Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984/07/18 - Minutes July 18, 1984 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Regular Meeting 1. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City Council met on Wednesday, July 18, 1984 in the Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 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: Acting City Manager and Community Development Director, Jack Lam; Assistant to City Manager, Robert Rizzo; City Clerk, Barefly A. Antbaler; Administrative Analyst, Hark Lorimer; City Engineer, Lloyd Hubbs. Absent: City Manager, Lauren M. Wasserman. Approval of Minutes: None were submitted. 2. ANNOUNCEMENTS 2A. Thursday, July 19, 1984, 7:30 p.m. - PARK DEVELOPMENT COMHISSION, Lions Park Comsmnity Center. 2B. Thursday, July 26, 1984, 7:30 p.m. - ADVISORY COMMISSION, Library meeting room. 2C. Thursday, July 26, 1984, 7:00 p.m. - ADJOURNED CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON CATV, Lions Park Community Center. 2D. Presentation, Jeffery Sceranka, Executive Director of Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce. 2E. Paul Saldana made a presentation of appreciation to Councilman Dahl for his efforts in restoring bus services to Chaffey College from Fontaria for the disabled students. 2F. Floyd Tidwe11, San Bernardino County Undersheriff, presented the Councilmembers with honorary Deputy Sheriff badges. 26, Councilmember Pam Wright presented a report from the Mayors and Councilmenbets Executive Forum held in Monterey July 16-18. 2R. Mr. Lam presented a request from applicant that Consent Calendar item D be continued to August ist. Council concurred. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR 3A. Approval of Warrants, Register No's. 84-07-18 and Payroll ending 6/24/84 for the total amount of $560,640.54. (Previously approved warrants for 6/29/84 in the amount of $269,334,12.) 3B. Alcoholic Beverage Application No. AB 84-17 for On-Sale Beer & Wine Eating Place License, Imkiaz Ahmeo and Anwar All, 8998 Foothill Boulevard. City Council Minutes July 18, 1984 Page 2 (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) 3C. Approval of Tract No. 12386, located on the between Arrow Route and Foothill Boulevard, Company. west side of Vineyard Avenue, submitted by TAG Development RESOLUTION NO. 84-200 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCNO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TRACT MAP NO. 12386 3D. Approval of Parcel Map 8597, located on the east side of Vineyard Avenue, between Ninth Street and Arrow Route, submitted by Lozier Corporation. Item continued to August 1, 1984 meeting. RESOLUTION N0.84-201 (continued to 8-1-84) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAHONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP 8597 3B. Release of Bonds: Tract No. 11144 - located on the west owner, TAG Development. Accept: Maintenance Bond (Road) Release: Faithful Performance Bond (Road) side of Vineyard, north of Arrow; $ 3,350.00 $33,500.00 Monumentation Bond $ 4,300.00 Parcel MaD 7244 - located on Elm Street, south of Foothill owner, Messenger Investment Corp. Release: Faithful Performance Bond $204,000.00 (Road) Boulevard; RESOLUTION NO. 84-202 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IH~ROVEMENTS FOR PARCEL MAP 7244 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COHFLETION FOR THE WORK 3F. Approval of release of landscape bond ($10,000 cash deposit) for DR 83-25, Forcast Mortgage Corporation. All work (landscaping/improvements) has been performed to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 3G. Approval of acceptance of DR 83-10, Bonds and Agreement for construction of street improvements on Rochester Avenue at 8th Street, submitted by Julius Viana. RESOLUTION NO. 84-203 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 83-10 3H. Approval of acceptance of DR 83-21, Bonds and Agreement for construction of street improvements at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Hellman Avenue, submitted by Sickles-Stampley & Associates RESOLUTION NO. 84-204 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANClIO CUCAHONGA, CALIFOENIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 83-21 City Council Minu~es July 18, 1984 Page 3 31. Approval of destruction of obsolete records in Community Development Department. RESOLUTION NO. 84-205 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CITY RECORDS AND DOCUHENTS WHICB ARE NO LONGER REQUIRED AS PROVIDED UNDER GOVERNNENT CODE SECTION 34090 3J. Approval of consideration for a new Agreement with Great Western Savings & Loan for deferred compensation services· 3K. Approval of claim of $899,145 to be submitted to the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) for the Rancho Cucamonga share of Transportation Development Act (TDA) Funds. Funds will be distributed as follows: $283,633 to Omnitrans; $615,512 for Streets and Road Purposes. 3L. Approval of Resolution to the Interstate Commerce Commission concerning the proposed merger of the Santa Fe and Southern Pacific Railroads. RESOLUTION NO. 84-206 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONCERNING THE PROPOSED MERGER OF SANTA FE AND SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROADS AND ELIMINATION OF REDUNDANT TRACKAGE AND UNNECESSARY GRADE CROSSINGS IN THE CITY OF RANClIO CUCAMONGA 3M. Approval of authorization for City Council Cable Television Subcommittee and Assistant to City Manager to attend National League of Cities Telecommunication Seminar, August 17, 1984. 3N. Approval of 1984-85 budget adjustments adding $4,000 for maintenance needs of building and equipment, and adding $4,147 for contractual agreements to MSI for computer software/hardware. 30. Set public hearing for August i, 1984 for appeal of Planning Commission Decision approving conditions placed on Tentative Parcel Map No. 8583, Lucas Land Company. MOTION: Moved by King, seconded by Dahl to approve the Consent Calendar with the deletion of Item D. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. 4. ADVERTISED PUBLIC BEARINGS 4A. APPEAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT 12650 - (This consists of two separate appeals) Appeal by the Deer Creek CO~ANT of the Planning Commission's decision to impose three additional conditions of approval for Tentative Tract 12650. 2. Appeal by Deer Creek HOMEOWNERS of the Planning Commission's decision to approve Tentative Tract 12650. Staff report presented by Rick Gomez, City Planner. Councilman King inquired about the logic behind the removal of the four lots. Mr. Gomez responded that the Planning Commission felt by removing one lot in each of the four tiers, it would allow for the widths in those areas to be enlarged to provide a minimum lot width of 140 feet which was the average lot width within the existing Deer Creek Development. (9) (15 (16) City Council Minutes July 18, 1984 Page 4 Mayor Mikels opened the hearing to those representing the Deer Creek Company and those in agreement with that point. Attention should be focused on the recommendation of the Planning Co~-.ission with comments addressed to the modifications to the tract map as submitted to the Deer Creek Company. Addressing Council were: Michael Vairin, Director of Planning and Administration for the Deer Creek Company, presented background of the origination of Deer Creek, the reasoning behind their appeal, and their intentions for the development of the remaining portion of Deer Creek. It is clearly indicated within the final subdivision report, which is required by the Department of Real Estate, as well as within the CC&l[s that are attached to the property that they could not totally assure that the project would develop as originally designed. Originally it was not anticipated that this project would take as long as it has. They have found over the last seven years prices of the Deer Creek homes have risen by more than $I00,000. In order to hold the line on these rising costs and to continue to provide Rancho Cucamonga with a choice and high quality living, they are faced with two options: (1) build the smaller home on the existing lots, or (2) reduce the lot size and continue building good size homes, ranging from 1800 square feet to 3600 square feet. They are not asking for approval of house designs. They are asking for subdivision approval only. They have appealed three of the conditions for which the Planning Commission attached to the project: Notification of the homeowners, elimination of the four lots, and the requirement that no dwellings be less than 2500 square feet. They are withdrawing their appeal of the notification of the homeowners. They request Council to allow them to retain the four lots. The Planning Commission stated this was done to provide variable lot widths, some up to 140 feet which is 50 feet in excess of the City Code. Also, it is in excess of the existing lot widths in Deer Creek, by as much as 10 feet. Lots being proposed will he in widths in the range of 115 to 120 feet which is 15 to 30 feet greater than City Code. Therefore, they have offered a revised condition which will require them to provide more variation in lot widths without eliminating lots because they do have extra widths in the lots. They have been accused of proposing to build smaller houses on smaller lots. They are reducing the lot size, but still exceeding the minimum City requirement. They are not proposing to design or construct any homes smaller than what currently exists at the Deer Creek community. They want to have as much flexibility in order to develop a customized look. They intend to design and build a new model complex in this phase to be consistent with the Deer Creek project, as well as offer the sale and construction of all existing floor plans currently in Deer Creek. The CC&Rs already prevent them from building less than 1800 square feet and does require a minimum of three car garage. They are requesting City Council to eliminate the condition of the 2500 square foot and have this matter more appropriately addressed when designs of the dwellings are available and the project is revised and reviewed during the design review process. Meeting opened to Chose in support of the appeal by Deer Creek Company. Addressing Council were: Anne Calinsky, 5468 Valinda Street, requested the City Council overturn the Planning Commission's decision concerning the house size minimum and allow the minimum to be 1800 square feet as set forth in the CC&Rs in Deer Creek. Richard Smith, 5481 Valinda Street, stated that the Planning Commission minutes reflect that he was against the Deer Creek Company--he was actually in support of the Deer Creek Company. Both he and his wife feel that what the Deer Creek Company is intending to do with the lots above where everyone is now, will not change the concept. He would be ver~] concerned if they changed the product rather than the lot size. He did not feel thaC i/2 acre lot size would create that much of a problem for the current homeowners or a problem for the resale value. City Council Minutes 3uly 18, 1984 Page 5 Bryce Jones, 105~4 Hilson, expressed support for the Deer Creek Company and requested Council overturn the lot size and the house size. Maxins Wilcox, 10802 Hillside, felt that 1/2 acre lots was large enough. Also, she did not want 100 houses just like her's in the development but would like a variety. There being no further response in support of the Deer Creek Company's appeal, Mayor Mikels opened the hearing to the Homeowners and those in support of their appeal. Addressing Council were: ~illi-,. Van Dyk, legal counsel representing a number of the Deer Creek Homeowners, felt they have lost sight of the real issue. This is not a new project, but is one that has been in the works and has been sold as an existing project. He expressed that he felt the real issue is whether the Deer Creek Company, or any other developer who has received approval and previously subdivided a portion of real property for the purpose of constructing a planned community development, may after the development and sale of over half the planned community, resubdivide the balance of the project without the consent of the homeowners. If so, on what terms and conditions can any such resubdivision occur. Mr. Van Dyk further stated that the interest which the homeowners association has in the present recorded map is in the bridle paths. Under the CC&Rs, the fee title must be conveyed to the association, so there is in fact a contingent future fee interest in those properties which pursuant to Goverment Code Section 66430 requires a consent of each and every homeowner. The Deer Creek Community is a 293 acre planned residential development; it is an existing development; it is not something brought to Council tonight for the first time. Now they want to go back and radically redssign this project, but at the same time would like to retain the benefits of the Deer Creek Community; that is, use their CC&Rs and join their homeowners association. What they want is: To have items 1-3 as set forth on page 7 of the Planning Commission minutes included in the CC&Rs. Pursuant to Sections 66430 that there be consent of all homeowners to the filing of any final map. That the Deer Creek Company contact the Department of Real Estate and advise them of the significant change in their development. Mr. King asked Mr. Van I~yk why he believed that the minimum of 1800 square feet was not appropriate for the new portion? Mr. Van Dyk responded that if you are going to stick with the existing CC&Rs which incorporate by reference all final maps on the property, the size and configuration of the lots are fixed, then lets be compatible with the development which has been going on within the Deer Creek area. In the last two phases the smallest house size was 3370 square feet. OuApril 12th when Deer Creek met with the homeowners, they said they were going to build 2900 to 3600 square foot homes. Then when they went to the Planning Commission, they stated they would like to build 1800 square foot homes. They have to be consistent; the area has to be compatible; growth has to be compatible. If we are going to allow a radical modification of a project, then at least that modification should be restricted in the sense that it be compatible with what is already there. Mr. King asked if Mr. Van Dyk felt the issue of house size should be addressed at a later time when designs and concepts are actually formulated. City Council Minutes July 18, 1984 Page 6 Mr. Van Dyk responded that it is properly before the Council now for the reason that both people and building density must be considered by the Planning Commission and the City Council in terms of reviewing compliance with the General and Specific Plans, It is an issue which must be reviewed at this time. In addition, this is a custom lot subdivision. They do not have to submit any architectural plans at this point in time. Once the tentative map is approved, the approval of the final map is a ministerial task. Failure to attach conditions to that tentative map will preclude from being able to ever have public participation and input by the affected homeowners on the proposed development. Mayor MikeIs asked the City Attorney to respond to the legal issues raised by Mr. Van Dyk. Mr. Dougherty responded that they have been accused of having a conflict of interest in this matter. He stated that over five years ago, they prepared the CC&Rs for the developer although they have not represented the developer for almust five years. He does not believe a conflict exists. Some of the legal issues raise, he would certainly comment on them. However, since the developer does have his own attorney present, he felt he might comment on those issues first. Mr. King inquired specifically about the point regarding the ministerial act. Mr. Dougherty responded that the approval of the final nmp, if the final map is in compliance with all conditions of the approved tentative map, is a ministerial act. Mr. King asked if this means that at a future point in time there would be no right of review in terms of the houses themselves? Mr. Dougherty answered that there would be the ability to have a design review of the houses, but the approval of the tentative map or the final map does not deal with what goes on the lots thomselves other than in general terms. As far as the lot size, the configuration of streets, etc. that would be set. Mr. King asked what power would there be at that time to play with the house size? Mr. Dougherty responded that if the condition regarding the house size is attached, then if at a later point in time they come for a building permit and they are less than what has been permitted, the building permit could be denied. Mr. King asked what if it were not attached at this point in time? They have CC&Rs which say that 1800 square feet, is there any power at a later point in time to attach any specific house size setting a higher minimum? Mr. Dougherty stated only by way of zoning. However, the CC&Rs do provide for annexation of additional phases and future phases, and that the clearance should be under no obligation to develop and/or annex additional real property to the project which would be the addition of future phases. In that case, we can't be assured that the 1800 square feet which presently applies to those developed phases which have been annexed will apply to the future phases unless the existing CC&Rs are annexed in the future phases. Councilwoman Wright inquired about the reference made of the possibility of input regarding the architectural phase of this development. She was under the impression that the Planning Commission placed conditions 1 and 2 because it was a custom lot subdivision and since there would not be a chance for additional review, they were creating a chance by making them come before the Planning Commission for approval of the architectural design and notification of each of the humsowners within Deer Creek. Mr. Dougherty stated conditions was to design review. it appeared that the intent of the Planning Commission's allow the homeowners the input at the time of the precise City Council Minutes July 18, 1984 Page 7 Councilwoman Wright inquired that when they get to that stage after the plans are drawn, floor plans are ready, street themes are ready to come before the Planning Commission, would the public have an opportunity to be heard at that time? Mr. Dougherty stated that in his opinion the public would have to be given notification and would have a right to be heard. Mr. Gomez pointed out that under the zoning regulation there is authority entitling the City to review the architecture, unit size, and location of the units on those lots. At that time we could have the conditions of approval on the design as to the appropriate unit size. Councilwoman Wright asked if the public would have a chance to address the issue at that time and be heard? Mr. Gomez responded they would. Mayor Mikeis continued the public hearing for those who wished to speak in support of the appeal by the homeowners. Addressing Council were: Barbara Balakrishnan, 10856 Hillside, expressed she was absolutely opposed to the project. She could not trust the developer's word as evidenced by what he has taken as a Planning Commission recommendation and incorporated it into a letter to them stating it was his own idea that he would buttess the proposed project up against her house and make it the same width. Dick Card, 10915 Hillside, stated he was against the proposed new remapping of the project. One of the issues which continually pops up is the CC&Rs. ~rhen the CC&Rs vere written, the houses which were built were 1800 square feet. He has heard that approximately 201 are within that size which means that 75-80 percent of the homeowners living there has selected larger houses. Dave Britton, 10920 Beachwood Drive, are definitely opposed to this development. Feels that the builder has a legal and moral obligation to fulfill the project which was originally planned and in the tract map which was included in the CC&Rs. He submitted a tabulation of square footage of the homes in Deer Creek which he had compiled. Bob Glennon, 5675 Canastil, commented on a Deer Creek Brochure which is presented to perspective purchases in that community. The last sentence points out that "this team has taken the Deer Creek idea from inception to completion in the spirit of a great creative adventure destined for success." He felt the real issue was whether the trust that homeowners has placed in this developer has been violated. He commented about the precedent which will be established in the City of Rancho Cucamonga if this development is approved. Because if you can split and redevelop a one acre site what would prevent the next builder from requesting a split of a 1/2 acre site. Patricia Berona, 10918 Hillside, expressed that they felt the Deer Creek Company could not be trusted and asked that the City Council help them to put these things in the CC&Rs so they will have some sort of guarantee that they will be done. If this cannot be done, then deny the map and leave it the way it was. The smaller homes were in the first phase; as you go up the hill the homes get larger. There being no further comments from the Homeowners, Charles Fedalert, attorney for the Deer Creek Company, stated his purpose for being there was in case any questions arose. He addressed the following items mentioned by Mr. Van Dyk pursuant to the suggestion of the city attorney: 1. To the best of his knowledge, Mr. Van Dyk does not represent the homeowners association of Deer Creek. He represents a number of the homeowners, but there are also a number of the homeowners who are in favor of what the Deer Creek Company wants to do. City Council Minutes July 18, 1984 Page 8 2. Another issue pertains to the DRE White Slip, the final subdivision public report. He read a portion of language contained in all of those documents which are required by statute to be given to each purchaser at Deer Creek. 'This is the first (or second) increment of a total project which developed as proposed will consist of six increments and 293 lots. There is no assurance that the total project will be completed as proposed." The reason this was added is that when there is phased development, a developer develops a development in phases for one major reason -- what is marketable and desired by the public at year one may not be marketable or desired by the public at year seven. The Deer Creek Company only wants to build houses within the lot size and building size which currently exists at the Deer Creek Company. They do not want to build houses under 1800 square feet. They would go along with a condition that they are not allowed to build houses under 1800 square feet. There being no further public response, Mayor Mike is closed the public hearing. Councilman King asked Mr. Vairin for the logic behind the 1800 square foot figure proposed by Deer Creek? Mr Vairin answered that the 1800 square foot came voluntarily by the builder. Now it has come to a point where they have two floor plans that currently exist in Deer Creek - one of 1951 square feet and the other of 2356 square feet. They would like to offer those two particular floor plans for sale. Of the total development presently there, there is approximately 20 percent of those homes. They are proposing to develop a new model complex of homes compatible and equal to the last phase. However, if an individual comes in and requests Plan 2 which is 2356 square feet, they would like the opportunity to be able to build this for them. He suggested that if Council was considering making any modifications that you would at least allow them to be able to build at least the same amount that they have in the current development which is 20 percent of the homes to be under the 2500 square foot, but no less than 1800 square feet and a three car garage. Councilman Dahl inquired about a statement in a letter written by Mr. Vairin to the City which states that the proposed lot sizes range from 2900-3600 square feet. Mr. Vairin responded that the reference to that was that when they held the homeowners meetings before the Planning Commission meeting, many individuals asked what were they going to build. They are currently building a floor plan of approximately 2900 square feet. So they showed that as an example. However, they did clarify this in all their representations orally. Unfortunately, they didn't in that letter referred to by Mr. Dahl that they also intend offer for sale the current existing floor plans. Mr. Dahl expressed that these were misleading documents and could see why the homeowners were concerned. Councilwoman Wright asked Mr. Dougharty how binding legally were CC&Rs and what power do they have in court? Mr. Dougherty stated that CC&Rs are legally binding and are enforceable in court. The provisions regarding enforcement are generally spelled out in the CC&Rs. He has not reviewed these with the idea of commenting on the enforcement procedure so he could not answer exactly the mechanism. Councilwoman Wright also asked if it were defined anywhere the city's ability or inability to impose restrictions on CC&Rs. City Council Minutes July 18, 1984 Page 9 Mr. Dougharty responded that in the past with all subdivisions with CC&Rs what we have done is to provide that the CC&Rs will be reviewed by and are acceptable by the City Attorney. He does not recall a situation where we have actually dictated what goes into the CC&Rs. Normally we impose the City conditions and the conditions of approval on the tentative map by design review, by zoning, etc. Normally what we review the CC&Rs for is to see whether or not the enforcement mechanism is there. Generally when we are dealing with areas of private roads, streets, and open space where if the homeowners association for some reason fails to enforce the CC&Rs, then the City would have the ability to assume the enforcement to make sure the private roads, streets, and open space are kept up. Councilwoman Wright inquired if the City was prohibited from the ability to impose restrictions on CC&Rs? Mr. Dougherty responded that CC&Rs are just another way of imposing restrictions on property, and he was not aware of any direct prohibition to cities from imposing restrictions on CC&Rs. However, it is not normally the way a City would go about imposing its restrictions. Mr. Buquet expressed that he hasn't seen a strong, compelling reason as to why we should impose a condition on this development. He felt the developer was cognizant of the concerns of the people. If he should sell the property under consideration then there would be some serious problems because the new owner would be under no obligation to do anything with that property other than develop it to its highest and best use for a profit margin. Councilman Dahl asked Mr. Van Dyk if the Planning Commission's decision was palatable? Mr. Van Dyk responded that what the Planning Commission proposed was an appropriate step in the right direction. Given Deer Creek's past performance, its unwillingness to accept these conditions at this time is evidence of the fact that appropriate steps must also be taken to make certain that these conditions are met by whomever the developer may be. They have reason to believe that Deer Creek's desires are significantly different from the homeowners, and they would like to see those conditions put into the CC&Rs. Councilman Dahl stated that he was not interested in imposing something on the Deer Creek's CC&Rs. In his opinion the CC&Rs are something that is developed between the homeowners association and the Deer Creek Company. Mr. Van Dyk stated that their desire was to have the conditions amended to the extent that three additional conditions may be introduced: (1) that homeowner consent must be secured pursuant to Government Code Section 66430 and (2) that a condition be attached that the Department of Real Estate be given notice of the change in the subdivision and that the homeowners be allowed to have their input on that before the tentative is approved, and (3) to change the four conditions which were laid down to the extent that a condition be added that those conditions be introduced into the CC&Rs. Councilman Dahl stated that he felt the Planning Commission did the right thing. He did, hewever, have a problem with the 2500 square foot minimum considering you have an 1854 square foot housing element within the present tract even though it is in the first phase. He wanted to set an arbitrary figure of 2000 square foot minimum for the upper section. Councilwoman Wright asked if it is possible for someone to come in and purchase this land and ask for a waiver of any of the conditions? Would a public hearing have to take place. Mr. Dougherty responded that it is always possible. Before a condition of a tentative map can be changed, there would have to be an application and a public hearing on that request. Once these conditions are established after a public hearing, they can't be changed without a further public hearing with the appropriate notifications given. City Council Minutes July 18, 1984 Page 10 After further discussion by the Council regarding compatibility, the following motion was made: MOTION: Moved by Dahl, seconded by King to uphold the Planning Coumission's decision and deny both appeals. Discussion continued regarding the minimum square footage of the houses. Both Mr. King and Dahl withdrew their previous motion and made the following motion: MOTION: Moved by King, seconded by Dahl to uphold the Planning Commission's decision, deny both appeals, and to modify No. 4 of Section 2 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 84-45 to read: '~11 future residential units shall be 2500 square feet except that no more than 20 percent of the homes shall be permitted to have a square footage of less than 2500, but no case shall the square footage be below 2356." Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Buquet, Mikeis, Dahl, King NOES: Wright ABSENT: None (is) Mayor Mikels called a recess at 9:40 p.m. with all members of Council present. The meeting reconvened at 9:50 p.m. 4B. REVISIONS TO THE GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT - In accordance with Article 10.6, Section 65580 of the California Government Code, a revision and update to the City Housing Element. Staff report by Otto Kroutil, Senior 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 Resolution No. 84-207. RESOLUTION NO. 84-207 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAHONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEHENT REVISIONS. MOTION: Moved by Buquet, seconded by Dahl to adopt Resolution No. 84-207 approving the Housing Element and the issuance of a Negative Declaration, and to waive full reading. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. 4C. ORDERING THE WORK IN CONNECTION WITH ANNEXATION NO. 4 TO STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 FOR TRACTS 12316. 12316-1. 12317. 12317-1. 12364, 12364-1 AND 12402 - TERRA VISTA. Staff report by Jack Lam, Community Development Director. 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. 84-208. RESOLUTION NO. 84-208 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE WORK IN CONNECTION WITH ANNEXATION NO. 4 TO STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 AND ACCEPTING THE FINAL ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR TRACT NOS. 12316, 12316-1, 12317, 12317-i, 12364, 12364~1 AND 12401 (TERRA VISTA). City Council Minutes July 18, 198~ Page 11 MOTION: Moved by Wright, seconded by King to adopt Resolution No. 84-208 ordering the work in connection with Annexation No. 4 to Street Lighting Maintenance District No. i, and waiving full reading. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. 5- NON-ADVERTISED HEARINGS 5A. AN ANENDMENT TO THE RANCHO CUCANONGA MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING CRITERIA FOR PRIVATE OPEN SPACE CREDIT AGAINST RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION PARK DEDICATION REQUIRENENTS, Staff report by Bill Holley, Community Services Director. After some discussion, Council made a correction to Ordinance No. 195-C, Section 6 as follows: (6). That the minimum open space for which credit will be considered is a minimum of three acres and provides a minimum of four of the elements listed below, or a combination of such, and other recreational improvements that will meet the specific recreation park needs of the future residents of the area: Criteria List A. Children's play apparatus B. Family barbecue picnic area C. Game court area D. Swim pool with adjacent deck and ancilliary facilities E. Recreation Building The subdivider requesting consideration for private open space credit shall, as part of the submittal filing include: (1) Written request for such consideration by the Planning Commission; and (2) Submit detailed plans and specifications for areas and improvements within such proposed private open space. The Planning Commission shall, as an element of the review for private open space credit, solicit comments and recommendations from the Park Development Commission on all such applications, Councilman Dahl expressed opposition to the Ordinance stating that he felt it was a bad ordinance and would be extremely harmful to the City's overall park plan. If a developer is going to build a condominium project and we place a condition on it that he has to have a tot lot and a certain amount of open space within this development, he has to do it. We don't need to give any park credit whatsoever. Therefore, he is totally opposed to this ordinance and recommended that it not be pursued any further, Mayor Mikels opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing Council was: Pam Henry, Chairman of the Park Development Commission, stated this was discussed in order to comply with State law and to try to develop something that would be guidelines at the same time for the Planning Commission. The Park Committee was trying to be fair to developers of all size developments. There being no further response from the public, Mayor Mikels closed the public hearing. City Clerk Authelet read the title of Ordinance No. 105-C. City Council Minutes July 18, 1984 Page 12 (20) ORDINANCE NO. 105-C (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SUBSECTIONS E AND F OF SECTION 16.3 2.030 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATIVE TO PARK AND RECREATIONAL LAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS. MOTION: Moved by Buquet, seconded by King to waive full reading of Ordinance No. 105-C. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. Mayor MikeIs set second reading for August 1, 1984. 6. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS 6A. STATUS REPORT OF MATTERS RELATING TO VECTOR CONTROL CONCERNS AVENUE/HILSON STREET AREA OF THE COMMUNITY. Staff report Community Development Director. IN THE HAVEN by Jack Lam, Councilman Buquet went over a memo sent to him by Gary Richards dated July 18, 1984 regarding a meeting held at the Wheatley residence which was attended by residents, Mr. RiGbards, and himself. At this meeting they tried to explain what has been done to eliminate the fly situation in Alta Loma. Such questions considered were: Are stronger regulations required to resolve this problem? Should the City implement its own vector control? Hill local residents have to file a class action suit in order to violators compliance with current regulations? Some recommendations made were: / force Education of City residents of the fly problems and its causes and sources through the local newspaper and the Grapevine. (Its not just chicken ranches causing the problem. Some other factors are abandoned orchards, dumping garbage) Maintain constant pressure on San Bernardino County Vector Control to be sure problem areas are monitored on a regular basis. Tighten City ordinances and regulations or creating an ordinance that would better regulate the problem. Have County Vector Control Officer educate current Code Enforcement personnel so City personnel could monitor more closely. Monitor the problem to see if a long range requirements are necessary. Addressing Council was Kathy Wheatley, 10345 Poplar Street. She presented the following added information: Spoke with Mr. Stringer, Board of Trustees of Vector Control with new Assessment District they have in Chino. He gave her suggestions on ways to start our own Assessment District. However, it took them four years to establish the Assessment District. He suggested looking into a contract with the County Vector Control; apply for membership in the Heat Valley Vector Control District in Chino (cost would be $9.00/year for single family residence and $16.00/year for commercial or agricultural property. If we requested to join now, it would probably be about June before it was completed); also before the Senate was SB-2162 which will give the voters a chance to pass Emergency Vector Districts; and Federal funds are available for vector control. City Council Minutes July 18, 1984 Page 13 ACTION: Council referred the item to staff to explore the possibilities of formation of our own Vector Control Assessment District, annexation to the West Valley District, explore other solutions, and to investigate the items listed in Mr. Buquet's memo. Mayor MikeIs called a recess at 10:40 p.m. p.m. with all members of Council present). The meeting reconvened at 10:50 6B. CONSIDERATION OF MOBILE HOME PARK MATTERS - The City Council discussed the subject of Mobile Home Park Mediation. Staff report by Mark Lorimer, Administrative Analyst. Councilman King stated that the Subcommittee comprising of himself and Councilwoman Wright held a meeting and have a draft ordinance which they feel is responsible and fair. What they would like to do is to continue the present ordinance for another 60 days in order to give the Subcommittee time to better define and perfect the draft ordinance. Mr. Dougherty recommended that staff draft an urgency ordinance removing the sunset clause in the present ordinance. Mayor Mikels opened the meeting for public hearing to address the procedure which Council had just set. Addressing Council were: Mary Nummergut October i, 1984. by that time. stated the notification of their rent increases comes on She wanted to be sure this ordinance would be in effect Art Greffly asked if it is possible to put a freeze on any rent activity until Council reaches a solution. Lea Hemstry, Alta Laguna Ed Bath, Alta Laguna There being no further public response, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Dougherty stated that he would have an answer available at the next meeting regarding whether Council could establish a freeze on rent activity. MOTION: Moved by King, seconded by Dahl to consider the following: On August 1 - removing the sunset clause in Ordinance No. 148 by urgency measure. 0n August 15 - a new mobilehome ordinance. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. 6C. DONATION OF 6 ACRES OF PARKLAND TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. Staff report by Bill Holley, Community Services Director. MOTION: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Wright to accept the six acres of land donated for parks. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. 6D. CONCEPTU~tL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR VICTORIA WINDROWS PARK. Staff report by Bill Holley, Community Services Director. City Council Minutes July 18, 1984 Page 14 (24) (25) (26) Hayor MikeIs opened the meeting for public input. Addressing Council was: Pam Henry, Chairman of Park Development Commission, stated the Commission did like the Plan and felt it was a good park and school use. There being no further public response, the hearing was closed, MOTION: Moved by King, seconded by Wright to approve the conceptual plan for the Victoria Windrows Park. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. 6E. RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PARK DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION CONCERNING THE NAMING OF CERTAIN PARK FACILITIES WITHIN RANCHO CUCAMONGA. Staff report by Bill Holley, Community Services Director. After some discussion, Council made the following amendments to the Resolution: To change the current name of Deer Creek to the proposed name of Rancho Cucamonga Park· TO consider the name for the present Church Street Park at another time. Council not in agreement to the proposed name of John P. Quimby Park. City Clerk Authelet read the title of Resolution No. 84-209. RESOLUTION NO. 84-209 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, NAMING CERTAIN PARK FACILITIES WITHIN RANCliO CUCAMONGA MOTION: Moved by Buquet, seconded by Wright to adopt Resolution No. 84-209 as amended renaming city parks, and to waive full reading. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. COUNCIL BUSINESS 7A. DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATE FOR LEAGUE ANNUAL CONFERENCE ACTION: Council appointed Councilman Buquet as the delegate Dab1 as the alternate. and Councilman 7B. RHDESIGNATION OF RIVERSIDE AREAS FOR FEDERAL AMBIENT AIR Mikels presented report. COUNTY AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TO ATTAINMENT QUALITY STANDARD FOR NITROGEN DIOXIDE. Hayor City Clerk Authelet read title of Resolution No. 84-210. RESOLUTION NO. 84-210 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING REDESIGNATION OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY AND SAM BERNARDINO COUNTY TO ATTAINMENT AREAS FOR FEDERAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARD FOR NITROGEN DIOXIDE MOTION: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Buquet to adopt Resolution No. 84-210 requesting redesignation of portions of Riverside and San Bernardino County of the South Coast Air Basin to attainment of the federal air quality standard for nitrogen dioxide and waive full reading. Motion carried'unanimously 5-0. City Council Minutes July 18, 1984 Page 15 ADDED ITEMS: Councilman Dahl stated that as far as terms of office for the Park Development Commission, he felt they should draw straws. ACTION: Council concurred with Mr. Dahl's recommendation to let them draw straws for terms of office. Councilman Dahl requested that Council consider changing the dates for the Municipal Election and consolidate with November odd years. ACTION: Council directed staff to return at the next meeting with a report for discussion. 8. ADJOUENMENT MOTION: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Wright to adjourn to a Closed Session not to reconvene this evening, but reconvene on Thursday, July 26, for a CATV Workshop. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. Meeting adjourned at 12:10 a.m. Respectful ly submitted, Beverly A. Authelet City Clerk