HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-25-2005 Minutesno
Mayor Judith Valles
Council Members:
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO Esther Estrada
300 N. "D" Street Susan Longville
Gordon McGinnis
San Bernardino, CA 92418 Neil Derry
Website: www.sbciry.org Chas Kelley
Rikke Van Johnson
Wendy McCammack
MINUTES
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
AND
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
JOINT ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 25, 2005
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY HALL
300 NORTH "D" STREET
SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFONRIA
This is the time and place designated for a joint adjourned regular meeting of the
Mayor and Common Council and Community Development Commission of the City of
San Bernardino and the Board of Directors of the San Bernardino Valley Municipal
Water District from the joint regular meeting of the Mayor and Common Council,
Community Development Commission, and San Bernardino City Housing Authority
held at 1:30 p.m., Monday, April 18, 2005, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300
North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California.
The City Clerk has caused to be posted the order of adjournment of said meeting held
on Monday, April 18, 2005, and has on file in the office of the City Clerk an affidavit
of said posting together with a copy of said order which was posted at 9:00 a.m.,
Tuesday, April 19, 2005, in a conspicuous place on the bulletin board of the place at
which said meeting was held.
Call to Order
At 6:35 p.m., the joint adjourned regular meeting of the Mayor and Common Council
and Community Development Commission of the City of San Bernardino and the Board
of Directors of the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District was called to order
by Mayor/Chairman Valles in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D"
Street, San Bernardino, California.
Roll Call - Mayor and Common Council/Community Development Commission
Roll call was taken by City Clerk Clark with the following being present:
Mayor/Chairman Valles; Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Longville,
McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack; Deputy City Attorney Empeiio, City
Clerk Clark, City Administrator Wilson. Absent: None.
Roll Call - San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
Roll call was taken by Board Secretary Linda Barnett with the following being present:
Board President Pat Milligan; Board Members Mark Bulot, Steve Copeland, George
Aguilar; Legal Counsel Sean Varner, Valley Water General Manager Bob Reiter.
Absent: Board Member Ed Kilgore.
Pledge of Allegiance
The pledge of allegiance was led by Council Member/Commissioner Derry.
1. Closed Session
Pursuant to Government Code Section(s):
A. Conference with legal counsel - existing litigation - pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.9(a).
B. Conference with legal counsel - anticipated litigation - significant
exposure to litigation - pursuant to subdivision (b) (1), (2), (3) (A-F) of
Government Code Section 54956.9.
C. Conference with legal counsel - anticipated litigation - initiation of
litigation - pursuant to subdivision (c) of Government Code Section
54956.9.
D. Closed Session - personnel - pursuant to Government Code Section
54957.
E. Closed session with Chief of Police on matters posing a threat to the
security of public buildings or threat to the public's right of access to
public services or public facilities - pursuant to Government Code
Section 54957.
2 04/25/2005
F. Conference with labor negotiator - pursuant to Government Code
Section 54957.6.
G. Conference with real property negotiator - pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.8.
2. Joint Public Hearing - Mayor & Common Council of City of San
Bernardino - Board of Directors of San Bernardino Valley Municipal
Water District - North & South Lake Area Projects
RES. 2005-97 - Resolution of the City of San Bernardino adopting the
Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Consideration, Certifying the
Final Program Environmental Impact Report, adopting the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the North Lake Area Project and the
South Lake Area Project, adopting General Plan Amendment No. 05-06,
and tabling General Plan Amendment No. 05-07.
Mayor/Chairman Valles advised that tonight the City of San Bernardino and the
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District were holding a joint public
hearing to ensure that both entities would hear all of the public testimony and
would hear it all in the same way; however, each body would take action
independently. She stated that throughout the meeting she would often refer to
the City of San Bernardino as "the City" and to the San Bernardino Valley
Municipal Water District as "Valley" or "Valley Water". She would also refer
to the Mayor and Common Council of the City as "the Council" and to the
Board of Directors of Valley as "the Board".
Mayor/Chairman Valles stated that she wanted to clarify that tonight's meeting
was not about establishing property values, is was not about how the project
will be funded, and it was not about acquisition or relocation. She advised that
tonight's meeting was to ensure that all environmental effects have been
considered in the event that Valley decides to build the North Lake Project and
if the City decides to build the South Lake Project.
Mayor/Chairman Valles opened the hearing.
Pursuant to Resolution No. 2000-279, City Clerk Clark administered an oath to
all individuals who would be presenting public comments that they would
provide true and honest testimony.
Mayor/Chairman Valles noted that copies of letters regarding this matter which
were received prior to the meeting had been given to each Board and Council
member for tonight's hearing; and requested that all written comments brought
3 04/25/2005
to the meeting be given to the City Clerk, who would provide copies to each
member of the Board and Council.
Valerie Ross, Deputy Director of Development Services/City Planner,
introduced the following members of her "team" —Randy Van Gelder, Assistant
General Manager of Valley Water; John Hoeger, Project Manager for the Water
JPA; Kevin Thomas and Matt Burris, RBF Consulting; and Tom Payne from
CRN Tech.
Background Information
Ms. Ross stated that in 1998 the City of San Bernardino, Valley Water District,
and the Inland Valley Development Agency formed a Joint Powers Authority —
the Water JPA. Subsequently, in 1999 the Water JPA completed the Vision
20/20 Plan, which contemplated or addressed a series of lakes and streams
throughout the city. In 2003, both the City and Valley Water entered into a Co -
lead Agency Agreement. Under this agreement, both agencies are considered
lead agencies under the California Environmental Quality Act. Later in 2003,
the Water JPA retained RBF Consulting to prepare the environmental
documentation for the North Lake and South Lake Area Projects.
Ms. Ross advised that this evening staff was requesting that the Mayor and
Common Council and the Board of Directors adopt the Facts, Findings, and
Statement of Overriding Considerations, Certify the Final Program
Environmental Impact Report, and adopt the Mitigation, Monitoring and
Reporting Plan. In addition, City staff was requesting that the Mayor and
Common Council adopt General Plan Amendment No. 05-06, which relates to
circulation, and table General Plan Amendment No. 05-07, which relates to land
use.
Referring to maps on the wall, Ms. Ross pointed out the location for the North
Lake Area Project, where Valley Water is looking at constructing a 660+ acre
foot regulating reservoir in the form of an at -surface lake. She advised that the
area includes approximately 82.5 acres, although the lake ultimately will only
take up approximately 44.5 acres. The total area has been identified by Valley
Water as necessary for staging and construction purposes. She stated that upon
completion of the lake itself, Valley Water will look at disposing of the remnant
property no longer needed for construction purposes.
Ms. Ross emphasized that as outlined in the State Government Code, Valley
Water District is not subject to the City's zoning and building ordinances for the
location or construction of facilities for the production, generation, storage, and
transmission of water. She advised that Valley Water District has its own
powers of eminent domain and is not reliant on the City, in this particular case.
She stated that for the North Lake Area Project the City would need to vacate
4 04/25/2005
the underlying streets in order for Valley Water to proceed; and Valley Water is
responsible for all costs that are related to the acquisition and relocation of
businesses and people residing in the area.
Ms. Ross stated that for the North Lake Area Project, staff started with two
General Plan Amendments. First, General Plan Amendment No. 05-06, which
is an amendment to the City's Circulation Element, which would remove "G"
Street, between 9' Street and Baseline, and 10' Street, between "E" and "H"
Streets, as secondary arterials from the Circulation Element. She advised that
this is necessary in order for the City to proceed with the street vacations;
however, there would be no action this evening on the street vacations
themselves.
She stated that General Plan Amendment No. 05-07 was proposed to change the
land use designations around the north side of the lake. This was done
specifically to accommodate future potential development at the completion of
the lake and after Valley Water disposes of the remnant parcels. However, staff
has recommended, and the Planning Commission concurs, that this amendment
be tabled for the time being until Valley Water does its final engineering and
determines if the actual shape and size of the lake is as shown on the,plan. She
stated it could be modified through the final engineering process, and staff
thought it would be better to wait and reevaluate the land use upon completion
of the lake project, if Valley Water proceeds with this.
Ms. Ross stated that the South Lake Area Project is located between the BNSF
Railroad right-of-way (south of Rialto Avenue and Mill Street) between the I-
215 freeway and "G" Street. She stated that this area, unlike the North Lake
Area Project, would be the City's responsibility for acquisition and/or relocation
if development of that project area proceeds.
As previously noted, the Water JPA retained RBF Consulting to prepare the
environmental documentation. They started with an initial study that was
reviewed by the City's Environmental Review Committee (ERC) in March
2003. The initial study was later revised and reviewed a second time by the
ERC in December 2003. The ERC concurred that an environmental impact
report would be required for both projects. In both cases the Notice of
Preparation was published in the San Bernardino County Sun newspaper, it was
distributed to public agencies, distributed to the State Clearinghouse, and posted
on both the City's and Valley Water's web sites.
Ms. Ross noted that the comments received during the Notice of Preparation
period were considered in the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report
itself. She stated that in this case we have a program Environmental Impact
Report because both the North Lake Area and South Lake Area are a series of
actions that will take place over time. She stated that some activities may go on
concurrently, while others will be sequential; and there may be time gaps in
5 04/25/2005
between. Therefore, the Program EIR would be the most appropriate
environmental document in this case.
Ms. Ross advised that last fall the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
was released for public review and comment. The Notice of Completion was
published in The Sun newspaper, distributed to public agencies, distributed to
the State Clearinghouse, and posted on both agencies' web sites. At the same
time, it was also distributed to the City's Environmental Review Committee and
Planning Commission, the Mayor and Common Council, and the Board of
Directors of Valley Water.
She advised that within the Draft Program EIR was an evaluation of short-term
impacts, which are usually construction related impacts; long-term impacts,
which are usually the operational impacts; and then cumulative impacts. She
noted that this is for all of the areas that are identified in the initial study
checklist as required by the California Environmental Quality Act.
Ms. Ross advised that within the Draft Program EIR there are areas of concern
where no mitigation measures are required, and there are other areas that can be
mitigated to a level of less than significant with the inclusion of, mitigation
measures. However, there are certain areas where there would be unavoidable,
significant, adverse impacts after inclusion of feasible mitigation measures. She
stated that those areas are addressed in the Draft Program EIR, but they are also
outlined in the Executive Summary of that report. She stated that generally
speaking, those impacts are related to air quality, noise, demolition debris, the
introduction of a barrier land use, and the displacement of residents and
businesses.
Ms. Ross stated that when the Draft Program EIR was out for public review,
comments were received from four agencies/organizations and two individuals;
and responses to those comments were prepared. She noted that some of the
comments received were not related to environmental matters, but were policy
issues which the Valley Water District will consider when they reach the point
of making those specific determinations.
Ms. Ross noted that included in the backup materials was the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Plan, which lists each mitigation measure that is
identified in the EIR. It identifies who is responsible for completing or doing
that mitigation measure and the party responsible for enforcement and follow-up
to make sure the mitigation measures have been completed.
Ms. Ross stated that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not
require formal public hearings as part of the environmental review process.
However, what is required is publication in a newspaper of general circulation
and notification as she previously mentioned.
6 04/25/2005
Ms. Ross advised, however, that approval or consideration of either general
plan amendment does require a public hearing on the part of the City's Planning
Commission and the Mayor and Council; and that is also outlined in the State
Government Code.
She stated that she did want to note that through the Co -lead Agency
Agreement, Valley Water District has followed and complied with the City's
environmental process. The City has many more steps in its process than are
required by State law, and through that agreement Valley Water has met all of
them along with the City.
Ms. Ross stated that on March 8, the City of San Bernardino Planning
Commission considered the North Lake Area Project and the South Lake Area
Project at a noticed public hearing. A display ad was published in The Sun
newspaper, notices were mailed to all property owners within both project areas
and within 500 feet of the boundaries of each project area. Comments were
received at the Planning Commission meeting, and those comments were
included in the backup materials along with the Planning Commission minutes,
which include staff's responses to the comments received at the Planning
Commission hearing.
She stated that for this joint public hearing, City staff and Valley Water staff
repeated the process —a display ad in The Sun, the City mailed the notices as
noted above, and all of the backup information that was provided to the Mayor
and Council last Friday was also made available on their respective web pages.
She noted that she went on the web page earlier today and it showed over 3,600
hits or visitors on the City's web page just for this project.
Ms. Ross advised that in addition to the hearing tonight, and the Planning
Commission public hearing, there was also a scoping meeting earlier this year
after the Notice of Preparation was released. There were also other meetings or
workshops that were held throughout this process; and in an effort to reach as
many people as possible staff used the services of Los Padrinos to distribute
flyers in both English and Spanish, letting people know that there were different
workshops. For example, there was an EIR information meeting last September
20, which was followed by the same meeting on October 14; however, the latter
meeting was Spanish translated. Then two weeks ago, April 14, there was
another meeting specifically dealing with the acquisition/relocation process to
further explain to people what that meant. She stated that many brochures have
been printed and distributed, and the City's web page also contains answers to
the most frequently asked relocation questions; and people have found these
sources helpful in understanding the process.
Ms. Ross noted that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) states
that, "No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an
environmental impact report has been prepared which identifies one or more
7 04/25/2005
significant environmental effects of the project unless that public agency makes
one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, and that is to
be accompanied by a brief explanation of the reasoning of each finding."
Also, "CEQA requires the decision making agency to balance, as is appropriate,
the economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of a proposed
project against unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether or
not to approve that project." If the specific benefits of a proposed project
outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse
environmental effects may be considered acceptable.
Ms. Ross advised the Council/Board that provided in their backup information
was some updated information identified by a blue cover that supplemented what
they had previously been given. She noted that Exhibit 7D in the Mayor and
Common Council's packets and Exhibit 8D in the Board of Directors' packets
were the Facts, Findings, and Statement of Overriding Consideration in
compliance with CEQA, and staff had some revised pages to that document for
them this evening.
Ms. Ross concluded her remarks, stating that Valley staff and; City staff
recommended that the Mayor and Common Council and the Board of Directors
adopt their respective resolutions, which adopt the Facts, Findings, and
Statement of Overriding Considerations, certifies the Final Environmental
Impact Report, and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan. In
addition, City staff recommended, as included in the City's resolution, that the
Mayor and Common Council adopt General Plan Amendment No. 05-06, which
relates to circulation, and table General Plan Amendment No. 05-07, which
relates to land use.
Randy Van Gelder, Assistant General Manager with the San Bernardino Valley
Municipal Water District, stated that he was asked to mention a few things
specific to the North Lake Area Project. He stated that in the North Lake Area
about 12 percent of the land is currently vacant and about 18 percent of the land
is already in existing public rights -of -way.
He stated that one of the questions that has been asked is why Valley Water
ended up in the Phase I Area. He explained that Valley Water has a Master
Plan which provides for pumping ground water and delivering that ground water
from Fontana all the way up to Yucaipa, and this Phase I Area is close to some
of their existing Master Plan facilities. In fact, the backbone of that system is a
large pipeline system in 9' Street; and this particular Phase I Area is just
northerly of that, and they anticipate using this reservoir as a regulating
reservoir, as well as a recreation lake, for integration with their Master Plan.
8 04/25/2005
Also, on the westerly boundary is the "H" Street storm drain. He stated that
there are times when there is too much water under the basin, and Valley Water
has contracts in place to remove that water to Orange County; and they can use
this reservoir to temporarily store the water so they can balance the production
with the downstream demand and use the "H" Street storm drain to deliver that
water to the Santa Ana River.
Additionally, it will also be used as an emergency backup supply. He noted that
in the EIR there is a future potential of site locations for a water treatment
facility; and this facility would treat the water that is in the surface reservoir on
an emergency basis for all of the customers along that particular pipeline.
According to Mr. Van Gelder, when they talk about recreation, they are talking
about small electric and sailboat -type boats and fishing. One of the questions
that has come up is, where will the water supply come from for this reservoir.
He explained that they are talking about using existing wells; however, if those
wells are insufficient, the Board of Directors of Valley Water District has
agreed with the City Municipal Water Department to drill wells in the UCE and
PCE flumes that are just northerly of this site and to integrate that supply into
their needs for water for the lake as well as for future drinking water.,
He stated that another question that has been raised is, can this dam be built
safely. He advised that Valley Water has experience in building dams, and this
particular dam would be similar to some that they have already constructed.
Also, the State Department of Water Resources has a Division of the Safety of
Dams, and they will be responsible from the state level for assuring that this
dam will have an adequate and safe design.
As part of that process, Valley Water is required to do an Inundation Study,
which means where would the water go if, in fact, the reservoir failed in a very
quick way. Again, through the "H" Street storm drain —that is where they
would design the overflow of the lake to be handled in such a catastrophe. The
"H" Street storm drain is sufficient for that, as is described and shown in their
Master Plan and in the Environmental Impact Report prepared by RBF.
Finally, Mr. Van Gelder mentioned that although the Water District could
proceed without being a partner with the City on this venture, from the
beginning the Board of Directors and the staff have been working with the
Mayor and City staff on a cooperative basis. Valley Water District is now
partnering with the Water Department on about $8 million worth of facilities in
this particular area to assist with the cleanup of the EPA water, as well as for
additional shared pipelines as part of the City's Master Plan. He stated that
Valley is embarking on this as a full partner with the City.
9 04/25/2005
Written Correspondence and Public Comments
City Clerk Clark advised that the following written correspondence had been
received after the agenda materials had been published and distributed:
Don White, undated correspondence in support of the project;
Rabbi Hillel Cohn, correspondence dated April 25, 2005, in support of the
Lakes and Streams Project;
Steve & Linda Sutherland, letter dated April 25, 2005, expressing support;
James L. Mulvihill, AICP, memorandum dated April 25, 2005, advocating
denial of the North Lake portion of the proposed project;
Earleen Ferguson -Dudley, statement in favor of the Lakes and Streams Project
dated April 25, 2005;
Ghassan Norman Abdullah, Azizeh Abdullah & Solomon Abdullah, letter
dated April 24, 2005, in opposition to the proposed project;
Christena Elshof, President, Board of Directors, YWCA, letter dated April 18,
2005, in support of the Lakes and Streams Project;
Arturo Delgado, Ed.D., Superintendent, San Bernardino City Unified School
District, letter dated April 25, 2005, in support of the project;
Linden Malki, Import Auto Supply/Malki Auto Service, letter dated April 25,
2005, in opposition to the project;
Deanna Adams, Ph.D., Victory Chapel, copy of paid political advertisement
published April 24, 2005, in The Sun newspaper in opposition to the project.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT of the proposed North and South
Lake Area Projects:
(Note: All addresses are in the city of San Bernardino unless otherwise noted.)
Duke (Edward) Hill, 1752 Lomas Privadas Drive;
John Magness, Hillwood, 105 North Leland Norton Way;
Martin Matich, 3182 Valencia Avenue;
Don White, 3776 La Hacienda Drive;
Sheila McDevitt, Angie's Flowers, 168 South "E" Street;
Larry Sharp, Arrowhead Credit Union, 550 Hospitality Lane;
Supervisor Josie Gonzales, 5' District, San Bernardino County;
Charles Diamond, Developer, 101 Main Street, Suite A, Seal Beach, CA;
Linda Sutherland, The Fun Corner, President of Baseline Business
Association, 426 West Baseline;
Stephen Sutherland, The Fun Corner, 426 West Baseline;
Dr. Ron Graybill, Community Outreach Coordinator, Loma Linda University
Medical Center, 1275 E. San Bernardino, Avenue;
Steve Henthorn, President, San Bernardino Convention & Visitors Bureau, 201
North "E" Street;
Durand Rall, CEO -General Manager, Omnitrans, 1700 West 5" Street;
10 04/25/2005
Allen Gresham, 825 Vista Drive;
Lou Schnepp, I I10 Devonshire Road;
Ruth Chafin, 3896 Kenwood Street;
Maria Valdez, 937 North "H" Street;
Dr. Ernest Garcia, 695 East 39ih Street;
Wael Elatar, San Bernardino City Unified School Distirct, representing
Superintendent Arturo Delgado;
Nick Lopez, Sunwest Printing, 148 East 48ih Street;
Jack Cramp, 1370 North "D" Street;
Earleen Ferguson -Dudley, 393 West Athol Street, Ste. 12;
Christy Elshof, President, YWCA, 567 North Sierra Way;
Rabbi Hillel Cohn, 3947 Ironwood Street;
Tim Martin, 159 Pinehurst Court;
Don Scherneck, Aztec Uniform, 186 South "G" Street;
James Watson, Developer, 101 Main Street, Ste. A, Seal Beach, CA.
Those individuals who spoke in support of the project noted that San Bernardino
needs a backbone, and water can provide this backbone upon which we can
reassess the whole city; discussed the positive effects of the project on local
tourism; stated that it will help control the water level in our basin and will
allow the incorporation of facilities that will help clear up pollution; that it will
revitalize the community, bring jobs back to the core of San Bernardino, and
serve as a catalyst to significant development in the downtown area.
Rall Durand of Omnitrans spoke regarding Omnitrans' plans for an enhanced
state-of-the-art rapid transit service along the "E" Street corridor and requested
that Valley Water and the City consider one specific policy as they continue the
detailed planning for the North Lake Area Project; a policy to integrate the
North Lake Area Project development policies with the SBX Transit Corridor
Project to encourage transit oriented development and new development in
strategic areas on and along the "E" Street SBX Corridor.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION to the proposed North and South
Lake Area Projects:
(Note: All addresses are in the city of San Bernardino unless otherwise noted.)
Deanna Adams, 1156 North "F" Street;
Ghassan Norman Abdullah, 1129 North "F" Street;
Steve Veloz, 1070 North "G" Street;
Kim Goodstein, 948 North "F" Street;
Gil Navarro, 1440 West 6th Street;
Lucy Romero, 1070 North "G" Street;
Tom O'Neal, 1156 North "F" Street;
Jim Mulvihill, 407 West 25`s Street;
11 04/25/2005
Louis E. Goebel, Attorney, 110 West "A" Street, Ste. 600, San Diego, CA,
representing Jesus Cobos, 690 West 10`h Street;
Nate Grant, 720 West 9'h Street;
Evette Castorino, 771 West 11"' Street;
Diana Hayes, 740 West 9'h Street;
Reverend Betty Long, 734 West 10th Street;
Mr. Owen, 216 East 10' Street;
Linden Malki, 565 West 9"' Street;
Robert Miller, Attorney, 110 West "A" Street, Ste. 600, San Diego, CA;
Mario Hernandez, 932 Acacia Avenue.
Attorney Goebel advised that in the case of the Cobos property, the draft EIR
had identified this property as a historic property; however, it stopped there and
did not go forward to set forth what might be done with it. This was also the
case with Dr. Adams' property. He advised that he had delivered two legal
briefs to the City Clerk's office last week and requested that they be entered into
the record.
Other individuals opposed to this project questioned how 72 homes can replace
437 affordable properties; stated that the EIR is inaccurate and contains
erroneous figures, and that the project will not mitigate the city's liquefaction
problem; claimed that the Agency has not been truthful with the residents; that
they love their homes and want to keep their homes; and that the North Lake
portion of the EIR has a fatal flaw relative to traffic and transportation issues.
They questioned where the money will come from for the project and stated that
it discriminates against people with disabilities and those of low economic
status. One resident expressed concern regarding the 44-foot drop in elevation
between Baseline and 9`h Street and the 50-foot drop at the north end of the lake,
as well as a concern regarding the large quantity of water just 50 feet from her
front door in the event of an earthquake.
Attorney Miller stated that the true impact of the project has not been studied,
and he questioned where the people will go when they are forced from their
neighborhoods. He stated that this question needs to be answered before the
project proceeds.
Council Member/Commissioner Johnson asked what was going to happen as far
as the evaporation process, and what damage is going to be done to the
ecological system by bringing this underground water to the surface. He also
questioned what the damage would be if an earthquake occurs.
12 04/25/2005
Council Member/Commissioner Kelley asked for clarification from staff
regarding the displacement of residents; specifically, because it is a
redevelopment area with 470 properties that are considered affordable housing,
if those come down, do they have to be replaced 2 to 1 in other parts of the
city?
Staff's Response to Comments
Valerie Ross, Deputy Director of Development Services/City Planner, stated
that numerous questions had been asked this evening and numerous concerns
were raised. She stated that staff would only be responding to the
environmental issues that were raised, including questions about the Draft
Program Environmental Impact Report —particularly as it deals with population
and housing.
She explained that the background information in the Draft Program EIR came
from census data and from the State of California Department of Finance. She
advised that every year the City, as well as every jurisdiction in California, is
provided with a certified population estimate that includes not only our
population estimate, but it also includes the City's vacancy rate and the persons
per household. She stated that that is the information that RBF relied upon in
doing their analysis.
She emphasized that the EIR addresses approximately a vacancy rate of 11
percent in the city of San Bernardino, which was identified in the 2000 census.
She noted that the city's vacancy rate has remained at 11 percent, and was 11
percent as of our certified population for 2004. She added that this year's
population figures have not yet come in.
Ms. Ross explained that as the EIR identified, and also as the City's Housing
Element identified, when you have a vacancy rate above 4 or 5 percent, it
contributes to a decline throughout the community in terms of attracting people
to the city —either to live there or to develop there.
She stated that the reason she emphasized the vacancy rate is that even if all of
the people in this area are displaced and relocated from this North Lake Area
Project into the city, that would still leave the city's vacancy rate at
approximately 10 percent —it would hardly touch it.
Ms. Ross noted that the FIR does not address where, specifically, the people
who are being displaced will relocate to or be relocated, because it is not known
at this time.
13 04/25/2005
She noted that concerns were also raised this evening that the City and/or Valley
Water is targeting this neighborhood because of the ethnicity of the
neighborhood and because of the income levels. She pointed out that in Section
4.9 of the EIR, it addressed the fact that throughout the city, overall, a
substantial amount of the population is made up of low income and below
median income, and it is not confined to this census tract, nor is the slightly
higher Latino population confined to this census tract —it is also found
throughout the city. She stated that this project did not set out to target minority
neighborhoods.
Ms. Ross stated that concerns were raised regarding the historic value of some
of the structures, and in the EIR two structures were identified as meeting the
potential for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and the
California Register of Historical Resources. She noted that there were four
other structures, including 1156 North "F" Street and 690 West 10' Street,
which were mentioned this evening; and although they are not eligible for listing
on either of the lists just mentioned, they meet the City's criteria as outlined in
Section 15.37.055 of the City's Municipal Code. Therefore, for CEQA
purposes they were considered significant, and that is how RBF analyzed them.
However, the Draft Program EIR determined that the removal of these
structures would be less than significant with mitigation, and the mitigation
measures included city structures relocation and rehabilitation, if feasible, and
proper documentation —textural documentation and photo documentation.
Lastly, in response to concerns that were raised about traffic, she asked Kevin
Thomas from RBF to explain how they did the traffic study. She pointed out
that Robert Eisenbeiz, senior civil engineer in the Development Services
Department with many years of experience and expertise in traffic and
circulation, in both the private and public sectors, reviewed the traffic analysis
that was prepared by the consultant and requested numerous changes before he
was satisfied that it correctly identified the impact and correctly identified
corresponding mitigation measures.
Kevin Thomas, Environmental Services Manager, RBF Consulting, stated that
he wanted to emphasize that the City's traffic engineer had made a number of
corrections and/or changes to the Traffic Study. One of the changes that was
made was that they had to look at not only the current I-215 configuration, but
the future configuration —so they did in fact look at the effect of the I-215
improvements on both the construction traffic and operational traffic in the
future.
Mr. Thomas stated that the I-215 widening was addressed specifically in Section
2.4 Cumulative Impacts, and the EIR identified a future project, not only for
construction issues but for operational issues for the intersections. He stated
that they spent a great deal of time attempting to coordinate in as much detail as
14 04/25/2005
possible with SANBAG, Caltrans, and City engineering staff, given the
somewhat unknown future for the I-215 widening due to State and Federal
funding crunches; and the document they prepared contains the best available
information they had at the time.
With regard to short-term construction traffic impacts caused by the current I-
215 construction and the future I-215 construction, there are in fact mitigation
measures in the EIR requiring that the City traffic engineer identify a haul route.
He stated that they have proposed one haul route in the EIR based on the
intersections that exist, and that route will have to be coordinated with Caltrans
as part of the actual final construction plans.
Regarding questions that were raised as to how they estimated the construction
traffic impact, he suggested that they probably overstated, and he thought there
was some confusion in reading the tables in the Traffic Section. He noted that
Tables 4.12-3 and 4.12-4 both deal with construction traffic impacts. However,
since the table is titled "with vacant land", the reader may assume that they
completely discounted the traffic that would occur in the existing area of the
North Lake. In fact, there is another column in both tables that says, existing
plus project traffic —so essentially they double counted not only . all of the
construction traffic for North Lake construction and demolition, but left 100
percent of the current traffic in that area and assumed it was still on all the city
streets, resulting in double counting the traffic.
He stated that that was the basis of the mitigation efforts they have in the EIR
for the temporary construction impacts. So, they believe it is extremely
conservative and that it is unlikely that there will be 100 percent of the
construction traffic and 100 percent of the traffic generated from the North Lake
Area.
Randy Van Gelder, Assistant General Manager, Valley Water, noted that there
were a couple of questions relating to the water supply and water aspects of the
project —one dealing with how much evaporation there would be from the lake.
He advised that as it turns out, turf grass and a lake evaporate basically the same
amount of water. So if this area were in grass or in a lake you would end up
evaporating roughly the same amount of water —about 36 inches per year in this
area.
He stated that another question was raised about the site that was proposed in
the Lytle Creek area as a substitute location for this reservoir. He stated that as
Valley Water understood the proposal, it would be a) much closer to the San
Jacinto fault, and b) would be in the flood plain within the Lytle Creek area; and
both of those aspects would not be desirable for the lake.
15 04/25/2005
Regarding the question about the landfall from the northwest to the southeast in
the North Lake Area, he explained that the way it is structured, there is a 30-
foot slope on the north end sloping down to the water, and there is about a 5- to
6-foot berm on the south end, so that you take up the differential in elevation
partly on the north and partly on the south.
He stated that the questions about how they would assure safety of the dam are
related to two studies that they are required to do. One of them is called an
Inundation Study, which means what should happen if in fact the dam were to
fail catastrophically, very quickly. He advised that this report is required, and
they have done these reports on the other lakes and reservoirs that they have
participated in constructing, including Yucaipa Regional Park as well as the
Crafton Hills reservoir, which is part of the State water project.
He stated that the second part of the answer to that question is that they will also
be talking to the people at the State of California, Department of Water
Resources, Division of Safety of Dams. These people conduct analyses of
proposed dams and provide their assessment as to the safety of those facilities.
Again, this is something Valley Water has done with their other facilities, and it
is just part of the standard practice. The experts in the State, including people
from Cal Tech and Berkeley, will actually be assisting in making sure that this
is a safe and successful project.
Regarding concerns that the City or Valley Water District should complete an
affordable housing study, Valerie Ross advised that Valley Water District has
already retained a relocation expert. She stated that this consultant has already
sent out surveys and has already been meeting with people in the area to get the
information necessary to complete the relocation plan. She added that this is a
mitigation measure which must be done before Valley Water can go forward
with any acquisition or any relocation of the people in the area.
Insofar as the question posed by one of the Council members, who asked about
the 2 to 1 replacement for affordable housing, Ms. Ross advised that Valley
Water District is not subject to that requirement —that it would be 1 to 1.
Regarding concerns about the loss of affordable housing and the General Plan
policy, Ms. Ross advised that both the City's General Plan and the Consolidated
Plan do contain policies that address the preservation of existing affordable
housing; however, those plans acknowledge that the City has an aging housing
stock —in fact, half of the homes in this city were built prior to 1963. While age
alone does not necessarily mean that the units are substandard, the background
information for the City's General Plan Housing Element update did determine
that the city experiences relatively high rates of unmaintained and/or
substandard housing, and although this is throughout the city it seems more
prevalent in some of the older areas.
16 04/25/2005
Also, the General Plan in particular acknowledges that just because the
preservation of existing affordable housing is a goal, it does not mean that it
cannot be relocated and/or demolished. She referred to goals in the General
Plan such as Goal 1G, which states, "Achieve a pattern in distribution of land
uses which provides for revitalization, adaptive reuse, and upgrade of
deteriorated neighborhoods and districts." Another goal, 1K, states, "Maintain
the physical quality of the city's buildings."
Ms. Ross advised that there are other goals and objectives that she wouldn't go
into at this time; however, she did want to emphasize that the Mayor and
Council are constantly being asked to weigh the goals, objectives and policies in
the General Plan in making their land use determinations and/or environmental
determinations. And she believed that was the issue this evening.
Council Member/Commissioner Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Kelley, that the hearing be closed and that full reading
of the resolution be waived.
The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council . Members/
Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
Council Member/Commissioner Longville read and submitted into the record a
document titled, TESTIMONY FROM COUNCIL MEMBER LONGVILLE,
Joint Public Hearing on the North and South Lake Projects, City of San
Bernardino and San Bernardino Municipal Water District, 4/25/05.
In her comments, Ms. Longville described one of the original designs for the
reservoir and the many concepts included in that plan. She stated that, "All of
these concepts for the North Lake area have been included in the EIR as the
Smaller North Lake Alternative." She then went on to quote what the EIR said
about the Smaller North Lake Alternative, as follows: "It says the smaller lake
is (quote) `the environmentally superior alternative' (close quote) and it also
states that the smaller lake (quote) `provides sufficient storage' (close -quote)."
Ms. Longville pointed out that the EIR failed to discuss why the capacity of the
lake increased by 30 percent, when it simply needed to be shallower, or why the
plan to preserve and rehabilitate a portion of the North Lake Area was laid
aside.
Most importantly, she felt there was "a fatal flaw in this project that puts both
the city and the water district in a very vulnerable situation ... because MUNI
alone will be acquiring and relocating all the residents and businesses within the
82.4 acre North Lake Area."
17 04/25/2005
According to Ms. Longville, MUNI will ultimately acquire and hold title to
more than 25 acres of vacant land and "hold them for redevelopment purposes
until some date in time when the city comes up with a huge source of funding to
compensate the water district for the money it has spent."
In her opinion, "The Redevelopment Commission of the City of San Bernardino
should acquire property necessary for the new homes and small commercial
pads when they have the private developers to do these projects. This project
can't be successful without private sector participation and the projects should
start with a private investor that is ready to come to San Bernardino and take
advantage of what we have to offer.
"And that is why there is absolutely no guarantee that there will ever be any
redevelopment in those 25 acres. The EIR merely states (quote) `certain
remnant land may be transferred to the Redevelopment Agency for reuse as
redevelopment. "'
Ms. Longville concluded her remarks by stating that she must vote no on
certification of this EIR, and she urged her colleagues to adopt the Smaller
North Lake Alternative because it is the environmentally superior alternative, it
has right design concepts, and it does not place the city or the district in
financial jeopardy.
Council Member/Commissioner Longville made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Derry, that the Mayor and Common Council adopt the
Resolution which certifies the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH
2003121150) with the Smaller North Lake Alternative No. 3 substituted as the
Preferred Alternative in the Final EIR, adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Plan, adopts the Facts, Findings, and Statement of Overriding
Consideration, adopts General Plan Amendment No. 05-06 (Circulation), and
tables General Plan Amendment No. 05-07 (Land Use).
Mayor/Chairman Valles expressed disappointment in the timing of Ms.
Longville's comments and asked that her colleagues not support the motion.
City Clerk Clark read the title of the resolution into the record.
The motion failed by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/
Commissioners Longville, Derry, McCammack. Nays: Council Members/
Commissioners Estrada, McGinnis, Kelley, Johnson. Absent: None.
Council Member/Commissioner McGinnis made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Kelley, that the Mayor and Common Council adopt the
Resolution which certifies the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH
18 04/25/2005
2003121150), adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, adopts the
Facts, Findings, and Statement of Overriding Consideration, adopts General
Plan Amendment No. 05-06 (Circulation), and tables General Plan Amendment
No. 05-07 (Land Use). (Note: The vote was taken following discussion.)
Council Member/Commissioner McCammack stated that she has seen
communities take water and wake up dying inner cities; and she believes this is
a valid, viable project. She also believes, as the experts have stated, that it
would be a great water management tool. However, she did agree with some of
her colleagues that it is too large —that she would like to see more historic
structures saved in this project for history and for the city's future.
She stated that saving six or seven structures, as outlined in this plan, is a crime;
and as Ms. Longville stated, Meadowbrook is a prime example of mixed use in -
fill and affordable housing community. She noted that the Council just finished
approving larger down payment assistance to low income families for in -fill just
like Meadowbrook and just like this project (if it does involve in -fill housing),
and that redevelopment money is not limitless.
She noted that not too long ago the Council approved the City's Housing
Element, and they will have to replace those units —not two for one, but
definitely one for one —and again, they will have to provide, through the
Redevelopment Agency, the down payment assistance, if, in fact, they are going
to keep those units as affordable housing.
Ms. McCammack stated that when this Vision 20/20 was first brought forward,
she sat in the audience, not as an elected official but as a concerned citizen, and
gave her input along with other concerned citizens, and many of the comments
that were given in those meetings just seem to have been ignored. She stated
that at that time, she had assumed there were developers that had already been
contacted who were part of the vision, waiting in line to develop around the
reservoir. That was the plan —let Muni (Valley Water) build the reservoir, and
then somebody else would come up with the money to redevelop the exterior of
it.
She stated that it is unthinkable to her that at least $600,000 was paid for a
design that places residents closer to the freeway and the commercial further
from the freeway, which would not allow the commercial the best possible
chance to succeed. Worse yet, are the large 3- to 5-acre pads which look to her
like another 1.2 million square feet of a Mattel warehouse, which did not give
the City the jobs that were originally promised. She also questioned a design
that would place the residents on the west side of the freeway and the daycare
centers on the east side of the freeway.
19 04/25/2005
Ms. McCammack stated that the Economic Feasibility Study explains that there
is no identifiable revenue source other than the reservoir itself to complete the
project. She stated that the adage "build it and they will come" was the same
premise used for Seccombe Lake 30 years ago, and the City is still trying to
revive that area.
She pointed out that the land in the area has at least doubled in price from when
this plan first originated. She questioned and expressed concern that if Muni
buys up almost 40 more acres than they need, that when they are through with it
the City would need to buy it back at the fair market value at that time. She
noted that the City would also have to rebuild the infrastructure that was bought
and paid for prior to Muni's purchase, and then replace it at tomorrow's cost —
only five years from now. Those costs will then be triple what they are now;
and she did not see this being for the public's good.
She stated that it was her understanding that the City will be required to replace
those 470+ homes that come down somewhere else in the city. And that is not
a problem, but the City will have to come up with down payment assistance
through the Redevelopment Agency to help those folks afford those "affordable"
homes.
Ms. McCammack stated that the most critical element to her now, and has been
since the day she started running for office, is how the City is going to pay for it
when Muni is done. Reiterating that the project is a very viable project, she
pointed out that bravery and vision are great things, but it's much more difficult
when you are burdening future citizens with the decisions you are making today.
Mayor/Chairman Valles stated that she needed to respond as far as mixed use
and housing is concerned —that providing housing for our citizens has always
been the plan and will continue to be so. She stated that some of those present
may remember what the Meadowbrook area looked like at one time; and that
changing that look took bold action also. She stated that the City did support
and provide the down payment assistance, and now we have first-time
homeowners and the area is looking better.
Insofar as talking about vision, she stated that they did look at Seccombe Lake,
and the lack of vision for that lake and for the surrounding area was a mistake
that they do not want to make again, which is why they must not look only at
the water —they must look at the mixed use. She stated that they looked at the
historical buildings that do exist, and have done everything they can to maintain
that so that the city can have a mixed use of high- and low -end people living
together. She stated that it has happened in other communities —that she has
traveled to many cities where this has occurred, and she sees that as happening
here.
20 04/25/2005
Mayor/Chairman Valles stated that she did not know where Ms. McCammack
got the child care center locations, since they do not know where the child care
centers are going to be. She reminded everyone that early on into her tenure
there was a crying need for childcare facilities throughout the city; and she
called for a summit to identify the areas where childcare facilities would be
needed and located them where they were needed the most. She advised that
GIS mapping was done for that, and they will continue to do this —the childcare
facilities closer to moms who work is a top priority and it always has been.
She stated that what they have is a picture, and a proposal, and a concept of
where things will be, but that doesn't mean that is where it necessarily is going
to be. She stated that she has taken her positions very seriously when the City
identifies housing and schools and childcare facilities, and also for the economic
revitalization of an entire community. Therefore, she was disappointed that Ms.
Longville waited to the very last minute to come up with this when she had
seven years to bring this about.
Council Member/Commissioner Kelley stated that he wanted to make it clear as
to why he voted the way he did and his decision to stand by that; vote. He
pointed out that in the staff report it says, "If the North Lake Project moves
forward, Valley will be responsible for the cost of acquisition, demolition,
relocation, and construction with the JPA's cost limited to routine
expenditures."
The motion carried and Resolution No. 2005-97 was adopted by the following
vote: Ayes: Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, McGinnis, Derry,
Kelley, Johnson. Nays: Council Members/Commissioners Longville,
McCammack. Absent: None.
3. Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San
Bernardino approving Amendment No. 2 to that certain Loan Agreement
by and among the City of San Bernardino, the San Bernardino Valley
Municipal Water District, and the San Bernardino Regional Water
Resources Authority.
City Clerk Clark read the title of the resolution into the record.
Senior Deputy City Attorney Empeno asked the Mayor and Council to look at
Amendment No. 2 to the loan agreement —that there was a provision on page 2,
Section 4, which stated that "Paragraph number 2 of the Loan Agreement is
hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:"; and he explained that what
followed was the paragraph regarding use of City and District loan funds.
21 04/25/2005
He stated that the issue staff was raising was the growing expense that has been
coming about for outside legal counsel, project manager, and consultant fees.
He stated that this amendment, which differs from the previous original loan
agreement as well as Amendment No. 1, clarifies this language and specifies
that it can be used for ". . . such costs as project manager, legal counsel,
remaining invoices of the Consultant related to the EIR and for such other fees
and other necessary and normal expenses reasonably incurred by the Authority
related to the Project."
Therefore, due to these concerns regarding the growing amount of fees, staff
had talked with the City Administrator about this, and they were asking the
Council to include language regarding a cap on legal fees, project manager fees,
and consultant fees in this section of the agreement.
Council Member/Commissioner Kelley asked what the recommended cap would
be.
Mr. Empeno stated that staff did not have an amount —they were talking with
the City Administrator and they were going to try to come up with an
appropriate figure.
City Administrator Wilson stated that they were talking about what the
appropriate amount would be; however, he thought they needed more time to
work through the numbers. He suggested that the matter be held over to the
upcoming Council meeting so they could work out the cap figure for the legal
expenses and for project manager services.
Council Member/Commissioner Derry made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Kelley, that the matter be continued to the
Council/Commission meeting of May 2, 2005.
Council Member/Commissioner Estrada requested that as part of the
information brought back to the Council that staff include an explanation of how
they arrived at the cap figure.
Council Member/Commissioner McCammack stated that one of the items that
concerned her in this particular resolution was the fact that she did not see a cap
on the amount of money that the City would be able to re -loan to the JPA.
Mayor/Chairman Valles stated she thought it would be difficult to identify a cap
at this time.
The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/
Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
22 04/25/2005
4. Public Comments
There were no public comments.
5. Adjournment
At 10:59 p.m., the meeting adjourned. The next joint regular meeting of the
Mayor and Common Council and Community Development Commission is
scheduled for 1:30 p.m., Monday, May 2, 2005, in the Council Chambers of
City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California.
No. of Items: 5
No. of Hours: 4.5
RACHEL G. CLARK, CMC
City Clerk
By:
Linda E. Hartzel
Deputy City Clerk
23 04/25/2005