Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981/12/02 - Minutes December 2, 1981 CITY OF RANCHO. CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Regular Meeting 1. CALL TO ORDER. A 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 December 2, 1981. The meeting was called to order at 7:07 p.m. by Mayor Phillip D. Schlosser. Present were: Councilmen James C. Frost, Jon D. Mikels, Michael A. Palombo, Arthur H. Bridge, and Mayor Phillip D. Schlosser. Also present were: City Manager, Lauren M. Wasserman; Assistant City Attorney, Robert Dougherty; Assistant City Manager, James Robinson; Community Development Director, Jack Lam; City Engineer, Lloyd Hubbs; Finance Director, Harry Empey; and Community Services Director, Bill Holley. Approval of Minutes of October 29, 1981 and November 4, 1981. Councilman Mikels requested a clarification on the motion for item 5B of the Novem- ber 4 minutes on page 7. He requested the motion to read, "to approve Resolution No. 81-175 which establishes priorities for Rule 20 undergrounding and to direct work to begin on the number 1 priority project, Archibald Avenue from Foothill Boulevard to Base Line Road, and that the cost for the laterals should be borne by some mechanism to be brought back to Council at a later date, and to waive the entire reading of Resolution No. 81-175. Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Frost to approve the Minutes of October 29, 1981 and the corrected minutes of November 4, 1981. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. 2. ANNOUNCEMENTS. a. Councilman Palombo has been appointed as a standby member of the Selective Service Board by the Governor and has been appointed by the Director of the National Selective Service, Mr. Turnage. b. Councilman Mikel's wife, Margorie, just passed the bar exam. Council sent their congratulations. c. Meeting of the Citizen's Advisory Committee/Flood Control Zone I to be held in Ontario on Monday, December 7. d. Councilman Mikels announced that he had attended the Omnitrans and SanBag Board meetings earlier in the day. Items of importance which were discussed: (1) The consultant had a contract for a consultant to do the West Valley Transportation Study which has been signed. There will be a presentation at the next SanBag meeting by the Voorhis Group. (2) Since SB-215 passed which provides for some transportation financ- ing money, there will be some new 5th year projects added to the STIPS which had been precluded from this year's submittals to the State Transportation Commission. (3) On November 20 an alternative for the installation of ground access improvements for the expansion of the Ontario National Airport was approved by the Steering Committee. Future meetings will determine how the expenses for those improvements will be allocated. (4) On December 2 there was a meeting of the Route 30 corridor cities in order to develop some financing mechanisms and alternatives to comply with the resolution passed by the California Transportation Commission. Mikels stated that later in the meeting Council will be considering a Resolution to support a resolution passed by the San Bernardino Associated Governments for increased funding for right- of-way protection for the Foothill Freeway. e. Mayor Schlosser called an Executive Session to following immediately after the adjournment of tonight's meeting. f. Mr. Wasserman requested the following changes to the Agenda: (1) To remove item 3d from the Consent Calendar. (2) Consent Calendar item 3i should be setting the public hearing for December 16 not December 18. (3) Add item 5D, "Carnelian Street Realignment, Contract Change Order." g. Councilman Palombo requested that Consent Calendar item 3b be removed from the Consent Calendar and become item 5E for discussion. City Council Minutes December 2, 1981 Page 2 3. CONSENT CALENDAR. a. Approval of Warrants, Register No. 81-12-81, in the amount of $210,624.45. (1) b. Mail-In Recreation Program Modification. Request Council's authorization to change receipting and registration processing method through equipment purchase to be financed from recreation fund, not to exceed $12,600. c. Approval of Resolutions regarding procedural documents for the previously authorized park acquisitions. (2) RESOLUTION NO. 81-180 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON ARROW HIGH- WAY. (3) RESOLUTION NO. 81-181 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON HERMOSA AVENUE. (4) ~--~eeep~ee-~-~e~-M~-66~-~m~eme~-~g~eeme~-~-~mp~emem~-~ee~ty - A~eh~d-Avem~e. Item deleted from the Consent Calendar. (5) (6) e. Acceptance of Improvement Agreement and Improvement Security for Director Review 81-21 - Christeson Co. - located at 11000 Jersey Blvd. (northeast corner of Jersey and Vincent). RESOLUTION NO. 81-183 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVE- MENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW 81-21. (7) f. Acceptance of Improvement Agreement and Improvement Security for Director Review 81-17 - Socco Plastic Coating Company; located at 11251 Jersey Blvd. RESOLUTION NO. 81-184 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVE- MENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW 81-17. (8) g. Release of Bonds: -Tract 9437 - located on the north side of Victoria, east of Haven Avenue. Owner: Crismar Development. Monumentation Bond $ 2,600.00 City Council Minutes December 2, 1981 Page 3 -Parcel Map 4907 - located on the northeast corner of Cleveland Avenue and 4th Street. Owner: Kacor Development. Labor & Material Bond (road) $92,000.00 h. Revision to the Annual Subscription Resolution. Staff is recommending that (9) fees for the mailing of agendas and minutes be increased to reflect increases in overhead and mailing costs. This represents the first cost increase for subscription rates which were established in April, 1979. RESOLUTION NO. 81-66-A A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, SETTING CERTAIN FEES FOR ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTIONS AND CODES. i. Set December 16, 1981 for public hearing on: City Environmental Guidelines - (10) Guidelines setting forth procedures to implement State required environmental review. Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Frost to approve the Consent Calendar with item b removed to Staff Report Item 5E and deletion of item d. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS. 4A. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION ON ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND (11) PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 81-07 iTT 11869) - ROBERTS GROUP. A proposed planned unit development of 136 condominium units on 9.75 acres of land located on the north- east corner of Archibald Avenue and Highland Avenue - APN 201-252-23, 25, and 26. Mayor Schlosser made the following comments for Council to think about before opening the meeting for public hearing: He stated that at the last meeting a public hearing was held and Council listened to concerns of the citizens. Both Councilman Mikels and he met with a group of the citizens. These citizens also have met with the developers of this project and the developers of the next item. Some of the concerns involved the alignment of Archibald, the access require- ments, schools, police protection, crime, eucalyptus trees, open carports, water pressure, fire protection, quality of life style in the community, and consistency of development in the area. He stated that he felt the most important issue to the neighbors was the neighborhood compatibility and the severity of lifestyle changes that may occur with this development. He stated that he felt these changes could be kept to a minimum and provide for a better neighborhood compatibility and yet meet the housing goals of the city by reducing the number of units to a zone of R-2/P.D. Councilman Mikels who was also at the meeting with the residents, added the following: He reinforced the Mayor's comments in regard to the carports with open doors. He felt this was a valid concern, that garage doors would be preferable to open carports. There was also concern regarding the amount of visitor parking and the width of Highland Avenue. Residents wanted to be assured there would be enough room on Highland Avenue for traffic in both directions if cars were parked on the south side of the street. He said he talked with the city engineer and was assured that the improvements would be sufficient to provide for traffic in both directions and for cars parked on both sides of the street. Another concern expressed was in regard to the color scheme, but he stated this had been worked out. There was concern about the Archibald entrance which is now being worked on by the city engineer. Although there were other concerns expressed such as fire protection, schools, City Council Minutes December 2, 1981 Page 4 etc. he felt the growth management plan adequately deals with these. The main issue was identified by the Mayor, and that is the overall impact of the density in that area. He then put two motions on the floor for consideration, which were seconded by Councilman Bridge for discussion purposes. Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Bridge to uphold the appeal in Dart by modifying the development plan and tentative tract map to reduce the density to a maximum of 9 units per acre, plus an additional condition to include doors on the garages, work with the city engineer regarding the Archibald entrance/exit problem, and condition the development plan and tentative map respectively, and to refer the final modified design to the Design Review Committee for design review approval. Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Bridge to approve the first reading of Ordinance No. 164 to modify the zoning of the subject property from R-l-10,000 to R-2-P.D. and request the Planning Commission to report according to Government Code Section 65857, and to set the second reading after receipt of said report from the Planning Commission. City Attorney, Robert Dougherty, was requested by Councilman Palombo to explain the meaning of Government Code Section 65857. Mr. Dougherty stated that this was a section of the Government Code which required that any time the city council proposes to modify a zone change in a manner not considered previously by the Planning Commission, that the rezoning must be referred back to the Planning Commission for a review and report. The Planning Commission has a period of time up to 40 days in which to make its report. The Planning Commission need not hold a public hearing on the matter. If the report is not received within 40 days, the city council is free to act. Councilman Bridge expressed that this proposed density was more comnatible with the community than the 14 originally presented. Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. Speaking were: William Conger, 6365 Jadeite. He asked if these two motions are ~assed, does this mean that they will automatically go into effect? Councilman Mikels answered yes, that the council will refer this back to design review to make the appropriate changes. Mr. Conger asked, "if both of these motions pass, will there still be a public hearing?" Mr. Lam stated that if action is taken on the first reading, then the first public hearing will be tonight. When the council sets second reading, that is the second public hearing. That will conclude the public hearings. The second reading will be set when the report is received from the Commission. There will be no public hearing at the Planning Commission. Mr. Lam then presented the city clerk with the modified ordinance which incorporated the changes in zoning from R-3 to R-2/P.D. Toni Quezada, representing the Roberts Group. She asked if this meant that if they went back through the Design Review Committee process, would the site Dian have to go before the Planning Commission again as a public hearing item? Mr. Lam stated that once referred to the Design Review Committee, the matter of density would be concluded. Ail the Committee would deal with was how it would be redesigned for the lower number of units. It would not require another public hearing. Citv Council Minutes December 2, 1981 Page 5 Mr. Lam stated that the zone change, development plan, and the tract map were appealed. The council has the authority to set the number of units as a con- dition of the tract map and of the development plan. This is what the Council has discussed. Therefore, the zoning is a clean-up action to reinforce the action of the first motion. Toni Quezada asked that if this occurs at Design Review, will the Planning Commission be more administrative and not require coming before the public again. Mr. Lam stated yes, unless appealed. He went on to state that once the council set the density, then there will be no further discussion. John Christison, 4948 Klusman. He wanted to know how much more high density was being planned through this area and would this set a precedence for a whole belt of high density? Councilman Mikels pointed to the general plan map on the wall. Mr. Wasserman stated that at the break, a staff member could go over this with him to answer his questions. There being no further response, the Mayor closed the public hearing. Councilman Frost asked if the product which comes out of the Design Review Committee, would this be subject to Council review if they so chose? Mr. Lam stated that the only way this would return to the Council is if it were appealed or if council made a special request. Mr. Frost asked if this request needed to be a formal one. With the potential for major design changes, he felt the Council should look at it. Mr. Lam stated it really depended upon what the Council desired. Councilman Mikels said that once the Design Review Committee has made its review and modifications to the project, staff can notify Council. Council could check it out to make sure it is in line with the council's suggestions. If not, then council could appeal it. Mayor Schlosser asked if council would still have a chance to look at this at the second reading. Councilman Mikels stated that the second reading was on the zone change. He said if council were notified of the completion of the design review, that would suffice. Councilman Palombo called for the question. City Clerk Wasserman read the title of Ordinance No. 164. ORDINANCE NO. 164 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NIFMBER 201-252-23, 25, AND 26 FROM R-l-lO,000 TO R-2/P.D. FOR 9.75 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ARCHIBALD AND HIGHLAND AVENUES. Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Mikels to waive further reading of Ordinance No. 164. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Bridge to uphold the appeal in part by modifying the development plan and tentative tract map to reduce the density to a maximum of 9 units per acre, plus an additional condition to include doors on the garages, work with the city engineer regarding the Archibald entrance/exit pro- blem, and condition the development plan and tentative map respectively, and to refer the final modified design to the Design Review Committee for design review approval. Motion carried unanimously 5-0 Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Bridge to approve first reading of Ordinance No. 164 and request the Planning Commission to report according to Government Code Section 65857, and to set the second reading of Ordinance No. 164 after receipt of said report from the Planning Commission. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. City Council Minutes December 2, 1981 Page 6 Morey McConnley, 6481 Jadeite. He stated that he had heard that the Environmental Impact Study had been waived on this project. With two other projects in close proximity to this project, will the EIRs be waived again? Mr. Lam stated that a master EIR was done for the general plan. The EIR was not waived on any of these projects. It is either a determination of an EIR or a negative declaration, not a waiver of the environmental process. They all went through the process according to the State Environmental Quality Act. The action to be taken will be the reduction of density and the issuance of a negative declaration. This means a finding of no significant adverse impact by this project. Mr. McConnley asked if all three projects were considered as a whole when lcoking at environmental impacts or were they considered individually? Mr. Lam stz~d that by law you have to make an individual determination. The accumulative impac~ were dealt with on the master environmental impact report which was heard at public hearings at the time of the adoption of the general plan. Mr. McConnely asked who does the environmental impact reports? Mr. Lam said they are done by consultants for the city and paid for by the developer. In this case each project went through an environmental review and was judged in accordance with the general plan. A full environmental impact report was done for the general plan with all the density categories and the land uses adopted last spring. The findings made for these projects is that it is consistent with the general plan. (12) 4B. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION ON ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 81-08 (TT 11928) - SHAFFER/WESTLAND VENTURE. A proposed development of 67 townhouse units on 5.85 acres of land located on the north side of Highland Avenue, east of Archiblad Avenue - APN 201-252-32. Mayor Schlosser stated that he felt essentially the same way about this item as the last one. Council has heard input and met with residents. The item of greatest importance is the neighborhood compatibility. Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. Sam Angona, President of Westland Venture Company. He felt that everyone basically liked their project. The only criticism was the off-street parking which they agreed to mitigate with staff, and the nature of the design. It was very simple to change -- all they had to do on the five-plex units was to drop off one unit apiece which would reduce their development by eight units. Bill Conger. He said they went into discussions with the developers with good intentions of trying to reach some type of agreement. Up until this very moment, they were told "no deal." He urged Council to follow through with the same two motions made for the Robert's project. Councilman Frost stated that he disagreed in a direct comparison between these two projects. His main concern on Archibald and 19th Street is the visual impact within the area. He felt on item B there was an indication of a willingness to compromise by the developer to come up with something close to what council desired. Sheryl Moody. She stated that when they left the meeting with the developers, they had requested a time extension. They were turned down. Both developers were to notify them of their willingness to comply with their requests. They were to be notified by Wednesday before Thanksgiving. They did not hear from the Shaffer/Westland group until Monday. They were told at that time they would work with the city and whatever they requested regarding the Highland Avenue parking, but they would not reduce the density. City Council Minut-~ December 2, 1981 Page 7 Sam Angona, of Westland/Shaffer, stated that he had an extreme emergency come up and was not able to contact the residents. Ken Kettner, real estate agent representing Mr. Salvati, property owner, stated that the Robert's project abuts housing to the west. Mr. Salvati's property goes easterly and abuts a flood control channel and a church. Reducing this project by one unit per acre, given the fact that the other project has 9 units per acre, mitigates that element toward Mr. Salvati's property. Councilman Mikels stated that because the other project was so high in density to begin with that in reducing the density, it would have to be redesigned. How- ever, with this project, the density was not so high. To require a total re- design would cost considerable amount of money. Bill Conger. He stated that this was their first proposal with the developer. They requested time from Mr. Angona to take this to the homeowners. They were refused the time. He said that if the council would like to see a reduction of this type, he would like the opportunity to take this to the homeowners. He personally felt that they had tried to negotiate in the past and were told "no go," therefore, he was not willing to accept anything less that what was proposed by the city council. Margarita Ward, representing the resident at 10142 Archibald who only speaks Spanish. She expressed that there should be better guidelines for the developers so things like this would not happen again. There being no further response, the Mayor closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Mikels to duplicate the motions used in item 4A. Councilman Mikels stated that he would like to know what the costs would be for a redesign. Mayor Schlosser and Councilman Frost concurred that this was not a relevant question. Tom Davis, architect for the project, 9581 Business Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that a reduction is possible, but it will take some money to redesign the project. He stated there was a difference between the two sites, however. On the east side there is a drainage channel which the city is requiring to be improved at a cost between $150,000 to $200,000. This is quite an impact on the project which the other project does not have. By reducing the density more, then the cost of the units will sky rocket. There being no further public discussion, Mayor Schlosser closed the public hearing again. Councilman Palombo called for the question. Councilman Frost disagreed with calling for the question at this time. He felt there was a need for more comments. Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Mikels to close debate and vote on the question. Motion failed by the following vote: AYES: Palombo and Mikels. NOES: Frost, Bridge, and Schlosser. Councilman Frost stated that the intent of his comment about inquiring into the costs for the redesign of the project was that he basically felt that this was not council's role to determine whether something was affordable for a developer. Motion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Mikels to uphold the appeal in part by modifying the development plan and tentative tract map to reduce the density to a maximum of 9 units per acre, plus increasing the visitor parking within the develop- ment, and condition the development plan and tentative design to the Design Review Committee for design review approval. Motion carried unanimoulsy by the following vote: AYES: Frost, Mikels, Palombo, Bridge, and Schlosser. NOES: None. City Council Minutes December 2, 1981 Page 8 Motion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Mikels to approve the first reading of Ordinance No. 165 to modify the zoning of the subject property from R-i-IO,O00 to R-2/P.D. and request the Planning Commission to report according to Government Code Section 65857 and set second reading after receipt of said report from the Planning Commission. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Frost, Mikels, Palombo, Bridge, and Schlosser. NOES: None. City Clerk Wasserman read title of Ordinance No. 165. ORDINANCE NO. 165 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RESONING ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 201-252-32 FROM R-i-IO,O00 TO R-2/P.D. FOR 5.85 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHLAND AVENUE, EAST OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE. Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Palombo to waive further reading. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. Mayor Schlosser called a recess at 8:20 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:30 p.m. with all members of council and staff present. Because a number of people were present for Item 4G, Council concurred in hearing that item next. (13) 4G. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING WITH CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REGARDING THE DRAFT REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. Mayor Schlosser called for item 4G. Deputy City Clerk made the announcement that Notice of Meeting had been duly published in the Daily Report, newspaper of general circulatio~ on November 6, 13, 20, and 27, 1981. Also, certified notices had been mailed by certified mail to last know assessee of each parcel of land within the Project Area. Agency Chairman Phillip Schlosser called the roll call: Present were Agency Members James C. Frost, Jon D. Mikels, Michael A. Palombo, Arthur H. Bridge, and Chairman Phillip D. Schlosser. Mayor Schlosser and Agency Chairman Schlosser called the public hearing open. Mayor Schlosser stated that the record contains the following documents: a. Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Rancho Redevelopment Project, b. Report to the City Council on the proposed Redevelopment Plan, c. Environmental Impact Report, d. Assessment of Conditions Report. Executive Director, Lauren M. Wasserma~ introduced the Agency Counsel, John Brown, and Consultants, Abraham and Manuel DeDios, and staff members. Deputy City Clerk administered the oath. Executive Director, Lauren Wasserman, presented an explanation of the proposed Redevelopment Plan. Mr. Abe DeDios continued with further explanations of the Plan. Mr. John Brown went over the legal procedures including the procedure of condemnation or eminent domain. He stated that in the very beginning of the plan, it was made very clear that for the purposes of this redevelopment plan, the acquisition of real property does not include the employment of eminent domain proceedings. City Council Minutes December 2, 1981 Page 9 Deputy City Clerk, Beverly Authelet, announced that Mr. and Mrs. George Rush, 8945 Turner Avenue, had stopped by city hall to state they were in favor of the project. A letter had been received from the Southern Califomnia Edison Company stating that although they were not opposed to the plan, they did pose several questions which was being turned over to the attorney for handling. Joanne Gretchen, from the consultant's office, went over the draft EIR. Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. Speaking were: Nacho Gracia, 10364 Humboldt, Chairman of the Citizen's Advisory Commission. He requested that the Agency speak specifically about the plans for the North Town area. Mr. Abe DeDios stated that the Redevelopment Plan was general and did not provide for any specific area. Mr. Gracia stated that the people of North Town feel that the city will be going in to buy up land and build whatever they want. They are afraid they will be bought out. Mr. Wasserman stated that if Mr. Gracia felt that another meeting with the residents would be' helpful, then staff would be willing to do so. Marcia Szecsy, Banning. She had property on the north side of Foothill, east of Hellman Avenue. She expressed concern that the letter mentioned eminent domain. She wanted to know more about the project and who initiated it. Mr. Wasserman went over the history of the formation of the Agency. He stated that before the next public hearing, staff would be willing to sit down with her to answer her concerns. John Riggs, representing Charles DeBoard, a property owner at 20th and Turner Avenue. He stated that he has heard there are some financial incentives for an owner who might be interested in developing. Mr. Brown stated there were a number of opportunities, although the policies will be made by the Agency , and Council. He stated that the law does allow to make loans available to businesses and residents within the redevelopment project area at substantially reduced rates for the purposes of creating new businesses or renovating old residential units. Mayor Schlosser asked Mr. Brown if he could prepare a short, concise explanation of what a redevelopment agency does so that it could be available? Mr. Brown stated that he could and would have it available next week. Vito de Vita Francesco, 615 N. Euclid Avenue, asked where money would come from to do any public work? Mr. Brown stated that in the initial years the Agency would not realize a great deal of money. Ultimately, they would realize some growth within the project area and would begin to accumulate funds from the County treasurer. The Agency also could raise money through the bond market. Bill Kotoff, Hacienda Heights. He stated that as the plan has been presented he was in favor of it. However, he asked if he could determine when he would develop his property or could he be forced to develop. Mr. Brown stated that the plan does not contemplate any form of force. City Council Minutes December 2, 1981 Page 10 Dr. Saul Galombo, La Canada, owner of vineyard property on Rochester. He wanted to have included that if a property owner in a commercial or industrial area who does not elect to participate in a redevelopment project would not be subject to eminent domain. Mr. Borwn stated he would be happy to look at it and report back at the next public hearing. Dr. Galomb also asked for clarification of redevelopment since his property was in the middle of the Redevelopment Project area and yet there had never been any development. Mr. Brown pointed out that if he would come up during the break, he would go over the Redevelopment Law with him. George Robbins, 161 N. Mountain Avenue, Upland. He asked if there were maps available showing the flood control channels, freeway off ramps, etc. Mr. Wasserman said this type of information was available in the city engineer's office. Rudy Guzeman, speaking for his in-laws who lived at 10264 Humboldt. He wanted to know if 50% of the owners in an area wanted a project and 50% did not, who would be successful? Mr. Brown stated that under the plan, the Agency would not be able to undertake this kind of effort. Councilman Bridge requested that the eminent domain procedure be explained again since so many had concerns in this area. Mr. Brown stated that only certain specified public agencies in the State of California can excercise the power of eminent domain. He exolained that the theory was this if the public good requires the acquisition of street, easement, or whatever, cities have the power to go in and acquire that for the public good on the theory that if they were unable to obtain it, the majority would suffer at the will of the few. Art Ayala, San Diego and property owner in Cucamonga. He asked if the Agency will have the authority to present rezoning ordinances. Mr. Brown stated that it could recommend to the city council, but that authority rests entirely with the city council. Morton Deour, Woodland Hills. He said he heard several times throughout th evening not to worry about eminent domain if you have residential property. He wanted to know if he would have a problem since his property was industrial, and he wanted to know if it could be taken from him and be given to some other developer. Mr. Brown said only if he chose to enter into an owner parti- cipation agreement and defaults. Margaret Ward, 10104 24th Street. She expressed she did not like the word, blight, in the letter. She took it as meaning Old Cucamonga. She said the people in Old Cucamonga have no intention of moving or selling. George Casill, Ontario. He asked what the 2% tax was. Mr. Wasserman stated that the 2% is what the Assessor will automatically increase the value of the property over 40 years if you do nothing to your property. The property value will still go up 2% a year even if the redevelopment project does not pass. There being no further discussion, Mayor Schlosser closed the public hearing. Deputy City Clerk announced there had not been any communication received against the project. Mayor Schlosser declared that the public hearing of the city council be continued to December 16, 1981 at 7:00 p.m. City Council Minutes December 2, 1981 Page 11 Chairman Schlosser declared that the public hearing of the Agency be continued to December 16, 1981 at 7:00 p.m. Mayor Schlosser called a recess at 10:15 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:25 p.m. with Councilman Palombo absent. 4C. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMHISSION DECISION FOR THE REQUIREMENT OF AN ENVIRONMENTAl.(14 IMPACT REPORT FOR P.D. 81-03 (TT 11933) - WOODLAND PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT. A develop- ment 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. Mayor Schlosser stated that the applicant requested that the item be continued to January 6, 1982. Council concurred. 4D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPM~ENT NO. 80-10 - (TT 11734) - DLV. (15 A change of zone from A-1 to R-3/PD for a total planned residential development of 98 condominiums on 8.5 acres located at the northwest corner of Vineyard Avenue and Arrow Route - APN 207-211-28. City Clerk Wasserman read the title of Ordinance No. 162. ORDINANCE NO. 162 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 207-211-28 ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF VINEYARD AVENUE AND ARROW ROUTE FROM A-1 TO R-3/PD. Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Bridge to waive further reading. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Frost, Mikels, Bridge, and Schlosser. NOES: None. ABSENT: Palombo. Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response, the public hearing was closed. (Councilman Palombo returned to his council seat) Motion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Frost to approve Ordinance No. 162 and the issurance of a Negative Declaration. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Frost, Mikels, Palombo, Bridge, and Schlosser. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. 4E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 81-05 (TT 9369 AND TT 11173~ - M. J. BROCK. A change of zone from R-3 (multiple family residential) to R-3/PD (multiple family residential/planned development) for a total planned development of 117 patio homes on 18.2 acres of land located at the southeast corner of 19th Street and Archibald Avenue - APN 202-181-23 and 24. City Clerk Wasserman read title of Ordinance No. 161. ORDINANCE NO. 161 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 202-181-23 AND 24, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 19TH STREET AND ARCHIBALD AVENUE FROM R-3 TO R-3/PD. Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Plaombo to waive further reading of Ordinance No. 161. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. City Council Minutes December 2, 1981 Page 12 Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Palombo to approve Ordinance No. 161 and the issuance of a negative declaration. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Frost, Mikels, Palombo, Bridge, and Schlosser. NOES: None ABSENT: None. (17) 4F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 81-01 (TT 11853) - AMERICAN NATIONAL/BARRET IRVINE. A change of zone from R-1-8500 to R-3/~PD for a total planned development of 72 condominium units on 5.71 acres of l~nd located on the north side of 19th Street at Ramona Avenue - APN 202-171-&2. Staff report presented by Michael Vairin, Senior Planner. City Clerk Wasserman read the title of Ordinance No. 163. ORDINANCE NO. 163 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 202-171-42 ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 19TH STREET AT RAMONA FROM R-1-8500 TO R-3/PD. Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Mikels to waive further reading of Ordinance No. 163. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing Council was: Richard Klassen, project engineer for Barrett/Irvine. Councilman Frost stated that he did not care for the regimented structured look along the east side. Mr. Klassen~ stated that they would be placing eucalyptus trees 15 feet on center along the east side which was a condition of the development. Mr. Vairin stated that the Design Review Committee was somewhat concerned with the east side, but anything that you do would squeeze the open space in the center. This would bring pluses to the east linear, but also negative aspects on the rest of the interior. Discussion continued regarding the proximity of the church with a nursery school. Councilman Frost stated that what he wanted to see was additional protection of the view or some type of environmental softening. Mr. Lam stated the Council had several alternatives. They could accept the project as proposed, or if there is a feeling that it is an important item to deal with, the Council can approve this with a condition that the eastern portion with the three buildings be returned to Design Review allowing them the authority to look at and modify those buildings or anything else which will address the specific problem you perceive on the plan. You can request them to report back to the Council if you wish. Kenneth Carlson, member of the church Board of Trustees. He felt the greatest problem would be the noise of the children on the school ground. Motion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Frost to set second reading of Ordinance No. 163 for December 16, 1981. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. City Council Min[]tes December 2, 1981 Page 13 5. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS. 5A. SELECTION OF FINANCIAL CONSULTANT FOR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 79-1. Staff (18 report by Lloyd Hubbs. Mr. Hubbs stated that after the agenda had been preoared, staff received another proposal from Miller, Schroeder ~or $22,~0. The Fieldman, Rolapp's proposal was for $22,500. Councilman Frost stated that he felt inclined to go with the Fieldman, Rolapp proposal, but would like to read the Miller,Schroeder prooosal first. Council concurred that this should be brought back on December 16 for final con- sideration in order to have time to read the Miller, Schroeder proposal. 5B. REPORT TO COUNCIL ON SENIOR CITIZENS' CONCERNS. An oral report was presented (19 by Bill Holley. Mr. Holley stated that at the November 4 meeting some concerns had been expressed by some senior citizens regarding the need for some improvements at the Neighborhood Center. One of the concerns was inadequate amount of off-street parking. He stated that several alternatives were explored. However, the Chino Basin Municipal Water District has indicated that they would make available to the city their parking lot which exits onto the street adjacent to the Neighborhood Center for as many hours as we wish at no charge. Ail that would be necessary is for us to write a letter of request, and they would make sure the gate was open. Another concern related to the Nutrition Program and the lack of kitchen snace. He stated that staff looked into ways to open up the kitchen to provide for more space. In talking with the architects who designed the building, they stated it would be an extremely expensive proposition since the dividing wall is a bearing wall for the upper structure of the building. He stated that they had been seeking a grant from the Regional Council on A~ing for monies to provide for a window opening. This had been denied since they no longer granted funds connected with nutritional programs. Those grants now come from the Office of Aging - Nutrition. Staff will explore this and also the use of Community Development Block Grant funds. Councilman Mikels asked what the total cost would be. Mr. Holley stated it would be probably around $3500 for the wall modification which would include relocation of some of the cabinets, making the window, and adding a counter space. Councilman Bridge asked if this were the project that he claimed would be so expen- sive. Mr. Holley stated no, that project would entail putting in a steel beam, etc. which was estimated by the architect to be approximately $60,000. Mr. Holley stated that the small items such as painting of curbs, adding additional ducts could be taken care of through the normal maintenance functions already budgeted under professional services. The refrigerator which would be approximately $1200 and the window opening approximately $3500 would need a special allocation by the Council. Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Frost to give a conceptual aoDroval of expenditure, not to exceed $5,000 with a 10% contingency, for the wall modification as a serving window, a refrigerator, and other miscellaneous items such as painting of curbs, loading zone, coat rack for the Neighborhood Center; and for Mr. Holley to report back to Council through the Consent Calendar with a final detailed re~ort on items with cost data for final approval. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. City Council Minutes December 2, 1981 Page 14 (20) 5C. A RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RIGHT-OF-WAY PROTECTION FOR THE FOOTHILL FREE- WAY. Staff report by Lloyd Hubbs. Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Palombo to approve Resolution No. 81-185, and to waive the entire reading. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. City Clerk Wasserman read the title of Resolution No. 81-185. RESOLUTION NO. 81-185 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, URGING THE CALI- FORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO INCREASE RIGHT-OF-WAY PROTECTION FUNDING FOR THE ROUTE 30 CORRIDOR TO THE SUM OF $1,000,000 IN THE 1981-82 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. (21) 5D. ADDED ITEM. CARNELIAN REALIGNMENT, CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER. Staff report by Lloyd Hubbs. Since the Carnelian reconstruction is nearing to a completion and since there were repairs needed in the section between Vineyard and San Bernardino Road, it was being requested that this be done now as part of the Carnelian Realignment project. Normally contract change orders are approved by staff, but the amount for this would exceed the 10% contingency. Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Palombo to approve the contract change order and authorize the expenditure of an additional $36,355.00 for the project. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. 5E. FROM CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3b. MAIL-IN RECREATION PROGRAM MODIFICATION. Council discussed item and asked Mr. Holley questions regarding the revolving fund and why the item had not been budgeted. Motion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Palombo to approve the request and authorize the expenditure, not to exceed $12,600. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. 6. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS. There were none. 7. ADJOURNMENT. Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Mikels to adjourn to an Executive Session to reconvene to a special meeting on December 3, 1981. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 11:37 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Beverly Authelet Deputy City Clerk