HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-05-2007 MinutesSan
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
300 N. "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Website: www.sbciiy.org
Mayor Patrick J. Moms
Council Members:
Esther Estrada
Dennis J. Baxter
Tobin Brinker
Neil Derry
Chas Kelley
Rikke Van Johnson
Wendy McCammack
MINUTES
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
JOINT REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 5, 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 1:35 p.m., Monday, November 5, 2007, in the Council
Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California.
Roll Call
Roll call was taken by Assistant City Clerk Medina with the following being present:
Mayor/Chairman Morris; Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Brinker,
Derry, Johnson, McCammack; City Attorney Penman, Assistant City Clerk Medina,
City Manager Wilson. Absent: Council Member/Commissioner Kelley.
Council Member/Commissioner Kelley Arrived
At 2:00 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):
Michael Desrochers, Steve Lowes v. City of San Bernardino, et al. -
United States District Court Case No. EDCV 06-1408 VAP (JCRx);
Maria Glander v. City of San Bernardino, et al. - San Bernardino
Superior Court Case No. SCVSS 123858;
1 11/05/2007
Michael Negrete v. City of San Bernardino, et al. - United States
District Court Case No. EDCV 06-01047;
Christina Smith, Guardian ad Litem for Cornelious Brooks, et al. v. City
of San Bernardino, et al. - United States District Court Case No. EDCV
06-00860;
Danuta Tuszynska v. City of San Bernardino, et al. - San Bernardino
Superior Court Case No. CIVSS 705138;
City of San Bernardino and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
San Bernardino, California v. LNR San Bernardino, LLC, et al. - San
Bernardino Superior Court Case No. CIVSS 700793.
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.
City Attorney Penman announced that the following additional items would be
discussed in closed session:
Under Agenda Item No. 1.13, Significant Exposure to Litigation:
North Ofelia Drive Residents, et al. v. City of San Bernardino; and
2 11/05/2007
Under Agenda Item No. 1.D, Personnel:
Lieutenant Mitch Kimball;
Human Resources Technician.
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.
Moment of Silence
Mayor Morris extended condolences to the families and requested a moment of silence
in memory of 22-year-old Deivon Cassidy McGee, son of Kim McGee of the City's
Public Services Department, who lost his life in a senseless drive -by shooting;
Antoinette J. Haldorsen, widow of the late Superior Court Judge Thomas Haldorsen;
and Dr. Phil Pope, a lifetime resident of San Bernardino who practiced dentistry in San
Bernardino for 40 years.
Invocation/Pledge of Allegiance
The invocation was given by Sister Carmel Crimmins of the Diocese of San
Bernardino, followed by the pledge of allegiance, led by Bill Crawley, a student at
Anderson School.
2. Appointments
Board of Police Commissioners
• Robert Vincent - Mayor Morris
Youth Advisory Commission
• Chelsea Lock - Council Member Baxter
• Mireya Olguin - Council Member Derry
• Christian Kelley - Council Member Kelley
Council Member/Commissioner Kelley made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Baxter, that the appointments of Robert Vincent,
Chelsea Lock, Mireya Olguin, and Christian Kelley, as requested by Mayor
Morris and Council Members Baxter, Derry, and 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 11/05/2007
3. Proclamations & Presentations
Mayor/Chairman Morris recognized Susana Atanasova for her "Make a
Difference Day" efforts in organizing the "Great Clean Air Tree Planting
Project," which involved the planting of 150 trees throughout the city. Also
recognized were the following City employees, who pitched in and supervised:
Nick Gonzales, Mayor's Office; Kim Burgett, David Frichtel, Jesse Hernandez,
Emerald Pelaez, and Shane Zeman, Parks and Recreation Department; and
Dennis Garrahan, John Hagar, Daniel Mishodek, and Tom Townsend from the
Public Services Department.
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.
Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made the following comments on
behalf of a gentleman who uses a wheelchair and was in too much pain to stay
for the meeting. He was concerned with a safety issue and asked that the City
step up its efforts to resolve the issue of sidewalk lifts and sidewalk cuts,
particularly in the area between Del Rosa and Sterling on the north side of
Highland Avenue, where there is a County Flood Control Fence that stops
without a sidewalk. Ms. McCammack stated that we absolutely need a
sidewalk, or County Flood Control needs to move their fence so those
individuals in wheelchairs can navigate that street and that sidewalk.
Council Member/Commissioner Estrada asked her colleagues to support setting
a workshop to discuss the status of new developments.
5. Waive Full Reading of Resolutions & Ordinances
Council Member/Commissioner Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Baxter, 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.
4 11/05/2007
n.
7
0
a
Council Minutes
Council Member/Commissioner Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Baxter, 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:
September 17, 2007.
The motion
Commissioner
McCammack.
carried by t
s Estrada,
Nays: None.
Claims and Payroll
he following vote:
Baxter, Brinker,
Absent: None.
Ayes: Council Members/
Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
Council Member/Commissioner Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Baxter, that the claims and payroll and the authorization
to issue warrants as listed in the memorandum dated October 15, 2007, from
Barbara Pachon, Director of Finance, be approved.
The motion
Commissioner
McCammack.
carried by
s Estrada,
Nays: None.
Personnel Actions
the following vote:
Baxter, Brinker,
Absent: None.
Ayes: Council Members/
Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
Council Member/Commissioner Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Baxter, that the personnel actions, as submitted by the
Chief Examiner, dated October 30, 2007 (Revised 11-5-07) 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 carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/
Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Brinker, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
RES. 2007-436 - Resolution of the City of San Bernardino establishing a
display policy for the United States and other flags.
Gary Cherms from the American Legion spoke in support of the resolution,
stating that the POW flag is a symbol that needs to be spread all over the
country. He stated that he would like to use San Bernardino as an example
when he takes a petition containing 450,000 signatures to Sacramento to meet
with the governor to request that the state be required to fly the POW flag.
5 11/05/2007
Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by
Council Member/Commissioner Kelley, that said resolution be adopted.
Resolution No. 2007-436 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council
Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Brinker, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
10. Authorize Director of Finance to amend the FY 07/08 budget in the amount
of $31,200 for work completed under terms of Agreement approved by
Resolution No. 2005-270 (Frank R. Cortez and Irene D. Cortez)
Council Member/Commissioner Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Baxter, that the Director of Finance be authorized to
amend the FY 2007/08 budget by transferring $16,000 from Account No. 126-
369-5504-7233 "SS -A Bridge and Railing Repairs at Various Locations
(Annual)" and $15,200 from Account No. 126-369-5504-7360 "SS-E
Miscellaneous Infrastructure Repairs (Annual)" to Account No. 126-369-5504-
7503 "SS05-04 Broadmoor Boulevard/30' Street/Waterman Avenue Safety
Sidewalk, ADA and Wall".
The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/
Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Brinker, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
11. RES. 2007-429 - A Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the
City of San Bernardino declaring its intention to authorize the annexation of
territory generally located on the southwest side of Cajon Boulevard,
southeasterly of Glen Helen Parkway (Annexation No. 4) to Community
Facilities District No. 1033, and adopting an annexation map showing the
territory of Annexation No. 4.
Council Member/Commissioner Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Baxter, that the Director of Development Services and
the City Clerk be authorized to proceed under Chapter 2.5, Part 1, Division 2,
Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California, as amended, with
Community Facilities District No. 1033, Annexation No. 4 for property
consisting of an industrial development (DP II No. 06-23), located on the
southwesterly side of Cajon Boulevard, southeasterly of Glen Helen Parkway
(APNs 0348-151-01, 02 and 0262-011-38); and that said resolution be adopted.
The motion carried and Resolution No. 2007-429 was adopted by the following
vote: Ayes: Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Brinker,
Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
6 11/05/2007
12. RES. 2007-437 - Resolution of the City of San Bernardino amending
Resolution No. 655 entitled, in part, "A resolution... designating certain
streets, or portions thereof as through highways..." and establishing a
three-way stop at the intersection of Crestview Avenue and Wabash
Avenue.
Council Member/Commissioner Baxter made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Estrada, that said resolution be adopted.
Resolution No. 2007-437 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council
Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Brinker, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
13. RES. 2007-438 - Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City
of San Bernardino authorizing the submittal of two project applications for
the Seventh Funding Cycle of the Safe Routes to School (SR2S) Program
and, if awarded, authorizing the Development Services Department to
administer the grant.
Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by
Council Member/Commissioner Brinker, that said resolution be adopted.
Resolution No. 2007-438 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council
Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Brinker, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
14. RES. 2007-439 - Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City
of San Bernardino awarding a contract to Grand Pacific Contractors, Inc.
for drainage improvements in Meridian Avenue, Birch Street to Poplar
Street (SD05-03), per Project Plan No. 12191.
Council Member/Commissioner Brinker made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Kelley, that said resolution be adopted.
Resolution No. 2007-439 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council
Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Brinker, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
15. RES. 2007-430 - Resolution of the City of San Bernardino ordering the
summary vacation of a portion of the northerly side of Campus Parkway,
west of Northpark Boulevard and a portion of Northpark Boulevard, south
of Campus Parkway.
7 11/05/2007
Council Member/Commissioner Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Baxter, that Plan No. 12257 showing the proposed
vacation of a portion of the northerly side of Campus Parkway west of
Northpark Boulevard and Plan No. 12322 showing the proposed vacation of a
portion of Northpark Boulevard, south of Campus Parkway, be approved; and
that said resolution be adopted.
The motion carried and Resolution No. 2007-430 was adopted by the following
vote: Ayes: Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Brinker,
Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
16. RES. 2007-431 - Resolution of the City of San Bernardino authorizing and
directing the execution of a quitclaim deed for a storm drain easement to
University Park, LLC, across Spellacy Park, located west of Northpark
Boulevard, south of Ash Street.
Council Member/Commissioner Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Baxter, that said resolution be adopted.
Resolution No. 2007-431 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council
Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Brinker, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
17. Item Deleted
18. Final Report on Non -Safety Classification and Compensation Study
Council Member/Commissioner Johnson stated that he thought the complete
100-page document should be distributed to the Mayor and Common Council in
order for the Council to get a full grasp of the survey.
Council Member/Commissioner Johnson made a motion that the matter be
continued to the Council/Commission meeting of November 19, 2007, in order
to review the full document.
The motion failed for lack of a second.
City Manager Wilson advised that staff had given the Council a summary
document, but could certainly provide them with the complete report. He stated
that his concern with delaying the matter for two weeks was that they are
running into the end of the year and they have made a commitment through the
employee unions that they would resolve the retroactivity issue by the end of the
calendar year. If the matter is pushed out any further there would be some real
issues with the Payroll Division processing over 600-700 retroactive pay raises.
8 11/05/2007
Council Member/Commissioner McCammack stated that if the Council finds
any inconsistencies in the report, it is something that the Council could discuss
through the Personnel Committee to enact any changes that they feel should be
required.
Council Member/Commissioner Estrada expressed concern with holding up the
retro pay, stating that she could not imagine that the difference would be so
great that it couldn't be adjusted in some fashion. She suggested approving the
item today, getting the full report from staff, and if the Council has any
questions they can bring it back for reconsideration.
City Manager Wilson stated that there is a provision which has been negotiated
with the unions which allows for a reconsideration period of up to 90 days,
because there are going to be those cases that are not the norm that can be set
aside and resolved during that 90-day reconsideration timeframe.
Council Member/Commissioner Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Kelley, that the Mayor and Common Council receive
and file the non -safety Classification and Compensation Study; that the Human
Resources Department be authorized to update Resolution Nos. 6413 and 97-
244; and that the Director of Finance be authorized to amend the FY 2007/2008
budget by transferring $1,662,000 from the General Government budget
Account No. 001-092-5011 to the appropriate user department based on the
consultant's classification and compensation reports.
The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/
Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Brinker, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
19. RES. 2007-440 - Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City
of San Bernardino authorizing the issuance of agreements and purchase
orders to CompuCom and En Pointe Technologies for an upgrade to the
City e-mail system.
Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by
Council Member/Commissioner Estrada, that said resolution be adopted.
Resolution No. 2007-440 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council
Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Brinker, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
9 11/05/2007
20. RES. 2007-441 - Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City
of San Bernardino authorizing the issuance of an agreement and purchase
order to CompuCom for an upgrade with software assurance to Microsoft
Office Professional Plus 2007 on 900 City PCs.
Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by
Council Member/Commissioner Estrada, that said resolution be adopted.
Resolution No. 2007-441 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council
Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Brinker, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
21. RES. 2007-432 - Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City
of San Bernardino authorizing the execution of an agreement with the
Sinfonia Mexicana for the promotion of arts and culture.
Council Member/Commissioner Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Baxter, that said resolution be adopted.
Resolution No. 2007-432 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council
Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Brinker, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
22. RES. 2007-442 - Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City
of San Bernardino appropriating $20,000 to the Fire Victims Relief Fund
established by the Community Foundation of Riverside and San Bernardino
Counties, to provide direct assistance to victims of the recent local wildfires
in the San Bernardino mountains.
Council Member/Commissioner McCammack stated that she agreed that the
City needs to do this; however, she was wondering if they could figure out a
way to pull at least whatever excess transient lodging tax was realized because
of all the fire victims that ended up in local hotels and give it back to them
through this item. She stated that Mr. Austin was able to quantify the amount
for her and it would not be the whole $20,000; however, it was a substantial
amount of money, and she felt that since they paid it, we ought to give it back to
them.
Joe Ortiz, 387 West 25' Street, San Bernardino, CA, stated that he understood
there were businesses in the city who would match the City's funds, and that he
hoped it would be possible to reward those who actually fought the fire. He
mentioned how the City Attorney's office was able to give free legal advice to
those residents affected by the Old Fire disaster.
10 11/05/2007
Mayor/Chairman Morris stated that they hope to be able to top $1 million in
donations.
Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by
Council Member/Commissioner Kelley, that said resolution be adopted.
Resolution No. 2007-442 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council
Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Brinker, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
23. RES. 2007-433 - Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City
of San Bernardino authorizing the City Manager to execute a Vendor
Service Agreement and the Finance Director, or her designee, to issue a
purchase order to Donegan Tree Service in the amount of $50,000, pursuant
to Municipal Code Section 3.04.010B.3, for tree maintenance service in
various landscape maintenance districts.
Council Member/Commissioner Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Baxter, that said resolution be adopted.
Resolution No. 2007-433 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council
Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Brinker, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
24. Item Deleted
25. RES. 2007-434 - Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City
of San Bernardino ratifying the execution of an Agreement retroactive to
November 1, 2007 and increase to Purchase Order Number 208219 in the
amount of $21,000.00 with two (2) one-year extensions at the City's option
with Inland Presort and Mailing Services for refuse mailing services.
Council Member/Commissioner Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Baxter, that said resolution be adopted.
Resolution No. 2007-434 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council
Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Brinker, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
26. RES. 2007-435 - A Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the
City of San Bernardino approving a grant of easement to Enertech
Environmental California, LLC for an industrial sewer line to connect with
the Santa Ana River Interceptor (SARI) pipeline located at the Rapid
Infiltration Extraction Facility (RIX) south of Agua Mansa Road, San
Bernardino, CA (APNs 0260-081-25 & 27).
11 11/05/2007
Council Member/Commissioner Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Baxter, that said resolution be adopted.
Resolution No. 2007-435 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council
Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Brinker, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
27. An Ordinance of the City of San Bernardino adding Chapter 9.93 to the
San Bernardino Municipal Code and establishing administrative civil
penalties for violations of the Municipal Code. FIRST READING
City Attorney Penman advised that his office had requested an opinion from the
Attorney General's office dealing with fireworks booths, and the opinion on that
issue could possibly answer the concern staff has about the penalty in excess of
$1,000 that is part of this ordinance. Therefore, staff was recommending that
the matter be continued to the first meeting in February 2008.
A suggestion was made to table the matter until the opinion is received.
Council Member/Commissioner Kelley asked that the City Attorney's office
make sure to keep the Legislative Review Committee abreast of what the
Attorney General's office is doing.
Council Member/Commissioner Kelley made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Johnson, that the matter be tabled.
The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/
Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Brinker, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
28. Public Hearing - adoption of the Development Impact Fee Calculation and
Nexus Report for the Updated Regional Circulation System Master Facility
Plan and approving Amendment No. 1 to Resolution No. 2006-97 setting the
new amount of the Regional Circulation System Development Impact Fees
(Continued from October 15, 2007)
RES. 2007-443 - Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City
of San Bernardino approving Amendment No. 1 to Resolution No. 2006-97
setting the amount of certain Development Impact Fees.
The hearing remained open.
12 11/05/2007
City Manager Wilson advised that this was something the City had to do in
order to stay eligible for Measure "I" dollars that the San Bernardino Associated
Governments (SANBAG) administers; and the increases reflect the escalated
rate that SANBAG has adopted.
No public comments were received.
City Manager Wilson noted that a representative from the Building Industry of
America (BIA) was in attendance at the last meeting, and there was also a
meeting held with City staff and BIA representatives, and they are aware of this
action.
Mr. Wilson also noted that these funds would be used for a series of regional
improvements along the freeways, including interchanges and signals —
essentially everything connected to freeway on- and off -ramps.
In response to an inquiry from Council Member/Commissioner Kelley, Mr.
Wilson indicated that he did not know if any funds were earmarked for those
off -ramps at Palm/Kendall and University Parkway, but that he would get this
information for Mr. Kelley.
Mr. Kelley requested that Mr. Wilson and staff schedule a meeting with him to
go through the requisite document to ensure that those two off -ramps would
receive the benefit of some of those funds.
Council Member/Commissioner Derry stated that this is basically a uniform
mitigation fee, much like Riverside County put in place. He stated that he
objected to it when it was last proposed here, and he still objects to the way it is
allocated —that he didn't believe there was a nexus, as it charges fees at one end
of town and spends them at another end of town. In addition, it is an
approximately $600 increase per home for residential, but only a $400 increase
for apartments; therefore, his objections still stand and he would be casting a
"no" vote on the increase.
Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by
Council Member/Commissioner Estrada, that the hearing be closed; that said
resolution be adopted; and that the Development Impact Fee Calculation and
Nexus Report for the Regional Circulation System Master Facility Plan on file
in the City Clerk's Office be updated to include the seven projects listed in the
staff report' dated October 10, 2007, from Valerie C. Ross, Director of
Development Services.
13 11/05/2007
The motion carried and Resolution No. 2007-443 was adopted by the following
vote: Ayes: Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Brinker,
Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: Council Member/Commissioner Derry.
Absent: None.
29. Public Hearing - resolution authorizing the execution of an agreement and
resolution ordering work relative to the proposed Central Avenue and Lena
Road Area Landscape Maintenance Assessment District No. 1063 - Parcel
Map No. 17721 (Continued from October 15, 2007)
RES. 2007-444 - Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City
of San Bernardino authorizing and directing the execution of a Landscape
Maintenance Services Agreement relative to the proposed Assessment
District No. 1063 (Central Avenue and Lena Road Area Landscape
Maintenance Assessment District). (29A)
RES. 2007-445 - Resolution of the City of San Bernardino finding and
determining the existence of less than a majority protest, that ballots
submitted in favor of the assessment exceed the ballots submitted in
opposition to the assessment and that the public convenience and necessity
require the maintenance of landscaping in the Central Avenue and Lena
Road Area, approving the final Engineer's Report, creating an assessment
district to cover the costs of said maintenance, known as Assessment District
No. 1063, ordering the work, confirming the 2008-2009 Assessment Roll,
and determining that the Special Assessment Investigation, Limitation and
Majority Protest Act of 1931 shall not apply. (29B)
The hearing remained open.
City Clerk Clark advised that one assessment ballot had been received in favor
of the proposed assessment.
No public comments were received.
Council Member/Commissioner Kelley made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Baxter, that the hearing be closed; and that said
resolutions A & B, be adopted.
The motion carried and Resolution Nos. 2007-444 and 2007-445 were adopted
by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/Commissioners Estrada,
Baxter, Brinker, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent:
None.
14 11/05/2007
30. Public hearing - resolution authorizing the obligation and expenditure of
the allocated Citizens' Option for Public Safety (COPS Option) monies for
FY 07/08
RES. 2007-446 - Resolution of the City of San Bernardino authorizing the
obligation and expenditure of the allocated Citizens' Option for Public
Safety (COPS Option) monies for FY 07/08 to supplement front-line law
enforcement support services.
Mayor/Chairman Morris opened the hearing.
Police Chief Billdt stated that this will be the fifth year that the City has received
the COPS monies, which have been used to fund three police officer positions.
Pursuant to Resolution No. 2000-279, City Clerk Clark administered an oath to
Jay Lindberg that he would provide true and honest testimony.
Jay Lindberg, 6340 Orange Knoll, San Bernardino, CA, stated that he had
been doing a lot of research on energy policy recently and the City needs to get
its officers out of their cars and onto bikes due to the serious energy problems
getting ready to hit this country.
City Clerk Clark advised that the motion needed to state that the public hearing
be closed and that the resolution be adopted.
Council Member/Commissioner Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner McCammack, that the hearing be closed; and that said
resolution be adopted.
The motion carried and Resolution No. 2007-446 was adopted by the following
vote: Ayes: Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Brinker,
Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
31. Utility Service User's Tax Ballot Measure for the February 5, 2008 Special
Municipal Election (Continued from October 15, 2007)
RES. 2007-447 - Resolution of the City of San Bernardino submitting to the
qualified electors of said City for their approval the "Service User's Tax
Reduction and Modernization Act"; transmission of the proposed ballot
measure to the Office of the City Attorney for purposes of preparation of an
impartial analysis. (31A)
15 11/05/2007
RES. 2007-448 - Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City
of San Bernardino placing the "Service User's Tax Reduction and
Modernization Act" on the ballot for a Special Municipal Election to be
consolidated with the February 5, 2008 Presidential Primary Election;
direction to the City Clerk to transmit a copy to the Board of Supervisors of
the County of San Bernardino and to file a copy with the Registrar of
Voters. (31B)
City Manager Wilson advised that the City Attorney's office had prepared the
draft ordinance that modernizes the City's current service user's tax (Utility
User's Tax) to reflect changes to federal law and, more importantly, reduces the
current rate from 7.83 percent to 7.75 percent for all utility services on which
the City currently assesses this tax.
Senior Assistant City Attorney Calkins advised that the action taken by the
Mayor and Council today would approve the two resolutions sending this matter
to the Registrar of Voters so this measure can be consolidated with the February
5 Presidential Primary election.
Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by
Council Member/Commissioner Baxter, that said resolutions A and B, be
adopted.
Resolution Nos. 2007-447 and 2007-448 were adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Member/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Brinker, Derry,
Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
32. Ordinance of the City of San Bernardino amending Chapter 15.16 of the
San Bernardino Municipal Code and adopting the 2007 California Fire
Code, with appendices, and incorporating by reference the 2006 Edition of
the International Fire Code and necessary California amendments, together
with California Code of Regulations, Title 24. FIRST READING
Council Member/Commissioner Derry made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Brinker, that said ordinance be laid over for final
adoption.
The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/
Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Brinker, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
16 11/05/2007
33. Reconsider Resolution No. 2006-98
Mayor/Chairman Morris referenced the following three documents that had
been provided to the Council in addition to the Request for Council Action
submitted by Council Member/Commissioner McCammack:
• Memo from Glenn Baude, Code Compliance Director, to Fred Wilson,
City Manager, dated November 5, 2007 regarding the Demolition
Process;
• Memo from Fred Wilson, City Manager, to Mayor and Common
Council, dated November 5, 2007, regarding Item #33 - Code
Enforcement Demolition Procedures;
• Memo from Mayor Patrick J. Morris to Members of the Common
Council and Fred Wilson, City Manager, dated November 5, 2007,
regarding the November 5, 2007 Meeting of Mayor and Common
Council - Agenda Item #33.
The Mayor stated that his basic concern was that in matters that relate to the
operations and procedures and the management of our City departments, that
unless there is a true emergency, that we work through the City Manager to
resolve those matters informally. If those concerns are not appropriately
addressed by the City Manager, then they would be brought before the Council.
He stated he had concerns about the arrival on Friday afternoon of matters for a
Monday Council meeting, thus giving themselves as policy makers, and giving
their staffs as their agents, adequate opportunity to discuss and address the
concerns before they do this at the public table.
Council Member/Commissioner McCammack stated that she had attempted to
resolve this matter with the City Manager privately on October 23. On October
30, based on her questions, she received a document from the City Manager's
office dated October 29 and stamped in by the Council's office at 4:12 p.m.
She stated that in that document there were some issues that brought her great
concern —that as a voting member of this body it seemed to her that over the last
18 months they have continually been left in the dark about expenditures of huge
amounts of money without policy making capabilities. She stated that in this
particular case, the action that was brought to the Council in April 2006 was
proper; but the subsequent action by the Code Enforcement Department
appeared to be very irregular.
She stated that one of the items in the packet was labeled "B", DRAFT, City of
San Bernardino Strategic Plan Demolition of Substandard Buildings. She noted
that at the bottom of the first page it talked about THREATS, stating "As long
as the program has council support the only threat would be through legal
challenges from property owners."
17 11/05/2007
Ms. McCammack stated that she did not remember this coming before the
Council for approval. So her concern was that the Council was again left in the
dark, with potential litigation staring them in the face. Therefore, she felt it
incumbent upon herself to find out exactly what it was she supposedly approved.
She stated that she tried to get answers regarding the document, but was unable
to do so; therefore, on Thursday she decided to put it on the agenda.
Ms. McCammack advised that she was given one more document on Friday
(letter dated October 31, 2007, to Anthony Trozera from Marianne Milligan)
and she became really concerned that we, as a City, are writing this letter that
says, "anything to do with 1588 West Highland Avenue does not exist"
(paraphrase). However, the document that was attached to that letter had 1588
Highland Avenue strewn all over the document. She stated she was not saying
the code enforcement officers did anything wrong —they did their job —but it's
management and administration that she is concerned about, who are telling
property owners that "the Council approved that list of demolition." She stated
that she has never approved a list of demolition of any properties, and she
cannot stand for anybody in the public blaming any elected official for
something that they did not do.
Ms. McCammack stated that her concern was that if this body was told that they
were allocating a certain amount of money for demolition ($862,784), as
recommended by RDA and approved by the Council as a body in terms of a
total allocation of CDBG money, and then they are told in a document a year
and a half later, that that was the draft that they approved. According to Ms.
McCammack, they did not approve any document —draft or otherwise —
regarding a demolition strategy.
She stated that she wanted this item reconsidered so that this body, if they were
going to be blamed for a list of properties that are going to be demolished, or
not demolished, then she wants to know that this body is going to approve this
demolition strategy. She stated that she needed to know who was making the
decisions on the demolition of these properties, or not to demolish these
properties.
She ascertained that right now there are property owners that were told that the
property next door to them was going to be demolished, who are very, very
uncomfortable with the fact that it wasn't demolished, and they are ready to
sue —they are prepared to put a class action lawsuit together against the City for
an action that the Council has never approved.
City Manager Wilson stated that what he had given the Council was really a
summary of the actions that Code Enforcement takes when it comes to the
demolition process. He pointed out that they do have an objective criteria for
determining which properties get demolished based on condition of the
18 11/05/2007
properties, URM status, lack of opportunity for reuse, years of neglect, etc.
Once those properties have been identified, there is a procedure in place which
involves a series of hearings, obtaining warrants, and working closely with the
City Attorney's office to ensure that the due process is followed in every case.
He stated that they do follow a process —a process that had been developed by
the Code Enforcement Department and was included in the backup materials;
and it was an objective criteria that helps rank where they start with this.
Mayor/Chairman Morris asked Mr. Wilson how long the demolitions have been
done in this manner.
Mr. Wilson stated that this criteria had been developed by Code Enforcement,
he believed at the request of the Redevelopment Committee, and had been in
place for some time now, but he was not sure how long. He pointed out that the
demolition list was initially requested by and given to the Redvelopment
Committee in 2006; and he thought the committee looked at it for informational
purposes only. The bottom line was that Code Enforcement did develop the list
based on a set of objective criteria that everyone felt made a lot of sense.
Council Member/Commissioner McCammack read a portion of the agenda from
the Redevelopment Committee meeting which stated, "Proposed Demolition
Strategy - Presentation by Code Compliance Director Glenn Baude" with the
motion, "That the Redevelopment Committee consider the proposed demolition
strategy and take possible action." She stated that if the RDA Committee was
going to take possible action, then this body needed to have taken possible
action.
Mayor/Chairman Morris stated that it was his understanding that the proposed
demolition strategy was taken before the RDA Committee at the request of the
chairman for informational purposes only. There was no attempt by the RDA
Committee to approve or disapprove the strategy, which is an administrative
procedure —and that is what is important.
The Mayor advised that Code has an administrative procedure and strategy, and
that they have been diligent in complying with every aspect of due process, so
that the property owners are given personal due process —that is, information
about the need to either correct the deficiencies or City personnel would move
ahead with an enforcement process to demolish. He stressed that it is a step by
step, carefully crafted process involving careful articulation with the City
Attorney's office; and has been followed astutely.
Ms. McCammack stated that she absolutely agreed; however, the issue she has
is when the public is told, as happened in one case, that the Council approved
that list.
19 11/05/2007
Mayor/Chairman Morris responded that the Council should not approve a list.
The list has to come by way of an objectified criteria that stays remote from the
Council because as soon as the Council starts to tinker with a list of possible
demolitions and starts to determine that they do or do not want a particular
person's property demolished, then you end up with a real problem in terms of
the enforceability of the orders and you end up then, at risk of a possible
lawsuit, because we have put aside the process that should be administrative in
nature and objective in the extreme.
Ms. McCammack expressed agreement with the Mayor's comments, but then
asked why another property owner, who had an order to demolish, was given
more time by Code. She stated that this is where the inconsistencies lie, and if
there are inconsistencies, then the Council needs to hold staff to task that 1) they
are not going to be inconsistent, and 2) they are not going to blame the Council
for the fact that it was demolished, or that the Council stopped them from doing
the demolition.
Mayor/Chairman Morris stated that he did not know about what was said in the
field —that what a code enforcement officer recites on the street at the time of
the engagement was unknown to him.
Ms. McCammack stated that it was not unknown when this same person writes
this letter and misrepresents the facts. And therein lies the litigation problem.
City Attorney Penman advised that there is another legal problem. He stated
that he agreed with the Mayor that the Mayor and Council should definitely not
approve the list. He stated that he thought the concern was that Code
Enforcement represented to two different property owners at two different ends
of town that the Council had approved this.
Mr. Penman stated that legally, just as the City Council has to approve the
Police Department's Pursuit Policy in order for it to insulate the City from
litigation, so if we have a strategic plan for demolition of substandard buildings,
which is what this document has been called, that also has to be approved by the
Mayor and Council in order to insulate the City from lawsuits for that. He
agreed with the Mayor that the strategic plan should not list the buildings;
however, he also noted that this was not solely an administrative matter.
He stated that this is a plan to demolish substandard buildings, and with as much
legal exposure as we have with the police Pursuit Policy, which has to be
approved by the Mayor and Council, so do we also have substantial exposure by
demolishing buildings. He pointed out to the Mayor and Council that in the
backup document labeled, "B" Draft City of San Bernardino Strategic Plan for
Demolition of Substandard Buildings, Mr. Baude writes, "Threats - As long as
the program has council support the only threat would be through legal
challenges from property owners." He noted that Mr. Baude then makes a very
20 11/05/2007
unfortunate comment, stating, "Those have happened before, and although it
tends to lengthen the process, we have always prevailed."
According to Mr. Penman, that is absolutely false —the City has lost three big
lawsuits because properties in the City were demolished by Code Enforcement
without proper notice to the owners. And this plan was never submitted to the
City Attorney's office. He stated that he never saw it until Mr. Wilson's office
brought it forward. It was presented to the RDA Committee on March 21,
2006, and Mr. Calkins was there; however, they were told in that meeting (and
he quoted from the minutes) "Committee Member Estrada inquired if the
Committee needed to take action and Ms. Pacheco responded no, that it was her
understanding that at the time the Committee allocated the monies, it was
requested to get a feel of what the strategy would be and if a recommendation is
needed, she has allowed for it on the agenda, but not necessary." So the
thought was that when they were ready to allocate the monies, they would come
forward with the strategic plan, but it never came forward, and yet Code
Enforcement is telling citizens that the Council approved this plan; and Mr.
Wilson has commented that they have a procedure for grading.
Mr. Penman advised that his office has never seen that procedure and neither
has the Mayor and Council, and they do need to approve that procedure —not
the list of proposed demolitions, but the procedure. He stated that one lawsuit
was threatened last week, and the reason they are threatening to sue is because
they believe that the Council has approved a list with their property on it.
Fortunately, we do have a very good due process system in place separate from
this policy.
Mr. Penman stated that he wanted to confirm with Mr. Wilson that at their
meeting last Friday, they had agreed that they would be putting a halt to
demolitions until Jolena Grider in the City Attorney's office could review the
list of buildings that have been demolished that was provided by Mr. Wilson. If
that is the case, then the Council doesn't need to take any action today, but if
the City Manager is not going to do that, then he thought they would need to
take some action in light of those three lawsuits that have already been filed.
Mayor/Chairman Morris stated that it was his understanding from his
conversation with Mr. Penman —when Mr. Penman brought his memo to him
and he said to Mr. Penman that the only legal issue is whether the owners of
these properties are being denied due process —that they had agreed that we have
a very carefully crafted due process agenda —a checklist that every code
enforcement officer complies with, and every step of the way there is a sign -off
by the City Attorney's office on how we effect mediation of a problem of
liability or demolish that building.
Mr. Penman answered that there is supposed to be such a process, but in the
three times that we got sued, the checklist was ignored or wasn't followed.
21 11/05/2007
The Mayor answered that as they had discussed on Friday, these cases are
remote in history —these are not recent events at all.
Both Mr. Penman and Ms. McCammack stated that there was a recent case.
City Manager Wilson agreed to hold off on any other demolitions until Jolena
Grider had a chance to review the lists.
Council Member/Commissioner Kelley stated that he would like to see the
procedure that the City Attorney is talking about —that maybe they could take a
look at it at Legislative Review Committee and then bring it back to the full
Council for review. He stated that he was not going to stand in the way of any
Council member exercising their right to put something on the agenda —that he
understood the concerns about items arriving at the last minute, but in his time
on the Council there have been too many times when he has arrived and found
something has been placed on the dais.
He stated that he believes it is the responsibility of each Council member to
advocate on behalf of their residents —to be their voice on whatever the issue
may be —and for Council members to be able to put something on the agenda,
because staff routinely does it to the Council, where they get something
moments before the Council meeting is called to order.
Council Member/Commissioner McCammack stated that she wanted a
demolition strategy process to come before the LRC, so that the Council is
informed of what the process is, and that they either agree or disagree —not on
the properties, but on the process. She stated that the Council is ultimately held
responsible by their constituency as to why they approved or failed to approve a
building for demolition.
Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by
Council Member/Commissioner Kelley that the Strategic Plan Demolition of
Substandard Buildings be referred to the Legislative Review Committee. (Note:
The vote was taken following additional discussion.)
Council Member/Commissioner Johnson stated that the LRC should also have
the information on the three cases that were referenced by City Attorney
Penman so they can have that information in front of them as well.
City Attorney Penman advised that there was one other matter. He stated that
after this was brought to their attention and they looked at the Council backup
and the backup in their office, they were unable to find any copies of the
approved amendments. He pointed out that there were four documents
referenced in the motion of April 3, 2006, that the Council adopted —four
amendments —but neither the Council backup nor the backup the City Attorney's
22 11/05/2007
office had ever showed that those amendments were ever presented to the
Mayor and Council.
He stated that those four documents were the 2000-2005 and 2005-2010
Consolidated Plans (there were no amendments in the backup); and the
amendments to the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 Annual Action Plans. He stated
that they need to get those four documents from RDA, since they came from
there, and the Council does need to reconsider and formally take action adopting
those plans after the Council has seen them, because apparently the full Council
never saw those plans.
Council Member/Commissioner McCammack noted that that was the other part
of her request for reconsideration. She stated that she got so involved in the
process that she neglected those details of the request for reconsideration. She
noted that she didn't have any problem with continuing that portion of the item,
if Ms. Pacheco and Mr. Sabo wanted to bring that back to the Council at some
point in time. She stated that she was not asking for the money to be reallocated
at all —she just wanted to know what it was that they actually approved. If there
were amendments in there that they were supposed to have approved and they
didn't, that was a problem.
Maggie Pacheco, Executive Director, Economic Development Agency, advised
that the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) process normally entails
presenting an attachment to an agenda item. She stated that her records show
that they did transmit Attachment #1, which was the amendments that the
Council was being asked to act upon. She noted that the resolution reads in the
fashion that it reads because by HUD federal regulations they have to state that
Attachment #1 is what is actually being added to amend amendments to the plan.
But the amendment to the plan is a general document that the Council previously
approved, and all they are modifying in that document is Attachment #1—
allocation of resources to various new programs —and that's what's documented
in the system that they report to HUD, which is called the IDIF System. She
stated that it was her recollection that they transmitted all the documents they
were required to transmit to this body on April 3.
City Attorney Penman stated that possibly the attachment was not correctly
identified as being the amendments, but clearly the backup did not contain any
documents that stated they were the amendments that were listed in the
resolution that was adopted.
Anthony Trozera, 1588 West Highland Avenue, San Bernardino, CA, stated
that a question arose when on 10/10/07 at 2:23 p.m., he spoke to Marianne
Milligan and under the Freedom of Information Act he asked her to provide him
with certain documents. The question arose in his mind when he perused the
documents and had a little problem with the calendars. He noted that this matter
23 11/05/2007
came to the RDA on March 21, 2006; yet the list was developed on 1/19/06.
He asked whether it was legal or lawful to develop a list that hasn't even been
presented to the RDA.
Mr. Trozera stated that the other items he asked for were a -mails with either his
name or the address of the restaurant where he had been for 58 years, which
was scheduled for demolition. Then they amended the declaration to the correct
address which was 2206 Ramona Street.
Mayor/Chairman Morris advised that the City's Code Enforcement officers
were in attendance and they could inquire of Mr. Baude, Director of Code
Compliance, about those matters.
Glenn Baude, Director of Code Compliance, explained that as part of the
funding process for that year, then chairman of the EDA, Esther Estrada, asked
Code Compliance to survey vacant commercial properties in the City of San
Bernardino; and that's how the list was created (which included URM
property) —any vacant property that had been vacant over three years, and had
not been used, and had not had people in and out of it, and was not being
maintained. As recommended by the City Attorney's office, they said that the
list was a draft because if it's not a draft it is not a moving document where
things come on and off. Code was told they couldn't formalize the list as set in
stone —it had to be a draft list.
A couple of months later they came back to the RDA meeting with the list they
had been asked to create, which was a list of all the vacant URM properties in
San Bernardino that were in our commercial corridors.
City Attorney Penman asked how The Mug restaurant address got on a list of
umeinforced masonry buildings. Mr. Baude just said that they only surveyed
buildings that had been empty for a period of time, and the Mug hasn't been
empty for over 50 years.
Mr. Baude replied that the The Mug restaurant wasn't on the list.
Council Member/Commissioner McCammack stated that it was on the list.
Mr. Baude explained that the Mug restaurant site had two buildings on it —there
was a second building that they had to identify. They did a drive -by list, and
the address on the property was Highland Avenue —that was the drive -by list.
The officers drove by, saw an address, saw the building was vacant —but it was
not the Mug restaurant. He stated that they could show the Council members a
picture of the building that was there. With further identification they
determined that it was a separate parcel —that it was actually 2206 Ramona; and
that was the confusion, because it was adjacent to the Mug restaurant. The Mug
24 11/05/2007
street address was on the list because it was drive -by and that was used for the
parcel.
Mayor/Chairman Morris summarized by stating that in a drive -by assessment it
was perceived by Code staff that this was part of a larger parcel on Highland
Avenue. When they went to the records they found that it was indeed a separate
parcel and it was listed separately.
Mr. Baude confirmed that that was correct. He explained that what happened
was that Officer Stone went by and he did the drive -by of the vacant property.
The vacant property had the Mug restaurant and an old red building that was
falling apart. Office Stone listed that as that address. When they started doing
the hearing process, which they do their due diligence and they run through the
City Attorney's office and do property profiles, they found out the address for
that red building, which is the building they were talking about, was 2206
Ramona. They did not find that out until they started doing their due diligence.
The list was a list of properties that drive -by inspection identified as being
vacant. There was never an accusation that the Mug was vacant.
Council Member/Commissioner Estrada stated that as a member of the RDA
Committee, at the time they were discussing the large number of vacant
buildings in the City's commercial corridors and they asked Mr. Baude to drive
the main corridors of the City and identify those buildings that had been vacant
for a long time and were nuisances or whatever. She stated that she thought
what happened, was because they didn't spot an address on the other building
that was next to the Mug, an address was entered in order to try and identify
more or less where that property was at. And when they did their due diligence
they found out the real address which was on Ramona.
Ms. McCammack stated that if that were the case, and their records had this
accidental address on this document —on several documents —why then when
this letter was written to Mr. Trozera was it stated that there was no information
on that address, when in fact they obviously had a whole bunch of information
on that address, accidental as it may have been.
She stated that number one, she wanted to know first of all why that letter
would be written incorrectly, with incorrect information to that property owner.
Secondly, she wanted to know why he would be told that a -mails are privileged,
when they're not.
Number three, she wanted to know where Ms. Estrada gets the authority to
decide to tell Code, when it's the City Manager's job to direct the Code
Enforcement Director, to identify how many buildings are vacant, how old, how
long they've been vacant, etc. And she wanted to know why the buildings were
targeted in certain parts of town, yet they were ignored between the freeway and
Waterman on Highland Avenue. Specifically, and here is the inconsistency and
25 11/05/2007
the lawsuit waiting to happen —the old Foxy's was targeted for demolition, yet
somehow got a permit to rehab.
Mayor/Chairman Morris stated that he and Mr. Penman had discussed that, and
it was his understanding that there was a demolition order on that property;
however, before that demolition order was signed there was a permit provided
by Planning to allow the rehabilitation of that unit.
According to Ms. McCammack the permit was provided accidentally.
Mayor/Chairman Morris stated that it made no difference —we had two different
departments giving different directions to the folks who own the property, and it
was submitted to the City Attorney's office for a decision as to what prevails.
City Attorney Penman stated that he concurred with the Mayor, and it was their
joint decision that that had to happen. He noted that it wasn't the City
Attorney's decision —because he can only advise —it was the Mayor's decision.
Mayor/Chairman Morris stated that it was essentially that the process of
Planning to give a permit to rehab took precedence over the demolition.
Ms. McCammack stated that then the property owner next door was told that the
Council stopped that demolition.
Mayor/Chairman Morris answered that he didn't know who conveyed that
information to the property owner next door, but in terms of the legal
requirements here, he thought that the decision that was made was appropriate.
At the request of Council Member/Commissioner McCammack, City Clerk
Clark read the motion, as follows: That the Strategic Plan Demolition of
Substandard Buildings be referred to the Legislative Review Committee.
Council Member/Commissioner Kelley stated that he would like to set a
timetable —that the matter be referred within two weeks to the LRC. City
Manager Wilson stated it would go to the next LRC meeting on November 20.
The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/
Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Brinker, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
26 11/05/2007
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.
R34. Public hearing - Tax and Equity Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) for the
California Housing Foundation Development (Inland Regional Center
Project) - IVDA Redevelopment Project Area
RES. 2007-449 - Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City
of San Bernardino approving the issuance of Revenue Bonds by the
California Statewide Communities Development Authority for the benefit of
California Housing Foundation on behalf of the Inland Regional Center.
Mayor/Chairman Morris opened the hearing.
Maggie Pacheco, Executive Director, Economic Development Agency,
explained that this particular matter was a requirement under the federal law that
we consent to the California State-wide Communities Development Authority to
issue approximately $90 million in bonds for the nonprofit organization, the
California Housing Foundation, on behalf of the Inland Regional Center. The
purpose of the bond issue is to use the resources to consolidate the Inland
Regional Center's operations in a new facility on Waterman, a business park
that is currently being constructed by Voight.
She stated that she'd like to thank the Inland Regional Center folks and the
representatives from the California Housing Foundation for giving the Agency
an opportunity to work with them and to show them why it is important for them
to stay in the City of San Bernardino and the benefits for our community. She
noted that retaining the Inland Regional Center in our community was going to
mean the retention of 500-700 jobs, and she was glad for the opportunity to help
out in this effort.
Council Member/Commissioner McCammack stated that she was completely in
support of the project; however, she had some technical questions for Mr. Sabo.
She stated that in the backup it talked about California Statewide Communities
Development Authority as being a joint powers authority consisting of numerous
California cities, including the City of San Bernardino. She asked who from the
City of San Bernardino sits on that board.
Mr. Sabo answered, "No one." He explained that cities joined the JPA in 1988
or 1989, and the way the JPA is set up there is a governing board and once a
27 11/05/2007
city joins, then you are eligible to have these types of financing undertaken in
your community. It takes the consent of the local jurisdiction, either through a
TEFRA hearing such as this, or through some other type of approval before
they can issue any bonds in the city.
Ms. McCammack noted that in the resolution on page 1, line 13 1/2, it states,
"because the facilities are located within the territorial limits ..."; then on line
19 it states, "the Mayor and Common Council is the elected legislative body and
is an applicable elected representative required to approve the issuance of the
bonds." She stated that she knows there is more to the resolution than that, but
in every bond financing workshop that she has ever gone to, she has been told
that if the Council is to approve any bonds that they are to see the disclosure
documents —that even though they are not being held responsible for the debt,
they do have an obligation to make sure that what the bonds are being spent on
is what they are being used for.
Mr. Sabo stated that in response to those types of issues, this approval that the
Council is granting here is solely to comply with the TEFRA, Section 147(F).
Also, if you look at Section 1, which is the operative language in the resolution,
starting on line 10, where it says, "The Council recognizes that both CHF and
IRC have been advised by other parties independent of the City as to the
structure, terms, and provisions of the bonds"; and also it goes on to say, "The
city assumes no liability or responsibility of any nature whatsoever with respect
to the bonds." He stated that the intent was only to give that type of approval as
required by the federal tax laws, not to actually approve the issuance of the
bonds, because the Council has not seen any of the bond documents, nor have
he or the Agency, nor have they been involved in any of the structuring aspects
of the bond issue itself. This approval is limited solely to what is required under
the joint powers agreements to have this approved by the City Council and also
under the federal tax laws.
Ms. McCammack stated that specifically this is our resolution that says that we
are not responsible, but we haven't seen any of the other documents that say we
are or we aren't. She stated that she knew Mr. Sabo and the Mayor would
never sign a document that says that we are responsible, but the disclosure
documents specifically speak to that, and she would think that as this body
authorizing this action, that they should know what the disclosure documents
say.
Mr. Sabo stated that he thought at some point when they do go through the bond
issue, they will see what the documents are. They are kind of in a position
where the more they see, the more they know, the more liability they incur.
The intent of this resolution is not to do anything more than give that minimum
that is required under the federal tax laws and joint powers authority. He stated
that they also would like to see the bond documents —not that they want to have
input or advise them, but still, just for curiosity they would like to see how this
28 11/05/2007
is being characterized and set forth in their official statement. But, again, not to
get us to the point where they ask us to review it, or anything else —we don't
want to go into that amount of detail.
Ms. McCammack said she was glad that Mr. Sabo was as curious about these
documents as she was, because that would mean the Council needs to see these
documents if they are approving this item.
Mr. Sabo stated that when he had copies of the documents he would make them
available. He stated that the intent is not to put them on a City Council agenda,
although they can certainly be distributed once they are available.
Ms. McCammack stated she would greatly appreciate seeing the disclosure
documents at the same time Mr. Sabo views them.
No public comments were received.
Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by
Council Member/Commissioner Brinker, that the hearing be closed; and that
said resolution be adopted.
The motion carried and Resolution No. 2007-449 was adopted by the following
vote: Ayes: Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Brinker,
Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
R35. RES. CDC/2007-29 - 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 Reimbursement Agreement by and
between the Agency and the Inland Valley Development Agency ("IVDA")
related to the Economic Development Agency staff position as the
designated Enterprise Zone/Economic Development Project Manager.
Ms. Pacheco stated that the Inland Valley Development Agency (IVDA) has
recently approved the $20,000 allocation for the fiscal year, and this will go to
offset the expenditure by the Agency for this particular position which has
already been budgeted.
Council Member/Commissioner Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Baxter that said resolution be adopted.
Resolution No. CDC/2007-29 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes:
Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Brinker, Derry, Kelley,
Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
29 11/05/2007
IIM&I
37
RES. CDC/2007-30 - 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 AON, Inc., for the demolition of Agency properties in the north
Arden Guthrie Area of San Bernardino (IVDA Redevelopment Project
Area).
Ms. Pacheco advised that this body previously approved the Economic
Development Agency borrowing $15 million of Federal 108 Funds and Housing
Funds for the purpose of acquiring the remaining fourplexes in the Arden -
Guthrie area. She stated that this contract would allow the Agency to proceed
with the demolition of 17 properties that the Agency has acquired since the
Commission authorized the Agency to move forward with the acquisitions. The
contract will enable her to proceed with the demolition of 17 properties initially,
with the understanding that as the other 6 are acquired that the contract will be
amended to reflect those additional properties as well.
Jay Lindberg, 6340 Orange Knoll, San Bernardino, CA, stated that it was
about time the City/EDA cleaned up the mess in the Arden -Guthrie area.
Council Member/Commissioner Baxter made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Estrada, that said resolution be adopted.
Resolution No. CDC/2007-30 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes:
Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Brinker, Derry, Kelley,
Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
Public Comments
Joe Ortiz, 387 West 25' Street, San Bernardino, CA, spoke regarding the
Mayor's position relative to the upcoming election.
Sal Gutierrez, 6792 N. Ofelia Drive, San Bernardino, CA, stated that several
residents were at the meeting from the Ofelia Drive area —an area hit hard by
the winds at the end of last month. He stated that the builders had assured them
that the damaged fences would be taken care of, but it appeared that they were
stalling for time in order for their warranties to expire. He requested help from
the City in this matter.
Valerie Ross, Director of Development Services, stated that the following day
Development Services would be issuing a Notice of Violation to Dennis Sant of
Greystone Homes. She stated that in particular he needs to remove the debris
from the site (rocks, rubble, and concrete that have been dumped on the site); he
will be required to put in permanent chain link fencing for as long as it stays a
30 11/05/2007
vacant lot, and treat the site with a polymer material that is sprayed on the
surface itself —that as long as there is no vehicular traffic, it will stay
indefinitely and hold down the dust and additional erosion. However, if there is
a rainstorm, the application would have to be repeated. She stated that the City
does have policies and procedures in place for situations such as this. Insofar as
the fencing issue, she just found out about that and they will be looking into that
as soon as possible.
Jaime Alvarez, 1245 Knoll Drive, Redlands, CA, distributed copies and spoke
regarding the lawsuit that was filed by Mr. Penman's office against 30
homeowners and his family members, stating that it had to be the most frivolous
lawsuit in the history of jurisprudence.
Gil Navarro, 1440 West 6' Street, San Bernardino, CA, stated that he was
alarmed that Linda Carter of the Parks and Recreation Department received
$200 for a political ad from JoAnn Gilbert who is running for Congress. He
stated that he thought it was illegal for the City to be running political ads and
asked that there be an investigation and a possible policy regarding the matter.
Lori Sassoon, Assistant City Manger, advised that the matter had been brought
to the attention of Kevin Hawkins, Director of Parks and Recreation, and it
would be addressed appropriately.
Jay Lindberg, 6340 Orange Knoll, San Bernardino, CA, spoke regarding our
new reality and the problems that will surface when we have to start dealing
with a real oil shortage in this county.
John Matley, 380 West 17' Street, San Bernardino, CA, spoke regarding a
Code Enforcement problem his family has recently endured, stating that he
believed they had intentionally destroyed evidence in his file when they
discovered that it had been collected in violation of City policy.
Lynette Kaplan, 3793 W. Meyers Road, San Bernardino, CA, stated that four
years ago her home burned in the fire; however, this time all homes were saved.
She thanked all the firefighters who risked their lives to save their homes;
Stacey Aldstadt, Water Department General Manger, who met with the residents
to find a solution that would ultimately save their homes; Councilman Chas
Kelley for helping to make their rebuilding process possible; and Jim Penman
for listening to their concerns.
Anthony Garacci, 966 West Crescent Avenue, San Bernardino, CA, stated that
3,000 inmates came to fight the fire this year. He stated that they have 18
months to come back into this society, and yes, they did mess up, but they
deserve another chance.
31 11/05/2007
Tom Kanavos, 1962 Turrill Avenue, San Bernardino, CA, of Turrill
Transitional Assistance, stated that two months ago two of his houses were
illegally shut down; that he was indicted and called a criminal with three
different counts, yet all three counts were dismissed. He stated that this is the
second time they have been to court and won; and noted that Mr. Turner has
taken Mr. Penman's cowardly stance with his political mailings.
James Penman, 221 E. Marshall Blvd., San Bernardino, CA, stated that some
of the Council members actually believe that elected City Attorneys are not
supposed to be involved in policy. He then shared information from a City
management audit that discussed the role of the City Attorney's office, stating
that "it is generally accepted in the public policy literature that providing input
on issues of public policy is a common acceptable role for City Attorney offices
in small to medium size cities."
NB1. Vandalism on Allen Property - Athol & "D" Streets
Note: No backup material was distributed regarding this item.
Because it appeared that vandalism was the result of a business owners' support
for James Penman for City Attorney, Mr. Penman declared a conflict in this
matter.
Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by
Council Member/Commissioner Kelley, that the matter arose subsequent to the
posting of the agenda; and that the Mayor and Common Council approve
Special Counsel Sabo to act as counsel in the case.
The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/
Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Brinker, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
32 11/05/2007
38. Adjournment
At 6:45 p.m. the meeting adjourned. The next joint regular meeting of the
Mayor and Common Council/Community Development Commission is
scheduled for 1:30 p.m., Monday, November 19, 2007, in the Council
Chambers of City hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California.
No. of Items: 38
No. of Hours: 5.25
RACHEL G. CLARK
City Clerk
By: XJe_ 1
Linda E. Hartzel
Deputy City Clerk
33 11/05/2007