Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981/11/18 - Minutes November 18, 1981 CITY OF RANCHO CUC~MONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Regular Meeting 1. CALL TO ORDER. The 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, November 18, 1981. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Philli~ 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, Jim Robinson; Cormnunity 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 October 7 and October 21, 1981. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. 2. ANNOUNCEMENTS. a. Thursday, November 19, will be a presentation of the Terra Vista Project. Lion's Park Community Center, 7:00 p.m. b. Ground Access Steering Committee, 9:00 a.m. on Friday, November 20 in Ontario. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR. a. Approval of Warrants, Register No. 81-11-18 in the amount of $441,638.46. b. Alcoholic Beverage License Application for F. Gail Squires, 8068 Calle Carabe (1) Place for wine broker license. c. Alcoholic Beverage License Application for Johnny R. Winters, 9134 Foothill (2) Boulevard for on-sale beer and wine eating place. d. Alcoholic Beverage License Application for Beverly J. and Frank A. Lyons, 8241 (3) Foothill Boulevard for on-sale general eating place and caterers permit. e. Alcoholic Beverage License Application for Carlos E. and Carlos J. Figari, (4) Lady N. Ortiz, and Marcelo and Cecilia M. Carlos, Town and Country Liquor, 12962-64 Foothill Boulevard for off-sale general license. f. Forward claim against the City by Wilma E. Sparks, 7979 Winery Ridge Drive (5) to the City Attorney for handling. g. Release of Lien Agreement and Acceptance of Lien Agreement for Ruben and (6) Margaret Hernandez located at 8850 Center Avenue. RESOLUTION NO. 81-177 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RELEASING A REAL PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT AND LIEN AGREEMENT FROM RUBEN AND MARGARET HERNANDEZ. City Council 5~inutes November 18, 1981 Page 2 (7) RESOLUTION NO. 81-178 A RESOLUTION OF THE CItY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING A REAL PROPERTY IMPROV~ENT CONTRACT AND LIEN AGREEMENT FROM RUBEN AND MARGARET HERNANDEZ AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO SIGN THE SAME. (8) h. Approval of Budget Adjustments and Transfers. Recommendation: It is recommended that the revenue received from the sale of printed documents such as the Industrial Specific Plan be appropriated into the Community Development Printing and Publications Account. Also, transfer into the Community Development Printing account the following: $2,000 from Travel and Mileage of Community Development Administration Acconnt and $3,000 from the Salary Account of Planning. (9) i. Release of Bonds: -Tract 9436 - located south of Victoria and east of Haven Avenue. Owner: Crismar Development Corp. Monument Bond $ 2,550 -Tract 9582-2 - located north of Wilson and east of Haven Avenue. Owner: Deer Creek Company. Monument Bond $ 5,720 (10) J. Set Public Hearing Date of December 2, 1981 for Planned Development 81-01 - tentative tract 11853 - American National. A change of zone from R-1-8500 to R-3/P.D. for a total planned development of 72 condominium units on 5.71 acres of land located on the north side of 19th Street at Ramona Avenue - APN 202-171- 42. Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Frost to approve the Consent Calendar. Motio, carried unanimously 5-0. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS. Council changed the order of the agenda -- items 4B and 4C were considered together as the first item under public hearings. (11) 4B. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION ON ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 81-07 (TT 11869) - ROBERTS GROUP. A proposed planned unit development of 136 condominium units on 9.75 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Highland Avenue - APN 201-252-23, 25, & 26. (12) 4C. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION ON ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 81-08 (TT 11928) - SHAFFER/WESTLAND VENTURE. A proposed planned develop- ment of 67 townhouse units on 5.85 acres of land located on the north side of Highland Avenue, east of Archibald Avenue - APN 201-252-32. Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Both projects had been approved by the Planning Commission and received tentative approval of the tract with a recommendation to Council for a change of zone. Subsequent to the Planning Commission's decision, a group of home owners appealed that decision to the Council. Points raised by the appellants were: 1. Density and size of the proposed units are not compatible with the homes in the immediate area. Roberts project is a planned development of 136 condominium units on 9.75 acres which breaks down to 13.9 dwelling units per acre. Shaffer/Westland Venture project is a planned development of 6- townhouse units on 5.85 acres which breaks down to 11.4 dwelling units pe acre. City Council ~inuteJ November 18, 1981 Page 3 Mr. Vairin pointed out that the area is designated multi-family on the General Plan. 2. Access. The intersection is an awkard one with major reconstruction scheduled at some point in the future. Actual circulation would be com- pleted as part of the projects themselves, such as improving and widening the roads which they afront. 3. Internal circulations. Both projects have been reviewed and do meet all the internal circulation requirements in terms of driveway widths and access. The Roberts project has two access points -- one on Archibald and one on Highland which is the main point of access. The Shaffer/Westland project will have one major access point with a secondary emergency access~ 4. Quality and style of the developments. The Design Review Committee has reviewed these projects and has felt comfortable with the compatiblity of design to the single family homes. 5. Highland Avenue. The appellants felt that Highland Avenue in its present condition would be incapable of handling the increased traffic. As stated previously, full street improvements would be done along with the projects. 6. Schools. Since incorporation, the city has been working closely with the schools to prevent overcrowding conditions. A growth management plan went into effect, and fees were charged with all new development to help mitigate future overcrowding. Staff's recommendation: To uphold the Planning Commission's decision and set December 16, 1981 for public hearing on the proposed zone change. Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for ~ublic hearing. Addressing Council were: 1. Sheryl Moody, 6355 Jadeite, member of the homeowner's association. She expressed that the homeowner's association desired to see community standards maintained. As they see it, the proposed developments changes what already exists. 2. Lee Marcacci, 6368 Jadeite. She addressed the issues of increased density, increased traffic, the waiver of the EIR, increased crime, increased burden on fire services, and the physical appearance of the units. She expressed concern that the Roberts project had open carports, the Shaffer/Westland project only had eighteen proposed vistor parking spaces, and the exterior features need to be made compatible with the surrounding areas. 3. Myriel Porst, 6235 Dartmouth. She expressed concern that the higher density would contribute to overcrowding of schools. 4. Philip Marcacci, 6368 Jadeite, a member of the homeowners association. He expressed concern about the impact of the multi-family unit developments. As far as the freeway development, he felt this would not be completed during his life time. He recommended strongly that council not approve the zone change. 5. Fred Nelson, resident of Diamond Bar and property owner in the area. He expressed concern about the intersection of Archibald and Highland. He said it was extremely dangerous. He asked council not to approve any development in the area until the intersection is improved. 6. Carl Heinz, 6471 Jadeite. He expressed concern that no Environmental Impact Report had been prepared. Since one of the features of the projects was flowing water, he wondered if there would be sufficient water pressure and if there would be standing water which would breed mosquitos. He felt this should be evaluated before approval is given to the projects. 7. Lee Marcacci. She said they had been informed that a child had been killed recently on a bicycle. The area is zoned for 35 mph although most people go through at a much higher speed. They had heard that the city was thinking about increasing the speed limit. 8. Frank Stone, 9373 Cocoa. He expressed concerning about maintaining the quality of education. City Council Minutes November 18, 1981 Page 4 9. Chuck Newsome, 9717 Cocoa. Inquired what the generating factor of students would be from multi-family units. Mr. Vairin answered his questions.stating that according to studies regarding generating factors of multi-family unit these types of units do not generate any more students than single family units occupying the same area. 10. Bob Shaub, 6350 Klusman Avenue. Inquired if the streets and major highways had been added just for these developments. Mr. Hubbs explained that these streets had been planned for a long time. They were designed according to eventual build out of the city. 11. Sheryl Moody stated that what she heard was the condominiums were approved based on the fact that the freeway would be going in and that Archibald was a main thoroughfare and divided highway. She inquired as to where was Archibald divided. Mr. Lam explained that in the planning of the city the higher densities were planned along main thoroughfares and highwaTs. As far as Archibald designated as a divided highway, it does not mean tha~ it is divided at the present time.. The city planned to have such main arterials divided for two reasons: one, that it provides better traffic flow, and two for its aesthetic considerations in ~lanning landscaoing in the streets. Ms. Moody said that they were concerned because Archibald could not handle the traffic there now. They felt they should not create further hazardous conditions until the existing problems were taken care of. 12. Mr. Nelson. Stated that he has been trying to get in touch with Caltrans for some time. He said that he did get the information that the money to purchase the land to complete the freeway is in the bank although Governor Brown will not let Caltrans purchase the land. He felt the cities should get together and request the money be release to purchase the land. The completion of the freeway would solve all the problems. 13. Toni Ryan, 6067 Burgandy. Asked why this area was chosen for high density. Secondly, she asked how Archibald could be designated as a high arterial since there were two schools along Archibald. Thirdly, she felt that the number of children from high density units would increase in the future since these are such inflationary times. Lastly, what would be the completion dates of the units -- would the roads and schools be ready by the completion time of the units. 14. Mr. Nelson said at the last meeting he had offered to give them the land on Highland. He said if the other owner, Mr. Schultz, would also give them the land on the other side, they would have it made. 15. Mr. Shaub asked why we have to spend tax dollars improving Archibald when there is another major road to the east which is straight, wide, and divided. Mr. Lam responded that whether any development occurred at this location or not, there was still a problem at this intersection which needed improvement. If the project disappeared, and the right-of-way was not there, then there would still be the need to widen this intersection. Tax payers dollars are used only when land is not donated or improvements are not made by develop- ment. 16. Jeff Callaway, 9716 Cocoa. He stated that the present zoning was R-l-10,000. Since this was originally zoned for single family, he felt this could be maintained for the reason of "quality of life." He also stated that if we cannot handle the police, fire, water problems, and school problems, then why consider increasing the density. Lastly, he asked why the EIR was waived. Mr. Vairin explained that the R-l-10,000 zoning existed before incorporation under the County. When the city prepared the general plan, it was felt that this area should be a 4-14 units per acre designation. He stated that the Planning Commission and staff did prepare an environmental assessment evaluation and conditions were placed on the project. 17. Kathryn Burr, 6210 Phillips Way. Addressed the issue of horses and traffic. 18. Colleen Wang, 9641 Hidden Farms Road. Stated there had been a fire recently and it took the fire department 10 minutes to respond. biayor Schlosser asked what is being done about the water pressure in this area. Mike Vairin said they had received correspondence from the water district through the standard review process which indicated that the develop- November i8, 1981 Page 5 merit would be required to install a line to service this project and this would probably improve the overall service in the area. 19. Toni Quezada, representing the Roberts Group. She addressed the issues which were raised by the residents. 20. G. G. Prost, 6232 Dartmouth. Asked what the community was going to gain from the development? 21. Otto Kubik, 6268 Phillips. Felt the city was outstripping the social re- sources of the community at the current level. He felt the city should retrench and instead of expanding, they should perhaps place a moratorium on building and allow the past to catch up. 22. Sam Angona, representing the Shaffer/Westland Venture project. He stated that the only way the city is going to take care of problems is through the building permits -- that the city has to grow. Councilman Mikels responded to questions regarding the school fees, where they originated and how they are spent. Michael Vairin responded to the questions regarding fire and police services. Councilman Mikels and Mr. Hubbs responded the questions regarding storm drain fees and how they were established and used. Mayor Schlosser expressed that he felt a meeting with the residents was in order. 23. Nancy Jones asked if there was a specific time limit to approve this oroject. 24. Mrs. Conger commented that one could look out their windows into the back yards of homes along Archibald. 25. Mr. Shaub asked if it were possible that the density could be lowered. There being no further public input, Mayor Schlosser closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Paiombo to continue item to the December 2, 1981 meeting. Toni Quesada concurred that this would be okay to the developer. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. Mayor Schlosser called a recess at 9:07 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:35 p.m. with all members of the council and staff present. 4A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 81-06 - T & M BUILDERS. (13) A change of zone from A-1 (limited agriculture) to R-3/P.D. (multiple family/planned development) for the development of a planned residential subdivision consisting of 62 townhouse units on 5.4 acres of land located on the west side of Vineyard Avenue north of Arrow Route - A~N 208-211-25 and 26. (Related item: Tentative Tract No. 11144). Staff report by Jack Lam. Beverly Authelet, deputy city clerk, read the title of Ordinance No. 160. ORDINANCE NO. 160 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 208-211-25 & 26 ON THE WEST SIDE OF VINEYARD AVENUE, NORTH OF ARROW ROUTE FROM A-1 TO R-3/P.D. Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Mikels to waive further reading of Ordinance No. 160. Motion carried unanimoulsy 5-0. Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response, the public hearing was closed. City Council Minutes November 18, 1981 Page 6 Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Palombo to approve the Planned Development Zon Designation No. 81-06 for the T & M project by the adoption of Ordinance 160 and to approve the issuance of a Negative Declaration. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Frost, Mikels, Palombo, Bridge, and Schlosser. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. (14) 4E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSEMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 80-10 (TT 11734) - DLV. A change of zone from A-1 to R-3/P.D. for a total planned development of 98 townhomes on 8.5+ acres of land located at the northwest corner of Vineyard and Arrow Highway - APN 20~-211-28. Jack Lam presented the staff report. Beverly Authelet, deputy city clerk, read the title of Ordinance No. 162. ORDINANCE NO. 162 (first 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/P.D. Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Bridge to waive further reading of Ordianance No. 162. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response, the public hearing was closed. Councilman Frost asked about the linearity along the north strip. Mr. Lam responded stating that this was the result of discussion through the Design Review. Mayor Schlosser set December 2, 1981 for second reading of Ordinance No. 162. (15) 4D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 81-05 (TT 9369 AND 11173) - BROCK. A change of zone from R-3 to R-3/P.D. for a total planned development of 119 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. Staff report presented by Michael Vairin, Senior Planner. Beverly Authelet, deputy city clerk, read the title of Ordinance No. 161. ORDINANCE NO. 161 (first 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/P.D. Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Palombo to waive further reading of Ordinance No. 161. 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 further discussion by the Council, Mayor Schlosser set December 2, 1981 for second reading. November 18, 1981 Page 7 4F. ENVIRO~hrMENTAL ASSESSMENT t%ND ZONE CHANGE NO. 81-01 - LAWLOR. A request for (16) a change of zone from R-l-14 acres to R-1-20,O00 square feet for the development of Tentative Tract No. 10210 - APN 1061-172-03. First reading of Ordinance No. 159 was continued from the November 4, 1981 city council meeting. Councilman Bridge stepped down from his council seat during the hearing on this item. Jack Lam presented the staff report. Beverly Authelet, deputy city clerk, read the title of Ordinance No. 159. ORDINANCE NO. 159 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 1061-172-03 LOCATED GENERALLY ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAPPHIRE AND ALMOND, FROM R-l-14 ACRES TO R-I-20,000 SQUARE FEET. Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Frost to waive further reading of Ordinance No. 159. Motion carried unanimously 4-0-1. Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing council was: Leon Kedding, representing Gregory Lawlor. He had a slope map on which he pointed out where the development would be -- the slope was less than 30% in that area. Areas over 30% slope were in the open space areas. He stated that they would not be in opposition to having the area designa- ted R-1-30,O00. He said the area within the zone change, the four lots would be 35,000 to 50,000 square feet anyway. There being no further public response, Mayor Schlosser closed the public hearing. Council discussion: Councilman Frost stated that there wasn't any question insofar as R-i-20,000 being ~ inappropriate. To a certain degree he would have to disagree with the recommendation from the Planning Commission. He felt the project was not one specifically designed to fit that particular area. Councilman Mikels stated that the general plan designation for all property north of Almond is hillside residential. He stated that the applicant's offer to change the zoning to better conform with the site that is being proposed is somewhat con- sistent to the zone designation of hillside residential. We don't have a R-1-30,O00 zone, but what we do have is the hillside residential designation. Although this does not specify a particular lot size, but it does specify a minimum size. Mr. Lam pointed out that the hillside designation is a land use category of the general plan. It is not a zoning district. If there is a desire to have another zoning district created, then we can do that. After some further discussion, the Mayor asked the city attorney how to handle this situation. Mr. Dougherty stated that the item was before council as an approved tentative map with the condition that the one east portion of the property be rezoned from R-i-14,00Q to R-i-20,000. Council does not have a zone change applica6ion before them affecting the westerly portion of the property which is presently zoned R-i-20,000. Council's options are: (1) to approve the R-i-20,000 zone change request which would automi- tically approve the tract map, or (2) reject the application for the zone change on the portion shown as R-l-14,000. This would automatically make the map fail. By rejecting the request, council could refer the matter back to the Planning Commission with the direction that the Planning Commission study a different zone classification and report to the city council. The Planning Commission could accept the direction of the city council and initiate zone change application procedures for the entire property, and come back to council with another zone change request. This might also involve a redesign of the tentative map. If the Planning Commission did not act on the recommendation of the council for a study and report, there is the ability under the Government Code for the council to order that study and have that report made. City Council Minutes November 18, 1981 Page 8 Discussion continued between Councilman Mikels and the city attorney regarding this procedure. Councilman Frost stated that he wasn't comfortable with the city's position as far as creating criteria for the hillside areas. Councilman Mikels stated that we needed to tighten this up. Mr. Lam stated that the hillside category stipnlates that the density shall not exceed two units per acre which would be 20,000 square feet. However, the actual number of units are to be defined through the envirpnmental studies. Mr. Lam stated that if council wished more stringent hillside designations which the Planning Cormnlssion has not discussed, then they should direct staff to proceed with this. Mr. Kedding stated that if the Council chose to zone the fourteen acres as R-i-30,000 and to refer this back to the Planning Commission for a hearing to determine the balance of the tract also as a 30,000 square foot size, they would have no objections to that. The City Attorney said it would be more appropriate to refer back the entire area to the Commission rather than taking only a portion. Mr. Kedding concurred to whatever the Council chose to do. Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Palombo to refer this back to the Planning Commission for consideration of a new zone classification to be derived from the hillside land use designation of the General Plan. Motion carried unanimously 4-0-1. Mr. Lam suggested that this come back to Council the first week in January in order to allow the Planning Commission time to study this. Councilman Bridge returned to his council seat. (17) 4G. ORDERING ANNEXATION NO. 7 TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 FOR TRACT 9584 AND TRACT 9584-2. Mr. Hubbs presented the staff report. Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Frost, seconded by Palombo to approve the annexation of tracts 9584 and 9584-2 into the landscape maintenance district, to approve Resolution No. 81-179, and to waive the entire reading. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. City Clerk Wasserman read the title of Resolution No. 81-179. RESOLUTION NO. 81-179 A RESOLUTION OF THE CI%Y COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE WORK IN CONNECTION WITH ANNEXATION NUMBER 7 TO LAND- SCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NUMBER 1 FOR TRACT NO. 9584 AND TRACT NO. 9584-2. 5. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS. (18) SA. PRESENTATION OF ALTERNATIVES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF P~kNCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN. Staff report by Jim Robinson. The City of Rancho Cucamonga and the County of San Bernardino have jointly purchased a 25.5 acre site at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue for the purpose of developing a civic center/county court complex. Development of a master plan for the entire site has been under study by the City and County, and two alternatives have been prepared for City Council review. A presentation of the proposed alternatives for the master plan was made by Bill Valentine, of Hellmuth, Obata, and Kassabaum Architects, Inc. Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public comment. There being none, the public portion was closed. John Michaelson, from the County Administrator's Office, stated that the Board of Supervisors and County staff felt that either plan was acceptable. They were anxious to proceed with their building, and therefore, desired to have a decision made as quickly as possible. Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Bridge to approve the conceptual site plan labele Alternative B. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. Mayor Schlosser called a recess at 10:50. The meeting reconvened at 11:05 p.m. with all members of the council and staff present. 5B. PRESENTATION OF CHANGE IN ELECTION LAWS TO PERMIT CONSOLIDATION OF MUNICIPAL (19] ELECTIONS. Staff report by Lauren Wasserman. It is now possible for cities to schedule their municipal elections on the same day as the statewide primary election (June of even numbered years), the day of the statewide general election (November of even numbered years), or on the same day as school and special district elections (November of odd numbered years). Mr. Wasserman outlined some of the advantages and disadvanges to Rancho Cucamonga if the city should decide to consolidate. Councilman Frost said that he felt the item should be referred to the Advisory Commission in December for consideration. He stated that he would favor November of odd numbered years if we should decide to consolidate. Councilman Mikels stated he did not favor even numbered years. The law is on the books so the council could take action at some time in the future. He felt that the next municipal election should be left as is. He did not feel that this should be referred to the Advisory Commission. He felt there was some merit in considering consolidation with the special district elections. Motion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Mikels to leave the municipal election set for April in odd numbered years. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. 5C. STATUS REPORT ON THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT. Staff report by Jack (20) Lam. Mr. Lam stated that the reason this report was included in the City Manager's Staff Reports was in order to highlight the community development program. He said that Richard Marks, of the city staff, was the lead person working on the program, and he would be happy to answer any questions at any time. Councilman Mikels requested to be kept informed during the process of the application. Council received and filed the report. 6. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS. There were none. 7. ADJOURNMENT. Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Frost to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Beverly Authelet Deputy City Clerk