Agenda packet — Upland City Council, January 27, 2025 (part 8 of 8)

FIRST AMENDMENT TO

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR

PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES WITH
ELIZABETH DALEY.

THIS FIRST AMENDMENT ("First Amendment") is made and entered into as of January 27, 2025 by and between the City of Upland ("City") and Murphy Daley a California Sole Proprietorship ("Contractor"), collectively referred to as the "Parties," with respect to that certain Professional Services Agreement between the Parties dated September 24, 2024 (the "Agreement").

RECITALS
A. WHEREAS, City and the Contractor entered into the Agreement for the provision of project management services.

B. WHEREAS, City and Contractor require additional time and resources to complete the work set forth in the Agreement.

C. WHEREAS, the Parties now desire to amend the Agreement to extend the term by one (1) year, with the option for up to three additional one-year extensions, not to exceed a total of three years, subject to annual review and mutual agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and undertakings of the Parties hereinafter set forth, the Parties to this First Amendment mutually agree as follows:

AMENDMENT

1. Amendment to Term. The term of the Agreement is hereby extended for an additional one (1) year, commencing on July 01, 2025, with the option to extend the Agreement for up to three additional one-year terms, with each extension subject to an annual review and mutual agreement.

2. Change in Compensation. The maximum compensation payable under the Agreement is increased from fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) to one hundred and sixty thousand dollars ($160,000) for the remainder of City's current fiscal year, which ends on June 30, 2025. The not-to-exceed amount for each subsequent one-year extension shall be one hundred ninety-two thousand dollars ($192,000).

This adjustment reflects the additional services and extended term as outlined in this amendment.

3. Effect of Amendment. Except as expressly amended herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

Page 596 of 705 ends

[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]

SIGNATURE PAGE FOR

FIRST AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR PROJECT

MANAGEMENT SERVICES WITH ELIZABETH DALEY
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Second Amendment on the Effective Date first herein above written.

CITY OF UPLAND CONTRACTOR
A California municipal corporation Elizabeth Daley 365 Saint Bonaventure Ave.

Claremont, CA 91711
By:

Michael Blay, City Manager
Attest: Name:

Title:

Keri Johnson, City Clerk
Approved As to Legal Form:

Stephen Deitsch, City Attorney

Page 597 of 705 ends

Docusign Envelope ID:45708A13-461 F-4FF0-9386-84E97D16CB99

CITY OF UPLAND

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
This Agreement is made and entered into as of September 17, 2024 by and between the City of Upland, a public agency organized and operating under the laws of the State of California with its principal place of business at 460 N. Euclid Avenue, Upland, CA 91786 ("City"), and Elizabeth Daley, a sole proprietorship with its principal place of business at 365 Saint Bonaventure Ave, Claremont, CA, 91711 (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"). City and Consultant are sometimes individually referred to as "Party" and collectively as "Parties" in this Agreement.

RECITALS
A. City is a public agency of the State of California and is in need of professional services for the following project:

Project management services (hereinafter referred to as "the Project").

B. Consultant is duly licensed and has the necessary qualifications to provide such services.

C. The Parties desire by this Agreement to establish the terms for City to retain Consultant to provide the services described herein.

AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS:

1. Services.

Consultant shall provide the City with the services described in the Scope of Services attached hereto as Exhibit "A."

2. Compensation.
a. Subject to paragraph 2(b) below, the City shall pay for such services in accordance with the Schedule of Charges set forth in Exhibit "B." b. In no event shall the total amount paid for services rendered by Consultant under this Agreement exceed the sum of$50,000. This amount is to cover all printing and related costs, and the City will not pay any additional fees for printing expenses. Periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of receipt of an invoice which includes a detailed description of the work performed. Payments to Consultant for work performed will be made on a monthly billing basis. c. The City Manager may approve Additional Work, as further defined in Section 3, up to ten percent (10%) of the amount of the Agreement or fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00). In no event shall the total sum of the agreement (original compensation amount and Additional Work) exceed fifty-thousand dollars ($50,000). Any additional work in excess of this amount shall be approved by the City Council.

3. Additional Work.
1

Page 598 of 705 ends

Docusign Envelope ID:45708A13-461 F-4FF0-9386-84E97D16CB99 If changes in the work seem merited by Consultant or the City, and informal consultations with the other party indicate that a change is warranted, it shall be processed in the following manner: a letter outlining the changes shall be forwarded to the City by Consultant with a statement of estimated changes in fee or time schedule. An amendment to this Agreement shall be prepared by the City and executed by both Parties before performance of such services, or the City will not be required to pay for the changes in the scope of work. Such amendment shall not render ineffective or invalidate unaffected portions of this Agreement.

4. Maintenance of Records.

Books, documents, papers, accounting records, and other evidence pertaining to costs incurred shall be maintained by Consultant and made available at all reasonable times during the contract period and for four (4) years from the date of final payment under the contract for inspection by City.

5. Term.

The term of this Agreement shall be from September 17, 2024 to June 30, 2025, unless earlier terminated as provided herein. The Parties may, by mutual, written consent, extend the term of this Agreement if necessary to complete the Project. Consultant shall perform its services in a prompt and timely manner within the term of this Agreement and shall commence performance upon receipt of written notice from the City to proceed ("Notice to Proceed"). The Notice to Proceed shall set forth the date of commencement of work.

6. Delays in Performance.
a. Neither City nor Consultant shall be considered in default of this Agreement for delays in performance caused by circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the non- performing party. For purposes of this Agreement, such circumstances include but are not limited to, abnormal weather conditions; floods; earthquakes; fire; epidemics; pandemics; war; riots and other civil disturbances; strikes, lockouts, work slowdowns, and other labor disturbances; sabotage or judicial restraint.
b. Should such circumstances occur, the non-performing party shall, within a reasonable time of being prevented from performing, give written notice to the other party describing the circumstances preventing continued performance and the efforts being made to resume performance of this Agreement.

7. Compliance with Law.
a. Consultant shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, codes and regulations of the federal, state and local government, including Cal/OSHA requirements. b. If required, Consultant shall assist the City, as requested, in obtaining and maintaining all permits required of Consultant by federal, state and local regulatory agencies. c. If applicable, Consultant is responsible for all costs of clean up and/ or removal of hazardous and toxic substances spilled as a result of his or her services or operations performed under this Agreement.

8. Standard of Care
2

Page 599 of 705 ends

Docusign Envelope ID:45708A13-461 F-4FF0-9386-84E97D16CB99 Consultant's services will be performed in accordance with generally accepted professional practices and principles and in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions.

9. Assignment and Subconsultant
Consultant shall not assign, sublet, or transfer this Agreement or any rights under or interest in this Agreement without the written consent of the City, which may be withheld for any reason. Any attempt to so assign or so transfer without such consent shall be void and without legal effect and shall constitute grounds for termination. Subcontracts, if any, shall contain a provision making them subject to all provisions stipulated in this Agreement. Nothing contained herein shall prevent Consultant from employing independent associates, and subconsultants as Consultant may deem appropriate to assist in the performance of services hereunder.

10. Independent Contractor
Consultant is retained as an independent contractor and is not an employee of City. No employee or agent of Consultant shall become an employee of City. The work to be performed shall be in accordance with the work described in this Agreement, subject to such directions and amendments from City as herein provided.
a. PERS Eligibility Indemnification
In the event that Consultant or any employee, agent, or subcontractor of Consultant providing services under this Agreement claims or is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction or the California Public Employees Retirement System ("PERS") to be eligible for enrollment in PERS as an employee of the City, Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City for the payment of any employee and/or employer contributions for PERS benefits on behalf of Consultant or its employees, agents, or subcontractors, as well as for the payment of any penalties and interest on such contributions, which would otherwise be the responsibility of City.

Notwithstanding any other agency, state or federal policy, rule, regulation, law or ordinance to the contrary, Consultant and any of its employees, agents, and subcontractors providing service under this Agreement shall not qualify for or become entitled to, and hereby agree to waive any claims to, any compensation, benefit, or any incident of employment by City, including but not limited to eligibility to enroll in PERS as an employee of City and entitlement to any contribution to be paid by City for employer contribution and/or employee contributions for PERS benefits.

11. Insurance. Consultant shall not commence work for the City until it has provided evidence satisfactory to the City it has secured all insurance required under this section. In addition, Consultant shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until it has secured all insurance required under this section. a. Commercial General Liability
(i) The Consultant shall take out and maintain, during the performance of all work under this Agreement, in amounts not less than specified herein, Commercial General Liability Insurance, in a form and with insurance companies acceptable to the City. 3

Page 600 of 705 ends

Docusign Envelope ID:45708A13-461 F-4FF0-9386-84E97D16CB99 (ii) Coverage for Commercial General Liability insurance shall be at least as broad as the following:
(1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (Occurrence Form CG 00 01) or exact equivalent. (iii) Commercial General Liability Insurance must include coverage for the following:
(1) Bodily Injury and Property Damage
(2) Personal Injury/Advertising Injury
(3) Premises/Operations Liability
(4) Products/Completed Operations Liability
(5) Aggregate Limits that Apply per Project
(6) Explosion, Collapse and Underground (UCX) exclusion deleted
(7) Contractual Liability with respect to this Agreement (8) Property Damage
(9) Independent Contractors Coverage
(iv) The policy shall contain no endorsements or provisions limiting coverage for (1) contractual liability; (2) cross liability exclusion for claims or suits by one insured against another; (3) products/completed operations liability; or (4) contain any other exclusion contrary to the Agreement.
(v) The policy shall give City, its officials, officers, employees, agents and City designated volunteers additional insured status using ISO endorsement forms CG 20 10 10 01 and 20 37 10 01, or endorsements providing the exact same coverage. (vi) The general liability program may utilize either deductibles or provide coverage excess of a self-insured retention, subject to written approval by the City, and provided that such deductibles shall not apply to the City as an additional insured. b. Automobile Liability
(i) At all times during the performance of the work under this Agreement, the Consultant shall maintain Automobile Liability Insurance for bodily injury and property damage including coverage for owned, non-owned and hired vehicles, in a form and with insurance companies acceptable to the City.
(ii) Coverage for automobile liability insurance shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Form Number CA 00 01 covering automobile liability (Coverage Symbol 1, any auto).
(iii) The policy shall give City, its officials, officers, employees, agents and City designated volunteers additional insured status. (iv) Subject to written approval by the City, the automobile liability program may utilize deductibles, provided that such deductibles shall not apply to the City as an additional insured, but not a self-insured retention.
c. Workers' Compensation/Employer's Liability
4

Page 601 of 705 ends

Docusign Envelope ID:45708A13-461 F-4FF0-9386-84E97D16CB99 (i) Consultant certifies that he/she is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which requires every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and he/she will comply with such provisions before commencing work under this Agreement.
(ii) To the extent Consultant has employees at any time during the term of this Agreement, at all times during the performance of the work under this Agreement, the Consultant shall maintain full compensation insurance for all persons employed directly by him/her to carry out the work contemplated under this Agreement, all in accordance with the "Workers' Compensation and Insurance Act," Division IV of the Labor Code of the State of California and any acts amendatory thereof, and Employer's Liability Coverage in amounts indicated herein. Consultant shall require all subconsultants to obtain and maintain, for the period required by this Agreement, workers' compensation coverage of the same type and limits as specified in this section.
d. Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions)
At all times during the performance of the work under this Agreement the Consultant shall maintain professional liability or Errors and Omissions insurance appropriate to its profession, in a form and with insurance companies acceptable to the City and in an amount indicated herein.

This insurance shall be endorsed to include contractual liability applicable to this Agreement and shall be written on a policy form specifically designed to protect against acts, errors or omissions of the Consultant. "Covered Professional Services" as designated in the policy must specifically include work performed under this Agreement. The policy must"pay on behalf of"the insured and must include a provision establishing the insurer's duty to defend. e. Minimum Policy Limits Required
(i) The following insurance limits are required for the Agreement:

Combined Single Limit
Commercial General Liability $1,000,000 per occurrence/ $2,000,000 aggregate for bodily injury, personal injury, and property
damage
Automobile Liability $1,000,000 combined single limit Employer's Liability $1,000,000 per accident or disease Professional Liability $1,000,000 per claim and aggregate (errors and omissions)
(ii) Defense costs shall be payable in addition to the limits. (iii) Requirements of specific coverage or limits contained in this section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits, or other requirement, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. Any available coverage shall be provided to the parties required to be named as Additional Insured pursuant to this Agreement. f. Evidence Required
5

Page 602 of 705 ends

Docusign Envelope ID:45708A13-461 F-4FF0-9386-84E97D16CB99 Prior to execution of the Agreement, the Consultant shall file with the City evidence of insurance from an insurer or insurers certifying to the coverage of all insurance required herein. Such evidence shall include original copies of the ISO CG 00 01 (or insurer's equivalent) signed by the insurer's representative and Certificate of Insurance (Acord Form 25-S or equivalent), together with required endorsements. All evidence of insurance shall be signed by a properly authorized officer, agent, or qualified representative of the insurer and shall certify the names of the insured, any additional insureds, where appropriate, the type and amount of the insurance, the location and operations to which the insurance applies, and the expiration date of such insurance.
g. Policy Provisions Required
(i) Consultant shall provide the City at least thirty (30) days prior written notice of cancellation of any policy required by this Agreement, except that the Consultant shall provide at least ten (10) days prior written notice of cancellation of any such policy due to non-payment of premium. If any of the required coverage is cancelled or expires during the term of this Agreement, the Consultant shall deliver renewal certificate(s) including the General Liability Additional Insured Endorsement to the City at least ten (10) days prior to the effective date of cancellation or expiration.
(ii) The Commercial General Liability Policy and Automobile Policy shall each contain a provision stating that Consultant's policy is primary insurance and that any insurance, self-insurance or other coverage maintained by the City or any named insureds shall not be called upon to contribute to any loss.
(iii) The retroactive date (if any) of each policy is to be no later than the effective date of this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain such coverage continuously for a period of at least three years after the completion of the work under this Agreement. Consultant shall purchase a one (1) year extended reporting period A) if the retroactive date is advanced past the effective date of this Agreement; B) if the policy is cancelled or not renewed; or C) if the policy is replaced by another claims-made policy with a retroactive date subsequent to the effective date of this Agreement.
(iv) All required insurance coverages, except for the professional liability coverage, shall contain or be endorsed to provide a waiver of subrogation in favor of the City, its officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers or shall specifically allow Consultant or others providing insurance evidence in compliance with these specifications to waive their right of recovery prior to a loss. Consultant hereby waives its own right of recovery against City, and shall require similar written express waivers and insurance clauses from each of its subconsultants.
(v) The limits set forth herein shall apply separately to each insured against whom claims are made or suits are brought, except with respect to the limits of liability.

Further the limits set forth herein shall not be construed to relieve the Consultant from liability in excess of such coverage, nor shall it limit the Consultant's indemnification obligations to the City and shall not preclude the City from taking such other actions available to the City under other provisions of the Agreement or law.
h. Qualifying Insurers
(i) All policies required shall be issued by acceptable insurance companies, as determined by the City, which satisfy the following minimum requirements:
6

Page 603 of 705 ends

Docusign Envelope ID:45708A13-461 F-4FF0-9386-84E97D16CB99 (1) Each such policy shall be from a company or companies with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII and admitted to transact in the business of insurance in the State of California, or otherwise allowed to place insurance through surplus line brokers under applicable provisions of the California Insurance Code or any federal law.

Additional Insurance Provisions
(i) The foregoing requirements as to the types and limits of insurance coverage to be maintained by Consultant, and any approval of said insurance by the City, is not intended to and shall not in any manner limit or qualify the liabilities and obligations otherwise assumed by the Consultant pursuant to this Agreement, including but not limited to, the provisions concerning indemnification.
(ii) If at any time during the life of the Agreement, any policy of insurance required under this Agreement does not comply with these specifications or is canceled and not replaced, City has the right but not the duty to obtain the insurance it deems necessary and any premium paid by City will be promptly reimbursed by Consultant or City will withhold amounts sufficient to pay premium from Consultant payments. In the alternative, City may cancel this Agreement.
(iii) The City may require the Consultant to provide complete copies of all insurance policies in effect for the duration of the Project. (iv) Neither the City nor any of its officials, officers, employees, agents or volunteers shall be personally responsible for any liability arising under or by virtue of this Agreement.
j. Subconsultant Insurance Requirements. Consultant shall not allow any subcontractors or subconsultants to commence work on any subcontract until they have provided evidence satisfactory to the City that they have secured all insurance required under this section.

Policies of commercial general liability insurance provided by such subcontractors or subconsultants shall be endorsed to name the City as an additional insured using ISO form CG 20 38 04 13 or an endorsement providing the exact same coverage. If requested by Consultant, City may approve different scopes or minimum limits of insurance for particular subcontractors or subconsultants.

12. Indemnification.
a. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall defend (with counsel of City's choosing), indemnify and hold the City, its officials, officers, employees, volunteers, and agents free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liability, loss, damage or injury of any kind, in law or equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of, pertaining to, or incident to any acts, errors or omissions, or willful misconduct of Consultant, its officials, officers, employees, subcontractors, consultants or agents in connection with the performance of the Consultant's services, the Project or this Agreement, including without limitation the payment of all damages, expert witness fees and attorney's fees and other related costs and expenses. Consultant's obligation to indemnify shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by Consultant, the City, its officials, officers, employees, agents, or volunteers.
7

Page 604 of 705 ends

Docusign Envelope ID:45708A13-461 F-4FF0-9386-84E97D16CB99 b. If Consultant's obligation to defend, indemnify, and/or hold harmless arises out of Consultant's performance of "design professional" services (as that term is defined under Civil Code section 2782.8), then, and only to the extent required by Civil Code section 2782.8, which is fully incorporated herein, Consultant's indemnification obligation shall be limited to claims that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant, and, upon Consultant obtaining a final adjudication by a court of competent jurisdiction, Consultant's liability for such claim, including the cost to defend, shall not exceed the Consultant's proportionate percentage of fault.

13. California Labor Code Requirements.
a. Consultant is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1720 et seq. and 1770 et seq., which require the payment of prevailing wage rates and the performance of other requirements on certain "public works" and "maintenance" projects ("Prevailing Wage Laws"). If the services are being performed as part of an applicable "public works" or "maintenance" project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and if the total compensation is $1,000 or more, Consultant agrees to fully comply with such Prevailing Wage Laws. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claims, liabilities, costs, penalties or interest arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws. It shall be mandatory upon the Consultant and all subconsultants to comply with all California Labor Code provisions, which include but are not limited to prevailing wages (Labor Code Sections 1771, 1774 and 1775), employment of apprentices (Labor Code Section 1777.5), certified payroll records (Labor Code Sections 1771.4 and 1776), hours of labor(Labor Code Sections 1813 and 1815) and debarment of contractors and subcontractors (Labor Code Section 1777.1). The requirement to submit certified payroll records directly to the Labor Commissioner under Labor Code section 1771.4 shall not apply to work performed on a public works project that is exempt pursuant to the small project exemption specified in Labor Code Section 1771.4. b. If the services are being performed as part of an applicable "public works" or "maintenance" project, then pursuant to Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1, the Consultant and all subconsultants performing such services must be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations. Consultant shall maintain registration for the duration of the Project and require the same of any subconsultants, as applicable. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the contractor registration requirements mandated by Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1 shall not apply to work performed on a public works project that is exempt pursuant to the small project exemption specified in Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1. c. This Agreement may also be subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations. It shall be Consultant's sole responsibility to comply with all applicable registration and labor compliance requirements. Any stop orders issued by the Department of Industrial Relations against Consultant or any subcontractor that affect Consultant's performance of services, including any delay, shall be Consultant's sole responsibility. Any delay arising out of or resulting from such stop orders shall be considered Consultant caused delay and shall not be compensable by the City. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claim or liability arising out of stop orders issued by the Department of Industrial Relations against Consultant or any subcontractor.

14. Verification of Employment Eligibility.
8

Page 605 of 705 ends

Docusign Envelope ID:45708A13-461 F-4FF0-9386-84E97D16CB99 By executing this Agreement, Consultant verifies that it fully complies with all requirements and restrictions of state and federal law respecting the employment of undocumented aliens, including, but not limited to, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, as may be amended from time to time, and shall require all subconsultants and sub-subconsultants to comply with the same.

15. Reserved.

16. Laws and Venue.

This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

If any action is brought to interpret or enforce any term of this Agreement, the action shall be brought in a state or federal court situated in the County of San Bernardino, State of California. 17 Termination or Abandonment
a. City has the right to terminate or abandon any portion or all of the work under this Agreement by giving ten (10)calendar days written notice to Consultant. In such event, City shall be immediately given title and possession to all original field notes, drawings and specifications, written reports and other documents produced or developed for that portion of the work completed and/or being abandoned. City shall pay Consultant the reasonable value of services rendered for any portion of the work completed prior to termination. If said termination occurs prior to completion of any task for the Project for which a payment request has not been received, the charge for services performed during such task shall be the reasonable value of such services, based on an amount mutually agreed to by City and Consultant of the portion of such task completed but not paid prior to said termination. City shall not be liable for any costs other than the charges or portions thereof which are specified herein. Consultant shall not be entitled to payment for unperformed services, and shall not be entitled to damages or compensation for termination of work.
b. Consultant may terminate its obligation to provide further services under this Agreement upon thirty(30)calendar days'written notice to City only in the event of substantial failure by City to perform in accordance with the terms of this Agreement through no fault of Consultant.
18 Documents. Except as otherwise provided in "Termination or Abandonment," above, all original field notes, written reports, Drawings and Specifications and other documents, produced or developed for the Project shall, upon payment in full for the services described in this Agreement, be furnished to and become the property of the City.

19. Organization
Consultant shall assign Murphy Daley as Project Manager. The Project Manager shall not be removed from the Project or reassigned without the prior written consent of the City.

20. Limitation of Agreement.

This Agreement is limited to and includes only the work included in the Project described above.

21. Notice
9

Page 606 of 705 ends

Docusign Envelope ID:45708A13-461 F-4FF0-9386-84E97D16CB99 Any notice or instrument required to be given or delivered by this Agreement may be given or delivered by depositing the same in any United States Post Office, certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, addressed to:

CITY: CONSULTANT:

City of Upland Murphy Daley
460 N. Euclid Avenue 365 Saint Bonaventure Ave,
Upland, CA 91786 Claremont, CA 91711
Attn: City Manager
and shall be effective upon receipt thereof.

22. Third Party Rights
Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to give any rights or benefits to anyone other than the City and the Consultant.

23. Equal Opportunity Employment.

Consultant represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and that it shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, age or other interests protected by the State or Federal Constitutions. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination.

24. Entire Agreement
This Agreement, with its exhibits, represents the entire understanding of City and Consultant as to those matters contained herein, and supersedes and cancels any prior or contemporaneous oral or written understanding, promises or representations with respect to those matters covered hereunder. Each Party acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises or agreements have been made by any person which are not incorporated herein, and that any other agreements shall be void. This Agreement may not be modified or altered except in writing signed by both Parties hereto. This is an integrated Agreement.

25. Severability
The unenforceability, invalidity or illegality of any provision(s) of this Agreement shall not render the remaining provisions unenforceable, invalid or illegal.

26. Successors and Assigns
This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the successors in interest, executors, administrators and assigns of each Party to this Agreement. However, Consultant shall not assign or transfer by operation of law or otherwise any or all of its rights, burdens, duties or obligations without the prior written consent of City. Any attempted assignment without such consent shall be invalid and void.

27. Non-Waiver
10

Page 607 of 705 ends

Docusign Envelope ID:45708A13-461 F-4FF0-9386-84E97D16CB99 None of the provisions of this Agreement shall be considered waived by either Party, unless such waiver is specifically specified in writing.

28. Time of Essence
Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement.

29. City's Right to Employ Other Consultants
City reserves its right to employ other consultants, including engineers, in connection with this Project or other projects.

30. Prohibited Interests
Consultant maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Consultant warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, City shall have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability. For the term of this Agreement, no director, official, officer or employee of City, during the term of his or her service with City, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
11

Page 608 of 705 ends

Docusign Envelope ID:45708A13-461 F-4FF0-9386-84E97D16CB99

SIGNATURE PAGE FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

BETWEEN CITY OF UPLAND

AND ELIZABETH DALEY
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date first above written.

CITY OF UPLAND ELIZABETH DALEY
Approved By:
-DocuSigned by: DocuSigned by:
kiautd, am,/
y• �En26Foprr2FF48A... By: 4AAB 7CC71EF4C5...

Michael Blay
City Manager Its: Proprietor

MURPHY DALEY
Printed Name:

Attested by:

DocuSigned by:
f421ACF85BE347A...

Keri Johnson
City Clerk
12

Page 609 of 705 ends

Docusign Envelope ID:45708A13-461 F-4FF0-9386-84E97D16CB99

EXHIBIT A
Scope of Services
The consultant's scope of work includes, but is not limited to the following Tasks and Duties:
• Accurately understand the details of City, State and Federal contractual and funding processes.
• Develop an accurate scope of work outlining agency requirements and needs while ensuring strict adherence to code and funding compliance. • Accurately analyze vendor proposals for proper scope, experience, and budgetary items to ensure the city is getting best value. Assist in the selection of consultants to prepare master plans.
• Review and confirm time estimates and project costs based on city requirements and general practice.
• Coordinate between consultants and city to ensure city satisfaction and minimize public inconvenience. This includes contract management, scheduling weekly or biweekly meeting coordination, reporting of progress, field issues, after-hours work, progress updates, submittals, and change request management.
• Work with consultants to develop projected schedules that accurately reflect the required time for each milestone in the overall requirement.
• Ensure projects stay on-time and on-budget through oversight and quality control methods.
• Navigate city through complex technical, contractual, or regulatory issues. • Provide creative solutions to help lower costs or meet project objectives. • Provide documented inspections or field observations on all work being performed, supplies needed, or equipment used for the data collection. • Liaise with and provide advice to city staff and administration regarding the projects. • Provide regular reports and progress updates to the city as required • Present to and attend meetings of management and City Council and/or Committees as required
• Issue Request(s) for Proposals for all master plan contract work and conduct any tendering necessary to complete the projects in accordance with city's policies, and with industry standards.
• Responsibility for management of master plan projects, including all matters related to health and safety and site security.
• Obtain required permits, certifications, inspections, etc. as required by applicable codes and laws.
• Set, manage and control costs and schedules to ensure that the project cost and schedule objectives outlined in the RFP bid are met.
• Prepare periodic project progress/status and cost reports for review • Oversee, schedule, and manage all consultants involved in each project • Manage deficiency correction, contract close-out, and the project wrap-up • Provide design services as needed
13

Page 610 of 705 ends

Docusign Envelope ID:45708A13-461 F-4FF0-9386-84E97D16CB99

EXHIBIT B
Schedule of Charges/Payments
Consultant will invoice City on a monthly cycle. Consultant will include with each invoice a detailed progress report that indicates the amount of budget spent on each task. Consultant will inform City regarding any out-of-scope work being performed by Consultant. This is a time-and-materials contract.

Hourly Rate - $88
14

Page 611 of 705 ends

4 or UN
`tCALIFORNIA LEVINE ACT DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Ogt�� 4Q"
California Government Code Section 84308, commonly referred to as the "Levine Act," prohibits City Officers from participating in any action concerning a license, permit,other entitlement for use,franchise, or contract(collectively"license, permit,or contract") if they receive political contribution(s)from a party, or its agent(s), totaling more than $500 within the twelve (12) months before the proceeding, while a proceeding is pending, and for twelve (12) months following the date of a final decision in a proceeding.

The Levine Act also requires a member of the Upland City Council who has received such a contribution to disclose the contribution on the record of the proceeding and recuse themselves before the proceeding unless the violation has been properly cured.

Current Upland City Council Members are listed at:
https://www.uplandca.gov/city-council-treasurer
Parties and their Agents are responsible for accessing the link to review the names and disclosing their applicable contributions to City Officers on the record of a proceeding.

As a party to a proceeding,you are also required to provide information below about contributions made by you, your agents on behalf of you or your organization, your organization subject to the proceeding with the City, and any organization you direct or control pursuant to the aggregation rules at FPPC Reg. § 18438.5, except for uncompensated officers of a nonprofit organization. This form is to be submitted to the City of Long Beach and is a public record. If you have any questions about this form, please contact your City representative for assistance.

1. Have you or your company,or any agent/board member on behalf of you or your company/entity, made any political contributions of more than $500 to any Upland City Council Member in the 12 months preceding the date of the submission of your proposal or application,or the anticipated date of any Council action?
YES If yes, please identify the Council Member(s): _ NO

2. Do you or your company/entity, or any agency on behalf of you or your company/entity, anticipate or plan to make any political contribution of more than $500 to any Upland City Council Member in the 12 months following any Council action related to your proposal or application? YES If yes, please identify the Council Member(s):

NO
Answering yes to either of the two questions above does not preclude the Upland City Council from awarding a contract or approving an application or any subsequent action. It does, however, preclude the identified Council Member(s)from participating in any actions related to your proposal or application. 1/7/2025
Date Signature of authorized individual
Elizabeth M Daley
Company/Applicant Name
(Levine Act definitions on reverse side)

Page 612 of 705 ends

LEVINE ACT DISCLOSURE STATEMENT DEFINITIONS
Term Definition Law
A proceeding to grant, deny, revoke, restrict, or modify a license, permit or other entitlement for use, that
does not solely involve purely ministerial decisions
and is:

Covered (1)Applied for by the party; FPPC Reg 18438.2(a) "proceedings" (2) Formally or informally requested by the party; or (3)A contract between the agency and the party or a
franchisee granted by the agency to the party, other
than a contract that is competitively bid, a labor
contract, or a personal employment contract.

Any person who files an application for, or is the
Party subject of, a proceeding involving a license, permit, or Gov. Code 84308(a)(1) other entitlement for use.

Any person who is not a party but who actively
supports or opposes a particular decision in a
proceeding involving a license, permit, or other
entitlement for use and who has a financial interest in Gov. Code 84308(a)(2) Participant the decision.A person actively supports or opposes a FPPC Reg 18438.4 particular decision in a proceeding if that person
lobbies in person the officers or employees of the
agency, testifies in person before the agency, or
otherwise acts to influence officers of the agency.

A person who represents a party or participant for
compensation and appears before or otherwise
Agent communicates with the governmental agency for the FPPC Reg 18438.3 purpose of influencing the pending proceeding. See
FPPC Reg 18438.3 for exceptions for certain
consultants.

A contract required by law to be awarded to the lowest
responsible bidder with a responsive bid, or, if the FPPC Reg Competitively Bid successful bidder refuses or fails to execute the 18438.2(a)(3)(A) contract, to the next lowest bidder with a responsive
bid.

A contract or agreement reached through collective
bargaining or with a representative group regarding
Labor Contract the salary, benefits, or terms and conditions under an FPPC Reg employment or retirement policy for employees or 18438.2(a)(3)(B) retirees, including a project labor agreement entered
under Public Contract Code Section 2500.

Personal A contract for employment, including the terms and Employment conditions of employment, between the agency and FPPC Reg Contract an agency employee.A contract with an independent 18438.2(a)(3)(C)-(D) contractor is NOT a personal employment contract.

Page 613 of 705 ends

..t �pl"� CITY FU P LA N D
"The City of Gracious Living"
Staff(krctilt
C�tIFOB�S
DATE: January 27,2025
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: MICHAEL BLAY,CITY MANAGER
PREPARED BY:CHRIS ALANIS,INTERIM PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR

ED DIGGS,INTERIM UTILITY MANAGER

NORBERTO FERREIRA,CHIEF WATER TREATMENT OPERATOR
SUBJECT: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AN INCREASE TO THE PURCHASE ORDER WITH KSM ELECTRIC IN THE AMOUNT OF$23,000
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

It is recommended that the City Council approve a $23,000 increase to Purchase Order No. 20250096, for a total purchase order amount of$53,000,to pay for additional electrical services for Water Facility Improvements.

GOAL STATEMENT
The proposed action supports the City's goal of updating old and outdated equipment at City Water Facilities.

BACKGROUND
The original KSM Electric Purchase Order (PO No. 20250096) was established based on last year's repair service needs,totaling$30,000.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
The City relies on electric motors and electrical equipment as its primary means of moving water across various facilities, including the Water Treatment Facility. This electrical equipment is maintained on a preventative maintenance schedule based on the manufacturer's specifications to ensure its longevity and continued reliability.

KSM Electric has a proven track record of over 20 years of providing exceptional service to the City, consistently offering reliable and efficient solutions at costs that are competitive with,or lower than,industry standards.Therefore, the Public Works Depai intent requested a Sole Source Exemption in order to continue the working relationship for Fiscal Year 2024-25 in the amount of$30,000. KSM Electric works closely with the City's water treatment operators to maintain the City's operational assets, helping to extend their useful life. In addition to scheduled maintenance, KSM Electric provides 24-hour,7-day emergency repair services,ensuring the City's operations are not disrupted in the event of an unexpected failure.

Due to an increase in the number of projects currently underway across the City,the cumulative value of work to be performed by KSM Electric is expected to exceed the City Manager's annual purchasing authority of$50,000.

The requested PO increase of$23,000 will specifically cover work to be done at the Water Treatment Facility,where the City is in the process of upgrading an outdated disinfection system with new,standardized equipment.The updated system will ensure the continued safety and efficiency of water treatment processes. By aligning equipment choices with those of regional partners (Cucamonga Valley Water District, San Antonio Water Co., and the Inland Empire Utilities Agency), the City will streamline resource allocation during emergencies, optimize shared operational knowledge,and facilitate joint training and operational consistency across multiple agencies.

If the increased purchase order is not approved,it would result in insufficient funds to process the required payments for the Water Treatment Facility upgrades. An increase in the purchase order will ensure the timely and efficient processing of payments,enabling the continuation of this critical infrastructure project and ensuring the City maintains its commitment to public health and safety.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), and the State CEQA Guidelines, and determined to be categorically exempt from further

Page 614 of 705 ends

environmental review pursuant to Section 15301(c)(Existing Facilities),of the CEQA guidelines.The project involves repair and maintenance of existing public facilities and does not involve any expansion of use beyond that which is existing.The City filed the Notice of Exemption with the County of San Bernardino on October 30,2024.

FISCAL IMPACTS
The increase to the PO is $23,000 for a revised total PO of$53,000. There are available funds in the Water Capital Projects Account No. 6397500-5540-92131.

ALTERNATIVES
Provide alternative direction to staff.

CEQA: Categorically exempt from further environmental review pursuant to Section 15301(c), of the CEQA guidelines. The City filed the Notice of Exemption with the County of San Bernardino on October 30,2024.

Page 615 of 705 ends

tis,4 OF UAy/
•71° �6 ` CALIFORNIA LEVINE ACT DISCLOSURE STATEMENT fit r ,
9LIFOst%
California Government Code Section 84308, commonly referred to as the "Levine Act," prohibits City Officers from participating in any action concerning a license, permit,other entitlement for use,franchise, or contract(collectively"license, permit,or contract")if they receive political contribution(s)from a party, or its agent(s), totaling more than $500 within the twelve (12) months before the proceeding, while a proceeding is pending, and for twelve (12) months following the date of a final decision in a proceeding.

1.Have you or your company,or any agent/board member on behalf of you or your company/entity,made any political contributions of more than $500 to any Upland City Council Member in the 12 months preceding the date of the submission of your proposal or application,or the anticipated date of any Council action?
ji,
YES If yes, please identify the Council Member(s):

FNO
Answering yes to either of the two questions above does not preclude the Upland City Council from awarding a contract or approving an application or any subsequent action. It does, however, preclude the identified Council Member(s)from participating in any actions related to your proposal or application. f
•••, 734/67:-----. -.-
Date Signature of authorized individual
Company/Applicant Name
(Levine Act definitions on reverse side)

Page 616 of 705 ends

�� pl"� CITY
UPLAND
„.;
"The City of Gracious Living"
Staff(krctilt
C�tIFOB�S
DATE: January 27,2025
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: MICHAEL BLAY,CITY MANAGER
PREPARED BY:CHRIS ALANIS,INTERIM PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR

BOB CRITCHFIELD,ENGINEERING MANAGER
SUBJECT: CONSIDER ACCEPTING THE NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR ARROW HIGHWAY

PAVEMENT REHABILITATION AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

It is recommended that the City Council accept the work;authorize the City Manager or designee to record the Notice of Completion; and reduce the Faithful Performance Bond to 10% for the Arrow Highway Pavement Rehabilitation and Utility Improvements Project.

GOAL STATEMENT
The proposed action supports the City's goal of maintaining and improving the City's public roadway,water, sewer, and storm drain facilities.

BACKGROUND
On August 14,2023,the City Council awarded the Arrow Highway Project to All American Asphalt and authorized up to$11,200,000(including contingencies)for the work. Included in the appropriations was$1,559,120 transferred from the Infrastructure Improvement Reserve account. The project consisted of the installation of new reinforced concrete storm drain pipeline,laterals,catch basins;installation of new sewer mains and manholes;installation of new water pipelines, laterals, and fire hydrants; relocation of a 42" diameter Water Facilities Authority (WFA) owned water main;relocation of a 18"diameter Monte Vista Water District(MVWD)owned water main;reconstruction of asphalt concrete pavement; replacement of displaced curbs, gutter, sidewalks, curb ramps, driveways, cross gutters, and spandrels;and,replacement of traffic striping and markings.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
The contractor has since satisfactorily completed the required improvements. The City can now accept the work,file the Notice of Completion,and reduce the Faithful Performance Bond to 10%. The City will retain the Labor Materials Bond for six (6)months and release it,thereafter,provided no liens or stop notices are filed against the project. In addition, with the completion of the project, $899,504.59 can be transferred from the General Capital Project Fund back to the Infrastructure Improvement Reserve account.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria in the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA),and the State CEQA Guidelines,and determined to be categorically exempt from further environmental review pursuant to Section 15301(c) (Existing Facilities), of the CEQA guidelines. The project involves repair and maintenance of existing public facilities and does not involve any expansion of use beyond that which is existing. The City filed the Notice of Exemption with the County of San Bernardino on October 4,2022.

FISCAL IMPACTS
The final construction cost of$10,124,973.74 is within the original authorized appropriation amount of$11,200,000. $899,504.59 will be transferred from the General Capital Project Fund back to the Infrastructure Improvement account.

ALTERNATIVES
Provide alternative direction to staff.

CEQA: Categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301(c)(Existing Facilities), of the CEQA guidelines. The City filed the Notice of Exemption on October 4,2022.

Page 617 of 705 ends

Recording requested by
and when recorded mail to:

City of Upland, City Clerk's Office
460 N. Euclid Avenue
Upland, CA 91786
(Space above this line for Recorder's use)
This document is exempt from the payment of a recording fee pursuant to Government Code Section 27383
Notice of Completion
Pursuant to Civil Code Section 3093, NOTICE is hereby given that:

The undersigned is the owner of the interest or estate stated below in the property hereinafter described. The full name and address of owner is City of Upland, 460 North Euclid Avenue, Upland, California 91786.

Assessors Parcel Numbers N/A, in and to the hereinafter described property.

The work was completed on that certain work known as Project No. 7069, 9124 & 9142, Arrow Highway Pavement Rehabilitation & Utility Improvements, Benson Avenue to San Antonio Avenue for the undersigned City of Upland, a Municipal Corporation, on the 23rd day of September, 2024.

The City accepted the job on the 27th day of January, 2025.

The Contractor on said job was All American Asphalt of Corona, California.

The improvement(s) consisted of removal and replacement of the asphalt concrete pavement; removal and replacement of displaced sidewalks, curbs and gutters, cross gutters, and ADA curb ramps; adjustment of utility manholes to finish grade; installation of new water pipeline segments, fire hydrants, and service laterals; installation of new sewer pipeline segments; installation of new storm drain pipeline segments and re-striping; and the location of the improvements occurred along Arrow Highway from Benson Avenue to San Antonio Avenue, in Upland, California.

The surety was Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland.

All communications relating to the contract should bear the number above mentioned.

I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this 27th day of January, 2025 at Upland, California.

City of Upland, a Municipal Corporation
Michael Blay, City Manager

Page 618 of 705 ends

STEVEN NIX,CONTRACT PROJECT MANAGER
SUBJECT: CONSIDER AWARD OF BID FOR PROJECT NO. 92105,92106&92107, RESERVOIR R-10, R-11,R-12A&R-13A OVERFLOW AIR GAP INSTALLATION PROJECT(BID NO.2024-14) RECOMMENDED ACTION:

It is recommended that the City Council approve the plans and specifications for Project No.92105,92106&92107, Reservoir R-10,R-11,R-12A&R-13A Overflow Air Gap Installation; award a construction contract to RE Chaffee Construction, Inc. in the amount of $126,950 (Base bid amount plus additive item #4), approve a construction contingency in the amount of$33,050 for a total amount of $160,000;and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement and any future amendments within the City Manager's authority.

GOAL STATEMENT
The proposed action supports the City's goal to continue to maintain and improve the City's public water and sewer infrastructure and maintain a high standard of public health and safety.

BACKGROUND
Reservoir R-10,a 1.5 million gallon steel reservoir,Reservoir R-11,a 0.2 million gallon steel reservoir,Reservoir R- 12A, a 5.0 million gallon concrete reservoir and Reservoir R-13A, a 5.6 million gallon concrete reservoir, are all located in various regions of the city and all were constructed more than thirty years ago.When each of these reservoirs was constructed, the requirements for health and safety were much different than the regulations that are in effect today.Each of these reservoirs currently have an overflow pipeline that is directly connected to a storm drain facility.

While this was an acceptable practice when each of these reservoirs was constructed, the state regulations in effect today require the use of an air gap with a minimum clearance of twice the diameter of the overflow pipeline.

In 2020,the State Water Resources Control Board performed a site inspection of the City's water infrastructure system and one of the deficiencies identified in the final report was the lack of air gaps on many of the reservoir overflow pipelines. Two similar projects have already been awarded for reservoirs R-2 & R-16 which are completed and reservoirs R-7, R-12 & R-13 which are set to begin construction next month. With the completion of the four reservoirs proposed by this action,all reservoirs found in non-compliance by the State Water Resources Control Board will have been remedied.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
The Reservoir R-10,R-11,R-12A and R-13A Overflow Air Gap Project Notice Inviting Bids(NIB)was advertised on November 30, 2024, and December 7, 2024, in accordance with the California Public Contract Code (Section 20164) and was placed on the PlanetBids electronic bidding service website as well as being listed on the City's website and distributed to various electronic plan rooms. On January 13, 2025,nine (9)bids were received through PlanetBids for the Project,under Bid No.2024-14,and the results of these bids are as follows:

BIDDER BID AMOUNT
RE Chaffee Construction,Inc. $97,950.00
C.P.Construction Company,Inc. $ 124,000.00
G&A Nelos Construction,Inc. $ 134,197.00
Gentry General Engineering,Inc. $ 137,900.00
Norstar Plumbing and Engineering,Inc. $ 170,000.00
Vicon Enterprise,Inc. $ 187,550.00

Page 619 of 705 ends

Canyon Springs Enterprises $200,000.00
T.E.Roberts,Inc $203,866.00
Spiess Construction Co.,Inc. $236,500.00
The lowest responsible bidder was RE Chaffee Construction,Inc,with a base bid amount of$97,950. The bid package for this project included Reservoirs R-10, R-12A and R-13A as the base bid and Reservoir R-11 as an additive bid item. Since R-11 is part of a currently inactive water treatment facility,it was undetermined at the time of bid as to whether this reservoir should be modified,however considering the additive bid item only amounts to $29,000,it is staff's recommendation to include this in the project award and complete the modification at this time. Staff reviewed the bid information,including RE Chaffee Construction's bid calculations and found no discrepancies with the bid or the bid documents and confirmed that RE Chaffee Construction,Inc. is the lowest responsible and responsive bidder.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The Project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the State CEQA Guidelines, and determined to be categorically exempt from further environmental review pursuant to Section 15301(c) (Existing Facilities), of the CEQA guidelines. The project involves repair and maintenance of existing public facilities and does not involve any expansion of use beyond that which is existing. The City filed the Notice of Exemption with the County of San Bernardino on January 15,2025.

FISCAL IMPACTS
The total estimated project cost is$185,000 as detailed below.There are available funds in the Water Capital Projects Account No. 6397500-5540,Project Nos. 92105,92106 and 92107.

Estimated Project Costs
Basic Bid Amount $97,950
Additive Bid Item#4(Reservoir R-11) $29,000 Construction Contingency $33,050
Total Contract Work: $160,000
Construction Administration and Inspection $25,000 Total Estimated Project Cost: $185,000

ALTERNATIVES

1. Reject all bids and authorize the City Clerk to re-advertise the Project. Due to a successful bidding process, staff does not recommend this alternative.

2. Provide alternative direction to staff.

CEQA: Categorically Exempt from further environmental review pursuant to Section 15301(c). The City filed the Notice of Exemption with the County of San Bernardino on January 15,2025.

Page 620 of 705 ends

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PUBLIC WORKS

COMMITTEE
January 14, 2025
5:00 p.m.

Carnegie Library Building
123 East D Street

1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Chairperson Breitling called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.

In attendance: Committee Chairperson Breitling, Committee Member Maust, Citizen Advisory Members Damrath, and Ickis, Public Works Interim Director Chris Alanis, Engineering Manager Bob Critchfield, Environmental Compliance Program Manager Nicole deMoet, Management Analyst II Tanya Garcia, Development Services Director Robert Dalquest, Principal Engineer Alan French, Assistant Engineer Harry Parr, Contract Traffic Engineer George Dore.

2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Eric Hanson, Upland, commented on the franchise fee and the process of applying the fee when there is a current contract with Burrtec Waste Industries, Inc.

Member of the public, Upland, commented on what type of fee a franchise fee is when the Burrtec Waste Industries, Inc. statement indicates there is a fee established.

3. AGENDA ITEMS
a. ESTABLISHMENT OF A FRANCHISE FEE FOR SOLID WASTE SERVICES Interim Public Works Director Alanis presented the item along with a PowerPoint Presentation.

There was discussion regarding how the franchise fee will be collected and spent. Further, there was discussion on the overhead cause associated with the solid waste rates that are currently being billed to the general fund and how the franchise fee will affect it.

Interim Public Works Director Alanis answered questions from the Committee regarding the role of Burrtec Waste Industries, Inc. in processing the franchise fee.
b. CITYWIDE ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
Assistant Engineer Harry Parr presented the item along with a PowerPoint Presentation.

There was discussion regarding funding for changing speed limit signage, mounting signage higher to be more visible for the public, and the communication process to the public regarding speed limit changes. It was suggested that the 1

Page 621 of 705 ends

Committee revisit the topic at the next committee meeting about adding a left turn sign on 16th Street and San Antonio Avenue.

Development Services Director Robert Dalquest answered questions from the Committee regarding communication to the public regarding the speed limit changes.

4. ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Breitling adjourned the meeting at 5:49 p.m. The next regularly scheduled Public Works Committee meeting is Tuesday, April 8, 2025.

Keri Johnson, City Clerk
2

Page 622 of 705 ends

4or17pt CI'YU PLAN D
G +t�Y, +u-d rr,r City of Grncirtus Living t: J ` 7•
� . PUBLIC WORKS
may, COMMITTEE
txxo
**AGENDA**
Tuesday, January 14, 2025
5:00 p.m.

Carnegie Library Building
123 East D Street
Residents may observe the meeting remotely via livestream on the City website, Spectrum Cable TV Channel 3, or Frontier Cable TV Channel 26.

1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL

2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Citizens wishing to address the Committee on any matter that is listed or not listed on the agenda may do so at this time. Anyone wishing to address the Committee is requested to submit a speaker card to staff at or prior to speaking. The speakers are requested to keep their comments to no more than three (3) minutes.

Please note that under provisions of the Brown Act the Committee Members cannot respond to, nor take action on, items that are not listed on the agenda.

3. AGENDA ITEMS
a. ESTABLISHMENT OF A FRANCHISE FEE FOR SOLID WASTE SERVICES Recommended Action:

The Public Works Committee review and discuss the proposed establishment of a franchise fee for solid waste services and recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution establishing the franchise fee.
b. CITYWIDE ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
Recommended Action:

The Public Works Committee review the Engineering and Traffic Surveys and recommend the City Council to adopt a resolution establishing the recommended speed limit on 57 roadway segments within the City of Upland.

4. ADJOURNMENT
The next regularly scheduled Public Works Committee meeting is Tuesday, April 8, 2025.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's Office, 909-931-4120. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

Page 623 of 705 ends

[28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II]
To access written transcription during the meeting, please click this link:
https://attend.wordly.ai/join/LVGO-0906 . Then choose language and click attend to read the transcript on your device.

On Thursday, January 9, 2025 a true and correct copy of this agenda was posted at 450 N. Euclid Avenue (Upland Public Library), 460 N. Euclid Avenue (Upland City Hall), 123 East D Street (Carnegie Library Building), and the City website at www.uplandca.gov

Page 624 of 705 ends

The full packet for the Public Works Committee
meeting can be viewed on our website at:
https://www . uplandca .gov/city-council-
agendasminutes
You may also view the video of the meeting at:
https://uplandca .gov/council-meeting-
broadcasts
(choose the tab for "other archived meetings"
to locate the meeting video)

Page 625 of 705 ends

..t• �pl"� CITY FU P LA N D
"The City of Gracious Living"
Staff(krctilt
C�tIFOB�S
DATE: January 27,2025
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: MICHAEL BLAY,CITY MANAGER
PREPARED BY:KERI JOHNSON,CITY CLERK
SUBJECT: DISCUSSION REGARDING CITY COMMITTEES APPOINTED TO ADVISE THE COUNCIL RECOMMENDED ACTION:

It is recommended that the City Council discuss City committees appointed to advise the City Council and direct staff to bring back a Resolution reflecting any recommended changes for consideration at a subsequent Council meeting.

GOAL STATEMENT
The proposed action supports the City's goal to provide opportunities for the citizenry to participate in local government through service on various Commissions, Committees,Boards, and Authorities; and to conduct regular meetings in an efficient and transparent manner.

BACKGROUND
In 1992,the City Council established policies and procedures for administering the various commissions,committees, boards,and authorities appointed by the Mayor and City Council.In 2015,the City Council directed the City Attorney to prepare a resolution amending the policies and procedures related to the selection of the chairperson for these appointed bodies.This resolution has been updated periodically,with the last update in 2023.

In 2021 the City Council requested that the City Council Advisory Committee review all City committees and make recommendations to Council. Based on recommendations of the City Council Advisory Committee, the Council adopted a Resolution making the following changes in 2021:

1. The Police and Fire Committee was renamed the"Public Safety Committee."

2. Created the Parks, Arts, Recreation and Community Services (PARCS) committee made up of 10 citizens and the Environmental Sustainability Committee composed of five citizen advisory members.

3. Five citizen advisory members and one Chamber of Commerce advisory member were added to the Economic Development Committee.

4. Five citizen advisory members were added to the Finance Committee and Public Works Committee.

5. The Traffic Safety Advisory Committee was eliminated.

These changes created 25 new citizen advisory positions on committees and eliminated five citizen advisory positions for a total of 45 citizen advisory positions.

In 2022, due to the number of vacancies and meeting cancellations staff considered options for consolidating committees. At that time the City had 11 vacancies on various boards and committees and 26 meetings scheduled in 2022 had been cancelled due to lack of quorum, staff attending conferences or other scheduling conflicts with the regularly scheduled meetings,and lack of agenda items.

Based on information presented to Council in December 2022, the Council directed staff to bring back a resolution and ordinance making the following changes:
• Eliminating the Public Safety Committee
• Removing advisory members from the Finance Committee and the Economic Development Committee • Consolidating the Environmental Sustainability Advisory Committee and Street Tree Advisory Committee with the Public Works Committee(citizen advisory members perform Street Tree Advisory Committee duties as described in the Upland Municipal Code Chapter 12.26) • Assigning the duties of the Community Development Block Grant Committee to the City Council Advisory Committee.

Page 626 of 705 ends

• Reducing the members of the Parks, Arts, Recreation and Community Services (PARCS) Advisory Committee from 10 to five and moving the meetings to a quarterly schedule.

The Resolution making these changes was adopted by the City Council in January 2023,see attachment.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
The City has a total of 9 boards,commissions,and committees. Several of these are required by Government Code or Upland Municipal Code(UMC).

Required boards,commissions,and committees
• Building Board of Appeals—all five positions on this board are currently vacant and there are no qualified applicants on file
• Library Board—currently has one vacancy
• Personnel Board of Review—currently has one vacancy • Planning Commission(Airport Land Use Committee)
• Public Works Committee (includes Citizen Members that perform duties of the Street Tree Advisory as required in the UMC)—currently has two vacancies as a result of Council reorganization in December The Building Board of Appeals and the Personnel Board of Review meet on an as needed basis only.

Legislative Committees
These committees consist of two councilmembers.
• Economic Development Committee(includes one Chamber of Commerce representative) • Finance Committee
• Public Works Committee (includes 5 citizen members that perform duties of the Street Tree Advisory as required in the UMC)
Advisory Committees
These committees consist solely of citizen advisory members. • City Council Advisory Committee(also serves as the CDBG Committee)—currently has two vacancies as a result of Council reorganization in December
• Parks, Arts, Recreation, and Community Services (PARCS) Advisory Committee - currently has two vacancies as a result of Council reorganization in December The current roster of boards,commissions,and committees is attached.

Staff requests that Council consider dissolving the PARCS committee, as they have only met twice since 2023.Any relevant matters can be addressed by the Public Works Committee. Additionally, staff recommends the Council consider changing the quarterly schedule of the Economic Development Committee meetings.Currently the meetings are held the first Monday of March, June, September, and December. This results in the September meeting falling on the Labor Day Holiday, which requires cancellation of the meeting and scheduling a special meeting. Staff is requesting that the meetings remain the first Monday of the month,but adjusting the quarterly schedule to February, May,August,and November.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The proposed action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines defines a project subject to CEQA. The proposed action is not included within the definition of a"project" and thus is exempt.

FISCAL IMPACTS
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. However,the reduction of committee meetings allows for the reallocation of time and resources to other priorities.

ALTERNATIVES
Provide alternative direction to staff.

CEQA:Not a Project.

Page 627 of 705 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 6704

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UPLAND

AMENDING THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES RELATIVE TO THE

ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF COMMISSIONS,

COMMITTEES, BOARDS, AND AUTHORITIES APPOINTED TO

ADVISE THE CITY COUNCIL
Whereas, the use of citizen Commissions, Committees, Boards, and Authorities to advise the City Council on issues of public concern is an efficient and effective means of involving citizens in policy development; and
Whereas, Chapter 2.16 and Section 2.20.030 of the Upland Municipal Code provides that the City Council shall by resolution, establish a process for the screening of individuals desiring to serve as City Commission, Committee, Boards or Authority members; and Whereas, the effective use of these Commissions, Committees, Boards, and Authorities is furthered by clear guidelines governing their creation and operation; and Whereas, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 4331 which established guidelines governing the creation and operation of established Commissions, Committees, Boards and Authorities; and
Whereas, from time to time there is a need to eliminate or amend the established rules governing the operation and creation of Commissions, Committees, Boards, and Authorities, which was the basis for the adoption of Resolution Nos. 5786, 6038, 6270, 6397, 6504, 6539, 6581, 6583, 6608, and 6681; and
Whereas, the City desires to provide a fair and equitable manner by which citizens are appointed to City Commissions, Committees, Boards, and Authorities, which is free of undue influence, but which advances the authority provided by Government Code Section 40605; and
Whereas, the City Council may establish standing committees of the legislative body to provide an opportunity for fact finding prior to consideration by the entire Council; and Whereas, the City Council established the Recreation Committee by Resolution No. 4839 on June 9, 1997, and rescinded previously adopted Resolution Nos. 2600, 3324, 3626, 4212 and 4474 and amended Resolution Nos. 4331 and 5007; and Whereas, the City Council later amended the composition of the Recreation Committee with Resolution No. 5007, dated February 8, 1999, adding two School Board Members to the Committee; and
Whereas, the City Council added the Finance & Economic Development Committee, Police & Fire Committee, and Public Works Committee with Resolution No. 5290, dated December 10, 2001; and
Whereas, the City Council amended the Standing Legislative Committees by Resolution No. 6539 to include Economic Development Committee, Finance Committee, Police & Fire Committee, and Public Works Committee; and
Whereas, the Council amended, by Resolution No. 6581, the Economic Development Committee, Finance Committee and Public Works Committee to include five citizen advisory members; and

Page 628 of 705 ends

Resolution No. 6704

Page 2 ends

Whereas, the City Council established, by Resolution No. 6583, the Environmental Sustainability Advisory Committee and the Parks, Arts, Recreation, and Community Services (PARCS) Advisory Committee and dissolved the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee; and Whereas, the City Council amended, by Resolution No. 6608, the Finance Committee Membership to include the City Treasurer without restriction; and Whereas, the City Council amended, by Resolution No. 6681 the process for selection of new Planning Commissioners to fill vacancies; and
Whereas, the City Council now desires to consolidate certain City Commissions, Committees, Boards, and Authorities as further set forth below.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Upland hereby finds, determines and resolves as follows:

Section 1. The City Council hereby amends the established guidelines and policies governing Commissions, Committees, Boards and Authorities of the City ("Guidelines and Policies") attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, including the changes set forth in sections 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of this Resolution, and further including by incorporating, by reference, all prior actions taken by the City Council to eliminate or modify Commissions, Committees, Board, and Authorities to the extent they are not inconsistent with the attached Guidelines and Policies.

Section 2. The City Council hereby amends the Guidelines and Policies by dissolving and eliminating the Public Safety Committee.

Section 3. The Council hereby amends the Guidelines and Policies by consolidating the duties of the Community Development Block Grant Committee with the City Council Advisory Committee.

Section 4. The City Council hereby amends the Guidelines and Policies by consolidating the duties of the Environmental Sustainability Advisory Committee and the Street Tree Advisory Committee with the Public Works Committee.

Section 5. The City Council hereby amends the Guidelines and Policies by eliminating certain citizen advisory members from the Economic Development Committee and the Finance Committee.

Section 6. The City Council hereby amends the Guidelines and Policies by reducing the number of members on the Parks, Arts, Recreation, and Community Services (PARCS) Advisory Committee members to five and changing the meeting frequency to quarterly. In order to reduce the membership to five, each Councilmember shall nominate only one individual to serve on the Committee.

Section 7. The City Council finds that this Resolution is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. Further, if the activity is deemed a project this City Council finds that this Resolution is exempt pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines.

Page 629 of 705 ends

Resolution No. 6704

Page 3 ends

Section 8. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

Section 9. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective immediately.

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 23rd day of January 2023. /,//Z„•
Bill Velto, Mayor
I, Keri Johnson, City Clerk of the City of Upland, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 23rd day of January, 2023 by the following vote:

AYES: Mayor Velto, Councilmembers Garcia, Breitling, Maust, Zuniga NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAINED: None
ATTEST:

Keri J ns ;•-Ci Clerk

Page 630 of 705 ends

GUIDELINES AND POLICIES GOVERNING
COMMISSIONS, COMMITTEES, BOARDS, AND AUTHORITIES.

SECTION 1. CREATION OF COMMISSIONS, COMMITTEES, BOARDS, AND AUTHORITIES The Upland City Council shall have the power from time to time by resolution to create such Commissions, Committees, Boards, and Authorities which are necessary or deemed advisable by the Council to carry out the governmental functions of the City in the manner reflecting the best interest of its citizens. The number of members to each Commission, Committee, Board, and/or Authority shall unless otherwise required by law, correspond to the number of members of the appointing body as authorized by law. Each active member of the Upland City Council shall have an appointee on each Commission, Committee, Board and/or Authority. Each appointee shall be a citizen nominated by the Mayor or Councilmember, respectively, and approved by a majority vote of the City Council and appointed by the Mayor.

SECTION 2. DEFINITION
"Commission" shall be any group established pursuant to the Upland Municipal Code. "Committee" shall be any group of individuals which shall have any ongoing charge from the City Council and which are formed by resolution. "Committee" shall not include Committees composed solely of elected officials. "Board"shall be any group formed pursuant to State law providing for same. "Authority" shall be any group formed pursuant to State law providing for same. "Standing Legislative Committee" shall include committees comprised of elected officials who will review operational concerns prior to official council action.

SECTION 3. APPLICABILITY
The provisions of this resolution shall apply to all Commissions, Committees, Boards, and Authorities hereafter created by resolution of the City Council and to existing Commissions, Committees, Boards, and Authorities as identified on the attachments hereto. The provisions of this resolution shall supersede any minute motion or resolution of any prior City Council of Upland which is in conflict with the provisions of this document. Insofar as possible, the provisions of this resolution shall govern the operation and creation of Commissions, Committees, Boards, and Authorities appointed by the City Council except in those instances where the provisions of this resolution conflict with provisions of State or Federal law.

SECTION 4. APPOINTMENT AND APPLICATION PROCESS
The City Clerk shall maintain a roster of individuals who expressed interest in serving on City Commissions, Committees, Boards, and Authorities, who may be nominated by a serving member of the City Council, and who have completed an application form in a manner established or approved by the City Council. Said application shall indicate among other things, the Commission, Committee, Board, or Authority on which said individual is interested in serving. Any application filed shall be valid for a period of three (3) years. Incumbent Commission, Committee, Board, or Authority members shall submit an application prior to the end of their term if they would like to be considered for reappointment. Members of the City Council shall make appointments from this roster.

SECTION 5. SELECTION AND APPOINTMENT
Members of the City Council requiring representation on a particular Commission, Committee, Board, or Authority shall review the list of applicants and submit a nominee to the City Clerk.

Councilmembers will give consideration to candidates who reside in their respective district.

If a Councilmember cannot find a suitable candidate to nominate from the Councilmember's respective district, the Councilmember may nominate a candidate from a different district at

Page 631 of 705 ends

that Councilmember's discretion. The City Clerk shall place nominations before the City Council for its review and approval as and when necessary.

For selections made by the Mayor and ratified by the City Council, the Mayor shall review the list of applicants and submit a nominee to the City Clerk. The City Clerk shall place the nominations before the City Council for its review and approval as and when necessary.

In appointing Planning Commissioners, whenever there is a vacancy on the Planning Commission, the City Council shall form a temporary ad hoc committee which shall consist of the Mayor (or another Councilmember appointed by the Mayor) and the Mayor Pro Tem (or another Councilmember appointed by the Mayor). The ad hoc committee may call upon individuals to advise the committee. The committee advisors may include, but are not limited to, the Chair of the Planning Commission (or other Planning Commissioner designated by the Mayor if the Chair is seeking re-appointment) and the Development Services Director. The committee advisors shall have no voting power during the selection process. The ad hoc committee meetings shall not be subject to the Brown Act. However, at the Mayor's discretion, the ad hoc committee meetings where candidate interviews are conducted may voluntarily be conducted open to the public, while the rating and discussion of candidates may be closed to the public. Each City Councilmember may recommend at least one applicant from their District for an interview by the ad hoc committee. Once a Planning Commissioner vacancy is filled by the Mayor's appointment and the City Council's ratification, the ad hoc committee shall disband.

Appointments to standing legislative committees (Economic Development, Finance Committee, and Public Works Committee) are made by the Mayor biannually to coincide with elections and may be reviewed and reassigned annually or as needed. The Public Works Committee, will also include five advisory members, one advisory member appointed by each Councilmember.

SECTION 6. TERMS OF COMMISSION, COMMITTEES, BOARDS, AND AUTHORITIES For Council nominated appointments the term of each Commission, Committee, Board, and Authority member shall coincide with the holding of office by the nominating member of the City Council, unless otherwise prescribed by resolution creating the Commission, Committee, Board, or Authority.

For appointments made by the Mayor, the term shall be as outlined in the creation of the Commission, Committee, Board, or Authority.

No Commission, Committee, Board, or Authority member shall serve for more than two (2) consecutive terms on any individual Committee, Commission, Board, or Authority without the approval of the City Council by an affirmative 4/5ths vote.

SECTION 7. REMOVAL FROM COMMISSION, COMMITTEES, BOARDS, AND AUTHORITIES Any Committee, Commission, Board, or Authority member may be removed from office during their unexpired term upon vote of the City Council, when in the sole discretion of the Council said removal is deemed appropriate. If the request for removal is from the appointing Councilmember, removal of the appointee will require a majority vote of the Council. Any request for removal from any member of the Council other than the nominating Councilmember will require a 4/5 vote of the Council. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the appointee's nominating Councilmember is no longer a part of the Upland City Council or Mayor, that appointee shall be deemed to have automatically resigned the seat they hold upon the filling of the City Council vacancy.

Page 632 of 705 ends

SECTION 8. RESIDENCY OF COMMISSION, COMMITTEE, BOARD, AND AUTHORITY

MEMBERS
In order to be appointed to a Commission, Committee, Board, or Authority, a prospective appointee must be a resident of the City of Upland and must remain in residence throughout the term of their appointment, unless a member is appointed by another entity. This provision may be waived upon an affirmative 4/5ths vote of the Council.

SECTION 9. CHAIRPERSON SELECTION
With the exception of the Planning Commission, the Library Board, and the Personnel Board of Review, the member appointed by the Mayor to any Commission, Committee, Board, and/or Authority shall serve as the Chairperson of that body. With regard to the Planning Commission, the Library Board, and the Personnel Board of Review, the members of said bodies shall select, nominate, and appoint by majority consensus, a sitting member of the Body to the position of Chairperson. The term of the Chairperson shall be for 2 years. No Chairperson shall serve for more than two (2) consecutive terms without the approval of the City Council by an affirmative 4/5ths vote.

SECTION 10. POSTING REQUIRED
The City Clerk shall, before December 31st of each year, develop a listing of all scheduled vacancies on City Commissions, Committees, Boards, and/or Authorities expected during the next twelve (12) months. In addition to the requirement of the Government Code, said list shall be posted at City buildings and other locations as may be designated from time to time by City Council resolution, for a period of thirty (30) days and announced at a Council meeting in December. Said listing shall advise interested parties to obtain application forms and related materials at the City Clerk's office. In addition, the City Clerk shall publish said list in the city newsletter seeking applications from interested parties and listing scheduled vacancies during the same thirty (30) day period. Unscheduled vacancies shall be advertised in accordance with the Government Code and posted at the same location as scheduled vacancies.

SECTION 11. DUTIES
The Commissions, Committees, Boards, and Authorities established by the Council shall perform such duties and have such powers as may be established from time to time by the Council.

SECTION 12. ATTENDANCE
In any case where a Commission, Committee, Board, and/or Authority member has missed three (3) regularly scheduled meetings in a twelve (12) month period without notifying the Chair of said Commission, Committee, Board, and/or Authority in advance of said meeting, the City Clerk shall contact the Commission, Committee, Board, and/or Authority member with a request to provide the reasons therefore, which shall be forwarded to the City Council.

SECTION 13. OPEN MEETINGS
All Commission, Committee, Board, and Authority meetings, except those meetings specifically exempted herein, shall be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the Ralph M.

Brown Act and the City Clerk shall maintain a copy of all agendas and minutes of all meetings.

Page 633 of 705 ends

BUILDING APPEALS BOARD

PURPOSE
To determine the suitability of alternate materials and methods of construction and to provide reasonable interpretations of the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, the Uniform Housing Code, Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, National Electric Code, and the Seismic Hazards Reduction Ordinance.

MEMBERSHIP
5 Members Total
Selected from the following classifications:
a. Architect or Engineer
b. Attorney
c. Contractor - Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing or General

LENGTH OF TERM/FREQUENCY OF MEETINGS
4 Year Term / Meetings are scheduled as needed as appeals are received.

No member may serve more than two full consecutive terms, unless approved by a 4/5ths vote of the Council

SELECTION PROCESS
• The City Clerk causes a request for volunteers to be posted • Using the criteria for membership, the Building Official determines if applicants are qualified and passes all qualified candidates to the City Clerk • Each member of the City Council shall submit their nomination from the list of qualified candidates to the City Clerk for consideration at a Council meeting

CODE REFERENCES
Resolution 4107
Resolution 2725
Ordinance 1882
(effective July 27, 1992)

Page 634 of 705 ends

CITY COUNCIL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

PURPOSE
Review of any matters which may be referred to the Committee from time to time. If so directed, the City Council Advisory Committee will be responsible for performing an analysis and present recommendations to the City Council.

Annually review applications for Community Development Block Grant funds, conduct hearings to determine the most effective use of the grant funds and provide recommendations to the City Council.

MEMBERSHIP
5 Members Total
Nominated by Councilmembers

LENGTH OF TERM/FREQUENCY OF MEETINGS
• 4 year terms to coincide with the terms of Mayor and Councilmember making nomination
• No applicant may serve more than two full consecutive terms, unless approved by a 4/5ths vote of the Council
• Meets quarterly, the first Wednesday of March, June, September, and December • Special meetings held from January through April, on an as needed basis to review Community Development Block Grant Applications.

SELECTION PROCESS
Each member of the City Council shall submit their nomination to the City Clerk for consideration at a Council meeting.

CODE REFERENCE
• Ordinance 1812, 10/8/2006
• Ordinance 1428, Section 2, 6/20/88
• Ordinance 1416, Section 1, 12/21/87
• Ordinance 1563, Section 1, 10/26/72
• Council Minutes 7/3/72

Page 635 of 705 ends

LIBRARY BOARD

PURPOSE
The Upland Public Library serves the community by providing materials and staff assistance for meeting the informal and educational needs of the library users.

MEMBERSHIP
5 Citizens at Large
1 Council Liaison (advisory)
1 Friends of the Library Liaison (advisory)

LENGTH OF TERMS/FREQUENCY OF MEETINGS
• 3 Year Term
• Meetings held the second Wednesday of the month, except the month of August. • No applicant shall serve more than two full consecutive terms, unless approved by a 4/5ths vote of the Council

SELECTION PROCESS
Mayor shall appoint with Council ratification

CODE REFERENCES
• Council Minutes 3/14/89
UMC Section 2.28.010
California Library laws, Education Code 1990
Ordinance No. 99

Page 636 of 705 ends

PARKS, ARTS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY SERVICES (PARCS) ADVISORY COMMITTEE

PURPOSE
This Committee shall act in an advisory capacity in matters pertaining to parklands, trails, recreational programs, youth and senior services, cultural arts programs, and special events throughout the City.

MEMBERSHIP
5 Members Total
Nominated by Councilmembers (one senior liaison member and one youth liaison member to be designated annually by the committee)

LENGTH OF TERM
• 4 year terms to coincide with the terms of Mayor and Councilmember making nomination
• No applicant may serve more than two full consecutive terms, unless approved by a 4/5ths vote of the Council

MEETINGS
Meetings held the first Tuesday of February, May, August, and November.

SELECTION PROCESS
Each member of the City Council shall submit their nomination to the City Clerk for consideration at a Council meeting.

CODE REFERENCE
• Resolution No. 6583
• Council Minutes 4/26/21

Page 637 of 705 ends

PERSONNEL BOARD OF REVIEW

PURPOSE
The functions of the board shall be to hear appeals as provided by this part and by rule, except matters pertaining to the meet and confer process.

MEMBERSHIP
3 Members Total
1 Alternate Member

LENGTH OF TERM/FREQUENCY OF MEETINGS
• 4 Year Term
• No applicant shall serve more than two full consecutive terms, unless approved by a 4/5ths vote of the Council
• On call by the Human Resources Manager

SELECTION PROCESS
• 1 member - Council appointment shall be made by the Mayor, with Council ratification
• 1 member - Employee Associations submits name(s) and Council selects appointment
• 1 member agreed upon by Council and Employee Associations • 1 alternate member agreed upon by Council and Employee Associations

CODE REFERENCE
UMC Section 2.36.160
Ordinance 1566
Ordinance 1494
Minute Action 5/31/1945

Page 638 of 705 ends

PLANNING COMMISSION

PURPOSE
The powers and duties of the Planning Commission shall be to:

1. Prepare, periodically review, and revise, as necessary the General Plan

2. Annually review the Capital Improvement Program of the City and the local public works projects of other local agencies for their consistency with the General Plan

3. Perform other functions as the City Council provides

4. Perform such other land use-related functions pursuant to State laws pertaining to conservation, planning, and zoning as the council may direct or provide

5. Serve as the Airport Land Use Committee, applying the procedures and findings set forth in the Municipal Code in regards to all processes relating to a request for an implementation/land use compatibility decision, preparation, adoption and amendment to the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan of the City of Upland conforming to requirements set forth in Public Utilities Section 21670.1

6. Serve as the Historic Preservation Committee as outlined in the Upland Municipal Code

MEMBERSHIP
7 Members Total
Airport Land Use Committee consists of:
7 Planning Commissioners
2 ALUC members (possess expertise in aviation)

LENGTH OF TERM/FREQUENCY OF MEETINGS
• 4 year terms
• No applicant may serve more than two full consecutive terms, unless approved by a 4/5ths vote of the Council
• Once a month, 4th Wednesday
• Commissioners receive $100 compensation per meeting (not to exceed $200 per month)

SELECTION PROCESS
• The City Clerk causes a request for volunteers to be posted • Mayor (or Mayor designee) and Mayor Pro Tern (or Mayor designee) shall comprise an ad hoc committee and shall interview applicants. The ad hoc committee may call upon advisors such as, but not limited to, the Planning Commission Chair (or designee selected by the Mayor if the Chair is seeking re-appointment) and the Development Services Director.
• The ad hoc committee shall recommend at least one candidate per opening to the Mayor for ratification by the City Council.
• Once a candidate is appointed by the Mayor and ratified by the City Council, the ad hoc committee shall disband.
• Airport Land Use Commissioners - Mayor shall appoint with Council ratification.

CODE REFERENCE
UMC Chapter 17.43.030 Resolution 4697
Resolution No. 6681 Ordinance 1202
Resolution 6397 Ordinance 415
Resolution 6270

Page 639 of 705 ends

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

PURPOSE
The function of the Committee is to provide an opportunity for review and fact finding relative to significant projects, programs, or activities in economic development operations prior to consideration by the entire Council.

MEMBERSHIP
2 City Council Members
1 Upland Chamber Member - advisory member only

LENGTH OF TERM/FREQUENCY OF MEETINGS
• Appointments may coincide with elections biannually or be reviewed and reassigned annually as desired by the Mayor
• Meets quarterly, the first Monday of March, June, September, and December

SELECTION PROCESS
Council Members on all Standing Legislative Committees are appointed by the Mayor.

The Chamber of Commerce shall submit their nomination to the City Clerk for ratification at a Council meeting.

CODE REFERENCE
UMC Section 2.16.010
Ordinance No. 1913
Resolution No. 6583
Resolution No. 6581
Resolution No. 6397
Resolution No. 5290
Upland City Council Minutes, 12/01/2001

Page 640 of 705 ends

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

PURPOSE
The function of the Committee is to provide an opportunity for review and fact finding relative to significant projects, programs, or activities in Public Works operations prior to consideration by the entire Council.

This Committee shall act in an advisory capacity on issues pertaining to environmental impacts, sustainability practices, and legislative mandates that impact the environmental health and the well-being of the City of Upland and its residents. The Committee will collaborate on environmental matters to promote environmental sustainability within the community. The Committee will make recommendations in regard to community clean-ups, beautification campaigns, Earth Day events, public outreach, and education on issues including recycling, storm water pollution, water conservation and sustainability practices.

The Citizen Advisory Members of this Committee shall study and review the proposed Urban Forestry Management Plan and make appropriate recommendation to Council and staff regarding the matters contained therein; to provide an avenue for citizens to appeal special circumstantial tree problems (i.e., tree removals, street tree designations, spraying for fruit insects); and shall review tree removal and other policies, as well as handle any and all citizen appeals regarding tree matters under Upland Municipal Code Chapter 12.26. Said appeals shall be heard by the citizen members of the Committee only (i.e., not the serving City Council members, who shall take no part in such appeals).

MEMBERSHIP
2 City Council Members
5 Citizens - advisory members

SELECTION PROCESS
Council Members on all Standing Legislative Committees are appointed by the Mayor.

Citizens at Large - Each member of the City Council shall submit their nomination to the City Clerk for ratification at a Council meeting.

CODE REFERENCE
UMC Section 2.16.010
Resolution No. 6583
Resolution No. 6581
Resolution No. 5290
Upland City Council Minutes, 12/01/2001

Page 641 of 705 ends

FINANCE COMMITTEE

PURPOSE
The Committee shall be responsible for reviewing matters pertaining to the finances of the City. This may include reviewing warrants and registers, financial statements, investment reports, the City's annual independent audit, City fees and service charges, and operating budgets

MEMBERSHIP
2 City Council Members
City Treasurer
Finance Officer - advisory only (staff)

LENGTH OF TERM/FREQUENCY OF MEETINGS
• Appointments may coincide with elections biannually or be reviewed and reassigned annually as desired by the Mayor with the exception of the Finance Officer • Meets quarterly, the 4th Wednesday of January, April, July, and October

SELECTION PROCESS
The City Treasurer is an established elected position and shall review and provide input on the quarterly investment reports.

Council Members on all Standing Legislative Committees are appointed by the Mayor.

CODE REFERENCE
UMC Section 2.16.010
Resolution No. 6608
Resolution No. 6583
Resolution No. 6581
Resolution No. 6397
Resolution No. 6394 (Investment Policy)

Page 642 of 705 ends

POPULATION 79,274 CITY OF UPLAND GENERAL LAW CITY

15.3 SQ.MILES BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES NO CITY CHARTER 1328 FT.ELEVATION MAY 15,1906 INCORPORATED 2023

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Board Member Appointed Re-Appointed Term Expires Rudy Zuniga (Chair) December 9, 2024 Dec. 26
Carlos Garcia December 9, 2024 Dec. 26
Galdo,Terri (Chamber Rep) July 12, 2021 Dec. 25

FINANCE COMMITTEE
Board Member Appointed Re-Appointed Term Expires Shannan Maust(Chair) December 9, 2024 Dec. 26 James Breitling December 9, 2024 Dec. 26 Bradley, Greg (City Treasurer) December 9, 2024 Dec. 28

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
Board Member Appointed Re-Appointed Term Expires James Breitling (Chair) December 9, 2024 Dec. 26 Shannan Maust December 9, 2024 Dec. 26
Damrath, Garrett February 13, 2023 Dec. 26 VACANT Dec. 26
VACANT Dec. 28
Ickis,John February 13, 2023 Dec. 26
VACANT Dec. 28

PLANNING COMMISSION
Board Member Appointed Re-Appointed Term Expires Johnson,Jeffrey June 8, 2021 Jun-25 Aspinall, Robin (Chair) February 13, 2017 June 13, 2022 Jun-26 Staton, Brian (Vice Chair) June 13, 2022 Jun-26 Andrews,John May 22, 2023 Jun-27
Marroquin, Monica May 22, 2023 Jun-27
Caldwell, Christine S. July 27, 2020 June 10, 2024 Jun-28 Borger, David June 10, 2024 Jun-28
Updated 1/14/2025 Page 6431.243705

POPULATION 79,274 CITY OF UPLAND GENERAL LAW CITY

15.3 SQ.MILES BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES NO CITY CHARTER 1328 FT.ELEVATION MAY 15,1906 INCORPORATED 2023

CITY COUNCIL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Board Member Appointed Re-Appointed Term Expires Schwary, Gary(Chair) December 14, 2020 January 13, 2025 Dec. 28 Lee, Sarah February 10, 2020 Dec. 26
Marroquin, Monica February 13, 2023 Dec. 26 Wells, Stephanie February 13, 2023 January 13, 2025 Dec. 28 Pulido, Gregorio February 13, 2023 Dec. 26 AIRPORT LAND USE COMMITTEE-Meets on an as needed basis
Board Member Appointed Re-Appointed Term Expires No Term Specify
Campbell, Ronald M. October 23, 2006 No Term Specify

BUILDING APPEALS BOARD
Board Member Appointed Re-Appointed Term Expires VACANT Dec. 28
VACANT Dec. 28
VACANT Dec. 26
VACANT Dec. 26
VACANT Dec. 26

LIBRARY BOARD
Board Member Appointed Re-Appointed Term Expires Olson, Lynn June 10, 2019 June 13, 2022 Jun-25 Cavallo, Ralph March 27, 2017 June 13, 2022 Jun-25 VACANT Jun-26
Slatkin, Wendy May 22, 2023 Jun-26
Flock,James June 28, 2021 June 10, 2024 Jun-28 Breitling,James December 9, 2024 Dec. 26 Updated 1/14/2025 Page 64 42of3705

POPULATION 79,274 CITY OF UPLAND GENERAL LAW CITY

15.3 SQ.MILES BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES NO CITY CHARTER 1328 FT.ELEVATION MAY 15,1906 INCORPORATED 2023
PARCS
Board Member Appointed Re-Appointed Term Expires VACANT Dec. 28
Alvarez, Elizabeth February 13, 2023 Dec. 26 Anderson,Tara February 13, 2023 Dec. 26
VACANT February 13, 2023 Dec. 28
Cavallo, Ralph Dec. 26

PERSONNEL BOARD OF REVIEW
Board Member Appointed Re-Appointed Term Expires Caruso, Deborah December 11, 2023 Jun-27
Randell, Scott September 11, 2023 Jun-27 VACANT Jun-25
de la Cerra,Jose April 26, 2021 June 28, 2021 Jun-25 Updated 1/14/2025 Page 6453of3705

4��a �p19� CITY UPLAND
�5, _�� "The City of Gracious Living"
C,,tIFOB,S
'• Staff(krctilt
_,
DATE: January 27,2025
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: MICHAEL BLAY,CITY MANAGER
PREPARED BY:CHRIS ALANIS,INTERIM PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR

NICOLE DEMOET,ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS MANAGER SUBJECT: UPDATE ON THE DRAFT REGIONAL NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE

ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT NEGOTIATION
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

It is recommended that the City Council receive and file the presentation on the Tentative National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)Permit for the Counties of Orange,Riverside,and San Bernardino Related to Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Tentative Order No.R8-2024-0001.

GOAL STATEMENT
The proposed action supports the City's goal to maintain compliance with local, state, and federal environmental regulatory requirements and orders.

BACKGROUND
The County of San Bernardino(County),along with the San Bernardino County Flood Control District(District)and 16 co-permittee cities—including Big Bear Lake, Chino, Chino Hills, Colton, Fontana, Grand Terrace, Highland, Loma Linda,Montclair,Ontario,Rancho Cucamonga,Redlands,Rialto,San Bernardino,Upland,and Yucaipa—own and manage stormwater drainage systems.These systems help control urban runoff and prevent flooding.They include storm drains and other water channels, which move rainwater and runoff into rivers, lakes, and other waters of the United States.

Currently, these cities and agencies follow NPDES Permit No. CAS618036 (Permit) and Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. R8-2010-0036, issued in 2011 by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board). The District oversees and helps implement the permit's requirements to make sure stormwater pollution is reduced. This is necessary to comply with the Federal Clean Water Act, which is enforced by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency(EPA).

The 2011 permit expired in 2015,but the Regional Board has extended it for nearly 10 years while working on a new one. Tentative Order No. RE-2024-0001 (Tentative Order)is the draft version of the new permit,which will replace the 2011 version. This new permit will be the first region-wide NPDES Permit for the Santa Ana Region, covering three counties and up to 60 cities. It aims to regulate stormwater management fairly and effectively across different areas,from coastal cities to inland communities with various economic conditions.

On September 13,2024,the Regional Board held a workshop to discuss the Tentative Order.City and county officials spoke about the need for a fair,practical,and sustainable permit.They also raised concerns about the financial impact of the new requirements. Because of these concerns,the Regional Board delayed the start of the new permit by six months to allow time for revisions.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
Arlene Chun,Engineering Manager at the San Bernardino County Flood Control District, is here to provide updates on the review process and ongoing discussions between cities, counties, and the Regional Board to create a more workable and balanced final permit.

The new permit will apply to San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange counties. This means all three counties must follow the same stormwater rules.However,these areas have different economic conditions,which can make it harder for some cities to meet the permit's requirements.The presentation provided by Arlene Chun highlights the significant

Page 646 of 705 ends

financial challenges as documented in the Cost Impact Analysis(Attachment C)prepared by Beacon Economics, and presents the primary areas of concern for co-permittees in San Bernardino County as well as Riverside and Orange Counties(Attachment B).

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The proposed action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQS). Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines defines a project subject to CEQA. The proposed action is not included within the definition of a"project" and thus is exempt.

FISCAL IMPACTS
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.

ALTERNATIVES
Provide alternative direction to staff.

CEQA:Not a Project.

Page 647 of 705 ends

Proposed MS4 Permit
The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board's proposed revisions to permits regulating stormwater and water quality will cost San Bernardino County and its 16 permittee cities at least $10.8 billion over the next 20 years.

This financial impact to County and City general funds will harm disadvantaged communities, increase housing costs and obstruct new infrastructure. 1 m pacts
m•is Harms Disadvantaged Communities
• �: ' :� • • Nine cities in San Bernardino County have poverty rates exceeding the state average. • The financial burdens of the permit compliance will exacerbate existing fiscal pressures on City and County budgets and will have severe repercussions on local economies. • Cities will face intense financial strain, with capital costs exceeding 350% to 1,100% of their annual budgets, resulting in reduced public services.
• •• Worsens Housing Crisis
• The lack of affordable housing drives California's high poverty rate, the highest in the nation.

IWO. • Construction costs for a single-family home in San Bernardino County could rise by $25,000 per home as the permit will trigger new Water Quality Management Plans for development. • Under these rules, the cost of a 29-home development will rise an estimated $725,000. • Housing construction costs in the County may rise an estimated $27.61 million annually if these revisions are approved.
61?‘ Obstructs New Roads, Infrastructure
00 • The proposed permit will require road and infrastructure projects to have a Water Quality `+� Management Plan, raising costs by 5% or 30%, or more, and increasing maintenance costs. • Commercial inspection costs in San Bernardino could rise a projected $13.3 million in 20 years due to more frequent inspections.
• Limited space and high construction costs make it difficult to add required new water quality infrastructure to existing roadway projects. New requirements will further increase right-of- way costs and delay construction.

Continued dialogue between the Board, impacted Counties and Permittee cities is needed to refine the Permit requirements to provide meaningful water quality benefits without harming disadvantaged communities or impeding new housing and infrastructure improvements.

Page 648 of 705 ends

11*
SAlV BERirARDINO SANBERNARDINOCOUNTYSTORMWATERPROGRAM COUNTY WHERE WATER ..o.. E
MEETS COMMUNITY 104
Update - Tentative NPDES Permit for Counties
of Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino
MS4 Permit Renewal, Santa Ana River Region
Tentative Order R8-2024-0001
Arlene B. Chun, M.S., P.E.

Engineering Manager, Environmental Management Division January 27, 2025 www.SBCounty.gov

What is NPDES?
NPDES National
NPDES: Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
• Codified — Clean Water Act (1972) and its Amendments System • Regulates and controls — pollutant discharge to MS4 MS4 Municipal
• Pollutants — trash, sediment, bacteria, metals, fertilizer Separate Storm
• Implemented — issuance of an MS4 Permit Sewer System

SAN BERNARCINO COUNTV STCRMWATER PROGRAM

WHEREWATER'T

MEETS COMMUNITY

Why is the MS4 Permit Important?
3 Stormwater Runoff The MS4 Permit:

I I • Allows municipalities to collect Runoff from Roof Surfaces Roof/Gutter Downspouts Yard and discharge stormwater runoff to / 1
SCHOOL
' ' ' �, �\ ' /' ❑❑❑❑ o waterbodies n Jf , ❑❑ ❑❑ ■ ` ❑oo MOOO o❑
FRIA �1�n* ____1�, A• ,..-Li • Requires municipalities to Storm Drain Inlet Gutter and Street Runoff _
1 • 1 - implement best management
_1
Storm Drain System di practices to reduce, minimize, or •
• • Li3 IQ — eliminate pollutants in stormwater • • - • • • • •• - - - - runoff Storm Drain Inlet
—Storm Drain System
• Protects water quality
Storm Drain Outlet
4- i-
Nli
Alik
Water Body
Chi Stormwater runoff ends up in snNeeReaAowo COUNTY sroeMwaTeePROGRAM local creeks,streams,lakes, WHERE WATER'.m rivers,and/or the ocean. MEETS COMMUNITY ':r/I

Santa Ana Watershed MS4 Permit
4 • 1st — 4th Term Permits — specific to San Bernardino County & Cities (18 Permittees) • 5th Term Permit — Regional
• Names San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange Counites & Cities (60 Permittees) • Tentative Order
• Released March 2024 with 60-day comment period, modified to 120 days • Tri County Group
• 60 Permittee Coalition, led by the Counties' Principal Permittees • Submitted extensive Comment Letter Package (July 3, 2024)

SAN BERNARCINO COUNTV STCRMWATER PROGRAM

WHEREWATER'T
MEETS COMMUNITY_"`'

Tentative Order - New Costs

Page 5 ends

4 BEACON ECONOMICS Pr
San Bernardino County (2024 $)
Cost Impact Analysis of MS4 Tentative 20-Year Cost Estimates Order for San Bernardino County Numeric Limits Compliance/WMP $ 10.2 Billion Septe m b er 2024 Development/Redevelopment $ 552.2 Million Commercial Inspections $ 13.3 Million
,
U___,-
- - - Trash Capture $ 6.6 Million —�� , Y -TMs Industrial Inspections $ 1.9 Million _.:_--i --- -'-al, , _
- — = = TOTAL COSTS $ 10.8 Billion E YOU NI ndvu Rswed Bcxrn Eammnia LID Alik SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY STORMWAT ER PROGRAM —

WHERE WATER''-
-MEETS COMMUNITY =-,

Tentative Order - WMP/Numeric Limit Compliance
Pa:e 6
San B- i dino County Proposed WMP
Costs (in Millions, 2024 $)
Agency Land Area Population Cost Share
(Acres) Capital O&M (Annual) O&M (20-Yr) Total (20-Yr) Big Bear Lake 4,074.24 4,914 1.63% $122.60 $2.20 $43.98 $166.58 Grand Terrace 2,255.04 12,814 1.66% $124.86 $2.24 $44.79 $169.64 Loma Linda 5,487.62 25,228 2.31% $173.75 $3.12 $62.32 $236.07 Montclair 3,520.64 37,494 2.45% $184.28 $3.31 $66.10 $250.38 Colton 9,469.38 53,154 3.45% $259.50 $4.65 $93.08 $352.57 Highland 10,562.11 55,984 3.63% $273.03 $4.90 $97.94 $370.97 Upland 9,782.02 78,376 4.15% $312.15 $5.60 $111.97 $424.11 Yucaipa 16,847.42 53,991 4.19% $315.15 $5.65 $113.04 $428.20 Chino 14,835.2 93,137 4.95% $372.32 $6.68 $133.55 $505.87 District - - 5.00% $376.08 $6.74 $134.90 $510.98 Redlands 21,201.09 71,972 5.10% $383.60 $6.88 $137.60 $521.20 Chino Hills 21,176.45 77,058 5.23% $393.38 $7.06 $141.10 $534.48 Rialto 15,144.06 102,985 5.34% $401.65 $7.20 $144.07 $545.72 Rancho Cucamonga 26,851.71 173,545 8.37% $629.56 $11.29 $225.82 $855.38 Ontario 31,339.71 180,717 9.00% $676.94 $12.14 $242.82 $919.76 Fontana 27,432.45 213,851 9.51% $715.30 $12.83 $256.58 $971.88 San Bernardino (City) 35,303.55 223,230 10.53% $792.02 $14.20 $284.10 $1,076.12 San Bernardino County89,484.03 137,778 13.51% 'r'$1,016.17 $18.22 $364.50 $1,380.66 Total 344,766.72 1,596,228 100% $7,521.60 $134.90 $2,697.96 $,445),.5,6i0

Timeline, Next Steps
7 • July 2024 — Tri County Group comment package & individual agency letters submitted • September 2024 — Regional Board recommends 6 months to revise Permit language • October 2024 & beyond — Scheduling & meetings with Regional Board staff • Riverside County Permittees — November 4, 2024 & January 7, 2025 • Orange County Permittees — November 20, 2024 & January 13, 2025 • San Bernardino County Permittees — December 4 & 18, 2024

SAN BERNAROINO COUNTV STCRMWATER PROGRAM

WHERE WATER'T
MEETS COMMUNITY >r,

Timeline, Upcoming Events
• January 2025 & beyond — Upcoming Events (dates to be determined) • Meeting — OC Coastkeeper/Inland Waterkeeper & Regional Board • Meeting — Tri-County Group (all 60 permittees) with Regional Board • Release of "Response to Comments" — addresses comments submitted on July 3, 2024 • Release of Revised Tentative Order
• New Public Comment Period (on Revised Tentative Order) • Regional Board Public Workshop

SAN BERNARCINO COUNTV STCRMWATER PROGRAM

WHEREWATER'T

MEETS COMMUNITY

Next Steps

Page 9 ends

Coordination among San Bernardino County Permittees • Monthly General Management Meetings
• Technical Subcommittee Meetings
• Joint Defense, Common Interest, and Confidentiality Agreement • Currently, 16 participating permittees

SAN BERNAROINO COUNTV STCRMWATER PROGRAM

WHERE WATER'T
MEETS COMMUNITY ' `'

Contacts

Page 10 ends

San Bernardino County Flood Control District San Bernardino County Christopher Bland Jonathan Dillon, P.E.

Stormwater Program Manager Supervising Engineer [email protected] [email protected] (909) 387-8112 (909) 387-8109
Arlene Chun, M.S., P.E. AA
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY STORM WATER PROGRAM .

Engineering Manager WHERE WATER ..o..:ERPRO6 Environmental Management Division Alligli== MEETS COMMUNITY [email protected] https://sbcountystormwater.org (909) 387-8109
f O

rlii
LAI
opt BEACON ECONOMICS
Cost Impact Analysis of MS4 Tentative
Order for San Bernardino County
September 2024
11 - It #F •
- r
! . •
_ _
, 1/ f _ _ _
. f J
_ 77- .:--- ._.„;1100, —_____ __ _
roc_- t y _ _
Am
iie
©2024 All rights reserved.Beacon Economics LLC.

Page 659 of 705 ends

Executive Summary
In this report, Beacon Economics estimates the explicit and implicit costs associated with the proposed Regional Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit (referred to as Tentative Order (TO))for the local government agencies in San Bernardino County under the regulatory jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board.These Permittees (cities, the county, and the Flood Control District) have been regulated since 1990 under a series of MS4 permits that set forth regulations on how stormwater runoff from urbanized areas is to be monitored and managed.

We find that most new costs ($billions)will be associated with:

Attaining water quality objectives for stormwater,which will effectively require the urban landscape to be constructed in accordance with a Watershed Management Plan (WMP).

Further new costs ($millions)will be incurred in relation to a ratcheting up of existing mandatory mitigation measures, including:
(1) Increasing the frequency of inspections for businesses and construction sites, particularly since general industrial permit holders and all food and drink establishments are now required to undergo annual inspections. (2) Installing, maintaining and monitoring trash and litter capture devices on most street drain inlets. While installation and maintenance have been mandated by the state's trash policy, the requirement for monitoring is a new addition.
(3) Requiring incorporation of features for water quality protection (referred to as Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
requirement) into a much broader universe of qualifying public and private development and redevelopment projects.

Over the next 20 years, these changes will cost San Bernardino County nearly$10.8 billion. This estimate does not include all possible costs or unintended consequences that could arise from the change in MS4 permitting requirements. 2 4 BEACON ECONOMICS Page 660 of 705

San Bernardino County 20-Yr Cost Estimates(2024$)
Numeric Limits Compliance/WMP $ 10,219,563,415.05 Development/Re-Dev. $ 552,204,672.74
Comm. Inspection $ 13,321,247.92
Trash $ 6,560,000.00
Ind. Inspection $ 1,947,649.80
Total Costs $ 10,793,596,985.51
• NUMERIC LIMITS COMPLIANCE, WMP DEVELOPMENT,AND COMPLIANCE MAINTENANCE We estimate median capital costs of approximately$7.52 billion and annual O&M costs of$135 million for San Bernardino. Over 20 years, it will cost San Bernardino approximately$10.2 billion to develop and maintain a WMP. • DEVELOPMENT AND RE-DEVELOPMENT Installation of ADA ramps exceeding 5,000 square feet will now trigger a WQMP, which will create delays and constrain city budgets. Due to changes in requirements for when a development triggers a WQMP could increase the construction cost of single-family homes by up to $25,000 per home. Assuming the exact same conditions for all single-family home developments in the county,this equates to increased single-family housing costs of$27.6 million across the county. Over 20 years,the aggregate increase in housing costs across the county would be $552.2 million.

Rising constructions costs are particularly problematic as residential construction has decreased substantially over the last 45 years. Low housing supply in the face of a growing population leads to rising home prices. • COMMERCIAL INSPECTIONS Commercial inspection costs are expected to rise by over$13.3 million over the next 20 years in San Bernardino due to more frequent inspections of Low Priority facilities and food and drink establishments. All but one of the agencies that will be disproportionately impacted encompass disadvantaged communities. Of these four, Ontario will likely be impacted most, followed by Chino and Colton.
• TRASH COMPLIANCE Over the next 20 years, it will cost over$6.5 million for San Bernardino to comply with the new monitoring requirements for trash. • INDUSTRIAL INSPECTIONS The changes presented in the TO will increase industrial inspection costs by approximately$1.9 million over the next 20 years. 1+ 3
4 BEACON ECONOMICS Page 661 of 705

All the agencies that will be disproportionately impacted encompass disadvantaged communities. Of these four, Fontana and Ontario will likely be impacted most.

In addition to explicit costs, Beacon Economics considers the implicit costs or opportunity costs that will likely be incurred by San Bernardino County in meeting the proposed requirements. These costs include those associated with increased tax rates and redirected county funds. The financial implications of the TO raise concerns about resource allocation in counties already facing serious socioeconomic challenges.

Redirecting funds to meet TO requirements could undermine ongoing efforts to support disadvantaged communities, risking the deepening of existing economic hardships.

Share of General Fund Budget
Cost 1-Yr 20-Yr General
Share Capital O&M O&M Fund 1-Yr Capital/5+1- % ($M) ($M) ($M) ($M) Capital O&M Yr O&M Estimated Median Cost(WMP) $7,522 $135 $2,698 Grand Terrace 1.66% $125 $2 $45 $7.86 1588.5% 28.5% 346.2% Highland 3.63% $273 $5 $98 $23.85 1144.9% 20.5% 249.5% Yucaipa 4.19% $315 $6 $113 $28.81 1093.9% 19.6% 238.4% Chino Hills 5.23% $393 $7 $141 $55.27 711.8% 12.8% 155.1% Loma Linda 2.31% $174 $3 $62 $26.71 650.4% 11.7% 141.7% Rancho Cucamonga 8.37% $630 $11 $226 $117.83 534.3% 9.6% 116.4% County of San
Bernardino 13.51% $1,016 $18 $364 $193.00 526.5% 9.4% 114.7%
Upland 4.15% $312 $6 $112 $61.30 509.2% 9.1% 111.0% Big Bear Lake 1.63% $123 $2 $44 $24.26 505.5% 9.1% 110.2% Fontana 9.51% $715 $13 $257 $149.08 479.8% 8.6% 104.6% Montclair 2.45% $184 $3 $66 $39.36 468.2% 8.4% 102.0% Colton 3.45% $259 $5 $93 $65.94 393.5% 7.1% 85.8% San Bernardino 10.53% $792 $14 $284 $224.81 352.3% 6.3% 76.8% Chino 4.95% $372 $7 $134 $112.30 331.5% 5.9% 72.3% Redlands 5.10% $384 $7 $138 $115.73 331.5% 5.9% 72.2% Rialto 5.34% $402 $7 $144 $129.29 310.7% 5.6% 67.7% Ontario 9.00% $677 $12 $243 $428.87 157.8% 2.8% 34.4% SB County Flood 5.00% $376 $7 $135 - - - Average 6% $418 $7 $150 $106.13 594% 11% 129% Median 5% $374 $7 $134 $65.94 505% 9% 110% • SOCIECONOMIC FACTORS AND DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES The county's socioeconomic vulnerabilities are profound,with 33% of its population living in Disadvantaged Communities (DACs). Nine agencies in the county have poverty rates above the state average.

Six of these nine are within the Santa Ana region, including San Bernardino (18%), Ontario (13%), Rialto (15%), Montclair (10%), Highland (16%), and Colton (15%). 4 4 BEACON ECONOMICS Page 662 of 705

Considering the stormwater program cost shares assigned to each agency in San Bernardino County, we find that the estimated Numeric Limits Compliance/WMP (capital spread out over five years plus one year's O&M)would equate, at best, to a third, and at worst, three-and-a-half times an agency's general fund budget.This means if agencies attempt to pay for their fair shares of the numeric limit compliance/regional WMP development in five years, in most cases, they will have no general funds left over for other public expenditures (legal services, libraries, parks and recreation, police, public works, etc.). • CAPITAL AND O&M COST' San Bernardino County faces severe financial challenges under the TO,with most cities experiencing capital costs exceeding 300% of their general funds. Particularly, Grand Terrace, Highland, and Yucaipa are highlighted as cities where one year's O&M costs alone consume a large share of their general funds. The potential financial demands associated with the TO could present these cities with difficult decisions between regulatory compliance and maintaining essential public services and infrastructure.

Cities with poverty rates above the 12% state average would need to contribute substantially to WMP costs, indicating that economic vulnerability is prevalent in areas financially burdened by TO requirements. • IMPACTS ON AQUATIC LIFE While the goal of the TO is to increase the water quality,the impact on local aquatic life may be negative, and may conflict with conservation efforts by the MWD. The San Bernardino MWD is leading a large-scale habitat conservation plan, including multiple tributary restoration projects along the Santa Ana River. Currently,these tributaries have flows and are important habitats for aquatic species such as the western pond turtle, Santa Ana sucker, and Arroyo chub, some of which are federally threatened. f
MIMI
v - �-
s '- s._ ,. r' _�''V Sf7Y i �' ~ ieGP61:NI^a'f h I. s��vv�i W'(D4_O 2
Photo credit:Oregon Dept.of Fish&Wildlife;Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority;Zack Abbey.

A significant concern of the TO is the potential impact of the new prohibitions on these local aquatic species.
,t. 5
4 BEACON ECONOMICS Page 663 of 705

Introduction
The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Santa Ana Water Board) is a state government agency responsible for protecting and improving water quality within the Santa Ana River Watershed, which spans portions of Riverside, San Bernardino, and Orange counties in Southern California.

Stormwater from the Santa Ana River Watershed flows through a network of channels and eventually drains into the Pacific Ocean,via the Santa Ana River. The Municipal Stormwater Program of the Santa Ana Water Board regulates stormwater discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) throughout the Santa Ana River Watershed. As per the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) section 402(p), stormwater permits are required for discharges from an MS4 that serves a population of 100,000 or more.

MS4 permits in the Santa Ana River Watershed have been issued since the 1990s and have been renewed four times since their initial issuance. Until now,the Santa Ana Water Board has regulated portions of the Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties located within the Santa Ana Region through separate Phase 1 MS4 permits for each county. These permits expired but were administratively extended and so, remain in effect.

Currently, a Tentative Order(TO) has been drafted for a fifth iteration, where for the first time,the separate permits would transition to a single Regional MS4 permit covering those portions of the Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties (including their cities and flood districts) located within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Water Board.

In addition to consolidation of the three counties' MS4 permits into a single regional permit,the TO addresses administrative details, discharge prohibitions—including those related to non-stormwater runoff' and trash—and outlines specific requirements for managing new developments to reduce pollution and hydrological impacts. It also contains provisions for detecting and eliminating illicit discharges, as well as public education initiatives and training programs to ensure compliance. 1 The TO includes a list of authorized non-stormwater discharges.These authorized discharges include air conditioning co?Oensate,fire hydrant flushing,non-commercial vehicle washing,among other exempt discharges. 4 BEACON ECONOMICS
6

Page 664 of 705 ends

Most notably the TO includes responsibilities for Permittees to:
(1) Engage in an iterative process for continual improvements in all their programs, to achieve compliance with Effluent Limits and Receiving Water Limitations, including numeric Effluent Limits based on Waste Load Allocations (WLAs). (2) Adopt a system of performance metrics prescribed by the draft permit to objectively measure the performance of their control measures and Best Management Practices (BMPs).

While the primary goal of the TO is to strengthen BMPs and pollutant control measures in pursuit of better water quality(as established in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin) an objective analysis of the costs is necessary to meet federal and state requirements.2 In this report, Beacon Economic estimates the costs for San Bernardino County Permittees associated with the more stringent MS4 permitting requirements as set forth in the TO.
2 Federal law mandates that"social,economic,and environmental consequences of proposed decisions shall be clearly st4d in[informational materials]."(40 C.F.R.§25.4(b)(2).)State law mandates evaluation of all"impacts of the p test ctiXit irEteaTarl lity impacts.(Wat.Code,§13149.2,subd.(b)(2).) 7

Page 665 of 705 ends

Part I . Explicit Costs
___
As a first step, Beacon Economics estimates the expected explicit costs to be expended with the new requirements. Explicit costs are those directly associated with outlays of money, including those incurred once and those incurred on an ongoing basis.

The TO is based on the federal standards for MS4s established by the Clean Water Act (CWA) section 402(p)(3)(B),which require MS4s to "reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable [MEP]." MEP is the highest level of effectiveness that can be achieved employing whatever BMPs are technically feasible (i.e., those that are likely to be effective) and are not cost prohibitive.3 The TO also references State Water Resources Control Board precedential orders directing that MS4 permits in California require the eventual attainment of water quality standards.

The MEP standard applies to a series of provisions in the TO referred to as the minimum control measures (40 CFR, section 122.26 (d)(2)(iv)). These measures include, among others, discharge elimination and remediation, runoff monitoring and reporting, conducting program effectiveness assessments, conducting municipal inspections, and public education.

WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN COSTS
As part of the new permitting requirements, Permittee counties will likely need to adopt Watershed Management Plans (WMPs) or similar plans attempting compliance with the numeric limits in the TO. For the purposes of this section, numeric limits compliance measures and WMPs are synonymous.

To estimate the capital cost of developing these plans, as well as the associated annual Operations and Maintenance (O&M) costs, cost estimates were extrapolated from WMP groups as presented in the 2021 Los Angeles Water Board Study.'These costs are incurred by implementing a systemwide combination of parcel-scale water quality controls, street 'State Water Resources Control Board Office of Chief Counsel February 11,1993 Memorandum,"Definition of Maximum Exert Practicable."
4hG /lo r d o /o an eles/waterissues/programs/stormwater/municipal/public_docs/2022/Att_F_F 8

Page 666 of 705 ends

drainage retrofits (often referred to as "Green Streets") and regional stormwater capture facilities.

Table 1. Permittees' Projected Cost Estimates for EWMP Full Implementation (Millions of Dollars,2019$)5
•
Annual Annual
Capital Capital O&M O&M Total20-Yr Total20-Yr EWMP Group (Low) (High) (Low) (High) Cost(Low) Cost(High) Ballona Creek $2,892.12 $2,892.12 $82.55 $82.55 $4,543.09 $4,543.09 Dominguez Channel $1,340.65 $1,340.65 $15.39 $15.39 $1,648.41 $1,648.45 Malibu Creek $201.54 $201.54 $3.86 $3.86 $278.71 $278.71 Marina Del Rey $368.12 $368.12 $2.39 $2.39 $415.91 $415.91 North Santa Monica Bay $34.51 $34.51 $1.15 $1.15 $57.55 $57.55 Palos Verdes Peninsula Cities $90.00 _ $129.50 $1.34 $1.52 $116.80 $159.90 Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River NR NR NR NR $121.80 $121.80 Santa Monica Bay J2&J3 $660.02 $660.02 $4.82 $4.82 $756.38 $756.38 South Bay Beach Cities $46.13 $95.48 $2.15 $3.33 $89.04 $162.00 Upper LA River $6,541.98 $6,541.98 $123.38 $123.88 $9,009.65 $9,009.65 Upper San Gabriel River $1,216.34 $1,216.34 $44.31 $44.31 $2,102.59 $2,102.59 Upper Santa Clara River $669.12 $669.12 NR NR $669.12 $669.12 Total $19,809.06 $19,925.11
Source: Los Angeles Water Board Analysis.

Table 2. Estimated WMP Capital and O&M Costs for San Bernardino County, Extrapolated by Relative Land Area (Millions of Dollars, 2019$) San San Bernardino County Costs
Bernardino Total 20-Yr Total 20-Yr
EWMP Group Land(in Acres) Land Ratios Cost(Low) Cost(High) Ballona Creek 81,677 4.22 $19,176.88 $19,176.88 Dominguez Channel 50,857 6.78 $11,174.85 $11,175.12 Malibu Creek 32,992 10.45 $2,912.52 $2,912.84 Marina Del Rey 1,409 244.69 $101,768.58 $101,771.02 North Santa Monica Bay 1,056 326.48 $18,789.13 $18,776.07 Palos Verdes Peninsula Cities 14,464 23.84 $2,784.07 $3,811.41 Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River 20,416 16.89 $2,056.85 $2,056.85 Santa Monica Bay 12&13 34,362 10.03 $7,589.04 $7,589.44 South Bay Beach Cities 15,217 22.66 $2,017.35 $3,672.19 Upper LA River 309,757 1.11 $10,027.94 $10,038.99 Upper San Gabriel River 79,185 4.35 $9,154.55 $9,154.33 Upper Santa Clara River 199,811 1.73 $1,154.54 $1,154.54 Average 70100.24 56.10 $15,717.19 $15,940.81 Median 33677.00 10.24 $8,371.89
Source:Analysis by Beacon Economics.
5 Cost estimates are based on Permittees'EWMP estimates as presented under"Method 2"of the LA Water Board Study. 6 LAW ratios were calculated using the included lands as reported in each watershed's annual reports. 4 BEACON ECONOMICS
9

Page 667 of 705 ends

Table 3. Median WMP Capital and O&M Costs for San Bernardino County, Extrapolated by Relative Land Area, (Millions of Dollars,2024$)
San Bernardino County U
2019$ Present Value
(2024$)
Capital, Median $6,161.71 $7,521.60
O&M (20-Yr), Median $2,210.18 $2,697.96
Total Cost, Median $8,371.89 $10,219.56
Source:Analysis by Beacon Economics.

Table 4.Average WMP Capital and O&M Costs for San Bernardino County, Extrapolated by Relative Land Area, (Millions of Dollars,2024$) ■ San Bernardino County
2019$ Present Value
(2024$)
Capital,Average $12,565.65 $15,338.89
O&M (20-Yr),Average $3,263.03 $3,983.18
Total Cost,Average $15,829 $19,322.46
Source:Analysis by Beacon Economics.

CAPITAL COSTS In terms of averages, the estimated capital cost for San Bernardino County is $15.34 billion in today's dollars. However, these averages may include outlier data points, such as the cost of the Marina Del Rey WMP.

In terms of medians, the estimated capital cost for San Bernardino County is approximately$7.5 billion in today's dollars.

O&M COSTS The average O&M costs for San Bernardino County equal$3.98 billion in today's dollars. These values equate to approximately$200 million for San Bernardino per year. Again,these averages may include outlier data points, such as the costs of the Marina Del Rey WMP. It is more reasonable to consider median costs instead. The estimated median O&M costs for San Bernardino County equal$2.7 billion over the next 20 years. This corresponds to annual O&M costs of around $134 million.

TOTAL WMP COSTS Over the next 20 years, it will cost San Bernardino County an average of$19.3 billion to cover the capital and annual O&M costs of developing a WMP. As for the median, over the next 20 years, it will cost San Bernardino County an estimated $10.2 billion in median capital and annual O&M costs to develop a WMP. 10 4 B Page 668 of 705

EACON ECONOMICS

Table 5. Estimated WMP Capital and O&M Costs for Agencies within San Bernardino County, Extrapolated by Relative Land Area, (Millions of Dollars, 2024$) San Bernardino County Proposed WMP
Cost Costs(in Millions,2024$)
Land Area Population Share 0&M O&M(20- Total(20- Agency (Acres) Capital (Annual) Yr) Yr) Big Bear Lake 4074.24 4914 1.63% $122.60 $2.20 $43.98 $166.58 Chino 14835.2 _ 93137 4.95% $372.32 $6.68 $133.55 $505.87 Chino Hills 21176.45 77058 5.23% $393.38 $7.06 $141.10 $534.48 Colton 9469.38 53154 3.45% $259.50 $4.65 $93.08 $352.57 Fontana 27432.45 213851 9.51% $715.30 $12.83 $256.58 $971.88 Grand Terrace 2255.04 12814 1.66% $124.86 $2.24 $44.79 $169.64 Highland 10562.11 55984 3.63% $273.03 $4.90 $97.94 $370.97 Loma Linda 5487.62 25228 2.31% $173.75 $3.12 $62.32 $236.07 Montclair 3520.64 37494 2.45% $184.28 $3.31 $66.10 $250.38 Ontario 31339.71 180717 9.00% $676.94 $12.14 $242.82 $919.76 Rancho
Cucamonga 26851.71 173545 8.37% $629.56 $11.29 $225.82 $855.38 Redlands 21201.09 _ 71972 5.10% $383.60 $6.88 $137.60 $521.20 Rialto 15144.06 102985 5.34% $401.65 $7.20 $144.07 $545.72 San Bernardino 35303.55 223230 10.53% $792.02 $14.20 $284.10 $1,076.12 Upland 9782.02 78376 4.15% $312.15 $5.60 $111.97 $424.11 Yucaipa 16847.42 53991 4.19% $315.15 $5.65 $113.04 $428.20 County of SB 89484.03 137778 13.51% $1,016.17 $18.22 $364.50 $1,380.66 District - - 5.00% $376.08 $6.74 $134.90 $510.98 Total 344,766.72 1596228 100% $7,521.60 $134.90 $2,697.96 $10,219.56 Source:San Bernardino Stormwater Management Program Budget and Cost Sharing Allocation for FY 2024- 2025.Analysis by Beacon Economics.
ri 11
Al
BEACON ECONOMICS Page 669 of 705

Figure 1. Estimated WMP Capital and 20-Year O&M Costs for SBC Agencies (Millions of Dollars, 2024$)
$1,400.00 —
$1,200.00
$1,000.00
$800.00
$600.00
$400.00 11 I I I
$200.00
iiiIIIIIIIIIII
$0.00
Co 1- O z O 0 J ? 0 m 2 Q U i— z o U 0- = I-uCo 0 J 2 U = D >- v cc v 2w z0 O co m ■Capital Costs 1 O&M Costs (20-Yr)
Source:San Bernardino Stormwater Management Program Budget and Cost Sharing Allocation for FY 2024- 2025.Analysis by Beacon Economics.

TRASH COMPLIANCE COSTS
According to the TO, Permittees must choose between two options for trash management:
1) Track 1 requires the installation of Full Capture Devices (FCDs)to control trash larger than 5mm in size from priority, designated and equivalent land uses. 2) Track 2 requires the installation of a combination of trash capture systems that achieve equivalency of Full Capture Systems.

Permittees made their track selection several years ago based on requirements set forth in the state's trash policy adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) in 2015.7 The state's version of Track 1 trash compliance does not include a requirement for monitoring.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/trash_control/documentation.html t+
4 BEACON ECONOMICS 12

Page 670 of 705 ends

Instead, the state's trash policy requires the installation, operation, and maintenance of full capture systems. The trash control requirements set forth in the TO may not be in-line with the state board's trash reduction requirements.To require Track 1 agencies to monitor their full capture systems is unreasonable, as agencies had not anticipated this new requirement when making their track selection and changing a trash management system once it is up and running is costly.

Each Track 1 Permittee in San Bernardino will incur expenses related to the following tasks:
a. Initial Assessment- Develop an On-Land Visual Trash Assessments (OVTA) plan and estimate trash generation rates from non-protected full capture systems. b. Monitoring Efforts-Estimate trash generation rate reduction and conduct inspections.
c. Increased Annual Reporting Efforts-GIS map updates, annual report templates, and coordination with O&M.

An initial assessment is expected to cost a flat fee of$30,000. Monitoring efforts are expected to cost each Track 1 Permittee $15,000 annually and increased annual reporting efforts are expected to cost each Permittee$4,000 annually in additional expenses.8 For the county's Track 1 Permittees,8 these three tasks will cost a combined $4.92 million over the next 20 years.

ADDITIONAL INSPECTION COSTS
Each Permittee must have an effective inspection program for industrial, commercial, and construction sites to minimize or reduce the pollutant discharge into MS4s. The TO specifies inspection frequencies for different priority sites:
• High Priority: Inspected once a year.
• Medium Priority: Inspected once every two years.
• Low Priority: Inspected once every five years.

Permittees can, however, propose alternative inspection schedules. 8 Based on consultation with stormwater program expert within Riverside County.

AtBEACON ECONOMICS 13

Page 671 of 705 ends

INDUSTRIAL INSPECTION COSTS
The current permit has the same schedule of inspections as specified in the TO for High and Medium Priority sites. However, the current permit requires that Low Priority sites be inspected once every permit term. Permit terms can last longer than five years;the current term has extended to 14 years.The TO specifies that Low Priority sites be inspected once every five years. The new industrial inspection specifications will impact agencies' Low Priority industrial facilities.

Table 6. Industrial Facilities in San Bernardino Agencies, Fiscal Year 2022-2023 San Bernardino County Industrial Facilities(FY 2022-2023) 0-99 100-199 200-499 500-999
Big Bear Lake Chino Fontana Ontario
Chino Hills Colton County of SB San Bernardino Grand Terrace Montclair
Highland Rancho Cucamonga
Loma Linda Rialto
Redlands
Upland
Yucaipa
Source:San Bernardino County Stormwater Program Annual Report for 2022-2023.Analysis by Beacon Economics.

In the 2022-2023 fiscal year, of the nearly 3,000 industrial facilities located within the jurisdiction of the 17 Co-Permittees, 3.3% reported deficiencies. Although the number of industrial facilities has increased by 84% since the 2006-2007 fiscal year,the percentage of inspections finding deficiencies has dropped from approximately 60%to less than 20% over the last 15 years.

Moreover,the severity of deficiencies has substantially decreased over time. In the 2006-2007 fiscal year, over 90%of deficiencies required some level of enforcement action, whereas in the 2022-2023 fiscal year, over 90% of deficiencies required no enforcement action.
14 4 BEACON ECONOMICS Page 672 of 705

Table 7. Industrial Facility Inspections and Deficiencies in San Bernardino Agencies, FY 2006-2007 through FY 2022-2023
San Bernardino County Industrial Facility Inspections and Deficiencies 1 2006- 2007- 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 2014- 2022-
2007 2008 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2023
Inspections 1561 1162 1527 1364 1280 1344 1085.0 554.0 Deficiencies 933 661 845 674 578 623 474.0 96.0 Deficient 59.8% 56.9% 55.3% 49.4% 45.2% 46.4% 43.7% 17.3% Source:San Bernardino County Stormwater Program Annual Reports retrieved from https://sbcountystormwater.org/government/resources/.Analysis by Beacon Economics.

Figure 2. Industrial Facility Inspections and Deficiencies in San Bernardino Agencies, FY 2006-2007 through FY 2022-2023
3000.0 —
2500.0 —
2000.0 —
1500.0
1000.0
500.0

0.0 2006-20072007-20082010-20112011-20122012-20132013-20142014-20152022-2023 •Total Industrial Inspections ■#Deficiencies Reported Source:San Bernardino County Stormwater Program Annual Reports.Analysis by Beacon Economics. e-1, 15
Olt BEACON ECONOMICS Page 673 of 705

Table 8. Industrial Facility Deficiencies and Enforcement Severity in San Bernardino Agencies, FY 2006-2007 through FY 2022-2023
San Bernardino County Agencies,Industrial Inspection Actions by Severity(Low to High) 2006
- 2007- 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 2014- 2022- 2007 2008 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2023 None Required 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
Verbal w Educ/Outreach 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 NOC 0.8 0.5 0.1 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.5
NOV 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0
Require Clean Up or Charge
Clean Up Costs 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Admin Order 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Stop Work Order 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Admin Civil Action 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Refer to the RWQCB 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Source:San Bernardino County Stormwater Program Annual Reports.Analysis by Beacon Economics.

Table b presents data on the share of High, Medium, and Low Priority industrial facilities within each agency in San Bernardino. For example, in fiscal year 2014-2015, approximately 20% of industrial facilities in Highland were High Priority and the remaining 80%were Low Priority.

Agencies where most industrial facilities are already classified as High or Medium Priority will not experience see as significant a change with the new industrial inspection requirements set forth in the TO as those agencies where most industrial facilities are classified as Low Priority.
• Most industrial facilities in Colton, Chino Hills, Redlands, Rialto, Upland, and Yucaipa have been historically classified as High Priority.9 Most industrial facilities in Big Bear Lake, Grand Terrace, Loma Linda, Montclair, Rancho Cucamonga,the City of San Bernardino, and the unincorporated regions of San Bernardino County have historically been classified as Medium Priority. The anticipated impact of additional industrial inspections will be relatively low for these agencies. 9 Industrialfacilities in the Flood Control District have also historically been classified primarily as High Priority,for the anal reports where data is available.
4 BEACON ECONOMICS
16

Page 674 of 705 ends

• Most industrial facilities in Chino, Fontana, Highland, and Ontario have historically been classified as Low Priority. The anticipated impact of additional industrial inspections will be relatively high for these agencies. • ALL the agencies that will be disproportionately impacted by the new industrial inspection requirements house disadvantaged communities.10 Of these four agencies, Fontana and Ontario will likely see a disproportionate impact, as they each have a significant number of industrial facilities, as shown in Table 6.

Table 9. Heat Map of Industrial Facilities in San Bernardino by Priority Level as a Share of All Facilities within Agency, FY 2006-2007 through FY 2014-2015 San Bernardino County Industrial Facilities by Priority Level FY 2006-2007 FY 2007-2008 FY 2010-2011 FY 2011-2012 FY 2012-2013 FY 2013-2014 FY 2014-2015

H M L H M L HML HML HML HML HML BBL 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.2 CHI 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.3 0.6 CHH 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 COL 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.1 FON 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.3 0.6 GRT 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 HIG 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.8 LOL 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.7 0.3 MON 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.2 ONT 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.5 RAC 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 RED 0.4 0.6 0.0 0.4 0.6 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.6 0.4 0.0 RIA 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.3 SBD 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.9 0.1 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.6 0.4 UPL 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 Immr Pm- low
YUC 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 SBC 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.1 FCD 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.1 0.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Source:San Bernardino County Stormwater Program Annual Reports.Analysis by Beacon Economics.

Note: H =High Priority, M=Medium Priority,L=Low Priority facilities 10 Based on 2022 Census tracts.Data retrieved from: https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/sb535.Parts of Chino are copp,idered disadvantaged.
4 BEACON ECONOMICS
17

Page 675 of 705 ends

On average, industrial facilities within San Bernardino agencies have historically been classified as follows: 788 High Priority, 1136 Medium Priority, and 1377 Low Priority. Due to the change in the frequency of inspections (from once per permit term, to once every five years) required for Low Priority facilities set forth in the TO, these industrial facilities will face higher inspection costs.

Considering an inspection in San Bernardino costs $250 per visit, and independent of the hours of inspection conducted within a visit, inspection costs are expected to rise by $44,274 annually.

Inspection costs are expected to rise by$885,490 over the next 20 years, combined for agencies in San Bernardino.

Table 10. Estimate of Additional Industrial Inspection Costs in San Bernardino County High
(Avg) Med(Avg) Low(Avg)
Total Facilities 788 1136 1377
Current Freq/year 1 0.5 0.0714286
New(TO)Freq/year 1 0.5 0.2
Inspection Cost $250 $250 $250
Current Insp.Cost $197,000 $142,000 $24,597 New Insp.Cost $197,000 $142,000 $68,871
Added Cost
(Annual) $0 $0 $44,274
Added Cost(20-Yr) $0 $0 $885,490
Source:San Bernardino County Stormwater Program Annual Reports.Analysis by Beacon Economics.

On average, between 15% and 25%of industrial facilities in San Bernardino have historically had general use permits, and between 75%and 85% of facilities have had non- general permits.
18 4 B Page 676 of 705

EACON ECONOMICS

able 11. Industrial Facilities by Permit Type for San Bernardino County Agencies San Bernardino County Agencies,Industrial Permits by Type 2006- 2007- 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 2014- 2007 2008 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Average

72. #Permits 709 635 667 592 589 555 531 611
C9
Share of Total 24.0% 21.4% 19.9% 18.0% 17.2% 15.7% 14.8% 18.7% 0)
a #Permits 2244 2332 2684 2704 2842 2979 3046 2690 CD
0 z Share of Total 76.0% 78.6% 80.1% 82.0% 82.8% 84.3% 85.2% 81.3% Total 2953 2967 3351 3296 3431 3534 3577 3301 Source:San Bernardino County Stormwater Program Annual reports.Analysis by Beacon Economics.

While under the current permit, industrial facilities with general use permits do not have a specified frequency of inspection different to that specified by their priority level, under the TO, generally permitted industrial facilities will be considered High Priority. As such, they will be subject to annual inspections.

Inspection costs will increase for Medium and Low Priority industrial facilities with general use permits, but not for High Priority facilities as they are currently subject to annual inspections.The additional costs for new inspections of Low Priority industrial facilities have already been accounted for above. If 18.7% of Medium Priority facilities are general permit holders, we estimate that this requirement change will adversely impact around 212 facilities. Considering that the cost of an inspection is$250 in San Bernardino, this change will equate to additional costs of$53,108 per year, or$1,062,160 over the next 20 years.

Overall, the changes presented in the TO will increase industrial inspection costs by over $1.94 million in the next 20 years, due to more frequent inspections of Low Priority industrial facilities and of facilities with general use permits. /A, 19
vftl
BEACON ECONOMICS Page 677 of 705

COMMERCIAL INSPECTION COSTS
Like industrial inspections, commercial inspections are expected to increase in frequency—and in turn, in costs—in San Bernardino County, based on the requirements set forth in the draft permit.

Table 12. Commercial Facilities in San Bernardino Agenciee F; ''ear 2022-2023 San Bernardino County Commercial Facilities(FY 2022-2023) 1000-
0-99 100-199 200-499 500-999 1999 2000+ Grand Terrace Big Bear Lake Chino Hills Chino Ontario Highland Rancho Cucamonga Colton Redlands
Loma Linda Upland Fontana San Bernardino
Yucaipa Montclair
Rialto
SB County
Source:San Bernardino County Stormwater Program Annual Report for 2022-2023.Analysis by Beacon Economics.

The share of commercial inspections reporting deficiencies in San Bernardino has decreased substantially over time.Whereas historically(between fiscal year 2005-2006 and fiscal year 2014-2015), about 30%of commercial facility inspections have reported deficiencies, in the most recent fiscal year 2022-2023 only about 10% of commercial facility inspected reported deficiencies.

Table 1 presents data on the share of High, Medium, and Low Priority commercial facilities within each agency in San Bernardino. For example, in fiscal year 2014-2015, approximately 20% of commercial facilities in Highland were Medium Priority and 70% were Low Priority.

Agencies where most commercial facilities are already classified as High or Medium Priority will not experience as significant a change with the new commercial inspection requirements set forth in the TO compared to those agencies where most commercial facilities are currently classified as Low Priority.
• Most commercial facilities in Chino Hills, Montclair, Rancho Cucamonga, Redlands, and Rialto have been historically classified as High Priority. Most 20 4 BEACON ECONOMICS Page 678 of 705

commercial facilities in Big Bear Lake, Fontana, Loma Linda, Ontario," and the unincorporated parts of San Bernardino County have historically been classified as Medium Priority. The anticipated impact of additional commercial inspections will be relatively low for these agencies.
• Most commercial facilities in Chino, Colton, Highland, Loma Linda, Ontario, Upland, and Yucaipa have historically been classified as Low Priority. The anticipated impact of additional commercial inspections will be relatively high for these agencies.
• All but one of the agencies that will be disproportionately impacted by the new commercial inspection requirements encompass disadvantaged communities.12 Of these four agencies, Ontario will likely be impacted most, followed by Chino and Colton, as they each have a substantial number of commercial facilities, as shown in Table 12.

Figure 3. Commercial Facility Inspections and Deficiencies in San Bernardino Agencies, FY 2005-2006 through FY 2022-2023
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0 •Total Inspections •#Deficiencies Reported
Source:San Bernardino County Stormwater Program Annual Reports.Analysis by Beacon Economics. " Half of the industrialfacilities in Loma Linda and Ontario are classified as Medium Priority,and half are classified as LoAPriority.
12 ed �20 re.y�frac�s,4xtAretrieved from: https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/sb535.Parts of Chino, i o a n a, ar o,and Upland are classified as disadvantaged. 21

Page 679 of 705 ends

On average, commercial facilities within San Bernardino agencies have been classified as follows: 2,417 High Priority, 3,501 Medium Priority, and 4,242 Low Priority. Due to the change in frequency of inspections (from once per permit term, to once every five years) required for Low Priority facilities set forth in the TO, these commercial facilities will face higher inspection costs.

Considering an inspection in San Bernardino costs $250 per visit, and independent of the hours of inspection conducted within a visit, inspection costs are expected to rise by $136,336 annually.

Inspection costs are expected to rise by over$2.7 million over the next 20 years, combined for agencies in San Bernardino.

Table 13. Heat Map of Commercial Facilities in San Bernardino by Priority Level as a Share of All Facilities within Agency, FY 2006-2007 through FY 2014-2015 San Bernardino County Commercial Facilities by Priority Level FY 2006-2007 FY 2007-2008 FY 2010-2011 FY 2011-2012 FY 2012-2013 FY 2013-2014 I FY 2014-2015

HMLHML HML HML HML HML HML
BBL 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.8 0.1 0.2 0.8 0.1 0.2 0.8 0.1 CHI 0.0 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.3 0.7 CHH 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.3 0.0 COL 0.0 0.3 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.3 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.3 0.7 FON 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.2 GRT 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 HIG 0.6 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.2 0.7 LOL 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.5 MON 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.2 ONT 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.5 RAC 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.2 RED 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.7 0.2 0.2 RIA 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.2 SBD 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.4 UPL 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.8 YUC 0.0 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.4 0.6 0.0 0.4 0.6 0.0 0.4 0.6 0.0 0.4 0.6 0.0 0.4 0.6 0.0 0.4 0.6 SBC 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.3 FCD 1 1 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Source:San Bernardino County Stormwater Program Annual Reports.Analysis by Beacon Economics.

Note: H =High Priority, M=Medium Priority,L=Low Priority facilities 22 4 B Page 680 of 705

EACON ECONOMICS

Table 14. Estimate of Additional Commercial Inspection Costs in San Bernardino County
1111Piteuppunworvg
Total Facilities 2417 3501 4242
Current
Freq/year 1 0.5 0.0714286
New(TO)
Freq/year 1 0.5 0.2
Inspection
Cost $0 $250 $250
Current Insp.

Cost $0 $437,607 $75,742
New Insp.

Cost $0 $437,607 $212,079
Added Cost
(Annual) $0 $0 $136,336
Added Cost
(20-Yr) $0 $0 $2,726,724
Source:San Bernardino County Stormwater Program Annual Reports.Analysis by Beacon Economics.

Restaurants However,the TO brings another substantial change to commercial facility inspections. Per the current permit, "restaurants are inspected at least once during the MS4 permit cycle,"13 as these establishments engage with fats, oil, and grease (FOG), pollutants that are the most impactful on receiving waters.

According to the TO, "the Permittees must inspect eating or drinking establishments annually or cause such inspections to occur on their behalf."14 The expansion of the definition of restaurants to "eating and drinking establishments"will generate substantial costs for businesses in the county.

There are currently 1,178 full-service restaurants, 1,847 limited-service restaurants and 93 drinking places in San Bernardino County, according to the latest (fourth quarter 2023) U.S.

Census Bureau data. Assuming these establishments are distributed evenly across the county,we scale the number of establishments based on relative population ratio to the portions of the county(agencies plus unincorporated portions of the county that are 13 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/board_decisions/adopted_orders/orders/2010/10_033_rc_ms4_permit_01_ 2940.pdf
14 S:gneotk IgtrdKe plvls4ntaana/water_issues/programs/stormwater/docs/2024/tentative_ms4_permit_2- 23

Page 681 of 705 ends

currently Permittees)to estimate the number of food and drink establishments within the Santa Ana River Watershed.

Figure 4. Food and Drink Establishments in San Bernardino County, Q1 1990 —Q4 2023 3500 25.00%
3000 20.00%
2500 15.00%
2000 10.00%
1500 5.00%
1000 0.00%
500 -5.00%
0 -10.00%
O ,-I N M ul lD N CO 0 ,-I N M
Q1ul Lb N CO 0 M ul Lb CO 0 N M
Ol Ol Ol O O 0 OOO 0 O N N N N
�--I N M r
Food&Drink Establishments Growth Rate(%) Linear(Growth Rate(%)) Source: U.S.Census Bureau.Analysis by Beacon Economics.

According to the 2020 decennial census, San Bernardino County has a population of 2,181,654. The 17 agencies (not including the Principal Permittee) of the county have a combined population of 1,596,228, representing approximately 73.17% of the county's total population. Based on this population ratio,we estimate there to be 2,282 food and drink establishments in San Bernardino that would be subject to the MS4 TO.

We assume for simplicity and consistency15 with previous parts of the report,that the number of restaurants does not grow(although historically, the number of food and drink establishments has grown at 0.6% per year) in the next 20 years.

Considering that an inspection costs $250 per visit in San Bernardino, and the current permit term has extended for 14 years, the additional annual cost of requiring annual inspections for food and drink establishments equals $529,726. The 20-year cost of 15 This is also reasonable,given that the newly added costs will likely hinder growth. eft BEACON ECONOMICS 24

Page 682 of 705 ends

requiring annual inspections for food and drink establishments is approximately$10.6 million.

Table 15. Estimate of Additional Commercial Inspection Costs in San Bernardino County
Inspection Freq. Annual Cost Total Cost(20-Yr) I Added Costs lx per permit term $ 40,748.17 $ 814,963.34 lx per year $ 570,474.34 $ 11,409,486.77 $ 10,594,523.43 Overall, adding the 20-year marginal cost of$2.7 million for higher frequency inspections of Low Priority commercial facilities (with the 20-year marginal cost of$10.6 million for higher frequency inspections for food and drink establishments), we arrive at a 20-year cost of$13.3 million for San Bernardino County.

This control measure would disproportionately impact disadvantaged and tourist communities within Permittee counties. Significant portions of San Bernardino County are classified as Disadvantaged Communities (DACs) or as Severely Disadvantaged Communities (SDACs) and may be adversely impacted by the increased regulations on restaurants. For example, the City of Big Bear Lake in San Bernardino County is primarily a tourist community, and restaurants make up a significant element of the local economy. Restaurants in the state already face financial burdens due to existing regulations and new higher minimum wages. The proposed classification of all food and drink establishments as High Priority will place an additional burden on the cities' economies.

CONSTRUCTION SITE INSPECTION COSTS
Currently, the construction site inspection frequency is as follows:
• For High Priority sites: eight times per year (once per month during the wet season) • For Medium Priority sites: twice per wet season
• For Low Priority sites: once per wet season
The TO specifies the same inspection frequency for Medium and Low Priority sites, however the inspection frequency for High Priority construction sites is reduced to four times per year(once every two months during the wet season).

This change should reduce the inspection costs faced by agencies. However, at the same time,there is a change in how priority levels are determined. 25 BEACON ECONOMICS Page 683 of 705

High Priority sites are currently defined as those disturbing 50 acres of soil and greater, Medium Priority sites are those disturbing between 20 and 50 acres, and Low Priority sites are those disturbing less than 20 acres.

With the TO, High Priority sites will include any construction site disturbing 20 acres of soil or more, Medium Priority sites are those disturbing between five and 20 acres, and Low Priority sites are those disturbing less than five acres.

These two changes (lower frequency inspections for High Priority sites and lower threshold acreage to be defined as High Priority)will have opposing effects on costs. We assume for simplicity that these roughly cancel each other out.

NEW DEVELOPMENT & SIGNIFICANT REDEVELOPMENT COSTS
The MS4 permit requirements are designed to reduce the discharge of pollutants from new developments and significant redevelopment projects. Permittees must use source control measures (e.g. street sweepers), structural control measures, and treatment control measures (e.g. bioswale) in their designs.These measures are designed to prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants into the receiving waters.

ELIMINATION OF GREEN STREETS GUIDANCE
Although there are several changes in the TO that increase development costs,the highest potential cost impact on developers is likely to be the change to road requirements.

The proposed elimination of EPA Green Streets Guidance and, in turn,the inclusion of roadway projects as priority projects triggers the requirement to prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)which could disproportionately affect roadway improvement projects in San Bernardino County. As most roadway projects in these regions are improvements to existing infrastructure, there is an inherent limitation on space available to incorporate additional water quality infrastructure.

In addition to the limitation on space, construction costs are currently high,which is generally true across the nation (see figures below), and the new requirements would place an additional cost on development and redevelopment projects. The new 26 4 BEACON ECONOMICS Page 684 of 705

requirements would likely delay construction, presenting additional opportunity costs that are difficult to quantify.

Figure 5b. Producer Price Index: Inputs to
Figure 5a.Average Weekly Wage Construction Industries: Net Inputs to Highways and in the United States Streets,Goods(Dec 2014=100), United States 1,500
150
1,400
44/
140
1,300 130
1,200 120
1,100 110
1,000 100
900 90
-i -i —1 —1 -i -i -i —1 ri -i -i
m i ) La r� 00 o O i-I N M 0 O O O O O O O O O O O r-I r-I ri N N N N N a1 lD M N a1 lD M N dl (IDM N O O O ri O O O ri O O O r-I
> > > > > > > > > 4 LA lD I: A 00 ch O O c-1 N M 0 O O 0 O O 0 0 O 0 O ri N N N H N N N N N N N N Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

N N N N N N N N N N N N N
Source: U.S.Bureau of Labor Statistics,Average Weekly Earnings of All Employees,Construction [CEU2000000011], retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St.Louis;U.S.Bureau of Labor Statistics, Producer Price Index by Commodity: Inputs to Industries: Net Inputs to Highways and Streets,Goods [WPUIP2312311], retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.Analysis by Beacon Economics.

CASE STUDY 1's As an example, a $4 million project in San Bernardino that would not have triggered a WQMP requirement under the current permit (due to the project not extending beyond 0.5 miles) may now require a WQMP with BMP costs of over$200,000, not including regular maintenance costs."This represents a 5% increase in construction costs.

However,this figure cannot be applied to all projects. Each project, depending on its dimensions, location, and surrounding infrastructure, has different inherent needs for water treatment. Currently, the permit requirements allow for projects to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis through feasibility studies. With the new TO, projects surpassing 5,000 square feet will all require a WQMP (and in turn, BMPs), regardless of the feasibility or specific conditions surrounding the project. 16 Case studies are based on consultation with stormwater program expert within San Bernardino County. "fists are highly dependent on the type of project.Some projects require infiltration methods while others do not.BMP c4a 400 tPd8K8Kil ngthod required for a particular project. 27

Page 685 of 705 ends

CASE STUDY 2 As another example, a development of 29 single homes spanning a land area of 40 feet by 3,620 feet (where each parcel is 125 feet) would currently require no BMPs in San Bernardino. The same development under the new TO would require 29 BMPs. With a rough approximation of cost for a BMP at$20,000 to $30,000, which varies depending on the type of BMP implemented, this permitting change results in a cost increase of roughly$725,000, or$25,000 per home.

Again,this figure may be greater for other projects of the same size, depending on the location and other factors that may necessitate a different BMP for water treatment. It should be noted that if the land area of 40 feet by 3,620 feet was instead used for a single project, it would require four BMPs, both under the current permit as well as under the newly proposed permit.

Figure 6. Residential Construction in San Bernardino County over Time 160000
140000
120000
100000
80000
60000
40000 III III
20000 ' '
0 Built Built Built Built Built Built Built Built Built Built 1939 or 1940 to 1950 to 1960 to 1970 to 1980 to 1990 to 2000 to 2010 to 2020 or earlier 1949 1959 1969 1979 1989 1999 2009 2019 later •Owner occupied ■Renter occupied
Source: U.S.Census Annual Community Survey(ACS)5-year estimates.Analysis by Beacon Economics.

For simplicity, assuming that single-family homes are all built in similarly sized lots,with similarly sized parcels, and the existing road and environmental conditions surrounding them are similar,we can extrapolate the figures from Case Study 2 to estimate that the overall increase in housing construction costs will be roughly$27.61 million in the county 28 4 BEACON ECONOMICS Page 686 of 705

per year. Over 20 years, this would add up to over$552.2 million in additional single family home construction costs.

Additional residential construction costs are especially problematic given the drop in construction over time, as shown in Figure F above. With limited residential housing supply, house prices continue to rise in the county(see Figure 7).

Figure 7. Home Price Index in San Bernardino County: 1975 to 2023 400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50 0
In 00 r1 N o m l0 01 N L/1 00 ,1 a N 0 m I� N 00 00 00 01 01 01 01 0 0 0 r1 1 1 N N 01 01 Cr) m1 Cr) 01 O1 01 Cr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .--I .--I a--I c-I c-I N N N N N N N N
Source: U.S.Federal Housing Finance Agency,All-Transactions House Price Index for San Bernardino County,CA[ATNHPIUS06065A], retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.Analysis by Beacon Economics.

Moreover, since municipalities typically do projects on a larger scale, such as the installation of ADA ramps, this proposed change may adversely affect their ability to complete projects in a timely or cost-effective manner.

DtrINI I IUN Ut- IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
Further, the new definition of "imperviousness" will trigger WQMPs for individual homes, trails projects, and other small projects.

The definition of Impervious Surface found in the glossary includes virtually any surface that is "cleared, graded, graveled, paved."This essentially requires any surface on a construction site to be considered impervious regardless of its future condition. Newly 29 BEACON ECONOMICS Page 687 of 705

developed parks, landscapes, and gardens that would be effective infiltration areas for years to come would be considered impervious, if during their construction the site is cleared or graded. This new definition thus unfairly increases the size of post-construction BMP treatment, impacting the space and funding available for the development project.

The WQMP requirements could easily crush the economic vitality and available resources for these small projects.

CHANGES TO HYDROMODIFICATION CHANNEL EXEMPTIONS
Stormwater from urban areas can cause stream channel modifications, either through accelerated erosion or channel engineering to prevent erosion. Mitigating for hydromodification can require the setting aside of land for large basins. Under the current permit, developers may be relieved from mitigation requirements, based on hydromodification susceptibility maps that have been submitted by the counties and incorporated into their guidance documents.

The proposed removal of this exemption poses an additional and entirely unnecessary cost to developers, in both the public and private sector, analogous to the additional development costs associated with the proposed removal of the Green Streets guidance.

OTHER CONCERNS AND COSTS

DRY WEATHER FLOWS
The TO establishes discharge prohibitions aimed at eliminating dry weather flows into the Santa Ana River. However, the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (MWD) has already taken steps to eliminate dry weather flows in certain critical sub-watershed areas.

The San Bernardino MWD is leading a large-scale habitat conservation plan, including multiple tributary restoration projects along the Santa Ana River. The conservation plan redistributes water from the Riverside treatment plant to these tributaries.

Currently, these tributaries have flows and are crucial habitats for key aquatic species, some of which are federally threatened. These species include the western pond turtle, Santa Ana sucker, and Arroyo chub (pictured below). 30 4 BEACON ECONOMICS Page 688 of 705

•
nn we!ayv3_
Photo credit:Oregon Dept.of Fish&Wildlife;Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority;Zack Abbey.

A significant concern of the TO is the potential impact of the new prohibitions on the protection of these aquatic species, as the new MS4 requirements could conflict with the San Bernardino MWD's ongoing efforts. Because of the naturally occurring "background" bacterial levels in some stream channels, there could be an excess of numeric limits as set forth in the TO, even with the introduction of clean or recycled water.

Eliminating dry weather flows into some of these tributaries could negatively impact these species.

The current MS4 permit appears to prioritize recreational uses (Rec) over other beneficial uses in the basin plan, such as the protection of rare or spawning habitats. In a dry climate like ours, the treatment plants along the river have minimum discharge requirements to ensure sufficient water for aquatic wildlife. Therefore, if water is diverted from the river, there should be an equivalent amount of clean water returned to the Santa Ana River.

The San Bernardino MWD seeks a clear pathway for entities responsible for MS4 compliance to collaborate with those aiming to enhance native species habitats. As the TO stands,the MS4 Permittees will be hindered from supporting native species' habitat enhancement due to concerns about factors such as background bacteria that might jeopardize compliance.

To address this,the San Bernardino Valley MWD proposes compensatory reclaimed water discharges to maintain base flow in certain critical reaches. Essentially, the MWD proposes that captured water be treated and returned to the Santa Ana River to help maintain the habitats of native species. Additionally, restoring streams impacted by stormwater systems would be beneficial.

PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
Permittees must implement an effective public education and outreach program designed to raise awareness of pollution-prevention of BMPs by distributing educational material and motivating the public to implement BMPs resulting in reduction of pollutants in MS4 1+ 31
4 BEACON ECONOMICS Page 689 of 705

discharges. Beacon Economics has not attempted to estimate the additional costs of public education and outreach programs that would be required to ensure compliance with the numeric limitations as set forth in the TO.18
Part III . Impact on Disadvantaged and
Developing Communities
The financial impact of the TO on Permittee counties is not just a matter of compliance. It is a question of prioritizing resources in regions already struggling with substantial socioeconomic challenges. This reallocation could further strain efforts to uplift disadvantaged communities, creating a cycle of economic hardship that is difficult to break.

The proposed TO for stormwater management in the Santa Ana River Watershed presents challenges across the counties involved, particularly San Bernardino and Riverside.These counties, which already face substantial economic challenges, are expected to bear a disproportionate share of the financial burden compared to wealthier counties like Orange.

This section contextualizes these concerns by providing a comparative analysis of these three counties, focusing on their demographic profiles, disadvantaged communities, and the financial implications for city budgets.
18 In addition to the costs above,this report does not include cost estimations for:constraints to water quality credit tr roig,additional staff training,integrated pest management,new program effectiveness,assessments,re-evaluation o ACL" o Tcblr Tattprograms.
32

Page 690 of 705 ends

Figure 8. Poverty Rates by Age Group across Permittee Counties

25.0%

20.0%

15.0%

10.0%
50%

0.0%
Under 5 yo 5-17 yo 18-34 yo 35-64 yo 65+yo Overall •San Bernardino County •Riverside County Orange County Source: U.S.Census Annual Community Survey(ACS)5-year estimates.Analysis by Beacon Economics.

Globally,there is a well-documented disparity between those who contribute most to environmental degradation and those who suffer the consequences.19 The financial burdens imposed by the TO—ranging from the development and maintenance of WMPs to increased industrial and commercial inspection costs—are likely to disproportionately impact the counties of San Bernardino and Riverside. These counties, which house a significant proportion of disadvantaged communities, are less equipped than Orange County to comply with the TO without facing substantial economic disruption.

DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIOECONOMIC OVERVIEW
The three counties involved in the TO exhibit significant differences in their demographic compositions and socioeconomic conditions ( and cigure ). These differences can, in turn, influence their capacity to manage the financial demands imposed by the TO. • SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY San Bernardino has a total population of 2.18 million. Of the three counties under discussion, it has the highest percentage of 19 Chancel,L.,Bothe,P.,&Voituriez,T.(2023).Climate inequality report2023,Fair taxes fora sustainable future in the g1c141 South(Doctoral dissertation,World Inequality Lab(WIL)).

A BEACON ECONOMICS
7 33

Page 691 of 705 ends

residents living in disadvantaged communities (33%),20 with a large Hispanic population (55%) and significant economic challenges. The county's median household income is approximately$79,091-14% less than the state median— and 13.4% of the population lives below the poverty level. o The county ranks 29th out of 58 counties in the state on the Distressed Community Index, indicating a comfortable level (Economic Innovation Group EIG, 2023).21
• RIVERSIDE COUNTY With a population of 2.43 million, Riverside County also has a significant Hispanic population (51%), and 15% of its residents are classified as living in disadvantaged communities. The median household income is below the state median, at$86,748,with 11%of the population living below the poverty line.
o According to EIG, Riverside County ranks 21st out of 58 counties in California, indicating a comfortable level(Economic Innovation Group EIG, 2023).
• ORANGE COUNTY Orange County is the largest of the three counties, with a population of 3.2 million. Atotal of 15% of its population is classified as living in disadvantaged communities, and 10%of residents live below the poverty line. The county boasts a median household income of$106,209,which is 16% higher than the state median. Its racial composition is more diverse, featuring a lower percentage of Hispanic residents compared to the other counties (34%), and a higher percentage of Asian residents (22%).
o Classified by EIG as prosperous, ranking 10th out of 58 counties in California (Economic Innovation Group EIG, 2023).
20 DAC population percentages are based on data from CalEnviroScreen 4.0,developed by the California Office of Enp4onmental Health Hazard Assessment(OEHHA).For more information,see the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 report:
ht // aliiv' lAv r8RC w /report/calenviroscreen-40. 2 tmaae sri��i fifli populion under DAC,it was considered the proximate location of each Census Tract.For more information,see the Distressed Communities Index by the Economic Innovation Group: https://eig.org/distressed- communities/?regions%5B0%5D=06065&regions%5B1%5D=06025&geo=counties&lat=33.35&lon=-116.06&z=8.01. 34

Page 692 of 705 ends

Table 16. Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics Across Counties, 2022 Percent
Black or Total
below
Population Hispanic African Asian Population
poverty
American in DAC%
level
Orange County 34% 2% 22% 10% 15%
3,175,227.00
San Bernardino
55% 7% 8% 13% 33%
County 2,180,563.00
Riverside County 51% 6% 7% 11% 15%
2,429,487.00
Source: U.S.Census Bureau,American Community Survey 2022.

Figure 9.Annual Median Household Income by County, 2022 a, $120,000.00
o
"O U
c E $100,000.00
G -0
O
co t
C a) $80,000.00
C
< O
2 $60,000.00
$40,000.00
$20,000.00
-
$ Orange County San Bernardino Riverside County County
• Median Household Income $106,209.00 $79,091.00 $86,748.00 —California Median Household Income $91,551.00 $91,551.00 $91,551.00 Median Household Income
Index(California=100) 116% 86% 95%
Source: U.S.Census Bureau,American Community Survey 2022.Analysis by Beacon Economics. 1, 35
A BEACON ECONOMICS Page 693 of 705

DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
To effectively classify disadvantaged communities, the CalEnviroScreen score' incorporates a broad spectrum of environmental, health, and socioeconomic data to generate scores for every census tract in California.This rigorous method identifies areas where residents are most burdened by pollution and social vulnerability.

San Bernardino County stands out for having a significantly higher percentage of its population living in DACs, as compared to Orange County. Figure 10 illustrates this contrast: 33% of San Bernardino's population resides in DACs, compared with 15% in Riverside and Orange Counties.

This demographic reality positions San Bernardino and Riverside counties in a more precarious situation. The counties' budgets,which might otherwise be directed towards fostering economic growth and improving living conditions in these vulnerable areas,will need to be reallocated to meet the TO's stringent requirements.

Figure 10. Population in Disadvantaged Communities by County 800,000 40%
E o
E f°
E 600,000 33% 30% o
U d
r 0
r 400,000 20% o
> v
- on
ca
15% 15% u
c 200,000 10% L a
O
ra
Q
O
a 0 0%
San Bernardino Orange Riverside
•Population in DAC 1%ofTotal Population living in DAC Source: U.S.Census Bureau,American Community Survey 2022;CalEnviroScreen 4.0:California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool.Analysis by Beacon Economics. 22 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 score is developed by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment(OEHHA).

Foore information,see the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 report: https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen- 4A DEACON ECONOMICS
T 36

Page 694 of 705 ends

The demographic and socioeconomic landscape of these counties is diverse and complex.

Within San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange counties, the population distribution differs widely in terms of racial composition, income levels, and residents in distressed communities. These factors play a crucial role in shaping how each city within these counties will experience the impacts of the TO.

To fully understand the extent of these impacts, it is essential to delve into the agency-level analysis, where the nuances of each community's economic and social structure become clear. The following sections will explore how these differences influence the capacity of individual cities to absorb the financial burdens imposed by the TO, highlighting the unique challenges faced by the most vulnerable populations in each region.

San Bernardino County is in the least favorable position among the three counties impacted by the TO for stormwater management.The cities within the county that shoulder the largest share of TO costs—such as San Bernardino, Fontana, and Ontario— not only face significant financial burdens but are also characterized by high levels of poverty and large populations living in DACs (Table 1 . ).

CITIES BEARING THE HIGHEST COSTS
• San Bernardino (11%): As the largest city in the county, San Bernardino bears the highest share of TO costs. This city also faces notable socioeconomic challenges, with 18% of its population living below the poverty line,well above the state average of 12.20%. Additionally, 67%of its population is classified as living in DACs, reflecting the significant economic and infrastructural pressures on the city and its population. San Bernardino and Rialto have a notably larger share of Black or African American residents (12%) compared to other cities in the county. • Fontana (10%): Fontana follows closely, contributing 10%to TO costs. The city has a predominantly Hispanic population (73%) and 60%of its population is considered DAC.This high percentage indicates that a substantial portion of Fontana's population is economically vulnerable, despite its lower poverty rate. • Ontario (9%): This city also contributes significantly to the TO costs. Ontario,with 13%of its population below the poverty line and 71%classified as DAC, faces substantial challenges similar to San Bernardino and Fontana. 37 A BEACON ECONOMICS Page 695 of 705

POVERTY AND DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
• High Poverty Rates: Nine agencies in the county have poverty rates above the state average of 12%. Six of these are within the Santa Ana region. These include San Bernardino (18%), Ontario (13%), Rialto (15%), Montclair(10%), Highland (16%) and Colton (15%).
o These cities are also among those contributing substantial shares to the TO costs, indicating that economic vulnerability is widespread in areas that are also financially burdened by the TO requirements.
• High DAC Populations: Cities with a significant proportion of their population classified as DAC include Rialto (78%), Ontario (71%), San Bernardino (67%), Montclair(67%), Colton (60%) and Fontana (60%).

The high DAC percentages in these cities suggest that a large segment of their populations is economically and socially disadvantaged, making the financial burden of the TO particularly harsh.

The analysis of cities within San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange counties reveals a complex and varied landscape where economic and social vulnerabilities intersect with the financial demands of the TO. Each agency faces unique challenges, from high poverty rates and large DAC populations, to racial and ethnic disparities. These factors underscore the profound impact that the TO will have on city agencies that are already struggling with significant economic hardships.

The requirements of the TO will not only place additional pressure on city fiscal budgets but will also affect household incomes and local industries.As cities work to comply with the TO,the financial burden may result in reduced public services, increased taxes, or other measures that could further strain the local economy. 38 4 BEACON ECONOMICS Page 696 of 705

Table 17. Distribution of Tentative Order Costs and Socioeconomic Demographics across San Bernardino County Agencies
Sham of Black or %Ballow %
Comity 70 African Poverty Population
Costs Papu{afiion Hispanic American Asian Laval in DAC B igBaar Lake LB% 5,059 Mil 30% 0%I 3%Mil 14% China 5.0% 91,1108 i 54%U 6%❑ 13%MEI 12%U 1896 Chine Hilts 52% 78,223 MD 20%0 4%❑ 40%CI 8% Colton 3..6% 53,959 1♦ 73%❑ 9%I 2% 'IN 16%U 1 sow, Fontana 10% 209,279 — 69%❑ 8%0 7%CI 9%❑ 27% Grand Terrace 1.7% 13,104 1• 51%0 4%0 4%El 796 El 28% Hiiland 3.6% 56,789 = 59%❑ 7%0 8% M 16%❑ 40% Loma Linda 2.3% 24,883 MI 28%❑ 6%.❑ 25%WI 13%❑ 20% Montclair 2.5% 37,842 M 71%U 5%U 1o% - i = 67% Ontario 9% 170,32e = 70%I] 5%[I 7%MEI 13% = 71% RanchoCucamnnga 6% 174,696 M] 40%❑ 9%❑ 14%In 7%0 7% Redlands 5,1% 73,234 MEI 39%p 59%U 8% M 16%p 15% Blotto 5 3% 103,873 75%❑ 12%I 16% -78% San Berns rdl no 11% 221,041 II= 67%❑ 12%0 4% I 18% . 67% Upland 4.2% 78,847 I 44%ID 6%U 10%Mil 12%p Yucaipa 4.2% 54,428 Mil 34%I 1%U 4%El 8% San Bernardino County 13.5% 2,180,683 55% 7% 8% 13% Zc3% Riverside County 2,429,487 51% 6 7% 1196 15% Orange County 3,175227 349 23 229 10% 15% Source: U.S.Census Bureau,American Community Survey 2022.Analysis by Beacon Economics. 1, 39
Olt BEACON ECONOMICS Page 697 of 705

Table 18. Distribution of Tentative Order Costs and Socioeconomic Demographics across San Bernardino County Agencies
Median Household
Median Household Income(California■
Income 100)
BigBe.arLake $ 70,020 76%
Chinn '$ i 95,721 i 105%
ChinDHills $ I I 105,978 116%
Colton $1 66,725 73%
Fontana $ 93,581 102%
Grand Terrace $ 89,781 99%
Highland $ 72,2 , 79%
Lorna Linda $ 70,685 I 77%
Montclair $ 72,739 I 80%
Ontario $ 79,129 J 86%
RanchDCucamonga $ 108,345 II- 119%
Redlands $ 92,787 I 101%
Rialto $ a5,,sas I 93%
San Bernardino $ 62,801 69%
Upland $ 97,838 I 107%
Yucaipa $ 85,075 I 93%
San Bernardino Courrty $ 79,091 86%
Riverside County $ 86,74E 95%
Orange Cnunty $ 195,209 116%
Source: U.S.Census Bureau,American Community Survey 2022.Analysis by Beacon Economics.

The next section will explore the financial implications of the TO on each city's general fund budget, analyzing how much each city and agency is expected to pay and what these costs represent as a percentage of their general fund budget. This analysis will provide a clearer understanding of the economic pressures facing these communities and the potential ripple effects on both municipal operations and the local economy. By understanding the full scope of these financial demands,we can better assess the sustainability of these requirements and their long-term impacts on the fiscal health of the affected cities.23 23 For this analysis,the General Fund Budget is primarily considered.The funding sources for individual permittees in San Berdino County include a mix of General Funds,which most agencies heavily rely on,alongside Specialized Funds (s a ngt§ rer,Na tQr Drain Funds),Inspection and Permit Fees,Development Fees,and Special en li rm at r a gement Fees and Business License Renewal Fees).Some agencies also rely on Property Taxes,Rents,Royalties,and other specific fees like Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP)Check Fees.This diversity reflects the varied financial strategies employed by each city or district to support their stormwater management and related environmental programs.
40

Page 698 of 705 ends

Part III . Implicit Costs
As the demographic analysis points out, the cities most impacted by the TO are those already facing socioeconomic challenges. The financial demands of the TO will exacerbate existing fiscal pressures on city budgets and will also ripple through local economies.

Compliance with the TO could force cities to make difficult choices, such as reducing public services, increasing taxes, or diverting funds from critical economic development initiatives. These measures, while necessary for compliance, risk deepening the economic strain on the most vulnerable populations, potentially leading to a cycle of hardship that further undermines long-term growth and stability.

CAPITAL COSTS RELATIVE TO GENERAL FUNDS
The capital costs required to comply with the TO present a challenge for several cities within San Bernardino County, especially when these costs are considered relative to each city's general fund budgets ( ).
• Several agencies would face great financial strain, with capital costs vastly exceeding their general funds. Grand Terrace and Highland are under immense pressure, with their capital costs exceeding 1,100%of each of their general funds— equivalent to nearly eleven years'worth of each city's entire budget. • Other agencies, including Colton, San Bernardino, and Montclair, are similarly burdened, with capital costs ranging above 350% of their general funds. These cities,which are already facing economic hardship, such as DAC populations and high poverty rates, may find it difficult to absorb these costs without compromising their ability to fund essential services and infrastructure projects. • With capital costs alone consuming multiple years'worth of general funds, these cities may have to divert funds from other critical areas, potentially exacerbating existing socioeconomic disparities.
41 4 BEACON ECONOMICS Page 699 of 705

O&M COSTS RELATIVE TO GENERAL FUNDS
The ongoing O&M costs present another layer of financial strain on cities within San Bernardino County. These costs are particularly concerning as they represent a significant portion of each city's general funds, leaving little room for other essential expenditures. • Ongoing O&M costs under the TO represent a significant financial burden, especially for cities like Yucaipa and Highland,where these costs account for 20% of the city's general funds.This percentage indicates that the agencies may struggle to maintain other essential services.
• Grand Terrace faces even more substantial O&M costs, consuming about 28%of its general funds.These considerable expenses could force the city to reallocate funds from other critical areas, further straining an already tight budget and potentially compromising essential services.

OPPORTUNITY COSTS
The financial demands of the TO extend beyond direct costs; they also represent significant opportunity costs for the affected cities. Funds that could have been allocated to critical public works projects, economic development initiatives, or community services will instead be directed towards meeting the TO's requirements.

We estimate the burden of capital costs and O&M for WMP development:
• Public Works: Public works expenditures are crucial for maintaining infrastructure, ensuring public safety, and fostering community growth in many cities. In the City of San Bernardino, where capital costs exceed 350% of the annual budget,the O&M costs for just one year represent 34%of the general fund budget allocated to public works. Similarly, in Colton, the O&M costs for one year are equivalent to 89%of the total annual public works budget.24
o These high opportunity costs suggest that cities may be forced to delay or cancel essential public works projects, compromising infrastructure 24 Source:Colton Financial Report.General Fund Expenditures Budget,FY 2024-25.

At BEACON ECONOMICS 42

Page 700 of 705 ends

maintenance and public safety. Other agencies will likely face similar challenges, requiring a reassessment of budget priorities and potentially diverting funds from critical infrastructure improvements to cover TO-related expenses.
• Economic Development: The diversion of funds to cover TO compliance may also impact cities' ability to invest in economic development. In Montclair,for example, the need for funds to cover yearly O&M costs could be significant, with the required amount being equivalent to over 8% of the city's general funds. This potential strain on the city's budget could limit its ability to attract new businesses, improve local infrastructure, and support job creation initiatives, especially considering that 67% of the population lives in distressed communities and 15% lives in poverty. This could have long-term consequences for the city's economic health and its ability to improve living standards for its residents.

Table 19. Proposed Capital and O&M Expenditures Relative to 2024 San Bernardino City General Fund Expenditures
Share($,M) $792 $14 $173
GF Capital/5
Expenditures 2024-25 O&M- +1-Yr
TO Median Cost Budget($,M) Budget Capital year O&M Police $105.7 M 47.7% 750% 13% 156% Public Works $41.4 M 18.7% 1912% 34% 392% General Government $21.6 M 9.8% 3667% 66% 732% Community Development&
Housing $14.5 M 6.6% 5457% 98% 1089% Capital Improvement Projects $0.0 M 0.0%
Finance&Management Services $7.2 M 3.3% 10924% 196% 2144% Parks Recreation&Community $6.4 M 2.9% 12400% 222% 2588% Legal Services $5.2 M 2.3% 15280% 274% 3117% Library $5.8 M 2.6% 13710% 246% 3118% City Manager $5.3 M 2.4% 15068% 270% 3009% Human Resource&Risk
Management $2.8 M 1.3% 28052% 503% 5569% City Clerk $2.1 M 0.9% 38513% 691% 9151% City Council $1.2 M 0.6% 64249% 1152% 13475% Economic Development $1.8 M 0.8% 43677% 783% 8497% Mayor $0.3 M 0.2% 236757% 4246% 49154% Total $221.3 M 100% 358% 6% 74%
Source:San Bernardino City 2024 Budget.Analysis by Beacon Economics. 1+ 43
011,
BEACON ECONOMICS Page 701 of 705

To illustrate the tradeoffs that need to be considered by agencies,we consider the example of the City of San Bernardino. For every$1 that is spent on compliance with the new MS4 regulations, San Bernardino either must increase taxes by a dollar, give up spending on other public services by a dollar, or choose a combination of higher taxes and less spending on other public projects.

Based on the city's cost share of 10.53%, the new permitting requirements correspond to capital and one-year O&M costs (for WMP development and management) of$173 million per year.25 The table below illustrates the relative size of the city's annual cost obligation for WMP development and management, based on their 2024 general fund expenditures.26 Table 20. Distribution of Tentative Order Costs for San Bernardino County, Sorted by Largest Impact Relative to Agency General Fund Budget
Share of General Fund Budget
Cost 1-Yr 20-Yr General
Share Capital O&M 0&M Fund 1-Yr Capital/5+1- % ($M) ($M) ($M) ($M) Capital O&M Yr O&M Estimated Median Cost(WMP) $7,522 $135 $2,698 Grand Terrace 1.66% $125 $2 $45 $7.86 1588.5% 28.5% 346.2% Highland 3.63% $273 $5 $98 $23.85 1144.9% 20.5% 249.5% Yucaipa 4.19% $315 $6 $113 $28.81 1093.9% 19.6% 238.4% Chino Hills 5.23% $393 $7 $141 $55.27 711.8% 12.8% 155.1% _ Loma Linda 2.31% $174 $3 $62 $26.71 650.4% 11.7% 141.7% Rancho Cucamonga 8.37% $630 $11 $226 $117.83 534.3% 9.6% 116.4% County of San
Bernardino 13.51% $1,016 $18 $364 $193.00 526.5% 9.4% 114.7% Upland 4.15% $312 $6 $112 $61.30 509.2% 9.1% 111.0% Big Bear Lake 1.63% $123 $2 $44 $24.26 505.5% 9.1% 110.2% Fontana 9.51% $715 $13 $257 $149.08 479.8% 8.6% 104.6% Montclair 2.45% $184 $3 $66 $39.36 468.2% 8.4% 102.0% Colton 3.45% $259 $5 $93 $65.94 393.5% 7.1% 85.8% San Bernardino 10.53% $792 $14 $284 $224.81 352.3% 6.3% 76.8% Chino 4.95% $372 $7 $134 $112.30 331.5% 5.9% 72.3% Redlands 5.10% $384 $7 $138 $115.73 331.5% 5.9% 72.2% Rialto 5.34% $402 $7 $144 $129.29 310.7% 5.6% 67.7% Ontario 9.00% $677 $12 $243 $428.87 157.8% 2.8% 34.4% SB County Flood 5.00% $376 $7 $135 - - - Average 6% $418 $7 $150 $106.13 594% 11% 129% Median 5% $374 $7 $134 $65.94 505% 9% 110% 'Note:General Funds:Total General Fund Budgets for the last year available(2023 or 2024).For Grand Terrace,last year available is 2021;Ratio:Capital: Estimated Capital Cost/General Fund Budget;Ratio:1-Yr O&M:One year estimated O&M costs/General Fund Budget.Source:San Bernardino FY 2024-2025 budget and cost-sharing allocation;City Financial Reports.Analysis by Beacon Economics.
25 Assuming capital costs for WMP development are spread out over 5 years. 26 y of San Bernardino's general fund is used here to illustrate the relative size of TO-induced spending.

A BEACON ECONOMICS
7 44

Page 702 of 705 ends

The significant budget required to comply with the TO highlights the need for San Bernardino County to explore alternative funding sources beyond the general fund. While Measure W27 in Los Angeles County serves as an effective model of dedicated funding for water quality and infrastructure projects,these counties must consider pursuing similar initiatives or securing additional state and federal grants tailored to their specific needs to bridge the substantial funding gap.

However, it is relevant that any new funding mechanisms are designed to avoid imposing an undue burden on already economically vulnerable communities. As discussed throughout this analysis, many cities within these counties are already facing challenges.

Implementing regressive funding strategies could exacerbate these challenges, particularly in areas with high DAC populations and existing socioeconomic disparities. 27 Measure W collects funds through a propertytax of 2.5 cents per square foot of impermeable surface area,such as dryvays and rooftops,on properties in Los Angeles County.This tax is specifically designed to address stormwater r r trr6 rg V4 41rojects that enhance water quality,increase water supply,and support i en su ai a y cr ss e county.

For more detailed information,you can visit Measure W:The Safe,Clean Water Program. 45

Page 703 of 705 ends

Conclusion
_______
The proposed TO carries significant costs—both explicit and implicit—on the 17 agencies in San Bernardino County(excluding the Flood Control District). These costs stem from three key factors: (1) a proposed overhaul of the existing BMP approach to stormwater management in favor of an approach based on numeric limitations, (2) an increase in industrial and commercial inspections, and (3) changes in development and significant redevelopment requirements that will now more easily, and often unreasonably,trigger a WQMP.

Beacon Economics estimates the annual costs for the county will be over half a billion dollars,which equates to nearly$10.8 billion over the next 20 years. Spending of this size will be cost-prohibitive for agencies, which is directly against the expectations outlined in the California State Auditor's Report on State and Regional Water Boards:28 "We would expect that in developing pollutant control plans, regional boards would adequately consider the costs local jurisdictions would incur to comply with the pollutant control plans and would determine the overall cost of storm water management to those jurisdictions so as to make sure that such costs are not prohibitive."
Based on Beacon Economics' analysis, these increased costs will disproportionately impact San Bernardino County's disadvantaged communities, forcing them to choose between important public programs—police, fire service, public works, economic development—and complying with the new requirements.

As Los Angeles has had to do through Measure W, San Bernardino County will likely need to implement a new tax based on the square footage of property, which being a somewhat regressive tax will continue to pose disproportionately high financial burdens on the most disadvantaged communities.
28 https://information.auditor.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2017-118.pdf AP
Olt DEACON ECONOMICS 46

Page 704 of 705 ends

About Beacon Economics
Founded in 2006, Beacon Economics, an LLC and certified Small Business Enterprise with the state of California, is an independent research and consulting firm dedicated to delivering accurate, insightful, and objectively based economic analysis. Employing unique proprietary models, vast databases, and sophisticated data processing, the company's specialized practice areas include sustainable growth and development, real estate market analysis, economic forecasting, industry analysis, economic policy analysis, and economic impact studies. Beacon Economics equips its clients with the data and analysis they need to understand the significance of on-the-ground realities and to make informed business and policy decisions.

Learn more at beaconecon.com
Project Team
Christopher Thornberg PhD. Founding Partner (Project Advisor) Niree Kodaverdian PhD. Research Manager
Miriam Valdes PhD. Research Manager
For further information about this report or to learn more about Beacon Economics please contact:

Sherif Hanna, Managing Partner [email protected]
Victoria Bond, Director of Marketing and Communications. [email protected] Beacon Economics LLC shall remain the exclusive owner of any Proprietary Information and all patent,copyright,trade secret,trademark,domain name and other intellectual property contained herein. 1, 47
BEACON ECONOMICS Page 705 of 705

Upland City CouncilJanuary 27, 2025

Upland City Council
January 27, 2025