Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-20-2006 MinutesCITY OF SAN BERNARDINO 300 N. "D "Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 Website: www.sbcity.org MINUTES MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AND THE JOINT POWERS FINANCING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO JOINT REGULAR MEETING MARCH 20, 2006 COUNCIL CHAMBERS Mayor Patrick J. Morris Council Members: Esther Estrada Dennis J. Baxter Gordon McGinnis Neil Derry Chas Kelley Rikke Van Johnson Wendy McCammack The joint regular meeting of the Mayor and Common Council, Community Development Commission, and the Joint Powers Financing Authority of the City of San Bernardino was called to order by Mayor/Chairman Morris at 1:35 p.m., Monday, March 20, 2006, 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 Morris; Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, McGinnis, Derry, Johnson, McCammack; City Attorney Penman, City Clerk Clark, City Manager Wilson. Absent: Council Member/Commissioner Kelley. Council Member/Commissioner Kelley Arrived At 1:40 p.m., Council Member/Commissioner Kelley arrived at the Council/ Commission meeting. 1. Closed Session A. Conference with legal counsel - existing litigation - pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a): Natasha Johnson v. City of San Bernardino et al. - United States District Court Case No. CV 05-05536 RJK (SSx); 03/20/2006 Graham, Dion & Tina v. City of San Bernardino - San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. 130968; Clarendon National Insurance Co. v. City of San Bernardino - San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. SCVSS 131821. 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: Matich v. City of San Bernardino C. Conference with legal counsel - anticipated litigation - initiation of litigation - pursuant to subdivision (c) of Government Code Section 54956.9: Patrons of the Roosevelt Bowl v. Paycheck City v. Burrtec D. Closed Session - personnel - pursuant to Government Code Section 54957: Public Employee/Discipline/Dismissal/Release 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. G. Conference with real property negotiator - pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8: Uptown Redevelopment Project Area 1. Property: 1108 West 20d Street APN 0138-301-07 Negotiating Parties: Maggie Pacheco, Interim Executive Director, on behalf of the Redevelopment Agency, as buyer and Marlene Belchefsky, Trustee on behalf of the Belchefsky Children Family Trust, property owner Under Negotiation: Purchase price, terms and conditions 2 03/20/2006 400- Street Redevelopment Project Area 2. Pry: 267 East 49m Street APN 0154-126-25 Negotiating Parties: Maggie Pacheco, Interim Executive Director, on behalf of the Redevelopment Agency, as buyer and Oscar P. Palomera, property owner Under Negotiation: Purchase price, terms and conditions Central City North Redevelopment Project Area (Old Towne Area) 3. Pry: 621 North "G" Street APN 0134-021-28 4. 5. Negotiating Parties: Maggie Pacheco, Interim Executive Director, on behalf of the Redevelopment Agency, as buyer and Rohit Doshi/Family Rita, property owner Under Negotiation: Purchase price, terms and conditions Pam: 631 North "G" Street APN 0134-021-29 Negotiating Parties: Maggie Pacheco, Interim Executive Director, on behalf of the Redevelopment Agency, as buyer and Willie Wagoner and Rose Harris, property owners Under Negotiation: Purchase price, terms and conditions Pam: 2105 East Sunrise Lane APN 1191-051-55 Negotiating Parties: Maggie Pacheco, Interim Executive Director, on behalf of the Redevelopment Agency, as property owner and Habitat for Humanity, as buyer Under Negotiation: Purchase price, terms and conditions 03/20/2006 Central City Redevelopment Project Area (Carousel Mall) 6. Property: APN 0134-201-25 and0134-211-36 Negotiating Parties: Maggie Pacheco, Interim Executive Director, on behalf of the Redevelopment Agency, as buyer and Upham Development Company, property owner(s) Under Negotiation: Purchase price, terms and conditions 7. Pam: APN 0134-301-29 Negotiating Parties: Maggie Pacheco, Interim Executive Director, on behalf of the Redevelopment Agency, as buyer and El Corte Ingles S.A. Company, property owner(s) Under Negotiation: Purchase price, terms and conditions City Attorney Penman announced that the following additional case would be discussed in closed session under Agenda Item No. 1A, Existing Litigation: Ralph P. Romero, Fire Captain & Individual v. Attorney, et al. - United States Court of Appeals, 06-55021. Reading of Resolutions & Ordinances Deputy City Clerk Hartzel read into the record the titles of all the resolutions and ordinances on the regular agenda of the Mayor and Common Council, Community Development Commission, and the Joint Powers Financing Authority. Moment of Silence Mayor/Chairman Morris expressed condolences to the family and requested a moment of silence in memory of Teresa Enciso, a longtime resident, businesswoman, and community volunteer who passed away on March 9 at the age of 74. Invocation/Pledge of Allegiance The invocation was given by Father Barnabas Laubach of St. Bernardine's Medical Center, followed by the pledge of allegiance, led by Jonathan Moreno of Bradley Elementary School. 2. Appointments A-C Appointments - Council Member Baxter Susan Lien Longville - Planning Commission Oscar Gonzales - Board of Police Commissioners Mary Sue "Susan" Atanasova - Human Relations Commission 03/20/2006 D-G Re -appointments - Council Member Estrada Connie Rodriguez - Board of Fire Commissioners Robert G. Vega - Parks & Recreation Commission Teresa Flores -Lopez - Board of Police Commissioners Bobbie J. Johnson - Senior Affairs Commission H-M Re -appointments - Council Member Derry Susan Dawson - Animal Control Commission Manfred F. Gildner - Board of Building Commissioners Timothy J. Martin - Fine Arts Commission Felix D'Amico - Parks and Recreation Commission Felix D'Amico - Board of Police Commissioners John Coute - Planning Commission Council Member/Commissioner McGinnis made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner McCammack that the appointments/re-appointments A- M, as requested by Council Members/Commissioners Baxter, Estrada, and Derry, be approved. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/ Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None. 3. Proclamations & Presentations Mayor Morris presented a resolution to Neil Derry honoring Rotary Club of San Bernardino North on their 50"' Anniversary. Peggi Hazlett, Assistant to the Mayor, announced the 19' Annual Women of Achievement Awards Luncheon to be held on March 23, 2006, at the National Orange Show. The 2005 Employee of the Year Award was presented to Armando Leon, Refuse Operator III, in recognition of his development and implementation of a refuse temporary bin replacement program for the City. The 2005 Together We Can Award was presented to Kimberly Littlejohn and Belynda Sanchez, employees in the Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Department, dubbed the "Dynamic Duo" who consistently get the job done right and with professionalism. 03/20/2006 El Velia Marquez, who worked for over 25 years in the City's Police Department and came out of retirement to work part-time in the Cable TV -Channel 3 Division of the Information Technology Department, was awarded the San Bernardino Shines Award for her endeavors. Although not in attendance, the Fourth Quarter 2005 Customer Service Award was awarded to Maria Pacewiczh, Public Service Assistant in the Police Department, for her outstanding scheduling skills and her expert assistance in handling Spanish-speaking reports and calls. The following individuals were presented a service pin award by Mayor/ Chairman Morris in recognition of their many years of dedicated service to the City: Name Richard Rodriguez Frank Alvarez Michael Fowler Barbara Fox Loretta Harris -Sherrill Lisa Patnode Brian Tully Patsy Wanco Dennis Garrahan Announcements Department Facilities Management Police Police Police Police Police Police Police Public Services Years of Service 25 20 15 20 10 15 10 10 25 Announcements were made by the Mayor, members of the Common Council, elected officials, and a representative from the Chamber of Commerce regarding various civic, community, and chamber events and activities. 5. Waive Null Reading of Resolutions & Ordinances Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner Johnson, that full reading of the resolutions and ordinances on the regular agenda of the Mayor and Common Council, Community Development Commission, and San Bernardino Joint Powers Financing Authority, be waived. The motion carri Commissioners Es McCammack. Nays: ed by the following vote: trada, Baxter, McGinnis, None. Absent: None. Ayes: Council Members/ Derry, Kelley, Johnson, 6 03/20/2006 6. Council Minutes Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner Johnson, that the minutes of the following meeting of the Mayor and Common Council/Community Development Commission be approved as submitted in typewritten form: February 6, 2006. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/ Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None. 7. Claims & Payroll Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner Johnson, that the claims and payroll and the authorization to issue warrants as listed on the memorandum dated March 13, 2006, from Barbara Pachon, Director of Finance, be approved. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/ Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None. 8. Personnel Actions Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner Johnson, that the personnel actions, as submitted by the Chief Examiner, dated March 15, 2006 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. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/ Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None. 9. 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 McCammack made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner Johnson, that the Mayor and Common Council confirm the need for continuing in effect the local emergency caused by the Old Waterman Canyon Fire. 7 03/20/2006 The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/ Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None. 10. ORD. MC-1220 - Ordinance of the City of San Bernardino amending Chapters 2.02, 2.049 2.069 2.1% 2.12, 2.14, 2.15, 2.189 2.389 2.549 2.58, and 2.70; adding Chapters 2.77, 2.78, 2.79, 2.80, and 2.81; and repealing Chapters 2.16 and 2.60 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code. FINAL RBADING Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner Johnson, that said ordinance be adopted. Ordinance No. MC-1220 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None. 11. RES. 2006-70 - Resolution of the City of San Bernardino amending Resolution No. 655 entitled, in part, "A Resolution ... designating certain streets, or portions thereof as through highways..." and establishing a three-way stop at the intersection of Inland Center Drive at "I" Street. Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner Johnson, that said resolution be adopted. Resolution No. 2006-70 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None. 12. RES. 2006-71 - Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino authorizing the execution of at purchase order to C-18, Inc. for a one year extension to the annual city wide traffic striping & pavement marking maintenance services agreement per Project No. 11329 and adjusting quantities and unit prices to allow an increase of unit prices by approximately 3%. Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner Johnson, that said resolution be adopted. Resolution No. 2006-71 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None. 8 03/20/2006 13. RES. 2006-72 - Resolution of the City of San Bernardino making application to the Local Agency Formation Commission for providing City sewer services to property within unincorporated territory located at 2910 North Macy Street. Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner Johnson, that the Director of Development Services be authorized to initiate proceedings for the provision of City sewer services outside of City boundaries for property located at 2910 North Macy Street; and that said resolution be adopted. The motion carried and Resolution No. 2006-72 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None. 14. RES. 2006-73 - Resolution of the City of San Bernardino establishing fair market value and minimum sale price for a portion of certain City owned parcel of real property generally located southwesterly of Kendall Drive and Cajon Boulevard, and setting a public hearing to consider said sale. Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner Johnson, that the Director of Development Services be authorized to proceed with the sale of City Water Department property located southwesterly of Kendall Drive and Cajon Boulevard; and that said resolution be adopted. The motion carried and Resolution No. 2006-73 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None. 15. RES. 2006-74 - Resolution of the City of San Bernardino authorizing execution of a cooperative agreement between the City of San Bernardino and the County of San Bernardino for pavement rehabilitation of Fifth Street between Waterman Avenue and Tippecanoe Avenue (SS06-38). Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner Johnson, that said resolution be adopted; That the Director of Finance be authorized to amend the FY 2005/2006 budget by transferring $10,400 from Account No. 126-369-5504-7530 "1911 Street Pavement Rehabilitation (County Lead) (SSO4-112)" to Account No. 126-369- 5504-7583 "5'" Street Pavement Rehabilitation from Waterman Avenue to Tippecanoe Avenue (SS06-38)"; 9 03/20/2006 That the Director of Finance be authorized to amend the FY 2005/2006 budget by transferring $50,000 from Account No. 129-367-5504-7595 "Landscaping on 4' Street from Mt. Vernon Avenue to 5'h Street (SS06-04)" to a new Account No. 129-367-5504-7583 "5m Street pavement Rehabilitation from Waterman Avenue to Tippecanoe Avenue (SS06-38)"; and That the Director of Finance be authorized to amend the Fiscal Year 2005/2006 budget to reflect an increase in anticipated revenue of $128,400 in the Gas Tax Fund (Fund 126) associated with the increase in the County's share of the cost of the project for a total County share of $352,883, and increase the project expense budget by $128,400 to reflect the full project costs in the budget. The motion carried and Resolution No. 2006-74 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCartimack. Nays: None. Absent: None. 16. RES. 2006-75 - Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino authorizing the Director of Finance or designee to issue a purchase order to L.N. Curtis & Sons in the amount of $41,699.25 for radio communication systems and remote posh -to -talk kits. Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner Johnson, that said resolution be adopted. Resolution No. 2006-75 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None. 17. RES. 2006-76 - Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino authorizing the Director of Finance or designee to increase Y Tire Sales annual purchase order for tires and services on fire apparatus. Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner Johnson, that said resolution be adopted. Resolution No. 2006-76 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None. 10 03/20/2006 18. RES. 2006.79 - Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino authorizing the Mayor or his designee, the Director, Parks, Recreation, & Community Services Department to execute a Memorandum of Understanding with the San Bernardino City Unified School District to provide contractual services for seventeen (17) before & after -school recreation programs at school district sites. City Attorney Penman advised that he would abstain on this matter because his wife is a member of the school board. Council Member/Commissioner Kelley pointed out to his colleagues at the school board that this is another example of the City and the schools working together to serve the needs of all of their constituents throughout the city, and called upon them to reconsider the joint use agreement at Cesar Chavez Middle School. Council Member/Commissioner Kelley made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner McGinnis, that said resolution be adopted. Resolution No. 2006-79 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None. 19. RES. 2oo6-77 - Resolution of the City of San Bernardino authorizing the execution of an Amendment to the professional Services Agreement to employ Robert Curtis on a part-time basis in Fiscal Year 2005/06. Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner Johnson, that said resolution be adopted. Resolution No. 2006-77 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None. 20. RES. 2006-78 - Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino authorizing the execution of an Agreement for the San Bernardino Police Department to participate as a member of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Gang Impact Team Task Force. Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner Johnson, that said resolution be adopted. 11 03/20/2006 Resolution No. 2006-78 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None. 21. RES. 2006.80 - Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino authorizing the execution of a Purchase Order to Fairview Ford for twenty-three (23) year 2006 Ford Crown Victoria police interceptors; and authorizing the Purchasing Manager to solicit lease - purchase rate quotes and award a lease -purchase to the lowest responsible leasing company. Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner Johnson, that said resolution be adopted. Resolution No. 2006-80 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None. 22. ORD. MC-1221 - An Ordinance of the City of San Bernardino, California, adding Chapter 13.25 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code entitled Spreading or Extraction within the Management Zone. FINAL READING Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner Johnson, that said ordinance be adopted. Ordinance No. MC-1221 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None. 23. RES. 2006-82 - 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. (Continued from March 6, 2006) Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner Estrada, that said resolution be adopted. Resolution No. 2006-82 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None. 24. An Ordinance of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino, California repealing and replacing San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 8.82.050 of Chapter 8.82 regarding recovery of expenses for extraordinary law enforcement services. FIRST READING 12 03/20/2006 Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner McGinnis, that the Mayor and Common Council refer this matter to the Legislative Review Committee for study and report back to the Mayor and Common Council. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/ Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None. 25. Public hearing — consider an ordinance establishing and modifying certain development impact fees and a resolution setting certain development impact fees Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino setting the amount of certain development impact fees, and repealing Resolution W140. Ordinance of the City of San Bernardino adding Chapter 3.27 to the San Bernardino Municipal Code to establish development impact fees, and repealing Chapter 3.26 and Chapter 19.30.320 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code. FIRST READING Mayor/Chairman Morris opened the hearing. In accordance with Resolution No. 2000-279, City Clerk Clark administered an oath to the following individuals that they would provide true and honest testimony: Richard Caldwell, 685 Carnegie, San Bernardino, CA, expressed support for the establishment/modification of development impact fees. Carlos Rodriguez, Senior Vice President, Building Industry Association (BIA) of Southern California, Inc., 8711 Monroe Court, Suite B, Rancho Cucamonga, CA, distributed a letter dated March 20, 2006, from BIA to the Mayor and Council members, in which the BIA expressed support for "staffs recommendation for a grandfather clause and phase -in of the fees." He noted that they were recommending an alternate phase -in approach in 25 percent increments through 2009, with the rationale being affordability; however, they were not asking for a phase -in for circulation or public safety. Also, "to further increase the opportunity for homeownership" they recommended that the "City Council consider waiving development impact fees on ALL future projects identified as 'Affordable Housing' units in San Bernardino." 13 03/20/2006 John Magness, Hillwood, 105 N. Leland Norton Drive, San Bernardino, CA, stated that as the largest developer in the city of San Bernardino, both in square footage, building value, and in the amount of fees that they pay, they are never in favor of raising fees. However, to date they have paid over $6 million to the City for the entitlements and privilege of building in the city and converting the former Norton Air Force Base into the logistics hub emerging today. He stated that he had brought with him two of his development directors who work with City staff on a daily basis, and they have met with City staff and City Manager Wilson and have come to the conclusion that they are prepared to move forward with the City's proposed development impact fees. He stated that this is a very complex and complicated issue, which requires a study and understanding of traffic impact and traffic engineering. He stated that they had gone so far as to hire a consultant to explain to them what the proposed fee documents really mean in terms of impact to the city. Mr. Magness stated that they look forward to continuing redevelopment in the City and bringing additional jobs back to the City. He advised that they will be starting the interchange project this summer to redevelop the vacant acreage by University Avenue, and that project i$ not exempt from fees (see related Agenda Item No. 26)—that they will be paying the new impact fees there and they are ready to work with the City on that also. Felix D'Amico, 4795 David Way, San Bernardino, CA, speaking on behalf of the Parks and Recreation Commission, voiced support for the increase in development fees as a way to invest in our youth. and in the community as a whole, to reduce crime and develop today's youth into team players and leaders of tomorrow. George Jordan, Vice President, ANR Homes, 357 West 2' Street, San Bernardino, CA, stated that ANR Homes had a longstanding commitment to develop homes in the underserved areas of San Bernardino. He stated that they do support an increase in development impact fees within the city —that it is clear from the analysis completed by City staff that the current fee structure does not adequately support necessary public facilities —particularly public safety for which there is currently no assessment. He pointed out that the current proposal seeks to bring San Bernardino's fees in line with the average of those assessed in other major cities of the Inland Empire in the first year of its inception. Mr. Jordan stated that their concern is in the median home price of the City of San Bernardino and what percentage the proposed impact fees would be as a percentage of the median home price. He explained that the current median home price in San Bernardino is $296,000, and if you compare that to the other 14 03/20/2006 cities used as a basis of comparison for the new fee structure, they range from $350,000 to approximately $630,000 in cities like Norco and Rancho Cucamonga. In these cities the impact fees represent less than 4 percent of the homes sales price, whereas in San Bernardino the proposed fee structure would represent more than 7 percent of the current median home price. According to Mr. Jordan, on average the impact fees across all the cities represent a little bit more than 5 percent of the median home price. He advised that ultimately the cost of new home development is borne by the homebuyers; and his firm, especially because they focus on affordable home ownership, is very sensitive to the fact of passing those costs on to the homeowners. He stated that despite the fact that the City's median home price is low, they still face issues of affordability, which makes it very difficult for renters to enjoy the many benefits of homeownership; and any increase of development costs will ultimately affect the ability of some families to buy a home. He stated that it is always ANR's goal to maximize opportunities for homeownership so they can continue to stabilize the neighborhoods, and they would just ask that the Council take into consideration issues of affordability, particularly for low- to moderate -income families as they consider this assessment increase. Craig Heaps, Fidelity Homes, 3985 University, Riverside, CA, stated that they think the raising of fees can only bring positive impacts. He advised that they have 54 homes that are currently being built, another 162 that have been approved, and another 39 that they have submitted and are going through the approval process now; and they do support the increase in fees. James R. Watson, Watson & Associates Development Co., Inc., 101 Main Street, Suite A, Seal Beach, CA, stated that he was in support of the proposed development impact fee increase. He pointed out that San Bernardino is on the front end of the renaissance of development —that there is a strong need for housing and the vacant land is here —and in order to build this community in the way that San Bernardino envisions, the fees are necessary. He stated that he thought the idea brought forward by some of the other speakers relative to an alternate "phase -in" had a lot of merit. As far as his company was concerned, the increase in some fees and the addition of others would not adversely affect them. However, he did see that when you get into the moderate priced or affordable priced home, the situation may be different; and the City might want to consider phasing in the fees over a little bit longer period of time. Tom Masterson, San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, 26569 Community Center, Highland, CA, stated that they have property along Highland Avenue in both the City of Highland and the City of San Bernardino and around the airport 15 03/20/2006 district. He stated that as a property owner they are in favor of paying fees that are required to help develop the improvements needed to provide for future expansion. He advised that one of the goals for San Manuel, as a development partner with the City, is to provide growth and to support the community and its surroundings. In reviewing the documents that were put together establishing the projects fees and improvements, they felt that some of the projections for future traffic, which were used to develop the costs for future infrastructure needs within the city, were over inflated from a viewpoint of share of existing improvements. He asked the Council to take another look at the fees and how they were calculated and re-evaluate them. He added that as a local developer and investor in the community they pride themselves in supporting the community and providing for its needs, so they are in favor of development fees and anything the City needs to make the community a better place for us all to live. Council Member/Commissioner McCammack stated that she had been concerned that the City was going to go in and raise the fees in one swoop to the highest level legally allowed by the Nexus Study. She thought the idea of raising some of the fees incrementally was an excellent idea; however, she wanted to propose something a little bit different. She stated that she agreed that the fire, the police, and the traffic fees all needed to be up to the level the City is legally able to collect, because the City is in dire straights as far as being able to provide to the public those services that she believes they deserve. Additionally, she believed the park fees have been much too low for many, many years. Ms. McCammack suggested that the Council incrementally increase all fees except for fire, parks, police, and traffic, starting with a 50 percent increment instead of the 70 percent increment that is listed, going to 65 percent in the second year, 80 percent in the third year, and 100 percent in the fourth year. She stated that she thought this adjustment would go a long way toward all parties feeling more comfortable with the increased fees. She pointed out that although there is a list of things that could be bought with this money, the Council hasn't really formed a plan, and doing it this way would enable some of the developers to offer affordability back to medium income families that need a chance to buy a home. Council Member/Commissioner Derry seconded the motion (suggestions made by Council Member/Commissioner McCammack). Mayor/Chairman Morris asked Ms. McCammack to restate her motion. 16 03/20/2006 Ms. McCammack stated that she was talking about the resolution portion of the form motion, which would come back at a future meeting, which listed the fees and manner of implementation. She stated that her motion would be that the Mayor and Common Council immediately introduce and increase to the maximum amount determined to be legal by City staff and the Nexus Study the fire, parks, police, and traffic fees; and that they incrementally introduce a four-year plan for the remainder of the fees at a 50 percent level the first year, 65 percent the second year, 80 percent the third year, and 100 percent the fourth year. Council Member/Commissioner Kelley stated that it was no secret that he has always contended that fees collected in a particular area should stay in and be used to provide services to that area. He stated that there was nothing in this document —whether the fees are approved at 50 percent and phased in, or approved at 100 percent immediately —that explains where the money is going to be spent. He stated that the argument has been that services need to be provided throughout the city; however, fair is fair, and we must provide for new residents. Council Member/Commissioner Derry stated that he thought the proposed rate of fee increase as a percentage of the cost of a home would be higher than anyplace else listed, including Rancho Cucamonga, Ontario, Corona, Redlands, and Yucaipa. Therefore, the reason he agreed to second Ms. McCammack's motion was because he still had some serious problems with this fee increase. He stated that to a point, he thought the increase was excessive; however, there was going to have to be some kind of compromise, and he was willing to compromise to this point. He stated that this Council was going to pass some form of fee increase, and it was going to be higher than he would like. He readily admitted that the City's fees are too low and they need to be adjusted, but there is a difference between adjusting and doubling. He stated that he also agreed with Mr. Kelley that there is no expenditure plan for these fees, but he is willing to work with the Council and make something happen. Mayor/Chairman Moms stated that he thought it was fair to say that there has been considerable work done by staff over the last year as the Council has worked through this issue with the developers —those who are most impacted by these fees. Council Member/Commissioner Derry stated that he would disagree because the people who are most impacted are the people that are buying homes; and they are not included in this discussion because they are not constituents at this point, and that is why he seconded the motion as a compromise. 17 03/20/2006 Council Member/Commissioner Kelley stated he would like to amend the motion, and asked Ms. McCammack if she would allow that a portion of the dollars collected in the area would remain in that area so that the needs of those areas are met. Council Member/Commissioner McCammack asked whether Mr. Kelley would like to offer a percentage of the money that should stay in the area, suggesting that 50 percent of the fees stay in the area where they are generated. Council Member/Commissioner Kelley agreed with the suggested amount of 50 percent, and Council Member/Commissioner McCammack stated that she would accept that amendment to her motion. Discussion ensued whether Mr. Kelley meant that 50 percent of the fees collected would remain in the ward where collected, or whether he meant that 50 percent would stay in the area or region where the development occurred, and he was asked to be more specific. City Attorney Penman advised that legally AB 1600 does require that the fees have to be spent in the area where they are raised, or that there be a nexus between where the fees are spent and where they were raised. He stated that he thought that would occur with or without the amendment that Mr. Kelley had just requested relative to the 50 percent, because he thought by law that has to happen. City Clerk Clark clarified the amended motion as follows: That the hearing be continued to April 3, 2006; that said resolution, amended to implement the fire, parks, police, and traffic impact fees immediately to the maximum amount legally permitted and to incrementally introduce a four-year plan for the remainder of the fees at a 50 percent level the first year, 65 percent the second year, 80 percent the third year, and 100 percent the fourth year, with 50 percent of all impact fees to remain in the ward or area where the building takes place, be continued to April 3, 2006; and that said ordinance be laid over for final adoption. (Note: At this time Ms. Clark asked for clarification from Mr. Kelley as to whether he wanted the fees to remain in the "ward" or the "area" where the building takes place.) Following a short discussion, Council Member/Commissioner Kelley advised that he wanted to use the word "ward." Council Member/Commissioner McCammack stated that she would not accept the word "ward" because some developments split a ward; however, she did not have a problem with the word "area." 18 03/20/2006 Mayor/Chairman Morris called for a vote on the following motion: Motion made by Council Member/Commissioner McCammack, as amended by Council Member/Commissioner Kelley, seconded by Council Member/ Commissioner Derry, that the hearing be continued to April 3, 2006; that said resolution, amended to implement the fire, parks, police, and traffic impact fees immediately to the maximum amount legally permitted and to incrementally introduce a four-year plan for the remainder of the fees at a 50 percent level the first year, 65 percent the second year, 80 percent the third year, and 100 percent the fourth year, with 50 percent of all impact fees to remain in the area where the building takes place, be continued to April 3, 2006; and that said ordinance be laid over for final adoption. The motion failed by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/ Commissioners Derry, Kelley, McCammack. Nays: Council Members/ Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, McGinnis, Johnson. Absent: None. Council Member/Commissioner Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner McGinnis, that the hearing be continued to April 3, 2006; that said resolution be continued to April 3, 2006; and that said ordinance be laid over for final adoption. Council Member/Commissioner Johnson stated that the City has not raised its fees in a very long time, and he agreed with Mr. Watson that we are in a renaissance period right now in our city. He thanked staff for all the work that they did on this agenda item and for including the stakeholders and making them a part of the decision making process. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/ Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, McGinnis, Johnson. Nays: Council Members/ Commissioners Derry, Kelley, McCammack. Absent: None. 26. RES. 2006-84 - Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino authorizing the Mayor to execute a Traffic Development Impact Fee Prepayment Agreement among the City of San Bernardino, the Inland Valley Development Agency and the San Bernardino International Airport Authority. Note: Mr. Magness made his comments during the discussion of Agenda Item No. 25. Mr. Magness stated that he would like to address both Agenda Item No. 25 and Agenda Item No. 26 at the same time, because they are inter -related. He stated that some individuals may ask why the IVDA and Hillwood would be entitled to 19 03/20/2006 a special agreement which allows them to prepay the fees using the grants that they have helped to acquire. He advised that these fees have already been paid —that the IVDA has put in an extraordinary amount of infrastructure to widen Tippecanoe, Orange Show Road, and other roads to increase the capacity for the traffic there. Also, recently they brought back another $36 million which helps that project as well. This was all done before it was even considered to give the IVDA the credits for the traffic that was already there when the base was closed. So they have already in essence paid the fair share to date for the base and surrounding property. City Manager Wilson explained that this item is a resolution which would execute a traffic development impact fee pre -payment agreement between the City and the Inland Valley Development Agency (IVDA). The basics of this issue focus on the fact that the IVDA was instrumental in obtaining certain federal earmarked funds as approved by Congress in the amount of about $36 million this past year. Some of those improvements were for a number of major regional roads in and around Norton Air Force Base. In addition to those dollars, IVDA has also identified and contributed a number of other dollars that essentially represent their fair share of major regional improvements in and around the base; and for that reason, they are asking for a pre -payment agreement (essentially an exemption). He advised that the term of the agreement is for 20 years, and there is a re -opener provision in 10 years that would allow the City to revisit the matter and see if any changes are warranted. Council Member/Commissioner Kelley began by stating that he has a deep concern for fairness, and went on to mention all the fees that developers must pay when they are building a new home, many of which are passed on to the new homeowner. He stated that he commended and respected the work that Hillwood has done at the base —that he was proud of what they have been able to accomplish in the private sector, as opposed to what we in government could not do with the former base. However, there are going to be employees out at that base who are going to be impacting our roads, no different than a homeowner impacting our roads, and he believes everyone should pay their fair share. He stated that even though a grant has come in for $36 million, he would venture to guess that at $1.34 per square foot on a commercial site —maybe $2.68 to $2.70 for office space —that there is close to $11-22 million on the table that the City could collect that could go to all the wards to improve all of the streets and do a great many things in our community. 20 03/20/2006 Therefore, he was voting "no" on this item because he did not believe it was fair to let those who have special relationships form deals in order to get out of paying fees —a fee that anybody else would have to pay if they did not have those special relationships. Council Member/Commissioner Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner McGinnis, that said resolution be adopted. Resolution No. 2006-84 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, McGinnis, Derry, Johnson. Nays: Council Members/Commissioners Kelley, McCammack. Absent: None. 27. Workshop to discuss new City Charter - Economic Development Agency Boardroom City Attorney Penman conducted a review of the new charter, advising that he was not going to cover every change made to the charter —that his primary focus would be on those areas that apply to the relationship between the City Council and the City Manager and changes to the processes of the legislative body. A memorandum dated March 20, 2006, from Fred Wilson, City Manager, to the Mayor and Common Council regarding Draft Communication Guidelines was distributed to the Mayor and Council. Mayor/Chairman Morris directed the Council members' attention to the guidelines prepared by the City Manager, stating that they are rules of courtesy and good business. He asked the Council members to review the guidelines, understand them, and abide by them —especially the guidelines for communication. City Manager Wilson advised that the crux of the issue was covered in paragraph 4, Non -routine requests. He stated that this paragraph outlined how the process should work —that the Council members should contact the City Manager when it involves anything other than a routine request. No action was taken on this matter. 28. RES. 2006-83 - A Resolution repealing Resolution No. 12836 regarding reimbursement of expenses and costs for Council Members to comply with AB 1234 (Gov't Code Section 53232 Et. Seq.) Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner Estrada, that said resolution be adopted; and that the matter be referred to the Ways and Means Committee to recommend a written policy to the Mayor and Common Council. 21 03/20/2006 The motion carried and Resolution No. 2006-83 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None. Council Member/Commissioner Estrada stated that she had mentioned to the City Attorney a document from Western Cities magazine relative to AB 1234 and the fact that it mentions that the California Constitution gives Charter Cities primary authority to set Council members' salaries up to the limits in the Charter. She requested that whatever research could be done on this issue be done prior to the Ways and Means Committee meeting, so all the information could be discussed at the same time. 29. RES. 2006.81 - Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement between the City of San Bernardino and the Patrons of the Roosevelt Bowl to provide support services for Market Night at Perris Hill Park. Susan Lien Longville, President, Patrons of Roosevelt Bowl, asked for support for the re -birth of San Bernardino's Farmer's Fair and Market Night. She advised that the Board was going to manage the market; and that Joe Margolis, a vendor during the market's previous venue, would be the market coordinator, taking responsibility for sound, electricity, cleanup, and the recruitment of vendors. She added that they were going to be looking at an 8 p.m. curfew for minors under the age of 17. Joe Margolis, 1335 West 38m Street, San Bernardino, CA, advised that he has 35 vendors committed to participating in the City's Market Night and Farmer's Market, and he would do everything he could to make Market Night a success. Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner Estrada, that said resolution be adopted. Resolution No. 2006-81 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Staff Present Mayor/Chairman Morris; Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack; City Attorney Penman, City Clerk Clark, Interim Executive Director of the Economic Development Agency Pacheco. Absent: None. 22 03/20/2006 R30. RES. CDC/2006-9 - 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 Redevelopment Project Study and Redevelopment Assistance Agreement ("Agreement") with Anita's Restaurant and Bakery, Inc. ("Developer") - Mount Vernon Corridor Redevelopment project Area. Council Member/Commissioner McGinnis made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner Estrada, that said resolution be adopted. Resolution No. CDC/2006-9 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None. R31. Downtown Mixed Use Financing Plan - Low/Mod 20% Set -Aside Bond Issue 2006 RES. 2006-M - Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino authorizing the borrowing by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino from the San Bernardino Joint Powers Financing Authority in a total aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $36,000,000, authorizing the form *f certain legal documents related thereto and authorizing and directing their preparation, execution and delivery. (R31A) RES. CDC/2006-8 - Resolution of the Community Development Commission of the City of San Bernardino authorizing on behalf of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino, the borrowing of funds from the San Bernardino Joint Powers Financing Authority in a total aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $36,000,000, authorizing the form of certain legal documents related thereto and authorizing and directing their preparation, execution and delivery. (R31B) RES. J-52 - Resolution of the San Bernardino Joint Powers Financing Authority authorizing the issuance of San Bernardino Joint Powers Financing Authority Tax Allocation Bonds, (20% Set -Aside) Taxable Series 2006 in a total aggregate principal amount not to exceed $36,000,000, approving the form of certain legal documents related thereto and authorizing and directing their preparation, execution and delivery. (R31C) Maggie Pacheco, Interim Executive Director, Economic Development Agency, provided a detailed overview of the staff report and answered questions from the Council. She advised that in November 2005 the Commission approved the 23 03/20/2006 Central City North Downtown Mixed Use Project Concept Plan and the Redevelopment Project Study and Exclusive Right to Negotiate Agreement with Watson & Associates Development Co., Inc. She stated that the intent of the plan is to eliminate blighted conditions and to encourage economic development by creating owner -occupied, mixed -use and mixed -income housing opportunities in the plan area generally bounded by 4' and 5m and "F" and "G" Streets. Ms. Pacheco stated that to date the Agency has acquired six parcels of land within the confined boundaries of the plan at a cost of $4.7 million, which came from the Low- and Moderate -Income Housing Fund, with 22 parcels still to be acquired. She stated that the estimated budget for the additional land assemblage, which encompasses the 22 parcels, is $28 million, with a total budget for the entire 28 parcels of $32.8 million. Due to the cost of the acquisitions needed to enable the plan to move forward, staff was directed to prepare a financing plan to illustrate how the project would be funded. Therefore, staff is proposing that the Agency issue a housing fund taxable tax allocation bond primarily secured by the 20% Low- and Moderate - Income Housing Fund, which would produce about $31.5 million of net bond proceeds, with the gross bond being approximately $36 million. Ms. Pacheco advised that the Agency would be using all of the 20% Set -Aside from the Agency's 11 project areas, and since all of them have different dates for project expiration, the debt service has been structured to take these various dates into consideration. Therefore, the annual debt service payments will be larger during the early years and smaller for the later years, until the final maturity of the bonds, which is projected to be 2033. She noted that the bonds would be issued as federally taxable bonds, which would allow the greatest degree of flexibility in the use of the bond proceeds under the federal tax law, but still enable the Agency to meet the requirements under the Low- and Moderate -Income guidelines. Assuming that the Commission approved the bond financing, staff anticipated having a bond closing in April 2006, making funds available for staff to move forward with acquisition of the remaining 22 parcels. She also noted that in accordance with the Agreement for Special Legal Counsel Services with Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, staff was recommending the retention of Mr. Sabo as bond counsel, which has been past practice, and bond counsel would retain the bonding team to enable moving forward with the bonds. Ms. Pacheco reviewed with the Council Exhibits A-1 through A-7 attached to the staff report. She noted that Exhibit A-4 depicted the tax increment revenue 24 03/20/2006 analysis, an analysis that shows all of the project areas currently generating the increment over the life of each redevelopment project area. She noted that this was a constant projection of tax increment —that staff did not take into consideration the annual 2 percent property tax increase and did not take into consideration the potential development growth in each of the respective project areas, which basically illustrates that this is an ultra conservative approach for sizing the bond issue. She also reviewed in some detail Exhibit A-5, depicting the debt service for the $36 million bond issue, noting that it starts at $682,000 initially as a principal and interest payment, increasing for the remainder of years; and then at the tail end of the bond issue, it is back down to a declining number of $698,000. Lastly, she reviewed Exhibit A-7 showing the Assessed Valuation/Tax Increment of the 28 parcels to be purchased with a current assessed valuation of $5.3 million, generating $53,219 in tax increment versus the estimated developed value of the plan upon completion of the proposed 150 units with a new assessed valuation of $52,500,000 generating $525,000 in tax increment (an annual increase in tax increment of $471,781). Therefore, assuming completion of the plan in 2009, the cumulative tax increment through 2023 at $471,781 with 2% annual increase would amount to $7,536,000. Add to this figure the potential land sale proceeds (150 lots x $100K/lot for a total of $15,000,000), and you have a total estimated revenue of $22,536,000. Council Member/Commissioner Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner McGinnis, that said Resolutions A-C, be adopted. (Note: The vote was taken following additional discussion.) Relative to the $36 million bonds, Council Member/Commissioner Johnson inquired whether any of the monies would be available for any other projects in the city during the planning phase of this project. Ms. Pacheco stated that the sizing of the bond did not take into consideration 100 percent of the Low -Mod fund, so there would be additional funds available. She stated that the Agency was not proposing to pledge 100 percent of the 20% Set -Aside for this bond issue. Also, she thought it was important to point out that, as she indicated earlier, they did not look at growth —they did not look at the 2 percent escalator, and they did not commit the allocation of the IVDA Low -Mod fund to the Economic Development Agency, which she anticipates will be approximately $1.8 million this year. Therefore, the Agency will have other funds available to do programmatic obligations that the Council budgets for on an annual basis, including the Mortgage Assistance Program and other programs the Agency has committed to fund as part of the Commission's prior actions. 25 03/20/2006 Council Member/Commissioner McCammack asked for a figure of the amount of money that the Council has pledged for 2005/06 that may not have come to fruition yet (such as the down payment assistance program for Cal State); and the same figures again for 2006/07. Ms. Pacheco stated that there was not an itemized listing of money already committed by the Council to other projects in the backup materials. However, Exhibit A-5, which is the tax allocation debt service coverage, shows excess revenue, and that excess revenue is what is uncommitted. She also asked the Council to keep in mind that this does not include the IVDA allocation that she mentioned earlier, which staff anticipates to be $1.8 million. Also, this chart does not take into consideration the 2 percent growth, nor any additional development activity that may be occurring in the project areas, which is going to generate new revenue for the Redevelopment Agency. Discussion ensued regarding the bond and the Plan, with Council Member/ Commissioner McCammack expressing several concerns, including the following: 1. Concern that the Council/Commission was talking about issuing a $36 million bond and committing to $91 million in payback over the next 27 years for a project that only encompasses the area of 0 and 5d' and "G" and "H" Streets. 2. The fact that the taxpayers will never recoup the $36 million, even taking into consideration tax increment monies, sales tax revenue, and property tax revenue. The fact that there will not be enough money left to cover what the Council/Commission has already pledged for 2005/06 and 2006/07 for mortgage assistance and other Low -Mod expenditures. 4. That words in the staff report talk about the intent of the Plan, which was approved in concept; however, there is still no real plan —there is no vision or master plan for this downtown project, similar to what the Council/Commission insisted they have for the University Park area and the Arrowhead Springs area. She noted that the Agency has a developer who thinks he might want to do a plan, but that plan, if it is mixed use (commercial downstairs, residential upstairs) is questionable, since the funding will come from 20% Low- to Moderate -Income Set -Aside money, which cannot be used to fund commercial entities. According to Ms. McCammack, right off the bat the Agency/City may be breaking the law. 26 03/20/2006 5. The fact that there are $4.5 million in costs associated with the bond, and that the Agency's special counsel will be paid for his services as such, however, he is also advocating for this project and would be retained as bond counsel and get paid separately for that. She stated that this seemed to be a financial conflict, and she believed the Council/Commission needed to obtain independent bond counsel as they did with the Pension Obligation Bonds. Ms. McCammack stated that she had spoken with several developers during the past several months relative to the Arden Guthrie area. During these conversations the developers have indicated that they don't need City money — that they have money of their own. Therefore, she questioned why the City/Agency would spend taxpayers' money to fund this particular project. She ascertained that she has been told that if the Council/Commission came up with a master plan for the downtown area, more developers would come to the table asking to be part of the plan Ms. McCammack noted that the City has already invested a ton of money into the lakes and streams project; and now the Council/Commission is about to invest $36 million—$90.9 million when they are done paying for it —and all they will have to show for it is a block 4' to 5" Streets and "G" to "H" Streets of raw land, which the Agency will end up selling to the developer for pennies on the dollar. Then, if there are median income homeowners who are looking to buy houses in the city —and based on his campaign statements, she thought that was what Mayor Morris was looking to do with the reservoir project —there will not be enough money left in the pot to help these folks buy a home. Prior to taking final action on this matter, she thought it was very important to have some type of workshop with all the developers who are willing to come to the table with suggestions, and with the whole Council present, since this will be the biggest investment she can remember since she has been on the Council with not a lot to show for it. Council Member/Commissioner Estrada stated that when it comes to investment in the future of our community, she has never looked at the boundaries of where that money is being spent. She reminded the Commission that millions and millions of dollars have been invested in Arden Guthrie without a plan — bringing down old buildings, bringing down the blight, cleaning up the crud. In addition, the Agency went over to the soccer fields and got involved in that project in order to try to eliminate blighted conditions in the community. She stated that over at Norton millions and millions of dollars have been spent; but again, you have to go in and spend the money in order to make things happen. She stated she didn't know the exact dollar amount spent at Norton, but we've now got Mattel, Kohl's, and Pep Boys. In addition, there will be the 27 03/20/2006 complete consolidation of Stater Bros.; and more to come because of the investment that has been made. Ms. Estrada stated that she voted for these items each and every time, and she would do it again tomorrow because she thinks that all of these projects are extremely worthwhile. She advised that when they first started talking about this project they could have gone in and bought these properties for 10 cents on the dollar —but they didn't. And yet, today, they can see that the market is turning and the opportunity is here to really begin to revitalize this community — the heart of the city, the downtown of San Bernardino, which just happens to be in her district, and she supports it 100 percent and will continue to support it 100 percent. Council Member/Commissioner Kelley verified with staff that if the Commission did not approve this project, the funds in the Low- and Moderate - Income Housing Fund would continue to grow and the Commission would be asked on a yearly basis to appropriate those funds for eligible housing programs and projects; and that the Low -Mod funds are restricted and can only be used for housing purposes. Barbara Lindseth, Agency Director of Administrative Services, distributed a chart labeled, Low Mod Rev 2% Table Sheet 1 and explained staffs projections relative to the Low- and Moderate -Income Housing Fund in the event the Commission approved the issuance of the bond. According to Ms. Lindseth, after debt service on the bond, the Agency would have anywhere from $3.5 to $5 million each year in the Low -Mod Housing Fund, assuming a 2 percent growth rate and coupled with the IVDA resources. She pointed out, however, that there are some ongoing costs, including some standby bond agreements, which amount to approximately $600,000 which must be paid annually out of these funds. Council Member/Commissioner Kelley asked Ms. Pacheco to explain one last time why staff feels this is the right thing to do and the right decision to make for the citizens of this city. Ms. Pacheco advised that when staff first embarked upon this project, she thought it was the vision of the Council that they wanted to eradicate some blighted conditions in the downtown. She noted that at that time the market was a different market —the housing market wasn't as expensive as it is today —and the Agency had a $12 million balance in the Low -Mod Fund. At that time staff discussed with the Council the opportunity to use the Housing fund to stimulate economic development in the downtown area, while at the same time eliminating the blighted conditions and also creating the opportunity for economic development. She stated that it was her recollection that this was a collective vision of the staff and the commission. 28 03/20/2006 However, in order to accomplish this goal they needed to have the resources to make it happen. She explained that the private investment was not there; however, the Agency had an opportunity to work with Watson and Associates, which allowed them to go out and test the market and see if there was any opportunity for an assemblage program from the private sector. When that didn't happen, the Agency's powers became very critical in the assemblage process in creating the catalyst for new development. The motion made by Council Member/Commissioner Estrada, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner McGinnis, that said Resolutions A-C be adopted, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/ Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, McGinnis, Johnson. Nays: Council Members/Commissioners Derry, Kelley, McCammack. Absent: None. 32. Public Comments Jay Lindberg, 6340 Orange Knoll, San Bernardino, CA, spoke regarding the waste streams at the former Norton Air Force Base. He stated that most of the solvents in the plume at the base have been removed and most of what he found on the base was good. Council Member/Commissioner Estrada gave Mr. Lindberg a copy of a document she received from the Department of the Air Force relative to the cleanup program at the former base. Manfred Gildner, 4665 David Way, San Bernardino, CA, distributed a typed copy of his comments to the Mayor and Council relative to his concerns about the relationship San Bernardino has with the San Manuel Indian Tribe; in particular, what they contribute to the city in the form of taxes, in light of the fact that "The Tribe has now received more property at Norton (former NCO housing and the Audio -Visual Building)." Julie Waltz, 3020 Broken Arrow Street, Norco, CA, spoke regarding the recent article in the Press Enterprise regarding the tracking of parolees with GPS ankle bracelets, stating that the writer was inaccurate in reporting that convicted rapist David Allyn Dokich was tracked by such a bracelet and sent back to prison for violating his parole. Lirra Bishop, 23236 Sunny Canyon Street, Perris, CA, reiterated the comments made by Julie Waltz and submitted a 2-page document dated March 20, 2006, regarding how sex offender David Allyn Dokich was actually apprehended, stating that "GPS ankle monitoring did not play a role in sending David Allyn Dokich back to prison." 29 03/20/2006 Reverend Betty J. Long, P.O. Box 1098, San Bernardino, CA, spoke regarding the reckless drivers in San Bernardino and how dangerous it is for her and others who are in wheelchairs. NBI. Appointment of Mayor to the Inland Valley Development Agency & the San Bernardino International Airport Antholity Council Member/Commissioner Johnson made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner McCammack, that the need to take action on this matter arose subsequent to the posting of the agenda. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/ Commissioners McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter. Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner Baxter, that Mayor Morris be appointed to represent the City on the Inland Valley Development Agency and the San Bernardino International Airport Authority. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/ Commissioners Baxter, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: Council Member/Commissioner Estrada. 33. Adjournment At 7:30 p.m., the meeting adjourned. Council Member/Commissioner Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner Baxter, that the meeting be adjourned to 3:00 p.m. Monday, March 27, 2006, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/ Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, McGinnis, Derry, Johnson. Nays: Council Member/Commissioner McCammack. Absent: Council Member/ Commissioner Kelley. 30 03/20/2006 The next joint regular meeting of the Mayor and Common Council/Community Development Commission is scheduled for 1:30 p.m., Monday, April 3, 2006, in the Council Chambers of City hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. No. of Items: 34 No. of Hours: 6 RACHEL G. CLARK City Clerk By: LP. Linda E. Hartzel Deputy City Clerk 31 03/20/2006