No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979/02/28 - Minutes - Adjourned Special FEBRUARY 28, 1979 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Adjourned Special Meeting CALL TO ORDER The adjourned special meeting of the City Council was called to order at 6:05 p.m. by Mayor James C. Frost --- in the Community Service Building, 9161 Baseline Road. Mayor explained to those present that the meeting would adjourn to the Library Conference Room at 9191 Baseline Road since they would be able to have that facility longer. ROLL CALL Present: Council members Phillip Schlosser, Jon Mikels, Michael Palombo, Charles West, and Mayor James C. Frost. City Manager, Lauren Wasserman; Interim City Attorney, Sam Crowe; Community Development Director, Jack Lam; City Engineer, Lloyd Hubbs. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by West to adjourn to the Library Conference Room. Notices were posted on doors of building indicating the move. Motion unanimously carried. The meeting reconvened at 6:10 p.m. in the Library Conference Room with all members of Council and Staff present. PURPOSE OF Mayor explained the purpose of the special meeting. (1) SPECIAL MEETING Council had been advised by the City Attorney that in order to continue the moratorium on single family develop- ment, there would have to be 4/5 of Council present. ....... Since the Mayor would not be at the March 7 meeting due to the National League of Cities meeting in Washington, it was felt necessary to call a special meeting in order to be assured of the quorum. Additional date had been requested by the Council for: 1. Proposal for phasing plan for the 556 dwelling units. 2. Proposal for SB-201 fee revision. 3. Proposal for work program for development and adoption of a growth mamagement plan. 4. Number of proposed dwelling units in Fontana and Ontario within the Chaffey Joint Union High School District. Wasserman gave an overview of staff's findings as outlined in memo to Council from Jack Lam dated February 27, 1979. An additional item was added: how many students were attending Alta Loma High School who were not residents of Rancho Cucamonga? Wasserman stated there were ten students from Upland and five students from Fontana. He also pointed out there were a large number of students living south of Foothill Boulevard who were attending ChaffeyHigh School. Staff was recommending that the moratorium be extended for six months in order to allow staff sufficient time to prepare a growth mamagement plan. This amount of time would be necessary in order to develop the plan and to proceed through the public hearings with the Planning Commission and City Council. Council had been presented two ordinances. One would extend the expiration date of the present ordinance. The second would establish a moratorium on the filing or processing of land division applications and residential City Council Minutes February-28, 1979 Page 2 PURPOSE OF development applications. Both were urgency measures. SPECIAL MEETING Wasserman read both ordinances in full (no numbers had (continued) been assigned, but would be later). Crowe pointed out both ordinances were mutually exclusive. Both were not meant to be adopted. Tentative numbers had been assigned for identification purposes only. (Nos 63 and 64 had been assigned temporarily for identification purposes). Mikels moved that we continue the moratorium on new filings; the only question would be the date. (Ordinance --- No. 64). Mikels moved that we continue the moratorium on new filings as modified with respect to parcel maps and minor subdivisions. Schlosser felt section 5 should be changed first. (Ordinance No. 64). Mikels included in the motion as part of ordinance No. 64 with certain modifications to be discusses by the council. For lack of second the motion failed. Discussion followed regarding the date the moratorium would empose. Schlosser felt July 1 or 15 would be a better date. Staff was asked why the time was required. Lam pointed~out the Planning Commission's work for the growth management s~.rategy_~as.tQ_make ~_~e~ommen~at~on to to the City Council concerning the moratorium issue, not the growth management plan. The General Plan took longer through the hearing process than was originally thought, therefore, the Commission had been involved with the General Plan, not growth management. It was felt it would take a six-month period to develop a plan and to also allow time for public hearings through the Planning Com- mission and City Council. Schlosser felt that the date may or may not be important __ depending on how many of the 556 homes are immediately built and what is done with apartment, mobile homes, and condominium developments. To limit development in these areas, rents might go out of control. Wasserman said according to the Water District, apartments are classified residential as far as sewer allocations. However, if developers can not build single family resi- dences, there is a change they will start building apartments. Result could be there would be no allocations left for single family dwellings. This is why they were included in the moratorium for the six-month period. Lam added that the city had been informed by the Water District that the District itself received an equivalent of 130 units of residential development per month. Of that Rancho Cucamonga would get 110 units per month. Schlosser asked Lloyd Michael, General Manager of the Cucamonga County Water District, to speak on what was available. Michael said sewer allocations available were negotiated in July and the cities of Ontario and Upland had been issuing building permits during this time. He said there was --- 940,000 gallons per day sewer allocations available to the District. This should be sufficient for the 556 homes, apartments, mobile home parks, and condominiums. Schlosser said in Section 5 we could omit "not" and add "minor subdivision." Lam asked if in a six-month period would we be creating more apartment projects than our allocations for sewer? City Council Minutes February 28, 1979 Page 3 PURPOSE OF Mikels asked for clarification of Section 3. Lam SPECIAL MEETING said this was consistent with a section in another ordinance (continued) and the purpose was to discourage four by fouring. Dis- cussion followed regarding parcel maps and minor sub- divisions and the possibility of four by fouring. Council requested that wording be made available to allow parcels and single family residents to prevent four by fouring at the March 21 meeting. Wasserman pointed out it was best to adopt the ordinance as it stands, then come back at the next meeting with amendments. Ken Willis of the BIA and Richard Lewis were asked to speak regarding the number of apartments they expected to be built in the city. Ken Willis stated the building industry has been opposed to apartment development and multiple family housing being disallowed in the city. Reason was it did not necessarily impact the schools. Recently, a large number of apart- ments have been filed since the vacancy rate was less than 1%. He had come prepared to oppose apartments being denied the right to file. However, after hearing Mr. Michael regarding sewer capacity, perhaps it is better to preserve a certain amount of capacity in order to preserve a growth management plan. The Building Industry was not prepared to take a position at this time. Richard Lewis said they would hate to see all the sewer allocations go to apartments since they have waited over three years to develop. Jim Smirl felt a great need for mobile home and condominium units and that they were a separate issue from apartments; otherwise, he felt the same as Mr. Lewis. Ralph Lewis stated there was a need for apartments and mobile home parks. What would stop the building for these would be rent controls. Schlosser felt the sections 3 and 5 should be removed for further study. Mayor felt they should remain until further study. Wasserman said the only one not affected by this ordinance would be the 556 units that are approved. Schlosser said that since sewers are available, mobile homes,apartments, and condominiums do not impact the schools, then we really should let them go. Council directed the Cucamonga County Water District to provide information regarding sewers and if the city would lose allocations if they were not used or guaranteed to be used for the March 21 meeting. Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by West to approve Ordinance No. 64 as is until a study on Section 3 and Section 5 could be obtained. (Wasserman had read ordinance in full previously in the meeting). Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Schlosser, Mikels, Palombo, West, Frost Direction to staff: ,to come back on the March 21 meeting with proper wording for Sections 3 and 5. City Council Minutes February 28, 1979 Page 4 (2) PHASING ISSUE Wasserman said there was no easy way to phase the 556 homes that have been approved by the County prior to incorporation. Staff had recommended two schedules to the Council -- one taking the Cucamonga County Water District's sewer priority list, the other was worked out by staff with the building industry. Mr. Willis was asked to comment on the schedules. Willis said the staff changed some of the BIA's recommendations. Therefore, the industry no longer has any commitments from the developers to support the voluntary schedule. Therefore, they felt the CCWD priority list was one they could support. He also said permits should be allowed to be issued in March and not wait until July. Willis asked Michael of the Cucamonga County Water District. how many allocations would be available in March, April, and May. Michael said the restriction of that number was according to the availability of staff of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to process and handle them. The Water District can handle them as fast as the city can process them. Wasserman stated that is why the list started in June to help staff and also school districts. This would give the schools three more months plus the summer months to make arrangements as far as structures. Willis pointed out that one developer has a very tight financial arrangement and if he does not get this map recorded by May 1, the whole thing will go bankrupt. Mayor'said in cases like this and if it was justified, Council probably would change their minds. Moved by Mikels, seconded by Frost to approve the phasing of Schedule A and all tracts on list be allowed to obtain sewer allocations now but not able to pull permits until dates indicated on Schedule A. Jim Smirl pointed out a need to give consideration to avoid speculation and windfall profits. He was against giving out allocations and letting that allocation stay with the land forever. Mikels added to the motion: That sewer allocations be granted on dates specified on Schedule A at the time the permit is issued. Agreed to by seconder, Jim Frost. Doug Hone explained that all these tracts may not be able to obtain financing now since it is difficult to obtain financial backing these days. He felt the 556 homes should be put up and if it expires, then the records would be clean. Smirl pointed out many lenders required that sewer allocations needed to be listed at the time of recordation. Bart Porter suggested setting a time frame then let the builders decide voluntarily when to pull permits. He felt 'they would not all go at once. Pete Peterson from Chevron Construction pointed out they had 185 units that they would be phased over the next four months. He asked about tracts not listed on the schedule. They were: Tracts 9435 for 42 units and Tract 9638 for 25 units. He said they were included on a list from the Surveyor's Office. City Council Minutes February 28, 1979 Page 5 PHASING ISSUE A call was made for motions to be read back. Motions (continued) were retracted by mover and seconder. Motion: Moved by West, seconded by Palombo to approve Schedule A as presented by staff with dates of March 9 to be the beginning date instead of June. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Schlosser, Mikels, Palombo, West NOES: Frost (Mayor wished to go on record for supporting the June date because of the holdup the school districts had faced during the construction of schools). Lam said the two tracts that Chevron mentioned would be looked into to see if they were approved and would come back to Council as a separate item for adjustment. SCHOOL FEES West suggested we utilize fees for elementary schools (3) and the fees for the high school district be denied since we had received an inadequate declaration from the Chaffey Joint Union High School District. Motion: Moved by Mikels to assess a fee of $893 per unit for the Alta Loma Elementary School District and $908 per unit in the Central School District and to rescind approval of the Chaffey Declaration of Impaction until such time as they present a revised Declaration of Im- paction which is in compliance with the City Ordinance, in compliance with the State law, and which is acceptable to the Council. Seconded by West. Also, to include payment of fees in the amount of 50% of rate on single family dwelling units in the specified school districts for mobile home and multiple family dwellings. (addition agreed to by West who had seconded the motion). Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Schlosser, Mikels, Palombo, West NOES: Frost Ray Sarrio of the Chaffey Joint Union High School District addressed the Council indicating the School District intended to inform Council after the District's next meeting as to how they intended to utilize funds generated by the fees. COUNCIL'S POSITION Mayor presented a letter to the Council which he was (4) ON UNIFICATION requesting authorization to sign and send to the local ISSUE newspapers stating the City Council goes on record of not taking a position on the school unification issue at this time. Mikels did not oppose the position if the letter represented the Council's wishes except he wished to have added that the electorate be allowed to vote on the issue. Mayor read the letter in full. Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Schlosser to authorize the Mayor to sign the letter and send to the local papers. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Schlosser, Palombo, West, Frost NOES: Mikels (He was not against the letter, but he felt ~ouncil should urge that the electorate be allowed to decide the issue). Resolution had been requested by Terry Goggin's office. City Council Minutes February 28, 1979 Page 6 (5) RESOLUTION Motion: Moved by Schlosser, seconded by Mikels to NO. 79-14 approve Resolution No. 79-14 and waive entire reading. Title and number read by Wasserman. Motion unanimously carried. RESOLUTION NO. 79-14 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AFFIRMING ITS UTILIZATION OF GENERAL FUND REVENUES AND SENATE BILL-154 ASSISTANCE PROVIDED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO MEET CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1978-79. Bart Porter asked for guidance from Council in discussing a hardship case. Mayor directed him to Jack Lam of the city staff. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by West, seconded by Mikels to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Beverly Authelet Deputy City Clerk