Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-20-1992 Minutes MINUTES MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO REGULAR MEETING APRIL 20, 1992 COUNCIL CHAMBERS The regular meeting of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino was called to order by Mayor Pro Tem Estrada at 8:38 a.m., Monday, April 20, 1992, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. ROLL CALL Roll call was taken by City Clerk Krasney with the following being present: Mayor Pro Tem Estrada; Council Members Estrada, Reilly, Maudsley, Minor, Pope-Ludlam, Miller; City Attorney Penman, City Clerk Krasney, City Administrator Clark. Absent: Mayor Holcomb; Council Member Hernandez. City Attorney Penman announced that the following additional cases would be discussed in closed session: Randall vs. Citv of San Bernardino - San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. 250472, consolidated with Case No. 252255; Janet Summerfield vs. William R. Holcomb. et al - Federal District Court Case No. CV91731AHS (rwr). RECESS MEETING - CLOSED SESSION (1) At 8:39 a.m., the Mayor and Common Council and Community Development Commission recessed to closed session for the following: a. to give instruction to the City' s/Commission' s negotiator on the purchase of property pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. The real property which the negotiations concern is generally located at: ; b. to consider personnel matters pursuant to Government Code Section 54957; c. to meet with designated representatives regarding labor relations matters pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6; 1 4/20/92 d. to confer with the Chief of Police on matters posing a threat to the security of public buildings or a threat to the public's right of access to public services or public facilities pursuant to Government Code Section 54957; e. to confer with the attorney regarding pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1), as there is significant exposure to litigation; f. to confer with the attorney regarding litigation pursuant to Government Code 54956.9(c), so that Council/Commission may whether to initiate litigation; pending Section decide g. to confer with the attorney regarding pending litigation which has been initiated formally to which the City is a party pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) as follows: Stubblefield Construction Comoanv. et al vs. Ci tv of San Bernardino. et al - San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. 242998; San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. 252058; City of Redlands vs. Inland Valley Develooment Aaencv. et al - San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. 255222; County vs. City of San Bernardino (RDA\ - San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. 258241; Citv of Indians. 6899 WJR San Bernardino vs. San Manuel Band of et al - United States District Court - Case (Bx) ; Mission No. 85- Saab vs. Citv of San Bernardino - Fourth District Court of Appeals Case No. E008652; Citv of San Bernardino vs. Libertv Cable T.V.. et al- United States District Court Case No. 82-6876 WMB; Citv of San Bernardino vs. Countv of San Bernardino. et al- Riverside Superior Court Case No. 207900; Tomas Armendariz. et al vs. James F. Penman. et al - United States District Court Case No. 91-5757 CMB (WRx); Matthew Hobbs vs. Ci tv of San Bernardino. et al San Bernardino Superior Court - Case No. 250971; Brenda Anderson vs. Citv of San Bernardino - San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. 243039; 2 4/20/92 Peoole vs. Wana - San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. 255293; Citv of San Bernardino vs. Skadron - San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. 266719. CLOSED SESSION At 8:39 a.m., Mayor Pro Tem Estrada called the closed session to order in the conference room of the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. ROLL CALL Roll call was taken by City Clerk Krasney with the following being present: Mayor Pro Tem Estrada; Council Members Estrada, Reilly, Maudsley, Minor, Pope-Ludlam, Miller; City Attorney Penman, City Clerk Krasney, City Administrator Clark. Absent: Mayor Holcomb; Council Member Hernandez. Also present: Deputy City Attorney Roth; Deputy City Attorney Simmons, City Attorney's Office. READING OF RESOLUTIONS & ORDINANCES Deputy City Clerk Vale read the titles of all the resolutions and ordinances on the regular, supplemental, and Community Development Commission agendas while the Council was in closed session. MAYOR HOLCOMB ARRIVED At 8:41 a.m., Mayor Holcomb arrived at the closed session. ADJOURN CLOSED SESSION At 8:55 a.m., the closed session adjourned to the regular meeting of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino. RECONVENE MEETING At 8:58 a.m., Mayor Holcomb reconvened the regular meeting of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. ROLL CALL Roll call was taken by City Clerk Krasney with the following being present: Mayor Holcomb; Council Members Estrada, Reilly, Hernandez, Maudsley, Minor, Pope-Ludlam, Miller; City Attorney Penman, City Clerk Krasney, City Administrator Clark. Absent: None. INVOCATION The invocation was given by John Lowe, Campus Crusade for Christ. 3 4/20/92 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The pledge of allegiance was led by Council Member Minor. EMERGENCY EMERGENCY STUDY MEDICAL SERVICE CARE INFORMATION DELIVERY CENTER JAMES RECEIVE & PAGE- FILE (5-1) In a memorandum dated April 15, 1992, Peggy Ducey, Assistant to the City Administrator, stated that in December 1991, the Mayor and Council directed Emergency Care Information Center (ECIC) to conduct a study on emergency medical service delivery in San Bernardino. Mr. James Page, ECIC, Director and consultant, completed the study analyzing emergency medical service and operational modes in the City. The report includes an analysis of both the ambulance provider's role and City paramedics' role in delivering emergency care, a background on rate schedules and billing practices, and a perspective on the County of San Bernardino and the Inland Counties Emergency Medical Agency's (ICEMA) involvement in the emergency medical care issue. James Page, Emergency Care Information Center, P.O. Box 2789, Carlsbad, CA, stated that the Report on a Study of the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) System in the City of San Bernardino and Recommendations Regarding the Most Efficient and Effective Means to Organize the System, includes the following sections: introduction, service delivery systems, city operated paramedic service with private ambulance transport, city operated paramedic and ambulance transport services, formal cooperation with other organizations, cost analysis, service costs/profit margin, response time analysis, analysis of long term financial viability, the feasibility of medical priority dispatching, and a glossary of terms. Mr. Page explained how ICEMA and other organizations in charge of emergency medical services were established. He explained that in the early 1970's a federal program was developed to organize emergency medical services on a regional basis. The federal government designated 304 regional emergency medical service systems, one of which came to be known as the Inland Counties Emergency Medical Agency (ICEMA) which involved San Bernardino, Riverside, Inyo and Mono Counties. The federal government concluded that economy and efficiency could be achieved by designing and operating health care programs on a regional basis that overlooked municipal and local boundaries. The question has been whether these regional agencies constitute super governments that would command and control the resources of local governments; or whether they would be advisory agencies that would collect information about patient health care programs and act as an influence on local governments to organize emergency and other health care programs. He explained that 4 4/20/92 ICEMA had not taken the step of gathering, evaluating and disseminating the data regarding patient care to determine what form of system would save the most lives. Instead, ICEMA has elected to command and control the resources of the various municipalities, and to extend the power of the County in a manner in conflict with the intent of the legislation. This command and control is the central issue of the lawsuit that the County of San Bernardino has filed against the City of San Bernardino. Mr. Page explained that the City of San Bernardino and ICEMA disagree on what ICEMA's responsibilities are to the citizens of San Bernardino, and the disagreement impacts the City's ability to provide emergency medical services to its citizens. He explained that ICEMA has concluded that it can designate an exclusive operating area which extends within the boundaries of the City; and that it can designate one or more ambulance providers in that exclusive operating area. He explained that the command and control approach eliminates any input voters may have in decisions that affect them. James Page explained several issues that brought about the lawsuit. First, the local private ambulance provider has billed customers for advanced life support that has been provided by City Fire Department paramedic personnel. This went without notice until 1991 when the City approved a revenue measure that would allow the Fire Department to recover some of its costs for delivery of basic and advanced life support services provided by its personnel. At that point, some residents began to receive bills from both the ambulance service and the City, and wanted to know why they had received two bills. Secondly, in August 1991, the Fire Chief elected to limit the response mode of private ambulances to Code Two, which means traveling directly to the scene without red lights and sirens, until and unless the mode of response was upgraded by the Dispatcher or first arriving unit. Code Two response mode is the national standard. It agrees with the policies of the local ambulance providers insurance carrier which believes that multiple units should not be responding with red lights and sirens in urban areas unless absolutely necessary. This change in response mode affected the ambulance provider because the ambulance provider could not charge the extra fee for emergency calls if they were not responding in an emergency mode. The ambulance provider, if arriving on the scene after the advanced life support procedures have been enacted or initiated by Fire personnel, could not charge the advanced life support procedures, both of which impacted them financially. The final issue that brought about the lawsuit relates to another lawsuit that commenced in 1979 in Los Angeles County and was finally resolved in 1986. The Court established that the responsibility for providing emergency ambulance transportation for indigent persons falls on County government, and is to be paid for with County funds. Local EMS agencies, such as ICEMA, concluded that they could, under the Health and Safety Code, grant exclusive 5 4/20/92 operating areas to private ambulance companies in exchange for an agreement not to charge the County for transporting indigent persons. Discussion ensued regarding the information provided by Mr. Page. Mr. Page answered questions from the Council regarding the conclusions and twenty-two recommendations included in the report. Council Member Minor made a Member Estrada, and unanimously emergency medical service delivery and filed. motion, carried, prepared seconded by Council that the study on by ECIC, be received CITY ATTORNEY PENMAN EXCUSED At 9:36 a.m., City Attorney Penman left the Council meeting. ANNOUNCEMENT - COUNCIL MEMBER MILLER - COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO - LANDFILL TIPPING FEES (2) Council Member Miller explained that the County of San Bernardino Board of Supervisors would be considering a proposal to increase the solid waste landfill tipping fees in order to equalize the fees between the valley cities and the rural desert areas. She explained that she would be leaving to attend the Board of Supervisors meeting. ANNOUNCEMENT - COUNCIL MEMBER HERNANDEZ - COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO - LANDFILL TIPPING FEES (2) Council Member Hernandez expressed opposition to the County of San Bernardino's proposal to increase landfill tipping fees which would equalize the rates between the high desert and the valley cities. COUNCIL MEMBER POPE-LUDLAM EXCUSED At 9:37 a.m., Council Member Pope-Ludlam left the Council meeting. CITY ATTORNEY PENMAN RETURNED At 9:38 a.m., City Attorney Penman returned to the Council meeting and took his place at the council table. PUBLIC COMMENTS SERVICES STUDY JEFF WRIGHT EMERGENCY MEDICAL (3) Jeff Wright, P.O. Box 2341, San Bernardino, CA, explained that he had compiled a video regarding the emergency medical services study, and requested that the video be shown on Channel 3, so that the public can further understand the issues relating to the study. He expressed support for a City-operated ambulance service. 6 4/20/92 PUBLIC COMMENTS - LARRY QUIEL - QUIEL BROS. BLIGHT & ABATEMENT - SIGN (3) Larry Quiel, Quiel Bros. Sign Company, 272 South "I" Street, San Bernardino, CA, expressed concern that signs are frequently referred to as blight in the City. He felt that signs installed in compliance with City code are important for businesses to be successful, and should not be described as blight. He felt that there are many illegal signs in the City that should be removed in accordance with existing sign regulations through more aggressive code enforcement. He offered to assist the City in removing illegal signs in the City by supplying crews to work with the City crews. He distributed to the Council photographs of illegal signs in the City. Mayor Holcomb recommended that the issue of sign blight and abatement be brought back for discussion and possible action at a later date. COUNCIL MEMBER At 9:40 a.m., Council meeting and POPE-LUDLAM RETURNED Council Member Pope-Ludlam returned took her place at the council table. to the PUBLIC COMMENTS MEETING DECORUM JUANITA SCOTT MAYOR & COUNCIL (3) Juanita Scott, 1734 West Virginia, San expressed concern regarding the recent lack decorum at council meetings, and expressed occurrences would not continue. Bernardino, CA, of courtesy and hope that such COUNCIL MEMBER MILLER EXCUSED At 9:48 a.m., Council Member Miller left the Council meeting. APPOINTMENT - ROGER O'CAMPO - ALTERNATE MEMBER - POLICE COMMISSION - MAYOR HOLCOMB (4) In a recommended Street, San Commission. memorandum dated April 7, 1992, Mayor Holcomb, the appointment of Roger 0' Campo, 2807 North "I" Bernardino, CA, as an alternate member to the Police Council Member Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council Member Reilly, and unanimously carried, that the appointment of Roger O'Campo as an alternate member to the Police Commission, be approved. PROCLAMATION NATIONAL APRIL 20 - 24, 1992 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WEEK- (4) J. Lorraine Velarde, Executive Assistant to the Mayor, read 7 4/20/92 a proclamation declaring the week of April 20 to 24, 1992, as National Community Development Week, in the City of San Bernardino, in honor of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program which enhances the lives of persons with low and moderate income. ~ Lita Pezant, Economic Development Analyst, Department of Economic and Community Development, County of San Bernardino, was present to accept the proclamation. CITY ADMINISTRATOR CLARK EXCUSED At 9:54 a.m., City Administrator Clark left the Council meeting. PROCLAMATION LAW ENFORCEMENT FORCES APPRECIATION WEEK - APRIL VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS & FIRE PROTECTION 26 - MAY 3, 1992- (4) J. Lorraine Velarde, Executive Assistant to the Mayor, read a proclamation declaring the week of April 26 to May 3, 1992, as Law Enforcement and Fire Protection Forces Appreciation Week, in the City of San Bernardino, in honor of the contribution made to the community by these public service agencies. Jim Duff, Chairman, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, was present to accept the proclamation. PROCLAMATION - WOMEN'S WOMEN'S CLUB OF SAN APRIL 19 - 25, 1992 CLUB OF SAN BERNARDINO & JUNIOR BERNARDINO FEDERATION WEEK- (4) J. Lorraine Velarde, Executive Assistant to the Mayor, read a proclamation declaring the week of April 19 to April 25, 1992, as Federation Week, in the City of San Bernardino, in honor of the contributions made to the community by the Women's Club and Junior Women's Club of San Bernardino. Mildred McKim, Vice President of the Women's Club of San Bernardino; and Cheri Bronstrup, Vice President of the Junior Women's Club of San Bernardino, accepted the proclamation. SERVICE PIN AWARD CEREMONY (4) J. Lorraine Velarde, Executive Assistant to the Mayor, read the names of each employee receiving service pin awards. Each employee received a service pin from Mayor Holcomb in gratitude of his/her many years of dedicated service to the City. CITY ADMINISTRATOR CLARK RETURNED At 10:02 a.m., City Administrator Council meeting and took her place at the Clark returned to the council table. 8 4/20/92 WAIVE FURTHER READING OF RESOLUTIONS & ORDINANCES (5) Council Member Pope-Ludlam made a motion, seconded by Council Member Hernandez, and unanimously carried, that further reading of all resolutions and ordinances on the regular, supplemental, and Community Development Commission agendas, be waived. COUNCIL MINUTES (6) Council Member Pope-Ludlam made a motion, seconded by Council Member Hernandez, and unanimously carried, that the minutes of the following meeting of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino, be approved as submitted in typewritten form: February 3, 1992. PUBLIC SERVICES - DELETE ONE REFUSE OPERATOR I POSITION - ESTABLISH ONE NEW TYPIST CLERK II POSITION (7) In a memorandum dated April 9, 1992, Barbara Dillon, Director of Personnel, stated that Manuel P. Moreno, Jr., Director, Public Services, requested the exchange of one budgeted Refuse Operator I position for a Typist Clerk II position in the Refuse Division. The Refuse Superintendent's work has been handled primarily by a Street Division Typist Clerk II. Current Refuse Division clerical staff are working at maximum capacity and are only able to provide minimal assistance for the Superintendent. Because of Assembly Bill (AB) 939, the Superintendent has additional responsibilities for a complete waste study, implementation of recycling programs, and will need more staff support. The Director of Public Services proposes to "exchange" one Refuse Operator I budgeted position (delete it) for the creation of one Typist Clerk II position. The creation of this Typist Clerk position would allow the Superintendent to meet his responsibilities in a timely manner without being in a crisis mode for reports, typing, disciplinary actions, and other matters, as he is at present. This will allow the Street Division employees to address Street Division needs, which are currently not being met. The cost savings achieved by deleting one budgeted Refuse Operator I position, and establishing a new position of Typist Clerk II results in an annual savings to the Refuse Fund of $4,588 at Step 5. Council Member Pope-Ludlam made a motion, seconded by Council Member Hernandez, and unanimously carried, to delete one (1) budgeted Refuse Operator I position, Range 1275, $1,748- $2, 124/month; and to establish a new position of Typist Clerk II, Refuse Division, Range 1243, $1,489-$1,809/month. 9 4/20/92 CLAIMS AND PAYROLL (10) Council Member Pope-Ludlam made a motion, seconded by Council Member Hernandez, and unanimously carried, that the claims and payroll, and the authorization to issue warrants as listed on the memorandum dated April 9, 1992, from the Director of Finance, be approved. PERSONNEL ACTIONS (11) Council Member Pope-Ludlam made a motion, seconded by Council Member Hernandez, and unanimously carried, that the personnel actions submitted by the Chief Examiner, dated April 9, 1992, in accordance with all administrative regulations of the City of San Bernardino, be approved. JOINT POWERS FINANCING AUTHORITY - REGULAR MEETING (l2) Council Member Pope-Ludlam made a motion, seconded by Council Member Hernandez, and unanimously carried, that the regular meeting of the Joint Powers Financing Authority be adjourned to May 18, 1992. RES. 92-136 - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 6413, SECTION TEN, ENTITLED IN PART "A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A BASIC COMPENSATION PLAN . " ; BY UPDATING INFORMATION CODIFYING PRIOR COUNCIL ACTIONS. (GENERAL UNIT) (13) RES. 92-137 - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AMENDING RESOLUTION 6413, SECTION THIRTEEN, TEMPORARY/PART-TIME EMPLOYEES, ENTITLED IN PART A "RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A BASIC COMPENSATION PLAN ." BY UPDATING INFORMATION CODIFYING PRIOR COUNCIL ACTIONS. (14) RES. 92-138 - 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 PROVIDING THAT PERRIS STREET IS A THROUGH HIGHWAY FROM BASELINE STREET TO SIXTEENTH STREET, EXCEPTING FOURTEENTH STREET. (15) RES. 92-139 - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH FRANK B. HALL, SAN BERNARDINO TO BE THE PROPERTY INSURANCE BROKER FOR SAID CITY. (17) Council Member pope-Ludlam made a motion, seconded by Council Member Hernandez, that said resolutions be adopted. 10 4/20/92 Resolution Nos. 92-136, 92-137, 92-138, and 92-139 were adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members Estrada, Reilly, Hernandez, Maudsley, Minor, Pope-Ludlam. Nays: None. Absent: Council Member Miller. ORD. MC-829 - ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AMENDING CHAPTER 1.16 OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE AND REESTABLISHING THE BOUNDARIES OF THE SEVEN WARDS OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO. Final (18) ORD. MC-830 - ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AMENDING SECTIONS 19.06.010(2) (G), 19.10.030, 19.22.150 TABLE 22.0l, AND 19.24.030 OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE (DEVELOPMENT CODE) , TO INCORPORATE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, PERMITTED USES, SIGN REGULATIONS AND PARKING PROVISIONS, AS APPROVED IN THE PAS EO LAS PLACITAS SPECIFIC PLAN, AND REPEALING ORDINANCES NO. MC-787, 791, AND 813 WHICH ESTABLISHED AND EXTENDED A DEVELOPMENT MORATORIUM IN CERTAIN AREAS SURROUNDING MOUNT VERNON AVENUE. Final (l9) Council Member Pope-Ludlam made a motion, seconded by Council Member Hernandez, that said ordinances be adopted. Ordinance Nos. MC-829 following vote: Ayes: Hernandez, Maudsley, Minor, Council Member Miller. and MC-830 were adopted Council Members Estrada, Pope-Ludlam. Nays: None. by the Reilly, Absent: WIDENING TIPPECANOE AVENUE ADVERTISE FOR BIDS APPROVAL OF PLANS- (8) In a memorandum dated April 8, 1992, Roger Hardgrave, Director of Public Works /Ci ty Engineer, stated that plans have been prepared for the widening of the east side of Tippecanoe Avenue, between Lee Street and Hardt Street, by a consultant, and the project is ready to be advertised for bids. The project consists of installing curb, gutter, sidewalk, pavement and related necessary improvements to complete the street, and provide for two lanes in each direction. The total estimated project cost is $512,000. An amount of $500,000 was allocated under Account No. 129-309-57837 for this project. Supplemental funds in the amount of $61,900 would need to be provided in the 1992/93 one-half cent sales tax budget to fully finance the total estimated project cost. Mr. Hardgrave explained that the project for widening of Tippecanoe Avenue had been previously approved on the priority list for this year, and was also included on the list for next year. In order for this project to be eligible for the participation program, in which the State would reimburse the 11 4/20/92 City for 15% of the funds or about $130,000, the contract must be awarded prior to June 30, 1992. Shauna Clark, City Administrator, expressed concern that this action would indirectly encumber 1992/93 one-half cent sales tax funds, as there are not adequate funds in this year's budget to complete the project. She explained that currently $45l,000 is available in the 1991/92 budget, and that $61,900 in supplemental funding would be necessary from the 1992/93 budget in order to complete the project. Discussion ensued regarding the appropriations previously approved, and the priorities being established for public works projects funded through the Measure "I" one-half cent sales tax fund. Concern was expressed that priorities should be established so that, over a period of years, adequate funds would be available to complete important projects. Council Member Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council Member Reilly, and unanimously carried, that the plans for the widening of Tippecanoe Avenue (east side), from Route 1-10 to Hardt Street, in accordance with Plan No. 8703, be approved; that the Director of Public Works/City Engineer be authorized to advertise for bids; and that the Mayor and Council be provided with a list of all projects planned for the 1992/93 budget. COUNCIL MEMBER ESTRADA EXCUSED At 10:25 a.m., Council Member Estrada left the Council meeting. PEPPER & RANDALL AREA - LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT - AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED (9) In a memorandum dated April 6, 1992, Roger Hardgrave, Director of Public Works/City Engineer, stated that a petition had been received requesting the formation of an assessment district for the maintenance of landscaping along the major streets which border Tentative Tract No. 15315, and along the flood control channel within the Tract. This petition is the result of the requirement by the City for the developer to establish the district. The assessment would include maintenance of landscaping, energy costs, and administrative costs. The signatures affixed to the referenced petition have been checked and found to represent the owners of 100 percent of the area of the property lying within the proposed boundaries of the district to be assessed for the proposed maintenance. The proposed assessment district is located adjacent to and between two existing landscape maintenance districts (Assessment District No. 975 and Assessment District No. 981). It has been determined that amending the boundaries of either district to include this tract would increase the assessments within the 12 4/20/92 existing districts, and, if authorization is given, would proceed to establish a separate district. The developer would be required to pay the costs of the proceedings prior to the establishment of the district. Council Member Reilly made a motion, seconded by Council Member Minor, that the City Engineer and City Clerk be authorized to initiate proceedings for the establishment of an assessment district under the provisions of Chapter 12.90 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code; and that the City Engineer be directed to prepare an Engineer's Report for the proposed maintenance of landscaping in portions of Pepper Avenue, and Meridian Avenue between Mill Street and Randall Avenue, and along portions of the flood control embankment within Tentative Tract 15315, in the City of San Bernardino. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members Reilly, Maudsley, Minor, Pope-Ludlam. Nays: Council Member Hernandez. Absent: Council Members Estrada, Miller. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH DANIEL, MANN, JOHNSON & MENDENHALL (DMJM) RELATING TO THE PROVISION OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE EXTENSION OF ORANGE SHOW ROAD, FROM ARROWHEAD AVENUE TO WATERMAN AVENUE. (16) Council Member Minor made a motion, seconded by Council Member Maudsley, and unanimously carried, that the resolution authorizing the execution of an agreement with Daniel, Mann, Johnson & Mendenhall (DMJM) relating to the provision of professional engineering design services, be tabled. COUNCIL MEMBER ESTRADA RETURNED At 10:31 a.m., Council Member Estrada returned to the Council meeting and took her place at the council table. PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED FEE SALE OF MATERIALS, SERVICES CEMETERY INCREASE & BURIAL - CHARGES FOR FEES CITY (20) This is the time and place set for a public hearing to consider amending Resolution No. 90-152, Sections One, Two, Three, Four, and Five regarding charges for the sale of materials, services, and burial fees. In a memorandum dated March 13, 1992, Dan Ustation, Cemetery Superintendent, stated that on February 24, 1992, the Cemetery Department compared prices for materials, services, and burial fees for the privately owned, and other municipal cemeteries in the area. The proposed fee increase would generate approximately $35,000 in additional revenue annually. 13 4/20/92 Mayor Holcomb opened the hearing. RES. 92-140 - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO APPROVING A SCHEDULE OF CHARGES FOR THE SALE OF MATERIALS AND SERVICES BY THE CEMETERY COMMISSION OF SAID CITY; AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 90-152 AND ALI, SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS THERETO. (20) Mr. Ustation explained that there are approximately two hundred burials annually at Pioneer Cemetery. A discussion was held relative to marketing and promoting the Cemetery in order to increase business; and action taken during recent budget hearings relative to the sale of the Cemetery to the Economic Development Agency. Council Member Minor made a motion, seconded by Council Member Pope-Ludlam, that the hearing be closed; and that said resolution be adopted. Ayes: Ludlam. Absent: Resolution No. 92-140 was adopted by the following vote: Council Members Estrada, Reilly, Maudsley, Minor, Pope- Nays: None. Abstain: Council Member Hernandez. Council Member Miller. PUBLIC HEARING - ESTABLISHING 50% OF USE OF PARK & RECREATION FACILITIES CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT CURRENT RATES- SAN BERNARDINO (21) This is the time and place set for a public hearing to consider amending Resolution No. 91-35, Section Five, establishing 50 percent of the current rates for use of park and recreation facilities by the San Bernardino City Unified School District. In a memorandum dated March 10, 1992, Annie Ramos, Director, Parks, Recreation and Community Services, stated that the amendment of Resolution No. 91-35 would establish 50 percent of the current rate for the San Bernardino City Unified School District's use of the Sturges Auditorium and other park and recreation facilities. The district currently pays 100 percent of the established rates even though they were partners in the development of Sturges, including providing portions of the parking lot and improvements to the facility. Modifications recommended by the Joint Use Committee, a committee comprised of council members and school board members, was to charge the district 50 percent of the established rates for parks and recreation facilities. This would be consistent with the School District's policies in charging the City for district facilities at the cost of operations only. Uses of the Sturges Auditorium by the School District are 14 4/20/92 minimal and the reduction in revenue was estimated at $1,600 annually. The only other facility utilized by the School District is the Hernandez Center gymnasium, and revenue reduction was estimated at under $700. Since the District's use of the gym is during regular operating hours, it was not anticipated that actual cost for use would exceed the reduced rental rate. Mayor Holcomb opened the hearing. RES. 92-141 - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AMENDING RESOLUTION 91-35, SECTION 5.F., ESTABLISHING 50% OF THE CURRENT RATES FOR USE OF PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES BY SAN BERNARDINO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT. (21) John Kramer, Superintendent of Recreation, Parks, Recreation and Community Services, stated that the School District. only charges the City for use of its facilities when actual costs are incurred, and the majority of the City's use of school facilities are without charge. Council Member Reilly made a motion, seconded by Council Member Pope-Ludlam, that the hearing be closed; and that said resolution be adopted. Resolution No. 92-141 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members Estrada, Reilly, Hernandez, Maudsley, Minor, pope-Ludlam. Nays: None. Absent: Council Member Miller. COUNCIL MEMBER At 10:47 a.m., meeting. MAUDSLEY EXCUSED Council Member Maudsley left the Council A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL, CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, DECLARING THE NECESSITY OF THE TAKING, IN FEE SIMPLE ABSOLUTE, ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 148- 122-01 PTN., THAT PORTION OF THE NORTH TWENTY-FOUR (24) ACRES OF LOT 2, BLOCK 83, OF RANCHO SAN BERNARDINO, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 7, PAGE 2 OF MAPS, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CONSISTING OF 6.33 NET ACRES, FOR THE PUBLIC USE OF WATER A STORAGE RESERVOIR AND PUMPING FACILITY. (Continued from April 6, 1992) (22) Council Member Pope-Ludlam made a motion, that said resolution be adopted. The motion failed for lack of a second. Tom Jacobsen, Gresham, Varner, Savage, Nolan & Tilden, 600 N. Arrowhead Avenue, San Bernardino, CA, spoke representing Scott 15 4/20/92 Specialty Gases Inc. (Scott Labs), 2600 Cajon Boulevard, San Bernardino, CA. He stated that this property was the only location that Scott Labs owned in the United States that would allow expansion of its facilities. He felt that the tak~ g of these 6.33 acres would severely impact Scott Labs' abil 'I to expand in San Bernardino. He recommended that the resolut_.Jn be continued so that the Water Department can seek alternative sites. Council Member Minor made a motion, seconded by Council Member Reilly, that the resolution declaring the necessity for the public use of 6.33 acres for a water storage reservoir and pumping facility, be continued to 2:00 p.m. (Note: There was no vote taken at this time.) Discussion ensued regarding the need for these water services. Council Member Minor made a substitute motion, seconded by Council Member Pope-Ludlam, that the resolution declaring the necessity for the public use of 6.33 acres for a water storage reservoir and pumping facility, be continued to later in the meeting so that representatives from the Water Department can be present to answer questions regarding alternative sites. (See page 27) The motion carried by the following vote: Members Reilly, Hernandez, Minor, Pope-Ludlam. Abstain: Council Member Estrada. Absent: Maudsley, Miller. Ayes: Nays: Council Council None. Members COUNCIL MEMBER MAUDSLEY RETURNED At 10:48 a.m., Council Member Maudsley returned to the Council meeting and took his place at the council table. AN ORDINANCE OF CHAPTER 15.55 TO RELATING TO LOCAL RELATING TO MOBILE 1992) THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADDING THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS HOME PARKS. (Continued from April 6, First (23) Council Member Hernandez made a motion, seconded by Council Member Minor, that said ordinance be laid over for final adoption; and that Planning and Building Services submit any comments it has relative to local enforcement of laws and regulations relating to mobile home parks. (Discussed later in the meeting. See page 27) The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Member Estrada, Reilly, Hernandez, Maudsley, Minor. Nays: None. Abstain: Council Member Pope-Ludlam. Absent: Council Member Miller. 16 4/20/92 RECONSIDER - $75 FEE - APPEALS TO THE MAYOR & COMMON COUNCIL - COUNCIL MEMBER HERNANDEZ (24) In a memorandum dated April 13, 1992, Council Member Hernandez requested that a discussion be held relative to the $75.00 fee for appeals to the Mayor and Common Council. In a memorandum dated April 17, 1992, City Clerk Krasney, stated that when the proposal to establish the fee was first introduced it was established because of the time and preparation involved with scheduling and hearing appeals. Based on the procedures involved with the appeal process and the value of time expended by not only the City Clerk's staff, but by other departments, each appeal exceeds the $75.00 fee. The Council expressed concern prohibitive, thereby restricting elected officials. that the appeal fee could be the voters access to their Council Member Hernandez made a motion, seconded by Council Member Pope-Ludlam, to reconsider the $75.00 fee for appeals to the Mayor and Council. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members Estrada, Hernandez, Maudsley, Minor, Pope-Ludlam. Nays: Council Member Reilly. Absent: Council Member Miller. Mayor Holcomb explained that this appeal fee was implemented to offset administrative costs in processing appeals. City Administrator Clark explained that the cost could be mitigated by establishing an application, and procedures for indigent residents who do not have the money to file the appeal. She explained that Council Members are not required to pay the appeal fee and could file an appeal for their constituents. Council Member Hernandez made a motion, seconded by Council Member Pope-Ludlam, that a discussion be held relative to reconsidering the $75.00 fee for appeals to the Mayor and Common Council. (Note: There was no vote taken at this time.) Discussion ensued regarding the positive and negative aspects of having the $75.00 fee for appeals to the Mayor and Council, and whether it should be reviewed and possibly revised. Council Member Estrada made a substitute motion, seconded by Council Member Pope-Ludlam, and unanimously carried, that the City Administrator be directed to develop options to present to the Ways & Means Committee and report its recommendations in thirty days, May 18, 1992, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. 17 4/20/92 WAIVER OF FEES - $277.73 - USE OF COUNCIL MAY 28, 1992 PUBLIC FORUM CHARTER INITIATIVES - LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS CHAMBERS- AMENDMENT (25) In a letter dated April 9, 1992, Lenore H. Schon, President, League of Women Voters of San Bernardino, 568 N. Mt. View Avenue, Suite #150, San Bernardino, CA, stated that the League of Women Voters of San Bernardino, and the San Bernardino Clergy Association will be co-sponsoring a public forum/debate to inform the electorate about the proposed City Charter amendment initiatives to be voted on at the June 2, 1992 primary election. It is planned to air the event live on Channel 3 on May 28, 1992 from 6:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Because this is a public service for the City of San Bernardino, the League requested the use of the Council Chambers and asked that all fees for the use of the facility be waived. Lenore Schon was present and answered questions from the Council regarding the forum. Council Member Estrada made a motion, seconded by Member Maudsley, that the request for waiver of fees amount of $277.73 for the use of the Council Chambers on 1992, by the League of Women Voters, be approved. Council in the May 28, The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members Estrada, Reilly, Hernandez, Maudsley, Pope-Ludlam. Nays: Council Member Minor. Absent: Council Member Miller. FRANCHISE BUREAU - ALLEGED DOUBLE BILLING PRACTICES- PARAMEDIC SERVICES REPORT (26) In a memorandum dated April 8, 1992, Lee Gagnon, Business Registration Supervisor, City Clerk's Office, requested that the report from the Bureau of Franchise addressing the alleged practice of double billing for paramedic service, be continued to the Council meeting of May 18, 1992. This continuance would allow the Bureau of Franchises' subcommittee time to meet with Courtesy Services (Courtesy Ambulance) and report to the Bureau of Franchise on May 12, 1992; and to allow the Bureau time to formulate recommendations to the Mayor and Council based upon the facts obtained. Council Member Minor made a motion, seconded by Council Member Hernandez, and unanimously carried, that the report from the Franchise Bureau relative to the alleged double billing practices for paramedic services, be continued to May 18, 1992, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. CITY ATTORNEY PENMAN EXCUSED At 11:07 a.m., City Attorney Penman left the Council meeting 18 4/20/92 and was replaced at Senior Assistant City Attorney Barlow. BUSINESS REGISTRATION FEES MR. JIMMY SUMMERS COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES- (28) In a letter dated March 18, requested an opportunity to speak meeting on April 6, 1992, or soon business licenses for rental of homes 1992, Mr. Jimmy Summers at the Mayor and Council thereafter, regarding City and apartment buildings. Jimmy Summers, 1193 Hummingbird Lane, Corona, CA, owner of the Beverly Apartments, 229 to 271 E. 18th Street, San Bernardino, CA, spoke in opposition to the business license requirement to obtain twenty-three business licenses for the apartment complex, which he felt was an unfair double tax. City Clerk Krasney explained that the Beverly Apartments contain two triplexes, one fourplex, and twenty single-family residences on one parcel of property. She explained that according to Ordinance MC-700 each separate structure must obtain a separate business registration certificate. Discussion ensued regarding the ordinance prov~s~ons for issuing a business registration certificate for owners who rent or lease single-family homes. CITY ATTORNEY PENMAN RETURNED At 11:14 a.m., City Attorney Penman returned to the Council meeting and took his place at the council table. Council Member Hernandez made a motion, seconded by Council Member Pope-Ludlam, to refer the review of business registration certificate fees for commercial properties to the Legislative Review Committee; and that the matter return in thirty days, May 18, 1992, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. The motion Members Reilly, None. Abstain: Miller. carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Hernandez, Maudsley, Minor, Pope-Ludlam. Nays: Council Member Estrada. Absent: Council Member BUSINESS REGISTRATION FEES - APARTMENT COMPLEXES - MR. V. ALAN SWENSEN, HILL WILLIAMS (29) In a letter dated March 27, 1992, V. Alan Swensen, Director, Commercial Income properties, Hill Williams, requested an opportunity to speak at the Mayor and Council meeting of April 20, 1992, regarding policies and practices currently followed by the Business License Division as they relate to calculation of business license fees for apartment complexes. 19 4/20/92 CITY ATTORNEY PENMAN EXCUSED At 11:19 a.m., City Attorney Penman left the Council meeting and was replaced by Senior Assistant City Attorney Barlow. Alan Swensen, Hill Williams, 175 Riverview Drive, Suite #200, Anaheim Hills, CA, explained that Hill Williams Development Corp., is in the business of renting apartments on a month-to- month basis. Hill Williams has operated under the assumption that the business license for the apartment complex was satisfied through the property manager's business license. Based on the schedule of fees set forth in the municipal code, with gross receipts of $553,550 for 1991, and projected gross receipts of $992,000 for 1992, the business license fee would be $1,093 for that period, in contrast to the request from Business License staff for payment of fees in the amount of $2l,600 for the same two-year period. Bill Early, Director, Governmental Affairs, Hill Williams, felt that the business license procedures for apartment complexes should be referred to a committee for further review and discussion. Council Member Hernandez made a motion, seconded by Council Member Pope-Ludlam, and unanimously carried, to refer the review of the policies and practices utilized by the Business License Division of the City Clerk's Office relating to the calculation of business license fees for apartment complexes, to the Legislative Review Committee; and that the matter be continued for thirty days, May 18, 1992, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. COUNCIL MEMBER POPE-LUDLAM EXCUSED At 11:24 a.m., Council Member Pope-Ludlam left the Council meeting. CITY ATTORNEY PENMAN RETURNED At 11:34 a.m., City Attorney Penman returned to the Council meeting and replaced Senior Assistant City Attorney Barlow. APPEAL - VEHICLE ABATEMENT - 2061 WEST 17TH STREET- MS. MICHELLE BEAUREGARD (30) This is the time and place set to hear an appeal filed by Ms. Michelle Beauregard relative to the abatement of the vehicle located at 2061 West 17th Street, San Bernardino, (Case No. 91 VAP 1173-11). In a memorandum dated March 31, 1992, Fred Wilson, Acting Director, Facilities Management, stated that a citizen's complaint had been received on September 9, 1991 regarding an inoperable vehicle located in the driveway of 2061 West 17th Street. He outlined the chronological history of action taken to 20 4/20/92 abate the vehicle from November 15, 1991 through March 10, 1992. On March 6, 1992, an abatement warrant was obtained and attached to the front door at 2061 West 17th Street; the vehicle was removed and placed in storage on March 10, 1992. COUNCIL MEMBER ESTRADA EXCUSED Council Member Estrada left the Council meeting. COUNCIL MEMBER MILLER RETURNED At 11:36 a.m., Council Member Miller returned to the Council meeting and took her place at the council table. Michelle Beauregard, 2061 West 17th Street, San Bernardino, CA, stated that the vehicle was removed from a fenced driveway, and was operable when removed. She stated that when she returned from work a notice was stapled to the door of the house. She called the City that same day and told them that the car was operable, and was in the process of being repaired. She was informed that she would be contacted to schedule an appointment to confirm that the car was operable; however, the car was taken before anyone came out and looked at the car. The owner of the house was not notified. Mr. Wilson explained that in order to store an inoperable vehicle, the owner is required to obtain an inoperable vehicle registration from the Department of Motor Vehicles, and that City ordinances require the car to be screened from public view. Bert Murphy, newly appointed Acting Director of Management, gave a chronological history of the actions, and answered questions from the Council. Facilities abatement City Attorney Penman explained that when City personnel enter a property, the property owner must be notified; however, if City personnel enter the property and only affect the rights of the person in possession, then only the person in possession needs to be notified. The owner's property rights were not affected, the only impact was on the possessory rights of the tenant. In this case the tenant was the owner of the vehicle and so both the notice for entering of the property, and the taking of the vehicle were legal. The only question was relative to the appointment that someone was going to have with the tenant to discuss the problem, and why that appointment was not kept. Council Member Minor made a motion, seconded by Council Member Maudsley, that the appeal relative to abatement of the vehicle located at 2061 West 17th Street, be denied. The motion failed by the following vote: Members Reilly, Maudsley, Minor. Nays: Hernandez. Abstain: Council Member Miller. Members Estrada, Pope-Ludlam. Ayes: Council Absent: Council Member Council 21 4/20/92 Council Member Miller stated that she abstained from the vote because she was not present during all the testimony. COUNCIL MEMBER ESTRADA ~ETURNED Council Member Estrada returned to the Council meeting and took her place at the council table. Council Member Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council Member Hernandez, and unanimously carried, that the appeal by Ms. Michelle Beauregard relative to the abatement of the vehicle located at 2061 West 17th Street, be continued to later in the meeting, so that Facilities Management personnel can be present to discuss any conversations with Ms. Beauregard regarding scheduling an appointment to inspect the vehicle. (See page 29) COUNCIL MEMBER POPE-LUDLAM RETURNED At 11:51 a.m., Council Member Pope-Ludlam returned to the Council meeting and took her place at the council table. RES. 92-142 - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE INLAND EMPIRE HISPANIC CHAMBER OF COMMERCE RELATING TO FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FROM THE CIVIC AND PROMOTION FUND FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991-92. (Discussed later in the meeting. See page 28) (S-3) INLAND EMPIRE HISPANIC CHAMBER OF COMMERCE - MAYO CELEBRATION - NUNEZ PARK - UTILIZE CITY EQUIPMENT WAIVE COSTS (Discussed later meeting. See page 28) CINCO DE FORCES & in the (5-4) In a memorandum dated April 2, 1992, Annie Ramos, Director, Parks, Recreation and Community Services, stated that the Inland Empire Hispanic Chamber of Commerce has requested the use of Nunez Park for their annual Cinco de Mayo celebration. The use of Nunez Park requires that equipment such as picnic tables, trash cans, bleachers, barricades and other var10US related items be added to the park. All this requires the use of City forces. In addition, crowd and traffic control during the festivities require additional man hours for the Police Department and the event requires the use of ballfield lights for security purposes. The total estimated cost is $16,509. The Chamber has requested that the fees and manpower costs incurred by the City be waived. City Administrator Clark explained that there had been a question at the Ways & Means Committee meeting regarding the funding that had been given to the Inland Empire Hispanic Chamber of Commerce for previous celebrations. The funding had been given in amounts of $5,000 for the Cinco de Mayo celebration, and $5,000 for the September 16 celebration. She explained that the 22 4/20/92 request being considered today was for $5,000 in cash from the Civic and Cultural fund, and $16,000 of in-kind services, for a total of $21,000. Council Member Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council Member Pope-Ludlam, to adopt said resolution and agreement, with the following amendments: to delete any reference to the September 16 celebration, so that the documents refer only to the Cinco de Mayo celebration; to insert the amount of $5,000; and that the request for utilization of City crews, City police personnel and City equipment, and the waiver of fees and expenses involved with assisting the Inland Empire Hispanic Chamber of Commerce in the Cinco de Mayo celebration at Nunez Park, be approved. (Discussed later in the meeting. See page 28) Resolution No. 92-142 was adopted, and the motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members Estrada, Reilly, Hernandez, Maudsley, Pope-Ludlam, Miller. Nays: Council Member Minor. Absent: None. Jerry Esparza, President, Inland Empire Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, 972 Mount Vernon Avenue, San Bernardino, CA, requested that all fees and costs of the City departments be waived for the Cinco de Mayo Fiesta. COUNCIL MEMBERS MAUDSLEY AND POPE-LUDLAM EXCUSED Council Members Maudsley and Pope-Ludlam left the Council meeting. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION - REGULAR MEETING At 12:00 p.m., Council Member Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council Member Pope-Ludlam, to call the regular meeting of the Community Development Commission to order in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. (Note: There was no vote taken at this time. ) Council Member Estrada withdrew her second. RECESS MEETING At 12:03 p.m., Council Member Hernandez made a motion, seconded by Council Member Reilly, that the regular meeting of the Mayor and Common Council recess to a luncheon workshop in the Management Information Center (MIC) Room, Sixth Floor, City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California, for discussion relating to preparation of the annual audit and management study. The motion carried by the following vote: Members Estrada, Reilly, Hernandez, Miller. Member Minor. Absent: Council Members Maudsley, Ayes: Council Nays: Council Pope-Ludlam. 23 4/20/92 RECONVENE MEETING - LUNCHEON WORKSHOP At 12:17 p.m., the regular meeting of the Mayor and Common Council reconvened in the Management Information Center, (MIC) Room, Sixth Floor, City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. ROLL CALL Roll call was taken by City Clerk Krasney with the following being present: Mayor Pro Tem Estrada; Council Members Estrada Reilly, Hernandez, Maudsley, Minor, Miller; Senior Assistant City Attorney Barlow, City Clerk Krasney, City Administrator Clark. Absent: Mayor Holcomb; Council Member pope-Ludlam. Also present: Fred Wilson, Assistant City Administrator; David Kennedy, City Treasurer; Andrew Green, Director of Finance; Barbara Lindseth, Accounting Manager, Economic Development Agency; Tom Snow and Scott Smith, KPMG Peak Marwick, certified public accountants, 725 South Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, CA. KPMG PEAT MARWICK - ANNUAL AUDIT & MANAGEMENT STUDY REPORT (31) Shauna Clark, City Administrator, introduced Mr. Tom Snow from KPMG Peat Marwick, certified public accountants, 725 South Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, CA, who presented the City's annual audit to the Mayor and Council. Mr. Tom Snow introduced Mr. Scott Smith, the City's Engagement Manager. Mr. Snow stated that the financial statement reflects all activities of the City, the Economic Development Agency, and the Water Department in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Mr. Snow, reviewed the letter dated April 16, 1992, regarding the audit of the general purpose financial statements of the City of San Bernardino for the year ending June 30, 1991. In planning and performing the audit of the financial statements of the City of San Bernardino, KPMG Peat Marwick considered internal control structure in order to determine auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the general purpose financial statements, and not to provide assurance on the internal control structure. During the audit, certain matters were noted involving the internal control structure, and other operational matters that are presented for consideration. The comments and recommendations were discussed with management and are intended to improve the internal control structure, or result in other operational efficiencies. The comments include findings, recommendations and management response on the following issues: Protecting Assets -special assessment districts, general fixed assets, fixed asset of proprietary funds, amounts due from other governments, accounts receivable, bank accounts; Improving Management Information- 24 4/20/92 individual fund accounts, overdrafts of pooled cash and investments, computer applications, internal service funds, capital leases and other long term debt; Improving Efficiency- internal audit staff, and accounting procedures manual. Mr. Scott Smith reviewed information contained in the management letter dated April 1, 1992, and supplemental management report concerning the findings and recommendations regarding the organization of the Finance Department. Recommendations covered the following issues: organization, the budget, finance department management duties Director of Finance, Assistant Director of Finance, Internal Auditor/Budget Officer; special assessment concerns, interagency transactions, accounting procedures manual, and economies of scale. Mr. Smith answered questions from the Council relative to overdrafts, general fund accounts, and internal service funds. He explained that most of the City's funds are pooled for investment purposes, and that many of the individual funds in that pool have overdrawn their share of the pool. The effect this has is that other funds are effectively financing the operation of the funds with overdrafts. The Council expressed concern regarding this deficit spending pattern, and how to eliminate it. Mr. Snow explained that the charges levied within the internal service funds, both in-house and to outside sources, are not sufficient to reduce the deficit spending patterns. Scott Smith explained that there are several types of overdrafts. In some cases, there are deficit fund balances where more money was spent than the fund had in total. In other cases, there are cash deficits in the pool, and money is borrowed from other funds in order to pay expenditures. MAYOR HOLCOMB ARRIVED At 12:32 p.m., Mayor Holcomb arrived at the luncheon workshop. Shauna Clark, City Administrator, and Andrew Green, Director of Finance, answered questions from the Council regarding the deficit spending, and methods that could be utilized to eliminate the deficit spending. Ms. Clark explained that in order to eliminate the pattern of deficit spending the City must budget better in the beginning and have realistic expectations of what will be available to spend in each Department. Tom Snow stated that the general fund would carry the burden of the fund deficits until such time as they are eliminated. 25 4/20/92 Discussion ensued regarding the refinance City Hall, and the impact internal service fund deficits. recent action taken to this action has on the Mr. Green answered questions projects are handled by the Finance occur between billing and receipt of regarding how Department, and the funds. construction where delays There was no action taken on this item during this luncheon workshop. RECESS MEETING - CLOSED SESSION At 12: 50 p. m., the Mayor and Common Council and Development Commission recessed to closed session following: Community for the b. to consider personnel matters pursuant to Government Code Section 54957. CLOSED SESSION At 12:50 p.m., Mayor Holcomb called the order in the Management Information Center, Floor, City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, California. closed session to (MIC Room), Sixth San Bernardino, ROLL CALL Roll call was taken by City Clerk Krasney with the following being present: Mayor Holcomb; Council Members Estrada, Reilly, Hernandez, Maudsley, Minor, Miller; Senior Assistant City Attorney Barlow, City Clerk Krasney, City Administrator Clark. Absent: Council Member Pope-Ludlam. Also present: David Kennedy, City Treasurer; Andrew Green, Director of Finance; and Tom Snow and Scott Smith, KPMG Peat Marwick, Certified Public Accountants, 725 South Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, CA. ADJOURN CLOSED SESSION At 1:50 p.m., the closed session adjourned to the regular meeting of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino. RECONVENE MEETING At 2:01 p.m., Mayor Holcomb reconvened the regular meeting of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. ROLL CALL Roll call was taken by City Clerk Krasney with the following being present: Mayor Holcomb; Council Members Estrada, Reilly, Hernandez, Maudsley, Minor, Miller; City Attorney Penman, City 26 4/20/92 Clerk Krasney. Absent: Administrator Clark. Council Member Pope-Ludlam; City AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADDING CHAPTER 15.55 TO THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO LOCAL ENFORCEMENT OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS RELATING TO MOBILE HOME PARKS. (Continued from April 6, 1992) (Discussed earlier in the meeting. See page 16) First (23) Mayor Holcomb stated that City Attorney Penman has advised that a correction should be made to the ordinance, and requested that the Council reconsider the ordinance. Council Member Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council Member Minor, and unanimously carried, that the ordinance adding Chapter 15.55 to the San Bernardino Municipal Code relating to local enforcement of laws and regulations relating to mobile home parks, be reconsidered. COUNCIL MEMBER At 2:02 p.m., Council meeting and POPE-LUDLAM RETURNED Council Member Pope-Ludlam returned took her place at the council table. to the City Attorney Penman explained that page three, lines 19-23, should be revised to provide that the Mobile Home Rent Control Board shall be the body that conducts hearings rather than the Board of Building Commissioners. Council Member Hernandez made a motion, seconded by Council Member Minor, and unanimously carried, that said ordinance be laid over for final adoption; and that the ordinance be amended on page three, lines 19-23, to replace the Board of Building Commissioners with the Mobile Home Rent Board. A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL, CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, DECLARING THE NECESSITY OF THE TAKING, IN FEE SIMPLE ABSOLUTE, ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 148- 122-01 PTN., THAT PORTION OF THE NORTH TWENTY-FOUR (24) ACRES OF LOT 2, BLOCK 83, OF RANCHO SAN BERNARDINO, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 7, PAGE 2 OF MAPS, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CONSISTING OF 6.33 NET ACRES, FOR THE PUBLIC USE OF WATER A STORAGE RESERVOIR AND PUMPING FACILITY. (Continued from April 6, 1992) (Continued from earlier in the meeting) (See page 15) (22) It was the consensus of the Council that said resolution declaring the necessity for the taking of 6.33 acres for the public use of a water storage reservoir and pumping facility, be considered after the completion of the Planning agenda. (See page 35) 27 4/20/92 RES. 92-142 - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE INLAND EMPIRE HISPANIC CHAMBER OF COMMERCE RELATING TO FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FROM THE CIVIC AND PROMOTION FUND FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991-92. (Discussed earlier in the meeting. See page 22) (5-3) INLAND EMPIRE HISPANIC CHAMBER OF COMMERCE - CINCO DE MAYO CELEBRATION - NUNEZ PARK - UTILIZE CITY FORCES & EQUIPMENT WAIVE COSTS (Discussed earlier in the meetinq. See page 22) (S-4) Council Member Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council Member Hernandez, to ratifv the previous action taken to approve said amended resolution and agreement, with the following amendments: to delete any reference to the September l6 celebration, so that the documents refer only to the Cinco de Mayo celebration; to insert the amount of $5,000; and that the request for utilization of City crews, City police personnel and City equipment, and the waiver of fees and expenses involved with assisting the Inland Empire Hispanic Chamber of Commerce in the Cinco de Mayo celebration at Nunez Park, be approved. (See page 22) The Members Miller. motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Estrada, Reilly, Hernandez, Maudsley, Pope-Ludlam, Nays: Council Member Minor. Absent: None. CITY HALL OPEN HOUSE - MAY 20, 1992 - CITY CLERK RACHEL KRASNEY - REPORT ( 2 7 ) Rachel Krasney, City Clerk, explained that approximately one year ago the idea was proposed of having City Hall sponsor an open house. Open house has been scheduled for Wednesday, May 20, 1992 from 12:00 p.m. until 7:00 p.m. The open house will showcase the talents and achievements of City employees, departments and equipment in the past twenty-two years. May 20th coincides with Founder's Day in the City of San Bernardino, and will be the 182nd anniversary of the City's founding. All residents are invited to tour City Hall, and the Economic Development Agency in the City Hall Annex. There will be displays of current equipment and historical vehicles, displays from the Historical Society, and our adopted school Ramona- Alessandro. The theme is San Bernardino Past, Present and Future. All involved hope that the occasion will bring the community together in a positive celebration of San Bernardino. Council Member Reilly requested that all Council Members be present during the open house to meet with their constituents. (Note: There was no vote taken on this item.) 28 4/20/92 COUNCIL MEMBER POPE-LUDLAM EXCUSED At 2: 12 p.m., Council Member Pope-Ludlam left the Council meeting. APPEAL - VEHICLE ABATEMENT - 2061 WEST 17TH STREET- MS. MICHELLE BEAUREGARD - CONTINUED FROM EARLIER IN THE MEETING - SEE PAGE 20 (30) This is the time and place continued to for an appeal relative to the abatement of the vehicle located at 2061 West 17th Street. Shauna Clark, City Administrator, explained that Ms. Beauregard testified that she received a warrant towing of a vehicle, and then placed a telephone Facilities Management. She requested that Ms. Sharlene advise the Council of the content of her conversation Beauregard. earlier for the call to Williams with Ms. Sharlene Williams, Typist Clerk III, Facilities Management, explained that Ms. Beauregard requested to speak to the supervisor of the VAP program (Vehicle Abatement Program), and was told that a message would be taken with her name, and number and that the supervisor would return the call. Ms. Beauregard was not told that an appointment would be scheduled to meet with the supervisor. Ms. Williams felt that she had not indicated to Ms. Beauregard that she would meet with the supervisor before the car was towed. Ms. Williams explained that she would not have given Ms. Beauregard the impression that an appointment would be scheduled, because she does not have that authority. City Attorney Penman stated that in his opinion due process was followed, and the question of whether an appointment was scheduled had been answered by Ms. Williams. Ms. Beauregard stated that the car was operable where it was parked. Discussion ensued regarding the condition of the car before it was towed, and whether it was operable. Council Member Minor made a motion, seconded by Council Member Maudsley, that the appeal relative to the abatement of a vehicle located at 2061 West 17th Street, be denied. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members Estrada, Reilly, Maudsley, Minor. Nays: Council Member Hernandez. Abstain: Council Member Miller. Absent: Council Member Pope-Ludlam. COUNCIL MEMBER POPE-LUDLAM RETURNED At 2: 26 p. m., Council Member Pope-Ludlam returned to the 29 4/20/92 Council meeting and took her place at the council table. PROCLAMATION - NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER - MAY 7, 1992 (4) Phil Arvizo, Executive Assistant to the Council, read a proclamation declaring May 7, 1992, as a Day of Prayer in the City of San Bernardino. John Lowe, Campus Crusade for Christ, was present to accept the proclamation. CITY ATTORNEY PENMAN EXCUSED City Attorney Penman left replaced by Senior Assistant City the Council meeting Attorney Barlow. and was COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION - REGULAR MEETING At 2:31 p.m., Chairman Holcomb called the regular meeting of the Community Development Commission to order in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. NATIONAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WEEK 1992 (R-3) In a memorandum dated April 15, 1992, Kenneth Henderson, Executive Director, Development Department/Economic Development Agency, stated that on April 6, 1992, the Commission proclaimed April 20 to 26, 1992 as "National Community Development Week". Annie Ramos, Director, Parks, Recreation and Community Services, explained how the community development block grant (CDBG) programs have assisted the parks and recreation programs with funding. She explained that CDBG funds are a key factor in the City's ability to build new recreation facilities, to expand and renovate existing facilities, and provide funds for programs specifically directed to youth at risk, the disabled and senior citizens. In the last fourteen years over $7 million in CDBG funds have been received for improvements in the park and recreation system. Council Member Minor made a motion, seconded by Council Member Miller, and unanimously carried, that the Mayor and Common Council acknowledge April 20 - 26, 1992 as "National Community Development Week", and allow interested parties to make pertinent comments about same. CITY ATTORNEY PENMAN RETURNED At 3:32 p.m., City Attorney Penman returned to the Council meeting and replaced Senior Assistant City Attorney Barlow. DUKES-DUKES & ASSOCIATES - ARROW VISTA HOMES (NB-l) Discussion ensued regarding the attempt made to hold a 30 4/20/92 special meeting on Friday, April 17, 1992, to discuss the Dukes- Dukes and Associates Arrow Vista homes project, and whether the item could now be discussed as an urgency item which arose after the posting of the agenda. A discussion was held relative to the action taken by the Community Development Commission at its April 6, 1992 meeting, concerning the Dukes-Dukes Arrow Vista homes project. The purpose of the urgency item was to provide construction financing for the development of 114 single-family detached dwelling units by Dukes-Dukes and Associates. Council Member Pope-Ludlam made a motion, seconded by Council Member Hernandez, that action needs to be taken on the disposition of the Dukes-Dukes and Associates agreement relative to the Arrow Vista homes project and that the matter arose subsequent to the posting of the agenda. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members Estrada, Hernandez, Maudsley, Pope-Ludlam, Miller. Nays: Council Members Reilly, Minor. Absent: None. The Council discussed whether it would be legal to consider this item after the posting of the agenda; the merits of the project; and the positive impact that this project could have on the neighborhood and the City. City Attorney Penman stated that he understood from Mr. Dukes' attorney that the matter had been resolved earlier that day. Mayor Holcomb explained that Mr. Dukes had not yet provided certain legal documents, and therefore, the payments have not been released by the Economic Development Agency. He expressed concern that on April 6, 1992, the Community Development Commission did not specifically authorize the Mayor to execute any documents; it only instructed staff to have an agreement prepared. Kenneth Henderson, Executive Director, Development Department/Economic Development Agency, stated that there are several separate transactions being discussed. First, the release of $250,000 in the form of a business reorganization loan approved by the Community Development Commission on April 6, 1992. The $250,000 business reorganization loan cannot be released until an agreement has been executed, and the proper security and collateral have been provided by Dukes-Dukes and Associates, which has not yet occurred. Second, the $185,000 retention of the administrative part of the construction loan. The Agency retained ten percent of the construction loan proceeds in lieu of a completion bond. Mr. Dukes requested release of the retention money prior to the expiration of the lien release 31 4/20/92 period. The notice of completion was not filed until April 16, 1992; however, legal counsel has advi.sed that the Agency would be responsible for any stop-orders or liens placed on the project, if the retention money is released prematurely. City Attorney Penman read two Assistant City Attorney Barlow relative Associates Arrow Vista homes project: memoranda from Senior to the Dukes-Dukes and Memorandum dated April 20, 1992 to Mayor Holcomb regarding the $250,000 loan to Dukes and Dukes: "At the Commission meeting of April 6, 1992, the Commission approved a loan of $250,000 to Dukes and Dukes on the Arrowvista project with the documents to be prepared. The vehicle to accomplish this, as understood at the meeting, was an amendment to the Joint Development Agreement. In preparing the necessary Amendment staff required the developer to provide title reports to be assure that the surety was sufficient to support the loan. I understand that they will be provided soon. When it is received you have the authority to execute the amendment and the security documents and thereafter the loan may be funded." Memorandum dated April 20, 1992 to Mayor Holcomb regarding the Dukes and Dukes retention: "As one of the phases of the Dukes and Dukes housing project (Arrowvista), the Agency has retained lO% of the payouts pursuant to the Agreement and state law to be sure that the laborers, suppliers, and subcontractors on this phase of the project are paid. State law requires that these funds be retained for 30 days following the recording of a Notice of Completion. The Notice was recorded on April 16, 1992. This retention amount is approximately $185,000. The developer has proposed that we retention as follows: $121,000 to the subcontractors; $63,000 to the developer. He has then proposed to provide the Agency with an indemnification letter to protect the Agency should any unknown subcontractors file stop notices within the 30 day period. The Agency would also be protected by the funds to be paid from the remaining phases of this project. release vendors this and Based on the foregoing it would be my op~n~on that the retained funds can be released upon receipt of the indemnification letter." 32 4/20/92 City Attorney Penman explained that the indemnification letter has not yet been received. Tim Steinhaus, Agency Administrator, Economic Development Agency, explained that as of noon today all the parties involved were in agreement on what action would be taken. The retention funds are being held until receipt of the indemnification letter from Mr. Dukes. All parties have agreed to the terms of the loan agreement and are waiting for the title report from Mr. Dukes, so that equity can be established and the documents signed in order to release those funds. Council Member Minor made a motion, seconded by Council Member Reilly, to schedule a council meeting for Wednesday, April 29, 1992, in order to conclude the disposition of the Dukes-Dukes and Associates agreement relative to the Arrow Vista homes project, so that all legal issues are properly addressed. (Note: There was no vote taken at this time.) Discussion ensued regarding what action needs to be taken so that the funds can be released, and the possible need for a special meeting in order to authorize further action relative to the project. Mayor Holcomb recommended that the Dukes-Dukes and Associates Arrow Vista homes project be continued to later in the meeting to allow the interested parties to confer and reach agreement regarding which action should be taken. RECESS MEETING At 4:24 p.m., Council Member Miller made a motion, seconded by Council Member Reilly to declare a ten-minute recess. (Note: There was no vote taken at this time.) RECONVENE MEETING At 4: 35 p. m., the regular meeting of the Mayor and Common Council reconvened in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. ROLL CALL Roll call was taken by City Clerk Krasney with the following being present: Mayor Holcomb; Council Members Estrada, Reilly, Hernandez, Maudsley, Minor, Pope-Ludlam; Deputy City Attorney Empeno, City Clerk Krasney. Absent: Council Member Miller; City Administrator Clark. DUKES-DUKES & ASSOCIATES ARROW VISTA CONTINUED FROM EARLIER IN THE MEETING - SEE HOMES- PAGE 30 (NB-I) This is the time and place continued to for consideration of the disposition of the agreements with the Dukes-Dukes and 33 4/20/92 Associates Arrow Vista homes project. Mayor Holcomb stated that the documents have been reviewed, and based on Mr. Dukes' reputation, recommended approval of the agreements as presented; and that the Mayor be authorized to execute said agreements. Council Member Pope-Ludlam made a motion, Council Member Hernandez, to approve the agreements and authorize the Mayor to execute said agreements. was no vote taken at this time.) seconded by as presented (Note: There COUNCIL MEMBER MILLER RETURNED At 4:38 p.m., Council Member Miller returned to the Council meeting and took her place at the council table. CITY ATTORNEY PENMAN RETURNED At 4:38 p.m., City Attorney Penman returned at the Council meeting and replaced Deputy City Attorney Empeno. Discussion ensued regarding the intent on the fact that Mr. Dukes had not indemnification letter, the title report, documents as previously agreed to. of the motion, based yet provided the and other necessary City Attorney Penman stated that Mr. Steinhaus has informed him that the Agency just received notice that the Dukes' organization was $18,000 behind in payment. He explained that Mr. Steinhaus now has concern relative to the recommendations previously made to the Council. Mayor Holcomb recommended that the motion as follows: To approve the agreement as exception that $64,000 not be released until orders are released, and that the documents when the title reports are received and established on the loan restructuring. be amended to read drafted with the all possible stop would be executed equity has been Council Member Pope-Ludlam made a substitute motion, seconded by Council Member Hernandez, to approve the agreement as drafted with the exception that $64,000 not be released until all possible stop orders are released; and that the Mayor be authorized to execute the agreements when the title reports are received and equity has been established on the loan restructuring. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Members Estrada, Reilly, Hernandez, Minor, pope-Ludlam, Nays: Council Member Maudsley. Absent: None. Council Miller. CITY ATTORNEY PENMAN EXCUSED At 4:46 p.m., City Attorney Penman left the Council meeting 34 4/20/92 and was replaced by Deputy City Attorney Empeno. CITY ADMINISTRATOR CLARK RETURNED At 4:46 p.m., City Administrator Clark returned to the Council meeting and took her place at the council table. RES. 92-143 - A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL, CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, DECLARING THE NECESSITY OF THE TAKING, IN FEE SIMPLE ABSOLUTE, ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 148-122-01 PTN., THAT PORTION OF THE NORTH TWENTY-FOUR (24) ACRES OF LOT 2, BLOCK 83, OF RANCHO SAN BERNARDINO, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 7, PAGE 2 OF MAPS, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CONSISTING OF 6.33 NET ACRES, FOR THE PUBLIC USE OF WATER A STORAGE RESERVOIR AND PUMPING FACILITY. (Continued from April 6, 1992) (Continued from earlier in the meeting) (See page 27) (22) Joseph Stejskal, Director of Engineering, Construction and Operations, Water Department, stated that the Water System Master Plan recommends the installation of 13.5 million gallons of storage constructed in the vicinity of Cajon Boulevard and Medical Center Drive, which is in a water transmission main reservoir boosting station route. The project would provide a reliable method of pumping and storing water throughout the middle and upper portions of San Bernardino. Water Department staff verified all potential reservoir sites, and determined that this vacant parcel best met all the criteria, and required no relocation of residential dwellings. In December, 1990 the appraised value of the property was $1.75 per foot. Scott Labs turned down the last offer of $2.00 per square foot, and recommended that we proceed with eminent domain proceedings. Tom Jacobsen, Gresham, Varner, Savage, Nolan & Tilden, 600 North Arrowhead Avenue, San Bernardino, CA, representing Scott Specialty Gases Inc. (Scott Labs), 2600 Cajon Boulevard, San Bernardino, CA, explained that when eminent domain proceedings commence the property owners must negotiate the best price for their property; and that eminent domain presumes that there is a willing buyer and a willing seller. In this case there is no willing seller. He felt that the appraisal was not accurate due to the depressed economy, and when it was performed. He explained that Scott Labs has been unwilling to sell, but faced with eminent domain proceedings felt they had no other option but to negotiate. A discussion was held relative to the possibility of relocating Scott Labs to another location, such as Norton A.F.B., if the need arose for additional land when they expanded. 35 4/20/92 Council Member Pope-Ludlam made a motion, seconded by Council Member Hernandez, that said resolution be adopted. Ayes: Minor, Miller. Resolution No. 92-143 was adopted by the following vote: Council Members Estrada, Reilly, Hernandez, Maudsley, Pope-Ludlam. Nays: None. Abstain: Council Member Absent: None. Council Member Miller stated that she abstained from the vote because she was not present during the morning testimony. CITY ATTORNEY PENMAN EXCUSED At 5:03 p.m., City Attorney Penman left the Council meeting and was replaced by Deputy City Attorney Empeno. APPEAL - DENIAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-32- ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME - VEHICLE RECYCLING YARD- SOUTH SIDE OF WALNUT STREET - EAST OF MUSCOTT STREET- JOHN LIGHTBURN (37) This is the time and place set for consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a request for a one-year extension of time for Conditional Use Permit (C.U.P.) No. 90-32, an application to establish a vehicle recycling yard on 9.5 acres located on the south side of Walnut Street, approximately 380 feet east of Muscott Street. In a memorandum dated April 8, 1992, Al Boughey, Director, Planning and Building Services, stated that on December 2, 1991, the City received a request for a one-year time extension of C.U.P. No. 90-32, under the authority of Development Code Section 19.36.90. The basis of the request was to allow additional time for the project to comply with the 1,500 gallon per minute fire flow requirement of the City Fire Department. On March 3, 1992, the Planning Commission denied the applicant's request for a one-year extension of time based on the findings that the proposed recycling yard would not be compatible with existing and future land uses in the general area, that the proposed use was not compatible in scale, mass, coverage, density, and intensity with the nearby residential land uses, and that the use will impose a harmful effect upon desirable neighborhood characteristics. Compatibility with the existing nearby residential neighborhood was addressed in the original Planning Commission staff report for Conditional Use Permit No. 90-32. Project conditions of approval were included requiring the applicant to screen the perimeter of the yard on all sides with a six-foot fence, and to ensure that vehicles were not stacked above the height of the six-foot fence. Additional conditions of approval were added requiring the applicant to screen the proposed ~6 4/20/92 recycling yard from adjoining land uses with a Type A landscape screening per Development Code standards. Type A landscape screening includes a six-foot high screening accomplished by either a decorative masonry wall or screen shrubs. All of these conditions serve to soften the Industrial-Residential boundary along Walnut Street to ensure compatibility. At the Planning Commission meeting, concern was also expressed with regard to the potential for the facility to generate noise, odors, and for gasoline or oil seepage into the ground. Noise was not identified as a concern during the original application process. However, if noise is a concern, it can likely be handled with additional conditions of approval restricting the hours of operation of the facility, and the use of a public address system in the yard area. Any odors generated by the facility would likely be a result from the presence of gasoline or oil in the cars. Conditions of Approval Nos. 9 and 13 address this concern as well as the potential for leakage of gasoline or oil from the wrecked vehicles into the ground. The project development and operation would occur subject to the project conditions of approval. Therefore the proposed facility should be compatible with the surrounding land uses. Mayor Holcomb opened the hearing. John Lightburn, P.O. Box 1622, San Bernardino, CA, explained that the original approval of the conditional use permit contained several conditions of approval to assure that the neighborhood and environment would not be harmed. He stated that no facts have changed that warrant the adoption of any additional conditions of approval. He explained that the issue in question, for the extension of time, deals with being able to provide an adequate amount of water service (fire flow) in the area. To comply with that requirement, the project will upgrade the fire services for the residents in the mobile home park, by placing a fire hydrant in front of the mobile home park. Darlene Phillips, 145 S. Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, CA, explained that the issue is the approval of the extension of time for the C.U.P. Based on the Development Code, she recommended that the extension of time be granted because there is no basis in fact to deny the extension of time. Deputy City Attorney Empeno stated that the extension of time is discretionary, not automatic, given that the extension requires Council review whether change in circumstances in the surrounding neighborhood have occurred. He stated that at the March 3, 1992 Planning Commission meeting, the extension of time was denied; however, the Planning Commission did not adopt findings of fact in support of the denial of an extension of time. Therefore, he recommended that the Council refer the matter back to the Planning Commission so that the Planning 37 4/20/92 Commission can adopt findings in support of their decision, in order to clarify the record. Discussion ensued regarding the Planning Commission's action relative to the findings of fact. Ms. Phillips distributed to the Council enlargements of the General Plan map of the area which shows that the project is in the middle of the heavy industrial area. She explained that the proposed business is a permitted use in the heavy industrial area where it is located. Ms. Phillips distributed to the Council an aerial photograph of the area that shows the site is surrounded with industrial use as it is zoned. She stated that the site is fenced and landscaped in order to provide a buffer to the residential area. Ms. Phillips distributed additional photographs which show that the site is not an eyesore to the neighborhood, and that the character of the area is industria She expressed opposition to referring the item back to the Planning Commission. She explained that the Water Department has agreed to sign a letter of non-objection to allow Mr. Long to get water from the City of Colton to satisfy the fire flow requirements. Jimmy Summers, 1193 Hummingbird Lane, Corona, CA, owner of Rancho Mobile Home Park, 1600 Walnut Street, CA, spoke in opposition to the vehicle recycling yard on behalf of the tenants of the mobile home park. He felt that the area would be impacted by the noise from the business, and that the storage area ,would become a breeding area for rats and snakes. Katherine Martinez, l600 Walnut, Rancho Mobile Home Park, San Bernardino, CA, voiced opposition to the proposed business. Betty Moya, 1600 Walnut, Rancho Mobile Home Park, San Bernardino, CA, voiced opposition to the business. Joanne Carpenter, 1600 Walnut, Rancho Mobile Home Park, San Bernardino, CA, spoke in opposition to the proposed business. A discussion was held regarding the other auto wrecking yards in the area; and the difference between junk yards and auto wrecking yards (vehicle recycling yards). Bud Long answered questions from, the Council relative to concerns about the noise, the conditions for approval, and the security measures. He felt that at the time of the original application, the residents were aware that the business would be a vehicle recycling yard. Council Member Miller made a motion, seconded by Council Member Minor, and unanimously carried, that the public hearing be closed. 38 4/20/92 Council Member Hernandez made a motion, seconded by Council Member Miller, that the appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a request for a one-year extension of time for Conditional Use Permit No. 90-32, an application to establish a vehicle recycling yard, be referred to the Planning Commission to adopt findings of fact in support of their decision to deny Conditional Use Permit No. 90-32. Discussion ensued regarding the potential positive (sales tax revenue) and negative (environmental) impacts that the vehicle recycling yard would have on the neighborhood and the City of San Bernardino. The Members Estrada, Absent: motion failed by the following vote: Ayes: Council Reilly, Hernandez, Miller. Nays: Council Members Maudsley, Minor. Abstain: Council Member Pope-Ludlam. None. Deputy City Attorney Empeno recommended that the matter be referred back to the Planning Commission to enable the Planning Commission to adopt findings of fact in support of their decision to clarify the record, or to use their discretion to reconsider that action. He explained that the Council can approve the extension of time without sending it back to the Planning Commission providing that evidence can be found to support the decision. The evidence to support granting the one- year extension must show good cause that the extension should be granted based on whether or not circumstances have changed so that the findings can no longer be made. He explained that any decision to deny the appeal should be based on a change in circumstances such as the findings can no longer be made. The Development Code has a provision for revocation or modification of a conditional use permit if findings can be made. In this case the conditional use permit has not yet commenced because construction has not yet been initiated. Council Member Minor made a motion, seconded by Council Member Maudsley, to uphold the appeal and the findings of fact, as outlined in Attachment B, from the Planning Commission meeting of March 3, 1992. The motion failed by the following vote: Ayes: Members Maudsley, Minor, Pope-Ludlam. Nays: Council Estrada, Hernandez, Miller. Abstain: Council Member Absent: None. Council Members Reilly. Discussion ensued regarding the findings of fact outlined in Attachment B, from the Planning Commission meeting of March 3, 1992, and the merits of the proposed business. 39 4/20/92 Council Member Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council Member Hernandez, that appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a request for a one-year extension of time for Conditional Use Permit No. 90-32, an application to establish a vehicle recycling yard, be referred to the Planning Commission to adopt findings of fact in support of the decision to deny Conditional Use Permit No. 90-32. The Members Miller. motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Estrada, Reilly, Hernandez, Maudsley, Pope-Ludlam, Nays: Council Member Minor. Absent: None. COUNCIL MEMBER At 6:38 p.m., meeting. HERNANDEZ EXCUSED Council Member Hernandez left the Council CITY ATTORNEY PENMAN RETURNED At 6:38 p.m., City Attorney Penman returned to the Council meeting and replaced Deputy City Attorney Empeno. APPEAL - DENIAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-39- CONSTRUCT BILLBOARD - FACILITATE CONSTRUCTION - RETAIL CENTER - GANNETT OUTDOOR CO., INC. - CONTINUED FROM APRIL 6, 1992 (32) This is the time and place continued to for consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 91-39, requesting approval to construct a billboard on the same site that a billboard was removed to facilitate the construction of a retail center. In a memorandum dated April 10, 1992, Al Boughey, Director, Planning and Building Services, stated that at its October 29, 1991 meeting, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Conditional Use Permit (C.U.P.) No. 91-39. Staff's discussion primarily focused on the finding that the proposal was out of scale and incompatible with the commercial development on the property, as well as with the commercial development occurring in the surrounding area. Staff felt that the height and size of the proposed billboard was a design appropriate only for high speed, limited access highways, and was out of place on a city street, which would add to the visual congestion in the vicinity created by the large number of nonconforming and abandoned pole signs. Based on the discussion and in agreement with the staff recommendation, a motion was made for denial of the C.U.P. On November 6, 1991, the applicant, Gannett Outdoor Co., Inc., submitted an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the C.U.P. Staff was directed to pursue negotiations with for the removal of two billboards elsewhere in exchange for the requested on-site replacement. the appellant the City in A concern of 40 4/20/92 staff prior to negotiating with the billboard company was that a replacement billboard on the subject property should be reduced in height and area from what was originally proposed. Simply removing the other two billboards as an exchange is not viewed as adequate mitigation against the impact of a full-sized replacement on the subject property. Based on the context of the respective surrounding areas, it is the conclusion of staff that a double-sided billboard at the proposed location would have significant detriment without further mitigating factors. Mayor Holcomb opened the hearing. Council Member Minor made a motion, seconded by Council Member Estrada, and unanimously carried, that the appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 91-39 requesting approval to construct a billboard on the same site that a billboard was removed to facilitate the construction of a retail center, be continued for two weeks to May 4, 1992, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. COUNCIL MEMBER POPE-LUDLAM EXCUSED Council Member Pope-Ludlam left the Council meeting. APPEAL - DENIAL - VARIANCE NO. 91-16 - SIGNAGE FOR LARGE CENTERS - WALMART - GATLIN-DOERKEN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - CONTINUED FROM APRIL 6, 1992 (33) This is the time and place continued to for consideration of Variance No. 91-16. The applicant's original request was for signage in excess of the permitted number, size and height; and a sign program with additional colors and type styles, for a shopping center located on the north side of Highland Avenue, at the northerly terminus of Boulder Avenue. In a memorandum dated April 14, 1992, Al Boughey, Director, Planning and Building Services, stated that all but one of the applicant's requests have been addressed by Development Code Amendment No. 92-02. The applicant's, Gatlin-Doerken, remaining request is for a freeway sign at 45 feet in height and 225 square feet in area. On December 2, 1991, the Mayor and Council held a public hearing on the appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the variance. At that meeting, a discussion ensued regarding the ability of the Council to grant the variance request. Following the discussion, the sign section of the Development Code was referred to the Legislative Review Committee. On January 21, 1992, the Mayor and Council held a public hearing on the appeal, and after discussion, the hearing was continued until April 6, 1992, to enable the applicant to submit an application to amend the Development Code relative to the sign regulation relative to large retail centers. 41 4/20/92 Staff believes that revised freeway sign standards are warranted for semi-regional and regional shopping centers/malls. Most freeways traversing commercial land use districts are elevated above the surrounding properties. Staff believes that sign criteria for shopping centers/malls with greater than 25 acres in area should be established to allow freeway signs 35 feet in height and 125 square feet in area, with back-lit or channel lettering that will give such centers adequate visibility given the elevated freeways throughout the City. Granting the Variance to allow the proposed shopping center at Highland Avenue at the termination of Boulder a freeway sign 45 feet in height and 225 square feet in area would constitute the granting of a special privilege not afforded others in the same land use district. The Development Code should be revis"d to allow semi-regional and regional shopping centers /malls (25 acres or more in area) freeway signs with a 35 foot height and with 125 square feet of area. (Note: Vote taken in conjunction with item 34) PUBLIC HEARING - DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 92-02- ESTABLISH NEW SIGN PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS & STANDARDS- ESTABLISH MONUMENT SIGN STANDARDS FOR MULTI-TENANT CENTERS IN COMMERCIAL LAND USE DISTRICTS - SEE RELATED ITEM 33 - CONTINUED FROM APRIL 6, 1992 ( 34) This is the time and place continued to for consideration of Development Code Amendment No. 92-02. The applicant is requesting an amendment to Chapter 19.22 of the Development Code to establish new sign program requirements and standards, and to establish monument sign standards for multi-tenant centers in commercial land use districts. In a memorandum dated April 14, 1992, Al Boughey, Director, Planning and Building Services, stated that prior to the Planning Commission hearing of Development Code Amendment No. 92-02, the applicant and staff were in agreement with regards to the height and area standards for center identification monument signs for shopping centers larger than 25 acres. However, during the Planning Commission hearing of Development Code Amendment No. 92- 02 on February 18, 1992, the applicant felt a disincentive for the inclusion of shopping center names identification signs which was created by the ordinance as proposed by staff. Gatlin- Doerken felt that unless a provision for the inclusion of the shopping center name on center identification signs was made a part of the ordinance, that the signs would be utilized to accommodate the names of the largest tenants only. The Planning Commission directed staff to look into the concern and add a section to remove the disincentive, if necessary. Based upon additional review by staff, and discussions with the applicant, requiring a set percentage of the center 42 4/20/92 identification sign may not be in either the applicant's or City's best interest. With the exception of regional malls, most large shopping centers are referred to by the name of the largest anchor tenant regardless of the center name. Requiring the inclusion of the center name would reduce the amount of the sign area available for the anchor tenants perhaps prompting more variance requests. Both staff and the applicant agree that the determination of whether to include a shopping center name on the center identification monument is best left to the shopping center owner and market forces. Hence, the ordinance has been revised removing the requirement that 20 percent of the sign area be dedicated to the center name. Mayor Holcomb opened the hearing. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AMENDING SECTIONS 19.22.030, 19.22.040(2), 19.22.050(1), 19.22.070(1), AND 19.22.150, TABLE 22.0l, OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE (DEVELOPMENT CODE) TO ADD DEFINITIONS TO THE SIGN CODE, ESTABLISH NEW SIGN PROGRAM STANDARDS, GIVE TEMPORARY WINDOW SIGNS AN EXEMPT STATUS, AND ESTABLISH STANDARDS FOR MONUMENT SIGNS FOR MULTI-TENANT CENTERS 25 ACRES OR MORE IN SIZE. First (34) Council Member Minor made a motion, seconded by Council Member Estrada, and unanimously carried, that the appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Variance No. 91-16 relative to signage for large centers; and the public hearing to consider Development Code Amendment No. 92-02 to establish new sign program requirements and standards and establish monument sign standards for multi-tenant centers in commercial land use districts, be continued for two weeks to May 4, 1992, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. SET PUBLIC HEARING - MAY 4, 1992 - PLANNING DIVISION FEE SCHEDULE CHANGES - CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 6, 1992 (35) This is the time and place continued to consider setting a public hearing relative to the Planning Division fee schedule changes. In a memorandum dated April 10, 1992, Al Boughey, Director, Planning and Building Services, requested that the Mayor and Council maintain the Planning Division fee schedule adopted by Resolution No. 91-148 in place until the effective date of a new Planning Division fee schedule resolution. In addition, it is recommended that the Mayor and Council set May 4, 1992 as the date of the public hearing concerning the proposed Planning Division application and service fees. 43 4/20/92 On November 20, 1989, the Mayor and Council adopted Resolution No. 89-471, which increased Planning fees to rates equal to the median fees charged by cities in the Inland Empire area, and staff was directed to continue to work j" :Jward establishing fees that covered more of the Planning Division's operating costs. In April 1991, the Mayor and Council adopted the City's new Development Code and added new fee categories corresponding to the Development Code (Resolution No. 91-148). The Mayor and Council deferred increasing planning fees as part of the Development Code adoption process. Staff has been analyzing the City's planning fees since January, 1992. As part of this analysis, a planning fee survey was conducted of sixteen surrounding planning agencies. This analysis and recommendation on revising planning application and service fees is nearing completion. The revised planning fee schedule was presented to the Ways and Means Committee at its April 15, 1992 meeting for review prior to a public hearing before the Council. COUNCIL MEMBER POPE-LUDLAM RETURNED Council Member Pope-Ludlam returned to the Council meeting and took her place at the council table. Council Member Minor made a motion, seconded by Council Member Miller, and unanimously carried, that the setting of a public hearing concerning changes in the Planning Division fee schedule be continued for sixty days to June 15, 1992, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. REVIEW ROLE - PLANNING COMMISSION ALTERNATE (36) In a memorandum dated April 9, 1992, Al Boughey, Director, Planning and Building Services, requested that alternate Planning Commission members be allowed to vote if there is a vacancy on the Commission. Due to problems in the past of not having a quorum present for regularly scheduled and special meetings, the Mayor and Council adopted Ordinance No. MC-767 which established the positions of two alternates to each board, bureau or commission. The function of the alternates is to make up a quorum, if necessary. If a quorum is present, the alternate may participate in discussion, but may not vote. In the case of the Planning Commission, there are nine members and two alternates (only one is filled at this time) with a quorum consisting of five members. Since the alternate (s) must prepare for each meeting in case there is a need, and the alternate(s) attends most of the meetings, the Planning Commission requested that the alternate(s) be able to vote at all meetings if anyone of the nine members is absent, whether or not there is a quorum. 44 4/20/92 Council Member Miller made a motion, seconded by Council Member Minor, that staff be directed to revise Ordinance No. MC- 767 to allow alternates on the Planning Commission to vote. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members Estrada, Reilly, Minor, Pope-Ludlam, Miller. Nays: Council Member Maudsley. Absent: Council Member Hernandez. PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15228 - 18-LOT SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION - MR. JAMES & MR. WILLIAM HAUSER ESTABLISH STANCLIFF (38) This is the time and place set for a public hearing for consideration of the final determination for Tentative Tract No. 15228, a request to establish an eighteen lot single-family subdivision. In a memorandum dated April 9, 1992, Al Boughey, Director, Planning and Building Services, stated that at its meeting of January 7, 1992, the Planning Commission continued the item to March 3, 1992, at the request of the Planning Director. The purpose of the continuance was to allow the applicant to make a final attempt to negotiate for an off-site drainage easement through the neighboring property to the east, prior to taking action on the tentative map. This request was made because, pursuant to Section 66462.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, if the City imposes a condition of approval requiring the subdivider to obtain an easement for off-site improvement, and the subdivider is unable to obtain the drainage easement by the time the final map is filed, the City would be compelled to acquire the easement through eminent domain; in turn, the City would require the subdivider to pay the cost of acquiring the easement. On March 3, 1992, staff advised the Planning Commission that the owners of the neighboring property were still unwilling to grant off-site drainage easement rights to the applicant, so the proposed conditions of approval would require the subdivider to obtain the easement prior to recordation of the final map, potentially compelling the City to condemn the property. Mayor Holcomb opened the hearing. Council Member Member Pope-Ludlam, hearing be closed. Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council and unanimously carried, that the public Mr. Boughey explained that if the appeal of Tentative Tract No. 15228 was denied, it would not prohibit developers from building at a later time. Council Member Minor made a motion to deny Tentative Tract No. 15228, based on the eminent domain proceedings. (Note: There was no vote taken at this time.) 45 4/20/92 The motion failed for lack of a second. Council Member Minor made as substitute motion, seconded by Council Member Pope-Ludlam, and unanimously carried, to reopen the public hearing. COUNCIL MEMBER POPE-LUDLAM EXCUSED At 6:49 p.m., Council Member Pope-Ludlam left the Council meeting. Gene Ehe, civil engineer for the project, Environmental Hightech Engineering, 3272 North "E" Street, San Bernardino, CA, representing Mr. Stancliff, explained that there have been a number of designs for the project, and that the design presented today was the design preferred by the Public Works Department, because it does not interrupt the normal drainage pattern in the area. This design allows for half of the drainage to drain to Magnolia, and the other half to drain easterly in the natural pattern. Council Member Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council Member Miller, and unanimously carried, that the public hearing to consider Tentative Tract No. 15228, be continued for two weeks to May 4, 1992, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. RES. 92-144 - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ACCEPTING THE APPRAISER'S DETERMINATION OF FAIR MARKET VALUE OF STREET AND HIGHWAY EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF ENTRY FOR THE EAST SIDE OF TIPPECANOE BETWEEN HARDT STREET AND LAURELWOOD DRIVE, SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA, AND CERTIFYING THE WORK OF THE APPRAISER. (5-2) Council Member Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council Member Minor, that said resolution be adopted. Resolution No. 92-144 was Ayes: Council Members Estrada, Council Member Miller. Absent: Ludlam. adopted by the following Reilly, Maudsley, Minor. Council Members Hernandez, vote: Nays: Pope- RES. 92-145 - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO RELATING TO THE ACQUISITION OF ADDITIONAL RIGHTS-OF-WAY FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF FORTIETH STREET, FROM THIRD AVENUE TO ACRE LANE AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 91-464. (S-5) The Council expressed concern relative to funds being allocated from the 1992/93 budget for which priorities have not been established. 46 4/20/92 Council Member Minor made a motion, seconded by Council Member Maudsley, that said resolution be adopted. City Administrator's Note: $40,000 was allocated from Measure "I" one-half cent sales tax local funds in the 1991/92 budget for the acquisition of right-of-way; the remaining supplemental funding in the amount of $92,400 needed to complete the project must be allocated in the 1992/93 budget. Resolution No. 92-145 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members Reilly, Maudsley, Minor, Miller. Nays: Council Member Estrada. Absent: Council Members Hernandez, Pope-Ludlam. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO RESOLUTION NO. 6433, SECTION FOUR, ADDING AND VARIOUS CITY POSITIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRIOR COUNCIL ACTIONS. AMENDING DELETING CODIFYING (5-6) Council Member Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council Member Minor, and unanimously carried, that the resolution amending Resolution No. 6433, Section Four, adding and deleting various City positions for the purpose of codifying prior Council actions, be continued for four weeks to May 18, 1992, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. RECESS MEETING - CLOSED SESSION (1) At 6:54 p.m., Council Member Miller made a motion, seconded by Council Member Estrada, and unanimously carried, that the Mayor and Common Council and Community Development Commission recess to closed session for the following: a. to give instruction to the City' s/Commission' s negotiator on the purchase of property pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. The real property which the negotiations concern is generally located at: . , b. to consider personnel matters pursuant to Government Code Section 54957; c. to meet with designated representatives regarding labor relations matters pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6; d. to confer with the Chief of Police on matters posing a threat to the security of public buildings or a threat to the public's right of access to public services or public facilities pursuant to Government Code Section 54957; 47 4/20/92 e. to confer with the attorney regarding pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1), as there is significant exposure to litigation; f. to confer with the attorney regarding litigation pursuant to Government Code 54956.9(c), so that Council/Commission may whether to initiate litigation; pending Section decide g. to confer with the attorney regarding pending litigation which has been initiated formally to which the City is a party pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) as follows: CLOSED SESSION At 6:54 p.m., Mayor Holcomb called the closed session to order in the conference room of the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. ROLL CALL Roll call was taken by City Clerk Krasney with the following being present: Mayor Holcomb; Council Members Estrada, Reilly, Maudsley, Minor, Miller; City Attorney Penman, City Clerk Krasney, City Administrator Clark. Absent: Council Members Hernandez, Pope-Ludlam. Also present: Senior Assistant City Attorney Morillo, Deputy City Attorney Roth, Deputy City Attorney Empeno, and Margaret Scroggin, Administrative Operations Supervisor, City Attorney's Office. ADJOURN CLOSED SESSION At 7: 14 p.m., the closed session adjourned to the regular meeting of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino. RECONVENE MEETING At 7: 14 p. m., Mayor Holcomb reconvened the regular meeting of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. ROLL CALL Roll call was taken by City Clerk Krasney with the following being present: Mayor Holcomb; Council Members Estrada, Reilly, Maudsley, Minor, Miller; City Attorney Penman, City Clerk Krasney, City Administrator Clark. Absent: Council Members Hernandez, Pope-Ludlam. 48 4/20/92 ADJOURNMENT At 7: 14 p.m., the meeting was adjourned Monday, May 4, 1992, in the Council Chambers of North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. (39) to 8:30 a.m., City Hall, 300 RACHEL KRASNEY City Clerk By ~.#.....' ~--L... Melanie Vale Deputy City Clerk No. of Items: 59 No. of Hours: 11 49 4/20/92