Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981/04/23 - Minutes - Special April 23, 1981 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Special Meetin~ 1. CALL TO ORDER. A special 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, April 23, 1981. The meeting was called to order at 4:42 p.m. by Mayor Phillip D. Schlosser. Present: Councilmen James C. Frost, Jori D. Mikels, Michael A. Palombo, and Mayor Phillip D. Schlosser. Also present: City Manager, Lauren M. Wasserman; City Attorney, Samuel Crowe. Absent: Councilman Arthur H. Bridge. 2. PARK BOND ACT. Mr. Wasserman reported that an agreement had been reached between the cities and the county regarding the distribution of funds generated by the Park Bond Act. It was necessary for the Council to approve a resolution concurring with the dis- tribution of funds. Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Mikels to approve Resolution No. 81-53 and to waive the entire reading. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Frost, Mikels, Palombo, Schlosser. NOES: None. ABSENT: Bridge. City Clerk Wasserman read the title of Resolution No. 81-53. RESOLUTION NO. 81-53 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PRIORITY PLAN FOR EXPENDITURE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA PARKLANDS ACT OF 1980. 3. EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION. The Council adjourned to an executive session at 4:55 p.m. to reconvene. Council- man Bridge arrived at 4:56 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 5:17 p.m. The City Attorney reported to the City Council that there might be a technical error on the agenda in that the findings related to Tracts 9441 and 11609 were not a specifically included item. The City Attorney, however, advised the City Council that he had been in telephonic contact with Mr. James D. Stroffe, attorney for the petitioner~ and that he had agreed to waive any defects. Therefore, the City Council could consider the matter. After further discussion and on motion by Palombo and second by Frost and unanimously carried, the City Council made the following findings: FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING DEVELOPER'S APPEAL FROM PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 9441. The appeal of MARK III, a California corporation, from certain of the conditions imposed by Planning Commission upon Tentative Tract Map No. 9441, in connection with the conditional approval thereof, came on for public hearing before the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga at its regular meeting held on April 15, 1981. Petitioner was present through duly authorized representatives and was represented by its attorney, James D. Stroffe of Surr & Hellyer. After a public hearing and after receiving evidence both oral and documentary the City Council, pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act of the State and the Subdivision Ordinance of the City, the Council finds: City Council Minutes April 23, 1981 Page 2 1. Notice of the public hearing on the appeal was given in the manner and for the time required by law. 2. The developer's Notice of Appeal was filed on March 7, 1981. 3. As specified in the Notice of Appeal, the Appeal was limited to "the imposition of those conditions set forth in Resolution 81-20, Section 2, items numbers 2 and 3." 4. The developer did not appeal imposition of standard condition F3 which reads: "Prior to the issuance of a building permit for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to an existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay develop- ment fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but not be limited to: city beautification fee, park fee, drainage fee, systems development fee, permit and plan checking fees, and school fee." 5. The site of Tentative Tract No. 9441 is located entirely within the National Flood Insurance Program's flood overflow area. The westerly and southerly portions are within Zone AO (depth 1 foot) and Zone A respectively. The remainder of the Tract falls within Zone B. 6. The westerly portion of Tract No. 9441 abutting the Alta Loma Channel is subject to infrequent flood hazards due to overflow, erosion and debris deposition in the event of a major storm until permanent channel and debris retention facilities have been provided. The tract is also subject to infrequent flood hazards due to overflow from accumulated tributary drainage from the north in the event of a major storm. The southerly portion may also be subject to infrequent flood hazards due to overflow from Alta Loma Basin Number 1 in the event of a major storm until such time as the basin is fully excavated. 7. That the construction of the improvements described in Resolution No. 81-20, Section 2, item number 3, are reasonable and necessary to protect the westerly portion of Tentalive Tract No. 9441 from erosion and from inundation by flood waters. 8. That the dedication requirement appealed from is necessary and proper to provide for the construction of required drainage facilities. 9. In the event Alta Loma Channel adjacent to this Tentative Tract No. 9441 were left in an unlined condition, the CitM Council would be required to find: a. That the westerly port~on of the site is. not physically suitable for residential development; and b. That the design of the subdivision is likely to cause serious public health problems. 10. Construction of the aforesaid concrete-lined drainage channel is necessary to ensure that the site of the proposed development is reasonably safe from flooding (see Section 4, Ordinance No. 24). 11. Construction of subdivision improvements such as streets, sidewalks and dwelling structures, upon the subject tract, will increase rain water run off there- from, which, together with the increased rain water run off which will be caused by other development in the area, will increase the danger of flood inundation to and erosion of land adjacent to the Alta Loma Channel downstream (of Tract No. 9441). 12. Construction of a concrete-lined channel the length of the Alta Loma Drainage Channel will substantially reduce or will eliminate the danger from flood inundation and erosion described in Finding Number 11 above. 13. Adequate provisions for reimbursement have been made to the extent the developer is by the conditions of approval of Tentative Tract No. 9441 required to construct facilities having supplemental capacity. In view of the above Findings, it is the decision of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga that: 1. The appeal is denied. 2. The action of the Planning Commission in conditionally approving Tentative Tract Map No. 9441 is affirmed. City Council Minutes April 23, 1981 Page 3 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING DEVELOPER'S APPEAL FROM PLANNING COMMISSION CONDI- TIONAL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11609. The appeal of BOB JENSEN BUILDERS, INC., a California corporation, from certain of the conditions imposed by Planning Commission upon Tentative Tract Map No. 11609, in connection with the conditional approval thereof, came on for public hearing before the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga at its regular meeting held on April 15, 1981. Petitioner was present through duly authorized representatives and was represented by its attorney, James D. Stroffe of Surr& Hellyer. After a public hearing and after receiving evidence both oral and documentary the City Council, pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act of the State and the Subdivision Ordin- ance of the City, the Council finds: 1. Notice of the public hearing on the appeal was given in the manner and for the time required by law. 2. The developer's Notice of Appeal was filed on March 9, 1981. 3. As specified in the Notice of Appeal, the Appeal was limited to "the imposition of those conditions set forth in Resolution 81-19, Section 2, item number 2." 4. The developer did not appeal imposition of standard condition F3 which reads: "Prior to the issuance of a building permit for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to an existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay develop- ment fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but not be limited to: city beautification fee, park fee, drainage fee, systems development fee, permit and plan checking fees, and school fee." 5. The site of Tentative Tract No. 11609 is located entirely within the National Flood Insurance Program's flood overflow area. The westerly portion is within Zone AO (depth 1 foot). The remainder of the Tract falls within Zone B. 6. The westerly portion of Tract No. 11609 abutting the Alta Loma Channel is subject to infrequent flood hazards due to overflow, erosion and debris re- tention deposition in the event of a major storm until permanent channel and debris retention facilities have been provided. The tract is also subject to infre- quent flood hazards due to overflow from accumulated tributary drainage from the north in the event of a major storm. 7. That the construction of the improvements described in Resolution 81-19, Section 2, item 2(a) are reasonable and necessary to protect the westerly portion of Tentative Tract No. 11609 from erosion and from inundation by flood waters. 8. That the dedication requirement appealed from is necessary and proper to provide for the construction of required drainage facilities. 9. In the vent Alta Loma Channel adjacent to this Tentative Tract No. 11609 were left in an unlined condition, the City Council would be required to find: a. That the westerly portion of the site is not physically suitable for residential development; and b. That the design of the subdivision is likely to cause serious public health problems. 10. Construction of the afresaid concrete-lined drainage channel is necessary to ensure that the site of the proposed development is reasonably safe from flooding (See Section 4, Ordinance No. 24). 11. Construction of subdivision improvements such as streets, sidewalks and dwelling structures, upon the subject tract, will increase rain water run off therefrom, which, together with the increased rain water run off which will be caused by other development in the area, will increase the danger of flood inunda- tion to and erosion of land adjacent to the Alta Loma Channel downstream (of Tract No. 11609). City Council Minutes April 23, 1981 Page 4 12. Construction of a concrete-lined channel the length of the Alta Loma Drainage Channel will substantially reduce or will eliminate the danger from flood inundation and erosion described in Finding Number 11 above. 13. Construction of the Wilson Avenue crossing of the Alta Loma Drainage Channel is made necessary by the drainage channel improvements referred to herein and the same are reasonable and necessary to provide access to Tentative Tract No. 11609 along and from Wilson Avenue. 14. Adequate provisions for reimbursement have been made to the extent the developer is by the conditions of approval of Tentative Tract No. 11609 required to construct facilities having supplemental capacity. In view of the above Findings, it is the decision of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga that: 1. The appeal is denied. 2. The action of the Planning Commission in conditionally approving Tentative Tract Map No. 11609 is affirmed. 4. ADJOURNMENT. Motion: Moved by Frost, seconded by Mikels to adjourn. The motion carried unani- mously 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 5:19 p.m. City Clerk