Loading...
07/30/1987CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - JULY 30, 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 July 30, 1987, at 5:30 p.m. PRESENT: Byron Matteson, Mayor Barbara Pfennighausen, Mayor Pro Tem Dennis L. Evans, Councilman Susan Crawford, Councilwoman Hugh J. Grant, Councilman Thomas J. Schwab, City Manager/Finance Director Randy Anstine, Assistant City Manager/Community Services Director Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney David Sawyer, Planning Director ABSENT: Joe Kicak, City Engineer The meeting was opened with invocation by Pastor Larry Wilson, Praise Fellowship Foursquare Church, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Councilwoman Crawford. ITEMS DELETED FROM THE AGENDA Item 4A(2) Accept proposed Lease Land from Edison and develop in some manner. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilman Grant requested that Item A, Approve Check Register No. 072387, be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. CC-87-149 Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen, second by Mayor Matteson, ALL AYES, to approve the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Item B - Ratify July 30, 1987 CRA Action Item C - Waive Full Reading of Ordinances and Resolution on Agenda Item D - Approve July 09, 1987 minutes Item E - Approve & Authorize entering into an Inter -Agency Agreement formalizing loans between the Agency and City Council Item F - Certificate of Commendation for Alicia Chavez. Item G - Approve Teen Challenge of Southern California's request for walk-a-thon and soliciting, and deny request for banner. Item A Councilman Grant stated he was curious about check number 172250; would like to know what the brass name strips for Council are. The Community Services Director replied the strips go with the photographs that are here in Council Chambers. Councilman Evans questioned check number 17163 to Green Earth Nursery, in the amount of $3,100 for new landscaping in the park. The Community Services Director replied this was renovation that took place on the easterly slope of Terrace Hills Community Park and staff had the contractor chemically weed treat the slope, remove the existing foliage and hydro -seed it with a new type of ground cover. Councilman Evans questioned check number 168, SWA Group, is that for services as it relates to the Canal, Grand Terrace/Mt. Vernon project? The Community Services Director replied it is the piece that is commonly referred to as the triangle easement. Councilman Evans questioned if he understood it correctly, check number 173 in the amount of $1,125 was part of what the Community Services Director authorized for upgrading slope trees for the park. The Community Services Director replied no, it was for tree replacement at Terrace Hills Community Park and the Civic Center. In addition, there were two trees acquired for Riverside Highland that were planted at Palm and Observation. He stated Riverside Highland Water Company will be reimbursing the City for that amount. CC-87-150 Motion by Councilman Grant, second by Councilman Evans, ALL AYES, to approve Check Register No. 072387. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Mayor Matteson a presentation presentation. Council Minutes - 7/30/87 Page 2 asked if anyone from the audience wished to make at this time. No one wished to make a COMMITTEE REPORT Item A(1) Mayor Matteson read the minutes from the Emergency Operations Emergency Committee, requesting advertising to fill a vacancy on the Operations Committee and to send a letter of appreciation to Dr. J. H. Tibbles who has resigned. CC-87-151 Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen, second by Councilman Evans, ALL AYES, to advertise the vacancy on the Emergency Operations Committee and send a letter of appreciation to Dr. Tibbles for his current service to the City. Mayor Matteson questioned if the Emergency Operations Committee were planning on painting the storage box. The Community Services Director replied he had spoken to the Emergency Operations Committee regarding this and it was on staff's project list to complete. Parks and Mayor Matteson stated this item is to approve the Grand Terrace Recreation Athletic Scholarship for the Parks and Recreation Committee. Committee Item AM CC-87-152 Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen, second by Councilman Evans, ALL AYES, to approve the Grand Terrace Athletic Scholarship application form. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen requested the material be approved, as submitted, and that Council commend the Parks and Recreation Committee for the thoughtfulness and manner in which the Committee put this together. She stated, that even though income level would have some bearing on selection, she hoped other factors would be considered when these applications are being reviewed. COUNCIL REPORT LAFC Councilman Grant stated, for the record, he represented the City at the July 15, 1987 Local Agency Formation Commission Committee meeting, at which time the Commission authorized the placing of the incorporation issues of three cities on the November Ballot. Mayors' and Councilman Grant stated that he attended Mayors' and Council Councils' Members' Executive Forum and felt it was well worth the cost. Executive Forum Post Office Councilman Grant stated he knew there had been some lack of enthusiasm on the letters he had received regarding the request for Grand Terrace's own post office. He stated he received a letter from Senator Pete Wilson indicating he concurred with Grand Terrace's request and had included a letter that he had Council Minutes - 7/30/87 Page 3 sent to the Postmaster General indicating he would like to see a post office in Grand Terrace. Councilman Evans questioned, since we are doing the City's General Plan and we are also going to be discussing the Commerce Center, is there any way to coordinate the two to add a little more emphasis for trying to get a post office in Grand Terrace. League of Cities Councilman Grant stated each Councilmember received from the Annual Conference League of California Cities correspondence indicating that cities must designate voting delegates for the League's Annual Conference. He stated, traditionally, the Mayor has been the voting delegate and his understanding is that Mayor Matteson will be attending. He stated the alternate would be the Mayor Pro Tem should she decide to attend. Mayor Matteson asked Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen "As long as you have that, is that the concensus of the Council?" Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated she concurred with this except she will not be attending the conference in San Francisco. Councilman Grant stated he will not be able to attend. Mayor Matteson asked Councilman Evans and Councilwoman Crawford if they would be attending, and both answered they would not be attending. The City Attorney stated the next alternate does not have to be one of the Councilmembers and felt the next in line would be the City Manager, since he will be attending. Councilman Grant stated he would recommend that. San Bernardino Councilman Grant indicated he represented the City at the San Associated Bernardino Associated Government County Transportation meeting Government County of July 29, 1987. Councilman Grant stated Assemblyman Jerry Transportation Eaves and Assemblyman Bill Lancaster were at the SANBAG meeting Meeting and gave a brief presentation on legislation dealing with low tax. Councilman Grant stated in regard to the transportation sales tax, that the issue should be supported in order to give the people of this State an opportunity to vote on it. He stated the SANBAG Board did not vote approval whether or not it should be the tax, but to at least get it on the ballot to approve. He stated the good thing about it was that Grand Terrace's 50 percent would be the Barton Road overpass at the freeway, as well as the overpass at the Southern Pacific Railroad. In addition, they are now talking about the little bridge over the railroad track near the Stater Bros. warehouse which is now a part of SANBAG's time table. Councilman Grant asked should this be passed by the people, and should Council submit a resolution, as all cities are being requested, then it will become law? Councilman Grant stated the City is also a member of Cal ID, a computerized fingerprint system of which the law enforcement representatives are aware. He stated the Council's Council Minutes - 7/30/87 Page 4 allocation, which should have been set forth in the forthcoming budget or the budget we are now in, is $4,441.00 for Grand Terrace. He stated it was based orr-the population of 9,877 people, and the County Auditor Controller will be submitting a request for these funds to support this program. Councilwoman Crawford stated that she received correspondence from some members of the community regarding opposition to housing density west of the freeway being increased which was presented in an article in the San Bernardino Sun Newspaper, Thursday, July 9, 1987, which referenced the Planning Commission Meeting. Councilman Evans stated that four Councilmembers had an opportunity to attend the Executive Forum this past week. He stated that in part of the meetings they were given an opportunity to have an exchange with peers throughout the State. It was an eye-opener from the standpoint of not being a lost soul. All communities have the same problems and it's an opportunity to share ideas and reach a common concensus as to what we should do as a State, recognizing as a State, we are also a community that is united together. Sewer Capacity Councilman Evans indicated possibly two months ago, Council Study voted to fund a Sewer Capacity Study regarding the City's flow into Colton's Plant. He questioned if a tally had been completed as far as Grand Terrace is concerned, and if we have that information, is it going to be incorporated into the General Plan? The City Manager replied they have implemented or undertaken the study, but it has not been finalized yet. He stated Grand Terrace has 1.6 million gallons per day capacity in the plan. The City Manager indicated on an average of a three-week period, it appears Grand Terrace's current capacity is about 1.2 million gallons. Water Shutoff Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated at a medical facility within the boundaries of Grand Terrace, several patients were in various stages of treatment when the water was turned off. She stated the professional individual verified that his water bill was late in payment, but at the time this occurred the payment was at the water company, which he was able to verify later. She indicated at the time this happened, a two-year old child was under sedation and the treatment the child was receiving required suctioning. She stated she felt this was totally inexcusable and felt it was the responsibility of the shareholders in this company to prevent this type of occurrence. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated to the Mayor that she would like a letter to go from the members of Council, who are all shareholders, and she would encourage the Council Minutes - 7/30/87 Page 5 shareholders throughout the City to either send letters directly to the water company or to members of Council or City Hall and they would be forwarded to the water company. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen requested that Mayor Matteson direct that correspondence to be sent as soon as possible. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen concurred with Councilman Evans' evaluation that the trip to Monterey was very enlightening. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen indicated Council received a lot of good suggestions and thanked the people of Grand Terrace for allowing Council to attend the seminar. Density West Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated in regard to the density of Freeway west of the freeway everyone will find out that the density allowable within the City is going to be less than it was before and that the residents on that side of the freeway have pretty much gotten what they asked for. Southern Calif. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen indicated there is a hearing Water Committee scheduled in Irvine, the Southern California Water Committee Hearing Incorporated, and she has been requested to attend this and report back to Council. She stated as much as she would feel honored to represent this City and bring back the report, she will be unable to do so. Mr. Arkebauer Councilman Grant stated he received some very distressing phone calls again from Mr. Arkebauer; that he called Councilman Grant almost in tears and was told by Councilman Grant that he did not have to put up with threats from neighbors and he should call the sheriff. Councilman Grant stated that he did, in fact, call the sheriff and he responded post haste. Councilman Grant suggested to Mr. Arkebauer that he should obtain a restraining order and Mr. Arkebauer said he would do so. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated she would like to thank the party(s) that were involved before because they have left Mr. Arkebauer alone, and appeal to those who are attempting to make his life miserable now to do the same. Crime Rate Mayor Matteson stated the Riverside Press had an article on crimes in all the local cities and Grand Terrace again had the lowest crime rate in any city around. Councilman Evans stated maybe Detective Gilbert would like to address the sheriff's service lately. He stated during the budget session, Council had to decide whether or not to Increase services at the expense of the Crime Prevention Officer and, fortunately enough, there were three members of Council who decided Grand Terrace should have the best of both worlds. Councilman Evans stated that since increasing the service, there has been a definite reduction in particular crimes that prevail within a community of this type. Council Minutes - 7/30/87 Page 6 Detective Gilbert stated he became the detective assigned to Grand Terrace in July, 1986. He stated the burglary rate rose somewhat, although still lower than our adjoining communities. Detective Gilbert stated this year, particularly since assigning the second unit to the community, he has seen a decrease in crime. Councilman Grant stated that, as Detective Gilbert had indicated, the second unit has played a great role in this increase in response time and the resolution and deterrence of these crimes. He stated, as the Mayor had also indicated, people are responding and people are taking it upon themselves to help police their own neighborhood. He stated these are things that, with or without any additional help or grant, would have happened anyway. He stated he was delighted to hear Detective Gilbert's comments on the reason he felt this good news occurred. Recessed City Council at 7:01 p.m. Recovened City Council at 7:16 p.m. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Mayor Matteson asked whether there was any unfinished business. None stated. NEW BUSINESS Salary Ranges A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 87-13, AND ADJUSTING THE SALARY RANGES FOR THE EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE. The City Manager indicated that in accordance with Council directions, staff has taken a look at the job descriptions and titles. They were rated according to the system generally used, the Hay method, to come up with a new point structure affecting only five employees. He stated the average adjustment in the range itself is approximately 12 percent. With the range itself moving upward, the maximum amount that any one individual employee would probably receive would be about 10 percent. He stated that the total cost of the increase will be $11,169.00 per year. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen indicated that, after brief commendation to the staff for their report, she concurred with the new job descriptions and the evaluation of the new structure. She indicated that she felt the other Council members would support her in her commendation of the staff for the fine job they are doing. Council Minutes - 7/30/87 Page 7 Councilman Grant concurred with what had been said and added that this is a continuation of the professionalism that has been in existance since the beginning; also concurred that the Staff Report was well prepared, well thought out and certainly justified. CC-87-153 Moved by Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen, second by Councilwoman Crawford, ALL AYES, THAT A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTION 87-13 AND ADJUSTING THE SALARY RANGES FOR THE EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE BE APPROVED. PUBLIC HEARING 6:31 p.m. Glenn S. Sharman The Planning Director indicated that on June 15, 1987, the 23175 Glendora Planning Commission considered an application by Mr. Glenn Drive Sharman for a lot split located at 23175 Glendora Drive and following the Public Hearing, the Commission denied the application based on the finding that the proposed parcel 2 was not in conformance with the City Zoning Code. He stated the applicant submitted a plan to split the existing parcel into two existing lots shown on the exhibit. The Planning Commissioner indicated that through the review of the project, several concerns have arose. Originally, there was a fire flow capacity requirement of 1,000 gallons per minute; the Riverside Highland Water Company had indicated the fire flow capacity in that area to be approximately 200 gallons per minutes. He stated that the Fire Department has since indicated to staff that a residential fire sprinkler system would be accepted in lieu of meeting the fire flow requirement. The Planning Director stated that the water company indicated that they will be able to adequately serve this project, contingent upon the receipt of an approval letter from the Fire Department. He stated that the City Engineer will require a joint -use agreement for the driveway, and that the City Engineer has also expressed some concern regarding grading which will be required for the second unit. Grand Terrace Municipal Code requires a minimum 60-foot lot frontage unless specifically approved by City Council, in which case a minimum of 40 feet may be allowed. He stated that the applicant has requested that the proposed private road easement be considered as street frontage, thereby providing parcel 2 with the allowable 40 feet of required frontage, if approved by City Council. He indicated that the configuration of the two parcels is an attempt to provide each parcel with adequate, usable yard space and meet the required set backs for the existing and proposed residences. He stated that, as proposed, the two parcels will meet all other zoning requirements. He indicated that staff's recommendation for the Planning Council Minutes - 7/30/87 Page 8 Commission was based on the fact that the newly created parcel 2 will not be in conformance with the Grand Terrace Municipal Code, Section 18.15.050, Section C, regarding the requirement for street frontage for a parcel. The Planning Director stated that the Planning Department recommends that City Council uphold the Planning Commission's denial of the application based on that fact. He asked if there were any questions. Milford Harrison Mr. Harrison stated that he was speaking on behalf of Mr. 24899 Taylor St. Sharman, who was present. He indicated that what they are Loma Linda asking for in the application is a deviation from the standard practice, but they felt there were extenuating circumstances that would be appropriate for a finding of approval in this appeal. He indicated that this is a common situation in many cities that have a unique area of this type; in most cities you will find this where you have your most exclusive homes, In this situation, we are asking for two houses to share the same driveway, a driveway that is quite adequate, protected by a retaining wall on one side, is beautifully landscaped, creates a very park -like atmosphere and entrance to these parcels. He stated that Mr. Sharman is in a situation where he either needs to sell this property and move to another location or try to create an additional lot where he can gain some additional revenue and maintain his residence there. Mr. Harrison stated that the evening before, Mr. Sharman took the opportunity of going around the area to the various homes in the vicinity for several hours with a petition. He stated 20 signatures were obtained in the space of three hours. He also indicated he had photos of the area if those would be of help. He indicated they were open for questions. Mr. Harrison made reference to another point regarding emergency access in case of an emergency that would limit access relative to the driveway. He stated that Mr. Matthews, who Council recently approved construction of a home on the adjacent lot, was present. He stated that Mr. Matthews was willing to grant a reciprocal easement to his property which would give them two accesses in case of an emergency, as well as a nice turnaround area for fire trucks or emergency equipment. Mr. Harrison inquired if there were any questions and, if not, he asked for a favorable response. Mayor Matteson inquired if there were any questions. Councilman Grant observations. He willing to have a prohibit concerns regard to future recommendation to Council Minutes - 7/30/87 Page 9 stated he had no questions, but had some stated that he believed the appellate is caveat in such an agreement that would as set forth by the Planning Commission in owners and, that he opposed staff's uphold the Planning Commission's denial. Councilwoman Crawford indicated that she also agreed with Councilman Grant that there were other exceptions in the town, and having the information that she has about Mr. Sharman's property, she felt it was an exception that the City could make. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated that she only had one concern at that time and it was not with their project, but that the City Engineer had expressed some concerns and had to be aware that this was an Agenda item, but was not present to answer questions. As long as they are spending money on a contract, she expects to see Engineering represented; most especially when they are aware there is an item they have expressed concerns over is going to be on the Agenda, and she would appreciate if the City Manager would carry that message to their engineering contractor. She indicated that she had no problem after being on the site recommending in favor of the appeal. CC-87-154 Motion by Mayor Matteson, second by Councilwoman Crawford, to approve the Appeal on the basis of conformance of Engineering requirements by the Engineering Department and meet the requirements of the Planning Commission. Mayor Matteson inquired if there was anyone else who wanted to speak on this issue. Councilman Evans stated that he wanted to address some questions to the City Attorney regarding easements. He inquired if there were any way that the easement could legally be written into the deed for both properties so that there wouldn't be any problems in the future. City Attorney Hopkins answered the question stating that he was certain it was written into the deed, but that did not ensure that there would not be problems in the future. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen asked whether or not, she understood correctly that Mr. Matthews has recorded easement over that same access, which would mean that they could not cut Mr. Matthews off or could not cut Mr. Sharman off. She stated it was not a problem for City Council, but a problem for them. Mayor Matteson interjected that he was sure that, since Mr. Sharman was going to be moving into the new house, he's going to make sure he has an easement across that property. City Attorney Hopkins indicated that as long as Mr. Sharman owns the property, it would be less likely that a problem would arise. Councilman Evans questioned whether the City would have any Council Minutes - 7/30/87 Page 10 future liabilities from legal documents that may be drawn up between the owners. City Attorney Hopkins replied, "No Sir." Councilman Evans indicated that he had the same concern that was previously expressed regarding the City Engineer. He stated that in the Minutes of the Planning Commission of June 15, 1987 there was a comment on grading that may be required. The Planning Director stated that the comments that the City Engineer had made to him regarding his concerns included the pad that would have to be graded and how the unit on parcel 2 would affect the existing slopes in that area and the bank which slopes off at the very southern portion of the property. He stated that the City Engineer indicated that it was not a concern that would stop the map at that time, but it would require a grading permit and his approval before final map is approved. The Planning Director indicated that there may be a question as to whether or not Council approves it, that Mr. Sharman may run into a serious road block further down the road. He stated that whether or not this was the concern the City Engineer had, he did not know. Councilman Evans questioned if Council went ahead and granted Mr. Sharman's request and somewhere down the road if that did create an engineering problem, could they deny the project. The Planning Director replied that if it was a grading problem, it would be based on the City Engineer's approval of the Grading Plan; therefore, if he would approve it, there would be no problem. The Planning Director replied that was the impression that he had received. He also stated that any residential structure would have to go through site and architectural review, so the project would be looked at again from a site development point of view, as well as the grading plan. Councilman Evans stated that for the last 15 years he has had to live by the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law, because the letter of the law should be enforced, but you know the spirit of the law you should disregard it. He stated we have a very imperfect system and at times it has to be bent, for to apply the letter of the law in this particular case Mr. Sharman would not be able to develop his property. He stated that he supports the request as long as there is no other problems from an engineering standpoint, if the only thing hinges on the frontage. Council Minutes - 7/30/87 Page 11 Motion CC-87-154 carried, ALL AYES, to approve the Appeal on the basis of conformance of Engineering requirements by the Engineering Department and meet the requirements of the Planning Commission. Recessed City Council at 6:57 p.m. Reconvened City Council at 7:12 p.m. General Plan The Planning Director introduced Mr. Ross Geller, who is with Willdan and Associates. He stated that Mr. Geller prepared the General Plan portion of the Public Hearing. Mr. Geller addressed the General Plan and some of the incapatibilities that were raised, particularly as the medium density interfaced with the low density. The Planning Director discussed the renaming of RR, R1 and Al Districts and changes to development setbacks, lot coverage requirements and the removal of permitted agricultural uses in those districts. He stated that the amendments will be analyzed in the overall Environmental Analysis Report that will be completed with the General Plan update, and discussed at the upcoming Planning Commission Meeting scheduled for September. The residential proposed zone was addressed by the Planning Director. The Planning Director addressed site development standards and made reference to charts on same. He also discussed the architectural overlay district, making reference to charts on that subject. It was observed that Hugh Grant left the meeting at 7:56 p.m. and returned at 8:01 p.m. The Planning Director compared the General Plan designations discussed previously referencing the existing zoning map and the proposed zoning map. The Mayor asked if Council had any questions before he opened discussion to the public. Councilman Evans directed a question to Mr. Geller regarding the difference in the narative, which shows a total of 1718 versus 1513 and the graph which shows a total of 1164 versus 1513. Mr. Geller replied refering back to his discussion on the existing General Plan. Councilman Grant asked to elaborate on the points Mr. Geller was trying to make. Mr. Geller made further clarification regarding the units. He Council Minutes - 7/30/87 Page 12 said he could work it down to 12. Councilman Grant stated 12 would be great and Mr. Geller replied okay. Councilman Evans stated that while they were on the subject of density, the General Plan in 1983 stated that the housing element had to go to the State for approval. He asked if this issue was going to have to go to the State for approval. Mr. Geller replied that the changes in the housing element will have to go to State. Councilman Evans questioned whether this Issue was part of the housing element. Mr. Geller replied "Right." Councilman Evans asked what will happen if the State doesn't buy it? Mayor Matteson stated that they would probably have to revise it and negotiate more with the State. Mr. Geller stated that the changes that they could make did not necessarily affect the entire city. Councilman Evans questioned if he understood Mr. Geller that in the housing elements they had to have a higher density than what they were proposing now. Mr. Geller replied "Yes." Councilman Evans stated that what Mr. Geller was trying to do was keep a low density which would force the multi -family to be disbursed throughout the rest of the city. Mr. Geller replied "I didn't say that." Councilman Evans asked Mr. Geller if that is what he was proposing if the State didn't approve it. Mr. Geller replied "No," you identify an existing multi -family site and address a remedial program. Councilman Evans stated that he must have misunderstood Mr. Geller, but didn't want to face what they did in 1983. The Mayor stated he felt they couldn't second guess the State; that they should plan what they want and if they run into opposition they'll take care of it. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated that she felt the point that Councilman Evans was trying to make was that they do not have a whole lot of developable area within the City to negotiate with the State. Recessed City Council at 8:25 p.m. Reconvened City Council at 8:40 p.m. PUBLIC Mayor Matteson invited those who wished to speak to make PARTICIPATION their presentation at this time. Ray Bicknell Mr. Bicknell stated he purchased his property in 1979 and at Garden Grove that time it was zoned R-3; then, in 1983 when the General Plan was proposed, it was still R-3. He stated that when they purchased the property, they paid a price based on the number of units they could get on the project and have paid taxes Council Minutes - 7/30/87 Page 13 Bill Addington 12055 Westwood Lane since that time based on the price they paid. He stated that under the new proposal it would be a deviation on the value because they would get less units on it. He requested that the General Plan and zoning be left alone as it pertains to his property. Mr. Addington stated he represented the firm of J. F. Davis and Associates. He stated that they had a complete development plan that was submitted and approved by the Planning Commission; then, it got caught up in the moritorium. He stated the plans conformed to the laws of the community and the State of California. He stated under the new proposal the General Plan is for the big property owners not the small. Gary Lawson Mr. Lawson stated that he was the person who was trying to 18180 Devonwood develop the previously mentioned piece of property and felt he Fountain Valley was getting a raw deal from the City, in that he had put up $25,000 in development, $6,300 of which went directly to the City to look at the plans; then, they passed the moritorium and he didn't get a hearing telling him yes or no, but they took his money and kept it. He stated he then presented a claim to the City to either leave his project alone or refund his money. City Attorney Hopkins stated that Mr. Lawson did present a claim for his fees and they did, in fact, act upon Mr. Lawson's project, that it went through the review process and was denied, which killed the project before the moritorium was passed and, therefore, there was no basis for them to authorize the refund unless the City Council desired to do so. Eddie Hoague Mr. Hoague stated that he was also a property owner and had 11955 Rosedale plans proposed, fees paid, and then fell into the moritorium. He stated that he did receive his fees back, but that the proposal would be down zoning and would make his property worth about half of what it would be if it were zoned R-3. Randy Fuse Mr. Fuse asked if that area was going to be left light 2830 Grand manufacturing. He also asked if there were a fire or other Terrace Road damage to their property would they be able to build back 100 percent and, if at the time they sell or the property is inherited, would these rights be transferred to the other person. City Attorney Hopkins replied, "If they stay with the property." William Yiles Mr. Yiles stated that he agreed with Mr. Fuse and was satisfied 21840 Grand with the way it was as long as they were able to build back. Terrace Road Council Minutes - 7/30/87 Page 14 Brian Acres Mr. Acres stated that he owned a one -half -acre parcel that he 22855 Arlis Drive was going to build a 4-plex on, and under the new proposal he wouldn't be able to. He stated that he felt there was a lot of property owners in the area who didn't know what was going on and he would like to know what was happening. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen asked the audience, by a show of hands, how many of them understood what was going on. She indicated that they seemed to know. Councilman Evans stated that it was probably because he didn't live in the area; that the people in the area did know what was going on. Someone in the audience made reference to a meeting that took place. City Attorney Hopkins stated that there was a meeting that he understood was advertised in the paper, but it wasn't a City meeting, although some Council members were present. Larry Halstead Mr. Halstead stated the reason that most people were attending 21894 Vivianda these meetings were because they were up against many things living in that area, therefore, they didn't consider it down -zoning, but up -zoning. He commended the City for having gone to a lot of work preparing the plan. He stated he felt it was a good plan which addressed the issues. Shirley Hoague Ms. Hoague stated she didn't understand why the City wouldn't 11955 Rosedale let the two or three projects in the area develop as R-3 and do whatever else with the others. She stated their consideration should be acknowledged also. David Hess Mr. Hess stated that they should look at the quality of the community; that when they came to the community 10 years ago it wasn't too developed, and now it has become much more developed. He stated that he is sympathetic with the developers because they are trying to invest, but the Council has to decide what they want the community to look like. Eddie Hoague Mr. Hoague directed a statement to Mr. Hess stating that what they already have throughout that area is duplexes and apartments; that they wouldn't be building anything out of the ordinary. Bill Addington Mr. Addington stated that he felt the General Plan was a form of protection. Brad Billings Mr. Billings stated that he was speaking on behalf of his 7555 Sunset Dr. partner who owned a home on Rosedale that he was helping him Redlands rehabilitate. He stated that under the present plan that property is not zoned for horses, therefore, he was in support Council Minutes - 7/30/87 Page 15 of staff's recommendation to zone that area R-20 with the agricultural overlay is going to preserve a very special area and he is in support of it. Fran Van Gelder Ms. Van Gelder stated that she was speaking as a private citizen and not a Planning Commissioner. She stated that in regard to the R-3 zoning, they were not just talking about the number of units, but the number of people who will inhabit those dwellings and the resulting impact such as traffic, water, law enforcement and schools, not only on those persons, but those who are alreading living in the city. She respectfully requested City Council to consider the items she mentioned. Ken McCellan Mr. McCellan stated that he felt it was the American way that 21882 Grand the majority rules. He stated that the people in that area Terrace Road want exactly what City has proposed and that Council has done a commendable job. Lois Pierce Ms. Pierce stated that she lived in a mobile home and she Grand Terrace Rd. thanked the City for upgrading. Ann Marie Stoble Ms. Stoble stated that she was reiterating what everyone else 21945 Grand was saying that they are not against progress but disruption in Terrace Road their environment. She stated that she was in favor of the proposal. Gary Lawson Mr. Lawson stated that he was surprised that Mr. Hoague got his money back and asked how he could get his money back. City Attorney Hopkins replied that Mr. Hoague's project was quite different in that his had not gone through all the staff reviews. He stated that Mr. Lawson's project went entirely through the Planning Commission process, which they approved, then it came to City Council and they disapproved it. He stated that Mr. Lawson could appeal to the City Council to refund his money. Mr. Lawson made a formal request to City Council to refund his money for fees. Mayor Matteson asked Mr. Lawson to put it in writing and send it to the City Council. City Attorney Hopkins interjected that they have a request from Mr. Lawson's attorney. Mr. Lawson stated that that request was denied by the City. The Planning Director stated that claim was not only for the fees, but also included the design work and loss in profit. He Council Minutes - 7/30/87 Page 16 stated that if Mr. Lawson would submit a claim for $6,300, it would be taken to Council for reconsideration. Ray Bicknell Mr. Bicknell stated that in 1981 he submitted plans to the City and wasturned down. He asked if he submitted a claim, could he expect to get his fees back. Mayor Matteson replied that he could submit a claim, but that didn't mean he could expect to get his fees back. Eddie Hoague Mr. Hoague stated that he had requested the City to fix the road on Van Buren for about a year. He asked why City could fix their streets and not his. The Planning Director replied that he thought they had agreed that Mr. Hoague was going to install a curb. Mayor Matteson interrupted and stated that they were getting off the subject; they would have to discuss that issue at a later time. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighousen stated she wanted to address a few points. She stated that there was, in fact, a meeting that was held in a private home with residents to discuss their desires for the City. She stated there was also a Public Workshop Meeting held at the request of City Council, at which Mr. Geller officiated. She thanked the residents of the west side for finding out what the issues were and working to resolve them. She further stated that she opposed the Lawson project based on technical and circulation aspects that had nothing to do with density, and that he was given his day in court. She stated that, if a project comes in that will adversely impact the community, Council has the responsibility to tell that developer that he will have to mitigate the traffic problem or he will not be able to build. She felt they have come up with a plan second to none. Councilman Evans asked the Planning Director to elaborate a little more on the low density and medium density on the Residential Plan Development Specific Plan. The Planning Director stated it was in the General Plan Designation and Ross Geller could explain it better. Mr. Geller stated that it had nothing to do with density, but the number of units. Councilman Evans stated the main topic at the seminar in Monterey was educating the people. He stated that the General Plan is the most important document in the community because it is the backbone of the community. He stated that he applauds the residents of the community for getting involved when so many don't. Council Minutes - 7/30/87 Page 17 CC-87-155 Mayor Matteson stated that the chair is going to propose a motion to accept 5(B), General Plan Amendment changing certain land -use designations in its entirety, except for the fact to limit the medium density to 12, with those bonuses it brings it up to 16 anyway, second by Councilman Grant. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated she would call to the attention of the Chair that not be totally in sympathy with the developers and not being totally in sympathy with the decision makers, there is a matter of economics that they have to deal with it in what they call a municipal budget, and as husbands and wives and homemakers they have to deal with a budget in that capacity, and most certainly developers have to deal with a budget also. She stated that decisions made where density alone is a factor, stops and she supposed some of them would really like that to happen except, the ultimate dollars it could cost in the courts would cost them more than they are going to say. She stated that 12 units to the acre with the criteria set forth by the general planning consultants for the special favors that would give them the 20 percent density, she felt that 12 units to the acre was too low; that they have asked the best consultants they could get to give them the recommendations that are realistic and she felt that they had those in five to fifteen. She stated that there is a break-even cost factor and at that time in history 15 is probably the break even. She stated that if they go any lower than that they will stifle development and they are asking for a day in court that will cost them many many dollars, therefore, she is not in favor of that change, but would be in favor of maintaining the five to fifteen in that designation as recommended by the consultants. Mayor Matteson stated that the problem he had was if it was built out to maximum there would either be a minimum of 1,500 units plus the density bonus in that area plus the 1,000 plus the units up there; that gives them about 2,500 plus the units they already have in the city plus the mobilehome units; over half of the city would be rentals. He stated that the reason they have low crime rate right now is pride of ownership; most people here own their homes and they take care of them, they are proud of them, and if you turn the city into rental spot, you will lose all that and they will have the crime. He stated that scientists have proven the more you cram rats together the worse they are and the more problems you will have with them. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen directed her statement to the Mayor that she couldn't agree more, but they were not talking about rats and were not talking about cramming people together, but talking about 15 units to the acre, and that in essence is less than four times the density of a single-family housing tract, and the other thing she resents highly is the assumption that people who rent are of a lower class then people who own. She Council Minutes - 7/30/87 Page 18 stated she felt the most problems they have to take care of in the city, at least the ones she is sending staff people out to try to mitigate are people who own. She stated that whether you own or rent doesn't determine your quality, and she is getting tired of hearing that renters are crud and owners are quality; people are people and they are because of what they are. Councilman Grant stated that he certainly understands and can sympathize with some of those people, whether they are living here or out of town and have purchased the property for investment, but that sympathy fortunately or unfortunately, depending upon their point of view, cannot exceed his position traditionally for the last four or five years relative to the issue of density; renters are not crud, people are people and that is not the issue. He stated that the issue is and has been and will be, in his opinion, the problem of traffic congestion. He stated that he has been opposed to what they are apparently going to get along Mt. Vernon on the west side and will continue to be opposed to that primarily for that reason. He stated it doesn't take a genius to see how this town is laid out, and it also doesn't take a genius to figure out that it is not going to change much; there is only so many ways you can get in and out of this small town and he gets in and out of it twice a day and he has a heck of a problem around 5:30 or 6:00 p.m. and it's a pain. He stated that he felt that the density, as indicated in the motion, is a realistic one, it's consistent with his position on previous issues of density, particularly along Mr. Vernon and that is the reason he seconded the motion and he would hope that the remaining members of the Council would vote in favor of that motion. Councilwoman Crawford addressed her statement to Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen. She stated that she felt Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen was getting renters confused with out-of-town owners; that it should be fairly obvious that on a large rental project, the older it gets the more repair it needs and the more it costs to maintain it and the less maintenance it receives and the poorer it is for the general welfare of the community. She stated that she felt that was the general feeling against high -density rentals. She stated that she like the motion; pursuant to the conference that she went to on developer's fees in San Francisco, she would recommend that they would perhaps raise the bonus figure from 20 percent to somewhere in the area of 30 percent or 40 percent which would bring the maximum density up around 15 or 16. She stated the reason she suggests this is because this is a negotiating tool with developers. She stated that since Proposition 13, cities do not have the ability to raise revenues to fund the infrastructures of the City, like the roads, lights, police, fire, water, etc.; the way these things are funded is through developer fees, and if they have a negotiating tool like the Council Minutes - 7/30/87 Page 19 bonus, they can negotiate with developers. She stated this is the way they would get park lands perhaps, better roads perhaps, they might even get a school; Reche Canyon got a school this way within the Colton School District. She stated that she was suggesting that perhaps they consider that bonus percentage in that light. Mayor Matteson asked the Planning Director if there were a bonus percentage in there now. The Planning Director replied it's at 20 percent. He stated for information on the Mayor's motion for a maximum of 12 would be 14 density, 30 percent would be 16 and 40 percent would be 17. Mayor Matteson asked what 25 would be. Councilwoman Crawford stated that she believed that it was made very very clear that there are only specific ways that they could allow that bonus and if it were on a sliding scale that said up to then, if they had a project come in on one acre of land, they could award a higher percentage bonus and stay below 15 units per acre very easily. She questioned if that were not correct. The Planning Director replied he wasn't quite sure that he followed the last portion. Councilwoman Crawford explained that if they had a development come in on one acre of land which would allow; The Planning Director interjected that one acre of land would be approximately 10 units under the 12 proposal; Councilwoman Crawford continued that if they even had a 50 percent bonus, a sliding rule then on a one acre development would bring it up to 15 per acre maximum. Councilman Evans asked to interrupt and stated that he believed that if the Mayor checked the Planning Commission Minutes, originally he proposed a 50 percent density bonus and it was the Planning Commission, after long debate, who decided to bring it down to 20 and they had difficulty even living with that. Mayor Matteson replied that was correct. City Attorney Hopkins questioned if that was in the Zoning Ordinance and not in the General Plan. The Planning Director replied that it was in the Zoning Ordinance Proposal. City Attorney Hopkins stated the motion before them was the General Plan and not the Zoning Ordinance and asked the Council Minutes - 7/30/87 Page 20 Mayor whether he made the motion or not .and Mayor Matteson replied yes. City Attorney Hopkins stated that he assumed that the Mayor's motion was meant to include the adoption of first reading of an ordinance entitled, "An Ordinance of City Council, City of Grand Terrace, California, Approving General Plan Amendment No. GP87-2." Mayor Matteson replied that's exactly what I meant. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated that she felt it was a lofty ideal to say they can build all the improvements in their City with developer fees imposed to get density bonuses, but it doesn't make much sense to her if to make a project cost- effective you have to build a minimum of 15 units per acre; that they start negotiating with developers for all kinds of improvements in order to get bonuses, in order develop at zero profit and that is not business and that isn't showing that they are using very good business sense there; that people have said that is why they want it in there to give the Council a good business sense, "Let's use some of that." She stated that she felt that they couldn't effectively develop at todays prices and give anything at 12 units to the acre. Councilman Evans stated that he could only whole-heartedly echo what Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen had stated regarding the entire matter. He stated that economics are going to dictate; it's unrealistic to go down to 12, but he attended a meeting of the Planning Commission when it was discussed and he had talked to the Planning Director regarding the whole matter and other colleagues on the Council said let's wait until they hear what the consultants have to say; they have spoken and are now ignoring what they have presented to them. He stated that he can whole-heartedly support what the Planning Commission came up with, what the Planning Director and the consultants have come up with, therefore, he cannot support the 12. Mayor asked Council to cast their votes. Motion CC-87-155 carried, with Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen and Councilman Evans voting NOE. Item 5(C) Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated that at least if they Zoning Ordinance couldn't do the first thing right then do the second thing Motion CC-87-156 right. She stated now they've told them they can only build 12 units to the acre unless they are going to build a new city for them, give them a new school that will cost six million dollars or a park that will cost six million dollars or a flood control project that will cost 10 million dollars, we'll let them build four units to the acre more; three units to the acre more if they'll do that for us that shows real good business sense and that is said with tongue and cheek. She stated let's do something with the zoning code, especially the square footage part of the zoning code that will make it possible to do something sensible. She stated a minimum square footage Council Minutes - 7/30/87 Page 21 Ordinance 104 was instituted by a majority of the Council approximately one year ago and its entire purpose was pointed towards one project in the defeat of that project, and to show how little thought the passage of that ordinance was given where the part in that ordinance that says the number of square feet in a studio apartment will be 800 square feet, that is twice as big as double -car garage; a studio apartment. She stated that she got to thinking maybe there is something wrong with her because maybe people do not know what studio apartments are anymore, but she'll bet them that they will learn because they are the kinds of things that can accommodate students, singles and senior citizens with a minimum number of square feet that has a place for them to cook, sleep, eat and stay clean and that is all that is required, and she would propose that a studio apartment receive a designation of a minimum of 450 square feet; that is 50 feet bigger than a two -car garage; pretty good size room for one room. She stated then they have a classification called one -bedroom apartment or condominium. She stated she asked to have "or condominium" removed off the studio apartment before, because she didn't think you could have a studio condominium, she didn't think anyone would buy it. She proposed a one -bedroom apartment or condominium based on present construction standards and what is going on in award -winning projects throughout their area, a minimum of 650 square feet and that makes accommodation for a bedroom that is approximately 15 square feet, which is a fairly good size bedroom and bigger than most single-family home bedrooms are that are being constructed presently; under two -bedroom apartments or condominiums, she would like to see that broken into two subs; a two -bedroom apartment with one bath, she would like to see changed to 850 square feet; a two -bedroom apartment with one plus baths; that can be one and one-half, one and three-quarters or two full baths to be 900 square feet, and a three -bedroom apartment or condominium which is big as a full-size house remains at 1,200 square feet. She stated that her rational for those changes were; the more studio apartments they build the less permanent residency they encourage in apartments, that horrible word, and they do not accommodate children that will impact their school system in studio apartments; one -bedroom apartments also does not encourage families with children, therefore, creating little, if any, impact on their school system and a maximum impact of one to two cars; the bigger the apartment, the more problems they are going to have to mitigate; a two -bedroom apartment is more likely going to involve either two or four singles, two couples, a couple and two children or more children, as many as they can stack on bunkbeds; that is throughout their city in single-family homes and, therefore, she would like to see no three -bedroom apartments ever allowed in the City, because she sees that as a real impact into their school system, onto their streets and making great demands on the public sector as far as Council Minutes - 7/30/87 Page 22 police and other things, but she does not know a way to separate three -bedroom apartments from condominiums unless she just says only three -bedroom apartments and not condominiums and that is not realistic because the one thing that she has noticed about apartments is that when people can't sell them they rent them and then they have apartments and they have three bedrooms. She stated that she would ask that the Council, reviewing quickly, studio apartments 450 square feet, one -bedroom apartment or condominium 650 square feet, two -bedroom apartment with one bath 850 square feet, two -bedroom apartment with one plus baths 900 square feet, three -bedroom apartment or condominium 1,200 square feet, and give this consideration for amendment to the now existing Ordinance 104. Mayor Matteson asked what the rest of the Council felt about it. Councilman Evans asked if that was a form of a motion. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen replied it was her motion. Mayor Matteson asked Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen that her motion was to make the correction only. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen replied, "Right." Councilman Evans stated he would second it. Mayor Matteson asked if there were any discussion. Mayor Matteson stated that he felt the studio apartment was too small, 450 square feet is just too small by him. Councilman Crawford stated that she felt that if they had a small studio apartment like that, a 650 square foot one -bedroom apartment would have relatively low rent and as an owner of rental property she can vouch for her experience you don't limit the number of children that you have in a one -bedroom apartment just because there is a one -bedroom apartment, it really doesn't limit the number of people, what determines how many people that is going to be in there, one is the lease agreement that he signs sometimes, because they will move more people in and the other is to lower the rent, the less desirable the people and the more problems that you will have and probably the more people per square foot ratio, so she is against it. Councilman Grant stated that he remembered as Ms. Pfennighausen remembers the discussion on it, when it was in fact discussed to death and he remembered specifically Mr. Petta's position on it, which he believed was a well-founded position. He stated Council Minutes - 7/30/87 Page 23 he still could not fathom that they agreed to reduce these to the extent that it is going to be difficult for people to sell their condominiums. He stated that they would be doing a disservice and, therefore, he would be opposed to the motion. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen called to their attention that those were minimum square footages; she could build a studio apartment that had 1,200 square feet if that is what she chose to do; she could build a one -bedroom apartment that had 1,000 square feet if that is what she chose to do as a developer; they are saying what is the least they can do. City Attorney Hopkins stated for the purpose of the motion that was on the floor that he didn't believe the Planning Commission had considered that particular item; whenever you are amending a Zoning Ordinance, you have to have referred it to the Planning Commission first; you can change what was sent to you, but they would have had to of considered what they adopted; he didn't believe they had considered it; that doesn't mean you cannot adopt the motion. He stated he thought it was a proper motion, but it would have to be referred back to the Planning Commission if it were adopted. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated that she just wanted to make sure that they didn't go through the revisions as submitted by the report. Mayor Matteson asked if Council wanted to send it back to the Planning Commission or did they want to call for a vote. Councilman Evans replied that he thought they should call for a vote and give the Planning Commission direction as to the way the Council stood. Mayor Matteson asked if there were any other discussion. None stated. He then asked Council to cast their votes. Motion CC-87-156 failed, with Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen and Councilman Evans voting AYE. Mayor Matteson asked Councilwoman Crawford the other item she wanted to discuss on the Zoning Ordinance was the bonus density. Councilwoman Crawford replied yes and wondered if they could move for acceptance or she assumed that reducing the density might give the Planning Commission cause to reconsider the bonus, could they leave the bonus out of the motion. Mayor Matteson replied they do not have to reconsider if they pass it. Council Minutes - 7/30/87 Page 24 Councilwoman Crawford stated that she would like to recommend that they increase the bonus to 40 percent. Mayor Matteson stated he thought that was too high, he would buy it if it was 30 percent. Councilwoman Crawford replied okay, she's selling for 30 percent. Councilman Grant stated he felt that staff's recommendation of 20 percent was adequate. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated that the reality of it was the end product is going to be the same and no one has guts enough to call it what it really is, and you are not going to get a developer to buy into the program at 12 units to the acre he can't give you anything you are asking for and so you are just stifling total development and why don't you just have guts enough to say that. Mayor Matteson stated that the thing of it is they have a big development going on Mt. Vernon that was 12 units and they gave them a bonus of three and the project is going through, so tat was not an accurate statement; that they will build at that and its economics they was as much as they can get, because the more units they can get the more money they can make. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen addressed the Mayor and asked him to keep in mind that they gave them that three density on a very very simple stipulation that it be for senior citizens which is or isn't enforceable, but it sounds good. She stated that what he was talking about in order to give a density bonus in that case is massive investment in the City of dollars and cents; he is taking away the capacity to make dollars and he is telling them they are going to spend dollars and they are not going to do it; that is not realistic; how much printing do you want to do for free. CC-87-157 Motion CC-87-157 by Councilwoman Crawford, second by Mayor Matteson, to increase the density of bonus of up to 30 percent. Mayor Matteson asked if there were any discussion. There was none and asked Council to cast their votes. Motion CC-87-157 failed, with Mayor Matteson and Councilwoman Crawford voting AYE. CC-87-158 Motion CC-87-158 by Mayor Matteson to accept density bonus as is, second by Councilman Grant. Council Minutes - 7/30/87 Page 25 City Attorney Hopkins addressed the Mayor and stated that he assumed that was a motion to adopt an ordinance for the City of Grand Terrace, California, approving Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. Z-87-2 amending Chapter 18.12, reappealing Chapters 18.15, 18.18, 18.21, 18.24 and adding Chapter 18 to the Grand Terrace Municipal Code. Mayor Matteson replied he took the words right out of his mouth, and asked if there were any discussion. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen asked what the motion was specifically. City Attorney Hopkins replied that it was a motion to adopt an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance as recommended by staff in the proposed ordinance they had in their packet. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen questioned that's 15 units to the acre; City Attorney Hopkins interrupted and stated that particular portion had been amended. Mayor Matteson stated in other words, they are accepting everything exactly as the whole package, the other part was they limited to 12, other than that it is exactly the way it came. Councilman Evans questioned if they had to make an amendment; the zoning is different than the General Plan. The Planning Director explained that the first motion was for the General Plan which dealt the 15 down to 12 for the General Plan Designation, but the Zoning Ordinance was not included in that motion, so if they just go with staff recommendation, technically the staff recommendation will be at 15 for those charts or if they want to keep it consistent with the General Plan motion . . . City Attorney Hopkins addressed Mayor Matteson and stated that he assumed that was part of the Mayor's motion to change the Zoning Ordinance to match the General Plan, that is a requirement you cannot adopt a different Zoning Ordinance then you do in General Plan. Councilman Evans questioned if you change the density is it going to completely change whole outline. Council Minutes - 7/30/87 Page 26 The Planning Director replied to let him review what he would recommend they change the table footnote, Attachment H, Proposed Residential Zone, they have the footnote for the development charts, those numbers under dwelling units per square footage and dwelling units per square footage for the R-2 Zone and the R-3 Zone are all based on the 10 to 15; if they change that to the 12, he would recommend that the zero to ten, for R-3, would be 1 dwelling unit per 10,000 square feet; 10,000 to 20,000 square foot lot be one dwelling unit per 10,000 square feet; the 20,000 to 30,000 square foot lot would be one dwelling unit for 8,710 square feet; 30,000 to 40,000 square foot lot would be one unit for 5,450 square feet; 40,000 to 80,000 square foot lot would be one unit for 4,360 square feet and the 80,000 square foot plus designation would be one unit for every 3,630 square feet. He stated the densities would break down to 1, 3, 5, 8, 10 and then 12; the last portion of the motion he wasn't sure was what the density bonus they were talking about then, 20, would then be with the density bonus would be 14. City Attorney Hopkins stated they could adjust it accordingly for the R-2 zone, was the intent of the Council. Mayor Matteson asked Council to cast their votes. Councilman Evans asked the Mayor to state again what they were voting on. Mayor Matteson replied they were voting for it exactly as it is except, with the adjustments for the 12 units. Motion CC-87-158 carried, with Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen and Councilman Evans voting NOE. Mayor Matteson commended the Planning Department for the excellent job they had done. Councilman Evans asked why, you didn't follow the recommendation. Mayor Matteson replied, all but one item, that is pretty good, usually they are tearing them apart. Item 7(B) Motion by Mayor Matteson, second by Councilwoman Crawford to CC-87-159 appoint Mayor as Director for the City to Southern California Joint Powers Authority and the City Manager as alternate. Mayor Matteson asked Council to cast their votes. Motion CC-87-159 carried, ALL AYES, to appoint Mayor as Director for the City to Southern California Joint Powers Authority and the City Manager as alternate. Council Minutes - 7/30/87 Page 27 Item 7(C) Motion by Mayor Matteson, second by Councilman Grant, to CC-87-160 approve application for a soliciting permit for Teen Challenge of Southern California. Steve Morgan Mr. Morgan stated that they requested August 1 through August 8 for the soliciting permit. City Manager Schwab indicated that they recommended the solicitation be done only on weekends. Councilwoman Crawford asked whether or not they would be working in pairs. Mr. Morgan stated there would be no women and the men would be working in pairs, keeping visual contact at all times. City Manager Schwab indicated that, if Council desired, they could modify the recommendation and go with Teen Challenge's request for Monday, Wednesday and Friday, 12:00 to 7:00 p.m. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated she had no problem, as long as they met the criteria as in the past. She commended them for their good work on drug abuse rehabilitation. Motion CC-87-160 carried, ALL AYES, to approve application for a soliciting permit for Teen Challenge of Southern California. The meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m. until the next regular City Council Meeting which will be held Thursday, August 27, 1987 at 5:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted: APPROVED: /� ayor Council Minutes - 7/30/87 Page 28