Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981/12/03 - Minutes - Adjourned DECEMBER 3, 1981 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Adjourned Meeting 1. CALL TO ORDER An adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga was held in the Lion's Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, on Thursday, December 3, 1981. The meeting was called to order at 7:08 pm by Mayor Phillip D. Schlosser. Present: Councilmen James C. Frost, Jon D. Mikels, Arthur H. Bridge, Michael Palombo and Mayor Phillip D. Schlosser. Also present were: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Manager/City Clerk; Robert Dougherty, Assistant City Attorney; Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer; Paul A. Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer; and Shintu Bose, Associate Civil Engineer. 2. ANNOUNCEMENTS Set Public Hearing date for December 16, 1981 at 7:00 pm on Amendment to the Industrial Specific Plan. 3. STAFF REPORTS A. Status of Drainage Systems and Policies (1) Staff Report by Lloyd B. Hubbs. Mr. Hubbs stated the meeting was called to bring the Council up-to-date on the Master Plan in the City, on several drainage issues, and key financial considerations that are being considered on the County and City level to finance drainage improvements. He stated that the City has been working on updating the Master Plan for the past two years and has been using the plan on a trial basis for the last six to nine months. Mr. Hubbs stated that he wanted to familiarize the Council on the issues and to get a general reaction to the priorities for construction of drains to be used in the ongoing discussion of the County Benefit Assessment Program. The priorities will be taken back to the Advisory Commission this month and then back to Council for final adoption and approval. Mr. Hubbs showed slides of damage that occurred in the 1980 storms. The Mayor made a comment on an article he read in the Daily Report about a pro- fessor who was studying the weather by some new method. The report stated that this would be a cold, wet winter. Mr. Hubbs presented a map of the master plan of drains that is being done in four parts: the master plan of storm drain covers mainly the western portion of the City and is covered by the L. D. King Report and is the primary document that the City wll be reviewing and going through tonight. Another part will be provided by each planned community designated as Terra Vista and Victoria, each have drainage plans that are hoped to be incorporated in the King plan for adoption in mid-January. The Etiwanda area is currently undergoing the specific plan and will likely required an update in their drainage plan. In the meantime, the Moffat-Nicholl plan is being used. Mr. Hubbs pointed to the master plan of storm drains and explained that it has been broken down into nine sub-elements and briefly went through them. City Council Minutes December 3, 1981 Page 2 Mr. Hubbs stated the priorities being recommended to Council were presented for information and preliminary comment. The order of priority and cost estimates were listed: 1) Beryl storm drain which runs from Beryl to Hellman which stops at the Cucamonga storm draim estimated at $1,175,000; 2) Hermosa- Turner drains phase constructed from Foothill Blvd. to the north to the Alta Loma outlet north of 19th that will cost $5,500,000; 3) Cucamonga storm drain that will require some reconstruction which runs along the Pacific Railroad tracks will have to be completed before the entire system can be implented for $3,730,000; 4) next the Lower Hellman storm drain above Foot- hill, San Bernardino Road on down to the Cucamonga Storm Drain through the Cucamonga Channel for $3,000,000; 5) then to the Alta Loma Channel which will be discussed later on for $3,000,000. The Council was then asked if they had any comments on the priorities or ques- tions on the master plan storm drain. Councilman Frost asked Mr. Hubbs for clarification of first priority 2-1 and 2-F, that portion of Hellman south of where its called Beryl Canyon. Southern Pacific Railroad at Hellman to north of 19th at Beryl is listed as 2-F a part of 2-1 seems to be included. Mr. Hubbs stated that was true. Priority 1 includes a part of 2-1 from approximately Monte Vista south. The remainder of 2-1 will be included in the priority 3 project. Councilman Mikels commented that he noticed there was some deviation between the priority lists made by Mr. Hubbs and the consultant's list on page 52. Mr. Hubbs stated that the first list was Staff's recommendations and the other is the constulant's. The reason there is a difference is because Staff's recommendations are a broader brush priority in terms of using them in relation to a benefit assessment program which would generate more money to build things and would lend itself to larger projects. The consultant was thinking in smaller segments, where the consultant has 4-Q, 4-C, 4-A broken out, we combin~~ them. The basic pattern of priorities is the same. In some cases, we have shortened up reaches, particularly, around the Beryl section. In other areas, we lumped together Hermosa into a larger group of projects. Basically, their priority is the Beryl-Hellman system, the Hermosa system, the Lower Hellman system. We have raised the Alta Loma Channel system from hills and then they proceed with several drains that weren't covered in our priority. Councilman Mikels said that one of the systems, referring to Line 2-32-B, appears high on the consultant's list and is nowhere on Staff's. Mr. Hubbs stated that a lot of that would be taken care of through condominium develop- ment. Councilman Mikels asked if the development would line the channel from the railroad tracks all the way down to where it drains across Baker Avenue. Councilman Mikets described existing drainage course and requested clarifica- tion of master plan improvements. Mr. Hubbs stated that the entire drain would start at Red Hill and go all the way through Baker, include some con- struction of Baker and Arrow to join up with the existing pipe drain in Arrow. Bill Mann, of Bill Mann and Associates, gave a brief description of the natural spring flow in the channel being discussed. Councilman Mikels wanted more explanation on the pipe and flow of this stream. Mr. Hubbs satifactorily explained what would be done. Councilman Mikels wanted Mr. Hubbs to clarify the distinction between his recommendations as compared to the ones on page 52, the consultant's priority. Mr. Hubbs explained that on the consultant's list 2E and 2I would construct all of the Beryl Drain, basically they have gone above Banyan. Staff is saying that we don't need that upper portion of Beryl at this time. Staff discontinued the project and moved over to Hermosa sooner. The Hermosa priority is about the same - it's been broken down into pieces by the consul- City Council Minutes December 3, 1981 Page 3 tant. 6E is the lower Hellman Drain which is consistent with Staff's recommendation. 3A is back up to a portion of the Alta Loma Drain. We've pulled out some pieces of the Alta Loma Drain considering we could put the whole thing together with a major project. Discussion continued regarding the differences between the consultant's priorities and Staff's. Mr. Hubbs stated that the Terra Vista drainage system is still going through the EIR process. The unique thing is the developers are attempting to divert more flows from the Day Creek natural drainage area over to Deer Creek. To accomplish this, they have to maintain the flows which were going into Deer Creek historically. To do that, they are providing retention basins which they envision using as parks when not being used for water storage. This is an unique element, and we are in the process of reviewing it with the developers to insure that those facilities work properly. B. Day, Etiwanda and San Sevaine Creeks Study (2) Mr. Hubbs stated that this item was discussed at the last Council meeting and briefly went over it again. Before Council for consideration was the final agreement with the County whether to enter into a cooperative agree- ment to hire a consultant to do Phase II of the study on the Day-Etiwanda- San Sevaine problem. Mr. Hubbs summarized the staff report and explained the results of the Phase I study on Day-Etiwanda and San Sevaine Creeks. Mr. Hubbs stated that the most important part of this study is financing. One tool to finance this type of project is to form a Benefit Assessment Program which generates a great deal of money on a regional basis and develops enough funds to build major segments up front. Another way is to develop joint powers authority among the four or five agencies, a governmental body that has the ability to issue revenue bonds. The County, Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga and Fontana wish to enter into an agreement to fund Phase II. Mr. Hubbs recommended execution of the agreement and commitment of $15,000 as the City's share of the contract. Mayor Schlosser had some questions on page 5 and 6 about mutual cooperation and working together on water resources with water departments. He stated water should be conserved instead of sending it out into the ocean only to have to bring it back. Councilman Frost questioned the contract's plan whether to consider the natural environment and economy of the area. He wanted to know the meaning of a statement on page 4. Mr. Mann answered that the intent would be to consider the environment. Councilman Frost asked for a clarification of the statement on page 10, item C, "it is anticipated that 50 copies of the plan and other report data will be billed at a cost to the District plus 15%". Mr. Mann answered that this was a carry-over from another project and was taken care of under budget Task 9 to cover printing: 15% will be taken off. It was agreed that the contract should read, "anticipated 50 copies of the report plan and other printed material should be billed to the District at cost which is estimated to be at a budget of $800". Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Frost to execute that portion of the agreement with the County to complete the Phase II to concur with the consul- tant selected and to recommend to the Board of Supervisors that the contract with the consultant be approved. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. City Council Minutes December 3, 1981 Page 4 (3) C. Flood Control Benefit Assessment Mr. Hubbs presented some background on the efforts of the benefit assessment program. Mr. Hubbs stated that the County has been working for three years on a benefit assessment program. As authorized by State law, the County Flood Control District can institute an assessment to construct flood control facilities, if supported by a 50% vote. He informed Council that he wished to review the proposal from the Zone 1 Advisory Committee which was outlined in the Staff Report. Key elements that were approved by the Zone 1 Board were (1) an April election, the first step to place before the voters a flood control benefit assessment program, will be recommended by the Board of Supervisors on Monday, December 7. (2) The basic residential assessment should be $39 a unit. (3) It will be a 30 year program. (4) One-third of the funds would go to flood control channels and two-thirds would go back to each City as the money was generated for local storm drain needs. (5) The Zone 1 Advisory Committee referred the basic benefit's formula back to the Technical Committee to come up with a recommendation that will be heard at the Monday meeting of the Zone 1 Board. (6) That Fontana be allowed to include the portion of its City, which drains basically into San Sevaine Channel that is in Zone 2, be included in the election and fund distribution. The Technical Committee met last week to come up with a formula to present to the Board. The basis criteria on that formula was to come up with some- thing keyed into the $39 per resident that correlated strongly with runoff coefficients and was fairly simple to understand for homeowners. The Technical Committee cut down 5 categories that the County was using to 3 categories. To do that, they combined vacant and agriculture categories. They also elimi- nated multi-residential differences from single family homes basically to be assessed on a per residence basis. They used a factor of 6 which is the average number of dwelling units per acre in residential land, and multiplied by acreage factor which was $234 per acre. The distribution of the commercial and industrial and vacant were proportionate to the runoff coefficients. On vacant lands coefficients resulted in an acreage charge of $23.40; on residen- tial $234.00; and on commercial and industrial $702.00 per acre. Mr. Hubbs stated that this was the basic program that would be heard on Monday by the Zone 1 Board and they will set the election. There are still some details and issues to be worked out, what drains should be listed on the ballot, and how the ballot issues should be worded. This is the basic foun- dation that will be proposed. Ail the cities will be hearing these same issues and the County h~s been flexible in trying to satisfy each City. The City of Montclair has given its formal support of the Zone l's recommendation: they have not reviewed the formula at this point. Councilman Mikels asked if the acreage charge of $234 on residential was based on six dwelling units per acre? Mr. Hubbs stated that they got the number from a computer printout from the County and in all the areas the average is six. Councilman Bridge asked if someone lives on one acre of land, its considered residential. But what if, as in the Etiwanda area, someone lives on 10 to 20 acres of fallow land. Mr. Hubbs stated that the first acre would be charged as residential and the rest as vacant. The same goes for industrial. The developed acreage would be charged, and the rest charged to vacant. The County is asking that the Cities determine the assessments on each parcel. City Council Minutes December 3, 1981 Page 5 Councilman Mikels asked for a clarification of Item No. 4 regarding the one- third - two-thirds split. Mr. Hubbs responded that this was based roughly on the County's needs. One-third generated would go to the County and the two-thirds goes back to the Cities to do what they need to do. Councilman Mikels asked if the County Board of Supervisors has a priority list of where the money would be spent. Mr. Hubbs stated that they had generated a list for regional drains and also a five year program for County drains that were coordinated with jurisdictions. Councilman Mikels stated that he would like to see a priority list from the County. Councilman Frost said that everyone has their wish list. Two-thirds of the money generated within incorporated areas will be returned to those entities to spend as they wish for flood control or storm drain purposes. The balance of the money will be spent anywhere within the Zone 1 area at the Supervisors' discretion with the recommendation of the Zone 1 Advisory Committee in incorporated or unincoporated areas. Councilman Bridge asked if the distribution timing had been addressed at all. Will it be distributed to cities a reasonable time after the tax bill has been paid? Mr. Hubbs stated that those details hadn't been worked out yet. Councilman Bridge stated that some of these things should be pretty concrete before election. Councilman Mikels also agreed that these details should be solved before it goes to the voters. He feels that important points haven't been decided and set; that it is going to the voters too soon and that it might fail. Mr. Hubbs stated that the Board felt that April was better than June because of the peripheral canal and that right after the dead of winter would be the best time. The Mayor stated that it might as well go to the voters in April instead of November because of interest rates, inflation, the economy, the County and all the factors that are against you. Joe DiIorio stated that fees for property on the mountain side went from $200 to $20,000. Property that was encumbered by utility easement or flood control channels which is being charged for acres that are undeveloped. Then there are those who own many acres and plan to never develop their property, so why should they pay the fees. There are large landowners, like the railroad, who don't plan to develop their land until the next century. How are these problems to be addressed? Mr. Hubbs stated that most of these problems will not be accentuated in the Zone 1 area. The railroad was against it because of their owning large areas of land, but that was way out in the desert. The other problems haven't been addressed yet. If the other land falls into vacant land, they pay that rate. This formula is basically a recommendation and may need manipulation in a lot of different directions. Mr. Hubbs stated that these problems will be solved. Councilman M±kels said that there has to be a formula made to solve all the questions before City Council can give its support to have the issue to to the voters in April. Mr. Hubbs said that many key issues will be solved by the end of January when the ballot needs to be written and things can be changed. Mr. DiIorio spoke again about the problems and stated that they should be resolved before they go to ballot in April. He suggested that it wait for another year. Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Palombo that the matter be studied further with more details and a specific link between revenue raised and expenditures developed; that election in 1982 not be considered. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. Note: Councilman Palombo will represent Schlosser at the meeting on Monday, December 7, 1981. City Council Minutes December 3, 1981 Page 6 D. Drainage Fees Mr. Hubbs stated that with the adoption of a new plan and with inflation, there is a need for a new fee. As stated in the Staff Report, engineering contin- gency and overhead factors would increase the fee 25% to roughly $4,000/acre. Mr. Hubbs asked for Council's recommendation to direct Staff to go ahead and draft up the ordinance to make the changes at the time of adoption of the plan. The current ordinance does not index the fees. It will be easier rather than having to re-adopt every year to revise those ordinances and to index those fees to Engineering New Records construction cost index. It would be adjusted automatically each year. We have had the current rate almost three years and its has not been adjusted for inflation. Councilman Frost questioned indexing. Mr. Hubbs answered that it would be easier to provide adjustments. Councilman Frost suggested that it would be best to review the Ordinance annually in order to be reminded of the costs involved. The fee should not be indexed. Motion: Moved by Mikels and seconded by Palombo to direct Staff to draw up the appropriate ordinances revising the storm drain fee to a level consistent with the actual cost of the system. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. (4) E. Special Drainage Impact Area Tributory to Alta Loma Channel Mr. Hubbs discussed the problem in the Alta Loma Channel area. The Building Industry Association (BIA) is working with property owners to establish an assessment district to put in the necessary channel. Mr. Ken Willis explained that the BIA has been working with the property owners in the Alta Loma Channel area and consultants who are willing to establish an assessment district in that area---based primarily on 1911-1913 combina- tion bond act. Basically, the bonds would be paid off by the drainage fees that they would pay for on a per acre basis. They have gathered up a petition which is not yet ready to go to Council but basically lists Don Owen ~ Associat~ as assessment engineer and financial consultant, MacKenzie Brown as bond counsel and Associated Engineers as the design engineer for the project. These consultants will be responsible for setting up the assessment district and to put up the bond. The landowners will be putting up their land to back the bonds. The bonds will be paid off with their commitment of their drainage fee to the City. In the event that development slows down and there are not enough drainage fee monies to meet the bond requirement for a given year, then the difference would be picked up on an assessment of that acreage which was undeveloped. If that were to occur, then at such time as those individuals were to pay their drainage fees at the time of development, they would be credited any assessment they had paid previously. This procedure is currently in use in the City of Rialto for the expansion of the waste water plant in their community. Western City's March 1981 issue has an article on how the procedure works. Mr. Willis stated that he has a petition and affidavit of 256 acres of land. He will be getting together with the City Engineer to verify the number of vacant land acres. He believed that there should be 519 vacant land acres in the project, and if that is the case, they need only 45 more acres to complete the required 60% minimum of the property owners to bring a petition before the Council. Mr. Willis believes that they should resolve that property in a week or two. Mr. Willis asked the Council the following questions: 1. There are landowners who would like to sign up but don't want to develop their land immediately - if the bonds didn't float, will they be faced City Council Minutes December 3, 1982 Page 7 with having to absorb the up-front costs for the design engineering and financial work, etc. of $150,0007 2. There are landowners who would be willing to pay if the City would credit the design cost against their drainage fee when they would actually pay it. The BIA would like to be able to negotiate with the City Engineer and City Administration. There would be property owners willing to get involved in the assessment district if they knew they could be credited for design fees. Council agreed that there should be discussion with the City and Building Industry Association. Mr. Willis wanted to know what fees could be credited. The Council agreed credits to fees would be appropriate. Mr. Hubbs reviewed the Staff Report on Alta Loma Channel and recommended that Council instruct Staff to proceed to develop an ordinance designating the area a Special Impact Zone for drainage management. Motion: Moved by Palombo and seconded by Frost to direct Staff to prepare the ordinances naming Alta Loma Channel as a Special Impact Zone. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. Councilman Bridge asked the City Attorney for his opinion. Mr. Dougherty stated that Council was taking no action except declaring it a special impact area and an area of concern and directing Staff to prepare an ordinance addressing that, but that ordinance could take many forms. Mr. Dougherty had no problem with the motion. Joe Dilorio stated he had questions on drainage fees and felt that this should be discussed as to how the fees should be structured. He said that before the ordinance is adopted, it should be a City-wide or water shed area. 4. ADJOURN~iENT. Motion: Moved by Mikels and seconded by Frost to adjourned the meeting. Motion passed unanimously 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 10:03 pm. Respectfully submit ted, Judy Acosta Engineering Secretary