The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1980/02/20 - Agenda Packetr AGENDA • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Lion's Park Community Center 9161 Baseline Rancho Cucamonga Regular Meeting February 20, 1980 AGENDA ITEMS -- NOTE: All items submitted for the City Council agenda must be in writing. The deadline for submitting items is 5:00 p.m. on the Thurs- day prior to the first and third Wednesday of each month. The City Clerk's office receives all such items. 1. CALL TO ORDER. A. Pledge to Flag B. Roll Call: Mikels -�_, Palombo Schlosser_, Brldge_,,L__, Frost. • C. Approval of Minutes: February 6, 1980, nl)(1 ;t; 2. ANNOUNCEMENTS. a. Advisory Commission meeting: Thursday, February 21, 6:30 p.m. Library Conference Room. b. League Planning Commission's Institute: February 27 -29, San Diego. c. "Election 80" Candidates' Seminar: Saturday, February 23, 8:30 a.m- 1:30 p.m., Kellogg West. (Details available in Clerk's office). d. Council e. Staff 3. COMMISSION REPORTS. a. Advisory Commission. b. Historical Commission. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR. Ow The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non- controversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time with- out discussion. Any Council member, staff member, or interested party my request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar for later discussion. 1 Ll • • City Council Agenda -2- February 20, 1980 a. Approval of Warrants: Register No. 80 -2 -20 for $98,989.18 b. Set Public Hearing date on March 5, 1980 for General Plan Amendments No. 80 -01 -A, B, and C. _(j' c. Refer claim for damages by Gladys Perry in the amount of $2,000 to the City Attorney for handling. d. Approval of Alcoholic Beverage License renewal for Soup 'N Stuff, 9923 -H Archibald Avenue. (James R. and Jean A. Hyland). e. Tracts 9402 -9403: Improvement Agreement Extension Owner: Olympus Pacific Corporation Recommendation: Based upon the percentage of completed improvements and the reasons for the delays, staff recom- mends a six month extension for the Agreement for Tracts 9402 -9403. f. Approval of Agreement for engineering services on Church Street and Highland Avenue. Also, authorize Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement. g. Parcel Map No. 5671: Acceptance of bonds and agreement. Located on three 5♦ acres of land located on the north side of Almond at the north end of Carnelian. Subdivider: Andrew Barmakian Performance Bond (road) $ 8,500 Labor 8 Material Bond (road) $ 8,500 Recommendation: For City Council to adopt Resolution No. 80 -16 approving Parcel Map 5671 and the improvement agreement. Also, direct the City Engineer and City Clerk to sign the map and direct Mayor and City Clerk to sign the agreement on behalf of the City. RESOLUTION NO. 80 -16 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 5671, (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 5671) IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY. h. Director Review No. 79 -56: For construction of a building on the north side of Whittram east of Etiwanda Avenue. 1 4 9 10 Request by: Secondo Colombero Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 80 -17 approving the agreement and direct the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the agreement in behalf of the City. 17 19 20 City Council Agenda -3- February 20, 1980 • RESOLUTION NO. 80 -17 27 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVE- MENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 79 -56. i. Release of the following bonds: -Tract 9378: Located on the northeast corner of Hillside Road and Archibald Avenue. Owner: Regency Equestrian Estates Labor and Material bond (water) $ 19,500 -Tract 9379: Located on the east side of Archibald Avenue at Cinch Ring Road. Owner: Regency Equestrian Estates Labor and Material bond (water) $ 10,000 • -Tract 9432: Located on the east side of Haven Avenue south of 19th Street. Owner: Chevron Construction Company Labor 8 Material bond (water) $ 25,500 Labor 8 Material bond (sewer) $ 16,000 Labor 8 Material bond (road) $ 81,000 -Tract 9433: Located on the east side of Haven Avenue south of 19th Street. Owner: Chevron Construction Company. Labor 6 Material bond (water) $ 19,500 Labor d Material bond (sewer) $ 12,500 Labor 8 Material bond (road) $ 42,000 -Tract 9434: Located on the east side of Haven Avenue south of 19th Street. Owner: Chevron Construction Company Performance bond (water) $ 17,000 Performance bond (sewer) $ 17,000 • -Tract 9636: Located on the southwest corner of Lemon Avenue and Archibald . Owner: Chevron Construction Company City Council Agenda -4- February 20, 1980 40 Labor & Material bond (water) $ 14,000 Labor & Material bond (sewer) $ 9,000 Labor & Material bond (road) $ 40,000 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS. A. An ordinance establishing the official date of service 30 commencement for the Planning Commis stoners. p ORDINANCE NO. 13 -A (urgency) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A , PROCEDURE FOR EXTENSION AND ESTABLISHING JUNE 1, 1978 AS THE OFFICIAL DATE OF SERVICE COMMENCEMENT FOR THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSIONERS AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF. 6. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS. A. School Fees. Staff report by Harry Empey. 32 • Recommendation: It is recommended that the City immediately release $17,548 in SB -201 fees which is on deposit in a trust account with the City. in addition, it is recommended that the City pursue the signing of the necessary legal documents required in order to release the remaining funds which is being held by the City. B. Clarification of Policy regarding issuance of permits 34 • or fireworks stands. Staff report by Jim Robinson Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council � -C ' reaffirm its policy for the selection of groups for permits for the fireworks stands and to instruct staff to prepare the 3Z list of authorized groups who will have stands in 1980, C. Request from Arrowhead Justice Association to continue 38 participation for Fiscal Year 1980 -81. Staff report by .<JJ Lauren Wasserman. D. Travel funds for consultant coordination meetings. Staff 40 report by Jack Lam. Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council approve Ai �yIS a sum of not more than $500.00 from the contingency fund as a travel budget for the purposes of attending meetings re- lating to the General Plan program. E. Revision of acres a of Tract No. 9399 and 9400 - located 41 the north si a of Banyan, west s de of Beryl. Sta f report by Jack Lam, ��'/ a�'lw City Council Agenda -5- February FO, 1980 AID b 7. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS. 8. NEW BUSINESS. a. Council b. Audience 9. ADJOURNMENT. • i • RA67 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA NARR H VEN 0 V E N D 0 R N A M E -7990 PUBLIC WORKS JOURNAL CO 9773 TCMN C COUNTRY HOTEL 3305 EMPLOYMENT DEVLPMNT DEP 3305 BEMPLOYMENT CEP 1200 ANK OF 929C WFST ENO UNITED MAY 8313 SAN 8RNDNO CO EMPLOY C 683C LOGU AY EMBARACAOER E SALLY 6725 LEAGU OF CALIF CITIES 5278 INTL CUNF BLDG OFFICIAL 7985 PUBLIC EPP RETIREMENT S `3305 EMPLOYMENT DEVLPMNT DEP ,+920C WASSERMAN. LAUREN M 3 820C :400INSON, JAMES H 3300 EMPEY, HARRY J 5140 INLAND POWER SWEEPING 4985 HCGAN, BARRY K -VOID FORMS ALIGNMENT VOIC FOR:'S ALIGNMENT 'VOIC FORMS ALIGNMENT 0003 A -L BEAUTY SUPPLY .0031 AM INTL- BRUNING DIV ERA SHO CENTER ACY HOUSE CHERYLNE GA CC WATER DIST EPORTINTING INDUSTRIES INC ON 6 SONS ICHLANOS REALTY INC EVISION BkENDA El, ELIZABETH N. DEE OEF RS MEN S SHOP DEN SPOT SHIRLEY TFLF.PHONE CO TELEPHONE CO N INC INCCY JEAN OCK GARDENS N GOLOIE DESIGN C SONS WARR DATE NET 20.00- 90.00 35.80 1.958.38 4.846.74 69.92 1.098.00 224.00 49.85 288.00 150.00 4.996.18 2.819.52 300.00 300.00 300.00 1, 38L.25 150.00 13.32 590.26 10.00 150.00 1,990.00 15.00 2.32 10.00 2,7013.36 491.80 39.00 240.00 10.00 10.00 143. 13. 25. 157. 13. 2. 150. 294. 9. 11. 60. 490. 23. 10. 260. 246. 5. 167. 3s886. 34. CITY OF •RANCU0 CUCAMONGA 9 VEN 9 V E N 0 C R N A M E 4832 HEOf,PETH, G 4861 RCHE4T HILL CONTRACTOR 4868 H080 EXPRESS 4920 HCLSUM BAKING CO OF CA 4998 HURO JULIE 5115 IND I! CO 5120 INDUSTRIAL TRUCK BODIES 6103 J B ELECTRCNICS 624C JAYS JEWELERS 6577 KARLSON G HAZEN ATTORNE 6590 KENT ELECTRICS 6595 KID STOP 6600 KING ENGINEERS, L D 6629 LACOSCUIN, AGUSTIN 6655 LANG, CAROLYN 6750 LEWIS CONSTRUCTION 6830 LOGUE, SALLY 6880 LOZIER CCRP 6950 NC LF00, MARY JO 11�11111 111L ".-I NCRGaN L FRANZ INSURANC MOUNTAIN VALLEY PATROL NATL MARBLE CO OF CA IN '!GELS CARPET E UPHOLSTE NEWMAN. KATHY ORANGE CC STRIPING SERV PACIFIC INSTALLERS INC 'PARKER, JEFF PHILS ELECTRIC THE PET SHOP PLANNI N� CNTR, THE. PRI Oa 1COLORHPRESSMPROVM PROGPFSS BULLETIN CUINTANAI PAUL ;tANCHO DISPOSAL SERVICE RAPIO CATA INC RELIABLE BUILDERS REYNOLUS AIP, KENNETH A REV NCLCS, P;4N CY RICH640S FABRICS RICHARD MILLS ASSOC SULLIVAN PE, ROBERT R RCLANCS CF CALIF S C W GRAPHICS SCHRCEGER. JAMES SCOTTYS SELECT MULTIPLE CONCEPT SELLSRS PACKFLOW PREVEN SHOES 1:04 SPORTS SKI WEAR CALIFDRg14 '4ITTYS CHEVRON SVC SNIDER INSULATION CO IN SOFFA ELECTRIC ItiC SONITRCL SECURITY SYSTE SrUTHEAN CALIF EOISON SUUTHERN CALIF GAS CO SO CA LANDSCAPE MGT SCUTHLANC PAPER CO SUTTON PL PLIOLIC RELATT SPECIALTY WESTERN LTD STATIONERS CORP STIPL SR, THEODORE M STOEPPEL NAN MARILYN STOOOY HGMES INC STEVENS_ FOCTHILL RENTAL WARR DATE `a F NET 250.00 20.70 . 3.20 4.82 20.00 20.18 8.47 20.95 23.10 55.59 168.00 9,5913 5.00 20.00 553.00 4 195.00 17,406.92 5.88 40.00 .16 9.60 16,762.34 3 6,9 15. 9. 3,500.04 L55.42 66.99 7.50 1,567.08 2.66 • 6.00 2867 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA NARR 0 VEN 0 V E N C 0 R N A M E )3341 )3342 13345 )3346 )3347 13348 13349 13350 )3351 )3352 13353 • • 8670 8850' 9177 9179 9185 9228 9245 9525 9540 9650 9995 9990 VOID A E SERVI SERVICE NARR DATE 2/20/80 2/2C/80 2/20/80 2/20/60 2%20%80 2/200 %e0 2/20/80 2/20/80 2/20/80 2/20/80 \; ..' T NET 1,500.00 176.51 1,225.00 315.00 6.00 3.88 4.50 11.45 370.00 50.00 10.00 98,989.18 r CLAIM FOR DAMAGES TO PERSON OR PROPERTY . 011141X0. FOR ner INSTRUCTIONS 1, lalterm ban 100adaysnafter the present rrence. (Gov.. Code Sec. Property 112) filed not 2. Claims for damages to real PmPerty most be filed not later than I year after the occurance. (Gay. Code Sec. 91") 2. Read entire claim before filing. 4. See page 2 for diagram upon which to locate place of accident. 5. This claim form must be signed on page 2 at bottom. 7. Attach separate filed withiCity�Clerk. (Gov. Code See details. 12) EACH SNEET. TO: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA RESERVE FOR FILING STAMP CLAIM No. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMO (IA ADhllNISTRA.TION FEB 4 '1980 Ay PM 7i8i9110illii2i112131415i6 Name o[ Claimant Age of Claimant (I natural person) G'�.9osS G r2ya Grfc)y ✓ vECrj . /ff. Give address to which you desire notices or communications to be sent regarding the etaun: S qnf �¢S 'V 6 0 ✓6. How did DAMAGE or INJURY occur? Give full particularx It.. did DAMAGE ur INJURY occur1 Give full parliculan, date, time of day: /3 � Where did DAMAGE or INJURY occur? Describe fully, and locate on diagram on reverse side of this sheet, where appropriate, give street names and address and measurements from landmarks: 13EKY4 5i. ASova iy' s„ What particular ACT or OMISSION do you claim caused the injury or damage? Give names of City employees causing the injury or damage, if known: /NRve aJ 'q7, Pa e"a 4'e 11 6�R114.. 194fa No P.r-?f. ($.9RRila -'et. Ny yr S/ ' What DAMAGE or INJURIES do you claim resulted? Give full extent of injuries or damages claimed: / PAR 7-c`7v, 1✓)e)7-E aff, . What AMOUNT Jo you claim on account of each item of injury or damage as of date of presentation of this claim, giving basis of computation: as for as known you claim on account of each item .yASEE PACE 2 (OVER) THIS CLAIM ury`or ma iv basis a 1 SIGNED ON REVERSE SID] Insurance payments received, if any, and names of Insurance Company: AAA. (a J. Expenditures made on account of accident or injury: (Date — Item) (Amount) p14 YOt, S,n F /ati. , t S//cr ej Ff ff tEC A-T' READ CAREFULLY For all accident claims place on following diagram names of streets. including North, East, South, and West; indicate place of accident by "X" and by showing house numbers os distances to street corners. If City Vehicle was involved, designate by letter "A" location of City vehicle when you first saw it, and by "B" location of yourself or your vehicle when you first saw City vehicle; location of City vehicle at time of accident by "A -I" and location of yourself or your vehicle at the time of the accident by "It-l" and the point of impact by "X" NOTE: If diagrams below do not fit the situation, attach hereto a proper diagram signed by claimant. FOR OTHER ACCIDENTS I L SIDEWALK rlaa1 GDR PARKWAY SIDEWALK FOR AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENTS J I -"-,I I Signature of Claimant or person filing on his behalf giving I Typed Name: Dale relationship to Claimant: NOTE: Presentation of a false claim is a felony (Cal. Pen. Code See. 72)• CLAIMS MUST BE FILED N7TM C2"Sy CLERK (GOV. CODE SEC. 9358). 'y Z e j 4 f X+� ! d VN }-e ry {i 4�r 0,ry M� •;•'t +'r f •TYj� Yx SLY x Storm costs city at least $25,000 RANCHOCUCAMONOA tion of Beryl Street where deputy there was a car By comparison, the 1989 metal wall forms and — This week's rainstorm storm runoff tore up there. He said he scanned floods sent H.000 cubic plywood against the steel has cost the city a min- chunks of asphalt. He said the mud with a metal de- feet per second through reinforcing rods that imum $25.000 fur cleanup the damage estimate does lector and came away the creek. said Chuck were In place, and repairs. not include the cost of convinced. It also frayed a few repairing Beryl because "There's a large mass of Hoopaw, resident engi- over in the corps'Ontario It would not have nerves within the U.S. the city is not yet decided metal under there," he office. threatened the area below the basin if the s 111 Army Corps of Engineers. on the best way to repair said. Cuprs members worked the street The car had been If the basin is too full, had washed out, hewer late Tuesday and Wednes Prtscher said all rwds {narked on Beryl and was the U shaped spillway ul- ported - day to save their invest - in the city were passable washed away during the Iowa water to flow out of It water goes over the meal. in the Cucamonga Wednesday following the height of the storm early the basin and Into the con- spillway, the maximum Creek debris basin. Their rainstorm that dumped Tuesday. erete -lined channel. The amount of water going 'efforts turned net to be 6.65 inches of rain in a 24. The Corps of Engineers' spillway bottom is con- into the channel would �–r °exercise" when the sec- hour period. work was in anticipation creee lined, but the side have been 5,000 cubic feet V end storm failed to mate- However, one road re- of heavy rains from the walls were not complete, per second, he said. ruliae. manned closed while re wand storm reported Hoopaw mid. For the city, Monte Pre paurs were made. Hellman moving in. Louis Navarro. an em. Scher, assistant civil met- Avenue south of Base The corps had crews He said Monday and ployee of Kaslor Construc. neer, said the bulk of the Line was closed for work and 12 pieces of equip Tuesday's rain had filled lion who was helping to east was in rental of an drain pipes. ment working all night to the basin to its 20-fom shore up the wall, Injured equipment from private Preacher said Beryl shore the wails of a spill- depth, and the water was an ankle when he fell on cuntracmrs to scrape and Street north of 191h will way on the basin. within inches of going the concrete spillway bot- haul away tons of mud be closed sometime soon The basin, a few miles over the spillway. tom, Hoopaw said, and debris. when the county flood north of 191h Street west To protect the wails - Atotalofl2 pieces ofcontrol department of Saphire Avenue, is like from being washed away, hesei, equipment were cleam out a debris basin an earth dam retaining Hoopaw said crews put rented at various times just eafl of Beryl. water from. the during the storm- Not all He said there Is BP- Cucamonga Creek. It con. were working at once. But patently a car buried un- trols the flow of water they combined for 112 der the mud in that debris into the creek through a hours of work - basin, which can't be seen pipe that allows a max - Prescher said there at precept. imum 200 cubic feet of wasn't too much damage However, Preacher said water per second into the to streets with the excep. he was told by a sheriff's channel. • • 0 0 Coun!y road crews use a crane Friday to "rescue" what's !eft of a 1971 Ford Pint(?. Road crews pull vehicle from mud in debris basin By DENNIS KELLY when she saw her flattened auto. s" sws wma The car is a complete loss, and Ginnian had only the RANCHO CUCAMONGA — Some horses are con - state minimum insurance— nothing to cover for this sidered good "mudders," but this Pinto wasn't. kind of damage. This was a 1971 Ford Pinto that was buried under Her mother was a little unhappy with the city, three feet of mud because of earlier rains this week. "I'm hoping like council or somebody would pay for On Friday morning, county road crews rescued IL it," she said. Or rather, they rescued what was left of it. She said the city has known for years that the When lifted out by a crane from the debris basin flooding of its streets Is a hazard and should have had east of Beryl Street just north of 19th Street, the the problem solved by now. Yellow car was filled with mud and Its top nearly Mrs. Perry said she's getting "a little annoyed by it flattened. all." She and her family, who moved here from The owner's family is a little upset with the city for England about 11 years ago, love America, but think not taking care of the flood problems, but the city it's a little slow in taking care of things like this, she • doesn't think It should pay for damages. acid. The car had stalled Monday at 4:39 p.m. on Beryl She mid her daughter paid for the car out of her Street about a block north of 19th Street, Its owner, l& own money and now has neither cat, job, nor money. year-old Ginnian Perry, left It there, planning to She does have a towing bill — anywhere from Sm to return for It, but the two-to-threefoot deep waters on $109. Beryl carried it Into the debris basin. City Manager Lauren Wasserman said if the Perrys There, it was slowly buried under the mud from the want the city to pay for the damages they will have to runoff of the rains. file a claim. The city knew the car was there because, on that "But in the past the council has not been receptive night, Mayor Jim Frost and a sheriffs Sergeant were to paying damages like that," Wasserman mid. out looking at flood damage whey they mw the car In But Mrs. Perry mid she's not the type who likes to the drink although it was not yet covered over. sue. She hates the mention of the word. "The water was about up to the hood the last time t She also wanted to thank the two men who came to saw it," Frost mid Friday as he watched crews dig for her house Monday night, even though she didn't know the car. who they were. The sergeant got the license number, woke the owners up around midnight, and checked with them to make sure no one from the family was musing. However, Ginnlan's mother, Gladys Perry, mid the deputy told them the car was in the wash, and they had no idea it might be covered over. "It was obviously too late and too bad of weather to do anything about it then." she said. The next morning, Ginnan couldn't find the car anywhere and thought it was stolen. She reported It to the sheriffs office, The first Ginnian knew of what happened to the car was Friday morning on her way home from school U -copy a. per dwasl. —Bw.,w .4 wpiw. 0. N., Writ. AWv. This Vwv —Fsr Need o..N... Olgcw 0.0s, APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOLIC EEVERAOE UCENSE(S) Deportmenl cf Alcoholic Beverage Control 1215 O Strew Sacramento, Calif. 95814 SM Bernex -din0 The undersigned hereby applies for licences described as follows: 1. TYPE(S) OF LICENSE(S) FILE NO. ON e,AU. BEM Er. W111h r. -TIKG PLACE Applied under Sec. 24044 Effective Dare: 1/1/80 FEE NO. GEOGRAPHICAL CODE %1 1 Dale Issued 2. NAMES) OF APPLICANT(S) Temp. Permit Effective Dote: HYLAND, Ja es R. & Jean A. 3. TYPE(S) OF TRANSACTION(S) FEE LIC. TYPE Bblrl i 300.00 41 Annual Fees - 184.80 4. Name of Business COUP IN Stuff CT 21 S. Location of Business — Number and Street 9923 —H Arebibald City and zip Code county e- 9 v q'1770 an Eernard - EECEIPT NO. 61149 TOTAL S 484.80 r Premises Address 7. Are Nary.... Inside fr.wpl (e.,.) 9. Have you ever been convicted of a felony? 10. Hove you ever violated any of the provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act or regulations of the Department per• fairing to the Act? j 11. Explain a "YES" answer to items 9 or 10 on an attachment which shall be deemed part of this application. 12. Applicant agrees (a) that any manager employed in on -sole licensed premises will have all the qualifications of a licensee, and (b) that he will not violate or cause or permit to be violated any of the provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act. 13. STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of .. Gaa.Bernardir.D .... Date ..2/7/x. _.................. UM., pnwlry, N pwiwl, ..eh p.rwn ww. 14—ho. .111. W.w. oniM, oki wyl. 111 M h 1M applk•m, er •m M Ow aWk-11. M . ruli.. .thew w IM •pk.•nl a.rpoe.nw, ,ww.d in i1w Iw in. epbuoow.. MI, woer'o.d 1. w•k. 1hk .pM.n.n ... b.h.lf; RI IM, M M1 r..d 1M Iwe .wn. .,.Non;- and I;ww1 1M <enxnll Ih.,W •M 1M1 wee mJ all of n- .hyygwn% an nln m.d... 1.; Ill IM no plan .M mew ow .pplk.M by . Akw,n Mr any di-1 w iw i1.0 i r In IM •pll;, -,,. « wplka boon. . w nukh,o.d uM.r Mw lkynnl.l rw which Mrs .plk.ri.n b urns, 1.1 Hwl IM .—I., .pplimYan a pr.p.N ,v amts m•d. 1. list, 1b. p.Y. 1 N . L•n s w h4fill • w, -yw,l ..nyO Mw .. IMn ninM' IYeI Hyr wwMinp A. nsw . which Its 1-0.r •pli,.lien rot Aral wish 1M Mp.nn,nnl snw pin ..n.61kh . n.fis— N w 1N . Y ,r.M1p el M1.n.l.ler .I N bkws a inivr. on, oNB.r el Innlhra; UI rA., 16 11-dw .plinlian mmy he willAr•wn by .IMn 1M .prow w Nn lkey— with " mMeno Nabuin, b a. a.prlmml. 14, APPLICANT SIGN HEREC ... ., <, ..... .e.. .., X . drdr /ys .. „ . .......... ... ............ ............. ... .,. APPLICATION BY TRANSFEROR 15, STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of ................ ........ Dole ... ,.. .... YM.r pn.N1Y el prvrY• ...A .— whew ob-hn. •pp•n Wing, on".. .M 1.,n 111 Uc k rw lie.n.n, a • .nnM...IAI.r N IM aMpw.1. Ikwc.e. .....I n ....�.,.. ..n..l......I..m . nn TA. mM..rir.A rn n-t. MM hww. .••IkeN.n - n. swt-k. let "N MrN. nw&- •.wiw kyn x .mwMw CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA • MEMORANDUM DATE: February 20, 1980 TO: City Council & City Manager FROM: Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION - TRACTS 9402 & 9403 The developer of the subject tracts is: Olympus Pacific Corporation 2110 East Katella Avenue Anaheim, California 92803 The map for the subject tracts are recorded. An Agreement was accepted by San Bernardino County on August 15, 1977. At that time, bonds were posted as security to guarantee the construction of streets. TRACT 9402 TRACT 9403 • Performance Bond (Road) $54,000.00 $70,000.00 Labor & Material Bond (Road) $37,000.00 $35,000.00 CJ Since the date of acceptance, the developer has made progress to complete the tracts to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The City Engineering staff has received the "extension request form" from the developer requesting a one (1) month extension which was a result of notifica- tion by the Engineering Division informing the developer of the impending default of agreement. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the percentage of completed improvements and the reasons for the delays, we recommend approval of a six month time extension for the.Agreement. Respectfully submitted, Llo ubb City Engineer LBH:deb 1` Honorable City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga, CA RE: TRACT NO. 9402 -9403 BOND NO. Gentlemen: Date: February 1, 1980 LCD! Ft � `E G� °'•avr ' U Itis hereby requested, by the undersigned, that the time be extended for a period of six months to complete the required improvements as provided for in the Subdivision Agreement of the above referenced tract for the following reason(s): Tract 9402 - Thtel completion delayed due to rain. Anticipate two (2) more Tract 9403 Rough grading complete Construction start delayed due to rain SURETY OR FINANCIAL INSTITUTION DATE EXTENSION APPROVED BY ACKNO14LEDGEMENT CITY COUNCIL: ND TRIAL INDEMN COM NY �a�i ci"M. larvis 1. r Date: February 5. 1980 CITY ENGINEER RECOMMENDATION: _Approval Disapproval By: Date: cc: Surety or Financial Institution City Engineer CITY PLANNING DIVISION RECOMMENDATION: Approval Disapproval B � Date: e CUCAMONGA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT RECOMMMENDATION: P- Ap oval 1 �,/,/f �'Disappro • 7 • 0 Ale.e rohr A Alec a defer of Gal fora a Inc. Alexander February 6, 1980 Honorable City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga, CA Re: Tract No. 9402 -9403 Gentlemen: Please be advised that Industrial Indemnity Company is still duly licensed to do business in the state of California. Very truly yours, ALEXANDER & ALEXANDER G CALIFORNIA INC. Francis G. Jarvis, / FGJ /sc 1z • KI CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: February 20, 1980 TO: City Council & City Manager FROM: Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES ON CHURCH STREET AND HIGHLAND AVENUE Attached for Council execution is a contract for Engineering services related to the resurfacing, reconstruction and minor widening of Church Street from Archibald to Hermosa and Highland Avenue from Hermosa to Haven. Both streets are in poor repair and were budgeted for reconstruction this year. The firm of Linville- Sanderson -Horn & Associates were selected based on the lowest cost proposal for the services. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends execution of the contract. syectfully sybmitted, '. L7 o4bbs City Engineer LBH:deb 13 • ENGINEERING SERVICES CONTRACT FOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA This CONTRACT, made and entered into this day of , 1980, by and between the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAM.ONGA, hereafter referred to as "CITY ", and Linville- Sanderson- Horn and Associates, hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT ". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, CITY intends to widen and improve Church Street between Archibald Avenue and Hermosa, and Highland Avenue • between Hermosa and Haven Avenue. AND, WHEREAS, CONSULTANT has signified his willingness to undertake the Engineering work in connection therewith. NOW, THEREFORE, CONSULTANT, for considerations herein- after named, agrees to perform the following services: 1. Perform all necessary preliminary and construction surveying for the construction and completion of the project. 2. Prepare Improvement Plans, Specifications, and Engineer's Estimate to the satisfaction of the CITY. 3. Represent the CITY at all meetings, as requested or as necessary for the completion of the project. l�F 1 PART A ENGINEER'S FEE Principal ......................... $38 /hr. Technician ........................ $22 /hr. Secretarial ....................... $15 /hr. Survey Crew $86 /hr. PART B ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE FOR SERVICES Preliminary Surveys ............................ $2,000.00 Design and Drafting Improvement Plans .......... $1,600.00 Meetings - Principal $ 190.00 • Specifications and Engineer's Estimate ......... $ 300.00 Construction Staking ........................... $1,000.00 Total "Not -to- exceed" fee for Engineering and Surveying, except for construction staking is $5,000.00. PART C METHOD of PAYMENT The ENGINEER shall submit invoices for partial payment at monthly intervals for work accomplished at hourly rates. Each monthly invoices shall identify the charges for particular engineering accomplished. _ 1 ^2- i • PART D TERMINATION Either party shall have the right to terminate this contract upon five (5) days' written notice from the other and upon such termination, the Consultant shall be paid for all hours expended on the contract and in pursuance to his terms to and including the date on which the written notice was received only,. Upon termination the Consultant shall deliver all of his work product to the City and the rights and liabilities of the parties shall thereafter terminate, each as against the other. In witness whereof, the parties hereto have executed • this agreement on the day first above written in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Attest: BY Clerk, City of Rancho Mayor, City of Rancho Cucamonga Cucamonga • LINVILLE - SANDERSON -HORN E ASSOC. BY Kenneth N. Linville, P.E. President 16 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA • MEMORANDUM DATE: February 20, 1980 TO: City Council 6 City Manager FROM: Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: PARCEL MAP NO. 5671 - ACCEPTANCE OF BONDS AND AGREEMENT The subject Parcel Map consists of three 5+ acres of land located on the north side of Almond at the north end of Carnelian. The subdivider, Andrew Barmakian, has presented the City with securities that are sufficient in nature to guarantee installation of street improve- ments. Performance Bond (Road) $8,500.00 Labor d Material Bond (Road) $8,500.00 RECO144ENDATI ON: • It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving Parcel Map 5671 and the Improvement Agreement. Further, direct the City Engineer and City Clerk to sign the map and direct the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the agreement on behalf of the City. Respectfully sub itted, Llo B. ubbs City Engineer LBH:deb 17 TOWWO P�ncE4 MAP Nn 5671 IXIaMr `11) -------------- Mom t uPupn wn RESOLUTION NO. 80 -16 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 5671, (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 5671) IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY WHEREAS, tentative parcel map number 5671, submitted by ANDREW BARMAKIAN, and consisting of three (3) parcels, located on the north side of Almond, east of Carnelian, being a division of Parcel Map No. 4013, was approved by City Engineer of the City of Rancho Cucamonga on February 1, 1980; and, WHEREAS, Parcel Map Number 5671 is the final map of the division of land approved as shown on said tentative parcel map; and, WHEREAS, all of the requirements established as prerequisite to approval of the final map by the City Council of said City have now been met by entry into an improvement agreement guaranteed by acceptable improvement security by ANDREW BARMAKIAN as developer; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, that said improvement agreement and . said improvement security submitted by said developer be and the same are hereby approved and the Mayor is hereby authorized to sign said improvement agreement on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the City Clerk to attest; and that said Parcel Map Number 5671 be and the same is hereby approved and the City Engineer is authorized to present same to the County Recorder to be filed for record. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of , 1980. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk James C. Frost, Mayor R CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA • MEMORANDUM DATE: February 20, 1980 TO: City Council d City Manager FROM: Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 79 -56 The subject Director Review is for the construction of a building on the north side of Whittram east of Etiwanda Avenue. The Engineering conditions of approval included installation of street improvements on Whittram. Mr. Secondo Colombero, the developer, has posted an Improvement Security Instrument in the amount of $12,000 in favor of the City in lieu of the construction. Along with the security, he has executed an agreement which allows him 12 months to install the improvements. How- ever, it is a condition of approval that the street improvements be completed prior to final occupancy of the building. RECOMMENDATION: • It is recommended that Council adopt the attached resolution approving the agreement and direct the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the agreement on behalf of the City. Respectfully sub itted, 10 �loeEngineer s Cit LBH:deb R&OW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That this agreement is made and entered into, in conformance with the provisions of the Municipal Code and Regula- tions of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, State of California, a municipal cor- poration, hereinafter referred to as the City, by and between said City and Secondo J. Colombero hereinafter referred to as the Developer. • WITNESSETH: THAT, WHEREAS, pursuant to said Code, Developer has requested approval by the City of, Director Review No 79-56 in accordance with the provisions of the report of the Community Development Director thereon, and any amendments thereto; located on the northeast corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Whittram and, WHEREAS, the City has established certain requirements to be met by said developer prior to granting the final approval of the development; and WHEREAS, the execution of this agreement and posting of improvement security as hereinafter cited, and approved by the City Attorney, are deemed to be equivalent to prior completion of said requirements for the purpose of securing said approval; NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed by and between the City and the Developer as follows: 1. The developer hereby agrees to construct at developer's expense all improvements described on page 3 hereof within 12 months • from the date hereof. 2. The term of this agreement shall be 4 weeks , commencing on the date of execution hereof by the City. This agreement shall be in default on the day following the last day of the term stipulated, unless said term has been extended as hereinafter provided. 3. The Developer may request additional time in which to complete the provi- sions of this agreement, in writing not less than four weeks prior to the default date, and including a statement of circumstances of necessity for additional time. In consideration of such request, the City reserves the right to review the provisions hereof, including construction standards, cost estimate, and sufficiency of the improvement security, and to require adjustments thereto when warranted by substantial changes therein. 4. If the Developer fails or neglects to comply with the provisions of this agreement, the City shall have the right at any time to cause said provi- sions to be completed by any lawful means, and thereupon to recover from said Developer and /or his Surety the full cost and expense incurred in so doing. 5. Encroachment permits shall be obtained by the Developer from the office of the City Engineer prior to start of any work within the public right of way, and the developer shall conduct such work in full compliance with the regulations contained therein. Non - compliance may result in stopping of the work by the City, and assessment of the penalties provided. • 6. Public right of way improvement work required shall be constructed in conformance with approved improvement plans, Standard Specifications, and Standard Drawings and any special amendments thereto. Construction shall include any transitions and/or other incidental work deemed necessary for drainage or public safety. Z 11PROVEMENT AGREEMENT 7, ,;o,rk J,m, within existing streets simll be diligently pursued to eomplc- tion; the City shall have the right to complete In and all work in the v IC11L of unjustified delay in completion, and to recover all cost and expense incurred from rile Developer and /or his contractor by any lawful means. 8. 1'11c Developer shall be responsible for replacement, relocation, or re- rioval of any component of any irrigation water system in conflict with the required work to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the owner of the water system, 9. The Developer shall be responsible for removal of all loose rock and other debris from the public right of way resulting from work done on the adja- cent property or within said right of way, 10. 'rile Developer shall plant and maintain parkway trees as directed by the Community Development Director. 11. Tbo improvement security to be furnished by the Developer to guarantee completion of the terms of this agreement shall be subject to the approval of the City Attorney. The principal amount of said improvement security shall be not less than the amount shown below: IMPROVEMENT SECURITY SUBMIITTED: Faithful Performance Bond TYPE SURETY /AGENT PRINCIPAL AMOUNT $ 6,000.00 • Material and labor Bond E 6,000.00 IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these presents to be duly execoted and acknowledged with all formalities required by law on the dates set forth Apposite their signatures: BY: G C DATE: ..2 -/3-80 BY: .\ vwW DATE: 07 -/ 3 - SO W I ':: ESS • DATE; CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMIONGA, CALIFORNIA a municipal corporation BY: _ MAYOR ATTEST: , CITY CLERK DATE: 27— ITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST AMOUNT CRAVE RTCHT OF WAY L.S. S.F. REMOVALS. M1SC A.C. PAVEMENT L.S. A. C. PAVEMENT S4 — 60 00 1 24000 A. C. BERN L.F. CURB 6 CUTTER 6. L.F. 130.55 .1 CROSS GUTTER /SPANDREL S.F. SIDEWALK S.F. DRIVE APPROACHES - residential S.F. CRUSHED AGGREGATE. BASE I S.F• STREET —111T 2" X 4" RET)WOOD HEADER 1 L.F. STREET SIGNS EA. R.C.P. I L.F. CATCH BASIN EA. OUTLET STRUCTURE EA. 1" THICK A.C. OVERLAY S.F. 1820 5 REFLECTORS & POSTS TYPE 1" 3 EA, 35.00 105.00 SAWC T I l ' I 1 r I RETATNTNG WALLS I RI.00Kt,'ALLS L.P. LANDSCAPE 6 IRRIGATION L.S. TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST S 5.158.88 INSPECTION FEES ITEM N I LIN N ` 1 CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION of Construction Coat Estimate L.S. T.S. P. %VF'1(i:IT COT Olt ' RI"' I T., F P;PRNiNENT PAVEMENT REPI.ACENENT L. F. STORE !LITERTAL IN RIGHT -OF -WAY F.A. I ti III IV 257.94 TOTAL INSPECTION FEES CO:IPACTION TEST FEES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10% CONTINGESCIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 88 DESIGN FEES (10% of Total Construction Cost Estimate) TOTAL _$ ��— Faithful Performance Bond $ 6,000.00 Material and Labor Bond - $ 6t 0 0 Maintenance Bond $ Cash Monumenting Deposit - $ • r1 u n u City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, For the Project Known As Director Review I:o. 7C -56 • THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 111th day of Fehruary 19 60 , by and between ,an!,. or .America , hereinafter "Lender ", rrrdn .�. Cnt eml.ern and Jchn. W. Cnlomoero , hereinafter ''Borrower ", and THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, hereinafter "City ", provides as follows: W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, Lender is a financial institution subject to regulation by the state or federal government within the meaning of California Government Code Section 66999(a)(3); and, WHEREAS, from the proceeds of a loan from Lender to Borrower, Lender has on deposit, for the account of Borrower, the sum of $ 32, 000, CO , one -half (1/2) of which shall constitute and be referred to as "the performance fund" and the other one -half (1/2) of which shall constitute and be referred to as the "payment fund "; and, WHEREAS, Borrower has entered into an Agreement, herein- after "the Agreement ", with the City whereby Borrower agrees • to install and complete certain designated public improvements, which said Agreement, dated Fetruary 13 , 19 60, and identified as referring to Project n v a ,.n ^c.56 eo is hereby referred to and made a part herf;� NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City giving final approval to the Project known as D_F. 7c_v6 and authorizing the recordation of any tract or parcel map pertaining thereto, Lender and Borrower agree: (1) The performance fund is security pledged to the City to insure that Borrower, its heirs, successors, executors and administrators, shall in all things stand to and abide by, and will and truly keep and perform the covenants, conditions and provisions of the Agreement and any alterat- ion thereof made as therein provided, on Borrower's part to be kept and performed at the time and in the manner therein specified and in all respects according to its true and lawful meaning, and to insure that Borrower, its heirs, successors, executors and administrators, shall indemnify and save harmless City, its officers, agents and employees as stipulated in the Agreement. (2) Lender shall disburse the performance fund to the City in such amounts as the City demands, promptly upon re- ceipt of written demands signed by the City Engineer of the • City, and specifying therein that Borrower is in default under the Agreement or this Agreement. (3) In the event City commences legal action to re- cover all or any portion of the performance fund, then the City shall be entitled to recover, in addition to the amount of the performance fund, costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable attorney's fees. 'Z r . security pledged for the payment of all contractors, sub- contractors, laborers, materialmen and other persons em- ployed in the performance of the Agreement and who are referred to in Title 15 (commencing with Section 3082) of Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code of the State of California for materials furnished or labor performed of any • kind, or amounts due under the Unemployment Insurance Act with respect to such work or labor, and that Lender will pay the same in an amount not exceeding the payment fund, and in case suit is brought will pay, in addition to the payment fund, costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable attorney's fees. (5) This Agreement and the payment fund shall inure to the benefit of any and all persons, companies and corpora- tions entitled to file claims under Title 15 (commencing with Section 3082) of Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code, so as to give a right of action to them or their assigns in any suit brought upon this Agreement or against the payment fund. (6) No change, extension of time, alteration or addi- tion to the terms of the Agreement or to the work to be performed thereunder or the specifications accompanying the same shall in any wise affect this Agreement or Lender and Borrower's obligations hereunder, and they do hereby waive notice of any such change, extension of time, alteration or - addition to the terms of the Agreement or to the work or to the specifications. This Agreement shall become effective upon acceptance by the City and shall remain in full force and effect until such time as the City shall release the • performance fund and payment fund as hereinafter provided. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Lender and Borrower have executed this Agreement on the day and year first above written. M LENDER: BY; T M ame -�� (Title) loh:: S. i.ccr, tt AS..'.:Z ❑I 'i ACC PfeS�QC:p \_J The City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, hereby accepts . the foregoing Improvement Security Instrument and agrees: (1) upon final completion and acceptance of the re- quired work, and the performance of all acts specified in the Agreement, City will release any part of the performance fund not claimed by the City in accordance with the above provisions, not needed as security deemed necessary by the City for any guarantee or warranty period or not needed as security for costs and reasonable expenses and fees of the City, including reasonable attorney's fees. (2) Six (6) months after the completion and acceptance of the required work, City will release the payment fund except such part thereof as equals the total of all claims on which an action has been filed and notice thereof given in writing to the City Council of the City. • ATTEST: • City Clerk ;F p CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, a municipal corporation IV • RESOLUTION N0. 80 -17 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW N0, 79-56 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has for its consideration an Improvement Agreement executed on February 13, 1980, by SECONDO J. COLOMBERO, as developer, for the improvement of public right-of -way adjacent to the real property specifically described therein, and generally located on the north side of Whittram, east of Etiwanda. WHEREAS, the installation of such improvements, described in said Improvement Agreement and subject to the terms thereof, is to be done in conjunction with the development of said real property referred to Planning Commission, Director Review No. 79-56; and WHEREAS, said Improvement Agreement is secured and accompanied by good and sufficient improvement security, which is identified in said Improvement Agreement; • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, that said Improvement Agreement and said improvement security be and the same are hereby approved and the Mayor is hereby authorized to sign said Improvement Agreement on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the City Clerk to attest thereto. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of , 1980. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: James C. Frost, Mayor ATTEST: • Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk 27 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA • MEMORANDUM DATE: February 20, 1980 TO: City Council & City Manager FROM: Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: CONSENT CALENDAR - RELEASE OF BONDS Tract 9378 - Located on the northeast corner of Hillside Road and Archibald Avenue OWNER: Regency Equestrian Estates 4010 Palos Verdes Drive North, Suite 101 Rolling Hills, California 90274 Labor & Material Bond (Water) $19,500 Tract 9379 - Located on the east side of Archibald Avenue at Cinch Ring Road • OWNER: Regency, Equestrian Estates 4010 Palos Verdes Drive North, Suite 101 Rolling Hills, California 90274 Labor & Material Bond (Water) $10,000 Tract 9432 - Located on the east side of Haven Avenue south of 19th. Street' OWNER: Chevron Construction Co. 2120 Wilshire Boulevard Santa Monica, California 90403 Labor & Material Bond (Water) $25,500 Labor & Material Bond (Sewer) $16,000 Labor & Material Bond (Road) $81,000 (The roads were accepted by City Council on January 3, 1979) Tract 9433 - Located on the east side of Haven Avenue south of 19th Street OWNER: Chevron Construction Company 2120 Wilshire Boulevard Santa Monica, California 90403 Labor & Material Bond (Water) $19,500 Labor & Material Bond (Sewer) $12,500 • Labor & Material Bond (Road) $42,000 (The roads were accepted by City Council on June 20, 1979) 221 Consent Calendar - Release of Bonds Page 2 February 20, 1980 Tract 9434 - Located on the east side of Haven Avenue south of 19th Street OWNER: Chevron Construction Company 2120 Wilshire Boulevard Santa Monica, California 90403 Performance Bond (Water) $17,000 Performance Bond (Sewer) $17,000 NOTE: The Cucamonga County Water District approved the sanitary sewer and water system installations on December 19, 1979. Tract 9636 - Located on the southwest corner of Lemon Avenue and Archibald OWNER: Chevron Construction Company 2120 Wilshire Boulevard Santa Monica, California 90403 40 Labor b Material Bond (Water) $14,000 Labor 8 Material Bond (Sewer) $ 91000 Labor S Material Bond (Road) $40,000 • (The roads were accepted by City Council on January 15, 1979) 2F CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA • MEMORANDUM DATE: February 20, 1980 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Extension of Terms of Office for Planning Commissioners ABSTRACT: As the Council will recall the current Planning Commission was apointed on March 8, 1978. According to the present ordinance Commissioners Dahl and Garcia terms of office will expire March 8, 1980. The attached Urgency Ordinance provides for an extension of the terms of office for all Planning Commissioners and establishes June 1, 1978 as the official date of appoint- ment of the present Planning Commission. If the City Council adopts the attached Urgency Ordinance it will allow two things: 1) The ability of the City Council to extend the terms of • office of Planning Commissioners for a maximum of 6 months; and 2) Establish June 1, 1978 as the official date of appointment of the present Planning Commission. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Urgency Ordinance. Respectfully submitted, JACK LAM, ,PL re or F Commun Cg �ev opm t �� c by: Barry K. Hogan Senior Planner JL:BKH: cd Attachment �? ORDINANCE NO. 13A • AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ESTABLISHING A PROCEDURE FOR EXTENSION AND ESTABLISHING JUNE 1, 1978 AS THE OFFICIAL DATE OF SERVICE COMMENCEMENT FOR THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSIONERS AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: The City Council finds and determines that there has been inadequate time for the City Council to complete studies concerning possible reappointment or new selection of Planning Commissioners and that additional time is necessary. SECTION 2: Section 5 of Ordinance 13 shall be amended to read: 41iECTION 5: The five (5) members of the Planning Commission initially appointed shall determine the length of their terms by lot. Three(3) members shall serve a term of four (4) years and shall continue in office until their respective terms expire unless sooner removed as provided in this Ordinance, and their successors shall be appointed for terms of four (4) years. Two (2) members shall serve for a term of two (2) years and shall continue in office until their respective terms expire unless sooner removed as provided in this Ordinance, and their successors shall be appointed for terms of four (4) years. If a vacancy • shall occur, other than by expiration of the term of office, it shall be filled by appointment by the Mayor with the approval of the Council for the unexpired term. The City Council may extend the expiring term of aiy Planning Commissioner once for a maximum of 6 months. The term of office of the present Planning Commission shall be deemed to have commenced on June 1, 1978.0 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of AYES: NOES: ABSENT: City Clerk • 31 Mayor • M E M 0 R A N D U M DATE: February 14, 1980 TO: City Council FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: Attached Memorandum From Finance Director Regarding School Fees City Council has requested that the staff wcrk with various developers and with the Alta Loma School District in an effort to maximize the use of Senate Bill 201 fees which have been paid to the City. In order to transfer funds to the School Districts, the City Attorney has recommended that we first obtain the necessary legal documents which would in effect hold the City harmless in the event of a future law suit over the use of Senate Bill 201 school fees. The Director of Finance has worked with the developers who have paid school fees thus far. We have requested the Olympus Pacific Development Company to sign the necessary legal agreement which will then enable the City to release $30,000 which is being held in trust by the City. As soon as that agreement has been received, the City will then be in a • position to release the $30,000. It is also recommended that the City immediately release $17,548. which is presently being held by the City in trust for the Alta Loma School District. The latter amount represents funds previously held by the School District but returned to the City as requested several months ago. It is significant to note that $86,148. in SB 201 school fees has been collected within the Alta Loma School District since the passage of the school fee legislation in the summer of 1978. Of that total $38,600, has already been distributed and $47,548. is available for release upon approval by the City Council. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City immediately release $17,548. n Senate Bii 201 school fees which is on deposit in a trust account with the City. In addition it is recommended that the City pursue the signing of the necessary legal documents required in order to release the remaining $30,000 which is being held by the City. LMW /vz Enclosure • 32 MEMORANDUM • February 14, 1980 TO: City Councilty Manager FROM: Harry Empey ' tb SUBJECT: School Fees DISBURSED TO RECEIPTS A.L. SCHL. DIST. BALANCE Olympus Pacific 32,200.00 2,200.00 30,000.00 Alta Loma School Dist. 17,548.00 -0- 17,548.00 Deer Creek 700.00 700.00 ' Charter Dev. Co. 33,600.00 33,600.00 William Barge 700.00 700.00 Chevron Const, 1,400.00 1 400.00 TOTAL 6, 4 .OD 3� 600.00 4 ,5 It is felt that the schedule of school fees outlined above is accurate. Based upon this assumption, it is recommended immediate release of $17,548.00 to the Alta Loma School District. • Staff has already sent correspondence to Olympus Pacific to obtain a covenant not to sue. Once an agreement is reached release of the last $30,000.00 can be made. An alternative is to release immediately $47,548.00, in as much as indemnifi- cation may not carry much weight. This would mean liability would rest with the City should school fees be de- clared illegal. Recovery of school fees from the School District may be diffi- cult as it is reasonable to assume the School District will have committed the funds. HJE:cak 3� • M E M O R A N D U M DATE: February 14, 1980 TO: City Council City Manager FROM: Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Clarification of Policy Regarding Issuance of Permits for Firework Stands For the first year, Council conducted a random drawing limited to charitable non - profit groups, with at least 51% of their membership being comprised of residents of the City, for issuance of firework stands. In addition, the number of stands was limited to one per 10,000 population. The initial drawing was limited to those who were currently on file in 1979. The three groups not drawn in 1979 moved to the top of the list for 1980. All new • applications for July, 1980 would then be added to the bottom of this list in order of receipt. Those groups having stands in 1979 would be added below the new groups. Thereafter, all new groups would be placed at the bottom of this list. To date the City has received requests from six new charitable groups within the City of Rancho Cucamonga for permits in 1980. These new charitable groups would be added to the bottom of the list of the three groups selected last year. All groups who had stands in 1979 would then be added to the bottom of this list as stated previously. All new applicants for 1981, who did not apply in 1980 and did not have a stand in 1979, would then be added to the bottom of the list in the order of their date of receipt. In the staff's opinion, the formulation of the above list probably represents the most equitable formula for selecting groups for firework stands for future years. In essence it allows for new groups to be added to this list each year and prevents any one group from having a stand every year. The attached outline "clearly" shows how this rotation of groups will work. If Council wishes to continue this policy, staff will prepare the appropriate list and notify all the groups involved as to their status on this list. 0 Memo: Firework Permits -2- February 14, 1980 • Staff would also recommend that February 29 be selected as a cut -off date for acceptance of requests for stands by new groups. Current policy restricts the number of stands to one stand per 10,000 population. In light of the fact that the City of Rancho Cucamonga is currently beyond the 50,000 mark in population, Council may want to con- sider an additional stand to the five now authorized. Recommendation: That the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga reaffirm its policy for selection of groups for permits for firework stands established at their meeting of March 21, 1979 and instruct staff to prepare the list of authorized groups who will have stands in 1980 and the remaining list of groups in their order of rank. JR /vz • Attachment • 3S • • FIREWORKS STANDS 1980* FIREWORKS STANDS 1981* * 1. Unsuccessful Groups in 1979 * 6. New Applicants in 1980 * 2. �� * 7. � * 3 �� * 8. * 4. New Applicants for 1980 * 9. " x 5. " " " *10. Groups With Stands in 1979 6. 7. 8. 9. " 10. Groups With Stands in 1979 FIREWORKS STANDS 1982* 11. 1. .1 11 .11 12. " " *11. Groups With Stands in 1979 13. �� *12. 14. �� *13. �� 15. New Applicants for 1981 *14. " *15 New Applicants for 1981 36 City Council Minutes March 21, 1979 Page 9 FIREWORKS .Those speaking on the issuewere: • (continued) Phil Tubillo, Sons of Italy, emphasized this was a non - profit organization and should have a part in the program. E.P. Guerra, Cucamonga Men's Service Club, favored the rotation basis of selection. Bill Wieland- Vineyard Little League, favored the rotation basis of selection. Bill Griffith, Rancho Cucamonga Kiwanis, in favor of the staff's recommendations. Also suggested limiting ireworks booths to non - profit service organizations that would turn monies generated in this fund raising effort back into the city for the betterment of the city. Ron Boatwright - Boy Scout Troop 641, favored the grand- father clause and felt more booths might be considered. Chuck Buquet, Miss Softball America, expressed they would be able to use any money in developing fields since there is a lack of fields in town. John Rose, Citrus Little League, felt stands should be • given on basis of needs. West expressed he would like to see any money earned stay within the community. Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by West and unani- mously carried there should be as follows: 1. One fireworks stand per 10,000 population. 2. Accept staff's recommendation to establish a ro- tation system for issuance of permits with qualify- ing organizations being added to the list each year. In addition, to establish a random drawing to determine the order of priority for the original list. 3. All monies be turned back into the community. 4. Fifty -one percent of an organization's membership to be residents of Rancho Cucamonga. 5. Be a non - profit organization with certificate on file with the State and to present this as proof of organization's status. • 6. Limit drawing of first applicants to the ones currently on file. The ones not drawn this year will be on the liar first next year. All new _ 3 applications be added to the bottom of list in order of receipt. Those having stands this year to be placed at the end of list. 0 MEMORANDUM DATE: February 15, 1980 TO: City Council FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: Request From Arrowhead Justice Association To Continue Participation for Fiscal Year 1980 -81 The Arrowhead Justice Association has requested that the City declare its intent to continue membership in the Arrowhead Justice Association for the coming fiscal year. If the City retains its membership in the Arrowhead Justice Association, approximately $745,000 will be available to the region for various types of criminal justice grant activities. The City's matching share for the next fiscal year is estimated at approximately $1,664. As the City Council is aware, Councilman Palombo has indicated that there is some interest among West End cities to form a separate criminal justice planning agency. The City Council should be aware, however, that there are some problems with that proposal. The first is that the amount of funds available to the City of Rancho Cucamonga and other agencies may be reduced • significantly since funding will be coming essentially from the portion of Arrowhead Justice monies which are budgeted for next year. In addition the new agency, if it is formed, will be allowed to use only $25,000 of funds available for administrative and planning activities. After the $25,000 total has been exceeded, there is a 50% match requirement. Therefore, it seems apparent that the formation of a new criminal justice planning agency for the West End would result in the use of a greater portion of funds for administrative activities. In addition to at least one criminal justice planner, secretarial assistance will also be required along with fringe benefits and other costly items. It is significant to note, however, that the City's proportionate share of the funds available will be higher if the new planning agency is formed because competition for funds will be reduced to fewer entities. • Conversely, the City of Rancho Cucamonga could be in a position to gain greater funding if a new region is formed. During the past two years, all funds avail- able have been allocated for planning and for County- sponsored programs. No funds have been approved for City projects. Therefore, the separation of the West End cities from the Arrowhead Justice Association may result in more funds being available to Cities. Another option which is available to the cities, but has not been fully re- searched, is for one or more agencies to form an "entitlement agency ". An entitlement agency consists of one or more cities having a total population Memo: Arrowhead Justice Assoc. -2- February 15, 1980 of at least 100,000. The entitlement agency would then be in a position to contract for administrative services with the Arrowhead Justice Association. This would enable the entitlement agency to have its own policy board while keeping administrative cost at a somewhat more reasonable level by using existing A.J.A. staff. Recommendation: If the City Council wishes to remain a member of the Arrow- head J--- ustice Association, it would be appropriate to direct the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the Declaration of Intent to participate in the group during the coming fiscal year. If the City Council wishes to pursue the formation of either a separate criminal justice planning region or the creation of an entitlement agency to contract with the Arrowhead Justice Association, it would be in order for the Council to direct the staff to make the appropriate studies in conjunction with other Nest End Law Enforcement Agencies. LMW /vz �3F J • • • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM Date: February 20, 1980 To: City Council and City Manager From: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development Subject: TRAVEL FUNDS FOR CONSULTANT COORDINATION MEETINGS From time to time during the course of the General Plan program, as well as the other consultant projects such as the Fiscal Impact Model and the Industrial Specific Plan, there arises a need for Staff to attend out of town meetings of importance with consultants and other related parties in order to assure the best possible coordination of work. Since we do not have a budgeted item for this purpose, it is necessary to request Council approve each and every time a travel request is made. Sometimes a meeting is necessary prior to a City Council meeting in which case there would not be adequate time to make such a request prior to the trip. Staff . proposes that the City Council set aside a sum not to exceed $500.00 from the Contingency fund for the above purposes. It is anticipated that from now until June, a number of meetings will be necessary in San Francisco as the more critical work of the consultants nears. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve a sun of not to exceed $500.00 from the Contingency fund as a travel budget for the purposes outlined above. Res�ecl1t1iful y suLiitt�tt'ed/,, JACK LAM, Director of 111 Community Development Ji.: nm • E CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA M>vt::W Iv1 Date: February 20, 1980 To: City Council and City Manager From: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development Subject: REVISION OF ACREAGE OF TRACT NO. 9399 AND 9400 - North side of Banyan, west side of Beryl At the last City Council meeting, Staff brought to the Council's attention the above two tracts which have been in default of their improvement agree- ment and bonds since September of 1979. As a result, the City now has the option to "revert back to acreage ", thereby eliminating these two tracts. At the meeting, the City Council set February 20, 1980 as a date for a public hearing to consider the reversion issue. However, staff is now in receipt of new security and security agreement from the owners of the tracts. The original intent of taking the reversion of acreage to the City Council was to force the owners to decide once and for all whether to post the bonds or not. Planning and Engineering staff has reviewed these two tracts and have con- cluded that there are limited design solutions other than the cul -de -sac solution of the original design, since the land to the west, east and north have already been designed and /or built upon leaving few alternatives left for different design. The tracts are small, each consisting of twelve lots, further limiting the options for different design. While staff has found certain problems in regard to drainage and grading as a consequence of the prior grading plan, a new grading plan would be required if the tracts were to be reactivated in which case such problems can be resolved at that stage. Because the owners have now posted the bonds and have submitted a new imorove- ment agreement, Staff has not published the public hearing to afford the Coun- cil another opportunity to review the facts relating to the case and if the Council still wishes to proceed with the reversions to acreage, staff will advertise a pu 11c hearing for March 5, 1980. Res e1crr tfu iy ubmit ted, '1ALA 1 , fiir 0 Community Development • JL:nm • MEMORANDUM DATE: February 20, 1980 TO: Bill Holley Director of Community Services FROM: Lauren asserma� City Manager SUBJECT: Emergency Plan One of the many deficiencies we discovered in our emergency call back plan for City employees is that we need specific assignments as well as specific employees in charge. Employees were extremely cooperative and willing to report for work; however, it would have been helpful to have had specific assignments outlined in advance. In addition, had we . named a supervisor to which each employee could report, that may have minimized some of the confusion. Overall I think we did extremely well and can be very proud of our employees and the job they did. We can, however, improve the system so it works even better next time. I have also asked Tom Wickum to give us some information concerning the availability of yellow flashing lights for the top of our City vehicles. Had that equipment been available, I think we may have minimized some of the problems which occurred from people driving through our "road closed" signs. The yellow lights are also highly visible during a storm and may avoid future injuries to either employees or their equipment. On a personal note, thanks very much for coordinating our Emergency Storm Center. I was extremely pleased with the, way you handled the myriad of problems which confronted us during the critical points of the storm. Also the employees assigned to your department were just fantastic. They not only worked beyond the normal range we would expect during an emergency, but they far exceeded that standard and provided a phenomenal amount of work within a very short span of time. We will be expressing thanks to each of the employees as soon as we have the opportunity. LMd /vz • • MEMORANDUM DATE: February 20, 1980 T0: City Council FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: Storm Update Apparently there was some confusion concerning the Governor's declaration of a disaster area in the last few days. The reason San Bernardino County was not included in the most recent declaration is that we are apparently covered by an earlier declaration made following our first storm in early February. The City Council should be aware that the staff has been working since the weekend to document all the existing damage as of this date. That material must be submitted within the next day or so to the appropriate officials. Although a disaster area has been declared by the Governor, President Carter has yet to make a similar declaration. We are anticipating that the President will declare our area as a disaster area which will then . enable us to seek federal assistance to repair some of our extensive damage. We still do not know precisely what assistance is available to private residents who may have incurred damage to their homes or other property. Bill Holley is serving as our Staff Coordinator for the disaster docu- mentation. As we have more information available, we will forward it to you. If members of the Council receive any calls concerning property damage, it would be appropriate to ask the citizens to submit the documentation on a claim form, which is available from the City Clerk's Office. LMW /vz Cj M E M O R A N D U M DATE: February 20, 1980 TO: City Council FROM: Lauren M. Wasserman City Manager SUBJECT: Alternatives Avai le for Flood Control Facilities As the City Council is aware, the storm drain deficiencies of Rancho Cucamonga have been conservatively estimated at between $25 -$30 million. This estimate will continue to increase due to the spiraling inflationary trends currently plaguing our nation. The staff has conducted a cursory review of the funding alternatives available to the City for financing storm drain improvements in our community. Briefly, they are as follows: • 1. Seek voter approval to change the City's budgetary appropriation limit. This procedure was established as a part of the recently approved state consitutfonal amendment. However, the legislature has not yet implemented the enabling legislation which is needed in order to clarify precisely what a. "majority" consists of. In addition, the duration of any voter approv- al may not exceed four years. It is anticipated that the enabling legislation regarding voter approval to increase appropriation limits will be adopted by the State legislature sometime within the next twelve months. 2. Increase Appropriation limit in accordante with emergency provisions of Proposition 4. The City Council may approve an increase in the appropriation limit in cases deemed to be emergencies. However, the limit must be reduced in the following three years to prevent an aggregate increase in appropriations resulting from the emergencies. Thus, a short -range solution may create a financial nightmare three years from now. 3. Submit a General Obligation Bond Issue to the voters. This alternative is not presently acceptable since Proposition 13 specified that bond issues require the approval of two- thirds of those eligible to vote. It — is our understanding that there are several lawsuits pending which are intended to clarify the language of Proposition 13. Litigation is a slow, expensive pro - cess. And, the City may not be in a position to "lead the charge" on this particular issue. City Council February 20, 1980 • Page Two It is significant to note that a proposed State Consitutional Amendment has been drafted which, if approved by the voters, will change and clarify the majority necessary to legally approve a general obligation bond issue. If that amendment is approved, the City may be in a position to consider submitting a general obligation bond issue to the voters. 4. Seek Tax Override approval of voters. This alternative is not presently feasible since the override would require two - thirds approval of all eligible voters. 5. Establish Special Assessment Districts to finance essential storm drain improvements. Prior to incorporation, the tri- community area utilized special assessment districts for weed abatement, street lighting, and other essential services. The establishment of a special assessemnt district for the residential areas west of Haven Avenue appears to be a viable alternative for financing capital improvements which provide a special benefit to the community. As Council is aware, this financing vehicle is currently being seriously considered to fund streets, storm drains, and utility installations in the major portion • of our industrial areas. Costs are normally apportioned to each property on the basis of benefit received. The City Council muse, of course, conduct several public hearings prior to adopting the rate of assessments. A four - fifths Council majority is required for the establishment of an assessment district. The assessment district has a number of serious drawbacks which may be summarized as follows: a. Voters may feel the City Council is attempting to circumvent the intent of Proposition 13 and Proposition 4. b. The assessment district generally brings with it a delayed reaction from citizens after the district has been created and assessments have been levied. C. The districts are extremely complicated legal entities which are expensive to create. Normally, special legal counsel is necessary to help establish the districts. All costs are, however, reimbursable once the district has been formed. d. Invariably, someone always come "out of the woodwork" after the district has been established to complain that the Ctiy never informed them of the assessment district. City Council • February 20, 1980 Page Three The primary advantages to the assessment district appear to be as follows: (1) Assessment districts are a time- tested, legal means for financing costly public improvements which are deemed to benefit the entire community. (2) Costs are shared proportionately by all who benefit from the improve- ments. Future homeowners are not paying for improvements which benefit present homeowners. (Ken Willis has frequently pointed out that new home buyers should not build the entire community). (3) The creation of an assessment district can comaaence immediately. (Feasibility Study). (4) An assessment district is one of the few alternatives available to the City which can raise sufficient funds to cope with a problem of such a large proportion. Summary. • The most feasible alternative presently available to finance storm drain im- provements appears to be the formation of special assessment districts. Ali other alternatives are dependent upon future a, proval of statewide constitutional amendments or litigation which is not only costly, but also time - consuming. Naturally, the assessment district approach may generate oppositions from citizens who simply do not want (or cannot afford) to pay any additional costs in addition to property taxes. It will take a creative, bold, and courageous City Council to even discuss assessment districts to finance major capital improvements. The City Council may wish to submit an advisory measure in November to determine whether residents would favor the creation of assessment districts to finance storm drains for our community. AN EDITORIAL DISCLAIMER. THIS MEMO IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE A CURSORY SUMMARY OF THE PRIMARY FINANCING ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO FINANCE STORM DRAIN AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS. IF THE CITY COUNCIL WISHES TO STUDY ANY OF THE ABOVE ALTERNATIVES - OR ANY OTHER FINANCING VEHICLE - ADDITIONAL RESEARCH WILL BE REQUIRED. THE OPTIONS OUTLINED IN THIS MEMO COINCIDE GENERALLY WITH ALTERNATIVES DISCUSSED BY THE MUNICIPAL FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES, AND THE CITY MANAGERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES. NATURALLY, THE CITY ATTORNEY SHOULD REVIEW ANY ALTERNATIVES BEING SERIOUSLY CONSIDERED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. cc: Department Heads City Attorney 1 L' ( L M E M O R A N D U M DATE: February 20, 1980 TO: City Council City Manager ✓ FROM: Assistant City Managed/1' SUBJECT: Alternative Policies for Issuance of Firework Stand Permits If Council does not wish to commit itself beyond 1980 for issuance of permits for fireworks stands, you may want to consider the fallowing alternatives. JR /vz 1. Select remaining two permits for 1980 from new 1980 applicants only,by date of receipt. Instruct staff to monitor impact of the use of safe and sane fireworks at year end and evaluate criteria for eligible groups. (In the past the City has received requests from single purpose groups, such as Boy Scouts, M.S.A., Sons of Italy, etc. Council may wish to consider restricting stands to groups who serve the Community at large, i.e. service clubs as opposed to single purpose groups.) 2. Conduct a random drawing from new 1980 applicants only for the two availab a it fireworks permits, and not make any commitment to groups for future years. Instruct staff to monitor impact of sale and use of safe and sane fireworks and evaluate criteria for eligible groups as stated on alternative (1.). 72. , TO: AJA Planning Board Principals, West End . Mayor George Gibson, City of Upland Councilman Michael Palombo, City of Rancho Cucamonga Councilwoman Faye Dastrup, City of Ontario Chief Roger Moulton, City of Montclair Lt. Paul Ingram, City of Chino 1 FROM: Steve Duncan, Regional Planning Director Arrowhead Justice Association DATE: February 18, 1980 STTBJ: Information on Entitlement Jurisdiction Formation, Roles, and Responses Under the Justice System Improvement Act Mr. Wasserman (Rancho Cucamonga) and Mr. Gomez (Ontario) have brought to our attention the possible intent of the West End cities to form a combination entitlement jurisdiction under the provisions of the Justice System Improvement Act of 1979 (JSIA). The attached materials should be carefully considered in your Jurisdictions' deliberations on this issue. Our staff will make every effort to be available to you and your councils during the course of these deliberations, and we encourage you to contact us if you have any further questions. • As you well know from your participation on the AJA Planning Board, mapy of the guidelines (e.g., financial management) and the specific dollar allocations have yet to be finalized. However, the March 1, 1980 date for declaration of intent remains firm. Thus if any Jurisdiction fails to make a declaration to participate in an entitlement Jurisdiction they automatically become classified as "balance of state" (which means they would be required to participate In the state's needs assessment process but would have to compete for balance -of -state funds on a project -by- project basis with no assurance of a specified amount of funding). Also, the amount of formula (Part D) funds represents an absolute ceiling on JSIA funding from that source; i.e., if your funding amount is $87,331 with $16724 allocated to a juvenile justice project (to fulfill the requirement that 19.15,°, be allocated to projects devoted primarily to adjudicated delinquents) and $6550 allocated to planning & administration (7.5;,), the maximum amount of Federal formula funds available for other projects is $64,057. Thus in addition to the required ten percent (10%) local hard cash match, if a project requiring a higher amount of funding were desired the balance would have to be provided through local funds. Finally, current information indicates that the 1981 -83 plan (following declaration of entitlement) probably will have to be submitted to the State Council by June 1, 1980, Thank you for your consideration of this information and we look forward to seeing you at the February 26 AJA Planning Board meeting. cc: City Managers /Administrators 1 I A_ _. i . ; J I I ON: Worksheet on Justice System Improvement Act! Impact on West End (per request of L. Wasserman and P. Gomez) ` Tentative allocation of FYS1 funds under the JSIA (column one represents a "high" amount based on the President's proposed budget and column two represents in amount based on funding at the current FY80 level) *since no criminal ustice expenditure data is available for Rancho Cucamonga tough the official JSIA statistics, the Upland amounts are used due to population comparability r � l.J Major criteria for qualification as an entitlement jurisdiction: 1) total population of combination must exceed 100,000 2) total criminal justice expenditures must exceed 0.15; of . state -local total criminal justice expenditures 3) combination must receive at least $50,000 in formula(Part D) funds based on the final, approved JSIA budget Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention Act funds: Based on current estimates approximately 9162,000 may be available to AJA; a proportionate amount for West End would be $45,000: however, these funds are allocated by the state and there is no assured formula for distribution. Constraints on Use of Formula (Part D) funds: 1) must meet program guidelines contained in legislation; 2) at least 19.15°, must be allocated for "juvenile justice maintenance of effort" for programs primarily serving adjudicated delinquents (WIC602) 3) only up to 7.5% of funds may he used for planning and administration Organizational Requirements for Entitlement Jurisdictions: 1) must assure compliance with all Federal and State guidelines and ability to conduct jurisdiction needs assessment, compile a three year plan, provide program and fiscal monitoring and evaluation, and submit an annual performance report as well as providing specific program development and monitoring support for funded projects 2) must form and staff a Criminal Justice Advisory Board providing representation from each participating jurisdiction and criminal • justice and community agencies 3) must provide assurance that no funds are received from any other entitlement jurisdiction. FY80 FY81 _ level Chino $12,511 $ 9,060 Montclair 13,791 9,987 Ontario 29,757 21,549 Rancho Cucamonga* 15,636 11,323 Upland 15,636 11,323 Total, West End $87,331 $63,242 Total, excluding Rancho Cucamonga $71,695 $51,919 Total, AJA $713,435 $503,850 *since no criminal ustice expenditure data is available for Rancho Cucamonga tough the official JSIA statistics, the Upland amounts are used due to population comparability r � l.J Major criteria for qualification as an entitlement jurisdiction: 1) total population of combination must exceed 100,000 2) total criminal justice expenditures must exceed 0.15; of . state -local total criminal justice expenditures 3) combination must receive at least $50,000 in formula(Part D) funds based on the final, approved JSIA budget Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention Act funds: Based on current estimates approximately 9162,000 may be available to AJA; a proportionate amount for West End would be $45,000: however, these funds are allocated by the state and there is no assured formula for distribution. Constraints on Use of Formula (Part D) funds: 1) must meet program guidelines contained in legislation; 2) at least 19.15°, must be allocated for "juvenile justice maintenance of effort" for programs primarily serving adjudicated delinquents (WIC602) 3) only up to 7.5% of funds may he used for planning and administration Organizational Requirements for Entitlement Jurisdictions: 1) must assure compliance with all Federal and State guidelines and ability to conduct jurisdiction needs assessment, compile a three year plan, provide program and fiscal monitoring and evaluation, and submit an annual performance report as well as providing specific program development and monitoring support for funded projects 2) must form and staff a Criminal Justice Advisory Board providing representation from each participating jurisdiction and criminal • justice and community agencies 3) must provide assurance that no funds are received from any other entitlement jurisdiction. 1111 EAST MILL STREkT l BUrLDING 11 - 1ST FLOOR SAN EWRNARDIND, CA 92415 RHONE, 383 -1112 • TO, AJA PLANNING BOARD PRINCIPALS FROM, STEVE DUNCAN, REGIONAL PLANNING DIRECTOR DATE, February 18, 1980 SUBJECT: The following are specific allocations for FY 81 formula funds under the JSIA provided by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The total of these allocations, together with those for jurisdictions not yet listed, represent the potential total formula allocation for the AJA as a single entitlement jurisdiction. This information should be forwarded as appropriate to your council members and administrators. The allocations are based on the jurisdiction's percent of total state Criminal • Justice Expenditures as reported in the 1978 Survey of Criminal Justice Expend- iture and Employment. The first column represents the Part D (formula) amount obtained from the President's proposed budget and the second column represents the current FY 60 level (i.e.,if Congress holds the program to its current level). Proposed FY 81 Formula Amount Jurisdiction Formula Amount at Current FY 80 Level City of Barstow $ 5,564 5 4,029 City of Chino 12,511 9,060 City of Colton 8,724 6,318 City of Fontana 8,975 6,500 City of Montclair 13,791 9,987 City of Ontario 29,757 21,549 City of Redlands 15,976 11,569 City of San Bernardino 74,256 53,773 County of San Bernardino 523,897 379,383 City of Upland 15,636 11,323 City of Victorville 4,348 3,149 $713,435 $516.640 Please note that these amounts are tentative and do not include Juvenile Jus- tice and Delinquency Prevention Act Funds (which are not subject to the same allocation criteria, i.e., there is no "formula" assurance of fixed allocations to specific jurisdictions). Also, these above amounts would represent the base amount from which (a) the planning and administration funds would be • generated (up to 7h% formula funds), and (b) the requirement$ for adequate share and maintenance of effort would be met. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call. SD:pg s • West End - Chino, Montclair, Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, Upland Tentative allocation of FY81 funds under the Justi • Total AJA Current FY80* FY81 ** Part D /Formula $503,850 $713,435 JJDP * ** 162,258 162,258 Total $666,108 $875,693 :e System Improvement Act: West End Combination Current FY80* FY81 ** $ 63,242 $87,331 45,173 45,173 $108,415 $132,504 *current FY80 amount represents low end of projection for FY81 * *FY81 amount represents maximum amount projected from President's proposed budget * " *JJDP, .Juvenile Justice E Delinquency Prevention Act funds are not anticipated to change; however, their allocation is not governed by the same formula as action funds - this is to be determined by the State (probably will be based on percent of juvenile population) Issues; 1) within the legislation theft are provisions for "maintenance of effort" and "adequate share" for various components of the criminal justice system, i.e., required allocations for these components from the total action allocation; it is not yet determined (except for Juvenile Maintenance of Effort at 19.15 %) how this will be specifically applied to entitlement jurisdictions that do not include a county government 2) the FY81 formula allocation is based on "criminal justice expenditures" and these expenditures include capital outlays; thus if capital outlays are particularly high for the base year it is possible that the JSIA award could go down in subsequent years; also, it is unclear how this process would deal with contracts (e.g., Rancho Cucamonga) - we assume that the contract amount would be used ( ?) Planning & Administration All entitlement jurisdictions are required to provide for the planning, administration, and monitoring activities necessary to apply for and manage the JSIA funds. There is no prescribed manner for staffing the entitlement jurisdiction (though there are very clear mandates for establishing the governing "Criminal Justice Advisory Board" analogous to the AJA Planning Board). Funding for planning S administration is based as follows: 7.5% of formula funds (up to $25,000 matchfree) 7.5% of JJDP funds (to be matched on a dollar for dollar basis) any amount of formula funds for technical assistance, system coordination, etc. (requiring a 10% match) Using the above high (FY81) and low (PY80) amounts the base 7.5% would be as follows: FY80 FY81 match -free PEA from formula $ 4,743 6,550 Federal amount from JJDP 3,388 3,388 local match for JJDP 3,388 3,388 TOTAL $11,519 $13,326 • J_ STATE OF CAIUOSNIA EDMUND G. SSOWN 111. G-1- OFFICE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE PLANNING OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR 7111 EOMING DOWE .SAMENTO, CAEIEOSNIA 95423 January 30, 1980 TO: CHAIRMEN OF BOARDS OF SUPERVISORS, COUNTIES OVER 100,000 POPULATION MAYORS, CITIES OVER 100,000 POPULATION CHAIRMEN, REGIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE PLANNING BOARDS FROM: OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR SUBJECT: SURVEY TO DETERMINE ENTITLEMENT STATUS UNDER THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1979 On December 27, 1979, the President signed the Justice System Improvement Act of 1979 (JSIA) which reauthorizes the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEA.A) grant proaram through FY 1983. This new legislation provides that cities, counties and combinations thereof which meet certain • requirements are eligible to receive an entitlement of funds from the annual Formula Grant received by the state, based on an application submitted to our office and approved by the California Council on Criminal Justice (CCCJ). This letter is a formal survey to determine the manner in which you will participate in this Act over the next three years. For several jurisdictions, this letter is a follow -up to a letter mailed by this office on August 10, 1979; however, other jurisdictions are being surveyed for the first time because eligibility criteria have changed in the final version of the Act. This letter is being sent to all cities and counties which meet the minimum population requirement of 100,000, and to all criminal justice planning regions organized under the Omnibus Safe Streets and Crime Control Act of 1968 and California Penal Code Section 13900, et seq. Some of the juris- dictions being surveyed may, however, be ineligible as entitlement juris- dictions because of other requirements included in the Act. This survey is being based on LEAA - developed data and therefore covers all potentially eligible jurisdictions: Charts I and II of Attachment A provide a ready reference for eligible jurisdictions and whether they meet the minimum numerical criteria. Chart I presents single entitlement jurisdictions, and Chart 11 presents existing intergovernmental criminal justice planning regions. Please refer to these attachments, and if you have been found to be ineligible and the data is incorrect, please notify this office immediately so we may put you in contact with the appropriate authorities in LEAA. All LEAA information is based on Bureau of Census data for 1977. All eligible entitlement jurisdictions must meet the following minimum criteria: Page 2 January 30, 1980 I . Population of at least 100,000; 2. An entitlement sum of no less than $50,000; 3. Criminal justice expenditures which represent no less than IS percent of the total combined state and local criminal justice expenditures in California. In addition, a combination must be contiouous if it includes more than one county, This represents the minimum eligibility criteria, but other requirements must be met by eligible entitlement jurisdictions and are dealt with under the options available to you, which are outlined later in this letter. It is the responsibility of regional criminal justice planning boards to contact individual participant cities and counties of less than 100,000 population, in order to inform them of options that are available to them under the JSIA and current version of proposed federal regulations. Enclosed for your information is • lines for implementing the Act. determine your responsibilities for participation in the Justice forth below in summary form. a copy of the JSIA and LEAA's draft guide - These should be reviewed carefully to under the various options. Your options System Improvement Act of 1979 are set Option dl: Independent Entitlement Jurisdiction If yours is a city or county which meets the foregoing minimum criteria and are shown to be an eligible jurisdiction in Chart I of Attachment A, you may opt to become an independent entitlement jurisdiction and submit an application directly to the state council for your entitlement. The sum shown in Attachment A is what your entitlement would be, based on the FY 1980 appropriation. However, your entitlement will not be exercised until October 1, 1980, which marks the beginning of federal FY 1981. We will not know your FY 1981 entitlement until September or October of 1980. The sum shown gives you a rough indication of the entitlement you might expect next year. Of this sum, you may use up to 7 -1/2 percent for planning and administration purposes to prepare and administer your application. Of the 7 -112 percent, the first 525,000 is match free and any excess must be matched dollar for dollar. The remaining 92 -1/2 percent of your entitle- ment must be used for criminal justice programs and must be matched on a 90 percent federal /10 percent local cash match basis. You cannot opt to become an independent entitlement jurisdiction and also participate in a combination entitlement. Page 3 • January 30, 1930 Option S2: Combination Entitlement Based_ on the Same Composition as an xisting Region If yours is an eligible city or county which meets the minimum criteria set forth under Option -1 for an independent erfitlement jurisdiction but do not wish to pursue that option, you may want to join in applying for funds under the Act as part of an entitlement combination which continues the existing regional membership. By selecting this notion, you will waive your right to an individual entitlement, which will then be included as part of the combination's entitlement allocation. Chart II of Attachment A demonstrates what your current region would receive as an entitlement based on FY 1980 appropriation data. The combination entitle- ment sum shown includes your entitlement. If yours is an existing regional criminal justice plannino unit, which is shown to be eligible in Chart II of Attachment A, you may declare your intent to become a combination entitlement by action of your regional board. This declaration of intent will be recognized by OCJP. and CCCJ for purposes of preparing and submitting the FY 1981 application, unless indi- vidually eligible cities and counties in the region, by declaring their preference for independent eligibility would make your combination ineligible • ' based on the JSIA criteria or other provisions of local ordinance or state law. Prior to selecting this option, it is suggested that you carefully read Section 31.202(c)(2) of the attached guidelines to determine the administrative funds and required match to which your combination would be entitled to manage the business of the entitlement combination. Because the Federal Government has yet to issue its financial management guidelines for the JSIA, this survey does not address issues relating to possible arrangements by which funds will be contractually awarded or delivered to combination entitlements or their member jurisdictions. Similarly, because the Federal Government has not yet issued its guidelines covering the collection and submission of program and project -level performance and impact data, this survey does not address issues related to arrangements for program implementation and oversiqht. However, OUP and CCCJ intend to recognize all presently existing regional criminal justice planning units as eligible combinations for purposes of preparing and submitting a single application, provided this is the desire of local government. Option 93: dew Combination Entitlement Cities and counties may join together to form a new combination entitlement pursuant to 402(a)(4) of the JSIA, if they so desire. Such a combination must meet the minimum eligibility criteria for a combination. If it is your desire to form such a new combination, you must indicate what is the membership of the new combination will be and a formal expression of interest by all proposed members. if you are seriously considering a new combination, please contact this office for information regarding the entitlement for which the new combination would be eligible and other requirements. LI Page 4 January 30, 1900 Option =4: Negotiated Intergovernmental Arrannement The enclosed guidelines make it clear that local units of government and combinations are free to adopt other arrangements and relationships upon agreement with the state. Such an arrangement might he appropriate, for example, where non - participation of a county prevents an existing multi- county regional planning unit from meeting the "contiguity" require- ment under Options =2 or -3, or where withdrawal of a city or county from an existing regional unit results in the termination of its formal joint powers agreement. There may be many other situations in which local needs could be well served by working out a specific intergovernmental, arranoement with the state council. A local jurisdiction or combination which wishes to negotiate a relationship with the state which is not covered under Options -1 -3 must so notify this office by March 1, 1980, giving a description of the arrangement it proposes. Option #5: Defer Decision Section 31.102(a)(2)(ii) of the enclosed draft guidelines requires that potential entitlement jurisdictions notify our office, in writing, by March 1, 1930, of their intent to accept entitlement status to participate • as entitlements for the full three -year application. Failure to notify our office by this date means you are declining your entitlement opportunities for FY 1981 and will be considered to have selected Option 06, Balance -of- State. Section 31.102(a)(2)(iii) of the enclosed draft guidelines allows you to defer your decision on exercising your entitlement status for one year. You may notify this office by March 1, 1981, if you wish to exercise your entitlement status for the final two years of the application period. Option 46: Balance -of -State The JSIA provides that all jurisdictions, or combinations thereof, which do not opt or are ineligible to exercise their rights as an independent entitlement jurisdiction under 402(a)(2) or (3), or as a combination entitlement under 402(a)(4), will assume a direct relationship with the state under 402(a)(5) of the Act. For purposes of easy reference, we have labeled this as the balance -of -state option or program. All juris- dictions which do not elect to participate in the Act under any of the five options set forth above will be considered balance -of -state jurisdictions. The funds available for balance -of -state jurisdictions will be that amount which is the equivalent of their combined criminal justice expenditures as a percentage of the total state and local criminal justice expenditures in California and applied to the annual Formula Grant received by the state. The percentage and resulting amount of funds this represents can only be determined after jurisdictions indicate their preferred options set forth in this letter. Page 5 • January 30, 1980 The state will annually notify all balance -of -state jurisdictions of the sum available for projects and will issue one or more annual Requests for Proposal (RFP) for projects to such jurisdictions. Statewide priorities would guide the selection of projects by the California Council on Criminal Justice, anda direct award from the state would result. No jurisdiction which selects Options .'1 -4 would be eligible to apply for balance -of -state funds. Again, by not notifying this office by March 1, 1980, of your entitlement desires, you will be treated as having agreed to a balance -of -state relationship. You will then have until March 1, 1981, to select entitle- ment status for FY 1982 and 1983, or you will again be considered to have opted for balance -of -state participation. The above presents, in very general form, the options available to you for participation in the LEAA program beginning October 1, 1980. Your response to this survey is required no later than March 1, 1980. If you have any questions, please feel free to'call Gregory Harding, Nathan Manske, or me at (916) 445 -9156. The foregoing text of this survey . letter was reviewed and approved by the California Council on Criminal Justice and its Intergovernmental Advisory Committee on JSIA Transition on January 24, 1980. DOUGLAS R. CUNNINGHAM Executive Director Attachments cc: Sheriffs Chiefs of Police District Attorneys County Administrative Officers City Managers Regional Planning Unit Directors `J ATTACHMENT A The attached charts have been prepared using LEAA - supplied data for Population, Criminal Justice Expenditures and Entitlement Sums based on the FY 1980 Federal Appropriation. To be considered an eligible jurisdiction to apply for an entitlement, the jurisdiction must meet three criterion. The criteria are: 1. Population of at least 100,000; 2. Total criminal justice expenditures equal to or greater than .15 percent of the state /local total; and 3. Formula award must be at least $50,000. Chart I lists the entitlement jurisdictions which qualify on the basis of population and percentage of criminal justice exoenditures. This chart also indicates the entitlement sum and the planning and administra- tion sum which would be available to each jurisdiction. The administration funds are part of the total entitlement, not in addition to that sum. It should be noted that several jurisdictions listed fail to meet all the tests which would qualify them as eligible direct entitlement jurisdictions. • The "eligible" column denotes eligibility as "yes" or "no ". Chart I1 shows the entitlements to existing regional combinations and local planning units considering all jurisdictional entitlements being combined in a single application. Again, it should be noted that based upon the FY 1980 appropriation, Regions L and 0 would not qualify as eligible combinations which meet the qualifying criteria. It is important to note that these charts have been prepared for demonstra- tion purposes and do not necessarily reflect the allocation of funds for FY 1981. The FY 1981 entitlement sums may go up or down depending upon the appropriation action of Congress during the coming year. • CH4RT I POTENTIAL SINGLE ENTITLE`M JURISDICTIONS PER • PROVISIONS OF THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1979 ENTITLENrNT SM FOR Z OF STATE AND LOCAL P 6 A JURISOICTIOM POPULATION FY 19 °0 (In '•o sands) C.J. EXPENDITURES ALLOCATION ELIGIOL COUNTIES ' Alameda 1,099,185 $ 649. 2.7921155 S 48,675. Yes Butte 127,841 48. .201225 3,600. NO Contra Costa 612,866 309. 1.293945 23,175. Yes Fresno 472,492 229. .972427 17,175. Yes Hur6oldt 106,793 60. .216407 1,750. Yes Kern. 363,305 233. .993344 17,475. Yes Los Angeles 7.028,518 3,299. 13.971934 247,425 Yes Karin 223,548 ill. .485895 8,325. Yes Merced 124,330 40. .1667D) 3,000. No Monterey 275,304 126. .527804 9,450. Yes Orange 1,799,032 661, 2.798338 49,575. Yes Placer 101,455 44. .192679 3.300. No Riverside 575,095 266. 1.139540 119,950. Yes Sacramento 721,311 374. 1.601556 28,050. Yes San Bernardino 736,S40 361. 1.544128 27,075, Yes San Diego 1,675,114 S76. 2.363611 43.200. Yes San Joaquin 311,612 158. .676362 11,850. Yes San Luis Obispo 134,498 62. .269413 4,650. Yes San Kateo 587,724 259. 1.091895 .19,425. Yes Santa Barbara 287,433 149. .533703 11,175. Yes Santa Clara 1,216,365 S03. 2.179330 37,725. Yes Santa Cruz 169,188 83. .350008 6,225. Yes Solano 201,430 91. .389293 6,825. Yes Sawn 263,243 125. .535714 9,375. Yes Stanislaus 235,997 118. .SDSSOO 8,850. Yes Tulare 216,927 108. .466252 8.100. Yes Ventura 467,480 197 .823345 14.775. Yes Told 106,425 S4. .228665 4.050. Yes CITIES Anaheim 202,477 70. .336625 S,2SO. Yes Berkeley 109,387 41. .194628 3,075• No Fremont 120,223 29. .138736 2,175. No Fresno 187,895 69. .332427 5,175, Yes Garden Grove 117,737 25. .121155 1,875. No Glendale 133,864 37. .176072 2,775. No Huntington Beach 161,860 54. .261840 4,050. Yes Long Batch 336,697 206. .983898 15,450. Yes Los Angeles 2,761,222 1,928. 9.292543 144,600. Yes Oakland 332,385 173. .835453 12,975. Yes Pasadena 106.535 50. .236312 3,750. Yes ' Riverside 155.029 52. '.251269 3.900. Yes Sacramento 264.511 113. .550146 8,475. Yes San Bernardino 102,270 42. '.205199 3.150. No San Diego 799,725 219. 1.046350 • 16,425. Yes San Francisco 655,072 694. 3.125404 ' 52,050. Yes _ San Jose $83,402 194. .939964 14,550. Yes Santa Ana 183,138 79. 1369163 5,925. Yes Stockton 124,037 53. .252094 3,975. Yes Sunnyvale 105,065 30. .141210 2,250. NO ' Torrance 129,067 $3. .179909 4,350. Yes Other 3,177. 14.983918 238,275. ' Bute Sm728. 2S.5346365 629,600. • Jed1cA1 Planning Count it SO 000. .5 0' CNART II EXISTING MAIAM UNITS AS POTENTIAL • ENTITLEMENT CONS INATIOnS PER PROVISIONS OF THE JUSTICE STSTEM IMPROVEMENT ACT REGIONS/ POPULATION ENTITLEMENT SUMS FOR 3 OF STATE ANO LOCAL P 6 A JURISOICTIONS FY 77 (LEAH) FY1980' (In Thousands) C.J. EXPENDITURES ALLOCATION_ELIOT Region A (Totals) 213,094 3 .127 ,5697895 $ 9,525 TES Won B (Touts) 207,448 126 ,560680 9,450 TES Region C (Totals) 175,831 84 .384420 6.300 YES Region 0 (Totals) 1,13S,967 748 3.301102 56.100 YES Peyton E (Totals) 780,185 517 2.299585 38,775 YES Region F (Totals) 655,072 694. 3.125404 52,050. YES Region G (Totals) 612.866 46Z. 2.026424 34.650 YES Region H (Totals) 587.724 . 404 1.78S538 30,300 YES Region I (Totals) 1,099,166 1.018 4.577428 76.350 YES Santa Clara County Unit 1,216,365 654 9.903749 49.050 YES San Jose 583.402 195. .939964 14,625. YES Region K (Totals) 681,104 448 1.975368 33,600 YES Region L (Totals) 34,286 35 .154668 2.625 NO . Region M (Totals) 465,633 298 1.306203 22.350 YES Region N (Totals) ,1,173,984 670 3.823395 65.250 TES Region 0 (Totals) 25.224 21 .091991 1,575 NO Region P (Totals) 421.931 278 1.223397 20,850 YES Region g (Totals) a 467,480 295 1.301068 22,125 YES Region R 4.267,296 1,153 6.509071 86.475 YES Lot Angeles County 7,028,518 3,299. 13.971934 247.425. YES Lot Angeles City 2,761.222 1,930. 9.292543 144,750. TES Region S (Totals) 663.790 437 1.939794 32,775 YES Region T (Totals) 1,799,032 11180 S.27S495 88.500 TES Region U (Totals) 1.675.714 908 3.939827 68.100 YES Re91"y (Totals) 736,540 495• 2.186527 37,125 TES Sute 21,886,033 5,728. 25.534636E 679,600, • TOTALS: f 22,404 100.3 9 1.930,300. n • M E M O R A N D U M TO: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk FROM: Robert E. Dougherty, Assistant City Attorney DATE: February 8, 1980 RE: Resolution of Necessity (Teasdale Property). You will recall that the original Resolution of Necessity in this matter, which the City Council adopted on November 15, 1978, was defective in that reference to the particular state law authorizing condemnation was omitted. Althought we discov- ered this fact shortly after the commencement of the lawsuit, • we did not then take corrective action because it appeared that we might be able to arrive at a settlement �..ith Mr. Teasdale. • Further, his attorney indicated that even if the matter could not be settled, he would not make an issue out of the defective Resolution. It now appears that we will have to go forward with the litigation. Teasdale's attorney has not responded to our last settlement offer made October 9, 1979, even though I have sent him two (2) follow -up letters, the last one being mailed on January 16, 1980. I am, therefore, enclosing the following: (1) A new Notice of Hearing regarding proposed Resolu- tion of Necessity (etc.); and, (2) A new Resolution of Necessity (with respect to the Teasdale property). -1- c , The Resolution of Necessity should be set for hearing on • the City Council agenda of March 5, 1980. The original Notice of Hearing, to which a copy of the Resolution is attached, must be mailed by your office, first - class mail, postage prepaid, addressed to: MR. R. D. TEASDALE 400 East Las Palmas Drive Fullerton, California 92635. The Notice of Hearing should be mailed as soon as possible but in no event later than sixteen (16) days prior to the hearing date. An Affidavit of Mailing should be completed and retained in the permanent records of the City Clerk. Please note that Code of Civil Procedure Section 1245.240 • - requires that the Resolution of Necessity be adopted by a vote of t two- thirds (2/3) of all the members of the City Council. In ef- i feet, this means four (4) affirmative votes. C "- If you have any question, please give me a call. RED: sgg Enclosures -2- • tir ' NOTICE OF HEARING REGARDING PROPOSED RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, TO EXERCISE RIGHT • OF EMINENT DOMAIN TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY FOR DRAIN- AGE AND FLOWAGE PURPOSES. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Code of. Civil Pro- cedure Section 1245.235, that on Wednesday, Marche 1980, at 7:00 p.m. at 9161 Baseline Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California, you will have the opportunity to appear and to be heard on the following matters relative to the proposed "Resolution of Nec- essity" attached hereto and intended to be adopted by the City Countil of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, as the gov- erning board of said City: (1) Whether the public interest and necessity require the project described in the proposed Resolution of Necessity; (2) Whether the project is planned or located, or planned and located, in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; and, (3) Whether the property sought to be acquired is neces- sary for the project. Failure to file a written request to appear and to be . heard within fifteen (15) days after the date of this Notice will result in waiver of the right to appear and be heard. A written request to appear and to be heard may be filed with the City Clerk, 9320 -C Baseline Road, Rancho Cucamonga, Cali- fornia 91730. NOTE: The scheduled Hearing will not be concerned with the fair market value of the property sought to be acquired through the right of eminent domain. Information regarding the fair market value appraisal of the property may be obtained by calling Robert E. Dougherty, Assistant City Attorney, at (714) 983 -9393. DATED: . 1980. LAUREN M. WASSERMAN, City Clerk City of Rancho Cucamonga, California BY: Deputy City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, TO EXERCISE RIGHT OF EMINENT DOMAIN TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY FOR DRAINAGE AND FLOWAGE PURPOSES. RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cuca- monga, California: The public safety, welfare, convenience, interest and nec- essity require the acquisition by the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, of the property hereinafter described for public use, to wit: for the maintenance of storm drains and other structures for the drainage and flowage of water. That the City of Rancho Cucamonga is authorized to acquire • the property by eminent domain pursuant to Government Code Section 37350.5. That the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga finds and determines that: (1) The public interest and necessity require the pro- posed project. (2) The proposed project is planned, or located, or planned and located, in the manner that will be the most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury. (3) The property described herein is necessary for the proposed project. _.. .... ♦h_ n{1., of nannhn r,,,mmnnua -Z' •1 u C 1 lJ C-11 .10: AJA Planning Board Principals, west End Mayor George Gibson, City of Upland Councilman Michael Palombo, City of Rancho Cucamonga Councilwoman Faye Dastrup, City of Ontario Chief Roger Moulton, City of Montclair Lt. Paul Ingrau, City of Chino FROM: Steve Duncan, Regional Planning Director' Arrowhead Justice Association DATE: February 18, 1980 SUBJ: Information on Entitlement Jurisdiction Formation, Roles, and Aes onelbilities Uader the Justice S stem Imk�ovement Act Mr. Wasserman (Rancho Cucamonga) and Mr. Gomez (Ontario) have brought to our attention the possible intent of the West End cities to form a combination entitlement Jurisdiction under the provisions of the Justice System Improvement Act of 1979 (JSIA). The attached materials should be carefully considered in your jurisdictions' deliberations on this issue. Our staff will make every effort to be available to you and your councils during the course of these deliberations, and we encourage you to contact us if you have any further questions. As you well know from your participation on the AJA Planning Board, many of the guidelines (e.g., financial management) and the specific dollar allocations have yet to be finalized. However, the March 1 1980 date for declaration of intent i remains firm. Thus f any Jurisdiction fails to make a declaration to participate in an entitlement Jurisdiction they automatically become classified as "balance of state" (which means they would be required to participate in the state's needs assessment process but would have to compete for balance -of -state funds on a project -by- project basis with no assurance of a specified amount of funding). Also, the amount of formula (Part D) funds represents an absolute ceiling on JSIA funding from that source; i.e., if your funding amount is $87,331 with $16724 allocated to a juvenile justice project (to fulfill the requirement that 19.157, be allocated to projects devoted primarily to adjudicated delinquents) and $6550 allocated to planning k administration (7.5°), the maximum amount of Federal formula funds available for other projects is $64,057. Thus in addition to the required ten percent (lOp) local hard cash match, if a project requiring a higher amount of funding were desired the balance would have to be provided through local funds. Finally, current information indicates that the 1981 -83 plan b (following esubmitt declaration edtotheState probably have to Thank you for your consideration of this information and we look forward to seeing you at the February 26 AJA Planning Hoard meeting. cc: City Managers /Administrator, I_ AD. - l_ „ ' Worksheet on Justice System Improvement Act- Impact on west End (per request of L. Wasserman and P. Gomez) Tentative allocation of FY81 funds under the JSIA (column one • represents a "high" amount based on the President's proposed budget and column two represents an amount based on funding at the current PY80 level) FY80 FYSl level_ Chino $12,511 4 9,060 Montclair 13,791 9,987 Ontario 29,757 21,549 Rancho Cucamonga* 15,636 11,323 Upland 15,636 11,323 Total, West End $87,331 $63,242 Total, excluding Rancho Cucamonga $71,695 $51,919 Total, AJA $713,435 $503,850 *since no criminal justice expenditure data is available for Rancho Cucamonga through the official JSIA statistics, the Upland amounts are used due to population comparability Major criteria for qualification as an entitlement jurisdiction: 1) total population of combination must exceed 100,000 • 2) total criminal justice expenditures must exceed 0.15; of state -local total criminal justice expenditures 3) combination must receive at least $50,000 in formula(Part D) funds based on the final, approved JSIA budget 0 Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention Act funds: Based on current estimates approximately $162,000 may be available to AJA; a proportionate amount for West End would be $45,000: however, these funds are allocated by the state and there is no assured formula for distribution. Constraints on Use of Formula (Part D) funds: 1) must meet program guidelines contained in legislation; 2) at least 19.15, must be allocated for "juvenile justice maintenance of eTfort" for programs primarily serving adjudicated delinquents (WTC602) 3) only up to 7.5% of funds may be used for planning and administration Organizational. Requirements for Entitlement Jurisdictions: 1) must assure compliance with all Federal and State guidelines and ability to conduct jurisdiction needs assessment, compile a three year plan, provide program and fiscal monitoring and evaluation, and submit an annual performance report as well as providing specific program development and monitoring support for funded projects 2) must form and staff a Criminal Justice Advisory Board providing representation from each participating jurisdiction and criminal justice and community agencies 3) must r ent jurisdiction. eassurance that no funds are received from any other tilt EAST MILL STREkT / euitDlNG II - IST FLOW ' SAN BEANnRDIND, CA 92415 PFOMs 383 -1112 T01 AJA PLANNING BOARD PRINCIPALS FROM, STEVE DUNCAN, REGIONAL PLANNING DIRECTOR DATE, February 18, 1980 SUBJECT, UPDATED FY 81 FORMULA ALLOCATIONS FOR REGION V JURISDICTIONS UNDER THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT ACT The following are specific allocations for FY 81 formula funds under the JSIA provided by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The total of these allocations, together with those for jurisdictions not yet listed, represent the oleo ntial total formula allocation for the AJA as a single entitlement jurisdiction. This information should be forwarded as appropriate to your council members and administrators. The allocations are based on the jurisdiction's percent of total state Criminal is lustiCe Expenditures as reported in the 1978 Survey of Criminal Justice x pure and Employment. The first column represents the Part D (formula) amount obtained from the President's proposed budget and the second column represents the current FY 80 level (i.e.,if Congress holds the program to its current level). Proposed FY 81 Formula Amount Jurisdiction Formula Amount at Current FY 80 Level City of Barstow $ 5,564 $ 4,029 City of Chino 12,511 9,060 City of Colton 8,724 6,318 City of Fontana 8,975 6,500 City of Montclair 13,791 9,987 City of Ontario 29,757 21,549 City of Redlands 15,976 11,569 City of San Bernardino 74,256 53,773 County of San Bernardino 523,897 379,383 City of Upland 15,636 11,323 City of Victorville 4 348 J1i435 3 149 InEik Please note that these amounts are tentative and do not include Juvenile Jus- tice and Delinquency Prevention Act Funds (which are not subject to the same allocation criteria, i.e., there is no "formula" assurance of fixed allocations 9 to specific jurisdictions). Also, these above amounts would represent the base amount from which (a) the planning and administration funds would be generated (up to 7K% formula funds), and (b) the requirements for adequate share and maintenance of effort would be met. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call. SD:pg 2 1 0 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, TO EXERCISE RIGHT OF EMINENT DOMAIN TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY FOR DRAINAGE AND FLOWAGE PURPOSES. RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cuca- monga, California: The public safety, welfare, convenience, interest and nec- essity require the acquisition by the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, of the property hereinafter described for public use,, to wit: for the maintenance of storm drains and other structures for the drainage and flowage of water. That the City of Rancho Cucamonga is authorized to acquire • the property by eminent domain pursuant to Government Code Section 37350.5. That the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga finds and determines that: (1) The public interest and necessity require the pro- posed project. (2) The proposed project is planned, or located, or planned and located, in the manner that will be the most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury. (3) The property described herein is necessary for the proposed project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Rancho Cucamonga is hereby authorized to acquire, in the name of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the following described lands by donation, purchase or by condemnation in accordance with the provisions of the Constitu- tion of the State of California and the laws of the State of Cali- fornia relating to eminent domain. That the City Attorney of the City of Rancho Cucamonga is hereby authorized and instructed to prepare and prosecute, in the • name of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, such suit or suits in the lawful Court having jurisdiction thereof as is necessary to con- demn said lands for the purposes hereinabove described, The real property to which the City of Rancho Cucamonga is, by this Resolution, authorized to acquire is situate, lying and being in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernar- dino, State of California, and is particularly described as fol- lows: The Easterly 20.00 feet of the Westerly 92.00 feet of Parcel No. 3 of Parcel eIdp Nu. 65 as per pi t - v rde3 Boo l, 1 of Parcel Maps, page 49,records of said County. 41 PASSED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, on 1980, by the following vote: AYES; -1- February 20, 1980 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Regular Meeting 1. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Council was held in the Lion's Park Community Center, 9161 Baseline Road, Rancho Cucamonga, on Wednesday, February 20, 1980. The meeting was called to order at 7:06 p.m. by Mayor James C. Frost who led in the pledge to the flag. Present: Councilmen Phillip D. Schlosser, Jon Mikels, Michael Palombo, Arthur Bridge, and Mayor James C. Frost. Also present were staff members: City Manager, Lauren Wasserman; Assistant City Attorney, Robert Dougherty; Community Development Director, Jack Lam; Finance Director, Harry Empey; Community Services Director, Bill Holley; and Assistant City Manager, Jim Robinson. Absent: City Engineer, Lloyd Hobbs Approval of February 6, 1980 minutes. Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Palombo to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion carried 5 -0. 2. ANNOUNCEMENTS. a. SCAG General Assembly meeting on March 5 -6. b. Staff requested that an item be added: 6F, Resolution of Necessity for eminent domain. c. Staff requested item 4f be deleted from the Consent Calendar. d. Consent Calendar 4b should be as follows: Set public hearing date on March 5, 1980 for General Plan Amendments: No. 80 -01 for T S S Development, located S/E corner of Highland and Haven. No. 80 -02 for Lewis Homes, located S/E comer of Baseline and Haven. No. 80 -03 for Daon Company, located N/E corner of Arrow and Haven. 3. COMMISSION REPORTS. a. Advisory Commission - none. b. Historical Commission - none. Council requested a report be made at this time regarding the recent atom damage. Mayor gave an overall summary of the flood problems in the City. He said this was the first atom of any magnitude which had been handled by our own city staff. Two years ago, the County was the agency responsible for the road maintenance. Speaking on behalf of the Council, he complemented the staff for the job they did despite the lack of equipment and the many other problems they encountered. Bridge reported that at the last Zone 1 Flood Control meeting it was pointed out that there were no further funds available to the cities for this next fiscal year other than for maintenance and for projects already under way. We could not expect any help from the County for flood control. City Council Minutes February 20, 1980 Page 2 Mr. Wasserman reported on the capability that the City had presently in dealing with storms. He said the City had only fifty employees; many other cities had more than that in their maintenance departments. He reported that volunteer help was received by many organizations, and we were able to use the equipment of some of the local project contractors (at a great deal of expense to the City). We also had available from four to eight County maintenance employees who worked under contract for us. Paul Rougeau, Associate Civil Engineer, reported on the major problem areas in the City. He said the City had two major areas which were: (1) Hellman, and (2) Beryl. Mr. Wasserman highlighted some of the alternatives which were available for funding community -wide projects. a. Seek voter approval to change the City's budgetary appropriation limit. b. Increase appropriation limit in accordance with emergency provisions of Proposition 4. c. Submit a General Obligation Bond Issue to the voters. d. Seek Tax Override approval of voters. e. Establish Special Assessment Districts to finance essential storm drain improvements. At 7:45 p.m. Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer, arrived. The meeting was turned over to him who reported on the problems, solutions, costs for improvements, estimates of damages, etc. Mayor opened the meeting to the public. Roy Royster added that even Omnitrans had problems. One of their buses stalled during the storm. Mr. Blasingame, 6895 Carnelian Street, said there was about five inches of water that ran through his house. There was no way possible to get the water out. Mayor said this was something which could be worked out with the Engineering De- partment. Mr. Paul Rogerson, 8724 Avalon Street, said the problems never existed until the street was raised and new curbs put in. He felt this was the responsibility of the City. Mr. Bob Hatfield, 7437 Hellman Avenue, asked about the Beryl wash basin. He said it was very narrow and if any of the eucalyptus should fall and clog the basin, this would cause flooding of the homes on Hellman. Mayor suggested that two councilmembers, two planning commissioners, and staff members sit down to come up with some alternatives. Hr. Wasserman pointed out that there was already a storm drain committee in existence with Schlosser and Bridge as council representatives. Council concurred this selection was fine for this purpose also. Mayor called a recess at 8:25 p.m. At 8:35 p.m. the meeting reconvened with all Council members present. City Council Minutes February 20, 1980 Page 3 4. CONSENT CALENDAR. a. Approval of Warrants: Register No. 80 -2 -20 for $98,989.18. b. Set Public Hearing date on March 5, 1980 for General Plan Amendments: No. 80 -01 for T 6 S Development, located s/e corner of Highland and Haven. No. 80 -02 for Lewis Homes, located s/e corner of Baseline and Haven. No. 80 -03 for Dann Company, located n/e corner of Arrow and Haven. c. Refer claim for damages by Gladys Perry in the amount of $2000 to the City Attorney for handling. d. Approval of Alcoholic Beverage License renewal for Soup 'N Stuff, 9923 -H Archibald Avenue. (James R. and Jean A. Hyland). e. Tracts 9402 -9403: Improvement Agreement Extension. Owner: Olympus Pacific Corporation. Recommendation: Based upon the percentage of completed improvements and the reasons for the delays, staff recommends a six -month extension for the Agreement for tracts 9402 -9403. f -- Approve}- e£- Agreemen!- fer- engeneeeinE- eerv}eee- en- 6hee<h- Sereet- and -High }and Avenuer-- A}ser- enlher4ze- Meyex- end- 6 }!y- g}evk- te-ezecnte- the- Agreeeeets. (Item removed from Consent Calendar). g. Parcel Map No. 5671: Acceptance of bonds and agreements. Located on three 5+ acres of land located on the north side of Almond at the north end of Carnelian. Subdivider: Andrew Barmakian. Performance Bond (road) $ 8,500 Labor 6 Material Bond (road) $ 8,500 Recommendation: For City Council to adopt Resolution No. 80 -16 approving Parcel Map 5671 and the improvement agreement. Also, direct the City Engineer and City Clerk to sign the map and direct Mayor and City Clerk to sign the agreement on behalf of the City. RESOLUTION NO. 80 -16 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 5671, (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 5671) IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY. h. Director Review No. 79 -56: For construction of a building on the north side of Whittram east of Etiwanda Avenue. Request by: Secondo Colombero. Recommendation: It Is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 80 -17 approving the agreement and direct the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the agreement in behalf of the City. RESOLUTION NO. 80 -17 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVE- MENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 79 -56. 1 I City Council Minutes February 20, 1980 Page 4 i. Release of the following bonds: Tract 9378: Located on the northeast corner of Hillside Road and Archibald Ave. Owner: Regency Equestrian Estates Labor and Material Bond (water) $ 19,500 Tract 9379: Located on the east side of Archibald Avenue at Cinch Ring Road. Owner: Regency Equestrian Estates Labor and Material Bond (water) $ 10,000 Tract 9432: Located on the east side of Haven Avenue south of 19th Street. Owner: Chevron Construction Company Labor and Material Bond (water) $ 25,500 Labor and Material Bond (sewer) $ 16,000 Labor and Material Bond (road) $ 81,000 Tract 9433: Located on the east side of Haven Avenue south of 19th Street. Owner: Chevron Construction Company Labor and Material Bond (water) $ 19,500 Labor and Material Bond (sever) $ 12,500 Labor and Material Bond (road) $ 42,000 Tract 9434: Located on the east side of Haven Avenue south of 19th Street. Owner: Chevron Construction Company Performance Bond (water) $ 17,000 Performance Bond (sewer) $ 17,000 Tract 9636: Located on the southwest corner of Lemon Avenue and Archibald Avenue. Owner: Chevron Construction Company Labor and Material Bond (water) $ 14,000 Labor and Material Bond (sewer) $ 9,000 Labor and Material Bond (road) $ 40,000 Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Mikels to approve the Consent Calendar with the deletion of item f. Motion carried by following vote: AYES: Schlosser, Mikels, Palombo, Bridge, and Frost. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS. 5A. An ordinance establishing the official date of service commencement for the Planning Commissioners. Staff report by Jack Lam. The current Planning Commission was appointed on March 8, 1978. According to the present Ordinance, Commissioners Dahl's and Garcia's terms of office will expire on March 8, 1980. The urgency ordinance provides for an extension of the terms of office for all Planning Commissioners and establishes June 1, 1978 as the official date of appointment for the present Planning Commission. Motion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Palombo to approve the urgency Ordinance No. 13 -A and to waive the entire reading. City Council Minutes February 20, 1980 Page 5 The mayor opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response, the hearing was closed, Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Schlosser, Mikels, Palombo, Bridge, and Frost. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. Number and title read by Wasserman. ORDINANCE NO. 13 -A (urgency) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A PROCEDURE FOR EXTENSION AND ESTABLISHING JUNE 1, 1978 AS THE OFFICIAL DATE OF SERVICE COMMENCEMENT FOR THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSIONERS AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF. 6. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS. 6A. School Fees. Staff report by Lauren Wasserman. (Mr. Empey was to give the report, however, he had been called out on an emergency). It was being requested that the $17,548.00 in SB -201 funds which was being held by the City be released immediately to the Alta Loma School District. Also, another $30,000 paid by the Olympus Pacific Company would be released once the appropriate agreements were signed by Olympus Pacific. The City Attorney pointed out that we would still require the signing of the hold harmless and indemnification agreements. Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Mikels to release immediately the $17,584 in SB-201 funds to the Alta Loma School District which are on deposit in a trust account with the City. Also, it is recommended that the City pursue the signing of the necessary legal documents required to release the remaining $30,000 which is being held by the City. Mayor opened the meeting to the public for comments. There being no response, the public portion was closed. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Schlosser, Mikels, Palombo, Bridge, and Frost. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. 6B. Clarification of policy regarding issuance of permits for fireworks stands. Staff report by Jim Robinson. Mr. Robinson outlined the present procedure in selecting the groups for permits for fireworks stands. He said staff wanted to come to Council and let them know there were other alternatives they might want to consider in determining the groups to receive permits for 1980. Todate we have received six requests for stands for 1980. Mayor asked if anyone in the audience wanted to respond to this issue. There was no response. Mikels stated that the policy for this year was already established as outlined in the minutes of March 21, 1979. He said unless Council wanted to change this, then no action would be required at this time. Motion: Moved by Schlosser, seconded by Palombo to approve permits for fireworks for 1980 for the Sons of Italy, Miss Softball America, Alta Loma Cucamonga Jr. Women's Club, Rotary Club, and the Alta Loma Little League. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Schlosser, Mikels, Palombo, and Frost. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINED: Bridge (He said he abstained as a protest to fireworks as a Valley for the City). City Council Minutes February 20, 1980 Page 6 For 1981, the Mayor suggested that Council not make any commitments since opinion could change after the vote in the City of Chino on April 8, and to wait until review of data from fire and police agencies of potential dangers. Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Palombo to defer any decision for future years until a later time. Motion carried by following vote: AYES: Schlosser, Mikels, Palombo, Bridge, and Frost. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINED: None. 6C Request from Arrowhead i e iati i pgrticivation for fiscal year 7980 -B1, Staff report by Lauren Wasserman. The Arrowhead Justice Association has requested that the City declare its intent to continue membership in the Arrowhead Justice Association for the coming fiscal year. If the City retains its membership in the Association, approximately $745,000 would be available to the region for various types of criminal justice grant activities. The City's matching share for the next fiscal year is estimated at approximately $1,664. Mr. Wasserman reported that there was some interest amongst the West End cities for forming a separate criminal justice planning agency. They felt that available funds had been routed to the County without adequate consideration of any of the cities. Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Bridge to remain in the AJA for the coming year and direct the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the Declaration of Intent to participate in the group for fiscal year 1980 -81 with authorization to investigate other alternatives for future years. Motion carried by following vote: AYES: Schlosser, Mikels, Palombo, Bridge, and Frost. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. 6D. Travel funds for consultant coordination meetings. Staff report by Lauren Wasserman There have been times during the course of the General Plan program, as well as with other consultant projects, when there arises a need for staff to attend out -of -town meetings of importance with consultants and other related parties in order to assure the best possible coordination of work. A budget had not been established for this purpose, therefore, each travel request must be approved by Council. Sometimes a meeting is necessary prior to a City Council meeting in which there would not be adequate time to make such a request. Staff was requesting that a contingency fund be established for such travel purposes. Motion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Schlosser to approve a travel contingency fund in an amount not to exceed $500.00 for the purposes of travel relating to consultant projects. Motion carried by following vote: AYES: Schlosser, Mikels, Palombo, Bridge, and Frost. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. 6E. Reversion of acreage of Tract No. 9399 and 9400 for property located the north side of Banyan, west side of Beryl. Staff report by Jack Lam. City Council had set February 20 for public hearing to consider the reversion issue. Bonds have been posted and agreements signed. Therefore, Council has the option to accept these securities and agreements or to continue with the reversion. Bridge said he was strongly inclined to take the opinion to return this to acreage. Be also disliked abandoned lemon groves. Therefore, we would like to see the design im- proved and asked if the design could be changed instead of going back to acreage. The City Attorney said this would require a complete redesign and to do this properly this should he reverted to acreage and have the developer submit a new tentative map. This, then, could be processed according to new city standards. Lam recommended that this be referred to the Planning Commission where they could work with the applicant in the redesign of the tracts. The City Attornev said we are not in the tentative map stage. but at the final map stage which has been recorded and reversion is the only way to accomplish these things. City Council Minutes February 20, 1980 Page 7 Mayor opened the meeting for public comments Dr. Baldonistated they were trying to do everything right. However, he explained the problems they had encountered todate. This was the first day be had heard anything about the reversion. Nick Rocco, owner- partner, read a letter they had received from John Martin, Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Department. He stated the letter did not make it clear when the securities needed to be posted. They thought they were getting everthing in two weeks early only to discover they were five days late. Motion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Schlosser to set March 5 for public hearing for the purpose of considering reversion to acreage to tracts 9799 and 9400. Motion carried by following vote: AYES: Schlosser, Mikels, Palombo, Bridge, and Frost. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. 6F. Added item: Resolution of Necessity. Staff report by Robert Dougherty, City Attorney. The original Resolution of Necessity regarding the Teesdale property which was adopted on November 15, 1978 was defective in that reference to the particular State law authorizing condemnation was omitted. This had been discovered shortly after the commencement of the law suit. No corrective action had been taken because it appeared a settlement would be made by Mr. Teesdale. It now appears that the City will have to proceed with the litigation. Therefore, a new notice of hearing needs to be set and a new Resolution of Necessity needs to be adopted. It is recommended that March 19, 1980 be set for the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Palombo to set March 19, 1980 for public hearing for consideration of the Resolution of Necessity for the Teesdale property. Motion carried by following vote: AYES: Schlosser, Mikels, Palombo, Bridge, and Frost. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. 7. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS. Mr. Dougherty made an oral report on the Agin vs. the City of Tiburon case. This case was now going before the Supreme Court and a plea for financial aid was being made to interested cities. Mr. Dougherty said the outcome of this would be very beneficial to the City of Rancho Cucamonga in regards to its zoning. He recommended that we help support this issue. Motion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Palombo to table the item until March 5 and direct the City Attorney to contact the City of Tiburon to find out anticipated costs. Motion carried by following vote: AYES: Schlosser, Mikels, Palombo, Bridge, and Frost. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. 8. NEW BUSINESS. a. Mr. Hobbs announced that he had just received word that an estimate of $480,000 had been made for damage during this last storm. 9. ADJOURNMENT. Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Mikels to adjourn. Motion carried by following vote: AYES: Schlosser., Mikels, Palombo, Bridge, and Frost. NOES: None. The meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m. b Respecc'tf'u/ /illy ^m�i�tteed,, es Beverly Aluthelet Deputy City Clerk