HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-05-2005 MinutesCITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
300 N. "D " Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Website: www.sbcity.org
111101i1fIIT&I
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
JOINT REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 5, 2005
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Mayor Judith Valles
Council Members:
Esther Estrada
Susan Longville
Gordon McGinnis
Neil Derry
Chas Kelley
Rikke Van Johnson
Wendy McCammack
The joint regular meeting of the Mayor and Common Council and Community
Development Commission of the City of San Bernardino was called to order by
Mayor/Chairman Valles at 12:20 p.m., Monday, December 5, 2005, in the MIC
Room, Sixth Floor, City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California.
Roll Call
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; Senior Assistant City Attorney Milligan, City
Clerk Clark, City Administrator Wilson. Absent: None.
1. Workshop to discuss Development Impact Fees (Continued from November
21, 2005)
City Administrator Wilson advised that the City had retained the firm of
Revenue & Cost Specialists to conduct a study of the City's Development
Impact Fees (DIFs). He stated that there were a number of fees being
considered for increases, such as the circulation fee, and as part of the
circulation fee staff was looking at incorporating the new SANBAG Nexus Fee
that has to be done as part of Measure I. In addition, staff is looking at the
parkland open space acquisition fee.
Mr. Wilson stated that four new fees were being proposed, including a law
enforcement facilities fee, a fire suppression facilities fee, a library facilities and
collection fee, and a public meeting and aquatics fee.
12/05/2005
Scott Thorpe, Senior Vice President, Revenue & Cost Specialists, reviewed the
approach taken in doing the study and some of the pertinent information therein.
He noted that all the impact fees are only intended to maintain the level of
service that currently exists. If the City is behind in an area, other revenue
sources would need to be identified to deal with that.
He noted that if the impact fees are not adopted, the City will be spending
money just trying to get caught up to where it was last year, with every new set
of homes that are built. However, the impact fees would allow the City to
maintain the current level of service; and then any additional funds obtained
through grants or through economic development can be used to enhance the
levels of service that the City now has, but is not happy with.
Mr. Thorpe pointed out that the City's General Plan lists target levels of service
that the Mayor and Council want to have, but the Council needs to remember
they are only targets, and just putting it on paper does not mean this is what you
have. He stated that the process that was followed enabled them to discover the
levels of service the City is experiencing right now and what it is going to take
to maintain them. He reiterated that the proposed Development Impact Fees
will only maintain the current level of service.
Mr. Thorpe noted that two of the impact fees are updates —the City's circulation
impact fee and the parks and open spaces impact fee. In addition, the following
new impact fees were being proposed:
• Law enforcement facilities, vehicles and specialty equipment impact fee,
which will be limited to just that, creating more space. The current facility
is 80,000 square feet, and based on the levels of service provided by that
building you could add around 32,000 square feet, and acquire more
vehicles in the same ratio that now exists, and more specialty equipment,
which would now be over -used by the increasing population. He reiterated
that this is all the fees can be used on.
• Fire suppression, which involves relocating a number of stations and one
new station and relocating the maintenance facility. Again, that is all it can
be used on, and actually doesn't even pay for all of it, but only 30-40
percent of it.
• Library impact fee which is very simple, calculated by the number of square
feet per person and the number of collection items per person.
• The public meeting and aquatics fees, which are based upon a per capita
use —how many square feet of public use facilities does the City have per
person and the same for the pools. Again, the adoption of these fees would
allow the City to merely extend those levels in the future.
2 t 2iosi2005
Mr. Thorpe stressed that impact fees are not meant to solve all the City's
problems, but they will help the City from getting further into a problematic
situation. He reiterated that these fees are to maintain the levels of service that
the City now has, and the money must be used within a reasonable distance
from where it is collected.
Council Member Kelley questioned whether the fees are going to stay in the
area where they are generated. He stated that he didn't disagree that we need to
raise our impact fees. However, he has a real difficult time dealing with the
concept of collecting fees off of an area that is growing very rapidly and then
not being able to see the nexus in the report that the fees will stay in the area.
Mayor/Chairman Valles pointed out that although the City is divided into wards,
the Council needs to look at things holistically.
Council Member Kelley stated that if there was some way in the nexus to say
we are going to collect these fees and a fair share will stay in a specific area to
maintain and to improve these things because that is where most of the fees are
coming from, then he could support the plan; however, he was not willing to
look at it holistically if his ward was going to be shortchanged.
City Administrator Wilson stated that when you consider some of the projects,
such as the circulation project and the fire stations, everyone knows what is
going on and for what cost. However, when it comes to the parks it sounds like
more definition is needed so the Council knows what the City is actually buying
for the money. He asked Mr. Thorpe whether there was anything that
precluded staff from specifically identifying park locations as part of the study,
like they had done with bridges, roads, etc.
Mr. Thorpe stated that that could be done with the parks, public use facilities,
and the libraries because they are per capita fees —that a policy could be created
stating that a percentage of the fees stays exactly where it is supposed to be.
Council Member/Commissioner Longville stated that she was specifically
looking at community facilities and parks. First she looked at the $163 million
out of the $722 million which is the total revenue to be collected from
development impact fees (if we have this level of growth), and for that almost
$164 million she saw six 5-acre parks, seven 10-acre parks, four 25-acre parks
and some miscellaneous park improvements, with the miscellaneous park
improvements equating to approximately $1 million.
She then looked at community public use facilities, and instead of $18 million
dollars to deal with public use facilities, she saw that $8 million of it goes to the
Verdemont Community Center, the Delmann Heights gymnasium, and the
Nicholson Community Center —three existing facilities that do very little for the
3 12/05/2005
community elsewhere —with the remaining $10 million to be used just for
additional space.
Ms. Longville stated that she thought this was an area that definitely needed
some definition in terms of where we are going to locate public use facilities
that will help us deal with the crime problem. She stated that she was much
more in favor of putting some additional clarification in the document because
she knows how difficult it is to keep all of these things going from one
administration to the next administration —that she would much rather see
something like that. She asked how $8 million dollars became designated for
three existing facilities.
Mr. Thorpe advised that those projects were identified by the Parks Department;
and it was noted that they were in the Capital Improvement Project already, so
that's why they were included.
Council Member/Commissioner McCammack noted that the reality is that all of
this money won't even be available for use until the year 2010 according to the
document.
Mr. Thorpe stated that was not correct —that it will come with the rate of
development.
Ms. McCammack stated that she understood that, but in reality the money
cannot be used until enough development has been done to generate enough
money to pay for the projects or borrow against.
Mr. Thorpe stated that that was correct —that it follows the development, so at
some point in time, you can't go build a $5 million library until you have $5
million.
Council Member/Commissioner McCammack pointed out that at some point in
time, the First Ward may have been the highest tax base in the city and may
have gotten little to nothing in infrastructure. She added that at one point, the
Seventh Ward was the highest tax base in the City, long before the Fourth Ward
was, but the Seventh Ward didn't get any parks until long after the Fourth Ward
got parks.
She added that the tax revenues that are generated are different all over the
city —that currently the Third Ward provides the most sales tax, but where are
its libraries, parks and additional law enforcement? She stated that she was just
questioning in her own mind the ramifications of defining the document too
closely —that once the money is accumulated on down the line, if the current
Council defines the money too closely, she questioned whether the money would
be in the right place five years from now when they want to use it. She stated
she could definitely see the error, or possible disadvantage, to defining the use
4 t 2/05/2005
of the monies too closely; and if the Council adopted this plan they would have
to follow it.
Mayor/Chairman Valles stated that Ms. McCammack had a valid point —that
there are many variables and we have to be mindful of that.
Council Member/Commissioner Estrada stated that she thought that while the
new development is taking place in the north part of town, the majority of the
growth is taking place in the core of the city; and it would be a very dangerous
path to travel to specifically have to designate where the monies will go.
Council Member/Commissioner McGinnis stated that he agreed with Ms.
McCammack, and due to the way the city is configured they needed to look at it
as a whole, instead of the "I created it, I keep it" kind of thinking.
Council Member/Commissioner Kelley stated that this is the problem with the
ward system in the city, but it is incumbent upon him and it is his duty to make
sure that he is fighting for the needs of his area, just like the other Council
members are fighting for the needs of their areas.
Mayor/Chairman Valles noted that everything the City does in this budget, in its
planning process, and in its fees has to do with the prevention/reduction of
crime; and the more we can do to improve our city, the better —but it has to be
holistic. She stated that she has a responsibility to have this Council look at the
total city, which is why every year they have their planning sessions. At those
sessions they look at the entire city and all the issues they are facing. She stated
that they look at the concerns and the differences in the city, and that she was
not talking about wards here, but about north, south, east, and west. She added
that they look at the trends, and they look at the General Plan —it must all fit
together. She stressed that everyone must take their parochial hats off, toss
them in the ring, and look at this thing as a whole.
Mayor/Chairman Valles asked City Administrator Wilson to share the process
that staff goes through with the departments as they develop the goals and the
objectives and the implementation, based on the priorities that are given to staff
by the Mayor and Council —to review the process where staff attaches the
dollars spent on the projects and actions that were approved by the Council.
Council Member/Commissioner Derry stated that until you know what services
the city residents want —not what we are providing, but what they want —we are
not spending money right. He stated that as far as he knew, the City has never
done a service audit for the services it provides, and until you have that you
don't really know, but you may be providing a service that nobody uses or
needs, which does not make sense.
5 12/05/2005
City Administrator Wilson stated that what he was hearing was not so much
about an audit, it was really the question of should we invest in pools, should
we invest in recreation centers —are there enough uses to justify that kind of
investment. He stated that there are a lot of arguments for having community
centers and a lot of arguments for having pools, but the question really is, is that
the highest and best use, is that what the Council wants to do? Do we want to
adopt a fee to build more pools or not; and that is actually a policy decision that
needs to be made by this Council. Should we adopt some of the fees that we are
facing and build new facilities or not?
Mr. Derry stated that when the City created the Mello Roos in the Fifth Ward to
help build the fire station, he backed that 100 percent, because that is a fee they
will be paying for 30 years that goes directly to providing a service that will
primarily serve that area; and he had no problem with that.
Council Member/Commissioner Longville stated that she thought that one point
that everyone may be missing, is that while these development impact fees are
based on 21,000 new homes, potentially, the majority of the fees are going to
come from development of commercial space. She stated that if the City goes
from the 100,000 business units it has right now, to 180,000 business units, the
majority of these impact fees are going to be paid by commercial development.
Lori Sassoon, Assistant to the City Administrator, distributed and reviewed with
the Council a chart titled, "Impact Fee Comparison For Inland Empire Cities."
She noted that based on a 2,000 square foot home with a 400 square foot
garage, the City of San Bernardino's current fees are approximately $11,980 per
unit —with the proposed new additional fees and the updates, the total would be
at $24,211.
Council Member/Commissioner McCammack stated that she was not concerned
that we need to increase fees, but that we are raising them so much that we will
out -price ourselves in the market.
Mr. Wilson advised that this is really a policy decision. The Council has all the
options imaginable, but it is up to them to say if they want to charge an aquatics
fee —yes or no; if they want to charge a parks fee —if so, how much. He stated
that there were a lot of ways this could be packaged, which is why all these
issues are in front of them right now, so staff knows which way to go on this
thing.
Mayor/Chairman Valles pointed out that when you compare the current
infrastructure fees of the City, which are $11,900, to other cities, we are one of
the lowest, and yet we are the fastest growing area. She noted that this decision
is timely, and these discussions are healthy and good, and also overdue. She
stated that we need to identify the money where the services are provided and do
a qualitative analysis of all our departments to make sure that the services
6 12/05/2005
rendered match the money and match the needs of the constituents. She asked
Mr. Wilson what needed to happen next.
Mr. Wilson advised that the report was not finalized. He stated that staff and
the consultant needed a sense from the Council as to whether or not they wanted
them to pursue each of the fees, or should they fine tune them. Staff needed to
know if there was any strong opposition to any of the fees proposed today, was
there any other way they wanted this packaged up, or did they just want staff to
finalize the report the Council members had seen today.
He added that staff needed to know this information sooner than later, as there
needs to be a public hearing in January, and they need to know if the Council
has any major issues with the proposed fees.
Council Member/Commissioner Estrada suggested a follow-up meeting in order
to give the Council members a little more time to review the materials.
Council Member/Commissioner Kelley stated that at this point in time, if they
couldn't show him that 'Y' amount of dollars were going to stay in the
Verdemont area, or that they were going to deliver these certain services for the
Verdemont area, then he couldn't support it.
Relative to the Park and Recreation Facility Fees, City Administrator Wilson
asked whether the Council members wanted more definition there, because
although he knew where Mr. Kelley stood, he heard other Council members say
that it shouldn't be as specific. Therefore, he just needed to know which way
the Council wanted them to go so they could either refine it or not.
Council Member/Commissioner Derry stated that he would like to see some
specificity, and that he was concerned about the price tag of these fees. He
added that he would prefer to bring it back to what it was supposed to be —
which was to be the City's response to Measure I requirements relative to
transportation issues.
Mayor/Chairman Valles stated that she sensed the Council was not yet ready to
go forward, and she thought another workshop was needed.
Council Member/Commissioner McGinnis stated that he was happy with the
proposal the way it was.
Mr. Wilson stated that they could meet again in two week so Council members
could study the document and provide staff with more feedback. He stated that
he understood the concerns, and that staff would need help from the Parks and
Recreation Department to put together more specificity, and he would be calling
on Mr. Randolph to put together the framework. He questioned whether
7 12/05/2005
everything could be done in two weeks, as there were some pretty significant
projects listed in the document.
Ms. McCammack added that in addition to the concerns about Parks and
Recreation, she thought they all had concerns about all of the hard goods, also.
Council Member/Commissioner Johnson stated that he would like to know how
they arrived at all of the figures relative to Parks and Recreation.
Recess Meeting
At 1:30 p.m. the meeting recessed to the Council Chambers.
Reconvene Meeting - Regular Session
The joint regular meeting of the Mayor and Common Council and Community
Development Commission of the City of San Bernardino was reconvened at 1:45 p.m.,
Monday, December 5, 2005, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D"
Street, San Bernardino, California.
Roll Call
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; City Attorney Penman, City Clerk Clark, City
Administrator Wilson. Absent: None
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:
City of San Bernardino v. San Bernardino City Unified School District
City of San Bernardino v. Mario Molina
D. Closed Session - personnel - pursuant to Government Code Section
54957.
8 12/05/2005
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.
F. Conference with labor negotiator - pursuant to Government Code
Section 54957.6:
Negotiator:
Linn Livingston, Human Resources Director
Employee Organizations:
San Bernardino City Professional Firefighters
San Bernardino Police Officers Association
G. Conference with real property negotiator - pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.8.
City Attorney Penman announced that two additional cases would be discussed
under Agenda Item 113, subdivision (b)(3)(A) - Facts and circumstances that
might result in litigation against the local agency, but which the local agency
believes are not yet known to a potential plaintiff or plaintiffs, which facts and
circumstances need not be disclosed.
Reading of Resolutions & Ordinances
Deputy City Clerk Hartzel read into the record the titles of all the resolutions and
ordinances on the regular and supplemental agendas of the Mayor and Common
Council and Community Development Commission.
Invocation/Pledge of Allegiance
The invocation was given by Reverend Barnabas Laubach of Saint Bernardine's
Medical Center, followed by the pledge of allegiance, led by Tyshia Green from
Anderson School.
Moment of Silence
Mayor/Chairman Valles expressed condolences to the families and requested a moment
of silence in memory of the following individuals who recently passed away: Richard
(Dick) Russell, a native of San Bernardino and longtime businessman in this area; Jack
Hunt, also a native of San Bernardino, who was a member of our "City family" for 34
years, retiring from the City in 1979 as Superintendent of the Electrical Department;
Raymond O. Powers, a native of San Bernardino who served 25 years as an employee
in the City's Refuse Department, retiring in 1977 as the Refuse Superintendent; Dennis
Hazlett, husband of Peggy Hazlett, Assistant to Mayor Valles and Community Liaison
9 12/05/2005
for the City; and Charlie Temple, who served the City for over 25 years and recently
retired as Traffic Signal & Street Lighting Supervisor.
2. Appointments (See Agenda Item No. S3)
3. Proclamations & Presentations
The San Bernardino High School Vocal Ensemble led by Chorale Director Ron
Lowe performed a medley of holiday carols.
Council Member/Commissioner McGinnis presented the Third Ward Citizen of
the Month award to Mrs. Willie Brue in recognition of her many community
endeavors.
Council Member/Commissioner Johnson presented a plaque to Miracle Darnell
in honor of the award she received from Stater Bros. Markets and Milkbone for
an essay she wrote regarding the importance of the Police Department K-9 unit.
A moment of silence was observed to commemorate Worldwide Candle
Lighting Day on December 11, 2005 in honor of all children who have died.
Worldwide Candle Lighting Day is sponsored by Compassionate Friends to
make sure that the memory of these children continues and their lights will
always shine.
4. Announcements by Mayor and Common Council
Announcements were made by the Mayor, members of the Common Council,
elected officials, and a representative from the Chamber of Commerce regarding
various civic and community events and activities.
5. Waive Full Reading of Resolutions & Ordinances
Council Member/Commissioner Johnson made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Estrada, that full reading of the resolutions and
ordinances on the regular and supplemental agendas of the Mayor and Common
Council and Community Development Commission, be waived.
The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/
Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
10 12/05/2005
7
Claims & Payroll
Council Member/Commissioner Johnson made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Estrada, that the claims and payroll and the
authorization to issue warrants as listed on the memorandum dated November
29, 2005, from Barbara Pachon, Director of Finance, be approved.
The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/
Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
Personnel Actions
City Attorney Penman advised that Item No. 5 contained a typographical error,
listing Range 2400, Step 8, as $349/month, when it should have been shown as
$3496/month.
Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by
Council Member/Commissioner McGinnis, that the personnel actions, as
submitted by the Chief Examiner, dated November 30, 2005 (Revised 12/2/05)
in accordance with Civil Service rules and Personnel policies adopted by the
Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino, be approved and
ratified, with the correction noted above.
The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/
Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
8. Resolutions authorizing execution of an agreement to jointly fund the
consulting services of CWB Consulting (CWB) and authorizing the Mayor
to execute an agreement with CWB Consulting
RES. CDC/2005-42 - Resolution of the Community Development
Commission of the City of San Bernardino authorizing the execution of an
agreement to jointly fund the consulting services of CWB Consulting (CWB)
by and between the City of San Bernardino, the Board of Water
Commissioners of the City of San Bernardino, and the Redevelopment
Agency of the City of San Bernardino. (8A)
11 12/05/2005
RES. 2005-393 - Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City
of San Bernardino authorizing the execution of an agreement to jointly fund
the consulting services of CWB Consulting (CWB) by and between the City
of San Bernardino, the Board of Water Commissioners of the City of San
Bernardino, and the Community Development Commission of the City of
San Bernardino. (8B)
RES. 2005-394 - Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City
of San Bernardino authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement with
CWB Consulting (CWB) for consulting services. (8C)
Council Member/Commissioner Johnson made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Estrada, that said resolutions A-C, be adopted.
Community Development Resolution No. CDC/2005-42 and Mayor and
Common Council Resolution Nos. 2005-393 and 2005-394 were adopted by the
following vote: Ayes: Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Longville,
McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent:
None.
9. Resolutions authorizing execution of an agreement to jointly fund the
consulting services of Copeland, Lowery, Jacquez, Denton, & White and
authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement with Copeland, Lowery,
Jacquez, Denton, & White
RES. 2005-395 - Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City
of San Bernardino authorizing the execution of an agreement to jointly fund
the consulting services of Copeland, Lowery, Jacquez, Denton, & White by
and between the City of San Bernardino and the Community Development
Commission of the City of San Bernardino. (9A)
RES. CDC/2005-43 - Resolution of the Community Development
Commission of the City of San Bernardino authorizing the execution of an
agreement to jointly fund the consulting services of Copeland, Lowery,
Jacquez, Denton, & White (CLJDW) by and between the City of San
Bernardino and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino.
(9B)
RES. 2005-396 - Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City
of San Bernardino authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement with
Copeland, Lowery, Jacquez, Denton, & White for federal representation
services. (9C)
12 12/05/2005
Council Member/Commissioner Johnson made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Estrada, that said resolutions A-C, be adopted.
Mayor and Common Council Resolution Nos. 2005-395 and 2005-396 and
Community Development Commission Resolution No. CDC/2005-43 were
adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/Commissioners
Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays:
None. Absent: None.
10. RES. 2005-397 - Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City
of San Bernardino approving the American Society of Composers, Authors
and Publishers (ASCAP) License Agreement which will allow ASCAP
copyrighted music to be played at City owned facilities and City sponsored
events.
Council Member/Commissioner Johnson made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Estrada, that said resolution be adopted.
Resolution No. 2005-397 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council
Members/Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley,
Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
11. Set a workshop with Chuck Bader of CWB Consulting and Letitia White of
Copeland, Lowery, Jacquez, and White relative to state and federal
legislative issues
Council Member/Commissioner Johnson made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Estrada, that the Mayor and Common Council set a
workshop for Monday, January 9, 2006, at 5:00 p.m. in the MIC Room, 6'
Floor of City Hall, to discuss state and federal legislative issues.
The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/
Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
12. Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San
Bernardino approving the destruction of certain records no longer required
to be maintained by the San Bernardino City Attorney's Office.
Note: No backup materials were distributed.
City Attorney Penman requested that this item be continued to the next meeting.
13 12/05/2005
Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by
Council Member/Commissioner McGinnis, that the matter be continued to the
Council/Commission meeting of December 19, 2005.
The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/
Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
13. Review and take action regarding the need for continuing in effect the local
emergency caused by the Old Waterman Canyon Fire pursuant to
Government Code Section 8630(c)(1)
Note: No backup materials were distributed.
Council Member/Commissioner Johnson made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Estrada, that the Mayor and Common Council confirm
the need for continuing in effect the local emergency caused by the Old
Waterman Canyon Fire.
The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/
Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
14. RES. 2005-406 - Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City
of San Bernardino requesting that the Board of Supervisors of the County
of San Bernardino permit the County Registrar of Voters to render services
to the City of San Bernardino relating to a General Municipal Election to be
held on February 7, 2006.
Council Member/Commissioner Estrada stated that this item raises some
concerns regarding the election process in the City of San Bernardino,
particularly insofar as costs are concerned. She stated that she would like to see
a Council committee appointed by the Mayor to consider a charter change that
would allow for a "winner take all" election, which is done in most other cities.
She explained that currently the charter calls for a runoff election, unless one of
the candidates receives 50 percent plus one votes. In the upcoming runoff
election for mayor, the cost will be close to $300,000.
City Clerk Clark advised that ten years ago the City's charter was changed to
allow the City to consolidate its elections with the County, because of the fact
that our charter calls for a primary and a runoff election. She explained that the
City's runoff election is in February of even numbered years, and a few years
ago the State moved its primary election from June to March. At that time, the
City would have had to conduct a runoff election in February, and in March the
County would have had to conduct the State primary, resulting in a duplication
14 12/05/2005
of efforts to find polling places and poll workers. In addition, the voters would
be receiving absentee ballots and sample ballots from both entities at the same
time.
At that time, the Council submitted a charter amendment to the voters that
would allow the City to consolidate with the County if its election fell within 60
days of an election being conducted by the County. Therefore, for the past ten
years, if a runoff election has been required, we have been able to consolidate
with the County and thereby save money because we share the cost of the
election with any participating entities. This year, however, the State moved its
primary election back to June, so the City is left alone, holding the bag so to
speak, for a stand alone runoff election.
Ms. Clark stated that her office had conducted a survey of 94 charter cities
within California, and of the 91 cities staff was able to contact, only 13 have
runoff elections. The others follow the Elections Code, as do general law cities,
and the primary winner takes all.
Council Member/Commissioner Longville suggested that the City postpone their
runoff election until June and just have a longer time period between the original
election and the election in June.
City Attorney Penman stated that this was something that should be considered
in light of cost savings. However, historically, the difficulties with not having
runoffs, and the reason for having runoffs, are that in elections such as this for
mayor, there were five candidates and no person received a majority of the
votes. In this case, that means that the person who gets elected without a
runoff, would be elected by only 41 percent of the vote. (Note: Mr. Penman
later announced that this figure should have been 43 percent of the vote.)
Secondly, by not having a runoff it encourages a candidate to take a poll before
the election, then get three or four other people to run, and then the candidate
that has the best name identification wins in the primary and the voters never get
a chance to be heard on the final decision as to who the "winner" should be.
According to Mr. Penman, this is a very common strategy in cities that do not
have runoffs. He said that it has been said that democracy is not the least
expensive form of government —it has always been somewhat expensive, and he
knows that a proposal to do away runoffs would be hotly contested in any
charter race. Nonetheless, he thought is was an important issue, and that it was
good it had been brought forward.
Council Members/Commissioners Derry, Kelley, and McCammack expressed
agreement with Mr. Penman stating that the City has a good system, it works,
and it should basically remain the way it is.
15 12/05/2005
Council Member/Commissioner Estrada stated that as a minimum she would ask
that the Mayor consider this suggestion for a Council committee to research the
matter and possibly formulate something to bring before the voters.
Mayor/Chairman Valles agreed that this was something worthy of study.
Council Member/Commissioner Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner McGinnis, that said resolution be adopted; and that the
Mayor and Common Council authorize the Director of Finance to amend the FY
2005/06 budget and appropriate $290,000 from the General Fund's
Undesignated/Unreserved fund balance to Account No. 001-032-5502 (Elections
- Professional/Contractual Services).
The motion carried and Resolution No. 2005-406 was adopted by the following
vote: Ayes: Council Members/ Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis,
Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
15. RES. 2005-398 - Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City
of San Bernardino, California, reciting the facts of the Primary Municipal
Election held on the 8' day of November 2005, declaring the results thereof
and setting forth such other matters as are allowed by law.
Council Member/Commissioner Johnson made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Estrada, that said resolution be adopted.
Resolution No. 2005-398 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council
Members/Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley,
Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
16. Approve Local Appointments List per Maddy Act
Council Member/Commissioner Johnson made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Estrada, that the Mayor and Common Council approve
the Local Appointments List of all regular and ongoing boards, commissions,
and committees and direct the City Clerk to send a copy of the List to the
Feldheym Library for posting pursuant to Government Code Section 54973.
The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/
Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
16 12/05/2005
17. RES. 2005-399 - Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City
of San Bernardino approving the Final Map for Tract Map No. 16865,
located on the south side of Northpark Boulevard approximately 1,700 feet
west of Little Mountain Drive and 2,000 feet east of University Parkway in
the RU-1, Residential Urban land use district, accepting the public
dedications as set forth on said map; and authorizing execution of the
standard form of agreement for the improvements in said subdivision, with
time for performance specified.
Council Member/Commissioner Johnson made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Estrada, that said resolution be adopted.
Resolution No. 2005-399 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council
Members/Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley,
Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
18. Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San
Bernardino approving a Cooperative Agreement between the San
Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG), the Inland Valley
Development Agency (IVDA), the County of San Bernardino, the Cities of
San Bernardino and Highland, and the San Manuel Band of Mission
Indians, for the preparation of a Project Study Report (PSR) for State
Route 210 - Victoria Avenue Interchange.
Council Member/Commissioner McCammack indicated that she would be
abstaining on this item because San Manuel is a business client.
City Administrator Wilson advised that this item needed to be tabled because the
agreement needed to be re -done and brought back at a later date.
Council Member/Commissioner McGinnis made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Johnson, that the matter be tabled.
The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/
Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson. Nays:
None. Abstentions: Council Member/Commissioner McCammack. Absent:
None.
19. RES. 2005-407 - Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City
of San Bernardino authorizing the Mayor to execute Amendment No. 1 to
Agreement with Watson & Associates, A California Corporation, for
grading of Campus Parkway between Kendall Drive and Northpark
Boulevard.
17 12/05/2005
City Attorney Penman indicated that he would be abstaining on this matter due
to the fact that Matich Corporation is involved with the agreement and Matich
has made contributions to his City Attorney campaign.
Council Member/Commissioner Estrada asked for an explanation of how the
project changed from what it was in 2003 to what we have today.
James Funk, Director of Development Services, provided a detailed explanation
of the scope of the project, the change orders, and the costs associated with
same.
He advised that the majority of this change order is the greater elevation to clear
the water line that currently exists, and the most significant sum is for the need
to import about 20,000 cubic yards of soil to elevate the road base on both
Campus and Northpark.
Council Member/Commissioner Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner McGinnis, that said resolution be adopted; that the
Director of Finance be authorized to amend the FY 2005/06 budget to reflect
increased revenues in Account No. 129-000-4945 from Watson & Associates in
the amount of $200,000 as contribution toward the construction of Campus
Parkway (SS O4-01) and installation of a traffic signal at Kendall Drive and
Campus Parkway (TC 04-07) per Plan Nos. 10952 and 10232; and that the
Director of Development Services be authorized to execute Change Order No.
Two to contract with Matich Corporation in the amount of $347,900.94 for
construction of Campus Parkway (SS O4-01) and installation of a traffic signal at
Kendall Drive and Campus Parkway (TC 04-07) per Plan Nos. 10952 and
10232.
The motion carried and Resolution No. 2005-407 was adopted by the following
vote: Ayes: Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis,
Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
20. RES. 2005-400 - Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City
of San Bernardino awarding a contract to MCC Equipment Rentals, Inc.
for storm drain improvements at Serrano Middle School, (SD06-01), per
Plan No. 11555.
Council Member/Commissioner Johnson made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Estrada, that said resolution be adopted.
Resolution No. 2005-400 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council
Members/Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley,
Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
18 12/05/2005
21
22
Authorize budget transfer - acquisition of real property by eminent domain
for the extension of Giovanola Avenue, north of 2nd Street
Council Member/Commissioner Johnson made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Estrada, that the Director of Finance be authorized to
amend the FY 2005/06 AB 2928 Traffic Congestion Relief Fund budget and
transfer $145,000 from Account No. 135-378-5504-7319 and $62,000 from
Account No. 135-378-5504-7307 into Account No. 135-378-5720-7319 for a
total of $207,000 to be used for the acquisition of right-of-way relative to the
extension of Giovanola Avenue, north of 2°d Street.
The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/
Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
ORD. MC-1213 - An Ordinance of the City of San Bernardino amending
Chapter 19.04 (Residential Districts), Section 19.04.030 (2) (1) of the San
Bernardino Municipal Code (Development Code) related to planned
residential development/small lot subdivisions requirements. FINAL
READING
Council Member/Commissioner Johnson made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Estrada, that said ordinance be adopted.
Ordinance No. MC-1213 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council
Members/Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley,
Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
23. Approve FY 2004/2005 to FY 2005/2006 Continuing Appropriations and
Encumbrance Carryovers and authorize contribution of $261,000 of FY
2004/2005 budget savings to the budgeted reserve to be used for anticipated
increases in future PERS Safety costs
Council Member/Commissioner Johnson made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Estrada, that the Mayor and Common Council approve
carrying over the listing attached to the Request for Council Action from
Barbara Pachon, Director of Finance, of FY 2004/2005 Continuing
Appropriations and Encumbrances into FY 2005/2006; and that the Mayor and
Common Council approve the contribution of $261,000 from FY 2004/2005
budget savings into the FY 2005/2006 budgeted reserve to be used for
anticipated increases in future PERS Safety costs.
The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/
Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
19 12/05/2005
24. RES. 2005-401 - Resolution of the City of San Bernardino authorizing
replacement of the Public Safety Communications Center voice logging
recorder system and a replacement server for the Computer Aided (CAD)
System used by the Public Safety Dispatch Center.
Council Member/Commissioner Johnson made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Estrada, that said resolution be adopted; and that the
Director of Finance be authorized to amend the FY 2005/06 Information
Services budget by increasing expenditure Account No. 679-251-5702 by
$138,304.36 and revenue Account No. 679-000-4671 by $138,304.36.
The motion carried and Resolution No. 2005-401 was adopted by the following
vote: Ayes: Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis,
Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
25. RES. 2005-402 - Resolution of the City of San Bernardino authorizing the
purchase of Copperfire Reporting Software with TIPS enhancement for the
San Bernardino Police Department.
Council Member/Commissioner Johnson made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Estrada, that said resolution be adopted.
Resolution No. 2005-402 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council
Members/Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley,
Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
26. RES. 2005-403 - Resolution of the City of San Bernardino authorizing the
purchase of networking equipment for Police wireless hot -spots.
Council Member/Commissioner Johnson made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Estrada, that said resolution be adopted.
Resolution No. 2005-403 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council
Members/Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley,
Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
27. RES. 2005-404 - Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City
of San Bernardino approving a revised 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, and repealing Resolution No. 2005-
127.
20 12/05/2005
Council Member/Commissioner Johnson made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Estrada, that said resolution be adopted.
Resolution No. 2005-404 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council
Members/Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley,
Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
28. RES. 2005-405 - Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City
of San Bernardino authorizing the Second Amendment of the Lease
Agreement between the City of San Bernardino and the Galstian Family
Trust for the office space located at 334 and 336 West Baseline Street to
serve as the Central District Community Oriented Police Station.
Council Member/Commissioner Johnson made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Estrada, that said resolution be adopted.
Resolution No. 2005-405 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council
Members/Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley,
Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
29. RES. 2005-408 - Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City
of San Bernardino authorizing an increase to the Purchase Order No.
206290 to Inland Regional Material Recovery for tipping fees for a total
purchase order amount not to exceed $2,280,400.00.
Council Member/Commissioner Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner McGinnis, that said resolution be adopted.
Resolution No. 2005-408 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council
Members/Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley,
Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
30. Resolutions denying the assignment of a cable television franchise by
Adelphia Cablevision to Time Warner NY Cable and denying the transfer
of control of the cable television franchise from Adelphia Communications
Corporation to Comcast Cable Holdings thereby denying the assignment of
the cable television franchise by Comcast Cable Holdings
Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San
Bernardino denying the assignment of a Cable Television Franchise by
Adelphia Cablevision of Inland Empire, LLC to Time Warner NY Cable
LLC, an indirect subsidiary of Time Warner Cable Inc. (30A)
21 12/05/2005
Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San
Bernardino denying the transfer of control of the Cable Television
Franchise from Adelphia Communications Corporation to Comcast Cable
Holdings, LLC thereby denying the assignment of the Cable Television
Franchise by Comcast Cable Holdings, LLC to CAC Exchange I, LLC; and
thereby denying a transfer of control of CAC Exchange I, LLC from
Comcast Corporation to Time Warner Cable Inc. (30B)
City Attorney Penman advised that this item should be tabled.
Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by
Council Member/Commissioner Derry, that the matter be tabled.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
31. Item Deleted
32. Item Deleted
Ayes: Council Members/
Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
33. Receive and file the FY 2004/2005 Year End Report and the FY 2005/2006
First Quarter Report
Barbara Pachon, Director of Finance, provided an overview of the year end
report for 2004/2005. She noted that the City ended the year at about $1.8
million more than what had been projected, the bulk of that coming from
expenditure savings. She stated that this balance would be carried over into the
current year and would be kept in the fund balance until Finance is given
direction from the Mayor and Council. She also briefly reviewed the first
quarter report for 2005/2006.
Council Member/Commissioner McCammack noted that the committee had also
asked Ms. Pachon for a projection for 2005/2006, so if there is any extra money
the Council can determine what to do with it.
City Administrator Wilson stated that he thought this information would be
presented at the workshop scheduled for 5 p.m.
Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by
Council Member/Commissioner McGinnis, that the FY 2004/2005 Year End
Report and the FY 2005/2006 First Quarter Report be received and filed.
22 12/05/2005
The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council
Members/Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley,
Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
34. Public hearing - resolution ordering work - Palm Avenue and Irvington
Avenue Area Landscape Maintenance Assessment District No. 1043, Zone 1
and Zone 2, Tract Nos. 15940 and 16457
RES. 2005-409 - Resolution of the City of San Bernardino finding and
determining the existence of less than a majority protest, that ballots
submitted in favor of the assessment exceed the ballots submitted in
opposition to the assessment and that the public convenience and necessity
require the maintenance of landscaping in the area of Palm Avenue and
Irvington Avenue, approving the Final Engineer's Report, creating an
assessment district to cover the costs of said maintenance, known as
Assessment District No. 1043, Zone 1 and Zone 2, ordering the work,
confirming the 2006-2007 Assessment Roll, and determining that the Special
Assessment Investigation, Limitation and Majority Protest Act of 1931 shall
not apply.
Mayor/Chairman Valles opened the hearing.
No public comments were received.
Council Member/Commissioner Kelley made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Estrada, that the hearing be closed; and that said
resolution be adopted.
The motion carried and Resolution No. 2005-409 was adopted by the following
vote: Ayes: Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis,
Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
35. Public meeting - formation of a landscape maintenance assessment district
in the Acacia Avenue and Hill Drive area - Tract No. 10260
Council Member/Commissioner Derry indicated that he would be abstaining on
this matter because he is purchasing property in this landscape maintenance
assessment district. He left the Council Chambers and returned after the vote
was taken.
Mayor/Chairman Valles opened the hearing.
No public comments were received.
23 12/05/2005
Council Member/Commissioner McGinnis made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Estrada, that the public meeting relative to the
formation of the Acacia Avenue and Hill Drive Area Landscape Maintenance
Assessment District No. 1040, be closed, and protests and ballots, if any, be
carried over to the public hearing on December 19, 2005, at 4:00 p.m.
The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/
Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack.
Nays: None. Abstentions: Council Member/Commissioner Derry. Absent:
None.
36. Public hearing - proposed expenditures of monies allocated from the FY
05/06 Citizens' Option for Public Safety (COPS) funds
RES. 2005-410 - Resolution of the City of San Bernardino authorizing the
obligation and expenditure of the allocated Citizens' Option for Public
Safety (COPS Option) monies for FY 05/06 to supplement front-line law
enforcement support services.
Mayor/Chairman Valles opened the hearing.
Robert Curtis, former captain with the San Bernardino Police Department,
advised that traditionally this money is spent to offset the cost of some of the
police officers. He noted that originally it covered all four of the officers that
were hired as a result of the COPS Universal Hiring Grant Retention Plan;
however, as salaries have gone up that percentage has gone from 100 percent
coverage down to approximately 76.8 percent.
No public comments were received.
Council Member/Commissioner McGinnis made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Estrada, that the hearing be closed; and that said
resolution be adopted.
The motion carried and Resolution No. 2005-410 was adopted by the following
vote: Ayes: Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis,
Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
37. RES. 2005-411 - Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City
of San Bernardino adopting "San Bernardino" as one of the City's official
songs.
It was pointed out that this song would be just one of the city's official songs.
24 12/05/2005
Council Member/Commissioner Longville made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner McGinnis, that said resolution be adopted.
Resolution No. 2005-411 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council
Members/Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley,
Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
38. RES. 2005-412 - Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City
of San Bernardino adopting in concept the Locally Preferred Alternative
(LPA) for the E Street Transit Corridor and Transit Supportive Uses
adjacent to the LPA stations.
A PowerPoint presentation was made by Omnitrans staff regarding the E Street
Corridor Project (sbX) - Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA).
Council Member/Commissioner McGinnis made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Estrada, that said resolution be adopted.
Resolution No. 2005-412 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council
Members/Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley,
Johnson. Nays: None. Absent: Council Member/Commissioner
McCammack.
39. Workshop - discuss and take possible action regarding crime reduction
initiatives and the FY 2005/2006 budget
Opening remarks were made by Mayor/Chairman Valles. She stated that she
had asked City Administrator Wilson to look at the City's budget and see if
there was any possible way that the City could add additional police officers;
and she would be calling on Barbara Pachon, Director of Finance, to present a
report on the budget and the issue of finding additional revenues.
She stated that everyone agreed that the City has a wonderful, outstanding,
strong police department that enjoys a good reputation; and we need to maintain
that. She stated that today they would try to be proactive and look at solutions,
or conversely, they may have to say that there is no money available. However,
there must be other alternatives, or some other things that can be done.
She spoke regarding the article in the newspaper about how the City has failed
to go after available grants, stating that it's so easy to make those blanket
statements that make it appear as if the City has just been sitting around,
twiddling its thumbs. She stated that she had asked former Captain Curtis, our
police grants person, to talk about the grants and his analysis, adding that he has
been very effective in getting as much money as possible that doesn't have too
many strings attached to it.
25 12/05/2005
Barbara Pachon, Director of Finance, distributed and reviewed with the Council
two documents, as follows: 1. Projected General Fund Balance Fiscal Years
2005-2006 (white paper), and 2. Projected General Fund Balance Fiscal Years
2005-2006 and 2006-2007 (green paper).
She stated that she was going to start off with the white paper, explaining that
the figures in the first column were what the Council adopted in this year's
budget, the second column was what the budget looks like now, based on the
year end we just finished and some new information on revenues (which are the
figures we are really talking about), and the third column was just the variance.
She stated that right now it looks like the City is going to have about $4.2
million more at June 30 for this year. She then reviewed with Council the
second page of the white paper that showed some of the assumptions that she
made in revenues to update her numbers.
She noted that under revenues for this year, as of the first quarter, it does not
look like we are going to get our sales tax projections, so she had to lower the
sales tax estimate for this year. She added that we are still going to bring in
more than we did last year, but the first quarter doesn't look quite as high.
She pointed out that the big gain we have had in revenue is an increase of
property tax in -lieu of the Vehicle License Fee (VLF). She stated that the
County had verified that the City is going to get $2.7 million more in revenue
from that source, and although some of that money is a one time true -up
payment, which will not happen again, the rest of it will be ongoing.
Finally, she reviewed the third page of the white paper, which covered
expenditures, including transfers out.
She stated that she should point out also that the budget reserve shows an
increase to just over $1.2 million from what was originally budgeted. She
explained that what is going into that is the $261,000 that the Council approved
as part of the carryover earlier today, plus she made an assumption that the $1
million savings in General Government for this year would probably go into the
reserve for future PERS or safety costs, like the Council did with the $261,000.
Ms. Pachon continued with the first page of the green paper, which included
projections for fiscal year 06/07. She stated that this revised projection looks
much better than the projection for 06/07 which was done in June when the
Council adopted the budget.
She noted that in June, the projection for 06/07 was showing that we would
have about an $8 million shortfall. However, right now, if there is a carryover
of the ending balance projected from this year, which is $11.8 million, and we
26 12/05/2005
spend that except for what is in the reserve, bottom line the City will have a
balanced budget with $47,000 left over.
She reminded the Council that these are preliminary figures, as she is making
assumptions only on the first quarter of this year. Also, property tax is a big
revenue on which we haven't seen any activity yet for this year, so we are
trying to project even what that is going to be for 06/07.
She then reviewed the second page of the green paper, which showed her
assumptions for revenues. She explained that again she started off with what
was projected for 05/06 this year, and then to that she added sales tax, which
will increase another 4-5 percent. She also assumed some growth in the Utility
Users Tax (UUT), due to utility rate increases. Again, the biggest increase is
the property tax in -lieu of VLF. She reiterated that this year the City was
getting $2.7 million and she assumed our assessed valuation would go up by at
least another million. She reminded the Council that the City had a two-year
agreement with the State to help balance its budget, and that agreement ends this
fiscal year, so starting next July 1 for 06/07 we do get reinstated back the $1.8
million.
Finally, she reviewed page three of the green paper relative to expenditures and
transfers -out. She noted that she did put in some additional overtime costs for
safety, and her assumption for Charter 186 for 06/07 was about what it was this
year —approximately $1.4 million. She also put in $500,000 for General PERS
costs, health costs, and MOU agreements.
Discussion ensued regarding the fact that there have been challenges to cities
regarding their Utility Users Tax (UUT), and a ruling on these cases could
affect our ability to collect the UUT. It was noted that in the past there was
discussion about setting money aside in the event we would have to change our
ordinance, but that was never done.
City Attorney Penman advised that at the time the City of Los Angeles was
being sued relative to its UUT, the City Attorney's office had advised the
Council that money should be set aside in the event our ordinance is challenged.
He stated that Los Angeles' ordinance was not upheld and is now on appeal, but
he thought our ordinance was a bit stronger than Los Angeles' ordinance, which
is a good thing, and our ordinance has not been challenged. He stated it was
disappointing to learn that the advice to put money aside was not followed —that
at the present time we are talking about $2 million, and if we haven't set that
money aside we need to set it aside now.
Mayor/Chairman Valles stated that it appears that the City is not in such good
shape as we thought we were, based on Ms. Pachon's projections of where we
are today and based on the very real need to replenish the UUT fund in case the
City is challenged and loses.
27 12/05/2005
Ms. Pachon stated that if the Council set aside $2 million from the budget
reserve that would leave the City with approximately $5,659,000 in budget
reserves.
Mayor/Chairman Valles stated that assuming the City does that, and the fact that
we now have $5.6 million, what does that do for our picture of what we are
trying to accomplish today.
Ms. Pachon answered that the goal set by the City was to have a budget reserve
of roughly 10 percent of our budget, so we would be very short of that.
Mayor/Chairman Valles reminded everyone that a budget reserve should be
used for one-time expenditures.
Mayor/Chairman Valles stated that the purpose of today's meeting was to find
ways to provide for and fully staff our Police Department —to find ways to
accomplish what we want to accomplish, recognizing that staffing requires
ongoing sustainable expenditures. She acknowledged that Ms. Pachon's
projections were just that —projections —but based on what we know now, and
recognizing that the 10 additional police officers have been covered, she asked
Ms. Pachon how many more police officers the City could hire based on what
we've got today.
Ms. Pachon replied, none.
Mayor/Chairman Valles reiterated that the City has allotted for 10 more
officers, but indicated that there must be something that could be done —things
we could do with our existing staff now, with our existing resources now. She
stated that this is where the City must be very creative, and asked City
Administrator Wilson to share some of his thoughts on this matter.
Council Member/Commissioner Estrada asked at what point the Council would
get a report from Chief Zimmon telling them exactly what he needs in additional
personnel.
City Administrator Wilson advised that the following initiatives had been
discussed at Ways and Means Committee:
• Use police retirees to augment Police Department personnel
• Conduct a staffing and deployment study of the Police Department
• Offer incentives to lateral hires and new recruits
• Allocate additional General Fund resources to fund Police Department
positions and/or other resources
28 12/05/2005
Assistant Chief Michael Billdt stated that included in the backup materials was
an Executive Summary for an Alternative Alarm Response Unit. He stated that
essentially the proposal was to use police officers who have retired in good
standing with CCW endorsements, and to utilize them in such a way that it frees
up our patrol officers from the responsibility of responding to false alarms. He
stated that almost 80 percent of our alarms are false, 17-18 percent are caused
by janitors, etc., so only 2 percent of the calls for service relate to alarms for
robberies, etc.
He explained that the proposal is to utilize these non -sworn retirees, who have
the seasoning and restraints to respond to these calls, to free up our patrol
officers so they can be more pro -active in dealing with the issues facing us
today. He noted that the first proposal calls for 7,280 hours of coverage, which
essentially would give the City five days of coverage during the weekdays and
two nights of coverage on the weekends. The second plan calls for 10,400
hours of personnel time and would get the City five days of coverage on day
shift and five days of coverage at night.
He stated that the Police Department believes that this will free up four full-time
officers; that the cost associated with the first plan is $205,908 and for the
second plan $293,055.
Discussion ensued regarding the liability issue, other activities these individuals
could perform to free up the officers time, etc.
Council Member/Commissioner Kelley asked how much civilian staffing the
Police Department had lost.
Chief Zimmon answered that they had lost about eight positions —that some
were lost due to budget constraints, because during the past few years it has
been easier to cut non -sworn positions than sworn personnel. He indicated that
almost all of the following personnel are civilians: front desk staff,
communications personnel, records unit personnel, all forensic staff, and a lot of
the personnel and training staff.
Chief Zimmon stated that staff had looked at the needs of the City with its
current growth, and they had developed a five-year strategic plan requiring 25
additional officers to staff 21 beats. It was their goal, as part of that, to ask for
even more additional officers for other tasks. He stated that they had received
funding for ten officers, and that two of them would be on the MET team and
two would be backups to supervisors. This left them with six officers for the
beat plan, so it will take 19 additional officers to implement the beat plan.
He stated that in addition they have asked for non -sworn personnel for records,
dispatch, etc. He indicated they would need about 14-15 non -sworn personnel;
but in addition to that, for every 10 officers you add, you need to add one
29 12/05/2005
detective and one supervisor. Otherwise, you add officers to the field, where
they generate all the work, but if the support personnel aren't there to handle the
paperwork and support the organization, the work will either go through very
slowly or very fast and not be done right.
Council Member/Commissioner Longville pointed out that it takes considerable
time to hire officers; therefore, she wanted to see how many more creative ideas
could be implemented immediately while the City recruits for officers. She
stated that we need to use what we have and speed the process up.
Council Member/Commissioner Kelley stated that there were a lot of ideas on
the table, and everyone knew there was no money to solve the problem;
however, it was imperative that they figure out a way to pay for what the chief
needs to solve this crime problem.
Mr. Wilson advised that the cost to conduct a staffing and deployment study of
the Police Department to identify ways to maximize the use of existing
resources in the Police Department would be $150,000-$200,000. There was
also the idea to offer incentives to lateral hires and new recruits.
City Attorney Penman distributed an inter -office memorandum dated December
2, 2005, from Mr. Penman and addressed to the Mayor and Common Council
regarding Counter Force Initiative.
He stated that the City has benefited from a free consultant regarding a Counter
Force Initiative —that Chief Lee Dean, who was with the City from 1996 to
2002, had come up with a plan for the City using our existing officers, free of
charge. He stated that back when Chief Dean used this plan we had fewer
officers than we do today and it worked, lowering the overall crime rate in San
Bernardino by 39 percent. Mr. Penman reviewed highlights of the memo with
the Mayor and Council.
Mayor/Chairman Valles stated that she had received and read this plan this
morning and had shared it with the Chief. She stated that she was going to ask
the Chief to look at the plan, analyze it, see if we could do some of it,
determine the cost implications, and report back to the Mayor and Council. She
stated that the Chief had indicated that the City is currently doing some of the
things mentioned in the report.
Mayor/Chairman Valles stated that the problem was not going to be solved
today, but she would like to bring closure to this, but was afraid we would not
be able to. She stated that one thing everyone must understand clearly is the
matter regarding grants. She stated that former Captain Curtis had been
working with grants and aggressively pursuing as much money as he could, and
she had asked him for an analysis of what he has looked at and why the City has
chosen not to pursue some of them.
30 12/05/2005
Captain Curtis stated that he had worked 15 of his 34 years in law enforcement
working with grants in some way, and what he has seen since 9/11 is that a lot
of the money that law enforcement has previously had available to them has
been redirected into Homeland Security.
Captain Curtis stated that three items or programs were mentioned in the
newspaper that the City could tap into for funds —the Weed and Seed Program,
the Project Safe Neighborhoods Program, and the Safe Streets Violent Crimes
Initiative —and he would address each one.
Weed and Seed Program - Staff first looked at this program in January 2005
and again in July/August 2005. They found that the City would have to make a
huge commitment of funding and resources to apply for the grant, and after they
applied they would have to get in line for the various grant money. In essence,
the City would have to identify a target; form a neighborhood association, who
would have to put together a strategic plan for crime prevention; and up to a
year later they would approve the plan and then allow you to compete for the
grants with no guarantee of receiving any money. He added that this particular
grant required a five -fold commitment of local resources to federal funding.
Project Safe Neighborhoods Program - Staff actually looked at this in
2003/2004 and basically this program is a partnership with state and local
prosecutions and also the U.S. Attorney's office. The approach they took was
to see if they could develop a countywide approach, but they were unable to
obtain countywide support for the proposal.
Safe Streets Violent Crimes Initiative - He had heard of this program, which
before 9/ 11 was run by the FBI and involved partnerships with local agencies to
address organized crime and prison gangs. However, he has not seen any
solicitations for this grant since 2003. He stated that he believed that this money
has probably been redirected due to 9/ 11.
Council Member/Commissioner McCammack indicated that she thought the
City had a potential funding stream, stating that as of August 1, we have an
intersection that has red light cameras.
She stated that City staff negotiated a revenue mutual contract with that vendor
and that red light camera intersection is providing (once the money starts
flowing from the County courts and if we get every penny we are supposed to
get), based on the sites being reviewed by our sworn officers, approximately
$220,000 a month from one camera. Even if we got just half of that, it would
be $110,000, and if we cut it another 25 percent we would still get a net of
$70,000-$80,000 a month on one intersection.
31 12/05/2005
She stated that her point for saying this is that we have three other intersections
that were approved for these cameras, and at the end of the next 12-14 months
there will be enough funding to come up with somewhere between $3.5-$4
million a year.
Council Member/Commissioner Estrada asked if it was possible to consider
some of these revenue streams to pay loans, or bonds, or something else that
would then give us a greater amount of money at one time, and we pledge
whatever these revenue streams are to pay for those bonds.
Council Member/Commissioner Longville stated that she would like to pledge
her support for recruitment incentives —that she would like to see this on the
Council agenda for the next meeting so the Council could approve this and get it
started. She stated that she would also really like to see on the Council agenda
that we spend that $293,000 for hiring retirees.
City Administrator Wilson reminded the Council that these would be meet and
confer issues.
Council Member/Commissioner Derry reaffirmed the number of positions
needed by the Police Department and Mayor/Chairman Valles requested that
Chief Zimmon compile this information on a grid so everyone could see it, and
she thought it would answer many of their questions.
Council Member/Commissioner Kelley stated that everyone recognizes the City
has a problem, and he would like to see the Council take action on something
today and not come back and look at grids and not come back and look at
something else. He stated he did not want to wait two weeks to take action.
Council Member/Commissioner Longville made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Kelley, that staff be directed to meet and confer with
the Police Officers Association regarding the use of police retirees to augment
Police Department personnel and offering incentives to lateral hires and new
recruits.
The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/
Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
City Attorney Penman suggested, and it was the consensus of the Mayor and
Council, that a special meeting be called as soon as the meet and confer process
has taken place.
The Council members also agreed that staff should wait on conducting a Staffing
and Deployment Study of the Police Department.
32 12/05/2005
Jack Brown, Chairman and CEO, Stater Bros. Markets, stated that the
impression citizens get in San Bernardino is that there are conflicts that do not
enable us to solve these issues; and he was impressed by Councilman Kelley's
response that we need to let them know that we are working together. He stated
that he came here tonight to see for himself —that he has 5,000 people who
either work at Stater Bros., or are members of their families, who live in San
Bernardino Zip Codes, and he is concerned about their safety. Plus, he has a
very vocal mother who lives up the street.
He stated that the point is, today he saw a working group of people, and he
hoped that the media would report that the Mayor and Council have put safety
and police staffing as number one priority in the City of San Bernardino. He
stated that the problem is not going to go away —that it's going to take a long
time to reduce crime in this city. He stated that he has lived through 12 police
chiefs that he can remember, and we have had a good department, and we have
a good department and a good chief.
He stated that he wants to be vocal with his employees when he tells them we
are working on something in the City of San Bernardino —the Mayor, the
Council, all those individuals who have some responsibility here —and where
suggestions come from, it doesn't matter —we are working together to solve this
problem, and we do support each other, and we do support our chief, and we
don't care who gets the credit.
R40. Public hearing - Request to provide a HOME Grant to Mary's Mercy
Center for Veronica's Home Transitional Housing Project (Continued from
November 21, 2005)
Resolution of the Community Development Commission of the City of San
Bernardino approving and authorizing the Interim Executive Director of the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino ("Agency") to
execute the 2005 HOME Grant Agreement by and between the Agency and
Mary's Mercy Center, Inc., a non-profit public benefit corporation - 641
Roberds Avenue (IVDA Redevelopment Project Area).
Note: No backup materials were distributed.
Staff requested a continuance of this matter to December 19, 2005.
Council Member/Commissioner McGinnis made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Estrada, that the matter be continued to the
Council/Commission meeting of December 19, 2005.
33 12/05/2005
The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/
Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
R41. 2005 Disposition and Development Agreement - Arrowhead Central Credit
Union, a California Corporation (Central City South Redevelopment
Project Area)
RES. 2005-414 - Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City
of San Bernardino approving the 2005 Disposition and Development
Agreement ("DDA") by and between the Redevelopment Agency of the
City of San Bernardino ("Agency") and Arrowhead Central Credit Union,
a California Corporation ("Developer") (Agency property located north of
Mill Street, west of "E" Street (APN: 0136-111-22) - 8.2 acres in the City of
San Bernardino) ("Property") and making certain findings thereto related
to the development of the Project (Central City South Redevelopment
Project Area). (R41A)
RES. CDC/2005-45 - Resolution of the Community Development
Commission of the City of San Bernardino approving the 2005 Disposition
and Development Agreement ("DDA") by and between the Redevelopment
Agency of the City of San Bernardino ("Agency") and Arrowhead Central
Credit Union, a California Corporation ("Developer") and authorizing the
Agency Interim Executive Director to execute said DDA relating to the sale
and development of Agency property located north of Mill Street, west of
"E" Street (APN: 0136-111-22) - 8.2 acres in the City of San Bernardino
("Property") and making certain findings thereto related to the
development of the Project (Central City South Redevelopment Project
Area). (1141B)
Council Member/Commissioner McGinnis made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Estrada, that said resolutions A and B, be adopted.
Mayor and Common Council Resolution No. 2005-414 and Community
Development Commission Resolution No. CDC/2005-45 were adopted by the
following vote: Ayes: Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Longville,
McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent:
None.
R42. RES. CDC/2005-44 - Resolution of the Community Development
Commission of the City of San Bernardino, California, adopting the
Economic Development Agency's Annual Statement of Investment Policy for
the year 2006.
34 12/05/2005
Council Member/Commissioner Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner McGinnis, that said resolution be adopted.
Resolution No. CDC/2005-44 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes:
Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley,
Johnson. Nays: None. Absent: Council Member/Commissioner
McCammack.
R43. Request for additional funds - renovation of the California Theatre located
at 562 West 4" Street - Central City North Redevelopment Project Area
Council Member/Commissioner Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner McGinnis, that the Community Development
Commission of the City of San Bernardino authorize additional funds in the
amount of $75,000 for the renovation of the California Theatre located at 562
West 4' Street in the Central City North Redevelopment Project Area.
The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/
Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson. Nays:
None. Absent: Council Member/Commissioner McCammack.
44. Appeal Hearing - Appeal of Planning Commission's denial of an
Amendment to Conditions - project site west of 59' Street between Acacia
Avenue and Hill Drive
Council Member/Commissioner Derry advised that he would abstain on this
matter because he is purchasing one of the properties within the project site;
however, the Fair Political Practices Commission had informed him that he
could participate as a member of the public because he does have a direct
financial interest. Mr. Derry left the dais and joined the audience.
Submitted into the record was a letter dated November 30, 2005, from Ted D.
and Jane Bair of 5718 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, CA, urging the
Council to turn down the appeal, due to high winds and fire concerns.
Mayor/Chairman Valles opened the hearing.
Valerie Ross, City Planner/Deputy Director, Development Services
Department, advised that Tract No. 10260 was approved in 1980, the final map
was approved in 1985, and it was recorded some time after that. Since that time
the Gardners purchased the tract, as they were not the original owners.
35 12/05/2005
Ms. Ross stated that on November 13, 2003, the development permit was before
the Development Review Committee, and the committee requested that the
wall/fence information be placed on the plan. Later that month Public Works
issued a rough grading permit and also requested the wall/fence information,
noting that it wasn't on the plan. In May 2004, the Planning Commission
approved the development permit for the construction of houses, and the
commission imposed a condition of approval for perimeter fencing around the
exterior and wrought iron or vinyl for the interior separation fencing.
She stated that in August of 2004, the applicant submitted an application to
amend the conditions of approval —specifically pertaining to the perimeter wall.
She stated that the applicant indicated that the request to delete the requirement
for a solid wall was due to the existing rock conditions —that they already had to
do blasting and it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to put in a
solid perimeter wall. Later that month, on August 24, the applicant pulled his
pre -site grading permit, and these plans also did not show the perimeter walls or
the interior fencing. She advised that Public Works did issue the pre -site
grading permit in an effort to keep the project moving, but basically the
applicant proceeded at his own risk because the consideration for the amendment
to the condition had not been considered.
Ms. Ross advised that one of the concerns staff had with removing the perimeter
wall was whether or not that wall would be needed for fire protection purposes.
However, the applicant completed his fuel modification plan, and the fire
marshal determined that the solid wall would not be needed for the fuel
modification. The applicant then obtained an easement from County Flood
Control to go on their property to make sure the area around the north and
westerly sides of the tract could be maintained —that the brush and fuel for fires
could be removed.
Ms. Ross stated that in November 2005, the Planning Commission considered
the request to amend the condition pertaining to the perimeter wall. She stated
that there was considerable discussion by the Commission, which ultimately
resulted in the Commission denying the request. Ms. Ross advised that the
Planning Commission was not convinced that it wasn't feasible to put in the
perimeter wall, and they were also concerned that the applicant had agreed to
the condition of approval in 2004, and at that time had not raised any concerns
regarding the feasibility of the wall or the drainage issues.
Pursuant to Resolution No. 2000-279, City Clerk Clark administered an oath to
the following individual that he would provide true and honest testimony:
36 12/05/2005
Mark Gardner, President of Gardner Construction, 555 Cajon Blvd., Suite G,
Redlands, CA, started with a brief history, stating that the tentative tract map
and all the final engineering maps were developed, engineered, and approved in
the early 1980s. In fact, the grading plan, street improvement plan, drainage
plan, and sewer plan were all approved and signed by then Director of Public
Works Glenn Wilson on March 23, 1982.
Mr. Gardner noted that a revision was completed in 1985, which punched
Acacia Avenue through the southern portion of this tract, and was originally just
an emergency access. The final tract map, having met the conditions of
approval of the time and bonds in place, was recorded on August 3, 1989. He
pointed out that late 1989 and 1990 was the end of the last big building cycle,
and due to the economic circumstances of the time, the project was not built.
The development laid dormant for 14 years, until he purchased it in 2003.
Mr. Gardner stated that there had been a lot of changes since 1989. Although
the map was recorded and the plans were approved, he had to go through a plan
review process with the current Engineering Department reviewing the plans
that were approved years ago.
He stated that he had anticipated that this would be the case, and they had
already hired a civil engineer to do the review for his company. Additional
notes were added to the plan saying that they would comply with current
Uniform Building Code (UBC) codes and regulations; erosion control plans,
storm water pollution prevention plans, and water quality management plans
were developed and approved; and finally, after several months they pulled all
of their off -site permits and began grading the first quarter of 2004.
He explained that concurrently with this process, they were also processing their
Development Permit Type III (DP III) application with Planning for the homes
they planned to build on the project. Several new conditions came out of the
DP III process —the creation of a landscape maintenance district for the slopes
above Newberry Park, a fuel modification plan and fire management plan were
also required, and then also Condition No. 12, which reads, "Perimeter walls
and retaining walls shall be split faced block or slump stone on both sides above
ground, interior fences shall be vinyl or wrought iron, wood or chain link fences
not permitted."
Mr. Gardner stated that since the building of the perimeter wall was not in the
conditions of approval, they did not originally object to this new condition. It
was not until they were told that the perimeter wall is covered under Condition
No. 7, which states, "This permit or approval is subject to all the applicable
provisions of the Development Code in effect at the time of approval" that he
37 12/05/2005
fully understood that a perimeter wall on new tracts is part of the Development
Code today.
He advised that normally they would just comply with the requirement for a
wall. However, this project is not a standard subdivision —it's a combination of
an in -fill project and also a hillside project. He stated that they worked with
Planning and Parks and Recreation and came to an agreement on a wall for the
south side of the project adjacent to Newberry Park and above the existing
homes. He stated that next to the park would be a combination of block wall
and wrought iron —that Parks and Recreation did not want it to be an all block
wall because of problems with graffiti. In addition, they voluntarily added an
additional 90 feet to the west side of the park to ensure that mud and debris
would not flow into the park during the rains.
Mr. Gardner stated that above the existing homes on the south side, the fencing
that is currently there will remain in place, as these homes have retaining walls
that are in place in the back, and to put a wall on top of their retaining wall
without their retaining walls being engineered for it, would not be feasible. For
the remainder of the tract they filed a request to amend the conditions of
approval to allow wrought iron fencing in -lieu of a block wall. They filed this
request in August 2004, sixteen months ago.
He stated that prior to being placed on the Planning Commission agenda, they
were required by staff to have a fuel modification and fire management plan
approved. Staff wanted to be sure that the block wall would not be required in
the fire management plan. In order to get the fire management plan approved
they had to work with the San Bernardino County Flood Control to issue a
permit to allow the landscape maintenance district of this project permission to
go onto Flood Control property in order to perform weed abatement. One of
the new conditions between 1989 and today, was that even though these were
recorded lots, they had to obtain permission to weed abate over 150 feet outside
of their property line in order to comply with the fire plan modification.
Mr. Gardner stated that from start to finish, between the two bureaucracies, it
took them ten months before a permit was issued by Flood Control to allow the
landscape maintenance district to enter Flood Control property. A block wall
was not required because the consultant, Scott Franklin from Urban Wildlife
Management, felt it was more important that the views not be blocked
artificially so that new homeowners would be able to see the vegetation
encroaching close to their property. He stated that he assumed that staff agreed
with this, as they recommended to the Planning Commission that his request to
amend the conditions of approval to eliminate the block wall, be approved.
He stated that in addition to the fire management plan, there were other major
problems in building this block wall. The rough grading plan that was
engineered and approved accepts substantial amounts of drainage from the
38 12/05/2005
adjacent properties to the north and to the west, and the perimeter of this project
was not graded so as not to affect the natural flows of drainage from these
properties. He stated that there was a letter from Flood Control dated March 6,
1978, when this project was being approved, which talks about how the design
must incorporate these drainage flows; and there is also a current letter in the
backup materials from the current engineer, Thatcher Engineering, outlining the
problems with installing a permanent wall on this tract.
Last, but certainly not least, they have 2 to 1 slopes on both sides on which they
would be required to build a block wall on the top of that slope. On both sides
of the property there are some places where the natural grades fall steeper than
2 to 1. During the grading operation they encountered solid rock along all the
northern portion up along the cul-de-sac that is in there, which they had to
dynamite and blast at a 2 to 1 slope to get the slope there.
Mr. Gardner stated that he had photos of the different areas around the
perimeter of the project that show the severity of the grades and the huge
drainage easements that are in place to handle the drainage flows from adjacent
properties.
In his closing remarks, Mr. Gardner stated that this project had been a huge
challenge, not only for Gardner Construction, but for staff as well. The project
was designed, approved, engineered, and recorded in a different time, with
different people, under a different development code. He stated that it has been
their responsibility, together with staff, to make sure that this project was up to
today's standards, and this is the only remaining issue that has not been resolved
with this project.
Council Member/Commissioner McCammack stated that she had spoken with
several of the planning commissioners and a couple of developers that have
suggested that anybody that builds in the hillside, comes across problems like
this all the time, and there are evidently ways to attach rebar to granite or stone
or whatever you are building on. She stated that her concern is that with as
many fire issues that the City has had, that the Council do everything in their
power to protect the homeowner. Also, if the applicant knew it was a condition
of approval in the beginning and had agreed to a block wall, she thought the
Council had a responsibility to the residents in the area, as well as a
responsibility to their planning commissioners, to listen to what they had to say.
Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion to deny the
appeal.
The motion failed for lack of a second.
39 12/05/2005
Mr. Gardner stated that first of all he wanted to make it clear that the conditions
of approval for the project, when the project was approved, did not include a
condition for a perimeter block wall. He explained that the only condition of
approval that said anything regarding a perimeter block wall was Condition No.
12 on the DP III application, and the DP III application is done months after the
development. He also pointed out that if he was just selling lots out there, there
would be no fence or no wall that would be put around the project whatsoever.
Not until people decided to build houses and they went through the DP III
process would this condition be able to be added to this development.
Council Member/Commissioner McCammack stated that the conditions of
approval of the tentative tract map in the first place discuss the Development
Code; and Mr. Gardner answered that the Development Code that was approved
in 1980, when this project was approved, did not require a perimeter block wall
around this tract.
Council Member/Commissioner McCammack acknowledged this, but stated that
current standards apply; and Mr. Gardner replied that on a recorded map the
conditions of approval that were done at the time that the map was recorded are
the conditions of approval that apply.
Council Member/Commissioner McCammack accepted that, but replied that
there have been other changes and other requests for amendments.
Mr. Gardner stated that that was correct, which is what he was talking about
when he said that when they went through the process and had their plans
reviewed —the rough grading plan that was approved by staff and by the
engineering department —that they did not require a perimeter block wall on this
tract. He stated that Condition No. 12 on the DP III application states that
perimeter walls or retaining walls will be of block —that 'is, if there is a
perimeter wall that is to be built, it will be of block —but there is not a condition
of approval that says this tract is conditioned to build a perimeter wall —that
was ambiguous to him. When he found out that through Condition No. 7, that
states up to today's Development Code, that part of that Development Code and
today's standard includes a perimeter block wall, that is when they filed their
request.
He added that in looking back through the minutes that were at the Planning
Commission, one of the things that he failed to address at the Planning
Commission was their question of why he was only bringing this up now at such
a late date. But he has not only brought it up now. They have been in this
process for 16 months —they applied in August 2004.
With regards to the letter from the homeowner, one thing they can't do —they
can't disregard the fuel modification plan and the fire management plan that was
required by the City and which he had to pay to have done, and then ignore the
40 12/05/2005
findings that are in that plan. That plan believes that it is more important for
these homeowners to be able to see the vegetation that is encroaching on their
property, so they can ensure that the landscape maintenance district is doing
weed abatement and doing the things necessary to keep that fire from getting
that close to their homes. The reason not to have the block wall, is that with the
wall it would be "out of sight, out of mind."
Council Member/Commissioner McCammack stated that the wind is the issue
up there and asked how long Mr. Gardner was going to warranty these wrought
iron fences —that the concern of the homeowner is that the fences will be blown
over in no time due to the winds.
Ms. Ross stated that she needed to clarify one thing —she personally held up the
project, scheduling it for Planning Commission to amend the conditions of
approval, and Mr. Gardner is aware of that. She held it up until such time as
the fuel modification plan had been completed, accepted, and approved by the
Planning Department, because she needed assurance that the wall was not
necessary for the fuel modification, and she got that confirmation from the fire
marshal and then scheduled it for Planning Commission.
She added that Mr. Gardner was correct that in 1980 it was not a zoning code
requirement for perimeter fencing —that if you go to Councilman Kelley's ward,
you will find a perfect example of projects that were built without perimeter
walls or fencing. This requirement has only been in effect in the Development
Code since 1991. She stated that now the City also conditions tract maps
coming in that the houses will be subject to the rules in effect when the houses
are submitted, and also now conditions tract maps that the walls and fencing will
be determined at the time of the development of the houses.
Council Member/Commissioner Kelley stated that he believed perimeter walls
were very important to have. However, in this particular project area (which he
is very familiar with and has been out and looked at the site), he would concur
that something "out of sight, out of mind" would be fuel for future fires. He
also believes, based on the lots that are up there, that it certainly would be
desirable for the residents to enjoy the environment and see what is out there
and see the views. He acknowledged that the wind does blow very hard, but a
split fence or an iron fence, such as those used in many projects in the
Verdemont area, allow the wind to pass through so the fences do not blow over.
He thought the appropriate action would be to not require the block wall.
Council Member/Commissioner McGinnis stated that he agreed with Mr. Kelley
that the block wall should not be required. He stated that as a telephone man he
has been in many, many tracts and he has seen the open fencing in areas such as
rural Reche Canyon and areas of Yucaipa. Some of these homes are in the
$700,000-800,000 price range, and they all have wrought iron fencing because
they want to see the view. Also, with today's fireproofing of houses and
41 12/05/2005
adequate yard sizes, the homes in that area will be pretty much fireproof, and he
didn't see that the block wall was absolutely necessary.
Council Member/Commissioner McGinnis made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Kelley, that the hearing be closed; and that the Mayor
and Common Council grant the appeal and reverse the Planning
Commission's denial of Amendment to Conditions to modify Condition of
Approval No. 12 of Development Permit Type III No. 03-41. (Note: The vote
was taken following additional discussion.)
Council Member/Commissioner McCammack stated that Mr. Gardner would
still need to put footings in for a wrought iron fence, and she understood they
didn't need to be near as deep for a wrought iron fence as they do for a block
wall, but his argument that it's going to be difficult to put footings in, he is still
going to have to do that.
Mr. Gardner pointed out that the difference is that when you are putting in a
wrought iron fence, you are putting in posts, and they can go in and core drill
out and core drill into the rock at each individual post. When you have to dig a
block wall, especially to withstand in the 100 mph wind zone, you are talking
about a footing that is 8-10 feet deep and could be 4-5 feet wide at the bottom.
You would be required to get large machinery up in the area to be able to dig
that portion out, as opposed to being able to core drill down just where the posts
are positioned.
Neil Derry, 2668 Avalon, Highland, CA, speaking as a future homeowner in
this project, stated that from a visual standpoint internally the wrought iron
fence is a much more desirable effect if you look out where the backyard will
be. Where it was necessary to blast to create the lot, there is actually a ridge
going up to the end of the property line, and if you put a block wall up there it
would create worse visibility for the residents, as well as create an atmosphere
for the people around the project, who don't live in the project, of an idea that
this project does not fit in with the surrounding hillside. A perimeter wall of
wrought iron would be an improvement not only for the people that live there,
but also for the folks who still like their views from the homes down below the
project. He asked that the Council grant this appeal.
Council Member/Commissioner Longville stated that she didn't have any
empathy for the predicament that the developer has found himself in, but the
reason why she tends to support the wrought iron fence is more from a drainage
perspective. She stated that the perimeter walls that are being put all over these
flood plains, that are basically creating channels on the outside for the runoff to
roll down to the neighborhoods below, are a real concern to her. She stated that
most cities on flood plains do not have design standards in place that really work
with nature, and someday she hopes they will.
42 12/05/2005
Ms. Longville stated that she did not see a brick wall on the outside of this
project as necessarily something that would be of benefit to the neighborhoods
below; and since the wrought iron fence is structurally going to do the job, she
thought it would work with the natural drainage better. She felt that the
neighbors would be just as happy in the long run if they have less mud rolling
down off of this development, which would be accomplished better by not
having the brick wall.
The motion made by Council Member/Commissioner McGinnis, seconded by
Council Member/Commissioner Kelley, carried by the following vote: Ayes:
Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Kelley,
Johnson. Nays: Council Member/Commissioner McCammack. Abstentions:
Council Member/Commissioner Derry. Absent: None.
45. Appeal Hearing - Appeal of Planning Commission's denial of Development
Permit I No. 05-51 to re -use an existing vacant building as a coin operated
laundry facility located at 4399 N. Sierra Way in the CG-I, Commercial
General, land use district
Staff requested that this matter be continued to December 19, 2005.
Council Member/Commissioner McGinnis made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Estrada, that the matter be continued to the Council/
Commission meeting of December 19, 2005.
The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/
Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
46. Public Comments
Reverend Reginald Beamon, 1504 Madison Street, San Bernardino, CA, stated
that he would like to see a gang task force created to sit down and look at the
immediate short-term and long-term goals to combat gang violence. He stated
that the best way to address the problems of the city is to get to the young
children in the elementary schools, adding that we don't need money —we need
willing workers.
Mayor/Chairman Valles stated she would be contacting him as soon as possible
to set up this commission.
Herbert Blair, 3049 North "F" Street, San Bernardino, CA, expressed his
thoughts regarding events happening in San Bernardino and possible solutions.
43 12/05/2005
Ghassan Abdullah, 1129 North "F" Street, San Bernardino, CA, spoke
regarding contamination of the Bunker Hill Basin aquifer and information not
divulged during the Lakes and Streams public hearing. He submitted a letter
dated December 5, 2005, relative to his comments.
Deanna Adams, 1156 North "F" Street, San Bernardino, CA, stated that
according to the Economic Development Plan in Orange County, they are
opposed to using eminent domain; and the City of San Bernardino should follow
their example and change its thinking and attitude.
Mayor/Chairman Valles stated that eminent domain is used by the City as a last
resort.
S1. HOME Loan Agreement — AHEPA National Housing Corporation and
AHEPA Local Arrowhead 302 Chapter for the development of a 90 unit
senior housing complex
Resolution of the Community Development Commission of the City of San
Bernardino approving and authorizing the Interim Executive Director of the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino ("Agency") to
execute the 2005 HOME Loan Agreement by and between the Agency and
AHEPA National Housing Corporation and Local AHEPA Arrowhead 302
Chapter.
Note: No backup materials were distributed.
Staff requested a continuance of this matter to the next meeting.
Council Member/Commissioner Longville made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner McGinnis, that the matter be continued to the Council/
Commission meeting of December 19, 2005.
The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/
Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson. Nays:
None. Absent: Council Member/Commissioner McCammack.
S2. RES. 2005-413 - Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City
of San Bernardino authorizing the Mayor or her designee to execute an
agreement between the City of San Bernardino and the Celtic Soccer Club
for use of the San Bernardino Soccer Complex for a 5-year period.
Council Member/Commissioner Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner McGinnis, that said resolution be adopted.
44 12/05/2005
S3
47
Resolution No. 2005-413 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council
Members/Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley,
Johnson. Nays: None. Absent: Council Member/Commissioner
McCammack.
Appointment - David E. Mlynarski - Bureau of Franchises - Council
Member McCammack
Council Member/Commissioner McGinnis made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Estrada, that the appointment of David E. Mlynarski to
the Bureau of Franchises, as recommended by Council Member McCammack,
be approved.
The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/
Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
Adjournment
At 7:35 p.m., the meeting adjourned
noon in the MIC Room, Sixth Floor,
Bernardino, California.
to Monday, December 19, 2005, at 12
City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San
The next joint regular meeting of the Mayor and Common Council/Community
Development Commission is scheduled for 1:30 p.m., Monday, December 19,
2005, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San
Bernardino, California.
No. of Items: 50
No. of Hours: 7.5
RACHEL G. CLARK
City Clerk
By:
Linda E. Hartzel
Deputy City Clerk
45 12/05/2005