Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-02-1989 Minutes . . . ~ ~ City of San Bernardino, California June 2, 1989 This is the time and place set for an Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at their Adjourned Regular Meeting held at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, May 31, 1989, 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 Wednesday, May 31, 1989, at 9:30 a.m., 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., June 1, 1989, on the door of the place at which said meeting was held. The Adjourned Regular Meeting was called to order Wilcox at 9:13 a.m., in the Council Chambers of City North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. by Mayor Hall, 300 INVOCATION The Invocation was given by Phil Arvizo, Executive Assistant to the Council. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Council Member Reilly. ROLL CALL Roll Call was taken by Deputy City Clerk Reese with the following being present: Mayor Wilcox; Council Members Reilly, Flores, Maudsley, Minor, Pope-Ludlam, Miller; Deputy City Attorney Empeno, Deputy City Clerk Reese, Acting City Administrator Robbins. Absent: Council Member Estrada. PRESENTATION - COMMENDATION - MAYOR WILCOX Council Member Reilly, Senior Council Member, read a proclamation from the Members of the Common Council, commending Mayor Wilcox for the many accomplishments which transpired during her tenure in office. These include the More Attractive Community Foundation, Main Street Project, the Miss Teen-Age Pageant being held in San Bernardino, the opening of the Maruko Hotel and the San Bernardino Community Against Drugs, Inc. Mayor Wilcox accepted the commendation and stated she felt she had received far more than she had given. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. GENERAL PLAN ADOPTION Planning Director Kilger had been distributed to the explained various documents which Mayor and Common Council. These - 1 - 6/2/89 . include: City of San Bernardino General Plan Attachment 1 (1 June 1989) (Plan Revisions, Mayor and Common Council, 31 May 1989) ; City of San Bernardino General Plan Attachment 2 (1 June 1989) (Plan Text Revisions to Reflect Land Use Map Changes) L City of San Bernardino General Plan Attachment 3 (1 June 1989); (Addenda and Errata (1 June 1989) City of San Bernardino General Plan, adopted, 2 June, 1989. (Memorandum); and a document entitled "City of San Bernardino General Plan, adopted, 2 June 1989", which contains pages to insert in the General Plan Document. Council Member Maudsley made a motion, seconded by Council Member Reilly and unanimously carried, to reconsider a motion made at a previous meeting by Council Member Maudsley regarding a liquefaction report, which is contained in 112.18, page 543 of the General Plan Document. Council Member Maudsley made a motion, seconded by Council Member Reilly and unanimously carried, that the second to last sentence in 112.18, page 543 of the General Plan Document, be changed to read: "Liquefaction reports will be submitted prior to issuance of construction permits". . Woodie Tescher, Consultant from Envicom, explained the contents of the documents that had been distributed to the Mayor and Common Council. Attachment 1, sub-titled "Plan Revisions, Mayor and Common Council, 31 May 1989", contains a list and revisions to the Plan Text that were adopted and accepted by the Mayor and Common Council at the last Council Meeting. This is an accounting of what was previously done and incorporated into the document. Mr. Tescher explained Text Revisions to Reflect contains replacement pages Document. that Land to be Attachment 2, subtitled "Plan Use Map Changes, 1 June 1989" inserted into the General Plan Mr. Tescher answered questions regarding Attachment 42. The figure "26,120" at the end of the first line fifth paragraph on the page, should be "28,120". 2, page in the Mr. Tescher explained that Attachment 3, subtitled "Addenda and Errata, 1 June 1989", corrects typographical errors and contains no substantive changes. Mr. Tescher explained that Attachment 4, a memorandum dated June 1, 1989, contains the San Bernardino General Plan EIR Finalizing Addendum and described the purpose of this analysis. Tom Dodson, General Plan Consultant, explained the contents of Exhibits 1, 2, and 3, which are attachments to the proposed resolution. He stated that in the Final Environmental Impact . Report (EIR), out of 23 environmental issues, seven were found to - 2 - 6/2/89 . have no potential for significant impact and did not require mitigation (Class three impacts). Eight issues were found to have a potential for significant impact, but were mitigated by the inclusion of policies and implementation programs in the General Plan and some mitigation measures (Class two impacts). Another eight issues were found to have the potential for significant impact over the life of the General Plan. It was indicated that all the alternatives had been evaluated. It was determined that there are no other feasible alternatives, and that the proposed General Plan is the most supportable alternative. Mr. Dodson explained that on Exhibit 1, Statement and Facts in Support Thereof, page 3, a Planning meeting date was omitted, and should be included. 1989, should be inserted following April 17, 1989. of Findings Commission April 18, Deputy City Attorney Empeno stated that corrections should be made to the resolution to include the date of April 18, 1989, as a Planning Commission date on the following pages: page 2, line 27; page 4, line 11; page 5, line 14; page 9, line 22. . RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO CERTIFYING THE NEW GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; AND ADOPTING FINDINGS, STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERA- TIONS AND MITIGATION REPORTING/MONITORING PROGRAM; AND ADOPTING A NEW GENERAL PLAN. (3) Deputy City Clerk Reese read the title of the resolution. Council Member Flores made a motion, seconded by Council Member Miller and unanimously carried, that the public hearing be closed, that further reading of the resolution be waived, and that said resolution be adopted. (This resolution was reconsidered later in the meeting. See pages 5 and Hl) Planning Director Kilger stated he thought the new General Plan is a strong foundation for the City's future growth, but that there is much hard work ahead to carry through the implementation. He thanked all the City department staffs who had worked so hard throughout the General Plan process. Woodie Tescher, Consultant from Envicom, officials for the opportunity of working on the the new General Plan and commended everyone involved. thanked City development of who had been . Deputy City Attorney Empeno explained that there are Government Code provisions which require a 4/5 vote by the legiSlative body to pass an interim urgency zoning ordinance, which would over-rule the City Charter provisions which have been followed in the past. This would require six votes of the Council to approve the proposed ordinance. - 3 - 6/2/89 . . . -.- RECESS MEETING At 9:50 a.m., the meeting was recessed for a ten minute break. RECONVENE MEETING At 10:10 a.m., the Adjourned Regular Meeting of Common Council reconvened in the Council Chambers 300 North "0" Street, San Bernardino, California. the Mayor and of City Hall, ROLL CALL Roll Call was taken by Deputy City Clerk Reese with the following being present: Mayor Wilcox; Council Members Reilly, Flores, Maudsley, Minor, Pope-Ludlam, Miller; Deputy City Attorney Empeno, Deputy City Clerk Reese, Acting City Administrator Robbins. Absent: Council Member Estrada. RECESS MEETING - CLOSED SESSION At 10:11 a.m., Council Member Miller made a motion, seconded by Council Member Minor and unanimously carried, that the meeting be recessed to Closed Session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) to confer with its attorney regarding pending litigation which has been initiated formally to which the City is a part as follows: (2d) Ci ty of San Management, Inc., et 238755; Bernardino vs. California Construction al - San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. Saldecke, et al vs. City of San Bernardino, et al - San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. 236836; Cable Lake Association vs. City of San Bernardino - San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. 239714 and Case No. 239649; Stubblefield Construction Company, et al vs. City of San Bernardino et al - San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. 232998; Barratt, Inc., vs. City of San Bernardino - San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. 242433; Highland Bernardino, 241464; Hills et al- Homeowners Association vs. City of San Bernardino Superior Court Case San No. Barratt, Inc. vs. City of San Bernardino - San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. 241692; City of San Bernardino vs. CAL-NEV Pipeline Company, a Delaware Corporation and Does 1-100 - San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. 249735. - 4 - 6/2/89 . CLOSED SESSION At 10:11 a.m., Mayor Wilcox in the City Hall, 300 North the Closed Conference I'DII Street, Session was called to order Room of the Council Chambers San Bernardino, California. by of ROLL CALL Roll Call was taken with the following being present: Mayor Wilcox; Council Members Reilly, Flores, Maudsley, Minor, Pope-Ludlam, Miller; City Attorney Penman, Deputy City Clerk Reese, Acting City Administrator Robbins. Absent: Council Member Estrada. Also present: Sr. City Attorney Brue; Director Kilger. Assistant City Attorney Barlow; Assistant Deputy City Attorney Empeno; Planning ADJOURN CLOSED SESSION At 10:45 a.m., the Closed Regular Meeting of the Mayor Chambers of City Hall, 300 California. Session adjourned to the Adjourned and Common Council in the Council North "D" Street, San Bernardino, RECONVENE MEETING At 10:45 a.m., the the Council Chambers of Bernardino, California. Adjourned Regular Meeting reconvened in City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San . ROLL CALL Roll Call was taken by Deputy City Clerk Reese with the following being present: Mayor Wilcox; Council Members Reilly, Flores, Maudsley, Minor, Pope-Ludlam, Miller; Deputy City Attorney Empeno, Deputy City Clerk Reese, Acting City Administrator Robbins. Absent: Council Member Estrada. Council Member Reilly made a motion, seconded by Council Member Flores and unanimously carried, to reconsider the adoption of the resolution adopting the new General Plan which was adopted earlier in the meeting. (See page 3) Council Member Reilly made a motion, seconded by Council Member Miller, to amend the General Plan Map to provide that Tracts 12756 and 13172 shall be designated as RL 3.5 to allow density to be up to 3.5 units per acre in said tracts and making corresponding changes in the Text. The Members Council motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Reilly, Flores, Maudsley, Pope-Ludlam, Miller. Member Minor. Absent: Council Member Estrada. Council Noes: . RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO CERTIFYING THE NEW GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; AND ADOPTING FINDINGS, STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERA- TIONS AND MITIGATION REPORTING/MONITORING PROGRAM; AND ADOPTING A NEW GENERAL PLAN. (3) - 5 - 6/2/89 Deputy City Clerk Reese read the title of the resolution~ . Council Member Flores made a motion, seconded by council Member Miller and unanimously carried, that further reading of the resolution be waived and that said resolution be adopted with the delineations as just set forth. (The resolution was reconsidered later in the meeting. See page 10) ORD. MC-660 - ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO FINAL ADDING CHAPTER 19.83 TO THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE; PROHIBITING CONFLICTING USES AND PROVIDING FOR INTERIM IMPLEMENTATION OF AN CONSISTENCY WITH THE NEW GENERAL PLAN. (4) Deputy City Clerk read the title of the ordinance. Council Member Flores made a motion, seconded by Council Member Maudsley and unanimously carried, that further reading of said ordinance be waived. . John Montgomery, Principal Planner, explained that the proposed urgency ordinance adds Chapter 19.83 to the Municipal Code. He reminded the Mayor and Council that it is only in effect 45 days until it comes back after a noticed public hearing and should be re-adopted. It can then be adopted for a period of ten months and fifteen days, with a possible extension of time. When all the periods are added together, the effective period could be up to two years. Mr. Montgomery reviewed the proposed ordinance and explained Exhibits "A" and "B". He explained the process for General Plan amendments and stated that no amendments to the General Plan can be made by the public for 180 days after adoption. The Mayor and Common Council can initiate amendments at any time. Mr. Montgomery answered questions regarding the prohibited use of fireworks or explosives (manufacture or storage), page 8, line 14 of the proposed ordinance. He stated it was his belief that it was not intended to include retail sales in parking lots for Fourth of July fireworks. Planning Director Kilger provision, the wording could "Manufacturing, and storage in excluding retail sales". suggested that to clarify this be changed to read as follows: relationship to manufacturing, . Deputy City Attorney Empeno stated he interpreted this provision to refer to storage or manufacturing of fireworks and explosives other than just a simple storage for retail sales. He recommended that if it were the desire of the Council to prohibit - 6 - 6/2/89 . the sale of fireworks throughout the City, it would be best to have the Municipal Code address that directly, rather than through Land Use designations. Deputy City Attorney Empeno answered questions regarding the sale of fire arms ammunition and reloading supplies as applied to this provision. He stated that the retail sales of small amounts of explosives associated with the use of the fire arms would not be prohibited by this ordinance. The provision strictly relates to the prohibition of the manufacture of these explosives and the corresponding storage. Planning Director Kilger answered questions regarding the issuance of permits and review of plans or conditional use permits in relation to the proposed ordinance. Deputy City Attorney Empeno answered questions regarding the possibility of the Planning Commission initiating a General Plan amendment. He stated that the ordinance clearly states that the Mayor and Common Council will initiate a General Plan amendment. Any amendments are required to go through noticed public hearings and would be required to go through the Planning Commission public hearing first. The Planning Commission would not initiate a General Plan amendment, but could recommend to Council that one be initiated. . Planning Director procedure that would that the Mayor and amendments. Kilger agreed that he would prefer a allow the Planning Commission to request Common Council initiate any General Plan Planning Director Kilger answered questions regarding the prohibi ted uses of "A. Animal Husbandry"; "E. Feed lots";" 1. Slaughter of animals or stockyards". He recommended if there were any conflict, that "A. Animal Husbandry" be deleted. A discussion ensued regarding provisions relating to animals. the definition of the A discussion ensued regarding page 20, of Attachments "A" and "B" to Urgency Ordinance. Council Member Reilly made a motion, seconded by Council Member Maudsley and unanimously carried, that on page 20, of Attachments "An and "B" to Urgency Ordinance the following changes be made: In parenthesis at the top of the page the language be changed to read: "(PORTIONS OF MT. VERNON AVENUE, BASELINE AND "E" STREET); and in the three paragraphs on page 20 entitled "Intent"; "Allowed Uses"; and "Applicable Standards", add in the appropriate locations the following language: "and "En Street from 13th to 18th Street". . - 7 - 6/2/89 . COUNCIL MEMBER ESTRADA ARRIVED Council Member Estrada arrived at the Council Meeting and took her place at the Council Table. Planning Director Kilger answered questions regarding the location of any smelters in San Bernardino. He was not certain of any locations and stated that since this ordinance will come back for consideration in 45 days, staff will get more information on this issue and report at that time. Deputy City Empeno stated that if a smelter or if any of the businesses listed in the proposed ordinance are clearly existing businesses at the time this ordinance is adopted, they would be legal non-conforming uses and continue to exist. It was pointed out that on page 30 of the Attachments "A" and "B" to the Urgency Ordinance, there is a repetition of the paragraph beginning with "If the site is located within the Redevelopment Project Area. . . .." (See page 10) Deputy City Empeno stated this correction could be included in the final motion for adoption of the ordinance. Planning Director Kilger setbacks and standards. answered questions regarding . Council Member Reilly made a motion, seconded by Council Member Flores and unanimously carried, that the fOllowing changes be made in the Attachment "A" and "B" to the Urgency Ordinance: Pages 4 and 6, in the first sentence under "Allowed Use" add "two single-family detached units" after "Single-family residential units", and delete "second dwellings" in that sentence. COUNCIL MEMBER ESTRADA EXCUSED Council Member Estrada left the Council Meeting. Council Member Reilly made a motion, seconded by Council Member Pope-Ludlam and unanimously carried, that the following changes be made in Exhibits "A" and "B" to the Urgency Ordinance: page 6: That the last sentence in the first paragraph entitled "Allowed Use" be amended to read: "Duplexes, and two single-family detached units may be built on existing lots of record, as of the date of the adoption of the General Plan, which are 6200 square feet or more, provided that all other applicable standards and setbacks are complied with, except that the lot width and lot depth standards shall be that of the existing lots of records. Also, that the last paragraph on the page, starting with the language "If the site is located within a Redevelopment Project Area. . . ." be deleted, as it is repetitious. . The motion continued to include the following change to page 7 of Exhibits "A" and "B" to the Urgency Ordinance: Add the - 8 - 6/2/89 . . . following language after "Standards": "Note: Existing lots of record as of the date of adoption of the General Plan, which are 6200 square feet or more, may be developed with duplexes, two single family detached units, provided that all other applicable standards are complied with, except lot width and lot depth dimensions shall be that of the existing lots of record." COUNCIL MEMBER ESTRADA RETURNED Council Member Estrada returned to the Council Meeting and took her place at the Council Table. A discussion ensued designation in the area the Exhibits "A" and Ordinance. regarding the CG-2 General Commercial of Mt. Vernon and Baseline, on page 20 of "B" of the Attachments to the Urgency Planning Director Kilger designation, stating that the and Baseline was placed on the and distributed in March, 1989. answered questions regarding this CG-2 designation along Mt. Vernon map when the plan was published It was pointed out that the CG-2 designation would allow apartments and it was the opinion of members of the Council that they did not want the possibility of apartments on Mt. Vernon between 8th and 9th Streets. Planning Director CG-l designation non-conforming and built. Kilger would would not answered questions, stating that a make the existing apartments allow any future apartments to be Deputy City Attorney Empeno stated there are two options for changing the CG-2 designation to CG-l: (1) to initiate a General Plan amendment or (2), to consider a motion to reconsider approval of the General Plan resolution and make that change to the Land Use Map and re-adopt the resolution. (Discussion continues after the following motion). Council Member Member Pope-Ludlam Husbandry" on page Maudsley made and unanimously 8 of the Interim a motion, seconded by carried, to delete "A. Urgency Ordinance. Council Animal Council Member Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council Member Reilly and unanimously carried, to reconsider the adoption of the General Plan Resolution. Council Member Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council Member Reilly and unanimously carried, to amend the Land Use Map to change the area between 8th and 9th Streets along Mt. Vernon from a CG-2 designation to a CG-l designation. - 9 - 6/2/89 . RES. 89~159 - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO CERTIFYING THE NEW GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; AND ADOPTING FINDINGS, STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND MITIGATION REPORTING/MONITORING PROGRAM; AND ADOPTING A NEW GENERAL PLAN. Deputy City Clerk Reese read the title of the resolution. Council Member Pope-Ludlam made a motion, seconded by Council Member Flores and unanimously carried, that further reading of the resolution be waived and said resolution be adopted. Resolution No. 89-159 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members Estrada, Reilly, Flores, Maudsley, Minor, Pope-Ludlam, Miller. Noes: None. Absent: None. ATTACHMENT "A" AND "B" TO INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE REGARDING ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN - AMENDMENTS Council Member Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council Member Reilly and unanimously carried, to make the following changes on page 20 of Attachments "A" and "B" to the Urgency Ordinance: In all three paragraphs, entitled "Intent", "Allowed Uses" and "Applicable Standards", change "8th Street" to read "9th Street" and delete "5th Street west of Mount Vernon Avenue". . Council Member Flores made a motion, seconded by Council Member Miller and unanimously carried, to remove the sixth paragraph on page 30 of Attachments "A" and "B" to the Interim Urgency Ordinance, beginning with "If the site is located within a Redevelopment Project Area. . ." as it is repetitious. Deputy City Attorney Empeno reminded the Council that the Interim Urgency Ordinance is effective for only 45 days, and there has to be a noticed public hearing prior to the end of that 45 days. It can be extended for another ten months and fifteen days. There is also a provision for a second extension for another year. State law requires that ten days prior to the expiration of the ordinance, the Mayor and Common Council must issue a written report describing the measures taken to alleviate the condition which led to the adoption of the ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance can be amended at any time, and as long as the amendments are consistent with the General Plan, they can be made as simple zoning ordinance amendments. This ordinance is an action taken to protect the public health, safety, and welfare from an immediate threat. Planning Director Kilger stated that the current Zoning Land Use Map is not consistent with the General Plan and does not reflect acknowledgement of the need for extension of certain services into certain areas. If the current Zoning Map were allowed to buildout to capacity, the statements that are made in . - 10 - 6/2/89 . . . , the Interim Urgency Ordinance could be realized. So feeling that it is very important at this time that Plan clearly be indicated as the document directing they do not have the situation occur. it is their the General land use so Council Member Flores made a motion, seconded by Council Member Estrada and unanimously carried, that final reading be waived and said ordinance be adopted with changes indicated in Exhibits "A" and "B". A discussion ensued regarding a ordinance prior to the 45 day re-adoption study date. session of the Council Member Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council Member Reilly and unanimously carried, that the Interim Urgency Ordinance be reviewed at the first Council Meeting in July, 1989. RECESS MEETING - CLOSED SESSION At 11:47 a.m., Council Member Miller made a motion, seconded by Council Member Estrada and unanimously carried, that the meeting be recessed to Closed Session pursuant to the following Government Codes: 54956.9(a) to confer with its attorney regarding litigation which has been initiated formally to which the a party as follows: pending City is (2d) City of San Management, Inc., et 238755; Bernardino vs. California Construction al - San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. Saldecke, et al vs. City of San Bernardino, et al - San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. 236836; Cable Lake Association vs. City of San Bernardino - San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. 239714 and Case No. 239649; Stubblefield Construction Company, Bernardino et al San Bernardino 232998; et al vs. City of Superior Court Case San No. Barratt, Inc., vs. Citl of Superior Court Case No. 242 33; San Bernardino - San Bernardino Highland Bernardino, 241464; Hills et al- Homeowners Association vs. City San Bernardino Superior Court of Case San No. Barratt, inc. vs. City of San Bernardino - San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. 241692; City of San Bernardino vs. CAL-NEV Pipeline Company, a Delaware Corporation and Does 1-100 - San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. 249735; - 11 - 6/2/89 . . . 54956.9(b) (1), to confer with its attorney regarding pending litigation, as there is significant exposure to litigation. (2b) CLOSED SESSION At 11:50 a.m., the Closed Session was called to order in the Conference Room of the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. ROLL CALL Roll Call was taken with the following being present: Wilcox; Council Members Estrada, Reilly, Flores, Maudsley, Pope-Ludlam, Miller; City Attorney Penman, Deputy City Reese; Acting City Administrator Robbins. Absent: None. Mayor Minor, Clerk Also present: Sr. Assistant City Attorney Barlow; Assistant City Attorney Brue. ADJOURN CLOSED SESSION At 12:10 p.m., the Adjourned Regular Meeting adjourned to the Adjourned Regular Meeting in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. RECONVENE MEETING At 12:10 p.m., the Adjourned Regular the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 Bernardino, California. Meeting reconvened in North "D" Street, San ROLL CALL Roll Call was taken by Deputy City Clerk Reese with the fOllowing being present: Mayor Wilcox; Council Members Estrada, Reilly, Flores, Maudsley, Minor, Pope-Ludlam, Miller; Deputy City Attorney Empeno, Deputy City Clerk Reese, Acting City Administrator Robbins. Absent: None. CAL-NEV PIPELINE COMPANY EXPLOSION - DUFFY STREET AREA Council Member Pope-Ludlam made a motion, seconded by Council Member Minor and unanimously carried, that the City contact its California congressional delegation in Washington, D.C., and ask them to introduce legislation that would amend the Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Act so that a third party can negotiate on behalf of the residents of the Duffy Street disaster, and for any similar disaster. Council Member Pope-Ludlam made a motion, seconded by Council Member Miller and unanimously carried, to authorize the City Attorney's Office to take the City's concern to the United States Supreme Court if the City fails to have a hearing in a lower federal court. - 12 - 6/2/89 . . . CLOSED SESSION ITEMS - CONTINUED TO 9:00 A.M., SATURDAY, JUNE 3, 1989 Council Member Pope-Ludlam made a motion, seconded by Council Miller and unanimously carried, that the following items be continued to 9:00 a.m., Saturday, June 3, 1989, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California: Closed Session to confer with its attorney litigation pursuant to Government Code Section there is significant exposure to litigation; regarding pending 54956.9(b) (1), as (2a) Closed Session to confer with its attorney regarding pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c), so that council may decide whether to initiate litigation; (2b) Closed Session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) to confer with its attorney regarding pending litigation which has been initiated formally to which the City is a party as follows: (2d) Cit Inc. , of San Bernardino vs. California Construction Mana ement, et al - San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. 23 755; Saldecke, et al vs. City of San Bernardino, et al - San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. 236836; Cable Lake Association vs. City of San Bernardino - San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. 239714 and Case No. 239649; Stubblefield Construction Company, et al vs. City of San Bernardino et al San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. 232998; Barratt, Inc., vs. City of San Bernardino - San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. 242433; Highland Bernardino, 241464; Hills et al- Homeowners Association vs. City of San Bernardino Superior Court Case San No. Barratt, inc. vs. City of San Bernardino - San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. 241692; City of San Bernardino vs. CAL-NEV Pipeline Company, a Delaware Corporation and Does 1-100 - San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. 249735. - 13 - 6/2/89 . ADJOURN MEETING At 12:15 p.m., the meeting was adjourned to 9:00 a.m., Saturday, June 3, 1989, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "0" Street, San Bernardino, California. /P~ ~'4V Deputy City Clerk . . - 14 - 6/2/89