HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979/02/28 - Agenda Packet - AdjournedAGENDA
ADJOURNED MEETING - CITY COUNCIL
6 p.m. - Wednesday, February 28, 1979
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL.
.4 i...
COUNCIL DISCUSSION: Report from Fact Finding Committee regarding —�
continuation of building moratorium.
ADJOURNMENT
Discussion of City position regarding Proposal
for unification of school districts in the
Nest End of San Bernardino County.
RESOLUTIO4 40. 79 -14
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ThF CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA. AFFIRMING
ITS INTENT TO UTILIZE GENERAL FUND REVENUES
AJID SENATE BILL -154 ASSISTANCE PROVIDED
BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO HEET CONTRACTUAL
OBLIGATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 19)8.79.
CITY OF PANCHO CUCAMONGA
KIMORANDUN
Date: February 27 1979
To: City Council
From: Jack lam, Director of Community Development
Subject: ADDITIONAL. DATA FOR SCHOOL IMPACTION SITUATION
DACKGROUND: At the last City Council meeting, additional data was requested
Specifically:
1) Proposed phasing plan for the 556 duelling unite;
2) Proposed SB201 fee revision; _
3) Proposed work program for development and adoption of a Growth
Management Plan;
4) Number of proposed dwelling unite In Fontana and Ontario within
the Chaffey Union High School District.
Please find attached Exhibits 1-4. Exhibits 1 6 2 depict the phasing plan
(with alternatives) and the fee revision (with alternatives).
ENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt:
1 The Cucamonga County Water District newer priority list as phased (See
Schedule A);
2. EFtabliahed the SB201 school fee for Alta Low ulstrict at 893 or
single famil; residential, establish the SB201 school fee en[ral
School District at�$908 for single family residential and establish
Chaffee Joint Unto School Districts fee based on tl.e alternatives
preser. ed below (City Council to aelect):
a. 6/10 - 4/10 split - $595 for Chaffey in Alta Loma School District
$606 for Chaffey in Central School District
b. 9/13 - 4/13 split - $397 for Chaffey in Alta Loma School District
- $404 for Chaffey in Central School District
c. Remain at $272
d Reduced to zero
3 Continue the moratorium on new filings of residential applications
for six (6) menthe (September 19, 1979) to allow staff the opportunity
to prepare and have adopted a Growth Management Plan (an ordinance will
be available at the FeFruary 28th meeting)
Respectftpt submitted,
JACK LAM rector of
Community Development
nt
s'• 1 JL:BKH:nm
E IIBIT 1
PHASING FOR APPROVED TENTATIVE TRACTS
There are four alternative ways of dealing with the question of phasing
the release of the 556 dwelling unite propoenl herein:
1) Use the Cucamonga County Water District list, or
2) Allow 20D+ dwelling units to be released on a first sorved
basis at one point in time with the remainder released
when sewer allocation capacity is again available, or
3) Random selection of tracts released on a month by month
bails for a twelve (12) month period, or
4) Use the Planning Commission's recommended phasing plan
as adjusted by Staff.
The first alternative proposed would put the 556 dwelling unite in the
following order on approximately the same phasing as has been discussed
in previous Planning Commission, Face Finding Committee and City Council
meetings (See Schedule A).
Em!
ml
N
b
n
S•
14
`M
oM
M
0
m
P
•-1
14
H
a
LU
N
b
n
w
)•yJ n
m
P v
H
MPG nf^•1
P Z P V P V
H H F
m
mw
J N
P v
H
x P J N
J •n n
Mr•Nn
P N m m
pvpN•v
H N
On
�x
P �
H
P
J J
Hv
N �
n O
P v
H
nn
om
n
n
b
N
a
V1 N
a
h
Y
Y
�
J
0
N
O
.00
Y
tl
P
Y
O
W
m
m
4
Y
9
N
�y1
C
O
qY
M
N
P
u
U
M
V
Y
N
0
N
m
O
O
U
Nq
oB
•-1
x
a
i
u
J
P
J
L
U
C(
m
U
(n
c
V
a
�
T
w
M
Y
FN
N
u
9
u
ti
n
b
N
a
The second alternative would set a date at which time the City would accept
plane for the issuance of a building permit. The filing period would be open
until 1/2 of the 556 dwelling units had been filed for at which tins the
filing period would close. After the sever allocation capacity reached 1/2
of the 556 dwelling units, the filing period would be opened again. 411 filings
would be taken on a first come first serve basis.
The advantages of this alternative is that it does not favor any particular
developer, it uses tha free enterprise system and it allows those developers
best prepared to get their allocation first The disadvantages are that there
would be a stampede for building permits, our Building Staff would be overcome
with submittals of tracts for building permits while at present the work load
in the Building Division would suffer.
The third alternative would be to randomly select tracts and schedule them for
release on a month to month bee's. The advantage to this alternative is that
it does not favor one developer over another and provides a phasing of releasing
tracts.
The fourth alterative is to use the Planning Commission's recommended phasing
adjusting the start date to June so as to allow enough ever allocation for the
already approved apartment projects (448 apartments) The advantage to this
alternative is that it hug been recommended by the Planning Commlesion (See
Schedule B)
m
N
C
h
N
N
F
yw
GFG�I
G
R1
O
m
P
H
RI
N
w
U
9�
W
P
n
H
r, n
� P V
H
�O m
q v
F
H H H
ma
v N
P V
F
P �f•�
.TmNm
P V P v
F H
N r•� P �
P V q v
H H
N m
a f1
P v
H
m..an
P N N P
.amaN
PvPv
H H
m
N
m
P �
H
N pl
N O
n
A
b
P
'1
m
N
m
f..
m
Q
�N1
Z
O
N
u
O
T
u
u
u
9
M
M
H
w
P
u
N
■
yR
EXHIBIT 2
R17VISION TO SCHOOL FEES (58201)
There are four alternatives considered for revision to the school fees:
1 Utilize the previously considered ratio of 6/10 for elementary
school ($428) and 4/10 for high school ($272), or
2 Utilize an education split ratio of 9/13 for elementary school
and 4/13 for high school, or
3. Raise the elementary school fee while leaving the high school
fee $272 /dwelling unit, or
4. Utilize the entire fee for elementary schools and cease collection
of fee for the Chaffey Joint Union High School District
In all alternatives listed above, there should be an inflation factor of 8%
as part of the fee. The reason for this inflation factor Is that all fees
will not come in at once but over a pitied of 12 months with the state of
the economy as it is, it is a good asnumptlon that the costa that the school
districts project today will be higher in 12 months.
Based on a needed dollar amount of $408,0001 for Alta Loos School District,
the following fee amount Is needed:
$408, 0001 at present day coats
32,640E gS Inflation factor
$440,6401 total amount needed
- 15688001 fee to be collected f -r approved apartments
$238,840 Total mount used for fee computation
318 Dwelling unite in alts Loma School District
Formula
(No. of D U.) X ($ /D.U. School Fee) $ Total Needed
(318 D.U.) $X/D.0 - $238,840
$X /D.U. - $238,840/318 D.0
X - $8931/D.U.
Therefore in order to provide the necessary dollars to meet the need for
Alta Loma School District, this fees they tsuat receive is $893:d.u.
Page 2
Exhibit 2
Based on a needed dollar amount of $200.000+ for Central School District.
the following amount Is needed:
$200,000! at Present day costs
16,000+ 8L Sualatim factor
$216,000+ Total amount needed and seed for compueatim
238 dwelling units fo Central School District
Fortntle
(No. of dwelling units) X ($ /dt^^ttfag wit Scbool Tae) - S Total Reedad
(238 d.u.) $X /d.u. - $216.000
SX /d.u. - $216,000/238 d.o.
X - $908+1dweiliag wit
Therefore, in order to Provide the necessary dollars to met the oed far
Central School Districto the fees they cant receivc is $908±1dwdllnt =I"
Since Chaffey Joint Union Righ School Dictrlct has not 7rovided staff with
any dollars needed tat cannot compute =7 revision to the fee. Thcae are
two alternatives in this regard - leave their amount at SZ72 or redace ft
to zero.
A breakdown of the fers In the suggested alternatives is listed aelovm
Alternative 1) For Alta toga and Chaffey Districts
6/10 for elementary schools - $893
3/10 for high schools - SS95
Total School Fee - $1488
y For Central and Chaffey Districts
6/10 for elementary schools - $903
4110 for high schools - S606
Total School Fee - .41514
Alternative 2) For Alta Loma and Chaffey Dlatrictr
9/13 for elementary schools - $89l
4/13 for high schools - 43tI _
Total School Fee - $1:90
■
8
i,
s
Page 3
Exhibit 2
Alternative 2 Continued:
For Central and Chaffey Districts
9/13 for elementary schools - $908
4/13 for high eth3ols . $404
Total School Fees $1312
Alternative 3) For Alta Lola and Chaffey Districts
elementary schools - $893
high schools - $272
Total School Fee - $1165
For Central and Chaffey Districts
elementary schools . '908
high schools .71
Total School Fee - $lleU
Alternative 4) For Alta Loma District
elementary schools $893
high schools $ 0
Total °chaos Pea $893
For Central Olstrict
elementary, schools $908
high schools $ 0
Total School Fee $908
This alternative would involve the City Council finding that there Is no
longer any impaction within the Chaffey Joint Union High School District.
9
i
i1
EXHIBIT 3
GIt0I7iH MANAGEMENT PLAN LARK PROGPAH
APPROXIMATE DATES
March 1 -April
19
Staff inventory of City service capability
(1 1/2 months)
April 19
Special meeting - Discussion of City goals
and policies, city service capability and
'
i
growth management Implementation techniques
3
April 20
- June 20
Staff preparation of Growth Management Plan
(2 months)
June 20
Planning Commission Public Hearing - Draft
Growth Management Plan _
Y
July 5
Planning Commission Special Meeting
July 11
Planning Cmmiaolon - Public Hearing, continued
1; July 19
Planning Commission (if necessary)
July 25
r
Planning Commission - Wrap up Growth Management
Plan
(Total
Planning Commission Time - 1 Month, 5 Days)
August 15
City Council Public Hearing
August 29
(5th Wednesday) City Council - Special Meeting
t
September
5
City Council - Public Hearing, continued
I;
(Total
City Council Time - 3 Weeks)
September
19
City Council - Ordinance Adoption and Imple-
mentation of Growth Management Plan
A
EXHIBIT 4
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CITIES
07 FONTANA AND ONTARIO AFFECTING THE
CUAFFEY NIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
The following susmarizes the proposed residential development status in
the two cities:
I. FONTANA
Within the Chaffey SOwgl District, only one subdivision has been
filed consisting of 564 units. Prior to ttmtative approval, a
zone chance is requ'Sred for the site. The Fontana Planning Staff
Is recommending dental of the zone change because of General Plan
lnconsistdncy If the zone change, and subsequently, the subdivision _
are approved, many other applications are anticipated.
II. ONTARIO
The following table is a breakdown of unapproved tentatives within the
Chaffey School District filed with the City of Ontario during the
period January 1, 1978 to January 1, 1979,
TYPE
0 OF UNITS - UNAPPROVED TENTATIVES ON FILE
Single Family Residences
941—`
Condominiums
414
Mobile Homes
517
TOTAL
1,892
A
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: February 27, 1979
TO: City Council
FROM: Lauren M. ea sscnnan
City Manager �(�1F/�'
SUBJECT: Bail -Out Assistance ffort
On Wednesday's Council agenda you will note that we have added a Resolution
which Is Intended to convince the State Controller and his staff that Rancho
Cucamonga should receive Its entire ball -out appropriation of $214,000. The
Resolution was drafted at the request of John Husing, Administrative Assistant
to Assemblyman Terry Goggin Apparently, we are new at the point where the
Controller Is looking for some evidence that the City Council would have
used the accumulated reserves as of June 30 and bail -out assistance to meet
the 1.4 million dollar contract for law enforcement services with San
Bernardino County The main emphasis of the Resolution Is the Council indicates
that It would have used the accumulated reserve on June 30 to help meet the
contractual obligation
The one problem that we have Is we really don't want to generate a lot of
Interest among the news media over this Issue until it has been resolved
Therefore. If you have any questions prior to the meeting, please contact me
and I wlll attempt to ans"r then for you.
LMW:baa
attach.
i
RESOLUTION Y0. 79 -14
A RESOLUTION OF TUE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONG.A. CALIFORNIA, AFFIRMING ITS UTILI7.ATIfy; OF
GENERAL FUND REVLNUES .WO SENATE BILL -154 ASSISTANCE
PROVIDED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORN A TO MEET CONTRACTUAL
OBLIGATIONS FOR FISCAL. YEAH 197 -79
WHEREAS, prior to the start of fiscal year 1979 -80 the City
Cuuncil of the City of Rancho Cucam mgn approved a contract with the
County of San Bernardino Sheriff's department for law enforcement services;
and
WHEREAS, tilt, level of service contracted for represented the
minimum level of service acceptable In a city consisting of 32 square
miles, with a population exceeding 42,000 persons; and
WHEREAS, the contracted cost of the law enforcement contract
exceeded 1 3 million dollars annually; and
17REREAS, since traffic safety funds collected represent a very
small portion of the total cost of the contract; and
1411CREA5, the majority of funds to pny for law enforcement
services are paid from general fund revenues; and
61IEREAS, prior to tiro passage of Proposition 17 In Tune, 1978,
the City Council of the C -ty of Rancho Cucamonga Intended to Oy a
portion of the cost of law enforcement services from property tax revenues;
and
A WHEREAS, with the passage of Proposition 13 the City lost
approximately $550,000 in property tax revenuers; and
WHEREAS, because of this substantial loss of property tax
revenue, the City Council was reliant upon the availability of approximately
$214,000, an estimated by ti,e State Controller, in funds from Senate
BI11 -154, "bailout" assistance provided by the State of California on a
one -time basis; and
611EREAS, the City Council was also dependent upon reserve
funds whirl, had accumulated between the date of incorporation (November
30, 1977) ad the date for comencement of the contract between the City
and the G „mt of San Bernardino Sheriff's Department for contract law
enforcement services;
Nfa;, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that tilt, City Council of the
City of - ,ncho Cucamonga affirms its utilization of accunulated general
fund reserves and funds available from Senate 8111 -154 "bailout” naslatance
to meet the cost or the 1 3 million dollar contract for law enfor ement
services
RE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk Is authorized to
file a certified copy of this resolution and a copy of the contrnct for
^rrII law enforcement services with the State Controller, Kenneth Cory
�11 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 28th day of February, 1979
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
r
H E H 0 R A N D U H
DATE: February 27, 19'9
T0: City Council
FROM: Lauren H. Waeserman_,:. M ,ice
City Manager (/JICC!!��
SUBJECT: Non- resident Studcnta at
Idea Lose high School
The superintendent of the Chaffey Joint Union High School District has
informed the city there are presently ten students from Upland attending
Alfa Loma High School and five students from Fontana. All other students
are residents of Rancho Cucamonga. The superintendent also stated that
there is a latge number of students tf t reside in the area south of
Foothill Boulevard who are presently ectending Chaffey High School.
LM'dsbaa
cc: Mayor
AGENDA
ADJOURNED MEETING - CITY COUNCIL
6 p.m. - Wednesday, February 28, 1979
CALL TO ORDER.
ROLL CALL.
COUNCIL DISCUSSION: Report from Fact Finding Committee regarding
coptinuation of building moratorium. _
Discussion of City position regarding Proposal
for unification of school districts in the
West End of San Bernardino Codnty
RESOLUTION $10 79 -14
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIP, AFFIRMING
ITS INTENT TO UTILIZE GENERAL FUND REVENUFS
AND SENATE BILL -154 ASSISTANCE PROVIDED
BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 70 MEET CONTRACTUAL
OBLIGATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1978 -79
ADJOURNMENT.
S_w
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: February 27, 1979
T0: City Council //////77
FROM: Lauren N. Wasserman
City Manager
SUBJECT: Non - resident Studencs at
Alta Loma High School
The superintendent of the Chaffey Joirt Union High School District has
informed the city there are presently ten students from Upland attending
Alta Loma High School and five students from Fontana. All other students
are residents of Rancho Cucamonga. The superintendent also stated that
there is a large number of students that reside in the area south of
Foothill Boulevard who are presently attending Chaffey High School.
LMW:baa
cc: Mayor
H E H 0 R A N D U H
T0: City Council
FROM: Lauren !l. Waasermac
City Manager
SUBJECT: Added Agenda Item
DATE: February 27, 1979
Mayor Frost has asked the staff to nod an additional agenda Stec regarding
the City Council's position on thu unification of school districts within
the Nest end of San Bernardino County The Mayor has drafted a letter for
your consideration. If you have any remnants or suggestions, please call
Jim.
I107:baa
•r,
City of
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
Dear Editor
Upon numerous occasions, the Rancho Cucamonga City Council has chosen to
express a formal position regarding specific issues In addition, the
Council has been active in making its concerns known to local, state,
and federal elected officials when such input has been considered beneficial
to the general welfare of the residents of Rancho Cucamonga ana surrounding
areas
Of particular concern, is the current impaction of many local school
/ districts and its effect upon the educational opportunities of our
!� children Our concerns are continually being expressed to elected
representatives in Sacramento, and we join the statewide effort by
parents, school districts /boards, students, teachers, and other organizations
and individuals asking Sacramento to provide legislation for financing
permanent school improvements and facilities
Until the public and local boards have the option of providing adequate
permanent facilities, the City will continue to work as closely as
possible with residents and school boards to provide funding for temporary
classrooms within the restrictions of current law.
The issue of school district unification has also arisen, partly as the
result of school funding difficulties experienced within Rancho Cucamonga.
We urge all of you to study the unification issue, and to express your
opinions to local school board members and to the County Committee on
School Organization Although each Council member has individual opinions
regarding school district unification, the Council and the City of
Rancho Cucamonga formally wishes to qo on record as not taking a position
on the unification issue.
Sincerely,
James C. Frost
Mayor
City of Rancho Cucamonga
JCF lk
Note: Copies will be sent to Daily Report, Sua Telegram, Progress
Bulletin, Cucamonga Times and Highlander
POST OFFICE BOX 793. RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 91730 C714) 989.1851
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALI-
FORNIA, EXTENDING THE EXPIRATION DATE OF THE MORA-
TORIUM,I!APOSED BY ORDINANCE NO. 36 AS MODIFIED DY
ORDINAIt: dim, 50 AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF.
The City Cou cil of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Cali-
fornia, does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council hereby finds that:
(a) Further time is needed for the study and
preparation of a comprehensive growth management program for the
City.
(b) The expiration of Ordinance No. 36, as _
modified and extended by Ordinance No. 50, by its terms on March
9, 1979, will not be in the beat interests of the City and said
expiration date should be extended as hereinafter provided.
SECTION 2: Section 8 of Or inance No. 36 of the Citv of
Rancho Cucamonga is hereby amended �fo read as follows:
"SECTION 8: TJis \ ratorium shall
expo on
1979. ". \
SECTION 3: This Ordinance is hereby �declared an urgency
measure necessary for the immediate protection \and preservation
of the public peace, health, afety and welfare and shall take
effect immediately upon its option. \
SECTION A: The Mayo shall sign this Ordinance and the
City Clerk shall attest to /the same, and the City Clerk shall
cause the same to be published within fifteen (15) days\,after its
passage at least once in The Daily Re ort, a newspaper of general
circulation published in the C ty of Ontario, California, And cir-
culated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California.
1979. APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of ,
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
-1-
Mayor of the C ty o
Rancho Cucamonga
ATTEST:
City- Clerk
-2-
f 2
ORDINANCe No.
AN ORDINANCE OF
CITY OF ONU O
THE FILING OR
PROCESSING OF CERTAIN LAND DIVISION APPLICATIONS
AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS AND DECLAR-
ING THE URGENCY THEREOF.
The City Council Of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Cali-
fornia, does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council hereby finds that:
(a) Further time is needed for the study and
preparation of a comprehensive growth management program for the
City.
(b) Prior to, and since, incorporation, the _
City has experienced rapid residential growth which has placed,
and is placing, pressure upon various public services, including,
but not limited to, sewage treatment and traffic circulation -ii;
schools.
(c) That by reason of lack of adequate per-
sonnel, and by reason of lack of finances to hire additional Per-
sonnel, ending residential development) adequately Process current back-
log of pending
(d) That it is in the best interests of the
City in order to protect the health, safety and general welfare
of the citizens of the City to impose certain restrictions, its
landidivisioenumerated, licatons and applications for certain
velopment.
SECTION ?: The City shall not accept for filing any ten-
tative map or maps for residential development. r�r
SECTION 3: The City shall not accept for filing any Par-
eel map or maps for residential development.
SECTION 4: The City shall not further process or approve
onyfiletwith thepCity,, for ap-
proved.
SP.CT��ations forydirect viewporf site iapproval for/ i-
cation or app
-" apartments, condominiums, mobilet �home parks, or other multiple -
family dwellings. .,Oacrgµh.a
SECTION 6: The moratorium imposed by this Ordinance shall
-1-
expire Itngngy9,7g"},�
SECTION 7: The City Council hereby declares that it would
have adopts t s Ordinance and each section, sub- section, sen-
tence, clause, phrase or portion thereof, irrespective of the
fact that any one or more sections, sub- sections, sentences,
clauses, phrases or portions thereof may be declared invalid or
unconstitutional. If for any reason any portion of this Ordi-
nance shall be declared invalid or unconstitutional, then all
other provisions thereof shall remain valid and enforceable.
SECTION 8: This Ordinance is hereby declared an urgency
measure necessary for the immediate protection and preservation of
the public peace, health, safety, and welfare for the reasons
stated in section 1 hereof and shall take effect immediately up-
on its adoption.
SECTION 9: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the
City Cler s a attest to the same, and the City Clerk shall
cause the same to be published within fifteen (15) days after its
passage at least once in The Daily Re ort, a newspaper of general
circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and cir-
culated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California.
1979. APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of
ATTEST:
AYES:
NOES: , l�
ABSENT:
C ty Cer
-2-
Hayor of the city of
Rancho Cucamonga
RESOLUTION NO 79 -14
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA, AFFIRMING ITS INTENT TO UTILIZE
GENERAL FUND REVENUES AND SENATE BILL -154 ASSISTANCE PROVIDED
BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO MEET CONTRACTJAL OBLIGATIONS
FOR FISCAL YEAR 1978 -79
WHEREAS, prior to the start of fiscal year 1979 -80 the City Council
of the City of Poncho Cucamonga approved a contract wttl the County of San
Bernardino Sheriff's Department for law enforcement services; and
WHEREAS, the level of service contracted for represents the minimum
level of service acceptable In a city consisting of 32 square miles, with a
population exceeding 42,000 persons; and
WHEREAS, the approximate cost of the law enforcement contract
exceeds 14 million dollars annually; and
WHEREAS, since traffic safety funds collected represent a very small
portion of the total cost of the contract; and
WHEREAS, the majority of funds to pay for law enforcement services
are paid from general fund revenues; and
WHEREAS, prior to the passage of Proposition 13 In June, 1978, the
City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Intended to pay a portion of the
cost of law enforcement services from property tax revenues; and
WHEREAS, with the passage of Proposition 13 the City lost approxi-
mately $550,000 In property tax revenues; and
WHEREAS, because of this substantial loss of property tax revenue,
the City Council was rellant upon the availability of approximately 5214,000
In funds from Senate Bill -154, "bailout" assistance provided by the State of
California on a one -time basis; and _
WHEP -cAS, the City Council was also dependent upon reserve funds which
had accumulated between the date of Incorporation (November 30, 1977) and the
date for commencement of the contract between the City and the County of San
Bernardino Sheriff's Department for contract law enforcement services;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga affirms Its Intent to use accumulated general fund reserves and
funds available from Senate Bill -154 "bailout" assistance to meet the cost of the
1 4 million dollar contract for law enforcement services
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is authorized to file a
certified copy of this resolution and a copy of the contract for law enforcement
services with the State Controller, Kenneth Cory.
ATTEST:
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this _ day of February, 1979
Y
Mayor
City Clerk
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: February 27, 1979
TO: City Council
FROM: Lauren M Wasseman
City Manager
SUBJECT: Bail -Out Assistance £fort
On Wednesday's Council agenda you will note .'hat we have added a Resolution
which Is Intended to convince the State Controller and his staff that Rancho
Cucamonga mould receive Its entire ball -out appropriation of $214,000 The _
Resolution was drafted at the request of John Husing, Administrative Assistant
to Assemblyman Terry Goggin Apparently, we are now at the point where the
Controller Is looking for some evidence that the City Council would have
used the accumulated reserves as of June 30 and bail -out assistance to meet
the 1 4 million dollar contract for law enforcement services with San
Bernardino County The main emphasis of the Resolution Is the Council Indicates
that It would have used the accumulated reserve on June 30 to help meet the
contractual obligation
the one problem that we have is we really don't want to generate a lot of
Interest among the news media over this Issue until it has been resolved
Therefore, if you have any questions prior to the meeting, please contact me
and I wlII attempt to answer them for you
LMW: baa
attach
V
3,
'r A-
A G E 11 D A
ADJOURNED MEETING - CITY COUNCIL
6 p.m. - Wednesday, February 28, 1979
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL.
COUNCIL DISCUSSION: Report from Fact Finding Committee regarding
continuation of building moratorium.
ADJOURNMENT
Discussion of City position regarding Proposal
for unification of school districts in the
West End of San Bernardino County
RESOLUTION 40. 79 -14
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AFFIRMING
ITS INTENT TO UTILIZE GENERAL FUND REVE'IUES
AND SENATE BILL -154 ASSISTANCE PROVIDED
BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO MEET CONTRACTUAL
OBLIGATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1978 -79.
t
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 27, 1979
r
TO:
City Council
FROM:
Lauren M. Wasserman
$ >,
City Manager
SUBJECT:
Added Agenda Item
Mayor Frost has naked the staff to add an additional agenda Stem regarding
districts within
the City
Council's position on the unification of
The Mayor
school
has drafted a letter r _
the Vest
end of San Bernardino County.
or
eu ea[!o¢s, p lcasec call
t,
your consideration.
if you have any comments
Jim.
IlOi:baa
v_ r>
City of
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
Dear Editor:
Upon numerous occasions, the Rancho Cucamonga City Council has chosen to
express a formal position regarding specific issues. In addition, the
Council has been active in making its concerns known to local, state,
and federal elected officials when such input has been considered beneficial
to the general welfare of the residents of Rancho Cucamonga and surrounding
areas.
Of particular concern, is the current impaction of many local school
districts and its effect upon the educational opportunities of our
children. Due concerns are continually being expressed to elected
representatives in Sacramento, and we join the statewide effort by
parents, school districts /boards, students, teachers, zed ether organizations
and individuals asking Sacramento to provide legislation for financing
permanent school improvements and facilities.
Until the public and local boards have the option of providing adcnuate
permanent facilities, the City will continue to work as closely as
possible with residents and school boards to provide funding for temporary
classrooms within the restrictions of current law.
The issue of school district unification has also arisen, partly as the
result of school funding difficulties experienced within Rancho Cucamonga.
He urge all of you to study the unification issue, and to express your
opinions to local school board members and to the County Committee on
School Organization. Although each Council member has individual opinions
regarding school district unification, the Council and the City of
Rancho Cucamonga formally wishes to go on record as not taking a position
on the unification issue
sincerely,
James C. Frost
Mayor
City of Rancho Cucdmanga
JCF:lk
Note: Copies will be sent to Daily Report, sun Telegram, Progress
Bulletin, Cucamonga Times and Highlander.
POST OFFICE BOX 793, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 91730 (714) 9t3.3a51
f
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 27, 1979
To: City Council
From: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development
Subjec t: ADDITIONAL DATA FOR SCHOOL IMPACTION SITUATION
BACKGROUND: At the last City Council meeting, additional data was requested
Speciftcally:
1) Proposed phasing plan for the 556 dwelling unite;
2) Proposed SB201 fee revision; _
3) Proposed work progrcm for development and adoption of a Growth
Management Plan;
4) Number of proposed dwelling units In Fontana and Ontario within
the Chaffey Union Nigh School District.
Please find attached Exhibits 1-4 Exhibits 1 6 2 depict the phasing plan
(with alternatives) and the fee revision (with alternatives).
RECOMMENDATION: It Is recommended that the City Council adopt:
1 The Cucamonga County Water District sewer priority list as phased (See
Schedule A);
2 Established the SB201 school fee for Alta Loma District at $893 for
single family residential, establish the S8201 school fee for Central
School District at $908 for single family residential and establish
Chaffey Joint Union School Districts fee based on the alternatives
presented below (City Council to select):
a. 6/10 - 4 /30 spilt - $595 for Chaffey in Alto Loma School District
$606 for Chaffey in Central School District
b. 9/13 - 4/13 split - $397 for Chaffey in Alta Loma School District
$404 for Chaffey in Central School District
C Remain at $272
d. Reduced to zero
3. Continue the moratorium on new filings of residential applications
for six (6) months (September 19. 1979) to allow staff the opportunity
to prepare and have adopted a Growth Management Plan (an ordinance will
i be available at the February 28th meeting).
v Respectfulll • submitted
1' r
t.,
JACK T.AiI, rector of -
�gga,�' Community Development
lEli.•_� JL:BKH:nm
The second alternative would set a date at which time the City would accept
plane for the issuance of a building permit. The filing period would be open
until 1/2 of the 556 dwelling unite had been filed for at which time the
filing period would close. After the sower allocation capacity reached 1/2
of the 556 dwelling units, the filing period would be opened again. All filings
would be taken on a first come first serve basis
The advantages of this alternative is that it does not favor any particular
developer, it uses the free enterprise system and it allows those developers
best prepared to get their allocation first. The disadvantages are that there
would be a stampede for building permits, our Building Staff would be overcome
with submittals of tracts for building permits while at present the work load
in the Building Division would suffer.
The third alternative would be to randomly select tracts and schedule them for
release on a month to month basis. The advantage to this alternative is that
it does not favor one developer over another and provides a phasing of releasing
tracts.
The fourth alternative is to use the Planning Commisslen's recommended phasing
adjusting the start date to June so as to allow enough sever allocation for the
already apptoved apartment projects (448 apartments). The advantage to this
alternative in that it has been recommended by the Planning Commission (See
Schedule B).
EXHIBIT 1
PHASING FOR APPROVED TENTATIVE TRACTS
There are four alternative ways of dealing with the question of phasing
the release of the 556 dwelling units proposed herein:
1) Use the Cucamonga County Water District lists or
2) Allow 20D4- dwelling unite to be released on a first served
basis at one point in time with the remainder released
when sewer allocation capacity is again available, or
3) Random selection of tracts released on a month by month
basis for a twelve (12) month period. or
4) Use the Planning Commission's recommended phasing plan
as adjusted by Staff
The first alternative proposed would put the 556 dwelling unite in the
following order on approximately the sane phasing as has been discussed
in previous Planning Commission. Pact Finding Ccmmittee and City Council
meetings (See Schedule A).
i
rV;,
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: February 27, 1979
TO: City Council
FROM: Lauren M. Yasscrman�,
City Manager
SUBJECT: Non - resident Students at
Alta Lomn Nigh School
The superintendent of the Chaffey Joint Union High School District has _
Informed the city there are presently ten students from Upland attending
Alta Low High School and five students from Fontana. All other students
are residents of Rancho Cucamonga. The superintendent also stated that
there is a large number of students that reside in the area south of
Foothill Boulevard who are presently attending Chaffey High School.
�dH2E1
cc: Mayor
REVISION TO SCHOOL FEES (58201)
EXHIBIT 2
There are four alternatives considered for revision to the school fees:
1. Utilize the previously considered ratio of 6/10 for elementary
school ($428) and 4/10 for high school ($272), or
2. Utilize an education split ratio of 9/13 for elementary school
and 4/13 for high school, or
3. Raise the elementary school fee while leaving the high school
fee $272 /dwelling unit, or
4. Utilize the entire fee for elementary schools and cease collection
of fee for the Chaffey Joint Union High School District.
In all alternatives listed above, there should be an Inflation factor of 8%
as part of the fee. The reason for this inflation factor Is that all fees _
will not coma in at once but over a period of 12 months with the state of
the economy as It is, It is a good assumption that the costs that the school
districts project today will be higher in 12 months
Based on a needed dollar amount aL $408,000. for Alta Loma School District,
the following fee amount is needed:
$408,000.
32,640+
$440,640.
156,800!
243Q
318
at present day costs
8% Inflation factor
total amount needed
fee to be collected for approved apartments
Total amount used for fee computation
Dwelling units in Alta lama School District
Formula
(No. of D.U.) X ($ /D.U. School Fee) $ Total Needed
(318 D.D.) $X/D.U. 7840
$X/D.U. - $238,840/318 D.U.
X - $893. /D.U.
Therefore In order to provide the necessary dollars to meet the need for
Alta lams School District, the fees they -,at receive is $8c3 /d.u.
1
Page 2
Exhibit 2
Based on a needed dollar amount of $200,00(4 for Central School District,
the following amount is needed:
$200,OOD± at present day costs
16.0004 8% inflation factor
$216,0004 Total amount needed and used for computation
238 dwelling unite in Central School District
Formula
(No. of dwelling units) x ($ /dwelling unit School Fee) $ Total Needed
(238 d.u.) $X /d.u. - $216,000
$ %/d u. - $216,000/238 d.0
X - $908+ /dvellfng unit
Therefore, in order to provide the necessary dollars to meet the need for
' Central Senool District, the fees they mat receive is $9094Jdcelling unit.
Since Chaffey Joint Union High School District has not provided staff with
any dollars needed we cannot compute any revision to the fee. There are
two alternatives In this regard - leave their amount at $272 or reduce it
to zero
A breakdown of the fees in the suggested alternatives is listed below:
Alternative 1) For Alta Loma and Chaffey Districts
6/10 for elementary schools - $893
4/10 for high schools - $595
Total School Fee $1488
For Central and Chaffey Districts
6/10 for cleneucary schools - $908
4/10 for high schools - $606
Total School Fee $1514
Alternative 2) For Alta Loma and Chaffey Districts
9/13 for elementary schools - $893
4/13 for high schools - $397
Total School Fee $1290
Page 3
Exhibit 2
Alta =tive 2 Continued:
For Central and Chaffey Districts
9/13 for elementary schools • $908
4/13 for high schools • $404
Total School Fees $1312
Alternative 3) For Alta Loma and Chaffey Districts
elementary schools • $893
high schools • $272
Total School Fee • $1165
For Central and Chaffey Districts
elementary schools • $908
high schools • $272
Total School Fee • $1180
Alternative 4) For Alta Loma District
elementary schools $893
high schools $ 0
Total School Fee $893
For Central District
elementary schools $908
high schools $ 0
Total School Fee $908
This alternative mould involve the City Council finding that there is no
longer any impaction within the Chaffey, Joint Union hiigh School District
I
,i
EXHIBIT 4
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CITIES
OF FONTANA AND ONTARIO AFFECTING THE
CINFFEY HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
The following cummarizes the proposed residential development statue in
the two titles:
I. FONTANA
Within the Chaffey School District, only we subdivision has been
filed consisting of 564 units. Prior to tentative approval, a
zone change 1s required for the site. The Pon tans Planning Staff
Is recommending denial of the zone change because of General Plan
Inconsistency If the zone change, and subsequently, the subdivision
are approved, zany other applications are anticipated.
II ONTARIO
The following table is a breakdown of unapproved tentatives within the
Chaffey School District filed with the City of Ontario during the
period January 1, 1978 to January 1, 1979.
TYPE d OF UNITS - UNAPPROVED TENTATIVES ON FILE
Single Family Residences 941
Condominiums 474
Mobile Homes 517
TOTAL 1,892
air .,/��7.,, � �� �,,,,_..4� ., C� ✓�i�tr.�,
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: February 27, 1979
TO: City Council
FROM: Lauren M. Wasserman
City Managar _;4j�6�
SUBJECT: Bail -Out Assistance 4Ffort
On Wednesday's Council agenda you will note that we have added a Resolution
which is Intended to convince the State Controller and his staff that Rancho
Cucamonga should receive Its entire ball -out appropriation of $214,000 The
Resolution was drafted at the request of John Husing, Administrative Assistant -
to Assemblyman Terry Goggin Apparently, we are now at the point where the
Controller is looking for some evidence that the City Council would have
used the accumulated reserves as cf June 30 and ball -out assistance to meet
the 1 4 million dollar contract for law enforcement services with San
Bernardino County The ma'n emphasis of the Resolution Is the Council Indicates
that It would have used the accumulated reserve on June 30 to help meet the
contractual obligation
The one problem that we have is we really don't want to generate a lot of
Interest among the news media over this Issue until It has been resolved
Therefore, If you have any questions prior to the meeting, please canto-.t me
and I wlII attempt to answer them for you
LMW:baa
attach
EXHIBIT 3
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PL'd1 LARK PROGRAM
APPROXIMATE DATES
March 7 - April 19 Staff inventory of Cityscyvlce capability
(1 1/2 months) I
April 19 Special meeting
g - Discussion of City City goals
and policies, city service capability and
growth mmwgmmt implementation techniques
April 20
- June 20
Staff preparation of Grwth Management Plan
(2 months)
June 20
Planning Commission Public Hearing - Draft
Growth Hlnagement Plan _
July 5
Planning Commission Special Meeting
July 11
Planning Commission - Public Hearing, continued
July 19
Planning Commission (if necessary)
July 25
Planning Commission - Wrap up Growth Management
Plan
(Total Planning
Commission Time - 1 Month, 5 Days)
August 15
City Council Public Hearing
August 29
(5th Wednesday)
City Council - Special Meeting
September
5
City Council - Public Hearing, continued
(Total City Council Time - 3 Weems)
September
19
City Council - Ordinance Adoption and Imple-
mentation of Growth Management Plan
1
11
N) N
..1
e
E3
F
a
_U
p
y9
m
SI
n,
E
1Lt
N
P
P
H
V N V f'f
P 1'1 P N
v ..
In W
p v
M1 h M1 �M1 �
NM1Vt f.1 Y1N
g v P v P v
F F H
nW
V N
P v
H V
N Pf'1N
V NV 1'1
P v P v
F H
A nNn
P N�pb
H H
o�
vx
P V
H
M1 P
V V
P v
F
N n
M1 O
V N
N v
a
M1 �
W m
P v
H
N
N
N 2
0
h
y
u
w
W m
V
O
n
u
m
P 4
n
w
m
4
y
W 9
N H
2
0
u
G
ti
.1 Y
P y
M
u
m
M
0
.p1
W S
L
V
Nq
9
s
N m
Y
n
L
u
P L
v u
N
L
i
9
C
U �
N 0
w
6
u
u
0
1
O u
N
NO�
F
U
J
r�
43
P
M1
N
Y
N
N H
Y
~
t
W
N Z
a
a
I
r:
I
N
GI
ti
N
N
N
H
q
m
q
H H H
ep
M
o
u
v
qm
m y
N
e
v�
O
�
6
U
Y
N
_
.A
�
N
O
8
�
w
N ^ P ^
m
v V ! v
F
y
O
P v P v
N
m
b
H F
T
yy
m
N Y1
N
w
H
i
C
P
3 P v P v
F
H H
b
O
5
w
v^
ti
g
22
�qq
y
y
0
Ey
T
N �
N
Y
pWi H
w
y
y
N
N
H
9
•H.�
u
H
�
q
iR
P
n
s
H
H
t'