Loading...
11/20/1986CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - NOVEMBER 20, 1986 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City order in the Council Chambers, Grand Terrace Civic Grand Terrace, California, on November 20, 1986, a PRESENT: Hugh J. Grant, Mayor Byron Matteson, Mayor Pro Tempore Tony Petta, Councilman Barbara Pfennighausen, Councilwoman Dennis L. Evans, Councilman Susan Crawford, Councilwoman of Grand Terrace was called to Center, 22795 Barton Road, t 6:20 p.m. Seth Armstead, City Manager Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney Joe Kicak, Planning Director/City Engineer Ilene Dughman, City Clerk Alicia Chavez, Acting City Clerk ABSENT: NONE The meeting was opened with invocation by Pastor Salim Elias, Azure Hills Seventh Day Adventist Church, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance, led by City Clerk Dughman. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS Awards - Crime Prevention Poster/Essay Contest Winners Sharon Korgan, Community Service Officer, thanked all volunteers who made project possible including Councilwoman Pfennighausen, Ed O'Neal, and the schools and introduced award winners. Mayor Grant presented plaques to following students: Grand Terrace Elementary Poster Contest - Amy Todd, 1st; Joaquin Keenan, nd; Keki Gurro a, r . Terrace View Elementary Poster Contest - Shawna Butrick, 1st; Kelley Frost, nd; Chris Kelley, 3rd. Terrace Hills Junior Hi h School Essay Contest - Tran Dang, 1st; Bryan Wie a d, nd; Diana Gill, rd. Proclamation - "Family Week," November 23 - 29, 1986 Mayor Grant read above Proclamation in honor of "Family Week," emphasizing the importance of family ties. ELECTION - NOVEMBER 4, 1986 RESOLUTION NO. 86-42 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA, RECITING THE FACT OF THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD IN SAID CITY ON NOVEMBER 4, 1986, DECLARING THE RESULT THEREOF AND SUCH OTHER MATTERS AS ARE PROVIDED BY LAW. Council Minutes - 11/20/86 Page 2 CC-86-264 Following reading of the Resolution by City Attorney Hopkins, Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Matteson, Second by Councilman Evans, ALL AYES, to adopt Resolution No. 86-42. SWEARING -IN CEREMONY City Clerk Dughman administered the Oath of Allegiance to newly -elected Councilmember, Susan Crawford, and presented her a Certificate of Election, at which time Councilman Petta and Councilwoman Pfennighausen left their seats, pending outcome of the Special Runoff Election. Relative to the conducting of Election for Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore, City Clerk Dughman suggested deferring until full Council is seated, and recommended the current Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem remain as such. CC-86-265 Motion by Councilman Evans, Second by Mayor Pro Tem Matteson, ALL AYES, that Mayor Grant and Mayor Pro Tem Matteson remain in their respective positions until Election can be conducted with full Council seated. Recessed City Council at 6:51 p.m.; Convened Community Redevelopment Agency at 6:51 p.m. APPROVAL OF 11/6/86 MINUTES CRA-86-51 Motion by Mr. Evans, Second by Vice Chairman Matteson, to approve the Minutes of November 6, 1986, carried, 3-0-1, with Susan Crawford abstaining. APPROVAL OF CHECK REGISTER NO. CRA112086 CRA-86-52 Motion by Chairman Grant, Second by Vice Chairman Matteson, ALL AYES, to approve Check Register No. CRA112086, as submitted. RESOLUTION NO. CRA 86-03 - A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE AND AMENDMENT TO LOAN AGREEMENT RELATING TO THE $30,000,000 COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE MULTI -FAMILY HOUSING REVENUE BONDS (MT. VERNON VILLAS PROJECT) 1985 SERIES A, APPROVING RELATED DOCUMENTS AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION THEREOF. Following reading of the title and clarification by City Attorney CRA-86-53 Hopkins, Motion by Vice Chairman Matteson, Second by Chairman Grant, to adopt Resolution No. CRA 86-03. Mr. Evans related Council's unanimous approval in December of 1985 in the amount of $30,000,000 for a multi -family development project involving two phases of apartment buildings, citing the issue as a major topic of the recent Election. (Ref: Res. No. 85-28) Chairman Grant noted that, although apartments were an issue, density was more Council Minutes - 11/20/86 Page 3 of an issue and not specifically addressed in Council's prior bonding approval. Motion No. CRA-86-53 carried, ALL AYES. Adjourned the Community Redevelopment Agency at 6:56 p.m. Reconvened City at 6:56 p.m. ITEMS ADDED TO THE AGENDA City Manager Armstead noted that add -on items are included in the Revised Agenda provided to Council. CONSENT CALENDAR Item 3D, 11/6/86 Minutes, was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion: CC-86-266 Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Matteson, Second by Mayor Grant, ALL AYES, to approve the following Consent Calendar items: CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approve Check Register No. 112086; B. Ratify 11/20/86 Action; C. Waive Full Reading of Ordinances on Agenda; E. Approve Christmas Tree Sale, Adjacent to Fire Station No. 23, by the Grand Terrace Fire and Rescue Association, December 5-24, 1986, and Waive all Fees; F. Approve Settlement of Liability Claim GTLC 86-02 with William Peters in the amount of $106.86; G. Release $25,000 Sanitary Sewer Improvements Cash Deposit to the Sister's of St. Benedict. APPROVAL OF 11/6/86 MINUTES Councilman Evans requested verbatim of the following portions of the Minutes: Pg. 3, last paragraph, relative to Chester Easter's questioning and response on medium and high density land use; Pg. 8, 2nd paragraph, City Attorney Hopkins' response to Councilwoman Pfennighausen relative to procedure leading to City's adoption of the Housing and Land Use Element and Councilwoman Pfennighausen's subsequent comments; Additionally, requested his comment relative to if an Ordinance is passed, it should be enforced be added to Page 10, paragraph 7. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson requested verbatim of Larry Council Minutes - 11/20/86 Page 4 Halstead's interpretation of high and low density, Pg. 6, 1st paragraph. CC-86-267 Motion by Councilman Evans, Second by Mayor Pro Tem Matteson, to approve the Minutes of November 6, 1986, with the above requested additions, carried, 3-0-1, with Councilwoman Crawford abstaining. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Dick Rollins, 22700 DeBerry, questioned City's alternatives regarding street ligFting on dark sections of Barton Road and Mt. Vernon Avenue, noting the ballot issue regarding formation of an assessment district to install street lighting and pay energy costs did not carry a majority vote. City Engineer Kicak related the cost of the energy for existing street lighting and any additional street lighting desired will be paid from the General Fund. Responding to Mayor Pro Tem Matteson, Mr. Kicak advised developers within new subdivisions are required to install street lights and pay the energy costs for the first two years, at which time the City assumes responsibility. Mr. Rollins felt the City should seriously consider installing street lights particularly in the critical dark areas where traffic hazards are most likely to prevail. Ed O'Neal, 22608 Minona Drive, welcomed Councilwoman Crawford. Relayed a mid-term status report of successful school and neighborhood watch crime prevention programs; noted difficulties with initiation of the Crime Busters program and felt changes should be implemented. Lucille Hayes, 22114 DeBerry, thanked the City staff for trimming her Oleanders and hauling the debris away. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 13364, SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 86-4 - TERRACE GROVES (CHAPARRAL PI, Planning Director Kicak outlined the Staff Report, Addendum thereto, and staff recommendations. (Reference: Staff Report, November 12, 1986, Subject: TTM 13364/SP 86 -4, for Terrace Grove Apartments, a 96 Unit Apartment Project and Staff Report, November 18, 1986, Subject: Addendum to Staff Report for TTM 13364/SP 86-4) Mayor Grant opened the Public Hearing. Mayor Grant noted potential traffic and density problems. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson questioned the problem of relocating the electrical poles on Gage Canal. Planning Director Kicak advised, although an expensive endeavor, it is the developers responsibility based upon the Circulation Element of the General Plan and, therefore, must be resolved by them. Mayor Grant felt satisfied with the Developer possibly moving one pole. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson felt moving one pole would only allow enough room to exit the development and would not meet the requirments for widening the street and felt the street should be widened and the poles relocated; realizes the heavy burden Council Minutes - 11/20/86 Page 5 it places on one developer particularly when his improvements will ultimately benefit other developments and, therefore, favors the Gas Company's formula wherein the first developer pays the cost, subsequent developers who will benefit thereby are assessed their share, and the initial developer is refunded the balance. Opposes the developer placing money in a fund pending future development, feeling the burden should not be placed on the City. Felt improvements should be made when the project is developed, funds allocated to the entire area and, subsequently, refunded to the initial developer as future development occurs. Feels proposed density too high, noting that 18.6 units per acre far exceeds what is acceptable to the residents of this City. Although likes the project overall, could not support until the problems mentioned are satisfactorily resolved. Responding to Councilwoman Crawford relative to the approved densities north of this project, Planning Director Kicak noted USA Properties is 15+ and Mt. Vernon Villas approximately 15.75 units per net acre; if Terrace Groves was developed in the same manner as those projects, rather than subdivided, the density would be approximately 13+ units per acre. Bill Mauerhan, Chaparral Pines developer, feels the density issue should be addressed from the standpoint of how many people are actually going to live on the 6.9 acres, not units per acre. If Britton Way remains private, the density is well within the acceptable bounds; however, if the street is dedicated, the density is increased by net acreage. Noted all the requirements with respect to coverage and lot size have been met. Related initial approval at planning in May 1985 included a density of 108 units which has been subsequently reduced to 96 units, thereby reducing it to 13.9 units; noted extensive time spent with the Planning Commission to mitigate all issues including ingress and egress problems and the Commission's subsequent approval of the project, feeling some credence should be given to their decision. Councilwoman Crawford feels Mr. Mauerhan's points with regard to density are valid; supported the project, feeling it to be of high quality. Responding to Mayor Grant relative to maintenance of Britton Way, Planning Director Kicak related if the street is dedicated to the City, as proposed, it would be the City's responsibility. Councilwoman Crawford feels a developer who proposes a project well within the acceptable range (13.9 units per acre) should not be penalized for the increase in his density due to loss of net acreage by street dedication to the City. However, voiced concern with the following issues: (1) Canal Street and the relocation of power poles; (2) The fact that the project is divided into 20 different lots. Questioned if plans have been made to create conformity within the development. Mr. Mauerhan noted that, although individuals will have Council Minutes - 11/20/86 Page 6 the opportunity for separate ownership, Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (C.C.& R.'s) would be included relative to Property Management, landscaping and maintenance requirements, in order to maintain conformity within the entire project. Regarding relocation of the power poles, Mr. Mauerhan related willingness to accomplish that in accordance with City requirements, if the City would agree to offer some type of reimbursement agreement. For clarification, City Attorney Hopkins related the type of reimbursement agreement being addressed is similar to a benefit assessment district in that the City would enter into an agreement and, prior to issuing the necessary permits or approvals, a benefit would be assigned to each developer representing their part of the charge for the improvements. During the designated period of the reimbursement agreement, anyone that benefits from the improvements would be required to pay their assessment to the City who would, in turn, reimburse the initial developers and/or their successors and assigns. Mr. Richard Britton, project owner, thanked Mayor Pro Tem Matteson for his suggestion of a reimbursement agreement, feeling it to be a practical solution. Responding to Mayor Pro Tem Matteson regarding ways to lower the density, Mr. Mauerhan stated the only means would be to eliminate units, which he felt would break the continuity of the project. Emphasized his desire to dedicate the streets within the project to the City; however, questioned the rationale behind increasing project density due to the dedication, noting whether private or public, the same amount of people would live there. Feeling a developer should not be penalized by the City for street dedication which makes it standard to City Code for police and fire access, Motion by Councilwoman Crawford, Second by Mayor Pro Tem Matteson, to approve Tentative Tract Map 13364, subject to the conditions made by both the Staff and the Planning Commission, and adopt the Resolution approving Specific Plan No. 86-4. Referencing the Planning Commission's Staff Report, dated October 20, 1986, Subject: TTM 13364/SP 86-4/CUP 86-7 and Site and Architectural Review for Terrace Grove Apartments, located north of Barton Road between Canal Street and Mt. Vernon, Councilman Evans questioned whether the two items referred to on Page 3, in the next to the last two paragraphs, relative to lot width and street dedications have been resolved. Planning Director Kicak related those issues have been settled. With respect to Page 4, paragraph 7, relative to sharing of parking, Mr. Kicak related requirements to assure compliance will be included in the C.C. & R.'s. Relative to the widening of Canal Street to Barton Road, Mr. Kicak related Item #32, on Page 3 of the Conditions of Approval makes that provision since street is considered a collector. Additionally, Item #46, Exhibit A, Resolution No. 86-?? specifically defines the condition. It was reiterated by Mr. Mauerhan their willingess to relocate the utility poles in accordance with City Council Minutes - 11/20/86 Page 7 requirements as long as the City agrees to some sort of future reimbursement agreement. Voicing concern with project street running into the parking lot, off the cul-de-sac, and potential future use of the Town and Country as a thoroughfare, Councilman Evans questioned the possibility of landcaping that area, thus providing for pedestrian traffic, in lieu of proposed ingress and egress. Mr. Mauerhan noted the turning moveability would be highly restrictive and, therefore, does not see a major concern with extensive vehicular traffic; however, if it posed a problem in the future, would be willing to close it off. Councilman Evans voiced concern with school impaction, referencing Colton Joint Unified School District's letter, dated September 11, 1986, relative to this project and potential shortage of classrooms. Planning Director Kicak related that developer fees have been established by the City (reference 9/26/85 Minute Action CC-85-290B) for the purpose of mitigating that problem, in accordance with the School District. Councilman Evans called for the question. CC-86-268 Motion by Mayor Grant, Second by Mayor Pro Tem Matteson, to overrule the call for the question, carried, 3-1, with Councilman Evans voting NOE. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson expressed mixed emotions with regard to the density, noting, although the project initially calculates at 13.9 units per acre which is within acceptable ranges, the added density due to the widening of the dedicated streets increases it to 18+ units per acre, feeling that to be too high a level of density. Mr. Mauerhan noted that whether the they will be paved, and did not see the project; does not feel that was density. Mr. Britton concurred. streets are City -owned or private, an affect on the actual density of the City's intent to maintain low Relative to the difference between City -owned and private streets, Planning Director Kicak noted that private streets do not provide public access and are exclusively restricted to a certain number of people, whereas public roadways remain accessible to all and, thereby, do affect the density of a particular area with regard to vehicular traffic. Further related that only a specific number of units are allowed on a particular parcel regardless of private or public streets and densities are calculated proportionately. Councilman Evans, referencing prior Council action pertaining to density limitations of 20 units per acre and the Municipal Code requirements that data be produced to substantiate disapproval of a project with a lower density indicating a detrimental affect on the health, safety, and welfare of the community, questioned whether such has been compiled. City Attorney Hopkins advised that to date no data had been furnished. Mayor Grant supported Mayor Pro Tem Matteson's position, feeling there may be studies which would reveal an adverse traffic impact based upon Council Minutes - 11/20/86 Page 8 this proposed density. Feels the fact that it has not as yet been produced is not indicative of its non-existence and extenuating factors could exist to justify his position and concern. Councilman Evans felt the General Plan should have initially addressed all issues including traffic impact. If they were not adequately addressed and the General Plan is deficient, felt necessary action should be taken to correct the problems. City Attorney concurred with Councilman Evans' above conclusion; however, noted the General Plan looks at the entire community; it designates a given area, such as in this particular case, as medium density and further requires a Conditional Use Permit and Specific Plan to speak to that specific project and its affect on the area in question; subsequently, if medium density is found to be inappropriate, the possibility of amending the General Plan in its entirety should be investigated. Councilman Evans felt that all potential problems should be addressed by the City Staff prior to submittal to the Planning Commission or Council. However, at this time, sees no legal basis to deny the proposed project, with City Attorney Hopkins concurring. Councilman Evans called for the question. CC-86-269 Motion by Mayor Grant, Second by Mayor Pro Tem Matteson, to overrule the call for the question, carried, 3-1, with Councilman Evans voting NOE. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson noted Council's action to investigate potential problems with the General Plan, referencing Motion No. CC-86-259 of 11/6/86 meeting, which placed a moratorium on R-3 building west of the freeway to allow sufficient time to review the General Plan. Feels if all property currently designated as R-3 is developed as such, too much traffic will be generated for the existing on and off ramps and, therefore, considers the impact on the whole City when looking at density. Referenced last year the City Council approved a project based upon the then existing conditions and determined that parcel could support a density of 15.75 units per acre, Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Matteson, Second by Mayor Grant, to amend the existing Motion, to approve TTM 13364, subject to the previously outlined staff conditions, and adopt the Resolution approving Specific Plan No. 86-4, with a limitation of 15.75 units per net acre. City Attorney Hopkins advised that written findings showing a detriment to the community must be provided to substantiate denial of the project at proposed density of less than 20 units per acre in accordance with the General Plan and the Municipal Code, as previously referenced by Councilman Evans. Council Minutes - 11/20/86 Page 9 Mayor Pro Tem Matteson (Maker), with its Second (Mayor Grant) in concurrence, added direction to staff to provide written findings, as related by City Attorney Hopkins, to the amended Motion. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson related that until a project is presented, it is extremely difficult to determine potential detriment to the community, therefore, each project must be considered individually. Mr. Mauerhan felt that, after 5 months of negotiations with the Staff and Planning to mitigate potential problems and the Planning Commission's subsequent approval of the project, Council would use their recommendations as a basis to make findings and take action. Felt by considering net and gross acreage, Council is losing sight of attempts being made to build a viable, high quality project. Councilwoman Crawford felt the simple solution to the density issue would be for the developer not to dedicate the street to the City. Mr. Mauerhan agreed, however, opposed the idea, feeling it would not benefit the City. Councilwoman Crawford felt the rules should not be changed in the middle of the game. Agrees with both Councilman Evans and Mayor Pro Tem Matteson that the General Plan needs to be reviewed and changed. Feels the people of Grand Terrace do not want high density and, although the General Plan defines it as medium density, noted their opposition. Believes it unfair and unbusinesslike to change rules at this point; therefore, feels this project should be dealt with under the same set of rules as originally set forth. Noting the General Plan must be changed for the people, Councilwoman Crawford said, "they have indicated they do not want what the General Plan states and that will have to be dealt with at another time; right now we need to deal with you."(the developer) (Verbatim statement, as requested by Councilman Evans.) City Attorney Hopkins indicated his presumption that the amended Motion includes direction to staff, as previously discussed by Mayor Grant, to develop written findings for Council consideration and adoption to substantiate the detriment the project could have on the health, safety, welfare, and comfort of the community. Mayor Grant voiced concurrence. Amended Motion failed, 2-2, with Councilmembers Evans and Crawford voting NOE. Original Motion failed, 2 -2, with Mayor Grant and Mayor Pro Tem Matteson voting NOE. Mayor Grant closed the Public Hearing. Recessed at 9:05 p.m.; reconvened at 9:28 p.m. Mayor Grant, noting the resultant stalemate of the Public Hearing, j reiterated that either the project must receive Council approval or L findings made to substantiate denial based upon it being detrimental to the community; therefore, suggested staff be directed to Council Minutes - 11/20/86 Page 10 investigate implications of this project as it exists and has now been proposed, in terms of the very real problems to the community that might result as a product of increased vehicle problems, keeping in mind the different times during the day when vehicles depart from and return to living dwellings. Feels the traffic study results will show a distinct impact sufficient to comply with the law; however, if staff findings do not reveal such, is prepared to reverse position taken tonight. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson, with Mayor Grant concurring, feels the proposed project is one of the best that has come before Council; however, related the overall problem lies with the approximately 120 acres currently designated as R-3 in the City; feels if all that acreage is allowed to be developed at 20 units per acre, at least 4800 people would be generated, thereby increasing the City's population by almost 50%; noted the traffic congestion problem already existent would increase, as well as school impaction and crime. Due to limited access, feels the City could not handle such an increase; therefore, supports review of the General Plan to address these crucial issues. Reemphasized his consideration of the City as a whole when voting on this project. Councilman Evans addressed City Attorney Hopkins with the fact that at the last meeting he gave an explanation of R-3 and why it was the density that it was, and had said it highly improbable that the state would ever change on multiple -family land use in this City. Attorney Hopkins felt probably not and explained that is not just our City, but Southern California, in particular, because we are running out of room. This could even make verticle housing more likely than horizontal. As our population grows, you do not have the ability to have sprawling single-family dwellings. Attorney Hopkins further stated that the state would not support trying to eliminate multi -family housing in the City, and we would be spinning our wheels to try to do so. Councilman Evans stated that it had been three years since the General plan had gone to the state. Did the plan address everything it should, is the plan still good today?. Attorney Hopkins assured that they had experts in the field that did a good job, 23 public hearings were devoted to the product, but nothing is infallible. Also, there are social and political ramifications within communities and professionals do not address this. Councilman Evans felt that the general plan shoud be re -looked at and probably nothing has been done. Attorney Hopkins agreed and specified that General Plans are like all plans and that they need to be kept constantly alive and changed as the community changes in order to keep current. Councilwoman Crawford questioned the City Attorney stating, "My understanding is that the General Plan is supposed to reflect what the people of the community want their community to be like. Is that correct? (Verbatim statement, as requested by Councilman Evans.) Council Minutes - 11/20/86 Page 11 City Attorney Hopkins responding, "No, because that is one of the recommendations you consider and that's why you go into public hearing, but too often people in a community say, okay this is what we've got, we're here, we have a nice community we don't want anybody else coming in. We want to preserve it just like it is today and that's just not allowed. You would never have any afforable housing, for instance, in the better -to-do economical communities. In Orange County there wouldn't be any affordable housing because the developers could develop housing for $200,000 and sell those houses, so why bother to sell $100,000 houses because they are required to. Of course, that is obviously nonsense too because there is a market for $100,000 houses as well as $200,000, but developers would develop to maximum. There has to be affordable housing. The State has done various things; they have offered financial bonuses, they have offered housing bonuses through increased density and, so forth, to encourage affordable housing and that's why the state requires this mutiple family medium of high density housing elements so that you have to allow some of that affordable housing in your community otherwise where do young people live when they first get married. You have to provide housing someplace for those people, some housing they can afford and, if they are not required to do it, we always say, well the next community will allow them and so all of the nicer communities push it down to the less nice communities and rather then spreading affordable housing out and you have it put into pockets that someday become ghettos and that's not what the State wants and that's not good planning, and so that's why you have to have afforable housing and so certainly the public input and what the public wants is one of the considerations, but it is not the controlling one. There are other ones as well. (Verbatim statement, as requested by Councilman Evans.) Further Council discussion clarified that the General Plan review had been initiated, as directed at the November 6 Council meeting, and that the 6-month moratorium had been placed on all construction in the R-3 area west of the freeway in conjunction with that review. (Ref: Motion No. CC-86-259) Ken McClellan, 21882 Grand Terrace Road, noting the General Plan is a document that has to be currently updated, offered his assistance with the review and requested a copy of the current plan. Responding to Mr. Mauerhan regarding current status of his project, City Attorney Hopkins clarified that it has been referred back to staff to review, investigate, and return to Council with report and recommendations as to any possible findings that would show a detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community, with a specific focus on traffic, as requested by Mayor Grant. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson further requested Staff consider potential traffic problems west of the freeway should development occur, feeling that traffic pattern will affect the rest of the City. Planning Director Kicak related previous traffic studies will be reviewed, updated as necessary, and projections made. Council Minutes - 11/20/86 Page 12 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT - Approved Minutes of the October 20, 1986 meeting were provide-U.- PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE REPORT - Dick Rollins, Committee member, reported success of the recent Tour de Terrace Bicycle Event. Councilman Evans extended thanks to all Committee members for their participation, particularly Barbara Conley for her outstanding contributions At Mr. Rollins' suggestion, Motion by Councilman Evans, Second by CC-86-270 Mayor Grant, ALL AYES, that staff be directed to prepare a Certificate of Appreciation for Barbara Conely. HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ACTIVITIES COMMITTEE - Minutes of the November 3, 1986 meeting were provided. Naming of Streets - Mayor Grant requested Council's input with regard to criteria on naming of streets. Councilman Evans, with Mayor Pro Tem Matteson's concurrence, agreed with Committee's position that streets should not be named after individuals unless they have historial significance. (Reference: Committee Report, 11/10/86, Subject: Naming of Streets and 11/3/86 Committee Minutes.) Councilwoman Crawford suggested the Committee compile a list of approximately 50 street names applicable to the City from a historical and geographical viewpoint. Mayor Grant requested staff relay Council's feelings to the Chairperson of the Committee. EMERGENCY OPERATIONS COMMITTEE REPORT - Jim Hodder, Chairman, reported the following:Last meeting held November 19, 1986; (2) Draft of the City's Emergency Operations Plan provided to staff including a cover lettr requesting Council and staff's review of its basic methodology; solicited input prior to their December 17 meeting; (3) Relative to the Southern California Earthquake Preparedness Project, Committee is currently investigating a family pamphlet for distribution throughout the Community. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE REPORT - Barbara Bayus, President, wished the City a Happy Birthday. Reported the following: (1) December 5 Chamber luncheon will feature an Earthquake Preparedness presentation by the Southern California Gas Company; (2) Chamber's projected budget, in conjunction with their request for additional funding, will be submitted at the next Council meeting; (3) Chamber's Economic Development Committee met this week and several developrs and various organizations have been contacted. FIRE CHIEF REPORT - City Manager Armstead extended the Fire Department's invitation for residents' participation in their Christmas Tree Sale adjacent to the Fire Station. CITY ENGINEER REPORT - Bus Shelters - Pedestal Post - Relative to issuance of sign permits for the bus shelters proposed by Pedestal Post, City Engineer Kicak related the Planning Commission supported the proposal in general; noted the question of whether advertising Council Minutes - 11/20/86 Page 13 panels could be reduced in size was addressed. In speaking with the proponents of the project, Mr. Kicak related ads are pre -sized by the advertiser and format changes would cause quite an uproar; noting the general compliance of the signs with the maximum requirements of the City's Sign Code, recommended approval of proposed project. CC-86-271 Motion by Councilman Evans, Second by Mayor Pro Tem Matteson, to authorize Pedestal Post to proceed with their Bus Shelter proposal, as previously outlined to the City Council. (Ref: Minutes of 11/6/86, pgs. 1-2) Responding to Councilwoman Crawford regarding removal of existing bus shelters, Community Services Director Anstine felt OMNITRANS would have that responsibiity. Motion No. CC-86 -271 carried, ALL AYES. NOTICE OF COMPLETION - VIVIENDA OVERHEAD BRIDGE PROJECT (GTC-86-02) Following Planning Director Kicak's assurance that the Vivienda CC-86-272 Overhead Bridge Project had been completed, Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Matteson, Second by Councilman Evans, ALL AYES, to approve execution and authorize recordation of the Notice of Completion of the Vivienda Overhead Project (GTC-86-02). Regarding a Ribbon Cutting Ceremony, Planning Director Kicak related one would be forthcoming. CITY MANAGER REPORT - City Manager Armstead related Public Hearing this date by the League of Women Voters regarding Kaiser Hazardous Waste held at the Terrace Hills Jr. High School. GROUP W CABLE TV RATES City Manager Armstead introduced Mr. Michael D. McDonald, General Manager of Group W. Cable, in attendance to discuss rate changes, effective January 1, 1987; noted in the 4 1/2 years the Company has serviced this City, no increases have been imposed. (Reference Group W Cable letter, received October 27, 1986) Mr. McDonald reviewed the Federal Cable Communications Act, passed October 30, 1984, and specifically addressed Cable TV rate deregulation. Under the Act, franchises would remain under franchise rate regulations for a two-year period, at which time they would be deregulated and could set their own rates within the dictates of business practices, if effective competition exists within their particular area. In Group W's case, 7 viewable channels fall under the Federal Communications Commission criteria, thereby qualifying them for deregulation and eliminating the requirement for City Council approval of rate increases. Mayor Grant acknowledged receipt of a letter directed to Mr. McDonald, from citizen, Ron K. Benfield, objecting to the cable television rate increase. Mr. McDonald noted his response to Mr. Benfield in which further explanation was given regarding the increase. Council Minutes - 11/20/86 Page 14 Responding to Mayor Pro Tem Matteson relative to future increases, Mr. McDonald anticipated a yearly assessment and potential increase. Tony Petta, 11875 Eton Drive, noted a franchise means a particular company has no competition in the City; therefore, felt the people should have certain privileges. Voiced objection to the rate increase, feeling no substantial justification had been given; Feels the basic rate should be kept at a minimal and recommended, if a rate increase is necessary, it be applied to other upgraded services that the Company renders. Requested Council consider the benefit of the residents and hold firm on the basic rate. Mayor Grant felt Mr. McDonald has, in effect, through the City Manager, assured Council future input on decisions of this nature COUNCIL REPORTS Councilwoman Crawford reported the following: (1) Noting her ina i ity to serve on the Wilderness Park Committee due seat on the CC-86-273 the City Council, Motion by Councilwoman Crawford, Second by Mayor Grant, to appoint Daniel Hantman to the Wilderness Park Committee. Councilman Evans opposed following through with the Wilderness Park Committee; however, did not object to Mr. Hantman's involvement and participation on his own time. Motion No. CC-86-273 carried, 3-1, with Councilman Evans voting NOE. (2) Noting the need for another Committee member and desiring to CC -86-274 reinstate the Committee on an active basis, Motion by Councilwoman Crawford, Second by Mayor Grant, that Staff contact the members of the Wilderness Park Committee and request them to hold a meeting. Relative to the Wilderness Park, Councilman Evans feels there are more important things to spend time and energy on. Opposed any expenditures of money or consideration of transfer of City -owned property, feeling it an area where potential liability exists. Motion No. CC-86-274 carried, 3-1, with Councilman Evans voting NOE. Mayor Grant reported the following: (1) Attendance at the LAFCO meeting of November 19, 1986; related request to annex a portion of Rialto (20-acre island) which resulted in a split vote, noting his support of the annexation; (2) Relative to the controversy over the bake sale at the Country Fair, as discussed by Councilman Evans at the November 6 Council meeting, noted contact made with Ann Petta, and the Chairperson of the Historical and Cultural Activities Committee, as directed. (Ref: 11/6/86 Minutes, Council Reports) Mayor Grant read Ann Petta's response to Mr. Evans' complaint, wherein she strongly urged Council to develop a written policy for discretely handling Committee problems for dissemination to both the Chairperson and all Committee members to eliminate any future public criticism. Mayor Grant, in concurrence, felt a policy should be established dealing, not only with individuals on Committees and the Commission, but everyone in the community. 11 Council Minutes - 11/20/86 Page 15 RESOLUTION NO. 86-43 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND , CAL RNIA, CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A SPECIAL RUNOFF ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 27, 1987, FOR THE ELECTION OF A COUNCIL MEMBER AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISION OF LAW. RESOLUTION NO. 86 -44 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRANDACE, CAL RNIA, REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO TO RENDER SERVICES TO SAID CITY RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF A SPECIAL RUNOFF ELECTION TO BE HELD IN SAID CITY ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 27, 1987. Following explanation by City Clerk Dughman of above Resolutions, CC-86-275 Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Matteson, Second by Councilwoman Crawford, ALL AYES, to adopt Resolution Nos. 86-43 and 86-44. -RESOLUTION NO. 86-45 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING REGULATIONS FOR CANDIDATES FOR ELECTIVE OFFICE PERTAINING TO CANDIDATE STATEMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS AT A SPECIAL RUNOFF ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 27, 1987. City Clerk Dughman related the Resolution pertains to the cost of candidate statements and the payment thereof. Staff feels that due to this being a Special Runoff Election, the City may desire to assume the cost. Councilwoman Crawford voiced support of the City paying the fees. Barbara Pfennighausen, 22491 DeBerry, felt it very generous of the Council to possibly consider paying for candidate statements; however, feels it a legitimate candidate expense and not one the citizens should incur. Therefore, opposed the idea and requested Council not consider it as a viable alternative. CC-86-276 Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Matteson, Second by Councilman Evans, ALL AYES, to adopt Resolution No. 86-45, inclusive of Section 3, Alternative #1, and authorize the City Clerk to charge candidates an estimated $175.00 for cost of printing candidate statements. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA, RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 82-14 PROVIDING FOR THE CONDUCT OF A SPECIAL RUNOFF ELECTION FOR ELECTIVE OFFICES IN THE EVENT OF A TIE VOTE AT ANY MUNICIPAL ELECTION AND MAKING OTHER DETERMINATIONS. City Clerk Dughman related the proposed Resolution would rescind Resolution No. 82-14 and provide that consideration for adopting a resolution, which would require a special runoff election for resolving a tie vote, be placed before Council prior to all future elections. Mayor Grant expressed mixed feelings with regard to determining an elected official in a tie vote situation by lot; although sees it as a Council Minutes - 11/20/86 Page 16 clear-cut way to make a selection, does not feel it a professional means for determination. Barbara Pfennighausen opposed the City being reduced to selecting any member of the Council by the draw of a short straw. At Councilman Evans' request, Council concurred to take no action. Adjourned at 11:18 p.m. The next regular meeting will be held Thursday, December 4, 1986, at 5:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, HrrKuytu: