Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983/02/02 - Minutes February 2, 1983 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Regular Meeting 1. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga was held in the Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, on Wednesday, February 2, 1983. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Mayor Jon D. Mikeis. Present were Council members: Richard M. Dahl, Charles J. Buquet II, Phillip D. Schlosser, James C. Frost, and Mayor Jon D. Mikeis. Also present were: City Manager, Lauren M. Wasserman; City Attorney, Robert Dougherty; Community Development Director, Jack Lam; City Engineer, Lloyd Hubbs; City Planner, Rick Gomez; Finance Director, Harry Empey; and Community Services Director, Bill Holley. Approval of Minutes: Mayor Mikels requested that the minutes of January 19, 1983 be removed in order that a section be checked against the tapes. ae 2. ANNOUNCI~ff~rS Thursday, February 3, 1983, 7:00 p.m. - HISTORICAL COMMISSION - Lions Park Community Center. b. Monday, February 7, 1983, 7:30 p.m. TERRA VISTA PLAN HEARING/CITY COUNCIL - Lions Park Community Center. Thursday, February 10, 1983, 7:00 p.m. - FOOTHILL FIRE DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS - Lions Park Community Center. Thursday, February 10, 6:00 p.m. - JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - Magic Lamp. Mayor Mikels presented a Resolution of the City of San Bernardino requesting the Council to Join them in opposition to a proposal by the County of San Bernardino which would permit detachment from a City without specific permission of the municipality's governing body. Mayor MikeIs directed staff to look into this and to bring the item back at the next meeting for Council's consideration. Mayor Mikels presented a report from a recent CLOUT meeting in Sacramento at which local councilmembers and chamber representatives lobbied legislators regarding issues such as the airport ground access, Route 71 and 30- 3- CONSENT CAT.RWDAR Councilman Buquet requested that item "f" be pulled for discussion. Approval of Warrants, Register No. 83-01-30 and Payroll Register ending 83-01-23 in the amount of $1,108,159.49 and Warrant Register No. 83-02-02 in the amount of $120,939.07. b. Forward Claim against the City by Jill Marie and Richard P. Ivy to the City Attorney for handling. (CL 83-03) City Council Minutes February 2, 1983 Page 2 <2> (3) (4) (s) <6) (7) (s) (9) (10) (z2) c. Forward Claim against the City by Eric J. and Larry Klock to the City Attorney for handling. (CL 83-04) d. Forward Claim against the City by Ronald Payne to Carl Warren Insurance Company for handling. (CL 83-05) e. Alcoholic Beverage Application for on-sale beer and wine eating place license by Richard A. Rodino, M~mn~'s Leone's, 9155 Archibald Avenue, Unit C. (AB 83-04) f. AppPe~a~ e~ ABPeemes~e ~e e.~eRd g~y ef~ee Gemp~e. ~ease ABPeemes~e ~Pea~b JY~e ~gT ~9~4, Item pulled for discussion. g. Approval of Agreement with Bonadiman-McCain, Inc., contractor for Assessment District 82-1, to deposit monies retained on the subject project in the contraotor's bank account. (CO 83-008) h. Approval that design services for sidewalk construction on Base Line between Hellman Avenue and Alta Loma High School be awarded to Derbish, Guerra & Assco., the lowest bidder, for the amount of $4,100.00. (CO 83-079) i. Acceptance of Agreement, Security, and Final Map for Tract 10045 submitted by Westland Venture Company located at the northwest corner of Haven Avenue and Hidden Farm Road. RESOLUTION NO. 83-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITY, AND FINAL MAP OF TRACT 10045. J. Approval of release of Time Certificate of Deposit for 8968 Archibald (Willow School) in the amount of $3,450.00 to Diversified Investment Developers, approval of street improvements, and authorizing filing of a Notice of Completion. RESOLUTION NO. 83-16 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR 8968 ARCHIBALD AVENUE (WILLOW SCHOOL) AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK. k. Release of Bond for Site Approval 79-10, located at 9900 Arrow Route, to the Church of the Nazarene. Pass Book (labor & materials) $3,250.00 1. Release of Bond for Site Approval 79-19, located on the southeast corner of Foothill and Malachite, to ARCO Petroleum Products Co. Faithful Performance $6,300.00 RESOLUTION NO. 83-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR S.A. 79-19 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK. m. Set public hearing date of February 16, 1983 for ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 82-04 - SALVATI. A change of zone from M-1 (limited manufacturing) to R-3/PD (multiple family/planned development) and the development of 248 eondominiums on 11.35 acres located at the northeast corner of 8th Street and Grove Avenue - APN 207-251-02, 03, 13. City Council Minutes February 2, 1983 Page 3 no Set public hearing date of February 16, 1983 for ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONE CHANGE 82-04 - MINMACK. A change of zone from A-1 (limited agriculture) to R-1 (single family residential) for 5 acres of land located on the east side of Beryl Street, 1000 feet south of 19th Street - APN 202-041-15. o. Acceptance of public improvements for Sapphire Street from Jennette to Vinmar, and authorize the city engineer to file a Notice of Completion. RESOLUTION N0. 83-18 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR SAPPHIRE STREET IMPROVEMENTS AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK. Motion: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Schlosser to approve the Consent Calendar with the deletion of item "f". Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAINED: Dahl, Buquet, Schlosser, Frost, Mikels None Frost on item "1" since he felt it was a bad project. Discussion of item "f": Mr. Buquet asked why the leases were being extended only until June 1984. Mr. Wasserman explained we are now having them all the leases expire at the same time. We are leaving our options open for the future. There may be facilities available at that time which would be more suitable for city use. A question was raised regarding a rumor that the City was offered space at the Exchange. Mr. Wasserman stated an offer had been made to the City. However, we are now paying 56 cents per square foot. They wanted 80 cents per square foot at the Exchange. The cost of relocating the phones alone would cost approximately $10-15,000, and we would also be responsible for all the improvements. Although there would be more room and more parking space, the cost was prohibitive. Motion for item "f": Moved by Buquet, seconded by Dahl to approve the agreements to extend the City Office Complex lease agreements through June 30, 1984. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. (CO 83-007) PUBLIC A. CO~3IDERATIO! OF A REQ~E3T FROM MOBILE H(~ COACH ~ TO ]NPOSE A RENT MORATORIUM. Staff report by Jim Robinson, assistant city manager. A request from the mobile home coach owners to impose a rent moratorium until the City's existing ordinance can be modified to provide binding arbitration. Mayor Mikels opened the meeting for public hearing. *Jack Emerson, Chaparrel Heights, asked two questions: (1) why an EIR was not required in June 1981 when Ordinance 148 was adopted, and (2) what would the cost be for altering the ordinance to require binding arbitration? Mr Buquet answered the first question by stating the ordinance was strictly an advisory process, therefore no strict binding resulted and would not be subject to an EIR. Mayor Mikels answered question two by stating we would have to know what types of changes were being proposed before we would know the costs and if an EIR were required. (~3) (~4) (xs) City Council Minutes February 2, 1983 Page 4 F~. Emerson asked who determines whether an EIR is necessary? Mr. Dougherty responded that staff makes an initial study based upon the proposal to identify any potential adverse environment impacts. Once this is made, it is referred to the City Council who would have the ultimate responsibility to determine whether an EIR would be required. Generally speaking courts have leaned toward requiring EIRs in those cases where doubt exists. If a law suit resulted, then the courts would determine whether an EIR was necessary. Mr. Dougherty further stated that when the first mediation ordinance was initiated, we did not consider whether an EIR should be done. It is his opinion that any time you impose a mandatory control, then an EIR should warrant serious consideration and probably would be required. *Sam Rodda, The Pines, asked why is Rancho Cucamonga so forceful on doing an EIR since there are thirty-two communities with rent control ordinances and only one City in which an EIR was required. *Max Grossman, Alta Laguna, asked why did Council have to go over all this again since they had looked at all the documents before. Mayor Mikeis explained they were going over this because the mobile home owners have requested it. *John Williams, Ramona Villa, asked why did the Rancho Cucamonga Council seem so hung up on doing an EIR since most of the other cities did not need it. Mayor Mikeis stated that the EIR was only a small part of the larger process. He stated there were other items such as cost, deterioration of parks, etc. which must also be considered. Mr. Frost stated we were getting hung up on a response to a specific question that Mr. Emerson asked regarding the EIR. In his opinion the Council can follow the attorney's advice or not; it is only an opinion. Usually they did follow his advice. We are here at a specific request of the coach owners. *Ed Badka, Alta Laguna, responded to a statement that the parks would deteriorate. He stated the parks had not deteriorated. The people took pride in the parks and kept the coaches and surrounding areas up. *Mrs. Grossman, Alta Laguna, wanted the City to help them. *Vern Maxie, Senior Affairs Commission, felt the cart has been placed before the horse. The people were here for a rent moratorium. The environment was mentioned in Mr. Robinson's report. Then Mr. Dougherty came back and referred to the environmental. He thought you had to pass the moratorium first. Then it goes to staff and back to Council with a recommendation if an environmental was necessary. ~ He asked if that was correct? Mr. Dougherty stated the EIR would have to proceed an action such as an adoption of a moratorium. *Mr. Rodda asked if we had to have an EIR on the building moratorium which was enacted after incorporation. If not, then why must there be one for them. Mr. Frost responded that the building moratorium was placed at a time when we were transferring records and hiring initial staff. It was a process to stop everything so we could look at the records and to get organized. There being no further comments from the public, Mayor Mikeis closed the public hearing. City Council Minutes February 2, 1983 Page 5 Mr. Buquet stated that when they previously considered the matter whether to enact an ordinance or not, one of the alternatives was to revise the present ordinance to include binding arbitration. The other option was to establish a moratorium. The Council disapproved both of those concepts. He felt they were considering something which had been considered before. Mr. Dahl stated in the last four months there was one meet-and-confer session that was brought about that did not pertain to the Alta Laguna situation; it was a different park. The main problem in that park was not rent, but other items in the park that needed to be resolved. It was his opinion that an ordinance which required a binding type of arbitration but not tied to rents after being handled through the mediation process with no satisfaction would be a possibility. He also stated at the committee meetings, the homeowners stated they wanted a minimum of three arbitrators to be present. He felt the cost should be borne by the party with the grievance. With these suggestions, he requested this be referred back to the Committee for ~urther study on the EIR factor. Mr. Schlosser stated there wasn't any reason to change now since at the last meeting they agreed to stay with the present ordinance for one year. You had to consider many things such as the vacancy rates, the comparative rents of other West End parks, the damaging effects on new properties, the deterioration of the parks, reduction of the maintenance, the fact that the City will have to defend law suits, contested hearings, and the EIR. Motion: Moved by Schlosser to continue with the present ordinance for a one year period from this date. Motion died for a lack of a second. Mr. Frost stated he had had some discussions with the Chamber Manager and they touched upon some topics that the Executive Committee had started to discuss as far as the possibility of the City pursuing other options in regard for solutions to the problems through the form of 20 percent of RDA money being used or perhaps the city could help make it possible for some existing parks to convert to coach ownership. M~. Buquet stated if its council's intend to send this back to the Committee, fine; but we could not make a decision to enact a moratorium tonight. Mr. Dahl felt a decision should be made tonight; that it should either be sent back to the Committee for more study or to state we don't want to proceed. Motion: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Schlosser to continue under the present ordinance for a period of one year from today's date, February 2, 1983. Mr. Buquet stated he was afraid some in the audience were concerned about the lack of action. He could not support a moratorium process tonight, but he felt a positive action has to be taken for the community. He felt seeking alternatives would be more beneficial in the long run. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Dahl, Buquet, Sehlosser, MikeIs NOES: Frost ABSENT: None Mayor Mikels called a recess at 8:50 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:10 p.m. with all members of Council and staff present. B. CONSIDERATION OF STORM DRAIN FEE MODIFICATIONS Staff report by Lloyd Hubbs, city engineer. Recommendation: It is recommended the Drainage Fee be increased from $2,500 per acre to $4,600 per acre in order to meet increased costs of revised Master Plan. (~6) City Council Minutes February 2, 1983 Page 6 Mayor MikeIs opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing Council were: *Gordon Bandy, 8377 Wilson Court, asked what were we talking about: developed property or undeveloped property. Mayor MikeIs responded we were talking about undeveloped property. *Doug Hone asked, isn't developed property, when it goes in for a building permit, required to pay drainage fees also? Hubbs stated that certain criteria (so many square feet of addition) has to take place before it does key in. There is a provision that once a certain percent or over a certain amount of square feet is reached then they would be charged for the entire developed parcel. *Harold Zenz, Deer Creek, spoke about the Deer Creek proposed development and their application of the ordinance to Deer Creek. Ninety percent of their drainage goes into Deer Creek. In the remaining 147 lots, the total fee will flow to the benefit of the entire community. They suggested that the ordinance stating that all of the properties in the city are presumed to be of equal flood hazard and fees apply equally be changed as follows: In Section E -- regarding exceptions: "A modification of such fees as adopted may be made by the City Engineer when it is determined that these are large areas where drainage facilities are in place and where no volume is put into any city drains or streets. Such modifications shall not exceed 50 percent of the established fee." *Ralph Lewis stated he agreed with much of what Mr. Zenz said. The finding in the ordinance which reads, "the city council finds that drainage problems are approximately equal in magnitude in all areas of the city," should be studied and recommended that this be delayed until the BIA could look into this along with their study of all the fees. *Joe DiIorio, R. C. Land, gave some brief history when the fees were established, the basic concept was that new development must pay for itself. He suggested that perhaps it would be appropriate that fees should be established by water shed area. If the city council desires to maintain the fee on a city-wide basis, then R.C. Land is basically in favor of the increase in the fee. But for a good reason for they are draining a good portion in Etiwanda at a cost in excess of $5,000 per acre. *Doug Hone felt a $60 million problem deserves a good deal of documentation. He felt he could not make a decision tonight with the information before Council. They needed to differentiate between established channel areas and the unchanneled areas. *Art Bridge stated he was planning on building a house in the middle of a 20 acre parcel. This would be a tremendous fee and felt this inequity should be looked into. *Sam Angona suggested that we come up with the formula for the different types of properties and houses. He questioned whether Council has really looked into all possible solutions and suggested that perhaps there was not sufficient input. There being no further comments from the public, Mayor Mikels closed the public hearing. City Clerk Wasserman read the title of Ordinance No. 75-B. City Council Minutes February 2, 1983 Page 7 ORDINANCE NO. 75-B AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 13.08 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATIVE TO COMPREHENSIVE DRAINAGE PLAN AND DRAINAGE FEES. Motion: Moved by Frost, seconded by Schlosser to waive full reading of Ordinance No. 75-B and set second reading on April 6th. Mr. Frost stated this will give Council two months to work on this. Mr. Wasserman pointed out an error on page 61 of the Agenda. It should read, "tentative map" instead of final map. Mr. Frost asked what the impact would the change have? Mr. Dougherty stated the conditions are imposed at the time of a tentative map aptoval. The final map, by recent court decision, is considered a ministerial act and a final map must be approved if all the conditions of a previously approved tentative map have been met. Mr. Lam stated that all fees have been collected at the time of building permit. Mr. Dahl expressed concern regarding the breakdown of the fees. He opposed the $550 fee, classified as a regional fee, and would like to see this removed. Mr. Buquet stated he would like to see second reading set for sometime in March. Mr. Lam stated there are quite a few projects that could pull within thirty days. Whether they do, we don't know. Motion: Moved by Frost to revise the motion to waive full reading of Ordinance No. 75-B and set second reading to March 2. Motion died for lack of second. Motion: Moved by Buquet, seconded by Dahl to eliminate the $550 regional fee, Section 13.08.040 from the Ordinance, waive full reading of Ordinance No. 75- B, and set second reading for March 2, 1983. Council discussed the $550 regional fee. Mr. Hubbs stated that most of the remaining regional facilities that are required are Day, Etiwanda, San Sevine which are on the eastern half of the City. That fee was not intended to construct all of those drains, but to provide a certain amount of money to assist in the development along with other financial mechanisms to build Day, Etiwanda, and San Sevine. Mr. Dougherty stated this is the first this subject has been highlighted. He would like to do some more investigation and felt this should be removed and brought back on its own merit at a later time. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Dahl, Buquet, Schlosser, Mikels NOES: Frost ABSENT: None F~. Dougherty stated the motion was not unanimous, therefore a full reading of the ordinance was required. He suggested that Council should split the motions. The motion was withdrawn by the mover and seconder. City Council Minutes February 2, 1983 Page 8 (16) Motion: MOved by Buquet, seconded by Dahl to amend the language in Ordinance 75-B to reflect the elimination of the regional fee, changing the fee from $46.00 to $40.50 per 1/100 acre. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Dahl, Buquet, Sohlosser, Mikels NOES: Frost ABSENT: None Motion: Moved by Buquet, seconded by Dahl to waive full reading of Ordinance No. 75-B and to set second reading for March 2. Motion carried unanimously 5- 0. (17) C. APPEAL OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF TE~TATIWE PARCEL ~AP 7215 Staff report by Lloyd Hubbs, city engineer. Mr. Hubbs pointed out there were two points which were being appealed: (1) Condition 7 which requires interior street improvement at the time of development of the vacant land. (2) Condition 8 which requires additional improvement to Eastwood Avenue. Currently, the street width is only 18 feet; the city requires half width streets to be 26 feet wide. Mayor Mikels opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing Council were: *Gary and Ann Burr, 6875 Beryl Street, asked how the city would handle this when the two properties put in the improvements. Would the city come and require the $2500 to put in the improvements or would an assessment be arranged to give an opportunity to pay over ten years. Mr. Hubbs responded that when the others proceeded with their improvements, he would be put on notice to go ahead and install the improvements concurrent with the others. There would be no financing by the City. *Mr. Burt stated he would have to continue with the appeal then. He stated their original intent was to split the lot so they could buy the house and separate it from the property in the back. *Chief Feuerstein stated he had looked at the area. It is a narrow street, but he could not say that it was a hazard. His only comment was that in areas where this situation arises, these types of problems should be corrected as soon as possible. At what stage this should be done, could be debated. The Uniform Fire Code states all access streets should be a minimum of 24 feet. Mr. Lam stated in terms of policy, we are dealing with. two major ordinances in regard to improvements in the city. (1) the Subdivision Map Act and (2) an ordinance which requires that on a piece of property in which there is a subdivision being considered where there already exists'a structure, then the improvements are necessary. The difference between the two is that any discretion for postponement would be under the latter ordinance. Council can make that discretion. The issue is postponement of these improvements, not waiver of improvements. There being no further comments, Mayor Mikels closed the public hearing. Mr. Dahl stated regarding Beryl Avenue, we have already set a precedence in the past. The policy in the past has been that at the time the other street improvements are made along Beryl then the applicant would be responsible to put in his. Therefore, staff recommendation for Condition 8 would be applicable. On Parcel 4 this has some precedence -- the Kortpeter project. The improvements would be made at time of development of a site plan. This should be handled through a lien. City Council Minutes February 2, 1983 Page 9 Motion: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Schlosser to retain condition 7, retain that portion of condition 8 with respect to Beryl, and modify the portion of condition 8 in reference to Bastwood to defer installation of improvements until time of development of site plan on parcel 4. Mr. Frost stated he had problems with Bastwood. He felt if we have an opportunity, we should correct it. He wanted to split the motions. Mr. Buquet stated he was not comfortable leaving this to a future time. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Dahl, Schlosser, Frost, Mikeis NOES: Buquet ABSENT: None D. VACATION OF SERVICE ROAD - PARCq~. MaP 611q. It is requested that the public hearing for the vacation of the service road located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard in connection with Parcel Map 6114 be continued to March 16, 1983 in order to allow developer to clear up some paper work and to have this recorded. Mayor Mikels opened the meeting for public hearing. There being none, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Schlosser, seconded by Dahl to approve continuance to March 12, 1983. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. 5 - CIT~ MANAGE:~ ' S STAFF REPORTS There were none presented. CITY ATTORNE~'S REPORTS There were none presented. 7- COUNCIL a. Mayor Mikels stated the Council would adjourn to an Executive Session to discuss pending litigation. b. Mr. Buquet wanted to get a subcommittee together to look at the total fee structure. Mr. Wasserman said staff was working on, it and would welcome anyone to sit down with them. Motion: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Frost to appoint the Finance Committee (Sehlosser and Buquet) to act as the subcommittee to work with staff on the fees. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. c. Mr. Buquet stated council should look into closing the parking lot at Vineyard Park during school hours; or limiting the parking to one hour. Council directed staff to place this on the next Agenda for council consideration. (19) (20) Motion: Moved by Frost, seconded by Sohlosser to adjourn to an Executive Session not to reconvene this evening, but to reconvene on Monday, February 7 at 7:30 p.m. for the Tetra Vista public hearing. Motion carried unanimously City Council Minutes February 2, 1983 Page 10 Respectfully submitted, Beverly Authelet Deputy City Clerk