Agenda packet — Mayor and City Council, November 6, 2024 (part 3 of 4)

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-218

RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING FINAL MAP FOR TRACT NO. 20376
(SUBDIVISION 20-06) INVOLVING THE SUBDIVISION OF
A PROJECT SITE CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 0.77

ACRES INTO NINE DETACHED RESIDENTIAL UNITS,
LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF E.

PACIFIC STREET AND N. GARDEN DRIVE; ACCEPTING

THE PUBLIC DEDICATIONS AS SET FORTH ON SAID
MAP; AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF THE

STANDARD FORM OF THE SUBDIVISION
IMPROVEMENTS.

WHEREAS, On April 12, 2022, Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2022-016 approving Subdivision 20-06 (Tentative Tract Map 20376) and Development Permit Type-D 20- 08, allowing the subdivision of a parcel containing approximately 0.77 acres and the development and establishment of a townhome development comprised of nine (9) detached residential units located at the northwest corner of E. Pacific Street and N. Garden Drive (APN: 0147-231-07) within the Residential Medium (RM) zone, and
WHEREAS, On June 11, 2024, Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2024-018 approving Extension of Time 24-02 and allowing a one-year extension of time for Subdivision 20- 06 (Tentative Tract Map 20376) and Development Permit Type-D 20-08, and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reviewed the approved Tentative Tract Map 20376 with conditions of approval, and has analyzed the Final Map for Tract No. 20376 in order to ensure consistency between the approved Tentative Tract Map 20376 with adopted conditions of approval and the final map requirements, and has determined that the Final Map for Tract No. 20376 has been found to be in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Tract Map 20376, and WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council find that proposed Tract Map 20376, located at the northwest corner of E. Pacific Street and N. Garden Drive (APN: 0147-231-07) within the Residential Medium (RM) zone together with the provisions of their design and improvement is consistent with the General Plan of the City of San Bernardino.

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 2. The Mayor and City Council hereby authorize the City Manager of the City of San Bernardino to execute the standard form Subdivision Improvement Agreement with Inland Self Storage & Management. attached and incorporated herein as Attachment 3, for the Packet Page. 373
Resolution No. 2024-218
Resolution 2024-218
November 6, 2024

Page 2 of 3 ends

improvements in said Tract Map as required by Title 19 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code and the California Subdivision Map Act. The time for performance is as specified in the Agreement. Said improvements are specifically described and shown on Drawings approved and on file in the office of the Public Works Department of the City of San Bernardino.

SECTION 3. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted with the approval of Subdivision 21-11 (Tentative Tract Map 20421) on November 8, 2022. No further changes to the environmental conditions of the subject site or the proposed subdivision have occurred. Therefore, the previous environmental determination adopted for Subdivision 21-11 (Tentative Tract map 20421) remains valid, pursuant to Section 15162 (c) (Subsequent Negative Declarations) of the California environmental Quality Act.

SECTION 4. The Final Map of said Tract Map is hereby approved and the City of San Bernardino hereby accepts as public property all dedications within the subdivision as shown on said Tract Map for streets, alleys (including access rights), drainage and other public easements.

As a condition precedent to approval of Tract Map, the Subdivider shall first execute the Agreement referenced in Section 2 hereof for the improvements within said Tract Map limits.

SECTION 5. Severability. If any provision of this Resolution or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications, and to this end the provisions of this Resolution are declared to be severable.

SECTION 6. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective immediately.

APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council and signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk this 6th day of November 2024.

Helen Tran, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
Attest:

Genoveva Rocha, CMC, City Clerk
Approved as to form:

Sonia Carvalho, City Attorney
Packet Page. 374
Resolution No. 2024-218
Resolution 2024-218
November 6, 2024

Page 3 of 3 ends

CERTIFICATION

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO) ss

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO )
I, Genoveva Rocha, CMC, City Clerk, hereby certify that the attached is a true copy of Resolution No. 2024-218, adopted at a regular meeting held on the 6th day of November 2024 by the following vote:

Council Members: AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENT
SANCHEZ _____ _____ _______ _______
IBARRA _____ _____ _______ _______
FIGUEROA _____ _____ _______ _______
SHORETT _____ _____ _______ _______
REYNOSO _____ _____ _______ _______
CALVIN _____ _____ _______ _______
ALEXANDER _____ _____ _______ _______
WITNESS my hand and official seal of the City of San Bernardino this ___ day of ____ 2024.

Genoveva Rocha, CMC, City Clerk
Packet Page. 375
Packet Page. 376
Packet Page. 377
Packet Page. 378
Packet Page. 379
Packet Page. 380
Packet Page. 381
Packet Page. 382
Packet Page. 383
Packet Page. 384
Packet Page. 385
Packet Page. 386
Packet Page. 387
Packet Page. 388
TRACT NO.
20376

FOR CONDOMINIUM

PURPOSES CALLAND ENGINEERING
INC.

FRANCIS K. LIN P.L.S.
9645
DATE OF SURVEY: FEBRUARY
2023
Packet Page. 389
TRACT NO.
20376

FOR CONDOMINIUM

PURPOSES CALLAND ENGINEERING
INC.

FRANCIS K. LIN P.L.S.
9645
DATE OF SURVEY: FEBRUARY
2023
LOTS 35-30
TRACT NO.
2316
M.B. 33/31

BASIS OF
THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS MAP IS BASED BEARINGS:

ON THE
GRID BEARING N89°56'46"W , BETWEEN N.G.S.

CONTROL
STATION "EV3596" AND "EV3634" AS PER RECORDS
ON
THE FILE WITH NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY. DATUM
STATEMENT: COORDINATE
S

SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON
CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM (CCS83) ZONE
5, NAD
1983. (1991.35 EPOCH)

ALL DISTANCES SHOWN ARE GROUND, UNLESS

OTHERWISE
NOTED. TO OBTAIN GRID DISTANCES MULTIPLY
GROUND
DISTANCES BY 0.99993107 WHICH IS THE

COMBINATION
FACTOR OF N.G.S. CONTROL STATION "EV3634"
LOT 10
TRACT NO.
2316
M.B. 33/31
LINE
TABLE 6' E1

NO BEARING LENGTH
L1 N84°28'02"E (GRID)
15713.35'
L2 N84°44'29"E
16590.10'
L3
N77°54'34"W
L4
N76°13'52"W
L5
N89°38'29"E
7335.33'
6478.66' LOT 1 880.14'
33,353
SqFt

0.767 Ac

PACIFIC
STREET
6' E1

BASIS OF

BEARING

CONTROL SCHEME

TIES NOT TO
SCALE
P.M. NO.
3645
P.M.B.
32/67 LEGEND: REFERENCE
S:

EASEMENT
NOTES: 1.

2. 3.

INDICATES FOUND CONTROL STATION AS
NOTED.

INDICATES FOUND MONUMENT AS NOTED.

R1: TRACT MAP NO. 2316, M.B. 33/31
R2: PARCEL MAP NO. 3645, P.M.B.
32/67
R3: RECORD OF SURVEY 07-090, R.S.
151/78
E1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY,
HOLDER
OF A 6' WIDE EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC

UTILITY

PURPOSES AS SHOWN ON A DEED

RECORDED
APRIL 7, 1953 IN BOOK 3142, PAGE 480, O.R.

INDICATES SET 2" X 30" IRON PIPE, TAGGED "PLS 9645",

4. (M&R) INDICATES MEASURED AND RECORD PER 12" DEEP.

REFERNECES

5. SFN INDICATES SEARCH AND FOUND NOTHING
Packet Page. 390
Packet Page. 391
Original (1)

GRADING PERMIT

PERFORMANCE BOND
Bond#:4477411
Premium: $ 400.00
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS:

THAT WHEREAS, the City of San Bernardino, California ("City") has issued to RGC Family Trust- Roger Chi ("Principal") a precise grading permit- [Permits #LD 2300014, THR 23-063 ] (the "Permit") for work associated with [1208 Pacific Street - Cal Land Engineering grading plan], consisting of, but not limited to, the furnishing all labor, materials, tools, equipment, services, and incidentals for the grading and installation of related improvements connected with issuance of grading permits including the construction of drainage and protection devices and any other corrective work to remove and eliminate engineering and geological hazards for Parcel/Tract Map No. 20376 (the "Work"); 1208 Pacific Street, Detached SFR/Condos
WHEREAS, the Permit is hereby referred to and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, Principal is required by the Permit to provide a good and sufficient bond for performance of the Permit, and to guarantee and warranty the Work performed thereunder.

NOW, THEREFORE, Principal and SureTec Insurance Company ("Surety"), a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Texas , and duly authorized to transact business under the laws of the State of California, are held and firmly bound unto City in the sum of Sixteen Thousand DOLLARS ($16,000), said sum being not less than one hundred percent (1 00%) of the total cost of the Work as set forth in the Permit, we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors and administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.

THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION is such, that if Principal, his or its heirs, executors, administrators, successors or assigns, shall in all things stand to and abide by, and well and truly keep and perform the covenants, conditions, agreements, guarantees, and warranties in the Permit and Work and any alteration thereof made as therein provided, to be kept and performed at the time and in the manner therein specified and in all respects according to their intent and meaning, and to indemnify and save harmless City, its officers, employees, and agents, as stipulated in the Permit, then this obligation shall become null and void; otherwise it shall be and remain in full force and effect.

As part of the obligation secured hereby, and in addition to the face amount specified therefor, there shall be included costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred by City in successfully enforcing such obligation, all to be taxed as costs and included in any judgment rendered.

Surety, for value received, hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration, or addition to the terms of the Permit, or to any plans, profiles, and specifications related thereto, or to the Work to be performed thereunder, shall in any way affect its obligations on this bond, and it does hereby waive notice of any such change, extension of time, alteration, or addition.

Packet Page. 392
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands and seals this 27th day of August , 20 24 .
(Corporate Seal)
(Corporate Seal)
(Attach Attorney-in-Fact Certificate)
RGC Family Trust
Principal
By __________________________ ___
Title _____________ _
SureTec Insurance Company
Surety //? /? /"/
By p-~ /~c..---
Attorney-in-Fact
Title David Melman
The rate of premium on this bond is25/20/15/12/11/1 ~er thousand. The total amount of premium charges is $ 400.00 .
(The above must be filled in by corporate attorney.)

THIS IS A REQUIRED FORM
Any claims under this bond may be addressed to:
(Name and Address of Surety)
(Name and Address of Agent or
Representative for service of
process in California, if different
from above)
(Telephone number of Surety
and Agent or Representative for
service of process in California)
SureTec Insurance Company
~111 Camino Del Rio N., Ste. 900
San Diego, CA. 92108
David Melman
J619) 400-4104
Packet Page. 393

CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this
certificate verifies only the identity of the
individual who signed the document to which this
certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness,
accuracy, or validity of that document.

State of California
County of =S=an;;.;;....;;;;;;D;....;;i....;;;..eg~o;;;._.. ________ _ On August 27, 2024, before me.._, --=D;;....;e=a=n=na;;;.....;:G;.;.... -=-F=on=s;...:;e...;:;..ca;:;;.._ ________ _ , Notary Public personally appeared __ ___....D""'al..lv...l.lido.l......l.lM..L.le.u.l.u..mlo.loda ...... n __________________ _ who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the persontsj whose nametsj iskre subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacityfiesj, and that by his/her/their signaturefs-j on the instrument the personfsj, or the entity upon behalf of which the personfsj acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws
of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature of Notary

OPTIONAL
Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form.

CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER

D INDIVIDUAL
0 CORPORATE OFFICER

D PARTNER(S)
D MEMBER of LLC
[8:1 ATTORNEY-IN-FACT

D TRUSTEE(S)

D GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
OTHER: -----------------------
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:

NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES)
SureTec Insurance Company

DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT
Title or Type of Document
N urn ber of Pages
Date of Document
Signer(s) other than named above
Packet Page. 394
POA# 4477411

JOINT LIMITED POWER OF ATIORNEY
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That SureTec Insurance Company, a Corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Texas and having its principal office in the County of Harris, Texas and Markel Insurance Company {the "Company"}, a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the state of Illinois, and having its principal administrative office in Glen Allen, Virginia, does by these presents make, constitute and appoint:

Gloria S. Becerra, Dave B. Roalkvam, David Melman, Amanda Harvey, Evan M. DeBow, Eric Taylor, Maria Melendez, Rene Brandt, Deanna Fonseca, Albert Espino Their true and lawful agent(s) and attorney(s)-in-fact, each in their separate capacity if more than one is named above, to make, execute, seal and deliver for and on their own behalf, individually as a surety or jointly, as co-sureties, and as their act and deed any and all bonds and other undertaking in suretyship provided, however, that the penal sum of any one such instrument executed hereunder shall not exceed the sum of:

Fifty Million and 00/100 Dollars ($50,000,000.00)
This Power of Attorney is granted and is signed and sealed under and by the authority of the following Resolutions adopted by the Board of Directors of SureTec Insurance Company and Markel Insurance Company:
"RESOLVED, That the President, any Senior Vice President, Vice President, Assistant Vice President, Secretary, Assistant Secretary, Treasurer or Assistant Treasurer and each of them hereby is authorized to execute powers of attorney, and such authority can be executed by use of facsimile signature, which may be attested or acknowledged by any officer or attorney, of the company, qualifying the attorney or attorneys named in the given power of attorney, to execute in behalf of, and acknowledge as the act and deed of the SureTec Insurance Company and Markel Insurance Company, as the case may be, all bond undertakings and contracts of suretyship, and to affix the corporate seal thereto."
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Markel Insurance Company and SureTec Insurance Company have caused their official seal to be hereunto affixed and these presents to be signed by their duly authorized officers on the 22nd day of August , 2024 .

SureTec Insurance Company
By:~
Michael C. K_::y:esident
State of Texas
County of Harris:

E - By: --~UO~~--~--~~~-------Chelsea Turner,
~
Notary Public
~ • •• 41fr~:- -c'~ : : My commission expires 7/6/2028 .. /AC Of ' Oa. .. ':. ~:·~ 13?c..6A'l-".·' ~ , .. We, the undersigned Off1cers of SureTec Insurance Company and Markelln~~C~d~~~ert1fy that the anginal POWER OF ATIORNEY of wh ich the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy is still in full force and effect and has rfl!!;~e e9 ~~ ,,,, *,,,, ... ,,.,, IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands, and affixed the Seals of said Companies, on the 27th day of August 2024 Markel Insurance Company
Any Instrument Issued in excess of the penalty stated above is totally void and without any validity.

For verification of the authority of this Power you may call (713)812-0800 on any business day between 8:30AM and 5:00 PM CST.

Packet Page. 395
Original ( 1)

ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS

PERFORMANCE BOND
Bond#:4477409
Premium: $2,980.00
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS:

THAT WHEREAS, the City of San Bernardino, California ("City") has issued to RGC Family Trust- Roger Chi ("Principal") a permit- [Permit No. ] (the "Permit") for work associated with [Resolution No. 2024-018-PC, (Subdivision 20-06), Development Permit Type- D20-08], for Parcel/Tract Map No. 20376 (the "Work"); 1208 Pacific Street, Detached SFR/Condo WHEREAS, the Permit is hereby referred to and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, Principal is required by the Permit to provide a good and sufficient bond for performance of the Permit, and to guarantee and warranty the Work performed thereunder.

NOW, THEREFORE, Principal and Suretec Insurance Company ("Surety"), a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Texas , and duly authorized to transact business under the laws of the State of California, are held and firmly bound unto City in the sum of One hundred twenty four thousand DOLLARS ($124,000), said sum being not less than one hundred percent ( 1 00°/o) of the total cost of the Work as set forth in the Permit, we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors and administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands and seals this 27th day of August , 20 24.

Packet Page. 396
(Corporate Seal) RGC Family Trust
Principal
By ____________________________ _
Title ___________________ _
(Corporate Seal) SureTec Insurance Company
Surety ~
By Attorney-in-Fact ~
(Attach Attorney-in-Fact Certificate) Title David Melman The rate of premium on this bond igS/20/15/12/11/10 per thousand. The total amount of premium charges is $ __ 2...;_,9_8_0_.0_0 _________ _
(The above must be filled in by corporate attorney.)

THIS IS A REQUIRED FORM
Any claims under this bond may be addressed to:
(Name and Address of Surety)
(Name and Address of Agent or
Representative for service of
process in California, if different
from above)
(Telephone number of Surety
and Agent or Representative for
service of process in California)
SureTec Insurance Company
3111 Camino Del Rio N., Ste. 900
San Diego, CA. 92108
David Melman
(619) 400-41 04
Packet Page. 397

State of California
County of .::::S.=.an=D:...:.i.:..zeg=..:o::....._ _______ _ On August 27, 2024, before me.,2.., -""'"D=ea::::.:n.!.!.n!.!:a::......:G~. F:;_o::;:.!n~s::.:::e:.=.ca:::...._ ________ _ , Notary Public personally appeared __ ___...D""auv..J..lid""--lo.JM...L.le""l.u..mwawn __________________ _ who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the personfsj whose namefsj iskre subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacityffesj, and that by his/her/their signaturefsj on the instrument the personfsj, or the entity upon behalf of which the personfsj acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERillRY under the laws
of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature ofNotary

OPTIONAL
Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form.

CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER

D INDIVIDUAL
0 CORPORATE OFFICER

D PARTNER(S)
D MEMBERofLLC
~ ATTORNEY-IN-FACT

D TRUSTEE(S)

D GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
OTHER: ____________________ _
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:

NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES)
SureTec Insurance Company

DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT
Title or Type of Document
Number of Pages
Date of Document
Signer(s) other than named above
Packet Page. 398
POA# 4477409

JOINT LIMITED POWER OF ATIORNEY
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That SureTec Insurance Company, a Corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Texas and having its principal office in the County of Harris, Texas and Markel Insurance Company (the "Company"), a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the state of Illinois, and having its principal administrative office in Glen Allen, Virginia, does by these presents make, constitute and appoint:

Fifty Million and 00/100 Dollars ($50,000,000.00)
This Power of Attorney is granted and is signed and sealed under and by the authority of the following Resolutions adopted by the Board of Directors of SureTec Insurance Company and Markel Insurance Company:
"RESOLVED, That the President, any Senior Vice President, Vice President, Assistant Vice President, Secretary, Assistant Secretary, Treasurer or Assistant Treasurer and each of them hereby is authorized to execute powers of attorney, and such authority can be executed by use of facsimile signature, which may be attested or acknowledged by any officer or attorney, of the company, qualifying the· attorney or attorneys named in the given power of attorney, to execute in behalf of, and acknowledge as the act and deed of the SureTec Insurance Company and Markel Insurance Company, as the case may be, all bond undertakings and contracts of suretyship, and to affix the corporate seal thereto."
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Markel Insurance Company and SureTec Insurance Company have caused their official seal to be hereunto affixed and these presents to be signed by their duly authorized officers on the 22nd day of August , 2024 .

SureTec Insurance Company
By:~
Michael C. K7esident
State of Texas
County of Harris:

On this 22nd day of August 2024 A. D., before me, a Notary Public of the State of Texas, in and for the County of Harris, duly commissioned and qualified, came THE ABOVE OFFICERS OF THE COMPANIES, to me personally known to be the individuals and officers described in, who executed the preceding instrument, and they acknowledged the execution of same, and being by me duly sworn, disposed and said that they are the officers of the said companies aforesaid, and that the seals affixed to the proceeding instrument are the Corporate Seals of said Companies, and the said Corporate Seals and their signatures as officers were duly affixed and subscribed to the said instrument by the authority and direction of the said companies, and that Resolutions adopted by the Board of Directors of said Companies referred to in the preceding instrument is now in force. ,,,,,,, .. ,,,,,, IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand, and affixed my Offici~!.~~~ l~ 6t,~arris, the day and year first above written . ...... ~\; .········ ~ ,,
:
: :
......... U:o"*<"~ ~.-··~~YPus··.~'......
:
:~ 0·. ·:'
•
-:. :.
- By: --~~~~--~--~~~-------
~
~
: :_ ~ ~ } ~ Chelsea Turner, Notary Public
~ • •• _.,/"~ ~~ .• : My commission expires 7/6/2028
. . "::... --~~OF A~~ · R:J ... : . . . We, the understgned Offtcers of SureTec Insurance Company and Markelln~~C~d~~~erttfy that the ongmal POWER OF ATIORNEY of which the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy is still in full force and effect and has rfd~~eeO~ . ,,,, *1,,,, ., ... ,,, IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands, and affixed the Seals of said Companies, on the 27th day of August 2024 Markel Insurance Company
Any Instrument Issued in excess of the penalty stated above is totally void and without any validity.

For verification of the authority of this Power you may call (713)812-0800 on any business day between 8:30AM and 5:00PM CST.

Packet Page. 399
Original (1)

LANDSCAPE

PERFORMANCE BOND
Bond#:4477410
Premium: $1,875.00
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS:

THAT WHEREAS, the City of San Bernardino, California ("City") has issued to RGC Family Trust- Roger Chi ("Principal") a permit- [Permit No. LS 23-13] (the "Permit") for work associated with [1208 Pacific Street - MLAS Job No. 20.16, 2-27 -23], for Parcel/Tract Map No. 20376 (the "Work");
WHEREAS, the Permit is hereby referred to and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, Principal is required by the Permit to provide a good and sufficient bond for performance of the Permit, and to guarantee and warranty the Work performed thereunder.

NOW, THEREFORE, Principal and Suretec Insurance Company . ("Surety"), a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Texas , and duly authorized to transact business under the laws of the State of California, are held and firmly bound unto City in the sum of Seventy five thousand DOLLARS ($75,000), said sum being not less than one hundred percent ( 1 00°/o) of the total cost of the Work as set forth in the Permit, we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors and administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands and seals this 27th day of August , 20 24.

Packet Page. 400
(Corporate Seal) RGC Family Trust
Principal
By __________________________ ___
Title -----------------------------
(Corporate Seal) Suretec Insurance Company
Surety Y'? a-, ~
By ~.,-- - y -
Attorney-in-Fact
(Attach Attorney-in-Fact Certificate) Title David Melman The rate of premium on this bond is25/20/15/12/11/1 Oper thousand. The total amount of premium charges is $ $1,875.00 .
(The above must be filled in by corporate attorney.)

THIS IS A REQUIRED FORM
Any claims under this bond may be addressed to:
(Name and Address of Surety)
(Name and Address of Agent or
Representative for service of
process in California, if different
from above)
(Telephone number of Surety
and Agent or Representative for
service of process in California)
SureTec insurance Company
3111 Camino Del Rio N., Ste. 900
San D1ego, CA. 921 08
(619) 400-4104
Packet Page. 401

State of California
County of =S=a=n-=D:;...:i=eQ..go;:;;.._ ________ _
On August 27. 2024, before me~, _....;!D~ea::!!.n!!.n!!:!a:....-'G::::..·:....:F~o~n~s=-=e.=.:ca:::....._ ________ _ , Notary Public personally appeared __ ____._D.u.auv"""'"jdi.L..I.JM:..Lle"""l.u.m.u.~awn __________________ _ who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the persontsj whose nametsj isffife subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/sfie/tfie~' executed the same in his/fier/tfieir authorized capacityfiesj, and that by his/fier/tfieir signaturetsj on the instrument the persontsj, or the entity upon behalf of which the persontsj acted, executed the instrument.
r···. • • •• • • • • oEANNAG~F'oosecA: • •• "f ••• • NOTARY PUBLIC· CALIFORNIA ~ a !!} .. COMMISSION#2412143 ~ t .... :; .... ~.~~:~;e:~~~tt ~:! • .t
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws
of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature ofNotary

OPTIONAL
Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form.

CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER

D INDIVIDUAL
0 CORPORATE OFFICER

D PARTNER(S)
D MEMBER ofLLC
[gj ATTORNEY-IN-FACT

D TRUSTEE(S)

D GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
OTHER: -----------------------
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:

NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES)
SureTec Insurance Company

DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT
Title or Type of Document
Number of Pages
Date of Document
Signer(s) other than named above
Packet Page. 402
POA# 4477410

JOINT LIMITED POWER OF ATIORNEY
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That SureTec Insurance Company, a Corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Texas and having its principal office in the County of Harris, Texas and Markel Insurance Company (the "Company"), a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the state of Illinois, and having its principal administrative office in Glen Allen, Virginia, does by these presents make, constitute and appoint:

SureTec Insurance Company
By: ~ ----...........

Michael C. K_:Y'"esident
State of Texas
County of Harris:

On this 22nd day of August 2024 A. D., before me, a Notary Public of the State of Texas, in and for the County of Harris, duly commissioned and qualified, came THE ABOVE OFFICERS OF THE COMPANIES, to me personally known to be the individuals and officers described in, who executed the preceding instrument, and they acknowledged the execution of same, and being by me duly sworn, disposed and said that they are the officers of the said companies aforesaid, and that the seals affixed to the proceeding instrument are the Corporate Seals of said Companies, and the said Corporate Seals and their signatures as officers were duly affixed and subscribed to the said instrument by the authority and direction of the said companies, and that Resolutions adopted by the Board of Directors of said Companies referred to in the preceding instrument is now in force . ,,,,,, .. ,,,,,, IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand, and affixed my Offici~l.~~~ if~ ~~arris, the day and year first above written . ...... ~" .·······. ~ ,, :'' ~ •• ·~fl-.f\Y Pui;'·.~ .. -=:_ aM ~ -
= .. U.o*<'...-:·.
~
•
:~
~ ~
0·
.:
: , :.
~
- By: --~UD~~--~--~~~-------
Chelsea Turner,
~
Notary Public
:. • •• 4fre:- -c"~ •• : My commission expires 7/6/2028 • _.,.,..,Of ' • · .. ~ ~.·:-: 73?r:;.SA1,'_·· R> ...... We, the undersigned Officers of SureTec Insurance Company and Markelln-;.,..~c~d~~~ertify that the original POWER OF ATIORNEY of which the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy is still in full force and effect and has rfe~~~'"eelli~p~ . ,, ...... ,,,,, ..... ,,, IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands, and affixed the Seals of said Companies, on the 27th day of August 2024 Markel Insurance Company
Any Instrument Issued in excess of the penalty stated above is totally void and without any validity.

For verification of the authority of this Power you may call (713)812-0800 on any business day between 8:30AM and 5:00 PM CST.

Packet Page. 403
Packet Page. 404
Packet Page. 405
Packet Page. 406
Packet Page. 407
Packet Page. 408
Packet Page. 409
Packet Page. 410
Packet Page. 411
Packet Page. 412
Packet Page. 413
Packet Page. 414
Packet Page. 415
Packet Page. 416
Packet Page. 417
Packet Page. 418
Packet Page. 419
Packet Page. 420
Packet Page. 421
Packet Page. 422
Packet Page. 423
Packet Page. 424
Packet Page. 425
Packet Page. 426
Packet Page. 427
Packet Page. 428
Packet Page. 429
Packet Page. 430
Packet Page. 431
Packet Page. 432
Packet Page. 433
Packet Page. 434
Packet Page. 435
Packet Page. 436
Packet Page. 437
Packet Page. 438
Packet Page. 439
Packet Page. 440
Packet Page. 441
Packet Page. 442
Packet Page. 443
Packet Page. 444
Packet Page. 445
Packet Page. 446
Packet Page. 447
Packet Page. 448
Packet Page. 449
Packet Page. 450
Packet Page. 451
Packet Page. 452
Packet Page. 453
Packet Page. 454
Packet Page. 455
Packet Page. 456
Packet Page. 457
Packet Page. 458
Packet Page. 459
Packet Page. 460
Packet Page. 461
Packet Page. 462
Packet Page. 463
Packet Page. 464

CONSENT CALENDAR
City of San Bernardino
Request for Council Action
Date: November 6, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
From: Rochelle Clayton, Acting City Manager;
Lynn Merrill, Director of Public Works, Operations, and Maintenance
Department: Public Works
Subject: Amendment No. 1 to Agreement with Environmental Project Services, Inc. for Citywide Sidewalk Repairs
and Maintenance (All Wards)
Recommendation:

It is recommended that the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California:

1. Authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 1 to Maintenance Services Agreement with Environmental Project Services, Inc. for Concrete Maintenance Services; and

2. Authorize the Director of Finance and Management Services to issue a change purchase order in not to exceed amount of $2,000,000.

Executive Summary
A purchase order in the amount not to exceed $2,000,000 is being requested for concrete maintenance services with Environmental Project Services, Inc. These services are utilized for City wide sidewalk maintenance and repair. This reflects an additional increase of $1,000,000 from the current purchase order amount as a result of City Council’s desire to address a backlog of sidewalk repairs.

Background
The Operations and Maintenance Division is responsible for all sidewalks, curbs, gutters, and cross gutters, as keeping them in good repair is essential to the safety of the public.

On March 16, 2022, the Mayor and City Council was presented with a staff report Packet Page. 465
recommending the issuance of an annual purchase order for $1,000,000 for concrete maintenance services with the low bidder, Environmental Project Services Inc. (EPS). At that meeting, the Mayor and City Council approved the recommendation, which authorized the execution of an agreement with Environmental Project Services, Inc. and the issuance of an annual purchase order in the amount of $1,000,000.

On June 21, 2023, the Mayor and City Council adopted Resolution No 2023-080 authorizing the Agency Director of Administrative Services to allocate $3,000,000 of the General Fund balance designated as the “Capital Contingency Reserve” for street segment repairs and sidewalk projects. From that amount, $1,000,000 has been set aside for sidewalk projects. This amount has been programmed into the current FY 24/25 budget for utilization this year.

Discussion
The City has contracted-out sidewalk and gutter concrete repair services for several years and has been limited to work within a $1,000,000 cap; however, in recent years, the City has had significant increases in its concrete maintenance needs, particularly in terms of sidewalk maintenance. Repairing City sidewalks and gutters are a qualityof-life issue for the City's residents and a liability issue for the City.

In recent years, the amount of sidewalk repair requests from residents has represented one of the highest categories of service requests (CRMs) the City receives, often reaching more than 500 requests outstanding. Recent efforts have reduced that number to approximately 415; however, much work remains. In 2023, 199 CRMs for sidewalk repairs were completed—nearly exhausting all budgeted funds.

The repairs that need to be made will vary and may involve a relatively simple replacement of a section or might consist of complex and/or larger concrete repairs. In other words, some repairs may involve lengthier stretches of sidewalk while others may involve complex repairs that involve matching curbs and gutters to existing forms.

In an effort to improve the City infrastructure and prevent potential legal claims from injuries resulting from broken or missing sidewalks, staff is requesting the additional $1,000,000 for concrete services. This increase will provide an opportunity for the Department to maintain, upgrade, and repair sidewalks, curbs, and gutters, and significantly reduce the amount of open work order requests which currently totals 415 requests.
2021-2025 Strategic Targets and Goals
This project is consistent with Key Target No.1d: Minimize risk and litigation exposure.

Approval of this recommendation will significantly reduce the risk of potential liability, and significantly reduce the amount of open work order requests.

Fiscal Impact
The fiscal impact for this item is $2,000,000. There is sufficient budget in the Department’s FY24/25 Operating Budget to fund this agreement. There is no additional Packet Page. 466
impact to the General Fund.

Conclusion
It is recommended that the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California:

1. Authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 1 to Maintenance Services Agreement with Environmental Project Services, Inc. for Concrete Maintenance Services; and

2. Authorize the Director of Finance and Management Services to issue a change purchase order in not to exceed amount of $2,000,000.

Attachments
Attachment 1 Amendment No. 1 to Maintenance Services Agreement Attachment 2 Maintenance Services Agreement - Environmental Project Services Ward:

All Wards
Synopsis of Previous Council Actions:

June 21, 2023 Mayor and City Council adopted Resolution No. 2023-080 authorizing the Agency Director of Administrative Services to allocate $3,000,000 of the General Fund balance designated as the “Capital Contingency Reserve” for street segment repairs and sidewalk projects.

March 16, 2022 Mayor and City Council approved the recommendation, authorizing the execution of agreement with Environmental Project Services, Inc., and the issuance of an annual
purchase order in the amount of $1,000,000.

Packet Page. 467
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO

MAINTENANCE SERVICES AGREEMENT
WITH ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT SERVICES, INC.

This Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement for concrete maintenance services is made and entered into as of November 6, 2024 (“Effective Date”), by and between the City of San Bernardino, a charter city and municipal corporation (“City”) and Environmental Project Services, Inc. a California Corporation (“Vendor”). City and Vendor are sometimes referred to herein individually as a “Party” and collectively as “Parties.”

RECITALS
A. WHEREAS, the City and the Vendor have entered into an agreement, dated March 16, 2022, for the purpose of providing concrete maintenance services (the “Master Agreement”).

B. WHEREAS, the City and the Vendor have entered into Amendment No. 1 to the Master Agreement, dated November 6, 2024, for the purpose of amending the compensation of the Master Agreement.

C. WHEREAS, the Parties now desire to amend the Master Agreement in order to include additional funds for the continued performance of the services in accordance with the compensation provisions of the Master Agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals and the mutual covenants, conditions, and promises contained in this Amendment No. 1 and the Master Agreement, the Parties mutually agree as follows:

AGREEMENT

1. Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals listed above are true and correct and are hereby incorporated herein by this reference.

2. Term. There is no change to the term of the Master Agreement.

3. Compensation. The compensation for services performed pursuant to this Amendment No. 1 shall not exceed One Million Dollars ($1,000,000), thereby increasing the total not to exceed compensation of the Master Agreement to the amount not to exceed Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000). Work shall be performed at the rates set forth in the Master Agreement.

4. Full Force. Except as amended by this Amendment No. 1, all provisions of the Master Agreement, including without limitation the indemnity and insurance provisions, shall remain in full force and effect and shall govern the actions of the Parties under this Amendment No. 1.

Packet Page. 468

5. Electronic Transmission. A manually signed copy of this Amendment No. 1 which is transmitted by facsimile, email or other means of electronic transmission shall be deemed to have the same legal effect as delivery of an original executed copy of this Amendment No. 1 for all purposes. This Amendment No. 1 may be signed using an electronic signature.

6. Counterparts. This Amendment No. 1 may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
Packet Page. 469

SIGNATURE PAGE FOR
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO MAINTENANCE SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT SERVICES, INC.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Amendment No. 1 on the Effective Date first herein above written.

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
APPROVED BY:

Rochell Clayton,
Acting City Manager
ATTESTED BY:

Genoveva Rocha, CMC
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Best Best & Krieger LLP
City Attorney

ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT
SERVICES, INC.

Signature
Name
Title
Packet Page. 470
Packet Page. 471
Packet Page. 472
Packet Page. 473
Packet Page. 474
Packet Page. 475
Packet Page. 476
Packet Page. 477
Packet Page. 478
Packet Page. 479
Packet Page. 480
Packet Page. 481
Packet Page. 482
Packet Page. 483
Packet Page. 484
Packet Page. 485
Packet Page. 486
Packet Page. 487
Packet Page. 488
Packet Page. 489
Packet Page. 490
Packet Page. 491
Packet Page. 492
Packet Page. 493
Packet Page. 494
Packet Page. 495
Packet Page. 496
Packet Page. 497
Packet Page. 498
Packet Page. 499

CONSENT CALENDAR
City of San Bernardino
Request for Council Action
Date: November 6, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
From: Rochelle Clayton, Acting City Manager;
Lynn Merrill, Director of Public Works, Operations, and Maintenance
Department: Public Works
Subject: Five-Year Capital Project Needs Analysis for FY 2025/26 to FY 2029/2030 for Measure I Expenditures
(All Wards)
Recommendation:

It is recommended that the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California, adopt Resolution No. 2024-219 approving the Five-Year Capital Project Needs Analysis (FY 2025/2026 through FY 2029/30) for Measure I Expenditure.

Executive Summary
Adoption of Resolution No. 2024-219 will approve the Five-Year Measure I Capital Project Needs Analysis (CPNA). The resolution is required to participate in the Valley Major Streets Program. The projects identified in the Resolution have been previously identified in the City’s Capital Improvement Program and will not impact the General Fund
Background
In November 1989, voters approved Measure I, allowing the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) to implement a one-half percent retail transaction and use tax throughout the county. This tax, commonly known as the 1/2-Cent Sales and Road Tax, was initially in place for 20 years, from April 1, 1990, to March 31, 2010.

In November 2004, voters extended this tax for an additional 30 years, from April 1, 2010, through March 31, 2040.

Measure I funds the Valley Major Streets Program, which supports regional arterial projects identified in the SBCTA Nexus Study. This study outlines fair share contributions for regional transportation improvements, including freeway interchanges, railroad grade separations, and regional arterial highways. To be eligible for Measure I funds, projects must be located on the Nexus Study Network, which Packet Page. 500
represents major roadways in San Bernardino County’s urbanized areas. These projects are included in the City’s Regional Traffic Circulation System Master Facilities Plan and Impact Fee Program.

Under the SBCTA San Bernardino Valley Subarea Expenditure Plan, eligible projects focus on improving congestion relief and safety on major streets that connect communities, serve significant destinations, and provide freeway access. Projects funded through this program aim to enhance roadway safety, alleviate traffic congestion, and make street improvements, particularly at rail crossings, while ensuring equitable distribution of funds across the county throughout the program’s lifespan.

To participate in the Valley Major Street Program, agencies must annually adopt a Five-Year Capital Project Needs Assessment (CPNA) to outline project funding needs for each fiscal year. The CPNA includes anticipated funding sources, amounts, and project phases for eligible projects from the SBCTA Nexus Study. This information helps SBCTA staff prepare a comprehensive capital needs and cash flow analysis for the Valley Major Street Program.

Currently, all four ongoing projects in the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) were included in the previous CPNA for Fiscal Years 2018/2019 through 2022/2023 and are listed in the proposed CPNA for Fiscal Years 2019/2020 through 2023/2024.

These projects are also part of the City’s CIP and the adopted Master Facilities Plan for the Regional Circulation System Impact Fee, also known as the Development Impact Fee.

One of the ongoing projects is the extension of State Street, identified in the General Plan Circulation Element as a major arterial roadway. For more than 25 years, completing the segment of State Street between Foothill Boulevard and 16th Street has been a priority. The project, which includes two bridges and addresses environmental concerns, was divided into four phases. On August 17, 2022, the City Council awarded a construction contract to Riverside Construction Company, Inc.

Phase 1 of construction is substantially completed, with the remaining landscaping work estimated to be completed by the end of 2025.

Another significant project involves widening "H" Street from Kendall Drive to 40th Street. This project aims to add two through lanes in each direction and a two-way leftturn lane. It includes right-of-way acquisition, undergrounding utility lines, pavement widening, rehabilitation, curb and gutter installation, sidewalks, ADA-accessible ramps, street lighting, drainage improvements, signage, striping, and traffic signal modifications at Kendall Drive and 40th Street. On October 18, 2017, the City Council approved a contract with CivilSource, Inc. for the environmental and civil engineering design of the project.

The replacement of the Mt. Vernon Bridge, a 1,016-foot-long bridge spanning 20 train tracks, is a critical infrastructure project for the City. Built in 1934, the bridge is Packet Page. 501
considered structurally deficient and functionally obsolete, with a sufficiency rating of less than 50 out of 100. Federal funding of $92 million was secured in 2015 for its replacement. Construction of the new bridge is currently underway and is scheduled for completion by 2026.

To keep the Mt. Vernon Bridge project moving forward, the City will utilize the available funding from the Regional Circulation for the next 2-3 years while right-of-way (ROW) acquisition and undergrounding of utilities take place on 40th Street and “H” street widening projects. These activities will not delay the project’s progress or hinder other projects on the CPNA from advancing.

The 40th Street Widening Project involves expanding the roadway from two lanes to four lanes between Johnson and Electric Avenue, as well as upgrading the traffic signal at Electric Avenue. Design work on this project is 90% complete, and right-of-way acquisition is in progress. The right-of-way acquisition process, which is required before undergrounding the utilities, typically takes several months to a year, depending on the complexity of the acquisitions. Once the acquisitions are completed, Southern California Edison will proceed with undergrounding the overhead utility lines under Rule 20-A at no cost to the City. Despite the required right-of-way process, the project is expected to move forward without significant delays.

These four critical projects are essential for improving traffic flow, safety, and regional connectivity throughout San Bernardino. By ensuring that funding and right-of-way acquisition processes are aligned, the City is committed to advancing these projects without stalling other vital infrastructure developments listed in the CPNA.

Discussion
The projects listed in the proposed FY 2025/2026 through 2029/2030 CPNA for the City of San Bernardino have previously been identified in the City's Capital Improvement Program and are included in the adopted Master Facilities Plan for the Regional Circulation System Impact Fee (Development Impact Fee).

The key difference between this Program and the Measure I Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan is that the projects listed in the CPNA are those select projects that qualify for and intend to use funding from the Measure I Valley Major Street Program, along with matching funds collected from new development through the City's Regional Circulation System Impact Fee. The Regional Circulation System Impact Fee was adopted in anticipation of this program, and to satisfy the requirement that the new development pay its fair share toward regional improvements funded by the Measure I Valley Major Street Program. Only projects that will use Valley Major Street Program funds are required to be included in the CPNA.

The following four projects are recommended for continued inclusion in the CPNA:

Packet Page. 502

1. State Street, Phase 1, 16th Street to Base Line Street (SS04-009)

2. “H” Street Widening from 40th Street to Kendall Drive (SS04-152)

3. Mt. Vernon Bridge Replacement Project (SS04-012)

4. 40th Street Widening from Johnson Street to Electric Avenue (SS04-014) Eligible City of San Bernardino projects can have up to 67.6% of project costs paid by Measure I funds. Public works staff have ongoing coordination with SBCTA staff to determine reimbursement amounts for eligible projects. A table of estimated reimbursements for life-to-date project costs is provided below for 3 of the projects.

Project
LTD Project
Costs
Total Estimated
Eligible for
Measure I
Total Measure I
Received
Estimated
Remaining
Measure I
State Street
(Phase 1) $8,329,677.39 $5,630,861.92 $1,089,029.81 $4,541,832.11 H Street
Widening $340,858.68 $230,420.47 $148,232.87 $82,187.60 40th Street
Widening $1,690,299.31 $1,142,642.33 $1,107,633.45 $35,008.88 The funding for Mt. Vernon Bridge is described in a Cooperative Agreement with SBCTA and the subsequent amendments. Total funding contributed from each funding source is provided below. These figures are from Amendment No. 3 to the Cooperative Agreement and are intended to show a breakdown of all funding sources. The latest estimated project cost is included in Exhibit A of the proposed resolution.

Funding Source Amount
Federal Highway Bridge Program $149,118,307
Federal Highway Infrastructure Program $23,495,394
Proposition 1B $3,452,670
BNSF $29,500,000
Measure I Valley Major Street Program $25,426,735
City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fees $14,686,779 Total Project Cost $245,679,885
2021-2025 Strategic Targets and Goals
The Measure I Five-year Capital Project Needs Analysis is consistent with Key Target No. 1f: Improved Operational & Financial Capacity - Create an asset management plan. This project will contribute to financial stability by creating an asset management plan that will aim to minimize risks and project costs and continue to monitor and evaluate project strategies.

Fiscal Impact
There is no General Fund impact associated with this action.

Packet Page. 503
Conclusion
It is recommended that the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California, adopt Resolution No. 2024-219 approving the Five-Year Capital Project Needs Analysis (FY 2025/2026 through FY 2029/30) for Measure I Expenditure.

Attachments
Attachment 1 Resolution 2024-219
Attachment 2 Resolution 2024-219 Exhibit A
Attachment 3 Project Location Maps
Ward:

All Wards
Synopsis of Previous Council Actions:

October 21, 2020 Resolution 2020-258 adopted Capital Project Needs Analysis for FY 2021/22 – FY 2025/26
July 21, 2021 Resolution 2021-179 adopted Capital Project Needs Analysis for FY 2022/23 – FY 2026/27
August 17, 2022 Resolution 2022-184 adopted Capital Project Needs Analysis for FY 2023/24 – FY 2027/28
December 6, 2023 Resolution 2023-187 adopted Capital Project Needs Analysis for FY 2024/25 – FY 2028/29
Packet Page. 504
Resolution No. 2024-219
Resolution 2024-219
November 6, 2024

Page 1 of 3 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-219

RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA,

ADOPTING THE MEASURE I FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL

PROJECT NEEDS ANALYSIS FOR FISCAL YEARS
2025/2026 THROUGH 2029/2030.

WHEREAS, San Bernardino County voters approved passage of Measure I in November 2004, authorizing the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority to impose a one-half of one percent retail transactions and use tax applicable in the incorporated and unincorporated territory of the County of San Bernardino; and
WHEREAS, revenue from the tax can only be used for transportation improvement and traffic management programs authorized in the Expenditure Plans set forth in Ordinance No. 04- 01 of the Authority; and
WHEREAS, the Strategic Plan requires each local jurisdiction applying for revenue from certain Measure I Programs to annually adopt and update a Five-Year Capital Project Needs Analysis; and
WHEREAS, the projects listed in the proposed FY 2025/2026 through 2029/2030 CPNA for the City of San Bernardino have previously been identified in the City's Capital Improvement Program and are included in the adopted Master Facilities Plan for the Regional Circulation System Impact Fee (Development Impact Fee).

WHEREAS, the following four projects are recommended for inclusion in the CPNA:

1. Mt. Vernon Bridge Replacement Project (SS04-012).

2. State Street, Phase 1, 16th Street to Base Line Street (SS04-009).

3. 40th Street Widening from Johnson Street to Electric Avenue (SS04-014).

4. “H” Street Widening from 40th Street to Kendall Drive (SS04-152).

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby adopts the five-year capital projects needs analysis (FY 2025/26 through FY 2029/30) for Measure I expenditure attached hereto as Exhibit A.

SECTION 3. That the City Council finds this Resolution is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in that the activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA Packet Page. 505
Resolution No. 2024-219
Resolution 2024-219
November 6, 2024

Page 2 of 3 ends

applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty, as in this case, that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.

SECTION 4. Severability. If any provision of this Resolution or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications, and to this end the provisions of this Resolution are declared to be severable.

SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective immediately.

APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council and signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk this 6th day of November 2024.

Helen Tran, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
Attest:

Genoveva Rocha, CMC, City Clerk
Approved as to form:

Sonia Carvalho, City Attorney
Packet Page. 506
Resolution No. 2024-219
Resolution 2024-219
November 6, 2024

Page 3 of 3 ends

CERTIFICATION

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO) ss

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO )
I, Genoveva Rocha, CMC, City Clerk, hereby certify that the attached is a true copy of Resolution No. 2024-___, adopted at a regular meeting held on the ___ day of _______ 2024 by the following vote:

Genoveva Rocha, CMC, City Clerk
Packet Page. 507
Nexus Project Cost $ 9,000,000
Dev. Loan? No
5-Year Advance? No
Public Share: 67.6%
Dev. Share: 32.40%
Project Information Phase Funding PRIOR* FY 25/26 FY 26/27 FY 27/28 FY 28/29 FY 29/30 FUTURE PA&ED
Total Cost: $0.00
Fund Type: MSI Arterial $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
DEV FEE $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
- Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
- Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Other: ______ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
PS&E
Total Cost: $0.00
Fund Type: MSI Arterial $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
DEV FEE $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
- Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
- Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Other: ______ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
ROW
Total Cost: $0.00
Fund Type: MSI Arterial $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
- Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
- Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
- Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Other: ______ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
CONST
Total Cost: $6,718,686.55
Fund Type: MSI Arterial $4,541,832.11 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - DEV FEE $2,176,854.44 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
- Select Fund - $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
- Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
- Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
- Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Other: ______ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
*Prior should identify any expenses incurred in prior years that have not yet been reimbursed by SBCTA including anticipated FY 2023/2024 expenses.

Capital Project Needs Analysis
City of San Bernardino
Valley Arterial Sub-Program
State Street Extension - Phase I -
Baseline Street to 16th Street
Current Total Project Cost
Estimate:
$9,000,000.00
Total Measure I Request:
$4,541,832.11
(Summation of Measure I)
Comments:
2026-2030 CPNA Template - Proj 1
Exhibit A
Packet Page. 508
Nexus Project Cost $ 8,500,000
Dev. Loan? No
5-Year Advance? No
Public Share: 67.6%
Dev. Share: 32.40%
Project Information Phase Funding PRIOR* FY 25/26 FY 26/27 FY 27/28 FY 28/29 FY 29/30 FUTURE PA&ED
Total Cost: $0.00
Fund Type: MSI Arterial $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
DEV FEE $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
- Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
- Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Other: ______ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
PS&E
Total Cost: $0.00
Fund Type: MSI Arterial $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
DEV FEE $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
- Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
- Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Other: ______ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
ROW
Total Cost: $51,788.29
Fund Type: MSI Arterial $35,008.88 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - DEV FEE $16,779.41 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
- Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
- Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Other: ______ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
CONST
Total Cost: $0.00
Fund Type: MSI Arterial $ - $ - $ - $ -
DEV FEE $ - $ - $ - $ -
- Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
- Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
- Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
- Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Other: ______ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$8,500,000.00
Capital Project Needs Analysis
City of San Bernardino
Valley Arterial Sub-Program
40th Street Widening from
Johnson Street to Electric
Avenue
Current Total Project Cost
Estimate:

Comments:
*Prior should identify any expenses incurred in prior years that have not yet been reimbursed by SBCTA including anticipated FY 2023/2024 expenses.

Total Measure I Request:
$35,008.88
(Summation of Measure I)
2026-2030 CPNA Template - Proj 2
Packet Page. 509
Nexus Project Cost $ 7,500,000
Dev. Loan? -Select Yes/No5-Year Advance? -Select Yes/NoPublic Share: 67.6% Dev. Share: 32.40%
Project Information Phase Funding PRIOR* FY 25/26 FY 26/27 FY 27/28 FY 28/29 FY 29/30 FUTURE PA&ED
Total Cost: $0.00
Fund Type: MSI Arterial $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
DEV FEE $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
- Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
- Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Other: ______ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
PS&E
Total Cost: $0.00
Fund Type: MSI Arterial $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
- Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
- Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
- Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Other: ______ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
ROW
Total Cost: $121,579.29
Fund Type: MSI Arterial $ 77,187.60 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - DEV FEE $ 39,391.69 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
MI LOCAL ST $ 5,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
- Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Other: ______ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
CONST
Total Cost: $0.00
Fund Type: MSI Arterial $ - $ - $ - $ -
DEV FEE $ - $ - $ - $ -
- Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
- Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
- Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
- Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Other: ______ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$7,500,000.00
Capital Project Needs Analysis
City of San Bernardino
Valley Arterial Sub-Program
H Street Widening from 40th
Street to Kendall Drive
Current Total Project Cost
Estimate:

Comments:
*Prior should identify any expenses incurred in prior years that have not yet been reimbursed by SBCTA including anticipated FY 2023/2024 expenses.

Total Measure I Request:
$77,187.60
(Summation of Measure I)
2026-2030 CPNA Template - Proj 3
Packet Page. 510
Nexus Project Cost $ 19,525,000
Dev. Loan? No
5-Year Advance? Yes
Public Share: 67.6%
Dev. Share: 32.40%
Project Information Phase Funding PRIOR* FY 25/26 FY 26/27 FY 27/28 FY 28/29 FY 29/30 FUTURE PA&ED
Total Cost: $0.00
Fund Type: MSI Arterial $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
- Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
HBP $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
RXR $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Other: ______ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
PS&E
Total Cost: $0.00
Fund Type: MSI Arterial $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
- Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
- Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
- Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Other: ______ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
ROW
Total Cost: $0.00
Fund Type: MSI Arterial $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
DEV FEE $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
HBP $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
RXR $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Other: ______ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
CONST
Total Cost: $92,160,492.00
Fund Type: MSI Arterial $ 7,132,830.00 $ 5,730,806.00 $ 504,098.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - DEV FEE $ 3,784,150.00 $ 3,142,562.00 $ 265,671.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - RXR $ 5,036,721.00 $ 4,103,171.00 $ 91,158.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - HBP $ 32,284,577.00 $ 26,343,715.00 $ 700,967.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - PROP 1B $ 1,681,477.00 $ 1,358,589.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - Select Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Other: ______ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$242,417,534.00
Capital Project Needs Analysis
City of San Bernardino
Valley Arterial Sub-Program
Mt. Vernon Bridge Replacement
Current Total Project Cost
Estimate:

Comments:

Nexus Project Cost is only Local
Match
*Prior should identify any expenses incurred in prior years that have not yet been reimbursed by SBCTA including anticipated FY 2023/2024 expenses.

Total Measure I Request:
$13,367,734.00
(Summation of Measure I)
2026-2030 CPNA Template - Proj 4
Packet Page. 511
ATTACHMENT NO. 2

PROJECT LOCATION MAPS
State Street Extension Phase 1
Packet Page. 512
40th Street from Johnson Street to Electric Avenue
H Street from Kendall Drive Street to 40th Street
Packet Page. 513
Mt. Vernon Viaduct Bridge between 2nd Street and 5th Street Packet Page. 514

CONSENT CALENDAR
City of San Bernardino
Request for Council Action
Date: November 6, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
From: Rochelle Clayton, Acting City Manager
Gabriel Elliott, Director of Community Development &
Housing
Department: Community Development & Housing
Subject: Annexation of the Spring Trails Specific Plan Project and the 26-Acre Totally Surrounded Island (Ward 5)
Recommendation:

It is recommended that the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California adopt:

1. Resolution No. 2024-220 of the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California, making application to the Local Agency Formation Commission for San Bernardino County (LAFCO) for Reorganization to include Annexation to the City of San Bernardino and Detachment from County Service Area 70, generally northerly of Meyers Road and Easterly of Martin Ranch Road (known as the Spring Trails Specific Plan Project); and

2. Resolution No. 2024-221 of the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California, making an application to the Local Agency Formation Commission of San Bernardino County (LAFCO) for Reorganization to include Annexation to the City of San Bernardino and Detachment from County Service Area 70, generally northerly of Meyers Road and Easterly of Martin Ranch Road (known as the 26-Acre Totally Surrounded Island); and

3. Direct the City Manager to transmit the Resolutions to the Director of the Local Agency Formation Commission.

Executive Summary
The Spring Hills Specific Plan Project, approved in March 2013, requires annexation Packet Page. 515
into the City limits. Subsequent to the approval, an application was submitted to the County of San Bernardino’s Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for the annexation. In order for the Spring Trails Specific Plan Project to be annexed into the City of San Bernardino, LAFCO requires the City to initiate the annexation of both the Spring Trails Specific Plan and the 26-acre totally surrounded island area. At that time, LAFCO conducted an election of property owners for the 26 acres of totally surrounded island area, and the election failed to pass. However, the project proponent's legal counsel sent a letter to the City requesting to follow through on the annexation. This report outlines the history and includes the proposed action for adopting resolutions to initiate the actions and transmit the resolutions to LAFCO.

Background
The Spring Trails Project Specific Plan, approved in March 2013, is located in the northwestern part of the City in the Verdemont area, outside the city limits but inside the City’s Sphere of Influence. The Specific Plan proposes the development of 199 acres, allowing the creation of 215 residential lots. Due to site constraints, the original project was amended, reducing the project's scope by 43 acres and 92 residential lots. See Attachment 3, Location Map (Exhibit A-1).

The request is for the City to initiate the annexations for the Spring Trails Specific Plan Project (Exhibits A and A-1) and the 26 acres of properties located between the Specific Plan boundary and the City limits (Exhibits C and C-1). This process is routinely done for projects within a city’s sphere of influence. This area between the City boundary line and the project would be a county area, which, if the Specific Plan were to be annexed, would create a County “unincorporated island” within the City’s boundary. The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) does not support these County islands within cities, primarily from a services provision standpoint.

A condition was placed on the annexation process by LAFCO, which requires them (LAFCO) to proceed with the annexation. Further, the project proponent's legal counsel also sent a letter requesting the same.

Chronology:

City Approved Action
In March 2013, the City of San Bernardino approved the Spring Trails Specific Plan (SP 10-01), which included a variety of underlying entitlements. The Specific Plan approvals included the adoption of Resolution No. 2013-34 that certified the Final Environmental Impact Report, the adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, and the adoption of a General Plan Amendment (GPA 02-09) (including the preannexation of the Specific Plan area); approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 15576; and approval of a Development Agreement.

LAFCO Approved Action
Proposal No. LAFCO 3188A – On October 16, 2019, LAFCO adopted Resolution No. 3091 approving the annexation of the Spring Trails Specific Plan Project Area (LAFCO Packet Page. 516
Annexation No. 3188A) into the City of San Bernardino, subject to certain conditions of approval. The attachments from this meeting item are included in Attachment 9 for reference. During the processing of the annexation, a 26-acre area, including six parcels, was removed from the annexation, resulting in an unincorporated island surrounded by the City of San Bernardino. This area was removed because the registered voters occupying the six single-family residences/parcels located within the Project area had vocally opposed the Spring Trails Specific Plan Project, and it was unlikely that the annexation of the entire area, including the island, would be successful. As a result, the annexation continued without the unincorporated island area.

As part of the proposed annexation, LAFCO imposed Condition of Approval No. 4, which states the following:

The City of San Bernardino shall be required to initiate annexation of the totally surrounded island within one year of the Commission’s approval of LAFCO 3188A (a copy of which is attached as Exhibit B). A resolution by the City Council of the City of San Bernardino shall be submitted to the Executive Officer of LAFCO outlining the City’s commitment to fulfilling this requirement prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Completion for LAFCO 3188A. A status report shall be provided to the Commission at the six-month date outlining the progress of the City of San Bernardino in fulfilling its obligation. Failure on the part of the City of San Bernardino to fulfill its commitment to annex the totally surrounded island shall require that the next annexation proposed to the City of San Bernardino, either by the City through resolution or by the property owner/registered voter petition to include a condition requiring the initiation of the annexation of the totally surrounded island. Said condition of approval shall be deemed completed upon the issuance of the Certificate of Filing for said island.

The above Condition of Approval No. 4 imposed by LAFCO holds the Certificate of Completion for LAFCO Annexation No. 3188A (Spring Trails Specific Plan Project Area) on hold until: a) the City of San Bernardino City Council adopts a resolution identifying its commitment to annex the 26-acre unincorporated island area at some time in the future, and, b) the City submits a copy of the adopted resolution to the Executive Officer of LAFCO. In essence, Condition of Approval No. 4 places a hold on the developer’s, (Montecito Equities, Ltd.) ability to proceed with the construction of the project until after the City Council adopts a resolution confirming its intent to annex the unincorporated island area into the City sometime in the future.

City Actions Since LAFCO’s Approved Action
On January 15, 2020, the Mayor and City Council considered the annexation of the remaining unincorporated island abutting the Spring Trails Specific Plan Project area (Exhibit C-1). Subsequent to discussion on the matter, the City Council tabled the item to an unspecified date.

On March 18, 2020, the Mayor and City Council discussed this item in a Closed Session meeting based on a threat of litigation. Based on City Council direction, this item would be scheduled for an upcoming City Council meeting for consideration.

On May 6, 2020, the Mayor and City Council again considered the annexation of the Packet Page. 517
remaining unincorporated island abutting the Spring Trails Specific Plan Project area. Subsequent to discussion on the matter, the City Council tabled the item a second time to an unspecified date.

Project Proponent Letter
In August/September 2020, legal counsel for Montecito Equities verbally requested that the City reconsider placing the item back on the City Council agenda for consideration. Staff at the time opted not to place the item back on the Agenda until after the Municipal Election in November 2020. This pushed the item beyond the October 16, 2020, deadline established by LAFCO. Due to changes in staff, the item did not move forward in a timely manner. Due to the lapse in the City taking action, the project proponent is now requesting the item to be considered by the Mayor and City Council.

Discussion
In response to LAFCO and the project proponent, the City of San Bernardino desires to now initiate proceedings pursuant to the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Section 56000 et seq. of the California Government Code) for the annexation of the unincorporated territory located in the Verdemont area, generally northerly of Meyers Road and easterly of Martin Ranch Road, more specifically described in Exhibit "A" (Legal Description) and depicted on Exhibit "A-1".

The area proposed for reorganization is within the Sphere of Influence of the City of San Bernardino and fulfills the requirement imposed by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for San Bernardino County to initiate the annexation of the totally surrounded island area that would be created through the annexation of the Spring Trails Specific Plan Project.

Through the LAFCO Annexation process, the City of San Bernardino requests that the proposed reorganization be subject to the following terms and conditions:
(a) The standard terms and conditions required by LAFCO shall apply; and (b) The annexation shall be subject to any and all of the City of San Bernardino's fees, taxes, and special assessments as they currently exist or may exist at the completion of these proceedings.

The reason for the proposed reorganization is to fulfill the requirement imposed by the LAFCO for San Bernardino County to initiate the annexation of the totally surrounded island area that would be created through the annexation of the Spring Trails Specific Plan Project.

The Plan(s) for Service and Fiscal Impact Analysis for the Specific Plan and island area that were prepared for the proposed reorganization have been reviewed and accepted and are included with the Resolutions in Attachment 4 (Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis - Spring Trails Specific Plan Project Area) and Attachment 8 (Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis - Meyers Road Island Area Annexation) Packet Page. 518
CEQA
The application for annexation is covered by the certified Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse #2009111086) for the Spring Trails Specific Plan Project (Specific Plan No. SP 10-01; General Plan Amendment No. GPA 02-09, including preannexation of the Spring Trails site; Tentative Tract Map No. 15576 (Subdivision No. 02-09); and Development Agreement No. 11-01) approved February 19, 2013. No further environmental review is required for the project pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15162. 2021-2025 Strategic Targets and Goals
The proposed Annexation is consistent with Key Target No. 1: Improved Operational & Financial Capacity - Continue to seek opportunities to secure long-term revenue sources. Specifically, the area considered for annexation is within the City’s sphere of influence and has been anticipated for development as identified in the City’s General Plan. Future in-fill development, such as that proposed as a part of the Spring Trails project, will be a catalyst to encourage new development in the city that will generate additional revenue. Key Target No. 4b: Economic Growth & Development - Update the General Plan and Development Code, as it ensures this property meets the General Plan uses and will be included in a future City annexation of this unincorporated area.

Fiscal Impact
The adoption of the Resolutions committing to the annexation does not require the expenditure of General Fund revenues at this time. However, the attached Plans for Service and Fiscal Impacts identify the benefits of the proposed annexed areas in terms of surplus to the City’s General Fund. The Plans for Service also identify recurring General Plan costs based on the 2022-2023 City Budget.

Conclusion
It is recommended that the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California adopt:

2. Resolution No. 2024-221 of the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California, making an application to the Local Agency Formation Commission for San Bernardino County for Reorganization to include Annexation to the City of San Bernardino and Detachment from County Service Area 70, generally northerly of Meyers Road and Easterly of Martin Ranch Road (known as the 26-Acre Totally Surrounded Island); and

3. Direct the City Manager to transmit the Resolutions to the Director of the Local Agency Formation Commission.

Packet Page. 519
Attachments
Attachment 1 Resolution No. 2024-220 (Spring Trails Specific Plan Project) Attachment 2 Resolution No. 2024-220 (Spring Trails Specific Plan Project), Exhibit A - Legal Description
Attachment 3 Resolution No. 2024-220 (Spring Trails Specific Plan Project), Exhibit A-1 - Location Map
Attachment 4 Resolution No. 2024-220 (Spring Trails Specific Plan Project), Exhibit B - Plan for Service and Fiscal Impact Analysis Attachment 5 Resolution No. 2024-221 (26-Acre Totally Surrounded Island) Attachment 6 Resolution No. 2024-221 (26-Acre Totally Surrounded Island), Exhibit C - Legal Description
Attachment 7 Resolution No. 2024-221 (26-Acre Totally Surrounded Island), Exhibit C-1 - Location Map
Attachment 8 Resolution No. 2024-221 (26-Acre Totally Surrounded Island), Exhibit D - Plan for Service and Fiscal Impact Analysis Attachment 9 LAFCO Agenda Packet (October 19, 2019)
Attachment 10 PowerPoint Presentation
Ward: 5
Synopsis of Previous Council Actions
March 2013 The City of San Bernardino approved the Spring Trails Specific Plan (SP 10-01), which included a variety of underlying entitlements, the adoption of Resolution No. 2013-34 that certified the Final Environmental Impact Report, the adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, and the adoption of a General Plan Amendment (GPA 02-09) (including the pre-annexation of the Specific Plan area); approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 15576; and approval of a Development Agreement.

January 15, 2020 - The Mayor and City Council considered the annexation of the remaining unincorporated island abutting the Spring Trails Specific Plan Project area.

Subsequent to discussion on the matter, the City Council tabled the item to an unspecified date.

March 18, 2020 - The Mayor and City Council discussed this item in a Closed Session meeting based on a threat of litigation. Based on City Council direction, this item would be scheduled for an upcoming City Council meeting for consideration.

May 6, 2020 - The Mayor and City Council considered the annexation of the remaining unincorporated island of the land abutting the Spring Trails Specific Plan Project area.

Subsequent to discussion on the matter, the City Council tabled the item a second time to an unspecified date.

Packet Page. 520
Resolution No. 2024-220
Resolution No. 2024-220
November 6, 2024

Page 1 of 4 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-220

RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA,

MAKING APPLICATION TO THE LOCAL AGENCY

FORMATION COMMISSION FOR SAN BERNARDINO

COUNTY FOR REORGANIZATION TO INCLUDE

ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND
DETACHMENT FROM COUNTY SERVICE AREA 70,

GENERALLY NORTHERLY OF MEYERS ROAD AND

EASTERLY OF MARTIN RANCH ROAD (KNOWN AS THE

SPRING TRAILS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT)
WHEREAS, the City of San Bernardino desires to initiate proceedings pursuant to the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Section 56000 et seq. of the California Government Code) for the annexation of unincorporated territory located in the Verdemont area, generally northerly of Meyers Road and easterly of Martin Ranch Road, more specifically described in Exhibit "A" and depicted on Exhibit "A-1", both made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the area proposed for reorganization is consistent with the Sphere of Influence for the City of San Bernardino; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Bernardino requests that the proposed reorganization be subject to the following terms and conditions: (a) the standard terms and conditions required by LAFCO shall apply; and (b) the annexation shall be subject to any and all of the City of San Bernardino's fees, taxes and special assessments as they currently exist or may exist at the completion of these proceedings; and
WHEREAS, the reason for the proposed reorganization is that the property owner/developer of said Spring Trails Project has requested annexation to the City of San Bernardino for the purpose of receiving municipal services from the City for the said Project proposed for development within the reorganization area; and WHEREAS, the City of San Bernardino has reviewed the Plan for Service and Fiscal Impact Analysis (included as Exhibit B) prepared for the proposed reorganization; and WHEREAS, the City of San Bernardino acknowledges and agrees to the Local Agency Formation Commission for San Bernardino County’s requirement for imposing legal indemnification as outlined in Policy 3 of Chapter 2 of the Internal Operations, Accounting, and Financial Section of its Policy and Procedure Manual.

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.

Packet Page. 521
Resolution No. 2024-220
Resolution No. 2024-220
November 6, 2024

Page 2 of 4 ends

SECTION 2. Application is hereby made to the Local Agency Formation Commission for San Bernardino County to initiate proceedings for the reorganization of unincorporated territory located in the Verdemont area, generally northerly of Meyers Road and easterly of Martin Ranch Road, more specifically described and depicted in said Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "A-1", respectively, to be known as City of San Bernardino Annexation No. 363.

SECTION 3. That the City Manager of the City of San Bernardino is hereby directed and authorized to execute, on behalf of said City, the application documents, including the certification of the Plan for Service and Fiscal Impact Analysis.

SECTION 4. The City Clerk of the City of San Bernardino is hereby directed and authorized to file or cause to be filed, a certified copy of this resolution with the Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission for San Bernardino County.

SECTION 5. The City Manager of the City of San Bernardino is hereby directed and authorized to prepare and deliver, or cause to be prepared and delivered, all application documents including and certified Plan for Service and Fiscal Impact Analysis necessary for the initiation of proceedings for the proposed reorganization with the Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission for San Bernardino County.

SECTION 6. CEQA. As the decision-making body for the project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the administrative record for the proposed project. Based upon the facts and information contained in the administrative record, including all written and oral evidence presented to the City Council, the City Council finds, as follows:
(1) The administrative record has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City’s Local CEQA Guidelines. (2) The application for annexation is covered by the certified Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse #2009111086) for the Spring Trails Specific Plan Project (Specific Plan No. SP 10-01; General Plan Amendment No. GPA 02-09, including pre-annexation of the Spring Trails site; Tentative Tract Map No. 15576 (Subdivision No. 02-09); and Development Agreement No. 11-01) approved February 19, 2013. No further environmental review is required for the project pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15162.
(3) The determination of CEQA exemption reflects the independent judgment of the City Council.

SECTION 7. Severability. If any provision of this Resolution or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications, and to this end, the provisions of this Resolution are declared to be severable.

SECTION 8. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective immediately.

Packet Page. 522
Resolution No. 2024-220
Resolution No. 2024-220
November 6, 2024

Page 3 of 4 ends

APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council and signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk this 6th day of November 2024.

Helen Tran, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
Attest:

Genoveva Rocha, CMC, City Clerk
Approved as to form:

Sonia Carvalho, City Attorney
Packet Page. 523
Resolution No. 2024-220
Resolution No. 2024-220
November 6, 2024

Page 4 of 4 ends

CERTIFICATION

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO) ss

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO )
I, Genoveva Rocha, CMC, City Clerk, hereby certify that the attached is a true copy of Resolution No. 2024-220, adopted at a regular meeting held on the 6th day of November 2024 by the following vote:

Genoveva Rocha, CMC, City Clerk
Packet Page. 524
Resolution No. 2024-220
Resolution No. 2024-220
November 6, 2024

Page 5 of 4 ends

EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Packet Page. 525
Resolution No. 2024-220
Resolution No. 2024-220
November 6, 2024

Page 6 of 4 ends

EXHIBIT A-1
MAP
Packet Page. 526
Resolution No. 2024-220
Resolution No. 2024-220
November 6, 2024

Page 7 of 4 ends

EXHIBIT B
PLAN FOR SERVICE; FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
Packet Page. 527

Page 1 of 4 ends

LAFCO 3188A - REORGANIZATION TO INCLUDE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND TO SBCFPD ZONE FP-5 SAN BERNARDINO, AND DETACHMENT FROM COUNTY SERVICE AREA 70 (Spring Trails Specific Plan) Prepared June 26, 2019
Those parcels of land located in Sections 26 and 35, Township 2 North, Range 5 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the County of San Bernardino, State of California, described as follows:

Commencing at the Southeast corner of Section 26, T. 2 N., R. 5 W., SBM;
Course 1. Thence S88°21’49”W along the South line of said Section 26, T. 2 N., R. 5 W., SBM, a distance of 364.15 feet, to a point on the Muscupiabe Rancho Line, as per County Surveyors Plat 7093, Records of San Bernardino County, State of California; Course 2. Thence S08°23’37”W along said Muscupiabe Rancho Line, a distance of 2529.03 feet, to a point on the San Bernardino City limits, said point also being the Northwest corner of Government Lot 3 of Section 35, T. 2 N., R. 5 W., SBM; Course 3. Thence continuing S08°23’37”W along said
Muscupiabe Rancho Line, a distance of 757.58 feet, to a point on the centerline of Pennsylvania Avenue as shown on the Plat of the Town of Irvington and the Land of Irvington Land and Water Co., recorded in Map Book 3, Page 9, Records of San Bernardino County, said point also being the Southwest corner of Government Lot 3 of Section 35, T. 2 N., R. 5 W., SBM, said point also being an angle point on City of San Bernardino Annexation #257, LAFCO No. 920, Ordinance No. 3131, effective date 02/18/1971, said point also being the Point of Beginning;
Course 4. Thence N62°54’32”W along said centerline of
Pennsylvania Avenue and the border of City of San Bernardino Annexation #258, LAFCO No. 931, Ordinance No. 3142, effective date 03/05/1971, a distance of 560.57 feet, to a point on the east line of Lot “A” per Map Showing a Portion of the Meyer and Barclay Subdivision, recorded in Map Book 12, Page 18, Records of San Bernardino County;
Course 5. Thence S05°57’38”E along said east line of Lot “A” and the border of said Annexation 258, a distance of 428.48 feet, to the Northeasterly corner of that certain 5 acres in the Southeast corner of said Lot “A”, as conveyed to Robert B. Meyer by deed recorded in book 173, page 156, of deeds, records of said County;
Packet Page. 528

Page 2 of 4 ends

Course 6. Thence N83°59’22”W along the Northerly line of said 5 acres and the border of said Annexation 258, a distance of 590.94 feet;
Course 7. Thence N86°44’09”W along the Northerly line of said 5 acres and the border of said Annexation 258, a distance of

52.61 feet, to a point on the centerline of Meyers Road as shown on Parcel Map No. 3540, recorded in Parcel Map Book 31, Page 84, Records of San Bernardino County;
Course 8. Thence N51°36’40”W along said centerline of Meyers Road and the border of said Annexation 258, a distance of 543.37 feet, to its intersection with the prolongation of the easterly line of Parcel 1, Parcel Map No. 4093, recorded in Parcel Map Book 38, Page 53, Records of San Bernardino County;
Course 9. Thence N15°43’10”E along said easterly
prolongation and line of Parcel 1 and the easterly line of Parcel 2 of said Parcel Map No. 4093, a distance of 1433.20 feet; Course 10. Thence N15°44’02”E along the prolongation of the easterly line of said Parcel 2 a distance of 30.01 feet to the southeast corner of Lot “D,” per Map Showing a Portion of the Meyer and Barclay Subdivision, recorded in Map Book 12, Page 18, Records of San Bernardino County;
Course 11. Thence N15°53’54”E along the easterly line of said Lot “D” a distance of 30.01 feet;
Course 12. Thence N15°53’55”E continuing along the easterly line of said Lot “D”, a distance of 306.36 feet to the northeast corner of said Lot “D”;
Course 13. Thence N57°15’54”W along the northerly line of said Lot “D” a distance of 448.80 feet to the northwesterly corner of said Lot “D”, said point also being the Northeasterly corner of Parcel 3 per said Parcel Map No. 3540, said point also being a point on the border of said Annexation 258;
Course 14. Thence N57°17’03”W along the Northeasterly line of said Parcel 3 and the border of said Annexation 258, a distance of 124.74 feet;
Course 15. Thence N62°44’40”W continuing along the
Northeasterly line of said Parcel 3 and the border of said Annexation 258, a distance of 513.33 feet, to the Southeasterly corner of parcel Map No. 3810, recorded in Parcel Map Book 34,

Page 92 ends

Course 16. Thence leaving said Annexation 258 boundary and City of San Bernardino boundary N39°38’54”E along the
Southeasterly line of said Parcel Map No. 3810, a distance of Packet Page. 529

Page 3 of 4 ends

1759.07 feet, to the Northeasterly corner of Parcel 3 of said Parcel Map No. 3810;
Course 17. Thence along the N50°12’07”W line of said Parcel 3, a distance of 708.05 feet, to the Northwesterly corner of said Parcel 3;
Course 18. Thence S39°34’04”W along the Northwesterly line of said Parcel 3, a distance of 244.19 feet, to the Southeasterly corner of Parcel 4 of Parcel Map No. 3809, recorded in Parcel Map Book 44, Page 20, Records of San Bernardino County;
Course 19. Thence N50°06’43”W along the Southwesterly line of said Parcel 4, a distance of 812.32 feet, to the Southwesterly corner of said Parcel 4;
Course 20. Thence N00°26’59”E along the Westerly line of said Parcel 4, a distance of 282.88 feet, to the Westerly corner of said Parcel 4, said point also being on the Muscupiabe Rancho Line;
Course 21. Thence N54°45’38”E along the Northwesterly line of said Parcel 4 and the Muscupiabe Rancho Line, a distance of 478.62 feet, to its intersection with the Westerly line of Government Lot 2, Section 26, Township 2 North, Range 5 West, San Bernardino Meridian, according to the official plat of the survey of said land approved June 24, 1898, in the office of the County Recorder of said County;
Course 22. Thence leaving the Muscupiabe Rancho Line
N00°53’02”W along said Westerly line of Government Lot 2, a distance of 738.53 feet, to the center quarter corner of said Section 26;
Course 23. Thence N88°19’04”E along the South line of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 26, a distance of 664.29 feet, to the Southeast corner of the Southwest quarter, of the Southwest quarter, of the Northeast quarter of said Section 26; Course 24. Thence N00°33’58”W a distance of 657.91 to the Northeast corner of the Southwest quarter, of the Southwest quarter, of the Northeast quarter of said Section 26;
Course 25. Thence S88°26’50”W a distance of 332.12 feet to the Southwest corner of the East half of the Northwest quarter, of the Southwest Quarter, of the Northeast quarter of said Section 26;
Course 26. Thence N00°57’21”W a distance of 659.47 feet to the Northwest corner of the East half of the Northwest quarter, of the Southwest Quarter, of the Northeast quarter of said Section 26;
Packet Page. 530

Page 4 of 4 ends

Course 27. Thence N88°28’05”E a distance of 336.62 feet to the Northeast corner of the Northwest quarter, of the Southwest Quarter, of the Northeast quarter of said Section 26;
Course 28. Thence N01°07’38”W a distance of 330.44 feet to the Northwest corner of the South half of the Southeast quarter, of the Northwest Quarter, of the Northeast quarter of said Section 26;
Course 29. Thence N88°19’45”E a distance of 668.78 feet to the Northeast corner of the South half of the Southeast quarter, of the Northwest Quarter, of the Northeast quarter of said Section 26;
Course 30. Thence S00°20’43”E a distance of 331.76 feet to the Northwest corner of the Southeast quarter, of the Northeast quarter of said Section 26;
Course 31. Thence N88°23’28”E a distance of 1333.28 feet to the Northeast corner of the Southeast quarter, of the Northeast quarter of said Section 26;
Course 32. Thence S00°39’48”E along the Easterly line of said Section 26 a distance of 1317.40 feet;
Course 33. Thence S00°36’49”W along the Easterly line of said Section 26 a distance of 2759.84 feet to the point of
Commencement.

Said parcel contains 349.36 acres more or less.
2-12-24
Edward J. Bonadiman, P.L.S. DATE
Exp. 12-31-25
https://jebonadiman-my.sharepoint.com/personal/civildesign_bonadiman_com/Documents/JOBS-2011-2015/2013/133952 Montecito Equities LTD - Spring Trails/Legal Description/133952 LAFCO Boundary REV5 for City.doc Packet Page. 531
COURSE 1
COURSE 2
COURSE 3
COURSE 4
COURSE 5
COURSE 6
COURSE 7
COURSE 8
COURSE 9
COURSE 10
COURSE 11
COURSE 12
COURSE 13
COURSE 14
COURSE 15
COURSE 16
COURSE 17
COURSE 18
COURSE 19
COURSE 20
COURSE 21
COURSE 22
COURSE 23
COURSE 24
COURSE 25
COURSE 26
COURSE 27
COURSE 28
COURSE 29
COURSE 30
COURSE 31
COURSE 32
COURSE 33
Line Table
Line #
COURSE 1
COURSE 2
COURSE 3
COURSE 4
COURSE 5
COURSE 6
COURSE 7
COURSE 8
COURSE 9
COURSE 10
COURSE 11
COURSE 12
COURSE 13
COURSE 14
COURSE 15
COURSE 16
COURSE 17
COURSE 18
COURSE 19
COURSE 20
COURSE 21
COURSE 22
COURSE 23
COURSE 24
COURSE 25
COURSE 26
COURSE 27
COURSE 28
COURSE 29
COURSE 30
COURSE 31
COURSE 32
COURSE 33
Direction
S88° 21' 49"W
S08° 23' 37"W
S08° 23' 37"W
N62° 54' 32"W
S05° 57' 38"E
N83° 59' 22"W
N86° 44' 09"W
N51° 36' 40"W
N15° 43' 10"E
N15° 44' 02"E
N15° 53' 54"E
N15° 53' 55"E
N57° 15' 54"W
N57° 17' 03"W
N62° 44' 40"W
N39° 38' 54"E
N50° 12' 07"W
S39° 34' 04"W
N50° 06' 43"W
N00° 26' 59"E
N54° 45' 38"E
N00° 53' 02"W
N88° 19' 04"E
N00° 33' 58"W
S88° 26' 50"W
N00° 57' 21"W
N88° 28' 05"E
N01° 07' 38"W
N88° 19' 45"E
S00° 20' 43"E
N88° 23' 28"E
S00° 39' 48"E
S00° 36' 49"W
Length
364.15
2529.03
757.58
560.57
428.48
590.94

52.61 543.47
1433.20

30.01 30.01
306.36
448.80
124.74
513.33
1759.07
708.05
244.19
812.32
282.88
478.62
738.53
664.29
657.91
332.12
659.47
336.62
330.44
668.78
331.76
1333.28
1317.40
2759.84
CHECKED BY: E.J.B. JOB NO: 133952 1 1 D1
06-26-19

DISREGARD PRINTS BEARING

EARLIER REVISION DATES
DRAWN BY: SCALE:

PREPARED FOR:

S.P.G.

SHEET:
1" = 400'

MONTECITO EQUITIES LTD
OF
E S T . 1 9 4 1
LAFCO 3188A
LAFCO 3188A - REORGANIZATION TO INCLUDE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND TO SBCFPD ZONE FP-5 SAN BERNARDINO, AND DETACHMENT FROM COUNTY SERVICE AREA 70 (SPRING TRAILS SPECIFIC PLAN) 0 SCALE: 1"= 400'
400 400 800 1200

VICINITY MAP
N.T.S.

GENERAL DESCRIPTION
·
·LEGEND
LAFCO 3188A - REORGANIZATION TO INCLUDE ANNEXATION

TO THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND TO SBCFPD
ZONE FP-5 SAN BERNARDINO, AND DETACHMENT FROM
COUNTY SERVICE AREA 70 (SPRING TRAILS SPECIFIC PLAN)
Exhibit A-1
Packet Page. 532
11661 San Vicente Blvd. Suite 306
Los Angeles, California 90049-5111
310.820.2680-p, 310.820.8341-f
www.stanleyrhoffman.com
Spring Trails Annexation
Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis
City of San Bernardino
Prepared for:

City of San Bernardino
290 North D Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
909.384.7272
October 10, 2023
SRHA Job # 1405
Packet Page. 533
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 i Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis

CERTIFICATION
The City of San Bernardino hereby certifies that this document presents the data and information required for the Plan for Service and Fiscal Impact Analysis for the Spring Trails Annexation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented herein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

DATE ____________ ___________ _

SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT
___________ _

TITLE OF APPLICANT
City of San Bernardino, California
Packet Page. 534
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 ii Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis

CONTENTS
Tables ......................................................................................................................................... iv Figures .......................................................................................................................................... v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... vi CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................1

1.1 Purpose of the Study........................................................................................................1

1.2 Overview of the City of San Bernardino...........................................................................3

1.3 Organization of the Report ..............................................................................................3 CHAPTER 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION........................................................................................4

2.1 Residential Development.................................................................................................4

2.2 Infrastructure...................................................................................................................4

2.3 Assessed Valuation and Property Tax ..............................................................................7

2.4 Sales and Use Tax.............................................................................................................9 CHAPTER 3 PUBLIC FACILITIES BEFORE AND AFTER ANNEXATION........................................ 12

3.1 General Government .....................................................................................................13

3.2 Fire and Paramedic ........................................................................................................14

3.3 Sheriff/Police .................................................................................................................14

3.4 Library ............................................................................................................................16

3.5 Parks and Recreation .....................................................................................................17

3.6 Animal Control ...............................................................................................................18

3.7 Street Lighting................................................................................................................20

3.8 Landscape Maintenance ................................................................................................20

3.9 Water.............................................................................................................................20

3.10 Wastewater Collection...................................................................................................23

3.11 Transportation ...............................................................................................................23

3.12 Flood Control and Drainage ...........................................................................................26

3.13 Utilities...........................................................................................................................26

3.14 Schools...........................................................................................................................26

3.15 Solid Waste Management..............................................................................................28

3.16 Public Health and Welfare .............................................................................................29 CHAPTER 4 PAYING FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE..................................... 30

4.1 Spring Trails Facilities and Infrastructure.......................................................................30

4.2 City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fees ........................................................30

4.3 Schools...........................................................................................................................33

4.4 Utilities...........................................................................................................................33

4.5 Roads and Drainage .......................................................................................................33

4.6 Water and Sewer ...........................................................................................................33 CHAPTER 5 FISCAL IMPACTS ................................................................................................ 34

5.1 City General Fund...........................................................................................................34

5.2 Other Funds ...................................................................................................................36 Packet Page. 535
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 iii Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis CHAPTER 6 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO FISCAL ASSUMPTIONS............................................... 37

6.1 City General Assumptions..............................................................................................37

6.2 City Revenue Assumptions.............................................................................................39

6.3 City Cost Assumptions....................................................................................................43 APPENDIX A SUPPORTING LAND USE TABLE ........................................................................ 48 APPENDIX B SUPPORTING FISCAL TABLES............................................................................ 49 APPENDIX C PROJECT REFERENCES...................................................................................... 55 Packet Page. 536
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 iv Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis TABLES
1 Summary of Projected Recurring Fiscal Impacts.....................................................................viii 2 Summary of Projected Other Funds Recurring Revenues.......................................................viii 2-1 Residential Development Description....................................................................................... 6 2-2 Public Infrastructure Development Description ....................................................................... 6 2-3 Assessed Valuation, and Property Tax ...................................................................................... 8 2-4 Estimated Existing Assessed Valuation ..................................................................................... 9 2-5 Estimated Offsite Sales and Use Tax by Project Residents ..................................................... 11 3-1 Current and Anticipated Service Providers in the Spring Trails Annexation ........................... 13 4-1 Spring Trails Facilities and Infrastructure................................................................................ 31 4-2 Summary of Spring Trails Development Impact Fees ............................................................. 32 5-1 Summary of Projected Recurring Fiscal Impacts..................................................................... 34 5-2 Detailed General Fund Projected Recurring Fiscal Impacts.................................................... 35 5-3 Summary of Projected Other Funds Recurring Revenues....................................................... 36 6-1 City Population, Housing and Employment Assumptions....................................................... 38 6-2 General Fund and Other Funds Recurring Revenue Factors................................................... 40 6-3 General Fund Recurring Cost Factors...................................................................................... 44 6-4 Calculation of City General Government Overhead Rate ....................................................... 45 A-1 Roads, Drainage, Sewer, Parks, Trails and Open Space Phasing ............................................. 48 B-1 General Fund Adopted Revenues, Fiscal Year 2022-23........................................................... 49 B-2 Revenues for Other City Fund, Fiscal Year 2022-23 ................................................................ 51 B-3 Estimated In Lieu Property Tax of Vehicle License Fees (VLF) Factor ..................................... 52 B-4 Calculation of Use Tax Factor.................................................................................................. 52 B-5 Estimated Annual Residential Turnover.................................................................................. 53 B-6 General Fund Net Community Development Cost Factor....................................................... 54 Packet Page. 537
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 v Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis

FIGURES
1-1 Spring Trails Annexation Regional Vicinity ............................................................................. 2 2-1 Spring Trails Annexation Local Vicinity................................................................................... 5 3-1 Fire Protection ....................................................................................................................... 15 3-2 City of San Bernardino Police Department: Northwest District.......................................... 17 3-3 Spring Trails Specific Plan Parks, Trails, and Open Space ..................................................19 3-4 Spring Trails Specific Plan Landscape Zones......................................................................21 3-5 Spring Trails Specific Plan Conceptual Water Plan ............................................................22 3-6 Spring Trails Specific Plan Conceptual Sewer Plan ............................................................24 3-7 Spring Trails Specific Plan Conceptual Circulation Plan....................................................... 25 3-8 Spring Trails Specific Plan Conceptual Drainage Plan........................................................27 3-9 Local Elementary, Middle and High Schools........................................................................ 28 Packet Page. 538
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 vi Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report provides an assessment of public service delivery capabilities of the City of San Bernardino and other agencies or special districts affected by the proposed Spring Trails Annexation to the City of San Bernardino. The City of San Bernardino is surrounded by the cities of Highland, Redlands, Colton and Rialto.

This report is being submitted to the County of San Bernardino Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) as a “Plan for Service” required by California Government Code Section 56653. Currently, the County of San Bernardino provides many services to the annexation area including fire and paramedic services, general government, development services, sheriff patrol, public library, regional parks and recreation, street lighting, transportation, flood control and drainage, and health and welfare. Public schools are provided by the San Bernardino Unified School District.

After annexation, the City of San Bernardino is anticipated to provide services including general government, community development, police protection, local parks and recreation, community services and public works’ services. The City of San Bernardino has annexed into the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District (SBCFPD) and its Service Zone FP-5 for fire protection and emergency medical response services. Since the Spring Trails annexation area is already within SBCFPD and Service Zone FP-5, the SBCFPD will continue to be the service provider for fire protection and emergency medical services. The County of San Bernardino will continue to provide other services such as regional parks and recreation, regional flood control and drainage and health and welfare.

The proposed annexation area includes the Spring Trail Specific Plan, a proposed residential community in the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains. The preferred plan accommodates 215 new single-family lots ranging from 10,801 square feet to 18 acres. The development footprint encompasses about two thirds of the total site, on gently sloping alluvial benches between canyons, steep hillsides, and the Cable Canyon and Meyers Canyon drainage ways. The remaining one third of the site remains open space. There are 3.8 miles of trails that traverse the site and provide access to parks and natural open space.

Packet Page. 539
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 vii Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis Fiscal Impacts
Based on an analysis of current service delivery capabilities, the City is equipped to handle additional demand from the proposed annexation of the 215 new homes planned for Spring Trails. One or more community facilities district(s) will be formed to pay for the cost of certain offsite public facilities necessary for the development of the Project, including roads and traffic improvements, parks and open space improvements, flood control and drainage systems, water and sewer systems, and utilities. A capital improvement plan, and rate and method of apportionment will be prepared which will outline the facilities cost, rates, and manner of collection.

The onsite streets, landscaping, lighting, community walls, community fences, open space, detention basins, and drainage systems will be maintained by the Homeowners Association (HOA). However, a Community Facilities District (CFD) will be approved as a backup to the HOA, in case the HOA is does not adequately maintain these facilities. The offsite roads, drainage systems, lighting, and utilities will be maintained by the City. The San Bernardino Municipal Water Department will maintain the onsite and offsite water and sewer systems. This report explains the transfer of service requirements upon annexation, estimates development impact fees and other cost responsibilities.

General Fund. As shown in Table 1, projected recurring fiscal impacts to the City General Fund for the Spring Trails Annexation is shown to generate a surplus for all phases. At buildout a recurring annual surplus of $37,705 is projected to the General Fund.

Projected surpluses to the General Fund for Year 1 through Year 4 range from $827 for Year 1 to $37,705 for Year 4. The projected surpluses for all years assume revenues from the recently adopted CFD 2018-1 tax for safety services family unit.

Other Funds. Projected recurring revenues for the Gas Tax Fund and Measure I Fund that are earmarked for street and road related expenditures are presented in Table 2.

Gas Tax Fund. As shown in Panel A of Table 2, projected recurring gasoline revenues to the City are projected. The projected revenues range from $67 for Year 1 to $16,112 at buildout.

Measure I Fund. Projected recurring Measure I sales tax revenues to the City are projected to range from $88 for Year 1 to $5,949 at buildout, as shown in Panel B of Table 2.

Packet Page. 540
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 viii Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis Table 1
Summary of Projected General Fund Recurring Fiscal Impacts Spring Trails Annexation Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis City of San Bernardino
(In Constant 2023 Dollars)
1 Summary of Projected Recurring Fiscal Impacts
Table 2
Summary of Projected Other Funds Recurring Revenues
Spring Trails Annexation Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis City of San Bernardino
(In Constant 2023 Dollars)
2 Summary of Projected Other Funds Recurring Revenues
Year 1 - 2026 Year 2 - 2027 Year 3 - 2028 Year 4 - 2029 Year 5 - 2030 Existing Buildout
Unit New Units New Units New Units of New Units
General Fund (Grading) (Phase 1) (Phase 2) (Phase 3) (Phase 4) Estimated Annual Recurring Revenues $2,719 $66,413 $178,387 $311,172 $493,179 Estimated Annual Recurring Costs $1,892 $63,085 $168,438 $290,822 $455,474 Estimated Annual Recurring Surplus $827 $3,328 $9,949 $20,351 $37,705 Estimated Annual Revenue/Cost Ratio 1.44 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.

J. P. Weber Group, September 2023
Year 1 - 2026 Year 2 - 2027 Year 3 - 2028 Year 4 - 2029 Year 5 - 2030 Existing Buildout
Unit New Units New Units New Units of New Units
Other Funds (Grading) (Phase 1) (Phase 2) (Phase 3) (Phase 4) A. Fund 126 - Gas Tax 1
Annual Recurring Gasoline Tax $67 $2,233 $5,962 $10,294 $16,122 B. Fund 129 - Measure I 1
1/2 cent sales and road tax $88 $860 $2,207 $3,791 $5,949

1. Annual recurring gasoline tax and Measure I revenues are restricted to street related expenditures.

Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.

J. P. Weber Group, September 2023
Packet Page. 541
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 1 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION
The Spring Trails Annexation area is on the northern edge of the City of San Bernardino in the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains, as shown in Figure 1.1. The site is approximately 1.5 miles east of the unincorporated community of Devore and the junction of Interstate 215 (I-215) and I-15. The Spring Trails Annexation area is bounded by the San Bernardino National Forest on three sides and the City of San Bernardino on the southern side.

1.1 Purpose of the Study
The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) of the County of San Bernardino requires a jurisdiction to submit a Plan for Service and Fiscal Impact Analysis when the jurisdiction is affected by a proposed change in boundaries, formation, or organization. The proposed project intends to annex into the City of San Bernardino, which requires the City to show that the necessary infrastructure improvements and services can be provided to the proposed development. Per the application form in the LAFCO Policy and Procedure Manual, Updated September 2018, the Plan for Service must include the following components:
a. A description of the level and range of each service to be provided to the affected territory.
b. An indication of when those services can feasibly be extended to the affected territory. c. An identification of any improvement or upgrading of structures, roads, water or sewer facilities, other infrastructure, or other conditions the affected agency would impose upon the affected territory.
d. The Plan shall include a Fiscal Impact Analysis which shows the estimated cost of extending the service and a description of how the service or required improvements will be financed. The Fiscal Impact Analysis shall provide, at a minimum, a five (5)-year projection of revenues and expenditures. A narrative discussion of the sufficiency of revenues for anticipated service extensions and operations is required. e. An indication of whether the affected territory is, or will be, proposed for inclusion within an existing or proposed improvement zone/district, redevelopment area, assessment district, or community facilities district.
f. If retail water service is to be provided through this change of organization, provide a description of the timely availability of water for projected needs within the area based upon the factors identified in Government Code Section 65352.5 (as required by Government Code Section 56668(k)).

Packet Page. 542
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 2 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis Figure 1-1
Spring Trails Annexation Regional Vicinity
Spring Trails Annexation Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis City of San Bernardino
1-1 Spring Trails Annexation Regional Vicinity
Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.

Montecito Equities, Ltd., Spring Trails Draft Specific Plan, October 2012 Packet Page. 543
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 3 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis

1.2 Overview of the City of San Bernardino
The City of San Bernardino is the county seat of San Bernardino County, occupying 62.5 square miles and is an anchor city for the Inland Empire. The 2023 city population is estimated at 223,230. Residents have access to more than 40 parks and fields, including premier athletic facilities, 7 community centers, a year-round aquatics center, a public library system, two higher education institutions, and 73 K-12 public schools. Major employers in the city include the County of San Bernardino, San Bernardino City Unified School District, California State University, the City of San Bernardino, Saint Bernardino Medical Center, the Community Hospital of San Bernardino, Caltrans, Stater Bros. Markets, Wells Fargo and Omnitrans. The city has been a major transit hub for over 100 years with the Interstate 10 and 215, the 210 and 259 Freeways, and the Metrolink commuter rail service. San Bernardino is a charter city, which means that the city has supreme authority over its municipal affairs, rather than being bound by the state’s general law if the City were a general law city. The City operates under a City Council-City Manager form of government. The Mayor and the seven-seat City Council are elected positions. Under the supervision of the City Council, the City Manager is the Chief Administrative Officer and directs most of the City Departments, other than the City Attorney and City Clerk, who report directly to the City Council, and the Municipal Water Department and the Library, which are governed by the Water Board and the Library Board of Trustees, respectively.

1.3 Organization of the Report
Chapter 2 contains the description of the annexation area and the proposed development. The analysis of existing public service delivery in the annexation area and upon annexation into the City is presented in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 discusses the development impact fees and charges for infrastructure associated with the proposed annexation. The fiscal impact analysis of the annual operations and maintenance costs for the provision of services to the annexation area is provided in Chapter 5. Chapter 6 covers the revenue and cost assumptions used for the fiscal analysis.

Appendix A includes the detailed infrastructure description for the Annexation. Supporting tables for the fiscal assumptions appear in Appendix B. Appendix C lists the project contacts and references used in the preparation of this study.

Packet Page. 544
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 4 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis CHAPTER 2

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This chapter presents the detailed land uses for the Spring Trails Annexation. Information includes housing units, population, assessed valuation and taxable sales. The total Spring Trails Annexation includes one existing unit and the proposed Spring Trails Specific Plan 215 new units.

As shown in Figure 2-1, the Spring Trails Annexation is in Verdemont Heights, approximately onethird mile northwest of the intersection of Meyers Road and Little League Drive. Primary access is from a new roadway connecting to Little League Drive and a secondary roadway via a new road extending south and connecting to the frontage road along I-215. Freeway access is from the Palm Avenue interchange and the Glen Helen Parkway/Devore Road interchange.

2.1 Residential Development
As shown in Panel A of Table 2-1, there is one existing residential unit located on the Spring Trails site. With the 215 lots proposed for the Spring Trails site, total lots for the Annexation after buildout are 216.

Based on the January 1, 2023 Citywide average estimate of 3.34 persons per unit from the Department of Finance, total population for the Annexation is projected at 750 after buildout, as shown in Panel B of Table 2-1.

2.2 Infrastructure
One or more community facilities district(s) will be formed to pay for the cost of certain offsite public facilities necessary for the development of the Project, including roads and traffic improvements, parks and open space improvements, flood control and drainage systems, water and sewer systems, and utilities. A capital improvement plan, and rate and method of apportionment will be prepared which will outline the facilities cost, rates, and manner of collection.

Table 2-2 presents only the Spring Trails project infrastructure that is publicly maintained through the City General Fund and other City Funds or Departments. The total publicly and Packet Page. 545
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 5 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis Figure 2-1
Spring Trails Annexation Local Vicinity
Spring Trails Annexation Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis City of San Bernardino
2-1 Spring Trails Annexation Local Vicinity
Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.

J.P. Weber Group, November 2016
Packet Page. 546
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 6 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis Table 2-1
Residential Development Description
Spring Trails Annexation Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis City of San Bernardino
2-1 Residential Development Description
Table 2-2
Public Infrastructure Development Description
Spring Trails Annexation Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis City of San Bernardino
2-2 Public Infrastructure Development Description
Year 1 - 2026 Year 2 - 2027 Year 3 - 2028 Year 4 - 2029 Year 5 - 2030 Existing Buildout
Unit New Units New Units New Units of New Units
Category (Grading) (Phase 1) (Phase 2) (Phase 3) (Phase 4) Total A. Residential Units
Existing Unit - Spring Trails Project Site 1 0 0 0 0 1
New Units - Spring Trails Project Site 0 29 50 58 78 215 Total Annual Units 1 29 50 58 78 216
Total Cumulative Units 1 30 80 138 216
Spring Trails - New Annual Residential Square Feet 2 n/a 78,300 135,000 156,600 210,600 580,500 Total Cumulative New Square Feet n/a 78,300 213,300 369,900 580,500 B. Population 3
Total Annual Population 3 97 167 194 261 722
Total Cumulative Population 3 100 267 461 722

1. Land uses and phasing for the Spring Trails Specific Plan are provided by J. P. Weber Group.

2. Based on information from the developer, the average unit size is 3,200 square feet.

3. Population is projected at the Citywide average of 3.34 persons per unit for January 1, 2023.

Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.

J. P. Weber Group, September 2023
Year 1 - 2026 Year 2 - 2027 Year 3 - 2028 Year 4 - 2029 Year 5 - 2030 Existing Buildout
Unit New Units New Units New Units of New Units
Category (Grading) (Phase 1) (Phase 2) (Phase 3) (Phase 4) Total A. Roads - Offsite (Publicly Maintained)
Primary Access 1.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.04
Secondary Access 2.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.61
Total Lane Miles 3.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.65
Cumulative Lane Miles 3.65 3.65 3.65 3.65 3.65
B. Drainage - Offsite (Publicly Maintained)
Reinforced Concrete Box Lineal Feet 1,430 0 0 0 0 1,430 Reinforced Concrete Pipe Lineal Feet 3,685 0 0 0 0 3,685 Arch Culvert Lineal Feet 580 0 0 0 0 580
Total Lineal Feet 5,695 0 0 0 0 5,695
Cumulative Lineal Feet 5,695 5,695 5,695 5,695 5,695
C. Sewer - Onsite and Offsite (Publicly Maintained)
Sewer Main Lineal Feet 4,017 10,857 0 13,479 0 28,353
Cumulative Lineal Feet 4,017 14,874 14,874 28,353 28,353

1. Only the publicly maintained road, drainage and sewer infrastructure is presented in this table. All on onsite roads, drainage, parks, trails and open space will be maintained through a homeowners association. Appendix Table A-1 presents the total roads, drainage, sewer, parks, trails and open space for the Spring Trails project.

Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.

J. P. Weber Group, September 2023
Packet Page. 547
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 7 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis privately maintained roads, drainage, sewer, parks, trails and open space infrastructure for the Annexation is presented in Appendix Table A-1. All water and sewer infrastructure will be operated and maintained by the City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department.

As shown in Panel A and Panel B of Table 2-2, only the proposed offsite streets of 3.65 lane miles and the 5,695 lineal feet of offsite drains will be publicly maintained by the City. Sewer mains will be publicly maintained by the City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department and are estimated at 28,353 lineal feet after buildout of the project. The onsite streets, landscaping, lighting, community walls and fences, open space, detention basins, and drainage systems will be maintained by the Homeowners Association.

2.3 Assessed Valuation and Property Tax
Assessed valuation for the total Spring Trails Annexation after buildout is projected at about $167.75 million, as shown in Panel B of Table 2-3. The current assessed valuation of about $2.50 million is estimated for Year 1. Existing assessed valuation is based on the County Assessor’s 2023 tax roll value, as shown in Table 2-4.

New residential valuation for the proposed Spring Trails Specific Plan is based on residential pricing provided by the project developer. The following summarizes the average values per unit by Phase provided by the project applicant based on information from Land Advisors, Inc.:
• Phase 1 $750,000 per unit
• Phase 2 $760,000 per unit
• Phase 3 $770,000 per unit
• Phase 4 $780,000 per unit
Projected Property Tax
As shown in Panel C of Table 2-3, the City General Fund will not receive property tax for the assessed valuation of the annexation area. The San Bernardino County Fire Protection District (SBCFPD) is now providing fire protection to the City. Based on the service agreement between the two jurisdictions, the property tax that would usually accrue to the City will remain with the SBCFPD and no property tax from other County funds and districts will be allocated to the City.

Projected Property Tax in Lieu VLF
The City General Fund will receive property tax in lieu of vehicle license fees (VLF) based on the increase in assessed valuation in the City. Per State law, when an annexation occurs the Packet Page. 548
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 8 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis Table 2-3
Assessed Valuation and Property Tax
Spring Trails Annexation Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis City of San Bernardino
(In Constant 2023 Dollars)
2-3 Assessed Valuation, and Property Tax
Year 1 - 2026 Year 2 - 2027 Year 3 - 2028 Year 4 - 2029 Year 5 - 2030 Existing Buildout
Unit New Units New Units New Units of New Units
Category (Grading) (Phase 1) (Phase 2) (Phase 3) (Phase 4) Total A. Residential Units
Existing Unit - Spring Trails Project Site 1 0 0 0 0 1
New Units - Spring Trails Project Site 0 29 50 58 78 215 Total Annual Units 1 29 50 58 78 216
Total Cumulative Units 1 30 80 138 216
B. Assessed Valuation
Current Valuation 2 $2,496,189
Phase 1a @ $750,000 per Unit $21,750,000
Phase 1b @ $760,000 per Unit $38,000,000
Phase 2a @ $770,000 per Unit $44,660,000
Phase 2b @ $780,000 per Unit $60,840,000
Total Annual Valuation $2,496,189 $21,750,000 $38,000,000 $44,660,000 $60,840,000 $167,746,189 Total Cumulative Valuation $2,496,189 $24,246,189 $62,246,189 $106,906,189 $167,746,189 C. Projected Property Tax
Annual 1 Percent Property Tax Levy $24,962 $217,500 $380,000 $446,600 $608,400 $1,677,462 (@ 1% of Valuation)
Annual General Fund Property 3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
(@ 0% of 1 Percent Levy)
Total Cumulative Projected Property Tax $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
D. Projected Property Tax In Lieu VLF
Total Annual Valuation for Property Tax In Lieu VLF 4 $0 $21,750,000 $38,000,000 $44,660,000 $60,840,000 $165,250,000 Total Cumulative Valuation for Property Tax In Lieu VLF $0 $21,750,000 $59,750,000 $104,410,000 $165,250,000 Total Cumulative Projected Property Tax In Lieu VLF $0 $27,623 $75,883 $132,601 $209,868 (@ $1,270 per $1,000,000 Assessed Valuation)
times
Share Allocated to General Fund 5 73.5% 73.5% 73.5% 73.5% 73.5% equals
General Fund Property In Lieu VLF $0 $20,303 $55,774 $97,462 $154,253

1. Phasing and valuation for the Spring Trails Specific Plan are provided by the applicant, J. P. Weber Group. The applicant's valuation is estimated based on information from Land Advisors Inc. of Irvine, California.

2. Current assessed valuation is based on the 2023 tax roll values.

3. The San Bernardino County Fire Protection District (SBCFPD) provides fire protection to the City. Based on an agreement between the City and the SBCFPD, the City will not receive any allocation of the basic one percent property tax levy upon annexation of the Spring Trails project.

4. Property tax in lieu of vehicle license fees (VLF) is projected based on the increase in assessed valuation in a jurisdiction. Per State law, when an annexation occurs the existing valuation in the annexing area cannot be used in adjusting the amount of assessed valuation in the annexing City. Therefore, the current valuation of $2,496,189 is not included in the projection of property tax in lieu of VLF.

5. Based on the agreement between the SBCFPD and the City, the City will receive 73.5 percent of the projected property tax in lieu of VLF and the remaining

26.5 percent of the property tax in lieu of VLF will go to the SBCFPD.

Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.

J. P. Weber Group, September 2023
City of San Bernardino, Finance Director
Packet Page. 549
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 9 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis Table 2-4
Estimated Existing Assessed Valuation: 2023 Tax Roll
Spring Trails Annexation Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis City of San Bernardino
2-4 Estimated Existing Assessed Valuation
existing valuation in the area that is being annexed cannot be used in adjusting the base amount of assessed valuation in the annexing City. The City will receive property tax in-lieu of VLF based on the change in its gross assessed valuation of taxable property for new development in the annexed area. As shown in Appendix Table B-5, the property tax in lieu of VLF in the City is projected to increase at $1,270 per million dollars of new assessed valuation (AV). However, based on the service agreement between the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District (SBCFPD) and the City, the City will receive 73.5 percent of the projected property tax in lieu of VLF and the remaining 26.5 percent will go to the SBCFPD.

As shown in Panel D of Table 2-3, no property tax in lieu VLF is projected for existing valuation in Year 1 per State law. By Year 2 property tax in lieu VLF is projected at $27,623 and 73.5 percent or $20,303 goes to the City. Total property tax in lieu VLF increases to $75,883 by Year 3, with $55,774 going to the City. By Year 4, total property tax in lieu VLF is projected at $132,601 and the amount for the City is projected at $97,462. After buildout (Year 5) of the Spring Trails project total property tax in lieu VLF is projected at $209,868, with 73.5 percent of this amount, or $154,253, projected for the City.

2.4 Sales and Use Tax
Sales and use tax is projected for the retail taxable sales that will be captured in the City from offsite purchases made by the future residents of the Spring Trails Specific Plan. The fiscal Assessor Assessed Value
Parcel Number Acres Land Improvement Total Land Type
0348-071-05-0000 5.00 $7,534 $0 $7,534 Single Family Residential - Vacant 0348-071-06-0000 20.00 $34,852 $0 $34,852 Single Family Residential - Vacant 0348-071-07-0000 5.00 $7,534 $0 $7,534 Single Family Residential - Vacant 0348-071-09-0000 100.28 $107,589 $0 $107,589 Single Family Residential - Vacant 0348-071-10-0000 40.00 $66,204 $0 $66,204 Public Facilities 0348-101-83-0000 23.561 $90,019 $0 $90,019 Single Family Residential - Vacant 0348-101-84-0000 7.02 $26,834 $109,029 $135,863 Single Family Residential 0348-111-03-0000 36.00 $1,042,000 $0 $1,042,000 Single Family Residential - Vacant 0348-111-04-0000 45.45 $72,642 $0 $72,642 Single Family Residential - Vacant 0348-111-07-0000 28.92 $34,852 $0 $34,852 Single Family Residential - Vacant 0348-111-08-0000 33.50 $897,100 $0 $897,100 Single Family Residential - Vacant 344.73 $2,387,160 $109,029 $2,496,189
Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.

J. P. Weber Group
San Bernardino County, Office of the Assessor, Property Information System, 2023 Roll Values Packet Page. 550
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 10 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis analysis assumes that the residents of the existing home on the Spring Trails site are already making purchases in the City. Therefore, no offsite sales and use tax is projected for the existing unit.

Offsite retail sales and use tax from taxable purchases made by future Spring Trails Specific Plan residents is projected based on the resident’s estimated household income and estimated taxable retail purchases made in the City. Household income is estimated at 28 percent of average housing value based on a mortgage cost analysis by Stanley R. Hoffman Associates.

Based on the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistic, Consumer Expenditure Survey, the fiscal analysis estimates the Spring Trails’ residents will generate total taxable retail purchases at about 33 percent of household income.

Sales and Use Tax
As shown in Table 2-5, estimated annual offsite retail sales and use tax from taxable purchases made by future Spring Trails Specific Plan residents are projected at $62,332 after buildout. This estimate is based on total household income projected at about $48.97 million after buildout (28 percent of residential valuation of about $167.75 million). At 33 percent of household income, the projected retail taxable purchases made by Spring Trails’ residents are projected at about $15.5 million after buildout. The fiscal analysis assumes that 35 percent of the retail taxable purchases, or about $5.42 million, will be made annually in the City at buildout.

At one percent of the estimated captured taxable sales of about $5.42 million, sales tax is projected at $54,249 after buildout. At the City average use tax rate of 14.9 percent of sales tax, an additional $8,083 of use tax is projected after buildout. Total sales and use tax captured in the City by the future residents of Spring Trails is projected at $62,332 after buildout. Based on the projected residential valuation for each Phase, the offsite sales and use tax from future residents is projected to increase from $9,009 in Year 2 to $62,332 by Year 5.

Packet Page. 551
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 11 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis Table 2-5
Estimated Offsite Sales and Use Tax by Project Residents Spring Trails Annexation Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis City of San Bernardino
(In Constant 2023 Dollars)
2-5 Estimated Offsite Sales and Use Tax by Project Residents Year 1 - 2026 Year 2 - 2027 Year 3 - 2028 Year 4 - 2029 Year 5 - 2030 Existing Buildout
Unit New Units New Units New Units of New Units
Category (Grading) (Phase 1) (Phase 2) (Phase 3) (Phase 4) Total A. ANNUAL PROJECTIONS
Annual New Residential Valuation $2,496,189 $21,750,000 $38,000,000 $44,660,000 $60,840,000 $167,746,189 Annual Household Income (@ 28% of household valuation) 1 $698,933 $6,090,000 $10,640,000 $12,504,800 $17,035,200 $46,968,933 Annual Taxable Retail Spending (@ 33% of household income) $230,648 $2,009,700 $3,511,200 $4,126,584 $5,621,616 $15,499,748 Annual Projected Off-Site Retail Taxable Sales Captured in City $80,727 $703,395 $1,228,920 $1,444,304 $1,967,566 $5,424,912 (@ 35% capture)
Annual Projected Sales and Use Tax to City
Sales Tax (@ 1% of taxable sales) $807 $7,034 $12,289 $14,443 $19,676 $54,249 Use Tax (@ 14.9% of sales tax) 120 1,048 1,831 2,152 2,932 8,083 Total Projected Sales and Use Tax $927 $8,082 $14,120 $16,595 $22,608 $62,332 B. CUMULATIVE PROJECTIONS
Cumulative Sales and Use Tax $927 $9,009 $23,129 $39,724 $62,332

1. Based on current mortage-based estimates obtained from Zillow, and with housing expenditures at 30% of household income.

Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.

Packet Page. 552
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 12 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis CHAPTER 3

PUBLIC FACILITIES BEFORE AND AFTER ANNEXATION
This chapter describes the existing and anticipated future service providers for the proposed Spring Trails Annexation project area. The level and range of the services for the annexation area are described, if they are known. The following services are detailed in this chapter:
• General Government
• Fire and Paramedic
• County Sheriff and Public Safety
• Library
• Parks and Recreation
• Animal Control
• Street Lighting
• Landscape Maintenance
• Water
• Sewer
• Transportation
• Flood Control and Drainage
• Utilities
• Schools
• Solid Waste Management
• Health and Welfare
Table 3-1 presents current and anticipated service providers in the Spring Trails annexation area.

In many cases, such as general government, community development, economic development, and sheriff/police, among others, responsibilities shift from the County of San Bernardino to the City of San Bernardino.

The City of San Bernardino has annexed into the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District (SBCFPD) and its Service Zone FP-5 for fire protection and emergency medical response services.

Since the annexation area is already within SBCFPD and Service Zone FP-5, the SBCFPD will continue to be the service provider for fire protection and emergency medical services upon annexation.

Other services, like water, sewer, and utilities, remain unchanged before and after annexation.

These changes are detailed in subsequent sections of this chapter.

Packet Page. 553
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 13 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis Table 3-1
Current and Anticipated Service Providers in the Spring Trails Annexation Spring Trails Annexation Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis City of San Bernardino
3-1 Current and Anticipated Service Providers in the Spring Trails Annexation

3.1 General Government
Before Annexation
The County of San Bernardino provides general government services, including: all Administrative services, Community Development services, and Economic Development services to the annexation area.

After Annexation
After the annexation, the City of San Bernardino will provide the general government services Service Type Current Service Provider Anticipated Service Provider General Government - Administrative Services:

Finance Division County of San Bernardino City of San Bernardino Human Resources Division County of San Bernardino City of San Bernardino Business Registration County of San Bernardino City of San Bernardino Community Development:

Planning County of San Bernardino City of San Bernardino Building & Safety County of San Bernardino City of San Bernardino Code Compliance County of San Bernardino City of San Bernardino Police Department Fire and Paramedic
San Bernardino County Fire Protection District (SBCFPD), Service Zone FP-5
San Bernardino County Fire Protection District (SBCFPD), Service Zone FP-5
Sheriff/Police County of San Bernardino Sheriff's Department City of San Bernardino Police Department Library County of San Bernardino Library District City of San Bernardino Public Library Parks and Recreation:

Local Facilities County of San Bernardino City of San Bernardino Regional Facilities County of San Bernardino County of San Bernardino Animal Control
Contract with City of San Bernardino Police Department's Animal Control Division
City of San Bernardino Police Department's Animal Control Division
Street Lighting City of San Bernardino City of San Bernardino Public Works Department Landscape Maintenance Forest/Natural HOA
Water:

Domestic Water Private City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Dept. (SBMWD) Recycled Water Private City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Dept. (SBMWD) Water Quality Private City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Dept. (SBMWD) Sewer Private/Septic Systems City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Dept. (SBMWD) Transportation:

Freeways and Interchanges Caltrans Caltrans
Arterials and Collectors San Bernardino County - Public Works City of San Bernardino Public Works Department Local Roads San Bernardino County - Public Works City of San Bernardino Public Works Department Transit Omnitrans Omnitrans
Flood Control and Drainage:

Local Facilities San Bernardino County Flood Control District HOA Regional Facilities San Bernardino County Flood Control District San Bernardino County Flood Control District Utilities:

Cable/Internet Provider/Phone Charter Communications Charter Communications Telephone Verizon Verizon
Power Southern California Edison Southern California Edison Natural Gas Southern California Gas Company Southern California Gas Company Schools San Bernardino City Unified School District (SBCUSD) San Bernardino City Unified School District (SBCUSD) Solid Waste Management
San Bernardino County Solid Waste Management Division
contract with Burrtec City of San Bernardino contract with Burrtec Health and Welfare San Bernardino County Department of Public Health San Bernardino County Department of Public Health Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.

City of San Bernardino, Website
Spring Trails Specific Plan
Packet Page. 554
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 14 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis which include administrative services as well as General Governance, Community Development and Economic Development.

3.2 Fire and Paramedic
Before Annexation
Currently, the annexation area is in a State Responsibility Area (SRA), where CAL FIRE is responsible for fire and emergency response services. The area is also serviced by San Bernardino County Fire Station Number 2 (Devore Station). The proposed project is also located within the recently expanded boundary of the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District (SBCFPD), Service Zone FP-5 which is a special tax zone for funding fire protection and EMS. The current annual special tax for property in Service Zone FP-5 is estimated at $157.26 per parcel. The tax includes an annual inflationary factor up to a maximum of 3 percent. No water facilities are available to serve fire protection in the project area.

After Annexation
The City of San Bernardino has annexed their fire protection services to the SBCFPD. Therefore, the SBCFPD, Service Zone FP-5 will be the service provider for fire prevention, fire protection and emergency medical services (EMS) after annexation. Most of the existing City fire stations and equipment are transferred to the SBCFPD; with existing Station 232 (City), located at 6065 Palm Avenue, being the closest (approximately 1 mile) to the Spring Trails project site, as shown in Figure 3-1.

Water facilities for fire protection will be owned and operated by the San Bernardino Municipal Water Department. All water facilities, hydrants, and water systems for fire protection in the area shall meet the water flow demands and be installed prior to development. All previous agreed upon egress for the project site that has been approved in the Environmental Impact Report shall be in place prior to construction. This includes the primary and secondary egress outlets.

3.3 Sheriff/Police
Before Annexation
The San Bernardino County Sheriff-Coroner’s Department provides public safety services to the unincorporated areas. The County Sheriff operates from an office in the City of San Bernardino Packet Page. 555
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 15 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis Figure 3-1
Fire Protection
Spring Trails Annexation Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis City of San Bernardino
3-1 Fire Protection
Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.

Google Earth Pro
Packet Page. 556
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 16 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis at 655 East Third Street. The Sheriff’s Department and the City Police Department provide mutual backup services upon request within both the City and unincorporated areas. The California Highway Patrol in San Bernardino provides traffic patrol on State Highways within the unincorporated areas of the County. The Highway Patrol can also provide emergency response backup to the City Police and the County Sheriff upon request.

After Annexation
After the annexation, the City of San Bernardino Police Department will be providing the public safety services for Spring Trails and the rest of the annexed area. The area is served by a main police station, located at 710 North D Street, and four designated geographical patrol districts (Northwest, Northeast, Southwest, and Southeast). The project site belongs to patrol beat B1 in the Northwest Patrol District, as shown in Figure 3-2. The San Bernardino Police Department maintains a ratio of approximately one sworn officer for every 1,000 residents.

The City Police Department operates under a mutual aid agreement with police agencies in the surrounding cities that allows use of up to fifty percent of adjacent agency resources upon request and for automatic response within zones of mutual aid. The California Highway Patrol in San Bernardino will continue to provide traffic patrol on State Highways within the unincorporated areas.

3.4 Library
Before Annexation
Currently, the existing household within the annexation area is served by the San Bernardino County Library system. However, the nearest County library, the Carter Branch Library is located at 2630 North Linden Drive in Rialto, and is a driving distance of about 12.2 miles away from the annexation area.

After Annexation
The Howard M. Rowe Branch Library facility is a branch of the San Bernardino City Library system.

Located at 108 East Marshall Boulevard in the City of San Bernardino, this branch is closest to the Spring Trails project site, with a driving distance of about 9.6 miles. The annexation area would continue to receive library services from the City of San Bernardino Branch library upon annexation.

Packet Page. 557
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 17 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis Figure 3-2
City of San Bernardino Police Department: Northwest District Spring Trails Annexation Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis City of San Bernardino
3-2 City of San Bernardino Police Department: Northwest District Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.

City of San Bernardino, Police Department

3.5 Parks and Recreation
Before Annexation
The County Regional Parks Department provides regional park services to all residents within the County, including unincorporated areas. The County Regional Parks system includes the following parks: Glen Helen, Yucaipa, Lake Gregory, Cucamonga, Guasti, and Prado. The closest regional park is Glen Helen Regional Park which has various recreation areas with amenities for fishing, boating, and picnicking. However, the County does not provide local park services, and, currently, there are no local parks within the annexation area.

PROJECT
SITE
Site
Packet Page. 558
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 18 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis After Annexation
The City of San Bernardino General Plan indicates that there are a total of 52 developed parks and recreational facilities in the City. There are a variety of different types of parks, including: 19 neighborhood, 10 community, 17 mini-parks, 3 regional parks, and 3 special facilities. The parks contain a broad range of facilities; including children’s play equipment, tennis and volleyball courts, and athletic fields. The special facilities include community buildings and senior centers.

Al Guhin Park, located at 3650 Little League Drive, is the closest City park to the annexation area (approximately 1.3 miles).

The Spring Trails Specific Plan provides open spaces that are meant to function as recreational opportunities, buffers, visual landmarks and interconnecting trails. The facilities will consist of community trails, equestrian/pedestrian trails and hiking trails. The proposed parks include two dual-use neighborhood parks (meaning that the parks also serve as water detention basins), a dog park and a thematic garden park with amenities, as shown in Figure 3-3.

Per Chapter 19.30 of the City of San Bernardino Subdivision Regulations, the City requires five acres of park and recreational land per 1,000 residents. The Spring Trails development plans to develop and reserve public parks, private parks, natural open space, and homeowner maintained open space, exceeding the City’s requirements. Two neighborhood parks are planned for Spring Trails, which would total 7.0 acres; they would also serve as water detention basins. However, parks and open space will be maintained by the Spring Trails Homeowner Association (HOA).

3.6 Animal Control
Before Annexation
Currently, the annexation area is serviced by the City of San Bernardino’s Animal Control on a contract basis. Animal Control operates under the San Bernardino Police Department and is responsible for animal licensing, dead animal pickup, loose animal investigations, animal shelter management, and other services.

After Annexation
The Animal Control Division of the San Bernardino Police Department will continue to provide services to the area after annexation.

Packet Page. 559
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 19 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis Figure 3-3 Spring Trails Specific Plan Trails, Parks, and Open Space Spring Trails Annexation Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis City of San Bernardino 3-3 Spring Trails Specific Plan Parks, Trails, and Open Space Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.

Montecito Equities, Ltd., July 2013
Packet Page. 560
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 20 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis

3.7 Street Lighting
Before Annexation
Street lighting is a service provided to the area by Southern California Edison. However, the street lighting only extends to the southern border at Meyers Road, and no street lighting exists within the annexation area.

After Annexation
Upon annexation, street lighting within the project is maintained by a HOA. Outside the project area, on public right of ways, the City of San Bernardino Public Works Department is responsible for the maintenance provided by Southern California Edison.

3.8 Landscape Maintenance
Before Annexation
San Bernardino County provides road pavement and minimal landscaping maintenance.

After Annexation
Upon annexation and development, significant landscaping amenities will be added to the Spring Trails annexation area. Maintenance within the Specific Plan Area would be managed by the homeowners association (HOA). Figure 3-4 shows the landscape zones as presented in the Spring Trails Specific Plan.

3.9 Water
Before Annexation
Currently, public water facilities do not serve the proposed Spring Trail project.

After Annexation
Upon annexation, the City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department (SBMWD) would provide water services to Spring Trails and currently provides service to pressure zones ranging from 1,249 feet to 2,300 feet. Spring Trails lies between the 2,300 to 3,000-foot pressure zones.

The nearest existing reservoir is the Meyers Canyon Reservoir, which is within the 2,100-foot pressure zone, but is not adequate for buildout of Spring Trails or Verdemont Heights. Therefore, water will be supplied to Spring Trails from lower elevations by a combination of expanding and improving the offsite watersystem and the provision of onsite reservoirs and transmission lines.1 Figure 3-5 shows the conceptual water plan for Spring Trails. 1 Montecito Equities, Spring Trails Specific Plan, October 2012, p. 3-101 Packet Page. 561
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 21 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis Figure 3-4 Spring Trails Specific Plan Landscape Zones Spring Trails Annexation Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis City of San Bernardino 3-4
Spring Trails Specific Plan Landscape Zones
Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.

Montecito Equities, Ltd., July 2013
Packet Page. 562
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 22 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis Figure 3-5 Spring Trails Specific Plan Conceptual Water Plan Spring Trails Annexation Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis, City of San Bernardino 3-5 Spring Trails Specific Plan Conceptual Water Plan
Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.

Montecito Equities, Ltd., July 2013
Packet Page. 563
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 23 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis

3.10 Wastewater Collection
Before Annexation
Sewer service to the project site is currently via septic tanks.

After Annexation
The Spring Trails project is within the City’s Public Works Department’s sanitary sewer service area. The City’s engineering sewer capacity study concluded that the existing sewer system has the capacity to accommodate the project. Beginning May 2017, operation and maintenance of the City’s wastewater collection system was transferred to the City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department (SBMWD).

As shown in Figure 3-6, Spring Trails would connect to the existing 10-inch sewer line located on Little League Drive, which connects to a major interceptor system to the south and is eventually treated in the San Bernardino Water Reclamation Plant operated by SBMWD. The only offsite improvement that may be required is North Little League Drive, which may be upgraded from an 8” to a 10” line depending upon the ultimate slope as determined in final engineering.2

3.11 Transportation
Before Annexation
Current transportation services for the annexation area include freeways and interchanges serviced by Caltrans; arterials and collectors serviced by the County Public Works Department; local roads also serviced by the Public Works Department of San Bernardino County; and public transit serviced by Omnitrans. The closest Omnitrans bus stop to the annexation area is at Kendall Drive and Palm Avenue with a driving distance of about 2.2 miles.

After Annexation
Caltrans and Omnitrans will continue to provide their services post annexation for arterials, collectors and public transit. All onsite street local roads will be maintained by a homeowners association. The developer will be responsible for improvements of all necessary public streets, both onsite and offsite, as shown in Figure 3-7. Upon annexation, the City becomes responsible for the regional transportation fee associated with the proposed project, which is included in the estimated City fees for the project in Chapter 4, Table 4-2. 2 Montecito Equities, Spring Trails Specific Plan, October 2012, p. 3-112 Packet Page. 564
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 24 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis Figure 3-6 Spring Trails Specific Plan Conceptual Sewer Plan Spring Trails Annexation Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis City of San Bernardino 3-6 Spring Trails Specific Plan Conceptual Sewer Plan
Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.

Montecito Equities, Ltd., July 2013
Packet Page. 565
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 25 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis Figure 3-7
Spring Trails Specific Plan Conceptual Circulation Plan Spring Trails Annexation Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis City of San Bernardino
3-7 Spring Trails Specific Plan Conceptual Circulation Plan Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.

J.P. Weber Group, November 2016
Packet Page. 566
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 26 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis

3.12 Flood Control and Drainage
Before Annexation
The drainage area to which Spring Trails belongs flows into Cable Canyon, then into Cable Creek, then into Devil Creek Diversion Channel, then into Lytle Creek Wash and eventually into the Santa Ana River. Currently, there are no local flood control or drainage facilities in the annexation area.

On a regional level, the San Bernardino County Flood Control District intercepts and manages flood flows through and away from developed areas throughout the County. The District is also responsible for water conservation and storm drain construction.

After Annexation
Upon annexation, flood control and drainage systems would be constructed by the developer and onsite flows would be managed and maintained by the HOA. The Spring Trails Specific Plan includes drainage improvements that collect and convey storm flows that would reduce the amount of storm runoff to levels prior to annexation and development, as shown in Figure 3-8.

The existing Cable Canyon and Meyers Canyon drainage ways would remain relatively unchanged, except for necessary roadway and infrastructure improvements. Onsite and offsite stormwater flows would be collected and routed using catch basin inlets and storm drain systems that would carry water to three onsite detention basins, which also serve as parks.

3.13 Utilities
Before and After Annexation
Utilities include cable television, internet, telephone, electric power, and natural gas. Currently, Charter Communications is the cable television and internet service provider. Verizon maintains telephone service to the annexation area. Electricity is provided by Southern California Edison, while natural gas is supplied by the Southern California Gas Company. These service providers are not anticipated to change upon annexation.

3.14 Schools
Before and After Annexation
Public education in the City of San Bernardino is provided by San Bernardino City Unified School District (SBCUSD). SBCUSD is the eighth-largest public school district in California with over 54,379 students enrolled at 44 elementary schools, 10 middle schools, 8 high schools and 3 special education schools. Before the annexation, the SBCUSD served the unincorporated area.

Packet Page. 567
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 27 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis Figure 3-8 Spring Trails Specific Plan Conceptual Drainage Plan Spring Trails Annexation Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis City of San Bernardino 3-8
Spring Trails Specific Plan Conceptual Drainage Plan
Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.

Montecito Equities, Ltd., July 2013
Packet Page. 568
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 28 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis SBCUSD will continue to serve the existing development as well as any future development in the annexation with North Verdemont Elementary School (3555 West Meyers Road), Chavez Middle School (6650 North Magnolia Avenue), and Cajon High School (1200 Hill Drive), as shown in Figure 3-9. Palm Avenue Elementary School is also located near the annexation area at 6565 Palm Avenue.

Figure 3-9
Local Elementary, Middle and High Schools
San Bernardino City Unified School District
City of San Bernardino
3-9 Local Elementary, Middle and High Schools
Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.

3.15 Solid Waste Management
Before Annexation
The current service provider of solid waste management for the annexation area is the San Bernardino County Department of Public Works’ Solid Waste Management Division, under the contract with Burrtec. The division oversees the operation and management of the County’s solid waste disposal system, which includes five regional landfills and nine transfer stations.

Packet Page. 569
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 29 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis After Annexation
Solid waste collection within the City of San Bernardino and a portion of the unincorporated planning area is provided by Burrtec on a contract basis with the City.

3.16 Public Health and Welfare
Before and After Annexation
The San Bernardino County Department of Public Health currently serves the City for the general public’s health and welfare services. The department provides a variety of programs and services that informs and educates the public about health issues. The County Department of Public Health additionally provides public assistance welfare and healthcare needs for all residents within San Bernardino County. There are no anticipated changes in service levels or costs after the annexation of the proposed project.

Packet Page. 570
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 30 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis CHAPTER 4

PAYING FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

4.1 Spring Trails Facilities and Infrastructure
One or more community facilities district(s) will be formed to pay for the cost of certain offsite public facilities necessary for the development of the Project, including roads and traffic improvements, parks and open space improvements, flood control and drainage systems, water and sewer systems, and utilities. A capital improvement plan, and rate and method of apportionment will be prepared which will outline the facilities cost, rates, and manner of collection.

Table 4-1 presents the list of infrastructure improvements for the Spring Trails Specific Plan. The majority of the infrastructure will be constructed by the project’s master developer with interior neighborhood walls and fences constructed by merchant builders. Table 4-1 also identifies the jurisdiction, special district or private association responsible for maintenance of each facility and the ownership of each facility. The projected annual fiscal impacts to the City for provision of services to the Spring Trails project are presented in Chapter 5.

4.2 City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fees
While the developer is responsible for constructing the facility and infrastructure improvements for the Spring Trails Specific Plan, the developer will also pay one-time development impact fees (DIF) to offset the additional public capital costs required of new development. If the developer constructs any facilities covered by DIFs, the developer will receive credit toward construction costs for an equivalent amount of DIF fees.

As shown in Table 4-2, total one-time development impact fees for Spring Trails are estimated at about $7.2 million. Of the total estimated fees, about $4.9 million are estimated for the City and the remaining $2.3 million are estimated for the City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department. The estimated City fees include the regional transportation fee that will become the responsibility of the City upon annexation of the project.

Packet Page. 571
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 31 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis Table 4-1
Spring Trails Facilities and Infrastructure
Spring Trails Annexation Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis City of San Bernardino
4-1 Spring Trails Facilities and Infrastructure
Type Developed By Maintained By 1 Owned By 1
Streetscape
Primary and Secondary Offsite Entry Roads CFD City City Onsite Roads and Cul-de-sacs Master Developer HOA HOA
Onsite Entry Features/Landscaping Master Developer HOA HOA Onsite Street Lighting Master Developer HOA HOA
Onsite Community Walls and Fences Master Developer HOA HOA Interior Neighborhood Walls and Fence Guest Builder Homeowner Homeowner Parks and Open Space
Onsite Parks and Open Space Master Developer HOA HOA
Offsite Parks CFD City City
Onsite Detention Basins Master Developer HOA HOA
Cable Creek and Meyers Open Space Areas Master Developer HOA City Fuel Modification Zone A Master Developer HOA/Homeowner Homeowner Fuel Modification Zones B and C Master Developer HOA HOA/Homeowner Infrastructure
Drainage Systems (offsite) CFD City City
Drainage Systems (onsite) CFD HOA HOA
Sewer Systems (onsite and offsite) CFD SBMWD SBMWD
Water Systems (onsite and offsite) CFD SBMWD SBMWD
Nonpotable Water Systems (onsite and offsite) CFD SBMWD SBMWD

1. LLMD = Landscape and Lighting District or special maintenance district HOA = Homeowners' Association (Master or Neighborhood)
SBMWD = San Bernardino Municipal Water Department
Certain facilities and improvements may be subject to reimbursement agreements.

Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.

Gresham Savage Nolan & Tilden, PC, April 7, 2017
San Bernardino Municipal Water Department
Packet Page. 572
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 32 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis Table 4-2
Summary of Spring Trails City Development Impact Fees
Spring Trails Annexation Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis City of San Bernardino
(In Constant 2023 Dollars)
4-2 Summary of Spring Trails Development Impact Fees
Estimated
Development Fees
Development Impact Fee Category 1 Amount Impact Fees
New Residential Units 215
Fee per Unit
City Fees 2
Community Development Fees
Aquatic Facilities $326 $70,114
Cultural Development $3,000 $645,000
Library Facilities $638 $137,146
Public Meeting Facilities $1,090 $234,251
Parkland and Open Space $9,518 $2,046,340
Subtotal $14,571 $3,132,851
Public Safety Fees
Law Enforcement $639 $137,400
Subtotal $639 $137,400
Engineering Fees
Local Circulation Systems $233 $50,082
Regional Circulation Systems $2,435 $523,525
Storm Drain $3,926 $844,071
Verdemont (Chestnut Drainage Fee -- $0.289/ sq. ft.) $957 $205,712 Verdemont (Palm Box Culvert/ Signal -- $0.022/ sq. ft.) $74 $15,824 Subtotal $7,624 $1,639,214
Total City Fees $22,835 $4,909,465
Water & Sewer - City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department (SBMWD) 4 Sewer Capacity $3,500 $752,500
Water Connection (3/4" x 3/4") $7,110 $1,528,650
Total SBMWD Fees $10,610 $2,281,150
TOTAL FEES $33,445 $7,190,615

1. Note that the analysis does not include engineering processing fees, applicable fee credits, potential CFD/AD proceeds or potential impact of a Development Agreement, Mitigation Agreement, SB 50 Agreement, or similar agreement.

2. Represents the applicable fees per the City of San Bernardino fee schedule cited below. Actual fee amounts may differ at the time of application for building permits or connection to services.

3. Upon annexation, payment of the regional circulation system fee which was the requirement of the County prior to annexation will transfer to the City. As shown above, the regional circulation fee is estimated at $523,525 for the project.

4. Represents the applicable water fees per the City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department. (Note that per the Conditions of Approval, upgrades and construction of new water and sewer system facilities will need to be completed in order for the Water Department to be able to serve the Tract, i.e. booster pump stations, 2,300 ft. level reservoir, etc.)
Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.

City of San Bernardino, Land Development Division Impact Fees, Effective February 15, 2022 (Accessed 8/2023) Packet Page. 573
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 33 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis

4.3 Schools
There is a one-time School Impact Fee of $4.31 per square foot for new, single-family residential development in the City of San Bernardino. At an average of 3,200 square feet of living space per new, single-family residential unit, the cost per unit is estimated to be $13,792. With a total of 215 residential units, the estimated school impact fee for the Spring Trails development totals approximately $3.0 million.

4.4 Utilities
Cable television, internet, power, and gas utilities are enterprise services, where fees are determined by each company’s rate structure.

4.5 Roads and Drainage
The local circulation systems fee is $233 per unit, while the regional circulation systems fee is $2,435 per unit, as shown in Table 4-2. With 215 units, local and regional fees would total $573,607 for the development.

4.6 Water and Sewer
The developer is responsible for funding their share of the required water and sewer facilities to include, but not limited to reservoirs, booster stations, and transmission mains. Once the major facilities are complete and conveyed to the San Bernardino Municipal Water Department (SBMWD) for operation to serve water to the new pressure zones, the developer is then responsible to construct distribution facilities to provide water and sewer to the proposed housing in the project.

Packet Page. 574
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 34 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis CHAPTER 5

FISCAL IMPACTS
This chapter describes the fiscal analysis of the Spring Trails Specific Plan. Fiscal impacts are first presented to the City of San Bernardino General Fund followed by the projected recurring revenues to the City’s Gas Tax Fund and the City’s Measure I Fund. Fiscal impacts are shown in constant 2018 dollars with no adjustment for possible future inflation.

5.1 City General Fund
A recurring surplus of $37,705 is projected to the City General Fund for the Spring Trails Annexation after buildout, as shown in Table 5-1. The projected surplus after buildout is based on recurring revenues of about $493,179 and recurring costs of about $455,474. This projection includes assumed revenues from the recently adopted CFD 2018-1 tax for safety services. The revenue-to-cost ratio is estimated at about 1.08 after buildout.

A small surplus of $827 is projected for Year 1, which is planned for onsite grading and offsite infrastructure capital improvements. With completion of new housing units in Year 2 (Phase 1), a surplus of $3,328 is projected. The projected surplus increases to $9,949 for Phase 2 (Year 3) and by Phase 3 (Year 4) a surplus of $20,351 is projected. When the final units are developed in Phase 4 (Year 5), the projected surplus to the General Fund is $37,705.

Table 5-1
Summary of Projected General Fund Recurring Fiscal Impacts Spring Trails Annexation Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis City of San Bernardino
(In Constant 2023 Dollars)
5-1 Summary of Projected Recurring Fiscal Impacts
Year 1 - 2026 Year 2 - 2027 Year 3 - 2028 Year 4 - 2029 Year 5 - 2030 Existing Buildout
Unit New Units New Units New Units of New Units
General Fund (Grading) (Phase 1) (Phase 2) (Phase 3) (Phase 4) Estimated Annual Recurring Revenues $2,719 $66,413 $178,387 $311,172 $493,179 Estimated Annual Recurring Costs $1,892 $63,085 $168,438 $290,822 $455,474 Estimated Annual Recurring Surplus $827 $3,328 $9,949 $20,351 $37,705 Estimated Annual Revenue/Cost Ratio 1.44 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.

J. P. Weber Group, September 2023
Packet Page. 575
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 35 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis General Fund Projected Recurring Revenues
Projected property tax in lieu of vehicle license fees, CFD 2018-1 (safety services) taxes and offsite sales tax account for about 65 percent of the total projected General Fund revenues after buildout, as shown in the detailed projected fiscal impacts in Table 5-2.

General Fund Projected Recurring Costs
As also shown in Table 5-2, police protection and general government account for about 76 percent of total projected recurring General Fund costs for the project after buildout.

Table 5-2
Detailed General Fund Projected Recurring Fiscal Impacts Spring Trails Annexation Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis City of San Bernardino
(In Constant 2023 Dollars)
5-2 Detailed General Fund Projected Recurring Fiscal Impacts Year 1 - 2026 Year 2 - 2027 Year 3 - 2028 Year 4 - 2029 Year 5 - 2030 Existing Buildout
Unit New Units New Units New Units of New Units Percent General Fund (Grading) (Phase 1) (Phase 2) (Phase 3) (Phase 4) of Buildout Estimated Recurring Revenues
Property tax 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0%
Property tax in lieu of VLF 0 20,303 55,774 97,462 154,253 31.3% Off-site retail sales and use tax 927 9,009 23,129 39,724 62,332 12.6% Measure S - sales tax 853 8,288 21,279 36,546 57,345 11.6% Franchise tax 126 4,215 11,254 19,431 30,432 6.2%
CFD 2018-1 (safety services) 2 416 12,992 36,032 64,641 105,224 21.3% Charges for current services 31 1,033 2,758 4,762 7,458 1.5% Fines and forfeitures 13 432 1,153 1,992 3,119 0.6%
Intergovernmental revenues 17 579 1,546 2,669 4,180 0.8% Miscellaneous revenues 13 428 1,143 1,973 3,090 0.6%
Tow franchise revenues 7 217 579 1,000 1,567 0.3%
Property transfer tax-turnover 69 667 1,712 2,940 4,613 0.9% Sales tax - public safety 17 582 1,554 2,683 4,202 0.9% Utility user tax 230 7,668 20,474 35,349 55,363 11.2%
Total Projected Revenues $2,719 $66,413 $178,387 $311,172 $493,179 100.0% Estimated Recurring Costs
Economic and housing development $18 $615 $1,642 $2,835 $4,440 1.0% Police protection 1,142 38,071 101,650 175,507 274,873 60.3% Parks, recreation and community services 62 2,059 5,498 9,492 14,866 3.3% Public works' services 285 9,507 25,384 43,827 68,641 15.1% Transfer to Animal Control Fund 45 1,514 4,042 6,980 10,931 2.4% Library 35 1,180 3,151 5,440 8,520 1.9%
General government - O&M/contracts 106 3,523 9,406 16,241 25,436 5.6% General government - overhead 198 6,616 17,665 30,500 47,768 10.5% Total Recurring Costs $1,892 $63,085 $168,438 $290,822 $455,474 100.0% Estimated Net Recurring Surplus $827 $3,328 $9,949 $20,351 $37,705 Estimated Revenue/Cost Ratio 1.44 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08

1. Based on information from the City Finance Director, per the agreement between the City and the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District (SBCFPD) the City will not receive any of the basic one percent property tax upon annexation of the Spring Trails project.

2. The City formed CFD 2018-1 in October 2018 which levies a special tax to provide finances for a portion of ongoing citywide public safety services.

The special tax is $385 per single family unit and $358 per multi-family unit effective July 1, 2019 through June 2024. Beginning July 1, 2024, these rates will increase by four percent each following July 1.

Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.

City of San Bernardino, Finance Director
J. P. Weber Group, September 2023
Packet Page. 576
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 36 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis

5.2 Other Funds
Fund 126 – Gas Tax
As shown in Panel A of Table 5-3, recurring Gas Tax Fund revenues to the City are projected at $16,122 for the Spring Trails project after buildout. These revenues are earmarked for transportation related expenditures.

Fund 129 – Measure I
Measure I includes a ½ cent sales tax for transportation expenditures. Recurring Measure I revenues are projected at $5,949 after buildout, as shown in Panel B of Table 5-3.

Table 5-3
Summary of Projected Other Funds Recurring Revenues
Spring Trails Annexation Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis City of San Bernardino
(In Constant 2023 Dollars)
5-3 Summary of Projected Other Funds Recurring Revenues Year 1 - 2026 Year 2 - 2027 Year 3 - 2028 Year 4 - 2029 Year 5 - 2030 Existing Buildout
Unit New Units New Units New Units of New Units
Other Funds (Grading) (Phase 1) (Phase 2) (Phase 3) (Phase 4) A. Fund 126 - Gas Tax 1
Annual Recurring Gasoline Tax $67 $2,233 $5,962 $10,294 $16,122 B. Fund 129 - Measure I 1
1/2 cent sales and road tax $88 $860 $2,207 $3,791 $5,949

1. Annual recurring gasoline tax and Measure I revenues are restricted to street related expenditures.

Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.

J. P. Weber Group, September 2023
Packet Page. 577
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 37 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis CHAPTER 6

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO FISCAL ASSUMPTIONS
This Chapter presents the revenue and cost assumptions for projecting the ongoing operations and maintenance costs to the City General Fund and related City Funds for the Spring Trails annexation into the City of San Bernardino. As discussed earlier, the annexation area is currently located in the unincorporated area of San Bernardino County, within the existing sphere of influence of the City of San Bernardino.

The general City demographic and economic assumptions used for calculating fiscal factors are first presented. The assumptions for projecting recurring revenues are then presented followed by the assumptions for projecting recurring costs. The fiscal factors are based on discussion with City finance staff and the City’s Fiscal Year 2022-23 Adopted Budget.

6.1 City General Assumptions
Fiscal impacts that are not based on valuation and taxable sales are generally projected based on a per capita, per employee, or per service population basis. Some fiscal impacts are projected based on other factors, such as per unit or per acre, based on the available data. General fund revenue and cost factors are estimated by dividing the FY 2022-23 budget categories by the City’s resident population, employment, total service population, or developed acres where appropriate. Table 6-1 provides the City’s general assumptions for this fiscal analysis.

Population
As shown in Table 6-1, the State Department of Finance (DOF) estimates the City of San Bernardino’s January 1, 2023, total population at 223,230. The City population estimate is used for projecting certain revenues and costs on a per capita basis, such as State subvened gas taxes.

Housing Units
DOF estimates 67,593 total housing units for the City of San Bernardino for January 1, 2023. DOF estimates that 64,905 units are occupied.

Persons per Household
The 2023 average persons per household for the City is estimated at 3.34 persons based on dividing the household population estimate of 216,854 by the 64,905 estimated occupied units.

Packet Page. 578
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 38 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis Table 6-1
City Population, Housing and Employment Assumptions
Spring Trails Annexation Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis City of San Bernardino
6-1 City Population, Housing and Employment Assumptions Employment
For fiscal factors that are impacted by only employment, such as business license taxes, the City’s total employment is used as the basis for calculating the factor. The total City employment of 112,478 for the year 2023 represents an interpolation of the years 2019 and 2035 from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2024 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), Preliminary Data.

Assumption Description
Population and Housing 1
216,854 Total Household Population
6,376 Group Quarters Population
223,230 Total Resident Population
43,315 Single Family Units
24,278 Multi-Family Units
67,593 Total Housing Units
64,905 Occupied Housing Units

3.34 Citywide Average Household Size
Employment
112,478 Total City Employment 2
Service Population 3
223,230 Total Resident Population
56,239 Employment Weighted at 50%
279,469 Total Service Population
Note: 1. Population and housing estimates are January 1, 2023 estimates provided by the California Department of Finance (DOF).

2. The total employment estimate for 2023 based on an interpolation of the 2019 and 2035 estimates from the Southern California Association of Governments, (SCAG) 2024 RTP preliminary estimates.

3. This analysis has weighted the employment at 50% to account for the estimated less frequent use of City services by employment versus population. Service population equals the total resident population plus the weighted employment.

Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.

State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State - January 1, 2021-2023, Sacramento, May 2023 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), Preliiminary RTP 2024 Projecions Data Packet Page. 579
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 39 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis Service Population
Fiscal factors that are impacted by both population and employment growth are estimated by allocating total budgeted revenues or costs to the estimated service population. Service population includes the City’s resident population plus 50 percent of the total estimated City employment. Employment is weighted at 50 percent to account for the estimated less frequent use of City services by employment versus population.

As shown in Table 6-1, The City’s service population is estimated at 279,469 and represents the City’s estimated resident population of 223,230 plus 50 percent of the City’s estimated total employment, or 56,239 (50 percent of the total employment of 112,478).

6.2 City Revenue Assumptions
The General Fund and Gas Tax Fund revenue factors that are used in preparing the fiscal analysis for the Spring Trails Specific Plan are presented in Table 6-2. These factors are based on the City’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2022-23 Adopted revenues for the General Fund and Other Funds shown in Appendix Table B-1 and Table B-2 and the City’s population, employment and service population estimates that are presented in Table 6-1.

General Fund
Property Taxes - General Fund. The San Bernardino County Fire Protection District (SBCFPD) is now providing fire protection to the City. Based on the agreement between the City and the SBCFPD, the City will not receive a share of the 1.0 percent basic levy. The SBCFPD will receive the entire allocations that would have previously been allocated to the City.

Property Tax In Lieu of Vehicle License Fees. Cities and counties began receiving additional property tax revenue to replace vehicle license fee (VLF) revenue that was lowered in 2004 when the state reduced the vehicle license tax. This property tax in lieu of VLF is projected to grow with the change in the citywide gross assessed valuation (AV) of taxable property from the prior year.

As shown in Appendix Table B-3, the property tax in lieu of VLF in the City is projected to increase at an average of $1,270 per million dollars of new assessed valuation (AV). This factor is based on the change in AV and the change in property tax in lieu of VLF in the City over the last 10 years.

Packet Page. 580
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 40 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis Table 6-2
General Fund and Other Funds Recurring Revenue Factors
Spring Trails Annexation Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis City of San Bernardino
(In Constant 2023 Dollars)
6-2 General Fund and Other Funds Recurring Revenue Factors FY 2022-23
Adopted
Revenue Source Budget Projection Basis 1

GENERAL FUND
Property Taxes 2 n/a Case Study: Project Valuation 0.00% City general share of 1% levy Property Tax In Lieu VLF (PTVLF) 3 $22,500,000 Case Study $1,270 per $1,000,000 assessed valuation

73.5% of PTVLF allocated to General Fund
Sales and Use Tax $50,000,000 Taxable Sales 100%
of 1% of projected sales and use
tax
Use Tax Factor Use Tax as Percent
of Sales Tax 14.9% of sales tax
Measure S - Sales Tax 4 $46,000,000 Case Study $920.00 per $1,000 of sales and use tax Franchise Taxes $11,781,000 Service Population = 279,469 $42.15 per service population CFD 2018-1 (Safety Services) 5 n/a Residential Units $400 per single family unit $372 per multi-family unit
Charges for Current Services $2,305,500 Population = 223,230 $10.33 per capita Fines and Forfeitures $1,206,500 Service Population = 279,469 $4.32 per service population Intergovernmental Revenues $1,292,000 Population = 223,230 $5.79 per capita Business Registration $8,000,000 Employment = 112,478 $71.13 per employee Miscellaneous Revenues $1,196,556 Service Population = 279,469 $4.28 per service population Tow Franchise $606,000 Service Population = 279,469 $2.17 per service population Property Transfer Tax $1,100,000 Property turnover 5.0% Residential turnover rate and
valuation assumptions $0.55 per $1,000 assessed valuation Sales Tax - Public Safety $1,300,000 Population = 223,230 $5.82 per capita Utility User Tax $21,430,500 Service Population = 279,469 $76.68 per service population GAS TAX FUND 126
State gasoline tax $4,985,468 Population = 223,230 $22.33 per capita MEASURE I FUND 129
1/2% sales tax $4,772,000 City Sales and Use Tax = $50,000,000 $95.44 per $1,000 City sales and use tax

1. For fiscal factors that are based on population and employment, an estimated service population factor is applied, which represents the total population plus 50% of the total employment estimate.

2. Based on information from the City Finance Director, at this time the City General Fund will not receive any of the one percent basic property tax levy on the property's assessed valuation because of the property tax exchange agreement between the City and the County Fire Protection District. The County Fire Protection District now provides fire protection to the City.

3. The State has lowered the VLF rate, which reduces the amount of VLF received by cities and counties. However, the State is providing property taxes to offset the VLF reduction. VLF is estimated to change according to the City's increased in assessed valuation, as shown in Appendix Table B-3. Based on the property tax agreement between the City and the County Fire Protection District, the City will receive 73.5 percent of the projected property tax in lieu of VLF from the project.

4. The City enacted Measure S in 2006 which is a 0.25 percent sales tax and increased to 1 percent in 2020 by voters.

5. The City formed Community Facilities District (CFD) 2018-1 in October 2018 which levies a special tax to provide finances for a portion of ongoing citywide public safety services. The special tax is $385 per single family unit and $358 per multi-family unit effective July 1, 2019 through June 2024. Beginning July 1, 2024, these rates will increase by four percent each following July 1.

Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.

City of San Bernardino, Fiscal Year 2022-23 Adopted Budget City of San Bernardino, Finance Director
State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State - January 1, 2021-2023, Sacramento, May 2023 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), Preliiminary RTP 2024 Projecions Data J. P. Weber Group, September 2023
Projection Factor
Packet Page. 581
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 41 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis The City receives property tax in-lieu of VLF based on the change in its gross assessed valuation of taxable property for new development in the annexed area. Per State law, the existing valuation in an annexing area cannot be used in adjusting the base amount of assessed valuation in the annexing City. However, based on the agreement between the City and the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District the City will receive only 73.5 percent of the projected property tax in lieu of VLF.

Sales and Use Tax. Sales tax revenues to the local jurisdiction are projected at one percent of taxable sales. The City receives one percent of the taxable sales of most goods occurring within City limits. In addition to sales tax revenue, the City receives revenues from use tax, which is levied on shipments into the state and on construction materials for new development not allocated to a situs location. Use tax is allocated by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) based on each jurisdiction's proportion of countywide and statewide direct taxable sales.

Use tax revenues to the City of San Bernardino are estimated at an additional 14.9 percent of point-of-sale sales tax, as shown in Appendix Table B-4. Half-year 2022 sales tax data provided obtained from CDTFA estimates that $3,549,772 of total sales and use tax were made from levies designated as use tax and the remaining $23,826,715 of the sales and use tax was point-of-sale sales tax. Therefore, use tax revenues to the City of San Bernardino are estimated at an additional

14.9 percent of point-of-sale sales tax.

Measure S – Sales Tax. As shown in Table 6-2, Measure Z sales tax is projected at $920 per $1,000 of City sales and use tax. This tax is an additional component of sales and use tax that established an additional 0.25 percent sales tax that took effect in 2007. Measure S was increased to 1 percent sales tax by voters in 2020. Based on discussion with the City’s finance director, this revenue is assumed for the fiscal analysis.

Franchise Taxes. Franchise taxes are projected at $42.15 per service population based on FY 2022-23 Adopted Budget revenues of $11,781,000 and the service population estimate of 279,469. City franchise taxes are collected for providers of cable, electric, gas, and telephone.

Community Facilities District (CFD) 2018-1 (Safety Services). The City formed CFD 2018-1 In October 2018 which levies a special tax to provide financing for a portion of ongoing public safety services. The special tax is $385 per single family unit and $358 per multi-family unit.

Packet Page. 582
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 42 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis Collection of the fee began July 1, 2019 and remain at the current rate for five years. Beginning July 1, 2024, these rates will increase by four percent and by four percent each following July 1.

Charges for Current Services. Based on estimated FY 2022-23 Adopted Budget recurring revenues of $2,305,000 and the City’s population estimate, charges for current services are projected at $10.33 per capita. These revenues do not include one-time fees and charges, as shown in Appendix Table B-1.

Fines and Forfeitures. These revenues include vehicle code fines, parking citations and other fines and penalties, and are projected at $4.32 per service population based on estimated FY 2022-23 Adopted Budget revenues of $1,206,500 and the City’s service population of 279,469.

Intergovernmental Revenues. As shown in Table 6-2, these revenues are projected at $5.79 per capita based on estimated FY 2022-23 Adopted Budget revenues of $1,292,000 and the City’s population estimate of 223,230.

Business Registration. These revenues are not projected for the proposed residential Spring Trails project because there is no employment projected for the project.

Miscellaneous Revenue. These revenues are projected at $4.28 per service population based on estimated FY 2022-23 Adopted Budget recurring revenues of $1,196,556 and the City’s service population estimate of 279,469. Water Fund contributions for administrative services are included in this category. Revenues that are generated on a one-time basis and revenues that are not directly generated by the project are not included in this category.

Tow Franchise. Tow franchise revenues are projected at $2.17 per service population based on FY 2022-23 Adopted Budget revenues of $606,000 and the service population of 279,469.

Property Transfer Tax. Sales of real property are taxed by San Bernardino County at a rate of $1.10 per $1,000 of property value. For property located in the City, property transfer tax is divided equally between the City and the County, with the City receiving $0.55 per $1,000 of transferred property value. Based on the U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey for the period from 2015 to 2021, residential development in the City of San Bernardino is estimated to change ownership at an average rate of about 5.0 percent per year (Appendix Table B-5).

Packet Page. 583
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 43 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis Sales Tax – Public Safety. These revenues are projected at $5.82 per capita based on the City FY 2022-23 Adopted revenue amount of $1,300,000 and the population estimate of 223,230.

Utility User Tax. The City of San Bernardino levies a utility user tax on the users of cable, natural gas, electricity and telephone services within the City. Based on the City FY 2022-23 Adopted Budget revenue amount of $21,430,500 and the City’s estimated service population of 279,469, utility user taxes are projected at $76.68 per service population.

Gas Tax Fund 126
As shown in Table 6-2, total State gasoline tax revenues to the City are projected at $23.33 per capita based on estimated FY 2022-23 Adopted Budget revenues of $4,985,468 and the City’s total population estimate of 223,230. These revenues include appropriations the shown in Appendix Table B-2. These revenues are earmarked for road related expenditures.

Measure I Fund 129
Measure I includes is a ½ cent sales tax. As shown in Table 6-2, total Measure I sales tax revenues to the City are projected at $95.44 per $1,000 of total sales and use tax. This factor is based on estimated FY 2022-23 Adopted Budget revenues of $4,772,000 for Measure I sales tax and the City’s total sales and use tax of $50,000,000. These revenues are earmarked for transportation related expenditures.

6.3 City Cost Assumptions
The General Fund cost factors that are used in preparing the fiscal analysis for the Spring Trails Annexation are presented in Table 6-3. These factors are based on the City’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2022-23 Adopted Budget net expenditures shown in Table 6-3 and the City’s population and service population estimates that are presented in Table 6-1.

City General Fund expenditures are projected for general government, or overhead functions; community development; police; parks, recreation and community services; public works; and transfers from the General Fund to the Animal Control Fund and to Library services.

Water and sewer operations are assumed to not impact the General Fund because they are enterprise functions and maintenance costs are assumed to be covered through the payment of user fees and charges. Fire protection to the City is provided by the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District, and these costs are not included in this analysis.

Packet Page. 584
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 44 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis Table 6-3
General Fund Recurring Cost Factors
Spring Trails Annexation Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis City of San Bernardino
(In Constant 2023 Dollars)
6-3 General Fund Recurring Cost Factors
General Government
General government costs include administration and support of the departmental functions.

General government costs for City of San Bernardino include Mayor, City Council, City Clerk, City Attorney, City Manager, Human Resources, Finance, Benefits, Dues and Subscriptions and Debt Service. These are generalized citywide services and can’t be directly linked to a specific department or project.

As shown in Table 6-4, Fiscal Year 2022-23 Adopted Budget general government costs are estimated at $19,345,530 and direct departmental costs (or non-general government) are estimated at $165,117,929. Average general government costs are projected at about 11.7 percent of direct non-general government costs.

FY 2022-23
Adopted Budget
Cost Category Total Net Projection Basis 1 Cost Factor 1 General Government - Overhead $19,345,530 $19,345,530 Share of Line Costs 11.7% of direct department costs General Government - Operations and
Maintenance (O&M)/Contracts $9,846,601 $9,846,601 Service Population = 279,469 $35.23 per service population Community and Economic Devevelopment 2 $11,698,803 $1,719,303 Service Population = 279,469 $6.15 per service population Police Protection $106,395,588 $106,395,588 Service Population = 279,469 $380.71 per service population Parks, Recreation and Community Services $4,596,710 $4,596,710 Population = 223,230 $20.59 per capita Public Works Services $26,567,943 $26,567,943 Service Population = 279,469 $95.07 per service population Transfer to Animal Control Fund $3,378,783 $3,378,783 Population = 223,230 $15.14 per capita Library $2,633,501 $2,633,501 Population = 223,230 $11.80 per capita

1. For fiscal factors that are based on population and employment, an estimated service population factor is applied, which represents the total population plus 50% of the total employment estimate.

2. Net community and economic development services costs are calculated from budgeted costs minus projected one-time charges for services revenues, license revenues and permit revenues that offset the budgeted costs, as shown in Table B-6.

Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.

Packet Page. 585
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 45 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis Table 6-4
Calculation of City General Government Overhead Rate
Spring Trails Specific Plan Fiscal Analysis, City of San Bernardino (In Constant 2023 Dollars)
6-4 Calculation of City General Government Overhead Rate General Government – Operations and Maintenance (O&M)/Contracts About $9,846,601 of General Fund expenditures are for operations and maintenance contracts.

Based on this amount and the City’s estimated service population of 279,469, these costs are projected at $35.23 per service population, as shown in Table 6-3.

FY 2022-23 Adopted Budget
General Fund Expenditures Total
General
Government
Non-General
Government
General Government
Mayor $377,224 $377,224
City Council 931,882 931,882
City Clerk 1,486,807 1,486,807
City Attorney 3,176,084 3,176,084
City Manager 2,331,558 2,331,558
Human Resources 2,508,177 2,508,177
Finance 6,000,647 6,000,647
General Government:

Transfer to Animal Control 3,378,783 3,378,783
Net Personnel 45,090 45,090
Dues and Subscriptions 122,953 122,953
Maintenance and Operations/Contractual 9,846,601 9,846,601 Debt Service 2,365,108 2,365,108
General Government Subtotal 15,758,535
Non-General Government
Community & Economic Development $11,698,803 $11,698,803 Police 106,395,588 106,395,588
Parks, Recreation and Community Services 4,596,710 4,596,710 Public Works 26,567,943 26,567,943
Library 2,633,501 2,633,501
GRAND TOTAL GENERAL FUND $184,463,459 $19,345,530 $165,117,929 Current General Government Overhead Rate
General Government Expenditures $19,345,530
divided by
Direct General Fund Expenditures $165,117,929
equals
Current General Government Overhead Rate 11.7%
Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.

City of San Bernardino, Fiscal Year 2022-23 Adopted Budget City of San Bernardino, Finance Director
Packet Page. 586
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 46 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis Community and Economic Development
As also shown in Table 6-3, Community and Economic Development costs are projected on net cost basis. Fiscal Year 2022-23 Adopted Budget Community and Economic Development costs of $11,698,803 are offset by one-time development related permit and fee revenues, as shown in Appendix Table B-6, to result in net costs of $1,719,303. This divided by the service population of 279,469 results in $6.15 per service population.

Police Department
Based on expenditures of $106,395,588 in the FY 2022-23 Adopted Budget budget, and the City’s service population estimate of 279,469, police costs are projected at $380.71 per service population. As discussed in Chapter 3, the San Bernardino Police Department maintains a ratio of approximately one sworn officer for every 1,000 residents. The annexation area will be served by a main police station, located at 710 North D Street. The project site belongs to patrol beat B1 in the Northwest Patrol District.

Parks, Recreation and Community Services
Citywide average annual costs for parks, recreation and community services are projected at $20.59 per capita based on the City’s FY 2022-23 Adopted Budget recurring costs for these services of $4,569,710 and the City’s population estimate of 223,230. Onsite parks, trails and open space will be maintained through a homeowners association.

Public Works Services
The Public Works Department maintains streets, sidewalks, curbs, gutters; street signs, street trees, traffic signals, streetlights, storm drains and sewer main lines. The Department also works with the Police Department for the prevention and removal of graffiti and provides collection services for refuse, recyclables and green waste.

Based on FY 2022-23 expenditures of $26,567,943 and the City’s service population estimate of 279,469, average costs for all General Fund Public Works services are projected at $95.07 per service population. All project onsite streets, drains and streetlights will be maintained through a homeowners association and a lighting/ landscaping maintenance district.

Packet Page. 587
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 47 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis Transfer to Animal Control Fund
Animal Control services are financed through a separate Animal Control Fund. Based on the City’s FY 2022-23 Adopted Budget General Fund transfers of $3,378,783 to the Animal Control Fund and the City’s population estimate of 223,230, these costs are projected at $15.14 per capita, as shown in Table 6-3.

Library Fund
Library services are also paid through a separate fund. Library service costs are projected at $11.80 per capita based on the City’s FY 2022-23 Adopted Budget General Fund transfers of $2,633,501 to the Library Fund and the City’s population estimate of 223,230.

Packet Page. 588
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 48 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis

APPENDIX A

SUPPORTING LAND USE TABLE
Table A-1
Road, Drainage, Sewer. Parks, Trails and Open Space Phasing Spring Trails Annexation Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis City of San Bernardino
A-1 Roads, Drainage, Sewer, Parks, Trails and Open Space Phasing Lane Miles Square Feet Lane Miles Square Feet Lane Miles Square Feet Primary Access Miles/Square Feet 1.04 153,216 0.19 25,188 Secondary Access Miles/Square Feet 2.61 344,789 0.08 10,254 Primary Local Miles/Square Feet 2.96 309,382 0.97 250,669 Secondary Local Miles/Square Feet 0.27 28,275
Cul-De-Sac I Miles/Square Feet 0.63 99,076 0.31 43,960
Cul-De-Sac II Miles/Square Feet 0.84 110,501 2.41 288,137 Total 3.65 498,005 4.70 554,401 3.96 611,041
Public Private Public Private Public Private
Detention Basin Square Feet 298,277 178,392
Infiltration Trench Square Feet
Reinforced Concrete Box Lineal Feet 1,430 2,286
Reinforced Concrete Pipe Lineal Feet 3,685 7,460 2,378
Arch Culvert Lineal Feet 580
Total Lineal Feet 5,695 9,746 2378
Phase 2
Public Private Public Private Public Private
Sewer Main Lineal Feet 4,017 10,857 13,479
Public Private Public Private
Open Space Acre 47.4 27
Graded Slopes Acre 25.18 9
12' Pedestrian/Equestrian Trail Lineal Feet 5,700 6,100 4' Hiking Trail Lineal Feet 4,600 2,700
Observation Point Each 3 3
Trailhead Each 2 1
Park Square Feet 57,331
landscaping.

Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.

J. P. Weber Group, October 2016
Roads 1
Road Type Unit of Measure
Offsite
Onsite (Private)
Phase 1 Phase 2
Drainage (Basins, Storm Drain) 2
Facility Type Unit of Measure
Offsite
Onsite
Phase 1 Phase 2
Sewer 3
Facility Type Unit of Measure
Offsite
Onsite
Phase 1
Note: 1. All proposed offsite roads are assumed to be public maintained roads. Road sections are based on the proposed section on the Tentative Map exhibit. All roads are proposed as 2-lane roads. Lane miles are calculated by doubling the centerline length of a road segment. Road square footage is based on the entire road section, from R/W to R/W.

2. Detention basins are measured by square footage of the entire drainage lot. There are 2 basins in Phase 1 and 1 basin in Phase 2. Infiltration Parks, Trails and Open Space 4
Facility Type Unit of Measure
Phase 1 Phase 2
trenches are as proposed in the project WQMP and Hydrology Report. RCB quantities are based on the length of the centerline of each cell within a multiple celled box culvert. Arch Culverts are assumed for the Secondary Access Road crossing of Cable Creek. Arch Culverts are also proposed for Street " and Street "DD" crossing of Cable Canyon.

3. Offsite sewer is from the tract boundary on Verdemont Drive to Little League Drive, and in Little League Drive to existing facilities as depicted on the proposed Tentative Map.

4. Parks, Trails and Open Space sections are based on the Trails, Parks, and Open Space Plan in the Spring Trails Specific Plan. Trail lengths are approximate based on the Trails, Parks, and Open Space Plan. Open Space is areas on the Tentative Map that is not impacted by any development activity, except trail grading. Graded Slopes are areas within the proposed open space lots that have proposed grading and Packet Page. 589
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 49 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis

APPENDIX B

SUPPORTING FISCAL TABLES
Table B-1 (page 1 of 2)
General Fund Revenues, Fiscal Year 2022-23 Adopted Budget Spring Trails Annexation Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis City of San Bernardino
(In Constant 2023 Dollars)
B-1 General Fund Adopted Revenues, Fiscal Year 2022-23
Revenue Category Total Non-Recurring 1 Not Projected 2 Projected Property Taxes
Property Tax In Lieu of VLF $22,500,000 $0 $0 $22,500,000 Sales and Use Tax
Sales and Use Tax $50,000,000 $0 $0 $50,000,000
Measure Z - Sales Tax
Measure Z - Sales Tax $46,000,000 $0 $0 $46,000,000
Franchise Tax
Franchise Tax - So Cal Edison $1,000,000 $0 $0 $1,000,000 Franchise Tax - So Cal Gas 550,000 0 0 550,000
Franchise Tax - Charter Cable TV 1,100,000 0 0 1,100,000 Franchise Tax - Verizon 120,000 0 0 120,000
Franchise Tax - AT&T (Pacific Bell) 11,000 0 0 11,000
Franchise Tax - Burrtec Disposal 9,000,000 0 0 9,000,000 Total Franchise Taxes $11,781,000 $0 $0 $11,781,000
Charges For Services
On Site Plan Check Fees $400,000 $400,000 $0 $0
Cannabis Permit Application Fee 0 0 0 0
Cannabis Permit Regulatory Fee 120,000 120,000 0 0
Passport Fees 40,000 0 0 40,000
Subdivision Filing Fee 130,000 130,000 0 0
Planning Development PR 600,000 600,000 0 0
Technology Fee Development Services 150,000 150,000 0 0 Plan Review 165,000 165,000 0 0
C&D Application Fee 7,500 7,500 0 0
Plan Check Fee - B&S 1,575,000 1,575,000 0 0
Plan Check Fee - Fire 0 0 0 0
Board Up/Demolition 400,000 400,000 0 0
CDBG Revenue 0 0 0 0
Pendency Release 4,000 0 4,000 0
Miscellaneous Police Receipts 1,000,000 0 0 1,000,000
Sale of Photos 1,500 0 0 1,500
Traffic Offender OTS Fee 105,000 0 0 105,000
Police Tow Release 525,000 0 0 525,000
Private Property Tow Fee 150,000 0 0 150,000
Fingerprint Fee 3,500 0 0 3,500
Property Auction 2,500 0 0 2,500
False Alarm Fee 50,000 0 0 50,000
Vehicle Repossession Fee 5,000 0 0 5,000
Investigation Fee 5,000 0 0 5,000
Fireworks Enforcement 80,000 0 0 80,000
Code SFIF 1,000 1,000 0 0
Administrative Citations SFRPIP 50,000 50,000 0 0
Payoff Demand Fee 5,000 5,000 0 0
Crime Free Rental Housing 135,000 0 135,000 0
Cemetery Burial Fee 10,000 0 0 10,000
Sale of Cemetery Vaults and Liners 2,000 0 0 2,000
Blanket Inspection Fee 225,000 225,000 0 0
Miscellaneous Engineering Receipt 50,000 50,000 0 0
Plan Check Fee - Engineering 1,500,000 1,500,000 0 0
Archival Fee - Development Services 30,000 30,000 0 0
NPDES Storm Drain Utility Fee 175,000 175,000 0 0
NPDES Inspection Fee 25,000 25,000 0 0
Weed Abatement Destruction 50,000 0 0 50,000
Program & Facility Use Fees 100,000 0 0 100,000
Park Energy Fee 8,000 0 0 8,000
Signal maint/energy 100,000 0 0 100,000
Class Registration Fee 18,000 0 0 18,000
Swimming Pool Fee 50,000 0 0 50,000
Burrtec Host Fee 325,000 325,000 0 0
Library Fines 4,000 4,000 0 0
Election Filing Fees 3,000 3,000 0 0
Sale of Vases 500 500 0 0
Non Resident Fee 500 500 0 0
Crime Prevention Revenue 400 400 0 0
Total Charges for Services $8,386,400 $5,941,900 $139,000 $2,305,500 Packet Page. 590
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 50 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis Table B-1 (page 2 of 2)
General Fund Revenues, Fiscal Year 2022-23 Adopted Budget Spring Trails Annexation Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis City of San Bernardino
(In Constant 2023 Dollars)
Revenue Category Total Non-Recurring 1 Not Projected 2 Projected Fines and Forfeitures
General Fines $15,000 $0 $0 $15,000
Code Administration Citations 65,000 0 0 65,000
Parking Citations 550,000 0 0 550,000
General Administrative Civil Penalty 125,000 0 0 125,000 Police Administrative Civil Penalty 0 0 0 0
PW Administrative Civil Penalty 0 0 0 0
Code Administrative Civil Penalty 450,000 0 0 450,000
Private Property Tow Fee 0 0 0 0
Library Fines 0 0 0 0
City Attorney Administrative Citations 1,500 0 0 1,500
Total Fines and Forfeitures $1,206,500 $0 $0 $1,206,500 Intergovernmental
Motor Vehicle In Lieu Tax $130,000 $0 $0 $130,000
Other Governmental Agencies 2,051,260 0 2,051,260 0
State Aid - POST 35,000 0 0 35,000
State Mandated Cost Reimbursement 25,000 0 0 25,000
SBIAA Reimbursement 65,000 0 65,000 0
Recoverable Expense Income 1,100,000 0 0 1,100,000
San Manuel Community Credit 1,000,000 0 1,000,000 0
Water Reimbursement 2,000 0 0 2,000
Total Intergovernmental $4,408,260 $0 $3,116,260 $1,292,000 Investment Income
Land and Building Rental/Lease $525,000 $0 $525,000 $0
ATS Land and Building Rental 0 0 0 0
Total Use of Money and Property $525,000 $0 $525,000 $0 Licenses and Permits
Business Registration $8,000,000 $0 $0 $8,000,000
Miscellaneous Planning Permits 12,000 12,000 0 0
Annual Alarm Permits 50,000 50,000 0 0
Building Permits 2,000,000 2,000,000 0 0
Mechanical Permits 115,000 115,000 0 0
C&D Self Haul Permit 5,000 5,000 0 0
Street Cut Permits 0 0 0 0
Miscellaneous Licenses and Permits 350,000 350,000 0 0
Grading Permits 15,000 15,000 0 0
Public Works Construction Permits 380,000 380,000 0 0
On Site Permits 1,500,000 1,500,000 0 0
Mobile Home Park Permit 3,000 0 3,000 0
Total Licenses & Permits $12,427,000 $4,427,000 $0 $8,000,000 Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous Planning Receipts $120,000 $0 $0 $120,000 Miscellaneous Library Receipts 10,000 0 0 10,000
Miscellaneous Receipts 175,000 0 0 175,000
Refunds and Rebates 0 0 0 0
Litigation Settlements 55,000 0 0 55,000
Restitutions 5,000 0 0 5,000
Water Fund Contributions 793,556 0 0 793,556
Vehicle Take Home Reimbursement 0 0 0 0
DUI Reimbursement 10,000 0 0 10,000
Off-Track Betting 28,000 0 0 28,000
Total Miscellaneous $1,196,556 $0 $0 $1,196,556
Other Taxes
Tow Franchise 606,000 $0 $0 $606,000
Transient Occupancy Tax 4,650,000 0 0 4,650,000
Property Transfer Tax 1,100,000 0 0 1,100,000
Sales Tax - Public Safety 1,300,000 0 0 1,300,000
Cannabis Tax 4,000,000 0 0 4,000,000
Total Other Taxes $11,656,000 $0 $0 $11,656,000
Use of Money and Property
Interest on Idle Cash $325,000 $0 $325,000 $0
Rental Income From Former EDA Properties 200,000 0 200,000 0 Vending Machine Commission 4,000 0 4,000 0
Total Use of Money and Property $529,000 $0 $529,000 $0 Utility Users Tax
Utility Users Tax $21,430,500 $0 $0 $21,430,500
General Fund Total $192,046,216 $10,368,900 $4,309,260 $177,368,056 Note: 1. One-time development related fees are not projected as recurring revenues because they are netted from projected development development services costs.

2. Certain recurring revenues (such as transient occupancy tax, intergovernmental revenues and set payment amounts) that are not impacted by the proposed project are not projected in the fiscal analysis.

Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.

City of San Bernardino, Fiscal Year 2022-23 Adopted Budget Packet Page. 591
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 51 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis Table B-2
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Adopted Budget: Revenues for Other City Funds 1 Spring Trails Annexation Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis City of San Bernardino
(In Constant 2023 Dollars)
B-2 Revenues for Other City Fund, Fiscal Year 2022-23
Revenue Category Total Not Projected 2 Recurring
Fund 124 - Animal Control
Animal Licenses $205,000 $0 $205,000
Miscellaneous Licenses and Permits 2,000 0 2,000
General Fines 5,200 0 5,200
Animal License Penalty 13,250 0 13,250
Animal Adoption Fee 52,000 0 52,000
Contracted Shelter Fee 0 0 0
Apprehension Fee 10,500 0 10,500
Boarding Fee 30,000 0 30,000
Field Service Fee 5,000 0 5,000
Owner Release Fee 13,000 0 13,000
Vaccination Fee 35,000 0 35,000
Microchip Identification Fee 31,000 0 31,000
Miscellaneous Receipts 12,500 0 12,500
Transfers from General Fund 3,305,413 0 3,305,413
Intergovernmental 0 0 0
Total Animal Control Fund $3,719,863 $0 $3,719,863
Fund 126 - Gas Tax
State Gasoline Tax:
- HUTA Prop 42 Replacement (for Section 2103) $1,600,833 $0 $1,600,833 - Proposition 111 (Section 2105) 1,175,980 0 1,175,980
- Section 2106 713,030 0 713,030
- Section 2107 1,495,625 0 1,495,625
Subtotal $4,985,468 $0 $4,985,468
- Section 2107.5 flat amount 3 9,532 0 9,532
Use of Money and Property 5,000 5,000 0
Total Gas Tax Fund $5,000,000 $5,000 $4,995,000
Fund 129 - Measure I
1/2 Cent Sales Tax $4,772,000 $0 $4,772,000
Federal Aid Street Construction 0 0
Subtotal $4,772,000 $0 $4,772,000
Interest on Idle Cash 28,000 28,000 0
Total Gas Tax Fund $4,800,000 $28,000 $4,772,000

1. This table includes only the special fund revenues that are projected in the fiscal analysis.

2. Revenues that are not impacted by the proposed project are not projected as recurring revenues. Also, revenues allocated to capital expenditures and interest on idle cash revenues are not projected.

3. Section 2107.5 gas tax revenues are allocated based on the population size-range population of the City.

Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.

City of San Bernardino, Fiscal Year 2022-23 Adopted Budget Packet Page. 592
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 52 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis Table B-3
Estimated In Lieu Property Tax of Vehicle License Fees (VLF) Factor Spring Trails Annexation Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis City of San Bernardino
B-3 Estimated In Lieu Property Tax of Vehicle License Fees (VLF) Factor Table B-4
Calculation of Use Tax Factor
Spring Trails Annexation Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis City of San Bernardino
B-4 Calculation of Use Tax Factor
VLF - Assessed VLF per
Fiscal Year Property Tax In Lieu 1 Valuation (AV) 2 $1,000,000 AV 3 2013-2014 $16,328,700 $10,695,499,230 $1,530
2014-2015 $17,249,209 $11,298,819,747 $1,530
2015-2016 $18,206,540 $11,924,444,131 $1,530
2016-2017 $17,844,545 $12,662,283,004 $1,410
2017-2018 $15,000,000 $13,395,373,121 $1,120
2018-2019 $15,800,000 $14,215,676,776 $1,110
2019-2020 $16,805,900 $15,437,323,990 $1,090
2020-2021 $18,316,742 $16,296,056,728 $1,120
2021-2022 $19,267,608 $17,611,502,086 $1,090
2022-2023 $22,500,000 $18,993,544,611 $1,180
Average of Ten Years $1,270

1. The property tax in lieu VLF amounts are from the City's budget as cited below.

2. City assessed valuation is from the County Assessor report as cited below.

3. Estimated VLF per $1,000,000 AV is rounded to the nearest tens.

Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.

City of San Bernardino, Adopted Budgets, 2013-2014 through 2022-23.

County of San Bernardino, Assessed Rolls, 2013 through 2023 City of San Bernardino Amount 1
Use Tax
County Pool $3,539,112
State Pool $10,660
Total Use Tax $3,549,772
divided by
Point-of-Sale $23,826,715
equals
Use Tax Rate2 14.9%

1. Obtained from CDTFA data for Half-year 2022.

2. The use tax rate is the County Pool plus the State Pool divided by point-of-sale taxable sales tax.

Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.

California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, CDTFA, 2023 Packet Page. 593
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 53 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis Table B-5
Estimated Annual Residential Turnover
Spring Trails Annexation Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis City of San Bernardino
B-5 Estimated Annual Residential Turnover
Occupied
Housing Percent
City of San Bernardino Units Turnover
Total Owner Occupied Units 32,391
Moved in 2019 or later 5,241
Moved in 2015 to 2018 6,044
Total Moved 2015 to 2021 11,285
Estimated Annual Turnover Rate: 2015 to 2021 1 1,612 5%

1. The annual turnover rate is based on the assumption of seven years for the 2015 to 2021 period.

Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2021 American Community Survey (ACS) 1-Year Estimate, Tenure by Year Householder Moved Into Unit, Report B25038, San Bernardino, California Packet Page. 594
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 54 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis Table B-6
General Fund Net Community and Economic Development Cost Factor Spring Trails Annexation Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis City of San Bernardino
(In Constant 2023 Dollars)
B-6 General Fund Net Community Development Cost Factor
Category Amount
Total General Fund Community and Economic Development Costs $11,698,803 minus
Charges for Service
On Site Plan Check Fees $400,000
Cannabis Permit Application Fee 0
Cannabis Permit Regulatory Fee 120,000
Subdivision Filing Fee 130,000
Planning Development PR 600,000
Technology Fee Development Services 150,000
Plan Review 165,000
C&D Application Fee 7,500
Plan Check Fee - B&S 1,575,000
Board Up/Demolition 400,000
Blanket Inspection Fee 225,000
Miscellaneous Engineering Receipt 50,000
Plan Check Fee - Engineering 1,500,000
Archival Fee - Development Services 30,000
NPDES Storm Drain Utility Fee 175,000
NPDES Inspection Fee 25,000
Total One-Time Charges for Service $5,552,500
minus
One-Time Licenses and Permits
Miscellaneous Planning Permits $12,000
Annual Alarm Permits $50,000
Building Permits 2,000,000
Mechanical Permits 115,000
C&D Self Haul Permit 5,000
Street Cut Permits 0
Miscellaneous Licenses and Permits 350,000
Grading Permits 15,000
Public Works Construction Permits 380,000
On Site Permits 1,500,000
Total One-Time Licenses and Permits $4,427,000
equals
Recurring Net Community Development Costs $1,719,303
divided by
City Service Population 279,469
equals
Community Development Costs per Service Population $6.15 Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.

City of San Bernardino, Fiscal Year 2022-23 Adopted Budget City of San Bernardino, Finance Department
Packet Page. 595
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Spring Trails Annexation, City of San Bernardino October 10, 2023 55 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis

APPENDIX C

PROJECT REFERENCES
City of San Bernardino
www.sbcity.org/
Community and Economic Development
Nathan Freeman, Director, 909.384.5357
Timothy O’Neal, Senior Management Analyst, 909.384.7276 Travis Martin, Associate Planner, 909.384.5313
Finance Department
Marim Fam, Deputy Finance Director, 909.384.5242
Lisa Sherrick, Commissioner, Mayor’s Appointee
Former Employees
Rita Conrad, Former Interim Finance Director, 909.384.5242 Brent Mason, Former Finance Director, 909.384.5242
David Murray, Deputy Director/City Planner, 909.384.5567 Oliver Mujica, Former Planning Division Manager, 909.384.7272, ext. 3332 San Bernardino Municipal Water Department
Ted Brunson, Development Services Manager, 909.453.6165 J.P. Weber Group
Jeff Weber, Principal, 949.254.0135
Gresham Savage Nolan & Tilden, PC
Mark Ostoich, Principal Shareholder, 909.890.4499
Jennifer Dorgan, 909.890.4499
Hinderliter de Llamas and Associates
www.hdlcompanies.com
San Bernardino County Local Agency Formation Commission 909.388.0480
Samuel Martinez, Executive Officer
www.sblafco.com
County of San Bernardino
www.sbcounty.gov/
San Bernardino City Unified School District
Facilities/Operations Division, Facilities Management
Takara Russ, Use of Facilities Senior Clerk, 909.388.1600 Omnitrans
www.omnitrans.org/
Packet Page. 596
Resolution No. 2024-221
Resolution No. 2024-221
November 6, 20214

Page 1 of 7 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-221

RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA,

MAKING APPLICATION TO THE LOCAL AGENCY

FORMATION COMMISSION FOR SAN BERNARDINO

COUNTY FOR REORGANIZATION TO INCLUDE

ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND
DETACHMENT FROM COUNTY SERVICE AREA 70,

GENERALLY NORTHERLY OF MEYERS ROAD AND

EASTERLY OF MARTIN RANCH ROAD (KNOWN AS THE
26-ACRE TOTALLY-SURROUNDED ISLAND)
WHEREAS, the City of San Bernardino desires to initiate proceedings pursuant to the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Section 56000 et seq. of the California Government Code) for the annexation of unincorporated territory located in the Verdemont area, generally northerly of Meyers Road and easterly of Martin Ranch Road, more specifically described in Exhibit "C" and depicted on Exhibit "C-1", both made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the area proposed for reorganization is consistent with the Sphere of Influence of the City of San Bernardino; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Bernardino requests that the proposed reorganization be subject to the following terms and conditions: (a) the standard terms and conditions required by LAFCO shall apply; and (b) the annexation shall be subject to any and all of the City of San Bernardino's fees, taxes and special assessments as they currently exist or may exist at the completion of these proceedings; and
WHEREAS, the reason for the proposed reorganization is to fulfill the requirement imposed by the Local Agency Formation Commission for San Bernardino County to initiate the annexation of the totally-surrounded island area that would be created through the annexation of the Spring Trails Specific Plan Project; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Bernardino has reviewed the Plan for Service and Fiscal Impact Analysis (included as Exhibit D) prepared for the proposed reorganization; and WHEREAS, the City of San Bernardino acknowledges and agrees to the Local Agency Formation Commission for San Bernardino County’s requirement for imposing legal indemnification as outlined in Policy 3 of Chapter 2 of the Internal Operations, Accounting, and Financial Section of its Policy and Procedure Manual.

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.

Packet Page. 597
Resolution No. 2024-221
Resolution No. 2024-221
November 6, 20214

Page 2 of 7 ends

SECTION 2. Application is hereby made to the Local Agency Formation Commission for San Bernardino County to initiate proceedings for the reorganization of unincorporated territory located in the Verdemont area, generally northerly of Meyers Road and Easterly of Martin Ranch Road, more specifically described and depicted in said Exhibit "C" and Exhibit "C-1", respectively, to be known as City of San Bernardino Annexation No. 364.

SECTION 5. The City Manager of the City of San Bernardino is hereby directed and authorized to prepare and deliver, or cause to be prepared and delivered, all application documents including a certified Plan for Service and Fiscal Impact Analysis necessary for the initiation of proceedings for the proposed reorganization with the Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission for San Bernardino County.

SECTION 7. Severability. If any provision of this Resolution or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications, and to this end the provisions of this Resolution are declared to be severable.

SECTION 8. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective immediately.

Packet Page. 598
Resolution No. 2024-221
Resolution No. 2024-221
November 6, 20214

Page 3 of 7 ends

APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council and signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk this 6th day of November 2024.

Helen Tran, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
Attest:

Genoveva Rocha, CMC, City Clerk
Approved as to form:

Sonia Carvalho, City Attorney
Packet Page. 599
Resolution No. 2024-221
Resolution No. 2024-221
November 6, 20214

Page 4 of 7 ends

CERTIFICATION

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO) ss

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO )
I, Genoveva Rocha, CMC, City Clerk, hereby certify that the attached is a true copy of Resolution No. 2024-221, adopted at a regular meeting held on the 6th day of November 2024 by the following vote:

Genoveva Rocha, CMC, City Clerk
Packet Page. 600
Resolution No. 2024-221
Resolution No. 2024-221
November 6, 20214

Page 5 of 7 ends

EXHIBIT C

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Packet Page. 601
Resolution No. 2024-221
Resolution No. 2024-221
November 6, 20214

Page 6 of 7 ends

EXHIBIT C-1
MAP
Packet Page. 602
Resolution No. 2024-221
Resolution No. 2024-221
November 6, 20214

Page 7 of 7 ends

EXHIBIT D
PLAN FOR SERVICE; FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
Packet Page. 603

Page 1 of 3 ends

LAFCO ***** - REORGANIZATION TO INCLUDE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND TO SBCFPD ZONE FP-5 SAN BERNARDINO, AND DETACHMENT FROM COUNTY SERVICE AREA 70 (Spring Trails Specific Plan) Prepared January 11, 2023
Those parcels of land located in Section 35, Township 2 North, Range 5 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the County of San Bernardino, State of California, described as follows:

Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Section 35, T. 2 N., R. 5 W., SBM;
Course 1. Thence S88°21’49”W along the North line of said Section 35, T. 2 N., R. 5 W., SBM, a distance of 364.15 feet, to a point on the Muscupiabe Rancho Line, as per County Surveyors Plat 7093, Records of San Bernardino County, State of California; Course 2. Thence S08°23’37”W along said Muscupiabe Rancho Line, a distance of 2529.03 feet, to a point on the San Bernardino City limits, said point also being the Northwest corner of Government Lot 3 of Section 35, T. 2 N., R. 5 W., SBM; Course 3. Thence continuing S08°23’37”W along said
Muscupiabe Rancho Line, a distance of 757.58 feet, to a point on the centerline of Pennsylvania Avenue as shown on the Plat of the Town of Irvington and the Land of Irvington Land and Water Co., recorded in Map Book 3, Page 9, Records of San Bernardino County, said point also being the Southwest corner of Government Lot 3 of Section 35, T. 2 N., R. 5 W., SBM, said point also being an angle point on City of San Bernardino Annexation #257, LAFCO No. 920, Ordinance No. 3131, effective date 02/18/1971;
Course 4. Thence N62°54’32”W along said centerline of
Pennsylvania Avenue and the border of City of San Bernardino Annexation #258, LAFCO No. 931, Ordinance No. 3142, effective date 03/05/1971, a distance of 560.57 feet, to a point on the east line of Lot “A” per Map Showing a Portion of the Meyer and Barclay Subdivision, recorded in Map Book 12, Page 18, Records of San Bernardino County;
Course 5. Thence S05°57’38”E along said east line of Lot “A” and the border of said Annexation 258, a distance of 428.48 feet, to the Northeasterly corner of that certain 5 acres in the Southeast corner of said Lot “A”, as conveyed to Robert B. Meyer by deed recorded in book 173, page 156, of deeds, records of said County;
Packet Page. 604

Page 2 of 3 ends

52.61 feet, to a point on the centerline of Meyers Road as shown on Parcel Map No. 3540, recorded in Parcel Map Book 31, Page 84, Records of San Bernardino County;
Course 8. Thence N51°36’40”W along said centerline of Meyers Road and the border of said Annexation 258, a distance of 543.37 feet, to its intersection with the prolongation of the easterly line of Parcel 1, Parcel Map No. 4093, recorded in Parcel Map Book 38, Page 53, Records of San Bernardino County, said point also being the Point of Beginning;
Course 9. Thence continuing N51°36’40”W along said
centerline of Meyers Road and the border of said Annexation 258, a distance of 916.19 feet, to its intersection with the prolongation of the westerly line of said Parcel 1;
Course 10. Thence N22°56’09”E along said prolongation of the westerly line of Parcel 1 and along the westerly line of said Parcel 1 and along the westerly line of Parcel 2 of said Parcel Map No. 4093, a distance of 721.41 feet to an angle point on the boundary of said Parcel 2;
Course 11. Thence N45°46’14”E along the westerly line of said Parcel 2 a distance of 469.27 feet;
Course 12. Thence N27°05’29”E continuing along the westerly line of said Parcel 2, a distance of 17.00 feet to the
northwesterly corner of said Parcel 2, said corner also being the southwesterly corner of Lot “D”, per Map Showing a Portion of the Meyer and Barclay Subdivision, recorded in Map Book 12, Page 18, Records of San Bernardino County;
Course 13. Thence continuing N27°05’29”E along the westerly line of said Lot “D” a distance of 448.05 feet to the
northwesterly corner of said Lot “D”, said point also being a point on the border of said Annexation 258;
Course 14. Thence S57°15’54”E along the northerly line of said Lot “D” and said border of Annexation 258, a distance of 448.80 feet to the northeast corner of said Lot “D”;
Course 15. Thence S15°53’55”W along the easterly line of said Lot “D”, a distance of 306.36 feet;
Course 16. Thence S15°53’54”W along the easterly line of said Lot “D”, a distance of 30.01 feet to the southeast corner of said Packet Page. 605

Page 3 of 3 ends

Lot “D”;
Course 17. Thence S15°44’02”W along the prolongation of the easterly line of said Parcel 2 of Parcel Map No. 4093, a distance of 30.01;
Course 18. Thence S15°43’10”W along the easterly line of Parcel 2 and along the easterly line of said Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 4093 and along the prolongation of the easterly line of said Parcel 1, a distance of 1433.20 feet;
Said parcel contains 26.84 acres more or less.

Edward J. Bonadiman, P.L.S. DATE
Exp. 12-31-23
2-13-24
Packet Page. 606
Exhibit C-1
LAFCO ****** - REORGANIZATION TO INCLUDE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND TO SBCFPD ZONE FP-5 SAN BERNARDINO, AND DETACHMENT FROM COUNTY SERVICE AREA 70 (SPRING TRAILS SPECIFIC PLAN) SIT E
P.O. C. COURS E 1

VICINITY MAP
N.T.S.

Line Table Line #
Directi
on
Lengt h
364.1 5'
COURS E 1
COURS E 2
COURS E 3
COURS E 4
COURS E 5
COURS E 6
COURS E 7
COURS E 8
COURS E 9
S88°21'4 9"W GENERAL

DESCRIPTION
S08°23'37"W 2529.03' S08°23'3 7"W
N62°54'3 2"W
S05°57'3 8"E
N83°59'2 2"W
N86°44'0 9"W
N51°36'4 0"W
N51°36'4 0"W
757.5 8'
560.5 7'
428.4 8'
590.9 4'

52.61 '
·
COURS E 14 · COURS E 13
COURS COURS E 2 E 12 COURS E 15 543.4 7'
916.1 9'
721.4 1'
469.2 7'

17.00 '
COURS E 16 COURS E 11 LEGE
ND COURSE 10 N22°56'09"E
COURSE 11 N45°46'14"E
COURSE 12 N27°05'29"E
COURSE 13 N27°05'29"E
COURS E 17
448.0 5'
448.8 0'
306.3 6'

30.01 '
COURS E 14 S57°15'5 4"E COURS COURSE 15 E 10 S15°53'55"W COURSE 16 S15°53'54"W
COURSE 17 S15°44'02"W

30.0 1' COURSE 18 S15°43'10"W 1433.20' COURS E 18
COURS E 9
COURS P.O. E 3 B.

LAFCO
*****
COURS E 5
COURSE 7
LAFCO ***** - REORGANIZATION TO

INCLUDE ANNEXATION

TO THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND TO SBCFPD
ZONE FP-5 SAN BERNARDINO, AND DETACHMENT FROM
COUNTY SERVICE AREA 70 (SPRING TRAILS SPECIFIC PLAN)
COURS E 8 COURS E 4
COURS E 6
2-13- 24

MONTECITO EQUITIES LTD D
1 K.B. O.

E.J.B
.
1" = 300'
13395
2 300 '0 300 '600 '900 ' 1 1
SCALE: 1"= 300' DISREGARD PRINTS BEARING

EARLIER REVISION DATES
01-11- 23
Packet Page. 607
11661 San Vicente Blvd. Suite 306
Los Angeles, California 90049-5111
310.820.2680-p
www.stanleyrhoffman.com
Meyers Road Island Area Annexation
Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis
City of San Bernardino
Prepared for:

City of San Bernardino
290 North D Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
909.384.7272
July 3, 2024
SRHA Job # 1408
Packet Page. 608
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Meyers Rd Island Annexation, City of San Bernardino July 3, 2024 i Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis

CERTIFICATION
The City of San Bernardino hereby certifies that this document presents the data and information required for the Plan for Service and Fiscal Impact Analysis for the Meyers Road Island Area Annexation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented herein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

DATE ____________ ___________ _

SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT
___________ _

TITLE OF APPLICANT
City of San Bernardino, California
Packet Page. 609
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Meyers Rd Island Annexation, City of San Bernardino July 3, 2024 ii Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis

CONTENTS
Tables ...................................................................................................................................................... iv Figures ....................................................................................................................................................... v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... v CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................................................1

1.2 Overview of the City of San Bernardino .......................................................................................3

1.3 Organization of the Report...........................................................................................................3 CHAPTER 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION..................................................................................................... 4

2.1 Residential Development .............................................................................................................4

2.2 Assessed Valuation and Property Tax...........................................................................................7

2.3 Sales and Use Tax .........................................................................................................................9 CHAPTER 3 PUBLIC FACILITIES BEFORE AND AFTER ANNEXATION..................................................... 11

3.1 General Government..................................................................................................................12

3.2 Fire and Paramedic.....................................................................................................................13

3.3 Sheriff/Police ..............................................................................................................................15

3.4 Library.........................................................................................................................................15

3.5 Parks and Recreation..................................................................................................................16

3.6 Animal Control............................................................................................................................17

3.7 Street Lighting ............................................................................................................................17

3.8 Landscape Maintenance.............................................................................................................18

3.9 Water..........................................................................................................................................18

3.10 Wastewater Collection ...............................................................................................................18

3.11 Transportation............................................................................................................................19

3.12 Flood Control and Drainage........................................................................................................19

3.13 Utilities .......................................................................................................................................20

3.14 Schools........................................................................................................................................20

3.15 Solid Waste Management ..........................................................................................................21

3.16 Public Health and Welfare..........................................................................................................21 CHAPTER 4 PAYING FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE.................................................. 22

4.1 Overview of Development Impact Fees .....................................................................................22

4.2 Schools........................................................................................................................................22

4.3 Utilities .......................................................................................................................................22

4.4 Roads and Drainage....................................................................................................................22

4.5 Water and Sewer........................................................................................................................22 CHAPTER 5 FISCAL IMPACTS ............................................................................................................. 24

5.1 City General Fund .......................................................................................................................24

5.2 Other Funds................................................................................................................................26 CHAPTER 6 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO FISCAL ASSUMPTIONS............................................................ 27

6.1 City General Assumptions ..........................................................................................................27

6.2 City Revenue Assumptions.........................................................................................................29

6.3 City Cost Assumptions................................................................................................................33 APPENDIX A NEIGHBORHOOD INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS .................................................. 38 APPENDIX B SUPPORTING FISCAL TABLES......................................................................................... 39 APPENDIX C PROJECT REFERENCES................................................................................................... 45 Packet Page. 610
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Meyers Rd Island Annexation, City of San Bernardino July 3, 2024 iii Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis
TABLES
1 Summary of Projected Recurring Fiscal Impacts.......................................................................vi 2 Summary of Projected Other Funds Recurring Revenues........................................................vii 2-1 Residential Development Description....................................................................................... 7 2-2 Assessed Valuation and Property Tax ....................................................................................... 8 2-3 Estimated Existing Assessed Valuation ..................................................................................... 9 2-4 Estimated Offsite Sales and Use Tax by Project Residents ..................................................... 10 3-1 Current and Anticipated Service Providers in the Meyers Road Island Area Annexation....... 12 4-1 Summary of City Development Impact Fees........................................................................... 23 5-1 Summary of Projected Recurring Fiscal Impacts..................................................................... 24 5-2 Detailed General Fund Projected Recurring Fiscal Impacts.................................................... 25 5-3 Summary of Projected Other Funds Recurring Revenues....................................................... 26 6-1 City Population, Housing and Employment Assumptions....................................................... 28 6-2 General Fund and Other Funds Recurring Revenue Factors................................................... 30 6-3 General Fund Recurring Cost Factors...................................................................................... 34 6-4 Calculation of City General Government Overhead Rate ....................................................... 35 A-1 Spring Trails Specific Plan, Roads, Drainage, Sewer, Parks, Trails and Open Space Phasing... 38 B-1 General Fund Adopted Revenues, Fiscal Year 2022-23........................................................... 39 B-2 Revenues for Other City Fund, Fiscal Year 2022-23 ................................................................ 41 B-3 Estimated In Lieu Property Tax of Vehicle License Fees (VLF) Factor ..................................... 42 B-4 Calculation of Use Tax Factor.................................................................................................. 42 B-5 Estimated Annual Residential Turnover.................................................................................. 43 B-6 General Fund Net Community Development Cost Factor....................................................... 44 Packet Page. 611
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Meyers Rd Island Annexation, City of San Bernardino July 3, 2024 iv Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis

FIGURES
1-1 Meyers Road Island Area Annexation Regional Vicinity ........................................................... 2 2-1 Meyers Road Island Area Annexation Local Vicinity ................................................................. 5 2-2 Meyers Road Island Area Annexation Parcels........................................................................... 6 3-1 Fire Protection ........................................................................................................................ 14 3-2 City of San Bernardino Police Department: Northwest District.............................................. 16 3-3 Local Elementary, Middle and High Schools........................................................................... 20 Packet Page. 612
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Meyers Rd Island Annexation, City of San Bernardino July 3, 2024 v Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis report provides an assessment of public service delivery capabilities of the City of San Bernardino and other agencies, or special districts affected by the proposed annexation of the Meyers Road “Island Area” to the City of San Bernardino (the City).

A commitment to annex the Island Area by the City was made a precondition by the San Bernardino County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for approving the City annexation of the Spring Trails specific plan located to the north-east of the Island Area. The specific plan’s annexation to the City would create an unincorporated county island (the Island Area), which is now being assessed for LAFCO approval in this study.

This report is being submitted to the San Bernardino County LAFCO as a “Plan for Service” required by California Government Code Section 56653. Currently, the County of San Bernardino provides many services to the annexation area including fire and paramedic services, general government, development services, sheriff patrol, public library, regional parks and recreation, street lighting, transportation, flood control and drainage, and health and welfare. Public schools are provided by the San Bernardino Unified School District.

After annexation, the City is anticipated to provide services including general government, community development, police protection, local parks and recreation, community services and public works’ services. The City has annexed into the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District (SBCFPD) and its Service Zone FP-5 for fire protection and emergency medical response services. Since the Island Area is already within SBCFPD and Service Zone FP-5, the SBCFPD will continue to be the service provider for fire protection and emergency medical services. The County of San Bernardino will continue to provide other services such as regional parks and recreation, regional flood control and drainage and health and welfare.

Fiscal Impacts
Based on an analysis of current service delivery capabilities, the City is equipped to handle additional demand from the proposed Island Area annexation comprising six parcels totaling

26.38 acres with four existing homes. No additional growth is assumed in the Island Area for the 5-year post-annexation analysis period required by LAFCO, which is presented in this study.

Packet Page. 613
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Meyers Rd Island Annexation, City of San Bernardino July 3, 2024 vi Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis
Roads, drainage systems, lighting, and utilities will be maintained by the City. The San Bernardino Municipal Water Department will maintain the onsite and offsite water and sewer systems. This report explains the transfer of service requirements upon annexation, estimates development impact fees and other cost responsibilities.

As required by LAFCO, this study analyzes and presents the fiscal impacts of the Island Area on the City General Fund and other funds for the first five years upon annexation. First year postannexation is assumed to be 2026.

General Fund. As shown in Table 1, projected recurring fiscal impacts to the City General Fund for the Island Area Annexation is shown to generate an extremely small deficit for all years.

Projected deficit to the General Fund declines slightly from $2,756 in Year 1 upon annexation through $2,474 in Year 5. The calculation assumes revenues from the recently adopted CFD 2018-1 tax for safety services family unit, which increases over time.

Other Funds. Projected recurring revenues for the Gas Tax Fund and Measure I Fund that are earmarked for street and road related expenditures are presented in Table 2.

Gas Tax Fund. As shown in Panel A of Table 2, projected recurring gasoline revenues to the City are projected at $292 across all years.

Measure I Fund. Projected recurring Measure I sales tax revenues to the City are projected at $89 across all years.

Table 1
Summary of Projected General Fund Recurring Fiscal Impacts Meyers Road Island Area Annexation Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis City of San Bernardino
(In Constant 2024 Dollars)
1 Summary of Projected Recurring Fiscal Impacts
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
General Fund 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Estimated Annual Recurring Revenues $5,456 $5,522 $5,591 $5,664 $5,738 Estimated Annual Recurring Costs $8,212 $8,211 $8,212 $8,212 $8,212 Estimated Annual Recurring Surplus ($2,756) ($2,689) ($2,620) ($2,548) ($2,474) Estimated Annual Revenue/Cost Ratio 0.66 0.67 0.68 0.69 0.70 Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.

Packet Page. 614
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Meyers Rd Island Annexation, City of San Bernardino July 3, 2024 vii Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis
Table 2
Summary of Projected Other Funds Recurring Revenues
Meyers Road Island Area Annexation Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis City of San Bernardino
(In Constant 2024 Dollars)
2 Summary of Projected Other Funds Recurring Revenues
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Other Funds 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
A. Fund 126 - Gas Tax 1
Annual Recurring Gasoline Tax $292 $292 $292 $292 $292
B. Fund 129 - Measure I 1
1/2 cent sales and road tax $89 $89 $89 $89 $89

1. Annual recurring gasoline tax and Measure I revenues are restricted to street related expenditures.

Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.

Packet Page. 615
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Meyers Rd Island Annexation, City of San Bernardino July 3, 2024 1 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis
CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION
The Meyers Road Island Area is in unincorporated San Bernardino County located on the northern edge of the City of San Bernardino in the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains, as shown in Figure 1.1. The annexation area is approximately 1.5 miles east of the unincorporated community of Devore and the junction of Interstate 215 (I-215) and I-15. The Island Area is bounded by the San Bernardino National Forest on three sides and the City of San Bernardino on the southern side.

1.1 Purpose of the Study
The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) of the County of San Bernardino requires a jurisdiction to submit a Plan for Service and Fiscal Impact Analysis when the jurisdiction is affected by a proposed change in boundaries, formation, or organization. The annexation of the Island Area into the City requires the City to show that necessary infrastructure improvements and services can be provided to this area. Per the application form in the LAFCO Policy and Procedure Manual, Updated July 2023, the Plan for Service must include the following components:
a. A description of the level and range of each service to be provided to the affected territory.
b. An indication of when those services can feasibly be extended to the affected territory. c. An identification of any improvement or upgrading of structures, roads, water or sewer facilities, other infrastructure, or other conditions the affected agency would impose upon the affected territory.
d. The Plan shall include a Fiscal Impact Analysis which shows the estimated cost of extending the service and a description of how the service or required improvements will be financed. The Fiscal Impact Analysis shall provide, at a minimum, a five (5)-year projection of revenues and expenditures. A narrative discussion of the sufficiency of revenues for anticipated service extensions and operations is required. e. An indication of whether the affected territory is, or will be, proposed for inclusion within an existing or proposed improvement zone/district, redevelopment area, assessment district, or community facilities district.
f. If retail water service is to be provided through this change of organization, provide a description of the timely availability of water for projected needs within the area based upon the factors identified in Government Code Section 65352.5 (as required by Government Code Section 56668(k)).

Packet Page. 616
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Meyers Rd Island Annexation, City of San Bernardino July 3, 2024 2 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis
Figure 1-1
Meyers Road Island Area Annexation Regional Vicinity
Meyers Road Island Area Annexation Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis City of San Bernardino
1-1 Meyers Road Island Area Annexation Regional Vicinity Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.

Packet Page. 617
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Meyers Rd Island Annexation, City of San Bernardino July 3, 2024 3 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis

1.2 Overview of the City of San Bernardino
The City of San Bernardino is the county seat of San Bernardino County, occupying 62.5 square miles and is an anchor city for the Inland Empire. The 2023 city population is estimated at 223,230. Residents have access to more than 40 parks and fields, including premier athletic facilities, 7 community centers, a year-round aquatics center, a public library system, two higher education institutions, and 73 K-12 public schools. Major employers in the city include the County of San Bernardino, San Bernardino City Unified School District, California State University, the City of San Bernardino, Saint Bernardine Medical Center, the Community Hospital of San Bernardino, Caltrans, Stater Bros. Markets, Wells Fargo and Omnitrans. The city has been a major transit hub for over 100 years with the Interstate 10 and 215, the 210 and 259 Freeways, and the Metrolink commuter rail service. San Bernardino is a charter city, which means that the city has supreme authority over its municipal affairs, rather than being bound by the state’s general law if the City were a general law city. The City operates under a City Council-City Manager form of government. The Mayor and the seven-seat City Council are elected positions. Under the supervision of the City Council, the City Manager is the Chief Administrative Officer and directs most of the City Departments, other than the City Attorney and City Clerk, who report directly to the City Council, and the Municipal Water Department and the Library, which are governed by the Water Board and the Library Board of Trustees, respectively.

1.3 Organization of the Report
Chapter 2 contains the description of the annexation area and existing development. The analysis of existing public service delivery in the annexation area and upon annexation into the City is presented in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 discusses the development impact fees and charges for infrastructure associated with the proposed annexation. The fiscal impact analysis of the annual operations and maintenance costs for the provision of services to the annexation area is provided in Chapter 5. Chapter 6 covers the revenue and cost assumptions used for the fiscal analysis.

Appendix A includes a summary of the neighborhood infrastructure improvements associated with the Spring Trails Specific Plan. Supporting tables for the fiscal assumptions appear in Appendix B. Appendix C lists the project contacts and references used in the preparation of this study.

Packet Page. 618
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Meyers Rd Island Annexation, City of San Bernardino July 3, 2024 4 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis
CHAPTER 2

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This chapter presents the land uses for the Meyers Road Island Area. Information includes housing units, population, assessed valuation and taxable sales. The total Meyers Road Island Area includes six parcels with four existing single-family units and two vacant parcels.

As shown in Figure 2-1, the Island Area is fronted by Meyers Road between Wendy Ranch Road and Martin Ranch Road. This area is generally about one-third mile northwest of the intersection of Meyers Road and Little League Drive, with the latter connecting to the frontage road along I215. Freeway access is from the Palm Avenue interchange and the Glen Helen Parkway/Devore Road interchange.

As shown in Figure 2-2, the Island Area includes six parcels zoned for single-family residential use for a total of 26.38 acres. Of these, four parcels include existing single-family residential units, and two parcels are currently vacant. The parcel APNs include 034811147, 034811148, 034811149, 034811150, 034811136, and 034811109.

The annexation area is abutted by San Bernardino City to the south and west. To the north and east is the proposed Spring Trails Specific Plan, which was approved by San Bernardino LAFCO in October 2019 for annexation into the City pending certain conditions of approval. The Island Area, in the first place, was created due to the Spring Trails annexation, which LAFCO’s conditions of approval remedied by requiring the City to adopt a resolution for commitment to annex the Island Area at some point in the future.

2.1 Residential Development
As shown in Panel A of Table 2-1, there are an estimated 4 single family residential units in the Island Area, while 2 parcels are vacant. No additional development is assumed in this area for the LAFCO required 5-year post-annexation period that is analyzed in this study.

Based on the January 1, 2023, Citywide average estimate of 3.34 persons per unit from the Department of Finance, total population for the Annexation is projected at 13 persons over the 5-year period, as shown in Panel B of Table 2-1.

Packet Page. 619
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Meyers Rd Island Annexation, City of San Bernardino July 3, 2024 5 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis
Figure 2-1
Meyers Road Island Area Annexation Local Vicinity
Meyers Road Island Area Annexation Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis City of San Bernardino
2-1 Meyers Road Island Area Annexation Local Vicinity
Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.

J.P. Weber Group, November 2016
Proposed
Spring Trails
Project
Meyers Road
Island
Annexation
Study Area
Packet Page. 620
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Meyers Rd Island Annexation, City of San Bernardino July 3, 2024 6 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis
Figure 2-2
Annexation Parcels
Meyers Road Island Area Annexation Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis City of San Bernardino
2-2 Meyers Road Island Area Annexation Parcels
Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.

Joseph E. Bondiman & Associates, Inc.; J.P. Weber Group, 2024 Packet Page. 621
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Meyers Rd Island Annexation, City of San Bernardino July 3, 2024 7 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis
Table 2-1
Residential Development Description
Meyers Road Island Area Annexation Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis City of San Bernardino
2-1 Residential Development Description

2.2 Assessed Valuation and Property Tax
Assessed valuation for the total Meyers Road Island Area is estimated at $2.57 million at Year 5 after annexation, as shown in Panel B of Table 2-2. The current assessed valuation of about $2.57 million is estimated for Year 1, which remains unchanged as no new development is assumed over the 5-year study period. Existing assessed valuation is based on the County Assessor’s 2023 tax roll value (accessed in March 2024), as shown in Table 2-3.

Projected Property Tax
As shown in Panel C of Table 2-2, the City General Fund will not receive property tax for the assessed valuation of the annexation area. The San Bernardino County Fire Protection District (SBCFPD) is now providing fire protection to the City. Based on the service agreement between the two jurisdictions, the property tax that would usually accrue to the City will remain with the SBCFPD and no property tax from other County funds and districts will be allocated to the City.

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Category 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Total
A. Residential Units
Existing Units 4 0 0 0 0 4
New Units 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Annual Units 4 0 0 0 0 4
Total Cumulative Units 4 4 4 4 4
New Annual Residential Square Feet 2 n/a 0 0 0 0 0
Total Cumulative New Square Feet n/a 0 0 0 0
B. Population 3
Total Annual Population 13 0 0 0 0 13
Total Cumulative Population 13 13 13 13 13

1. Population is projected at the Citywide average of 3.34 persons per unit for January 1, 2023.

Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.

Packet Page. 622
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Meyers Rd Island Annexation, City of San Bernardino July 3, 2024 8 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis
Table 2-2
Assessed Valuation and Property Tax
Meyers Road Island Area Annexation Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis City of San Bernardino
(In Constant 2024 Dollars)
2-2 Assessed Valuation and Property Tax
Existing New Growth New Growth New Growth New Growth
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Category 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Total
A. Residential Units 1
Existing Units 4 4
New Units 0 0 0 0 0
Total Annual Units 4 0 0 0 0 4
Total Cumulative Units 4 4 4 4 4
B. Assessed Valuation
Current Valuation 2 $2,565,029
New Valuation $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Annual Valuation $2,565,029 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,565,029 Total Cumulative Valuation $2,565,029 $2,565,029 $2,565,029 $2,565,029 $2,565,029 C. Projected Property Tax - Cumulative
Annual 1 Percent Property Tax Levy $25,650 $25,650 $25,650 $25,650 $25,650 $128,251 (@ 1% of Valuation)
Annual General Fund Property 3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
(@ 0% of 1 Percent Levy)
Total Cumulative Projected Property Tax $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
D. Projected Property Tax In Lieu VLF
Total Annual Valuation for Property Tax In Lieu VLF 4 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Cumulative Valuation for Property Tax In Lieu VLF $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Cumulative Projected Property Tax In Lieu VLF $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 (@ $1,270 per $1,000,000 Assessed Valuation)
times
Share Allocated to General Fund 5 73.5% 73.5% 73.5% 73.5% 73.5% equals
General Fund Property In Lieu VLF $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

1. Existing units obtained from the County Assessor data. No incremental growth is assumed over the 5-year period.

2. Current assessed valuation is based on the 2024 County Assessor tax roll values.

4. Property tax in lieu of vehicle license fees (VLF) is projected based on the increase in assessed valuation in a jurisdiction. Per State law, when an annexation occurs the existing valuation in the annexing area cannot be used in adjusting the amount of assessed valuation in the annexing City. Therefore, the current valuation of $2,569,029 is not included in the projection of property tax in lieu of VLF. No PTVLF is projected because there is no new development assumed.

5. Based on the agreement between the SBCFPD and the City, the City will receive 73.5 percent of the projected property tax in lieu of VLF and the remaining

26.5 percent of the property tax in lieu of VLF will go to the SBCFPD. No PTVLF is projected because no new growth is assumed.

Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.

City of San Bernardino, Finance Director
Packet Page. 623
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Meyers Rd Island Annexation, City of San Bernardino July 3, 2024 9 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis
Table 2-3
Estimated Existing Assessed Valuation: 2023 Tax Roll
Meyers Road Island Area Annexation Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis City of San Bernardino
2-3 Estimated Existing Assessed Valuation
Projected Property Tax in Lieu VLF
The City General Fund will receive property tax in lieu of vehicle license fees (PTVLF) based on the increase in assessed valuation in the City. Per State law, when an annexation occurs the existing valuation in the area that is being annexed cannot be used in adjusting the base amount of assessed valuation in the annexing City. The City will receive property tax in-lieu of VLF based on the change in its gross assessed valuation of taxable property for new development in the annexed area. As shown in Appendix Table B-5, the property tax in lieu of VLF in the City is projected to increase at $1,270 per million dollars of new assessed valuation (AV). However, based on the service agreement between the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District (SBCFPD) and the City, the City will receive 73.5 percent of the projected property tax in lieu of VLF and the remaining 26.5 percent will go to the SBCFPD.

As shown in Panel D of Table 2-2, no PTVLF is projected for the Island Area over the 5-year postannexation study period, as no new development is assumed over this time frame. Over the longterm (beyond Year 5), it is possible that the study area parcels might redevelop, including new development on currently vacant parcels, which will then generate the PTVLF revenues as described above.

2.3 Sales and Use Tax
Sales and use tax are shown for the retail taxable sales that can be attributed to the existing residents in the Island Area. Offsite retail sales and use tax is estimated based on the estimated Tax Rate
APN Land Improvement Total Area
034811147 2.92 2,300 $234,812 $547,895 $782,707 107150 SFR 034811148 2.94 1,888 $170,000 $405,000 $575,000 107150 SFR 034811149 2.93 3,698 $96,584 $393,574 $490,158 107150 SFR 034811150 2.92 0 $208,080 $0 $208,080 107150 SFR - Vacant 034811136 10.37 2,447 $206,196 $293,388 $499,584 107150 SFR 034811109 4.30 0 $9,500 $0 $9,500 107150 SFR - Vacant

26.38 10,333 $925,172 $1,639,857 $2,565,029
Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.

San Bernardino County Assessor, 2024
Valuation
Acres Land Use
Building
Sq.Ft.

Packet Page. 624
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Meyers Rd Island Annexation, City of San Bernardino July 3, 2024 10 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis
household income and taxable retail purchases. Household income is estimated at 28 percent of average housing value based on a mortgage cost analysis by Stanley R. Hoffman Associates.

Based on the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistic, Consumer Expenditure Survey, the fiscal analysis estimates the current residents generate total taxable retail purchases at about 33 percent of household income.

As shown in Table 2-5, estimated annual offsite retail sales and use tax that can currently be attributed to the Island Area is estimated at $954 per annum, and stays at this level through Year

5. This is based on the estimated total annual household income for the Island Area, at about $718,000, 33 percent of which are spent on retail taxable purchases with a 35 percent capture within the City. A use tax factor of 14.9 percent is applied to the Bradley-Burns 1 percent point sales tax in the calculation.

Table 2-4
Estimated Offsite Sales and Use Tax by Project Residents Meyers Road Island Area Annexation Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis City of San Bernardino
(In Constant 2024 Dollars)
2-4 Estimated Offsite Sales and Use Tax by Project Residents Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Cumulative
Category 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Total
A. ANNUALIZED PROJECTIONS
Annual New Residential Valuation $2,565,029 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,565,029 Annual Household Income (@ 28% of household valuation) 1 $718,208 $0 $0 $0 $0 $718,208 Annual Taxable Retail Spending (@ 33% of household income) $237,009 $0 $0 $0 $0 $237,009 Annual Projected Off-Site Retail Taxable Sales Captured in City $82,953 $0 $0 $0 $0 $82,953 (@ 35% capture)
Annual Projected Sales and Use Tax to City
Sales Tax (@ 1% of taxable sales) $830 $0 $0 $0 $0 $830 Use Tax (@ 14.9% of sales tax) 124 0 0 0 0 124
Total Projected Sales and Use Tax $954 $0 $0 $0 $0 $954 B. CUMULATIVE PROJECTIONS
Cumulative Sales and Use Tax $954 $954 $954 $954 $954

1. Based on current mortage-based estimates obtained from Zillow, and with housing expenditures at 30% of household income.

Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.

Packet Page. 625
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Meyers Rd Island Annexation, City of San Bernardino July 3, 2024 11 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis
CHAPTER 3

PUBLIC FACILITIES BEFORE AND AFTER ANNEXATION
This chapter describes the existing and anticipated future service providers for the proposed Meyers Road Island Area Annexation project area. The level and range of the services for the annexation area are described, if they are known. The following services are detailed in this chapter:
• General Government
• Fire and Paramedic
• County Sheriff and Public Safety
• Library
• Parks and Recreation
• Animal Control
• Street Lighting
• Landscape Maintenance
• Water
• Sewer
• Transportation
• Flood Control and Drainage
• Utilities
• Schools
• Solid Waste Management
• Health and Welfare
On a general note, the Island Area will experience positive spillover neighborhood benefits from the many improvements required for the proposed Spring Trails Specific Plan annexation. This includes roadways, open space, parks and trails, landscaping, and water/sewer system infrastructure improvements. This will reduce the network costs for the City to service the overall area, including the Island Area. These details are not discussed in this report and can be found in the Plan for Services for the Spring Trails Specific Plan annexation. A summary table of these improvements is included in Appendix A-1.

Table 3-1 presents current and anticipated service providers in the Meyers Road Island Area Annexation area. In many cases, such as general government, community development, economic development, and sheriff/police, among others, responsibilities shift from the County of San Bernardino to the City of San Bernardino. The City of San Bernardino has annexed into the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District (SBCFPD) and its Service Zone FP-5 for fire protection and emergency medical response services. Since the annexation area is already within SBCFPD and Service Zone FP-5, the SBCFPD will continue to be the service provider for fire protection and emergency medical services upon annexation.

Packet Page. 626
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Meyers Rd Island Annexation, City of San Bernardino July 3, 2024 12 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis
Table 3-1
Current and Anticipated Service Providers in the Meyers Road Island Area Annexation Meyers Road Island Area Annexation Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis City of San Bernardino
3-1 Current and Anticipated Service Providers in the Meyers Road Island Area Annexation

Local Facilities County of San Bernardino City of San Bernardino Regional Facilities County of San Bernardino County of San Bernardino Animal Control
Contract with City of San Bernardino Animal Services
Department City of San Bernardino Animal Services Department Street Lighting City of San Bernardino City of San Bernardino Public Works Department Landscape Maintenance Forest/Natural City of San Bernardino Public Works Department Water:

Local Facilities San Bernardino County Flood Control District San Bernardino County Flood Control District Regional Facilities San Bernardino County Flood Control District San Bernardino County Flood Control District Utilities:

City of San Bernardino, Website
Packet Page. 627
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Meyers Rd Island Annexation, City of San Bernardino July 3, 2024 13 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis
which include administrative services as well as General Governance, Community Development and Economic Development.

Packet Page. 628
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Meyers Rd Island Annexation, City of San Bernardino July 3, 2024 14 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis
Figure 3-1
Fire Protection
Meyers Road Island Area Annexation Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis City of San Bernardino
3-1 Fire Protection
Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.

Google Earth Pro
Packet Page. 629
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Meyers Rd Island Annexation, City of San Bernardino July 3, 2024 15 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis

3.3 Sheriff/Police
Before Annexation
The San Bernardino County Sheriff-Coroner’s Department provides public safety services to the unincorporated areas. The County Sheriff operates from an office in the City of San Bernardino at 655 East Third Street. The Sheriff’s Department and the City Police Department provide mutual backup services upon request within both the City and unincorporated areas. The California Highway Patrol in San Bernardino provides traffic patrol on State Highways within the unincorporated areas of the County. The Highway Patrol can also provide emergency response backup to the City Police and the County Sheriff upon request.

After Annexation
After the annexation, the City of San Bernardino Police Department will be providing the public safety services for the Island Area and Spring Trails. The area is served by a main police station, located at 710 North D Street, and four designated geographical patrol districts (Northwest, Northeast, Southwest, and Southeast). The project site belongs to patrol beat B1 in the Northwest Patrol District, as shown in Figure 3-2. The San Bernardino Police Department maintains a ratio of approximately one sworn officer for every 1,000 residents.

3.4 Library
Before Annexation
Currently, the existing households within the annexation area is served by the San Bernardino County Library system. However, the nearest County library, the Carter Branch Library is located at 2630 North Linden Drive in Rialto and is a driving distance of about 12.2 miles away from the annexation area.

After Annexation
The Howard M. Rowe Branch Library facility is a branch of the San Bernardino City Library system.

Located at 108 East Marshall Boulevard in the City of San Bernardino, this branch is closest to the Island Area, with a driving distance of about 9.6 miles. The annexation area would continue to receive library services from the City of San Bernardino Branch library upon annexation.

Packet Page. 630
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Meyers Rd Island Annexation, City of San Bernardino July 3, 2024 16 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis
Figure 3-2
City of San Bernardino Police Department: Northwest District Meyers Road Island Area Annexation Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis City of San Bernardino
3-2 City of San Bernardino Police Department: Northwest District Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.

City of San Bernardino, Police Department

ISLAND
AREA
Packet Page. 631
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Meyers Rd Island Annexation, City of San Bernardino July 3, 2024 17 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis
After Annexation
The City of San Bernardino General Plan indicates that there are a total of 52 developed parks and recreational facilities in the City. There are a variety of different types of parks, including: 19 neighborhood, 10 community, 17 mini-parks, 3 regional parks, and 3 special facilities. The parks contain a broad range of facilities; including children’s play equipment, tennis and volleyball courts, and athletic fields. The special facilities include community buildings and senior centers.

Al Guhin Park, located at 3650 Little League Drive, is the closest City park to the annexation area (approximately 1.3 miles).

The proposed Spring Trails Specific Plan to the north of the Island Area will add additional open spaces that are meant to function as recreational opportunities, buffers, visual landmarks, and interconnecting trails. The facilities will consist of community trails, equestrian/pedestrian trails and hiking trails.

3.6 Animal Control
Before Annexation
Currently, the annexation area is serviced by the City of San Bernardino’s Animal Control on a contract basis. Animal Control is a field service provided by the City of San Bernardino Animal Services Department and is responsible for animal licensing, dead animal pickup, loose animal investigations, animal shelter management, and other services.

After Annexation
The Animal Control field service of the City of San Bernardino Animal Services Department will continue to provide services to the area after annexation.

After Annexation
Upon annexation, the City of San Bernardino Public Works Department is responsible for the maintenance of lighting in the public right of ways.

Packet Page. 632
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Meyers Rd Island Annexation, City of San Bernardino July 3, 2024 18 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis

3.8 Landscape Maintenance
Before Annexation
San Bernardino County provides road pavement and minimal landscaping maintenance.

After Annexation
Upon annexation and development, the responsibility will fall upon the City of San Bernardino Public Works Department.

3.9 Water
Before Annexation
Currently, public water facilities do not serve the parcels in the Island Area.

After Annexation
Upon annexation, the City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department (SBMWD) would provide water services to the Island Area. The area lies between the 2,300 to 3,000-foot pressure zones. The nearest existing reservoir is the Meyers Canyon Reservoir, which is within the 2,100- foot pressure zone, but is not adequate for Verdemont Heights. Therefore, including the demand from the proposed Spring Trails project, water will be supplied from lower elevations by a combination of expanding and improving the offsite water system and the provision of onsite reservoirs and transmission lines.

3.10 Wastewater Collection
Before Annexation
Sewer service to the project site is currently via septic tanks.

After Annexation
The Island Area is within the City’s Public Works Department’s sanitary sewer service area. The City’s engineering sewer capacity study concluded that the existing sewer system has the capacity to accommodate the Island Area and the proposed Spring Trails project. Beginning May 2017, operation and maintenance of the City’s wastewater collection system was transferred to the City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department (SBMWD).

Under proposed improvements for Spring Trails, the project would connect to the existing 10- inch sewer line located on Little League Drive, which connects to a major interceptor system to the south and is eventually treated in the San Bernardino Water Reclamation Plant operated by Packet Page. 633
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Meyers Rd Island Annexation, City of San Bernardino July 3, 2024 19 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis
SBMWD. The only offsite improvement that may be required is North Little League Drive, which may be upgraded from an 8” to a 10” line depending upon the ultimate slope as determined in final engineering.1

After Annexation
Caltrans and Omnitrans will continue to provide their services post annexation for arterials, collectors and public transit. Upon annexation, the City becomes responsible for the regional transportation fee associated with the proposed project, which is included in the review of City fees for new development in Chapter 4, Table 4-2.

3.12 Flood Control and Drainage
Before Annexation
The drainage area to which the Island Area belongs flows into Cable Canyon, then into Cable Creek, then into Devil Creek Diversion Channel, then into Lytle Creek Wash and eventually into the Santa Ana River. Currently, there are no local flood control or drainage facilities in the annexation area. On a regional level, the San Bernardino County Flood Control District intercepts and manages flood flows through and away from developed areas throughout the County. The District is also responsible for water conservation and storm drain construction.

After Annexation
Upon annexation, flood control and drainage systems remain under the San Bernardino County Flood Control District. The existing Cable Canyon and Meyers Canyon drainage ways would remain relatively unchanged, except for necessary roadway and infrastructure improvements. 1 Montecito Equities, Spring Trails Specific Plan, October 2012, p. 3-112 Packet Page. 634
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Meyers Rd Island Annexation, City of San Bernardino July 3, 2024 20 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis

SBCUSD will continue to serve the existing development as well as any future development in the annexation with North Verdemont Elementary School (3555 West Meyers Road), Chavez Middle School (6650 North Magnolia Avenue), and Cajon High School (1200 Hill Drive), as shown in Figure 3-9. Palm Avenue Elementary School is also located near the annexation area at 6565 Palm Avenue.

Figure 3-3
Local Elementary, Middle and High Schools
San Bernardino City Unified School District
City of San Bernardino
3-3 Local Elementary, Middle and High Schools
Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.

Packet Page. 635
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Meyers Rd Island Annexation, City of San Bernardino July 3, 2024 21 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis

After Annexation
Solid waste collection within the City of San Bernardino and a portion of the unincorporated planning area is provided by Burrtec on a contract basis with the City.

Packet Page. 636
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Meyers Rd Island Annexation, City of San Bernardino July 3, 2024 22 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis
CHAPTER 4

PAYING FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

4.1 Overview of Development Impact Fees
Any new development in the Island Area will pay one-time development impact fees (DIF) to offset the additional public capital costs required of new development. If the developer constructs any facilities covered by DIFs, the developer will receive credit toward construction costs for an equivalent amount of DIF fees.

At this time, no new development is assumed for the period of 5 years post-annexation being analyzed in this study. Therefore, no development impact fees are projected for this period for the Island Area Annexation.

For information purposes, one-time development impact fees that could be collected by the City and the Municipal Water Department upon annexation are shown in Table 4-1. City fees include Community Development, Public Safety and Engineering fees.

4.2 Schools
There is a one-time School Impact Fee of $4.31 per square foot for new, single-family residential development in the City of San Bernardino.

4.3 Utilities
Cable television, internet, power, and gas utilities are enterprise services, where fees are determined by each company’s rate structure.

4.4 Roads and Drainage
The local circulation systems fee is $233 per unit, while the regional circulation systems fee is $2,435 per unit, as shown in Table 4-1.

4.5 Water and Sewer
The San Bernardino Municipal Water Department (SBMWD) charges a Sewer Capacity Fee of $3,500 per unit and a Water Connection Fee of $7,110 per unit, as shown in Table 4-1.

Packet Page. 637
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Meyers Rd Island Annexation, City of San Bernardino July 3, 2024 23 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis
Table 4-1
Summary of City Development Impact Fees
Meyers Road Island Area Annexation Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis City of San Bernardino
(In Constant 2024 Dollars)
4-1 Summary of City Development Impact Fees
Estimated
Development Fees
Development Impact Fee Category 1 Amount Impact Fees
New Residential Units 0
Fee per Unit
City Fees 2
Community Development Fees
Aquatic Facilities $326 $0
Cultural Development $3,000 $0
Library Facilities $638 $0
Public Meeting Facilities $1,090 $0
Parkland and Open Space $9,518 $0
Subtotal $14,571 $0
Public Safety Fees
Law Enforcement $639 $0
Subtotal $639 $0
Engineering Fees
Local Circulation Systems $233 $0
Regional Circulation Systems $2,435 $0
Storm Drain $3,926 $0
Verdemont (Chestnut Drainage Fee -- $0.289/ sq. ft.) $957 $0 Verdemont (Palm Box Culvert/ Signal -- $0.022/ sq. ft.) $74 $0 Subtotal $7,624 $0
Total City Fees $22,835 $0
Water & Sewer - City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department (SBMWD) 4 Sewer Capacity $3,500 $0
Water Connection (3/4" x 3/4") $7,110 $0
Total SBMWD Fees $10,610 $0
TOTAL FEES $33,445 $0

2. Represents the applicable fees per the City of San Bernardino fee schedule cited below. Actual fee amounts may differ at the time of application for building permits or connection to services.

3. Upon annexation, payment of the regional circulation system fee which was the requirement of the County prior to annexation will transfer to the City.

4. Represents the applicable water fees per the City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department.

Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.

City of San Bernardino, Land Development Division Impact Fees, Effective February 15, 2022 (Accessed 8/2023) Packet Page. 638
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Meyers Rd Island Annexation, City of San Bernardino July 3, 2024 24 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis
CHAPTER 5

FISCAL IMPACTS
This chapter describes the fiscal analysis of the Meyers Road Island Area annexation. Fiscal impacts are first presented to the City of San Bernardino General Fund followed by the projected recurring revenues to the City’s Gas Tax Fund, and the City’s Measure I Fund. Fiscal impacts are shown in constant 2024 dollars with no adjustment for possible future inflation.

5.1 City General Fund
A small deficit of $2,474 is projected to the City General Fund for the Meyers Road Island Area Annexation at Year 5 upon annexation, as shown in Table 5-1. The projected deficit is based on recurring revenues of about $5,738 and recurring costs of about $8,212. This projection includes assumed revenues from the recently adopted CFD 2018-1 tax for safety services. The revenueto-cost ratio is estimated at about 0.70 at Year 5 upon annexation.

Table 5-1
Summary of Projected General Fund Recurring Fiscal Impacts Meyers Road Island Area Annexation Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis City of San Bernardino
(In Constant 2024 Dollars)
5-1 Summary of Projected Recurring Fiscal Impacts
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
General Fund 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Estimated Annual Recurring Revenues $5,456 $5,522 $5,591 $5,664 $5,738 Estimated Annual Recurring Costs $8,212 $8,211 $8,212 $8,212 $8,212 Estimated Annual Recurring Surplus ($2,756) ($2,689) ($2,620) ($2,548) ($2,474) Estimated Annual Revenue/Cost Ratio 0.66 0.67 0.68 0.69 0.70 Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.

Packet Page. 639
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Meyers Rd Island Annexation, City of San Bernardino July 3, 2024 25 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis
General Fund Projected Recurring Revenues
The CFD 2018-1 (safety services) taxes, Utility User tax, and off-site and Measure-S sales taxes account for about 82 percent of the total projected General Fund revenues at Year 5, as shown in the detailed projected fiscal impacts in Table 5-2.

Table 5-2
Detailed General Fund Projected Recurring Fiscal Impacts Meyers Road Island Area Annexation Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis City of San Bernardino
(In Constant 2024 Dollars)
5-2 Detailed General Fund Projected Recurring Fiscal Impacts Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Percent
General Fund 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 of Buildout
Estimated Recurring Revenues
Property tax 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0%
Property tax in lieu of VLF 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%
Off-site retail sales and use tax 954 954 954 954 954 16.6% Measure S - sales tax 852 852 852 852 852 14.8%
Franchise tax 548 548 548 548 548 9.5%
CFD 2018-1 (safety services) 2 1,666 1,732 1,802 1,874 1,949 34.0% Charges for current services 143 143 143 143 143 2.5%
Fines and forfeitures 58 58 58 58 58 1.0%
Intergovernmental revenues 78 78 78 78 78 1.4%
Miscellaneous revenues 56 56 56 56 56 1.0%
Tow franchise revenues 28 28 28 28 28 0.5%
Property transfer tax-turnover 3 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%
Sales tax - public safety 76 76 76 76 76 1.3%
Utility user tax 997 997 997 997 997 17.4%
Total Projected Revenues $5,456 $5,522 $5,591 $5,664 $5,738 100.0% Estimated Recurring Costs
Economic and housing development $68 $68 $68 $68 $68 0.8% Police protection 4,949 4,949 4,949 4,949 4,949 60.3%
Parks, recreation and community services 268 268 268 268 268 3.3% Public works' services 1,236 1,236 1,236 1,236 1,236 15.1% Transfer to Animal Control Fund 197 197 197 197 197 2.4% Library 153 153 153 153 153 1.9%
General government - O&M/contracts 458 458 458 458 458 5.6% General government - overhead 883 883 883 883 883 10.8% Total Recurring Costs $8,212 $8,211 $8,212 $8,212 $8,212 100.0% Estimated Net Recurring Surplus -$2,756 -$2,689 -$2,620 -$2,548 -$2,474 Estimated Revenue/Cost Ratio 0.66 0.67 0.68 0.69 0.70

2. The City formed CFD 2018-1 in October 2018 which levies a special tax to provide finances for a portion of ongoing citywide public safety services.

3. Residential turnover is not anticipated within first 5 years of annexation.

Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.

City of San Bernardino, Finance Director
Packet Page. 640
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Meyers Rd Island Annexation, City of San Bernardino July 3, 2024 26 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis

5.2 Other Funds
Fund 126 – Gas Tax
As shown in Panel A of Table 5-3, recurring Gas Tax Fund revenues to the City are projected at $292 per year for the Island Area annexation over the 5-year period. These revenues are earmarked for transportation related expenditures.

Fund 129 – Measure I
Measure I includes a ½ cent sales tax for transportation expenditures. Recurring Measure I revenues are projected at $89 per year over the 5-year period, as shown in Panel B of Table 5-3.

Table 5-3
Summary of Projected Other Funds Recurring Revenues
Meyers Road Island Area Annexation Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis City of San Bernardino
(In Constant 2024 Dollars)
5-3 Summary of Projected Other Funds Recurring Revenues Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Other Funds 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
A. Fund 126 - Gas Tax 1
Annual Recurring Gasoline Tax $292 $292 $292 $292 $292
B. Fund 129 - Measure I 1
1/2 cent sales and road tax $89 $89 $89 $89 $89

1. Annual recurring gasoline tax and Measure I revenues are restricted to street related expenditures.

Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.

Packet Page. 641
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Meyers Rd Island Annexation, City of San Bernardino July 3, 2024 27 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis
CHAPTER 6

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO FISCAL ASSUMPTIONS
This chapter presents the revenue and cost assumptions for projecting the ongoing operations and maintenance costs to the City General Fund and related City Funds for the Meyers Road Island Area annexation into the City of San Bernardino. As discussed earlier, the annexation area is currently located in the unincorporated area of San Bernardino County, within the existing sphere of influence of the City of San Bernardino.

6.1 City General Assumptions
Fiscal impacts that are not based on valuation and taxable sales are generally projected based on a per capita, per employee, or per service population basis. Some fiscal impacts are projected based on other factors, such as per unit or per acre, based on the available data. General fund revenue and cost factors are estimated by dividing the FY 2023-24 budget categories by the City’s resident population, employment, total service population, or developed acres where appropriate. Table 6-1 provides the City’s general assumptions for this fiscal analysis.

Housing Units
DOF estimates 67,593 total housing units for the City of San Bernardino for January 1, 2023. DOF estimates that 64,905 units are occupied.

Packet Page. 642
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Meyers Rd Island Annexation, City of San Bernardino July 3, 2024 28 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis
Table 6-1
City Population, Housing and Employment Assumptions
Meyers Road Island Area Annexation Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis City of San Bernardino
6-1 City Population, Housing and Employment Assumptions Employment
For fiscal factors that are impacted by only employment, such as business license taxes, the City’s total employment is used as the basis for calculating the factor. The total City employment of 112,478 for the year 2023 represents an interpolation of the years 2019 and 2035 from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2024 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), Preliminary Data.

2. The total employment estimate for 2023 based on an interpolation of the 2019 and 2035 estimates from the Southern California Association of Governments, (SCAG) 2024 RTP preliminary estimates.

Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.

State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State - January 1, 2021-2023, Sacramento, May 2023 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), Preliiminary RTP 2024 Projecions Data Packet Page. 643
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Meyers Rd Island Annexation, City of San Bernardino July 3, 2024 29 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis
Service Population
Fiscal factors that are impacted by both population and employment growth are estimated by allocating total budgeted revenues or costs to the estimated service population. Service population includes the City’s resident population plus 50 percent of the total estimated City employment. Employment is weighted at 50 percent to account for the estimated less frequent use of City services by employment versus population.

6.2 City Revenue Assumptions
The General Fund and Gas Tax Fund revenue factors that are used in preparing the fiscal analysis for the Island Area are presented in Table 6-2. These factors are based on the City’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2023-24 Adopted revenues for the General Fund and Other Funds shown in Appendix Table B-1 and Table B-2 and the City’s population, employment and service population estimates that are presented in Table 6-1.

Packet Page. 644
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Meyers Rd Island Annexation, City of San Bernardino July 3, 2024 30 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis
Table 6-2
General Fund and Other Funds Recurring Revenue Factors
Meyers Road Island Area Annexation Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis City of San Bernardino
(In Constant 2024 Dollars)
6-2 General Fund and Other Funds Recurring Revenue Factors FY 2023-24
Adopted
Revenue Source Budget Projection Basis 1

GENERAL FUND
Property Taxes 2 n/a Case Study: Project Valuation 0.00% City general share of 1% levy Property Tax In Lieu VLF (PTVLF) 3 $23,000,000 Case Study $1,270 per $1,000,000 assessed valuation

73.5% of PTVLF allocated to General Fund
Sales and Use Tax $51,500,000 Taxable Sales 100%
of 1% of projected sales and use
tax
Use Tax Factor Use Tax as Percent
of Sales Tax 14.9% of sales tax
Measure S - Sales Tax 4 $46,000,000 Case Study $893.00 per $1,000 of sales and use tax Franchise Taxes $11,781,000 Service Population = 279,469 $42.15 per service population CFD 2018-1 (Safety Services) 5 n/a Residential Units $400 per single family unit $372 per multi-family unit
Charges for Current Services $2,450,750 Population = 223,230 $10.98 per capita Fines and Forfeitures $1,255,500 Service Population = 279,469 $4.49 per service population Intergovernmental Revenues $1,335,000 Population = 223,230 $5.98 per capita Business Registration $8,000,000 Employment = 112,478 $71.13 per employee Miscellaneous Revenues $1,209,056 Service Population = 279,469 $4.33 per service population Tow Franchise $606,000 Service Population = 279,469 $2.17 per service population Property Transfer Tax $1,100,000 Property turnover 5.0% Residential turnover rate and
valuation assumptions $0.55 per $1,000 assessed valuation Sales Tax - Public Safety $1,300,000 Population = 223,230 $5.82 per capita Utility User Tax $21,430,500 Service Population = 279,469 $76.68 per service population GAS TAX FUND 126
State gasoline tax $5,008,561 Population = 223,230 $22.44 per capita MEASURE I FUND 129
1/2% sales tax $4,808,000 City Sales and Use Tax = $51,500,000 $93.36 per $1,000 City sales and use tax

1. For fiscal factors that are based on population and employment, an estimated service population factor is applied, which represents the total population plus 50% of the total employment estimate.

4. The City enacted Measure S in 2006 which is a 0.25 percent sales tax and increased to 1 percent in 2020 by voters.

Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.

City of San Bernardino, Fiscal Year 2023-24 Adopted Budget City of San Bernardino, Finance Director
State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State - January 1, 2021-2023, Sacramento, May 2023 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), Preliiminary RTP 2024 Projecions Data Projection Factor
Packet Page. 645
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Meyers Rd Island Annexation, City of San Bernardino July 3, 2024 31 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis
The City receives property tax in-lieu of VLF based on the change in its gross assessed valuation of taxable property for new development in the annexed area. Per State law, the existing valuation in an annexing area cannot be used in adjusting the base amount of assessed valuation in the annexing City. However, based on the agreement between the City and the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District the City will receive only 73.5 percent of the projected property tax in lieu of VLF.

14.9 percent of point-of-sale sales tax.

Measure S – Sales Tax. As shown in Table 6-2, Measure Z sales tax is projected at $893 per $1,000 of City sales and use tax. This tax is an additional component of sales and use tax that established an additional 0.25 percent sales tax that took effect in 2007. Measure S was increased to 1 percent sales tax by voters in 2020. Based on discussion with the City’s finance director, this revenue is assumed for the fiscal analysis.

Franchise Taxes. Franchise taxes are projected at $42.15 per service population based on FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget revenues of $11,781,000 and the service population estimate of 279,469. City franchise taxes are collected for providers of cable, electric, gas, and telephone.

Community Facilities District (CFD) 2018-1 (Safety Services). The City formed CFD 2018-1 In October 2018 which levies a special tax to provide financing for a portion of ongoing public safety services. The special tax was $385 per single family unit and $358 per multi-family unit.

Packet Page. 646
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Meyers Rd Island Annexation, City of San Bernardino July 3, 2024 32 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis
Collection of the fee began July 1, 2019, and will remain at the current rate for five years.

Beginning July 1, 2024, these rates will increase by four percent each following July 1.

Charges for Current Services. Based on estimated FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget recurring revenues of $2,450,750 and the City’s population estimate, charges for current services are projected at $10.98 per capita. These revenues do not include one-time fees and charges, as shown in Appendix Table B-1.

Fines and Forfeitures. These revenues include vehicle code fines, parking citations and other fines and penalties, and are projected at $4.49 per service population based on estimated FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget revenues of $1,255,500 and the City’s service population of 279,469.

Intergovernmental Revenues. As shown in Table 6-2, these revenues are projected at $5.98 per capita based on estimated FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget revenues of $1,335,000 and the City’s population estimate of 223,230.

Business Registration. These revenues are not projected for the Island Area because there is no employment projected for the project.

Miscellaneous Revenue. These revenues are projected at $4.28 per service population based on estimated FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget recurring revenues of $1,209,056 and the City’s service population estimate of 279,469. Water Fund contributions for administrative services are included in this category. Revenues that are generated on a one-time basis and revenues that are not directly generated by the project are not included in this category.

Tow Franchise. Tow franchise revenues are projected at $2.17 per service population based on FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget revenues of $606,000 and the service population of 279,469.

Packet Page. 647
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Meyers Rd Island Annexation, City of San Bernardino July 3, 2024 33 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis
Sales Tax – Public Safety. These revenues are projected at $5.82 per capita based on the City FY 2023-24 Adopted revenue amount of $1,300,000 and the population estimate of 223,230.

Utility User Tax. The City of San Bernardino levies a utility user tax on the users of cable, natural gas, electricity and telephone services within the City. Based on the City FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget revenue amount of $21,430,500 and the City’s estimated service population of 279,469, utility user taxes are projected at $76.68 per service population.

Gas Tax Fund 126
As shown in Table 6-2, total State gasoline tax revenues to the City are projected at $22.44 per capita based on estimated FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget revenues of $5,008,561 and the City’s total population estimate of 223,230. These revenues include appropriations the shown in Appendix Table B-2. These revenues are earmarked for road related expenditures.

Measure I Fund 129
Measure I includes is a ½ cent sales tax. As shown in Table 6-2, total Measure I sales tax revenues to the City are projected at $93.36 per $1,000 of total sales and use tax. This factor is based on estimated FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget revenues of $4,808,000 for Measure I sales tax and the City’s total sales and use tax of $51,500,000. These revenues are earmarked for transportation related expenditures.

6.3 City Cost Assumptions
The General Fund cost factors that are used in preparing the fiscal analysis for the Meyers Road Island Area Annexation are presented in Table 6-3. These factors are based on the City’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2023-24 Adopted Budget net expenditures shown in Table 6-3 and the City’s population and service population estimates that are presented in Table 6-1.

Packet Page. 648
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Meyers Rd Island Annexation, City of San Bernardino July 3, 2024 34 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis
Table 6-3
General Fund Recurring Cost Factors
Meyers Road Island Area Annexation Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis City of San Bernardino
(In Constant 2024 Dollars)
6-3 General Fund Recurring Cost Factors
General Government
General government costs include administration and support of the departmental functions.

As shown in Table 6-4, Fiscal Year 2023-24 Adopted Budget general government costs are estimated at $19,914,991 and direct departmental costs (or non-general government) are estimated at $165,342,925. Average general government costs are projected at about 12.0 percent of direct non-general government costs.

FY 2023-24
Adopted Budget
Cost Category Total Net Projection Basis 1 Cost Factor 1 General Government - Overhead $19,914,991 $19,914,991 Share of Line Costs 12.0% of direct department costs General Government - Operations and
Maintenance (O&M)/Contracts $9,846,601 $9,846,601 Service Population = 279,469 $35.23 per service population Community and Economic Devevelopment 2 $11,923,799 $1,452,799 Service Population = 279,469 $5.20 per service population Police Protection $106,395,588 $106,395,588 Service Population = 279,469 $380.71 per service population Parks, Recreation and Community Services $4,596,710 $4,596,710 Population = 223,230 $20.59 per capita Public Works Services $26,567,943 $26,567,943 Service Population = 279,469 $95.07 per service population Transfer to Animal Control Fund $3,378,783 $3,378,783 Population = 223,230 $15.14 per capita Library $2,633,501 $2,633,501 Population = 223,230 $11.80 per capita

1. For fiscal factors that are based on population and employment, an estimated service population factor is applied, which represents the total population plus 50% of the total employment estimate.

Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.

Packet Page. 649
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Meyers Rd Island Annexation, City of San Bernardino July 3, 2024 35 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis
Table 6-4
Calculation of City General Government Overhead Rate
Meyers Road Island Area Annexation Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis (In Constant 2024 Dollars)
6-4 Calculation of City General Government Overhead Rate General Government – Operations and Maintenance (O&M)/Contracts About $9,846,601 of General Fund expenditures are for operations and maintenance contracts.

Based on this amount and the City’s estimated service population of 279,469, these costs are projected at $35.23 per service population, as shown in Table 6-3.

FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget
General Fund Expenditures Total
General
Government
Non-General
Government
General Government
Mayor $317,840 $317,840
City Council 959,087 959,087
City Clerk 1,586,893 1,586,893
City Attorney 3,310,443 3,310,443
City Manager 2,401,885 2,401,885
Human Resources 2,587,614 2,587,614
Finance 6,218,078 6,218,078
General Government:

Transfer to Animal Control 3,378,783 3,378,783
Net Personnel 45,090 45,090
Dues and Subscriptions 122,953 122,953
Maintenance and Operations/Contractual 9,846,601 9,846,601 Debt Service 2,365,108 2,365,108
General Government Subtotal 15,758,535
Non-General Government
Community & Economic Development $11,923,799 $11,923,799 Police 106,395,588 106,395,588
Parks, Recreation and Community Services 4,596,710 4,596,710 Public Works 26,567,943 26,567,943
Library 2,633,501 2,633,501
GRAND TOTAL GENERAL FUND $185,257,916 $19,914,991 $165,342,925 Current General Government Overhead Rate
General Government Expenditures $19,914,991
divided by
Direct General Fund Expenditures $165,342,925
equals
Current General Government Overhead Rate 12.0%
Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.

City of San Bernardino, Fiscal Year 2023-24 Adopted Budget City of San Bernardino, Finance Director
Packet Page. 650
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Meyers Rd Island Annexation, City of San Bernardino July 3, 2024 36 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis
Community and Economic Development
As also shown in Table 6-3, Community and Economic Development costs are projected on net cost basis. Fiscal Year 2023-24 Adopted Budget Community and Economic Development costs of $11,923,799 are offset by one-time development related permit and fee revenues, as shown in Appendix Table B-6, to result in net costs of $1,452,799. This divided by the service population of 279,469 results in $5.20 per service population.

Police Department
Based on expenditures of $106,395,588 in the FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget budget, and the City’s service population estimate of 279,469, police costs are projected at $380.71 per service population. As discussed in Chapter 3, the San Bernardino Police Department maintains a ratio of approximately one sworn officer for every 1,000 residents. The annexation area will be served by a main police station, located at 710 North D Street. The project site belongs to patrol beat B1 in the Northwest Patrol District.

Parks, Recreation and Community Services
Citywide average annual costs for parks, recreation and community services are projected at $20.59 per capita based on the City’s FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget recurring costs for these services of $4,569,710 and the City’s population estimate of 223,230. Onsite parks, trails and open space will be maintained through a homeowners association.

Based on FY 2023-24 expenditures of $26,567,943 and the City’s service population estimate of 279,469, average costs for all General Fund Public Works services are projected at $95.07 per service population. All project onsite streets, drains and streetlights will be maintained through a homeowners association and a lighting/ landscaping maintenance district.

Packet Page. 651
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Meyers Rd Island Annexation, City of San Bernardino July 3, 2024 37 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis
Transfer to Animal Control Fund
Animal Control services are financed through a separate Animal Control Fund. Based on the City’s FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget General Fund transfers of $3,378,783 to the Animal Control Fund and the City’s population estimate of 223,230, these costs are projected at $15.14 per capita, as shown in Table 6-3.

Packet Page. 652
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Meyers Rd Island Annexation, City of San Bernardino July 3, 2024 38 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis

APPENDIX A

NEIGHBORHOOD INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS
Table A-1
Road, Drainage, Sewer. Parks, Trails and Open Space Phasing Spring Trails Specific Plan
A-1 Spring Trails Specific Plan, Roads, Drainage, Sewer, Parks, Trails and Open Space Phasing Lane Miles Square Feet Lane Miles Square Feet Lane Miles Square Feet Primary Access Miles/Square Feet 1.04 153,216 0.19 25,188 Secondary Access Miles/Square Feet 2.61 344,789 0.08 10,254 Primary Local Miles/Square Feet 2.96 309,382 0.97 250,669 Secondary Local Miles/Square Feet 0.27 28,275
Cul-De-Sac I Miles/Square Feet 0.63 99,076 0.31 43,960
Cul-De-Sac II Miles/Square Feet 0.84 110,501 2.41 288,137 Total 3.65 498,005 4.70 554,401 3.96 611,041
Public Private Public Private Public Private
Detention Basin Square Feet 298,277 178,392
Infiltration Trench Square Feet
Reinforced Concrete Box Lineal Feet 1,430 2,286
Reinforced Concrete Pipe Lineal Feet 3,685 7,460 2,378
Arch Culvert Lineal Feet 580
Total Lineal Feet 5,695 9,746 2378
Phase 2
Public Private Public Private Public Private
Sewer Main Lineal Feet 4,017 10,857 13,479
Public Private Public Private
Open Space Acre 47.4 27
Graded Slopes Acre 25.18 9
12' Pedestrian/Equestrian Trail Lineal Feet 5,700 6,100 4' Hiking Trail Lineal Feet 4,600 2,700
Observation Point Each 3 3
Trailhead Each 2 1
Park Square Feet 57,331
landscaping.

Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.

3. Offsite sewer is from the tract boundary on Verdemont Drive to Little League Drive, and in Little League Drive to existing facilities as depicted on the proposed Tentative Map.

4. Parks, Trails and Open Space sections are based on the Trails, Parks, and Open Space Plan in the Spring Trails Specific Plan. Trail lengths are approximate based on the Trails, Parks, and Open Space Plan. Open Space is areas on the Tentative Map that is not impacted by any development activity, except trail grading. Graded Slopes are areas within the proposed open space lots that have proposed grading and Packet Page. 653
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Meyers Rd Island Annexation, City of San Bernardino July 3, 2024 39 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis

APPENDIX B

SUPPORTING FISCAL TABLES
Table B-1 (page 1 of 2)
General Fund Revenues, Fiscal Year 2022-23 Adopted Budget Meyers Road Island Area Annexation Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis City of San Bernardino
(In Constant 2024 Dollars)
B-1 General Fund Adopted Revenues, Fiscal Year 2022-23
Revenue Category Total Non-Recurring 1 Not Projected 2 Projected Property Taxes
Property Tax In Lieu of VLF $23,000,000 $0 $0 $23,000,000 Sales and Use Tax
Sales and Use Tax $51,500,000 $0 $0 $51,500,000
Measure Z - Sales Tax
Measure Z - Sales Tax $46,000,000 $0 $0 $46,000,000
Franchise Tax
Franchise Tax - So Cal Edison $1,000,000 $0 $0 $1,000,000 Franchise Tax - So Cal Gas 550,000 0 0 550,000
Franchise Tax - Charter Cable TV 1,100,000 0 0 1,100,000 Franchise Tax - Verizon 120,000 0 0 120,000
Franchise Tax - AT&T (Pacific Bell) 11,000 0 0 11,000
Franchise Tax - Burrtec Disposal 9,000,000 0 0 9,000,000 Total Franchise Taxes $11,781,000 $0 $0 $11,781,000
Charges For Services
On Site Plan Check Fees $425,000 $425,000 $0 $0
Cannabis Permit Application Fee 20,000 20,000 0 0
Cannabis Permit Regulatory Fee 85,000 85,000 0 0
Passport Fees 0 0 0 0
Subdivision Filing Fee 100,000 100,000 0 0
Planning Development PR 650,000 650,000 0 0
Technology Fee Development Services 135,000 135,000 0 0 Plan Review 170,000 170,000 0 0
C&D Application Fee 0 0 0 0
Plan Check Fee - B&S 1,700,000 1,700,000 0 0
Plan Check Fee - Fire 0 0 0 0
Board Up/Demolition 325,000 325,000 0 0
CDBG Revenue 10,000 0 10,000 0
Pendency Release 3,500 0 3,500 0
Miscellaneous Police Receipts 1,200,000 0 0 1,200,000
Sale of Photos 1,500 0 0 1,500
Traffic Offender OTS Fee 150,000 0 0 150,000
Police Tow Release 575,000 0 0 575,000
Private Property Tow Fee 145,000 0 0 145,000
Fingerprint Fee 14,000 0 0 14,000
Property Auction 2,000 0 0 2,000
False Alarm Fee 65,000 0 0 65,000
Vehicle Repossession Fee 5,000 0 0 5,000
Investigation Fee 5,000 0 0 5,000
Fireworks Enforcement 50,000 0 0 50,000
Code SFIF 40,000 40,000 0 0
Administrative Citations SFRPIP 55,000 55,000 0 0
Payoff Demand Fee 0 0 0 0
Crime Free Rental Housing 0 0 0 0
Cemetery Burial Fee 7,500 0 0 7,500
Sale of Cemetery Vaults and Liners 0 0 0 0
Blanket Inspection Fee 225,000 225,000 0 0
Miscellaneous Engineering Receipt 120,000 120,000 0 0
Plan Check Fee - Engineering 1,600,000 1,600,000 0 0
Archival Fee - Development Services 0 0 0 0
NPDES Storm Drain Utility Fee 175,000 175,000 0 0
NPDES Inspection Fee 1,000 1,000 0 0
Weed Abatement Destruction 25,000 0 0 25,000
Program & Facility Use Fees 150,000 0 0 150,000
Park Energy Fee 0 0 0 0
Signal maint/energy 0 0 0 0
Class Registration Fee 5,750 0 0 5,750
Swimming Pool Fee 50,000 0 0 50,000
Burrtec Host Fee 415,000 415,000 0 0
Library Fines 6,000 6,000 0 0
Election Filing Fees 3,000 3,000 0 0
Sale of Vases 500 500 0 0
Non Resident Fee 500 500 0 0
Crime Prevention Revenue 400 400 0 0
Total Charges for Services $8,715,650 $6,251,400 $13,500 $2,450,750 Packet Page. 654
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Meyers Rd Island Annexation, City of San Bernardino July 3, 2024 40 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis
Table B-1 (page 2 of 2)
General Fund Revenues, Fiscal Year 2022-23 Adopted Budget Meyers Road Island Area Annexation Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis City of San Bernardino
(In Constant 2024 Dollars)
Revenue Category Total Non-Recurring 1 Not Projected 2 Projected Fines and Forfeitures
General Fines $15,000 $0 $0 $15,000
Code Administration Citations 69,000 0 0 69,000
Parking Citations 575,000 0 0 575,000
General Administrative Civil Penalty 130,000 0 0 130,000 Police Administrative Civil Penalty 0 0 0 0
PW Administrative Civil Penalty 0 0 0 0
Code Administrative Civil Penalty 465,000 0 0 465,000
Private Property Tow Fee 0 0 0 0
Library Fines 0 0 0 0
City Attorney Administrative Citations 1,500 0 0 1,500
Total Fines and Forfeitures $1,255,500 $0 $0 $1,255,500 Intergovernmental
Motor Vehicle In Lieu Tax $145,000 $0 $0 $145,000
Other Governmental Agencies 2,051,260 0 2,051,260 0
State Aid - POST 0 0 0 0
State Mandated Cost Reimbursement 65,000 0 0 65,000
SBIAA Reimbursement 2,000 0 2,000 0
Recoverable Expense Income 1,100,000 0 0 1,100,000
San Manuel Community Credit 1,000,000 0 1,000,000 0
Water Reimbursement 25,000 0 0 25,000
Total Intergovernmental $4,388,260 $0 $3,053,260 $1,335,000 Investment Income
Land and Building Rental/Lease $525,000 $0 $525,000 $0
ATS Land and Building Rental 0 0 0 0
Total Use of Money and Property $525,000 $0 $525,000 $0 Licenses and Permits
Business Registration $8,000,000 $0 $0 $8,000,000
Miscellaneous Planning Permits 15,000 15,000 0 0
Annual Alarm Permits 50,000 50,000 0 0
Building Permits 2,000,000 2,000,000 0 0
Mechanical Permits 125,000 125,000 0 0
C&D Self Haul Permit 5,000 5,000 0 0
Street Cut Permits 0 0 0 0
Miscellaneous Licenses and Permits 400,000 400,000 0 0
Grading Permits 15,000 15,000 0 0
Public Works Construction Permits 380,000 380,000 0 0
On Site Permits 1,750,000 1,750,000 0 0
Mobile Home Park Permit 3,000 0 3,000 0
Total Licenses & Permits $12,740,000 $4,740,000 $0 $8,000,000 Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous Planning Receipts $125,000 $0 $0 $125,000 Miscellaneous Library Receipts 4,500 0 0 4,500
Miscellaneous Receipts 180,000 0 0 180,000
Refunds and Rebates 6,000 0 0 6,000
Litigation Settlements 60,000 0 0 60,000
Restitutions 0 0 0 0
Water Fund Contributions 793,556 0 0 793,556
Vehicle Take Home Reimbursement 0 0 0 0
DUI Reimbursement 10,000 0 0 10,000
Off-Track Betting 30,000 0 0 30,000
Total Miscellaneous $1,209,056 $0 $0 $1,209,056
Other Taxes
Tow Franchise 606,000 $0 $0 $606,000
Transient Occupancy Tax 4,650,000 0 0 4,650,000
Property Transfer Tax 1,100,000 0 0 1,100,000
Sales Tax - Public Safety 1,300,000 0 0 1,300,000
Cannabis Tax 4,000,000 0 0 4,000,000
Total Other Taxes $11,656,000 $0 $0 $11,656,000
Use of Money and Property
Interest on Idle Cash $350,000 $0 $350,000 $0
Rental Income From Former EDA Properties 200,000 0 200,000 0 Vending Machine Commission 4,000 0 4,000 0
Total Use of Money and Property $554,000 $0 $554,000 $0 Utility Users Tax
Utility Users Tax $21,430,500 $0 $0 $21,430,500
General Fund Total $194,754,966 $10,991,400 $4,145,760 $179,617,806 Note: 1. One-time development related fees are not projected as recurring revenues because they are netted from projected development development services costs.

Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.

City of San Bernardino, Fiscal Year 2023-24 Adopted Budget Packet Page. 655
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Meyers Rd Island Annexation, City of San Bernardino July 3, 2024 41 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis
Table B-2
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Adopted Budget: Revenues for Other City Funds 1 Meyers Road Island Area Annexation Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis City of San Bernardino
(In Constant 2024 Dollars)
B-2 Revenues for Other City Fund, Fiscal Year 2022-23
Revenue Category Total Not Projected 2 Recurring
Fund 124 - Animal Control
Animal Licenses $210,000 $0 $210,000
Miscellaneous Licenses and Permits 2,500 0 2,500
General Fines 5,200 0 5,200
Animal License Penalty 13,500 0 13,500
Animal Adoption Fee 53,000 0 53,000
Contracted Shelter Fee 0 0 0
Apprehension Fee 11,000 0 11,000
Boarding Fee 0 0 0
Field Service Fee 6,000 0 6,000
Owner Release Fee 13,400 0 13,400
Vaccination Fee 36,000 0 36,000
Microchip Identification Fee 31,000 0 31,000
Miscellaneous Receipts 12,500 0 12,500
Transfers from General Fund 3,306,435 0 3,306,435
Intergovernmental 0 0 0
Total Animal Control Fund $3,700,535 $0 $3,700,535
Fund 126 - Gas Tax
State Gasoline Tax:
- HUTA Prop 42 Replacement (for Section 2103) $1,608,248 $0 $1,608,248 - Proposition 111 (Section 2105) 1,181,427 0 1,181,427
- Section 2106 716,333 0 716,333
- Section 2107 1,502,553 0 1,502,553
Subtotal $5,008,561 $0 $5,008,561
- Section 2107.5 flat amount 3 23,939 0 23,939
Use of Money and Property 5,000 5,000 0
Total Gas Tax Fund $5,037,500 $5,000 $5,032,500
Fund 129 - Measure I
1/2 Cent Sales Tax $4,808,000 $0 $4,808,000
Federal Aid Street Construction 0 0
Subtotal $4,808,000 $0 $4,808,000
Interest on Idle Cash 28,000 28,000 0
Total Gas Tax Fund $4,836,000 $28,000 $4,808,000

1. This table includes only the special fund revenues that are projected in the fiscal analysis.

3. Section 2107.5 gas tax revenues are allocated based on the population size-range population of the City.

Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.

City of San Bernardino, Fiscal Year 2023-24 Adopted Budget Packet Page. 656
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Meyers Rd Island Annexation, City of San Bernardino July 3, 2024 42 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis
Table B-3
Estimated In Lieu Property Tax of Vehicle License Fees (VLF) Factor Meyers Road Island Area Annexation Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis City of San Bernardino
B-3 Estimated In Lieu Property Tax of Vehicle License Fees (VLF) Factor Table B-4
Calculation of Use Tax Factor
Meyers Road Island Area Annexation Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis City of San Bernardino
B-4 Calculation of Use Tax Factor
VLF - Assessed VLF per
Fiscal Year Property Tax In Lieu 1 Valuation (AV) 2 $1,000,000 AV 3 2013-2014 $16,328,700 $10,695,499,230 $1,530
2014-2015 $17,249,209 $11,298,819,747 $1,530
2015-2016 $18,206,540 $11,924,444,131 $1,530
2016-2017 $17,844,545 $12,662,283,004 $1,410
2017-2018 $15,000,000 $13,395,373,121 $1,120
2018-2019 $15,800,000 $14,215,676,776 $1,110
2019-2020 $16,805,900 $15,437,323,990 $1,090
2020-2021 $18,316,742 $16,296,056,728 $1,120
2021-2022 $19,267,608 $17,611,502,086 $1,090
2022-2023 $22,500,000 $18,993,544,611 $1,180
Average of Ten Years $1,270

1. The property tax in lieu VLF amounts are from the City's budget as cited below.

2. City assessed valuation is from the County Assessor report as cited below.

3. Estimated VLF per $1,000,000 AV is rounded to the nearest tens.

Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.

City of San Bernardino, Adopted Budgets, 2013-2014 through 2022-23.

1. Obtained from CDTFA data for Half-year 2022.

2. The use tax rate is the County Pool plus the State Pool divided by point-of-sale taxable sales tax.

Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.

California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, CDTFA, 2023 Packet Page. 657
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Meyers Rd Island Annexation, City of San Bernardino July 3, 2024 43 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis
Table B-5
Estimated Annual Residential Turnover
Meyers Road Island Area Annexation Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis City of San Bernardino
B-5 Estimated Annual Residential Turnover
Occupied
Housing Percent
City of San Bernardino Units Turnover
Total Owner Occupied Units 32,391
Moved in 2019 or later 5,241
Moved in 2015 to 2018 6,044
Total Moved 2015 to 2021 11,285
Estimated Annual Turnover Rate: 2015 to 2021 1 1,612 5%

1. The annual turnover rate is based on the assumption of seven years for the 2015 to 2021 period.

Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2021 American Community Survey (ACS) 1-Year Estimate, Tenure by Year Householder Moved Into Unit, Report B25038, San Bernardino, California Packet Page. 658
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Meyers Rd Island Annexation, City of San Bernardino July 3, 2024 44 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis
Table B-6
General Fund Net Community and Economic Development Cost Factor Meyers Road Island Area Annexation Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis City of San Bernardino
(In Constant 2024 Dollars)
B-6 General Fund Net Community Development Cost Factor
Category Amount
Total General Fund Community and Economic Development Costs $11,923,799 minus
Charges for Service
On Site Plan Check Fees $425,000
Cannabis Permit Application Fee 20,000
Cannabis Permit Regulatory Fee 85,000
Subdivision Filing Fee 100,000
Planning Development PR 650,000
Technology Fee Development Services 135,000
Plan Review 170,000
C&D Application Fee 0
Plan Check Fee - B&S 1,700,000
Board Up/Demolition 325,000
Blanket Inspection Fee 225,000
Miscellaneous Engineering Receipt 120,000
Plan Check Fee - Engineering 1,600,000
Archival Fee - Development Services 0
NPDES Storm Drain Utility Fee 175,000
NPDES Inspection Fee 1,000
Total One-Time Charges for Service $5,731,000
minus
One-Time Licenses and Permits
Miscellaneous Planning Permits $15,000
Annual Alarm Permits $50,000
Building Permits 2,000,000
Mechanical Permits 125,000
C&D Self Haul Permit 5,000
Street Cut Permits 0
Miscellaneous Licenses and Permits 400,000
Grading Permits 15,000
Public Works Construction Permits 380,000
On Site Permits 1,750,000
Total One-Time Licenses and Permits $4,740,000
equals
Recurring Net Community Development Costs $1,452,799
divided by
City Service Population 279,469
equals
Community Development Costs per Service Population $5.20 Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.

City of San Bernardino, Fiscal Year 2023-24 Adopted Budget City of San Bernardino, Finance Department
Packet Page. 659
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Meyers Rd Island Annexation, City of San Bernardino July 3, 2024 45 Plan for Service and Fiscal Analysis

APPENDIX C

PROJECT REFERENCES
City of San Bernardino
www.sbcity.org/
Community and Economic Development
Gabriel Elliot, Director, 909.384.5357
Timothy O’Neal, Senior Management Analyst, 909.384.7276 Travis Martin, Principal Planner, 909.384.5313
Finance Department
Jeannie Fortune, Interim Director, 909.384.5242
Former Employees
Nathan Freeman, Former Director, Community and Economic Development Marim Fam, Former Deputy Finance Director
Rita Conrad, Former Interim Finance Director
Brent Mason, Former Finance Director
David Murray, Former Deputy Director/City Planner
Oliver Mujica, Former Planning Division Manager
San Bernardino Municipal Water Department
Ted Brunson, Development Services Manager, 909.453.6165 J.P. Weber Group
Jeff Weber, Principal, 949.254.0135
Gresham Savage Nolan & Tilden, PC
Mark Ostoich, Principal Shareholder, 909.890.4499
Jennifer Dorgan, 909.890.4499
Hinderliter de Llamas and Associates
www.hdlcompanies.com
San Bernardino County Local Agency Formation Commission 909.388.0480
Samuel Martinez, Executive Officer
www.sblafco.com
County of San Bernardino
www.sbcounty.gov/
San Bernardino City Unified School District
Facilities/Operations Division, Facilities Management
Takara Russ, Use of Facilities Senior Clerk, 909.388.1600 Omnitrans
www.omnitrans.org/
Packet Page. 660

LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION

FOR SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
1170 West Third Street, Unit 150, San Bernardino, CA 92415-0490 (909) 388-0480 • Fax (909) 388-0481
[email protected]
www.sbclafco.org
DATE:

FROM:

TO:

OCTOBER 8, 2019
SAMUEL MARTINEZ, Executive Officer

LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM #9: LAFCO 3188A -- Reorganization to include Annexation to the City of San Bernardino and to the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District Zone FP-5 San Bernardino, and Detachment from County Service Area 70 (Spring Trails Specific Plan)
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

This item was continued from the Commission’s August 21, 2019 hearing at the request of the property owner (with concurrence from the City) to allow the property owner and the City enough time to evaluate and consider the proposed condition(s) that LAFCO staff is recommending.

No change has occurred since then; therefore, staff’s recommendations remain the same for LAFCO 3188A. For reference, the original staff report for LAFCO 3188A, dated August 14, 2019, is included as Attachment #1 and includes the links to each attachment.

However, the Commission—as part of its motion at the August Hearing—requested that staff provide a discussion regarding access to and from the project site in order to provide for a better understanding of the issues related to traffic (circulation) as well as fire safety.

Circulation
The Spring Trails project will have two main access points. The primary access road (dash line with pink highlight), which provides the main access to and from Spring Trails project, is a 2-way undivided road that extends from North Little League Drive to the Spring Trails project at the southeastern section of the project site. From North Little League Drive (also a 2-way undivided road), access to the I-215 Freeway can be Packet Page. 661
Agenda Item #9 – LAFCO 3188A
City of San Bernardino Reorganization (Spring Trails SP) October 8, 2019
reached from either Palm Avenue (via West Little League Drive or Kendall Avenue) or Devore Road/Glen Helen Parkway (via Kendall Avenue and Cajon Boulevard).

The secondary access road (dash line with orange highlight), which is intended as an alternative street for local traffic to access arterial streets outside the project, is also a 2-way undivided road that runs along the western boundary of the Spring Trails project.

It will connect to North Little League Drive via Frontage Road. From North Little League Drive, access to the freeway is the same as the primary access road.

Fig. 1 – Circulation Map
2 Packet Page. 662
Agenda Item #9 – LAFCO 3188A
City of San Bernardino Reorganization (Spring Trails SP) October 8, 2019
It should be noted that the intersection of Meyers Road and the secondary access road will be constructed in such a way that either prevents or discourages access to Meyers Road.

All necessary public streets, both on-site and off-site (including the extension of North Little League Drive), will be improved by the developer. Other necessary off-site improvements, such as the Palm Avenue/I-215 Freeway and Glen Helen Parkway improvements, are part of the City’s Master Facility Plan and will be funded through developer impact fees.

Fire Safety (Hazards)
As identified in the original staff report, no change in actual service provider will occur upon completion of the annexation since the City of San Bernardino was annexed into the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District (County Fire) and its Valley Service Zone. The area proposed for annexation is already within the boundaries of County Fire.

The closest fire station is Station #232 located on 6065 Palm Avenue, which is approximately 2.1 miles away from the project site. The next closest fire station is Station #2 located in Devore (1511 Devore Road), which is approximately 4.2 miles away from the project site.

The Spring Trails project evaluated response times for a number of stations using time/distance calculations from the different fire stations to the project site via Meyers Road. Below are the drive times for the two stations nearest the project site:

Station MPH Miles Time

1. Station #232 45
25 35
35 0.78

0.16 0.43

0.70 2.07

3.31 3.74
01:02
00:23
00:44
01:12

03.21 05:29
06:13
Meyers
Ranch
Farthest

2. Station #2 45
35 2.35

1.38 3.75

4.97 5.40
03:08
02:22
05:30
07:38
08:22
Meyers
Ranch
Farthest
Based on the calculations identified in the Spring Trails Fire Protection Plan, Station #232 can reach the farthest portion of the site in 6m 13s and Station #2 can get to the farthest portion of the site in 8m 22s.
3 Packet Page. 663
Agenda Item #9 – LAFCO 3188A
City of San Bernardino Reorganization (Spring Trails SP) October 8, 2019
LAFCO staff also prepared its own analysis of the drive times from both stations to the farthest portion of the project site using the primary access road and based on actual speed limits. Staff’s analysis indicates that Station #232 can reach the farthest portion of the site in 7m 12s, and Station #2 can get to the farthest portion of the site in 11m 42s.

Fig. 2 – Drive Times
4 Packet Page. 664
Agenda Item #9 – LAFCO 3188A
City of San Bernardino Reorganization (Spring Trails SP) October 8, 2019
The Spring Trails Fire Protection Plan outlines a number of mitigation measures including fuel modification zones, vegetation management guidelines, planting maintenance and spacing guidelines, as well as infrastructure/structural construction features and requirements.

COMMENTS RECEIVED:

At the August 21, 2019 hearing, the Commission received oral comments. All written comments received prior to and at the August 21 hearing can be accessed on the LAFCO website:
• Comments received prior to the August 21, 2019 hearing:
http://www.sbcounty.gov/uploads/LAFCO/AgendaNotices/20190821/Item_08_Att1.pdf • Comments received at the August 21, 2019 hearing:
http://www.sbcounty.gov/uploads/LAFCO/AgendaNotices/20190821/Item_08_Att3.pdf Since then, additional comments have been received, which are included as Attachment #2 to the staff report. Overall, approximately 80 written comments have been received from landowners, registered voters, and other individuals, including one from a council member of the City of San Bernardino, Mr. Henry Nickel, and one from a non-profit organization.

Most of the comments came from residents who live in the Verdemont area within the City of San Bernardino as well as residents from the unincorporated Devore community.

Approximately 10 (unverified) letters opposing the project came from the island area itself.

Most of the comments relate to fire, high wind, and earthquake issues including limited accessibility during an emergency. School traffic was also cited in some of the letters.

Other comments relate to the City’s inability to provide code inspections/enforcement, reduced services and slow response times, and issues related to road repair and maintenance.

CONCLUSION:

As outlined in the original staff report, the Spring Trails Specific Plan requires a broad range and level of municipal services that are only available through the City of San Bernardino. The project would benefit from the extension of the City’s services as well as the continuation of fire protection and emergency medical response services from County Fire and its Valley Service Zone based upon the anticipated development of 215 (current configuration) single-family residences, open space, parks, and other public facilities.

The Spring Trails Specific Plan was approved and adopted by the City with certain guidelines, conditions of approval, and mitigation measures. Therefore, the Commission’s approval of LAFCO 3188A assumes that the City will adhere to the parameters that have been imposed on the Spring Trails Specific Plan and the 5 Packet Page. 665
Agenda Item #9 – LAFCO 3188A
City of San Bernardino Reorganization (Spring Trails SP) October 8, 2019
mitigation measures outlined in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Spring Trails Specific Plan.

However, as noted in the August 14, 2019 staff report, approval of this proposal calls into question the issue related to the adjacent unincorporated area that will become totally-surrounded by the City of San Bernardino. This report provides for options for addressing the creation of said island territory. Staff recommendations are to:
• Include a determination required by Government Code Section 56375(m), which can be applied to this proposal; and,
• Include a condition that requires the City to initiate the totally-surrounded island area within one year of the Commission’s approval of LAFCO 3188A.

For all these reasons, and those outlined throughout this staff report and the original staff report dated August 14, 2019, staff recommends approval of LAFCO 3188A.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

The staff recommends that the Commission approve LAFCO 3188A by taking the following actions:

1. With respect to the environmental review:
a. Certify that the Complete Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and other related environmental documents prepared by the City of San Bernardino for the Spring Trails Specific Plan have been independently reviewed and considered by the Commission, its staff and its Environmental Consultant;
b.
c.
d.

Determine that the Complete Final EIR for the project prepared by the City is adequate for the Commission’s use as a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Responsible Agency for its determination related to LAFCO 3188A.

Determine that the Commission does not intend to adopt alternatives or additional mitigation measures for the Spring Trails Specific Plan, and that the mitigation measures identified for the project are the responsibility of the City and others, not the Commission;
Adopt the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations as presented by the Commission’s Environmental Consultant and attached to the staff report (Attachment #3); and,
6 Packet Page. 666
Agenda Item #9 – LAFCO 3188A
City of San Bernardino Reorganization (Spring Trails SP) October 8, 2019
e. Direct the Executive Officer to file the Notice of Determination within five days, and find that no further Department of Fish and Wildlife filing fees are required by the Commission’s approval since the City, as CEQA Lead Agency, has paid said fees.

2. Approve LAFCO 3188A, with the following determination: The Commission determines that approval of LAFCO 3188A will create an unincorporated island completely surrounded by the City of San Bernardino. Since the inclusion of the island area would likely terminate the annexation proposal due to the number of registered voters within said island, the Commission determines, pursuant to the provision of Government Code Section 56375(m), to waive the restrictions on the creation of a totally-surrounded island contained within Government Code Section 56744 because it would be detrimental to the orderly development of the community, and it further determines that the area to be surrounded by the City of San Bernardino cannot reasonably be annexed to another city or incorporated as a new city.

3. Approve LAFCO 3188A with the following conditions:
a. The City of San Bernardino shall be required to initiate annexation of the totally-surrounded island within one year of the Commission’s approval of LAFCO 3188A and process under standard protest proceedings. A resolution by the City Council of the City of San Bernardino shall be submitted to the Executive Officer of LAFCO outlining the City’s commitment to fulfilling this requirement prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Completion for LAFCO 3188A. A status report shall be provided to the Commission at the six-month date outlining the progress of the City of San Bernardino in fulfilling its obligation. Failure on the part of the City of San Bernardino to fulfill its commitment to annex the totallysurrounded island shall require that the next annexation proposed to the City of San Bernardino, either by the City through resolution or by property owner/registered voter petition, include a condition requiring the initiation of annexation of the totally-surrounded island. Said condition of approval shall be deemed completed upon the issuance of the Certificate of Filing for said island.
b. The standard LAFCO terms and conditions that include, but are not limited to, the “hold harmless” clause for potential litigation costs by the applicant and the continuation of fees, charges, and/or assessments currently authorized by the annexing agency, and the identification that the transfer of utility accounts will occur within 90 days of the recording of the Certificate of Completion.

4. Waive protest proceedings, as permitted by Government Code Section 56662(d), with 100% landowner consent to the reorganization; and, 7 Packet Page. 667
Agenda Item #9 – LAFCO 3188A
City of San Bernardino Reorganization (Spring Trails SP) October 8, 2019

5. Adopt LAFCO Resolution No. 3291 (Attachment #4) setting forth the Commission’s determinations, terms, and conditions of approval concerning LAFCO 3188A.

Attachments:

1. Original Staff Report for LAFCO 3188A Dated August 14, 2019

2. Letters Received After the August 21, 2019 Hearing

3. Letter from Tom Dodson and Associates and Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Environmental Documents Related to the City of San Bernardino’s Approval of the Spring Trails Specific Plan

4. Draft Resolution No. 3291
8 Packet Page. 668
Original Staff Report for
LAFCO 3188A
Dated August 14, 2019
Attachment 1
Packet Page. 669

LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION

FOR SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
1170 West Third Street, Unit 150, San Bernardino, CA 92415-0490 (909) 388-0480  Fax (909) 388-0481
[email protected]
www.sbclafco.org
DATE:

FROM:

AUGUST 14, 2019
SAMUEL MARTINEZ, Executive Officer
MICHAEL TUERPE, Project Manager
JEFFERY LUM, LAFCO GIS/Database Analyst
ROBERT ALDRICH, Consultant
TO: LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
SUBJECT: Agenda Item #8: LAFCO 3188A -- Reorganization to include Annexation to the City of San Bernardino and to the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District Zone FP-5 San Bernardino, and Detachment from County Service Area 70 (Spring Trails Specific Plan)
INITIATED BY:

Property Owner Petition – Montecito Equities, Ltd., landowner BACKGROUND:

The reorganization proposal is an annexation to the City of San Bernardino (hereafter the “City”) and to Zone FP-5 San Bernardino1 of the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District, and detachment from County Service Area 70. The proposal encompasses approximately 350 acres and is generally located north of the Verdemont neighborhood, east of the community of Devore and northeasterly of the I-215 Freeway. The area is bordered by parcel lines on the north and east, a combination of parcel lines and the centerline of West Meyers Road (existing City of San Bernardino boundary) on the south, and parcel lines (portion of existing City boundary) on the west, within the City’s existing sphere of influence.

A vicinity map is included as Attachment #1 to this report. The map below (Figure 1) provides a general location of the area to be annexed into the City.

For over 20 years, the Local Agency Formation Commission and its staff have been involved in discussions with the City and/or the landowner regarding the delivery of services for a development proposal within the annexation area known as the Spring Trails Specific Plan, or its predecessor—Martin Ranch.
1 The proposal area is already within the San Bernardino County Protection District and its Zone FP-5.

The annexation into “Zone FP-5 San Bernardino” would isolate the special tax revenues of Zone FP-5 to the service area of the City.

Packet Page. 670
Agenda Item #8 – LAFCO 3188A
City of San Bernardino Reorganization (Spring Trails SP) August 14, 2019
Fig. 1 – Vicinity Map
Sphere of Influence Expansion (LAFCO 2808)
In 1996, the Commission reviewed and considered
a sphere of influence expansion proposal, LAFCO
2808, which was initiated by the property owner to
include the proposal area (known then as Martin
Ranch) into the City’s sphere of influence (see
Figure 2). The Commission approved the sphere
expansion proposal noting that future development
would logically be served by the City and that the
City should assume the primary role in developing
the land use and service plans for the area. It was
outlined at that time that the approval of the sphere
expansion was simply to allow the landowner and
the City to move forward in completing the prezoning, general plan amendment, and comprehensive Environmental Impact Report for
the project.
a
Fig. 2 – LAFCO 2808
2 Packet Page. 671
Agenda Item #8 – LAFCO 3188A
City of San Bernardino Reorganization (Spring Trails SP) August 14, 2019
Project History
This primer box provides a history of the project since its inception in 1996.

The Spring Trails Specific Plan (or Martin Ranch) is a project that the City of San Bernardino has extensively reviewed, evaluated, and ultimately approved (and/or adopted) after years of processing. The Martin Ranch project was first submitted to the City in 1996. In 1998, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was issued for the project; however, the ensuing Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was rejected by the City’s Planning Department.

In December 2002, the application for the General Plan Amendment (GPA 02-09) and Tentative Tract Map (15576) was filed with the City. A revised Draft EIR was released in 2002. In October 2003, a major fire burned through the project site requiring preparation of a new Draft EIR. In 2004, a new NOP reflecting the revised project was issued by the City. It included a general plan amendment and pre-zoning for the project site and the adjacent unincorporated (island) area which designated the area as Planned Residential Development, the establishment of a Hillside Management Overlay District to allow lot size averaging, and a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the project site into approximately 359 lots. However, the 2004 Draft EIR, which addressed traffic, access, as well as other issues, was never circulated for public review.

In 2005, the project was again revised to pre-zone the project site to Residential Low and the adjacent unincorporated (island) area to Residential Estate. A new Draft EIR was not released until 2006 when the City released a completed Draft EIR. Significant issues were again raised, and the City opted to prepare a revised Draft EIR to address concerns related to noise, air quality, biological resources, geotechnical issues and fire safety.

In 2007, another fire on the site required further changes to the project. A new NOP was released for public review in 2009 along with an Initial Study. In March 2010, the application for the Specific Plan (SP 10-01) was filed with the City. Due to significant technical issues, the revised Draft EIR was not released until July 2011. Applications for a Development Agreement (DA 11-01) and a Development Code Amendment (DCA 12-10) were filed with the City in October 2011 and October 2012, respectively.

In November 2012, the City’s Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the component actions for the Spring Trails Specific Plan (except for the Development Agreement portion of the project which was continued at the request of the property owner) but recommended denial of all the actions. In January 2013, the City’s Planning Commission held another public hearing to consider the Development Agreement, and it also recommended denial of the proposed Development Agreement.

Finally, on February 19, 2013, the City Council reviewed and considered the Final EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations and the recommendations of the City’s Planning Commission related to the Spring Trails Specific Plan, the General Plan Amendment, the Development Code Amendment, Tentative Tract Map 15576 to subdivide the project site into 304 single-family residential lots and the project’s Development Agreement. The City Council reversed the Planning Commission’s recommendations and approved and/or adopted all actions related to the Spring Trails Specific Plan.
3 Packet Page. 672
Agenda Item #8 – LAFCO 3188A
City of San Bernardino Reorganization (Spring Trails SP) August 14, 2019
Prior Proposal (LAFCO 3188)
In March 2015, the property owner—Montecito Equities, Ltd—submitted a property owner petition including the application materials for the proposed reorganization to the City (see Attachment #2). The applicant not only requested the annexation of its properties but also included the adjacent unincorporated area totaling approximately 376 acres (see Figure 3).

It should be noted that the City (and the applicant)
included the adjacent unincorporated area as part of
its proposal to prevent the creation of a totallysurrounded unincorporated island territory within the City. This is why the adjacent 26-acre unincorporated
area was included in the City’s environmental
LAFCO
3188
assessment for the project.

However, during the circulation of the Notice of Filing for LAFCO 3188, the Registrar of Voters (ROV)
certified on July 2, 2015 that there were 16 registered voters within the reorganization area (see Attachment
#3). That changed the annexation proposal from
being (initially) an “uninhabited” annexation (less than 12 registered voters) to an “inhabited” annexation
which allows for registered voter protest. This also
meant likely termination due to registered voter
protest—primarily from within the unincorporated
island area. As a result, the applicant requested that
LAFCO suspend the processing of its application
proposal pending the outcome of the voter registration
verification process by the ROV.

Fig. 3 – LAFCO 3188
Current Proposal (LAFCO 3188A)
After almost a year, there still was no resolution from the ROV on the applicant’s request for verification of
registered voters within the annexation area. This
prompted the applicant to submit a revised application
proposal that removed the adjacent unincorporated
area from its proposal boundary (see Attachment #4).

LAFCO
3188A
Figure 4 illustrates the applicant’s revised boundary
that excludes the adjacent unincorporated area.

Hence, the current proposal, LAFCO 3188A, creates
a totally-surrounded island territory within the City.

The reason for the delay in processing this proposal
since the time it was re-initiated by the applicant was Fig. 4 – LAFCO 3188A
4 Packet Page. 673
Agenda Item #8 – LAFCO 3188A
City of San Bernardino Reorganization (Spring Trails SP) August 14, 2019
due to the modifications that had to be incorporated into the Plan for Service and Fiscal Impact Analysis to reflect the change in fire service between the City and County Fire, as well as the property tax transfer process between the County and the City.

Property Tax Transfer Process
In May 2017, both the County and the City were scheduled to approve their respective property tax transfer resolutions; however, the City ended up not agreeing to the exchange and took no action on its property tax transfer resolution at that time. This prompted the dispute resolution process outlined in Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99(e) that requires mediation and/or arbitration.

As the Commission is fully aware, the tax sharing formula in San Bernardino County (between the County and cities) is calculated in the same manner as all other annexations.

However, because of the City’s unique property tax exchange process with County Fire through its fire reorganization, the City raised questions on whether an alternative formula was appropriate. The County and the City jointly retained a third-party consultant (David Taussig and Associates) to perform an independent financial analysis of the property tax revenues. That process took several months to get underway and was finally completed in June 2018. Negotiations continued until all parties agreed.

The City adopted its property tax resolution on March 20, 2019, and the County, likewise, adopted its property tax resolution on May 21, 2019, determining the amount of property tax revenues to be exchanged among the County, the City, and County Fire.

BOUNDARIES:

The proposal, as submitted by the applicant, includes the annexation of properties solely associated with the Spring Trails Specific Plan and does not include the adjacent unincorporated area that, should LAFCO 3188A be approved by the Commission, will become a totally-surrounded island within the City of San Bernardino. In staff’s view, the Commission has the following options to address the island area:
5 Packet Page. 674
Agenda Item #8 – LAFCO 3188A
City of San Bernardino Reorganization (Spring Trails SP) August 14, 2019
Option 1
Option 1 is to approve the proposal, LAFCO 3188A,
as submitted by the applicant. This would leave an
unincorporated area totally surrounded by the City.

Clearly, it would be LAFCO staff’s preference not to
create an island. Therefore, if the Commission
chooses option 1, LAFCO staff would recommend
that the Commission make certain determinations
related to the creation of the island, and as a
condition of approval require the City to initiate a new reorganization to annex the island area as a separate
proposal (see Figure 5).

Option 2
The Commission could modify the proposal by
expanding LAFCO 3188A to include the
unincorporated (island) area adjacent to the proposal
area, which would be the exact same area as the
prior proposal – LAFCO 3188 (see Figure 6).

Fig. 5 – Option 1
As outlined in the earlier discussion related to the
prior proposal (LAFCO 3188) on pages 4 and 5, the
inclusion of the island area would change the
annexation proposal from being an uninhabited
annexation to an inhabited annexation since there
would be at least 12 registered voters within the
modified proposal.

From the beginning of the City’s consideration of the
Spring Trails project, many have expressed
opposition to the project. Since most of the
registered voters are from within the island portion of the modified area, the probability of termination of the expanded proposal would be highly likely.

Based on the options outlined above, LAFCO staff
recommends the Commission choose Option 1. Fig. 6 – Option 2 Although not an ideal boundary, it is LAFCO staff’s position that the imposition of the Condition of Approval related to the island area as well as the Determination related to the creation of the island, allows a mechanism for the Spring Trails Specific Plan, which is an easily identifiable boundary for service delivery, to be annexed into the City of San Bernardino for the services it requires.

A detailed comparison of the two options follows on the next two pages. 6 Packet Page. 675
Agenda Item #8 – LAFCO 3188A
City of San Bernardino Reorganization (Spring Trails SP) August 14, 2019
Option 1
Applicant’s Proposal Boundary, as Submitted to LAFCO
Proposal Boundary and Description:

A reorganization of 350 acres to include annexation
of only the Spring Trails Specific Plan (shown in red).

Pros:
 The Commission identified the City as the
logical service provider for the area by
expanding the City’s sphere of influence in
1996.
 Reorganization area will benefit from the
extension of City services.
 No other agency can logically provide
municipal-level services to this area.
 Proposal has 100% landowner consent,
allowing for the waiver of protest and
eliminating the possibility of termination.

Cons:

Fig. 7 – Option 1
 Applicant’s proposal boundary creates an unincorporated island (completely surrounded by the City, shown in yellow) which is prohibited under Government Code §56744, unless certain determinations can be made (see Discussion below).  The landowners and registered voters of the island (being outside the reorganization area) would lack a process to overturn the Commission’s action.

Discussion:
 Although an island of unincorporated area is being created, the Commission has the statutory ability to waive the restrictions of creating an island (§56744) if it finds that the restrictions would be detrimental to the orderly development of the community and that the areas enclosed by the annexation cannot be reasonably annexed to another city or incorporate as a city. A determination pursuant to §56375 has been included in the Commission’s draft resolution and in the Recommendation portion of this report.
 A condition of approval is being recommended that would require the City to initiate a separate reorganization to annex the island within one year of completion of LAFCO 3188A, and undergo standard protest proceedings on said island. The condition is included in the Commission’s draft resolution and in the Recommendation portion of this report.
7 Packet Page. 676
Agenda Item #8 – LAFCO 3188A
City of San Bernardino Reorganization (Spring Trails SP) August 14, 2019
Option 2
Expanded Proposal Boundary
Expanded Boundary and Description:

An expanded reorganization area of 376 acres to
include annexation of the Spring Trails Specific Plan
(350 acres) and adjacent 26-acre unincorporated
area.

Pros:
 The Commission identified the City as the
logical service provider to the area by
expanding the City’s sphere of influence in
1996.
 Environmental Assessment already includes
the adjacent 26-acre unincorporated area.
 Spring Trails Specific Plan area will benefit
from the extension of City services.
 No other agency can logically provide
municipal-level services to this area.
 Expanded boundary will not create an island.

Fig. 8 – Option 2
 The proposal would include a protest proceeding whereby island landowners and registered voters could submit a protest to oppose the reorganization in order to overturn the Commission’s action.

Cons:
 Registered voter opposition within the expanded boundary would likely result in sufficient protest to terminate the reorganization.
 Without annexation to the City, the project—which requires municipal services—most likely would not be able to develop.

Discussion:
 This option is available to the Commission should it choose not to make a determination to waive the restrictions of creating an island.  The Commission would have to continue the item in order to provide proper noticing.  The Spring Trails project and reorganization would be decided by the registered voters within the reorganization area (not the landowners). 8 Packet Page. 677
Agenda Item #8 – LAFCO 3188A
City of San Bernardino Reorganization (Spring Trails SP) August 14, 2019
The remainder of this report contains the following information:
 Land Use
o County designations and City land use/pre-zone designations o Spring Trails Specific Plan
o Constraints: fire hazard, fault zone, circulation, high wind areas, flood and drainage  Service Issues and Effects on Other Local Governments  Environmental Considerations
 Waiver of Protest Proceedings
 Conclusion
 Recommendations
 Determinations
 Attachment Listing
LAND USE:

The reorganization area is predominantly vacant with the exception of an existing singlefamily residence on one of the parcels (see Figure 9). The area is surrounded by a combination of National Forest boundary and vacant lands to the east; a combination of residential development including Meyers Road to the south; a combination of residential development, vacant lands, and the National Forest boundary to the west; and the National Forest boundary to the north.

Fig. 9 – Aerial Map
9 Packet Page. 678
Agenda Item #8 – LAFCO 3188A
City of San Bernardino Reorganization (Spring Trails SP) August 14, 2019
County Land Use Designations:

The County’s current land use designations for the reorganization area are: RL-5 (Rural Living, 5 acres minimum), which provides sites for rural residential uses and incidental agricultural uses; and RC (Resource Conservation), which provides sites for open space and recreational activities, and single-family homes on large parcels.

City’s Land Use/Pre-zone Designation(s):

The City of San Bernardino has assigned the reorganization area as Spring Trails Specific Plan District and has been pre-zoned the area as “Specific Plan No. 10-01, Spring Trails” under its Special Purpose Zones through the City’s consideration of Ordinance No. MC1386, which was adopted on March 5, 2013. The underlying Spring Trails Specific Plan zoning designations within the reorganization area are Residential (Estate), Open Space, and Parks, which will take effect upon completion of the annexation process.

The Spring Trails Specific Plan zone designations are the pre-zoning for the proposal area as required by Government Code §56375(a)(7). Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code §56375(e), these zoning designations shall remain in effect for a period of two (2) years following annexation unless specific actions are taken by the City Council at a public hearing.

The Spring Trails Specific Plan
The Spring Trails Specific Plan (Included as Attachment #5), is a proposed development within the 350-acre annexation area that was approved by the City Council of the City of San Bernardino in February 2013. At that time the Specific Plan was approved by the City, it contemplated development of 307 new single-family residential lots on approximately 242 acres and the remainder area for open space, parks, slopes, and other uses (see Figure 10). 10 Packet Page. 679
Agenda Item #8 – LAFCO 3188A
City of San Bernardino Reorganization (Spring Trails SP) August 14, 2019
Fig. 10 – Original Development Plan Fig. 11 – Current Development Plan However, since the City’s approval of the Specific Plan, the land area to be developed and the total number of residential lots have been reduced. Through subsequent analysis of the geology and soils within the Specific Plan area, it has been determined by the landowner that it is only feasible to construct 215 residential lots, and the land area to be developed has been significantly reduced from 242 acres to 199 acres (see Figure 11). The Current Development Plan configuration is also included as part of Attachment #1.

Constraints
Development of the Spring Trails Specific Plan includes a number of challenges that the Commission should be aware of given the location of the project. Below is a summary of some, but not all, of the constraints associated with the Spring Trails Specific Plan.

The Spring Trails is on the northern edge of the City in the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains. The area is generally bounded by the San Bernardino National Forest on three sides and the elevation of the site ranges from approximately 2,010 feet above sea level at its southern boundary to approximately 3,540 feet at the northern boundary. The topography of the site varies from steep (over 30% slopes) in the north and southeast portions of the site to gentle (0–15% slopes) in the central portion of the site. The site slopes to the southwest at approximately 10 to 15%.
11 Packet Page. 680
Agenda Item #8 – LAFCO 3188A
City of San Bernardino Reorganization (Spring Trails SP) August 14, 2019
 Fire Hazard
Because the San Bernardino National Forest is
adjacent to the project site, with steep slopes and
high winds, the Spring Trails Specific Plan area is
at risk from wildland fires (see Figure 12). The
Foothill Fire Zone Overlay District identifies three
fire zones with different degrees of hazard based
on slope, type of fuel, and natural barriers.

Approximately one third of the site is in Fire Zone
A (Extreme Hazard with slopes 30% or greater),
one third of the site is in Fire Zone B (High Hazard
with slopes of 15–30%), and the remaining third is
in Fire Zone C (Moderate Hazard with slopes of
0–15%). As noted in the Spring Trails Specific
Plan, areas in the Foothill Fire Zones are required
to be developed with proper building separation,
landscaping, and building materials; adequate
emergency access and evacuation routes; and
sufficient water resources. Fig. 12 – Topography (Fire Zones) The recommended preventative measures are incorporated in the Specific Plan as standards for fuel modification zones, setbacks, landscaping methods/materials, construction materials/methods, and building protection systems. The Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Specific Plan also outlines mitigation measures on fire safety.  Fault Zone
The site includes three traces of the San Andreas
Fault zone, which runs in a general east–west
direction (see Figure 13). As noted in the Spring
Trails Specific Plan, the southern portion of the
site is traversed by two faults: the main trace of
the San Andreas Fault and a secondary trace just
north of the main trace. The fault zone of the main
trace ranges from approximately 50 feet to 150
feet wide and the fault zone of the secondary
trace is approximately 40 feet wide.

The Spring Trails Specific Plan has been
designed to comply with the requirements of the
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, which
prevents the construction of buildings within 50
feet of active faults. Setbacks and additional fault
studies are included as mitigation measures in the
Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Spring
Trails Specific Plan.

Fig. 13 – Earthquake Faults
12 Packet Page. 681
Agenda Item #8 – LAFCO 3188A
City of San Bernardino Reorganization (Spring Trails SP) August 14, 2019
 Circulation
Spring Trails require two points of access that directly connect to collector roads and avoid existing neighborhoods. The primary access road to Spring Trails will be through the southeast corner of the project site via a street extending from Little League Drive to the project site. Secondary access to Spring Trails will be via a street extending from the western edge of the project site to a frontage road along the I-215 Freeway. The secondary access road is designed to restrict non-resident access onto Meyers Road. The Mitigation Monitoring Program outlines mitigation measures to address wildlife corridors.  High Wind Areas
The City of San Bernardino experiences periods of high velocity winds, especially in the Cajon Pass and at the bottoms of canyons. Spring Trails is included in the City’s designated High Wind Area, which has certain building standards. Development will be required to comply with the building standards for this area. The Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Specific Plan outlines development guidelines for high wind areas.  Flooding and Drainage
Because Spring Trails sits on an alluvial plain on the slopes of the San Bernardino Mountains, flooding and drainage are also critical factors. Spring Trails is designed to avoid grading or construction of residences in the flood plains.

These are just some of the constraints associated with the Spring Trails Specific Plan.

LAFCO staff emphasizes the importance of the mitigation measures being implemented to minimize or reduce the impacts. These mitigation measures must be implemented by the City to allow development of the project. However, the Commission has no direct responsibility in implementing these mitigation measures. 13 Packet Page. 682
Agenda Item #8 – LAFCO 3188A
City of San Bernardino Reorganization (Spring Trails SP) August 14, 2019
SERVICE ISSUES AND EFFECTS ON OTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:

In every consideration for jurisdictional change, the Commission is required to look at the existing and proposed service providers within an area. Due to the vacant nature of the lands currently, government service requirements are minimal – primarily law enforcement and fire protection. The current service providers within the reorganization area include the California Highway Patrol for law enforcement along existing roadways in unincorporated areas, County of San Bernardino, San Bernardino County Fire Protection District, its Valley Service Zone, and its Zone FP-5, and County Service Area 70 (unincorporated, multifunction entity). In addition, the regional independent special districts, Inland Empire Resource Conservation District and the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (State Water Contractor), overlay the reorganization area.

Plan for Service:

The City of San Bernardino has provided a “Plan for Service” for this proposal as required by law and Commission policy. The Plan includes a Fiscal Impact Analysis outlining its ability to provide its range of services and ongoing maintenance and operation to the area given the anticipated revenues and expenditures associated with the project. Also included with the materials for review is the Development Agreement approved by the City and the applicant, outlining land use assumptions, financing and service requirements for the reorganization area. The City of San Bernardino’s certified Plan for Service and Fiscal Impact Analysis and its Municipal Water Department’s certification of the Plan for Service are included as Attachment #6 to this report. In general, the Plan identifies the following:
 Water Service:

Water service will be provided by the City’s Municipal Water Department, as outlined in its Plan for Service. Current storage facilities nearest to Spring Trails is the Meyers Canyon Reservoir, but is not adequate for buildout of Spring Trails. Therefore, water will be supplied to Spring Trails by a combination of expanding and improving the offsite water systems and the provision of onsite reservoirs and transmission lines.

The City’s Municipal Water Department outlines the need for the developer to enter into an agreement with Department and provide its share of funding to construct the infrastructure necessary to serve the new pressure zones. In addition, the developer must enter into a developer-installed agreement and provide a performance bond to install the required transmission and distribution mains for construction.  Sewer Service:

There is no sewage collection system within the area at the present time. The Sewer Capacity Study concludes that the City’s existing sewer system has the capacity to accommodate the project. The City’s wastewater collection system has transferred from the City’s Public Works to the City’s Municipal Water Department. 14 Packet Page. 683
Agenda Item #8 – LAFCO 3188A
City of San Bernardino Reorganization (Spring Trails SP) August 14, 2019
Spring Trails would connect to the existing 10-inch main located on Little League Drive. The only offsite improvement that may be required is in North Little League Drive, which may be upgraded from an 8-inch to a 10-inch main.  Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Response:

In 2016, the City of San Bernardino was annexed into the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District (County Fire), its Valley Service Zone, and its Zone FP-5 for fire protection and emergency medical response services. The area being annexed is already within the boundaries of County Fire; therefore, fire protection and emergency medical response services will continue to be provided by County Fire and its Valley Service Zone. No change in actual service provider will occur upon completion of the annexation.

The entire LAFCO 3188A is currently designated as State Responsibility Area (SRA) lands. This designation would be removed upon annexation to the City and the financial burden for fire protection becomes a responsibility of the City.

Fire stations and equipment of the City have since been transferred to County Fire through the City’s fire reorganization. The closest fire station is Station 232 (6065 Palm Avenue) located approximately two miles away from the project site. Water facilities for fire protection will meet water flow demands for the project.

As a result of the County Fire reorganizations, one of the conditions that was agreed upon was to account for the special tax generated from within the different areas being annexed into County Fire by creating subzones of County Fire’s Service Zone FP-5. In the case for the City, Zone FP-5 San Bernardino was created to isolate said funding generated from the City. Therefore, LAFCO 3188A includes annexation to Zone FP-5 San Bernardino as part of the overall reorganization in order to isolate the funding generated from reorganization area within the City of San Bernardino.  Law Enforcement:

Law enforcement responsibilities will shift from the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department to the City of San Bernardino Police Department. The area is served by a main police station located at 710 North D Street, and four designated geographical patrol districts. The project area is within the City’s patrol beat B1 in the Northwest Patrol District.
 Park and Recreation:

Regional park and recreation services are currently provided by the County Regional Parks system. The closest regional park is Glen Helen Regional Park, which has various recreation activities. Due to the primarily vacant nature of the reorganization area, local park amenities are not currently provided.

The City of San Bernardino has a variety of parks and recreation facilities. The closest City park is the Al Guhin Park located approximately 1.3 miles from the 15 Packet Page. 684
Agenda Item #8 – LAFCO 3188A
City of San Bernardino Reorganization (Spring Trails SP) August 14, 2019
proposal area. The Spring Trails project plans to develop neighborhood parks, natural open space, as well as pedestrian/equestrian trails.  Solid Waste
Solid waste services are currently provided by Burrtec Industries within the reorganization area and within the City of San Bernardino (by contract). No change in service provider will occur through the annexation.
 Schools
The area is within the San Bernardino City Unified School District (SBCUSD). Upon annexation, SBCUSD will continue to be the school district with North Verdemont Elementary School, Chavez Middle School, and Cajon High School.

As required by Commission policy and State law, the Plan for Service submitted by the City of San Bernardino and its Municipal Water Department show that the extension of the City’s services to the reorganization area are required to provide the level of service anticipated by the Spring Trails Specific Plan. Such service extensions will exceed current service levels provided through the County as the area is primarily vacant at the present time. 16 Packet Page. 685
Agenda Item #8 – LAFCO 3188A
City of San Bernardino Reorganization (Spring Trails SP) August 14, 2019
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS:

The City’s processing of the Spring Trails Specific Plan project included the preparation and certification of an Environmental Impact Report that was finalized by the City in 2013.

LAFCO’s Environmental Consultant, Tom Dodson and Associates, has reviewed the City’s Complete Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which includes the Draft EIR and the Final EIR, and indicated that the City’s environmental documents are adequate for the Commission’s use as a responsible agency for LAFCO 3188A. Copies of the City’s Complete Final EIR and all associated documents, were provided to Commissioners on July 22, 2019. Mr. Dodson has indicated in his letter to the Commission, included as Attachment #9 to this report, the actions that are appropriate for the review of LAFCO 3188A, which are:
 Certify that the Commission, its staff, and its Environmental Consultant have individually reviewed and considered the environmental assessment for the Spring Trails Specific Plan prepared by the City of San Bernardino;  Determine that the Complete Final EIR is adequate for the Commission’s use in making its decision related to LAFCO 3188A;
 Determine that the Commission does not intend to adopt alternatives or additional mitigation measures for the project; that the mitigation measures identified in the City’s environmental documents for the Spring Trails project are the responsibility of the City and others, not the Commission;
 Adopt the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations as presented by Mr. Dodson, which are the conclusions made regarding the significance of a project in light of the impacts and mitigation measures that have been identified. A copy of this Statement is included as a part of Attachment #9 to this report; and,  Direct the Executive Officer to file the Notice of Determination within five days and find that no further Department of Fish and Wildlife filing fees are required by the Commission’s approval since the City, as lead agency, has paid said fees.

WAIVER OF PROTEST PROCEEDINGS:

The reorganization area is legally uninhabited (as determined by the Registrar of Voters office) and LAFCO staff verified that the study area possesses 100% landowner consent to the annexation. Therefore, if the Commission approves LAFCO 3188A and none of the affected agencies have submitted written opposition to a waiver of protest proceedings, staff is recommending that protest proceedings be waived. The actions would include direction to the Executive Officer to complete the reorganization following completion of the mandatory reconsideration period of 30-days.
17 Packet Page. 686
Agenda Item #8 – LAFCO 3188A
City of San Bernardino Reorganization (Spring Trails SP) August 14, 2019
CONCLUSION:

In the mid-90s, the applicant already began planning the development of its landholdings that encompass the Spring Trails Specific Plan area. This began by a request to LAFCO for expansion of the City’s sphere of influence in 1996. The first development project was originally called “Martin Ranch”. As noted in the History Section of this report, the prior Martin Ranch and the current Spring Trails Specific Plan has been in the making for more than 20 years with numerous changes to the project description and multiple Draft EIRs prepared and revised since its inception. The final project approved and/or adopted by the City of San Bernardino, which is the Spring Trails Specific Plan, requires a broad range and level of municipal services that are only available through the City of San Bernardino.

The reorganization area will benefit from the extension of the City’s services as well as the continuation of fire protection and emergency medical response services from the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District and its Valley Service Zone based upon the anticipated development of 215 (current configuration) single-family residences, open space, parks, and other public facilities.

The Spring Trails Specific Plan was approved and adopted by the City with certain guidelines, conditions of approval, and mitigation measures. Therefore, the Commission’s approval of LAFCO 3188A assumes that the City will adhere to the parameters that have been imposed on the Spring Trails Specific Plan and the mitigation measures outlined in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Spring Trails Specific Plan.

However, approval of this proposal calls into question the issue related to the adjacent unincorporated area that will become totally-surrounded by the City of San Bernardino. This report provides for options for addressing the creation of said island territory. Staff recommendations are to:
 Include a determination required by Government Code Section 56375(m), which can be applied to this proposal; and,
 Include a condition that requires the City to initiate the totally-surrounded island area within one year of the Commission’s approval of LAFCO 3188A.

For all these reasons, and those outlined throughout the staff report, staff recommends approval of LAFCO 3188A.

However, should the Commission choose Option 2 (to expand the proposal) then the Commission would have to continue the item in order to provide proper noticing. 18 Packet Page. 687
Agenda Item #8 – LAFCO 3188A
City of San Bernardino Reorganization (Spring Trails SP) August 14, 2019
RECOMMENDATIONS:

The staff recommends that the Commission approve LAFCO 3188A by taking the following actions:

Adopt the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations as presented by the Commission’s Environmental Consultant and attached to the staff report; and,
Direct the Executive Officer to file the Notice of Determination within five days, and find that no further Department of Fish and Wildlife filing fees are required by the Commission’s approval since the City, as CEQA Lead Agency, has paid said fees.

3. Approve LAFCO 3188A with the following conditions:
a. The City of San Bernardino shall be required to initiate annexation of the totally-surrounded island within one year of the Commission’s approval of LAFCO 3188A and process under standard protest proceedings. A resolution by the City Council of the City of San Bernardino shall be submitted to the Executive Officer of LAFCO outlining the City’s commitment to fulfilling this 19 Packet Page. 688
Agenda Item #8 – LAFCO 3188A
City of San Bernardino Reorganization (Spring Trails SP) August 14, 2019
requirement prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Completion for LAFCO 3188A. A status report shall be provided to the Commission at the six month date outlining the progress of the City of San Bernardino in fulfilling its obligation. Failure on the part of the City of San Bernardino to fulfill its commitment to annex the totally-surrounded island shall require that the next annexation proposed to the City of San Bernardino, either by the City through resolution or by property owner/registered voter petition, include a condition requiring the initiation of annexation of the totally-surrounded island. Said condition of approval shall be deemed completed upon the issuance of the Certificate of Filing for said island.
b. The standard LAFCO terms and conditions that include, but are not limited to, the “hold harmless” clause for potential litigation costs by the applicant and the continuation of fees, charges, and/or assessments currently authorized by the annexing agency, and the identification that the transfer of utility accounts will occur within 90 days of the recording of the Certificate of Completion.

3. 4.

Waive protest proceedings, as permitted by Government Code Section 56662(d), with 100% landowner consent to the reorganization; and, Adopt LAFCO Resolution No. 3291 setting forth the Commission’s determinations, terms, and conditions of approval concerning LAFCO 3188A. 20 Packet Page. 689
Agenda Item #8 – LAFCO 3188A
City of San Bernardino Reorganization (Spring Trails SP) August 14, 2019
DETERMINATIONS:

The following determinations are required to be provided by Commission policy and Government Code Section 56668 for any changes of organization/reorganization proposal:

1. The reorganization proposal is legally uninhabited containing four (4) registered voters within the reorganization area as certified by the Registrar of Voters as of July 22, 2019.

2. The County Assessor’s Office has determined that the total assessed value of land and improvements within the reorganization area is $1,978,576 (land--$1,876,890; improvements--$101,686) as of August 9, 2019.

3. The reorganization area is within the sphere of influence of the City of San Bernardino.

4. Legal advertisement of the Commission’s consideration has been provided through publication in The Sun, a newspaper of general circulation within the reorganization area. As required by State law, individual notice was provided to affected and interested agencies, County departments, and those individual and agencies having requested such notice.

5. In accordance with State law and adopted Commission policies, LAFCO has provided individual notice to:
 landowners (2) and registered voters (4) within the reorganization area (totaling 6 notices); and,
 landowners (84) and registered voters (96) surrounding the reorganization area (totaling 180 notices).

Included as Attachment #7 to this report is a comment letter received by LAFCO staff from an area resident prior to the publication of the report. The letter outlines concerns related to the project such as fire safety (e.g. housing densities, slope issues, and previous fires in the area, etc.), issues regarding the access roads (e.g. roads built on fault lines, vehicle trips per day, etc.), and issues related to services from the City as well as utilities across fault lines.

Comments from landowners and registered voters and any affected local agency in support or opposition will be reviewed and considered by the Commission in making its determination.

6. The City of San Bernardino adopted the Spring Trails Specific Plan (SP #10-01) along with a General Plan Amendment (GPA #02-09) and a Development Code Amendment (DCA #12-10), which pre-zoned the reorganization area as Spring Trails Specific Plan with the following underlying specific plan zone designations:

Residential (Estate), Open Space, and Parks. These pre-zone/specific plan zone 21 Packet Page. 690
Agenda Item #8 – LAFCO 3188A
City of San Bernardino Reorganization (Spring Trails SP) August 14, 2019
designations are consistent with the City’s General Plan and are generally compatible with surrounding land uses within the City and in the County.

Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 56375(e), these pre-zone designations shall remain in effect for two years following annexation unless specific actions are taken by the City Council.

7. The Southern California Associated Governments (SCAG) adopted its 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP-SCS) pursuant to Government Code Section 65080. LAFCO 3188A is in close proximity with the I-215 Freeway, which is part of the RTP-SCS’s highway improvement (expansion/rehabilitation) program adding high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes between the I-210 and the I-15 Freeways for completion by 2035.

8. The City of San Bernardino adopted an updated Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in October 2016 (Resolution No. 2016-209), which was developed by County Fire, the City’s fire service provider. Said LHMP includes the Spring Trails project as one its potential residential development. County Fire also has its Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan that was approved by FEMA in July 2017.

Information contained in the Safety Element of the City’s General Plan related to Urban and Wildland Fires is included as Attachment #8.

9. As a CEQA responsible agency, the Commission’s Environmental Consultant, Tom Dodson of Tom Dodson and Associates, has reviewed the City’s environmental documents for the reorganization proposal and has indicated that the City’s environmental assessment for the Spring Trails Specific Plan are adequate for the Commission’s use as CEQA responsible agency. Copies of the City’s Complete Final EIR and all associated documents were provided to Commission members on July 22, 2019 and are also included (as web links) as part of Attachment #9 to this report (Environmental Documents Related to the City of San Bernardino’s Approval of the Spring Trails Specific Plan). Mr. Dodson has prepared his recommended actions for LAFCO 3188A, which are outlined in the narrative portion of the Environmental Considerations section (page 17 of the staff report).

Attachment #9 also includes the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations that has been prepared for the Commission’s use in addressing this project.

10. The reorganization area is presently served by the following public agencies:

County of San Bernardino
Inland Empire Resource Conservation District
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
San Bernardino County Fire Protection District, its Valley Service Zone, and its Zone FP-5 (fire protection and emergency medical response)
County Service Area 70 (multi-function unincorporated County-wide) 22 Packet Page. 691
Agenda Item #8 – LAFCO 3188A
City of San Bernardino Reorganization (Spring Trails SP) August 14, 2019
The area will be detached from County Service Area 70 and its sphere of influence reduced as a function of the reorganization. None of the other agencies are affected by this proposal as they are regional in nature.

11. A plan was prepared for the extension of services to the reorganization area, as required by law. The Plan for Service and the Fiscal Impact Analysis, as certified by the City and its Municipal Water Department, indicates that the City can maintain and/or improve the level and range of services currently available in the area. A copy of this plan is included as a part of Attachment #6 to this report.

The Plan for Service and Fiscal Impact Analysis have been reviewed and compared with the standards established by the Commission and the factors contained within Government Code Section 56668. The Commission finds that the Plan for Service and the Fiscal Impact Analysis conform to those adopted standards and requirements.

The Plan indicates that the revenues to be provided through the transfer of property tax revenues and existing and potential financing mechanisms are anticipated to be sufficient to provide for the infrastructure and ongoing maintenance and operation of the services to be provided from the City of San Bernardino and its Municipal Water Department as well as the services from the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District and its Valley Service Zone. A copy of the Plan for Service is included as a part of Attachment #6 to this report.

12. The reorganization proposal complies with Commission policies and directives and State law that indicate the preference for areas proposed for urban intensity development to be included within a City so that the full range of municipal services can be planned, funded, extended, and maintained.

However, approval of this proposal will create an island of unincorporated territory that will be totally-surrounded by the City of San Bernardino.

13. 14.

15. The reorganization area can benefit from the availability and extension of municipallevel services from the City of San Bernardino and its Municipal Water Department, as evidenced by the Plan for Service certified by the City.

This proposal will have an effect on the City of San Bernardino’s ability to achieve its fair share of the regional housing needs as it proposes to build the addition of 215 single-family residential units.

With respect to environmental justice, which is the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the location of public facilities and the provision of public services, the following demographic and income profile was generated using ESRI’s Community Analyst for the City of San Bernardino and the reorganization and adjacent unincorporated areas (2019 data):
23 Packet Page. 692
Agenda Item #8 – LAFCO 3188A
City of San Bernardino Reorganization (Spring Trails SP) August 14, 2019
Demographic and Income
Comparison
City of
San Bernardino
(%)
Reorganization
Area and
Adjacent
Unincorporated
Area (%)
Race and Ethnicity
• African American Alone
• American Indian Alone
• Asian Alone
• Pacific Islander Alone
• Hispanic Origin (Any Race)
Median Household Income

13.5 %

1.3 %

4.2 %

0.4 %

68.3 %
$43,515

7.0 %

0.9 %

4.3 %

0.3 %

37.9 %
$104,564
Through future development, the reorganization area will benefit from the extension of services and facilities from the City and, at the same time, the approval of the reorganization proposal will not result in the unfair treatment of any person based on race, culture or income.

16. The County of San Bernardino (for itself and acting on behalf of the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District) and the City of San Bernardino have successfully negotiated a transfer of property tax revenues that will be implemented upon completion of this reorganization. This fulfills the requirements of Section 99 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.

17. The maps and legal descriptions, as revised, are in substantial compliance with LAFCO and State standards through certification by the County Surveyor's Office.

SM/
Attachments:

1. Vicinity Map, Reorganization Map, and Current Development Plan Configuration

2. Applicant’s Landowner Petition and Application Documents

3. ROV Certification of Registered Voters within LAFCO 3188 Dated July 2, 2015

4. Letter from Applicant Dated June 22, 2016 Regarding Resubmittal of Application

5. Spring Trails Specific Plan and Recorded Development Agreement

6. City of San Bernardino’s Certified Plan for Service/Fiscal Impact Analysis, Certification from the City’s Municipal Water Department

7. Comment Letter Received Prior to Staff Report Publication

8. Safety Element Portion of the City’s General Plan related to Urban and Wildland Fires

9. Letter from Tom Dodson and Associates and Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Environmental Documents Related to the City of San Bernardino’s Approval of the Spring Trails Specific Plan

10. Draft Resolution No. 3291 for LAFCO 3188A
24 Packet Page. 693
Letters Received After the
August 21, 2019 Hearing
Attachment 2
Packet Page. 694
Packet Page. 695
Packet Page. 696
Packet Page. 697
Packet Page. 698
Packet Page. 699
Packet Page. 700
Packet Page. 701
Packet Page. 702
Packet Page. 703
Packet Page. 704
Packet Page. 705
Packet Page. 706
Packet Page. 707
Packet Page. 708
Packet Page. 709
Packet Page. 710
Packet Page. 711
Packet Page. 712
Packet Page. 713
Packet Page. 714
Packet Page. 715
Packet Page. 716
Packet Page. 717
Packet Page. 718
Packet Page. 719
Packet Page. 720
Packet Page. 721
Packet Page. 722
Packet Page. 723
Packet Page. 724
Packet Page. 725
Packet Page. 726
Packet Page. 727
Packet Page. 728
Packet Page. 729
Packet Page. 730
Packet Page. 731
Packet Page. 732
Packet Page. 733
Packet Page. 734
Packet Page. 735
Packet Page. 736
Packet Page. 737
Packet Page. 738
Packet Page. 739
Packet Page. 740
Packet Page. 741
Packet Page. 742
Packet Page. 743
Packet Page. 744
Packet Page. 745
Packet Page. 746
Packet Page. 747
Packet Page. 748
Packet Page. 749
Packet Page. 750
Packet Page. 751
Packet Page. 752
Packet Page. 753
Packet Page. 754
Packet Page. 755
Packet Page. 756
Packet Page. 757
Packet Page. 758
Packet Page. 759
Packet Page. 760
Packet Page. 761
Packet Page. 762
Packet Page. 763
Packet Page. 764
Packet Page. 765
Letter from Tom Dodson and
Associates and Facts, Findings
and Statement of Overriding
Considerations, and
Environmental Documents
Related to the City of San
Bernardino’s approval of the
Spring Trails Specific Plan
Attachment 3
Packet Page. 766

TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
Mailing Address: PO Box 2307, San Bernardino, CA 92406-2307 Physical Address: 2150 N. Arrowhead Avenue, San Bernardino, CA 92405 Tel: (909) 882-3612 ✦ Fax: (909) 882-7015 ✦ Email: [email protected] July 31, 2019
Mr. Samuel Martinez
Executive Officer
Local Agency Formation Commission
1170 West 3rd Street, Unit 150
San Bernardino, CA 92415-0490
Dear Sam:

The proposed Reorganization area consists of approximately 350 acres located generally east of Devore and northeasterly o the I-215 Freeway. The property and current City of San Bernardino boundary is shown on the attached aerial photo of the project area. The Reorganization area is within the City of San Bernardino northern Sphere of Influence. If the Commission approves LAFCO 3188A, the project site can be developed under the Spring Trails Specific Plan which currently proposes 215 new residential lots.

The City of prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR, SCH No. 2009111086) and certified the Final EIR on February 19, 2013 for this project to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State CEQA Guidelines. This document concluded that implementation of the proposed residential development in accordance with the adopted Specific Plan would result in significant adverse environmental impacts to the environment even after implementation of a number of mitigation measures that all fall within the City’s jurisdiction. Because the EIR identified unavoidable significant adverse environmental impacts, the City adopted a Facts, Findings, and Statement of Overriding Considerations weighing the project benefits with the identified adverse environmental impacts. LAFCO was identified as one of the Responsible Agencies under CEQA for this proposed Reorganization.

As a CEQA Responsible Agency, LAFCO is required to rely upon the EIR certified by the City of San Bernardino in 2013. One of the requirements for utilizing a certified EIR by a Responsible Agency is to verify that the original document is still adequate for use when the agency considers the EIR for the action evaluated in the EIR. In this case the Reorganization is an essential step in the final approval process for implementing the residential development entitled by the Spring Trails Specific Plan. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 allows an original document to be used by a Responsible Agency under the following conditions:

Under Section 15162, a subsequent EIR or negative declaration is required only when:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; Packet Page. 767
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the EIR due to the involvement of any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

I have reviewed the original EIR to determine whether any substantial changes have occurred during the intervening six (6) years that would result in any new significant impacts or greater impacts than identified in this document. In fact, one major change in the project would substantially reduce all impacts of the proposed project. The original project would have resulted in 242 acres of development and 111 acres of open space. The total number of residential units approved by the City was 307. Due to additional geology and soil data obtained subsequent to the EIR’s certification, the project design was revised. The current design will allow about 199 acres to be developed and an estimated 154 acres will be retained in open space and other non-residential uses. The total number of residential units now proposed is 215. This substantial reduction in the number of units, plus positive changes in air emission reductions and overall project footprint provide assurance that the project that would be allowed to proceed after annexation will have less overall impact than the originally approved project. Therefore, I recommend that the Commission rely upon the City’s EIR as adequate for LAFCO’s Responsible Agency CEQA environmental determination. Further, I am recommending that the Commission consider the certified EIR as a CEQA Responsible Agency as the appropriate CEQA environmental determination for LAFCO 3188A.

Based on a review of LAFCO 3188A and the pertinent sections of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, I believe it is appropriate for the Commission's CEQA environmental determination to cite the City’s EIR as adequate documentation in accordance with the Commission's CEQA Responsible Agency status. The Notice of Determination for the project was filed on February 19, 2013. Based on a field review of the site and review of the environmental issues in the City’s document, no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred since its adoption that would require additional environmental documentation or review. Under this situation, I recommend that the Commission take the following steps if it chooses to approve LAFCO 3188A, acting as a CEQA Responsible Agency:

Packet Page. 768

1. 2.

Indicate that the Commission staff and environmental consultant have independently reviewed the City's EIR and found them adequate for the City’s proposed Reorganization.

The Commission needs to indicate that it has considered the EIR and environmental effects, as outlined in the EIR, prior to reaching a decision on the project and finds the information substantiating the EIR adequate for approval of the Reorganization.

3. The Commission should indicate that it does not intend to adopt alternatives or mitigation measures for this project. Mitigation measures were required for this project and they will remain the responsibility of the City to implement.

4. 5.

Adopt the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations.

File a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk of the Board as a CEQA Responsible Agency.

If you have any questions regarding these recommendations, please feel free to give me a call.

Sincerely,
Tom Dodson
TD/cmc
Packet Page. 769
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding
Considerations
for the
Spring Trails Specific Plan
August 2019
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 770
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
I. PROJECT SUMMARY........................................................................................................ 1 A. Site Location................................................................................................................ 1 B. Project Description. .................................................................................................... 2 C. Actions Covered by the EIR....................................................................................... 8 D. Project Objectives ....................................................................................................... 9 II. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ............................. 10 III. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT FINDING ....................................................................... 11 A. General Finding On Mitigation Measures.............................................................. 11 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND FINDINGS ........................................................ 12 A. Impacts Identified as Less Than Significant Requiring No Mitigation. .............. 12

1. Aesthetics. ............................................................................................................ 12

2. Air Quality........................................................................................................... 18

3. Biological Resources. .......................................................................................... 21

4. Cultural Resources.............................................................................................. 22

5. Geology and Soils................................................................................................ 23

6. Hazards and Hazardous Materials.................................................................... 28

7. Hydrology/Water Quality .................................................................................. 30

8. Land Use and Planning. ..................................................................................... 40

9. Mineral Resources. ............................................................................................. 46

10. Noise. .................................................................................................................... 46

11. Population and Housing. .................................................................................... 53

12. Public Services..................................................................................................... 56

13. Recreation............................................................................................................ 60

14. Traffic Impacts.................................................................................................... 62

15. Utilities and Service Systems.............................................................................. 63

16. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. ............................................................................... 69

17. Forest Resources. ................................................................................................ 72 B. Potentially Significant Impacts Which Can Be Mitigated Below a Level of Significance and Mitigation Measures.................................................................... 74

1. Biological Resources. .......................................................................................... 74

2. Cultural Resources............................................................................................ 105

3. Geology and Soils.............................................................................................. 110

4. Hazards and Hazardous Materials.................................................................. 113

5. Land Use and Planning. ................................................................................... 125

6. Public Services................................................................................................... 126

7. Traffic and Circulation..................................................................................... 129

8. Utilities and Service Systems............................................................................ 131

9. Forest Resources. .............................................................................................. 136 C. Impacts Analyzed in the EIR and Determined to be Significant and Unavoidable............................................................................................................. 138

1. Air Quality......................................................................................................... 138

2. Noise. .................................................................................................................. 146

3. Traffic................................................................................................................. 148 i
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 771
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

4. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. ............................................................................. 150 D. Additional Topics Required by CEQA. ................................................................ 156

1. Significant Irreversible Environmental Effects. ............................................ 156

2. Growth Inducing Impacts................................................................................ 157 E. Project Alternatives. ............................................................................................... 159

1. No Project/No Development Alternative. ....................................................... 159

2. No Project/Existing County General Plan Alternative.................................. 161

3. Alternative Site Plan......................................................................................... 164

4. Reduced Daily Grading Alternative................................................................ 166

5. Environmentally Superior Alternative. .......................................................... 167 F. Statement of Overriding Considerations.............................................................. 168

1. Findings Related to Traffic and Transportation Impacts............................. 170

2. Findings Related to Air Quality Impacts........................................................ 171

3. Findings Related to Noise Impacts. ................................................................. 172

4. Findings Related to Greenhouse Gas Emissions............................................ 172 V. APPROVING THE PROJECT ....................................................................................... 174 VI. REGARDING STAFF DIRECTION.............................................................................. 174 VII. REGARDING CONTENTS AND CUSTODIAN OF RECORD ................................. 174 ii
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 772
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

CANDIDATE FINDINGS OF FACT AND

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS

REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS FROM APPROVAL OF
LAFCO 3188A, REORGANIZATION TO INCLUDE

ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT ZONE FP-5 SAN BERNARDINO, AND DETACHMENT FROM COUNTY SERVICE AREA 70
(SPRING TRAILS SPECIFIC PLAN)
I. INTRODUCTION
The San Bernardino County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO or Commission), in approving LAFCO 3188A for a Reorganization to include Annexation to the City of San Bernardino (“City”) and to the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District Zone FP-5 San Bernardino, and Detachment from County Service Area 70 (Spring Trails Specific Plan), makes the findings described below and adopts the statement of overriding considerations presented at the end of these findings. The total area encompassed within the proposed Sphere expansion is estimated to be 350 acres.

The Commission makes the Findings described below in connection with the City’s approval of the Spring Trails Specific Plan (“Project” or “Spring Trails”). The current Project proposes development of 215 single-family lots, in addition to a single existing residence, within a 350-acre site situated within an unincorporated area of the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains.

The Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) was prepared by the City acting as lead agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). In considering LAFCO 3188A, the Commission will be acting as a CEQA Responsible Agency. Hereafter, the Notice of Preparation, Notice of Availability, Draft EIR, Technical Studies, Final EIR containing Responses to Comments and textual revisions to the Draft EIR, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will be referred to collectively herein as the “EIR” unless otherwise specified. These Findings are based on the entire record before the Commission, including the EIR. The Commission adopts the facts and analyses in the EIR, which are summarized below for convenience. The omission of some detail or aspect of the EIR does not mean that it has been rejected by the Commission.

I. PROJECT SUMMARY
A. Site Location.

The Project is located within unincorporated San Bernardino County on the northern edge of the City of San Bernardino and in the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains. The site is approximately 1.5 miles east of the unincorporated community of Devore and the junction of Interstate 215 (I-215) and I-15. The Project is bounded by the San Bernardino National Forest on three sides, and the Verdemont community of unincorporated San Bernardino County on the southern side. The Project is approximately one-third mile northwest of the intersection of 1 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 773
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Meyers Road and Little League Drive. Primary access is from a new roadway extending from Little League Drive, and secondary access will be provided by a new road extending south and connecting to the frontage road along I-215. Freeway access is from the Palm Avenue interchange and the Glen Helen Parkway/Devore Road interchange.

B. Project Description.

The Project site (349.36 acres, or approximately 350 acres) is within the City of San Bernardino’s unincorporated sphere of influence (“SOI”) and will be annexed into the City.

LAFCO 3188A consists of a request by the City of San Bernardino (City) for a Reorganization to include Annexation to the City and to the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District Zone FP-5 San Bernardino, and Detachment from County Service Area 70 (Spring Trails Specific Plan). There has been one major change in the project that would substantially reduce all impacts of the proposed project relative to the forecast in the EIR. The original project would have resulted in 242 acres of development and 111 acres of open space. The total number of residential units approved by the City was 307. Due to additional geology and soil data obtained subsequent to the EIR’s certification, the project design was revised. The current design will allow about 199 acres to be developed and an estimated 154 acres will be retained in open space and other non-residential uses. The total number of residential units now proposed is 215. This substantial reduction in the number of units, plus positive changes in air emission reductions and overall project footprint provide assurance that the project that would be allowed to proceed after Reorganization will have less overall impact than the originally approved project.

Under the current “Preferred Development Plan”, the Spring Trails Specific Plan will accommodate 215 single-family detached units, set among neighborhoods separated by open space corridors, drainage ways, roadways, and sloped areas. A system of pathways will connect the residences with neighborhood parks and natural open spaces. Development will be focused onto approximately 199 acres, or about 56 percent of the total site, and will include 154 acres of open space, parks and internal slopes and fuel modification zones.

The Preferred Development Plan assumes that the Southern California Edison (“SCE”) overhead electric lines that traverse the western portion of the Project site would remain aboveground. Underneath the central portion of the electric line easement, the land use is designated as Open Space-Controlled. The northern portion of the electric line easement is designated as residential; however, development is not permitted within the electric line easement.

The average lot size in Spring Trails is 29,000 square feet. The largest lots are on the northern portion and upper elevations of the site, and the largest lot measures 18.3 acres. The smallest lots are on the lower elevations and southern portion of the project, and the smallest lot measures 10,801 square feet. In many instances the legal lots extend beyond the buildable area and include graded slopes, fuel modification zones, steep slopes, and open spaces.

Approximately 199 acres of the total site would be improved for the onsite development of residential lots, roadways, trails, detention basins, fuel modification zones, and parks. An additional 23.7 acres would be graded and improved for offsite access, including 4.2 acres for the primary access road and 19.5 acres for the secondary access road.

Alternative (Underground Electric Lines) Development Plan 2 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 774
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations In the event that it becomes feasible or necessary to do so, an “Alternative Development Plan” is proposed, which is identical to the Preferred Development Plan in every respect, except for the electric lines would be relocated underground. The Alternative Development Plan contains 215 single-family detached units.

Access Roads and Circulation
Primary access to Spring Trails would be provided by a new road extending from the southeastern corner of the site and connecting to Little League Drive. Secondary access is planned via a new road extending from the southwestern corner of the site to the frontage road along I-215. Except for emergency access, the intersection of the secondary access road with Meyers Road is designed with barriers to prevent vehicular access onto Meyers Road.

Circulation within Spring Trails will be provided by a loop road and a series of cul-de-sacs.

Necessary public streets, both on- and off-site, would be improved by the developer and dedicated to the City. All roadways would be two-way travel—one lane in each direction—with varying treatments for parkways, sidewalks, and parking. The roadway types are:
 Primary Access Road (50 ft. Right-of-Way (ROW)) would provide the main access for residents and guests to enter and leave Spring Trails;
 Secondary Access Roadway (50 ft. ROW) is intended as an alternative street for local traffic to access arterial streets outside the project site. General public would not be able to access Meyers Road from the Secondary Access Road through the use of a barrier.

Emergency vehicles would only be allowed to access Meyers Road from the Secondary Access Road.
 Primary Local Street (50 ft. ROW) would provide primary internal access within Spring Trails.
 Secondary Local Road (40 ft. ROW) would provide resident access in the northern portion of the project and include parallel parking on one side of the street.  Cul-de-Sac I (46 ft. ROW) would connect to the local streets and provide access to homes on both sides of the street.
 Cul-de-Sac II (40 ft. ROW) would connect to the local streets and provide access to homes on only one side of the street.

Trails and Open Space
A total of 154 acres of the 350-acre site is planned as open space, including natural open space, controlled open space, and parks. Two neighborhood parks would be public, serve the dual function as detention basins, and include shade structures and tot lots. One private park is proposed to include a thematic garden, observation point, a tot lot, and other amenities such as an 3 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 775
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations outdoor fireplace, water feature, picnic benches, and gazebo. A private, enclosed dog park is also proposed. Under the Preferred Development Plan with overhead electric lines, 126 acres is planned as open space, with an additional 0.9 acres of open space to accommodate the SCE easement for the overhead electric lines. The land underneath the central portion of the SCE easement is designated as Open Space-Controlled. If permitted by SCE, a park and/or trail may be located under this portion of the electric lines as a permitted use; however, they are not assumed in the buildout of the Preferred Development Plan.

A diverse system of interconnected trails would include a community trail (8-foot-wide trail within street ROW) for pedestrian and bicycle use; equestrian/pedestrian trail (12-foot-wide trail surfaced with decomposed granite or similar surface and connecting with existing offsite trail); and 4-foot-wide hiking trails.

Storm Drainage
There are four major drainage areas within the Spring Trails Project site. Upon development, some natural drainage courses onsite would be maintained, and some on- and off-site flows would be captured and routed through a series of catch basin inlets and storm drain systems.

Captured stormwater would be conveyed to three onsite detention basins where it would be treated and discharged at a controlled rate into Cable Canyon. The drainage plan has been designed to ensure conveyance of the 100-year storm. Best Management Practices (“BMPs”) for water quality treatment would include the extended detention basins and media filtration devices.

These improvements would be designed and constructed in accordance with the City of San Bernardino and the San Bernardino County Flood Control District standards.

Water Supply System
The City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department would provide water service to Spring Trails, and currently provides service to pressure zones ranging from 1,249 feet to 2,100 feet. The nearest existing reservoir is the Meyers Canyon Reservoir, which is within the 2,100- foot pressure zone, but is not adequate for buildout of Spring Trails or Verdemont. Therefore, water would be supplied to Spring Trails from lower elevations by a combination of expanding and improving the offsite water system and the provision of onsite reservoirs and transmission lines. Offsite improvements would include the creation/improvement of a series of pump stations and transmission lines within the Verdemont community. In addition, three onsite reservoirs are proposed to meet the need for 2,300-, 2,500-, 2,700-, and 3,000-foot elevation pressure zones.

Based upon the projected buildout of Spring Trails, total projected water demands are:
 Average Daily Demand – 328 gallons per minute (gpm), reduced by about 30% due to current number of units
 Maximum Daily Demand – 568 gpm, reduced by about 30% due to current number of units
 Maximum Peak Hour Demand – 1,136 gpm, reduced by about 30% due to current number of units
4 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 776
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations The water facilities for Spring Trails have been sized to meet maximum demand in addition to fire flow requirements. Fire flow capacity is designed to provide 1,500 gpm for four hours.

Pumping stations would be designed with 100 percent redundancy in the event that one or more of the pumping units fails, and would be equipped with onsite generators that can operate in a blackout or emergency condition. The pipelines that connect pump stations to the reservoirs would be a maximum of 20 inches in diameter. All looping lines would be 12 inches in diameter, and other distribution pipelines would be 8 inches in diameter.

Sewer Collection
The City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department would provide wastewater service to the Spring Trails Project, which lies within its sanitary sewer service area. Spring Trails would connect to the City’s existing 10-inch sewer line, which ends at Little League Drive and Meyers Road, then connects to the south to a major interceptor system, and is eventually treated in the San Bernardino Water Reclamation Plant. Existing capacity is available in the sewer system to serve the buildout population within the City. The sewer facilities would be designed and constructed in accordance with the City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department standards and specifications and in accordance with the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (latest edition). The sewer mains would be located in public street rights-ofway where possible. If not, they would be constructed within dedicated public utility easements.

The sewer system would be dedicated to and maintained by the City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department.

Fuel Modification and Fire Protection
The entire Project site is within a Very High Hazard Severity Zone as designated by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (“CAL FIRE”). Once annexed to the City of San Bernardino, the Project site would also be subject to the City’s Development Code and established Foothill Fire Zones Overlay District (Development Code Chapter 19.15). The overlay district designates three zones within the wildland interface:
 Fire Zone A (Extreme hazard), characterized by slopes over 30 percent  Fire Zone B (High Hazard), characterized by slopes 15–30 percent  Fire Zone C (Moderate Hazard), characterized by slopes less than 15 percent The Project site has approximately 121 acres in Fire Zone A, 112 acres in Fire Zone B, and 119 acres in Fire Zone C. The Overlay District specifies development standards relating to access and circulation, site and street identification, roadside vegetation, water supply, erosion control, construction and development design, and miscellaneous items. The entire Project site is already within the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District and its Valley Service Zone, which is the fire service provider for the City. Any remaining references to the City Fire Department in this document should instead reference the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District.
5 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 777
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations One of the components of the wildland fire defense systems for Spring Trails would be the implementation of fuel modification zones. The proposed plan includes the following defined fuel modification zones:
 Fuel Modification Zone A (flat) - Noncombustible Construction: 20- to 35-foot setback zone for noncombustible construction only. Fuel Modification Zone A shall be maintained by the homeowner or the HOA. At no time would the Fuel Modification Zone A be less than 20 feet.
 Fuel Modification Zone B - Wet Zone (100 percent removal of undesirable plant species):

First 50 to 200 feet from Fuel Modification Zone A. Fuel Modification Zone B shall be permanently irrigated, fully landscaped with approved drought-tolerant, deep-rooted, moisture-retentive material as container shrub material, or hydroseeded per SBFD Approved Plant List. Fuel Modification Zone B area shall be maintained by the homeowner, HOA, or landscape maintenance district (“LMD”) as appropriate.  Fuel Modification Zone C - Dry Zone (50 percent thinning of the acceptable existing plant material): 40 to 185 feet. Fuel Modification Zone C shall be a non-irrigated area.

Removal of all flammable undesirable species. Specimen and trees shall be retained as directed by the owner's representative but must be thinned a minimum of 50 percent, including removal of all low hanging foliage within three times the height of the understory shrubs or 10 feet, whichever is greater, along with dead or broken branches.

All accumulated plant debris on the ground shall be removed. Fuel Modification Zone C area shall be maintained by the LMD.

This Project does not contain any 30 percent thinning “D” fuel modification zones.

General Project Phasing and Schedule
It is anticipated in the DEIR that the Project will be phased, with complete buildout anticipated to occur within approximately three years of the start of construction. This phasing, however, is based on a judgment of future planning and market factors, and therefore is subject to change. The Project, however, would be developed in the following sequence:

Phase 1 (approximately one year)
 Offsite grading and improvement of the primary and secondary access roads;  Offsite backbone utilities (water, sewer, drainage, etc.);  Onsite backbone utilities;
 Rough grading of Spring Trails Project site (approximately 200 acres) for development of residential lots, roadways, trails, detention basins, and parks; and  Detention basins improved.
6 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 778
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Phase 2 (approximately 2.5 years)
 Residential development would sequence from the south and continue northward.

Infrastructure, roadways, fuel modification zones, parks, and landscaping necessary to serve residential development would be phased accordingly;  Improvements in this phase would generally follow the sequence of water improvements, which are divided into three pressure zones;
 Sewer, storm drain, dry utilities, and roadway paving would be sequenced with improvements in each water pressure zone;
 Trails, parks, and common area landscaping in each pressure zone would occur prior to or concurrent with issuance of residential building permits for that pressure zone; and  Fuel modification zones necessary to support the development in each zone would occur as noted in the Fire Protection Plan.

In accordance with Section 8.54.070 of the City of San Bernardino’s Municipal Code, construction would be limited to the hours between 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM.

Estimated Earthwork
Based on preliminary estimates, the earthwork for the Project site itself is anticipated to balance. The primary and secondary access roads, however, would require substantial cut, and the net export requirement for the Project is 251,000 cubic yards (cy). Based on an estimated 14 cy capacity per haul truck, an estimated 17,929 truck trips would be required to export soil to complete the access roads. This is estimated to occur over an approximately three-month period, and therefore, based on a six-day week, would require approximately 249 truck trips per day.

Development Agreement
A Development Agreement was proposed as part of the Project approvals. The Development Agreement includes certain Project conditions that benefit the Project, as well as local and regional benefits. These conditions include:
 Dedication to the City of San Bernardino right-of-way for water main lines and related facilities, easements for the construction and operation of water tank sites, and right-ofway for sewer main lines and related facilities;  Construction of water lines and related facilities including water tanks within the easement shown in the Tract Map for the Project site and dedication of those facilities to the City; and
 Construction of sewer main lines and related facilities within the easements shown in the Tract Map and dedication of those facilities to the City.

In exchange, the Development Agreement provides for vested development rights for the Project and reimbursement of those costs that exceed the fair share of the Project for the improvements.
7 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 779
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations C. Actions Covered by the EIR
The following requested discretionary actions are necessary to allow for implementation of the Project:
 City of San Bernardino Mayor and Common Council:
o Approve General Plan Amendment (GPA-02-09), including pre-annexation of the Project site;
o Approve Development Code Amendment (DCA 12-10) to add the Spring Trails Specific Plan to the list of Special Purpose Districts in the Development Code; o Zone the annexed site as Specific Plan (consistent with existing pre-zoning) and the 26.4-acre adjacent area as Residential Estate (up to 1 du/acre); o Adopt Spring Trails Specific Plan;
o Approve Tentative Tract Map (TTM 15576);
o Approve Development Agreement;
o Approve Project-specific Water Quality Management Plan; o Issue Grading Permits and Building Permits;
o A Development Permit will be required for the design of the single-family units.

As a side note, the Hillside Management Overlay zone set forth in Chapter 19.17 of the City of San Bernardino Municipal Code does not apply in this matter as the Specific Plan sets forth a fire protection plan that is in accordance with the City’s Municipal Code. Thus, the Conditional Use Permit called for in Section 19.17.050 of the Development Code is not required prior to construction. Instead, a Development Permit is required prior to construction to evaluate the project design against the Specific Plan and other regulations, and to ensure consistency with the Fire Protection Plan.
 Local Agency Formation Commission (“LAFCO”):
o Approve LAFCO 3188A for a Reorganization to include Annexation to the City and to the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District Zone FP-5 San Bernardino, and Detachment from County Service Area 70 (Spring Trails Specific Plan).
 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:
o Issuance of a Section 404 permit under the federal Clean Water Act. 8 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 780
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations  Regional Water Control Board:
o Water Quality Certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act;  National Pollution Discharge Eliminations System permit under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act California Department of Fish and Wildlife: Streambed Alteration Agreement
 California Public Utilities Commission/Southern California Edison o Review of the Project with regard to the SCE transmission line easement and maintenance right-of-way through the Project site.

D. Project Objectives
The Project objectives are as follows:

1. Develop a high-quality, low-density residential community that optimizes the unique characteristics of the project site, including maximizing view opportunities.

2. Assure adequate roadway access to the development while preserving the integrity of surrounding communities.

3. Enhance City trail facilities by expanding the system and integrating project-site trails with existing and proposed hiking, equestrian, and bicycle trails within the surrounding community.

4. Comply with policies for land use development within and adjacent to the San Bernardino National Forest.

5. Minimize the development footprint and maximize available open space areas.

6. Design a safe community cognizant of natural conditions, including wildland fires, flooding, and seismic hazards.

7. Minimize environmental impacts associated with construction of improvements and longterm operation of the new community.

8. Create an attractive, viable project, and realize a reasonable return on investment.

The Commission concurs with the preceding project description which includes revisions to the Project since it was approved in 2013.
9 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 781
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations II. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The City conducted an extensive review of this Project which included a Draft EIR and a Final EIR, including technical reports; along with a public review and comment period. The following is a summary of the City’s environmental review of this Project:
 On November 24, 2009, the City circulated an Initial Study (“IS”) and Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) identifying the environmental issues to be analyzed in the Project’s EIR to the State Clearinghouse, responsible agencies, and other interested parties. The NOP (Appendix A to the Draft EIR) identified potential environmental impacts related to: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation/Traffic, Utilities and Service Systems, and was the basis for the determination that an EIR should be prepared for the Project.
 The NOP public review period was 30 days. The City accepted a number of written comments from various State, regional and local agencies. The City considered these comments when determining the final scope of the EIR’s analysis. The scope of the issues identified in the comments related to each of the impact areas which are analyzed within the EIR, as listed above, with several comments concentrated on fire hazards.
 The Draft EIR was distributed for public review and the City filed a Notice of Availability (“NOA”) with the State Clearinghouse on July 29, 2011, commencing the 45-day review period.
 The City received a total of 12 comment letters from public agencies and 41comment letters from residents. The City prepared specific responses to all comments. The responses to comments are included in the Final EIR.  Notice of the Common Council hearing to consider the Project was provided in the following newspapers of general and/or regional circulation: the San Bernardino Sun on February 8, 2013.
 On February 19, 2013, the Common Council held a public hearing to consider the Project and staff recommendations. The Common Council, after considering written comments and public testimony on the EIR, determined that no new information was presented that would require recirculation of the EIR. Following public testimony, submission of additional written comments, and staff recommendations, the Common Council voted to certify the EIR, adopt these Findings, and approve the Project, including: Certification of the Environmental Impact Report; approval of General Plan Amendment (GPA-02-09); approval of the zoning designation for the Project site of Specific Plan; approval of the Spring Trails Specific Plan; approval of Tentative Tract Map (TTM 15576); approval of 10 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 782
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations the Development Agreement; and approval of the Project-specific Water Quality Management Plan.

The Commission has reviewed the Environmental Review and Public Participation summary and concurs that it is an accurate record of the review and participation events conducted by the City.

The Commission was afforded an opportunity to participate in this review process as a CEQA Responsible Agency and is using the certified Final EIR for the LAFCO 3188A CEQA compliance process.

III. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT FINDING
The City selected and retained the Planning Center as the environmental consultant to prepare the EIR. The Planning Center prepared the EIR under the supervision and direction of the City’s planning staff.

Finding: The EIR for the Project reflected the City’s independent judgment and in reviewing the Final EIR as a CEQA Responsible Agency, the Commission concurs with the findings and conclusions presented below. The Commission has exercised independent judgment regarding the EIR as a CEQA Responsible Agency in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21082.1(c)(3).

A. General Finding On Mitigation Measures
In preparing the Conditions of Approval for this Project, City staff incorporated the mitigation measures recommended in the EIR as applicable to the Project. In the event that the Conditions of Approval do not use the exact wording of the mitigation measures recommended in the EIR, in each such instance, the adopted Conditions of Approval are intended to be identical or substantially similar to the recommended mitigation measure. Any minor revisions were made for the purpose of improving clarity or to better define the intended purpose by the City.

Finding: Unless specifically stated to the contrary in these findings, it is the City’s intent to adopt all mitigation measures recommended by the Draft EIR which are applicable to the Project. If a measure has, through error, been omitted from the Conditions of Approval or from these Findings, and that measure is not specifically reflected in these Findings, that measure shall be deemed to be adopted pursuant to this paragraph. In addition, unless specifically stated to the contrary in these Findings, all Conditions of Approval repeating or rewording mitigation measures recommended in the EIR are intended to be substantially similar to the mitigation measures recommended in the EIR and are found to be equally effective in avoiding or lessening the identified environmental impact. In each instance, the Conditions of Approval contain the final wording for the mitigation measures. The Commission understands this General Finding and concurs with reliance on the Conditions of Approval as the final wording for EIR mitigation measures. Note that the Commission has no responsibility for implementing any project-related mitigation measures.
11 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 783
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND FINDINGS
City staff reports, the EIR, written and oral testimony at public meetings or hearings, these Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and other information in the administrative record, serve as the basis for the Commission’s environmental determination.

The detailed analysis of potentially significant environmental impacts and proposed mitigation measures for the Project is presented in Section 5 of the Draft EIR. Responses to comments from the public and from other government agencies on the Draft EIR are provided in Section 2 of the Final EIR.

The EIR evaluated seventeen (17) major environmental categories for potential impacts including: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation/Traffic, Utilities and Service Systems, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Forest Resources. Both Project-specific and cumulative impacts were evaluated. Of these 17 major environmental categories, the Commission concurs with the conclusions in the EIR that the issues and sub-issues discussed in Sections A and B below either are less than significant without mitigation, or can be mitigated to a less than significant level.

Unless otherwise indicated, the analysis of each of the impact areas contained in Sections A and B herein is applicable to both the Preferred Development Plan and the Alternative (Underground Electric Lines) Development Plan.

A. Impacts Identified as Less Than Significant Requiring No Mitigation.

The following issues were found in the EIR as having no potential to cause significant impacts, and therefore require no Project-specific mitigation. In the presentation below, each resource issue is identified and the potential for significant adverse environmental effects is discussed.

1. Aesthetics.
a. Substantial Adverse Effect on a Scenic Vista.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.

Facts in Support of the Finding: According to the California Scenic Highway Mapping System of the California Department of Transportation, the Project site is not on or near a major state-designated scenic 12 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 784
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations highway. (EIR at 5.1-4). Goal OS 5, Policy OS 5.3, of the County of San Bernardino General Plan designates I-15
from the junction with I-215 northeast to the Nevada state line, excepting all incorporated areas, as a County Scenic Route. The Project site is not visible when traveling
northbound on the I-15. (Id.). Changes to the landscape would occur during mass grading, completion of the first phases of home construction, and at full buildout. (EIR at

5.1-14). Onsite grading and home construction would be
most visible from commercial properties and to north- and southbound travelers along I-215 between Palm Avenue
and Glen Helen Parkway. (Id.). The EIR contains simulated photographs to demonstrate how the site may look during site grading, during the first phase of home construction and after Project completion while traveling north on I-215 at the Palm Avenue off-ramp; as well as how the Project site may appear during the initial grading phase, during the first phase of Project housing construction and after Project completion from prominent views from the southwest at
Glen Helen Parkway and the railroad tracks south of Cajon Boulevard. (See EIR Figures 5.1-3 to 5.1-8).

The simulated photographs contained in the EIR
demonstrate how the view toward the site from the eastsoutheast would be virtually unchanged after Project completion. (EIR at 5.1-15). The view of the Project site from the east-southeast is blocked by the hilly terrain. (EIR Figure 5.1-9). Mass grading and single-family homes
without landscaping would be plainly visible from these vantage points. However, due to the residential units’ low scale, especially in comparison to steep hillsides, they would not interfere with the dominant view and backdrop of the San Bernardino Mountains. The project would not be out of scale with the existing viewshed and would not
dominate the landscape. Rooflines would not encroach into the skyline or the dominant ridgelines. (EIR at 5.1-15).

Due to the Project’s low density, the Specific Plan’s design guidelines and design concepts, the large amount of open space preservation, and proposed landscaping, the homes would not dominate the views. (Id.). Since the Project site contains slopes with a 15 percent or greater grade, the development guidelines of the HMOD would be followed,
and have been incorporated into the Specific Plan
Development Standards. The majority (76 percent) of the Project site on slopes of 15 percent or greater grade would be preserved as open space, and the remaining acres would 13 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 785
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations follow HMOD development standards. (Id.). In the
Preferred Development Scenario, the SCE electric lines
would be visible from areas adjacent to the Project site, as they currently are. (Id.). For these reasons, the potential for the Project to have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista is less than significant, and no mitigation is required. b.

Potential Significant Impact:

Scenic Resources.

Whether the Project would substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.

Finding: Impacts related to Aesthetics are discussed in detail at Section 5.1 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that the potential for the Project to substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway is less than significant, and therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The County of San Bernardino General Plan designates I15 as a County Scenic Route, from the junction with I-215 northeast to the Nevada state line, excepting all
incorporated areas. Due to area topography, the freeway interchange elevation, and speed of travel, the Project site is not visible to motorists once they pass the I-215
interchange and head northbound on the I-15. (EIR at 5.1- 15). The interchange itself is approximately one mile long.

Motorists traveling northbound at 65 miles per hour would be on the interchange for less than a minute, and may have a view of the Project site looking east for a few seconds before the Project site is behind them. (Id.). Traveling southbound on the I-15, motorists do not see the northern portion of the Project site due to prominent ridgelines, nor do they see the southern portion of the Project site from the I-215 junction, because road contours and the northbound lanes of the I-15 and I-215 interchange and associated
traffic interfere with views. (Id.). The Project site is only visible from the northbound I-15 before the I-215 junction.

This portion of I-15 is not designated a scenic highway. In the Preferred Development Scenario, the SCE electric lines would be visible from areas adjacent to the project site, as they currently are. (Id.). For these reasons, the potential for the Project to substantially damage scenic resources is less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
14 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 786
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations c.

Potential Significant Impact:

Degradation of Visual Character.

Whether the Project would substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.

Finding: Impacts related to Aesthetics are discussed in detail at Section 5.1 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that the potential for the Project to substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings is less than significant, and therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: Implementation of the Project would alter existing landform and involve substantial grading. The visual
character of the majority of the Project site would be
changed from undeveloped open space to a low-density
residential development. (EIR at 5.1-14). The development footprint encompasses approximately 241.5 acres, or 68
percent of the total site, and includes areas for the onsite development of residential lots, roadways, trails, detention basins, fuel modification zones, and parks. Approximately 193.0 acres of the total site would be graded and improved. (Id.). An additional 23.7 acres would be graded and
improved for offsite access, including 4.2 acres for the primary access road and 19.5 acres for the secondary access road. The Project is designed to preserve significant
watersheds, severely sloped areas, and seismic hazard areas and incorporate them into the land plan as open space. The Project’s design accounts for the potential impacts of the hazards posed by seismic activity, flooding, and wildland fires. (Id.).

The EIR contains simulated photographs to demonstrate
how the site may look during site grading, during the first phase of home construction and after Project completion while traveling north on I-215 at the Palm Avenue offramp; as well as how the Project site may appear during the initial grading phase, during the first phase of Project housing construction and after Project completion from
prominent views from the southwest at Glen Helen
Parkway and the railroad tracks south of Cajon Boulevard. (See EIR Figures 5.1-3 to 5.1-8).

The simulated photographs contained in the EIR
demonstrate how the view toward the site from the eastsoutheast would be virtually unchanged after Project 15 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 787
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations completion. (EIR at 5.1-15). The view of the Project site from the east-southeast is blocked by the hilly terrain. (EIR Figure 5.1-9). Mass grading and single-family homes
without landscaping would be plainly visible from these vantage points. However, due to the residential units’ low scale, especially in comparison to steep hillsides, they would not interfere with the dominant view and backdrop of the San Bernardino Mountains. The Project would not be out of scale with the existing viewshed and would not
dominate the landscape. Rooflines would not encroach into the skyline or the dominant ridgelines. (EIR at 5.1-15).

Due to the Project’s low density, the Specific Plan’s design guidelines and design concepts, the large amount of open space preservation, and proposed landscaping, the homes would not dominate the views. Since the Project site
contains slopes with a 15 percent or greater grade, the development guidelines of the HMOD would be followed,
and have been incorporated into the Specific Plan
Development Standards. The majority (76 percent) of the Project site on slopes of 15 percent or greater grade would be preserved as open space, and the remaining acres would follow HMOD development standards. (Id.). For these
reasons, the potential for the Project to substantially degrade the visual character of the Project site or its surroundings is less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
d.

Potential Significant Impact:

Light and Glare.

Whether the Project would create a new source of
substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

Finding: Impacts related to Aesthetics are discussed in detail at Section 5.1 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that the potential for the Project to create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area is less than significant, and therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: Additional lighting would be required to provide nighttime street, trail, and building illumination for the Project. Other sources of light include security lighting, nighttime traffic, and light associated with the nighttime use of the
residences. In addition to the adjacent residential land uses, other light-sensitive land uses include the California State University at San Bernardino (CSUSB) observatory,
16 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 788
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations currently being constructed on Little Badger Hill on the CSUSB campus, between three and four miles east of the
Project site. (EIR at 5.1-15). Nighttime lighting has the potential to create light pollution, which occurs when
lighting is directed upward and gets scattered by the
atmosphere. To observatories, this light competes with
starlight and interferes with the ability to see the night sky clearly. Observatories require atmospheric darkness so that the night sky can be viewed clearly. (EIR at 5.1-16).

The use of lighting within the Spring Trails Project would be consistent with the dark sky guidelines suggested by the International Dark Sky Association (www.darksky.org) and with the City of San Bernardino Development Code. (EIR
at 5.1-11). A detailed lighting plan, including specifications and design standards, would be submitted as part of the construction documents. (Id.). Pursuant to Section

19.20.03.014 of the City’s Development Code and the
design criteria in the Spring Trails Specific Plan, lights associated with the Project development would be shielded and directed toward the interior of the site. (EIR at 5.1-1;

5.1-12). Exterior lighting would be designed, arranged, directed, or shielded in such a manner as to contain direct illumination onsite, thereby preventing excess illumination and light spillover onto adjoining land uses and/or
roadways and without adversely affecting day or nighttime views in the project area. (EIR at 5.1-16). Lighting would be installed to accommodate safety and security, while
minimizing impacts on surrounding residential areas and the CSUSB observatory. (Id.). For these reasons, the
potential for the Project to create a new source of
substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area is less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
e.

Potential Significant Impact:

Cumulative Impacts.

Whether the Project would result in cumulatively
significant visual/aesthetic impacts.

Finding: Impacts related to Aesthetics are discussed in detail at Section 5.1 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that the potential for the Project to result in cumulatively significant visual/aesthetic impacts is less than significant, and therefore, no mitigation is required.
17 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 789
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Facts in Support of the Finding: The adjacent developed communities and undeveloped parcels to the south and southwest are designated
Residential Estate (RE) in the City of San Bernardino’s General Plan. (EIR at 5.1-16). Continued conversion of
rural and undeveloped lands to low-density residential
suburban land uses would change the aesthetic character of the area. The adjacent 26.4-acre area consists of six rural residential parcels, four of which are occupied with
residences and related structures. Access to four of the parcels is from Meyers Road, with the remaining two
obtaining access from Martin Ranch Road prior to entering the Project site. There is currently no planned development for this adjacent area. (EIR at 5.1-3). This Project would incrementally contribute to both direct and indirect light and glare affecting the nighttime aesthetic character of the region. The entire Project site is currently prezoned by the City of San Bernardino as RE. In the context of the City’s General Plan, the Verdemont area is residential in nature.

The Project’s features and detailed design criteria per the Specific Plan and the HMOD meet the City’s goal to
provide a variety of housing stock, including upscale
homes. The Project clusters development to maintain
undeveloped open space on approximately 30 percent of
the site. (EIR at 5.1-16). Eventually, as residential
development occurs in the remaining undeveloped areas
south and southwest of the Project site, the character of the Verdemont area would be changed into a more suburban
community, as intended by the General Plan. By
maintaining open space and preserving the dominant view and backdrop of the San Bernardino Mountains, the Project would protect the natural components that contribute to the scenic value of the area, including existing terrain,
vegetation, and major ridgelines. (Id.). For these reasons, the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts related to aesthetics will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

2. Air Quality.
a. Violate Air Quality Standard-Operations.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project’s long-term operations will violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation.
18 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 790
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Finding: Potential impacts of the Project on Air Quality are discussed in detail in Section

5.2 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that the Project’s long-term operations will not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation during operations, and therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: Project-related vehicle trips were obtained from the Project-specific traffic impact analysis. (EIR Appendix K). Based on the trip generation rate in the traffic study, the Project would generate a total of 3,149 average daily trips (“ADT”) at project buildout. (EIR at 5.2-16). Air pollutant emissions modeling is based on mobile- and stationarysource emissions for each of the land uses. Based on computer modeling, the Project would result in an increase of air pollutant emissions for both mobile and stationary sources. However, Project-related emissions would not
exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District
(“SCAQMD”) regional emissions thresholds for the
analyzed pollutants. (EIR Table 5.2-8). Therefore, the
Project would not cumulatively contribute to the O3, PM10, and PM2.5 nonattainment designations of the South Coast Air Basin. Consequently, the proposed Project’s
operational air quality impact is considered less than
significant. (EIR at 5.2-16). Therefore, because long-term operations of the Project will not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation; impacts are considered to be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
b. Exposure of Sensitive Receptors-Operations.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project’s long-term operations will expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Finding: Potential impacts of the Project on Air Quality are discussed in detail in Section

5.2 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that long-term Project operations will not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: Carbon monoxide (CO) hot spots are typically produced at intersections, where traffic congestion is highest because vehicles queue and are subject to reduced speeds.

Typically, for an intersection to exhibit a significant CO concentration, it would operate at level of service (“LOS”) E or worse. Based on the traffic impact analysis prepared for the Project (EIR Appendix K), under future year With 19 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 791
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Project conditions, the following intersections are projected to operate at LOS E or worse before traffic improvements:
o Palm Avenue at I-215 freeway NB ramps (LOS E
during AM peak hour and LOS F during PM peak
hours for Year 2013); and
o Palm Avenue at I-215 freeway SB ramps (LOS F
during AM peak hour for Year 2013). (EIR at 5.2-
25).

Intersections listed above for 2013 are most conducive to the formation of CO hot spots and were modeled during the worst-case peak hour of congestion. Because technological improvements in later-model cars have made significant
emissions reductions in CO, background CO concentrations in the South Coast Air Basin and vehicle emissions would be lower in 2030 than in the Project buildout year, Year 2030 conditions were not modeled. Project-related traffic would not exceed any of the state one- or eight-hour CO ambient air quality standards (“AAQS”) at the study area intersections at buildout year plus cumulative growth
conditions. (EIR Table 5.2-11). Consequently, sensitive receptors in the area would not be significantly affected by CO emissions generated by operation of the proposed
Project, and localized air quality impacts related to mobilesource emissions would therefore be less than significant.

To estimate concentrations of air pollutants generated from operation of the Project at nearby existing and proposed sensitive receptors, the Project’s maximum daily
operational emissions were compared to the operational
localized significance thresholds (LSTs). In accordance with SCAQMD methodology, only onsite stationary
sources were included in the analysis. Project-related
vehicles traveling on- and offsite are not included in the analysis. (EIR 5.2-26). Project emissions would not exceed the LST screening level criteria for CO, NO , PM , or 2 10 PM2.5, and therefore operation of the Project would not expose offsite and onsite sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. (EIR Table 5.2-12). Therefore, on a localized level, the Project’s potential to result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations during long-term Project operations is less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
20 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 792
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations c.

Potential Significant Impact:

Cumulative Impacts-Operations.

Whether the Project will result in cumulatively significant operational air quality impacts.

Finding: Potential impacts of the Project on Air Quality are discussed in detail in Section

5.2 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that the potential for the Project to result in cumulatively significant operational air quality impacts is less than significant, and therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: With respect to operational air quality emissions, any project that does not exceed or can be mitigated to less than the daily regional threshold values is not considered by the SCAQMD to be a substantial source of air pollution and
does not add significantly to a cumulative impact. (EIR at

5.2-27). Operation of the Project would not result in
emissions in excess of the SCAQMD regional emissions
thresholds for long-term operation for VOC, NOx, CO,
PM , and PM . 10 2.5 (Id.). Therefore, the Project’s contribution to cumulative operational air quality impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

3. Biological Resources.
a. Cumulative Impacts.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project will result in cumulatively significant impacts to Biological Resources.

Finding: Impacts related to Biological Resources are discussed in detail in Section 5.3 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that the potential for the Project to result in cumulatively significant impacts to Biological Resources is less than significant, and therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The Spring Trails Project site contains a number of unique and uncommon characteristics that provide for a wide
diversity of plant and animal species, especially within the onsite riparian areas. (EIR at 5.3-59). However, specific aspects of the Project’s design, as well as the
implementation of the required mitigation measures would successfully avoid or mitigate significant impacts to these resources. (Id.). The most significant area of riparian habitat on the Project site is Cable Creek, and that area is outside of the Project footprint and would not be impacted by the Project. Additional Project design features and
21 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 793
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations required mitigation would conserve and/or enhance existing onsite riparian features and wildlife corridors. (Id.).

Mitigation is also recommended that would require
additional offsite conservation of riparian areas and other important habitats. While continued development within
the greater San Bernardino region has decreased the
amount of available high-quality habitat in the area, this Project does not cumulatively contribute to that decrease. (Id.). The most important habitat values are maintained on the site, and certain aspects of the Project’s design, such as the permanent preservation of Cable Creek, actually
provide long-term benefits to the region in terms of
biological resource conservation. Based on each of these factors, it can be determined that the Project would not present a significant cumulative impact to biological
resources. (Id.). Therefore, cumulative impacts to
biological resources will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

4. Cultural Resources.
a.

Potential Significant Impact:

Historic Resources.

Whether the Project would cause a substantial change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5.

Finding: Impacts related to Cultural Resources are discussed in detail in Section 5.4 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that the Project will not cause a substantial change in the significance of a historical resource, and therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The Spring Trails Project area was assessed for historical resources during multiple surveys. During this assessment, no historical resources, as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, were observed. (EIR at 5.4-12). There
are no structures, buildings, or other built environment resources with historical value in the project area. (Id.).

Therefore, there are no known historical resources on the Project site, and no mitigation is required.
b. Development in Sensitive Archaeological Area.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would be developed in a sensitive archeological area, as identified in the City’s General Plan. 22 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 794
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Finding: Impacts related to Cultural Resources are discussed in detail in Section 5.4 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that the Project will not be developed in a sensitive archeological area as identified in the City’s General Plan, and therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project site is not located in an area of concern for archaeological resources, and is not located within an area of known resources or areas that could reasonably contain resources and which had demonstrable surface integrity as of November 1987. (See EIR Figure 5.4-1). Therefore, no mitigation is required.

5. Geology and Soils.
a. Cut and Fill.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would involve earth movement (cut and/or fill).

Finding: Impacts related to Geology and Soils are discussed in detail at Section 5.5 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that while the Project would involve grading on about 216.7 acres of land, with roughly 3.1 million cubic yards of cut and 2.8 million cubic yards of fill, Project earth movement would not result in substantial adverse erosion or dust impacts and, therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: In addition to the specified amounts of cut and fill grading, the Project would involve roughly 251,000 cubic yards of soil export. (See EIR Table 5.5-2). Project features are incorporated into the Spring Trails Specific Plan that would minimize soil erosion. (EIR at 5.5-21). For example, all graded slopes shall be stabilized and planted with the
approved trees, shrubs, and groundcovers listed in the
Landscape Zones Plant Palette, Table 3.6 in the Specific Plan Design Guidelines. The Grading Plan in the
Development Standards for the Spring Trails Specific Plan has been devised with overall goals, including minimizing grading quantities, minimizing slope maintenance and
water consumption, and providing for stable slopes and
building pads. (Id.). Specific guidelines in the Grading Plan include: minimize grading where possible; avoid grading in areas where slopes exceed an average of 15 percent to the greatest extent possible; terrace drains and benches shall be added where slope height exceeds 30 feet, in accordance with the Uniform Building Code. (Id.). In some instances, benches should be widened to provide for dual use as a
23 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 795
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations recreation trail; existing significant drainage courses shall be maintained as much as possible; final grading design shall adhere to the final soils report recommendations; grading shall be performed under the supervision of a
registered soils engineer; a storm water pollution
prevention program (“SWPPP”) must be prepared and
processed prior to grading; natural terrain must be
preserved as much as possible by focusing development in the development footprint; earth retention systems, where slopes can be planted to blend with the natural terrain, should be used where possible; and all cut-and-fill slopes shall be revegetated to control erosion. (EIR at 5.5-22).

These guidelines would meet City and state development
standards and soil stability would be maintained. In
addition, the Safety Plan requires that Grading for building pads and roads shall conform to specifications of the
geologist, based on a soils study and final geotechnical study. (Id.). In addition to the Project guidelines and development standards described above, the Project would prepare and implement a SWPPP specifying BMPs for
minimizing pollution of stormwater during project
construction. Categories of BMPs that would be included in the SWPPP include erosion control BMPs that cover and/or bind soil to prevent soil from entering runoff; and sediment control BMPs, such as barriers, that intercept and filter out soil that has been detached and transported by flowing
water. Implementation of BMPs specified in the SWPPP
would help stabilize project site slopes while vegetation planted by the Project matures. (Id.). After implementation of Project guidelines, Specific Plan development standards, and BMPs for erosion control and sediment control to be specified in the project’s SWPPP, Project development is not expected to result in substantial erosion, and no
mitigation is required.
b.

Potential Significant Impact:

Landslides, Mudslides or Subsidence.

Whether the Project site is subject to potential hazards from landslides, mudslides or subsidence.

Finding: Impacts related to Geology and Soils are discussed in detail at Section 5.5 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that the Project site is not subject to potential hazards from landslides, mudslides or subsidence and, therefore, no mitigation is required. 24 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 796
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Facts in Support of the Finding: The maximum gradient of the natural slopes on the site approach is 1.2:1 (horizontal:vertical). Proposed cut-andfill slopes would be designed at grades of 2:1, with maximum slope heights of 80 feet. Such cut-and-fill slopes have been analyzed and found to be grossly stable. (EIR at

5.5-24). Cut slopes that expose bedrock will tend to
weather over time and would be planted with deep-rooted vegetation. No surface indications of slope instability or significant “out of slope” geologic bedding conditions were observed onsite, and no significant natural slope instability exists onsite. (Id.). The site plan avoids the lower portions of Cable Canyon and Meyers Canyon, which could act as
channels for mudflows. The site plan also avoids the
steeper slopes near the northern end of the site. All cut-andfill slopes created by the Project would be vegetated, thereby controlling erosion and reducing mudflow hazard.

There are no substantial groundwater or oil withdrawals in the area that could lead to subsidence, and the potential for ground subsidence is regarded as low. (Id.). Therefore, no mitigation is required.
c. Expansive Soils.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether Project development would create substantial hazards arising from expansive soils.

Facts in Support of the Finding: Expansive soils are generally characterized as having the ability to undergo significant volume change due to
increases or decreases in the moisture content of the soil. (EIR at 5.5-25). The Spring Trails site is predominated by relatively recent alluvial deposits (from the Holocene and Pleistocene age). These deposits have led to the existence of sands and sands with gravel in the upper layers (5 to 10 feet deep) and the gravelly sands (sand with silt, cobbles, and occasional boulders) of the lower layers (below 10
feet). (Id.). These layers are generally medium dense to very dense throughout most of the site and have dry to
moist conditions. The geotechnical analysis did not
determine these soils to be prone to expansion. Therefore, the expansion potential of soils is low to very low. (Id.). No 25 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 797
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations specific geotechnical recommendations for expansive soils were made, and no mitigation is required.
d.

Potential Significant Impact:

Modification of Unique Geological Feature.

Whether Project development would modify a unique
geological feature.

Finding: Impacts related to Geology and Soils are discussed in detail at Section 5.5 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that although the Project will be developed over the San Andreas Fault, the Project will not substantially change the physical and geological characteristics of the fault and, therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The San Andreas Fault is considered to be a unique geological feature, and five splays of the San Andreas Fault occur on the site. (EIR at 5.5-7). The majority of the
segment of Splay A on the Project site would remain open space, while the balance of the splay would be graded.

Most of Splays B, C, and D would be graded, and most of Splay E would remain open space. (EIR at 5.5-25).

However, the grading on Splays A, B, C, D, and E would
not substantially change the physical and geological
characteristics of the fault, and therefore, no mitigation is required.
e. Unstable Soils.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether Project grading and construction would be conducted so as to result in substantial amounts of unstable soils.

Finding: Impacts related to Geology and Soils are discussed in detail at Section 5.5 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that Project grading and construction will not be conducted so as to result in substantial amounts of unstable soils and, therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: Project features are incorporated into the Spring Trails Specific Plan that would prevent grading and construction activities from creating substantial amounts of unstable soils. (EIR at 5.5-25). Specifically, the following
development standards in the Grading Plan and Safety Plan of the Spring Trails Specific Plan would aid in preventing the creation of substantial amounts of unstable soils: 1) final grading design shall adhere to the final soils report recommendations; 2) grading shall be performed under the 26 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 798
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations supervision of a registered soils engineer; and 3) final grading plans shall be prepared and certified by a registered civil engineer and registered geotechnical engineer in the State of California Board of Professional Registration and approved by the City Engineer. (Id.). Thus, impacts in this area will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
f.

Potential Significant Impact:

Hillside Management Overlay Zoning District.

Whether the Project would conflict with the provisions of the Hillside Management Overlay Zoning District
(“HMOD”).

Facts in Support of the Finding: Roughly 67 percent (133 acres) of the Project site is within the HMOD, which covers all areas with slopes of 15
percent or greater. (EIR at 5.5-26). The HMOD contains
development performance standards, including standards
regarding soils and grading, geotechnical standards, and standards requiring that vegetation on slopes, including graded slopes, be preserved or reestablished. (Id.). The Specific Plan for the Project contains hillside design and development standards that have been prepared to be sitespecific for the proposed project and are consistent with the General Plan. The HMOD design guidelines would not be
necessary. Thus, no mitigation is required.
g. Cumulative Impacts.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would result in cumulatively significant impacts to Geology and Soils.

Facts in Support of the Finding: Impacts to geology and soils are specific to the geologic and soils conditions on a particular project site. Mitigation of geologic, seismic, and soil impacts of development
projects would also be specific to each site. Compliance 27 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 799
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations with modern building standards, such as the UBC and
CBC, serves to reduce seismic-related risks. Therefore, no adverse cumulative impacts related to soils and geology are anticipated, and no mitigation is required. (EIR at 5.5-26).

6. Hazards and Hazardous Materials.
a.

Potential Significant Impact:

Routine Transport, Use, and/or Disposal of Hazardous Materials.

Whether the Project would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; or through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment.

Finding: Impacts related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials are discussed in detail at Section 5.6 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that the risk to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; or through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment by the Project is less than significant and, therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The proposed Project includes 304 single-family lots under the preferred development scenario (reduced to 215 lots), or 307 single-family lots under the alternative development scenario. These will consist of new single-family lots, and one existing single-family residence in the western portion of the site, bordering Cable Canyon Creek to the south. If the existing single-family home were to be demolished
prior to Project construction, it may result in the need to transport and dispose of hazardous materials. (EIR at 5.6- 9). However, it is anticipated to remain during and after development of the Project, and therefore no demolition activities are anticipated. (Id.). In general, the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials is
associated with industrial land uses and not residential land uses. The Project would consist only of residential land uses with associated parks and open space. Construction and operation of the new single-family homes may include the use of hazardous substances such as paints, solvents, finishes, and cleaners, but these substances would not be substantially different from other household products. (Id.).

Additionally, the site has not been included on any state or federal lists of hazardous materials sites, so the
28 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 800
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations development of the site would not necessitate the removal or cleanup of any hazardous materials. Therefore, it is not anticipated that construction or operation activities would involve inadvertent exposure to hazardous materials due to their removal from the site. (Id.). The routine transport, use, and/or disposal of significant amounts of hazardous
materials is not expected to occur during the construction or operation of this Project. (Id.). Since there would not be any substantial amount of hazardous materials present on the Project site for a significant amount of time during Project construction or operation, there would also not be any foreseeable upset or release of hazardous materials, and therefore no mitigation is required.
b.

Potential Significant Impact:

Emergency Response or Evacuation Plan.

Whether the Project would impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

Finding: Impacts related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials are discussed in detail at Section 5.6 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that the Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and, therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The City has an emergency management plan and a hazard mitigation plan that outline the potential risks, hazards, and emergency situations that the City may face and the best methods for preventing or managing these situations. (EIR at 5.6-10). The emergency management plan and the
hazard mitigation plan, which have been developed in
compliance with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, are used by the City to reduce and eliminate the effects of natural and human-caused disasters. Spring Trails would follow the guidelines and regulations of the City’s
emergency and hazard mitigation plans. Since the site has high potential for fires, there is substantial need for fire emergency access. (Id.). The Spring Trails Specific Plan includes measures that would allow the site to be accessible during fire emergencies and which can be applicable for other emergencies. These are outlined in the City’s Foothill Fire Zone Overlay District requirements, and Spring Trails’ compliance with these standards is substantiated in
Appendix D of the Specific Plan. (See EIR Table 5.14-7).

In sum, the proposed Project would not conflict with the 29 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 801
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations City’s emergency planning, and therefore no mitigation is required.
c.

Potential Significant Impact:

Cumulative Impacts.

Whether the Project would result in cumulatively
significant impacts related to Hazards and Hazardous
Materials.

Finding: Impacts related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials are discussed in detail at Section 5.6 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that the Project would not result in cumulatively significant impacts related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials and, therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The assessment of potential cumulative impacts with regard to hazards and hazardous materials relates to the ability for impacts to occur offsite. (EIR at 5.6-23). The hazardous materials study area considered for cumulative impacts
consisted of (1) the area that could be affected by proposed Project activities, and (2) the areas affected by other projects where activities could directly or indirectly affect the presence or fate of hazardous materials on the proposed Project site. (Id.). The land uses surrounding the Project site are either vacant or residential. There would be little chance for a hazardous materials release in the surrounding area that would cause cumulative impacts with the
proposed Project. Cumulative analysis for fire and wind hazards is completed with similar parameters. (Id.).

Cumulative impacts could occur when adjacent projects, in combination with the proposed Project, would increase the number of people being exposed to fire and wind hazards. (Id.). At this time no development is planned for the areas adjacent to the proposed Project; thus, no cumulative
impacts would occur, and no mitigation is required.

7. Hydrology/Water Quality
a. Alter Existing Drainage Pattern.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite.
30 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 802
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Finding: Impacts related to Hydrology and Water Quality are discussed in detail in Section

5.7 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that development of the Project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite, and therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: Drainage from Offsite: At Project completion, offsite drainage would enter the project site from the north and east. (EIR at 5.7-16). Two drainage courses within
Drainage Area A that flow into the site from the north are Cable Canyon West and East Forks. These two drainages,
which merge onsite, would remain undisturbed and would
exit the west side of the site as they do now. Four drainages would enter the site from the east. The northerly two of these drainages are tributaries to Cable Canyon and are in Drainage Area A. (EIR Figure 3-8). These two drainages
would pass through a culvert under proposed Street “A”, merge and continue flowing westerly, pass through a
culvert under proposed Street “DD”, then continue to the southwest before merging with the West and East forks of Cable Canyon. (EIR at 5.7-16). This combined drainage
then flows to the west and exits the site into Cable Creek.

South of the Project site, the Cable Creek drainage would pass through culverts under the Secondary Access Road.

The third drainage course that enters the site from the east would be collected in a proposed brow ditch north of
proposed Street “O” and west of proposed Street “W”. This drainage would then be conveyed around the water
reservoir tank and discharged to an existing flow line. (Id.).

The last drainage course entering the site from the east consists of Meyers Canyon and tributary areas in Drainage Area D; Meyers Canyon enters the site near its southeast corner. A culvert crossing is proposed under the Primary Access Road (Street “A”). (See EIR Figure 3-8).

Drainage from Onsite: Drainage from the site at Project completion would be conveyed in a series of storm drain systems that would route water into three Extended
Detention Basins for treatment and detention. (Id.). (EIR Table 5.7-2 and Figure 3-8). Drainage Area A consists of Cable Canyon, including the west and east forks of Cable Canyon and tributary areas. (EIR at 5.7-17). Drainage
from the two northernmost residential areas, north of Cable Canyon, would not be routed into an extended detention
31 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 803
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations basin, but routed instead into media filtration vaults where the water quality volume would be treated, after which the runoff would be discharged into Cable Canyon. Water
quality volumes for each detention basin that would be
built as part of the Project are listed in EIR Table 5.7-3.

One of these areas is 17.3 acres, while the second is 22.0 acres. Basin “A” compensates for this discharge from the site into Cable Canyon by over-detaining runoff from other parts of Drainage Area A onsite. (Id.). Drainage Area B,

45.5 acres in area, is divided into two subareas. Subarea 1 would be the developed area onsite of 21.8 acres that would be routed into basin “B” plus the 1.6-acre basin and 4.6 acres of open space downstream of the basin outlet.

Subarea 2 would be 17.5 acres of onsite and offsite
undeveloped area that would cross under Street “I” and
then discharge into an existing flow line. (EIR at 5.7-18).

Drainage Area “C” consists of 209.8 acres, roughly 89.0 acres of which would be in the developed area onsite and would drain into basin “C”. The remaining 107.8 acres
would be onsite and offsite undeveloped areas that would be collected north of Street “H”. (Id.). Drainage Area “D” consists of 339.3 acres: 319.8 acres offsite and 19.5 onsite.

Drainage from Area “D” would enter the site near the
southeastern site boundary, flow through a culvert under the proposed Primary Access Road (Street “A”), and then exit the site. This drainage would not be directed into a detention basin or media filtration vault. Surface flows from the secondary access road will be conveyed into a 5- foot concrete drainage ditch located within a 13-foot graded shoulder on both sides of the road. The runoff will then be collected in storm drain inlets and conveyed through a
storm drain underneath the secondary access road where it will be discharged into Cable Creek. (Id.).

Detention Basin Capacities: Drainage volumes and rates
from developed portions of the site would be increased
compared to existing conditions due to the increase in
impervious surfaces onsite. (Id.). The three proposed
detention basins would be local detention facilities
maintained by the owner or homeowners association. The
maximum capacity of each of the detention basins is
designed to store onsite runoff from the drainage area
tributary to the respective basin in order to lower the rate of outflow from the basin to the predevelopment rate in a 100- year, 24-hour storm. (Id.). Each basin would also be
equipped with water quality treatment features and would 32 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 804
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations provide treatment for runoff. The total capacity and water quality treatment capacity of each of the three basins is listed in EIR Table 5.7-3. Emergency spillways are
proposed for each of the three basins to convey the 1,000- year peak flow for the respective basin’s tributary
watershed. (Id.).

Debris Flows and Culvert Sizes: The Project site is in the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains. (Id.). Therefore, large debris flows may occur in watersheds in the area, especially in years after a fire. Debris flows would increase the volume of material flowing down drainages. (Id.).

Culverts in the Project were designed to accommodate
estimated debris flow volumes that would occur in a
100-year storm four years following a fire. (EIR Table

5.7-4). Project drainage features would meet requirements of the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual and
would limit runoff from the site at Project completion to existing levels. (EIR at 5.7-19). In sum, impacts to existing drainage patterns will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
b.

Potential Significant Impact:

Groundwater Recharge.

Whether the Project would substantially deplete
groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted).

Finding: Impacts related to Hydrology and Water Quality are discussed in detail in Section

5.7 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that development of the Project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level, and therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: Project development would increase impervious surfaces on the Project site. (EIR at 5.7-19). The resulting increase in drainage from most of the developed parts of the site would be conveyed to three extended detention basins.
(Id.). Stormwater would infiltrate into underlying sediment through the bottoms of the basins. The Project would not 33 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 805
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations include substantial infiltration zones except for the basins.

The infiltration rate in the three basins would total roughly

2.01 cfs. (Id.). At Project completion, onsite groundwater recharge of stormwater from a two-year, 24-hour storm
would be reduced about 1.3 percent compared to recharge from the same size storm in existing conditions. (Id.).

Project development would not substantially reduce
groundwater recharge from the site and therefore, no
mitigation is required.
c.

Potential Significant Impact:
100-Year Flood Hazard Area.

Whether the Project would place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood
hazard delineation map; or place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows.

Finding: Potential impacts related to Hydrology and Water Quality are discussed in detail in Section 5.7 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that development of the Project will not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map; or place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows, and therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The entire Project site is in FEMA flood hazard zone X, meaning that it is outside of both 100-year and 500-year flood plains. (EIR at 5.7-19). Much of the Project site is on the lower slopes of the San Bernardino Mountains. Large debris flows may occur in local watersheds, especially in years after a fire. After Project development, debris flows originating upstream of the Project site may flow through drainages crossing the site; debris flows are not expected to originate onsite. Culverts where drainages on the site would cross under roadways have been designed to accommodate
the increase in volume due to sediment that would occur in a debris flow. All proposed improvements, including
building pads, roads, and reservoirs, would be outside of the area that would be flooded by debris flows during a 100-year storm. Project development is not expected to
create substantial hazards to persons arising from debris flows. (EIR at 5.7-27). Project development would not
result in flood hazards to people or structures or redirect 34 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 806
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations flood flows within a 100-year flood hazard area, and
therefore, no mitigation is required.
d. Violate Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge
Requirements.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade water quality.

Finding: Impacts related to Hydrology and Water Quality are discussed in detail in Section

5.7 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that development of the Project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements and will not otherwise substantially degrade water quality, and therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: Construction: Potential sources of pollutants from construction activities on the site include exposed soil, construction materials, and construction equipment. (EIR at 5.7-20). Project clearing, grading, excavation, and
construction activities may impact water quality due to sheet erosion of exposed soils and subsequent deposition of particles and pollutants in drainage ways. (Id.). Grading activities in particular lead to exposed areas of loose soil, as well as sediment stockpiles which are susceptible to
uncontrolled sheet flow. The use of materials such as fuels, solvents, and paints also present a risk to surface water quality due to an increased potential for these materials and related pollutants to contaminate stormwater. Additionally, storage, refueling, and maintenance of construction
equipment onsite result in the potential for fuels and other substances to contaminate stormwater. (Id.).

Measures for reducing potential pollution from construction activities would include obtaining coverage under the
General Construction Permit for discharges of stormwater runoff from the construction site. (Id.). The General
Construction Permit is the coverage issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (“SWRCB”) that allows
the discharges of stormwater to waters of the United States from construction projects. In order to get coverage under the General Construction Permit, the discharge should be in compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (“NPDES”) and implement a Storm
Water Sampling and Analysis Strategy for monitoring of
construction site runoff. In order to obtain coverage under 35 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 807
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations the General Construction Permit, the Project owner would be required to submit a Notice of Intent to the SWRCB to file for permit coverage, and prepare and implement a
SWPPP onsite. A Notice of Intent must be filed, and the SWPPP must be prepared prior to commencement of soildisturbing activities at the Project site. (Id.). The SWPPP must contain a site map(s) showing the construction site perimeter, existing and proposed buildings, lots, roadways, stormwater collection and discharge points, general
topography before and after construction, and drainage
patterns across the Project. The SWPPP must list BMPs
that would be used to protect stormwater runoff and
describe the placement of those BMPs. Additionally, the SWPPP must contain a visual monitoring program and a
chemical monitoring program for “nonvisible” pollutants to be implemented if there is a failure of the BMPs. (Id.).

Typical temporary BMPs that would be used during
construction include good housekeeping practices and
erosion and sediment control measures. Good
housekeeping practices include street sweeping, waste
disposal, vehicle and equipment maintenance, concrete
washout area, materials storage, minimization of hazardous materials, and proper handling and storage of hazardous materials. (Id.). Design standards for the BMPs are set forth by the County of Bernardino and the California Storm
Water Management handbooks. Construction BMPs for
this project would be selected, constructed, and maintained so as to comply with all applicable ordinances and
guidance documents. (EIR at 5.7-22). Upon
implementation BMPs as specified in the project’s SWPPP, Project construction would not result in substantial
pollution of receiving waters, and therefore, no mitigation is required. (Id.).

Operations: Pollutant sources that are expected to be
generated by Project operation are sediment/turbidity,
nutrients, trash and debris, oxygen-demanding substances, bacteria and viruses, oil and grease, and pesticides. (Id.).

With regard to the operational phase of the Project, site design, source control, and treatment control BMPs as
dictated by County and City Stormwater management plans would be implemented. (Id.). The residences surrounding the Project site are reliant upon well water for their potable water usage. In some cases, these wells are relatively
shallow, with a water table of approximately 50 feet or more. Although historical farming uses and the related
36 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 808
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations fertilizers and other amendments have not had an impact on the water table, BMPs would be used to reduce
contaminants in runoff from the Project site, lessening any potential impacts to potable drinking water to nearby
residences. (EIR Tables 5.7-5 to 5.7-7). A Project-specific water quality management plan (“WQMP”) (EIR
Appendix I1) has been prepared for the Project, and
specifies site design, source control, and treatment control BMPs as required by the San Bernardino County
Stormwater Program Model Water Quality Management
Plan Guidance. The site design BMPs, source control
BMPs, and treatment control BMPs incorporated into the
Project plans must address the potential pollutants from the Project. (EIR at 5.7-24). The WQMP includes BMPs that
would be implemented during both design and operation of the Project, and describes long-term operation and
maintenance requirements for BMPs. (EIR Table 5-7-7).

The Project applicant would be responsible for carrying out all BMP operations and maintenance activities. (EIR at

5.7-25). Prior to building or grading permit closeout or the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or certificate of use, the applicant shall demonstrate: that all structural BMPs have been constructed and installed in conformance with approved plans and specifications; that the applicant is prepared to implement all nonstructural BMPs described in the approved Project-specific WQMP; and that an adequate number of copies of the approved Project-specific WQMP
are available for the future owners/occupants. (EIR at 5.7- 26). After implementation of site design, source control, and treatment control BMPs, as specified in the Project’s WQMP, Project operations would not cause substantial
pollution of receiving waters, and no mitigation is required. e. Create or Contribute Runoff Water.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
storm water drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff, such as from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste
handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks, or other outdoor areas.
.

Finding: Impacts related to Hydrology and Water Quality are discussed in detail in Section

5.7 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with 37 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 809
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations the City finding that development of the Project will not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, and therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: Design standards for BMPs are set forth by the County of San Bernardino and the California Storm Water
Management handbooks, and construction BMPs for this
Project would be selected, constructed, and maintained so as to comply with all applicable ordinances and guidance documents. Upon implementation BMPs as specified in the project’s SWPPP, Project construction would not result in substantial pollution of receiving waters. (EIR at 5.7-22).

Site design, source control, and treatment control BMPs as dictated by the County and City Stormwater management
plans would be implemented. The Project-specific WQMP
would be required by the City of San Bernardino to address management of urban runoff from the Project site, and
specifically address site design, source control, and
treatment control BMPs to minimize the impact of urban
runoff from the Project. Site design BMPs would be used to control and filter runoff from residential uses for collection in detention basins located at strategic points on the Project site. (Id.).

On- and offsite stormwater would be collected and routed through a series of catch basins, inlets, and storm drain systems that would convey water to three extended
detention basins for water quality treatment and detention.

These systems would be designed and constructed in
accordance with the City of San Bernardino and the San
Bernardino County Flood Control District standards.

Properly engineered basins reduce infiltration issues by adsorbing common residential chemicals into basin linings. (Id.). Successful implementation of the controls contained in the WQMP would reduce the amount of contaminants in
surface flow and groundwater by controlling the
contaminants at the source. (EIR at 5.7-23). Accordingly, the potential for the Project to create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned storm water drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff is less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
38 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 810
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations f.

Potential Significant Impact:

Dam Failure.

Whether the Project would expose people or structures to a significant risk of injury, loss or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam.

Finding: Impacts related to Hydrology and Water Quality are discussed in detail in Section

5.7 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that development of the Project will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of injury, loss or death involving flooding (including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam), and therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: There are no dams or enclosed bodies of water upstream from the Project site that could pose a hazard of flooding to the site due to a seiche or the failure of a dam. (EIR at

5.7-27). The Project would involve construction and
operation of three reservoirs onsite. (EIR Figure 3-9). The reservoirs would have capacities of 900,000 gallons,
900,000 gallons, and 2,500,000 gallons. The reservoirs
would be enclosed tanks, the design and construction of which would comply with existing seismic safety
regulations. (EIR at 5.7-27). Accordingly, the risk of
flooding is less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
g. Cumulative Impacts.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would result in cumulatively significant impacts related to Hydrology and Water
Quality.

Finding: Impacts related to Hydrology and Water Quality are discussed in detail in Section

5.7 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that development of the Project will not result in cumulatively significant impacts related to Hydrology and Water Quality, and therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: Potential related projects are those development projects that would increase the amount of impervious surfaces and consequently cause increased runoff within the Santa Ana River Watershed. (EIR at 5.7-27). Each related project
would be required to include project features that would detain onsite any increase in runoff from 100-year storm events until after the storm. After the construction and 39 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 811
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations operation of required drainage features within related
projects, substantial cumulative impacts to the capacity of the storm drainage system in the region are not expected to occur. (Id.). Given that the proposed Project would also be required to include drainage features so that the Project would not cause a net increase in runoff into the existing storm drainage system in the region, the Project is not anticipated to have a cumulatively considerable adverse impact on storm drainage capacity. Reach Four of the Santa Ana River, downstream from the vicinity of the Project
site, is included on the 303(d) list as impaired by pathogens (bacteria and viruses). Therefore, pathogens are pollutants of concern in the vicinity of the Project site. (Id.). Other projects in the Santa Ana Watershed can be expected to
increase the amounts of contaminants that could enter
stormwater. (EIR at 5.7-28). However, other projects
would be required to comply with the same NPDES
regulations for minimizing water pollution as would the proposed project. Related projects would be required to prepare and implement SWPPPs and WQMPs, specifying
BMPs that would be used to minimize contaminants
discharged into receiving waters. After compliance with existing regulations, cumulative impacts to water quality are not expected to be substantial, and the Project is not anticipated to have cumulatively considerable impacts on water quality. (Id.). Thus, no mitigation is required.

8. Land Use and Planning.
a.

Potential Significant Impact:

Conflict with Land Use Plans.

Whether the Project would conflict with any applicable
land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

Finding: Impacts related to Land Use and Planning are discussed in detail at Section 5.8 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that the Project will not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, and therefore, no mitigation is required.
40 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 812
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Facts in Support of the Finding: General Plan/Specific Plan: The Project would be consistent with the City of San Bernardino General Plan. (EIR at 5.8-13). Under the existing General Plan
designation of RE, the maximum density is one dwelling
unit per acre. The Project would require a General Plan Amendment to change the existing land use designation to Residential Low (RL), allowing 3.1 dwelling units per acre, an increase of 2.1 dwelling units per acre. The Project would be annexed into the City of San Bernardino and
zoned RE (consistent with existing prezoning). (Id.). The Project’s overall density would be 0.87 dwelling units per acre. The density on the developed area (241.5 acres)
would be 1.27 dwelling units per acre. (EIR at 5.8-14).

Development will be focused, or clustered, onto
approximately 241.5 acres, or 68 percent of the total site, and includes 9 acres of parks and 125.1 acres of internal slopes and fuel modification zones. The remaining
32 percent of Spring Trails (111.3 acres) is preserved as natural open space. The average lot size in Spring Trails is 29,000 square feet. The largest lots are on the northern portion and upper elevations of the site, and the largest lot measures 18.3 acres. (Id.). The smallest lots are on the lower elevations and southern portion of the Project, and the smallest lot measures 10,801 square feet. In many
instances, the legal lots will extend beyond the buildable area and include graded slopes, fuel modification zones, steep slopes, and open spaces. (Id.).

The Preferred Development Plan is the same as the
Alternative Development Plan in every respect except for the treatment of the land beneath the aboveground electric lines and the number of residential lots. (Id.). In this respect, the Preferred Development Plan differs from the Preferred Development Plan in that it would provide 126 acres of internal slopes and fuel modification zones, and 70 acres would be attributable to residential lots. The Preferred Development Plan contains 304 single-family detached
units and the overall density over the 350-acre site would be 0.86 dwelling units per acre. The density on the
developed area (241.5 acres) would be 1.26 dwelling units per acre. The Project would exceed County General Plan
designation RL-5 of one dwelling unit per five acres.

However, once annexed into the City of San Bernardino,
the Project would be consistent with the General Plan and Development Code. (Id.).
41 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 813
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Specific plans are required to be consistent with the goals and policies of the governing general plan. The Project implements and exemplifies the goals and policies of the City of San Bernardino General Plan. (EIR Table 5.8-1).

Future development within the Spring Trails Specific Plan area must be consistent with this Specific Plan. All projects that are found to be consistent with this Specific Plan will likewise be deemed consistent with the City’s General
Plan. (Id.).

San Bernardino County Association of Governments
(SCAG): The proposed Project will be consistent with the applicable SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide
(RCPG) policies. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in significant land use impacts related to relevant SCAG policies, goals, and principles. (EIR Table

5.8-2). Likewise, the Project will be consistent with the applicable goals of the SCAG Regional Transportation Plan (“RTP”), and implementation of the Project would not
result in significant land use impacts related to relevant RTP goals. (EIR Table 5.8-3). The Project will also be
consistent with advisory SCAG Compass Growth Vision
(“CGV”) principles, and would not result in significant land use impacts related to the advisory CGV principles. (EIR Table 5.8-4).

San Bernardino National Forest Land Management
Plan (“SBNF”): The northern portion of the Project site (approximately 160 acres) is located within the boundaries of the SBNF. The upper 160 acres of the Project are private lands within the SBNF. Since the Project site is privately held, it is not subject to the Land Management Plan.

However, all areas adjacent to the Project site, within the SBNF, are subject to the Land Management Plan. Public
access by residents would be restricted and unlawful. (EIR at 5.8-47).

Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation Plan: In
1999, the USFS proposed to prohibit road construction and reconstruction in inventoried roadless areas within the national forests. That portion of the SBNF surrounding the Project site (at the Project boundary), and continuing in the northwesterly direction is identified as an inventoried roadless area. However, the Project site is not within the inventoried roadless area, and is thus not subject to this plan. (See EIR Figure 5.8-1).
42 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 814
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Bernardino Tree Ordinance: The
development of the Project would remove up to 2,400 trees (220 native species, 2,170 eucalyptus, and 10 ornamental nonnative trees) from the Project site. The majority of the eucalyptus trees were planted as part of a eucalyptus
plantation. The applicant would be required to replace the 220 native tree species with similar native species, as required by the City’s tree ordinance. The required tree replacement has been incorporated as Project Mitigation Measure 3-13, which would ensure the project’s
compliance with the City’s tree ordinance.

In sum, because the Project will not conflict with any land use plan, policy or regulation, impacts in this area are less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
b.

Potential Significant Impact:

Development Within Hillside Management Overlay District.

Whether development would occur within the Hillside
Management Overlay District.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project site would be subject to the HMOD since it would involve development in areas of 15 percent slope or greater. (See EIR Figure 5.8-2). The overall goals of the site-specific grading guidelines are to minimize the height of visible slopes, provide for more natural-appearing
manufactured slopes, minimize grading quantities,
minimize slope maintenance and water consumption, and
provide for stable slopes and building pads. (EIR at

5.8-48). The total Project area that is proposed for grading is 216.7 acres, which includes 193.0 acres onsite and 23.7 acres offsite. Onsite grading encompasses roughly 2.7
million cubic yards and would balance onsite. (The primary access road would require approximately 171,000 cubic
yards of cut and 55,000 cubic yards of fill, which
necessitates exporting approximately 116,000 cubic yards.

The secondary access street would require 244,000 cubic yards of cut and 109,000 cubic yards of fill, which
necessitates exporting approximately 135,000 cubic yards.

Total export equals 251,000 cubic yards. (Id.). Spring
Trails has been responsibly designed to fit into the existing 43 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 815
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations landscape, at the same time meeting the intent of the
HMOD. Project development would avoid steep hillside
areas and clusters development in the lower foothill areas.

This has the following benefits in terms of grading impacts:
o Minimizes hillside grading and scarring that would
be visible from public rights-of-way;
o Preserves the Cable Canyon and Meyers Canyon
drainage courses in their natural conditions and
minimizes impacts on natural topography;
o Maintains significant natural drainage courses
within the proposed development area to enhance
water quality. (Id.).

The Specific Plan for the Project contains hillside design and development standards that have been prepared to be site-specific for the proposed project and are consistent with the General Plan. The HMOD design guidelines
would not be necessary. Thus, no mitigation is required. c.

Potential Significant Impact:

Development Within Foothill Fire Zones.

Whether development would occur within Foothill Fire
Zones A and B or C, as identified in the City’s General Plan.

Finding: Impacts related to Land Use and Planning are discussed in detail at Section 5.8 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that although development of the Project will be within Foothill Fire Zones A and B and C, all development will comply with the Foothill Fire Overlay District standards and therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The overlay district identifies 3 foothill fire zones: A, Extreme Hazard; B, High Hazard; and C, Moderate Hazard.

Approximately one third of the site is in Fire Zone A, one third of the site is in Fire Zone B, and the remaining third is in Fire Zone C. (EIR Figure 5.8-2). Areas in the Foothill Fire Zones are required to be developed with proper
building separation, landscaping, and building materials; adequate emergency access and evacuation routes; and
sufficient water resources. (EIR at 5.8-48). To ensure the safety of property and lives, a detailed fire safety analysis was conducted by FireSafe Planning Solutions and a fire protection plan was prepared, which factored in wind
patterns, fuel types (vegetation), topography, weather
patterns, and historical burn patterns to determine the 44 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 816
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations potential severity of wildfires and appropriate protection methods. (EIR at 5.8-49). A comparison of the provisions of this Specific Plan with the Foothill Fire Overlay District is provided in Appendix D of the Specific Plan. The table in Appendix D shows the Project’s compliance with the
Foothill Fire Overlay District standards for access and circulation, site and street identification, roadside
vegetation, water supply, erosion control, construction and development design, and other miscellaneous standards
such as disclosure to property owners and responsible
parties for fuel modification zone maintenance. Spring
Trails is compliant with all standards laid out in the Foothill Fire Overlay District. (Id.). The fire protection plan
prepared by Fire Safe Planning Solutions was approved by the San Bernardino County Fire Department and
incorporated into the Spring Trails Specific Plan.

Accordingly, the potential for impacts related to
development within Foothill Fire Zones is less than
significant, and no mitigation is required.
d.

Potential Significant Impact:

Cumulative Impacts.

Whether the Project would result in cumulatively
significant impacts related to Land Use and Planning.

Finding: Impacts related to Land Use and Planning are discussed in detail at Section 5.8 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that the Project will not result in cumulatively significant impacts related to Land Use and Planning and therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: Development of the Project, in addition to other cumulative development, could cause City-wide land use and planning impacts. (EIR at 5.8-49). However, upon adoption of the Spring Trails Specific Plan, the Project would be consistent with applicable plans, policies, and regulations of the San Bernardino General Plan, the City’s zoning regulations, and SCAG’s RCPG and RTP. (Id.). Additionally, as with the
proposed Project, other cumulative projects would also be subject to compliance with the local and regional plans reviewed in this section. (Id.). Implementation of the
cumulative projects would not combine with the proposed Project to result in cumulatively considerable land use impacts, and no mitigation is required.
45 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 817
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

9. Mineral Resources.
a.

Potential Significant Impact:

Loss of Mineral Resources.

Whether the Project would result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state; or result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan.

Finding: Impacts related to Mineral Resources are discussed in detail at Section 5.9 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that the Project will not result in the loss of availability of any known mineral resource, and therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: Younger alluvium is present on the Project site, which may be suitable as construction aggregate, but is present onsite in limited amounts, mainly in Cable Canyon and Myers
Canyon. (See EIR Figure 5.5-1). Most of the site surface consists of older terrace deposits, which are not thought to be suitable as aggregate because the boulders and gravel in these deposits are moderately weathered and crumbly,
suggesting they break down easily. (EIR at 5.9-4). There are no mineral resource recovery sites designated in the City of San Bernardino General Plan on or near the Project site, and there are no existing mineral resource recovery operations on or next to the Project site. (Id.). Accordingly, impacts to mineral resources will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

10. Noise.
a. Substantial Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the Project; specifically, whether based on the City of San Bernardino standard for maximum outdoor noise levels in residential areas, Projectrelated traffic would increase the CNEL at any noisesensitive receptor by an audible amount, 3 dBA and ambient noise levels exceed 65 dBA.

Finding: Potential Noise impacts of the Project are discussed in detail at Section 5.10 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that the Project will not result in a substantial permanent increase in 46 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 818
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project, because Project-related traffic will not increase the CNEL at any noisesensitive receptor by an audible amount, and therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The operations phase of the Project would generate noise primarily associated with vehicular trips. (EIR at 5.10-17).

According to the Project’s traffic impact analysis, the Project would generate 3,149 average daily trips (ADT), with 247 trips in the morning peak-hour and 333 trips in the evening peak hour. (Id.). A 3 dB change in noise levels is considered to be the minimum change discernible to the
human ear. (Id.). Project-related traffic at buildout year 2013 would cause noise levels to increase by more than 3 dBA on the new access roads, along Little League Drive, and Belmont Avenue between Little League Drive and
Magnolia Avenue. (EIR Figure 5.10-6). However, ambient
noise levels would not exceed 65 dBA CNEL under year
2013 with Project conditions along these roadways. A
portion of the segment of Little League Drive south of
Frontage Road would be within the 65 dBA CNEL ambient
noise contour, however, there are no noise-sensitive
receptors present. (EIR at 5.10-18). Consequently,
implementation of the Project would not cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels; noise impacts would be less than significant in year 2013, and no
mitigation is required.
b. Noise Levels in Excess of Standards.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; specifically,
whether noise generated by buildout of the Project would result in stationary (non-transportation) noise that results in a noise nuisance at noise-sensitive receptors as determined in Chapter 8.54, Noise Control, of the City’s Municipal Code; or result in interior noise levels in habitable noisesensitive areas that exceed 45 dBA CNEL or exterior noise levels at single-family residential noise-sensitive areas exceed 65 dBA CNEL.

Finding: Potential Noise impacts of the Project are discussed in detail at Section 5.10 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that the Project will not result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of any standard, and therefore, no mitigation is required. 47 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 819
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Facts in Support of the Finding: Noise may have a significant impact if the Project constructs a noise-sensitive land use in an area that is incompatible due to excessive noise. (EIR at 5.10-18). The City of San Bernardino has adopted a land use
compatibility criterion for the siting of new noise-sensitive land uses within the City. (See EIR Table 5.10-3). Per the City of San Bernardino General Plan, noise-impacted
projects are defined as residential projects with noise levels that exceed the City’s “Normally Acceptable” compatibility criteria. For residential projects, noise-impacted projects are those that are exposed to exterior noise levels of 65 dBA CNEL or greater. Noise-impacted projects are
required by the City to include upgraded noise insulation features (e.g., windows, doors, attic baffling) that achieve an exterior-to-interior noise level of 45 dBA CNEL. (EIR at 5.10-18). The majority of future ambient noise at the Project area would be generated by local roadway traffic. (Id.). Noise-sensitive portions of the Project site include the interior of the residential dwelling units, and the exterior noise-sensitive areas of these uses. Traffic on the local roadways under Year 2013 With Project conditions would
not generate noise levels that exceed the exterior noise level of 65 dBA CNEL. (EIR Figure 5.10-5). Noisesensitive uses would be exposed to exterior noise levels of 50 dBA CNEL and under. Pursuant to the California
Building Code, noise-sensitive habitable rooms would be required to be designed to achieve an interior noise
standard of 45 dBA CNEL. In general, exterior-to-interior transmission loss from standard building construction
results in a minimum attenuation of 24 dBA under
windows-closed conditions and 12 dBA under windowsopen conditions. (EIR at 5.10-18). Therefore, interior noise levels would not exceed the interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL. Consequently, noise impacts at the onsite
noise-sensitive receptors would be less than significant.

Residential uses would generate stationary noise sources on the Project site, including heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units from residential units, and
noise from landscaping activities. (EIR at 5.10-27). HVAC units and other equipment would be acoustically
engineered with mufflers and barriers to ensure that no exceedance of the City’s noise standards would occur.
(Id.). Consequently, proposed residential uses would not generate substantial noise, and impacts to nearby noise48 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 820
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations sensitive receptors would be less than significant. Thus, no mitigation is required.
c.

Potential Significant Impact:

Groundborne Vibration.

Whether the Project would result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels; specifically, whether
construction equipment would produce perceptible levels of vibration (78 VdB) during the daytime at offsite vibrationsensitive structures, or produce vibration that is strong enough to cause vibration-induced architectural damage
based on the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), which is 0.2 in/sec for typical wood-framed buildings or 0.5 in/sec for reinforced concrete, steel, or timber structures.

Facts in Support of the Finding: Construction operations can generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the construction procedures and the construction equipment. (EIR at 5.10-27).

Construction equipment can produce vibration from vehicle travel as well as grading and building activities. No pile driving, blasting, or other vibration-intensive activity would be required in the construction effort. (Id.). The highest levels of vibration would be experienced when a heavy
piece of construction equipment is operating or passes in proximity to the nearby vibration-sensitive structures.

Levels of vibration produced by construction equipment are evaluated against the FTA’s significance threshold for
vibration annoyance of 78 VdB for residential structures during the daytime. (Id.). Although the maximum vibration levels associated with certain construction activities could be perceptible in certain instances, vibration events would be infrequent throughout the day, would occur during the least vibration-sensitive portions of the day, and equipment would be used for a short duration when working in close proximity to vibration-sensitive receptors. (EIR at 5.10- 28). Additionally, construction activities are typically distributed throughout a project site. Therefore,
construction vibration is based on average vibration levels (levels that would be experienced by sensitive receptors the 49 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 821
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations majority of the time) that exceed the FTA’s criteria for vibration-induced annoyance at sensitive residences during the day of 78 VdB. While construction equipment could
operate as close as 65 feet to the nearest offsite vibrationsensitive residential structures (onsite Secondary Access Road), most of the heavy construction equipment would
operate at greater distances (average distance of 761 feet). (Id.). Average vibration levels from construction of the Project would not exceed the FTA criteria for vibration annoyance at the surrounding residential uses or at the existing onsite residence. (EIR Table 5.10-7).

Consequently, impacts would be less than significant.

Development of the Project would require construction of two access roads into the project site from the existing arterials. (EIR at 5.10-28). The primary access road would connect at the southeast entrance of the site and the
secondary access road would connect to the southwest
entrance of the project site. Roadway construction would include grading, foundation work, and asphalt paving that would extend beyond the Project site boundary into the
surrounding properties. (Id.). While construction equipment at the roadway construction areas could operate as close as 55 feet to the nearest offsite vibration-sensitive receptor, most of the heavy construction equipment would operate at greater distances. (Id.). Average vibration levels from construction of the Project would not exceed the FTA
criteria for vibration annoyance at the surrounding
residential uses. (EIR at Table 5.10-8). Consequently,
impacts would be less than significant.

The FTA criterion for vibration-induced architectural
damage is 0.20 inch per second for the peak particle
velocity (“PPV’) for wood-framed structures. (EIR at

5.10-29). Project-related construction vibration was
evaluated for its potential to cause architectural damage in comparison to the FTA’s architectural damage criteria for the closest offsite structure. Onsite construction activities associated with the Project would occur at distances that would result in PPV levels below the FTA’s criteria for vibration-induced architectural damage at the nearest offand onsite vibration-sensitive structures. (EIR Table

5.10-9). Consequently, impacts would be less than
significant at off- and onsite receptors. Similar to onsite construction activities, vibration levels from roadwayrelated construction activities would also result in PPV 50 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 822
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations levels below the FTA’s criteria for vibration-induced
architectural damage at the nearest offsite vibrationsensitive structures. (EIR Table 5.10-10). Consequently, impacts would be less than significant at offsite receptors, and no mitigation is required.
d.

Potential Significant Impact:

Cumulative Impacts.

Whether the Project would result in or contribute to a
significant cumulative noise impact.

Facts in Support of the Finding: Project-related cumulative noise impacts may occur if, under Project conditions, there is a substantial increase in overall cumulative noise (3 dBA or more), the Project
contributes 0.1 dBA or more to the overall cumulative
noise increase, and the ambient noise environment is above 65 dBA CNEL. (EIR at 5.10-36). Buildout year 2013
conditions would not result in any cumulative noise
impacts along the roadway segments within the study area. (EIR Figures 5.10-5 to 5.10-7). Roadway segments where
the ambient noise environment would be 65 dBA CNEL or
higher, such as along Palm Avenue and I-215 corridor,
would not result in cumulative noise increases of 3 dB or more under buildout year 2015 with project conditions.
(EIR at 5.10-36). For roadway segments—such as the
secondary access road from I-215 to the Project site and the primary access road from the Project site to Meyers
Road—where cumulative noise would exceed 3 dB under
buildout year 2013 conditions, ambient noise levels would not exceed 65 dBA CNEL. (Id.). A small portion of the
segment of Little League Drive south of Frontage Road
would result in a 3 dB increase in cumulative noise under year 2013 With Project conditions. (Id.). This would be within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour, and the Project
would contribute at least 0.1 dB to the overall cumulative noise increase. However, there are no noise-sensitive uses in this area. Consequently, the Project’s contribution to cumulative noise would be less than significant, and Project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable for
buildout Year 2015 conditions. (Id.).
51 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 823
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Potential noise impacts from Project-related traffic were evaluated to assess cumulative increases in the ambient noise environment in the vicinity of noise-sensitive
receptors for horizon year 2030. (Id.). By horizon year 2030, considerable growth in the San Bernardino area is anticipated. Therefore, future traffic growth within the City of San Bernardino in horizon year 2030, in addition to
Project-related traffic growth, would also result in increases in the ambient noise levels within the City. The ambient noise along a portion of the primary access road—from
Belmont Avenue to just north of Meyers Road—would
exceed 65 dBA CNEL, cumulative noise would exceed
3 dB, and the Project would contribute at least 0.1 dB. (EIR Figure 5.10-11). However, there are no existing
noise-sensitive receptors within the vicinity of this
particular portion of the roadway segment. Other roadway segments, such as Palm Avenue north of I-215, would be
within ambient noise levels of 65 dBA CNEL or higher;
however, cumulative noise would not exceed 3 dB.

Consequently, the Project’s contribution to cumulative
noise would be less than significant and project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable for horizon year 2030 With-Project conditions. (EIR at 5.10-37).

Unlike transportation noise sources, whose effects can
extend well beyond the limits of the project site, stationary noise generated by a project only impacts sensitive
receptors adjacent to the project site. (Id.). As no
significant stationary noise impacts from Project
implementation were identified, and the City of San
Bernardino restricts stationary noise generated on a
property from creating a nuisance to other noise-sensitive receptors, cumulative stationary-source noise generation would also be less than significant. (Id.).

Like stationary-source noise, cumulative construction noise and vibration impacts are confined to a localized area of impact. Consequently, cumulative impacts would only
occur if other projects are being constructed in the vicinity of the Project at the same time as the Project. (Id.). Since there are no other planned projects in the vicinity of the Project area, there are no cumulative construction-related noise and vibration impacts. Accordingly, the potential for the Project to result in cumulative noise impacts is less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
52 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 824
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

11. Population and Housing.
a.

Potential Significant Impact:

Substantial Population Growth.

Whether the Project would induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure).

Finding: Impacts related to Population and Housing are discussed in detail at Section 5.11 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that the Project will not induce substantial population growth either directly or indirectly, and therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project would result in a slight population growth in the Project area, by directly introducing up to 304 new single-family residential units (reduced to 215 units, or 711 persons) into the City of San Bernardino. Using an average household size of 3.34 persons, the Project would add up to 1,015 new residents to the City of San Bernardino. (FEIR at 3-12). The population for the City of San Bernardino in 2005 was 201,049 and is projected to increase to 265,515 in 2035. (EIR Table 5.11-1). The City’s General Plan
currently designates the Project site as Residential Estate (RE), which allows for one dwelling unit per acre.

However, the Project would require a General Plan
Amendment to change the existing land use designation to Residential Low (RL), allowing 3.1 dwelling units per acre, an increase of 2.1 dwelling units per acre. (EIR at 5.11-9).

The City’s projected buildout population under the existing land use designations is approximately 319,241 (General Plan 2005), which includes 276,264 persons in the City and 42,976 persons in the City’s sphere of influence. The
Project would increase the overall buildout population from 319,241 to 320,256, but more specifically, the projected population of 42,976 persons in the City’s sphere of
influence would increase to 43,991. The projected
population increase that would be generated by the Project would represent approximately 0.32 percent of the buildout population forecast for the City of San Bernardino.

Although the proposed land use designation would allow
for 2.1 more dwelling units per acre than the existing
general plan, the Project would only result in a nominal increase in the overall projected buildout population. (Id.). 53 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 825
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations The City of San Bernardino is a jobs-rich community.

According to SCAG, the total employment within the City will grow from 81,115 jobs in 2000 to 157,088 jobs in
2035, for a total increase of 75,973 jobs, representing 93.7 percent growth. This reflects an annual growth rate of
approximately 2,171 jobs or 2.7 percent. Implementation of the Project would create short-term jobs during the
construction phase; however, the Project itself would not provide any jobs. (Id.). SCAG applies the jobs/housing
ratio at the regional and sub-regional level as a tool for analyzing the fit between jobs, housing, and infrastructure.

Although no ideal jobs/housing ratio is adopted in state, regional, or city policies, SCAG considers an area balanced when the jobs/housing ratio is 1.35; communities with
more than 1.5 jobs per dwelling unit are considered jobsrich. The Project would consist of 309 residential units and would not provide any jobs. (Id.). By 2035, the City is projected to grow by 36.6 percent in housing, 32.1 percent in population, and 65.5 percent in employment. (EIR
Table 5.11-5). SCAG’s forecast predicts a strong growth in employment, as the City’s jobs/housing ratio was 1.65 in 2005 and is expected to increase to 2.00 by 2035. The
projected 2035 jobs/housing ratio at Project buildout would be 1.99, or 0.01 less than the jobs/housing ratio at buildout without the Project. The Project would create a
jobs/housing ratio that is slightly more balanced compared to the projected buildout in the area, improving the
jobs/housing ratio within the City. (EIR at 5.11-9). By buildout year 2035, the county is projected to grow by 71.4 percent in housing, 32.1 percent in population, and 65.5 percent in employment. In 2005, the jobs/housing ratio was

1.24 and is projected to increase to 1.29 in 2035,
maintaining an overall balance between the number of jobs and number of households within the county. The Project would not change the projected buildout ratio between jobs and housing in the county. (EIR Table 5.11-5). As
previously mentioned, there is some variation between the City’s and SCAG forecasts because different growth rates were used to determine the projections. EIR Table 5.11-6 shows the job/housing ratio according to the City’s
projections in their General Plan. At Project buildout, the City predicts that their jobs/housing ratio would be 3.7. (EIR at 5.11-10). Infrastructure improvements are required for the Project, and a primary access road would have to be constructed from the terminus of Little League Drive and extended west to the northeastern corner of the Project site, 54 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 826
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations along with a secondary access road. These access roads
would only accommodate the Project. The development of
the Project would also require the construction of new
stormwater drainage facilities and infrastructure, the
construction of new pipelines on the Project site, and
potentially an upgrade of the existing pipeline at Little League Drive. (Id.). Additionally, there would be three proposed detention basins that would be maintained by the owner or homeowners association. This would improve the fire flow in the higher elevations of the Project site and its vicinity. (EIR at 5.11-11). The Local Agency Formation
Commission approved a sphere of influence expansion in
September 1996 for the City, which placed the Project site and adjacent area within the City of San Bernardino’s
sphere of influence. Therefore, these improvements are
consistent with planned growth for the City. (Id.). To the extent that these improvements would accommodate
growth that could not occur otherwise, they would be
considered growth inducing. Since substantial growth is anticipated and planned for the City, surrounding growth accommodated by these improvements is not considered
significant, and no mitigation is required.
b.

Mayor and City CouncilNovember 6, 2024

Mayor and City Council
November 6, 2024