The URL can be used to link to this page

12/12/1985VA/ % jZ7 l_ CITY OF GRAND TERRACE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS DECEMBER 12, 1985 GRAND TERRACE CIVIC CENTER 5 30 P.M. 22795 Barton Road * Call to Order * Invocation - Paster Larry Wilson, Praise Fellowship Foursquare Church * Pledge of Allegiance * Roll Call CONVENE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 1. Approval of Minutes (11/21/85) Staff Recommendations Council Action Approve RECESS COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CONVENE CITY COUNCIL 1. Items to Add/Delete 2. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS A. Christmas Toy Presentation to Lora Linda University Pediatric Unit - Fran Chaffee, Leader of Life Specialist - Pediatric Units 9 Certificate of Appreciation - Justin Case C. Crime Prevention Grant Status Report ISharon Korgan, Community Service Officer D. Implementation of Classification & Compensa- tion Study - Hay Management Consultants - Sharon Brunner, Senior Associate (1) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY LOUNLIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CA, RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 85-07 & ESTABLISHING CLASSIFICATIONS & SALARY RANGES FOR THE EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE 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 Hember, Staff Member or Citizen may request (removal of an item from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Approve A. Approve Check Register No. 121285 PLFASF-' DO , NO T P.EMpV F _COUNTF rR_ COPY Fpni.i-i RPAPY_ T kIR, Yf)ll l I i �COUNCIL AGENDA Staff 12/12/85 - Page 2 of 4 Recommendations B. Ratify 12/12/85 CRA Action I Approve C. Waive Full Reading of Ordinances on Agenda I Approve D. Approve 11/21/85 Minutes I Approve E. Authorize $500.00 Street Cut Bond Release - I Approve Ruth Portillo F. Waive User Fee for Community Meeting Room on l Approve 12/12/85 for Girl Scout Troop 263 G. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY Adopt OF GRAND TERRACE, CA, SUPPORTING A PROPOSED CHANGE TO RULE 20A TO INCREASE ANNUAL ALLO- CATIONS TO LOCAL AGENCIES. H. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY Adopt OF GRAND TERRACE, CA, SUPPORTING FUNDING BY THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPER- VISORS FOR A 3-YEAR DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM TO IMPROVE THE COUNTY'S SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGA- TION SERVICES I. Approve Christmas Tree Sale Adjacent to Approve Fire Station No 23 by Grand Terrace Fire & Rescue Association, 12/7 - 12/24/85, & Waive All Fees J. Reject Liability Claim GTLC 85-05 4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 5. ORAL REPORTS i A. Planning Commission B. Parks & Recreation Committee (1) Resignation of Rhoda Saterfield C Historical & Cultural Activities Committee D. Crime Prevention Committee E Emergency Operations Committee F. Economic Development Adhoc Committee G Police Chief H. Fire Chief I City Engineer (1) Street Lighting Survey J City Attorney K. City Manager L. City Council Approve Council Action COUNCIL AGENDA Staff 12/12/85 - Page 3 of 4 Recommendations Council Action 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS - 7 30 P.M. RECONVENE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY A. Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds Mt. Vernon Villas Project (Forest Dillon) (1) RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE Adopt following CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CA, APPROVING THE Public Hearing ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $30,000,000 VARIABLE RATE DEMAND MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE BONDS BY THE COMMUNITY REDEVEL- OPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE SUBJECT TO LIMITATIONS & CONDI- TIONS AFTER A PROPERLY NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING (2) A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS Adopt following OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF City Council Public THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CA, AUTHORI- Hearing ZING THE ISSUANCE & SALE OF NOT TO EXCEED $30,000,000 PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE VARIABLE RATE DE- MAND MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE BONDS, (MT. VERNON VILLAS PROJECT) 1985 SERIES A, APPROVING RELATED DOCUMENTS & AUTHORIZING OFFICIAL ACTION ADJOURN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY B. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY Adopt by Title OF GRAND TERRACE, CA, DEALING WITH NOISE & Only DECLARING THE EMISSION OF CERTAIN NOISES TO BE A NUISANCE. (2nd Reading & Continued Public Hearing) C. Appeal of Planning Commission Decision - Site & Architectural Review SA 85-8 for Specific Plan/Conditional Use Permit 85-8, Mt. Vernon Villas Apartment Units Applicant Forest City Dillon 17. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Senior/Community Center Sign & Carpeting B. Park Site Selection COUNCIL AGENDA 12/12/85 - Page 4 of 4 8. NEW BUSINESS Staff Recommendations Council Action A. Joint Committee to Review Municipal Code Title 18 Dealing with Zoning 9. Closed Session ADJOURN THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING FOR DECEMBER 26, 1985, HAS BEEN CANCELLED. THE NEXT REGULAR CRA/ CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS WILL BE HELD THURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 1986, AT 5 30 P.M. AGENDA ITEM REQUESTS FOR THE 1/9/86 MEETING MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE BY 12 00 NOON ON 12/30/85. z �r- -' P)RND1NQ CRA APPROYA14 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DEC 12 bdb CnA AGEfvZ)A iTEZA NO. / -REGULAR MEETING - NOVEMBER 21, 1985 The 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 November 21, 1985, at 6.25 p.m. PRESENT Hugh J. Grant, Chairman Byron Matteson, Vice Chairman Tony Petta (arrived at 6 28 p.m.) Barbara Pfennighausen Dennis L. Evans J Seth Armstead, Executive Director ` Thomas J. Schwab, Treasurer Ivan Hopkins, Attorney Alicia Chavez, Acting Secretary ABSENT Ilene Dughman, Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES (11/7/85) CRA-85-58 Motion by Vice Chairman Matteson, Second by Mrs. Pfennighausen, ALL AYES, by all present, to approve the Minutes of November 7, 1985, as presented. Mr. Petta arrived at 6 28 p.m. APPROVAL OF CHECK REGISTER NO. CRA112185 CRA-85-59 Motion by Mrs. Pfennighausen, Second by Chairman Grant, ALL AYES, to approve Check Register No. CRA112185, as presented. Adjourned at 6 29 p.m. The next regular CRA meeting will be held Thursday—, December December 12, 1985, at 5 30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Secretary APPROVED 11 Chairman CRA - (11/21/85) DEC 12 05 gOL CIL AGENDA LTEM 11 '2B CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION JUSTIN CASE r WHEREAS, the Grand Terrace HzstorscaZ and Cultural Actzvzties Committee planned and conducted an Art Show which was held November 3, 1985, and WHEREAS, through the Committee's advance pubZzc announcements, Justin Case, an artist as well as a professzonaZ carpenter, volunteered and donated his labor to design and buiZd screens for dispZayzng the artwork, NOW, THEREFORE, I, Hugh J. Grant, Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace, on behalf of the City CounciZ and the members of the Historical and CuZturaZ A ctivitzes Committee, do hereby extend appreciation and gratitude to Justin Case for his dzspZayed community spirit and contributions toward making the Grand Terrace Art Show a successful event. Mayor of e C or Gran errace and of the ty&dnciZ they This 12th day of December, 1985 DATE Dec. 4, 1985 ,A ; T C R A ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (X) MEETING DATE December 12, 1985 AGENDA ITEM NO. SUBJECT IMPLEMENTATION OF HAY MANAGEMENT REPORT FUNDING REQUIRED XX NO FUNDING REQUIRED The City Council in July authorized the expenditure of $10,300 to Hay Management Consultants in order to conduct a Classification and Compensation Study for the City of Grand Terrace. Mrs. Sharon Brunner of Hay Management Consultants will give a presentation which will outline the scope of the study, the results obtained and recommendations to management. The City Manager would like to make recommendations for the general employees and consider compensation for the City Manager as a separate issue. It should be noted then that the budget figures presented would be for the general employees only and exclude any recommendations for the City Manager. The City Manager has reviewed the results of the study and concurs with the results of the study with the exception of the midpoint salary recommendations for all employees. We request that the appropriation be made for midpoint appointments, but individual consideration be used to determine the actual level of the salaries within the range. An important concept recommended is the implementation of open salary ranges and the elimination of the A through E step ranges. This would allow more flexibility in compensation and would encourage performance for the basis of compensation rather than tenure. Our positions were rated against comparable positions in two classes of cities, those of contract cities and that of the local competitive marketplace. The use of both local cities and other contract cities represents a compromise between cities of comparable size to the local marketplace from which we have to draw and retain competent employees. When compared to the other cities surveyed, lower level jobs fall generally at the fifty percentile range, middle level jobs rank generally at the twenty-fifth percentile and top-level jobs fall significantly below the twenty-fifth percentile. STAFF REPORT -- IMPLEMENTATION OF HAY MANAGEMENT REPORT December 4, 1985 Page 2 The report shows that the City is more competitive in compensating lower level Jobs, but falls significantly behind in the middle and higher level Jobs. The following chart illustrates the financial affect of the recommendation to the City per position. Some positions were sur- veyed and recommended to remain at the same level of compensation. The Maintenance Leadman's position was determined to be paid at a level higher than those surveyed and is being recommended for "Y" rating which freezes that salary level until some future date when the marketplace catches up with the position. The balance of the positions are recommended for adjustments. It should be pointed out that the adjustment proposed represents the maximum a position could be placed at this time and each adjustment would be based on an individual basis. The maximum annual cost to the City would be an additional $17,500 per year in salaries and $5,338 in retirement benefits. This expenditure would provide a system to adequately compensate our employees The amound recommended is halfway between the median compensation for contract cities and that of local cities. I OLTICN FINANCE DIRECTOR COMM S'JCS DTF ECTOF CITE CLERK ACCCL'NTAN T , ; 0 ! DEPUTv CITE CLERK ADM14 AES►ST4' ACCOUNT ,LE=E IL ACCSuNT ".LER:( ?TAINT Hr'ZMAN MINUTES CLERK ACCCBT CLERK ACCOUNT :LEP`' MA NT WCF,ER CLEQF T;FTS DIAL SA'-JT-J BETE= -2 CbRFENT ;RCF'2'_'E: CL'RFE`IT PQOPOEED CU4GENT PFOPOSED NONTHLf ANN1ALLf DIFFERENCE MO YR 2182 30 :049 90 =,88 68 76588 00 26b 61 3199 32 2.`63 -2 2808 U0 31064 b4 :ZoQb 00 2:4 28 2691 3o IQ6Q It 22Q8 )0 27,629 Q2 27576 00 328 84 3946 08 217 58 21-7 58 2082 06 26082 96 UO 00 161:� 18 1808 30 1Q:94 16 2tbOb 00 191 32 ::01 94 If00 70 1718 JO 10WOoO 48 20Q7o 00 24' 2' 205b � 52 '615 18 16'o 18 '074 to 'Q',94 1b 00 00 1010 18 1315 9 10204 10 10-04 to 00 00 1740 4` 1740 1° RA-E 20881! 4o :HK 40 110 00 13:o 4- 14Zo 00 15017 54 17232 00 100 53 1:14 Zo :zI 80 : 2 3OP4R'-TTMC 4 4I 00 4473 b0 1t 00 t32 00 :ot 20 -72 SOPART-TIME 4:41 bO 4A73 60 it 00 132 00 'S7b 71 1576 77 189:1 24 100:1 24 00 00 245 2) 312 10P4FT-T,ME 2942 11 —48 30 67 20 806 10 a 47, y' :_K9 5 :5'_ 3 is :7'-':,; �2 145' 4Q 1748Q 28 bv13 Jcc J 1�Q� l7 73_91 -1 3:3'- 444 EZ 5J3- 50 TO''rL rbJT aVv'q 22 299 1 rJ J'O24J Y JJQ054 1902 0 r al J STAFF REPORT -- IMPLEMENTATION OF HAY MANAGEMENT REPORT December 4, 1985 Page 3 Including the proposed increase the total personnel costs still only represent 17.2 percent of our total budget. In order to fully implement the recommendations for the balance of the fiscal year effective January 1, 1986 the Council would need to appropriate $11,420, one-half the annual amount. The General Fund unappropriated fund balance at November 30, 1985 was $56,480 and the General Fund budgeted reserve remains at $200,000. CITY MANAGER AND STAFF RECOMMEND THAT COUNCIL 1. ACCEPT THE CLASSIFICATION AND COMPENSATION STUDY PREPARED BY HAY MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS 2. ADOPT THE RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING CLASSIFICATION AND SALARY RANGES. 3. APPROPRIATE $11,420 FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO EMPLOYEE SALARIES AND BENEFITS TO POSITION THE CITIES COMPENSATION AS RECOMMENDED IN THE STUDY. SAA bt PENWNG CKY COUNCIL APPROVAL. RESOLUTION NO. 85- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA, RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 85-07 AND ESTABLISHING CLASSIFICATIONS AND SALARY RANGES FOR THE EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace directed that an Employee Job Classification Study be prepared for all employees of the City; and WHEREAS, a Classification and Compensation Study, prepared by Hay Management Consultants, recommends certain reclassifications and salary range adjustments; and WHEREAS, said Study further recommends eliminating established Step increases and implementing open salary ranges within each classification, and NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE, AND DEMAND THE FOLLOWING SECTION 1. Rescission - That Resolution No. 85-07 is hereby rescinded in its entirety. SECTION 2. Classifications/Salary Ranges - That the following job classifications and sa ary ranges are hereby esta lished for employees of the City of Grand Terrace, and said salary ranges shall be effective January 1, 1986. TITLE SALARY RANGE MinimumMidpoint� Maximum Finance Director/Assistant City Manager $2,592 $3,049 $3,506 Community Services Director/ Assistant City Manager 2,387 2,808 3,229 City Clerk 1,953 2,298 2,643 Accountant/Fiscal Office Manager 1,809 2,128 2,447 Deputy City Clerk 1,537 1,808 2,079 Administrative Assistant 1,486 1,748 2,010 Senior Account Clerk 1,306 1,537 1,768 Maintenance Lead Person 1,255 1,476 1,697 Maintenance Lead Person 1,255 1,476 1,697 Minutes Clerk/Records Coordinator 1,221 1,436 1,651 % Account Clerk 1,221 1,436 _ 1,651 Maintenance Worker 1,182 1,391 1,600 Clerk Typist 1,151 1,354 1,557 ADOPTED this 12th day of December, 1985. ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Gr—a-RMayor of the City of GranFre—rrace Terrace and of the City Council and of the City Council thereof. thereof. I, Ilene Dughman, 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 day of , 1985, by the following vote: AYES- NOES - ABSENT ABSTAIN. Approved as to form. City Attorney City Cler - 2 - CHECK REGISTER NO 121285 1CHREGR CITY OF GRAND TERRACE PAGE 1 vmirwrD/I.ACGAKIT QraTCTFR „ % - kTE 12/05/85 ""'"'""'." - -- LUUIVl.1L Hut NUM 11rV1 ftUK (. VENDOR M ITEM WARRAN VOUCHE NAME DESCRIPTION ".:; AMOUNT " AMOUNT ; WARRANT NUMBER NUMBER --g-AB�-6W R ADVANCE MICHOWSK 644.37 644.37 6 4 1 D E L LANDSCAPING ADAPTER TIMERS/GRIFFIN PARK 750.00 750.00 , P4444 t 9 ,INLANDSOUTHERNCALIFORNIA ` M x ~' REFUND';DEPOSIT'MEET.ROOM^ 150.00 ;- i 150.00 P4445 N` AN T-0 DE 0 P. 500.00 500.00 P4447 1848 COLTON CAMERA REPAIR REPAIR SLIDE PROJECTOR 83.21 83.21 „ 4448 5528 f PHILIP M.a WAGE - PARK CLEAN-UPtOCT.85 �' � 96.00 96.04 " " ' `Fr UN 85 4�6 8 4 DEF.COMP.NOV.1985 408.04 5,045.62 Z �a RETIREMENTsN0Y.1985,"y,njz.r � � 277.44„ � " :. i 4►484.01 - ^ ] • 7 • ] P4452 6782 STATE COMPENSATION INS.FUND WORKERS COMP.11/85 817.20 817.20 , Y r rf _ uft<x «3 > � c+�.Sxrj F r . 4 =< rt 15304 FRANK MARTIN „ _ _ x _ PARK.CITE:OVERPAY`.MARTtN;ri:;33; > PARK. CITE.OVERPAY.�tARTIN ? �� `� „ - 1.50 ,. 14.00 15305 T.J.AUSTYN,INC. REFUND90VERPAY,AUSTYN 359.00 359.00 ' Y 4 } ` • 15307 1024 'ACCENT PRINT,E DESIGN CHRISTMAS FLYERS 70.49 70.49 5308 1027 ACCURATE JANITORIAL SERVICES JANITORIAL SVCS./PARK 11/85 155.00 JANITORIAL SVCS-C/Cg11/85 911.00 7' „ • z f 9 113 DO ; 15309 1160 VERN ANDRESS ANDRES911/18/85 45.00 25.00 15310 1210 SETH ARMSTEAD LOCAL MILEAGEvARMSTEAD 25.00 19.75 44.75 LOCAL MILEAGE9ARMSTEAD ` I 15311 1223 ATxET,INFORMATION-SYSTEMS 11 RENT EOC PHONE s 3.39 _ 93.39 > ADD.WIRE%EOC PHONE k 90,00 15312 1360 BASTANCHURY BOTTLED WATER BOTTLED WATER-C/C 11/27 63.80 63.80 15314 1726 CENTRAL CITIES SIGN SERVICE DIRECTORY SIGNS-C/C 222.60 222.60 15315 1750 C H J MATERIALS LABORATORY SOIL TESTS/BARTON RD RECON 361 50 361.50 NTOLT6A-TEU-=CTR I CA CTG HT 5-9--'I /r JOC6EGR )ATE 12/05/85 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE VOUCHER/WARRANT REGISTER PAGE 2 ITEMHm WARRAN WARRANT NUMBER NUMBER NAME t DESCRIPTION T Lk AMOUNT + AMOUNT ER ALD-CDC f 25.00 25.00 15318 1800 SANFORD L. COLLINS COLLINS911/18/85 25.00 25.00 15319 1840 COLTONf CITY OF W.W.D.SVCS.12/85 r> 199181.38 k 199181.38 0.4 15321 1876 COPY LINE CORP. RENT RICOH COPIER 172.25 172.25 15322 1878 � -rCONNEY :SAFETY PRODUCTS," a SAFETY "E�QUIPt'�-� a � � , � `a � $8.4k 88.44 15324 2180 ILENE DUGHMAN C/C MEET.11/20/859DUGHMAN 87.14 87.14 15325 2242 ELECtRO METROGY?CORP: OL CALIBRATION`/RADAR UNIT iw ,° 58.00 - '58.00 f INC. 7 • • f SIDEWALKSfBART.RD.PROJECT 149500.00 CONSTRUCT.BART.RD.PROJECT 1169677.42 1939061.42 ` 15327 2780 x 3f'. G.A. STHOMPSON Co JWARNING/VIOLATION FORMS' z - _ 33.70 �33.70' r 1 a r. n ✓, s .. a b w '. 15329 3155 JERRY HAWKINSON HAWKINSON911/18/85 25.00 25.00 15330 3158 HAYS GROUPf INC. ` " PART.PAY.SALARY CONSULT._ 3,805.00 39805.00 S 15332 3217 HOUSTON'S SWEEPING STREET SWEEP.11/85 19379.04 19379.04 15333 3858 JUST -A -CAKE BAKERY Y CITY BIRTHDAY CAKE v 38.25 �JrwM 38.25 F R ,I 15335 4420 VIRGIL LIVELY CROSS.GUARD.11/11-11/22/85 101.76 101.76 15336 ii A655 JOHN MCDOWELL MCDIDWELLf11/18/85 ,Y 25.00 25.00 195uu 96 195009-- 15338 4700 RAY MUNSON MUNSON911/18/85 25.00 25.00 15339 4724 MOTOROLA RADIO HT 90 VHF/UHF BATTERIES 294.55 294.55 �153 f ii 15341 4992 NAZAREKfHARPER?HOPKINS E LEGAL SVCS.10/85 39199 65 39199.65 I VOCh EGR DAT_ 12/05/85 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE VOUCHER/WARRANT,REGISTER PAGE 3 VOUCHER/ WARRANT NUMBER VENDOR NUMBER R NAME I-TEM DESCRIPTION M AMOUNT WARRAN AMOUNT —�5�9—P-A CTFI�E — COMP.PHONE 8.45 EOC PHONE 30.66 r HD N E 900.23 PAY PHONE C/C 27.01 r PAY PHONE C/C z 33.17 19007.97 �I 15343 e 5545 PETRA ENTERPRISES BUILO.DEPT.FORMS 23.32 23.32 .. r ! • • — > 15345 5660 POSTMASTER—COLTONF rz PRESORT/BULK PERMITj1986> „t` A tl25.00> s^ v FL:KMIT9'1986 25.00 0 00 15346 6295 RIVERSIDE ROCKSCAPE PRODUCTS SAND FOR SAND BAGS 63.60 63.60 15347 6502N .- tiSAN BERNARDINO�COUNTY OF" n ' i .s TRAFFIC FLARES ;' 52.42 52.42 f — DUMP CHARGE,10/16-11/5/85 3.75 81.25 „ „" i $.C.SEM.IOl16fSCHNA6 _ 25.75 ; SCJPA'MEET•11/8fSCHWABH -. 31.75 i_ 15350 6640 SETON NAME PLATE CORP. NUMBERS—C/C ADDRESS 170.07 170.07 15351 6649b SIERkA WHOLESALE HARDWAREfINC. HINGES/RESTROOM—PARK'` "`} 34.20 134.20 ' CHRISTMAS CANDY 133.44 177.08 . OT , . J W ELEC.CITY BLDGS(3) _x "' f 63.21 ELEC.CIVIC CENTER -29463.40 ELEL.Sl ELEC.BART/PALM 13.73 ELEC.PARK SPRINKLERS 12 98 3,207 57 15354 i 6750 SPECK ENGINEERING CUSTOM MIC PLATES. 1,776.00 r 1,776.00 r HASP FOR PARK 8.43 94.29 O R-ATT(1 —t-TI •T9 7-.T9 , 3 s >y e lUTAL CHECKS-- if CHECK REGISTER NO 121285 I CERTIFY THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE AFORELISTED CHECKS FOR THE PAYMENT OF CITY LIABILITIES HAVE BEEN AUDITED BY ME AND ARE NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE EXPENDITURES FOR THE OPERATION OF THE CITY — THOMA'S--SCHVAts" FINANCE DIRECTOR lk- PENDING CITY CWUNC14 APTROML CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - NOVEMBER 21, 1985 DEC 12 1985 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 November 21, 1985, at 6 29 p.m. PRESENT: Hugh J. Grant, Mayor Byron Matteson, Mayor Pro Tempore Tony Petta, Councilman Barbara Pfennighausen, Councilwoman Dennis L. Evans, Councilman Seth Armstead, City Manager Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney Joe Kicak, City Engineer Alicia Chavez, Deputy City Clerk r ABSENT: Ilene Dughman, City Clerk The meeting was opened with invocation by Pastor Ray Williams, Grand View Baptist Church, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance, led by Councilwoman Pfennighausen. ITEM DELETED FROM AGENDA - Item 5A - Noise Ordinance (Public Hearing continue to ITEM ADDED TO AGENDA - Item 6I(1) - Request for Waiver of School Impaction Fees Mr. & Mrs. Jay Wilson). SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS Awards to Crime Prevention Poster/Essay Contest Winners Sharon Korgan, Community Service Officer, announced the winners of the Crime Prevention Poster/Essay Contest and Mayor Grant presented awards to the following students Grand Terrace Elementary Poster Contest Jonathan Hansen first ace Sean Bergen Second Place Jennifer Miescher Third Place Terrace View Elementary Poster Contest Roger Orton First P ace Mandy Minicacci Second Place Scott Nuskin Third Place Page 1 - (11/21/85) l Terrace Hill Junor High Essay Contest evina Parra First Place Jennifer Prais Second Place Toni Joslin Third Place San Bernardino County Resolution Proclaiming November 21, 1985 as Great American Smokeout Day Following introduction by Mayor Grant, Third District Supervisor Barbara Riordan read portions of Resolution passed by the Board of Supervisors honoring the "Great American Smokeout"; presented the Resolution to the Mayor and saluted Grand Terrace for efforts being made in behalf of a healthy environment. Commemorative City Plaques Mayor Grant announced commemorative plaques are being presented to past Councilmembers for their service to the community; presented plaques to Thomas T. Tillinghast (Charter Member), Roy W. Nix, and Jim Rigley. Plaques will be delivered to Charter Members Jack Allen and Doug Erway. Kelly Armstead Arizaga was also presented a special plaque by Mayor Grant in recognition of her design of the City logo. Certificate of Service - William De Benedet Mayor Grant read and presented a Certificate of Service to William De Benedet for his past outstanding service and contributions as Planning Commissioner. Student Exchange Program - American Field Service Councilman Petta introduced Mr. & Mrs. John Fuller, participants in the student exchange program, who are currently hosting a high school student from Finland, invited the current exchange student and the Fuller's son forward for introduction and comments. Sister City Update Report Bill De Benedet reported on recent trip with Mr. Zampese to our Sister City, Palazzolo Dello Stella, Italy Special Council meeting held October 8, 1985, at which our representatives presented to Mayor Braida a Grand Terrace Plaque, American, California, and City's Flags, and books of California. Following a speech by Mayor Braida (copies presented to Council), Palazzolo Dello Stella's Plaque, Italian Flag, a picture of our Sister City's children, and a copy of the City's history were presented to Mr. De Benedet. Mayor Grant expressed thanks to Mr. Zampese and Mr. De Benedet as well as to our Sister City, anticipated continued communication and warm relationship between Cities. Page 2 - (11/21/85) City Gateway Entrance Signs Dave TerBest, President of the Grand Terrace Chamber of Commerce, reported the Chamber's intent at next board meeting to consider possibilities of erecting three entrance monuments to provide various civic organizations a location to display their plaques and to welcome tourists, requested Council consider this item and, if in support, Chamber will proceed to initiate proper budget and organizational procedures. Council expressed wholehearted support for erecting monumental entrance signs. CONSENT CALENDAR CC-85-338 Motion by Councilwoman Pfennighausen, Second by Mayor Pro Tem Matteson, ALL AYES, to approve the following Consent Calendar Items, as presented A. Approve Check Register No. 112185, B. Ratify 11/21/85 CRA Action, C. Approve 11/7/85 Minutes; D. Waive Full Reading of Ordinances on Agenda, E. RESOLUTION NO. 85-24 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRA E, CA, APPROVING THE REVISED SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN F. Approve and Accept the Investment Policy Set Forth by the City Treasurer, G. Civic Center Refinancing RESOLUTION NO. 85-25 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, , MAKING APPOINTMENTS AND DESIGNATIONS AND MAKING OTHER DETERMINATIONS INCIDENT TO THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF REFUNDING CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION (Civic Center Project) RESOLUTION NO. 85-26 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CA, PRELIMINARILY APPROVING AGREEMENTS FOR REFUNDING CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION (Civic Center Project) PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Ed O'Neal, 22608 Minona Drive, expressed thanks for the City's birthday celebration and appreciation to all participants in the Great American Smokeout Dick Rollins, 22700 DeBerry, felt City staff and all who brought food should be recognized for an outstanding job preparing the City's Potluck birthday party. Page 3 - (11/21/85) Sylvia Winters, 23246 Barton Road, reported on matter of citizen concern regarding a possible zoning change to low -density residential Ptmid in the City of Colton, vicinity of Barton Road and Hilltop Drive, requested support from Council to strongly urge the Colton City Council to follow their Planning Commission's recommendations to retain the current zoning of residential estates, voiced opposition to the proposed low -density residential zoning which would allow developers to build 400 units instead of the current 100 allowable units on the 50 acres in question, further advised that the i sue will be decided upon at the Colton City Council meeting, 21, at 7 30 p.m. and urged attendance by at least one Counci member. City Manager Armstead advised City staff had coordinated with Colton staff on this matter and favorable cooperation was indicated by the City Manager of Colton. Mayor Grant, with Council in concurrence, expressed support of the City of Colton following their Planning Commission's recommendations. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson encouraged Councilmembers to write letters in opposition of proposed zone change. Councilman Evans spoke in support of retaining the current zoning, indicated Councilwoman Pfennighausen's intent to attend the Colton City Council meeting. Dave Jones, of Group W Cable, presented a completed video tape of "A Birth of a City" to City Manager Armstead, advised that it will be televised, the time to be announced at a future date. Per Councilman Petta's request to view a portion of the tape to honor the City's birthday, segments were shown. Recessed at 7 20 p.m., reconvened at 7 39 p.m., with all members present. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT - Planning Director Kicak reported the following (1) Si—t—e—a—n-dTrchitectural approval of the Mt Vernon Villas Development project was considered by the Planning Commission at the November 18 meeting - additional conditions were attached to the project, advised that Mr. Trevino will be present at the December 12 meeting to appeal conditions set forth, (2) Commission requested Council appoint a Committee to revise and develop the Site and Architectural standards, a report will be submitted at the next meeting regarding the specifics of request, (3) Commission recommended Council consider directing staff to approve a select list of consulting firms as consultants to private developers, Mr. Kicak questioned legalities and felt the City Attorney could address if necessary, (4) December 2, 1985 Planning Commission meeting has been cancelled due to lack of Agenda items. PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE REPORT - Minutes of the November 5, 1985 meeting were provided. ayor Grant noted forthcoming Christmas program plans are proceeding well. CC-85-339 Motion by Mayor Grant, Second by Councilwoman Pfennighausen, ALL AYES, to appoint Barbara M. Conley to fill the unexpired term of Gary Dishaw to expire June 30, 1986 Page 4 - (11/21/85) HISTORICAL & CULTURAL ACTIVITIES COMMITTEE REPORT - Minutes of the November 4, 1985 meeting were provided. ayor FrTo Tem Matteson thanked the Committee for submitting minutes in a timely manner. CRIME PREVENTION COMMITTEE REPORT - City Manager Armstead noted a report coordinated wit aptain im Bradford will be forthcoming at next meeting -regarding items previously requested by Council. Mayor Grant attended meeting and was impressed by enthusiasm with which Committee is viewing issues similar to those of the Emergency Operations Committee with reference to law enforcement, noted both Committees are planning to interface their missions in the event of a disaster. Councilwoman Pfennighausen reported that the two Committees joined hands with regard to disaster preparedness at the November 19th Town Hall meeting. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADHOC COMMITTEE REPORT - Minutes of the October meeting were provided. POLICE CHIEF REPORT - Captain Jim Bradford, San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department reported, as per Mayor Pro Tem Matteson's request, on citizen complaint relative to traffic problems on DeBerry, related that contact had been made with originator of complaint who volunteered to assist the Sheriff's Department in identifying particular individuals involved. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson expressed appreciation for action taken and the reporting thereof. CITY ENGINEER REPORT Request for Waiver of School Impaction Fees - Jay Wilson City Engineer Kicak related that the School Impaction Fees in question were not collected prior to issuance of the building permit. When oversight was discovered, a letter was sent to Mr. Wilson requesting payment of fees prior to any further inspections. Subsequently, on November 18, 1985, a meeting was held between Councilwoman Pfennighausen, City Manager Armstead, Alex Estrada, Mr. and Mrs. Jay Wilson, and Jim McGivern at which time it was agreed that the School Impaction Fees should be waived. City Attorney advised that Council may waive the fees pursuant to Ordinance 54 by adopting the following staff recommendations as policy (1) Review each School Impaction Fee Waiver Request on a case by case basis, (2) Grant a waiver of School Impaction Fees where practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship result from the strict application of Ordinance 54, (3) Grant waiver of School Impaction Fees subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and district in which the subject property is situated, (4) Determine that, because of special circumstances applicable to subject property, including size, slope, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of Ordinance 54 is found to deprive subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and identical zone classifications. Page 5 - (11/21/85) Councilwoman Pfennighausen reported on the above mentioned meeting of November 18, 1985, and, due to various problems encountered by the Wilson's with regard to securing a building permit, felt that Council should seriously consider waiving the fees and passing staff recommendations as outlined above. City Manager Armstead, in concurrence, felt fees should be waived due to the hardships Mr. and Mrs. Wilson encountered in obtaining a building permit. Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Matteson, Second by Councilman Petta, to waive the School Impaction Fees for Mr. and Mrs. Jay Wilson and to adopt staff recommendation 1 as follows Review each School Impaction Fee waiver request on a case by case basis. (See Motion No. CC-85-340) In response to Councilman Evans, City Engineer Kicak related that, to his knowledge, there are no pending projects with similar circumstances to the one at hand, and asserted that part of the reason for the requested waiver is that Mr. Wilson was unable to obtain a building permit until after the date on which Council imposed School Impaction Fees due to various problems. Councilman Evans felt the School Impaction Fees were imposed for a reason and to pass staff recommendations 2-4 as guidelines for future waiver requests would establish a poor precedent and defeat the purpose for which the fees were initially intended, however, voiced no objections to waiving the fees in question due to apparent problems in this case and supported staff recommendation 1. City Attorney Hopkins advised that, if any fee waivers are allowed, a fair and equitable procedure must be established for anyone to whom the fees may be applicable, further clarified that staff recommendations 2, 3, and 4 are criteria by which each fee waiver request would be reviewed on a case by case basis as provided for in staff recommendation 1. Mayor Grant felt that passing staff recommendations 2-4 would not set a precedent, but merely allow others the opportunity to request a waiver of fees, with the final determination being made by Council. CC-85-340 In light of City Attorney Hopkins' comments, Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Matteson, Second by Councilman Petta, to waive the School Impaction Fees for Mr. & Mrs. Jay Wilson and adopt staff recommendations 1-4 as follows (1) Review each School Impaction Fee waiver request on a case by case basis, (2) Grant a waiver of School Impaction fees where practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship result from the strict application of Ordinance 54, (3) Grant waiver of School Impaction fees subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and district in which the subject property is situated, (4) Determine that, because of special circumstances applicable to subject property, including size, slope, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of Ordinance 54 is found to deprive subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and identical zone classifications. Page 6 - (11/21/85) City Engineer Kicak summarized a similar project (12670 Sanburg) to illustrate how timely the process of obtaining a building permit can be accomplished, plans were submitted on 7/22/85, approved by Planning Commission and placed on City Council Agenda on 8/5/85, building permit was applied for on 8/6/85 and issued on 8/15/85. In comparison, Mr. Wilson applied for a building permit on 6/6/85 and was placed on the Planning Commission Agenda for 7/15/85, Due to lack of quorum, July 15 meeting was cancelled until 8/15/85, causing a one -month delay. Following review by the Planning Commission, the plans were rejected and Mr. Wilson was advised he needed a final soil impaction report. On August 19, Mr. Wilson returned the conditions of approval for the Site and Architectural review. In reviewing the plans, there appeared to be several discrepancies, therefore, a permit was not issued at that time. However, subsequently, on October 14, 1985, a building permit was issued'and inspections are being accomplished, felt staff has undergone unfair criticism with regard to this project taking into consideration the above circumstances. Mr. Jay Wilson, 2594 W. Walnut, San Bernardino, related background as previously mentioned by Mr. Kicak and, due to the various delays, requested a waiver of school impaction fees. Mr. McGivern, 11761 Eaton Drive, draftsman of Mr. Wilson's plans, additionally added that the discrepancies in the plans submitted for second review were due to minor revisions in the floor plan blueprints not reflected in the elevations. Motion No. CC-85-340 carried, ALL AYES. CITY ENGINEER REPORT (Cont'd) Vivienda Overhead Bridge Project - Relocation of Gas Line City Engineer Kicak advised it necessary for Council to make a decision on whether City wishes to participate in the second relocation of the gas line in order for Engineering to determine specifications for bidding process, City's cost to be $10,000; stated the alternative would be, if construction proceeds during the winter, that Council commit to appropriating the $10,000 expenditure at a future date, otherwise, construction would begin in May at which time the gas line can be cut off and relocated without necessitating temporary replacement. CITY MANAGER REPORT - City Manager Armstead reported on attendance of the Southern California Joint Insurance Agency meeting; would provide Council with information. COUNCIL REPORTS Mayor Grant re orted the following (1) Represented the City at the Loca AgencFormation Commission meeting, expressed support of San Bernardino C unties request for annexation of land located in the Muscoy area - vote was almost unanimous in support of annexation, Page 7 - (11/21/85) (2) Stated importance of the Chain of Command principles relative to good public administration and the means by which order is created, if an issue needs to be resolved, the City Manager should first be contacted, and so on down the line. Councilman Petta expressed concurrence with the importance of adhering to the abovementioned principles and related they were emphasized at the League of California Cities Conference in Monterey. TIME EXTENSION - TENTATIVE TRACT 11450 - Roy C. Roberts City Engineer Kicak noted project is a one acre condominium tract located on Preston Street, north of Palm Avenue, advised that further time extensions for the project originally approved in August 1980 were rejected by Council at the October 17, 1985 meeting. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson questioned whether any laws have been passed since initial approval that would outdate plan and was advised the only change was the zoning which would not ultimately affect the project. Roy C. Roberts, 5871 Argyle Way, Riverside, addressed the following concerns of Council as related by Councilmembers relative to the denial of previous request for extension (1) Pending litigation with adjoining property owner, related that this has been subsequently settled, (2) Length of time elapsed since tentative approval - related various extenuating circumstances which delayed the project including financial constraints and the easement litigation. Requested Council reconsider prior decision and grant extension. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Matteson, Mr. Roberts estimated construction to begin in 60-90 days. Responding to Councilman Evans relative to initial approval of project, Mr. Roberts believed it was finalized by the County in behalf of the City. Councilman Evans further questioned regarding any insurmountable engineering problems that would necessitate the project going back through the Planning Commission, City Engineer Kicak foresaw no major engineering problems. CC-85-341 Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Matteson, Second by Mayor Grant, to rescind prior action (Motion No. CC-85-318) and grant a one-year extension for Tentative Tract 11450 (Roy C. Roberts), carried, 4-1, with Councilman Petta abstaining due to potential conflict of interest. TRAFFIC SIGNALS - BARTON ROAD/MT. VERNON City Engineer Kicak clarified the discrepancy between the current $48,000 budgeted to install left turn arrows for traffic on Barton Road, and the estimated $100,000 actual cost to be a combination of the following (1) Added costs to obtain right-of-way at the northwest corner of the intersection, (2) The type of signal proposed would require a different footing, thereby increasing the cost for improvement of the land. Page 8 - (11/21/85) f Page 9 - (11/21/85) Councilman Evans questioned if anything could be done to coordinate with the property owners to improve the land without acquiring title. City Attorney Hopkins advised that an easement could be obtained, however, current improvements should be researched to see if they are located on City property due to prescription, and, that, although acquiring fee title would not be necessary to make the improvements, it may be preferable. Responding to Councilman Evans relative to estimated cost to install the left turn arrows, assuming the right of way was secured, City Engineer Kicak approximated $80,000. Due to the exhorbitant cost not previously budgeted for, Councilman Evans felt at this time issue should not be pursued further. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson, in concurrence with Councilman Evans, felt issue should be postponed until next year and budgeted for at that time. Councilwoman Pfennighausen requested the Press be notified relative to the reasons for delaying action. STREET LIGHTING Street Lights - Barton Road/Mt. Vernon City Engineer submitted costs of providing street lights on Barton Road and Mt. Vernon Avenue,, advised the total monthly figures are based upon the current energy costs for the lights at Canal Street, Palm Avenue and Honey Hill Drive. Mayor Grant questioned why the Barton Road proposed street light plan began at Michigan, stating he felt La Loma Hills should also be included. Councilman Petta voiced objection to assessing residents with a tax for street lighting, felt lights should be installed on existing poles (since the installation is free) and that the City continue paying the energy costs. City Attorney Hopkins noted that the City is not currently paying those energy costs and the installation of the additional lights would substantially increase monthly energy charges, Finance Director Schwab clarified current energy cost to be approximately $2500 a month and with the additional lights would increase by $1100 monthly. Councilman Evans stated that, although lights are important, when taking into consideration the beautification of the City, he could not support the installation of unattractive wooden poles, felt no action should be taken and the lights phased in as part of development. Motion by Councilman Petta, Second by Mayor Grant, to install light fixtures on existing wooden poles and pay the increased energy cost out of General Fund Balance. Councilwoman Pfennighausen, with Mayor Pro Tem Matteson in concurrence, voiced concern relative to spending money out of General Fund Balance for street lighting until such time funds are budgeted and reserved for that purpose, therefore, not in support of Motion. J City Manager Armstead expressed nonsupport of allocating any reserve funds until other matters are resolved, requested Council postpone action at this time. In light of above concerns expressed, Mayor Grant withdrew his Second, therefore, Motion died for lack of Second. 1972 Landscaping and Street Lighting Act Assessment District City Engineer Kicak submitted Engineering report previously accomplished relative to establishing an Assessment District under the 1972 Landscaping and Street Lighting Act which provides only for energy costs. If a District was to be formed to install additional street lighting at a cost to the property owner, it would have to be established pursuant to the 1913 and 1915 Acts. Councilman Evans questioned whether a community can impose an Assessment District solely for the purpose of paying energy costs, City Attorney Hopkins advised the Supreme Court (Shore vs. San Jose) ruled the payment of energy costs was a valid assessment allowable post Proposition 13A and 13B, relative to the specific case in Rialto cited at last meeting, advised the judgment (not final) was based upon improper filing of public notices. Relative to forming an Assessment District in 1983, Councilman Evans questioned if petitions were circulated among property owners; City Engineer Kicak related this was done, however, none were submitted. Councilman Evans felt the formation of an Assessment District merely a fancy way to tax people, therefore, not in support, suggested the following (1) Send out survey to residents regarding the formation of an Assessment District, (2) If survey has favorable results, explore the possibilities of establishing issue as a 1986 ballot measure. Council indicated full support of placing measure on the ballot. Closed Session - Council recessed to Closed Session at 9 47 p.m., with Finance Director Schwab,' City Attorney Hopkins, and City Manager Armstead in attendance. Reconvened at 10 20 p.m., with all members present. Mayor Grant announced the purpose of the Closed Session was to confer with the City Attorney on pending and potential litigation and discuss a personnel matter, advised that no action was taken. ADJOURNED at 10 21 p.m. The next regular meeting will be held Thursday, December 12, 1985, at 5 30 p.m. APPROVED Mayor Page 10 - (11/21/85) Respectfully submitted, +IA ` DeCember 4, 198 040 'T C R A ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (X) MEETING DATE December 12, 1985 AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 SUBJECT GIRL SCOUT TROOP 263 WAIVER OF FEES FUNDING REQUIRED NO FUNDING REQUIRED X The Girl Scouts of America, local troop #263, desire to utilize the Civic Center Meeting Room for a troop dinner on December 12, 1985. Along with their request to use the aforementioned room, they -are requesting a waiver of user fees. Normally, for a local nonprofit organization, there would be a $5.00 per hour fee during non -business hours. This fee would be assessed to cover the cost of bringing a staff person in to supervise the facility. In view of the fact that staff will be present for the City Council meeting, and that this is a special one time event, staff has no objection to a waiver of user fees. , Staff Recommends that the Council: WAIVE THE $5.00 PER HOUR USER FEE FOR THE GIRL SCOUTS OF AMERICA LOCAL TROOP #263. RLA F ' T 4§7A* Date• 12/6/85 C R A ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (XX) MEETING DATE: 12/12/85 AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 G SUBJECT: RESOLUTION SUPPORTING A PROPOSED CHANGE TO RULE 20A TO INCREASE ANNUAL ALLOCATIONS TO LOCAL AGENCIES FOR UNDERGROUNDING ELECTRICAL FACILITIES FUNDING IS REQUIRED NO FUNDING IS REQUIRED XX The Engineering Department prepared a Resolution to be placed on the Agenda for Council consideration pursuant to the attached League of California Cities Bulletin. Staff recommends Council - ADOPT THE RESOLUTION SUPPORTING A PROPOSED CHANGE TO RULE 20A TO INCREASE ANNUAL ALLOCATIONS TO LOCAL AGENCIES FOR UNDERGROUNDING ELECTRICAL FACILITIES ID Enclosures RESOLUTION NO. 85- PtNMNG CnY f,OUINCIL APPP }'av A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING A PROPOSED CHANGE TO RULE 20A TO INCREASE ANNUAL ALLOCATIONS TO LOCAL AGENCIES FOR UNDERGROUNDING ELECTRICAL FACILITIES WHEREAS, Rule 20A is the allocation formula used by Southern Calfornia Edison Company to distribute funds to local agencies for undergrounding electrical facilities, and WHEREAS, the City of Grand Terrace has several miles of overhead electrical lines that should be placed underground, and WHEREAS, the League of California Cities and the Southern California Edison Company have agreed on a change to Rule 20A, which would increase the annual allocations to local agencies; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace that the City of Grand Terrace does hereby support the change in Rule 20A proposed by the League of California Cities and the Edison Company and requests that the California Public Utilities Commission approve the proposed change. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk provide certified copies of this Resolution to appropriate parties. ADOPTED this 12th day of December 1985. ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Grand Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace Terrace and of the City Council and of the City Council thereof. thereof. I, ILENE DUGHMAN, 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 12th day of December, 1985, by the following vote AYES* NOES ABSENT ABSTAIN Approved as to form. City Clerk ity Attorney ISM! 2--off f Mt Cantama C toes Work TOgetACf �URNISHEQ BO.;v' ' League of California Cities RECEIVED AT N0V 271985 K1CA , & wociATES To: Cities in Southern California Edison Service Territory Date November 25, 1985 From: Carl Classen, Southern California Manager RECEIVED 'NOV 2725 CiTY OF GRAND TERRACE Topic: Rule 20A Undergrounding Agreement with Edison, geed to File P.U.C. Application, Support from Cities; Immediate Action Needed Attached please find a copy of a June 5, 1985, memo sent to all cities in the Southern California Edison (SCE) service territory outlining a proposed League -Edison Rule 20A undergrounding budget/formula agreement. This agreement has received no negative comments from the cities, was reviewed and supported by the League Housing, Community and Economic Development Policy Committee and the Utility Undergrounding. Subcommittee The League Board of Directors has endorsed this agreement. Southern California Edison will be filing a petition with the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) in early December seeking implementation of the League -Edison agreement in the Edison service territory After the petition is filed, the PUC will conduct hearings on the issue and then render a decision Action Needed In order to secure a favorable decision from the Commission, cities need to show their support for the new formula, and the additional $142.0 million the agreement calls for Edison to allocate in Rule 10A funding over the next five years. under the agreemenl:. no city wou i a lose money—iesai te_the_ formula change Edison would like to include certain city docunents when filing their petition with the PUC In that regard, Edison has requested the following items. 1 Cities should send a council -approved resolution to the League's Southern California office as soon as oossible If a resolution is not quickly attainable, a letter from the Mayor or City Manager would be very helpful The resolution/letter should a Support a change in the Rule 20A allocation formula in the Edison service territory (the change is necessary to (1) provide balance to the formula rather than have allocations based on a single factor, (2) have the formula recognize the many cities in Southern California which have both old and new areas), CONFERENCE REGISTRATION OFFICE HEADQUARTERS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA OFF BOX 7C05 LAFAYET-E CA 94549 1400 K STREET SACRAMEiNTO CA 95314 1052 WEST 6TH STREE- S,[-=- 4 512822113 Ig1F► 4dn :;pan LOS ANGElES_CA 3CC ' IPA b Support the increased Edison Rule 20A allocation (1985 - $25 5 million; 1986 - S28.0 million, 1987 - $32.0 rnllion, 1988 - $36.0 million, 198g - $40.0 mi-Tlion), and c. Urge the Public Utilities Cormmission to adopt the League -Edison agreement. ` 2. Cities should tell Edison the total number of feet or miles of overhead line in your city which meet the eligibility criteria as reflected in Rule 20A. Public :forks Directors and City Engineers may want to consult with their Edison area managers on the precise definition of "eligible". This information is needed immediately Please call John Eide, Edison staff (818-302-2491) with your city's figure, and follow-up with a letter as soon as possible. For more information, please call a member of the Southern California Edison- Undergrounding Task Force or me. Your prompt attention is appreciated. Southern California Edison Undergrounding Task Force Hugh Berry, Fullerton (714) 738-6300 Grant Brimhall, Thousand Oaks (805) 497-8611 - - Chris Christiansen, Westminster (714) 895-2876 _ Jay P. Clement, Thousand Oaks (805) 497-8611 John Dever, Long Beach (213) 590-6555 Ken Frank, Laguna Beach (714) 497-3311 Don Heinbuch, Fountain Valley (714) 963-8321 Larry Stickney, Chino (714) 627-7577 Bob Storchheim, Irvine (714) 660-3600 Harry Thomas, West Covina (818) 962-8631 Jack Weimer, Fullerton (714) 738-6300 cc: Tom Bryson, Customer Services Manager, Southern California Edison Southern California Edison Undergrounding Task Force Bill Rugg, San Leandro ow -EMN amw ONE League of California Cities E m m 1400 K STREET • SACRAMENTO. CA 95814 • (916) 444-5790 CaatOMIa Gees Worm ; ogetner To: Cities in Southern California Edison Service Territory Date: June 5, 1985 From: Carl Classen, Southern California Manager Topic: Tentative Agreement Reached with Southern California Edison Regarding Rule 20A Allocations In the Fall of 1984, Edison conducted a survey of the cities to determine Rule 20A undergrounding needs. That survey showed an immediate need of $63 million for 1985. On October 30, 1984, city representatives met with Edison representatives to discuss the 1984 survey and 1985 Rule 20A budget. This meeting, although positive in tone, did not initially yield a significant increase in the 1985 Rule 20A allocation. On January 11, 1985, Edison proposed to the Public Utilities Commission a 1985 Rule 20A allocation of $19.5 million, an increase of only $400,000 over 1984. Edison sent a notice of that proposal to each city indicating the city's individual allocations. Early in 1985, the Southern California Edison Undergrounding Task Force of the League Utilities Undergrounding Subcommittee met to discuss Edison's 1985 Rule 20A allocation. Out of this meeting came a proposed distribution formula for Rule 20A funds, a proposed long-term agreement, and a proposed 1985 allocation. On April 15, Task Force representatives met with Edison officials to present the proposal, but no final agreement was settled upon by either the Task Force or Edison representa- tives But in late May, Edison officials submitted a counter-offer, and on May 29, the Task Force met with Edison officials and developed the following tentative 1985-1989 Rule 20A program. 1. Rule 20A Distribution Formula Several years ago, the Public Utilities Commission changed the Rule 20A distribution formula from one based upon total meters to one based upon total overhead meters. For most cities, this had the effect of either drastically increasing or decreasing Rule 20A allocations In an effort to equalize Rule 20A distribution throughout the Edison territory, the tentative Edison -Task Force agreement calls for a distribution based 45% upon total meters, 45% upon overhead meters, and 10% to a Special Projects Fund. This new distribution formula would go into effect immediately, and given Edison's 1985 allocation proposal (revised) of $25 5 million, no city would lose money due to the formula change. The Special Projects Fund would augment Rule 20A allocations in cities with specific undergrounding projects which cannot be met through current allocation amounts. Criteria for distribution is being developed by a joint Edison -Task Forc 2. Long -Term Rule 20A Agreement e The tentative agreement calls for a five-year program to be annually (analogous to the State Transportation Improvement specifying the total amount to be allocated each year. Such allows the cities and -Edison to plan, budget and prepare fo 3. 1985-1989 Rule 20A Allocation r The agreed -upon allocation proposal represents a major increase in financing Rule 20A programs by Southern California Edison over the next five years. Initially, Edison proposed a $19.5 million allocation for 1985. The Edison - Task Force agreement calls for a revised 1985 allocation of $25.5 million, an allocation of $28 million in 1986, $32 million in 1987, $36 million in 1988, and $40 million in 1989. Furthermore, Edison officials have agreed to work with cities in attempting to develop a formula which would determine the annual allocation amounts beyond 1989. Work on this possible formula will be completed before July 1, 1986. Edison has not agreed to implement such a formula at this time, but the Task Force will be working with Edison on this subject. This tentative agreement represents several years worth of work by both the cities and Edison. Edison officials, under the guidance of Customer Services Manager Tom Bryson, have worked hard in putting this package together, and they should be commended for that effort. However, as stated above regarding the Special Projects Fund and the post 1989 allocations, negotiations remain open. This agreement will be reviewed by the Utilities Undergrounding Subcommittee and its parent committee, the League Housing, Community, and Economic Development Policy Committee, on June 28 Prior to that, however, on June 19, the Public Utilities Commission is expected to initially consider this matter. Therefore, please contact one of the Task Force members or me with any comments you mi of the 1985-19F regarai n allocations is atta Task Force Members ntative reement or your convenience. Hugh Berry, Engineering Director, Fullerton Grant Brimball, City Manager, Thousand Oaks Chris Christensen, City Administrator, Westminster John Dever, City Manager, Long Beach Ken Frank, City Manager, Laguna Beach Don Heinbuck, Asst Public Works Director, Fountain Valley Larry Stickney, Asst Public Works Director, Chino Bob Storchheim, Inspection Services Manager, Irvine Harry Thomas, Public Works Director, 'Test Covina e iisting SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 1985-1999 PROPOSED ALLOCATIONSAFORREPLACEMENT OF ELECTRIC OVERHEAD WITH UNDERGROUND FACILITIES (BASED ON 45% TOTAL, 45% O.H., 6 10% SPECIAL PROJECTS) 1985 1986* 19870 1988a 1989+ COUNTY _ ALLOCATION ALLOCATION ALLOCATION ALLOCATION ALLOCATION RESNO County Unin Fresno County 169915 18,573 21,227 239880 26.5:,3 'OTAL Fresno County $169913 $18,573 $219227 $23,860 $261533 MPERIAL County Unin Imperial County 39027 31324 31799 4,273 49748 'OTAL Imperial County $39027 S31324 $3,799 $4,273 $4,748 ;NYO County Bishop 29605 2,860 3,269 3,678 4,086 Unin Inyo County 29,213 30,979 35,405 39,830 44,25a TOTAL Inyo County $30,818 $33,939 $389674 $43,508 S48,:42 CERN County California City 81861 91730 11,120 12,510 13,901, Delano 43,270 47,512. 54,300 61,087 67,875 McFarland 69104 6,702 7,660 8,617 Q.575 Ridgecrest 47,822 52,510 60,012 67,513 75 01.5 Tehachapi 13,408 14,723 16,826 18,929 21,n_2 Unin Kern County 213,467 234,395 2671880 301,365 3:418t) TOTAL Keri County S3329932 $365,572 S417,797 S47u,022 5522,'40 K14GS County Hanford 67,310 749129 84,718 95,308 105,893 Unin Kings County 46,601 51,170 58,480 65,790 73,10,. TOTAL Kings County $114,111 $125,298 $143,198 S161,0Q8 S,78.943 *Allocations for each City/County for years 1986 through 1989 are estimates only based on current meter count. Actual allocations for each City/County wi,l be made annually based an the meter count at that time. CC'UNTY 5 ANGELES County Agoura Alhambra Ar:adia Artes.a Aval on Azusa Baldwin Park Bell Bell Gardens Bellflower Beverly Hills Bradbury Carson Cerritos Claremont Commerce Compton Covina Cudahy Culver City Downey Duarte El Monte El Segundo Gardena Glendora HawaiianGarden Hawthorne Hermosa Beach Hidden Hills HuntingtonPark Industry Inglewood Irwindale La Canada/Flint La Habra Hgts La Mirada La Puente La Verne Lakewood Larcaster Lawndale Lomita Long Beach SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 1985-1989 PROPOSED ALLOCATIONS FOR REPLACEMENT OF ELECTRIC OVERHEAD WITH UNDERGROUND FACILITIES (BASED ON 45% TOTAL, 43% O.H., 5 10% SPECIAL PROJECTS( 1985 1986* 1987* 1988* 1989* ALLOCATION ALLOCATION ALLOCATION ALLOCATION ALLOCATION 24,208 26,581 30,379 34,176 37,973 242,384 2669147 304,168 3429189 380,210 160,167 175,970 200,994 226,118 251,24: 37,541 41,221 47,110 52,999 E8,888 12,979 14,251 16,287 18,323 201359 5,895 6,473 7,398 81322 9,247 126,609 139,022 158,882 178,742 158,60, 75,145 82,512 94,300 106,087 117,875 801891 88,821 101,51r - 114,199 126,888 174,366 191,461 218,812 246,164 277,515 125,503 137,807 157,494 177,181 196,867 2,661 2,922 3,339 3,757 4,174 175,770 193,002 220,374 248.146 275,718 59,595 65,438 74,786 84,134 93,48- 72,843 79,984 91,411 102,837 114,264 419479 43,546 52,052 5e,559 65,065 189,947 208,569 238,363 268,160 297,956 123,517 133,627 1559002 174,377 193,752 41,395 45,453 51,947 58,440 64,933 127,987 140,535 160,611 180,688 200,764 281,306 308,885 353,011 397,178 441,2o4 42,657 46,839 530530 60,2Z2 66,91: 2129160 232,960 266,240 2991520 3321860 60,958 66,934 76,496 86,058 95,620 1541274 169,399 197,599 217,799 24, 998 105,742 116,109 132,696 149,283 165,870 24,063 26,422 ZO ,197 3:,971 37,74a 161,941 177,818 203,220 228,623 L54,025 75,037 82,394 94,164 105,935 117,705 3,849 4,226 4,830 5,434 6,0,-,8 126,678 139,097 158,968 178,840 1981111 11,838 12,999 14,856 16,712 18,569 321,539 353,062 403,500 453,937 504,375 5,295 5,814 6,645 7,475 8,300 56,590 62,138 71,015 79,892 88,7o9 12,620 13,857 15,837 17,816 19,790 100,299 110,132 125,865 141,599 157,;3: 72,358 79,452 90,802 102,152 113,507 48,804 53,589 61,244 68,900 7o,555 209,468 230,004 262,862 295,720 328,577 137,536 151,020 172,594 194,168 215,74: 71,707 78,737 89,985 101,233 11: 38= 60,287 o6,197 75,654 85,111 94,5.68 1,223,163 1,343,081 1,5%4,950 1,726,818 1,918,687 Allocations 4or each City/County for years 1986 through 1989 are estimates only based o current meter count. Actual allocations for each City/County w.11 be made annually based on the meter count at that time. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 1985-1999 PROPOSED ALLOCATIONS FOR REPLACEMENT OF ELECTRIC OVERHEAD WITH UNDERGROUND FACILITIES (BASED ON 45% TOTAL, 43% O.H., 6 10% SPECIAL PROJECTS) 1985 1986* 1987* 1988* 1989* COUNTY - - ALLOCATION ALLOCATION ALLOCATION ALLOCATION ALLOCATION OS ANGELES County (continued) • Lynwood 125,773 138,104 157,833 177,562 197,2Q. ManhattanBeach 119,383 131,087 149,814 168,541 187,267 Maywood 56,469 62,005 70,863 799721 88,579 Monrovia 108,643 119,294 116,336 153,378 170,420 Montebello 151,841 166,727 190,546 214,364 238,182 Monterey Park 160,634 176,382 201,580 226,777 251,975 Norwalk 207,546 227,894 260,450 293,006 325,562 Palmdale 44,256 48,595 55,537 62,479 69,421 PalosVerdesEst 30,713 339724 38,542 43,360 48,177 Paramount - - 959298 1049641 1199590 134,538 149,487 Pico Rivera 129,151 140,715 160,817 1809919 201,021 Pomona _ 266,547 292,679 334,490 376,302 418,113 R.Palos Verdes 81,295 89,265 102,017 114,769 127,522 Redondo Beach 222,287 2449080 278,948 31-0,817 348.685 Rolling Hills 5,736 69298 7,198 8,098 8,998 RollingHillsEst 17,598 19,323 22,084 24,844 27,605 Rosemead 109,170 119,873 136,998 154,122 171,247 San Dimas 51,934 57,026 65,172 73,319 81,465 San Fernando 53,403 589639 67,016 75,392 83,769 San Gabriel 104,834 115,112 131,556 148,001 164,445 San Marina 36,903 40,521 46,310 52,098 57,887 Santa Fe Springs _ 56,520 62,061 70,927 79,793 88,659 Santa Monica 387,671 425,678 486,485 547,300 608,111 Sierra Madre 39,521 43,396 49,595 55,794 61,994 S.gnal Hill 35,374 38,842 44,391 49,940 55,489 So. E1 Monte 53,930 59,217 67,677 76,136 84,590 South Sate 202,501 222,354 254,119 285,884 317,64,- So Pasadena 85,919 94,342 107,820 121,297 134,775 Temple City 97,326 106,868 122,135 137,401 152,6o8 Torrance 411,511 451,855 516,406 580,957 645,507 Walnut 25,126 27,589 31,531 35,472 39,413 West Covina 203,893 223,883 255,8o6 287,849 319,831, West Hollywood 191,922 210,738 240,843 270,949 301,054 Westlake Vill. 9,700 10,651 12,173 13,694 15.210 Whittier 227,902 250,245 285,995 321,744 357,493 Unin Los Angeles County 2,313,187 2,539,970 2,502,823 3,265,676 3,628,529 TOTAL Los Angeles County $12,001,468 $13,178,083 $15,060,666 $16,743,249 S18,825,872 MADERA County Unin Madera County 129 14Z 162 182 -�_ TOTAL Madera County $129 $141, $162 $182 s:',: *Allocations for each City/County for years 1986 through 1989 are estimates only based on current meter count Actual allocations for each City/County will be made annually based on the meter count at that time COUNTY MONO County Mammoth Lakes Unin Mono County TOTAL Mono County ORANGE County SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 1985-1989 PROPOSED ALLOCATIONS FOR REPLACEMENT OF ELECTRIC OVERHEAD WITH UNDERGROUND FACILITIES (BASED ON 45% TOTAL, 45% O.H., & 10% SPECIAL PROJECTS) 1983 1986+ 1987a 1988+ 1989+ ALLOCATION ALLOCATION ALLOCATION ALLOCATION ALLOCATION 32,986 19,810 $52,796 36,220 21,752 $37, 972 41,394 24,860 $66,254 46,568 27,967 $74,536 51,743 31,075 $82,8I7 Brea Buena Park 69,085 174,007 75,858 191,067 86,695 218,362 97,5;,2 245,657 108,369 272,952 Costa h=sa Cypress 253,237 278,064 317,788 357,511 397,235 Fountain Valley 75,699 89,460 83,120 98,231 94,995 112,264 106,869 126,296 118,744 140,329 Fullerton Garden Grove 275,734 302,767 346,019 389,272 c72,524 HuntingtonBeach 339,027 374,839 3729265 411,588 423,446 470,386 478,626 5299184 531,807 587,983 Irvine La Habra 115,339 126,647 144,739 162,832 180,924 La Palma 129,261 141,934 162,210 182,486 202,762 Laguna Beach 19,238 68,793 21,124 75,537 24,142 86,328 27,160 97,120 3011-7 107,911 Los Alamitos Newport Beach 34,441 37,818 43,220 48,623 54,025 Orange 193,277 212,22b 242,344 272,862 303,180 Placentia 250,029 274,542 313,762 352,982 392,202 Santa Ana 67,657 749290 84,903 95,516 106,129 Seal Beach 495,315 543,875 `8,665 621,572 699,268 776,965 Stanton 71,641 89,902 101,140 112,3,78 Tustin 60,611 66,553 76,061 85,568 95,A76 Villa Park 95,674 105,054 120,061 135,069 150,077 Westminster 9,150 158,004 10,047 173,495 11,482 198,280 12,918 223,064 14,353 247,849 Yorba Linda 55,980 61,468 70,249 79,031 87,812 Unin Orange County TOTAL Orange County 425,982 467,745 534,566 601,386 668,207 53,901,480 $4,283,978 $4,895,975 $5,507,972 $6,119,969 *Allocations for each C1ty/County for years 1986 through 1989 are estimates only based on current meter count. Actual allocations for each City/County % 11 be made annually based on the meter count at that time. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 1985-1989 PROPOSED ALLOCATIONS FOR REPLACEMENT OF ELECTRIC OVERHEAD WITH UNDERGROUND FACILITIES (BASED ON 45% TOTAL, 43% O.H., 6 10% SPECIAL PROJECTS) 1985 1986* 19874 1988+ 1989• COUNTY _ ALLOCATION ALLOCATION ALLOCATION ALLOCATION ALLOCATION RIVERSIDE County Beaumont 23,842 26,179 29,919 33,659 37,3D9 Blythe 21,596 23,713 27,101 30,488 33,876 Cathedral City 48,681 53,434 61,090 68,726 76,362 Corona 90,197 99,029 113,176 127,323 141.47u D.Hot Springs 29,880 32,809 37,496 42,184 46,371 Elsinore 23,262 23,543 29,192 32,840 36,489 Hemet 63,693 72,133 82,438 92,743 103,048 Indian Wells 8,499 99332 10,663 11,999 13,332 Norco 41,900 46,008 52,580 590133 65,725 Palm Desert 71,655 78,680 89,920 101,160 112,400 Palm Springs 140,912 134,727 176,831 198,935 221,038 Perris 22,481 241685 28,211 31,738 35,26- Rancho Mirage 35,833 39,346 44,967 30,588 56,209 San Jacinto 21,328 239419 26,765 309110 33,456 Moreno Valley 30,585 33,584 38,381 43,179 47,976 Unin Riverside County 713,489 783,633 897,869 1,010,102 1,122,336 TOTAL Riverside County $1,391,823 $1,5289276 $1,746,601 31,964,927 $2,183,252 SAN SERNARDINC County Adelanto 11,208 12,307 14,065 15,823 17,tal Barstow 52,119 57,229 65,404 73,580 81,755 Chino 67,485 74,101 84,687 95,273 105,859 Fontana 92,440 101,503 116,003 130,504 145,004 Grand Terrace 18,523 20,339 23,245 26,150 29,056 Loma Linda 27,920 30,657 35,037 39,416 43,796 Montclair 64,754 71,102 81,260 91,417 101,575 Ontario 235,638 258,740 295,703 332,665 369,628 R. Cucamonga 102,267 112,293 128,335 144,377 160,41a Redlands 123,929 136,079 155,519 174,959 194,398 Rialto 92,290 101,338 115,815 130,292 144,76Q San Bernardino 361,823 397,296 454,052 510,809 567.505 Upland 131,825 144,749 165,427 186,106 206,784 Victorville 54,354 59,683 68,209 76,735 85,261 Unin San Bernardino County 1,176,478 1,291,819 1,476,365 1,660,910 1,845,456 TOTAL San Bernardino County $2,613,053 $2,869,235 $3,279,125 $3,689,016 $4,098,907 *Allocations for each City/County for years 1986 through 1989 are estimates only based on current meter count. Actual allocations for each City/County will be made annually based on the meter count at that time COUNTY SANTA BARBARA County Carpentaria Santa Barbara Unin Santa Barbara County TOTAL Santa Barbara County TULARE County SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 1965-1989 PROPOSED ALLOCATIONS FOR REPLACEMENT OF ELECTRIC OVERHEAD WITH UNDERGROUND FACILITIES (BASED ON 43% TOTAL, 45% O.H., 6 10% SPECIAL PROJECTS) 1985 1986* 1987* 1988* 1989* ALLOCATION ALLOCATION ALLOCATION ALLOCATION ALLOCATION 25,572 28,079 32,090 36,102 40,11: 265,356 291,371 332,996 374,620 416,245 208,128 228,533 :61,ISO 293,828 326,475 $499,056 $5479983 $626,266 $704,530 $782.833 Exeter 18,355 20,155 23,034 25,913 28,792 Farmersville 12,570 13,802 15,774 17,746 19,718 Lindsay 19,354 21,251 24,287 279323 30,359 Portervillo 57,114 62,713 71,672 80,632 99,591 Tulare 67,611 74,240 84,845 95,451 106,056 Visalia 143,632 159,910 182,754 205,598 228,442 Woodlake 11,208 12,307 14,065 15,823 17,581 Unin Tulare County TOTAL Tulare County VENTURA County 425,636 467,365 534,131 600,898 667,664 $757,480 $831,743 $950,563 $19069,384 s1,188,204 Camarillo 83,324 91,493 104,563 1179634 130,704 Fillmore 20,419 22,421 25,624 28,827 32.030 Moorpark 16,720 18,359 20,982 23,605 26,227 Ojai 231633 25,950 29,657 33,364 37,071 Oxnard 2319700 254,416 290,761 327,106 :630451 Port Hueneme 38,166 41,908 47,895 53,881 59,868 Santa Paula 53,294 58,519 66,879 75,239 83,598 Simi Valley 146,671 161,051 184,058 207,065 230,072 Thousand Oaks 154,978 170,172 194,482 218,792 243.103 Ventura 214,891 235,959 269,667 303,376 337.094 Unin Ventura County TOTAL Ventura County SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND TOTAL EDISON: 251,116 275,735 315,126 354,517 39%,947 $1,234,912 $1,355,982 $1,549,693 $1,743,405 f;.q:l.lif $2,550,000 $2,800,000 $3,200,000 $3,600,000 f4.�r�•�'h4 $25,500,000 $28,000,000 $32,000,000 $36,000,000 *Allocations for each City/County for years 1986 through 1989 are estimates only based on current meter count. Actual allocations for each City/County will be made annually based on the meter count at that time. - ter', T J �919 Date. 12/6/85 C R A ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (XX) MEETING DATE: 12/12/85 AGENDA ITEM NO. ,3 SUBJECT: RESOLUTION SUPPORTING FUNDING BY THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR 3-YEAR DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM TO IMPROVE THE COUNTY'S SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION SERVICES FUNDING IS REQUIRED NO FUNDING IS REQUIRED XX Attached is the City of San Bernardino's letter transmitting their resolution supporting this matter. The Mayor and City Manager requested a similar Resolution placed on the Agenda for Council consideration. Staff recommends Council ADOPT THE RESOLUTION SUPPORTING FUNDING BY THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR 3-YEAR DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM TO IMPROVE THE COUNTY'S SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION SERVICES ID Enclosures J CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO 300 NORTH D' STREET SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92418 (714) 383 5133 EVLYN WILCOX Mayor December 2, 1985 The Honorable Hugh Grant Mayor, City of Grand Terrace City Hall 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace, CA 92324 Dear Mayor Grant: INFORMATION COPY I T I N ,�� ace 4' ��gNmRDo'�,® C11T-i MG(R L�� MAYoR GQArtr OFFICE OF THE MAYOR On November 18, 1985, the San Bernardino City Council adopted a resolution supporting the funding request by Sheriff Floyd Tidwell to the County Board of Supervisors for a three-year development program to improve the County's Scientific Inves- tigation Services. I have enclosed a copy of the resolution for your purview. I would like to urge you to 3oin the City of San Bernardino in support of this resolution and communicate this support to the County Board of Supervisors. The regional Crime Lab serves all of us and aids our respective communities in persecuting drug dealers and illegal drug manufacturers. If you have any questions related to this request, please give me a call. Thank you for your assistance in this matter and for making our communities a better place in which to live and work. Yours truly, Evlyn Wivcox, Mayor EW:gb RECEIVED Encl. cc. City Manager un LE- `✓ 4 1%5 ;1ITY OF GRAND TtRRAH i ` PENDING CKY C0kJNC1L APPROVAL RESOLUTION NO. 85- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING FUNDING BY THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR A 3-YEAR DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM TO IMPROVE THE COUNTY'S SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION SERVICES WHEREAS, during the last few years, the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department Crime Laboratory and Identification Division has been unable to keep up with the growing and more sophisticated needs of the criminal justice system, and WHEREAS, a dramatic increase in the reliance on finite physical evidence by investigators and prosecutors, plus bold and scientific sophistication by expert witnesses and defense attorneys, and a general increase in violent crimes and drug and alcohol related prosecutions have greatly impacted the scientific investigative workload of the Crime Laboratory and Identification Division, and WHEREAS, in many cases, understaffing and outdated equipment have resulted in examinations not being completed until just before or during trial, which may result in reducing the number of guilty pleas and thereby necessitating expenditures of hundreds of thousands of dollars more every year in prosecution, county -paid defense costs, and the costs associated with witness and jury fees, and additional court time, and WHEREAS, Sheriff Floyd Tidwell proposes a 3-year development program to build a strong, state-of-the-art scientific investigative service for all local law enforcement agencies and the total criminal justice system within the County of San Bernardino, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace that the City of Grand Terrace does hereby support the provision of these additional facilities and urge the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors to provide funding to improve the scientific investigation services provided by the Crime Laboratory and Identification Division of the Sheriff's Department. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk provide a certified copy of this Resolution to the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Bernardino. ADOPTED this 12th day of December 1985. ATTEST. City Clerk of the City of Grand Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace Terrace and of the City Council and of the City Council thereof. thereof. I, ILENE DUGHMAN, City Clerk of the City of Grand certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced and meeting of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace of December, 1985, by the following vote AYES. NOES ABSENT ABSTAIN Approved as to form City Attorney City Clerk Terrace, do hereby adopted at a regular held on the 12th day - 2 - r C R A ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (XX) MEETING DATE: 12/12/85 AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 Z T Date- 12/5/85 •�c�"T�7T SUBJECT: FEE WAIVE - GRAND TERRACE FIRE & RESCUE ASSOCIATION CHRISTMAS TREE SALE FUNDING IS REQUIRED NO FUNDING IS REQUIRED XX The County Forestry & Fire Warden Department is again requesting a Temporary Use Permit for the Grand Terrace Fire & Rescue Association to conduct a Christmas Tree Sales adjacent to Fire Station No. 23 from December 7 through 24, 1985. In the past, Council has waived all fees. Attached are copies of letters submitted by the Forestry Department and a Hold Harmless Agreement signed by Ernie Zampese. Staff recommends Council APPROVE CHRISTMAS TREE SALE ADJACENT TO FIRE STATION NO. 23 BY GRAND TERRACE FIRE AND RESCUE ASSOCIATION, 12/7 - 12/24/85, AND WAIVE ALL FEES. ID FORESTRY AND FIRE, TARDEN DEPARTMEN 3800 Sierra Way • San Bernardino, CA 92405 • (714) 882-1226 C� " DON C_ BANiGHART,- Chief i ANT SAN BERNAi November 21, 1985 Seth Armstead, City Manager City of Grand Terrace 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace, CA 92324 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO OFFICE OF PUBLIC SAFETY FLOYD TIDWELL, Director OFIRE WARDEN [Efl(IEIS MER-cu 31E183WEVEM INFORMATION COPY_ FURNISHED TO: eq��a�; This letter serves as notification of our intent to develop a "Temporary -Use Permit" for the purpose of conducting Christmas tree sales for the period of December 7 through December 24, 1985. This "Temporary -Use Permit" will provide for the County's obli- gation of liability coverage for the aforementioned period for the Grand Terrace Fire/Rescue Association to operate a Christmas tree sales lot. We will be bringing this action for Board of Supervisors' approval on December 2, 1985. We will provide you with copies of the permit and accompanying Board approval as soon as the action is completed. lr cc: 2ampese & DeBenedet L • Don C Banghart hief Forestry and Fire Warden Dept. i rl i T' / �I C n 7� '+ \ (1 r .411 1 I.41 1 1,�J , FORESTRY AND FIRI; VARDEN DEPARTMED 3800 Sierra Way • San Bernardino CA 92405 • (714) 882-1226 S GRAND TERRACE FIRE A D RESCUE, ASSOCIATION November 1, 1985 Joe Kicak, Director Planning Department //I COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDIN( OFFICE OF PUBLIC SAFETY FLOYD TIDWELL Director FIRE WARDEN [Ei�fIIEII�C�nQ:iJ(CI'f �QIIi3�IICCIIosS 22582 City Center Court Grand Terrace, CA 92324 (714) 825-0221 JNrORiJAT10N COPY FURNISHED TO The Grand Terrace Fire and Rescue Association wishes to operate a Christmas tree sales lot from December 7, 1985 till December 24, 1985, on the property to the south and adjacent to the fire station at 22582 City Center Court, Grand Terrace, CA. Attached are copies of the County Fire Department approval along with the owners approval to conduct the sale holding the City of Grand Terrace and the owners Zampese & DeBenedet "Harmless" for all liabilities for injury to persons and damage to property. Thank You for your a-ctenzzon of this matter. Mike Roppolo President, GTF&RA F F-CE1VED .;. ' Cl,(OF GRAND TERRACE FD1,4 STRY AND FIRL- _VARDEN DEPARTMED 3800 Sierra Way • San Bernardino, CA 92405 • (714) 882-1226 Tom' November 1, 1985 Grand Terrace Fire & Rescue Association 22582 City Center Court Grand Terrace, CA 92324 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINC OFFICE OF PUBLIC SAFETY FLOYD TIDWELL Director WARDENFIRE We, Zampese and DeBenedet, owners of the property south and adjacent to 22582 City Center Court, do agree to allow the Grand Terrace Fire & Rescue Association to operate a Christmas tree sales lot from December 7, 1985 till December 24, 1985 on the premises stated above. Since this is an authorized fire department activity, we under— stand that the same agreement dated OCTOBER 15, 1984. regarding the Christmas tree sale lot last year and the county of San Bernardino concerning liability will still apply to this activity, Signed Ernie Z74's e Signed William DeBenedet I r - ,,I-( CG GR,,iQ TERRACE Date- 12/12/85 C R A ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (XX) MEETING DATE: 12/12/85 AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 -Y SUBJECT: REJECT LIABILITY CLAIM GTLC 85-5 FUNDING IS REQUIRED NO FUNDING IS REQUIRED XX On December 5, 1985, the City received a claim from Ms. Tracey Hynes of 12185 Country Club Lane. Ms. Hynes is claiming damages in the amount of $207.00 for a fall she sustained at the corner of Palm and Observation. The $207.00 represents the cost of medical treatment as a result of the fall. The date of injury was September 12, 1985. The area in question was observed on December 5, 1985. The source of the flow on that date was traced to a residential water meter on Orangewood. The water flows down Orangewood and Observation to Palm. Staff recommends Council - REJECT LIABILITY CLAIM GTLC 85-5 ON THE BASIS OF NO LIABILITY, REFER CASE TO OUR CLAIMS ADJUSTER CARL WARREN AND COMPANY, AND DIRECT THE CITY CLERK TO NOTIFY THE CLAIMANT OF THE ACTION. ID C_ Y OF GRAND TERRACE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE MONDAr, NO-VEMEER 51 1985 MINUTES DEC 12 1985 MEETING ��IJI�CtL A��Na�i j The Grand Terrace Parks and Recreation Committee's regular meeting of November 5, 1985 was called to order by Chairman Dick Rollins at 7 45p m. in the Community Room of the City Hall, Grand Terrace, Ca. MEMBERS PRESENT Dick Rollins, Chairman Ken Rinderhagen, Vice Chairman Louis Galvez MEMBERS ABSENT Lenore Frost Rhoda Saterfield Chuck Percy CITY STAFF Randall Anstine Renee McCarthy GUESTS Barbara Phennighausen, Councilwoman Barbara Bayus, Chamber of Commerce The Minutes of the meeting of October 21, 1985 were distributed to the members present for their approval Inasmuch as the membership did not compose a formal quorum the minutes were discussed and a unanimous vote would be required for approval Ken Rinderhagen made the motion to approve and the motion was seconded by Louis Galvez with the motion being unanimously accepted ITEM #1 Discussion centering on the application of Mrs Barbara Conley as a new member of the Parks and Recreation Committee Louis Galvez made the motion to accept Barbara Conley as a member of the Com- mittee with Ken Rinderhagen making the second The motion carried unanimously A Memorandum will be submitted to the City Council to consider the application on their next regular meeting ITEM#2 Rhoda Saterfield has stated to the Chairman of the Committee, Dick Rollins, that she may have to resign as a member due to a very heavy schedule of participation in other Club activities within the City Members present spoke of their concern over losing a valuable member of the Committee but recognized that her current interests lie in activities of the Soccer Club, Basketball Club, Swim Club, and Adult Women's Soccer Club, besides her normal family commitments The Committee decided to wait for Ms. Saterfield's final decision. ITEM #3 Discussion regarding the possibility of holding only a once -a -month meeting of the Committee was made It was decided that after Christmas the proposal would be submitted to the entire Committee at some future meeting There being no further items to be discussed the m ting was ad- journed at 9 OOP m RECERb G1TY OF GRAND T LRRACE a 'T Date 2 5/85 C R A ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (XX) MEETING DATE: 12/12/85 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 6 (f/J SUBJECT: Resignation of Rhoda Saterfield from the Parks & Recreation Committee FUNDING IS REQUIRED NO FUNDING IS REQUIRED XX Attached is a copy -of Rhoda Saterfield resignation from the Parks & Recreation Committee. Staff recommends Council: ACCEPT RHODA SATERFIELD'S RESIGNATION, WITH REGRET, AND AUTHORIZE ADVERTIZING THE VACANCY OF AN UNEXPIRED TERM TO EXPIRE 6/30/86. ID I i December 2, 1985 Mr Dick Rollins, Chairman Parks and Recreation Committee Dear Dick My membership on the Grand Terrace Parks and Recreation Committee has been very rewarding However, due to my limited availability, I must resign The City Council is fortunate to have the assistance of such a dedicated group of citizens I wish the committee continued success Sincerely, r-, / �'- A " Rhoda Saterfield R,EcEIVE, v 1 ✓ 5 CI i'r OF. GRApjD TERRACE DEC 1206 COMMISSION AND COMMITTEE REPORTIc" COUNCIL MEETING DATE DEC 1205 DATE. Nov 18-8 COMMISSION/COMMITTEE- Crime Prevention SUBJECT- Vice Chairperson PROBLEM. For the Record Facts: Ronald Wright elected Vice Chairperson of the committee during its regular scheduled business meeting November 18, 1985 ALTERNATIVES• SOLUTION DEC 5 06 CITY Of GRAli©T�RRAC� REQUESTED ACTION TO BE TAKEN BY COUNCIL AND/OR STAFF 12 1985 COMM19SION AND COMMIT i EE REPORT` "'Vr bgma' Se - COUNCIL MEETING DATE DEC 12 1985 DATE Nov 18-85 COMMISSION/COMMITTEE: rrimP PrPVPn- SUBJECT: Frequency of meeting PROBLEM: Facts: Members believed the task of the Crime Prevention Committee does not Dustify two meetings per month, cognizant that special meetings can always be called. The committee, by consensus, agreed to eliminate the third monday meeting ALTERNATIVES: C(11 1 ITT nM REQUESTED ACTION TO BE TAKEN BY COUNCIL AND/OR STAFF t RECEIVED Q r � 51986 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE I EC 12 1A t G 14;NUS o CITY OF GRAND TERRACE EMERGENCY OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING THURSDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1985 MINUTES The Emergency Operations Committee of October 17, 1985 was called to order by Ed Luers, Chairman, in the Emergency Operations Center of the City of Grand Terrace, California at 7 00 p.m. Present. (members) Ed Luers, Jim Hodder, Mike Harris and Vic Pfennighausen (guest) Jay Harold Tibbles The minutes were approved as presented. Jim Hodder announced that the Governor's Earthquake Preparedness will be giving a presentation in San nernardino on October 23. He requested anyone from the committee desiring to attend contact him. The Crime Prevention Committee will have a "Town Meeting" November 19 on Earthquake Preparedness. The program will include a 20 minute movie. The E.O.C. Committee and the Crime Prevention Committee will be working together to stimulate "Earthquake Preparedness" awareness through the Town Hall meeting and Neighborhood Watch programs. We wil, be getting more information from them after their November 4 meeting. Ed Luers reported to the committee about adding security to the building and some of the improvements needed to enhance the integrity of this facility in preparation for a major quake. In the near future, there will be flyers sent out in the mail to Grand Terrace residents regarding "family survival." Ed Luers briefed the committee on the Grid System, facilities and card plan for the Emergency Operations Plan that is being written. Ed Luers wants information from staff on what the legal liabilities are of a sub -committee. Vic Pfennighausen gave a report to the committee on the Communications Sub - Committee. The communications group will be meeting on a regular schedule, the first Sunday of the month in the E.O.C. building. The gas operated generator was operated carrying load for one-half hour. RECEIVED ? _ 085 CITY OF iRAND T'-r?,RICE -2- EOC Minutes - 10/17/85 The next regular meeting of the Emergency Operations Committee will be November 18 at 7:00 p.m. Meeting adjourned at 8 45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Vic Pfenneghausen, Secretary DEC 12 1985 CITY OF ,RAND TEPRACE WIf GIL AGENDA l 5F ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES VovemFer 5, 1985 The meetinq of L'he Grand Terrace Econo^iic Development Committee was called to order at J 35 P m b%, Ji- Ql-ley, Chairman, in the upstairs conference room of the Civic Center on November 5, 1985 PRESENT Joe Borrielli, Doug Erway, Tom Schwab, Jerry Hawkinson, Jim Rigley, Sandi Windbiqler, Barbara Pfennighausen & Bob Keeney ABSENT Bud Howell There being no corrections or additions to the Minutes of October 1, 1985, they were approved as presented Bob Keeney (local developer) made a presentation about develooing a shopping center northwest of the freeway (the Keeney/Clark property) The area discussed is approxi- mately 12 acres and is adjacent to the south bound Barton Road off -ramp Discussion centered on whether a shopoing center was the best use of the proposed site A motel/hotel/restaraunt was suggested by Sandi Windibigler There was also discussion on how a shopping center on the west side of the freeway would impact the shopping center presently located at Barton Road and Mt Vernon Barbara Pfennighausen felt that it would polarize shopping away from the center of town and that would have an undesireable effect on the city She feels that the initial emphasis for retail commercial development should be between Michigan and Mt Vernon Avenues on Barton Road and that any development should should be carefully planned for integrated development if it is to be phased The area should be attractively laid out and landscaped It should be unique and make a statement about our city Barbara supported developmant of the area west of the freeway but felt a shopping center wasn't the best use of the site Hopkins Development Company has expressed their intent "to test the waters" for land assembly for a possible shopping center development We have also received information that Colonel Sanders Kentucky Fried Chicken is looking to expand into this area Barbara will check into this lead and report to the committee at its next meeting Jim Coffin, C Y Development Company, has expressed an interest in developing his property on Commerce Way Doug Erway reported that the new city map has stubbed its toe on a "copyright" stumbling block, a temporary delay only RECEIVED �85 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE I -2- The committee looked at a mock-up of a promotional piece being prepared for the city It is to be a fold -out with pictures and information on our community There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 8 10 p m Next meeting December 3, 1985 630pm Civic Center (upper conference room) Respectfully submitted, Barbara Pfennighsuen, Secretary Approved Date 1 t i UATE: T December 5, 1985 ` 12.119 C R A ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM JA AGENDA ITEM NO. -5-� SUBJECT Street Lighting Survey FUNDING REQUIRED NO FUNDING REQUIRED xx MEETING DATE: December 12, 1985 157 14 M Attached is a suggested letter to be sent to all property owners in the City of Grand Terrace, requesting their opinion on street lights. Please review and comment. JS/lh I, / 12.119 Reference: Street Lighting Survey Dear Property Owner: HUGH J GRANT Mayor BYRON MATTESON Mayor Pro Tem Council Members TONY PETTA DENNIS L EVANS BARBARA PFENNIGHAUSEN SETH ARMSTEAD City Manager In 1983, the City of Grand Terrace considered establishing a lighting district where property owners would be charged for the electric bill, to provide additional street lights throughout the City. At that time, there was opposition to the project by property owners and some members of the City Council, and the district was not formed. Recently, the City Council has received several requests for additional street lights and they directed Staff to conduct a mail survey to determine the extent of public interest in this matter. If there is substantial interest in the formation of a lighting district, we will prepare a report for the City Council listing all expenses and you will receive another letter with the estimated cost to you for providing street lights. After the results of the survey have been tabulated, the City Council will schedule a public hearing to consider the subject. It will be appreciated if you will fill out the enclosed questionnaire and return in the envelope provided. Sincerely, SETH ARMSTEAD CITY MANAGER SA/lh 22795 BARTON ROAD Civic Center — (714) 824-6621 GRAND TERRACE, CA 92324.5295 Planning — Engineering — (714) 825-3825 QUESTIONNAIRE 1. WE DO NOT WANT STREET LIGHTS. 2. 3. NAME: ADDRESS: 12.119 WE ARE INTERESTED IN RECEIVING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE COST OF PROVIDING STREET LIGHTING. WE WOULD LIKE STREET LIGHTS AND ARE WILLING TO SHARE THE COST. DATE Dec. 6, 1985 i A ,tOU ►T C R A ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (X) MEETING DATE: Dec. 12, 1985 AGENDA ITEM N0. 14 940E- SUBJECT PUBLIC HEARING AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 103(K)(2) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF TAX- EXEMPT MULTI -FAMILY HOUSING BONDS. FUNDING REQUIRED NO FUNDING REQUIRED XX Section 103(K)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 requires the holding of a public hearing to allow public testimony relating to the issuance of tax-exempt multi -family housing revenue bonds. This is a properly noticed public hearing and the time to consider the public support or opposition to the financing of the project. The project consists of 34.41 acres bounded by Barton Road, Mt. Vernon Ave and Canal Street. This represents a combination of two adjacent properties. The first phase of the project will consist of 234 units on 14.86 acres and the second phase will consist of 308 units on 19 56 acres. The approval of the resolution will authorize the issuance of the bonds, but would still require the developer to comply with all zoning and planning requirements of the City. The repayment of the debt will be the obligation of the developer/owner and will look to the revenues generated by the project to retire the bonds. At the sale of bonds the agency will receive a fee of 25 basis points of the issue. If the issue was sold at the maximum 30 million, this fee would be $75,000. STAFF RECOMMENDS 1. COUNCIL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING 2 COUNCIL APPROVE THE ATTACHED RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF MULTI -FAMILY HOUSING REVENUE BONDS. TS bt Attachment PENDMG CffY DEC 12 1985 COUNCIL, APPROVAL (,p'►Ji°1CIL AGENDA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $30,000,000 VARIABLE RATE DEMAND MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE BONDS BY THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE SUBJECT TO LIMITATIONS AND CONDITIONS AFTER A PROPERLY NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Grand Terrace, California (the "Agency") has adopted a Resolution of Intention initiating proceedings for the financing of a 234-unit multifamily rental housing project and appurtenant facilities to be developed by F.C. Grand Terrace, a California limited partnership (the "Developer") and located within a redevelopment project area on a 15± acre site on the west side of Mt. Vernon Avenue, south of Grand Terrace Avenue and east of Gage Canal to be known as "Mt. Vernon Villas"; and WHEREAS, the Developer has entered into legally binding purchase agreements with the owners of two adjacent parcels (Assessor's Parcel Nos. 275-251-09 and 275-251-10) and now proposes to develop an additional 308 units on such parcels so as to create a single multifamily residential rental housing project consisting of 542 units and appurtenant facilities (the "Project") to be located on 34± acres within a redevelopment project area; and WHEREAS, federal law and specifically Section 103(k)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended (the "Code") requires approval of the financing and the City's participation therein by an elected official of the governmental body after a properly noticed public hearing; and WHEREAS, a notice of such public hearing was published at least fourteen (14) days prior to the date of such public hearing as required by the Code and the regulations thereunder; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on December 12, 1985 to offer an opportunity for public testimony and to consider the public support for and opposition to the financing of the Project and the City's participation therein; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace, California, as follows: 1. R Section 1 The above recitals and each of them are true and correct. Section 2. The City Council does hereby approve the issuance of Variable Rate Demand Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds by the Agency for the financing of the Project subject to the conditions and limitations as follows: (a) The Developer will comply with all zoning and planning requirements of the City (b) The City and the Developer will prepare or cause to be prepared such documentation as is necessary to accomplish the financing on terms acceptable to the City and the Developer. (c) In Compliance with Section 103(b)(4) of the Code, not less than 20% of the total number of units in the Project shall be for occupancy on a priority basis by individuals or families whose adjusted gross income does not exceed 80% of the median adjusted gross income for the area as determined pursuant to Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1977. (d) The proceedings of the City and the terms of the financing will comply with all requirements and limitations of State and federal law. Section 3. A Public hearing having been held pursuant to Section 103(k)(2) of the Code, upon notice duly published not less than 14 days prior to the public hearing and all testimony having been heard and considered, it is the intent of this City Council that this resolution shall constitute the approval of the applicable elected official in accordance with Section 104(k)(2) of the Code Section 4. This resolution shall become effective and be in full force and effect from and after its date of adoption. ADOPTED this 12th day of December, 1985 ATTEST: Clerk of the City of Grand Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace Terrace and of the City Council and of the City Council thereof thereof. - 2 - I, TTFT7F DUGHMAN, City Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adapted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace held on the 12th day of December, 1985, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSEM2 : ABSTAIN: Approved as to form: City Attorney City Clerk - 3 - DATE- Dec. 6, 1985 �-AA i leu 'T C R A ITEM (X> COUNCIL ITEM ( } MEETING DATE Dec. 12, 1985 AGENDA ITEM NO 6 4 lz SUBJECT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE AND SALE OF MULTI -FAMILY HOUSING REVENUE BONDS FUNDING REQUIRED NO FUNDING REQUIRED XX The City Council held a public hearing on December 12, 1985 regarding issuance of multi -family housing bonds and was presented with a resolution authorizing issuance If the Council authorized issuance, it would be appropriate for the agency to consider adopting a resolution authorizing issuance of the bonds and execution of documents relating to the bonds. The documents are quite lengthy and one full set will be available in the reading box for agency member review. STAFF RECOMMENDS 1. AGENCY ADOPT THE ATTACHED RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF MULTI -FAMILY BONDS AND APPROVING RELATED DOCUMENTS. TS bt PENDING COUNCIL APPROVAL RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF NOT TO EXCEED $30,000,000 PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE VARIABLE RATE DEMAND MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE BONDS, (MT. VERNON VILLAS PROJECT) 1985 SERIES A, APPROVING RELATED DOCUMENTS AND AUTHORIZING OFFICIAL ACTION WHEREAS, the Community Redevelopment Agency City of Grand Terrace (the "Agency") is authorized by Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 33750) of Part 1 of Division 24 of the Health and Safety Code of the State of California to issue and sell revenue bonds for the purpose of providing financing for the construction of multifamily rental housing development within the City of Grand Terrace (the "City"); and WHEREAS, the Agency proposes to issue its Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Grand Terrace Variable Rate Demand Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds (Mt. Vernon Villas Pro3ect) 1985 Series A in the aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $30,000,000 (the "Bonds"), under and pursuant to an Indenture of Trust (the "Indenture") dated as of December 1, 1985, between the Agency and Seattle -First National Bank as trustee (the "Trustee"); and WHEREAS, Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co. Inc. (the "Purchaser") has submitted an offer to purchase the Bonds; and WHEREAS, it is appropriate at this time for the Board of Directors to authorize the issuance and award the sale of the Bonds and approve and authorize the execution of the Indenture and other financing documents relating to the Bonds. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Grand Terrace, as follows: SECTION 1: Sale of Bonds. The Bonds are hereby awarded to the Purchaser, pursuant to and in accordance with the terms of that certain agreement, entitled "Bond Purchase Agreement" by and between the Agency and the Purchaser. The Bond Purchase Agreement, in substantially the form presented to the Board of Directors at this meeting, together with any additions thereto or changes therein 1. deemed necessary or advisable by the Executive Director of the Agency (the "Executive Director") upon the advise of Nazarek, Harper, Hopkins & McFarlin, as bond counsel to the Agency ("Bond Counsel") is hereby approved. The appropriate officers of the Agency are hereby authorized and directed to execute said agreement for and in the name and on behalf of the Agency, such execution to represent approval of the final form of the Bond Purchase Agreement by the Agency. SECTION 2: Indenture. The Indenture, dated as of December 1, 1985, from the Agency to the Trustee in substantially the form presented to the Board of Directors at this meeting, together with any additions thereto or changes therein deemed necessary or advisable by the Executive Director upon the advise of Bond Counsel, is hereby approved. The appropriate officers of the Agency are hereby authorized and directed to execute the Indenture, as amended, for and in the name and on behalf of the Agency, such execution to represent approval of the final form of the Indenture_ by the Agency. SECTION 3. Loan Agreement. That certain agreement, entitled "Loan Agreement" and dated as of December 1, 1985, by and between the City and F. C. Grand Terrace, a California limited partnership (the "Developer") in substantially the form presented to the Board of Directors at this meeting, together with any additions thereto or changes therein deemed necessary or advisable by the Executive Director upon the advise of Bond Counsel, is hereby approved. The appropriate officers of the Agency are hereby authorized and directed to execute said agreement, as amended, for and in the name and on behalf of the Agency, such execution to represent approval of the final form of the Loan Agreement by the Agency. SECTION 4. Regulatory Agreement. That certain agreement, entitled "Regulatory Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants" (the "Regulatory Agreement") and dated as of December 1, 1985, by and between the Agency, the Trustee and the Developer in substantially the form presented to the Board of Directors at this meeting, together with any additions thereto or changes therein deemed necessary or advisable by the Executive Director upon the advise of Bond Counsel is 2. hereby approved. The appropriate officers of the Agency are hereby authorized and directed to execute said agreement, as amended, for and in the name and on behalf of the Agency, such execution to represent approval of the final form of the Regulatory Agreement by the Agency. SECTION 5. Administration Agreement. That certain agreement, entitled "Administration Agreement" and dated as of December 1, 1985, by and between the Agency, the Develop and M.F. Whipple & Co., Inc., a California corporation (the "Administrator"), in substantially the form presented to the Board of Directors at this meeting, together with any additions thereto or changes therein deemed necessary or advisable by the Executive Director upon the advise of Bond Counsel is hereby approved. The appropriate officers of the Agency are hereby authorized and directed to execute said agreement, as amended, for and in the name and on behalf of the Agency, such execution to represent approval of the final form of the Administration Agreement by the Agency. SECTION 6. Remarketing Agreement. That certain agreement, entitled "Remarketing Agreement" and dated as of December 1, 1985, by and between the Agency, the Developer and the Purchaser, as Remarketing Agent, in substantially the form presented to the Board of Directors at this meeting, together with any additions thereto or changes therein deemed necessary or advisable by the Executive Director upon the advise of Bond Counsel is hereby approved. The appropriate officers of the Agency are hereby authorized and directed to execute said agreement, as amended, for and in the name and on behalf of the Agency, such execution to represent approval of the final form of the Remarketing Agreement by the Agency. SECTION 7. Real Estate Security Documents. As additional security for repayment of the Developer Loan (as defined in the Loan Agreement) the Developer will execute a Note and Mortgage (as defined in the Loan Agreement) and related documents (the "Real Estate Security Documents") which provide the Agency a beneficial interest in the Land and the Development (as defined in the Loan Agreement). The Real Estate Security Documents, in such form as shall be approved by the Executive Director 3. upon the advise of Bond Counsel is hereby approved. The appropriate officers of the Agency are hereby authorized and directed to execute said documents indicating the acknowledgement and approval thereof by the Agency. SECTION 8. Official Statement. The Purchaser intends to use an Official Statement in connection with the offering and sale of the Bonds. The Executive Director is hereby authorized and directed to review a form of said Official Statement with the assistance of staff and to recommended any changes therein or additions thereto deemed necessary or advisable by the Executive Director. The appropriate officers of the Agency are hereby authorized and directed to execute said Official Statement, incorporating any such changes and additions, for and in the name and on behalf of the Agency, such execution to represent approval of the final form of the Official Statement by the Agency. SECTION 9. Low and Moderate Units. The Board of Directors hereby finds and declares that not less than 20% of the total number of units in the project to be financed by the Bonds shall be for occupancy on a priority basis by individuals or families whose ad3usted gross income does not exceed 80% of the median ad3usted gross income for the area as determined pursuant to Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937. SECTION 10. Official Action. All actions heretofore taken by the officers and agents of the Agency with respect to the sale and issuance of the Bonds are hereby approved, confirmed and ratified, and the Chairman, the Secretary, the Executive Director, and any and all other officers of the Agency are hereby authorized and directed, for and in the name and on behalf of the Agency, to do any and all things and take any and all actions relating to the execution and delivery of any and all certificates, requisitions, agreements and other documents, including but not limited to those described in the Bond Purchase Agreement, which they, or any of them, deem necessary or advisable in order to consummate the lawful issuance and delivery of the Bonds in accordance with the Bond Purchase Agreement, the Indenture and this resolution. SECTION 11. Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect from and after its adoption. 4. ADOPTED this 12th day of December, 1985. ATTEST: Secretary of the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Grand Terrace Chairman of the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Grand Terrace I, Ilene Dughman, Secretary of the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Grand Terrace , do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Grand Terrace Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Grand Terrace held on the 12th day of December, 1985, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Attorney 5. Secretary -k l"'r r 'T C R A ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (XX) MEETING DATE: 12/12/85 AGENDA ITEM NO. N SUBJECT: Continued Public Hearing - Ordinance Dealing with Noise FUNDING IS REQUIRED NO FUNDING IS REQUIRED XX Date-12/5/85 6A4 A Public Hearing and second reading of a proposed ordinance dealing with noise was conducted November 7. At that meeting, the Public Hearing was continued in order to allow the City Attorney time to prepare an alternative ordinance for Council consideration, which will be provided prior to this meeting. If Council wishes to adopt the alternative ordinance, a first reading will be required. Staff recommends Council Adopt an ordinance regulating noise. by title only. ID PENDMG Cam' COUNCIL APPROVAL ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA, DEALING WITH NOISE AND DECLARING THE EMISSION OF CERTAIN NOISES TO BE A NUISANCE NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS Section 1. Intent It is the intent of this section to protect properties within the City and the health and safety of persons from environmental nuisances and hazards and provide a pleasing environment throughout the City. Section 2. Violations to be an Infraction It is hereby determined that every violation hereof is an infraction punishable as follows - (a) A fine not exceeding $50 00 for a first violation; (b) A fine not exceeding $100 00 for a second violation within a one year period; (c) A fine not exceeding $200 00 for each additional violation within a one year period. Section 3. Unlawful Noises It is unlawful for any person to make, continue, or cause to be made or continued any loud, unnecessary and excessive noise which disturbs, offends, injures or endangers the peace, quiet, comfort, repose, health, or safety or any neighborhood or person within the limits of the City Section 4 Exemptions There is exempted from the provisions of this section the use of horns, sirens, or other signalling or warning devices by persons vested with legal authority to use the same and in pursuit of their lawful duties, such as on ambulances, fire, police or other governmental or official equipment; also, there is exempted in like manner such noises as are a natural accompaniment and effect of a lawful business, commercial or industrial enterprise carried on in an area zoned for that purpose except as otherwise provided for herein. Section 5 Special Activities In addition to the exemptions provided for hereinabove, the following activities shall be exempted from the provisions provided for herein (a) City or school approved activities conducted on public parks, public playgrounds and public or private school grounds including but not limited to athletic and school entertainment events between the 7:00 a m. and 11 00 p m -1- (b) Outdoor gatherings, dances, shows, and sporting and entertainment events, provided that said events and conducted pursuant to the approval of a Temporary Use Permits issued by the City (c) Noises produced by mechanical devices, apparatus or equipment used, related to, or connected with emergency machinery, vehicle, work or warning alarm or bell, provided the sounding of any bell, or alarm on any building or motor vehicle shall terminate its operation within thirty minutes in any hour of its being activated. (d) Noise sources associated with or vibration created by construction, repair or remodeling or grading of any real property or during authorized seismic surveys, provided said activities do not take place between the hours of 8-00 p m and 7.00 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at anytime on Sunday or a National Holiday, and provided noise levels created do not exceed the noise standards herein. (e) All devices, apparatus or equipment associated with agriculture operations provided as follows- (1) Operations do not take place between 8:00 p m and 7.00 a m (2) Such operations and equipment are utilized for protection or salvage of agricultural crops during periods of potential or actual frost damage or other adverse weather conditions. (3) Such operations and equipment are as- sociated with agricultural pest control through pesticide application provided the application is made in accordance with permits issued or regulations enforced by the California Department of Agriculture. (f) Noise sources associated with the maintenance of real property provided said activities take place between the hours of 8 00 a.m and 8.00 p m on any day except Sunday or between the hours of 9.00 a m and 8:00 p.m. on Sunday Section 6 Prohibited Noise The following noises are prohibited and are declared to be nuisances (a) Peddlers Use of Loud Noise to Advertise Goods No peddler or mobile vendor or any person in their behalf shall shout, cry out, or use any device or instrument to make sounds for the purpose of advertising in such a manner as to create a noise disturbance. (b) Animal Noises No person owning or having the charge, care, custody, or control of any dog, or other animal or fowl shall allow or permit the same to howl, bark, yelp or make other noises, in such a manner as to create a noise disturbance. (c) Radios, Television Sets, Musical Instruments, Phonographs and Similar Devices No person shall use, operate or permit to be played, used or operated any radio receiving set, television set, musical -2- instrument, phonograph or other machine or device for producing or reproducing sound in such a manner as to disturb the peace, quiet or comfort of neighboring persons, or an any time with louder volume than is necessary for the convenient hearing of the person or persons who are in the room, vehicle or other enclosure in which such machine or device is operated, and who are voluntary listeners thereto; the operation of any such set, instrument, phonograph, machine or device between the hours of 10:00 p m and 7 00 a m in such a manner as to be plainly audible at a distance of fifty feet from the building, structure or vehicle in which it is located shall be prima facie evidence of a violation of this section (d) Loud and Boisterous Yelling, Shouting , Whistling or Singing. No person shall yell, shout, whistle or sing in a loud and boisterous manner on the public streets so as to disturb the quiet, comfort or repose of persons in any office, dwelling, hotel or other type of residence, or neighborhood (e) The Sounding of Whistles, Horns, Bells or Other Such Devices No person shall make or cause to be made the loud, sudden and unnecessary blowing of whistles, sounding of horns, ringing of bells or use of signaling devices by operators of railroad locomotives, motor trucks and other transportation equipment. (f) Loading or Unloading of Trucks No person shall create or cause to be created loud and excessive noise in connection with the loading or unloading of motor trucks and other vehicles, so as to disturb the peace and quite of adjacent residential neighborhoods (g) Operation of Equipment The operation or use between the hours of 10.00 p m and 7 00 a.m. of any pile driver, steam shovel, pneumatic hammers, derrick, steam or electric hoist, power driven saw, or any other tool or apparatus the use of which is attended by loud and excessive noise is prohibited. (h) Automotive Repair Works No person shall do automotive repair, automotive body or fender or other work on metal objects and metal parts between the hours of 10 00 p m and 7.00 a.m , in or adjacent to any residential district, so as to cause loud and excessive noise which disturbs the peace and quiet of the residential neighborhood. Section 7 full force adoption Effective Date and effect at Section 8 Posting The Ordinance to be posted in for such public purpose by (15) days after its passage This Ordinance shall be in 12 01 a m on 31st day after its City Clerk shall cause this three (3) public places, designated the City Council, within fifteen -3- Section 9 First read at a meeting of the City Council of said City held on the day of , 1985. ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace and of the City Council thereof. Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace and of the City Council thereof. I, ILENE DUGHMAN, City Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was first read at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace held of the day of , 1985 by the following vote- AYES - NOES. ABSENT - ABSTAIN. City Clerk Approved as to form. City Attorney DATE: December 4, 1985 12-8.5031B C R A ITEM ( ) n COUNCIL ITEM (A MEETING DATE: Decembe .2 1985 AGENDA ITEM NO. ( C SUBJECT Site and Architectural Approval SA 85-8, Mt. Vernon Villas Appeal FUNDING REQUIRED NO FUNDING REQUIRED xx The Grand Terrace Planning Commission at their regularly scheduled meeting of November 18, 1985, approved Site and Architectural SA 85-8 Mt. Vernon Villas for a maximum of 252 units The Planning Commission approved this pro3ect sub3ect to Staff's 33 Conditions of Approval and the addition of 6 Conditions of Approval made by the Planning Commission. According to the attached letter dated November 19, 1985, Forest City Dillon and Mr Al Trevino are appealing some of the Conditions of Approval. Attachments are as follows P.C. Staff Report for SA 85-8 P.C. Additional Conditions of Approval Letter of Appeal by Forest City Dillon dated November 19, 1985. Letter of Appeal by Mr. Al Trevino dated December 2, 1985 AE/lh 0 12-8.5031B STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: November 18, 1985 FROM: Planning Department AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: II } SUBJECT: Site & Architectural Review SA 85-8, for Mt. Vernon Villas Apartment Units. OWNER/APPLICANT: Forest City Dillon 11601 Wilshire Blvd., #1900 Los Angeles, CA 90025 LOCATION: The proposed project is located north of Barton Road between Mt. Vernon Avenue and the Gage Canal. (Vicinity Map Enclosed) ASSESSOR'S PARCEL; #: 275-251-07 ± 3.10 Gross Acres 275-241-06 ± 5.45 Gross Acres 275-251-23 ± 6.32 Gross Acres 275-251-24 ± 1.13 Gross Acres AREA: GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: SURROUNDING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: APPROVED CITY Of GRAND TERRACE NNING COMMISSION PITY COUNCIL ± 16.00 Gross Acres Medium Density Residential North = Medium Density Residential South = Medium Density Residential East = Low Density Residential West = Low Density Residential/Light Industrial R-3 North = R-3 South = R-3 East = R-1 West = R-1/M-2 AGENDA ITEM NO ' r= MEETING DATE SUBJECT SITE: The subject site consists of four conti- guous assessor's parcels located north of Barton Road, west of Mt. Vernon Ave., and east of the Gage Canal. The site is occupied by two existing residences with the remainder of the property covered with native brush and various types of trees. The property slopes to the west at approximately 4-8%. REQUEST: Forest City Dillon has requested Site; & Architectural approval for the construction of 252 apartments! on 16. gross acres. This apartment project, known as Mt. Vernon Villas, will include 48 units set -aside for senior citizens. These apartment units will be constructed as two story buildings. The number of bedrooms for these buildings will be as follows: Apartment Units At%e 66 Plan A 1 Br./1 Ba. 62 Plan B 2 Br./1 1/3 Ba. 124 Plan C 2 Br./2 Ba. PROPOSED DENSITY: 15.75 Dwelling Units per Gross Acre ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: A negative environmental declaration has been prepared and filed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. PROJECT HISTORY: At the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting held on May 20, 1985, McMillin Development requested that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of Specific Plan/ Conditional Use Permit 85-8, for the construction of 252 apartment units on approximately ±14.9 acres. The appli- cant intended to construct 21 two story apartment buildings. However, after considerable discussion, the Planning Commission denied the request for a Specific Plan/Conditional Use Permit 1 Staff Report 12-8.5031B Page 2 i I -'- _ Ji approval. The denial was based on: 1) Inconsistencies in the Specific Plan; 2) The proposed development would be detrimental to the general health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare of the person residing or working within the neighborhood of the proposed use; and 3) the impact on the City's infrastructures and circulation element. Based on this denial, McMillin Develop- ment Company filed on appeal pursuant to Title 18, Section 18.66.050. On June 13, 1985, the City Council modified and approved Specific Plan/ Conditional Use Permit 85-8, Mt. Vernon Villas, for 12.75 units per acre plus a bonus density of three units per acre for senior citizens, to include the findings and conditions as read by the City Attorney and outlined in Section 18.66.040 of the Municipal Code. The City Council also approved the Negative Declaration and directed - the City Clerk to file a Notice of Determination with the Board of Supervisors. One of the findings for reducing the density of the project is the fact that reduced traffic will mitigate the adverse impact on traffic and circulation within the City; allowing a bonus of three units per acre for senior citizens will mean fewer automobiles and trips within that portion of the project, which will also reduce traffic and mitigate the adverse impact on traffic and circulation within the community. On October 17, 1985, the City Council directed Staff to review Mr. Trevino's new proposal and return to the City Council with recommendations. Mr. Trevino requested Staff to accept minor adjustments and additions to his Specific Plan 85-8. The minor adjust- ments and additions included the addition of the 2.1 acre Southern California Edison (SCE) Parcel, the 1.1 acre Staff Report 12-8.5031B Page 3 Alexander Parcel, and the addition of 30 units, which would increase the Specific Plan approval from 234 to 264. According to the City Attorney, the Edison Property could not be used to offset the density, because a three year lease would not give the City sufficient control over the property. If Mr. Trevino wished to increase the density on his property by including the additional SCE Property, this revision would have to be resubmitted to the Planning Commission for approval. In regards to Mr. Alexander's 1.1 Gross acre parcel, the addition of 17 units would be in compliance with the 15.75 units per acre that the City Council approved on June 13, 1985. According to the City Attorney, this addition would be considered a minor deviation, therefore, the total amount of units approved would change from 234 units including 44 senior citizen housing units on 14.9 Gross acres to 252 units, including 48 senior citizen units on 16 Gross Acres. Based on the above information, the Applicant is now requesting Site & Architectural approval pursuant to Municipal Code Section 18.21.160 (A) & (B). STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff has reviewed this project for conformance with Title 18 of the City's Municipal Code. 1) According to Section 18.60.040(A), It states that two parking spaces are required for each dwelling unit. One parking space shall be enclosed on three sides and shall be a minimum of ten feet in width and twenty feet in length. The applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission approve the enclosed parking as a carport enclosed on two sides and a roof top. Staff Report 12-8.5031B Page 4 On June 13, 1985, this concept was approved by the City Council as a part of Specific Plan 85-8. However, under Section 18.60.210 of the Municipal Code "Additional guidelines for parking facility design, internal layout, acceptable turning radius and pavement slope, vehicular and pedestrian circulation, and other design features may be applied by the Director of Planning when deemed appropriate. As Planning Director, I recommend that the Planning Commission make one of the following choices: A) The covered parking shall be constructed as a carport enclosed on two sides as proposed. B) The covered parking shall be r constructed as a carport enclosed on three sides. C) Each individual covered parking - shall be enclosed on three sides, and shall be a minimum of ten feet in width and twenty feet in length. 2) According to Section 18.60.040 (C) Guest Parking shall be required, shall not be enclosed, and shall be labeled guest parking. The number of spaces, is to be approved by the Planning Commission. The applicant has proposed 31 labeled guest parking spaces that will not be enclosed. The amount of guest parking spaces should not pose a problem, since 48 of these units will be set -aside for senior citizens. 3) The applicant has requested that the Planning Commission approve the existing lay -out of the proposed auxilliary buildings that include laundry rooms and rest rooms. The exact layout will not be available by the November 18, 1985 Planning Staff Report 12-8.5031B Page 5 Commission Meeting, however, the applicant has assured the City that the buildings will have the same color scheme and materials of the proposed apartments. 41* i S4 The Planning Commission may approve x _crY this request, or make it a condition y m- that the applicant submit the final R- auzilliary building design at a �4« later date for Site & Architectural approval. �f. h RECOMMENDATION: STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVE SITE & ARCHITECTURAL PLAN NO. 85-8, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS: 1. THE PROJECT IS IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY TITLE 18. r-z 2. THE PROJECT WILL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL -'" TO THE HEALTH, MORALS, SAFETY, COMFORT OR WELFARE OF PERSON WORKING WITHIN �' 4 of THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR CITY, NOR INJURIOUS TO PROPERTY OR IMPROVEMENTS IN THE _Y NEIGHBORHOOD. fy 3. CONDITIONS NECESSARY FOR THIS SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL, INCLUDING GUARANTEES AND EVIDENCE OF COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS, ARE MADE AS PART OF THIS APPROVAL. AEAH Staff Report 12-8.5031B Page 6 VICINITY MAP i Chairman Caouette, Vice Chairman Hawkinson and Commissioner McDowell voted against the motion. Motion by Commissioner Collins and seconded by Commissioner Munson and passed by a 7-0 vote, to add Conditions of Approval No. 37 which states: "The Developer shall provide a completely enclosed garage to meet the covered parking requirements." The following is a summary of Parking Spaces that the Planning Commission approved at their November 18, 1985, Planning Commission Meeting. 252 Enclosed Parking Spaces - Garages 171 Open Parking Spaces 63 Open Guest Parking Spaces 3 Open Handicapped Parking Spaces 78 Open Compact Parking Spaces 567 Total Parking Spaces Motion by Chairman Caouette and seconded by Commissioner McDowell and passed by a 7-0 vote to add Conditions of Approval No. 38, which states: "The Developer shall participate in a pro-rata share of costs for acquiring access across the Gage Canal, with the costs to be determined by the City Engineer." Motion by Chairman Caouette and seconded by Commissioner Andress and approved by a 6-1 vote, to add Condition of Approval No. 39 which states: "Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide a revised Site Plan incorporating the auxilliary building layout and architectural design, location of all parking spaces, both covered and uncovered architectural design for one car garage facility and any road width changes necessitated by comments by the County Fire Department and it's Site Plan shall be approved by the Planning Commission." Commissioner Munson voted against the motion. Motion by Vice -Chairman Hawkinson and seconded by Commissioner Cole and passed by a 5-2 vote, to approve Site and Architectural Review Plan 85-8, subject to all 39 Conditions of Approval that were discussed and approved by the Planning Commission." Commissioner's Collins and Munson voted against the motion. P.C. Conditions of Approval Page 2 1--3.5031B PLANNING COMMISSION ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL MT. VERNON VILLAS PROJECT The following motions were made at the November 18, 1985 Planning Commission Meeting. These excerpts are unofficial, the Planning Commission will consider approval of these minutes at their regularly scheduled meeting on December 16, 1985. Motion by Commissioner Collins and seconded by Commissioner Andress and passed by a 6-1 vote, to change Condition of Approval Number 9 to read as follows "Canal Street shall be improved to its ultimate street section including sidewalks along the entire Canal Street frontage of the project beginning from the Southern most point of the project along Ganal Street frontage past the Edison property around the bend " Commissioner McDowell voted against the motion Motion by Commissioner Collins and seconded by Commissioner Andress and passed by a 6-1 vote, to change Condition of Approval Number 20 to read as follows: " Mt. Vernon Avenue shall be improved to it's ultimate half —width street section including sidewalks along the entire Mt. Vernon frontage of the project area to the intersection of Canal Street." Commissioner McDowell voted against the motion. Motion by Commissioner McDowell and seconded by Commissioner Hawkinson and passed by a 7-0 vote, to add Conditions of Approval No. 34, which states: "That the City institute proceedings for a covenant which would embrace at least 2 signals, one at Mt. Vernon and Canal Street and one at Canal Street and Barton Road. The cost shall be based under a percent pro—rata share to each area, the covenant does not need any advance money at this time, but it shall run with the land when signals or other improvements, not including parks, will be required. These property owners will be required to compensate the City for the installation of these improvements." Motion by Commissioner Andress and seconded by Commissioner Munson and approved by a 5-2 vote to add Condition of Approval No. 35, which states: " The developer shall provide a ratio of one guest parking space be allocated for every 4 dwelling units proposed, which would be a total of 63 guest parking spaces." Motion by Commissioner Munson and seconded by Commissioner Cole and approved by a 4-3 vote to add Conditions of Approval No. 36 which states: "The developer shall set aside 25% or 78 of the total open spaces for compact cars, size to be determined by Staff." P C. Conditions of Approval Page 1 A ttECEIVED AT KICAK & AwULIATES November 19, 1985 Ms. Ilene Dughman City Clerk City of Grand Terrace 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace, CA 92324-5295 Dear Ms. Dughman. This letter will serve to inform you that we wish to appeal to the City Council of Grand Terrace some of the decisions made by the Planning Commission on November 18, 1985 regarding site and architectural approval, S.A. 85-8, for Mt. Vernon Villas. We understand that by this filing we would be placed on the City Council agenda for the December 12, 1985 meeting. Several motions to which we object were passed by the Planning Commission. We will not be able to respond to the motions in question until we receive the exact content and wording of these motions from the Planning Director. We expect to receive the exact motions within a week. At that time, we will prepare a written response outlining our concerns which can be given to each City Council member prior to the December 12th meeting. If there are any questions, or if for any reason you cannot comply with this request, please contact me immediately. Enclosed is our check for $117.00 payable to the City of Grand Terrace in payment of the required apppeal fee. Yours very truly, Carol Tanner CT/jm PECEIVED CI T f OF GRAND TERRACE Forest City Dillon, Inc ..nn. •• - - no A C, •-lnnn I r,_Ia .-n •nn. INFORMATION COPY FURNIS14ED Z01.'o i7" Honorable Hugh J. Grant Mayor City of Grand Terrace 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace, California 92324-5295 2 December 1985 Dear Mayor Grant: What I would like to achieve is for all of us to have a better understanding of the issues regarding site and architectural approval for Mt. Vernon Villas. We believe it may be of value if these issues and concerns are addressed in the form of a position paper, prior to the scheduled ` public hearing of our appeal, giving you and members of the City Council time to reflect on the Planning Commissions actions, which is the reason for our appeal. The City Council approved specific plan, 85-8, with "Conditions of Approval" on June 13, 1985. What was required by the city and submitted by the developer was a comprehensive document which detailed the design, engineering, and traffic elements. It was our understanding that what was approved by the City Council was to guide the implementation of the plan. One of the primary goals that both city and developer are trying to meet is stated in the General Plan to: "Promote and encourage a supply of housing suitable to the needs of and sufficient in number to serve existing and projected residents of Grand Terrace." and, "Promote and encourage housing opportunities for all economic segments of the community, regardless of age, sex, ethnic background, physical condition or family size." We believe the intent of your General Plan is clear, to provide cost effective and affordable housing. We believe that our plans and design help meet your commitment to these stated goals in a very creative form. Background As part of the process of seeking cooperation with the city to find the best possible solution in our project area we asked to be placed on the planning commission study session agenda. It is our understanding that the purpose of a studyy session is to have the opportunity to freely discuss KECEIVED projects prior to official actions at public hearings. J317` — zt ,,, �Irt OF GRAND TERR �� On October 21st we presented our site and architectural concepts seeking the planning commissions comments prior to our scheduled public hearing. There were = issues raised or for that matter comments made, at that study session, which would indicate that there was no disagreement to the direction being taken. We understand that formal actions cannot be taken but issues can be raised at study sessions. At the November 18th public hearing of the planning commission several motions were passed which not only deviate from the approved specific plan but now raise questions regarding the economic viability of the project and the ability to meet the General Plans objective of providing affordable housing. One motion introduced which clearly illustrates the antagonistic and irresponsible nature of the actions, was to reject the specific plan and to deny site and architectural approval. The City Counsel had to inform the commission that this was not a motion the commission member could make since the plan had already been approved by the City Council. The response of the commission was to then tack -on as many financial burdens to cause further harassment and delays. Some of these burdens which seem not to relate directly with site and architectural approval but rather were part of the specific plan discussions are: o Require the pro3ect to bear the cost of installing improvements surrounding the Edison Company property. o Adding a developer fee to pay for undefined future city improvement costs and traffic signals. o Require individual garages although the approved specific plan document shows carports as does the applicable city ordinances. o Requires that the plan be submitted to the planning commission for minor adjustments rather than having staff make administrative decisions. o Increase parking ratios reducing landscape area. Some of these motions will be reviewed in detail providing the City Council the opportunity to understand the negative aspects of these uncalled for burdens, which in the long run are most detrimental to the individual consumer. 2 Issue 1: Restatement of Specific Plan "Conditions of Approval". The plan which was submitted for site and architectural approval was approved as a specific plan 85-8. As part of this specific plan approval were "Conditions of Approval". There seems to be no need to restate those conditions which are already part of the specific plan and must be signed by the developer for the specific plan to become effective. POSITION: It is recommended that the conditions of approval for SA 85-8 contain only those conditions that pertain to site and architectural approval. The conditions 1 through 5 seem to apply and number 6 though 33 are only restatements of conditions and are presently part of the approved specific plan. Action: Conditions already part of specific plan be eliminated from SA 85-8. Issue 2: Off -site improvements The plan submitted was for site and architectural approval. Conditions for improvement of Canal Street and Mt. Vernon Avenue were part of the specific plan and approved by the City Council. Costs for improvement of adjacent private property, not owned by the developer, seems to be imposing a condition that is unreasonable and a financial burden to the project. POSITION: The city collects development fees for the improvement of property unrelated to specific projects. These city wide improvements should be made from those fees collected. The developer made recommendations to improve the Edison Company property for park purposes and does intend to submit a proposal and amend the specific plan, if the city will cooperate. The developer is waiting for criteria acceptable to the city under a lease term basis with Edison. Three years was unacceptable, would a five year renewable lease be acceptable? Action: The motion by the Planning Commission be rejected. That the City Council consider improvement of the Edison Company property based on conditions of density transfer and use of partial fees put forward by developer. 3 Issue 3: Parking Ratio for Guest Parking There is no criteria for guest parking for apartments. The planning commission was told by staff that a ratio for condominium developments was in the ordinance. This ratio used for "for sale" units of 1 space per four units was immediately accepted and if enforced would require a total of 63 guest spaces. The development plan for Mt. Vernon Villas shows 31 spaces. The planning commission motion would require an additional 32 spaces or approximately 12,000 square feet more of asphalt paving. POSITION: The City has required that 48 units be set aside for senior citizens. In most jurisdictions only one space per senior units is required for parking. We have provided two spaces for all units. This 2:1 ratio is considered high for rental developments, a ratio of 1.5:1 is more common. Our rational was, using 48 of the senior parking spaces plus the 31 addition for guest we feel we are making provisions for 79 spaces for guests. Few seniors have two cars. Rather than cover the site with 12,000 square feet of additional asphalt we prefer to have landscaped area. There is an abundance on parking provided. The issue is paved space vs landscape space. Action: That the guest space (31) as submitted be approved. Issue 4: Carports vs Garages The planning commission passed a motion requiring individual garages enclosed on all sides as a condition of approval. This requirement exceeds the requirements of Section 18.60.040 (A) and is counter to what was submitted and approved in the specific plan 85-8. A very detailed pro and con on the subject is given in the approved specific plan. POSITION: This issue was thought to be resolved with approval of the specific plan. There is no doubt that at every hearing more stringent conditions can be imposed. It would seem that the most fair resolution would be to change the ordinances rather than on a case by case basis. The only remaining issue was color selection which has been submitted and received approval from the Planning Commission. Action: That the plan as submitted be approved. 5a Issue 5: Adding a developers fees to pay for undefined future improvement costs and traffic signals. POSITION: This is not part of the site and architectural approval. Fees are already assessed for city wide improvements. The City Council imposed senior housing set - aside to reduce traffic conflicts. Based on several reports by the city traffic engineer a signal is not required until sometime after the year 2000. A more important issue we felt was the design (geometrics) of Mt. Vernon Avenue. Our recommendation was that the street section should be one lane in each direction with left turn pockets. At the intersection of Canal and Mt. Vernon Avenue left turn pockets would alleviate major conflicts. Action: That the motion by the Planning Commission be rejected. That the City Council instruct the Engineering Department to implement a cross section with left -turn pockets. Issue: 6 Continue Submission of Plans to the Planning Commission for Minor Modifications. POSITION: Any minor modifications should be a staff function. The problems of harassment would continue if this motion were approved. The commission should not function as staff. The city council can assign staff to approve minor changes of the plan which always occur as development is undertaken. Action: That the motion by the Planning Commission be rejected and that staff be delegated authority for minor changes in the plans required by grading, engineering etc. 5 n Summary The staff report clearly states that the project is in substantial conformance with the development standards established by Title 18 and will not be detrimental to the health, morals, safety, comfort or welfare of persons working within the neighborhood or city. To insure a more cohesive project the developer acquired additional property and was under the belief that the city had discussed and implicitly approved the concept of open space on Edison property. The developer would like to work with the city to make the Edison Company property a proper and fitting entry to the city. The counsel for the city said a 3 year lease was unacceptable and we have now been able to obtain a 5 year lease under the same terms and conditions the city is obtaining for another park site. The city is not hesitant to invest taxpayer dollars in a short term lease and must feel that the Edison lease will be renewed. We also believe that this parcel of land will remain open space for at least the next two decades. We propose that the city council request that the city counsel draw up acceptable terms and conditions so that open space can be developed on the Edison Company property. We also request that a resolution of intent be passed that would indicate that if we should submit an amendment to the specific plan that the city would consider granting a density transfer and would participate in the off -site improvements surrounding the Edison Company property. The fees for filing for this specific plan amendment should be waved by the city council. The exact words used in the hand-out material from the Grand Terrace Planning Department regarding Specific Plan Projects are: "A Specific Plan is an integration of land uses and allocations permitting fjjezibility DI design and elaboration over a particular site with the primary emphasis placed on the implementation of the General Plan". e lye berto F. Trevino 0 DATE: December 4, 1985 12.8-5031B C R A ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (Xi MEETING DATE: December 12, 1985 AGENDA ITEM NO. SUBJECT Mt Vernon Villas Site and Architectural SA85-8 FUNDING REQUIRED NO FUNDING REQUIRED xx For your information, Mr. Trevino has submitted a Parcel Map, which would split off the bottom portion of land and dedicate a 20 ft. wide road easement, as shown on attached map. This item will be scheduled for Planning Commission consideration next month. JS/lh I TA C R A ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (X) DATE:12/03/85 12.343 MEETING DATE: December 12, 1985 AGENDA ITEM NO. SUBJECT SeniorjCommunity Center Sign and Carpeting FUNDING REQUIRED NO FUNDING REQUIRED X Per the Grand Jury's recommendation and the City Manager's request, our office has investigated the removal and replacement of the existing "Community Center Sign" with a "Senior/Community Center" sign. The estimates for this new sign, which would be similar to the existing sign in color and in lettering size, would require a larger cabinet and sign face. Estimates for this sign ranged from $1,100.00 to $1,600.00 We also received estimates for keeping the existing sign cabinet and removing the existing plastic sign face and replacing it with a sign that has smaller lettering to accommodate "Senior/Community Center". Estimates for this sign ranged from $225.00 to $430.00. We also received a proposed bid, in the amount of $3,400.00, for the installation of 288 sq. yards of carpet for three classrooms, that includes labor, material and sales tax. The City has already allocated it's 1985-86 Block Grant Funds to the water system improvements on Burns, Maple and Vivienda Avenue. Staff recommends that City Council. 1. SELECT BETWEEN A NEW SENIOR/COMMUNITY SIGN AND CABINET OR REMOVE AND REPLACE THE EXISTING SIGN FACE. 2. UNDERTAKE THESE IMPROVEMENTS UNDER THE FY 1986-87 COMMUNITY BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM. iFF REPC C R A ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (x) MEETING DATE Decembee-r�T12, 1985 /f 1 AGENDA ITEM NO 1450 SUBJECT f SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON PARKLAND REQUEST FUNDING REQUIRED NO FUNDING REQUIRED As Council is aware, on July 5, 1985, Southern California Edison granted a conceptual approval to license ten acres of the property located to the far east of the Highgrove Generating Station along Pico Avenue to the City of Grand Terrace for park purposes. The issuance of the Edison license is contingent on the City Council accepting the terms contained in the attached sample It is the intent of the Parks and Recreation Committee to see this land utilized for development of baseball/softball and soccer fields. At this time the location being offered by SCE has most needed infrastructure already established At one time staff was asked to consider acquiring SCE property located to the north of the Pico site, west of Van Buren Street Staff and SCE personnel did investigate the site for possible development. On October 15, 1985 staff met with SCE personnel to discuss this alternate property acquisition. SCE representative, Sue Noreen, requested that before any further time be spent into the feasibility of this location being acquired, that the City make an official written request to SCE to consider a license to the west Van Buren site. Based upon existing needs of the City of Grand Terrace and Southern California Edison's willingness to allow the City to acquire the Pico site acreage, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE COUNCIL 1) AUTHORIZE STAFF TO EXECUTE A PARK LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON FOR USE OF THE PICO STREET ACREAGE 2) REFRAIN FROM ACTUAL PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE UNTIL MARYGOLD FARMS (CURRENT TENANT) ACCOMPLISHES ALFALFA HARVESTING IN JANUARY, 1987. 3) AUTHORIZE STAFF TO DRAFT AND SUBMIT PRELIMINARY FACILITY DESIGNS TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON FOR APPROVAL. RLA bt Attachment IWWAA►MR G( FURNISED T0: C' , Southern California Edison Company? P O BOX 79e RIALTO CALIFORNIA 92376 SUE NOREEN AREA MANAGER July 5, 1985 Seth Armstead City of Grand Terrace 22795 Barton Foad Grand Terrace, CA 92324 n Subject Park Lease Dear Seth• RECEIVED JUL CITY OF GRAND TERRACE I am writing to you in response to the request from the Communitv Services Director, Randv Anstine, regarding the license of Edison owned land for park development. Our company has granted a conceptual approval to license 10 acres of the property located to the far east of Highgrove Generating Station along Pico Avenue, preferably at the location indicated on the attached map. We understand that the City is interested in developing baseball and soccer fields on that site. It will be necessary for the City to submit detailed drawings and a plot plan of the proposed improvements before a final approval is granted. The issuance of this license is contingent on your acceptance of the terms contained in the attached sample of our Standard Park License ' Addit.ionally, no structure, parking or ball playing will be allowed in the 75 foot width of our 115 kV line right-of-way between Pico and Van Buren Streets just north of the proposed 10 acres. As you are aware, Marygold Farms is the current tenant utilizing the property for an alfalfa crop. They have agreed to relinquish 10 acres of their license to make way for city park development, providing that additional conditions, listed below, are met .o compensate for their loss 1. A $700 00 fee per acre per year for crop loss if the land is developed prior to alfalfa harvesting in January, 1987 Mr Seth Armstead —2— July 8, 1985 2. Fencing be installed to protect the fields from increased traffic 3. A maintenance gate and fencing be installed around the pump and well located on Pico Avenue. ` 4. Irrigation water line and valves may need to be moved, ` depending on established boundary of park development All conditions mentioned above are to be completed by the City at their cost When the City has made satisfactory arrangements with Marygold Farms, we will require a letter from the tenant requesting that the park site he deleted from their current license As we discussed, you may wish to submit plans initially, on a five acre parcel with the idea of expanding to the second five acre section at a future date, when the alfalfa crop currently being harvested has reached maximum growth potential This would reduce the crop loss fee, which the City would be required to pay to Marygold Farms z� The term for the park license will be for a period of five years The license can be renewed upon expiration, provided the Company does not require use of the land The fee to the Citv of Grand Terrace will be $100.00 per acre per year We look forward to working with you in hopes that Southern California Edison can provide assistance in bringing the residents and children of Grand Terrace an area which they can enjoy for sports and recreation Please submit the park plans to me so I can expedite approval of the park license as quickly As possible If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. Sincerely, Sue Noreen NSN.ts cc Randy Anstine f **LEFT MARGIN 008 RIGHT JUSTIFIED** ALLIANCE GLOSSARY Property Management I.D. No. 137(a) Revised 2/11/85 PARK LICENSE R/P File No.: THIS AGREEMENT, made as of the day of , 19 between SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of California, hereinafter called "Licensor", and the I a municipal corporation, hereinafter called "Licensee"; WITNESSETH: That Licensor, for and in consideration of the faithful performance by Licensee of the terms, covenants and agreements here- inafter set forth to be kept and performed by Licensee, does hereby give to Licensee the license to use that certain real property here- inafter described, solely for the purpose hereinafter specified, upon and subject to the terms, reservations, covenants and conditions hereinafter set forth. The real property hereinabove referred to is located in the City of , County of , State of California, hereinafter referred to as "licensed property' and described as follows: INSERT LEGAL DESCRIPTION SUBJECT TO: Covenants, conditions, restrictions, reservations, excep- tions, rights and easements, whether or not of record, including, but not limited to, the following: INSERT SUBJECT TO ITEMS The foregoing license is also made subject to the following terms and conditions, all of which Licensee hereby agrees to comply with and perform: 1. Licensee agrees to use the licensed property for ?A�k purposes only. Licensor makes no representation, covenant, warranty or promise that said licensed property is fit for any particular use, including the use for which this license is granted. (d) Any underground facilities within the licensed property shall have a minimum cover of three feet in order to avoid interference with future underground facilities of Licensor. It is expressly understood that in the event such facilities of Licensee interfere with the construction of additional facilities by Licensor, Licensee will reimburse Licensor for the difference in cost to con- struct and maintain Licensor's proposed facilities so as not to interfere with Licensee's facilities, or at the option of Licensor, Licensee will relocate its facilities at its own expense so as not to interfere with Licensee's proposed facilities. (e) Any earth disturbed by Licensee and/or backfilling within the licensed property shall be compacted to ninety percent (90%) in order to avoid future erosion, and in no case shall soil be disturbed within fifteen (15) feet of Licensoe's existing tower footings. (f) No facilities shall be permitted on the licensed property without the express written consent of Licensor. All facil- ities constructed by Licensee shall be constructed in a manner so as to clear all conductors by a minimum distance of ( tC ) feet. (g) All trees or plants within the licensed property shall be maintained by Licensee and shall not exceed a height of fifteen (15) feet. (h) Licensee shall install sixteen (16) feet wide double drive gates at such locations as shall be designated by Licensor. (i) Licensee shall insure that no flying of kites or model airplanes or other activity which could cause contact with overhead conductors will be conducted on the licensed property. (3) Licensee shall replace any existing wire fencing with six-foot high chain link fence. (k) Any fencing used to separate baseball fields shall not exceed a height of eight (8) feet. (1) Licensee shall provide and maintain chain link fencing of a height of six (6) feet around towers, twenty-five (25) feet from all tower legs, unless trespass -discouragers are installed on said towers by Licensor at Licensee's request, cost and expense. In either event, the twenty-five (25) feet clearance from all tower legs must be maintained. (m) Licensee shall insure that all fencing and other metallic structures are adequately grounded. -3- (n) Licensee shall provide for and install patrol roads sixteen (16) feet wide and driveways capable of supporting forty (40) tons on a three -axle vehicle at such locations as Licensor may designate. (o) All final plans, including but not limited to grading plans, shall be submitted to Southern California Edison Company, (Field Location) Attention: Real Properties Department, Property Management Section, for approval sixty (60) days prior to commencement of any construc- tion. 6. This license is personal to Licensee, and Licensee shall not assign or transfer this license, or any right hereunder, in whole or in part, without first securing the written consent of Licensor thereto. No written consent by Licensor hereunder shall be deemed a waiver by Licensor of any of the provisions hereof, except to the extent of such consent. 7. No permanent or possessory interest shall accrue to Licensee in the licensed property by reason of this license or by exercise of the permission given. 8. This license is given pursuant to the authority of and upon and subject to the conditions prescribed by General Order No. 69-B of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California dated and effective September 10, 1963, which General Order No. 69-B, by this reference, is hereby incorporated herein and made a part hereof. 9. Licensee agrees that it shall, at its sole cost, keep and maintain said licensed property, and shall provide appropriate controls for dust and noise. Licensor shall not be called upon or required, at any time, to make any improvements, alterations, changes or additions of any nature whatsoever to the licensed property. Licensee may, at its sole expense, improve the licensed property in any manner as may be reasonably necessary to accommodate its use of the licensed property, but shall not make any improvements without the prior written consent of Licensor. 10. Licensee agrees that in the exercise of the permission given herein, its contractors, employees and other agents will main- tain a clearance between any and all equipment, except grass cutting equipment, operating or placed within the boundaries of the licensed property of not less than twenty-five (25) feet from any and all structures thereon and of not less than F1I7E EyI ( NS ) feet from any and all overhead electric conductors. 11. Licensee agrees not any motor vehicles, trucks and/or licensed property. to park or to allow the parking of equipment on any portion of said -4- 12. Licensee agrees that it will not place or store any flammable materials within the boundaries of the licensed property and will not permit others within its control to do so; that it will not commit any waste or damage, nor suffer any to be done; that it will keep the licensed property clean, free from rubbish and debris, and in a condition satisfactory to Licensor. 13. Licensee agrees to take appropriate steps necessary to prevent dust contamination of Licensor's facilities located on, near or adjacent to the licensed property and the property of adjacent owners. 14. Licensee agrees to remove all encroachments upon the licensed property at Licensee's sole expense, at any time, upon thirty (30) days' written notice. 15. The parties hereto agree that this license may be canceled and terminated by either Licensor or Licensee, at any time, upon ^i I n E`[� (_) days' notice in writing to that effect given by either party hereto to the other. In such event or when the license expires, Licensee agrees, if so requested in writing by Licensor, to remove at that time its personal property from the licensed property and to restore the ground to as near its original condition and appearance as possible within said period of 1Ak ytT7 ( t_ ) days, at its sole expense and risk. No such termination or cancellation or expiration hereof shall release Licensee from any liability or obligation (whether of indemnity or otherwise) which may have attached or accrued previous to or which may be accruing at the time of and/or by reason of such termination, cancellation or expiration. 16. Upon the termination of this license by the expiration of the term thereof or otherwise, Licensee agrees to peaceably quit and surrender the licensed property to Licensor in good order and condition. Any and all property of whatsoever kind or character remaining upon the licensed property upon the expiration or sooner termination of this license shall thereupon be and become the per- sonal property of Licensor, but this shall not prevent Licensor from requiring Licensee to remove, at Licensee's expense, any and all personal property placed upon licensed property by Licensee, which Licensor may desire removed from said licensed property. 17. In the event the use of said licensed property shall be abandoned by Licensee or said licensed property shall not be used by Licensee for the period of one (1) year, then the license hereby granted shall terminate upon written notice to that effect given by Licensor to Licensee, and upon such termination Licensee agrees to remove its personal property from the licensed property at its own expense and risk, if so requested in writing by Licensor, within ninety (90) days from and after the giving of such notice as afore- said, and to restore the ground to as near its original condition and appearance as possible. -5- 18.Licensee hereby agrees for itself, its successors and assigns, to save harmless and indemnify Licensor, its officers, agents and employees, and its successors and assigns, from and against all claims, loss, damage, actions; causes of action, expense and/or liability arising from or growing out of loss or damage to property, including Licensoe's own property, or injury to or death of persons, including employees of Licensor resulting in any manner whatsoever, directly or indirectly, from the exercise of the rights granted hereunder, including, but not limited to, the use of the property by the general public. Licensee further agrees to secure and keep in force throughout the life of this license, Comprehensive Bodily Injury and Property Damage Liability Insurance, including Contractual Liability with limits as follows: not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) for injury to or death of one person in any one occurrence; and not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) for damage to Licensed Property in any one occurrence. Such insurance is to be placed with companies and be in a form satisfactory to Licensor and shall be in the name of Licensee with Licensor named therein as an additional assured. Said policy or policies shall further provide that in the event of a material change or cancella- tion, Licensor shall be given thirty (30) days' prior written notice of any change or cancellation directed to Southern California Edison Company, Insurance Division, P. 0. Box 800, Rosemead, California 91770. Certificates of insurance (or upon demand, certified copies of policies) shall be filed with and approved by Licensor. Licensor reserves the right to change the place where such notice is to be given. Licensee also further agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Licensor and its officers, agents and employees from and against any and all claims, demands, loss, damage, expense and/or liability, in any manner arising out of or resulting from activities of Licensor in the washing of insulators on and adjacent to said licensed prop- erty and other maintenance work required to be performed by Licensor. 19. Licensor shall pay real property taxes which may accrue against the licensed property, except that Licensee shall reimburse Licensor for that portion of real property taxes which may be assessed or result from Licensee's improvements to the licensed property. Licensee shall also be responsible for the payment of all charges and assessments for or in connection with water, electric current, or other utilities which may be furnished to or used upon said licensed property by Licensee and any personal property taxes which may be assessed in connection with the use of the licensed property. 20. Licensee agrees that in the exercise of its rights under this license, Licensee shall comply with all applicable munic- ipal, county, state and federal regulations, laws, ordinances and rules in connection with its use of the licensed property and shall at all times keep such licensed property free and clear of any lien or encumbrance which might affect the title thereto. 21. In case of the failure or refusal of Licensee to comply with and perform each and all of the terms and covenants on its part herein contained, the said license and all rights hereby given shall, at the option of Licensor, cease and terminate, and Licensor shall have the right forthwith to remove Licensee's personal property from the licensed property at the sole cost, expense and risk of Licensee, which cost and expense Licensee agrees to pay to Licensor upon demand, together with ten percent (10%) interest, or the maximum allowed by law, from the date of expenditure by Licensor. 22. In case Licensor shall bring suit to compel performance of or to recover for breach of any covenant, agreement or condition herein contained and such suit results in a judgment for Licensor, Licensee will pay to Licensor reasonable attorney's fees in addition to the amount of judgment and costs. 23. Licensee agrees that it will not record this license. 24. All notices other than those hereinbefore specified which are required to be given by either party hereto to the other, shall be deemed to have been duly given when made in writing and deposited in the United States Mail, certified, and postage prepaid, addressed as follows: To Licensor: Southern California Edison Company Real Properties Department Property Management Section P. O. Box 410 Long Beach, California 90801 To Licensee: 25. Except as herein otherwise provided, the provisions of this license shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. 26. The neuter form of expression as used herein shall include the masculine and/or feminine genders, where applicable. -7- 27. Thirty (30) days prior to the end of the term of this license, Licensor and Licensee agree to then negotiate the terms and conditions of any extension thereof. It is further agreed that if Licensee shall retain possession of said licensed property beyond said term, or any renewal or extension thereof, with the consent, express or implied, of Licensor, such holding over may be terminated by Licensor at any time by giving to Licensee thirty (30) days' notice in writing for that purpose, and shall be sub]ect otherwise to all of the terms, covenants and conditions of this license, and Licensee shall pay for such license during any such holding over, on a prorata basis of the amount specified in Paragraph 3, hereof. Neither party to this Park License shall have the right to have a court or other third party set the terms and conditions of any extension thereof. 28. The existence, validity, construction, operation and effect of this license and all of its terms and provisions shall be determined in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 29. (INSERT OPTIONAL PARAGRAPHS, IF NECESSARY) IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed as of the date first above set forth. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY By R. J. Juliff Manager of _ Real Properties Department By XXXX/xxx LICENSOR LICENSEE DATE: 12/03/85 T 12-08.3 err �� r- C R A ITEM ( ) COUNC''L ITEM (X) MEETING DATE: December 12, 198 AGENDA ITEM NO. , SUBJECT uTitle 1B - Zoning Ordinance Review Committee" FUNDING REQUIRED 4 NO FUNDING REQUIRED X At their regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of November 18, 1985, the Planning Commission requested that staff prepare a report to the City Council recommending the appointment of a committee made up of Planning Commissioners, City Council members and City Staff to review the site and architectural review requirements contained in Title 18 of the Municipal Code. The Planning Commission felt that the standards needed to be more specific in order to eliminate any questions as to the interpertation of these requirements. Staff agreed with the Planning Commission but would recommend that the entire Zoning Ordinance be reviewed and revised so that there will be less controversy with future projects. Staff recommends that City Council: APPOINT A COMMITTEE MADE UP OF PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND STAFF TO REVIEW AND REVISE TITLE 18 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE AND TO HAVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL REVIEW IT BEFORE IT IS ADOPTED.