Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982/03/17 - Minutes March 17, 1982 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINYTES Regular Meeting 1. CALL TO ORDER. ~e regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga was held in the Lion's Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road on Wednesday, March 17, 1982. The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Mayor Phillip D. Schlosser. Girl Scouts from Troop No. 1130 led the pledge of allegiance to the flag. Present were: City Council Members: Jon D. Mikels, James C. Frost, Michael A. Palombo, and Arthur H. Bridge. Also present were: City Manager, Lauren M. Wasserman; Assistant City Attorney, Edward A. Hopson; Assistant City Manager, Jim Robinson; Community Development Director, Jack Lam; City Engineer, Lloyd Hubbs; Finance Director, Harry Empey; and Community Services Director, Bill Holley. Approval of Minutes: Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Frost to approve the minutes of February 3, 1982. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. 2. ANNOUNCEMENTS. a. Mayor Schlosser presented a Proclamation to the Girl Scouts in recognition of Girl Scout Week, March 7-13, 1982. b. City Manager, Lauren Wasserman, requested that consent calendar item "f" be removed from the Consent Calendar. c. Mr. Wasserman requested that Council set a date for a Redevelopment Meeting for the purpose of extending the statute of limitations for the County. Council set Monday, March 22, 1982 at 7:30 a.m. in the City Offices, 9320 Base Line Road, Suite C. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR. a. Approval of Warrants, Register No. 82-3-17 in the amount of $309,249.66. b. Forward Claim against the City by Deborah Ann Raines to the city attorney for handling. c. Forward Claim against the City by Helga E. Scovel; Steven Marc Scovel, Heidi (2) Kathleen Scovel to the city attorney for handling. d. Forward Claim against the City by Timothy Craig Thornbury to the city attorney (3) for handling. e. Forward Claim against the City by Joseph Meluso to the city attorney for handling. (4) ~--Appeeve½-e~-A~eemenes-be~ween-Renehe-Re~eve½e~men~-A~eney_~n~_~e~_~e~ (5) agene~e~-w~eh~n-~be-~e~eve½e~men~-~eaT--~g~eemen~-~ve-~een-e~eveH-~y-~½~-Re-- Heve~pmene-Ageney~ Item removed. R~SO~W~ON-NO~-~-4~ item removed g. Acceptance of Improvement Agreement and Security for CUP 81-15 - Larry Beck: (6) located at the northeast corner of Haven and Jersey Avenues. City C~uncil Minutes March 17, 1982 PaLe 2 (7) (8) (9) (lo) (ll) RESOLUTION NO. 82-51 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVE- MENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR CON- DITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-15. h. Acceptance of Bonds and Agreements for Parcel Map 6005 and Release of Bonds and Agreements previously submitted - located on the southside of 9th Street between Hellman and Vineyard Avenues - Mark West Corp. Release to Wayne T. Haaland for Parcel Map 5194; Faithful Performance Bond $17,000 Labor & Material Bond $17,000 Accept from Mark West Corp for Parcel Map 6005: Faithful Performance Bond $32,000 Labor & Material Bond $17,000 RESOLUTION NO. 82-52 A RESOLUTION. OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVE- MENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR PARCEL MAP 6005. i. Acceptance of Parcel Map 7061-1, Bonds and Agreements submitted by Kacor for their development located on the south side of 6th Street between Cleveland Avenue and Milliken Avenue. RESOLUTION NO. 82-53 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP 7061-1, IMI~ROVEMENT AGREEMENT, AND IMPROVE- MENT SECURITY. j. Approval of a Resolution designating Robert Dougherty, of the firm of Covington & Crowe, as the city attorney for the City of Rancho Cucamonga. RESOLUTION NO. 82-55 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DESIGNATING THE CITY ATTORNEY. k. Recommend that Council award the design services for widening of Base Line Road at Red Hill to Linville-Sanderson-Horn as the lowest bidder at $6,800.00. Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Frost to approve the Consent Calendar with the deletion of item f. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. (12) 4. PUBLEC HEARINGS. 4A. COMS~NITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK G~NT PROGRAM. A public hearing to obtain citizen input regarding projects to be funded with federal community development block grant funds; obtain city council direction and approval of block grant objectives, pro- jects and funding levels; and to meet federal Department of Housing and Urban Development CDBG program requirements. Tim Beedle, senior planner, gave an over- view of the program. Richard Marks, Associate Planner, presented an overview of the pr~dects selected through a needs assessment procedure as follows: 1. North Town streets, Phase III $120,000 Citv Cc~un!~il .~Yinutcs March I 7, 1982 Page 3 Program 1. North Town Streets, Phase III 2. Neighborhood Center Expansion 3. Housing Rehabilitation 4. Contingency 5. Local Costs - Program Implementation (a) Administration (b) Program Management Amount % $120,000 (33.3%) $ 81,000 (22.5%) $ 84,000 (23.3%) $ 17,387 (4.8%) $ 6,255 ( 1.7%) $ 51,358 (14.0%) $360,000 100% Councilman Bridge asked for a clarification of the amount designated for program management. Mr. Marks stated that this amount was the equivalent costs for one planning position and one half-time secretarial position. Mr. Bridge stated that this seemed like a large amount of dollars for program management for the total amount of dollars involved. Mr. Marks stated that MUD allowed the cities to charge back 20% of the overall grant administrative costs. Mr. Lam pointed out that there would be no one hired for the Grant, but we would be using existing staff. Councilman Mikeis asked where the $360,000 came from to begin with. Mr. Marks stated this amount came from HUD. Councilman Mikels asked if this were a projection for next year? Mr. Marks stated this money would be available to the city on July 1, 1982. Mr. Mikels wanted to know how the federal government could make such a commitment since the budget had not been adopted. Mr. Beedle stated that the monies have been adopted and allocated. The appropriation bill was approved by Congress in December 1981, but we won't receive our amount until July, 1982, when our program as an entitlement city begins. Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing: -Bob William, addressed the neighborhood center expansion program. He stated that the V.I.P. Club was growing out of the Center. -Jim Hunt, stated that these funds will let them expand the V.I.P. program to five days a week. -Nacho Gracia, stated that he would like to see the North Town streets, Phase III completed. -Bob Hickcox, Historical Commission Chairman, stated that the Chaffey-Garcia house roofing project could receive funds from the Housing Rehabilitation pro- ject. If this were not possible, then he suggested that this be considered for another year. Mayor Schlosser stated that staff could explain how this project might be completed without using tax payers monies. Mr. Lam stated that staff has been discussing this with the William Lyon Company, Although they have not made final commitments, it is being discussed. The Lewis Company has made a commitment to move the house, and the William Lyon Company is going to receive it. Restoration details have not been worked out yet. There being no further response, the public hearing was declared closed. Councilman Mikeis stated that we should take the Chaffey-Garcia roofing request and make it number one on our "wish list" in the event that the budget categories are not completely exhausted. City Council Minutes March 17, 1982 Page 4 Councilman Frost stated that he wanted to go a step further and designate up to $5,000 in reserve for this just in case other options don't work out. Mr. Lam stated that if it was council's desire to set aside funds for this pro- ject in case negotiations don't work out, then this should be placed on the list. If this is to be included, then this must be included on the application and environmental application process. Mr. Frost stated he wanted this included. Mr. Marks stated that this would not be put under "Housing Rehabilitation," but under "Historical Preservation." Mr. Frost suggested that the money come out of Nos. 3 and 4. Mr. Lam stated that the best approach would be to take $5,000 out of the E using Rehabilitation, make a new separate category, do the environmental, and to include this as a project for next year under Historical Preservation. Councilman Bridge stated that he did not want to put this into this process. He felt that this should be done by the William Lyon and Ralph Lewis companies. Mr. Lam stated that if council felt the negotiations should be done first and not have any other commitments stand in the way, then council could proceed and adopt the budget as is, and mid-way through the year the budget could be amended with a separate environmental. Mr. Lam stated further that the contingency fund did not go into the city's general budget since it was actually a contingency for the projects. Motion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Palombo to adopt Resolution No. 82-56 with the understanding that later in the year if negotiations failed with the Lyon/Lewis companies, and if there were funds available under the contingency fund, then Council could direct staff to prepare an amendment to the application; and to waive further reading of the Resolution. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Mikels, Palombq, Bridge, and Schlosser. NOES: Frost. ABSENT: None. City Clerk Wasserman read the title of Resolution No. 82-56. RESOLUTION NO. 82-56 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PROGRAM FUNDING FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM. (13) 4B. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 82-01 - LEWIS. A request to amend the Land Use Policies of the General Plan that would allow the city to consider development plans within a planned community area, prior to adoption of the planned community. Staff report by Rick Gomez, city planner. Mr. Gomez read the following language change to the Land Use Element, page 30 of the General Plan, paragraph 3: "The City shall not generally consider for approval, any development plans located within the Planned Communities area, until such time as the planned community has been reviewed and adopted by the city council. However, the City may approve minor exceptions to this policy, if in its judgement, the plans are consistent with the planned community and general plan goals." This exception shall be limited to one time only per planned community area and shall not encompass more than 5% or 50 acres of the planned community area, whichever is less. Councilman Bridge stated that because of the sensitivity of such an issue, he wanted to have the plans for such a request be approved by the city council after the Planning Commission gave its approval. Mr. Lam asked if council was asking to have the final approval of this project. Mr. Bridge stated that was what he was asking. Mr. Gomez stated that this could be incorporated into the general plan language. Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response, th public hearing was closed. City C<.ulncil ~Iinut.:s March 17, 1982 Page 5 .Md,;or Schlosser requested the presentation of item 4C before giving approval of Resolution No. 82-57 since this item was included in the resolution. AC. CICNERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 82-01C - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. A request to amend (14) the Land Use Element of the General Plan to change the land use designation in the area fronting 4th Street extending approximately 1400 feet north between Etiwanda Avenue and the AT & SF railroad tracks. This land use designation is recommended to be changed from Heavy Industrial to General Industrial. Staff report by Rick Gomez, city planner. Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response, the public hearing was closed. Council had no discussion on this portion of Resolution No. 82-57. Motion: Moved by Mikeis, seconded by Bridge to approve Resolution No.' 82-57 with the following language addition to section 1: "Final approval or denial of any proposed development or development plans submitted for approval under this exception shall be made by the city council on recommendation of the Planning Commission." and to approve the issuance of a negative declaration, and to waive the entire reading of Resolution No. 82-57. Motion carried unanimously by the following vote: AYES: Frost, Mikeis, Palombo, Bridge, and Schlosser. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. City Clerk Wasserman read the title of Resolution No. 82-57. RESOLUTION NO. 82-57 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ADOPTED LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN. 4D. PLtNNED DEVELOPMENT 82-02 - TENTATIVE TRACT 11615'- LEWIS PROPERTIES. A change of zone from C-1 (neighborhood-commercial) to R-3/PD (multiple family residential/planned development) and the development of 152 condominium units on 10.4 acres of land located north of Base Line and west of Archibald - APN 202- 161-37 and 202-151-34. Staff report presented by Michael Vairin, Senior Planner. City Clerk Wasserman read the title of Ordinance No. 173. ORDINANCE NO. 173 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 202-161-37 AND 202-151-34 FROM C-1 AND R-3/P.D., LOCATED NORTH OF BASE LINE AND WEST OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE. Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Palombo to waive further reading of Ordinance No. 173. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response, the public hearing was closed. There being no discussion by Council, Mayor Schlosser set second reading of Ordinance No. 173 for April 7, 1982. Mayor Schlosser called a recess at 8:20 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:30 p.m. with all members of staff and council present. City Council Minutes March 17, 1982 Pa~e 6 16) 4E. APPEAL OF PL~tNNING COMMISSION DECISION FOR THE REQUIREMENT OF AN ENVIRON- MENTAL I~IPAC'F REPORT FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 81-03 (TT 11933) - WOODLAND PACIFIC. A development of a total planned residential development of 185 single family detached units and 14.6 acre park on 95.5 acres of land in the R-i-20,000 zone located on Hermosa Avenue, north of Hillside. Staff report presented by Jack Lam. Mr. Lam pointed out that the developer, Mr. Richard Scott, was requesting an additional 30-day extension in order to complete negotiations with the city for the 14.6 acre park. The city council had several options: (1) to uphold the Planning Commission's decision and require the environmental impact report, (2) continue the matter, or (3) deny the request. However, Mr. Lam pointed out that the whole issue was becoming academic anyway since the developer was negotiating with the city in regards to the purchase of a park site. This would change the design and character of the project which would change the imp]:cations of the environmental impact. In this case, the applicant would need to refile a revised project, and another initial study would be conducted to determine if an environmental impact report would be needed on the revised project. Councilman Frost stated that hopefully the success of the negotiations on the west property will have an effect on the scope of the final FIR and a continuance may be in order. Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing Council was: -Mr. Richard Scott, developer. He stated they were in the final stages of negotiations with the city on the park site. If they proceeded as planned, then they will be presenting a different project. He preferred the item be continued because what they will be submitting will be an entirely different project. Councilman Bridge stated that he felt this should be cleared up now and that the item should either be withdrawn or denied. Mr. Lam stated that all the continuations have come at the request of the appli- cant so the city has not been put in jeopardy. Prior to a month ago, the staff did not have any concern for the continuances. However, we received a letter from Mr. Scott's attorney construing the delays to now mean that the one-year time limit for approval constitute an approval of the project. Therefore, staff felt why have this hang on if the company was going to construe this as an approval with the continuances. If the applicant understands with a continuance, there is no time limit on the application, and we won't receive any further correspondence indi- cating he has an approved project, then we wouldn't have any problems. Mr. Hopson pointed out that there are time limit regulations on what the city tries to postpone. Any request for postponement on the part of a developer does not figure into the operation of those time lines. He stated that since i. lr. Scott was present, then if there is any concern, then while in a public forum, it could be made clear that the continuances have been at his request and that it has not operated as an approval by the city council. -Mr. Scott stated that the original application was filed in April 1981 and wasn't acted upon until August 1981. It has been since August that they have been appealing on the FIR. According to the Map Act if a project wasn't approved with "x" number of days, then it could be considered approved. He stated that they would stipulate at this point in time to any- thing with relationship to this being their request for a continuance. Any of the requests for continuances, they would not expect to have imputed into a city delay that would grant them approval. They recognized that any delays have come by their requests. Mr. I.am stated that an application is not deemed complete until an FIR is completed. The Planning Commission stated on August 26, 1981 that an EIR was necessary. With- in ~'ourteen days an appeal was received. Mr. Scott explained that at that time, they had started negotiations with the Parks and Recreation Department regarding the purchase of land for a park site. City C~un~[l Minutes March 17, 1982 Page, 7 Councilman Bridge stated that since this was clear, then he would change his former request and approve the continuance. >lotion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Frost to approve the request for a 30-da" continuance to April 21, 1982. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. 4F. 1982 meeting. concurred. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT REIMBURSEMENT. Item was continued from the February 3, Staff requested another continuance to April 7, 1982. Council ORDINANCE NO. 170 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, IMPOSING A FEE PAYABLE AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION FOR A BUILD- ING PERMIT FOR THOSE LOTS OR PARCELS OF LAND WITH RESPECT TO WHICH FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN INSTALLED PURSUANT TO A REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT. 5. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS. 5A. REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS FROM D.R. 81-32 - located on the (18 east side of Etiwanda Avenue, south of Arrow Route. Staff report by Lloyd Hubbs. Councilman Mikels inquired when the liens would be called for the other two parcels -- would they be called immediately, or when Ameron would be developing which would be approximately one year. Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public comment. -Jacqueline Smith, owner of J & S Investments. She requested a waiver for the off-site improvements for the next two years. Councilman Bridge asked what it would take to put the whole street under the 1911 Assessment Act and if the whole street could be financed this way. Mr. Hubbs responded that it would be very difficult to bond a project that small. -Frank Jacobs, partner in the property. He stated that they were requesting the waiver in order to delay this expense so they could make improvements to the property. They were lacking space and needed to build on an addition. -Kevin Smith, employee of J & S Investments. Expressed the need of having an addition made to the plant. Councilman Bridge stated that he felt the off-site improvements should be guaranteed through the use of a lien agreement. Councilman Mikeis stated that we should try to tie this in with the improvements which will be made when Ameron makes their improvements since this will probably not be for another year. Councilman Bridge stated that this side of the street could be done independently. Mr. Hubbs stated that he would recommend a two year improvement agreement with a bond. He felt this would be a cleaner way to go. 5lotion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Palombo to approve the waiver with a two- year improvement agreement secured with a bond. Councilman Frost inquired when the other property owners would be informed. Mr. tlubbs stated he would call the owners of the lien agreements that the process was starting on the two year time period. Councilman Frost asked about the amount of traffic flow. Mr. Lam stated that presently there wasn't much traffic, but as development increased so would the traffic. City Council Minutes March i7, 1982 Page 8 Councilman Frost stated that we should have Ameron proceed with their improve- ments and hold off on the east side until the traffic warranted such improvements. Mr. Wasserman pointed out that the city tried to keep one step ahead rather than wait until there was a problem then try to resolve it. Mr. Hopson pointed out that it would not be two years and then start the improve- ments, but rather that the improvement project will be completed in two years. Motion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Palombo to approve a two year improvement agreement secured with a bond. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. Motion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Palombo that the liens bein~ held on the Droperties to the south be called within two years. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. 5B. REVISED WEST END LAW AND JUSTICE CENTER/CIVIC CENTER AGREEMENT. Staff report by Jim Robinson. Revisions in the county-city land sale agreement are: 1. Includes a legal description and site plan delineating the city/county property. 2. Reflects the additional acreage of 1.1± acres for the city police facility. 3. Site plan reflects the relocation of the police facility to the southeast tip of the property. 4. Payments would be: 8.64% acres @ $122,822 per acre Payment at escrow $750,000 January 15, 1983 $311,182 Requires receipt of the deed for the city property upon the initial payment. Also, allows the County to withdraw from the city's apportion- ment of secured taxes if city defaults on second payment. Motion: Moved by Frost, seconded by Mikels to authorize the Mayor to execute the revised agreement with the County of San Bernardino. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. Councilman Bridge suggested that since it will be a number of years before develop- ment begins, that we proceed with landscaping of the site. Council concurred with the suggestion and decided to consider this during the budget process. (20) 5C. FLOOD CONTROL BENEFIT ASSESSMENT PROGRAM. Staff report by Lloyd Hubbs. Presented was a ten year flood control assessment program which will be presented to the voters in November. Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Palombo to give a conceptual approval of the following four points: 1. The issue should appear on the November ballot. 2. A formula of assessment should be utilized. 3. The program should run for a 10 year period. 4. A minimum of 13% of the funds collected in each jurisdiction should go to regional facilities. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. C~ty Council Minutes March 17, 1982 Page 9 6. CITY ATTO~NEY'S REPORTS. There were none. 7. ADJOURNMENT. Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Frost to adjourn to a Redevelopment Agency meeting on Monday, March 22, 1982 at 7:30 a.m. to be held in the city offices. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Beverly Authelet Deputy City Clerk