Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, October 17, 2023
Closed Session - 5:00 PM
City Council Chambers
9700 Seventh Ave., Hesperia CA, 92345
City Clerk's Office: (760) 947-1007
City Council Members
Brigit Bennington, Mayor
Larry Bird, Mayor Pro Tem
Allison Lee, Council Member
Cameron Gregg, Council Member
Rebekah Swanson, Council Member
Rachel Molina, City Manager
Pam K. Lee, City Attorney
See page (3) for details on public meeting guidelines during the COVID-19 (Coronavirus) Pandemic
HESPERIA CITY COUNCIL
SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
HOUSING AUTHORITY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
WATER DISTRICT
NOTE: In compliance with the Americans with Disability Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (760) 947-1007 or (760) 947-1026. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility.
Brigit Bennington, Mayor 9700 Seventh Avenue Larry Bird, Mayor Pro Tem Hesperia, CA 92345 Cameron Gregg, Council Member
Allison Lee, Council Member 760-947-1000 Rebekah Swanson, Council Member TD 760-947-1119
Rachel Molina, City Manager www.cityofhesperia.us Gateway to the High Desert
City of Hesperia
Public Access to City Council Meetings:
City Council meetings are now open to the public within the guidelines provided by the State which may include wearing masks and socially distancing from other attendees.
Public Comments can be made in -person at City Council Meetings and/or can be submitted via telephone recording that will be played during the meeting.
City Council meetings may be viewed live or after the event on the City’s website at www.cityofhesperia.us.
Remote Public Comment:
Public Comments Made By-Telephone Process
Public comments will be accepted in advance until 5:30 pm on the day of the scheduled meeting by calling and leaving a recorded message at (760) 947-1056. Comments received past 5:30 pm will not be included in the record. If you would like to comment remotely, please follow the protocols below:
• Call (760)947-10 56 to leave a detailed message of your public comment.
• Identify your name and the item you wish to comment on in your message.
• Contact information in your voicemail is optional, but will allow staff to easily follow up with you if necessary.
• Each public comment received by voicemail will be played by a staff member for up to three (3) minutes for Consent Calendar/New Business items and up to five (5) minutes for Public Hearing items.
Remote public comments received outside of the comment period outlined above will not be included in the record.
October 17, 2023City Council Meeting Agenda
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
HESPERIA CITY COUNCIL
SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
HESPERIA HOUSING AUTHORITY
HESPERIA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
HESPERIA WATER DISTRICT
9700 7th Avenue, Council Chambers, Hesperia, CA 92345
As a courtesy, please silence your cell phones and other electronic devices while the meeting is in session. Thank you.
Prior to action of the Council, any member of the audience will have the opportunity to address the legislative body on any item listed on the agenda, including those on the Consent Calendar.
Individuals wishing to speak during General Public Comments or on a particular numbered item must submit a speaker slip to the City Clerk with the agenda item noted. Speaker slips should be turned in prior to the public comment portion of the agenda or before an agenda item is discussed. Comments will be limited to three minutes for General Public Comments, Consent Calendar items and New Business items. Comments are limited to five minutes for Public Hearing items.
In compliance with the Brown Act, the City Council may not discuss or take action on non-agenda items or engage in question and answer sessions with the public. The City Council may ask brief questions for clarification; provide a reference to staff or other resources for factual information and direct staff to add an item to a subsequent meeting.
CLOSED SESSION - 5:00 PM
Roll Call
Mayor Brigit Bennington
Mayor Pro Tem Larry Bird
Council Member Allison Lee
Council Member Cameron Gregg
Council Member Rebekah Swanson
Conference with Legal Counsel - Potential Litigation:
Government Code Section 54956.9(d)2
1. One (1) Case
CALL TO ORDER - 6:30 PM
A. Invocation
B. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
C. Roll Call
Mayor Brigit Bennington
Mayor Pro Tem Larry Bird
Council Member Allison Lee
October 17, 2023City Council Meeting Agenda
Council Member Cameron Gregg
Council Member Rebekah Swanson
D. Agenda Revisions and Announcements by City Clerk
E. Closed Session Reports by City Attorney
GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS (For items and matters not listed on the agenda) Individuals wishing to speak during General Public Comments or on a particular numbered item are requested to submit a speaker slip to the City Clerk with the agenda item noted. Speaker slips should be turned in prior to the public comment portion of the joint agenda or before an agenda item is discussed. Comments will be limited to three minutes for General Public Comments, Consent Calendar items and New Business items. Comments are limited to five minutes for Public Hearing items.
In compliance with the Brown Act, the City Council may not discuss or take action on non-agenda items or engage in question and answer sessions with the public. The City Council may ask brief questions for clarification; provide a reference to staff or other resources for factual information and direct staff to add an item to a subsequent meeting.
JOINT CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Consideration of the Draft Minutes from the Regular Meeting held Tuesday, October 3, 2023.
Recommended Action:
It
is recommended that the City Council approve the Draft Minutes from the Regular Meeting held Tuesday, October 3, 2023.
Staff Person: Assistant City Clerk Erin Baum
Draft CC Min 2023-10-3Attachments:
2. Warrant Run Report (City - Successor Agency - Housing Authority - Community Development Commission - Water)
Recommended Action:
It is recommended that the Council/Board ratify the warrant run and payroll report for the City, Successor Agency to the Hesperia Community Redevelopment Agency, Hesperia Housing Authority, Community Development Commission, and Water District.
Staff Person: Assistant City Manager Casey Brooksher
SR Warrant Run 10-17-2023
Attachment 1 - Warrant Run
Attachments:
3. Treasurer’s Cash Report for the unaudited period ended July 31, 2023.
Recommended Action:
It
is recommended that the Council/Board accept the Treasurer’s Cash Report for the City, Successor Agency to the Hesperia Community Redevelopment
October 17, 2023City Council Meeting Agenda
Agency, Hesperia Housing Authority, Community Development Commission, and Water District.
Staff Person: Assistant City Manager Casey Brooksher
SR Treasurer's Report 10-17-2023
Attachment 1 - Treasurer's Report
Attachments:
NEW BUSINESS
4. Authorize Letter of Opposition to the Draft San Bernardino County Regional Conservation Investment Strategy
Recommended Action:
It
is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager, and/or designee, to issue a letter of opposition to the County of San Bernardino and the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) regarding the draft Regional Conservation Investment Strategy.
Staff Person: Director of Development Services Nathan Freeman SR RCIS Opposition Letter
Attachment 1 - Draft City Letter of Opposition
Attachment 2 - 2. BIA Letter of Opposition to RCIS
Attachments:
COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS AND COMMENTS
The Council may report on their activities as appointed representatives of the City on various Boards and Committees and/or may make comments of general interest or report on their activities as a representative of the City.
CITY MANAGER/CITY ATTORNEY/STAFF REPORTS
The City Manager, City Attorney or staff may make announcements or reports concerning items of interest to the Council and the public.
ADJOURNMENT
I, Erin Baum, Assistant City Clerk of the City of Hesperia, California do hereby certify that I caused to be posted the foregoing agenda on Wednesday, , 2023 at 5:30 p.m. pursuant to California Government Code §54954.2. _____________________________
Erin Baum,
Assistant City Clerk
Documents produced by the City and distributed less than 72 hours prior to the meeting regarding items on the agenda will be made available in the City Clerk's Office during normal business hours.
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
City of Hesperia
City of Hesperia
Meeting Minutes - Draft
City Council
Tuesday, October 3, 2023 6:30 PM
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
HESPERIA CITY COUNCIL
SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
HESPERIA HOUSING AUTHORITY
HESPERIA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
HESPERIA WATER DISTRICT
NO CLOSED SESSION
CALL TO ORDER - 6:31 PM
A. Invocation
B. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
C. Roll Call
Present: 5 - Mayor Pro Tem Bird, Council Member Swanson, Council Member G
regg, Mayor Bennington, and Council Member Lee
D. A genda Revisions and Announcements by City Clerk
E. Closed Session Reports by City Attorney
GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS (For items and matters not listed on the agenda) Al Vogler commented on taxes.
Stephanie Vanderlaag commented on animal issues.
Dr. Cisneros commented on staff.
Chris Ochoa commented on community issues.
Gina Whelan commented on animal issues.
Stephanie James commented on animal issues.
Jerri Pike commented on neighborhood watch.
JOINT CONSENT CALENDAR
Item number 5 was considered separately from the Joint Consent Calendar.
City Council Chambers
9700 Seventh Ave.
Hesperia CA, 92345
City of Hesperia
A motion was made by Swanson, seconded by Gregg, that this item be approved. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: 5 - Bird, Swanson, Gregg, Bennington, and Lee
Nay: 0
1. Consideration of the Draft Minutes from the Regular Meeting held Tuesday, September 19, 2023.
Recommended Action:
It is recommended that the City Council approve the Draft Minutes from the Regular Meeting held Tuesda
y, September 19, 2023.
Sponsors: Assistant City Clerk Erin Baum
2. Warrant Run Report (City - Successor Agency - Housing Authority - Community Developm ent Commission - Water)
Recommended Action:
It is recommended that the Council/Board ratify the warrant run and payroll report for the City, Successor Agency to the Hes
peria Community Redevelopment Agency, Hesperia Housing Authority, Community Development Commission, and Water District.
Sponsors: Assistant City Manager Casey Brooksher
3. Amend Agreement with Superion, LLC.
Recommended Action:
It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager to approve a one-year extension of the Licensing
and Maintenance agreement with Superion, LLC, in the amount of $59,627, for a not-to-exceed contract amount of $230,347, for the TRAKiT PLL Permit, Land, and Licensing (PLL) software suite.
Sponsors: Assistant City Manager Casey Brooksher
4. Finalized Program Year 2022-2023 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Consolidated Annual Perform
ance and Evaluation Report (CAPER)
Recommended Action:
It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this report, which provides the finalized Program Year 2022-202
3 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) that was submitted to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on September 28, 2023.
Sponsors: Economic Development Manager Victor Knight and Director of Development Services Nathan Freeman
Item number 5 was considered independent of the Joint Consent Calendar
5. Adopt Measure I Five Year Capital Project Needs Analysis for Fiscal Years 2024/25 through 2028/29 Recommended Action:
It is recommended that the Mayor and Council Members adopt Resolution No. 2023-063 approving the Measure I Five-
Year Capital Project Needs Analysis submittal to the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) for Fiscal Years 2024/25 through 2028/29.
Sponsors: Director of Development Services Nathan Freeman and Administrative Analyst Bethany Hudson
City of Hesperia
Dr. Cisneros spoke on Item number 5.
A motion was made by Swanson, seconded by Bird, that this item be approved. The motion carried by th
e following vote:
Aye: 5 - Bird, Swanson, Gregg, Bennington, and Lee
Nay: 0
NEW BUSINESS
6. Authorize Letter of Opposition to the Draft San Bernardino County Regional Conservation Investm ent Strategy
Recommended Action:
It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager, and/or designee, to issue a letter of opposition to th
e County of San Bernardino and the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) regarding the draft Regional Conservation Investment Strategy.
Sponsors: Director of Development Services Nathan Freeman Dr. Cisneros commented on this item.
Chris Ochoa commented on this item.
Kelly Gregg commented on this item.
A motion was made by Bird, seconded by Gregg, that this item be continued. The motion carried by the follow
ing vote:
Aye: 5 - Bird, Swanson, Gregg, Bennington and Lee
Nay: 0
COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS AND COMMENTS
The Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and Council Members reported from various events and Committees.
Council Member Gregg asked to review budgeted amount for Council travel and conferences.
Council Member Lee would like a report on the Neighborhood Watch program.
CITY MANAGER/CITY ATTORNEY/STAFF REPORTS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:01 p.m.
_____________________________
Erin Baum,
Assistant City Clerk
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
City of Hesperia
STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 17, 2023
TO: Mayor and Council Members
City Council, as Successor Agency to the Hesperia Community Redevelopment Agency
Chair and Commissioners, Hesperia Housing Authority
Chair and Commissioners, Community Development Commission Chair and Board Members, Hesperia Water District
FROM: Rachel Molina, City Manager
BY: Casey Brooksher, Assistant City Manager
Anne Duke, Deputy Finance Director
Shirley Domacio Calderon, Accountant
SUBJECT: Warrant Run Report (City – Successor Agency – Housing Authority – Community Development Commission – Water)
RECOMMENDED ACTION
It is recommended that the Council/Board ratify the warrant run and payroll report for the City, Successor Agency to the Hesperia Community Redevelopment Agency, Hesperia Housing Authority, Community Development Commission, and Water District.
BACKGROUND
The Warrant Run totals represented below are for th e period September 09 , 2023 through September 22, 2023.
The wire amount total is as follows:
$395,500.00 to Desert Environmental Resources, Inc. for Ranchero Road, and BNSF Separation Project.
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. Warrant Runs
Agency/District Accounts Payable Payroll Wires Totals
City of Hesperia $651,449.44 $286,679.64 $395,500.00 $1,333,629.08 Successor Agency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Housing Authority 867.83 191.22 0.00 1,059.05
Community Development Commission 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Water 705,228.45 124,970.23 0.00 830,198.68
Totals $1,357,545.72 $411,841.09 $395,500.00 $2,164,886.81
YEAR-TO PRIOR FY YTD
W/E W/E WARRANT DATE DATE
FUND # FUND NAME 9/15/2023 9/22/2023 TOTALS Wires TOTALS * TOTALS Accounts Payable
100 GENERAL 98,355.67 $ 238,869.86 $ 337,225.53 $ - $ 9,329,456.59$ 9,714,880.97$ 105 PENSION OBLIGATION TRUST -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ 106 OPEB TRUST -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ 200 HESPERIA FIRE DISTRICT -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ 204 MEASURE I - RENEWAL -$ -$ -$ 395,500.00$ 405,745.62 $ 157,053.52$ 207 LOCAL TRANSPORT-SB 325 -$ -$ -$ - $ 922,727.40$ 1,146.68$ 209 GAS TAX-RMRA -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ 210 HFPD (PERS) -$ -$ -$ - $ 907,316.00$ 1,093,204.87$ 251 CDBG 260.00$ -$ 260.00$ - $ 186,979.73$ 35,696.80$ 254 AB2766 - TRANSIT -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ 255 AB3229 SUPPLEMENTAL LAW -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ 256 ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS GRANT 249.99$ 734.65$ 984.64$ - $ 5,017.75$ 11,829.25$ 257 NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION PROG -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ 262 SB 1383 LOCAL ASSISTANCE GRANT -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ 5,000.00$ 263 STREETS MAINTENANCE 29,277.30$ 18,401.63$ 47,678.93$ - $ 736,559.58$ 647,652.52$ 300 DEV. IMPACT FEES - STREET -$ -$ -$ - $ 3,600.00$ 2,721.18$ 301 DEV. IMPACT FEES - STORM DRAIN -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ 17,460.50$ 302 DEV. IMPACT FEES - FIRE -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ 303 DEV. IMPACT FEES - POLICE -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ 304 DEV. IMPACT FEES - PUBLIC WKS. -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ 306 DEV. IMPACT FEES - 2018-STREETS -$ -$ -$ - $ 753,016.16$ 1,506,500.08$ 312 DIF 2018-POLICE FACILITIES -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ 313 DIF A-04 DRAINAGE 13,500.00$ -$ 13,500.00$ - $ 317,748.35$ -$ 402 WATER RIGHTS ACQUISITION -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ 403 2013 REFUNDING LEASE REV BONDS -$ -$ -$ - $ 568,901.39$ 655,055.62$ 504 CITY WIDE STREETS - CIP -$ -$ -$ - $ 2,292,744.75$ 2,626,689.57$ 509 CITY FACILITIES CIP -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ 800 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 44,791.06$ 200,087.66$ 244,878.72$ - $ 2,272,573.34$ 2,179,324.21$ 801 TRUST/AGENCY 1,075.00$ 360.00$ 1,435.00$ - $ 310,113.05$ 315,533.86$ 802 AD 91-1 AGENCY -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ 804 TRUST-INTEREST BEARING -$ 1,940.40$ 1,940.40$ - $ 97,818.90$ 26,625.00$ 806 SUMMIT VALLEY -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ 807 CFD 2005-1 3,546.22$ -$ 3,546.22$ - $ 982,734.24$ 962,956.49$ 808 HFPD (TRANSITION) -$ -$ -$ - $ 347,796.19$ 317,384.59$ CITY 191,055.24$ 460,394.20$ 651,449.44$ 395,500.00$ 20,440,849.04$ 20,276,715.71$ 163 REDEVELOP OBLIG RETIREMENT-2018 -$ -$ -$ - $ 7,828,402.39$ 7,740,169.98$ 173 SUCCESSOR AGENCY ADMINISTRATION -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ SUCCESSOR AGENCY -$ -$ -$ - $ 7,828,402.39$ 7,740,169.98$ 370 HOUSING AUTHORITY -$ 867.83$ 867.83$ - $ 4,122.44$ 4,248.77$ HOUSING AUTHORITY -$ 867.83$ 867.83$ - $ 4,122.44$ 4,248.77$ 170 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ 700 WATER OPERATING 394,432.64$ 143,801.21$ 538,233.85$ 3,285,236.68$ 2,362,351.78$ 701 WATER CAPITAL 42,599.91$ -$ 42,599.91$ - $ 298,109.99$ 8,087.00$ 710 SEWER OPERATING 119,256.81$ 3,315.24$ 122,572.05$ - $ 1,645,368.96$ 1,243,787.25$ 711 SEWER CAPITAL -$ 1,695.20$ 1,695.20$ - $ 525,100.10$ 143,793.36$ 713 SEWER CAPITAL REHAB AND REPLACE -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ 720 RECLAIMED WATER OPERATIONS 127.44$ -$ 127.44$ - $ 10,649.56$ 5,014.99$ WATER 556,416.80$ 148,811.65$ 705,228.45$ - $ 5,764,465.29$ 3,763,034.38$ ACCOUNTS PAYABLE TOTAL 747,472.04$ 610,073.68$ 1,357,545.72$ 395,500.00$ 34,037,839.16$ 31,784,168.84$ REG. PAYROLL
City 286,679.64$ -$ 286,679.64$ - $ 1,813,624.04$ 1,624,302.41$ Housing Authority 191.22$ -$ 191.22$ - $ 1,196.61$ 1,094.13$ Water 124,970.23$ -$ 124,970.23$ - $ 792,021.15$ 668,190.81$ PAYROLL TOTAL 411,841.09$ -$ 411,841.09$ - $ 2,606,841.80$ 2,293,587.35$ *No payments were issued on July 1, 2023.
City of Hesperia
WARRANT RUNS
9/09/2023-09/22/2023
City of Hesperia
STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 17, 2023
TO: Mayor and Council Members
City Council, Serving as Successor Agency to the Hesperia Community Redevelopment Agency
Chair and Commissioners, Hesperia Housing Authority
Chair and Commissioners, Community Development Commission Chair and Board Members, Hesperia Water District
FROM: Rachel Molina, City Manager
BY: Casey Brooksher, Assistant City Manager
Anne Duke, Deputy Finance Director
Jacob Weatherbie, Accountant
SUBJECT: Treasurer’s Cash Report for the unaudited period ended July 31, 2023.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
It is recommended that the Council/Board accept the Treasurer’s Cash Report for the City, Successor Agency to the Hesperia Community Redevelopment Agency, Hesperia Housing Authority, Community Development Commission, and Water District.
BACKGROUND
This report is presented to the City Council pursuant to Government Code Section 53646 (b) setting forth the City’s investment portfolio.
ISSUES/ANALYSIS
The Treasurer’s Cash Reports are presented on the following pages for each agency.
FISCAL IMPACT
These reports reflect unaudited cash balances as of July 31, 2023.
ALTERNATIVE(S)
Provide alternative direction to staff.
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. City of Hesperia Investment Report
2. Successor Agency to the Hesperia Community Redevelopment Agency Investment Report
3. Hesperia Housing Authority Investment Report
4. Community Development Commission Investment Report
5. Hesperia Water District Investment Report
Staff Report to the Mayor and City Council/Board Members Treasurer’s Cash Report
October 17, 2023
Staff Report to the Mayor and City Council/Board Members Treasurer’s Cash Report
October 17, 2023
Staff Report to the Mayor and City Council/Board Members Treasurer’s Cash Report
October 17, 2023
City of Hesperia
Investment Report
Unaudited
ATTACHMENT 1
Type of Investment
Investments under the direction of the Ci
Institution/
Fiscal Ag_e_ot
Interest
Rate
July 31, 2023
Date of
Purchase
Date of
Maturity
Par Value
at Maturity
Book
Value
Market
Value
Local Agency Investment Funds -+--- State of Calif. l--3.305% j. 31-Jul-23 j Demand $ 94,433,965.98 • 94,433,965.98 J 94,433,965.98 Local Bank Checking Accounts U.S. Bank n/a 31-Jul-23 Demand 1,224,664.49 1,224,664.49 1,224,664.49 Total Unaudited Investments under the direction of the City $ 95,658,630.47 $ 95,658,630.47 $ 95,658,630.47 Investments under the direction of fiscal agents: - -US Bank 0.409% 31-Jul-23 Demand 471.60 471.60 471.60 se Revenue Bonds US Bank
I- -- 25.71 0.428% 31-Jul-23 Demand 1 25.71 25.71 I
~
se Revenue Bonds US Bank 0.410% 31-Jul-23 Demand 1,501,095.77 1,501,095.77 1,501,095.77 2012-Water
2012-Water
2012-Water
Account
DeS_c;rlJ2!iQn
Rights Revenue Fund
Rights Interest Fund
Rights Reserve Fund
se Revenue Bonds
2012 Lea
2012 Lea
2012 Lea
2012 Lea
2013 Ref1
2013 Ref1
2013 Ref1
2014 CF
2014 CF
2014 CF
2014 CF
Deposits
Sully Mille
City of He
City of He
Hesperia
City of He
+- US Bank 0.000% 31-Jul-23 Demaridl 0.31 0.31 0.31 2012 -Water Rights Surplus Revenue Fund 'aza - Revenue Fund 567.10 I 2005 Civic Pl, Demand .J_ - ' mding Lease Revenue Bonds US Bank 0.409% 31-Jul-23 567.10 567.10 mding Lease Revenue Bonds i US Bank 0.410% 31-Jul-23 Demand 4,850.76 . 4,850.76 4,850.76 • 2005 Civic Pl, t
0.000%' mding Lease Revenue Bonds US Bank 31-Jul-23 Demand 0.31 0.31 0.31 2005 Civic Pl, ..... laza - Reserve Fund
laza - Surplus Rev Fund
D 2005-1 Refunding US Bank 0.413% 31-Jul-23 Demand 167.96 167.96 167.96 2014 CFD 05 ~ 2005-1 Refunding ----t-- US Bank 0.410% 31-Jul-23 Demand 23,137,;7\ 23,137.77 23,137.77 2014CFD05 D 2005-1 Refunding -1· US Bank 0.410% 31-Jul-23 Demand 1,456,087.32 1,456,087.32 1,456,087.32 2014 CFD05 -1 - Special Tax Fund
-1 - Bond Fund
-1 - Reserve Fund
D 2005-1 Refunding -- US Bank 0.410% 31-Jul-23 Demand 24,810.51 24,810.51 24,810.51 2014 CFD 05 - ~ 542,901:00 Workers' Comp PERMA n/a 31-Jul-23 n/a 542,901.06 542,901.06 GL 1352 -1 Administrative Expense Bonds
-1r Retention - Ranchero US Bank 0.000% 31-Jul-23 n/a 1.08 1.08 1.08 Ranchero Re oad - Escrow Account -·-speria Stabalized Trust Charles Schwab 0.423% 31-Jul-23 n/a 3,489,934.12 3,489,934.12 3,489,934.12 City Pension - ~
speria OPEB Trust Charles Schwab 0.408% 31-Jul-23 n/a 615,900.09 615,900.09 615,900.09 CityOPEB Fire Protection PST Charles Schwab -i 0.463% 31-Jul-23 n/a 1,231,398.33 1,231,398.33 1,231,398.33 Fire Pension speria Settlement Escrow Account US Bank 0.000% 31-Jul-23 n/a 300,006.64 300,006.64 300,006.64 Settlement E scrow Account Total Unaudited Investments under the direction of fiscal agents $ 9,191,356.44 $ 9,191,356.44 $ 9,191,356.44 Please Note: All market value data is provided courtesy of the City's fiscal agent, US Bank.
I certify that this investment portfolio is in compliance with the statement of investment policy of the City of Hesperia and the investment program provides sufficient liquidity to meet expenditure requirements for the next six months, as required by the California Government Code sections 53646(b}(2J and (3}, respectively. • Note: 2005 Certificates of Participation began in May 2005 for the finacing of the Civic Plaza. ~~ -o, Accountant Nichole Sfieppard, Be#i
Investment - City
I
•
Issuer/
T~pe of Investment Institution
Investments under the direction of the City:
[
Local Agency Investment Fun~ _ State of Calif.
Local Bank Checking Accounts U.S. Bank
Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency
Investment Report
Unaudited
July 31.. 2023
Interest Date of Date of Par Value Book
Rate Purchase Maturity at Maturit~ Value
3.305% 31-Jul-23 Demand $ 8,043,285.91 $ 8,043,285.91
nla 31-Jul-23 Demand 104,309.15 104,309.15
Total Unaudited Investments under the direction of the City $ 8, 147,595.06 $ 8,147,595.06 Investments under the direction of fiscal agents:
2018 Refunding Bonds I US Bank 0.413% 31-Jul-23 Demand 14.53 1 14.53 - - - 0.410% 1 1 2018 Refunding Bonds I US Bank 31-Jul-23 1 Demand 2,945.59 2,945.59 1 I 0.000% ] J_ 2018 Refunding Bonds US Bank 31-Jul-23 Demand 1.QQ I 1.00 --
$
Total Unaudited Investments under the direction of fiscal agents $ 2,961.12 $ 2,961.12 $ Please Note: All market value data is provided courtesy of the City's fiscal agent US Bank. The 2018 Refunding Bonds are supported by a $9,799,443.76 bond insurance policy.
I certify that this investment portfolio is in compliance with the statement of investment policy of the City of Hesperia and the investment program provides sufficient liquidity to meet expenditure requirements for the next six months, as required by the California Government Code sections 53646(b)(2) and (3), respectively. • Note: The 2005 and 2007 Series Bonds were refinanced to 2018 Series Bonds in November 2018.
Investment - SA
ATTACHMENT 2
Market Account
Value Description
8,043,285.91
104,309.15
8,147,595.06
14.53 2018A & 2018B - Debt Service Account
2,945.59 2018A & 2018B - Interest Account
----f
1.00 2018A & 2018B - Reserve Account
2,961.12
t
T~ of Investment
Issuer/
Institution
Investments under the direction of the City:
Hesperia Housing Authority
Investment Report
Unaudited
July 31, 2023
Interest Date of Date of
Rate Purchase Maturity
Par Value
at Maturity
Book
Value
ATTACHMENT 3
Market
Value
I Local Agency Investment Funds State of California 3.305% 31-Jul-23 Demand ·$ 5,702,800.72 5,702,800.72 - 5,702,800.72 [- Local Bank Checking Accounts I U.S. Bank n/a 31-Jul-23 Demand 73,956.63 73,956.63 I 73,956.63 Total Unaudited Investments under the direction of the City $ 5,776,757.35 $ 5,776,757.35 $ 5,776,757.35 I certify that this investment portfolio is in compliance with the statement of investment policy of the City of Hesperia and the investment program provides sufficient liquidity to meet expenditure requirements for the next six months, as required by the California Government Code sections 53646(b)(2} and (3}, respectively. ~M~ Ni~ Shepp8~~
Investment - HHA
Type of Investment
Hesperia Community Development Comission
Investment Report
Unaudited
July 31, 2023
Issuer/ Interest Date of Date of Par Value
Institution Rate Purchase Maturity at Maturity
Investments under the direction of the City:
Local Agency Investment Funds L State of California 3.305% 31-Jul-23 Demand I $ (592,982.42) Local Bank Checking Accounts _ U.S. Bank n/a 31-Jul-23 Demand 7,690.08 Total Unaudited Investments under the direction of the City $ (600,672.50) $ I certify that this investment portfolio is in compliance with the statement of investment policy of the City of Hesperia and the investment program provides sufficient liquidity to meet expenditure requirements for the next six months, as required by the California Government Code sections 53646(b)(2) and (3), respectively.
Investment - CDC
ATTACHMENT 4
Book Market
Value Value
(592,982.42) (592,982.42) J
7,690.08 7,690.08
(600,672.50) $ (600,672.50)
TYQe of Investment
Issuer/
Institution
Hesperia Water District
Investment Report
Unaudited
July 31, 2023
Interest Date of Date of
Rate Purchase Maturity
Par Value
at Maturity
Investments under the direction of the City:
local Agency Investment Funds -~]~ - S-ta-te_o_f -Ca-li-fo-m-ia-~-3-.3-0-5°/i-o ~---~--~----- local Bank Checking Accounts U.S. Bank ~ n/a
31-Jul-23 Demand $ 36,534,973.75
Total Unaudited Investments under the direction of the-C-ity~- 31-Jul-23 Demand 473,802.88
$ 37,008,776.63
Investments under the direction of fiscal agents:
Deposits - Workers' Comp PERMA I n/a j 31-Oct-22 n/a I an,415.29 I Book
Value
36,534,973.75
473,802.88
$ 37,008,776.63
a11,415.29 I
ATTACHMENT 5
Market
Value
36,534,973.75
473,802.88
$ 37,008,776.63
Account
DescriQtion
877,475.29 IGl 1352
Total Unaudited Investments under the direction of fiscal agents $ 877,475.29 $ 877,475.29 $ 877,475.29 Please Note: All market value data is provided courtesy of the City's fiscal agent, US Bank.
I certify that this investment portfolio is in compliance with the statement of investment policy of the City of Hesperia and the investment program provides sufficient liquidity to meet expenditure requirements for the next six months, as required by the California Government Code sections 53646(b)(2) and (3), respectively.
Yb~
Investment• ENT
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
City of Hesperia
STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 17, 2023
TO: Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Rachel Molina, City Manager
BY: Nathan R. Freeman, Director of Development Services Dani Fox, Deputy Development Services Director
SUBJECT: Authorize Letter of Opposition to the Draft San Bernardino County Regional Conservation Investment Strategy
RECOMMENDED ACTION
It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager, and/or designee, to issue a letter of opposition to the County of San Bernardino and the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) regarding the draft Regional Conservation Investment Strategy.
BACKGROUND
In 2015, the County of San Bernardino completed Phase 1 of its Countywide Habitat Preservation/Conservation Framework Study (Framework Study) . The Framework Study developed a structured and comprehensive approach to the preservation and conservation of habitat and open space throughout the County. In 2016, the County initiated Phase 2 of the Framework Study to address the critical next steps identified in the Framework Study.
However, in 2016 the State of California – Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) established a new conservation tool called a Regional Conservation Investment Strategy (RCIS). The RCIS program provides guidance for nonbinding/voluntary regional conservation of focal species, habitat, and other national resources, and for the identification of wildlife and habitat conservation priorities, investments in ecological resource conservation, and/or the identification of locations for compensatory mitigation for impacts to species and natural resources.
Shortly thereafter, the County Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution authorizing the County to pursue an RCIS as this new planning tool was reasoned to be better aligned with conservation efforts being pursued. Soon after the adoption of the resolution, the County, the San Bernardino Council of Governments (SBCOG), and the Environmental Element stakeholder group (made up of representatives of local municipalities; staff from federal, state, and local agencies; development and industry community representatives; staff from non -governmental organizations; and the interested public) set out to create a San Bernardino County RCIS.
The most recent draft of the County’s RCIS can be accessed via the following link:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=213121&inline. As noted, and in accordance with the State’s RCIS program, the County’s RCIS is intended to be a voluntary, non- regulatory framework for conservation mitigation actions in western San Bernardino County and was developed to provide a regional conservation guidebook for use by public agencies, the development community, environmental groups, other interested entities, and the public when carrying out conservation and mitigation.
Staff Report to the City Council
Authorize a Letter of Opposition to the Draft San Bernardino County RCIS October 17, 2023
Upon completion of the draft RCIS, the County recently submitted the document to CDFW, which determined that the draft RCIS is complete. Upon its determination of a complete draft RCIS, CDFW posted the draft RCIS to its website f or a minimum 30 -day public review and comment period. At least 60 days prior to the submittal of a final RCIS, affected cities in the RCIS area were to be notified and have an opportunity to comment (the deadline to receive comments was August 4, 2023). Based on comments received from CDFW, cities, and the public, the draft RCIS will be revised and the final RCIS will be submitted to CDFW for approval at the end of October 2023.
On October 3, 2023, the City Council reviewed and considered a staff request to authorize the City Manager, or designee, to issue a letter of opposition to the draft RCIS. After discussion, the City Council directed staff to continue the item to October 17, 2023, to include the following:
1. A link to the draft RCIS document.
2. The City’s draft letter of opposition (Attachment 1).
3. An analysis of how Hesperia’s neighboring communities are addressing the draft RCIS issue.
ISSUES/ANALYSIS
On August 22, 2023, Development Services Department staff met with representatives from the Building Industry Association of Southern California (BIA) about the BIA’s concerns regarding the potential negative implications of the RCIS on the City of Hesperia (and the entire Mojave River Valley).
Specifically, during the meeting, the BIA representatives articulated that the draft RCIS, if unchanged, could have a direct impact to local control and they have urged, via a letter of opposition (Attachment 2), the County of San Bernardino to 1) adopt a resolution which would confirm that the intent of the RCIS is not to interfere with any jurisdiction ’s housing element, 2) remove habitats (i.e. desert scrub, transitional scrub/chaparral/woodland, and non -native grasslands) that local land use agencies do not currently require to be mitigated under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) from the RCIS conservation goals, and 3) in coordination with SBCTA, contact the City Council members and City Managers for each of the affected jurisdictions to determine the number from each of their respective housing element Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) sit e inventories that are located in the RCIS conservation boundaries.
At the conclusion of the meeting with the BIA representatives, staff were compelled to seek the City Council’s authorization to issue a letter of opposition to the County regarding the draft RCIS.
Upon City Council authorization, staff will compose a letter to the County requesting that the draft RCIS, prior to final submittal to CDFW, be revised to reaffirm the following: 1) the RCIS is voluntary, non-binding, and non -regulatory guidance only and shall not be used in any CEQA context, 2) the County will not use the RCIS as a tool t o require additional mitigation for development projects, and 3) the County will not use the RCIS as a tool to stop or limit development and that the County recognizes the importance and prioritization of new housing (and the infrastructure/public faciliti es needed to support new housing) over the conservation goals reflected in the RCIS.
Unfortunately, without changes, it is the opinion of staff that the draft RCIS could be utilized by individuals seeking litigation to exploit conservation goals and could cast a shadow of uncertainty
Staff Report to the City Council
Authorize a Letter of Opposition to the Draft San Bernardino County RCIS October 17, 2023
over a considerable portion of developable land in Hesperia and further complicate the land acquisition and entitlement process.
Moreover, staff discussed the draft RCIS with counterpart staff from Hesperia’s neighboring communities of Victorville and Apple Valley. Both Victorville and Apple Valley’s staff counterparts confirmed their objection to the draft RCIS and have written opposition letters to the County of San Bernardino. At the time of the writing of this report, staff were unable to connect with a counterpart from the city of Adelanto.
With this in mind, staff requests that the City Council authorize the City Manager, and/or designee, to issue a letter of opposition to the County and SBCTA regarding the draft RCIS.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report.
ALTERNATIVE(S)
1. Provide alternative direction to staff.
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. Draft City Letter of Opposition
2. BIA Letter of Opposition to RCIS
Brigit Bennington, Mayor 9700 Seventh Avenue Larry Bird, Mayor Pro Tem Hesperia, CA 92345 Cameron Gregg, Council Member 760-947-1000 Allison Lee, Council Member TD 760-947-1119 Rebekah Swanson, Council Member
Rachel Molina, City Manager www.cityofhesperia.us Gateway to the High Desert
City of Hesperia
Supervisor Dawn Rowe, Chair
San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors
385 N. Arrowhead Avenue
San Bernardino CA 92415
Subject: City of Hesperia Opposition to the Regional Conservation Investment Strategy (RCIS)
Dear Honorable Chair Rowe and Board of Supervisors:
The City of Hesperia appreciates and supports the goals set forth by the Countywide V ision.
Hesperia is a community dedicated to fostering sustainable growth and preserving our unique environment. As we work collectively towards realizing the goals of the Countywide Vision, we appreciate the steadfast commitment that the County and its leadership bring to these endeavors.
The Countywide Vision, with its idea of a complete and prosperous county, resonates deeply with us. We have actively engaged in collaborative initiatives to advance this vision and bring forth a balance between responsible development and environmental preservation. It is with this commitment to progress in mind that we communicate our concerns and position regarding the proposed Regional Conservation Investment Strategy (RCIS).
The City holds the values of transparency, open dialogue, and mutual understanding in high regard. We understand that the RCIS has undergone careful consideration and is intended to provide a framework that addresses both housing and conservation needs. Nevertheless, we feel it is essential to voice our concerns to ensure that the strategy aligns with the best interests of our community and region.
The City acknowledges the complexity of finding common ground between development objectives and conservation priorities. We appreciate the County's intention to streamline processes and create a balanced approach through the RCIS. However, we have apprehensions regarding potential unintended consequences such as the direct threat to local control and the need for careful evaluation before proceeding with its finalization and submission for approval to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).
In this regard, we propose a collaborative effort that considers the perspectives of all stakeholders involved. Prior to the final submission of the final RCIS to CDFW we urge the County Board of Supervisors and the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) to revise the draft RCIS to (i) clearly state what the RCIS is intended to do and not intended to do, and (ii) appropriately circumscribe the potential use of the RCIS in connection with local land use decision-making.
More specifically, we strongly recommend that the County and SBCTA consider revising the draft RCIS to reaffirm the following points:
1. COUNTY supports the finalization and formal submission to CDFW of the RCIS in ongoing reliance of the promise that the RCIS, once finalized, shall constitute voluntary, non -binding and non-regulatory guidance only and is not intended to and shall not be used in any CEQA context; and
2. COUNTY rec ognizes that the RCIS includes specific numeric targets that are based on landscape-scale planning and are therefore not appropriate to utilize in the analysis of individual projects, master plans, or large-scale future development planning; and
3. COUNTY will not use the RCIS as a tool to require additional mitigation for projects; and
4. COUNTY intends that the RCIS shall not be recognized as a tool to stop or limit development; and
5. COUNTY recognizes the important societal goal of approving new housing projects, updating housing elements, and facilitating the production of housing (and the infrastructure/public facilities needed to support such new housing), consistent with the State’s RHNA law and general plans, shall be prioritized over and above the conservation goals that are reflected in the RCIS.
In particular, the City encourages the County to clarify the intent and scope of the RCIS to prevent any potential misinterpretations and ensure responsible implementation. Revising the draft RCIS and reaffirming the purpose and limitations of the RCIS will provide a clear framework that minimizes ambiguity and guides application.
In conclusion, as highlighted in the statement of the Countywide Vision Housing Element, "The affordability of our housing has long been a moving factor in the attraction of new residents to San Bernardino County. It is key that we continue to expand our housing choices through new construction and preservation of our existing residential buildings to provide all our residents an opportunity to find their homes."
Regrettably, the current draft RCIS , in our opinion, undermines the essence of the Countywide Vision Housing Element. At its worst, it could worsen the housing shortage, as it might be used by individuals seeking litigation to exploit the conservation goals outlined therein. At best, it could cast a shadow of uncertainty over a considerable expanse of potentially developable land, adding more ambiguity to the land acquisition and entitlement process.
Should you have any inquiries regarding the attached comments, please don't hesitate to reach out to us. We appreciate your consideration.
Sincerely,
Rachel Molina
City Manager
August 3, 2023
San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors
Supervisor Dawn Rowe, Chair
385 N. Arrowhead Avenue
San Bernardino CA 92415
Subject: Building Industry Association Southern California opposition to the Regional Conservation Investment Strategy (RCIS)
Dear Honorable Chair Rowe and fellow Board of Supervisors:
The Building Industry Association of Southern California (BIA) appreciates and supports the goals set forth by the Countywide Vision. Indeed we have worked closely with the County of San Bernardino (County) to advance the Vision Statement adopted in 2012, which reads in part of envisioning, “ a complete county that capitalizes on the diversity of its people, its geography, and its economy to create a broad range of choices for its residents in how they live, work, and play.” The BIA has remain engaged in various County Vision Elements including the Environmental Element working group as we believe the goal of addressing our housing crisis and serving as good stewards of the environment are not mutually exclusive. It is with this history of collaboration in mind that we are writing to express our dire concerns and opposition regarding the proposed Regional Investment Conservation Strategy (RCIS).
As you know, the BIA has been involved in the RCIS Working Group since its inception. We were originally told that the RCIS would help to more easily p rocess, and provide increased certainty concerning, California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) Section 1600 Streambed Alteration Agreements, and that the RCIS would balance housing and conservation. This has not proven to be the case.
We have compiled a list of our ongoing technical concerns about certain text that remains in the draft RCIS and have submitted these comments to the California Department of Fish & Wildlife during the RCIS public comment period. Please see our cover letter and Attachment 1 for a copy of these comments.
We have worked with the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA), and are appreciative that they both added some information to the latest RCIS draft concerning the Regional Housing Needs Assessment(RHNA) and confirmed that the RCIS will not constitute a plan that would require acknowledgement in CEQA Appendix G biological resources analyses. Additionally, text changes were made to confirm that any forthcoming mitigation credit agreements (MCAs) will not conflict with existing, approved mitigation banks.
Even so, we remain very concerned that SBCTA and the County intend to submit the revised RCIS once it is finalized to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) for its formal approval. W e are informed that the SBCTA feels compelled to do so because it accepted grants specifically to fund the RCIS’s study and development. Our most basic concern is that, once the RCIS is submitted to and approved by CDFW , opponents of land use will attempt to use the RCIS as a tool to hinder and stop reasonable development and homebuilding activities in the RCIS area, particularly in the high desert. We therefore respectfully request that the County take certain careful, additional steps, which we explain below, when reviewing the RCIS prior to final submittal to CDFW.
Specifically, prior to the final submission of the RCIS to CDFW, we urge the County and SBCTA to take the following actions : (i) by way of resolution, confirm that the intent of RCIS is not to operate to interfere with the jurisdiction’s respective housing elements, (ii) remove those habitats that the local land use agencies do not currently require be mitigated under CEQA from the RCIS conservation goals and (iii) in coordination with SBCTA contact the Council Members and City Managers for each of the aforementioned jurisdictions to determine the number of residential units from each of their respective housing element RHNA site inventories that are located in the RCIS conservation boundaries.
In our view, the fundamental flaw of the entire RCIS concept is that it casts a “cloud” over a vast amount of potentially developable land, notwithstanding that key constituents in the County have little knowledge of the RCIS’s contents. In particular, the affected cities within the County cannot begin to consider what Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) implications the RCIS might hold in store for future land use planning within their respective jurisdictions since there is no overlay map available to distinguish land zoned by cities for residential development in compliance with their respective Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) obligations and the arbitrary conservation goals proposed in the RCIS.
That said, even though an RCIS is characterized as innocuous, “voluntary,” and “non-regulatory,” once it is finalized and approved by CDFW , the RCIS at hand will potentially affect all of the land that it spatially implicates.
Additionally, the draft RCIS is problematic in that it was derived by first identifying an extremely large portion of San Bernardino County, which was then considered only at a “landscape scale.” Once the spatial boundaries were delineated, then essential ly arbitrary percentages of the vast, identified land areas were deemed to merit being forever conserved, including over a half a million acres collectively of non-native grasses, chaparral and desert scrub that typically do not require mitigation under CE QA.
Importantly, all of this was undertaken without any reference to the local city RHNA implications (total units) of actual residential zoning of any specific land areas that may be either (i) developed or (ii) committed to conservation.
To illustrate, the present draft RCIS sets forth as a “conservation goal” the preservation of 54% of the privately held lands in the high desert area of the County within the RCIS’s spatial scope. Throughout the extensive area within the RCIS’s set boundaries, the RCIS aims to conserve 972 square miles (621,818 acres) of privately held land located within the limits of the cities of Adelanto, Apple Valley, Barstow, Big Bear Lake, Chino Hills, Colton, Fontana, Hesperia, Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, Redlands, Victo rville, Yucaipa, Yucca Valley and in unincorporated county areas. Consistent with property owners’ constitutional rights, such private lands cannot be simply confiscated for conservation purposes.
Moreover, the RCIS is touted as being “voluntary,” “non -regulatory,” non-binding, and the like; and we recognize that, once an RCIS is formally adopted, it might thereafter be followed by the creation of MCAs that will themselves need to be negotiated and thoughtfully structured. On the other hand, CDFW also touts every RCIS as a “publicly available,” “comprehensive guidance document” which “can be used by anyone to help identify conservation or mitigation projects.” In light of such ambiguity, unless the RCIS is coupled with clear statements of both the intent of the County and SBCTA concerning limitations on its use or misuse, the RCIS will be foreseeably (i) invoked by land use detractors (as officially sanctioned numerical objectives for land conservation throughout its spatial limits), and (ii) used uncriti cally and prematurely to argue for the exaction of mitigation funding from projects and plans. As such, we urge the County and SBCTA to take steps now to make sure that the RCIS will not be weaponized under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in the future following its formal adoption.
For example, the draft RCIS includes a relatively novel focus on non-native grasslands (i.e., land on which is growing invasive grass) and other types of fl ora (e.g. desert scrub and chapparal) that generally have not required conservation or mitigation. Such habitat types have historically not given rise to conservation and mitigation obligations. The RCIS, however, will newly label these habitats as well - deserving of large-scale conservation and mitigation – expressed in terms of significant overall acreages throughout the RCIS area. This type of habitat conservation on a landscape scale or project level would significantly financially impact all property owners, driving up the costs of housing even further and hampering the County and Cities’ ability to meet housing needs. We respectfully request your support to remove those habitats that the local land use agencies do not currently require be mitigated under CEQA from the RCIS conservation goals.
Finally, prior to the final submission of the RCIS to CDFW we urge the County Board of Supervisors and SBCTA to adopt a resolution that will (i) clearly state what the RCIS is intended to do and not intended to do, and (ii) appropriately circumscribe the potential use of the RCIS in connection with local land use decision-making.
Specifically, we urge the County and SBCTA to adopt a resolution that sets forth, in sum and substance, all of the following:
1. COUNTY supports the finalization and formal submission to CDFW of the RCIS in ongoing reliance of the promise that the RCIS, once finalized, shall constitute voluntary, non - binding and non-regulatory guidance only and is not intended to and shall not be used in any CEQA context; and
2. COUNTY recognizes that the RCIS includes specific numeric targets that are based on landscape scale planning and are therefore not appropriate to utilize in the analysis of individual projects, master plans or large scale future development planning; and
3. COUNTY will not use the RCIS as a tool to require additional mitigation for projects; and
4. In supporting the finalization and submission of the RCIS, the COUNTY intends that the RCIS shall not be recognized as a tool to stop or limit development; andCounty recognizes the important societal goal of approving new housing projects, updating housing elements, and facilitating the production of housing (and the infrastructure/public facilities needed to support such new housing), all consistent with the State’ s RHNA law and general plans, shall be prioritized over and above the conservation goals that are reflected in the RCIS.
Please see the sample resolution (Attachment 2).
In conclusion, as noted in the Countywide Vision Housing Element statement,
“The affordability of our housing has long been a moving factor in the attraction of new residents to San Bernardino County. It is key that we continue to expand our housing choices through new construction and preservation of our existing residential buildings in order to provide all our residents an opportunity to find their homes.”
Unfortunately, the current draft RCIS undermines this Element Statement and would at worst exacerbate the housing shortage by those who may pursue litigation and weaponize the co nservation goals therein and at best casts a “cloud” over a vast amount of potentially developable land, creating more uncertainty in the land acquisition and entitlement process. Likewise, our prior support was predicated on the assurance that the RCIS would help to more easily process, and provide increased certainty concerning,
California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) Section 1600 Streambed Alteration Agreements, and that the RCIS would balance housing and conservation. The RCIS fails to provide any of these benefits.
We hope and trust that we will be permitted to continue to work with SBCTA and the County of San Bernardino to achieve balanced environmental policy. It is critical that all decisions made today reflect the future growth of the County decades into the future. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions on the attached comments. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Carlos Rodriguez, Chief Policy Officer, BIA
Cc: Leonard Hernandez, San Bernardino County CEO
San Bernardino County Transportation Authority Board of Directors Dr. Raymond Wolfe, SBCTA Executive Director
City of Adelanto
Town of Apple Valley
City of Barstow
City of Big Bear Lake
City of Chino Hills
City of Colton
City of Fontana
City of Hesperia
City of Ontario
City of Rancho Cucamonga
City of Redlands
City of Victorville
City of Yucaipa
City of Yucca Valley