No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004/07/07 - Minutes July 7, 2004 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION MINUTES The Rancho Cucamonga City Council held a closed session on Wednesday, July 7, 2004, in the Tapia Room of the Civic Center located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Mayor William J. Alexander. Present were Councilmembers: Rex Gutierrez, Robert J. Howdyshell, Donald J. Kurth, M.D., Diane Williams and Mayor William J. Alexander. Also present were: Pamela Easter, Deputy City Manager; James Markman, City Attorney; Larry Temple, Administrative Services Director; and George Rivera, Administrative Services Manager. [ B. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEM(S) Mayor Alexander announced the closed session item. B1, LABOR NEGOTIATIONS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.6 TO GIVE GEORGE RIVERA, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES MANAGER; PAMELA EASTER, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER; AND LARRY TEMPLE, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR, DIRECTION IN REGARDS TO THE MEET AND CONFER PROCESS - CITY Il C. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEM(S) II No communication was made on the closed session item. I D. CONDUCT OF CLOSED SESSION The closed session began at 5:30 p.m. E. CITY MANAGER ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS F. REcEss The closed session recessed at 6:54 p.m. with no action taken. City Council Minutes July 7, 2004 Page 2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Regular Meetinq A regular meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council was held on Wednesday, July 7, 2004, in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Mayor William J. Alexander called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. Present were Councilmembers: Rex Gutierrez, Robert J. Howdyshell, Donald J. Kurth, M.D., Diane Williams and Mayor William J. Alexander. Aisc present were: Pam Easter, Deputy City Manager; James Markman, City Attorney; Linda D. Daniels, RDA Director; Larry Temple, Administrative Services Director; Dawn Haddon, Pumhasing Manager; Sid Siphomsay, Information Systems Analyst; Michael Toy, Information Systems Specialist; Jon Gillespie, Traffic Engineer; Mike TenEyck, Administrative Resoume Manager; Brad Buller, City Planner; Alan Warren, Assistant Planner; Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director; Dave Moore, Recreation Superintendent; Paula Pachon, Management Analyst III; Francie Palmer, Marketing Manager; Deborah Clark, Library Director; Captain Pete Ortiz, Rancho Cucamonga Police Department; Chief Peter Bryan, Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District; Duane Baker, Assistant to the City Manager; Michelle Dawson, Management Analyst III; Kimberly Thomas, Management Analyst II; Kathy Scott, Deputy City Clerk; and Shirr'l Griffin, Office Specialist II. [I B, ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS B1. Presentation of a Proclamation to Sunrise Life Development for their contributions to the community by operating the job center at no cost to the City. Mayor Alexander presented the Proclamation to Art Lucero of Sunrise Life Development. Mr. Lucero said this is a privilege to be of service to the community. He said this is a "win-win" solution for the City in that the business owners who are there and want to conduct business, we help to protect them so that their customers aren't harassed; and, it's a win for the businesses because their sales increase due to returning customers. He said it is also a blessing to the Police Depadment, as they don't get as many calls, and the day laborers themselves have an opportunity to find some gainful employment. C. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS C1. Earle Anderson regarding building the extension of the existing flood control channel before the next rainy season - Bella Vista project. C2. Sharon Morff regarding Bella Vista project. C3. Scott Morff regarding Bella Vista project. C4. Eniko Wills regarding Bella Vista project. City Council Minutes July 7, 2004 Page 3 Councilmember Gutierrez stated that at the next meeting staff would provide an update on the status of the Bella Vista project. C5. Nicole Myerchin regarding the need for foster parents at the animal shelter, compliance to the Hayden Law, and thanks to City Council for submitting application in regards to the transportation program. C6. Nacho Gracia, Northtown Housing Development Corp., re the grand opening of the Olen Jones Senior Community Complex. C7. John Lyons re 4th of July Celebration and upcoming election. C8. Kevin Hoyt re City's support of the Freedom's Flame - September 11th Memorial. D. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS D1. Kurth regarding the West Nile Virus and efforts to rid of standing water and places for mosquitoes to breed; the success of the 4th of July Celebration; emphasis on keeping an eye on children around swimming pools; the fact that Fire Station No. 176 is now in service protecting the citizens. D2. Gutierrez regarding the success of the 4th of July Celebration. He heard positive comments on the ingress and egress and hopes there's a way of accommodating more people in the future. D3. Williams regarding the success of the 4th of July Celebration. She commended staff on a fabulous job; the successful June 19th demonstration of the California Discovery Gardens at the Maloof Foundation compound. D4. Howdyshell regarding the success of the 4th of July Celebration and concerns with illegal fireworks. [I E. CONSENT CALENDAR El. Approval of Minutes: May 27, 2004 May 27, 2004 (Special Study Session) June 2, 2004 June 3, 2004 (Special Study Session - Gutierrez absent) June 14, 2004 (Special Meeting) E2. Approval of Warrants, Register June 8 through June 29, 2004, and Payroll ending June 29, 2004, for the total amount of $5,919,646.16. E3. Approval for the acceptance of the Additive Alternate Bid for the Central Park Community Center kitchen equipment with Douglas E. Barnhart, Inc., in the amount of $55,000. E4. Approval of a Resolution supporting the Local Government Budget Package as negotiated between Governor Schwarzenegger and cities, counties, and special districts. RESOLUTION NO. 04-213 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING THE LOCAL City Council Minutes July 7, 2004 Page 4 GOVERNMENT BUDGET PACKAGE AS NEGOTIATED BETWEEN GOVERNOR SCHWARZENEGGER AND CITIES, COUNTIES, AND SPECIAL DISTRICTS E5. Approval of IBM hardware and software maintenance agreements with IBM for fiscal year 2004/2005 in the amount of $56,403 from Acct. No. 1001-209-5300. E6. Approval for the pumhase of two (2) Ford F-250 Heavy Duty Super Cab trucks with utility body and one (1) Ford F-350 DRW Super Duty stake bed truck for Engineering Department, Parks and Facilities Divisions, at Central Park, from Sunrise Ford of Fontana, in the amount of $79,406.12 and an appropriation of $79,406.12 from the Park Development Fund balance into Fund 1120-305-5604. E7. Approval of Improvement Agreement, Improvement Security, Drainage Acceptance Agreement and Maintenance Agreement for Installation of the Orphan Flow Drainage System for Tentative Tract 14759, located at Wardman Bullock Road and the future Wilson Avenue, submitted by Pulte Homes. RESOLUTION NO. 04-214 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITY, DRAINAGE ACCEPTANCE AGREEMENT AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14759 E8. Approval of Map, Improvement Agreement, Improvement Security, Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 3 for Parcel Map No. 15716-2 located on the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Day Creek Boulevard, submitted by Victoria Gardens, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company. RESOLUTION NO. 04-215 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAM©NGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 15716-2 AND IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT RESOLUTION NO. 04-216 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 3 FOR PARCEL MAP NUMBER 15716-2 E9. Approval to utilize Associated Engineers, Inc. and Aufbau Corporation fo provide contract inspection services for fiscal year 2004/2005, to be funded from the following accounts: 1001-305-5300 - Development Management Contract Inspection, $37,500.00; 1001-305-5306 - Development Management Contract Services/CFD, $100,000.00; 1001-307-5300 - Project Management General Contract Services, $37,500.00; 1001-307-5306 - Project Management General Contract Services/CFD, $100,000.00; and 1170-303-5300 - Administration Gas Tax/Contract Services, $65,000.00. El0. Approval to utilize Dan Guerra and Associates, Aufbau Corporation and Architerra Design Group to provide development plan checking services for fiscal year 2004/2005, to be funded from the following accounts: 1001-305-5300 - Development Management Contract Services, $520,000.00; 1001-305-5303 - Development Management Contract Services Reimbursable, $100,000.00; and 1110-316-5300 - Beautification Plan Check Services, $86,640.00. Ell. Approval of Map for Parcel Map 16480, located at the northwest corner of Spruce Street and Foothill Boulevard, submitted by Western Land Properties. City Council Minutes July 7, 2004 Page 5 RESOLUTION NO. 04-217 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 16480 E12. Approval of a Master Plan Transportation Facility Reimbursement Agreement, SRA-30, (CO 04- 074) in conjunction with the development of Tract 14380, located at the northwest corner of Wilson and Etiwanda Avenues, submitted by Mastercraft Homes. RESOLUTION NO. 04-218 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MASTER PLAN TRANSPORTATION FACILITY REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT FOR ONE TRAVEL LANE AND MEDIAN CURBS IN WILSON AVENUE, BETWEEN ETIWANDA AVENUE AND CERVANTES PLACE, SRA-30 E13. Approval of a Resolution of the City Council authorizing Transportation Enhancements (TEA-3) grant application for funding of the Pacific Electric Inland Empire Trail project. RESOLUTION NO. 04-219 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING GRANT APPLICATION FOR THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT ACTIVITIES (TEA) PROGRAM FUNDING FOR THE PACIFIC ELECTRIC INLAND EMPIRE TRAIL PROJECT E14. Approval and authorize the execution of a sole source Professional Services Agreement in the amount of $290,000.00 to Applied Metering Technology, Inc., (CO 04-075) for installation, configuration and meter testing services within the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility service area, to be funded from Acct. No. 17053035309. E15. Approval to accept the bids received and award and authorize the execution of the contract in the amount of $413,474.00 to the apparent Iow bidder, American Asphalt South, Inc., (CO 04-076) and authorize the expenditure of a 10% contingency in the amount of $41,347.40 for the 2004/2005 Local Street Pavement Rehabilitation - Slurry Seal of Various Streets, to be funded from Gas Tax funds, Acct. No. 11703035650/1022170-0 and appropriate an additional amount of $60,000.00 from Measure "1" fund balance to Acct. No. 11763035650/1022176-0. E16. Approval to accept the bids received and award and authorize the execution of the contract in the amount of $294,889.00 to the apparent Iow bidder, Belaire-West Landscape, Inc., (CO 04-077) and authorize the expenditure of a 10% contingency in the amount of $29,488.90 for the Rochester Avenue, north of Highland Avenue and Haven Avenue, north of 19~h Street Landscaping project, to be funded from Beautification funds, Acct. No. 11103165650/1339110-0 and appropriate $324,377.90 (contract award of $294,889.00 plus 10% contingency in the amount of $29,488.90) to Acct. No. 11103165650/1339110-0 from Beautification fund balance. E17. Approval to award and authorize the execution of a contract in the amount of $29,000 to Bluecrane, Inc. of Redondo Beach, California, (CO 04-078) and authorize the expenditure of a 10% contingency in the amount of $2,900 for consulting services for the purpose of the completion of a hazard mitigation plan and authorize an appropriation in the amount of $31,900 ($29,000 plus a 10% contingency of $2,900) into Acct. No. 1025001-5300 to fund the contract. E18. Approval to award and continue a Professional Services Agreement in an annual amount not to exceed $85,000 for the period of July 1,2004 through June 30, 2005, to Huls Environmental, LLC, (CO 04-079) with an option to renew for additional one year periods, upon review and confirmation of pricing and mutual consent, up to a total of three years, to be funded from Acct. No. 1001-313-5300. City Council Minutes July 7, 2004 Page 6 E19. Approval to accept the bids received and award and authorize the execution of the contract in the amount of $592,000.00 to the apparent Iow bidder, Sully-Miller Contracting Company, (CO 04-080) and authorize the expenditure of a 10% contingency in the amount of $59,200.00 for the 6~h Street Storm Drain, Railroad Crossing Improvements and Pavement Rehabilitation from Archibald Avenue to 380' west of Hermosa Avenue, to be funded from Transportation funds, Acct. No. 11243035650/1081124-0. E20. Approval to release Maintenance Guarantee Bond for Parcel Map 15349, located on the northeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Church Street, submitted by LDC Cougar, LLC (aka Lewis Communities). E21. Approval to accept improvements, release the Faithful Performance Bond, and file a Notice of Completion for improvements for PM 15970, located at the northeast corner of Hermosa Avenue and Victoria Street, submitted by HMC Professional Services, LLC. RESOLUTION NO. 04-220 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR PARCEL MAP 15970 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK E22. Approval to release the Maintenance Guarantee Bond for Tract 14120, located on the south side of Vintage Drive, west of Etiwanda Avenue, submitted by Carriage Estates, LLC. E23. Approval to accept improvements, release the Faithful Per[ormance Bond, accept a Maintenance Bond, and file a Notice of Completion or improvements for Tract 14493-1, located on the southwest corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Banyan Street, submitted by Young California Cucamonga, L.P. RESOLUTION NO. 04-221 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 14493-1 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK E24. Approval to accept improvements, release the Faithful Performance Bond, accept a Maintenance Bond, and file a Notice of Completion for improvements for Tract 15783, located on the west side of Carnelian Street at Vivero Street, submitted by G & D Construction, Inc. RESOLUTION NO. 04-222 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 15783 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK E25. Approval to release the Maintenance Guarantee Bond for Tract 15947, located at the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Etiwanda Avenue, submitted by WL Homes, LLC, dba John Laing Homes. E26. Approval to release the Maintenance Guarantee Bond for Tract 16001, located in the Terra Vista Planned Community, bounded by Church Street, Elm Avenue and Spruce Avenue, submitted by LDC Cougar, LLC (aka Lewis Communities). E27. Approval to release Maintenance Guarantee Bond No. 8492620M in the amount of $53,638.06 for the Foothill Boulevard Storm Drain Improvements from Etiwanda Avenue to 1600' easterly, Contract No. 02-133. E28. Approval of Tract Map 16179 and Monumentation cash deposit, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue, submitted by Burnett Development Corporation. City Council Minutes July 7, 2004 Page 7 RESOLUTION NO. 04-223 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TRACT MAP 16179 AND MONUMENTATION CASH DEPOSIT MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Kurth to approve the staff recommendations in the staff reports contained within the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. [I F. CONSENT ORDINANCES [ Fl. CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL iMPACT REPORT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2002-00156 - RICHLAND PINEHURST, INC. - A proposed Development Agreement to addresu specific conditions of development and annexation for 150.8 acres of land located on the north side of Wilson Avenue between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue - APN: 0225-083-01, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 20. Related Files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072, Annexation DRC2002-00865, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2002-00461. Kathryn L. Scott, Deputy City Clerk, read the title of Ordinance No. 725. ORDINANCE NO. 725 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CiTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2002o00156, A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND RICHLAND- PINEHURST, INC., FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING AN APPROXIMATE 150.8 ACRE SITE WITH UP TO 358 RESIDENTIAL LOTS, FOR PROPERTIES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WILSON AVENUE BETWEEN ETIWANDA AVENUE AND EAST AVENUE - APN: 0225-083-01, 12, 13, 15, 16, AND 20 MOTION: Moved by Kurth, seconded by Williams to waive full reading and approve Ordinance No. 725. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. F2. CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-00750 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC - A proposed Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for 63.5 acres of land and the proposed modification of the circulation system in the Etiwanda Highlands Neighborhood of the Specific Plan - APN: 0225-084-04, 0226-081-09 and 10, and 0226-082-29. Kathryn L. Scott, Deputy City Clerk, read the title of Ordinance No. 726. ORDINANCE NO. 726 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CiTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-00750, TO CHANGE THE DISTRICT DESIGNATION FROM VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL (.1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR 63.5 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT THE NORTHERLY END OF WARDMAN BULLOCK ROAD AT THE INTERSECTION OF COLONBERO ROAD; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN City Council Minutes July 7, 2004 Page 8 SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0225-084~04, 0226-081-09 AND 10, 0226-082-29 MOTION: Moved by Kurth, seconded by Williams to waive full reading and approve Ordinance No. 726. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. F3. CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2003-00751 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC - A proposed Development Agreement to address specific conditions of development and annexation for 63.5 acres of land, located at the northerly end of Wardman Bullock Road within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan - APN: 0225-084-04, 0226-081- 09 and 10, and 0226-082-29. Kathryn L. Scott, Deputy City Clerk, read the title of Ordinance No. 727. ORDINANCE NO. 727 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2003-00751, A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BE'~NEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC, FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING AN APPROXIMATE 65.3 ACRE SITE WITH UP TO 123 RESIDENTIAL LOTS, FOR PROPERTIES GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHERLY END OF WARDMAN BULLOCK ROAD AT THE INTERSECTION OF COLONBERO ROAD - APN: 0225-084-04, 0226- 081-09 AND 10, AND 0226-082-29 MOTION: Moved by Kurth, seconded by Williams to waive full reading and approve Ordinance No. 727. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. F4. CONSIDERATION OF ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-01163 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to change the Etiwanda North Specific Plan land use designation from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units/acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units/acre) for approximately 80 acres and from Very iow Residential (.1-2 dwelling units/acre) to Flood Control/Resource Conservation for approximately 45 acres of land, generally located north of Wilson Avenue between East Ave. and Wardman Bullock Rd. - APN: 0225-084-08 (portion) and 09 and 0226-082-05, 06, 07, 08, 11, 12, and 13. The entire project area of approximately 300 acres is also referred to as the Etiwanda Creek Annexation. Related Flies: Annexation DRC2003- 01164, General Plan Amendment DRC2003-01162, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14749, and Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324. Kathryn L. Scott, Deputy City Clerk, read the title of Ordinance No. 728. ORDINANCE NO. 728 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-01163, A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE LAND DESIGNATION FROM VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL (.1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 80 ACRES AND FROM VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL (.1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO FLOOD CONTROL/RESOURCE CONSERVATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 45 ACRES OF LAND, GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF WILSON AVENUE BETWEEN EAST AVENUE AND WARDMAN BULLOCK ROAD; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT City Council Minutes July 7, 2004 Page 9 THEREOF - APN: 0225-084-08 (PORTION) AND 09 AND 0226-081-05, 06, 07, 08, 11, 12 AND 13 MOTION: Moved by Kurth, seconded by Williams to waive full reading and approve Ordinance No. 728. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. G. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS Gl. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2003-00961 - LYNNE AND RENEE MASSEY - The appeal of the Planning Commission decision to approve a single-family residence in the Low Residential District, located at 8045 Camino Predera, Lot 12 of Tract 10035, as proposed by Mike and Wendy Stachowiak - APN: 0207-631-02. Pamela Easter, Deputy City Manager, stated that Item F4 is an appeal of the Planning Commission decision. She introduced Alan Warren, Assistant Planner, to present the staff report. Staff report present by Alan Warren, Assistant Planner. Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing the City Council were: Renee Massey, 8088 Camino Predera, requested that Council recognize and agree to the importance of a lower profile than has been currently approved for this project. She said approximately two years ago she came before this Council with regard to a Concordia Homes project on this same acreage, same hillside, and with the same concerns. She said the result of their mutual effort with Mr. Snell of Concordia and the Council's recognition of their concerns lead to an agreement that Concordia would modify the project to reduce the profile of the affected lots. Regardless, that project never moved forward; instead, they have the originai tract map, which Concordia is now selling and developing lot by lot. She said this means that the City does not have an obligation to notify neighboring homeowners. She said it was a surprise to see the three lots being developed simultaneously at the north end of the tracts - lots 19, 20 & 21, which were not required to go to Design Review Committee (DRC) or through the Planning Commission. It was apparent that lot 17 had already been through the process of DRC and Planning Commission approval and the time for any appeal had passed. She said along with Buquets and Jim Ford, they met with Brad Buller to discuss concerns for the remaining lots and how they would be allowed to be developed, at which time they again voiced concerns over the Hillside Ordinance and the need for reduced profiles for all future homes along this street as outlined in the City's development standards. She said many times it references integrity of the hillside and it addresses preservation of views. She said in the meantime lot 12 was already going through the DRC and it wasn't until the Planning Commission meeting on May 26t~ that they were able to express to the Commission that as far as Lynne and her were concerned, this project did not meet those standards. The DRC had requested the applicant investigate lowering the height of the house and noted that it was possible to redesign the project and further reduce the height of the home. She said the applicant chose not to make any changes or submit any information on the committee's request to investigate the idea. The Planning Commission did approve the project because DRC had not required that a design be explored. She said they had not had the opportunity to meet Mike and Wendy Stachowiak, so after the appeal was filed, they were invited to their home to bring them up to date with the process over the last four years. She said they were surprised and could understand their concerns; at that time, Lynne did tell them that dropping the pad 6 to 8 feet would accomplish the goal of a reduced profile and still give them their view and backyard. She commented that the Stachowiaks were not interested in doing that. She said the staff report states that the house satisfied all requirements of the Hillside Development Standard; however, site characteristics state the grades are approximately 24% over most of the lot with significant stepper grades near the south portion. She asked if this is City Council Minutes July 7, 2004 Page 10 true, why was a slope analysis not required to determine the true grade; if an approximation is being used and recognition of steeper grades apparent, then she is not sure a true picture of this lot is being presented. She said the crux of the matter is if this project is approved as is, it will set the standard for the rest of the lot-by-lot developments; if this project is approved as is, without dropping the pad of the home, there will be no reason for the rest of the lots to have a Iow profile. She said they are not expecting anything less than what the City approved along Red Hill Country Club Drive with Iow profile homes showing sometimes roof tops and sometimes not even that. These are expectations and standards that already exist. She said her and Lynne respectfully request that the Council recognize the standard that this project will create and ask that the project be modified to achieve a good solution for this whole area. Councilmember Gutierrez asked Mrs. Massey to what degree is their view impacted. Renee Massey answered that it is not impacted at all at this time. Chuck Buquet, 8725 Camino Predera, referred to a tract map and located where he lives and the lots affected. He said the Red Hill area is an eclectic community but it is a community with some very unique characteristics. He said his concern with respect to what has occurred is that they have been expressing concern about this site even before Concordia owned it. He said they have been working with staff and the development interests that have come through. He said with respect to this property back when the map was done with the Concordia presentation of this project, there was discussion with respect to the slope areas. He said during an appeal, it's a little disheartening to the appellant when the only resolution that is offered is the one that denies the appeal. He said it would be nice to give the impression that there is an opportunity or alternative available that would support what they requested. He said he has Planning Commission minutes from January 24, 2001, whereby it indicates that the planner assigned at that time states that the site has slopes in excess of 30% and indicated that a site with 30% slope could not be developed into current standards and the only way to achieve the development site is to have slopes as steep as 1.5 to 1 and some retaining walls as high as ten feet. He said the Concordia map that had come through with the process had addressed those things. He said there was reference to the April 6, 2004 Design Review comments, item 3, which states, "As part of the grading design, a significant mound (remnant feature of the Camino Predera roadway cut) is proposed to be removed from the front yard area." He said that remnant mound is not really a remnant mound; it's a natural contour of the hill. He said that is an approximate 28.-- something slope going down from that hill down to the bottom of the property. He passed out exhibits. He said Mrs. Massey made reference regarding the slope analysis and variance. He said back when Concordia had to go through a variance process in order to be able to do what they wanted to do and develop in those areas. He said they asked for an opportunity to review and in meetings with the City Planner, he indicated that a variance would be required for this project; when it went before the Planning Commission, there was no requirement for a variance and there was no advertisement for a variance as part of this project approval. He said that issue was raised, and he still does not have an answer to that. He said the other question asked that we review city files with respect to a slope analysis. He said a slope analysis is required when there are slopes in excess of 8%, particularly to determine the exact percentages of that slope as to determine where you can develop and where you can't develop as far as building. He handed to Council excerpts from the City's Development Code, 17.24.030 (D), regarding slope analysis map for the purpose of determining the amount and location of land as it exists. He referenced item no. 3, "The slope profile shall extend far enough from the project site boundary to clearly show impact on adjacent property, at least one hundred fifty feet." He quickly referenced the Hillside Development Ordinance handout materials that referenced the requirements and the last page, indicating the street grade at 1322, curb line and roofline elevation at 1312, which would be 12 feet below the street grade, which is what they worked hard to achieve. He asked that the Council do what the Planning Commission suggested, the DRC, which was to have the applicant evaluate and come up with a way through a combination of pad grade and roof profile, reduce the profile of that house. He said he has not seen that many garages that have a set of windows on the top of the garage in the front, and he would suggest that is not appropriate here, and ask for your consideration. He also requested that the Council ask that the same be done here as Lot City Council Minutes July 7, 2004 Page 11 17, which has a driveway coming on the left side, across the front and into the garage which has allowed them to drop down at least eight feet. Virgil Buckner, 9394 Kempster, Fontana, stated he had been a neighbor of Mike and Wendy Stachowiak for over twenty years. He said he needed for it to be on the record that they are very good people. He said their plans have been changed more than once to try and appease the neighbors; he said he doesn't think the neighbors can be appeased, as they don't want anybody building there and would like to stop that from happening. He said his friends' lives have been put on hold over this issue, and while they have been waiting, the interest rates are climbing, which is costing them more money. He said all they want is the American dream--the inherent right to build a house on their property. He said it seems the existing neighbors would like to impose new standards on these people coming in here; however, these standards weren't imposed on them. He said according to your Planning Commission, these ideas work. They have gone through all the proper channels. He asked that the Council do not impose standards on them that weren't imposed on everyone else that has built in that area. Wendy Staohowiak, 9427 Mango, Fontana, owners of the home at 8045 Camino Predera. She said they bought this lot because it looked like a nice area to live in. She said they liked the schools and liked the community. She didn't know about the Concordia homes, etc. She said her dream home would have been two stories above ground like the others down the street, but in consideration of the neighbors and the third set of plans that they had to submit (as the first were rejected), they put one story of the home underground, leaving only a single story above ground for profile. She said when they went to the Design Review Committee (DRC), there were no changes and no stipulations, so we left it as was. She said DRC mentioned that we might want to push it further down the hill or drop the pitch of the roof. She said a couple of plans were drawn up that showed a different pitch in the roof, but it didn't look right, and they had already dropped it one full story, so they didn't do that. She said the Chairman of the Commission said it looks to him that we were sent mixed messages to begin with, as the house was approved, but we were told to look at these two things and it was suggested maybe if you would like to... She said the Chairman said if he were them, he wouldn't even consider dropping the roof or pushing it down the hill because DRC has already approved it. She said another lady on the Commission asked if we would consider dropping the roofline. She said they would. At the Planning Commission meeting, the front profile of the garage was lowered so it's level with the rest of the house. The Chairman thought that was a very good, win/win situation. The house was tailored to appease the neighbors and yet we were happy at the same time. She said because of the slope of the land, pushing the house further down the hill wouldn't change the roof pitch much; it wouldn't lower the house but maybe a couple of feet and it would lose the whole backyard for the kids. She said there's still enough back yard there now so with a small retaining wall, there is a grass area. She said they tried to work with the neighbors on this; they have gone by all the guidelines that the City has set. She asked that the Council please consider upholding the Planning Commission's decision to let them build this home. She said interest rates are rising, and if they get much higher, they won't be able to afford to live there. She said she would like to be an added member to this community. Mike Stachowiak, 9427 Mango, Fontana, stated his neighbors have said that they have not tried to work with the Planning Commission much at a11. He said they have done this three different times; turned in the first set of plans, and they were rejected; second set of plans were rejected and the third set of plans were accepted. He said they have complied with all the Hillside building codes and regulations, etc. They are at 24 feet on the height line, and they are allowed 30 feet. He said to be asked to push the house further down the hill is unacceptable. He said the plans were designed and accepted and he asks that the Council tonight continue to honor the plans. He said that Mr. Buquet is currently developing two-story townhomes at the bottom of that hill. He said any view that he would have had, he wouldn't have. He said he would only have a view of the back of the new townhomes. Suzanne Buquet, 8725 Camino Predera, stated she wanted to clarify a few things. She said the townhomes that Mike mentioned are not their townhomes; they belong to a client. She referred to City Council Minutes July 7, 2004 Page 12 the tract map. She said Mr. Snyder, the builder of the Mike & Wendy's house, has also purchased three other lots. She said they are concerned because whatever happens to this particular house, which is not personal and is not affecting their view, will set the stage for everything else. She said they did try in good faith and made an offer en the houses across the street from them (vacant lots), but the price that Mr. Snyder paid and then offered to us was almost doubled. She said when someone else made an offer to Concordia on pricing these other lots, it was almost double that price. The said the height limitations for the Hillside Ordinance may be 30 ft, but the CC&R's on this tract limit it to 24 feet. She said this particular house is almost at that level. There being no further response, the public hearing was closed. Mayor Pro Tem Williams asked Mr. Bullet, City Planner, about the requirements for notification to neighbors. Mr. Buller answered that there is not any requirements by code. Mayor Pro Tern Williams stated that the Code needs to be changed. Mayor Pro Tem Williams stated that this really concerns her because it represents what she calls in-fill development, especially on the west side because of the now profitability ef building a single home. She says now when you drive around on the west side, it's starting to look funny. She said there is a big square box with no character, no individuality, no creativity, and for some reason because it's a single family home, one at a time, we supposedly have to let the owner build whatever they want. She said this is bringing this to a head; she said she has been complaining about it for quite some time and she thinks we need to get real serious about sitting down and creating some in-fill guidelines. She said the west side is starting to look funny. She said there is nothing wrong with adding new to old, but not when the new looks so obvious and so different and so out of character to the neighborhood that it is being added to. She said this just struck a nerve with her and it bothers her that we have all these strict rules fer a developer who is putting in a string of homes. She said she remembers working on the Concordia project and it was finally hammered out, it was to be very pleasant and nice looking and keeping with the character of the older style of Red Hill. She said Red Hill is eclectic and there are some homes that she would imagine in the next few years if the profitability stays the same that would literally be torn down and rebuilt. She said this project was hard fought, and standards were set for it, and she is very concerned. She said she is disappointed that our Planning Commission has backed off from what they use to be very strict about, being creative and now especially with Hillside. She said we have all these development standards, all these codes, all these drawings; she asked what is it good for if we are not going to stick to it. She said she has read different minutes that repeatedly say "it meets the standard," "it covers the minimum." She said in Rancho Cucamonga that's never been our byline; we have pounded out some of the finest, most attractive projects in the Inland Empire, and we are proud of them; and the owners, after it's done, are very proud too. She said we have had lots of people tell the DRC (Design Review Committee), '1 don't like your suggestion," "I'm not going to do them," and they've held firm and they do them, and then they turn out with a beautiful project. She said if these minutes are accurate, she's appalled to read that "they did not submit changes requested by the Design Review Committee because they were not acceptable to them." They looked at what the DRC requested, but the clients did not like it. She said to get rid of the Design Review Committee, why bother, why are we doing this. She said it's ridiculous to go through all this. She said it's like Rancho Cucamonga's essence is sliding like sand through her fingers. She said as she drives around town, she is seeing it everywhere. She said these poor people are getting the brunt of my disgruntledness, but what they should have done was gotten an independent architect, walked out to the site and driven around Red Hill. She said there are a lot of driveways that are very steep and the homes are in high demand, se it's not that a steep drive is a detriment completely. She said an architect should have gone out there, and working with these restrictions, sculpted a beautiful home under this hillside. She said from the drawings, it looks like they took a page out of a catalog and tried to carve a house up to make it fit and cover the minimum standards that are required. She said she is really disappointed. She thinks going back to the DRC would be an opportunity to drop that house a little bit. She said there's other ways to drop it besides just cutting off the roof. She said the straight roofline doesn't impress her either, but that's her own problem. She said there City Council Minutes July 7, 2004 Page 13 are ways that it could be dropped or maybe the design could be redone. She said she likes the idea of the private road behind the houses. She thinks that should be researched as to how that could be done, then you don't have along the front piece of the street, garage door after garage door. She thinks it needs to go back to DRC and she thinks the Planning Commission needs to be reminded that there's a slope analysis required, which evidently was not done. She said these are there own rules that they did not follow. Councilmember Kurth said he's always loved the Red Hill area, and it has a lot of character. He said when he drove down Camino Predera to look at the topography and try to understand it better, and when he saw the first three houses, it was almost shocking. He said they are so big, that you feel you are traveling into a canyon. He said he's sure they meet all the requirements, but it didn't seem to fit the neighborhood. He said the development of this hillside has been a difficult area to develop for a long, long time; people have spent a lot of time trying to figure out what is going to fit with the community and meet all the codes and still be a nice place to live. He said it seems that the developer feels that maybe he would rather not meet all those requirements, or can't meet them, so he has chosen to sell off these lots individually. He said it is unfair to the purchasers because now they are stuck with the problems that have never been completely resolved. He said in his opinion it is a matter of aesthetics; he does not think it sets a precedent for every area of Rancho Cucamonga, but in this area, he thinks that the architect can do a better job at designing this house so that it fits better with the community, with the surrounding, existing houses. He said he thinks that the architecture that is developed does need to apply to all the houses because it's all those houses - 10 to 12 - and they need to fit with the neighborhood/existing houses. He said he would support the appeal. He said he feels it's their obligation to do that. Mayor Alexander asked Jim Markman, City Attorney, if there is a slope analysis required and did the Planning Commission, in fact, error. Jim Markman, City Attorney, stated he has not independently verified any of what Mr. Buquet said about percentages; in fact, he has not even had an opportunity to talk to the Planning staff. He said Brad is familiar with that position, so is the City Engineer's Office, so he deferred to them. He said there is a requirement there to get an analysis done if there's a slope of a certain percentage. He said Chuck Buquet could have been talking about the whole project; he does not know what percentage specifically applies to this lot or whether they have looked at that, so he would defer to the Engineer. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that with this project, they required a conceptual grading plan to start with, which did go through grading committee, so they are capable of knowing the slopes, conditions, and there was a map that shows the existing grading conditions on the east and west, north and south of this subject site. He said, in fact, when the original map was approved early in 1981, there was a grading plan that came with that. He said there was no need for a slope analysis because typically that slope analysis calculation is how land development density numbers, range, where it can and where it can't be developed are determined. He said these were all buildable lots that were originally entitled to be built upon. He said he has been here and has seen five/six different projects processed on this same piece of property. He said they have had approvals of homes, or at least Commission approval, that fronted the entire street. He said then they had another developer come in and looked at alternatives. He said it is true the last one came in and came up with this extremely creative idea about putting a private road down; but there was mass discussion on the part of the Commission about whether or not we want these huge retaining walls facing the south, Foothill Blvd., as viewed from down betow. He said there was a lot of concern, but it was still deemed to be a better solution neighborly wise to do that. He said there is nothing legally that we can determine that would require this developer to do a lower drive or private drive concept; that was just one that was worked out, negotiated; he said he has the ability to sell these off independently, and we are then subject to having to review them independently. He said under that review, we have the right to notice neighbors, which we did. He said Mr. Buquet and Mrs. Massey have always indicated to us their interest and so we have been trying to keep them abreast. He said Mr. Buquet even submitted his comments to Design Review, which was how he did not feel that it was within the spirit intent of which should have been the right design for this site. He said the Design Review considered that in their evaluation. He said from staff's opinion, for this specific request, there was not the need and requirement for the slope analysis. He said we had all the technical data necessary. City Council Minutes July 7, 2004 Page 14 Jim Markman, City Attorney, said he would put it a different way; he would say that the data was all there in the file that constituted the equivalent of a slope analysis so it would have been wasteful and expensive to generate another one and put a cover sheet on it to compile the same information. Councilmember Williams stated that the grading plan has been absolute; she asked if there is no change at all to the grading plan whatsoever. Brad Buller, City Planner, answered that the reason for a slope analysis is to look at the original topography of the property--not the intended design of the property. That's where your precise grading plan comes from. Mayor Pro Tem Williams said you already had a grading plan so she is asking if this is the original grading plan and if they are sticking to it exactly. Brad Buller, City Planner, answered, "No." He said there was an original concept grading plan for the tract, which left the lots as they are today. He said it was graded for the streets as they exist, and the lots were left. He said the original base topography hasn't changed, but their design of their product and the way they wanted to put the house on the property did impact and it did change the grading plan, and that is what was submitted and approved and reviewed by the Committee and the Commission. Mayor Pro Tern Williams asked if there's any reason that since the Design Review asked them to do other things, that they just caved or just ignored it. She said she's really disappointed if that's what Design Review is all about. Mayor Pro Tem Williams said she is talking about referring back to the originally approved design for the homes on that street. She said it was long and thought out and an agreement was reached on what the homes on that street should look like, and now that's been thrown away; and one at a time, now you can bring back the very thing that was thrown out. She said, in other words, we're reversing the process. She said she is a little disturbed that Rancho Cucamonga is going to start doing that sort of thing, as we didn't use to do that. Mayor Alexander said if he understands it correctly, the street located on the lower elevation was a tract submittal and not a single individual plan and that's why in fact there is no necessary compliance with that particular lot being located lower, because there is no valid plan for all these houses to be built by Concordia. Brad Bullet confirmed that is correct. Mayor Alexander said they are being sold off individually. He said some of the reasons the standards in Rancho Cucamonga are difficult to adhere to is because the standards are higher to begin with. He said he does think they are meeting the standards. He said he does understand the Buquets and Masseys concerns, and he appreciates that. He said he drove the area twice. He asked if there is a requirement for landscaping also to be dropped in this particular project or could they have grown mature trees. Brad Bullet, City Planner, said there is no condition about limitation of vegetation. Mayor Alexander said there are tons of trees at Red Hill that are completely obscure. He asked the City Attorney if we could establish a standard with respect to vision. He said if people are going through the process, he doesn't think that we're very fair in going back and changing the rules in mid stream; He asked Mr. Markman if we intend on going ahead and dropping this down, can a standard be established like that. Jim Markman, City Attorney, answered that you could do either. He said if you read the Hillside Ordinance, like so many Rancho Cucamonga ordinances, it gives incredible amounts of discretion--first, in this case of the Planning Commission and now the Council. He said if you feel you need to put conditions on this project in a way that meets the values in addition to the minimum standards, you can do it; or, if you don't think that's fair, which he said he can understand why Council wouldn't think it's fair, City Council Minutes July 7, 2004 Page 15 (because it does not give a whole lot of criteria for people that follow in the first instance, because they get to the Council level and something will change), you can change that; you can direct the staff to explicitly deal with this problem and structurally change the standard. He said if you are concerned about view protection, you could even deal with landscaping, trees, anything that blocks lines of sight. He said that is up to the Council. Mayor Alexander stated that he is in favor of denying the appeal. He said we have an issue here where people were lead down a path, accommodating the plans that they needed to accommodate and went farther than they absolutely needed to. He said we have existing people in the area who do have a concern about the whole characteristic of Red Hill and preserving some areas where the entire public can still drive the area and have a view. He said we can for future development look at controlling that and set that standard or that guideline knowing that maybe that's what we want to do. He said he does not feel that if we deny the appeal, and indicate that we are going to establish this, that we're setting a precedent by allowing this to be built; they've already dropped this. He said he does not want to punish people who have jumped through the hoops just because it is going to impact some views. Councilmember Howdyshell asked is it accurate that we don't have any view corridor requirements. Brad Buller, City Planner, respond that that is accurate. Councilmember Howdyshell asked if it's accurate that they have been to the DRC three times. Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated they have been to DRC three times; they have made numerous revisions, not just three times, but they have worked with both staff and Design Review. Jim Markman, City Attorney, stated in answer to the first question, there is nothing in the Hillside Standards that literally says no new construction or foliage or either will block an existing view; however, Chapter 24 is full of value statements about view protection as well as natural contour protection and part of what you have to submit with an application or line of sight diagrams, so there is no question that one of the values for Hillside Protection is protection of views. He said it is up to the Council's discretion. He said you don't have a literal specific standard as Bill said, but you do have the discretionary authority to protect a view if it's demonstrated that a view is going to be disrupted. He said you could do it now; it's not literally and clearly stated to be a development standard. Councilmember Howdyshell said he would imagine that the building of the road down below like the previous developer was going to do is terribly expensive, and he can't imagine somebody wanting to build on a hill and then accepting a requirement to set their house down in a hole. He said he believes that they lowered the profile of the home and he can see reason to use the existing street and not have to have a privately maintained and built street down below with a large retaining wall. He said if the majority of the Council is going to send this back to Planning, we need to be very clear on what's accepted and what's unacceptable with this so that we don't jerk them around any more. Councilmember Gutierrez said he wants Mike and Wendy to be a part of our community, to beat the interest rates, and we want them to be happy with the home. He asked staff if is it true that if he lowered his home further that the townhomes would impede his view, or do we not have enough information right now to know that. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated there are two townhome projects; one has been approved, just west of the flood channel, west of the Albertsons. He said that is probably the project most closely related to this OhO not the one that the Buquets represent as a consultant. He said there is a condominium project approved on that project site. He said it's been approved and they have been trying to pencil it; what they heard two weeks ago is that they may not be able to build the project if it ends up being too expensive and so we may come back with a whole new project on that site. He said at this stage it's been entitled from a standpoint of a land use approval, but they have not gone through any building grading permit process to actually begin the project. City Council Minutes July 7, 2004 Page 16 Councilmember Gutierrez stated then we really don't know to what degree Mike and Wendy's view will be blocked by any future projects in front of them. He said he is familiar with Red Hell as well. He said there are a variety of designs in that neighborhood. He agrees with Mrs. Williams in that it seems that we are getting away from what makes that community and the City in general unique. He said he was on Etiwanda Avenue a couple of days ago and saw a small home that had been there many years, and right up against it on each side are huge, two-story monstrosities; he said the contrast really struck him. He said that Mrs. Williams' fears are consistent with his. He said he feels Red Hill is neglected and thinks we could redo Red Hill, but that's another issue. He said what he wants to see happen is that any new homes built in this development, particularly with this home, meet the community standards for what is adequate vista wise; and if neighbors in the community, which they should have an input, have disagreements on different opinions, they should be listened to. He said he feels bad for what Mike and Wendy have been through. He said he heard comments that were made by the Planning Commission, and that disturbs him. He wants the public to know that the Council is the final word; they make the policy, the law--not the Planning Commission; they follow our lead. He said what we need to do is make sure that we revisit these ordinances--Hillside; line of sight, etc, and make a standard, because it's definitely not clear, and that is not fair to the Stachowiaks. He said he feels badly for them, but we do need to get together to revisit and redo, refine and keep making this community better by having some consistency and making sure that the Planning Commission knows what that consistency is. He said he thinks we need to take the lead there and thinks the Planning Commission takes too much of the lead. He said we are the leaders. Mayor Alexander asked if there is a "line of sight" ordinance that he is not aware of. Councilmember Gutierrez stated he thinks we need to set one (line of sight ordinance). Mayor Alexander stated if we don't have one, how could we enforce it? Gutierrez said we need to develop an idea of what are standards are, as they have been lost over the last several years. Mayor Alexander said if we are going to set a new standard for people who are developing in this community, we must tell them up front rather than have them spend thousands of dollars and go through a process and then it be flushed down the toilet simply because we want to change the rules midstream. He said if we want to go ahead and change the rules, then we better do it beforehand so people know where we're coming from. Mayor Pro Tem Williams stated that it is not at all unfair; if you read these guidelines, and had the guidelines been followed, there would not have been the issue. She read the following from the Hillside Ordinance, "Any significant public vista or view corridor as seen from a secondary collector or major arterial should be protected." She said this may not be considered a secondary street, but it is a very common street for people to drive along just to see the view. She said she wasn't even talking so much about view, she was talking more the view she has looking at the houses; but regardless, she said we have set some guidelines, and she doesn't feel we are changing anything. She said we may need to clarify them, but the guidelines should have been followed more closely. Councilmember Kurth stated this is a difficult issue, and property owners have certain rights, which he is very respectful of. He said he hopes that the owners of this property can find a way to develop a house that they believe can be their dream house. He believes that if we work a little harder at it, we can do a better job, and get a better house for the homeowner as well as for the whole community. Mayor Alexander said he doesn't want to insult the Planning Commission, as they are absolutely one of the best buffers in the world that we have; he said the Planning Commission makes lots of decisions and only when they're appealed de they come here. He said we may never in fact see them nor do we put our seal of approval on them; they go through the Planning Commission, and they are approved at that level. He said if we don't have confidence in the Planning Commission and want to replace them, that's another thing. He said, "Planning Commission, you do a tremendous job." City Council Minutes July 7, 2004 Page 17 RESOLUTION NO. 04-224 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND APPROVING HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00961, A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 3,628 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY HOME ON LOT 12 OF TRACT 10035 IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED AT 8045 CAMINO PREDERA; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0207-631-02. MOTION: Moved by Alexander, seconded by Howdyshe[I to approve the Resolution No. 04-224, upholding the action of the Planning Commission. Motion failed (3-2 with Councilmembers Gutierrez, Williams and Kurth voting against the motion). Brad Buller, City Planner, asked if it is the intent then to defer it back to the Commission with specific direction and should that be included in the resolution. Mayor Pro Tern Williams stated she would like as starters to go back to the Design Review comments, as they had some good suggestions. She said they are hard-working individuals, but she thinks this one was sort of easier to push along because they are a little over worked right now. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated they will prepare a resolution with the condition on that approval of the appeal that it be referred back to design review. Jim Markman, City Attorney, stated that is up to the applicant. He said if this appeal is granted, that's the end of this process. He said what the Council can do when they get this at the next meeting, is instruct the staff that if the applicant wants to stick with that application, save filing fees and do everything all over, modify their application and take whatever direction they took from tonight's council discussion as well as the staff, it can be processed that way. He said the only real relief you can give is to relieve them from having to go through a whole new application. MOTION: Moved by Kurth, seconded by Williams to direct staff to bring back a resolution granting the appeal to the next City Council meeting for consideration. Motion carried 3-2 (Alexander and Howdyshell voted against the motion). II .. PUBLIC HEARINGS I No items Submitted. II I. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS II I1. PRESENTATION ON CODE ENFORCEMENT'S FIRST GRANT FUNDED NEIGHBORHOOD CLEAN-UP DAY - (Oral} City Council Minutes July 7, 2004 Page 18 Presentation by Mark Salazar, Code Enforcement Supervisor and Alison Rowlen, Code Enforcement Officer, gave the oral presentation. [I J. COUNCIL BUSINESS I .Jr. CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMUNITY VOUNDATION AND CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY SERVICES SUBCOMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE ONE NEVV APPOINTMENT TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS Councilmember Gutierrez gave the oral repod. He stated the Community Foundation and City Council Community Services Subcommittee recommends the appointment of Darren Vilardo to the Community Foundation Board of Directors. MOTION: Moved by Gutierrez, seconded by Howdyshell, to approve the appointment of Darren Vilardo to the Community Foundation Board of Directors. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. J2. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE - (Oral) Councilmember Williams talked about the local government-funding package. She said there were enough signatures to get a measure on the ballot to protect local funding. She said the Governor struck a deal with cities, counties and special districts saying give him two more years of takeaways and he will promote a different initiative and will help get the initiative through that there will be no more state takeaways after two years and no more mandates. She said last week they heard that the Governor is beginning to cave on his promise. She said all cities in the state and the counties have had this coalition we've been working on and it kicked it. She said we were told from an insider in the Governor's Office that the Governor said to call it off. She said every legislator that was involved in this was hit with a phone call, fax and e-mail. They were told that the Governor stands beside you and is committed. She said it started to unravel again, and so they went to Sacramento this date and talked to legislators. She reminded them that we were counting on them to support the Governor's first package and are counting on the Governor to support it. She quoted the Mayors of LA and Oakland regarding this issue. She said that $40 billion has been taken from local government in recent years. She said the last they heard is that they are still trying to find a compromise that the League of Cities could be happy with. She said the Governor said he would get this to the Legislature. She said we were lead to believe that if he could not get this through the Legislature, that he would support our initiative. She said our initiative says "no takeaways." She said the Governor's plan says two years of takeaways ($2.5 billion), then no more takeaways. She said now the Governor is saying he won't support our initiative no matter what because he needs that two year's worth. We are saying that he better hold his word here. She encouraged anybody who knows anybody in Sacramento to call them or send an e-mail that cities, counties and special districts need this package passed. She said nobody is taking a leadership role in getting this thing done. Councilmember Kurth thanked Mayor Pro Tern Williams for providing the leadership needed to take our message to Sacramento. He said the League of Cities and Mayor Pro Tem Williams have been organizing this fight at a local level, and Legislator Bob Dutton and our current Senator Jim Brulte have been fighting for us trying to hold the State accountable and not allow them to take our money out of our City coffers. He said Diane is the one at the local level who has been leading the charge, and he wants to publicly thank her. ][ K. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR THE NEXT MEETING K1. Report on extension of flood channel - Bella Vista project. City Council Minutes July 7, 2004 Page 19 L. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS L1. John Lyons re Item G1 (appeal). L2. Hilda Phillips re 4thor July & Red Hill area. L3. Maria J. Perez re exhibit to honor all presidents. L4. Carol Douglas re "Clean-up Day." L5. Mike Stachowiak re G1 (appeal). [ M. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Howdyshell to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 9:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, , Deputy City Clerk Approved: August 18, 2004