HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997/08/20 - Agenda Packet - AttachmentsCity Council Agenda
August 20, 1997
ADDENDUM
I. COUNCIL BUSINESS
5. DISCUSSION OF CAMPAIGN LIMITATIONS
RELATING TO PROPOSITION 208
I, Debra J. Adams, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my
designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda
was posted on August 15, 1997, seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting
per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive.
7 avel Information ervice
December 1, 1995
Mr. J. Robert Lundy, PH. D.
Executive Director
Rancho Cucamonga Visitors Center / Thomas Winery Plaza
7965 Vineyard Ave., Suite F5
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Dear Mr. J. Robert Lundy, PH.D.
Thank you for your kindness in promptly furnishing us with your latest informations.
I'm sure that these materials will be quite helpful in introducing your company to our
Japanese, and clients visiting can get familiar regarding you and America before they
depart Japan.
I would like to display your informations at our showroom.
I look forward to developing this relationship to the mutual benefit of our organizations.
Many things are changing everyday in the areas that we cannot see so therefore your
updated information is always valuable to us and our clients.
Once again, I highly appreciate your support and assistance in providing us with your
various informations and hope you'll continue to favor us with your generous support.
Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions.
Best regards,
Hiroshi Onishi
Director
Travel Information Service
l-J-7 KOUJIMACHI CHIYODAKU TOKYO JAPAN TELOS-J222-3290 FAXOS.S222-8272
m_'D C T-- 1 -- 9 --"~ F'~ I
'~Y, 10/01' I(!:02
~'~03 3341 730L
Fax Transmittal
from Fax ~(umber:(83)2341-7301
page._JI of !,
Cal forn [a Stat e Of f i ce of
Representat i ve Of f ice,
Tour ism
Japan
4F. Kova Bldg., 2-3-12, $hinjuku.
$hinjuku-ku, Tokyo 160, Japaa
Tel: (O3) 3352-6101
Bate: 8-;11-93
~ (03)3352-6101
To: Routs 66 're,,ritory Visitors Bureau
Fax: 310-474-~962
From: Cord Cartlidge; Mkts.
Re' INTORMATION WANTF, ID
W. have been setting many requests for Route 66 [nformatiou since ,e
opened'our office here in Tok.vo about 2 mouths ago. Could you please send
over i.$.t.P. any pamphlets, brothers, posters, events calender, posters,
anti slides that you have on your area.
l'hank you very much and I avait your rep[?~r
.,-~ ./'/?/.-" -.7'-.~
/ ,? ,,, ,/,,,.,, //7 ,// ?' f .
P.S. P[i::tsu send materials to the above address.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
August 14, 1997
Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
Jenny Haruyama, Management Analyst [~0-
Public Safety Subcommittee Proposed Narcotic Offender Eviction Referral
Ordinance
For your information, attached is supplemental information for the Wednesday, August 20, 1997
City Council Meeting, regarding Item No. 1, under Council Business, entitled, "Consideration of
an Ordinance Referencing Narcotic Offender Eviction Referrals."
James L. Markman
.Andrex,: V. Arczvnska
Ralph D. Hanson
Wtl.ham P. Curley,
Marsha G. Slough
D. Craig Fox
Pamela P. King
Damn E. Hengesbach
Bovd L. Hill
Markman, Arczynski, Hanson, Curley & Slough
.4. Professional Corporation
Attorney's At Law
Number One Civic Center Circle
P.O. Box 1059
Brea, Califomm 92822-1059
(714)990-0901 * (562)691-3811
9113 Footlull Boulevard
Suite 200
Rancho Cucamonga, Califorma 91730
(909) 980-2742 ' (909) 381-0218
Fax: (714)990-6230
Fax: (909)948-9411
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Date:
Re:
Lieutenant Henry, Assistant Chief of Police,
Rancho Cucamonga Police Department
D. Craig Fox, Deputy City Attorney ~
July 21, 1997
Narcotics offender eviction ordinance
Pursuant to your request, we have reviewed documents you have
forwarded, which include a document apparently issued by Los Angeles Police
Department Office of Operations, dated April 7, 1997, entitled "NOTICE NO. 13," and a
draft 1995 Assembly Bill No. AB738. You also provided the names of two Los Angeles
Deputy City Attorneys having knowledge of the City of Los Angeles narcotic offender
eviction process. Our comments with respect to those documents and that program
follow.
First, we researched the status of 1995 Assembly Bill AB738 and
determined that it was never enacted into law. That bill would have amended Section
1946 of the Civil Code, and would have reduced the normal thirty day eviction notice to a
real property tenant, to three days, where the landlord has a good faith belief that such
tenant is engaging in the unlawful sale or use of controlled substances.
In any event, the City of Los Angeles proceeded to add Section 47.50 to
the Los Angeles Municipal Code which, among other things, prohibits a landlord from
causing or permining a rented premises "to be used or maintained for any illegal drug
activity, drug-related nuisance or drug-related crime" (as those terms are defined in the
ordinance), or to cause or permit a tenant to use or occupy rented property "if the tenant
commits, permits, maintains or is involved in any illegal drug activity, gang-related
crime, or drug-related nuisance on the premises or within a 1000 foot radius from the
Memorandum to: Lieutenant Henry.
July 21, 1997
Page Two
boundary line of the premises." Section 47.50 further provides a landlord with authority
to evict and recover possession of rented property when either the tenant "is committing
or permitting to exist any illegal drug activity, gang-related crime, or drug-related
nuisance on the premises or within a 1000 foot radius from the boundary line of the
premise," or when the tenant "has been convicted of a crime wherein the underlying
offense involves illegal drug activity; drug-related nuisance activity or a gang-related
crime on the premises." A copy of Section 47.50 is attached hereto for your ease of
reference.
Section 47.50 applies to virtually every form of residential dwelling,
including apartments, guest rooms in residences, single family residences, duplexes,
condominiums and mobilehomes. Although not stated in the ordinance, a violation
appears to be punishable as a misdemeanor. Also, civil remedies are set forth permining
the City Attorney to file an action for injunctive relief in order to compel a landlord to
comply with provisions of the ordinance. We envision such an injunctive action as
probably including an order of a court requiring the landlord to evict a tenant involved in
drug or gang-related activities, as more fully set forth in the ordinance.
We discussed this ordinance w/th a deputy city attorney for the City of Los
Angeles who was involved in its preparation. She was unable to cite any particular
statute as providing express authority for the adoption of Section 47.50. Nevertheless, it
is the City Attorney's Office's opinion that it is supportable, at least in part, based upon
authority granted to cities under Health and Safety Code Section 11570. That section
states:
"Every building or place used for the purpose of unlawfully selling,
serving, storing, keeping, manufacturing, or giving away any controlled
substance, precursor, or analog specified in this position, in every building or
place wherein or upon which those acts take place, is a nuisance which shall be
enjoined, abate& and prevented, and for which damages may be recovered,
whether it is a public or private nuisance."
Section 11571 provides:
"Whenever there is reason to believe that such a nuisance is kept,
maintained, or exists in any county, the district attorney of the county, in the name
of the people may, or the city attorney of any incorporated city or of any city and
county, or any citizen of the state resident in the county, in his or her own name,
may, maintain an action to abate and prevent the nuisance and perpetually to
enjoin the person conducting or maintaining it, and the owner, lessee, or agent of
Memorandum to: Lieutenant Heno'
July 21, 1997
Page Three
the building or place, in or upon which the nuisance exists, from directly or
indirectly maintaining or permitting the nuisance."
Provisions similar to those set forth in Section 11570 appear in the Street
Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention Act, (Penal Code Section 186.20, et seq.) which is
aimed at properties utilized in connection with gang-related crime.
While we feel that the City of Los Angeles is to be commended for taking
a proactive stance with respect to the use of rental properties in connection with narcotics
and gang-related activities, we do have some concern as to the validity of Section 47.50,
if judicially challenged. Our first concern has to do with the ordinance purporting to give
landlords legal authority to evict tenants under circumstances not specifically addressed
in state landlordJtenant law. That was the apparent thrust of Assembly Bill 738 which,
as noted, was not enacted. If challenged, a court could find that this portion of the Los
Angeles ordinance is preempted by state law if the court were to also find that the State
has so thoroughly acted with respect to circumstances under which tenants may be
evicted so as to displace and preclude any local regulation of those matters. On the other
hand, an argument can be made that Health and Safety Code Section 11570 provides
cities with broad authority to enact laws which specifically address the use of property in
connection with unlawful drug-related activities. Unfortunately, there is nothing in
Section 11570, et seq., which suggests that a landlord may be held criminally liable for
permitting the rented property to be used in such fashion.
Our second concern also relates to preemption by state laws and
constitutional due process requirements. As stated, Los Angeles Municipal Code Section '
47.50 would impose a criminal penalty upon a landlord who permits rented property to be
utilized in connection with any illegal drug or gang-related activity or crime. This
prohibition is not limited to the property, but extends to a 1000 foot radius therefrom.
First, due process requires that a landlord know of the existence of criminal activity by a
tenant before being subject to prosecution. There is nothing in the Los Angeles ordinance
providing or requiring that the landlord know of the drug or gang-related activity, before
prosecution may occur. We think, under any circumstances, that it would be necessary to
establish that a landlord either knows, or should know based upon objective facts, that
such activities are occurring, before criminal liability may attach.
Secondably, state narcotic laws are comprehensive in their scope. Again,
a court could find a local regulation imposing criminal liability on a landlord for not
preventing drug and gang related criminal activities by tenants to either be beyond the
scope of such local agency's police power or to be preempted by state narcotic statutes.
On the other hand, we believe a cognizable argument could be made that due to the
magnitude of the problem, including the resulting deterioration of multi-family residential
Memorandum to: Lieutenant Henry
July 21, 1997
Page Four
areas due to illegal drug and gang related activities, a city is within its police power to
legislate in order to supplement areas of state law which do not directly regulate maners
covered by the substance of the local ordinance.
In summary,, we believe that the Los Angeles approach to dealing with
problems arising from the drug and gang related use of rental properties, is worthy of
further consideration. At this time, however, we are unaware of any express state
authority authorizing the approach taken by Los Angeles. We believe that such an
ordinance would stand the greatest chance of validation if a city were to make findings
clearly establishing the magnitude of the problem and the inability of existing state laws
to address those problems, so as to support such city's use of its police power in the
manner utilized by Los Angeles. In any circumstances, Health and Safety Code Section
11570, et seq., together with the Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention Act,
provides cities with authority to civilly prosecute landlords who permit illegal drug and
gang related activities to occur upon their rented properties.
This concludes our review of this matter. Should you care to discuss any
aspect of this memorandum at greater length, do not hesitate to contact this office.
DCF:Ijl
L\RC\MHENRY~RC 1.3.3
Transmitted via facsimile and mail
Enclosure
D.-..,\ C li 0 C U C
0 F F i C 1= Of: T iff E C I T Y
'¢ 0 F
P R 0 8 E C U 1' 0 ~
July 15, 1997
VIA FAX AND U.S. MAIL
Lt Joe Henry
Rancho Cucamonga Police Department
10510 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Re: L.A. O~inance ReQuiring ! ,-ndlor,~l to ~=vict Crimin:,!a
Dear Lt. Henry:
We have had an opportunity to review not only the LA ordinance regarding eviction of narcotics
offenders but other law dealing with ordinances and/or statutes which compel a lar~dlord to take
action as a result of criminal violations cornmiffed at the pr:)perty. Basically, we have discovered
very litfie and it does not appear that these matters have been addressed directly by the courts as
of this time.
In 1993 in the case entitled City of Minne:~Dolis v. Fisher, 504 NW 2nd 520, the City brought a
nuisance action against lanctlorcis and tenants in order to dose a sauna where activities resulted i~
numerous convictions on charges of prostitution. The court found that procedural due process rights
of the landlords and tenants were satisfied l~y the notice of the convictions, making the premises a
public nuisance and by the hearing to chalter~ge whether those convictions occurred on the property.
In the case of Zuni@a v. Housir,,,q Authority (1995) 41 Cal. App. 4th 82, the Court of Appeal identified
facts sufficient to support a claim that a "dangerous condition" existed which included ina0equate
security measures. The circumstances involved extensive local drug dealing at the housing authority
as well as the fact that the plaintiffs had become targets of hostility as a result of their hawrig
reported criminal activity to the appropriate authority.
Civic C~n~.~, Or ve ,,, P.O Box B0? * PQi-l(:t"c CiJC(:,rt"K:~g CA` 91729 · (oC9) 4.77-2':' IC · FAX (909:477-2847
. ,~-.~,~,
2
Lt. Joe Henry
Rancho Cucarr~nga Police Department
July 15. 1997
Ge~,eraliy speaking, landlords owe a duty to tenants ar~e patrons to provide reasonable security
measures tO ~ecure common areas against foreseeable criminal acts of third parties that are likely
to occur in the absence of sach precautionary measures. This included a duty to exercise
reasonable care to discover whether criminal acts are being, or likely to De, committed on the
lanaiorals property. Sharon P. ¥, Arm~n Ltd. (1997) 97 bAR 6953. A~ditionally, under negligence
theories, part o! the assesement would include the expense and social impact of what the imoosition
of a duty would require.
With all that in mind it appears that a strong argument supporting tt~e L.A. ordinance could be set
fortrl art!cutazin9 issues of nuisance as well as dangerous conditions The application of this law
would apply to t:x~th single as well as multiple family dwellings an~i would require putting the landlord
on notice of the convictions t~efore being able to impose any duty upon the landlord. Obviously since
this is unchartered waters it is somewhat difficult to speculate as to the reaction of the courts, but
l~ased upon the above cited cases I submit there is a fairly eptimistic potential of prevailing
I hope this responds to your inquiries ff you need to discuss this matter in greater detail please don't
hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
City Prosecutor
MJM/pw:mar
rc:ordina'~¢~
TR ANSMISgION COVER PAGF.
'Fhc information contained in this facsimile message is intended only for th~ CONFIDENTIAL us~ ofd~
designated addresge named ~low, The infomarion ransmiled is subject to ~e a~omey-client privilege
an~or i.~pr¢s~nts ~nfid~nfal attorney work pr~ct if YOU are not the designated
below or the authorized agent res~fible for ~liver~g it to ~ designated addres~e, you received ~is
communication by ycu or ~yone else is s~ictly ~ohibiteS, IF YOU R~CEIVED
COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTI~ US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING
THE SE~ER NAMED BELOW AT ~14) ~901 ~N~ RETU~ THE ORIGINAL OF THIS
COMMUNICATION TO US BY ~IL A~ THE ABOVE ADD~, ~ you.
TO:
City of
AT:
TELECOPIER NUMBER:
RE:
FROM:
NUMBER OF PAGES:
REMARKS:
Diane O'Neal
Rancho Cucamonga
909/477-2846
The Pines Mobile Home Park Amendment
James L. Markman
2nclo~ed is the Amendment
Hard copy to follow.
DATE: 8-15-97
(including this cover page)
to the Pines Mobile Home
THERE SHOULD BE A PROBLEM, CONTACT:
TRANSMI'FTER: t~ancy _~--
AMENDSlENT NO, I 'YO "AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND THE
OWNER OF THE PINES MOBILE HOME PARK
FOR AN ANNUAL MAXIMUM RENT ADJUSTMENT."
The City of Rancho Cucamonga and The Pines Mobile Home Park
("Pities" hcL'eiaa~'te0 hereby ame~M th~ abov~-~£~L~nc~d agr~tnt;nt as £ollows:
£oilow~:
Paragraph 4 of said agreement hereby is amended to read as
"4. Te~n~. The Term of this Agreement shall be deemed to have
commenced February 6, 1992, and shall end at 11:59 pro. on February 5, 2002."
2. The parties agree that when negotiations commence to further
extend and/or modify said agreement, the parties will consider including additional space
rents m said agreement which s:eep pace wath overall local housing costs and, in that
regm'd, will consider including the tbllowing provision in said agreement:
"lionsing Cost Index: An additional increase will occur on [the date of
the last increase before the Accord Extensio~ expires], based on the following:
The percentage increase ia the Housing Cost Component ofihe Consumer Price
Index, All tYrban Consumers for l.os Angeles, Anaheim, Riverside ("l-lm~,~in~
Costs") between December [the year before the Accord Extension began] and
Novemb¢~ [th~ yc. ar belSJ~¢ th~ Accosd Extension ~xpit'c~], minus th~ total o~ th~
Maximum Allowable Rent Adjustments as calculated in [the Paragraph which
permits 100% of the CPI increase with a minimum of 3% and a maximum of 8%]
of the A.ceerd for the previous five (5) >'ears,"
N~,li Cx¢I'N£SMI IP 1.8 1
No. I as of
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have entered into this Amendment
., 1997.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONOA,
a municipa! corporation
By:
William Alexander, Mayor
ATTEST:
Debra J. Adams, City Clerk
Approved as to tbnn:
James I.. Markman, City Attorney
OWNER
MOBILE HOME PARK
N~RC~!,NES,MtlP t8
FAGSIMILE COVER SHEET
6~-11 L{ncoln Awnue, Suit~ A
'Buan~ Park, Cal{f~ocaia 90620
(714) 828~2838 F~ (714) 828.0261
RECEIVED
OF RANCHO GUOAMONGA
ADMINISTRATION
AUG 1 3 1991
This Communication is intended only for the person to whom it
i~ addressed.
ENTERPRISES
Buena Parl~, ~nxx~orn$~, 9o~20
(714) 828-2838 Pax: ~71¢) 828-026!
James Markman
City Attorney
City of Rancho Cucamonga
c/o Richa~s, Watson, & Gersl~on
P,O. Box 1059
Brea, CA 92522-1059
Re: Pines Mol~tle Country Club
Dear Mr. Markman:
Thank you for your assistance in understanding the City*s position regarding the MObile Home
Pa~ Accorci, l~a~cl o~ our discussions, wc have concluded that a reasonable comoromise
could I~e achievecl as follows',
JR Enterprises, lhe ownera of Pines M(~bile Country Club, would be willing tO sign the
Accord Extcn.~ion (which expi~'es in Febrt~nry ?302) if the City Council agrees to
negotiate with us to moolily any future extensions to allow space rents to increase in
order to keep pace with overall Ioc.~t hm~sing cOStS.
To aecompli.~h such a modification, we wo~,ld ~Jggest the followi~l language to be included in
future Accord Extensions:
Housing Cost In~ex: An additional increase will occur on [the date of the last increase
before the Ac~..Ond Fxtension expires], based on tl~e following: The percentage increase
in t~e Housing Cost COmponent of ttm Consumer Price Index, All U~an Consumers for
[.os Angeles, Anaheim, Rivers[de (~Housing Costs") between December [tire year before
the Accord Extension' began] and Noveml~er [the year before lite Acco~ Extensior~
expires]. minus t~e ~c~al of the Maximum Allowable Rent Adjustments as Calculated in
[the Paragraph which* pem~its 100% of the CPI increase witit a mtnlmum ut *3% ar~l a
maximum of 8%] of lhe Accord for the previous five (5) years.
We are confi~ent that you share our goat of working together to make the Pines an even I~etter
place to live. Thank you again for your assistance.
Sincerely yours,
Director of Prope~y Management
T H E
A N C H 0
c
C
T Y 0
C A M 0 N O A
August 15, 1997
Ms. Marilyn Mohr
JR Enterprises
6971 Lincoln Avenue, Suite A
Buena Park, California 90620
Dear Marilyn:
This letter is to confirm our telephone conversation of August 14, 1997 regarding receipt of your
letter dated August 12, 1997 (faxed to me August 13, 1997) to James. L. Markman agreeing to the
5-year Accord Extension with the proviso the City consider using the Housing Index when the 5-year
Extension expires in the year 2002. As we discussed, Mr. Markman will draft language according
to the information you faxed to us, and it will be presented to the City Council at their August 20,
1997 meeting.
Also as we discussed, I will call you, Marilyn, Thursday, August 21, 1997, in the morning to confirm
the City Council approved the extension language. I look forward to meeting you and if you have
any questions, please call me.
Management Analyst II
CC:
Rick Gomez, Community Development Director
James L. Markman, City Attomey
~,la',~cr William J Alexander
Maycr Pro Tern Diane ',A/ill:ams
Jack _am, AICP, City' ,Manager
Councilmember Paul Biane
Councilmember Rex Gutierrez
Councilmember James V Curataio
10500 Ciwc Center Drive · PC, Box 807 · Rancnc, Zd,camonga, ,CA 91729 · (909) 477-2700 · FAX (909) 477-2849