Loading...
12/03/1987CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - DECEMBER 03, 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 December 03, 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 Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney David Sawyer, Planning Director Joe Kicak, City Engineer ABSENT: Juanita Brown, Deputy City Clerk The meeting was opened with invocation by Mr. Tony Petta, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Councilmember Shirley. CONSENT CALENDAR Convened City Council at 5:40 p.m. Reconvened City Council at 5:45 p.m. Mayor Matteson asked Council if there were any items to be deleted? The City Manager replied there were no items to delete. Mayor Matteson asked Council if there were any items on the Consent Calendar to be removed for discussion. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen requested Item-D -- Approve November 12, 1987 Minutes; Councilmember Grant requested Item - A -- Approve Check Register No. 120387. CC-87-227 Motion by Councilmember Shirley, second by Councilmember Grant, ALL AYES, to approve the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Item B - Ratify December 03, 1987 Item C - Waive Full Reading of Ordinances and Resolutions on Agenda I Item E - Authorization to go to bid for Architectural Barrier Removal Project. Item F - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace, CA, fixing times for regular City Council Meetings, Commission Meetings and Committee Meetings. Item G - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace, CA, authorizing the submittal of the FY 1987/88 Transportation Dveelopment Claim. Item H - Approval of Final Parcel Map No. 10439 Item A Councilmember Grant indicated page 2, Voucher No. P5379 - Check Register Fingerprint Kit. He questioned where do we use a fingerprint No. 120387 kit and stated he was not aware of anybody in the City who is fingerprinted. The reply was our Notary Public was fingerprinted for identification. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen questioned who was the Notary Public. The City Manager replied the Deputy City Clerk is getting her Notary. Councilmember Grant indicated Page 2, Voucher No. 17698 -- Grand Terrace Mailers for October 1987. He asked if G.T. Mailers picked -up the City's mail from the Post Office? The City Manager replied, "yes." Councilmember Grant questioned, "why?" The City Manager replied G.T. Mailers picks up mail from their private boxes every morning and staff is receiving mail from the Postman in the afternoons. Staff made arrangements with G.T. Mailers to pickup the City's mail at the same time as theirs so we would receive mail every morning around 9:00 a.m., which works better for staff. G.T. Mailers charges about $25.00 a month. CC-87-228 Motion by Councilmember Grant, second by Mayor Matteson, ALL AYES, to approve Check Register No. 120387. Item D Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen indicated Page 37 -- Item 1-A, Light Token Light Token Subsidy for the Soccer Club. She stated the way Subsidy for the the minutes read and we listened to the tapes again, and since G.T. Soccer Team it does deal with an official motion, she felt it probably needed clarification. She stated Councilmember Shirley asked if it authorizes 1/3 of $500.00 subsidy, but Parks and Recreation Committee requested 1/3 of what the tokens would cost or $500.00 whichever was greater. She indicated to make it official, Council needs to have it clarified because 1/3 of $500.00 is considerably less than $500.00. EI Council Minutes - 12/03/87 Page 2 Mayor Matteson stated he would confirm that was the intent, as per requested $500.00 or 1/3 and Council/staff will have to make that correction. CC-87-229 Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen, second by Councilmember Shirley, ALL AYES, to approve November 12, 1987 Minutes as corrected. It was requested that the minutes be condensed as before unless requested by a Councilmember to have the minutes verbatim. The City Manager informed Council that staff only does verbatim minutes when requested by Council. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Dick Rollins Mr. Rollins mentioned the incident of a youth killed last 22700 DeBerry summer while displaying a toy look alike gun. He stated that Council needs to look at what other cities have done in passing ordinances to prevent the sale of toy look alike guns and felt it is vitally important that Council adopt an ordinance preventing the sale of toy look alike guns in Grand Terrace. He felt if enough cities adopted such an ordinance, toy manufactures would discontinue manufacturing them. Councilmember Evans stated he would be interesting in the City Attorney obtaining copies of the ordinances that Mr. Rollins just addressed and he believed there is a current legislation pending or being proposed and would like to have that also brought to Council for review and consideration. Mayor Matteson asked if there was any other public participation? Ed O'Neal Mr. O'Neal stated we have a new city in San Bernardino County, 22608 Minona Number 19. He stated they will install the officers at the Drive County Center at 7:00 p.m. next Tuesday, December 8, 1987. He extended an invitation to Council to come and be a part of that ceremony and, if possible, bring a resolution welcoming them into the County. Councilmember Grant replied Council could not make a motion for that because of the Brown Act, but he was sure that staff on their own would do something like that if the consensus of the Council agreed to that. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated that is the night the City has the Christmas Tree Lighting Ceremony and stated Council was aware of the new City and will have a representative there from the City. Council Minutes - 12/03/87 Page 3 ORAL REPORTS COMMITTEE REPORTS Parks and Ms. Conley stated on behalf of the Parks and Recreation Recreation Committee, a Community Events Calendar Meeting was held on Committee November 9, 1987 which was attended by various members of the Barbara Conley, City Civic Groups and they discussed not having overlapping Chairman events and other ways the Chamber and the City could work together, as well as other groups. She stated another meeting has been planned for February, 1988 and that they are trying to come up with a Master Calendar for anyone who is interested in what is going on in Grand Terrace there would be one spot to go and find out. She indicated the Parks and Recreation Committee action items for Committee members are self-explanatory. CC-87-230 Motion by Councilmember Grant, second by Councilmember Shirley, ALL AYES, that Council appoint the two individuals recommended by the Parks and Recreation Committee to that Committee, Mr. Alan Cruise and Mike Brickenridge. Mayor Matteson stated Council had a copy of Emergency Operations Committee Minutes indicating he did not believe they were present at Council Meeting. COUNCIL REPORT Councilmember Councilmember Shirley stated she attended the Omnitrans and Shirley SANDBAG meetings for this month. Councilmember Councilmember Grant indicated getting in on the tail -end part Grant of the Omnitrans Board Meeting as the alternate, but he did attend the full session of the SANBAG County Transportation Meeting as the principal member. He stated he sat in on the City Selection Committee function, which Mayor Matteson represented Grand Terrace and Mayor Beswick of Redlands was selected on the third ballot. He believes the system they devised at the Special Meeting was a very good system, it worked out quite well and the only variables are motions from the floor. Mayor Matteson skipped the public hearing at this point since it is scheduled for 6:30. Councilmember Evans stated if the Mayor did not have a report, he would like to ask the City Engineer a question. Councilmember Councilmember Evans asked the City Engineer if he was Evans contacting Caltrans or preparing a cost estimate for the upgrade of the Barton Road Interchange; or was that already done? Ll� U Council Minutes - 12/03/87 Page 4 City Engineer The City Engineer replied he believes he passed out a letter in Joe Kicak which Caltrans advised him they were working on a report as far as the feasibility was concerned, as well as the cost. He stated this correspondence came in within the last three weeks and they did not give staff a specific date, but they did say that report will be coming very soon. Councilmember stated so they will have the cost figures in that report? The City Engineer replied, "that is correct." Planning Director The Planning Director stated on November 12, 1987, Council David Sawyer enacted the development of a moratorium on all Item 7-A residentially -zoned property located east of the 215 freeway. Clarification on He then indicated the property which is identified on the map Residential board labeled as Item 7 affects all property zoned R-1, R-2, Moratorium R-3 and has some affect on AP -zoned property for any residential R-3 projects that maybe submitted for in that zone. He read a scenario from his Staff Report regarding the Planning Department's procedures as a result of these actions. He stated the Planning Department recommends Council to revise the aforementioned moratorium, as requested. Mayor Matteson ask the Planning Director what is the current status of the General Plan revision? The Planning Director replied, the General Plan Revisions are due in tomorrow afternoon from the consultant on a staff level and will be reviewing their draft Environmental Impact Report and General Plan Document and then staff will go back to the consultant with their comments in approximately a week and a half to two weeks. The consultant will then prepare a final document which will be available for public comment for 30 days. Mayor Matteson asked if he was talking about 30 days from the date staff returns it to the Consultant. The Planning Director replied, "that's correct." He indicated the Planning Commission and City Council hearings will probably begin around the first couple of weeks in February. Mayor Matteson stated, so approximately six to seven weeks. He then stated he was going to open this up for public input on this particular issue. He stated if there was anyone in the audience who wished to address this issue. Tony Petta Mr. Petta stated there has been no objection on the part of the 11875 Eton Dr. public as far as building houses or swimming pools or patios or re -roofing the house. He stated it would appear that the revision of the moratorium, whereby individuals might want to build their house, would be allowed since apparently there is no objection on the part of anyone to someone building their Council Minutes - 12/03/87 Page 5 own home. He then asked if the Planning Director would be the only staff that would be allowed to look at the plans or could anyone else who wants to? The Planning Director replied the intent is that the General Plan Consultant will be submitting to him the draft that he has come up with and then he will sit down with the consultant and go over what he has proposed with questions and comments; they will sit down with the City Engineer; they will provide the park information to the Parks and Recreation Committee and go over it on staff level at that meeting. He stated it will not be open to public for comment or review until after staff completes it from staff point -of -view because it is still in a draft writing stage. He stated once staff has made their comments on it, staff will give it back to the consultant and then he will formalize it into a public comment format. Mr. Petta stated, so that communication is strictly between the consultant and City staff. The Planning Director replied, "that's correct." Bill Storm Mr. Storm stated they are processing an extension for Tract T.J. Austyn 13050 and he was trying to get a clarification on the status of that extension. He stated they are now working with staff on a compromise for that tract and he understands the extension would allow them to move ahead because they made an application prior to the cut-off date. He then asked for clarification about their Site Plan and Architectural Review not being allowed to move ahead because they had not made the formal application. The Planning Director replied, "that's correct," that's the way the Planning Department is viewing the moratorium up until this evening and clarifications for projects such as this one, which has come in for a tentative map and has been working with the Engineering Department on the conditions in the submittal of the final map would be allowed to continue and come to Council with the final map recommendations to be heard. He stated after that, the developer will have to submit a new Site and Architectural Review Application and that will not be accepted because that is a new application for the next phase of that development. He stated if Council feels that they don't want to have a project such as this in this type of timing to go forward with the final map, then that is the kind of clarification he would like. He indicated he is interpreting it that he will be allowed to go forward with that type of project in pipeline. He stated there are two items here tonight that are exactly the same type of situation where the developers have submitted tentative maps that have gone to the 11 Council Minutes - 12/03/87 Page 6 Planning Commission and are now coming to Council and are now caught in a time-lag because of the moratorium. Mr. Storm stated his other question would be on Tract No. 13205, they are two to three weeks away before they will be submitting their final map on that project to the city. Mayor Matteson stated for clarification, asked Mr. Storm the projects that are under construction now, what map is that. Mr. Storm replied, 13050 indicating those are phases I thru IV and the one that was just mentioned. They wished to complete the final three phases, which are Phases 5 thru 7. Mayor Matteson questioned the phase after that? Mr. Storm replied, they have another tract, Tract 13205 on Main Street above Oriole and that's another map altogether, which is about 95 percent through final plan check with the City now. The Planning Director stated that second map is not affected by the extension issue that we will be considering at the next Council Meeting and that first map, 13050 is, so they are really two separate issues. Mr. Storm stated he believe the second map would be expiring around June and he was concerned whether or not their time would be extended in the moratorium? Do they have two years sometime to get approval until the time they can get a final map on that parcel. He stated if the General Plan process stretches out for a period of time, it could stretch beyond that two-year period and he wanted to know how that would affect him. The City Attorney stated he believes there is language in the Code that says when a moratorium is applied, that the time is automatically extended. Councilmember Evans asked Mayor Matteson what was the purpose of imposing a moratorium on all residential developments? Mayor Matteson replied the purpose was to redo the General Plan and see if we were going to be changing the zoning on some of the property and therefore, wanted to stop all construction until that time when they could see what the General Plan was going to bring and not having people coming through with maps and putting a great expense for projects that Council was not going to accept. Councilmember Evans asked so that was all residential developments? Council Minutes - 12/03/87 Page 7 Mayor Matteson replied, "yes," that was the intent of the motion. Councilmember Evans asked if that was still the intent of the motion? Mayor Matteson stated the reason the Planning Director is bringing this up tonight is so that Council can review it and see if some adjustments can be made. Councilmember Evans stated he would like to know what the intent of the motion is because Mr. Petta mentioned that he felt the intent of the moratorium was not to stop the construction of houses. He stated in light of what has transpired in the last couple of months, he can't help but feel it's okay to continue with construction or development of single-family homes, however, we don't want apartments. He wanted to know if the intent of the motion was to stifle multi -family development. If so, we need to specifically state that so everyone knows, then Council can proceed with what we have with us without any clarification. Mayor Matteson replied part of the problem is not just multi -family units, it's clarification on what the Planning Director had in way of lot size in the area of Blue Mountain. Councilmember Evans stated if he understood what Mayor Matteson was saying, was that any kind of residential construction will stand. Mayor Matteson replied after reviewing the Planning Commissioner's Report, he wouldn't say that any residential construction, large tract units. He stated personal residential units that were owner -occupied buildings that are going in he has no problem with, that was not the real intent. Councilmember Evans asked the Planning Director when he said in his Staff Report, owner occupied, did he have in mind someone who wanted to do an addition to their home that are currently living on the premises.? The Planning Director replied that and also a person who is in the R-1 Area and has a lot that is vacant and is planning on building his home on it, that he will be allowed to build a single-family residence on it. Councilmember Evans asked what was the difference we are waiting the General Plan for review whether it's one house, ten or twenty homes? He stated one more home will obviously will impact it, if we are going to be taking a look at residential construction as it relates to the impact in the community, that is what he is trying to get a clarification as to the purpose of the moratorium. Council Minutes - 12/03/87 Page 8 The Planning Director replied there is an element of staff being able to work with the public and if a person is coming in r - and wants to build his own home in an area which may not be a residential area in the future, there is some working capabilities that we can deal with and get the person to perhaps not go forward with that, but if he really wants to, he can. He stated that is different than a person who is an area that has been ear -marked or is being talked about changing from residential to commercial or industrial area. He has a two or three -acre piece of property that he wants to split, subdivide and sell off, and then future people coming in and buying residential property being surrounded by a commercial area. He stated that is the type of thing he was concerned about stopping. He felt staff can deal with an individual homeowner on an individual basis. Councilmember Evans replied he understands what the Planning Director was saying, but it still comes to the point when the motion was made stating all residential development, it doesn't state if it is an owner -occupied one -dwelling unit, it's okay. He stated it seems like we are picking and choosing and he would like some definitive guidelines and that is why he was asking the purpose of the moratorium. The Planning Director replied that is exactly what the Planning Department interpreted it with a "hard-line" on interpretation until this meeting and that is why staff is coming back to rr Council with this request for a revision. Councilmember Grant stated the original intent was not to create something that would jeopardize the integrity of the development of the revised General Plan, you start authorizing things that would place the consultant in a peculiar position in terms of his recommendations to Council and it was a very logical act on the part of this Council to that extent. He stated to another extent, it was somewhat over -killed and that is why he would support staff's recommendations. He indicated Council could make it more liberal and still not jeopardize the consultant in what he is doing; indicating he supports the moratorium and that is the reason he seconds this motion, but felt it should be revised tonight and made more sensible. Councilmember Shirley stated she would like to get an opinion and add one more thing to Councilmember Grant's recommendation and that is replacement construction, for instance if someone's house burns down, it would be nice if it could be rebuilt. She stated she did not think that has been addressed. The Planning Director replied staff has interpreted that kitchen remodeling, replacement of an existing structure. He stated he would accept that applicant and do a permit for that on a single-family maximum type of situation. Council Minutes - 12/03/87 Page 9 Councilmember Evans stated if he understood Mr. Storm's position in looking for direction, we are talking about the property that is just immediately south of what is under construction, known as Fieldcrest Homes, is that correct? Mr. Storm replied, "that's correct." Councilmember Evans stated if he recalls, Mr. Storm has not had a final tract map on that property? Mr. Storm replied they have a contract map on the first plot where Fieldcrest is located, but they did not have a final tract map on Phases 5 thru 7. Councilmember Evans stated the rest of the area came up and fell into the two-year time limit, then asked Mr. Storm had he not filed his final tract map? Mr. Storm replied, "that's correct" they filed for an extension in July 1987 and carried into the extension a few weeks ago. Councilmember Evans asked if it was because of some problems and indicated he did not know if the City Attorney or the Planning Director had mentioned it, but usually when a developer files there is a sixty-day time limit they automatically get. He then asked Mr. Storm if that had expired also and did that expire prior to the moratorium or after the moratorium was imposed? The Planning Director replied the moratorium was placed on the last meeting and we either extended that 60-day extension time period at that meeting or the prior meeting. He asked the City Attorney if he could remember which meeting that took place? The City Attorney replied, he did not recall which meeting it was. However, Council agreed by stipulation that the status quo would be preserved and felt the moratorium would not apply to those phases and believed that they would come before Council at the next meeting. He presumed, otherwise, the developer had certain recourses they would have taken and in order to preserve the status quo, Council arrived at a stipulation and wouldn't work an unfair hardship. Councilmember Evans stated to the City Attorney, if he recalled his direction, it was because of potential litigation. The City Attorney replied, "yes." Councilmember Evans he asked in answer to Mr. Storm's question this evening, although he is putting together a major residential development, he will not fall under this moratorium. Council Minutes - 12/03/87 Page 10 The City Attorney replied, "yes and no," he wasn't dragging the question, but as to the final map, he would say "no," Mr. Storm would not fall under the moratorium, that they would come before Council at the next meeting or the extension of the tentative map. He stated as to taking out permits in any of those for building, that is another matter and the Planning Director has already indicated they would not entertain that. Councilmember Evans asked if Mr. Storm would be able to bring to the Planning Commission a review of what will be built on the subdivision. The City Attorney replied, "no sir," the Planning Department has already indicated they would not accept. Councilmember Evans stated so assuming that at the next meeting, he was to be granted the extension, he would then have to wait for the six-month period or until the General Plan was adopted before he could then continue further. The City Attorney replied, "yes." Councilmember Evans asked Mr. Storm if that was clear to him. Mr. Storm replied, "yes," but he was not happy with that; they would like to submit those plans if they could, but it is clear and he understands that. The City Engineer stated he believes he understands this, but he would like clarification that if any final or tentative tract that is now ready to go final, that could not be brought before the City Council for final approval until such time as 4 the moratorium is over, is that the way I understand it? The City Attorney replied, "yes," but the time would not run on those maps because they have an automatic extension of time or whatever the duration of the moratorium. Mayor Matteson asked Mr. Storm if he had any other questions. Mr. Storm replied, "no," other than you were talking about financial impact and saving people any great financial impact, we have already spent the money, so it's already been a very great financial impact on us. He stated they are a small company and he hopes some decision can be made fairly quick so they can get on with this thing. Harry Baie Mr. Baie stated for the last year he has been trying to build an extension on his home with a bathroom. The Veterans Administration approved all his plans and he was ready to go on the 14th of November and he was turned down because the moratorium was in affect. He requested the City Council to modify this ordinance so that individual cases can be adjudicated properly and swiftly. Council Minutes - 12/03/87 Page 11 Tony Petta Mr. Petta asked the City Attorney and the City Engineer if the 11875 Eton Dr. moratorium that took place west of the freeway was R-3 property? The City Attorney replied, it might have included R-2 also, but it certainly was R-3, not R-1 property. Mr. Petta stated that was the factor that brought on the moratorium in the first place west of the freeway. Therefore, the Council took care of that problem by imposing a moratorium essentially on R-3 properties. He stated west of the freeway, the point of discussion was the R-3 properties and there were absolutely no objections whatsoever on any form of R-1 constructed houses. Therefore, if the same criteria was used here east of the freeway, by placing a moratorium on R-3 properties, that takes care of the concern of the people and also it would not burden the individuals who are in the process of building residential homes. Mayor Matteson replied, east of the freeway, we have some other problems we didn't have on the west side and one of those is the gradual increase of lot sizes as you go south, where you get into larger lots and it made more sense to blend in increasingly larger lots, this is the reason why we are waiting for the General Plan. Mr. Petta replied he understands that, however, the Planning Commission can address that because all development has to go first before the Planning Commission. He stated the Planning Director might comment on that. He stated where there is a problem that is in reference to lot sizes, the Planning Commission can directly take action to request and then make recommendation to Council to make those lots larger without a moratorium. The Planning Director replied the Planning Commission and the Planning Department would have the zoning issues that they will be able to enforce with different projects that are proposed. He stated he would be concerned with eliminating R-1 properties from the moratorium in the instance on the southern portion part of the City, there has been an application that wanted to come to subdivide some property which he knew the General Plan Consultant is considering changing from R-1 to a commercial or industrial business park type of environment. He stated that is exactly the reason he would like to have R-1 still in there because that allows him to put that application off so it doesn't get into the procedure and doesn't give that applicant any proceeds to vested rights to that type of development. ni Council Minutes - 12/03/87 Page 12 Dave Cole Mr. Cole stated he was here on behalf of a property owner in Principle of Grand Terrace who is asking for an exemption from the Regional & moratorium for a specific site that he is proposing System multi -family housing tract which is located just southerly of Landscaping & the Retirement Hotel that is being constructed. He stated they Architectural have requested through the City Manager to come before Council Firm this evening to ask for this request. He indicated this project is being considered as a replacement of the existing multi -family housing which is in a deteriorated state of condition. He stated this project would be a replacement for the existing situation. He stated he was here to request a waiver on this moratorium for this specific site is so that the developer can proceed with his planning in an expeditious manner. Mayor Matteson indicated his particular position on this is that the major constructions we are talking about would may be two months, and felt that is not a length of time that is to be of great consideration. He stated he felt these are the things we want to get straight in the General Plan and he would not be in favor of the extension or exemption on any major construction on the moratorium. However, he would be in favor of accepting the Planning Commission recommendations on the R-1 and R-2. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen apologized to Mr. Baie for the degree of difficulties he had because of the moratorium. She indicated the frustrating thing for her was that she sat here at the last Council Meeting for three pages of minutes and went item by item with Council on the motion on the floor saying are i you sure that's what you mean, do you really want to stop this, and the City Attorney and Councilmembers replying and it was clear what we were doing. She indicated, feeling good, that Council is now ready to correct something that was done so incorrectly. CC-87-231 Motion by Mayor Matteson, second by Councilmember Grant, to approve Planning Director's recommendation. Councilmember Evans asked for the definition of major construction and clarification as to it applying to R-1 and R-2, or will this moratorium govern all multi -family? Mayor Matteson replied it already governs all multi -family, as well as it governs all R-1 at the present time. He stated we are making an exception here for people who are building their own residents or making modifications to their homes. Council Minutes - 12/03/87 Page 13 Councilmember Evans stated that is why he came back to the intent of the moratorium in the first place. What is considered major construction, because the minute you put one house, one more house in this City is going to cause an impact. He asked are you specifically identifying one house versus fifty homes. Mayor Matteson stated if you read the paragraph the Planning Director has written which specifically says "owner occupied." Councilmember Evans asked the Planning Director if that paragraph was being modified in any way during the discussion tonight? Mayor Matteson replied, "it hasn't so far." Councilmember Evans asked the Planning Director if there were any problems he has with discussion tonight? The Planning Director replied as he understand the motion that was made, it was to accept staff's recommendation as written and he still concurs with his recommendations as written. Councilmember Evans replied so R-1 would be included into that. The Planning Director replied, R-1 would be included in it and a single owner -occupied person; a gentlemen/lady who owns their own lot who wants to build his/her house can do so, but they can't put a duplex on that lot. Councilmember Evans asked the City Attorney if this motion were to pass, we have two subdivisions for public hearings, would these fall under the moratorium and should not be considered this evening? The City Attorney replied, he felt they could consider them, the tentative map will never be able to be finalized until such time as the moratorium is completed, because there would be a moratorium on that. Councilmember Evans stated he felt one involved a project of three parcels; the other one two parcels indicating he was trying to get some understanding as to where we stand. He stated it would seem from what he has heard this evening that these should also fall under the moratorium and it seem rather foolish to take a look at something now before we take a look at the document that the moratorium is supposed to be awaiting. The City Attorney replied he may wish to take that precise action on those items. Council Minutes - 12/03/87 Page 14 Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen asked what would the recommendations be, to continue those items until such time as the General Plan is approved, or the moratorium is lifted? The City Attorney replied, "yes," but you could approve them, they may never be finalized until the moratorium is completed, but if that is the action you prefer take at that time, yes. The Planning Director indicated this is part of the reason why he wanted a clarification. He stated the Planning Department's interpretation has been that if it has been applied for, then staff will go forward with that. He stated these were applied for and that is the reason he brought them before Council tonight because it is part of tentative map approval process, just as T.J. Austyn Project is applied for, then staff would come before Council at the next meeting with that extension issue. He stated if the two applicants were to come in tomorrow with these two proposals, he would say "no" to them, he could not accept them as he interpreted it. He stated that is the reason they are here tonight because they are in the process already and if I'm not interpreting that correctly, he needed Council to tell him that very plainly. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated if she understands from what the Planning Director and the direction the City Attorney gave Council, Council could go ahead and approve these maps, but that would be the end of the process for them as would it be for T.J. Austyn until such time as the moratorium is lifted or the General Plan is adopted. The Planning Director replied, "that's correct," this one is slightly different than T.J. Austyn, it's the same process, we have a tentative tract map approval process; the final map approval process and the site and architectural approval process. He stated this one is at the tentative map process, it would be stopped there as these two and could not go forward to the final map process. He stated T.J. Austyn would be in the position where they would get the final map, but could not go on to the site and architectural, etc. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated, in other words, essentially completing a process they already started and they can't go on to the next step, so we're not involved with anything being constructed there. She stated if the General Plan land use designation were to change and we had gone ahead and okayed these tract maps, then are we going to say to these people, we had a tentative approval or final approval on your tract map because you were that far into the pipeline, but now it isn't going to apply anymore, is that what's going to happen? Council Minutes - 12/03/87 Page 15 The Planning Director replied they would still have the tentative map approval and then staff will have to sit down with them and bring in legal council on that whether or not a tentative map is actually vested or not with that, but there would be argument that they should be able to go forward with those two maps. He stated these particular two maps, one is in the area where he did not anticipate any changes at all, it's in an established R-1 area. The other one is in an area that staff will be looking at larger lot sizes, but through the Planning Commission process what we are seeing tonight is a compromise that has been worked out and the Planning Department feels comfortable with it. Motion CC-87-231 carried ALL AYES, to approve Planning Commission's recommendations. PUBLIC HEARING Item 6-A The Planning Director indicated Item 6-A is the first map on TPM-87-8 the board, the applicants are Kevin and Cheryl Trawinski and is APN 277-131-69 represented by Dotson Engineering. He gave a scenario of the project and it's location. Mayor Matteson opened up for public hearing inquiring if there was anyone who wished to speak for or against this project. Being there was none, he turned it over to Council. CC-87-232 Motion by Mayor Matteson, second by Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen, to approve TPM-87-8. Councilmember Shirley on your requirement 6-B "a minimum lot coverage shall be 60 percent?" The Planning Director replied, "yes," the lot coverage is the birds -eye -view if you are above the lot that is not open earth or landscaped, but does not include a deck or something that's more than 30 inches, but there is a certain percentage that can be paved over or covered. Councilmember Shirley asked, "shouldn't that read maximum lot coverage?" The Planning Director replied, "you are right." Councilmember Evans asked what was the clarification. Councilmember Shirley replied, where it states minimum lot coverage shall be 60 percent, it will be corrected to read maximum lot coverage shall be 60 percent under condition of approval and also on the Resolution it needs to be changed in those two places. She stated she would like to make a comment about this area indicating she had a call from a resident on Council Minutes - 12/03/87 Page 16 that street Willet Court, it has nothing to do with this lot split, but she was concerned about lighting in that area because there are no street lights. She stated she would like Council to consider that at sometime. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated as a point of information, the people on Willet Street have consistently refused to participate in a lighting assessment district; they want those lights free. Motion CC-87-232 carried, 4-1, with Councilmember Evans voting NOE, to approve TPM 87-8. Councilmember Evans stated the reason he voted NOE was because he felt Council is making exceptions and when we take a look at the purpose of the moratorium, which was to review the entire land use in the City; traffic, school impaction and many other elements. Councilmember Shirley abstained from any discussion or voting on TPM-87-9 due to potential conflict of interest. Item 6-B The Planning Director indicated Item 6-B stated the applicant TPM-87-9 for this item is Steven Fox requesting for a two -parcel APN 27-181-44 subdivision dividing a 1.1-acre parcel between two individual lots of approximately 20,000 sq. f t. He gave a scenario of the project and the location. He stated the Planning Department recommends that City Council adopt the attached Resolution approving TPM-87-9 as conditioned. PUBLIC HEARING Mayor Matteson asked if there was anyone wishing to speak for or against this project? David Boraquin Mr. Boraquin stated he was representing Steve Fox, indicating CG Engineering the parcel map before Council tonight consisting of two lots 2627 S. Waterman was revised in accordance with the information that they heard Avenue at Planning Commission and City Council Meetings. He stated San Bernardino they are providing a map that corresponded with the public's wishes who testified at the hearings, as well as the Planning Commission, who had stated that two lots was the maximum that they would approve for this site. He stated they have reviewed all the Engineering and the Planning Department conditions for this and are in agreement with everyone of them and respectfully request approval of the map tonight. Steve Fox Mr. Fox stated he was the owner of the property indicating the 382 E. Bonnieview costly procedure they have had trying to get this project split Rialto into two lots. He indicated the different changes they have gone through the past four years ago trying to keep up with the changes made by the City Council and the Planning Department. Council Minutes - 12/03/87 Page 17 He indicated he would appreciate if the City Council could approve this tonight because they are in a situation right now where economically it would really be a disaster if this went any other way except for two lots and felt they have worked out a good compromise with all the surrounding neighbors. Mayor asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak against or for this project. Being there was none, he turned it over to Council. Mayor Matteson asked the City Attorney if Councilmember Shirley would be in a conflict of interest in discussing this. The City Attorney replied, she is the one who declared she has a potential conflict of interest and therefore, she would be in conflict if she discussed this in any way. CC-87-233 Motion by Mayor Matteson, second by Councilmember Grant. Motion carried with Councilmember Evans voting NOE and Councilmember Shirley abstaining, to approve TPM-87-9. NEW BUSINESS Councilmember Mr. Mayor either at the last meeting or several meetings Grant previously, you had in passing brought up the problem what we Item 8-A see going on economically in this community and what's not Discussion on happening in Grand Terrace and I thought that was an excellent possible Economic observation. The more I thought about it the more I felt that Development we should do more than just observe and the fact that we are Consultant not progressing economically and do something about it. We have come close on occasion of getting those businesses in this community which would provide us with improved sales and use taxes, but they've fallen through. There are some who maintain that these have fallen through simply because we are at our current population and, therefore, for us to get these businesses, all we need to do is have more apartments and with all the people that come with those apartments, we'll have that population and then we'll have all those businesses anxious to come into town. That's based on the premise that with large population you are going to get a lot of businesses, I don't buy that totally. Based on the fact that you are going to have people from outside of this community as they are already doing coming into this community to purchase items. So with that in mind, I would like to make a motion and it's a motion in which there is an alternative indicated. CC-87-234 Motion by Councilmember Grant, second by Councilmember Shirley, that this Council authorize and instruct City Staff to conduct a brief feasibility study and report back to this Council by December 17, 1987. Relative to the implementation of either a City staff position or positions for the purpose of conducting a concentrated program to bring to this City an increased economic development in order to provide an improved sales and Council Minutes - 12/03/87 Page 18 r use tax base or the retention of an Economic Development Consultant on a contingency -fee basis payment as you produce to r- provide that same increased economic development for an improved sales and use tax base. Its a long -worded motion, but I think it's quite clear what I'm asking here, this is my motion. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated she has two areas that she would like to address indicating the latter being she felt it's a lofty idea to try to get somebody to come in and they are only going to get paid if they produce and she made that judgement in light of the fact that there are certain things that she knows, whether it be more apartments, more houses, more population that's necessary for the kind of development that we are requiring. However, that population is going to come, she can guarantee that, but in a delayed manner because of actions that Council has taken. So, to ask somebody to come in and hand them that kind of a task, she felt first of all, you are not going to get somebody to do it, but she think it would be unfair and unsupportable of Council to even ask that that to be done. She indicated her second area of concern is where the funding of bringing on a staff person is going to come from indicating she has no problem at all if you think bringing on a Professional Economic Development Consultant that would either work full or part-time to secure commercial development for the City of Grand Terrace, on staff, on contract. However, contract has not served us well in this r area before. We get a lot of excuses and a lot of paper and i� nothing happens. She believes if we are going to have a Consultant, they need to be brought on staff where they are directly reportable to the City Manager and City Council on a weekly or daily basis. She stated her other area of concern is that we give, in the form of a grant, $30,000 a year to the Chamber of Commerce for specifically that purpose, and asked if they would continue that grant. She stated she wants an answer to that question. Mayor Matteson replied the motion was to do a feasibility study and that would probably address those issues, we don't have the answers, that's what we are going to look at if he understood the motion. The response was, "that's correct." Mayor Matteson stated Council is not making a decision to do that, the motion is just to look into the idea of it. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen asked who was going to do the feasibility study? Councilmember Grant replied, "staff obviously," we are not going to get a consultant to determine whether or not we are going to get a consultant. Council Minutes - 12/03/87 Page 19 Mayor Matteson stated as he reported at the last City Council Meeting, the City of Colton has approximately sixteen different major projects, one of them under construction is worth $72,000,000.00 and they have four full-time people in economic development and they are paying off. He stated when development started down in Cooley Ranch, there were no residents down there at all and they got the commercial and we got a lot of freeway exposure, we could get some of that commercial here. Councilmember Evans stated he would like to address that last comment. The reason they have commercial development in Cooley Ranch is because they have the people there. If you go back and take a look at any development in any area probably for the last forty to fifty years, no commercial development would have come unless the people were there. He stated he felt the letter Council received on October 7, 1987, from Westar Associates, who we were working with to put together a commercial center was very emphatic stating that the population base is not here, and until you increase the population base, you are not going to get anybody that's willing to take a gamble in the community. He stated in 1984, we hired a consultant to the tune of about $36,000.00, they were on for about six months and we paid them close to about $11,000.00 to $12,000.00, did they produce, "no," they collected a bunch of reports of this area. He stated until this Council gets together, decide what they are going to do and how they are going to do it, you are not going to have anybody coming in and developing anything; he felt is throwing money down the drain that could be better spent elsewhere. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated she would have take exception to the remark also. All of that development happened down there and that was before residential development and that was totally untrue. She stated the very first thing that happened at the bottom of that hill was that mobile home park and the City of Colton bought that property, sold it to the developer, gave them X-number of years free from City property tax, they did everything to break things open down there. She stated then apartments and condominiums developed before anything commercial went down there; population that would directly impact those businesses was there before. If we are going to draw parallels between Colton and Grand Terrace, let's do it realistically. Colton, yes, can put in a $72,000,000.00 project, Colton can do a $10,000,000.00 interchange improvement project, but they have aggressively sorted both commercial and residential development. Mayor Matteson disagreed with his fellow Councilmembers on some of those items, but he wasn't going to argue the point, that isn't the reason Council was talking about this. Council Minutes - 12/03/87 Page 20 0 Councilmember Shirley stated she wanted to substantiate what Mayor Matteson had said that most of the businesses in the Cooley Ranch area are not the type that residential areas support, those are business supported, businesses in Cooley Ranch. She stated there are a couple of restaurants, one book store, one travel agent, a couple of other businesses that residential traffic would support, but the rest of them are strictly to support other commercial businesses. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated there are four or six theatres, just off the top of her head, she could name at least five eating establishments. She indicated one of which, requires a certain amount of population before it's ever established and that is McDonald's. She agreed the issue before Council to find out if it is feasible to bring on an Economic Development Consultant indicating she felt that when staff is considering this, they need to consider all of the things that have been discussed here tonight. Until this community is ready to accept population growth, it's not going to get commercial developments. Mayor Matteson replied you have to also figure that the people that do the shopping do not have to live here. He stated he believes there is commercial that we can get, Colton did a magnificent job on it and they did it with professional help and he felt we should investigate into that. He stated if we do nothing like we've been doing, we are going to end up with no commercial. Motion CC-87-234 carried with Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen and Councilmember Evans voting NOE, that this Council authorize and instruct City Staff to conduct a brief feasibility study and report back to Council by December 17, 1987. Relative to the implementation of either a City staff position or positions for the purpose of conducting a concentrated program to bring to this City and increase economic development in order to provide an improved sales and use tax base or the retention of an economic Development Consultant on a contingency -fee basis payment as you produce to provide that same increased economic development for an improve sales and use tax base. CLOSED SESSION Mayor Matteson indicated going into closed session with potential litigation at 6:55 p.m. Reconvened City Council at 7:10 p.m. Mayor Matteson stated Council met in closed session for potential litigation. The City Attorney stated it's on the agenda as potential litigation, it's actual litigation, we could seriously end up in court on this matter labeled the City of Colton versus the Council Minutes - 12/03/87 Page 21 City of Grand Terrace in Riverside County Court. He stated Council met in closed session and discussed that matter, they discussed a proposed compromise offer giving in to the City of Colton and he believes they will be taking an action on it tonight and they also gave instruction to the attorney regarding that pending litigation and they took no further action. CC-87-235 Motion by Mayor Matteson, second by Councilmember Grant, ALL AYES, to reject the offer by the City of Colton. Adjourned the City Council Meeting at 7:20 p.m. until the next regular City Council Meeting which will be held Thursday, December 1, 1987 at 6:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted APPROVED: ayo Council Minutes - 12/03/87 Page 22