Loading...
12/04/1986CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - DECEMBER 4, 1986 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 4, 1986, at 5:37 p.m. PRESENT: Hugh J. Grant, Mayor Byron Matteson, Mayor Pro Tempore Dennis L. Evans, Councilman Susan Crawford, Councilwoman Seth Armstead, City Manager Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney Joe Kicak, Planning Director/City Engineer Alicia Chavez, Acting City Clerk ABSENT: NONE The meeting was opened with invocation by Professor Stephen Wyrick, California Baptist College, Riverside, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance, led by Councilwoman Crawford. ITEMS DELETED FROM AGENDA - 2A - Certificate of Appreciation for Barbara M. Conley to a awarded at the 12/4/86 meeting); 3D - Approval of the 11/20/86 Minutes (pending review). SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS Proclamation - "Drunk & Drugged' Driving Week, December 14 - 20, 1986 Mayor Grant read above Proclamation; relating the seriousness of this problem. CONSENT CALENDAR The following items were removed for discussion: 3A - Check Register No. 120486; 3F (1) - Recordation of Irrevocable offer of Dedication, rejecting at this time, Storm Drain Easement Dedication located north of Barton Road, west of Grand Terrace Road through property being developed by James Goode; 3F (2) - Approve & Authorize Mayor to Execute & City Clerk to record agreement covering property owner's responsibilities for maintenance, as well as acceptance of up -stream properties' runoff into subject storm drain. U CC-86-277 Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Matteson, second by Councilman Evans, to approve the following Consent Calendar items: B. Ratify 12/4/86 CRA Action; C. Waive Full Reading of Ordinances on Agenda; E. Accept & Authorize City Clerk to Record the following Grant Deeds for Barton Road Rights -of -Way: Marylou A. Williams, AP #275-242-06; Kenneth & Linda L. Fisher, AP #277-121-22. CHECK REGISTER NO. 112086 Responding to Councilman Evans relative to Warrant # 16531, picnic tables for park, Finance Office Manager Barbara Michowski related the picnic tables, a budgeted item, were purchased for the Community Park. CC-86-278 Motion by Councilman Evans, second by Mayor Grant, ALL AYES, to approve Check Register No. 112086, as submitted. IRREVOCABLE OFFER OF DEDICATION/AGREEMENT - PROPERTY OWNERS RESPONSIBILITIES FOR MAINTENANCE Councilman Evans requested clarification from the City Attorney. City Attorney Hopkins clarified that an Irrevocable offer of dedication is one in which a person making the offer provides it and cannot withdraw . Stated is commonly done by public agencies, particularly when they are not yet ready to accept improvements but they want to make certain that it's there in perpetuity for the general public's use. It can never be withdrawn unless the public agency itself vacates and that's the only way it can ever revert back. Councilman Evans questioned City Engineer Kicak regarding potential liability because it deals with runoff? City Engineer Kicak stated there would be none. CC-86-279 Motion by Councilman Evans, second by Mayor Pro Tem Matteson, ALL AYES, to approve and authorize recordation of Irrevocable offer of Dedication and, Agreement Covering Property Owner's Responsibiities for Maintenance, and acceptance of up -stream properties' runoff into subject storm drain. Council Minutes - 12/4/86 Page 2 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION - Barbara Pfennighausen, 22491 DeBerry, stated was sorry to hear that our Planning Director, a good friend, has submitted his resignation. For almost two years has pushed for in-house planning and felt time is right to ask Council to seriously consider in-house planning since RFPs have been sent out. Next three to five years will be extremely critical and need someone that can concentrate full attention on planning problems. Need to give serious attention to bringing in an in-house planner with an Urban Planning Degree. Mayor Grant stated he had received an inter -office memorandum from staff dated November 25 relating to this subject prepared subsequent to Mr. Kicak's correspondence with the City Manager. Feels very pertinent and would like to hear how Council feels. Councilman Evans questioned City Manager Armstead if only considering contractual services at this time? City Manager Armstead advised that RFPs have been sent out at this time only to those who had submitted RFPs in the past to see if they are still interested and if any cost change. Once all RFPs are received, staff can compare cost of in-house vs. contractual for Council consideration. Councilman Evans stated his concern that when packet was put together it should have included the in-house planning information prepared by the Finance Director during budget hearings this past year, which indicate if we were to retain Kicak & Associates it would be a break-even point. Prior reports indicate that the comparison between the RFPs and in-house costs that it would be to our advantage to come in-house. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson stated the importance to compare certain issues as to number of hours that the contract planner would devote to the planning process and whether or not his facilities would be located in this building opposed to having elsewhere. Feels possibly, cost wise, having contract service office in City Hall will save them money and give us a good contract. Mayor Grant concurred with Mayor Pro Tem Matteson's statement. Barbara Pfennighausen, stated when preparation was made by the Finance Director for comparisons, it was assumed that in-house planning would have an office in this building. Feels advantage is that whatever we agreed to pay the planning director is consistant when it's in-house; We Direct precisely what is to be done, etc. Included in that budget benefits included the planning director, secretary and all necessary office supplies, expenses, maintenance, all that would be required for that department to function with a total of $80,865 a year. Costs are possbily different now. Council Minutes - 12/4/86 Page 3 ORAL REPORTS - PLANNING COMMISSION - Planning Director Kicak stated that the Title 18 Report has been completed and will be submitted the first meeting in January with all corrections for Council consideration. Councilman Evans questioned Mr. Kicak as to the City's General Plan being reviewed yearly, and the legal requirement to update every two years. Stated most information was compiled in late 1983, and approved on April, 1984. In January of 1986, an update schedule was prepared by your office, showing that review of the entire document would have had to been done in September, 1986. Stated his only concern is that this is something that should have been done. Feels we should wait until the new planning director is hired and start from square one. Planning Director Kicak stated the original schedule at that time was prepared by an employee that has since left and was unable to replace him with a competent person. As directed by Council approximately four weeks ago, unless Council directs otherwise, will proceed with process. Mr. Kicak further stated he planned on initiating the project by producing labels to mail copies of the General Plan and map of their current land use element to all property owners within the City of Grand Terrace. Once the new planning director is hired that information would be compiled enabling him to start with the next step of scheduling the necessary Public Hearings. Councilman Evans emphasized the importance of updating the document with current information. Council discussion involved whether Kicak and Associates should undertake the project or defer until an in-house planner is hired. City Attorney Hopkins emphasized the importance of expeditiously processing the update for completion in conjunction with the recent six-month building moratorium. Mr. Kicak related his willingness to initiate the update and the feasibiity of a new planner subsequently following through with the information gathered. Based on that, Mayor Grant, with Council concurring, supported Mr. Kicak proceeding with initiation of the project. PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE REPORT - Minutes of the November 3, 1986 meeting were provided. is o lins, Committee member reported the following: (1) Proposal for a ten -acre sports complex, land to be leased from SCE, was discussed at the last meeting; Community Services Director Anstine and staff will review; (2) Christmas Tree Lighting Ceremony will be held at the Civic Center, Saturday, December 12, 1986, at 5:30 p.m.; encouraged participation; (3) Volunteers are still needed to help with the Terrace Hills snack bar. CRIME PREVENTION COMMITTEE REPORT Laurie Payce, Chairperson, reported the following: Committee currently has two vacancies; has received three applications with Council Minutes - 12/4/86 Page 4 equal qualifications; the Committee had discussed and felt they would prefer to have a committee of eight members rather than seven with an alternate; felt that alternate would not have voting privileges; therefore, would like to request changing current policy for the Committee to function with eight members so that they could appoint all three applicants. Councilwoman Crawford felt the Committee should remain as a seven -member committee with one alternate. Councilman Evans felt that all three should be appointed to better cover absences of other members. Mrs. Payce stated that the Committee had discussed amending the policy to read, "if two consecutive meetings are missed, then that person would be asked to resign." Attorney Hopkins clarified that alternates sit with the rest of the members and act as regular members with all privileges with the exception of voting. However, should one of the alternates be making up the quorum, they would have voting privileges. Mrs. Payce related that this had been a problem for two months and that the Committee recommends that Council increase membership to eight and appoint all three. Mayor Grant felt the committee should submit a staff report recommending the way they want to operate. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Barbara Bayus, President, introduced Dick Yost as Presient-Elect of of the Chamber (indicated he was now distributing letters to Council); reminded everyone of the Christmas Decorating Contest; prizes would be given at the Christmas Tree Lighting Ceremony in conjunction with the City; deadline for entering the contest is December 10. Dick Yost (appearing under the offices of the Chamber of Commerce in reference to the Economic development Committee) explained that the committee is made up of Chamber members, Council members and citizens at large. Mr. Yost called attention to the letter he had just distributed to Council from Bill Campbell thanking us for participation in the Business Development Conference held in the City of Industry; the Grand Terrace booth was displayed and felt this put Grand Terrace on the map; referenced two other pieces of correspondence from Denny's Restaurant chain and Wendy's regarding their potential location here; thanked us for our interest, but presently do not wish to locate here. Also had information that another organization has given approval to locate a fast food service here provided it passes approval by Council; Council would have more information on this later. Council Minutes - 12/4/86 Page 5 The other letter provided to Council (directed to Seth Armstead) from Westar Associates included a packet of information. The Committee had met with Westar on November 19 with an impressive presentation of small shopping centers that had been developed in Southern California. They are requesting in their letter an exclusive right to negotiate for 120 days on a section of Barton Road, south side, at Michigan coming back this way to City Hall. If granted, they will prepare extensive information; go into great detail regarding shopping habits of our community and gear the shops toward what this area would support, and incorporate our existing businesses with the new. The Committee has talked with Group W Cable to see if businesses can be put on video and at Council break times put these businesses on the screen for exposure to the community and use the video also as a way to sell Grand Terrace. In closing, Mr. Yost recommended Council seriously consider the negotiation rights to have Westar proceed with the hope that the entire package would be on the way by the first of the year. Councilman Evans stated the importance of encouraging commercial development; felt we should take advantage of this opportunity and asked City Attorney Hopkins the procedure in which to use this vehicle. City Attorney Hopkins advised that the only way would be to not consider competing commercial proposals from the planning standpoint of that nature to occur in this area. Since Council is not the property owner, they can't give that exclusive right and, so, they would ask for planning/police power in that respect. Motion by Councilman Evans, second by Mayor Grant, that Council grant an exclusive right to negotiate for 120 days on the southerly side of Michigan, southerly extension to Canal. Councilman Evans stated that all that was asked of Council this evening was, if motion passes, that they agree to work with the Committee in trying to assemble land necessary on which to put the development. Mr. Yost responded yes, referencing paragraph three where Westar had requested certain parcel maps and the fact that they need 120 days to see if all is feasible. Councilwoman Crawford felt motion was premature since the letter stipulated that when data is completed they would contact the Committee to arrange a presentation to the City Council and, then, at that time would ask for the 120 days to negotiate. Mr. Yost clarified it was his understanding that they would like the right to negotiate now before they go ahead and expend money and time on their studies. Mayor Pro Tempore Matteson indicated that he would not participate in this discussion due to his residence being encompassed by this area. Council Minutes - 12/4/86 Page 6 Following discussion, Councilman Evans withdrew his motion for two weeks contingent upon finding out exact specific. Mayor Grant as second of motion concurred, and asked Mr. Yost to have that information for Council at the next meeting. Councilwoman Crawford asked as a non -participating member of the Committee if there is any other time the Committee can meet since she cannot be there at 7:00 a.m. Mr. Yost stated that this time was most convenient for those presently involved; however, will take back to Committee for re-cosideration. Councilwoman Crawford reiterated she would like to attend these meetings and would appreciate them taking a concensus. Ms. Bayus reported that the Chamber had been working on their budgets with the Finance Director, Thomas Schwab, and had submittted a revised budget to Council. A correction should be made on insurance, as the originalbudget had $10,000 and had been revised t o $7,500; had learned that it was not possible to be insured for $7,500 and figure needs to go back to $10,000. This would mean that $2,500 should be added at the bottom line. The revision of budget was a result of projected income from events that weren't held because of insurance purposes and that revenue was then lost. The budget is in a deficit of $8,942 and, again, felt it necessary to ask Council for an additional $10,000 from the City. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 13364, SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 86 -4 - TERRACE GROVES A 96 UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT (Chaparral Pines, Ltd.) (Continued Public Hearing from November 20, 1986) Mayor Grant, stated this was an appeal by the developer to support the decision of the Planning Commission; reason for continuance was for staff to answer questions that Council had relative to traffic. Mayor Grant felt questions had been answered satisfactorily and turned to staff for briefing. Planning Director Kicak, stated that at the last meeting Council requested staff to review the triangular area between Barton Road, Canal Street and Mt. Vernon for additional traffic that would be generated. Staff reviewed the three reports that had been done in the past. The report most comprehensive to this issue was the CG Engineering report done for USA Properties in April, 1985. The study states for traffic to function with a level of approximately 1,000 units Mt. Vernon Avenue and Canal Street should be widened, and traffic signals installed at the intersection of Barton Road and Canal Street and at Mt. Vernon and Canal Street. At that time it was staff's opinion, and still is, that the best way to accomplish this would be that individuals benefitting from the project would be Council Minutes - 12/4/86 1 Page 7 assessed their proportion/share of improvements required. However, there are oppositions from the current developer as well as other developers in the area. The other option is to pay as you go and the City would enter into agreement with the developer that when other properties are developed in that area the City would collect pro rata share and repay that person/developer that installs the improvements and reimburse him before pro rata share of improvements he had made on behalf of others. Mr. Kicak stated that the traffic report was still valid today and, that with the mitigating circumstances recommended, the project could proceed with density that was proposed. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson requested clarification on exact location regarding the widening of streets and installation of traffic signals. Mr. Kicak explained for widening of streets it would include everything north of Town & Country Professional Center and would be developed to R-3 standards at density of 16 units per acre; improvement of Canal Street along total perimeter of that project to collector standard; require improvement of Mt. Vernon Avenue along perimeter of projects between where Barton and Canal come. Traffic signals are recommended for Canal and Mt. Vernon, Grand Terrace Road and Canal and Barton. These improvements are required for the project area to function. Mr. Kicak further explained that the study included all properties within that triangle to determine improvement and was still valid for current project being reviewed and that no changes had been made in that area since the study had been done in 1985. Mayor Grant opened public participation. Bill Mauerhan, Chaparral Pines, 53 Royal Street George, Newport Beach, volunteered to answer any questions anyone might have, and supported Mr. Kicak's explanation of the validity of CG Engineer's Report. Ken McClellan, 21882 Grand Terrace Road, stated that he and others appeared at a Council meeting appealing an apartment complex on Grand Terrace Road and wanted to support this particular project to show that the group had an opend mind; not opposed to apartments providing location was right; felt this was a well -designed project that would be an asset to the community. Mayor Grant thanked Mr. Kicak for a good job on a complex issue; felt integrity of reports good; agreed with staff that City should not front the money and concurrred with staff on recommendation of alternative #2. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson expressed that he also favored alternative #2, having the developer install the improvements and the City collect money from future development and return to them; felt this was a sizeable project and asked for input from the developer. Council Minutes - 12/4/86 Page 8 Bill Mauerhan stated their project is 96 units (8 percent) of total project which is planned for 1,000 units; didn't feel traffic signals would be warranted after their project is in and possibily not after the second. However, felt when 60 or 70 percent of the project was done, those signals would go in; the same with the street improvements on Canal Street and on Mt. Vernon Avenue. The improvements on Canal Street shown in the conditions of approval for this project will allow our traffic to ingress/egress from the site now. As developments on Von Kanal's property and north to USA Properties progress, then they should do their improvements and reimbursment as we are. We'll have an estimate of total work, put in our work and enter into a reimbursement agreement; felt "brunt" of work is starting off with the power pole relocation and the heavy work at intersection of Canal and Barton Road. Mr. Kicak stated that when the whole area is developed, or even prior to the whole triangle development, that all of those improvements should be in; felt the whole group should get together and agree what those improvements should be and how funded. Mr. Mauerhan stated he was open to such a meeting with Forest City Dillon, Mr. Kicak and City staff to work something out, but felt those that did not have immediate plans would not be as eager; however, did not want it to be a condition that would prevent them from moving on with their project. Mayor Grant stated that Council's concern was that there be no loose strings on implementing the improvements and that this should be clarified before Council takes a position. City Attorney Hopkins stated that one of the major problems which he and Mr. Kicak had discussed is division of costs of improvements on a pro rata basis. For instance, Forest City already has approval so time to get that approval or agreement has passed and they have a vested right to the improvement without these conditions. They may possibly agree to participate for beneficial reasons to them or, if they don't approve an assessment district, they could be included because that is the nature of assessment districts. This would require meeting with Forest City Dillon and maybe increased cost on a per unit or per acreage basis. If they don't participate, their share would have to be absorbed by some other developer or by the City and, the Mayor has already indicated, personally, is not in favor of the City participating in that way. The City has to be involved in meeting with the developers and, if an assessment district is used, the City has to be the motivator because the developers can't do this without the City and its guidance. Mr. Hopkins suggested that, if they were looking for a condition to include in an approval, it could include the condition that one of these alternatives, satisfactory to the City, be met prior to issuance of building permits. This would eliminate the need to determine what method would be used, but that Council Minutes - 12/4/86 Page 9 one of these or a combination thereof would be used to put in the improvements. Mr. Britton had also indicated in his first proposal that he wanted to see what was going to be approved and then they could make the decision of whether or not to proceed. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson asked what conditions were placed on Forest City Dillon in improvements. Mr. Kicak answered that the condition was to improve the frontage of their property that is Canal Street as well as Mt. Vernon, which leaves a piece of property along the frontage of the Edison Property. Mr. Mauerhan in agreement volunteered to have his Civil Engineer prepare for staff a cost estimate on the improvements around curb and gutter and the pavement around the triangle along with the signal cost. Councilwoman Crawford asked Mr. Mauerhan if they would be willing to accept 10 percent of the cost on both signals? Mr. Mauerhan answered in the affirmative and that this would put in the signals, curb, gutter and paving along with some other things; expressed the estimate was low; but didn't think the power poles to be in excess of a hundred thousand dollars. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson asked who would be putting up the other 90 percent. Mr. Mauerhan stated that would come as they develop. Councilwoman Crawford agreed with Mayor Pro Tem Matteson in concern of the other 90 percent; felt developers whose projects have been approved prior should share in costs; felt it unfair to hold up present developer. Mayor Grant questioned Mr. kicak on what he felt the pro rata cost of percentage for this particular signal would be. Mr. Kicak stated that the total area project contributes 69 percent of the traffic towards Canal Street, 69 percent of the traffic towards Mt. Vernon traffic signal and Canal Street signal; indicated we could come back with total number of units and relate that to the 69 percent generated and come up with the traffic generator percentage of the contributing traffic; felt 7 percent (69% of 96 units) for this project rather than 10 percent. Mr. Kicak also stated that the traffic signal had not been a condition of the original project as it had been presented to the Planning Commission. Mr. Kicak stated he had been directed to address the traffic generated within that certain area on this project which now had been done; that City Council had not taken action on it pending this particular report which was being considered at this meeting. The development still had not been approved and that was to be considered tonight. Mr. Hopkins stated that this needed to be done at this meeting; if the project were approved without making provision for this, then no provision for them to participate; as there was no provision for Forest City Dillon to participate. This also was not entirely true since some of the conditions of approval were not included in Council Minutes - 12/4/86 Page 10 Mr. Kicak's estimates in his conditions. However, there would be others that would escape such as there are no traffic signals required, and if they don't participate in their pro rata share or whatever alternative Council determines then you could not do at later date because their rights to develop have vested and they go ahead based on conditions that were approved this evening and by the Planning Commission previously. Mr. Mauerhan stated he was in agreement with getting costs involved in the improvements needed as spelled out in the CG Report to make the traffic work when ultimately developed; willing to pay pro rata share based on formulas used; wanted credit for $36,000 that they were putting into the street fund as per unit cost that City gets on building permits. Councilman Evans indicated that this total project should have been a unified plan; felt this project should be approved. CC-86-280 Motion by Councilwoman Crawford, second by Mayor Grant, to add a condition of approval whereby the developer accept their pro rata share of the two signal lights. Mayor Grant stated he recognized this as a part of alternative #2 set by staff; assuming the motion would include a reimbursement agreement for that which would be in excess to their pro rata percentage. Councilwoman Crawford stated that intent was they would bare their pro rata costs of the two signals when put in. Mayor Grant indicated this was somewhat different. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson stated he feels need to keep proper order; find out what is to be done and then approve the project. Mayor Grant stated the motion is equitable, but only part of the overall issue of mitigating measures as suggested by staff. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson agreed that we had to figure in total cost for total improvements of total project and pro rate by acres or units and then assign in that respect. Councilwoman Crawford repeated that she had in her motion included an additional condition which would be No. 47 as an addition to the 46 that went before the Planning Commission. Mayor Grant questioned what if motion passes, petitoner pays their fair share and for some reason caused by the project we find we need that signal and we only have so many dollars which would not buy the signal. Mr. Mauerhan stated that is why they are interested in the reimbursement agreement because the improvements that they are conditioned to do will cost more than the power poles. Councilman Evans stated that two projects are approved, USA Properties and Mt. Vernon Villas, and the fact that those two projects are not in the pro rata condition and do not have to participate. City Attorney Hopkins confirmed that as currently approved they do not have to participate. Councilman Evans also asked if Mr. Mauerhan and the other parcels that do not have improvements if they are going to be bearing the brunt of the costs. Mr. Hopkins answered no that they would bare the brunt of some costs that are already conditioned; that Council Minutes - 12/4/86 Page 11 the City would bear the brunt of the signal cost because it is the City's responsibility under the motion to put in signals at such time as needed including the contributions of this development and others that might occur prior to the City having to put in traffic signals presuming that the City is going to finance those costs and we are getting their contribution in advance so they can proceed with development. Mr. Hopkins stated that the City might want to make contributions as encouragement to future projects because of the contributions these projects make to the City. Mayor Grant voiced concern that if projects are never phased out and have paid more than their fair share and there is no reimbursement coming in then someone is going to have to reimburse them and it would appear to be the City because these people are not going to do this if sometime in the future nothing is going in north of their project. City Attorney Hopkins stated there are developers/reimbursement agreements that can agree to repay developers at various times whether or not development occurs or that they lose in the event development does not occur. We can have whatever kind of developers agreement that Council directs. Mr. Mauerhan indicated that if developer has to bare brunt of costs up front they could not afford the project to proceed because he has already stated the project cannot support a million dollars of additional costs to make improvements whether they are reimbursed in the future or not. Councilman Evans stated that the City does make improvements in the community such as improving Barton Road putting in curbs, gutters and we could wait for a developer to do this; the same could be done with the traffic signals as there are enough conditions already. Mr. Mauerhan asked if improvements on Barton Road are being done with federal gas tax money. Councilman Evans answered it was a combination of funds. Mayor Grant stated the improvements on Barton Road are going to benefit the project that will bring in sales and use taxes. We have a small commercial base in this town and the people here and those who would come here in the future are going to go elsewhere to spend their money. To have a lot of people with a small commercial tax base does not guarantee any increase in what we need called sales and use taxes. Not in objection to more people providing we can provide services to them; shouldn't draw a parallel between apartments, condominiums and single-family dwellings and commercial establishments as the City doesn't even have a property tax and we don't get that much back from the County property tax; won't make up for the increased costs that we have to have. Mr. Kicak confirmed everything is in the conditions other than the signal light; stated there was a motion to add the signal lights. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson called for the question. Motion No. CC-86-280, carried, 3-1, with Councilman Evans voting NOE. Council Minutes - 12/4/86 Page 12 CC-86-281 Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Matteson, second by Mayor Grant, to adopt alternative of staff recommendation "that the developers be required to construct improvements as specified in the report and enter into reimbursement agreement to have City collect the pro rata share from future developments, as they occur, and reimburse the developers." That the City Engineer is directed to work up an estimate and that he and the City Attorney are to prepare an agreement with the developer to be brought back to the Council to provide for collection of fees pursuant to the agreement based on a pro rata share. City Attorney Hopkins stated the motion is not necessary because improvements and who would install has already been addressed. The City would be required to install the signal lights at the time needed and the developer is required to install other improvements that are listed in the conditions. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson repeated he wanted in his motion that developer would, at the Engineer's discretion, put in improvements required now. Councilman Evans asked if the last condition included all. City Attorney clarified it only spoke to the 45th condition; continued with fact that Mr. Matteson's motion is in regard to a reimbursement agreement between the City and the developers for those other 44 conditions that speak to traffic conditions and the traffic improvements they are putting in that do not benefit them. This means removing or moving the poles from their project down to Barton Road and other developments may benefit and, if they do not benefit, then a reimbursement agreement or developers agreement would be made with the developer so they could get reimbursement as development occurs. Mayor Grant opened to public for input. Barbara Pfennighausen, 22491 DeBerry Street, stated we are dealing with unimproved property drawing very little property tax. As that property is improved, tax dollars are generated; receive approximately 32 percent of frozen tax base that improvement of those properties are going to generate; these properties will generate tax dollars and the dollars will be invested in improvement of the community. Also, products do not generate sales tax, only people generate sales tax; Committee is attempting to find out what spendable dollars and how much are being spent outside of the community so we can capture those dollars for Grand Terrace. The Economic Development Committee has assumed this responsibility and will do a survey so we know what we need in services and retail facilities in order to keep Grand Terrace dollars in Grand Terrace; all of this works together and money will be coming in off of this. Stan Hargrave, 12048 Canary Ct., Planning Commissioner, stated his comments are his own and not those of the Commission as a body; felt the Planning Commission did address the signalization and recommend Council establish some fee or pro rata share division for establishing Council Minutes - 12/4/86 Page 13 participation in the signalization; stated he wanted each Council member to read all conditions of approval that had been put in the Planning Commission approval package since he had not heard anyone say definitely that these were conditions of approval based on the recommendations coming from the Planning Commission; would like to hear that Council had read all 44 before going to a final vote. City Engineer Kicak, commented that there was reference to 44 conditions which were staff recommended conditions; attached conditions within the report with a recommended resolution to Council is to make those conditions that are shown as Exhibit "A" as the conditions of approval with a total of 46. City Attorney Hopkins made note that Mr. Hargrave stated that signalization had been addressed by Planning Commission. Stated a fund could be established in which this developer and other developers would at time of final inspection or occupancy pay money into a fund which would be set aside and used at future date for installation of traffic signals at the two locations and this money would draw interest until used and would be expended for that purpose only. Council confirmed that they all had read the conditions and Councilwoman Crawford corrected her motion to be the 47th; recommended that Council consider establishment of some participation of developers in that area to the signalization. Mr. Mauerhan asked to clarify that the amount of work that was required in the 47 conditions will exceed their pro rata share of total cost of the development; didn't feel they should pay pro rata cost of entire development in a fund and do the work too at their cost. Mr. Hopkins intervened to say they would do both; they would front in cost of certain improvements included in the first 46 conditions; would enter into agreement that developers reimburse you as developments occur for their pro rata share of costs incurred by Mr. Mauerhan. In addition, Councilwoman Crawford's motion indicates they would pay pro rata share into a fund that is for signalization. In summary, they would do both and would not get a credit from the City because the City is not one of the developers. Mr. Britton, 14 Palma Lane, Newport Beach, California, stated to keep things simple, throw everything into one pot; pay their cost down at their end and then when signals are put in they get a little back and when the other curb is put in down there they get a little back and so on; want to do all in one big lump sum. In summary, a million dollars, hypothetically, their pro rata share being $100,000, but costs facing them now to do the project are $300,000, we pay that now and we get $200,000 back part of which is going to be the traffic fund, part of which is going to be the curb fund, so on. Mr. Hopkins stated that they would get reimbursed for the $300,000 but that is Council Minutes - 12/4/86 Page 14 separate from the signals as the motion was made the City would have responsibility for installing the signalization; it owed reimbursement to one one; the pot has to be separate unless the Council changes that. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson re -explained the motion; intent was all be considered in one pot; total improvement for whole triangle be considered as one item and it be pro rated per unit or per acre and refund credits received for what he put into project. Mr. Hopkins explained Mayor Pro Tem Matteson's motion is they would only do some improvements that's set forth to do in the 46 conditions; stated he needed staff to advise him when time comes to deal with traffic signals, who was going to pay for them then because the City was taken out of it because there is no money fund for the City to put it in unless the City expends all of money because development may never occur and no fund created for signalization, since traffic study shows there is a need now and each development that occurs in that area creates a greater need in that traffic study. Mr. Kicak confirmed the report indicated that there are areas on Barton Road and Canal right now that warrant the one signal. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson re-established his motion is that any improvements required now must be done now. Mr. Mauerhan stated that they are not trying to get away from responsibility, but does want to be reimbursed back for portion that exceeds their pro rata share; does not want to do work and pay the pot too. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson stated that was the intent of his original motion, but need to consider the projects that have already been approved as far as what we could get back from them; need to know what total project is going to cost, how much Forest City Dillon is going to pay for their portion and divide the rest up or the two projects that are approved; find out how much they will pay for their development along the streets and divide balance by remaining acreage and pro rate it that way. Planning Director Kicak stated that there was not a cost figure with respect to all of improvements required; that the particular study referred to did not include relocation of poles. What we actually are trying to come up with is a formula that is acceptable to the City and developer, understanding which improvements are being shared, which are total responsiblity of developer; prepare an agreement based on that and then work from the certified cost to those items that are to be shared by others and determine what the actual costs are. Stated it is difficult to come up with costs until we have some specific designs and know what needs to be done in way of construction. Mr. Hopkins stated we couldn't speak in today's dollars because all improvements including signal lights will be in future dollars and this needs to be factored. Stated there was really no problem with proceeding as Mr. Mauerhan and Mr. Britton indicate; the only problem is the money won't be in the kitty for the signal lights until the last development occurs. 4pcR Minutes - 12/4/86 Continued discussion between Mayor Pro Tem Matteson, Councilman Evans, and Mr. Mauerhan regarding on how costs could be distributed and how improvements would be done by each developer as it comes in. For instance, Forest City Dillon would be required to do these improvements; if Barney Karge is property is developed, he will have to bare the brunt of doing and this leaves the question of who is going to pay for the signals? Mr. Kicak stated each developer -will install the improvements along the frontage of his property; there are improvements that are being required of this developer that is specifically the relocation of the poles that will benefit other properties along Canal Street, and those are the items we are talking about reimbursing. As far as the signal installation, we are trying to relate to the percentage of total units that will be in the area to the total cost of project less any contributing traffic that comes from the outside and the traffic contributing to those two intersections is 69 percent of the total traffic and, therefore, direct responsibilities of that project. City Attorney Hopkins, restated under the motion proposed there will be just one kitty and we can't separate the poles because the developers will be making improvements that will be reimbursable to them as well; probably would get a cash contribution from each developer as he develops or the City will have to pay out of the general fund; they will want to make certain there is some guarantee that we will make effort to reimburse them; either the City will have to make a contribution on a pro rata basis for each developer as they occur or we will have to require that the developer makes a cash contribution as well as improvements. Last payment made to them will be paid when the last ultimate development occurs since they will be paying its final pro rata share, but will want to get a pro rata share of reimbursement as development does occur rather than wait until ultimate development. Mayor Grant informed Mayor Pro Tem Matteson chair was calling for question and to repeat his motion. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson stated the motion is to accept item #2 whereby the developer will install all the necessary improvements at this time that are required; pay their fair share of any deposits that would be required of the 47 items that would be before the benefit of total development including signal lights and that they would be reimbursed on a per development basis, and that the City Engineer will come up with an agreement/cost estimate to be approved by Council. Councilman Evans asked the City Attorney to clarify the motion into simple terms for voting purposes. The City Attorney explained the vote was on improvements that are required as a result of the 47 conditions totalled and an estimate will be put on them using a built-in total for future dollars; their pro rata share of the difference between their pro rata share of what they spend will be Council Minutes - 12/4/86 Page 16 put into a development agreement for reimbursement; will recieve reimbursement as development occurs and that the agreement and cost estimate will be brought back for Council approval. Mayor Grant closed Public Hearing. Mayor Grant called for the question. Motion No. CC-86-281, carried, All Ayes. Mr. Mauerhan thanked staff, particularly the City Engineer and City Attorney, for the manner in which they had been taken care of by staff during the last five months. CC -86-282 Motion by Councilwoman Crawford, second by Mayor Grant, to approve staff's recommendation to approve this project subject to the 47 conditions and Mayor Pro Tem Matteson's last motion (CC-86-281), which would make 48 conditions. Mayor Grant asked for discussion on the motion. Councilman Evans asked if Council was voting on staff's recommendation Nos. 2 and 3 that appears on the November 20 staff report; that is Specific Plan 86-4 that will not be detrimental to the general health, etc. consistant with the latest adopted General Plan and conditions necessary to secure the purposes of Ordinance 57, and then approve the tentative tract map. Mayor Grant stated motion has been stated, asked for cast of votes. Motion No. CC-86-282, carried, ALL AYES. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT - Mayor Grant asked the City Attorney to address item 5J dealing with Pastor Mitchell D. Carioga of Orange Grove Commuity Church and his request to use the Council Chambers on a temporary basis for Sunday services. Stated there was some concern as to violation of the religion/government prohibitions of the Constitution, but felt that this would not invoke any constitutional problems since the City would be allowing it not to promote religion, but as we would any other user of the facility subject to City's rules and regulations; some use rules would have to change as we have one that pertains to solicitation of funds for any use in any of the City facilities; feels the church would probably be soliciting donations from its membership on a regular basis to continue the work of the church; this is a policy matter, but rules would need to be addressed with possibly some changes and we would be setting a precendent by allowing this. Pastor Carioga stated that temporary use of the Chambers would allow the Church to cut their costs and build up their membership. Once this is accomplished, they could afford to return to the Rancho 6 Theater in Colton. Council Minutes - 12/4/86 Page 17 CC-86-283 Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Matteson, second by Councilman Evans, to deny the request because of the problems that could be incurred. City Attorney Hopkins stated that we cannot discriminate provided renter meets all our rules and regulations, but the Pastor is really asking that certain rules be set aside or waived. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson called for the question. Motion No. CC-86 -283, carried, 3-1, with Councilwoman Crawford voting NOE. Mayor Grant noted that conditionally over the years Council has corrected their vote verbally and this can be done if an error has been made by not pushing the right button. Councilwoman Crawford stated she had not voted as intended, but will stand with vote as it is. City Attorney Hopkins stated he wanted to remind Council that the agenda requirements in the conduct of Council Meetings will be changing on Janaury 1, 1987; the main change being Council cannot act on items that are not on the agenda; for the most part this Council already complies with other changes that have been made. Further explained that there are provisions to add on, but they are only in special circumstances. Also, Senate Bill 1685 which becomes effective on Janaury 1 allows City Council members to call themselves Council members rather than councilman or councilwoman. CITY ENGINEER REPORT - City Engineer Kicak stated in respect to an action item prior to the placement of moratorium in the area west of I-215 on an R-3 development there were three projects which were submitted and fees paid, but never reached the Planning Commission and applicants now requesting that we return their fees and asking City Council authorize placement on the next check register to replace the funds paid in the approximate amount of $8,000. CC-86-284 Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Matteson, second by Mayor Grant, ALL AYES, to refund these monies. COUNCIL REPORTS Councilman Evans reported the following: Had been asked about the possibility of having trash collection twice a week instead of once a week during summer months. This person had expressed that during the summer his trash builds and with the heat creates some potential health hazards; requested staff check with Loma Linda Disposal Company to see if they would be interested in doing this and what costs would be to pass on to citizens that do request such a pick-up. Council Minutes - 12/4/86 Page 18 Mayor Grant reported the following: Had been privileged to present the proclamation to the Colton High School student body regarding their outstanding school at two assemblies; was delighted to recognize some of the students as Grand Terrace residents. Adjourned at 9:24 p.m. The next regular meeting will be held hur'� sday, December 18, 1986. Respectfully submitted, Acting City erk APPROVED Council Minutes - 12/4/86 Page 19