Minutes, joint meeting, third session — Banning City Council, September 10, 2024

The following information comprises the minutes for a regular meeting of the City Council, a joint meeting of the Banning City Council and Banning Utility Authority and a joint meeting of the Banning City Council and the Banning City Council sitting in its capacity as the Successor Agency Board.

MINUTES 9/10/2024

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Council Member Sheri Flynn
Council Member David Happe
Mayor Pro Tem Minjares
Mayor Alberto Sanchez
Council Member Colleen Wallace
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: Doug Schulze, City Manager
Laurie Sampson, Assistant City Manager
Serita Young, City Attorney
Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk
John Garside, Multimedia Specialist
Lincoln Bogard, Administrative Services Director
Art Vela, Director of Public Works
Emery Papp, Planning Manager

1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Sanchez called the regular meeting to order at 5:20 p.m.

1.1. Invocation – Pastor James Baylark of First Community Baptist Church led the invocation.

1.2. Pledge of Allegiance

1.3. Roll Call

COUNCIL MEMBER PRESENT ABSENT
Flynn, Sheri 
Happe, David 
Minjares, Rick 
Sanchez, Alberto 
Wallace, Colleen 

2. AGENDA APPROVAL

2.1. Approve Agenda
Motion to approve the agenda.

Motion by Council Member Wallace
Seconded by Council Member Happe
Regular Meeting Minutes 9/10/2024 Page 2 of 7

COUNCIL MEMBER YES NO ABSTAIN RECUSE ABSENT
Flynn, Sheri 
Happe, David 
Minjares, Rick 
Sanchez, Alberto 
Wallace, Colleen 
Motion approved by a vote of 5-0.

3. PRESENTATIONS

3.1 Proclamation – Constitution Week
Stephanie Pippenger accepted the proclamation on behalf of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR).

3.2 Proclamation – Hispanic Heritage Month
Acting Parks and Recreation Director, Scott Foster, accepted the proclamation and announced an upcoming Hispanic Heritage Event in the City of Banning on Saturday, September 21st at Repplier Park from 4 to 8 p.m.

4. REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
Serita Young, City Attorney reported that there was discussion and direction provided to staff, with no final nor reportable action.

5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, CORRESPONDENCE, APPOINTMENTS, CITY COUNCIL

COMMITTEE REPORTS, CITY MANAGER REPORT, AND CITY ATTORNEY REPORT

5.1. PUBLIC COMMENTS
The following individuals addressed City Council during Public Comment:
• Inge Schuler
• Lisa Jasso
• Bill Hobbs
• David Marshall Kealy
• Diego Rose

5.2. CORRESPONDENCE
Seven items of correspondence were received related to Agenda Item 8.2.

5.3. APPOINTMENTS
None

5.4. CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
Council Member Wallace reported on a Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) meeting as well as a Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) meeting. She reported on a California League of Cities (CalCities) webinar she attended and the CalCities’ Riverside Division meeting.

Regular Meeting Minutes 9/10/2024 Page 3 of 7
Mayor Pro Tem Minjares reported on a Regional Water Alliance meeting and promoted engagement with the San Gorgonio Pass Agency.

Council Member Flynn reported on Stagecoach Days, a meeting of the Western Riverside County Council of Governments (WRCOG). She also reported on a CalCities’ Riverside Division meeting.

Council Member Happe had no report, but announced a Community Meet and Greet event for police chief candidates.

Mayor Sanchez reported on Stagecoach Days and the parade.

5.5. CITY MANAGER REPORT
City Manager Schulze repeated the Community Meet and Greet event for police chief candidates. He also promoted the City of Banning’s community calendar. He added that the City did not send an opposition letter to AB 98.

5.6. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
City Attorney Young had no report.

5.7. CITY TREASURER REPORT
City Treasurer Geronimo reported on an upcoming Budget and Finance Committee meeting.

6. CONSENT AGENDA

6.1 Approval of the Meeting Minutes for the August 27, 2024 City Council Meetings

6.2 Receive and File Accounts Payable and Payroll Warrants Issued in the Month of July 2024

6.3 Receive and File Cash and Investments Report for the Month of July 2024

6.4 Accept an Easement from Tri Pointe Homes for Electric Utility Purposes on Tract Map No. 37389-1, within the Atwell Development for the Maintenance of the CityOwned Electric Distribution System

6.5 Accept as Complete Various Improvements Related to the Atwell Specific Plan Development and Authorize the 90% Reduction of the Improvement Bonds

6.6 Consideration of the Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 1606, Setting Salaries for City Council

6.7 Approving Amendment No. 1 to the Purchase Order with Pioneer Americas LLC in the Amount of $7,500 for a Total Purchase Order Amount of $32,500

6.8 Consideration of Resolution 2024-144, In Support of Proposition 36: The Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act

6.9 Consideration of Resolution 2024-145, Declaring Pursuant to Government Code Section 54221 That Real Property Owned by the City, Located at 646 West Ramsey Street, Banning, California (Consisting of APN 540-191-008) Is Designated As Surplus Land and Not Necessary for the City’s Use at This Time, Finding That Such Declaration Is Exempt From Environmental Review Under the California Environmental Quality Act, and Taking Related Actions

6.10 Consideration of Resolution 2024-146, Approving a Sole Source Contract with Electric Power Systems International, Inc. for Construction Services Related to the San Gorgonio Substation 12kV Extension Project in the Amount of $58,039.80 Regular Meeting Minutes 9/10/2024 Page 4 of 7

6.11 Consideration of Resolution 2024-147, Approving a Community Development Director Employment Agreement

6.12 Consideration of Resolution 2024 -148, Approving Amendment No. 1 to the Master Agreement (C00823) with Oracle America, Inc. for an Additional Amount of $45,610 for On Site Training and Additional Oracle Staff Resource Toward the ERP Implementation
Public Comment
None
Motion to adopt consent agenda items 6.1 to 6.8, 6.10, and 6.12.

Motion by Council Member Wallace
Seconded by Council Member Happe

COUNCIL MEMBER YES NO ABSTAIN RECUSE ABSENT
Flynn, Sheri 
Happe, David 
Minjares, Rick 
Sanchez, Alberto 
Wallace, Colleen 
Motion approved by a vote of 5-0.

Public Comments
• Frank Connolly
Motion to adopt Resolution 2024-145.

Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Minjares
Seconded by Council Member Wallace

COUNCIL MEMBER YES NO ABSTAIN RECUSE ABSENT
Flynn, Sheri 
Happe, David 
Minjares, Rick 
Sanchez, Alberto 
Wallace, Colleen 
Motion approved by a vote of 5-0.

Regular Meeting Minutes 9/10/2024 Page 5 of 7

6.11 Consideration of Resolution 2024-147, Approving a Community Development Director Employment Agreement
Doug Schulze, City Manager, answered City Council questions about the report.

Public Comment
None
Motion to adopt Resolution 2024-147.

Motion by Council Member Wallace
Seconded by Council Member Flynn

COUNCIL MEMBER YES NO ABSTAIN RECUSE ABSENT
Flynn, Sheri 
Happe, David 
Minjares, Rick 
Sanchez, Alberto 
Wallace, Colleen 
Motion approved by a vote of 5-0.

7. PUBLIC HEARING(S)
None

8. REPORTS OF OFFICERS

8.1 Presentation of Initial Results of the Citywide Forensic Investigation Lincoln Bogard, Administrative Services Director, presented the staff report.

Public Comment
• Diego Rose
• Ron Roy
• Kathleen Dale
Mayor Sanchez announced a recess at 7:20 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 7:42 p.m.

8.2 Continued Consideration of Proposed Banning Point Project, a Proposed Subdivision of Approximately 47 Gross Acres of Vacant Land into Three Parcels (Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164) and Construction of a Proposed 619,959 Square Foot Industrial Warehouse Building, Including 10,000 Square Feet of Office Space and a Combined 34,000 Square Feet of Retail/Commercial Buildings (Design Review No. 21-7008), on Real Property Located Within the Boundaries of the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Area (APN: 419-140-057), and Proposed Addendum Prepared for the Project Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Emery Papp, Planning Manager, presented the staff report.

Regular Meeting Minutes 9/10/2024 Page 6 of 7
Public Comment
• Paige Gosney spoke on behalf of the applicant. Nicole Criste also addressed the City Council as part of the presentation.
• Randy Robbins spoke on behalf of the appellant. Kevin Bundy also addressed the City Council as part of the presentation.
• Ron Roy
• Alex Zamora
• Richard McHard
• Andrew Mayorga
• Virginia Cervantes
• Bill Hobbs
• Stuart MacKenzie
• Gerry Phelps
• Diane Stone
• Ralph Velador
• Kathleen Dale
• Kevin Bundy spoke on behalf of the appellant. Randy Robbins also addressed the City Council.
• Auggie Gomez spoke on behalf of the applicant.

Motion to adopt Resolution 2024-151.

Motion by Council Member Flynn
Seconded by Council Member Happe

COUNCIL MEMBER YES NO ABSTAIN RECUSE ABSENT
Flynn, Sheri 
Happe, David 
Minjares, Rick 
Sanchez, Alberto 
Wallace, Colleen 
Motion approved by a vote of 3-2.

Mayor Sanchez announced a recess at 9:54 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 10:09 p.m.

Motion to continue the meeting past 10:00 p.m.

Motion by Council Member Wallace
Seconded by Council Member Happe

COUNCIL MEMBER YES NO ABSTAIN RECUSE ABSENT
Flynn, Sheri 
Happe, David 
Minjares, Rick 
Sanchez, Alberto 
Wallace, Colleen 
Motion failed by a vote of 4-1.

Regular Meeting Minutes 9/10/2024 Page 7 of 7

9. DISCUSSION ITEM(S)

9.1 Overview and Presentation of Industrial Development Projects in the City of Banning

10. ITEMS FOR FUTURE AGENDAS

10.1. New Items

10.2. Pending Items:

1. Grow Banning (Sanchez)

2. Neighborhood Groups/Identities (Minjares)

3. Update on Community Garden (Flynn)

4. Zencity Contract (Flynn)

5. Zoom Options for Public Meetings (Flynn)

6. Developer Presentation on Sunset Crossroads Project (Flynn)

7. City Manager Evaluation (Flynn)

8. All Active Lawsuits against the City (Flynn)

9. Plot Map for Warehouses (Current/Planned) in the City (Flynn)

10. Increased Compensation for City Treasurer and City Clerk (Flynn)

11. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m.

Minutes Prepared by:

Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk
These minutes have been prepared as Action Minutes in accordance with City Council Resolution 1995-21 and Government Code Sections 36814, 40801, and 54953(c)(2).

This entire meeting and all associated documents may be viewed here:
https://banningca.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=1 ATTACHMENTS:

Exhibit A – Public Comment Received
Exhibit B – Agenda Item 8.1: Staff Presentation
Exhibit C – Public Comment Received on Agenda Item 8.2
Exhibit D – Agenda Item 8.2: Staff Presentation
David Marshall Kealy. Banning resident
Thank you City Council and City Staff for this opportunity.

The SLCCCT is a California Trust focused on supporting Banning non .. proftt mganfmtlons.

We ore recognized by the United States Internal Revenue Service as a 501 fc)(3) Charity.

The $2m to focal not~for .. profit organizations we gave as GRANTS means $2m dollars that the City did not need to spend in support of:
the Hospital,
Food and Feeding Programs,
Youth*
Education,
Meeting Social Needs
bnd the Arts.

We do not pay salaries at the hospital we only support non profit agencies. We support much needed hospital equipment through the San Gorgonio Memorial Hospital Foundation.

We support scholarships for students ot the Mt San Jacinto Cotlege Foundation.

The Sun Lakes Coun1ry Club Charitable Trust Mission Statement INCLUDES We are organized and operated by volunteers exclusively for charitable 501 (c}(3) purposes to help meet needs in BANNING; our community and the greater San Gorgonio Pass area.

Thank You

0.av"d MN~ tew
951.797.3031
Exhibit A

HELP INSURE THE FUTURE
(I/U/1'1/ ~ ?!J~ ?!Jhb

CHARITABLE TRUST
Support the educational
programs of the charities in the
greater San Gorgonio pass area
with your gift or pledge.

Help people of all ages thrive as
they gain critical skills from the
training programs offered to
them by local charities
supported by the Sun Lakes
Country Club Charitable Trust.

ENDOWMENT
The money in the fund is
professionally managed by Stifel
the top ranked wealth
management company by the
J.D Power company.
www.sunlakescharity.org
, F :--, ~ I \\ \ \ T T< > 11 FI . P ( > I B < • II \ B I TI i,:-., T II H I \ F T 111 H >l L II T II F I H T H \I \ I \ c; PB ( > <. H \ \ h.

Enclosed Is my gift to the Sun Lakes Charity ENDOWMENT My Gift Is by:
□ $500 :J S250 U $100 □ S50 :J $25
□ Otl1er S
□ One-time □ Mont ly
300 S. Hlghland Springs Ave. Suite 6C #179 Banning CA 92220 My Information:

Name _______________ _
Phone □ Cell □ Horne □ Work
Email address -----·----------
U Check p,1yable to Sun Lakes Clwity [NOOWMENT
D Vi~d :J Master Cdrd D ArneriLdn Expre~~ D Dl~Lover
Credit card number _________ _
I xpir.ition cfotP: _
Name as appears on card:
(T V: __
Signdlure: ___________ _ _
ml ~' ~@ Give onllne:
~-m..«,.~ G1tts are decluct1ble tor tax purposes as allowed ~- hy law anci bPnPftt~ thP Sim Lake~ ChMity @, -:· .' -~ E-NlJOWMf-N T unless otherwise designated.

Contact ])c¥;d MaJ"shall Kealy 951- 797-3131
300 S. Highland Springs Ave, Suite 6C #179 Banning, California 92220

BANNING

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

SAVE THE DATE
MUR
FRIDAY
SEPTEMBER 27TH
11AM
584 W. Ramsey St.

Banning Ca. 92220

CITYWIDE FORENSIC

INVESTIGATION
Lincoln Bogard, Macc, CPA, CFE – Administrative Services Director City Council Meeting – September 10, 2024
From Budget to Payment
• City Council adopts budget
• Departments obtain
approval to purchase
•Purchase Requisition or
Contract
•Purchase Order
• Receive invoice
•Process payment
Exhibit B
How Many Employees Does It Take
To Process A Transaction?
• Departments determine need and submit a
contract or purchase requisition to Purchasing
($5,000 threshold)
• City Council approves any total purchase
above $25,000 (limited exceptions in B-30)
• Purchase Requisitions have Department
Head, Purchasing, Finance, and City Manager
approvals (CM over $10,000)
• Invoices have the same approval flow
How Controls Show
on Warrant Report
• Warrant report shows associated Purchase
Order Number (over $5,000)
• Project Code for project related payments
• Projects are approved by City Council
• GL Account from City Council approved
budget is identified
• No entry is ever processed by one person
What about Deposits?
• Deposits are processed in
Dual Custody
• Journal Entries have a
Preparer, Approver, and a
Poster
• Bank Reconciliations are
performed monthly
• Bank Reconciliations are
audited externally annually
Now Let Us Review
The Results of the Citywide
Forensic Investigation
Fund Classification Analysis
Ending Net Income Ending Net Income Ending Net Income Ending Net Income Ending Net Income Ending Net Income Current Net Income Fund Type FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 YTD General Fund (754,511.35) 886,030.09 (1,323,726.42) (1,823,919.67) (139,736.97) (5,864,162.39) (517,838.00) Special Revenue 817,895.55 579,723.91 (975,100.85) 189,370.73 (1,710,706.32) 125,097.72 (1,966,182.00) Fiduciary (9,446.27) 19,450.85 (10,129.44) 45,909.19 (36,014.08) 179,023.36 332,363.00 Capital Projects (898,899.71) (176,165.36) (856,295.81) 1,245,545.21 (1,652,002.48) 126,181.84 238,529.00 Airport (71,377.11) (137,049.30) (148,195.56) (101,876.52) 228,729.99 (192,749.02) (96,973.00) Transit 315,729.74 (486,621.00) (153,179.35) 269,936.17 69,876.32 (338,167.12) (1,674,449.00) Water 1,906,605.22 3,274,568.93 1,985,670.32 6,298,634.59 6,137,410.98 6,654,475.15 511,501.00 Electric (635,957.74) 3,023,544.23 322,650.25 2,376,773.09 1,175,678.13 747,395.61 (4,806,950.00) Wastewater 416,232.31 538,271.86 164,542.06 243,767.05 1,146,435.51 2,144,542.65 4,626,068.00 Refuse 46,548.82 134,031.79 (2,192.20) (15,573.07) 4,435,897.97 (4,534,659.89) (1,042,519.00) ISF (630,228.96) (2,105,827.52) (291,040.21) (1,188,956.76) (928,310.10) (2,867,536.00) (1,440,529.00) Successor Agency 1,311,923.34 336,791.29 (234,065.06) 762,453.75 282,070.79 (10,256,390.27) (45,284.00) Net Cash Flow Net Cash Flow Net Cash Flow Net Cash Flow Net Cash Flow Net Cash Flow Net Cash Flow Fund Type FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 YTD General Fund 103,356.05 (320,185.11) (1,125,103.90) (935,741.94) (4,535,642.90) (5,773,590.05) 7,495,390.22 Special Revenue 511,821.68 1,273,364.94 (627,567.89) (282,069.53) 609,562.35 306,986.29 (704,112.96) Fiduciary (14,517.27) (7,276.85) 58,133.11 47,620.27 (36,213.25) 105,529.47 372,243.84 Capital Projects (924,952.94) (276,268.47) (549,409.81) 1,037,744.04 2,345,672.16 (3,568,773.70) (15,995.71) Airport (52,808.68) (2,068.10) (51,047.77) (72,509.20) (53,378.61) (87,960.87) (162,978.88) Transit (489,876.27) (262,420.99) (470,701.88) 128,467.68 940,910.58 (298,664.92) (4,149,439.50) Water 1,634,549.70 2,893,533.25 1,233,339.24 2,888,939.79 2,810,892.47 1,117,753.11 682,614.47 Electric 5,738,651.47 (2,853,044.12) (1,072,532.13) (3,972,682.91) (10,019,374.15) (4,256,521.85) (9,266,643.80) Wastewater 377,682.79 494,915.03 440,136.56 300,918.55 (88,923.86) 1,128,356.66 3,766,765.08 Refuse (143,282.18) 79,376.24 (4,799.82) 4,774,790.79 154,203.21 (5,554,386.60) (568,928.32) ISF (871,832.24) (1,198,670.03) 38,383.84 (780,568.21) (1,074,165.02) (1,600,911.41) (2,708,133.87) Successor Agency 463,450.52 (200,923.12) (2,940,375.70) (161,944.40) (184,345.40) (19,327.73) 32,955.77 Fund Classification Analysis
Net Cash Flow - YE Loans Net Cash Flow - YE Loans Net Cash Flow - YE Loans Net Cash Flow - YE Loans Net Cash Flow - YE Loans Net Cash Flow - YE Loans Net Cash Flow - YE Loans Fund Type FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 YTD General Fund 19,597.02 (236,426.08) (1,125,103.90) (935,741.94) (142,455.86) (3,249,368.53) 4,036,685.94 Special Revenue 511,821.68 1,273,364.94 (627,567.89) (282,069.53) 556,417.79 4,626,639.74 (2,792,862.49) Fiduciary (14,517.27) (7,276.85) 58,133.11 47,620.27 (36,213.25) 105,529.47 372,243.84 Capital Projects (924,952.94) (276,268.47) (549,409.81) 1,037,744.04 (1,323,698.46) 3,823,288.19 148,812.31 Airport (52,808.68) (2,068.10) (51,047.77) (72,509.20) (53,378.61) (87,960.87) (162,978.88) Transit (406,117.24) (346,180.02) (470,701.88) 128,467.68 940,910.58 50,449.86 (4,323,996.89) Water 1,634,549.70 2,893,533.25 1,233,339.24 2,888,939.79 2,810,892.47 1,117,753.11 682,614.47 Electric 5,738,651.47 (2,853,044.12) (1,072,532.13) (3,972,682.91) (10,019,374.15) (12,951,459.36) (571,706.29) Wastewater 377,682.79 494,915.03 440,136.56 300,918.55 (88,923.86) 1,128,356.66 3,766,765.08 Refuse (143,282.18) 79,376.24 (4,799.82) 4,774,790.79 154,203.21 4,248,359.04 (5,470,301.14) ISF (871,832.24) (1,198,670.03) 38,383.84 (780,568.21) (1,744,836.88) (2,078,371.58) (944,495.38) Successor Agency 463,450.52 (200,923.12) (2,940,375.70) (161,944.40) (184,345.40) (19,327.73) 32,955.77 Net Income vs Net Cash Flow Net Income vs Net Cash Flow Net Income vs Net Cash Flow Net Income vs Net Cash Flow Net Income vs Net Cash Flow Net Income vs Net Cash Flow Net Income vs Net Cash Flow Fund Type FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 YTD General Fund 857,867.40 (1,206,215.20) 198,622.52 888,177.73 (4,395,905.93) 90,572.34 8,013,228.22 Special Revenue (306,073.87) 693,641.03 347,532.96 (471,440.26) 2,320,268.67 181,888.57 1,262,069.04 Fiduciary (5,071.00) (26,727.70) 68,262.55 1,711.08 (199.17) (73,493.89) 39,880.84 Capital Projects (26,053.23) (100,103.11) 306,886.00 (207,801.17) 3,997,674.64 (3,694,955.54) (254,524.71) Airport 18,568.43 134,981.20 97,147.79 29,367.32 (282,108.60) 104,788.15 (66,005.88) Transit (805,606.01) 224,200.01 (317,522.53) (141,468.49) 871,034.26 39,502.20 (2,474,990.50) Water (272,055.52) (381,035.68) (752,331.08) (3,409,694.80) (3,326,518.51) (5,536,722.04) 171,113.47 Electric 6,374,609.21 (5,876,588.35) (1,395,182.38) (6,349,456.00) (11,195,052.28) (5,003,917.46) (4,459,693.80) Wastewater (38,549.52) (43,356.83) 275,594.50 57,151.50 (1,235,359.37) (1,016,185.99) (859,302.92) Refuse (189,831.00) (54,655.55) (2,607.62) 4,790,363.86 (4,281,694.76) (1,019,726.71) 473,590.68 ISF (241,603.28) 907,157.49 329,424.05 408,388.55 (145,854.92) 1,266,624.59 (1,267,604.87) Successor Agency (848,472.82) (537,714.41) (2,706,310.64) (924,398.15) (466,416.19) 10,237,062.54 78,239.77 Fund Classification Analysis
Net Income vs Net Cash Flow
with YE Loans
Net Income vs Net Cash Flow
with YE Loans
Net Income vs Net Cash Flow
with YE Loans
Net Income vs Net Cash Flow
with YE Loans
Net Income vs Net Cash Flow
with YE Loans
Net Income vs Net Cash Flow
with YE Loans
Net Income vs Net Cash Flow
with YE Loans
Fund Type FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 YTD General Fund 774,108.37 (1,122,456.17) 198,622.52 888,177.73 (2,718.89) 2,614,793.86 4,554,523.94 Special Revenue (306,073.87) 693,641.03 347,532.96 (471,440.26) 2,267,124.11 4,501,542.02 (826,680.49) Fiduciary (5,071.00) (26,727.70) 68,262.55 1,711.08 (199.17) (73,493.89) 39,880.84 Capital Projects (26,053.23) (100,103.11) 306,886.00 (207,801.17) 328,304.02 3,697,106.35 (89,716.69) Airport 18,568.43 134,981.20 97,147.79 29,367.32 (282,108.60) 104,788.15 (66,005.88) Transit (721,846.98) 140,440.98 (317,522.53) (141,468.49) 871,034.26 388,616.98 (2,649,547.89) Water (272,055.52) (381,035.68) (752,331.08) (3,409,694.80) (3,326,518.51) (5,536,722.04) 171,113.47 Electric 6,374,609.21 (5,876,588.35) (1,395,182.38) (6,349,456.00) (11,195,052.28) (13,698,854.97) 4,235,243.71 Wastewater (38,549.52) (43,356.83) 275,594.50 57,151.50 (1,235,359.37) (1,016,185.99) (859,302.92) Refuse (189,831.00) (54,655.55) (2,607.62) 4,790,363.86 (4,281,694.76) 8,783,018.93 (4,427,782.14) ISF (241,603.28) 907,157.49 329,424.05 408,388.55 (816,526.78) 789,164.42 496,033.62 Successor Agency (848,472.82) (537,714.41) (2,706,310.64) (924,398.15) (466,416.19) 10,237,062.54 78,239.77 Ending Fund Balances Ending Fund Balances Ending Fund Balances Ending Fund Balances Ending Fund Balances Ending Fund Balances Current Fund Balances Fund Type FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 YTD General Fund 12,221,568.20 13,107,598.29 11,783,871.87 9,959,952.20 9,820,215.23 3,956,052.84 3,438,214.84 Special Revenue 6,008,443.08 6,588,166.99 5,613,066.14 5,802,436.87 4,091,730.55 4,216,828.27 2,250,646.27 Fiduciary 517,670.02 537,120.87 526,991.43 572,900.62 536,886.54 715,909.90 1,048,272.90 Capital Projects 10,443,259.16 10,267,093.80 9,410,797.99 10,656,343.20 9,004,340.72 9,130,522.56 9,369,051.56 Airport 2,685,731.51 2,548,682.21 2,400,486.65 2,298,610.13 2,527,340.12 2,334,591.10 2,237,618.10 Transit (483,651.22) (970,272.22) (1,123,451.57) (853,515.40) (783,639.08) (1,121,806.20) (2,796,255.20) Water 41,334,121.99 44,608,690.92 46,594,361.24 52,892,995.83 59,030,406.81 65,684,881.96 66,196,382.96 Electric 44,809,537.91 47,833,082.14 48,155,732.39 50,532,505.48 51,708,183.61 52,455,579.22 47,648,629.22 Wastewater 28,910,396.17 29,448,668.03 29,613,210.09 29,856,977.14 31,003,412.65 33,147,955.30 37,774,023.30 Refuse 1,025,013.90 1,159,045.69 1,156,853.49 1,141,280.42 5,577,178.39 1,042,518.50 (0.50) ISF (758,950.12) (2,864,777.64) (3,155,817.85) (4,344,774.61) (5,273,084.71) (8,140,620.71) (9,581,149.71) Successor Agency (15,141,141.08) (14,804,349.79) (15,038,414.85) (14,275,961.10) (13,993,890.31) (24,250,280.58) (24,295,564.58) Citywide Net Income
Ending Net Income Ending Net Income Ending Net Income Ending Net Income Ending Net Income Ending Net Income Current Net Income Fund Type Fund FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 YTD General Fund 001 (1,342,176.61) 644,386.80 (1,564,893.19) (2,059,219.08) (369,493.67) (5,100,898.31) (752,008.00) General Fund 002 - - - (5,698.99) (11,064.00) (1,004,700.61) (13,318.00) General Fund 003 342,276.62 - - - - - -
General Fund 005 245,160.00 241,565.00 241,047.50 240,974.01 240,865.00 241,377.44 247,488.00 Special Revenue 100 (96,703.83) (85,409.19) (404,623.63) 455,384.23 (48,746.77) (61,990.52) (878,760.00) Special Revenue 101 432,564.50 32,355.02 (601,606.23) (214,455.63) (803,969.58) 718,902.42 (496,851.00) Special Revenue 102 181,771.64 529,775.31 56,602.80 71,261.87 (78,616.82) (237,191.48) 117,660.00 Special Revenue 103 589.61 1,675.64 (74,362.45) - - - - Special Revenue 104 - - - - - - -
Special Revenue 110 (891.06) 19,984.60 (40,246.78) 161,766.40 (169,894.75) (159.20) (741.00) Special Revenue 111 20,424.55 (24,569.24) (87,290.58) (74,256.07) (116,950.91) (3,375.84) 2,876.00 Special Revenue 132 37,358.31 40,548.60 38,743.45 54,243.23 187,769.51 (156,118.18) 34,998.00 Special Revenue 140 233,920.42 21,847.48 (25,115.01) (267,512.45) (5,430.41) 18.43 64.00 Special Revenue 148 1,804.46 7,238.81 3,682.28 (60.30) (2,147.16) 2,084.78 (13,483.00) Special Revenue 150 7.74 22.01 (977.02) - - (89.32) (29.00) Special Revenue 200 1,637.02 155.82 8,326.48 6,891.99 (11,156.53) 5,119.76 2,898.00 Special Revenue 201 (2,098.77) 2,878.25 6,618.78 2,295.70 (1,367.23) 4,883.29 10,962.00 Special Revenue 202 40.65 115.53 (5,127.60) - - (86.44) (29.00) Special Revenue 203 (228.76) 720.88 1,526.77 787.09 753.33 1,242.47 1,501.00 Fiduciary 221 - - - 29,981.30 - 234,916.85 325,795.00
Special Revenue 222 - - - - - - (77,738.00)
General Fund 300 228.64 78.29 119.27 24.39 (44.30) 59.09 - Fiduciary 360 290.23 824.86 515.00 13.60 (269.96) 366.44 1,272.00 Fiduciary 365 608.01 1,705.55 1,064.87 28.09 (558.16) 757.68 2,631.00 Fiduciary 370 6,427.68 13,253.30 (12,373.62) 11,346.86 (34,248.66) (30,803.95) (192.00) Fiduciary 375 (17,151.63) 2,588.81 (8.94) 4,521.58 (584.43) (18,332.09) 3,167.00 Fiduciary 376 379.44 1,078.33 673.25 17.76 (352.87) (7,881.57) (310.00) Capital Projects 400 1,815.46 2,978.19 3,323.61 193,950.40 6,573.07 37,157.11 42,412.00 Capital Projects 410 10,695.30 26,837.12 18,942.88 262,292.30 (4,408.88) 33,398.44 124,490.00 Capital Projects 420 4,262.17 11,425.44 (39,254.12) 1,717,928.33 (256,621.34) 102,040.19 151,790.00 Capital Projects 421 668.76 1,900.54 (84,342.60) - - - - Citywide Net Income
Ending Net Income Ending Net Income Ending Net Income Ending Net Income Ending Net Income Ending Net Income Current Net Income Fund Type Fund FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 YTD Capital Projects 430 (5,725.81) (164,252.31) 4,922.44 259,340.20 (4,465.73) 22,008.69 (40,996.00) Capital Projects 441 158,753.00 - - 360,746.72 251,997.68 - - Special Revenue 444 3,129.24 8,893.22 5,552.50 36.35 (3,018.85) 3,822.74 13,567.00 Capital Projects 451 (3,625.32) 2,155.96 10,457.09 24,566.63 22,885.17 109,395.82 (1,537.00) Capital Projects 470 4,513.09 11,631.24 (21,081.92) (44.79) 51.70 19,626.98 34,080.00 Capital Projects 480 (1,074,253.15) (7,757,463.67) - - - - - Capital Projects 481 3,996.79 (541,797.76) - - - - -
Airport 600 (71,377.11) (137,049.30) (148,195.56) (101,876.52) 228,729.99 (192,749.02) (96,973.00) Transit 610 315,729.74 (486,621.00) (153,179.35) 269,936.17 69,876.32 (338,167.12) (1,674,449.00) Water 660 551,104.91 2,469,403.90 1,045,255.03 4,526,535.03 4,773,761.34 5,528,734.20 2,094,672.00 Water 661 (64,474.71) (5,977.47) (102,470.61) 667,207.95 183,175.93 (109,475.02) (1,218,630.00) Water 662 (70,258.89) 189,481.06 (17,636.70) 478.37 (9,855.17) 13,378.21 46,449.00 Water 663 10,143.91 (205,669.36) 7,154.16 46.58 29,973.60 3,555.61 6,034.00 Water 669 1,480,090.00 827,330.80 1,053,368.44 1,104,366.66 1,160,355.28 1,218,282.15 (417,024.00) Electric 670 43,067.08 2,708,607.30 311,336.28 4,394,075.92 7,516,290.59 4,621,719.84 (2,565,070.00) Electric 672 51,568.61 146,555.90 91,502.84 2,413.29 (47,961.34) 65,106.57 226,047.00 Electric 673 (2,059,504.26) (654,921.99) (294,590.25) (2,524,089.83) (8,033,902.72) (5,010,719.15) (2,723,298.00) Electric 674 (963,682.81) (439,155.85) (1,027,402.70) (840,582.44) 267,078.84 (2,861.47) 27,881.00 Electric 675 62,818.59 125,496.43 53,811.60 94,717.83 158,473.86 (304,455.94) 191,460.00 Electric 678 2,229,775.05 1,136,962.44 1,187,992.48 1,250,238.32 1,315,698.90 1,378,605.76 36,030.00 Wastewater 680 (471,397.38) (656,007.11) (429,491.76) 474,641.12 676,495.17 1,187,360.57 3,673,090.00 Wastewater 681 9,024.91 252,382.91 159,011.61 (726,707.50) 3,810.86 276,863.38 471,207.00 Wastewater 682 377,448.55 481,498.75 426,343.23 345,322.05 300,511.11 477,130.02 615,519.00 Wastewater 683 6,820.07 9,665.87 (506,228.71) (371,671.13) (172,916.69) (39,432.90) (2,063.00) Wastewater 685 285,240.11 299,193.69 (1,865.12) 301,142.18 (3,900.68) 5,158.57 17,910.00 Wastewater 687 (25,530.89) (25,530.89) (6,382.67) (6,382.67) - - - Wastewater 689 234,626.94 177,068.64 523,155.48 227,423.00 342,435.74 237,463.01 (149,595.00) Refuse 690 46,548.82 134,031.79 (2,192.20) (15,573.07) 4,435,897.97 (4,534,659.89) (1,042,519.00) ISF 700 (488,363.66) (1,463,797.26) 184,861.00 (1,002,227.64) (1,399,796.18) (2,495,158.14) (1,866,727.00) ISF 702 111,579.76 (132,001.98) (3,122.93) 281,109.92 86,698.66 (469,522.74) 728,417.00 ISF 703 (84,248.68) (61,167.85) (73,343.37) (244,925.16) (188,513.73) (129,402.16) (790,714.00) Citywide Net Income
Ending Net Income Ending Net Income Ending Net Income Ending Net Income Ending Net Income Ending Net Income Current Net Income Fund Type Fund FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 YTD ISF 704 - - - - - - 722,356.00
ISF 705 - - - - - - (561,840.00)
ISF 761 (169,196.38) (448,860.43) (399,434.91) (222,913.88) 573,301.15 226,547.04 327,979.00 Successor Agency 805 379,016.86 (468,935.00) 336,046.00 (148,651.00) (138,560.00) 192,488.16 33,406.00 Special Revenue 810 4,569.83 23,491.17 143,195.39 (7,011.68) (657,930.15) (151,965.19) (683,077.00) Successor Agency 830 1,063,415.58 1,650,521.45 1,078,201.38 1,277,494.38 1,404,673.68 1,000,493.97 (93,058.00) Capital Projects 840 - 7,684,349.28 (749,263.19) (1,573,106.58) (1,667,886.15) (197,335.91) (71,664.00) Capital Projects 841 - 546,070.61 - (128.00) (128.00) (109.48) (46.00) Successor Agency 850 (11,421.24) (10,501.21) 9,940,063.90 (366,389.63) (984,042.89) (11,449,372.40) 14,368.00 Successor Agency 855 (130,541.72) (764,680.94) (7,554,951.07) - - - - Successor Agency 856 (71,162.07) (70,824.86) (3,928,860.23) - - - - Successor Agency 857 82,615.93 1,211.85 (104,565.04) - - - - Citywide Net Cash Flow
Net Cash Flow Net Cash Flow Net Cash Flow Net Cash Flow Net Cash Flow Net Cash Flow Net Cash Flow Fund Type Fund FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 YTD General Fund 001 (557,178.58) (575,824.92) (1,128,238.58) (800,226.86) (4,485,051.60) (4,619,741.35) 6,016,649.80 General Fund 002 76,067.72 30,213.96 (236,252.15) (378,294.18) (289,715.33) (280,571.79) 116,593.51 General Fund 003 345,459.49 (16,400.01) - - - - -
General Fund 005 238,775.00 241,740.00 239,297.50 242,724.01 239,115.00 (873,281.91) 1,362,146.91 Special Revenue 100 (72,822.54) (13,994.08) (431,977.34) 417,194.25 (112,401.87) (1,831.00) (968,388.61) Special Revenue 101 357,405.66 78,306.53 (483,013.45) (425,086.14) (405,774.46) (36,309.18) 196,345.91 Special Revenue 102 151,515.39 461,608.85 98,717.92 40,528.77 (92,247.56) (257,270.54) 277,683.01 Special Revenue 103 643.67 1,112.44 (73,705.49) - - - - Special Revenue 104 (7.18) - - - - - -
Special Revenue 110 (13,610.00) 12,610.02 (30,762.67) 152,282.29 (120,520.62) - (84,854.62) Special Revenue 111 17,477.32 (21,109.59) (82,917.13) (54,827.74) (127,895.01) (58,715.69) 46,000.43 Special Revenue 132 67,154.58 39,138.76 39,877.77 54,577.74 191,316.75 (51,095.54) (64,110.50) Special Revenue 140 (66,439.54) 307,178.20 (11,473.47) (266,047.35) (5,427.01) 23.79 36.78 Special Revenue 148 61,999.42 125,829.44 (115,544.26) (84,996.17) 121,860.61 (259,654.70) 167,541.88 Special Revenue 150 8.45 14.61 (968.39) - - - (117.84)
Special Revenue 200 2,517.02 1,755.82 9,826.48 6,891.99 (11,156.53) (24,427.40) 32,445.45 Special Revenue 201 (2,035.89) 2,538.81 6,740.88 2,539.93 (934.46) 5,062.93 10,171.29 Special Revenue 202 44.38 76.71 (5,082.31) - - - (114.96) Special Revenue 203 (131.27) 715.93 1,413.41 798.52 790.50 1,177.93 1,508.95 Fiduciary 221 - - - 29,981.30 - 234,916.85 325,795.18
Special Revenue 222 - - - (291,081.60) 1,162,337.44 3,206,990.42 (2,301,647.24) General Fund 300 232.42 85.86 89.33 55.09 9.03 5.00 -
Fiduciary 360 316.86 547.60 655.29 201.32 55.01 473.35 731.72 Fiduciary 365 655.15 1,132.29 1,354.91 416.27 113.76 978.73 1,512.99 Fiduciary 370 4,311.06 (11,646.28) 12,347.53 11,618.47 (35,869.77) (31,278.66) (193.37) Fiduciary 375 (20,214.56) 1,973.65 42,918.74 5,139.73 (584.18) (51,438.39) 44,897.32 Fiduciary 376 414.22 715.89 856.64 263.18 71.93 (48,122.41) (500.00) Capital Projects 400 1,821.54 2,796.04 3,399.41 194,102.51 8,587.96 38,183.23 38,522.65 Capital Projects 410 11,405.08 19,145.09 22,809.14 267,542.03 6,990.47 (1,275,913.99) 1,418,336.39 Capital Projects 420 4,592.77 7,833.93 20,930.05 1,662,112.87 (239,846.65) (1,871,813.18) 2,107,428.90 Capital Projects 421 730.08 1,261.74 (83,597.47) - - - - Citywide Net Cash Flow
Net Cash Flow Net Cash Flow Net Cash Flow Net Cash Flow Net Cash Flow Net Cash Flow Net Cash Flow Fund Type Fund FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 YTD Capital Projects 430 (6,873.76) (158,124.72) (1,969.96) 260,707.85 149.68 (24,553.56) 6,786.52 Capital Projects 441 158,753.00 - - 360,746.72 251,997.68 - - Special Revenue 444 3,416.19 5,904.08 7,064.89 2,060.38 483.03 4,973.27 7,744.68 Capital Projects 451 (9,194.11) 5,685.55 9,290.92 25,310.01 24,601.08 111,138.41 (5,491.57) Capital Projects 470 - - (28,286.10) (82.00) 47,639.19 - (48,317.87) Capital Projects 480 (1,090,985.41) (138,710.75) - - - - - Capital Projects 481 4,797.87 (541,098.96) - - - - -
Airport 600 (52,808.68) (2,068.10) (51,047.77) (72,509.20) (53,378.61) (87,960.87) (162,978.88) Transit 610 (489,876.27) (262,420.99) (470,701.88) 128,467.68 940,910.58 (298,664.92) (4,149,439.50) Water 660 (890,662.06) 3,091,120.64 1,335,196.99 1,463,985.77 2,557,928.18 1,456,255.28 2,240,699.58 Water 661 (74,216.11) (12,512.98) (98,623.84) 686,723.95 221,005.46 (355,783.51) (1,080,308.36) Water 662 (75,416.84) 180,311.52 (11,198.35) 4,904.32 2,008.83 17,281.34 26,714.72 Water 663 1,640,232.21 (365,385.93) 7,964.44 733,325.75 29,950.00 - - Water 669 1,034,612.50 - - - - - (504,491.47)
Electric 670 (536,064.95) (1,861,908.37) (522,918.35) (3,832,777.46) (694,284.26) (6,956,321.41) (32,145.40) Electric 672 56,297.18 97,296.47 116,426.22 35,768.64 9,776.16 84,101.62 130,010.30 Electric 673 (2,078,429.79) (684,326.28) 218,981.51 (2,409,102.77) (8,797,121.98) 2,930,580.04 (10,245,298.20) Electric 674 7,080,520.15 (492,223.78) (952,883.26) 2,149,846.79 (694,467.92) (22,978.62) 726,598.49 Electric 675 73,952.16 88,117.84 67,861.75 83,581.89 156,723.85 (291,903.48) 164,752.01 Electric 678 1,142,376.72 - - - - - (10,561.00)
Wastewater 680 (187,640.35) (119,749.76) 85,515.76 668,686.07 (353,658.50) 354,834.51 3,083,510.86 Wastewater 681 9,263.95 169,953.78 200,683.72 (670,898.41) 94,716.97 308,659.10 329,607.53 Wastewater 682 380,587.51 435,696.18 447,596.03 377,817.20 363,047.17 502,018.62 505,231.26 Wastewater 683 16,288.76 - 309.71 (76,731.59) (193,728.70) (43,819.16) (2,313.63) Wastewater 685 6,446.35 9,014.83 (293,968.66) 2,045.28 699.20 6,663.59 10,301.05 Wastewater 687 - - - - - - -
Wastewater 689 152,736.57 - - - - - (159,571.99)
Refuse 690 (143,282.18) 79,376.24 (4,799.82) 4,774,790.79 154,203.21 (5,554,386.60) (568,928.32) ISF 700 (787,173.22) (978,330.72) 83,984.81 (802,212.24) (1,052,469.13) (636,615.44) (3,541,985.27) ISF 702 (71,192.65) (66,364.16) 159,539.52 276,670.62 121,142.14 (964,295.97) 1,202,881.07 ISF 703 4,324.83 (42,586.10) (176.70) (202,469.08) 133,077.41 - (1,404,669.91) Citywide Net Cash Flow
Net Cash Flow Net Cash Flow Net Cash Flow Net Cash Flow Net Cash Flow Net Cash Flow Net Cash Flow Fund Type Fund FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 YTD ISF 704 - - - - - - 1,177,638.71
ISF 705 - - - - - - (297,893.30)
ISF 761 (17,791.20) (111,389.05) (204,963.79) (52,557.51) (275,915.44) 0.00 155,894.83 Successor Agency 805 379,351.00 (468,935.00) 336,046.00 (148,651.00) (138,560.00) 192,488.16 33,405.88 Special Revenue 810 4,686.02 271,678.41 444,235.27 163,095.60 9,131.54 (2,221,938.00) 1,975,642.43 Successor Agency 830 83,584.09 267,121.22 (355,817.78) (33,543.79) (42,346.40) (211,565.25) (16,318.11) Capital Projects 840 - (21,127.00) (491,985.80) (1,732,567.95) 2,245,680.75 - (4,078,920.26) Capital Projects 841 - 546,070.61 - (128.00) (128.00) (545,814.61) 545,659.53 Successor Agency 850 515.43 890.66 (2,920,603.92) 20,250.39 (3,439.00) (250.64) 15,868.00 Successor Agency 855 - - - - - - -
Successor Agency 856 - - - - - - -
Successor Agency 857 - - - - - - -
Citywide Net Cash Flow-YE Loans
Net Cash Flow Net Cash Flow Net Cash Flow Net Cash Flow Net Cash Flow Net Cash Flow Net Cash Flow Fund Type Fund FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 YTD General Fund 001 (640,937.61) (492,065.89) (1,128,238.58) (800,226.86) (91,864.56) (4,324,838.53) 3,672,604.87 General Fund 002 76,067.72 30,213.96 (236,252.15) (378,294.18) (289,715.33) (280,571.79) 116,593.51 General Fund 003 345,459.49 (16,400.01) - - - - -
General Fund 005 238,775.00 241,740.00 239,297.50 242,724.01 239,115.00 1,356,036.79 247,487.56 Special Revenue 100 (72,822.54) (13,994.08) (431,977.34) 417,194.25 (116,256.75) (38,193.61) (928,171.12) Special Revenue 101 357,405.66 78,306.53 (483,013.45) (425,086.14) (405,774.46) 1,044,125.80 (343,871.58) Special Revenue 102 151,515.39 461,608.85 98,717.92 40,528.77 (92,247.56) (257,270.54) 277,683.01 Special Revenue 103 643.67 1,112.44 (73,705.49) - - - - Special Revenue 104 (7.18) - - - - - -
Special Revenue 110 (13,610.00) 12,610.02 (30,762.67) 152,282.29 (169,810.30) 673.10 (36,238.04) Special Revenue 111 17,477.32 (21,109.59) (82,917.13) (54,827.74) (127,895.01) 38,517.47 (2,616.15) Special Revenue 132 67,154.58 39,138.76 39,877.77 54,577.74 191,316.75 119,064.08 (149,190.31) Special Revenue 140 (66,439.54) 307,178.20 (11,473.47) (266,047.35) (5,427.01) 23.79 36.78 Special Revenue 148 61,999.42 125,829.44 (115,544.26) (84,996.17) 121,860.61 (259,654.70) 167,541.88 Special Revenue 150 8.45 14.61 (968.39) - - (89.32) (28.52) Special Revenue 200 2,517.02 1,755.82 9,826.48 6,891.99 (11,156.53) 34,666.92 2,898.29 Special Revenue 201 (2,035.89) 2,538.81 6,740.88 2,539.93 (934.46) 5,062.93 10,171.29 Special Revenue 202 44.38 76.71 (5,082.31) - - (86.44) (28.52) Special Revenue 203 (131.27) 715.93 1,413.41 798.52 790.50 1,350.81 1,422.51 Fiduciary 221 - - - 29,981.30 - 234,916.85 325,795.18
Special Revenue 222 - - - (291,081.60) 1,162,337.44 3,206,990.42 (2,301,647.24) General Fund 300 232.42 85.86 89.33 55.09 9.03 5.00 -
Fiduciary 360 316.86 547.60 655.29 201.32 55.01 473.35 731.72 Fiduciary 365 655.15 1,132.29 1,354.91 416.27 113.76 978.73 1,512.99 Fiduciary 370 4,311.06 (11,646.28) 12,347.53 11,618.47 (35,869.77) (31,278.66) (193.37) Fiduciary 375 (20,214.56) 1,973.65 42,918.74 5,139.73 (584.18) (51,438.39) 44,897.32 Fiduciary 376 414.22 715.89 856.64 263.18 71.93 (48,122.41) (500.00) Capital Projects 400 1,821.54 2,796.04 3,399.41 194,102.51 8,587.96 38,183.23 38,522.65 Capital Projects 410 11,405.08 19,145.09 22,809.14 267,542.03 6,990.47 1,350,649.03 105,054.88 Capital Projects 420 4,592.77 7,833.93 20,930.05 1,662,112.87 (239,846.65) 2,088,753.18 127,145.72 Capital Projects 421 730.08 1,261.74 (83,597.47) - - - - Citywide Net Cash Flow-YE Loans
Net Cash Flow Net Cash Flow Net Cash Flow Net Cash Flow Net Cash Flow Net Cash Flow Net Cash Flow Fund Type Fund FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 YTD Capital Projects 430 (6,873.76) (158,124.72) (1,969.96) 260,707.85 149.68 71,905.38 (41,442.95) Capital Projects 441 158,753.00 - - 360,746.72 251,997.68 - - Special Revenue 444 3,416.19 5,904.08 7,064.89 2,060.38 483.03 4,973.27 7,744.68 Capital Projects 451 (9,194.11) 5,685.55 9,290.92 25,310.01 24,601.08 111,138.41 (5,491.57) Capital Projects 470 - - (28,286.10) (82.00) (82.00) (508.28) (88.40) Capital Projects 480 (1,090,985.41) (138,710.75) - - - - - Capital Projects 481 4,797.87 (541,098.96) - - - - -
Airport 600 (52,808.68) (2,068.10) (51,047.77) (72,509.20) (53,378.61) (87,960.87) (162,978.88) Transit 610 (406,117.24) (346,180.02) (470,701.88) 128,467.68 940,910.58 50,449.86 (4,323,996.89) Water 660 (890,662.06) 3,091,120.64 1,335,196.99 1,463,985.77 2,557,928.18 1,456,255.28 2,240,699.58 Water 661 (74,216.11) (12,512.98) (98,623.84) 686,723.95 221,005.46 (355,783.51) (1,080,308.36) Water 662 (75,416.84) 180,311.52 (11,198.35) 4,904.32 2,008.83 17,281.34 26,714.72 Water 663 1,640,232.21 (365,385.93) 7,964.44 733,325.75 29,950.00 - - Water 669 1,034,612.50 - - - - - (504,491.47)
Electric 670 (536,064.95) (1,861,908.37) (522,918.35) (3,832,777.46) (694,284.26) (6,956,321.41) (32,145.40) Electric 672 56,297.18 97,296.47 116,426.22 35,768.64 9,776.16 84,101.62 130,010.30 Electric 673 (2,078,429.79) (684,326.28) 218,981.51 (2,409,102.77) (8,797,121.98) (5,764,357.47) (1,550,360.69) Electric 674 7,080,520.15 (492,223.78) (952,883.26) 2,149,846.79 (694,467.92) (22,978.62) 726,598.49 Electric 675 73,952.16 88,117.84 67,861.75 83,581.89 156,723.85 (291,903.48) 164,752.01 Electric 678 1,142,376.72 - - - - - (10,561.00)
Wastewater 680 (187,640.35) (119,749.76) 85,515.76 668,686.07 (353,658.50) 354,834.51 3,083,510.86 Wastewater 681 9,263.95 169,953.78 200,683.72 (670,898.41) 94,716.97 308,659.10 329,607.53 Wastewater 682 380,587.51 435,696.18 447,596.03 377,817.20 363,047.17 502,018.62 505,231.26 Wastewater 683 16,288.76 - 309.71 (76,731.59) (193,728.70) (43,819.16) (2,313.63) Wastewater 685 6,446.35 9,014.83 (293,968.66) 2,045.28 699.20 6,663.59 10,301.05 Wastewater 687 - - - - - - -
Wastewater 689 152,736.57 - - - - - (159,571.99)
Refuse 690 (143,282.18) 79,376.24 (4,799.82) 4,774,790.79 154,203.21 4,248,359.04 (5,470,301.14) ISF 700 (787,173.22) (978,330.72) 83,984.81 (802,212.24) (1,052,469.13) (2,225,696.54) (1,952,904.17) ISF 702 (71,192.65) (66,364.16) 159,539.52 276,670.62 121,142.14 266,716.95 587,374.61 ISF 703 4,324.83 (42,586.10) (176.70) (202,469.08) (324,872.74) (166,052.41) (780,667.35) Citywide Net Cash Flow-YE Loans
Net Cash Flow Net Cash Flow Net Cash Flow Net Cash Flow Net Cash Flow Net Cash Flow Net Cash Flow Fund Type Fund FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 YTD ISF 704 - - - - - - 1,177,638.71
ISF 705 - - - - - - (297,893.30)
ISF 761 (17,791.20) (111,389.05) (204,963.79) (52,557.51) (488,637.15) 46,660.42 321,956.12 Successor Agency 805 379,351.00 (468,935.00) 336,046.00 (148,651.00) (138,560.00) 192,488.16 33,405.88 Special Revenue 810 4,686.02 271,678.41 444,235.27 163,095.60 9,131.54 726,485.76 501,430.55 Successor Agency 830 83,584.09 267,121.22 (355,817.78) (33,543.79) (42,346.40) (211,565.25) (16,318.11) Capital Projects 840 - (21,127.00) (491,985.80) (1,732,567.95) (1,375,968.68) (382,428.41) (74,842.42) Capital Projects 841 - 546,070.61 - (128.00) (128.00) 545,595.65 (45.60) Successor Agency 850 515.43 890.66 (2,920,603.92) 20,250.39 (3,439.00) (250.64) 15,868.00 Successor Agency 855 - - - - - - -
Successor Agency 856 - - - - - - -
Successor Agency 857 - - - - - - -
Net Income vs Net Cash Flow
Net Income vs Net Cash Flow Net Income vs Net Cash Flow Net Income vs Net Cash Flow Net Income vs Net Cash Flow Net Income vs Net Cash Flow Net Income vs Net Cash Flow Net Income vs Net Cash Flow Fund Type Fund FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 YTD General Fund 001 784,998.03 (1,220,211.72) 436,654.61 1,258,992.22 (4,115,557.93) 481,156.96 6,768,657.80 General Fund 002 76,067.72 30,213.96 (236,252.15) (372,595.19) (278,651.33) 724,128.82 129,911.51 General Fund 003 3,182.87 (16,400.01) - - - - -
General Fund 005 (6,385.00) 175.00 (1,750.00) 1,750.00 (1,750.00) (1,114,659.35) 1,114,658.91 Special Revenue 100 23,881.29 71,415.11 (27,353.71) (38,189.98) (63,655.10) 60,159.52 (89,628.61) Special Revenue 101 (75,158.84) 45,951.51 118,592.78 (210,630.51) 398,195.12 (755,211.60) 693,196.91 Special Revenue 102 (30,256.25) (68,166.46) 42,115.12 (30,733.10) (13,630.74) (20,079.06) 160,023.01 Special Revenue 103 54.06 (563.20) 656.96 - - - -
Special Revenue 104 (7.18) - - - - - -
Special Revenue 110 (12,718.94) (7,374.58) 9,484.11 (9,484.11) 49,374.13 159.20 (84,113.62) Special Revenue 111 (2,947.23) 3,459.65 4,373.45 19,428.33 (10,944.10) (55,339.85) 43,124.43 Special Revenue 132 29,796.27 (1,409.84) 1,134.32 334.51 3,547.24 105,022.64 (99,108.50) Special Revenue 140 (300,359.96) 285,330.72 13,641.54 1,465.10 3.40 5.36 (27.22) Special Revenue 148 60,194.96 118,590.63 (119,226.54) (84,935.87) 124,007.77 (261,739.48) 181,024.88 Special Revenue 150 0.71 (7.40) 8.63 - - 89.32 (88.84)
Special Revenue 200 880.00 1,600.00 1,500.00 - - (29,547.16) 29,547.45 Special Revenue 201 62.88 (339.44) 122.10 244.23 432.77 179.64 (790.71) Special Revenue 202 3.73 (38.82) 45.29 - - 86.44 (85.96) Special Revenue 203 97.49 (4.95) (113.36) 11.43 37.17 (64.54) 7.95 Fiduciary 221 - - - - - - 0.18
Special Revenue 222 - - - (291,081.60) 1,162,337.44 3,206,990.42 (2,223,909.24) General Fund 300 3.78 7.57 (29.94) 30.70 53.33 (54.09) - Fiduciary 360 26.63 (277.26) 140.29 187.72 324.97 106.91 (540.28) Fiduciary 365 47.14 (573.26) 290.04 388.18 671.92 221.05 (1,118.01) Fiduciary 370 (2,116.62) (24,899.58) 24,721.15 271.61 (1,621.11) (474.71) (1.37) Fiduciary 375 (3,062.93) (615.16) 42,927.68 618.15 0.25 (33,106.30) 41,730.32 Fiduciary 376 34.78 (362.44) 183.39 245.42 424.80 (40,240.84) (190.00) Capital Projects 400 6.08 (182.15) 75.80 152.11 2,014.89 1,026.12 (3,889.35) Capital Projects 410 709.78 (7,692.03) 3,866.26 5,249.73 11,399.35 (1,309,312.43) 1,293,846.39 Capital Projects 420 330.60 (3,591.51) 60,184.17 (55,815.46) 16,774.69 (1,973,853.37) 1,955,638.90 Capital Projects 421 61.32 (638.80) 745.13 - - - -
Capital Projects 430 (1,147.95) 6,127.59 (6,892.40) 1,367.65 4,615.41 (46,562.25) 47,782.52 Capital Projects 441 - - - - - - -
Special Revenue 444 286.95 (2,989.14) 1,512.39 2,024.03 3,501.88 1,150.53 (5,822.32) Capital Projects 451 (5,568.79) 3,529.59 (1,166.17) 743.38 1,715.91 1,742.59 (3,954.57) Capital Projects 470 (4,513.09) (11,631.24) (7,204.18) (37.21) 47,587.49 (19,626.98) (82,397.87) Capital Projects 480 (16,732.26) 7,618,752.92 - - - - - Capital Projects 481 801.08 698.80 - - - - -
Airport 600 18,568.43 134,981.20 97,147.79 29,367.32 (282,108.60) 104,788.15 (66,005.88) Transit 610 (805,606.01) 224,200.01 (317,522.53) (141,468.49) 871,034.26 39,502.20 (2,474,990.50) Net Income vs Net Cash Flow
Net Income vs Net Cash Flow Net Income vs Net Cash Flow Net Income vs Net Cash Flow Net Income vs Net Cash Flow Net Income vs Net Cash Flow Net Income vs Net Cash Flow Net Income vs Net Cash Flow Fund Type Fund FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 YTD Water 660 (1,441,766.97) 621,716.74 289,941.96 (3,062,549.26) (2,215,833.16) (4,072,478.92) 146,027.58 Water 661 (9,741.40) (6,535.51) 3,846.77 19,516.00 37,829.53 (246,308.49) 138,321.64 Water 662 (5,157.95) (9,169.54) 6,438.35 4,425.95 11,864.00 3,903.13 (19,734.28) Water 663 1,630,088.30 (159,716.57) 810.28 733,279.17 (23.60) (3,555.61) (6,034.00) Water 669 (445,477.50) (827,330.80) (1,053,368.44) (1,104,366.66) (1,160,355.28) (1,218,282.15) (87,467.47) Electric 670 (579,132.03) (4,570,515.67) (834,254.63) (8,226,853.38) (8,210,574.85) (11,578,041.25) 2,532,924.60 Electric 672 4,728.57 (49,259.43) 24,923.38 33,355.35 57,737.50 18,995.05 (96,036.70) Electric 673 (18,925.53) (29,404.29) 513,571.76 114,987.06 (763,219.26) 7,941,299.19 (7,522,000.20) Electric 674 8,044,202.96 (53,067.93) 74,519.44 2,990,429.23 (961,546.76) (20,117.15) 698,717.49 Electric 675 11,133.57 (37,378.59) 14,050.15 (11,135.94) (1,750.01) 12,552.46 (26,707.99) Electric 678 (1,087,398.33) (1,136,962.44) (1,187,992.48) (1,250,238.32) (1,315,698.90) (1,378,605.76) (46,591.00) Wastewater 680 283,757.03 536,257.35 515,007.52 194,044.95 (1,030,153.67) (832,526.06) (589,579.14) Wastewater 681 239.04 (82,429.13) 41,672.11 55,809.09 90,906.11 31,795.72 (141,599.47) Wastewater 682 3,138.96 (45,802.57) 21,252.80 32,495.15 62,536.06 24,888.60 (110,287.74) Wastewater 683 9,468.69 (9,665.87) 506,538.42 294,939.54 (20,812.01) (4,386.26) (250.63) Wastewater 685 (278,793.76) (290,178.86) (292,103.54) (299,096.90) 4,599.88 1,505.02 (7,608.95) Wastewater 687 25,530.89 25,530.89 6,382.67 6,382.67 - - - Wastewater 689 (81,890.37) (177,068.64) (523,155.48) (227,423.00) (342,435.74) (237,463.01) (9,976.99) Refuse 690 (189,831.00) (54,655.55) (2,607.62) 4,790,363.86 (4,281,694.76) (1,019,726.71) 473,590.68 ISF 700 (298,809.56) 485,466.54 (100,876.19) 200,015.40 347,327.05 1,858,542.70 (1,675,258.27) ISF 702 (182,772.41) 65,637.82 162,662.45 (4,439.30) 34,443.48 (494,773.23) 474,464.07 ISF 703 88,573.51 18,581.75 73,166.67 42,456.08 321,591.14 129,402.16 (613,955.91) ISF 704 - - - - - - 455,282.71
ISF 705 - - - - - - 263,946.70
ISF 761 151,405.18 337,471.38 194,471.12 170,356.37 (849,216.59) (226,547.04) (172,084.17) Successor Agency 805 334.14 - - - - 0.00 (0.12)
Special Revenue 810 116.19 248,187.24 301,039.88 170,107.28 667,061.69 (2,069,972.81) 2,658,719.43 Successor Agency 830 (979,831.49) (1,383,400.23) (1,434,019.16) (1,311,038.17) (1,447,020.08) (1,212,059.22) 76,739.89 Capital Projects 840 - (7,705,476.28) 257,277.39 (159,461.37) 3,913,566.90 197,335.91 (4,007,256.26) Capital Projects 841 - - - - - (545,705.13) 545,705.53
Successor Agency 850 11,936.67 11,391.87 (12,860,667.82) 386,640.02 980,603.89 11,449,121.76 1,500.00 Successor Agency 855 130,541.72 764,680.94 7,554,951.07 - - - - Successor Agency 856 71,162.07 70,824.86 3,928,860.23 - - - - Successor Agency 857 (82,615.93) (1,211.85) 104,565.04 - - - - Net Inc vs NetCashFlow-YE Loans
Net Income vs Net Cash Flow Net Income vs Net Cash Flow Net Income vs Net Cash Flow Net Income vs Net Cash Flow Net Income vs Net Cash Flow Net Income vs Net Cash Flow Net Income vs Net Cash Flow Fund Type Fund FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 YTD General Fund 001 701,239.00 (1,136,452.69) 436,654.61 1,258,992.22 277,629.11 776,059.78 4,424,612.87 General Fund 002 76,067.72 30,213.96 (236,252.15) (372,595.19) (278,651.33) 724,128.82 129,911.51 General Fund 003 3,182.87 (16,400.01) - - - - -
General Fund 005 (6,385.00) 175.00 (1,750.00) 1,750.00 (1,750.00) 1,114,659.35 (0.44) Special Revenue 100 23,881.29 71,415.11 (27,353.71) (38,189.98) (67,509.98) 23,796.91 (49,411.12) Special Revenue 101 (75,158.84) 45,951.51 118,592.78 (210,630.51) 398,195.12 325,223.38 152,979.42 Special Revenue 102 (30,256.25) (68,166.46) 42,115.12 (30,733.10) (13,630.74) (20,079.06) 160,023.01 Special Revenue 103 54.06 (563.20) 656.96 - - - -
Special Revenue 104 (7.18) - - - - - -
Special Revenue 110 (12,718.94) (7,374.58) 9,484.11 (9,484.11) 84.45 832.30 (35,497.04) Special Revenue 111 (2,947.23) 3,459.65 4,373.45 19,428.33 (10,944.10) 41,893.31 (5,492.15) Special Revenue 132 29,796.27 (1,409.84) 1,134.32 334.51 3,547.24 275,182.26 (184,188.31) Special Revenue 140 (300,359.96) 285,330.72 13,641.54 1,465.10 3.40 5.36 (27.22) Special Revenue 148 60,194.96 118,590.63 (119,226.54) (84,935.87) 124,007.77 (261,739.48) 181,024.88 Special Revenue 150 0.71 (7.40) 8.63 - - - 0.48
Special Revenue 200 880.00 1,600.00 1,500.00 - - 29,547.16 0.29 Special Revenue 201 62.88 (339.44) 122.10 244.23 432.77 179.64 (790.71) Special Revenue 202 3.73 (38.82) 45.29 - - - 0.48
Special Revenue 203 97.49 (4.95) (113.36) 11.43 37.17 108.34 (78.49) Fiduciary 221 - - - - - - 0.18
Special Revenue 222 - - - (291,081.60) 1,162,337.44 3,206,990.42 (2,223,909.24) General Fund 300 3.78 7.57 (29.94) 30.70 53.33 (54.09) - Fiduciary 360 26.63 (277.26) 140.29 187.72 324.97 106.91 (540.28) Fiduciary 365 47.14 (573.26) 290.04 388.18 671.92 221.05 (1,118.01) Fiduciary 370 (2,116.62) (24,899.58) 24,721.15 271.61 (1,621.11) (474.71) (1.37) Fiduciary 375 (3,062.93) (615.16) 42,927.68 618.15 0.25 (33,106.30) 41,730.32 Fiduciary 376 34.78 (362.44) 183.39 245.42 424.80 (40,240.84) (190.00) Capital Projects 400 6.08 (182.15) 75.80 152.11 2,014.89 1,026.12 (3,889.35) Capital Projects 410 709.78 (7,692.03) 3,866.26 5,249.73 11,399.35 1,317,250.59 (19,435.12) Capital Projects 420 330.60 (3,591.51) 60,184.17 (55,815.46) 16,774.69 1,986,712.99 (24,644.28) Capital Projects 421 61.32 (638.80) 745.13 - - - -
Capital Projects 430 (1,147.95) 6,127.59 (6,892.40) 1,367.65 4,615.41 49,896.69 (446.95) Capital Projects 441 - - - - - - -
Special Revenue 444 286.95 (2,989.14) 1,512.39 2,024.03 3,501.88 1,150.53 (5,822.32) Capital Projects 451 (5,568.79) 3,529.59 (1,166.17) 743.38 1,715.91 1,742.59 (3,954.57) Capital Projects 470 (4,513.09) (11,631.24) (7,204.18) (37.21) (133.70) (20,135.26) (34,168.40) Capital Projects 480 (16,732.26) 7,618,752.92 - - - - - Capital Projects 481 801.08 698.80 - - - - -
Airport 600 18,568.43 134,981.20 97,147.79 29,367.32 (282,108.60) 104,788.15 (66,005.88) Transit 610 (721,846.98) 140,440.98 (317,522.53) (141,468.49) 871,034.26 388,616.98 (2,649,547.89) Net Inc vs NetCashFlow-YE Loans
Net Income vs Net Cash Flow Net Income vs Net Cash Flow Net Income vs Net Cash Flow Net Income vs Net Cash Flow Net Income vs Net Cash Flow Net Income vs Net Cash Flow Net Income vs Net Cash Flow Fund Type Fund FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 YTD Water 660 (1,441,766.97) 621,716.74 289,941.96 (3,062,549.26) (2,215,833.16) (4,072,478.92) 146,027.58 Water 661 (9,741.40) (6,535.51) 3,846.77 19,516.00 37,829.53 (246,308.49) 138,321.64 Water 662 (5,157.95) (9,169.54) 6,438.35 4,425.95 11,864.00 3,903.13 (19,734.28) Water 663 1,630,088.30 (159,716.57) 810.28 733,279.17 (23.60) (3,555.61) (6,034.00) Water 669 (445,477.50) (827,330.80) (1,053,368.44) (1,104,366.66) (1,160,355.28) (1,218,282.15) (87,467.47) Electric 670 (579,132.03) (4,570,515.67) (834,254.63) (8,226,853.38) (8,210,574.85) (11,578,041.25) 2,532,924.60 Electric 672 4,728.57 (49,259.43) 24,923.38 33,355.35 57,737.50 18,995.05 (96,036.70) Electric 673 (18,925.53) (29,404.29) 513,571.76 114,987.06 (763,219.26) (753,638.32) 1,172,937.31 Electric 674 8,044,202.96 (53,067.93) 74,519.44 2,990,429.23 (961,546.76) (20,117.15) 698,717.49 Electric 675 11,133.57 (37,378.59) 14,050.15 (11,135.94) (1,750.01) 12,552.46 (26,707.99) Electric 678 (1,087,398.33) (1,136,962.44) (1,187,992.48) (1,250,238.32) (1,315,698.90) (1,378,605.76) (46,591.00) Wastewater 680 283,757.03 536,257.35 515,007.52 194,044.95 (1,030,153.67) (832,526.06) (589,579.14) Wastewater 681 239.04 (82,429.13) 41,672.11 55,809.09 90,906.11 31,795.72 (141,599.47) Wastewater 682 3,138.96 (45,802.57) 21,252.80 32,495.15 62,536.06 24,888.60 (110,287.74) Wastewater 683 9,468.69 (9,665.87) 506,538.42 294,939.54 (20,812.01) (4,386.26) (250.63) Wastewater 685 (278,793.76) (290,178.86) (292,103.54) (299,096.90) 4,599.88 1,505.02 (7,608.95) Wastewater 687 25,530.89 25,530.89 6,382.67 6,382.67 - - - Wastewater 689 (81,890.37) (177,068.64) (523,155.48) (227,423.00) (342,435.74) (237,463.01) (9,976.99) Refuse 690 (189,831.00) (54,655.55) (2,607.62) 4,790,363.86 (4,281,694.76) 8,783,018.93 (4,427,782.14) ISF 700 (298,809.56) 485,466.54 (100,876.19) 200,015.40 347,327.05 269,461.60 (86,177.17) ISF 702 (182,772.41) 65,637.82 162,662.45 (4,439.30) 34,443.48 736,239.69 (141,042.39) ISF 703 88,573.51 18,581.75 73,166.67 42,456.08 (136,359.01) (36,650.25) 10,046.65 ISF 704 - - - - - - 455,282.71
ISF 705 - - - - - - 263,946.70
ISF 761 151,405.18 337,471.38 194,471.12 170,356.37 (1,061,938.30) (179,886.62) (6,022.88) Successor Agency 805 334.14 - - - - 0.00 (0.12)
Special Revenue 810 116.19 248,187.24 301,039.88 170,107.28 667,061.69 878,450.95 1,184,507.55 Successor Agency 830 (979,831.49) (1,383,400.23) (1,434,019.16) (1,311,038.17) (1,447,020.08) (1,212,059.22) 76,739.89 Capital Projects 840 - (7,705,476.28) 257,277.39 (159,461.37) 291,917.47 (185,092.50) (3,178.42) Capital Projects 841 - - - - - 545,705.13 0.40
Successor Agency 850 11,936.67 11,391.87 (12,860,667.82) 386,640.02 980,603.89 11,449,121.76 1,500.00 Successor Agency 855 130,541.72 764,680.94 7,554,951.07 - - - - Successor Agency 856 71,162.07 70,824.86 3,928,860.23 - - - - Successor Agency 857 (82,615.93) (1,211.85) 104,565.04 - - - - Citywide Fund Balances
Ending Fund Balances Ending Fund Balances Ending Fund Balances Ending Fund Balances Ending Fund Balances Ending Fund Balances Ending Fund Balances Current Fund Balances Fund Type Fund FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 YTD General Fund 001 13,027,223.52 11,685,046.91 12,329,433.71 10,764,540.52 8,705,321.44 8,335,827.77 3,234,929.46 2,482,921.46 General Fund 002 (27,559.93) (27,559.93) (27,559.93) (27,559.93) (33,258.92) (44,322.92) (1,049,023.53) (1,062,341.53) General Fund 003 (342,276.62) - - - - - - -
General Fund 005 313,048.18 558,208.18 799,773.18 1,040,820.68 1,281,794.69 1,522,659.69 1,764,037.13 2,011,525.13 Special Revenue 100 96,703.83 - (85,409.19) (490,032.82) (34,648.59) (83,395.36) (145,385.88) (1,024,145.88) Special Revenue 101 1,768,948.76 2,201,513.26 2,233,868.28 1,632,262.05 1,417,806.42 613,836.84 1,332,739.26 835,888.26 Special Revenue 102 - 181,771.64 711,546.95 768,149.75 839,411.62 760,794.80 523,603.32 641,263.32 Special Revenue 103 72,097.20 72,686.81 74,362.45 - - - - - Special Revenue 104 - - - - - - - -
Special Revenue 110 (20,092.54) (20,983.60) (999.00) (41,245.78) 120,520.62 (49,374.13) (49,533.33) (50,274.33) Special Revenue 111 362,872.75 383,297.30 358,728.06 271,437.48 197,181.41 80,230.50 76,854.66 79,730.66 Special Revenue 132 81,756.56 119,114.87 159,663.47 198,406.92 252,650.15 440,419.66 284,301.48 319,299.48 Special Revenue 140 44,142.35 278,062.77 299,910.25 274,795.24 7,282.79 1,852.38 1,870.81 1,934.81 Special Revenue 148 507.86 2,312.32 9,551.13 13,233.41 13,173.11 11,025.95 13,110.73 (372.27) Special Revenue 150 947.27 955.01 977.02 - - - (89.32) (118.32) Special Revenue 200 25,550.52 27,187.54 27,343.36 35,669.84 42,561.83 31,405.30 36,525.06 39,423.06 Special Revenue 201 40,085.02 37,986.25 40,864.50 47,483.28 49,778.98 48,411.75 53,295.04 64,257.04 Special Revenue 202 4,971.42 5,012.07 5,127.60 - - - (86.44) (115.44) Special Revenue 203 464.14 235.38 956.26 2,483.03 3,270.12 4,023.45 5,265.92 6,766.92 Fiduciary 221 - - - - 29,981.30 29,981.30 264,898.15 590,693.15 Special Revenue 222 - - - - - - - (77,738.00)
General Fund 300 5,644.40 5,873.04 5,951.33 6,070.60 6,094.99 6,050.69 6,109.78 6,109.78 Fiduciary 360 35,490.53 35,780.76 36,605.62 37,120.62 37,134.22 36,864.26 37,230.70 38,502.70 Fiduciary 365 53,418.08 54,026.09 55,731.64 56,796.51 56,824.60 56,266.44 57,024.12 59,655.12 Fiduciary 370 46,590.24 53,017.92 66,271.22 53,897.60 65,244.46 30,995.80 191.85 (0.15) Fiduciary 375 385,221.78 368,070.15 370,658.96 370,650.02 375,171.60 374,587.17 356,255.08 359,422.08 Fiduciary 376 6,395.66 6,775.10 7,853.43 8,526.68 8,544.44 8,191.57 310.00 - Capital Projects 400 18,838.82 20,654.28 23,632.47 26,956.08 220,906.48 227,479.55 264,636.66 307,048.66 Capital Projects 410 977,397.55 988,092.85 1,014,929.97 1,033,872.85 1,296,165.15 1,291,756.27 1,325,154.71 1,449,644.71 Capital Projects 420 458,384.58 462,646.75 474,072.19 434,818.07 2,152,746.40 1,896,125.06 1,998,165.25 2,149,955.25 Capital Projects 421 81,773.30 82,442.06 84,342.60 - - - - - Capital Projects 430 431,390.90 425,665.09 261,412.78 266,335.22 525,675.42 521,209.69 543,218.38 502,222.38 Capital Projects 441 (771,497.40) (612,744.40) (612,744.40) (612,744.40) (251,997.68) - - - Special Revenue 444 382,642.19 385,771.43 394,664.65 400,217.15 400,253.50 397,234.65 401,057.39 414,624.39 Capital Projects 451 137,449.00 133,823.68 135,979.64 146,436.73 171,003.36 193,888.53 303,284.35 301,747.35 Capital Projects 470 638,904.33 643,417.42 655,048.66 633,966.74 633,921.95 633,973.65 653,600.63 687,680.63 Citywide Fund Balances
Ending Fund Balances Ending Fund Balances Ending Fund Balances Ending Fund Balances Ending Fund Balances Ending Fund Balances Ending Fund Balances Current Fund Balances Fund Type Fund FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 YTD Capital Projects 480 8,831,716.82 7,757,463.67 - - - - - - Capital Projects 481 537,800.97 541,797.76 - - - - - -
Airport 600 2,757,108.62 2,685,731.51 2,548,682.21 2,400,486.65 2,298,610.13 2,527,340.12 2,334,591.10 2,237,618.10 Transit 610 (799,380.96) (483,651.22) (970,272.22) (1,123,451.57) (853,515.40) (783,639.08) (1,121,806.20) (2,796,255.20) Water 660 58,671,944.01 59,223,048.92 61,692,452.82 62,737,707.85 67,264,242.88 72,038,004.22 77,566,738.42 79,661,410.42 Water 661 3,988,287.87 3,923,813.16 3,917,835.69 3,815,365.08 4,482,573.03 4,665,748.96 4,556,273.94 3,337,643.94 Water 662 1,251,192.04 1,180,933.15 1,370,414.21 1,352,777.51 1,353,255.88 1,343,400.71 1,356,778.92 1,403,227.92 Water 663 1,741,034.04 1,751,177.95 1,545,508.59 1,552,662.75 1,552,709.33 1,582,682.93 1,586,238.54 1,592,272.54 Water 669 (26,224,941.19) (24,744,851.19) (23,917,520.39) (22,864,151.95) (21,759,785.29) (20,599,430.01) (19,381,147.86) (19,798,171.86) Electric 670 59,915,937.43 59,959,004.51 62,667,611.81 62,978,948.09 67,373,024.01 74,889,314.60 79,511,034.44 76,945,964.44 Electric 672 6,305,769.85 6,357,338.46 6,503,894.36 6,595,397.20 6,597,810.49 6,549,849.15 6,614,955.72 6,841,002.72 Electric 673 6,086,833.37 4,027,329.11 3,372,407.12 3,077,816.87 553,727.04 (7,480,175.68) (12,490,894.83) (15,214,192.83) Electric 674 3,653,092.90 2,689,410.09 2,250,254.24 1,222,851.54 382,269.10 649,347.94 646,486.47 674,367.47 Electric 675 836,363.11 899,181.70 1,024,678.13 1,078,489.73 1,173,207.56 1,331,681.42 1,027,225.48 1,218,685.48 Electric 678 (31,352,501.01) (29,122,725.96) (27,985,763.52) (26,797,771.04) (25,547,532.72) (24,231,833.82) (22,853,228.06) (22,817,198.06) Wastewater 680 14,718,456.92 14,247,059.54 13,591,052.43 13,161,560.67 13,636,201.79 14,312,696.96 15,500,057.53 19,173,147.53 Wastewater 681 10,620,775.34 10,629,800.25 10,882,183.16 11,041,194.77 10,314,487.27 10,318,298.13 10,595,161.51 11,066,368.51 Wastewater 682 5,157,736.17 5,535,184.72 6,016,683.47 6,443,026.70 6,788,348.75 7,088,859.86 7,565,989.88 8,181,508.88 Wastewater 683 3,256,046.47 3,262,866.54 3,272,532.41 2,766,303.70 2,394,632.57 2,221,715.88 2,182,282.98 2,180,219.98 Wastewater 685 (360,848.75) (75,608.64) 223,585.05 221,719.93 522,862.11 518,961.43 524,120.00 542,030.00 Wastewater 687 63,827.12 38,296.23 12,765.34 6,382.67 - - - - Wastewater 689 (4,961,829.41) (4,727,202.47) (4,550,133.83) (4,026,978.35) (3,799,555.35) (3,457,119.61) (3,219,656.60) (3,369,251.60) Refuse 690 978,465.08 1,025,013.90 1,159,045.69 1,156,853.49 1,141,280.42 5,577,178.39 1,042,518.50 (0.50) ISF 700 1,333,994.72 845,631.06 (618,166.20) (433,305.20) (1,435,532.84) (2,835,329.02) (5,330,487.16) (7,197,214.16) ISF 702 281,229.09 392,808.85 260,806.87 257,683.94 538,793.86 625,492.52 155,969.78 884,386.78 ISF 703 (380,990.36) (465,239.04) (526,406.89) (599,750.26) (844,675.42) (1,033,189.15) (1,162,591.31) (1,953,305.31) ISF 704 - - - - - - - 722,356.00
ISF 705 - - - - - - - (561,840.00)
ISF 761 (1,362,954.61) (1,532,150.99) (1,981,011.42) (2,380,446.33) (2,603,360.21) (2,030,059.06) (1,803,512.02) (1,475,533.02) Successor Agency 805 1,718,218.16 2,097,235.02 1,628,300.02 1,964,346.02 1,815,695.02 1,677,135.02 1,869,623.18 1,903,029.18 Special Revenue 810 2,328,950.20 2,333,520.03 2,357,011.20 2,500,206.59 2,493,194.91 1,835,264.76 1,683,299.57 1,000,222.57 Successor Agency 830 (31,011,335.86) (29,947,920.28) (28,297,398.83) (27,219,197.45) (25,941,703.07) (24,537,029.39) (23,536,535.42) (23,629,593.42) Capital Projects 840 - - 7,684,349.28 6,935,086.09 5,361,979.51 3,694,093.36 3,496,757.45 3,425,093.45 Capital Projects 841 - - 546,070.61 546,070.61 545,942.61 545,814.61 545,705.13 545,659.13 Successor Agency 850 298,295.13 286,873.89 276,372.68 10,216,436.58 9,850,046.95 8,866,004.06 (2,583,368.34) (2,569,000.34) Successor Agency 855 8,450,173.73 8,319,632.01 7,554,951.07 - - - - - Citywide Fund Balances
Ending Fund Balances Ending Fund Balances Ending Fund Balances Ending Fund Balances Ending Fund Balances Ending Fund Balances Ending Fund Balances Current Fund Balances Fund Type Fund FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 YTD Successor Agency 856 4,070,847.16 3,999,685.09 3,928,860.23 - - - - - Successor Agency 857 20,737.26 103,353.19 104,565.04 - - - - - FY 2017-18 Budget Analysis
FY 2017-18 FY 2017-18 FY 2017-18 FY 2017-18 FY 2017-18 FY 2017-18 Fund Type Fund Adopted Budget Net Income Amended Budget Net Income Ending Net Income Adopted vs Amended Variance Adopted vs Actual Variance Amended vs Actual Variance General Fund 001 (31,891.00) (2,984,537.00) (1,342,176.61) (2,952,646.00) (1,310,285.61) 1,642,360.39 General Fund 002 - (51,666.00) - (51,666.00) - 51,666.00 General Fund 003 (20,469.00) (20,469.00) 342,276.62 - 362,745.62 362,745.62 General Fund 005 229,165.00 191,981.00 245,160.00 (37,184.00) 15,995.00 53,179.00 Special Revenue 100 (70,317.00) (225,510.00) (96,703.83) (155,193.00) (26,386.83) 128,806.17 Special Revenue 101 (743,185.00) (1,510,940.00) 432,564.50 (767,755.00) 1,175,749.50 1,943,504.50 Special Revenue 102 - 1,118.00 181,771.64 1,118.00 181,771.64 180,653.64 Special Revenue 103 200.00 250.00 589.61 50.00 389.61 339.61 Special Revenue 104 - 1.00 - 1.00 - (1.00)
Special Revenue 110 - - (891.06) - (891.06) (891.06)
Special Revenue 111 27,021.00 (153,330.00) 20,424.55 (180,351.00) (6,596.45) 173,754.55 Special Revenue 132 34,300.00 34,300.00 37,358.31 - 3,058.31 3,058.31 Special Revenue 140 - - 233,920.42 - 233,920.42 233,920.42 Special Revenue 148 - (83,480.00) 1,804.46 (83,480.00) 1,804.46 85,284.46 Special Revenue 150 - - 7.74 - 7.74 7.74
Special Revenue 200 - - 1,637.02 - 1,637.02 1,637.02
Special Revenue 201 (5,700.00) (3,309.00) (2,098.77) 2,391.00 3,601.23 1,210.23 Special Revenue 202 - - 40.65 - 40.65 40.65
Special Revenue 203 - - (228.76) - (228.76) (228.76)
Fiduciary 221 - - - - - -
Special Revenue 222 - - - - - -
General Fund 300 - - 228.64 - 228.64 228.64
Fiduciary 360 60.00 124.00 290.23 64.00 230.23 166.23
Fiduciary 365 120.00 255.00 608.01 135.00 488.01 353.01 Fiduciary 370 50.00 (25,724.00) 6,427.68 (25,774.00) 6,377.68 32,151.68 Fiduciary 375 - - (17,151.63) - (17,151.63) (17,151.63) Fiduciary 376 120.00 161.00 379.44 41.00 259.44 218.44
Capital Projects 400 25.00 1,713.00 1,815.46 1,688.00 1,790.46 102.46 Capital Projects 410 1,600.00 1,600.00 10,695.30 - 9,095.30 9,095.30 Capital Projects 420 950.00 (103,640.00) 4,262.17 (104,590.00) 3,312.17 107,902.17 Capital Projects 421 150.00 284.00 668.76 134.00 518.76 384.76 Capital Projects 430 800.00 (106,719.00) (5,725.81) (107,519.00) (6,525.81) 100,993.19 Capital Projects 441 - 265,037.00 158,753.00 265,037.00 158,753.00 (106,284.00) Special Revenue 444 700.00 1,327.00 3,129.24 627.00 2,429.24 1,802.24 Capital Projects 451 (116,828.00) (133,883.00) (3,625.32) (17,055.00) 113,202.68 130,257.68 Capital Projects 470 50.00 (119,950.00) 4,513.09 (120,000.00) 4,463.09 124,463.09 Capital Projects 480 - (1,097,207.00) (1,074,253.15) (1,097,207.00) (1,074,253.15) 22,953.85 Capital Projects 481 - - 3,996.79 - 3,996.79 3,996.79
Airport 600 (5,980.00) (1,636.00) (71,377.11) 4,344.00 (65,397.11) (69,741.11) FY 2017-18 Budget Analysis
FY 2017-18 FY 2017-18 FY 2017-18 FY 2017-18 FY 2017-18 FY 2017-18 Fund Type Fund Adopted Budget Net Income Amended Budget Net Income Ending Net Income Adopted vs Amended Variance Adopted vs Actual Variance Amended vs Actual Variance Transit 610 (37,549.00) (992,135.00) 315,729.74 (954,586.00) 353,278.74 1,307,864.74 Water 660 (1,696,722.00) (2,227,260.00) 551,104.91 (530,538.00) 2,247,826.91 2,778,364.91 Water 661 (1,030,613.00) (3,461,352.00) (64,474.71) (2,430,739.00) 966,138.29 3,396,877.29 Water 662 (72,500.00) 1,596,385.00 (70,258.89) 1,668,885.00 2,241.11 (1,666,643.89) Water 663 (297,100.00) (3,075,632.00) 10,143.91 (2,778,532.00) 307,243.91 3,085,775.91 Water 669 (1,100.00) (2,329.00) 1,480,090.00 (1,229.00) 1,481,190.00 1,482,419.00 Electric 670 1,137,307.00 447,081.00 43,067.08 (690,226.00) (1,094,239.92) (404,013.92) Electric 672 (96,389.00) (96,389.00) 51,568.61 - 147,957.61 147,957.61 Electric 673 (1,313,461.00) (5,867,379.00) (2,059,504.26) (4,553,918.00) (746,043.26) 3,807,874.74 Electric 674 (1,461,950.00) (3,878,783.00) (963,682.81) (2,416,833.00) 498,267.19 2,915,100.19 Electric 675 (15,629.00) (17,646.00) 62,818.59 (2,017.00) 78,447.59 80,464.59 Electric 678 (600.00) (600.00) 2,229,775.05 - 2,230,375.05 2,230,375.05 Wastewater 680 77,630.00 (639,741.00) (471,397.38) (717,371.00) (549,027.38) 168,343.62 Wastewater 681 (787,000.00) (1,516,102.00) 9,024.91 (729,102.00) 796,024.91 1,525,126.91 Wastewater 682 362,500.00 (4,017,959.00) 377,448.55 (4,380,459.00) 14,948.55 4,395,407.55 Wastewater 683 (1,498,700.00) (1,968,847.00) 6,820.07 (470,147.00) 1,505,520.07 1,975,667.07 Wastewater 685 9,611.00 10,136.00 285,240.11 525.00 275,629.11 275,104.11 Wastewater 687 - - (25,530.89) - (25,530.89) (25,530.89) Wastewater 689 500.00 500.00 234,626.94 - 234,126.94 234,126.94 Refuse 690 (62,047.00) (87,226.00) 46,548.82 (25,179.00) 108,595.82 133,774.82 ISF 700 (512,512.00) (519,012.00) (488,363.66) (6,500.00) 24,148.34 30,648.34 ISF 702 1,250.00 (147,686.00) 111,579.76 (148,936.00) 110,329.76 259,265.76 ISF 703 300.00 (5,990.00) (84,248.68) (6,290.00) (84,548.68) (78,258.68) ISF 704 - - - - - -
ISF 705 - - - - - -
ISF 761 - (144,054.00) (169,196.38) (144,054.00) (169,196.38) (25,142.38) Successor Agency 805 - - 379,016.86 - 379,016.86 379,016.86 Special Revenue 810 965,002.00 965,002.00 4,569.83 - (960,432.17) (960,432.17) Successor Agency 830 71,835.00 71,835.00 1,063,415.58 - 991,580.58 991,580.58 Capital Projects 840 - - - - - -
Capital Projects 841 - - - - - -
Successor Agency 850 - - (11,421.24) - (11,421.24) (11,421.24) Successor Agency 855 4,313.00 (5,515,863.00) (130,541.72) (5,520,176.00) (134,854.72) 5,385,321.28 Successor Agency 856 33,274.00 (278,499.00) (71,162.07) (311,773.00) (104,436.07) 207,336.93 Successor Agency 857 900.00 900.00 82,615.93 - 81,715.93 81,715.93 FY 2018-19 Budget Analysis
FY 2018-19 FY 2018-19 FY 2018-19 FY 2018-19 FY 2018-19 FY 2018-19 Fund Type Fund Adopted Budget Net Income Amended Budget Net Income Ending Net Income Adopted vs Amended Variance Adopted vs Actual Variance Amended vs Actual Variance General Fund 001 109,228.00 (2,016,288.00) 644,386.80 (2,125,516.00) 535,158.80 2,660,674.80 General Fund 002 - (126,946.00) - (126,946.00) - 126,946.00 General Fund 003 - - - - - -
General Fund 005 467,980.00 466,814.00 241,565.00 (1,166.00) (226,415.00) (225,249.00) Special Revenue 100 (670,842.00) (2,448,536.00) (85,409.19) (1,777,694.00) 585,432.81 2,363,126.81 Special Revenue 101 (4,601,000.00) (4,958,838.00) 32,355.02 (357,838.00) 4,633,355.02 4,991,193.02 Special Revenue 102 - - 529,775.31 - 529,775.31 529,775.31 Special Revenue 103 - - 1,675.64 - 1,675.64 1,675.64
Special Revenue 104 - - - - - -
Special Revenue 110 - (350,092.00) 19,984.60 (350,092.00) 19,984.60 370,076.60 Special Revenue 111 20,286.00 (212,298.00) (24,569.24) (232,584.00) (44,855.24) 187,728.76 Special Revenue 132 72,500.00 73,900.00 40,548.60 1,400.00 (31,951.40) (33,351.40) Special Revenue 140 - - 21,847.48 - 21,847.48 21,847.48 Special Revenue 148 - (218,044.00) 7,238.81 (218,044.00) 7,238.81 225,282.81 Special Revenue 150 - - 22.01 - 22.01 22.01
Special Revenue 200 - (3,600.00) 155.82 (3,600.00) 155.82 3,755.82 Special Revenue 201 - - 2,878.25 - 2,878.25 2,878.25
Special Revenue 202 - - 115.53 - 115.53 115.53
Special Revenue 203 - (1,284.00) 720.88 (1,284.00) 720.88 2,004.88 Fiduciary 221 - - - - - -
Special Revenue 222 - - - - - -
General Fund 300 - - 78.29 - 78.29 78.29
Fiduciary 360 250.00 250.00 824.86 - 574.86 574.86
Fiduciary 365 510.00 510.00 1,705.55 - 1,195.55 1,195.55 Fiduciary 370 - - 13,253.30 - 13,253.30 13,253.30
Fiduciary 375 - - 2,588.81 - 2,588.81 2,588.81
Fiduciary 376 340.00 340.00 1,078.33 - 738.33 738.33
Capital Projects 400 - - 2,978.19 - 2,978.19 2,978.19
Capital Projects 410 6,000.00 6,000.00 26,837.12 - 20,837.12 20,837.12 Capital Projects 420 4,000.00 8,300.00 11,425.44 4,300.00 7,425.44 3,125.44 Capital Projects 421 600.00 1,302.00 1,900.54 702.00 1,300.54 598.54 Capital Projects 430 (797,200.00) (805,256.00) (164,252.31) (8,056.00) 632,947.69 641,003.69 Capital Projects 441 - - - - - -
Special Revenue 444 2,900.00 6,086.00 8,893.22 3,186.00 5,993.22 2,807.22 Capital Projects 451 - (89,080.00) 2,155.96 (89,080.00) 2,155.96 91,235.96 Capital Projects 470 - - 11,631.24 - 11,631.24 11,631.24 Capital Projects 480 - - (7,757,463.67) - (7,757,463.67) (7,757,463.67) Capital Projects 481 - - (541,797.76) - (541,797.76) (541,797.76) Airport 600 (35,656.00) 35,932.00 (137,049.30) 71,588.00 (101,393.30) (172,981.30) FY 2018-19 Budget Analysis
FY 2018-19 FY 2018-19 FY 2018-19 FY 2018-19 FY 2018-19 FY 2018-19 Fund Type Fund Adopted Budget Net Income Amended Budget Net Income Ending Net Income Adopted vs Amended Variance Adopted vs Actual Variance Amended vs Actual Variance Transit 610 297,230.00 4,120.00 (486,621.00) (293,110.00) (783,851.00) (490,741.00) Water 660 (2,458,316.00) (832,558.00) 2,469,403.90 1,625,758.00 4,927,719.90 3,301,961.90 Water 661 (5,037,000.00) (5,165,796.00) (5,977.47) (128,796.00) 5,031,022.53 5,159,818.53 Water 662 - (56,800.00) 189,481.06 (56,800.00) 189,481.06 246,281.06 Water 663 7,000.00 (799,434.00) (205,669.36) (806,434.00) (212,669.36) 593,764.64 Water 669 - 1,200.00 827,330.80 1,200.00 827,330.80 826,130.80 Electric 670 647,256.00 (275,296.00) 2,708,607.30 (922,552.00) 2,061,351.30 2,983,903.30 Electric 672 (4,158,000.00) (4,158,000.00) 146,555.90 - 4,304,555.90 4,304,555.90 Electric 673 (13,330,310.00) (16,633,502.00) (654,921.99) (3,303,192.00) 12,675,388.01 15,978,580.01 Electric 674 (3,254,000.00) (6,130,606.00) (439,155.85) (2,876,606.00) 2,814,844.15 5,691,450.15 Electric 675 214,018.00 (310,904.00) 125,496.43 (524,922.00) (88,521.57) 436,400.43 Electric 678 - - 1,136,962.44 - 1,136,962.44 1,136,962.44 Wastewater 680 (1,686,046.00) (2,023,826.00) (656,007.11) (337,780.00) 1,030,038.89 1,367,818.89 Wastewater 681 172,000.00 265,000.00 252,382.91 93,000.00 80,382.91 (12,617.09) Wastewater 682 456,148.00 502,948.00 481,498.75 46,800.00 25,350.75 (21,449.25) Wastewater 683 8,000.00 (448,816.00) 9,665.87 (456,816.00) 1,665.87 458,481.87 Wastewater 685 - 4,400.00 299,193.69 4,400.00 299,193.69 294,793.69 Wastewater 687 - - (25,530.89) - (25,530.89) (25,530.89) Wastewater 689 - - 177,068.64 - 177,068.64 177,068.64
Refuse 690 305,922.00 224,940.00 134,031.79 (80,982.00) (171,890.21) (90,908.21) ISF 700 132,776.00 132,516.00 (1,463,797.26) (260.00) (1,596,573.26) (1,596,313.26) ISF 702 9,694.00 (169,596.00) (132,001.98) (179,290.00) (141,695.98) 37,594.02 ISF 703 700.00 (49,330.00) (61,167.85) (50,030.00) (61,867.85) (11,837.85) ISF 704 - - - - - -
ISF 705 - - - - - -
ISF 761 - (297,484.00) (448,860.43) (297,484.00) (448,860.43) (151,376.43) Successor Agency 805 1,052,742.00 1,052,742.00 (468,935.00) - (1,521,677.00) (1,521,677.00) Special Revenue 810 (7,650.00) (770,230.00) 23,491.17 (762,580.00) 31,141.17 793,721.17 Successor Agency 830 7,650.00 7,650.00 1,650,521.45 - 1,642,871.45 1,642,871.45 Capital Projects 840 (11,716,000.00) (11,835,920.00) 7,684,349.28 (119,920.00) 19,400,349.28 19,520,269.28 Capital Projects 841 4,000.00 4,000.00 546,070.61 - 542,070.61 542,070.61 Successor Agency 850 - - (10,501.21) - (10,501.21) (10,501.21) Successor Agency 855 - (411,996.00) (764,680.94) (411,996.00) (764,680.94) (352,684.94) Successor Agency 856 - (237,378.00) (70,824.86) (237,378.00) (70,824.86) 166,553.14 Successor Agency 857 - - 1,211.85 - 1,211.85 1,211.85
FY 2019-20 Budget Analysis
FY 2019-20 FY 2019-20 FY 2019-20 FY 2019-20 FY 2019-20 FY 2019-20 Fund Type Fund Adopted Budget Net Income Amended Budget Net Income Ending Net Income Adopted vs Amended Variance Adopted vs Actual Variance Amended vs Actual Variance General Fund 001 (1,147,998.00) (582,706.00) (1,564,893.19) 565,292.00 (416,895.19) (982,187.19) General Fund 002 - - - - - -
General Fund 003 - - - - - -
General Fund 005 467,620.00 467,620.00 241,047.50 - (226,572.50) (226,572.50) Special Revenue 100 (772,546.00) (5,978,298.00) (404,623.63) (5,205,752.00) 367,922.37 5,573,674.37 Special Revenue 101 27,500.00 (4,600,918.00) (601,606.23) (4,628,418.00) (629,106.23) 3,999,311.77 Special Revenue 102 - (962,032.00) 56,602.80 (962,032.00) 56,602.80 1,018,634.80 Special Revenue 103 - 384.00 (74,362.45) 384.00 (74,362.45) (74,746.45) Special Revenue 104 - - - - - -
Special Revenue 110 - (313,958.00) (40,246.78) (313,958.00) (40,246.78) 273,711.22 Special Revenue 111 20,664.00 (369,154.00) (87,290.58) (389,818.00) (107,954.58) 281,863.42 Special Revenue 132 73,600.00 (76,002.00) 38,743.45 (149,602.00) (34,856.55) 114,745.45 Special Revenue 140 - - (25,115.01) - (25,115.01) (25,115.01) Special Revenue 148 - (56,522.00) 3,682.28 (56,522.00) 3,682.28 60,204.28 Special Revenue 150 - - (977.02) - (977.02) (977.02)
Special Revenue 200 - 500.00 8,326.48 500.00 8,326.48 7,826.48 Special Revenue 201 - 936.00 6,618.78 936.00 6,618.78 5,682.78 Special Revenue 202 - 28.00 (5,127.60) 28.00 (5,127.60) (5,155.60) Special Revenue 203 - - 1,526.77 - 1,526.77 1,526.77
Fiduciary 221 - - - - - -
Special Revenue 222 - - - - - -
General Fund 300 - 52.00 119.27 52.00 119.27 67.27
Fiduciary 360 250.00 250.00 515.00 - 265.00 265.00
Fiduciary 365 510.00 510.00 1,064.87 - 554.87 554.87
Fiduciary 370 - - (12,373.62) - (12,373.62) (12,373.62) Fiduciary 375 - - (8.94) - (8.94) (8.94)
Fiduciary 376 340.00 340.00 673.25 - 333.25 333.25
Capital Projects 400 - 6,042.00 3,323.61 6,042.00 3,323.61 (2,718.39) Capital Projects 410 6,000.00 15,168.00 18,942.88 9,168.00 12,942.88 3,774.88 Capital Projects 420 3,500.00 (792,648.00) (39,254.12) (796,148.00) (42,754.12) 753,393.88 Capital Projects 421 620.00 620.00 (84,342.60) - (84,962.60) (84,962.60) Capital Projects 430 2,800.00 (44,740.00) 4,922.44 (47,540.00) 2,122.44 49,662.44 Capital Projects 441 - 721,584.00 - 721,584.00 - (721,584.00) Special Revenue 444 2,900.00 2,900.00 5,552.50 - 2,652.50 2,652.50 Capital Projects 451 (710,000.00) (774,124.00) 10,457.09 (64,124.00) 720,457.09 784,581.09 Capital Projects 470 - - (21,081.92) - (21,081.92) (21,081.92) Capital Projects 480 - - - - - -
Capital Projects 481 - - - - - -
Airport 600 (5,904.00) 7,544.00 (148,195.56) 13,448.00 (142,291.56) (155,739.56) FY 2019-20 Budget Analysis
FY 2019-20 FY 2019-20 FY 2019-20 FY 2019-20 FY 2019-20 FY 2019-20 Fund Type Fund Adopted Budget Net Income Amended Budget Net Income Ending Net Income Adopted vs Amended Variance Adopted vs Actual Variance Amended vs Actual Variance Transit 610 1,006,380.00 177,156.00 (153,179.35) (829,224.00) (1,159,559.35) (330,335.35) Water 660 (1,407,276.00) (7,099,308.00) 1,045,255.03 (5,692,032.00) 2,452,531.03 8,144,563.03 Water 661 (2,788,626.00) (7,173,260.00) (102,470.61) (4,384,634.00) 2,686,155.39 7,070,789.39 Water 662 10,200.00 (208,094.00) (17,636.70) (218,294.00) (27,836.70) 190,457.30 Water 663 7,500.00 105,852.00 7,154.16 98,352.00 (345.84) (98,697.84) Water 669 - - 1,053,368.44 - 1,053,368.44 1,053,368.44
Electric 670 (29,630.00) (1,068,320.00) 311,336.28 (1,038,690.00) 340,966.28 1,379,656.28 Electric 672 42,000.00 42,000.00 91,502.84 - 49,502.84 49,502.84 Electric 673 (5,948,000.00) (27,784,496.00) (294,590.25) (21,836,496.00) 5,653,409.75 27,489,905.75 Electric 674 (1,270,000.00) (6,231,816.00) (1,027,402.70) (4,961,816.00) 242,597.30 5,204,413.30 Electric 675 550,430.00 49,476.00 53,811.60 (500,954.00) (496,618.40) 4,335.60 Electric 678 - - 1,187,992.48 - 1,187,992.48 1,187,992.48 Wastewater 680 (330,450.00) (1,710,888.00) (429,491.76) (1,380,438.00) (99,041.76) 1,281,396.24 Wastewater 681 173,720.00 173,720.00 159,011.61 - (14,708.39) (14,708.39) Wastewater 682 468,992.00 485,044.00 426,343.23 16,052.00 (42,648.77) (58,700.77) Wastewater 683 8,000.00 (606,884.00) (506,228.71) (614,884.00) (514,228.71) 100,655.29 Wastewater 685 - - (1,865.12) - (1,865.12) (1,865.12)
Wastewater 687 - - (6,382.67) - (6,382.67) (6,382.67)
Wastewater 689 - - 523,155.48 - 523,155.48 523,155.48
Refuse 690 290,684.00 1,516,490.00 (2,192.20) 1,225,806.00 (292,876.20) (1,518,682.20) ISF 700 163,066.00 (227,854.00) 184,861.00 (390,920.00) 21,795.00 412,715.00 ISF 702 46,862.00 (2,961,066.00) (3,122.93) (3,007,928.00) (49,984.93) 2,957,943.07 ISF 703 698.00 3,896.00 (73,343.37) 3,198.00 (74,041.37) (77,239.37) ISF 704 - - - - - -
ISF 705 - - - - - -
ISF 761 - (55,542.00) (399,434.91) (55,542.00) (399,434.91) (343,892.91) Successor Agency 805 1,059,980.00 1,059,980.00 336,046.00 - (723,934.00) (723,934.00) Special Revenue 810 - (669,948.00) 143,195.39 (669,948.00) 143,195.39 813,143.39 Successor Agency 830 - - 1,078,201.38 - 1,078,201.38 1,078,201.38 Capital Projects 840 18,000.00 (13,726,928.00) (749,263.19) (13,744,928.00) (767,263.19) 12,977,664.81 Capital Projects 841 4,000.00 4,000.00 - - (4,000.00) (4,000.00) Successor Agency 850 - 310.00 9,940,063.90 310.00 9,940,063.90 9,939,753.90 Successor Agency 855 - (347,724.00) (7,554,951.07) (347,724.00) (7,554,951.07) (7,207,227.07) Successor Agency 856 - (2,958.00) (3,928,860.23) (2,958.00) (3,928,860.23) (3,925,902.23) Successor Agency 857 - - (104,565.04) - (104,565.04) (104,565.04) FY 2020-21 Budget Analysis
FY 2020-21 FY 2020-21 FY 2020-21 FY 2020-21 FY 2020-21 FY 2020-21 Fund Type Fund Adopted Budget Net Income Amended Budget Net Income Ending Net Income Adopted vs Amended Variance Adopted vs Actual Variance Amended vs Actual Variance General Fund 001 (14.00) (7,378,798.00) (2,059,219.08) (7,378,784.00) (2,059,205.08) 5,319,578.92 General Fund 002 - (54,314.00) (5,698.99) (54,314.00) (5,698.99) 48,615.01 General Fund 003 - - - - - -
General Fund 005 481,330.00 479,866.00 240,974.01 (1,464.00) (240,355.99) (238,891.99) Special Revenue 100 (702,416.00) 748,374.00 455,384.23 1,450,790.00 1,157,800.23 (292,989.77) Special Revenue 101 - (4,905,382.00) (214,455.63) (4,905,382.00) (214,455.63) 4,690,926.37 Special Revenue 102 - - 71,261.87 - 71,261.87 71,261.87 Special Revenue 103 - - - - - -
Special Revenue 104 - - - - - -
Special Revenue 110 81,204.00 381,204.00 161,766.40 300,000.00 80,562.40 (219,437.60) Special Revenue 111 2.00 (36,014.00) (74,256.07) (36,016.00) (74,258.07) (38,242.07) Special Revenue 132 76,960.00 76,960.00 54,243.23 - (22,716.77) (22,716.77) Special Revenue 140 - (249,348.00) (267,512.45) (249,348.00) (267,512.45) (18,164.45) Special Revenue 148 - (409,232.00) (60.30) (409,232.00) (60.30) 409,171.70 Special Revenue 150 - - - - - -
Special Revenue 200 2.00 (2,018.00) 6,891.99 (2,020.00) 6,889.99 8,909.99 Special Revenue 201 - - 2,295.70 - 2,295.70 2,295.70
Special Revenue 202 - - - - - -
Special Revenue 203 - - 787.09 - 787.09 787.09
Fiduciary 221 - - 29,981.30 - 29,981.30 29,981.30
Special Revenue 222 - - - - - -
General Fund 300 - - 24.39 - 24.39 24.39
Fiduciary 360 - - 13.60 - 13.60 13.60
Fiduciary 365 - - 28.09 - 28.09 28.09
Fiduciary 370 - - 11,346.86 - 11,346.86 11,346.86
Fiduciary 375 1,960.00 1,960.00 4,521.58 - 2,561.58 2,561.58 Fiduciary 376 - - 17.76 - 17.76 17.76
Capital Projects 400 4,786.00 4,786.00 193,950.40 - 189,164.40 189,164.40 Capital Projects 410 11,752.00 11,752.00 262,292.30 - 250,540.30 250,540.30 Capital Projects 420 199,180.00 (334,952.00) 1,717,928.33 (534,132.00) 1,518,748.33 2,052,880.33 Capital Projects 421 - - - - - -
Capital Projects 430 - - 259,340.20 - 259,340.20 259,340.20 Capital Projects 441 721,494.00 721,494.00 360,746.72 - (360,747.28) (360,747.28) Special Revenue 444 1,330.00 1,330.00 36.35 - (1,293.65) (1,293.65) Capital Projects 451 - (33,998.00) 24,566.63 (33,998.00) 24,566.63 58,564.63 Capital Projects 470 23,098.00 23,098.00 (44.79) - (23,142.79) (23,142.79) Capital Projects 480 - - - - - -
Capital Projects 481 - - - - - -
Airport 600 45,360.00 22,720.00 (101,876.52) (22,640.00) (147,236.52) (124,596.52) FY 2020-21 Budget Analysis
FY 2020-21 FY 2020-21 FY 2020-21 FY 2020-21 FY 2020-21 FY 2020-21 Fund Type Fund Adopted Budget Net Income Amended Budget Net Income Ending Net Income Adopted vs Amended Variance Adopted vs Actual Variance Amended vs Actual Variance Transit 610 (632,104.00) (12,938.00) 269,936.17 619,166.00 902,040.17 282,874.17 Water 660 4,397,532.00 (117,186.00) 4,526,535.03 (4,514,718.00) 129,003.03 4,643,721.03 Water 661 18,528.00 (1,387,406.00) 667,207.95 (1,405,934.00) 648,679.95 2,054,613.95 Water 662 5,400.00 (137,562.00) 478.37 (142,962.00) (4,921.63) 138,040.37 Water 663 31,878.00 31,878.00 46.58 - (31,831.42) (31,831.42) Water 669 - - 1,104,366.66 - 1,104,366.66 1,104,366.66
Electric 670 (2.00) (2,043,880.00) 4,394,075.92 (2,043,878.00) 4,394,077.92 6,437,955.92 Electric 672 - - 2,413.29 - 2,413.29 2,413.29
Electric 673 - (16,281,014.00) (2,524,089.83) (16,281,014.00) (2,524,089.83) 13,756,924.17 Electric 674 - (4,928,918.00) (840,582.44) (4,928,918.00) (840,582.44) 4,088,335.56 Electric 675 6,296.00 (33,076.00) 94,717.83 (39,372.00) 88,421.83 127,793.83 Electric 678 - - 1,250,238.32 - 1,250,238.32 1,250,238.32 Wastewater 680 2.00 (863,378.00) 474,641.12 (863,380.00) 474,639.12 1,338,019.12 Wastewater 681 - (137,000.00) (726,707.50) (137,000.00) (726,707.50) (589,707.50) Wastewater 682 721,274.00 721,274.00 345,322.05 - (375,951.95) (375,951.95) Wastewater 683 19,332.00 (444,668.00) (371,671.13) (464,000.00) (391,003.13) 72,996.87 Wastewater 685 3,230.00 3,230.00 301,142.18 - 297,912.18 297,912.18 Wastewater 687 - - (6,382.67) - (6,382.67) (6,382.67)
Wastewater 689 - - 227,423.00 - 227,423.00 227,423.00
Refuse 690 19,638.00 (49,258.00) (15,573.07) (68,896.00) (35,211.07) 33,684.93 ISF 700 (8.00) (8.00) (1,002,227.64) - (1,002,219.64) (1,002,219.64) ISF 702 (2.00) (11,946.00) 281,109.92 (11,944.00) 281,111.92 293,055.92 ISF 703 2.00 (23,272.00) (244,925.16) (23,274.00) (244,927.16) (221,653.16) ISF 704 - - - - - -
ISF 705 - - - - - -
ISF 761 (2.00) (12,182.00) (222,913.88) (12,180.00) (222,911.88) (210,731.88) Successor Agency 805 55,732.00 55,732.00 (148,651.00) - (204,383.00) (204,383.00) Special Revenue 810 - (928.00) (7,011.68) (928.00) (7,011.68) (6,083.68) Successor Agency 830 - - 1,277,494.38 - 1,277,494.38 1,277,494.38 Capital Projects 840 (2.00) (1,442,528.00) (1,573,106.58) (1,442,526.00) (1,573,104.58) (130,578.58) Capital Projects 841 - - (128.00) - (128.00) (128.00)
Successor Agency 850 - - (366,389.63) - (366,389.63) (366,389.63) Successor Agency 855 - - - - - -
Successor Agency 856 - - - - - -
Successor Agency 857 - - - - - -
FY 2021-22 Budget Analysis
FY 2021-22 FY 2021-22 FY 2021-22 FY 2021-22 FY 2021-22 FY 2021-22 Fund Type Fund Adopted Budget Net Income Amended Budget Net Income Ending Net Income Adopted vs Amended Variance Adopted vs Actual Variance Amended vs Actual Variance General Fund 001 - (6,448,768.00) (369,493.67) (6,448,768.00) (369,493.67) 6,079,274.33 General Fund 002 - (51,521.00) (11,064.00) (51,521.00) (11,064.00) 40,457.00 General Fund 003 - - - - - -
General Fund 005 240,665.00 240,165.00 240,865.00 (500.00) 200.00 700.00 Special Revenue 100 (463,873.00) (109,721.00) (48,746.77) 354,152.00 415,126.23 60,974.23 Special Revenue 101 - (1,371,429.00) (803,969.58) (1,371,429.00) (803,969.58) 567,459.42 Special Revenue 102 2,350.00 (962,737.00) (78,616.82) (965,087.00) (80,966.82) 884,120.18 Special Revenue 103 - - - - - -
Special Revenue 104 - - - - - -
Special Revenue 110 40,602.00 (565,473.00) (169,894.75) (606,075.00) (210,496.75) 395,578.25 Special Revenue 111 (6,716.00) (7,514.00) (116,950.91) (798.00) (110,234.91) (109,436.91) Special Revenue 132 39,308.00 (132,056.00) 187,769.51 (171,364.00) 148,461.51 319,825.51 Special Revenue 140 565.00 565.00 (5,430.41) - (5,995.41) (5,995.41) Special Revenue 148 - (25,000.00) (2,147.16) (25,000.00) (2,147.16) 22,852.84 Special Revenue 150 - - - - - -
Special Revenue 200 - (7,800.00) (11,156.53) (7,800.00) (11,156.53) (3,356.53) Special Revenue 201 (698.00) (698.00) (1,367.23) - (669.23) (669.23) Special Revenue 202 - - - - - -
Special Revenue 203 - - 753.33 - 753.33 753.33
Fiduciary 221 - - - - - -
Special Revenue 222 - - - - - -
General Fund 300 - - (44.30) - (44.30) (44.30)
Fiduciary 360 - - (269.96) - (269.96) (269.96)
Fiduciary 365 - - (558.16) - (558.16) (558.16)
Fiduciary 370 - - (34,248.66) - (34,248.66) (34,248.66) Fiduciary 375 226.00 226.00 (584.43) - (810.43) (810.43) Fiduciary 376 - - (352.87) - (352.87) (352.87)
Capital Projects 400 2,393.00 2,393.00 6,573.07 - 4,180.07 4,180.07 Capital Projects 410 5,876.00 5,876.00 (4,408.88) - (10,284.88) (10,284.88) Capital Projects 420 104,590.00 94,590.00 (256,621.34) (10,000.00) (361,211.34) (351,211.34) Capital Projects 421 - - - - - -
Capital Projects 430 - - (4,465.73) - (4,465.73) (4,465.73) Capital Projects 441 - - 251,997.68 - 251,997.68 251,997.68 Special Revenue 444 665.00 665.00 (3,018.85) - (3,683.85) (3,683.85) Capital Projects 451 - (270,000.00) 22,885.17 (270,000.00) 22,885.17 292,885.17 Capital Projects 470 11,549.00 11,549.00 51.70 - (11,497.30) (11,497.30) Capital Projects 480 - - - - - -
Capital Projects 481 - - - - - -
Airport 600 (531,841.00) (212,486.00) 228,729.99 319,355.00 760,570.99 441,215.99 FY 2021-22 Budget Analysis
FY 2021-22 FY 2021-22 FY 2021-22 FY 2021-22 FY 2021-22 FY 2021-22 Fund Type Fund Adopted Budget Net Income Amended Budget Net Income Ending Net Income Adopted vs Amended Variance Adopted vs Actual Variance Amended vs Actual Variance Transit 610 437,362.00 (897,634.00) 69,876.32 (1,334,996.00) (367,485.68) 967,510.32 Water 660 1,743,438.00 (601,136.00) 4,773,761.34 (2,344,574.00) 3,030,323.34 5,374,897.34 Water 661 9,264.00 116,235.00 183,175.93 106,971.00 173,911.93 66,940.93 Water 662 2,700.00 2,700.00 (9,855.17) - (12,555.17) (12,555.17) Water 663 15,939.00 15,939.00 29,973.60 - 14,034.60 14,034.60 Water 669 - - 1,160,355.28 - 1,160,355.28 1,160,355.28
Electric 670 1.00 (2,551,916.00) 7,516,290.59 (2,551,917.00) 7,516,289.59 10,068,206.59 Electric 672 - 12,779.00 (47,961.34) 12,779.00 (47,961.34) (60,740.34) Electric 673 (3,031,450.00) (17,227,362.00) (8,033,902.72) (14,195,912.00) (5,002,452.72) 9,193,459.28 Electric 674 (365,389.00) (362,561.00) 267,078.84 2,828.00 632,467.84 629,639.84 Electric 675 - (176,689.00) 158,473.86 (176,689.00) 158,473.86 335,162.86 Electric 678 - - 1,315,698.90 - 1,315,698.90 1,315,698.90 Wastewater 680 486,016.00 (576,509.00) 676,495.17 (1,062,525.00) 190,479.17 1,253,004.17 Wastewater 681 28,604.00 826,770.00 3,810.86 798,166.00 (24,793.14) (822,959.14) Wastewater 682 360,637.00 360,637.00 300,511.11 - (60,125.89) (60,125.89) Wastewater 683 9,666.00 (206,852.00) (172,916.69) (216,518.00) (182,582.69) 33,935.31 Wastewater 685 1,615.00 1,615.00 (3,900.68) - (5,515.68) (5,515.68) Wastewater 687 - - - - - -
Wastewater 689 - - 342,435.74 - 342,435.74 342,435.74
Refuse 690 21,715.00 3,412,070.00 4,435,897.97 3,390,355.00 4,414,182.97 1,023,827.97 ISF 700 - (605,838.00) (1,399,796.18) (605,838.00) (1,399,796.18) (793,958.18) ISF 702 - (285,938.00) 86,698.66 (285,938.00) 86,698.66 372,636.66 ISF 703 - (393,414.00) (188,513.73) (393,414.00) (188,513.73) 204,900.27 ISF 704 - - - - - -
ISF 705 - - - - - -
ISF 761 - (411,433.00) 573,301.15 (411,433.00) 573,301.15 984,734.15 Successor Agency 805 (325.00) (325.00) (138,560.00) - (138,235.00) (138,235.00) Special Revenue 810 - (913,546.00) (657,930.15) (913,546.00) (657,930.15) 255,615.85 Successor Agency 830 - - 1,404,673.68 - 1,404,673.68 1,404,673.68 Capital Projects 840 - (1,590,945.00) (1,667,886.15) (1,590,945.00) (1,667,886.15) (76,941.15) Capital Projects 841 - - (128.00) - (128.00) (128.00)
Successor Agency 850 3,264.00 (58.00) (984,042.89) (3,322.00) (987,306.89) (983,984.89) Successor Agency 855 - - - - - -
Successor Agency 856 - - - - - -
Successor Agency 857 - - - - - -
FY 2022-23 Budget Analysis
FY 2022-23 FY 2022-23 FY 2022-23 FY 2022-23 FY 2022-23 FY 2022-23 Fund Type Fund Adopted Budget Net Income Amended Budget Net Income Ending Net Income Adopted vs Amended Variance Adopted vs Actual Variance Amended vs Actual Variance General Fund 001 (1,161,801.00) (4,749,529.00) (5,100,898.31) (3,587,728.00) (3,939,097.31) (351,369.31) General Fund 002 - (141,997.00) (1,004,700.61) (141,997.00) (1,004,700.61) (862,703.61) General Fund 003 - - - - - -
General Fund 005 240,677.00 240,677.00 241,377.44 - 700.44 700.44 Special Revenue 100 (391,776.00) (322,254.00) (61,990.52) 69,522.00 329,785.48 260,263.48 Special Revenue 101 (533,724.00) (917,713.00) 718,902.42 (383,989.00) 1,252,626.42 1,636,615.42 Special Revenue 102 (12,742.00) (673,365.00) (237,191.48) (660,623.00) (224,449.48) 436,173.52 Special Revenue 103 - - - - - -
Special Revenue 104 - - - - - -
Special Revenue 110 (454,685.00) (454,685.00) (159.20) - 454,525.80 454,525.80 Special Revenue 111 925.00 (18,273.00) (3,375.84) (19,198.00) (4,300.84) 14,897.16 Special Revenue 132 (48,584.00) (219,942.00) (156,118.18) (171,358.00) (107,534.18) 63,823.82 Special Revenue 140 565.00 565.00 18.43 - (546.57) (546.57) Special Revenue 148 - - 2,084.78 - 2,084.78 2,084.78
Special Revenue 150 - (89.00) (89.32) (89.00) (89.32) (0.32) Special Revenue 200 2,402.00 (2,443.00) 5,119.76 (4,845.00) 2,717.76 7,562.76 Special Revenue 201 2,566.00 2,551.00 4,883.29 (15.00) 2,317.29 2,332.29 Special Revenue 202 - (87.00) (86.44) (87.00) (86.44) 0.56 Special Revenue 203 424.00 424.00 1,242.47 - 818.47 818.47 Fiduciary 221 - - 234,916.85 - 234,916.85 234,916.85
Special Revenue 222 - (831,758.00) - (831,758.00) - 831,758.00 General Fund 300 - - 59.09 - 59.09 59.09
Fiduciary 360 - - 366.44 - 366.44 366.44
Fiduciary 365 - - 757.68 - 757.68 757.68
Fiduciary 370 - - (30,803.95) - (30,803.95) (30,803.95) Fiduciary 375 (1.00) (1.00) (18,332.09) - (18,331.09) (18,331.09) Fiduciary 376 - - (7,881.57) - (7,881.57) (7,881.57)
Capital Projects 400 2,366.00 2,366.00 37,157.11 - 34,791.11 34,791.11 Capital Projects 410 5,849.00 5,849.00 33,398.44 - 27,549.44 27,549.44 Capital Projects 420 194.00 (879.00) 102,040.19 (1,073.00) 101,846.19 102,919.19 Capital Projects 421 - - - - - -
Capital Projects 430 (93,440.00) (93,440.00) 22,008.69 - 115,448.69 115,448.69 Capital Projects 441 - - - - - -
Special Revenue 444 648.00 648.00 3,822.74 - 3,174.74 3,174.74 Capital Projects 451 (261,256.00) (261,263.00) 109,395.82 (7.00) 370,651.82 370,658.82 Capital Projects 470 - - 19,626.98 - 19,626.98 19,626.98 Capital Projects 480 - - - - - -
Capital Projects 481 - - - - - -
Airport 600 (78,283.00) (70,358.00) (192,749.02) 7,925.00 (114,466.02) (122,391.02) FY 2022-23 Budget Analysis
FY 2022-23 FY 2022-23 FY 2022-23 FY 2022-23 FY 2022-23 FY 2022-23 Fund Type Fund Adopted Budget Net Income Amended Budget Net Income Ending Net Income Adopted vs Amended Variance Adopted vs Actual Variance Amended vs Actual Variance Transit 610 (4,880,469.00) (2,956,617.00) (338,167.12) 1,923,852.00 4,542,301.88 2,618,449.88 Water 660 (4,545,679.00) (5,567,983.00) 5,528,734.20 (1,022,304.00) 10,074,413.20 11,096,717.20 Water 661 (2,203,536.00) (3,245,319.00) (109,475.02) (1,041,783.00) 2,094,060.98 3,135,843.98 Water 662 2,700.00 2,700.00 13,378.21 - 10,678.21 10,678.21 Water 663 15,939.00 15,939.00 3,555.61 - (12,383.39) (12,383.39) Water 669 - - 1,218,282.15 - 1,218,282.15 1,218,282.15
Electric 670 (3,208,327.00) (3,068,128.00) 4,621,719.84 140,199.00 7,830,046.84 7,689,847.84 Electric 672 5,000.00 5,000.00 65,106.57 - 60,106.57 60,106.57 Electric 673 (16,330,720.00) (25,611,803.00) (5,010,719.15) (9,281,083.00) 11,320,000.85 20,601,083.85 Electric 674 - (72.00) (2,861.47) (72.00) (2,861.47) (2,789.47) Electric 675 (316,499.00) (422,395.00) (304,455.94) (105,896.00) 12,043.06 117,939.06 Electric 678 - - 1,378,605.76 - 1,378,605.76 1,378,605.76 Wastewater 680 (702,839.00) (864,294.00) 1,187,360.57 (161,455.00) 1,890,199.57 2,051,654.57 Wastewater 681 (1,022,778.00) (1,821,406.00) 276,863.38 (798,628.00) 1,299,641.38 2,098,269.38 Wastewater 682 295,637.00 295,637.00 477,130.02 - 181,493.02 181,493.02 Wastewater 683 (1,590,334.00) (1,633,951.00) (39,432.90) (43,617.00) 1,550,901.10 1,594,518.10 Wastewater 685 1,615.00 1,615.00 5,158.57 - 3,543.57 3,543.57 Wastewater 687 - - - - - -
Wastewater 689 - - 237,463.01 - 237,463.01 237,463.01
Refuse 690 (604,354.00) (676,788.00) (4,534,659.89) (72,434.00) (3,930,305.89) (3,857,871.89) ISF 700 (2,327,487.00) (2,154,643.00) (2,495,158.14) 172,844.00 (167,671.14) (340,515.14) ISF 702 (199,966.00) (485,509.00) (469,522.74) (285,543.00) (269,556.74) 15,986.26 ISF 703 (2,030,897.00) (1,807,399.00) (129,402.16) 223,498.00 1,901,494.84 1,677,996.84 ISF 704 - - - - - -
ISF 705 - - - - - -
ISF 761 2.00 72,320.00 226,547.04 72,318.00 226,545.04 154,227.04 Successor Agency 805 - 5,000.00 192,488.16 5,000.00 192,488.16 187,488.16 Special Revenue 810 4,324.00 (978,253.00) (151,965.19) (982,577.00) (156,289.19) 826,287.81 Successor Agency 830 - (1.00) 1,000,493.97 (1.00) 1,000,493.97 1,000,494.97 Capital Projects 840 (7,432.00) (161,771.00) (197,335.91) (154,339.00) (189,903.91) (35,564.91) Capital Projects 841 19.00 19.00 (109.48) - (128.48) (128.48) Successor Agency 850 (134.00) (134.00) (11,449,372.40) - (11,449,238.40) (11,449,238.40) Successor Agency 855 - - - - - -
Successor Agency 856 - - - - - -
Successor Agency 857 - - - - - -
FY 2023-24 YTD Budget Analysis
FY 2023-24 YTD FY 2023-24 YTD FY 2023-24 YTD FY 2023-24 YTD FY 2023-24 YTD FY 2023-24 YTD Fund Type Fund Adopted Budget Net Income Amended Budget Net Income Ending Net Income Adopted vs Amended Variance Adopted vs Actual Variance Amended vs Actual Variance General Fund 001 (2,516,692.00) (1,282,891.00) (752,008.00) 1,233,801.00 1,764,684.00 530,883.00 General Fund 002 1.00 113,311.00 (13,318.00) 113,310.00 (13,319.00) (126,629.00) General Fund 003 - - - - - -
General Fund 005 240,677.00 240,303.00 247,488.00 (374.00) 6,811.00 7,185.00 Special Revenue 100 213,355.00 (1,182,741.00) (878,760.00) (1,396,096.00) (1,092,115.00) 303,981.00 Special Revenue 101 832,876.00 (1,275,546.00) (496,851.00) (2,108,422.00) (1,329,727.00) 778,695.00 Special Revenue 102 826,518.00 (1,604,318.00) 117,660.00 (2,430,836.00) (708,858.00) 1,721,978.00 Special Revenue 103 - - - - - -
Special Revenue 104 - - - - - -
Special Revenue 110 38,114.00 (774,709.00) (741.00) (812,823.00) (38,855.00) 773,968.00 Special Revenue 111 1,273.00 (7,580.00) 2,876.00 (8,853.00) 1,603.00 10,456.00 Special Revenue 132 43,527.00 (77,400.00) 34,998.00 (120,927.00) (8,529.00) 112,398.00 Special Revenue 140 565.00 30.00 64.00 (535.00) (501.00) 34.00 Special Revenue 148 100,000.00 (14,884.00) (13,483.00) (114,884.00) (113,483.00) 1,401.00 Special Revenue 150 - (29.00) (29.00) (29.00) (29.00) - Special Revenue 200 892.00 (10,907.00) 2,898.00 (11,799.00) 2,006.00 13,805.00 Special Revenue 201 (509.00) 917.00 10,962.00 1,426.00 11,471.00 10,045.00 Special Revenue 202 - (29.00) (29.00) (29.00) (29.00) - Special Revenue 203 424.00 613.00 1,501.00 189.00 1,077.00 888.00 Fiduciary 221 - - 325,795.00 - 325,795.00 325,795.00
Special Revenue 222 - 15,793.00 (77,738.00) 15,793.00 (77,738.00) (93,531.00) General Fund 300 - 100.00 - 100.00 - (100.00)
Fiduciary 360 - 600.00 1,272.00 600.00 1,272.00 672.00
Fiduciary 365 - 1,200.00 2,631.00 1,200.00 2,631.00 1,431.00 Fiduciary 370 - - (192.00) - (192.00) (192.00)
Fiduciary 375 (1.00) 4,907.00 3,167.00 4,908.00 3,168.00 (1,740.00) Fiduciary 376 - - (310.00) - (310.00) (310.00)
Capital Projects 400 2,366.00 6,275.00 42,412.00 3,909.00 40,046.00 36,137.00 Capital Projects 410 5,849.00 25,794.00 124,490.00 19,945.00 118,641.00 98,696.00 Capital Projects 420 125,194.00 (369,767.00) 151,790.00 (494,961.00) 26,596.00 521,557.00 Capital Projects 421 - - - - - -
Capital Projects 430 54,060.00 (60,452.00) (40,996.00) (114,512.00) (95,056.00) 19,456.00 Capital Projects 441 - - - - - -
Special Revenue 444 648.00 5,863.00 13,567.00 5,215.00 12,919.00 7,704.00 Capital Projects 451 670.00 (407,617.00) (1,537.00) (408,287.00) (2,207.00) 406,080.00 Capital Projects 470 - (88.00) 34,080.00 (88.00) 34,080.00 34,168.00 Capital Projects 480 - - - - - -
Capital Projects 481 - - - - - -
Airport 600 (87,824.00) (136,740.00) (96,973.00) (48,916.00) (9,149.00) 39,767.00 FY 2023-24 YTD Budget Analysis
FY 2023-24 YTD FY 2023-24 YTD FY 2023-24 YTD FY 2023-24 YTD FY 2023-24 YTD FY 2023-24 YTD Fund Type Fund Adopted Budget Net Income Amended Budget Net Income Ending Net Income Adopted vs Amended Variance Adopted vs Actual Variance Amended vs Actual Variance Transit 610 (542,930.00) (1,920,401.00) (1,674,449.00) (1,377,471.00) (1,131,519.00) 245,952.00 Water 660 2,190,658.00 (4,020,160.00) 2,094,672.00 (6,210,818.00) (95,986.00) 6,114,832.00 Water 661 496,464.00 (3,284,364.00) (1,218,630.00) (3,780,828.00) (1,715,094.00) 2,065,734.00 Water 662 2,700.00 20,000.00 46,449.00 17,300.00 43,749.00 26,449.00 Water 663 15,939.00 - 6,034.00 (15,939.00) (9,905.00) 6,034.00 Water 669 - 76,381.00 (417,024.00) 76,381.00 (417,024.00) (493,405.00) Electric 670 (2,231,267.00) 3,127,505.00 (2,565,070.00) 5,358,772.00 (333,803.00) (5,692,575.00) Electric 672 12,779.00 100,000.00 226,047.00 87,221.00 213,268.00 126,047.00 Electric 673 (183,220.00) (19,148,779.00) (2,723,298.00) (18,965,559.00) (2,540,078.00) 16,425,481.00 Electric 674 - (72.00) 27,881.00 (72.00) 27,881.00 27,953.00 Electric 675 (91,499.00) (315,632.00) 191,460.00 (224,133.00) 282,959.00 507,092.00 Electric 678 - 35,189.00 36,030.00 35,189.00 36,030.00 841.00 Wastewater 680 (193,552.00) 149,670.00 3,673,090.00 343,222.00 3,866,642.00 3,523,420.00 Wastewater 681 257,222.00 (768,280.00) 471,207.00 (1,025,502.00) 213,985.00 1,239,487.00 Wastewater 682 360,637.00 488,815.00 615,519.00 128,178.00 254,882.00 126,704.00 Wastewater 683 9,666.00 (3,933.00) (2,063.00) (13,599.00) (11,729.00) 1,870.00 Wastewater 685 1,615.00 8,000.00 17,910.00 6,385.00 16,295.00 9,910.00 Wastewater 687 - - - - - -
Wastewater 689 - 6,770.00 (149,595.00) 6,770.00 (149,595.00) (156,365.00) Refuse 690 (108,327.00) (210,217.00) (1,042,519.00) (101,890.00) (934,192.00) (832,302.00) ISF 700 (2,246,774.00) (2,074,519.00) (1,866,727.00) 172,255.00 380,047.00 207,792.00 ISF 702 (65,743.00) 275,608.00 728,417.00 341,351.00 794,160.00 452,809.00 ISF 703 (346,124.00) (632,229.00) (790,714.00) (286,105.00) (444,590.00) (158,485.00) ISF 704 - (419,925.00) 722,356.00 (419,925.00) 722,356.00 1,142,281.00 ISF 705 - 26,094.00 (561,840.00) 26,094.00 (561,840.00) (587,934.00) ISF 761 (2.00) 160,947.00 327,979.00 160,949.00 327,981.00 167,032.00 Successor Agency 805 - 162,706.00 33,406.00 162,706.00 33,406.00 (129,300.00) Special Revenue 810 4,324.00 (132,310.00) (683,077.00) (136,634.00) (687,401.00) (550,767.00) Successor Agency 830 - (86,247.00) (93,058.00) (86,247.00) (93,058.00) (6,811.00) Capital Projects 840 (7,432.00) (43,346.00) (71,664.00) (35,914.00) (64,232.00) (28,318.00) Capital Projects 841 19.00 (46.00) (46.00) (65.00) (65.00) - Successor Agency 850 (134.00) (5,132.00) 14,368.00 (4,998.00) 14,502.00 19,500.00 Successor Agency 855 - - - - - -
Successor Agency 856 - - - - - -
Successor Agency 857 - - - - - -
396 HAYES STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102
T: (415) 552-7272 F: (415) 552-5816
www.smwlaw.com
KEVIN P. BUNDY
Attorney
[email protected]

SHUTE MIHALY
WEINBERGER llp
August 29, 2024
Via Electronic Mail
Mayor Alberto Sanchez
Members of the City Council
City of Banning
99 E. Ramsey St.

Banning, CA 92220
E-Mail: [email protected]
Emery J. Papp
Senior Planner
Community Development Department
City of Banning
99 E. Ramsey St.

Banning, CA 92220
E-Mail: [email protected]
Serita Young
City Attorney
City of Banning
99 E. Ramsey St.

Banning, CA 92220
E-Mail: [email protected]
Sandra Calderon
Development Project Coordinator
City of Banning
99 E. Ramsey Street
Banning, CA 92220
E-Mail: [email protected]
Re: Banning Point Project:

Response to Applicants’ Litigation Threats and Discussion of Support for Findings of Denial for the Design Review and Tentative Parcel Map
Dear Mayor Sanchez, Councilmembers, Mr. Papp, Ms. Young, and Ms. Calderon:

As you know, this firm represents the Pass Action Group in matters related to the proposed Banning Point Project (the “Project”). This letter responds to certain arguments and assertions in a July 25, 2024 letter from the Project applicants’ counsel threatening litigation against the City.1

The Applicants’ Letter does not establish that the City Council must reconsider or set aside any action taken regarding the Project at its July 9, 2024 meeting due to the 1 Letter from K. Erik Friess, Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP, to Mayor and Members of the Banning City Council (July 25, 2024) (“Applicants’ Letter”).

Exhibit C
Mayor Alberto Sanchez and Members of the City Council
Emery J. Papp
Serita Young
Sandra Calderon
August 29, 2024

Page 2 ends

SHUTE MIHALY
C" - WE IN BERG ER llp
alleged prehearing bias of certain Council members. Moreover, the Applicants’ assertion that the City Council’s actions could give rise to $25 million in liability for damages under federal civil rights law is unsupported and meritless. Finally, clearly established law and substantial evidence in the record support this Council’s adoption of findings of denial for both design review and the tentative parcel map.

I. The Applicants’ Litigation Threats Lack Merit.

A. The Applicants Have Not Shown that the Council’s July 9 Decisions Must Be Set Aside.

1. Councilmember Happe Has Not Exhibited an Unacceptable Probability of Actual Bias Against the Project.

The Applicants’ Letter takes issue with a social media post from Councilmember Happe wherein he summarized comments he made during the Council’s July 9, 2024 meeting, after the public hearing on the Project had closed. The Applicants claim that this social media post demonstrates an unacceptable probability of bias requiring Councilmember Happe’s recusal from any further action on the Project. The Applicants focus on two statements in particular:

As I stated earlier, the project has already had a negative impact on the neighborhood before it was even built, before one truck rolled through the neighborhood, before one truck was unloaded.

I hope you can understand that given the second chance I could not support a project that is not in the best long term interest of our city.2 Neither of these statements requires reconsideration of the Council’s July 9 actions. The purpose of the rule against bias in quasi-judicial decisions is to prevent decision-makers from weighing the applicable facts and forming an opinion on a project before the facts are presented in a formal hearing. See Petrovich Development Co., LLC v. City of Sacramento (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 963, 973 (decision maker must not have “prejudged the specific facts of the case”). Councilmember Happe’s social media post simply summarized statements he made from the dais, after the close of the public 2 Applicants’ Letter at 11.

Mayor Alberto Sanchez and Members of the City Council
Emery J. Papp
Serita Young
Sandra Calderon
August 29, 2024

Page 3 ends

SHUTE MIHALY
C" -'WEINBERGER llp
hearing on the Project, at the July 9 meeting (“As I stated earlier…”). The timing of these statements shows Councilmember Happe properly waited to form an opinion on the Project until he was presented with all the facts and testimony at the July 9 public hearing. His summarization of statements he made after the close of the public hearing does not establish pre-hearing bias.

Nor must Councilmember Happe now recuse himself from further action on the Project based on these social media statements. Again, Councilmember Happe reached a conclusion on July 9, based on the law and the facts presented during the public hearing, that City staff should be directed to return to the Council with draft findings of denial of the design review component of the Project. The public hearing on the Project is now closed and will not be reopened when the City Council meets again to consider the draft findings.3
The Council will not be adducing any new or different facts about the Project when it meets again to consider the draft resolutions it directed staff to prepare. None of the cases cited in the Applicants’ Letter provides any basis for an assertion that Councilmember Happe’s post-hearing comments establish pre-hearing bias.

2. The Applicants’ Letter Does Not Establish that the Council’s July 9 Decisions Must Be Reconsidered Due to Councilmember Flynn’s Participation.

The Applicants’ Letter contends that the Council’s July 9 decisions should be set aside or reconsidered based on Councilmember Flynn’s participation. However, the letter cites no evidence that the Applicants objected to Councilmember Flynn’s participation prior to the July 9 public hearing and discussion regarding the Project.

The Applicants certainly could have raised their objections prior to July 9. The Applicants’ Letter complains of Councilmember Flynn’s association with Pass Action Group years ago, prior to her election to the City Council, but the letter cites no evidence that the Applicants objected to Councilmember Flynn’s participation on July 9 prior to the agenda item being called or the close of the public hearing. Indeed, although the Applicants and their representatives spoke at length during the hearing, they never stated 3 E-mail from Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk, to Kevin Bundy, Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP (Aug. 13, 2024, 11:33 AM) (“The public hearing for the Project is closed and therefore will not be reopened or continued at a future meeting of the City Council.”).

Mayor Alberto Sanchez and Members of the City Council
Emery J. Papp
Serita Young
Sandra Calderon
August 29, 2024

Page 4 ends

SHUTE MIHALY
C" - WE IN BERG ER llp
any objection to Councilmember Flynn’s participation. Nor does it appear that the Applicants lodged any written objection to her participation in the July 9 hearing.4 Any
objection to Councilmember Flynn’s participation on the basis of her past association with Pass Action Group is therefore arguably waived.

The Applicants’ Letter also discusses Councilmember Flynn’s attendance at a Pass Action Group meeting on July 3, 2024, that was open to the Sun Lakes community and the public at large.
5 But the Applicants have not shown that Councilmember Flynn’s statements during the Pass Action Group meeting clearly established an unacceptable risk of prehearing bias. Bias and prejudice are “never implied,” but must be shown through “concrete facts” and “clear averments.” Petrovich, 48 Cal.App.5th at 973. The statements quoted in the Applicants’ Letter fall short of this standard. Indeed, the statements show only that Councilmember Flynn provided information about how to engage in the City’s public process (for example, by submitting comments in writing in addition to speaking), not information about what members of the public should say. Unlike the substantive “talking points” prepared for project opponents by the council member in Petrovich (see id. at 975), or the statements and posts from former Councilmember Hamlin cited in the 4 Publicly available responses to a Public Records Act request for “copies of all comments submitted for the 7/9/24 public hearing on the Banning Point project,” which includes the documents attached to the City Council’s minutes for the meeting, do not contain any such objection. See City of Banning Public Records Requests, Request 24- 299 (July 12, 2024), at https://city-of-banning.nextrequest.com/requests/24-299 (accessed August 27, 2024); City of Banning, City Council Meeting Minutes – Regular Meeting – July 9, 2024, at https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=3638704&repo=redac489c (accessed August 27, 2024). 5 This objection may have been waived as well. The letter claims that the Applicants and their “team” were “not aware” of Councilmember Flynn’s attendance at the meeting, but the letter does not clearly state when the Applicants did become aware of her attendance.

See Applicants’ Letter at 8. The YouTube video of the July 3 meeting discussed in the Applicants’ Letter was posted that same day—six days before the Council’s July 9 meeting. The Applicants’ Letter thus does not conclusively establish that an objection could not have been raised, with an exercise of due diligence, before the July 9 meeting.

Mayor Alberto Sanchez and Members of the City Council
Emery J. Papp
Serita Young
Sandra Calderon
August 29, 2024

Page 5 ends

SHUTE MIHALY
C" - WE IN BERG ER llp
Applicants’ Letter, Councilmember Flynn’s comments did not provide “coaching” on specific points to raise in opposition to the Project.
6 For all of these reasons, the Applicants’ Letter does not establish that the Council must revisit the actions taken on July 9. Nor does the letter provide a sound basis for its demand that Councilmembers Happe and Flynn recuse themselves from consideration of post-hearing draft findings of denial for the Project at a future Council meeting.

B. Even if the Applicants Could Establish Bias, There Is No Basis for the Applicants’ Threat to Seek $25 Million in Damages.

The Applicants’ Letter is a blatant—but baseless—attempt at intimidation. The Applicants threaten to sue the City under federal civil rights law (42 U.S.C. § 1983, or “Section 1983”) for damages in excess of $25 million. They assert that the participation of Councilmembers Flynn and Happe in a future Council meeting on the Project would deprive them of their “property” without “due process of law.” But even if Applicants were somehow able to show disqualifying bias with respect to one or both councilmembers—which they have not shown—they would not be able to state a valid claim for monetary damages under Section 1983. Under clearly established case law, Applicants have no protected property interest in approval of their development application by the City Council. Their threatened claim for $25 million in damages under Section 183 is thus without any legal support.
6 Other objections raised in the Applicants’ Letter similarly lack merit. For example, the letter claims Councilmember Flynn was “defiant” in stating that she would not recuse herself from participating in the hearing. Applicants’ Letter at 10. On the contrary, Councilmember Flynn simply conveyed her own conclusion that she did not have to recuse herself, citing advice she sought from the Fair Political Practices Commission and Supreme Court case law regarding statements made prior to an official’s election. The Applicants’ Letter also complains that a member of the public attending the meeting described Councilmember Flynn as “on our team.” Id. at 9-10. But the letter identifies no authority for treating pre-hearing statements by other people as sufficient to establish an elected official’s bias. Finally, the letter accuses Councilmember Flynn of “efforts . . . to line up City Council votes in advance of the July 9 hearing” (id. at 8), but fails to cite any facts supporting this accusation.

Mayor Alberto Sanchez and Members of the City Council
Emery J. Papp
Serita Young
Sandra Calderon
August 29, 2024

Page 6 ends

SHUTE MIHALY
C" - WE IN BERG ER llp
Section 1983 authorizes suits against public agencies who have deprived a person or entity of a right secured by the United States Constitution or a federal statute. This includes the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits the deprivation of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Where, as here, a plaintiff asserts a public agency has deprived them of property without due process of law, the first inquiry made by a court is “whether the plaintiff has been deprived of a protected interest in ‘property.’” K.W. ex rel. D.W. v. Armstrong (9th Cir. 2015) 789 F.3d 962, 972 (quotations omitted).

Even if the Applicants could show that the July 9 public hearing on the Project was tainted by a decision maker’s bias—which, as discussed above, they have not shown—this would not automatically establish a valid claim for damages. Both federal and California courts have consistently held that an unfair hearing, by itself, does not create a valid claim under Section § 1983. See, e.g., Shanks v. Dressel (9th Cir. 2008) 540 F.3d 1082, 1092 (“Absent a substantive property interest in the outcome of procedure, [a project applicant] is not constitutionally entitled to insist on compliance with the procedure itself”); Clark v. City of Hermosa Beach (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1178 (“A state law requirement that a public entity conduct hearings in a fair manner does not automatically implicate the federal due process clause … if no [protected property] interest is involved, then the procedural protections of the due process clause do not come into play”).

Crucially, the relevant “property” interest here is not the Applicants’ ownership of the land where they would like to build the Project. See Applicants’ Letter at 5. Rather, the relevant “property” interest Applicants must demonstrate is an interest in approval of the development application that is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Applicants’ Letter does not even attempt to demonstrate such an interest here.

Federal courts have developed a sizeable body of case law addressing whether a project applicant has a “protected” property interest in a development application. An applicant has a property interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment only where: (1) applicable law (for example, a state statute or a local ordinance) significantly restricts the discretion of the local agency by delineating a set of criteria that, if satisfied, requires the agency to approve the application; and (2) the applicant satisfies all criteria required to obtain approval. Jacobson v. Hanniffin (9th Cir. 1980) 627 F.2d 177, 180; Groten v.

California (9th Cir. 2001) 251 F.3d 844, 850; Bateson v. Geisse (9th Cir. 1988) 857 F.2d 1300, 1305; Thornton v. City of St. Helena (9th Cir. 2005) 425 F.3d 1157, 1164-65. Here, Mayor Alberto Sanchez and Members of the City Council
Emery J. Papp
Serita Young
Sandra Calderon
August 29, 2024

Page 7 ends

SHUTE MIHALY
C" - WE IN BERG ER llp
the Applicants cannot satisfy either requirement because the City has broad discretion in reviewing the Applicants’ request for approval of a tentative parcel map and design review. See Thornton, 425 F.3d at 1165 (protected property interest arises only where criteria for approval of application do not “involve the exercise of discretion by the reviewing body”).

Neither state law nor the Banning Municipal Code requires the City to approve a tentative parcel map application if certain standards are met. Rather, the findings required for approval of a tentative parcel map under state law are highly discretionary. California Subdivision Map Act and the Development Process (2d ed. Cal. CEB 2023) §9.1 (“Although guidelines in the Subdivision Map Act describe grounds for approval and denial of the tentative map, the local agency has considerable discretion in making that decision.”); see also generally Gov. Code §§ 66473.5, 66474; Banning Mun. Code ch.

16.08. For example, in order to approve a tentative parcel map, the City Council must find the map and the design and improvement of the subdivision proposed therein consistent with the City’s General Plan. See Gov. Code § 66474(a), (b). Cities have especially broad discretion in making findings “regarding general plan policies, which reflect competing interests.” Anderson First Coalition v. City of Anderson (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1173, 1192.

Similarly, the Municipal Code grants the City very broad discretion in determining whether to approve a design review application. Municipal Code section 17.56.050 requires the City to “determine that the project adequately meets adopted City performance standards and design guidelines” prior to making a determination, based upon four findings: (1) the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan; (2) the proposed project is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, including the development standards and guidelines for the district in which it is located; (3) the design and layout of the proposed project will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future development, and will not result in vehicular and/or pedestrian hazards; and (4) the design of the proposed project is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. California courts have consistently held that such ordinances convey broad discretion to deny a project due to incompatibility with surrounding uses, even if the project is allowable under a parcel’s land use designation.

See, e.g., Wesley Inv. Co. v. County of Alameda (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 672, 678.

In sum, the Applicants’ arguments gravely misstate the law governing claims brought under Section 1983. The Applicants’ ownership of the project site does not create Mayor Alberto Sanchez and Members of the City Council
Emery J. Papp
Serita Young
Sandra Calderon
August 29, 2024

Page 8 ends

SHUTE MIHALY
C" - WE IN BERG ER llp
a cognizable claim under Section 1983, and denial of the Project will not “deprive” the Applicants of their ownership interest in the property itself. Nor do the Applicants have any constitutionally protected property interest in approval of their development application.7
If the City denies the Project, the Applicants will not have a valid claim for monetary damages under Section 1983, even if they could somehow demonstrate prehearing bias on the part of Councilmembers Flynn and Happe. The City should not allow the Applicants’ baseless threats to affect its decision-making.

II. The City Council Should Adopt Findings of Denial for Both Design Review and the Tentative Parcel Map.

A. The City Has Broad Discretion in Determining Whether the Project Is Consistent with the General Plan, Specific Plan, and Municipal Code.

In order to approve the Project, the City Council must find both the tentative parcel map and the design review consistent with the City’s General Plan, the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan, and the zoning ordinance. Conversely, the Council cannot 7 Cases cited in the Applicants’ Letter (at 5-6) provide no support for a Section 1983 claim. The letter cites Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth (1972) 408 U.S. 564, 571-72, for the proposition that “compensation must be made” for the “taking or damaging” of private property under the United States and California Constitutions. Roth, however, had nothing to do with the taking or damaging of private property under either constitution. Rather, the Supreme Court in Roth rejected a Wisconsin State University professor’s claim that his termination without a hearing following expiration of his oneyear teaching contract violated his liberty interests. Id. at 569. Roth is inapposite here. If anything, Roth confirms that the range of “liberty” and “property” interests protected by the Due Process Clause “is not infinite.” Id. at 570. Similarly, neither Galland v. City of Clovis (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1003 (considering whether unreasonable costs imposed on mobile home park landlords seeking rent increases may violate due process) nor Bullock v. City and County of San Francisco (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 1072 (considering claims related to rezoning and conversion of an existing residential hotel) addressed whether a development application gives rise to a constitutionally protected property interest for purposes of Section 1983. And Rosenblit v. Superior Court (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1434, which concerned a doctor’s challenge to a hospital’s suspension of his clinical privileges, did not discuss Section 1983 at all.

Mayor Alberto Sanchez and Members of the City Council
Emery J. Papp
Serita Young
Sandra Calderon
August 29, 2024

Page 9 ends

SHUTE MIHALY
C" - WE IN BERG ER llp
approve the tentative parcel map or design review if it finds any inconsistency between the Project and the General Plan, Specific Plan, or zoning ordinance.

The Council has wide latitude to adopt findings of denial based on such inconsistencies. Courts accord “great deference” to a local agency’s determination of general plan or specific plan consistency “because the body which adopted the general plan policies in its legislative capacity has unique competence to interpret those policies when applying them in its adjudicatory capacity.” Save Our Peninsula Comm. v Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 142. Courts will not “micromanage” consistency determinations, but rather will look only to whether officials considered applicable policies, made appropriate findings, and supported those findings with substantial evidence. Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Ass’n v City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 719. As discussed below, findings of denial are readily supportable here.

This rule, however, also has a corollary: the City Council lacks discretion to disregard or balance away General Plan policies that are fundamental, mandatory and clear. See, e.g., Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 777, 782-83; Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural El Dorado County v.

Board of Supervisors (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1332, 1341-42. Nearly all of the General Plan policies discussed below are phrased in mandatory terms, using the word “shall” to direct City decision-making. Where the Project conflicts with such mandatory policies, the Council must adopt findings of denial.

B. The Law and the Evidence in the Record Support Findings of Denial for the Design Review.

The City has broad discretion under its design review ordinance to find that the Banning Point Project is inappropriately sited and incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Banning Mun. Code § 17.56.050. Even where a use is permitted under local general plan and zoning regulations, but subject to local development review, “the local agency has the power to determine that a particular development is not suitable for a particular location and to deny an application on such basis.” 1 Longtin’s California Land Use § 3.25[2], p. 270. “The fact that the site in question is in a zone where a [use] may be lawfully maintained does not diminish the [local government’s] power to determine that a particular development is not suitable for that location.” Wesley Inv. Co. v. County of Alameda (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 672, 678 (italics in original).

Mayor Alberto Sanchez and Members of the City Council
Emery J. Papp
Serita Young
Sandra Calderon
August 29, 2024

Page 10 ends

SHUTE, MIHALY
C' - W E I N B E RC E R llp
Judicial review of a discretionary design review denial is highly deferential and “will be upheld as long as the denial substantially advances legitimate governmental interests and is supported by substantial evidence.” Breneric Associates v. City of Del Mar (1998) 69 Cal.App.4th 166, 176. Public testimony regarding a project’s incompatibility with surrounding uses constitutes substantial evidence to support a denial.

Id. at 176-77 (noting that because a determination of “incompatibility with the neighborhood does not require expert testimony[,] the opinions and objections of neighbors can provide substantial evidence to support rejection of a proposed development.”; see also Ideal Boat & Camper Storage v. County of Alameda (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 301, 319-20 (holding county properly relied on public testimony in finding conflict between proposed project and initiative measure); Linborg-Dahl Investors, Inc. v.

City of Garden Grove (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 956, 962 (holding city council “properly relied on evidence generated by public testimony” in evaluating site plan review); Wesley, 151 Cal.App.3d at 679 (holding county did not abuse its discretion by crediting public testimony that proposed convenience store was inconsistent with “orderly, attractive, and harmonious development”).

The Council can and should deny design review based on each of the four findings required by Municipal Code section 17.56.050.

1. The Project Is Inconsistent with the General Plan.

The City Council can—and should—find the Project inconsistent with the General Plan on numerous grounds.8

a. Community Development Element
The Project is inconsistent with several goals and policies in the General Plan’s Community Development Element. The element’s overall goal is “[a] balanced, well 8 Some of the grounds for denial discussed herein were raised by Council members at the July 9 hearing. However, in preparing proposed findings, staff is not limited to the specific grounds or supporting facts identified by Council members. As with staff’s proposed findings of approval presented on July 9—which staff prepared independently of Council direction—staff’s proposed findings of denial should address all grounds on which the Project does not satisfy the Municipal Code’s findings requirements and all supporting facts in the record.

Mayor Alberto Sanchez and Members of the City Council
Emery J. Papp
Serita Young
Sandra Calderon
August 29, 2024

Page 11 ends

SHUTE MIHALY
C" - WE IN BERG ER llp
planned community including businesses which provides a functional pattern of land uses and enhances the quality of life for all Banning residents.” General Plan at III-12.9 Policy
3 requires that “[d]evelopment in all land use categories shall be of the highest quality.” Id. at III-13. Policy 5 mandates that “[a]ll land use proposals shall be consistent with the goals, policies, and programs of this General Plan, and with the Zoning Ordinance.” Ibid.

In addition, the goal of the Community Development Element’s industrial land use provisions is “[a] balanced mix of non-polluting industrial land uses which provide local jobs for the City’s residents.” Id. at III-19 (italics added). Industrial Policy 7 provides that “[t]he land use map shall include sufficient industrial lands for manufacturing, warehousing and distribution, while carefully considering compatibility with adjacent lands.” Id. at III-20 (italics added).

Facts in the record support findings of inconsistency with these goals and policies.

As Councilmember Minjares pointed out during the July 9 meeting, public testimony and other evidence presented at the public hearing indicate that the Project undermines the Community Development Element’s most fundamental goal: enhancing quality of life for all Banning residents. The Council also should find that the Project is not “of the highest quality,” and therefore is inconsistent with Policy 3, because it lacks features necessary to protect nearby residents and surrounding uses from adverse impacts.

Moreover, the Council should find the Project inconsistent with the Community Development Element’s industrial land use goals and policies. The Project is not a “nonpolluting” land use, and thus contravenes a fundamental General Plan goal. Moreover, the Project does not advance Industrial Policy 7, which requires careful consideration of compatibility with adjacent lands. As multiple Councilmembers stated during the July 9 meeting—and as supported by ample testimony from neighboring residents and others— the Project is starkly incompatible with adjacent residential and health care-oriented land uses.
9 Citations to the “General Plan” are to City of Banning, General Plan (Jan. 31, 2006), at https://www.banningca.gov/803/Planning-Resource-Documents (accessed Aug. 26, 2024).

Mayor Alberto Sanchez and Members of the City Council
Emery J. Papp
Serita Young
Sandra Calderon
August 29, 2024

Page 12 ends

SHUTE MIHALY
C" - WE IN BERG ER llp
b. Circulation Element
The Council should find the Project inconsistent with the General Plan’s Circulation Element. The overall goal of the Circulation Element is “[a] safe and efficient transportation system.” Revised Circulation Element at III-16.10 Councilmembers and community members alike pointed out that the Project will have unacceptable on-site and off-site circulation impacts. On site, trucks will create safety hazards for pedestrians and golf carts accessing the existing Sun Lakes Village shopping center from the south via Sun Lakes Village Drive. Off site, Project trucks will create and exacerbate hazards on City roadways. Numerous residents testified and commented on safety concerns related to additional large trucks on Highland Springs Avenue and the I-10 interchange.

Councilmembers and members of the public also pointed out that trucks will likely park along Sun Lakes Boulevard and Highland Springs regardless of no-parking signage, creating additional circulation and other hazards. Finally, Councilmembers and members of the public recognized that the proposed Sunset Crossroads development is a significant change in circumstances, one that will combine with this Project to create new and asyet-unstudied traffic and transportation hazards on Sun Lakes Boulevard following its extension to Sunset Avenue.
c. Noise Element
The Council should find the Project inconsistent with the General Plan’s Noise Element.

The element’s overall goal is “[a] noise environment that complements the community’s residential character and its land uses.” General Plan at V-54. Noise Policy 1 requires that “[t]he City shall protect noise sensitive land uses, including residential neighborhoods, schools, hospitals, libraries, churches, resorts and community open space, from potentially significant sources of community noise.” Ibid. In furtherance of this policy, Noise Program 1.C mandates that “[t]he City shall use the development review process to assure the use of buffers between sensitive receptors and incompatible land uses.” Id. at V-55 (italics added). And Noise Policy 8 specifies that “[t]he City shall impose and integrate special design features into proposed development that minimize 10 Citations to the “Revised Circulation Element” are to City of Banning, General Plan Circulation Element, Res. No. 2013-34 (March 26, 2013), Exhibit A, at https://www.banningca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4418 (accessed Aug. 26, 2024).

Mayor Alberto Sanchez and Members of the City Council
Emery J. Papp
Serita Young
Sandra Calderon
August 29, 2024

Page 13 ends

SHUTE MIHALY
C" - WE IN BERG ER llp
impacts associated with the operation of air conditioning and heating equipment, on- site traffic, and use of parking, loading and trash storage facilities.” Id. at V-56 (italics added).

The Project is starkly inconsistent with these goals, policies, and programs. Truckrelated noise associated with a warehouse does not “complement” the residential character of nearby neighborhoods. Nor do the current Project plans adequately protect nearby noise sensitive land uses—including The Lakes memory care facility and the Sun Lakes community—from noise. One key reason for this lack of protection is the absence of “buffers,” which Noise Program 1.C affirmatively requires the City to “assure” through the development review process. There is no buffer at all between the truck circulation lane on the east side of the warehouse and the immediately adjacent residences and memory care facility. Nor does the Project contain any “special design features”—which Noise Policy 8 specifically requires—to minimize impacts on The Lakes of truck circulation on the east side of the warehouse.

The Project also provides an inadequate buffer, in terms of both distance and sound-attenuating features or structures, between truck loading/unloading activities on the south side of warehouse and residences across Sun Lakes Boulevard. As referenced in public comments and the appellant’s presentation during the July 9 hearing, the Applicants’ consultants modeled noise impacts south of the Project based on the presence of a 14-foot sound wall. The Project plans presented for design review, however, include only an eight-foot wrought-iron fence south of the docks on the warehouse’s south side.

Moreover, although the Applicants have claimed that retail and commercial buildings south of the warehouse will provide a screen and a buffer, there is no requirement in the Specific Plan or Project plans to build the retail buildings contemporaneously with the warehouse—or to build them at all. The Project thus lacks the buffers and special design features the Noise Element affirmatively requires.

The Project also conflicts with specific Noise Element provisions designed to minimize truck noise. Noise Policy 4 provides that “[t]he City shall maintain a General Plan Circulation Map and assure low levels of traffic within neighborhoods by assigning truck routes to major roadways only.” General Plan at V-56. Under Noise Program 4.A, “[t]he City shall review designated primary truck routes and ensure they are clearly marked throughout the community. Except for traffic providing location-specific services and deliveries, construction trucks and delivery trucks shall be limited to designated truck routes, including: Ramsey Street, and those portions of Lincoln Street, Highland Springs Mayor Alberto Sanchez and Members of the City Council
Emery J. Papp
Serita Young
Sandra Calderon
August 29, 2024

Page 14 ends

SHUTE MIHALY
C" - WE IN BERG ER llp
Avenue, Hathaway Street, Sunset Avenue, Eighth Street, San Gorgonio Avenue and Hargrave Street so designated.” Ibid. Finally, Noise Program 4.B specifically mandates that “[t]he City shall discourage development projects that result in through-traffic in residential neighborhoods.” Ibid.

The Project (alone and in combination with Sunset Crossroads) would violate these policies and programs. Sun Lakes Boulevard is not a designated truck route, which renders the Project inconsistent with Noise Policy 4 and Program 4.A. The Council should expressly find Noise Program 4.A’s exception for “location-specific services and deliveries” inapplicable here; that exception should be interpreted as applying only to services and deliveries incidental to another land use. Land uses like warehouses, which are defined by and entirely dependent on truck traffic, should be located exclusively on truck routes.

The Project’s conflict with Noise Program 4.B is even more stark. This aspect of the General Plan is specific and mandatory—the City “shall discourage” projects “that result in through-traffic in residential neighborhoods.” The Banning Point Project is incompatible with Noise Program 4.B because it will result in through truck traffic along Sun Lakes Boulevard, through the heart of the Sun Lakes residential community, after Sun Lakes Boulevard is extended to Sunset. The Project also will contribute to cumulatively considerable truck through-traffic impacts along Sun Lakes Boulevard when combined with the closely related impacts of Sunset Crossroads. Design review can and should be denied on all of these grounds.
d. Wildland Fire Hazards Element
The Project also appears to lack the “Fire Protection Plan” required by the General Plan’s Wildland Fire Hazards Element. The Project is located in a “High” fire threat zone. General Plan at V-64, Ex. V-10. Under Wildland Fire Hazards Program 3.C, “[t]he City shall adopt standard requirements for all development proposal in High Fire Hazard Areas, including requirements for the preparation of Fire Protection Plans prior to the approval of Tentative Tract Maps, Tentative Parcel Maps, or other land use permits.” However, it does not appear that any document clearly designated as a “Fire Protection Plan” has been prepared for this Project.

For all of these reasons, the City Council can and should find the Project inconsistent with the General Plan.

Mayor Alberto Sanchez and Members of the City Council
Emery J. Papp
Serita Young
Sandra Calderon
August 29, 2024

Page 15 ends

SHUTE MIHALY
C" - WE IN BERG ER llp

2. The Project Is Inconsistent with the Specific Plan.

During the July 9 meeting, the City Attorney told the Council that in her view, the Project is consistent with the zoning ordinance. The City Attorney therefore did not try to elicit any facts from the Council to support a finding that the design review is inconsistent with the Specific Plan.
11 However, there are persuasive arguments in the
record—supported by public testimony and other record evidence—that the Project does conflict with the Specific Plan.

According to an email from community member Kathleen Dale delivered to the Council on the morning of July 9, both the tentative parcel map and the proposed design of the Project conflict with the Specific Plan’s land use map and semi-truck access provisions. The land use map in the Specific Plan depicts a “panhandle” as part of the Office & Professional District that extends southward along the east side of the Business & Warehouse District; this “panhandle” provides access from Sun Lakes Boulevard to the Office & Professional District, which would otherwise be landlocked. Specific Plan at 8 (Fig. 4). The tentative parcel map for the Project, however, depicts this “panhandle” as part of Parcel 2—the proposed warehouse parcel. The warehouse parcel thus occupies a portion of the Office & Professional District; moreover, by converting the “panhandle” to a semi-truck drive aisle, the Project would devote that portion of the Office & Professional District to warehousing uses. Warehousing and distribution uses are expressly prohibited in the Office & Professional District. Specific Plan at 12 (Table 1:

Allowable Land Uses). The subdivision design shown on the tentative parcel map is thus inconsistent with the land use categories in the Specific Plan and the zoning ordinance.

Use of this “panhandle” for semi-truck access conflicts with other Specific Plan provisions as well. Again, according to the tentative parcel map and the design review plans, trucks will use the roadway along the east side of the warehouse to access truck loading and unloading bays on the north side of the warehouse. Under the Specific Plan, however, semi-truck access is limited to the Business & Warehouse District, and is provided only via Sun Lakes Village Drive. Specific Plan at 13 (§ 2.2.1), 14 (Fig. 5), 15- 16 (§ 2.2.6). The Specific Plan also prohibits semi-truck traffic (other than for incidental 11 Citations to the “Specific Plan” are to the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5, adopted pursuant to Resolution No. 2020-141 (Dec. 8, 2020), available at https://banningca.gov/documentcenter/view/10498 (accessed Aug. 29, 2024).

Mayor Alberto Sanchez and Members of the City Council
Emery J. Papp
Serita Young
Sandra Calderon
August 29, 2024

Page 16 ends

SHUTE MIHALY
C" -'WEINBERGER llp
deliveries) in the Office & Professional District, which includes the “panhandle” along the east side of the warehouse.
12 Ms. Dale cites additional inconsistencies with Specific Plan provisions requiring that the plan’s three land use districts be connected by pedestrian links integrated with stormwater management features. See Specific Plan at 15, 20 (§§ 2.2.5, 3.2.1). As Ms.

Dale points out, neither the tentative parcel map nor the design review plans provide the required pedestrian links.13
Accordingly, the City Council can and should find that both the design review and the tentative parcel map are inconsistent with the Specific Plan.

3. The Design and Layout of the Project Will Unreasonably Interfere with the Use and Enjoyment of Neighboring
Development and Will Create Pedestrian and Vehicular
Hazards.

As discussed above, even if the Project were consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan—which it is not—the City Council would still have broad discretion to deny design review for the Project based on its interference with neighboring uses and its creation of pedestrian and vehicular hazards. See Wesley Inv. Co., 151 Cal.App.3d at 678.

Councilmembers pointed out that the Project contains inadequate protections for pedestrians and golf carts, that increased truck traffic will interfere with enjoyment of the neighborhood, and that the cumulative impacts of this Project in combination with the impacts of Sunset Crossroads will be substantial. Community members also provided extensive written and oral testimony regarding dangerous interactions with trucks and the lack of enforcement of truck parking restrictions along Highland Springs, the Project’s exacerbation of already intolerable traffic by adding more trucks to the roadway, and threats to health and safety caused by longer emergency response times and increased air pollution. Any or all of these facts would be sufficient to support a finding that the 12 The Specific Plan contemplates only passenger vehicle access to the Business & Warehouse District using the Office & Professional District driveway entrance from Sun Lakes Boulevard. Specific Plan at 13-16 (§§ 2.2.2, 2.2.6). 13 Ms. Dale cited additional points of inconsistency between the Project and the Specific Plan in an email dated July 8, 2024 (forwarding prior comments to the City Council).

Mayor Alberto Sanchez and Members of the City Council
Emery J. Papp
Serita Young
Sandra Calderon
August 29, 2024

Page 17 ends

SHUTE MIHALY
C" - WE IN BERG ER llp
Project will unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring development and create pedestrian and vehicular hazards.

4. The Design of the Project is Incompatible with the Character of the Surrounding Neighborhood.

This last finding conveys perhaps the broadest discretion of all—and it captures the fundamental concerns of both a majority of the Council and the public. This Project simply does not belong in a residential neighborhood. The warehouse would be just over 100 feet from The Lakes assisted living facility and only about 800 feet away from residences to the south in Sun Lakes. Moreover, as discussed above, neighboring uses to the east will not be provided with any screening or buffering from trucks using the drive aisle on the east side of the warehouse building. Sun Lakes residential uses to the south will not be screened or buffered either, because the proposed retail buildings need not be constructed contemporaneously with the warehouse and may never be built at all.

The character of the neighborhood is predominantly residential, with some neighborhood-serving existing commercial uses in Sun Lakes Village. A large warehouse with hundreds of truck trips per day is contrary to the neighborhood’s character. The Council could readily support a finding of denial on this ground.

C. The City Council Also Must Deny the Tentative Parcel Map The City Council should deny the tentative parcel map for many of the same reasons that support denial of design review.

The City’s subdivision ordinance requires a tentative parcel map for subdivisions of four or fewer parcels. See generally Banning Mun. Code ch. 16.08. Any action by the City Council on a tentative parcel map “shall be supported by the findings required by Sections 66427.1, 66473.5, 66474, 66474.1 and 66474.6 of the California Government Code.” Banning Mun. Code § 16.14.050(B). Draft Resolution No. 2024-114, presented to the Council at the July 9 meeting, states that that the findings required by sections 66473.5, 66474, and 66474.6 apply here.

Government Code section 66473.5 requires a finding that a tentative or parcel map is “compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified” in the local general plan and any applicable specific plan. Section 66474 sets forth several Mayor Alberto Sanchez and Members of the City Council
Emery J. Papp
Serita Young
Sandra Calderon
August 29, 2024

Page 18 ends

SHUTE MIHALY
C" - WE IN BERG ER llp
findings that require denial of a tentative or parcel map, including findings of inconsistency with general plans or specific plans.14 Section 66474.6 requires findings related to compliance with waste discharge requirements for community sewer systems.

As a threshold matter, we disagree with some of the City Attorney’s statements regarding the tentative parcel map at the July 9 hearing. The City Attorney suggested that the tentative parcel map had nothing to do with the proposed warehouse development, but rather was solely concerned with subdivision of the larger parcel into three smaller parcels so they could be sold. However, the tentative parcel map itself depicts the overall design, buildings, circulation patterns, easements, and other improvements associated 14 Government Code section 66474 reads as follows:

A legislative body of a city or county shall deny approval of a tentative map, or a parcel map for which a tentative map was not required, if it makes any of the following findings:
(a) That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451.
(b) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans.
(c) That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development. (d) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. (e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
(f) That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems.
(g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.

Mayor Alberto Sanchez and Members of the City Council
Emery J. Papp
Serita Young
Sandra Calderon
August 29, 2024

Page 19 ends

SHUTE MIHALY
C" - WE IN BERG ER llp
with the Project. Moreover, state law requires the City Council to make findings addressing not only the map itself, but also the design or improvement of the subdivision shown on the map. Gov. Code § 66474(b)-(g). Even the Applicants concede that the findings required to approve a tentative parcel map are overlapping, and in some cases identical, to the findings required for design review approval. See Applicants’ Letter at

13. The tentative parcel map cannot be separated so easily from the design review.

As discussed above, there is ample evidence to support findings that the Project as a whole—including the tentative parcel map—is inconsistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan, and that the design and improvements associated with the Project are incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Indeed, given that the Project as a whole is inconsistent with the General Plan and the tentative parcel map itself is inconsistent with the Specific Plan’s land use map (see sections II.B.1 and II.B.2, above), the City Council must deny the map. Gov. Code § 66474(a). Other facts discussed above—including public testimony related to transportation and safety hazards, the lack of buffers and screening between the warehouse and neighboring uses—further support findings that the site is not suitable for the type and density of development proposed.

Gov. Code § 66474(c), (d).

Findings for the tentative parcel map and design review should be consistent. For example, the City Council cannot simultaneously find that the Project is inconsistent with the General Plan for purposes of design review, but consistent with the General Plan for purposes of the tentative parcel map. Moreover, an approved tentative parcel map in the absence of design review approval would have little practical utility for either the Applicants or prospective purchasers, because it would depict a design and improvements that the City has already rejected. It would be better for the community and the Applicants if the tentative parcel map were also denied, so the Applicants can fully consider an alternative project based on some combination of the numerous other uses allowable for this parcel under the Specific Plan. See Specific Plan at 9-12 (Table 1).

For all of these reasons, both the tentative parcel map and design review should be denied. To facilitate expeditious consideration of the tentative parcel map, moreover, staff should prepare alternative findings of denial prior to the next City Council meeting.

If staff does not prepare such findings, the Council should direct staff to do so for presentation at a future meeting.

Mayor Alberto Sanchez and Members of the City Council
Emery J. Papp
Serita Young
Sandra Calderon
August 29, 2024

Page 20 ends

SHUTE MIHALY
C" -'WEINBERGER llp
III. The City Council Should Direct Staff to Conduct a Thorough Analysis of the Project’s Cumulative Impacts in Relation to Sunset Crossroads Before Taking Any Approval Action.

The tentative parcel map should be denied for another critical reason: approval of the map based on the current record will commit the City to an inadequate analysis of cumulative impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

The City Attorney correctly stated at the July 9 meeting that environmental findings under CEQA are required to approve a tentative parcel map. But a majority of the Council—also correctly—expressed concern during that same meeting that the proposed Sunset Crossroads project represents a major change in the circumstances surrounding the Banning Point Project. Moreover, Councilmembers stated—again correctly—that the cumulative impact of Banning Point in relation to Sunset Crossroads has never been adequately evaluated. The CEQA documents prepared for the Project thus far are inadequate to support approval.15
Because both the tentative parcel map and design review are discretionary actions that may affect the physical environment, the City must comply with CEQA before approving any portion of the Project. The Council should not make any findings based on (or otherwise adopt or certify) the current CEQA documentation, which indisputably lacks a cumulative impact analysis that includes both Banning Point and Sunset Crossroads. Rather, before taking any action to approve any part of this project, the Council should direct staff to prepare the thorough cumulative impacts analysis that the current Addendum and Program Environmental Impact Report lack. If this new analysis indicates that the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts may be considerable, then the City must prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR before the Project can be approved.

15 See also Letter from Kevin P. Bundy, Shute Mihaly & Weinberger LLP, to Mayor Alberto Sanchez et al., Re: Banning City Council July 9, 2024 Agenda Items 6.2 and 7.1:

Appeal and proposed reapproval of Banning Point Project (Tentative Map No. 38164 and Design Review No. 21-7008) (July 9, 2024), incorporated herein by reference.

Mayor Alberto Sanchez and Members of the City Council
Emery J. Papp
Serita Young
Sandra Calderon
August 29, 2024

Page 21 ends

SHUTE MIHALY
C" - WE IN BERG ER llp
Please include this letter in the record of proceedings for this matter. Thank you, as always, for your consideration of Pass Action Group’s views in this matter.

Very truly yours,

SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP
Kevin P. Bundy
cc: Caroline Patton (via email: [email protected])
1819652.3
1 From: Diane Stone <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2024 7:33 PM
To: Caroline Patton
Subject: Fwd: Banning Pointe Discussion
For Sept.10th council meeting/Banning Pointe discussion:

Please be advised I will support Gerry Phelps' statement re the use of the property. "I support the multi-use proposal".

Diane Stone
1800 Litchfield Drive
Banning, CA.

396 HAYES STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102
T: (415) 552-7272 F: (415) 552-5816
www.smwlaw.com
KEVIN P. BUNDY
Attorney
[email protected]
September 9, 2024
Via Electronic Mail
Mayor Alberto Sanchez
Members of the City Council
City of Banning
99 E. Ramsey Street
Banning, CA 92220
E-Mail: [email protected]
Emery J. Papp
Senior Planner
Community Development Department
City of Banning
99 E. Ramsey Street
Banning, CA 92220
E-Mail: [email protected]
Serita Young
City Attorney
City of Banning
99 E. Ramsey Street
Banning, CA 92220
E-Mail: [email protected]
Sandra Calderon
Development Project Coordinator
City of Banning
99 E. Ramsey Street
Banning, CA 92220
E-Mail: [email protected]
Re: September 10, 2024 Agenda Item 8.2 (Banning Point Project):

Response to Applicants’ Request for New Public Hearing and Inaccurate and Misleading Assertions in September 4, 2024 “Memorandum”
Dear Mayor Sanchez, Councilmembers, Mr. Papp, Ms. Young, and Ms. Calderon:

On behalf of Pass Action Group, this letter briefly responds to (I) a suggestion in the Staff Report that the City Council notice a new public hearing for the Banning Point Project (“Project”), and (II) several inaccurate and misleading arguments and assertions in a September 4, 2024 “Memorandum” from applicants Sun Lakes Highland LLC, Creation Equity, and Vaulter (the “Applicants”) to the City Council.1

1 The Memorandum appears as Attachment 7 to the Staff Report (as revised September 6, 2024) for the above-referenced agenda item.

Mayor Sanchez, Councilmembers, Mr. Papp, Ms. Young, and Ms. Calderon September 9, 2024

Page 2 ends

I. The Council Should Not Schedule a New Public Hearing.

The Staff Report (at 3) recommends that the Council begin its deliberations by considering whether to grant the Applicants’ request for a new public hearing on the Project. As demonstrated in our August 29, 2024 letter to the Council (Staff Report Attachment 6), incorporated herein by reference, the Applicants have offered no basis for the Council to reconsider the actions it took on July 9.2 Nor does the Staff Report identify
or discuss any basis for granting a new public hearing, other than that the Applicants have requested one.

The Council already held a full public hearing at which the Applicants, appellants, and members of the community were afforded an opportunity to participate and present evidence. The Council also engaged in lengthy, substantive post-hearing deliberations and directed staff accordingly. The Applicants, appellant, and members of the public will have an additional opportunity to offer comments on September 10. The Council therefore should proceed with its additional deliberations, considering any additional public input that may be provided at the September 10 meeting, and reach a final decision without further delay.

II. The Applicants’ September 4 “Memorandum” Is Inaccurate, Misleading, and Non-Responsive to Actual Community Concerns.

As the Staff Report (at 3) notes, the September 4 Memorandum is largely a “restatement” of points that have been made in prior presentations to the Council.

However, the many inaccurate, misleading, and non-responsive assertions in the Memorandum merit a brief response.

First, the Memorandum does not respond to actual comments and community concerns raised during the public process on the Project. Rather, the Memorandum 2 To the extent that the applicants’ July 25 letter requests reconsideration of the Council’s July 9 actions, the Council cannot reconsider those actions at the September 10 meeting.

Section 17.68.140 of the Banning Municipal Code provides that where a request for reconsideration is filed and “a public hearing was required in the original review process, another public notice as specified in Section 17.68.020 shall be made prior to the reconsideration of the review authority, and all costs associated with the reconsideration shall be paid by the applicant” (italics added). Section 17.68.020(B) requires publication and mailing of notice no less than 10 days before the date of the City Council meeting.

To our knowledge, the City has not provide public notice of any potential reconsideration “as specified in section 17.68.020” prior to the September 10 meeting.

Mayor Sanchez, Councilmembers, Mr. Papp, Ms. Young, and Ms. Calderon September 9, 2024

Page 3 ends

largely responds to “strawman” arguments of the Applicants’ own making. For example, the Memorandum argues that the Banning Point Project represents an “Overall Net Reduction” in car and truck trips compared to the hypothetical maximum development allowed under the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan. See Memorandum at 6-7. The Memorandum also claims air pollution from the Project will be lower compared to other hypothetical land uses. Id. at 11. But residents will not experience the impacts from construction and operation of the warehouse as a “Net Reduction” from the impacts of an even larger warehouse or a different kind of project that nobody is currently proposing to build. Instead, residents will experience a dramatic increase in large truck traffic, noise, and air pollution compared to what they experience now. These impacts—not hypothetical comparisons to the Specific Plan or a different land use—have been the focus of community testimony and concern. The Memorandum fails to respond to residents’ actual comments and concerns.

Second, the truck trip generation estimate presented in the Memorandum contradicts the estimate in the traffic analysis attached to the Addendum for the Project under the California Environmental Quality Act. The Memorandum (at 7) claims the Project will generate a total of 214 daily truck trips. The traffic analysis appended to the Addendum, however, concludes the Project will generate 296 daily truck trips—nearly 40% more daily truck trips than claimed in the Memorandum.3 Both estimates were purportedly prepared by the same traffic engineer. The Memorandum does not identify the source of its lower estimate or otherwise explain the discrepancy.

Third, the Memorandum objects to the characterization that there was a “bait and switch” between how the Project was presented to residents during a March 2020 community meeting and how the Project ultimately was proposed to the City. Here, again, the Memorandum mischaracterizes the community’s concern as having been that “the site plan . . . materially changed” after the community meeting. Memorandum at 2.

This is inaccurate. Community concerns about a “bait and switch” did not focus on changes to the site plan, but rather on comments made by former Community Development Director Adam Rush during the community meeting. In response to a specific question about whether the proposed plan would allow uses that generate a large amount of truck traffic, Mr. Rush stated that the City would “love to have” a Costco or a 3 Staff Report Attachment 14 at PDF p. 491 (Letter from Charlene So, Urban Crossroads, to Adam Rush, City of Banning, Re: Banning Point (TPM 38264) Traffic Assessment (Feb. 8, 2024), p. 5 (Table 3: Proposed Project Trip Generation Summary)).

Mayor Sanchez, Councilmembers, Mr. Papp, Ms. Young, and Ms. Calderon September 9, 2024

Page 4 ends

Trader Joe’s at the site.4 He did not mention a warehouse as a possible use for what he described as a “business park” district. In any event, the Memorandum’s side-by-side comparison of the “Current Site Plan” and the Site Plan presented at the March 2020 meeting (at 3) does nothing to dispel actual concerns about a “bait and switch.” Indeed, the March 2020 Site Plan presented to the community does not identify the large building at the center of the plan as a possible warehouse. The March 2020 site plan shows only unidentified gray boxes, not potential uses. Community members have long felt that during the community meeting, Mr. Rush and the Applicants actively downplayed the possibility that the centerpiece of the Specific Plan would be a massive warehouse. The Memorandum does not respond to the real “bait and switch” that community members feel occurred here.

Fourth, the Memorandum repeats inaccurate information about the Project’s potential to generate significant noise impacts in the community. The Memorandum (at 12) asserts that noise increases will be “barely perceptible” because the Project includes “14-foot-high screen walls” for “both loading docks areas [sic].”5 Yet the Project site
plans currently before the Council for design review approval do not provide for a 14- foot screen wall between the loading docks on the south side of the warehouse and residential/healthcare uses to the south and east; instead, the plans provide only for an eight-foot wrought-iron fence.6
Proposed Condition of Approval 13 clearly requires that the Project “shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the site plans” 4 A video of the March 2020 community meeting is available on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfkHum-kqJ8 (accessed Sept. 8, 2024). Mr. Rush’s comments regarding Costco and Trader Joe’s appear around the 43:00 mark of the video.

An email summary of Mr. Rush’s comments prepared by a community member appears in the administrative record for the City’s prior approval; that summary is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
5 The noise analysis in the Addendum also incorrectly assumes the existence of a 14’ sound wall and relies on that assumption in concluding that the Project will have no significant noise impacts on neighboring sensitive uses. Addendum at 71-72 (Staff Report Attachment 7 at PDF 77-78). This also issue was raised during the July 9, 2024 public hearing on the Project and in our July 9, 2024 letter to the City Council; that letter is incorporated herein by reference.
6 Staff Report Attachment 2 (DR_12-7008_Plans.pdf) at PDF 1 (Keynote 6). The plans do call for a 14-foot “concrete tilt wall” to the north of the warehouse, along I-10 and the railroad frontage, but that wall will do nothing to screen sensitive land uses to the south and east from noise generated by the warehouse.

Mayor Sanchez, Councilmembers, Mr. Papp, Ms. Young, and Ms. Calderon September 9, 2024

Page 5 ends

approved by the City.7 The 14-foot wall touted by the Applicants does not exist in the site plans being presented to the Council for approval, and the wall cannot be built without changes to the site plans. There is no support for the Memorandum’s assertion that the Project, as currently described in the site plans before the City, will not cause significant noise impacts to the surrounding neighborhood.

In sum, the Memorandum fails to respond to community concerns and offers no basis for the Council to revisit its July 9, 2024 decision to direct staff to prepare findings of disapproval for the Project.

Thank you for your consideration. Please include these comments in the administrative record of proceedings for this matter.

Very truly yours,

SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP
Kevin P. Bundy
Attachment: Ex. A: Email re March 2020 Sun Lakes Community Meeting 1824508.2
7 Staff Report Attachment 9 (Ex. A to draft Resolution No. 2024-149) at 3.

EXHIBIT
A
AR 017215
staff and officials. Rush also does not explore with the audience, a reasonable range of land use alternatives. For example, given SB9 and SB10 housing is in short supply and big demand.

Also in the Pass Area, hospitality and leisure recreation would be very viable options, given that Southern California, the Pass and nearby areas, created “The Frontier of Leisure” that has been modelled throughout the world.

Here Rush should have brought up whether an Analysis of alternatives is required The answer is yes, an evaluation of alternatives is required in all EIRs. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a) states:
“An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decisionmaking and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible.” (see attachment).

Not once does he mention a warehouse, which would be the basis for alternative analysis.

This is an example, which demonstrates my contention that the full extent of the project type (warehouse) land use, and its consequent diesel pollution and other negative environmental effects was not adequately disclosed and discussed from the beginning of the EIR process. The effect of this was to mislead the public, inducing them to believe that other viable alternatives were available and would be seriously considered. The public expects some certainty in the what, the who, and the how, that will be using a 31 acre site separate from, or as part of a 47 acre piece of land, before, during, or after, the 47 acres, remains as one parcel/one use, or is split up into separate parcels to support other uses which may have the effect of environmentally harming the Pass community starting with the adjacent Sun Lakes Village Shopping Center, Sun Lakes Residential Community, the Senior Assisted Living complex, 2nd Street Marketplace, San Gorgonio Hospital, Loma Linda Highland Springs Medical Offices, and radiating out from there.

Had the public been made thoroughly and extensively aware of this ill conceived project at the earliest stages of the process, I am certain that they would have opposed the project. I’m also concerned that given the predominantly senior demographic, that the City of Banning did not go out of its way to provide reasonable accommodations for residents to fully and thoroughly understand and engage in officially commenting opposition to the project during the comment periods. For example, the city could have provided transcribers, and comment boxes, or arranged for house-to-house notification, for the Sun Lakes and other residents to formally express their opposition or concerns to the project, during public scoping meetings, which are allowable into the record. If City staff and officials did not robustly notifying residents regarding this critical land use project Also given the widely available literature, and regional state requirements to curb/prevent warehouse pollution and poor siting, ultimately the city council and city staff must know and be duty bound to take on the responsibility to learn about the pollution and other effects of warehouses. The city council is responsible to take its own initiative here, to read up on their own regarding warehouse pollution and effects, and or obtain advice, recommendations, as advised by city staff. An informed, aware and concerned council and staff would have prevented this project at inception. For example the City Council AR 017216
AR 017217
1 From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2024 11:44 AM
To: Doug Schulze; Caroline Patton
Subject: Speaking on Banning Point Warehouse - Agenda #8 .2 Attachments: City Council 8-27-14.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mr. Schulze and Ms. Patton,
i will be speaking on the issue of the Banning Point Warehouse on Sun Lakes Blvd., across from Sun Lakes Main gate. A copy of what I will be saying is attached for your perusal, and so that it may be read into the minutes(?). The topic is 8.2 on the Agenda.

See you tomorrow.

Sincerely,
Gerry Cousins Phelps
1033 Pine Valley Rd.

Banning CA 92220
951-267-1580
Mayor Sanchez, Council Members, Citizens of Banning & Guests:

My name is Gerry Phelps. I am 82 years old and was born in the US. I am a citizen and a life-long tax payer. For the past 9 years I have happily lived in Sun Lakes.

Like all residents of Banning, I, too, am involved in the financial welfare of the City.

There Is no doubt that we absolutely need money, i.e., tax dollars, in our coffers to afford what has to be done to make Banning an attractive, safe place to live.

Everything costs more today than it did yesterday and will be still higher tomorrow.

Therefore, an improved income stream (as well as good planning and budgeting) is essential to the City Planners. Bearing this in mind, I, nevertheless, strongly oppose a warehouse complex across the street from the driveway into Sun Lakes –a senior residential community of 3400+ tax payer homes.

I am addressing the City Council today on behalf of an increasingly growing number of like-minded people, in order that you might call upon the Planning Commission, and together, prevail on CREATION, the Banning Point Developers, so that instead of standing pat on moving forward with their warehouse position, they consider a more agreeable alternative, such as a low rise multi-use project that could entail condos, senior living, and/or middle income 1, 2 and 3 bedroom apartments with a ground floor lobby and stores. As you probably know, there is a reported glut of warehouse space on the market. Because of its location, this particular parcel of land is especially desirable for much needed residential use, and shopping. Accomplishing this equivalent project would put an end to on-going law suits and unproductive acrimony.

Thus, the Developers could not only look forward to saving face, but put the land to productive and profitable use once and for all. Indeed, they would be heroes.

In spite of CREATION’s findings regarding the inconsequential environmental impact the Banning Point warehouse would have on the community, Riverside and San Bernardino counties rank first and second in the State of California with the highest ozone levels, and are among the top dozen counties for particulate pollution. This is a direct result of the profusion of truck traffic –as well as noise pollution and other problems-- due to a plethora of warehouses built, or being built, here.in the Inland Empire. UNACCEPTABLE! Warehouses do not belong in sensitive locations next to homes, schools, parks, hospitals, nursing homes, etc. For older people and especially those with asthma, COPD, or other lung deficiencies, this adulteration of clean air is dangerous and intolerable. (Furthermore, have you seen the traffic at the on/off ramps of the 10 at Highland Springs Ave.???)
Above all, while I do understand that it is considerably less costly to construct a tilt-up warehouse than a custom built multi-use residential complex, CREATION’s profit line should not be at a cost to my health or yours..

Finally, getting back to a more positive note, this issue –once successfully concluded— means that Banning could realize much anticipated tax dollars, thus improving the City’s income stream –a huge City Council accomplishment and an enormous local population satisfier!
We are all a part of one small City. Why shouldn’t we work together … ? Let’s everyone be heroes! ….. … Thank you.

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
2010 Main Street, 8th Floor | Irvine, CA 92614-7214
Telephone: 949.553.1313 | Facsimile: 949.553.8354
www.allenmatkins.com
K. Erik Friess
E-mail: [email protected]
Direct Dial: 949.851.5478 File Number: 391960.00003/4864-8729-2385.1 Los Angeles | Orange County | San Diego | Century City | San Francisco | New York Allen Matkins
Via Electronic Mail
September 9, 2024
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
City of Banning
Attn: Toni Calderon, City Clerk
99 East Ramsey Street
Banning, CA 92220
Re: Banning Point Project; City Council Agenda Item 8.2 Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers:

As you know, we represent Sun Lakes Highland, LLC (“SLH”), the owner of the property comprising the Banning Point Project. SLH requests that this letter be included in the administrative record for this matter. The purpose of this letter is to (1) supplement the arguments in our letter to you on July 25, 2024, with additional factual evidence that has come to light since we sent that letter, (2) respond to certain arguments and assertions in the August 29, 2024, letter sent to you from Kevin P. Bundy of the law firm Shute Mihaly & Weinberger on behalf of Pass Action Group; and (3) highlight the significant issues and lack of substantial – or any – evidence supporting the proposed findings for denial in Resolution Nos. 2024-150 and 2024-151, which render the Resolutions legally indefensible.

I. New Information Further Demonstrates Councilmember Flynn’s Bias.

New information that has emerged since we sent our July 25 Letter underscores Councilmember Sherri Flynn’s bias against the Project. The case for Councilmember Flynn to recuse herself from all future hearings and votes related to the Project, and for the City Council to conduct a new hearing on the Project without the participation of Councilmember Flynn, has only become stronger over the past week. As detailed in our July 25 Letter, Councilmember Flynn has demonstrated extraordinary bias against the Project both before and after she joined the City Council. New evidence shows that she continues to harbor that bias.

Specifically, on September 2, 2024, Councilmember Flynn posted the Pass Action Group Letter on her official Facebook page. This post constitutes an endorsement of the opinions and assertions in the Pass Action Group Letter. Notably, Councilmember Flynn posted the Pass Action Group Letter without any disclaimer that her post did not represent an endorsement of the letter. It Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
September 9, 2024

Page 2 ends

is also notable that Councilmember Flynn did not share our July 25 Letter nor any other neutral or objective information on her Facebook page.

Councilmember Flynn’s posting of the Pass Action Group Letter on her Facebook page, combined with her longstanding and ongoing association with Pass Action Group both prior to and after becoming a member of the City Council (as described in detail in our July 25 Letter), further demonstrates that she is biased against the Project. The only potential remedy to address this bias and avoid potential further litigation is that Councilmember Flynn must recuse herself from all future hearings and votes related to the Project, and the City Council must conduct a new hearing on the Project without the participation of Councilmember Flynn.

II. Additional Environmental Review of the Sunset Crossroads Project Is Not Warranted.

The City Council should reject, yet again, Pass Action Group’s argument that the California Environmental Quality Act requires the City to conduct additional environmental review of the separately proposed Sunset Crossroads Project. The City Council, multiple times, has not found adequate support for this argument, and the Riverside County Superior Court has found this decision of the City Council to be legally adequate. (See Pass Action Group v. City of Banning, No.

CVRI2201482 at 9 (Riverside Cnty. Super. Ct. Mar. 15, 2024) (“[T]he Court concludes that substantial evidence supported the City’s decision not to include cumulative impacts from the Project and Sunset Crossroads in the environmental documents for the Project and to prepare an addendum instead of a supplemental or subsequent EIR for the Project.”).) The Pass Action Group Letter rehashes the same as-yet unsuccessful argument without providing any new information that would justify a different approach, result or conclusion.

III. SLH Can and Will Raise a Valid Civil Rights Claim for Damages and Attorney Fees.

SLH has a constitutionally protected property interest in the approval of its development application and may bring a claim under the federal Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. section 1983, to protect that interest. Section 1983 provides that any person who deprives another of a constitutionally protected right may be held liable for damages.

In the context of land use applications, case law from federal courts provides that a constitutionally protected property interest is created where an applicant has a “reasonable expectation of entitlement,” based on the language of the statute creating the property interest and “the extent to which the entitlement is couched in mandatory terms.” (Wedges/Ledges of California, Inc. v. City of Phoenix, Arizona (9th Cir. 1994) 24 F.3d 56, 62; see also Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs v. Gates (9th Cir. 1983) 716 F.2d 733, 734.) In other words, if a statute contains procedural requirements that are “intended to be a significant substantive restriction on . . . decision making,” it can create a constitutionally protected property interest. (Id.) Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
September 9, 2024

Page 3 ends

In this case, the legal provisions establishing SLH’s protected property interest are found in Section 17.56 the Banning Municipal Code, which contains the standards the City must consider in evaluating design review applications, and Section 16.14.050.B of the Banning Municipal Code, which sets forth the standards the City Council must consider in evaluating tentative parcel map applications (incorporating by reference the requirements of specified sections of the Subdivision Map Act and CEQA).

Section 17.56.050 of the Banning Municipal Code provides that when determining whether to approve a design review application, the City’s reviewing authority “shall determine that the project adequately meets adopted City performance standards and design guidelines . . .” (emphasis added). It must make this determination based on four factors: consistency with the General Plan; consistency with the Zoning Ordinance, including the development standards and guidelines for the district in which it is located; that the design and layout of the proposed project will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future development, and will not result in vehicular and/or pedestrian hazards; and that the design of the proposed project is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. (Banning Municipal Code § 17.56.050.)
Similarly, Section 16.14.050.B of the Banning Municipal Code provides that the City Council’s action on a tentative parcel map application “shall be supported by the findings required by” specified sections of the Subdivision Map Act and CEQA (emphasis added). The Banning Municipal Code’s and Subdivision Map Act’s required findings for a tentative parcel map include consistency with the General Plan and any specific plans (Gov. Code, §§ 66473.5, 66474(a), 66474(b)); that the site is physically suitable for the type of development (Gov. Code, § 66474(c)); that the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development (Gov. Code, § 66474(d)); that the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat (Gov.

Code, § 66474(e)); that the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems (Gov. Code, § 66474(f)); that the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision (Gov. Code, § 66474(g)); and the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into an existing community sewer system would not result in violation of existing requirements prescribed by a California regional water quality control board (Gov. Code, § 66474.6).

By requiring the City to focus only on prescribed elements and narrowing the scope of the City’s review, the design review and tentative parcel map standards in the Banning Municipal Code significantly restrict the City’s decision making. These standards place limits on the City’s discretion that are far greater than those procedures at issue in cases cited in the Pass Action Group Letter, which granted reviewing authorities “full and absolute power and authority to deny any application for any cause deemed reasonable” or “unbridled discretion.” (Jacobson v. Hannifin (9th Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
September 9, 2024

Page 4 ends

Cir. 1980) 627 F.2d 177, 180; Bateson v. Geisse (9th Cir. 1988) 857 F.2d 1300, 1305.) On the contrary, the design review and tentative parcel map application standards in the Banning Municipal Code are couched in mandatory and limiting terms, as they require the City to consider only the referenced factors in determining whether to approve or deny the respective design review and tentative parcel map applications.

Furthermore, in this particular situation, SLH has a strong expectation of entitlement because the City Council previously approved the tentative parcel map and design review for the Project and those decisions were upheld by the Riverside County Superior Court. Notably, the Superior Court found that substantial evidence supported the City Council’s findings and approval of the Project, although it vacated the Project approval on other grounds completely unrelated to the adequacy of the City’s findings or the Project’s environmental review. In other words, SLH’s expectation of entitlement stems, in part, from the fact that the City Council already determined that the Project satisfied the requirements for approval, and those actions were upheld by the Superior Court. (See Pass Action Group v. City of Banning, No. CVRI2201482 at 5 (Riverside Cnty. Super.

Ct. Mar. 15, 2024) (“[The Court] does not find that Petitioner [Pass Action Group] has carried its burden of proof on any remaining issue and would not grant the writ but for the fair hearing issue.”).) This is more than sufficient to support a “reasonable expectation of entitlement” creating a protected property interest.

The cases referenced in the Pass Action Group Letter do not support Pass Action Group’s unreasonably narrow interpretation of Section 1983. As stated above, Jacobson v. Hannifin and Bateson v. Geisse involved statutes that granted essentially unlimited discretion to the approving body and therefore are inapposite to the tentative parcel map and design review standards in the Banning Municipal Code. Further, only Bateson involved a land use approval; Jacobson v.

Hanniffin ((9th Cir. 1980) 627 F.2d 177) concerned a Nevada gaming license, Groten v. California ((9th Cir. 2001) 251 F.3d 844) a real estate appraisers license, and Thornton v. City of St. Helena ((9th Cir. 2005) 425 F.3d 1157) an Oregon auto wrecking license.

Because SLH can establish a protected property interest, the City will be liable for damages SLH has suffered, currently in excess of $25,000,000, due to the City’s unconstitutional deprivation of due process, plus attorney fees. To reiterate, if the City does not hold a new, fair, and unbiased hearing on the Project consistent with all constitutional due process and other legal requirements, SLH is prepared to proceed with litigation against the City to protect, preserve, and vindicate its rights.

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
September 9, 2024

Page 5 ends

IV. The Proposed Findings Set Forth in the Resolutions for Denial of the Project are Conclusory and Unsupported by Substantial Evidence in the Record and Are Therefore Not Legally Defensible.

As discussed in our July 25 letter, the “facts” identified by the City Council during the July 9 hearing are patently insufficient and inadequate to support or justify denial of the Project.

The “facts” are simply “conclusions” and are inconsistent with both the Project’s CEQA analysis the Addendum and the City’s previous findings approving the Project and underlying Sun Lakes Specific Plan Amendment No. 5, which are supported by actual data and based on substantial evidence that the trial court expressly upheld as sufficient in the prior litigation. (See Pass Action Group v. City of Banning, No. CVRI2201482 at 9 (Riverside Cnty. Super. Ct. Mar. 15, 2024.) Per the Council’s prior direction at the July 9 hearing, the City has prepared draft Resolution Nos. 150 and 151 which propose to (i) approve the TPM but deny the Design Review for the Project and (ii) deny both the TPM and Design Review with a finding that the Project denial is exempt from CEQA, respectively. The findings for denial outlined in the draft Resolutions are defective and insufficient to justify or support denial of the Project entitlements in several respects.

First, the Resolutions generally claim an incompatibility between the Project’s proposed warehouse building and the Sun Lakes residential retirement community located to the south across Sun Lakes Boulevard based upon alleged increased traffic and pedestrian safety risks and noise impacts. There is, however, no empirical data or evidence provided in the Resolutions or elsewhere to support the existence of these increased risks and impacts and, in fact, the data and evidence that is found in the record completely contradicts the proposed findings. For example, with respect to pedestrian and vehicular access and safety, SLH will construct two new traffic signals at both Country Club/Sun Lakes Boulevard, and Sun Lakes Village Drive/Sun Lakes Boulevard with corresponding pedestrian crosswalks to connect existing sidewalks, improving pedestrian safety.

SLH will also construct a dedicated golf cart lane and crossing where none currently exists, which will improve golf cart safety by taking golf carts off Sun Lakes Boulevard. Thus, the Project will actually enhance and strengthen pedestrian and golf cart safety and access along Sun Lakes Boulevard to and from the shopping center. Contrary to the findings set forth in the Resolutions, the Project more than adequately “takes in[to] account the accessibility needs of [55 plus residents of Sun Lakes] when tailoring protections that will best protect the safety of pedestrians and seniors traveling and/or living nearby.”
Similarly, the Resolutions findings that the Project would introduce a new “truck intensive” development project immediately north of and adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods is belied by the facts and analysis set forth in the Project’s Traffic Impacts Analysis which confirm that less than 13 percent of the 2,292 total vehicle trips per day associated with the proposed Project, will be trucks. (Urban Crossroads, Traffic Analysis, Table 3 [296 truck trips].) The Project is also significantly less intensive from a traffic standpoint than the scope of approved potential uses Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
September 9, 2024

Page 6 ends

allowed under the Sun Lakes North Village Specific Plan. (Id.) The Project is therefore not “truck intensive” and, in fact, will result in substantially less traffic and fewer total trips along Sun Lakes Boulevard than other alternative uses, such as multifamily residential, office and commercial retail. (Id.) Any development on the Project site will necessarily involve an increase in traffic on Sun Lakes Boulevard; however, contrary to the Resolution findings of denial, the Project will be the least impactful use from a traffic increase standpoint. Thus, this finding is not supported by evidence.

Moreover, all Project truck traffic will enter and exit the Site via a dedicated truck drive aisle on Sun Lake Village Drive, an existing commercial driveway (with no traffic signal) located west of the Sun Lakes Community’s primary entrance at Country Club Drive that is already utilized by heavy trucks to deliver goods to the shopping center located on Sun Lakes Boulevard and Highland Springs Avenue, including the Hobby Lobby, PetSmart and Albertsons grocery store.

Therefore, contrary to the findings proposed for denial of the TPM, the Project is consistent with Site Design and Circulation Goal 3.2.1 of Amendment No. 5 to the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan and goes to great lengths to “separate semi-truck access and circulation from passenger vehicle access and circulation to the greatest extent feasible.” With respect to the Resolutions’ findings of incompatibility based upon alleged noise impacts, the data and substantial evidence in the record clearly demonstrates that the daytime and nighttime noise increases will be de minimis in nature and below the 3 dba threshold to establish a measurable noise impact. The proposed warehouse building is situated more than 330 feet away from the Sun Lakes residential community, up against the I-10 freeway at the rear of the property and will be separated from the retail/commercial component of the Project (and residential areas further south) by a 14-foot noise barrier wall. In its decision regarding the adequacy of the CEQA Addendum prepared for the Project, the trial court expressly rejected all claims related to alleged noise impacts. (See Pass Action Group v. City of Banning, No. CVRI2201482 at 9 (Riverside Cnty.

Super. Ct. Mar. 15, 2024.) The alleged noise increases and impacts that are referenced in the Resolutions are based upon pure supposition and inconsistent with and unsupported by any facts or evidence in the record. The findings are therefore not adequate to support denial of the Project.

Contrary to the findings set forth in the proposed Resolution Nos. 150 and 151 regarding denial of the Project as a whole and denial of just the Design Review component, the Project is entirely consistent with the policies, goals and objectives set forth in the City’s General Plan and Amendment No. 5 to the Sun Lakes North Village Specific Plan and the associated land use and development standards and regulations. The Project’s alleged incompatibility with the surrounding area and inconsistency with the City’s General Plan was tested by Pass Action Group in the previous litigation and these claims were expressly rejected by the Court. The findings for denial set forth in proposed Resolution Nos. 150 and 151 are not rooted in fact or supported by substantial evidence and are therefore not legally defensible. There is, accordingly, no basis in either fact or law to justify denial of the Project and/or adoption of either Resolution No. 150 or 151.

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
September 9, 2024

Page 7 ends

V. Conclusion.

Based upon the foregoing, Councilmember Flynn must recuse herself from all future hearings and votes related to the Project, and the City Council must conduct a new hearing on the Project without the participation of Councilmembers Flynn and Happe due to their unquestioned bias against the Project and inability to act as fair and impartial decisionmakers. If the City does not heed this demand and the Project is denied, then SLH will have no choice but to proceed with litigation against the City to protect, preserve, and vindicate its rights in the Project and development of the underlying property. Please note that in the event that litigation becomes necessary, the City will face potential liability and exposure to damages in excess of $25,000,000.

Alternatively, we strongly urge the City Council to accept Staff’s continued recommendation and adopt Resolution No. 2024-149 approving both Tentative Parcel Map No. 38164 and Design Review No. 21-7008 and adopting the CEQA Addendum for the Project.

Please contact me if you wish to discuss this matter in further detail.

Very truly yours,
K. Erik Friess
cc: Doug Schulze, City Manager
Serita Young, City Attorney
Sandra Calderon, Development Project Coordinator
Emery Papp, Senior Planner
TERRA NOVA PLANNING & RESEARCH, INC.®
42635 MELANIE PLACE, SUITE 101, PALM DESERT, CA 92211 (760) 341-4800 September 9, 2024
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Banning
99 East Ramsey Street
Banning, CA 92220
RE: September 10, 2024 City Council Agenda Item 8.2, Banning Point Project Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:

We represent the owners of the Banning Point Project, and have been asked to review the materials associated with the Banning Point Project (Project). Please note that based on the incorrect numbering of the Resolutions provided in the packet, we have also referenced the Attachment number in the list below. Any reference to the Resolution numbers refer to that specific Attachment. The City Council is currently considering three options:

1. Approve the Addendum to the Specific Plan EIR, Tentative Parcel Map and Design Review, consistent with the recommendations in the Staff Report and the Findings in Resolution 2024-149 (Attachment 8).

2. Approve the Addendum to the Specific Plan EIR and Tentative Parcel Map and disapprove the Design Review, consistent with the Findings in Resolution 2024-150 (Attachment 10).

3. Disapprove the Tentative Parcel Map and Design Review, and find the project exempt from CEQA, consistent with the Findings in Resolution 2024-151 (Attachment 12).

Based on our review of the Project materials, the record before the Council and the requirements of California law, we find that the Findings in Resolutions 2024-150 and 2024-151 are insufficient and inappropriate, and that the City has not provided any substantial evidence to support denial actions or CEQA exemptions. The details of our conclusions are provided below.

General Principles
General Plan and Specific Plan
It is a matter of fact that the industrial and retail uses proposed by the Project are consistent with the General Plan and Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan land use designations for the property. It can therefore also be concluded that the City intended, even before the Project was proposed, that industrial and retail uses were appropriate for the Project site.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
The City prepared an Addendum to the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 Environmental Impact Report (EIR). That Addendum correctly found that the impacts of the Honorable Mayor and City Council
September 9, 2024
Agenda Item 8.1

Page 2 of 4 ends

current Project would be less than those analyzed in the EIR, and the Superior Court has affirmed that conclusion. The CEQA review for this Project has been completed correctly, and is consistent with the requirements of the Public Resources Code and the CEQA Guidelines.

Findings of Fact
The “Findings” listed in any Resolution are shorthand for “Findings of Fact.” Any jurisdiction must base its conclusions not on opinion but on fact. In the case of the current Project, these Findings of Fact are explicitly listed in the City’s Municipal Code, Section 16.14.050 for the Tentative Parcel Map, and in Section 17.56.050 for the Design Review.

When these three general principles are combined, they allow us to correctly analyze the Resolutions before the City Council.

Analysis of Resolution Denial Findings
First and foremost, the findings for denial in Resolutions 2024-150 and 2024-151 are not supported by facts. The denial findings are based on the opinions expressed by Council members on July 9th. We note that when asked to provide facts by the City Attorney, City Council members expressed opinions, and did not cite policy or empirical data from City or Project documents. In our research and analysis, we found that the following facts are substantiated:

Land Use

1. The General Plan and Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan land use maps identified industrial and commercial land uses for these properties. Land Use compatibility and adjacency were analyzed at the time the designations were applied, and were found consistent and appropriate.

2. The General Plan and Specific Plan land use maps assign land uses to the three parcels proposed in TPM 38164 and the TPM subdivides the property to be consistent with those land use designations.

3. The Design Review proposes an industrial use on the industrial parcel, and commercial uses on the commercial parcel.

4. The Project buffers the industrial development from the Sun Lakes Country Club by proposing commercial uses along Sun Lakes Boulevard, consistent with the existing shopping center immediately west of the Project.

5. The Sun Lakes Country Club is separated from the industrial component of the Project by a distance of over 330 feet.

6. The Lakes assisted living structures are separated from the industrial component of the Project by a distance of 100 feet.

Traffic & Circulation

7. The Project is proposed on a Major Highway, as designated in the General Plan Circulation Element. This is a roadway which is intended to carry 30,400 vehicles per day (General Plan Table III-15).

8. The existing Sun Lakes Country Club is not located on a quiet neighborhood road. It is located on a Major Highway.

Honorable Mayor and City Council
September 9, 2024
Agenda Item 8.1

Page 3 of 4 ends

9. The Sun Lakes Boulevard and Highland Springs intersection provides direct access to I10, in order to minimize cross-town commercial traffic.

10.Sun Lakes Village Drive is a commercial driveway, designed to carry trucks accessing the “back of house” of the shopping center. Customer access is provided on Highland Springs Avenue.

11.The Project will generate a total of 2,292 actual vehicle trips per day. Of those, 296 will be trucks. (Traffic Analysis, Table 3) That represents 12.9% of the total actual trips per day. The Project is not “truck intensive.”

12.The primary access to the warehouse component of the Project is at its western boundary.

13.The Project will build a separate dedicated truck lane on Sun Lakes Village Drive to separate Project truck traffic from the shopping center’s traffic.

14.The primary access to the retail component is from the center of the property.

15.The traffic analysis distributed traffic throughout the site, and found that the easterly driveway will carry 12 vehicles (PCE) during the morning peak hour, and 72 PCE during the evening peak hour (Traffic Analysis, Exhibit 6).

16.Project traffic will occur on a completely separate driveway from the memory care facility to the east. The Project will not interfere with emergency vehicle access to the memory care facility.

17.All of the intersections in and around the Project area will operate at acceptable Levels of Service according to the General Plan (LOS C or better) with or without improvements (Traffic Study, Table 6). The two new traffic signals are added design features, but are not necessary for safe traffic operations.

18.The Project will add two traffic signals at both Country Club/Sun Lakes, and Sun Lakes Village/Sun Lakes. The City will require traffic signal design include pedestrian crosswalks which will connect existing sidewalks, improving pedestrian safety.

19.The Project includes a dedicated golf cart lane and crossing where none occurs currently, which will improve golf cart safety by taking golf carts off Sun Lakes Boulevard.

Noise

20.The existing noise levels at the north edge of Sun Lakes Country Club range from 59.4 to 66.2 dBA Leq during the day (Table 5-1, Noise Study).

21.The Project will increase noise levels by 0.2 dBA during the day, and 0.3 dBA at night along Sun Lakes Boulevard (Table 9-5 & 9-6, Noise Study). An audible noise increase is 3 dBA.

22.The existing noise levels at the Lakes facility are 54.4 dBA Leq during the day (Table 5-1, Noise Study).

23.The Project will increase noise levels by 0.4 dBA during the day, and 0.1 dBA at night at the Lakes facility (Table 9-5 & 9-6, Noise Study). An audible noise increase is 3 dBA.

24.The Project will not exceed any of the City’s standards or requirements relating to noise levels during either the daytime or nighttime hours.

Air Quality

25.The City is governed by the rules and standards adopted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).

Honorable Mayor and City Council
September 9, 2024
Agenda Item 8.1

Page 4 of 4 ends

26.The air quality analysis quantitatively demonstrates that the Project will not exceed any of SCAQMD’s thresholds, either during construction or operation of the Project.

27.All Project emissions fall well below the limits established by the SCAQMD, include NOx emissions, which are the primary emissions generated by cars and trucks – the Project will generate 49.1 pounds per day, well below the 55 pound per day threshold.

Conclusion
In summary, contrary to the “findings” in the denial resolutions, the above analysis provides facts that demonstrate that:

1. The Project is consistent with both the General Plan and the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan.

2. The Project complies with Circulation Element Level of Service standards as required in the General Plan.

3. The Project will provide increased traffic safety with the installation of two traffic signals, a dedicated golf cart path, and dedicated golf cart and pedestrian crossings.

4. The Project will only marginally increase noise levels for residents to the south and east of the Project site.

5. The Project will not significantly affect air quality or increase air pollution in the area.

The City Council must reconsider its prior direction to staff, and adopt Resolution 2024-149.

Sincerely,
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Principal

BANNING POINT
City Council Hearing – September 10, 2024
Table of Contents
A. | Opening Remarks – Paige Gosney, Allen Matkins
B. | Technical Analysis of Resolutions 2024-150 and 2024-151 – Nicole Criste, Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc.

C. | Analysis of Key Project Concerns – Auggie Gomez, Vaulter D. | Analysis of Claims and Concerns – Auggie Gomez, Vaulter E. | Questions?

OPENING REMARKS

DESIGNBUILD
Key Numbers of Resolution Nos.
2024-150 and 2024-151:
4 Conclusions Cited in Resolutions
0 Facts Cited in Support of Conclusions
15 Errors Cited in Resolutions
Conclusion #1: The Project is Inconsistent With the General Plan & Incompatible With Surrounding Existing & Permitted Land Uses
Contrary Facts & Evidence:

1. The Project is wholly consistent and compatible with the existing General Plan land use designations for the site of General Commercial and Business Park with a Specific Plan Overlay, and the Specific Plan designations for the site of Business & Warehouse District and Retail and Service District (Source: Addendum, 4.11 [Land Use and Planning]).

2. The Project is determined to be compatible with the Noise and Community Development and Economic Development elements of the General Plan and the Sun Lakes Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 Guiding Objectives (Source: Resolution No. 2024-149, pp. 19-24; 3/15/24 Trial Court Ruling [upholding City determination of Project GP consistency]).

3. The Project was found to be consistent and compatible with the General Plan and Specific Plan regulations upon initial approval in 2022, which determination was upheld by the trial court in its March 15, 2024, ruling. The current Project is identical to that approved in 2022 (Source: 2/17/22, City Staff Report, 3/15/24 Trial Court Ruling).

Conclusion #2: The Project Would Introduce a New “Truck Intensive” Use Immediately Adjacent to Existing Residential Homes
Contrary Facts & Evidence:

4. The Project is not “Truck Intensive” as only 12.9% of the total 2,292 total vehicle trips associated with the Project will be Trucks (Source: Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), Tables 3, 5)

5. The Project will result in substantially less traffic and significantly fewer total trips along Sun Lakes Boulevard than other alternative uses, such as multifamily residential (-954 trips), office (-6,904 trips) and commercial retail (-15,952 trips), and the scope of permitted uses under the Specific Plan (-1,658 total fewer trips) (Source: Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), Tables 4-2 [Project Trip Generation Summary] and 4-3).

6. The Sun Lakes residential community is over 330 feet to the south of the proposed warehouse building - not immediately adjacent – (Source: Project Site Plan) and will be separated from the proposed warehouse by a 14-foot barrier wall, future residential uses/businesses and Sun Lakes Boulevard, which is designated as a “Major Highway” (Source: General Plan, Circulation Element, Exh. III-5; Resolution 2024-149, pg. 26).

7. The existing Sun Lakes Village Drive commercial driveway is already utilized regularly by large trucks servicing the commercial businesses in the shopping center (Albertsons, PetSmart, Hobby Lobby) and therefore the Project will not introduce a “new” use to the surrounding area and existing roadways (Source: Project Site Plan; Conditions of Approval).

Contrary Facts & Evidence:

8. Applicant will construct two new traffic signals at both Country Club/Sun Lakes Blvd. and Sun Lakes Village Dr./Sun Lakes Blvd. with improvements including pedestrian crosswalks to connect existing sidewalks, thereby improving overall pedestrian safety (Source: Project Site Plan; Conditions of Approval).

9. Applicant will construct a dedicated golf cart lane and crossing where none currently exists, which will improve golf cart safety and access on Sun Lakes Boulevard (Source: Project Site Plan; Conditions of Approval).

10. The Addendum expressly concluded that the Project would not result in traffic safety or hazard risks or interfere with emergency access. (Source: Addendum, 4.17 [Transportation].)

11. All Project truck traffic will enter and exit the site via a dedicated truck drive aisle on Sun Lake Village Drive, an existing commercial driveway (with no current traffic signal) located west of the Sun Lakes Community’s primary entrance at Country Club Drive that is already utilized by heavy trucks to deliver goods to the Sun Lakes Village shopping center, which will avoid conflicts with passenger vehicles (Source: Project Site Plan; Addendum, 4.17 [Transportation], p. 87 [no circulation design hazards]).

12. The lower traffic associated with the Project will ensure that access for emergency services to the assisted living and other residential uses are better than as compared to a full commercial/retail or office buildout of the site (Source: Addendum, 4.17 [Transportation], p. 87 [no impacts to emergency access]; Traffic Impacts Analysis (TIA), Table 3).

Conclusion #3: Project Would Create Significant, Increased Traffic & Pedestrian Hazards & Safety Risks to Residents
Conclusion #4: The Project Would Create Significant Noise Impacts for Area Residents Contrary Facts & Evidence:

13. The daytime and nighttime noise increases will be minimal in nature and below the 3 dba threshold to establish a measurable noise impact (Source: Addendum, 4.13 [Noise] Table 15).

14. The proposed warehouse building is situated more than 330 feet away from the Sun Lakes residential community, up against the I-10 freeway at the rear of the property and will be separated from the retail/commercial component of the Project (and residential areas further south) by a 14-foot noise barrier wall (Source: Project Site Plan; Conditions of Approval).

15. The trial court expressly rejected Pass Action Group’s claims that the Project would result in significant noise impacts in its March 15, 2024, ruling (Source: 3/15/24 Trial Court Ruling).

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS OF
RESOLUTIONS 2024-150 AND
2024-151

DESIGNBUILD
Analysis of Findings of Fact
• The EIR Addendum has been found complete and sufficient by the Superior Court. Its analysis is therefore correct.
• The Findings in Resolutions 2024-150 and 2024-151 are based entirely on opinion, and are not supported by fact.
• The record, on the other hand, provides substantial evidence that the Tentative Parcel Map and Design Review must be approved.

Traffic & Circulation
• Sun Lakes Boulevard is a Major Highway, with a capacity for 30,400 vehicles per day.
• Sun Lakes Village Drive is a commercial driveway, designed to carry trucks accessing the shopping center’s back of house.
• The Project will generate 2,292 actual vehicle trips, and only 296 of those will be trucks – 12.9%.
• The primary access to the industrial site is Sun Lakes Village Drive, with a dedicated truck lane included in the Project design.
• Project traffic from the east side driveway will be 12 vehicles in the morning peak hour, and 72 in the evening peak hour.
• All intersections operate at or better than General Plan LOS C standards. • The Project is adding two traffic signals with crosswalks and a dedicated golf cart lane to improve safety.
• The Lakes community will continue to have dedicated access.

Land Use
• The Project implements the General Plan and Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan.
• The City determined that industrial, retail and office uses were appropriate for the site in 2020.
• The Project provides a buffer to residential to the south of more than 330 feet, and to the east of 100 feet.

Noise
• An audible noise increase is 3 dBA.
• The Project will increase noise levels by no more than 0.4 dBA at either Sun Lakes Country Club or the Lakes facility.

The Project meets all the City’s noise standards.

Air Quality
• The emissions from the Project are all below the standards set by the SCAQMD.

ANALYSIS OF CLAIMS

AND CONCERNS

DESIGNBUILD
2011: Property Purchased
• McRae Gomez Companies purchased
property from Bank (Far East NB)
2012 - 2013: Property Marketed for
Mixed-Use & Dealership
• Listed with Lee & Associates
• No interest or offers
2014 - 2016: Property Marketed for Retail Uses
• Listed with Neece Commercial
• Retail developer pursued Theater, Big Box Retailers, etc. • Buyer dropped the deal after nearly 2 years of trying to put together retail development
2016 - 2017: Property Marketed for Mixed-Use &
Housing
• Listed with Daum Commercial
• Property was reviewed 67 times (housing &
retail)
• No interest in the project due to demand for
areas with “higher demographic support”
2018 - 2019: Property Listed as Mixed-Use &
Retail
• Listed with Lee & Associates
• Proposed Uses Included Theater, Health
Club, Restaurants, Office, Big Box Retailers,
Residential
2019 - Current: Creation/McRae Gomez Preliminary Rezone Discussions Commence followed by full rezone efforts
• March 2020: Sun Lakes Community Meeting
• December 2020: Sun Lakes Village North SPA/EIR adopted • October 2021: Planning Commission Hearing
Broker Feedback
• Retail: “Activity has been minimal, reached out to all the likely larger mixed-use developers that appear to be disinterested in this property.” • Land/Residential: “Our database does include hundreds of land investors and commercial developers but unfortunately no interest.” • Office: “Office development is really dead including the AAA location areas in the IE.” • False - Vaulter purchased the property 13 years ago (2011). For the first 8 years of ownership, Vaulter pursued many other uses besides Warehouse through:
• 4 different marketing strategies.
• 3 national commercial brokerage / real estate marketing firms (Lee & Associates twice).

Claim 1: Sun Lakes Residents and PAG claim that Creation / Vaulter have never attempted to pursue other land uses aside from Warehouse.

Current Site Plan Site Plan - Sun Lakes Community Meeting, March 2020 Claim 2: Creation / Vaulter “Bait & Switched” the Sun Lakes residents and the current site plan is materially different than the site plan presented at the Sub Lakes community meeting in March 2020. • False - Not only do the exhibits from the 2020 presentation prove this claim untrue, changing the site plan would have jeopardized the CEQA document and the project’s review. • The site plan presentation drew a standing ovation from the Sun Lakes residents. • Creation / Vaulter presented the two site plans side by side during the December 2021 Planning Commission meeting specifically to prove this point.
• False - Empirical data from the project’s Traffic Engineers (Urban Crossroads) proves this untrue. • The Trip Generation analysis is below, and shows a total of 296 +axle truck trips daily, with ~1 truck trip every 5 minutes during both AM and PM peak hours. The analysis also illustrates that the Retail component of the project generates roughly as much traffic as the Warehouse component.

Land Use Quantity Units1 AM Peak Hour2 PM Peak Hour3 Daily Trips Industrial 619.959 TSF
Passenger Cars 39 71 916
Trucks (2-5 Axle) 13 13 296
Retail
Passenger Cars 34.000 TSF 48 155 1,080
TOTAL 653.959 TSF 100 237 2,292
This equates to 1 truck
approximately every
5 minutes during the
peak hours
1 TSF = Thousand Square Feet
2 AM peak hour occurs between 7-9 AM.
3 PM peak hour occurs between 4-6 PM.

Claim 3: The project overloads the site with warehouse which in turn will create enormous amounts of traffic (specifically truck traffic) presenting a public safety issue to Sun Lakes residents. • Furthermore, the Warehouse use generates significantly less traffic than other potential land uses (namely, multi-family residential, office, and retail / commercial).

Land Use Quantity Units1 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Proposed Project
Industrial 619.959 TSF
Passenger Cars 39 71 916
Trucks 13 13 296
TOTAL 52 84 1,212
Alternative 1: Multifamily
Multifamily Residential2 453 DU 168 177 2,060
NET CHANGE -116 -93 -848
Alternative 2: Office
General Office3 921.773 TSF 1,180 1,041 8,010
NET CHANGE -1,128 -957 -6,798
Alternative 3: Retail
Commercial Retail 4 460.887 TSF 387 1,567 17,058
NET CHANGE -335 -1,483 -15,846
Lowest Traffic Generation
1 TSF = Thousand Square Feet;
DU = Dwelling Units
2 Dwelling units determined based on 30.23-
acre industrial site x 15 dwelling units/acre
3 Office square footage determined based
on 30.23-acre industrial site x 43,560
square feet/acre x 0.75 floor-to-area ratio
4 Retail square footage determined based on

30.23-acre industrial site x 43,560 square
feet/acre x 0.35 floor-to-area ratio
Claim 3 (continued): The project overloads the site with warehouse which in turn will create enormous amounts of traffic (specifically truck traffic) presenting a public safety issue to Sun Lakes residents. • Lastly, the current site plan contemplates ~260,000 square feet less than allowed per the Specific Plan Amendment.

This results in 1,552 less daily trips than what was included in the Specific Plan Amendment.

Claim 3 (continued): Land Uses/Traffic-The project overloads the site with industrial use which in turn creates enormous amounts of traffic.

Land Use Quantity Units1 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Project Trip Generation Summary:

Industrial 619.959 TSF
Passenger Cars 39 71 916
Trucks 13 13 296
Retail & Restaurant
Passenger Cars 34.000 TSF 48 155 1,080
TOTAL 653.959 TSF 100 237 2,292
Specific Plan Amendment:

Industrial 877.298 TSF
Passenger Cars 309 316 2,514
Trucks 42 36 444
Retail
Passenger Cars 37.189 TSF 24 93 886
TOTAL 914.487 TSF 375 445 3,844
NET CHANGE -260.528 TSF -275 -208 -1,552
1 TSF = Thousand Square Feet
Overall Net Reduction in Trips
• False - Creation/ Vaulter has made many costly concessions to the Sun Lakes residents in order to alleviate concerns ◊Creation/ Vaulter removed developable land area to add a truck lane on Sun Lakes Village Dr. Per Sun Lakes’ request. Sun Lakes residents wanted this in order to reduce trucks driving across the community on Sun Lakes BLVD to enter the site on the east side.
◊Creation/ Vautler Extended left turn pocket on San Lakes BLVD to enter on Sun Lakes Village Dr. * Added new signal light at the intersection
◊ Sun Lakes Community Entrance
* Creation/ Vaulter added new 150’ left turn lane
* Creation/ Vaulter added new signal light at intersection * Creation/ Vaulter added designated golf cart path and crossing to offer easy access to the shopping center for Sun Lakes residents
Claim 4: Traffic Circulation - Creation/ Vaulter has not done anything to improve traffic circulation design.

Site Plan + Key Design Elements
Land Use ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Proposed Project1 28.67 49.96 162.6 0.54 48.91 13.72
Threshold1 55 55 550 150 150 55
% Below Threshold 48% 9% 70% 99% 67% 75%
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Particulate Matter (PM)
1 Emissions measured in lbs/day
Claim 5: Air Pollution -The project, specifically the warehouse component, will exceed Air Emission Thresholds. • False - Creation/ Vaulter’s air quality analysis empirically proved this to be untrue. • Result - Per the air quality engineers, the project actually produces LESS emissions than SCAQMD thresholds in ALL SIX CATEGORIES. The following diagram has also been presented at Planning Commission and Council.

Land Use ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Proposed Project Emissions Totals 28.58 49.10 161.88 0.54 48.88 13.69 Alternative 11
: Multifamily Residential 136.47 20.94 334.62 0.75 49.94 39.02 Exceeds Project Emissions? YES NO YES YES YES YES
Alternative 22: Professional Office 46.12 35.95 245.48 0.56 55.02 15.01 Exceeds Project Emissions? YES NO YES YES YES YES
Alternative 33
: General Commercial 64.49 75.18 521.43 1.18 117.06 31.86 Exceeds Project Emissions? YES YES YES YES YES YES Highest Impact All the alternative land
uses would result in
greater emissions in
5 out of 6 emissions
categories compared to
the project.
1 Alternative 1 = 453 dwelling units, based on 30.23-acre industrial site x 15 dwelling units/acre. 2 Alternative 2 = 921,773 square feet of general office, based on 30.23-acre industrial site x 43,560 square feet/acre x 0.75 floor-to-area ratio. 3 Alternative 3 = 460,887 square feet of commercial retail, based on 30.23-acre industrial site x 43,560 square feet/acre x 0.75 floor-to-area ratio.

Particulate Matter (PM)
Claim 6: Air Pollution -The project produces greater Air Emissions (lbs/day) than alternative uses. • False - Creation/ Vaulter’s air quality analysis empirically proved this to be untrue. • Result - The project was found to produce LESS emissions in 5 out of 6 categories. Commercial/Retail use is shown to produce the highest emissions.
• Site designed to minimize noise exposure from
loading docks
• Building structure will reduce existing noise
levels from the I-10 Freeway and Railroad
• 14-foot-high screenwalls are provided for both
loading docks areas
• The noise analysis shows that the nearest noise
sensitive receiver locations will experience a
“barely perceptible” noise level increase of less
than 3 dBA Leq.

Claim 7: Noise Pollution - The project produces inordinate noise for adjacent owners. • False - Creation/ Vaulter also engaged engineers to study Noise Pollution based on the site plan. Based on location of buildings, building height, and high screen walls, the nearest noise sensitive receiver will experience “barely perceptible” noise level increase of less than 3 dBA Leq.

DISCUSSION OF

ECONOMIC BENEFITS

DESIGNBUILD
Economic Benefits
Data from DPFG (Development Planning & Financing Group, INC - Numbers are projections/estimates from DPFG
68 Retail
440
Warehouse
208
Future
Office &
Professional
716
Permanent
Full-Time
(at full build-out) Impact Fees (Industrial):
$4,514,000
Impact Fees (At Full Build Out):
$9,031,000
Approximate Project Assessed Value: $173,000,000
Jobs Created Total Annual Tax Revenue – $1,727,000
Approximately: $1,727,000 over 10 years
Total Tax Revenue to City of Banning Annually: $494,000 Approximately: $4,940,000over 10 years
Total Tax Revenue to Banning Unified Schools Annually: $665,000 Approximately: $6,650,000 over 10 years
QUESTIONS?

DESIGNBUILD

DESIGNBUILD
Bob Agahi
Founding Member
[email protected]
602.400.8898
David Sellers
Founding Member
[email protected]
602.600.6363
Josh Zemon
Principal - Chief Investment Officer
[email protected]
312.286.2601
Auggie Gomez
Vaulter
[email protected]

396 HAYES STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102
T: (415) 552-7272 F: (415) 552-5816
www.smwlaw.com
KEVIN P. BUNDY
Attorney
[email protected]

SHUTE MIHALY
WEINBERGER llp
August 29, 2024
Via Electronic Mail
Mayor Alberto Sanchez
Members of the City Council
City of Banning
99 E. Ramsey St.

Banning, CA 92220
E-Mail: [email protected]
Emery J. Papp
Senior Planner
Community Development Department
City of Banning
99 E. Ramsey St.

Banning, CA 92220
E-Mail: [email protected]
Serita Young
City Attorney
City of Banning
99 E. Ramsey St.

Banning, CA 92220
E-Mail: [email protected]
Sandra Calderon
Development Project Coordinator
City of Banning
99 E. Ramsey Street
Banning, CA 92220
E-Mail: [email protected]
Re: Banning Point Project:

Mayor Alberto Sanchez and Members of the City Council
Emery J. Papp
Serita Young
Sandra Calderon
August 29, 2024

Page 2 ends

I. The Applicants’ Litigation Threats Lack Merit.

A. The Applicants Have Not Shown that the Council’s July 9 Decisions Must Be Set Aside.

1. Councilmember Happe Has Not Exhibited an Unacceptable Probability of Actual Bias Against the Project.

As I stated earlier, the project has already had a negative impact on the neighborhood before it was even built, before one truck rolled through the neighborhood, before one truck was unloaded.

Mayor Alberto Sanchez and Members of the City Council
Emery J. Papp
Serita Young
Sandra Calderon
August 29, 2024

Page 3 ends

2. The Applicants’ Letter Does Not Establish that the Council’s July 9 Decisions Must Be Reconsidered Due to Councilmember Flynn’s Participation.

Mayor Alberto Sanchez and Members of the City Council
Emery J. Papp
Serita Young
Sandra Calderon
August 29, 2024

Page 4 ends

Mayor Alberto Sanchez and Members of the City Council
Emery J. Papp
Serita Young
Sandra Calderon
August 29, 2024

Page 5 ends

B. Even if the Applicants Could Establish Bias, There Is No Basis for the Applicants’ Threat to Seek $25 Million in Damages.

Mayor Alberto Sanchez and Members of the City Council
Emery J. Papp
Serita Young
Sandra Calderon
August 29, 2024

Page 6 ends

Page 7 ends

See, e.g., Wesley Inv. Co. v. County of Alameda (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 672, 678.

Page 8 ends

II. The City Council Should Adopt Findings of Denial for Both Design Review and the Tentative Parcel Map.

A. The City Has Broad Discretion in Determining Whether the Project Is Consistent with the General Plan, Specific Plan, and Municipal Code.

Mayor Alberto Sanchez and Members of the City Council
Emery J. Papp
Serita Young
Sandra Calderon
August 29, 2024

Page 9 ends

SHUTE MIHALY
C" - WE IN BERG ER llp
approve the tentative parcel map or design review if it finds any inconsistency between the Project and the General Plan, Specific Plan, or zoning ordinance.

B. The Law and the Evidence in the Record Support Findings of Denial for the Design Review.

Mayor Alberto Sanchez and Members of the City Council
Emery J. Papp
Serita Young
Sandra Calderon
August 29, 2024

Page 10 ends

The Council can and should deny design review based on each of the four findings required by Municipal Code section 17.56.050.

1. The Project Is Inconsistent with the General Plan.

The City Council can—and should—find the Project inconsistent with the General Plan on numerous grounds.8

Mayor Alberto Sanchez and Members of the City Council
Emery J. Papp
Serita Young
Sandra Calderon
August 29, 2024

Page 11 ends

Facts in the record support findings of inconsistency with these goals and policies.

Mayor Alberto Sanchez and Members of the City Council
Emery J. Papp
Serita Young
Sandra Calderon
August 29, 2024

Page 12 ends

Mayor Alberto Sanchez and Members of the City Council
Emery J. Papp
Serita Young
Sandra Calderon
August 29, 2024

Page 13 ends

Page 14 ends

For all of these reasons, the City Council can and should find the Project inconsistent with the General Plan.

Mayor Alberto Sanchez and Members of the City Council
Emery J. Papp
Serita Young
Sandra Calderon
August 29, 2024

Page 15 ends

SHUTE MIHALY
C" - WE IN BERG ER llp

2. The Project Is Inconsistent with the Specific Plan.

Allowable Land Uses). The subdivision design shown on the tentative parcel map is thus inconsistent with the land use categories in the Specific Plan and the zoning ordinance.

Mayor Alberto Sanchez and Members of the City Council
Emery J. Papp
Serita Young
Sandra Calderon
August 29, 2024

Page 16 ends

3. The Design and Layout of the Project Will Unreasonably Interfere with the Use and Enjoyment of Neighboring
Development and Will Create Pedestrian and Vehicular
Hazards.

Mayor Alberto Sanchez and Members of the City Council
Emery J. Papp
Serita Young
Sandra Calderon
August 29, 2024

Page 17 ends

SHUTE MIHALY
C" - WE IN BERG ER llp
Project will unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring development and create pedestrian and vehicular hazards.

4. The Design of the Project is Incompatible with the Character of the Surrounding Neighborhood.

C. The City Council Also Must Deny the Tentative Parcel Map The City Council should deny the tentative parcel map for many of the same reasons that support denial of design review.

Page 18 ends

Mayor Alberto Sanchez and Members of the City Council
Emery J. Papp
Serita Young
Sandra Calderon
August 29, 2024

Page 19 ends

13. The tentative parcel map cannot be separated so easily from the design review.

Gov. Code § 66474(c), (d).

If staff does not prepare such findings, the Council should direct staff to do so for presentation at a future meeting.

Mayor Alberto Sanchez and Members of the City Council
Emery J. Papp
Serita Young
Sandra Calderon
August 29, 2024

Page 20 ends

15 See also Letter from Kevin P. Bundy, Shute Mihaly & Weinberger LLP, to Mayor Alberto Sanchez et al., Re: Banning City Council July 9, 2024 Agenda Items 6.2 and 7.1:

Appeal and proposed reapproval of Banning Point Project (Tentative Map No. 38164 and Design Review No. 21-7008) (July 9, 2024), incorporated herein by reference.

Mayor Alberto Sanchez and Members of the City Council
Emery J. Papp
Serita Young
Sandra Calderon
August 29, 2024

Page 21 ends

Very truly yours,

SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP
Kevin P. Bundy
cc: Caroline Patton (via email: [email protected])
1819652.3

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Report of Officers Item 8.2

CONTINUED DISCUSSION & DELIBERATION
SEPTEMBER 10, 2024
DR 21-7008 & TPM 38164
BANNING POINT PROJECT – CONSIDERATION OF A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO DIVIDE 47 ACRES OF VACANT LAND INTO 3 PARCELS; AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE BUILDING OF 619,959 SQUARE FEET, INCLUDING 10,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE, AND SIX RETAIL/COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS TOTALING 34,000 SQUARE FEET WITHIN THE SUN LAKES VILLAGE NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN AREA (APN 419-140-057)
Background
• On July 9, 2024, the City Council conducted a noticed public hearing on the proposed Banning Point Project.
• During the hearing, all interested persons were given the opportunity to speak, including the Project Applicant and the Appellant. • Following the close of the public hearing, the City Council discussed and deliberated on the Project and directed City staff to prepare a resolution for the Council’s consideration at a later date that would approve the subdivision proposed in the Tentative Parcel Map, deny the Design Review application, and make findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
• This item is now back before the City Council for continued discussion and deliberation by the Council.

Exhibit D
Background (cont’d)
• On July 25, 2024, the City received a letter sent on behalf of the owners of the Project property – Sun Lakes Highland, LLC (SLH). The letter requests that the City Council:
• Vacate and set aside all action taken and direction given by the Council to staff at the July 9th hearing regarding the Project, including the direction to have staff prepare a resolution for denial of the Design Review component of the Project entitlements; and • Reschedule the Project for a new hearing at which the City Council would reconsider the Project entitlements without the participation of Councilmembers Flynn and Happe. • On August 29, 2024, the City received a letter sent on behalf of the Appellant. The letter responds to the SLH letter, requests that the City Council deny all Project entitlements, and requests that the City Council direct staff to conduct additional environmental review on the proposed Project. • On September 4, 2024, the City received a memorandum from SLH. The memorandum responds to comments there were made in opposition to the Project during the July 9th hearing and restates information previously provided to the Planning Commission and the City Council. • The City Council has received copies of all correspondences received from the Project Applicant and the Appellant.

Background (cont’d)
• In light of the communications received from the Project Applicant and the Appellant since the close of the July 9th hearing, City staff has prepared three resolutions for the Council’s consideration once the Council resumes its deliberations following the receipt of public comment:
• Resolution 2024-149, approving TPM No. 38164 and DR No. 21-7008, and adopting an Addendum under CEQA;
• Resolution 2024-150, approving TPM No. 38164, denying DR No. 21-7008, and adopting an Addendum under CEQA;
• Resolution 2024-151, denying TPM No. 38164 and DR No. 21-7008, and finding the Project exempt from CEQA.

Continued City Council Discussion
and Deliberation
• Tonight the City Council continues its discussion and deliberation on the Project. • Before continuing your discussion and deliberation, the Council should receive public comments on this agenda item, including comments from the Project Applicant and the Appellant. Note, this is not a public hearing. The Council closed the public hearing on this Project during the July 9th meeting. Public comments are required this evening under the Brown Act because this is an item on the City Council’s meeting agenda. • The City Council may not consider any new evidence or new facts presented this evening that were not presented before or during the public hearing on July 9th. New evidence and facts can only be submitted and considered if the Council sets the matter for a new public hearing and takes the evidence during that new public hearing.

Continued City Council Discussion
and Deliberation (cont’d)
• At the conclusion of public comments, the City Council should resume its discussion and deliberation on the proposed TPM, the appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the DR for the Project, and the Addendum prepared under CEQA, which discussion and deliberation were continued from the July 9th meeting.
• As part of the Council’s deliberation, staff recommends that the City Council first consider the Project applicant’s request to conduct a new public hearing on the Project and consider the Appellant’s response to the Applicant’s request. • The City Council may direct staff to notice a new public hearing for the Project. • Alternatively, the City Council could determine to continue with its consideration of, and action on, the Project.

Continued City Council Discussion
and Deliberation (cont’d)
• Should the City Council decide to continue with its consideration of the Project and take action on the Project, the City Council should adopt one of the resolutions:
• Resolution 2024-149, approving TPM No. 38164 and DR No. 21-7008, and adopting an Addendum under CEQA;
• Resolution 2024-150, approving TPM No. 38164, denying DR No. 21-7008, and adopting an Addendum under CEQA; or
• Resolution 2024-151, denying TPM No. 38164 and DR No. 21-7008, and finding the Project exempt under CEQA.

Continued City Council Discussion
and Deliberation (cont’d)
• Resolution 2024-149, approving TPM No. 38164 and DR No. 21-7008, and adopting an Addendum under CEQA.
• It remains staff’s recommendation that the City Council approve the Project for the reasons stated in the July 9th City Council staff report.

Continued City Council Discussion
and Deliberation (cont’d)
• Resolution 2024-150, approving TPM No. 38164, denying DR No. 21- 7008, and adopting an Addendum under CEQA.
• Consistent with the City Council’s direction given on July 9th, City staff has prepared this resolution for the Council’s consideration. • Note, in this circumstance, adoption of the Addendum would be necessary to satisfy CEQA before the Council could approve TPM No. 38164.

Continued City Council Discussion
and Deliberation (cont’d)
• Resolution 2024-150, approving TPM No. 38164, denying DR No. 21-7008, and adopting an Addendum under CEQA.
• Consistent with the City Council’s direction given on July 9th, City staff has prepared this resolution for the Council’s consideration. • Note, in this circumstance, adoption of the Addendum would be necessary to satisfy CEQA before the Council could approve TPM No. 38164.

Continued City Council Discussion
and Deliberation (cont’d)
• Resolution 2024-151, denying TPM No. 38164 and DR No. 21-7008, and finding the Project exempt under CEQA.
• Based on the subsequent comments received from the Appellant, staff has also prepared this resolution for the Council’s review and consideration, which would deny TPM No. 38164 and DR No. 21-7008, and make findings for an exemption from CEQA based on project disapproval.

Conclusion

THANK YOU & QUESTIONS
Emery J. Papp
Planning Manager
[email protected]
Zoning Map – Allowable Uses in the BW
District
Permitted Uses:
- Pet Boarding
- Pet Grooming
- Recreation & Entertainment Facilities
- Cafes, Coffee Shops, Delis
- Coffee and Tea Houses
- Restaurants
- Child Day Care Services (Employer Provided)
- Labs
- Medical and Dental Offices
- Rehabilitation Services
- Administrative & Support Services
- Corporate Offices
- Courier and Messenger Services
- Data Processing, Billing, and Related Services
- Finance & Insurance Offices
- Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
- Publishing Industries
- Real Estate Offices
- Recording and Sound Studios
- Telecommunications Facilities
- Internet Fulfillment, Distribution, E-Commerce
- Merchant Wholesalers, Durable Goods – Limited
- Non-Store Retailers
- Public Storage
- Warehousing & Storage
Conditionally Permitted Uses:
- Alcoholic Beverage Sales (on-site)
- Outdoor Dining
- Congregate Care Facilities
- Hospitals
- Vocational/Trade Schools & Colleges
Zoning Map – Allowable Uses in the RS
District
Permitted Uses:
- Antique & Collectible Shops
- Apparel & Shoe Stores
- Art Galleries
- Bicycle Shops
- Bookstores
- Cell Phone and Electronics Stores
- Consignment Shops
- Drug Stores & Pharmacies
- Florists
- Food Markets & Grocery Stores
- Furniture Stores
- Gift Shops
- Hardware Stores
- Hobby Shops
- Jewelry Stores
- Office Supply Stores
- Pet Supply Stores
- Banks, Credit Unions & Financial Institutions
- Barber, Beauty & Nail Salons
- Gyms & Fitness Centers
- Dry Cleaners & Laundry Services
- Instructional Studios
- Pet Grooming
- Bakery Shops, Candy Shops, Ice Cream Shops, Yogurt Shops - Cafes, Coffee Shops, Delis
- Coffee and Tea Houses
- Restaurants
- Outdoor Dining
- Medical and Dental Offices
- Rehabilitation Services
Conditionally Permitted Uses:
- Veterinary Clinics & Hospitals
- Bars, Brew Pubs & Cocktail Lounges
- Alcoholic Beverage Sales (on-site)
- Drive-thrus & Drive-ins

Banning City CouncilSeptember 10, 2024

Banning City Council
September 10, 2024