Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-22-1988 Minutes . City of San Bernardino, California April 22, 1988 This is the time and place set for an Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at their Regular Meeting held at 9:06 a.m., Monday, April 18, 1988, in the Council Cham- bers of City Hall, 300 North "0" Street, San Bernardino, California. The City Clerk has caused to be posted the Notice of Adjournment of said meeting held at 9:06 a.m., Monday, April 18, 1988, and has on file in the Office of the.City Clerk an Affidavit of said posting together with a copy of said Order, which was posted at 4:30 p.m., Tuesday, April 19, 1988, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "0" Street, San Bernardino, California. The Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Mayor and Com- mon Council of the City of San Bernardino was called to order by Mayor Wilcox at 9:15 a.m., Friday, April 22, 1988, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "0" Street, San Bernardino, California. . INVOCATION The Invocation was Executive Assistant to the given Mayor. by Richard Bennecke, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Pro Tempore Reilly. ROLL CALL Roll Call was taken by Ci ty Clerk Clark wi th the following being present: Mayor Wilcox; Council Members Estrada, Reilly, Flores, Maudsley, Minor, Miller; Deputy City Attorney Grace, City Clerk Clark, Deputy City Ad- ministrator Robbins. Absent: Council Member Pope-Ludlam. PUBLIC COMMENTS PORTION Council Member Minor made a motion, seconded by Council Member, that the public comments portion of the agenda be continued to the end of the meeting. . GENERAL PLAN REVISION PROGRAM - PRESENTATION OF LAND USE ALTERNATIVES Ann Siracusa, Planning Director, explained the pur- pose of the meeting stating that the General Plan revi- sion process actually began in the Fall of 1986 when the Mayor asked the Planning staff to prepare a program for the update. This program was presented to and adopted 1 4/22/88 . by the Mayor and Common Council in February, 1987. Shortly thereafter a lawsuit was filed against the City contending that the General plan was inadequate. At that point, the City prepared an application to the State Office of Planning and Research for a general plan extension. Under the law, a general plan extension gives the city immunity from general plan lawsuits during preparation of the new plan. The application that was forwarded to the State incorporated the general plan update program which had already been adopted by the City Council, but the length of time for preparation of the plan was shortened from about two and one-half to three years, to eighteen months. On June 11, 1987, the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) granted the city's request for an exten- sion subject to a series of conditions which were tan- amount to a moratorium in part of the City. This set of conditions was incorporated into the stipulation agree- ment that resulted from the Sky-Saldecke lawsuit. There- fore, the OPR restrictions also became the court order as well. . The June 11 letter from OPR indicates that "The granting of an extension does not bind the applicant to utilize absolutely the exact work program process pro- posed in the application, although substantial variation may leave the appl icant open to exposure if the general plan revision is not completed within the extension per- iod." Therefore, the work program and schedule proposed to the State have been closely adhered to by staff, con- sultant and Citizen Advisory Committee. A Task Force compr i sed of the Mayor, three members of the Council, a representative from the Planning Com- mission, a representative from the Administrative Office, and a representative appointed by the Chamber of Com- merce, did two things last Spring to get the program off the ground. First, they interviewed approximately 90 citizen applicants and made a recommendation to the Coun- cil for a 25 person citizen advisory committee and 10 alternates. This committee was appointed by the Council in July. They also interviewed the consultants who res- ponded to the request for proposals put out by the ci ty and made a recommendation to the Council. . The Council retained the the general plan. The work phases: firm of Envicom to prepare program called for five 2 4/22/88 . Phase 1: Data Collection. This was accomplished by the consultant, with help from City staff, between the time the contract was signed in August 1987 and February, 1988, when the Technical Background Report was published. That report summarizes the current status of the city with respect to land use, housing, historical and arche- ological resource, economic development, redevelopment, urban design, circulation and traffic, utilities, public facilities and services, natural resources, and hazards. It is a status report at a particular point in time, not an analysis phase. Phase II: Identification of issues and goals which was accomplished by the Citizens Advisory Committee dur- ing the period from July 87 to January 88. Phase I I I: was the development of the preferred land use alternatives. This is the part of the program which is coming to an end with the approval of an interim policy document. In this phase the consultant and staff developed three alternative land use maps. At the end of this phase, the City is to select a preferred land use alter- native upon which the general plan will be based. . The June 11 OPR letter defines the preferred land use alternative as "The draft of the revised general plan to be completed by the end of Phase 3 of the work program submitted to OPR." Further the letter indicates that "This draft is to be used by the City as the policy basis for land use decisions made during the interim prior to adoption by the Mayor and Council of the revised general plan in Phase 5 of the submitted work program". Phase IV: Is the preparation of the general plan itself and the preparation of the environmental and ec- onomic analysis. Phase V: Is the adoption phase of the process in- volving public hearings first by the Citizens Advisory Committee, then the Planning Commission, and finally the Mayor and Common Council (targeted to begin late fall). Therefore, the result of this phase will be twofold: . 1. It will prov ide a preferred land use al ter- native, in the form of a map and related text and poli- cies, which will be used as a guide to the preparation of the actual general plan. It will set the direction the plan will go, although it is expected that the map itself will change during the process as the result of new in- 3 4/22/88 . formation, economic and environmental analysis, and other factors. 2. Also, the Council will approve an "Interim Policy Document" which will be forwarded to the State as the application for a second general plan extension. This "Interim Policy Document" will be comprised of several parts, including the preferred land use alternative and all qualifying documentation (such as the land use de- signations, densities, recommendations related to the map, etc) and a set of implementation policies which the city will be recommending to OPR as the manner in which land use decisions will be made between now and the adoption of the general plan. This is a critical point in the program in that the Council will set the direction for the plan and it will approve a recommended policy for making land use deci- sions for the next year. Also, the time schedule set out in the work program must be met in order to expect that the our second general plan extension will be approved by OPR. The Staff is recommending that the Council adopt the meeting schedule in the packet which provides for seven more meetings. . The CAC divided the City into twelve neighborhood areas. Using these, each meeting would cover certain of those areas by taking public testimony on those areas only, closing the public hearing, and then reviewing the maps and starting with the Planning Commission recommen- dation (Alternative E) begin deciding what changes the Council wants to make on the map, area by area. The last meeting of the public hearing process is scheduled for Wednesday, May 18, 1988, and is envisioned as being for testimony which is not specifically related to a geographic area, general comments, and also anybody who wasn't able to attend the meeting on their area. COUNCIL MEMBER POPE-LUDLAM ARRIVED At 9:20 a.m., Council Member Pope-Ludlam arrived and took her place at the Council Table. Planning Director Siracusa introduced Woody Tescher of Envicom. GENERAL PLAN REVISION CONSULTANT TEAM Woody Tescher of Envicom introduced the following members of the consultant team: . Env icom: Steven Svete; DKS Assoc ia tes: Fleming; Albert A. Webb Associates: Sam Natelson-Levander-Whitney: Anita Kramer; Darrell Gershon; Rosenow 4 4/22/88 . Spevacek Group, Inc.: Sage Associates. Felice Acosta; and Orrin Sage of GENERAL PLAN LAND USE CATEGORIES Mr. Tescher used the overhead to explain a document entitled: Planning Commission Revisions to Preliminary General Plan Land Use Categories and explained each cate- gory one by one. Residential The first category is RE, Residential Estates, mini- mum one gross acre per unit; proposed uses: custom single-family homes on large lots. RL: The second category is Residential Low with one to three dwelling units per net acre; proposed uses: large lots with custom single-family tract homes. RS: Residential Suburban, 3.1 to 4.5 dwelling units per net acre; proposed uses: Standard/typical single-family subdivisions with lot sizes ranging from 7,200 to 10,000 square feet (larger lots allowed by pol icy) . . Mr. Tescher answered questions and explained the difference between residential urban RU and residential suburban RS. Commercial Mr. Tescher used ratio is calculated: the parcel area. a diagram to explain how floor area the gross building area divided by CR: Commercial Regional, 1.5 (.4 for club area); proposed uses: Large scale retail operations providing a wide range of goods and services which serve a market area of many square miles and a population of 150,000 -200,000. Uses include major department stores and sup- porting service stores, offices, hotels and other similar functions. CG: Commercial General, 1.0; proposed uses: A wide range of goods and services such as general retail stores, sit-down and drive-in restaurants, furniture stores, liquor stores and other like uses. CO: Commer ical Off ice, istrative and professional institutions, medical/dental mercial facilities. 3.0; proposed offices such offices and uses: Admin- as financial related com- . 5 4/22/88 . CN: Commercial Neighborhood, .50; proposed uses: Local-serving commercial uses such as grocery stores, cleaners, drugstores, shoe repairs, notions, florists and other like uses. CVS: Commercial visitor Serving, .75; proposed uses: Commercial services for the traveling public such as motels, hotels and restaurants. CH: Commercial Heavy, .50; proposed uses: Com- mercial uses that require outdoor sales, display and/or storage areas such as auto repair yards, used car lots, lumber-yards, nurseries and other retail uses which require extensive storage areas, enclosed or outdoors. Mixed MU: Mixed Use, specific uses allowed Integrated retail, multiple-family uses vertically, according FAR to be determined based on within subarea; proposed uses: office, light industrial or that may occur side by side or to subarea. . Industrial IL: Industrial Light, .50; proposed uses: Warehousing, manufacturing, research and development and other like uses within enclosed structures, often located in industrial business parks. Allows sales of products produced on site. IH: Industrial Heavy, .50; proposed uses: Uses that require large parcels of land or outdoor storage areas such as steel fabrication plants, junk yards and other like uses. IE: Industrial Extractive; proposed uses: Areas which contain producing or potentially productive mineral reserves. Certain light and heavy industrial uses are permitted as temporary interim uses. Public/Quasi Public PF: Public Facilities; cemeteries, and publicly owned purposed uses: facilites. Schools, PP: parks. Publ ic Parks; purposed uses: Publ icly owned The Planning Director pointed out that future park sites or public facilities such as schools, are not set out on a general plan map because such designations af- fect existing property values. . PFC: Public Flood Control; purposed uses: Areas subject to flood hazard that are under public ownership. 6 4/22/88 . PCR: Public/Commercial Recreation; Public and private recreation facilities courses, ball fields and fairgrounds. purposed such as uses: golf Management Areas MH: Hillside Management, (Slope Density Formula); purposed uses: Environmentally sensitive areas having slopes greater than 15% or landslide potential. Specific Plans will be required for MH designated properties. MFP: Floodplain Management; purposed uses: Pri- vately owned lands within the 100-year floodplain would be allowed low intensity uses when inundation would not cause loss of life or extensive property loss (e.g., nurseries, golf courses, agriculture). Modification of boundaries of floodplain due to mitigation would be allowed, but a change in land use would require a plan. LAND USE ALTERNATIVES Woody Tescher explained the process leading up to the development of the five preferred land use alternatives: A, B, C, D, and E. Alternatives A, B, and C were developed by the consultant and staff to serve as a starting point for discussion. . The CAC reviewed A, B, and C, and used them to develop Alternative D. In general, Alternative D falls between Band C in terms of potential population growth and commerc ial and industr ia 1 acreage. The Mi xed Use designation has substantially more acreage designated in D than in the other alternatives. A fifth alternative, Alternative E was recommended by the Planning Commission after reviewing the other alternatives. Alternative E is very similar to Alter- native D with slight modifications throughout the City. Mr. Tescher explained in detail, using maps on the display board and moving area by area, the differences in the alternatives and the locations of the twelve general areas of study. He then used a series of graphs to depict the de- velopment changes under the land use alternatives. Mr. Tescher used a map areas which are as follows, character of each area. to detail the twelve study and explained the general . 1. Hospitality Lane (Tri-City) 2. Inland Center 3. Central Business District 4. Mount Vernon (Valley College) 7 4/22/88 . 5. Rialto Bench 6. Wests ide 7. Norton 8. North Central San Bernardino 9. Highland 10. Del Rosa 11. State College (University) 12. Verdemont The following Summary of Development Changes Under Land Use Alternatives A, B, C, D, & E was presented: RESIDENTIAL Single Family: Existing (1987) 10,466 acres, 56,322 dwelling units per net acre. Alternative A - 9,611 acres, 12,058 dwelling units per net acre. Alternative B - 9,595 acres, 15,574 dwelling units per net acre. Alternative C - 8,774 acres, 15,163 dwelling units per net acre. . Alternative D - 7,767 acres, 9,171 dwelling units per net acre. Alternative E - 7,821 acres, 10,254 dwelling units per net acre. Multiple Family: Existing (1987) 1,181 acres, 20,167 dwelling units per net acre. Alternative A - 595 acres, 6,328 dwelling units per net acre. Alternative B - 1,168 acres, 11,415 dwelling units per net acre. Alternative C - 3,039 acres, 36,879 dwelling units per net acre. Alternative D - 1,521 acres, 18,466 dwelling units per net acre. Alternative E - 1,377 acres, 16,240 dwelling units per net acre. Totals: Existing (1987) dwelling units per net acre. 11,647 acres, 76,489 . 8 4/22/88 . Alternative A - 10,206 acres, 18,386 dwelling units per net acre. Alternative B - 10,763 acres, 26,989 dwell ing units per net acre. Alternative C - 11,813 acres, 52,042 dwelling uni ts per net acre. Alternative D - 9,288 acres, 27,617 dwelling units per net acre. Alternative E - 9,198 acres, 26,494 dwell ing units per net acre. Population: Existing (1987) 195,286. Alternative A - 45,965 Alternative B - 67,472 Alternative C - 130,105 Alternative D - 69,042 . Alternative E - 66,235 COMMERCIAL Alternative A 1,013 acres, 52,884,000 dwelling units per net acre. Alternative B 1,018 acres, 51,374,000 dwelling units per net acre. Alternative C 1,365 acres, 67,837,000 dwelling units per net acre. Alternative D 1,084 acres, 49,900,000 dwelling units per net acre. Alternative E 1,184 acres, 52,430,796 dwell ing units per net acre. Mixed Use: Alternative A - 41 acres, 2,283,000 dwelling units per net acre. Alternative B - 390 acres, 9,930,00 dwelling units per net acre. . Alternative C - 477 acres, 16,325,000 dwelling units per net acre. 9 4/22/88 . Alternative D - 829 acres, 37,230,000 dwelling units per net acre. Alternative E 1,037 acres, 48,789,163 dwelling units per net acre. Totals: Existing (1987 ) 1,848 acres, 11,020,000 dwelling units per net acre. Alternative A 1,054 acres, 55,127,000 dwell ing units per net acre. Alternative B 1,408 acres, 61,304,000 dwelling units per net acre. Alternative C 1,842 acres, 84,162,000 dwelling units per net acre. Alternative D 1,913 acres, 87,130,000 dwelling units per net acre. Alternative E 2,221 acres, 101,219,959 dwelling uni ts per net acre. INDUSTRIAL: Existing (1987 ) 980 acres, 8,400,000 dwelling units per net acre. . Alternative A 2,274 acres, 16,941,000 dwell ing units per net acre. Alternative B 2,008 acres, 16,081,000 dwell ing units per net acre. Alternative C 3,233 acres, 23,997,000 dwelling units per net acre. Alternative D 2,600 acres, 18,400,000 dwell ing units per net acre. Alternative E 2,326 acres, 14,983,392 dwelling units per net acre. Cynthia Grace, Deputy City Attorney, answered ques- tions regarding the "First English Lutheran Case" which gives land owners protection for development and referred to the Eggins v. Tiberon Case which found that it is reasonable to restrict density on a property based upon topographical features. She stated that the most dif- ficult question of this revision process is how to treat existing lots of record. The City can come up with a development credit process for density. . 10 4/22/88 . Sylvia Salenias, a representative of Inland Action who has attended all the Planning Commission and CAC meetings, stated she wished to speak about how the members of Inland Action feel about due process and the work program as it has been defined. The major concern is that the Planning Commission and the CAC has been asked to make a lot of very important decisions in the absence of useful information in order to meet a very important deadline. What has occurred is that the process has driven the creation of the maps rather than what would have been a more appropriate analytical frame- work. She went on to explain as an example that the back- ground report that has been presented to date does not provide an analytical suggestion of the constraints and opportunities that each of the environmental factors present in that report created for the City. It does not say, for example: "Here's your transportation network; where are the opportunities to improve this network and what, therefore, would follow as a land use configuration from it." . Ms. Salenias stated that the economic forecast models do not relate to the kinds of acreages being shown on the maps for commercial and industrial uses and the population forecast in the report does not relate to the type of residential development proposed on the maps. She also pointed out that future decisions may very well change the maps and asked that the Council make it clear to the public that these are interim directions for the plan, but there are still many questions that have to be answered. Ann Siracusa, Planning Director, stated they have emphasized in all of the meetings that these maps are interim, but stated that there is a perception problem that something drawn down on a piece of paper is final. The Planning Director agreed that there are a lot of unanswered questions at this point, but added that the map is part of an interim policy document that tells us how we are go ing to deal wi th land use deci s ions for a period of time between now and the adoption of the general plan. The public has not seen the interim policies that will guide the decisions. The City will be requesting that the Interim policies replace the OPR restrictions and become the new rules of the game. The map, which will be approved by the Council, will be for- warded to the State and will have a level of significance for the coming months. . 11 4/22/88 . The Mayor urged the public to be present at the upcoming public hearings for the purpose of preserving wha t they thought they might have fi xed when they came before the Planning Commission. That was the Planning Commission's recommendation and the Council has the final approval of the interim policy document. David Mylnarski, 501 North Placentia, Fullerton, spoke regarding the procedures to be followed with re- spect to the land use alternatives to be presented to the Council. He requested to be provided certain allotments of time for the area hearings as in previous meetings individuals who have very large investments in areas were limited to a very restricted amount of time. Mr. Mylnarski's second request was that as the Council gets into the Verdemont Area, which contains a great deal of the vacant property in the City, that per- haps the Council should segment this area to allow time to discuss the various constraints and issues. For example, there is hillside management, industrial, high density, low density, physical constraints that need to be identified, and in fact, the majority of the speakers that have presented themselves to the CAC and the Plan- ning Commission have owned property in that area. . Mr. Mylnarski pointed out that it is very important to identify which formulas are going to be used to de- termine population and statistic figures as well as the different land use categories. Especially for residen- tial development and specifically the category of "Gross" v "Net", and how we are going to compute population figures which relate to emergency services and things of that nature. He stated that it is a compute acreage on general net. Therefore, some of the has been misleading due to understanding. common planning practice to plans based upon gross not statistics on the bar graphs this gross versus net mis- Another area of concern for Mr. Mylnarski is the opportunity to rebut statements made by staff and con- sultants once the hearing is closed. He felt that the information may not be accurate or may need to be added to, to give the Counc i 1 the proper opportun i ty to un- derstand all the issues at hand. Mr. Mylnarski stated he had just received the document entitled: "General Plan Land Use Alternatives" dated April 22, 1988, and had several questions and re- . 12 4/22/88 . quested to discuss some of the issues such as the grandfather clause, and some of the references that pertain to the previous planning documents such as the Verdemont Plan and the Hillside Greenbelt programs. It is important to recognize which portions of the documents will be used for future land use decisions. Will the documents be adopted in total? Or will there be amend- ments? Dr. Chuck Cr i stie, Trustee of the San Bernard ino Unified School District, read a lengthy resolution of the Board of Education regarding the impact of the Land Use Alternatives on the San Bernardino City Unified School District and requested a workshop with the City Council and the School Board. GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULE Council Member Miller made a motion, seconded by Council Member Estrada and unanimously carried, that the following meeting schedule for the land use alternatives be adopted: . Day: Date: Areas Time: Friday April 22, 1988 of Discussion: Presentation 9:00 a.m. - Noon of Alternatives Day: Monday Date: April 25, 1988 Areas of Discussion: Hospitality Lane Area, Inland Center Area, and the Central Business District Time: 9:00 a.m. - Noon Day: Tuesday Date: April 26, 1988 Areas of Discussion: Valley College Area, Rialto Bench Area, and the Wests ide Area Time: 5:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. Day: Wednesday Date: May 4, 1988 Areas of Discussion: Norton Area and North Central San Bernardino Time: 9:00 a.m. - Noon Day: Friday Date: May 6, 1988 Areas of Discuss ion: Highland Area of the Ci ty and the Del Rosa Area. Time: 9:00 a.m. - Noon . 13 4/22/88 . Day: Thursday Date: May 12, 1988 Areas of Discussion: University Area and the Verdemont Area Time: 5:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. Day: Date: Areas Time: Wednesday May 18, 1988 of Discussion: Final 5:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. Public Hearing Day: l10nday Date: May 23, 1988 Areas of Discussion: Final Council Deliberation and Approval of Interim Policy Document Time: 9:00 a.m. - Noon These meetings will be held in Council Chambers, 300 North "D" Street, California, 92418. the Ci ty Hall, San Bernardino, . SCHOOL DISTRICT/COUNCIL LUNCHEON WORKSHOP Council Member Minor made a motion, seconded by Council Member Reilly and unanimously carried, that a luncheon workshop with the San Bernardino City Unified School District Board of Trustees be held Wednesday, May 4, 1988, at 12:00 noon in the MIC Room on the Sixth Floor of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, Cali forn ia. FIVE MINUTE RECESS At 11: 25 a.m., Mayor wilcox ordered a five minute recess. RECONVENE MEETING The Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Common Council of the City of San Bernardino in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 Street, San Bernardino, California. Mayor and reconvened North nOli ROLL CALL Roll Call was taken by lowing being present: Members-Estrada, Reilly, Pope-Ludlam, Miller, City Robbins. Absent: None. the City Mayor Flores, Clerk Clark, Clerk with the fol- Wilcox; Council Maudsley, Minor, City Administrator REDEVLOPMENT AGENCY The adj ourned regular meet i ng of the Redevlopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino was called to order by Chairman wilcox. . 14 4/22/88 . ROLL CALL Council Member Flores made a motion, seconded by Council Member Minor and unanimously carried, that the Mayor and Common Council recess to a joint closed session with the Redevelopment Agency pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 to discuss the terms of disposition of certain real property generally located at Baseline and Medical Center Drive. The party with whom the agency's negotiator may negotiate is Haagen Development Corpora- tion. CLOSED SESSION At 11: 40 a.m., the Closed Session was called to order by Mayor wilcox wi th the following being present: Mayor Wilcox; Council Members Estrada, Reilly, Flores, Maudsley, Minor, Pope-Ludlam, Miller; City Attorney Penman. Absent: City Clerk Clark, Deputy City Administrator Robbins. Also present: Jeff Kinsell and Rhonda Connelly of Miller and Schroeder Financial Inc.; Sandy Lowder, Deputy Director, Redevelopment Agency; Lorraine Velarde, Admin- istrative Services Manager; Sr. Assistant City Attorney Dennis Barlow. . CITY ATTORNEY PENMAN EXCUSED At 11:43 a.m., City Attorney Penman left the Closed Session. COUNCIL MEMBER POPE-LUDLAM EXCUSED At 12:08 p.m., Council Member Pope-Ludlam left the Closed Session. COUNCIL MEMBER POPE-LUDLAM RETURNED At 12:13 p.m., Council Member Pope-Ludlam returned to the Closed Session. RECESS CLOSED SESSION At 12:15 p.m., the Closed Session recessed to the Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Mayor and Common Council in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. RECONVENE MEETING At 12:15 p.m., the Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Mayor and Common Council reconvened in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "0" Street, San Bernardino, California. . ROLL CALL Roll Call was taken by Deputy City Clerk Reese with the following being present: Mayor Wilcox; Council Members Estrada, Reilly, Flores, Maudsley, Minor, 15 4/22/88 . Pope-Ludlam, Miller; City Attorney Penman, Deputy City Clerk Reese, Deputy City Administrator Robbins. CLOSED SESSION ITEM - TERMS OF DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT BASELINE AND MEDICAL CENTER DRIVE - HAAGEN DEVELOPMENT CORP. Council Member Maudsley made a motion, seconded by Council Member Flores and unanimously carried, that the Closed Session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 regarding the terms of disposition of certain real property generally located at Baseline and Medical Center Drive, be continued to 11: 30 a.m., Monday, April 25, 1988, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. (R-IA) RECESS MEETING - At 12:15 p.m., break. FIVE MINUTE BREAK The Mayor declared a five-minute RECONVENE MEETING At 12:25 p.m., the Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Mayor and Common Council reconvened in the Council Cham- bers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. . ROLL CALL Roll Call was taken by Deputy City Clerk Reese with the following being present: Mayor Wilcox; Council Mem- bers Estrada, Reilly, Flores, Maudsley, Minor, Pope-Ludlam, Miller; City Attorney Penman, Deputy City Clerk Reese, Deputy City Administrator Robbins. Absent: None. RECESS MEETING - CLOSED SESSION At 12:30 p.m. Council Member Flores made a motion, seconded by Council Member Minor and unanimously carried, that the meeting recess to a Closed Session as follows: To confer with its attorney regarding pending liti- gation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (b) (1), as there is significant exposure to litigation. (2) To consider personnel matters pursuant to Government Code Section 54957. (3) Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (a) to confer with its attorney regarding pending litigation which has been initiated formally to which the City is a party as follows: (4) . Kendall, et al vs. City of San Bernardino, et aI-San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. 233233; 16 4/22/88 . City of San Bernardino vs. San Bernardino Baseball Club, Inc. San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. 239193; DeTinne vs. City of San Bernardino - San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. 214093; DeTinne vs. City of San Bernardino - San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. 222068. CLOSED SESSION At 12:30 p.m. the Closed Session was called to order by Mayor wilcox in the Conference Room of the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. ROLL CALL: Roll Call was taken with the following being pres- ent: Mayor Wilcox; Council Members Estrada, Reilly, Flores, Maudsley, Minor, Pope-Ludlam, Miller; City At- torney Penman, Deputy City Administrator Robbins. Ab- sent: Deputy City Clerk Reese. MAYOR WILCOX EXCUSED At 12:48 p.m., Mayor wilcox left the Closed Session. . MAYOR WILCOX RETURNED At 12:50 p.m., Mayor Wilcox returned to the Closed Session. DEPUTY CITY ADMINISTRATOR ROBBINS EXCUSED Deputy City Administrator Robbins left the Closed Session. MAYOR WILCOX EXCUSED Mayor wilcox left the Closed Member Reilly assumed the duties of Session and Council Mayor Pro Tempore. DEPUTY CITY CLERK REESE ARRIVED At 2:30 p.m., Deputy City Clerk Closed Session. Reese arrived at the ADJOURN CLOSED SESSION At 2: 40 p.m., the Closed Session adjourned to the Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Mayor and Common Council in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "0" Street, San Bernardino, California. . RECONVENE MEETING At 2: 40 p.m., the Adj ourned Regular Meeting of the Mayor and Common Council reconvened in the Council Cham- bers of City Hall, 300 North "0" Street, San Bernardino, Cali fornia. 17 4/22/88 . ROLL CALL Roll Call was taken by Deputy City Clerk Reese with the following being present: Mayor Pro Tempore Reilly; Council Members Estrada, Reilly, Flores, Maudsley, Minor, Pope-Ludlam, Miller, City Attorney Penman, Deputy City Clerk Reese. Absent: Mayor Wilcox; Deputy City Adminis- trator Robbins. CHIEF OF POLICE - VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE Mayor Pro Tempore Reilly announced that a vote of no confidence of the Police Chief had in Closed Session. unanimous been taken (3 ) Deputy City Clerk Reese read a motion carried unan- imously in Closed Session: "To recognize and commend the officers and employees of the San Bernardino Police Department for the continuing faithful and dedicated service to the citizens of San Bernardino." (3) CLOSED SESSION ITEMS CONTINUED - PENDING LITIGATION - PERSONNEL MATTERS Council Member Maudsley made a motion, seconded by Council Member Flores and unanimously carried, that the following items be continued to 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, April 26, 1988, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "0" Street, San Bernardino, California: . Closed Session to confer with its attorney regarding pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b) (1), as there is significant exposure to liti- gation. (2) Closed Session to discuss personnel matters pursuant to Government Code Section 54957. (3) Closed Session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) to confer with its attorney regarding pending litigation which has been initiated formally to which the City is a party as follows: (4) Kendall, et al vs. City of San Bernardino, et al -San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. 233233; City of San Bernardino vs. San Bernardino Baseball Club, Inc. San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. 239193; DeTinne vs. City of San Bernardino - San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. 214093; . DeTinne vs. City of San Bernardino - San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. 222068. 18 4/22/88 . ADJOURN MEETING At 2: 45 p.m., Council Member Minor made a motion, seconded by Counc il Member Re illy and unanimously car- ried, that the meeting be adjourned to 9:00 a.m., Monday, April 25, 1988, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "0" Street, San Bernardino. ~c/?I1/~Ai / Ci ty Clerk A)tM~~ 't!--C<2V Deputy C ty Clerk . . 19 4/22/88