Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-04-2005 MinutesMayor Judith Valles Council Members: CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO Esther Estrada 300 N. "D " Street Susan Longville Gordon McGinnis San Bernardino, CA 92418 Neil Derry Website: www.sbcity.org Chas Kelley Rikke Van Johnson Wendy McCammack MINUTES MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AND THE SAN BERNARDINO CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO JOINT REGULAR MEETING APRIL 4, 2005 COUNCIL CHAMBERS The joint regular meeting of the Mayor and Common Council, Community Development Commission, and San Bernardino City Housing Authority of the City of San Bernardino was called to order by Mayor Pro Tem/Acting Chairman McGinnis at 1:41 p.m., Monday, April 4, 2005, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. Roll Call Roll call was taken by City Clerk Clark with the following being present: Mayor Pro Tem/Acting Chairman McGinnis; Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Johnson, McCammack; City Attorney Penman, City Clerk Clark, City Administrator Wilson. Absent: Mayor Valles; Council Member/ Commissioner Kelley. Council Member/Commissioner Kelley Arrived At 1:50 p.m., Council Member/Commissioner Kelley arrived at the Council/ Commission/San Bernardino City Housing Authority meeting. 1. Closed Session Pursuant to Government Code Section(s): A. Conference with legal counsel - existing litigation - pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a): 04/04/2005 People of the State of California v. Manta Management Corporation, et al. - San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. SCV 18157; Stephen Peach; Reyna Peach v. City of San Bernardino, et al. - San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. SCVSS 121993; City of San Bernardino, et al. v. Valerie Pope -Ludlam, et al. - San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. SCVSS 108965. B. Conference with legal counsel - anticipated litigation - significant exposure to litigation - pursuant to subdivision (b) (1), (2), (3) (A-F) of Government Code Section 54956.9: BICEP Issues San Bernardino City Professional Firefighters Local No. 891 v. City of San Bernardino, Larry Pitzer, et al. Harold E. Sykes v. City of San Bernardino, et al. C. Conference with legal counsel - anticipated litigation - initiation of litigation - pursuant to subdivision (c) of Government Code Section 54956.9. D. Closed Session - personnel - pursuant to Government Code Section 54957: Appointment Public Services Director E. Closed session with Chief of Police on matters posing a threat to the security of public buildings or threat to the public's right of access to public services or public facilities - pursuant to Government Code Section 54957. F. Conference with labor negotiator - pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6. G. Conference with real property negotiator - pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8: 1. Property: 247 W. Third Street Negotiating Parties: Judith Valles, Mayor, on behalf of the Redevelopment Agency, property owners, and Gerry Newcombe, Deputy Administrative 2 04/04/2005 Officer, on behalf of the County of San Bernardino Under Negotiation: Purchase price, terms and conditions 2. Proper That parcel consisting of approximately 67.75 acres identified as Parcel 1-2 at the San Bernardino International Airport, and generally bounded by Harry Sheppard Boulevard, Del Rosa Drive, Paul Villasenor Boulevard, and Memorial Drive Negotiating Parties: Don Rogers on behalf of the Inland Valley Development Agency. David Newsom on behalf of Hillwood/San Bernardino LLC. Bruce Varner on behalf of Stater Bros. Markets. James F. Penman on behalf of the City of San Bernardino Under Negotiation: Terms and conditions Uptown Redevelopment Project Area 3. Property: APN 0145-242-32 and APN 0145-242-33 Owner/Seller: Mayor Judith Valles, on behalf of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino, property owner(s) Buyer: San Bernardino City Unified School District ("District') Central Citv North Redevelopment Proiect Area 4. Property Address: APN 0134-054-07 Negotiating Parties: Gary Van Osdel, Executive Director, on behalf of the Redevelopment Agency, and The Salvation Army, property owner(s) Under Negotiation: Purchase price, terms, and conditions 5. Property Address: 770 West 5' Street APN 0134-054-26 Negotiating Parties: Gary Van Osdel, Executive Director, on behalf of the Redevelopment Agency, and Raul M. Najera and Catalina A. Barrera Cantoran, property owners 3 04/04/2005 Under Negotiation: Purchase price, terms and conditions 6. Property Address: 637 West 5`h Street APN 0134-101-02 and 0134-101-03 Negotiating Parties: Gary Van Osdel, Executive Director, on behalf of the Redevelopment Agency, and San Bernardino School Property, property owner(s) Under Negotiation: Purchase price, terms, and conditions 4W' Redevelopment Project Area 7. Property Address: 251 East 49' Street APN 0154-126-01 L E 10. Negotiating Parties: Gary Van Osdel, Executive Director, on behalf of the Redevelopment Agency, and Sandra Maxey, property owner(s) Under Negotiation: Purchase price, terms, and conditions Property Address: 255 East 49' Street APN 0154-126-02 Negotiating Parties: Gary Van Osdel, Executive Director, on behalf of the Redevelopment Agency, and Frank Marques, property owner(s) Under Negotiation: Purchase price, terms, and conditions Property Address: 259 East 49' Street APN 0154-126-03 Negotiating Parties: Gary Van Osdel, Executive Director, on behalf of the Redevelopment Agency, and Maribel Torres, property owner(s) Under Negotiation: Purchase price, terms, and conditions Property Address: 267 East 491" Street APN 0154-126-25 Negotiating Parties`. Gary Van Osdel, Executive Director, on behalf of the Redevelopment Agency, and Oscar Palomera, property owner(s) Under Negotiation: Purchase price, terms and conditions 4 04/04/2005 11. Property Address: 299 East 49' Street APN 0154-126-30 Negotiating Parties: Gary Van Osdel, Executive Director, on behalf of the Redevelopment Agency, and Scott C. Mueller, property owner(s) Under Negotiation: Purchase price, terms, and conditions 12. Property Address: 288 East 49`s Street APN 0154-125-07 Negotiating Parties: Gary Van Osdel, Executive Director, on behalf of the Redevelopment Agency, and Richard and Kristin Mungo, property owner(s) Under Negotiation: Purchase price, terms, and conditions 13. Property Address: 292 East 49`h Street APN 0154-125-06 Negotiating Parties: Gary Van Osdel, Executive Director, on behalf of the Redevelopment Agency, and Lance Fisher, property owner(s) Under Negotiation: Verdemont Area — Bice Property Purchase price, terms, and conditions 14. Property Address: APN 0261-111-21, 23, 25, 29, 30, 33, 35 and 40; 0261-121-01, 02, 03,13 and 14; 0261-451-01 through 48; and 0261- 461-01 through 66 N/S Frontage Road, 1,000+ feet w/o North Little League Drive Negotiating Parties: Century Crowell Communities, LP, Purchaser; San Bernardino County Tax Collector, and Gary Van Osdel, Executive Director, on behalf of the Redevelopment Agency, property owner Under Negotiation: Purchase price, terms, and conditions 5 04/04/2005 City Attorney Penman announced that the following items would be discussed in closed session: Jesus and James Seay v. City of San Bernardino, Officer ie. Officer Sham. Set. Lowes, and Does 1-10. Inclusive - United Legal issues regarding Agenda Item No. R29. Closed Session Announcements City Attorney Penman advised that the following matter had been discussed in closed session: The claim of Frank Ingram III and Felicia Stansbury regarding the alleged wrongful death of Frank Ingram IV, involving officers of the City of San Bernardino Police Department - a claim that has not yet been acted on. City Clerk Clark advised that at the last meeting of the Mayor and Common Council she had erroneously indicated that the vote to approve a settlement of $1.25 million in the case of Kiranjeet K. Uppal v. City of San Bernardino was unanimous; however, the vote should have indicated that Council Member/Commissioner McGinnis was absent. City Clerk Clark announced that the following action was taken in closed session: Council Member/Commissioner Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner Longville, to approve the appointment of Ken Fischer as Director of Public Services, effective April 25, 2005, at a salary of $9,554 per month. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/ Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, McCammack. Nays: Council Member/Commissioner Johnson. Absent: None. Reading of Resolutions & Ordinances Deputy City Clerk Hartzel read into the record the titles of all the resolutions and ordinances on the regular agenda of the Mayor and Common Council, Community Development Commission, and San Bernardino City Housing Authority. Invocation/Pledge of Allegiance The invocation was given by Council Member/Commissioner Johnson, followed by the pledge of allegiance, led by Jennifer Ballin from Ramona Alessandro School. 6 04/04/2005 Moment of Silence Mayor Pro Tem/Acting Chairman McGinnis extended condolences to the family and requested a moment of silence in memory of former Mayor Al C. Ballard, who served in the City's Fire Department for nearly 20 years and as Mayor of the City for 6 years. He also requested a moment of silence in memory of Pope John Paul II, head of the Roman Catholic Church, who passed away over the weekend. 2. Appointments 0 n • Marilyn Sauer - Animal Control Commission - Mayor Valles • Bud Coffey - Animal Control Commission, Alternate Member - Mayor Valles • Scott Beard - Board of Police Commissioners - Council Member/ Commissioner McCammack Council Member/Commissioner Johnson made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner McCammack, that the appointments of Marilyn Sauer and Bud Coffey (Alternate) to the Animal Control Commission and Scott Beard to the Board of Police Commissioners, as requested by Mayor Valles and Council Member McCammack, be approved. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/ Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None. Proclamations & Presentations Mayor Pro Tem/Acting Chairman McGinnis presented a proclamation designating April 2005 as Donate Life Month in the City of San Bernardino to Wallace Green, Assistant to the Mayor, who is an organ donor recipient. A proclamation designating April 2005 as Child Abuse Prevention Month in the City of San Bernardino was presented to staff from The Children's Network by Mayor Pro Tem/Acting Chairman McGinnis. Mayor Pro Tem/Acting Chairman McGinnis presented a proclamation designating the week of April 10-16, 2005 as National Library Week in the City of San Bernardino to Library Director, Ophelia Roop. Announcements Announcements were made by the Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Common Council, elected officials, and a representative of the Chamber of Commerce regarding various civic and community events and activities. 7 04/04/2005 5. Waive Full Reading of Resolutions & Ordinances Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner Estrada, that full reading of the resolutions and ordinances on the regular agenda of the Mayor and Common Council, Community Development Commission, and San Bernardino City Housing Authority, be waived. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/ Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None. 6. Council Minutes Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner Estrada, that the minutes of the following meetings of the Mayor and Common Council/Community Development Commission of the City of San Bernardino be approved as submitted in typewritten form: March 7, 2005 (Special Meeting) and March 7, 2005 (Joint Regular Meeting). The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/ Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None. 7. Personnel Actions Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner Estrada, that the personnel actions as submitted by the Chief Examiner dated March 29, 2005, in accordance with Civil Service rules and Personnel policies adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino, be approved and ratified. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/ Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None. 8. ORD. MC-1193 - An Ordinance of the City of San Bernardino amending Section 8.24.010 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code, Definitions regarding dumping, and Section 8.24.080 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code, regarding dumping garbage, rubbish, recyclable discards, or greenwaste on another's property. FINAL READING (Continued from March 21, 2005) 8 04/04/2005 Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner Estrada, that said ordinance be adopted. Ordinance No. MC-1193 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None. 9. ORD. MC-1194 - An Ordinance of the City of San Bernardino amending Section 8.15.020 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code, Definitions regarding litter, and Section 8.15.170 (B) of the San Bernardino Municipal Code regarding enforcement. FINAL READING (Continued from March 21, 2005) Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner Estrada, that said ordinance be adopted. Ordinance No. MC-1194 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None. 10. RES. 2005-71 - Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino authorizing the execution of a Professional Services Agreement between Mundell, Odium & Haws and the City of San Bernardino in the case of Tom Gronewald, Jean Gronewald v. City of San Bernardino, et al. Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner Estrada, that said resolution be adopted. Resolution No. 2005-71 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None. 11. Review and take action regarding the need for continuing in effect the local emergency caused by the Old Waterman Canyon Fire pursuant to Government Code Section 8630 (c)(1) Note: No backup materials were distributed. Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner Estrada, that the Mayor and Common Council confirm the need for continuing in effect the local emergency caused by the Old Waterman Canyon Fire. 9 04/04/2005 The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/ Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None. 12. RES. 2005-72 - Resolution of the City of San Bernardino amending Resolution No. 8234 entitled, in part, "A Resolution... establishing parking time limitations upon certain designated streets or alleys, or portions thereof..." and authorizing the changing of the time limitation from one hour to thirty minutes on the east side of "E" Street between Court Street and Fourth Street. Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner Estrada, that said resolution be adopted. Resolution No. 2005-72 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None. 13. Authorization to proceed and approval of Plan No. 11409 - proposed vacation of portions of 191h Street & various alleys south of 20'h Street, east of Guthrie Street Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner Estrada, that the Director of Development Services and the City Clerk be authorized to proceed with the proposed vacation of portions of 19' Street and various alleys south of 20' Street, east of Guthrie Street; and that Plan No. 11409 showing the proposed vacation of portions of 19' Street and various alleys south of 20' Street, east of Guthrie Street, be approved. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/ Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None. 14. Authorization to proceed - sale of Water Department property located on the northeast corner of Pine and Belmont Avenues & southeast corner of Ohio and Pine Avenues Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner Estrada, that the Director of Development Services be authorized to proceed with the sale of City property located at the northeast corner of Pine and Belmont Avenues and southeast corner of Ohio and Pine Avenues, also known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 0261-101-16 & 17. 10 04/04/2005 The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/ Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None. 15. Authorization to proceed - sale of Water Department property located on the southeast corner of MacKay Drive & "D" Street Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner Estrada, that the Director of Development Services be authorized to proceed with the sale of City property located at the southeast corner of MacKay Drive and "D" Street, also known as Assessor's Parcel Number 0141-311-21. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/ Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None. 16. RES. 2005-76 - Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino authorizing the extension of the agreement between the City of San Bernardino and Conrad and Associates, L.L.P. for a one-year period, FY 04-05 and FY 05-06, for the provision of Financial Auditing Services. (See related Agenda Item No. R27) Council Member/Commissioner Kelley asked City Attorney Penman why he had not signed off on the resolution. Mr. Penman advised that the City has had a policy for some time of trying, whenever possible, to hire local firms to do work for the City; and there are a number of CPA firms in the city that are qualified to do audits. He added that not only would the extension of the contract be contrary to stated policy, but there is an inherent danger to leaving auditing responsibilities to one firm for too many years. Council Member/Commissioner Estrada questioned whether it would be illegal to approve this extension, or merely a deviation from policy; and the role of the City Attorney's office in making this determination. City Attorney Penman advised that one of the most common things encountered by his office when the City is being sued is that the City did not adhere to its own rules —that it did not follow its own policies. He conceded that the Council could make a decision to deviate from its own policy, if it has reasons to do so; but he had not signed off on the resolution in order to alert the Council to these issues. 11 04/04/2005 Discussion ensued regarding the length of the previous auditing contract with Rogers, Anderson, Malody & Scott (seven years); the savings realized from jointly contracting for auditing services for the City, the Economic Development Agency, and the Water Department; the importance of continuity relative to the State's budget crisis and those items the City is involved with such as triple -flip, VLF Loan to State, and Pension issues; and the amount of time necessary to issue a new RFP. Council Members/Commissioners McCammack and Longville expressed concerns regarding the fact that Conrad and Associates is not a local agency, the length of the contract, and the danger of leaving an audit responsibility to one firm for too many years. Ms. Longville stated she would not be adverse to approving a short extension of time, during which the City would go out to bid. Council Member/Commissioner Derry noted that this request was for a two-year extension, which would bring the contract to seven years. He also pointed out that on the practical side, there was not really enough time to issue a new RFP and have the selected firm in place by June 30. Council Member/Commissioner Derry made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner Longville, that said resolution be adopted, amended to reflect a one-year extension followed by issuance of a Request for Proposal (RFP). The motion carried and Resolution No. 2005-76 was adopted, as amended, by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None. 17. RES. 2005-73 - Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino authorizing the Purchasing Manager or designee to increase Allstar Fire Equipment Inc. annual purchase order for protective clothing and equipment for structural firefighting. Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner Estrada, that said resolution be adopted. Resolution No. 2005-73 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None. 18. RES. 2005-74 - Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino amending the Fire Apparatus Replacement Program Schedule. 12 04/04/2005 Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner Estrada, that said resolution be adopted. Resolution No. 2005-74 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None. 19. RES. 2005-75 - Resolution of the City of San Bernardino implementing a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of San Bernardino and employees in the General Bargaining Unit of the City of San Bernardino represented by San Bernardino Public Employees Association (SBPEA). Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner Estrada, that said resolution be adopted; and that the Director of Finance be authorized to transfer $268,600 from the FY 2004/2005 General Government Budget to departments that are funded with General Funds and which have General Unit employees. Also, all non -General Fund budgets are to be amended, as necessary, as outlined in the staff report dated March 25, 2005, from Linn Livingston, Director of Human Resources. The motion carried and Resolution No. 2005-75 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None. 20. RES. 2005-77 - Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino authorizing the submittal of eight project applications for FY 2005/2006 Hazard Elimination Safety (RES) Program funding. Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner Estrada, that said resolution be adopted. Resolution No. 2005-77 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None. 21. RES. 2005-78 - Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino authorizing the submittal of a grant application to the Department of Homeland Security in the amount of $150,687. Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner Estrada, that said resolution be adopted. Resolution No. 2005-78 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None. 13 04/04/2005 22. RES. 2005-79 - Resolution of the City of San Bernardino authorizing the issuance of one or more series of Pension Obligation Bonds, approving the form of and authorizing the execution and delivery of a Trust Agreement, and authorizing a validation action and other matters relating thereto. Council Member/Commissioner Derry made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner McCammack, that said resolution be adopted. Resolution No. 2005-79 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None. 23. Receive and file - FY 2004/2005 Mid -Year Budget Report Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner Estrada, that the FY 2004/2005 Mid -Year Budget Report be received and filed. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/ Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None. 24. Create three Development Services Technician positions - Development Services Department Council Member/Commissioner Johnson made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner Estrada, that the Mayor and Common Council approve the creation of three Development Services Technician positions, Range 1386, ($3,044 to $3,700 per month); and that the Human Resources Department be authorized to update Resolution Nos. 6413 and 97-244 to reflect this action. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/ Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None. 25. Public hearing - resolution ordering work - Orange Show Road and Arrowhead Avenue - Landscape Maintenance Assessment District No. 1038 (Parcel No. 16222) (Continued from March 21, 2005) Resolution of the City of San Bernardino finding and determining the existence of less than a majority protest, that ballots representing at least fifty percent (50%) affirmative votes for the proposed assessment have been received and that the public convenience and necessity require the maintenance of landscaping in the area of Orange Show Road and 14 04/04/2005 Arrowhead Avenue, approving the Final Engineer's Report, creating an assessment district to cover the costs of said maintenance, known as Assessment District No. 1038 ordering the work, confirming the 2005-2006 Assessment Roll, and determining that the Special Assessment Investigation, Limitation and Majority Protest Act of 1931 shall not apply. The hearing remained open. Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner Estrada, that the matter be continued to the Council/Commission/Housing Authority meeting of April 18, 2005. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/ Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None. 26. Resolutions approving a Lease and Services Agreement with Nestor Traffic Systems, Inc. and approving an Addendum to the Maintenance Agreement for Traffic Signal Red Light Enforcement Equipment with Caltrans. * RES. 2005-81 - Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino approving a Lease and Services Agreement with Nestor Traffic Systems, Inc., for a Traffic Signal Violation Video Enforcement System. (26A) * RES. 2005-82 - Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino approving an Addendum to Maintenance Agreement for Traffic Signal Red Light Enforcement Equipment in State Routes in the City of San Bernardino with Caltrans. (26B) * (Note: Following this meeting, it was determined that Resolution Nos. 2005- 81 and 2005-82 should have been adopted in conjunction with a public hearing; therefore, signatures were not obtained and the resolutions were declared null and void.) Police Lieutenant Boom reviewed highlights of the staff report including the number of citations and accidents related to red light violations; how the intersections were chosen where the system will be installed; the proposed public outreach program to inform the community; and the reasons for selecting Nestor Traffic Systems, Inc. 15 04/04/2005 Council Member/Commissioner Johnson stated that he had recently read an article regarding the adverse effects of this type of camera at the intersections because citizens know the cameras are there, stop suddenly, and an accident is caused because they are rear -ended. He asked the Nestor representative to elaborate on this. Julie Dixon, Nestor Traffic Systems, Inc. stated that the overall reduction of accidents is basically 50 percent or greater. Regarding the cause of rear -end collisions, the Insurance Institute has recently done a study, which she believed was done in Virginia, which showed a minimal increase in rear -end collisions. However, with all of their California customers there have been no reports of any increase in rear -end collisions; and they have customers through the San Bernardino, Los Angeles, and Orange County areas. She stated that the one thing she could say is that the cost on rear -end collisions versus 90 degree angle accidents is significantly less. Council Member/Commissioner Derry made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner McCammack, that said resolutions A & B, be adopted. Resolution Nos. 2005-81 and 2005-82 were adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Staff Present: Mayor Pro Tem/Acting Chairman McGinnis; Council Members/ Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack; City Attorney Penman, Economic Development Agency Executive Director Van Osdel, City Clerk Clark. R27. RES. CDC/2005-13 - Resolution of the Community Development Commission of the City of San Bernardino, California, approving Amendment No. 1 to the agreement with Conrad and Associates, L.L.P., and authorizing execution thereof, providing for a one-year extension to perform financial audit services for the Economic Development Agency. (See related Agenda Item No. 16) Council Member/Commissioner Longville made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner Kelley, that said resolution be adopted, amended to reflect a one-year extension followed by issuance of a Request for Proposal (RFP). 16 04/04/2005 The motion carried and Resolution No. CDC/2005-13 was adopted, as amended, by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None. R28. Hearing - resolution of public interest and necessity for acquisition of real property - 514 N. Mt. Vernon Avenue RES. CDC/2005-11 - Resolution of the Community Development Commission of the City of San Bernardino declaring the public interest and necessity of acquisition of real property by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino for Community Redevelopment purposes over the property known as 514 North Mt. Vernon Avenue, San Bernardino, California (AP# 0138-115-06) in the Mt. Vernon Corridor Redevelopment Project Area. Mayor Pro Tem/Acting Chairman McGinnis opened the hearing. Mike Trout, Project Manager, Economic Development Agency, provided background information to the Council. He informed the Council that on three separate occasions, January 16, 2004, February 9, 2004, and February 11, 2005, the Agency had sent purchase offers to the property owner of 514 North Mt. Vernon Avenue, Mr. Dan Virgilio. However, to date there had been no response from the property owner; and the Agency and the property owner have not been able to negotiate an agreeable purchase price. Consequently, in conformance with Code of Civil Procedure Section 1245.235, on March 11, 2005, a notice of the April 4, 2005, hearing on adopting a Resolution of Public Interest and Necessity was sent by certified mail to the property owner. Mr. Trout explained that the hearing by the Commission and the adoption of the Resolution of Public Interest and Necessity are legal preconditions to the exercise of the Commission's power of eminent domain. Moreover, the Code of Civil Procedure Section 1245.230 requires that the Commission make the following findings and that each be included in the Resolution of Necessity: 1. The public interest and necessity requires the acquisition of the parcel. 2. The project is planned or located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury. 3. The subject parcel is necessary for the project. 4. The Government Code Section 7267.2(a) offers have been made to the record property owner. Pursuant to Resolution No. 2000-279, City Clerk Clark administered an oath to the following individual that he would provide true and honest testimony: 17 04/04/2005 A.J. Hazarabedian, attorney speaking on behalf of Dan Virgilio, owner of the property located at 514 North Mt. Vernon Avenue, stated that Mr. Virgilio has owned the property since 1990 and operated his business there. He stated that it is a very important location for his business, and it is going to be devastating to him and his business to lose this property. He stated that he believes it is going to be an expensive property for the Agency to acquire, and that should be factored into the analysis as to whether to go forward with this acquisition. Mr. Hazarabedian stated that his principal concern and reason for being at the meeting is that he and his client do not believe that the proper procedures have been followed prior to this hearing; specifically with reference to the offers made to Mr. Virgilio in the negotiations thus far. He advised that his client had not been provided with an appropriate summary of the basis of appraisal; in fact, at this point, they do not even know what the amount of the appraisal is, much less understand the basis for the appraisal. He advised that the law, Government Code Section 7267 et seq., provides that an adequate summary of the basis of appraisal should be provided to the property owner so that he can understand what that appraisal is based on. Mr. Hazarabedian stated that contrary to the statement that there has been no affirmative response from his client, they did make a counter offer a year ago. In response to that counter offer, they received a statement which in essence said, We assume that is not based on an appraisal —you should go out and get an appraisal and then come back and talk to us. He informed the Commission that it is not Mr. Virgilio's responsibility to get an appraisal; it is the Agency's responsibility to provide him the appraised value of the property and a summary of the appraisal so he can understand what it is he is negotiating. Mr. Hazarabedian stated that apparently there was a second appraisal done recently, and they do not know the amount of that appraisal because the Agency's counsel tried to do an all -in deal, basically saying, We'll give you 'Y' number of dollars, but that includes relocation benefits, loss of business, goodwill, the real estate and any other claim you might have arising out of this. No reference was made as to the amount of the appraisal; however, he suspects the amount being offered may be the amount of the appraisal, which makes the offer inappropriate because it includes all of these other items. Additionally, Mr. Hazarabedian did not believe the proper procedures had been followed because Mr. Virgilio was not given an opportunity to accompany the appraiser. He did receive a notice that the property was to be appraised about a year ago, actually in October of 2003. He contacted the appraiser's office and 18 04/04/2005 they said they would get back to him with the date, which they never did. Apparently they just went out there on their own and did not allow him to accompany the appraiser. Then, again, a second appraisal was done, and there was no prior notice of this, at all —not even a notice that the appraisal was to be done. According to Mr. Hazarabedian this is a violation of Government Code Section 7267 et seq. Finally, Mr. Hazarabedian advised that there is a case before the U.S. Supreme Court right now where the court is deciding whether takings like this for private use are appropriate —where a property is going to be turned over to a private developer. The decision is due on that in June, and he thinks it is entirely possible that the court may say that this is not an appropriate purpose for eminent domain —and this is something that the Agency should consider. Mr. Hazarabedian stated that Mr. Trout had indicated that this was necessary because the Agency has an agreement to develop this property. He would submit that under the Norm Slauson case, if the Agency in fact has an agreement to develop this property in advance of this hearing, then that would make for an additional reason the taking would be inappropriate. Council Member/Commissioner Estrada inquired whether this was the time and place for the City's Redevelopment attorney to respond to the issues brought forth by Mr. Hazarabedian. Special Counsel Sabo stated he was not going to debate every one of the issues point by point. He stated that Mr. Lee Amidon of his office had been working on this matter, and he knew these issues had been raised and he knew there had been discussion on them. He advised that they would not have brought this matter forward if they did not think that the procedures had been followed. If they had felt there was any deficiency, they would not be bringing it to the Commission today. Rather than debate all the issues here, he felt that once the action is filed it would all be resolved in the court proceedings. Mr. Sabo stated that the only thing he would like to comment on would be the last comment with regard to the agreement that is in place right now for the development proposed for 5' and Mt. Vernon. According to Mr. Sabo, to be able to show that the Agency does have a public purpose to proceed with the acquisition, they need to have a project that has gone through the CEQA review process, which they certainly have. There is nothing in that agreement that unconditionally commits the Commission, nor is there any type of financial detriment if the Commission does not proceed with this condemnation. He stated that it was the Commission's decision —that the Commission was free to act upon the evidence as presented in the staff report and the staff presentation — that the way the agreement was drafted it was known to the developer that the 19 04/04/2005 Agency may not be able to acquire the property, but at least they have a project they can show is the reason for doing this land assembly in this area. Council Member/Commissioner McCammack asked whether the offer that was made included the total face value plus relocation costs or just the appraised value. Mr. Trout read from the last letter sent to the property owner: "The purpose of this letter is to advise you that my client, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino, obtained an updated appraisal of the property and therefore offers the sum of $155,000 to purchase the entire property including the title and all interests and subject to all previously stated terms and conditions in lieu of condemnation." Doug Calkins, Senior Assistant City Attorney, advised that the law requires the award of relocation benefits to the property owner. He stated it is typically not included in the offer of just compensation; that typically there is a relocation specialist that contacts the property owner. No public comments were received. Council Member/Commissioner Kelley made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner Estrada, that the hearing be closed; and that said resolution be adopted. The motion carried and Resolution No. CDC/2005-11 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson. Nays: Council Member/Commissioner McCammack. Absent: None. R29. Hearing - resolution of public interest and necessity for acquisition of real property - northwest corner of Rialto Avenue and Allen Street Resolution of the San Bernardino City Housing Authority declaring the public interest and necessity of acquisition of real property by the San Bernardino City Housing Authority over the property located at the northwest corner of Rialto Avenue and Allen Street, San Bernardino, California (APN# 0135-292-39) in the Inland Valley Redevelopment Project Area. Note: No backup materials were distributed. Mayor Pro Tem/Acting Chairman McGinnis opened the hearing. 20 04/04/2005 City Attorney Penman advised that the hearing needed to be continued to the first meeting in May. Council Member/Commissioner Johnson stated that he would abstain on this item because the property in question is owned by his aunt, who is also his boss. Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner Derry, that the hearing remain open and the matter be continued to the Council/Commission/Housing Authority meeting of May 2, 2005. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/ Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, McCammack. Nays: None. Abstentions: Council Member/Commissioner Johnson. Absent: None. R30. Joint public hearing - Disposition and Development of property at 155 E. 2"d Street to Meadowbrook Park Homes, Inc. pursuant to approved 2005 Meadowbrook Single Family Residential Disposition and Development Agreement RES. SBHA/2005-1 - Resolution of the San Bernardino City Housing Authority approving the transfer of the property (155 E. 2"d Street) to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino pursuant to the approved May 17, 2004 Redevelopment Cooperation Agreement for the Meadowbrook Neighborhood Single Family Residential Development (IVDA Redevelopment Project Area). (R30A) RES. CDC/2005-12 - Resolution of the Community Development Commission of the City of San Bernardino (1) accepting the property (155 E. 2nd Street) from the San Bernardino City Housing Authority, (2) approving the Disposition and Development of the property (155 E. 2"d Street) to Meadowbrook Park Homes, Inc., and (3) increase the down payment assistance to the qualified homebuyer pursuant to the approved 2005 Meadowbrook Single Family Residential Disposition and Development Agreement (IVDA Redevelopment Project Area). (R30B) RES. 2005-80 - Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino approving the Disposition and Development of the property (155 E. 2"d Street) to Meadowbrook Park Homes, Inc., pursuant to the approved 2005 Meadowbrook Single Family Residential Disposition and Development Agreement (IVDA Redevelopment Project Area). (R30C) Mayor Pro Tem/Acting Chairman McGinnis opened the hearing. 21 04/04/2005 Musibau Arogundade, Project Manager, provided an overview of the staff report and background information on this matter. He advised that the Agency is requesting that the down payment assistance program be increased from 20 percent to 30 percent to assist homebuyers in buying homes. No public comments were received. Council Member/Commissioner Longville stated that the Meadowbrook project had certainly proven that an area near downtown can be redeveloped and can sell in the market. However, she believes that as the Agency nears the close of its relationship to sell properties to the developer to sell as affordable housing, it needs to start looking at this area in terms of whether the remaining properties wouldn't be redeveloped at market rate homes. She stated that there is a point in time where you plant the seed, and your seed makes the ground fertile enough that you can move some of your efforts elsewhere; and when it reaches the point where housing funds in the amount of $82,000 per home are being spent, then it is time to start looking at planting seeds elsewhere, because she thinks the market itself will develop this area. Council Member/Commissioner Longville made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner McCammack, that the hearing be closed; and that said Resolutions A-C, be adopted. The motion carried and San Bernardino City Housing Authority Resolution No. SBHA/2005-1, Community Development Commission Resolution No. CDC/2005-12, and Mayor and Common Council Resolution No. 2005-80 were adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None. 31. Appeal of Planning Commission denial of Tentative Tract Map No. 16533 & Conditional Use Permit No. 03-28 to subdivide 37.2 acres into 48 lots, plus three remainder parcels - northwest corner of Magnolia Avenue and Perrin Drive in the RL, Residential Low, land use district and the Hillside Management Overlay District Mayor Pro Tem/Acting Chairman McGinnis opened the hearing. Valerie Ross, Deputy Director/City Planner, stated that the Planning Commission considered these applications at their meeting of February 8, 2005. After receiving public input, the Planning Commission expressed concerns with the proposal and continued the matter to February 23, 2005, and directed staff to prepare Findings of Fact to support denial. 22 04/04/2005 Ms. Ross advised that the concerns raised by members of the public could be condensed to a couple of items —one being that the area should be developed with one -acre lots. Ms. Ross pointed out that the area that is sort of easterly of Little League Drive is generally designated RL, Residential Low, and that requires a minimum lot size of 10,800 square feet. In fact, that zoning designation has been in place since the late 1980s, so it was included in the Verdemont Area Plan in the late 1980s and incorporated into the General Plan when it was updated in 1989, which is when the Hillside Management Overlay District was imposed. She stated that the area that is sort of westerly of Little League Drive is generally designated for the one -acre lot size. Then, as you go northerly of Verdemont Drive, where this project is located, much of that is also designated Residential Low, and then the Hillside Management Overlay District comes down and covers a lot of it. Ms. Ross stated that a concern was raised related to additional traffic in the area; however, the City's Traffic Engineering staff determined that the project did not meet the threshold for requiring a City Traffic Analysis. She noted that when the houses are built, the applicant will be required to pay impact fees similar to any other project. Ms. Ross advised that members of the Planning Commission raised concerns related to consistency with the City's Hillside Management Overlay District, but staff believes that the project is consistent with the Hillside Management Overlay District and determined that all the Findings of Fact could be made to support approval. Another concern was the pad size and whether it would leave a usable backyard area once the housing was completed. She asked the Council to keep in mind that these are 10,800 square foot lots, so even if part of the lot is in a slope, that still leaves a considerable pad area; and then the usable backyard space is going to depend on whether we are looking at one story or two story homes. She noted that homes had not been proposed at this time; it is simply the subdivision. She added that ultimately it would be the potential buyer's determination if the size of the lot, the layout of the project, and the type of housing meets each individual families needs. Ms. Ross advised that questions were also raised concerning infrastructure; specifically, the access and drainage. She advised that this project has been designed to connect to the streets and to the storm drain systems in the area. The streets and storm drains are south of Verdemont Drive. If, for example, this project were to develop before some of the other ones that have been approved in the area, the developer of this project would be required to finish the improvements to Magnolia Avenue, and then what is shown as the extension 23 04/04/2005 of Street A, which is a little bit more to the northwest of that, and also build out the storm drain systems along those streets to accommodate drainage from this project. She pointed out that this project is designed to connect to the Verdemont Trails System, with the trail extending along the northerly portion of the tract between the rear yard areas and the Fuel Modification Area —an area with a specific type of landscaping that is to minimize impact from urban wildfires. She explained that at the end of Street A is the cul-de-sac, and from that cul-de-sac there is vehicular access to the rear along the trail, as well as pedestrian access. The vehicular access is only for maintenance vehicles and emergency vehicles, not for anyone to go through there. According to Ms. Ross, after the Planning Commission meeting of February 8 was continued, staff came back on February 23 with the amended Findings of Fact; and at that meeting the Planning Commission denied the project and adopted those findings. Pursuant to Resolution No. 2000-279, City Clerk Clark administered an oath to the following individuals that they would provide true and honest testimony: Roger Hobbs, Century American Development Corporation, owner of this tract and an adjacent tract, stated that his company had picked this location because it is a great area. He stated that their product will be between 2,500-3,500 square feet, and each home will have a three -car garage. Mr. Hobbs stated that what they will be doing is not carving up the hillside —it is working with the slope — that they are going to preserve the hill and dedicate it to a conservancy so it will be there in perpetuity. In fact, they will really be part of a solution that deals with drainage, which has been a big issue. He stated that this project will actually solve drainage because they will actually install a new storm drain and connect to a master storm drain. Stacia Counelis, Project Coordinator, Century American Development Corporation, made a PowerPoint presentation and submitted hard copies of all materials entitled, Tentative Tract Map # 16533, Subdivision No. 03-21, CUP No. 03-28. Ms. Counelis advised that the project consists of 48 lots, with a minimum lot size of 10,800 square feet. In addition to the 48 lots, there is a 20-acre parcel that will be dedicated for permanent conservation to a conservation district and an endowment will be created that will allow for permanent maintenance and conservancy. 24 04/04/2005 Ms. Counelis reviewed each page of the handout with the Council/Commission, noting that on February 8, 2005, the project was heard by the Planning Commission. At that time, although City staff had recommended approval of the project, the Planning Commission continued the matter and asked staff to prepare amended Findings of Fact to support denial of the project. She advised that from what Century American observed, the Planning Commission felt that the developer did not maintain the natural integrity and satisfy the Hillside Management Overlay District. She added that this was perplexing because they had been working with City staff very diligently to work within the confines of the Development Code and the City's zoning and density requirements. Subsequently, at the Planning Commission meeting of February 23, 2005, staff presented their revised Findings of Fact to support denial and the Planning Commission denied approval of the tentative tract map. At this time Ms. Counelis reviewed the original Findings of Fact prepared by City staff versus the revised Findings of Fact. She also provided visual exhibits to show the Council/Commission technically and visually that statements made in the new Findings of Fact were not necessarily true to fact. Ms. Counelis reiterated that 20 acres will be dedicated to a conservation district that they will endow for permanent conservation. Also, they will incorporate into the Verdemont Trail System —that this is the missing link to connect from Little League down to Chestnut Drive. She advised that Century American is very sensitive to the fire and water issues in the Verdemont area; therefore, they have incorporated a complete fire and water system. Also, there is the Fuel Modification Zone, which is about 100- 160 feet wide, where appropriate vegetation will be planted. In addition, they have provided emergency access roads for fire personnel, that in the event a fire occurs they will be able to combat the fire and not have the issues seen in previous years. Ms. Counelis stated that one of the main benefits of this project is that they are implementing an underground water pump station, which will be dedicated to the Water Department, to be used in emergency instances for fire. Council Member/Commissioner Kelley stated he was keenly aware of the sensitivity that is in the Verdemont area regarding this type of project, and he had to say that this is a key piece to the Master Trail System, which he thinks is something vital to the quality of life for the residents. He stated that he had attended the Planning Commission meetings regarding this project and had a couple of questions for staff. 25 04/04/2005 Mr. Kelley stated that one of the Planning Commissioners talked about the Hillside Management Overlay District and that it was to preserve the hillside and protect what was there. He asked Ms. Ross if Development Services staff believed that this project was consistent with the Hillside Management Overlay District. Ms. Ross advised that the General Plan objective for the Hillside Management Overlay District does generally state that its purpose is to protect the hillside's natural and topographic characteristics. However, the purpose of the Hillside Management Overlay District is not to prevent development in the hillside areas. With that objective in the General Plan, the City does have a couple of policies, and one sets out the number of units that are allowed by the slope category. Specifically, she pointed out policy 1.14.11 of the City's General Plan, which allows areas that are less than 15 percent natural slope to be excluded from the HMOD and development in those areas reverts to the underlying designation or zoning, which in this case is the Residential Low, with the minimum lot size of 10,800 square feet. She pointed out that the slope map prepared by the developer does a number of things —it defines where that 15 percent line is and also defines the areas in the more than 15 percent, the bi-slope, how much acreage is there, and then the corresponding number of units that they might get. She advised that in this particular case, the map staff saw initially was different than what we have today. At that time they were looking at some density transfers from the deeper areas, down to the area that is relatively flat, but it just did not work. Therefore, the map before the Council tonight —the same map that was before the Planning Commission —is consistent with the General Plan and all of the Development Code requirements. Council Member/Commissioner Kelley asked who was going to be responsible for maintaining the Fuel Modification Zone and the trails. Ms. Ross answered that the Trails System would be installed by the developer, as they are developing the project. She stated that both the Trails System and the Fuel Modification Area would be included in the landscape maintenance district for the project; therefore, buyers of houses in this tract would be responsible through their taxes for paying for the ongoing maintenance of both the Trails Systems and the Fuel Modification Zone. Mr. Kelley asked whether it is typical for this type of project, for the developer to be responsible for the infrastructure below as well. 26 04/04/2005 Ms. Ross stated that, yes, this was not at all unusual. In fact, if this project were to develop before the project which is immediately to the south, then this project would have to complete the improvements along Magnolia and Street A, which would be the street improvements and all of the drainage improvements — like the storm drain system —to make sure that this project doesn't create downstream impacts, and that is both literally and figuratively. In summation, Ms. Ross stated that staff's initial recommendation was for approval based on the Findings of Fact in their staff report, and their recommendation has not changed. She stated that staff still believes that this project is consistent with the General Plan in goals, objectives, policies, and all of the requirements and provisions in the Development Code. Council Member/Commissioner McCammack stated that she is usually concerned when a Planning Commission denies a tract map as they did in this case —especially unanimously. She advised that she had called her Planning Commissioner and they had discussed not only the conversation that took place at the Planning Commission meeting, but she also asked him to look at the documents that had been presented to the Council this evening. It was her belief, based on their conversation, that if the Planning Commission had had this presentation at their meeting, that some of the assumptions that were made would not, or could not have been made. Her Commissioner told her, as late as today, that he was in great admiration of the steps that the developer had taken to make this project do the right thing to the hillside, and that was their biggest concern. Once he saw the slope, and he asked how many lots the slope actually affected up to a 12 percent grade, he was very comfortable with it. Council Member/Commissioner Estrada noted that one of the issues mentioned was that the project would build a one- to six-foot retaining wall in the hillside along the east and west properties. She asked why it was a one -foot to six-foot wall. Ms. Counelis stated that basically the wall is based on the elevation of the pads, and as the pads terrace up the slope the retaining wall needs to be adjusted accordingly. In order to prevent any translot drainage from adjacent land, they need to contain that water and be able to have it flow towards the street in order to capture it through the storm drain system. Council Member/Commissioner Derry expressed concern that the project was rejected even though it followed the General Plan, it followed the Development Code, and it even followed the Overlay. He said he did not see how anybody could make a decision shooting down a very qualified project that follows all the guidelines the City sets out for it, and not expect litigation sometime in the 27 04/04/2005 future; and he found it very disturbing that they did not take these concerns into account. Mr. Derry noted that this is a first class project, and the developer is doing far more than he is actually required to do on the General Plan and the Development Code and the Overlay. He pointed out that they are going to be adding half a million dollar homes to our community and providing opportunities for our residents to move up in the housing market as their property values increase, and he would like to see these residents stay in San Bernardino. Secondly, they are going to attract new residents from other areas, particularly since they are close to the University, which may draw college professors and other professional people that we would like to see live in the city. It provides an opportunity to find housing that they are looking for at a very reasonable price for the quality of housing we are talking about here. He noted that if you look to Rancho Cucamonga for a similar property, you would be looking in the $750,000 to $1,000,000 range, depending on the location. Mr. Derry stated that he definitely supported the project. Council Member/Commissioner Estrada asked how close the project was to fault lines. Ms. Counelis advised that they had an extensive geo-technical report conducted by one of the accredited geo-technical firms of Riverside and San Bernardino County, and the fault line is located on the very northern portion of the conservation area. Using the map to show where the tract is going to be built and the location of the conservation land, she noted that the fault line is up in the very northern/eastern portion and pointed out the fault line's path. She pointed out that since the amount of distance from the buildable lots to the fault zone fell within the standard requirements, it was not necessary to accommodate that in any way. Council Member/Commissioner Longville stated that there were two Planning Commission meetings where she did not have a Commissioner. She stated that she wished she had heard their concerns because maybe then she would understand better why they made the decision they did, because she did not agree with the decision that had been made. However, recognizing that this is a relatively small development, she hoped her next comments would be taken in context of what she believes this community faces in terms of the long-term challenge of building on the alluvial fan floodplains in an area that will burn again. 28 04/04/2005 She stated that her concern is always relative to the entire north end, and she is at peace with the fact that it will develop —that the City made those decisions long before she got here, the infrastructure is there in terms of the freeway, and this area will develop. She stated that the questions that the Council and staff really have to ask themselves when they are approving projects is, "Are they sustainable in the long run?" She stated that she thought Century had incorporated some good environmental principles, and they did everything that staff had asked them to do in the confines of what is standard building practices. She acknowledged that the developer had addressed the problem of storm water runoff, and she thought they were forward thinking in the way they have terraced the project, but in the long run she thinks that developers could go a lot further in creating lower impact developments, and those are the kinds of things she is going to be looking for in the Verdemont area over time. She acknowledged, however, that starting with a 37-acre project for 48 lots is not the place to do it. Ms. Longville stated that she had given to her new Planning Commissioner and to members of the Council the Awanee Water Principles for Resource Efficient Land Use —the principles that she is working on with the local government commission and the State Water Resources Control Board so that communities all over California will do resource efficient land use. She stated that communities are going to have to be looking at how they deal with storm water infiltration and detention basins. She stated that she hoped FEMA would fund the Alluvial Fan Task Force and that the development community will come together with communities like ours, that are developing on the Alluvial Fan Floodplain, and we can look at the best land use decisions we can make without trying to stop the development. She pointed out that this project is in Flood Zone D—that the developers report says that it is an area that is defined with undetermined but possible flood hazards. She stated that there will be alluvial flows some day coming through this thing in some way or another —maybe it flows down the street —but she thought there were a whole lot of other ways we can build better on the fans. However, there was nothing regarding this project that alarms her so greatly, that she can't support it; but she does want to see even more out of the Verdemont area in the long term. Ms. Counelis thanked Ms. Longville for her comments, stating that they share those same views; and if it offers any reassurance, the compaction that will be done in the area will provide for the alluvial fan. She added that in doing their civic duty the Council is in a difficult position in trying to find that common 29 04/04/2005 balance between development and treating natural disaster. She stated that as the developer they are doing as much as they possibly can to incorporate the Fuel Modification System, the water drainage system, and anything else that is necessary to combat those natural disasters. No public comments were received regarding this item. Council Member/Commissioner Kelley made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner Johnson, that the hearing be closed; and that the Mayor and Common Council uphold the appeal and approve Tentative Tract Map No. 16533 and Conditional Use Permit No. 03-28 based upon the Findings of Fact contained in the original staff report dated February 8, 2005, subject to the Conditions of Approval and Standard Requirements. 32. Appeal of Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 04- 14 to construct a 4,207 square foot office/sales structure and a 16,837 square foot inventory lot, to be used in conjunction with Fairview Ford - north side of 2"d Street approximately 186 feet west of "G" Street in the CR-1, Commercial Regional, land use district Mayor Pro Tem/Acting Chairman McGinnis opened the hearing. Valerie Ross, Deputy Director/City Planner, advised that on February 8, 2005, the Planning Commission considered the request by Fairview Ford to expand its dealership by construction of this project on 2nd Street. She noted that the site is west of "G" Street, next to their fleet facility, which was approved by the City a few years ago. Ms. Ross stated that Kathleen and John Powell, who have a business in the adjoining building to the east, at 222 North "G" Street, expressed concerns to the Planning Commission that Fairview Ford was violating the reciprocal parking agreement that was put in place in 1997, which covers their property and the Fairview Ford site. She advised that the basic agreement was included in the Council's backup materials and only addresses 12 parking spaces that are located on the property that is now owned by Fairview Ford. Also, the agreement does not specify where those parking spaces will be located on the site. At its meeting of February 8, the Planning Commission approved the conditional use permit, but added the condition that Fairview Ford employees be restricted from using these 12 spaces that are the subject of this reciprocal parking agreement. 30 04/04/2005 The Powells filed an appeal and they are asking the Mayor and Council to further restrict Fairview Ford by not allowing them to use these 12 parking spaces that are on the east side of the lot for any reason and to designate them for the exclusive use of the building on "G" Street. Mr. DePasquale, President of Fairview Ford, has asked that the Mayor and Council remove the parking restriction that was imposed by the Planning Commission because, as specified or outlined in that reciprocal agreement the parking is for customers, patrons and employees —it is not restricted at all — basically, it is a first -come, first -serve situation. Ms. Ross informed the Council that staff believes the Powells' appeal is without merit, and staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council deny the appeal, uphold the Planning Commission's approval, and delete the parking condition that was added by the Planning Commission. Pursuant to Resolution No. 2000-279, City Clerk Clark administered an oath to the following individual that he would provide true and honest testimony: John Powell, 222 North "G" Street, San Bernardino, CA, stated that his office has been using the parking places in question since 1997 and requested that the parking spaces be maintained on the east side of Denny's as granted by the Planning Commission. He also requested that anyone connected with Fairview Ford be denied usage. He stated he already had a trial run with Fairview Ford regarding the spaces —that they had attempted to fence off all spaces around Denny's without any consideration of the parking agreement —that without his direct intervention they would have denied him all parking spaces and his office would have no place to park. He stated that Mr. DePasquale next threatened him with his lawyer; then his employees parked in the spaces, cussed at him on several occasions, and were about ready to punch him out. He stated that no person deserves this type of treatment, and in order to preserve peace in the area he urged the Council to please preserve the parking spaces as granted by the Planning Commission with the addition that anyone associated with Fairview Ford be denied parking on the east side. Mr. Powell pointed out that the approved motion made by John Come at the Planning Commission meeting included the parking spaces on 222 North "G" Street; and that point was never included in the amended conditions of approval and needed to be corrected. No public comments were received. 31 04/04/2005 Council Member/Commissioner Estrada stated that she would like to make a motion to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's approval of the conditional use permit, but with elimination of the amendments imposed by the Planning Commission. Council Member/Commissioner Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner McCammack, that the hearing be closed; and that the Mayor and Common Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 04-14 based upon the Findings of Fact contained in the Planning Commission staff report, subject to the Conditions of Approval and Standard Requirements as originally submitted to the Planning Commission by staff. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/ Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, McCammack. Nays: Council Member/Commissioner Johnson. Absent: None. 33. Authorize continued funding for employment of two part-time City Attorney Investigators for the remainder of FY 2004/05 for the purpose of enforcing the City of San Bernardino's Municipal Code relating to code enforcement matters Council Member/Commissioner Estrada inquired whether there was any benefit to hiring these employees contractually versus hiring them as regular City part- time employees. City Attorney Penman answered that the issue is liability and control, relative to using employees who are armed. Council Member/Commissioner Kelley made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner Derry, that the Mayor and Common Council authorize the City Attorney to continue the employment of two part-time City Attorney Investigators for the remainder of FY 2004/05 (through June 30, 2005) with no benefits, at $32 per hour, for the purpose of enforcing the City of San Bernardino's Municipal Code relating to code enforcement matters; and that the Director of Finance be authorized to effect a budget amendment transferring $43,000 in savings from Account No. 001-073-5XXX (Code Enforcement Professional Services—CDBG) to Account No. 001-051-5XXX (City Attorney's Office Part -Time Hiring). The motion carried by the following vote: Commissioners Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Nays: Council Member/Commissioner Estrada. Ayes: Council Members/ Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Absent: None. 32 04/04/2005 34. Public Comments Reverend Betty Long, 734 West 10" Street, San Bernardino, CA, spoke regarding traffic lights that change too fast, the disrepair of sidewalks throughout the City, and the fact that she is wiser than people think she is. Dr. Deanna Adams from Victory Chapel, 1156 North "F" Street, San Bernardino, CA, stated that the citizens' initiative she is working on will be handled by a reputable law firm. She stated she was opposed to the North Lake Project —that she had read and disagreed with information in the draft environmental report and could not understand how 72 upscale homes could compete with 437 historical homes. 35. Adjournment At 8:37 the meeting adjourned. The next joint regular meeting of the Mayor and Common Council/Community Development Commission is scheduled for 1:30 p.m., Monday, April 18, 2005, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. No. of Items: 35 No. of Hours: 5.5 RACHEL G. CLARK City Clerk By. 44 '0. d,,,,C,t.V Linda E. Hartzel �`� Deputy City Clerk 33 04/04/2005