No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979/09/19 - Minutes September 19, 1979 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Regular Meeting 1. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Council was held in the multi-purpose room at Carnelian Elementary School, 7105 Carnelian Street, Rancho Cucamonga, on Wednesday, September 19, 1979. The meeting was called to order at 7:08 p.m. by Mayor James C. Frost who led in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. Present: Councilmen Schlosser, Mikels, Palombo, Bridge and Mayor Frost. Also present were: City Manager Lauren Wasserman, City Attorney Sam Crowe, Assistant City Manager Jim Robinson, Community Development Director Jack Lam, City Engineer Lloyd Hubbs, Finance Director Harry Empey, Community Services Director Bill Holley. Approval of Minutes of August 29, 1979 and September 5, 1979. Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Palombo to approve both sets of minutes. Motion carried 5-0. 2. ANNOUNCEMENTS. 1. Mr. Holley announced that the Community Services Building should be completed by November 14. There had been delays in shipment of materials which accounted for the extra time. 2. A special meeting of the Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, September 20 at the Neighborhood Community Facility at Arrow and Archibald. 3. Advisory Committee meeting on Thursday, September 20 at 6:30 p.m. in the Library Conference Room. 4. The William Lyon Company will be making a presentation on their special project for Etiwanda on October 4 at 7:00 p.m. to be held at the Middle School in Etiwanda. 5. Mikels announced he will be attending the SCAG General Assembly Meeting on October 3-4. 6. Mayor announced he and several staff members had attended a League of California Cities'solar energy workshop on Friday, September 14. 7. Mr. Wasserman requested item 4-c be removed from the Consent Calendar since it had been approved at the previous meeting. 3. COMMITTEE REPORTS. a. Advisory Committee - none. b. Historical Commission. Mr. Gorczyca reported the Commission was working on a continuous inventory of historical sites in the area. On October 9 they would be considering an historical landmark designation for the Alta Loma railroad station. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR. Mikels requested items "d" and "f" be removed for further discussion. City Council Minutes September 19, 1979 Page 2 a. ~pproval of Warrants in the amount of $197,895.97. Register No. 79-9-19. (1) b. Claim against the City in the amount of $30,000 by Sarah Jeanie Petrey be forwarded to City Attorney for handling. (2) e. Permission to seek quotes and purchase one (1) truck - Approved in 1979-80 Budget. (3) g. Approval of Agreement with Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce Request for approval of the transfer of funds to the city for the Industrial Specific Plan and authorize Mayor to sign agreements. (4) h. Approval of Ag.reement with Rancho Cucamon~a Chamber of Commerce Request approval and authorize Mayor to sign agreement to transfer funds in the amount of $43,000 for the purpose of the preparation of a Fiscal Impmgt Model. i. Set October 3, 1979, for public_ hearing for Zone Change ZONE CHANGE NO. 79-08 - MERIDIAN - A Change of zone from A-1 (Limited Agriculture) to M-2 (Heavy Industrial) for 38.56 acres of land located on the north side of Arrow, 1,300' east of 1-15. (5) j. Request Approval and authorize Mayor to sign ~n~al renewal of Cooperation Agreement for Community Development Block Grant Funds. (6) k. Acceptance of Parcel Map 5194 - The Parcel Map was teptatively approved by the City Engineer on July 16, 1979. The land division is located on the south side of Ninth Street west of Hellman Avenue consists of 6.2 acres and 8 lots. The condition of approval required the development of a new street named "Flower". The developer, Howard Hucks, has submitted bonds for security as follows: Performance Bond (Road) $17,000 Labor & Material (Road) $17,000 RESOLUTION NO. 79-76 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 5194 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 5194) (7) 1. Release of Bond for County Minor Subdivision W77-0703 (Northwest corner of 19th Street and Carnelian Street) It is recommended that the City Council direct the City Clerk to notify the Bank of America to release the $26,000 letter of credit in favor of Douglas Hone, Kathleen Hone and Douglas Gorgen. (7) m. Release of Bond for County Minor Subdivision 77-0559 (Southeast corner of Base Line and Archibald) It is recommended that the City Council direct the City Clerk to notify Bank of America to release the set aside letter of $8,200 in the name of Douglas Hone due to the replacement by bonds from Diversified Investmept. City Council Minutes September 19, 1979 Page 3 n. Resolution of Intent to Vacate a Portion of Banyan Street - Tract 9444. It i s recommended that the Citv Council approve the Resolution of Intention to vacate Banyan Street and set the public hearing for October 3, 1979. --- RESOLUTION NO. 79-75 (8) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE A PORTION OF BANYAN STREET AS SHOWN ON MAP NO. V-003 FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Schlosser to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. Item "d" -- Mikels questioned section p on the agreement with Sedway/Cooke for (9) the completion of the general plan. Mr. Lam explained the consultants worked for and sent all information to the city staff who~in~t~rn'~distribnted and~re- leased the information. The consultant could not given any information out to anyone except the City. Total cost would be $112,000. Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Schlosser to approve the contract with Sedway/Cooke fnr the completion of the General Plan and preparation of the EIR and to authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement. Motion carried 5-0. Item "f" -- After discussion, Council concurred the approval of the contract (10) with MKGK for a fiscal impact model should be continued to the October 3 meeting with changes in the contract to include that the consultant would be working with the Council along with the city staff. Mr. Lam suggested using the term "City" instead of city staff. Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Palombo to continue item to the October 3 meeting. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Wasserman encouraged Council to contact city staff with any questions and suggestions before the next meeting. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS. 5A. Zone Change No. 79-06 by Westway Investments. A request to change the (11) zoning from M-R to M-1 for property located on the south side of 8th Street between Hellman and Archibald Avenues. Ordinance No. 83 before Council for second reading. Jack Lam presented the staff report. He explained the item had been held over from the August 1st meeting because the applicant had needed more time to record the covenant, conditions and restrictions. This had now 'been accomplished. Mayor opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Bridge to approve Ordinance No. 83 and waive entire reading. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Schlosser, Mikels, Palombo, Bridge, Frost. NOES: None ABSENT: None. Title and number read by Wasserman. City Council Minutes September 19, 1979 Page 4 ORDINANCE NO. 83 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 209-171-07 AND 209-171-20 FROM M-R TO M-1 FOR 18.75 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 8TH STREET --- BETWEEN HELLMAN AVENUE AND ARCHIBALD AVENUE. (12) 5B. Ordinance No. 70-B before Council for second reading. An amendment to the -- original historic preservation ordinance to include designation of points of historical interest. Mr. Holley presented the staff report. Mayor opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no comments, the hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Palombo to approve Ordinance No. 70-B and waive entire reading. Motion carried by following vote: AYES: Schlosser, Mikels, Palombo, Bridge, Frost. NOES: None ABSENT: None. Title and number read by Wasserman. ORDINANCE NO. 70-B (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF TIlE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 70 CREATING AN HISTORICAL PRESERVATION COMMISSION TO ACT IN AN ADVISORY CAPACITY TO THE CITY COUNCIL IN THE IDENTIFICATION AND PRESERVATION OF HISTORICAL OBJECTS, EVENTS, STRUCTURES AND SITES AND TO IDENTIFY PERSONS OF HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. (13) .~.C. Ordinance No. 85 before Council for second reading. An ordinance declaring certain acts to be unlawful within public parks in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Staff report by Bill Holley. Mayor opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no comments, the hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Palombo to approve Ordinance No. 85 and waive entire reading. Motion carried by following vote: AYES: Schlosser, Mikels, Palombo, Bridge, Frost. NOES: None ABSENT: None. Title and number read by Wasserman. ORDINANCE NO. 85 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA DECLARING CERTAIN ACTS TO BE UN- LAWFUL WITHIN THE LIMITS OF CITY-OWNED OR -OPERATED PARKS OR OTHER RECREATION FACILITIES AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR THE VIOLATION THEREOF. (14) .5D. Ordinance No. 86 before Council for first reading. An ordinance establish- ing the residential growth management plan and Resolution No. 79-74 which establishes a residential assessment rating system. Mayor stated there would not be a first reading this evening. Council would listen to input and then come back for first reading later. Mr. Lam made the staff presentation outlining the growth management plan and the changes which had been made in the ordinance. City staff had met with several groups during the week, and Mr. Lam also presented a list of issues and alternatives to the Council which had come out of these meetings. City Council Minutes September 19, 1979 Page 5 Meeting was opened to Council to ask staff questions. There were none. Mayor called a recess at 8:15 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:30 p.m. with all members of the Council and staff present. Mayor opened the meeting for public hearing. Herman Rempel, Chairman of the Planning Commission, made some introductory .comments giving some background to the growth management plan. Tony Cover, President of the Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce, requested Council to table the item for at least two weeks to allow the Chamber time to look at the amendments and problems. Leonard Gorczyca, Chairman of the Historical Commission, stated that in section B-4 "should be added the word, "historical, . Ken Willis, BIA, also requested that Council table the item at least two weeks in order for them to look at the recommendations made by the staff. Bob Young, representing the Ontario- Chino Board of Realtors, requested a con- tinuance in order to work with the Chamber of Commerce in evaluating the recommenda- tions. Council considered whether to hear public input on the Resolution at this time. It was decided to proceed, and Mayor closed the public hearing on the ordinance and opened the public hearing on the Resolution. Sharon Romero, member of the Alta Loma Advisory Committee, suggested a warantee system be included. Ken Willis stated they also were concerned in the area of warantees and that this was also of national concern. There was a national insurance program available and the local groups had been invited to join. He stated that locally the Lewis Homes had the best warantee program and asked Mr. Ralph Lewis to explain his program. Mr. Lewis suggested that warantees not be a part of the point system. He pointed out that the HOW (Home Owners Warantee) program was very expensive for the builder. He said his organization tried to stand behind their products for a reasonable length of time. The public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Schlosser, seconded by Palombo to continue the public hearing to the October 3 meeting on Ordinance No. 86 and Resolution No. 79-74. Council deliberated whether to give the ordinance first reading and wait on the resolution. This would give them additional time to work on the problems before the enabling ordinance went into effect. Mikels suggested that Council should give some input to staff so the revisions in the ordinance and resolution would reflect the wishes of the Council. Palombo withdrew his second on the original motion. Call was made for another second. Mayor Frost seconded the motion. The motion to continue the public hearing to the October 3 meeting on the Ordinance and Resolution was approved by the following vote: AYES: Schlosser, Palombo, Bridge, Frost. NOES: Mikels (he felt the ordinance could pass the first reading with some discussion). Mikels suggested some modifications in sections B-2 and B-9 of the Resolution. Section B-2 should be worded, "to help insure adequate school facilities .... are provided." Section B-9 "to encourage .... "should be added. Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Palombo to approve the above changes in Sections B-2 and B-9. Motion carried by following vote: AYES: Schlosser, Mikels, Palombo, Bridge, and Frost. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. City Council Minutes September 19, 1979 Page 6 Mikels questioned the order of 6-B and 6-C. He felt the order should be reversed. He addressed the question of whether a commitment to an assessment district was reversable to the city attorney. The city attorney said any commitment would be conditional. Since all three had to be met anyway, Mikels did not pursue the issue. Mikels questioned the wording in Section 7-A. Mayor suggested the section be reworded. Mikels expressed concern that a project of lower pOints cohld preempt a project with higher points simply because of the position of having been delayed from another period. Motion: Moved by Mikels to have staff revise language in entire section 7-A and bring back to Council. Mikels questioned Jack Lam if the staff had exhausted all alternatives in the issue. Mr. Lam pointed out there was another alternative to have all applications, even those coming from a prior period, be treated equally within that period. It would be by total competition within each period. Palombo suggested that Council sit down in a work session to work out these issues. Mikels said Council should give staff some direction on the ordinance now. Bridge expressed that they should go with a total competition plan. Council concurred to have staff come back with alternatives for the underlined sections. Mikels withdrew his motion. Mayor then went over the issues and alternative list which had been presented earlier by Mr. Lam. Council concurred with the mayor's comments which were: ISSUE 1: Priority of Allocation of Sewer and School Facilities. Section 7 of the Growth Management Ordinance establishes a pciority for allocation of school and sewer facilities in the event such facilities are unavailable to approved projects. The issue has been raised that in the event a Planned Community receives the highest point total in a review period, that project might obtain all thc available 'allocation for ~that review period and possibly, for successive review periods at the exclusion of other developments (smaller projects). Alternatives: A. Establish a percentage of allocation per review period over which no one applicant can receive further allocation~ For example, during any review period, no one applicant can receive more than X% of the available allocation. This ensures that no one developer will acquire all the available allocations within a review period. B. Establish two categories of allocation: (1) Planned Communities; and (2) All other development. The total allocation would be split between the two (e.g. X% to Planned Communities and Y% to all other developers). Within each category, no one project could receive more than Z% of the total available, This ensures that both the Planned Communities and all other developers would be given a chance to build. C. Ail residential development projects which meet or exceed the thresh- hold point limit and receive approval within any single review period that participate in a non-preferential, non-exclusive, "equal participation to all" solution to the School and/or water And sewer facility impaction pro-. blem, acceptable by the school districts and CCWD will be allocated school and/or sewer and water capacity based on their percentage of participation in the solution. Provided that such allocation shall go to those projects having the highest point rating. Each participants contribution shall be based on an equal proportion of the whole giving no preference to size or financial contribution. This alternative would eliminate the last paragraph on Page 109 of the agenda packet. City Council Minutes September 19, 1979 Page 7 D. Do not change the Ordinance. Staff recommendations: Consider all four alternatives and base a decision on the merits of each. Council had previously agreed this Section 7-A needed to be reworked. ISSUE NO. 2: Requirement of School Certification Prior to Receival of Sewer Letter. Section 5, Mandatory Criteria, requires that the school certification be met prior to obtaining sewer letters. The suggestion has been broached that the applicant obtain sewer letters first, and then the school letter. Alternatives: A. Do not change this section of the Or,tinance. Schools will issue certi- fication letters only when their requirements have been met. The issuance of school certification letter before a sewer letter is a statement of City policy that the school issue is paramount at this time in the City's development. B. Amend Section 5-B, last sentence, to read: "Written certification or evi- dence of Agreements from the school district that the applicant agrees to cooperate and participate in a solution to the sChool problem (signed by the applicant and the school districts) be obtained prior to meeting criteria 'C'." This amendment would further clarify this criteria and at the same time insure that each applicant will work with school districts to provide school facilities. This alternative emphasizes the City's position relative to the school issue while requiring applicants to agree to work with the school districts. A final certification would still be required for the issuance of a building permit. Staff's recommendation: Adopt Alternative B. Council had discussed this issue earlier in the meeting. ISSUE NO. 3: Community Development Director dertermination of the Point Ratings. The issue has been raised that Section 7 of the Growth Management Ordinance allows the Community Development Director too much discretion in determining the point ratings. Alternatives: A. Amend Section 7, Paragraph 1, of the Ordinance to read as follows: "Ail applications for residential development projects shall be rated by the Residential Assessment System adopted by the City Council." and amend Section 7, Paragraph 5 of the Ordinance to read as follows: "Within 5 days after the point rating determination, the Community Develop- ment Director shall cause a written notice ..... " Since the point rating system is a synthesis of the various City departments and divisions review of projects, it is more proper to indicate that the review is by the system rather than the Director. Staff'~ rccommcndation; Adopt the change as listed above. Council concurred with the recommendation. City Council Minutes September 19, 1979 Page 8 ISSUE NO. 4: Appeals are not restrictive enough. The issue is that any aggrieved person, groups, etc., may appeal the point ratings of a project. The possibility exists that builders with lower scores might appeal the point ratings to builders with higher 'scores to hold up processing, and then, hold up approval of the higher rated project. --- Alternatives: According to the City Attorney, the City is required by State law, not to be unduly restrictive of any appeals. The City must allow any and -- all aggrieved persons the right of appeal. Staff's recommendation: Leave section as is. Council concurred with the recommendation. ISSUE NO. 5: Time Limits of proje~qt..~pproval do not take into account the possibili.ty of unavailable school or sewer facilities. Section 10, Time Limits of Approval, require expiration of a residential development project after twelve (12) months from date of approval, unless an extension is granted. The issue is, that if sewer or school facilities remain unavailable for 12 months, then projects will automatically expire. Thus, an "implied moratorium" is created, which prevents a developer from acting upon his project. Alternatives: Section 66452.6A of the State Subdivision Map Act, "stops the clock'(does not penalize the applicant in regard to time loss) on a tentative tract map in the event water and sewer facilities are not available. Shortage of school facilities do not "stop the clock" on a tentative tract, thus, the time limits of approval would remain in effect. An applicant may request a time extension by an additional 18 months allowing for a total expiration time of 30 months. Staff's recommendation: Leave Section 10 as is. Council concurred with this recommendation. ISSUE NO. 6: The drainage criteria is perceived to be unfair to the smaller projects. It is perceived that small projects "lose" 5 points in this category, even if there are no drainage problems. Alternatives: Increase the point total of criteria 1, (i.e. project has adequate drainage), from 5 points to 8 points, decrease the point total of criteria 2, (i.e. Master Planned Facilities) from 8 points to 2 points, eliminate Criteria 3 and allow this category to be additive. This allows smaller projects to gain a larger percentage of points while at the same time not removing the incentive for applicants to provide Master Planned Facilities and/or solve downstream drainage problems. Staff's recommendation: Adopt this alternative. Council concurred with the recommendation. City Council Minutes September 19, 1979 Page 9 ISSUE NO. 7: Street Circulation and Improvements is perceived to be unfair to the smalle.r pr.ojects. The issue raised here is similar to the drainage question. A project that has no circulation problems is perceived to "lose" 6 points if it is not located on a major, secondary, or collector. ~-- Alternatives: Raise the points of criteria 2 (i.e. project will not create overload of street system) from 4 points to 5 points and raise the points of Criteria 4 (i.e. projects on collector streets) from 2 points to 3 points. ~aff's recommendation: Adopt this Alternative. Council concurred with this recommendation. ISSUE NO. 8: The Definition of Orderly. Development is too restrictive. Presently, the Orderly Development Section allows points for the percentage of the perimeter of the project that abuts existing development. It may not take into account infill projects which may haVe a-vacant parcel adjacent or surrounding it, but for all intent and purposes-will not create exCessive strain on public facilities. Alternatives: Amend Paragraph 2 of the Orderly Development Sections-(Section 5 and 6c) to read as follows: "Two thirds of a point will be granted for each 10% of the perimeter of the project that is within 500 feet of existin~.de~e!opment or.within 500' of proposed development which has been approved by, the Planning commissio~ 0r the Community Development Director'(6 points maximum)," This amendment would require the following amendment of Section'lC(1), Police Protection: "a. Project site is within 500~ of existing development or proposed develop- ment that has received approval by, the Planning Commission or Community Development Director on over 70% of its perimeter (12 points)," "Project site is within 500' of existing development or proposed development that has received approval by the Planning Commission or Community Develop- ment Director between 25% and 70% of its perimeter (1 point)," Staff's recommendation: Adopt this Alternative. Council concurred with staff's recommendation. ISSUE NO. 9: Parks and Paths Within the Parks and Paths Section, more emphasis should be given to those developments closer to existing parks than proposed future parks, Alternatives: Amend Section iD, Parks and Paths, to read as follows: "5. Over 50% of project is located within 1/2 mile of an existing public park site (2 points). 6. Over 50% of project is located within 1/2 mile of a future proposed park site (1 point). 7. Over 50% of project is located between 1/2 and 1 mile of an existing public park site (1 point). 8. Over 50% of project is located between 1/2 and 1 mile of a future proposed public park site (1/2 point)." Staff's recommendation: Amending Section 10 as stated above, Council concurred with the recommendation. City Council Minutes September 19, 1979 Page 10 ISSUE NO. 10: Neighborhood Commercial Shppping.. Centers. Within the Neighborhood Commercial Shopping Center, more emphasis should be placed on existing shopping centers than on planned future shopping centers. Alternatives: Amend Section 1E, Neighborhood Commercial Shopping Centers to read as follows: "1. More than 50% of project is within 2 miles of an existing neighbor- hood commercial shopping center (3 points). 2. More than 50% of project with within 2 miles of a planned future neighborhood commercial shopping center (2 points). 3. More than 50% of project is between 2 and 3 miles of an existing neighborhood commercial shopping center (2 pOints). 4. More than 50% of project is between 2 and 3 miles of a planned future neighborhood commerical shopping center (1 point). 5. Project is more than 3 miles from an existing neighborhood commercial shopping center (1 point). Council concurred with the recommendation to amend Section 1E as above. ISSUE NO. 11: Clarification of Design Review Intent There is a desire to clarify the intent of the Design Review Section of the Growth Management Plan since no points are assigned to the criteria. It was the desire of the Planning Commission that any design review process created by the City should not dictate a sameness of design from project to project. Therefore, by not assigning points to the criteria, the Growth Management Plan merely establishes general perimeters by which a review may be made. "It is not the intent of the Growth Management Plan to dictate a particular architecture nor to use certain price materials nor dictate specific design solutions. It is the intent of the Growth Management Plan to foster creative design solutions." Staff's.recommendation: Add the above to Section 2, Design Quality. Council concurred with staff's recommendation. Mayor called a recess at 10:20 p.m. Meeting reconvened at 10:35 p.m. with all Council and staff members present. 7. STAFF REPORTS. (15) 7A. Zoning Determination for Peter Popoff Evangelistic Association. A request for zoning determination as to whether or not the Popoff Association use is allowable in the R-1 zone. Item was continued from the September 5 meeting. Barry Hogan, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. He pointed out the issue was to determine whether the project was to be considered as a "church" which would be compatible with the R-1 zoning or a "commercial venture." The Planning Commission had determined by a split vote that the use would be similar to a church. The concern was that perhaps this use was a commercial activity which had a church and was not appropriate for that area. Motion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Palombo that the Peter Popoff Evangelistic Association was characteristic of a church activity and consistent with the R-1 zone. City Council Minutes September 19, 1979 Page il Douglas Scott, a Claremont attorney representing the Popoff Foundation, addressed the Council. Motion: The original motion that this was characteristic of a church activity and consistent with the R-1 zone was defeated by the following vote: AYES: Bridge, Palombo. NOES: Schlosser, Mikels, Frost. ABSENT: None. Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Schlosser to table the item and to reconsider at the October 3 meeting. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Schlosser, Mikels, Frost. NOES: Bridge, Palombo. Mr. Scott asked this to be changed to the October 17 meeting since he would be out of town October 3. Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Schlosser to change the date that the item would return to Council to October 17. Motion carried by following vote: AYES: Schlosser, Mikels, Frost. NOES: Palombo, Bridge. 6B. Proposal for an ordinance providing for the control~ collection~ and (16) disposal of refuse. Question before Council was should the City of Rancho Cucamonga franchise refuse operators. Harry Empey presented the staff report. Mr. Wasserman made some additional comments on the theory of open competition. He also pointed out that:~ (a) rates were determined by the County, therefore, all companies have the same rates; (b) city would have authority to help solve complaints; (c) some neighborhoods have different companies serving them a day apart; (d) rate increases are determined by the Board of Supervisors. This type of decision should be made at the local level; (e) suggested that all funds derived from this venture (approximately $25,000 per year) be earmarked for the .-- parkway problems; (f) need to insure an adequate level of service. Mr. WJsserman stated that the Alta Loma Advisory Subcommittee had discussed the problem and made a recommendation that we leave the refuse service as is and not franchise. The following addressed the Council: Adam Sliney, Rancho Disposal. Sharon Romero, Alta Loma Advisory Committee. Fred Gentile, Rancho Disposal. Jack Avakian, Yukon Disposal. Francis Best, Best Disposal. Motion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Palombo to recommend approval of franchis- ing of residential refuse operators at a rate of five percent out of gross receipts. Instruct staff and city attorney to evaluate the proposed agree- ment and schedule the proposed ordinance for a public hearing on October 17 and instruct staff to study refuse collection rates in San Bernardino County and submit a recommendation to Council. Motion carried by following vote: AYES: Mikels, Palombo, Bridge. NOES: Schlosser, Frost. 6C. Office of Traffic Safety Grant. Report was presented by city engineer (17) Lloyd Hubbs. Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Palombo to approve the concept of the grant program and confirm its support to continue the program upon termination of the grant. Motion carried by following vote: AYES: Schlosser, Mikels, Palombo, Bridge, and Frost. NOES: None. City Council Minutes September 19, 1979 Page 12 (18) ~D. Award of bid for Computer Services. Staff report by Finance Director Harry Empey. Quotes had been received to expand and update the computer services used by the Finance Department. This had been a budgeted item. Quotes were received from three companies as follows: Xerox Corp $15,636 annually Municipal Data Systems $25,054 " John Wilks & Assoc. $48,000* " *bid also included a package for planning. Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Palombo to award the bid to the Xerox Corporation for computer services for $15,636 annually. Motion carried by following: AYES: Schlosser, Mikels, Palombo, Bridge, Frost. NOES: None. (19) 6E. Award of bid for city vehicles. Staff report by Harry Empey, Finance Director. Item was a budgeted item. Bids had been received from seven companies for four automobiles. Companies were: Arena Ford, Citrus Motors, Royce Barnett Pontiac, Romero Buick, Chadbourne Chevrolet, Mark Christopher Chevrolet, Graydon Murphy Oldsmobile. Arena Ford was lowest bidder of four 4-door Fairmonts at $23,559.53. Motion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Palombo to award bid to Arena Ford for four automobiles at $23,559.53. Motion carried by following: AYES: Schlosser, Mikels,-Palombo, Bridge, and Frost. NOES: None. 7. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS. The City Attorney reminded Council the time was quickly passing, and the issue of whether the city clerk and city treasurer were to'be app6int~d or &lect~d needed to be made. Discussion followed. The City Attorney said he would go ahead and draft up the necessary papers needed to put the issue on the ballot to have these positions appointed, then staff and council could decided. 8. NEW BUSINESS. a. Schlosser made the comment that the article in a recent newspaper regarding the new city hall was premature since Council had not made any decisions. b. Mayor made the following comments regarding the recent fire in Etiwanda: - Letters of con~endation should be sent to Sgt. O'Rourke and Chief Lee for the excellent job in coordinating the efforts of the different agencies involved. - Acknowledgements of service should be sent to adjoining agencies such as the fire departments of Ontario and Upland. - Emergency contact list should include school superintendents in case a school might be needed as an evacuation center. - Need for better disaster awareness. Perhaps some special Council meeting in early November to apprise Council of County and State organizations which would be involved during disasters. - Have staff look into some alternatives in roofing materials which would not be as 'flammable. Especially for the high fire areas. - Request staff to make recommendations to prevent this type of fire in the future. Special attention to the windrow and weed abatement problems on private property. City Council Minutes September 19, 1979 Page 113 9. ADJOURNMENT. Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Schlosser to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 12:55 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Beverly Authelet Deputy City Clerk