Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984/09/19 - Minutes September 19, 1984 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES ReRular MeetinR 1. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga met on Wednesday, September 19, 1984 in the Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road. The meeting was called to order at 8:00 p.m. by Mayor Jon D. Mikels. Present were Councilmembers: Pamela J. Wright, Charles J. Buquet II, Richard M. Dahl, Jeffery King, and Mayor Jon D. MikeIs. Also present were: City Manager, Lauren M. Wasserman; City Attorney, Robert E. Dougherty; City Clerk, Beverly A. Authelet; Assistant to City Manager, Robert Rizzo; Community Development Director, Jack Lam; City Planner, Rick Gomez; Associate Planner, Dan Coleman; City Engineer, Lloyd Hubbs; Community Services Director, Bill Holley; Finance Director, Harry Empey; and City Treasurer, James C. Frost. Approval of Minutes: MOTION: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Wright to approve the August 1, 1984 minutes. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. 2. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS 2A. Thursday, September 20, 1984, 7:30 p.m. - PARK DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, Lions Park Community Center. 2B. Wednesday, September 26, 1984, 7:00 p.m. - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, Lions Park Community Center. 2C. Thursday, September 27, 1984, 7:30 p.m. - ADVISORY COMMISSION, Library meeting room. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR City Treasurer, James Frost, requested item "0" be removed for discussion purposes. 3A. Approval of Warrants, Register No's. 84-09-19 and Payroll ending 9/6/84 for the total amount of $450,508.29. 3B. Forward Claim (CL 84-20) against the City by Aetna Life & Casualty, auto accident on May 9, 1984, at 4th & Archibald. 3C. Approval of Parcel Map 8568, located on the northerly side of Utica Avenue between Civic Center Drive and Aspen Avenue, submitted by Barton Development. RESOLUTION NO. 84-238 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPHOVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 8568 3D. Approval of Parcel Map 7827, Bonds, Agreement and Summarily Vacation, submitted by Calmark Development Corporation for their project located north of Base Line Road and west of Archibald Avenue at Lomita Court. City Council Minutes September 19, 1984 Page 2 (3) RESOLUTION NO. 84-239 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CAJ~IFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 7827, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY (4) RESOLUTION NO. 84-240 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, SUMMARILY ORDERING THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF LOMITA COURT IN CONNECTION WITH PARCEL MAP 7827 (5) 3E. Approval of acceptance of Tract 9321, Bonds and Agreement located on the west side of Sapphire at Highland, submitted by C/L Builders. RESOLUTION NO. 84-241 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCItO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AND FINAL MAP OF TRACT NO. 9321 (6) 3F. Approval of acceptance of Tract 9269, Off-Site Improvements located south of Wilson between Amethyst and Archibald. RESOLUTION NO. 84-242 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 9269 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK (7) 3G. Approval of acceptance of Tract 9351, Off-Site Improvements located on the southwest corner of Banyan and Sapphire. Accept: Maintenance Bond $ 9,250.00 Release: Faithful Performance Bond $92,500.00 RESOLUTION NO. 84-243 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KANCHO CUCANONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 9351 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK (8) 3H. Approval of Improvement Extension Agreement for Tract 11734 located on the northwest corner of Vineyard Avenue and Arrow Route submitted by Cupertino Gardens Patio Homes. RESOLUTION NO. 84-244 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT EXTENSION AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR TRACT 11734 (9) 3I. Approval of award of City Vehicle Bids for 10 utility vehicles from Monte's Chevrolet in Victoryills at $107,105.19 and 2 3/4 ton pick-up trucks from Valley Chevrolet in Pomona at $27,668.78. (10) 3J. Approval of acceptance of a 30-foot Offer of Dedication for Vicara Drive at Carnelian Avenue for Street and Related Purposes. RESOLUTION NO. 84-245 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING A 30-FOOT DEDICATION ON VICARA DRIVE AS OFFERED FOR STREET AND RELATED PURPOSES City Council Minutes September 19, 1984 Page 3 3K. Approval of Real Property Improvement Contract and Lien Agreement, submitted by Elizabeth galvis for DR 83-42, located on Foothill Boulevard and Red Hill Country Club Drive. RESOLUTION NO. 84-246 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING A REAL PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT AND LIEN AGREEMENT FROM ELIZABETH GALVIS FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 83-42 AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO SIGN THE SAHE 3L. Approval of Real Property Improvement Contract and Lien Agreement submitted by Michael and Wanpen Post for property located at 9232 Cottonwood Way. RESOLUTION NO. 84-247 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING A REAL PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT AND LIEN AGREEMENT FROM MICHAEL AND WANPEN POST AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO SIGN SAHE 3M. Approval to designate a portion of Loan Proceeds to the Regional Facilities Fund in the amount of $476,018.83, and authorize partial repayment of $912,960.38 on Loan to the Redevelopmerit Agency. 3N. Approval of 1983-84 Community Development Block Grant and Jobs Bill Grantee Performance Reports. RESOLUTION NO. 84-248 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE 1983-84 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT AND JOBS BILL GRANTHE PERFORMANCE REPORTS AND AUTHORIZING THE MAJOR TO SIGN SAME 30. Approval of recommendation to amend Resolution No. 83-158, Section 4, and forgiving past debt requirement for interest. (City Treasurer, James Frost requested item be removed for discussion). RESOLUTION NO. 83-158A A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A LOAN TO THE RANCMO CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 3P. Set public hearing Condition of Approval 84-32, Barmakian. for October 3, 1984 for appeal of Planning Commission for Env iromnental Assessment and Development Review 3Q. set public hearing for October 17, 1984 for appeal of Planning Commission Decision denying CUP 84-13, Sycamore Investments. MOTION: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Buquet to approve the Consent Calendar with item "O" deleted. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. DISCUSSION OF ITEM "0": Mr. Frost stated that: There were some language concerns with the new Resolution although the auditors agreed with the language as presented with Council. The language does not rescind the existing Resolution, and there is no language indicating a retroactive forgivance of the 12% interest rate. By passing 83-158A as it stands would in effect leave Section 4 existing under the original resolution which is the intent. City Council Minutes September 19, 1984 Page 4 Mr. Frost also stated felt it would not be inappropriate for the City to charge =he Redevelopment Agency some nominal interest fee over a ten year period. Obviously if it were not for the Redevelopment Agency, we would not have the capability of attracting revenue generating businesses. However, we are also talking about a potential loss to the City's general fund of hundreds of thousands of dollars over a ten year period, It would not be inappropriate for the Redevelopment Agency after it gets its indebtedness and obligations out of the way to consider repaying of some nominal interest rate to the City. Mr. Empey, Finance Director, commented that the reason we were asking for the forgiveness of the interest is that increment in the Redevelopment Agency now is non-existent to the extent that any increment that is received by the City passes through for the payment of the tax allocation bond interest and payment on the principal of those bonds. Therefore, there is no increment available to pay interest to the City. What you would be faced with is the .RDA borrowing money from the City only to give it back to the City in the form of an interest payment. In the future, if the City wishes to extract an amount of interest from the Redevelopment Agency that can be developed in future loan procedures or through future loan transactions. Every time an increment flows into the City, there will be an option with any increment which is left over to retire any loans with the City. Mayor Mikeis stated that the RDA is earning interest on that money. It is a policy question if we want that interest to stay in the RDA budget or to stay in the City's general fund where it would have earned interest if it had stayed there. As far as the tax allocation increment that is going there under the current ordinance provided for repayment of that interest had to taken that into account in order to repay the loan with the interest rate stipulated. Hr. Empey stated that we are not talking about interest earned by the loan. We are talking about interest charged to the Redevelopment Agency for the purposes of that loan which at the time the interest rate was established. We could establish a Section of the REsolution to include interest earned by the loan to be returned to the City as a form of payment for having the loan being passed through to the RDA rather than establish rates. Mayor Mikeis stated that we are talking about large sums of money that the City is giving up to the RDA with interest free loans. The question is who is the beneficiary accepting that money, and do we consider it when we make budget decisions and allocation decisions. Mr. Lam commented that the increment that we have flowing through the City we are very protective of because of our commitment under the Owner Participation Agreement for the regional shopping center which has another three years left under that program to have that center constructed. We have certain obligations in terms of tax allocation bond issue. We recognize that foregoing the interest there must be something in return to the City. That is why under the Owner Participation Agreemen=, under the participation formula of that OPA that 10% portion of participation which theoretically can be for an excess of the interest that normally would accrue to the City -- that 10% goes to the City not to the RDA. That poses a possibility that in a three-year period assuming that the regional center does go through, if there is some problem it can be reconsidered after that point in time. In the meantime there is a possibility of greater earnings by the City if the City views the loan to the RDA as an investment in this project. Mayor Mikels suggested that this item be deferred to get a fuller staff report on the policy implications for both the RDA and the City before consideration. Mr. Empey stated that there was a Statement of Indebtedness due with the County on October 1. This whole transaction is built around that Statement of Indebtedness. If this transaction is not completed by October 1, we have to change the Statement of Indebtedness as it is submitted to the County which means the RDA will suffer a loss of $200,000. City Council Minutes September 19, 1984 Page 5 Mayor MikeIs stated that the issue of interest is separate and apart from the interest of the repayment of the loan and reloaning the money back. That can be done and the increment does not have to be jeopardized because of our consideration of Resolution No. 158Awhich includes the interest. This is a policy decision which should not get wrapped up in a quick time commitment to pay the money back and reloan it. It is the purpose of what the indebtedness of the Agency is. These are two separate issues. After further discussion, Council concurred that they should act on the loan procedures now, but address the interest issue at a separate time. Therefore, the Resolution was modified by removing Section 3 in its entirety. MOTION: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Buquet to approved Resolution 83-158A with the deletion of Section 3 which will be brought back later for discussion; and waive full reading of Resolution 83-158A. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. City Clerk Authelet read the title of Resolution No. 83-158A. RESOLUTION NO. 83-158A A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A LOAN TO THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (NOTE: Council chan~ed the order of the Agenda as follows: 4A, 4B, 4C, 6A, 6C, 6B, 4D, 4K, 4F, 6D. The minutes are recorded in the order of the published Agenda. Councilmen Buquet left the meeting at 11:20 p.m.). 4. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS 4A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR CUP 84-06 - HFA ASSOCIATES - Review and consideration of a supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for development of a regional shopping center on 100 acres of land in the Victoria Planned Community to be located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, west of Interstate 15 - APN 227-201-35 and APN 227-211-30. Item continued from September 5, 1984 meeting. Staff report by Jack Lam, Community Development Director. Mayor Mikels opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing Council were: Jeff Sceranka, 6211 Phillips Way, expressed that originally in the Victoria project a lake came down into the regional shopping center. If it is not feasible for the water to come all the way down into the shopping center, then it may be feasible to increase the open space. He felt the parking lot was the dominant feature in the new plan and that the clustering of buildings that was in the original design helped to break up the parking pods 8o that the parking lot did not seem 8o massive and the form so urban. There being no further public response, Mayor MikeIs closed the public hearing. MOTION: Moved by Wright, seconded by King to continue to the public hearing on October 17, 1984. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. 4B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ClIP 84-06 - ItFA ASSOCIATES - Conceptual review of a master plan for the development of a regional shopping center on 100 acres of land in the Victoria Planned Community to be located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, west of Interstate 15 - APN 227-201-35 and APN 227-201-30. Item continued from September 5, 1984 meeting. Staff report by Jack Lam, Community Development Director. Mayor MikeIs opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response, the public hearing was closed. City Council Minutes September 19, 1984 Page 6 MOTION: Moved by King, seconded by Wright to continue to the public hearing on October 17, 1984. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. (20) 4C. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION DENYING TENTATIVE TRACT 12597 - LINCOLN - The development of 200 condominium units (to be rented as apartments) on 11.I1 acres of land in the Medium-High Residential (14-24 du/ac) district, located at the northwest corner of 19th Street and Archibald Avenue - APN 202-101-21 & 22. Staff report by Dan Coleman, Associate Planner. Mayor Mikels opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing Council were: Rand Goldie, attorney representing the present owner of the property, Mrs. Lillian Bennett, urged Council on behalf of the owner who is selling the property to Lincoln for this development to allow the Planning Commission's decision to be reversed and allow the applicant to have met the Planning Commission's concerns by amending their application and as a condition of the approval that there be single family residential type units - one story units along 19th Street Corridor which causes the transition to occur. Chris Funk, representing Lincoln Properties, felt there were two issues: one, whether or not the project satifies applicable provisions of the Code and General Plan. Secondly, the question of whether the project should be judged by standards which have not been adopted. They felt the answer is that the General Plan designation as it now exists and the Development Code provisions as they now exist have to guide Council's judgement for this project. They feel that to do otherwise would be against the State law. Richard Dickerson, from Lincoln Properties, presented a slide program showing the compatibility of this project with the surrounding area Bruce Ann Hahn, 9910 La Vine, expressed concerns about people seeing the apartments from the north -- although she liked the new rendering Lyman Clark, 6444 Malachite, expressed this development wasn't congenial with his property. Joe Hanna, 6715 Jadeits, stated that his basic objection was with the density. He felt it was too high. Jim Kovake, 6739 Teak Way, felt the Planning Commission made the right decision. He encouraged denial of the appeal. Jackie Gardner, 9633 Highland, we should not worry about this because someday there will be a freeway in between her house and this project. There being no further public response, Mayor Mikels closed the public hearing. Councilman Buquet asked staff if the changes presented were what the Planning Commission indicated they wanted of the developer before they would give approval. Mr. Gomez responded that some of the issues have been addressed, but the Commission was also concerned with the land use issue as it dealt with the 19th Street Corridor. Mr. Buquet asked if the plans we are looking at is completely different than what the Planning Commission had available to them. Mr. Gomez pointed out the renderings which the Planning Commission reviewed. He also pointed out the ones which had been prepared after the denial. Councilman Dahl expressed that before he could render a decision, it would have to be sent back to the Planning Commission and Design Review to see what other things needed to be done. City Council Minutes September 19, 1984 Page 7 Mr. Dougherty stated that the matter before Council on an appeal of the Planning Commission denial of the tentative tract map. Resolution No. 84-62 lists findings made by the Planning Commission to support the denial which does not relate to the overall density or to the 19th Street Corridor Study. Findings were related to issues of compatibility, transition of density, and architectural concerns. The Planning Commission was not presented with the plan which has been suggested for Council's consideration. The Subdivision Map Act on an appeal by a subdivider does not make it clear whether the City Council can modify the action of the Planning Commission or whether the options of the City Council are simply to either affirm the appeal or to overrule the appeal. On the other hand under our own ordinance, provides that the Council may sustain, modify, reject, or overrule any recommendation or ruling of the Planning Commission and may make such findings if they are not inconsistent with the provisions of our ordinance or State Subdivision Map Act. Council under our ordinance does have the power to consider the new design which was submitted tonight. You also have the descretion not to do so. Mayor Mikels asked if there could be a denial without prejudice which would allow them to start back at design review instead at the very beginning? Mr. Dougherty stated in the past the Council has upheld an appeal and denied a tentative map but agreed that further filing fees would be waived. It is not allowed by either our ordinance or State law to hold the appeal here and refer it back to the Planning Commission. Councilman Buquet felt this project is one of those which we will see more of. We have someone who has been working on a project for a considerable amount of time. We need to recognize that, but also recognize the zoning through the Corridor. He felt uncomfortable in coming along after the fact and down zoning the property. He felt it might be appropriate to refer the altered plan back to the Planning Commission and Design Review. Councilman Dahl felt there was a lot that could be done to make this an excellent project, but at the same time we must keep within the range of the Corridor Study. Me would like to see this go back to the Planning Commission to make this a good project. Councilman King expressed that the City should be allowed to complete the 19th Street Corridor Study, the Planning Commission decision should be upheld and the appeal denied. Then after the Corridor Study is completed, the developer can with waiver of all fees come back through Design Review. Councilwoman Wright expressed her intention was to deny the appeal but not necessarily jeopardize their position regarding the process. Mr. Dougherty stated that under State law or our ordinance Council has the authority to refer the matter back to the Planning Commission. You have to take an affirmative action either to deny the appeal or Council do the modifications. If the appeal is denied, then Council would have the authority to waive any further filing fees. Mayor Mikels asked the property owner and appellant to respond to this proposed direction. Mr. Coldie, representing the property owner, expressed that the plan had not changed significantly. When Lincoln properties reduced the density along 19th Street, they thought they had met the criteria. The only changes that have been made were in two buildings along 19th Street. He could not speak for Lincoln Properties, but he felt the applicant tried to meet the concerns of the residents, concerns of the 19th Street Corridor Study and reduce density along 19th Street which they did. He urged Council to look at the entire project in this light. Mr. Dahl stated that at the Planning Commission hearing, Lincoln Properties was given the opportunity to determine whether or not they would like to take another look at their project and make changes. The statement was made that they did not want to wait, they wanted a decision then. City Council Minutes September 19, 1984 Page 8 Mr. Funk stated that in regard to the 19th Street Corridor Study and whether the matter should be deferred until after the Study, the applicant responded he felt the decision should be based on what is before the City Council. What Lincoln is saying in tonight's presentation that Council has the duty of determining whether the proposed project complies with the existing law. Not something that might be law in the future. Lincoln did not understand until after the meeting that the only basis of the decision of the Planning Commission was transition of density and the related compatibility issue. This has nothing to do with density. They do not agree in going back to the Planning Cou~nission to have them look at the site plan and density because density was not the basis of the denial. Mr. Dougherty stated that Council has to keep in mind that what was before the Planning Commission and was denied by them. Council does have the discretion to consider modifications if they rule in favor of the appeal. But Council is not legally required to do so. One of the options is to uphold the findings of the Planning Commission. Councilwoman Wright stated that in the Planning Commission's Resolution addressed the transition of density and neighborhood compatibility. She felt Lincoln addressed it on the face of the plan along the 19th Street Corridor. However, there is nothing that states if it were addressed on the face of the Plan that it answers the issue. The transition of density could be addressed on the whole property which could be part of the problem; the whole entire plan not just the face of the plan or what abuts 19th Street. It could also be interpreted for neighborhood compatibility not just that which is on 19th Street, but the entire plan could be incompatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. She believed that they could base their findings on those facts. Mr. Funk stated that what was demonstrated at Planning Commission was just the southern side which was viewed incompatible. There was not a discussion about the freeway corridor being incompatible with the project; there was not a discussion about the east side that has the shopping center being incompatible. The only discussion of incompatibility and transitional density was to the south. This is what the plan addresses. He felt that if Council based a denial on anything other than the basis of the Resolution, it would be inappropriate because it wasn't a basis of denial before, and the density is consistent with the existing law. State law says that is what you have to look at for basis of compatibility not a future law. Mayor Mikele stated he agreed with Councilwoman Wright and that the three points of the Planning Commission leaves room for interpretation. He felt the Planning Commission should further define what their intent was. Mr. Funk stated they did not object to this. But if they do go back, they are concerned that density will be an issue. He simply did not feel that the 19th Street Corridor Study should apply to them. Otherwise, they did not object to going back to the Planning Commission. MOTION: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Buquet prejudice, uphold the findings of the Planning to refile with a waiver of fees. to deny the appeal without Commission, allow the appellant Mr. King asked about the 19th Street Corridor Study. Mr. Dougherty responded that at this time it is true that State law requires that the Council and Planning Commission consider existing policies, standards, and ordinances. However, it is also true that zoning can be changed and general plan designations can be changed even after a final map is recorded which would preclude development of the property. Unless there has been a case within the last six months which changes the rule, the courts have held that no vested right to develop property is acquired until and unless building permits are issued. Previous motion carried unanimously 5-0. City Council Minutes September 19, 1984 Page 9 Mayor Mikels called a recess at 9:50 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:10 p.m. with all members of Council and Staff present. 4D. ORDERING THE WORK IN CONNECTION WITH ANNEXATION NO. 6 TO STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 AND ANNEXATION NO. 4 TO STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2 FOR TRACT NOS. 12530, 12238. 12332-1 AND 12386. Staff report by Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer. Mayor Mikels opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response, the public hearing was closed. City Clerk Authelet read the title of Resolution No. 84-249. RESOLUTION NO. 84-249 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE WORK IN CONNECTION WITH ANNEXATION NO. 6 TO STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 AND ACCEPTING THE FINAL ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR TRACT NOS. 12350, 12238, 12332-i AND 12386 MOTION: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Wright to adopt Resolution No. 84-249 and waive full reading. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Buquet absent). City Clerk Authelet read the title of Resolution No. 84-250. RESOLUTION NO. 84-250 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PaCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE WORK IN CONNECTION WITH ANNEXATION NO 4 TO STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2 AND ACCEPTING THE FINAL ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR TRACT NOS. 12350 AND 12238 MOTION: Moved by Wright, seconded by Dahl to adopt Resolution No, 84-250 and waive full reading. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Buquet absent). (21) (22) 4E. ORDERING THE WORK IN CONNECTION WITH ANNEXATION NO. 19 FOR TRACT NOS. 12386, 12332-1. 12238 AND 12530 TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1. Staff report by Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer. Mayor Mikels opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response, the public hearing was closed. City Clerk Authelet read title of Resolution No. 84-251. RESOLUTION NO. 84-251 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TEE CITY OF RANCltO CUCANONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE WORK IN CONNECTION WITH ANNEXATION NO. 19 TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 AND ACCEPTING THE FINAL ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR TRACT NOS. 12386, 12332-1, 12238 AND 12530 MOTION: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Wright to adopt Resolution No. 84-251 and waive full reading. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Buquet absent). (23) City Council Minutes September 19, 1984 Page 10 (z4) 4F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 84-03 - An amendment to the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, Title 17 of the Municipal Code, amending Chapter 17.08 Residential Districts, regarding residential development standards and, in particular, amendments to the Low-Medium residential development standards. Item continued from September 5, 1984 meeting. Staff report by Dan Coleman, Associate Planner. Mayor Mikels opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response, the public hearing was closed. City Clerk Authelet read the title of Ordinance No. 235. ORDINANCE NO. 235 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ~PPROVING DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 84-03, AMENDING TITLE 17 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, CH~a3TER 17.08, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, REGARDING RESIDENTI~ DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS MOTION: Moved by Dahl, seconded by King to waive full reading of Ordinance No. 235. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Buquet absent). MOTION: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Wright to adopt Ordinance No. 235. Motion carried by following vote: AYES: Wright, Mikeis, Dahl, King NOES: None ANSENT: Buquet No items submitted. 5. NON-AI)VERTISED HEARINGS 6. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS (25) 6A. CHANGE OF MUNICIPAL ELECTION DATE - Item continued from September 5, 1984 meeting. Mayor Hikels opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response, the public hearing was closed. City Clerk Authelet read the title of Ordinance No. 236. ORDINANCE NO. 236 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING THAT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION OF THE CITY OF tha3CHO CUCAMONGA SHALL BE HELD ON THE SAME DAY AS THE STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION, NAMELY, THE FIRST TUESDAY AFTER THE FIRST MONDAY OF NOVEMBER IN EACH EVEN NUMBERED YEAR Councilman King expressed that he was opposed to the election in November of even numbered years. He felt it destroys the focus on local issues, and it will make the cost for the electoral process for the candidates greater. He felt it should be left as is or coincide with other local elections on odd numbered years. MOTION: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Buquet to waive full reading of Ordinance No. 236. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. City Council Minutes September 19, 1984 Page 11 Mayor set second reading of Ordinance No. 236 for October 3, 1984. 6B. ADVISORY COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ON CAMPAIGN FINANCING/CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR'CITY ELECTIONS. Staff report by Robert Rizzo, Assistant to City Manager. Mayor Mikeis opened the meeting for public comment. Addressing Council were: Jim Banks, member of the Citizens Advisory Commission, urging approval of Advisory Commission's recommendations. Jeff Sceranka expressed that there should not be any unidentified contributions. And also felt there was a loophole with the filing requirements of contributions. A lot of people wait until after the deadline to give their contributions just before the election, and then it is reported after the election. People would have been upset if they had known who had contributed. He felt having a list of contributors published before the election was important. James Frost suggested that revisions be made to the sign ordinance to limit the number of signs that could be posted. Along with this, he suggested limitation of mailers. Me also expressed a concern of not showing cumulative earnings for contributions on year-to-year basis. Presently at the end of a calendar year one can close out cumulative contributions from a single source. ACTION: After some discussion, Council concurred and directed the City Attorney to look into expenditure limits further and the current status of the law in this matter. (26) 6C. DISCUSSION OF AMBULANCE MATTERS PERTAINING TO REGULATIONS OF AMBULANCE SERVICE WITHIN TME CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. Staff report by Robert Dougherty, City Attorney. Mayor Mikels opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing Council were: Michael Leight, Attorney representing Canyon Medical Services, 323 Main Street, Seal Beach, stated that he had received a transcript of the last meeting since he was not present at that meeting. As he looked over the transcript, he wondered why this ordinance was before the City. Usually an ordinance is in response to a need; he wondered what the need was. All he could find in the last transcript was a comment by John Lyons stating that "the ordinance was proposed to provide the best level of service as possible." In the absence of specific documented objective fact, he felt this was an area that the City should not enter into. He felt the Council's principal concern should be, "does the City have an actual need for this regulation to create another tier of regulation." Paul Solano, President of West End Medi-Trans, had one difficulty with the definition. He has four vehicles that fall under this regulation. He wanted to be sure there was not an attempt to include the non-emergency wheel chair vans. Dr. Gerald Friedman, one of the principals in Canyon Medical Services, opposed the proposed regulations. Mr. Buquet expressed that Canyon Medical is operating vehicles that are set up as ambulances as emergency vehicles that fall in the CHP inspection guidelines, fall in the State Code as an ambulance, and yet they can't compete in the category of emergency service and want to be exempt from it and still operate as an ambulance on the street. Mr. Dougherty proposed the following language changes: (27) City Council Minutes September 19, 1984 Page 12 To eliminate on page 217 of the agenda, Section 4.1.04 (a)(5) which reads '~ statement of facts to show that the public convenience and necessity require the issuance of a permit to the applicant." To eliminate on page 218 of the agenda, Section 4.1.06(a). Previously he had suggested elimination of Section 4.1.22 on page 224 of the Agenda. Dennis Hansberger, representing Mercy Ambulance, asked if the ordinance being contemplated would establish a set of standards for the operation and performance of ambulance service within the City which all vehicles defined as ambulances would have to meet in order to perform in the City? And that Council was not contemplating a '~eed and necessity clause?" If that is what is being contemplated, then his company can meet those standards. Robert Doughstry recommended that the words, "convenience and necessity," be deleted from Section 4.1.05. If it was Council's desire to regulate ambulance services by providing standards for regulation, and if you wish to accept from those regulations wheel chair vans, etc. then he would have to work on that type of language to accomplish deleting those regulations from other services. The definition of ambulance is all inclusive and would cover those services, but it would be very easy to redraft an ordinance to exclude them should that be the intent of Council. Mr. Buquet expressed that the inspection requirement by the California Highway Patrol which identifies an ambulance as an emergency vehicle and that is why it has to be inspected should be sufficient. Mayor MikeIs stated that any vehicle which is required to be inspected by the CHP as an emergency vehicle would fall under the perview of the ordinance. This would then exclude the operation of Mr. Solano from the provision of the ordinance since his vans do not have to be inspected by the CHP. MOTION: Moved by Buquet, seconded by Dahl to direct the City Attorney to come back on October 3rd with a draft ordinance for consideration addressing the deleted items and the items relating to CHP provisions. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. No items submitted. 7. COUNCIL BUSINESS 8. ADJOUKNMENT MOTION: Moved by Dahl, seconded by King to adjourn. Mot ion unanimously 4-0-1 (Buquet absent). Meeting adjourned at 12:05 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Beverly A. Authelet City Clerk carried