P. AGREEMENT CLOSEOUT – COOPERATIVE FIRE. Within 120 days after expiration date or notice of termination, the parties shall reconcile for final billing/payments and close the Agreement.
Q. PROGRAM MONITORING – COOPERATIVE FIRE. The parties to this Agreement shall monitor the performance of the Agreement activities to ensure that performance goals are being achieved. The parties to this Agreement will meet annually to review matters of mutual concern. Program performance reports are not required for emergency response activities.
R. RETENTION AND ACCESS REQUIREMENTS FOR RECORDS. The Cooperator shall retain all records pertinent to this Agreement for a period of no less than 3 years from the expiration or termination date. As used in this provision, records include books, documents, accounting procedures and practice, and other data, regardless of the type or format. The Cooperator shall provide access and the right to examine all records related to this Agreement to the U.S. Forest Service, Inspector General, or Comptroller General or their authorized representative. The rights of access in this section must not be limited to the required retention period but must last as long as the records are kept.
If any litigation, claim, negotiation, audit, or other action involving the records has been started before the end of the 3-year period, the records must be kept until all issues are resolved, or until the end of the regular 3-year period, whichever is later.
Records for nonexpendable property acquired in whole or in part, with Federal funds must be retained for 3 years after its final disposition.
S. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA). Public access to award or Agreement records must not be limited, except when such records must be kept confidential and would have been exempted from disclosure pursuant to Freedom of Information regulations (5 U.S.C. 552). Requests for research data are subject to 2 CFR 200.315(e)(1).
Public access to culturally sensitive data and information of Federally recognized Tribes may also be explicitly limited by P.L. 110-234, Title VIII Subtitle B §8106 (2008 Farm Bill).
T. TERMINATION – COOPERATIVE FIRE. Either party shall have the right to terminate their participation under this Agreement in whole, or in part, at any time before the date of expiration by providing 90 days written notice to the other party. If the Agreement is terminated, the parties shall agree to the terms of the termination, including costs attributable to each party and the disposition of awarded or pending actions. If a party incurs costs due to the other party’s failure to give the requisite notice of its intent to terminate the Agreement, the Protecting party shall pay any actual costs incurred by the Supporting Party as a result of the delay in notification, provided such costs are directly attributable to the failure to give notice.
20 FS-1500-7 (VER. 05/24)
OMB No. 0596-0217
EXP: 05/31/2027
8 ALTERNATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION. In the event of any issue of controversy under this Agreement, the parties may pursue Alternate Dispute Resolution procedures to voluntarily resolve those issues. These procedures may include, but are not limited to conciliation, facilitation, mediation, and fact finding. 9 DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION. The Cooperator shall immediately inform the U.S.
Forest Service if they or any of their principals are presently excluded, debarred, or suspended from entering into covered transactions with the Federal Government according to the terms of 2 CFR Part 180. Additionally, should the Cooperator or any of their principals receive a transmittal letter or other official Federal notice of debarment or suspension, then they shall notify the U.S. Forest Service without undue delay. This applies whether the exclusion, debarment, or suspension is voluntary or involuntary. The Cooperator shall adhere to 2 CFR Part 180 Subpart C in regards to review of subRecipients or contracts for debarment and suspension.
All sub-Recipients/sub-Cooperators and contractors must complete the form AD-1048, Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility, and Voluntary Exclusion, Lower Tier Covered Transactions. Blank forms are available electronically. Completed forms must be kept on file with the primary Recipient/Cooperator. : MODIFICATIONS – COOPERATIVE FIRE. Modifications within the scope of this Agreement must be made by mutual consent of the parties, by the issuance of a written modification signed and dated by all properly authorized, signatory officials, prior to any changes being performed. Requests for modification should be made, in writing, at least 30 days prior to implementation of the requested change. No party is obligated to fund any changes not properly approved in advance.
; COMMENCEMENT/EXPIRATION DATE – COOPERATIVE FIRE. This Agreement is executed as of the date of the last signature and is effective through $XJXVW, 2031 at which time it will expire, unless extended by an executed modification, signed and dated by all properly authorized, signatory officials.
If this Agreement expires during an incident, the terms of this Agreement will apply until the end of the incident. The parties must execute a written modification within 30 days following the incident to properly document the time extension. No other changes shall be retroactively applied for this time extension.
All Fire Supplemental Project Agreements must be completed within the timeframe of this Agreement. However, if this Agreement is replaced or superseded by a new Agreement, current Fire Supplemental Project Agreements may remain in effect to the extent they do not conflict with the provisions of the new Agreement, but only until such time that the Fire Supplemental Project Agreements can be completed or modified to be incorporated under the terms of the new Agreement.
< AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES. By signature below, each party certifies that the individuals listed in this document as representatives of the individual parties are 21 FS-1500-7 (VER. 05/24)
OMB No. 0596-0217
EXP: 05/31/2027
authorized to act in their respective areas for matters related to this Agreement. In witness whereof, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the last date written below.
PENNY LILBURN,
Mayor City of
Highland
Date
LIZ BROWN, Fire
Chief City of
Highland FD
Date
DANELLE D HARRISON, Forest
Supervisor, U.S. Forest Service, SAN
BERNARDINO NATIONAL FOREST
Date
The authority and format of this Agreement have been reviewed and approved for signature.
Date
LOUISE EWEN
U.S. Forest Service Grants Management Specialist
22 FS-1500-7 (VER. 05/24)
OMB No. 0596-0217
EXP: 05/31/2027
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respo nd, to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. Persons are not required to respond to this collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for this information collection is 0596-0217. Response to this collection of information is mandatory. The authority to collect the information Section 7 of the Granger-Thye Act (16 U.S.C. 580d) and Title IV of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1751-1753). The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 4 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering, and maintaining the data needed and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Clearance Officer, OIRM, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Room 404 -W, Washington, D.C. 20250; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (OMB# 0596-0217), 725 17th Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20503.
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital s tatus, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720 -2600 (voice and TYY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.
To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at How to File a Program Discrimination Complaint and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632 -9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690- 7442; or (3) email: [email protected].
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
The Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a and the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552 govern the confidentiality to be prov ided for information received by the Forest Service.
23 FS-1500-7 (VER. 05/24)
OMB No. 0596-0217
EXP: 05/31/2027
Exhibit A – Map of Protection Areas and Boundaries
24 FS-1500-7 (VER. 05/24)
OMB No. 0596-0217
EXP: 05/31/2027
EXHIBIT B – Protection (Operating) Plan
Instructions: The format of this exhibit is not defined. However, the exhibit shall only include programmatic, operational information for preparedness and protection planning that meets the scope and purpose of the Agreement.
This exhibit shall not include any information that contradicts the terms and conditions of the Agreement. If reimbursable rates are identified in this exhibit, they must be applied in accordance with the terms of the Agreement. 25
FS Agreement No. 26-FI-11051200-013
Exhibit B
OPERATING PLAN
FOR COOPERATIVE FIRE PROTECTION AGREEMENT
Between The
CITY OF HIGHLAND
and
USDA, FOREST SERVICE
SAN BERNARDINO NATIONAL FOREST
OPERATING PLAN
The Parties will meet annually to review the Operating Plan (OP) prior to the initiation of fire season. Any required changes to the OP will be documented by a modification to agreement # -FI-110500- . The OP will include lists of principal personnel, dispatching procedures, and any other items identified in the Agreement as necessary for efficient implementation and use. The OP will become a part of the Cooperative Fire Protection Agreement (CFPA). The OP commences as of the date of the last signature on the CFPA and will remain in effect until superseded by a new OP or upon expiration of the CFPA. On incidents, the Supporting Party shall furnish the Protecting Party, upon demand, a signed copy of the CFPA and current OP.
MUTUAL AID RESPONSE PROCEDURES
Mutual aid is the initial attack response by both The City of Highland and U.S. Forest Service suppression resources that are identified in each Party's Emergency Command Center's run cards or computerized automated dispatch system (CAD). The Protecting Party will not be required to reimburse the Supporting Party for initial attack actions taking place in these areas within the First 12 hours (as identified in the Agreement) following initial dispatch of suppression resources. All assistance beyond this "Mutual Aid" period will be reimbursable fire assistance.
The U. S. Forest Service agrees to send the following resources initial attack response (minimum):
High Response Level Moderate Response Level Low Response Level 5 - Type 3 Engines 3 - Type 3 Engines 1 - Type 3 Engine 2 - Handcrews (as available) 1 - Fire Prevention / Patrol Unit Or 1 - Fire Prevention / Patrol Unit 1 - Chief Officer 1 - Fire Prevention / Patrol Unit 1 - Chief Officer
Any resources beyond this will be negotiated as reimbursable fire assistance. When the U. S.
Forest Service is at draw down, resources dispatched will be modified. 26
The City of Highland, agrees to send the following resources to the U.S. Forest Service as Automatic Aid to areas within the defined Mutual Aid Zone (MAZ).
High Response Level Moderate Response Level Low Response Level 2- Type 1 Engines 1 – Type 1 Engine 1 – Type 1 Engine
1 – Chief Officer 1 – Chief Officer
When the City of Highland is at draw down, resources dispatched may be modified. An aerial drone may be available to the U.S. Forest Service upon request when available.
Aircraft (fixed and rotary-winged) including pilot(s) shall always be reimbursable fire assistance, EXCEPT when the response is under a unified command and the fire threatens both local and federal jurisdictions. Fiscal responsibility for all aircraft will be determined by the ordering process, utilization and cost share agreements.
NOTE: The City of Highland / USDA, Forest Service may request additional resources above the 1st Alarm Brush Assignment within the MAZ and/or request resources for incidents outside the MAZ under Mutual Aid which will be considered reimbursable fire assistance from time of dispatch.
DESCRIPTION OF USDA, FOREST SERVICE DIRECT PROTECTION AREA (DPA)
APPENDIX A
The USDA Forest Service has the responsibility for prevention, protection, and suppression of wildland fires on National Forest administered lands, and on adjacent or intermingled State and private forested lands as identified through CFPA.
The City of Highland agrees to send resources to the U.S. Forest Service as Automatic Aid to areas within the defined Mutual Aid Zone (MAZ) with no reimbursement for the first 12 HOURS.
DESCRIPTION OF THE DEPARTMENT’s DIRECT PROTECTION AREA (DPA)
APPENDIX B
The City of Highland has the responsibility for prevention, protection and suppression of structure and other non-Wildland fires within the established jurisdictional boundaries of the City. These structures and lands protected by the City of Highland are intermingled or adjacent to lands protected by the USDA Forest Service.
CLOSEST FORCES
The City of Highland and the USDA Forest Service agree to adopt the "Closest Forces" concept for initial attack. This philosophy dictates that the closest available appropriate resource regardless of ownership shall be utilized initially. The emphasis to get the closest appropriate resources to respond to initial attack fires is in the best interest of both Parties.
This concept of "Closest Forces'' will also be applied to ongoing incidents whenever there is a 27
critical and immediate need for the protection of life and property. Beyond initial attack, the "Closest Forces" concept is modified, and the Protecting Party will request the most appropriate resource to aid in the suppression of wildfire.
MOVE-UP AND COVER
"Move-up and Cover" is the reallocation of fire suppression resources from their established location to a temporary location. For this agreement, "Move-up and Cover" is limited to moving Supporting Party engine companies and dozers (if applicable) to Protecting Party facilities which have been temporarily vacated because of emergency activity. The Protecting Party may decide to provide subsistence and lodging at no cost to the Supporting Party for support or agency specific mission only. Mutual Aid (if applicable) "Move-up and Cover" will be at no cost to the Protecting Party for the initial Mutual Aid period agreed to in this CFPA.
While in the Mutual Aid period (if applicable), if the Supporting Party's resources are dispatched by the Protecting Party to a fire, reimbursable fire assistance will apply unless the fire is in an area of predetermined aid as agreed to in this CFPA.
SINGLE POINT RESOURCE ORDERING
All requests for emergency assistance and incident support must be clear and precise and shall be processed and recorded through a single dispatching center identified by the Incident Commanders of both Parties (Unified Command) and supported by order and request numbers.
Any resources ordered outside of the Unified Ordering Point (UOP) will be considered voluntary contribution to the incident and will not seek reimbursement.
When ordering resources, it should be identified on the resource order, under “special considerations,” when ordering for a specific agency mission need, even if/when going through another agency ordering point.
COMMUNICATIONS AND FREQUENCY MANAGEMENT
The Parties agree to utilize the frequencies assigned by the Emergency Command Centers for the management of an incident. This includes the assigned Command and Tactical Frequencies shown in Appendices C and D. In the case where the Parties' administrative frequencies have not been assigned for those purposes, the use of those frequencies must be temporarily suspended. While away from the home geographic area and traveling to and from an incident, the Parties agree to suspend the use of their respective pre- assigned frequencies. These frequencies are licensed through the Federal Communications Commission for specific geographic areas and are not to be used outside those areas. Family recreational "walkie-talkie" type radios are prohibited from use while traveling to and from an incident or while on any federal incident.
SHARING FREQUENCIES
The City of Highland/USDA Forest Service authorizes the use of the frequencies set forth in Appendices C and D. These frequencies will be used for fire/emergency only within or adjacent to the City of Highland’s responsibility area. 28
CICCS / ICS QUALIFIED LIST
The list of qualified personnel is maintained by the City of Highland’s Command /Dispatch Center. The resources may be available on a reimbursable fire assistance basis depending on Party's drawdown and commitments.
THE USE OF TRAINEES
Both Parties agree to the use of trainees when practical; however, the automatic dispatch of or use of trainees will not occur without prior approval of the hosting unit or Incident Commander.
All City of Highland’s trainees, will be the cost responsibility of the sending unit.
STRUCTURE DEFENSE
When the local agency's resources are exhausted and need to be augmented for structure defense, as determined and negotiated by the unified incident commanders in consultation with Agency Representative and Agency Administrator, the Federal Agency having DPA responsibility may bear the cost of the augmentation.
REIMBURSEMENT Personnel, Equipment & Aircraft- Outlined in agreement under: VIII REIMBURSEMENT AND USE OF COOPERATIVE FIRE
RESOURCES:
For Reimbursement under the terms of this CFPA all resource orders must be dispatched and processed by the SAN BERNARDINO NATIONAL FOREST, Communication Center, when not in Unified Command. Any request not dispatched or processed by this ECC will not be reimbursed under this local agreement.
U.S. Forest Service Personnel, Equipment and Agency owned Aircraft:
Reimbursable U.S. Forest Service costs wil1 include actual costs associated with the direct fire operations and incident support ordered by or for the incident (except as otherwise described as reciprocal initial attack as identified herein, and independent action situations).
The City of Highland, will be billed for support to incidents that are the jurisdictional responsibility of the City of Highland.
The Administrative Rate for the U.S. Forest Service is published in the agency's Annual Program Direction.
Federal Excess Property Program (FEPP) Equipment
Under the FEPP program, FEPP rates apply when federal property is loaned to the State Forester, who may place it with local fire departments to improve local fire programs. If this loaned federal property is used on a U.S. Forest Service incident, the City of Highland will only 29
charge the U.S. Forest Service operating costs that include maintenance, fuel, oil, etc. Charges may not include amortization, depreciation, replacement costs, modification start-up costs, or related charges.
REIMBURSEMENT RATES AND METHODOLOGY (Aviation)
Aircraft
Aircraft utilization will always be reimbursable fire assistance upon request from the U.S. Forest Service. Reimbursable fire assistance will be negotiated for aircraft utilization for mutual threat incidents. Flight and stand-by rates for aircraft will be developed, agreed to in advance, and published annually herein, utilizing the rates and/or methodology utilized by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). Reimbursable fire assistance rates and reimbursements for aircraft will be based on the following guidelines:
1. Fixed Wing
Reimbursements will be based on aircraft rate which includes pilot costs. The Air Tactical Group Supervisor ("ATGS") will be itemized separately. ATGS Stand-by rates will be determined based on personnel costs.
2. Helicopter
Reimbursement will be based on CAL FIRE Type 2 helicopter rate (same CAL FIRE UH-lH Super-Huey specification and cost basis) which includes pilot costs. Helitack crew with Helitender, Fuel Truck and chase vehicle (e.g. 1-Ton Pickup) will be itemized separately. Flight Crew and Crew Carrying Vehicle (CCV) will also be itemized separately.
WHERE TO SEND REIMBURSEMENT INVOICES
Invoices for services under this agreement must be sent electronically to the following addresses as appropriate. This address supersedes any invoice mailing address which may be reflected in the existing cooperative agreement.
U.S. Forest Service City of Highland
Name: Samantha Gaulding
Address: 602 S. Tippecanoe Ave.
City, State, Zip: San Bernardino, CA, 92408
Telephone: 909-454-4212
Fax: 909-383-5770
Email: [email protected]
Name: Chief Liz Brown
Address: 26974 Base Line
City, State, Zip: Highland, CA, 92346
Telephone: 909-862-3031
FAX: 909-864-5698
Email: [email protected]
30
ITEMS NOT REIMBURSABLE
The following items are not reimbursable in the execution of this Agreement and are considered standard personal support supply/equipment.
• Laptop Computers
• Incident position support kits
• Calculators
• Printers
• GPS units
• Cell phones (except as provided below)
• Personal telephone charges
• Support items normally available in Supply Unit, e.g. tents, sleeping bags, pads, water coolers, etc.
DURATION OF ASSIGNMENTS
Consideration must be given to the health and safety of personnel when assigned to fires of long duration. It is agreed that duration of assignments is dictated by each Party's policy. Extension of assignments beyond the Supporting Party's policy may be requested. It is the responsibility of the Protecting Party to request relief personnel in advance of the Supporting Party's policy time limit.
The Protecting Party is further responsible for the transportation costs of moving personnel to the fire and returning those relieved personnel back to their home stations. In all cases, the City of Highland and USDA Forest Service agree that their Incident Commanders will release suppression resources to their primary mission responsibilities as soon as priorities allow. For incidents within the state there is a required 7-day minimum commitment. Both parties agree to honor the minimum length of assignment guidelines.
REST AND RECUPERATION
The National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG) establishes Rest and Recuperation (R & R) guidelines that govern R & R on all Federal incidents. These guidelines may change throughout the year depending on fire activity and physical condition of fire resources. City of Highland, personnel assigned to a USDA Forest Service incident may be given R & R during the incident in which case the R & R is in pay status and charged against the incident. However, if the City of Highland, wishes to grant their personnel R & R upon their return to home, the R & R is not compensable under the terms of this agreement.
AIR BOTTLE SUPPORT
The City of Highland, agrees to refill breathing apparatus bottles when requested by the U.S. Forest Service subject to compliance with all laws and policies pertaining apparatus. 31
NON-WILDFIRE INCIDENTS
The City of Highland, has jurisdictional responsibility for all non-wildfire emergencies within its protection area even when these areas include U.S. Forest Service DPA. The only exceptions are for those emergency incidents under the jurisdiction of the California Highway Patrol, County Sheriff, California Department of Fish & Game and the U.S. Coast Guard.
FIRE PREVENTION
JOINT PRESS RELEASES Develop joint press releases on cooperative fire protection issues to ensure that the interests of both Parties are adequately addressed.
SMOKEY BEAR PROGRAM The Parties will cooperate in the delivery of Smokey Bear programs.
LOCAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS The Parties agree to cooperatively conduct local school and other fire prevention education programs.
FIRE PREVENTION SIGNS Coordination and placement of fire prevention signs should be coordinated by both Parties in order to prevent duplication of effort and sending mixed messages. This is especially important for fire danger rating signs.
LOCAL EVENTS The Parties agree to cooperative conduct fire prevention programs at local community events.
BURNING AND CAMPFIRE PERMITS
In accordance with current instructions, permits for campfire (CDF form LE-63), dooryard premises burning (CDF form LE-62), and other burning (CDF form LE-5) (except vegetation management program and brushland conversion burning (CDF form LE;-7) on State Responsibility lands in Federal Agency DPAs will be issued by the Federal Agency or local fire protection district personnel authorized to do so by the Director of CDF. If both parties' personnel are authorized to issue campfire and burning permits by CDF, both Parties agree to issue burning and campfire permits for each other's DPAs. Both Parties agree to notify one another when bum permits are issued. Fire Restrictions, Red Flag or other situations that may affect the safe execution of campfire and/or burn permits will be shared by each Party.
NON-FIRE PROJECT USE OF RESOURCES
Each of the Parties may jointly conduct appropriate mutual interest projects. These projects may include but not limited to hazardous fuels reduction (i.e.: prescribed fire burn and prep., thinning, etc.) and facility/compound maintenance. Any shared cost or reimbursement will be governed in accordance with a Supplemental Project Agreement signed by each Party prior to the start of the project. 32
WILDLAND FIRE DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM (WFDSS)
USDA Forest Service policy requires the use of "Wildland Fire Decision Support System" (WFDSS) for all fires on or threatening U.S. Forest Service administered lands that have escaped initial attack. In Unified Command situations the USDA Forest Service will include the City of Highland ’s input, into the development of control objectives, strategy and priorities.
REPAIR OF SUPPRESSION ACTIVITY DAMAGE
Repair of suppression related activity damage (e.g., spreading of dozer berms, installations of water bars, minor road repairs, minor fence repair, etc.) will normally be done by the Party with direct protection responsibility for the fire as an integral part of overhaul/mop-up. Any rehabilitation beyond this level may be the responsibility of the landowner.
MAPS TO SUPPORT ANNUAL OPERATING PLAN
On an as needed basis, maps needed to support this OP will become attachments to the OP as Appendix A through a modification to the CFPA. These may include the DPA boundary, fire protection facilities by Party and location, pre-planned "Mutual Aid" initial attack response areas, "Mutual Aid Move-up and Cover" facilities or special management consideration areas.
POSSESSION OF AGREEMENT AND OP ON INCIDENTS
On incidents, the Supporting Party shall furnish the Protecting Party, upon demand, a signed copy of the CFPA and current OP. This operating plan will be reviewed annually by JUNE 1 and revised as needed. This Operating Plan is executed as of the date of the last signature and remains in effect through FIVE YEARS unless modified or superseded.
APPROVAL:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Operating Plan as of the last date written below:
LIZ BROWN, FIRE CHIEF City of Highland Date
DANELLE D HARRISON, FOREST SUPERVISOR Date
U.S. Forest Service, San Bernardino National Forest
The authority and format of this instrument have been reviewed and approved for signature.
LOUISE EWEN Date
U.S. Forest Service Grants Management Specialist
LOUISE EWENDigitally signed by LOUISE EWEN
Date: 2026.09.08 13:14:32 -07'00'
33
APPENDIX A
San Bernardino National Forest DPA MAP
34
APPENDIX B
LRA DPA MAP
APPENDIX C
CITY OF HIGHLAND FD FREQUENCY ASSIGNMENTS
The City of Highland agrees to authorize use by the Forest Service of the following frequencies Command FMN/Analog FMN/Analog Tone/Location
RX 151.44500 TX 159.39000 Local 1
RX 151.35500 TX 159.30000 CDF C1
RX 151.26500 TX 159.33000 CDF C2
RX 151.34000 TX 159.34500 CDF C3
Tactical TX 151.2575 CDFTAC 1
35
APPENDIX D
SAN BERNARDINO NATIONAL FORETREST FREQUENCYASSIGNMETNS
The Forest Service agrees to authorize use by the Department of the following frequencies:
Command RX 171.4750
RX 171.4750
RX 172.2250
TX 171.4750
TX 168.1500
TX 164.1375
Forest Net Direct
Forest Net Repeat
Admin Net
Tactical TX 168.2000
TX 166.5500
TX 167.1125
TX 169.1125
TX 168.4875
NIFC Tac 2
R5 Tac 4
R5 Tac 5
R5 IA Air to Grnd 59
R5 IA Air to Grnd 53
These frequencies will be used for fire/emergency only within or adjacent to the Forest Service’s responsibility area.
36
APPENDIX E
HIGHLAND FIRE DEPARTMENT CHIEF OFFICER & CONTACTS
HEADQUARTERS OFFICE
Name Rank
Office
Phone Cell Phone Email
John Toon Unit Chief 909-881-6900 909-677-9435 [email protected] Ronald Janssen Deputy Chief 909-881-6900 909-253-8114 [email protected] Garett Armsby Deputy Chief 909-881-6900 909-332-0094 [email protected] Sean Landavazo Division Chief 909-881-6900 909-680-9526 [email protected] Liz Brown Battalion Chief 909-881-6993 909-361-1251 [email protected]
37
APPENDIX F
U.S. FOREST SERVICE DUTY & LINE OFFICER CONTACTS
FIRE and AVIATION MANAGEMENT
Supervisor's Office Fire
Staff 909.382.2600 San Bernardino ATB 909.382.4974
FICC Dispatch 909.383.5654 Emergency
909.383.5651
Name Position Work Mobile
Salvador Reyes Chief 1 Fire Chief 909.382.2630 951.236.1925 VACANT Chief 2 Deputy Fire Chief 909.382.2629 909.454.5348 David Duran Chief 3 Deputy Fire Chief 909.486.1703
Michael Troxel Division 6 FICC Center Mgr. 909.383.5651 909.495.7363 Doug Ross Division 7 Unit Aviation Officer 909.382.2994 951.288.5372 Mathew James Battalion 71 Air Tanker Base Mgr. 909.382.2989 951.392.6969 VACANT Division 8 Fuels/Fire Protection Specialist
VACANT Division 9 Forest Fire Planning Specialist
Joseph Labak Safety 1 Safety Officer 951.2020627
Shyla Salas Training Training Officer 951.836.8806 951.836.8806 Mountain Top Division District Office 909.382.2790
Michael Page Division 1 Division Chief 909.382.2893 909.486.1718 VACANT Battalion 11 West Battalion
Brian Grant Battalion 12 Prevention/Fuels Battalion 909.382.2802 909.255.2935 Mike Koontz Battalion 13 East Battalion 909.382.2790 951.315.5849 Front Country Division District Office 909.382.2851
Nathan Leatherman Division 3 Division Chief 909.382.2787 909.486.1716 Crawford Gunn Battalion 31 West Battalion 909.867.2426 951.9666331 VACANT Battalion 32 Protection/Fuels Battalion
VACANT Battalion 33 East Battalion
San Jacinto Division District Office 909.382.2921
Chris Fogle Division 5 Division Chief 909.659.5130 951.314.6950 Avdul Pula Battalion 51 Suppression Battalion 909.659.5130 951.659.2614 VACANT Battalion 52 Prevention/Fuels Battalion
VACANT Battalion 53 Suppression Battalion
Forest Service Line Officers
Name Position Work Mobile
Danelle Harrison Supervisor 1 Forest Supervisor 909.382.2600 928.266.6803 Wendy Sutton (Detail) Supervisor 2 Deputy Forest Supervisor 909.382.2718 840.587.7369 Joshua Direen (Acting) Ranger 1 District Ranger 909.382.2609 909.893.0503 Jeremy Camara (Acing) Ranger 3 District Ranger 909.382.2860 707-980-1809 Michael Nobles (Acting) Ranger 5 District Ranger 909.382.2860 951.204.0165 38 Staff Report
to the City Council
Agenda
Item
No.10.
Date: October 13, 2026
From: Carlos Zamano, City Manager
Reviewed By: Lawrence Mainez, Community Development Director Prepared By: Kim Stater, Assistant Community Development Director Subject: Second Reading of Ordinance No. 485 Amending Section 16.44.180 (Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units) of Title 16 (Land Use and Development) of the Highland Municipal Code to Update Requirements in Accordance with State Law
Recommendation:
Conduct a second reading, read by title only, and waive further reading of Ordinance No. 485 amending Section 16.44.180 (Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units) of Title 16 (Land Use and Development Code) to continue the implementation of Program 12 of the Highland Housing Element to ensure consistency with State housing legislation including Senate Bill 543, Assembly Bill 154, and Senate Bill 9. The proposed amendment promotes the development of ADUs as a means to increase affordable housing opportunities and ensures the City's regulations remain compliant with State laws.
Fiscal Impact:
The proposed Municipal Code Amendment is a City-initiated project. Costs associated with this amendment include Staff and City Attorney time, public notices, meetings, and other administrative functions.
Public Notice:
The agenda for this item was posted at the three locations per Resolution No. 2011-047 and on the City’s website.
Background:
On September 8, 2026, the City Council held a public hearing regarding the subject Municipal Code Amendment (MCA 26-001) and no modifications were made. Therefore, staff recommends the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 485 as submitted.
Attachments:
1. Highland ADU and JADU Ordinance (2026)
1
ATTACHMENT 1
Ordinance
2
ORDINANCE NO. 485
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HIGHLAND, CALIFORNIA AMENDING SECTION 16.44.180
(ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS) OF TITLE 16 (LAND USE
AND DEVELOPMENT CODE) OF THE HIGHLAND MUNICIPAL
CODE TO UPDATE REQUIREMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH
STATE LAW, AND MAKE A FINDING OF EXEMPTION UNDER
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
(MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT MCA 26-001)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings and Intent.
WHEREAS, the State of California adopted Senate Bill 543, Assembly Bill 1154, and Senate Bill 9, effective January 1, 2026, amending various Government Code sections 66310-66339.5, which further modified standards and requirements for accessory dwelling units (“ADUs”) and junior accessory dwelling units (“JADUs”); and WHEREAS, portions of the City’s current regulations for ADUs and JADUs require amendments to remain consistent with State Law; and
WHEREAS, on August 24, 2021, the City Council of the City of Highland adopted Ordinance No. 448 amending regulations pertaining to ADUs and JADUs and determining, based on findings, that ADUs in areas that have been designated as high fire severity zones could endanger the public health and safety; and WHEREAS, the City’s current regulations for ADUs and JADUs prohibit the construction of ADUs in very high fire hazard severity zones and high fire hazard severity zones in the City; and
WHEREAS, Staff has studied the issue of whether there should continue to be a permanent ban on the construction of ADUs in very high fire hazard severity zones and high fire hazard severity zones, or if certain health and safety regulations should be adopted to allow ADUs to be constructed in these areas under certain parameters. As a result of careful consideration by Staff working closely with the City’s Fire Marshal and the City’s Battalion Chief, it was determined to be appropriate to continue to ban all construction of ADUs in very high fire severity zones and high fire hazard severity zones due to the concentration of housing tracts with units built near each other along the foothills of the National Forest. It was further determined appropriate to continue to ban ADUs in very high fire hazard severity zones and high fire severity zones because detached ADUs along the foothills will intrude into the rear setbacks (and others) and could result in impacts to the fuel modification zones, both designed to protect the residential neighborhoods from wildfires; and
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby determines that the construction of ADUs in areas that have been designated as very high fire hazard severity zones and high fire 3
hazard severity zones could endanger the public health and safety. These areas are prone to fires, and increasing the density in these areas can hinder the ability of fire personnel to evacuate people quickly in event of a fire emergency; and WHEREAS, on June 27, 2017, there was a 900-acre wildfire in Highland that forced the evacuation of about 200 residents. On July 12, 2017, there was a 33-acre fire that burned in the City. A few days later, on July 14, 2017, there was a 450-acre brush fire that burned around homes in the City. In the neighboring City of San Bernardino, there was a brush fire on October 21, 2019, that destroyed or damaged nine homes. On October 24, 2019, there was a wildfire in San Bernardino that burned 145 acres.
According to CalFire, 7,860 fires were recorded to CalFire and the US Forest Service in 2019, an increase from the 7,571 fires in 2018. In 2020, these figures increased again to 9,639 fire incidents. In September 2020, the El Dorado Fire occurred in Yucaipa where 22,744 acres were burned, 10 structures were destroyed, and tragically, one firefighter died; and
WHEREAS, on September 5, 2024, the Line Fire broke out in Highland. The Line Fire caused conditions of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the City of Highland and resulted in fire damage and evacuations for parts of the City. On September 11, 2024, the City Manager declared a local emergency, which was ratified by the City Council on September 12, 2024, through the adoption of Resolution No. 2024- 044. The Line Fire burned a total of 43,978 acres. The burn areas are now susceptible to mud and debris flow and possible landslides; and
WHEREAS, in January 2025, a series of fourteen wildfires affected Los Angeles and San Diego counties, forcing over 200,000 people to evacuate from their homes, destroying more than 18,000 homes and structures and damaging countless others, and burning over 57,000 acres of land. The two largest fires during this time included the Eaton Fire in Altadena and the Palisades Fire in the Pacific Palisades. During this time, the Little Mountain Fire, located in San Bernardino County, also burned 34 acres; and WHEREAS, the City is prone to strong winds which help fuel brush fires and can create a dangerous situation, particularly if there is only one escape route from the fire and streets are blocked due to on-street parking during an evacuation event. Increasing the population in very high fire hazard severity zone or high fire hazard severity zone areas could have devastating consequences if additional people must be quickly moved from the area in the event of an emergency. According to most fuel modification and defensible space plans, there are generally areas where no combustible construction is to occur adjacent to development in very high fire hazard severity zones or high fire hazard severity zones. Should construction of an ADU (or any combustible construction) occur in these areas, it will compromise the design of any fuel modification and defensible space plan; and
WHEREAS, in the years after a wildfire, areas left charred by flames and devoid of vegetation can render the soil non-permeable to rainwater and increase the likelihood of mudslides, debris flows, and flash floods due to the lack of rainfall absorption in the 4
soil. The California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (CalOES) warns that Californians who live on or below hillsides in general, but especially in areas impacted by wildfires, are at an increased risk of debris flow, or the fast-moving mass of materials such as slurries of water, rock, soil, vegetation, and even boulders and trees. Construction of ADUs in very high fire hazard severity zones or high fire hazard severity zones increases the residential density in areas prone to mudslides, debris flows, and flash floods thereby increasing the number of people at risk during such events; and WHEREAS, in Ordinance No. 448 adopted on August 24, 2021, the City Council determined that the construction of ADUs in areas without appropriate sewer systems is detrimental to the local water quality, and public health and safety. Accordingly, this ordinance continues the City’s current practice of prohibiting the construction of ADUs in areas without appropriate sewage disposal systems for non-building permit only ADUs; and
WHEREAS, the City of Highland Planning Commission held a public hearing at the Highland City Hall Council Chambers in Highland, California, on July 21, 2026, at 6:00 p.m., and notice of said public hearing has been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Highland Municipal Code, heard and considered evidence for and against the Ordinance, and investigated and made findings and recommendations in connection herewith. At the conclusion of the public hearing on July 21, 2026, the City of Highland Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 26-013 recommending that the City Council adopt this Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City Council, at a regular meeting, considered the Ordinance on August 11, 2026, at 6:00 p.m., at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the City Council closed the public hearing and considered the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council.
Section 2. Section 16.44.180 (Accessory Dwelling Units) of Chapter 16.44 (Specific Use Development Standards) of Title 16 (Land Use and Development Code) of the Highland Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows, with additions shown in underlined text and deletions shown in strikethrough text:
“16.44.180 Accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units.
A. Intent. This section is intended to provide reasonable regulations for the development of accessory dwelling units (“ADUs”) and junior ADUs (“JADUs”) in certain residential areas on lots developed or proposed to be developed concurrently with single-family residential or multifamily residential dwellings in compliance with state law regarding ADUs and JADUs (Chapter 13 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code). ADUs and JADUs contribute needed housing to the community’s housing stock and are intended to provide livable housing at lower cost while providing greater security, companionship and family support for the occupants. In addition, the regulations in this section are intended to ensure that ADUs and JADUs located in residential districts do 5
not adversely impact adjacent residential parcels or the surrounding neighborhood, have access to adequate water and sewer services, will have limited impacts on traffic flow and public safety, and are developed in a manner which protects the integrity of the residential district, while providing for needed housing opportunities for owners of eligible parcels. Moreover, the regulations are intended to ensure that ADUs are not constructed in high fire severity zones “very high fire hazard severity zones” and “high fire hazard severity zones,” as those areas are designate in the Cal Fire Fire Hazard Severity Map, as this poses a great risk to the public health and safety in the event of a fire and the need to quickly evacuate residents.
B. Definitions. The following words shall have the meanings set forth below, unless the context otherwise permits or requires:
1. “Accessory dwelling unit” or “ADU” has the meaning ascribed in California Government Code Section 66313(a), as the same may be amended from time to time.
2. “Attached ADU” means an ADU that is constructed as a physical expansion (i.e., addition) of the primary dwelling and shares a common wall with the primary dwelling or existing structure.
3. “Detached ADU” means an ADU that is constructed as a separate structure from the primary dwelling, which does not share any walls with the primary dwelling or existing structure.
4. “Existing structure” means an existing single-family dwelling, multifamily dwelling, or other accessory structure that can be safely converted into habitable space under the California Building Standards Code, as amended by the city, and other applicable law.
5. “Junior accessory dwelling unit” or “JADU” has the meaning ascribed in California Government Code Section 66313(d), as the same may be amended from time to time.
6. “Livable space” has the same meaning ascribed in California Government Code Sections 66313(e) and 66323(a)(3)(A), as the same may be amended from time to time.
67. “Primary dwelling” means the existing or proposed single-family dwelling or multifamily dwelling on the lot where an ADU would be located.
78. “Public transit” has the meaning ascribed in California Government Code Section 66313(m), as the same may be amended from time to time.
C. General Requirements and Application Procedure.
6
1. An application for an ADU or JADU shall be considered ministerially, without discretionary review or a hearing, pursuant to either “planning review” or a streamlined “building permit only” review. The city shall act on the application within 60 days from the date the city receives a completed application if there is an existing single-family dwelling or multifamily dwelling on the lot, pursuant to Government Code section 66317. If the city deems an application for an ADU or JADU is incomplete, the applicant may appeal the determination of incompleteness as authorized by Government Code section 66317 to the Planning Commission.
2. If the application to create an ADU or JADU is submitted with a permit application to create a new single-family dwelling on the lot, the city may delay acting on the application for the ADU or JADU until the city acts on the permit application to create the new single-family dwelling, but the application to create the ADU or JADU shall still be considered ministerially without discretionary review or public hearing under either the planning review or building permit only review. If the applicant requests a delay, the 60-day time period shall be tolled for the period of the delay. Table 16.44.180 summarizes the level of ministerial review required for various types of ADUs.
Table 16.44.180 – Ministerial ADU Review
Applications Subject to “Planning Review”
(See HMC 16.44.180(D))
Applications Subject to “Building Permit
Only” Review (See HMC 16.44.180(E))
Any application for an ADU that is not eligible
for “building permit only” review.
• One ADU within the space of an existing
or proposed single-family dwelling or an
accessory structure. The ADU may expand
the physical dimensions of an existing
accessory structure by not more than 150
square feet to allow for ingress and egress.
The space must have exterior access from
the proposed or existing single-family
dwelling. The rear and side yard setbacks
must be sufficient for fire and safety.
• A JADU that meets the requirements of
Article 3 (commencing with Section 66333)
of Chapter 13 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the
Government Code.
• One detached, new construction ADU, so
long as the ADU does not exceed four-foot
side and rear yard setbacks for a lot with a
proposed or existing single-family dwelling
unit, a total floor area of 800 square feet of
livable space, and a height of 16 or 18 feet
as provided in California Government Code
7
Table 16.44.180 – Ministerial ADU Review
Applications Subject to “Planning Review”
(See HMC 16.44.180(D))
Applications Subject to “Building Permit
Only” Review (See HMC 16.44.180(E))
Section 66321(b)(4)(A) through (b)(4)(C),
as applicable.
• Multiple ADUs within the portions of an
existing multifamily dwelling, in spaces not
used as living space. Examples include
conversion of storage rooms, boiler rooms,
passageways, attics, basements, and
garages. Each ADU must comply with state
building standards for dwellings. The
number of ADUs that may be created within
a multifamily dwelling is equal to 25 percent
of the number of existing multifamily
dwelling units, or one ADU, whichever is
greater.
• Not more than eight detached ADUs on a
lot with an existing multifamily dwelling;
however, the number of ADUs cannot
exceed the number of existing units on the
lot. The ADUs are subject to a 16- or 18-
foot height limit as provided in California
Government Code Section 66321(b)(4)(A)
through (b)(4)(C), as applicable, and must
maintain at least a four-foot rear and side
yard setback, unless the existing multifamily dwelling has a rear or side setback of less than four feet.
• Not more than two detached ADUs on a
lot with a proposed multifamily dwelling.
The ADUs are subject to a 16- or 18-foot
height limit as provided in Government
Code Section 66321(b)(4)(A) through
(b)(4)(C), as applicable, and must maintain
at least a four-foot rear and side yard
setback.
23. All ADUs and JADUs shall satisfy the requirements of the California Building Standards Code, as amended by the city.
8
34. In accordance with state law, ADUs are an accessory use or an accessory structure to the primary dwelling on the lot. ADUs shall not be considered to exceed the allowable density for the lot.
45. The application for the planning review ADU or building permit only ADU or JADU must be signed by the owner(s) of the parcel of land.
D. Planning Review ADUs. Except as otherwise set forth in subsection E of this section regarding building permit only ADUs (California Government Code Section 66323 ADUs and JADUs), the city shall not approve an application for a new ADU unless the ADU satisfies all of the standards below. An application for a new ADU that satisfies each of the below standards shall be approved by the director of community development, or designee, following a ministerial review for compliance.
ADUs approved pursuant to “planning review” shall comply with the following standards, unless state law mandates that different standards shall apply, in which case the mandated state law standards shall apply:
1. Location Restrictions. One ADU shall be allowed on a lot with a proposed or existing primary dwelling that is zoned residential, except as otherwise set forth herein. To protect the public health and safety, no ADUs shall be constructed in an area designated as a high fire severity zone as a very high hazard fire severity zone or high fire severity zone, or in an area without an adequate sewer systems (i.e., on septic tank system) sewage disposal system.
2. Development Standards.
a. Size Restrictions. The total floor area of an attached ADU to an existing primary dwelling shall not exceed 50 percent of the gross floor area for the primary dwelling, except where such standard would prevent construction of an ADU of 850 square feet of livable space or 1,000 square feet of livable space for an ADU that provides more than one bedroom. The total floor area of an attached ADU or detached ADU that has two or more bedrooms shall not exceed 1,200 square feet of livable space. In no case shall an ADU be a smaller size than an “efficiency unit” as defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 17958.1.
b. Height Restrictions. A detached or attached ADU shall not exceed the height limit established for the district in which it is located, the height of the primary dwelling, or the applicable height in California Government Code Section 66321(b)(4)(A) through (b)(4)(D), whichever is greatest. c. Setback. No setback shall be required for an ADU that is within an existing structure or within a structure constructed in the same location and that has the same dimensions as an existing structure. For all other ADUs, the required setback from side and rear lot lines shall be four feet. ADUs shall comply with the front yard setbacks otherwise required by the Highland Municipal Code, 9
except where the application of the front yard setbacks would not permit construction of an ADU with 800 -square -feeoot of livable space ADU. d. Lot Coverage. An ADU shall conform to all lot coverage requirements applicable to the zoning district in which the property is located, except where the application of the lot coverage regulations would not permit construction of an ADU with 800 -square -feeoot of livable space ADU with four-foot side and rear yard setbacks.
e. Historic Resources. An ADU that has the potential to adversely impact any historical resource listed on the California Register of Historic Resources shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the “Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings” found at Section 68.3 of Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as amended from time to time.
3. Design and Features.
a. Design. The ADU shall have the same colors and materials of the primary dwelling, and shall comply with any objective design standards adopted by the city that are applicable to the zoning district, specific plan area, or planned unit development where the ADU is located.
b. Fire Sprinklers. ADUs are required to provide fire sprinklers if they are required for the primary dwelling, or as required under the existing California Residential Code. The construction of an ADU shall not trigger a requirement for fire sprinklers to be installed in the existing primary dwelling. c. Entrance. An attached ADU shall have a separate exterior entrance from the primary dwelling.
4. Transfer. An ADU shall not be sold, transferred, or assigned separately from the primary dwelling, except when the ADU is constructed by a qualified nonprofit corporation pursuant to California Government Code Section 66341. In such cases, the ADU may be separately sold to an eligible low-income buyer as defined by state law. Otherwise, the ADU may be rented, but shall not be used for short-term rentals for less than 31 consecutive days.
5. Parking Requirements.
a. In addition to the off-street parking space(s) required for the primary dwelling, one off-street parking space shall be provided for each ADU, except when:
i. The ADU is located within one-half mile walking distance of public transit; 10
ii. The ADU is located within an architecturally and historically significant historic district;
iii. The ADU is part of a proposed or existing primary dwelling or accessory structure;
iv. The ADU is located in an area where on-street parking permits are required but not offered to an ADU occupant; or
v. The ADU is located within one block of a city-approved and dedicated parking space for a car share vehicle; or.
vi. The permit application for an ADU is submitted with a permit application to create a new single-family dwelling or a new multifamily dwelling on the same lot, provided the ADU or parcel satisfies any other criteria listed in this section.
b. Off-street parking shall be permitted in setback areas in locations determined by the planning division or through tandem parking.
c. When the ADU is created by converting or demolishing a garage, carport, covered parking structure, or uncovered parking space, replacement of parking space(s) eliminated by the construction of the ADU shall not be required as long as the ADU remains in use as a legal ADU.
6. Permits Required. Except as otherwise required herein, all construction, structural alterations or additions made to create an ADU shall comply with current development standards and building, electrical, fire and plumbing codes. The applicant shall obtain a building permit and any other applicable construction permits prior to the construction of the ADU.
7. An ADU or JADU approved by the planning process in this section shall be rented only for terms of 31 days or longer.
E. Building Permit ADUs.
1. An applicant shall not be required to submit an application for an ADU or JADU permit under this section, and may instead seek building permit approval for an ADU and/or JADU that satisfies the requirements of California Government Code Section 66323, as the same may be amended from time to time, and the California Building Standards Code, as amended by the city.
2. In addition to obtaining a building permit under this process, the applicant shall be required to obtain all other applicable construction permits prior to the construction of the ADU or JADU.
11
3. An ADU or JADU approved by a building permit only process shall be rented only for terms of 31 days or longer.
4. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66323, the city shall ministerially approve an application for a building permit within a residential or mixed-use zone to create any of the following:
a. One ADU and one JADU per lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling if all of the following apply:
i. The ADU or JADU is within the proposed space of a single-family dwelling or existing space of a single-family dwelling or accessory structure and may include an expansion of not more than 150 square feet beyond the same physical dimensions as the existing accessory structure. An expansion beyond the physical dimensions of the existing accessory structure shall be limited to accommodating ingress and egress.
ii. The space has exterior access from the proposed or existing single-family dwelling.
iii. The side and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire and safety. iv. The JADU complies with the requirements of Article 3 (commencing with Section 66333) of Chapter 13 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code as set forth in subsection (E)(6) of this section. b. One detached, new construction ADU that does not exceed four-foot side and rear yard setbacks for a lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling.
The detached ADU may be combined with a JADU described in subsection (E)(4)(a) of this section. The ADU shall be no more than 800 square feet in size, with a height limit as provided in California Government Code Section 66321(b)(4)(A) through (b)(4)C).
c. At least one ADU within the portions of existing multifamily dwelling structures that are not used as livable space, including, but not limited to, spaces for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation, storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attics, basements, or garages, if each unit complies with state building standards for dwellings. If requested, multiple ADUs shall be allowed, up to the number of ADUs that equals 25 percent of the existing multifamily dwelling units in the structure.
d. Not more than eight detached ADUs that are located on a lot that has an existing multifamily dwelling, subject to a height limit as provided in California Government Code Section 66321(b)(4)(A) through (b)(4)(C), and four-foot rear and side yard setbacks except where the existing multiple family dwelling has 12
a rear or side setback of less than four feet. However, the number of ADUs shall not exceed the number of existing units on the lot.
e. Not more than two detached ADUs on a lot with a proposed multifamily dwelling, subject to a height limit as provided in California Government Code Section 66321(b)(4)(A) through (b)(4)(C) and four-feet rear and side yard setbacks.
5. In accordance with the standards set forth in Article 3 (commencing with Section 66333) of Chapter 13 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the California Government Code, JADUs shall comply with the following requirements, unless state law is amended to set forth different standards, in which case state law standards will govern:
a. A JADU shall be a minimum of 150 square feet of livable space and a maximum of 500 square feet of livable space gross floor area. The gross floor arealivable space of a shared sanitation facility shall not be included in the maximum gross floor arealivable space of a JADU.
b. A JADU must be contained entirely within the walls of the existing or proposed single-family dwelling. Enclosed uses within the residence such as attached garages shall be considered within the walls of the existing or proposed singlefamily dwelling. c. A separate exterior entry from the main entrance to the single-family dwelling shall be provided to serve the JADU.
d. A JADU may include separate sanitation facilities, or may share sanitation facilities with the existing single-family dwelling. If the JADU does not include separate sanitation facilities, the JADU shall include a separate entrance from the main entrance to the structure, with an interior entry to the main living area. e. A JADU shall include an efficiency kitchen, which shall consist of a cooking facility with appliances and a food preparation counter and storage cabinets that are of reasonable size in relation to the size of the JADU. f. No additional parking is required for a JADU, even when the JADU is converted from an attached garage.
g. JADUs are required to provide fire sprinklers if they are required for the primary dwelling. Constructing a JADU does not require adding fire sprinklers to an existing multifamily dwelling.
hg. One JADU is permitted per lot zoned for single-family residences with a proposed or existing single-family residence on the lot. 13
ih. Unless state law is amended, the JADU or the single-family residence shall be occupied by the owner of record, except where the owner is another governmental agency, land trust, or housing organization.A JADU shall not require owner occupancy of the primary dwelling unless the JADU shares sanitation facilities with the primary dwelling. If the JADU shares sanitation facilities with the primary dwelling, owner occupancy of the primary dwelling is required.
ji. The property owner shall record and file with the city a deed restriction placing the following restrictions on the property, the property owner, and all successors in interest: (i) the JADU is not to be sold or separately conveyed from the primary dwelling; and (ii) the JADU shall be restricted in size and attributes pursuant to Article 3 of Chapter 13 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code as set forth in subsection (E)(5) of this section.
F. Fees and Utility Connections. ADUs and JADUs that are processed under either the planning review ADU process set forth in subsection D of this section or through the building permit only ADU process set forth in subsection E of this section, shall comply with the following:
1. ADUs and JADUs shall have adequate water and sewer services. These services may be provided from the water and sewer points of connection for the primary dwelling and need not be a separate set of services, unless the local water and sewer service provider requires a new or separate utility connection directly between the ADU and the utility if the ADU is constructed concurrently with a new singlefamily residence.
2. The owner of an ADU shall be subject to the payment of all sewer, water and other applicable fees, including impact fees set forth in California Government Code Section 66000 et seq., except as specifically provided in California Government Code Sections 66311.5, 66324, and 66332(e).
3. Prior to receiving a building permit, the owner of an ADU must submit letters of service availability for water and sewer disposal to the building official. .
Section 3. Environmental Review. The City Council hereby finds that this Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15282(h), which creates a statutory exemption for the adoption of an ordinance regarding second units in a single-family or multifamily residential zone by a city to implement the provisions of Article 2 (commencing with Section 66314) or Article 3 (commencing with Section 66333) of Chapter 13 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code as set forth in Section 21080.17 of the Public Resources Code. In addition, the City Council finds that the Ordinance is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that amendments to the City’s ADU and JADU regulations in accordance with State Law will have a significant effect on the 14
environment. The City Council directs the Community Development Director to file a Notice of Exemption with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Bernardino pursuant to the Public Resource Code and State CEQA Guidelines.
Section 4. Submission of Ordinance to HCD. In compliance with Government Code Section 66326, the Community Development Director is hereby directed to submit a copy of this Ordinance to the Department of Housing and Community Development within 60 days after adoption.
Section 5. Certification. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same or a summary thereof to be published and posted in the manner required by law.
Section 6. Publication and Posting. Within fifteen (15) days following the passage of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall publish and/or post this Ordinance as required by state law and City resolution.
Section 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after passage.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this __th day of _____ 2026. _____________________________
Penny Lilburn
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Alondra Muñoz
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________________
Maricela Marroquin
City Attorney
15 Staff Report
to the City Council
Agenda
Item
No.11.
Date: October 13, 2026
From: Carlos Zamano, City Manager
Reviewed By: Lawrence Mainez, Community Development Director Prepared By: Camille Duarte, Administrative Assistant III Subject: Declare Two (2) Seats Vacant on the Community Trails Committee Recommendation:
1. Declare two (2) seats vacant on the Community Trails Committee; and
2. Direct the City Clerk to advertise the vacancy on the Community Trails Committee.
Fiscal Impact:
None.
Public Notice:
The agenda for this item was posted at the three locations per Resolution No. 2011-047 and on the City’s website.
Background:
Pursuant to Chapter 2.32.020 of the Highland Municipal Code, the Community Trails Committee shall consist of five members appointed by the City Council and shall serve without compensation. Each member of the committee shall serve a two-year term of office, and have a demonstrated knowledge and interest in one or more of the following: equestrian activities, bicycling, hiking, nature studies, or landscape/open space design.
Committee Members Joey Martin and Richard Bowman's terms expire October 2026.
Therefore, it would be appropriate for the City Council to declare two (2) seats vacant on the Community Trails Committee and direct the City Clerk to advertise and post those vacancies.
Attachments:
None
1 Staff Report
to the City Council
Agenda
Item
No.12.
Date: October 13, 2026
From: Carlos Zamano, City Manager
Reviewed By: Lawrence Mainez, Community Development Director Prepared By: Travis Trejo, Assistant Planner
Subject: Tribal Cultural Property Use Agreement (Work Program, HP-) Recommendation:
Authorize the City Manager to execute the Tribal Cultural Property Use Agreement in substantially the same form attached.
Fiscal Impact:
Excecution of this agreement will result in no fiscal impact.
Public Notice:
The agenda for this item was posted at the three locations per Resolution No. 2011-047 and on the City’s website.
Background:
In September 2020, a $1.5 million Recreational Trails Program Grant Application by the City was selected by the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation for funding by the Department to renovate the ‘City’s Natural Parkland’ located at the easterly terminus of Base Line. The Application also included the installation of new interpretive signs along the trail. In total, there are seventeen (17) new interpretive signage locations. Staff worked closely with the City's Community Trails Committee and the City's Landscape Architect to create this unique signage program, all of which, other than the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation sign, has been installed.
Staff has been working alongside the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation to finalize their interpretive sign. This sign went to Yuhaaviatam's Cultural Advisor Working Group (CAWG) in August of 2026, where the sign was reviewed, and additional input was given. At present, the sign is awaiting final edits regarding the content and the translations to be included on the signage.
At the request of the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation, a Tribal Cultural Property Use agreement is required to grant the use of their Tribal Cultural Property solely in connection with the Natural Parkland Trail Sign (the “Project”)." The Agreement (Attachment 1) was reviewed by the City Attorney as to form.
2 Once the Agreement is executed, Staff and the City’s Landscape Architect will work closely with the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation staff to ensure the content of the interpretive sign (Attachment 2) is finalized before it is manufactured and installed within the City's Natural Parkland.
This item is in the City's Work Program and is listed as a High Priority Project.
Attachments:
1. Tribal Cultural Property Use Agreement
2. DRAFT Yuhaaviatam Interpretative Sign
Attachment 1:
Tribal Cultural Property Use Agreement
Tribal Cultural Property Use Agreement
Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation
TRIBAL CULTURAL PROPERTY USE AGREEMENT
This Tribal Cultural Property Use Agreement (“Agreement”) sets forth the terms and conditions under which the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation, a federally recognized Indian tribe (“Nation”), authorizes the limited use of its Tribal Cultural Property (as that term is defined herein) by City of Highland (“User”). All parties may be collectively referenced as the “Parties” and each may be individually referenced as a “Party.”
1. Limited Use; Standard of Care. Subject to the User’s compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Nation hereby grants the User a limited non-exclusive, royaltyfree, non-transferable and revocable license to use the Tribal Cultural Property solely in connection with:
Natural Parkland Trail Sign (the “Project”).
For purposes of this Agreement, “Tribal Cultural Property” means the tangible and intangible creations, manifestations, and productions pertaining to the Nation’s culture, history and peoples, or elements thereof, as provided by the Nation to the User solely for use in connection with the Project.
The Tribal Cultural Property in use for the Project:
1. Photo of Jesusa Manuel
2. Photo of Julia Manuel and Frances Manuel Morengo
3. Two photos of YSMN Tribal members at Yucca Harvest
4. Text People of the Pines and Serrano language translations The manner and use of the above Tribal Cultural Property by the User shall: (i) comply with all applicable laws, including, without limitation, those pertaining to false or deceptive advertising and intellectual property; (ii) not be in connection with any objectionable material (e.g., material that is defamatory, scandalous, pornographic, disparaging, or illegal); and (iii) comply with all applicable Tribal Cultural Property usage policies as may be communicated by the Nation to the User from time to time during the term of the Project. Any use of the Tribal Cultural Property must be accompanied by all existing applicable attribution notices (e.g., copyright and trademark notices) and User shall not modify, obscure, or delete such notices.
User shall handle and use the Tribal Cultural Property consistent with the professional skill and care ordinarily provided by experienced and sophisticated professionals practicing the same field in the same or similar locality under the same or similar circumstances. User shall only use properly trained staff in connection with the moving, handling, distributing, and/or administering the Tribal Cultural Property.
2. Reservation of Rights. The Nation expressly reserves to itself all rights in and to the Tribal Cultural Property not expressly granted to the User pursuant to this Agreement. The User acknowledges and agrees that the Nation is the owner of all rights, titles, and interest in and to the Tribal Cultural Property, and that the User’s use of the Tribal Cultural Property pursuant to this Agreement inures to the benefit of the Nation.
Tribal Cultural Property Use Agreement
Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation
The User will have no rights in or to the Tribal Cultural Property, except as expressly granted herein. The User may not assign its rights or delegate its obligations under this Agreement to a third party without the Nation’s prior written approval, which approval may be granted or denied in the Nation’s sole and absolute discretion. This Agreement is not intended to benefit, nor shall it be deemed to give rise to, any rights in any third party.
3. Approval Rights. All uses of the Tribal Cultural Property by the User are subject to the prior written approval of the Nation. The User shall submit to the Nation for the Nation’s approval, at least sixty (60) business days prior to its intended first use, all displays and uses of the Tribal Cultural Property (whether in a physical display, print media, direct mail, television, radio, internet, email, billboard, or in any other format, media, or channel). The Nation shall have the right to review and approve any use containing reference to the Nation or including the Tribal Cultural Property prior to distribution, other dissemination, or display by the User. The Nation will use its reasonable efforts to promptly review materials sent by the User for approval and will not unreasonably withhold or delay its approval. In no event shall the User make any changes to the Tribal Cultural Property without the prior written approval of the Nation. Photographs, copies, or other reproductions of the Tribal Cultural Property must not be made for commercial purposes by the User without the prior written permission of the Nation, except for those reproductions made by the visiting public for personal use.
4. Termination. This Agreement shall automatically terminate upon the completion date of the Project. The Nation reserves the right in its sole and absolute discretion to terminate this Agreement at any time prior to completion of the Project upon ten (10) days’ prior written notice.
Upon termination of this Agreement, the User must return all Tribal Cultural Property to the Nation no later than thirty (30) days after the termination date, or within such other period as the Parties may mutually agree in writing. The User shall refrain from using the Tribal Cultural Property or any copies of the Tribal Cultural Property for any purpose upon termination of this Agreement. Any and all copies of the Tribal Cultural Property in the User’s possession shall be deleted or destroyed. The User shall provide written confirmation to the Nation that the Tribal Cultural Property was returned and any and all copies were deleted or destroyed.
5. Modification. At any time, the Nation may modify the User’s permission to use the Tribal Cultural Property, and to take action against any use that does not conform to this Agreement, infringes any of the Nation’s intellectual property or other rights, or violates applicable law.
6. Limited Warranty and Indemnification. The Nation warrants that it owns the intellectual property rights to or has otherwise obtained all necessary authorizations for use of all the Tribal Cultural Property provided to the User. The Nation further warrants that its Tribal Cultural Property provided to the User do not infringe any intellectual property rights of any third party.
The User shall, at the User’s expense, defend, indemnify, release, and hold harmless the Nation and its employees, representatives and agents from any and against all claims, causes of action, costs, damages, liabilities, liens, expenses, demands and losses arising out of or in connection with (i) any breach of this Agreement, (ii) any damages to the Tribal Cultural Property, and (iii) any claim that the Project infringes or misappropriates the patent, copyright, trademark, trade secret, or other intellectual property right of any third party. In no event shall the User enter into any settlement without the Nation’s prior written approval, such approval not to be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. The Nation shall, at the Nation’s expense, defend, indemnify, release, and hold harmless the User from any and all losses or claims arising out of or in connection with any claim that the Tribal Cultural Property infringes or misappropriates the
Tribal Cultural Property Use Agreement
Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation
patent, copyright, trademark, trade secret, or other intellectual property right of any third party. In no event shall the Nation enter into any settlement without the User’s prior written approval, such approval not to be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. This provision shall survive termination of this Agreement.
7. Attorney’s Fees. If any proceeding will be instituted by either of the Parties hereto for the enforcement of any of the rights or remedies in and under this Agreement through arbitration or otherwise, the Party in whose favor an award will be rendered therein will be entitled to recover from the losing Party all costs reasonably incurred by the prevailing Party in the action on issues on which it prevails, including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ fees and court costs. Such sum will include an amount estimated by the court as reasonable costs and fees to be incurred by the prevailing Party in collecting any monetary judgment or award or otherwise enforcing each order, judgment or decree entered in the action or proceeding. his provision shall survive termination of this Agreement.
8. Notice. All notices, consents, requests, demands and other communications required or permitted hereunder: (i) will be in writing; (ii) will be sent by messenger, certified or registered U.S. mail, a reliable delivery service for next business day delivery or e-mail (with a copy sent by one of the foregoing means), charges prepaid as applicable, to the appropriate address(es) or number(s) set forth below; and (iii) will be deemed to have been given on the date of receipt by the addressee (or, if the date of receipt is not a business day, on the first business day after the date of receipt), as evidenced by (A) a receipt executed by the addressee (or a responsible person in his or her office), the records of the person delivering such communication or a notice to the effect that such addressee refused to claim or accept such communication, if sent by messenger, U.S. mail or express delivery service, or (B) a receipt, or other evidence of transmittal, generated by the sender’s e-mail software showing that such communication was sent to the appropriate email address on a specified date, if sent by e-mail. All such communications will be sent to the following addresses or numbers, or to such other addresses or numbers as any party may inform the others by giving five (5) business days’ prior notice:
If to the Nation: Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation
26569 Community Center Drive
Highland, California 92346
Attention: Cultural Resource Management & Contracts
Administration
E-Mail: [email protected] and
[email protected]
With a copy to: Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation
674 East Brier Drive
San Bernardino, California 92408
Attention: Legal Department
E-Mail: [email protected]
If to User: City of Highland
27215 Base Line
Highland, CA 92346
Attention: Carlos Zamano, City Manager
Facsimile: (909) 862-3180
E-Mail: [email protected]
Tribal Cultural Property Use Agreement
Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation
9. Additional Actions. Each Party hereby agrees to provide the other such documents, instruments and agreements, executed and acknowledged by such Party, if necessary, as the other Party shall reasonably require to complete the obligations hereunder.
10. Miscellaneous. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, without regard to conflict of law principles. Neither Party shall be deemed to be an employee, agent, partner, or legal representative of the other for any purpose and neither shall have any right, power, or authority to create any obligation or responsibility on behalf of the other. The waiver by the Nation of a breach of any provision hereof shall not be taken or held to be a waiver of the provision itself. Any waiver of any provision or of any breach of any provision in this Agreement shall be in writing. If any provision of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be contrary to applicable law, such provision shall be changed and interpreted so as to best accomplish the objectives of the original provision to the fullest extent allowed by applicable law and the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof.
By signing below the User agrees that it has read this Tribal Cultural Property Use Agreement, understands it is limited to the terms and conditions discussed herein, and agrees to be legally bound by it.
_______________________________
Signature
_______________________________
Printed Name
_______________________________
Title
_______________________________
Date
Attachment 2:
DRAFT Yuhaaviatam Interpretative Sign
YUHAAVIATAM OF SAN MANUEL NATION
People of the Pines
Native Plant List
Black Oak, Quercus kelloggii
Southern California Black
Walnut, Juglans Californica
Blue Elderberry, Sambucus
mexicana
Chia, Salvia columbariae
Piñon Pine, Pinus monophylla
Flowers are
boiled or fried
to eat.
Seeds are used to
make flour.
Stalks are used for
fire starting or food
that is roasted over
fire pits and coals.
Leaves are used
to make ropes,
nets, sandals, and
sometimes as
needle and thread.
Roots are used as soap,
shampoo, and medicine
to treat skin conditions.
Chaparral Yucca
Hesperoyucca whipplei
Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation Tribal members gathering Chaparral yucca in the Santa Ana River wash in the Spring.
S
ince time immemorial, the ancestors of the Yuhaaviatam of the San Manuel Nation—a clan of the Maara’yam (Serrano) people—have lived, hunted, and gathered native plants across more than 7 million acres of ancestral lands.
These lands include a wide range of habitats, from desert and riverine foothills to forested mountains. The plants found in these diverse regions serve many purposes, including medicinal, subsistence, construction and craft, and ceremonial uses. Many plants have multiple uses, depending on the part harvested and the season in which they are gathered.
The Maara’yam (Serrano) follow a six-season calendar that guides movement across their ancestral lands, allowing access to plants and animals at different stages of their life cycles. Today, members of the Yuhaaviatam clan continue to gather plants seasonally, maintaining these enduring traditions.
Yuhaaviatam Elder Jesusa Manuel
early 20th century.
Yuhaaviatam Elder Julia Manuel Photo and Frances
Manuel Morongo at the Mentone crossing of the
Santa Ana River, early 20th century.
Image Credit: Yuhaaviatam of the San Manuel Nation Image Credit: Yuhaaviatam of the San Manuel Nation Image Credit: Archives, A.K. Smiley Public Library
Image Credit: Archives, A.K. Smiley Public Library
Image Credit: The Ruth Bancroft Garden and Nursery
Staff Report
to the City Council
Agenda
Item
No.13.
Date: October 13, 2026
From: Carlos Zamano, City Manager
Reviewed By: Octavio Duran, Public Works Director/City Engineer Prepared By: Chastity Scott , Engineering Technician II Subject: Second Reading of Ordinance No. 486 - An Ordinance Of The City Council Of The City Of Highland, California Acting In Its Capacity As The Legislative Body of City Of Highland Community Facilities District No. PS 26-001 (Citywide Public Safety Services) Authorizing The Levy of a Special Tax Therein (Work Program, UP-)
Recommendation:
Conduct a second reading, read by title only, and waive further reading of Ordinance No. 486 entitled: "An Ordinance Of The City Council of the City Of Highland, California Acting in its Capacity as the Legislative Body of City of Highland Community Facilities District No. PS 26- 001 (Citywide Public Safety Services) Authorizing The Levy of a Special Tax Therein".
Fiscal Impact:
The individual property owners are responsible for the annual payments of special taxes. The City will work with the County concerning the filing of the annual special tax with the County Auditor-Controller.
Public Notice:
The agenda for this item was posted at the three locations per Resolution No. 2011-047 and on the City’s website.
Background:
On September 8, 2026, the City Council held a public hearing regarding the formation of Community Facilities District No. PS 26-001 (Citywide Public Safety Services), held a special election, established an appropriations limit and the annual levy of a special tax within the CFD, declared the results of the special election, and conducted a first reading of an Ordinance authorizing the levy of a special lien for CFD No. PS 26-001. No modifications were made to the Ordinance and, therefore, staff recommends the City Council adopt the Ordinance as submitted.
Attachments:
1. Ordinance Citywide Public Safety CFD
1 ORDINANCE 2026-___
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND, CALIFORNIA
ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF CITY OF HIGHLAND COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. PS 26-001 (CITYWIDE PUBLIC SAFETY
SERVICES) AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX THEREIN WHEREAS, the City Council has previously adopted Resolution No. 2026-049 entitled “A Resolution of Intention of the City Council of the City of Highland, California, to Establish City of Highland Community Facilities District No. PS 26-001 (Citywide Public Safety Services), to Authorize the Levy of a Special Tax within Such District to Fund Certain Services, and to Designate a Future Annexation Area, Making a Determination Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, and Taking Related Actions (the “Resolution of Intention”), stating its intention to conduct proceedings to form City of Highland Community Facilities District No. PS 26-001 (Citywide Public Safety Services) (the “CFD”) pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended, commencing with Section 53311 of the California Government Code (the “Act”) and to levy a special tax within the CFD (the “Special Tax”) to finance certain services (the “Services”) including incidental expenses, to serve the CFD; and
WHEREAS, the Resolution of Intention set September 8, 2026, at 6:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as practical, as the date and time of a public hearing on all matters pertaining to the formation of the CFD, the extent of the CFD, the designation of the Future Annexation Area, the furnishing of Services to serve the CFD, the Special Tax, and the proposed rate and method of apportionment of the special tax among real property in within the CFD (the “Rate and Method”); and
WHEREAS, a notice of public hearing was published and mailed to all landowners proposed to be included in the CFD in accordance with the Act; and WHEREAS, at the public hearing, evidence was presented to the City Council on such matters before it, including a report (the “Report”) describing the Services necessary to adequately meet the needs of the CFD and the estimated costs of financing such Services as required by Section 53321.5 of the Act; and
WHEREAS, at the public hearing, all persons desiring to be heard on all matters pertaining to the formation of the CFD, the extent of the CFD, the designation of the Future Annexation Area, the furnishing of Services to serve the CFD, the Special Tax, and the Rate and Method were heard and a full and fair hearing was held; and WHEREAS, subsequent to the public hearing, the City Council adopted a resolution entitled “ A Resolution of Formation of the City Council of the City of Highland, California, to Establish City of Highland Community Facilities District No. PS 26-001 (Citywide Public Safety Services), to Establish an Appropriations Limit Therefor, to Authorize the Levy of a Special Tax Therein, to Authorize the Submittal of the Levy of Special Tax and the Establishment of an Appropriations Limit, to the Qualified Electors of such Community 2 Facilities District, to Provide for the Annexation of Territory to Such Community Facilities District in the Future, to Make Environmental Findings Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, and to Authorize Certain Actions Related Thereto” (the “Resolution of Formation”) which established the CFD and authorized the levy of a special tax within the CFD subject to the approval of the eligible voters in the CFD; and WHEREAS, subsequent to the public hearing, the City Council also adopted a resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Highland, California, Calling a Special Election and Submitting to the Qualified Electors of City of Highland Community Facilities District No. PS 26-001 (Citywide Public Safety Services) Propositions Regarding the Establishment of an Appropriations Limit and the Annual Levy of a Special Tax Within the Community Facilities District” (the “Resolution Calling Election”) which called a special election of the qualified electors within the CFD; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms of the Resolution Calling Election, an election was held in which qualified electors of the CFD approved the establishment of an appropriations limit for the CFD and the levy of the Special Tax within the CFD; and WHEREAS, on September 8, 2026, the City Council adopted a resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Highland, California, Declaring the Results of a Special Election in the City of Highland Community Facilities District No. PS 26-001 (Citywide Public Safety Services) and Directing the Recording of a Notice of Special Tax Lien” (the “Resolution Declaring Results of Election”) which certified the results of the September 8, 2026 special election conducted by the City Clerk, which results showed that more than two-thirds of the votes cast in the CFD were in favor of the proposition to levy the Special Tax and the proposition to establish an appropriations limit for the CFD;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Recitals. The above recitals are all true and correct and are a substantive part of this Ordinance.
Section 2. Authorization of the Levy of a Special Tax. By the passage of this Ordinance, the City Council authorizes the levy of the Special Tax in the CFD pursuant to the Act and at the rates and in accordance with the Rate and Method set forth in the Exhibit “C” to the Resolution of Formation, which is on file in the office of the City Clerk and incorporated by reference herein.
Section 3. Annual Rate Determination. The City Council is hereby further authorized to determine on or before August 10 each year, or such other date as is established by law or by the County Auditor-Controller of the County of San Bernardino, the specific Special Tax to be levied on each parcel of land in the CFD, except that Special Tax to be levied shall not exceed the maximum rates set forth in the Rate and Method, but the Special Tax may be levied at a lower rate.
Section 4. Exempt Property. Exemptions from the levy of the Special Tax shall be as provided for in the Resolution of Formation and the Act. Reference is hereby made to the Rate and Method for a description of properties or entities that are expressly exempted 3 from the levy of the Special Tax.
Section 5. Use of Collections. All of the collections of the Special Tax shall be used only as provided by the Act and in the Resolution of Formation. The Special Tax shall be levied only so long as needed for the purposes as described in the Resolution of Formation.
Section 6. Collection. The Special tax shall be collected in the same manner as ordinary ad valorem taxes and shall be subject to the same penalties and the same procedure, sale and lien in any case of delinquency as applicable for ad valorem property taxes; provided, however, that the Special Tax may be collected by direct billing by the City of the property owners in the CFD or in such other manner as may be provided by the City Council. In addition, the provisions of Section 53356.1 of the Act shall apply to any delinquent Special Tax payments.
Section 7. Authorization. The specific authorization for adoption of the Ordinance is Section 53340 of the Act.
Section 8. Severability. If for any reason any portion of the Ordinance is found to be invalid, or if the Special Tax is found inapplicable for any particular parcel within the CFD, by a court of competent jurisdiction, the balance of this Ordinance, and the application of the Special Tax to the remaining parcels within the CFD shall not be affected.
Section 9. Certification. The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause it to be published or posted in accordance with law.
Section 10. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect at 12:01 a.m. on the thirtyfirst (31st) day after the date of its final adoption.
INTRODUCED at the regular meeting of Highland City Council on September 8, 2026.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ___ day of _____, 2026. __________________________
Jimmy Saldana
Mayor Pro Tem
ATTEST:
___________________________
Alondra Muñoz, CMC
City Clerk
4 Staff Report
to the City Council
Agenda
Item
No.14.
Date: October 13, 2026
From: Carlos Zamano, City Manager
Reviewed By: Lawrence Mainez, Community Development Director Kim Stater, Assistant Community Development Director
Prepared By: Tiffany Martinez, Assistant Planner
Subject: Selection of an Event Date and Budget for the 29th Annual Citrus Harvest Festival
Recommendation:
The Historic and Cultural Preservation Board recommends the City Council:
1. Select March 27, 2027, as the event date for the Citrus Harvest Festival with a rain date of April 3, 2027; and
2. Adopt the Budget.
Fiscal Impact:
The Festival Account has a balance of -$502.49. Separately, the Home Tour Account has a balance of $1,661.19. All expenses from the prior year have been paid and these funds are available to utilize. Attached is the proposed Budget for the 2027 Citrus Harvest Festival.
Expenses are estimated to be $18,700 while expected revenues are $19,855.
The Budget does not reflect a rain date contingency or staff’s time. Costs associated with a rain date are approximately $10,000 for re-advertising, vendor cancellations and modifications to entertainment and paid demonstrators. Traditionally, staff time is not charged to the CHF fund. Planning, Public Works and Finance Departments spend many hours on the event.
Personnel costs are estimated at $32,000.
Public Notice:
The agenda for this item was posted at the three locations per Resolution No. 2011-047 and on the City’s website.
Background:
Project Review: Consistent with the traditional citrus harvesting seasons, the Board recommends the Festival be held on March 27, 2027, with a rain date the following week, April 3, 2027.
Attachments:
1. Budget for 2027 Citrus Harvest Festival
1 Attachment 1:
Budget for 2027 Citrus Harvest Festival
2 Item/Description 2026 Budget 2027 Budget
Advertising - EVWD newsletter ($3,500 In Kind) 0 0
Advertising - Redlands Daily Facts / SB Sun $1,250.00 $1,250.00 Advertising - East Highlands Ranch Newsletter $700.00 $700.00 Facebook/Instagram Meta Ads Manager $1,000.00 $600.00
Historic Demonstrators/Exhibitors (6 x $200 ea) (2 x $300 WAPA/ Heritage Hills) $1,750.00 $1,800.00 Entertainment DJ & MC $1,700.00 $1,700.00
Citrus Valley Music Boosters & Beattie Middle School $500.00 $500.00 Balloons street decorations $1,250.00 $1,250.00
Insurance $1,800.00 $1,800.00
Hanging Banner - West end of town (new) $250.00 $250.00 Street Banner over Base Line (replacement banner & pole boards) ($1,000 In Kind) $1,200.00 $1,200.00 Portable toilets - add wash stations to all 4 locations for 2026 CHF $2,000.00 $2,000.00 Posters Boards, Flyers, print marketing materials $300.00 $300.00 Mobile Stage (rental) $1,420.00 $1,550.00
Paper materials, copying, postage $250.00 $250.00
Tables w/ umbrella & chairs for food court & stage area $900.00 $900.00 Signs for parking & festival activities $0.00 $0.00
Contest ribbons (126) (1 Honorees + 2 Home Restoration ) $550.00 $550.00 Kid’s activities- YMCA $400.00 $700.00
Miscellaneous supplies $500.00 $400.00
Contest materials $300.00 $300.00
Car show dash plaques $700.00 $700.00
TOTAL $ 18,720.00 $ 18,700.00
Festival Revenue Projected Received
Sponsorship 12000.00 $12,150.00
Vendor Booth spaces 3500.00 $4,455.00
Food vendor booth spaces 3500.00 $3,250.00
TOTAL $ 19,000.00 $19,855.00
2027 CHF BUDGET
3 Staff Report
to the City Council
Agenda
Item
No.15.
Date: October 13, 2026
From: Carlos Zamano, City Manager
Reviewed By: Octavio Duran, Public Works Director/City Engineer Prepared By: Jim Richardson, Public Works Manager
Subject: Authorization for Fuel Purchase
Recommendation:
1. Approve payment to Diesel Direct West for fuel purchased in the amount of $104,823.17; and
2. Authorize the purchase and payment of future invoices for fuel from Diesel Direct West through February 2027.
Fiscal Impact:
The purchase of fuel is included in the Adopted Budget for Fiscal Year 2026/27 and provides sufficient funding for payment of outstanding fuel invoices and future invoices. The authorization would cover the payment of outstanding fuel invoices accrued from June 1, 2026 to September 14, 2026.
Public Notice:
The agenda for this item was posted at the three locations per Resolution No. 2011-047 and on the City’s website.
Background:
The City requires a reliable and cost-effective source for the purchase and delivery of fuel to support the daily operations of its municipal fleet and equipment. These fuels are essential for the continued operation of public safety vehicles, public works vehicles and equipment, and other City-owned assets. Any interruption in fuel deliveries will significantly impact the City's ability to provide these services.
The City of Highland has been purchasing its fuel from Flyers Energy, LLC since 2015 and has been processing monthly payments for fuel received. The company was recently purchased by Diesel Direct West who partners with FuelLoc to provide back office support for billing, collections, and accounts payable. The transition took place on June 1, 2026 and the City received the same level of service with no noticeable difference. However, the new company stopped invoicing during the transition. As a result, outstanding fuel invoices have accumulated for fuel delivered and used by the City. On September 21, 2026, Fuelloc provided all outstanding invoices for the period of June 2026 through September 2026 in the amount of 1 $104,823.17. The City's purchasing policy has evolved since the City started purchasing fuel from Flyers and a new agreement will be required moving forward to meet our current policy.
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize this request for payment of outstanding fuel invoices through September 2026. The purchase of fuel is essential to municipal operations and staff is recommending Council approve payments through February 2027 to ensure the service continues uninterrupted while a new agreement is brought forward for consideration.
The average monthly cost of fuel is $26,000 and is within the approved budget for the current fiscal year. During this time, staff will evaluate alternative solutions that meet the City's current purchasing policy and bring back an agreement for consideration. Though the request is through February, staff will be working diligently to bring an agreement sooner.
Attachments:
1. Fuel Invoices
2 Summary of Outstanding Invoices
Customer Name Document Number Document Type Document Date Due Date Current Trx Amount Highland City Of Police 87409024 Sales / Invoices 6/3/2026 7/3/2026 $8,199.01 Highland City Of Police 87330714 Sales / Invoices 6/10/2026 7/10/2026 $5,977.36 Highland City Of Police 87346623 Sales / Invoices 6/23/2026 7/23/2026 $100.54 Highland City Of Police 87355037 Sales / Invoices 6/23/2026 7/23/2026 $11,105.75 June $25,382.66 Highland City Of Police 87379773 Sales / Invoices 7/6/2026 8/5/2026 $3,545.30 Highland City Of Police 87379774 Sales / Invoices 7/6/2026 8/5/2026 $9,121.38 Highland City Of Police 87414498 Sales / Invoices 7/20/2026 8/19/2026 $2,901.00 Highland City Of Police 87475196 Sales / Invoices 7/20/2026 8/19/2026 $12,515.49 Highland City Of Police 87434988 Sales / Invoices 7/28/2026 8/27/2026 $3,849.26 Highland City Of Police 87434989 Sales / Invoices 7/28/2026 8/27/2026 $5,900.65 July $37,833.08 Highland City Of Police 87471814 Sales / Invoices 8/11/2026 9/10/2026 $3,212.18 Highland City Of Police 87475299 Sales / Invoices 8/11/2026 9/10/2026 $8,741.71 Highland City Of Police 87496846 Sales / Invoices 8/20/2026 9/19/2026 $2,604.96 Highland City Of Police 87496847 Sales / Invoices 8/20/2026 9/19/2026 $7,663.06 August $22,221.91 Highland City Of Police 87532558 Sales / Invoices 9/2/2026 10/2/2026 $8,931.96 Highland City Of Police 87561214 Sales / Invoices 9/14/2026 10/14/2026 $4,960.96 Highland City Of Police 87561215 Sales / Invoices 9/14/2026 10/14/2026 $5,492.60 September $19,385.52 Total Owed $104,823.17
3 INVOICE
DIESEL DIRECT WEST Send PO requests to [email protected] Supply.Delivery.Management
3861 Duck Creek Drive
Stockton, CA 95215
916-857-1000
Remit to: DIESEL DIRECT WEST
PO Box 515634
Los Angeles, CA 90051-4504
Account number 63883
Invoice date 6/3/2026
Invoice Number 87409024
Invoice Terms Net 30 - CHECK PAY
Due Date 7/3/2026
Amount Due $8,199.01
Highland City Of Police
Attn: Leticia Tish Navacruz Dir
County Of San Bernardino 27215 Baseline
Highland, CA 92346
DELIVERED TO:
Highland City of Police - GAS
26985 Baseline
Highland, CA 92346
Territory: San Diego PDC
Product Delivered Quantity Unit Price Extended Price
Ticket: 4516110 Delivery Date: 06/03/26
Gasoline UNL 1,700.5 3.9000 $6,631.95
Regulatory Comp Fee Bobtail 1.0 10.9500 $10.95
$6,631.95
Gallons: 1,700.5
Products Total: $6,631.95
Shipping / Freight Total: $10.95
Header Freight Surcharge: $0.00
Tax Total: $1,556.11
Total Due: $8,199.01
Thank you for your business. Payment is due within agreed to payment terms. Please be aware that we may charge 1.5% interest per month on late invoices.
Tax FEIN: 330270638
Tax Details
Fed Tax $320.18
Road Tax $1,040.71
AB32 Fee $3.93
Sales Tax $191.29
1 of 1
4 INVOICE
DIESEL DIRECT WEST Send PO requests to [email protected] Supply.Delivery.Management
3861 Duck Creek Drive
Stockton, CA 95215
916-857-1000
Remit to: DIESEL DIRECT WEST
PO Box 515634
Los Angeles, CA 90051-4504
Account number 63883
Invoice date 6/10/2026
Invoice Number 87330714
Invoice Terms Net 30 - CHECK PAY
Due Date 7/10/2026
Amount Due $5,977.36
Highland City Of Police
Attn: Leticia Tish Navacruz Dir
County Of San Bernardino 27215 Baseline
Highland, CA 92346
DELIVERED TO:
Highland City of Police - Highland CA - ON
26985 Baseline
Highland, CA 92346
Territory: BloomingtonPDC
Product Delivered Quantity Unit Price Extended Price
Ticket: 112502 Delivery Date: 06/10/26
ULSD Clear 1,000.3 4.6075 $4,608.88
*Diesel fuel, combustible liquid, 3, NA1993, P.G. III. This diesel fuel does not contain visible evidence of dye. California diesel fuel. Maximum 15ppm sulfur.
**Diesel fuel, combustible liquid, 3, NA1993, P.G. III. This product is dyed diesel fuel nontaxable use only. Penalty for taxable use. This fuel meets EPA requirements for sulfur cetane, index or aromatic content. Calif diesel fuel. Maximum 15 ppm sulfur. $4,608.88
Gallons: 1,000.3
Products Total: $4,608.88
Shipping / Freight Total: $0.00
Header Freight Surcharge: $0.00
Tax Total: $1,368.48
Total Due: $5,977.36
Thank you for your business. Payment is due within agreed to payment terms. Please be aware that we may charge 1.5% interest per month on late invoices.
Tax FEIN: 330270638
Tax Details
Fed Tax $244.07
Road Tax $466.14
AB32 Fee $2.75
Sales Tax $655.52
1 of 1
5 INVOICE
DIESEL DIRECT WEST Send PO requests to [email protected] Supply.Delivery.Management
3861 Duck Creek Drive
Stockton, CA 95215
916-857-1000
Remit to: DIESEL DIRECT WEST
PO Box 515634
Los Angeles, CA 90051-4504
Account number 63883
Invoice date 6/23/2026
Invoice Number 87346623
Invoice Terms Net 30 - CHECK PAY
Due Date 7/23/2026
Amount Due $100.54
Highland City Of Police
Attn: Leticia Tish Navacruz Dir
County Of San Bernardino 27215 Baseline
Highland, CA 92346
DELIVERED TO:
Highland City of Police - Highland CA - ON
26985 Baseline
Highland, CA 92346
Territory: BloomingtonPDC
Product Delivered Quantity Unit Price Extended Price
Ticket: 72421 Delivery Date: 06/23/26
Clear Renewable Diesel 0.1 4.1095 $0.41
Minimum 50 Gallon - Flat Rate 1.0 100.0000 $100.00
*Diesel fuel, combustible liquid, 3, NA1993, P.G. III. This diesel fuel does not contain visible evidence of dye. California diesel fuel. Maximum 15ppm sulfur.
$0.41
Gallons: 0.1
Products Total: $0.41
Shipping / Freight Total: $100.00
Header Freight Surcharge: $0.00
Tax Total: $0.13
Total Due: $100.54
Thank you for your business. Payment is due within agreed to payment terms. Please be aware that we may charge 1.5% interest per month on late invoices.
Tax FEIN: 330270638
Tax Details
Fed Tax $0.02
Road Tax $0.05
AB32 Fee $0.00
Sales Tax $0.06
1 of 1
6 INVOICE
DIESEL DIRECT WEST Send PO requests to [email protected] Supply.Delivery.Management
3861 Duck Creek Drive
Stockton, CA 95215
916-857-1000
Remit to: DIESEL DIRECT WEST
PO Box 515634
Los Angeles, CA 90051-4504
Account number 63883
Invoice date 6/23/2026
Invoice Number 87355037
Invoice Terms Net 30 - CHECK PAY
Due Date 7/23/2026
Amount Due $11,105.75
Highland City Of Police
Attn: Leticia Tish Navacruz Dir
County Of San Bernardino 27215 Baseline
Highland, CA 92346
DELIVERED TO:
Highland City of Police - GAS
26985 Baseline
Highland, CA 92346
Territory: BloomingtonPDC
Product Delivered Quantity Unit Price Extended Price
Ticket: 84157 Delivery Date: 06/23/26
Gasoline UNL 2,440.9 3.6375 $8,878.77
Regulatory Comp Fee Bobtail 1.0 10.9500 $10.95
$8,878.77
Gallons: 2,440.9
Products Total: $8,878.77
Shipping / Freight Total: $10.95
Header Freight Surcharge: $0.00
Tax Total: $2,216.03
Total Due: $11,105.75
Thank you for your business. Payment is due within agreed to payment terms. Please be aware that we may charge 1.5% interest per month on late invoices.
Tax FEIN: 330270638
Tax Details
Fed Tax $459.59
Road Tax $1,493.83
AB32 Fee $5.65
Sales Tax $256.96
1 of 1
7 INVOICE
DIESEL DIRECT WEST Send PO requests to [email protected] Supply.Delivery.Management
3861 Duck Creek Drive
Stockton, CA 95215
916-857-1000
Remit to: DIESEL DIRECT WEST
PO Box 515634
Los Angeles, CA 90051-4504
Account number 63883
Invoice date 7/6/2026
Invoice Number 87379773
Invoice Terms Net 30 - CHECK PAY
Due Date 8/5/2026
Amount Due $3,545.30
Highland City Of Police
Attn: Leticia Tish Navacruz Dir
County Of San Bernardino 27215 Baseline
Highland, CA 92346
DELIVERED TO:
Highland City of Police - Highland CA - ON
26985 Baseline
Highland, CA 92346
Territory: BloomingtonPDC
Product Delivered Quantity Unit Price Extended Price
Ticket: 121124 Delivery Date: 07/06/26
ULSD Clear 650.9 4.1275 $2,686.59
*Diesel fuel, combustible liquid, 3, NA1993, P.G. III. This diesel fuel does not contain visible evidence of dye. California diesel fuel. Maximum 15ppm sulfur.
**Diesel fuel, combustible liquid, 3, NA1993, P.G. III. This product is dyed diesel fuel nontaxable use only. Penalty for taxable use. This fuel meets EPA requirements for sulfur cetane, index or aromatic content. Calif diesel fuel. Maximum 15 ppm sulfur. $2,686.59
Gallons: 650.9
Products Total: $2,686.59
Shipping / Freight Total: $0.00
Header Freight Surcharge: $0.00
Tax Total: $858.71
Total Due: $3,545.30
Thank you for your business. Payment is due within agreed to payment terms. Please be aware that we may charge 1.5% interest per month on late invoices.
Tax FEIN: 330270638
Tax Details
Fed Tax $158.82
Road Tax $313.73
AB32 Fee $1.79
Sales Tax $384.37
1 of 1
8 INVOICE
DIESEL DIRECT WEST Send PO requests to [email protected] Supply.Delivery.Management
3861 Duck Creek Drive
Stockton, CA 95215
916-857-1000
Remit to: DIESEL DIRECT WEST
PO Box 515634
Los Angeles, CA 90051-4504
Account number 63883
Invoice date 7/6/2026
Invoice Number 87379774
Invoice Terms Net 30 - CHECK PAY
Due Date 8/5/2026
Amount Due $9,121.38
Highland City Of Police
Attn: Leticia Tish Navacruz Dir
County Of San Bernardino 27215 Baseline
Highland, CA 92346
DELIVERED TO:
Highland City of Police - GAS
26985 Baseline
Highland, CA 92346
Territory: BloomingtonPDC
Product Delivered Quantity Unit Price Extended Price
Ticket: 112530 Delivery Date: 07/06/26
Gasoline UNL 1,990.2 3.6475 $7,259.25
Regulatory Comp Fee Bobtail 1.0 10.9500 $10.95
$7,259.25
Gallons: 1,990.2
Products Total: $7,259.25
Shipping / Freight Total: $10.95
Header Freight Surcharge: $0.00
Tax Total: $1,851.18
Total Due: $9,121.38
Thank you for your business. Payment is due within agreed to payment terms. Please be aware that we may charge 1.5% interest per month on late invoices.
Tax FEIN: 330270638
Tax Details
Fed Tax $374.73
Road Tax $1,261.79
AB32 Fee $4.60
Sales Tax $210.06
1 of 1
9 INVOICE
DIESEL DIRECT WEST Send PO requests to [email protected] Supply.Delivery.Management
3861 Duck Creek Drive
Stockton, CA 95215
916-857-1000
Remit to: DIESEL DIRECT WEST
PO Box 515634
Los Angeles, CA 90051-4504
Account number 63883
Invoice date 7/20/2026
Invoice Number 87414498
Invoice Terms Net 30 - CHECK PAY
Due Date 8/19/2026
Amount Due $2,901.00
Highland City Of Police
Attn: Leticia Tish Navacruz Dir
County Of San Bernardino 27215 Baseline
Highland, CA 92346
DELIVERED TO:
Highland City of Police - Highland CA - ON
26985 Baseline
Highland, CA 92346
Territory: Hesperia PDC
Product Delivered Quantity Unit Price Extended Price
Ticket: 85 Delivery Date: 07/20/26
ULSD Clear 460.0 4.8850 $2,247.10
*Diesel fuel, combustible liquid, 3, NA1993, P.G. III. This diesel fuel does not contain visible evidence of dye. California diesel fuel. Maximum 15ppm sulfur.
**Diesel fuel, combustible liquid, 3, NA1993, P.G. III. This product is dyed diesel fuel nontaxable use only. Penalty for taxable use. This fuel meets EPA requirements for sulfur cetane, index or aromatic content. Calif diesel fuel. Maximum 15 ppm sulfur. $2,247.10
Gallons: 460.0
Products Total: $2,247.10
Shipping / Freight Total: $0.00
Header Freight Surcharge: $0.00
Tax Total: $653.90
Total Due: $2,901.00
Thank you for your business. Payment is due within agreed to payment terms. Please be aware that we may charge 1.5% interest per month on late invoices.
Tax FEIN: 330270638
Tax Details
Fed Tax $112.24
Road Tax $221.72
AB32 Fee $1.26
Sales Tax $318.68
1 of 1
10 INVOICE
DIESEL DIRECT WEST Send PO requests to [email protected] Supply.Delivery.Management
3861 Duck Creek Drive
Stockton, CA 95215
916-857-1000
Remit to: DIESEL DIRECT WEST
PO Box 515634
Los Angeles, CA 90051-4504
Account number 63883
Invoice date 7/20/2026
Invoice Number 87475196
Invoice Terms Net 30 - CHECK PAY
Due Date 8/19/2026
Amount Due $12,515.49
Highland City Of Police
Attn: Leticia Tish Navacruz Dir
County Of San Bernardino 27215 Baseline
Highland, CA 92346
DELIVERED TO:
Highland City of Police - GAS
26985 Baseline
Highland, CA 92346
Territory: Hesperia PDC
Product Delivered Quantity Unit Price Extended Price
Ticket: 41 Delivery Date: 07/20/26
Gasoline UNL 2,510.7 4.0400 $10,143.23
Regulatory Comp Fee Bobtail 1.0 10.9500 $10.95
$10,143.23
Gallons: 2,510.7
Products Total: $10,143.23
Shipping / Freight Total: $10.95
Header Freight Surcharge: $0.00
Tax Total: $2,361.31
Total Due: $12,515.49
Thank you for your business. Payment is due within agreed to payment terms. Please be aware that we may charge 1.5% interest per month on late invoices.
Tax FEIN: 330270638
Tax Details
Fed Tax $471.65
Road Tax $1,591.78
AB32 Fee $5.81
Sales Tax $292.07
1 of 1
11 INVOICE
DIESEL DIRECT WEST Send PO requests to [email protected] Supply.Delivery.Management
3861 Duck Creek Drive
Stockton, CA 95215
916-857-1000
Remit to: DIESEL DIRECT WEST
PO Box 515634
Los Angeles, CA 90051-4504
Account number 63883
Invoice date 7/28/2026
Invoice Number 87434988
Invoice Terms Net 30 - CHECK PAY
Due Date 8/27/2026
Amount Due $3,849.26
Highland City Of Police
Attn: Leticia Tish Navacruz Dir
County Of San Bernardino 27215 Baseline
Highland, CA 92346
DELIVERED TO:
Highland City of Police - Highland CA - ON
26985 Baseline
Highland, CA 92346
Territory: BloomingtonPDC
Product Delivered Quantity Unit Price Extended Price
Ticket: 71002 Delivery Date: 07/28/26
ULSD Clear 600.1 4.9800 $2,988.50
*Diesel fuel, combustible liquid, 3, NA1993, P.G. III. This diesel fuel does not contain visible evidence of dye. California diesel fuel. Maximum 15ppm sulfur.
**Diesel fuel, combustible liquid, 3, NA1993, P.G. III. This product is dyed diesel fuel nontaxable use only. Penalty for taxable use. This fuel meets EPA requirements for sulfur cetane, index or aromatic content. Calif diesel fuel. Maximum 15 ppm sulfur. $2,988.50
Gallons: 600.1
Products Total: $2,988.50
Shipping / Freight Total: $0.00
Header Freight Surcharge: $0.00
Tax Total: $860.76
Total Due: $3,849.26
Thank you for your business. Payment is due within agreed to payment terms. Please be aware that we may charge 1.5% interest per month on late invoices.
Tax FEIN: 330270638
Tax Details
Fed Tax $146.42
Road Tax $289.25
AB32 Fee $1.65
Sales Tax $423.44
1 of 1
12 INVOICE
DIESEL DIRECT WEST Send PO requests to [email protected] Supply.Delivery.Management
3861 Duck Creek Drive
Stockton, CA 95215
916-857-1000
Remit to: DIESEL DIRECT WEST
PO Box 515634
Los Angeles, CA 90051-4504
Account number 63883
Invoice date 7/28/2026
Invoice Number 87434989
Invoice Terms Net 30 - CHECK PAY
Due Date 8/27/2026
Amount Due $5,900.65
Highland City Of Police
Attn: Leticia Tish Navacruz Dir
County Of San Bernardino 27215 Baseline
Highland, CA 92346
DELIVERED TO:
Highland City of Police - GAS
26985 Baseline
Highland, CA 92346
Territory: BloomingtonPDC
Product Delivered Quantity Unit Price Extended Price
Ticket: 1897 Delivery Date: 07/28/26
Gasoline UNL 1,200.4 3.9675 $4,762.59
Regulatory Comp Fee Bobtail 1.0 10.9500 $10.95
$4,762.59
Gallons: 1,200.4
Products Total: $4,762.59
Shipping / Freight Total: $10.95
Header Freight Surcharge: $0.00
Tax Total: $1,127.11
Total Due: $5,900.65
Thank you for your business. Payment is due within agreed to payment terms. Please be aware that we may charge 1.5% interest per month on late invoices.
Tax FEIN: 330270638
Tax Details
Fed Tax $226.02
Road Tax $761.05
AB32 Fee $2.78
Sales Tax $137.26
1 of 1
13 INVOICE
DIESEL DIRECT WEST Send PO requests to [email protected] Supply.Delivery.Management
3861 Duck Creek Drive
Stockton, CA 95215
916-857-1000
Remit to: DIESEL DIRECT WEST
PO Box 515634
Los Angeles, CA 90051-4504
Account number 63883
Invoice date 8/11/2026
Invoice Number 87471814
Invoice Terms Net 30 - CHECK PAY
Due Date 9/10/2026
Amount Due $3,212.18
Highland City Of Police
Attn: Leticia Tish Navacruz Dir
County Of San Bernardino 27215 Baseline
Highland, CA 92346
DELIVERED TO:
Highland City of Police - Highland CA - ON
26985 Baseline
Highland, CA 92346
Territory: Hesperia PDC
Product Delivered Quantity Unit Price Extended Price
Ticket: 125 Delivery Date: 08/11/26
Clear Renewable Diesel 475.0 5.2895 $2,512.50
*Diesel fuel, combustible liquid, 3, NA1993, P.G. III. This diesel fuel does not contain visible evidence of dye. California diesel fuel. Maximum 15ppm sulfur.
$2,512.50
Gallons: 475.0
Products Total: $2,512.50
Shipping / Freight Total: $0.00
Header Freight Surcharge: $0.00
Tax Total: $699.68
Total Due: $3,212.18
Thank you for your business. Payment is due within agreed to payment terms. Please be aware that we may charge 1.5% interest per month on late invoices.
Tax FEIN: 330270638
Tax Details
Fed Tax $115.90
Road Tax $228.95
AB32 Fee $0.00
Sales Tax $354.83
1 of 1
14 INVOICE
DIESEL DIRECT WEST Send PO requests to [email protected] Supply.Delivery.Management
3861 Duck Creek Drive
Stockton, CA 95215
916-857-1000
Remit to: DIESEL DIRECT WEST
PO Box 515634
Los Angeles, CA 90051-4504
Account number 63883
Invoice date 8/11/2026
Invoice Number 87475299
Invoice Terms Net 30 - CHECK PAY
Due Date 9/10/2026
Amount Due $8,741.71
Highland City Of Police
Attn: Leticia Tish Navacruz Dir
County Of San Bernardino 27215 Baseline
Highland, CA 92346
DELIVERED TO:
Highland City of Police - GAS
26985 Baseline
Highland, CA 92346
Territory: Hesperia PDC
Product Delivered Quantity Unit Price Extended Price
Ticket: 63 Delivery Date: 08/11/26
Gasoline UNL 1,801.3 3.9100 $7,043.08
Regulatory Comp Fee Bobtail 1.0 10.9500 $10.95
$7,043.08
Gallons: 1,801.3
Products Total: $7,043.08
Shipping / Freight Total: $10.95
Header Freight Surcharge: $0.00
Tax Total: $1,687.68
Total Due: $8,741.71
Thank you for your business. Payment is due within agreed to payment terms. Please be aware that we may charge 1.5% interest per month on late invoices.
Tax FEIN: 330270638
Tax Details
Fed Tax $338.39
Road Tax $1,142.02
AB32 Fee $4.17
Sales Tax $203.10
1 of 1
15 INVOICE
DIESEL DIRECT WEST Send PO requests to [email protected] Supply.Delivery.Management
3861 Duck Creek Drive
Stockton, CA 95215
916-857-1000
Remit to: DIESEL DIRECT WEST
PO Box 515634
Los Angeles, CA 90051-4504
Account number 63883
Invoice date 8/20/2026
Invoice Number 87496847
Invoice Terms Net 30 - CHECK PAY
Due Date 9/19/2026
Amount Due $7,663.06
Highland City Of Police
Attn: Leticia Tish Navacruz Dir
County Of San Bernardino 27215 Baseline
Highland, CA 92346
DELIVERED TO:
Highland City of Police - GAS
26985 Baseline
Highland, CA 92346
Territory: BloomingtonPDC
Product Delivered Quantity Unit Price Extended Price
Ticket: 81627 Delivery Date: 08/20/26
Gasoline UNL 1,562.2 3.9600 $6,186.31
Regulatory Comp Fee Bobtail 1.0 10.9500 $10.95
$6,186.31
Gallons: 1,562.2
Products Total: $6,186.31
Shipping / Freight Total: $10.95
Header Freight Surcharge: $0.00
Tax Total: $1,465.80
Total Due: $7,663.06
Thank you for your business. Payment is due within agreed to payment terms. Please be aware that we may charge 1.5% interest per month on late invoices.
Tax FEIN: 330270638
Tax Details
Fed Tax $293.47
Road Tax $990.43
AB32 Fee $3.61
Sales Tax $178.29
1 of 1
16 INVOICE
DIESEL DIRECT WEST Send PO requests to [email protected] Supply.Delivery.Management
3861 Duck Creek Drive
Stockton, CA 95215
916-857-1000
Remit to: DIESEL DIRECT WEST
PO Box 515634
Los Angeles, CA 90051-4504
Account number 63883
Invoice date 8/20/2026
Invoice Number 87496846
Invoice Terms Net 30 - CHECK PAY
Due Date 9/19/2026
Amount Due $2,604.96
Highland City Of Police
Attn: Leticia Tish Navacruz Dir
County Of San Bernardino 27215 Baseline
Highland, CA 92346
DELIVERED TO:
Highland City of Police - Highland CA - ON
26985 Baseline
Highland, CA 92346
Territory: BloomingtonPDC
Product Delivered Quantity Unit Price Extended Price
Ticket: 84802 Delivery Date: 08/20/26
ULSD Clear 375.7 5.4375 $2,042.87
*Diesel fuel, combustible liquid, 3, NA1993, P.G. III. This diesel fuel does not contain visible evidence of dye. California diesel fuel. Maximum 15ppm sulfur.
**Diesel fuel, combustible liquid, 3, NA1993, P.G. III. This product is dyed diesel fuel nontaxable use only. Penalty for taxable use. This fuel meets EPA requirements for sulfur cetane, index or aromatic content. Calif diesel fuel. Maximum 15 ppm sulfur. $2,042.87
Gallons: 375.7
Products Total: $2,042.87
Shipping / Freight Total: $0.00
Header Freight Surcharge: $0.00
Tax Total: $562.09
Total Due: $2,604.96
Thank you for your business. Payment is due within agreed to payment terms. Please be aware that we may charge 1.5% interest per month on late invoices.
Tax FEIN: 330270638
Tax Details
Fed Tax $91.67
Road Tax $181.09
AB32 Fee $1.03
Sales Tax $288.30
1 of 1
17 INVOICE
DIESEL DIRECT WEST Send PO requests to [email protected] Supply.Delivery.Management
3861 Duck Creek Drive
Stockton, CA 95215
916-857-1000
Remit to: DIESEL DIRECT WEST
PO Box 515634
Los Angeles, CA 90051-4504
Account number 63883
Invoice date 9/2/2026
Invoice Number 87532558
Invoice Terms Net 30 - CHECK PAY
Due Date 10/2/2026
Amount Due $8,931.96
Highland City Of Police
Attn: Leticia Tish Navacruz Dir
County Of San Bernardino 27215 Baseline
Highland, CA 92346
DELIVERED TO:
Highland City of Police - GAS
26985 Baseline
Highland, CA 92346
Territory: Hesperia PDC
Product Delivered Quantity Unit Price Extended Price
Ticket: 82 Delivery Date: 09/02/26
Gasoline UNL 1,700.0 4.3000 $7,310.00
Regulatory Comp Fee Bobtail 1.0 10.9500 $10.95
$7,310.00
Gallons: 1,700.0
Products Total: $7,310.00
Shipping / Freight Total: $10.95
Header Freight Surcharge: $0.00
Tax Total: $1,611.01
Total Due: $8,931.96
Thank you for your business. Payment is due within agreed to payment terms. Please be aware that we may charge 1.5% interest per month on late invoices.
Tax FEIN: 330270638
Tax Details
Fed Tax $319.36
Road Tax $1,077.80
AB32 Fee $3.93
Sales Tax $209.92
1 of 1
18 INVOICE
DIESEL DIRECT WEST Send PO requests to [email protected] Supply.Delivery.Management
3861 Duck Creek Drive
Stockton, CA 95215
916-857-1000
Remit to: DIESEL DIRECT WEST
PO Box 515634
Los Angeles, CA 90051-4504
Account number 63883
Invoice date 9/14/2026
Invoice Number 87561214
Invoice Terms Net 30 - CHECK PAY
Due Date 10/14/2026
Amount Due $4,960.96
Highland City Of Police
Attn: Leticia Tish Navacruz Dir
County Of San Bernardino 27215 Baseline
Highland, CA 92346
DELIVERED TO:
Highland City of Police - Highland CA - ON
26985 Baseline
Highland, CA 92346
Territory: Hesperia PDC
Product Delivered Quantity Unit Price Extended Price
Ticket: 203 Delivery Date: 09/14/26
ULSD Clear 627.1 6.2986 $3,949.85
*Diesel fuel, combustible liquid, 3, NA1993, P.G. III. This diesel fuel does not contain visible evidence of dye. California diesel fuel. Maximum 15ppm sulfur.
**Diesel fuel, combustible liquid, 3, NA1993, P.G. III. This product is dyed diesel fuel nontaxable use only. Penalty for taxable use. This fuel meets EPA requirements for sulfur cetane, index or aromatic content. Calif diesel fuel. Maximum 15 ppm sulfur. $3,949.85
Gallons: 627.1
Products Total: $3,949.85
Shipping / Freight Total: $0.00
Header Freight Surcharge: $0.00
Tax Total: $1,011.11
Total Due: $4,960.96
Thank you for your business. Payment is due within agreed to payment terms. Please be aware that we may charge 1.5% interest per month on late invoices.
Tax FEIN: 330270638
Tax Details
Fed Tax $153.01
Road Tax $302.26
AB32 Fee $1.72
Sales Tax $554.12
1 of 1
19 INVOICE
DIESEL DIRECT WEST Send PO requests to [email protected] Supply.Delivery.Management
3861 Duck Creek Drive
Stockton, CA 95215
916-857-1000
Remit to: DIESEL DIRECT WEST
PO Box 515634
Los Angeles, CA 90051-4504
Account number 63883
Invoice date 9/14/2026
Invoice Number 87561215
Invoice Terms Net 30 - CHECK PAY
Due Date 10/14/2026
Amount Due $5,492.60
Highland City Of Police
Attn: Leticia Tish Navacruz Dir
County Of San Bernardino 27215 Baseline
Highland, CA 92346
DELIVERED TO:
Highland City of Police - GAS
26985 Baseline
Highland, CA 92346
Territory: Hesperia PDC
Product Delivered Quantity Unit Price Extended Price
Ticket: 88 Delivery Date: 09/14/26
Gasoline UNL 1,021.1 4.4175 $4,510.71
Regulatory Comp Fee Bobtail 1.0 10.9500 $10.95
$4,510.71
Gallons: 1,021.1
Products Total: $4,510.71
Shipping / Freight Total: $10.95
Header Freight Surcharge: $0.00
Tax Total: $970.94
Total Due: $5,492.60
Thank you for your business. Payment is due within agreed to payment terms. Please be aware that we may charge 1.5% interest per month on late invoices.
Tax FEIN: 330270638
Tax Details
Fed Tax $191.82
Road Tax $647.38
AB32 Fee $2.36
Sales Tax $129.38
1 of 1
20 Staff Report
to the City Council
Agenda
Item
No.16.
Date: October 13, 2026
From: Carlos Zamano, City Manager
Reviewed By: Octavio Duran, Public Works Director/City Engineer Prepared By: Brian Wolfe, Assistant Public Works Director Subject: Development Impact Fee (DIF) Annual Adjustment for 2026 Recommendation:
The Finance/Personnel Subcommittee recommends approval of:
1. Resolution No. 2026- ____ ; A resolution of the City Council of the City of Highland, California, establishing a revised schedule of development impact fees, including fees for law enforcement facilities, fire suppression facilities, local circulation, regional circulation, flood control facilities, general facilities, library facilities, and park facilities, to adjust those fees by specified changes in inflation, and making findings, including findings of exemption pursuant to CEQA; and
2. Resolution No. 2026- ____ ; A resolution of the City Council of the City of Highland, California, establishing a revised schedule of fees applicable to residential new development on parkland acquisition and park facilities development pursuant to Section 16.40.200 of the Highland Municipal Code and the Quimby Act (Government Code Section 66477), and making findings, including findings of exemption pursuant to CEQA.
Fiscal Impact:
Development Impact Fees will increase depending on the selected option.
Public Notice:
The agenda for this item was posted at the three locations per Resolution No. 2011-047 and on the City’s website.
Background:
Development Impact Fee (DIF) Program
The City of Highland’s Development Impact Fees (DIF) Program includes fees by land use type for nine (9) public services and infrastructure categories that are impacted by new development within City limits. The previous DIF program adjustment and nexus report was approved by City Council on September 12, 2023, based on findings included in the 2023 DIF Update Report. These approved rates were effective as of April 1, 2024, and fees were intended to be updated annually. On July 20, 2026 and on September 1, 2026, the Finance/Personnel Subcommittee provided input on the proposed increase and the proposal 1 below addresses their comments.
Proposed DIF Increase
Pursuant to the methodology outlined in Resolution 2023-040, and input from the Finance/Personnel Subcommittee, the proposed DIF rate adjustments for infrastructure-related categories are based on the California Construction Cost Index (CCCI) published by the State of California Department of General Services. Adjustments for non-infrastructure related categories are based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. There are four DIF categories that have both infrastructure and noninfrastructure related components: Fire Suppression, General Facilities, Library, and Park Land & Park Facilities Development. For these categories, the nexus study project list was reviewed to determine the percentage of the fee attributed to infrastructure and non-infrastructure. The corresponding index increase was applied based on each and a weighted percentage increase was calculated. Attachment 1 provides the index used, or the weighted percentage increase based on the infrastructure/non-infrastructure ratio.
The CCCI for a two-year period between April 2024 and June 2026, increased by 7.31%. CPI is based on Fiscal Year (FY) and a calculation from June 2024 to June 2026 shows a CPI increase of 5.85%. At the request of the Subcommittee,the recommended increase applies half the CCCI and CPI increases, calculated at 3.65% and 2.92% (rounded down) to infrastructure and non-infrastructure costs, respectively.
The City's impact fees currently offer a lower fee for non-subdivided residential developments than for subdivided developments. This lower fee was a result of the nexus study, which determined that non-subdivided residential projects result in fewer municipal impacts on Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development.
Payment of DIF Deferred to Building Occupancy
In addition to the increase, staff is proposing the continuation of an existing rate lock extension policy. The City Council approved an exception in 2010 to allow development projects to pay DIFs at building occupancy, but lock in the rate at time of building permit application. The City Council has since extended this exception in each subsequent year as an incentive for new development activity. Based on input from the BIA, the Finance/Personnel Subcommittee is recommending a continuation of the exception to allow development projects to pay DIFs at building occupancy, but lock in the rate at time of grading permit application. This rate lock would be effective for a year and a project will have to submit a building permit application within a year to extend the rate lock. The resolutions were prepared with the recommended exception.
Public Notification
The BIA, developers and other interested parties were notified of the Finance/Personnel Subcommittee meeting and the City Council meeting 14 days in advance via electronic mailing. The general public was notified of the City Council meeting thru published public hearing notice, posted meeting agenda, and the City web site. City staff notified the Building Industry Association (BIA) of the proposed increase and were supportive of the proposed increase. Furthermore, the BIA requested the consideration of a rate lock at the time of grading permit application.
Attachments:
1. DIF Fee Calculations
2 2. 2026 Resolution Increasing DIF
3. 2026 Quimby Act Fee Increase Resolution
4. DIF Fees Handout 2026 Non Subdivided (Quimby Act)
3 Attachment 1
4 Proposed DIF Fee Calculations (Non-Subdivided)
From the California Construction Cost Index: Consumer Price Index:
April 2024 Index 9688 June 2024 Index 309.6
June 2026 Index 10396 June 2026 Index 327.7Percentage increase: 7.31% Percentage increase: 5.85%Percentage increase x 3.65% Percentage increase x 1/2: 2.93% CPI for Non-Infrastructure at 2.93%CCCI for Infrastructure Related Costs at 3.65% Non-Subdivided Detached Dwellings
Attached
Dwellings
Mobile Home
Commercial
Lodging
Commercial Office Industrial Index Used
Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment 90.18$ $ 142.01 $ 79.81 $ 60.12 $ 0.051 $ CCCI 0.003 Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment $ 807.01 $ 261.06 $ 947.90 $ 1,281.48 $ 0.012 $ 0.004 Infrastructure Share (CCCI) = 92%Non-Infrastructure Share (CPI) = 8%Weighted Percentage Increase=3.60% Local Circulation $ 2,916.82 $ 1,947.66 $ 1,518.53 $ 1,538.23 $ 2.724 $ CCCI 1.884 Regional Circulation $ 17,008.59 $ 11,356.33 $ 8,851.02 $ 8,969.18 $ 15.879 $ CCCI 10.986 Flood Control $ 2,785.18 $ 980.57 $ 1,670.90 $ 977.46 $ 1.048 $ CCCI 1.296 General Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment $ 3,596.87 $ 3,596.87 $ 3,596.87 $ 1,877.66 $ 1.999 $ 1.999 Infrastructure Share (CCCI) = 88%Non-Infrastructure Share (CPI) = 12%Weighted Percentage Increase=3.57% Library Facility and Collection $ 1,619.54 $ 1,475.51 $ 1,056.90 Infrastructure Share (CCCI) = 95%Non-Infrastructure Share (CPI) = 5%Weighted Percentage Increase=3.62% Public UsePark Land Acquisition & Facilities Development $ 3,658.51 $ 3,330.62 $ 2,386.25 Infrastructure Share (CCCI) = 70%Non-Infrastructure Share (CPI) = 30%Weighted Percentage Increase=3.44% Totals: $ 32,482.70 $ 23,090.63 $ 20,108.18 $ 14,704.13 $ 21.704 $ 16.172 Existing Subdivided 2023 DIF (Effective April '24) Proposed Subdivided 2026 DIF Detached Dwellings 31,349.00 $ per dwelling unit Detached Dwellings 32,482.70 $ per dwelling unit Attached Dwellings 22,287.00 $ per dwelling unit Attached Dwellings 23,090.63 $ per dwelling unit Mobile Home $ per dwelling unit 19,408.00 Mobile Home $ per dwelling unit 20,108.18 Commercial Lodging 14,188.00 $ per unit Commercial Lodging 14,704.13 $ per unit Commercial Office $ per square foot 20.949 Commercial Office 21.704 $ per square foot Industrial $ 15.605 per square foot Industrial $ 16.172 per square foot 5 Proposed DIF Fee Calculations (Subdivided)
From the California Construction Cost Index: Consumer Price Index:
April 2024 Index 9688 June '24 Index 309.6
June 2026 Index 10396 June '24 Index 327.7Percentage increase: 7.31% Percentage increase: 5.85%Percentage increase x 3.65% Percentage 2.93% CPI for Non-Infrastructure at 2.93%CCCI for Infrastructure Related Costs at 3.65% Subdivided Detached Dwellings
Attached
Dwellings
Mobile Home
Commercial
Lodging
Commercial Office Industrial Index Used
Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment $ 90.18 $ 142.01 $ 79.81 $ 60.12 $ 0.051 $ 0.003Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment $ 807.01 $ 261.06 $ 947.90 $ 1,281.48 $ 0.012 $ 0.004 Infrastructure Share (CCCI) = 92%Non-Infrastructure Share (CPI) = 8%Weighted Percentage Increase=3.60% Local Circulation $ 2,916.82 $ 1,947.66 $ 1,518.53 $ 1,538.23 $ 2.724 $ CCCI 1.884 Regional Circulation $ 17,008.59 $ 11,356.33 $ 8,851.02 $ 8,969.18 $ 15.879 $ CCCI 10.986 Flood Control $ 2,785.18 $ 980.57 $ 1,670.90 $ 977.46 $ 1.048 $ CCCI 1.296 General Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment $ 3,596.87 $ 3,596.87 $ 3,596.87 $ 1,877.66 $ 1.999 $ 1.999 Infrastructure Share (CCCI) = 88%Non-Infrastructure Share (CPI) = 12%Weighted Percentage Increase=3.57% Library Facility and Collection $ 1,619.54 $ 1,475.51 $ 1,056.90 Infrastructure Share (CCCI) = 95%Non-Infrastructure Share (CPI) = 5%Weighted Percentage Increase=3.62% Public UsePark Land Acquisition & Facilities Development $ 5,418.98 $ 4,933.86 $ 3,533.35 Infrastructure Share (CCCI) = 70%Non-Infrastructure Share (CPI) = 30%Weighted Percentage Increase=3.44% Totals: $ 34,243.17 $ 24,693.87 $ 21,255.28 $ 14,704.13 $ 21.704 $ 16.172 Existing Subdivided 2023 DIF (Effective April '24) Proposed Subdivided 2026 DIF Detached Dwellings 33,183.00 $ per dwelling unit Detached Dwellings 34,243.17 $ per dwelling unitAttached Dwellings 23,957.00 $ per dwelling unit Attached Dwellings 24,693.87 $ per dwelling unit Mobile Home $ per dwelling unit 20,603.00 Mobile Home $ per dwelling unit 21,255.28Commercial Lodging 14,188.00 $ per unit Commercial Lodging 14,704.13 $ per unit Commercial Office $ per square foot 20.949 Commercial Office 21.704 $ per square foot Industrial $ 15.605 per square foot Industrial $ 16.172 per square foot 6 11026-0001\3307224v5.doc
Attachment 2
7 -2-
11026-0001\3307224v5.doc
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND,
CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A REVISED SCHEDULE OF
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES, INCLUDING FEES FOR LAW
ENFORCEMENT FACILITIES, FIRE SUPPRESSION FACILITIES,
LOCAL CIRCULATION, REGIONAL CIRCULATION, FLOOD CONTROL
FACILITIES, GENERAL FACILITIES, LIBRARY FACILITIES, AND PARK
FACILITIES, TO ADJUST THOSE FEES BY SPECIFIED CHANGES IN
INFLATION, AND MAKING FINDINGS, INCLUDING FINDINGS OF
EXEMPTION PURSUANT TO CEQA
WHEREAS, the Mitigation Fee Act contained in Government Code 66000 et seq., permits the City to impose development impact fees on new development for the purposes of funding public facilities necessary to serve that new development; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution Nos. 2006-058, 2007-060, 2009- 001, 2009-043, 2010-042, 2012-001, 2013-002, 2014-002, 2015-001, 2015-044, 2017- 004, 2018-002, 2019-009, 2020-05, 2021-007 and 2023-040 establishing the amount of the City’s development impact fees. Resolution No. 2023-040 establishes the development impact fees that are currently in place; and WHEREAS, the City’s development impact fees were originally based on a 2006 Nexus Study prepared by Revenue and Cost Specialists, LLC (“RCS”) and then updated by a 2023 DIF Report prepared by RCS, which latter study was adopted on September 12, 2023. Copies of the 2006 Nexus Study and the 2023 DIF Report are on file in the office of the City Clerk; and
WHEREAS, the 2023 DIF Report identified the purpose of each fee, the use to which each fee will be put, demonstrated a reasonable relationship between each fee’s use and the type of development project on which the fee will be imposed and provided how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of each fee and the cost of the public facility or equipment or portion of the public facility or equipment attributable to the development on which each fee is imposed. In addition, the 2023 DIF Report and Master Facilities Plan identified capital projects necessary to meet the goals, programs, and objectives within the City’s General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the 2023 DIF Report evaluated project development growth in the City consistent with the Highland General Plan, and provides the documentation, detail, and other information required by the Mitigation Fee Act as the basis for the adoption and imposition of the development impact fees in the following categories: (1) Law Enforcement Facilities; (2) Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment; (3) Local Circulation Systems (Streets, Signals, Drainage and Bridges); (4) Regional Circulation Systems, (5) Local and Regional Flood Control Facilities; (6) General Facilities, Vehicles 8 -3-
11026-0001\3307224v5.doc
and Equipment; (7) Library Facility and Volume Collection; (8) Public Use (Community Center) Facilities; and (9) Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development; and WHEREAS, on October 10, 2023, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 461 that added Chapter 3.36 to the Highland Municipal Code to establish the City’s program and requirements for the imposition of development impact fees on development projects.
That Chapter provided in Section 3.36.030 that the City Council shall, by resolution, adopt a schedule setting forth the specific amount of development impact fees that will be levied upon new development in the City for each category of fee. That Chapter also provided in Section 3.36.040, that the City Council shall adjust the amount of the fees by resolution to account for changes to inflation; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the San Bernardino County Congestion Management Program, the City must collect the appropriate level of development impact fees as a match to County Measure I funds to be spent on Regional Circulation Facilities; and WHEREAS, Section 3.36.040 provides for an automatic annual adjustment of development impact fees using the California Construction Cost Index (CCCI) or by a more specific amount established by the City Council periodically by resolution; and WHEREAS, the City desires to now adjust the dollar amount of the existing development impact fees by specified changes in inflation based on the change in the CCCI for infrastructure related categories, and by the lesser amount based on the change in the Consumer Price Index for non-infrastructure related components; and WHEREAS, for the two-year period between April 2024 (when the prior fee amounts took effect) and June 2026, the CCCI increased by 7.31% and the CPI increased by 5.85% and is then rounded down to one-half of those amounts, as recommended by the City’s Finance/Personnel Subcommittee, to 3.65% for the CCCI and 2.92% for the CPI; and
WHEREAS, using a weighted percentage increase based on the infrastructure/non-infrastructure ratio with the two applicable adjustment methodologies (CCCI and CPI), and then only imposing one-half of the full increase of the CCCI and CPI to those weighted percentage increases, the proposed change in development impact fees is appropriate for determining the change in the Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Fees; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code sections 66016, 66018, and 6062a, the City must adopt development impact fees only after notice and public hearing; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code section 6062a, a notice of a public hearing on the proposed fee update was published on October 3, 2026 and October 8, 2026 in the San Bernardino Sun, a newspaper of general circulation; and 9 -4-
11026-0001\3307224v5.doc
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code section 66016, the City mailed notice of the time and place of the meeting, including a general explanation of the matter to be considered, and a statement that the data required by this section is available, at least 14 days prior to the meeting to any interested party who filed a written request with the City for mailed notice of the meeting on new or increased fees or service charges; and WHEREAS, at least ten (10) days prior to the duly noticed October 13, 2026 public hearing, the City made available for public inspection information required under Government Code section 66000, et. seq.; and
WHEREAS, on October 13, 2026, the City Council opened and held the noticed public hearing to consider the City’s proposed new development fees, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to comment; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the record of these proceedings, including the resolutions, the staff report, written correspondence received by the City, and the testimony received at the hearing prior to the adoption of this Resolution, held on October 13, 2026 contains substantial evidence to support the imposition and collection of the development impact fees established herein; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the adjustment of the development impact fees established herein, and finds that the fees as adjusted will mitigate some of the impacts associated with additional capital and infrastructure needs necessitated by new residential and non-residential development in the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Recitals. The findings and recitals set forth in this Resolution are true and correct, and are incorporated herein.
SECTION 2. CEQA. The adoption of the increase in the development impact fees specified in this Resolution, was reviewed in accordance with the criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the State CEQA Guidelines. The City Council finds that the adoption of the increased development impact fees specified in this Resolution will not have a significant impact on the environment and are exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of State CEQA Guidelines because these actions involve the adoption of development impact fees and no specific development is authorized by the adoption of development impact fees. Therefore the adoption of the increase in development impact fees does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. In addition, the adoption of this Resolution approves and sets forth a procedure for determining fees for the purpose of obtaining funds for capital projects and equipment necessary to maintain service within existing service areas and is statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines 15273(a)(4) . Also, approval of this Resolution is not a “project” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4) because it involves the creation of government funding mechanisms or other 10 -5-
11026-0001\3307224v5.doc
government fiscal activities that do not involve any commitment to any specific project that may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment.
SECTION 3. Establishing the Increased Amount of Development Impact Fees. The City Council hereby adopts and approves an increase in development impact fees for (1) Law Enforcement Facilities; (2) Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment; (3) Local Circulation Systems (Streets, Signals, Drainage and Bridges); (4) Regional Circulation Systems, (5) Local and Regional Flood Control Facilities; (6) General Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment; (7) Library Facility and Volume Collection; (8) Public Use (Community Center) Facilities; and (9) Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development. The specific amount of the development impact fees that are adopted by this Resolution are specified in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated by this reference, along with the methodology for the calculation of those increased fee amounts.
SECTION 4. Imposition of Fees. The development impact fees shall be imposed at time of any building permit application and collected as a condition of building occupancy. Consistent with Government Code section 66007, for residential developments, the fee shall not be collected until the date of final inspection or the date the certificate of occupancy is issued, whichever occurs first.
SECTION 5. Building Expansion. The following development impact fees will apply to building expansions:
“DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR BUILDING EXPANSION”
The following Development Impact Fees shall be imposed on new additions, expansion, or incidental construction to existing buildings. Fees imposed shall be based on the gross square footage of the enclosed structures which require a building permit to construct. The per square footage fees for residential land uses are calculated by dividing the total fees of all nine (9) improvement categories by one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet which is assumed to be the average square footage of various types of dwelling units.
Detached Dwelling $ 34,243.17 per dwelling unit
Attached Dwelling $ 24,693.87 per dwelling unit
Mobile Home $ 21,255.28 per dwelling unit
Commercial Lodging $ 14,704.13 per unit
Commercial/Office $ 21.704 per sq. ft.
Industrial $ 16.172 per sq. ft.
SECTION 6. Effective Date of Increased DIF Amounts. The development impact fees increased by Sections 3 and 5 of this Resolution shall be effective on the sixtieth (60th) day following the adoption of this Resolution. 11 -6-
11026-0001\3307224v5.doc
SECTION 7. Rate Lock.
A. Any development project for which a grading permit application has been submitted to the City prior the Effective Date of fees established by this Resolution shall pay the lower amount of the fees specified in Resolution No. 2023-040 rather than the fees specified in this Resolution, provided that the applicant applies for and obtains a building permit within one year of the issuance of that grading permit. If the applicant fails to apply for and obtain a building permit within one year of the submission of a grading permit application, the applicant shall be required to pay the development impact fee amounts specified in this Resolution.
B. Any development project for which a grading permit application is submitted on or after the Effective Date of the fees established by this Resolution, shall be required to pay the development impacts fee amounts specified by this Resolution. For any development project for which no grading permit application is required and the application for the building permit is submitted after the Effective Date of the fees established by this Resolution, the development project shall be required to pay the fees established by this Resolution.
SECTION 8. No Changes to Other City Fees. Nothing in this Resolution shall repeal, amend or supersede any other City imposed fees except for the amount of specific type and category of development impact fees addressed in the 2023 DIF Report and expressly established by Resolution No. 2023-040.
SECTION 9. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this Resolution is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, or otherwise invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections hereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Resolution and each section, subsection, clause and phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more other sections, subsections, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
12 -7-
11026-0001\3307224v5.doc
SECTION 10. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the book of original resolutions.
APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 13th day of October 2026.
________________________________
Penny Lilburn
Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Alondra Muñoz, CMC
City Clerk
13 11026-0001\3307224v5.doc
Exhibit A
Schedule of Updated Fees and Service Charges
14 -9-
11026-0001\3307224v5.doc
CITY OF HIGHLAND
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
Effective 12-12-2026
Subdivided Development
Detached Attached Mobile Commercial Commercial/
Dwelling Dwelling Home Lodging Office Industrial
Law Enforcement $90.18 $142.01 $79.81 $60.12 $0.051 $0.003 Facilities
Fire Suppression $807.01 $261.06 $947.90 $1,281.48 $0.012 $0.004 Facilities, Vehicles &
Equipment
Local Circulation $2,916.82 $1,947.66 $1,518.53 $1,538.23 $2.724 $1.884 System
Regional Circulation $17,008.59 $11,356.33 $8,851.02 $8,969.18 $15.879 $10.986 System
Regional Flood $2,785.18 $980.57 $1,670.90 $977.46 $1.048 $1.296 Control Facilities
General Facilities, $3,596.87 $3,596.87 $3,596.87 $1,877.66 $1.999 $1.999 Vehicles & Equipment
Library Facilities & $1,619.54 $1,475.51 $1,056.90 N/A N/A N/A Collection
Public Use (Community N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Center Facilities)
Park Land Acquisition & $5,418.98 $4,933.86 $3,533.35 N/A N/A N/A Park Facilities Development
TOTAL: $34,243.17 $24,693.87 $21,255.28 $14,704.13 $21.704 $16.172 Notes: 1. Fees applicable City-wide except for East Highlands Ranch which is subject to a different fee schedule. Certain properties fronting Greenspot Road, between Gold Buckle Road and Santa Paula Street, must also pay a Greenspot Impact Fee (Resolution No.1994-037). 2. Fees are per dwelling unit for residential, per lodging unit for commercial lodging, and per gross square footage for commercial or industrial. 3. Fee locked in at time of permit application. (Reso. 2023-040 & 2023-041)
4. Fee collected at time of building permit issuance or occupancy. (Reso. 2023-040 & 2023-041)
5. Additional inclusionary housing fees of $3,750 for all new units required per Resolution 2006-020 & Ordinance 306. 6. Certain projects may be charged an impact fee based on the Alternate Cost Methodology for Regional Circulation ($383.95 per trip- mile), and for Local Circulation ($156.00 per trip mile). 15 11026-0001\3307537v5.doc
Attachment 3
16 -2-
11026-0001\3307537v5.doc
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND,
CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A REVISED SCHEDULE OF FEES
APPLICABLE TO RESIDENTIAL NEW DEVELOPMENT ON PARKLAND
ACQUISITION AND PARK FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 16.40.200 OF THE HIGHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE AND THE QUIMBY ACT (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66477), AND MAKING
FINDINGS, INCLUDING FINDINGS OF EXEMPTION PURSUANT TO
CEQA
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 66477 (the “Quimby Act”) authorizes the City Council, by ordinance, to require the dedication of land or impose a requirement of the payment of fees in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, for park or recreational purposes as a condition to the approval of a tentative subdivision map or parcel map; and
WHEREAS, Highland Municipal Code Section 16.40.200 provides that as a condition of approval for development projects, the City may require the payment of fees, dedication of land, or both for the provision of neighborhood and community park and recreation facilities for city residents. This Section further provides that whenever a fee is to be paid in lieu of the dedication of land, the fee shall be established by resolution of the city council, and the fee shall bear a reasonable relationship to the value of land which would otherwise be required if land dedication were being made; and WHEREAS, the City has adopted a General Plan, specifically the Open Space and Conservation Element, which contains policies and standards for parks and recreation facilities, and the park and recreational facilities are in accordance with definite principles and standards; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution Nos. 2006-059, 2007-061, 2009- 002, 2009-044, 2010-043, 2012-002, 2013-003, 2014-003, 2015-002, 2015-045, 2017- 005, 2018-003, 2019-010, 2020-006, 2021-008 and 2023-041 establishing the amount of park land acquisition and park facilities development fees (hereinafter referred to as “Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Fee”) applicable to new residential subdivisions pursuant to the Highland Municipal Code and the Quimby Act. Resolution No. 2023-041 establishes the Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Fees that are currently in place; and
WHEREAS, at the City’s request, Revenue Cost Specialists, LLC prepared an updated Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report dated August 28, 2023 (“2023 DIF Report”) and a correlating Master Facilities Plan dated July 2023 in compliance with Government Code Section 66016.5. The 2023 DIF Report and Master Facilities Plan were adopted by the City Council on September 12, 2023 pursuant to 17 -3-
11026-0001\3307537v5.doc
Resolution No. 2023-040 and were included as Exhibits “A” and “B”, respectively to that Resolution, a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code sections 66016, 66018, and 6062a, the City must adopt increased in development impact fees only after notice and public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to now adjust the dollar amount of the existing Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Fees by specified changes in inflation based on the change in the CCCI for infrastructure related categories, and by the lesser amount based on the change in the Consumer Price Index for non-infrastructure related components and then apply only one-half of the change to adjust the fees; and WHEREAS, for the two-year period between April 2024 (when the prior fee amounts took effect) and June 2026, the CCCI increased by 7.31% and the CPI increased by 5.85% and is then rounded down to one-half of those amounts, as recommended by the City’s Finance/Personnel Subcommittee, to 3.65% for the CCCI and 2.92% for the CPI; and
WHEREAS, using a weighted percentage increase based on the infrastructure/non-infrastructure ratio with the two applicable adjustment methodologies (CCCI and CPI), and then only imposing one-half of the full increase of the CCCI and CPI to those weighted percentage increases, the proposed change in development impact fees is appropriate for determining the change in the Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Fees; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code section 6062a, a notice of a public hearing on the proposed fee update was published on October 1, 2026 and October 8, 2026 in the San Bernardino Sun, a newspaper of general circulation; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code section 66016, the City mailed notice of the time and place of the meeting, including a general explanation of the matter to be considered, and a statement that the data required by this section is available, at least 14 days prior to the meeting to any interested party who filed a written request with the City for mailed notice of the meeting on new or increased fees or service charges; and WHEREAS, at least ten (10) days prior to the duly noticed October 13, 2026 public hearing, the City made available for public inspection information required under Government Code section 66000, et. seq.; and
WHEREAS, the Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Fees established by this Resolution are only imposed on subdivided land. A separate resolution shall establish the development impact fees that will be imposed on nonsubdivided land for park and recreation facilities; and 18 -4-
11026-0001\3307537v5.doc
WHEREAS, on October 13, 2026 the City Council held a noticed public hearing to consider the City’s proposed increase in Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Fees at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to comment; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the record of these proceedings, including the staff report, written correspondence received by the City, and the testimony received at the hearing prior to the adoption of this Resolution, held on October 13, 2026, contains substantial evidence to support the increase in the Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Fees established herein; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Fees established herein, and finds that the fees will mitigate some of the impacts associated with additional park and recreational needs necessitated by new residential development in the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Recitals. The findings and recitals set forth in this Resolution are true and correct, and are incorporated herein.
SECTION 2. CEQA. The approval of this Resolution was reviewed in accordance with the criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the State CEQA Guidelines. The City Council finds that approval of this Resolution will not have a significant impact on the environment and is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of State CEQA Guidelines because this action involves the adoption of Quimby fees and no specific development is authorized by the adoption of this Resolution. Therefore, the adoption of this Resolution does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. In addition, the adoption of this Resolution approves and sets forth a procedure for determining fees to maintain park and recreation services within existing service areas and is statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines 15273(a)(4). Also, approval of this Resolution is exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4) because the Resolution not a “project” as defined by CEQA, but involves the creation of government funding mechanisms or other government fiscal activities that do not involve any commitment to any specific project that may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment.
SECTION 3. Establishing the Amount of Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Fees. The City Council hereby adopts Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Fees on new residential subdivisions in the following amounts:
19 -5-
11026-0001\3307537v5.doc
Quimby Act
Detached Dwelling $3,658.51
Attached Dwelling $3,330.62
Mobile Home Dwelling $2,386.25
Commercial Lodging N/A
Commercial/ Office N/A
Industrial N/A
SECTION 4. All Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Fees specified in Section 3 are to be imposed in accordance with Highland Municipal Code Section 16.40.200 and the applicable provisions of the 2023 DIF Report, on new development based on the proposed land use (not zoning) of the proposed development.
For purposes of this Resolution, the following land use designations shall apply:
A. Detached Dwelling: Projects consisting of detached residential buildings as allowed within the City's land use designation of Agricultural Equestrian, Low Density, and some Medium Density Residential.
B. Attached Dwelling: Projects consisting of attached residential units within a lot as allowed within the City's land use designation of High Density Residential and some Medium Density Residential.
C. Mobile Home: Mobile home/trailer parks, and manufactured homes in landleased communities, etc. This category does not include manufactured home subdivisions.
D. Commercial Lodging: Hotels and motels.
E. Commercial/Office: Uses generally considered commercial.
F. Industrial: Uses generally considered industrial. This category also includes educational and religious establishments.
SECTION 5. Imposition of Fees. Consistent with Government Code Section 66007, the Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Fees shall be not be collected until the date of final inspection or the date the certificate of occupancy is issued, whichever occurs first.
SECTION 6. Effective Date of Increase in Park Land Acquisition and Park Development Facilities Fees. The increase in Park Land Acquisition and Park Development Facilities Fees established by Section 3 of this Resolution shall be effective on the sixtieth (60th) day following the adoption of this Resolution. 20 -6-
11026-0001\3307537v5.doc
SECTION 7. Rate Lock.
A. Any subdivision for a residential development project for which a grading permit application has been submitted to the City prior the Effective Date of fees established by this Resolution shall pay the lower amount of the fees specified in Resolution No. 2023-041 rather than the fees specified in this Resolution, provided that the applicant applies for and obtains a building permit within one year of the issuance of that grading permit. If the applicant fails to apply for and obtain a building permit within one year of the submission of a grading permit application, the applicant shall be required to pay the development impact fee amounts specified in this Resolution.
B. Any subdivision for a residential development project for which a grading permit application is submitted on or after the Effective Date of the fees established by this Resolution, shall be required to pay the development impacts fee amounts specified by this Resolution. For any subdivision for a residential development project for which no grading permit application is required and the application for the building permit is submitted after the Effective Date of the fees established by this Resolution, the residential development project shall be required to pay the fees established by this Resolution.
SECTION 8. No Changes to Other City Fees. Nothing in this Resolution shall repeal, amend or supersede any other City imposed fees except for the amount of specific type and category expressly established by this Resolution.
SECTION 9. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this Resolution is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, or otherwise invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections hereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Resolution and each section, subsection, clause and phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more other sections, subsections, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
SECTION 10. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the book of original resolutions.
21 -7-
11026-0001\3307537v5.doc
APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 13th day of October 2026.
_________________________________
Penny Lilburn
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Alondra Muñoz, CMC
City Clerk
22 Attachment 4
23 CITY OF HIGHLAND
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
Effective 12-12-2026
Non-Subdivided Development
Detached Attached Mobile Commercial Commercial/
Dwelling Dwelling Home Lodging Office Industrial
Law Enforcement $90.18 $142.01 $79.81 $60.12 $0.051 $0.003 Facilities
Fire Suppression $807.01 $261.06 $947.90 $1,281.48 $0.012 $0.004 Facilities, Vehicles &
Equipment
Local Circulation $2,916.82 $1,947.66 $1,518.53 $1,538.23 $2.724 $1.884 System
Regional Circulation $17,008.59 $11,356.33 $8,851.02 $8,969.18 $15.879 $10.986 System
Regional Flood $2,785.18 $980.57 $1,670.90 $977.46 $1.048 $1.296 Control Facilities
General Facilities, $3,596.87 $3,596.87 $3,596.87 $1,877.66 $1.999 $1.999 Vehicles & Equipment
Library Facilities & $1,619.54 $1,475.51 $1,056.90 N/A N/A N/A Collection
Public Use (Community N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Center Facilities)
Park Land Acquisition & $3,658.51 $3,330.62 $2,386.25 N/A N/A N/A Park Facilities Development
TOTAL: $32,482.70 $23,090.62 $20,108.18 $14,704.12 $21.704 $16.172 Notes:
1. Fees applicable City-wide except for East Highlands Ranch which is subject to a different fee schedule. Certain properties fronting Greenspot Road, between Gold Buckle Road and Santa Paula Street, must also pay a Greenspot Impact Fee (Resolution No.1994-037).
2. Fees are per dwelling unit for residential, per lodging unit for commercial lodging, and per gross square footage for commercial or industrial.
3. Fee locked in at time of permit application. (Reso. 2023-040)
4. Fee collected at time of building permit issuance or occupancy. (Reso. 2023-040)
5. Additional inclusionary housing fees of $3,750 for all new units required per Resolution 2006-020 & Ordinance 306.
6. Certain projects may be charged an impact fee based on the Alternate Cost Methodology for Regional Circulation ($383.95 per tripmile), and for Local Circulation ($156.00 per trip mile). --
IMPACT FEE FOR BUILDING EXPANSION
(no charge for first 499 square feet of residential building expansion) DETACHED DWELLING.............................................. $20.899 per square foot ATTACHED DWELLING.............................................. $14.858 per square foot MOBILE HOME............................................................ $12.939 per square foot COMMERICIAL LODGING……………………….......... $9.459 per square foot COMMERCIAL/OFFICE............................................... $20.949 per square foot INDUSTRIAL................................................................ $15.604 per square foot 24 Staff Report
to the City Council
Agenda
Item
No.17.
Date: October 13, 2026
From: Carlos Zamano, City Manager
Reviewed By: Lawrence Mainez, Community Development Director Prepared By: Kim Stater, Assistant Community Development Director Subject: Proposed City of Highland Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Applications for Fiscal Year 2027-2028 including one for Enhanced Code Enforcement and One for Pavement Rehabilitation Project
Recommendation:
1. Approve the City's application for Enhanced Code Enforcement that supports a portion of the salary and benefits of a Code Compliance Officer, Administrative Assistant and Community Development Director;
2. Approve the City's application to construct pavement rehabilitation and ancillary work in two neighborhoods within the CDBG Low-Mod Income eligible block 060710074072; and
3. Authorize the Assistant Community Development Director to execute both applications on behalf of the City and submit the applications to the San Bernardino County Department of Community Development and Housing.
Fiscal Impact:
The City's grant allocation in Fiscal Year 2027-2028 is estimated to be $356,846, an increase of 36% over the prior year. This allocation includes Public Service Projects which are capped at 15% of the total at ($53,527) and the remaining 85% ($303,319) for Construction/Code Enforcement Projects.
Examples of prior Public Service Project recipients include the Highland Family YMCA, Highland Senior Center and Central Little League.
Examples of Construction Projects include curb/gutter/sidewalk construction and rehabilitating projects as well as Code Enforcement.
Public Service Applications
Staff did not prepare applications on behalf of the City that would be categorized as "Public Service."
1 Construction Improvement Project Proposal Applications Staff prepared two (2) Construction Applications:
1. Enhanced Code Enforcement for a total of $120,000, including:
a. $18,300 to fund a portion of the salary and benefits of the Community Development Director position.
b. $57,248 to fund a portion of the salary and benefits of a full-time Code Compliance Officer position.
c. $44,452 to fund a portion of the salary of an Administrative Assistant.
2. Pavement Rehabilitation for a total of $183,319 to request to construct pavement improvements and ancillary work in two neighborhoods within the CDBG Low-Mod Income eligible block area on block 060710074072.
Public Notice:
The agenda for this item was posted at the three locations per Resolution No. 2011-047 and on the City’s website.
Background:
The San Bernardino County Department of Community Development and Housing (CDH) is currently accepting CDBG applications for FY 2027-2028. The deadline for submittal is October 15, 2026. The County will determine project eligibility on behalf of HUD. Eligible applications by the City and all other Community Based Organizations will be returned to the City later in the year for prioritization by the City Council.
The following is a brief summary of the City's proposed Applications:
1. Enhanced Code Enforcement - Funding of this program would continue the ongoing revitalization effort, development, and revitalization effort, development, and revitalization activities in the CDBG Target Area. Code Enforcement has received CBG funding since 1995 to fund a portion of Code Enforcement activities in the CDBG Target Area. Funding will provide for focused efforts in abating substantial housing and blight in the Target Area (see Attachment 1 - Enhanced Code Enforcement Application).
2. Pavement Improvements - Construct pavement improvements and ancillary work in two neighborhoods as shown in Attachment 2, Pavement Improvement Application.
The above CDBG applications request a total of $183,319 in Construction Improvement Project Proposals.
Attachments:
1. Enhanced Code Enforcement Application
2. Pavement Improvement Application
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16
(https:
//ww
w.sub
mitta
ble.co
m/hel
p/sub
mitter
?
orgId
=263
27)
(https://www.submittable.com/help/submitter?orgId=26327) Back (https://SBCDH.submittable.com/submit)
San Bernardino Community Development &
Housing (CDH) (https://cdh.sbcounty.gov/)
ortu
nity
from
San
Ber
nard
ino
Co
mm
unit
y
Dev
elop
men
t &
Hou
sing
(CD
H)&
bod
y=ht
tps:/
/sbc
dh.s
ubm
ittab
le.c
om/
sub
mit/
338
971/
202
6-
27-
com
mun
itydev
elop
men
tbloc
kgran
t)
2026-27 Community Development Block Grant
Ends on Fri, Nov 14, 2025 4:00 PM
San Bernardino County Community Development and Housing (CDH) Department is now accepting applications for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, Program Year 2026–2027. Applications must be submitted by 4:00 PM (PST) on November 14, 2025. Eligible applicants include participating cities, 501(c)(3) nonprofits, and qualified forprofits (economic development only). Projects must meet a HUD National Objective, align with the County’s Consolidated Plan priorities, and be completed within required timelines (10 months for public services; 18 months for construction).
Incomplete or late submissions will not be considered.
Click here (https://cdh.sbcounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/117/2026-2027-CDBG-NOFA.revised-link.pdf) for the complete Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA), including program guidelines, application instructions, and evaluation criteria.
For questions, contact [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) or (909) 501-0600.
Applying on behalf of:
CITY OF HIGHLAND
UEI: EDJVNAU35G76
Address: 27215 BASELINE ST, HIGHLAND, CA 92346, USA
Learn how to manage organization details (https://submittable.help/en/articles/8417693- organization-search)
Powered by SAM.gov © 2025 SAM.gov (https://sam.gov/content/home) Octavio Duran
Follow
Change organization
10/30/25, 4:02 PM San Bernardino Community Development & Housing (CDH) Submission Manager - 2026-27 Community Development Block Grant https://sbcdh.submittable.com/submit/338971/2026-27-community-development-block-grant 1/10 17 54 / 300 characters
Section 1: Organization Information
What is the name of your proposed project or activity? (required) FY 26/27 CDBG Highland Pavement Rehabilitation Project
Applying Organization Name: (required)
City of Highland
Enter your organization's full legal name.
Type of Organization (required)
City of Highland
Select your organization type.
Organization's Mailing Address: (required)
Country (required)
United States
Address (required)
27215 Base Line
Address Line 2 (optional)
City (required)
Highland
State, Province, or Region (required)
California
Zip or Postal Code (required)
92346
Authorized Official's Name (required)
First Name (required)
Octavio
Last Name (required)
Duran
List the person authorized to discuss this application.
Authorized Offical's Title (required)
No options
10/30/25, 4:02 PM San Bernardino Community Development & Housing (CDH) Submission Manager - 2026-27 Community Development Block Grant https://sbcdh.submittable.com/submit/338971/2026-27-community-development-block-grant 2/10 18 35 / 20 characters
Public Works Director/City Engineer
Authorized Official's Phone Number (required)
1 (909) 864-6861
Authorized Official's Email Address (required)
[email protected]
Organization's Website
cityofhighland.org
Program Manager's Name
First Name
Kim
Last Name
Stater
Program Manager's Title
Assistant Community Development Director
Program Manager's Phone Number
(909) 864-6861
Program Manager's Email
[email protected]
Does your organization expend $1,000,000 or more a year in federal funds? (required) Yes
No
Federal Tax ID Number: (required)
330270638
10/30/25, 4:02 PM San Bernardino Community Development & Housing (CDH) Submission Manager - 2026-27 Community Development Block Grant https://sbcdh.submittable.com/submit/338971/2026-27-community-development-block-grant 3/10 19 All applicants must provide a valid Unique Entity Identifier (UEI).
Registration with the federal System for Award Management (SAM.gov (http://SAM.gov)) is required prior to receiving CDBG funding.
Please ensure your organization is active and in good standing in SAM.gov (http://SAM.gov). If your organization is not currently registered, visit www.sam.gov (https://www.sam.gov/) to register as soon as possible. Failure to maintain an active SAM registration may result in delays or denial of funding.
Section 2: Project Information
45 / 50 characters
Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) Number (required)
EDJVNAU35G76
Project Title (required)
FY 26/27 CDBG Highland Pavement Rehab Project
Provide a concise name for your project.
Project Location (required)
Country (required)
United States
Address (required)
27215 Base Line
Address Line 2 (optional)
City (required)
Highland
State, Province, or Region (required)
California
Zip or Postal Code (required)
92346
Enter the physical address or Assessor’s Parcel Number.
Project Type (required)
Construction
Select the type of project for which you are requesting funds.
Select Construction Type (required)
Public Facilities
Infrastructure (i.e. Streets, Sewer, Sidewalk, etc.)
10/30/25, 4:02 PM San Bernardino Community Development & Housing (CDH) Submission Manager - 2026-27 Community Development Block Grant https://sbcdh.submittable.com/submit/338971/2026-27-community-development-block-grant 4/10 20 Section 3: Project Benefit
County Supervisorial District where project will be located: (required) 3rd District
Total Amount of CDBG Funds Requested (required)
$ 230,000 USD
City Funding (required)
Highland
Select the City from which funding is being requested.
Is this a new construction project or a request for additional funding to an existing CDBG project? (required) New
Request for additional funing
Detailed Project Description: (required)
Construct pavement rehabilitation and ancillary work on two streets within the CDBG Low-Mod Income eligible block area boundaries within the City of Highland including: Cole Ave from Base Line to 14th St and 14th St from Cole Ave to Central Ave Provide a detailed project description. The description should only address or discuss the specific activities, services, or project that is to be assisted with CDBG funds. If CDBG funds will assist the entire program or activity, then provide a description of the entire program or activity.
Proposed Use of CDBG Funds: (required)
Provide a detailed description of the proposed use of CDBG funds only (e.g., scholarships, rent, supplies, utilities, salaries, etc.):
Project Service Area and Beneficiary Location: (required) 10/30/25, 4:02 PM San Bernardino Community Development & Housing (CDH) Submission Manager - 2026-27 Community Development Block Grant https://sbcdh.submittable.com/submit/338971/2026-27-community-development-block-grant 5/10 21 NATIONAL OBJECTIVE
HUD requires all CDBG projects to meet at least one of the following National Objectives:
Benefit to low- and moderate-income persons: Your project must primarily benefit persons whose household income is at or below 80% of the area median income. (must be documented) Area Benefit: The project or facility serves a defined geographic area where at least 51% of residents are low- or moderate-income.
Please upload census data or maps demonstrating this.
Job creation or retention: At least 51% of jobs created or retained by the project will be available to or held by LMI persons.
Provide employment projections or commitments.
Describe the neighborhood, city, or specific geographic area where the beneficiaries of your proposed project or program reside.
Target Population (required)
Low- and moderate-income persons
Low- and moderate-income households
Homeless persons
Children ages 0-12
Youth ages 13-19
Elderly persons
Battered spouses
Abused children
Illiterate adults
Persons with disabilities
Persons living with AIDS
Migrant farm workers
Select the HUD National Objective your project will meet: (required) Benefit to low-moderate income persons
Area benefit (project serves an area where at least 51% of residents are low-moderate income) Job creation or retention benefiting low-moderate income persons Identify the procedure you currently have in place to document that at least 51% of the clientele you serve are low-moderate income persons. (required)
City uses official HUD maps to identify low/mod block groups. Project is part of block: 060710074091. 52% of the population are of low/m 10/30/25, 4:02 PM San Bernardino Community Development & Housing (CDH) Submission Manager - 2026-27 Community Development Block Grant https://sbcdh.submittable.com/submit/338971/2026-27-community-development-block-grant 6/10 22 Section 4: Project Budget & Sources
Provide the estimated project costs
If the project will be completed in phases, each phase should be operationally independent and include a separate cost estimate and priority level. Construction activities with total costs over $2,000 must comply with Federal prevailing wage requirements under the Davis-Bacon Act.
List other funding sources and amounts (commitments or applications) which will assist in the implementation of this activity.
Proposed Budget (required)
CDBG Share ($): Other Source ($):
Architecural/Engineering Services
Acquistion of Real Property
Construction
Other:
Total 230000 65000
Total Project Cost 295000
0 20000
230000 45000
Leveraging Funds (required)
Source of Funds Type of Funding Amount Date Available
Federal Funding
State Funding
County Funding
Private Funding
Fees
Donations
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 A B C
A B C D
10/30/25, 4:02 PM San Bernardino Community Development & Housing (CDH) Submission Manager - 2026-27 Community Development Block Grant https://sbcdh.submittable.com/submit/338971/2026-27-community-development-block-grant 7/10 23 Section 5: Performance & Outcomes
Other
Total Leveraging Funds
MEASURE I 65000 7/1/2026
How will your organization ensure that project costs remain on budget? Describe your cost monitoring practices and any contingency plans if bids exceed estimates. scope is straightforward and the City has historically delivered the project under budget What is the current status of the project in terms of planning, design, permits, and procurement? Provide a timeline outlining key milestones such as design completion, environmental review, bid solicitation, contract award, construction start, and project completion. (required) Design: 7/1/26 through 11/30/26 Bid Package Approval by CHD: 12/31/26 Contractor Selection: 3/11/27 Construction: 4/7/27 through 6/27/27 How will your organization track progress against construction benchmarks to ensure timely completion within the required 18-month project period?” (required) The scope is straightforward and the City has historically delivered the project in a timely manner What specific outcomes will result from the completion of this capital improvement project? Please describe the physical improvements and the number or type of residents expected to benefit. (required) project will complete pavement rehab, upgrade curb ramps and re-install new enhanced crosswalks near school for improved safety and accessibility
Examples:
“This sidewalk reconstruction project will improve safety and accessibility for approximately 2,000 residents.” “A community facility will be renovated to meet ADA standards, providing services to 1,200 low- and moderate-income seniors annually.”
“The installation of new storm drains will reduce flooding for 40 homes.” Describe how the completed improvement will serve the community over the long term. Who will be responsible for maintaining the facility or infrastructure? Will it remain publicly accessible to the intended beneficiaries? (required)
8 9
10/30/25, 4:02 PM San Bernardino Community Development & Housing (CDH) Submission Manager - 2026-27 Community Development Block Grant https://sbcdh.submittable.com/submit/338971/2026-27-community-development-block-grant 8/10 24 Section 6: Management Capacity
Upload a file. No files have been attached yet.
Acceptable file types: .pdf
City will maintain the public roadway and sidewalk
Describe your organization’s experience in managing and operating projects or activities funded by CDBG or other Federal grant programs. (required)
This is a standard City Public Work Function
Does your organization have formally adopted written policies and procedures covering key management systems such as personnel, procurement, property management, recordkeeping, and financial oversight? (required)
Yes
No
Describe the roles and qualifications of the key administrators, staff, and volunteers who will be responsible for implementing the proposed project. Include relevant experience, education, and professional licenses or certifications as applicable. (required) n/a
Authorization to Submit Application
Choose File
Complete, sign, and upload the Authorization-to-Submit-Application-Form.pdf (https://cdh.sbcounty.gov/wpcontent/uploads/sites/117/Authorization-to-Submit-Application-Form.pdf) Last Saved a minute ago
Save Draft Submit
10/30/25, 4:02 PM San Bernardino Community Development & Housing (CDH) Submission Manager - 2026-27 Community Development Block Grant https://sbcdh.submittable.com/submit/338971/2026-27-community-development-block-grant 9/10 25 Drafts may be visible to the administrators of this program. Technical Help (https://www.submittable.com/help/submitter?orgId=26327) | Privacy Policy (http://www.submittable.com/privacy) Powered by Submittable (https://www.submittable.com/what-is-submittable/?ref=poweredby) © 2025 10/30/25, 4:02 PM San Bernardino Community Development & Housing (CDH) Submission Manager - 2026-27 Community Development Block Grant https://sbcdh.submittable.com/submit/338971/2026-27-community-development-block-grant 10/10 26 Staff Report
to the City Council
Agenda
Item
No.18.
Date: October 13, 2026
From: Carlos Zamano, City Manager
Reviewed By: Maricela Marroquin, City Attorney
Lawrence Mainez, Community Development Director
Kim Stater, Assistant Community Development Director
Prepared By: Angela Tafolla, Senior Planner
Subject: An Appeal (APP 26-002) of the Planning Commission’s Approval of an Extension of Time Application (EXT 26-002) for Conditional Use Permit (CUP 23-003) for the Development of a 53,665 Square Foot Warehouse and Associated Improvements and Design Review Application (DRA 23-004) for the Site Plan, Building Elevations, Grading Plan and Conceptual Landscape Plan Generally Located on the South Side of 5th Street, Approximately 250 Feet West of Central Avenue APNs: 1192-561-04, -05, 06- and -07 (Patriot 5th & Central, LLC)
(SB 1439 Campaign Contributions and Conflicts of Interest - Government Code Section 84308 is applicable)
Recommendation:
Adopt Resolution No. 2026 – ____; denying Appeal (APP 26-002) and upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of Extension of Time application (EXT 26-002) for a three (3) year extension of Conditional Use Permit (CUP 23-003) and Design Review Application (DRA 23- 004) subject to the Conditions of Approval and Findings of Fact, and find that the Extension of Time either does not constitute a Project under CEQA or, in the alternative, that there is not a substantial change in the project, new information, or substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken that authorize the City to perform any further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.
Fiscal Impact:
Staff time for the review of the project and preparation of the staff report is covered by the application fee provided by the Applicant.
Public Notice:
The agenda for this item was posted at the three locations per Resolution No. 2011-047 and on the City’s website.
Background:
Public Hearing Notice:
As required by City Council Resolution No. 2011-047, notice of the public hearing was posted at the City’s three designated posting locations. On October 4, 2026, a legal advertisement 1 was published in the SB Sun. In addition, the notice was posted on the City’s website and mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site as well as those who previously requested notice.
Public Comment:
Staff has not received any public comments in response to the notice of the appeal of the Extension of Time application at the time of preparing this staff report.
Description of Site:
A detailed description of the Site is included in the attached July 21, 2026, Planning Commission staff report. (Attachment 1 - Staff Report from the July 21, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting)
Previous Action:
On September 19, 2023, the Planning Commission adopted PC Resolution Nos. 2023-036 through 2023-039, approving Conditional Use Permit (CUP 23-003), Variance (VAR 23-001), and Design Review Application (DRA-23-004) for the development of a 53,665-square-foot warehouse on a 2.86-acre site and associated improvements (project), and adopting an Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. This IS/MND analyzed all project-specific and cumulative impacts of the project, and imposed nine mitigation measures: two air quality, one biological resources, three cultural resources, two geology and soils, and one tribal cultural resources. With the imposition of these mitigation measures and the conditions of approval placed on the Project, the City found all potential significant environmental effects of the Project to be less than significant.
A Notice of Determination was subsequently filed with the San Bernardino County Clerk on September 25, 2023, triggering a 30-day statute of limitations that ended on October 25, 2023. (Pub. Res. Code § 21167(b).) No party challenged the sufficiency of the IS/MND. The deadline to file an action or proceeding to challenge the decision to approve the CUP, Variance, and Design Review Application was December 18, 2023. (Gov’t. Code Section 65009(c)(1)(E).) No party challenged the approvals.
On June 10, 2025, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 470, amending City of Highland Municipal Code Chapter 16 to enhance the City’s regulatory framework, streamline processes, promote sustainable development, and protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the community. This Municipal Code amendment, in part, increased the allowable building height in the Business Park zone to 50 feet, negating the need for the Variance approved for the Project.
In March of 2026, the Applicant submitted an Extension of Time (EXT 26-002) application to extend the expiration date of Conditional Use Permit Application (CUP 23-003) and Design Review Application (DRA 23-004) for an additional three (3) years to September 19, 2029.
On May 19, 2026, the Planning Commission continued consideration of the Extension of Time application to June 16, 2026, at the Applicant's request due to a scheduling conflict that prevented the Applicant from attending the meeting.
On June 16, 2026, at Staff's request, the Planning Commission tabled consideration of the Extension of Time application to allow Staff to complete revisions to the Project resolutions and associated environmental documentation. Although the item was tabled without action, the Planning Commission received public testimony. One speaker expressed support for the Project, while several speakers opposed the Project, generally citing concerns regarding 2 warehouse development, air quality, truck traffic and noise, proximity to schools, existing infrastructure, and preferences for residential land uses. The application was subsequently renoticed for consideration on July 21, 2026.
On July 21, 2026, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2026-011, approving Extension of Time (EXT-26-002) and extending the entitlement expiration date to September 19, 2029. The public hearing included additional written and oral testimony, with speakers primarily expressing concerns regarding warehouse development, traffic, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and compatibility with surrounding land uses. (Attachment 4 - PC Minutes from July 21, 2026) The Planning Commission found that the original approvals included the adoption of a IS/MND and MMRP and that, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental environmental review was required for the Extension of Time. The City filed a Notice of Determination with the San Bernardino County Clerk and the State Clearinghouse on July 28, 2026.
Appeal:
In accordance with City’s Land Use and Development Code, Title 16, Section 16.08.210.B, Appeals shall be addressed to the appellate body in a letter submitted to the Community Development Director. The Appellant shall state the specific reasons for the basis of the appeal. The Appellant, The People’s Collective for Environmental Justice, filed an Appeal Application on August 3, 2026. The Appeal Application and supporting letter is attached. (Attachment 5 – Appeal Application and Supporting Letter) The Appellant is requesting that the City Council rescind the Planning Commission’s determination to approve Extension of Time (EXT-26-002) for Conditional Use Permit (CUP 23-003) and Design Review Application (DRA-23-004) related to the development of a 53,665- square-foot warehouse. The appeal requests that the City Council deny the requested threeyear extension of the entitlement expiration date as outlined in the Analysis section below.
Analysis:
The Appellant, People’s Collective for Environmental Justice (PCEJ), identifies the following issues as the basis for the Appeal (Attachment 5). Following receipt of the Appeal, the Applicant submitted written responses from its environmental consultant, T&B Planning, Inc., and legal counsel, Rutan & Tucker, LLP. These responses are included as Attachments 7 and 8 and generally support Staff’s analysis provided below.
1. Required Findings for an Extension of Time
Appellant’s Position:
The Appellant states that the City cannot make the findings required by Highland Municipal Code Section 16.08.200.B because the Project would be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare due to its proximity to residences, educational facilities, and other sensitive receptors, as well as concerns regarding cumulative warehouse development. The Appellant also references Assembly Bill 98 (AB 98) in support of denying the Extension of Time.
Staff Analysis:
HMC Section 16.08.200.B authorizes an Extension of Time upon finding that granting the extension will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
The Extension of Time does not modify the previously approved Project. The Project’s 3 location, size, intensity, and proximity to surrounding uses remain unchanged from the Project approved in 2023. The concerns identified by the Appellant relate to the underlying Project and were considered as part of the original Project review. Both the approvals and the IS/MND reviewed the issues of traffic safety, noise, and air quality associated with the Project individually and cumulatively.
At the time of the original approval, the Head Start was in the same location, the proposed internal circulation on the site was the same, the same sensitive residential receptors existed in the vicinity of the site, and the traffic impacts analyzed were the same. Further, all of the residential uses in the area, as well as the Head Start, are legal non-conforming uses within districts zoned for industrial and business park uses, or lost their non-conforming use as they stopped being used for residential purposes. Since 2006, the City’s General Plan has envisioned transitioning this area away from residential and similar uses towards the uses identified in the “Employment District” zones - Business Park, Industrial, and other job-producing land uses. The existing conditions in the IS/MND for the original approval included other warehousing space had already been approved in the same area since 2021, on property where the City’s land use designations and zoning allow already allowed for and encouraged the warehousing uses approved by the City. Only one additional warehouse in the area has been approved since the Project was approved, with an additional 244,000 sf of warehousing space. That project was approved in August 2024, on property where the City’s land use designations and zoning already allowed for and encouraged the warehousing uses approved by the City.
The Appellant is asking the City to reevaluate the grounds upon which it issued the original approvals in 2023 by going back and evaluating all warehouses approved since 2021 in the entire 5th Street Corridor area, projects the Appellant is statutorily barred from challenging now. In approving the project in 2023, the Planning Commission made the finding that the project was not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. These findings were never challenged and are beyond challenge. (Gov’t. Code § 65009(c)(1)(E).) AB 98 was passed by the California Legislature in 2024 and further modified by the passage of SB 415 in 2025. These bills were codified in Government Code Sections 65098, et seq. and set forth four scenarios requiring specific conditions be placed on warehouse development proposals. These bills do not apply to the Project because they were passed after the Project was permitted and approved. (Gov’t. Code Section 65098.1.6.) Furthermore, none of the four scenarios triggering these statutes apply to the Project:
(a) Warehouse is 250,000 sf or more and loading bay is located within 900 feet of sensitive receptor. (Gov’t. Code Section 65098.1(a).) The project does not involve a warehouse of 250,000 sf or more.
(b) Warehouse is on land not zoned industrial or where land needs to be rezoned and loading dock is located within 900 feet of sensitive receptor. (Gov’t. Code Section 65098.1(b).) The project is located on property that has been designated and zoned for Business Park since 2006 and did not require a General Plan or zoning amendment. (c) Warehouse is on land not zoned industrial but located within the “warehouse concentration region.” (Gov’t. Code Section 65098.1(c).) The City of Highland is not within the statutorily designated warehouse concentration region. (d) Warehouse is less than 250,000 sf and loading bay is located within 900 feet of sensitive receptor utilizing site zoned industrial or where application to rezone to 4 industrial was submitted by September 30, 2024 and rezone was approved. (Gov’t.
Code Section 65098.1(d).) The Project is located on property that has been zoned for Business Park since 2006 and no rezone occurred.
2. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Appellant’s Position:
The Appellant states that the original environmental review did not adequately evaluate cumulative impacts associated with warehouse development in the surrounding area.
The Appellant further states that revisions to the Engineering Conditions of Approval identify hydrology impacts that were not previously evaluated and require additional environmental review.
Staff Analysis:
The underlying project was reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the time for any challenge to the IS/MND that the City approved has long since expired. The Extension of Time does not authorize new development or modify the previously approved Project. Staff reviewed the appeal and the Extension of Time application for any of the circumstances requiring subsequent environmental review and have determined none of those circumstances are present, as discussed further below. (Pub. Res. Code Section 21166; CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.) The adopted IS/MND evaluated the project’s environmental effects, including cumulative impacts, and concluded that the project would not result in significant environmental impacts with implementation of the adopted mitigation measures. The original CUP and DRA conditions of approval and mitigation measures remain in effect, with references to the previously approved Variance removed.
The revised Engineering Condition of Approval clarifies the original condition to perform a comprehensive hydrology study. The original IS/MND evaluated drainage and hydrology, analyzed the Preliminary Drainage Report prepared for the Project, found that the drainage and storm drain facilities planned for the site were consistent with the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual, and that impacts on drainage and hydrology would be less than significant. The updated condition simply reflects the specific requirements of that Manual.
This appeal and the underlying Extension of Time application have also been reviewed in accordance with CEQA. The requested Extension of Time constitutes an administrative action that does not authorize new development, modify the previously approved Project, or result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Accordingly, the Extension of Time is not a "project" subject to CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), and 15378(b)(5) and (c).
Notwithstanding the foregoing, even if the requested Extension of Time constituted a project under CEQA, the City is prohibited from requiring further environmental review unless the conditions for subsequent or supplemental environmental review in Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are met. Staff has reviewed those conditions with respect to extension of the Project and has determined that no further environmental review may be required.
No Substantial Changes to the Project
5 The current request is limited to a three year Extension of Time for previously approved discretionary entitlements and does not propose any modification to the approved Project. The approved site layout, building height, building size, parking, access, circulation, landscaping, operational characteristics, and intensity of use remain unchanged from those evaluated in the previously adopted IS/MND. The first trigger for requiring subsequent environmental review is not met.
No New Information
The impacts of the project on sensitive receptors, emissions, noise, hydrology, and traffic and traffic safety impacts that Appellant raises - both on a project-specific and cumulative level - were all topics analyzed in the original IS/MND.
Appellant claims that the modified hydrology condition for the Project reflects a new significant impact with mitigation proposed to reduce that impact. This is incorrect.
Hydrology was analyzed in detail for the Project and the analysis noted that the “on-site drainage plan would be conducted in a manner consistent with all applicable standards related to the collection and treatment of stormwater.” (IS/MND, p. 77.) Engineering Condition No. 27 was updated to clarify the required components of the hydrology study in accordance with the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual (Attachment 3 – Conditions of Approval). The original condition required the developer to “submit a hydrology study to determine storm water runoff quantities tributary to and generated by the Project for review and approval by the City Engineer and include hydraulic calculations to determine the size and type of all drainage facilities.” The modified condition requires the developer to “submit a comprehensive hydrology study per San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual that includes, but is not limited to the following:
• Pre and post development analysis for 10-year and 100-year storms. • Hydrology maps of pre- and post- development conditions • Proposed method of flow conveyance and proposed improvements to mitigate project impacts with supporting calculations.
• Hydraulic calculations to determine the size and type of all drainage facilitiesThe second trigger for further environmental review is not met.
This revised Engineering Condition of Approval clarifies the original condition to perform a comprehensive hydrology study. The original IS/MND evaluated drainage and hydrology, analyzed the Preliminary Drainage Report prepared for the Project, found that the drainage and storm drain facilities planned for the site were consistent with the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual, and that impacts on drainage and hydrology would be less than significant. The drainage plan continues to serve the same purpose (collection and treatment of stormwater), does not create any additional impacts, and does not require any new mitigation. The second trigger for further environmental review is not met.
No Substantial Changes in the Circumstances Under Which Project Is Being Undertaken
The IS/MND analyzed the cumulative impacts of the Project. Appellant alleges those impacts must be reanalyzed because the cumulative impacts of the Project might be different if analyzed now.
The warehouse permitting in this area has been expected and encouraged in the 6 City’s General Plan since 2006, where 184 acres and almost 2.5 million sf of Business Park uses were designated and zoned for this “5th Street Corridor” strategic location between the airport and the I-210 Freeway. The General Plan specifically intended the 5th Street Corridor to capture employment growth in the region with Business Park and Industrial Uses. (General Plan, p. 2-38.) The IS/MND for the Project specifically acknowledged the purpose of the 5th Street Corridor is to take advantage of the increasing demand for industrial uses west of I15 by providing opportunity to capture some of this potential employment growth by creating an area within the City dominated by Business Park and Industrial land uses (5th Street Warehouse, IS/MND, p. 80). The actual development of the longterm intended, designated, and permitted uses in this area is not a “substantial change in the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken.” Even if Appellant could demonstrate that this planned growth over the past few years is a substantial change in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken - which it cannot - Appellant must also demonstrate that major revisions to the previous IS/MND are necessary. Further, those revisions must be due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
Appellant does not allege that these conditions exist or provide any facts to substantiate their claim. Their appeal simply states that the previous cumulative analyses were “not adequate.” That is not the standard for requiring supplemental or subsequent environmental review of a project. As stated above, once environmental review for a project has been completed, the City is prohibited from requiring further environmental review unless the specific conditions for subsequent or supplemental environmental review in Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are met. No such conditions exists, as described above, and the time to challenge the IS/MND itself has long since passed.
Accordingly, none of the circumstances identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring subsequent or supplemental environmental review have occurred. Therefore, there is no basis to require further environmental review. The previously adopted IS/MND adequately addresses the environmental effects of the approved project and cannot be challenged now.
3. Request to Require a New Application
Appellant’s Position:
The Appellant requests that the Extension of Time be denied and that the Applicant submit new discretionary applications if the project is pursued.
Staff Analysis:
HMC Section 16.08.200.B provides a process for extending previously approved entitlements. The Applicant submitted the Extension of Time application prior to expiration of the existing entitlements and requested the maximum three year extension permitted by the Municipal Code. Because the request was timely submitted and the required findings can be made, a new entitlement application is not required.
Conclusion:
Based on the record, Staff finds that the Planning Commission properly applied HMC Section 7 16.08.200.B in approving EXT 26-002. The Extension does not modify the previously approved project, and no circumstances requiring additional environmental review under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 have been identified. The responses provided by the Applicant’s environmental consultant and legal counsel are consistent with Staff’s analysis.
Therefore Staff recommends the City Council deny Appeal APP 26-002 and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of EXT 26-002.
Attachments:
1. Project Location Aerial Map
2. PC Approved Project Plans
3. Staff Report from the July 21, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting
4. PC Minutes from July 21, 2026
5. Appeal Application and Supporting Letter
6. HMC Section 16.08.200.B Extension of Time
7. T&B Planning Inc. - Applicant Environmental Consultant response letter
8. Rutan & Tucker, LLP - Applicants Legal Counsel response letter
9. City Council Resolution No. 2026 - ____ to uphold PC's Approval 8 ATTACHMENT 1
Project Location Aerial Map
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 1 CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN
22 23
24 25
Minimum 24" box for street trees
26 27
28 29
30 31
32 33
34 35
36 37
38 39
40 41
42 43
44 45
46 47
48 49
50 51
52 53
54 55
56 57
58 59
60 61
62 63
64 65
66 67
68 69
70 71
72 73
74 75
76 77
78 79
80 81
82 83
84 85
86 87
88 89
90 91
92 93
94 95
96 97
98 99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
ATTACHMENT 4
PC Minutes from July 21, 2026
172
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
July 21, 2026 – 6:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Highland was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chair Hamerly at the Donahue Council Chambers, 27215 Base Line, Highland, California.
Present: Chair Randall Hamerly
Vice Chair Chandra Thomas
Commissioner Nicole McCance
Commissioner Brent Merideth
Commissioner Jarrod Miller
Staff Present: Lawrence Mainez, Community Development Director Kim Stater, Assistant Community Development Director
Angela Tafolla, Senior Planner
Camille Duarte, Administrative Assistant III
Brian Wolfe, Assistant Public Works Director
Matt Wirz, Building Official
Chair Hamerly led the Pledge of Allegiance.
COMMUNITY INPUT (ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA)
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Request by Patriot Partners for a three-year Extension of Time (EXT 26-002) for Conditional Use Permit (CUP 23-003) to permit the development of a 53,665 square foot warehouse and associated improvements and Design Review Application (DRA 23-004) for the Site Plan, Building Elevations, Grading Plan and Conceptual Landscape Plan generally located on the south side of 5th Street, approximately 250 feet west of Central Avenue. APN: 1192-561-04, -05, 06- and -07 (Continued from June 16, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting) Senior Planner Tafolla presented the staff report.
Chair Hamerly opened the public hearing.
Public Speaker Esmeralda Vazquez spoke in opposition to building warehouses in the City of Highland.
Public Speaker Luis Ojeda spoke in favor to building warehouses in the City of Highland.
Public Speaker Ismael Gonzalez spoke in opposition to building warehouses in the City of Highland.
173
Public Speaker Judith Montenegro spoke in opposition to building warehouses in the City of Highland.
Public Speaker Saniyah Thomas spoke in opposition to building warehouses in the City of Highland.
Public Speaker Luis Lopez spoke in opposition to building warehouses in the City of Highland.
Public Speaker Heever Rocha spoke in opposition to building warehouses in the City of Highland.
Public Speaker Gilbert Guerra spoke in opposition to building warehouses in the City of Highland.
Public Speaker Everardo Zazveta spoke in opposition to building warehouses in the City of Highland.
Public Speaker Brian Diaz spoke in opposition to building warehouses in the City of Highland.
Public Speaker Diego Solis spoke in opposition to building warehouses in the City of Highland.
Public Speaker Michael Segura spoke in opposition to building warehouses in the City of Highland.
Public Speaker Gilbert Guerra spoke in opposition to building warehouses in the City of Highland.
Public Speaker Mirriam Nieto spoke in opposition to building warehouses in the City of Highland.
Public Speaker Jolie Silva spoke in opposition to building warehouses in the City of Highland.
Public Speaker Maria Sanchez spoke in opposition to building warehouses in the City of Highland.
Public Speaker Gilbert Guerra spoke in opposition to building warehouses in the City of Highland.
Public Speaker Pascual Garcia spoke in opposition to building warehouses in the City of Highland.
Public Speaker Minerva Navarro spoke in opposition to building warehouses in the City of Highland.
Public Speaker Maby Acosta spoke in opposition to building warehouses in the City of Highland.
174
Public Speaker Gilbert Guerra spoke in opposition to building warehouses in the City of Highland.
Public Speaker Jose Solorano spoke in opposition to building warehouses in the City of Highland.
Public Speaker Alberto Hernandez spoke in opposition to building warehouses in the City of Highland.
Public Speaker Gilbert Guerra spoke in opposition to building warehouses in the City of Highland.
Applicant Kevin Rice stated I appreciate the Commission's time and patience this evening. As a veteran, I also respect and appreciate the public's exercising their right to come out and make comments. Nothing has changed relative to the project since it was approved, I'm asking for an extension. The reason for the extension is basically warehouse demand has decreased over the past several years and demand meets a point where the financing is available.
Member Merideth asked did you consider any other uses for that property other than the warehouse, since the way it's zoned, it allows for a lot of different uses such as professional offices?
Applicant Kevin Rice stated there were no demand for other uses.
Commissioner Merideth asked how does your company come to the metric that there is demand for a warehouse versus demand for professional offices? Applicant Kevin Rice stated you run a market analysis based upon various parts of submarkets and what has been and what there is a market for.
Commissioner Merideth asked do you happen to know the road based profile and the load profiles that are used in the design of 3rd St. 5th St. which are identified as the trucking corridors within the circulation element of the General Plan? Assistant Public Works Director Wolfe stated there is a minimum paving section for that and recent 3rd and 5th corridor widening the roads. I don't remember exactly what that paving section was, but it's based on axial load over some period of time.
Commissioner Miller asked regarding Extension of Time, which would not cause any drainage to local funds to public funds. Is that correct?
Community Development Director Mainez stated no, when you are developing a site, you are increasing property values and property tax.
Community Development Director Mainez stated when we go over the next 20-30 year General Plan in a few years, the city encourages the public to attend the meetings and give feedback and any questions you might have.
175
Vice Chair Thomas asked what is the recourse after the three year extension? Assistant Community Development Director Stater the project will expire and the applicant wishes it continue this location it would come back for a new entitlement.
Vice Chair Thomas asked is it currently expired now?
Assistant Community Development Director Stater stated no, it is not expired.
Commissioner Merideth asked for an explanation regarding the current Development Impact Fees.
Assistant Community Development Director Stater explained Development Impact Fees. An example of how much Development Impact Fees (DIF) are, the warehouse built on Victoria Ave, about 300,000 square feet, paid over $4 million in DIF.
Chair Hamerly closed the public hearing.
A MOTION was made by Commissioner McCance and seconded by Vice Chair Thomas to adopt Resolution No. 26 – 011, approving Extension of Time application (EXT 26-002) for a three (3) year extension of Conditional Use Permit (CUP 23-003) and Design Review Application (DRA 23-004) subject to the Conditions of Approval and Findings of Fact. Motion carried, 5-0.
RESOLUTION NO. 2026 - 011
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND APPROVING A THREE (3) YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME (EXT 26-002) FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION (CUP 23-003) AND DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION (DRA 23-004) RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 53,665 SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSE LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 5TH STREET, APPROXIMATELY 250 FEET WEST OF CENTRAL AVENUE.
2. Request by Patriot Partners for a three-year Extension of Time (EXT 26-003) for Conditional Use Permit (CUP 22-011) to permit the development of a 47,889 square foot warehouse/office and associated improvements and Design Review Application (DRA 21-015) for the Site Plan, Building Elevations, Grading Plan and Conceptual Landscape Plan generally located on the south side of 6th Street, approximately 930 feet west of Del Rosa Drive. APN: 0279-201-24- 0000. (Continued from June 16, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting) Senior Planner Tafolla presented the staff report.
Applicant Kevin Rice stated thanks all for your patience and I appreciate the fact that you are volunteers. Fundamentally, when you build these projects, they are capital intensive, right? One of these projects would cost $30 million and in order to do that, you have to go to the capital markets. There's equity and debt investors in order for those people to invest, they need to be proven that there's going to be a market when you ultimately deliver the building.
When people speak about retail building, for example, we could build the shell theoretically, if you had the money. The analysis is always the same. In this area, warehousing leads the 176
highest and best use. The buildings that are approved as industrial buildings, and they fall under warehouse and distribution. The buildings that we are putting forth, they have dock high positions to allow the ownership to have the capacity to receive trucks and fundamentally these buildings that are purchased from small business owners.
Commissioner Merideth asked what size generator can this building support? Applicant Kevin Rice stated I have no idea. I can find out and e-mail you an answer.
Vice Chair Thomas stated I have to deal with this all the time with work, they'll size it appropriately for the use of what's going to be there. They will look at what load is it going to need and usually the architect and they work with engineers.
Chair Hamerly opened the public hearing.
Public Speaker Luis Ojeda spoke in favor to building warehouses in the City of Highland.
Public Speaker Luis Lopez spoke in opposition to building warehouses in the City of Highland.
Chair Hamerly closed the public hearing.
A MOTION was made by Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commissioner McCance to adopt Resolution No. 26 – 012, approving Extension of Time application (EXT 26-003) for a three (3) year extension of Conditional Use Permit (CUP 22-011) and Design Review Application (DRA 21-015) subject to the Conditions of Approval and Findings of Fact. Motion carried, 5-0.
RESOLUTION NO. 2026 - 012
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND APPROVING A THREE (3) YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME (EXT 26-003) FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION (CUP 22-011) AND DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION (DRA 21-015) RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 47,899 SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSE/OFFICE LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 6TH STREET, 930 FEET WEST OF DEL ROSA DRIVE.
3. Municipal Code Amendment (MCA 26-001), amending Section 16.44.180 (Accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units) of Title 16 (Land Use and Development) of the Highland Municipal Code to update requirements in accordance with State Law. The proposed amendment promotes the development of ADUs as a means to increase affordable housing opportunities and ensures the City's regulations remain compliant with State laws.
Assistant Community Development Director Stater presented the staff report.
Chair Hamerly stated it seems best if the City Attorney did additional research on the two recommendations before we make a decision in this forum. I envision several scenarios where eliminating that prohibition might be an issue if somebody is on an existing private sanitary system, unless they upgrade, they're not required to connect. However, 177
the additional capacity might mean that they would need to expand their private sewage disposal system, and that would require a permit.
Assistant Community Development Director Stater stated that is part of the reason it does exist, because that nightmare scenario already exists. The East Valley Water District Board is has is very opinionated about this topic is not one because they do not want new private systems. At the City we have some mapping that shows where we believe where the private systems to be in place and if it's a question we send the residents to East Valley Water District.
Building Official Wirz stated the East Valley Water District Board (EVWDB) has been back and forth on this the last five years. It started with my interactions with them on the 12 Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS) policy that they had and it started with Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) were supported and the EVWDB was completely against them. I stated to the board that the state wants more housing. In 2024, they revised their OWTS policy, and they've taken some more liberties with how they review and approve septic systems with existing dwellings. We have had one successful approval in the past for an ADU that was approved to be on a septic system.
Commissioner Merideth asked are we being asked to approve the limitations and those limitations being relative to not allowing them in fire prone areas? Assistant Community Development Director Stater stated as it is today, a homeowner would not be permitted to add an ADU, unless they were connected to sewer for the most part. They have appeals processes that can go to the EVWDB. As our ordinance is written stated that if it is not connected to sewer, we don't allow the resident to submit an application at this time.
That was reviewed previously by the City Attorney's Office and as part of the current Highland Municipal Code. Our City Attorney is not stating that the Planning Commission cannot take action, she is stating the Planning Commission can take action as is, the City Attorney’s Office will continue to research it between now and till City Council will review this item in September.
This is just a recommendation to City Council and that is when the final determination will be.
I should clarify that his document stated we are referring specifically to very high and high fire not permitted. It is a clarification of what the city had already enacted.
Chair Hamerly asked can you elaborate on the fire sprinklers? If the primary residence or parcel were not required to have sprinklers, the Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU) and ADU would not be required.
Assistant Community Development Director Stater stated just for the JADU’s, it must provide fire sprinklers if they are required for the primary dwelling.
Chair Hamerly opened and closed the public hearing.
A MOTION was made by Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commissioner Merideth to Approve Resolution No. 2026 - 013, recommending the City Council approve Municipal Code Amendment (MCA 26-001):
1. Adopt a Notice of Exemption and direct Staff to file a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors; and
178
2. Introduce an Ordinance to amend Section 16.44.180 (Accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units) of Title 16 (Land Use and Development Code) to continue the implementation of Program 12 of the Highland Housing Element to ensure consistency with State housing legislation including Senate Bill 543, Assembly Bill 1154, and Senate Bill 9.
Motion carried, 5-0.
RESOLUTION NO. 2026 - 013
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND,
CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 16.44.180 (ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS) OF TITLE 16 (LAND
USE DEVELOPMENT CODE) OF THE HIGHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE TO UPDATE
REQUIREMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW, AND MAKE A FINDING OF
EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT MCA 26-001)
PLANNING COMMISSION LEGISLATIVE
4. A request by Diversified Pacific and Lennar to assign street names to Tentative Tract No. 20721, a 113-unit single-family residential development located on the north side of Greenspot Road and Alta Vista (APNs 1210-371-16 & 1210-371-14).
Select street names from the list proposed by the Applicant.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
The next Planning Commission meeting will be held on August 4, 2026.
ADJOURN
There being no further business, Chair Hamerly declared the meeting adjourned at 9:02 p.m.
Submitted by: Approved by:
__________________________________ _________________________________ Camille Duarte, Administrative Assistant III Randall Hamerly, Chair 179
ATTACHMENT 5
Appeal Application and Supporting Letter
180
Rev.09/25
2 Filing Fee:________________
Date of Action:_____________
File Index No.:_____________
Project Applicant(s):_______________________________________________________________ Appellant’s Name(s):______________________________________________________________ Appellant’s Address:_______________________________________________________________ Phone:___________________
Assessor’s Parcel No. of Subject Property or Street Address:______________________________ General Location of Property:_______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________
APPEAL STATEMENT
1. I/We hereby appeal to the City of Highland: (Check one) City Staff to Complete
Date Appeal Filed:______________
Receipt Number: _______________
APPEAL APPLICATION
___ Public Nuisance Hearing Board from action by: (Check one) ___ Planning Commission from action by: (Check one)
___ City Council from action by: (Check one)
___ Vehicle Abetment Hearing Board from action by: (Check one) Community Development
Director / Code Compliance
Building Official / Code Compliance
City Engineer
City Planner
Planning Commission
Historic and Cultural Preservation
Board
$330
July 21, 2026
People's Collective for Environmental Justice
1411 North D Street, San Bernardino, CA 92405
909-248-3885
Patriot 5th & Central, LLC
1192-561-04, -05, -06, and -07
A 2.86 acre site on the south side of 5th Street, approximately 250 feet west of Central Ave 181
Rev.09/25
3 ___ DENY the project without prejudice
___ APPROVE the project with Conditions (Attach a
copy of the Conditions, if they are the subject of the
appeal)
___ DENY the project
___ APPROVE the project
___ ADOPT a Negative Declaration
___ DECLARE the existence of a Public Nuisance and/or Inoperable Vehicle(s) ___ OTHER (Specify)______________________________________________________
2. I/We are appealing the project/Code compliance action taken to:
3. Detail what is being appealed and what action or change you seek. Specifically address the findings, mitigation measures, conditions and/or policies with which you disagree. Also state exactly what action/changes you would favor.
__________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________
4. State why you are appealing - be specific. Reference any errors or omissions - attach any supporting documentation. __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________
5. Public Nuisance/Inoperable Vehicle Appeals - state why you appealing and if you are the owner of the property or the owner of the vehicle(s). __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ I/We certify that I/We are the:
___ Legal Property Owner(s)
___ Authorized Legal Agent(s)
___ Registered Vehicle Owner(s)
___ Other Interested Person(s)
_________________________________
[Signature of Appelleant(s)]
Date:____________________________
_________________________________
[Signature of Appelleant(s)]
Date:____________________________
See attached letter.
We appeal the Planning Commission's decision to approve the three-year Extension of Time (EXT 26-002) for Conditional Use Permit (CUP 23-003) and Design Review Application (DRA 23-004). See attached letter. 182
183
550 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 1200
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104
T: (415) 552-7272 F: (415) 552-5816
www.smwlaw.com
KEVIN P. BUNDY
Attorney
[email protected]
August 3, 2026
Via Hand Delivery
Mayor Penny Lilburn and Members
City of Highland City Council
27215 Base Line
Highland, CA 92346
Lawrence A. Mainez
Community Development Director
27215 Base Line
Highland, CA 92346
Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Resolutions on July 21, 2026 Planning Commission Agenda Items 1 and 2
Dear Mayor Lilburn and Members of the City Council:
This firm represents the People’s Collective for Environmental Justice (“PCEJ”) in connection with warehouse development proposals in the area surrounding the San Bernardino International Airport. PCEJ is a member of the San Bernardino Airport Communities coalition and works closely with residents of the Cities of Highland and San Bernardino who are directly affected by warehouse and industrial development in neighborhoods near the airport.
Pursuant to City of Highland Municipal Code section 16.08.210, PCEJ appeals the Planning Commission’s decisions1 on July 21, 2026 to approve a three-year Extension of Time (EXT 26-002) for Conditional Use Permit (CUP 23-003) and Design Review Application (DRA 23-004) to permit the development of a warehouse at 5th Street and Central Avenue (the “5th Street Warehouse”); and to approve a three-year Extension of Time (EXT 26-003) for Conditional Use Permit (CUP 22-011) and Design Review Application (DRA 21-005) to permit the development of a warehouse at 6th Street and 1 The draft resolutions for these decisions are attached as Attachment 4 to the Staff Report for Agenda Item 1 and Attachment 4 to the Staff Report for Agenda Item 2 on the Planning Commission’s July 21, 2026 Agenda. As of the date this appeal was due, the final resolutions were not available.
184
Mayor Penny Lilburn and Members
August 3, 2026
Del Rosa (the “6th Street Warehouse”) (together, the “Projects”; both the extensions together, the “Extensions”).2
I. The City cannot make the findings required to grant the Extensions.
The City may grant an extension of project approval “only if it is found that granting of an extension will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.” Municipal Code §
16.08.200.B(5). It cannot make these findings here.
A. The Projects are designed and located in a manner that threatens health, safety, welfare, and nearby properties.
The potential for detriment and injury here is obvious. The eastern boundary of the 5th Street Warehouse lies roughly 25 feet from the entrance to a Head Start location serving preschoolers and their families. The warehouse’s loading docks will face the Head Start, and trucks will turn into and out of the driveway on 5th Street very close to the preschool. The driveway is also located across 5th Street from multi-family housing.
The 6th Street Warehouse is across the street from Indian Springs High School and immediately adjacent to a multi-family residential development. Heavy trucks using 6th Street to access the warehouse will pose safety hazards to students, families, pedestrians and bicyclists. The neighborhoods surrounding both Projects are full of homes, libraries, and other sensitive receptors. The Projects have not been designed to meet warehouse standards recently adopted by the California Legislature in AB 98 and successor legislation. The City Council can and should find that these projects will be detrimental to public health, safety, and welfare and injurious to properties and improvements in the vicinity based on their design and location alone.
B. The City has not analyzed the Projects’ obvious potential for significant cumulative impacts.
Nor are these the only warehouse projects that could have detrimental or injurious effects on this neighborhood. As PCEJ has previously brought to the Planning Commission’s attention, the City has not adequately analyzed the cumulative impact of developing over 1.5 million square feet of warehouse space in the small area north of San Bernardino International Airport. PCEJ Comment Letter re January 20, 2026 Planning Commission Agenda Item 3 (“January 20, 2026 Comments,” attached as Exhibit A) at
13. PCEJ has identified at least 10 warehouses, including the 5th Street Warehouse and 2 PCEJ has no direct financial interest in either of the Projects. 185
Mayor Penny Lilburn and Members
August 3, 2026
6th Street Warehouse, approved within blocks of each other and near sensitive receptors like residences and schools.3 Id. The City approved the majority of these warehouses before it approved these Projects in May and September 2023, yet failed to consider cumulative impacts in its original analysis of these Projects.
Given this context, the potential for detriment and injury from significant cumulative impacts is obvious. When PCEJ analyzed the Mitigated Negative Declarations (“MNDs”) for just a few of the nearby warehouses, PCEJ found that construction air quality data and health risk assessments in the MNDs—as riddled with errors as they were—showed that the collective impact of these facilities will readily exceed applicable thresholds, threatening the health and safety of community members.
January 20, 2026 Comments at 10-16. Heavy trucks and passenger cars will use the same neighborhood roadways, contributing to cumulative noise and transportation impacts as well as toxic diesel particulate emissions along the entire network of area roadways lined with homes and other sensitive receptors. Id. Fifth Street in particular will carry truck traffic from many if not all of these projects right by the Head Start and numerous residences.
PCEJ is not alone in these concerns; the San Bernardino City Unified School District (“District”) also opposes the Extensions due to the Projects’ “cumulative public health and transportation impacts.” District July 21, 2026 Comment Letter re Patriot Partners Warehouse Developments (attached as Exhibit B) at 1. The District rightfully points out that “children are among the most sensitive populations,” and increased exposure to diesel emissions from truck activity causes serious health risks. Id. The District also raises concern over the strain on transportation infrastructure from increased truck traffic, which can negatively impact the “daily travel patterns of students, staff, and families.” Id. at 2. PCEJ amplifies the District’s request that the City decline the Extensions.
The Planning Commission’s resolutions approving the Extensions make a cursory reference to the Commission’s 2023 resolutions originally approving the Projects in support of the findings necessary to approve the Extensions. Staff Report for July 21, 2026 Agenda Item 1, Attach. 4 at 4; Staff Report for July 21, 2026 Agenda Item 2, Attach. 4 at 4. But the MNDs prepared for these Projects did not adequately consider the 3 The City’s repeated failure to analyze cumulative impacts of closely related projects is suggestive of an unlawful pattern and practice of failing to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). See Californians for Native Salmon and Steelhead Association v. Department of Forestry (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 1419. 186
Mayor Penny Lilburn and Members
August 3, 2026
cumulative effects of building and operating up to 10 warehouses simultaneously in the midst of homes, schools, and other sensitive receptors.
Absent adequate analysis of the cumulative impacts of all of these warehouses, the City cannot find that granting the Extensions “will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.” Therefore, it must deny the Extensions.
C. The City has not analyzed the hydrology impacts for which it is now requiring mitigation measures.
In approving the Extensions, the Planning Commission revised the Conditions of Approval to require mitigation measures for hydrology impacts that were not disclosed or addressed in the Projects’ original MNDs. Staff Report for July 21, 2026 Agenda Item 1, Attach. 4, Exh. 3 at 47 (Engineering Condition of Approval 28); Staff Report for July 21, 2026 Agenda Item 2, Attach. 4, Exh. 3 at 40 (Engineering Condition of Approval 27).
These revised conditions now require “proposed improvements to mitigate project impacts” related to hydrology. However, the Projects’ MNDs did not find any significant impacts for hydrology, nor did they propose mitigation. Southwest Corner of 5th Street and Central Avenue Warehouse Project Initial Study/Mitigated Declaration4 (2023) at 77- 78 (finding less than significant impacts to drainage patterns); Sixth Street and Del Rosa Drive Warehouse Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration5 (2023) at 75-76 (finding the same).
If the City anticipates that the Project will have additional impacts that require additional mitigation, these issues must be properly analyzed under CEQA. Without this analysis, the City cannot find that granting the Extensions will not cause detriment or injury, and therefore must deny the Extensions.
II. The City should not grant extensions for concededly uncertain projects with subpar environmental analyses and outdated designs.
Moreover, the City has no reason to accommodate the uncertain prospects of a financially insecure applicant to the detriment of its residents. At the July 21, 2026 hearing on the extensions, the applicant represented that it does not have the funding to 4 Accessed at https://www.highlandca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4088/FINAL-InitialStudy-Mitigated-Negative-Declaration-PDF. 5 Accessed at https://www.highlandca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3618/Sixth-and-DelRosa-Warehouse-Initial-Study-Mitigated-Negative-Declaration-PDF. 187
Mayor Penny Lilburn and Members
August 3, 2026
carry out the Projects and currently has no plan in place to secure that funding. The City retains full discretion to deny these Extensions, and it should exercise that discretion in the best interest of its residents. The City is not obligated to extend project approvals indefinitely in order to accommodate outdated facilities based on outdated economic assumptions. If economic conditions change and the applicant secures the necessary funding to build the Projects, it can submit new applications. At that time, the City can ensure complete analysis of impacts and full compliance with current standards governing warehouse siting and design.
III. Conclusion
The City Council should reverse the Planning Commission’s July 21, 2026 approvals of the Extensions. Due to the Projects’ close proximity to educational facilities and homes and the lack of cumulative impacts analysis, the City should not and cannot make the mandatory findings that the Projects will not be detrimental or injurious.
Moreover, rather than extend the approvals indefinitely in the face of changing economic conditions, the City can and should deny the Extensions and require the applicant to submit new applications if and when conditions warrant.
PCEJ reserves the right to supplement this letter with additional information and argument in advance of and during the City Council’s hearing on the appeal.
Very truly yours,
SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP
Kevin P. Bundy
Yeji Jung
Copy to (via email):
Lawrence A. Mainez, Community Development Director, [email protected] Kim Stater, Assistant Community Development Director, [email protected] Camille Duarte, Administrative Assistant, [email protected] Exhibits
188
Mayor Penny Lilburn and Members
August 3, 2026
A. PCEJ Comment Letter re January 20, 2026 Planning Commission Agenda Item 3
B. San Bernardino Unified School District, July 21, 2026 Comment Letter re Patriot Partners Warehouse Developments
2100479.6
189
Exhibit A
190
396 HAYES STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102
T: (415) 552-7272 F: (415) 552-5816
www.smwlaw.com
KEVIN P. BUNDY
Attorney
[email protected]
January 20, 2026
Via E-Mail
Chair Randall Hammerly and Members
City of Highland Planning Commission
27215 Base Line
Highland, CA 92346
Email: [email protected]
Re: Patriot USICVI 5th Street, LLC application to construct a warehouse at the Southeast Corner of Victoria Avenue and 5th Street (January 20, 2026 Planning Commission Agenda Item 3)
Dear Chair Hammerly and Members of the Planning Commission:
The following comments, submitted on behalf of People’s Collective for Environmental Justice (“PCEJ”), concern the Southeast Corner 5th Street and Victoria Avenue Warehouse Project (“Project”) and its Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”).
The MND for the Project fails to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq., and the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, title 14, § 15000 et seq. (“CEQA Guidelines”). The Project as designed is also inconsistent with the City’s General Plan.
The City therefore cannot make or support the findings of approval required for the various components of the Project under the Municipal Code.1 The Project as designed further conflicts with AB 98/SB 414 (Government Code section 65098 et seq.) and cannot lawfully be approved.
As detailed below, many of the MND’s conclusions regarding the significance of the Project’s environmental impacts are not supported by substantial evidence. Indeed, 1 Specifically, the City cannot find the proposed General Plan amendment, zoning change, conditional use permit (“CUP”), design review application, or parcel map consistent with the General Plan due to the conflicts and inconsistencies addressed below. 191
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026
there is substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the Project will have significant environmental impacts, necessitating preparation of an environmental impact report (“EIR”). Numerous mitigation measures proposed in the MND fail to meet CEQA’s standards for mitigation and are not sufficient to support the MND’s conclusion that the Project’s impacts will be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Moreover, numerous inadequacies and omissions in the MND render it insufficient as an environmental review document, and many of its conclusions lack substantial evidentiary support. Accordingly, the City may not approve the Project on the basis of this MND.
Nor can the Planning Commission or City Council lawfully make the CEQA findings proposed in the draft resolution attached to the Staff Report (see Staff Report Attachment C at 5-6, Part B, Section 4) or the findings regarding environmental impacts required under sections 16.08.030 through 16.08.050 of the City’s zoning ordinance.
PCEJ became aware of this Project only after the Planning Commission hearing was noticed. But many of the issues raised in this letter should not come as a surprise to the City or the Applicant. PCEJ notes that public agencies and community organizations previously submitted comment letters, including at least one expert report, to the City regarding this Project and the MND. See MND at PDF 1998-2096 (Appendix M). These comments raised numerous legal and evidentiary objections to the MND and provided substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that at least some of the Project’s impacts will be significant notwithstanding the MND’s conclusions. The MND asserts that two of these comment letters (on behalf of Advocates for the Environment and Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance, including an expert report prepared by SWAPE) were subsequently “withdrawn” on the basis of unspecified agreements or “settlements” between the commenters and the Applicant. MND at PDF 1999, 2008-10, 2094.
However, the MND does not explicitly explain or correct the substantive legal and evidentiary deficiencies identified in these comments, and it fails to address the substantial evidence of significant impacts presented to the City. Accordingly, the MND remains inadequate and cannot lawfully support approval of the Project.
The comments of Advocates for the Environment and Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance, including the expert report prepared by SWAPE, are therefore incorporated by reference herein. In accordance with CEQA, PCEJ reserves the right to raise any issues identified in these comments, and in other comments in the record, in any further administrative or legal proceedings regarding this Project. See Pub. Resources Code § 21177(a), (b); Covington v. Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 867, 873.
192
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026
I. The City May Not Approve the Project Without Preparing an Environmental Impact Report Under CEQA.
CEQA is designed to ensure that “the long-term protection of the environment shall be the guiding criterion in public decisions.” Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College District (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 596, 604 [“San Mateo Gardens II”] (quoting No Oil, Inc. v. Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 74). Thus, the statute requires an agency evaluating a project to develop an EIR whenever “substantial evidence supports a fair argument that a proposed project ‘may have a significant effect on the environment.’” Committee for Re-Evaluation of T-Line Loop v.
San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1237, 1245-46 (quoting Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1123).
The fair argument standard establishes a “low threshold” for requiring a lead agency to prepare an EIR. Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 928. Courts “owe no deference to the lead agency’s determination,” but rather must show “a preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review.” Id. (italics in original). Further, where the agency fails to study an entire area of environmental impacts, deficiencies in the record “enlarge the scope of fair argument by lending a logical plausibility to a wider range of inferences.” Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311.
Substantial evidence supporting a fair argument may consist of personal observations of local residents on nontechnical subjects (see, e.g., Oro Fino Gold Mining Corp. v. Cty. of El Dorado (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 872, 882; Protect Niles v. City of Fremont (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 1129, 1152), as well as expert opinion supported by facts—even if that opinion is not based on a specific analysis of the project at issue.
Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928. In marginal cases, where it is not clear whether there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant impact and there is a disagreement among experts over the significance of the effect on the environment, the agency “must treat the effect as significant” and prepare an EIR. CEQA Guidelines § 15064(g); City of Carmel-By-The-Sea v. Board of Supervisors, (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 229, 245.
As explained further below, ample substantial evidence supports a “fair argument” that the Project may result in significant environmental impacts that were not properly analyzed and adequately mitigated in the MND. Because the Project has the potential to result in significant impacts, the City is required to prepare an EIR before it may approve the Project.
193
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026
II. The MND’s Technical Analysis of Noise Impacts Is Missing and its Conclusions Are Deficient and Unsupported.
The MND finds the Project’s noise impacts less than significant based on noise modeling results purportedly attached as Appendix H. See MND at PDF 97-102 (repeatedly referring to analysis in Appendix H). However, Appendix H consists of a single page of traffic counts; it contains no noise modeling, data, or analysis. MND at PDF 1843-44. Absent such materials, the MND itself is incomplete, and neither the public nor decision-makers can meaningfully evaluate its conclusions. As a result, the City has not complied with CEQA’s requirement that a complete MND be circulated for at least a 20-day public comment period. CEQA Guidelines § 15073(a). A complete MND must be circulated before the Project can be considered by the Planning Commission.
Circulation of the noise analysis is particularly important because the discussion in the text of the MND indicates that the Project may have significant noise impacts on nearby sensitive receptors.
For example, the Project’s construction noise will clearly exceed the City’s maximum noise standards at nearby residences. Compare MND at PDF 95 (describing City’s 60-70dBA daytime noise standards for residential and commercial areas) with PDF 98 (Table 21, estimating one-hour and eight-hour average construction noise in excess of 70-80 dB). The MND admits that the Project is not exempt from the City’s construction noise ordinance and therefore must provide both “a construction noise analysis” and “adequate mitigation measures.” Id. at PDF 95. As discussed above, Appendix H—on which the “construction noise analysis” in the MND relies—was not included in the MND. Moreover, the MND fails to consider “adequate mitigation measures.” The MND states that because the Project will comply with a General Plan provision limiting construction to daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.), no significant impact will occur, and no mitigation is required. MND at PDF 98-99. Yet the MND provides no analysis or evidence that the hours limitation will reduce or avoid excessive noise levels at all, much less prevent violations of City noise standards. A significant effect that occurs for eleven straight hours every day is still a significant effect. Discussion of “adequate mitigation measures” is required by both CEQA and the City’s ordinances.2 2 Rather than using the City’s noise standards to assess the significance of impacts, the MND appears to pivot, concluding that Project construction noise is not significant because it “would not exceed the FTA construction noise threshold of 80 dBA Leq 8- 194
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026
The MND’s analysis of off-site traffic noise—including noise from heavy trucks—is also fatally deficient. The MND concludes that because the Project will not cause a doubling of traffic volumes, no increase above 3 dB—and therefore no significant impact—will occur. MND at PDF 102. However, the MND’s (missing) noise analysis apparently used a passenger-car-equivalent figure to calculate traffic volumes and focused solely on whether those volumes would double. Id. The analysis thereby appears to have ignored potential increases in noise from the heavy trucks that will travel back and forth on 5th Street to the driveway located across 5th Street from residences.
Compare Site Plan (showing northern truck entrance to 5th Street) with Ex. A. (Google Maps image showing approximate truck entrance location roughly 150 feet from 26604 5th Street multifamily residence). No traffic study was prepared for the Project, but the minimal information in the MND’s Traffic Scoping Form (Appendix I) shows that 80% of Project truck traffic will travel to and from the Project’s northern driveway along 5th Street east of the Project. See MND at PDF 1853. Trucks traveling on 5th Street in both directions will therefore pass in front of additional residences and Highland Head Start on their way to the 210 freeway. Ex. B. (Google Maps image showing 5th Street between Victoria and Central). As circulated, the MND lacks any analysis of truck traffic noise near these receptors, including single-event noise, which may cause significant impacts.
The MND also lacks any analysis of cumulative noise impacts from operation of multiple new warehouses located in the same neighborhood and using the same local roadway network. As discussed elsewhere in this letter, this Project is only one of nearly a dozen warehouses that have been built, approved, or planned in the last several years.
The MND completely—and unlawfully—omits any discussion of this Project’s contribution to cumulative construction and operational noise impacts.
Finally, the MND’s apparent conclusion that an increase of 3dB over ambient conditions is not significant (MND at PDF 102) is unsupported and appears to conflict hour at nearby sensitive receiver locations.” MND at PDF 98. However, the MND does not establish that the City of Highland has adopted “the FTA construction noise threshold” as a threshold of significance for warehouse construction projects near residences to the exclusion of its own General Plan and noise ordinance. Nor does the MND provide any analysis of whether this threshold is appropriate for use in this context or any other substantial evidence to support adoption of this threshold. If anything, the MND suggests that the FTA standards have not been adopted as a threshold, assuring readers that they have been “provided for comparison purposes in the absence of such limits at the state and local jurisdictional levels.” MND at PDF 94. The MND’s dismissal of construction noise impacts on the basis of the FTA threshold thus lacks any legal or evidentiary support.
195
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026
with the FICON standards governing the significance of noise increases discussed in the MND. Ambient noise at two of the three sensitive receptor locations sampled already exceeds 65 dBLeq. Id. at PDF 93 (Table 19). Under the FICON standards, an increase of 2 dB is significant where existing ambient noise levels exceed 65 dBLdn. Id. at PDF 94 (Table 20). The MND discusses differences between the Leq and Ldn metrics (id. at PDF 92), but it contains no disclosure or analysis of existing, ambient noise levels expressed as Ldn that would permit a rational comparison with the FICON standards or support a significance conclusion.3 The MND has thus failed to provide a meaningful assessment of the Project’s potential noise increases, and its conclusion that the Project’s impacts will be less than significant lacks support.
III. The MND’s Analysis of Transportation Impacts Is Legally Deficient, Incomplete, Conclusory, and Unsupported by Substantial Evidence.
A. The MND Employes an Unlawful “Baseline” by Comparing Project VMT to “Buildout” Rather Than Existing Conditions.
An initial study must compare a project’s impacts to a “baseline” consisting of existing physical environmental conditions as of the time CEQA review begins. CEQA Guidelines § 15125; Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 320 & fn. 5 (applying CEQA Guidelines section 15125 to initial study).“[T]he impacts of a proposed project are ordinarily to be compared to the actual environmental conditions existing at the time of CEQA analysis, rather than to allowable conditions defined by a plan or regulatory framework.” Id. at 320.
Here, the MND compares the Project’s vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”) impacts to citywide VMT at “buildout,” presumably meaning buildout conditions under the City’s General Plan. MND at PDF 1860 (Appendix J). Courts have squarely rejected this type of comparison with conditions allowed under adopted zoning and planning provisions rather than existing environmental conditions. See, e.g., Woodward Park Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. City of Fresno (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 683, 706-11. 3 Ambient measurements are expressed only as Leq and Lmax. MND at PDF 93. 196
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026
B. The MND’s Bare Conclusions Regarding the Significance of VMT Impacts Are Unsupported by Model Data or Analysis and Contradict Readily Available Evidence.
The MND concludes that Project VMT—calculated as including only trips by commuting employees, not trucks—will be 19.45 per service population. MND at PDF 115, 1861. The MND compares this figure to the “future City buildout citywide average VMT per service population” of 22.54 per service population and concludes on that basis that the Project will have a less-than-significant impact. Id.
These conclusory statements lack evidentiary support in either the MND or the Urban Crossroads report attached as Appendix J. Appendix J claims that the SBTAM model was used to generate a Project VMT estimate (MND at PDF 1860-61), but it does not disclose or discuss the assumptions or input data used in the modeling run (including the assumed trip length for employee commute trips), much less justify the accuracy or suitability of those assumptions and data for this Project.
Nor does Appendix J justify the use of PA VMT per service population rather than another measure of VMT (for example, OD VMT per service population) for this Project.
MND at PDF 1865 (reproducing screenshot of SBCTA screening tool output showing PA VMT of 25.9 for 2022 “baseline year” in Project TAZ). According to SBCTA’s GISbased VMT screening tool, existing (2026) PA VMT per service population for the Traffic Analysis Zone containing the Project parcels is 27.6. Ex. C. (2026 PA VMT per Service Population).4 OD VMT per service population, however, is much higher, at 67.
Ex. D. (2026 OD VMT per Service Population). SBCTA’s tool also can be used to calculate PA VMT Per Worker, which for these parcels is 17.6—10.44% higher than the overall jurisdictional VMT of 15.9. Ex. E. (2026 PA VMT Per Worker). Accordingly, using either OD VMT per service population or PA VMT per worker, the Project would cause an increase in VMT compared to existing conditions and would have a significant impact.
PA VMT per service population may underestimate VMT for at least two reasons:
it may incorrectly assume that all trips are “resident”-based (i.e., that they start and end within the jurisdiction) and that employees always drive directly to work and back 4 The SBCTA VMT Screening Tool is a GIS application that can be accessed from the following website: https://sbcta.maps.arcgis.com/home/index.html (visited Jan. 14, 2026). Exhibits C through E were generated using this screening tool for the same parcel depicted in Attachment A to Appendix J (MND at PDF 1865), a baseline year of 2026, and a Threshold % reduction of zero.
197
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026
without making any intermediate stops (causing additional VMT that would be captured using OD VMT per service population). See Ex. F. (Fehr & Peers, VMT Modeling Lexicon). The MND presents no evidence that these assumptions hold for this Project.
Thresholds of significance and methodological choices must be supported by substantial evidence. The MND and Appendix J lack a reasoned explanation and evidentiary support for the VMT analysis and conclusions presented.
Finally, the MND fails to explain its conclusion that the Project would generate substantially lower VMT (19.45 per service population) than the current VMT at the Project site (27.6 per service population using the PA VMT method). One would expect that new development located in a higher-VMT area would have similar VMT impacts.
Cf. Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. County of San Diego (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 948 (finding lack of substantial evidence to support county’s conclusion that “infill” development in higher-VMT zones would have less-than-significant VMT impacts). Once again, the MND’s lack of disclosure regarding data inputs, assumptions, and methods deprives its conclusions of evidentiary support.
C. The MND’s VMT Analysis Understates Trip Generation and Improperly Omits Heavy Truck Trips.
The MND’s VMT analysis is flawed because it apparently included only passenger vehicles in the analysis—and it seems to have undercounted those vehicles.
The VMT analysis assumes that the Project will employ 147 workers. MND at PDF 1861. However, a trip generation table attached to Appendix J states that the Project will generate 218 daily passenger vehicle trips and 83 daily truck trips, for a total of 301 actual trips. Id. at 1867. The trip generation table also employs a “passenger car equivalent” (“PCE”) factor for truck trips, concluding that the Project will generate 429 PCE trips. Id.
The MND fails to explain how the VMT analysis—which assumed only 147 “workers” and therefore apparently excluded numerous passenger vehicle trips and all truck trips, including two-axle trucks—squares with the trips the Project is actually predicted to generate. Moreover, the MND’s approach is irrational given that the proposed development project consists of a heavy-duty truck facility.
Guidance from the California Governor’s former Office of Planning and Research (“OPR”, now known as the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation) regarding the evaluation VMT impacts makes clear that truck VMT can be included. Ex. G. at 4 (OPR Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, December 2018).
There is no reasoned basis for ignoring VMT from trucks in assessing the environmental 198
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026
impacts of a warehouse project. Indeed, excluding trucks from VMT calculations is fundamentally misleading for this type of project and serves only to undermine any meaningful assessment of impacts.
IV. The MND Improperly Piecemeals its Analysis.
The MND fails because it piecemeals consideration of the Project’s impacts. As the Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance comments (“GSEJA Comments”) observed, the Project is one “piecemealed portion of a larger overall project in the immediate vicinity developed by Patriot Partners.” MND at PDF 2012. Including this Project, there are at least seven projects proposed by the same Applicant in the same geographic area with a combined footprint of 913,889 square feet. As evidenced by the successive CUP numbers and public review periods, the Applicant and City knew these projects were proceeding simultaneously as a group. Indeed, the Staff Report confirms that these seven warehouses are in fact a single “project”: “This facility in conjunction with Patriot’s other six (6) developments will provide a comprehensive design program, promoting the corridor as a unified, business-friendly employment center.” Staff Report at 10.
Project Location Square footage
MND Public Review
start date
CUP 22-014 SEC Victoria Ave & 5th St 173,976 Oct. 18, 2024 CUP 21-0075 NWC Victoria Ave & 6th St 305,617 Nov. 5, 2021 CUP 22-0026 NWC 3rd St & Central Ave 54,330 July 13, 2022 CUP 22-0037 Grape St south of Cypress St 90,532 Aug. 22, 2022 CUP 22-0048 SEC Victoria Ave & Cypress St 187,870 Aug. 8, 2022 CUP 22-0119 West of 6th St & Del Rosa Dr 47,899 Mar. 24, 2023 CUP 23-00310 South side of 5th St west of Central Ave 53,665 Jul. 14, 2023 Total 913,889
Table 1. Known Patriot Partners warehouse projects, including this Project.
A “project” under CEQA is “the whole of an action” that may cause a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect change in the environment. CEQA Guidelines § 15378(a). 5 https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2021110112
6 https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2022070212
7 https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2022080461
8 https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2022080147
9 https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2023030640
10 https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2023070268
199
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026
The relevant “project” for CEQA analysis is “the activity which is being approved,” even if that activity “may be subject to several discretionary approvals by government agencies”; the term “does not mean each separate governmental approval.” Id. § 15378(c). Here, it is obvious that the Applicant’s “activity”—and thus the “project” for CEQA purposes—is to build several warehouses totaling nearly 1 million square feet in close proximity. The Staff Report expressly concedes as much. Staff Report at 10.
CEQA does not permit lead agencies to “piecemeal” analysis of a project, i.e., break up the project into smaller pieces and limit environmental analysis to each individual piece. See Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 396 (improper to “submerge[ environmental impacts] by chopping a large project into many little ones—each with a minimal potential impact on the environment—which cumulatively may have disastrous consequences”). The City must examine all of the Applicants’ warehouses as a single “project” in an EIR before proceeding with any further approvals or entitlements related to any of the individual warehouse projects.
V. The MND’s Analyses of, and Mitigation for, the Project’s Environmental Impacts are Legally Inadequate.
A. The MND Fails to Disclose, Analyze, and Provide Mitigation for the Project’s Cumulative Impacts.
An initial study must analyze whether a project’s cumulative impacts are significant. CEQA Guidelines § 15063(b)(1). “An EIR must be prepared if the cumulative impact may be significant and the project’s incremental effect, though individually limited, is cumulatively considerable. ‘Cumulatively considerable’ means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” Id. § 15064(h)(1); see also id. §§ 15065(a)(3) (requiring mandatory finding of significance for “individually limited but cumulatively considerable” effects), 15355 (defining “cumulative impacts”).
A cumulative impacts analysis must include all “reasonably and practically” available information about the impacts of other projects, including projects “still in the planning stages” or “under review” if those projects are reasonably foreseeable. Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 722-23; see also Friends of the Eel River v. Sonoma County Water Agency (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 859, 869-72 (agency abused discretion by failing to address cumulative impacts in context of 200
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026
separate project in planning stages, particularly where agency itself was participating in administrative proceedings for that project).
An MND may be invalidated, and an EIR may be required, due to an agency’s failure to adequately address cumulative impacts in an initial study. See, e.g., San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society v. Metropolitan Water Dist. (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 382, 398-400.
1. The MND Improperly Dismisses Cumulative Impacts Based Entirely on a Conclusion that Project-Specific Impacts Are Less Than Significant.
A CEQA document may not dismiss the significance of a project’s cumulative impacts based solely on a conclusion that its project-specific impacts are less than significant. Focusing solely “upon the individual project’s effects rather than the combined effect” is “contrary to the intent of CEQA.” Kings County Farm Bureau, 221 Cal.App.3d at 720. Such an approach “avoids analyzing the severity of the problem and allows the approval of projects which, when taken in isolation, appear insignificant, but when viewed together, appear startling.” Id. at 721.
The MND here takes precisely this unlawful approach, where it mentions cumulative impacts at all. In a few cursory sentences, the MND acknowledges that “project related biological, cultural and tribal cultural, and geological impacts [] could be potentially significant without the incorporation of mitigation” and that corresponding cumulative impacts also could be significant. MND at PDF 130. The MND then states that project-specific impacts can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, and on that basis finds that all cumulative impacts will be less than significant with mitigation. Id.
Beyond this conclusory syllogism—which the courts have squarely found “contrary to the intent of CEQA”—the MND provides no analysis or factual discussion to support its conclusion that the Project will have no cumulatively considerable effects.
The MND’s approach is contrary to law and unsupported by evidence, and the Project cannot lawfully be approved on the basis of its conclusions.
Indeed, the data presented above concerning the multiple warehouses already in the planning and approval stages for this neighborhood illustrates the City’s egregious failure to consider cumulative impacts. This Project is merely one of ten warehouses proposed for (and, in some cases, under construction in) the neighborhood north of San Bernardino International Airport that together total nearly 1.6 million square feet. See 201
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026
Fig. 1 below (map of proposed warehouses); Table 2 below (warehouse locations and square footage).
Most of these warehouses were proposed almost simultaneously by the Applicant for this Project.11 Yet the MND for this Project fails to consider the cumulative effects of building and operating all of these warehouses simultaneously in the middle of a neighborhood full of homes, schools, libraries, and other sensitive receptors.
The potential for significant cumulative impacts is obvious. As discussed below, construction air quality data and health risk assessments in the MNDs—as riddled with errors as they are12—show that the collective impact of these facilities will readily exceed applicable thresholds, threatening the health and safety of community members. Heavy trucks and passenger cars will use the same neighborhood roadways, contributing to cumulative noise and transportation impacts as well as toxic diesel particulate emissions along the entire network of area roadways lined with homes and other sensitive receptors.
The MND for this Project completely fails to address the cumulative context. At the very least, an EIR must be prepared for this Project in light of its considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts.
2. The MND Fails to Address Cumulative Impacts in Specific Topic Areas.
a. Air Quality
One particularly concerning omission is in the cumulative air quality analysis.
As the MND concedes, “Cumulative localized impacts would potentially occur if a project were to occur concurrently with another off-site project.” MND at PDF 27.
However, the MND claims that potential impacts of simultaneous projects “would be considered speculative” because “[s]chedules for potential future projects near the project site are currently unknown.” Id. This is patently false, as the Applicant itself has submitted and the City has approved proposals for at least six other warehouses in the area. See Table 1 above. The City has also approved at least three additional warehouses 11 As discussed above, the City has unlawfully “piecemealed” the analysis of the Applicant’s overall warehouse construction project, which was already a violation of CEQA. The lack of any meaningful analysis of cumulative impacts from these projects taken together has only further subverted CEQA’s purposes, misleading both decisionmakers and members of the public. 12 See MND at PDF 2026-2093 (SWAPE report).
202
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026
proposed by other developers: CUP 22-005A13 (Crow Holdings West), CUP 23-00914 (Crow Holdings East), and DRA 22-02215 (Lovett Industrial). These projects have a combined development footprint of 1,597,005 square feet. See Table 2 below. And the Applicant for this Project is aware of, and in control of, construction timelines for seven of those projects, including this one. There is no basis for the Applicant or the City to claim that the combined impacts of these projects are “speculative.” The MND simply fails to analyze the cumulative localized impacts of all of these projects.
Figure 1. Map of warehouses. This Project in yellow; other Applicant warehouses in blue; warehouses proposed by other applicants in orange.
Developer Project Location Square footage
Patriot Partners CUP 22-014 SEC Victoria Ave & 5th St 173,976 Patriot Partners CUP 21-007 NWC Victoria Ave & 6th St 305,617 Patriot Partners CUP 22-002 NWC 3rd St & Central Ave 54,330 Patriot Partners CUP 22-003 Grape St south of Cypress St 90,532 Patriot Partners CUP 22-004 SEC Victoria Ave & Cypress St 187,870 Patriot Partners CUP 22-011 West of 6th St & Del Rosa Dr 47,899 Patriot Partners CUP 23-003 South side of 5th St west of Central Ave 53,665 Crow Holdings CUP 22-005A
East side of Central Ave between 3rd &
5th St 154,876
Crow Holdings CUP 23-009 Between 5th & 3rd St, east of Central Ave 243,323 Lovett Industrial DRA 22-022 NWC of Palm Ave & Meines St 284,917 Total 1,597,005
Table 2. Known nearby warehouse projects, including this Project. 13 https://www.highlandca.gov/DocumentCenter/Index/509
14 https://www.highlandca.gov/DocumentCenter/Index/631
15 https://www.highlandca.gov/DocumentCenter/Index/513
203
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026
Even considering only the Applicant’s projects, the combined impact on air quality likely exceeds significance thresholds. Several projects, including this Project, come very close to exceeding significance thresholds on their own. In particular, five of the Applicant’s seven projects will produce construction emissions for PM10 and PM2.5 at levels anywhere from 77% to 97% of the localized significance threshold. See highlighted figures in Ex. H. Similarly, for five of the seven projects, construction activities would result in a residential maximum individual cancer risk at levels from 65% to 99% of the significance threshold of 10 in 1 million. See id. For operational activities, CUP 21-007 (NWC Victoria Ave & 6th St) will cause a residential maximum individual cancer risk of 9.59, even higher than this Project’s risk of 9.48, with both levels close to the 10 in 1 million threshold. See id. As discussed in greater detail below, all of these projects are proposed for a disadvantaged community already suffering from severe environmental impacts, including a very high background cancer risk. The MND fails to evaluate how the emissions from each of the known warehouse projects nearby will combine with the Project’s impacts.
b. Population and Housing Impacts
The MND also fails to consider the cumulative growth in employment induced by all of the nearby warehouse projects. As a threshold matter, the MND incorrectly calculates the employment growth caused by this Project. The MND uses SCAG’s 2001 Employment Density Report to calculate employment estimates using data for San Bernardino County. MND at PDF 94. Instead, the MND should use the estimate from the City’s 2006 General Plan Land Use Element, which is both more recent and more locally specific. As the GSEJA Comments note, Table 2.2 - Nonresidential Buildout Estimates of the Land Use Element states that the Business Park Land Use designation will generate 1 employee for every 600 square feet.16 This means this Project will generate 290 employees.17
SCAG’s 2024 Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast notes that the City will add 4,200 jobs between 2019 and 2050.18 This Project alone represents 6.9% of that growth, and the nearby warehouse projects combined with this Project will generate 16 City of Highland, General Plan, Land Use Element, March 2006, at 2-21. https://www.highlandca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3216/Land-Use-Element-PDF. 17 The MND’s use of incorrect employment figures also undermines its analysis other topic areas in the MND, including but not limited to VMT. 18 SCAG Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast, adopted April 4, 2024, at
44. https://www.scag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2024-05/23-2987-tr-demographicsgrowth-forecast-final-040424.pdf. 204
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026
at minimum 2,666 employees or 63.5% of the employment growth forecast over 31 years, when we are less than a third through that time period. See Table 3 below. The MND fails to provide a cumulative analysis of the significant employment growth from these projects.
Project Location Square footage Employees % of forecast CUP 22-014 SEC Victoria Ave & 5th St 173,976 290 6.9%
CUP 21-007 NWC Victoria Ave & 6th St 305,617 510 12.1%
CUP 22-002 NWC 3rd St & Central Ave 54,330 91 2.2%
CUP 22-003 Grape St south of Cypress St 90,532 151 3.6% CUP 22-004 SEC Victoria Ave & Cypress St 187,870 314 7.5% CUP 22-011 West of 6th St & Del Rosa Dr 47,899 80 1.9%
CUP 23-003 South side of 5th St west of Central Ave 53,665 90 2.1% CUP 22-005A
East side of Central Ave between 3rd &
5th St 154,876 259 6.2%
CUP 23-009 Between 5th & 3rd St, east of Central Ave 243,323 406 9.7% DRA 22-022 NWC of Palm Ave & Meines St 284,917 475 11.3% Total 1,597,005 2,666 63.5%
Table 3. Employees generated by known nearby warehouse projects, including this Project.
c. Transportation
The MND also fails to analyze cumulative transportation impacts. The local CMP requires a traffic impact analysis when “a development project, or at local discretion, a group of projects are forecast to generate 250 two-way peak hour trips.” Ex. I. at 4-4 (San Bernardino County Congestion Management Program, June 2016). The City of Highland requires a traffic report when the local CMP requires, or when a project generates more than 1,000 new two-way daily trips or 100 new two-way peak hour trips. MND at PDF 111.
Combining this Project with just two of the Applicant’s other projects results in peak hour trips exceeding the City’s threshold for a traffic report. PCE-adjusted peak hour trips for this Project total 90 trips. Combined with PCE-adjusted peak hour trips from CUP 21-007 (157 trips; see Ex. J. at 100, Table 26) and CUP 22-004 (55 trips; see Ex. K. at 100, Table 26), the projects together generate a total of 302 trips. Without even considering the rest of the projects, this well exceeds the 100 two-way peak hour trips threshold, requiring a traffic report. The MND must further analyze all cumulative impacts on traffic from all of the known warehouse projects. 205
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026
d. General Plan Buildout Conditions.
As the GSEJA Comments note, the MND does not analyze cumulative impacts in relation to the City’s General Plan buildout projections. Table 2.2 - Nonresidential Buildout Estimates of the Land Use Element forecasts 2,407,126 square feet of building space developed under the Business Park Land Use designation through 2040.19 This Project alone represents 7.2% of that estimate, and the total footprint of the known warehouses represents 66.3% of the estimate. See Table 4 below. The MND fails to discuss the impacts of this significant combined development.
Project Location Square footage % of buildout
CUP 22-014 SEC Victoria Ave & 5th St 173,976 7.2%
CUP 21-007 NWC Victoria Ave & 6th St 305,617 12.7%
CUP 22-002 NWC 3rd St & Central Ave 54,330 2.3%
CUP 22-003 Grape St south of Cypress St 90,532 3.8%
CUP 22-004 SEC Victoria Ave & Cypress St 187,870 7.8%
CUP 22-011 West of 6th St & Del Rosa Dr 47,899 2.0%
CUP 23-003 South side of 5th St west of Central Ave 53,665 2.2% CUP 22-005A
East side of Central Ave between 3rd &
5th St 154,876 6.4%
CUP 23-009 Between 5th & 3rd St, east of Central Ave 243,323 10.1% DRA 22-022 NWC of Palm Ave & Meines St 284,917 11.8%
Total 1,597,005 66.3%
Table 4. Percentage of Business Park buildout estimate generated by known nearby warehouse projects, including this Project.
B. The MND Fails to Properly Analyze and Mitigate the Project’s Energy Impacts.
The MND’s conclusion that the Project would not result in any potentially significant energy impacts is not supported by adequate analysis or evidence. The MND must contain a detailed statement describing “measures to reduce the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy.” Pub. Resources Code § 21100(b)(3); CEQA Guidelines, Appx. F. Appendix F to the CEQA Guidelines provides a list of potential energy use impacts and mitigation measures to guide that analysis. See CEQA Guidelines, Appx. F §§ II.C-II.D. It states that EIRs should consider, 19 City of Highland, General Plan, Land Use Element, March 2006, at 2-21. https://www.highlandca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3216/Land-Use-Element-PDF. 206
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026
among other things, (1) a project’s “energy requirements and . . . energy use efficiencies by amount and fuel type for each stage of the project,” (2) the project’s “effects of the project on local and regional energy supplies and on requirements for additional capacity,” (3) the “effects of the project on peak and base period demands for electricity and other forms of energy,” and (6) the project’s “project’s projected transportation energy use requirements and its overall use of efficient transportation alternatives.” See id., § II.C. Local agencies should also consider mitigation measures such as “siting, orientation, and design to minimize energy consumption,” “reducing peak energy demand,” and “use of alternate fuels (particularly renewable ones) or energy systems.” Id. § II.D; see also CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2(b) (EIR must mitigate wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy use). This MND’s energy impacts analysis falls short of evaluating the standards outlined in Appendix F as CEQA requires. See id., Appx. F §§ II (“Where items listed [in Appendix F]. . . are applicable or relevant to the project, they should be considered in the EIR.”); see also Cal. Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 211 (“Clean Energy”) (EIRs must address applicable considerations from Appendix F); Ukiah Citizens for Safety First v. City of Ukiah (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 256, 265 (“Ukiah Citizens”) (same).
Appendix F §§ II.F states that the project’s energy impact analysis should assess whether the project has “Unavoidable Adverse Effects [that] may include wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy during the project construction, operation, maintenance and/or removal that cannot be feasibly mitigated.” Here, the MND does not do the necessary work. Regarding impact question VI.a, whether the Project would “[r]esult in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation,” the MND concludes that this impact would be less than significant. The evidence cited is that the Project will be subject to the State Building Energy Efficiency Standards and that “vehicles would use less petroleum due to advances in fuel economy and potential reduction in VMT over time.” MND at PDF 65. Further, the MND states that “[s]ince the proposed project would comply with Title 24 conservation standards, the proposed project would not directly require the construction of new energy generation or supply facilities or result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy.” MND at PDF 66.
The MND states that “the proposed project would not directly require the construction of new energy generation or supply facilities or result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy.” This conclusion assumes that because the Project will not require the construction of new energy-generating or supply facilities to serve its energy needs, the Project is therefore not wasteful or inefficient. But 207
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026
there is no supporting evidence or data for this claim. As shown below, the Project is indeed inefficient, wasteful, and consumes unnecessary energy from the grid, and mitigation is required.
Although other reliable clean energy sources exist, the Project proposes to burn natural gas for various purposes, including water heating and natural gas appliances and natural gas forklifts, as well as to allow gas-powered forklifts on site. MND at PDF 64.
This is both wasteful and inefficient. Furthermore, the project does not propose to generate any energy on-site. This approach completely wastes the solar energy that hits the site on a near-daily basis in sunny, inland Southern California and consumes unnecessary energy from the grid when on-site sources could be available. Installing onsite solar photovoltaics to generate electricity to consume on-site can avoid real, measurable inefficiencies that are inherent to buying electricity from the grid. A key efficiency advantage of on-site solar PV is that it avoids grid transmission & distribution losses. The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates transmission & distribution (“T&D”) losses average approximately 5% of the electricity transmitted and distributed in the United States. See Ex. L. Here, when solar PV could be used to generate energy on-site (“behind the meter”) and that energy could be used on-site, most of those upstream T&D losses could be avoided for that kWh. Therefore, on-site energy is less wasteful than electricity purchased from the grid.
This Project could generate enough renewable power to supply some or all of the Project’s electricity needs through the installation of solar photovoltaic panels on the building roof or in the parking field, but it does not appear to be doing either. On site solar would reduce the Project’s energy consumption from the grid, reduce energy waste, and reduce associated GHG emissions. It also aides in demonstrating consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan and AB 1279 by making the Project net neutral in terms of energy demand and production. In sunny Southern California, a roughly 174,000 square foot building like the proposed warehouse could easily meet 100% of the Project’s electricity needs through a rooftop solar system. Assuming that 60% of the rooftop area can be used for solar panels, a rooftop solar system would generate, conservatively, over 1,600,000 kWh/year.20 This is well over the Project’s estimated operational electricity demand, 20 In warmer climates such as southern California, flat roofs have an access factor (percentage area of roof available to accommodate solar systems) of 60%. See Ex. M. (Lado Kurdgelashvili et al., Estimating Technical Potential for Rooftop Photovoltaics in California, Arizona and New Jersey, Center for Energy and Environmental Policy (CEEP), 2016) at 28. Thus, an approximately 174,000 square foot building can allocate 104,000 square feet to a solar system (174,000 sq ft. × 60% access factor = 104,000 sq. 208
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026