HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-06-2007 MinutesMayor Patrick J. Morris
,.,., CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO Council Members:
Esther
300 N. "D"Street Dennis J.. Baxter
San Bernardino, CA 92418 robin Brinker
MM Website: www.sbcity.org NeilDerry
Chas Kelley
ar ino ian BernRikke Van Johnson
Wendy McCammack
MINUTES
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
JOINT REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 6, 2007
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
The joint regular meeting of the Mayor and Common Council and Community
Development Commission of the City of San Bernardino was called to order by
Mayor/Chairman Morris at 1:34 p.m., Monday, August 6, 2007, in the Council
Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California.
Roll Call
Roll call was taken by City Clerk Clark with the following being present:
Mayor/Chairman Morris; Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Brinker,
Derry, Johnson, McCammack; City Attorney Penman, City Clerk Clark, City Manager
Wilson. Absent: Council Member/Commissioner Kelley.
Council Member/Commissioner Kelley Arrived
At 1:51 p.m., Council Member/Commissioner Kelley arrived at the Council/
Commission meeting.
1. Closed Session
A. Conference with legal counsel - existing litigation - pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.9(a):
Mazelle Dyke v. City, et al. - United States District Court Case No.
EDCV 06-00847 (VAPX);
Shirley J. Goodwin v. City, et al. - United States District Court Case
No. EDCV 98-66RT (VAPx);
08/06/2007
Tony Gorrell v. City, et al. - Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
Case No. SBR 0297969.
B. Conference with legal counsel - anticipated litigation - significant
exposure to litigation - pursuant to subdivision (b) (1), (2), (3) (A-F) of
Government Code Section 54956.9.
C. Conference with legal counsel - anticipated litigation - initiation of
litigation - pursuant to subdivision (c) of Government Code Section
54956.9.
D. Closed Session - personnel - pursuant to Government Code Section
54957.
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:
Central City North Redevelopment Project Area (Downtown
Acquisition Program)
1. Property Address: 795 West 5" Street (Paradise Motel)
APN: 0134-093-41
Negotiating Parties: Maggie Pacheco, Executive Director, on
behalf of the Redevelopment Agency, as
buyer, and Tien Lee International Limited
Corporation, property owner/seller
Under Negotiation: Purchase price, terms, and conditions
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 and Community
Development Commission.
2 08/06/2007
Invocation/Pledge of Allegiance
The invocation was given by Father Barnabas Laubach of St. Bernardine Medical
Center, followed by the pledge of allegiance, led by Council Member Esther Estrada.
Moment of Silence
Mayor Morris extended condolences to the families and requested a moment of silence
in memory of William "Bill" Rainbolt, owner/operator of The Mediterranean restaurant
on Highland Avenue for over 35 years; former Police Lieutenant Michael Gile, who
worked for the City's Police Department for over 23 years and created the San
Bernardino Police Honor Guard; Susan Hendrix, who worked over ten years as an
executive secretary in the Water Department; and Father Ramon "Ray" Rosales, a
native of San Bernardino and former pastor of Our Lady of Guadalupe Church.
2. Appointments
Bicentennial Committee
• Steven Shaw - Mayor Morris
• David E. Smith - Mayor Morris
• Beverly Bird - Council Member McCammack
Board of Building Commissioners
• Bob Edwards - Council Member Kelley
Council Member/Commissioner Johnson made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Kelley, that the appointments of Steven Shaw, David E.
Smith, Beverly Bird, and Bob Edwards, as requested by Mayor Morris, Council
Member McCammack, and Council Member Kelley, be approved.
The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/
Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Brinker, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
3. Proclamations & Presentations
Jim Gerstenslager, Director of the Western Regional Little League
Headquarters, accompanied by two of the Little League players participating in
this year's tournament —Jack Freedman from Washington and Jesse Lambert
from Utah —presented a shadowbox containing team pins of every team
participating in the Western Regionals to Mayor Morris.
Council Member Johnson presented Certificates of Recognition to the team
members of the Inland Empire Clippers, a team of 13-year-old basketball
players who traveled to Memphis, Tennessee last month to compete in the AAU
Nationals.
3 08/06/2007
Council Member Baxter, Chairperson of this year's 4`h of July Parade, and Nick
Gonzales, Assistant to the Mayor, joined Mayor Morris in presenting trophies to
the award -winning entries in this year's parade, as follows:
• Best Use of Theme - Native Sons of the Golden West
• Best Originality - Khmer Buddhist Temple
• Best Community Spirit - Westside Steppers
• Best Cultural Display - Danzas De Aztlan
• Best Performance - Club United of Muscoy and the Mexican Dancing
Horses
• Best Humor - Double D PT Cruisers
Mayor Morris presented a Certificate of Recognition to Dottie Garcia, who has
been a member of the San Bernardino Library Board of Trustees for the past ten
years and will be retiring from the board next month, acknowledging not only
her many years of dedicated service to the Library Board, but also the many
other civic contributions she has made.
4. Announcements
Announcements were made by the Mayor, members of the Common Council,
elected officials, and a representative from the Chamber of Commerce regarding
various civic, community, and chamber events and activities.
5. Waive full reading of resolutions and ordinances
Council Member/Commissioner Baxter 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 and
Community Development Commission, be waived.
The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/
Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Brinker, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
6. Council Minutes
Council Member/Commissioner Baxter made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Estrada, that the minutes of the following meeting(s) of
the Mayor and Common Council/Community Development Commission of the
City of San Bernardino be approved as submitted in typewritten form: May 21,
2007; June 4, 2007.
4 08/06/2007
7
E
10
The motion
Commissioner
McCammack.
carried by t
s Estrada,
Nays: None.
Claims & Payroll
he following vote:
Baxter, Brinker,
Absent: None.
Ayes: Council Members/
Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
Council Member/Commissioner Baxter made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Estrada, that the claims and payroll and the
authorization to issue warrants as listed in the memorandum dated July 16,
2007, from Barbara Pachon, Director of Finance, be approved.
The motion carrie
Commissioners E
McCammack. Nays
Personnel Actions
d by the following vote:
strada, Baxter, Brinker.
: None. Absent: None.
Ayes: Council Members/
Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
Council Member/Commissioner Baxter made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Estrada, that the personnel actions, as submitted by the
Chief Examiner, dated August 1, 2007 (Revised 8/3/07) 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
Commissioner
McCammack.
carried by t
s Estrada,
Nays: None.
he following vote:
Baxter, Brinker
Absent: None.
Ayes: Council Members/
Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
ORD. MC-1252 - An Ordinance of the City of San Bernardino adding
Section 8.27.110 to the San Bernardino Municipal Code regarding
recording notices of weed abatement requirements on vacant lots. FINAL
READING
Council Member/Commissioner Baxter made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Estrada, that said ordinance be adopted.
Ordinance No. MC-1252 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council
Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Brinker, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
RES. 2007-312 - Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City
of San Bernardino authorizing the City Manager to execute an Animal
Control Services Agreement by and between the City of San Bernardino
and the City of Fontana from July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2010, and
ratifying any action taken between July 1, 2007 and the date that this
resolution is adopted.
5 08/06/2007
Council Member/Commissioner Baxter made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Estrada, that said resolution be adopted.
Resolution No. 2007-312 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council
Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Brinker, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
11. Designate voting delegate and alternate voting delegates for the League of
California Cities Annual Meeting — September 5-8, 2007 in Sacramento,
California
Council Member/Commissioner Baxter made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Estrada, that Mayor Morris be designated as the City of
San Bernardino's voting delegate, and that Council Member Derry and City
Manager Wilson be designated as alternate voting delegates for the League of
California Cities Annual Conference to be held September 5-8, 2007, in
Sacramento, California.
The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/
Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Brinker, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
12. RES. 2007-313 - Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City
of San Bernardino acknowledging the receipt and filing of the Annual
Statement of Investment Policy for the period July 1, 2007 through June 30,
2008.
Council Member/Commissioner Baxter made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Estrada, that said resolution be adopted.
Resolution No. 2007-313 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council
Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Brinker, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
13. RES. 2007-314 - Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City
of San Bernardino awarding a Contract to National Plant Services, Inc. for
cleaning sewer siphons at various locations in the City of San Bernardino
(SW-D 2006/07), per Project Plan No. 12173.
Council Member/Commissioner Baxter made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Estrada, that said resolution be adopted.
6 08/06/2007
Resolution No. 2007-314 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council
Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Brinker, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
14. RES. 2007-315 - Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City
of San Bernardino authorizing the execution of a Master Agreement
Administering Agency - State Agreement for State Funded Projects -
Agreement No. 000515 between the City of San Bernardino and the State of
California.
Council Member/Commissioner Baxter made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Estrada, that said resolution be adopted.
Resolution No. 2007-315 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council
Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Brinker, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
15. RES. 2007-316 - Resolution of the City of San Bernardino approving
Amendment No. 3 to Agreement for Professional Services with LAN
Engineering Corporation to provide engineering services for the design of
Old Waterman Canyon Bridge replacement (SS07-14).
Council Member/Commissioner Baxter made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Estrada, that said resolution be adopted.
Resolution No. 2007-316 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council
Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Brinker, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
16. Item Deleted
17. RES. 2007-317 - Resolution of the City of San Bernardino preliminarily
determining that the public convenience and necessity require the formation
of a landscape maintenance assessment district located in the 48`h Street and
Little Mountain Drive area without compliance with the Special Assessment
Investigation, Limitation and Majority Protest Act of 1931; declaring its
intention to proceed to order work within the district, to be known as
Assessment District No. 1065; preliminarily approving the Engineer's
Report and giving notice of a public meeting and public hearing.
7 08/06/2007
Council Member/Commissioner Baxter made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Estrada, that the Director of Development Services and
the City Clerk be authorized to proceed under SBMC 12.90 with the
establishment of a landscape maintenance assessment district in the 48' Street
and Little Mountain Drive area (Tentative Tract Map No. 17038), to be known
as Assessment District No. 1065; and that said resolution be adopted.
The motion carried and Resolution No. 2007-317 was adopted by the following
vote: Ayes: Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Brinker,
Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
18. RES. 2007-318 - Resolution of the City of San Bernardino preliminarily
determining that the public convenience and necessity require the formation
of a landscape maintenance assessment district located in the Central
Avenue and Lena Road area without compliance with the Special
Assessment Investigation, Limitation and Majority Protest Act of 1931;
declaring its intention to proceed to order work within the district, to be
known as Assessment District No. 1063; preliminarily approving the
Engineer's Report and giving notice of a public hearing.
Council Member/Commissioner Baxter made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Estrada, that the Director of Development Services and
the City Clerk be authorized to proceed under SBMC 12.90 with the
establishment of a landscape maintenance assessment district in the Central
Avenue and Lena Road area (Tentative Parcel Map No. 17721), to be known as
Assessment District No. 1063; and that said resolution be adopted.
The motion carried and Resolution No. 2007-318 was adopted by the following
vote: Ayes: Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Brinker,
Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
19. Item Deleted
20. Authorize the Director of Finance to amend the FY 2007/08 budget to add
both revenue and expenditure budgets for the nine (9) Development Impact
Fee Funds (DIFF)
Council Member/Commissioner Kelley stated that he wanted to point out line
item 269, Parkland and Open Space and Park Improvement, which the staff
report identified as new funds for the Verdemont Park. He stated that he
wanted to make sure that everyone understood that this is a new park that is the
Al Guhin Park, named for a former Council member in the Fifth Ward; and this
park is to be relocated to accommodate the new Verdemont Community Center,
8 08/06/2007
so it shouldn't be just the Verdemont Park —it's the Verdemont Community
Center at the Al Guhin Park.
Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by
Council Member/Commissioner Estrada, that the Director of Finance be
authorized to amend the FY 2007/08 budget to add both revenue and
expenditure budgets for the nine (9) Development Impact Fee Funds (DIFF) as
indicated in the staff report dated August 6, 2007, from Barbara Pachon,
Director of Finance.
The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/
Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Brinker, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
21. RES. 2007-319 - Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City
of San Bernardino authorizing the execution of an agreement and issuance
of a purchase order to Pierce Manufacturing, Inc. for seven (7) new Pierce
fire engines; authorizing the Finance Director or her designee to solicit bids
to purchase one utility truck, ancillary equipment and emergency medical
services equipment; and authorizing the Finance Director or designee to
solicit lease -purchase rate quotes and award a lease -purchase to the lowest
responsible leasing company.
Council Member/Commissioner Baxter made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Estrada, that said resolution be adopted.
Resolution No. 2007-319 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council
Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Brinker, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
22. Item Deleted
23. Item Deleted
24. Item Deleted
25. RES. 2007-320 - Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City
of San Bernardino authorizing the City Manager to execute an Agreement
with the San Bernardino City Unified School District to provide contractual
services for fourteen (14) Creative Before & After -School Programs for
Success at school district sites for the period July 1, 2007 through June 30,
2008, and ratifying any action taken between July 1, 2007 and the date that
this Resolution is adopted.
9 08/06/2007
City Attorney Penman abstained on this item, stating that his wife was a
member of the school board.
Council Member/Commissioner Baxter made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Estrada, that said resolution be adopted.
Resolution No. 2007-320 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council
Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Brinker, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
26. RES. 2007-321 - Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council authorizing
the City Manager to execute an Agreement between the City of San
Bernardino and the San Bernardino City Unified School District for shared
use of the recreation facilities at the Galaxy Building and Norton Recreation
Center for the period August 1, 2007 through July 31, 2009 and ratifying all
action taken between August 1, 2007 and the approval of the resolution.
City Attorney Penman abstained on this item, stating that his wife was a
member of the school board.
Council Member/Commissioner Baxter made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Estrada, that said resolution be adopted.
Resolution No. 2007-321 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council
Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Brinker, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
Note: Due to the fact that the recommended motion contained budget language
that was inadvertently omitted, the matter was reconsidered at the
Council/Commissioner meeting of September 17, 2007, Item No. 19.
27. RES. 2007-322 - Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council authorizing
the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 1 to Management Agreement
between the City of San Bernardino and Coast Soccer League to provide
management services at the San Bernardino Soccer Complex for the dates
August 11-12 and September 1-3, 2007.
Council Member/Commissioner Baxter made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Estrada, that said resolution be adopted.
Resolution No. 2007-322 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council
Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Brinker, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
10 08/06/2007
28. RES. 2007-323 - Resolution of the City of San Bernardino approving the
destruction of certain obsolete records by the San Bernardino Police
Department.
Council Member/Commissioner Baxter made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Estrada, that said resolution be adopted.
Resolution No. 2007-323 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council
Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Brinker, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
29. RES. 2007-324 - Resolution of the City of San Bernardino ratifying the
submittal of the FY 2007 Juvenile Accountability Block Grant (JABG)
application to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
by the Police Department.
Council Member/Commissioner Baxter made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Estrada, that said resolution be adopted.
Resolution No. 2007-324 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council
Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Brinker, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
30. RES. 2007-325 - Resolution of the City of San Bernardino authorizing a
vendor change for the conversion of a replacement SWAT/CBRNE vehicle
for the Police Department to North Star AKA Braun Northwest Inc, of
Chehalis, WA.
Council Member/Commissioner Baxter made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Estrada, that said resolution be adopted.
Resolution No. 2007-325 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council
Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Brinker, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
31. RES. 2007-326 - Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council authorizing
a Services Agreement and an annual purchase order to Paramount
Protective Services, Inc. to provide jail staffing in an amount not to exceed
$334,559 for FY 2007-08 with three optional renewal years.
Council Member/Commissioner Baxter made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Estrada, that said resolution be adopted.
11 08/06/2007
Resolution No. 2007-326 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council
Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Brinker, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
32. RES. 2007-327 - Resolution of the City of San Bernardino ratifying the
submittal of the FY 2007 Homeland Security Grant application to the
County Office of Emergency Services by the Police Department.
Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by
Council Member/Commissioner Brinker, that said resolution be adopted.
Resolution No. 2007-327 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council
Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Brinker, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
33. RES. 2007-328 - Resolution of the City of San Bernardino ratifying the
submission of the FY 2007 Edward Byrne Memorial Discretionary Grant
application to the Bureau of Justice Assistance by the Police Department.
Council Member/Commissioner Brinker made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Johnson, that said resolution be adopted.
Resolution No. 2007-328 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council
Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Brinker, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
34. RES. 2007-329 - Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City
of San Bernardino ratifying the submittal of a grant application to the
United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, authorizing the City Manager
to execute the Grant Contract, and authorizing the Mayor's Office to
administer the OJJDP FY 2007 Gang Prevention Coordination Assistance
Program.
Council Member/Commissioner Brinker made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Derry, that said resolution be adopted.
Resolution No. 2007-329 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council
Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Brinker, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
35. RES. 2007-330 - Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City
of San Bernardino providing for the appointment of a Mayor Pro Tempore
on an annual basis, and rescinding Resolution 2004-69.
12 08/06/2007
Council Member/Commissioner Derry made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Brinker, that said resolution be adopted.
Resolution No. 2007-330 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council
Members/Commissioners Brinker, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack.
Nays: Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter. Absent: None.
36. An Ordinance of the City of San Bernardino amending Sections 3.44.010
and 3.44.030 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code Chapter 3.44,
Telephone User's Tax to clarify original intent and remove obsolete
references. FIRST READING
Mayor Morris advised that the City Attorney had requested a one -month
continuance on this item.
Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by
Council Member/Commissioner Derry, that the matter be continued to the
Council/Commission meeting of September 4, 2007.
The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/
Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Brinker, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
37. Public hearing - resolution approving annexation; resolution calling a
special election and resolution certifying election results - Community
Facilities District No. 1033 (Verdemont Fire Station) Annexation No. 2
RES. 2007-331 - A Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the
City of San Bernardino, California, authorizing the annexation of territory
(Annexation No. 2) to Community Facilities District No. 1033 and
authorizing the levy of a special tax and submitting the levy of tax to the
qualified electors. (37A)
RES. 2007-332 - A Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the
City of San Bernardino, California, calling a special election and submitting
to the voters of Annexation No. 2 of City of San Bernardino Community
Facilities District No. 1033 propositions regarding the annual levy of special
taxes within Annexation No. 2 and the establishment of an appropriations
limit. (37B)
RES. 2007-333 - A Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the
City of San Bernardino, California, making certain findings, certifying the
results of an election and adding property to Community Facilities District
No. 1033, Annexation No. 2. (37C)
13 08/06/2007
Mayor/Chairman Morris opened the hearing.
City Manager Wilson advised that this item relates to a new project which is
located on the south side of Industrial Parkway between Cable Creek and
Devil's Creek Flood Control Channels consisting of one industrial building to be
built on ten acres. He stated that all of the projects in this area are essentially
annexed into what is known as the Verdemont Fire Station Service Area, and
this action would annex this project into that facilities district for the purpose of
funding the operations of the Verdemont Fire Station.
Mayor/Chairman Morris asked whether there were any public comments.
Pursuant to Resolution No. 2000-279, City Clerk Clark administered an oath to
speaker Jim Fullmer that he would provide true and honest testimony.
Jim Fullmer, 1725 South Grove Avenue, Ontario, CA, stated that he was
attending the meeting on behalf of Vic De Pietro, who lives in Seattle,
Washington, and is the applicant of this request for adoption; and he was there
to answer any questions that anyone might have.
Mayor/Chairman Morris asked City Clerk Clark whether any written protests
had been received.
Ms. Clark answered in the negative.
Mayor/Chairman Morris asked City Clerk Clark if she concurred in the holding
of the special election for the Community Facilities District Annexation.
Ms. Clark answered in the affirmative.
Mayor/Chairman Morris declared that since a majority protest had not been
filed, the Mayor and Council could proceed to annex Annexation No. 2 to
Community Facilities District No. 1033 by adopting Resolutions 37A and 37B,
as shown above.
Council Member/Commissioner Kelley made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Johnson, that the hearing relative to Annexation No. 2
to Community Facilities District No. 1033, be closed; and that said resolutions
A and B, be adopted.
The motion carried and Resolution Nos. 2007-331 and 2007-332 were adopted
by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/Commissioners Estrada,
Baxter, Brinker, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent:
None.
14 08/06/2007
Mayor/Chairman Morris requested City Clerk Clark to tabulate the election
results, and stated that if more than two-thirds of the votes received were in
favor of the propositions voted upon, the Mayor and Council may declare the
election results by adopting Resolution 37C, as shown above, a resolution
making certain findings, certifying the results of an election and adding property
to Community Facilities District No. 1033, Annexation No. 2.
Council Member/Commissioner Kelley made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Johnson, that said resolution C, be adopted.
Resolution No. 2007-333 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council
Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Brinker, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
38. RES. 2007-334 - Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City
of San Bernardino authorizing the City Manager to execute Amendment
No. 3 to the Agreement between the City of San Bernardino and Boys and
Girls Club of San Bernardino Inc., to operate a community center located
at 2969 North Flores Street, San Bernardino, California. (Continued from
July 16, 2007)
Council Member/Commissioner Johnson stated that as a board member of the
Boys and Girls Club he would abstain on this item. He left the Council
Chambers and returned after the vote was taken.
Council Member/Commissioner Kelley made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Derry, that said resolution be adopted.
Resolution No. 2007-334 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council
Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Brinker, Derry, Kelley,
McCammack. Nays: None. Abstentions: Council Member/Commissioner
Johnson. Absent: None.
39. I-210 Corridor Enhancement Plan (Continued from July 16, 2007)
Terri Rahhal, Deputy Director/City Planner, stated that the I-210 Enhancement
Plan had been prepared by a consultant team led by the IBI Group, with
participation by Tatsumi & Partners, Weiland Associates, Arellano Associates,
and the Arroyo Valley Community Economic Development Corporation. She
stated that the plan had been prepared with a community planning grant from
Caltrans, and the purpose of the grant program is to involve the public in
community planning on items related to transportation projects/transportation
corridors.
15 08/06/2007
She stated that this plan presents several integrated strategies for enhancement of
the I-210 corridor through the city of San Bernardino; and that one of the key
recommendations of the plan is the focus on land use planning and economic
development in the area of the new interchange of University Parkway with
Interstate 210 as a gateway to the community.
Ms. Rahhal stated that there would be a brief presentation by the consultant, but
first she wanted to present staff's recommendation, which was that the Mayor
and Common Council receive and file the I-210 Corridor Enhancement Plan;
and direct staff to incorporate its strategies in a specific plan to be prepared in
conjunction with the upcoming analysis of the Northwest Redevelopment Plan.
Richard Dial, HDR, Inc., formerly with the IBI Group and project manager
and lead consultant on the team that prepared the Corridor Plan, provided an
overview of the plan. He stated that one of the primary areas of focus was the
area around State Street and the Muscoy community that is going to be renamed
University Parkway. He advised that they looked at a quarter mile area on
either side of the I-210 corridor throughout the city, and while the
recommendations may be focused on the area around University Parkway, they
are applicable to all the areas of the corridor.
Mr. Dial advised that they had five strategies and had come up with the analogy
of a puzzle, and it truly was a puzzle because all of the pieces of the Corridor
Enhancement Plan rely upon each other for success. He stated that one of the
key components of the plan was the involvement of the community, and they
were grateful to have the involvement of the community throughout the
development of the plan.
He stated that the first strategy was the Freeway Screening Strategy, and that
had two primary components. First, they looked at the freeway itself and how
they could create a situation in which the freeway would provide benefits, but
reduce the impact to businesses and residents along the way. He stated that a
number of recommendations were run by the community, and the community's
preference was to see sound walls with vines, accompanied by low-water
landscaping. Also, as part of the freeway screening strategy, when they looked
at the concept of creating a gateway for the City at its western border, they
provided the community with a number of different design alternatives; and the
community favored a contemporary design with a Spanish revival influence. He
stated that the idea was to have a city gateway in the University Parkway area
with a very street -level focus, so that it created the opportunity for a walkable
area in the city.
He advised that in terms of the Multi -Modal Mobility Strategy, and recognizing
that the car is king in southern California, there is, nevertheless, a role that can
be played by providing a good integrated system of transit, bicycling, and
16 08/06/2007
pedestrian access; and that involves supporting wider sidewalks to really
encourage people to get out and walk several abreast so they are able to partake
of the things that will be developed not only in the University Parkway area, but
throughout the corridor over time. This investment in streetscape can create a
lot of synergy with all of the other elements, such as the economic development
element, and also encourages completion of the planned bicycle route through
the study. He pointed out that they recognize that this plan is somewhat
dependent not only on the City and its residents and its businesses, but also on
cooperation with other major stakeholders including Omnitrans, the County,
Caltrans, and others.
In terms of specific recommendations in the Multi -Modal Strategy, after meeting
with members of the community they identified the need for additional bus
frequencies and services along Highland; consideration of new north/south
transit routes, especially with the completion of the connector between the
university and Highland; and future expansions of University Parkway, which
would provide an additional means to create good connectivity for people and
encourage the use of bicycles with the buses, etc.; and also the development of a
park and ride facility at University Parkway. This facility would be the catalyst
where people would park and have ancillary services available for them so that
the economic development in that area would work hand in hand with providing
a means for people to come to the city, or to come from the city and take
advantage of express services provided by Omnitrans.
Mr. Dial advised that from an Economic Development Strategy perspective,
they looked at three different scenarios for the development of the University
Parkway area. The one that was selected by the community and that offered the
best balance was a mixed use transit oriented development. This would include
higher densification at the gateway of the city, and it would provide for
conceptual land uses that would work with the other elements in the Corridor
Enhancement Plan. He stated that the next phase of this plan was to take the
recommendations forward and develop a Specific Plan for this area.
He stated that they wanted to define uses that would increase the economic
development activity in the area, and one of the recommended ideas for making
the neighborhoods along the corridor more vital was a two -pronged program
involving increased code enforcement to work with the homeowners to identify
deficiencies and get those corrected to raise home values, as well as making the
City's investment in sidewalks and other streetscape improvements. The other
half of the program is to make homeowners aware of, and to promote the
continued use of a number of excellent programs that are already in place in the
City, and also reduce some of the residency requirements that may prove a little
onerous so that more people can get involved to beautify their neighborhoods.
In terms of noise attenuation, he stated that they recognize the completion of the
freeway is going to bring additional traffic that could have impacts, so one of
17 08/06/2007
the things that they looked at was to identify specific locations along the freeway
where the noise levels might be higher as a result of the increased traffic. In
those areas they looked at a number of different alternatives for how
homeowners and businesses could alleviate the noises and they could
recommend specific solutions. He stated that those solutions essentially are
through the use of sound walls, including recommending sound walls in those
areas where there are no sound walls and where there are currently no plans to
provide them, as well as recommending that the existing program to assist
homeowners with acoustic upgrades be continued.
Council Member/Commissioner Johnson acknowledged Lorna Foster from
Caltrans, who, through Caltrans, gave the City the seed money ($250,000) for
this plan, and Angela Saunders, who was the one who sought this money out
and brought it to the City so this plan could be formulated. He stated that it was
a good start and would allow the City to look at a new emerging area in the city
that is eventually going to put a lot of money on the tax rolls.
Council Member/Commissioner Johnson made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Baxter, that the Mayor and Common Council receive
and file the 1-210 Corridor Enhancement Plan; and direct staff to incorporate its
strategies in a specific plan to be prepared in conjunction with the upcoming
analysis of the Northwest Redevelopment Plan. (Note: The motion was
subsequently amended.)
Council Member/Commissioner McCammack asked if there was anything
addressed in this particular plan, or whether it would be addressed during the
specific plan, regarding the difficulty with the on- and off -ramps with the new
connection between the 210 and the 215, which has created quite a few
unintended consequences. She noted that the detour signs when you are going
westbound on the 215 send you through what is soon to be some wonderful
development in the Sixth Ward, but it also sends people, unintended, through a
lot of other little neighborhoods, creating huge amounts of traffic congestion that
were completely unintended.
She stated that she was hoping that the maker of the motion would allow a
friendly amendment to the motion to also incorporate strategies that would
solve, mitigate, and/or diminish the effects or unintended consequences created
by opening the 210 without the additional off -ramps that are truly necessary.
She stated that another big concern she had, that was not included in the plan,
was the fact that there are a lot of folks along the new 210 that have been there
all along when it was called the 30 Freeway and have borne a huge reduction in
property values because of the 30 Freeway going right through their back yards.
She stated that for years they asked for sound walls, and for years they were
18 08/06/2007
told there was no money for sound walls, but that when the 210 broke through,
then there would be money for sound walls.
She noted that this plan did not talk about sound walls through that portion
where it is now the old 30 Freeway. Therefore, it was suggested by several of
the homeowners in those neighborhoods that the City at least provide for them
some grant money that will help them to at least put in double -pane windows
and upgrade their doors; and possibly some other types of grant monies that
would help them reduce the amount of sound.
Ms. McCammack stated that the third and more important thing that has
occurred (unintended consequences again), is the loss of revenue to the
businesses along Highland Avenue —that some of these little mom and pop
businesses have had more than a 50 percent cut in revenues because of the
changes in the freeways.
She stated that she would like to make sure that staff includes mitigation efforts
for the homeowners that are not going to get sound walls, traffic mitigation
efforts until there are properly placed off -ramps and on -ramps and efforts to
mitigate the impact to businesses along Highland Avenue.
Council Member/Commissioner Kelley stated that he was going to support the
item, but he wanted to bring to the attention of the City Manager that everything
in life is an experience, and maybe we can take some of the lessons learned
from what we are doing here and apply them to some of those sections along the
215 Freeway that he referenced earlier —those two particular off -ramps, but also
a section between University Parkway and Palm/Kendall, near Littlefield Shultis
Park that could probably use a sound wall. He stated that he thought this would
do two things —provide a better image of our city as folks come through our city
from the north and provide quiet for the residents that live there and have had to
deal with the traffic for so many years.
Mayor/Chairman Morris noted that Council Member/Commissioner
McCammack had asked for an amendment to the motion. He asked Ms. Rahhal
whether the attenuation of sound impacting those residents that abide alongside
the 30 Freeway had been addressed within the project that was being discussed
today.
Ms. Rahhal stated that relative to the issue of sound impacts adjacent to the
existing 30 Freeway, they did attempt to evaluate what those impacts would be.
They took some sound measurements in the field before the opening of the 210
and made some projections of what the noise levels would be after the freeway
opened based on estimates of traffic volumes that would be on the 210. One of
the things that was identified right away was that, yes, there is a need for
additional sound walls in the area; however, there are also additional projects by
Caltrans on that segment of the freeway and HOV lanes and so on.
19 08/06/2007
She explained that when that additional work on the freeway goes forward it
would include requirements for additional sound walls —when that part of the
freeway is worked on by Caltrans. Unfortunately, that's not immediately going
to happen. Therefore, in the meantime, their plan recommends that the best
thing to do for impacted residents in this area is to implement double paned
windows and increased insulation to make the houses airtight and more sound
proof. She stated that the plan does identify certain grants and loans that are
available to income qualifying households through the Economic Development
Agency, and those residents would be encouraged to make use of those available
resources. She noted, however, that to make a permanent solution, prior to the
additional work that is to be done on the 210, was probably not feasible.
She stated that with regard to the detours in the area of Highland Avenue and
State Streets, those things actually were not completely recognized or taken into
account when they prepared this plan —partly because of the fact that the 215
and 210 interchange is not completed, and therefore certain people who are
coming, for instance, from the west and wanting to make a transition to the 215
south —they will need to exit at the University Parkway off -ramp for quite a
long time. Therefore, they would intend, through the Specific Plan effort, to
look at that interim issue, and certainly the impacts on Highland Avenue and the
changes in traffic flow that would impact businesses on Highland Avenue. She
stated that to summarize, she would say that the detour issues, the traffic on
Highland Avenue, certainly could be incorporated into efforts on the Specific
Plan that is recommended. The sound wall issue on the remaining areas of the
30 could be addressed, but she thought they had already reached the conclusions
on those issues.
Mayor/Chairman Morris asked Ms. Rahhal whether the studies, as she had
described them and with the explanations she had provided, were complete; and
she answered in the affirmative.
He inquired whether the City had additional resources if they were to go out and
there was further work relative to the recommendations in Ms. McCammack's
amendment to the motion to receive and file.
Ms. Rahhal stated that as she understood those recommendations, it was to
identify the issues and make recommendations available of what can be done,
and certainly they could do that.
Council Member/Commissioner Johnson, amended his motion, seconded by
Council Member/Commissioner Baxter, that the Mayor and Common Council
receive and file the I-210 Corridor Enhancement Plan; and direct staff to
incorporate its strategies through a specific plan to be prepared in conjunction
with the upcoming analysis of the Northwest Redevelopment Plan, to include
traffic mitigation efforts relative to the on- and off -ramp situation, sound
20 08/06/2007
mitigation efforts for those residents living along the 30 Freeway, and efforts to
mitigate the impact to businesses along Highland Avenue.
The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/
Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Brinker, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
40. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) workshop - Economic Development
Agency Boardroom - review the Five -Year Capital Improvement Program -
Fiscal Years 2007/08 - 2011/12 (Continued from July 16, 2007)
Note: No Staff Report was included in the backup materials.
Council Member/Commissioner Johnson made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Estrada, that the matter be continued to Monday,
August 13, 2007, at 5:00 p.m. in the Economic Development Agency
Boardroom.
The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/
Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Brinker, Derry, Johnson, McCammack. Nays:
Council Member/Commissioner Kelley. Absent: None.
41. ORD. MC-1253 - An Urgency Interim Ordinance of the City of San
Bernardino establishing a temporary moratorium on the establishment and
operation of new parolee/probationer group homes, registered sex offender
group homes, and unlicensed group homes, declaring the urgency thereof,
and taking effect immediately. URGENCY
City Attorney Penman stated that he wanted to clarify some matters for the
record as to when he brought some of these items forward. He stated that the
issue of parolee dumping was first raised by the City Attorney's office in 1988,
a year after he was first elected, and he has regularly found cause to discuss it
almost every year since then; however, the time when there was the most
discussion about it was in the year 2000 when they closed a number of parolee
half -way houses.
Mayor/Chairman Morris indicated that just as Mr. Penman opened up this
discussion, additional backup materials were being distributed to him and the
Council members, which as a result of this late date distribution, they did not
have a chance to review.
City Attorney Penman explained that some of this information was in the backup
materials —that one document was a correction to the registered sex offender
statistics as of July 25, 2007, and the other contained maps showing the
locations of registered sex offenders in the city.
21 08/06/2007
Mr. Penman explained that the issue of passing ordinances to address the
problem caused by illegal group homes in our city has been the subject of
ongoing discussions by the Mayor and Common Council, the City Attorney's
office, and all City departments for the past ten months. He stated that as a
result of inquiries by Council Members McCammack, Derry, and Kelley earlier
this year, his office had stepped up its work on this issue over the last five
months. However, the legal position of this City for over 20 years has been that
our Development Code is a permissive one, only permitting the uses specifically
listed in the Development Code. Consequently, any use not listed in the
Development Code is not eligible for a conditional use permit, or a City
business license (business registration certificate), and this interpretation has
been in force for many years by various City departments.
He stated that because registered sex offender group homes and those for
parolees, probationers, and unlicensed group homes are not listed in our
Development Code, our enforcement, when pursued, has been more successful
than that experienced by the recent ordinances passed by other cities. He stated
that this is because the way our code is written, we can close any registered sex
offender group home, parolee/probationer group home, or unlicensed group
home of six beds or less, unless they have a state license.
He pointed out that just last year the City brought legal action against an illegal
group home where six registered sex offenders were living next door to a
daycare center, and as a result of that they voluntarily closed their doors. He
stated that proposed measures have been discussed at both City Council
meetings and Legislative Review Committee meetings over the last 20 months.
At Council meetings an item was introduced as recently as April 16, 2007, by
Councilwoman McCammack, for an interim ordinance of the City establishing a
temporary moratorium on the establishment and operation of new residential
care or congregate care facilities of seven or more beds in residential
neighborhoods, which was referred to Legislative Review.
Additionally, on October 16, 2006, the City Attorney's office introduced to the
Council an Ordinance of the City of San Bernardino adding Chapter 9.97 to the
San Bernardino Municipal Code regarding the prohibition of sex offenders from
residing within 2,000 feet of any public or private school, park, or other place
where children regularly gather. That was also referred to Legislative Review
Committee.
He advised that the LRC had heard these matters on October 17, 2006,
September 19, 2006, December 6, 2005, and November 22, 2005; and that
these discussions had been ongoing in the City over a number of years, but
more recently over several months. He stated that there were some concerns
expressed that his office had not been communicating with the Mayor and
22 08/06/2007
Council or City Manager regarding these matters, and he thought some people
may have forgotten some of these Legislative Review Committee meetings and
some of these Council meetings.
Mr. Penman explained that at each of the LRC meetings, his staff had explained
that the ordinances that other cities are adopting to require conditional use
permits are not as effective as our ability to just go in and close these places
down if they are not licensed by the state. Consequently, over the years, they
have recommended not being aggressive in adopting these ordinances.
However, when the Council made their decision at the second meeting in July
not to have the City Attorney's office coordinate those inspections, that brought
up the need to look at these ordinances more closely.
Mr. Penman noted that there was some concern whether at the last meeting they
had discussed this beforehand. He reminded the Mayor of the press release put
out the week before the July 16 meeting in which the Mayor said that Mr.
Penman had repeatedly sought from him the authority to control and dictate
code enforcement actions. He stated that actually, it would be a mistake for the
City Attorney's office to control and dictate Code Enforcement's actions
because if his office did that, in effect they would be taking over the job of the
Code Enforcement Director and the Fire Chief; and as Mr. Brinker indicated at
that meeting, that would be contrary to the Charter.
He stated that they could not do that because they would then compromise the
prosecutorial immunity of which he spoke and of which Mr. Arias spoke at the
last Council meeting —that if the City Attorney is directing the Police
Department or the Fire Department or the Code Enforcement Department he is
acting outside the scope of his lawful authority and that prosecutorial immunity
is lost. He explained that what he did ask to do repeatedly, as the Mayor had
indicated, was to coordinate those inspections; and as the statement indicated, he
and the Mayor have repeatedly discussed that, as the City Manager and he have
discussed that.
Mr. Penman stated that the other thing that happened after the July 16 meeting,
was that his office received from the City Manager's office, at least they thought
it was from the City Manager's office, a copy of the Newport Beach
moratorium ordinance. However, he just learned this morning, talking to Mr.
Wilson and to the secretary in his office who brought that ordinance down to his
office, what actually happened. On July 22, Council Member McCammack
received that ordinance from a constituent and she faxed that ordinance to the
City Manager's office. The next day she faxed the same ordinance to his (Mr.
Penman's) office, and that same day, July 23, Cathy, in Mr. Wilson's office,
brought the ordinance down to his (Mr. Penman's) office and he was informed
that the City Manager had sent a copy of the same ordinance that Mrs.
McCammack sent regarding the Newport Beach moratorium. Then, without
looking at the copy that came from the City Manager's office, he said to give
23 08/06/2007
that to Mr. Empeiio. Therefore, when his office put together this ordinance,
they were working on the assumption that they had been requested by both the
Council member and the City Manager to prepare this ordinance —and that is
how this ordinance came about.
He stated that as indicated in the draft ordinance that they sent out on July 31, a
number of cities have adopted ordinances involving parolees, unlicensed group
homes, etc.; and that the City of Redlands and the City of Highland have both
adopted moratoriums on these group homes. In addition, Redlands, Highland,
Fontana, Ontario, Riverside, Hesperia, Apple Valley, Victorville, Murrietta,
and Yucaipa have also adopted ordinances regulating the zoning of these group
homes. The thought that his office had when they saw this ordinance from Mrs.
McCammack and then through the City Manager's office, was that if such an
ordinance was enacted, which the law allows us to put in place for 45 days
prohibiting any new group homes from coming here, then the Mayor and
Council would have the opportunity to study what these other cities have done
and decide which of their ordinances, if any, they want to enact; or there might
be some new ordinances that could be helpful to our City. He stated that it
seemed to him that it was a less threatening proposal than, as he found out at the
last Council meeting, the idea of his office coordinating the inspections was.
So, they sent it out first to be circulated on July 31, and they received some
responses to it. Then on August 3 they put it on the agenda with the backup.
Mr. Penman pointed out that the Mayor and Council had a thick document
before them that listed the registered sex offenders. He stated that they made
changes from the information they were originally given to drop those that were
in County islands. He also displayed maps prepared by Information Technology
showing the location of registered sex offenders living throughout the city and
indicated there was also a map by wards.
Mr. Penman stated that someone had suggested that the City Attorney should
not be proposing this language. He stated that the charter makes it clear that the
City Attorney has the legal responsibility and shall prosecute all violations of the
municipal code and those violations of state law which the City Attorney is
authorized to prosecute in the state law without the permission of the district
attorney and also to prosecute those violations that are vice or drug related. He
stated that it was in the context of that, that much of this information was
brought forward to the Mayor and Council.
Finally, Mr. Penman stated that he thought this was a good ordinance, it had
been requested by some of the Council members, it was passed to his office
from the City Manager, and he thought they wanted him to do something with
it.
Mayor/Chairman Morris stated that he wanted to be very clear —he was
completely supportive of any ordinance that regulates parolee homes in this
24 08/06/2007
city —and that we should have stayed on top of this issue and had better
ordinances on this issue a long, long time ago. He indicated that Mr. Penman
was the one responsible for staying on top of these municipal code updates; in
fact, Mr. Penman has told members of this Council and the general public that
he is the keeper of the code. He stated that Mr. Penman had a responsibility, as
a City Attorney, to maintain a modern, efficient, and effective code for this City
and to give specific recommendations to this Mayor and Common Council with
regard to these very issues and the new laws that are applicable. He indicated
that in his view, Mr. Penman had been asleep at the switch.
The Mayor stated that prior to discussing the proposed moratorium, he wanted
to voice several very serious concerns related to the proposed moratorium and to
the issue of unlicensed group homes; and they were five in number. He asked
for patience because he had to do some detail work —that he had to spend an
inordinate amount of his time over the last five days digesting both Mr.
Penman's ream of material and the related laws that surround this issue.
Mayor/Chairman Morris outlined the following concerns: First, a failure to
follow legislative process. He noted that the proposed ordinance moratorium
was placed on the agenda by the City Attorney without following the time-
honored legislative process our City has had in place for decades that ensures
legislative proposals receive a full and thorough airing —a review and discussion
and recommendations before it comes before the full Council. He stated that the
Council has the Legislative Review Committee, whose job it is to review
proposed changes to our municipal code; and the proposal placed before the
City Council today was never discussed or reviewed by the LRC before today's
hearing. Thus, they had no recommendation from that committee and its
members, and that concerned him. They had not followed a deliberative
process called a lawmaking process to research this matter on the agenda.
Two. A failure by Mr. Penman to collaborate or consult with elected
policymakers and those departments in our City that are affected by this
proposed moratorium. He failed to consult, work with, discuss, review, or
share this proposal with any of the elected policymakers in the City —with the
Council, with his office, with him personally —nor did he consult, work with, or
discuss it with the departments —with the City Manager, the Police Chief, Code
Enforcement Department, and Development Services.
According to the Mayor, the first time any of these individuals had any word
about this proposal was on Wednesday morning after the draft agenda had been
prepared and published and five days before this meeting —with many of them
becoming aware of it through a newspaper article that had been leaked to the
press the night before. As a result, they had been forced to digest and evaluate
and react to a very complex issue within a matter of days before this Council
meeting. He stated that in simple terms, they had the City Attorney attempting,
25 08/06/2007
in his view, to literally hijack the lawmaking process and engage in what he
described as "policymaking by surprise."
Three. Five months of work and all we have is a proposed moratorium to yet
study this matter further. Mayor/Chairman Morris noted that the City Attorney
claimed in his memorandum that he deposited on their desks last Wednesday,
that he had been working on this matter for some five months; and if that was
true, it was even more unacceptable that he had kept everyone in this City in the
dark about this issue for the past five months.
Mayor/Chairman Morris advised that there were numerous meetings of the LRC
during that time period and not once had this proposed moratorium been
discussed. In addition, the City Manager is ten steps down the hall on the sixth
floor from the City Attorney's office —yet not a word —nothing. The Mayor's
office is just a few steps beyond that —not a word —nothing. He stated that of
even more concern to him was the fact that after five months of work, all they
had before them was a proposed moratorium. He pointed out that if the City
Attorney had in fact collaborated and discussed and reviewed this with those
who have important responsibilities with regards to lawmaking (meaning the
Council, his office, and those affected departments —Police, Code Enforcement,
etc.) they would have had before them today an ordinance that had been
carefully reviewed in the orderly process of lawmaking and not a moratorium
that will lead to more discussion.
Four. Other cities, as has been pointed out, have been far more aggressive on
this issue than ours. Mayor/Chairman Morris pointed out that other cities
around us have been far more aggressive and far more progressive in updating
their municipal codes to address this issue. He stated that in March of 2003,
our state's attorney general issued a very clear opinion, "that cities can prohibit,
limit, or regulate the operation of boarding and rooming homes in a single-
family, low -density residential zone in order to protect and preserve the
residential character of the neighborhood." He stated that the opinion was clear
and concise, and aggressive cities around this state immediately went to work
and upgraded and updated their municipal codes to better regulate the problem
of problematic, unlicensed group homes. In fact, many of those progressive
cities, as pointed out in Mr. Penman's memorandum, are our neighbors —
Fontana and Apple Valley immediately updated their codes in 2003, Riverside
added aggressive measures in 2004, Redlands addressed the issue in 2005, and
Victorville in 2006.
The Mayor stated that additionally, in January of this year, a new law went into
effect —Assembly Bill 2184—that clarified even further that cities can regulate
these kinds of unlicensed group homes. But here we are, August 2007—four
years after the attorney general's opinion, years after other cities have acted and
enforced more aggressive laws on unlicensed group homes, and eight months
26 08/06/2007
after clarifying the new law for the legislature —and we're talking about a
moratorium.
Mayor/Chairman Morris stated that last Wednesday after receiving the proposed
moratorium, he had his office call the Riverside City Attorney to ask how their
city had been doing in enforcing their modern and aggressive code provisions
with regard to group homes for the past three years; and he said they had been
incredibly successful —that he has been going around the state for the past
several years, speaking to city attorneys on this very matter. In fact, he invited
our City to put together a team to sit down with him and with other Riverside
department heads who are working with them on this, to review their modern
codes, their procedures, and their successes in this matter. And he said, "Let's
do it the earliest possible date."
The Mayor indicated that if we had asked Riverside's city attorney that same
question three years ago, we would have had the start of a great collaborative
process that would have led to modernized codes in this City three years past.
Instead, we are literally years late in bringing this forward to update our City
code while other cities around have already done this. He stated that it is
embarrassing, and most importantly, it has continued to let our City be at risk
on these very issues.
Five. The City Attorney says that unlicensed group homes have been illegal in
this city for decades. So, the question for us is, "What have we been doing?"
He stated that this morning they received a new memorandum from the City
Attorney on this issue, which again, most of them barely had enough time to
digest, and Mr. Penman made the following comments:
A. First, Mr. Penman's memorandum claims that the issue of updating our
City's ordinance as related to group homes, has been the subject of open
discussions by the Mayor, Council, and involved departments for the last 20
months. The Mayor asked how then it was possible that no one, except perhaps
the three Council members he alludes to in his memorandum, have had any
inkling that the City Attorney was allegedly working on a draft ordinance. The
Mayor stated that to support his claim, Mr. Penman cited a couple of Council
meetings and a couple of alleged Legislative Review Committees where he said
the matter was discussed. The Mayor stated that he had actually checked the
minutes of those meetings, and in many cases it wasn't discussed. Discussions
in these meetings were mostly general discussions about what other cities were
doing in the areas of group homes, parolee homes, sex offender regulations.
Never once were any specific revisions of our code ever brought forward by the
City Attorney's office, or even discussed. Never once was a specific proposal
made, or direction given to the LRC about what the law could be or should be
to protect our citizenry.
27 08/06/2007
B. The Mayor went on to say that Mr. Penman's memorandum, which they
received this morning, states that small, unlicensed group homes, such as
rooming and boarding houses with six or fewer people, have been illegal in our
city for decades. The City Attorney states, and today in his presentation he
stated that his legal opinion is based on the idea, that if a land use is not listed in
our Development Code, it is not allowed by the law. As the City Attorney is
fond of saying, we have only a permissive Development Code, but so does
every other city in this state. This basic land use law concept applies to every
city development code throughout the state. The reality is, however, that in
dealing with land uses that potentially involve legal or constitutional issues, such
as group housing, if you don't carefully define the type of use you want to
prohibit, limit, or regulate, you can find yourself in very, very messy and
expensive litigation. That's why cities across the state have moved aggressively
to update their municipal codes.
The Mayor advised that in 2003 the law became clear on small group homes in
single-family residential areas of all cities. Other cities reacted quickly, updated
their codes upon specific recommendations and proposals by their city attorneys,
and we sat still. He noted that the City Attorney stated today in his memo that
our City has full authority to close any unlicensed group home because that land
use is not listed in our Development Code. Then why hasn't the City Attorney,
with his City -chartered prosecutorial powers, prosecuted dozens upon dozens of
illegal group homes that are in our city and inundate our residential
neighborhoods.
The Mayor went on to state that today, as so often happens here in this City, he
thought Mr. Penman would once again play the blame game. For example, " I
was issued orders not to close illegal uses." That is a false statement. " I didn't
have the cooperation of other departments." Not true. " I wasn't given the
resources." Not true. He addressed Mr. Penman, stating that based upon the
bold declarations in his memorandum given to the Mayor and Council this
morning, our City has had for decades the strongest municipal code provisions
prohibiting unlicensed group homes and group living arrangements; and
unfortunately, the responsibility for the existence of any illegal group homes in
our city lies nowhere else but at the feet of Mr. Penman's office.
Finally, the Mayor stated that he wanted to bring up two conversations that
individuals have had with the City Attorney regarding this issue during the past
two weeks, because he thought it highlighted the contradictory and politicized
legal advice we receive from our legal counsel.
As described in his July 31 memorandum two weeks ago, Councilman Brinker
contacted Mr. Penman about three clustered, unlicensed, small group homes in
his ward that he was concerned about because of the number of parolees and
registered sex offenders purportedly living in those residences. When
Councilman Brinker asked what could be done about the situation, he was told
28 08/06/2007
by Mr. Penman, "Nothing can be done." How could nothing be done if the
City Attorney knows the uses are clearly illegal, or prohibited in our city.
Moreover, if, as the City Attorney claims, he had been working on a proposed
moratorium for months, why not tell Councilman Brinker that he had an
important issue that he had been working on and would be coming back to the
Council with this proposal.
In similar fashion, the Police Chief also got a call from Councilman Brinker
about those three unlicensed group homes in his ward. After receiving the call,
the police were dispatched to investigate. After investigating the issue and
finding that indeed there were those persons there that concern Mr. Brinker and
his constituents, the Police Chief contacted the City Attorney and asked what
could be done about the situation; and again, the Police Chief was told, "They
are legal —nothing can be done."
The Mayor addressed the Council members, stating that it was clear that
something could be done, and should have been done years ago. He stated that
updated, modern ordinances are needed that will regulate problematic unlicensed
group homes in this city, and they need to aggressively enforce those
ordinances.
The Mayor advised that the proposed moratorium asks for 45 days to study this
issue and bring back an updated ordinance. However, because other cities have
already paved the way years ago, he didn't think 45 days were needed —that
there are plenty of examples out there. He stated that they must act more
quickly, and they must work as they have not worked thus far, collaboratively,
on this issue —as a Mayor, as a Council, as a Police Department, as Code
Enforcement, as a City Attorney; and they can rely on the work of other
departments who are way ahead of us on this issue.
Council Member/Commissioner McCammack stated that the Mayor had made
some false statements about her personally; therefore, she wanted to hear Mr.
Penman's response to all of these accusations, and after he was done she wanted
the Mayor to correct the incorrect statements he made about her personally.
City Attorney Penman responded to the Mayor's comments, as follows: "Your
honor, first of all, I find it somewhat incredible that you would say that we
should follow cities who have been contacting us, including Riverside, and
telling us, "we wish we had not made the mistake of putting group homes into
our development codes" —and that includes Riverside. We don't need any new
ordinances if this Council would let us do what we did in the year 2000. We
closed down seven illegal group homes within a couple of months. When Mr.
Brinker called me, and asked me what we could do, I said "nothing," but he
didn't finish the statement —"nothing, since the Council majority voted not to
permit the City Attorney's office to coordinate those inspections." And I told
him if that had happened, we could have gone in now and closed them.
29 08/06/2007
Now the Mayor says we are exposed to liability if we do that. We never got
sued for years, and we did it year after year. The key to it, as I explained at the
last meeting, was prosecutorial immunity. That is why we didn't get sued. It
wasn't that the people whose group homes were closed didn't threaten to sue or
didn't contact us —they did. We pointed them to the law; we told their lawyers
what the cases said. Now, these ordinances that these other cities have
adopted —they've adopted them because their development codes allow group
homes, and they are playing catch-up. And the group homes that are already in
existence in those cities, even if they pass new ordinances they don't affect
them. He added that State parole admitted that they moved 200 parolees out of
San Bernardino in the year 2000 while they had the cap on; and they did not
transfer any new ones in, until those inspections were stopped.
Mr. Penman reminded the Mayor that he (the Mayor) had written an opinion
piece to the newspaper that was entitled, Parolee Homes Good for San
Bernardino, in which he had criticized those inspections, said they shouldn't
have done them, said the people they found didn't have any warrants for their
arrests, that they didn't find any guns or drugs, and that they should have left.
He stated that the Mayor told them that he knew all about these laws. He stated
that they knew about the laws, and they have discussed them, and Councilman
Kelley has put them on the agenda, and Mrs. McCammack has put them on the
agenda. In fact, the City Attorney's office put one on the agenda in October of
'06—it went to Legislative Review —that had to do with prohibiting sex
offenders from residing within 2000 feet of any public or private school, park or
other place.
Directing his comments to the Mayor, Mr. Penman stated, "I have been asking
you since you became mayor to let us go out and do what we did in 2000.
Mayor, if these ordinances pass, they affect new group homes coming in. As
you know, they may well not be allowed to affect group homes already existing.
Yet we could go out today, if this Council would let us, not in charge of, but
coordinating these inspections and requesting the assistance of police, fire, and
code enforcement, and we could close some of these places down now."
Mayor/Chairman Morris replied that they have been doing that all along.
City Attorney Penman countered that they haven't been; and asked when was
the last time the Mayor closed a group home?
Mayor/Chairman Morris stated that they have been doing exactly what Mr.
Penman was talking about —coordinating as a team these issues of code
enforcement.
30 08/06/2007
Mr. Penman stated that was true with apartments, but not with parolee group
homes, and that he and the Mayor had discussed that many times —that those
once -a -month inspections they have are of apartments.
Mayor/Chairman Morris indicated that Mr. Penman had the sole responsibility
for decisions to prosecute code violations.
Mr. Penman answered that he couldn't prosecute them if he couldn't go out and
investigate, and they couldn't do that unless the code officers and fire inspectors
could go out with police protection —and this Council refused at the last meeting
to let them do that.
Mayor/Chairman Morris stated that Mr. Penman had totally misinterpreted what
happened at the last meeting —that he had the authority to do what he had just
asked Council's permission to do. He stated that Mr. Penman didn't need
Council authority to prosecute.
Mr. Penman responded: "Then why can't I call the Police Chief and say, we're
going to have an inspection, would you loan us some officers? Why can't I call
Code Enforcement and ask for assistance?"
Mayor/Chairman Morris replied that when he said to Mr. Penman that he had
that authority, all he was saying to him is that we'll coordinate with Police and
Code Enforcement.
Mr. Penman then countered that that was the item that was on the agenda —that
was Mr. Derry's motion and the Mayor had voted it down.
The Mayor answered that he (Mr. Penman) was right, because the item was to
put Mr. Penman in charge.
Mr. Penman stated that they were not authorized to enforce fire codes, and most
of these group homes close down before they even have to go to court because
they find so many fire code violations. He noted that he and the Mayor were
obviously going to disagree; however, he still respected the Mayor.
Council Member/Commissioner McCammack reminded the Mayor and he was
not the policymaker—they (the Council) were. She stated that she needed to
clarify for the public so they didn't misunderstand what the Mayor was saying —
that he was not the policymaker—they were.
City Attorney Penman stated that in light of the decision by the City Council not
to allow them to resume the inspections that they did so successfully in 2000,
these ordinances that other cities have adopted (which he stated are less effective
than our own current Development Code, and which those cities have said that
they wished they had not put the group homes and other categories into their
31 08/06/2007
development codes, because it could be interpreted to allow parolee group
homes), are the next best thing, but they are not the best thing —the best thing is
inspections.
Mayor/Chairman Morris stated that Mr. Penman stood alone in that analysis —
that there were no other cities that do what he had just suggested —that to the
best of his knowledge, what you have are cities moving aggressively in the
manner he described, consistent with Lockyer's decision in 2003, that allows
cities to regulate these land uses.
Mr. Penman stated that he would respectfully encourage the Mayor and
Council, if they were not going to reconsider their action of July 16, to put in
place this urgency ordinance. He noted that the Mayor had asked why they only
had this one moratorium ordinance, but that they had a lot more than this.
However, the purpose of the urgency ordinance is to freeze everything so that
Council can look at everything else without new group homes sneaking in while
they are in the process of doing that.
Mayor/Chairman Morris stated that he understood what the purpose of the
moratorium was —his only suggestion was that they do it with more dispatch.
Mr. Penman ascertained that the law only allowed them to do 45 days, then it
allowed them to do five months more, and then it allowed them to do two years
more —and Redlands and Highland and other cities are doing that —and it is a
way to keep new group homes from coming in for a number of years. He stated
that the job of the City Attorney was merely to bring it before them, and at the
last meeting he had brought them a way to solve, or at least greatly reduce, the
number of illegal parolee homes in this city. However, they chose not to do
that. Now he has come back with what he believes is the next best thing.
Council Member/Commissioner Brinker stated that he had a group of people
who had been waiting very patiently here tonight, who lived on the street
discussed earlier in the meeting that now has 13-15 sex offenders living on their
street; and he wanted to clarify exactly what they can and cannot do. His
questions to Mr. Penman were, "If our City Manager directs you and our Police
Chief and our Firefighters and our Code Enforcement to go to that house and do
an inspection, can we do it? Do we have the immunity that you have talked
about, and can we close them down?"
Mr. Penman answered that in his opinion, asking the City Manager to take
charge of those inspections would be like the District Attorney asking Mark
Uffer, the County Administrative Officer, to take his prosecutorial functions.
He stated that if the City Manager is the one making the request, it's not for
prosecutorial purposes, but if the City Attorney's office makes the request,
which is why he came to the Council July 16, and they go there and they find
that they don't have State licenses, yes, they can close them. If they go there
32 08/06/2007
and find they are in violation of fire codes, which most of these places usually
are, the Fire Department can close them right away. They can close them by
going to court.
Mr. Penman stated that he couldn't tell the Council if this place was licensed,
definitively, or if they have any fire code violations; but if they went out there
and found fire code violations, or they asked them to produce a license and they
didn't have a license, they are in violation. He stated that if it was a fire code
violation —a life and safety issue —they would close them right away. If it's no
license, they take that information to court, because they are required to have
their license on the premises. He added that they do have trouble getting
information sometimes on who has licenses and who doesn't, but insofar as
collaboration is concerned, they have developed a close working relationship
with the licensing department in Riverside. He stated that they have
acknowledged that they have some problems in their record keeping of some
places in terms of whether they have licenses or not, but they come with the
City's team and they are the ones that will ask for the license. And they will
find out pretty quick if they've got one or not.
Mr. Brinker asked again, "So, can we close it down?" Mr. Penman answered,
"We possibly can."
Council Member/Commissioner Brinker stated that he was still confused, so he
was going to try his best to clarify it —that he needed clarification. He
questioned whether Mr. Penman was saying that he was the only person who
could make that determination as to whether or not they should go there.
Mr. Penman said he was not saying that —what he was saying was, if they
request it as part of a case where they have already determined the probable
cause to file it, then they have prosecutorial immunity.
Mr. Brinker then said, "But, you said, that you don't have any firefighters who
work for you, or any code enforcement or police officers —they don't work for
you. So, how is it that you are able to make this determination that we need to
go there."
Mr. Penman answered, "We make the request to use their resources and their
skills. What we do before that is, we would have already received from Code,
Fire, and/or the Police Department sufficient information to make a
determination that enough probable cause exists to file a criminal complaint."
Mr. Brinker rephrased his original question by asking, "If our City Manger tells
Code and Fire and Police if they find one of these places to refer them to you
and they go out and deal with it, can we do it?"
Mr. Penman answered, "Yes, but they would not have prosecutorial immunity."
33 08/06/2007
Mr. Brinker replied: "I don't understand. If they find a place, just because he
told them to go talk to you, now the immunity is gone. But if they, just on their
own, just out of the goodness of their heart, think, you know what, maybe I
should just go talk to the City Attorney about this . . . "
Mr. Penman stated, "And that's what they usually do."
When Council Member/Commissioner Brinker stated that that made no sense to
him, Mr. Penman stated he would try to explain it even more carefully.
He stated that as a result of the last Council meeting, from here on out they
would actually file a complaint first —they would file the complaint based on that
information. Then they would say, let's get an inspection warrant and let's go
back out with Code and Fire and Police, under their own supervisors —his office
would coordinate it, but they would not be in charge of it —they would go out,
they would gather evidence, and they would use that evidence to prove the case
they had filed. And if they happened to find new evidence, they would even
amend the complaint to add new allegations if they were there.
Mayor/Chairman Morris stated that he in no way opposed this item, but he
thought they ought to move it more quickly than the 45 days that had been
requested, because he thought they had the information required to do the job
now in modernizing our codes.
He advised that he had asked the Police Chief to do some investigation for Mr.
Penman and those at the dais, and to answer some questions about the parolee
and the sex offender population in our city and in these homes. At the Mayor's
request he had assigned a whole team of people to go out and do some important
investigations so he could share with everyone the numbers that are out there,
both parolees related to sex offenders on parole and others.
Police Chief Billdt advised that he had looked at the backup material outlined by
Mr. Penman's proposed ordinance and the memorandums dated July 27 and July
31, 2007. He noted that specifically in the backup there was reference made to
three categories of residential facilities. First, adult residential facilities —it was
stated that there are 39 located in the city —actually there are 32-7 of them are
in the County area. He stated that 15 elderly residential care facilities are noted;
however, there are 14 in the city —the other 1 is in the County. And then lastly,
there are 14 group homes —that the backup listed 15; however, there are actually
14 in the city and 1 in the County.
He stated that the Police Department has five parole liaison officers who are
charged with the responsibility of working collaboratively with State Parole to
manage the city's parole population. Those five parole liaison officers contacted
these locations as well as accessed what we call parolees. Parolees is a
34 08/06/2007
computer base which means Law Enforcement Automated Data System. Of the
total 60 care facilities in our town, they researched each one of those locations
and found the following information:
Of the 32 adult residential facilities, there are 255 total occupants —one is a
parolee. Of the 14 elderly residential care facilities, there are 412 occupants —
one is a parolee. Of the 14 licensed group homes in our community, there are
82 occupants —none of which are parolees. He stated that these three classes of
facilities —the residential care facilities, the elderly care facilities, and the group
homes —all of them were licensed by the State of California to have group
homes in our community.
Chief Billdt advised that they also took a look at all of the State of California
Department of Alcohol and Drug Program's programs in our community. He
stated that they had the opportunity to go out and review 23 of the locations, and
each of those locations was licensed by the State. Of the 204 occupants, 57 of
them are parolees —they confirmed that. He stated that they have a few more
locations to check, but because of the time constraints last week they weren't
able to physically get out to 83 different locations, but they visited a substantial
portion of them, and those are the numbers they came up with. Of all of those
facilities in our community, there were 59 parolees living in them.
They were also asked to take a look at the criteria for State licensing of
residential and out -patient drug and alcohol programs. He stated that the
licensing requirements are outlined by Title 9 of the California Code of
Regulations, Section 10501, and it defines which facilities that are operated for
the treatment of drug and alcohol abuse.
Mayor/Chairman Morris stated that he had also asked the Chief to look at those
facilities to see if they were operating within the parameters of their State
licenses —that is, were they clean and within State regulations. He asked the
Chief what he had found in that regard.
Chief Billdt advised that each of those locations that were licensed were found to
be in compliance with State Licensing. He stated that another thing he wanted
to point out was that there are 85 licensed facilities in the County of San
Bernardino for drug and alcohol treatment; and 35 percent of those locations are
within the City limits —so we have 30 of the 85 licensed for the County within
the City of San Bernardino.
Lastly, they looked at the number of sex registrants in our community. They
got on the database some of the ones that were shown on the screen tonight, and
the actual number of sex registrants, which is governed by Penal Code Section
290, is 420 as of today.
35 08/06/2007
The Mayor inquired whether that was the number Mr. Penman had indicated in
his memorandum as being 513.
Chief Billdt stated that the memorandum outlined 508; however, 80-some of
those registrants are in the County —they are not in the City limits. Of the 420
sex registrants, as defined by Penal Code Section 290, 93 are on active parole
and 7 are parolees at large, for a total of 100 current parolees out of the 420 sex
registrants. He explained that when a person, as a condition of their conviction
is required to register —that's for life —and Section 290 registrants have to
register for the rest of their life no matter where they go. Each time they move
they are required to register. However, parole does not last a lifetime —it lasts
usually three or four years, and that's why so many of these 290 registrants are
no longer under State Parole.
Lastly, they looked at the 1,714 known parolees in the city, as well as the 420
PC 290 sex registrants; and they are in the process of doing a file by file search
of every parolee and every sex registrant to determine where they live in our
community, other than those that are listed living at the licensed facilities.
Mayor Morris asked how soon the Chief could have that information for the
Council.
Chief Billdt replied that they were going through 2,134 records, which takes
about 10-15 minutes each. He stated it was going to take weeks of his officers
being off the street at their computers researching this data, but they're going to
get it done.
City Attorney Penman asked if it would be more than 45 days.
The Chief stated that his time frame for getting this done was August 22.
Council Member/Commissioner McCammack asked the Chief whether he had
any idea, since we garner less than 10 percent of the total County's population,
why it is that we have 35 percent of the total licensed facilities?
The Chief stated that he thought that most of the treatment facilities that have
been licensed from the State have opened up shop in San Bernardino to attend to
the population that is here.
She asked the Chief whether he was aware that, according to the maps that had
been printed out by Information Technology, there were actually registered sex
offenders living within half a block of many schools in our community —for
instance, there was a registered sex offender within half of a block of Clare
Cherry.
36 O8/06/2007
Chief Billdt acknowledged that, in fact, he and the City Attorney had discussed
that earlier this week with regard to the requirements of PC 290, and also two
laws on the books that have to be considered—Megan's Law and Jessica's Law.
He stated that Jessica's Law is the most recent law that has to do with serious
sexual, habitual offenders. However, that law is tied up in the appellate court
right now because the courts are trying to determine its application and
enforcement of it. He explained that the issue is whether or not it is retroactive
to all 290 registrants, or whether it's only for those that are registrants in the
future; and until the courts decide, it's difficult to enforce because one of the
partners that has to enforce it with us is State Parole.
Council Member/Commissioner Estrada clarified that because they have to
register as a sex offender for life, theoretically somebody could be on the list
who was a sex offender and did his time 20 years ago; and he would continue to
be on the list for the next 20 or 30 years.
Chief Billdt stated that was correct —that any person that is a sex registrant,
could have been convicted decades ago, and as long a they live in the city they
will remain on the list.
Mayor/Chairman Morris stated that his recommendation would be that they
move with dispatch to enact this moratorium and they would have a report from
the Police Chief and all the data they need to make an intelligent decision by the
23`d of August.
Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by
Council Member/Commissioner Derry, that said urgency ordinance be adopted.
(Note: The vote was taken following further discussion and public comments.)
Council Member/Commissioner Estrada stated that given everything that had
been said, she wanted to hear from the Mayor exactly where he stood on this
issue at this point.
Mayor/Chairman Morris answered that he believed they ought to move to do
exactly what was recommended. He stated that he thought the 45 days was
excessive given the need for this action and given the information that we have
from our own work in the City Attorney's office for the last five months and the
information they have from colleagues across the state who have done this years
in advance of us.
Ms. Estrada then asked the Mayor directly what his recommendation would be.
Mayor/Chairman Morris stated, "My recommendation is that we adopt the
moratorium and move as quickly as possible to enact a piece of legislation here
37 08/06/2007
that will give us what we need by way of the protection that other cities have
that we don't have."
Council Member/Commissioner Brinker pointed out that even if they did have
45 days, nothing prohibits them from acting quicker than that and putting
something in place before the 45 days is up. Secondly, he noted that he had a
large number of constituents present who had been waiting very patiently and
wanted to speak. He stated that he wanted to hear from them because he knew
they had some very important concerns to share; and he requested that their
comments be heard prior to the vote being taken.
Ruben Lopez, 2648 Valencia Avenue, San Bernardino, CA, suggested that the
Mayor work with the City Attorney so they could come to some kind of
conclusion prior to the Council meetings. He stated that residents in his
neighborhood used Jessica's Law to remove a sex offender from their
neighborhood and we all need to protect our kids.
Roy Ferguson, 288 East 47" Street, San Bernardino, CA, stated that two years
ago they had five sex offenders in their neighborhood and Mr. Penman worked
with them to get them out.
Joe Ortiz, 387 West 25th Street, San Bernardino, CA, stated that about 7/10 of a
mile above Tom Minor Park there is a house for sale and the real estate ad in
front of the home states that the home is being sold as an adult care facility,
complete with two beds for each bedroom. He stated that the company was
from Covina and the ad stated that six patients could occupy the house. He
expressed concern that these people could end up being parolees.
Jay Lindberg, 6340 Orange Knoll, San Bernardino, CA, spoke regarding the
parolee issue and asked what do you do with these individuals —that the jails are
running out of space and they have to go somewhere. He stated that there are
1,000 families that will be losing their homes within the next three months here
in San Bernardino; and the Council's focus is on the wrong thing and not to the
best interest of the citizens.
Eusebia Albarado, 1335 West King Street, San Bernardino, CA, stated that she
has seven children and they are surrounded by these homes with druggies and
sex offenders. She stated she is scared and wants something done about it.
Jose Sanchez asked for help in moving these unsavory individuals out of the
neighborhood on King Street.
38 08/06/2007
Mary Cortez, 1365 West King Street, San Bernardino, CA, stated she has lived
at this location for 31 years. She stated that 1331 is a small two -bedroom home
with a studio in the back and that sex offenders are living there, with more on
the other side; and the kids in the neighborhood are living in fear.
David Rubalcava, 1353 West King Street, San Bernardino, CA, stated he has
lived in the neighborhood for over 36 years and the block has always been
family oriented and kids have always been able to play outside. He stated that
there are four residents on King Street that house 15 sex offenders. He stated
that these individuals are active at all hours of the day and night and he is fearful
of leaving his family when he goes to work. He urged the Mayor and Council
to do something regarding this matter and to quit playing the blame game among
themselves.
Ralph Affaitati, 5398 North Leroy Street, San Bernardino, CA, stated that he
had learned that the city of Newport Beach had an ordinance that was in place
and was working relative to this matter. He obtained a copy from Newport
Beach's city attorney and then sent a copy to a prime City of San Bernardino
administrator, who said he would forward it to the Mayor's office. He also told
this administrator that he was also going to send a copy to Council Member
McCammack's office, since she was so involved in this issue.
Mr. Affaitati stated that he hoped the Mayor would get together with the City
Attorney and work on something that other cities have done. He stated that the
State of California is going to have an incredible release of numerous parolees,
and we have to be ready for it.
Mayor/Chairman Morris informed Mr. Affaitati that he had not received any
information from anyone about the Newport Beach ordinance. He stated that
the first time he saw it was on Wednesday of last week when it was hand carried
to him by the City Attorney.
David McCammack, 634 East Parkdale Drive, San Bernardino, CA, spoke
regarding the large number of signs placed on utility and street name poles
throughout San Bernardino. He stated that we are bringing in a cottage industry
to our City by individuals who are buying up foreclosures and setting up parolee
houses. He noted that all the signs are illegal and that Code Enforcement should
be taking them down and fining these individuals.
David Hanes, 2048 West Lincoln Avenue, San Bernardino, CA, a partner with
Turrill Transitional Assistance Program, stated that they run the three houses on
King Street and they are not eligible to apply for a license because they have six
people or less in each residence, and a license is not required. He stated that
whether we like it or not, parolees have to come home, and sex offenders have
39 08/06/2007
to come home unless they are given a life sentence, and the community has to
deal with these individuals. He stated that they are a nonprofit corporation —that
they don't own any property, they don't buy any properties, and they are not
amassing any money —that they charge $350 per month for these parolees to live
with them. He stated that they do the best that they can, but they need help
from the State and from the City and from the County —that these people have to
be someplace.
He noted that Mr. Penman had claimed that he had shut the house down on 48'
Street, but he did not shut that house down —they won that court battle. He
stated that the judge would not give Mr. Penman the injunction —that they had
moved out on their own because they didn't want trouble —but the judgment was
in their favor. Insofar as the 305 parolees that are absconding right now, that is
what their program is trying to stop; and that the State would be bringing in
people to help find them. He stated that he would rather have these people in a
home where they are monitored and have to sign in and out, and where parole
agents come over almost daily to monitor the parolees.
Mr. Hanes also stated that we can't go after these people with code violations —
it is illegal. We can't pick out a house and say, we're going to check that house
for violations and close it down if it has violations —we can't do that. We need
regulations, and he thinks the Mayor is right when he says that we need to put
something together and regulate how these houses work and how many can be in
a certain neighborhood and what neighborhoods. According to Mr. Hanes, the
houses on King Street meet the requirements of Jessica's Law and Megan's
Law; and the reason they are there is because there are so few places left where
parolees that are sex offenders can live —that if you take a map and you make a
circle around all the schools and all the parks of a half mile radius you will see
that there are not many places left in the city where they can live, and they have
to live somewhere.
Tom Kanavos, 1962 Turrill Avenue, San Bernardino, CA, stated that he was
President and CEO of Turrill Transitional. He stated that Turrill Transitional
Assistance Program is not parolee housing —they are sober livings, which
require no permitting by the State. He stated that they do random drug and
alcohol testing; and they provide transportation to and from church functions
and 12-step meetings, as well as job interviews and to and from work. They
help the clients get ID and Social Security cards so that they are prepared to
work. Their curriculum consists of Tuesday, a bible study at the Tenth Street
house; Wednesday, they take them to a 12-step Narcotics Anonymous meeting;
Thursday, a bible study at the King Street facility; Friday, a 12-step meeting;
and on Sunday, breakfast and church —that's what they do.
Mr. Kanavos advised that being a 501C(3) they are able to provide some food
for all of these houses. They are a structured program inasmuch as they provide
40 08/06/2007
jobs and/or interviews for almost 30 of their clients in different locations. He
advised that according to the Department of Justice (DOJ), nearly 85 percent of
parolees have substance abuse problems. In San Bernardino the DOJ reports
30-50 percent of all parolees are homeless. He stated that Turrill Transitional
does feel that there have been opportunistic investors who damage the reputation
of sober livings in general by not supervising the residents, by not offering any
curriculum designed to help the parolee back into society, and by not
communicating with the parolees' parole agents to effect positive re-entry into
society.
Council Member/Commissioner Kelley, speaking from the podium, provided his
address-5066 North Varsity, San Bernardino, CA —stating that he was a father
of four children in this city; and like many other families in this city he was
trying to raise his children in family -friendly neighborhoods. He stated that he
was so disappointed that he had to come before this dais to speak —to ask a
question —and he noted that he only had a very short amount of time because the
City Clerk would cut him off.
Mr. Kelley addressed Mr. Hanes and asked him if he had added on to the
facility, as one of the residents had said.
(Note: Although someone spoke from the back of the room, the recording
deputy city clerk was unable to see who was speaking or to hear and understand
the remarks being made.)
Mayor/Chairman Morris reminded Mr. Kelley that this was his time to address
the Council, and if he wanted to engage this individual in a conversation he
could do so privately.
Council Member/Commissioner Kelley answered that he had a concern that he
would like to bring to the attention of the Mayor and Council; and the Mayor
told him to go ahead.
Mr. Kelley stated that he would like the Mayor and Common Council to
immediately investigate the lady who said that there was an add -on to that
house —that it could endanger the lives and well-being of the residents because
they cannot get a fire truck through. He stated that there was a requirement in
this City —a City code —and that was what he was trying to understand —he was
not coming down on the house —he wanted to know whether they were
endangering the lives and safety of the structures next to them because fire
personnel possibly could not get a fire truck through. He reiterated that he
would like the Mayor and Common Council to immediately go out there and
investigate whether there is adequate space/distance to protect adjacent
properties and lives.
41 08/06/2007
Council Member/Commissioner Brinker stated that he had the opportunity to
visit our local parole office and see an intake meeting for about 40-45 parolees.
He had a chance to talk with some of the parole staff and find out what it is that
they do and what we are dealing with.
About 30-50 percent of them are homeless; and about 80-85 percent of them are
addicted to some sort of substance. He saw a lot of nonprofit agencies —mostly
churches —reaching out to minister to these people.
Mr. Brinker stated that he believed Mr. Kanavos' or Mr. Hanes' agency was
gaming the system and playing games with the law. They made a law to limit it
to six or less for a reason, and so to create a property that has multiple
residences, if you even want to call them that, and then put 15 people there, is
really disingenuous; and to call it a sober living facility instead of a parolee half-
way house is also disingenuous.
Mr. Brinker went on to say that he agrees with the Mayor. He stated that he is
on the Legislative Review Committee, and he wants this to come before the
committee and take action.
The motion made by Council Member/Commissioner McCammack, seconded
by Council Member/Commissioner Derry, that said urgency ordinance be
adopted, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/
Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Brinker, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
42. An Ordinance of the City of San Bernardino repealing Chapter 8.35 to Title
8 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code, that any vehicle used to solicit an
act of prostitution or to acquire or attempt to acquire a controlled substance
is a nuisance subject to seizure and impoundment. FIRST READING
City Attorney Penman stated that this was a case where the Court of Appeal in
July 2000 ruled that this ordinance was constitutional, that decision was recently
overturned by the State Supreme Court, and just today his office learned that the
City of Stockton was asking for a rehearing. He stated that he did not think the
Supreme Court would rehear this matter, but they might; therefore, he was
recommending that this matter be continued to the next meeting.
Council Member/Commissioner Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Baxter, that the matter be continued to the
Council/Commission meeting of August 20, 2007.
The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/
Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Brinker, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
42 08/06/2007
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
Staff Present: Mayor/Chairman Morris; Council Members/Commissioners Estrada,
Baxter, Brinker, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack; Economic Development
Agency Executive Director Pacheco and Special Counsel Sabo, City Clerk Clark.
Absent: None.
R43. RES. CDC/2007-24A - Resolution of the Community Development
Commission of the City of San Bernardino approving and authorizing the
Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San
Bernardino ("Agency") to execute (1) a Redevelopment Cooperation
Agreement by and between the Agency and Inland Valley Development
Agency ("IVDA") and (2) a Redevelopment Project Study Agreement by
and between the Agency and Street -Manchester, LLC (Fairway Homes
Project - IVDA Redevelopment Project Area).
Council Member/Commissioner Johnson stated that Bonnie Johnson, who is his
employer as well as his aunt, owns property in this area; therefore, he would
abstain on this item. He left the Council Chambers and returned after the vote
was taken.
Maggie Pacheco, Executive Director, Economic Development Agency, advised
that this study agreement would simply give the Agency the opportunity to work
with Street -Manchester to look at the possible expansion of that residential
development —that there was no financial obligation or commitment on the part
of the Agency other than to work with Street -Manchester to see if what we are
referring to as Project No. 2 option is possible.
Ms. Pacheco stated that the matter was discussed at length at Redevelopment
Committee, however, they did not have a recommendation from the Committee.
She stated that Council Member/Commissioner Estrada did indicate that she was
desirous of ensuring that there was a time frame for performance for this
particular agreement; therefore, she wanted to point out that in the study
agreement they had actually added a schedule for performance on page 8, which
specifically deals with the various actions that need to take place during the
course of this agreement; and it is very specific so that they are able to track the
activity of the proposed development.
Council Member/Commissioner Brinker made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Derry, that said resolution be adopted.
Resolution No. CDC/2007-24A was adopted by the following vote: Ayes:
Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Brinker, Derry, Kelley.
43 08/06/2007
Nays: Council Member/Commissioner McCammack. Abstentions: Council
Member/Commissioner Johnson. Absent: None.
R44. RES. CDC/2007-25 - Resolution of the Community Development
Commission of the City of San Bernardino approving and authorizing the
Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San
Bernardino ("Agency") to execute a Demolition Contract by and between
the Agency and Dakeno, Inc. for the demolition of Agency properties
located at 708, 720, 734 and 740 West 4t' Street and 755 West 5" Street,
San Bernardino (Downtown Mixed -Use Project - Central City North
Redevelopment Project Area).
Council Member/Commissioner Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Baxter, that said resolution be adopted.
Resolution No. CDC/2007-25 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes:
Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Brinker, Derry, Kelley,
Johnson. Nays: Council Member/Commissioner McCammack. Absent:
None.
45. Public hearing - Resolution ordering the vacation of an east -west alley,
northerly of Little League Drive and east of Magnolia Avenue
RES. 2007-335 - Resolution of the City of San Bernardino ordering the
vacation of an east -west alley, northerly of Little League Drive and east of
Magnolia Avenue.
Mayor/Chairman Morris opened the hearing.
Valerie Ross, Director of Development Services, explained that this is really a
paper street that does not actually exist in real life. She stated that it was not
needed for circulation purposes and there was no opposition from the adjoining
property owner, who happens to be the same person.
No public comments were received.
Council Member/Commissioner Kelley made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Baxter, that the hearing be closed; that the Findings of
Fact, as set forth in the staff report from the Director of Development Services,
dated July 9, 2007, as to why the east -west alley, northerly of Little League
Drive and east of Magnolia Avenue is no longer necessary for public street
purposes, be adopted; and that said resolution be adopted.
44 08/06/2007
The motion carried and Resolution No. 2007-335 was adopted by the following
vote: Ayes: Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Brinker,
Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
46. Public Comments
Jay Lindberg, 6340 Orange Knoll, San Bernardino, CA, shared a new speech
with the Mayor and Council regarding Our New Reality.
David McCammack, 634 East Parkdale Drive, San Bernardino, CA, spoke
regarding the signs posted all over town on the utility poles, stating that the City
needs to enforce the laws that it has, and Code Enforcement personnel need to
get our there and do their jobs.
Bridgette Washington, 433 North Sierra Way, San Bernardino, CA, with San
Bernardino Public Employees' Association, expressed her concern regarding
two employees with 20 years of combined service, who are semi -skilled and
work in the Refuse Department and are at risk of having their jobs contracted
out. She stated she wanted to bring this to the Mayor and Council's attention
before the matter comes before them at their next meeting.
Joe Ortiz, 387 West 25i° Street, San Bernardino, CA, spoke regarding the
Mayor's political agenda, stating that what he wants is a kangaroo court. He
urged the public to beware of any candidates backed by the Mayor and his three
compadres.
Reverend Vines, 2662 North "E" Street, San Bernardino, CA, representing the
San Bernardino Valley Community Development Corporation, stated that five
months ago the corporation began working with Parks and Recreation to put in
the garden at Anne Shirrells Park and they still don't have a Letter of
Agreement regarding the work they are doing.
Marilyn Alcantar, 1495 Kingman Street, San Bernardino, CA, spoke regarding
the semi trucks coming through her neighborhood. She stated that signs are
posted stating that there are alternate routes, and she asked what the City could
do to keep these trucks from coming onto their streets —that it is especially
problematic on the weekends.
Mayor/Chairman Morris asked her to speak with the City Manager.
Paul Sanborn, 3559 Genevieve, San Bernardino, CA, stated that a major
catastrophe was about to happen —that on the west side of the Mountain View
Cemetery they are going to block off 17 streets and pull the asphalt off and sell
the property as graves. Then they will repeat the process on the east side of the
cemetery.
45 08/06/2007
Roy Ferguson, 288 East 47`h Street, San Bernardino, CA, spoke regarding the
problem of signs on the utility poles all over San Bernardino. He suggested
printing the yard sale and sign ordinances in both Spanish and English and
mailing them out with the water bills, and implementation of a $50-100 fine.
Carmen Nevarez, 7075 Osbun Road, San Bernardino, CA, spoke regarding the
"goings-on" at the Council meeting and about a ticket she received about eight
months ago that is still in "consideration" by the City. She appealed to the
Mayor and Council to forfeit the fine because nothing has been done during all
these months and it has been very stressful to her.
Mayor Morris indicated that the City Manager was taking her information and
would be investigating the matter.
Charles Greenwood, San Bernardino, CA, an employee in the Refuse
Department, stated that the bickering needs to stop. He stated that a lot of
things are going on in Refuse that need to be looked at; and that in Refuse and
during the Council meetings it appears that everybody is doing whatever they
feel like doing, when they should be working together.
47. Adjournment
At 8:19 p.m., the meeting adjourned to 5:00 p.m., on Monday, August 13,
2007, in the Economic Development Agency Boardroom, 201 North "E" Street,
to discuss the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The next joint regular
meeting of the Mayor and Common Council/Community Development
Commission is scheduled for 1:30 p.m., Monday, August 20, 2007, in the
Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino,
California.
No. of Items: 47
No. of Hours: 6.75
RACHEL G. CLARK
City Clerk
By: " I
Linda E. Hartzel
Deputy City Clerk
46 08/06/2007