Loading...
09/27/1984CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - SEPTEMBER 27, 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 27, 1984, at 5:56 p.m. PRESENT: Hugh J. Grant, Mayor Jim Rigley, Mayor Pro Tempore Tony Petta, Councilman Roy W. Nix, Councilman Barbara Pfennighausen, Councilwoman Seth Armstead, City Manager Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney Joe Kicak, City Engineer Ilene Dughman, Deputy City Clerk ABSENT: Myrna Erway, City Clerk The meeting was opened with invocation by Reverend Ray Williams, Grand View Baptist Church, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance, led by Seth Armstead. CIVIC CENTER BRIEFING Field Report Nos. 33 and 34 were provided. Architect Larry Wolff reported the following: (1) Advised the radio antenna on Building 1 will be relocated onto the Civic Center. (2) Estimated the construction project to be 66% completed; stated the contractor is experiencing several difficulties with subcontractors; however, the flow chart still indicates substantial completion by December 7. (2) Pacific Bell Telephone Company advised that the monthly service charge per pay telephone would be $180 - didn't feel revenue generated would offset that cost. The actual telephone devise enclosure has been installed in the lobby. Council could consider eliminating the exterior pay phone and utilizing the pay phone in the lobby for the public's use or delete pay phones entirely, which could be stored or credit taken, and utilize a house phone or no phone at all; noted the conduit is in for both locations which could be utilized in the future; noted standard telephones will be in the Council Chambers, the meeting room, and the library. (3) Responding to Council question relative to provisions for metering the electricty utilized by the library, advised he was unaware of the agreement with the County; will look into the matter to see how it can be resolved. CC-84-238 Following discussion relative to the service charge, Motion by Councilman Rigley, Second by Councilman Petta, to eliminate both pay Page 1 - 9/27/84 telephones from the Civic Center. Councilman Petta, with Mayor Grant concurring, felt as long as telephones will always be available to the public, there is no need to pay such a high service charge. Councilman Nix recommended advising Pacific Bell Telephone of this intent if their terms stand before deleting the pay telephones, feeling they may consider there is a need for one; noted a high charge is not being paid for the Community Center pay telephone. Councilman Rigley concurred with communicating; however, felt it would be more effective to delete them and inform the Phone Company of the reason; recommended leaving the empty booths as a reminder of the unjust charge. Motion No. CC-84-238 carried, ALL AYES. 1983 PEDESTRIAN SAFETY CITATION James Celano, representing the American Autombile Association and his firm, the Automobile Club of Southern California, presented a 1983 Pedestrian Safety Citation to the City Council and the City of Grand Terrace. Stated the City is cited for its record of no pedestrian fatalities as reported in the AAA Pedestrian Safety Inventory while meeting AAA standard program performance, a five-year achievment. Mayor Grant accepted the 1983 Pedestrian Safety Citation on behalf of City Council and citizens of Grand Terrace. Councilman Petta commended the Sheriff's Department, feeling they deserve some of the credit. RESOLUTION NO. 84-31 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALORNIA, OPPOSING THE JARVIS IV INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (PROPOSITION 36). Bob Elliott, San Bernardino Public Employees Association, stated Proposition 36 could be devastating to local government and could continue many of the inequities resulting from Propositions 13; addressed Council on its inequities and requested that Council go on record in opposition to Proposition 36 by adopting the proposed Resolution. Council discussion included the long-range impact Proposition 36 could have on local agencies' ability to provide public service and the campaign tactics used to promote it. Dave Turbest, 22365 Barton Road, stated he is not an opponent or proponent; challenged members of Council to totally understand the Initiative prior to forming a resolution; felt all citizens need to seriously question all additional fees. Ed O'Neal, 22608 Minona Drive, opposed Council adopting the resolution after hearing only one side of the debate; was disappointed in Jarvis' campaign tactics. CC-84-239 Motion by Councilman Rigley, Second by Councilwoman Pfennighausen, ALL AYES, to accept Staff's recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 84-31. Page 2 - 9/27/84 PROCLAMATION - MINORITY ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT WEEK-OCTOBER 7-13, 1984 Mayor Grant read a Proclamation proclaiming October 7-13, 1984, as "Minority Enterprise Development Week" in the City of Grand Terrace, and advised it would be sent to the Minority Procurement Telethon. MINUTES - AUGUST 23, 1984 CC-84-240 Motion by Councilwoman Pfennighausen, Second by Councilman Rigley, ALL AYES, to approve the Minutes of August 23, 1984, as presented. MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 5, 1984 CC-84-241 Motion by Councilman Nix, Second by Councilman Petta, ALL AYES, to approve the Minutes of September 5, 1984, as presented. MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 13, 1984 CC-84-242 Following clarification of the intent of Motion No. CC-84-233B, page 12, Motion by Councilwoman Pfennighausen, Second by Councilman Rigley, ALL AYES, to approve the Minutes of September 13, 1984, as amended to reflect that amended Motion No. CC-84-233A is 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. CONSENT CALENDAR Item A was removed from the Consent Calendar. CC-84- 243 Motion by Councilman Nix, Second by Councilman Petta, ALL AYES, to approve the following items on the Consent Calendar: B. Authorize $35.00 expenditure from Line Item No. 10-4110-220 for 1/2 page ad in the Grand Terrace Woman's Club 1984-85 Yearbook; C. Reject Liability Claim Nos. GTLC84-1; GTLC84-2; and GTLC84-3. CHECK REGISTER NO. 092784 Following clarification regarding of the location of Petra CC-84-244 Enterprises, Warrant No. 4475, Motion by Councilwoman Pfennighausen, Second by Councilman Rigley, ALL AYES, to approve Check Register No. 092784, as presented. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Vic Pfennighausen, 12364 Pascal, questioned why there was no going -away party for the Staff member who resigned several months ago; felt he was well liked and a valuable employee. Ed O'Neal, 22608 Minona Drive, felt Council should consider the welfare of the tax -paying citizen when deciding whether or not to eliminate a public telephone. Cited an incident where he received a Page 3 - 9/27/84 citation for a parking violation, which he stated couldn't have occurred since the vehicle being cited was in Las Vegas at that time; noted he paid the citation. Doesn't see anything being done about signs in violation of the sign ordinance which are located on a Barton Road building; was recently informed a warning would be issued. Felt since he didn't get a warning prior to his citation, this is a case of selective law inforcement. PARKS & RECREATION COMMITTEE Dick Rollins, Chairman, reported the following: (1) Referenced a Committee Report advising Council the Committee strongly opposes development of land by the City on Blue Mountain, feeling it would be a liability, not an asset; stated the Committee felt future park land should be for recreational use such as baseball, soccer, or whatever citizens mostly use; (2) The Committee voted unanimously against using the $8,000 appropriated for the exercise course to improve the drainage system where problems exist; felt the problems should have been solved several years ago and those funds should be spent on citizen recreation; (3) Noted signs were to be posted in the park offering $100 reward for information leading to vandalism arrests; stated the Community Services Director had advise him the City Attorney has never furnished him with the required information necessary for him to prepare the signs; (4) Stated there has been a great deal of vandalism, foul language, loud noise, and wild driving at the park; felt the Sheriff Deputies are not adequately patrolling the area especially at closing time; commended Deputy Martinez for the manner in which he use to keep control. Captain Bradford stated he was unaware of those problems; would investigate the matter and take necessary action for a concentrated effort where the problems exist; however, can't guarantee a Deputy there every night at closing. Mayor Grant voiced Council's concern; felt law enforcement surveillance is needed at the time those problems reportedly occur without jeoparizing the safety of the rest of the community and businesses. Voiced satisfaction with the law enforcement the City is receiving from Sheriff Tidwell. Roy Meloy, 22235 Dove Street, reported he called the Sheriff's Department at 10:45 p.m. regarding an occurrence; waited until 1:15 a.m., with no Deputy responding. Councilman Petta stated the City owns approximately 23 acres on Blue Mountain, which was donated by Griffin Development; noted most of that land is barren wasteland like most of Blue Mountain. Felt more of that land should be aquired for the benefit of this community for perpetuity as a wilderness area, to be kept pretty much the way it is, a place kids can enjoy without being chased away. Felt the property could be acquired for a minimal amount. Page 4 - 9/27/84 [I] Mayor Grant suggested that the Community Service Director, in cooperation with Mr. Rollins, representing the Committee, look into both the Committee's and Councilman Petta's recommendation and bring the matter to Council for a decision. Councilwoman Pfennighausen, with Mayor Grant concurring, suggested the City contact the property owners relative to their donating the property to the City. City Manager Armstead advised this would be pursued by Staff. Recess was called at 7:29 p.m. and reconvened at 7:44 p.m. ORDINANCE NO. 81 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENTS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE OF APRIL 26, 1984 (SECOND READING) (Areas 3 through 7; 9; 14 through 22; 24; 25; 26A [being a portion of original Area 261 and 27 through 39) City Attorney Hopkins read the title of the Ordinance. Planning Director Kicak stated that Staff was directed at the August 23 meeting to amend the initially proposed mass zone change ordinance, to include certain parcels not being contested at that time, for another first reading at the September 13 meeting; at that meeting, certain individuals in Area 30 who initially opposed being included in the zone change stated they were no longer opposed and requested to be included. Portions of Area 26 were included; excluded totally was Area 8, since it would still remain in conformance with the General Plan. Stated this second reading includes Areas 3 through 7, 9, 14 through 22, 24, 25, 26A (the northwesterly 40 f acre portion of the original Area 26), and 27 through 39; Area 26B will be considered in a subsequent zone change. Mr. Kicak stated that, since the last meeting, Lindsey Lynch, Edward Lynch, and Jessie Douglas have requested that Area 32, which was proposed to be zoned R-2, be excluded from the zone change at this time and remain as R-1. Mr. Kicak recommended R-2 since R-1 zoning could still be utilized; if Area 32 remains R-1 and the property owners request a building permit for improvements or modifications to existing R-1 structures, determination of whether the zoning is consistent with the General Plan would have to be made, and a zone change to R-2 could be required. Mayor Grant opened Public Hearing. Supporting Testimoney - None. Opposing Testimony Sanford Collins, 22608 Brentwood, opposed free zone changes to developers; felt only three or four small areas should be rezoned free of fees because they are already non -conforming. Relative to the term "reasonable time," was advised by the County Planning Department they felt local control is responsible for that determination and doubted any California court would hear a case for forced zone change to Page 5 - 9/27/84 comply with the General Plan; he is not sure what "reasonable" is locally. City Attorney Hopkins questioned the relevance of this testimony. Mr. Collins questioned zone changes being made that don't exist in the zoning ordinance, such as R-1 to R-1 Hillside Overlay and various zones to public for schools, fire station, and the City Hall. Noted that development of over nine units per acre in R-3 zoning requires a developer to submit a Specific Plan, which gives the City adequate safeguards and which he feels the Planning Commission does not use arbitrarily or emotionally; recommended developers do likewise, feeling a letter -writing campaign to City officials, mostly regarding Areas 10, 11, and 12, has been arbitrary and emotional. Ray Farmer, P.O. Box 385, Rialto, stated he has an interest in property within Area 26; not sure he opposes the zone change; wished to voice concern for the record; hoped Council exercises diligence and careful study in rezoning this amount of property; understood Area 26B will be given future consideration; felt consideration should be given to graduating the hillside lot sizes upward instead of downward. Mayor Grant closed the meeting to Public Hearing. Councilwoman Pfennighausen requested clarification of hillside R-1 overlay and questioned the reason for public zoning if not in the zoning ordinance. Mr. Kicak responded that hillside R-1 overlay indicates that zone is not controlled by density, but rather by physical constraints; public zoning identifies parcels that are publicly owned. City Attorney Hopkins stated he partially agrees with Mr. Collins' statements regarding "reasonable time;" disagrees with the County Planning Department's statement that the Courts probably would not try such a case; recommended that source of legal advise be avoided. Noted his report on this matter a couple meetings ago; stated he had consulted with County Counsel, and their position was that a "reasonable time" is probably 20 years; noted the County has a lot of zoning not consistent with the its General Plan. Since 1974, the law requires consistency; no cases have ever decided or resolved; the law obviously requires it because it has provisions to enforce such action. Mayor Grant reopened the meeting to Public Hearing. Area 30 - Jessie Douglas, 22330 DeBerry, questioned the requirements Tor -upgrading her property if it remained R-1. Questioned why it was proposed for medium density. Lindsey Lynch, 22330 DeBerry, questioned the limitation for building on the proper y. Edward Lynch, 22330 DeBerry, prefered R-1 zoning; questioned the subdivision process. Planning Director Kicak stated the property would be inconsistent with the General Plan if zoned R-1, and any improvement would theoretically require a zone change; under R-2 zoning, the property could still be used as single-family residential and would not require a zone change in order to get permits for additions or repairs on the existing Page 6 - 9/27/84 home. Felt the property was designated R-2 in the General Plan Update process because it was a logical boundary; questioned whether Ms. Douglas was involved in those hearings. Clarified the building limitations on R-1 and R-2 zoning and explained the Planning process for Conditional Use Permits and Minor Subdivisions. Councilman Rigley stated he would prefer R-2 zoning if he owned that property, feeling it would have more value because of both R-1 and R-2 zoning advantages; felt R-2 designation could be due to its size. Councilman Nix questioned the ability to change the General Plan in event the property owners' position stands; Mr. Kicak stated that could done through the General Plan Amendment process at their request. Councilwoman Pfennighausen noted there would be no fee charged if the zone is changed at this time; however, there would be a fee for a future zone change if the property owners changed their minds. Lindsey Lynch stated they had reconsidered and requested to be included in the zone change to R-2. Mayor Grant closed the meeting to public participation. Councilman Nix stated Council is not acting out of fear of running out of reasonable time; relative to the revenue lost because of this process, which has become a big issue, stated Council considered that, but has also considered the inequities that have resulted to property owners because of the General Plan Update, resulting in time delays. CC-84-245 Motion by Councilman Nix, Second by Councilwoman Pfennighausen, ALL AYES, to approve Ordinance No. 81 by title only. ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENTS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE OF APRIL 26, 1984 - AREAS 10,-11, AND 12 Planning Director Kicak advised these proposed zone changes involve Areas 10, 11, and 12, pursuant to the General Plan Update. The General Plan allows up to 20 units per acre; however, a Conditional Use Permit is required for projects over 9 units per acre, and a Specific Plan is required for projects over 16 units per acre. Sanford Collins, Planning Commission Chairman, questioned whether the property owners of the remaining Areas which were removed from the original proposed zone change ordinance are going to be allowed to request individual free zone changes. Mayor Grant, for the record, read the concluding statement from a letter dated September 18, 1984, from Homer H. Howell, 11821 Mt. Vernon, a homeowner, which was addressed "To Whom It May Concern:" .. "To conclude: I simply support only low density condominiums or R-3single family homes for this area. Low density to me is no more than 10 per acre. I will oppose apartments of any density." Page 7 - 9/27/84 Mayor Grant opened the meeting to public participation. Supporting Testimony Barney Karger, 11668 Bernardo Way, felt Council is mandated to accept 9 units per acre, since the General Plan Update designates the Areas as R-3; noted more could be allowed with Planning Commission and Council approval. Would prefer condominiums over apartments; however, noted financing is difficult at this time for condominiums. Felt the Areas could be upgraded and density problems handled by requiring better grades of condominiums or apartments, which he felt the Planning Commission would do. Vince Michaels, USA Properties, 1801 Wilshire, Santa Monica, felt the only course of action would be to approve first reading of the ordinances; felt there are ample safeguards; plans to do the best kind of project they can; will comply with all ordinances. Jack R. Booker, 11785 Mt. Vernon, supported the R-3 zoning with a maximum density of nine units per acre; felt Council should give careful consideration of special requests by developers in these Areas relative to density and to traffic problems that could result on Mt. Vernon; recommended developers furnish Council with a traffic survey for different times of the day and facts that would show four or five driveways on the east side of Mt. Vernon would not pose a problem. Opposing Testimony Byron Matteson, 12175 Michigan, opposed the high density projects planned by developers; voiced concern increased crime rate would result, as well as educational, traffic, and sewer problems. Indicated disagreement with Council not supporting the Planning Commission's recommendation to limit the number of units to be allowed on this property, which followed the Planning Commission meeting of August 6, 1984, where public input was received and considered; stated the City Engineer recommended going without limitations; in his opinion felt developers could get what they want through the City Engineer. Recommended Council give Planning Commission recommendations careful consideration. Homer H. Howell, 11821 Mt. Vernon, commended Council for its action in expressing concern relative to the City of Colton's General Plan density of 8 units per acre on land adjacent to this City's northeast boundary; requested the same attention be given to these Areas. Not confident that 20 units per acre will not be approved; recommended Council Members avoid any appearance that they are not serving their constituents. Frances Carter, 11938 Arliss Drive, citing traffic statistics relative to average number trips per day per family, felt streets in these Areas could not handle that traffic impaction. Mayor Grant closed the meeting to public participation. Page 8 - 9/27/84 Mayor Grant stated he normally supports first reading of an ordinance for the purpose of allowing Council to hear public testimony; however, will vote against first reading of this Ordinance, feeling sufficient public input has been received; Mr. Howell's letter and Dr. Booker's and Ms. Carter's testimony repeated his concerns. Councilwoman Pfennighausen noted she dislikes traffic and congestion; came to Grand Terrace 18 years ago when it was a quiet, residential community and opposed, back then, a single family affordable housing program. Is concerned young people growing up in the community today will not be able to afford to live here, since it is not feasible that everyone can live in a single-family residence; realizes the traffic problems will have to be solved; felt the concept of living has to adjust. Councilman Petta stated Councilwoman Pfennighausen's comments are the concerns of all; felt that 10 affordable houses built on Michigan, compared to the surrounding homes, have been slums, and problems created by such development must be addressed. Councilwoman Pfennighausen noted she did not favor that project; felt care must be taken relative to the planning process, the surroundings, and conditions placed on people with any development. Councilman Rigley stated he would vote against the Ordinances, voicing concern the R-3 zoning could allow 20 units per care; not sure the Planning Commission can ensure the City doesn't get saturated in that area; noted the issue is not affordable housing, but apartments. Councilman Nix noted the General Plan Update was done with a great deal of deliberation consisting of a lot of debates and hearings; noted Council requested a city-wide traffic study be done at the time it requested one for a specific area; felt emotionalism is being created, allowing things to get out of perspective; felt the issue is being managed. ORDINANCE NO. - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MARD TERRACE, IFORNIA, APPROVING ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENTS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE OF APRIL 26, 1984. (First Reading) AREA 10 City Attorney Hopkins read the title of the Ordinance. CC-84-246 Motion by Councilman Nix, Second by Councilwoman Pfennighausen, to approve first reading of the Zone Change Ordinance relating to Area 10 by title only, waiving full reading of the Ordinance, carried, 3-2, with Mayor Grant and Councilman Rigley voting NOE. City Attorney Hopkins read the Ordinance in its entirety. Councilman Rigley stated he assumed condominiums were to be developed; now finds out the whole area may be developed into apartments; felt at the time Council approved the General Plan it was not considering 20 Page 9 - 9/27/84 units per acre; recommended not approving the first reading, feeling it could be a mistake. CC-84-247 Motion by Councilman Nix, Second by Councilwoman Pfennighausen, to approve first reading of the Zone Change Ordinance relating to Area 10, carried 3-2, with Mayor Grant and Councilman Rigley voting NOE. ORDINANCE NO. - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRTND IFORNIA, APPROVING ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENTS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE OF APRIL 26, 1984. (First Reading) AREA 11 City Attorney Hopkins read the title of the Ordinance CC-84-248 Motion by Councilman Nix, Second by Councilwoman Pfennighausen, to approve first reading of the Zoning Ordinance relating to Area 11 by title only, waiving full reading of the Ordinance, carried 4-1, with Councilman Rigley voting NOE. City Attorney Hopkins read the Ordinance in its entirety. CC-84-249 Motion by Councilwoman Pfennighausen, Second by Councilman Nix, to approve first reading of the Zoning Ordinance relating to Area 11, carried 3-2, with Mayor Grant and Councilman Rigley voting NOE. ORDINANCE NO. - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CA IFORNIA, APPROVING ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENTS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE OF APRIL 26, 1984. (First Reading) AREA 12 0 City Attorney Hopkins read the title of the Ordinance. CC-84-250 Motion by Councilman Nix, Second by Councilman Petta, to approve first reading of the Zone Change Ordinance relating to Area 12, by title only, waiving the full reading of the Ordinance, carried 4-1, with Mayor Grant voting NOE. City Attorney Hopkins read the Ordinance in its entirety. CC-84-251 Motion by Councilman Nix, Second by Councilwoman Pfennighausen, to approve first reading of the Zone Change Ordinance relating to Area 12, carried 3-2, with Mayor Grant and Councilman Rigley voting NOE. Mayor Grant advised second reading and public hearing for these ordinances is set for October 11, 1984, at 7:30 p.m. FIRE CHIEF REPORT City Manager Armstead advised CDF is working on a second new fire unit for the City; volunteered to acquire some evergreens for the Civic Center and the park. Page 10 - 9/27/84 a COUNCIL REPORTS Mayor Grant reported the following: (1) Attended the League of a i orm a Cities' Annual Conference that week in Anaheim; would recommended purchase of certain specific tapes; (2) the County Board of Supervisors took action to set aside funds for a library in the Civic Center; (3) a free dump day is scheduled for Saturday, October 27; (4) read from a letter received from Mr. Jim Beckman thanking the City for its interest and responsiveness over a recent break-in at the Grand Terrace Professional Plaza. Councilman Nix stated he was disturbed with the contents of a Staff letter ate eptember 25, 1984, to the School District relative to developer fees for schools; felt the letter missed the intent as outlined in the August 23 Minutes; most importantly, felt it missed the intent to find out whether the School District is interested in working with the City on alternative methods. City Attorney Hopkins noted he was not responding to comments regarding that Staff letter, since they were not addressed to him; however, advised his intent is that Staff meet with the School District Staff to make that determination. Councilman Petta reported the following: (1) Attended the League of California Cities' Annual Conference in Anaheim that week; felt it was the most informative of the three he has attended; (2) referenced a statement on the last page of the September 13, 1984, Minutes that contents of a letter from Ann Petta could only have been gathered by information discussed in Closed Session, at which time he §tated it could be verified that the statements were made in open session prior to Closed Session at the September 5, 1984, meeting. Stated the Minutes of September 5, 1984, verified that; read that paragraph from the September 5 Minutes. Councilwoman Pfennighausen felt Councilman Petta conveniently finds it necessary only to discuss what he chooses out of a Closed Session; objected to laboring the issue at the Council table. Councilwoman Pfennighausen reported the following: (1) Noted phone service would be ma a avai able to the public in the new Civic Center; (2) felt reconsideration should be given to a security detection system in the Civic Center; questioned the City's insurance relative to property loss; (3) concerned about vandalism at the park and the harassment of indivivals by youths in the community, feeling some action must be taken. Finance Director Schwab outlined the City's insurance program. NOVEMBER/DECEMBER MEETING DATES Following discussion, Council concurred to establish November 8 and November 29 as meeting dates for November, with the possibility of an Page it - 9/27/84 adjourned regular meeting on November 20; felt the dates for December meetings should be established after Council reorganization pursuant to the November election. Councilwoman Pfennighausen noted she was charged at the last meeting by Councilman Petta with contacting the press relative to the Administrative Assistant issue; stated Council has received a letter clearing her of that charge. Councilman Petta stated his comments were based on the reporter's conversation with him. ADJOURN - The regular meeting adjourned at 10:03 p.m. to an adjourned regular meeting to be held on Tuesday, October 2, at 7:30 p.m., in City Hall Building No. 4, 22795 Barton Road, for the purpose of conducting a Closed Session relative to preparing the City Manager's personnel evaluation. The next regular meeting will be held October 11, 1984, 5:30 p.m., at Terrace Hills Elementary School, 22731 Grand Terrace Road. Respectfully submitted, Deputy City Clerk APPROVED: Page 12 - 9/27/84