Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996/12/04 - Minutes December 4, 1996 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Regular Meetinn A. CALL TO ORDER A regular mee§ng of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council was held on Wednesday, December 4, 1996, in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. The meeting was called to order at 7:04 p.m. by Mayor William J. Alexander. Present were Councilmembers: Paul Biane, James Curatalo, Rex Gutierrez, Diane Williams, and Mayor William J. Alexander. Also present were: Jack Lam, City Manager; James Markman, City Attorney; Jerry B. Fulwood, Deputy City Manager; Linda D. Daniels, Redevelopment Manager; Cathy Wahlstrom, RDA Analyst; Rick Gomez, Community Development Director; Brad Buller, City Planner; Bob Zetterberg, Integrated Waste Coordinator; Bill Makshanoff, Building Official; Larry Temple, Administra§ve Services Director; Suzanne Ota, Community Sen~ces Manager; Deborah Clark, Library Manager; Duane Baker, Assistant to the City Manager; Chief Dennis Michael, Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District; and Debra J. Adams, City Clerk. B. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS No announcements or presentations were made. C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC C1. Humberto Zarate, 1011'4 Wilson, stated because he is handicapped, he has had to make some modifications to his home. He con~nued by stating the City is requiring him to put in a total of 600 feet of street improvements extending to both sides of his property, and felt he should only have to put in 200 feet of improvements extending to both sides of his property. Mayor Alexander asked for Rick Gomez to meet with him on his concerns. Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, stated he would be happy to do this and would report back to the Council. City Council Minutes December 4, 1996 Page 2 D. CONSENT CALENDAR D1. Approval of Warrants, Register Nos. 11/13/96 and 11/20/96; and Payroll ending 11/14/96 for the total amount of $1,333,343.73. D2. Approval of Summary Vacation of podions of three easements dedicated to the City on Tract Map No. 14365 which infringe on Tract Map No. 15526, located at the southwest corner of Milliken Avenue and Mountain View Drive (APN: 1077-821-53). RESOLUTION NO. 96-168 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF F~ANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, SUMMARILY ORDERING THE VACATION OF PORTIONS OF THREE NON-BUILDABLE EASEMENTS LOCATED WITHIN TRACT 15526 AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MILLIKEN AVENUE AND MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE D3. Approval to award a contract (CO 96-058) for the Rancho Cucamonga Public Library Literacy Program Improvement Project to Lifetime Industries Incorporated, dba Parkwest Construction Company in the amount of $38,170.00 (plus a 10% contingency) to be funded from Account No. 28-4333-9618 (Community Development Block Grant) and Account No. 13-51700 (Redevelopment Agency). D4. Approval to execute a Professional Services Agreement (CO 96-059) for Concept, Design and Construction of the Lions East Environmental Learning Center to Jane Glickman Design in the amount of $200,000, to be funded from Fund 01-4650-9501. D5. Approval to execute Improvement Agreement, Improvement Security and Ordedng the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B and Street Lighting Maintenance Distdct Nos. 1 and 6 for Design Review 96-17, located at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Spruce, submitted by Wohl/Rancho Partners. RESOLUTION NO. 96-169 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR DESIGN REVIEW NO. 96-17, MIMI'S CAFE RESOLUTION NO. 96-170 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 6 FOR DESIGN REVIEW 96-17, MIMI'S CAFE D8. Approval to accept Improvements, Release the Faithful Performance and Labor and Matedal Bond, and file a Notice of Completion for DR 94-21, located on the east side of Toronto Avenue, north of Seventh Street. Release: Faithful Performance Bond #P2433510 $ 36,200.00 Labor and Material Bond #P2433510 18,100.00 City Council Minutes December 4, 1996 Page 3 RESOLUTION NO. 96-171 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE IMPROVEMENTS FOR DR 94-21, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF TORONTO AVENUE, NORTH OF SEVENTH STREET, AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK D7. Approval to accept the Jersey Boulevard Storm Drain and Street Improvements, from Haven Avenue east to the Railroad Spur, Contract No. 96-040, as complete, release the bonds and authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion and approve the final contact amount of $522,836.56. RESOLUTION NO. 96-172 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR JERSEY BOULEVARD STORM DRAIN AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS, FROM HAVEN AVENUE EAST TO THE RAILROAD SPUR, CONTRACT NO. 96-040 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Gutierrez to approve the staff recommendations in the staff reports contained in the Consent Calendar. Motion carded unanimously, 5-0. E. CONSENT ORDINANCES El. CONSIDERATION OFAN ORDINANCEFOR THE RECOVERY OF COSTSFOR SECOND POLICE RESPONSES TO PARTIES Councilmember Gutierrez removed Item E1 for discussion by asking if officers can go to a party on the first response and give them a written notice. Duane Baker, Assistant to the City Manager, stated the officers basically do this now which helps to keep track of these problems. Matt Dedynski asked if the officer leaves a copy of the Ordinance with the resident having the party when they make their initial call. Duane Baker, Assistant to the City Manager, stated they will not have the Ordinance available to leave, but will explain what the process is as it relates to the Ordinance. Debra J. Adams, City Clerk, read the title of Ordinance No. 561. ORDINANCE NO. 561 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 9.32 TO TITLE 9 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO THE RECOVERY OF COSTS FOR SECOND RESPONSES BY POLICE TO PARTIES AND OTHER ASSEMBLAGES City Council Minutes December 4, 1996 Page 4 MOTION: Moved by Gutierrez, seconded by Biane to waive full reading and approve Ordinance No. 561. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. E2. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 95-02 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC - A request to amend the Development District Map designation from Industrial Area Specific Plan to Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for 82 acres of land at the intersection of Fourth Street and the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel bordered by Sixth Street on the north, and the City will also consider an alternative designation of Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre). APN: 210-062-02, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 26, 32 and 33. W~h this application the City will also consider amending the Industrial Area Specific Plan designation to alternative land uses for the remaining land bounded by Sixth Street on the north, Archibald Avenue on the east, Fourth Street on the south, and Hellman Avenue and the Cucamonga Creek on the west as follows: 1. For approximately 15 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Sixth Street and Hellman Avenue and bordered on the west by the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel the City will consider Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) or Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as alternative land uses. APN: 210-062-05, 06, and 39. 2. For approximately 45 acres of land bordered by Sixth Street on the north, Archibald Avenue on the east, and Fourth Street on the south the City will consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre), Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre), Commercial Neighborhood Commercial and Office as alternative land uses. APN: 210-062-08,k 10, 11, 13, 28, 31 and 34. Debra J. Adams, City Clerk, read the title of Ordinance No. 564. ORDINANCE NO. 564 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 95-02, CHANGING THE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS MAP FROM INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, SUBAREA 16, INDUSTRIAL PARK TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR 97 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF SIXTH STREET, NORTH OF FOURTH STREET, AND EAST OF HELLMAN AVENUE AND THE CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 210-062-02, 05, 06, 11,13, 17, 18, 19, 26, 32, 33, AND 39 MOTION: Moved by Biane, seconded by Curatalo to waive full reading and approve Ordinance No. 564. Motion carried, 4-1 0Nilliams voted no). E3. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 95-04 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC - A request to remove 82 acres of land at the intersection of Fourth Street and the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel bordered by Sixth Street on the north, from the Industrial Area Specific Plan for the purposes of rezoning the land to Development Code Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre). APN: 210-062-02, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 26, 32, and 33. City Council Minutes December 4, 1996 Page 5 VV'~h this application the City will also consider amending the Industrial Area Specific Plan, Subarea 16 to alternative land uses and amending development standards for the remaining land bounded by Sixth Street on the north, Archibald Avenue on the east, Fourth Street on the south, and Hellman Avenue and the Cucamonga Creek on the west as follows: Removing approximately 15 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Sixth Street and Hellman Avenue and bordered on the west by the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel from the Industrial Area Specific Plan for the purposes of re-zoning the land to Development Code Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling unils per acre) or Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as alternative land uses. APN: 210-062-05, 06, and 39. Removing approximately 45 acres of land bordered by Sixth Street on the north, Archibald Avenue on the east and Fourth Street on the south from the Industrial Area Specific Plan for the purpose of considering Development Code Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre), Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre), Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial, and Office as alternative land uses. APN: 210-062-08, 10, 11, 13, 28, 31, and 34. Consider changing the development standards and land use activities for Subarea 16 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. Debra J. Adams, City Clerk, read the title of Ordinance No. 565. ORDINANCE NO. 565 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 95-04, TO DELETE 97 ACRES OF LAND FROM SUBAREA 16 OF THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF SIXTH STREET, NORTH OF FOURTH STREET, AND EAST OF HELLMAN AVENUE AND THE CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL, AND AMENDING THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SUBAREA 16, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 210-062-02, 05, 06, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 26, 32, 33, AND 39 MOTION: Moved by Gutierrez, seconded by Curatalo to waive full reading and approve Ordinance No. 565. Motion carried, 4-1 (Williams voted no). E4. CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO ESTABLISH A SPEED LIMIT OF 50 MPH ON MILLIKEN AVENUE FROM 4TH STREET TO BANYAN STREET, A SPEED LIMIT OF 40 MPH ON BASE LINE ROAD FROM SPRUCE AVENUE TO EAST CITY LIMIT AND A SPEED LIMIT OF 45 MPH ON ROCHESTER AVENUE FROM BASE LINE ROAD TO BANYAN STREET Debra J. Adams, City Clerk, read the title of Ordinance No. 566. ORDINANCE NO. 566 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 10.20.020 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY CODE REGARDING PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS ON CERTAIN CITY STREETS MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Biane to waive full reading and approve Ordinance No. 566. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. City Council Minutes December 4, 1996 Page 6 No items were submitted. F. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS No items were submitted. G. PUBLIC HEARINGS No items were submitted. H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS I. COUNCIL BUSINESS I1. DISCUSSION OF DAY LABORER ISSUE (Oral) Councilmember Gutierrez stated he and Councilmember Curatalo along with Captain Ron Bieberdorf and other staff met to discuss this issue. They concluded that more monitoring should be done near Grove at Arrow whenever possible. They felt they should put information in the Grapevine and Channel 3 about the Ordinance regulating Day Laborers. He stated they felt they should post a sign to this effect on the corner of Grove and Arrow. He stated a letter has been sent to the City of Upland reminding them of the Day Laborer problem and suggested they beef up their patrol for this area also. He stated he and Councilmember Curatalo did have sympathy for those residents in that area that have to put up with this problem. Councilmember Curatalo felt this was a good step forward to not only help at this location, but City-wide also. ACTION: Per direction from Subcommittee, items identified have been implemented. 12. DISCUSSION OF DE BERRARD PROPERTY (Oral) Coundlmember Biane stated after the last meeting there were issues brought up by Mr. DeBerrard and felt this should be referred to the Planning Commission to reconsider his property. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the Council can direct staff to initiate an amendment and then they would proceed to open this up with the Planning Commission and bring a report back to the City Council with a recommendation. He stated another option would be for this Council by minute action to agree to initiate such an amendment, and then it would be incumbent upon the applicant to actually file for and process the amendment to expand the degree of acreage allowable for commercial. He reiterated by stating Council can initiate it and staff undertake the process for advertising and noticing, or ask the applicant if he wishes to proceed forward with it. He clarified that they are talking about changing the designation of five acres of something to a greater size. City Council Minutes December 4, 1996 Page 7 Mayor Alexander stated he would like to see this go back to the Planning Commission, but did not want to see any other fees placed on the DeBerrards. Councilmember Biane stated he would agree with Mayor Alexander to return this to the Planning Commission. MOTION: Moved by Biane, seconded by Alexander to refer this back to the Planning Commission to reconsider. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. 13. DISCUSSION OF THE ROLE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION AND THE CITY COUNCIL (Oral) Councilmember Gutierrez stated he was contacted by the Chairman of the Rancho Cucamonga Community Founda~on and that they would like to meet with the City Council Subcommittee for the Foundation to discuss the Library Foundation because he was not aware of the existence of the Library Foundation. He stated the Foundation Chair wondered if there was enough work for both Foundations to do. He stated Mr. Dutton was wondering what the goals of the Community Foundation should be. He suggested he and Councilmember Williams get together with Bob Dutton to address some of his concerns. Councilmember Williams felt it might be better if the Library Foundation Subcommittee of Councilmembers Gutierrez and Biane meet with Mr. Dutton. Councilmember Gutierrez stated that would be fine, and if they needed to, they would bring back any information to the entire Council. Councilmember Williams also suggested that the entire Council meet with the Foundation in the spring. 14. DISCUSSION OF TERMS OF OFFICE FOR PLANNING AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSIONS Councilmember Biane stated he put this on the agenda to try to put distance between the Planning Commission and politics. He stated Brad Buller has some information to present and that he would like to go back to where the appointments were in the past, Brad Buller, City Planner, displayed a graph (which is on file in the City Clerk's office). He stated the current Ordinance reads that at every election, Planning Commission appointments will occur following that election. He stated in November 1993, the Council seated at that time through minute action, extended some of the terms of the Commissioners and appointed two new Commissioners. He stated at that time they said the terms would run from July to July. He stated they had Commissioner Melcher and Tolstoy, who had two year terms, concluding their terms in July 1996. He stated Commissioners Barker, McNiel and Lumpp had their terms concluding in July 1998. He reiterated this was by minute action. He stated Commissioner Lumpp left and Commissioner Tolstoy was put in his position to complete his term. He stated they then had Commissioners Barker, McNiel and Lumpp by minute action have their terms end in July 1998. He stated per the current Ordinance, the appointments were to be in January 1997 and January 1999. He added that Commissioners Bethel and Macias were appointed by the July date, and that their terms are, as it stands right now, to be July 2000. He stated he agrees with Councilmember Biane that there is some confusion with all of this, and with the Council's direction, staff will take whatever the Council wants and put it in Ordinance form and follow it from then on. City Council Minutes December 4, 1996 Page 8 James Markman, City Attorney, stated the advice offered to the Council in the past is that the Commissioners sit in their office until their successors are appointed. He stated there are three Commissioners with their terms due in January 1997 and two in January 1999. He stated he does not want the Council to take a minute action to extend the Planning Commission terms. He stated three terms are due up in January, but if the Council wants to do something else, they need to correct this through an Ordinance. He stated if they want to, they can leave the Ordinance as is, and start the process to pick new Commissioners now. Councilmember Curatalo asked what would be wrong with extending the Planning Commission terms for one year. Councilmember Biane stated there is nothing wrong with that, but felt after someone is elected they have to, asthe Ordinance now reads, pick two or three new Commissioners within a couple of months. He stated you may have up to three new Councilmembers to select Planning Commissioners for the next two years. Councilmember Curatalo stated he did not want to shorten their terms, but had no problem extending it one year. James Markman, City Attorney, stated if someone were to ask what staff should do right now, they would advise to advertise three Commission positions. He stated if the Council wants to direct them to do something different, like prepare an Ordinance for this to occur on an off year, they could do this. Mayor Alexander felt if this were changed to January 1998 it would really take this out of the political arena. Councilmember Gutierrez stated he has no preference, but that he is disappointed that we did not know what we were doing prior to this. Councilmember Williams suggested a staff report with all of the City Attorney's information in it come back to the Council. Mayor Alexander felt it should be looked at and agreed with Councilmember Williams. James Markman, City Attorney, stated if an appointment process is not started, then the existing Commissioners will remain in office. Jack Lam, City Manager, pointed out the reason the Council did what they did in 1993 was because it was at a time when the City reorganized all of their Commissions, and because of this they had all of the Commissioners resign to go through a selection on this reorganization. They wanted to allow enough time to do this so it ended up being in July. They wanted to be fair to the people that were appointed so they could be given full terms and not mini-terms so that is why they came up with what we have today. He stated staff was not directed to change the Ordinance, but used this extension process and that is what has been followed since. James Markman, City Attorney, stated they will bring a staff report and two ordinances back to the Council at their next meeting for them to consider which option they prefer. Councilmember Biane stated he would like for this same timeline presented tonight to be included in the report for the next meeting. J. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING J1. Mayor Alexander stated he would like to discuss forming a Task Force to review the Central Park property to see if they can get something going on this. City Council Minutes December 4, 1996 Page 9 Councilmember Williams felt the Route 30 Task Force was very successful and hoped that the same results could come about by doing this same thing for Central Park. K. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC K1. Gary Kendrick asked for Councilmembers Gutierrez and Biane to put the utility tax back on the agenda for the Council to vote to put it on the ballot. He stated he expected the Council to do this so the people could vote on this matter. He stated he agreed with the Central Park idea and wondered where the funding will come from for it. He stated he felt all Commission appointments were political and did not think this can be changed to get politics out of it completely. Councilmember Gutierrez stated he and Councilmember Biane did win the election and that they beat Mr. Kenddck, Mr. Barker and everyone else, but that they can't make decisions in a span of two weeks, that there are so many big issues coming up. He stated they are getting to all of the issues as fast as they can and are getting to their promises. Councilmember Biane stated he felt Mr. Kendrick is being unfair because he is being advised by his City Attorney, and that just because a citizen makes a request of the Council, he needs to refer to Mr. Markman before making a decision. He stated he did not appreciate being accused of not keeping campaign promises. He stated there is not one that he hasn~ kept and that he hasn't backed down from the utility tax. He stated he wishes Mr. Kendrick would let them do their best job by being advised by legal counsel. Fred Deaux, 11036 Shaw, felt the current Planning Commission, whose terms are due to expire, have more time with the City than Councilmembers Biane or Gutierrez, and had a lot more experience as well. He stated he was disappointed with the political retribution involved, and did not see any reason to change terms because of the good service they provide to the City. He felt their terms should be lengthened, not shortened. K3. John Holt stated he noticed a large area on Foothill and the 1-15 Freeway for a Regional Shopping Center. He felt there have been some poor decisions made on this subject and felt the Council should rediscuss it. K4. Councilmember Gutierrez pointed out for those that were not present at the 6:00 p.m. special meeting that Councilmember Williams was appointed as Mayor Pro Tem. K5. James Markman, City Attorney, stated he did not advise the Council to "slip" in a tax on the people without a vote that he or any other City Attorney thought needed to be voted on. He added Rancho Cucamonga moved on a tax after there was a Court of Appeals opinion that said along with cases dating back 60 years, that Proposition 62 was an illegal requirement to refer a tax measure to a referendum contrary to the California Constitution. He stated in reaction to this, the Jarvis people started a process, what we now call Prop 218, because they felt that Court was dght. He stated maybe two or three years after that decision came down, and probably five years after Prop 62, the u~lity tax was suggested in Rancho Cucamonga, and other tax measures, hundreds of them, were adopted all over the State of California, relying on the Court of Appeals in that case. He added that years later, around December 1994 or 1995, along came the Guardino decision that absolutely flabbergasted everyone, reversed the Court of Appeals and 60 years of precedent, that said it is acceptable to require a tax to be submitted to the voters before it is valid. He stated the question immediately arose about what happens to all of the taxes that were enacted based upon that case, five to seven years before any tax enacted after Prop 62. He stated the question was if that Court case was going to be retroactive. He stated there is a ton of law that states it should not be retroactive. He stated this decision is being processed right now in a case involving Butte County, and that nobody knows the answer to this. He stated when a City adopts legislation, tax ordinance, or any other ordinance, the law says you only have three years to attack its validity. City Council Minutes December 4, 1996 Page 10 He stated this was asserted by the City of La Habra as one of the defenses to the Jarvis people attacking its utility tax, and that so far the Courts have held that as a good defense. He stated whether or not the Council wanIs to do this or not as a matter of policy, the City has two defenses he has just cited as to why the utility user tax is valid and was valid in the City of Rancho Cucamonga and need not be submitted to a vote of the people. He stated the California Supreme Court may decide differently on this at some point. He stated without retroactivity, Rancho Cucamonga's utility tax is just as valid as any tax ever enacted by any municipality in the State of California. He stated Prop 218 indicates any tax enacted after January 1,1995 must be submitted to the voters within two years. It also says it cannot be submitted to the voters except at an election where you pick your City Council members. The point being, if you're going to raise a tax in a City or ratify a tax, do it at the same time you elect a Councilman. Please note that does not include taxes enacted prior to January 1, 1995. He stated the obvious implication is that Prop 218 says the Guardino case was not retroactive as to taxes enacted prior to January 1, 1995, which is a third defense that can be asserted. He stated some cities can do it if you declare an emergency financial situation, you may hold such election at an earlier time than at the time you hold your Council election. He stated the Council would have to legitimately adopt a Resolution stating there is an emergency financial situation requiring them to hold that election so you can raise more taxes. He pointed out all the Council is trying to do is follow the advice of the City Attorney. He stated the Council is not trying to hide behind advice. L. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Biane to adjourn to Executive Session to discuss (A) Property Negotiations per Government Code Section 54956.8 for property located on Rochester, between Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route; Valley Baseball and Jerry B. Fulwood, Deputy City Manager, negotiating parlies; regarding terms of payment; and (B) Personnel Matters per Government Code 54957 regarding Performance Evaluation of City Manager. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. During Executive Session the Council approved unanimously, 5-0, to execute Amendment No. 11 to Contract 92-084 with Valley Baseball. ~~y submitted, ~Debra J.A~ s,'CM~ City Clerk Approved: January 15, 1997