Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1979/03/21 - Minutes March 21, 1979 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Regular Meeting CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the City Council was held at the --- Community Service Building, 9161 Baseline Road, Rancho Cucamonga. The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. by Mayor James C. Frost. ROLL CALL Present: Council members Schlosser, Mikels, Palombo, West, and Mayor Frost. Staff members present: City Manager, Lauren Wasserman; Interim Assistant City Attorney, Robert Dougherty; Community Development Director, Jack Lam; City Engineer, Lloyd Hubbs. APPROVAL OF The minutes of February 21 and March 7 were presented MINUTES for approval. Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by West to approve minutes of February 21 and March 7. Motion unanimously carried. ~NNOUNCEMENTS 1. Subcommittee of Council will be meeting with a sub- committee~from Chaffey Joint Union High School District on Monday, March 26 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Offices to discuss school fees. 2. New section had been added to the agenda for Committee reports. Council directed staff to move section nearer the beginning of the agenda. 3. Mayor announced two results coming from his trip to Washington, D.C. when he attended the National League of Cities meeting. (a) Since Rancho Cucamonga was a newly incorporated city, we were able to get a change so city would be able to receive Revenue Sharing funds for the present fiscal year. Last year these funds went to the County. (b) Congressman Jim Lloyd was influencial in getting a change in the gasoline allocatiomm~ for Rancho Cucamonga. Palombo added that on March 30 the Commission will be hold- ing a hearing for revisions of allocations. 4. Special census will begin April 9. 5. Lauren Wasserman, City Manager, has completed one year with the City. 6. Mike Evanhoe, Department of Transporation, had a meeting in Upland last week. Mayor will be reporting more de- tails in the future, however, he reported the State legis- lators and Transportation Director Adriana Gianturco have been more responsive regarding the Foothill Freeway issue. 7. A proclamation declaring April 1-8 as March of Dimes Superwalk week was presented to Council for endorsement and mayor's signature. Council concurred in authorizing mayor to sign the proclamation which was read by the Mayor. Sylvia Pompura, Chairlady, was present to acknowledge the proclamation. 8. Mikels announced at the SCAG General Assembly he had been elected to represent the cities in San Bernardino County on the Executive Committee. 9. Correction was~made to the agenda--Item 9K, an oral report by Lloyd Hubbs on the storm drain and systems development fees, was the same as Item 9B. Request to City Council Minutes March_ 21, 1979 Page 2 ANNOUNCEMENTS remove item 9K and replace it with a request for Finance (continued) Director to attend a special conference. Council concurred with changes. 10. Ordinance No. 59 was for second reading. CONSENT The following items were presented on the Consent Calendar CALENDAR for approval: a. Approval of warrants in the amount of $143,223.09. b. Authorization required for Beverly Authelet to attend City Clerk's Institute in Fresno April 25-27. Item was budgeted. (1) c. Freeway Maintenance Agreement with Caltrans modifica tions. Authorize mayor to sign modifications. (2) d. Storm drain fee refunds. Authorizing the Finance Directcr to refund $21,028 in storm drain fees collected under t.rgency Ordinance 53, which will be refunded due to the rescinding of the ordinance. (3) e. Tract ~254: Release of bond to Walton Construction Corp. Perfor~ance Bond (road) $138,000 (3) f. Tract §274: Release of bonds to M.J. Brock & Sons. Performance bond (sewer) 48,000 Performance bond (water on-site) 54,000 Performance bond (water off-site) 13,000 (3) g. Tract 9297: Accept roads and release bonds to Brattain Contract. Performance bond (sewer) 28,000 Performance bond (water) 24,000 Perform~nce bond (road) 120,000 (3) h. Tract 91~98: Release of bond to Manfred Hall. Perform~nce bond (water) 29,000 (3) i. Tract 91~55: Release of bond to R.L. Sievers & Sons, Inc. Perform~Lnce bond (water) 39,000 (3) j. Tract 9~;58: Release of bond to Crowell/Leventhal, Inc. Perform~Lnce bond (water) 51,000 (3) k. Tract 9z~47: Accept roads and release bonds to Walton Construc~tion. Perform~ nce bond (sewer) 13,000 Perform~ ~ce bond (water) 19,000 Perform~ ice bond (road) 50,000 (3) 1. Tract 9569: Release of bond to Don Lee Construction. Performance bond (water) 31,000 (3) m. Tract 9616: Release of bonds to M.J. Brock & Sons. Performance bond (water) 44,000 Performance bond (s~wer) 39,000 Motion: Moved by West, seconded by Schlosser to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion unanimously carried. (4) ORDINANCE NO. 59 An ordinance adopting the 1978 edition of the National Electrical Code. Ordinance had been introduced at the (second reading) February 21 meeting, notices of public hearing had been published on March 6 and 13 in the Daily Report in accordance to the law. Jerry Grant, Building Official, presented the staff report. He stated that all electrical contractors licensed in Rancho Cucamonga, of which there were thirty, had been notified of this hearing. He had received response from four in favor of the ordinance and one of the four submitted additional input which the Council had received copies of in their agenda packets. City Council Minutes March 21, 1979 Page 3 ORDINANCE NO. 59 A proposal was put forth to reduce one of the provisions (second reading) of the National Electrical Code. The California Occupational Health and Safety Administration advised that reducing the (continued) requirements of the National Electrical Code would be placing an employer who chose to follow that option in a position of being in violation of the Code. Therefore, Mr. Grant proposed the following modification to Article IX, Section 24: Exception 2 -- "In dwelling units" to precede the second --- exception, then problems with CAL OSHA would no longer exist. City Attorney was consulted as to whether any minor changes such as this would constitute the necessity to hold first reading and republishing. City attorney stated that any change would require a first reading again, and to be safe, it would be best to republish notices of public hearing. Mr. Dougherty stated it would be best to adopt the ordinance as presented than to come back for an amendment. Council concurred this would be best. Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Mikels to adopt Ordinance NO. 59 and waive entire reading. Motion unanimously carried. Title and number read by Wasserman. (Direction to staff was to have an amendment for Ordinance No. 59 prepared for the next agenda as previously discussed). ORDINANCE NO. 59 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE 1978 EDITION OF THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE AND MAKING CERTAIN CHANGES THEREIN NECESSARY TO MEET LOCAL CONDITIONS. ORDINANCE NO. 66 An ordinance which would amend the Home Occupations sections of the zoning ordinance. Jack Lam presented staff report. (5) (second reading) Mikels asked if the title of the ordinance were changed to include some mention of the Home Occupations instead of just the code sections, would it require a new first reading. ~r. Dougherty said it would require a first reading. In this case, however, the attorney advised the Council to refer the ordinance back to staff since there were some additional problems with it. Action: Council referred Ordinance No. 66 back to staff for revisions and to include in the title reference to Home Occupations and to bring back to the next meeting for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 67 An ordinance changing zone from R-1-8500 to R-3 for (6) 9.3 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Ramona and 19th Streets. Mayor stated that he had difficulty tying this in with the consistency in the current general plan. Lam pointed out this was consistent with the general plan which designated this area high density residential. This ordinance is the last of "withhold:' ordinances under the County. Lam explained the County would approve such zone changes but withhold the enabling ordinance until site plans were approved. In this case, things were held up even longer with the moratorium. Mikels said on the published general plan maps which the public had that piece was not designed as high density. He asked what amendment changed this designation. Herman Rempel, Chairman of the Planning Commission, said this was not an amendment to the general plan, but was changed during the hearing phase to the Planning Commission of the general plan. This was prior to acceptance of the general plan after the general plan map was published. City Council Minutes March 21, 1979 Pa~ 4 ORDINANCE NO. 67 Motion: Moved by West, seconded by Schlosser to adopt (continued) Ordinance No. 67 and waive the entire reading. Motion unanimously carried. Title and number read by Wasserman. ORDINANCE NO. 67 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 202-171-47 (ZC 97-65 and 98-65). (7) ORDINANCE NO. 69 An ordinance establishing changes in the school fees for the financing of interim school facilities. (second reading) Mikels proposed that item 8C be amended as follows: ........ 8 (c) Land may be required as an equivalent arrangement in lieu of fees, or a portion thereof, in accordance with Government Code 65974. Question arose whether to amend the ordinance and have first reading or adopt as is and bring an amendment back at the next meeting. Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Mikels to approve Ordinance No. 69 in the present form, and to bring back an amendment to section 8(c) at the next meeting as discussed previously. Motion unanimously carried. (8) ORDINANCE NO. 65 An Ordinance amending the zoning ordinance to add a new sign ordinance and repeal all existing sign provisions. (first reading) Jack Lam presented the staff report. Mr. Lam explained that although the County ordinance is the one that is currently in effect, the city staff has been -- operating under Ordinance No. 19 in which all signs require a director's review. The proposed ordinance has been in the development stage for approximately one year. City staff has conducted numerous meetings with interested parties including the Chamber of Commerce. As a result of these meetings and public hearings conducted by the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission is recommending to the Council amendments to the zoning code as stated in Ordinance No. 65. Lam outlined features of the proposed ordinance which are: 1. Reduce the size and number of signs any one user may have. 2. A five-year amoritization schedule for non-conforming signs is included based upon the value of the sign. 3. All signs must be maintained to a certain standard 4. Recognition of signs which the city would identify as having historical or heritage value and termed as historical signs may be allowed to remain provided they are maintained and do not constitute traffic hazards or have other negative effects. 5. A provision to amoritize billboards over a five-year period as other non-conforming signs. Lam then presented slides showing problem areas within the city with examples of other types of signing as used in neighboring communities. Meeting was opened for public input: 1. Mark Denni from Wilmington Savings & Loan who was the Chairman of the Committee for Fair Signing in Rancho Cucamonga. He read a letter which he had sent to the Council dated March 1, 1979. City Council Minutes March 21, 1979 Page 5 ORDINANCE NO. 65 2. Arden Berg of the Sign Users Council showed slides of signs along Foothill Boulevard starting at Wilmington (first reading) Savings & Loan going west. to Vineyard, north to Baseline, east to Archibald, south to Foothill. (continued) After his presentation, May asked Mr. Berg to come back in two weeks with ten slides which he felt were good signs. --- 3. Neil Olsen, Marketing Officer at Security Pacific Bank, who lived at 4815 Polara, Covina, stated he was not in favor of the ordinance and felt the businessman would lose a great deal of business as a result of this ordinance. He also felt the amoritization clause should be deleted along with the design standards. 4. E.P. '~Shorty" Guerra said he was definitely against eight-foot signs. 5. Wesley Mills, resident of Alta Loma, who was in the business of planning, stated that more successful areas have had some type of sign ordinance. He suggested perhaps the ordinance could include a committee of semi-experts to review signs. 6. Chuch Buquet, Chairman of the Cucamonga Subcommittee of the Advisory Committee, spoke in favor of the ordinance and felt the ordinance was trying to set forth guidelines for signing in the city and was trying to make it fair for both the small and large businessman. 7. Ken Willis, of the BIA, said the BIA was in support of the staff's recommendation of permanently located directional signs for tract housing instead of the type which is now being used. 8. Doug Hone spoke emphasizing that for nine months the Chamber of Commerce has been having sign committee meetings every Wednesday morning at 7:30 a.m. Overall he felt the ordinance as written was very good. He did feel the recommendations regarding height, square footage and amori- tization cculd be combined in an architectural review process. 9. A1 Castro, of A and R Tire Company, expressed concern that an eight-foot sign would not be adequate. 10. Jeff Schrenka, of Lucas Land Company, local resident, and member of the Chamber of Commerce Sign Committee, spoke on the consi~.erations of the committee between the amoritization clause and the grandfather clause. He felt the amoritization clause was more fair to the small businessman. He also stated size and height were not significant issues. He said community people went to a business because of the product, not because of the size of sign. Said a lower profile sign ordinance would be more attractive to the com- munity. 11. Mary Lane, member of the Advisory Committee, asked if the Chamber of Commerce had taken a stand on the sign ordi- nance. 12. David Humphrey, Manager of the Chamber, read paragraph from a letter addressed to the Council which said, "The Chamber Board of Directors feel that the Chamber has acted in good faith with its members and the business community as a whole in gathering as much input for the eventual adop- tion of a Sign Ordinance for the City of Rancho Cucamonga as possible. There are certain areas in the proposed ordi- nance with which the Chamber is not completely comfortable, City Council Minutes March 21, 1979 Page 6 ORDINANCE NO. 65 i.e. abatement rather than some sort of grandfathering, (first reading) size and height of free standing and monument signs. Taking all the foregoing factors into consideration, the (continued) Board of Directors does not wish to take a stand on the adoption of the proposed sign ordinance. We feel that there must be an ordinance adopted soon for the good of the community." 13. Ed Murray of Ed's T.V. spoke against the ordinance and__ the amoritization of non-conforming signs. 14. Herman Rempel, Chairman of the Planning Commission, stated as a result from discussions on the General Plan, the Planning Commission asked the people what they wanted their community to look like. One of the things which was brought up many times was the eye pollution in the community. He said it was the Planning Commission, long before the present Staff was on-board, who asked to hav~ the sign ordinance developed. He emphasized the process used in developing the present sign ordinance by studying other sign ordinances, from consulting other offic%~ls in other cities, and input from study sessions and public hearings. 15. Bill Kunz from Kuntz and Company, an outdoor sign business, who lived in Glendora, emphasized his company wap' concerned about the adoption of an ordinance that would eliminate outdoor advertizing. He felt good signing could be controlled rather than eliminated. 16. John Glyn from Foster Kliser spoke regarding a problem his company had with the amoritization period. He said they sell the advertising space which would be just as valuable --~ in five years. He stated to remove a sign they could recu- perate the material costs, but not the advertizing value. Mikels pointed out that there was a process to revise the ordinance if problems should develop. Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Schlosser to approve Ordinance No. 65 for first reading, set April 4 for second reading waive entire reading. Motion unanimously carried. Wasserman read title and number. ORDINANCE NO. 65 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A COMPRE- HENSIVE SIGN ORDINANCE AND REPEALING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CODE PERTAINING TO SIGN REGULATION RECESS Mayor called a recess at 9:50 p.m. Meeting reconvened at 10:05 p.m. with all members of council and staff present SPECIAL Mayor asked Robert Frost, President of the Alta Loma School ANNOUNCEMENT District Board of Trustees to bring a special announcement. Robert Frost stated he had just come from a meeting at Chaffey High School regarding the unification issue. It had been voted to pass the school unification along to the State. As soon as the State gave its approval, it would then go to a vote, hopefully in March. If passed at that time, unification would become effective June 1981. (9) ZONE CHANGE Rehearing of an appeal of a Planning Commission decision APPEAL to deny a zone change. Jack Lam presented the staff report. Mr. Wesley Mills represented the Parks. Council L. Parks had been presented the basic plan for the proposed restaurant. Mr. Mills pointed out the residence was an historical landmark and had potential toward improving the cultural aspects of the community.. He pointed out a precedent had City Council Minutes March 21, 1979 Page 7 ZONE CHANGE been established in a sister city by having a commercial APPEAL venture in a residential area. L. Parks Council then considered the following issues: (continued) 1. What would happen if this restaurant failed? 2. The possibility of a condititional use permit. 3. Is this really the place for a fine restaurant? 4. Zoning of surrounding property. 5. Concern for the home since it was of historic value. Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by West to uphold the Planning Commission's decision and deny the zone change request. Motion: Mikels made a motion to reconsider the motion on the floor. For lack of second, the motion failed. Vote: Motion to deny the zone change carried by the following vote: AYES: Schlosser, Palombo, West, Frost NOES: Mikels (he felt the proposal had merit, a C.U.P. would have given the city protection regarding any future use of the property, and his concern for the historical value of the home.) HISTORICAL An ordinance establishing measures to identify, designate, (10) ORDINANCE preserve and protect the historic resources in the City. Ordinance Mr. Bill Holley, Director of Community Services, presented No. 70 staff report. He emphasized that the historic commission had studied approximately twenty different city ordinances (first reading) during the past seven months in the process of drafting the one being presented. Mr. Leonard Gorczyca, Acting Chairman of the Historical Preservation Commission, spoke of the need for the ordinance. He told the Council the Commission had inven- toried on a preliminary draft some 160 sites in the city which would be considered for historical landmarks. Not all would meet the criteria in the proposed ordinance since it is very specific. Mikels suggested changing Section 18(b) to a from a 60-day period to a 45-day period and in 18(d) from the 45-day period to a 30-day period. Therefore, sections would read as follows: SECTION 18: (b) A public hearing before the Historic Preservation Commission shall be at a time and place fixed by the Secretary but not more than forty-five (45) days after the submission of an application or a proposal for which the public hearing is requred. (d) A public hearing may be continued by the body holding the same for a period not in excess of thirty (30) days. West questioned the necessity of filing fees in Section 17. Mr. Holley pointed out at the present there were no fees established, but at a future date the ordinance would allow for the Council to establish some. City Council Minutes March 21, 1979 Page 8 HISTORICAL Dougherty pointed out that the enabling section would apply ORDINANCE to all applications under the ordinance. In certain cir- cumstances Council might want to have a filing fee and that Ordinance Council would have the power to set fees by a Resolution No. 70 once the ordinance was established. (first reading) Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Palombo to approve (continued) Ordinance No. 70 with changes in Section 18 (b) and (d), set April 4 for second reading, and waive entire reading. -- motion unanimously carried. ORDINANCE NO. 70 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CREATING AN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION TO ACT IN ADVISORY CAPACITY TO CITY COUNCIL IN THE IDENTIFICATION AND PRESERVA- TION OF HISTORICAL OBJECTS, EVENTS, STRUCTURES AND SITES AND TO IDENTIFY PERSONS OF HISTORICAL SIGNI- FICANCE TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. COOPERATION A cooperation agreement with San Bernardino County which (11) AGREEMENT deals with publicly owned housing units withing the City OF COMMUNITY of Rancho Cucamonga. Phil Rush from the Office of Community DEVELOPMENT Development, San Bernardino County, addressed Council. Council considered what the benefits would be to the city as opposed to doing this ourselves. Mr. Rush pointed out the city had no Housing Authority of its own and only an Housing Authority was approved to apply for these available funds. Mikels expressed that a great deal of time went into establishing the ~hree adopted elements of the General -- Plan and can foresee same type of effort going into the Housing Element. He stated we should develop this issue before rushing into a decision with the County. Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Palombo to direct this to staff to explore the kinds of alternatives that are available to Rancho Cucamonga and how a consideration of this item could be integrated into consideration of the Housing Element for the General Plan. Motion unanimously carried. COMMITTEE 1. Advisory Committee - Chuck Buquet, Chairman, for the REPORTS Cucamonga Subcommittee, said the Advisory Committees' main concern was storm drains which would be reported on later. They had been working on the sign ordinance and were now working on some other items with staff. Meetings are on third Thursdays each month in the Library. 2. Historical Commission - Leonard Gorczyca, Acting Chairman, stated that to answer questions which were being asked about sites which have been named of historical importance, the next step will be to take these sites and establish an inventory in accordance with the prescribed form and outline by the State. Then the list will be submitt__ed to the City Council who will be final authority on desig- nations. FIREWORKS Jim Robinson, Assistant to the City Manager, presented the (12) staff report. Staff recommendation to Council was: "Establish a rotation system for issuance of permits. Qualified organizations would be added to the list each year. In addition, the City Council could consider a ran- dom drawing or lottery to determine the order of prioritY for this original list. Those qualified organizations that receive licenses each year would rotate to the bottom of the list and move up the list as licenses are issued each year. Upon written request,qualified organizations would be added to the list each year. City Council Minutes March 21, 1979 Page 9 FIREWORKS Those speaking on the issuewere: (continued) Phil Tubillo, Sons of Italy, emphasized this was a non-profit organization and should have a part in the program. E.P. Guerra, Cucamonga Men's Service Club, favored the rotation basis of selection. Bill Wieland-Vineyard Little League, favored the rotation basis of selection. Bill Griffith, Rancho Cucamonga Kiwanis, in favor of the staff's recommendations. Also suggested limiting ireworks booths to non-profit service organizations that would turn monies generated in this fund raising effort back into the city for the betterment of the city. Ron Boatwright - Boy Scout Troop 641, favored the grand- father clause and felt more booths might be considered. Chuck Buquet, Miss Softball America, expressed they would be able to use any money in developing fields since there is a lack of fields in town. John Rose, Citrus Little League, felt stands should be given on basis of needs. West expressed he would like to see any money earned stay within the community. Motion: Moved by~Mikels, seconded by West and unani- mously carried there should be as follows: 1. One fireworks stand per 10,000 population. 2. Accept staff's recommendation to establish a ro- tation system for issuance of permits with qualify- ing organizations being added to the list each year. In addition, to establish a random drawing to determine the order of priority for the original list. 3. Ail monies be turned back into the community. 4. Fifty-one percent of an organization's membership to be residents of Rancho Cucamonga. 5. Be a non-profit organization with certificate on file with the State and to present this as proof of organization's status. 6. Limit drawing of first applicants to the ones currently on file. The ones not drawn this year will be on the list first next year. Ail new applications be added to the bottom of list in order of receipt. Those having stands this year to be placed at the end of list. STORM DRAIN- Mr. Wasserman stated that since the last Council meeting, (13) SYSTEMS FEE staff had met on two occasions with the representatives of the industrial community with the assistance of the Chamber of Commerce helping to coordinate the effort. A meeting, which was held this afternoon, was for the purpose of indicating to the community the extent of flood control problems in the city and rationale for staff and Advisory Committee's recommendations to Council for the storm drain fee ordinance. Mr. Hubbs, City Engineer, gave an overview of storm drain needs in the city with some approximate costs. Ken Willis, Building Association Industry, indicated the BIA felt there was an injustice with the Systems Development fees. He felt that if such a fee were imposed, Council should take into consideration: City Council Minutes March 21, 1979 Page 10 STORM DRAIN- 1. The cumulative impact of all fees which brings the SYSTEMS FEE average cost on residential development to the $5,000 per unit range. (continued) 2. Recommended reducing the Systems Development fee to ½ percent. 3. Recommended removal of the beautification fee. Doug Hone stated that what shocked people the most was once the fees were on, the Council then took them off. Basically, he felt the main concern was the urgency of the measures. Discussion followed as to what Council wished to have included in an ordinance. Council decided to consider each item referred to in Mr. Hubbs memo dated March 21 to the Council and make a decision on each item. 1. Fees are to be collected at the time of recordation of a Parcel Map and eliminate payment of fee on vacant parcels of a Parcel Map. Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by West to establish time for payment of fees at the issuance of the building permits. Motion unanimously carried. 2. Fees are to be collected on a parcel basis at the issuance of a building permit on any portion of the parcel. Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded'by Schlosser to approve alternative B as suggested by staff: Alternative B. -- The Ordinance could allow the fee to be calculated by the Building Official based on established guidelines for processing residential, commercial, and industrial development. 3. Drainage fees shall not be required as a condition of the issuance of building permit for alternations, repairs or remodeling of any building where the costs of such alterations, repairs or remodeling at less than $10,000. Motion: Moved by West, seconded by Mikels to approve item C as follows: C. Incorporate the following language: 1. This section shall not apply to additions made to single family residence where the square foot area of such addition does not exceed fifty percent of the area of the residential portion of the building existing prior to addition. 2. This section shall not apply to alterations made to a single family residence when the value of the proposed alterations not exceed fifty percent of the value of the building being altered prior to its alteration. 3. This section shall not apply to construction of or additions to garages, carports, storage building and similar non-residential buildings, accessory to single family residences where such construction or addition does not exceed 500 square foot in area. City Council Minutes March 21, 1979 Page 11 STORM DRAIN- Discussion followed over the language and how to incor- SYSTEMS FEE porate industrial and commercial into the section. (continued) Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by West to rescind the previous motion. Motion unanimously carried. New Motion: Moved by West, seconded by Mikels and unanimously carried to approve item C as amended as follows: --- To change the wording of single family residence in C1 and C2 to "any structure". (This would allow for residential, commercial, and industrial). To leave C3 as stated. 4. The ordinance applies uniformly to commercial, industrial, and residential development. Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by West to follow staff's recommendations and retain fee and ordinance as proposed. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: ~fikels, Palombo, West, and Frost. ABSTAINED: Schlosser. 5. There is no specific provision in the Ordinance to allow credit against fees to be paid. Motion: Moved by West, seconded by Mikels to approve staff's recommendations to revised ordinance to provide specific definitions to allow credits for Master Planned Facilities. Mr. Hubbs pointed out there was another option to allow ~-- an applicant to pay based upon an agreement over a five- year period. He asked Council if they would like to provide such provisions. Council suggested staff come back with some specific recommendations. ORDINANCE An ordinance establishing a systems development fee. NO. 61 Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Schlosser to approve Ordinance No. 61, set April 4 for second reading, and waive entire reading. Motion unanimously carried. Title and number read by Wasserman. ORDINANCE NO. 61 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUC~MONGA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT FEE ON NEW DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY. SCAG -208 REPORT A request had been received from SCAG for City Council to adopt a resolution stating the city's intent to carry out specific actions recommended in SCAG's 208 Areawide Waste Treatment Management Plan. Barry Hogan, Assistant Planner, suggested to Council that the report be received and filed until the SCAG Executive Committee adopts the 208 Plan. Action: Council received and filed the report. MORATORIUM City Council had directed staff to develop some alternative REPORT AND language for a specific section of the moratorium ordinance POLICY DIRECTION to enable a person who desired to build his own home to proceed without being encumbered by the ordinance. Jack Lam presented two possible alternatives which were: 1. To exempt residential parcel maps where only one new dwelling unit can result. This exemption could be on a one time only basis and subject to the approval of the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of a building permit. City Council Minutes March 21, 1979 Page 12 MORATORIUM 2. To allow a one time parcel map to be submitted provided; REPORT AND however, that another parcel map for the same or portions POLICY DIRECTION of the same property may not be submitted for a certain period of time. (continued) Council concurred with alternative No. 1. and directed staff to draft the necessary ordinance. (15) CUCAMONGA CREEK Request approval and execution of the revised agreement COMMON USE for bridge replacement, betterment and common use for AGREEMENT improvement of the Cucamonga Creek bridge crossings at 4th Street, Hellman Avenue, 6th Street, 8th Street, Vineyard Avenue, 9th Street, and Arrow Route. Agreement had been submitted to Council on March 7, however, at that time all financial arrangements had not been worked out with the Flood Control District. Agreement had been revised to provide that the City pay the Flood Control District $280,000 by April 1, 1979 and the remaining funds by June 15, 1979. Motion: Moved by'West, seconded by Schlosser to approve the execution of the agreement and authorize the scheduled expenditures. Motion unanimously carried. ACCEPTANCE OF Tract 9479: Faithful performance (road). $172,800 BONDS AND Labor & material (road) 86,400 AGREEMENTS Monumentation 4,000 Tract 9480: Faithful performance (road) $151,200 Labor & Material (road) 75,600 Monumentation 4,000 Motion: Moved by West, seconded by Mikels to accept bonds and agreements for Tract Nos. 9479 and 9480, to approve Resolution Nos. 79-21 and 79-22 and waive entire readings. Motion unanimously carried. Titles and numbers read by Wasserman. RESOLUTION NO. 79-21 (16) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITY, AND FINAL MAP OF TRACT NO. 9479.. RESOLUTION NO. 79-22 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITY, AND FINAL MAP OF TRACT NO. 9480. Tract 9454: Faithful Performance (road) $148,000 Labor & material (road) 74,000 Monumentation 4,150 Motion: Moved by West, seconded by Schlosser to accept bonds and agreement for tract no. 9454, approve Resolution No. 79-19 and waive entire reading. Motion unanimously carried. Title and number read by Wasserman. RESOLUTION NO. 79-19 (17) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITY, AND FINAL MAP OF TRACT NO. 9454. City Council Minutes March 21~ 1979 Page_ 13 APPROVAL OF Parcel Map 4594: Accepting bonds $131,500 (18) PARCEL MAPS Motion: Moved by West, seconded by Palombo to accept bonds and approve Parcel Map No. 4594, approve Resolution No. 79-20 and waive entire reading. Motion unanimously carried. Title and number read by Wasserman. __ RESOLUTION NO. 79-20 (18) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 4594 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 78-0230) IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY. Parcel Map 4590: (18) Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by West to approve Parcel Map 4590, Resolution No. 79-24 and waive entire reading. Motion unanimously carried. Title and number read by Wasserman. RESOLUTION NO. 79-24 (18) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 4590 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 78-0025) IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY. Parcel Map 4929: (19) Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Mikels to approve Parcel Map 4929, Resolution NO. 79-23 and waive entire reading. Motion unanimously carried. Title and number read by Wasserman. RESOLUTION NO. 79-23 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 4929, (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 77-0381) IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT. ADDED ITEM Request for Harry Empey, Director of Finance to attend a class sponsored by USC entitled, "Budget Analysis and Fiscal Problem Solving." Cost of class would be $270 for registration. Although item was not a budgeted one, two conferences had been authorized for the Finance Director to attend. Because of workload, he has not been able to attend the scheduled conferences. Motion: Moved by West, seconded by Schlosser to approve attendance at the USC class for the Finance Director. Motion unanimously carried. NEW BUSINESS a. Mikels submitted a memo to Council regarding alternative means of financing public improvements. He recommended that the City Attorney provide Council, the Planning Commission, and staff with copies of enabling legislation regarding Tax Imcrement Planning for consider- ation in conjunction with planning of the industrial areas of the community. Also, for the City Attorney to advise Council on types of bonding methods which are still permissible in light of post Proposition 13 legislation. Council received the suggestion and directed staff to come back in two weeks with a full report. b. Thursday, March 29 in San Diego the League of California Cities would be conducting a solar workshop. It was suggested staff send someone to conference. City Council Minutes March 21, 1979 Page 14 NEW BUSINESS c. Mikels said that since he had been elected to the Executive Committee of SCAG, he would not be able to maintain (continued) active membership on the Community Economic Development Committee. He said perhaps some other Council member would be interested in attending these meetings to represent the city. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by West, seconded by Palombo to adjourn. Motion unanimously carried. The meeting adjourned at 2:05 a.m. Respectfully submitted, -- Beverly Authelet Deputy City Clerk