Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981/04/23 - Agenda Packet - SpecialNOTICE AND CALL OF SPECIAL MEETING OF RANCHO CUCAMONEA CITY COUNCIL TO: Members of the City Council Progress Bulletin Daily Report The Sun NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a special meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga will be held on Thursday, April 23, 1981, com- mencing at 4:30 p.m. at the Lion's Park Community Center. Said special meeting shall be for the following purpose: 1. Ado on of Resolution relating to the division of Park Bond un tis. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -53 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PRIORITY PLAN FOR EXPENDITURE UNDER THE PRO- VISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA PARKLANDS ACT OF 1980. 2. Executive Session regarding endin litigation by Mark III and Bob Jensen Builders, Inc. DATED: April 20, 1981 LAUREN M. WASSERMAN City Clerk By: Beverly ut a et, Deputy cc: City Attorney go FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA DENYING DEVELOPER'S APPEAL FROM PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 9441 The appeal of MARK III, a California corporation, from certain of the conditions imposed by Planning Commission upon Tentative Tract Map No. 9441, in connection with the conditional approval thereof, came on for public hearing before the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga at its regular meeting held on April 15, 1981. Petitioner was present through duly authorized representatives and was represented by its attorney, James D. Stroffe of Surr & Heilyer. After a public hearing and after receiving evidence both oral and documentary the City Council, pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act of the State and the Subdivision Ordinance of the City, the Council finds: 1. Notice of the public hearing on the appeal was given in the manner and for the time required by law. 2. The developer's Notice of Appeal was filed on March 7, 1981. 3. As specified in the Notice of Appeal, the Appeal was limited to "the imposition of those conditions set forth in Resolution 81 -20, Section 2, items numbers 2 and 3." 4. The developer did not appeal imposition of standard condition F3 which reads: "Prior to the issuance of a building permit for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to an existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but not be limited to: city beautification fee, park fee, drainage fee, systems development fee, permit and plan checking fees, and school fee." S. The site of Tentative Tract No. 9441 is located entirely within the National Flood Insurance Program's flood overflow area. The westerly and southerly portions are within Zone AO (depth I foot) and Zone A respectively. The remainder of the Tract falls within Zone B. 6. The westerly portion of Tract No. 9441 abutting the Alta Loma Channel is subject to infrequent flood hazards due to overflow, erosion and debris deposition in the event of a major storm until permanent channel and debris retention facilities have been provided. The tract is also subject to infrequent flood hazards due to overflow from accumulated tributary drainage from the north in the event of a major storm. The southerly portion may also be subject to infrequent flood hazards due to overflow from Alta Loma Basin Number 1 in the event of a major storm until such time as the basin is fully excavated. 7. That the construction of the improvements described in Resolution 81 -20, Section 2, item number 3 are reasonable and necessary to protect the westerly portion of Tentative Tract No. 9441 from erosion and from inundation by flood waters. -1- Findings for Tract No. 9441 8. That the dedication requirement appealed from is necessary and proper to provide for the construction of required drainage facilities. 9. In the event Alta Loma Channel adjacent to this Tentative Tract No. 9441 were left in an unlined condition the City Council would be required to find: a. That the westerly portion of the site is not physically suitable for residential development; and b. That the design of the subdivision is likely to cause serious public health problems. 10. Construction of the aforesaid concrete -lined drainage channel is necessary to ensure that the site of the proposed development is reasonably safe from flooding (see Section 4, Ordinance No. 24). 11. Construction of subdivision improvements such as streets, sidewalks and dwelling structures, upon the subject tract, will increase rain water run off therefrom, which, together with the increased rain water run off which will be caused by other development in the area, will increase the danger of flood inundation to and erosion of land adjacent to the Alta Loma Channel downstream (of Tract No. 9441). 12. Construction of a concrete -lined channel the length of the Alta Loma Drainage Channel will substantially reduce or will eliminate the danger from flood inundation and erosion described in Finding Number • 11 above. 13. Adequate provisions for reimbursement have been made to the extent the developer is by the conditions of approval of Tentative Tract No. 9441 required to construct facilities having supplemental capacity. In view of the above Findings, it is the decision of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga that: 1. The appeal is denied. 2. The action of the Planning Commission in conditionally approving Tentative Tract Map No. 9441 is affirmed. AYES: Frost, Mikels, Palombo, Bridge, and Schlosser NOES: None ABSENT: None iMay of i -hi-rte G May r of the .,ity�� - -of Rancho Cucamonga ATTEST: City Clerk -2- FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA DENYING DEVELOPER'S APPEAL FROM PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11609 The appeal of BOB JENSEN BUILDERS, INC., a California corporation, from certain of the conditions imposed by Planning Commission upon Tenta- tive Tract Map No. 11609, in connection with the conditional approval thereof, came on for public hearing before the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga at its regular meeting held on April 15, 1981. Petitioner was present through duly authorized representatives and was represented by its attorney, James D. Stroffe of Surr 8 Hellyer. After a public hearing and after receiving evidence both oral and documentary the City Council, pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act of the State and the Subdivision Ordinance of the City, the Council finds: 1. Notice of the public hearing on the appeal was given in the manner and for the time required by law. 2. The developer's Notice of Appeal was filed on March 9, 1981. 3. As specified in the Notice of Appeal, the Appeal was limited to "the imposition of those conditions set forth in Resolution 81 -19, Section 2, item number 2." 4. The developer did not appeal imposition of standard condition F3 which reads: "Prior to the issuance of a building permit for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to an existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but not be limited to: city beautification fee, park fee, drainage fee, systems development fee, permit and plan checking fees, and school fee." 5. The site of Tentative Tract No. 11609 is located entirely within the National Flood Insurance Program's flood overflow area. The westerly portion is within Zone AO (depth 1 foot). The remainder of the Tract falls within Zone B. 6. The westerly portion of Tract No. 11609 abutting the Alta Loma Channel is subject to infrequent flood hazards due to overflow, erosion and debris deposition in the event of a major storm until permanent channel and debris retention facilities have been provided. The tract is also subject to infrequent flood hazards due to overflow from accumulated tributary drainage from the north in the event of a major storm. 7. That the construction of the improvements described in Resolution 81 -19, Section 2, item 2(a) are reasonable and necessary to protect the westerly portion of Tentative Tract No. 11609 from erosion and from inundation by flood waters. 8. That the dedication requirement appealed from is necessary and proper to provide for the construction of required drainage facilities. a Findings for Tract No. 11609 9. In the event Alta Loma Channel adjacent to this Tentative Tract No. 11609 were left in an unlined condition the City Council would be required to find: a. That the westerly portion of the site is not physically suitable for residential development; and b. That the design of the subdivision is likely to cause serious public health problems. 10. Construction of the aforesaid concrete -lined drainage channel is necessary to ensure that the site of the proposed development is reasonably safe from flooding (see Section 4, Ordinance No. 24). 11. Construction of subdivision improvements such as streets, sidewalks and dwelling structures, upon the subject tract, will increase rain water run off therefrom, which, together with the increased rain water run off which will be caused by other development in the area, will increase the danger of flood inundation to and erosion of land adjacent to the Alta Loma Channel downstream (of Tract No. 11609). 12. Construction of a concrete -lined channel the length of the Alta Loma Drainage Channel will substantially reduce or will eliminate the danger from flood inundation and erosion described in Finding Number 11 above. 13. Construction of the Wilson Avenue crossing of the Alta Loma Drainage Channel is made necessary by the drainage channel improvements referred to herein and the same are reasonable and necessary to provide access to Tentative Tract No. 11609 along and from Wilson Avenue. 14. Adequate provisions for reimbursement have been made to the extent the developer is by the conditions of approval of Tentative Tract No. 11609 required to construct facilities having supplemental capacity. In view of the above Findings, it is the decision of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga that: 1. The appeal is denied. 2. The action of the Planning Coimnission in conditionally approving Tentative Tract Map No. 11609 is affirmed. AYES: Frost, Mikels, Palombo, Bridge, and Schlosser NOES: None ABSENT: None ATTEST: City Clerk -2- Mayor o the Gity o� Rancho ucamonga RESOLUTION NO. 81 -53 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE PRIORITY PLAN FOR EXPENDITURE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA PARKLANDS ACT OF 1980. WHEREAS, the California Parklands Act of 1980 requires that each county shall consult with all cities and districts within the County which are eligible to receive grant funds under provisions of Section 5096.156 of the Act and develop and submit to the State for approval a priority plan for expenditure of the county's allocation; and WHEREAS, said priority plan shall reflect consideration of de- ficiencies within the county in the preservation of historical resources and natural landscapes as well as in the provision of recreational areas and facilities; and WHEREAS, said priority plan shall also reflect regional park or open -space needs as well as community and neighborhood park and recreation needs in any county in which a regional park or open -space district is wholly or partially located; and WHEREAS, the County of San Bernardino has consulted with said cities and districts and has prepared a priority plan for expenditure of the county's allocation which reflects the deficiencies and needs required by the Program and includes expenditures by eligible cities and districts, said priority plan being attached hereto and marked Exhibit "A "; and WHEREAS, said priority plan has been approved by at least fifty percent (50 %) of the cities and districts representing fifty percent (50 %) of the population of the cities and districts within the county. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby support the priority plan for the expenditure of the county's allocation of funds under the California Parklands Act of 1980 as submitted by the County of San Bernardino and marked Exhibit "A "; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to forward a certified copy of this resolution along with Exhibit "A" to the State Department of Parks and Recreation. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 23rd day of April, 1981. AYES: Frost, Mikels, Palombo, and Schlosser NOES: None ABSENT: Bridge Phillip D. Schlosser, Mayor LATTEST: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk EXHIBIT "A" 1980 PARK BOND ACT ALLOCATION Cities Recommended Allocation Adelanto Barstow Big Bear Chino 128,258 Colton 63,658 Fontana 110,749 Grand Terrace 27,079 Loma Linda 33,749 Montclair 72,298 Needles 25,127 Ontario 281,399 Rancho Cucamonga 175,339 Redlands 139,366 Rialto 118,739 San Bernardino 378,485 Upland 150,869 Victorville (includes Parks and 55,072 Recreation Districts) Park Districts Apple Valley 49,306 Barstow 116,441 I Big Bear 31,494 Bloomington 64,349 Cedar Pines Hesperia 74,523 Joshua Tree 25,127 North Fontant Parker Dam Twentynine Palms 58,221 Yucca Valley 55,122 GSA's Chino Glenmeade Lucerne Valley Muscoy Hrightwood Yucaipa 72,540 County 675,207 TOTAL 2,957,490 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM April 21, 1981 TO: City Council FROM: Lauren M. Wasserman City Manager SUBJECT: Bond Act Funding We are pleased to report that a compromise has been reached between the cities and San Bernardino County concerning the Park Bond Act allocation for the coming year. As you may recall, there have been several meetings in which an attempt to resolve the issue has been made. All have been unsuccessful however. The new formula represents a straight compromise between the amount being asked for by the cities and the amount appropriated by the county recommendation. The net result for the City of Rancho Cucamonga is that our allocation will be in- creased by approximately $9,000. The City will be receiving $175,339 for park acquisition and /or development. The important point is that by reaching a compromise we have lost only one month's time rather than a full year. Had a compromise not been reached by May 1, the cities would have been faced with a one year delay in receiving funds. Any gain would have been lost to inflation. At Thursday's Council meeting, we will be asking for a Council Resolution approving the distribution as revised. Copies of the Resolution will be sent to the State. The attached information shows the committee recommended allocation, the County allocation which was recommended, and the revised allocation which represents the new compromise. The important point to remember is that all cities gained somewhat and more importantly we were able to capture the money this year rather than suffer• ing a one year's delay. Also, for you information, we are enclosing a copy of the agenda for our Monday noon meeting. You will note that there are at least fourteen major areas which should be discussed fully by the County and the cities. In order to provide a forum for these discussions, the city representatives and supervisors Townsend and McElwain have concurred.that some sort of regular forum should be reestablishes to provide opportunities for the discussion of problems which affect both the County and the cities. LMW:baa 1 -2o -V, 1980 PARK BOND ACT ALLOCATION Park Districts Apple Valley 16,071 54,159 48,916 Revised Barstow 38,000 Committee County Recommended Cities Population Allocation Allocation Allocation Adelanto 2,114 7,124 6,426 6,775 Barstow Rep. by Park Dist. 3,370 3,040 3,064 Big Bear Rep. by Park Dist. 82,070 74,033 74,623 Chino 40,018 134,861 121,654 128,258 Colton 19,862 66,935 60,380 63,658 Fontana 34,555 116,450 105,047 110,749 Grand Terrace 8,449 28,473 25,684 27,079 Loma Linda 10,530 35,486 32,011 33,749 Montclair 22,558 76,020 68,576 72,298 Needles 4,115 13,868 12,509 13,189 Ontario 87,800 295,886 266,912 281,399 Rancho Cucamonga 54,708 184,366 166,312 175,339 Redlands 43,484 146,541 132,191 139,366 Rialto 37,048 124,852 112,625 118,739 San Bernardino 118,092 397,970 358,999 378,485 Upland 47,073 158,636 143,101 150,869 Victorville (includes Parks 17,183 57,907 52,236 55,072 and Recreation Districts) City Total 547,589 1,845,375 1,664,663 1,755,024 Park Districts Apple Valley 16,071 54,159 48,916 49,306 Barstow 38,000 128,060 115,520 116,441 Big Bear 10,278 34,637 31,245 31,494 Bloomington 21,000 70,770 63,840 64,349 Cedar Pines 1,000 3,370 3,040 3,064 Hesperia 24,353 82,070 74,033 74,623 Joshua Tree 8,200 27,634 24,928 25,127 North Fontana 3,500 11,795 10,640 10,725 Parker Dam 800 2,696 2,432 2,451 Twentynine Palms 19,000 64,030 57,760 58,221 Yucca Valley 17,989 60,623 54,686 55,122 Park District Total 160,191 539,844 487,040 490,923 • 317 963 971 Page 2 889 2,702 2,724 Daggett Revised 437 440 Committee County Recommended 3,134 Population Allocation Allocation Allocation CSA's 1.077 3,274 3,300 CSD Total Chino Glenmeade 5,114 6,066 15,134 15,255 Lucerne Valley 1,800 County 5,327 5,369 Muscoy 5,684 16,821 16,955 Nrightwood 2,441 7,224 7,282 Yucaipa 24,300 81,891 71,911 72,540 CSA Total 39,339 87,957 116,417 117,401 County Service Districts Baker 317 963 971 Big River 889 2,702 2,724 Daggett 144 437 440 Morongo Valley 1,023 3,109 3,134 Newberry Springs 1,278 3,885 3,916 Yermo 1.077 3,274 3,300 CSD Total 5,545 14,370 14,485 Sub -Total 2,287,490 2,377,833 County 484,314 675,000 579,657 Total 2,957,490 2,957,490 2,957,490 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PRIORITY PLAN FOR EXPENDITURE under the provisions of the CALIFORNIA PARKLANDS ACT OF 1980 WHEREAS, the California Parklands Act of 1980 requires that each county shall consult with all cities and districts within the County which are eligible to receive grant funds under provisions of Section 5096.156 of the Act and develop and submit to the State for approval a priority plan for expenditure of the county's allocation; and WHEREAS, said priority plan shall reflect consideration of deficiencies within the county in the preservation of historical resources and natural land- scapes as well as in the provision of recreational areas and facilities; and WHEREAS, said priority plan shall also reflect regional park or open -space needs as well as community and neighborhood park and recreation needs in any county in which a regional park or open -space district is wholly or partially located; and WHEREAS, the County of San Bernardino has consulted with said cities and districts and has prepared a priority plan for expenditure of the county's allocation which reflects the deficiencies and needs required by the Program and includes expenditures by eligible cities and districts, said priority plan being attached hereto and marked Exhibit "A "; WHEREAS, said priority plan has been approved by at least fifty percent (50 %) of the cities and districts representing fifty percent (50 %) of the population of the cities and districts within the county; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this City Council does hereby support the priority plan for the expenditure of the county's allocation of funds under the California Parklands Act of 1980 as submitted by the County of San Bernardino and marked Exhibit "A ", BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to forward a certif led copy of this resolution along with Exhibit "A" to the State Department of Parks and Recreation. MEETING OF SUPERVISORS, MAYORS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS Meeting of Monday, April 20, 1981 A G E N D A I. Bond fund allocation. iI. Composition of Regional Parks Advisory Commission. III. Monthly city managers- CAD meeting. IV. Periodic supervisors - council members meetings. V. Items of mutual concern: 1) Target dates for OCD block grant allocations. 2) Division of tax increment within RDA's. 3) Division of augmentation funds. 4) Allocations of fines and forfeitures. 5) Annexation tax allocations. 6) The independence of LAFCO. 7) CETA allocations. 8) Flood Control Benefit assessment. 9) Contract services costs. 10) Gate fees for refuse disposal services. 11) Support for highway funding. 12) Support for highway routing. li) 0). To, or A,IMN„OG /N !v*uu of IYil11IJ e April 23, 1981 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Special Meeting 1. CALL TO ORDER. A special meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga was held in the Lion's Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, on Thursday, April 23, 1981. The meeting was called to order at 4:42 p.m. by Mayor Phillip D. Schlosser. Present: Councilmen James C. Frost, Jon D. Mikels, Michael A. Palombo, and Mayor Phillip D. Schlosser. Also present: City Manager, Lauren M. Wasserman; City Attorney, Samuel Crowe. Absent: Councilman Arthur H. Bridge. 2. PARK BOND ACT. Mr. Wasserman reported that an agreement had been reached between the cities and the county regarding the distribution of funds generated by the Park Bond Act. It was necessary for the Council to approve a resolution concurring with the dis- tribution of funds. Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Mikels to approve Resolution No. 81 -53 and to waive the entire reading. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Frost, Mikels, Palombo, Schlosser. NOES: None. ABSENT: Bridge. City Clerk Wasserman read the title of Resolution No. 81 -53. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -53 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PRIORITY PLAN FOR EXPENDITURE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA PARKLANDS ACT OF 1980. 3. EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION. The Council adjourned to an executive session at 4:55 p.m. to reconvene. Council- man Bridge arrived at 4:56 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 5:17 p.m. The City Attorney reported to the City Council that there might be a technical error on the agenda in that the findings related to Tracts 9441 and 11609 were not a specifically included item. The City Attorney, however, advised the City Council that he had been in telephonic contact with Mr. James D. Stroffe, attorney for the petitioners, and that he had agreed to waive any defects. Therefore, the City Council could consider the matter. After further discussion and on motion by Palombo and second by Frost and unanimously carried, the City Council made the following findings: FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING DEVELOPER'S APPEAL FROM PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 9441. The appeal of MARK III, a California corporation, from certain of the conditions imposed by Planning Commission upon Tentative Tract Map No. 9441, in connection with the conditional approval thereof, came on for public hearing before the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga at its regular meeting held on April 15, 1981. Petitioner was present through duly authorized representatives and was represented by its attorney, James D. Stroffe of Sort 6 Hellyer. After a public hearing and after receiving evidence both oral and documentary the City Council, pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act of the State and the Subdivision Ordinance of the City, the Council finds: City Council Minutes April 23, 1981 Page 2 1. Notice of the public hearing on the appeal was given in the manner and for the time required by law. 2. The developer's Notice of Appeal was filed on March 7, 1981. 3. As specified in the Notice of Appeal, the Appeal was limited to "the imposition of those conditions set forth in Resolution 81 -20, Section 2, items numbers 2 and 3." 4. The developer did not appeal imposition of standard condition F3 which reads: "Prior to the issuance of a building permit for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to an existing unit(s), the ;nplicant shall pay develop- ment fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but not be limited to: city beautification fee, park fee, drainage fee, systems development fee, permit and plan checking fees, and school fee." 5. The site of Tentative Tract No. 9441 is located entirely within the National Flood Insurance Program's flood overflow area. The westerly and southerly portions are within Zone AO (depth 1 foot) and Zone A respectively. The remainder of the Tract falls within Zone B. 6. The westerly portion of Tract No. 9441 abutting the Alta Loma Channel is subject to infrequent flood hazards due to overflow, erosion and debris deposition in the event of a major storm until permanent channel and debris retention facilities have been provided. The tract is also subject to infrequent flood hazards due to overflow from accumulated tributary drainage from the north in the event of a major storm. The southerly portion may also be subject to infrequent flood hazards due to overflow from Alta Lome Basin Number 1 in the event of a major atom until such time as the basin is fully excavated. 7. That the construction of the improvements described in Resolution No. 81 -20, Section 2, item number 3, are reasonable and necessary to protect the westerly portion of Tentative Tract No. 9441 from erosion and from inundation by flood waters. 8. That the dedication requirement appealed from is necessary and proper to provide for the construction of required drainage facilities. 9. In the event Alta Loma Channel adjacent to this Tentative Tract No. 9441 were left in an unlined condition, the City Council would be required to find: a. That the westerly portion of the site is not physically suitable for residential development; and b. That the design of the subdivision is likely to cause serious public health problems. 10. Construction of the aforesaid concrete -lined drainage channel is necessary to ensure that the site of the proposed development is reasonably safe from flooding (see Section 4, Ordinance No. 24). 11. Construction of subdivision improvements such as streets, sidewalks and dwelling structures, upon the subject tract, will increase rain water run off there- from, which, together with the increased rain water run off which will be caused by other development in the area, will increase the danger of flood inundation to and erosion of land adjacent to the Alta Loma Channel downstream (of Tract No. 9441). 12, Construction of a concrete -lined channel the length of the Alta Loma Drainage Channel will substantially reduce or will eliminate the danger from flood inundation and erosion described in Finding Number 11 above. 13. Adequate provisions for reimbursement have been made to the extent the developer is by the conditions of approval of Tentative Tract No. 9441 required to construct facilities having supplemental capacity. In view of the above Findings, it is the decision of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga that: 1. The appeal is denied, 2. The action of the Planning Commission in conditionally approving Tentative Tract Map No. 9441 is affirmed.