Loading...
11/12/1987CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - NOVEMBER 12, 1987 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 12, 1987, at 5:30 p.m. PRESENT: Byron Matteson, Mayor Barbara Pfennighausen, Mayor Pro Tem Hugh J. Grant, Councilmember Dennis L. Evans, Councilmember Susan Shirley, Councilmember Thomas J. Schwab, City Manager/Finance Director Randy Anstine, Assistant City Manager Juanita Brown, Deputy City Clerk Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney David Sawyer, Planning Director Joe Kicak, City Engineer ABSENT: The meeting was opened with invocation by Pastor Elias, Azure Hills Seventh Day Adventist Church, Grand Terrace, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Councilmember Evans. Mayor Matteson indicated at this time to change the agenda a little bit and convene the City Council Meeting because of some illness. SPECIAL PRESENTATION Item 2(C) Mayor Matteson stated we are going to go to Item 2C -- 3-year 3-year Service Service Awards for City employees, and asked Lavon Cottrell, Awards Louise Smith and Betty Trimble to come up to receive their awards. He stated he just wanted to add that these are three fantastic employees and the City is fortunate to have them with us, thank you girls. Item 2(A) Sharon Korgan, Community Services Officer, gave an update on Awards to Crime their annual Poster and Essay Contest for the schools in Grand Prevention Poster/ Terrace and introduced the winners and gave their winning Essay Contest position. As Mayor Matteson handed out the plaques, she asked Winners Tran Dang, a first place winner last year and this year, to read her essay. �J Item 2(B) Mayor Matteson stated we have Certificates of Commendation for Certificate of the Grand Terrace Strikers Soccer Team, but it was noted that Commendations none of the Soccer Team Members were present and the Mayor stated we will see that they get their certificates. Recessed the City Council at 5:45 p.m. and convened the CRA at 5:45 p.m. Convened City Council meeting at 7:35 p.m. ITEMS DELETED FROM THE AGENDA Mayor Matteson asked if there were any items to be deleted from the agenda. The City Manager stated no deletions, just have one note that Item 6(C) -- Consider extension for T.J. Austyn - Tentative Tract Map No. 13050, be continued until December 17, 1987. Mayor Pro Tem For the people in the audience to be aware that because of Pfennighausen clarification or addition to the laws governing us by the Brown Act, that we cannot add things to this agenda unless they are classified as an extreme emergency or something, so what you see is what you get unless we take it off. Item 2(D) Mayor Matteson indicated the next item 2(D) -- A Resolution requiring the approval of any affected city prior to the location of a Magnetic-Leviation Train Terminal, indicating each Councilmember received a letter from the City of Ontario requesting their support. Councilmember Grant explained that initially this was simply a state proposition with Clark County, Nevada and then the County of San Bernardino attempted to obtain a representation on this and that was ultimately passed. He felt the City of Ontario should have something to say on this subject. CC-87-211 Motion by Councilmember Grant, second by Councilmember Shirley, ALL AYES, to adopt a resolution requiring the approval of any affected City prior to the location of a Magnetic-Leviation Train Terminal. Proclamation Mayor Matteson read a Proclamation and proclaimed November 20, 1987 as "Sam Curtis Day." Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen expressed her feelings about Mr. Curtis and the idea of honoring someone to show their appreciation. She wanted to know if the City of Rialto was going to honoring him on the same date. Councilmember Grant concurred with Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen, and indicated he will be there personally to show his appreciation to Sam Curtis. 11 Council Minutes - 11/12/87 Page 2 CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Matteson asked Council if there were any items on the Consent Calendar to be removed for discussion. Item A Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen requested Item A -- Check Register No. 111287; Item E Item E - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CA, RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 79-49 AND ADOPTING AN EMPLOYEES' DEFINED CONTRIBUTION RETIREMENT PLAN AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AGREEMENTS RELATED TO SAID PLAN BY THE CITY MANAGER; Item I Item I - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE FIXING TIMES FOR REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS, COMMISSION MEETINGS AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS. Item D Councilmember Evans requested Item D -- Approval of 10/22/87 Minutes. Item H Councilmembers Evans and Grant requested Item H -- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE SETTING HEARINGS FOR RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY INITIATING EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS. CC-87-212 Motion by Councilmember Grant, second by Councilmember Shirley, ALL AYES, to approve the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Item B - Ratify November 12, 1987 CRA Action Item C - Waive Full Reading of Ordinances and Resolutions on Agenda Item F - Approve Deputy City Clerk's attendance at Election Law Seminar, December 2-4, 1987, in Monterey, CA. Item G - Approve Assistant Finance Director's attendance at League of California Cities Financial Management Seminar, December 2-4, 1987, in Monterey, CA. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen indicated on page 2, Voucher No. 17578, Melvin A. Orser "donation refund." She requested someone to explain to her why someone donated money and then we refunded the donation. The City Manager replied it was a donation given to us by Chief Auto Supply for the Tour de Terrace. The deal was that if you made a donation, we would include that organization or Company in the advertising. For some reason, he was omitted from the advertising as a sponsor, and, therefore, it was requested that the money be given back to him, so we refunded it. Council Minutes - 11/12/87 Page 3 N Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen indicated Voucher No. 17579, Janelle Parks. She questioned what did "Appear Tour de Terrace" mean. The City Manager replied we paid an appearance fee to go to Janelle Parks and the other professional rider that appeared in the race. That was a cost to induce that person to race in the Tour de Terrace and we also paid $200.00 for the demonstration bike team that also rode that day. Voucher #17582 Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen questioned Voucher No. 17582. The Harry Armstrong City Manager replied that is a Planning Fee, a pre -alteration Reim Pre -Alt Fee permit fee and he assume the gentleman decided not to go through with it and we refunded his $10.00. Voucher #17594 Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen indicated having several of these All Pro and asked the Assistant City Manager if this was something we Construction automatically pay for and then charge back to the developer. The response was "yes". She then asked if we always get our money? The Assistant City Manager replied he was not in the position to tell Council whether or not we always get our money, the City Manager could better answer that than he. The City Manager stated we hold bonds on the work that they do and they either pay it back or we attach the bonds. Item #17605 Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen addressed the Assistant City Custom Folding Manager in regard to the Custom Fold Doors item. She stated Doors she knew that door between, that separates that building that was the $400.00 cost? What is the repair; the door to the City Council? She assumed the CC meant City Council. The Assistant City Manager replied he believe the total charge was $900.00 to repair the custom door on the meeting room. They literally had to rebuild one panel. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated the way it is listed on the Check Register is incorrect, that was for the Community Room not the City Council. The Assistant City Manager replied he believes the CC stands for Civic Center in this instance. Item #17610 Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen questioned is this just a deposit Grand Dinner on something that Parks and Recreation is doing, like a tour Theatre our something. The response was "yes". She stated then that is an in and out item, once the things are paid, those items are covered. Councilmember Grant stated therefore, we pay $200.00 to entice a couple of people to ride in the bicycle race, is that what it amounts to. Council Minutes - 11/12/87 Page 4 The City Manager replied "that's correct." Councilmember Grant stated to the City Attorney that he opposed approving this item on the Check Register, but approves everything else on the Check Register, and wanted to know what could he do. The City Attorney replied he could make a motion to not allow this type of expense to occur in the future. Councilmember Grant stated he just did. Mayor Matteson asked if there was a second and stated motion died due to lack of a second. CC-87-213 Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen, second by Mayor Matteson, ALL AYES, to approve Check Register No. 111287 as clarified. Item D Councilmember Evans stated on Page 90, he wanted to reflect in 10/22/87 reference to the discussion on the agreements and bonds for Minutes Tract Map 13364. He stated after he had initially made the motion to deny that that motion was withdrawn. 10/22/87 Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated on Page 23, commending the Minutes clerical staff for their work on the minutes. She indicated Item 3, Page 23 when she was going over the minutes, she found several things wrong and brought them to the attention of the Deputy City Clerk, who subsequently went back and listened to the tapes again. Therefore, the things that I'm now going to pull out were actually said, but incorrectly. Therefore, we need to get them corrected. Under Item B, I don't think that our engineering or planning staff would ever allow us to install curb and gutter 12-feet from the centerline, even though that is what they said on the tape, that needs to be corrected. She asked the City Engineer how to correct this. The City Engineer stated, in this particular case, the reference should have been 12-feet from the property -line instead of the centerline. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen asked how did he want it. The City Engineer replied we would like to have 32-feet from centerline. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated on Page 24, Item E, median turning lane shall be constructed for the left and right turn movement into the development. Now, right turn movement from a center median, I'm certain that isn't what we have or what we intended it to be. The City Engineer stated that they should let staff determine as to where those median lanes should be instead of stating specifically the location and the type of movements to be made. Council Minutes - 11/12/87 Page 5 Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen asked the Deputy City Clerk if that was clear enough for her to get that. She indicated Page 27, in going through the itemized conditions, we were told that there are 32-conditions, however, Condition No. 27 was eliminated from the minutes and needs to be included. She indicated Page 78, and mentioned she realize we can become very forward thinking at this Council table, but to reference something that took place on December 12, 1987 is highly unlikely, due to the fact that we haven't reached that date yet. Councilmember Grant stated he was sure it was a previous year. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen asked Councilmember Grant if it was 1986 or 1985. Councilmember Grant stated he will have look at his notes again. Mayor Matteson stated they can pick it up from the tape. Councilmember Grant stated exactly. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated, no, they went back and checked these and this is what was said. Therefore, that's why she made the clarification that this is what the tape said and we just need to get it clear. Councilmember Grant stated it made reference to the same date that had been indicated by Mr. Evans and he was sure if you look at what he said, that will probably be the same year. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen indicated Page 85, for clarification, there was a statement that didn't make since and the tapes are very difficult sometimes to hear. The statement goes, I stated the facts to them as to what's happening and Councilmember Evans stated that those facts eloquently tonight as to the train, asking Mr. Hargrave is that what you said, do you know what that statement means. He replied, I don't remember. She indicated having no more questions. CC-87-214 Motion by Councilmember Shirley, second by Mayor Matteson, to approve October 22, 1987 Minutes as corrected. Motion CC-87-214 carried ALL AYES, to approve October 22, 1987 Minutes as corrected. Item E Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen asked the City Manager if the City was incurring any expense or is this simply paperwork to change names and references from a prior document. Council Minutes - 11/12/87 Page 6 The City Manager replied it is not going to incur any additional expense to the City. The original document was r drafted in 1978, soon after the City was incorporated and it actually made less people eligible for the retirement plan. It reflects how we currently implement the retirement program. If we took it by the letter of the Resolution, it said that we will give retirement benefits to any person subject to Federal Income Tax Withholding, which would mean everybody, so it actually makes it a little more restricted, but it always implemented how it was meant to be. CC-87-215 Motion by Councilmember Grant, second by Mayor Matteson, ALL AYES, to approve the rescinding of Resolution No. 79-49 and adopt an Employee's Defined Contribution Retirement Plan and authorize the execution of agreements relating to said plan by the City Manager. Item H Councilmember Evans asked the City Manager if the property Eminent Domain owners that will be affected have been contacted and made aware Proceedings of this. The City Manager replied the property owners were aware that in our discussions with them, that we are interested in eminent domain proceedings should we not be able to come to some sort of agreement on acceptance of that small parcel to put that street light standard. Councilmember Evans asked the City Manager if the property owners fully understand it is for the safety of the community to install a signal standard, that's the only reason that this is being done. The City Manager stated that's true, it's just that it is stuck in escrow right now and he did not think it would negatively affect either party; since it is in escrow, no one wants to come to terms. We may not actually have to do an eminent domain proceedings, but we want to get that left -turn signal dedication put in there, and, therefore, we would like to have this as a backup. Mayor Matteson asked the cost to proceed with the eminent domain? The City Manager replied if we do go with eminent domain proceedings, the price of the land will be set by a judge and it's right on the corner of Mt. Vernon and Barton Road. It's possible that we may pay anywhere from $5.00 to $10.00 a square foot and we are looking at acquiring about 600 square feet, so that will be $6,000.00 plus our attorney's fee which should be relatively small and that's it a very straight forward procedure. Council Minutes - 11/12/87 Page 7 N Mayor Matteson stated the reason that is in escrow is they are planning on doing a development on that corner and if we wait until they get the development started, they would get the land free. If we proceed now, we pay between $6,000.00 to $10,000.00. The City Manager replied, "that's true." We actually need about 4,000 square feet to get everything that the City really needs. Right now, the curb and gutter is on private property, so what we have done is carved out the smallest piece that we need on that corner and that is all we are going to buy. He stated staff is reluctant to recommend that we wait, only because it appears that the development of that particular corner may take from two to three years, and they may only develop the parcel to the rear and he felt $6,000 to $10,000 will be a fair price for what it's going to accomplish. Councilmember Grant felt it has a bearing on the traffic and pedestrian safety and concurred with Mayor Matteson. He stated he knows what it is going to cost us now and he knows what it might not cost us in the future, not withstanding the time it's going to take. He is opposed to eminent domain, but that is not his primary reason, his primary reason is the cost. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated she believes this has been a budget item for at least two years; that a certain individual in the audience had an accident in that intersection; the individual cornered her and asked her to bring this item to Council. She stated if one accident can be avoided in that intersection because this City invested $6,000 in that eminent domain proceedings, she was certain that it's well worth the $6,000. Bea Gigandet Ms. Gigandet indicated she was concerned; it's been two years 22742 Miriam Way since she asked Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen. She stated she is not the only one who has had an accident there and stated she believes it is because the speed limit is 35 mph and gave a description of her accident. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen asked her if she would agree it was a wise $6,000 expenditure. Mrs. Gigandet replied if it means saving just one life, she agrees. Councilmember Grant stated that any development back there might be three to four years at the earliest. The City Manager stated two to three years, apparently there is some difficulty with the current tenant who has an existing lease, and their indication to us now is that they will probably phase it, do the back parcel first and then when the lease obligation was free, they will develop that phase; that could take two to three years. 11 Council Minutes - 11/12/87 Page 8 Mayor Matteson stated even if they develop the back portion, we could still make the requirements that we get the front portion. The City Manager stated his understanding is that's not the ` case. The City Attorney stated that is two separate parcels. Councilmember Grant stated we are talking about a savings which is not any near the immediate future, so we are thinking about $6,000 plus, three or four years down the line. In the meantime, we are still going to have that corner and all the risk that it involves basically, is that what you are saying? The City Manager replied yes, and if it makes any difference, that particular section is being funded through our Community Redevelopment Block Grant Program and it's going to be a federal expense even though it's still money, but it's an eligible project under the small amount that we do get for block grant. Councilmember Evans asked the City Engineer the status of that particular upgrade. The City Engineer replied as long as we receive the right to take immediate possession we will be able to go to bid on it. Councilmember Evans asked the City Attorney if this was to pass, how long would it take for us to get the necessary easement on that land to do the upgrade? The City Attorney estimated from 90 to 120 days. Councilmember Evans asked the City Engineer how long would it take to do the project? The City Engineer stated the longest portion of it will be getting the controller and estimated about six to nine months to get the signal operational. He stated it is not the construction that's going to take a long time. Councilmember Evans asked if everything goes according to plan without any hitches, we're talking..... The City Engineer replied about a year from now for a completed project. CC-87-216 Motion by Councilmember Grant, second by Councilmember Shirley. Motion carried with Mayor Matteson voting NOE. Council Minutes - 11/12/87 Page 9 Councilmember Evans asked staff to look at the same sort of proceedings at the southwest corner of Barton Road and Michigan. He stated he spoke with the leasee, Nabi, regarding the project that had come before the Planning Commission, as well as the City Council. As it sets right now, it appears his project will not be developed and it's highly questionable if they will ever come back with a project. He felt staff should explore the same type of proceedings and try to tie that in with the upgrade of Barton Road. The City Manager stated the original bargain they had worked out is that we would participate in the improvements if they dedicate. He asked Councilmember Evans if he was suggesting do an eminent domain and have the City purchase that property and do the improvements. Councilmember Evans replied obviously that is a terrible corner, and if we are talking about signalization, which he feels is just as imparative as Barton Road and Mt. Vernon. He felt we should seriously look and explore doing that improvement as we do Barton Road. The City Manager replied staff will take a look and see if we could design it to take as little as possible and see if we can minimize the cost and bring it back to Council for a possible decision. Mayor Matteson stated possibly we can do the same thing that we did with the residents on Barton Road, tell them we will them free improvements if they give the land. The City Manager replied staff has already told him that we will do that, but he doesn't own the property. The City Engineer indicated he did not believe that parcel was included in the offer with the rest of the property owners on Barton Road. He stated staff had a cost estimate of about $70,000 in the plans which included the relocation of the Edison pole. In conjunction with the Barton Road improvements, the pole on that corner is going to be eliminated. He stated staff could bring Council the legal description if they desired it for eminent domain at the next meeting. Mayor Matteson stated rather than making it an eminent domain approach, he would rather make the same offer as the residents received on Barton Road. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen felt everything should be done along with the Barton Road Projects. Council Minutes - 11/12/87 Page 10 Item I Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen explained for the benefit of the audience that the fixing of meeting dates of all of the Council, Commissions and the Committees has to be done by a resolution in order to become official as to when and where they will meet to comply with the Ralph M. Brown Act. She stated her concern is the wording of the alternate days that are cited in each section. The statement is consistently made that, unless the same shall be a legal holiday in which event such regular meeting shall be held on the next succeeding calendar day. She stated that means that if Thursday is a holiday, then the Council will meet on Friday, that's the next succeeding calendar day. She questioned if that was the intent? Mayor Matteson indicated all we would probably have to do is just change that line to read, rescheduled by the City Council. The City Manager suggested under each one, substitute wording that says "or another date as set forth by the body." He also suggested, to reword where it's going to be, reword it to say "unless otherwise designated by the body," then if someone wants to meet somewhere else, then they could designate. He indicated when staff posts the legal notice of their meeting, staff will put the Committees location, if it is different. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen suggested continuing this item to a future agenda and have those changes made. Councilmember Grant concurred. Recessed at 7:25 p.m. Convened at 7:35 p.m. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Mayor Matteson asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to participate at this time. Dick Rollins Mr. Rollins stated approximately last evening (Wednesday), when 22700 DeBerry most of us were sitting home comfortably, Mr. Anstine, the Assistant City Manager/Community Services Director, at Fieldcrest Home Tract trying to stop the flow of mud and water from going through any more houses. He stated he felt it is a deplorable situation to have this happen to peoples homes in this town and he hoped we have this situation under control for the rest of the winter months. Mr. Rollins stated it had been brought to his attention by some senior citizens who have to take buses to San Bernardino (by going to Loma Linda and transferring) to either the State or County Offices, questioned why Omnitrans and Riverside buses cannot come up to Grand Terrace. He indicated maybe we could r do some investigation into this matter. Council Minutes - 11/12/87 Page 11 Councilmember Grant stated the history of the transfer of funds; Grand Terrace's portion of funds to the Omnitrans Budget to the Riverside Transit Agency goes back ten years and he have tried over and over get the Omnitrans Governing Board, the County Transportation Commission, to improve the transportation up Barton Road. He stated perhaps the new principal member of Omnitrans will continue trying to change that. Mike Avila Mr. Avila showed pictures to Council before speaking to Council 22690 Cardinal and indicated he should not have to say much because the pictures showed what is going on out there. He stated on different occasions he has called the Building and Safety Department to come out and look at the type of drainage that is installed in there. He stated the developers put drainage on one side of the road from Oriole all the way to Van Buren, but they never put drainage on his side of the road and wondered why. Mayor Matteson asked Mr. Avila if he had a City employee come out there? Mr. Avila stated he had several come out. Building and Safety had a man go out there, and he said they were going to put more bags out there that evening, but they took them away instead of bring more. Thursday, he came out again and assured him they were going to be out there within an hour, but they never did, so he called the Fire Department at 7:15 p.m., they had an investigation and are making a report. Mayor Matteson inquired where it was coming from. Mr. Avila replied from the Fieldcrest Homes. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen asked Mr. Avila where his house was located? Mr. Avila indicated his home will be the first one if you are going east, on the north side. The City Engineer stated it's on the north side of the street, adjacent to the Fieldcrest Tract. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen questioned if that was the old McDowell house, the response was "yes." Mayor Matteson asked Mr. Avila if anyone else had the same problem as he. Mr. Avila replied, "No, not that he knew of." He stated if he had not called the fire department, he probably would have been flooded out. Mayor Matteson asked the City Engineer if he could address this issue? Cl Council Minutes - 11/12/87 Page 12 The City Engineer stated first of all, the curb or the flood protection south of Cardinal to Van Buren was completed, and during the last flood, that was very affective, but the portion along Mr. Avila's house was not. He indicated not being able to direct the contractors to make them fix it, the only way he could see doing it is to terminate the inspections on the units until such time as the work that is necessary for flood protection that is required of them, is completed. He stated he had suggested shutting them down previously, but there was a point made that if we shut them down, it will never get done. He indicated he really believes that the works that are necessary for completion for the protection of the people in the area should be completed and then he could continue with his houses. He recommended that the City Council consider that action this evening. Mayor Matteson replied we can't do that this evening, but we can put it on the next agenda. Mayor Matteson asked the City Attorney what was the legal responsibility on this issue? The City Attorney stated he did not know without looking at it closer, he suspects that Fieldcrest Homes have the larger share of the responsibility and the liability in this matter, because they have disrupted the flow of the water and have not adequately provided for it. Mayor Matteson asked Mr. Avila if he had talked to Fieldcrest Homes about this matter? Mr. Avila replied he had talked to them several times. Mayor Matteson asked if they had seen these pictures. Mr. Avila replied no, he just got them last night. He stated he talked to the developer in Newport Beach and she said she wasn't aware of what was going. Mr Avila stated he came to Council because he was not getting anything done. Mayor Matteson stated we cannot do anything about it tonight because of the Brown Act, but we will put it on the agenda for the next Council meeting and we will do something about it then. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen questioned what will happen if it rains between now and the next Council Meeting? Mr. Avila is going to be subjected to the same thing again. The City Engineer replied the only thing we can do is go out there and direct the man to do that work. He indicated pointing out and telling him that this is priority number 1 as far as this City is concerned. Councilmember Grant asked the City Attorney if the Ralph Brown Act provides that under certain emergency conditions that this Council could take action tonight? Council Minutes - 11/12/87 Page 13 1 The City Attorney replied, "yes." CC-87-217 Councilmember Shirley moved that we take emergency action tonight concerning Fieldcrest Homes, second by Councilmember Grant. Mayor Matteson asked Councilmember Shirley if she wanted to specify the action? Councilmember Shirley moved that because of the emergency condition and the City Engineer's recommendation that the City Engineer quit inspections until the flood control problem is solved by Fieldcrest. Mayor Matteson asked if the seconder concurred with that. Councilmember Grant replied, "yes." Mayor Matteson asked if there was any discussions on this? Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen asked the City Engineer if their inspections are due like tomorrow or Monday ... The City Engineer replied the inspections are called for daily for various activities in that particular area. He indicated he felt that once we tell him what the City Council action was this evening, it would get his attention. Councilmember Evans asked the City Attorney, legally, what can we do other than the inspections, terminating them? The City Attorney replied Council could have him go into court to seek a Restraining Order, but felt maybe the City Engineer's way would be a little more expeditious because they certainly have to have the field inspections. Councilmember Evans stated just so we don't drag our feet on this and the City Engineer's action does not work, we need to explore that other alternative. Mayor Matteson asked the City Engineer if he would contact Fieldcrest Homes tomorrow if Council passes the motion tonight? The City Engineer replied, "yes sir." Motion CC-87-217 carried ALL AYES, to take emergency action concerning Fieldcrest Homes, because of the emergency condition and the City Engineer's recommendation that he quit inspections until the flood control problem is solved by Fieldcrest. Mayor Matteson told Mr. Avila that staff will be out there tomorrow and stop construction on Fieldcrest Homes and will not allow anymore permits until they get this thing done. The City Attorney indicated he wanted to clarify something, it doesn't stop construction, they can continue with construction, but when they get to a point where they have to go into the next phase and an inspection is required prior to that phase, they will not be able to continue that. 0 Council Minutes - 11/12/87 Page 14 I Mayor Matteson stated what concerns him is the fact that this was not a bad rain we had and asked what will happen if we get a good rain, then we really are going to have a problem. Barney Karger Mr. Karger stated being a builder, he will tell you there is a 11668 Bernardo way around the City Building Department not inspecting. The Way builder can give notice to the City and then go out and hire his own structural engineers to inspect and they can warrantee that his inspections are valid and they can go ahead, so you want to look ahead. Mayor Matteson replied well the one more jump on that is they need a Certificate of Occupancy which we hold as the last card. Mr. Karger replied, that's your ace card, but that is 3 to 6 months down the line. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen indicated that doesn't help the man who is losing his house. Dan Massey Mr. Massey indicated he had attended the last meeting and 11668 Brentwood understood there was to be an item put on the agenda concerning a moratorium on building. Mayor Matteson replied it will be discussed later in the evening. Councilmember Grant stated he felt simple language is always the best policy. Second, it said discussion. Are we required simply to discuss this thing or can we take action on Item 8(A) or are we bound by discussion. The City Attorney replied he felt a more liberal interpretation will allow you to take action. PUBLIC HEARING Mayor Matteson opened up to public hearing. Councilmember Grant apologized to the Mayor for interrupting and informed the people in the audience that Council has to do this now and they may return to public participation. It is possible that not everyone that wanted to talk has talked. TMP 87-7 The Planning Director indicated on July 25, 1985, the City Applicant: Council adopted Resolution 85-14 -- approving the Specific Plan Forest City and Conditional Use Permit for the Mt. Vernon Villas Phase I Dillon Project. As a part of this approval, the condition of approvals retains a requirement that the applicant merge all the parcels that are existing into one parcel and record a map with the County Assessor. The Planning Director gave a scenerio from his Staff Report regarding the project. Mayor Matteson asked the Planning Director what was the benefit to the City to incorporate this into one parcel? Council Minutes - 11/12/87 Page 15 The Planning Director replied this is a requirement that was requested by the City Engineer. He explained what this does, is take four individual lots and bring them into one lot, so there aren't four individual legal descriptions in the future. He stated there may be some other benefits and the City Engineer may want to comment on them, but he believes these are the major ones. The City Engineer stated the primary reason staff requested a one -lot subdivision is the way the parcels were laid out. Some of the lot lines were running through the building. In other words, the buildings were built over the lot line. Mayor Matteson opened up for public participation. No one responded, so he turned it over to the City Council. Councilmember Evans asked the Planning Director if what Council had before them was the condition of approval of that project? The Planning Director replied, "that's correct." Councilmember Evans then asked the City Attorney what happens if Council doesn't approve it? The City Attorney replied, then it will no longer be a condition. The applicant has done everything he can and if the City Council denies it, the issue fails. The developers will go on with the project minus that and the City will lose the benefit of it. He explained it's entirely for the City's benefit. If you don't approve it, it's going to fail and the developer will proceed with the project and it would no longer be a valid condition. Councilmember Grant stated if he was opposed to this project then it's quite meaningless because this simply is something that could benefit the City. Pass or not pass, as the City Attorney said, the project will continue on. CC-87-218 Motion by Mayor Matteson, second by Councilmember Shirley, ALL AYES, to approve consolidating four individual parcels into one legal parcel (TMP 87-7). Item 6(B) The Planning Director indicated this is an application for a GP 87-3 & zone change to the General Plan Amendment sumitted by CDS Z 87-3 Engineering, located at 22325 Barton Road. He gave a scenerio from his Staff Report regarding the project. The Planning Staff feels this is an important improvement to the original Site Plan and will eliminate a possible pedestrian and vehicle conflict which was present in the original design. Staff has indicated to the applicant that the approval of these amendments does not in anyway represent the current or future Council Minutes - 11/12/87 Page 16 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION approval of the commercial structure on this site. Such an application will need separate application review and approval by the Planning Commission. He stated the conditions of approval recommended by staff along Barton Road are: la. Design street improvements along Barton Road frontage. b. Obtain the necessary clearances for Gage Canal Company and the City of Riverside to install said improvements over the Gage Canal/Riverside right-of-way. c. Construct the improvements as approved by the City of Grand Terrace, Gage Canal and the City of Riverside. 2. Align the driveway from the subject property as closely as possible with southern extension of the Canal Street. 3. Pay proportional share of traffic signals to be install by the City at the intersections of Barton Road/Canal Street and Barton Road/Mt. Vernon. 4. Record a one -lot subdivision on the commercial zoned property to include a 88-unit Terrace Retirement Hotel property boundary. 5. Pay off outstanding sewer bills. 6. Comply with all of the City of Grand Terrace Ordinances. 7. All improvements are to be design by the owner's civil engineer to the specification of the City. The Planning Director stated with these conditions, the Planning Commission and the Planning Department recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolutions GP-87-3 and Z-87-3 and the associated Negative Declaration. Mayor Matteson asked the Planning Director if these were separate deeds to that property or is it all one? The Planning Director replied one single deed for both pieces of the property. Mayor Matteson opened up for public participation and asked if there were any questions or clarifications. Council Minutes - 11/12/87 Page 17 Michael Palmer Mr. Palmer stated he had a couple of questions regarding 18002 Sky Park Conditions Nos. 3 and 4. He stated Condition No. 3 being the Circle, traffic signals. He stated at the present date, they do not Irvine, CA have a figure as to dollars and cents as to what the proportional amount is. The City Engineer replied they are dealing with two parcels right now, and there is no way that we can determine the actual cost. However, the cost is going to be $125.00 for an equivalent single-family residential unit that will then be equated to the traffic generated by the proposed development. Mr. Palmer stated on Condition No. 4, you requested a record of subdivisions and he requested a lot -line adjustment. He asked if that was a problem with the City Engineer. The City Engineer replied it is to an extent; all along Gage Canal, as well as the southerly property he believes there hasn't been any survey done in that whole area and wasn't certain that the line that the applicant has shown on his plan can be very easily established. He further stated, he is suggesting that the southerly line that the applicant has shown for additional parking is going to be pretty tough to establish in the field with a complete lot survey. Mr. Palmer indicated they have the monument showing on the southerly part of the property presently, and that's what they are going by. He indicated there are three monuments there and they feel with those they should be able to establish a line from that point. He further stated their main concern is this project will be completing around the middle or end of January and with the subdivision, they are afraid this may tie-up the Cof0. The City Engineer stated he would have no problem with the concurrence of the City Council to have the requirement of recording the subdivision on it subsequent to the occupancy permit. Councilmember Shirley indicated she was glad to see the developer come back with the additional parking. It makes a much better project and shows that you are cooperating with us very nicely and she really appreciates that. CC-87-219 Motion by Councilmember Shirley, second by Mayor Matteson, to adopt the attached resolutions, Attachment A & B -- a request to change the General Plan Land Use designation from medium density residential to General Commercial and change the Zoning Map Land Use designation from R-3 to C-2, but including on condition of Approval No. 4 that that be subsequent to an occupancy permit and bonded. L11 Council Minutes - 11/12/87 Page 18 Councilmember Evans inquired as to when this project was originally approve in 1985, was Condition No. 3, which we have before us this evening, one of the conditions of approval? The City Engineer replied, "it was not." Councilmember Evans questioned when was this condition placed on this. The City Engineer replied it was placed on it as recently as the Planning Commission action on this project, around August. Councilmember Evans asked Mr. Palmer if he was aware of Condition No. 3 that was imposed on him and did he have any problem with that. Mr. Palmer replied he was aware of the condition and did not have any problems with it. Councilmember Evans asked him if he knew how much money he was going to pay. Mr. Palmer replied he was perfectly aware of that. Councilmember Evans indicated he meant right now, anticipated your costs, do you know what they are? Mr. Palmer replied, no, that's what he was inquiring. He indicated he had a feeling it's going to be a substantial amount of money. Councilmember Evans questioned and you have no problem with that? Mr. Palmer replied, well, I'd like to argue the point, but the more important thing to him is to get this approved and put through. Councilmember Evans stated he has a concern because this has become a condition that's being imposed on any development that seems to have taken place along Barton Road between Canal, Mt. Vernon and the base of the mountain. He questioned how can we impose a condition and expect them to agree to that condition if they don't know what the cost is going to be? How can we expect them to comply with something that we don't even know what we're going to get? Mayor Matteson stated without the development, we won't need it, so if they are going to develop it, then they should pay the cost as a part of the development. Councilmember Evans asked Mr. Palmer, you have a problem, do you not as far as what you are going to pay? Mr. Palmer replied what he needed to know is dollars and cents, because it does say a substantial amount and in his mind that could be 99 percent of the cost or even more. Council Minutes - 11/12/87 Page 19 Councilman Evans stated as an example, if your share was $100,000 today, you could probably say either yes or no and then the project would fall, but if you said yes I would accept that condition today, recognizing that you will have to pay a $100,000 and then, maybe, 5 or 10 years down the road when the traffic signalization does take place, the cost is no longer $100,000, it could be $150,000 or $200,000, are you going to be agreeable to that? Mr. Palmer replied "no." Councilmember Evans asked how can we condition them without these figures? The City Engineer replied he had just given Mr. Palmer a $125.00 figure for an equivalent dwelling unit. The unknown that he does not have and I don't have is if anything happens in the commercial area in the front, there is no way for him to determine what that additional cost will be. He stated his cost right now is approximately $4,500, that is the best I can guess on it. Councilmember Evans stated it seems to be a condition that's being placed on any potential applicant and he felt it is only fair that they know what the cost is going to be to them today and not tomorrow because tomorrow may not be agreeable to them. The City Engineer replied the condition is not for the cost of the time that the signal is constructed, the condition is for the cost today, which is $125.00 for an equivalent dwelling unit. He stated if it means when we are ready to construct that traffic signal and the signal cost is over $125.00 for a dwelling unit, that means that we have either underestimated and the City will have to pick up the differential cost. The City Attorney stated he might add, you seem to be a little confused as to why that's being put on. This is a direction of the City Council. You directed staff that when the Britton Project come before you, to accumulate this fund for the signalization and to allocate it out to all the developments as they can into this area and this is the reason staff is doing it, as well as the Planning Commission. Councilmember Evans stated all he is asking is, besides Britton, he believes the advocate school has been attached with this condition, and if they don't know what their share is going to be, how can they agree and pencil out their cost? He asked if there was a formula that they can look toward that will tell them this is what our share is going to be, then he will have no problem. As long as he has the figure and they know what the costs are going to be, this is agreeable with them, but there seems to be a question in his mind as to what the costs are going to be to him today if this is imposed. Motion CC-87-219 carried ALL AYES, to approve GP-87-3 and Z-87-3. Council Minutes - 11/12/87 Page 20 1 The City Manager indicated staff need action just to continue the public hearing on the tentative tract extension for T.J. Austyn. CC-87-220 Motion by Councilmember Grant, second by Councilmember Shirley, to approve the extension for T.J. Austyn - Tentative Tract Map No. 13050. Councilmember Evans questioned why are they asking for this extension. The Planning Director replied the California State Map Act states that when a map is to expire, if the applicant submits a request for an extension prior to that date, they automatically have a 60-day extension and that did occur. He stated today is the 60-day limit on it and staff is in negotiation with them in discussions on possible alternatives that staff will present to Council at the time that this is re -heard. In order to continue these discussions, staff is asking for a 45-day extension for hearing purposes and it will not be an extension that will allow them to come in with a submission for the map. Councilmember Evans asked the Planning Director to share with him a little bit about the so called compromises that you are discussing? The Planning Director replied, he was not sure that would be appropriate at this point in the public hearing. The City Attorney replied it would not be appropriate at this time because it's relative to potential lawsuit litigation. Councilmember Evans stated he has some concerns, in that, if there is going to be a compromise would there not be a substantial change to that tract map and, thus, it will have to go back for consideration by the Planning Commission. The City Attorney replied, "no sir." Councilmember Evans question, "why not?" The City Attorney replied, all they are asking for is an extension and if there are any substantial changes to the tract itself, they would have to go back before the Planning Commission, not the extension. Councilmember Evans replied he understands that. He stated he has some concerns at this point going ahead and approving this because we heard a couple of weeks ago that we have impaction in the schools and have traffic problems. If we've got these problems, why should we consider reviewing this project, their time is up, they have to start all over so we can again address these problems in a more rational manner. Council Minutes - 11/12/87 Page 21 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The City Attorney replied, it's not that easy, there are some legal problems with not granting the extension. Councilmember Evans asked what. The City Attorney replied, facing some liabilities as to whether or not the City has the ability not to automatically, materially grant extension of tentative subdivision maps. Councilmember Evans stated he asked the City Attorney some time ago if we were required by law to grant them the extension. The City Attorney replied he did not say that, he indicated to you there is no "black -letter law" that says you cannot do that, but there are some complications from doing that. Councilmember Evans asked what is the purpose of giving an extension, why don't they just give them three years to start with? The City Attorney replied, it's not the way the Subdivision Map Act is written. Councilmember Evans replied when you look at the intent, the intent is that you have two years and if there are extenuating circumstances, then we will give you an additional year. He questioned if there have been any extenuating circumstances? The City Attorney replied the Map Act doesn't say that it has to be extenuating circumstances and indicated he did not know whether there had been any. Mayor Matteson opened up public participation. The City Manager stated all staff is asking for is a motion to just continue. Councilmember Grant replied it is already on the floor for discussion in the public hearing to find out whether or not they think we should continue or not. The City Attorney replied, actually you have no option since the City indicated to the developer that we would agree to stipulate to a continuance. He stated the developer is not here to argue the merits. Motion CC-87-220 carried ALL AYES, to approve extension for T.J. Austyn - Tentative Tract Map No. 13050, to be continued until December 17, 1987. Council Minutes - 11/12/87 Page 22 Item 4 Mayor Matteson asked if there were anyone else who wished to speak in public participation? Tony Petta Mr. Petta indicated having concerns about the discussion that 11875 Eton Dr. just took place here this evening. He stated on two separate occasions, the discussion centered about how the City is liable. They continued even with the City Attorney on that fact; continuous questions attempting to put liability on the City. The second occasion was just now, when the developer was questioned if he understood Item No. 3 and did he know what Item Number 3 was. The developer replied yes, he understood it. Then the developer was asked if he had any problem with it, the developer replied "none what so ever," and still the discussions and questions continued as to how the City was at fault. ORAL REPORTS Parks and Mr. Rollins stated he was sure everyone was aware of the great Recreation success of the Tour de Terrace this past Sunday. It was Committee estimated that perhaps 1,500 to 2,000 visitors came into our Dick Rollins City and the entire program went off very successful. He stated this tour really put Grand Terrace on the map. He indicated having excellent service by the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Reserve Deputies, the California Division of Forestry, and of course our Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem were there. He expressed his appreciation of the turnout and felt this will be an annual event that will grow successfully. He indicated Ms. Conley, Chairperson of the Parks and Recreation Committee, will have the final breakdown on costs. Item 1(A) Councilmember Shirley asked if that was approval of Alternative Light Token No. 1? Mayor Matteson indicated getting back to that point. Subsidy for Councilmember Shirley asked if it authorizes 1/3 of $500.00 Soccer Club subsidy. Mayor Matteson replied, "yes." CC-87-221 Historical & Cultural Committee Viola Gratson Chairman 12168 Mt. Vernon Avenue Motion by mayor Matteson, second by Councilmember Shirley, ALL AYES to approve the $500.00 subsidy for the Grand Terrace Soccer Club. Mrs. Gratson stated the Historical and Cultural Committee had sponsored the City's Birthday Party for the past eight years and since this is a once -a -year occasion and does not impose a financial burden on the City, except for the birthday cake, the Committee would like to continue doing it every year. She stated the community looks forward to the festive occasion. Council Minutes - 11/12/87 Page 23 N Councilmember Grant stated two weeks ago, Council took action on a split vote to cancel the birthday party on this particular occasion. He asked the members of Council to reconsider, because he feel this has become a tradition and it is not costing the City anything and is an excellent way for the people to get together. He stated the people enjoy it and the only difference is that each year will be bigger and bigger. CC-87-222 Motion by Mayor Matteson, second by Councilmember Grant, motion carried with Councilmember Evans and Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen voting NOE, to approve the City's Birthday Party for this year. The City Manager questioned for the record, do we need to set a date. He indicated the party action last time was to designate a date and stated the 17th is a Council meeting. Mayor Matteson asked if they wanted to have it as a combination with the Council session or separate. The City Manager replied, it's always been that we took a break before the Council meeting which started at 6:00 p.m. Mayor Matteson replied, "okay," December 17, 1987 is fine. Item 2(B) Mr. Petta stated he would like to give a little bit of history Tony Petta as to our Sister City of Palazzolo vello Stello, Italy. He 11875 Eton Drive described the location and population of Palazzo indicating Sister City in Palazzo is a agricultural community. He stated at that Italy meeting, the Council and the organizations attending the meeting, sent good wishes and gifts to the people of Grand Terrace. He asked Bill to come up and show what they sent to the people of Grand Terrace. Bill DeBenedet Mr. DeBenedet presented several plaques from the Mayor of 11963 Honey Palazzo. He also stated the Mayor and City Council of Palazzo sent their regards to all the people in Grand Terrace. Mayor Matteson stated the next item is the minutes from the Historical and Cultural Club which Council each had a copy. COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Councilmember Shirley reported she attended the Omnitrans Board Shirley Meeting and the SANBAG meeting as an alternate member. She went to the City County Conference at Lake Arrowhead last week and she also went on a tour of the San ONOFRE Power Plant as a guest of Southern California Edison Company. El Council Minutes - 11/12/87 Page 24 Councilmember Councilmember Grant stated he was the principle member at the Grant SANBAG meeting. He stated he arrived at the tail -end of the Omnitrans meeting. He stated as a part of the SANBAG meeting function he wanted to advise that at the next SANBAG meeting is going to be something called the City Selection Committee and t- each city is represented by the Mayor. He informed Mayor Matteson that he will be receiving a request from the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors who acts as the Clerk to the City Selection Committee and they are going to be making an appointment to the Southern California Air Quality Management District. He indicated he feel the full Council should make that decision on all applicants. He stated he had the opportunity at the invitation of the Highland Mac in the Highland City to attend one of their pep rallies and indicated his views and encouraged them to do the best they could to become a city. Councilmember Grant stated he attended the Grand Terrace Chamber's Terrace Day's function and felt that the people worked very hard and tried to make it a success and in some way it was a success. He stated he wanted to report that our Mayor's chili came in second, but everything worked out for him because the following week, at the Historical and Cultural Activities Committee Country Fair, there was another chili cook -off and the Mayor won. Councilmember Grant stated he was delighted to report that Tony Petta was selected as the "Man of the Year" at the Chamber's Installation Dinner on October 24, 1987. He stated, he thought the City's Volunteer Appreciation Dinner was an excellent idea and should be continued because the volunteers do a lot for our community. Councilmember Grant stated he was going to ask the City Manager when they take the political signs down, did staff ask for deposits from those people in the first place. He stated that in every election that he has ran in this City, he had to put up deposits and he hoped that those people had to do the same. The response was, they did. Mayor Pro Tem Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated she did not have a report. Pfennighausen Mayor Matteson Mayor Matteson stated he attended the Colton Redevelopment Meeting last night and he felt there were some items Council might be interested in. The sewer plant has the capacity that will last us about two to three years, that's their current projection. Albertson and Payless Drug Stores have drawn their permits, they will be building their location down on Mt. Vernon, just below Jap Hill. Stater Bros. Warehouse, which is in Grand Terrace, but inside Colton's City limits, is planning a big expansion and are moving a lot of their space from Riverside to this location. Council Minutes - 11/12/87 Page 25 He indicated another point of interest is that Colton has right now 16 major projects going on and one of them is a $72,000,000.00 project. He asked himself why are they getting these commercials in and we are not, and came to the conclusion that Colton has a staff of 4 full-time people on their Redevelopment Agency out hustling this business and bringing it into their city. He believes in order for us to develop our commercial area we're going to have to go after it. He stated they will have a $20,000,000.00 project going in below the hill and the redevelopment of the roadways, freeways, overpass and on/off ramps is not going to be long in the future before they will be starting on that. The City Attorney indicated Mayor Matteson should clarify the statement "the capacity would last two or three years." Were you speaking for the City of Colton? Mayor Matteson indicated they think the capacity is about 5.2 million gallons a day. Grand Terrace's share is 1.6 million gallons a day, Colton has the balance. Someone at the meeting asked "what about Grand Terrace" and was told that Grand Terrace has vested rights in our capacity and even though we have room, they cannot exceed their capacity, come in and use ours. He stated the thing is, if Colton fills up their capacity, they will be doing an enlargement of the facilities and of course, Grand Terrace will be invited to participate to maintain a certain percentage. Councilmember Evans asked the City Engineer if we have the study that we participated in? The City Engineer replied, no, we don't have the final results; we met with Kreiger & Steward approximately two weeks ago, they were getting some additional data from us. We provided in that data, and I think it is coming pretty close to the completion of that report, but he has not seen even a draft of it. Councilmember Evans asked the City Engineer if the preliminary information that he had received, appears to be considering our current flow and what we are allowed for flow into the plants. If development does take place here, we will be able to meet the capacity? The City Engineer replied, with the 1.6 million gallon capacity that we have now, we are pretty close to a total build -out under our current zoning and have adequate capacity indicating much is going to depend on what's going to happen in the area down around the freeway corridor. Depending on that zoning and the development of that area whether or not we will need additional capacity. Council Minutes - 11/12/87 Page 26 Mayor Matteson stated during the break, one of the constituents recommended that prior to Council meetings, that we place the agenda on the TV in a simplified, clear manner, so that the constituents know before the meeting what projects are coming up and what will be on the agenda for that Thursday evening meeting. He indicated he felt it is an excellent idea and wanted to know what his fellow Councilmembers had to say. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen indicated she believe this to be an outstanding idea putting it up before the TV audience and she didn't have a problem with that. She stated we have a problem when we start to simplify it and remembers the pain and agony that was going on in the City Clerk's Department with the new rules and regulations as to what has to be on the agenda in order to qualify as an agenda item. She stated up to that time, we had simplified it a great deal, and had to go back to more detail. She stated she understands that there's specifics as to what has to be on the agenda and if they are that specific about what has to be on this paper, when we broadcast it, we even have to be that more specific. Mayor Matteson stated what he is saying is that by simplifying it instead of saying GP-87-3, we should explain what it is so that the people will know what we are talking about. For example, this one legal parcel, we could say, it's the Mt. Vernon area on the proposed apartment, they want to pick these four parcels, simplify it in that manner so that they know what's coming on the agenda. He told the City Manager if { Council concurred, he should look into that avenue. Councilmember Shirley stated she would also like to consider airing the City Council meetings at other times subsequent to the Council meting so the people who can't watch it on Thursday night can watch it on Saturday morning or Saturday evening. Councilmmber Grant indicated he felt this is a very fair recommendation because that is all a part of the original agreement we had with the old Group W Cable Company and felt that would be compatible with the franchise. Mayor Matteson addressing the City Attorney, since this new cable company has taken over, we've seen the rates go up. The rates are going up from $6.00 plus to over $14.00. He stated the legislation provided that we no longer had the authority to de -regulated the rates and he was wondering if that was no longer part of the franchise we had, are we still obligated to the balance of the franchises or can we open up to other franchisee to come into the City? The City Attorney stated you not only can, you must. As long as there are franchises in this area it must be opened up to any and all of them. Council Minutes - 11/12/87 Page 27 Mayor Matteson indicated it might behoove us to invite some other franchise companies to come into the City so that we have a little competition. The way it is right now, the rates keep going up and that's over a 100 percent and it's been less than a year that Group W sold out. He felt we should investigate into this. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated she would like to call to the Mayor's attention that even though in theory that was what de -regulation of the long distance telephone rates were suppose to accomplish. She stated she would recommend that the people who are unhappy with their cable TV rates have one sure way to get them down because that company cannot exist long when they do not have subscribers, and as long as you pay their fee, they are going to stay there. Mayor Matteson I asked this to be put on the agenda. We had the same thing Moratorium done on the west -end of the freeway and we put a moratorium on the property until the General Plan was completed and it seems to have worked out great. CC-87-223 Motion by Mayor Matteson, second by Councilmember Grant, that we put a moratorium on everything east of the freeway until the General Plan is complete. The exceptions would be where permits have been drawn and commercial property. City Attorney Just for a matter of clarification, obviously, once permits are drawn you can't put a moratorium in, but you also want to put j it on commercial property; that it wouldn't apply to commercial property, but it would apply to single and multi family and AP in a zone other then commercial? City Manager You don't want to exclude professional offices, AP would ... A moratorium should be on all the residential property. Mayor Matteson All residential. Mayor Pro Tem I think that the moratorium is not a bad idea because obviously Pfennighausen it will give time for us to evaluate what our General Plan Consultants are going to bring into us. I think back to our last General Plan process and I'm certain that the member of Council that was involved in that and many of them are here in this room, some at this table and some not, that to sit here and assume that that is going to be done fairly quickly, is a pie in the sky idea. We have to keep in mind that after the Consultants are through with the job, then our Housing Element and Land Use Element are going to go to the State of California. Last time that took well over a year, just playing with them, so we are not talking about a few months, we are talking about a long time. And of course, if we don't like what they want, then we're going to go through the haggling process that we went through before and that isn't bad, it's Council Minutes - 11/12/87 Page 28 just reality. When the Consultants come back with their recommended General Plan, then certain of those elements and people out here need to know that because there was expression that the people were not aware of what a General Plan was and what it involved. And I think it is our job to let the people know what a General Plan is and what must be done before we even have the opportunity to approve it. I could foresee just what based on what I found out this evening, that delays that have been brought on so far that we're already being delayed a month to a month and a half just for the review process and then the people have to have a month to look at that and the Planning Commission has to hold meetings, and the State of California has to have approval processes and then the Council starts in and we are not talking about months, we could be talking well into a year. I'm wondering if that's what we want. If we want to put a residential moratorium on Grand Terrace for over a year, we need to know that that's precisely what we might be up against and Ivan can we open-end it to that point. City Attorney No, I was going to suggest that we put a date certain or upon approval of the General Plan, whichever occurs first and I would suggest that you make it 6 months if you are going to do that or upon approval of the General Plan, which ever occurs first. Mayor Matteson If the motion maker would add that to his motioh, that it be r 6 months or approval of the General Plan, which ever comes i first. As in the area west of the freeway because certain developments, planned down there, the territory was put on the people to finish that area of the General Plan and they moved very rapidly on that particular area, so I think if we follow the same procedures and pressures on this end we could probably get that in very rapidly. Councilmember I'm not going to say if I'm for or against it at this Evans particular time, what I would like to do is to take this matter and give it to staff, have staff prepare a report for us that will outline exactly what your motion entails. Identify all the affected areas that would be in question. Also, outline the time -frame that we are talking about and for Ivan to also render any potential problems we may have legally regarding that before we seriously vote on this. Mayor Matteson The motion already covered the time and the areas, so I don't see any problems with that. City Attorney There are a couple of problems that I see, one is that Mr. Kicak just pointed out that would also prohibit any additions, because additions can change if you added to a single-family residential home. Of course, unless you intend to exclude additions to existing residences and in the other area that I Council Minutes - 11/12/87 Page 29 Is see a problem that I've indicated and you indicated you incorporated it in your motion, that upon the approval of the General Plan, but if some area was designated in the General Plan with a different designation that currently exists, say R-3 to R-1, or whatever. Until the zoning is changed they could still build and would not be in compliance with the General Plan. Mayor Matteson They couldn't build without coming to the City Council first. City Attorney Well, in some of the areas they can. An R-1 lot they certainly could build an R-1 as soon as the General Plan was approved even though it might not be consistent with the current zoning. Mayor Matteson So we're talking probably maybe 30 days after we approve the General Plan to change the zoning. City Attorney You are talking about another one of those big giant hearings like we had before I don't know what the General Plan will be, but you could well be talking about another one of those giant hearings that the City Council initiated a few years ago that precipitated a lot of problems as it turned out, so I don't know whether the City Council is going to initiate the zone changes. Mayor Matteson I think we could cross those bridges when we come to them. We are assuming that we might have a problem here, we might have a problem there, but then again, we may not have no problems and I'd rather address them when the problem comes up. In the meantime, get the moratorium on and then proceed with the General Plan. Councilmember All I'm asking for is that staff prepare the reports so we have Evans a chance to consider this in depth before we make the decision and I understand all the ramifications and that specifically we be stated as to the purpose for the moratorium and that's all I'm asking, they have that prepared by the next meeting, then we can act on it. Mayor Pro Tem Just for clarification, if I were a homeowner, if this Pfennighausen moratorium goes on and if I were a homeowner and I wanted to, in an R-1 area for instance, and I wanted to do something to improve my property, would this moratorium affect me? City Attorney Yes mam. Mayor Pro Tem If we put a moratorium on and we start making exceptions, Pfennighausen exceptions and exceptions, it becomes very obvious what it is that we are trying to get to. Why don't we just put a moratorium on what it is we say we don't want and quite playing games about it? El Council Minutes - 11/12/87 Page 30 Mayor Matteson Well, we don't know what the new zoning will be and if someone has an addition they want to put on their house, if they don't qualify under the new zoning, then they are not going to be able to put it on and they are going to have to wait just like everybody else and what's another 3, 4, 5, 6 months to add on. Mayor Pro Tem If I wanted to repair the roof on my house, do I have to pull a Pfennighausen permit? City Attorney If you are replacing a roof, yes mam. Mayor Pro Tem If I had to replace the roof on my house, would this moratorium Pfennighausen affect the capacity to do that? City Attorney My advice to the Building and Safety Department would be that replacement items would be eligible for permits, but that any new additions would not be eligible for permits or any new constructions. Mayor Pro Tem If I wanted to add a patio to my house next summer and this was Pfennighausen tied up here, would I be able to do that? City Attorney No mam. Mayor Pro Tem No, if I wanted to pour a concrete driveway over so many square Pfennighausen feet and had to come for a permit, would I be able to do that? City Attorney As a replacement? Mayor Pro Tem No, I see a lot of problems we see a moratorium as the solution Pfennighausen to all of our problems, and yet we tie ourselves down by trying to find the easy way out. We don't want to face the facts. Say no apartment construction until the General Plan is settled. Folks that's what it is all about, that's what everybody is unhappy about. Mayor Matteson That's not all of it though, there are other zonings that were initiated in the west side that we didn't have prior and that may still be something that might come up to that affect here. I think if we have pressures because people want theirs done, then we better get the General Plan done, that's the simplest thing. Councilmember I have a question, I don't know, David do you want to answer Evans it, or Ivan. Granted, we have adopted some type of zoning for the so call west side, has that gone to the State and specifically right now, the housing element, has it been reviewed for approval? City Attorney No. Planning No. Director Council Minutes - 11/12/87 Page 31 Councilmember So right now, although, we are talking about we did this on the Evans west side, that has not been formerly approved or reviewed at the State level. So conceivably, we may be required to completely alter what has tentatively been approved. Planning It may be suggested by the State to do that, we don't know Director until we ..... Councilmember So, what has been actually approved on the west side has not Evans been set in concrete as of this date. City Attorney It's legally effective though. Councilmember In the City? Evans City Attorney Yes sir. Councilmember Although it doesn't have the approval at the State level? Evans City Attorney That's correct. Councilmember I don't know who could answer this question, but I would like Shirley to know how many or perhaps what percentage of the cities in the State of California do have General Plans that are out of compliance with the State. Planning Probably there are very few that are in compliance totally. 0 Director Councilmember Thank you, I'd like to call for the question. Shirley Mayor Matteson Please cast your vote. Motion CC-87-223 carried 3-2 with Councilmember Evans and Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen voting NOE, to approve putting a moratorium on everything east of the freeway until the General Plan, the exceptions would be where permits have been drawn in commercial property. Planning If I may have a little bit of clarification on that. If a Director project has been approved, but has not received a building permit yet, where do we stand on that, such as the Britton Development, they have been approved, they have not come in and pulled their building permits yet. Mayor Matteson They don't have their permits, they don't have the building. Council Minutes - 11/12/87 Page 32 City Attorney They have vested rights and that project would have to proceed. Those projects that required prior approval, have vested their rights. Projects such as a construction of a single-family resident does not require prior approval. It simply requires that they pull a building permit and that would be the key in that particular instance, but in the Britton Project and projects such as that, then they have vested rights and must proceed. Councilmember I have to go along with Council on this and if the motion Shirley doesn't include that, I have to ask for a re -vote. Mayor Matteson Well, the motion maker will concur with that, the second concurs. Councilmember I have a question for the attorney, now I'm not all that Evans adverse in the building moratorium that was passed in San Bernardino, but I know when the moratorium was imposed, there were certain projects that had gotten their approval and probably had drawn their permits, but they were prevented from going ahead and developing their projects. So, if I understand what is attempted to be done this evening, they don't want any construction to take place as of whenever this is imposed and that would include the Britton Project, is that the way Iunderstand as it stands right now. City Attorney The Britton Project and ones similar situation as that will be allowed to proceed. In San Bernardino those developers who were similar situated to the Britton Project went to court and L_ had got permission to proceed. Councilmember We should have permitted people in the audience to speak, it's Grant kind of academic now, we've already taken our action, but I still would encourage anyone who would like to speak regarding this thing. At least, voice your opinion if there is anybody. City Attorney I think also before you do that it might be well since Councilman Evans brought it up so that we don't confuse anyone in the audience, San Bernardino Moratorium is not terribly similar to this because the San Bernardino Moratorium, as Councilman Evans indicated, was imposed rather than asked by the Council, it was an imposed moratorium. Mayor Pro Tem And who imposed it Ivan? Pfennighausen City Attorney The State of California. Councilmember I would like it in the form of a request so I can fully Evans understand what this moratorium means. David if you could draw me a pretty picture as to what area parcels are going to be affected by this moratorium. Council Minutes - 11/12/87 Page 33 N Planning We can provide a staff report that could be presented to all Director the Councilmembers. Councilmember I'm just curious as to the magnitude of what this is going to Evans entail. Barney Karger You know it is hard to stop a rolling stone from continuing to 11668 Bernardo roll down hill. I have several questions and everybody is Way weaseling around certain words and certain questions and I'm not quite sure when you say moratorium on stuff that has not had, does not have a building permit pulled and what has vested rights, etc. Let's answer the question so that the people who hate apartments can have the proper answers. There's one company that has 256 units I believe, I don't think they've pulled their building permits. Do they have vested rights, will they be allowed to continue? The Britton Company, do they have vested rights, will they be allowed to continue? Barbara, every once in awhile I have to agree with her, not too often, but every once in awhile. If a person wants to convert their garage into an extra room onto their house, will they be allowed to. If you want to add a patio cover, will you be allowed to. You have just established a moratorium or you are about to. You've also said that you are not going to allow certain things to your new General Plan. Riverside/Highland Water Company came to me about a year ago and said Barney we need an acre of your ten acres up here on Pico Street for a water tower, water for the City of Grand Terrace and I said show me where you want to put it we'll see if we can work it out. Well, we believe we worked it out, but you have just told the Austyn Company that you are going to ask for various changes in their zoning and instead of 7,200 square foot lots, you are going to ask for half -acre lots. When you did that, you told me, Barney, I can't give the water company this 1 acre that they want because I don't know where that when I'm going to have to do with the rest of my acreage. If I have 7,200 square foot lots, which I don't want or whether I have to have 10,000 square foot lots or 20,000 square foot lots and you have not given the directives to your Planning Director. From what I've heard from this City Council and asking questions from other people, you've put your Planning Director as you've put your previous Planning Director, Joe Kicak, in a quandary, what do you want. If you don't tell a man how you want his house built or how you want it designed, or what you want done, or what color your wife wants painted, you've put him in a impossible position and you have put your previous Planning Director in a impossible position and I believe you have put your present Planning Director in a impossible position, and you put every builder and developer that want to come into Grand Terrace or even thinking about coming into Grand Terrace, in a position where they are going to say, we don't want to come into Grand Terrace. I'm not building, I'm trying not to ever build again in Grand Terrace. Unfortunately, I still own quite a bit of property here, but I'm not building here because Council Minutes - 11/12/87 Page 34 I don't want your hassles and I'm not alone. Many of the people who have been down to the Planning Commission meetings and the City Council meetings has said we need to get the City Council pulling together. I was just asking a couple of the gentlemen here if they remember the exact Abraham Lincoln speech, it was something about a house divided cannot not stand or must fall. It's not exactly true, but we must start pulling together so that we can achieve something with Grand Terrace. For many years I've fought for upgrading the housing in Grand Terrace. When the Austyn Company came out here first to the Planning Commission, I fought against 7,200 square foot lots, but I was over ruled and my advice was discounted. I said 72,000 at the bottom is fine, as they go up higher up the hill, the lots should be larger. The Austyn Company has spent many thousands of dollars engineering their property, trying to get things going, spent uncounted thousands of dollars in interest getting that stuff properly done and ready to go. Now, you are saying to them, pay the interest on half a million, a million dollars for another year, and when they do that, that money, that interest has to come from some place. They can jack it onto the price of the house, that will be just so much more the buyer will have to pay or they can cut the quality of the house, that's entirely up to them, but if they cut the quality and you can do that in many ways, ways that we builders know. The buyer will have less house and the City will have less house or they can jack up the price. In which cases, they won't sell their houses very well, which mean eventually they will cut the quality again. You have got to understand business and I mean know most of you are business people up there and you got to understand that when you put a moratorium on it, you stop something, that increases the cost. If you increase the cost, it's either the price go up or the quality goes down. Now, I'm not building, I have no land that is ready yet, but you got to understand what you are doing and I don't think you really do, thank you. Mayor Matteson Thank you Barney. We did it,on the west side and it worked, we are going to do it on the east side. Councilmember Mr. Mayor, just so I fully understand, where do we sit, the Evans moratorium is effective as of right now. City Attorney Immediately, ....... east of the freeway all residential properties. Councilmember Now, David, you are going to be able to prepare and show us Evans what it's going to affect, that this exception is going to be okay and that one, so on and so forth. Planning I'll work with the City Attorney, we'll present a report for Director your information detailing it. Council Minutes - 11/12/87 Page 35 Mayor Matteson Does anyone else want to talk on this issue. Okay, let's go to 8(B). Discussion regarding possible changes to the School Year. Councilmember Mr. Mayor, I put this on for initially that one reason and now Grant I somewhat want to expand it. I've talked to a lot of people, not only recently, but over the years who have expressed concern about the economy of the schools in Grand Terrace, the integrity of the schools, as well as a very personal thing to a lot of these parents and that, of course, is what may very well be the initiation of a year-round school year. Now a lot of people have talked to me about that and they are very concerned about that. And their argument is that if we, particular as this Council as an example, of having paid for the air conditioning in some of these schools are concerned about the schools not being used adequately. We recognize, then, that you have summer school, you have adult classes, and so the classrooms are being used. And I think what I'd like to personally see, not only would I like to see input from other Councilmembers, but I would like to have staff conduct a study in coordination with input from the Colton Unified School District. (1) relative to whether or not there should or should not be year-round schools, (2) and this is something I had a lot of people talk to me about this. As to whether or not we should look into the feasibility of a high school in Grand Terrace, and in that sense, whether or not we should look at Terrace Hills Jr. High School as a conversion to a high school within the requirements of the education code, as it outlines what a high school should be. What it would cost for acquisition, what it would cost to create a school district. So basically, I'd like to as simply as I can to make a motion and then we will open up for discussion Mr. Mayor if I get a second, if I don't, we'll just go on. CC-87-224 Motion by Councilmember Grant, second by Councilmember Shirley, that Council instruct staff to conduct the following feasibility study. Determine whether or not it's economically feasible to continue a 9-month school for the schools in Grand Terrace; whether or not the Colton Unified School District should be approached in order to see if a high school can be constructed in the City of Grand Terrace. As a part of that motion, the alternatives will be, the conversion of an existing plant and the other alternative will be a new structure. The Third alternative would be, and this is something we've talked about in redevelopment, whether or not there should be a second elementary school in addition to the Grand Terrace which would then be compatible with the creation of a high school. And finally, this broad motion will include whether or not, what the feasibility is for the creation of a Grand Terrace School District. Now, that is my motion and I think it is clear enough. Council Minutes - 11/12/87 Page 36 Mayor Matteson indicated having a first and second, any discussion. Councilmember Evans asked how long does staff have to prepare this? Councilmember Grant indicated he did not know how long staff will require this kind of thing. Councilmember Evans stated the only reason he asked is he feels that all the questions are very pertinent to what is taking place in this city and he would definitely like to see all his answers responded to. He indicated we got a General Plan that will be coming to us the first part of January and felt we should have all the answers to all this so we can integrate it into that General Plan. So, whenever we start the public hearings, he indicating he would think that would be the date you should have all of this completed and available for the Planning Commission and Council for review. Councilmember Grant concurred and stated this would certainly interface with the General Plan. Councilmember Evans asked if he was talking about a month and half? The Planning Director stated actually the draft coming back from the Planning Consultant is due the end of this week for staff review. We will then be reviewing that and giving it back to him for our recommendations and anything different than what he has in it and will be available for the public in a draft form and with the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) the first week in December and then it has to sit for 30 days basically and be available for public review. He stated that is why we are not starting our hearings until the end of January. Councilmember Grant asked the Planning Director is it too late to incorporate this. The Planning Director replied, it's too late to incorporate it without delaying it and anticipating. It's too late to incorporate it into the draft. Okay, the EIR is going to take a look at it without pushing that date out some. Councilmember Grant indicating we can accept a draft, there is nothing wrong with that, but the ultimate decision would be based on input on this motion if it passes, the final product. Council Minutes - 11/12/87 Page 37 The Planning Director stated, "that's correct and what we will do is prepare that report that you are suggesting and bring it to you at the time that we are bringing the General Plan for hearings and we may have to amend that General Plan. What that would do to the environmental study, we may have to look at a delay at that time in order to revise the environmental study if that's necessary." Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated the subject of a high school has been one that's been a burning issue every since we gave our community up to be part of the Unified School District. She stated it seems very simple for us to decide that now that we are part of that district that we would like not to be. It isn't quite that simple or that I'm opposed to going through that, I do think it's encompass upon us to be honest with the property owners in this City that when you don't spread the bill over the broad base, you pick the bill up on the narrow one and probably a third of our population is past childbearing age and consequently, they are still going to shoulder that debt. A high school requires, according to the school district, 40 acres. In order to be certified so that our students can attend major colleges and universities, which I assume we wouldn't want a high school unless it could qualify other than a baby sitting place. That it must have full labs, full libraries and certain sports capabilities. I think probably in this day and age, they're going to build the sports -end capability end before they build the labs and libraries, that seems to be the thing to do. An elementary school site would be a minimum of 10-acres and it seems to me that someplace along the line, the Parks and Recreation Department recommended the acquisition of 10 to 15 acres. When you take the land available, now you will know why there were so much concern going into this General Plan that adequate input go from the community to the Consultant. Now, all of a sudden, we are almost to the end of the process and now all of a sudden, we are getting concerned about all these projects that need to be addressed in the General Plan. 40-acres for a high school site, 10-acres for a elementary site and a minimum of 15-acres for a park site. She indicated looking at 65-acres and probably two sections of Grand Terrace that in a split could accommodate it. Councilmember Evans indicated just for clarification, are we going to set a time limit that this will be available to us prior to public hearings. The Planning Director replied, we can and I will contact and work the the Colton Unified School District and hopefully we will be able to put together a report within the second week of January so we'll have it a few of weeks before the General Plan Hearings. 1� Council Minutes - 11/12/87 Page 38 The Planning Director stated January 8, 1988 will be the earliest point that we could put together a report of that detail. Councilmember Evans stated his only comment is, that all of these questions have to brought out, they have to be answered, put to rest once and for all and that is the only reason he is supporting this. Motion CC-87-224 carried ALL AYES, that Council instruct staff to conduct the following feasibility study: Determine whether or not it's economical feasible to continue a 9-month school for the schools in Grand Terrace; whether or not the Colton Unified School District should be approached in order to see if a high school can be constructed in the City of Grand Terrace. As a part of that motion, the alternatives will be, the conversion of an existing plant; a new structure; whether or not there should be a second elementary school in addition to the Grand Terrace which would then be compatible with the creation of a high school and what the feasibility is for the creation of a Grand Terrace School District. Stan Hargrave Mr. Hargrave indicated as a point of information, Mr. McMeans, Commissioner, in a previous Planning Commission Meeting, brought information Planning from the Colton Unified School District meeting that he had Commisson attended. Mr. McMeans reported to the Planning Commission that Colton School District's Committee that is responsible for studying these issues, has absolutely no ideas or plans for building a new school in the Colton School District at the present time. As a matter of fact, they have also admitted they are at a maximum impact in almost every school in the district, but they had not addressed the issue of where to go for planning stages at this point in time. He indicated it is a good idea on our part to ask these questions, but wanted Council to know there is no point. He felt we could do all the work, but at this point, the school district is not even prepared to discuss this with us and indicated we certainly need their input and corporation in order to go forward with this. Mayor Matteson stated he attended the Colton Redevelopment Agency (RDA) meeting last night and the said they had planned a new school for Reche Canyon. Councilmember Evans indicated he couldn't agree more with Mr. Hargrave. He stated that this City, when the General Plan goes to public hearings, has two representatives of the school board living in this community and felt invitations should be sent to those representatives to make sure that they appear during the public hearing process so they can share their input as to what they plan on doing to rectify the school impaction in the city. Council Minutes - 11/12/87 Page 39 Adjourned the City Council meeting at 9:30 p.m. until the next regular City Council meeting which will be held Thursday, December 3, 1987 at 5:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted FO" ty city arr-r- APPROVED: Council Minutes - 11/12/87 Page 40