Agenda packet — Big Bear Lake City Council, February 7, 2022 (part 1 of 4)

CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
FEBRUARY 7, 2022
Closed Session: 5:00 pm, Training Room, 39707 Big Bear Boulevard, Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 Open Session: 6:00 pm, Hofert Hall, 39707 Big Bear Boulevard, Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 __________________________________________________________________________________________

COUNCILMEMBERS

MAYOR RICK HERRICK

MAYOR PRO TEM BYNETTE MOTE

COUNCILMEMBER ALAN LEE

COUNCILMEMBER PERRI MELNICK

COUNCILMEMBER RANDALL PUTZ

CITY STAFF
CITY MANAGER FRANK A. RUSH, JR.

CITY ATTORNEY STEPHEN DEITSCH

CITY CLERK ERICA STEPHENSON
Please Note: Agenda items may be moved at the discretion of the City Council.

Target times for each item are indicated in RED, and are provided as an approximate time only. The actual time of consideration will deviate depending on the pace of the meeting, and at the discretion of the Presiding Officer.

The public is encouraged to submit written public communications about any item on this meeting agenda, or about any subject matter within the jurisdiction of the City, to the City Clerk in person, via mail or by email at [email protected]. If your comment is related to a specific Agenda item, please identify the Agenda item in the header of your letter or the subject line of your email. All written communications received by the City Clerk prior to the meeting will be distributed to the City Council prior to the start of the meeting, however, the public is encouraged to submit comments by 8:00 am on the day of the meeting to ensure adequate time for Council review and consideration.

OPEN SESSION

CLOSED SESSION PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
Any member of the public is entitled to speak on Closed Session Agenda items. If you wish to address any other items listed on the Agenda, you must do so during Open Session.

CLOSED SESSION 5:00 pm

1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 Name of Negotiators: City Manager and Director of Human Resources Name of Organization: Teamsters Local 1932
OPEN SESSION 6:00 pm

CALL TO ORDER

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
February 7, 2022 - Page 2

INVOCATION
Invocation will be led by Pastor Tom Owens.

ROLL CALL

RESULTS OF CLOSED SESSION

PRESENTATIONS
• Introduction of New City Employees:
 Mario Hernandez, Facilities/Parks Maintenance Worker – Public Services Department  Travis Mayne, Facilities/Parks Maintenance Worker – Public Services Department • Presentation of a Proclamation recognizing February 2022 as “Teen Dating Violence Awareness and Prevention Month” to Quinton Page, Program Director of DOVES.

PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
Public comment is permitted at this time only on consent calendar items and other matters not listed on the posted agenda that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City. Please note that State law prohibits the City Council from taking any action on items not listed on the agenda. There is a three-minute maximum time limit when addressing Council during this time period. The time limit is subject to adjustment at the discretion of the Presiding Officer.

Speakers are limited to their individual maximum time limit and other members of the public cannot cede their speaking time to another person. Public comment on items listed on the posted agenda (public hearing & discussion/ action items) will be taken at the time each item is called for discussion.

1. CONSENT CALENDAR 6:15 pm

1.1 APPROVAL OF DEMANDS – CHECK ISSUE DATE 12/15/2021 THROUGH 1/20/2022 IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,169,187 AND THE DECEMER 2021 TREASURER’S REPORT

1.2 APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES FROM THE JANUARY 11, 2022 REGULAR MEETING

OF CITY COUNCIL

1.3 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A DELEGATE FOR THE MOJAVE DESERT MOUNTAIN

INTEGRATED WASTE JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY
City Council will consider a formal resolution confirming the appointment of Mayor Pro Tem Mote as the City’s Delegate and Councilmember Melnick as the City’s Alternate to the Mojave Desert Mountain Integrated Waste Joint Powers Authority Board of Directors.

1.4 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A DELEGATE FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

SOLID WASTE ADVISORY TASK FORCE
City Council will consider a formal resolution confirming the Mayor’s appointment of Mayor Pro Tem Mote as the City’s delegate and Councilmember Melnick as the City’s alternate to the San Bernardino County Solid Waste Advisory Task Force (SWAT).

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
February 7, 2022 - Page 3

1.5 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING BID SOLICITATION FOR SANITARY SEWER LINE

REHABILITATION EFFORTS
City Council will consider a formal resolution authorizing the solicitation of bids for the rehabilitation of approximately 2,000 linear feet of sanitary sewer lines in the Red Ant Hill area of the City. This project includes the installation of “cured in place” pipe, which acts as a liner within existing sanitary sewer pipeline, and will correct concerns created by root intrusion, pipe collapse or erosion, and other concerns that inhibit sanitary sewer flow. The “cured in place” approach will extend the useful life of the sanitary sewer lines, prevent the need to dig up and replace the lines, and limit the degree of disruption in the community. A total of $125,000 is included in the FY 2021-22 Sanitation Fund budget for this project.

Assuming favorable bids, a contract recommendation will be presented to City Council in April so that work may commence as soon as the weather conditions permit.

1.6 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CONTRACT FOR THE DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES LOCATED AT 794 AND 808 IRIS DRIVE
City Council will consider a formal resolution authorizing a contract with UBD, Inc., North Hollywood, CA, in the amount of $53,000 for the demolition of City-owned structures located at 794 and 808 Iris Drive.

These structures are located in the northeastern corner of the Civic Center campus, and the demolition of these structures will allow the City to utilize this land for alternative purposes in the future. City Council has previously discussed various ideas for the future use of this property, including workforce housing, new City facilities, or open space. The FY 2021-22 budget includes a total appropriation of $85,000 for this project. A total of 8 bids were received for the demolition, with UBD, Inc. submitting the lowest responsive bid. If awarded, demolition work would commence later this spring as weather conditions permit.

1.7 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE CIVIC CENTER

EAST SIDEWALK HEATER PROJECT
City Council will consider a formal resolution authorizing a Notice of Completion for the Civic Center East Sidewalk Heater Project. The City Council awarded a construction contract to S. Porter, Inc., Big Bear City, CA, in August 2021 for the installation of heating elements for the existing sidewalk on the east side of the Civic Center complex. The sidewalks were constructed as part of a previous project, however, the heating elements were deferred at that time due to budgetary constraints. S. Porter, Inc. has now completed the installation of the heating elements and all associated infrastructure, and the project has been inspected by appropriate City staff. The total expenditure for this project is $84,000, which is consistent with the awarded construction contract and the authorized project budget.

1.8 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A PURCHASE ORDER FOR SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE COVERS
City Council will consider a formal resolution authorizing a purchase order with Famcon Pipe and Supply, Inc., Oxnard, CA, in the amount of $42,086 for the purchase of 100 sanitary sewer manhole covers. The Public Services Department is responsible for the maintenance and operation of the City’s sanitary sewer system, which includes approximately 200 miles of pipeline, 12 lift stations, and 3,000 manholes. As a part of routine system maintenance and City street rehabilitation work, City staff replace approximately 100 sewer manhole covers annually. The City utilizes a standard product manufactured by PAMREX, and seeks to continue to utilize these products in the sanitary sewer system. Famcon Pipe and Supply, Inc. is the only designated supplier for this product within the region. The FY 2021-22 budget includes a total appropriation of $100,000 for sewer manhole covers.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
February 7, 2022 - Page 4

1.9 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF A NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO COMPLY WITH SB 1383 PURSUANT TO A CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN PRESCRIBED BY SB 619 City Council will consider a formal resolution authorizing the submission of a notification of intent to comply with the requirements of SB 1383 through the development of a corrective action plan as allowed by SB 619.

SB 1383 is the State’s short-lived climate pollutants reduction strategy and focuses primarily on the elimination of organic material from landfills. SB 1383 went into effect on January 1, 2022 and mandates enhanced solid waste management and handling requirements, including source separation of organic material including vegetative debris (or yard waste) and food waste, and other strategies to eliminate organic waste from the typical solid waste stream. SB 619 was enacted into law in October 2021, and provides an expanded timeline for local jurisdictions to comply with the requirements of SB 1383. SB 1383 will require changes to the City’s existing curbside collection and commercial solid waste services, and the implementation of SB 1383 is one component of the City’s current efforts to improve the City’s overall solid waste program and execute a new long-term agreement for solid waste services. City staff anticipate that these efforts will culminate with the approval of a new long-term agreement for solid waste services within the next year, and the approval of the attached resolution and SB 619 corrective action plan would ultimately extend the City’s deadline to fully comply with SB 1383 to June 30, 2023.

1.10 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING GRANT FUNDING APPLICATIONS TO THE CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION FOR THE RECREATIONAL TRAILS

PROGRAM
City Council will consider a formal resolution authorizing the submission of two grant applications to the California Department of Parks and Recreation, Recreational Trails Program for a) future development of the Rathbun Creek bicycle and pedestrian trail, and b) future development of park amenities at the Stanfield Marsh property. The proposed resolution authorizes a $2 million grant application for the Rathbun Creek trail segments located between the Big Bear Alpine Zoo and Sandalwood Drive, and a $2 million grant application for the Stanfield Marsh park amenities, including new paved trails, boardwalk improvements, and parking lot improvements. If awarded, the grants would be matched with existing funding programmed for these projects, which is derived from other grants and transient occupancy tax revenues in the Measure Y Fund.

ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR

2. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Any person may appear and be heard in support or in opposition to the proposal at the time of the hearing. If you challenge the action in court or an administrative proceeding, you may be limited to raising only those issues which you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in the notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at or before the public hearing.

2.1 ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 16.07 – SUBDIVISIONS - AND CHAPTER 17.25 - RESIDENTIAL ZONES – OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO IMPLEMENT SB 9 AND REGULATE

URBAN LOT SPLITS AND ADDITIONAL UNITS ON SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL

PROPERTIES, AND FINDING THE ORDINANCE EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT 6:30 pm

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
February 7, 2022 - Page 5
City Council will conduct a public hearing to receive comments regarding proposed amendments to implement recent State mandates to allow for urban lot splits and approval of up to four units on singlefamily residential properties. The proposed ordinance implements SB 9, establishes a ministerial process for approval of urban lot splits and additional units, and includes various regulations intended to promote and preserve single-family neighborhood characteristics to the maximum extent possible. The proposed amendment to Chapter 16.07 – Subdivisions - includes the addition of section 16.07.060 - Urban Lot Splits - to allow and regulate these lot splits on R-L (residential low) and R-1 (single-family) zoned properties citywide. Proposed amendments to Chapter 17.25 – Residential Zones, specifically section 17.25.130 - Second Units and Two-Unit Projects, would allow and regulate such projects in the R-L (residential low) and R-1 (single-family) zone districts citywide. The proposed ordinance follows a similar urgency ordinance adopted by the City Council on January 11, 2022, and was discussed by the Planning Commission at its January 19, 2022 meeting. The Planning Commission voted 4-0 to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance.

2.2 2022 CITY COUNCIL REDISTRICTING 7:00 pm
City Council will receive a presentation, conduct a public hearing, and continue the City’s decennial redistricting process by reviewing several proposed draft district map options. All California public agencies that hold elections by district must ensure that their district boundaries are mapped according to the latest U.S. Census results and in accordance with California’s new Fair Maps Act. Decennial redistricting is required in an effort to balance the City’s population within the 5 Council districts and ensure proper consideration for communities of interest. This is the third of four required public hearings scheduled to allow for Council and community engagement, discussion, and legally-compliant district development. City Council will review the various map options and provide feedback at the February 7 meeting, and will conduct the 4th public hearing at the March 7 meeting. If there is some degree of consensus among the Council at the February 7 meeting, City Council is expected to formally consider and approve a new district map at the March 7 and April 4 meetings (two readings). However, if there is not consensus at the February 7 meeting, it may be necessary to schedule a special meeting sometime in March in order to meet the April 17 deadline for submission of the approved map to San Bernardino County.

2.3 RESOLUTION ADOPTING VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR CEQA PURPOSES 7:45 pm
City Council will conduct a public hearing and consider a formal resolution adopting VMT thresholds of significance. On July 1, 2020, state law went into effect whereby VMT replaced motor vehicle delay (measured by level of service, or LOS) as the metric to determine transportation impacts evaluated under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Under the City’s proposed standards, certain projects may be screened out from the need for additional transportation studies based on the size, type, and intensity. For example, projects that generate fewer than 500 average daily trips, retail projects with less than 50,000 square feet, smaller hotel developments, small and medium sized residential developments, and many public projects would not be required to address VMT impacts. Larger projects that are not initially screened out may need to prepare a more detailed assessment of the anticipated VMT impacts and implement mitigation measures. The Planning Commission considered the proposed VMT thresholds at a public meeting on December 15, 2021, and recommends adoption by the City Council.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
February 7, 2022 - Page 6

2.4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) APPLICATION FOR PROGRAM YEAR 2022-2023 8:15 pm
City Council will conduct a public hearing and consider two formal resolutions associated with City’s 2022- 23 CDBG application. City Council will receive public input before considering a recommendation to the San Bernardino Economic Development Agency to fund a portion of the cost of planned walkway improvements at Boulder Bay Park. The proposed resolution authorizes a CDBG allocation of approximately $39,194 for the project, and these funds would supplement anticipated future CDBG funds and Measure Y (transient occupancy tax) proceeds in future years to provide a total project budget of approximately $190,000 in FY 2023-24. City Council will also consider a formal resolution that would include a General Fund appropriation in the FY 2022-23 City budget in the amount of $40,000 for distribution to 8 eligible public service organizations. This approach enables the City to provide beneficial funding to all 8 organizations, and also reduces bureaucratic requirements associated with the CDBG program.

3. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS

3.1 RESOLUTION INCREASING THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MONTHLY STIPEND 8:30 pm
City Council will consider a formal resolution to increase the Department of Water and Power (DWP) Board of Commissioners compensation from $400 per month to $500 per month. The DWP Board’s compensation was last increased by the City Council in June 2005 to $400 per month. The DWP Board’s compensation was recently reviewed as part of a comprehensive compensation study, and that study recommended an increase to $600 per month. Additionally, the application of the consumer price index annually since 2005 would result in an increase to $603 per month. The proposed resolution, however, would establish a $500 per month stipend, and would be consistent with the current monthly stipend provided to members of the City Council.

3.2 ORDINANCE APPROVING AND ADOPTING A CITY POLICY REGARDING THE USE OF CITY FACILITIES AND RESOURCES FOR POLITICAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES 9:00 pm City Council will consider reading the title, waiving further reading, and introducing an ordinance that would approve and adopt a formal City policy prohibiting campaign activities at certain City facilities. The proposed ordinance would specifically prohibit these activities by any candidate or group inside of or on the grounds of any City of Big Bear Lake government building, including the Civic Center campus, the City Public Works facility, and the Department of Water & Power facility. The proposed ordinance would not apply to other local, State, and Federal government buildings in the City, however, campaign activities would be regulated by the building owner and/or public agency housed therein, and may or may not be permitted.

Campaign activities would continue to be permitted on private property (with the consent of the property owner), in City parks, and on City sidewalks, provided such activities do not create an unsafe condition for park users, pedestrians, or others. The proposed ordinance is presented to avoid the appearance of City support for a particular candidate or either side of any proposed ballot measure or citizen initiative.

4. COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & ADDITIONAL CITY BUSINESS 9:30 pm

4.1 CITY CLERK, CITY ATTORNEY, CITY MANAGER COMMENTS

4.2 COUNCILMEMBER BOARD/COMMITTEE REPORTS & COMMENTS

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
February 7, 2022 - Page 7

ADJOURNMENT
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing agenda was posted in accordance with the applicable legal requirements. Dated this 3rd day of February 2022.

Erica Stephenson, City Clerk

The City of Big Bear Lake wishes to make all of its public meetings accessible to the public. If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (909) 866-5831. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

Check# Vendor/Employee Date Amount
82959 San Bernardino County Vehicle Svcs Dept 12/16/2021 6,276.86 82960 Big Bear City CSD 12/16/2021 12,597.30
82962 Big Bear Disposal Inc 12/16/2021 101.01
82963 Butchers Blocks & Building Materials 12/16/2021 109.29 82964 Bear Valley Electric 12/16/2021 3,215.77
82965 Calolympic Glove & Safety Co 12/16/2021 1,165.94
82966 Charter Communications Holdings, LLC 12/16/2021 2,135.45 82968 Lumber City Corp. 12/16/2021 418.41
82969 Red Hat Properties - Big Bear LP 12/16/2021 265.00 82970 Granite Construction Company 12/16/2021 426,305.78 82971 Intelesys One, Inc. 12/16/2021 245.88
82973 Randy Spitz 12/16/2021 119.50
82975 OpenGov, Inc. 12/16/2021 7,000.00
82976 Orkin Inc. 12/16/2021 164.00
82977 Quill Corporation 12/16/2021 789.04
82979 Jose G. Vazquez 12/16/2021 2,020.00
82980 Waxie Sanitary Supply Inc. 12/16/2021 73.37
82981 All Protection Alarm 12/21/2021 1,713.01
82983 Big Bear Chamber of Commerce 12/21/2021 92.15
82985 Bear Valley Electric 12/21/2021 4,671.58
82988 Cintas Corporation 12/21/2021 142.74
82990 Red Hat Properties - Big Bear LP 12/21/2021 398.00 82992 The Grizzly 12/21/2021 1,124.50
82994 Hinderliter de Lamas & Assoc Inc. 12/21/2021 1,287.16 82996 Intelesys One, Inc. 12/21/2021 10,724.70
82999 Mountain Trophy & Pro Shop 12/21/2021 32.33
83000 Mountain Water Co 12/21/2021 112.00
83014 San Bernardino County Fire Department 12/28/2021 8,212.74 83015 Big Bear Lake Fire Protection District 12/28/2021 400,000.00 83016 Big Bear City CSD 12/28/2021 41,801.76
83017 Bear Valley Electric 12/28/2021 3,876.35
83018 Charter Communications Holdings, LLC 12/28/2021 328.51 83019 Fisher Integrated, Inc. 12/28/2021 1,200.00
83020 Frontier Communications 12/28/2021 1,198.34
83021 GFOA 12/28/2021 460.00
83022 The Grizzly 12/28/2021 467.50
83023 Intelesys One, Inc. 12/28/2021 5,930.00
83024 Lynn Merrill And Associates, Inc. 12/28/2021 6,369.78 83026 Quill Corporation 12/28/2021 1,307.99
83027 SESAC 12/28/2021 513.00
83028 Steven Enterprises, Inc 12/28/2021 120.03
83029 Southwest Gas Corporation 12/28/2021 5,645.62
83030 Transtech Engineers, Inc. 12/28/2021 20,102.50
83031 US Bank Corporate Payment Systems 12/28/2021 7,216.08 83032 Verizon Wireless 12/28/2021 1,211.73
83033 Willdan Engineering Inc 12/28/2021 126.00
83034 California State Water Resources Control Board 01/06/2022 10,393.00 83035 San Bernardino County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 01/06/2022 100.00 City of Big Bear Lake
Checks Issued 12/15/2021 - 01/20/2022
Check# Vendor/Employee Date Amount
City of Big Bear Lake
Checks Issued 12/15/2021 - 01/20/2022
83036 San Bernardino County Fire Department 01/06/2022 5,197.32 83037 San Bernardino County Sheriff's Dept 01/06/2022 407,680.00 83038 City of Big Bear Lake Dept of Water & Power 01/06/2022 277.85 83040 South Coast AQMD 01/06/2022 582.74
83041 A Performance Towing Inc 01/06/2022 7,500.00
83042 Big Bear Disposal Inc 01/06/2022 186,013.96
83043 Best Best & Krieger LLP 01/06/2022 30,384.03
83044 Clifford Fowler 01/06/2022 2,500.17
83045 Butchers Blocks & Building Materials 01/06/2022 1,011.93 83046 Bear Valley Electric 01/06/2022 4,644.80
83047 Bear Valley Paving, Inc. 01/06/2022 7,184.00
83048 Car Quest Auto Parts 01/06/2022 2,614.08
83049 Charter Communications Holdings, LLC 01/06/2022 1,017.99 83050 Cintas Corporation 01/06/2022 703.17
83051 C.S.M.F.O. 01/06/2022 110.00
83052 Dapeer Rosenblit & Litvak LLP 01/06/2022 140.00
83053 Lumber City Corp. 01/06/2022 353.95
83055 Frontier Communications 01/06/2022 309.51
83056 Golden Bell Products, Inc 01/06/2022 3,418.70
83057 Grainger Inc. 01/06/2022 561.41
83058 Granite Construction Company 01/06/2022 24,725.74 83059 Haaker Equipment Co. Inc. 01/06/2022 171.43
83060 Lance Soll & Lunghard 01/06/2022 7,515.00
83061 Ludecke's Electrical Service, Inc. 01/06/2022 330.00 83062 Hitchin Lucerne, Inc. 01/06/2022 215.48
83063 Marlin Business Bank 01/06/2022 1,660.06
83064 Mission Linen Supply Inc. 01/06/2022 2,394.24
83065 Genuine Auto Parts 01/06/2022 514.44
83066 Orkin Inc. 01/06/2022 190.00
83067 Parkhouse Tire, Inc. 01/06/2022 934.31
83068 Richardson Monument Co, Inc. 01/06/2022 2,145.00
83069 ROW Traffic Safety, Inc. 01/06/2022 353.72
83070 Rochester Midland Corporation 01/06/2022 611.64
83071 Romans Construction Corp. 01/06/2022 34,205.00
83072 Eric Seaman 01/06/2022 1,500.00
83073 Sierra Aggregate Co 01/06/2022 4,260.22
83074 Southwest Gas Corporation 01/06/2022 3,069.54
83076 Underground Service Alert Inc. 01/06/2022 133.45
83077 United Rentals (North America), Inc 01/06/2022 27,638.97 83078 Volvo Construction Equipment Inc. 01/06/2022 28,122.78 83079 Waxie Sanitary Supply Inc. 01/06/2022 3,084.07
83080 San Bernardino County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 01/13/2022 100.00 83081 San Bernardino County Recorder 01/13/2022 40.00
83082 Bear Valley Printing Inc 01/13/2022 1,223.22
83083 LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. 01/13/2022 80.00
83084 LSA Associates, Inc. 01/13/2022 4,988.75
83085 Eric Seaman 01/13/2022 1,500.00
83086 S Porter Inc 01/13/2022 39,900.00
Check# Vendor/Employee Date Amount
City of Big Bear Lake
Checks Issued 12/15/2021 - 01/20/2022
83099 San Bernardino County 01/20/2022 2.00
83100 San Bernardino County Recorder 01/20/2022 20.00
83101 San Bernardino County Vehicle Svcs Dept 01/20/2022 18,629.40 83102 San Bernardino County Solid Waste Mgmt Division 01/20/2022 13.39 83103 City of Big Bear Lake Dept of Water & Power 01/20/2022 1,478.65 83104 BBARWA 01/20/2022 4,180.00
83105 American Planning Association 01/20/2022 1,521.00 83106 Big Bear Chamber of Commerce 01/20/2022 158.91
83109 Burtronics Business Systems 01/20/2022 291.12
83110 Bear Valley Electric 01/20/2022 15,604.01
83111 Bear Valley Paving, Inc. 01/20/2022 4,600.00
83112 Bear Valley Printing Inc 01/20/2022 201.24
83113 Charter Communications Holdings, LLC 01/20/2022 2,348.98 83114 Docu-Trust 01/20/2022 50.00
83116 Essel Technology Services, Inc. 01/20/2022 12,000.00 83117 FedEx 01/20/2022 125.25
83118 Fisher Integrated, Inc. 01/20/2022 1,200.00
83119 Red Hat Properties - Big Bear LP 01/20/2022 663.00 83120 Frontier Communications 01/20/2022 2,928.60
83121 The Grizzly 01/20/2022 30.00
83123 Inland Empire Film Services, Inc. 01/20/2022 7,000.00 83124 Intelesys One, Inc. 01/20/2022 10,228.20
83125 LSA Associates, Inc. 01/20/2022 9,436.61
83126 Lynn Merrill And Associates, Inc. 01/20/2022 654.96 83127 Mile High Equipment, Inc. 01/20/2022 37,582.50
83128 Mission Linen Supply Inc. 01/20/2022 654.49
83129 Mountain Water Co 01/20/2022 80.00
83130 Nolan Thoren Construction General Engineering 01/20/2022 5,700.00 83131 Orkin Inc. 01/20/2022 241.00
83134 Retail Strategies, LLC 01/20/2022 1,250.00
83135 ROW Traffic Safety, Inc. 01/20/2022 3,600.00
83136 Romans Construction Corp. 01/20/2022 36,010.00
83137 Safeguard Business Systems Inc 01/20/2022 185.95
83139 Tom Dodson & Associates 01/20/2022 2,637.50
83140 Transtech Engineers, Inc. 01/20/2022 3,605.00
83143 Willdan Engineering Inc 01/20/2022 3,712.50
83144 Butchers Blocks & Building Materials 01/20/2022 410.81 83145 Car Quest Auto Parts 01/20/2022 368.23
83146 Crafco Inc. 01/20/2022 1,228.35
83147 Grainger Inc. 01/20/2022 1,192.79
83148 JHD Planning LLC 01/20/2022 9,710.00
83149 Mile High Equipment, Inc. 01/20/2022 50,218.75
83150 Rochester Midland Corporation 01/20/2022 611.64
83151 Transtech Engineers, Inc. 01/20/2022 10,400.00
83152 United Rentals (North America), Inc 01/20/2022 2,575.25 83153 Volvo Construction Equipment Inc. 01/20/2022 28,122.78 83154 Willdan Engineering Inc 01/20/2022 9,140.00
ACH Jack Greenberg 01/06/2022 3,530.63
Check# Vendor/Employee Date Amount
City of Big Bear Lake
Checks Issued 12/15/2021 - 01/20/2022
ACH Jack Greenberg 01/13/2022 7,899.45
ACH Gary Payne 12/16/2021 1,460.00
2,169,187.31
Check# Vendor/Employee Transaction Amount
City Council 4110
82999 Mountain Trophy & Pro Shop Name Plates 12/21/2021 21.55 83031 US Bank Corporate Payment Systems Meeting Provisions 12/28/2021 120.14 City Council Total 141.69
City Manager 4120
83031 US Bank Corporate Payment Systems Office Supplies, Digital Subscription, Meeting Expense 12/28/2021 172.00 City Manager Total 172.00
Public Information Office 4125
82999 Mountain Trophy & Pro Shop Name Plate 12/21/2021 10.78 83031 US Bank Corporate Payment Systems Snow Removal Guide 12/28/2021 1,867.58 83123 Inland Empire Film Services, Inc. Film Services Bi-Yearly FY21/22 01/20/2022 7,000.00 Public Information Office Total 8,878.36
City Clerk 4130
82971 Intelesys One, Inc. Records Request Support 12/16/2021 192.00 82992 The Grizzly Legal Notices 12/21/2021 1,124.50
83032 Verizon Wireless Cell Phone Service 12/28/2021 60.78 City Clerk/ Public Information Total 1,377.28
Finance 4140
82977 Quill Corporation Office Supplies 12/16/2021 399.56 82994 Hinderliter de Lamas & Assoc Inc. Sales Tax Consulting & Auditing 12/21/2021 1,287.16 83021 GFOA ACFR Award Submission 12/28/2021 460.00
83032 Verizon Wireless Cell Phone Service 12/28/2021 30.12 83051 C.S.M.F.O. Membership 01/06/2022 110.00
83060 Lance Soll & Lunghard Year End Audit 01/06/2022 6,685.00 83137 Safeguard Business Systems Inc 2021 Tax Forms 01/20/2022 185.95 Finance Services Total 9,157.79
Human Resources 4150
83031 US Bank Corporate Payment Systems Employee Training & Appreciation 12/28/2021 2,803.01 83032 Verizon Wireless Cell Phone Service 12/28/2021 13.66 Human Resources Total 2,816.67
City Attorney 4170
83043 Best Best & Krieger LLP Professional Legal Services 01/06/2022 30,384.03 City Attorney Total 30,384.03
Traffic Safety 4230
82964 Bear Valley Electric Electricity Usage 12/16/2021 364.75 82985 Bear Valley Electric Electricity Usage 12/21/2021 191.05 83017 Bear Valley Electric Electricity Usage 12/28/2021 403.41 City of Big Bear Lake
Expenditure By Department
Checks Issued 12/15/2021 - 01/20/2022
Check# Vendor/Employee Transaction Amount
City of Big Bear Lake
Expenditure By Department
Checks Issued 12/15/2021 - 01/20/2022
83110 Bear Valley Electric Electricity Usage 01/20/2022 579.74 Traffic Safety Total 1,538.95
Law Enforcement 4250
83037 San Bernardino County Sheriff's Dept Monthly Sheriff Contract 01/06/2022 407,680.00 Law Enforcement Total 407,680.00
Engineering 4310
83030 Transtech Engineers, Inc. Professional Services 12/28/2021 3,832.50 83031 US Bank Corporate Payment Systems Shipping Charges & Office Supplies 12/28/2021 137.51 83032 Verizon Wireless Cell Phone Service 12/28/2021 83.54 83033 Willdan Engineering Inc Professional Services 12/28/2021 126.00 83035 San Bernardino County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Document Filing Fee - Annual Striping Project 01/06/2022 100.00 83080 San Bernardino County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Document Filing Fee - Rathbun Creek Trail Project 01/13/2022 100.00 83101 San Bernardino County Vehicle Svcs Dept Fuel Charges 01/20/2022 60.94 83116 Essel Technology Services, Inc. Environmental Site Assessment - Lakefront Park 01/20/2022 12,000.00 83151 Transtech Engineers, Inc. Professional Services 01/20/2022 6,240.00 Engineering Total 22,680.49
Street Maintenance 4320
82959 San Bernardino County Vehicle Svcs Dept Fuel Charges 12/16/2021 2,988.85 82965 Calolympic Glove & Safety Co Materials/Supplies 12/16/2021 582.98 82968 Lumber City Corp. Materials/Supplies 12/16/2021 170.39 82969 Red Hat Properties - Big Bear LP Storage Rental Spaces 12/16/2021 265.00 82977 Quill Corporation Office Supplies 12/16/2021 193.39 82980 Waxie Sanitary Supply Inc. Janitorial Supplies 12/16/2021 36.69 82990 Red Hat Properties - Big Bear LP Storage Rental Spaces 12/21/2021 398.00 83018 Charter Communications Holdings, LLC Cable Service 12/28/2021 63.55 83032 Verizon Wireless Cell Phone Service 12/28/2021 194.99 83041 A Performance Towing Inc Snow Operations Tow Truck Standby 01/06/2022 7,500.00 83044 Clifford Fowler Tire Chains 01/06/2022 2,500.17
83045 Butchers Blocks & Building Materials Materials/Supplies 01/06/2022 567.65 83047 Bear Valley Paving, Inc. Snow Removal Operations / Equipment Rental 01/06/2022 7,184.00 83050 Cintas Corporation First Aid Supplies 01/06/2022 234.14 83053 Lumber City Corp. Materials/Supplies 01/06/2022 353.95 83057 Grainger Inc. Materials/Supplies 01/06/2022 379.47 83062 Hitchin Lucerne, Inc. Materials/Supplies 01/06/2022 215.48 83064 Mission Linen Supply Inc. Laundry Service 01/06/2022 957.68 83066 Orkin Inc. Pest Service 01/06/2022 113.00
83069 ROW Traffic Safety, Inc. Snow Removal Operations Equipment Rental 01/06/2022 353.72 83070 Rochester Midland Corporation Janitorial Supplies 01/06/2022 152.91 83071 Romans Construction Corp. Snow Removal Operations 01/06/2022 29,605.00 83073 Sierra Aggregate Co Snow Operations Cinders 01/06/2022 4,260.22 83077 United Rentals (North America), Inc Snow Removal Operations Equipment Rental 01/06/2022 27,638.97 Check# Vendor/Employee Transaction Amount
City of Big Bear Lake
Expenditure By Department
Checks Issued 12/15/2021 - 01/20/2022
83078 Volvo Construction Equipment Inc. Snow Removal Operations Equipment Rental 01/06/2022 28,122.78 83079 Waxie Sanitary Supply Inc. Janitorial Supplies 01/06/2022 771.02 83101 San Bernardino County Vehicle Svcs Dept Fuel Charges 01/20/2022 13,375.35 83111 Bear Valley Paving, Inc. Snow Removal Operations 01/20/2022 4,600.00 83112 Bear Valley Printing Inc City Wayfinding Signs 01/20/2022 157.97 83113 Charter Communications Holdings, LLC Cable Service 01/20/2022 63.55 83119 Red Hat Properties - Big Bear LP Storage Rental Spaces 01/20/2022 663.00 83127 Mile High Equipment, Inc. Snow Removal Operations 01/20/2022 37,582.50 83128 Mission Linen Supply Inc. Laundry Service 01/20/2022 261.79 83130 Nolan Thoren Construction General Engineering Snow Removal Operations 01/20/2022 5,700.00 83135 ROW Traffic Safety, Inc. Snow Operations Equipment Rental 01/20/2022 3,600.00 83136 Romans Construction Corp. Snow Removal Operations 01/20/2022 36,010.00 83144 Butchers Blocks & Building Materials Materials/Supplies 01/20/2022 32.30 83146 Crafco Inc. Materials/Supplies 01/20/2022 1,228.35 83149 Mile High Equipment, Inc. Snow Removal Operations 01/20/2022 50,218.75 83150 Rochester Midland Corporation Janitorial Supplies 01/20/2022 152.91 83152 United Rentals (North America), Inc Snow Removal Operations Equipment Rental 01/20/2022 2,575.25 83153 Volvo Construction Equipment Inc. Snow Removal Operations Equipment Rental 01/20/2022 28,122.78 Street Maintenance Total 300,148.50
Vehicle Maintenance 4325
82985 Bear Valley Electric Electricity Usage 12/21/2021 56.64 83029 Southwest Gas Corporation Natural Gas Usage 12/28/2021 1,692.72 83048 Car Quest Auto Parts Vehicle Repair 01/06/2022 2,157.97 83064 Mission Linen Supply Inc. Laundry Service 01/06/2022 119.76 83065 Genuine Auto Parts Vehicle Repair 01/06/2022 358.60 83067 Parkhouse Tire, Inc. Vehicle Repair 01/06/2022 934.31 83103 City of Big Bear Lake Dept of Water & Power Water Usage 01/20/2022 110.10 83110 Bear Valley Electric Electricity Usage 01/20/2022 54.87 83128 Mission Linen Supply Inc. Laundry Service 01/20/2022 32.74 83144 Butchers Blocks & Building Materials Materials/Supplies 01/20/2022 14.44 83145 Car Quest Auto Parts Vehicle Repair 01/20/2022 368.23 Vehicle Maintenance Total 5,900.38
Street Lighting 4330
82964 Bear Valley Electric Electricity Usage 12/16/2021 243.88 82985 Bear Valley Electric Electricity Usage 12/21/2021 163.76 83017 Bear Valley Electric Electricity Usage 12/28/2021 78.21 83046 Bear Valley Electric Electricity Usage 01/06/2022 3,794.48 83110 Bear Valley Electric Electricity Usage 01/20/2022 457.72 Street Lighting Total 4,738.05
City Parking Lots / Chamber Building 4335
82964 Bear Valley Electric Electricity Usage 12/16/2021 684.54 Check# Vendor/Employee Transaction Amount
City of Big Bear Lake
Expenditure By Department
Checks Issued 12/15/2021 - 01/20/2022
82983 Big Bear Chamber of Commerce Natural Gas Reimbursement 12/21/2021 92.15 83017 Bear Valley Electric Electricity Usage 12/28/2021 1,797.65 83045 Butchers Blocks & Building Materials Materials/Supplies 01/06/2022 81.87 83049 Charter Communications Holdings, LLC Security Camera Internet Service 01/06/2022 229.96 83057 Grainger Inc. Materials/Supplies 01/06/2022 181.94 83066 Orkin Inc. Pest Service 01/06/2022 77.00
83070 Rochester Midland Corporation Janitorial Supplies 01/06/2022 152.91 83079 Waxie Sanitary Supply Inc. Janitorial Supplies 01/06/2022 771.02 83103 City of Big Bear Lake Dept of Water & Power Water Usage 01/20/2022 377.40 83106 Big Bear Chamber of Commerce Natural Gas Reimbursement 01/20/2022 158.91 83110 Bear Valley Electric Electricity Usage 01/20/2022 1,413.68 83131 Orkin Inc. Pest Control 01/20/2022 77.00
83144 Butchers Blocks & Building Materials Materials/Supplies 01/20/2022 10.77 83150 Rochester Midland Corporation Janitorial Supplies 01/20/2022 152.91 City Parking Lots / Chamber Building Total 6,259.71
Planning 4410
83026 Quill Corporation Office Supplies 12/28/2021 45.19 83031 US Bank Corporate Payment Systems Office Supplies 12/28/2021 168.87 83084 LSA Associates, Inc. Professional Services 01/13/2022 4,988.75 83099 San Bernardino County Monthly Assessor Parcel Map Update 01/20/2022 2.00 83105 American Planning Association Memberships 01/20/2022 1,521.00 83117 FedEx Shipping Charges 01/20/2022 125.25
83125 LSA Associates, Inc. Professional Services 01/20/2022 9,436.61 83134 Retail Strategies, LLC Professional Services 01/20/2022 1,250.00 83140 Transtech Engineers, Inc. Professional Services 01/20/2022 3,605.00 83143 Willdan Engineering Inc GIS Services 01/20/2022 3,712.50 Planning Total 24,855.17
Planning Commission 4411
83022 The Grizzly Legal Notices 12/28/2021 467.50
Planning Commission Total 467.50
Tourism Registration / Administration 4414
82977 Quill Corporation Office Supplies 12/16/2021 196.09 82979 Jose G. Vazquez Annual Tree Lighting in the Village 12/16/2021 2,020.00 83031 US Bank Corporate Payment Systems Vacation Rental Data/Constant Contact Subscription 12/28/2021 895.00 83081 San Bernardino County Recorder Document Recording Fee 01/13/2022 40.00 83100 San Bernardino County Recorder Document Recording Fee 01/20/2022 20.00 Tourism Registration / Administration Total 3,171.09
Tourism & Municipal Code Compliance 4415
82959 San Bernardino County Vehicle Svcs Dept Fuel Charges 12/16/2021 990.81 83032 Verizon Wireless Cell Phone Service 12/28/2021 154.91 Check# Vendor/Employee Transaction Amount
City of Big Bear Lake
Expenditure By Department
Checks Issued 12/15/2021 - 01/20/2022
83052 Dapeer Rosenblit & Litvak LLP Legal Services 01/06/2022 140.00 83055 Frontier Communications Telephone Service 01/06/2022 160.41 83101 San Bernardino County Vehicle Svcs Dept Fuel Charges 01/20/2022 1,604.58 83112 Bear Valley Printing Inc Materials/Supplies 01/20/2022 43.27 83144 Butchers Blocks & Building Materials Materials/Supplies 01/20/2022 75.40 ACH Jack Greenberg Code Compliance/Tourism Management Support 01/06/2022 3,530.63 ACH Jack Greenberg Code Compliance/Tourism Management Support 01/13/2022 7,899.45 Tourism & Municipal Code Compliance Total 14,599.46
Building & Safety 4430
82959 San Bernardino County Vehicle Svcs Dept Fuel Charges 12/16/2021 123.43 83031 US Bank Corporate Payment Systems Office Supplies 12/28/2021 54.94 83032 Verizon Wireless Cell Phone Service 12/28/2021 76.06 83101 San Bernardino County Vehicle Svcs Dept Fuel Charges 01/20/2022 94.40 83154 Willdan Engineering Inc Professional Services 01/20/2022 9,140.00 Building & Safety Total 9,488.83
PAC Administration 4610
83032 Verizon Wireless Cell Phone Service 12/28/2021 9.11 PAC Administration Total 9.11
City Parks & Trails 4625
82963 Butchers Blocks & Building Materials Materials/Supplies 12/16/2021 92.09 82964 Bear Valley Electric Electricity Usage 12/16/2021 1,123.05 82968 Lumber City Corp. Materials/Supplies 12/16/2021 8.12 82981 All Protection Alarm Alarm Monitoring 12/21/2021 74.25 82985 Bear Valley Electric Electricity Usage 12/21/2021 441.92 83017 Bear Valley Electric Electricity Usage 12/28/2021 642.75 83018 Charter Communications Holdings, LLC Security Camera Internet Service 12/28/2021 264.96 83038 City of Big Bear Lake Dept of Water & Power Water Usage 01/06/2022 277.85 83045 Butchers Blocks & Building Materials Materials/Supplies 01/06/2022 12.02 83049 Charter Communications Holdings, LLC Security Camera Internet Service 01/06/2022 114.98 83070 Rochester Midland Corporation Janitorial Supplies 01/06/2022 152.91 83079 Waxie Sanitary Supply Inc. Janitorial Supplies 01/06/2022 771.02 83082 Bear Valley Printing Inc Armed Forces Banners 01/13/2022 337.94 83103 City of Big Bear Lake Dept of Water & Power Water Usage 01/20/2022 336.85 83110 Bear Valley Electric Electricity Usage 01/20/2022 2,782.99 83113 Charter Communications Holdings, LLC Security Camera Internet Service 01/20/2022 149.98 83144 Butchers Blocks & Building Materials Materials/Supplies 01/20/2022 10.77 83147 Grainger Inc. Materials/Supplies 01/20/2022 681.82 83150 Rochester Midland Corporation Janitorial Supplies 01/20/2022 152.91 City Parks & Trails Total 8,429.18
General Government 4800
Check# Vendor/Employee Transaction Amount
City of Big Bear Lake
Expenditure By Department
Checks Issued 12/15/2021 - 01/20/2022
82966 Charter Communications Holdings, LLC Internet and Cable Services 12/16/2021 2,020.47 82973 Randy Spitz Materials/Supplies 12/16/2021 119.50
82981 All Protection Alarm Alarm Monitoring 12/21/2021 618.21 82988 Cintas Corporation First Aid Supplies 12/21/2021 142.74 83000 Mountain Water Co Water Dispenser Rental & Water 12/21/2021 112.00 83020 Frontier Communications Telephone Service 12/28/2021 1,198.34 83026 Quill Corporation Office Supplies 12/28/2021 1,262.80 83028 Steven Enterprises, Inc Office Supplies 12/28/2021 120.03 83031 US Bank Corporate Payment Systems Materials/Supplies 12/28/2021 199.90 83032 Verizon Wireless Cell Phone Service 12/28/2021 49.37 83042 Big Bear Disposal Inc Additional Restrooms & Trash Dumpsters 01/06/2022 4,240.74 83049 Charter Communications Holdings, LLC Internet Service 01/06/2022 673.05 83055 Frontier Communications Telephone Service 01/06/2022 56.60 83063 Marlin Business Bank Copier Lease 01/06/2022 1,660.06 83068 Richardson Monument Co, Inc. City Seal - Hofert Hall 01/06/2022 2,145.00 83109 Burtronics Business Systems Printer Charges 01/20/2022 291.12 83113 Charter Communications Holdings, LLC Internet and Cable Services 01/20/2022 2,020.47 83114 Docu-Trust Document Storage 01/20/2022 50.00
83120 Frontier Communications Telephone Service 01/20/2022 2,326.35 83121 The Grizzly Newspaper Subscription 01/20/2022 30.00 83129 Mountain Water Co Water Dispenser Rental & Water 01/20/2022 80.00 General Government Total 19,416.75
Information Technology 4810
82971 Intelesys One, Inc. Computer Repair 12/16/2021 53.88 82975 OpenGov, Inc. Operational Performance Report 12/16/2021 7,000.00 82996 Intelesys One, Inc. Computer Equipment 12/21/2021 10,724.70 83019 Fisher Integrated, Inc. Video Streaming 12/28/2021 1,200.00 83023 Intelesys One, Inc. Annual ShoreTel Support 12/28/2021 5,930.00 83031 US Bank Corporate Payment Systems Computer Equipment 12/28/2021 387.83 83032 Verizon Wireless Cell Phone Service 12/28/2021 51.67 83118 Fisher Integrated, Inc. Video Streaming 01/20/2022 1,200.00 83124 Intelesys One, Inc. IT Services/License Fees 01/20/2022 10,228.20 Technology Services Total 36,776.28
Civic Center 4820
82959 San Bernardino County Vehicle Svcs Dept Fuel Charges 12/16/2021 1,359.69 82963 Butchers Blocks & Building Materials Materials/Supplies 12/16/2021 17.20 82966 Charter Communications Holdings, LLC Security Camera Internet Service 12/16/2021 114.98 82968 Lumber City Corp. Materials/Supplies 12/16/2021 9.68 82976 Orkin Inc. Pest Control 12/16/2021 164.00
82980 Waxie Sanitary Supply Inc. Janitorial Supplies 12/16/2021 36.68 82981 All Protection Alarm Alarm Monitoring 12/21/2021 754.25 83029 Southwest Gas Corporation Natural Gas Usage 12/28/2021 185.58 Check# Vendor/Employee Transaction Amount
City of Big Bear Lake
Expenditure By Department
Checks Issued 12/15/2021 - 01/20/2022
83032 Verizon Wireless Cell Phone Service 12/28/2021 49.39 83050 Cintas Corporation First Aid Supplies 01/06/2022 352.34 83064 Mission Linen Supply Inc. Laundry Service 01/06/2022 167.59 83070 Rochester Midland Corporation Janitorial Supplies 01/06/2022 152.91 83072 Eric Seaman Snow Removal City Hall Roof 01/06/2022 1,500.00 83074 Southwest Gas Corporation Natural Gas Usage 01/06/2022 2,302.16 83079 Waxie Sanitary Supply Inc. Janitorial Supplies 01/06/2022 771.01 83085 Eric Seaman Snow Removal City Hall Roof 01/13/2022 1,500.00 83101 San Bernardino County Vehicle Svcs Dept Fuel Charges 01/20/2022 1,624.79 83103 City of Big Bear Lake Dept of Water & Power Water Usage 01/20/2022 360.30 83110 Bear Valley Electric Electricity Usage 01/20/2022 40.20 83113 Charter Communications Holdings, LLC Security Camera Internet Service 01/20/2022 114.98 83128 Mission Linen Supply Inc. Laundry Service 01/20/2022 45.81 83131 Orkin Inc. Pest Control 01/20/2022 164.00
83147 Grainger Inc. Materials/Supplies 01/20/2022 510.97 83150 Rochester Midland Corporation Janitorial Supplies 01/20/2022 152.91 Civic Center Total 12,451.42
PAC Operations & Maintenance 4821
82981 All Protection Alarm Alarm Monitoring 12/21/2021 266.30 83027 SESAC Annual License 12/28/2021 513.00
83032 Verizon Wireless Cell Phone Service 12/28/2021 45.53 83074 Southwest Gas Corporation Natural Gas Usage 01/06/2022 767.38 ACH Gary Payne Equipment Repair/Maintenance 12/16/2021 1,460.00 PAC Operations & Maintenance Total 3,052.21
Sanitation 250
82959 San Bernardino County Vehicle Svcs Dept Fuel Charges 12/16/2021 814.08 82960 Big Bear City CSD Sewer Connection Fees 12/16/2021 12,597.30 82965 Calolympic Glove & Safety Co Materials/Supplies 12/16/2021 582.96 82985 Bear Valley Electric Electricity Usage 12/21/2021 3,375.69 83016 Big Bear City CSD Sewer Fees 12/28/2021 41,801.76 83017 Bear Valley Electric Electricity Usage 12/28/2021 174.42 83029 Southwest Gas Corporation Natural Gas Usage 12/28/2021 1,692.70 83030 Transtech Engineers, Inc. Professional Services 12/28/2021 1,277.50 83031 US Bank Corporate Payment Systems Materials/Supplies 12/28/2021 409.30 83032 Verizon Wireless Cell Phone Service 12/28/2021 325.28 83040 South Coast AQMD Permit Fees 01/06/2022 582.74
83045 Butchers Blocks & Building Materials Materials/Supplies 01/06/2022 43.09 83046 Bear Valley Electric Electricity Usage 01/06/2022 850.32 83048 Car Quest Auto Parts Vehicle Repair 01/06/2022 456.11 83050 Cintas Corporation First Aid Supplies 01/06/2022 116.69 83055 Frontier Communications Telephone Service 01/06/2022 92.50 83056 Golden Bell Products, Inc Equipment Repair/Maintenance 01/06/2022 3,418.70 Check# Vendor/Employee Transaction Amount
City of Big Bear Lake
Expenditure By Department
Checks Issued 12/15/2021 - 01/20/2022
83059 Haaker Equipment Co. Inc. Materials/Supplies 01/06/2022 171.43 83060 Lance Soll & Lunghard Year End Audit 01/06/2022 415.00 83064 Mission Linen Supply Inc. Laundry Service 01/06/2022 957.68 83065 Genuine Auto Parts Vehicle Repair 01/06/2022 155.84 83071 Romans Construction Corp. Sewer Repair 01/06/2022 4,600.00 83076 Underground Service Alert Inc. Underground Dig Alert Services 01/06/2022 133.45 83101 San Bernardino County Vehicle Svcs Dept Fuel Charges 01/20/2022 1,869.34 83103 City of Big Bear Lake Dept of Water & Power Water Usage 01/20/2022 47.80 83104 BBARWA Sewer Connection Fees 01/20/2022 4,180.00
83110 Bear Valley Electric Electricity Usage 01/20/2022 8,599.82 83120 Frontier Communications Telephone Service 01/20/2022 602.25 83128 Mission Linen Supply Inc. Laundry Service 01/20/2022 261.79 83144 Butchers Blocks & Building Materials Materials/Supplies 01/20/2022 18.83 83151 Transtech Engineers, Inc. Professional Services 01/20/2022 2,080.00 Sanitation Total 92,704.37
Village Streetscape Maintenance 291
82964 Bear Valley Electric Electricity Usage 12/16/2021 799.55 82968 Lumber City Corp. Materials/Supplies 12/16/2021 230.22 82985 Bear Valley Electric Electricity Usage 12/21/2021 442.52 83017 Bear Valley Electric Electricity Usage 12/28/2021 779.91 83029 Southwest Gas Corporation Natural Gas Usage 12/28/2021 2,074.62 83042 Big Bear Disposal Inc Village Litter Containers 01/06/2022 1,574.80 83045 Butchers Blocks & Building Materials Materials/Supplies 01/06/2022 307.30 83061 Ludecke's Electrical Service, Inc. Village Light Pole Repair 01/06/2022 330.00 83103 City of Big Bear Lake Dept of Water & Power Water Usage 01/20/2022 246.20 83110 Bear Valley Electric Electricity Usage 01/20/2022 1,674.99 Village Streetscape Maintenance Total 8,460.11
Capital Projects 321
83030 Transtech Engineers, Inc. Professional Services Moonridge Corridor Project 12/28/2021 12,840.00 83086 S Porter Inc Civic Center East Sidewalk Heater Project 01/13/2022 39,900.00 83139 Tom Dodson & Associates Environmental Services Castle Rock Trailhead 01/20/2022 2,637.50 83144 Butchers Blocks & Building Materials Materials/Supplies Animal Shelter Improvements 01/20/2022 248.30 83148 JHD Planning LLC Professional Services Housing Element 01/20/2022 9,710.00 Capital Projects Total 65,335.80
Developer Impact - Fire Suppression 345
83015 Big Bear Lake Fire Protection District Fire Ladder Truck Purchase 12/28/2021 400,000.00 Developer Impact - Fire Suppression Total 400,000.00
Street Improvement Projects 350
82970 Granite Construction Company Moonridge Corridor Project 12/16/2021 426,305.78 83030 Transtech Engineers, Inc. Moonridge Corridor Project 12/28/2021 875.00 Check# Vendor/Employee Transaction Amount
City of Big Bear Lake
Expenditure By Department
Checks Issued 12/15/2021 - 01/20/2022
83058 Granite Construction Company FY2021-22 Street Rehabilitation Project 01/06/2022 24,725.74 83083 LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. FY2021-22 Street Rehabilitation Project 01/13/2022 80.00 Street Improvement Projects Total 451,986.52
Refuse 550
82962 Big Bear Disposal Inc Restroom Rentals 12/16/2021 101.01 83014 San Bernardino County Fire Department Hazardous Waste Removal 12/28/2021 8,212.74 83024 Lynn Merrill And Associates, Inc. WQMP Plan Check 12/28/2021 6,369.78 83030 Transtech Engineers, Inc. Professional Services 12/28/2021 1,277.50 83032 Verizon Wireless Cell Phone Service 12/28/2021 67.32 83034 California State Water Resources Control Board Annual Permit Fee 01/06/2022 10,393.00 83036 San Bernardino County Fire Department Hazardous Waste Removal 01/06/2022 5,197.32 83042 Big Bear Disposal Inc Residential Curb/Bin Service 01/06/2022 180,198.42 83060 Lance Soll & Lunghard Year End Audit 01/06/2022 415.00 83064 Mission Linen Supply Inc. Laundry Service 01/06/2022 191.53 83082 Bear Valley Printing Inc Signs for Trash Sites 01/13/2022 885.28 83102 San Bernardino County Solid Waste Mgmt Division Solid Waste Collection 01/20/2022 13.39 83126 Lynn Merrill And Associates, Inc. WQMP Plan Check 01/20/2022 654.96 83128 Mission Linen Supply Inc. Laundry Service 01/20/2022 52.36 83151 Transtech Engineers, Inc. Professional Services 01/20/2022 2,080.00 Refuse Total 216,109.61
Grand Total 2,169,187.31
DISTRIBUTION OF TREASURY CASH Rate Amount % of Total
Demand Account - Union Bank $ 1,689,774 6.88%
Imprest Cash - Union Bank Payroll $ 5,000 0.02%
Imprest Cash $ 1,525 0.01%
Dental Self Insured Checking $ 151,910 0.62%
Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) 0.212% $ 22,695,010 92.47% Total Cash In Treasury: $ 24,543,219 100.00%
INVESTMENT ACTIVITY Days Deposits Withdrawals
LAIF Average Life (Days) of Portfolio 340
LAIF Transactions $3,800,000 $800,000
Interest Received for Fiscal Year 2021-22 $12,171
DISTRIBUTION OF CASH BY FUND December 2021 November 2021 Change General $ 16,005,859 $ 15,338,499 $ 667,360
Sanitation $ 6,016,406 $ 5,732,727 $ 283,679
Capital Improvement $ 65,077 $ (172,429) $ 237,506
Refuse $ 1,463,362 $ 590,960 $ 872,402
Trust $ 218,117 $ 1,087,857 $ (869,740)
Successor Agency $ 375,259 $ 147,708 $ 227,551
AB 3229 Supp Law Enforce $ 399,139 $ 380,952 $ 18,187
Total Cash in Treasury: $ 24,543,219 $ 23,106,274 $ 1,436,945 CASH WITH FISCAL AGENT - RESERVE FUNDS Cost Basis Market Value Current Yield 2005 Revenue Refunding Bonds
Big Bear Lake Reserve Fund $ 578,598 $ 578,598 0.01%
Moonridge Reserve Fund $ 79,282 $ 79,282 0.01%
1999 IA Tax Allocation Bonds $ 289,289 $ 289,289 0.01%
- The aforementioned investments conform to the City's investment policy. (Res. 2021-61) - Cash is sufficient to meet needs of the next 6 months. - Interest earned on invested cash is accrued on a quarterly basis.

Pursuant to California Government Code 53647 all local government agencies are required to report the current market value of investments under management by an outside party. The reserve funds for the aforementioned bond issues are held and managed by the City's Trustee, Union Bank.

CITY OF BIG BEAR LAKE

TREASURER'S REPORT
December 31, 2021
Regular Meeting Minutes – January 11, 2022
-
A Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Big Bear Lake was called to order by Mayor Herrick at 6:02 p.m., Tuesday, January 11, 2022, via Zoom.

OPEN SESSION
Flag Salute: Flag Salute led by Mayor Herrick
Councilmembers Present: Mayor Rick Herrick
Mayor Pro Tem Bynette Mote
Councilmember Alan Lee
Councilmember Perri Melnick
Councilmember Randall Putz
Others Present: Frank A. Rush, Jr., City Manager
Erica Stephenson, City Clerk
Stephen P. Deitsch, City Attorney

PRESENTATIONS
 Introduction of new City employee - Ryan Orr, Public Information Officer.  Presentation of a Proclamation to Max Sannes to Recognize his CIF Division 4 State Championship – Individual Cross-Country Title

PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
Alaine Uthus, Big Bear resident, expressed her concerns about the City’s response to her records request in which Councilmember Lee indicated that he did not conduct City business via text messages during the October 18, 2021 City Council meeting, although he could be seen by the public texting and writing notes for approximately 45 minutes during that meeting.

1. CONSENT CALENDAR

CITY COUNCIL

1.1 APPROVAL OF DEMANDS – CHECK ISSUE DATE 11/25/2021 THROUGH 12/14/2021 IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,226,968 AND THE NOVEMBER 2021 TREASURER’S REPORT This item was pulled from the Consent Calendar by Councilmember Lee for further discussion.

1.2 APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES FROM THE DECEMBER 6, 2021 REGULAR

MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL
Approved.

Page 2 ends

Meeting Minutes
January 11, 2022

1.3 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING BID SOLICITATION FOR THE ANNUAL STREET

STRIPING PROJECT
City Council will consider a formal resolution authorizing the solicitation of bids for the annual street striping project. This project is an annual effort to restripe roadway markings throughout the City in order to ensure proper function and a fresh appearance after the wear and tear of the winter season.

Following bid solicitation, City Council is expected to consider a formal contract award in March, with work commencing as soon as weather permits this spring. A total of $50,000 is included in the FY 2021-22 General Fund budget for this work.

Approved and adopted the following resolution entitled:

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-01

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING BID SOLICITATION FOR THE

ANNUAL STREET STRIPING PROJECT

1.4 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT WITH DWP FOR

WATER LINE IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE MOONRIDGE CORRIDOR

IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
City Council will consider a formal resolution authorizing the reimbursement of $256,328 to the Department of Water and Power (DWP) for water line improvements associated with the Moonridge Corridor Improvements Project. As construction of the Moonridge project got underway last summer, the engineering team identified concerns and opportunities with portions of the water line improvements specified within the project, and identified a more cost-effective approach to complete these improvements and create additional value for the City and DWP. As a result, the City reduced the scope of work in the Granite Construction contract for the Moonridge project, and authorized DWP to complete the necessary water line improvements via its contractor. Overall, this approach resulted in significant cost savings for the City and DWP. Sufficient funds are available in the project budget for the Moonridge Corridor Improvement Project for this reimbursement.

This item was pulled from the Consent Calendar by Councilmember Lee for further discussion.

1.5 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MOUNTAIN TRANSIT TO UTILIZE CITY LAND IN THE

KNICKERBOCKER PARKING LOT FOR A BUS STOP
City Council will consider a formal resolution authorizing Mountain Transit to utilize City land in the Knickerbocker Parking Lot for a new bus stop. The City recently cordoned off several parking spaces in the northwest corner of the parking lot to serve as the main bus stop in The Village as part of the new free trolley service. Mountain Transit is working to construct a new, permanent bus stop shelter at this location in the future, and the proposed resolution would authorize the use of this portion of the parking lot for this purpose. The new bus stop features would be funded by Mountain Transit.

Approved and adopted the following resolution entitled:

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-02

Page 3 ends

Meeting Minutes
January 11, 2022

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MOUNTAIN TRANSIT TO

UTILIZE CITY LAND IN THE KNICKERBOCKER PARKING

LOT FOR A BUS STOP

1.6 RESOLUTION HONORING REQUEST TO WITHDRAW LAND USE APPLICATION AND

RESCINDING CITY APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COMMERCIAL

GROCERY STORE BUILDING WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING LOT AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED AT 42175 BIG BEAR BOULEVARD
City Council will consider a formal resolution honoring a request from Tectonics Design Group / Main & Main Capital Group LLC to withdraw its land use application for construction of a proposed new Grocery Outlet store, and rescinding City approval of the proposed project. Tectonics Design Group / Main & Main Capital Group LLC recently reached a settlement agreement with petitioners challenging the project, and the settlement agreement includes the termination of project development. The Planning Commission approved the proposed project at its meeting on April 21, 2021, and the City Council denied appeals of the Planning Commission’s approval at its meeting on August 2, 2021. The attached resolution formally rescinds these previous City approvals.

This item was pulled from the Consent Calendar by Councilmember Lee for further discussion.

1.7 RESOLUTIONS AUTHORIZING GRANT FUNDING APPLICATIONS TO THE LAND

AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND
City Council will consider two formal resolutions authorizing the submission of two grant applications to the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) for a) future development of the Rathbun Creek bicycle and pedestrian trail, and b) future development of park amenities at the Stanfield Marsh property. The proposed resolution authorizes a $1.8 million grant application for the Rathbun Creek trail segments located between the Big Bear Alpine Zoo and Sandalwood Drive, and a $1.25 million grant application for the Stanfield Marsh park amenities, including new paved trails, boardwalk improvements, and parking lot improvements. If awarded, the grants would be matched with $3.05 million of City funds derived from transient occupancy taxes.

Approved and adopted the following resolutions entitled:

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-03

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING GRANT FUNDING APPLICATION TO THE

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND -

RATHBUN CREEK TRAIL PROJECT
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-04

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING GRANT FUNDING APPLICATION TO THE

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND - STANFIELD MARSH PARK

DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

1.8 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EMERGENCY REPAIRS TO STANFIELD BOARDWALK City Council will consider a formal resolution retroactively authorizing a contract with Jilk Heavy Construction, Brea, CA, for emergency repairs to the western segment of the Stanfield Boardwalk in the amount of $47,630. A single-vehicle accident damaged support pilings, decking, and railings on

Page 4 ends

Meeting Minutes
January 11, 2022
the boardwalk in early December, and the western segment was closed immediately thereafter for public safety reasons. The boardwalk was initially constructed by the predecessor of Jilk Heavy Construction in the 1990s, and the City Manager authorized emergency repairs in mid-December in order to ensure public safety and also to reopen the boardwalk prior to the upcoming holiday season.

The City is in the process of completing the acquisition of the boardwalks and other property from the Municipal Water District (MWD), and the City ultimately expects to be reimbursed for the emergency repairs from the driver’s and/or the MWD’s insurance carrier.

Approved and adopted the following resolution entitled:

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-05

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EMERGENCY REPAIRS

TO STANFIELD BOARDWALK

1.9 RESOLUTION INCREASING THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER BOARD OF

COMMISSIONERS MONTHLY STIPEND
City Council will consider a formal resolution to increase the Department of Water and Power (DWP) Board of Commissioners compensation from $400 per month to $500 per month. The DWP Board’s compensation was last increased by the City Council in June 2005 to $400 per month. The DWP Board’s compensation was recently reviewed as part of a comprehensive compensation study, and that study recommended an increase to $600 per month. Additionally, the application of the consumer price index annually since 2005 would result in an increase to $603 per month. The proposed resolution, however, would establish a $500 per month stipend, and would be consistent with the current monthly stipend provided to members of the City Council.

This item was pulled from the Consent Calendar by Councilmember Lee for further discussion.

1.10 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING INACTIVE VACATION RENTAL LICENSE

PROCEDURES FOR PROPERTIES CONVERTED TO LONG-TERM RENTAL HOUSING City Council will consider a formal resolution establishing inactive vacation rental license procedures for properties that are converted to long-term rental housing. The proposed resolution establishes a new “inactive” classification of vacation rental licenses, and would enable a property owner to maintain a valid vacation rental license while the property is offered as a long-term rental for at least 12 months. The license would simply be placed in “inactive” status until such time that the owner seeks to return to “active” status, at which time the licensee would again be required to meet all applicable vacation rental program requirements. The proposed resolution is intended to promote participation in the Big Bear Workforce Housing Initiative by eliminating uncertainty for current vacation rental property owners who may wish to participate in the program.

Approved and adopted the following resolution entitled:

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-06

RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING INACTIVE VACATION RENTAL

LICENSE PROCEDURES FOR PROPERTIES CONVERTED TO

LONG-TERM RENTAL HOUSING

Page 5 ends

Meeting Minutes
January 11, 2022

FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT

1.11 APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES FROM THE DECEMBER 6, 2021 REGULAR

MEETING OF THE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
Approved.

SUCCESSOR AGENCY

1.12 APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES FROM THE DECEMBER 6, 2021 REGULAR

MEETING OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY
Approved.

Motion made by Councilmember Putz, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Mote, to approve the balance of the Consent Calendar.

Said motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Putz, Mote, Lee, Melnick, Herrick
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None

ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR

1.1 APPROVAL OF DEMANDS – CHECK ISSUE DATE 11/25/2021 THROUGH 12/14/2021 IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,226,968 AND THE NOVEMBER 2021 TREASURER’S REPORT This item was removed from the Consent Calendar by Councilmember Lee; requested additional information on a few expenses listed on the demands report and requested that the listed expenditures be further itemized for greater transparency.

Following Council and staff discussion, a motion was made by Councilmember Lee, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Mote, to approve the item.

Said motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Melnick, Lee, Mote, Putz, Herrick
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None

1.4 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT WITH DWP FOR

WATER LINE IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE MOONRIDGE CORRIDOR

IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT

Page 6 ends

Meeting Minutes
January 11, 2022
City Council will consider a formal resolution authorizing the reimbursement of $256,328 to the Department of Water and Power (DWP) for water line improvements associated with the Moonridge Corridor Improvements Project. As construction of the Moonridge project got underway last summer, the engineering team identified concerns and opportunities with portions of the water line improvements specified within the project, and identified a more cost-effective approach to complete these improvements and create additional value for the City and DWP. As a result, the City reduced the scope of work in the Granite Construction contract for the Moonridge project, and authorized DWP to complete the necessary water line improvements via its contractor. Overall, this approach resulted in significant cost savings for the City and DWP. Sufficient funds are available in the project budget for the Moonridge Corridor Improvement Project for this reimbursement.

This item was removed from the Consent Calendar by Councilmember Lee; he expressed his concerns with the change-order and indicated that he is uncomfortable with the decision that was made as he believes the process lacked transparency and competitiveness.

Frank A. Rush, Jr., City Manager and Sean Sullivan, Director of Public Services, answered Council’s questions and addressed their concerns.

Following Council and staff discussion, a motion was made by Councilmember Putz, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Mote, to approve staff’s recommendation and adopt the following resolution entitled:

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-07

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A REIMBURSEMENT

AGREEMENT WITH DWP FOR WATER LINE IMPROVEMENTS

ASSOCIATED WITH THE MOONRIDGE CORRIDOR

IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
Said motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Putz, Mote, Lee, Melnick, Herrick
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None

1.6 RESOLUTION HONORING REQUEST TO WITHDRAW LAND USE APPLICATION AND

RESCINDING CITY APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COMMERCIAL

This item was removed from the Consent Calendar by Councilmember Lee; he questioned if this item should have been placed on the Consent Calendar and whether or not it was permissible to publically

Page 7 ends

Meeting Minutes
January 11, 2022
discuss this item as it was previously discussed in Closed Session; also Councilmember Lee expressed his disappointment with the City’s overall expenses related to the Grocery Outlet project.

Following Council discussion, a motion was made by Councilmember Lee, seconded by Mayor Herrick, to approve staff’s recommendation and adopt the following resolution entitled:

RESOLUTION NO. 2022 – 08

RESOLUTION HONORING REQUEST TO WITHDRAW LAND USE

APPLICATION AND RESCINDING CITY APPROVAL OF THE

DEVELOPMENT OF A COMMERCIAL GROCERY STORE BUILDING

WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING LOT AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS
LOCATED AT 42175 BIG BEAR BOULEVARD
Said motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Melnick, Lee, Putz, Mote, Herrick
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None

1.9 RESOLUTION INCREASING THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER BOARD OF

This item was removed from the Consent Calendar by Councilmember Lee.

A motion was made by Councilmember Lee, seconded by Mayor Herrick, to pull this item and discuss it at the City’s next available meeting so Council can additional time to review a compensation study report provided by the DWP’s General Manager.

Said motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Mote, Lee, Melnick, Herrick
NOES: Putz
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None

2. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS

2.1 URGENCY ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 16.07 SUBDIVISIONS - ADDING SECTION 16.07.060 URBAN LOT SPLITS - AND CHAPTER 17.25 RESIDENTIAL ZONES -

Page 8 ends

Meeting Minutes
January 11, 2022
AMENDING SECTION 17.25.130 SECOND UNITS AND TWO-UNIT PROJECTS - TO IMPLEMENT SB 9 – HOUSING DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS
City Council will formally consider an urgency ordinance to implement SB 9 – Housing Development Approvals – that was approved by the California legislature and signed into law by Governor Newsom in September. Effective January 1, SB 9 mandates that local governments approve the split of urban lots zoned for single-family residential use into multiple lots or allow additional units on an original, unsplit lot - potentially allowing up to 4 residential units on a lot initially zoned for only one singlefamily residence. The proposed urgency ordinance was drafted by the City Attorney and City staff, is consistent with SB 9, and includes various requirements that are intended to promote and preserve neighborhood character. The proposed urgency ordinance includes requirements regarding lot size, unit size, owner occupancy of at least one unit for three years, a prohibition on the use of lot splits and additional units for vacation rental purposes, consistent design standards, fire hazard mitigation requirements, deed restrictions, parking requirements, height limits, and more. Concurrently, the Planning Commission will proceed with review and recommendation of a permanent ordinance to implement SB 9, and a proposed permanent ordinance will be presented for City Council review in the coming months.

Janice Etter, Senior Principal Planner, presented the item, read the title of the proposed urgency ordinance aloud, and answered the Council’s questions.

Following Council discussion, a motion was made by Councilmember Lee, seconded by Councilmember Melnick, to approve staff’s recommendation and adopt the urgency ordinance entitled:

URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 2022-499
URGENCY ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 16.07 SUBDIVISIONS - ADDING SECTION 16.07.060 URBAN LOT SPLITS - AND CHAPTER 17.25 RESIDENTIAL ZONES -AMENDING SECTION 17.25.130 SECOND UNITS AND TWO-UNIT PROJECTS -TO IMPLEMENT SB 9 – HOUSING

DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS
Said motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Melnick, Putz, Lee, Mote, Herrick
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None

2.2 PROPOSED SOLID WASTE SERVICE DESIGN
City staff will present a recommended solid waste service design for City Council review. The recommended solid waste service design was developed based on input from City staff, the current solid waste franchisee, the citizen Solid Waste Advisory Group, other stakeholders, and the City Council. The recommended service design includes continued reliance on both curbside collections and the provision of at least two Clean Bear sites, with several service enhancements, including: the implementation of standardized curbside collection containers, automated or semi-automated collection, compliance with SB 1383, planned shielding or enclosures of Clean Bear sites, dedicated staffing at both Clean Bear sites, limiting the use of Clean Bear sites to City residents, property owners, and visitors only, the rerouting of traffic entering the Clean Bear sites, the potential relocation of the

Page 9 ends

Meeting Minutes
January 11, 2022
western Clean Bear site, the greater use of temporary “pop-up” Clean Bear sites during peak periods, and continued commercial collection.

If Council approves the recommended solid waste service design, or some variation thereof, City staff will either seek competitive proposals for a new 10-year service agreement or negotiate exclusively with the current service provider (Big Bear Disposal), as directed by City Council. Depending on the selection process for a new solid waste service provider, the new solid waste service design would be implemented on July 1, 2022, or sometime in late 2022 or early 2023.

Sean Sullivan, Director of Public Services, presented the item and answered a myriad of Council’s questions and addressed their concerns.

Carolin Girgis, said she appreciates the discussion of curbside service as its convenient and more aesthetically pleasing; was curious to learn more about bulk item pick-up and thanked Mayor Pro Tem Mote for her community-focused comments.

Andy Bolton, asked how opting in or opting out of the curbside collection service would affect property taxes.

Kelly Astor, Big Bear Disposal Attorney, recommended/requested that City staff first initiate a conversation with Big Bear Disposal and draft a contract prior to issuing a Request for Proposals (RFP); indicated that trash hauling services are not required to be bid like public construction projects under California state law due to the capital-intensive nature of this business.

Following Council and staff discussion, a motion was made by Councilmember Lee, seconded by Councilmember Melnick, to go forward with the proposed service design.

Said motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Lee, Mote, Putz, Melnick, Herrick
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Following further discussion, a motion was made by Mayor Herrick, seconded by Councilmember Putz, to concurrently begin negotiations with Big Bear Disposal in an effort to create an acceptable contract and move forward with a RFQ/RFI/RFP for trash hauling services.

Said motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Putz, Lee, Mote, Melnick, Herrick
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
At the hour of 9:01 p.m., Mayor Herrick called a short recess.

At the hour of 9:06 p.m., Mayor Herrick reconvened the meeting.

2.3 MOONRIDGE CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AMENITIES

Page 10 ends

Meeting Minutes
January 11, 2022
City Council will review options and make selections for lighting fixtures, street furniture, trash cans, bicycle racks, water fountains, signage, and other project amenities to be incorporated into the Moonridge Corridor Improvement Project. Selected amenities must be ordered in the coming weeks to ensure delivery in time for installation later this year. Construction of planned roundabouts, street improvements, and other streetscape features will resume in April 2022, and the project is expected to be complete by October 2022. The established project budget for the Moonridge Corridor Improvement Project includes a set-aside of $300,000 for these amenities, with the cost of lighting fixtures already included in the previously awarded construction contract. Public art for the center of the planned roundabouts is not included in this discussion, as City staff envision a broader public decision-making process for any desired public art in the future.

Sean Sullivan, Director of Public Services, reviewed the project plans and the recommendations made by the stakeholders group, and presented options for several amenities in an effort to facilitate Council discussion.

Following Council and staff discussion, Mayor Herrick recommended that an Ad Hoc Committee be formed to further delve into the project amenities’ design details. Then Mayor Herrick selected Mayor Pro Tem Mote and Councilmember Melnick to serve on the Ad Hoc Committee.

2.4 JUNE 30, 2021 ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL REPORT City staff will present the City’s Fiscal Year 2020-21 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for review by the City Council. The audited financial statements accurately present the City’s financial position as of June 30, 2021. The City continues to maintain a solid financial position, a structurally sound annual budget, with no concerning long-term liabilities. The total fund balance across all Governmental funds is in excess of $23.5 million as of June 30. After considering the intentional appropriation of excess transient occupancy tax revenues for the Moonridge project and other adjustments, the City’s total fund balance across all Governmental funds is approximately $18.5 million.

Kelly Ent, Director of Administrative Services, presented the City’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Report.

A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Mote, seconded by Councilmember Melnick to receive and file the 2021 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report.

Said motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Mote, Melnick, Putz, Lee, Herrick
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None

3. COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & ADDITIONAL CITY BUSINESS

3.1 CITY CLERK, CITY ATTORNEY, CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
Erica Stephenson, City Clerk, reminded the public to submit their draft maps for the Council redistricting process by January 14.

Page 11 ends

Meeting Minutes
January 11, 2022
Frank A. Rush, Jr., City Manager, said that the distribution of the at-home COVID-19 testing kits was successful and indicated additional test kits will be distributed soon; briefly discussed the upcoming COVID-19 testing events at City Hall; highlighted items included in the “City Manager Comments” report and he engaged in Council discussion related to some Agenda items noted on the report, that will be brought forward for Council consideration at upcoming meetings.

3.2 COUNCILMEMBER BOARD/COMMITTEE REPORTS & COMMENTS
The meeting was adjourned prior to this portion of the agenda, therefore, there were not any Councilmember Board/Committee Reports & Comments.

ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Council at this Open Session, Mayor Herrick adjourned the meeting at 10:00 pm in memory of Axel Heller.
____________________________
Erica Stephenson, City Clerk

MEETING DATE: February 7, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor Herrick and Members of the City Council FROM: Frank A. Rush, Jr., City Manager
SUBJECT: City Manager Comments – Item 1.3

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A DELEGATE FOR THE

MOJAVE DESERT MOUNTAIN INTEGRATED WASTE JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY

ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED
City Council will consider a formal resolution confirming the appointment of Mayor Pro Tem Mote as the City’s Delegate and Councilmember Melnick as the City’s Alternate to the Mojave Desert Mountain Integrated Waste Joint Powers Authority Board of Directors.

RECOMMENDED MOTION(S)
Motion to adopt the Resolution Authorizing a Delegate for the Mojave Desert Mountain Integrated Waste Joint Powers Authority.

RESPONSIBLE STAFF Erica Stephenson, City Clerk / Director of Human Resources

ADDITIONAL CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
None.

MEETING
DATE: February 7, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
THROUGH: Frank A. Rush, Jr., City Manager
FROM: Erica Stephenson, City Clerk/Director of Human Resources SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing a Delegate for the Mojave Desert Mountain Integrated Waste Joint Powers Authority

BACKGROUND
On December 18, 1991, the City adopted Resolution No. 91-93 establishing the City as a member of the Mojave Desert Mountain Integrated Waste Joint Powers Authority (JPA), for the purpose of creating a Solid Waste Management Authority. That same resolution also directs that a City delegate and alternate to the JPA Board of Directors be appointed by resolution each year.

DISCUSSION
During the Mayor’s 2022 board/committee selection process, Mayor Herrick appointed Mayor Pro Tem Bynette Mote as the City’s JPA delegate and Councilmember Perri Melnick as the alternate. In the upcoming year, Mayor Pro Tem Mote will serve on the JPA Board of Directors, which will meet quarterly in an effort to develop programs and facilities that will ensure our region’s compliance with state integrated waste management laws.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with the adoption of this resolution.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
None requiring review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

ATTACHMENT

1. Resolution No. 2022-XX
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No.
2022-XX

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A DELEGATE FOR THE MOJAVE DESERT

MOUNTAIN INTEGRATED WASTE JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY
WHEREAS, on December 18, 1991, City Council adopted Resolution No. 91-83 establishing the City as a member of the Mojave Desert Mountain Integrated Waste Joint Powers Authority (JPA); and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 91-93 directs that a City delegate and alternate be appointed each year by resolution; and
WHEREAS, during the Mayor’s 2022 board/committee selection process, Mayor Herrick appointed Mayor Pro Tem Bynette Mote as the City’s JPA delegate and Councilmember Perri Melnick as the City’s JPA alternate; and
WHEREAS, on January 11, 2022, Mayor Pro Tem Mote and Councilmember Melnick were publicly named, respectively, as the delegate and the alternate to the Mojave Desert Mountain Integrated Waste Joint Powers Authority.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Big Bear Lake does approve the appointment of Mayor Pro Tem Mote as the delegate, and Councilmember Melnick as the alternate to the Mojave Desert Mountain Integrated Waste Joint Powers Authority.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of February, 2022.

Rick Herrick, Mayor
ATTEST:

Erica Stephenson, City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) ss

CITY OF BIG BEAR LAKE )
I, Erica Stephenson, City Clerk of the City of Big Bear Lake, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of the City Council of the said City is five; that the foregoing resolution, being Resolution No. 2022-XX was duly passed and adopted by the said City Council and attested by the City Clerk of said City, all at a regular meeting of the said City held on the 7th day of February, 2022 and that the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

Erica Stephenson, City Clerk

MEETING DATE: February 7, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor Herrick and Members of the City Council FROM: Frank A. Rush, Jr., City Manager
SUBJECT: City Manager Comments – Item 1.4

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A DELEGATE FOR THE

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO SOLID WASTE ADVISORY TASK FORCE

ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED
City Council will consider a formal resolution confirming the Mayor’s appointment of Mayor Pro Tem Mote as the City’s delegate and Councilmember Melnick as the City’s alternate to the San Bernardino County Solid Waste Advisory Task Force (SWAT).

RECOMMENDED MOTION(S)
Motion to adopt the Resolution Authorizing a Delegate for the County of San Bernardino Solid Waste Advisory Task Force.

RESPONSIBLE STAFF Erica Stephenson, City Clerk / Director of Human Resources

ADDITIONAL CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
None.

MEETING
DATE: February 7, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
THROUGH: Frank A. Rush, Jr., City Manager
FROM: Erica Stephenson, City Clerk/Director of Human Resources SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing a Delegate for the County of San Bernardino Solid Waste Advisory Task Force

BACKGROUND
The County of San Bernardino Solid Waste Advisory Task Force (SWAT) was formed in 1990, as required by the California Integrated Waste Management Act, to carry out responsibilities mandated through Assembly Bill (AB) 939. SWAT’s purpose is to assist in coordinating the development of the County/City source reduction programs, recycling elements, and to ensure a coordinated and cost-effective regional recycling system. With respect to ensuring a coordinated and cost-effective regional recycling system, the task force works together on all of the following items: 1) identifies solid waste management issues of county-wide or regional concern, 2) determines the need for solid waste collection systems, processing facilities, and marketing strategies that can serve more than one local jurisdiction within the region, 3) facilitates the development of multijurisdictional arrangements for the marketing of recyclable materials, and 4) to the extent possible, facilitates resolution of conflicts and inconsistencies between or among City source reduction programs and recycling elements.

DISCUSSION
The SWAT roster is comprised of elected officials from incorporated cities in San Bernardino County, as well as representatives from the County and some at-large public members. The task force meets on a bi-annual basis and additionally as needed. Elected officials serve as delegates and as alternates if need be. During this year’s Mayoral board/committee selection process, Mayor Herrick appointed Mayor Pro Tem Bynette Mote to serve as the City’s SWAT delegate, and he selected Councilmember Melnick to serve as the alternate.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with the adoption of this resolution.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
None requiring review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

ATTACHMENT

1. Resolution No. 2022-XX
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No.
2022-XX

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A DELEGATE FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN

BERNARDINO SOLID WASTE ADVISORY TASK FORCE
WHEREAS, the County of San Bernardino Solid Waste Advisory Task Force (SWAT) was formed in 1990 to carry out the responsibilities mandates by the State of California through AB 939; and
WHEREAS, SWAT’s purpose is to assist in coordinating the development of the County/City source reduction programs, recycling elements, and to ensure a coordinated and cost effective regional recycling system; and
WHEREAS, the SWAT roster is comprised of elected officials from incorporated cities in San Bernardino County, as well as representatives from the County and some at-large public members; and
WHEREAS, on January 11, 2022, Mayor Pro Tem Mote and Councilmember Melnick were named, respectively, by Mayor Herrick as the City’s 2022 SWAT delegate and alternate.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Big Bear Lake does approve the appointment of Mayor Pro Tem Mote as the delegate, and Councilmember Melnick as the alternate to the County of San Bernardino Solid Waste Advisory Task Force.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of February, 2022.

Rick Herrick, Mayor
ATTEST:

Erica Stephenson, City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) ss

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

Erica Stephenson, City Clerk

MEETING DATE: February 7, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor Herrick and Members of the City Council FROM: Frank A. Rush, Jr., City Manager
SUBJECT: City Manager Comments – Item 1.5

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING BID SOLICITATION FOR SANITARY SEWER LINE REHABILITATION EFFORTS

ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED
City Council will consider a formal resolution authorizing the solicitation of bids for the rehabilitation of approximately 2,000 linear feet of sanitary sewer lines in the Red Ant Hill area of the City. This project includes the installation of “cured in place” pipe, which acts as a liner within existing sanitary sewer pipeline, and will correct concerns created by root intrusion, pipe collapse or erosion, and other concerns that inhibit sanitary sewer flow. The “cured in place” approach will extend the useful life of the sanitary sewer lines, prevent the need to dig up and replace the lines, and limit the degree of disruption in the community. A total of $125,000 is included in the FY 2021-22 Sanitation Fund budget for this project.

Assuming favorable bids, a contract recommendation will be presented to City Council in April so that work may commence as soon as the weather conditions permit.

RECOMMENDED MOTION(S)
Motion to adopt the Resolution Authorizing Bid Solicitation for Sanitary Sewer Line Rehabilitation Efforts.

RESPONSIBLE STAFF Sean Sullivan, Director of Public Services Jason Watterson, Public Works Operations Manager
Jacky Chan, Associate Engineer

ADDITIONAL CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
The approved 5-Year Capital Replacement / Improvement Plan includes a total of $125,000 programmed for each of the next 5 years to address sewer line concerns throughout the City. I appreciate City staff’s diligence in promoting proper maintenance of the City’s sewer system and will be exploring the allocation of additional funding for similar efforts in the future.

MEETING
DATE: February 7, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
THROUGH: Frank A. Rush, Jr., City Manager
FROM: Sean Sullivan, Director of Public Services
Jason Watterson, Public Works Operations Manager
Jacky Chan, Associate Engineer
SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing Bid Solicitation for Sanitary Sewer Line Rehabilitation Efforts

BACKGROUND
The City’s Sanitation Division is responsible for the maintenance of the sanitary sewer system which includes approximately 200 miles of sewer main, more than 3,000 manholes, and 12 sewer lift stations. The sanitary sewer mains are of varying sizes and materials. Typical maintenance of the sewer mains includes hydro-jetting, whereby water is forced into the sewer mains to clean and clear them. Given the underground nature of sewer mains, the primary method of repair and rehabilitation is generally to excavate and replace pipeline; however, there are options for rehabilitation efforts including lining of the pipes. Staff is pursuing a “cured in place” pipe sewer lining project. Cured in place pipe serves as a liner within the existing pipeline to correct concerns created by root intrusion, pipe collapse, or erosion. This effort will extend the useful life of the sewer lines without needing to excavate the streets and will limit the degree of disruption to the community.

The approved Fiscal Year 2021-22 Sanitation Fund budget includes funding for a “cured in place” pipe sewer lining project. The available budget is $125,000 and staff believes that this effort will rehabilitate approximately 2,000 linear feet of sewer pipe in the Red Ant Hill area of the City. Staff is seeking authorization to conduct a bid solicitation for this project.

DISCUSSION
Staff has identified approximately 2,000 linear feet of sewer pipeline in the Red Ant Hill area of the City that would be appropriate situations in which to utilize a “cured in place” pipe process.

The area of the project is more specifically defined as the area to the north of Big Bear Boulevard, between Temple Lane and Lakewood Lane. These pipelines have identified root intrusion concerns and minor failures, conditions which would be remedied utilizing the identified process.

Staff is seeking authorization to conduct a bid solicitation according to our standard practices.

Should the solicitation process yield favorable results, a construction contract recommendation would be presented to the City Council in April 2022 so that construction can commence as the weather allows.

FISCAL IMPACT
Funding for this project is included in the approved Fiscal Year 2021-22 Sanitation Fund budget in the amount of $125,000.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
The project is Categorically Exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Specifically, CEQA Section 15301 (b) exempts activities related to the operation, repair, and maintenance of public owned utilities including sewer systems (Reference Title 14 – Natural Resources Code, Division 6, Chapter 3, Article 19 – Categorical Exemptions, 15301 - Existing Facilities).

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution No. 2022-XX

2. CEQA Notice of Exemption
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No.
2022-XX

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING BID SOLICITATION FOR

SANITARY SEWER LINE REHABILITATION EFFORTS
WHEREAS, the City’s Sanitation Division is responsible for the maintenance of the sanitary sewer system which includes approximately 200 miles of sewer main, more than 3,000 manholes, and 12 sewer lift stations; and
WHEREAS, the City’s approved Fiscal Year 2021-22 budget includes an appropriation of $125,000 in the Sanitation Fund for a “cured in place” pipe sewer lining project; and WHEREAS, “cured in place” pipe serves as a liner within the existing pipeline to correct concerns created by root intrusion, pipe collapse, or erosion without the need to excavate the street or replace the pipeline; and
WHEREAS, staff has identified approximately 2,000 linear feet of sewer pipeline that would benefit from these rehabilitation efforts; and
WHEREAS, staff desires to conduct a bid solicitation for these sewer line rehabilitation efforts, consistent with the City’s Purchasing Policy, and expects to presents a contract award for consideration by the City Council in April 2022; and
WHEREAS, this project is categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, as the maintenance of existing publicly owned utility systems.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council that:

1. Staff is authorized to proceed with the bid solicitation for this project.

2. The project is Categorically Exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15301 (b) exempts activities related to the operation, repair, and maintenance of public owned utilities including sewer systems (Reference Title 14 – Natural Resources Code, Division 6, Chapter 3, Article 19 – Categorical Exemptions, 15301 - Existing Facilities).

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of February, 2022.

Rick Herrick, Mayor
ATTEST:

Erica Stephenson, City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) ss

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

Erica Stephenson, City Clerk
ATTACHMENT 2
CEQA Notice of
Exemption

CEQA NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors FROM: Engineering Division County of San Bernardino City of Big Bear Lake
385 N. Arrowhead Avenue, 2nd Floor P. O. Box 10000
San Bernardino, CA 92415-0130 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315
Project Title:

Sanitary Sewer Cured-In-Place Pipe (CIPP) Project
Project Location - Specific:

Various locally owned and maintained sanitary sewer lines within the City of Big Bear Lake Description of Project:

This project involves the installation of cured in place pipe liner within sections of the sanitary sewer system.

Name of Public Agency Approving Project:

City of Big Bear Lake, City Council
Exempt Status: (check one) (State type and section number) XX Categorical Exemption. Section: 15301.b
Reasons why project is exempt:

These repairs are categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under section 15301.b as maintenance and repair of existing public owned utility systems.

Lead Agency or Contact Person: Area Code/Telephone/Extension Sean Sullivan (909) 866-5831 ext. 113
Director of Public Services
Date: February 7, 2022
Signature:
_____________________________
Sean Sullivan, Director of Public Services

MEETING DATE: February 7, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor Herrick and Members of the City Council FROM: Frank A. Rush, Jr., City Manager
SUBJECT: City Manager Comments – Item 1.6

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CONTRACT FOR
THE DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES LOCATED AT 794 AND 808 IRIS DRIVE

ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED
City Council will consider a formal resolution authorizing a contract with UBD, Inc., North Hollywood, CA, in the amount of $53,000 for the demolition of City-owned structures located at 794 and 808 Iris Drive.

RECOMMENDED MOTION(S)
Motion to adopt the Resolution Authorizing a Contract for the Demolition of Structures Located at 794 and 808 Iris Drive.

RESPONSIBLE STAFF Sean Sullivan, Director of Public Services Jacky Chan, Associate Engineer

ADDITIONAL CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
If Council approves the demolition, I plan to schedule a Council discussion about the future use of this property for the March 21 budget workshop meeting.

MEETING
DATE: February 7, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
THROUGH: Frank A. Rush, Jr., City Manager
FROM: Sean Sullivan, Director of Public Services
Jacky Chan, Associate Engineer
SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing a Contract for the Demolition of Structures Located at 794 and 808 Iris Drive

BACKGROUND
The City of Big Bear Lake owns several properties surrounding the Civic Center Campus. Included in those properties is 808 Iris Drive on which sits six (6) structures. The structures include two (2) residences and four (4) outbuildings, all of which have fallen into disrepair and no longer serve a functional purpose for the City. In addition, there are concerns related to trespassing and general safety in the area given the condition of the buildings. The demolition of these structures will allow the City to utilize this land for alternative purposes in the future and previous City Council discussions have considered various ideas for such including workforce housing, new City facilities, or open space.

Funding is included within the approved Fiscal Year 2021-22 City budget in the amount of $85,000 for the removal of these structures. The City Council and staff have concluded that the current condition of these structures offer no value to current or future usage, create a safety concern, and that removing the structures may generate more interest within the property. On November 1, 2021, the City Council authorized staff to conduct a public and competitive bid process for the demolition of these structures. Presented for the City Council’s consideration is a construction contract for this project.

DISCUSSION
The City Council and staff have been considering the demolition of structures located at 794 and 808 Iris Drive as they are no longer functional and the property has been discussed as being utilized for new purposes. Staff conducted initial review and assessment of the properties and prepared specifications for their demolition. These efforts did include a historical review and while the structures were not found to be historic resources, staff did consult with the Big Bear Valley Historical Society. Representatives of the historical society were invited to survey and photograph the sites. The preliminary review indicated a likely presence of hazardous materials, including asbestos and lead based paint, and a specific hazardous materials survey assessment was completed. The survey confirmed the presence of these materials and staff coordinated their abatement with a certified contractor in accordance with all regulations.

On November 1, 2021, the City Council approved a resolution authorizing staff to solicit bids for the demolition of structures located at 794 and 808 Iris Drive. Staff prepared all project specifications and based upon the previous efforts, the structures are ready and cleared for demolition. A Notice Inviting Bids was circulated within the local newspaper and online, according to our procurement guidelines. On December 16, 2021, the City Clerk’s office received and publicly read aloud eight (8) sealed bids with the following results:

COMPANY NAME LOCATION BASE BID PRICE
UBD INC. North Hollywood, CA $ 53,000
Van Dyke Corporation Twenty Nine Palms, CA $ 58,000
Epsilon Eng Moreno Valley, CA $ 69,000
Bear Valley Paving Big Bear Lake, CA $ 74,500
Romans Construction Big Bear Lake, CA $ 87,500
Kormex Construction Ontario, CA $ 88,000
Scorpion Backhoe, Inc Hemet, CA $ 92,810
Abajian Enterprise Santa Ana, CA $ 119,900
Staff conducted a review of the bids received and found the documents of UBD, Inc. to be complete and in order and they were deemed to be the lowest responsive bidder. Staff’s review of the bid documents did find the bid of Kormex, Inc. to be incomplete and it was deemed to be nonresponsive. UBD, Inc. has the required license and experience in demolition services for public agencies. Staff conducted a reference check with the City of Chino and UBD, Inc. has previously completed two (2) similar demolition projects for that agency. Staff received favorable feedback and a strong recommendation for their services.

Should the Council approve this construction contract, staff will coordinate all necessary documents and have the contractor prepared to mobilize as weather conditions allow. Staff anticipates that the demolition will commence in the spring and will be completed within thirty (30) days.

FISCAL IMPACT
This project is included in the City’s Fiscal Year 2021-22 budget, with a total budget amount of $85,000. The total anticipated cost for this project, based upon the contract award, is $53,000.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
At the time of authorization of the solicitation of bids for this project, the City Council found this project to be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution No. 2022-XX

2. Photos of Structures to Be Demolished

3. Aerial Photo Map
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No.
2022-XX

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CONTRACT FOR THE

DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES LOCATED AT
794 AND 808 IRIS DRIVE
WHEREAS, the City of Big Bear Lake owns several properties surrounding the Civic Center, 794 and 808 Iris Drive, and those properties host six (6) structures that include former residences and outbuildings; and
WHEREAS, the site has been discussed by the City Council and staff for revised uses with ideas consisting of workforce housing, new City facilities, or open space; and, WHEREAS, the structures offer no value for current or future uses, they create a safety concern, and the removal of the structures now may generate additional interest in the propery; and, WHEREAS, funding for the demolition of structures at 794 and 808 Iris Drive project is included in the approved Fiscal Year 2021-22 budget, and on November 1, 2021, the City Council authorized the solicitation of bids for this project; and, WHEREAS, staff conducted a public bid process for this project and on December 16, 2021, the City Clerk received and publicly read aloud eight (8) sealed bids for this project; and WHEREAS, upon their review, staff found the bid of UBD Inc., North Hollywood, CA, to be the lowest responsive bid in the amount of $53,000; and,
WHEREAS, a review of provided documents and a check of references indicated that UBD, Inc. of North Hollywood, CA is qualified to complete this project and staff is recommending the award of a construction contract to them.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of Big Bear Lake that the City Manager is authorized to execute a contract with UBD, Inc. for the demolition of structures at 794 and 808 Iris Drive in the amount of $53,000.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of February, 2022.

Rick Herrick, Mayor
ATTEST:

Erica Stephenson, City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) ss

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
_________________________
Erica Stephenson, City Clerk
ATTACHMENT 2
Photos of
Structures to be
Demolished
Photos of Structures to be Demolished

ATTACHMENT 3
Aerial Map

CITY OF BIG BEAR LAKE

BIG BEAR LAKE, CA
39707 BIG BEAR BLVD.

P.O. BOX 10,000BIG BEAR LAKE, CA 92315

REVISIONS
NO. DATE BY CHK'D DESCRIPTION
DATE:

JOB NO:

DRAWN:

DESIGN:

CHECKED:

SCALE:

OF
SHEET:

XX 1 1
10/2021

20.019
JC-ARA
NTS

IRIS PROPERTIES REMOVAL

PROJECT

LOCATION MAP
#2 HOUSE
808 IRIS
#1 HOUSE
794 IRIS

CARPORT
# 1 SHED
#3 SHED
#2 SHED

MEETING DATE: February 7, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor Herrick and Members of the City Council FROM: Frank A. Rush, Jr., City Manager
SUBJECT: City Manager Comments – Item 1.7

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A NOTICE OF COMPLETION

FOR THE CIVIC CENTER EAST SIDEWALK HEATER PROJECT

ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED
City Council will consider a formal resolution authorizing a Notice of Completion for the Civic Center East Sidewalk Heater Project. The City Council awarded a construction contract to S. Porter, Inc., Big Bear City, CA, in August 2021 for the installation of heating elements for the existing sidewalk on the east side of the Civic Center complex. The sidewalks were constructed as part of a previous project, however, the heating elements were deferred at that time due to budgetary constraints. S. Porter, Inc. has now completed the installation of the heating elements and all associated infrastructure, and the project has been inspected by appropriate City staff. The total expenditure for this project is $84,000, which is consistent with the awarded construction contract and the authorized project budget.

RECOMMENDED MOTION(S)
Motion to adopt the Resolution Authorizing a Notice of Completion for the Civic Center East Sidewalk Heater Project.

RESPONSIBLE STAFF Sean Sullivan, Director of Public Services Israel Gomez, Associate Engineer

ADDITIONAL CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
None.

MEETING
DATE: February 7, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
THROUGH: Frank A. Rush, Jr., City Manager
FROM: Sean Sullivan, Director of Public Services
Israel Gomez, Associate Engineer
SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing a Notice of Completion for the Civic Center East Sidewalk Heater Project

BACKGROUND
Beginning in Fiscal Year 2017-18, staff coordinated ADA and access improvement projects to City Hall and the Performing Arts Center. The efforts included the replacement and reconstruction of sidewalk, staircases, and accessibility ramps. As an additional component of these projects, heated sidewalks were installed to assist with snow removal efforts in key areas of the Civic Center Complex. For purposes of implementation, the project was split into phases with Phase I being completed in FY 2017-18 and Phase II being undertaken in FY 2019-20. S. Porter, Inc. (Big Bear City, CA) was the awarded contractor for both phases of the project.

The projects were funded through the City’s General Fund and CDBG funds, and as Phase II was awarded for construction, funding limitations were recognized. For Phase II, it was determined that the sidewalk and ramps would be constructed as called for in the project plans. Additionally, the tubing and other integral components of the heating system would be installed, as required during the construction activities, but that the furnishing of the heating boiler would be deferred to a future phase of the project as funding was identified. Funding for the boiler and remaining heating elements was included in the FY 2021-22 City budget as the Civic Center East Sidewalk Heater Project.

DISCUSSION
The Civic Center East Sidewalk Heater Project was included in the Fiscal Year 2021-22 City budget, and it included the furnishing and installing of the remaining heating elements required for the heated sidewalks that were installed during the previous Civic Center sidewalk improvements. S. Porter, Inc. successfully completed the construction of the previous phases of the sidewalk and accessibility improvements around the Civic Center and had also done the preliminary work associated with the partial construction of the heating system on Phase II of the project. Given their unique familiarity with the project, staff solicited a proposal for the remaining elements of this project from S. Porter, Inc.

On August 16, 2021, the City Council approved a sole source waiver and awarded a construction contract to S. Porter, Inc. to complete the Civic Center East Sidewalk Heater Project. The project included installation of a hydronic boiler system, construction and installation of both the footing and the housing for the system, and all the necessary connections and installations to make the system operational. Work on this project commenced in August 2021 and, as of January 31, 2022, all work has been completed and the system is operational.

Staff reviewed the work of the contractor and participated in a startup of the system with the contractor and the system manufacturer. Staff has found the system to be in good working order and is satisfied with the work of the contractor. Staff recommends that the City Council accept the work of S. Porter, Inc. on the Civic Center Easer Sidewalk Heater Project and authorize the recording of a Notice of Completion. Staff will file the Notice of Completion immediately and release all retained funds from the project (5% of total contract) no sooner than thirty-five (35) days from recordation of said notice.

FISCAL IMPACT
Funding for this project is included in the approved Fiscal Year 2021-22 City budget. The total available budget is $85,000 and it is funded through the General Fund. The total expense to complete this project was $84,000.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
On August 16, 2021, the City Council determined this project was categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under section 15301 as minor alteration of existing facilities.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution No. 2022-XX

2. Notice of Completion
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No.
2022-XX

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A NOTICE OF COMPLETION

FOR THE CIVIC CENTER EAST SIDEWALK HEATER PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City of Big Bear Lake has coordinated ADA and accessibility improvements around the Civic Center and Performing Arts Center campus which include sidewalk, staircase, and accessibility ramp improvements, including the installation of heated sidewalks for snow and ice melting; and,
WHEREAS, in the Phase II project, which was completed by S. Porter, Inc. in 2019, the installation of key elements of the heated sidewalk system were deferred due to a lack of available funding; and,
WHEREAS, in the approved Fiscal Year 2021/22 City budget, funding was included to install the remaining elements and activate the remaining sections of heated sidewalk on the Civic Center campus; and,
WHEREAS, on August 16, 2021, the City Council approved a sole source waiver and awarded a construction contract to S. Porter, Inc. to complete the Civic Center East Sidewalk Heater Project in the amount of $84,000; and,
WHEREAS, work for this project commenced in August 2021 and was completed as of January 31, 2022, and the system is operating and appropriately and the project is completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and,
WHEREAS, the final expenditure for this project was $84,000 which is within the budget of $85,000 for this project; and,
WHEREAS, staff is recommending that the City Council accept the work of S. Porter, Inc. as complete for the Civic Center East Sidewalk Heater Project and authorize the recording of a Notice of Completion.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council that directs staff to:

1. File a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder for the Civic Center East Sidewalk Heater Project.

2. Release all retained funds no sooner than thirty-five (35) days from the recording of the Notice of Completion in accordance with all contract provisions.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of February, 2022.

Rick Herrick, Mayor
ATTEST:

Erica Stephenson, City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) ss

CITY OF BIG BEAR LAKE )
I, Erica Stephenson, City Clerk of the City of Big Bear Lake, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of the City Council of the said City is five; that the foregoing resolution, being Resolution No. 2022-XX was duly passed and adopted by the said City Council and attested by the City Clerk of said City, all at a regular meeting of the said City held on the 7th day of February 2022 and that the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

Erica Stephenson, City Clerk
ATTACHMENT 2
Notice of
Completion
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:

Erica Stephenson, City Clerk
WHEN RECORDED, PLEASE MAIL TO:

City of Big Bear Lake
City Clerk
PO Box 10000
Big Bear Lake, CA 92315
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER’S USE

NOTICE OF COMPLETION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT:

1. The undersigned is OWNER or agent of the OWNER of the interest or estate state below in the property hereinafter described.

2. The FULL NAME of the OWNER is The City of Big Bear Lake

3. The FULL ADDRESS OF THE owner is 39707 Big Bear Blvd., P.O. Box 10000, Big Bear Lake, CA 92315

4. The NATURE of the INTEREST or ESTATE of the undersigned is:
____City of Big Bear Lake and County of San Bernardino.___________________________________

5. The FULL NAMES and FULL ADDRESSES of ALL PERSONS, if any, WHO HOLD SUCH INTEREST or ESTATE with the undersigned as JOINT TENANTS or as TENANTS IN COMMON are:

NAMES ADDRESSES
___________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________

6. The full name and full addresses of the predecessors in interest of the undersigned if the property was transferred subsequent to the commencement of the work of improvement herein referred to:

7. A work of improvement on the property hereinafter described was completed January 31, 2022.

8. The work of improvement completed is described as follows: CIVIC CENTER EAST SIDEWALK HEATER PROJECT.

9. The NAME OF THE ORIGINAL CONTRACTORS, if any, for such work of improvement is S. PORTER INC.

10. The street address of said property is 39707 Big Bear Blvd., Big Bear Lake, CA 92315

11. The property on which said work of improvement was completed is in the City of Big Bear Lake, County of San Bernardino, State of California.

Date: ____________________ Signature of Owner or agent of owner ________________________________ Verification for INDIVIDUAL owner ____________________________. I, the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that I am the owner of the aforesaid interest or estate in the property described in the above notice that I have read said notice, that I know and understand the contents thereof, and that the facts stated there in are true and correct.

Date and Place (Signature of owner named in paragraph 2) Verification for NON-INDIVIDUAL owner I, the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that I am the ________________________ of the aforesaid interest or estate in the property described in the above notice that I have read said notice, that I know and understand the contents thereof, and that the facts stated there in are true and correct.

Date and Place (Signature of person signing on behalf of owner)

MEETING DATE: February 7, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor Herrick and Members of the City Council FROM: Frank A. Rush, Jr., City Manager
SUBJECT: City Manager Comments – Item 1.8

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A PURCHASE ORDER FOR SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE COVERS

ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED
City Council will consider a formal resolution authorizing a purchase order with Famcon Pipe and Supply, Inc., Oxnard, CA, in the amount of $42,086 for the purchase of 100 sanitary sewer manhole covers. The Public Services Department is responsible for the maintenance and operation of the City’s sanitary sewer system, which includes approximately 200 miles of pipeline, 12 lift stations, and 3,000 manholes. As a part of routine system maintenance and City street rehabilitation work, City staff replace approximately 100 sewer manhole covers annually. The City utilizes a standard product manufactured by PAMREX, and seeks to continue to utilize these products in the sanitary sewer system. Famcon Pipe and Supply, Inc. is the only designated supplier for this product within the region. The FY 2021-22 budget includes a total appropriation of $100,000 for sewer manhole covers.

RECOMMENDED MOTION(S)
Motion to adopt the Resolution Authorizing a Purchase Order for Sanitary Sewer Manhole Covers.

RESPONSIBLE STAFF Sean Sullivan, Director of Public Services Jason Watterson, Public Works Operations Manager

ADDITIONAL CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
None.

MEETING
DATE: February 7, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
THROUGH: Frank A. Rush, Jr., City Manager
FROM: Sean Sullivan, Director of Public Services
Jason Watterson, Public Works Operations Manager
SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing a Purchase Order for Sanitary Sewer Manhole Covers

BACKGROUND
The City’s Sanitation Division is responsible for the maintenance of the sanitary sewer system which includes approximately 200 miles of sewer main, more than 3,000 manholes, and 12 sewer lift stations. As a part of the ongoing maintenance of the sanitary sewer system, staff coordinates the replacement of approximately one hundred (100) sewer manhole covers annually. The replacement is typically done in coordination with the annual street rehabilitation projects, other sewer improvement projects, or on an as needed basis.

Several years ago, the City adopted a manhole cover manufactured by PAMREX as the standard material for use within the sanitary sewer system. The specified PAMREX manhole covers are approximately half the weight of comparable or standard covers, they are designed to withstand a maximum load rating, and are hinged to allow for easier access by sanitation division staff. Staff is recommending the purchase of one hundred (100) of these manhole covers for use in the sanitary sewer system over the next year.

DISCUSSION
Famcon Pipe and Supply, Inc., Oxnard, CA, is the exclusive wholesaler and distributor for PAMREX manhole covers within the western United States. Famcon is a sole source for the provision of these items based upon their status with PAMREX and staff has obtained a proposal from them for one hundred (100) units with a total cost of $42,086.

FISCAL IMPACT
The approved FY 2021-22 budget includes a total appropriation of $100,000 for sewer manhole covers from the Sanitation Fund.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
This item is for the routine purchase of materials and is not subject to environmental review.

ATTACHMENT

1. Resolution No. 2022-XX
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No.
2022-XX

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A PURCHASE ORDER FOR

SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE COVERS
WHEREAS, the City’s Sanitation Division is responsible for the maintenance of the sanitary sewer system which includes approximately 200 miles of sewer main, more than 3,000 manholes, and 12 sewer lift stations; and
WHEREAS, the City’s efforts generally focus on replacing approximately one hundred (100) manhole covers per year as needed or in conjunction with street rehabilitation or other sewer projects; and
WHEREAS, several years ago, the City adopted a manhole cover manufactured by PAMREX as the City standard as it is hinged and light weight, making for easier use, and it maintains a maximum load rating, enabling them to stand up to the weight of snow removal equipment; and WHEREAS, Famcon Pipe and Supply, Oxnard, CA, is the exclusive wholesaler and distributor for PAMREX manhole covers within the western United Sates, meaning that they are a sole source for the City to obtain them; and
WHEREAS, Famcon Pipe and Supply has provided a proposal to the City of Big Bear Lake for one hundred (100) manhole covers at a total cost of $42,086; and WHEREAS, funding for this purchase is available in the approved Fiscal Year 2021-22 budget.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council that the City Manager is authorized to execute a purchase order with Famcon Pipe and Supply, Oxnard, CA, for 100 PAMREX manhole covers for a total cost of $42,086.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of February, 2022.

Rick Herrick, Mayor
ATTEST:

Erica Stephenson, City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) ss

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

Erica Stephenson, City Clerk

MEETING DATE: February 7, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor Herrick and Members of the City Council FROM: Frank A. Rush, Jr., City Manager
SUBJECT: City Manager Comments – Item 1.9
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF A NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO COMPLY WITH SB 1383 PURSUANT TO A CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN PRESCRIBED BY SB 619

ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED
City Council will consider a formal resolution authorizing the submission of a notification of intent to comply with the requirements of SB 1383 through the development of a corrective action plan as allowed by SB 619. SB 1383 is the State’s short-lived climate pollutants reduction strategy and focuses primarily on the elimination of organic material from landfills. SB 1383 went into effect on January 1, 2022 and mandates enhanced solid waste management and handling requirements, including source separation of organic material including vegetative debris (or yard waste) and food waste, and other strategies to eliminate organic waste from the typical solid waste stream. SB 619 was enacted into law in October 2021, and provides an expanded timeline for local jurisdictions to comply with the requirements of SB 1383. SB 1383 will require changes to the City’s existing curbside collection and commercial solid waste services, and the implementation of SB 1383 is one component of the City’s current efforts to improve the City’s overall solid waste program and execute a new long-term agreement for solid waste services.

City staff anticipate that these efforts will culminate with the approval of a new long-term agreement for solid waste services within the next year, and the approval of the attached resolution and SB 619 corrective action plan would ultimately extend the City’s deadline to fully comply with SB 1383 to June 30, 2023.

RECOMMENDED MOTION(S)
Motion to adopt the Resolution Authorizing Submission of a Notification of Intent to Comply with SB 1383 Pursuant to a Corrective Action Plan Prescribed by SB 619.

RESPONSIBLE STAFF Sean Sullivan, Director of Public Services

ADDITIONAL CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
Because of the complexity and difficulty in complying with SB 1383, along with the impact of COVID-19, many California jurisdictions are taking advantage of the provisions of SB 619.

MEETING
DATE: February 7, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
THROUGH: Frank A. Rush, Jr., City Manager
FROM: Sean Sullivan, Director of Public Services
SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing Submission of a Notification of Intent to Comply with SB 1383 Pursuant to a Corrective Action Plan Prescribed by SB 619

BACKGROUND
In September 2016, Governor Brown signed into law Senate Bill (SB) 1383, which establishes methane emissions reduction targets to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants from various contributors across the state. A primary focus of SB 1383 is the management of organic material as it pertains to solid waste management and the legislation allows CalRecycle to implement regulations on solid waste programs to achieve methane gas reduction targets. These regulations are applicable to all California jurisdictions, waste generators, waste haulers, and waste processors and are aimed at reducing statewide methane emissions by 75% by 2025. The key elements of the City’s compliance requirements include the adoption of an updated ordinance to establish the authority to implement and enforce the program requirements, and the implementation of enhanced programs for the separation, hauling, and disposal of organic materials. As of January 1, 2022, the regulations of SB 1383 are in place and are enforceable.

Over the past two years, the City has been focused on mitigating the impacts of COVID-19 on the community. In addition to the management of COVID-19 and the other workload of the City operations, staff and the Council have been engaged in a review of overall solid waste management programs and services. As these efforts have been underway concurrently, staff has been unable to develop and implement all the programs associated SB 1383 compliance. Fortunately, in October 2021, Governor Newsom signed SB 619 to provide punitive relief for local agencies that are not in compliance with SB 1383. Pursuant to SB 619, agencies who are not in compliance with SB 1383 may submit to CalRecycle, by March 1, 2022, a Notification of Intent to Comply with SB 1383 (NOIC). The NOIC requires the agency to provide an overview of SB 1383 compliance efforts, identity the sections that are not in compliance, and provide a timeline for implementation.

Should CalRecycle approve the submission, the agency would be relieved from civil penalties associated with noncompliance for the 2022 calendar year. The proposed resolution authorizes staff to submit a NOIC, consistent with SB 619 requirements, by March 1, 2022.

DISCUSSION
The primary focus of SB 1383 is to minimize the disposal of organic materials in landfills as organic materials have been identified as a primary contributor to methane gas emissions within the State. The overall goal of the legislation is to reduce methane emissions by 75% by 2025 and the regulations contain several provisions for local governments, waste haulers, and waste processors to implement toward achieving that goal. Efforts will focus on diverting the organic material from the waste stream and finding alternative uses for them.

Some of the key compliance measures that staff are working on include an updated solid waste ordinance, standardization of the source separated collection system, a revised procurement policy, and coordinating the implementation of an edible food recovery program. An updated solid waste ordinance will include the provisions and requirements of SB 1383 as well as elements of the recently presented scope of work and provide the authority to enforce violations of these efforts.

Staff anticipates City Council consideration of the updated ordinance this summer, and it being effective no later than September 30. The City presently utilizes a source separated collection program in that solid waste, recycling, and vegetative debris are collected and disposed of separately. SB 1383 requires improvements, as included in the reviewed scope of work, including standardized containers, container inspections, and particular handling requirements for the waste once collected. The improvements will roll out concurrent to the updated service agreement, which is expected to be implemented later in 2022. SB 1383 requires the City to adopt a revised procurement policy and practices pertaining to the procurement of organic material, which requires the City to procure certain items such as compost or mulch or alternative fuel vehicles.

Additionally, the City is required to coordinate an edible food recovery program in that staff will offer resources, in the way of food collection services or organization, to major generators such as supermarkets. The legislation requires that staff provide this information and resources to all required generators but that they do not need to facilitate the program. This effort is underway and will be continued on an ongoing basis. These identified elements are not conclusive of the efforts that staff is undertaking to achieve compliance with SB 1383 but are representative of the nature of the programs and policies that will be developed and implemented. Recently, the City obtained approval of a High Elevation Waiver, which will exempt the community from some of the food separation and recycling requirements of the program.

Approval of the proposed resolution will authorize staff to submit the required documentation to CalRecycle to request extended timelines for implementation of SB 1383. This request, which is consistent with SB 619, will allow staff to continue the efforts associated with developing and implementing the new solid waste service agreement and the policies and programs required by SB 1383 with temporary relief from penalty. The submitted timeline will be realistic to the implementation of these efforts and will allow the City Council flexibility in identifying the process to secure the next service agreement.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. Further actions pertaining to the solid waste programs may have a fiscal impact and those will be analyzed with each future action.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
This action is not subject to environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

ATTACHMENT

1. Resolution No. 2022-XX
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No.
2022-XX
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF A
NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO COMPLY WITH SB 1383

PURSUANT TO A CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN
PRESCRIBED BY SB 619
WHEREAS, CalRecycle, in consultation with the California Air Resources Board, has adopted regulatory requirements (Regulations), consistent with the mandate of Senate Bill 1383 (Lara, 2016), that are designed to achieve the organic waste reduction goals established in Section 39730.6 of the Health and Safety Code through a 50 percent reduction in the level of the statewide disposal of organic waste from the 2014 level by 2020 and a 75 percent reduction in the level of the statewide disposal of organic waste from the 2014 level by 2025; and WHEREAS, the City of Big Bear Lake is a local jurisdiction required to comply with the regulations and expects to be in violation of the Regulations commencing during the 2022 calendar year; and
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 619 (Laird, 2021), through amendmentsto Section 42652.5 of the Public Resources Code (Statute), created a mechanism called a Notification of Intent to Comply through which a local jurisdiction may secure administrative civil penalty relief from any violations of the Regulations for the 2022 calendar year and may be eligible for a broader and longer-term regulatory compliance path, including suspended administrative civil penalties, through a corrective action plan; and
WHEREAS, the City of Big Bear Lake is a local jurisdiction authorized by the Statute to submit a Notification of Intent to Comply for CalRecycle; and
WHEREAS, CalRecycle shall approve a Notification of Intent to Comply that is duly adopted by the jurisdiction by formal resolution and meets the requirements of the Statute.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of Big Bear Lake that:

1. The Notification of Intent to Comply is adopted and approved for submittal.

2. The City Manager, or his designee, is authorized to submit the Notification of Intent to CalRecycle by March 1, 2022.

3. By submitting the Notification of Intent to Comply pursuant to and subject to the above referenced requirements, the City represents and certifies that it will implement the proposed actions to remedy the violations according to the proposed schedule as approved by CalRecycle in accordance with the Statute and Regulations.

4. The City agrees to comply with any maximum compliance deadline in any correction active plan that CalRecycle, in its sole discretion, determines to be necessary and appropriate under the circumstances for the correction of any violation of the Statute and Regulations identified in its Notification of Intent to Comply.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of February, 2022.

Rick Herrick, Mayor
ATTEST:

Erica Stephenson, City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) ss

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

Erica Stephenson, City Clerk
MEETING DATE: February 7, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor Herrick and Members of the City Council FROM: Frank A. Rush, Jr., City Manager
SUBJECT: City Manager Comments – Item 1.10

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING GRANT FUNDING APPLICATIONS TO THE

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION FOR THE RECREATIONAL TRAILS PROGRAM

ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED
City Council will consider a formal resolution authorizing the submission of two grant applications to the California Department of Parks and Recreation, Recreational Trails Program for a) future development of the Rathbun Creek bicycle and pedestrian trail, and b) future development of park amenities at the Stanfield Marsh property. The proposed resolution authorizes a $2 million grant application for the Rathbun Creek trail segments located between the Big Bear Alpine Zoo and Sandalwood Drive, and a $2 million grant application for the Stanfield Marsh park amenities, including new paved trails, boardwalk improvements, and parking lot improvements. If awarded, the grants would be matched with existing funding programmed for these projects, which is derived from other grants and transient occupancy tax revenues in the Measure Y Fund.

RECOMMENDED MOTION(S)
Motion to adopt the Resolution Authorizing Grant Funding Applications to the California Department of Parks and Recreation for the Recreational Trails Program.

RESPONSIBLE STAFF Sean Sullivan, Director of Public Services Katya Meyer, Administrative Analyst

ADDITIONAL CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
The City continues to aggressively pursue any and all grant funding opportunities to improve the community. We are hopeful that grant funding for the Rathbun Creek trail and / or the planned Stanfield Marsh park will be awarded through the Recreational Trails Program and / or the Land and Water Conservation Fund (grant applications authorized at the January 11 meeting).

MEETING
DATE: February 7, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
THROUGH: Frank A. Rush, Jr., City Manager
FROM: Sean Sullivan, Director of Public Services
Katya Meyer, Administrative Analyst
SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing Grant Funding Applications to the California Department of Parks and Recreation for the Recreational Trails Program

BACKGROUND
The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST-ACT) provides funding for federal, state, local and nonprofit entities to develop and maintain recreational trails. The Recreational Trails Program (RTP) is developed from FAST-ACT funding and is administered by the California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR). Projects eligible for funding under these programs include construction or renovation of new trails that expand linkages and connectivity of trails and the development of trailhead facilities. There are several trail improvement projects included within the City’s approved 5-Year Capital Replacement / Improvement Plan and staff has identified two of them that would be appropriate applications for this funding: the Rathbun Creek Trail and Stanfield Marsh Park Development projects.

Grant applications are due on March 1, 2022 and the applications require an adopted resolution authorizing the submittal of the applications. A resolution is presented for the City Council’s consideration, authorizing staff to submit grant applications to the Recreational Trails Program for the identified projects.

DISCUSSION
The Recreational Trails Program (RTP) makes available an annual allocation for trail projects, administered through the California Department of Parks and Recreation. There is a competitive application process for projects, and applications are due on March 1, 2022. The grants allow for a maximum funding request of $2 million and require a local match of at least 12%. Each project will need to meet federal requirements to allow the FHWA to approve the project and obligate funds.

Staff has selected two (2) existing projects within the City’s approved capital plan that are believed to be good candidates for this funding and staff desires to submit the appropriate applications. The identified projects are the Rathbun Creek Trail Project and the Stanfield Marsh Park Development Project. These projects both provide recreational opportunities within the City through the development and expansion of trails throughout the community.

The Rathbun Creek Trail was identified as a high-priority project within the Big Bear Valley Pedestrian Bicycle Equestrian Master Plan (2013) with a vision of a continuous trail from the shores of Big Bear Lake to the National Forest Boundary. The project was broken into phases and, at this time, portions of the trail are complete including the Alpine Pedal Path Extension and the portion from Big Bear Boulevard to Elm Street. Existing plans include two remaining phases of the trail, from Sandalwood Drive to Big Bear Boulevard and from Elm Street to the Zoo. There have also been ongoing discussions related to the development of an appropriate crossing for the trail at Big Bear Boulevard. The existing cost estimates for the trail expansions are approximately $2.8 million. Staff anticipates submitting this entire scope of work in an application with a requested grant award of $2 million.

An extensive scope of work has been developed for improvements to the area known as Stanfield Marsh that staff desires to submit an additional funding application for. Current plans call for the improvement and expansion of the pedestrian trails, improvements to the parking lot, and performing maintenance on the boardwalks and the eventual expansion of the paved pedestrian trails to Division Drive. In September 2021, the City Council authorized the City’s acquisition of these assets from the Municipal Water District further enabling the City to improve and expand in this area. Staff is proposing the submission of a grant for improvements to this area to include improvement to the existing boardwalks, the extension of paved trails, and improvements to the existing parking lot area with a total budget of approximately $2.5 Million. Staff anticipates a funding request of $2 million for this application.

FISCAL IMPACT
The total grant request for these projects is $4 million. Existing funding for these initiatives is included within the approved Five-Year Capital Replacement / Improvement Plan, which will be the source of the required matching funds for any approved grants. The identified funding source for these efforts is primarily other grants and transient occupancy tax derived from overnight visitors to Big Bear Lake.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
The submission of these applications is not subject to environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Funded projects will be required to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) prior to the obligation of funds. Environmental considerations will be presented for future City Council consideration as a part of the overall project development.

ATTACHMENT

1. Resolution No. 2022-XX
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No.
2022-XX
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING GRANT FUNDING APPLICATIONS

TO THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND

RECREATION FOR THE RECREATIONAL TRAILS PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST-ACT) provides funds to federal, state, local and non-profit organizations to acquire, develop, and maintain motorized and non-motorized trail projects; and
WHEREAS, the State Department of Parks and Recreation has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of the program within the State of California, setting up necessary procedures governing project application under the program; and WHEREAS, said procedures established by the State Department of Parks and Recreation require the applicant to certify by resolution the approval of applications before submission of said applications to the State; and
WHEREAS, the City will enter into a contract with the State of California to complete the proposed projects; and
WHEREAS, the City of Big Bear Lake plans to submit applications for funding for both the Rathbun Creek trail and the Stanfield Marsh park development projects.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby:

1. Approves the filing of two grant funding applications to the Recreational Trails Program.

2. Certifies that the projects are consistent with the applicant’s General Plan or equivalent planning document.

3. Certifies that the applicant has or will have available prior to commencement of any work on the projects included in these applications, sufficient funds to operate and maintain the projects.

4. Certifies that the applicant has reviewed, understands, and agrees to the General Provisions contained in the contract shown in the Procedural Guide.

5. Appoints the City Manager as agent to conduct all negotiations, execute and submit all documents, including, but not limited to applications, agreements, amendments, payment requests and so on, which may be necessary for the completion of the projects.

6. Agrees to comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and guidelines.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of February, 2022.

Rick Herrick, Mayor
ATTEST:

Erica Stephenson, City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) ss

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

Erica Stephenson, City Clerk

MEETING DATE: February 7, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor Herrick and Members of the City Council FROM: Frank A. Rush, Jr., City Manager
SUBJECT: City Manager Comments – Item 2.1
ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 16.07 – SUBDIVISIONS - AND CHAPTER 17.25 - RESIDENTIAL ZONES – OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO IMPLEMENT SB 9 AND REGULATE URBAN LOT SPLITS AND ADDITIONAL

UNITS ON SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, AND FINDING THE ORDINANCE EXEMPT FROM

THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED
City Council will conduct a public hearing to receive comments regarding proposed amendments to implement recent State mandates to allow for urban lot splits and approval of up to four units on singlefamily residential properties. The proposed ordinance implements SB 9, establishes a ministerial process for approval of urban lot splits and additional units, and includes various regulations intended to promote and preserve single-family neighborhood characteristics to the maximum extent possible. The proposed amendment to Chapter 16.07 – Subdivisions - includes the addition of section 16.07.060 - Urban Lot Splits - to allow and regulate these lot splits on R-L (residential low) and R-1 (single-family) zoned properties citywide. Proposed amendments to Chapter 17.25 – Residential Zones, specifically section 17.25.130 - Second Units and Two-Unit Projects, would allow and regulate such projects in the R-L (residential low) and R-1 (single-family) zone districts citywide. The proposed ordinance follows a similar urgency ordinance adopted by the City Council on January 11, 2022, and was discussed by the Planning Commission at its January 19, 2022 meeting. The Planning Commission voted 4-0 to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance.

RECOMMENDED MOTION(S)
Motion to adopt the Ordinance Amending Chapter 16.07 – Subdivisions – and Chapter 17.25 – Residential Zones – of the Municipal Code to Implement SB 9 and Regulate Urban Lot Splits and Additional Units on Single-Family Residential Properties, and Finding the Ordinance Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.

RESPONSIBLE STAFF Sue O’Strander, Community Development Director Janice Etter, Senior Principal Planner

ADDITIONAL CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
The proposed ordinance presented for consideration on February 7 is very similar to the urgency ordinance adopted by the City Council on January 11, but includes two changes to incorporate Planning Commission input. Specifically, the February 7 ordinance specifies that the resulting residential units must be a minimum of 500 square feet, and not larger than 800 square feet. The February 7 ordinance also maintains a building height limit of 22 feet, and specifies that relaxed building setbacks should be considered in lieu of any taller new structures.

MEETING
DATE: February 7, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
THROUGH: Frank A. Rush, Jr., City Manager
FROM: Sue O’Strander, AICP, Director of Community Development Janice Etter, AICP, Sr. Principal Planner
SUBJECT: Ordinance Amending Chapter 16.07 – Subdivisions - and Chapter 17.25 - Residential Zones - of the Municipal Code to Implement SB 9 and Regulate Urban Lot Splits and Additional Units on Single-Family Residential Properties, and Finding the Ordinance Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act

BACKGROUND
On January 11, 2021, the City Council approved Urgency Ordinance No. 2022-499, adopting interim regulations to implement the provisions of Senate Bill 9 (SB 9). This law became effective on January 1, 2022, and makes changes to the California Subdivision Map Act in Government Code Section 66411.7 and California zoning law in Government Code Section 65852.21. With respect to the Subdivision Map Act, the law requires cities to allow residential lots to be split roughly in half, called “urban lot splits,” and allow two new units to be built on each newly created lot. With respect to zoning law, SB 9 requires cities to allow two units on any lot that is zoned single family residential.

To follow-up on the City Council’s previous action, on January 19, 2022, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on a non-urgency ordinance concerning Development Code Amendment 2021-160, to revise two sections of the Big Bear Lake Municipal Code; specifically Chapter 16.07 regulating subdivisions, and Chapter 17.25 regulating residential development, in response to the new regulations created by SB 9. No public testimony was received during this hearing, however, the commission engaged in a robust discussion.

The Planning Commission considered the urgency ordinance as a starting point and made changes to reinforce the unit size and building height requirements in this non-urgency ordinance, as discussed further in this report. The Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2022-02, by a vote of 4 in favor, 0 against, and 1 commissioner absent. The action recommends that the City Council adopt an ordinance to approve Development Code Amendment 2021-160, finding the project statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, and adopting the appropriate changes to Municipal Code Section 16.07.060 and Development Code Section 17.25.130 to regulate urban lot splits, second units, and two-unit developments in accordance with SB 9. An ordinance containing these provisions is attached to this Agenda Report as Attachment 1. The Planning Commission’s staff report is attached as Attachment 2.

DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission conducted their review of the draft ordinance as part of a duly noticed public hearing. The first consideration was to discuss if permanent regulations should be more restrictive or less restrictive to accommodate the required urban lot splits, second units, and twounit projects into residential neighborhoods. In general, the Commissioners indicated their desire to protect the residential character of the existing neighborhoods from the impacts of increased density as much as possible. As such, the Planning Commission deliberations leaned toward more restrictive regulations for SB9 projects as currently allowed under state law.

Many aspects contained in the City Council adopted urgency ordinance have been retained in this non-urgency ordinance, including:
• Prohibition of a vacation rental use of any unit created under the SB 9 provisions; • Owner occupancy requirements;
• Recording of deed restrictions; and
• Prohibition of urban lot splits, second units, and two-unit projects on unpaved or substandard-width streets, and dead-end or cul-de-sac streets as a fire hazard mitigation measure.

After review of the ordinance language, the Planning Commission added provisions to:
• Establish a minimum and maximum unit size, including the size of existing units when adding a second unit;
• Considerations for building height; and
• Establish regulations for relief from the development standards as required by state law to allow two units of up to 800 square feet each.

Specific discussion points by the Planning Commission are summarized below.

Minimum and Maximum Unit Size
The state law clearly says that the City may not impose any development standard that precludes the construction of a dwelling unit of at least 800 square feet (sf) in area. However, a builder may elect to build a smaller unit. The urgency ordinance does not establish a minimum unit size, instead, leaving the design flexible for the size of the lot.

The Development Code currently establishes a minimum unit size of 500 sf for a studio unit. A small unit size encourages the use of nonconventional building construction such as container homes and prefabricated units, leading to more affordability. While smaller units certainly exist, such as in other jurisdictions for ADU standards, the Planning Commission determined that SB 9 units are intended to be independent dwelling units (not ADUs), and therefore, recommends that the minimum size of a unit under the provisions of SB 9 should likewise be 500 square feet in area.

The Planning Commission also believed that a provision must be put in place to protect properties from being overbuilt and to limit the square footage that could be proposed on a second unit project. In response to this, the Planning Commission recommends the following language to regulate the maximum unit sizes for both urban lot splits and second units, to be placed in the respective code sections to address SB9 unit size:
“The total floor area of each dwelling unit that is developed on a lot resulting from an urban lot split/second unit must be:
(I) Equal to or greater than 500 square feet in area, and (II) Less than or equal to 800 square feet in area.
(ii) A dwelling unit that was legally established prior to the urban lot split/second unit and that is larger than 800 square feet is limited to the lawful floor area at the time of the urban lot split/second unit. The floor area of the original dwelling unit may not be expanded. (iii) A dwelling unit that was legally established prior to the urban lot split/second unit and that is smaller than 800 square feet may be expanded to 800 square feet after the urban lot split/second unit.” Building Height
The Planning Commission was asked to consider the appropriate building height for SB9 units.

The Urgency Ordinance established a maximum building height of 22 feet in order to allow for two-story development yet also retain a conservative building height that is in alignment with current development standards. We believe that two-story units must be allowed because the state law establishes a minimum lot size of 1,200 sf in area, and requires that the City allow two units of 800 sf each (a total of 1,600 sf of building area) on such lots. The only way to achieve this on the minimum size lot is to build higher than one story.

Staff asked the Planning Commission to discuss the appropriate building height taking into consideration sloping lots, accommodating a ground level garage and a second unit above, and providing a more conventional roof pitch of 4:12 or 6:12. However, the Planning Commission was very concerned about two-story SB 9 units overlooking existing one-story single family residences and chose not to increase building height above 22 feet for second units and two-unit projects.

As explained to the Commission by Attorney Todd Leishman, the City must allow units up to 800 sf. As such, the options are to allow encroachment into required setback or allow increased height to achieve the required building size. The Planning Commission stated that their preference would first be a reduction in the setback requirements, and second would be an increase in building height.

Specifically, that a SB 9 unit “go out first instead of up” to achieve up to 800 square feet in area.

For clarity, the Planning Commission recommends inclusion of the following language to be placed in the respective code sections to address SB9 unit height:
“The maximum building height of a primary dwelling unit shall be 22 feet, measured in the manner established in Development Code Section 17.02.030 “Building Height.” Relief from setbacks will be granted before relief from building height.” Multiple Family Residential (R-3) Zone
Under the urgency ordinance, the City took a strict interpretation of the state law that the provisions of SB 9 apply only to the single family residential zones. The Planning Commission was requested to evaluate this interpretation, specifically if they believed that a different interpretation of SB9 provisions was necessary – for example that the State legislation applies to any zone in which a single family residence is allowed as a permitted land use.

The City’s development regulations allow single family residences in the Multiple Family Residential (R-3) zone and the Residential Multi-Family zone of the Village Specific Plan. If desired, an amendment to the Development Code and Village Specific Plan to remove single family residence as a permitted land use could address this potential concern. This action would preserve R-3 land for higher density projects, and the city would then have to tackle the issue of how to develop very small multi-family zoned lots. At this time, the Commission decided to not amend the R-3 zoning provisions with regard to single family uses. The recommended ordinance as currently written continues to prohibit urban lot splits and second unit/two-unit development in the multiple family, commercial, public-open space and Village Specific Plan zones.

ANALYSIS
General Plan Consistency
The project is consistent with several General Plan policies including the Land Use Element L3.1a. and L 3.2.a., Community Design Element policies CD 3.1 and CD 3.3 and Housing Element policy H 1.1 and Goal H3 Below is a list of those policies, a brief summary, and consistency analysis specific to the proposed development.

GOAL,

PROGRAM, OR
POLICY

SUMMARY OR INTENT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
L 3.1a. Permit a range of residential densities and
housing types throughout the City.

The urban lot split and second unit and
two-unit project provisions provide a range
of densities of up to four units on a
residential lot.

L 3.2a.

Ensure that residential development provides an
attractive living environment and creates longterm value for residents as well as the community; multiple family development should create a safe,
convenient, attractive environment with adequate
open space and on-site amenities.

The objective zoning and design
standards are comparable with the city’s
existing development standards to allow
new units to blend into existing
neighborhoods. The object standards
further provide for an appropriate level of
convenience and livability for the residents
of the units by requiring private open
space, storage, livable area, and
sanitation facilities for each unit.

CD 3.1
The built environment should provide a visually
interesting and stimulating setting by using varied
physical forms and details, which contribute to Big
Bear Lake’s sense of place.

The objective design standards require a
matching architectural style and rooflines
for second units and two-unit projects.

CD 3.3
Building materials should promote a mountain
design theme and a genuine character through
emphasis on wood and stone elements and other
compatible natural materials.

A minimum roof pitch and wide roof eaves
promote a mountain design theme. The
use of more than one exterior siding
material is required to provide a visually
interesting building.

H 1.1
Ensure availability of adequate land capacity to
allow for different densities suitable for a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including
rental housing and manufactured housing.

The adoption of an ordinance to
implement SB 9 provides for additional
land and the construction of a variety of
housing types, including attached,
detached, duplex, ADU, and JADU units.

H 3 Facilitate housing development with minimal
government constraints.

Under the provisions of SB 9, the creation
of urban lot splits and second units/twounit projects is a ministerial action, without the need for a land use entitlement or
public hearing.

PS 7.2.4 Require approved emergency access for all new
development
The proposed fire hazard mitigation
measures prohibit urban lot splits and
second units or two-unit projects on
unpaved roads, substandard-width
streets, and dead end cul-de-sacs
because of these locations lack of
adequate access for firefighting
equipment and limitations on safely
evacuating residents.

PS 7.4 Maintain, review, and enforce standards for fire hazard areas
The proposed fire hazard mitigation
measures require compliance with
building and fire code requirements, fire
sprinklers, adequate access, and
proximity to a fire hydrant or adequate
hose pull distance

FINDINGS
In approving a request for a Development Code Amendment, the City Council must make the following findings required by Development Code Section 17.03.200.

1. The proposed Development Code Amendment conforms with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan;
The proposed amendment is necessary to comply with state law and supports the development of additional housing units. The amendment is consistent with Land Use Element Policy L3.1 to permit a range of residential housing types and density throughout the City. The proposed objective design standards comply with Community Design Element CD 3.1 and CD 3.3 that accessory structures shall use the same design theme and materials as the primary structure, and that building materials should promote a mountain design theme through emphasis on wood, stone, and natural materials. The proposed amendment is consistent with several of the policies of the 2021-2029 Housing Element, specifically Policy H1.1 to ensure availability of adequate land capacity to allow for different densities and housing types for all income levels; and Goal H3 to facilitate housing development with minimal governmental constraints. The proposed fire mitigation measures are appropriate to comply with Public Services Element PS 7.2.4 to require approved access for firefighting equipment and emergency evacuations; and Element PS

7.4 to maintain, review, and enforce fire code standards.

2. The proposed Development Code amendment is necessary to implement the General Plan and to provide for public safety convenience and/or general welfare; The provisions of SB 9 are currently law. The City wishes to adopt an ordinance to appropriately regulate urban lot splits and second unit/two-unit projects for the preservation of the public peace, health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens and property owners.

Absent regulations of our own, urban lot splits and the development of second units and two-unit projects would be subject to very few requirements and potentially be developed in a manner inconsistent with existing neighborhoods and the City’s General Plan.

3. The proposed Development Code amendment conforms with the intent of the Development Code and is consistent with all other related provisions thereof; Under the provisions of SB 9, the City is allowed to adopt objective subdivision, zoning, and design standards that do not conflict with the revised state law. The City proposes to adopt such measures for setbacks, building height, minimum lot frontage, and building appearance that apply to all development throughout the City to provide for orderly development of properties.

4. The proposed Development Code amendment is reasonable and beneficial at this time.

SB 9 was signed into law on September 16, 2021, and became effective on January 1, 2022.

Therefore, this bill is currently law. The bill requires the City to adopt regulations to implement the revisions to the California Subdivision Map Act (Government Code 66411.7) and California zoning law (Government Code Section 65852.21.) Therefore, this Development Code amendment is reasonable and beneficial at this time to bring the City’s regulations into compliance with state law.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Under California Government Code sections 65852.21, subd. (j), and 66411.7, subd. (n), the adoption of an ordinance by a city implementing the provisions of Government Code sections 66411.7 and 65852.21 and regulating urban lot splits and two-unit projects is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). Therefore, the proposed ordinance is statutorily exempt from CEQA in that the proposed ordinance implements these new laws enacted by SB 9. A Notice of Exemption is attached as Attachment 3.

FISCAL IMPACT
There are no fiscal impacts associated with the adoption of the recommended ordinance.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Ordinance No. 2022-xxx

2. Planning Commission Staff Report (without attachments) dated January 19, 2022

3. CEQA Notice of Exemption
ATTACHMENT 1
Ordinance No.
2022-xxx
ORDINANCE NO. 2022-xxx
ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 16.07 – SUBDIVISIONS - AND CHAPTER

17.25 - RESIDENTIAL ZONES - OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO IMPLEMENT SB 9 AND REGULATE URBAN LOT SPLITS AND ADDITIONAL UNITS ON SINGLEFAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, AND FINDING THE ORDINANCE

EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS, the City of Big Bear Lake, California (“City”) is a municipal corporation, duly organized under the constitution and laws of the State of California; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 65800 and 65850 of the California Government Code, the City may adopt ordinances to regulate the use of buildings, structures, and land as between industry, business, residences, and open space, and other purposes; to regulate the location, height, bulk, number of stories and size of buildings and structures, the size and use of lots, yards, courts and other open spaces, the percentage of a lot which may be occupied by a building or structure, and the intensity of land use; and to establish requirements for off-street parking, in compliance with the California Government Code. The City has adopted such an ordinance, referred to as the Development Code, adopted by Ordinance No. 2003-333, on September 8, 2003, and codified in the Municipal Code as Chapter 17; and
WHEREAS, Section 17.03.200 of the Development Code includes provisions for amendments to the Development Code; and
WHEREAS, in 2021, the California Legislature approved, and the Governor signed into law Senate Bill 9 (“SB 9”), which among other things, adds Government Code Sections 65852.21 and 66411.7 to impose new limits on local authority to regulate urban lot splits and two-unit projects.

SB 9 took effect on January 1, 2022, and preempts any conflicting City ordinance; and WHEREAS, on January 11, 2022, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No 2022-499 containing revisions to Municipal Code Chapter 16.07 Subdivisions and Development Code Chapter 17.25 Residential Zones, to implement the provisions of SB 9 until the adoption of a nonurgency ordinance. Upon the effective date of this non-urgency ordinance, Urgency Ordinance No. 2022-499 is rescinded and shall be deemed of no further force or effect; and WHEREAS, SB 9 allows local agencies to adopt objective design, development, and subdivision standards for urban lot splits, second units and two-unit projects; and WHEREAS, the City desires to amend its local regulatory scheme to comply with Government Code Sections 66411.7 and 65852.21 and to appropriately regulate projects under SB 9; and WHEREAS, the approval of urban lot splits and two-unit projects based solely on the State’s standards, without appropriate regulations governing unit size, height, setback, lot coverage, access, design standards, among other things, would threaten the character of existing neighborhoods, and negatively impact property values, personal privacy, and fire safety. These threats to public safety, health, and welfare justify adoption of a City ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Development Code Amendment 2021-160, to amend the City’s subdivision regulations contained in Municipal Code Chapter 16.07 (Subdivisions) to add a new section, Section 16.07.060 to allow and regulate “Urban Lot Splits” as contained in California Government Code Section 66411.7. Development Code Amendment 2021-160 further proposes to amend the City’s Residential zoning regulations contained in the City’s Municipal Code (Title 17) known also as the Development Code by repealing Development Code Section 17.25.130 currently titled Temporary Dependent Housing Units, comprising outdated legislation and retitling this section Second Units and Two-Unit Projects with new language to allow and regulate second units and two-unit projects as contained in California Government Code 65852.21; and
WHEREAS, on January 19, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Application in Hofert Hall of the Civic and Performing Arts Center at 39707 Big Bear Boulevard, Big Bear Lake, CA, 92315 and concluded the hearing on this date with the adoption of Resolution No. PC2022-02 by a vote of 4 in favor, 0 against, and 1 absent. This resolution recommends that the City Council approve Development Code Amendment 2021-160 by adoption of an ordinance and find the action exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, public notice of the public hearing of February 7, 2022, on Development Code Amendment 2021-160 was published in The Grizzly newspaper, on January 26, 2022, posted in three public places and advertised on the City’s website; and WHEREAS, on February 7, 2022, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Development Code amendment in Hofert Hall of the Civic and Performing Arts Center, 39707 Big Bear Boulevard, Big Bear Lake, CA 92315. The City Council read the title, waived further reading, and introduced an ordinance approving Development Code Amendment 2021-160 and amending Municipal Code Chapter 16.07 (Subdivisions) and Development Code Chapter 17.25 (Residential Zones) allowing and regulating urban lot splits, second units, and two-unit projects consistent with Senate Bill 9 (SB 9) and finding the adoption of an ordinance to implement SB 9 statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, on March 7, 2022, the City Council conducted a public meeting on the Development Code amendment in Hofert Hall of the Civic and Performing Arts Center, 39707 Big Bear Boulevard, Big Bear Lake, California, 92315, and adopted an ordinance approving Development Code Amendment 2021-160 and amending Municipal Code Chapter 16.07 (Subdivisions) and Development Code Chapter 17.25 (Residential Zones) allowing and regulating urban lot splits, second units, and two-unit projects consistent with Senate Bill 9 (SB 9) and finding the adoption of an ordinance to implement SB 9 statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act; and,
WHEREAS, the adoption of an Ordinance to implement the requirements of SB 9 is Statutorily Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Division 13, Section 21000 of the Public Resources Code; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this ordinance have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Big Bear Lake does ordain as follows:

Section 1. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the above recitals of this Ordinance are true and correct.

Section 2. The City Council hereby finds that under California Government Code Sections 65852.21, subd. (j), and 66411.7, subd. (n), the adoption of an ordinance by the city to regulate urban lot splits, second units, and two-unit projects is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). Therefore, the proposed ordinance is statutorily exempt from CEQA in that the proposed ordinance implements these new laws enacted by SB 9.

Section 3. Based on the evidence presented to the City Council at the February 7, 2022, and March 7, 2022, public hearing and meeting, including public testimony and written and oral agenda reports, the City Council specifically finds as follows with respect to Development Code Amendment 2021-160:

1. The proposed Development Code Amendment conforms to the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan, specifically that the proposed amendment is necessary to comply with state law and supports the development of additional housing units. The amendment is consistent with Land Use Element Policy L3.1 to permit a range of residential housing types and density throughout the City. The proposed objective design standards comply with Community Design Element CD 3.1 and CD 3.3 that accessory structures shall use the same design theme and materials as the primary structure, and that building materials should promote a mountain design theme through emphasis on wood, stone, and natural materials. The proposed amendment is consistent with several of the policies of the 2021-2029 Housing Element, specifically Policy H1.1 to ensure availability of adequate land capacity to allow for different densities and housing types for all income levels; and Goal H3 to facilitate housing development with minimal governmental constraints. The proposed fire mitigation measures are appropriate to comply with Public Services Element PS 7.2.4 to require approved access for firefighting equipment and emergency evacuations; and Element PS 7.4 to maintain, review, and enforce fire code standards.

2. The proposed Development Code amendment is necessary to implement the General Plan and to provide for public safety convenience and/or general welfare because the provisions of SB 9 are currently law. The City wishes to adopt an ordinance to appropriately regulate urban lot splits and second unit/two-unit projects for the preservation of the public peace, health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens and property owners. Absent regulations of our own, urban lot splits and the development of second units and two-unit projects would be subject to very few requirements and potentially be developed in a manner inconsistent with existing neighborhoods and the City’s General Plan.

3. The proposed Development Code amendment conforms to the intent of the Development Code and is consistent with all other related provisions thereof. Under the provisions of SB 9, the City is allowed to adopt objective subdivision, zoning, and design standards that do not conflict with the revised state law. The City proposes to adopt such measures for setbacks, building height, minimum lot frontage, and building appearance that apply to all development throughout the City to provide for orderly development of properties.

4. The proposed Development Code Amendment is reasonable and beneficial at this time because SB 9 was signed into law on September 16, 2021, and became effective on January 1, 2022. The bill requires the City to adopt regulations to implement the revisions to the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code 66411.7) and California zoning law (Government Code Section 65852.21.) Therefore, this Development Code amendment is reasonable and beneficial at this time to bring the City’s regulations into compliance with state law.

Section 4. Based on the findings and conclusions as set forth in Sections 1, 2, and 3 above, the City Council hereby adopts an ordinance approving Development Code Amendment 2021-160 amending Municipal Code Chapter 16.07 (Subdivisions) as provided in Exhibit 1 and Development Code Chapter 17.25 (Residential Standards) as provided in Exhibit 2.

Section 5. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any entity, person or circumstance is held for any reason to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect other provisions of applications of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. The City Council and the people of the City of Big Bear Lake hereby declare that they would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section subsection, sentences clauses or phrases be declared invalid of unconstitutional.

Section 6. The City Clerk shall either: (a) have this ordinance published in a newspaper of general circulation within 15 days after its adoption or (b) have a summary of this ordinance published twice in a newspaper of general circulation, once five days before its adoption and again within 15 days after its adoption.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of March, 2022.

Rick Herrick, Mayor
ATTEST:

Erica Stephenson, City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO )

CITY OF BIG BEAR LAKE )
I, Erica Stephenson, City Clerk of the City of Big Bear Lake, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of the City Council is five; that the foregoing Ordinance, being Ordinance No. 2022-xxx is a full, true and correct original of Ordinance No. 2022-xxx of the City of Big Bear Lake entitled:

ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 16.07 – SUBDIVISIONS - AND CHAPTER

17.25 - RESIDENTIAL ZONES - OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO IMPLEMENT SB 9 AND REGULATE URBAN LOT SPLITS AND ADDITIONAL UNITS ON SINGLEFAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, AND FINDING THE ORDINANCE

EXEMPT FROM CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
was duly passed and adopted by the said City Council, approved and signed by the Mayor of said City, and attested by the Clerk of said City, all at a regular meeting of the said Council on the 7th day of March 2022, and that the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

EXCUSED:

I do hereby further certify that pursuant to the provisions of Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California that the foregoing Ordinance No. 2022-xxx was duly and regularly published according to law and the order of the City Council and circulated within the said City.

Erica Stephenson, City Clerk
ORDINANCE NO. 2022-XXX
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 2021-160
EXHIBIT 1

THE FOLLOWING CHAPTERS AND SECTIONS OF THE BIG BEAR LAKE MUNICIPAL CODE SHALL BE MODIFIED AS FOLLOWS:

MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 16.07 SUBDIVISIONS
Section 16.07.060 Urban Lot Splits
(a) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to allow and appropriately regulate urban lot splits in accordance with Government Code Section 66411.7.
(b) Definition. An “urban lot split” means a subdivision of an existing, legally subdivided lot into two lots in accordance with the requirements of this section. (c) Application.
(1) Only individual property owners may apply for an urban lot split. “Individual property owner” means a natural person holding fee title individually or jointly in the person’s own name or a beneficiary of a trust that holds fee title. “Individual property owner” does not include any corporation or corporate person of any kind (partnership, LP, LLC, C corp, S corp, etc.) except for a community land trust (as defined by Rev. & Tax Code §402.1(a)(11)(C)(ii)) or a qualified nonprofit corporation (as defined by §214.15).
(2) An application for an urban lot split must be submitted on the city’s approved form.

Only a complete application will be considered. The city will inform the applicant in writing of any incompleteness within 30 days after the application is submitted. (3) The city may establish a fee to recover its costs for adopting, implementing, and enforcing this section of the code, in accordance with applicable law. The city council may establish and change the fee by resolution. The fee must be paid with the application.
(d) Approval.
(1) An application for a parcel map for an urban lot split is approved or denied ministerially, by the Community Development Director or his/her designee director, without discretionary review.
(2) A tentative parcel map for an urban lot split is approved ministerially if it complies with all the requirements of this section. The tentative parcel map may not be recorded. A final parcel map is approved ministerially as well, but not until the owner demonstrates that the required documents have been recorded, such as the deed restriction and easements. The tentative parcel map expires three months after approval.
(3) The approval must require the owner and applicant to hold the city harmless from all claims and damages related to the approval and its subject matter. (4) The approval must require the owner and applicant to reimburse the city for all costs of enforcement, including attorneys’ fees and costs associated with enforcing the requirements of this code.
(e) Requirements. An urban lot split must satisfy each of the following requirements:
(1) Map Act Compliance.
(A) The urban lot split must conform to all applicable objective requirements of the Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code §66410 et. seq., “SMA”), including implementing requirements in this code, except as otherwise expressly provided in this section.
(B) If an urban lot split violates any part of the SMA, the city’s subdivision regulations, including this section, or any other legal requirement:
(i) The buyer or grantee of a lot that is created by the urban lot split has all the remedies available under the SMA, including but not limited to an action for damages or to void the deed, sale, or contract. (ii) The city has all the remedies available to it under the SMA, including but not limited to the following:
(I) An action to enjoin any attempt to sell, lease, or finance the property.
(II) An action for other legal, equitable, or summary remedy, such as declaratory and injunctive relief.
(III) Criminal prosecution, punishable by imprisonment in county jail or state prison for up to one year, by a fine of up to $10,000, or both; or a misdemeanor.
(IV) Record a notice of violation.
(V) Withhold any or all future permits and approvals.
(C) Notwithstanding section 66411.1 of the SMA, no dedication of rights-ofway or construction of offsite improvements is required for an urban lot split.
(2) Zone. The lot to be split through an urban lot split is located in a single-family residential zone. For purposes of this section, a single-family residential zone is a zone where the only residential use that is allowed as a primary use is one (1) singlefamily residential dwelling unit on a lot, specifically the R-L and R-1 zones. Urban lot splits are prohibited in the Multiple Family Residential (R-3), all Commercial, and Village Specific Plan (VSP) zones.
(3) Lot Location.
(A) The lot to be split is not located on a site that is any of the following:
(i) Prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, or land that is zoned or designated for agricultural protection or preservation by the voters.
(ii) A wetland.
(iii) Within a very high fire hazard severity zone, unless the site complies with all fire-hazard mitigation measures required by existing building standards.
(iv) A hazardous waste site that has not been cleared for residential use. (v) Within a delineated earthquake fault zone, unless all development on the site complies with applicable seismic protection building code standards.
(vi) Within a 100-year flood hazard area, unless the site has either:
(I) been subject to a Letter of Map Revision prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and issued to the
local jurisdiction, or
(II) meets Federal Emergency Management Agency
requirements necessary to meet minimum flood plain
management criteria of the National Flood Insurance
Program.
(vii) Within a regulatory floodway, unless all development on the site has received a no-rise certification.
(viii) Land identified for conservation in an adopted natural community conservation plan, habitat conservation plan, or other adopted natural resource protection plan.
(ix) Habitat for protected species.
(x) Land under conservation easement.
(B) The purpose of subpart (e)(3)(A) above is merely to summarize the requirements of Government Code section 65913.4(a)(6)(B)–(K). (See Gov. Code § 66411.7(a)(3)(C).)
(4) Not Historic. The lot to be split must not be a historic property or within a historic district that is included on the State Historic Resources Inventory. Nor may the lot be or be within a site that is designated by ordinance as a city or county landmark or as a historic property or district.
(5) No Prior Urban Lot Split.
(A) The lot to be split was not established through a prior urban lot split. (B) The lot to be split is not adjacent to any lot that was established through a prior urban lot split by the owner of the lot to be split or by any person acting in concert with the owner.
(6) No Impact on Protected Housing. The urban lot split must not require or include the demolition or alteration of any of the following types of housing:
(A) Housing that is income-restricted for households of moderate, low, or very low income.
(B) Housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its policy power.
(C) Housing, or a lot that used to have housing, that has been withdrawn from rental or lease under the Ellis Act (Gov. Code §§7060–7060.7) at any time in the 15 years prior to submission of the urban lot split application. (D) Housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years. The applicant and the owner of a property for which an urban lot split is sought must provide a sworn statement as to this fact with the application for the parcel map. The city may conduct its own inquiries and investigation to ascertain the veracity of the sworn statement, including but not limited to, surveying owners of nearby properties; and the city may require additional evidence of the applicant and owner as necessary to determine compliance with this requirement.
(7) Lot Size.
(A) The lot to be split must be at least 2,400 square feet in area. (B) Each lot resulting from an urban lot split be at least 1,200 square feet in area.
(C) Each of the resulting lots must be approximately equal halves (50 percent of the original lot area) but no less than 60 percent and 40 percent of the original lot area.
(8) Easements.
(A) The owner must enter into an easement agreement with each public-service provider to establish easements that are sufficient for the provision of public services and facilities to each of the resulting lots, if such easements are required by the utility companies.
(B) Each easement must be shown on the tentative parcel map. (C) Copies of the unrecorded easement agreements must be submitted with the application. The easement agreements must be recorded against the property before the final map may be approved, in accordance with subpart (d)(2) above.
(9) Lot Access.
(A) As required by Development Code Section 17.25.080.B., each new parcel shall have direct street access to the public right-of-way or private street.

The use of private easements as the only access to urban lot split lots is not allowed. However, this provision shall not preclude adjacent property owners from granting reciprocal access rights to each other to share a common driveway. In order to minimize the number of driveways along a street, shared driveways between adjacent properties and urban lot split parcels is encouraged.
(B) Each resulting lot must have frontage on the public right of way of at least twelve (12) feet. A “flag lot” is allowed provided that the flag “pole” portion of the lot shall be a minimum of 12 feet in width as measured at the public right-of-way.
(10) Unit Standards.
(A) Quantity. No more than two dwelling units of any kind may be built on a lot that results from an urban lot split. For purposes of this paragraph, “unit” means any dwelling unit, including, but not limited to, a primary dwelling unit, a second unit or two-unit project created under this code, an ADU, or a JADU.
(B) Unit Size.
(i) The total floor area of each dwelling unit that is developed on a lot resulting from an urban lot split must be:
(I) Equal to or greater than 500 square feet in area, and (II) Less than or equal to 800 square feet in area.
(ii) A dwelling unit that was legally established prior to the urban lot split and that is larger than 800 square feet is limited to the lawful floor area at the time of the urban lot split. The floor area of the original dwelling unit may not be expanded.
(iii) A dwelling unit that was legally established prior to the urban lot split and that is smaller than 800 square feet may be expanded to 800 square feet after the urban lot split.
(C) Building Height. The maximum building height of a primary dwelling unit shall be 22 feet, measured in the manner established in Development Code Section 17.02.030 “Building Height.” Relief from setbacks will be granted before relief from building height.
(D) Lot Coverage. As established in Development Code Table 17.25.050.A., the maximum lot coverage allowed in the Residential-Low (R-L) zone is thirty (30) percent. The maximum lot coverage allowed in the Single Family Residential (R-1) zone is forty (40) percent. This lot coverage standard is only enforced to the extent that it does not prevent two primary dwelling units on the lot at 800 square feet each.
(E) Open Space. The open space requirements shall be those established in Development Code Table 17.25.050.A. for the Residential-Low (R-L) and Single Family Residential (R-1) zones. This standard is only enforced to the extent that it does not prevent two primary dwelling units on the lot at 800 square feet each.
(F) Setbacks.
(i) Generally. All setbacks must conform to those objective setbacks that are imposed through the underlying zone as stated in Development Code Section 17.25.050.
(ii) Exceptions. Notwithstanding subpart (e)(10)(F) above:
(I) Existing Structures. No setback is required for an existing legally established structure or for a new structure that is constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing legally established structure.
(II) Side Yard and Rear Yard Setbacks. The setbacks
imposed by the underlying zone must yield to the degree necessary to avoid physically precluding the construction of up to two units on the lot or either of the two units from being at least 800 square feet in floor area; but in no event may any structure be less than four feet from a side or rear property line.
(iii) Front and Streetside Setbacks. Where the property is adjacent to a public or private street having a right-of-way width of less than 40 feet, the minimum front setback (and streetside setback where the property contains more than one street frontage) shall be 20 feet. Where the property is adjacent to a public or private street having a right-of-way width of 40 feet or greater, the minimum front setback (and streetside setback where the property contains more than one street frontage) shall be 15 feet. (G) Parking. Each new primary dwelling unit that is built on a lot created by an urban lot split must have at least one off-street parking space per unit unless one of the following applies:
(i) The lot is located within one-half mile walking distance of either (I) a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours or
(II) a site that contains
(ia) an existing rail or bus rapid transit station,
(ib) a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or
(ic) the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less
during the morning and afternoon peak commute
periods.
(III.) The site is located within one block of a car-share vehicle location.
(H) Architecture.
(i) If there is a legal primary dwelling on the lot that was established before the urban lot split, any new primary dwelling unit shall match the existing primary dwelling unit in exterior materials, color, and dominant roof pitch. The dominant roof slope is the slope shared by the largest portion of the roof.
(ii) If there is no legal primary dwelling on the lot before the urban lot split, and if two primary dwellings are developed on the lot, the dwellings shall match each other in exterior materials, color, and dominant roof pitch. The dominant roof slope is the slope shared by the largest portion of the roof.
(iii) Exterior siding materials of the dwelling units shall consist of at least two (2) of the following materials; wood or wood-appearing material in a horizontal application, wood or wood-appearing material in a vertical application, natural or cultured stone, decorative masonry, metal, and stucco. Stucco shall not be applied to an area greater than sixty percent (60%) of any wall surface.

Metal siding shall only be used as an accent material and may not be applied to an area greater than twenty-five percent (25%) of any wall surface.
(iv) All exterior lighting shall comply with Development Code Section

17.25.080. E. Lighting.
(I) Landscaping. All landscaping shall comply with Development Code Section 17.25.080.C. Open Space and Landscaping and the provisions of the California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO), as adopted by the City of Big Bear Lake and revised from time to time. (J) Nonconforming Conditions. An urban lot split may be approved without requiring a legal nonconforming zoning condition to be corrected. (K) Utilities.
(i) Each primary dwelling unit on the resulting lots must have its own direct utility connection to the utility service provider. (ii) Each primary dwelling unit on the resulting lots that is or that is proposed to be connected to an onsite wastewater treatment system must first have a percolation test completed within the last five years or, if the percolation test has been recertified, within the last 10 years.
(L) Building & Safety. All structures built on the lot must comply with all current local building standards. An urban lot split is a change of use. (11) Fire-Hazard Mitigation Measures.
(A) In order to be eligible to be subdivided under the urban lot split provisions, a lot in a very high fire hazard severity zone shall comply with each of the following fire-hazard mitigation measures:
(i) The lot must have direct access to a paved public or private street having a right-of-way width of at least 40 feet.
(ii) The public or private street must have at least two independent points of access for fire and life safety to access and for residents to evacuate.
(iii) All dwellings on the site must comply with current fire code requirements for dwellings in a very high fire hazard severity zone. (iv) All structures on the site must have fire sprinklers as required by the building code.
(v) All sides of all dwellings on the site must be within a 150-foot hosepull distance from either the public right of way or of an onsite fire hydrant or standpipe.
(B) Prior to submitting an application for an urban lot split, the applicant must obtain a certificate of compliance with all applicable fire-hazard mitigation measures in accordance with this subpart (e)(11). The city or its authorized agent must inspect the site, including all structures on the site, and certify as to its compliance. The certificate must be included with the application.

The applicant must pay the city’s costs for inspection. Failure to pay is grounds for denying the application.
(12) Separate Conveyance.
(A) Within a resulting lot.
(i) Primary dwelling units on a lot that is created by an urban lot split may not be owned or conveyed separately from each other. (ii) Condominium airspace divisions and common interest developments are not permitted on a lot that is created by an urban lot split.
(iii) All fee interest in a lot and all dwellings on the lot must be held equally and undivided by all individual property owners. (13) Regulation of Uses.
(A) Residential-only. No non-residential use is permitted on any lot created by urban lot split.
(B) No Vacant Rentals. No dwelling unit on a lot that is created by an urban lot split may be rented for a period of less than 30 days. (C) Owner Occupancy. The property owner requesting an urban lot split must sign an affidavit stating that the property owner intends to occupy one of the dwelling units on one of the resulting lots as the property owner’s principal residence for a minimum of three years after the urban lot split is approved. The owner occupancy requirement shall be enforced at the time of approval of the parcel map in the case of an urban lot split; or in cases involving undeveloped lots, the owner occupancy requirement shall be enforced at the time of a Final Inspection of a building permit on the first structure built on the property.
(14) Deed Restriction. The owner must record a deed restriction, acceptable to the city, that does each of the following:
(A) Expressly prohibits any rental of any dwelling on the property for a period of less than 30 days.
(B) Expressly prohibits any non-residential use of the lots created by the urban lot split.
(C) Expressly prohibits any separate conveyance of a primary dwelling on the property, any separate fee interest, and any common interest development within the lot.
(D) States that the property is formed by an urban lot split and is therefore subject to the city’s urban lot split regulations, including all applicable limits on dwelling size and development.
(f) Specific Adverse Impacts.
(1) Notwithstanding anything else in this section, the city may deny an application for an urban lot split if the building official makes a written finding, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that the project would have a “specific, adverse impact” on either public health and safety or on the physical environment and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact.
(2) “Specific adverse impact” has the same meaning as in Gov. Code §65589.5(d)(2):
“a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete” and does not include (1) inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation or (2) the eligibility to claim a welfare exemption under Revenue and Taxation Code section 214(g).
(3) The building official may consult with and be assisted by planning staff and others as necessary in making a finding of specific, adverse impact.

ORDINANCE NO. 2022-XXX
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 2021-160
EXHIBIT 2
DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 17.25 RESIDENTIAL ZONES
Development Code Section 17.25.130 currently titled “Temporary Dependent Housing Units” contains outdated legislation. This language in this section will be repealed and replaced with new language pertaining to “Second Units and Two-Unit Projects.”

17.25.130 TEMPORARY DEPENDENT HOUSING UNITS
A. In conformance with California Government Code Section 65852.1, temporary dependent housing units shall be allowed in all residential zones subject to land use approval pursuant to Table 17.25.040.A. The standards contained in this section are intended to ensure that these units are compatible with existing adjacent and neighboring residential uses, and that they are maintained in accordance with the use for which they are approved.

B. For purposes of this section, a “temporary dependent housing (TDH) unit” shall mean a detached or attached dwelling unit intended for the sole occupancy of one or two adult persons who have reached the age of sixty-two (62) years, or are disabled. A TDH unit provides for complete, independent living facilities, inclusive of, but not limited to, provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, access and sanitation, on the same lot as the permitted primary dwelling.

C. Standards for temporary dependent housing units:

1. The area of the floor space of an attached TDH unit shall not exceed thirty (30) percent of the existing living area. The area of a detached TDH shall not exceed 1,200 square feet.

2. A TDH unit shall comply with the minimum design standards contained in Section

17.25.090.A.

3. Approval of a TDH unit shall apply only to the property for which the application was made, and shall apply to that property as long as the unit is maintained and continuously occupied in conformance with the provisions of this section and any other conditions imposed at the time of approval.

4. For the purposes of this section, a TDH unit shall be deemed continuously occupied where the unit is occupied by qualified resident(s) for no less than nine (9) months out of any twelve (12) month period of the year and is the permanent addressed residence of such occupants. At such time as the TDH unit is abandoned, the property owner shall remove or convert the unit in a safe and efficient manner as determined by the City, either to a guesthouse without kitchen facilities or to a usable portion of the primary structure. Under no circumstances may the TDH unit be converted to or used as a rental unit or second dwelling unit on a residential lot, without obtaining the required land use approval.

17.25.130 SECOND UNITS AND TWO-UNIT PROJECTS
(a) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to allow and appropriately regulate two-unit projects in accordance with Government Code section 65852.21. (b) Definition. A “second unit” means the development of a second primary dwelling unit on a legally subdivided lot that is already developed with one primary dwelling unit. A “twounit project” means the development of two primary dwelling units on a lot that was previously undeveloped.
(c) Application.
(1) Only individual property owners may apply for a two-unit project. “Individual property owner” means a natural person holding fee title individually or jointly in the person’s own name or a beneficiary of a trust that holds fee title. “Individual property owner” does not include any corporation or corporate person of any kind (partnership, LP, LLC, C corp, S corp, etc.) except for a community land trust (as defined by Rev. & Tax Code §402.1(a)(11)(C)(ii)) or a qualified nonprofit corporation (as defined by §214.15).
(2) A Building Permit application for a second unit or two-unit project must be submitted on the city’s approved form.
(3) The city may establish a fee to recover its costs for adopting, implementing, and enforcing this section of the code, in accordance with applicable law. The city council may establish and change the fee by resolution. The fee must be paid with the application.
(d) Approval.
(1) An application for a second unit or two-unit project shall be acted upon by the Community Development Director or his/her designee, without discretionary review.
(2) The Final Inspection of a building permit for a second unit or two-unit project shall not be granted until confirmation is provided to the City that the required documents have been recorded, such as the deed restriction and any required easements. (3) The approval must require the owner and applicant to hold the city harmless from all claims and damages related to the approval and its subject matter. (4) The approval must require the owner and applicant to reimburse the city for all costs of enforcement, including attorneys’ fees and costs associated with enforcing the requirements of this code.
(e) Requirements. A second unit or two-unit project must satisfy each of the following requirements:
(1) Map Act Compliance. The lot must have been legally subdivided. (2) Zone. The property for which a building permit for a second unit or two-unit project is proposed is located in a single-family residential zone. For purposes of this section, a single-family residential zone is a zone where the only residential use that is allowed as a primary use is one (1) single-family residential dwelling unit on a lot, specifically the R-L and R-1 zones. Second units and two-unit projects under this section are prohibited in the Multiple Family Residential (R-3), all Commercial, and Village Specific Plan (VSP) zones.
(3) Lot Location.
(A) The lot is not located on a site that is any of the following:
(i) Prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, or land that is zoned or designated for agricultural protection or preservation by the voters.
(ii) A wetland.
(iii) Within a very high fire hazard severity zone, unless the site complies with all fire-hazard mitigation measures required by existing building standards.
(iv) A hazardous waste site that has not been cleared for residential use. (v) Within a delineated earthquake fault zone, unless all development on the site complies with applicable seismic protection building code standards.
(vi) Within a 100-year flood hazard area, unless the site has either:
(I) been subject to a Letter of Map Revision prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and issued to the
local jurisdiction, or
(II) meets Federal Emergency Management Agency
requirements necessary to meet minimum flood plain
management criteria of the National Flood Insurance
Program.
(vii) Within a regulatory floodway, unless all development on the site has received a no-rise certification.
(viii) Land identified for conservation in an adopted natural community conservation plan, habitat conservation plan, or other adopted natural resource protection plan.
(ix) Habitat for protected species.
(x) Land under conservation easement.
(B) The purpose of subpart (e)(3)(A) above is merely to summarize the requirements of Government Code section 65913.4(a)(6)(B)–(K). (See Gov. Code §66411.7(a)(3)(C).)
(4) Not Historic. The lot must not be a historic property or within a historic district that is included on the State Historic Resources Inventory. Nor may the lot be or be within a site that is designated by ordinance as a city or county landmark or as a historic property or district.
(5) No Impact on Protected Housing. The second unit or two-unit project must not require or include the demolition or alteration of any of the following types of housing:
(A) Housing that is income-restricted for households of moderate, low, or very low income.
(B) Housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its policy power.
(C) Housing, or a lot that used to have housing, that has been withdrawn from rental or lease under the Ellis Act (Gov. Code §§7060–7060.7) at any time in the 15 years prior to submission of the urban lot split application. (D) Housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years. The applicant and the owner of a property for which a second unit or two-unit project is sought must provide a sworn statement as to this fact with the application for the parcel map. The city may conduct its own inquiries and investigation to ascertain the veracity of the sworn statement, including but not limited to, surveying owners of nearby properties; and the city may require additional evidence of the applicant and owner as necessary to determine compliance with this requirement.
(6) Unit Standards. Where a standard is not listed, the standard provided in Development Code Chapter 17.25 shall apply:
(A) Quantity.
(i) No more than two dwelling units of any kind may be built on a lot that results from an urban lot split. For purposes of this paragraph, “unit” means any dwelling unit, including, but not limited to, a primary dwelling unit, a unit created under this section of this code, an ADU, or a JADU.
(ii) A lot that is not created by an urban lot split may have a second unit or two-unit project under this section, plus any ADU or JADU that must be allowed under state law and the city’s ADU ordinance. (B) Unit Size.
(i) The total floor area of each dwelling unit that is developed under this section must be:
(I) Equal to or greater than 500 square feet in area, and (II) Less than or equal to 800 square feet in area.
(ii) A dwelling unit that was legally established prior to the second unit and that is larger than 800 square feet is limited to the lawful floor area at the time of the urban lot split. The floor area of the original dwelling unit may not be expanded.
(iii) A dwelling unit that was legally established prior to the second unit that is smaller than 800 square feet may be expanded to 800 square feet after the urban lot split.
(C) Height Restrictions. The maximum building height of a primary dwelling unit shall be 22 feet, measured in a manner established in Development Code Section 17.02.030 “Building Height.” Relief from setbacks will be granted before relief from building height.
(D) Demolition Cap. The second unit or two-unit project shall not involve the demolition of more than 25 percent of the existing exterior walls of an existing dwelling unit unless the site has not been occupied by a tenant in the last three years.
(E) Lot Coverage. The maximum lot coverage allowed in the Residential-Low (R-L) zone is thirty (30) percent. The maximum lot coverage allowed in the Single Family Residential (R-1) zone is forty (40) percent. This lot coverage standard is only enforced to the extent that it does not prevent two primary dwelling units on the lot at 800 square feet each. (F) Open Space. The open space requirements shall be those established in Development Code Table 17.25.050.A. for the Residential-Low (R-L) and Single Family Residential (R-1) zones. This open space standard is only enforced to the extent that it does not prevent two primary dwelling units on the lot at 800 square feet each.
(G) Setbacks.
(i) Generally. All setbacks must conform to those objective setbacks that are imposed through the underlying zone as stated in Development Code Section 17.25.050.
(ii) Exceptions. Notwithstanding subpart (e)(6)(G) above:
(I) Existing Structures. No setback is required for an existing legally established structure or for a new structure that is constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing legally established structure.
(II) Side and Rear Setbacks. The side and rear setbacks imposed by the underlying zone shall be provided, however, these setback regulations must yield to the degree necessary to avoid physically precluding the construction of up to two units on the lot or either of the two units from being at least 800 square feet in floor area; but in no event may any
structure be less than four feet from a side or rear property line.
(iii) Front and Streetside Setbacks. Where the property is adjacent to a public or private street having a right-of-way width of less than 40 feet, the minimum front setback (and streetside setback where the property contains more than one street frontage) shall be 20 feet.

Where the property is adjacent to a public or private street having a right-of-way width of 40 feet or greater, the minimum front setback (and streetside setback where the property contains more than one street frontage) shall be 15 feet.
(H) Parking. Each new primary dwelling unit must have at least one off-street parking space per unit unless one of the following applies:
(i) The lot is located within one-half mile walking distance of either (I) a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours or
(II) a site that contains
(ia) an existing rail or bus rapid transit station,
(ib) a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or
(ic) the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less
during the morning and afternoon peak commute
periods.
(ii) The site is located within one block of a car-share vehicle location. (I) Architecture.
(i) If there is an existing, legal primary dwelling on the lot that was established before the two-unit project, any new second unit shall match the existing primary dwelling unit in architectural style, exterior materials, color, and dominant roof pitch. The dominant roof slope is the slope shared by the largest portion of the roof. (ii) If there is no legal primary dwelling on the lot before the two-unit project, and if two primary dwellings are proposed for development on the lot, then the two dwellings shall match each other in architectural style, exterior materials, color, and dominant roof pitch. The dominant roof slope is the slope shared by the largest portion of the roof.
(iii) Exterior siding materials of the dwelling units shall consist of at least two (2) of the following materials; wood (or wood-appearing material) in a horizontal application, wood (or wood-appearing material) in a vertical application, natural or cultured stone, decorative masonry, metal, and stucco. Stucco may not be applied to an area greater than sixty percent (60%) of any wall surface.

Metal siding shall only be used as an accent material and may not be applied to an area greater than 25% of any wall surface. (iv) All exterior lighting shall comply with Development Code Section

17.25.080. E. Lighting.
(v) All residential structures shall have eave and gable overhangs of not less than 12 inches measured from the vertical side of the residential structure. Roof materials shall be non-flammable; wood shake shingles are prohibited. Roof pitch shall not be less than 2:12. (vi) The minimum interior dimensions of a covered or enclosed (garage) parking space is 10 feet wide by 20 feet in depth. The minimum uncovered parking space dimension is 9 feet wide by 19 feet in depth.
(vii) Utility hook-ups and an area to accommodate installation of a clothes washer and dryer shall be provided within each dwelling unit.
(viii) Each dwelling unit shall have private (walled or fenced) patio, balcony, or yard area of not less than 200 square feet in area or 25 percent of the dwelling unit size, whichever is less.
(ix) Each dwelling unit shall be provided with a pedestrian access to the public right-of-way in the driveway, by separate stairs, or a separate concrete walkway.
(x) The driveway serving the residential unit, or units in the event of a shared driveway, shall not exceed a grade of fourteen percent (14%). (J) Landscaping. All landscaping shall comply with Development Code Section 17.25.080.C. Open Space and Landscaping and the provisions of the California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) as adopted by the City and revised from time to time.
(K) Nonconforming Conditions. Where a lot is not created by an urban lot split, a second unit or a two-unit project is proposed, the building permit shall only be approved if all nonconforming zoning conditions are corrected.
(L) Utilities.
(i) Each primary dwelling unit on the lot must have its own direct utility connection to the utility service provider.
(ii) Each primary dwelling unit on the lot that is or that is proposed to be connected to an onsite wastewater treatment system must first have a percolation test completed within the last five years or, if the percolation test has been recertified, within the last 10 years. (M) Building & Safety. All structures built on the lot must comply with all current local building standards. A project under this section is a change of use and subjects the whole of the lot, and all structures, to the city’s current code.
(7) Fire-Hazard Mitigation Measures. In order to be eligible for a second unit or twounit project under the provisions of this section, a lot in a very high fire hazard severity zone must comply with each of the following fire-hazard mitigation measures:
(A) The lot must have direct access to a paved public or private street having a right-of-way width of at least 40 feet.
(B) The public or private street of way must have at least two independent points of access for fire and life safety to access and for residents to evacuate. (C) All dwellings on the site must comply with current fire code requirements for dwellings in a very high fire hazard severity zone. (D) All enclosed structures on the site must have fire sprinklers. (E) All sides of all dwellings on the site must be within a 150-foot hose-pull distance from either the public right of way or of an onsite fire hydrant or standpipe.
(8) Separate Conveyance.
(A) Primary dwelling units on the lot may not be owned or conveyed separately from each other.
(B) Condominium airspace divisions and common interest developments are not permitted within the lot.
(C) All fee interest in the lot and all the dwellings must be held equally and undivided by all individual property owners.
(9) Regulation of Uses.
(A) Residential-only. No non-residential use is permitted on the lot. (B) No Vacation Rentals. No dwelling unit on the lot may be rented for a period of less than 30 days.
(C) Owner Occupancy. On a lot that was not created by an urban lot split, the property owner requesting a second unit or n urban lot split must sign an affidavit stating that the property owner intends to occupy one of the dwelling units as the property owner’s principal residence for a minimum of three years after the urban lot split is approved. The owner occupancy requirement shall be enforced at the time of a Final Inspection of a building permit on the first structure built on the property.
(10) Deed Restriction. The owner must record a deed restriction, acceptable to the city, that does each of the following:
(A) Expressly prohibits any rental of any dwelling on the property for a period of less than 30 days.
(B) Expressly prohibits any non-residential use of the lot. (C) Expressly prohibits any separate conveyance of a primary dwelling on the property, any separate fee interest, and any common interest development within the lot.
(D) If the lot is not created by an urban lot split, the deed restriction expressly requires the property owner to live in one of the dwelling units on the lot as the owners’ primary residence and legal domicile.
(E) States that the property is formed by an urban lot split and is therefore subject to the city’s urban lot split regulations, including all applicable limits on dwelling size and development.
(f) Specific Adverse Impacts.
(1) Notwithstanding anything else in this section, the city may deny an application for a two-unit project if the building official makes a written finding, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that the project would have a “specific, adverse impact” on either public health and safety or on the physical environment and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact.
(2) “Specific adverse impact” has the same meaning as in Gov. Code §65589.5(d)(2):
“a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete” and does not include (1) inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation or (2) the eligibility to claim a welfare exemption under Revenue and Taxation Code section 214(g).
(3) The building official may consult with and be assisted by planning staff and others as necessary in making a finding of specific, adverse impact. (g) Remedies.

If a second unit or two-unit project violates any part of this code or any other legal requirement:
(1) The buyer, grantee, or lessee of any part of the property has an action for damages or to void the deed, sale, or contract.
(2) The city may:
(A) Bring an action to enjoin any attempt to sell, lease, or finance the property. (B) Bring an action for other legal, equitable, or summary remedy, such as declaratory and injunctive relief.
(C) Pursue criminal prosecution, punishable by imprisonment in county jail or state prison for up to one year, by a fine of up to $10,000, or both; or a misdemeanor.
(D) Record a notice of violation.
(E) Withhold any or all future permits and approvals.
(F) Pursue all other administrative, legal, or equitable remedies that are allowed by law or the city’s code.

End
ATTACHMENT 2
Planning
Commission Staff
Report
(1-19-2022)

Development Code Amendment 2021-160
Urban Lot Splits, Second Units, and Two-Unit Projects resulting from SB 9 Planning Commission Date: January 19, 2022

Page 2 ends

PROJECT BACKGROUND
On January 11, 2022, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 2022-499, by a unanimous vote, establishing immediate provisions for the implementation of SB 9. This urgency ordinance remains in effect until replaced by a non-urgency ordinance. Should the Planning Commission adopt a resolution today, this Development Code Amendment will be scheduled for a City Council public hearing and ordinance introduction on February 7, 2022, adoption on March 7, 2022, and would become effective on April 6, 2022.

DISCUSSION
Applicability of the new State Law
SB 9 applies to cities that are designated as either urban or within an urban cluster, as defined by the United States Census Bureau. The City of Big Bear Lake is classified as an urban cluster by the census bureau, as shown on the map attached as Attachment 4, therefore, this new law is applicable to the City.

SB 9 applies to Single Family Residential zones. In the City of Big Bear Lake, these are the Residential–Low (R-L) and the Single Family Residential (R-1) zones. These zones are identified in pale and canary yellow colors on the City’s zoning map attached as Attachment 5.

Hazardous Waste, Habitat, and Conservation Sites
Certain land may be excluded from the SB 9 regulations including hazardous waste sites, wetlands, and land containing protected species, in a habitat conservation plan, and land covered by a conservation easement. The City has the ability to check proposed sites against the GeoTracker hazardous waste database maintained by the State Department of Water Resources and exclude listed sites from development. Land containing protected species does exists within the city limits. Proposed sites will be checked against known habitat and excluded, if applicable.

Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
Most of the land within the city limits is designated within the very high fire hazard severity zone by the Office of the State Fire Marshal. At first glance, it appeared that fire severity zones are excluded from SB 9, and therefore, the provisions of SB 9 would not apply to the City. This exemption was believed by many, including several of land use policy experts who followed and published regularly on this legislation. However, upon further evaluation and consultation with the City Attorney on this matter, it is determined that SB 9 includes exceptions to this exclusion and the provisions of SB 9 are applicable where the project complies with all fire-hazard mitigation measures required by the building code, which have been adopted by the City.1 Therefore, SB 9
does apply within the City of Big Bear Lake.

1 All Residential construction in the city must comply with California Residential Code Section R337 Materials and Construction Methods for Exterior Wildfire Exposure.

Development Code Amendment 2021-160
Urban Lot Splits, Second Units, and Two-Unit Projects resulting from SB 9 Planning Commission Date: January 19, 2022

Page 3 ends

Delineated Earthquake Fault Zone
Land within a delineated earthquake fault zone is excluded from development under SB 9 unless the project complies with applicable seismic protection building code standards, which have been adopted by the City.2
Under this provision, SB 9 is applicable to the City.

SB 9 excludes land within a 100-year flood hazard area unless a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) is prepared or the construction meets the minimum flood plain management criteria of FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program.3 As required by this program, the City has adopted a Floodplain Management ordinance for new construction in the flood hazard area. Once again, the provisions of SB 9 were determined to be applicable within the City. Although lands within the City are in the very high fire hazard severity zone, earthquake fault zone, or flood hazard areas, construction projects are subject to SB 9 by meeting the building code and flood plain management ordinance. Therefore, the provisions of SB 9 apply to most of the single-family residentially-zoned properties within the City.

Subdivisions – “Urban Lot Splits”
SB 9 makes changes to the state Subdivision Map, resulting in the need for the City to make changes to our subdivision regulations that are found in Municipal Code Chapter 16.07. New Section 16.07.060 is proposed to allow and regulate “Urban Lot Splits.” The new law states that City must allow an urban lot split, which is defined as the subdivision of an existing parcel into two lots, by ministerial action without a public hearing, discretionary, or CEQA review. The urban lot split must result in approximately two equal halves, but no less than a 60/40 split as shown below in Figure 1. Once a lot is split, the property may not be split again under the urban lot split provisions. The minimum new lot size established by SB 9 is 1,200 square feet.

Figure 1 - Urban Lot Split

2 All Residential construction in the city must comply with California Residential R301.2.2 Seismic Provisions. 3 In order for the City to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program, the City adopted a Floodplain Management ordinance. All construction in the identified floodplain must comply with the Floodplain Management ordinance, codified in Municipal Code Chapter 15.64.

Development Code Amendment 2021-160
Urban Lot Splits, Second Units, and Two-Unit Projects resulting from SB 9 Planning Commission Date: January 19, 2022

Page 4 ends

SB 9 does not require that the urban lot split be in conjunction with a building project. The resulting parcels may be vacant. However, the state law requires that the applicant of an urban lot split sign an affidavit stating that the applicant intends to occupy one of the dwelling units on one of the resulting lots as the applicant’s principal residence for a minimum of three (3) years after the urban lot split is approved. This owner occupancy requirement will be enforced on an existing structure, or in cases involving undeveloped lots, on the first structure built on the property.

Second Units and Two-Unit Projects
SB 9 also requires that the City make changes to the allowable land uses and development standards in the Single Family Residential zones. In our city these regulations are contained in Development Code Chapter 17.25. Development Code Section 17.25.130, currently titled Temporary Dependent Housing Units, comprises outdated legislation. This section will be repealed and replaced with the new language pertaining to “Second Units and Two-Unit Projects” to allow and regulate second units and two-unit projects in accordance with SB 9. As used in this report, a “second unit” means a second dwelling unit added to a parcel that contains an existing primary dwelling unit. A “Two-Unit” project means the construction of two new dwelling units on a vacant lot.

The new law requires that the City must act on a request to build a second unit or two units on any lot in a single-family residential zone by ministerial action. This ministerial approval must be without discretionary review, public notice or hearing, or CEQA review.

The dwelling units may be attached or detached, as shown below in Figure 2.

Figure 2 - Second Units
Each dwelling unit must be a fully independent living unit, meaning that each must have a kitchen, living, sleeping, and sanitation facilities (bathroom and laundry hook-ups). The second unit or twounit project must comply with all applicable building codes and each unit is considered a separate independent dwelling unit for the purposes of installation of fire sprinklers, solar energy Development Code Amendment 2021-160
Urban Lot Splits, Second Units, and Two-Unit Projects resulting from SB 9 Planning Commission Date: January 19, 2022

Page 5 ends

requirements, electric vehicle charging requirements, utilities, metering, and the payment of Development Impact Fees.

A second unit or two-unit development must allow the construction of up to two dwelling units on each parcel. The City is prohibited from adopting any standard that would not allow each dwelling unit to contain at least 800 sf in floor area.

Urban Lot Splits and Second Units/Two Unit Projects
The provisions of SB 9 become complicated and controversial because the regulations require the City to allow both an Urban Lot Split and a second unit or two-unit project. This is illustrated on the following page in Figure 3.

Under the new law, the City must allow a lot to be split and construction of two units on each new lot. Again,
the City is prohibited from applying any standard that
would preclude two units of at least 800 sf each to be
constructed on the resulting lots.

Maximum Number of Units Allowed
The proposed ordinance would allow up to 4 units on
the “original” lot - either through an urban lot split that allows 2 units per new lot, or through the allowance of a second unit and an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
and/or Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU) on the
original (unsplit) lot. The City is interpreting that the provisions of state law allowing ADUs and JADUs apply
to one primary residence. In a small reprieve to cities, SB 9 contains a provision that the City does not have to allow ADUs and JADUs where the lot was created by
an Urban Lot Split and developed with a second unit or
Figure two-unit project. 3 – Urban Lot Split with Two-Units

Development Code Amendment 2021-160
Urban Lot Splits, Second Units, and Two-Unit Projects resulting from SB 9 Planning Commission Date: January 19, 2022

Page 7 ends

Building Setback Requirements
Under SB 9, the City is prohibited from applying greater than a 4-foot side yard and rear yard setback requirement. The front yard setback requirement will be discussed in the objective standards section of this report.

Parking Requirements
SB 9 limits the number of parking spaces that the City can require for each unit. The City can require only one off-street parking space per unit. However, there are some situations where no on-site parking is requires, specifically where the property is located within one-half mile of either a “high-quality transit corridor4” or a “major transit stop5;” or one block of a car share vehicle location. At the current time, no such transit facilities exist in the City of Big Bear Lake.

Effect on Vacation Rentals
The provisions of SB 9 are specific with respect to prohibiting short-term rentals. Section 65852.21(e) and Section 66411.7(h) state that the City “shall require that a rental of any unit created under SB 9 shall be for a term longer than 30 days.” Therefore, any dwelling unit created under the provisions of SB 9 may not be a utilized as a vacation rental.

Objective Subdivision, Zoning, and Design Standards
In developing the objective standards, city staff took the position to not overly restrict nor overly encourage urban lot splits and second units/two-unit projects, but instead to focus on the resulting built environment. Our intent in developing the standards was that the resulting urban lot splits and second units/two-unit projects must blend into our residential neighborhoods and provide an acceptable level of full-time amenities for the resident, while protecting the residential character of the neighborhood from the impacts of increased density. It was our intent to adopt objective development standard that are as close as possible to the existing Development Code requirements to provide for consistency of the development requirements throughout the City.

Therefore, the standards that are proposed below are the regulations contained in the existing Development Code for the creation of new lots and the development of residential dwelling units, to the extent that these standards are allowed to be imposed under SB 9.

Urban Lot Splits
Under the SB 9, the City is allowed to adopt objective subdivision design standards for Urban Lot Splits. The City is proposing to adopt the following objective standards:

4 Defined by Pub. Resources Code Sect. 21155(b) as a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.
5 Defined by Pub Resources Code Section 21064.3 as a site in a regional transportation plan and containing (a) an existing rails or bus rapid transit station; or, (b) a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or (c) the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute period. Pursuant to the SCAG Regional RTP, Transit Appendix, there are no major transit stops in Big Bear Lake.

Development Code Amendment 2021-160
Urban Lot Splits, Second Units, and Two-Unit Projects resulting from SB 9 Planning Commission Date: January 19, 2022

Page 8 ends

 The Urban Lot Split subdivides the original lot into two new parcels of equal (50/50) or approximately equal (up to 60/40) halves.
 Pursuant to state law, both newly created parcels shall be no smaller than 1,200 sf in area.

No lot containing less than 2,400 sf in area may be subdivided under the Urban Lot Split provisions.
 No land-locked parcels shall be created. Each new parcel shall have direct street access to the public right-of-way or private street. The use of private easements as the only access to urban lot split lots is not allowed. However, this provision shall not preclude adjacent property owners from granting reciprocal access rights to each to share a common driveway. In order to minimize the number of driveways along a street, shared driveways between adjacent properties and urban lot splits is encouraged.  The minimum lot width 12 feet measured at the property frontage along the public right-ofway or public street.  A “flag” lot is allowed, with the flag pole portion of the lot being a minimum of 12 feet in width at the public right-of-way.
 All utilities (sewer, water, electricity, natural gas, telephone/cable) shall be provided to serve each of the two new parcels created by the urban lot split.

Under SB 9, the City is prohibited from applying minimum lot width, lot depth, and lot area requirements contained in General Development Standards Table 17.25.050.A. to urban lot splits.

The City is further prohibited from applying the provisions of the Tree Conservation and Defensible Space ordinance pertaining new subdivisions of land (Section 17.10.080) that regulates residential density by land area, establishes a 100 foot setback from the San Bernardino National Forest boundary and requires a 30-foot separation between structures. The City is prohibited from requiring street dedication or off-site improvements (such as drainage improvements) of an urban lot split.

Second Units and Two-Unit Projects
Under the SB 9, the City is allowed to adopt objective zoning and design standards for second units and two-unit projects. The City proposes to adopt the current family residential zoning and design standards that are contained in Chapter 17.25 of the Development Code, except where the state law prohibits us to do so. The proposed objective development and design standards are:
 Minimum front setback (and street-side setback in the case of more than one street frontage) of 15 feet measured at the property frontage along the public right-of-way or private street.
 Minimum interior side and rear setbacks of 4 feet.
 The maximum building height shall be an average of 22 feet as measured in the manner established in Development Code Section 17.02.030. Two-story units are allowed.

Development Code Amendment 2021-160
Urban Lot Splits, Second Units, and Two-Unit Projects resulting from SB 9 Planning Commission Date: January 19, 2022

Page 9 ends

 Minimum roof pitch of 2:12.
 All residential structures shall have eave and gable overhangs of not less than 12 inches measured from the vertical side of the residential structure.  Minimum of one (1) on-site parking space shall be provided for each unit. The minimum dimension of an uncovered parking space is 9 feet wide by 19 feet in depth. The minimum interior dimension of a covered or enclosed (garage) parking space is 10 feet wide by 20 feet in depth.
 Each dwelling unit constructed under the SB 9 provisions shall be limited to 800 square feet or less in area, regardless of lot size.
 Utility hook-ups and an area to accommodate the installation of a clothes washer and dryer shall be provided in each unit.
 Each dwelling unit shall have a private patio, balcony, or yard area of not less than 200 square feet in area or 25 percent of the dwelling unit size, whichever is less.  Each dwelling unit shall be provided with a minimum of 150 cubic feet of private, enclosed storage space within the unit, or within a garage or carport.  Each dwelling unit shall be provided with an all-weather, hard-surface pedestrian access to the public right-of-way in the driveway, or by way of stairs, deck, bridgeway, or walkway.  Driveways servicing the primary unit, second unit or two-unit project shall not exceed a grade of 14 percent.
 The two dwellings shall match each other in architectural style, exterior materials, color, and dominant roof pitch. The dominant roof slope is the slope shared by the largest portion of the roof.
 Exterior siding materials of the dwelling units shall consist of at least two (2) of the following materials; wood (or wood-appearing material) in a horizontal application, wood (or woodappearing material) in a vertical application, natural or cultured stone, decorative masonry, metal, and stucco. Stucco may not be applied to an area greater than sixty percent (60%) of any wall surface. Metal siding shall only be used as an accent material and may not be applied to an area greater than 25% of any wall surface.

Fire Mitigation Measures
Most of the City is located within the very high fire severity zone according to the Office of the State Fire Marshal6. We are very concerned about a potential adverse impact of increased density allowed by SB 9 on the ability to provide access for firefighting equipment and to safely evacuate residents from our neighborhoods. We are proposing additional Fire Mitigation Measures to address these concerns:

6 https://egis fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/
Development Code Amendment 2021-160
Urban Lot Splits, Second Units, and Two-Unit Projects resulting from SB 9 Planning Commission Date: January 19, 2022

Page 10 ends

 Urban lot splits, second units and/or two-unit project shall only be allowed on paved streets with at least a 40-foot right-of-way. (Not allowed on dirt roads or substandard-width streets)  The street on which an urban lot split, second unit or two-unit project is located must have two independent points of access (not allowed on a dead-end streets)  Each unit must comply with current building code requirements for construction within the very high fire hazard severity zone.
 Each unit must have fire sprinklers.
 All sides of each building must be within 150 feet hose pull distance from the public rightof way, hydrant, or standpipe.

Discussion Points
There are several point of discussion that the staff would like to raise with the Planning Commission. These are:

1. Are more restrictions needed to further restrict urban lot splits and second units/two-unit projects and protect the residential neighborhoods from increased density?
In the proposed ordinance, we took the position to not overly restrict or overly encourage urban lot splits, second units, and two-unit projects. However, additional provisions exist to further restrict and discourage urban lot splits and additional units. Additional provisions could be added to restrict the amount of building area on a property, for example:

A primary dwelling that was legally established prior to the urban lot split and that is larger than 800 square feet is limited to the lawful floor area at the time of the urban lot split. The floor area of the original primary unit may not be expanded. A primary dwelling that was legally established prior to the urban lot split and that is smaller than 800 square feet may be expanded to 800 square feet after the urban lot split.

If the Commission desires to add this provision, staff recommends it be added to Sections

16.07.060(e)(10) and 17.25.130(e)(6).

2. Zoning – The city is taking a strict interpretation of the state law that the provisions of SB 9 apply only to the single family residential zones. Out of an abundance of caution, the Planning Commission may consider a different interpretation of SB9 provisions – that the State legislation applies to any zone in which a single family residence is allowed as a permitted land use. Such is the case in the Multiple Family Residential (R-3) zone and the Residential Multi-Family zone of the Village Specific Plan. If the Commission is concerned that the ordinance may be interpreted in this manner, then the appropriate course of action is to amend the Development Code and Village Specific Plan to no longer allow a single family residence as a permitted land use through a subsequent Development Code Amendment and Village Specific Plan amendment. This action would preserve R-3 land for higher density projects, and the city would then have to tackle the issue of how to develop very small multi-family zoned lots. As currently written, the proposed ordinance Development Code Amendment 2021-160
Urban Lot Splits, Second Units, and Two-Unit Projects resulting from SB 9 Planning Commission Date: January 19, 2022

Page 11 ends

contains language to prohibit urban lot splits and second unit/two-unit development in the multiple family, commercial, public-open space and Village Specific Plan zones.

3. Maximum building height. The draft ordinance establishes a maximum building height of 22 feet in order to allow for two-story development and retain a conservative building height. We believe that two-story units must be allowed because the state law establishes a minimum lot size of 1,200 sf in area, and requires that the City allow two units of 800 sf each (a total of 1,600 sf of building area). The only way to achieve this is to build more than one story. Staff believes this building height may be too low to accommodate building on sloping lots or to accommodate a ground level garage and a second unit above. This low height may also prevent more conventional and attractive roof pitches of 4:12 or 6:12.

Therefore, a more practical and conventional maximum building height may be 24 feet. If the Commission desires to add this provision, staff recommends that it be added to Sections 16.07.060(e)(10)(C) and 17.25.130(e)(6)(C).

4. Minimum and Maximum unit size under SB 9. The state law clearly says that the City may not impose any development standard that precludes the construction of a dwelling unit of at least 800 sf in area. However, a builder may elect to build a smaller unit. The proposed ordinance does not establish a minimum unit size, instead, leaving the design flexible for the size of the lot. Staff has seen plans as small as 380 sf and 471 sf for ADUs which could be adapted for SB 9 units. A small unit size encourages the use of nonconventional building construction such as container homes and prefabricated units.

The Development Code currently establishes a minimum unit size of 500 sf for a studio unit, 600 sf for a 1 bedroom unit, 800 sf for a 2-bedroom unit, 1,000 sf for a 3 bedroom unit, and 1,200 sf for more than 3 bedrooms. A larger unit size supports the use of conventional building construction and manufactured units. If the Planning Commission desires to add a minimum unit size, the staff recommends a minimum unit size of 500 sf for consistency with the Development Code standard for a studio unit. This could be added to Sections

16.07.060(e)(10) and 17.25.130(e)(6).

The proposed ordinance establishes a maximum dwelling unit size of 800 sf. Most cities are being conservative and adopting this maximum dwelling unit size specific to the SB9 units. Should the Planning Commission determine that the City should allow greater latitude with regard to the SB9 units, the Commission may recommend a greater maximum unit size. There is no requirement for affordable housing under SB 9 and the intent of the law is to produce more housing units. If the Planning Commission desires, a maximum unit size greater than 800 sf can be established. This could be added to Sections

16.07.060(e)(10)(B) and 17.25.130(e)(6)(B).

5. Unit sizes of SB 9 units and ADUs. SB 9 units are intended to be fully independent dwelling units. Prior to the passage of SB 9, the State of California adopted regulations governing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and the City adopted an ADU ordinance in January of 2020. ADUs are allowed to be up to 1,000 sf for a two-bedroom unit. Therefore, we are calling attention to the fact that ADUs are allowed to be larger than SB 9 units. If Development Code Amendment 2021-160
Urban Lot Splits, Second Units, and Two-Unit Projects resulting from SB 9 Planning Commission Date: January 19, 2022

Page 12 ends

this is a concern to the Planning Commission, staff would request some discussion by Commissioners to understand if the ADU ordinance should be revisited at a later date.

6. Zero Lot Line Developments. SB 9 contains a provision that “an application shall not be rejected solely because it proposes adjacent or connected structures provided that the structure meet building code safety standards and are sufficient to allow separate conveyance. This provision is written to allow “zero lot line” developments and potentially allow a new property line to split an existing residence. Staff is not in support of allowing zero lot line developments because of their appearance, which typically lacks windows and has a large building mass, can be noisy for residents, and lacks privacy normally found in a single family residential neighborhood. The building official confirms that it is not possible for an existing structure to meet the building code separation requirements from a property line. Additionally, staff sees challenges in separating utilities within a structure that was built as one dwelling unit. Therefore, staff will enforce the side yard setback requirement of 4 feet from each side property line and require compliance with all building code separation requirements, which should preclude a zero lot line development.

7. Nonconforming conditions. Under the Urban Lot Split provisions of SB 9, nonconforming zoning conditions do not have to be corrected. An example of this is if the existing lot is nonconforming with respect to minimum lot size or minimum lot dimensions, or if the lot is developed with a residence that does not meet the building setback requirements.

However, where a lot is not created by an urban lot split and a second unit or a two-unit project is proposed, the project can be approved only if all nonconforming zoning conditions are corrected.

8. Vacation Rentals. Under SB 9, new Subdivision Map Act Section 66411.7(h) and new zoning law Section 65851.21(e) state that “a rental of any unit created by SB 9 shall be for a term longer than 30 days.” (emphasis added). The City is interpreting this to mean that any time the SB 9 provisions are invoked either by an Urban Lot Split, the addition of a second unit where there is an existing dwelling unit, or by the construction of a two-unit project, that none of the units on the property may be used as a vacation rental unit.

However, a different interpretation can be made that the existing dwelling unit was not “created by SB 9” and therefore it may be eligible to be a vacation rental. The proposed ordinance is not written to allow SB 9 properties to be registered on the vacation rental program. If the Commission desires to allow certain SB 9 properties to be on the vacation rental program, then we recommend a separate discussion item be scheduled to fully study this issue.

9. Deed Restriction. The proposed ordinance requires that the property owner must record a deed restriction that contains the following stipulations:
a. Expressly prohibits any rental of any dwelling on the property for a period of less than 30 days.
b. Expressly prohibits any non-residential use of the lot (such as for a church, school, or park).

Development Code Amendment 2021-160
Urban Lot Splits, Second Units, and Two-Unit Projects resulting from SB 9 Planning Commission Date: January 19, 2022

Page 13 ends

c. Expressly prohibits any separate conveyance of a primary dwelling on the property, any separate fee interest, and any common interest development within the lot. d. Expressly requires the property owner to live in one of the dwelling units on the lot as the owner’s primary residence and legal domicile.
e. States that the property was formed by an urban lot split and is therefore subject to the City’s regulations pertaining to urban lot splits, second unit, and two-unit projects.

Denial of an SB 9 Project
The City has limited authority to deny a project requested under SB 9, whether that be an urban lot split or second unit or two-unit project. The Community Development Director or his/her designee may deny an application for failure to meet the minimum application requirements or that fails to meet all the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 16.07.060 and/or Development Code Section 17.25.130.

In instances where the minimum application requirements and all the requirements of Chapter

16.07.060 and/or Development Code Section 17.25.130 are met, the City may still deny an urban lot split where the building official makes a written finding based on the preponderance of evidence, that the project would have a “specific, adverse impact” on either public health and safety or on the physical environmental for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. An example of a specific, adverse impact substantiating denial of a project is the lack of infrastructure, such as access, water lines, sewer lines, and utilities.

Pitfalls of SB 9
The City staff finds this legislation poorly written and containing clumsy redundancy between the urban lot split requirements and the second unit and two-unit project standards. The legislation was promoted as “the Duplex Bill,” but in fact the legislation allows four dwelling units. The City foresees that one of the most problematic regulations to be enforced is the owner-occupancy requirement that the applicant for an urban lot split sign affidavit stating that the applicant intends to occupy one of the units as their principal residence. The City anticipates that there will be clean up legislation and possibly case law in the future that will change these provisions. In addition, guidelines on implementing SB 9 are anticipated to be available from the California Department of Housing and Community Development in late January 2022. Therefore, it is likely that the ordinance may need revisions in the future.

Development Code Amendment 2021-160
Urban Lot Splits, Second Units, and Two-Unit Projects resulting from SB 9 Planning Commission Date: January 19, 2022

Page 15 ends

FINDINGS
In approving a request for a Development Code Amendment, the Planning Commission must make the following findings required by Development Code Section 17.03.200.

7.4 to maintain, review, and enforce fire code standards.

Absent regulations of our own, urban lot splits and the development of second units and Development Code Amendment 2021-160
Urban Lot Splits, Second Units, and Two-Unit Projects resulting from SB 9 Planning Commission Date: January 19, 2022

Page 16 ends

two-unit projects would be subject to very few requirements and potentially be developed in a manner inconsistent with existing neighborhoods and the City’s General Plan.

4. The proposed Development Code amendment is reasonable and beneficial at this time.

SB 9 was signed into law on September 16, 2021, and became effective on January 1, 2022. Therefore, this bill is currently law. The bill requires the City to adopt regulations to implement the revisions to the California Subdivision Map Act (Government Code 66411.7) and California zoning law (Government Code Section 65852.21.) Therefore, this Development Code amendment is reasonable and beneficial at this time to bring the City’s regulations into compliance with state law.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
This project has been evaluated for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Under California Government Code sections 65852.21 and 66411.7, the adoption of an ordinance by a city implementing the provisions of SB 9 in the above-mentioned sections and regulating urban lot splits, second units, and two-unit projects is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

PUBLIC OUTREACH & INPUT
Public notice regarding this Development Code Amendment was published in the legal advertisement section of The Grizzly newspaper on January 5, 2022. This Development Code Amendment applies citywide and in lieu of a direct mailing to all property owners, a Box Ad was published in the general section of The Grizzly newspaper, which also appeared on January 5, 2022. In addition, this notice was posted in three public places a minimum of 10 days prior to the hearing date. The notice was also placed on the City’s website, www.citybigbearlake.com. This notification was made in order to give the neighborhood and general public an opportunity to comment on the project. One public inquiry was received in response to this notification and the member of the general public was informed of the public hearing date, time, and location.

ATTACHMENT 3
CEQA Notice of
Exemption

CEQA NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors FROM: Planning Department County of San Bernardino City of Big Bear Lake
385 N. Arrowhead Avenue, 2nd Floor P. O. Box 10000
San Bernardino, CA 92415-0130 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315
Project Title:

Adoption of an Ordinance to implement Urban Lot Splits and Second Unit and Two-Unit projects in the single family residential zones, as required by SB 9, effective on January 1, 2022.

Project Location - Specific:

City wide
Description of Project: Development Code Amendment 2021-160, an Ordinance to adopt standards to implement the provisions of Senate Bill 9 (SB 9), which amended California Government Codes 66411.7 pertaining to Urban Lot Splits, and Section 65852.21 pertaining to second units and two-unit projects.

Name of Public Agency Approving Project:

City Council, City of Big Bear Lake
Exempt Status: (check one) (State type and section number) XX Statutorily Exempt, Division 13, Section 21000 of the Public Resources Code Reasons why project is exempt:

Under California Government Code sections 65852.21, subd. (j), and 66411.7, subd. (n), the adoption of an ordinance by a city implementing the provisions of Government Code sections 66411.7 and 65852.21 and regulating urban lot splits and two-unit projects is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

Lead Agency or Contact Person: Area Code/Telephone/Extension Janice Etter (909) 866-5831
Date: March 7, 2022 Signature:

MEETING DATE: February 7, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor Herrick and Members of the City Council FROM: Frank A. Rush, Jr., City Manager
SUBJECT: City Manager Comments – Item 2.2
2022 CITY COUNCIL REDISTRICTING

ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED
City Council will receive a presentation, conduct a public hearing, and continue the City’s decennial redistricting process by reviewing several proposed draft district map options. All California public agencies that hold elections by district must ensure that their district boundaries are mapped according to the latest U.S. Census results and in accordance with California’s new Fair Maps Act. Decennial redistricting is required in an effort to balance the City’s population within the 5 Council districts and ensure proper consideration for communities of interest. This is the third of four required public hearings scheduled to allow for Council and community engagement, discussion, and legally-compliant district development. City Council will review the various map options and provide feedback at the February 7 meeting, and will conduct the 4th public hearing at the March 7 meeting. If there is some degree of consensus among the Council at the February 7 meeting, City Council is expected to formally consider and approve a new district map at the March 7 and April 4 meetings (two readings). However, if there is not consensus at the February 7 meeting, it may be necessary to schedule a special meeting sometime in March in order to meet the April 17 deadline for submission of the approved map to San Bernardino County.

RECOMMENDED MOTION(S)
City Council should review the draft district maps presented, and express preferences. Council may also direct adjustments to the draft map options presented or direct the development of additional maps for future Council review.

RESPONSIBLE STAFF Erica Stephenson, City Clerk / Director of Human Resources

ADDITIONAL CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
Scott Smith, a partner at Best Best & Krieger, will attend the February 7 Council meeting to address the Council and respond to any questions.

BACKGROUND
Pursuant to Elections Code section 21601, cities with by-district election systems are required to redraw their district boundary maps to ensure compliance with the California and federal Voting Rights Acts. The process to complete the redistricting requires a minimum of four public hearings and dedicated public outreach to ensure minority populations and communities of interest are aware of the redistricting effort and are provided with options to participate. The City Council conducted its first public hearing on October 4, 2021 and its second hearing on November 1, 2021.

DISCUSSION
Every 10 years, cities with by-district election systems must use new census data to review and, if needed, redraw district lines to reflect how local populations have changed. This redistricting process ensures all districts have a nearly equal population. The redistricting process for the City of Big Bear Lake must be completed by April 17, 2022.

The City adopted its current district boundaries in 2018, based on 2010 census data as required by law. The districts must now be redrawn using the 2020 census data and in compliance with the Fair Maps Act, which was adopted by the California legislature as AB 849 and took effect January 1, 2020.

Under the Act, the City Council must draw and adopt boundaries using the following criteria in the listed order of priority (Elections Code 21621(c)):

1. Compliant with the federal requirements of equal population and the Voting Rights Act,

2. Geographic contiguity,

3. Undivided neighborhoods and “communities of interest” (socio-economic geographic areas that should be kept together),

4. Easily identifiable boundaries, and

5. Compactness (do not bypass one group of people to get to a more distant group of people).

The Act prohibits drawing voting districts “for the purpose of favoring or discriminating against a political party.” (Elections Code Sec. 21601(d).)
Once the Act’s prioritized criteria are met, other traditional districting principles can be considered, such as minimizing the number of voters delayed from voting in 2022 to 2024, respecting voters’ choices/continuity in office, and planning for future population growth.

By law, the City must hold at least four public hearings that enable community members to provide input on the drawing of district maps:

1. At least one hearing must occur before the city or county draws draft maps,

2. City or county staff or consultants may hold a public workshop instead of one of the required public redistricting hearings,

3. To increase the accessibility of these hearings, cities and counties must take the following steps:

4. At least one hearing must occur on a Saturday, Sunday, or after 6:00 p.m. on a weekday,

5. If a redistricting hearing is consolidated with another local government meeting, the redistricting hearing must be begin at a pre-designated time, and

6. Local public redistricting hearings must be made accessible with people with disabilities.

Population balance is typically determined by measuring the spread, or deviation, between the least populated district and the greatest populated district. Deviations of 10% or less are generally considered acceptable under U.S. Supreme Court rulings on equal protection. The City’s population is 5,039. The ideal population of a Council district is one-fifth of that population, or 1,008.

Current District Boundaries
Analysis of the City’s current district boundaries, adjusted for the 2020 Census data, shows the districts are no longer population balanced as required by law. District 4 is overpopulated by

12.22% and District 3 is under populated at -8.03% for a combined total deviation of 20.24%. For these reasons, the district boundaries must be adjusted to achieve a population balance of 10% or less. In sum, this means that ideally, District 4 would need to be reduced 123 persons while on the other extreme District 3 would need to gain 80 persons.

Minority Voters
Another consideration in the drawing of district boundaries is the distribution of minority voters throughout the City and whether there is a possibility of creating a majority/minority voting district as would be required under the federal Voting Rights Act. Because the City’s minority voting population is spread quite evenly across the community, there is no real opportunity to draw districts to create a minority-majority voting district, so the potency of minority vote is not really a consideration in your redistricting plan.

The purpose of this public hearing is to review the initial draft maps prepared by the City’s redistricting team, to inform the public about the districting process, and to hear from the community on factors to be taken into consideration for district boundaries. The public is requested to provide input regarding communities of interest and other local factors that should be considered for district maps. A community of interest under the relevant Elections Code for cities (Section 21621(c) is, “a population that shares common social or economic interests that should be included within a single district for purposes of its effective and fair representation.” Maps
Draft alternative maps for Council consideration are attached to this report (Attachment). The current district boundary map is below:

The City’s outreach and invitation to public participation has been fruitful. In addition to the districting team’s options presented below, several maps were also received from the public which are also discussed. Each map is summarized below and accompanying images and demographic information may be found attached to this report.

Further, an online tool for closely examining the boundaries, with zoom and search capabilities, may be found here.

For Maps labeled 1-6B
https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1HXfwENwPubVXIxZlwubB9gBClpJOFOq&usp=sharing For Maps labeled 7A-14
https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1Ot8QK9BonoUySyEyr55ryT8JDfjzVK2z&usp=sha ring
General Mapping Principles
The Fair maps Act criteria for redistricting is outlined above. The Council will note that (1) most of the elements of the criteria are subjective (e.g., “communities of interest” and “geographic integrity” and (2) the criteria can stand in opposition to each other; in other words, furtherance of one can compromise another (e.g., a distinct community of interest might not include the perfect number of voting population to warrant a district line being drawn around it). Thus, each alternative map is the result of a particular interpretation, ranking, and ultimately harmonization of the mapping criteria described above. How that criteria is interpreted and ranked, especially with regard to contrary values, is ultimately up to the Council.

Balancing these criteria drove development of these particular mapping alternatives as follows:

Existing Map
The Fair Maps Act criteria were not in effect when the City Council first drew voting districts in 2018. Perhaps for this reason, the current voting districts are not models of geographic compactness. Rather than being similarly sized and shaped or compact polygons, they are more eccentric and elongated in shape. Although this pattern tracks the general shape of the City itself, it is not a model of compactness. The current map is by no means a model of “easily identifiable boundaries.”
To use the existing map as a starting point, the Council will need to consider whether it is drawn along “communities of interest” as required under the new statute. The existing map has vulnerabilities under federal and state voting rights laws due to population imbalance, which can be addressed by shifting population to the other districts. (See Existing Map+ alternatives 1 - 14 below.) Those alternatives each approach this population shift differently, depending on how Council sees communities of interest align with shifting boundaries.

Leaving the districts’ current configuration essentially intact by shifting boundaries minimally causes the least disruption in terms of election deferrals and accelerations (i.e., disrupting a voter’s right to vote in the election cycle he or she expected to vote in). But this is technically neither a Fair Maps Act criterion nor a voting rights imperative absent a disparate racial impact on voting.

Existing Map+ Alternatives
Maps 1 - 4 are drawn in an effort to retain the essence of the current configuration of the City’s voting districts while making minimal boundary shifts to better balance voting population. Several alternatives are presented. If Council pursues this tack, it will want to decide which of the boundary shifts are more consistent with the “community of interest” criteria, since the Act ranks that criterion relatively high. These alternatives, like the Existing Map, do not stand out for being “easily identifiable.” In other words, one would be hard-pressed to remember and redraw them without looking at them.

Map 1
• Creates slightly more compact voting districts while still retaining generally the core of existing districts
• Most similar to existing configuration
• Deviation of 1.98%
• Publicly submitted
Map 2A
• Districts 1, 4, and 5 retain most of their original boundaries • District 3 moves to the north in current District 2
• Will require sequencing considerations
o Combined districts
• Deviation of 6.52%
Map 2B
• Districts 1, 4, and 5 retain most of their original boundaries • District 2 moves south and west into current District 3 • Will require sequencing considerations
o Combined districts
• Deviation of 6.52%
Map 3
• Elongated east/west districts generally
• Combines portions of Districts 1, 2, and 3
• Will require sequencing considerations
o Combined districts
o Districts 1, 2 and 3 labeled differently than existing districts • Deviation of 2.97%
• Publicly submitted
Map 4
• Elongated east/west districts generally
• Combines portions of Districts 1, 2, and 3
• Will require sequencing considerations
o Combined districts
o Districts 1, 2, and 3 labeled differently than existing districts • Deviation of 2.58%
• Publicly submitted
Compact Map Alternatives
Maps 5A – 14 are drawn giving greater prominence to the “compactness” criteria of the Act.

Thus, they are facially less likely to suggest they had gerrymandering as their basis. Their shape represents a better critical mass centered around fewer neighborhoods than the span of several neighborhoods the existing districts represent. These maps would be much easier to remember and draw. They provide population balance in a smaller area of the City.

Again, there are several ways to achieve this essential district shape, depending on where Council draws dividing lines. Because they digress from district lines much more than the Existing Map+ alternatives, these maps tend to cause greater acceleration and deferral in adjusted areas than the Existing Map+, but that criteria is not ranked explicitly in the Act.

Map 5A
• Compact north south districts generally
• All districts become more compact
• Will require sequencing considerations
o Combined Districts
• Deviation of 0.6% (less than one percent)
Map Option 5B
o Compact north south districts generally
o All districts become more compact
o Will require sequencing considerations
o Deviation of 0.6% (less than one percent)
Map Option 6A
o Compact districts generally
o Combines portions of Districts 1 and 2 into District 2 o District 1 moves to the center of the City
o Will require sequencing considerations
o Combines districts
o Renumbers Districts 1 and 2
o Deviation of 3.66%
Map Option 6B
o Compact districts generally
o Combines portions of districts 1 and 2 into District 1 o District 2 moves more westerly to the center of the City o Will require sequencing considerations
o Combines districts
o Renumbers Districts 1 and 2
o Deviation of 3.66%
Map Option 7A
o Compact districts generally
o Combines portions of Districts 1 and 3 into District 1 o District 2 remains somewhat elongated
o Will require sequencing considerations
o Combines districts
o Deviation of 3.75%
Map Option 7B
o Compact districts generally
o Combines portions of Districts 1 and 3 into District 3 o District 2 remains somewhat elongated
o District 1 moves to the center of the City
o Will require sequencing considerations
o Combines districts
o Renumbers Districts 1 and 3
o Deviation of 3.75%
Map Option 8
o Creates compact districts with a north/south configuration o Combines portions of Districts 1, 2, and 3 into new block shapes o Districts 4 and 5 remaining generally the same
o Will require sequencing considerations
o Combines districts
o Deviation of .59% (less than 1 percent)
o Publicly submitted
Map Option 9
o Creates compact districts with a north/south configuration o Combines portions of original Districts 1, 2, and 3 into new block shapes o Original District 4 and District 5 remain generally the same o Will require sequencing considerations
o Combines districts
o Renumbers Districts 1 and 4
o Deviation of 0.79% (less than one percent)
o Publicly submitted
Map Option 10
o Creates compact districts with a north/south configuration o Combines portions of original Districts 1 and 2 into Districts 1 and 3 o Original District 2 moves westerly into a compact block in the center of the City o Will require sequencing considerations
o Combines districts
o Renumbers Districts 2 and 3
o Deviation of 1.78%
o Publicly submitted
Map Option 11
o Creates compact districts generally, although District 3 remains elongated o Combines portions of original Districts 1 and 2 into District 1 o Original District 2 moves westerly into a compact block in the center of the City o Will require sequencing considerations
o Combines districts
o Deviation of 9.12%
o Publicly submitted
Map Option 12
o Creates compact districts
o Combines portions of original Districts 1, 2, and 3 into newly formed block districts o Significant renumbering of districts
o Will require sequencing considerations
o Combines districts
o Renumbers Districts 1, 2, and 3
o Deviation of 4.06%
o Publicly submitted
Map Option 13
o Creates compact north/south districts
o Combines portions of original Districts 1, 2, and 3 into newly formed block districts o Moves District 2 westerly into a compact block in the center of the City o Will require sequencing considerations
o Combines districts
o Deviation of 2.97%
o Publicly submitted
Map Option 14
o Creates compact districts generally, although District 3 remains elongated o Combines portions of original Districts 1 and 2 into District 1 o Moves District 2 westerly toward the center of the City o Will require sequencing considerations
o Combines districts
o Deviation of 0.4% (less than 1 percent)
o Publicly submitted
Sequencing
Shifting population in the Existing Map+ alternatives essentially along current district lines would not alter the composition of districts as much as the Compact Map alternatives would. When significant portions of existing districts are combined with portions of other districts, the Council will face the need to “sequence” those districts, in other words to decide which district numbers correspond to the newly combined areas. As with the City’s original maps, the Council has the latitude to determine which numbers flow to which districts. Councilmembers in the old districts serve the remainder of their terms as if those districts still existed, but voters in the new districts will vote for Councilmembers in the election tied to their new district’s district number.

Several of the alternative maps that result in new districts from portions of older districts have “lettered” versions to show the Council its choices in this regard. Additionally, in multiple publicly submitted maps, where the configuration generally resembles the existing map, the author(s) assigned district numbers that deviate from the current map. Were the Council to adopt one of those maps as presented, it would result in voters being shifted to new district numbers and potentially new election cycles. Again, in numbering districts – just as in drawing them – the Council should consider the acceleration and deferral of voting opportunities among affected voters, but that consideration should not take precedence over the Fair Maps Act criteria.

Following this public hearing and continued demographic review of the recently released 2020 Census data, the City’s redistricting team will revise any maps as directed by the Council, as well as evaluate any additional maps submitted by the public. .

If at this public hearing the Council requests additional revisions, those revisions will be presented at the fourth public hearing. The Council may, at this public hearing, narrow its focus and identify a preferred map. In that instance, staff will also include an introduction of an Ordinance approving a final map at the fourth public hearing. Should additional public hearings be necessary to identify and select a preferred map, they will be scheduled accordingly. As noted above, the deadline for the City of Big Bear Lake to complete the redistricting process is April 17, 2022.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this agenda item.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
None requiring review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

RECOMMENDATION

1. Receive a report from staff and the City’s redistricting team on the redistricting process and permissible criteria to be considered to redraw district boundaries;

2. Conduct a public hearing to receive public input on district boundaries; and

3. Review and provide feedback on proposed map options.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft map alternatives 1-14

2. Record of 2018 districting deliberations.

ATTACHMENT 1
Draft Map
Alternatives
Option 1
Deviation – 1.98%

Option 2A
Deviation 6.52%
Option 2B
Deviation 6.52%
Option 3
Deviation – 2.97%
Option 4
Deviation – 2.58%
Option 5A
Deviation – 0.6% (less than 1 percent)
Option 5B
Deviation – 0.6% (less than 1 percent)
Option 6A
Deviation – 3.66%
Option 6B
Deviation – 3.66%

Option 7A
Deviation – 3.75%
Option 7B
Deviation – 3.75%
Option 8
Deviation – 0.59% (less than 1 percent)
Option 9
Deviation – 0.79% (less than 1 percent)
Option 10
Deviation – 1.78%
Option 11
Deviation – 9.12%

Option 12
Deviation – 4.06%
Option 13
Deviation 2.97%
Option 14
Deviation – 0.4% (less than 1 percent)
ATTACHMENT 2
Record of 2018
Redistricting
Deliberations

AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: January 8, 2018
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Jeff Mathieu, City Manager
REVIEWED BY: Kathleen Smith, Chief Operations Officer/Acting City Clerk PREPARED BY: Sarah M. Siep, Deputy City Clerk
SUBJECT: DISTRICT ELECTIONS - ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING BYDISTRICT ELECTIONS, DEFINING DISTRICT

BOUNDARIES, AND SCHEDULING ELECTIONS WITHIN

THE DISTRICTS
BACKGROUND:

In 2003 the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) became law. In an attempt to prevent the disenfranchisement of protected classes of voters, the CVRA establishes attorney rights to seek out cities and request they convert from at-large to by-district elections. A number of public agencies throughout the state have been sued under the CVRA, and Plaintiffs challenging atlarge elections of legislative bodies such as city councils have generally prevailed in litigation. In fact, the City Attorney is unaware of any public entity which has prevailed in such a suit. Due to the significant legal fees involved in these cases, more than 50 California cities, and many other public agencies, have voluntarily transitioned, or are in the process of doing so, from at-large to by-district elections.

As a protection to limit attorney fees for prospective claimant cities, in 2016, AB 350 was established and adopted. Under AB 350, Elections Code Section 10010 was amended to cap the attorneys’ fees a prospective plaintiff may recover if a public agency adopts a Resolution of Intention to change to a by-district system within 45 days of receipt of a letter from that prospective Plaintiff attorney alleging a CVRA violation. On September 26, 2017, the City received a letter from Kevin Shenkman, Esq., alleging that the at-large Council election system diluted the ability of certain protected classes of persons within Big Bear Lake to elect candidates of their choice (i.e. “polarized voting”) and demanding the city notify him of its intent to change to a by-district election system by November 10, 2017. In response, on November 6, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2017-33, a Resolution of Intention to transition from at-large to by-district elections and directed the City Attorney to retain the services of a demographer to draw district maps.

Under AB 350, upon adoption of this Resolution, the City then had 90 days to complete the transition process, during which time the public had at least five (5) opportunities to comment on the proposal and the draft maps created by the demographer for potential voting districts. On Agenda Report: BY-DISTRICT ELECTIONS -ORDINANCE
January 8, 2018

Page 2 ends

November 13, 2017 and November 16, 2017, the City held two public meetings to get input on potential district maps. On December 4, 2017, two draft maps were posted on the City’s website for public review. On December 11, 2017 and December 14, 2017, two additional public hearings were held to solicit input on the draft maps and the proposed sequencing of elections.

All public hearings were noticed in the Big Bear Grizzly.

If, at a future date, state law or the CVRA are revised, Council would have the option to return to an at-large voting system.

DISCUSSION
Polarized voting exists when voters of different racial or ethnic groups exhibit significantly different candidate preferences in an election. Twenty seven percent (27%) of the City’s total population is non-White (21% Latino) and is spread relatively evenly throughout the City. An analysis conducted by a demographer concluded that there is no evidence of racially polarized voting in the City of Big Bear Lake and, therefore, no CVRA violation has occurred as a result of the City’s at-large elections. However, transitioning to by-district elections eliminates the risk of a CVRA challenge, and the risk of a Plaintiff selected expert concluding to the contrary. In addition, voluntary transition eliminates the risk of a lawsuit that could place control of the City’s electoral process in a court’s hands rather than in the hands of the City’s residents and elected officials.

The drawing of Council districts is regulated by both state and federal law, including Federal Voting Rights Act. For example, under federal law, Council districts may not be drawn with race as the predominate factor (Shaw v. Reno (1993) 509 U.S. 630). In addition, under Elections Code Section 21620, districts must be drawn as nearly equal in population as may be according to the latest federal decennial census (i.e., at present, the 2010 census). The following factors may be considered in establishing such boundaries: topography, geography, cohesiveness, contiguity, integrity, and compactness of territory; and community of interest of the districts. In addition, the City Council may consider additional factors including respect for the prior electoral choices of voters in the jurisdiction.

At the November 13 and November 16 public hearings, concerns were expressed about the possibility of districts being balkanized. Balkanization would occur if the City was divided in a way where each district could vote based on the interest of their district rather than the interest of the entire City. Given the small size of the City of Big Bear Lake, it was difficult to draw maps which had each district less than ten percent (10%) differential in population, and kept census blocks intact within districts. In addition, it was the desire of the Council that business centers be balanced within all districts. Therefore, based on input from the public and the City Council, two (2) maps were created by the City’s demographer. Both of these maps were made available for review on the City’s website on December 4, 2017 (Attachment A).

Two public hearings were conducted on December 11 and 14 to review two proposed maps. It was the consensus of the public and the City Council that the “Green” map had the characteristics that were most important. On December 14, Council directed staff to move forward with selection of the “Green” map for adoption. The City is long and linear and the districts were created in a linear manner; the districts were not balkanized and no one district had Agenda Report: BY-DISTRICT ELECTIONS -ORDINANCE
January 8, 2018

Page 3 ends

undue influence in a particular area. Additionally, the “Green” map spread Commercial Business areas throughout all districts, and the voter population was appropriately balanced on this map (Attachment B).

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that Council take the following actions:

1. Receive additional input regarding the proposed “Green” district map and the sequence of elections; and,

2. Introduce, waive first reading and pass to second reading an Ordinance amending the Municipal Code and establishing by-district elections, defining district boundaries and scheduling elections within the districts.

Attachments:

A. Two Draft Maps
B. Recommended “Green” Map
C. Ordinance 2017-XXX
Attachment A
Moonridge Rd
Sand Canyon Rd
Golden Oak Rd
Menlo Dr Cove
Dr
Big Bear Blvd
Hillcrest Dr
Mockingbird Dr
B
als
am
Dr
Starvation Flats Rd
Rockspray Dr
Echo
Ln
C
o
n
kli
n
R
d
SandalwoodCatalina Rd
G
e
o
r
g
i
a
S
t
Alta Vista Ave Alden Rd
Encino Rd
Forest Svc Rd
Pine
Kno
t
Ave
S Eagle Dr
Prairie Ln Comstock Ln
Colusa Dr
S
un
s
et
D
r
San Pasqual Dr
C Peak Ln ove Rd Willow Landing Rd
Gilner Dr
Shasta Rd
Gold Rush Dr
Pennsylvania Ave
Stone Bridge RdMeadow Cir N
Switzerland Dr
Vis
ta
Ln
P
ain
e Rd
Sheephorn
Rd
O
r
i
o
l
e
D
r
Forest Rd
Falls Ave
T
ama
r
a
c
k
R
d
Thrush Ct
Talm
a
dg
e
Rd
Garstin Dr
M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
a
i
r
e
L
n
Jeffries Rd
S
u
m
m
i
t
B
lv
d
Olympic Dr
P
onde
r
o
s
a
D
r
Evergreen Dr
Simonds Dr
Lark Rd
Waterview Dr
Peregrine Ave
Cedar Ave
Edgemoor Rd Metcalf Ln Waynoka Ln Brownie Ln Bear Lake Dr Avalon Rd Talbot Dr
Francis Way
N
Big
Bear
Blvd
Sp
ru
c
e
Rd
D
ivi
s
ion
D
r
N
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
D
r
I
ri
s
D
r
Modoc
Dr
Fox Farm Rd
Timberline Trl
Creek Rd
Robin Rd
F
o
r
e
s
t
S
e
rvi
e
c
R
d
S
h
e
l
t
e
r
L
n
d
g
D
ixi
e L
n
Tahoe Dr
Edelweiss Dr
Wolf Rd
Villa Grove Ave
Fairy Ave
2n10
Swallow Dr
2n08
Cienega Rd
Echo
Hill
R La d keview Dr
Cedar Lake Rd
Eagle Dr
Brier Trl
L
a
ke
vi
e
w
P
i
n
e
s
Rd
Proposed Election Sequence: National Demographics Corporation, December 4, 20172018 elections: Districts 2, 3 and 42020 elections: Districts 1 and 5 Map layers
Green
Census Block
Census Place
Pipeline/Power Line
River
Streets
Water Area
Moonridge Rd
Sand Canyon Rd
Golden Oak Rd
Menlo Dr Cove
Dr
Big Bear Blvd
Hillcrest Dr
Mockingbird Dr
B
als
am
Dr
Starvation Flats Rd
Rockspray Dr
Echo
Ln
C
o
n
kli
n
R
d
SandalwoodCatalina Rd
G
e
o
r
g
i
a
S
t
Alta Vista Ave Alden Rd
Encino Rd
Forest Svc Rd
Pine
Kno
t
Ave
S Eagle Dr
Prairie Ln Comstock Ln
Colusa Dr
S
un
s
et
D
r
San Pasqual Dr
C Peak Ln ove Rd Willow Landing Rd
Gilner Dr
Shasta Rd
Gold Rush Dr
Ironwood Dr
Pennsylvania Ave
Stone Bridge RdMeadow Cir N
Switzerland Dr
Vis
ta
Ln
Sheephorn
Rd
O
r
i
o
l
e
D
r
Forest Rd Talmadge
Rd
Falls Ave
T
ama
r
a
c
k
R
d
Thrush Ct
Garstin Dr
M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
a
i
r
e
L
n
Jeffries Rd
S
u
m
m
i
t
B
lv
d
Olympic Dr
P
onde
r
o
s
a
D
r
Simonds Dr
Lark Rd
Waterview Dr
Peregrine Ave
Vail Ln
Cedar Ave
Edgemoor Rd Metcalf Ln Brownie Ln Avalon Rd
Talbot Dr
Francis Way
N
Big
Bear
Blvd
D
ivi
s
ion
D
r
N
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
D
r
I
ri
s
D
r
Fox Farm Rd
Timberline Trl
Beaver Ln
Wildrose
Ln
Creek Rd
Robin Rd
F
o
r
e
s
t
S
e
rvi
e
c
R
d
S
h
e
l
t
e
r
L
n
d
g
D
ixi
e L
n
Tahoe Dr
Edelweiss Dr
Wolf Rd
Villa Grove Ave
Fairy Ave Came
ro
n
Dr
2n10
Swallow Dr
2n08
Temple
Ln
Cienega Rd
Echo
Hill
R La d keview Dr
Cedar Lake Rd
Eagle Dr
Brier Trl
L
a
ke
vi
e
w
P
i
n
e
s
Rd
Proposed Election Sequence: National Demographics Corporation, December 4, 20172018 elections: Districts 1, 2, and 32020 elections: Districts 4 and 5 Map layers
Yellow
Census Block
Census Place
Pipeline/Power Line
River
Streets
Water Area
Attachment B
Moonridge Rd
Sand Canyon Rd
Golden Oak Rd
Menlo Dr Cove
Dr
Big Bear Blvd
Hillcrest Dr
Mockingbird Dr
B
als
am
Dr
Starvation Flats Rd
Rockspray Dr
Echo
Ln
C
o
n
kli
n
R
d
SandalwoodCatalina Rd
G
e
o
r
g
i
a
S
t
Alta Vista Ave Alden Rd
Encino Rd
Forest Svc Rd
Pine
Kno
t
Ave
S Eagle Dr
Prairie Ln Comstock Ln
Colusa Dr
S
un
s
et
D
r
San Pasqual Dr
C Peak Ln ove Rd Willow Landing Rd
Gilner Dr
Shasta Rd
Gold Rush Dr
Pennsylvania Ave
Stone Bridge RdMeadow Cir N
Switzerland Dr
Vis
ta
Ln
P
ain
e Rd
Sheephorn
Rd
O
r
i
o
l
e
D
r
Forest Rd
Falls Ave
T
ama
r
a
c
k
R
d
Thrush Ct
Talm
a
dg
e
Rd
Garstin Dr
M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
a
i
r
e
L
n
Jeffries Rd
S
u
m
m
i
t
B
lv
d
Olympic Dr
P
onde
r
o
s
a
D
r
Evergreen Dr
Simonds Dr
Lark Rd
Waterview Dr
Peregrine Ave
Cedar Ave
Edgemoor Rd Metcalf Ln Waynoka Ln Brownie Ln Bear Lake Dr Avalon Rd Talbot Dr
Francis Way
N
Big
Bear
Blvd
Sp
ru
c
e
Rd
D
ivi
s
ion
D
r
N
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
D
r
I
ri
s
D
r
Modoc
Dr
Fox Farm Rd
Timberline Trl
Creek Rd
Robin Rd
F
o
r
e
s
t
S
e
rvi
e
c
R
d
S
h
e
l
t
e
r
L
n
d
g
D
ixi
e L
n
Tahoe Dr
Edelweiss Dr
Wolf Rd
Villa Grove Ave
Fairy Ave
2n10
Swallow Dr
2n08
Cienega Rd
Echo
Hill
R La d keview Dr
Cedar Lake Rd
Eagle Dr
Brier Trl
L
a
ke
vi
e
w
P
i
n
e
s
Rd
Proposed Election Sequence: National Demographics Corporation, December 4, 20172018 elections: Districts 2, 3 and 42020 elections: Districts 1 and 5 Map layers
Green
Census Block
Census Place
Pipeline/Power Line
River
Streets
Water Area
Attachment C
ORDINANCE NO. 2017-XXX

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF BIG BEAR LAKE, CALIFORNIA, ADDING SECTION

1.12.050 TO CHAPTER 1.12 OF TITLE 1 OF THE CITY OF
BIG BEAR LAKE MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING BYDISTRICT ELECTIONS, DEFINING DISTRICT

BOUNDARIES, AND SCHEDULING ELECTIONS WITHIN

THE DISTRICTS
WHEREAS, the City of Big Bear Lake currently elects five Councilmembers using an atlarge election system; and WHEREAS, in response to threatened litigation regarding alleged non-compliance with the California Voting Rights Act (“CVRA”), the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to shift from its current at large election system to a by-district election system; and
WHEREAS, on November 6, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2017-33, a Resolution declaring the City’s intention to transition from at-large to district-based elections pursuant to Elections Code Section 10010; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code section 34886 permits the City Council to change the City’s method of election by Ordinance, with certain formalities, to a “by-district” system in which each Councilmember is elected only by the voters in the district in which the candidate resides; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code section 34886, it is declared that the purpose of the change in the method of electing members of the City Council of the City of Big Bear Lake made by this Ordinance is to implement the guarantees of Section 7 of Article I and of Section 2 of Article II of the California Constitution, as set forth in Sections 14025 through 14032 of the California Elections Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney engaged an expert demographic firm to assist the City with the process of analyzing the City’s population, developing draft maps, and gathering input from residents on the possible maps; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Elections Code section 10010, the City Council held two public hearings to obtain input on any proposed district boundaries on November 13 and November 16, 2017; and
WHEREAS, on December 4, 2017, the City made two maps prepared by the demographer available on its website for public review; and
WHEREAS, on December 11 and December 14, 2017, the City Council held two further public hearings at which the public was invited to provide input regarding the content of the draft maps and the sequence of elections; and
Ordinance No. 2017-XXX

Page 2 ends

Big Bear Lake City CouncilFebruary 7, 2022

Big Bear Lake City Council
February 7, 2022