Loading...
09/13/1984CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COUNCIL MINUTES �- REGULAR MEETING - SEPTEMBER 13, 1984 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace was called to order at the Terrace View Elementary School, 22731 Grand Terrace Road, Grand Terrace, California, on September 13, 1984, at 5:43 p.m. PRESENT: Hugh J. Grant, Mayor Jim Rigley, Mayor Pro Tempore Tony Petta, Councilman Roy W. Nix, Councilman (Arrived at 5:44 p.m.) Barbara Pfennighausen, Councilwoman Seth Armstead, City Manager Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney George McFarlin, Attorney Joe Kicak, City Engineer Myrna Erway, City Clerk ABSENT: None The meeting was opened with invocation by Pastor Rick Petronella, Praise r Fellowship Foursquare Church, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance, led by Councilman Petta. ITEM DELETED FROM AGENDA - Item 4, Minutes of August 23, 1984. Councilman Nix arrived at 5:44 p.m. PRESENTATION OF EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS Mayor Grant presented three-year service awards to the following employees: Ross Valenzuela; Alicia Chavez; Barbara Michowski; Linda O'Grattis; Randy Anstine; Elizabeth Duarte; Ilene Dughman; Myrna Erway; and Seth Armstead. Mayor Grant presented five-year awards to the following employees: Ilene Dughman; Myrna Erway; and Seth Armstead. Mayor Grant expressed appreciation to the employees, stating they are dedicated, have done a good job, and have worked hard; commended them for their length of service. RESOLUTION NO. 84-30 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA, OF INTENTION TO PROVIDE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF MORTGAGE REVENUE BONDS TO PROVIDE FINANCING FOR A MULTI -FAMILY RENTAL HOUSING PROJECT DEVELOPMENT. Page 1 - 9/13/84 George McFarlin, Bond Counsel, advised that Mr. Bob Keeney had originated this matter; has property on Britton Way, on which he proposes to build an apartment complex, and would like to receive financial assistance through the Multi -Family Rental Housing Program; has requested the City initiate this process by adopting the subject resolution which establishes the date after which any project costs incurred can be recovered. There is no commitment on the part of the City in adopting this resolution; the project is still subject to the normal review and approval process. Councilman Rigley felt adoption of the resolution would indicate approval of the density and zone change for that area. The Planning Commission has approved a condominium project for that area at a density of 10 units per acre; this proposal is for apartments with a density of approximately 20 units per acre. Felt the matter should be processed through the Planning Commission for approval prior to being presented to Council, since there has been strong public reaction to the proposed density of that area. Questioned and was advised it would take at least two months to process a project through the Planning Commission. Mayor Grant concurred with Councilman Rigley, voicing concern for additional traffic if the proposed densities are approved. Councilman Petta questioned and received confirmation from Attorney McFarlin that the number of units per acre could be deleted from the resolution. Councilman Nix stated he has no problem with approving in principle the intent to use the legal financing aspects of the City's assistance program to help multi -family housing development, since it does not' usurp the normal approval process through the Planning Commission; felt more affordable housing is needed in the City; felt the proposed development for Areas 10, 11, and 12 should be considered on an individual basis following review of the Specific Plan. Bob Keeney requested approval of the resolution as an indication of approval of the bond program, since it is a lengthy process, and is required to make the project feasible; is not requesting density approval; is requesting financing for a possible 160 units and Six Million Dollars; the amount of financing and number of units can be reduced, but cannot be increased. The acreage for this proposed development would increase from 6.9 to approximately 11 acres; voiced objection to his Area 12 being lumped in with Areas 10 and 11; stated it is presently zoned AP; feels this proposal would not create any more density or traffic problems than the presently approved commercial project. Councilman Nix felt it is wrong for Council to give the impression of categorically opposing any project of a density of 20 units per acre or which would increase traffic, feeling it implies the City doesn't want any kind of development in Grand Terrace; any development is going to add traffic; no project should be approved without first Page 2 - 9/13/84 considering the overall impact on traffic, parking, schools, and safety protection services; cautioned against taking a position of opposition on issues which have legal implication and placing undue restrictions on how property owners can develop their properties. Noted the property owners have legal rights and have the right to develop their property in conformance with the General Plan and guidelines which have been provided. Councilwoman Pfennighausen felt a developer would not begin to process a project of this magnitude without knowing how the project could be financed. CC-84-228A Motion by Councilman Nix, Second by Councilwoman Pfennighausen, to adopt Resolution No. 84-30. CC-84-228B Motion by Councilman Petta, Second by Councilman Nix, to amend Motion No. CC-84-228A to delete all reference to densities from the Resolution. Councilman Rigley felt even if references to the number of units is deleted, it is still for a specific project of 160 units; felt the number of units should be included. Attorney McFarlin stated the Federal tax regulations are somewhat vague in providing guidance in defining a project; some of the examples are vague, saying a multi -family project on a certain site with a financing level not to exceed a certain amount; feels deleting the number of units still makes it a viable inducement resolution; the code recognizes there will be some variance between the original proposal and the project as finally approved. The smallest viable issue, in order to be competitive, is Five Million Dollars; this project would need approximately 130 units to be financially feasible under this structure, and financing may not be viable, unless pooled with other projects for a bond issue. Councilman Nix concurred with deleting the number of units so it doesn't imply approval of a specific number of units; noted the details of density, traffic, etc. will be addressed when the project is processed through the Planning Commission. The amendment to the Motion, Motion No. CC-84-228B, carried 3-2, with Councilman Rigley and Mayor Grant voting NOE. Motion No. CC-84-228A, as amended, carried 3-2, with Councilman Rigley and Mayor Grant voting NOE. CIVIC CENTER CONSTRUCTION Architect's Field Report Nos. 30, 31, and 32 were provided. CONSENT CALENDAR Item 5A, Check Register 091384, was removed for discussion. Page 3 - 9/13/84 CC-84-229 Motion by Councilman Petta, Second by Councilman Nix, ALL AYES, to approve the following Consent Calendar Items: B. Accept $500 Road Improvement Bond No. 83-SB-100044185-BCA from C.T.S. Underground, Inc., for Street Cut; C. Authorize a City flag to be provided to San Bernardino County to be displayed at the County Administrative Center; D. Authorize City Clerk to Reconstruction of Barton installation pursuant to Constructors); E. Fee waiver for issuance Activities Committee for November 3, 1984. CHECK REGISTER NO. 091384 record Notice of Completion for Road/LaCrosse and traffic signal Contract GTC83-14 (Steve Pandza of permit for the Historical and Cultural a parade to be held in the City on Councilwoman Pfennighausen questioned and was advised that the $30.61 on Warrant No. P4072 to Petra Enterprises was a deposit for half the cost of Christmas cards. Councilman Petta requested verification of the number of Water Shares presently owned by the City and requested that Staff confer with the Water Co. Board of Directors to determine whether the City's water cost could be decreased by purchasing additional shares. CC-84-230 Motion by Councilwoman Pfennighausen, Second by Councilman Rigley, ALL AYES, to approve Check Register No. 091384, as presented. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Barney Karger, 11668 Bernardo Way, stated the architectural design, types of materials and the manner in which the project is planned are the determining factors of a good or bad project, rather than density; felt that economics are mandating smaller living units for the future. Mr. Al Trevino, USA Properties, requested an early resolution of the R-3 zoning issue, since time is very important to his firm's business climate, and to allow his firm to proceed with supplying much needed housing. Stated that under R-3 zoning, Council still maintains control over the density, design elements, planning, landscaping, energy and the environment through the Specific Plan process; noted that approving R-3 zoning does not make any commitment on density. Allen Tuck, representing Wilden Pump, 22069 Van Buren, stated public hearing and consideration of adoption of the zone change, which includes the Wilden Pump Area 35, will be held on September 27; there has been no opposition to M-1 zoning for Area 35; requested that Council continue the zone change matter to the next meeting in the event there is some question or opposition expressed for the zoning of Page 4 - 9/13/84 Area 35 at the meeting of September 27, since he will be unable to attend that meeting. Bill DeBenedet, 22799 Barton Road, requested that property owned by him and Ernie Zampese, 16 acres south of the City park,.northeast of Van Buren, presently zoned agriculture, be rezoned to R-1, which would conform with the surrounding zoning. Merle Burris, 22456 Van Buren, stated he spoke in opposition of the zone change for Area 33 at the August 23 Council meeting; felt he was being selfish in opposing the zone change in Area 33, since the 12 or 13 other property owners do not object; felt the zoning should be in accordance with that desired by the majority of the property owners in that Area. Denis Kidd, 22874 Pico, objected to 17 acres on Van Buren, a portion of Area 26, being omitted from the mass zone change; wants it zoned R-1; does not object to the property on Pico, which is also in Area 26, being eliminated from the zone change. Barney Karger, 11668 Bernardo Way, recommended reviewing and redesigning Area 26; concurred with a portion of Area 26 being 7,200 square -foot lots, but felt the higher elevations of Area 26 should be 1/2-acre lots or more. PARKS & RECREATION COMMITTEE The Committee minutes of July 16, 1984, were provided. EMERGENCY OPERATIONS COMMITTEE The Minutes of June 21, 1984, and a memorandum indicating no minutes for May or July due to lack of a quorum were provided. City Manager Armstead stated he has advised Mike Harris of the EOC Committee that the San Bernardino County Emergency Plan will be reviewed on September 26 at 10:00 a.m. at Norton Air Force Base. POLICE CHIEF REPORT Lt. O'Rourke advised the Sheriff's Department now has four canine units, with one being assigned to each station, which will be operational October 1; will be available on a 24-hour call. Dennis Evans stated he has access to a video tape of the certification of the first canine unit in Redlands. Lt. O'Rourke indicated arrangements could be made to present the animal and the handler at a future meeting. FIRE CHIEF REPORT City Manager Armstead advised the City now has two fire engines. Page 5 - 9/13/84 CITY ATTORNEY REPORT Attorney Hopkins reported the following: (1) In response to a request to study whether there are limitations on school facility fees and where they may be used, advised the Government Code provides they can only be used in areas of impaction; if it is determined that sufficient impaction exists to adopt a school facilities fee, it would be necessary to provide an agreement method whereby the school facilities fee would be discontinued when impaction no longer exists. Councilman Nix stated he had also questioned whether fees can only be used to construct additional facilities or whether they could be used to alleviate impaction. City Attorney Hopkins stated the fees could only be used to construct new or temporary facilities. Councilman Nix disagreed with being required to construct additional facilities when the present facilities are only being used a small percentage of time; felt other alternative methods, such as year -around schools or double sessions, could alleviate impaction; most of those methods cost money, but would be considerably less than constructing additional facilities; questioned if there is some way to consider the total cost issue and methods of alleviating the problem. City Attorney Hopkins felt it would not be difficult to amend the current statutue to provide for that method; feels the School District would cooperate. Councilman Nix questioned whether present legislation only provides for assessing fees for additional facilities. City Attorney Hopkins felt unless legislation is amended, fees can only be assessed for additional facilities. Councilman Nix stated that due to present financing and construction costs, consideration should be given to more effective and efficient utilization of existing facilities before additional facilities are built. City Attorney Hopkins will study the matter further. (2) City Attorney Hopkins responded to a request by Councilman Rigley to study the amortization schedule pursuant to the sign ordinance; stated it varies upon investment and economic life of a particular sign, including such factors as when the sign was constructed. Signs which legally existed at the time the sign ordinance was adopted, but are not in compliance with the ordinance are non -conforming signs. There are court cases on the legal period to amortize signs which vary up to 40 years. There are no cases which have determined a sign has a longer economic life for amortization purposes than 10 years. The State Highway Act provides for amortization of outdoor advertising signs, particularly those within 1,660 feet of interstate or major highways, including those visible from the highway, over a 2-7 year period. This matter should be investigated, since this affects a large area of the City, due to its proximity to the freeway. The City's ordinance, which has been in effect five years, satisfies the amortization schedule of signs, by court precedent and the State Highway Act, in most instances; there could be a few cases which will need to be studied individually if the City proceeds with enforcement of the ordinance. Page 6 - 9/13/84 Recess was called at 7:00 p.m. and reconvened at 7:20 p.m. with all members present. �- CITY MANAGER REPORT City Manager Armstead advised he attended two meetings on the Jarvis Initiative, Proposition 36, which will also be addressed at the Leqgue of Cities Annual Conference in Anaheim. COUNCIL REPORTS Councilman Petta stated the Council received a letter from a resident which included two questions; requested the City Attorney answer those questions since the individual is present. City Attorney Hopkins stated that the letter from Ed O'Neal, Chairman of the Concerned Citizens of Grand Terrace, made reference to a newspaper article about signs located on Councilman Petta's place of business and asked the following: Question (1): Does the City Manager have the right to terminate a City employee? Answer: Under the City Manager form of government, the City Manager has the right to terminate and hire City employees; Question (2): Is a firm or individual in violation of the City code? If the answer is affirmative, what enforcement action has been taken or is pending? Answer: No, Councilman Petta is not in violation of the City Code; as explained earlier, the existing sign on top of Councilman Petta's building is a totally legal sign which is non-comforming. Mayor Grant recessed the Council Reports to the end of the agenda upon Councilman Petta's request. Councilman Rigley questioned the status of the Redevelopment Project Implementation contract with the Rosenow Spevacek Service Group, noting the program was to have been initiated July 1; questioned whether they had contacted firms and commercial organizations in an attempt to promote development; understood periodic reports were to be provided; Finance Director Tom Schwab stated the project didn't get started until August and is in its early stages; the firm is presently conducting an inventory of available property; is preparing a survey for property owners to determine the marketability of the available land to provide data for developers; is working with brokers to bring in development; and has been working with the County Economic Development Department to utilize some of their contacts; meetings are being held biweekly; two reports have been received and can be provided. Councilman Rigley noted the City previously contacted the property owners; is not satisfied with the progress; concerned the program is stagnant and that the City will expend $30,000 for the contract, receiving nothing in return; understood the consultant was to spend a certain amount of hours each day in the City; requested more action Page 7 - 9/13/84 from the consultant; requested a project status report at each future Council meeting. Councilman Nix stated he feels the City is being ambiguous and inconsis en in the area of development, since it is trying to promote desirable commercial development in some areas of the City, yet appears to be obstructing development in other areas such as Areas 10, 11 and 12; feels the City has an obligation to provide assistance to those developers presently in the City who have a desirable plan, even though it is not commercial. Mayor Grant reported the following: (1) Attended special Omnitrans meeting September 12. with no items directly affecting the City; (2) Referencing Councilman Nix's comments, disagreed Council is being inconsistent; stated Council has not taken a "no -growth" policy; feels commercial development in a specific area and considering density in terms of apartments and condos are two different issues; has always been concerned about the City becoming overpopulated, with traffic and school problems. Concurred with requiring a status report from the firm on economic development to ensure they are earning the funds being paid by the City. CITIES & COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO CONFERENCE Councilmen Rigley and Petta and Mr. Armstead will attend the conference in Lake Arrowhead on October 11 and 12. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION - SA83-9 Planning Director Kicak stated the appellant, Yolanta Trading & Land Corporation, is appealing Conditions 7 and 9 for the proposed remodeling of a project located some distance from Barton Road on the southerly side, westerly of Mt. Vernon, known as the Garden Home Apartments. The owner plans to enclose the existing patios to provide additional living space. Condition 7, pursuant to the City's ordinance, requires one enclosed parking space for each unit; the appellant is requesting to be permitted to install open -space parking. Condition 9.is also pursuant to the City's ordinance which requires installation of improvements along the frontage of the apartments as a condition of approval of any remodeling modifications; the appellant is appealing the requirement to install curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and necessary paving, requesting that those improvements be waived at this time. Staff recommends the property owners be required to execute an agreement providing for the installation of those improvements pursuant to this proposal at such time as either requested by the City or if it becomes a necessity due to future development of the property, if those requirements are to be waived. Councilman Rigley disagreed with requiring enclosed parking at this time, since the apartments have existed many years and have not had carports or enclosed parking and currently use open -space parking; concurred with enclosing the patios, feeling the appearance will be Page 8 - 9/13/84 11 improved; disagreed with requiring sidewalks since they would be located on the other side of an eight -foot high fence and would not benefit the project unless new facilities were built, the wall removed, and an entrance and exit were built at that location. Mr. Kicak advised these are requirements of the ordinance and can therefore only be changed by Council approval; would not object to waiving the requirements if an agreement is required for installation of improvements at some future date as a condition of approval. Dan Corcoran, 25610 North Road, Twin Peaks, California, speaking for Yolanta Trading & Land Corporation., introduced Dr. Jakubiec, the President; stated he felt the intention of the ordinance and the interest of the City would be served by enclosing the patios since the units are small and would provide more storage and living area. The roofs presently cover the entire area, including the patios, so the rehabilitation involves enclosing two walls. Opposed the requirement for garages; will provide additional parking; the owners have no objection to installing the necessary improvements for future development, but feel requiring those improvements at this time would serve no purpose. The owners, in the two years they have owned this property, have spent considerable funds to improve the property; requested favorable Council consideration of this matter. Mayor Grant opened Public Hearing and closed Public Hearing, there being no testimony for or against the matter. CC-84-231 Motion by Councilman Rigley, Second by Councilman Nix, ALL AYES, to approve the appeal of the Planning Commission decision on SA83-9, 22325 Barton Road, Yolanta Trading & Land Corp., based on the fact the owners want to enclose patios, have never had garages, are planning to build more parking spaces, and have agreed to sign an agreement providing for future installation of sidewalks, curbs, gutters, and necessary paving. ZONE CHANGE RECONSIDERATION - AREA NO. 30 Planning Director Kicak advised correspondence from Dr. Jakabiec, President, Yolanta Trading & Land Corporation, dated September 5 and September 11, requesting that Council consider including zoning of Area 30 as R-3 within the mass zone change, was provided to Council with a Staff Report; this zoning would bring that property into conformance with the General Plan designation. Jessie Douglas, 22320 DeBerry, property owner, stated she opposed the proposed zoning for Area 30 due to a concern it could allow a highrise building to be built at that location, which would overpower her property; requested restrictions if the property is to be zoned R-3; had preferred that property be zoned R-2, which would only allow duplexes and triplexes; noted a 25-foot buffer area is required between that property and her property. Mr. Corcoran stated there are no plans to erect a highrise building; the property owners want to maintain the present units in the best condition possible; in the Page 9 - 9/13/84 future wants to develop the property into a more aesthetically attractive project, which won't be possible without R-3 zoning. Dr. Jakubiec stated any new project to be built in that area would require approval through the planning process, at which time Mrs. Douglas' concerns could be addressed; noted that property has had an R-3 use since World War II. Discussion revealed that Area 30 can be included in the first reading of the zone change ordinance at this meeting, since the matter has been continued from August 23; the present ordinance prohibits structures over three stories in height; any highrise or high -density proposals for that Area would require processing through the Planning Commission, with the adjacent property owners to be notified. CC-84-232 Motion by Councilman Rigley, Second by Councilman Nix, to include Area 30 in the first reading of the zone change ordinance to be rezoned to R-3 carried 3-2, with Mayor Grant and Councilwoman Pfennighausen voting NOE. `ISINA901:L1,1Ieim AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE OF APRIL 26, 1984. (First Reading) Attorney Hopkins read the title of the Ordinance; advised that letters were sent to those property owners whose property was deleted from this zone change, as directed, and that there will be no further notification to the property owners affected by this zone change for the second reading and Public Hearing to be held September 27, since this matter has been continued from the August 23 meeting. Planning Director Kicak advised the City Council held a Public Hearing on August 23rd regarding zone changes to bring all zoning within the City into compliance with the General Plan; at that time Council made the determination to exclude all Areas from the zone change which had been contested in the Public Hearing. The Areas deleted were 1; 2; 8; 10; 11; 12; 26; 30; and 33. As directed by Council, letters were sent to property owners within those Areas advising of the action taken by Council. As a result of action taken at this meeting, Area 30 will be included in the proposed zone change. Mayor Grant opened the meeting to public participation. Councilwoman Pfennighausen left the Council Chambers at 8:30 p.m. and returned at 8:32 p.m. Area 26 - Denis Kidd, 22874 Pico, requested inclusion of his 17 acres on Van Buren in a mass zone change to be zoned R-1; has no objection to excluding the portion on Pico within Area 26 from the R-1 designation and that area remaining agricultural; felt the dividing line for the two zoned areas could be be the Edison Co.'s 0 Page 10 - 9/g3/84 right-of-way and would be a logical continuation of the surrounding development. Bill DeBenedet, 22799 Barton Road, requested that zoning for 16 acres owned y im and Mr. Zampese, adjacent to the Griffin Tract and the Terrace Hills Community Park, be changed from agricultural to R-1, which would be in conformance with the adjacent properties and the General Plan. Council discussed the possibility of splitting Area 26 in different areas, since there appears to be a consensus among the property owners that a portion of that Area should be zoned R-1, with another portion of that Area being zoned for larger acreage for horse lots. Area 2 - Steve Ferris, 6465 Carnegie Avenue, Anaheim, stated there has e6 en some oppose ion to changing the zoning of Area 2 from agricultural to M-1 or M-2; requested that a portion of the property, 4.6 acres north of Vivienda and east of Terrace Avenue, be included in the zone change; feels other people don't want their property changed but doesn't think they oppose his property being changed; the residents adjacent to his property are not in opposition to his property being rezoned as light industrial. Bob Keeney, 12139 Mt. Vernon, requested that Area 12 be included in e mass zone change; stated he has an approved project that requires R-3 zoning; questioned why Area 12 is being excluded from the zone change when the project requires that zoning designation. Al Trevino, USA Properties, requested that Area 11 be included in the zone c ange; noted half of Area 11 is already zoned R-3; would have processed the zone change for this property several months ago had the mass zone change not been proposed; stated this is causing a hardship on his firm from the standpoint of planning and coordinating efforts with other agencies, particularly since they were planning to install an alterntive energy system program and there is a date that certain laws will cease to exist which allow this system to be installed and credits to be available. Mayor Grant closed the meeting to public participation. Recess was called at 9:05 p.m. and reconvened at 9:15 p.m. with all members present. CC-84-233A Motion by Councilman Rigley, Second by Councilman Petta, to include the portions of Area 26 owned by Mr. Kidd and Messrs. DeBenedet and Zampese in the mass zone change, to discuss Area 2 separately, and that Areas 10, 11, and 12 are different since they were excluded from the mass zone change due to the violent reaction of a large element of residents who oppose high density in those Areas. Councilman Nix disagreed with the Motion, since Mr. Kidd has already pointed out that it would be logical to zone a portion of his Area as R-1, but the other portion of his property is a different situation. Page 11 - 9/13/84 The area to the north of Van Buren is a different issue; feels Area 26 must be worked out so there will an appropriate transition point from the higher densities R-1 to 1/2-acre area. It was noted that there is a 60-foot power line easement through the Area, which could be a buffer between the two areas. CC-84-233B Motion by Councilman Nix, Second by Councilman Petta, to amend Motion No. CC-84-233A to include in the mass zone change the northwesterly most 33 acres of Area 26 to consist of 16 acres north of Van Buren and the 17 acres southerly of Van Buren. Motion No. CC-84-233B carried, ALL AYES, and Motion No. CC-84-233A, as amended, carried, ALL AYES. CC-84-234 Motion by Councilman Nix, Second by Councilman Rigley, ALL AYES, to include Area 33 in the mass zone change. Areas 1 & 2 - Planning Director Kicak clarified that a portion of Area is bui a le and was proposed on the General Plan for light industrial. One individual opposed light industrial zoning for Areas 1 and 2. Councilman Petta questioned what other land use would be possible for that area. Mr. Kicak stated this is the only area which is designated as a flood plain; Councilman Nix noted the Cooley Ranch development is very likely part of the same flood plain. Mr. Kicak concurred. Mr. Ferris stated Area 1 includes several property owners, and that there are three property owners in Area 2. Mr. Kicak stated the property is heavily encumbered with Edison easements, so it is very unlikely the area, except for that addressed by Mr. Ferris could be used for anything. Councilwoman Pfennighausen declared a potential conflict of interest regarding Area 2 and withdrew from discussion and action on this matter. CC-84-235 Motion by Councilman Rigley, Second by Councilwoman Pfennighausen, ALL AYES, to drop Area 8 from the mass zone change. CC-84-236 Motion by Councilman Nix, Second by Councilwoman Pfennighausen, ALL AYES, to approve the first reading of the Zone Change Ordinance by title only as amended by the previous Motions, to include the following Areas: 3 through 7; 9; 14 through 22; 24; 25; 26A (being a portion of original Area 26); and 27 through 39. Under Councilman Nix's recommendation, Council directed that separate ordinances are to be prepared for each of the following areas: Areas 1; 2; 10; 11; 12; and 26B. First reading of the ordinances pertaining to Areas 10, 11 and 12 will be held September 27, with second reading and public hearing to be held October 11. Page 12 - 9/13/84 F11 First reading of the ordinances for Areas 1, 2 and 26B will be held on October 11, with second reading and public hearing to be held October 25. Staff is to study and determine a reasonable approach for Area 26B which will satisfy all property owners. Mr. Kicak indicated he will try to meet with the affected property owners prior to the first reading of the ordinance for Area 26B. City Attorney Hopkins stated the record should reflect that all of the referenced ordinances and public hearings for those ordinances are continued public hearings from August 23. Questioned and received clarification that Council concurs it will not be necessary to readvertise and re -notice the property owners for the public hearing on the zone change ordinance for Areas 3 through 7; 9; 14 through 22; 24; 25; 26A; and 27 through 39; this will be a continued public hearing from August 23. Staff is to readvertise and re -notice the property owners for the public hearings relating to zone changes for Areas 10, 11 and 12, and for Areas 1, 2 and 26B, even though they are also continued public hearings. PARKING ON HOLLY & MT. VERNON Community Services Director Anstine advised that, as directed by Council, Staff investigated the feasibility of allowing residents to park on Holly and Mt. Vernon with no restrictions. Results of Staff research, including photographs depicting the availability of parking within the alleyway immediately adjacent to both areas, and Staff recommendation is outlined in the Staff Report. Mayor Grant stated he had expressed concern about the unique situation of most of the homes in that area and felt an exemption could be made for that area; felt although the Staff Report was thorough, could not support the staff recommendation. Councilman Rigley stated the issue being discussed concerns not being able to park on the street once a month during the morning hours; similar requests have been rejected; feels if an exception is made in this case, there will be many more requests; feels those cars can be moved for sweeping purposes once a month. Councilwoman Pfennighausen stated the problem also involves the 72-hour parking limitation, in which a car was towed away from Holly Street; clarified it is not only a street sweeping problem. The fact that a resident's car was towed away while on vacation for parking over the 72-hour parking limit was one of the issues that prompted this investigation. The residents themselves agree their garages are full; they own five vehicles, one of which is a motorhome; can't park all those vehicles in an alley. City Manager Armstead stated he lives on the alley and has plenty of parking space in back; keeps one car in the garage and has room to park four others, and can also park in the alley; felt the other Page 13 - 9/13/84 residents could do the same; has discussed this matter with the neighbors, and most residents have no complaints. CC-84-237 Motion by Councilman Rigley, Second by Councilman Petta, to instruct Staff to continue to enforce Ordinance No. 63 as adopted by Council on September 23, 1982, carried 4-1, with Mayor Grant voting NOE. COUNCIL REPORTS (CONTINUED) Councilman Petta stated he felt it is necessary to comment on the recent considerable publicity in the newspapers, since he feels an attack on one Council Member reflects on the integrity of the entire Council, especially when the attack comes from a member of Council. Felt a need to clear the air to restore the good standing of Council. Stated the accuser is Councilwoman Pfennighausen, and when she decides to create an uprising in the community, makes public accusations through the news media. Referenced the accusations she made a year ago in which Councilman Petta was tried publicly in the news media; noted she also sent her accusations to every judicial body in the County and State, but no one would take on the case because there was no substance. Stated when correspondence finally came from the District Attorney's office, Councilwoman Pfennighausen didn't divulge the information because, as she stated at the Council table, she didn't like the answer. Stated Council and the community had a right to know that information; felt she covered up information which clearly resulted in defamation of character. Stated she is now creating another crisis by her recent claims which are unsubstantiated and are absolutely false. Councilman Petta stated the sign problem is not unique to our City - read a newspaper article regarding a similar problem with signs in the City of Fontana. Councilman Petta then read an article in the April Chamber Newsletter indicating there are only six or seven businesses in the City which presently have signs which comply with the City's existing ordinance, and if the existing ordinance is enforced, all signs must be brought into compliance by December, 1984. Noted the Planning Commission is presently reviewing the existing ordinance and that Council will either revise the ordinance or mandate that all nonconforming signs are to be taken down by December. Assured Council that he will set an example and be the first to take down his signs if the ordinance is enforced as it presently exists. Felt it made no sense that he, as one individual business firm among many not in compliance, would do what Councilwoman Pfennighausen said he did, since Council will publicly resolve this matter by December 5. Questioned the habitual character assissination. Councilwoman Pfennighausen stated she did not contact the press to make any statements regarding the matter at hand; made statements for the record regarding the firing of an employee. Felt if Councilman Petta had truly believed he had a case of defamation of character during the conflict of interest case, he would have filed that case; the letter from the District Attorney stated the matter would not be pursued at this time due to budgetary constraints and that it appeared Page 14 - 9/13/84 to them that the actions that had occurred up to that time had accomplished the purpose, since Mr. Armstead and Mr. Petta were no longer pursuing the avenues that made the charges necessary. If they were to start again, that issue would be open again with the District Attorney. Advised when the charges were made, all material was first presented to the City Attorney for review, and before filing it, supplied Mr. Armstead, Mr. Petta, and the other three Council Members copies of everything that went to the Attorney General and the District Attorney. Stated the issue wasn't a matter of a sign ordinance violation; there were accusations that involved the firing of a City employee that tied him directly into the firing of that employee and some pressure being applied over the sign issue. Stated she has had to defend hereself against the other Council Members in regard to violating the confidentiality of a closed session; stated everything she said to the press she said before that meeting, and has not violated the rules of confidentiality; referenced a letter from Ann Petta stating the contents could only have been gathered by information discussed in closed session. Councilman Petta stated his remarks stand, and can verify that Councilwoman Pfennighausen's remarks were made prior to closed session. x Closed Session - Council adjourned to a closed session at 10:30 p.m., with ity orney Hopkins in attendance. Reconvene - Council reconvened the regular meeting at 11:37 p.m. Mayor rant announced that Council met in closed session. City Attorney Hopkins advised that Council met in closed session to discuss a matter involving personnel, with one action taken which involved a reprimand of a City employee. Adjourn - The regular meeting adjourned at 11:38 p.m. The next regular meeting will be held September 27, 1984, at 5:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, APPROVED: Mayor Page 15 - 9/13/84