce the impact of traffic on Michigan. He stated he has no idea what you are going to do with Commerce Way south. You've already changed the zoning drastically, as far as the number of trips and the attractive type of trips where they are going to be coming to and from. He felt Council had complicated the issue as far as the number of trips and the amount of trips in that area. Mr. Geller stated to add to that, the commercial designation, if it's a pure commercial designation as we know it and as it has existed in the last four years in that area, there is going to be a substantial change through it, but I heard the Council saying they are looking for some high-grade commercial area, some commercial business park type of area and Jerry is going to have a hard time crunching any numbers until we define exactly what we are talking about for that area or it's going to be run out basically just as the previous study had run it out in terms of the number of trips based on commercial development. Councilmember Evans asked what did he suggest they It should do? Mr. Geller replied, we need to define what that area is or get the worst case analysis, indicating not knowing what it is going to show, but it is going to provide trips generated in that area. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated ultimately the solution is to take it all back to residential and forget it. Motion CC-88-142 fails 3-2, (Mayor Matteson and Councilmember Grant voted AYE), to carry the road down to Van Buren. Mayor Matteson asked Councilmember Evans if he wanted to make another motion. Council Minutes - 06/23/88 Page 48 Councilmember Evans replied, no, his motion stands, felt Commerce Way should stop at DeBerry. Mayor Matteson stated to make another motion because that motion was changed, that failed. Councilmember Evans stated his motion stands that we stop Commerce Way ..... Mayor Matteson replied, it doesn't stand, it was changed and it failed. Councilmember Evans stated he was not going to change it, he felt it should stop there. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated that you can make it the way you did originally because he amended it and it failed. Councilmember Evans replied then his motion will stand, current alignment of 60 feet. Mayor Matteson stated we need a new motion. Councilmember Evans stated all he wants is Commerce Way to stop at DeBerry with 60 curb -to -curb 72-foot right-of-way. CC-88-143 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SHIRLEY, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM PFENNIGHAUSEN, CARRIED 4-1 (COUNCILMEMBER GRANT VOTED NOE), for Commerce Way to stop at DeBerry with 60 ft. curb -to -curb 72-ft. right-of-way. Community Development Director Sawyer asked if that meant that we were not going to carry Commerce Way beyond DeBerry at all? Councilmember Shirley stated that no, her understanding is the Councilmember Evans' concept was that when there is a proposed development that goes into the new commercial business park, that at that time the road be looked at. Councilmember Evans stated that he understood the concerns, but the reality of the whole situation is going to be, if we take a look at the current alignment, east of Commerce Way, approximately 8 1/2 to 9 acres, owned by one individual, will probably be purchased as a unit, you go south of that which is north of Van Buren, that's another solid unit, so if anything is going to happen in there, he felt that the property will be purchased as large parcels and then Council Minutes - 06/23/88 Page 49 they can plan the circulation that would best fit their development, taking into consideration the extension south that would then be reviewed. Mayor Matteson stated that the problem is that when each development comes up, it's taken into consideration, it's not taken into consideration the future development and that's the problem.... Councilmember Shirley replied we could make a stipulation that when someone wants to go in and develop a part of this that the Specific Plan for that area be developed. Mayor Matteson replied that is what we tried to do. 6 Councilmember Shirley stated that parcel being as large as it is, if you take the whole area that we have now designated as a separate thing, you could have a circular road through that that comes back out. City Manager Schwab felt that the issue is if the individual that bought the first parcel south of DeBerry could make a culdesac and you couldn't say because the General Plan designated that that street must go through. But on the other hand if he brought to you a specific plan and said because of these great reasons in my Specific Plan, we should make this one big circle that makes a big circle and goes back out the same direction. He then felt you could say with that Specific Plan, okay, we'll let you deviate from the General Plan, but we are putting the shoe on the other foot, the person could make a culdesac or put his building right on top of where you said that would go through and you really wouldn't have any basis to say, I'm going to deny that because we want a road through there, but we want you to tell us where you want it. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen gave an example using IBM, if they came in and fulfilled our dreams regarding needing a road. City Manager Schwab replied if they brought that plan to you even if we had Commerce Way extended to Main Street, you would say, do it and then we'll change this General Plan. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated probably not, because once we make rules, we never change them. Council Minutes - 06/23/88 Page 50 Mr. Hauss stated that this document is intended to be the blueprint for development for the next 25 to 30 years. The developers coming in here, have known that the City Council intended that there be a connection between those two streets. He said you can amend the General Plan four times a year, certainly there's no reason why you cannot entertain a re -alignment of that road based on a development proposal on that property, but you have to give somebody some idea now of how you intend to provide for circulation in that area. Councilmember Shirley asked if there was anyway of putting a hypothetical road through there without going through all of the condemning and taking. Mayor Matteson replied that is what the Planning Commission is recommending. Mr. Coffin stated that the existing General Plan alignment of Commerce Way is different from the alignment shown on the proposed alignment even to DeBerry, questioning if the motion to make that a 72-ft. right-of-way and a 60-ft. paved section to DeBerry includes the new alignment shown on the new plans. Councilmember Evans replied, yes, the reason for that came up during the discussion with the potential developer, felt the drainage pipes in the area that will cause developmental problems. We felt (Council, staff and Consultant) that this alignment would facilitate everyone in bringing in a nice project and that is why that alignment went like that. Mr. Coffin stated he supports that alignment, indicating his only question was did that motion change to the new alignment. The response was, yes it did. CC-88-144 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SHIRLEY, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER GRANT, that Commerce Way then be extended from DeBerry south to Van Buren with a 72 ft. right-of-way and a 62 ft. curb -to -curb. Community Development Director Sawyer asked for clarification, if this was going to be designated or is it to be determined. He stated that the Planning Commission established the location down to Van Buren and then said a Specific Plan should be done at a later date for Van Buren to Main Street, asking if that was the motion. Council Minutes - 06/23/88 Page 51 Councilmember Shirley stated that means from Van Buren to Main Street doesn't exist until a Specific Plan is made. Community Development Director Sawyer replied, that's correct and when we get to a point where we do a Specific Plan then we will prepare that and bring it to Council. Councilmember Shirley stated and at that time Council can make a decision whether or not that is what they want to do. Community Development Director Sawyer replied, that's correct, and you can do the same thing extending that up to DeBerry if you would like and we then can take into consideration what that zone is going to be for 6 that area up there, if we are going to have a Specific Plan to be determined later from Van Buren on down, then we might as well do it from DeBerry and we can consider what the zoning is going to be before we do that Specific Plan. Mayor Matteson asked for clarification. Community Development Director Sawyer stated that is deferring it basically, which means to accept the Planning Commission recommendation with the exception that the Specific Plan is to be done from DeBerry south instead of Van Buren south, indicating before doing that he would like to see if the Consultant agrees if that is possible. Mayor Matteson had concerns regarding Mr. Green's property. Community Development Director Sawyer explained that Mr. Green's property will still be in limbo because we wouldn't be identifying how his property is going to be affected yet. Councilmember Shirley stated that will come when the Specific Plan is made and then we would address that problem specifically. City Manager Schwab stated when we talk about a Specific Plan, we are talking about the City coming back with a Specific Plan. He stated that he preferred the Planning Commission recommendation only because he felt they were saying look at it with a Specific Plan with the area below Van Buren because of the problems it has created for people like Mr. Green, but there is clearly no problem between DeBerry and Van Buren. He stated that the situations aren't similar. Council Minutes - 06/23/88 Page 52 Mr. Geller stated that before the General Plan is adopted, we are going to have to take another look at the environmental impact report with the major changes that have been made here this evening. He stated by working on this General Plan, and he did not even know if we need Commerce Way to go past DeBerry at this point. He has no knowledge, the whole thing has been entirely changed, perhaps we can forget this part of it right now, let's amend the EIR because you can't really adopt the General Plan until some of that stuff has been modified and then take a look at it at that point then you will be off the hook and have some information to make a decision. Councilmember Evans said if he understands this, put this on hold until you do some more studies. Community Development Director felt it is appropriate that someone does the studies. He asked how long would this take. Mr. Geller replied, he could not answer that question right now because he did not know what we are talking about in terms of what you've created in that red area, so we have to define that. Community Development Director Sawyer said if he could bring up the sore point of the Consultant/City relationship, we've come to the end basically of our contract with Willdan & Associates and at the very end of this process that we've been working on for over a year, we've changed the ball game and if we wish Willdan to continue working on this project we are going to have to recognize that they are going to be asking for more money and an extension of that contract and the bottom line is that we are getting to right now. He pointed out that there have been enough changes where additional work is going to be needed, so it's either going to be Willdan that's going to be doing it or someone else, feeling he was not qualified by himself now to do that type of work. Mr. Geller stated that he was not here on a marketing effort, he was saying that everyone is discussing a lot of things and we don't have any information to make a determination, do w ateven e Before wegetinto a road a e is s road really necessary p whether we need a specific alignment, we should determine what the number is saying in terms of whether we need the road to go through. He ere trying atod getat is all a second he was saying,, e wasn't up h amendment to his contract. Council Minutes - 06/23/88 Page 53 Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen pointed out that one of the things that was done wrong in the beginning was using other cities throughout the Inland Empire and throughout Southern California. She felt what is being done now should have been done in the beginning and that is consulting with the Consultant so that he understood what we wanted and we understood what he thought was best, then we get to the end and had a plan that we all didn't argue over and we could live with. She stated that she understood that most other cities have a citizen's committee who works with the Planning Commission, Council and Consultant to iron all of this stuff out and then they bring a plan, feeling this could have been avoided had there been adequate input from the very beginning and not at the tail end of the process. Mayor Matteson stated that they brought us a good plan and felt it was a good layout for the City of Grand Terrace without the politics involved in it. Then after they get here they find out that all of the politics are involved and the plan goes out the window. He felt it was Council's fault that the plan is not working and that a lot of money has been wasted because Council is not doing what it was recommended to do. Councilmember Evans asked if it's politics why didn't you endorse this plan? Mayor Matteson replied, he did, he likes this plan, but it's the politics that make the changes. Motion CC-88-144 carried 4-1 (Councilmember Evans voted NOE), to extend that road down to Van Buren. Michigan Mr. Geller stated there was no change on Michigan, that was a misconception throughout all the hearing process, as Michigan exists on the General Plan is the way that we are proposing unless the Council wants to make a change to it. Councilmember Evans asked for clarification, indicating that land use has changed, you say that trip generations are going to change and now you are saying that DeBerry north along Michigan will be a 4-lane roadway, but you are going to remain with what's in this document today. Mr. Geller said he didn't say that. Councilmember Evans stated he was trying to get clear on what you are saying. Council Minutes - 06/23/88 Page 54 Mr. Geller said that he was saying that the entire length of Michigan for the most part except for DeBerry has not changed from the last General Plan to that one, that is the only point he wanted to make. Community Development Director Sawyer explained that north of DeBerry, the current General Plan proposal is for a secondary highway which is 88 to 64 and south of DeBerry up to Michigan Street and is proposed for the collector street which is the 66/44 rationale. He stated that the current General Plan calls for it to be a secondary highway for the entire length of .... Councilmember Evans asked if that was what he was saying far that it will be or should be? Community Development Director Sawyer explained that the proposed General Plan, which is what we had up until right now and the changes, we were saying that it can be reduced down to the collector .... Councilmember Evans stated given the business park, but now we have changed the land use and what I've heard them say, just on Commerce Way they can't say what they should do or what the width should be until they start penciling out numbers. He stated he has a hard time saying you can keep from DeBerry south to lowest. 'Community Development Director Sawyer felt they were going to say that the same situation applies, and that previous to these land changes this is what the proposals were, indicating never proposing that it be 40 widened, but actually proposed that it be reduced. He stated now that recommendation is no longer valid because we've changed it and they haven't had the opportunity to analyze the changes. Councilmember Evans stated that he is coming back to what he said earlier, 1975 it said 4 lanes, 1984 it says 4 lanes and now we come to 1988, he had a hard time understanding how they can reduce it, is it because of the .... Community Development Director Sawyer replied they could reduce it because they had re -designed Commerce Way to accept that traffic and take it off of Michigan Street, but that no longer is happening and they now cannot make a recommendation as to Michigan. Councilmember Evans stated reflected in the previous traffic, indicating that is Council Minutes - 06/23/88 Page 55 that Commerce plans which his quandry. Way was also had the same Mayor Matteson stated he did not see how we can make any changes on that until we find out what is going to be happening and we have to get that information, so it's no use carrying the circulation plan until we get the information that we need. Community Development Director Sawyer felt we need to define what that information is that you want to get from them also. Mayor Matteson stated what the requirements would be for that street. Community Development Director Sawyer stated we need to have them re -analyze the land use changes we made tonight throughout motions and then determine what the width of the street should be according to those? Mayor Matteson replied, right, but if you said we have run out of our contract, we would need .... City Manager Schwab felt we need to sit down with the Consultant to develop what they would recommend for us to do at this point as far as what additional studies should be made; how much that would cost; and bring that back to Council for you to decide where you want to go, indicating feeling that decision could be made tonight because we don't know what we want and what it is going to cost, and if Council will allow staff to go back to the table we could come back with something for Council. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen felt that at least now we can start the process properly and it maybe a time now that the Planning Commission and the Council may want to sit down and say, okay, this is what we are looking at, so that we are giving them something to work with. She asked the Consultant if he was saying he needs some specific directions from Council as to what we perceive as that use? Mayor Matteson inquired about the time element on the zone change, indicating that the Community Development Director could proceed with that even though we don't have the circulation. Community Development Director Sawyer replied he did not feel we should proceed because part of the analysis is that we are going to ask them is whether or not the environmental impact report is still valid and because a lot of that hinges on the traffic analysis. He stated we really can't approve the General Plan as a document or a map until that environmental impact report has been certified by Council and until that happens we can't change the zoning. Council Minutes - 06/23/88 Page 56 Mr. Green asked since additional studies are to be made in that area what happens if a person should go in to get a permit to make improvements, what would they be told. Mayor Matteson explained that right now we still have a moratorium on that. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated only on residential. Mayor Matteson asked if this was commercial property? The response was light industrial. Mayor Matteson stated that until we adopt a General Plan we are still working under the old General Plan. Mr. Green asked if the old General Plan had any street designation whatsoever, stating, there is no time table at this time pending a study. Mr. Geller stated that he could not see any reason why they couldn't be back here, not at the next Council meeting, but certainly the next one after that if they could work out all of the details, indicating not talking about another six months effort in terms of studying this. It would be the highest priority to come back understanding that a lot of these issues are unresolved and understanding that we have some momentum to finish it up. Councilmember Evans stated hopefully the General Plan will be worked out in the next month to month in a half, and when the Community Development Director came on over a year ago, he took a look at our Zoning Ordinance and expressed his opinion that there needs to be a lot of work done, indicating his concern is, once this document has its official approval, then the current Zoning Code would govern development. He did not want to have to wait another year or year and a half before a Zoning Code comes in here that possibly needs to be in place to take care of what we would like to see with this land use. He asked the Community Development Director if he had been working on that code and had an estimated time where Council could see it so it can almost come together synonymously. Community Development Director Sawyer replied, no, he had not been working on the Zoning Ordinance in that manner, but anticipated that once the General Plan was done, his time could be diverted to the Specific Plan that we are talking about and the revision of the Zoning Code. He explained they would first attack the Map which would be a fairly short turn around time so that our Zoning Map would be consistent with the Council Minutes - 06/23/88 Page 57 General Plan Map, and then we will start going through the process, basically, one or two chapters at a time through the Zoning Ordinance process, taking which ones they felt had the highest priority. Councilmember Evans stated that was attempted in 1986 and for whatever the reason, nothing materialized. He asked how long was it going to take before Council could see this. Community Development Director Sawyer replied if we finish the General Plan up in August, we can finish the Zoning Map perhaps in August or September and in October would be the earliest Council would see sections of the Zoning Ordinance after it has gone through the Planning Commission. Councilmember Evans asked if he was saying we will start workshops or you will present to us your recommendation for the Zoning Code. Community Development Director Sawyer replied on the rough time schedule he was explaining, he hoped to have public hearings sometime in October for the first portion of the Zoning Code that we would be looking at. Councilmember Evans stated his concern is that it be done in a timely fashion because of an issue that came up on apartments, indicating that in 1984 the previous Council said that apartments could be built there and then when the developers came in meeting all of the rules and regulations that had been laid down, they started changing the rules in the middle of the game and wanted to have them do things that the Code said that they didn't have to do and if we are going to impose conditions, he wanted it in black and white in that Code so that they know from the very start that this is what is going to be expected of them and they will not have to be faced with it when it comes for approval. Therefore, he felt it is very timely that that is in shape so it can be reviewed very quickly. Council Minutes - 06/23/88 Page 58 Mayor Matteson until the next will be held on adjourned the meeting adjourned City Council Monday, June 27, 1988 at at 10:00 P.M. meeting which 6:00 P.M. 11 Iv[AYOR of t o ity o Grand Terrace Council Minutes - 06/23/88 Page 59 DEPUTY CITY CLERK of the City of Grand Terrace Im n CITY OF GRAND TERRACE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES ADJOURN JOINT REGULAR MEETING - JUNE 27, 1988 A adjourn joint 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 June 27, 1988, at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Byron Matteson, Mayor Barbara Pfennighausen, Mayor Pro Tem Hugh J. Grant, Councilmember Dennis L. Evans, Councilmember Susan Shirley, Councilmember ABSENT: Thomas J. Schwab, City Manager/Finance Director Randy Anstine, Assistant City Manager David Sawyer, Planning Director Juanita Brown, Deputy City Clerk Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney Joe Kicak, City Engineer None The meeting was opened with Pledge of Allegiance led by Councilmember Evans. Mayor Matteson stated that the first item is to go into closed session to discuss pending litigation. Closed Session Reconvened City Council at 6:32 p.m.. Mayor Matteson reported being in closed session to discuss litigation and no decisions were made and will take it up here in open session. Mayor Matteson stated that they discussed the pending lawsuit regarding Forest City Dillion's apartments on Mt. Vernon. He stated Council turned the project down several months ago and they took us to court and they won the decision in court. He stated Council discussed the ramifications of filing an appeal and he felt that the points are stacked up too far against us to file an appeal. We could stand to lose a lot money. He stated that the developer has agreed to drop all financial charges against the City if we allow them to proceed with the improved plan. He recommended not to appeal because of the points stacked against us. ""OUN-GIL f`%(-:,7-7JN0A i�-- SD(6) Councilmember Shirley stated that in light of the information they received, she felt it would be fiscally irresponsible to appeal this and felt it would be putting the City financially in jeopardy, indicating even if we were to win the appeal we would probably end up allowing them to build the apartments anyway. She reported that she is totally against anymore apartments in Grand Terrace, but she did have to support staff's recommendation and that is not to appeal. Councilmember Grant expressed his appreciation of the input from his colleagues on this Council, but taking into consideration what the City Attorney and staff have provided, felt there is always a chance, he didn't know how good a chance, but there is always a chance that the appeal would be successful. He pointed out that you are dealing with a different judge, he may be dealing with the same facts, but those same facts may be interpreted by another court in a different way. He stated that he was opposed to apartments, people in this community have made it crystal clear that they are almost unanimously opposed to apartments and as a result of this, he will not support turning down an appeal and hoped that Council would appeal this decision. Councilmember Evans stated that his only comment regarding the entire issue of apartment development was set into motion before his sitting on the Council, we had a legal responsibility and the facts dictate what we are required to do. 4 Mayor Matteson said he disagreed with Councilmember Evans on the one point because he was the one who voted for R-3 zoning in that area to get those apartments going. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated that her remarks would be consistent with what she told the Press Enterprise reporter the other day which was, it's a difficult thing to see your City in a position where the citizens don't want something, the court has mandated it to be done, and to not follow the courts mandate could not only have what they didn't want there, but could bankrupt the City. She felt there was a responsibility -at this table to see that this does not happen. She reported that we have approximately 1.2 million dollars in the reserve; we are a self -insured City, and we just could not cover the kind of damages that could come against us and as a result of that, she would have to support having no appeal. Council Minutes - 06/27/88 Page 2 Mayor Matteson stated there was three things against us: (1) the property was zoned R-3; (2) Council years ago accepted a Master Plan; (3) Council accepted bonding to cover the project and we got paid commission on that bonding, indicating that all of these things add up, and to try and fight them now, the odds are too astronomical for us to take the chance and he can't see putting the City in that kind of financial position. Tony Petta, 11875 Eton Drive, addressed the remarks Councilmember Evans made, indicating he has made those remarks a number of times at this Council table, pointing out that the error was made by the previous Council in zoning the area R-3, and as the result of that he is bound to support the apartments. He reminded Councilmember Evans and Council, indicating that the City Attorney could substantiate this or otherwise. When the zone was changed to R-3, the specification of that R-3 Zone was 9 units per acre, no more. To get more than 9 units per acre a developer will have to go before th.e Planning Commission and the City Council for a Conditional Use Permit. At that point, it would be the responsibility of the City Council then in session, to say yes or no to more than 9 units per acre. He stated that up to this point, we've heard information that the cards are stacked against us, yet not much information came to the people of this City. The people of this City don't have the facts as to what is going on here and they have the right to the facts in an open hearing, to hear and be heard before this Council makes a decision. Mayor Matteson explained that we announced the fact that we were holding this meeting, which is an Adjourned meeting to tonight to discuss this and that everybody would have an opportunity if they wanted to to be here, indicating that is the reason he was here tonight. He stated that if Mr. Petta wanted more information, he will get more information, but the thing is this decision has to be made post-haste because we are on a time limit for answering that lawsuit. Mr. Petta stated that when the developer sold the bonds, they sold more bonds than he needed for the 148 units for his convenience. He asked the Council to approve a larger issue than he needed, a larger issue is more cost effective. However, the developer knew that he did not have an approved project; did not have an approved Specific Plan, the plan would still have to Council Minutes - 06/27/88 Page 3 go before the Planning Commission and Council for approval and there was a risk against getting an approval. He asked what did the judge say about that? City Attorney Hopkins reported that the judge did not say anything about it. Mr. Petta wanted to know if the judge knew of that fact? City Attorney Hopkins stated that the facts that Mr. Petta related weren't exactly correct, indicating they did have approved projects and the judge was well aware of all of the approvals and disapprovals that had taken place. He had all of those facts that you have eluded to in a little bit different package than you've indicated. 610 Mr. Petta stated that on several occasions when this subject came up at the Council table, a number of times you've said the developer does not have an approved plan; he does not have an approved Specific Plan; he will have to go before Council to get an approval and when he did come, his plan was not approved. City Attorney Hopkins replied, if you remember, he got the approval of Phase I, via McMillan, and in addition there was an approval with what we call USA Properties, which is substantially the same as Phase II that we are now talking about. Mr. Petta stated those are not substantial, those were designated as condominiums/town houses. City Attorney 40 Hopkins replied, no. Mr. Petta asked if it was a fact that the apartments were approved for USA Properties. The response was, yes sir. Mr. Petta asked if he was saying that they are appropriating the approval of the previous owner. City Attorney Hopkins replied, no, he was saying they did in fact have approval on substantially the same piece of property that constitutes Phase II, indicating that the only addition to Phase II from that is the addition of Mr. Karger's property. He stated that Phase II of Forest City is basically USA properties and Mr. Karger's property. Mr. Petta asked if USA had approval on all of that property? City Attorney Hopkins replied, yes sir. Mr. Petta asked about the quality of the projects, the garages, parking, whatever, what happens to that? Council Minutes - 06/27/88 Page 4 City Attorney Hopkins replied that the judgment by compromise stipulates that the approval that the judge ordered would be as the Planning Commission approved in September 1987, which has detached garages and eliminates the studio apartments that had been proposed, but it does not meet the minimum square footage requirements that the City would have had, but as a compromise from what was proposed. Mayor Matteson stated that the only thing that it doesn't meet that we had put in the ordinance was that the one bedroom instead of being 800 sq. ft. is about 650 sq. ft., that's the difference between what they want and what we were agreeing to approve, but they got the garages. Mr. Petta asked if the judge said they could build 650 sq. ft? City Attorney Hopkins replied, that's what the judgment stipulates. Mayor Matteson asked what garages? City Attorney Hopkins replied, stipulated in the September 1987 approval by the Planning Commission as the project. Mr. Petta remarked, and yet the so called Phase II was not submitted to the Council in a timely manner to come under the regulation, ordinances and he didn't recall 40 the number of those ordinances which made the square footage and requirements of the garages and number of parking requirements of the units. Speaking to the City Attorney that he had said several times that Phase II was not approved in a timely manner to come before those ordinances were approved, how does it happen that the judge says he was in a timely manner. City Attorney Hopkins replied, if you remember, the City Council entered into an agreement for the funding of the project and the funding was set for the project as proposed by them, was set forth in the agreement. He explained that the judge indicated that was timely and that eliminated the necessity of going through the process and that the rights of Forest City Dillion at that time had vested because of that agreement. Mr. Petta stated that the Council has told us a number of times that Forest City Dillion had to come before the Council with Phase II and get an approval on garages, parking and square footage of units, questioning if the judge overruled that. Council Minutes - 06/27/88 Page 5 City Attorney Hopkins replied, yes sir. Mayor Matteson explained, they came to the City Council, City Council rejected it because the apartments were not large enough, this is what they appealed and they won and now they have agreed that if we accept that decision they will not sue us for damages. Mr. Petta, felt that a judge is making the decision for this Council. Mayor Matteson replied, that is what he is there for, he is an arbitrator. Mr. Petta, felt that the people of this City should (40 now these facts and they should be given an opportunity to come here .... Mayor Matteson explained that is why we are having this meeting tonight and that is why you are giving us information and we are giving you information. Mr. Petta, felt the public doesn't understand what was going on. Barney Karger, 11668 Bernardo Way, explained that he sold his 10 acres to Forest City Dillion, USA and the other people down there and that he made a lot of money and could have made more by building apartments. He explained why he sold his land. He felt that the City is going to lose every time until Council starts understanding that you have to listen to your attorney and listen to what he says when he isn't talking and read between the lines. He expressed his feelings regarding our City Attorney's position and his feeling regarding going to court and not going into court. His opinion was that the City did wrong in making an agreement and then violating that agreement by changing of minds. He then mentioned the other possible lawsuits and his feelings regarding avoiding fights and lawsuits. He shared his opinions of what he felt we could have gotten from Forest City Dillion because they are builders, developers and they don't want to go into court. Mayor Matteson informed Mr. Karger that one thing he said that made some since was that when we built the building we had a chance to go into arbitration and for a $5,000.00 or $10,000.00 settlement it cost us between Council Minutes - 06/27/88 Page 6 Ll $30,000.00 and $40,000.00 because we went to court. He stated that as much as he is against these apartments, he was just as much fiscally responsible for the funds of the City. CC-88-145 MOTION BY MAYOR MATTESON, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM PFENNIGHAUSEN, CARRIED 4-1 (COUNCILMEMBER GRANT VOTED NOE), to not appeal. Mayor Matteson adjourned the meeting at 7:00 p.m. until the next regular City Council meeting which will be held on Thursday, July 14, 1988 at 5:30 p.m. MAYOR of the City of Grand Terrace Council Minutes - 06/27/88 Page 7 DEPUTY Y CLERK of the ,ty of Grand Terrace DATE: July 21, 1988 S T A F F R E P O R T CRA ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (XX) MEETING DATE: July 28, 1988 SUBJECT: STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY FOR THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE FUNDING REQUIRED NO FUNDING REQUIRED x Section 53600 of the Government Code requires the Cizy Treasurer to render to the governing body an Annual Statement cf Investment Policy. The Investment Policy for the City of Grand Terrace is a conservative version ofthe model adopted by the California Municipal Treasurers' Association. The policy is substantially the same as the initial. version drafted in 1985. The City of Grand Terrace maintains a very conservative investment strategy with safety of the principal be-ing the most important criteria for selection of an investment. The investment philosophy is to ensure the safety of the portfolio, maintain a sufficient liquidity for ongoing cash needs while yielding the highest return possible. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT: COUNCIL ACCEPT THE ATTACHED STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY FOR THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE AS SET FORTH BY THE CITY TREASURER. TS:bt ATTACHMENT STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY FOR THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE 198 8- 8 9 PURPOSE This statement is intended to provide guidelines for the prudent investment of the City's idle cash and to outline the policies for maximizing the efficiency of the City's cash management system. The ultimate goal is to enhance the interest earnings of the portfolio while ensuring the safety of the pooled cash. OBJECTIVE The City's cash management system is designed to accurately monitor and forecast expenditures and revenues, thus enabling the City to invest funds to the fullest extent possible. The City attempts to obtain the highest yield obtainable as long as investments meet the criteria established for safety and liquidity. Investments may be made in the following media: Securities of the U. S. Government or its Agencies Certificates of Deposits or Time Deposits placed with Savings and Loans or Banks that are fully insured by the FDIC or FSLIC. #4& Negotiable Certificates of Deposits Bankers' Acceptances Commercial Paper Local Agency Investment Fund (State Pool) Repurchase Agreements Passbook Savings Accounts CRITERIA FOR SELECTING INVESTMENTS AND THE ORDER OF PRIORITY: 1. SAFETY. The safety and risk associated with an investment refers to the potential loss of principal, interest, or a combination of these amounts. The City only operates in those investments considered very safe. 2. LIQUIDITY. This refers to the ability to convert to cash with minimal chance of losing some portion of principal or interest. CITY OF GRAND TERRACE PAGE TWO STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY 3. YIELD. Yield is the potential dollar earnings an investment can provide, otherwise known as rate of return. SAFEKEEPING Securities purchased from broker dealers shall be held in third party safekeeping by the Trust Department of the City's bank or other designated third party trust. The City strives to maintain the level of investment of all funds as near 100 percent as possible. Idle cash management and investment transactions are the responsibility of the Finance Department under the direction of the City Treasurer. The basic premise underlying the Agency's Investment Policy is to ensure the absolute safety of the portfolio, maintaining sufficient liquidity for ongoing cash needs while achieving the highest return possible. 40 Thomas Schwab, City Treasurer CITY OF GRAND TERRACE 88 STAFF REPORT* ,,,, C R A IiEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (x) MEETING DATE: July 28, 1988 AGENDA ITEM NO. SUBJECT TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT, ARTICLE 8a FUNDS 1988/89 41.7 FUNDING REQUIRED - NO FUNDING REQUIRED x The City of Grand Terrace's 1988/89 apportionment of Transportation Development Act, Article 8a funds, to be used for street and road purposes, is $180,720. Attached is a copy of the claim and Resolution to be submitted to SANBAG. Staff Recommends that Council: 1. ADOPT RESOLUTION 88- AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF THE FY 1988/89 TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT CLAIM 2. Authorize City Manager to execute TDA Article 8a documents .o Rl,"SOIJITION N0. 68- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF THE FY 1988/89 TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT CLAIM. WHEREAS, the City of Grand Terrace has been apportioned $180,720 from Southern California Associated Governments (SCAG) for the 1988/89 Fiscal Year; and WHEREAS, this amount is to be claimed for Article 8a Street and Road purposes; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace that the City of Grand Terrace hereby claims $180,720 and forwards said claim, along with a certified copy of this Resolution, to San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) for processing. ADOPTED this 28th day of July, 1988. ATTEST: VGDeputy City Clerk of the City of Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace Grand Terrace and of the City and of the City Council thereof. Council thereof. I, JUANITA BROWN, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace held on the 28th day of July, 1988, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Approved as to form: Deputy City Clerk FISCAL YEAR: DATE: 1988/89 July 12, 1.988 CLAIMANT: _ . ■ n i -r- PAYMENT RECIPIENT: COUNTY LTF: .1 (Claimant) San Bernardino 22795 Barton Rd PURPOSE: (Check one box only) (Mailing Address) Grand Terrace, CA 92324 ( ) Article 8, PUC Section 99400a (City and Zip Code) Local Streets and Roads ( ) Article 8, PUC Section 99400a Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Thomas Schwab - City Manager/Finance Dir. (Attention -blame and Title) Thomas Schwab, (714) 824-6621 (Contact Person -Phone No_) DETAIL OF REQUESTED ALLOCATION: AMOUNT 1. Payment from Unallocated Funds 'toll 2 Q 2. Payment from Reserves (Drawdown of funds reserved in a previous year) 3. Total Payment Requested (Sum of Lines 1 and 2 ) 180,720 CONDITION OF APPROVAL: Approval of this claim and payment by the County Auditor to this claimant are subject to monies being available, and to the provision that such monies will be used only in accordance with the allocation instructions. CTC USE ONLY AUTHORIZING SIGNATURE (CLAIMANT'S CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OR FINAN OF(FIICEER)) .2 (Signature) Thomas Thomas Schwab, City Manager (Print Name and Title) PAYMENT Schedule Requested: one payment Monthly Qtrly_ Other -- indicate monthly payments on the following schedule: 7 10 1 8 11 2 9 12 3 4 5 6 S T A F F R E P O R T DATE 7-19-88 C R A ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM ( X ) MEETING DATE 7-28-88 SUBJECT AGREEMENT TO DEFER PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS ON _ SINGLE FAMILY HOME LOCATED AT 11870 BURNS AVENUE '<t7 fir FUNDING REQUIRED NO FUNDING REQUIRED X BACKGROUND: On Jul',- 18. 1985, the Site and Architecture 1 Review Board aF,�rr,:ed Si -55-5. an application for a. single fami 1 Y home at 11,E _ Eurns ,Lkvenue. subject to certain conditions =ee Flanning ommis_ion staff Report,dated July 18. 1-988). Several c: those conditions addressed public improvement requirements. The City Er!=sneer re_n_mmended to the Board that certain pub ic imrrove-ment-related Conditions be defer red unti I s!_ch time =s the T1nds Thei r exec.ut ion ne:essary The Cit; Engineer recommended that these conditions be =eierred b; apr_ament To be signed by both parties and aFpraVed the City �_ounci1. �;fter the a,7reement is completed a.nd siFr,_d. It shouI H -hen be recorded. Attached to this report as At-lachment E is said rZreement. RECOMMENDATION: The Flanning Department recommends the t_ity Council aFpro = the attached nireement (Attachment B). Respectfully Submitted: David Sawyer, Community Development Director MCIC AGENDA rrEu v 3 3 BYRON R. MATTESON Mayor BARBARA PFENNIGHAUSEN Mayor Pro Tern Council Members HUGHJ GRANT DENNIS L. EVANS SUSAN CRAWFORD THOMAS J SCHWAB City Manager TO: Flanning Commission FROM: David Sawyer, Community Development Director DATE: July 18, 1965 SUBJECT: Stair Report, SA-88-6 APPLICANT: Happy Home Builders/Ruben and Susan Contreras LOCATION: 11670 Burns Street REQUEST: An application for Site and Architectural Reviiw approval for a singie family home. SONING AND LANDUSE: PROPERTY GP ZONING LAND USE F r oper t, LDR R- 1 Vacant To the West LDR R-1 Ouadroplex with abandoned assessory structures the East LDR R - 2- Ra.iIroad To the (forth LDR R-1 Single Tamil; residence To the South LDR F:-1 Single fami l-,- residence BACKGROUND AND _PLANNING ISSUES The applicant is proposing to build a 13,0-+8 square root home on an approximately l/Z acre lot at 11870 Burns Avenue (Attachment A). The home is one story with a two car garage. The colors that will be utili--ed for the exterior elevations are grey stucco, grey garage and entry doors and pale blue racia ooard trim. The roof material will be black iiberglass shinEles. Colored elevations, site plan and material board will be available at the meetin-. The two driveways indicated on the plans already have curb cuts on Burns Avenue. AT T A C H M E1 22795 BARTON ROAD • GRAND TERRACE, CA 92324-5295 • CIVIC CENTER -- (714) 824-6621 'M LANDSCAPING The landscaping plans indicate that there will be a front and rear lawn of Bermuda. Grass. Several trees will be planted, including three California Sycamores and a Weeping Willow. The rear yard indicates a recreation area bordered from the rest of the yard by Purple Hopseed Bushes. There is no indication of the required street tree planting on the plans. Pursuant to Section 12.2'8 of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code, there must be one tree planted per lot, or if the lot has more than 80 feet of frontage, one per 40 feet must be planted. Fencing is not indicated on the plans. Pursuant to Section 18.5:.090 of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code fences not less than 6 feet in height shall be erected on rear and side yards in all districts. REVIEWING AGENCY RECOMMENDATIONS 1. All recommendation's listed in the City Engineer's Memorandum to the City dated July 12, 1988, (Attachment B) shall be complied with. 2. All requirements listed in the response from Colton Unified School District to the City's "Reviewing Agency Letter" dated June 28, 1988 (Attachment C). 3. All requirements listed in the Forestry and Fire Warden Department's memo to the City dated July 13, 1966 tAttachment D), shall be complied with. PLANNING_ DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Department recommends approval of SA-88-5 subject to the following conditions: 1. A side and rear yard fencing plan must be approved by the Planning Department. �. ;applicant shall plant an approved street tree and provide irrigation pursuant to Section 12.28 of the Grand Terrace Hunicipal Code. Respectfully Submitted, David Sawyer, Community Develop ent Director lidECEIVELI Jul 1 N 1888 PLANNING UtPM'I MFNT TO: David Sawyer, Planning Director FROM: Joseph Kicak, City Engineer DATE: July 12, 1988 SUBJECT: SA-88-8 (S.F.R. - Burns Ave.) BYRON R. MATTESON Mayor BARBARA PFENNIGHAUSEN Mayor Pro Tem Council Members HUGH J. GRANT DENNIS L. EVANS SUSAN CRAWFORD THOMAS J. SCHWAB City Manager 12-8.5095 The following are the recommended requirements as conditions of approval for the above application: 1. Provide certificate of survey for subject parcel. 2. Dedicate 30' along the frontage of Burns Avenue for public right-of-way. 3. Pay all applicable fees pursuant to ordinances in effect at the time of issuance of permit. 4. Submit grading plan for subject parcel and indicate the drainage and disposal of said drainage. 5. Provide street improvement plans for the frontage. Said improvement plans are to be prepared by registered civil engineer. The following recommended requirements should be considered as conditions, subject to future installation of improvements with an agreement to be signed by the owner, subject to City Council approval and recordation: 1. Install curb and gutter 18' from street centerline. 2. Install standard sidewalk. 3. Construct standard roadway between new curb and 18' easterly. JK/de ATTACHMENT B 22795 BARTON ROAD • GRAND TERRACE, CA 92324-5295 • CIVIC CENTER — (714) 824-6621 JUL 7 nYRON mayorR. PLANNINU Ucr BARBARA PFENNIGHAUSEN "nlh�Off Mayor Pro Tern Council Members HUGHJ GRANT DENNIS L. EVANS SUSAN CRAWFORD THOMAS J. SCHWAB City Manager FILE NUtLBER: APPLICANT: LOCATION: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: June 28, 1988 SA-88-8 HAPPY HOMES BUILDERS/CONTRERAS 11870 BURNS STREET SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE Dear Reviewing Agency: The above referenced application is on file with the Grand Terrace Planning Department. Please submit any comments your agency may have regarding this application to the Planning Department, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, 92324. Arty such replies must be received in this office no later than JULY 12, 1988. UTILITY COMPANIES: No input is necessary until ,you have existing rights of ways or easements. 'incerely David R. Sawyer Community Development Director The Colton Joint Unified School District is impacted at the present time. As a result, the district is charging a fee of $1.53 per sq. ft. on new residential construction. The district has no objections to this project providing any school fees are paid prior to issuing a building permit. Sincerely, I/ Kent Van Gelder Coordinator of School Facilities ATTACHMENT C 22795 BARTON ROAD • GRAND TERRACE, CA 92324.5295 • CIVIC CENTER — (714) 824-6621 FORESTRY AND FIRE WARDEN DEPARTMENT Fire Protection Planning Services • County Government Center 385 No. Arrowhead Avenue, First Floor • San Bernardino, CA 92415-0186 (714) 387-4212, 387.4213 DATE JULY 13, 1988 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE REFERENCE NO: SA 88-8 Planning Uept-. APN: FROM GLEN J. NEWMAN County Fire Warden SJJBJICT FIRE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS _ CHOCKED BOXES WILL APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO OFFICE OF PUBLIC SAFETY FLOYD TIDWELL. Director EMERGENCY SERVICES aZL'CL s V 4_►., JUL IF) 1988 PUNNING ULI'fu WENT �FbF1. The above referenced project is protected by the Forestry 01 & Fire Warden Dept. Prior to construction occurring on any parcel the owner shall contact the fire department for verification of current fire protection development requirements. IXI F2. All new construction shall comply with applicable sections of the 5F002 1985 Uniform Fire Code (Ordinance No. 106), Development Code, Community Plans, and other statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations regardimj fires and fire prevention adopted by the State of California. �Xl F3. Tlie street address shall be posted with a minimum of three (3) WF 03 inch numbers, visible from the street in accordance with San Bernardino County Ordinance No. 2108, prior to occupancy. Posted numbers shall contrast with their background and be visible and legible from the street. 71 I.M. Each chimney used in conjunction with any fireplace or any 5F009 heating appliance in which solid or liquid fuel is used shall be maint- ainLd with an approved spark arrestor as identified in the Uniform Fire Code. IXI F5. All flammable vegetation shall be removed from each building 3F005 site a minimum distance of thirty (30) feet from any flammable building material, including a finished structure. U06 F6. The development and each phase thereof shall have two points of vehicular access for fire and other emergency equipment, and for routes of escape which will safely handle evacuations as required in the Development Code. I I F7. Private roadways which exceed one -hundred and fifty (150) in 1F007 length shall be approved by the fire agency having jurisdiction, and shall be extended to within one -hundred and fifty (150) feet of and shall give reasonable access to all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of any building. t'vi access road shall be provided within fifty (50) feet of all buildings is the natural grade between the access road and building is in excess of thirty percent (30%). Where (1) ATTACHMENT D the access roadway cannot be provided, approved fire protection system or systems shall be provided as required and approved by the fire department. II F8. A turn -around shall be required at the end of each roadway 150 1F008 feet or more in length and Sexced esix�-hhundred roved ythe (6 0) fire feet department. as Cul-de-sac length shall not e identified in the Development Oode. I F9. Private road maintenance, including but not limited to grading 1F009 and snow removal, shall be provided for prior to recordation or approval. Written documentation shall be suLmitted to the fire agency having jurisdiction. 4�10 F10. All fire protection systems designed to meet the fire flow requirements specifide in the Conditions of Approval for this project shall be approved by the fire agency having jurisdiction prior to the installation of said systems. Said systems shall be installed and made serviceable prior to recordation unless construction of said systems has been bonded for a s required by the water purveyor. Water for fire protection, as required by the fire agency having jurisdiction, shall be in and operable prior to the start of building construction and shall be over and above the average daily consumption of water. The following are minimum requirements for your proposed development: A. System Standards *Fire Flow 1000 GPM @20 psi Residual Pressure with sprinklered building Duration 2 Hour/s Hydrant Spacing 660 Feet between hydrants *If blank, flow to be determined by calculation when additional construction information is received. B. Distribution System Mains 6 inch minimum Laterials 6 inch minimum Riser 6 inch minimum C. Fire Hydrants Numbers 1 Total (public only) Type 6 Inch w/ 1 - 2 1/2 Inch outlet/s with National Standard thread and with 1 - 4 inch pumper connection Street Valve 6 Inch Gate X0 Fll. The required fire flow shall be determined by appropriate cal- (2) culations, using the 1974 editin of the Insurance Services Office (ISO) "Guide for the Determination of required Fire Flow." F12. In areas without water -serving utilities, the fire protection 3FO12 water system shall be based on NFPA Pamphlet 'No. 1231, "Water Supplies for Suburban and Rural Fire Fighting". A storage reservoir must be provided for each parcel; the minimum capacity to be maintained shall be determined by the fire department. F13. The developer or his engineer shall furnish the fire department 1F013 with two copies of water system improvement plans where fire protection water systems are required. The fire department shall also sign all water plans prior to recordation. F14. Mountain Fire Zone building regulations specified in San Bernardino I!F14 county Ordinance No. 2475 shall be strictly enforced. I F15. A greenbelt or fuel modification zone shall be required. Req- 1F015 uirements will be site specific to the project. The greenbelt/zone plan must be filed with and approved by the fire department with jurisdiction prior to recordation of the final map. Maintenance of said greenbelts and/or fuel modification zones shall be provided for with approval from the fire department. Questions and/or comments may be directed to the Fire Protection Planning Section; County Government Center, 385 North Arrowhead, 1st Floor, San Bernard- ino, California, 92415-0186; or call 714-387-4225. Thank you for your coopera- tion. ncerely, BY MARK H. TYO Fire Protection Planning Officer cc: RIVERSIDE HIGHLAND WATER 3517 FILE The following are I I Non -Standard Conditions I I Clarifications IXI Comments: If a fire hydrant is within 400 ft., # F10 will be satisfied. (3) BYRON R. MATTESON Mayor BARBARA PFENNIGHAUSEN Mayor Pro Tom Council Members HUGH J. GRANT DENNIS L. EVANS SUSAN CRAWFORD THOMAS J. SCHWAB City Manager June 28, 1988 FILE NUMBER: SA-88-8 APPLICANT: HAPPY HOMES BUILDERS/CONTRERAS LOCATION: 11870 BURNS STREET PROJECT DESCRIPTION: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE Dear Reviewing Agency: The above referenced application is on file with the Grand Terrace Planning Department. Please submit any comments your agency may have regarding this application to the Planning Department, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, 92324. Any such replies must be received in this office no later than JULY 12, 1988. UTILITY COMPANIES: No input is necessary until you have existing rights of ways or easements. incerely David R. Sawyer Community Development Director 22795 BARTON ROAD a GRAND TERRACE, CA 92324.5295 • CIVIC CENTER — (714) 824-6621 July 20, 1988 Ruben A and Susan K Contreras 11870 Burns Avenue Grand Terrace, CA 92324 Dear Mr. and Ms. Contreras: BYRON R. MATTESON Mayor BARBARA PFENNIGHAUSEN Mayor Pro Tern Council Members HUGH J GRANT DENNIS L. EVANS SUSAN CRAWFORD THOMAS J SCHW4B City Manager The purpose of this letter is to serve as an agreement between the GitY of Grand Terrace, Mr. Ruben A. Contreras and Ms. Susan K. Contreras, the owners of the property identified in Exhibit. A. It is hereb:,, agreed that the following conditions of approval for SA-88-8 shall be deferred until such time as the City deems that their execution is necessa.r:y: 1. Install curb and gutter 16' from street centerline: �. Install standard sidewalk; 3. Construct standard roadway between new curb easterly. 4. Provide street improvement plans for the frontaEe. Said improvement plans are to be prepared b:, a registered civil engineer. City of Grand Terrace By Byron R. flatteson. 11ayor I HEREBY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE TO THE CONDITIONS OF r`,FF'RO`JAL LISTED ABOVE. Dated: Dated: Ruben A. Contreras Susan I;. Contreras ATTACHMENT E 22795 BARTON ROAD 41 GRAND TERRACE, CA 92324-5295 • CIVIC CENTER — (714) 824-6621 Order No. Escrow No. Loan No. RECORDED AT THE REQUEST OF TICOR TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY WHEN RECORDED MAIL 10: a9m A. Contreras Susan K. Om rerus 11870 Burns Avenue Grand Terrace, Ca. 92324 MAIL TAX STATEMENTS TO: (Same as ca •3) IFH 2M5r3 I JPC?R 41111II1 _ I 5 SVY 4— — PIT R.D.z J ....FADED IN CITICIAI RECQRGS JUN 1s NO AT IMAM SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIF. 1 88-190145 In►ACC AabVt 1M14 UMa Per" M1C0rl0an'e UN DOCUMENTARY TRArAM TAX IL NI" .- •- --.-•- cew""d on Me ee/rldetenlNl N r.1ue of r.era.rr #&'waned, Olt ...... Celnpnled M Me 600011141000110" er rehN'm'ram N e.wnWa*.ee tam"n" of tMne of soa. UNDEFISIGNM GIy1MM , - �1e11etY/. M# 0275-282-16 GRANT DEED FOR A VALUABLE CO'JSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, RUBE&' A. 00NI'FERA4 AND SUSAN K. ODNPRII+AS, hereby GRANT(S) to RM A. OMaTiE[W AND SUSAN K. 0MITF10M, IuSBAND AND WIFE AS JOMT TEN01MP8 the real property in the City of County of SAN HER MIND . State of California, daactibW Be That portion of Lot 10 of said T*ma Bella Tract, in the County of San Bernardino, State of California, as per nimp reoorded in Book 17, Page 90 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County, lying West of the westerly line of said Burns Avenue, as said Avenue rfes opened and established by said order of the Board of Supervisors of San Bernardino County, described as followsi Beginning at a point in the West line of said Lot 10, distant Northerly the 128.02 feet frun the center line of Walrxit Ave =; Thence East 188.73 feet parallel with the South line of said Lot to a point in the Westerly line of said Bmw Avenues Thence Northerly along the Westerly line of said Burns Avenue to 8 point in the Northerly litre of said Lot 10; Thence Northwesterly 230.05 feet to the Northwesterly corner of said lot 10i testae Southerly to the point of beginning. Dared juna 7, 1988 ooimn of QW a iAm " on Tuns 11. 1 oRR — befsro ma, Ma wle.alale4 A NOW V fwbaa 1n and fat aakl MMtt oar earallrappwad Ruhwn A t nntrwrwa a Susan K. Contreras garmkw r lerom to nr to pored to me on go Isar Of aaluhalI I oMdol j as be t11e vereolAU 0 MG romalp Wuo nlbaonlbad so tire **Mn (Ilalnelleld end ackmdedoW to nw Md MhMAhey --AW 1he amm 01he BARBARA L. LOGAN 110tASTN10UC Cueok-m ►n+l cwm arks I"molt w Cawttnnarlral 12► Mot. a. Intl rY 141 B 1 T MAIL TAX STATEMENTS AS DIRECTED ABOVE W 0N141d nea.W .Ball s Al 10ot Wm DATE: July 21, 1988 S T A F F R E P O R T CRA ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (xx) MEETING DATE: July 28, 1988 SUBJECT: REQUEST TO FUND A SENIOR CITIZENS INFOR- MATION/REFERRAL OFFICE IN GRAND TERRACE (7 FUNDING REQUIRED _ XX NO FUNDING REQUIRED As Council is aware, at their request the Grand Terrace Senior Citizens' Group conducted a survey of area seniors to determine what their needs are and the potential of the City to be able to satisfy those needs. As indicated in the attached letter from the President of the Seniors' Group, they felt that no clear-cut answers were developed. There was general concurrence, however, that they wish to implement a Grand Terrace Information/Referral Office. This activity would be an extension of the San Bernardino County Information/Referral Office in Fontana. The seniors would be trained by the county and would man the office on a volunteer basis. The office will be located in a room at the Community Center solely dedicated for this purpose and will provide the information and referral service for the resources that are available to the seniors in this area. To this end the seniors have requested that the City install a telephone line for their office and that it be such that when the phone is not answered at the Community Center that it be forwarded to the switchboard at City Hall for either a referral or for us to take a message. As the service grows, the hours for the referral service will increase. At this time I will estimate the installation of a new line with a call -forwarding capability to City Hall plus the appropriate charges for the year will cost approximately $1,000 per year. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT COUNCIL APPROPRIATE $1,000 TO THE GRAND TERRACE SENIORS' GROUP FOR THE PURPOSE OF INSTALLING A TELEPHONE TO BE USED IN ESTABLISHING A GRAND TERRACE INFORMATION REFERRAL OFFICE. TS:bt Attachment Thomas Schwab, City Manager July 12, 1988 City of Grand Terrace 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace, CA 92324 Dear Mr. Schwab, After several months of discussion and two surveys of area seniors, the Grand Terrace Seniors' membership which attended the July 8, 1988 meeting voted unanimously to support a plan to establish a Grand Terrace information and Referral office, a satellite to the San- nardino County Information and Referral office in Fontana. Prior to this meeting, a Seniors' committee approached the Liion's Club which agreed that the seniors may use a room in the Senior/ r Community Center for this purpose, and a memorandum of agreement will be prepared. To suport this strictly volunteer effort, which we believe will benefit the whole community, the Seniors have authorized me to request the city arrange for the installation of a telephone in the room. The Lions have agreed to furnish a locked cabinet for the telephone, which will be for the use of the Seniors only. We believe that an extension of the civic center telephone line would best serve both the Information and Referral office and the community since calls would be answered during the entire business day even though the office would be open initially for only a limited number of hours each week. As volunteers are trained by the County Office on Aging personnel and the demand for the service increases, the club plans to expand the hours of operation. The above mentioned surveys, which were conducted to furnish the city with information pertaining to what the Grand Terrace Seniors would like the city to do for them, disclosed no clear-cut answers. The need for a room for social activities did not appear to be a prime concern. Several respondents mentioned a need for more adequate bus service or some other form of transportation. Also mentioned were bike lanes, a good breakfast restaurant, and the Life Line System (brochure enclosed) which is listed in the Neighborhoos Phone Book on page 8 as Rolling Start, Inc., 381-4639. We feel the city might consider addressing these items. I will be happy to meet with you to answer any questions you might have, or I can be reached at 783-4413 any day before 12 noon. ty�EIVED CITY OF GRAND TERRACF Sincerely Jackie Perkins President, G. T. Seniors COMMIISION AND COMMITTEE REPORTS COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 28, 1988 COMMISSION/COMMITTEE: Crime Prevention Committee SUBJECT: Resignation of James Singley DATE: 7/22/88 PROBLEM: Mr. James Sinaley has had to resign due to his study schedule and dates on which he must attend classes at the University of La Verne, College of Law. Facts: fioA Accept applications from new prospects. qn1 I ITTnN REQUESTED ACTION TO BE TAKEN BY COUNCIL AND/OR STAFF: ACCEPT RESIGNATION OF JAMES SINGLEY AND AUTHORIZE ADVERTISING VACANCY FOR THE UNEXPIRED TERM TO EXPIRE 6/30/90. It ik:...iL t14�r..,.il DA 11-EM Jul ; l I I_ i i } Cour,C ; 1 1=r and Ter r ace Cr ime Prevention CcgTiT�i ttee & Ci ty Counc i l memGers, I have recently been accepted at the University of La ?erne, College of Law. The study schedule and d3.te•_ on which I must attend classes conflicts with my duties on the Crime Prevention Committee. I must therefore regretfully resign my position with the committee. 1 have thoroughly enjo;eci working with the committee and the City Council. I hope to be available to assist with volunteer activities in the future. Again, thank you for the opportunity to be a part of Your commi ttee and the government of the Ci ty of Grand Terrace. Sincerel- 'amen ti. Single JVSljvs RECEIVED J U L 14 1988. CITY OF G D TERRACE Ch�� Z CITY OF GRAND.TERRACE, CA. CRIME PREVENTION COMMITTEE MEETING, MAY 9. 1988 l\' .L MINUTES The regular meeting of the Grand Terrace Crime Prevention Committee was held at 1800 hours in the Conference Room of the Civic Center, Grand Terrace, California. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ralph Buchwalter, Chairman,, Jim Singley, Treasurer, Bea Gigandet, Roiz-4lrl-ght, Debra Mueller and Dick Rollins. MEMBERS ABSENT s Ures Aeberli C.S.O. Sharon Korgan CITY STAFFS None GUESTS PRESENT Hugh Grant, Councilman, Sharon Wheatley• Ralph Nichols, Ilse Bent, Citizen's Patrol. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Buchwalter at 1805 hours. The Minutes of the meeting of April 11, 1988 were distributed to the members present. Jim Singley made the motion to accept the Minutes as written. Bea Gigandte made the second, the motion was carried with all ayes. 016 Jim Singley reported that all monies budgeted for the Crime Prevention Committee for the fiscal year 86/87 had been expended and adding that all bills had been paid. #2 Chairman Buchwalter outlined and explained the proposed budget request for the upcoming fiscal year , detailing the proposed expenditures with each item being requested and the reasons for the requests. Recognizing that -the new budget requests indicated an increase over the prior year he felt that the activities and effectiveness of the Committee had been enlarged upon sufficiently to warrant the increased amounts. After considerable discussion Jim Singley made the motion to accept the new budget proposal in it's entirerity and that it be submitted to the City Council for their consideration. Bea Gigandte made the second with all members Present voting the affirmative. #3 Debra Mueller reported that the Crime Buster membership now stood at 56 members and declared that the program was proceeding very well. Neighborhood Watch programs were being activated in several locations within the City. She also reported that Mayon Buron Matteson had donated the amount of $32.00 from monies collected during the Safety Fair on the sales of Chili from his Chili -Booth, the Mayor, once again,winning the first prize. She also reported that Sergant Gonzales of the Sheriffs office was to speak on gang activities within the County at a special presentation in the Council Chambers at the Civic Center at 1830 hours, May 25, 1988. The public has been invited and she urged all members to attend. IMUN.CIL'AGENDA nZi ITEM #4 Sharon Korgan, the Community Services Officer of the Sheriff's Department reported on the training pro am for certain members scheduled for appearances on Channel #36, public television, COMCAST, for the actions of the newly formed Citizens Patrol and their importance to the community in an effort to acquaint the public of crime prevention in the City and encourage more citizens to become involved in their community. Programs for airing were to be announced at a later date. After hearing reports and discussions from the Patrol members present it was determined that there was no further business to be -discussed and Chairman Buchwalter adjourned the meeting at 1855 hours. Respectfully submittede ck Rns Recording Secretary Page #2 of 2 rhr/rha. HISTORICAL & CULTURAL ACTIVITIES COMMITTEE n Minutes of the July 11, 1988 Meeting The meeting was called to order by Chairman Viola Gratson at 7:08 PM. All were present but Pauline Grant who is on vacation. The minutes of the June meeting were read and approved. Notion was made by Ann, seconded by Irene. Treasurer's report was $2,000 as of July 1, 1988. All members who's terms were to expire on June 30th were re -appointed by the City Council for another four year term. These included Ann Petta, Pauline Grant and and Linda Lee Laufer. Showcase: Members will change the showcase in the lobby at the next meeting. The Committee is looking into a permanent display for the things we received from our sister city in Italy. There will be a workshop at Viola's home in August to update our scrapbooks. Country Fair: A teacher of quilting who attended the Friends of the Library meeting would like to display quilts at the Country Fair. Will need a special room and would like to charge $1 admission which would be given to the Frien(:!s of the Library. This will be discussed further. Entry notices for the Fa=r have to be in the August sewer billings so this was discussed. Changes we -re made to last year's entry blank; the poster to be put in businesses around town was also worked on. The next meeting will be August 1, 1988 at 7 PM. Notion to adjourn was made by Irene, Linda seconded. Respectfully submitted, Hannah Laister, Secretary n / 1 July 2'. STAFF REPORT C R A ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (Xk MEETING DATE: Jule 22, 1:2 AGENDA ITEM NO. SUBJECT General Plan Schedule and Consultant's Authorization UNDING REQUIRED X FUNDING REQUIRED DISCUSSION: On June 23, 1988, the City Council directed staff to determine the amount of additional work necessary to complete the adoption of the General Plan, the cost of such work and a time schedule. Included with this report (see Attachment A) is a letter from Wildan Associates defining the additional work necessary to complete the General Plan. This letter lists seven primary issues/tasks that need to be examined or completed, these are; .1. The need to extend Commerce Way south of DeBerry Street, south of Van Buren Street and south of Pico Avenue. 2. The ultimate right-of-way needs for Commerce Way based on the results of the proceeding task. 3. The implications of the proposed designations on Michigan Avenue, both north and south of Commerce way. 4. Any other significant implications discovered during the assessment. 5. Review the Level of Service for Barton Road in light or the reduction of ultimate right-of-way from 120 feet to 100 'feet. 6. Develop mitigation measures as necessary. 7. Revise MEA as necessary. The estimated cost of this additional work will be $5,960. It the Council wishes to continue with Wildan Associates it is necessary to authorize such an expenditure. In addition, the City's original contract with Wildan Associates called for their NCIL AGENDA MU it (IPA attendance at si-x public meetings, any addi.ti ones i mee-t i ngs %soli l d be billed independently. To this date, they have attended a total of eleven public meetings and have i.nvoi.ced -the city 1:01- an additional $3,497 to cover the extra seven meetings. It is anticipated that this work can be completed and presented to the Council at its meeting of September, 8, 1988. After the completion of the General Plan the next step will be to bring the Zoning Ordinance into compliance with the General Plan. T1-►is is to be done in a phased manner. The first portion of the Zoning Ordinance to be revised will be the residential zones of the city which are scheduled for City Council public hearings in October. Second, will be the commercial zones which are scheduled for hearings in December and third, will be the manufacturing zones which are scheduled for January. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department recommends the City Council authorize the additional work outlined above to be performed by Wildan Associates for a total cost of $5,960 and also authorize the payment of $3,497 for Wildan Associate's attendance at the additional seven public meetings as explained above. Respec ul'ly Submitted by David Sawyer Director of j Community Development WILLDAN ASSOCIATES ❑ \:Aj /I J U L 7 1988 NLANNINC, DLPANNFNI July 6, 1988 Mr. David Sawyer Planning Director City of Grand Terrace 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace, CA 92324 Dear Mr. Sawyer: This letter is intended to outline our scope of work and the associated costs involved in updating and reexamining the potential traffic impacts related to City Council actions of June 23, 1988. As you are aware, based on the Council's actions, the General Plan designations for the southwest area of the City now includes a mixture of industrial, commercial and residential land uses. The long-term land uses for this area, as proposed, is a basic reflec- tion of the existing uses of the area, combined with components of the exist- ing General Plan designations. It is our intent to reexamine this new combi- nation of land uses and perform the following tasks: 1. The need to extend Commerce Way south of DeBerry Street, south of Van Buren Street and south of Pico Avenue. 2. The ultimate right-of-way needs for Commerce Way based on the results of the proceeding task. 3. The implications of the proposed designations on Michigan Avenue, both north and south of Commerce Way. 4. Any other significant implications discovered during the assessment. 5. Develop mitigation measures as necessary. 6. Revise MEA as necessary. In addition, we suggest that the Level of Service (LOS) be revaluated, in light of the Council's action of reducing the ultimate right-of-way on Barton Road from the proposed 120 feet with a median to 100 feet without a median. ATTACHMENT A 12900 CROSSROADS PKWY S - SUITE 200 - INDUSTRY, CA 91746-3499 - (213) 695-0551 July 6, 1988 Page 2 Estimated costs to complete the tasks are as follows: Project Manager (Traffic) 25 hrs. @ $75 $1 ,875 Design Engineer (Traffic) 40 hrs. @ $50 2,000 Principal Planner 25 hrs. @ $75 1,875 Graphics 6 hrs. @ $35 210 TOTAL $5,960 I also would like to take this opportunity to discuss the extra charges in- curred over the course of this project. Enclosed hereto is a copy of a letter which was mailed April 13, 1988. The letter points out that our contract to prepare the General Plan Update included our attendance at up to 6 public meetings. Meetings above and beyond the 6 meetings were to be billed on a time and materials basis. At the time the letter was written, Willdan staff had attended a total of 9 public meetings. Since that time, we have attended two additional meetings before the Council for a total of 11. An invoice was mailed May 17, 1988 to cover the costs up to and including the meeting of April 4, 1988. A copy of the previously submitted invoice is enclosed for your review and approval. An additional invoice covering the City Council meetings of May 12, 1988 and June 23, 1988 is also enclosed. If you have any questions regarding this proposed scope of work or the previously incurred costs, please contact me at (213) 695-0551. Very truly yours, WILLDAN ASSOCIATES Im. Ross S. Geller Principal Planner ��. 440Q Tom Brohard Vice President Enclosures TWB:yn J N 58016 L21 / Plan \ V, V / \\\A April 13, 1988 WILLDAN ASSOCIATES ❑ I N( P\11i ' ' ,", i Mr. David Sawyer Planning Director City of Grand Terrace 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace, CA 92324 Dear David: As you are aware, our contract to prepare the General Plan update specifies the total number of meetings which would be conducted as part of this pro- gram. Specifically, we had envisioned a total of six (6) meetings, two (2) community workshops and four (4) public hearings. At this point in the program, we have already exceeded the specified number of meetings and it is apparent that additional public hearings will be necessary to complete the project. The meetings which have been conducted to this point are detailed below: Meeti ng Date Purpose of Meeting 1. 4-08-87 Meeting with select property owners throughout the City as requested by Councilmembers Evans and Pfenninghouse. 2. 4-21-87 Meeting with individual Councilmembers to seek input on Gen- eral Plan Land Use issues throughout the community. 3. 5-28-87 Meeting with City Council to discuss the moratorium and pre- sent the recommendations for the western portion of the City. 4. 7-06-87 Planning Commission Workshop/meeting to present recommenda- tions for western portion of the City. 5. 7-07-88 Continuation of Planning Commission Workshop/meeting regard- ing the western portion of the City. 6. 9-10-88 City Council meeting to adopt recommendations for the western portion of the City. 7. 2-05-88 City Council Workshop/meeting to present the overall plan to the community. 8. 3-21-88 Planning Commission Workshop/meeting to discuss the overall General Plan Update Program. 9. 4/04/88 Continued Planning Commission meeting to discuss the General Plan. 12900 CROSSROADS PKWY S - SUITE 200 - INDUSTRY, CA 917-1G-?.-1'99 - (213 Mr. David Sawyer April 13, 1988 Page 2 At this point in time, we have already exceeded the prescribed number of meetings by three. I believe that the most efficient manner to compensate Willdan Associates for these three (3) meetings, plus any additional necessary meetings, would be on a time -and -materials basis, based on our prevailing billing rates. The current rates are as follows: Principal Planner (Ross Geller) - $75.00/hour Division Manager (Jerry Hahs) - $84.00/hour We are currently preparing our latest invoices and the extra charges to date will be shown as such. If you have any questions or comments or would like to discuss this matter further, please contact me at (213) 695-0551. Sincerely, WILLDAN ASSOCIATES v\"2'/ Ross Geller Principal Planner RSG : sd JN 58010 1-4/Plan 'WILLDAN ASSOCIATES MUNC IE ENGINEERS PLANNERS b 0 d H TAT 1r4GD i.RUSSRDAUS PARKWAY 5UUfM CUSTOMER NO. IWOICEDATE I SUITIL ZOO CITY OIL 1Nt•USTkY, CA. 9174b-34c?9 011) 69'5-0551 4KA/05 05/11tab PON SOX 410 ANAHEIM* CA. OZBOS► 091D TO: CITY 3F C#KAMD TkikkACE a2l-95'01ARTON ROAD 9RANO TkkRACkv GA* V2324 fir kki OENEXAL PLAN UPDATk 580115E I2930.5D 41D01 LX)RA CAk;ti►E5 FDk ATTENDANCE Al CITY COUNCIL TU rkESENT THE 6ERERAL PLAN LAND 115E CONCEPTS 19-b-Nb.6a9 FLA`1mING CUMMISSION MOAKSHOP/MEETINGS (3.21-86 ANU DIVISIDN MANAGiR 104o5 r UURS 0 $64&OD AT RANSPUKTATLCIN) ?QlN0PAL-PLANHEX 14,5 HUM 41 $75*00 TOTAL DUE AWOUNTS ARS PAYABLE WITHIN 16 DAYS UNLESS SPECIAL ARRANGEMENTS ARE MADE A SERVICE CHARGE OF 1% PER MONTH MAY BE LEVIED ON OVERDUE UPAID BALANCES. 3:fQ13741 i�f3u5.�:0 DATE: July 26, 1988 S T A F F R E P O R T CRA ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (xx) MEETING DATE: July 28, 1988 SUBJECT: DRAINAGE PROBLEMS -- MICHIGAN STREET AND ARLISS DRIVE X ------------------------------------------------------------------ FUNDING REQUIRED x NO FUNDING REQUIRED We have brought various issues of drainage problems to the Council in the past and indicated to Council that the items would be returned for funding when a priority list had been established. At this time there is one area that receives actual property damage to its property during heavy rainfall. We have other areas in the City that rainfall and run off cause a nuisance to the homeowners, but do not in my opinion constitute a flooding problem. The area along Michigan street from 12526 Michigan and 12676 Michigan to the corner is lying on a north -south street unable to absorb or deflect the water that generally flows east to west when it rains. This area is the west side of Michigan between Pico and Van Buren. In order to alleviate this problem staff is proposing to install curb and gutter, as well as to extend a storm drain to take the run off beyond these properties to the west and on to Van Buren. The estimated cost for the curb and gutter installation and the storm drain improvements is $63,000. There currently exists a balance of $200,000 in the unappropriated fund balance of the storm drain fund. Staff is recommending that an appropriation be made from this fund to cover this capital improvement. One other area brought to staff's attention is Arliss Drive between Barton and Minona. Staff has surveyed this area and it appears that the problem at this location is not one of flooding for which the storm drain capital improvement fund should appropriately address. This is, however, a road problem which can adequately be addressed with the gas tax funds currently available and appropriated by the Council in our 1988- 89 budget year. I have requested the attached report from our City Engineer asking for alternatives to alleviate the situation. STAFF REPORT -- DRAINAGE PROBLEMS PAGE TWO July 28, 1988 Currently, the condition of the pavement above the driveway approach is up to three to four inches in some areas due to the fact that several overlays have been done without regard to maintaining the existing grade with the curb and gutter. This creates a nuisance situation where water does not adequately flow. At this time the greatest exposure to the City would be a liability one due to the sharp rise in pavement from the driveway 16 approach to the street. With this in mind, staff feels that it is appropriate to properly adjust the level of the pavement to that of the driveway approach. The City Engineer has indicated four solutions: 1. A complete reconstruction of the roadway at a cost of $59, 400. 2. A partial reconstruction of the roadway at a cost of $35,000. 3. An interim solution to proceed with a survey to indicate which facilities can be retained and construct the paving that would provide positive drainage north of Barton Road on Arliss toward Minona at a cost of $7,500. 4. Reconstruction of the pavement within ten feet of each curb line and replacing curb and gutter as required at a cost of $12,000. Unless there is an objection by the majority of the Council staff intends to use the fourth alternative at a cost of approximately $12,000 to solve this problem. Funding is currently budgeted and available for this work and will be started as soon as the engineering can be completed and a contract awarded. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT COUNCIL AUTHORIZE AN APPROPRIATION OF $63,000 from the unappropriated fund balance of the storm drain capital improvement fund for the purpose of constructing drainage facility improvements on Michigan Street between Van Buren and Pico Streets. TS:bt Attachment BYRON R. MATTESON Mayor BARBARA PFENNIGHAUSEN Mayor Pro Tem Council Members HUGH J. GRANT DENNIS L. EVANS SUSAN CRAWFORD THOMAS J. SCHWAB City Manager 12.402 TO: Thomas Schwab, City Manager FROM: Joseph Kicak, City Enginee DATE: July 21, 1988 SUBJECT: ARLISS DRIVE BETWEEN BARTON RD. AND MINONA DR. Please be advised that the field review indicates that there are four possibilities of making corrections and major improvements along the frontage of the properties on subject street. My memorandum of January 26, 1988 indicates the most desirable solutions,and the costs associated herewith regarding the drainage problems in that area. A copy of that memorandum is attached hereto. Within that memorandum, we indicated: a. Complete reconstruction of the roadway including curb and gutter, travel way and driveway approaches and removal and replacement of necessary cross gutters at a cost of $59,400.00. b. Partial reconstruction to include the removal and replacement of curb, gutter and cross gutter, portion of the paving and driveway approaches as required at a cost estimated at $35,000.00. There are two interum solutions with respect to providing adequate drainage in the area: 1. Perform a survey that would indicate which existing facilities can be retained and construct the AC paving that would provide a positive drainage north of Barton Road on Arliss toward Minona. The estimated cost for this portion of the project, including the engineering, is $7,500.00. 2. Reconstruction of the portion of AC paving within ten feet of each curb line within the specified limits with the following alternatives: a. Physical removal and replacement of the AC paving in that area. 22795 BARTON ROAD • GRAND TERRACE, CA 92324-5295 • CIVIC CENTER — (714) 824-6621 Thomas Schwab, City Engineer July 21, 1988 Page 2 b. Utilizing the heater removal process with the same limits of the AC paving which at the present time, as a result of numerous overlays, is causing the drainage problems in the area. If the above does not guarantee a positive drainage from Barton to Minona, due to the fact that the concrete curb and gutter that may exist below the surface of the black- top areas may have settled and/or have been raised by tree roots, with the above alternatives, portions of the concrete curb and gutter may require removal and replacement to correct the drainage. The estimated cost of alternative 2.a. or 2.b. are estimated not to exceed $12,000.00. JK/de attachment i KiCAKAND ASSOCIATES 12.402 CIVIL ENGINEERS & PLANNERS TO: Tom Schwab, City Manager FROM: Joseph Kicak, City Engineer DATE: January 26, 1988 SUBJECT: COST ESTIMATE - ARLISS DRIVE FROM BARTON TO MINONA 44ir As per your request, we have evaluated the cost of recon- struction of Arliss Drive between Barton Road and Minona Drive to eliminate the existing drainage problems in that portion of the roadway, and construct to current city standard. The estimated costs are as follows: a) Complete Reconstruction: Remove and replace existing travel -way Remove and replace curb and gutter Remove and replace driveway approaches Construct cross -gutters Estimated Cost ........ $59,400.00 itr b) Partial Reconstruction: Remove and replace curb and gutter Match up existing and new paving Match up existing and new driveways Construct cross -gutters Estimated Cost........ 35,000.00 If you have any questions, do not hesitate to call me. JK/de 41555 COOK STREET • SUITE 220 • PALM DESERT CAI.!FORNIA 92260 , 9) ',41 9544 DATE: 7/22/88 S T A F F R E P O R T CRA ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (XX) MEETING DATE: July 28, 1988 SUBJECT: APPROPRIATION FOR FINAL PAYMENT OF CITY ATTORNEY'S COSTS FOR COSTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1987/88 FUNDING REQUIRED XX NO FUNDING REQUIRED The staff report on this item will be furnished to you on Tuesday, July 26, 1988. DATE: July 25, 1988 S T A F F R E P O R T CRA ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (xx) MEETING DATE: July 28, 1988 SUBJECT: APPROPRIATION FOR 1987-88 ATTORNEYS' COSTS ------------------------------------------------------------------ FUNDING REQUIRED X NO FUNDING REQUIRED On the following schedule I have detailed the amount of expenditures billed by our legal counsel, both Ivan Hopkins and John Harper. IVAN HOPKINS July $2, 973.39 Aug 2,857.33 Sept. 4,087.16 Oct. 3,038. 96 Nov. 2,083.54 Dec. 2 , 0 86 . 46 Jan. 3, 306 .00 Feb. 3,090.27 March 6,027.60 April 8, 16 9. 26 May 3,670.54 June 3,081.00 4 , 4 1.51 JOHN HARPER Jan. $ 745.00 Feb. -Apr. 2,849.75 May -June 1,127.00 4,721.75 The total amount billed for the entire fiscal year is $49,193 and the City currently has an appropriation of $40,000 in the past fiscal year's budget. There were questions raised regarding the April bill and I have attached the detail provided for April, May and June. In the particular area of the April expenses, Ivan has provided me additional detail for the travel charges line item which is attached. This amounts to $85 less than what was submitted and I have adjusted the April bill accordingly. As you will recall, the City had him hand carry the FPPC request for decision to Sacramento. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT COUNCIL APPROPRIATE $9,200 to LINE ITEM 10-160-250 TO COVER THE 1987-88 ATTORNEY COSTS. TS:bt LAW OFFICE OF IVAN L. HOPKINS - ATTORNEY AT LAW 22737 BARTON ROAD, SUITE I GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA 92324 (714) 7834004 • (714) 783-3844 ,7»r.P 30. 1988 Citv of Grand Terrace 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace, CA 92324 LEGAL SERVICES RENDERED APRIL, 1988 DATE SERVICES HOURS April 4, 1988 Discussions with City Engineer (2) 6.80 Discussion with Planning Director (3) Review and Research Planning Matters Attend Planning Commission Meeting April 5, 1988 Discussions with Ed Kostzal, City 2.25 of Riverside Discussions with Floyd Rinehart Discussions with Planning Director Staff Meeting r April 6, 1988 Discussions with Attorney Jury 1.20 Discussion with City Engineer Discussions with Betty Trimble Discussions with City Clerk Correspondence April 7, 1988 Discussions with Attorney Jury 4.25 Meeting with City Manager and City Engineer Meeting with Staff Members April 8, 1988 Discussions with Attorney Jury 4.00 Discussion with City Engineer Review Sewer Flow Correspondence with City Engineer Prepare agreement with City Engineer Prepare agreement with City of Riverside Discussion with Ed Kostzal Prepare Return of Services in re: Eminent Domain Review -1- April 11, 1988 Discussions with BobArter Discussions with Planning Director Discussions with Ed Kostzal Correspondence April 12, 1988 Discussions with Planning Director Correspondence Review April 13, 1988 Discussions with Councilman Evans Discussions with Fair Political Practices Commission Attorney Review and Research April 14, 1988 Discussions with FPPC (2) Discussions with City Manager Discussions with City Clerk Review, Research and Preparation of legal opinion relative to Conflicts of Interests Discussion with Mayor Meeting with Councilman Evans and Councilwoman Pfennighausen Attend City Council Meeting April 15, 1988 Discussion with Ron Morris Discussion with FPPC Review and Research April 18, 1988 Meeting with City Manager Meeting with Code Enforcement Officer Meeting with Planning Director Review Attend Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1988 Attend Staff Meeting Met with City Manager and City Engineer Met with Councilwoman Pfennighausen Met with Planning Director Met with City Clerk Met with Code Enforcement Officer Prepare advice letter to FPPC Correspondence Review and Research April 20, 1988 Hand carried Advice Letter request to and met with, FPPC Staff Discussions with City Manager Review -2- .35 6.25 10.00 4.25 5.20 8.00 April 21, 1988 Discussion with Attorney Glusker 7.60 and City Planning Director Met with Planning Department and Code Enforcement Officer re: Temporary Restraining Order Preparation of Documents for TRO Review and Research April 22, 1988 Preparation to Documents relative to 6.25 Temporary Retraining Order Court Appearance Met with Planning Director, City Manager and Code Enforcement Officer Met with City Clerk April 23, 1988 Review and Research relative to 6.00 Forrest City matter April 25, 1988 Discussions with City Clerk, Planning 8.50 Director, Code Enforcement Officer Review Hartzell Property and California Oil Refinery Property Preparation of Pleading Documents Review and Research 4�pril 26, 1988 Met with Staff 6.90 Met with Councilwoman Pfennighausen Met with City Engineer Prepare Closed Session Memo Met with City Clerk Met with Planning Director and Planning Staff Discussions with City Clerk's Office Discussions with Betty Trimble Discussions with Attorney Glusker Discussion with Planning Director and Staff Met with City Manager Review Library Lease Discussion with Ron Morris Discussion with Jim Goode Review and Research April 27, 1988 Review, Research and Draft re: 5.00 Forrest City matter April 28, 1988 Met with Code Enforcement Officer 3.60 Review Attend City Council Meeting April 29, 1988 Review and Research re:•'TJ Austin 4.30 -3- April 30, 1988 Review and Research 2.50 Total Hours 111.80 TOTAL FEES $7,267.00 DISBURSEMENTS: Telephone Charges 41.75 Copy Charges 70.00 Travel Charges 610.51 r Service of Process 100.00 TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS Ht.d6 $���-'� TOTAL APRIL SERVICES $ Q y� Travel Charges: Car Rental Clarion Hotel $59.70 98.00 V` Airline Ticket 335.00 Parking 18.00 Meals 84.81 Secretarial Service 25.00 Mileage ($280 Ala .25) 70.00 Cr, an rT RECEIVED J U rf' 1988 -4- CITY OF GRAND TERRACE LAW OFFICE OF IVAN L. HOPKINS - ATTORNEY AT LAW 22737 BARTON ROAD, SUITE I GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA 92324 (714) 783-4004 9 (714) 783-3844 City of Grand Terrace 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace, CA 92324 DATE July 19, 1988 LEGAL SERVICES RENDERED MAY, 1988 C-10."117,rf L100 May 1, 1988 Review and Draft Response RE: Forrest City Matter May 2, 1988 Attend Planning Commission Meeting HOURS 8.00 2.50 May 3, 1988 Court Appearance RE: Forrest City Matter 2.50 May 4, 1988 Attend Special Meeting of City Council Review and Research Met with Randy Anstine May 8, 1988 Review and Draft Answer May 9, 1988 Discussions with Attorney Glusker Discussions with City Manager Discussions with Councilwoman Shirley May 10, 1988 Discussions with F.P.P.C. Attorney Discussions with Paula Forthum Discussions with City Manager Discussions with Planning Director May 12, 1988 Discussions with City Manager's Office Discussions with City Clerk Review Attend City Council Meeting May 16, 1988 Discussions with City Clerk Discussions with Attorney Glusker Discussions with Planning Director Discussions with Richard Haas Discussions with Chamber of Commerce Attend Planning Commission Meeting May 17, 1988 Discussions with F.P.P.C. Discussions with City Manager's Office Discussions with City Engineer Staff Meeting 6.50 3.00 1.00 1.35 4.00 4.30 2.25 May 20, 1988 Met with Planning Director Review May 23, 1988 Discussions with Jim Copeland Correspondence May 25, 1988 Staff Meeting Review Met with City Manager Discussions with City Planning Director May 26, 1988 Met with Chamber of Commerce Discussions with Planning Director Discussions with Richard Haas Review and Correspondence Attend City Council Meeting May 27, 1988 Discussions with F.P.P.C. Review and Research in RE: Forrest City Matter May 31, 1988 Review Court Appearance in RE: Forrest City Matter rTOTAL FOR SERVICES RENDERED DISBURSEMENTS Telephone Charges 62.04 Copy Charges 62.50 Travel Charges 10.00 TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS TOTAL MAY, 1968 BILLING 1.20 .50 7.25 4.25 3.00 $3,536.00 134.54 $3,670.54/ LAW OFFICE OF IVAN L. HOPKINS - ATTORNEY AT LAW 22737 BARTON ROAD, SUITE I GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA 92324 (714) 783-4004 • (714) 783-3844 July 21, 1988 City of Grand Terrace 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace, CA 92324 LEGAL SERVICE RENDERED FOR JUNE, 1988 DATE SERVICES HOURS June 2, 1988 Discussions with Richard Haas 1.00 Betty Trimble and Dave Sawyer Correspondence June 3, 1988 Discussions with Fieldcrest Homes .50 and City Engineers Office June 6, 1988 Discussions with Dave Sawyer and 3.00 John DiSilva Attend Planning Commissions Meeting June 7, 1988 Attend Staff Meeting 1.60 Review and Correspondence June 9, 1988 Discussions with City Manager 2.70 Planning Director and City Engineer Attend City Council Meeting June 10, 1988 Discussions with Planning Dept. .80 John DiSilva, Sun Telegram Review & Research June 15, 1988 Discussions with Geri Ram 1.50 City Manager's Office and City Clerk Met with John DiSilva June 16, 1988 Discussions with Phillip Glusker 1.00 and City Manager's Office Discussions with Planning Dept. Review and Correspondence June 20, 1988 Discussions with City Manager's .50 Office and City Clerk June 21, 1988 Discussions with Phillip Glusker 2.25 and City Manager's Office Discussions with Randy Anstine Met with City Engineer Review FPPC materials June 22, 1988 Met with Phillip Glusker, Carol 6.00 Tanner, Dave Sawyer and Tom Schwab Met with Tom Schwab Met with Dennie Evans File Writ and Judgement June 23, 1988 Discussions with Bill Mauerhan 7.50 Discussions with Phillip Glusker Discussions with Joe Kicak Correspondence and Review Discussions with Ron Morris & Betty Trimble Review Opinion Attend City Council Meeting June 24, 1988 Met with City Engineer 6.25 Discussions with City Clerk, City Manager's Office and Meredith Jury Research & Review June 27, 1988 Met with City Manager 3.30 City Clerk and Randy Anstine Attend City Council Meeting June 28, 1988 Review Agreement 6.00 Correspondence & Review Drafting Answer to Interrogatories June 29, 1988 Discussions with City Manager's Office 1.00 City Clerk and Phillip Glusker Review and Correspondence June 30, 1988 Discussions with Floyd Rinehart, 2.50 Mayor Mattison and Chamber of Commerce Review and Correspondence Review Settlement Agreement TOTAL FOR SERVICES RENDERED $3,081.00 DISBURSEMENTS Telephone Charges Copy Charges Court Charges (Writ) Travel Charges TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS TOTAL JUNE, 1988 BILLING Im Im 29.80 14.60 3.50 10.00 57.90 $3,138.90