Economic Development Committee
City of Rialto
Regular Meeting - Final
Rialto City Hall, Council Chambers, 150 S. Palm
Ave. Rialto CA 92376
1:00 PMWednesday, March 23, 2022
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
PUBLIC COMMENTS
REVIEW/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
EDC-22-273 Minutes from the February 23, 2022 meeting.
PRESENTATIONS
EDC-22-159 Renaissance Update - Glen Crosby, Vice President - Regional Planned Communities Lewis Management Corp.
REPORTS/DISCUSSION ITEMS
1 EDC-22-252 U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) Audit Neighborhood Stabilization Program 1 and 3 (NSP 1 and 3) 2 EDC-22-253 Design Services for Interstate 10 Slover Mountain Underpass Project 3 EDC-22-166 Verbal update on the Building Amnesty program.
UPCOMING MEETINGS/OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS
ADJOURNMENT
1 City of Rialto
Legislation Text
File #: EDC-22-273, Version: 1, Agenda #:
Minutes from the February 23, 2022 meeting.
City of Rialto Printed on 3/18/2022Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
2 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
MINUTES
Wednesday, February 23, 2022
Via Zoom
Call to Order/Roll Call 1:13 PM (Recording started at 1:18)
EDC MEMBERS PRESENT:
Deborah Robertson, Mayor
Ed Scott, Mayor Pro Tem
CITY/AGENCY STAFF PRESENT:
Marcus Fuller, City Manager
Robert Messinger, Deputy City Attorney
Paul Gonzales, Community Development Manager
Jesse Sanchez, Chief Building Official
Daniel Casey, Senior Planner
Siri Champion, Senior Planner
David Hammer, Interim Public Works Director
Amy Crow, Administrative Analyst
Angela Perry, City Council/City Manager’s Executive Assistant
Additional Attendees: Resident John Peukert
Public Comments – None
Review/Approval of Minutes
EDC-22-152 Minutes from the January 26, 2022 – Accepted for the Record.
PRESENTATIONS
EDC-22-141 Inland Empire Regional Chamber of Commerce - Business Services Presentation
Edward Ornelas IE Regional Chamber of Commerce gave the Business Services Presentation
Committee Comments/Recommendations
Mayor said that the Chamber has not been able to highlight our businesses to the level that they should have been. Mayor asked how he works with the other Cities, such as Fontana.
Edward said that whenever they organized any business function, they always reach out local City Chambers and request to be part of it. He said that they are very inclusive with 3 other local City Chambers. He also mentioned that he purchased the rights for the IE Business Journal to give the region a voice and highlight the main attractions in the area.
Mayor asked him how his team interface with IEEP.
Edward said, their main goal is to build a strong foundation first and build a trust. They want to establish good relationships with local business before they get involved with any political subjects. Recently, they haven’t had any interaction with IEEP due to COVID.
Mayor said she knows that he has opened up for some of our businesses to join the IE Chamber. She asked him to provide a proposal to City Manager. He will email Marcus the details for the proposal.
2 EDC-22-142 Placer.ai - Civic Solutions Presentation
Clayton Demanes Senior Account Executive, Placer.ai gave his the presentation
Committee Comments/Recommendations
Mayor asked Clayton if he has data collected from Texas Roadhouse and Norms restaurants. He does not have any data at this time. Mayor requested to similarly provide data on hotel accommodations.
Mayor asked him to provide a proposal.
3 EDC-22-143 Strata Clean Energy - Inland Empire Energy Storage Project Will Mitchell and Collin Ramsey from Strata gave an update
Committee Comments/Recommendations
Mayor said that it’s great getting an update. She believes that it brings value to the community.
REPORTS
1 EDC-22-144 2021-2029 (6th Cycle) Housing Element Update Siri gave the presentation
Committee Comments/Recommendations
Mayor said that this is one of the activities that don’t stay on the for front of what is going on in the city and a gain compliance and noncompliance. She said, that’s the only way she can be aware of what was going on; she added that one of her colleagues mentioned getting letters back from HCD and that those letters were absolutely ridiculous, pages and pages. It is hard to figure it out how you can begin to address it and go forward .
Moreover, this state agency seems like they are changing whatever direction we are going. Mayor does not want us to get a letter when we haven’t met the housing elements, it will take us back to another cycle before we know it; we still haven’t been able to meet the fifth cycle. She wants everybody to be aware and recommend. She hopes they can be able to prepare and share the same information for the consent calendar and the hearing by March 8th. She thinks thats not only our city, but other cities are figuring out on how to push back with HCD.
Mayor is aware of the Little Creek project where we have it as a residential; she is aware of a letter that perhaps puts the project in a fire zone which might be steps away from the 4 residential being built. Mayor said that Mayor might be able to speak more in depth. She spoke to Ron Ferris, and he mentioned it. If that is the case, those numbers don’t go away off our cycle. Mayor said this mean that we have to figure it out how to readjust those units that are expected somewhere else in the city. Mayor asked Siri if her statement is correct in regard to changing something for Renaissance or Lytle. Siri said yes. She explained, there is a requirement by the state that if we do not develop units that are proposed, we need to be rezoned other properties. Sir i said that their strategy has been to go over the top, instead of meeting the minimum. Siri added, we got room in case the development doesn’t happen where we anticipated, it can be picked up in other areas. She doesn’t expect, even if we were to lose som e in the Lytle Creek area, for us to do any additional rezoning. Mayor ask ed if our rezoning is already done for the residential where we will be able to absorb that without having to do any changes? Siri said the reason is because the Lytle Creek area contributes to the moderate and above moderate income categories. The most difficult categories to meet state requirements are for the low and very low income ranges. If we lose some of the moderate and above moderate housing units in Lytle Creek area, we will still be able to make up for those in other parts of the city.
Marcus said that the City Attorney reviewed information from Ron Ferris, there is an exception in the law regarding lands in a severe fire zone, and the determination was that it does not need or require a replacement of units. He said he will revisit this with the Attorney.
Siri’s estimate for reaching compliance between May and July for a total 3 letters.
Mayor said, this is not only in our city, this conversation is probably going to be carried all the way to the General Assembly in May for SCAG.
2 EDC -22-158 Request Economic Development Committee Review the Pacific Electric Trail Expansion Feasibility Study and Recommend Approval by City Council.
Dave Hammer introduced Steven Frieson from Alta Planning who made the presentation
Committee Comments/Recommendations
Marcus said, he asked Dave Hammer to get the schedule; they presented it before, and it was right after they learned about the opportunity to fully develop that segment of the Pacific Electric Trail. The feasibilities were essentially revised to show that the full whip of the corridor may ultimately be developed , that is really the change. Marcus added, they are ready to bring it forward for Council approval; it will allow them, once it’s adopted, to go forward with the ATP Gran t Funding and other sources of funding that might help us deliver that project.
Mayor asked about Typical View 1 asking where would we find the parking. He said the parking would be on the east side. They will be asking to place a signal. She asked would the pathway is the pathway narrowing or consistent with the other part of the trail.
Dave said that it will be consistent with the other reaches of the corridor.
Mayor said that driving regulations should be imposed to other small vehicles . She mentioned seeing more golf cars on residents’ yards.
5 Mayor wants to know if we have checked with SBCTA if the project is consistent with other areas where trail and services have done. She asked Marcus to look if it is consistent with where we have done some trails and services under the SBCTA jurisdiction on corridors, and if they have always not participated in the cleanup the remediations or in the assessment. The other pathway we need to look at is the Brown field assessments if we know there is contaminates in the corridor, and at what point we can start taking possession. Mayor doesn’t believe their giving the right of way access; they have the corridor. The Pacific Trail is under SBCTA jurisdiction. Mayor asked if her statement is correct. Marcus responded to Mayor, as far as he understands , they can always reutilize that corridor. Mayor said, if we would need some type of agreement or mutually understanding about the use of the Pacific Trail. Marcus said, he recalls a cooperative agreement completed a few years ago.
Steve added, it is usually a right of way reserve. He knows that it is their intention in the month of March to inform the CPUC that they are abandoning schedule rail services in this corridor. Furthermore, they are doing that in conjunction with the rail operator; that will get rid of the actual operational component of it. Steve said, from his experience, SBCTA policy likes to have a reserve for future reintroduction of light rail.
Mayor said, in the course of the presentation the Mayor Pro Tem left. So, she is not going to do a recommendation; the council will have to decide.
Marcus said, he will bring it forward on the 8th eventually and indicate that it was presented to the EDC without mention of a recommendation; we responded to the prior comments to Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem.
3 EDC-22-157 Consider Establishment of a Fee Schedule for Use of City Owned Electric Vehicle Charging Stations and provide direction on Max Port Count and Charging Station type for SCE Charge Ready 2 Applications.
Committee Comments/Recommendations
Mayor said to proceed, the project is the one that has caused us to be able to abandon this. Her understanding is that we are still moving along with environmental planning.
She is concerned about who we are using and what are we selecting. Mayor said that she keeps getting requests on what Edison has available.
Marcus responded, with MPT not here for the rest of the meeting, we shouldn’t address this item.
4 EDC-22-166 Update on the Building Amnesty program.
Mayor asked for the information on Building Amnesty. Jesse said he will send a report with an update.
Upcoming Meeting/Other Discussion Items
Next meeting March 23rd.
Adjournment
Meeting adjourned at 2:58 p.m.
6 City of Rialto
Legislation Text
File #: EDC-22-159, Version: 2, Agenda #:
For Economic Development Committee [March 23, 2022]
TO: Honorable Economic Development Committee Members
APPROVAL: Marcus Fuller, City Manager
FROM: Kathy Brann, Economic Development Manager
Renaissance Update - Glen Crosby, Vice President - Regional Planned Communities Lewis Management Corp.
City of Rialto Printed on 3/18/2022Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
7 City of Rialto
Legislation Text
File #: EDC-22-252, Version: 1, Agenda #: 1
For Economic Development Committee [March 23, 2022]
TO: Honorable Economic Development Committee Members
APPROVAL: Marcus Fuller, City Manager
FROM: Kathy Brann, Economic Development Manager
U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) Audit Neighborhood Stabilization Program 1 and 3 (NSP 1 and 3)
BACKGROUND
U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) Los Angeles field office conducted a remote audit of the city’sNeighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) 1 and 3 between September 23 thru 30th, 2021. The City received a letter from HUD on December 6, 2021, which outlined five (5) findings (A Finding is identified as a deficiency in program performance based on a statutory, regulatory or program requirement for which sanctions or other corrective actions are authorized).
On February 2, 2022, the city responded to each of the findings. To date all the findings have been satisfied except for finding number one which was in regard to the city’s LH25 Set Aside Requirement. A minimum of 25 percent of grant funds must be expended for housing for individual households whose incomes do not exceed 50 percent of area median income. HUD has granted the city a 45-day extension which ends on March 31, 2022.
LaBarge Industries (“Developer”)has previously entered into three separate Affordable Housing agreements for a project, Park Place, consisting of consisting of 46 units and 16 buildings located at Jackson and Willow. In December 2017, the Developer proposed to acquire Successor Agency properties located at 274 Jackson, across the street from the Park Place project, to develop 10 multi- family units as an affordable housing project (“Project”). The proposal includes utilizing the Park Place staff to manage and maintain the Project and provide social resources for the Project’s residents.
The city entered into an Affordable Housing/Development and Loan Agreement (AHA) to received NSP funding in the amount of $1,428,551 and Low- and Moderate-Income Housing funds for $440,000. When a project is being funding with Federal Housing Funds a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) must be submitted for clearance. Unfortunately, this step was missed and by the time it was ready to be submitted the project expired.
ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION
Available Funds
Currently the HUD NSP 1 and 3 are as follows:
Open Balance from NSP1 & NSP3 = $1,700,601.61
Open Balance for NSP1 = $1,004,022.31
City of Rialto Printed on 3/18/2022Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
8 File #: EDC-22-252, Version: 1, Agenda #: 1
Open Balance for NSP3 = $696,579.37
The LH25 Set Aside Requirement:
NSP1 LH25 obligation = $802,878.23
NSP3 LH25 obligation = Has been met
In order to meet the LH25 Set Aside Requirement the City must spend a minimum of $802,878.23.
These funding sources date back several years, and the City must spend them to avoid losing these funds for lack of spending timelines.
Potential Project
The same Successor Agency site, that the Developer was interested in developing is still available.
In order to meet our LH25 obligation at least five (5) units would be required to provide housing for individual households whose incomes do not exceed 50 percent of the area median income. One option would be to enter into an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with the Developer, this would elevate the need to go through the Surplus Land Act which would be timelier. Second option would be to issue a Request for Proposals for a design build project. Following developer selection, the city and developer would enter into a Compensation Agreement that would need to gain approval from the Housing and Community Development Surplus Land Act process, Clerk of the Board and Oversight Board. The developer would then go through the normal entitlement process. Once entitlements are approved, the city would enter into a Development Agreement that would be approved by the City Council. The disposition of the Successor Agency parcels would be assessed and sold to the developer. Both options meets the goals of the spending the NSP funding and meeting the LH25 Set Aside Requirement, Successor Agency to dispose of City owned property, and meets Surplus Lands Act requirements.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Appropriate $1,004,022.31 from Account Number 241-500-1858-3001 (NSP1 Program Income Funds), and $696,579.37 from Account No. 239-500-1858-3001 (NSP3 Program funds) If the NSP 1 and NSP 3 funds are not spent in a timely manner, the city risks losing the funds.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Economic Development Committee receive and file the staff report and presentation from staff.
City of Rialto Printed on 3/18/2022Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
9 10
11 12
City of Rialto
Legislation Text
File #: EDC-22-253, Version: 3, Agenda #: 2
For Economic Development Committee [March 23, 2022]
TO: Honorable Economic Development Committee Members
APPROVAL: Marcus Fuller, City Manager
FROM: Kathy Brann, Economic Development Manager
Design Services for Interstate 10 Slover Mountain Underpass Project
BACKGROUND
This Project would replace the Slover Mountain Union Pacific Railroad Underpass (UPRR UP) structure at I-10 to accommodate the I-10 Corridor Project. A Project Study Report/Project Development Study (PSR/PDS) was completed for the I-10 Corridor Project in 2014, and the Project Approval/Environmental Document (PA/ED) for adding one to two express lanes from the Los Angeles/San Bernardino County line to Ford Street in the City of Redlands was approved in May 2017. The first ten miles of the I-10 Corridor Projects are currently under construction as Contract 1, and are scheduled to open in 2023.
In 2018, SBCTA traffic and revenue studies, as well as cash flow analyses for the I-10 and Interstate 15 (I-15) corridors, were undertaken to determine the next steps for both corridors, with the results indicating that further phasing on both I-10 and I-15 corridors would be required. SBCTA updated the development cost in 2021 confirmed the need for phasing, and their Board of Directors (Board) directed staff to explore a single express lane strategy for the next segment on the I-10 Corridor Project to be consistent with the State’s Guideline Principles for Transportation Investment.
However, due to the disruption of goods movement at the ports and the recent passage of the United States Infrastructure Act, dual express lanes as proposed in the original PA/ED are now a possibility.
As such, SBCTA staff will prepare to deliver either single or dual express lanes in each direction.
This agenda item is to replace the I-10 Slover Mountain UPRR UP to accommodate the upcoming I- 10 Corridor Project. Although this Project was not included in the recent update to the SBCTA 10- Year Delivery Plan, SBCTA examined current fund balances and revenue projections and has determined there is sufficient funding to advance the Project.
ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION
Board of Directors Metro Valley Study Session Agenda Item March 10, 2022, approved San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) to release of a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E), Right-of-Way (ROW), and Design Support Services during construction. Environmental Revalidation to document that this work is part of a separate construction package but still a part of the ultimate longer corridor approved in the original PA/ED.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
This item is consistent with the SBCTA Fiscal Year 2021/2022 Budget for Task No. 0820 Freeway City of Rialto Printed on 3/18/2022Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
13 File #: EDC-22-253, Version: 3, Agenda #: 2
This item is consistent with the SBCTA Fiscal Year 2021/2022 Budget for Task No. 0820 Freeway Projects, Sub-Task No. 0847.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Economic Development Committee receive and file the staff report and presentation from staff.
City of Rialto Printed on 3/18/2022Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
14 City of Rialto
Legislation Text
File #: EDC-22-166, Version: 1, Agenda #: 3
Verbal update on the Building Amnesty program.
City of Rialto Printed on 3/18/2022Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
15