Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991/12/04 - Minutes December 4, 1991 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Reaular Meetin~ A, CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council was held on Wednesday, December 4, 1991, in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. by Mayor Dennis L. Stout. Present were Councilmembers= William J. Alexander, Charles J. Buquet II, Diane Willjams, Pamela J. Wright, and Mayor Dennis L. Stout. Also present were= Jack Lam, City Manager; James Markman, City Attorney; Linda D. Daniels, Deputy City Manager; Jerry B. Fulwood, Deputy City Manager; Rick Gomez, Community Development Director; Olen Jones, Sr. RDAAnalyst; Jan Reynolds, AssistantRDAAnalyst; Brad Bullet, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Cindy Norris, Associate Planner; Joe O'Neil, City Engineer; Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer; Cindy Hackett, Associate Engineer; Jo Eynne Russo, Integrated Waste Management Coordinator; Jim Hart, Administrative Services Director; Duane Baker, Assistant to the City Manager; Diane O'Neal, Management Analyst II; Susan Mickey, Management Analyst I; Chief Dennis Michael, Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District; Capt. Bruce Zeiner, Rancho Cucamonga Police Departments and Debra J. Adams, City Clerk. , · , · · B, ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS B1. Mayor Stout introduced Jo Lynne Russo, Integrated Waste Management Coordinator, who would be working for Joe O'Neil, City Engineer. B2. Councilmember Buquet reported that Rancho Cucamonga's CHOICES program was recognized at SANBAG. , · , · , C, COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Cl. Jack Willjams stated he was before the Council on behalf of RCMORE, which represents seven mobile home parks in Rancho Cucamonga. He stated there seems to be an impasse in resolving the problems with the Accord. He stated the park owners are adamant in increasing rents. He stated the City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 2 (i) (2) residents are equally firm in not buckling under to the owners' demands. He added a meeting is scheduled on December 7 with the Council Subcommittee, the park owners and the mobile home residents. He stated because of the short time span when the Accord will expire, the residents are extremely apprehensive and frustrated that the problem will not be resolved in the remaining time. He asked that the Council see to it that the contents of the Accord are preserved. He hoped that the Council would continue to help to stabilize the rents for mobile home residents. He stated the Accord was originally developed because of the rent increases brought about by the park owners. He asked that this subject be added to the City Council agenda for the December 18 meeting. , , , , , D. CONSENT D1. Approval of Minutes: September 25, 1991 (Buquet absent) D2. Approval of Warrants, Register Nos. 11/14/91, 11/20/91 and 11/25/91; and Payroll ending 11/7/91 for the total amount of $2,568,910.17. D3. Alcoholic Beverage Application for On Sale Beer & Wine Eating Place for China Land Buffet, Frank & Lily Wang, 9255 Base Line Road, D4. Alcoholic Beverage Application for On Sale Beer & Wine Eating Place for Cucamonga Taco Hut, Maria M. and Moises T. Jacuinde, 9451 Foothill Boulevard. DS. Alcoholic Beverage Application for On Sale Beer & Wine Eating Place for Royal Panda, Roger & Vicki Chi and Li Hua & Wilian Ping, 8740 Base Line Road. D6. Approval of the repayment and reborrowing of the annual loan between the City and Redevelopment Agency. (0203-06 RDA) D7. Approval and execution of the Cost and Maintenance Agreement (CO 91-081) between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company for the Proposed 7th Street Spur Crossing, including both street and storm drain improvements (part of AD 82-1) at the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Crossing Designated PUC No. 2-91.6-C north of Sixth Street. (0602-01 CONTRACT) RESOLUTION NO. 91-369 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND SIGNING OF THE COST ANDMAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE 7TH STREET STORM DRAINAND RAILROAD CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS BETWEEN 6TH STREET AND 7TH STREET City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 3 D8. Approval to award and authorize the execution of a contract (CO91-082) for a shopping center parking study to P & D Technologies for the amount of $29,880.00, to be funded from fees deposited by Hughes Investments and Lewis Homes Management Corporation. (0602-01 CONTRACT) (0511-01 AWARD) D9. Approval to execute Contract Change Order No. 3 (CO 90-052) for Professional Services Agreement with Centennial Civil Engineers, Incorporated, Foothill Boulevard Implementation Plan, Phase I, for $25,604.00 to be paid from Redevelopment Agency Account Number 15-50200. (0602-01 CONT AMEN) D10. Approval to execute Improvement Agreement, Improvement Securities and acceptance of Real Property Improvement Contract and Lien Agreement for a single family residence, located on 5291 Sapphire Street, submitted by James A. Brown and Joyce W. Brown. (0602-01 AGREE IMPR) (0602-01 AGREE I/L) RESOLUTION NO. 91-370 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES FOR 5291 SAPPHIRE STREET RESOLUTION NO. 91-371 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING A REAL PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT AND LIEN AGREEHENT FROM JAMES A. BROWN AND JOYCE W. BROWN AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO SIGN THE SAME Dll. Approval to execute Improvement Agreement Extension for Tract 13270, located on the northwest corner of Milliken Avenue and Church Street, submitted by Lewis Homes. (0602-01 AGREE EXTN) RESOLUTION NO. 91-372 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR TRACT 13270 D12. Approval to accept Improvements and Release of Bond for DR 87-20, located on the northeast corner of Hermosa Avenue and 6th Street. (0602-01 BOND REL) Release: Faithful Performance Bond $ 2,000.00 RESOLUTION NO. 91-373 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR DR 87-20 (3) (4) (s) (6) (7) City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 4 (8) (9) D13. Approval to accept Improvements, Release of Bonds and Notice of Completion for Millikan Avenue Median Landscaping, located on Millikan Avenue between Foothill Boulevard and Base Line Road. (0602-01 BOND REL) (0704-18 NOT COMPL) Release~ Faithful Performance Bond (Street) $475,248.00 RESOLUTION NO. 91-374 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR MILLIKEN AVENUE MEDIAN LANDSCAPINGAND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK MOTION= Moved by Willjams, seconded by Alexander to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. · · , · · CONSENT ORDINANCES El. CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 91-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - Consideration of a request to amend Title 17, Chapter 17.12 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to eliminate compact parking spaces and reduce the standard size parking space to 9 feet by 18 feet. (Continued from November 6, 1991) (ITEM Ptff~,rD FOR DISCUSSION BY COUNCILMEMBER ~T.wXANDER) (0203-03 DCAMEN) Councilmember Alexander statedhe thought after this matter was studied further, it would come back to the Council for further discussion. He stated he did not think the additional asphaltwould make a difference, and did not want to see any more asphalt in a shopping center than was necessary. He added he would like to see this reconsidered. Councilmember Willjams stated for the Commercial/Retail, she liked the 9 feet spaces, but for Residential (multi-family), she did not think it was a problem to go with 8.5 feet spaces. She stated she is still having a problem with the Office Use parking spaces where cars would be parked all day at a location. Mayor Stout stated the large stores are requesting that parking spaces be 9 feet. He did not think the length made that much difference, but felt they should be 9 feet. He stated he was not as adamant about residential parking spaces, that he would go either way. Councilmember Willjams stated she liked 9 feet for commercial. Councilmember Alexander stated he would go along with that. Councilmember Buquet stated he did not have a problem with the Ordinance remaining at 9 feet. Councilmember Wright stated she felt consideration should be given to the developers, but also felt the 9 feet space should be approved. City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 5 Councilmember Alexander stated he would go ahead with the 9' space, but wondered why we ask for a study to be done and then change the recommendation. Debra J. Adams, City Clerk, read the title of Ordinance No. 462. ORDINANCE NO. 462 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 91-01, AMENDING TITLE 17, CHAPTER 17.12 OF THE RANCHO CUCANONGA MUNICIPAL CODE, ELIMINATING COMPACT PARKING SPACES AND REDUCING THE STANDARD SIZE PARKING SPACE TO 9 FEET BY 18 FEET, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF MOTION: Moved by Wright, seconded by Stout to waive full reading and approve Ordinance No. 462. Motion carried 3-2 (Alexander, Willjams no). , · · · · E2. CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - Consideration of a request to amend Part III of the Industrial Specific Plan to eliminate compact parking spaces. (Continued from November 6, 1991) (0203-05 INDUS SP) Debra J. Adams, City Clerk, read the title of Ordinance No. 463. ORDINANCE NO. 463 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-01, ELIMINATING COMPACT PARKING SPACES, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT TMEHEOF MOTION: Moved by Willjams, seconded by Alexander to waive full reading and approve Ordinance No. 463. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. , , , , , E3. CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA - A proposal to amend the Etiwanda Specific Plan Land Use Map from MediumResidential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for the following subareas within the Etiwanda Specific Plan: (0203-05 ETIW SP) (s) Approximately 10.09 acres bordered on the north and west by existing Low Medium Residential designated land, on the east by existing Office designated land, and on the south by Base Line Road. The City will consider Office Professional as an alternative land use for this entire area - APN: 227-131-34 through 36, 52, and 53. (io) (ii) City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 6 Approximately 10.00 acres bordered on the north by the Southern Pacific Railway, on the east by the Ontario (I-15) Freeway, on the south by existing Office designated land, and on the west by existing Low Medium designated land and divided in a north-south direction by East Avenue. The City will consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use for this entire area - APN: 227-131-05 and 227-141-14 and 66. Debra J. Adams, City Clerk, read the title of Ordinance No. 453 ORDINANCE NO. 453 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-03, SUBAREA 5, TO AMEND THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLANLAND USE MAPFROMMEDIUMRESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLINGUNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 10.09 ACHES OF LAND BORDERED ON THE NORTH AND WEST BY EXISTING LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND, ON THE EAST BY EXISTING OFFICE/PROFESSIONAL DESIGNATED LAND, AND ON THE SOUTH BY BASE LINE ROAD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APNz 227-131-34 THROUGH 36, 52, AND 53 MOTION= Moved by Williams, seconded by Alexander to waive full reading and approve Ordinance No. 453. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. ORDINANCE I~ER 454 pUT3.R'D FOR DISCUSSXON BY COUNCILMEMBER WEIGHT. Councilmember Wright stated she had this item removed because she had previously voted no, and wanted her vote to remain consistent. Debra J. Adams, City Clerk, read the title of Ordinance No. 454. ORDINANCE NO. 454 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-03, WEST PORTION OF SUBAREA 6, TO AMEND THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW-MEDIUMRESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLINGUNITS PER ACRE) FORAPPROXIMATELY 10.00 ACRES OF LAND BORDERED ON THE NORTH BY THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY, ON THE EAST BY EAST AVENUE, ON THE SOUTH BY EXISTING OFFICE DESIGNATED LAND, AND ON THE WEST BY EXISTING LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND - APN: 227-141-14 AND 66, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF MOTION= Moved by Alexander, seconded by Williams to waive full reading and approve Ordinance No 454. Motion carried 4-1 (Wright no). City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 7 E4. CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91-03 - CITY OF RANCHOCUCAMONGA - A proposal to amend theGeneral Plan Land Use Map within the Victoria Planned Community as described below= (0203-05 VCPAMEN) (1) From Medium High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) to Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) for the following subareas: B. For 19.3 acres of land located on the north side of Base Line Road, west of Victoria Park Lane, and east of the RV self storage facility. The Planning Commission recommends approval - APN: 227T 091-14 and 15. C. For 21.77 acres of land located on the northwest corner of Base Line Road and the future Day Creek Boulevard. The Planning Commission recommends approval -APN: Portion of 227-091-18 and 19, 227-091-20 through 22, and 227-091-43. D. For 7,895 acres of land located between approximately 1,000 feet and 1,300 feet south of Highland Avenue on the west side of the future Day Creek Boulevard. The Planning Commission recommends approval - APN~ Portion of 227-021-03 and 13. (2) From MediumResidential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for the following subareas= H. For 23.03 acres of land located on the southeast corner of Victoria Park Lane and Rochester Avenue. The Planning Commission recommends approval - APN: 227-091-51. I. For 32.14 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Rochester Avenue. The Planning Commission recommends approval - APN: 227-091-45 and 46 and a portion of 227-091-44. J. For 20.895 acres of land approximately 892 feet north of the future Victoria Park Lane extension on the west side of the future Day Creek Boulevard. The Planning Commission recommends approval - APN: Portion of. 227-021-03 and 13. (3) From Medium High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) to Community Facilities for the following subarea: L. For 2.46 acres of land approximately 406 feet south of the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way and approximately 321 feet west of the future Day Creek Boulevard. The Planning Commission recommends approval - APN: Portion of 227-091-18 and 19. (4) From Medium High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) to Village Commercial for the following subarea: City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 8 M. For 7.895 acres of land located between approximately 600 feet and 1,000 feet south of Highland Avenue on the west side of the future Day Creek Boulevard. The Planning Con~nission recommends approval - APN= Portion of 227-021-03 and 13. Debra J. Adame read the titles of Ordinance Nos. 470, 471, 472, 475, 476, 477, 478 and 479. ORDINANCE NO. 470 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91-03, SUBAREA B, AMENDING THE VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM-HIGH RESIDENTIAL (14-24 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO MEDIUMRESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR 19.3 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON T~E NORTH SIDE OF BASE LINE ROAD, WEST OF VICTORIA PARK LANE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN= 227-091-14 AND 15 ORDINANCE NO. 471 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91-03, SUBAREA C, AMENDING THE VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM-HIGH RESIDENTIAL (14-24 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE} TO MEDIUMRESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR 21.77 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF BASE LINE ROAD AND THE FUTURE DAY CREEK BOULEVARD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN= PORTION OF 227-091-18 AND 19, 227-091-20 THROUGH 22, AND 227- 091-43 ORDINANCE NO. 472 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VICTORIA PLANWED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91-03, SUBAR~A D, AMENDING THE VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM-HIGH RESIDENTIAL (14-24 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO MEDIUMRESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR 7.895 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED BETWEEN APPROXIMATELY 1,000 FEET AND 1,300 FEET SOUTH OF HIG~ND AVENUEAND ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE FUTUREDAY CREEK BOULEVARD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -APN= PORTION OF 227- 021-03 AND 13 City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 9 ORDINANCE NO. 475 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91-03, SUBAREA H, AMENDING THE VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUNHESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW-MEDIUMRESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR 23.03 ACHES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF VICTORIA PARK LANE AND ROCHESTER AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN= 227-091-51 ORDINANCE NO. 476 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91-03, SUBAREA I, AMENDING THE VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUMRESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACHE) TO LOW-MEDIUMHESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR 32.14 ACHES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF BASE LINE ROAD AND ROCHESTER AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227-091-45 AND 46 AND A PORTION OF 227-091-44 ORDINANCE NO. 477 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91-03, SUBAREA J, AMENDING THE VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY LAND USE MAP FROM HEDIUN RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACHE) TO LOW-MEDIUMRESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR 20,895 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 892 FEET NORTH OF THE FUTURE VICTORIA PARK LANE EXTENSION ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE FUTURE DAY CREEK BOULEVARD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN= PORTION OF 227-021-03 AND 13 ORDINANCE NO. 478 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91-03, SUBAREA L, AMENDING THE VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM-HIGH RESIDENTIAL (14-24 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO COMMUNITY FACILITIES FOR 2.46 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 406 FEET SOUTH OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY AND APPROXIMATELY 321 FEET WEST OF THE FUTURE DAY CREEK BOULEVARD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN= PORTION OF 227-091-18 AND 19 City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 10 (i4) ORDINANCE NO. 479 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONeA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91-03, SUBAREA M, AMENDING THE VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM-NIGH RESIDENTIAL (14-24 DWELLINGUNITS PER ACRE) TO VILLAGECOMMERCIALFOR 7,895 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED BETWEEN APPROXIMATELY 600 FEET AND 1,000 FEET SOUTH OF HIGHLAND AVENUE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE FUTURE DAY CREEKBOULEVARD, ANDMAKING FINDINGS IN SUPFORT THEREOF - APN: PORTION OF 227-021-03 AND 13 MOTION: Moved by Willjams, seconded by Alexander to waive full reading and approve Ordinance Nos. 470, 471, 472, 475, 476, 477, 478 and 479. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. · · · , , F. ADVERTISE PUBLIC HEARINGS F1. CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 91-04 - CITY OF RANCHOCUCANONGA - A request to amend Section 17.12,040 regarding bicycle storage requirements and Section 17.08,070 regarding trail maintenance requirements. Staff reportpresented by Dan Coleman, Principal Planner. (0203-03 DC AMEND) Mayor Stout opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response, the public hearing was closed. Debra J. Adams read the title of Ordinance No. 480. ORDINANCE NO. 480 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RPatCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 91-04, /~MENDING TITLE 17, SECTION 17.12,040.C.4 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE, REGARDING BICYCLE STORAGE FACILITIES AND AMENDING TITLE 17, SECTION 17.08,070 REGARDING TRAIL MAINTENANCE STANDARDS MOTION: Moved by Alexander, seconded by Williams to waive full reading and set second reading of Ordinance No. 480 for the December 18, 1991 meeting. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. , · , , , F2. CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTANDINDUSTRIALAREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-05 - CITY OF RANCHOCOCAMONCA - A request to amend Part III, Section IV.F. regarding bicycle storage requirements. Staff report presented by Dan Coleman, Principal Planner. (0203-05 INDUS SP) City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 11 Mayor Stout opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response, the public hearing was closed. Debra J. Adams read the title of Ordinance No. 481. ORDINANCE NO. 481 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 91-05, AMENDING PART III, SECTION IV.F., REGARDING BICYCLE STORAGE FACILITIES MOTION: Moved by Alexander, seconded by Willjams to waive full reading and set second reading of Ordinance No. 481 for the December 18, 1991 meeting. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. , , , , · F3. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF DENIAL FOR THE PLACEMENT OF A WALL SIGN WITHIN THE TERRA VISTA TOWN CENTER - LEWIS HOMES - Consideration of an appeal of the. Planning Commission'e decision to deny the request to place a wall sign on the tower of Building G within the Terra Vista Town Center, located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue - APN: 1077-421-05, 06, and 18. Staff report presented by Nancy Fong, Senior Planner. (0807-02 SIGNS) (0701-06 APPEAL) Mayor Stout opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing the City Council were: Richard Major, Western Land Properties, explained their position for their appeal, and felt the sign should be allowed to be placed on the tower area and not on the grill work. Mike Lasley, Lewis Homes, stated he felt the sign should remain above the tower area as originally proposed. He stated if the sign was to be lowered, it would be costly to relocate it. Jeff Stern, representing $5 Clothing Stores advertising, informed the Council if the sign had to be lowered, the size of the letters would have to be smaller, which. he felt would have an impact on the public's awareness. There being no further response, the public hearing was closed. Councilmember Willjams stated she did not think the sign on the tower would detract from the design of the building, and did not want anything to change with the grill work. Mayor Stout gave background on the design of this project. He also stated signs are to let the public be aware of the store housed there. He stated he did not think the grill work should be covered up, and felt the sign should be allowed to be placed on the tower. City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 12 Councilmember Buquet stated he was not sure it was a good idea to put the sign on the tower, and felt there should be a better place even other than the grill work area. Councilmember Wright stated she agreed with Councilmember Buquet, and stated that she felt it stuck out and felt the sign should not be allowed to be left on the tower. Councilmember Alexander stated he agreed with Mayor Stout and Councilmember Willjams. RESOLUTION NO. 91-375 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY THE REQUEST TOPLACE A WALL SIGN ON THE TOWER OF BUILDING G WITHIN THE TERRA VISTA TOWN CENTER LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND HAVEN AVENUE AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN= 1077-421-05, 06 AND 18 MOTIONs Moved by Alexander, seconded by Willjams to direct staff to bring back a Resolution granting the appeal and approve the application. Motion carried 3-2 (Buquet, Wright no). · , , , , F4. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTIONS RELATING TO THE FORMATION OF MELLO-ROOS COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 91-1 (Continued from November 20, 1991) (0403-01 COM FAC DI) James Markman, City Attorney, stated a court reporter was preeent which would be preparing a transcript to bemade part of the record if anyone was interested in receiving it. (Refer to Exhibit "A" which is attached). RESOLUTION NO. 91-376 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DETERMINING THE NECESSITY TO INCUR BONDED INDEBTEDHESS IN THE AMOUNT OF $55,000,000.00 WITHIN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICTNO. 91-1 (VICTORIACOMMUNITY) OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND CALLING AM ELECTION MOTIONz Moved by Alexander, seconded by Buquet to approve Resolution No. 91-376. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. RESOLUTION NO. 91-383 ESTABLISHING COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 91-1 (VICTORIA COMMUNITY), AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX WITHIN COMMUNITY FACILITIES .DISTRICT NO. 91-1 (VICTORIA COMMUNITY) AND CALLING AN ELECTION City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 13 MOTION= Moved by Alexander, seconded by Stout to approve Resolution No. 91-383. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. · · , · · , Mayor Stout called a recess at 9=25 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:45 p.m. with all members of Council present. · , · · , FS. REVIEW OF COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY STRATEGY {CHAS~ - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - The CHAS provides review of housing needs and market conditions into a format designed to determine priorities for investment over a five-year period. A one-year action planthen translates the five year goals and available resources into plans and programs for the number of persons to be assisted in the coming year. Staff report presented by Cindy Norris, Associate Planner. She also referred to a letter given to her this evening from the California Partnership for Affordable Housing and commented on their questions. (0203-04 HOUSING) Councilmember Buquet asked if staff would be responding to all of the letters received. Cindy Norris, Associate Planner, stated staff could do this. Mayor Stout stated he wished people would distribute the material to the City Council sooner than the night of the meeting. He also added this matter is something the state is requiring. Mayor Stout opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing the City Council were= Frank Williams, BIA, stated he submitted a letter this date for the City Council to review. He stated Part III of the plan refers to developing an ordinance and that they would like to be a part of developing that ordinance. Joe Oleson, Lewis Homes, read into the record their position, which is on file in the office of the City Clerk. He also commended staff for their efforts in working with them on this matter. Jeff Burum, 6057 Della, California Partnership for Affordable Housing, commented on the letter they had submitted this evening to the City Council. There being no further response, the public hearing was closed. Councilmember Williams stated that none of the numbers are in stone at this time, and if something needed to be changed, it could be done. She stated she felt Rancho Cucamonga was moving forward at a very rapid pace. (i7) City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 14 RESOLUTION NO. 91-377 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY STRATEGY (CHAS) AS THE ACCEPTED STRATEGY TO GUIDE HOUSING ASSISTANCE DECISIONS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CITY'S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM AND OTHER FEDERAL ASSISTANCE HOUSING PROGRAMS, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF MOTIONs Moved by Williems, seconded by Alexander to approve Resolution No. 91- 377. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. G. PUBLIC HEARINGS G1. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTIONREGARDING THE ISSUANCE OF BONDSFORCOMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 88-2 CONSISTENT WITH AGREEMENT CO 89-111 AS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON JUNE 21, 1989 Staff report presented by Duane Baker, Assistant to the City Manager. (0405-02 BOND/SALE) (0403-01 COMM FAC DI) Mayor Stout opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing the City Council was~ Kevin Pohlson, Caryn Company, thanked City staff and offered any assistance the City might need for this project. There being no further response, the public hearing was closed. RESOLUTION NO. 91-378 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF BONDS, APPROVING BONDPURCHASE CONTRACT, APPROVINGBOND INDENTUREAND PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 88-2 MOTIONs Moved by Stout, seconded by Buquet to approve Resolution No. 91-378. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. , , , · , H. CXTY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS H1. CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATION TO FIND NORDIC DEVELOPMENT COMPANY. DEVELOPER OF TRACT 11997, IN DEFAULT OF THEIR IMPROVEHENTAGREEMENTDATEDMAY 7. 1987. AND EXTENSION DATED JUNE 15, 1988, AND AUTHORIZE LEGAL STAFF TO CAUSE THE DEVELOPER'S SURETY. DEVELOPERS INSURANCE COMPANY. FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND NO. 946077S TO COMPLETE ALL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF SAID TRACT PURSUANT TO THE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND APPROVED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS Staff report presented by Joe O'Neil, City Engineer. (0602-01 AGREE IMPR) City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 15 Mayor Stout opened the meeting for public con~nents. There being no response, the public con~nents were closed. RESOLUTION NO. 91-379 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, FINDING NORDIC DEVELOPMENT COMPANY IN DEFAULT OF THEIR IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR TRACT 11997, AND AUTHORIZING LEGAL STAFF TO CAUSE THE DEVELOPER'S SURETY COMPANY TO CORRECT EXISTING DEFICIENT IMPROVEMENTS AND COMPLETE ALLREMAINING IMPROVEMENTSAND CONDiTIONS OF APPROVAL PURSUANT TO THE AGREEMENT MOTION~ Moved by Buquet, seconded by Alexander to approve Resolution No. 91-379. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. , · · · , , H2. CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to amend the Etiwanda Specific Plan Land Use Map from MediumResidential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for the following subareas within the Etiwanda Specific Plan= (Continued from November 20, 1991) (0203-05 ETIW SP} (3) Approximately 11.2 acres bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (I-15) Freeway, on the east by East Avenue and existing Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the south by Miller Avenue. - AFN: 1100-041-04 through 10. Staff report presented by Jack Lam, City Manager. Mayor Stout opened the meeting for public comments. There being no response, the public comments were closed. Debra J. Adams, City Clerk, read the title of Ordinance No. 482. ORDINANCE NO. 482 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-03, THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF SUBAREA 3, TO AMEND THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOWMEDIUM (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 11.2 ACRES OF LAND BORDERED ON THE NORTHWEST BY THE ONTARIO (I-15) FREEWAY, ON THE EAST BY EXISTING LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND, AND ON THE SOUTH BY MILLER AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPFORT THEREOF - APN= 1100-041-04 THROUGH 10 (20) City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 16 MOTION: Moved by Bu~et, seconded by Alexander to waive full reading and set second reading for the December 18, 1991 meeting. Motion carried unanimously, · · , , , H3. DISCUSSION OF RETAINING POLICE COMMUNITY FACILITY DISTRICT 88-2 Staff report presented by Jerry Fulwood, Deputy City Manager. (0403-01 COM FAC DI) Mayor Stout opened the meeting for public comments. Addressing the City Council were: Greg Corub, Brentwood Tract, stated he felt this was discrimination based on where your house was. He felt the tax should be stopped. There being no further response, the public comments were closed. Mayor Stout stated he had asked that this item be placed on the agenda. He stated the City only gets 5% of the tax money that a resident pays. He felt because the majority of this area will not be annexed into the City, the tax rate should be set at 0%. Councilmember Alexander stated he agreed with setting the rate at $1.00. Councilmember Alexander stated he agreed with the $1.00 Mount and did not feel the CFD should be dissolved. He stated he was optimistic that the area could still be annexed into the City. Councilmember Buquet stated he agreed with reducing the amount down to $1.00. Councilmember Willjams concurred. Councilmember Wright stated she felt law enforcement is a general fund service. She felt if the City cannot serve the people, we should not be annexing them into the City. She did not think various areas of the City should be taxed differently from each other. MOTION: Moved by Stout, seconded by Alexander to reduce the assessment at the end of the fiscal year to $1.00. Motion carried 4-1 (Wright no). Councilmember Wright stated the reason she voted no for reducing the assessment was because the Assessment District still exists by action of the City Council. She stated the fee can still be raised to anything the Council wants it to be. She stated she realized that there would be advertising for the public hearing. She felt the District should have been done away with and that is why she voted no. Mayor Stout clarified that there is a newpolicy whereby all Assessment District persons will be notified annually of their assessments and be told of any hearings and so forth. City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 17 Councilmember Wright stated she felt this was a good policy, but still wanted to vote no because she knew it could come back again for a change in the assessment. , , , , · I. COUNCIL BUSINESS I1. ORAL DISCUSSION OF FUNDRAISING EFFORTS BY LYDIA KREMER FOR A JACK BENNY STATUE (1130-03 DONATION) Councilmember Buquet stated there have been a number of people, for one reason or another, who have brought this issue up as it being a City issue that the City is involved in and promoting, and also planning to spend City revenues to construct a Jack Benny statue. He stated this is a misperception. He felt this might be an opportunity to provide some clarification on the issue by those parties involved in this. He added the Council has not discussed this matter previously, nor have they taken any action on the matter. Mayor Stout stated he wanted to apologize to the City Council for any misunderstanding about this project with respect to his involvement or noninvolvement in it. He stated the City is in no way involved in this project as faras he can determine. He stated it is strictly a group of private citizens who are exercising their freedom to establish community types of activities without interference necessarily from the City. He stated for some reason, someone has gotten the idea that everything that goes on in the City has to have City hands in the project. He stated anyone in the community that wants to establish something like this has that right to organize it. Councilmember Buquet stated he was not sure that an apology was necessary, that was not his intent in bringing it before the Council. He stated the intent was to provide clarification as to what the City is or is not doing about this matter. Mayor Stout asked Bob Dutton, Chairman of the Community Foundation, if he would like to comment on this matter. Bob Dutton stated the Foundation was approached about three to four months ago to act as a facilitator and receiver of funds for the Jack Benny project. He stated the Foundation's funds will not be used for this project. He added there are two members of the Foundation that act as liaisons to LydiaKremer's group. He stated they had not come to the City Council because it had not been decided if the statue would go on City property, but stated that was an option. He stated he was looking at this being placed at the Performing Arts Center. He added he has written a letter to the editor clarifying that there would not be any taxpayer's dollars spent on this project. Councilmember Willjams stated after reading the minutes from the Foundation meeting, it looks like the Foundation and the City are supporting this project. Bob Dutton stated he made it clear to Lydia Kremer that the City has not taken a position to support this project. (22) City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 18 (23) Councilmember Wright stated because there is dissension in the community about this, it is turning out to be a negative thing. Mayor Stout ~inted out that the Foundation is not to be an arm of the City. He pointed out that the Council does not even have the authority to remove any of the Board of Directors from their positions. Councilmember Wright statedpossibly the reporter that originally put the article in the paper did not understand that the Foundation is not an arm of the City. ACTION= No action was taken. · · · , , · I2. SAM'S PLACE - Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Con~nission's decision to revoke Conditional Use Permit 78-03 for the operation of a bar in conjunction with a restaurant located in the Neighborhood Commercial District at 6620 Carnelian Street, northwest corner of 19th and Carnelian Streets - APN= 201-811-56 through 60. (0802-02 CUP) (0701-06 APPEAL) Councilmember Buquet stated he and Councilmember Willisms have met with Mr. Pellegrino and his attorney and the Resolutions before the Council are a result of the meeting. Councilmember Alexander stated he likes the conditions that are attached. Councilmember Willjams felt there was an equitable agreement made. John Mannerino, attorney representingMr. Pellegrino, stated he has talked to the landowner about putting signs up preventing parking between the buildings and the wall, and that the owner has agreed with that. Mayor Stout stated he had visited Sam's Place and agreed it is a well-run establishment and a safe place to go. He stated his objection is because of its location. RESOLUTION NO. 91-380 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, SUSTAINING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO REVOKE CONDITIONAL USE PERNIT 78-03 FOR T~E OPERATION OF A BAR IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT LOCATED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AT 6620 CARNELIAN STREET, NORTHWEST CORNER OF 19TH AND CARNELIAN STREETS AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPFORT THEREOF - APN= 201- 811-56 THROUGH 60 City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 19 RESOLUTION NO. 91-381 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, SUSTAINING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TODENYTHEAMENDMENTTOCONDITIONALUSE PERMIT 78-03 FOR THE REQUEST TO EXTEND THE HOURS OF OPERATION AND AMEND THE CONDITION OF APPROVAL PROHIBITING LIVE ENTERTAINMENT FOR AN EXISTING RESTAURANT AND BAR LOCATED IN THENEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIALDISTRICT AT 6620 CARNELIAN STREET, NORTHWEST CORNER OF 19TH AND CARNELIAN STREETS AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN= 201-811-56 THROUGH 60 RESOLUTION NO. 91-382 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, SUSTAINING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 91-02 FOR THE REQUEST TO CONDUCT LIVE ENTERTAINMENT IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT AND BAR LOCATED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AT 6620 CARNELIAN STREET, NORTHWEST CORNER OF 19TH AND CARNELIAN STREETSANDMAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN= 20-1811-56 THROUGH 60 MOTION: Moved by Willjams, seconded by Buquet to approve Resolution Nos. 91-380, 91-381 and 91-382. Motion carried 3-2 (Stout, Wright no). , , , , · J. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR MElT MEETING J1. Councilmember Buquet stated he would like a report in respect to moving forward with some coordinated community fundraising with youth sports organizations as a follow-up to the hearings pertaining to cost recovery. He stated this would be an update and how to move in this direction to cause something to occur that is a win-win for everyone. J2. Mayor Stout stated he would like the appointments of the Environmental Management Commission and the Historic Preservation Commission to be on the next agenda. , · , , · K. COBPfONICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC K1. David Dennis, 6816 Padova Court, stated a letter had been sent to the City Council about some of the rezoning that occurred at the last meeting. He stated it was late in the evening at the last meeting which the Council had made comments regarding the lateness of the evening. He also made other comments about the hearing process. City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 20 Mayor Stout stated a resident had contacted him about this issue also, and that he was going to meet with this person on December 14 to further explain and address her concerns. He pointed out the long termplanning the Council has gone through in order to get to their decisions made at the November 18 meeting. · , , · , MOTION: Moved by Willjams, seconded by Alexander to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 11:35 p.m. .Res ctfully su mi~ e , City Clerk Approved= January 15, 1992 CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS "Exhibit A" City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 21 ORIGINAL CITY COUNCIL RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA PUBLIC HEARING FORMATION OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 91-1 (VICTORIA COMMUNITY) Date and Time: Wednesday, December.4, 1991. Place: Reporter: Civic Center, Council Chambers 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Johanna Mangual-Ledesma, C.S.R. Certificate No. 6951 18014) E. Parkc<>un PI. Suite 100 Santa Aria, CA. 92701 (714) 558-9400 "13 ) 487-9939 ,,00) 729-M and M FAX (714) 836-5195 City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 22 "Exhibit A" APPEARANCE S CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL DENNIS L. STOUT, MAYOR WILLIAM J. ALEXANDER, COUNCILMEMBER CHARLES BUQUET, COUNCILMEMBER DIANE WILLIAMS, COUNCILMEMBER PAMELA J. WRIGHT, COUNCILMEMBER JACK LAM, CITY MANAGER JAMES L. MARKMAN, CITY ATTORNEY DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK "Exhibit A" City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA MAYOR STOUT: Item 4, Consideration of Resolutions Relating to the Formation of the Mello-Roos Community Facilities District 91-1. This item was previously continued from the November 20, 1991, meeting. There's a resolution which is 91-376. I understand that '- MR. LAM: There's also an additional resolution in your packet which was pointed out by supplemental information given to you and this, Linda Daniels will give that report. MS. DANIELS: Yes, Mayor and Members of the City Council MAYOR STOUT: Excuse me. Excuse me. Before we go ahead with that, Mr. Markman? MR. MARKMAN: Before you actually start taking in information on this, Mr. Mayor, I want to point out this is a matter of some importance and for that reason, there is sitting to the left of Brad at the table a certified shorthand reporter. We will have a verbatim transcript of this particular hearing and proceeding made available which means two things: First of all, anybody that is going to give testimony, we would request, we have a reporter here 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 city council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 24 "Exhibit A" who has to keep track of a very, numerous people comparatively speaking so that they speak clearly and remember that sounds other than words or gestures are not recordable, so they aren't going to ultimately have an impact. Keep the reporter in consideration. Don't speak at the same time. The other thing I think we need to do is since we are trying to track this specifically is keep track of all the documentation and for that reason, I'm going to try to keep track of any written materials which might be presented by way of exhibit numbers. And the first one I would submit, Mr. Mayor, would be the Staff Report which consists of pages 108 through 151 on your agenda packet and that report should be referred to as Exhibit 1. I have another, one other document, maybe Linda can identify more, the second document I have is a one page FAX transmittal to Mr. Lam dated 12/4/91 from Mr. Joe DeOrio (phonetic) which has been presented to the Council received this date. I would ask that that be considered and marked Exhibit 2. Linda, are there other supplemental written materials that I have not identified? MS. DANIELS: Yes. We have received a letter from Miss Anita Kidd dated December 2, 1991, requesting a "Exhibit A" City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 continuance and also from Miss Sharon Burchett. MR. MARKMAN: Anita Kidd? MS. DANIELS: Well, stop. Do you have one from Anita Kidd -- MR. MARKMAN: That's a letter dated today? MS. DANIELS: MR. MARKMAN: MS. DANIELS: MR. MARKMAN: December 2. December 2. How many pages? One page. Okay, that should be Number 3 which will be the letter from Mrs. Kidd requesting a continuance and that has been made available to the City Council? MS. DANIELS: MR. MARKMAN: MS. DANIELS: Yes. And the next one? Is a letter dated November 27 and that has been addressed to the Mayor and has been made available to the City Council. it is from Sharon Burchett. MR. MARKMAN: Sharon Burchett. Number 4. That is two pages long and That would be For the purposes of keeping track, is there another resolution or is that in the packet? MR. LAM: Both resolutions are in the packet '- MR. MARKMAN: -- were in the original staff '- MR. LAM: Originally in the staff report and those are Resolutions 91-376 and Resolution 91-383. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 city council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 26 "Exhibit A" MR. MARKMAN: Fine. Then we have identified so far Exhibits 1 through 4. If anybody wanting to give testimony make a presentation tonight has an exhibit, we will ask it be identified, handed to the City Clerk and we'll give it a number. MS. DANIELS: And I'd like to clarify. The letter from Anita Kidd was handed to us this evening. It is addressed to the Mayor and Members of the City Council, but we have not been able to give you copies of it. I jumped ahead of your question when you asked if they have copies. It's addressed to them, but they do not have a copy. MR. MARKMAN: Okay. Well, if that's the case, we should read it into the record, have the City Clerk read it into the record after the staff presentation. And the other letter, Number 4, they do have copies of that or '- MS. DANIELS: Sharon Bruchette's letter was distributed to the City Council. MR. MARKMAN: So after the staff presentation, we'll ask the City Clerk to read Exhibit 3 into the record. MAYOR STOUT: All right. You may proceed. MS. DANIELS: Yes. Mayor and members of the City "Exhibit A" City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Council, before you tonight is a proposal for the formation of a Community Facilities' District. In the summer of 1991, we received a request from property owners in the eastern portion of the city to form a community facilities' district for the purpose of providing infrastructure improvements as well as potential funding for a future park facility located in the planned community of Victoria. On page 143 of the Staff Report, the boundaries of the CFD have been identified and I'll review those for the record. They're generally, the CFD is generally bounded on the north by Highland Avenue and is west of the utility corridor going south to Baseline Road. It encompasses on Baseline Road the undeveloped property east of the utility corridor and west of the developed multi-families' recreational vehicle and storage development. It encompasses along Day Creek Boulevard going south to Foothill Boulevard and on south of Foothill Boulevard, it goes on Day Creek and wraps into Pioneer Way to Rochester Avenue. The purpose of the CFD as I indicated is two fold. It's to provide infrastructure improvements which will generally include street work, curb, gutter, sidewalks, streets, utilities which includes gas, sewer, water lines as well as some landscaping. That would be 1 2 3 4 5 city council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 28 "Exhibit A" 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 what we call the Series A issue and is approximately $45 million of the $55 million authorized amount by the Council. The second series known as Series B is approximately $10 million and that would be used as a future funding source for the construction of the Lakes Park within the Village of the Lakes. The eastern portion of town has development plan in the imminent future: The regional shopping center, a fire station and other residential and commercial properties. Consistent with the Council policy of providing infrastructure improvements in a comprehensive fashion, the CFD has been identified and the improvements have been organized in such a way that the total development of what's anticipated will be done at once to avoid piecemeal development and infrastructure and then avoiding interruptions in service to the circulation system as individual properties do develop in the future. Under the Series A, I'm sorry, I, the improvements that are proposed are consistent with the general plan, the redevelopment plan and the Victoria Community Plan, those that are provided under the Series A. The boundaries of the CFD do include vacant, "Exhibit A" City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 commercial, industrial and residential land. It's important to note that all the land within the CFD is vacant at this time. The engineer's report has been prepared by A.A. Webb and Associates, the City's assessment engineer, and it addresses both the proposed Series A and Series B issues. It includes the financin9 and the distribution of the fair share, the tax and methodology and how it's applied to each individual property. What I would like to emphasize on the Series A portion is that each development or each property is payin9 only for its fair sure of the infrastructure. A property owner is not bearin9 the burden of an adjacent property owner's improvement. They are paying for what is rightfully required on that project for their linear frontage on the street that they hold land. Within Series A, there are fifteen zones of benefit. Those fifteen zones and the associated tax rates are identified in the engineer's report and there's been a refinement of drafts leading up to this final report presented for you tonight. The tax rates within the report includes some assumptions that if, that could cause the eventual tax to be reduced. Some of the those assumptions are based on the structure of the tax or the bond issue itself. We've 1 2 3 4 city council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 30 "Exhibit A" 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 assumed a nine percent interest rate, a thirty year bond period and a two year period of capitalized interest. Should the interest rate or other structures of the bond issue change, the tax would be reduced, but in no way will the tax increase above what is identified in the engineer's report and the resolution of intent. There are also several options that the property owners themselves can exercise to reduce their tax. The primary one is the right-of-way that would be required for the streets. Should the property owners choose to dedicate the property for the right-of-way, their tax would be reduced by the amount of cost that has been estimated for the acquisition. Another factor that has been included into the distribution is the developer agreement between Foothill Associates and the Redevelopment Agency regarding the Downey and Wang parcels, the industrial parcels fronting on Rochester. As the City Council will recall, as part of the idustrial specific plan, amendment realignment for Day Creek Boulevard, the burden of the street to be constructed across the Downey and Wang parcels was to be borne in some part by the Zone 15 or what's known as the Hughes-Foothill Associates Project. That has been included in the tax rate and the methodology consistent "Exhibit A" City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 with that agreement. Also included within the tax rate and methodology is the Council's policy of not to exceed 1.8 percent of the tax rate along with all other taxes on properties and the market rate of single family homes. All residentially zoned land that could be intended for single family ownership has been calculated so that this tax along with the property tax and all other taxes and assessments known and is estimated in the future will not exceed the 1.8 percent market value tax ratio. In the Series B, there is one zone and that is the residential and commercial land for the Victoria Village itself. The developer is required and as part of the Series B issuance to pay off the tax associated with the residential properties for Series B prior to occupancy of the home. This is to insure that the homeowner, the future homeowner of those residential units will not pay for any of the construction of the Lakes' Park itself. That is a requirement of the Victoria Planned Community that the developer provide the park and that that cost not be passed on or not be borne by the residence and that has been included as part of the structure of the CFD. There are three registered voters within the CFD boundaries. This means that an election by the property owners will occur. A two-thirds majority vote 1 2 3 4 5 city council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 32 "Exhibit A" 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 will be needed in order for the CFD election to be successful. The Council will, after the election, certify the results and if a two-thirds vote is achieved, then it can go on to further stages of CFD activity meaning issuance of bonds. The request for action tonight is to adopt the two attached resolutions which will allow for the formation of the CFD to go forward. It's important to note that this action if in the affirmative will not be the last time that the CFD will be before the City Council. There are at least two other actions, again the certification of the election as well as the issuance of bonds which the City Council will have the opportunity to review this matter. In addition, a developer agreement between the City and the proponents of the CFD will also be needed to insure that all costs associated with the CFD will not be paid or that are associated with the required improvements that are not paid for by the CFD will be borne by the proponents of the CFD. One instance of where this would be necessary is by law, the Mello-Roos law only allows for up to five percent of the CFD funds to be used for utilities. So 95 percent or so, there is a portion of utilities that will not be possible for funding under the CFD. That will need "Exhibit A" City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 tO be paid for by the developer or by the proponents of this CFD. The Council will be considering the developer agreement at the same time or it's anticipated at the same time as the election results are certified. The City has hosted several meetings with the property owners to review drafts of the engineer's report as well as the final engineer's report which has been included in the packet. In these meetings, the information has been reviewed and has continued to be refined so that the tax rate has been reduced from what was originally anticipated in most cases. We do have two letters of protest which are included in the packet. Those are from Mrs. Eda Ellena and also from Miss Anita Kidd representing Mr. Ozzy Pierotti, one of the property owners within the proposed district boundary, and that's included in the Staff Report that Mr. Markman entered in as Exhibit 1. MR. MARKMAN: I also believe there's a letter from a law firm on behalf of the Pierotti family which should be '- MS. DANIELS: That's Miss Anita Kidd representing Ozzy Pierotti. We do, as indicated also, we do have three letters requesting continuance for the hearing tonight and City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 34 "Exhibit A" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 again, should the Council take action tonight, staff will commence the adoption of the two attached resolutions which also includes the preparation of a filing of a negative declaration for the CFD. Staff in the CFD consulting team including bound council and the assessment engineer are available for any questions you might have. Before concluding this Staff Report, I would like to read the one title that was omitted from the agenda itself, but is included in the packet. That is a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Establishing Community Facilities, District Number 91-1 (Victoria Community) Authorized in the Levy of a Special Tax within Community Facilities District 91-1 (Victoria Community) in Calling an Election. That concludes my report. MR. MARKMAN: I would ask the City Clerk at this time, Mr. Mayor, to read Exhibit 3 into the record since the Council does not have copies of it. THE CITY CLERK: "Dear Mayor Stout and Members of the City Council, my name is Anita Kidd and my family owns land in the proposed Mello-Roos Community Facilities' District 91-1. On November 26, 1991, a final draft of the plans were received which unfortunately gives property "Exhibit A" City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 owners very little time to review the plans before the proposed City Council meeting on December 4, 1991. Please be made aware that there are substantial tax consequences which will affect not only my family, but all involved property owners and, therefore, it is respectfully requested that the City Council meeting be postponed for at least two weeks. This would give the affected property owners necessary time to review the final plans. The delay in receipt of the plans was not the result of property owner conduct, but rather occasioned by factors within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. As such, a continuance would be in the best interest and fairness; therefore, the equities of the situation should compel a continuance. Thank you for your kind attention hereto. Very truly yours, by Anita M. Kidd." MAYOR STOUT: One thing further before we continue. Has a copy of the official engineer's report been marked as an exhibit to be included in the record? THE CITY CLERK: That's included in the page numbers that Mr. Markman read off. MAYOR STOUT: All right. Of the City Clerk then, I would like to inquire as to a few matters of business. Is there an Affidavit of Publication of the Notice of the Public Hearing? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 city council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 36 "Exhibit A" THE CITY CLERK: Yes. MAYOR STOUT: Is there an Affidavit of Mailing of the Notice of the Public Hearing? THE CITY CLERK: Yes. MAYOR STOUT: The Certificate of the Registrar of Voters certifying that there were less than twelve registered voters registered to vote in the proposed community facilities' district on each of the ninety days proceeding the date of this hearing? THE CITY CLERK: Yes. MAYOR STOUT: protests. We've already indicated the written All right, at this time before I open the public hearing, I would inquire of the City Council, there has been a request for a continuance. What is the pleasure of the City Council? COUNCILMEMBER ALEXANDER: I'm prepared to go now. MAYOR STOUT: Chuck, prepared to go forward? sorry? COUNCILMEMBER BUQUET: COUNCILMEMBER WILLIAMS: What did -- go forward? COUNCILMEMBER BUQUET: COUNCILMEMBER WILLIAMS: MAYOR STOUT: Pam? COUNCIL MEMBER WRIGHT: Yes. I didn't hear Bill. Yes. I want to go forward. Right. "Exhibit A" City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MAYOR STOUT: MR. MARKMAN: MAYOR STOUT: MR. MARKMAN: Allright. Then it's unanimous. Mr. Mayor '- Yes. Let's keep track of the exhibits. I'd ask that the Affidavit of Publication, which I don't think is in the packet referred to by the City Clerk would be Exhibit 5, Affidavit of Posting would be Exhibit 6 and the Certificate of the Registrar of Voters would be Exhibit 7. MS. DANIELS: MR. MARKMAN: The certificate is within the packet. The Certificate of the Registrar? I just want to be sure we don't -- MS. DANIELS: MR. MARKMAN: MS. DANIELS: MAYOR STOUT: I believe it's page 112. But the affidavits are not? That's correct. They're certified documents so they receive public testimony. should be marked as separate exhibits. MR. MARKMAN: Well, if we have, it's okay as long as we have a copy and the City Clerk has the originals, so 5, Exhibit 5 will be the Affidavit of Publication. Exhibit 6 would be the Affidavit of Posting. We don't have an Exhibit 7 yet because it's already part of Exhibit 1. MAYOR STOUT: I will now open the public hearing to In order to structure the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 city council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 38 "Exhibit A" public hearing, we will conduct it in the following manner: I would first ask to hear from all those persons wishing to testify against any of the following: 1, the establishment of the District: 2, the boundaries of the District: 3, the public facilities to be financed by the District; 4, the rate and method of apportionment of the special tax to be levied within the District; 5, the issuance of not to exceed $55 million in bonds secured by the special tax to pay all or a portion of the public facilities and; 6, any other matters set forth in either resolution 91-277 or 91-278. Those wishing to speak against any of those items, this would be the appropriate time. Please come forward to the podium, state your name for the record and if you would indicate your interest with respect to whether you're a property owner or any other interests so that the record is clear as to what you're speaking, excuse me, speaking about. MS. BURCHETT: My name is Sharon Burchett. I'm an attorney with MacLachlan, Burford and Arias and I'm here on behalf of Nabisco, one of the minority property owners. I'm not familiar with your procedures and so don't know if this issue is moot, but I am unable to speak for or against formation of the District because I have not had an opportunity to review the information of the "Exhibit A" City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 consequences to Nabisco. final plans that were submitted to all the affected property owners on November 26. The final plans were promised on the 20th. We did not receive them until the 26th. COUNCILMEMBER BUQUET: Sharon, could you pull the microphone up just a little bit so it'll be easier to hear you? Thanks. MS. BURCHETT: I artended a meeting of all the affected property owners yesterday and voiced my concern. The draft of the plans contained a significant error inasmuch as they designated our property as commercial instead of high density residential. Our engineers indicated that the infrastructure that was proposed was in adequate to accommodate the high density residential use that is permitted. The City Engineer and the engineer for the developer indicated they would correct that on the final plans. These plans were not made available to us until the 26th. My client's located back East. We have a local engineering firm that was unable to review them because they only had three working days to do so before this hearing. This project has very significant tax I think that we need to have an 1 2 3 4 city council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 40 "Exhibit A" 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 adequate opportunity to review all the information before we can meaningfully speak in favor of or against this District. At the affected property owners' meeting yesterday, I voiced my concern and it was unanimous. There was not a single person there including all, any of the developers or any representatives from the City that voiced opposition to a two week continuance to permit us an opportunity to review all of the information relating to this CFD. Further, there was a very significant table of the cause sharing analysis that was omitted from the final plans that were submitted to us. They promised to FAX that to us today, indicated that it was a mistake that that table was omitted. I still haven't seen it. Ms. Anita Kidd showed me a Staff Report that was apparently mailed on the 27th. As of 3:00 o'clock this afternoon when I left my office, I had not received that either. Given the significance of this project, the lack of opposition to a continuance by anyone including the developers, I respectfully request you reconsider our request for a two week continuance so that we can really have a full, fair and adequate hearing on this project. Thank you. "Exhibit A" City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 41 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 noted. MAYOR STOUT: Thank you. Your objection has been All right, unless I hear from anyone else wishing to speak against the formation of the District or the six points that I mentioned, we will move on to those speaking in favor. Is there anyone here to speak in favor of the District? MS. KIDD: I'd like to speak against the District. MAYOR STOUT: Please come forward. State your name My name's Anita Kidd. My family, the Pierottis, own about thirty acres within the proposed CFD. Are you not going to rule on, again, on the request for a continuance? If you are going to continue, then I will obviously hold my speech until this matter is continued. MAYOR STOUT: Unless I hear any sympathy from the rest of the Council for that request, it's my understanding we're continuing with the public hearing tonight. MS. KIDD: Okay. As stated, my folks own thirty acres of land within the proposed CFD. They have owned this land for approximately sixteen years and have paid the taxes and have done their civil duty with regard to for the record. MS. KIDD: 1 2 3 4 city council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 42 "Exhibit A" 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that land. My dad bought that land as a retirement nest egg so-to-speak and he currently pays approximately $10,000 a year in taxes. The proposed CFD will increase those taxes by $315,000 a year. This is undeveloped land. This is land that is not producing any income. This is land that no one is offering to buy and given the economic state of both the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the State of California as well as our nation, we all know that real estate, the real estate market stinks. I just don't see how this could be a fair deal. There is supposedly this, our assessment is according to our fair share. If the mall goes through, the mall will be getting revenues immediately. When the taxes are expected to be paid, the mall will be in place. So the people owning the mall land will be able to pay these taxes. We won't. We don't have prospective developers. My father can't afford to develop the land. And so in essence, it'll be a taking of our land. If we can't pay the taxes, you guys will take the land. I must also point out that since there's, the vote will be based on acreage, land owner acreage, the big guys being Lyon's, et cetera, the ones that will be building the mall own 75 percent of the land leaving the "Exhibit A" City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 small property owners with only 25. By the numbers alone, you can see that a vote is really a farce. You can put this matter up to a public vote, but we've already lost because private land owners only account for 25 percent. I would like to plead with the City Council and the Mayor that the CFD is not at all equitable. I think you need to think about those small property owners. I realize that the mall is of great benefit to everyone. I think that's wonderful, but we just can't handle the assessments and I think other property owners can't either and I appreciate your time. MAYOR STOUT: Thank you very much. MR. GUTIERREZ: Excuse me. My name's Rex Gutierrez and I have a hoarse voice, but I need to at least let you know before leaving that the issue I'm talking about is not necessarily, it's not directly connected to what they mentioned, but it does have to do with $10 million of this bond that you're talking about for the Lakes' project. I live in Victoria Groves and I am not representing the active group tonight as I did previously. I'm speaking on my own, but I will tell you that a continuance is the least you could do. There's a lot of people that I talked to and we need time to organize. In Victoria, people that are simply suffering City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 44 "Exhibit A" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 economic hardships at this time of the year and at this time of the economy, a bond issue's in itself in my opinion ridiculous for a city like Rancho Cucamonga to be considering at this time and in the economy that we're in, in the predicament of many states and localities find themselves in, but primarily, a lot of us in Victoria are opposed to the proceedings to develop the Lakes and if a two week continuance would simply give time to at least rethink that or at least give us time to organize, then I'm all for a continuance. Thank you. MAYOR STOUT: Mr. Gutierrez, just one comment just so that maybe this will assuade your words a little bit. They're not talking about building those lakes at all for three years. MR. GUTIERREZ: MAYOR STOUT: I know, but I just '- The bond we're talking about here is not going to be paid back by anyone that lives in the existing Victoria -- MR. GUTIERREZ: I realize that. I realize that that's part of the Mello-Roos and that something that, just because I didn't know whether it would make a difference in case I wanted to get the benefit of the doubt, get up and at least say if it has any bearing at all to, for the continuance, that there are people that "Exhibit A" City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 are simply opposed to at least part of this bond issue. MAYOR STOUT: The point I was trying to make, I understand what you're saying, is you're going to have three years to mobilize or organize as many people as you want. MR. GUTIERREZ: That's great. I just thought that because there's $10 million of the 55 that seems to involve the Lakes' construction, if we're going to debate whether the Lakes are ever going to be constructed, then I thought it would have a bearing on whether the amount is going to be 55. I just thought just in case it did have a bearing, I thought I'd get up before it was too late. MAYOR STOUT: MR. GUTIERREZ: MAYOR STOUT: MR. GRAHAM: I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Mayor, Councilmembers, my name is John Graham. I represent Eda Ellena. I, too, am surprised that this is continuing based upon the fact that the majority, in fact all of the land owners thought that a continuance was worthwhile from the point of facts they were presented at the meeting, but disregarding that, I need to echo the sentiment of the prior speakers that regarding taking this plan forward and having a land owner, vacant land owner with vineyards there, Eda Ellena, and assessing her the, last schedule I saw was somewhere 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 city council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 46 "Exhibit A" in excess of $600,000 her share and it amounted to over $100,000 a year with no income from the property and right now, who knows when it's going to sell. I hope that you consider those problems faced by the undeveloped land owners when you consider going forward with this. MAYOR STOUT: Thank you, Mr. Graham. MS. BURCHETT: Again, I apologize. I don't know if this is a breach of your protocol or whatever. I wanted to inquire if I could whether there is any chance that you would hold the public hearing open to the December 18 meeting to permit us an opportunity to address you at that time taking into consideration what has been said here tonight as well. MAYOR STOUT: I will ask the Council to discuss that option at the conclusion of the testimony. MS. BURCHETT: All right. May I inquire of you also, Mayor Stout? Do I have, will the Council permit me time to make a phone call to try to get my engineer here to speak to the Council tonight? I really am taken aback that this was not continued because I was led to believe at the meeting yesterday by Linda Daniels that given the fact there was a unanimous agreement between everyone, that the meeting -- MAYOR STOUT: Counsel, excuse me. MS. BURCHETT: I'm going on and on I know about "Exhibit A" City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 this and I'm just very taken aback by this. MAYOR STOUT: I'm sure you've been in court before where parties have decided that they wanted to continue matters, but the judicial body making the decision has decided otherwise. MS. BURCHETT: MAYOR STOUT: MS. BURCHETT: you very much. MAYOR STOUT: Well, that has happened on occasion. I know. That's happened tonight. I'm getting that impression. Thank Thank you. COUNCILMEMBER BUQUET: I'm just curious. times has this been continued? MAYOR STOUT: Twice. All right. COUNCILMEMBER WRIGHT: heard it? MAYOR STOUT: How many The time we set the hearings back when we first originally set it. COUNCIL MEMBER WRIGHT: about how long ago that was? Yeah, but I was wondering MS. DANIELS: It was originally intended for November 6. It was continued to November 20 and then again to December 4, tonight. COUNCIL MEMBER WRIGHT: some sort of hearing on it about a year ago, about, at least part of the proposal because I remember -- And didn't we actually do When was the first time we City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 48 "Exhibit A" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ~ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MAYOR STOUT: That's the Notice of Intent Hearing. MS. DANIELS: In September and August I believe. It was either the last meeting in August or one of the first meetings in September, I don't recall which, but yes, you have had a prior discussion on it. MAYOR STOUT: opposition is closed. Okay. At this time, testimony in I will now open the public hearing to receive public testimony in favor. Does anyone care to address the Council at this time? MR. FELIZ: Mayor Stout, for the record, my name is Daniel Felix. I'm employed by the Lyon Company, managing general partner of the partnership that is proposing the regional shopping center. The partnership technical name is HFA. It stands for Hahn Foothill Associates. The series of meetings during which we have, as a proponent for this '~ommunity Facilities District, the series of meetings that we have held to inform or to help inform all of the affected property owners that have been hosted by the City has been pretty comprehensive and we think rather well artended. There have been disagreements. There have been questions, good questions. We have, I think, responded to all of the questions. It is, should be obvious tonight and would have been obvious to anyone attending those informational "Exhibit A" City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 meetings that not all of the answers were to the likings of the questionnaire. We attempted to answer them factually, comprehensively and in a fashion that we took as our basic precept for this CFD, that basic precept being fairness to the small property owner, to the small property owner affected. We also took into consideration the need for the CFD. We think the need is overriding. We think the fairness aspect of it, when all of the property owners understand all of the issues without the rhetoric, without the inflammatory statements, we think that when they're considered in their entirety, as an example, mention is made about the enormous increase in the taxable dollars affected for each given property. There is an option on the part of the property owner that if he wishes not to receive payment, but instead dedicate his land toward the improvement, that he can reduce his payments or reduce his payments towards the debt service on the Mello-Roos bonds or he can receive the cash. It is the option of the property owner to do that. If he opts, if he or she opts to receive cash payment, presumably that person can bank that cash payment and make and apply that toward the initial payments of the Communities Facility District allocation that that 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 city council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 50 "Exhibit A" property owner has. We think the City or, in the alternative, if that property owner wishes to reduce his payments, that by the way, don't start for two, approximately two calendar years after the bonds are issued, if the property owner wishes to reduce those payments, he or she can do so by opting to dedicate the land as public improvement. And in all cases, correct me if I'm wrong, Linda, in all cases, all of the affected property owners have land to dedicate. Or there is land to be dedicated? I'm not sure in all cases. I'll amend that, in most cases; is that MS. DANIELS: MR. FELIX: correct? MS. DANIELS: MR. FELIX: In most cases, yes. There is land to be dedicated, therefore, there is money to be received by the land owner out of the proceed~ of the bond issue or he or she can opt to instead dedicate that land and reduce the payments on the bond issuance. We think the City is at a turning point. We think that it is gratuitous for the greater community that three projects, three large projects come on the horizon at this time that can organize together to create all of the infrastructure that in the end is going to add value "Exhibit A" City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 51 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 tO all of the properties being affected. That added value may be realized by development or by sale or by a combination of the two. That is a property owner's prerogative. There is no, there is no doubt that doing all of this work at one time will achieve economy as a scale and will certainly simplify the life for any of the citizens of Rancho Cucamonga who are traversing the area. We think it is a well founded request that we're making. We think we answered the questions in a factual way. We think that the benefits accrued to the individual property owners, to the projects at hand and to the greater community of Rancho Cucamonga. I would be ready to answer questions or respond to any or present any elaboration that you wish. I'm available. MAYOR STOUT: Any questions of the proponent at this time? COUNCILMEMBER BUQUET: Just for clarification, would it be a correct statement to say that the Community Facilities' District is there for the purpose of building the infrastructure that would be necessary ultimately to develop and improve those lands throughout those areas? MR. FELIX: That's correct. These improvements would at one time, at some point in time, these improvements will have to be built for any of these City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 52 "Exhibit A" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 properties to be developed and I'm glad you bring that up because at that point in time, should the CFD not move forward, at that point in time, that property will be responsible not just for his improvements, not just for his infrastructure, but he or she will have to tie in that infrastructure to something. You cannot just build street lights, install street lights and not connect it to power sources. You cannot build a portion of a drainage facility without attaching it to something to drain into. You cannot build one half of a turn lane necessary for that project. The City is going to require these projects to build out these improvements and when that property is developed, no matter which of those properties it is, it's going to require more development than would ordinarily be attributable to that property. In other words, this is the opportunity for the smaller property to take advantage of a larger comprehensive plan to get their improvements built and raise the value of their property. COUNCILMEMBER WRIGHT: So when you were talking about added value and economy of scale, you were talking about the benefits to those small property owners as well as to the larger developers who are what someone referred to as making up that other 75 percent that -- "Exhibit A" City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 53 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. FELIX: That's absolutely correct. COUNCILMEMBER WRIGHT: This is a window of opportunity for all the property owners includin~ people who own ten or twenty or thirty acres? MR. FELIX: That's correct. COUNCILMEMBER WRIGHT: Five acres? MR. FELIX: And havin~ used the fair share allocation, having used the precept of fairness, we think that, well, we know that we have bent over backwards. The larger projects have bent over backwards to insure that the smaller property owners are getting, I'll call it a fair share without fear, without fear of being contradicted by any allocation. And your own independent engineer has allocated these costs out so that they are, precept of fairness is observed. scale. COUNCILMEMBER WRIGHT: You, I understand economy of That's real clear. Can you expand a little bit on added value, how that's going to benefit the small property owner? MR. FELIX: Yes. One of the property owners mentioned difficulty in selling the property that he or she owns at the present time. In this environment or in any environment, whether it's, whether we are in the roaring '80s or whether we're in the tightened '90s, any buyer or developer of a property looks at the mystery City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 54 "Exhibit A" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 infrastructure for a community. involved with the development of that property. We call it the mystery, the things that you need to do in order to get it entitled, in order to get it built, leased up, sold, whatever you're doing with it. You need to understand what infrastructure needs to be built for it. We call it off sites, the off site improvements. Any buyer of a property coming to look at a property sees what has to be done, knowing the demands of the City, the demands of the infrastructure that are required for those properties and they're overwhelmed by those improvements. They see that unless something like the CFD is in place and working, that there is, that the economies of scale and the value to that property are affected by the lack of that infrastructure. The fact that that developer then has to come in and do, not just the infrastructure necessary for his own particular development, but very likely infrastructure beyond his project. There are properties here that are not even served by roadway at this time that those roadways have to be built. Those sewer lines have to be installed. Those storm drains have to be installed. Power lines have to be buried. Street lights have to be installed. It is just an enormous task to develop This is what the CFD "Exhibit A" City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 does. It raises the value of those properties overnight. Yes, they must pay their fair sure of that improvement, but that is what's called improving your property. COUNCILMEMBER WRIGHT: COUNCILMEMBER BUQUET: quick questions, Mr. Mayor. Okay, thank you. I just have a couple of Mr. Felix, you made comment on a couple of occasions regarding dedication of right away to reduce the amount of the repayment and there's several people that have been talking about these astronomical amounts at least within their perspectivesas far as astronomical amounts on thirty acres parcels and things like this. Do we have a handle on what the dollar equivalent is on the dedication in lieu of the participation? Linda or Mr. Felix? MS. DANIELS: Yes. The assessment engineer has gone through and has provided examples for the different property owners so if they chose to dedicate the property, how their tax rates would be reduced on a percentage basis and if you would like that information, Sharon, Sheryl, could provide that to you, but that has been provided and made aware to the property owners. In some cases, it's 50 to 53 percent. I don't know the exact numbers. COUNCILMEMBER BUQUET: I was just trying just for clarification during this portion of the meeting, I know 1 2 3 4 city council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 56 "Exhibit A" 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 we're all sitting here trying to talk about trying to get an idea to some of the ranges of impact that would have on the overall cost that has been projected. MS. DANIELS: Again, on the Ellena property, if I recall correctly, it would be reduced by approximately 53 percent of the current tax identified in the report, but I believe on the Pierotti property, it's approximately 50, 51 percent. COUNCILMEMBER BUQUET: Okay. And that would be dedication of right-of-way that would be necessary to put the infrastructure improvements in which in essence would be required to be dedicated in order to be able to develop the site and improved in addition to that? MS. DANIELS: Yes. COUNCILMEMBER BUQUET: Okay. MAYOR STOUT: Also, there's a large cash payment made to them to pay for that land should they then choose to do that. So they would have a large '- COUNCILMEMBER BUQUET: I know the significant cost consideration in the grand scale of the cost calculations for the bond issue have to do with the right-of-way acquisition cost. So it's a pay me now or pay me later basically is what you're saying. MS. DANIELS: Something, just for the Council's information, the CFD provides the unique opportunity of a "Exhibit A" City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 choice to the property owner rather than if they were to develop on their own and be required to dedicate, they do have the choice of being paid for the land, but then they are also paying over a long term the debt associated with that payment. MR. FELIX: I would like to point out another aspect that you reminded me, that if the CFD, for example, if the CFD were not to move forward and none of these three major projects were to proceed at this time and at a later time, one of the smaller properties came forward to be developed, under this plan, they get reimbursed for the land they're dedicating. When they become a proponent, when that property in that instance would become the proponent for a project, they would come in for a building permit and the processing of permits to build their improvement, to improve their property. They would not get reimbursed for their land. They would be forced to dedicate their land for zero dollars. So this is, I don't know how many of the property owners understand. This is a very difficult concept for some people to grasp. We think it's an important concept because if this CFD were not to move forward and they subsequently came in to develop their land, they would not be getting the benefit of having City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 58 "Exhibit A" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 their land bought under eminent domain. They would be required to dedicate that land for their improvements. COUNCILMEMBER BUQUET: That's why I wanted clarification on that because it appears to me that may be of benefit with this type of an approach. And just one last thing with the Council's indulgence. There was comments made by individuals that have spoken with respect to unanimous feelings for a continuance. I know this matter has been continued twice. There was preliminary discussion in August and September and I also believe that there was a brief discussion approximately one year ago with the Council with respect to upcoming potential activity in this area, although at that time, it was not firm as to what direction it was going, but basically summed up is that we've known at some point in time, we were going to get a fish or cut bait situation with this area in respect to the regional mall and surrounding properties. Could you comment just briefly in respect to what, the comment made that you, if you're representing the big interest there, that you are in favor of a continuance and if there was a continuance, what, what harm or benefit would actually be derived by doing that? MR. FELIX: Yes. A discussion was held yesterday in the affected homeowners' meeting about apparently the "Exhibit A" City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 59 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 final draft of the engineerin9 report not bein9 delivered timely. I was not aware at that time that they had received previous additions of the engineerin9 report and that the final engineerin9 report that they received was, I believe that the final engineerin9 report that they received was a first copy of an engineerin9 report they had received. They had received, I am informed, they had received previous addition to that engineerin9 report and what may have happened is that in, not, what may have happened is that they didn't focus on the precept, the concepts of the previous edition to the engineerin9 reports that they received. There were no substantial changes that I'm aware of in the final engineerin9 report except refinements that actually benefited, I'm told, the smaller property owners. So the final report that they received, correct me if I'm wrong, Linda, is that essentially correct? MS. DANIELS: Yes. MR. FELIX: The final report that the property owners who received the report I believe on the, I believe the report was available on the 23rd, but they did not actually receive it until the 26th? MS. DANIELS: The 25th. City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 60 "Exhibit A" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25th. MR. FELIX: 25th? MS. DANIELS: People began receiving them on the MR. FELIX: That final report was a, held refinements in it that actually benefited the smaller property owners. I am, I indicated in the meeting yesterday that I would not, that I would not object to a continuance. I indicated that as a matter of fairness, that everyone should have full information. As I'm informed now, everyone had full information with the receipt of the previous editions of the report, then with the final edition of the report as they received then on the 25th or 26th. I, tonight, I'm really delude by whatever your decision is. You're obviously continuing with the meeting. I'm prepared to continue to testify and proceed with the process. Another important point is that this is not the last time you will consider this. This, by continuing it, the way I look at it, you are merely enabling the process to continue. You're not, you are not blocking anyone's further, including your own, you're not blocking anyone further's objection to this process. You're enabling it to continue just as you have in the previous "Exhibit A" City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 61 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 meetings that you've had. As we proceed further, you may learn you want to stop the process. That's entirely, of course, your rights or if people want to change their mind about objecting to it as they learn more about the process, that's also their right. We expect that they will as they We think it's a win, win, win learn more about it. situation. MS. KIDD: Mayor, may I make some rebuttal points? MAYOR STOUT: Excuse me. Excuse me. Excuse me, I'll give you the opportunity in just a minute. Did you have anything else, Mr. Felix? No, except I'm available for questions. MR. FELIX: Thank you. MAYOR STOUT: All right. Is there anyone else wishing to speak in favor of the District? MR. LUQUE: Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council and staff. My name is Gary Luque. This evening I represent both the William Lyon Company and Foothill Associates, the other two proponents for this District. I just want to go on record that we are in favor of this District and if you so wish, we would support your efforts to continue this or not to continue this and proceed this evening. Our position in the meeting yesterday was 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 city council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 62 "Exhibit A" that we would not object to the other land owners that had requested a continuance. We didn't want to interfere with their efforts. So if they chose to do so, we were not going to stand in their way, but we certainly would also like to see this process move forward. We've been waiting long enough and if you choose to do so, we will be interested to proceed with the District. I would just like to point out a couple of things. First of all on the engineer's report itself, I won't belabor the point. Mr. Felix I believe summarized things very well, but in the Resolution of Intention that was adopted by you in August, ceilings were established as to what the maximum amount could be allocated to each parcel. So there has not been any adjustment which would increase that amount for the individual land owners. So I just wanted to make sure that was understood. One other point I would like to clarify is that this is not all hypothetical as to what's going to be happening out in this region. There are projects that are being planned and have already been submitted to the City and approved by the City, the Planning Commission. Again, basically, the District runs from below Foothill going up Bakery Boulevard all the way up to Highland and Mr. Felix represents HFA which is the regional mall, Victoria Gardens going in here, but I would "Exhibit A" City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 63 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 like to point out that Victoria Courtyard is a power center which is proposed for Foothill and Day Creek Boulevard, the southwestern corner. We have a K-Mart and a Home Depo going in there that has been processed through the Planning Commission and agreements are being made with those anchor tenants. So that is something that is planned to be proceed immediately. to do so. We need this infrastructure in order In addition to the mall, we also have a large residential area that we have already started planning on and once this is under way, we will be submitting tentative maps. We have a master tentative map that was approved in June for this area. We have the parcels already established and we will be proceeding with the planning of those individual parcels. A gentleman brought up the B issue for the lakes, 25 acre lake park right in the middle of the residential area and I believe the Mayor I think stated things quite well, but I just wanted to emphasize again that this bond issue is being borne by the developer, Foothill Associates and the William Lyon Company. No homeowner will be incurring any of these bond obligations, either prospective new homeowners in City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 64 "Exhibit A" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 this area or existing homeowners within Victoria. And this was an ability to get the Lakes built by the developer and we will pay off the obligations before any homeowner will be moving into the area and have to assume the allocation on that parcel. MR. MARKMAN: Mr. Mayor, for the record, since we have a map being referred to -- MAYOR STOUT: MR. MARKMAN: That's right. -- I would like that to be left with the City Clerk and marked Exhibit 7 and the record should reflect that the previous speaker was referring to that map making indications of development activity in the MR. LUQUE: MAYOR STOUT: area. Do you have any questions? Any questions? Thank you. MR. LUQUE: Thank you. MAYOR STOUT: Are there any other proponents that would wish to address the Council at this time? All right, I believe you have rebuttal remarks? Again, please restate your name for the record. MS. KIDD: Hi. My name's Anita Kidd. Again my family, the Pierottis, own land within the proposed CFD. I have several short points to bring out. One is that yesterday at the property owners' meeting, the property "Exhibit A" City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 65 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 owners relied on the statements from both the City Council and the CFD proponents that today's meeting would be postponed. MAYOR STOUT: Excuse me. Let me correct you. I don't believe anyone from the City Council was present. MS. KIDD: I mean not City Council, excuse me, the redevelopment staff. MAYOR STOUT: All right. MS. KIDD: We relied on their statements obviously to our detriment because other property owners did not have time to seek appropriate counsel or engineering reports and I think that's very unfair. When you're speaking of the CFD proponents, their experts in this area. They can look at that Staff Report over the Thanksgiving weekend and digest it fully and know exactly where they stand because they're the ones propagating this thing. When you're dealing with lay people, I think it's a lot for us to get ready in a very short amount of time. I got that thing in my office on the 27th, right before Thanksgiving. I had to cook. It was very, I didn't have time to actually read the thing. The other thing I'd like to say is that the other two delays in these hearings were not the result of the small property owners. It was within the City Council 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 city council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 66 "Exhibit A" or within the staff. We did not ask for that to be delayed. It was not on our behalf that it was delayed. So really, this was our first opportunity to speak and in that, we just received the report as stated on the 26th or 27th. I really do feel this is unfair. The third issue is that Mr. Felix said that we had the chance to dedicate our property and thereby receiving a "tax credit or benefit" That would mean, and they said that my dad's property would be, the taxes would be decreased by 50 percent. That means my dad would have to pay about 120,000 a year for thirty years in taxes on undeveloped land. To me that, whether it's one million or five million, what's the difference? It's still a lot of money. It's still a lot of money for undeveloped land. So thank you very much for decreasing our taxes by 50 percent. It doesn't matter. It's still a taking of our land in essence. It's undeveloped land. It's not producing any income. There's are no developers kicking down our doors. In fact, at one of the property owners' meetings, someone from the Lyon Company had indicated that they may be interested. My dad made a trip down from Canada and had placed several calls in with Mr. Potter who never even had the decency to return our call with regard "Exhibit A" City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 67 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 tO perhaps negotiating a deal or perhaps selling our land. So I'm thinking that the big guys have us in a real nice situation where they know that we have these taxes that will be starting in about two years, forcing us to sell to them at an incredibly cheap price or obviously give up our land. And as I said, that constitutes a taking and I think that should be considered. And another very interesting point is that not one of you on the City Council is a member of the CFD, proposed CFD. You're not property owners. Neither is anyone in the redevelopment part of the city. There's none of you here that are affected. So you're voting on this and you're judging this and you're not one of these people that are going to have to pay these taxes. MAYOR STOUT: Just to make a point about that, we by law could not because that would be a conflict of interest. COUNCILMEMBER BUQUET: that. We would go to jail for MS. KIDD: Granted, granted, but am I making my point clear? You're not the ones that are going to have to cough up this additional tax. MAYOR STOUT: Can I ask you a question? MS. KIDD: Sure. MAYOR STOUT: Just to clarify a point for the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 city council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 68 "Exhibit A" record since we're making a factual record here. Did you ever receive any of the draft copies of the engineer's report? MS. KIDD: Yes. I was at the meetings, most of them, and I did receive the copies. You're right. MAYOR STOUT: All right. MS. KIDD: But those copies were drafts and we understood them to be drafts. We did not, we were told that we would get a final copy. We didn't know what this final copy would be. We're not the ones doing it. We're not the ones writing it. We don't know what it would be so finally when it comes on the 27th, great, but again, we had no foresight into what it would entail. Thirdly, at a prior property owner meeting, we asked or someone had mentioned to Linda Daniels whether what happens if the mall doesn't go through? Are we still assessed these taxes? Let me remind you, there's no guarantee that this mall will go through. We'll still end up paying these taxes. No mall, no pole. You know, there's no pole so that you could say, well, your dad's land is in a very high density area so there's a lot of people. You'll sell it for a lot of money. All this is so speculative, but it still will be assessed those taxes on a dream. I mean you have no guarantee that that mall will be there. I hope it will. "Exhibit A" City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 69 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I hope economic times will allow it to be there, but there's no guarantee for us and yet the taxes will go through. Anyway, that's all I have to say. MAYOR STOUT: Just as a, just as a point, I know this doesn't, it's not goint to make you feel any better, but just as a point, you've indicated that the people involved in this mall and so forth own a large portion of the land and are going to pay a large portion of the assessments. MS. KIDD: Seventy-five percent, right. They do own - - MAYOR STOUT: You understand, of course, that they're not going to commit themself to paying 75 percent of a 55 million debt and then not build the mall to pay off the bonds with. MS. KIDD: Granted, but then again '- MAYOR STOUT: This is one of the few things that will actually assure that that mall will get built. MS. KIDD: As I said before, when the mall is done, the taxes will start being assessed. In other words, the taxes will commence basically when the mall's done. The mall will be there in place so the people that own 75 percent will be having immediate income. Those of us that are undeveloped will not. As I told you, we do not have people banging down our doors to develop it. That's a City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 70 1 2 3 4 "Exhibit A" 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 reality. MAYOR STOUT: All right. MS. KIDD: Thank you. Is there anyone else? MAYOR STOUT: comments? Thank you. Any concluding All right, the public hearing is closed. MR. MARKMAN: Mr. Mayor, since the hearing is closed, would you order Exhibits 1 through 7 as identified into the record please? MAYOR STOUT: Yes, so ordered. Do any of the City Council members at this time have any questions of the City staff or consultants? All right. There being no further discussion indicated, is it the desire of the City Council that this be continued or that we proceed with action on Resolutions 91-1, excuse me, the two resolutions that are submitted? Is there a motion then to adopt the two resolutions as submitted? Do you need separate votes on them? MR. MARKMAN: I think, for the record, we should and I think we should identify the resolutions by the numbers. Linda has the numbers if no one else does. MAYOR STOUT: Will the City Clerk read the numbers of the two resolutions starting with the first one. THE CITY CLERK: 91-376 and 91-383. "Exhibit A" City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MAYOR STOUT: 376 and 383? Is there a motion to adopt 91-3767 COUNCILMEMBER ALEXANDER: So moved. MAYOR STOUT: Moved by Buquet? COUNCILMEMBER ALEXANDER: Alexander. MAYOR STOUT: Moved by Alexander. Is there a second? COUNCILMEMBER BUQUET: Second. MAYOR STOUT: votes please. THE CITY CLERK: zero. MAYOR STOUT: 91-3837 Second by Buquet. Indicate your Motion carried unanimously, five, zero. Is there a motion to adopt Resolution COUNCILMEMBER ALEXANDER: So moved. MAYOR STOUT: Moved by Alexander. Is there a second? COUNCILMEMBER WILLIAMS: Second. MAYOR STOUT: Second by Williams. Indicate your votes please. THE CITY CLERK: Motion carried unanimously, five, MAYOR STOUT: All right. That concludes Item 4. (END OF PROCEEDINGS.) City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 72 "Exhibit A" REPORTER' S CERTIFICATE Certified Shorthand Reporter and/or Notary Public of the State of California, with principal office in the County of Orange, do hereby certify that the proceeding was written by me in Stenotypy and transcribed into typewriting and that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of my shorthand notes thereof. DEC 1 91 Dated: