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 overtime. 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.
07/ — 026 City Council Agenda 14
04 BEACON ECONOMICS 703
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 2006-
2007
2007-
2008
2010-
2011
2011-
2012
2012-
2013
2013-
2014
2014-
2015
2022-
2023
Inspections
1561
1162
1527
1364
1280
1344
1085.0
554.0
Deficiencies
933
661
845
674
578
623
474.0
96.0 % Deficient
1 59.8%
1 56.9%
1 55.3%
1 49.4%
1 45.2%
1 46.4%
i 43.7%
1 17.3%
Source: San Bernardino County Stormwater Program Annual Reports retrieved from httr s://sbcountystormwater.Qrg/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
191118141
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. 07/026 City Council Agenda 15
BEACON ECONOMICS 704
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
2007-
2008
2010-
2011
2011-
2012
2012-
2013
2013-
2014
2014-
2015
2022-
2023
None Required
0.0 0.0
0.5 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5
VerbalwEduc/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. 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.' 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. 8 Industrial facilities in the Flood Control District have also historically been classified primarily as High Priority, forthe anpual reports where data is available.
WAQ
BEACON ECONOMICS
16 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 705
BBL
CHI
CHH
COL
FON
GIRT
HIG
LOL
MON
ONT
RAC
RED
RIA
SBD
UPL
YUC
SBC
FCD
• 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 forthese 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 three gh FX 2014-2015 San Bernardino Countv 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
H
M
L
H
M
L
H
M
L
H
M
L
H
M
L
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 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
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 1.0
0.0 0.0
1.0 0.0
0.0 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
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 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
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 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
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 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
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 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
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 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
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 1.0
0.0 0.0
1.6 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 1.6,
0.0 0.0
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 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/catenviroscreen/sb535 . Parts of Chino are co?Wdered disadvantaged.
BEACON ECONOMICS
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda
17 706
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.
07/ 7026 City Council Agenda 18
A BEACON ECONOMICS 707
Table 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
# Permits
709
635
667
592
589
555
531
611
c
a�
Share of Total
24.0%
21.4%
19.9%
18.0%
17.2%
15.7%
14.8%
18.7%
�o
a�
# Permits
2244
2332
2684
2704
2842
2979
3046
2690
C9
c
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. 07/026 City Council Agenda %�89
A BEACON ECONOMICS U
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.
onlmercial Facilities in San Bernar°'" agencies, Fiscal Year 2022-202 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 13 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 07/026 City Council Agenda 7�9
BEACON ECONOMICS 7
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 Bernardin€ Agencies, FY 2005-2006 through FY 2022-2023
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
n
ti6� til��
Q) F,�Q) F,�Q)
■ 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 Lo,v&Priority.
'' r �r�cts; p t retrieved from: httos://oehha.ca.gov/catenviroscreen/sb535. Parts of Chino, i flea o a n a,, �f�{ r o, and Upland are classified as disadvantaged. 21 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 710
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 v itlhin Agency, FY 2006-2007 FY 201 5 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
FY 2014-2015
FH7
M
L
H
M
L
H
M
L
H
M
L
H
M
L
H
M
L
H
M
L
BBL
1 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
1 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 GIRT
f 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
1 0.7
LOL
0.0 0.5
1 0.5
1 0.0
0.5 1 0.5
1 0.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.5
0.5 0.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.5
1 0.5
0.0 1 0.5
1 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
0.5100--
0A
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
0.23 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
0.21 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 7
0.5 0.2
0.3 0.5
0.2 0.2
0.5 0.2
0.2 SBD3
0.7 0.1
1 0.2
1 0.2
0.5 1 0.3
1 0.2
0.5 0.3
0.1 0.4
1 0.4
0.1 0.4
0.4 0.1
0.4 0.4
0.1 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
Countv Stormwater Program Annual Reports. Analvsis by
Beacon Economics.
Note: H = High Priority, M = Medium Priority, L= Low Priority facilities 07/ 77 026 City Council Agenda 22
A BEACON ECONOMICS 711
Table 14. Estimate of Additional Commercial Inspection Costs in San Bernardino County
High (Avg)
Med (Avg)
Low (Avg)
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,1113 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."1' 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_ 29f.Lp.pdf
14 /gae tent ?E8d . 8.K?, /s�ntaana/water_issues/programs/stormwater/docs/2024/tentative_ms4_permit_2- 2 l V1V t OIVUIVI C
23 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 712
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
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0 0 1-1 N M Ln l0 I, W O -4 N M V1 l0 I, W 0 .--1 N M ul t0 1, W 0 rH N M T T Ol T T T T T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r� r- ri rl 1 i rl 1 rl N N N N . �i N M 2 ri NM d' r1 N M 2 r� N M d ri NM �' -1 N M d I N M V 0 0 d c7 0 0 0 CI o c7 o C! 0 0 U c7 0 0 C cl o o c7 CI o c o o
25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
-5.00%
-10.00%
� Food & Drink Establishments t - 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 75 This is also reasonable, given that the newly added costs will likely hinder growth.
BEACON ECONOMICS 24
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 713
requiring annual inspections for food and drink establishments is approximately $10.6 million.
Table 15. Estimate of € dditiong! (ommP,rcial Inspection Costs in San Bernardino Co,_s my
Inspection Freq.
Annual Cost
Total Cost (20-Yr)
Added Costs
1x per permit term
$ 40,748.17
$ 814,963.34
1x 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 frequencyfor 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 duringthe 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. 07/ 7Z026 City Council Agenda 7125
opt BEACON ECONOMICS
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 generallytrue across the nation (see figures below), and the new requirements would place an additional cost on development and redevelopment projects. The new 07/ 026 City Council Agenda 712
BEACON ECONOMICS
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
1,400
1,300
1,200
1,100
1,000
900
150
140
130
120
110
100
90 m d-
Ln
�.D
r
oo
M
0 N
m
o
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
fV
M
lD
M
N
M
lD
M
rV
M
lD
M N
O
O
O ti
O O
O
O
O
0 O
O
0 0
O
a'
ul
lD
r
n
X
M
O
O
N
M M
Z Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
y
o
0 0
0 o
O
o
N
O
N
o
N
0 N
0 N N
0 0
N
N
N
N
fV
-1
N
N
fV
N
fV
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 [WPUIP23123111, retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. Analysis by Beacon Economics.
CASE STUDY 11' 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 surroundingthe project. 16 Case studies are based on consultation with stormwater program expert within San Bernardino County. 17 Pwts are highly dependent on the type of project. Some projects require infiltration methods while others do not. BMP c4agr�Xtb,&tjzeC3K3Ur I fthod required for a particular project. 27 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 716
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
20000
0 Built Built Built Built Built Built Built Built Built Built 1939 or 1940 to 1960 to 1960 to 1970 to 1980 to 1990 to 2000 to 2010 to 2020 or earlier 1949 1969 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 07/7026 City Council Agenda 71 28
A BEACON ECONOMICS
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 overtime, as shown in Figure 6 above. With limited residential housing supply, house prices continue to rise in the county (see ;_igure 7).
Figure 7. Home Price Index in San Bernardino County: 1975 to 2023 400
350
300
250
200
150
100
5o
0 Ln oo v r- o m �0 M ru Ln oo v r, o rn
n n o0 00 W m M M m O O O ti fi c-7 N N
M M M m M M M M M O O O O O O O O
11 1_i r-1 1_i - N r1l N rV rV " fV fV
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.
DEFINITION OF 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 07/ _ 026 City Council Agenda r�� 2
isiv BEACON ECONOMICS / U
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 forthe development project.
The WQMP requirements could easily crush the economic vitality and available resources for these small projects.
CHANGES TO HYDROMODIFICATION CHANNEL EXEMPTIONS
Stormwaterfrom urban areas can cause stream channel modifications, either through accelerated erosion or channel engineeringto 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 bythe 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 dryweather 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). 07/ 7{ O26 City Council Agenda 3n0
BEACON ECONOMICS 719
' T f �njr 15 tP! -.�..nevy �-�� .zv.'�.s.w.aot•
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 waterfor 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 aimingto 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 motivatingthe public to implement BMPs resulting in reduction of pollutants in MS4 07/27 026 City Council Agenda r��ol
A BEACON ECONOMICS
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."
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.
'B In addition to the costs above, this report does not include cost estimations for: constraints to water quality credit trae0loig, additional staff training, integrated pest management, new program effectiveness, assessments, re-evaluation I*WAtmWgt!�)KOMI&Bprograms.
32 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 721
Figure 8. Poverty Rates by Age Group across Permittee Counties
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
�i
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 likelyto 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 ). 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 report 2023, Fair taxes fora sustainable future in the gl9kal South (Doctoral dissertation, World Inequality Lab (WIL)). oov BEACON ECONOMICS
33 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 722
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 belowthe poverty level. o The county ranks 291h out of 58 counties in the state on the Distressed Community Index, indicating a comfortable level (Economic Innovation Group EIG, 2023).2'
• 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 101h 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 Enripnmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). For more information, see the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 report:
ht // l re /cal vir cr n-4 .
2#Mqthyj%Upnoio, 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://eiEr.ora/distressed- communities/?regions%5B0%5D=06065®ions%5B1 %5D=06025&geo=counties&tat=33.35&ton=-116.06&z=8.01. 34 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 723
Table 16. Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics Across Counties, 2022 Percent
Black or Total
below
Population Hispanic African Asian poverty Population
American in DAC
level
Orange County 3,175,227.00 34% 2% 22% 10% 15%
San Bernardino
County 2,180,563.00 55% 7% 8% 13% 33%
Riverside County 2,420,4-87.00 51 % 6% 7% 1 1 % 15%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2022.
Figure 9. Annual Median Household Income by County, 2022 $120,000.00
c �
o
u
$100,000.00
- o
ca L
N $80,000.00
C 7
Q =
$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. 07/ _ 026 City Council Agenda r�� 3
5 BEACON' ECONOMICS / `F
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
To effectively classify disadvantaged communities, the CalEnviroScreen score22 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 socialvulnerability.
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. rigure 'i u. eupulation in Disacivantaged Communities by t;uuniy 800,000 40%
v
.a
E
c
o
E
�
E 600,000
30%
0-
0 U
0 0-
0 F-
400,000
20%
o
�
v
c
v
c
u
200,000
10%
0 .y
nL0
m
n.
0 0
0%
San Bernardino Orange
Riverside
■ Population in DAC ®% of Total 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 bythe California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 4Fo�ore information, see the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 report: https7//oehha.ca.gov/catenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen- ovit BEACON ECONOMICS
36 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 725
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 ).
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. 07/ 7026 City Council Agenda 726�
BEACON ECONOMICS
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. 07/�026 City Council Agenda 38
A BEACON ECONOMICS 727
Table 17. Distribution of Tentative Order Costs and Socioeconomic Demographics across San Bernardino County Agencies
nignearLaue
Chino
Chino Hills
Cottan
Fontana
Grand Terrace,
Highland
Loma Linda
Montrtair
Ontado
Rancho Gucarrtanga
Redlands
Rialto
San Bernardino
Upland
Yucaiaa
"shirt �f
,aunt/TO
:,osts aapuiztion
1.6%
5,0S9
5.0%
91,008
5.2%
78,223
3.5%
53,959
209,279
1.7%
13,104
3.6%
-%, 789
2.3%
24,583
2.5%
37,842
9-
176XS
a.:_
174,&%
5.1%
73,234
5.3%
103,873
112_
221,041
4.2%
78,947
4.2%
54.428
Slack )r
Afrca1
Hispanic Ameri:an Asiar,
3D%
D%
- - 54%
6%
29%
4%
73% ,
9%
69% 1
a%
51% .;
4%
sc)% .
7%
28%
6%
71% .1
5%
70%
5%
4G%
3.6% J
b%
75% J—LI
12%
67%
12%
44%
6%
34%
1%
Be love
Pove.rtll Population
Levcl inDAC
3%
18%
40%
2%
Tao
446
Sao
25%
ILG%
7ti
14%
2%
4% .IF
10%
4%
14%
12% 19%
s%
115% 60%
9% 1-1 27%
7% V 26%
16% 40%
1396 20%
15% �.._ 67%
13% 71%
/% 1%
IFS% 7 lb%
15% 78%
19% 67%
12% f SG%
9%
San Bernardino County 13.5% 2,190,563 55% 7% 8% 13% 33% Rivef side Couwy 2,429,487 51% 6% Tao 11% 15%
Orang'c County 3,175, 2-7 34% 21% 2 J%'J% 10% 15%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2022. Analysis by Beacon Economics. 07/ 026 City Council Agenda 339
A BFACON ECONOMICS 728
Table 18. Distribution of Tentative Order Costs and Socioeconomic Demographics across San Bernardino County Agencies
Median Household
Median Household
Ircome (Ca rfornia -
Inc:ome
100)
Big Bear Lake
$
70,020
75%
Chino
$
95,721
105%
Chino Hills
$
105,978
115%
Cotton
$
66,725
73%
Fontana
$
93,581
102%
GranciTerrace
$
89,791
96%
Highland
$
72,222
79%
Lonw Uixda
$
70,&85
7%%
Montclair
$
72,789
80%
Ontario
79,7M
96%
Rancho Cucamonga
$
108,345
118%
Redlands
$
92,797
101%
Riatto
s
85,585
93%
San Bernardino
$
662,801
69%
Upland
$
97,838
107%
Yucaipa
$
95,075
93%
San Bernardino County $ 79,091 86%
Riverside County $ 86,748 95%
Orange County $ 106,209 115%
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 Forthis analysis, the General Fund Budget is primarily considered. The funding sources for individual permittees in San Be�wrdino County include a mix of General Funds, which most agencies heavily rely on, alongside Specialized Funds 4=401
wer, annd�Storm Drain Funds), Inspection and Permit Fees, Devjlopmentt Fees, and Special ht a r a ement Fees and Business License Renewal Fees). Some agencies also rel 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 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 729
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 complywith 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 ( ,bhe (,)
• 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 alreadyfacing economic hardship, such as DAC populations and high poverty rates, may find it difficult to absorb these costs without compromising their abilityto 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.
07/2�Z026 City Council Agenda 41
ov BEACON ECONOMICS 730
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 forthe 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 0&M costs forjust 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.za
o These high opportunity costs suggest that cities maybe forced to delay or cancel essential public works projects, compromising infrastructure 24 Source: Colton Financial Report. General Fund Expenditures Budget, FY 2024-25.
BEACON ECONOMICS 42
07/27/ 026 City Council Agenda 731
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 yea rly O&M costs could be significant, with the required amount being equivalent to over 8% of the city's generaIf unds. This potential strain on the city's budget could limit its ability to attract new businesses, improve local infrastructure, and support job creation initiatives, especiallycon side ring that 67% of the population lives in distressed communities and 15% lives in poverty. This could have long-term consequences forthe city's economic health and its abilityto improve living standards for its residents.
Table 19. Proposed Capital and 0&M Expenditures Relative to 2024 San Bernardino City General Fund Expenditures
......................................................................................................................................................-..........................................................._......................................._........................................................................................................................._....................................._ Share ($, M)
$ 792
$14
$173
GF
Capital/5
Expenditures
2024 - 25
O&M-1
+ 1-Yr
TO Median Cost
.................................... .......................... ..................... .................................. ............. ................._...................
Budget ($, M)
........................................
Budget
_........................................ ............................
Capital
year
0&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. 07/ 77 026 City Council Agenda 43
A BEACON ECONOMICS 732
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 $173 million per year.25 The table below illustrates the relative size of the city's annual cost obligation for WMP development and management, based on their 2024 general fund expenditures.zs Table 20. Distribution of Tentative Order Costs for San Bernardino County, Sorted by Largest Impact Relative to Agency General Fund Budget
Cost
Share
%
Capital
($M)
1-Yr
O&M
($M)
20-Yr
0&M
($M)
General
Fund
($M)
Share of General Fund Budget
Capital
1-Yr
0&M
Capital/5+i-
Yr 0&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
1 5.00%
1 $376
1 $7
$135
-
-
Average
6%
$418
$7
$150
$106.13
594%
11%
129%
Median
5%
$374
$7
$134
1 $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.
2e Assuming capital costs for WMP development are spread out over 5 years. zs �s of San Bernardino's generalfund is used here to illustrate the relative size of TO -induced spending.
ON BEACON ECONOMICS
44 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 733
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 W21 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 newfunding mechanisms are designed to avoid imposing an undue burden on already economically vulnera We communities. As discussed throughoutthis analysis, many cities within these counties are alreadyfacing challenges.
Implementing regressive funding strategies could exacerbate these challenges, particularly in areas with high DAC populations and existing socioeconomic disparities. "Measure W collects funds through a property tax of 2.5 cents per square foot of impermeable surface area, such as driiy4Lways and rooftops, on properties in Los Angeles County. This tax is specifically designed to address stormwater rut),ir�e�a�lce�ilrojects that enhance water quality, increase water supply, and support e i e' s ai a i c s t e county.
For more detailed information, you can visit Measure W: The Safe. Clean Water Program. 45 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 734
Conclusion
The proposed TO carries significant costs —both explicit and implicit —on the 17 agencies in San Bernardino County (excludingthe 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 Board s:21 "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 complyingwith the new requirements.
As Los Angeles has had to do through Measure W, San Bernardino Countywill 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 httns://information.auditor,ca.aov/ d� fs/reports/2017-118.}Ldf 60111111111
40* BEACON ECONOMICS 46
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 735
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 consultingfirm 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. victoria(abeaconecon.com 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. 07/ 7�026 City Council Agenda 47
ot BEACON ECONOMICS 736
Proposed MS4 Permit
1 m pacts
to?
I" Harms Disadvantaged Communities
. II� 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
`J" JI The lack of affordable housing drives California's high poverty rate, the highest in the nation.
Construction costs for asingle-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.
Obstructs New Roads, Infrastructure
p • 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. 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda
737
CITY OF
Item No. 27
STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 27, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Dr. Sean M. Moore, City Manager f `/
PREPARED BY: Megan Wolfe, Director of Community Services A0 SUBJECT: Minor Modifications to the Ordinance on Temporary Special Events RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council:
1. Approve the introduction and First Reading of Ordinance No. 486, an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Yucaipa, California, Amending Chapter 5.16 of the Yucaipa Municipal Code related to Temporary Special Events; and
2. Direct the City Clerk to place the second reading and adoption of the Ordinance on the next regular meeting's consent calendar for adoption; or
3. Provide further direction to staff.
BACKGROUNDIDISCUSSION:
At the regular Council Meeting of August 25, 2025, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 460, establishing a comprehensive process for the review and permitting of temporary special events. Since implementation of Ordinance No. 460, staff has continued administering the Special Event Permit (SEP) program and has identified opportunities to improve the review process while ensuring compatibility with existing land use regulations.
The proposed amendments are intended to improve coordination between Community Services, Development Services, Code Enforcement, and Public Safety while ensuring that special events are compatible with existing zoning regulations and do not occur on property with unresolved code enforcement issues.
The proposed amendments include the following:
0 City Council Review Threshold
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 738
o The ordinance currently requires City Council review for events with an estimated attendance exceeding 1,000 people. City Council requested a reduction in this threshold to 350 attendees.
• Zoning Compliance
o The proposed amendment clarifies that all activities conducted as part of a Special Event Permit must comply with the underlying zoning district. While the Special Event Permit authorizes temporary activities, it is not intended to supersede land use regulations established by the Municipal Code. This clarification ensures consistency between the Special Event Ordinance and the City's zoning regulations. • Outstanding Code Enforcement Violations
o The proposed amendment prohibits the issuance of a Special Event Permit on properties with unresolved zoning ordinance violations or active code enforcement cases.
These amendments strengthen the City's Special Event Permit process and provide clearer expectations for applicants.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The recommendations do not result in a fiscal impact.
Attachment(s):
1. Ordinance No. 486
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 739
ATTACHMENT l
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 740
ORDINANCE NO. 486
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUCAIPA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 5.16 OF THE YUCAIPA MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATED TO TEMPORARY SPECIAL EVENTS
WHEREAS, the City Council finds it necessary to regulate special events to manage potential community impacts, monitor commerce, and promote tourism in the City; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 394 was adopted by the City Council on April 27, 2020 to repeal and replace Chapter 5.16 of the Yucaipa Municipal Code regarding temporary special event permits; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 460 was adopted by the City Council on August 25, 2025 to amend Chapter 5.16 of the Yucaipa Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the City finds it necessary and appropriate to adopt amendments to the Municipal Code to address the need for a more detailed process to regulate special events that may impact City rights -of -way, public property, facilities, safety, and/or services; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this Ordinance is to provide a more detailed process for the regulation of special events to ensure the public health, safety and welfare of event patrons, residents, and other visitors, and to provide for fees, charges, cost recovery, and procedures required to administer the permit process.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUCAIPA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Municipal Code Amendment
Ordinance No. 460 is hereby repealed in its entirety and replaced with the language of Ordinance No. 486, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Section 2. Severability
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 741
Section 3. Effective Date
The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published and posted pursuant to the provisions of law in that regard.
This Ordinance shall take effect on the later of 30 days after its final passage or September 13, 2026.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this
ATTEST:
Ana V. Sauseda, MMC
Director of General Services/City Clerk
day of , 2026.
Chris Venable, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Steven Graham Pacifico, City Attorney
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda
742
Exhibit A
Chapter 5.16 — TEMPORARY SPECIAL EVENTS
Sections:
5.12.010
Purpose.
5.12.020
Definitions.
5.12.030
Social event permit - requirements.
5.12.040
Exemptions to special event permit requirement.
5.12.050
Issuance of a special event permit.
5.12.060
Application - Form.
5.12.070
Application - Review.
5.12.080
Issuance of special event permit.
5.12.090
Cost recovery for special events.
5.12.100
Authorized special event vendors.
5.12.110 Unlawful to conduct or promote attendance at special event without permit.
5.12.120 Other permits and licenses.
5.12.130 Cost recovery for unlawful special event.
5.16.010 — Purpose
It is the purpose of the city to establish a process for permitting special events that impact city right-of-way, public property, other facilities, safety, and/or services. It is vital to the public health, safety, and welfare of the city to monitor, track, and assist with these events to mitigate traffic conflicts, monitor commerce, and promote tourism in the city. It is recognized that these special events enhance the Yucaipa lifestyle and provide benefits to the citizens through the creation of venues for programs, services and entertainment that are not normally provided as a part of governmental services. Notwithstanding any provision of the Yucaipa Municipal Code, this code authorizes special events which would otherwise be prohibited by city ordinance.
By recognizing special event venues, it is further intended to supplement land use and street right- of-way regulations, to provide a coordinated process for the regulation of certain activities to be conducted in conjunction with special events and to ensure the health and safety of patrons, residents, and other visitors of special events. It is further intended to create a cost recovery without having an adverse effect on those events that contribute to the community.
5.16.020 - Definitions
"Carnival" means the exhibiting or conducting of a traveling show or of entertainment open to the public, including any caravan, museum, menagerie, animal collection, circus, sideshow, burlesque show, rodeo, carnival, animal exhibition, feats of horsemanship, acrobatic performance, "wild west" show, or any other show or entertainment similar in character. "Community celebration" means those public affairs sponsored by chambers of commerce or community service groups for the promotion of community spirit by public parades, carnivals and other outdoor activities.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 743
"Outdoor festival" means any music festival, dance festival, rock festival, or similar musical activity or gathering where live or prerecorded entertainment is presented to the public at facilities without specific site approval for such activity.
"Site approval" means a land use whose activities have been approved as to location, design and scope subject to conditions established under authority of the city code. "Special event" means any temporary, organized activity sponsored by an event organizer and will result in people congregating at the event location for a particular and limited purpose and time, and meets any one or more of the following criteria:
A. City Property, City Parks and City Rights -of -Way. The activity will be conducted in whole or in part on a city -owned or controlled property, city park or facility or city rights -of -way, and the director of community services, or designee, determines that the activity requires a special event permit because:
1. The activity is likely to obstruct, delay or interfere with the free and normal use of public rights -of -way or other public property of the city within the vicinity of the event; or
2. The activity is likely to result in the need for the city to provide extraordinary services in response to or arising out of the special event. Criteria to be considered include, by way of example and not limitation, available parking capacity, likely pedestrian and vehicular routes, availability of public transportation, the number of days and hours of operation, the number of people anticipated to attend, the capacity and safety of the permanent and temporary structures, the proximity and availability of health and sanitation services, the proximity and availability of emergency services, the activity(ies) to be engaged in, the historical impacts of the proposed or comparable special events, if known, upon use of public rights -of -way and public property and public services including police and fire, and other considerations deemed appropriate.
B. Private Property. The activity will be conducted as a whole or in part on private property and the director of development services, or designee, determines that the activity requires a special event permit because:
1. The activity is likely to obstruct, delay or interfere with the free and normal use of public rights -of -way or other public property of the city within the vicinity of the event. It is presumed that any event on private property which involves an open invitation to the public to attend or events where the attendance is by private invitation of one hundred (100) or more people are each presumed to be an event that will have a direct significant impact on the public streets or rights -of -way; or
2. The activity is likely to result in the need for the city to provide extraordinary services in response to or arising out of the special event.
C. Sales Not Already Permitted. The activity will involve the sale of merchandise, food or beverages where not already permitted by city code, whether by for profit or nonprofit organizations.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 744
D. Public Disturbance Noise. The activity will include use of sound amplification, public address, loudspeaker, audio, video, or television systems or other devices likely to result in public disturbance noise in violation of YMC Section 811.0305 as now or hereafter amended. "Special event permit" means a permit issued under this chapter. "Special event venue" means that area for which a special event permit has been issued. "Tax-exempt nonprofit organization" means an organization that is exempted from payment of income taxes by federal or state law and has been in existence for a minimum of six months preceding the date of application for a special event permit. "Vendor" means any person who sells or offers to sell any goods, food, or beverages within a special event venue.
5.16.030 - Special event permit - Requirements.
A special event permit is required when the following criteria has been met:
A. Estimated attendance of three hundred (300) or greater; or B. Amplified sound; or
C. Street closures; or
D. Alcohol is provided or sold on public property or public right-of-way, or if served on private property but within a special event venue that encompasses public right-of-way (e.g., closed street, alley or sidewalk) excluding the Community Center, Scherer Community Center and the Yucaipa Performing Arts Center.
5.16.040 - Exemptions to special event permit requirement.
It is unlawful for any person to hold or conduct any special event in the city, or to use private property, any street, right-of-way, or other public place in the city for any purpose unless such person has obtained and has in full force and effect a permit to do so issued by the city.
The following special events shall be exempt from the requirement to obtain a permit under this chapter; provided, that the special event shall be conducted in accordance with all laws and regulations governing public safety or health:
A. Funeral Processions. Funeral processions by a licensed mortuary or funeral home; B. Wedding Processions. Wedding processions conducted on public rights -of -way wherein applicable traffic regulations, laws or controls are complied with; C. School, Church and Goveriunental Events. Any special events held or conducted by or on behalf of a public or private school, college or school district, the state of California or other governmental entity or any church that is legally operated in the city, so long as the activity or event is conducted on property owned, used, or leased by the entity or its sponsor and is for the benefit of the entity that owns, uses, or leased the property on which the activity takes place; 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 745
D. Expressive Activities on Sidewalks. Rallies, marches, demonstrations and picketing which take place on public sidewalks crossing streets only at pedestrian crosswalks in accordance with traffic regulations and controls and laws applicable to use of public sidewalks; E. Special Event Facilities. Events conducted at a facility designed for the special event purpose or upon facilities where such events are normally held, such as churches, events/convention centers, schools, athletic fields, auditoriums, stadiums, and theaters; F. Regularly Scheduled Athletic Events. Regularly scheduled outdoor athletic events conducted on property where such events are normally held;
G. Outdoor Demonstrations on Public Property. Demonstrations on publicly owned property (other than public rights -of -way), unless:
1. The activity is likely to obstruct, delay or interfere with the free and normal use of such public property or the public rights -of -way, or
2. The activity is likely to result in the need for the city to provide extraordinary services in response to or arising out of the special event.
5.16.050 - Issuance of a special event permit.
Issuance of a special event permit pursuant to this chapter does not obligate or require the city of Yucaipa to provide city services, equipment, funding or personnel in support of a special event.
5.16.060 - Application —Form.
Any person desiring to apply for a special event permit shall do so by filing a written application with the community services department not fewer than ninety (90) days prior to the proposed event and no earlier than three hundred sixty-five (365) days prior to the event. The application shall be made on forms provided by the city and shall be accompanied by the following:
A. A nonrefundable application fee listed in the community services user fee schedule established by resolution of the city council. The application fee must be submitted when the applicant or sponsor files the application. Other costs for city services shall be invoiced to the applicant no later than ten (10) calendar days after the expiration date of the permit. The applicant shall pay said costs within thirty (30) calendar days of invoice or late fees shall apply.
B. The applicant may request a waiver of the application fee. Such request shall require a community activity grant application, found on Yucaipa.gov or at the city clerk's office. Requests for fee waiver through the community activity grant process will be reviewed by the city council at a regular scheduled city council meeting.
C. Certificate of liability insurance. Insurance shall be provided in the coverages and amounts as determined by the City Manager or their designee.
D. Applicants who intend to have food vendors must provide a copy of the County of San Bernardino Department of Enviromnental Health temporary food facility permit.
E. Applicants who intend to provide or sell alcohol on public property or public right-of-way, or if served on private property but within a special event location that encompasses public right-of- 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 746
way (e.g., closed street, alley or sidewalk), the event organizer shall comply with the following conditions:
1. Obtain and comply with the applicable liquor license or permit issued by the State of California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, and provide such license or permit to the city;
2. Service must end by 10:00 p.m., but may be extended by the City Council to no later than 12:00 a.m. upon a finding that the extension (i) will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare and (ii) is compatible with surrounding land uses, considering the event location and the proximity of residential uses;
3. Liquor liability must be included on insurance coverage;
4. Trained volunteers or paid security personnel must be posted at every entrance/exit point to ensure that no person tinder the age of twenty-one (21) will be allowed into the alcohol service area; and
5. No outside alcohol may be brought into an alcohol service area, and no alcohol may be removed.
5.16.070 - Application — Review
A. Departmental Review.
Upon receipt of a completed special event permit application, the City shall refer the application to the Chief of Police, Director of Development Services, Director of Community Services, Assistant City Manager, and the Fire Chief for review. Each department shall evaluate the application for compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and public safety standards, and shall forward its comments and conditions to the Community Services Department within ten (10) working days.
B. Standard Conditions of Approval.
The following standard conditions of approval shall apply to special events, unless explicitly waived in writing by the City Manager or their designee based on documented findings:
Parking and Traffic Control
a. A parking and traffic control plan shall be submitted for all events expecting 300 or more attendees, or for any event requiring road closures.
b. The plan shall include vehicle ingress/egress routes, pedestrian flow, loading/unloading zones, ADA-accessible parking, signage placement, and shuttle operations if applicable.
The applicant shall provide all necessary traffic control devices, including barricades, cones, signage, and uniformed personnel at designated control points. 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 747
2. Restroom Facilities
a. Portable restrooms shall be provided for all outdoor events without sufficient access to permanent facilities.
b. At minimum, one restroom per 100 anticipated attendees shall be provided, with at least 5% being ADA-compliant.
3. Amplified Sound and Noise Control
a. Amplified sound shall be limited to the hours of 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Amplified Sound may be extended by the City Council to no later than 12:00 a.m. upon a finding that the extension (i) will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare and (ii) is compatible with surrounding land uses, considering the event location and the proximity of residential uses;
b. Noise levels shall be consistent with the provisions of Section 87.0905 of this Code. c. Sound equipment must be oriented to minimize impact on adjacent residential areas.
4. Emergency Medical Services (EMS)
a. Events with more than 2,500 attendees, or involving high -risk activities, shall provide certified EMS personnel on -site.
b. A clearly marked and publicly accessible first aid station shall be maintained throughout the event.
5. Police and Security Services
a. Police personnel shall be provided at the discretion of the Chief of Police. b. Security personnel shall be provided at a minimum ratio of 1 per 300 attendees. c. Events involving alcohol, street closures, or that occur after 8:00 p.m. shall require licensed security staff.
d. A security plan must be submitted for approval prior to permit issuance. e. The Police Chief may at any time require additional security if the nature of the event, time of day, alcohol service, etc., pose elevated risks.
6. Alcohol Service
a. A valid Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) license or permit must be submitted before the event.
b. Service must end by 10:00 p.m., but maybe extended by the City Council to no later than 12:00 a.m. upon a finding that the extension (i) will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare and (ii) is compatible with surrounding land uses, considering the event location and the proximity of residential uses;
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 748
c. Alcohol service areas shall be enclosed and monitored to ensure compliance with age restrictions and prevent unauthorized alcohol transport.
7. Waste Management and Site Clean -Up
a. Trash and recycling receptacles shall be provided at a minimum of one per 100 attendees. b. The event area shall be kept clean throughout and returned to pre -event conditions within 12 hours after the event.
c. Noncompliance may result in full cleanup cost recovery and the requirement of a refundable deposit for future events.
8. Fire Safety and Emergency Access
a. Tents, canopies, and stages exceeding 400 square feet shall be permitted and inspected by the Fire Department.
b. A 20-foot-wide fire lane shall be maintained at all times. c. Electrical installations must comply with applicable codes and be installed by a licensed professional.
d. Access to fire hydrants and emergency exits shall remain unobstructed.
9. Accessibility
a. Events open to the public shall comply with all ADA accessibility standards, including parking, restrooms, paths of travel, and seating.
10. Signage and Notification
a. All temporary signage must comply with the municipal code and be removed within 24 hours following the event.
b. For events involving more than 300 attendees or street closures, the applicant shall notify surrounding property owners and tenants in writing at least seven (7) calendar days prior to the event.
11. Hours of Operation
a. Events shall begin no earlier than 7:00 a.m. and end no later than 12:00 a.in. b. Load -in and load -out activities must not occur before 6:00 a.m. or after 12:00 a.m.
12. Zoning Compliance
a) All proposed special events shall be consistent with the underlying zoning district and all applicable provisions of the Yucaipa Municipal Code.
b) Approval of a Special Event Permit shall not authorize activities otherwise prohibited within the applicable zoning district.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 749
13. Property Compliance
a) No Special Event Permit shall be issued for any property that is the subject of an active, or unresolved zoning ordinance violation, code enforcement case, or other municipal code violation related to land use or property maintenance.
b) All outstanding violations shall be corrected and verified by the City prior to issuance of the Special Event Permit.
C. City Council Review Required.
The City Council shall review and approve or deny all special event permits for events that meet one or more of the following criteria:
1. An estimated attendance exceeding three hundred and fifty (350) persons;
2. A request for full or partial street closures;
A request for City co-sponsorship, financial support, or use of City resources beyond those recovered through cost recovery mechanisms. Such request shall require a community activity grant application, found on Yucaipa.gov or at the city clerk's office.
5.16.080 — Issuance of Special Event Permit
A. The city manager, or designee, shall endeavor to take final action upon a completed application for a special event permit within thirty (30) working days of receipt of the completed application.
B. The city manager, or designee, is not required to take final action upon any special event permit application prior to three hundred sixty-five (365) calendar days before the special event.
C. The city manager, or designee, is not required to take final action on an incomplete or untimely special event permit application.
D. Final action on a completed special event permit application shall consist of one of the following:
1. Issuance of a special event permit in accordance with the terms of the application; or
2. Issuance of a special event permit by the city manager, or designee, with such conditions as deemed necessary for the application to meet all of the criteria set forth above; or
3. Denial of the special event permit application by the city manager, or designee.
5.16.090 — Cost Recovery for Special Events
A. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, or when a fee waiver has been approved through the community activity grant process, for any special event, the city may impose a fee for expected departmental service charges. Factors that the city will consider in evaluating whether to impose a fee are:
1. The extent of use of public property or right-of-way;
2. The extent of use of city services, facilities or affected entities; 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 750
3. The extent of use of city personnel, including police and fire;
4. Whether the city is sponsoring or co -sponsoring the event.
B. The city shall require payment of the expected departmental service charges imposed pursuant to subsection A of this section, at the time the completed application is approved and prior to the issuance of the special event permit, unless the city determines there is good cause and extends time for payment.
C. If the event organizer fails to clean the special event venue or route of the special event both during and upon completion of the special event and to return the area or route to the same condition of material preservation and cleanliness as existed prior to the special event, the event organizer will be billed for actual city costs for cleanup and repair of the area or route occasioned by the special event. If the event organizer failed to comply with such requirements under a previously issued special event permit, the city may require the event organizer to deposit adequate surety in the form of cash.
D. The applicant will be billed for any city departmental charges in excess of the estimate in subsection B of this section, including any billing and collection costs incurred.
5.16.100 — Authorized Special Event Vendors.
A. The issuance of a special event permit confers upon the permit holder or event organizer the right to control the sale of goods, food, and beverages within the special event venue in accordance with the terms and conditions of the special event permit. The permit holder may grant no greater rights or privileges to vendors than the rights or privileges granted to the permit holder pursuant to the special event permit.
B. Vendors authorized to sell food must obtain and display a San Bernardino County health permit.
5.16.110 — Unlawful to conduct or promote attendance at special event without permit.
It is unlawful for any person to conduct, manage, or promote a special event without a special event permit as required pursuant to this chapter.
5.16.120 — Other Permits and Licenses.
The issuance of a special event permit does not relieve any person from the obligation to obtain any other permit or license required pursuant to the City of Yucaipa Municipal Code or any other applicable law.
5.16.130 — Cost Recovery for Unlawful Special Event.
Whenever a special event is conducted without a special event permit, when one is required, or a special event is conducted in violation of the terms of an issued special event permit, the event organizer shall be responsible for, and the city shall charge the event organizer for, all city costs incurred, caused or necessitated by the adverse impacts of the special event or the violation of the special event permit upon public safety.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 751
CITY OF
Item No. 28
STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 27, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Dr. Sean M. Moore, City
PREPARED BY: Ana V. Sauseda, Director of Ge(ieral Services/City Clerk 4X/ SUBJECT: Resolution No. 2026-30, Forwarding Amounts Remaining Unpaid on the Certified Solid Waste Lien List to the County of San Bernardino for Addition to the 2026-2027 Property Tax Rolls as a Special Assessment RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council:
Conduct a Public Hearing and subsequently adopt Resolution No. 2026-30 forwarding amounts remaining unpaid on the Certified Solid Waste Lien List to the County of San Bernardino for addition to the 2026-2027 Property Tax Rolls as a Special Assessment; or
2. Provide further direction to staff.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
On June 8, 2026, City Council adopted Resolution No. 2026-12, declaring its intention to hold a public hearing on July 27, 2026, to adopt a report of delinquent solid waste charges and directing the City Clerk to file said report with the County of San Bernardino for inclusion of such charges on the property tax rolls as a special assessment. The Resolution also allows affected property owners to appear and show cause as to why their delinquency should not appear on the list to be certified. Public hearing notices were published in the Yucaipa News -Mirror on Friday, June 12`h and June 19, 2026.
In addition, on July 9, 2026, individual notices were mailed to each property owner whose account was delinquent and potentially in an assessment position, providing the property owner notice of the public hearing to be held on July 27, 2026, pursuant to Yucaipa Municipal Code Section 8.28.160(B). 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 752
The 2025/2026 delinquent account lien list (attached) contains 129 accounts, 35 of which are Single- Family/Multi-Family Residential. The number of annual delinquencies has declined each year due to the incorporation of tax roll billing as detailed below:
Fiscal Year Number of Accounts placed on Lien list
2025/2026 35 (TBD)
2024/2025 29
2023/2024
27 2022/2023
38 2021 /2022
24 2020/2021
49 2019/2020
602
2018/2019
911
Any property owner appearing on the list who makes appropriate payment arrangements with Yucaipa Disposal prior to July 27, 2026, will have their account removed from the list prior to forwarding the list to the County for inclusion on the 2026-2027 tax roll. It is anticipated that the list will be further reduced before the final list is submitted to the tax collector.
The City, the County, and Yucaipa Disposal will all add administrative charges for this process, in addition to the actual delinquency amount owed to Yucaipa Disposal. Since Yucaipa Disposal is covering all direct expenses involved in the lien process, the $6 per delinquent account charged by the City will be sufficient to cover the administrative costs incurred by the Finance Department to process the information generated by the collection of the delinquent accounts FISCAL IMPACT:
The recommendations do not result in a fiscal impact.
Attachment
1. Resolution No. 2026-30
2. Notice of Public Hearing
3. Preliminary List
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 753
ATTACHMENT 1
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 754
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-30
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUCAIPA,
CALIFORNIA, FORWARDING AMOUNTS REMAINING UNPAID ON
THE CERTIFIED SOLID WASTE LIEN LIST TO THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO FOR ADDITION TO THE 2026-2027 PROPERTY TAX
ROLLS AS A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 94-18 provides for collection of solid waste delinquent accounts through liens on real property, and further by annually forwarding amounts remaining unpaid to the County of San Bernardino for addition to the property tax rolls as a special assessment; and
WHEREAS, on June 8, 2026, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2026-12, Declaring its intention to hold a public hearing to adopt a report of delinquent solid waste charges; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has held a public hearing on July 27, 2026, on the certified solid waste lien list wherein the City Council authorized staff to file real property liens and to forward the amounts to the County of San Bernardino for addition to the property tax rolls as a special assessment.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUCAIPA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council authorizes all amounts remaining unpaid on the certified solid waste lien list, plus appropriate administrative fees, to be forwarded to the County of San Bernardino for addition to the 2026-2027 property tax rolls as a special assessment.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 27th day of July, 2026.
Chris Venable, Mayor
ATTEST:
Ana V. Sauseda, MMC
Director of General Services/City Clerk
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 755
ATTACHMENT 2
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 756
City of Yucaipa
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Yucaipa will hold a public hearing on the date and time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the subject listed below.
DATE/TIME July 27, 2026, 6:00 p.m.
LOCATION: Yucaipa City Council Chambers, 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, CA
SUBJECT: TO FORWARD AMOUNTS REMAINING UNPAID ON THE
CERTIFIED SOLID WASTE LIEN LIST TO THE COUNTY OF
SAN BERNARDINO FOR ADDITION TO THE 2026-2027
PROPERTY TAX ROLLS AS A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT.
Ana V. Sauseda, MMC
Director of General Services/City Clerk
Publication: June 12, 2026, and June 19, 2026; Yucaipa News -Mirror 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 757
ATTACHMENT 3
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 758
Yucaipa FY 2026-2027 Preliminary Delinquent Account List kZ FT-1
ATHERLY, SEVERLY REVOC LIV TR 02/24/
Yucaipa CA
$
391.02
BECKHAM SURVIVORS TRUST
Yucaipa CA
$
86.06 ZIMMERMAN fAMILY TRUST
Yuca+pa CA
$
560,89
DAB ESTATES LLC
Yucaipa CA
$
147.12
MAXWELL, SARA G
Yucaipa CA
$
845.74
AMEN DOLA FAMILY TRUST 1/22116
Yucaipa CA
$
216,30
CERDA FAMILYTRUST 7/8/2013
Yucaipa CA
$
2,112,94
SABBAH TRUST 6/9/10
Yucaipa CA
$
$
32.65 143.66
JOHNSON, ASHLEY N Yucaipa CA
MORAN, ALAN ROBERTO
RAGO, VINCENZA FAMILY TRUST - EST O
Yucaipa CA
Yucaipa CA
$
222.32
$
99.30 KHM FAMILY TRUST (%/11/24
DAVIDSON TRUST 5/4/1 B
KEBA 5TH ST LLC
MAYORQUIN, FEIRNANDO
Yucaipa CA
Yucaipa CA
Yucaipa CA
Yucaipa CA
$
68,48
$
225.19
$
$
428.40
39,06
RHONE, TERENCE
Yucaipa CA
$
927.06
STRONG, GUDRUN G TRUST 7131/06
Yucaipa CA
S
622.73
LA INCOME PROPERTIES LLC
Yucaipa CA
$
200.83
LALLIER, CHRIS
Yucaipa CA
$
65.12 ICAY FAMILY TRUST (EXEMPT TR) 7
Yucaipa CA
$
1,628.16
SIERSMA, BARBARA F TRUST (5.18-01 )
EDWARDS, BRETT
Yucaipa CA
Yucaipa CA
$
172.12
$
153.95
CERDA FAMILY TRUST 7/9/2013
Yucaipa CA
$
1,774,77
SYNERGETIC PROPERTIES LLC
Yucaipa CA
S
263.94
JENSEN, ROBIN D
Yucaipa CA
$
980.78
MUELLER, EMMY H
Yucaipa CA
$
172.12
MARTIN, DANIEL G
Yucaipa CA
$
172.12
FERRY, DAVID R.
Yucaipa CA
$
117.71
f LORES, AURELIA
Yucaipa CA j
$
12.12 29 Parcels $12,885.70
107/27/2026 City Council Agenda 759
CITY OF
l
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
PREPARED BY:
Item No. 29
STAFF REPORT
July 27, 2026
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Dr. Sean M. Moore, City Manager
�/
Fermin Preciado, Director of Development Services / City Engineery ..
Ana V. Sauseda, Director of General Services/City Clerk,A%/�' Hrant Manuelian, Director of Finance /
Ordering Confirmation of Annual Assessments for the City of Yucaipa Landscaping and Lighting and Maintenance District No. 1 RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council:
Conduct a Public Hearing and subsequently adopt Resolution 2026-16, Ordering Confirmation of Assessment for City of Yucaipa Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District No. 1; and
2. Approve the application of 3.1% rate adjustments to LLMD Zones A and F through R and 5% rate adjustments to LLMD Zones B and S through FFF; and
3. Approve the credit of funds as an offset against the 2026-2027 assessments for Zones A95, 1395, F97, H98, J98, K98, L98, M98, P99, T01, W01, X01, Y, GG, HH, II, NN, 00, PP, RR, WW, YY, ZZ, BBB, and CCC in the total amount of $246,385; or
4. Provide further direction to staff.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
To guarantee funds for the ongoing maintenance and servicing of specified improvements within the public right-of-way and dedicated easements in new developments in the City of Yucaipa, the City Council formed the City of Yucaipa Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 (LLMD). The improvements that may be maintained by the District utilizing the direct benefit assessments include:
➢ Landscaping within public rights -of -way, parkways and designated easements; ➢ Public lighting facilities to provide street lighting in public rights -of -way and easements; 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 760
➢ Drainage Facilities;
➢ Other infrastructure in public rights -of -way and designated easements that provide special benefits for homeowners within the District.
Since the formation of the LLMD, all tracts and parcel maps that create drainage facilities, streetlights, landscaped maintenance areas, and/or other infrastructure have been required to annex to the LLMD as separate zones.
There are currently 58 zones located within the LLMD. Of the 58 zones, 53 are active or currently under development, and five are inactive. Of the five, three have not completed the annexation process and two have an executed dormancy clause (Zone S00 and QQ). For more specific information regarding the LLMD and its active zones, please refer to the Annual Engineer's Report for Fiscal Year 2026-2027 (Attachment 2). On June 22, 2026, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2026-15, providing notice of intention to set a time and place for a Public Hearing to be conducted on July 27, 2026, at 6:00 p.m., regarding the levy of the annual assessments for the LLMD. A public notice was published in the Yucaipa News -Mirror on Friday, July 3, 2026 (Attachment 3).
LLMD assessments are renewed annually. During the renewal process, City Council reviews the proposed costs for each zone, and the reserves available for the ensuing fiscal year, and will consider those accumulated reserves in setting the actual annual assessment. The maximum assessment amount has been determined for each zone based upon the adoption of the original Engineer's Report for each zone. The maximum annual assessment may be reduced by the amount applied from surplus reserves by way of a credit, as determined by the City Council, subject to the LLMD Administrative Funding Policy.
Calculation of Annual Increases
For zones annexed prior to the passage of Proposition No. 218, no Consumer Price Index (CPI) change factor may be applied. This includes Zones C96, D96 and E96. For zones to be assessed for the first time, no CPI factor will be applied to the amounts included in the original Engineer's Report.
For Zone B95 and Zones S00 through FFF, the original Engineer's Report allowed the annual assessments to be increased by the amount of the change in the CPI or 5%, whichever is greater.
Remaining consistent with the LLMD Funding Policy, which states the annual assessment shall always be calculated at the maximum amount allowed pursuant to the original Engineer's Report for each zone, and with the exclusion of zones being assessed for the first time, the amount of 5% has been applied to these zones.
For other zones, the maximum assessment amount may be increased annually by the change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario CBSA. The 12 month change in the CPI as of March 2026 was 3.1% (Attachment 4). 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 761
All active zones are scheduled for assessment during Fiscal Year 2026-2027 (FY26/27).
Attachment 5 is a table indicating the types of services rendered and the maximum amount that may be assessed for each zone.
Several zones have developed a fund balance due to: 1) the original developer electing to continue maintaining the landscaping maintenance areas for "marketing purposes," or 2) the developer electing not to complete the installation of landscaping, lighting, drainage and/or other infrastructure facilities after the zone had been annexed by the District, or 3) the collection of initial assessments preceded the full allocation of costs.
Because of the surplus fund position in some of the zones, a LLMD Administrative Funding Policy was established in July of 2008 to outline procedures by which surplus funds, if any, are to be calculated and credited to property owners. Due to the limitations imposed as a result of Proposition 218 pursuant to the LLMD Administrative Funding Policy, surplus funds will be credited against the annual assessment in lieu of a refund.
There are many considerations to make when determining the appropriate amount of credit to be applied to the annual assessments. These considerations include, but may not be limited to: 1) an evaluation of the ongoing fiscal sustainability of a particular zone, 2) the appropriate level of funds as a reservation for capital replacement, 3) the desire to maintain rate stabilization and minimize significant rate fluctuations upon the elimination of surplus funds, and 4) the restrictions applied to financing districts pursuant to Proposition 218. The LLMD Administrative Funding Policy outlines the criteria to be applied when evaluating surplus accounts. Accordingly, credits have been calculated based upon the following criteria:
1. Estimated annual beginning fund balance shall be greater than two times the annual maximum assessment, with a minimum reserve threshold of $1,000.
2. The amount of surplus funds credited in any given year shall not exceed 25% of the annual maximum assessment, in order to promote rate stabilization.
3. Surplus funds will be credited to the property owners only if the estimated annual revenues are expected to exceed the annual estimated expenses in the ensuing fiscal year, regardless of the balance of reserves accumulated.
General Discussion
The attached zone chart (Attachment 5) identifies the maximum assessment amount by zone and the recommended credit amounts, as appropriate.
For all of the zones, costs are being reviewed to ensure that revenues remain sufficient to cover expenses and to ensure sustainability. Staff reviews utility charges to ensure that charges are being appropriately allocated to the proper zones. This review will continue, as necessary, in an ongoing effort to ensure charges remain appropriate.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 762
In addition to the items mentioned above, staff continues to work on solutions to reduce costs, where appropriate, by:
1. Evaluating the water management system to manage water usage with greater efficiency and better monitoring of the irrigation system to isolate leaks immediately.
2. Connecting to non -potable water where available in order to conserve water and reduce costs.
3. Converting to more water efficient irrigation systems.
4. Recommending the replacement of certain plant material to address drought conditions, as appropriate.
The City Council can modify the assessment prior to certifying it to the County of San Bernardino for addition to the FY26/27 property tax roll as a special assessment. The estimated costs for maintenance of landscaping and drainage facilities, as well as street light energy charges for FY26/27, per zone, are shown in Section 2 in the Annual Engineer's Report, attached. Also attached is the actual assessment roll by zone, with credits for the return of surplus funds applied, as appropriate (Attachment 5).
FISCAL IMPACT:
The application of assessments provides a financial mechanism to maintain landscaping and lighting for properties located within the LLMD. All of the assessments collected are deposited into a Special Revenue Fund designated specifically for recovering the costs of eligible expenses incurred for each zone. The total amount to be collected for FY26/27, net of credits, is estimated to be $1,049,555. County processing fees of $0.30 will also be applied per parcel, bringing the aggregate total amount assessed to $1,050,076.
There are no further fiscal impacts as a result of this item.
Attachment(s):
1. Resolution No. 2026-16
2. Annual Engineer's Report
3. Notice of Public Hearing
4. March 2026 Consumer Price Index
5. Zone Chart
The Assessment Roll is available in digital format from the offices of the City Clerk and City Engineer upon request
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 763
ATTACHMENT 1
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 764
RESOLUTION NO.2026-16
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUCAIPA,
CALIFORNIA, ORDERING CONFIRMATION OF ANNUAL
ASSESSMENTS FOR CITY OF YUCAIPA LANDSCAPING AND
LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1, PURSUANT TO
PROVISIONS OF THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972
(STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE, SECTION 22500 ET SEQ.) TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026-2027
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUCAIPA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The public interest and convenience requires and it is the intention of the City Council of the City of Yucaipa, California, to order the following work to be done:
Maintenance, servicing and reimbursement for energy charges for Landscaping and Lighting associated with Zones A95, B95, C96, D96, E96, F97, G98, H98,198, J98, K98, L98, M98, N98, 098, P99, Q99, R99, TO 1, U01, VO1, WO I, XO1, Y, Z, AA, BB, CC, DD, EE, FF, GG, HH, II, JJ, KK, LL, MM, NN, 00, PP, RR, SS, TT, VV, WW, YY, ZZ, BBB, CCC, DDD, EEE, and FFF of Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District No. 1.
Any and all work and materials appurtenant thereto or which are necessary or convenient for the maintenance and servicing thereof.
Section 2. That foregoing work is to be located within the areas described in the Engineer's Reports for Zones A95, B95, C96, D96, E96, F97, G98, H98, I98, J98, K98, L98, M98, N98, 098, P99, Q99, R99, TO1, U01, VO1, WOl, XO1, Y, Z, AA, BB, CC, DD, EE, FF, GG, HH, II, JJ, KK, LL, MM, NN, 00, PP, RR, SS, TT, VV, WW, YY, ZZ, BBB, CCC, DDD, EEE, and FFF.
Section 3. That Engineer's Reports prepared at the time of annexation of the zones into Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 have been reviewed, adjusted and recommended for approval by the City Engineer. A copy of the Engineer's Report has been placed on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Yucaipa. Reference to said report is hereby made for all particulars for the amount and extent of the assessments and for the extent of the work.
Section 4. The assessment shall be collected at the time and in the same manner as County taxes are collected. The Engineer shall file a report annually with the City Council of the City of Yucaipa which will annually conduct a hearing upon said report at a regularly scheduled City Council meeting, at which time assessments for the next fiscal year will be determined. Any unspent funds remaining at the end of any fiscal year remain in the fund, encumbered by zone, to be spent in future years. 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 765
Section 5. The public hearing for Fiscal Year 2026-2027 assessments was held on the 27`h day of July 2026, at the hour of 6:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers at 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, in the City of Yucaipa, and any persons having any objections to the work or extent of the assessment district had an opportunity to appear and show cause why said work should not be done or carried out and said assessment levied.
Section 6. All work herein proposed shall be done and carried out pursuant to an act of the legislature of the State of California designated the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, being Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California.
Section 7. The published notice was made at least 10 days prior to the date of hearing.
Section 8. That the annual assessment roll for the Yucaipa Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District for fiscal year 2026-2027 shall be set at an aggregate amount of $1,050,076, including a $0.30 per parcel County processing fee.
Section 9. The San Bernardino Auditor- Controller/Treasurer/ Tax Collector is directed to place the Direct Charge levies on the FY26/27 tax roll, including a $0.30 per parcel County processing fee with no maximum charge limit per parcel.
Section 10. This legislative body hereby certifies that the levy of the special tax was authorized in accordance with the provision of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Streets and Highways Code Sections 22500 — 22679) specifically Streets and Highways Code §§ 22631 and 22646. The City Council hereby directs the San Bernardino County Auditor Controller/Tax Collector Auditor- Controller/Treasurer/Tax Collector to enter the confirmed Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District assessments on the secured property -tax roll for Fiscal Year 2026-27, to collect those assessments together with any penalties and interest in the same manner and with the same lien priority as ad valorem property taxes, and to remit the net proceeds to the City.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 27th day of July, 2026.
Chris Venable, Mayor
ATTEST:
Ana V. Sauseda, MMC
Director of General Services/City Clerk
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 766
ATTACHMENT 2
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 767
CI T Y OF
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1
ANNUAL ENGINEER'S REPORT
FISCAL YEAR 2026-2027
June 2026
Prepared by:
City of Yucaipa, 34272 Yucaipa Blvd., Yucaipa, CA 92399 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 768
&r# 4 IPM04
Agency Directory
�W� Eea avz
Deputy Mayor
�64 ZUadjery
Council Member
Dz, seaa n. X me
City Manager
,4" saws
Director of General Services/
City Clerk
Director of Finance
66za llwad&
Mayor
Council Member
%09 %410
Council Member
7eaM6t PneeCada
Director of Development Services/
City Engineer
S&O" 9m" Pa4&6
City Attorney
Pe&t 'tea `ir y" 7004C
Director of Community Development Director of Community Services 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda
769
AGENCY: CITY OF YUCAIPA
PROJECT: LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 TO: CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF YUCAIPA
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
REPORT PURSUANT TO "LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972" Pursuant to direction from the City Council, submitted herewith is the "Report" consisting of the following parts, pursuant to the provisions of Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, being the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972," commencing with Section 22500, pursuant to Proposition 218, and in accordance with the Resolution of Intention, being Resolution No. 2026-15, adopted by the Council of the City of Yucaipa. This "Report" is applicable for the ensuing 12-month period, being the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2026 to June 30, 2027.
SECTION 1 PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS of the improvements to be maintained and/or improved for the fiscal year. The plans and specifications show and describe the existing improvements, and are sufficient on showing and describing the general nature, location and extent of the improvements.
SECTION 2 AN ESTIMATE OF THE COSTS of the improvements to be maintained and/or improved for the mentioned fiscal year.
SECTION 3 AN ASSESSMENT ROLL showing the proportionate amount of the assessment to be charged in proportion to the benefits to be received by each lot or parcel within the exterior boundaries as shown on the below - referenced Diagram.
SECTION 4 A DIAGRAM OF MAINTENANCE DISTRICT. Said Diagram shows the exterior boundaries of the District and the boundaries of zones within the District. Reference is made to the County Assessor's Maps for a detailed description of the lines and dimensions of any lot or parcel.
All lots and parcels of land known as public property, if found not to benefit pursuant to Proposition 218, and as defined under Section 22663 of said "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972", have been omitted and are exempt from any assessment under these proceedings. 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 770
The undersigned respectfully submits the enclosed report as directed by the City Council.
Executed this 27`h day of July, 2026.
FERMIN PRECIADO
DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/
CITY ENGINEER
CITY OF YUCAIPA
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A draft copy of the Assessment Roll and Engineer's "Report" were filed in the Office of the City Clerk on the 271h day of July, 2026.
ANA SAUSEDA, MMC
DIRECTOR OF GENERAL SERVCES/
CITY CLERK
CITY OF YUCAIPA
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Final approval, confirmation and levy of the annual assessment and all matters in the Engineer's "Report" were made on the 271h day of July, 2026 by adoption of Resolution No. 2026-16 by the City Council.
HRANT MANUELIAN
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
CITY OF YUCAIPA
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 771
INTRODUCTION
To guarantee a flow of funds for the ongoing maintenance and servicing of specified improvements within the public right-of-way and dedicated easements in the City of Yucaipa, the City Council formed the now existing City of Yucaipa Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 in 1995. Improvements which may be maintained by the District utilizing the direct and special benefit assessments include:
■ Landscaping within public rights -of -way, parkways and designated easements; Public lighting facilities to provide street lighting and traffic signals in public right-of-way and easements;
■ Maintenance of certain drainage and storm water treatment facilities.
Since the formation of Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District No. 1, all tracts and parcel maps which create new street intersections have been required to annex to this district as separate zones.
The method of assessment approved at the time of formation of the District may be amended from time to time if deemed appropriate.
The construction, maintenance and operation of facilities within the District's Boundaries will be consistent with the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, and will be administered pursuant to the City of Yucaipa ordinances and regulations.
Payment for the assessment for each parcel will be made in the same manner and at the same time as payments are made for property taxes for each property.
The proceedings will be conducted under Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2, Division 15, Sections 22500 through 22679, of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California.
Annually thereafter, the City Council will review the current and projected year's cost for the servicing, maintenance, repair, and replacement of the District facilities and set the assessment for the ensuing fiscal year, which runs between July 1 and June 30, annually. In setting the annual assessment, City Council, in accordance with Proposition 218 requirements and Engineer's Reports for previously annexed zones into the City's LLMD, may increase the annual assessment by the annual change in the CPI for the Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario Area. The change in the CPI as of March 2026 is 3.1%. As a result, a 3.1% factor will be applied to Zone A95 and Zones F97 through R99. Zones C96 through E96 do not have escalator clauses and, therefore, are not subject to an annual adjustment. Zone B95 and Zones S00 through FFF are subject to an increase equal to the amount of the change in CPI (3.1%) or 5%, whichever is greater. As a result, a 5% adjustment has been applied to Zones B95 and S00 through FFF. Funds from these assessments must be placed in a special fund and cannot be used for any other purposes. 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 772
SECTION 1
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1
CITY OF YUCAIPA
Generally, the work to be performed consists of the annual maintenance of improvements which have been or will be constructed by developers as a condition of the subdivision of land within the City of Yucaipa, and those which may subsequently be constructed, will be operated, serviced and maintained as generally described as follows:
The improvements are the construction, operations, maintenance and servicing of landscaping, lighting and appurtenant facilities including but not limited to personnel, electrical energy, utilities such as water, materials, contracting services, and other items necessary for the satisfactory operation of these services and are described as follows:
Landscaping
Planting, irrigation systems, entry monuments, open space, fuel modification zones, hardscapes, and appurtenant facilities including but not limited to parkways and designated easements, within the boundary of said Maintenance District.
Lighting
Poles, fixtures, bulbs, conduits, equipment including guys, anchors, posts and pedestals, metering devices and appurtenant facilities as required to provide street lighting in public right-of-way and easements within the boundary of said Maintenance District.
Reference is made to the Plans and Specifications for the maintenance of said improvements, which are on file in the City of Yucaipa Public Works Department.
Drainage
Drainage structures, catch basins, retention/detention basins, drain inlets, drain outlets, drywells, drain filters, storm water filtering devices for the Water Quality Management Plan and drain pipes. 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 773
SECTION 2
ESTIMATE OF COST
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1
CITY OF YUCAIPA
The 1972 Act provides that the total cost of maintenance and servicing of the public landscaping, park facilities and street lighting can be recovered by the District. Incidental expenses including administration of the District, engineering fees, legal fees and all other costs associated with the formation and maintenance of the District can also be included.
Improvements, and the maintenance of all improvements, which are to be included in the District and have not yet been completed and are being constructed by the developer of the property, will be the responsibility of the developer until accepted by the City of Yucaipa. Furthermore, all improvements will be covered by a one (1) year warranty by the developer as part of the subdivision agreement.
Estimates of yearly maintenance costs for FY 2026-2027 are shown on Table 1.
The 1972 Act requires that a special fund be set up for the revenues and expenditures of the District. Funds raised by assessment shall be used only for the purpose as stated herein. A contribution to the District by the City may be made to reduce assessments, as the City Council deems appropriate. Any balance remaining on July 1 must be carried over to the next fiscal year.
In setting the annual assessment, City Council, in accordance with Proposition 218 requirements and Engineer's Reports for previously annexed zones into the City's LLMD, may increase the annual assessment by the change in the annual CPI for the Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario Area.
The change in the CPI as of March 2026 is 3.1 %. As a result, a 3.1 % factor will be applied to Zone A95 and Zones F97 through R99. Zones C96 through E96 do not have escalator clauses and, therefore, are not subject to an annual adjustment. Zone B95 and Zones S00 through FFF are subject to an increase equal to the amount of the change in CPI (3.1%) or 5%, whichever is greater.
As a result, a 5% adjustment has been applied to Zones B95 and S00 through FFF. Funds from these assessments must be placed in a special fund and cannot be used for any other purposes. 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 774
SECTION 3
ASSESSMENT ROLL
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1
CITY OF YUCAIPA
The proposed assessment and the amount of assessment for Fiscal Year 2026-2027 apportioned to each lot or parcel, as shown on the latest roll at the Assessor's office, are contained on the Assessment Roll prepared by the City of Yucaipa and on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Yucaipa.
The description of each lot or parcel is part of the records of the Assessor of the County of San Bernardino and these records are, by reference, made part of this Report.
A. General
Part 2 Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code, the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, permits the establishment of assessment districts by cities for the purpose of providing certain public improvements which include maintenance and operation of street lights traffic signals, landscaping and drainage facilities.
The 1972 Act requires that maintenance assessment be levied according to benefit rather than according to assessed value. Section 22573 provides that:
"The net amount to be assessed upon lands within an assessment district may be apportioned by any formula or method which fairly distributes the net amount among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefit to be received by each such lot or parcel from the improvements." The Act permits the designation of zones of benefit within any individual assessment district if "by reasons or variations in areas will receive different degrees of benefit from the improvement" (Sec. 22547). Thus, the 1972 Act requires the levy of a true "assessment" rather than a "special tax."
Exempted from the assessment would be the areas of all public street, public avenues, public lanes, public roads, public drives, public courts, public alleys, all easements and rights -of -way, all public parks, churches, cemeteries, greenbelts and parkways and all public school property, other public property, designated open space, and public utilities, unless determined to benefit pursuant to Proposition 218.
Also, Section 22509 provides that the act shall be liberally construed to effectuate its purpose. Therefore, any reasonable public hearing is conclusive.
B. Parcel Classification
Since the assessment will be levied on the owners of properties as shown on the tax rolls, the final charges must be assigned by Assessor's Parcel Number. If assessments were to be spread just by parcel, not considering land use or parcel size, this would not be equitable, because a single family parcel would be paying the same as a 50 unit apartment parcel or a large commercial establishment in a similar zone.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 775
Therefore, the single-family parcel has been selected as the basic unit for calculation of assessments and is defined as one Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU). A methodology has been developed to calculate the EDU's for other residential land uses and for commercial/industrial parcels as described below.
Single Family Residential. The single family parcel has been selected as the basic unit for calculation of the benefit assessments. The basic unit shall be called an Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU). Parcels zoned for single family residential uses are assessed 1 EDU.
Multiple Residential. The EDU's for land zoned for multi -family uses are reduced by multiplying the dwelling units per parcel by a density factor of 0.8, this determination was made in accordance with statistical proportion of relative trip generation from various type of residential uses, in combination with potential population density per unit. Based on data from representative cities in Southern California, the multiple residential factor is deemed to be 80%; e.g., a parcel with a 100 unit apartment would be assessed at 80 EDU's.
Commercial and Industrial. Parcels zoned for commercial and industrial uses are assessed
4.356 EDU's/acre or any portion thereof with a minimum of 1 EDU. This allocation has been developed by dividing the standard residential lot size of 10,000 sq. ft. into 43,560 sq. ft. (1 acre).
Mobile Home. Parcels defined as residential but having no dwelling unit on them are assessed 2.178 EDU's/parcel. A parcel with 100 mobile home spaces would be assessed 50 EDU's.
Vacant Residential. Parcels defined as residential but having no dwelling units on them are assessed 2.178 EDU's/acre or any portion thereof with a minimum of 0.5 EDU. This allocation has been developed by dividing the standard residential lot size of 10,000 sq. ft. into 43,560 sq. ft. (1 acre) and dividing that by two (2). This is half the rate of a commercial/industrial parcel.
Vacant Commercial/Industrial. Parcels defined as commercial/industrial but having no commercial/industrial structures on that parcel are assessed half the allocated commercial rate with a minimum of 0.5 EDU.
Agricultural Land. Parcels of Land listed on the County Assessor's record in the Agricultural classification will be assessed at 0.2 EDU/acre or any portion thereof.
Exempt. Parcels of land defined in the County Assessor's records as being exempt will be exempt for the assessment. These parcels include but are not limited to areas of all public streets, public avenues, public lanes, public roads, public drives, public courts, public alleys, all easements and rights -of -way, all public parks, greenbelts and parkways, common areas, and other public property unless determined to benefit pursuant to Proposition 218.
C. Zone Classification
A system of zones, encompassing both street lighting and landscaping levels of service has been developed. (See Assessment Diagram.) These zones and subzones will provide means to designate the benefits received by the property owners from the improvements maintained by the District. The zones are as follows:
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 776
Zone A95 - Tract 13521 - This 90 parcel tract was developed during 2003-04.
Improvements include operation and maintenance of lighting, landscaping and appurtenances. A revised Engineer's Report was adopted and the tract is eligible for assessment. Assessments shall commence in the 2004/05 fiscal year.
Zone B95 - Tract 12222 - This 109 parcel tract requires improvements, which include operation and maintenance of lighting, landscaping and appurtenances.
Zone C96 - Tract 15306 - Apartments converted to residences require improvements, which include operation and maintenance of lighting and appurtenances.
Zone D96 - Tract 14294-2 and Tract 14294 - These two tracts totaling 103 parcels require improvements, which include operation and maintenance of lighting, landscaping and appurtenances.
Zone E96 - Parcel Map 13851 - This 3 lot parcel map requires improvements, which include operation and maintenance of lighting and appurtenances.
Zone F97 - Tract 15661 and Tract 15661-1 - These two tracts totaling 34 parcels require improvements, which include operation and maintenance of lighting, landscaping and appurtenances.
Zone G98 - Tract 15182 - This 16 parcel tract requires improvements, which include operation and maintenance of lighting and appurtenances.
Zone H98 - Tract 14852-1, 14852-2, and Assessor's Parcels 0322-291-03 and -36 - These tracts and Assessor's Parcels totaling 212 parcels require improvements, which include operation and maintenance of lighting, landscaping and appurtenances.
Zone I98 - Tract 14592 - This 11 parcel tract requires improvements, which include operation and maintenance of lighting and appurtenances.
Zone J98 - Tract 14100 - This 7 parcel tract requires improvements, which include operation and maintenance of lighting and appurtenances.
Zone K98 - Parcel Map 14693 - This parcel map contains 4 residential lots with a remainder parcel and requires improvements which include operation and maintenance of lighting, landscaping and appurtenances.
Zone L98 - Tract 15765 - This 28 parcel tract requires improvements, which include operation and maintenance of lighting and appurtenances. One existing residence will not be assessed.
Zone M98 - Tract 14287 - This 6 parcel tract requires improvements, which include operation and maintenance of lighting and appurtenances.
Zone N98 - Tract 15848 - This 67 parcel tract requires improvements, which include operation and maintenance of lighting and appurtenances. 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 777
Zone 098 - Tracts 13799, 13799-1, 13799-2 and 13799-3 - These four tracts totaling 34 parcels, require improvements, which include operation and maintenance of lighting, landscaping and appurtenances.
Zone P99 - Tract 15468 - This 23 parcel tract requires improvements, which include operation and maintenance of lighting, fencing and appurtenances. Two existing residences will not be assessed.
Zone 099 - Tract 14502 - This 9 parcel tract requires improvements, which include operation and maintenance of lighting and appurtenances. One existing residence will not be assessed.
Zone R99 - Tract 15758 - This 18 parcel tract requires improvements, which include operation and maintenance of lighting and appurtenances.
Zone S00 - Tract 13589 - This tract requires improvements which include operation and maintenance of lighting and appurtenances, maintenance of landscaping, irrigation and appurtenances, within the Landscape Maintenance District boundary adjacent to Wildwood Canyon Road and maintenance of the landscaping within the Landscape Maintenance District boundary at the rear of lots 7 thru 14, inclusive, and 23 thru 34, inclusive, for fuel modification within Tract 13589.
Zone T01 - Tract 15548 - This 62 parcel tract requires improvements, which include operation and maintenance of lighting, landscaping and appurtenances.
Zone U01 - Tract 10130-1 - This 15 parcel tract requires improvements, which include operation and maintenance of lighting, landscaping and appurtenances, within the Landscape Maintenance District boundary adjacent to Douglas Street.
Zone V01 - Tract 16088 - This 47 parcel tract requires improvements, which include operation and maintenance of lighting, landscaping and appurtenances.
Zone W01 - Tract 15967-1 & 15967-2 - This 33 parcel tract requires improvements which include operation and maintenance of lighting, landscaping and appurtenances.
Zone X01 - Tract 16031 - This 71 parcel tract requires improvements, which include operation and maintenance of lighting, landscaping, irrigation and appurtenances.
Zone Y - Tract 16060 - This 20 parcel tract requires improvements, which include operation and maintenance of lighting, landscaping, irrigation and appurtenances.
Zone Z - Tract 15854 - This 14 parcel tract requires improvements, which include operation and maintenance of lighting, landscaping, irrigation and appurtenances.
Zone AA - Tract 15933 - This 8 parcel tract requires improvements, which include operation and maintenance of lighting, landscaping, irrigation and appurtenances.
Zone BB - Tract 16538 - This 18 parcel tract requires improvements, which include operation and maintenance of lighting, landscaping, irrigation and appurtenances. 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 778
Zone CC - Tract 16152 — This 15 parcel tract requires improvements, which include operation and maintenance of lighting, landscaping, irrigation and appurtenances.
Zone DD - Tract 16293 - This 16 parcel tract requires improvements, which include operation and maintenance of lighting and appurtenances.
Zone EE - Tract 14429 - This 57 parcel tract requires improvements, which include operation and maintenance of lighting, landscaping, irrigation, entry gates and appurtenances.
Zone FF - Tract 16453 - This 27 parcel tract requires improvements, which include operation and maintenance of lighting, landscaping, irrigation and appurtenances.
Zone GG - Tract 14625 - This 71 parcel tract requires improvements, which include operation and maintenance of lighting, landscaping, irrigation and appurtenances.
Zone HH - Tract 16355 - This 10 parcel tract requires improvements, which include operation and maintenance of lighting, landscaping, irrigation and appurtenances.
Zone II - Tract 16531 - This 16 parcel tract requires improvements, which include operation and maintenance of lighting, landscaping, irrigation and appurtenances.
Zone JJ - Tract 16405 - This 10 parcel tract requires improvements, which include operation and maintenance of lighting, landscaping, irrigation and appurtenances.
Zone KK - Tract 16030 - This 33 parcel tract requires improvements, which include operation and maintenance of lighting, landscaping, irrigation and appurtenances.
Zone LL - Tract 16783 - This 16 parcel tract requires improvements, which include operation and maintenance of lighting and appurtenances.
Zone MM - Tract 16268 - This 22 parcel tract requires improvements, which include operation and maintenance of landscaping, lighting, drainage system and appurtenances.
Zone NN - Tract 16801 - This 6 parcel tract requires improvements, which include operation and maintenance of lighting, landscaping, irrigation and appurtenances.
Zone 00 - Tract 16802 - This 5 parcel tract requires improvements, which include operation and maintenance of lighting.
Zone PP - Tract 16694 - This 16 parcel tract requires improvements, which include operation and maintenance of lighting, landscaping, irrigation and appurtenances.
Zone RR - Tract 16633 - This 6 parcel tract requires improvements, which include operation and maintenance of lighting, landscaping, irrigation and appurtenances.
Zone SS - Tract 19901 - This 22 parcel tract requires improvements, which include operation and maintenance of lighting, landscaping, irrigation and appurtenances.
Zone TT - Tract 17056 - This 7 parcel tract requires improvements, which include operation and maintenance of lighting, landscaping, irrigation and appurtenances. 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 779
7 Zone VV - Tract 16555 - This 5 parcel tract requires improvements, which include operation and maintenance of lighting, landscaping, irrigation and appurtenances.
Zone WW - Tract 17145 - This 8 parcel tract requires improvements, which include operation and maintenance of drainage facilities, lighting, landscaping, irrigation and appurtenances.
Zone YY - Tract 17901 - This 4 parcel tract requires improvements, which include operation and maintenance of lighting and appurtenances.
Zone ZZ - Tract 15195 - This 16 parcel tract requires improvements, which include operation and maintenance of storm drains, lighting, landscaping, irrigation and appurtenances.
Zone BBB - Tract 14806 - This 8 parcel tract requires improvements, which include operation and maintenance of storm drains, lighting, landscaping, irrigation and appurtenances.
Zone CCC - This 17 parcel neighborhood requires improvements, which include operation and maintenance of lighting and appurtenances.
Zone DDD - This 101 parcel neighborhood requires improvements, which include operation and maintenance of lighting and appurtenances.
Zone EEE — Tract 20130 - This 144 parcel tract requires improvements, which include operation and maintenance of storm drains, lighting, landscaping, irrigation, park areas and appurtenances.
Zone FFF — Tract 17349 - This 22 parcel tract requires improvements, which include operation and maintenance of storm drains, lighting, landscaping, irrigation and appurtenances.
Categories of Benefit
1. Landscaping
Maintenance of the landscaping installed within the boundaries of the District, including parkway and open space within the public right-of-way or dedicated easements, and drainage facilities, the proportional share of the cost should be spread to parcels within the zone.
2. Local Lighting
Local lighting installed on public streets within the zone benefit all properties within the District and a proportional share of the cost of local lighting should be spread to all parcels within the district.
3. Maintenance District Incidentals
Maintenance District incidentals include administrative and legal work, assessment engineering for servicing and administering the District and the formation of the District, and should be spread to all parcels within the District. 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 780
SECTION 4
DIAGRAM
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1
CITY OF YUCAIPA
A DIAGRAM of the Maintenance District. Said Diagram shows the exterior boundaries of the District and the boundaries of zones within the District. Reference is made to the County Assessor's Map for a detailed description of the lines and dimensions of any lot or parcel. The lines and dimensions of each lot shall conform to those shown on the County Assessor's Maps for the fiscal year to which the "Report" applies.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 781
ZONE "E'
Cityof Yucaipa ZONE "EE" ZONE' ZONE W
LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING '3
tt -1 I t` LEGEND
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT I ZONE "M"`L w. ws,
�rro ro.0
tea• ,�,� „,��
r",cr,a iew,i
ZONE"P� " - - _ I!I
i ` I
.+ t , _ ♦ — 11 1,
ZONE H
'ONE "F" ZONE "S" I '
ZONE "R" ~
' — _ — ZO
ZONE "GG"" 7 t
ZONE "L" �.. — ...—�
ZONE "PP" i' - i R R 1 I- 1 1 i t 1.11 i,
ZONE"G"
ZONE "C" ZONE "RR"
ZONE "O0 ZONE "N"
ZONE "NN" ZONE ZZ"
ZONE "V"
UPDATED: 61N2024
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 782
ATTACHMENT 3
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 783
I
s Notices
land use
.ibdivision;
ironmental
inctions of
Jing, pop-
ig, traffic,
tir quality
sues; per -
work as
!e years of
ssponsible
eferably in
:)vernment
lic agency
bachelor's
to accred-
university
urse work
I regional
fated field,
ration is
a job an -
and appli-
✓ailable at
Hall, 908
Calime-
or on the
at www.
Applica-
5:30 p.m.
s Mirror
6 MESA
blic hear-
FICE IS
'EN that
2026 at
:he Norton
nior Cen-
; Avenue,
fomia, the
mission of
limesa will
tearing an
nsider the
velopment
ws:
BY CAT-
;OMMER-
UP ON
QUICK
1R THE
DEVEL-
A NEW
1E FOOT
UGH AU -
EXPRESS
FACILITY
ANT PAD
IIN THE
MARKET-
:ALIMESA
L RETAIL
CENTER
RTHEAST
DESERT
/E AND
VALLEY
WITHIN
ER 8 OF
AERWIND
)AK VAL-
IC PLAN
780-005:
Construction or Conver-
sion of Small Structures
and 15332, In -Fill Devel-
opment Projects of the
California Environmental
Quality Act Guidelines.
CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 26-02.
Proposed Conditional
Use Permit to allow op-
eration of a self-service
drive -through automatic
express car wash and
associated vacuum sta-
tions within Town Center
8 of the Summerwind
Ranch at Oak Valley
Specific Plan.
• DEVELOPMENT PLAN
REVIEW NO, 25-04,
Design Review applica-
tion for the construction
of a new 3,366 square
foot drive -through auto-
matic express car wash
facility, including asso-
ciated improvements,
landscaping, lighting,
and architectural fea-
tures.
NOTICE IS FURTHER
GIVEN that the public
may provide comments
as follows: 1) Submit
written comments to
City Hall at the above
address, 2) Email com-
ments to the Deputy
City Clerk at ybenson@
calimesa.gov , or 3) At-
tend the meeting in per-
son and speak thereon.
Please note, mailed and/
or emailed comments
must be submitted by
5:30 p.m. on July 13,
2026.
PLEASE NOTE that
pursuant to Government
Code Section 65090, if
you challenge the proj-
ect in court, you may
be limited to raising only
those issues you raised
at the public hearing as
described in this Notice
or in written correspon-
dence delivered to the
City Clerk of the City of
Calimesa prior to or at
the public hearing.
CITY OF CALIMESA
Published
Calimesa flews Mirror
July 3, 2026
CITY OF CALIMESA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC
HEARING
LANDSCAPING AND
LIGHTING MAINTE-
NANCE DISTRICT
NOTICE IS HEREBY
GIVEN THAT ON: Mon-
day, June 15, 2026 Res-
olution No. 2026-24 was
adopted fixing the time
rteanng on Mons
maintenance, works or
improvements, and other
matters related thereto.
Any persons interested
in objecting to the con-
tinuation of the street
lighting district should file
a written protest with the
City Clerk of this City at
or before the time set for
said public hearing.
ENGINEER'S REPORT:
Notice is further giv-
en that there has been
submitted a Report of
the Engineer (filed with
the City Clerk pursuant
to the provisions of the
Landscaping and Light-
ing Act of 1972) which
generally consists of the
following:
1) Plans and
Specifications.
2) Estimate of the cost
of the improvements for
the period of time as set
forth in the Resolution of
Intention for these pro-
ceedings, including all in-
cidentals relative thereto.
3) A proposed assess-
ment of the total costs
and expenses in rela-
tion to said proposed
improvements showing
the amount proposed to
be assessed upon each
and every lot or parcel of
land in this District all as
required.
LANDSCAPE, LIGHT-
ING DISTRICT BOUND-
ARIES: The boundaries
of the District are more
particularly described as
shown on a Map of the
District as approved by
the City Council and fur-
ther delineated as shown
upon the Assessment
District Boundary Map
as referred to in the En-
gineer's Report, which is
on file in the City Clerk's
Office and open to public
inspection.
MAINTENANCE
WORK: All of the im-
provements are public
streets, avenues, places
and parkways in the City
and within the City limits.
The maintenance works
of the improvements as
proposed included the
landscaping within public
right-of-ways, parkways
and designated ease-
ments, and public light-
ing facilities to provide
street lighting and traffic
signals in public right-of-
way easements. For par-
ticulars, please see the
Engineer's Report on file
in the City Clerk's Office.
PROCEEDING INQUI-
Maintenance Worker I/
II to perform a variety of
semi -skilled and skilled
duties in the mainte-
nance, repair, and con-
struction of City streets,
parks, landscape, and
facilities; to use and
operate manual tools
and light and moderate-
ly heavy power -driven
equipment; to perform
a variety of tasks rela-
tive to assigned areas
of responsibility; and to
perform other duties as
required. The job an-
nouncement and appli-
cations are available at
Calimesa City Hall, 908
Park Avenue, Calime-
sa, CA 92320 or on the
City's website at www.
calimesa.gov . Applica-
tion deadline is 5:30 p.m.
July 20, 2026.
Published
Calimesa News Mirror
July 3, 10, 2026
CITY OF CALIMESA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC
HEARING
SPECIAL ASSESSE-
MENTS FOR
COST OF WEED
ABATEMENT
NOTICE IS HEREBY
GIVEN that the City
Council of the City of
Calimesa will hold a
public hearing at 6:00
p.m. on July 20, 2Q26 at
the NDj1gn Younglove
M_altfpsLroose Senior
Centen 90B Park Ave„
Calimesa. Ca . to con-
sider and take action
upon confirming special
assessments against
certain real property for
the cost of abatement of
weeds and other flam-
mable vegetation. A list
of properties to be as-
sessed and the assess-
ment account is avail-
able for public review
during normal business
hours at the Calimesa
City Hall, 908 Park Ave.,
Calimesa, CA. The City
Council will hear and
consider property owner
objections or protests at
said hearing. Property
owners may appear in
person or may file writ-
ten objection with the
City Clerk at the above
address prior to the date
and time of said hearing.
Published
Calimesa News Mirror
July 3, 2026
NOTICE OF ELECTION
CITY OF CALIMESA
NOTICE IS HEREBY
GIVEN that the City of
Calimesa General Mu-
Friday, July 3, 2026
®@YCNewsMirror I* @YCNevvsM1rror 1 0@YCNewsMirror
13, 2026 and closes
at 5:30 p.m., August 6,
2026. Candidates must
obtain and file candidate
forms at the Office of the
City Clerk, City of Cal-
imesa, 908 Park Avenue,
Calimesa, CA. 92320
during normal business
hours.
Voting polls will be open
from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00
p.m. on election day.
If no one or only one
person is nominated for
an elective office, ap-
pointment to the elective
office may be made as
prescribed by Section
10229 of the Elections
Code of the State of Cal-
ifornia.
AVISO DE ELECC16N
CIUDAD DE CALIMESA
POR ESTE MEDIO SE
INFORMA que la Ciudad
de Calimesa efectuara
una Elecci6n General
Municipal consolidada
con la Eleccl6n a Niv-
el Estatal para el 3 de
noviembre de 2026 par
los siguientes Puestos:
Dos (2) Miembros del
Concelo Municipal Peri-
odo completo de cuatro
(4) anos
El periodo de present-
aci6n para Candidatura
se abre a las 7:00 a.m. el
13 de julio de 2026 y se
cierra a las 5:30 p.m. el 6
de agosto de 2026. Los
Candidatos deben ob-
tener y presenter los for-
mularios de candidatura
en la Oficina deLActuado
Municipal de la Ciudad
de Calimesa, 908 Park
Avenue, Calimesa, CA.
92320 durante el horario
normal de operaciones.
Las urnas de votaci6n
estarfin abiertas de 7:00
a.m. a 8:00 p.m. el dia de
la elecci6n.
Si nadie o tinlcamente
una persona es nombra-
da pare un puesto elec-
tivo, el nombramiento al
puesto electivo puede
efectuarse como to dic-
ta la Secci6n 10229 del
06digo Electoral del Es-
tado de California.
Published
Calimesa News Mirror
July 3, 2026
City of Yucaipa
NOTICE OF PUBLIC
HEARING
DATEMME: July 27
2026 6:00 p.m.
LOCATION: Yucaipa
City Council Chambers,
34272 Yucaipa Boule-
vard, Yucaipa, CA
SUBJECT. TO LEVY
AND COLLECT AS-
SESSMENTS FOR
THE CITY OF YUCAIPA
LANDSCAPING AND
LIGHTING MAINTE-
NANCE DISTRICT NO.
1 FOR FISCAL YEAR
2026-2027 WITHIN THE
AREAS DESCRIBED IN
THE ENGINEER'S RE-
PORT FOR ZONES A95,
B95, C96, D96, E96,
F97, G98, H98, 198, J98,
K98, L98, M98, N98,
098, P99, 099, R99,
Tot, Uol, Vol, Wol,
X01, Y, Z, AA, BB, CC,
DID, EE, FF, GG, HH,
11, JJ, KK, LL, MM, NN,
00, PP, RR, SS, TT, VV,
WW, YY, ZZ, BBB, CCC,
DDD, EEE, and FFF.
DATED THIS 24th day of
June,2026
/s/
Ana V. Sauseda MMC
Director of General Ser-
vices/City Clerk
Publication: July 3, 2026
Yucaipa News -Mirror
Published
Yucaipa News Mirror
July 3, 2026
F____vP;i657A
NOTICE OF PETITION
TO ADMINISTER ES-
TATE OF:
GLORIA JEAN FUEN-
TES
CASE NO. PRO-
VA2600470
To all heirs, beneficiaries,
creditors, contingent
creditors, and persons
who may otherwise be
interested in the WILL or
estate, or both of GLO-
RIAJEAN FUENTES.
A PETITION FOR PRO-
BATE has been filed by
ANGEL ARRINGTON
in the Superior Court
of California, County of
SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR
PROBATE requests that
ANGEL ARRINGTON be
appointed as personal
representative to admin-
ister the estate of the
decedent.
THE PETITION requests
authority to administer
the estate under the In-
dependent Administra-
tion of Estates Act. (This
senled to the proposed
action.) The independent
administration authority
will be granted unless an
interested person files an
objection to the petition
and shows good cause
why the court should not
grant the authority.
A HEARING on the
petition will be held in
this court as follows:
08/06/26 at 9:OOAM
in Dept. F1 located at
17780 ARROW BLVD.,
FONTANA, CA 92335
IF YOU OBJECT to the
granting of the petition,
you should appear at the
hearing and state your
objections or file written
objections with the court
before the hearing. Your
appearance may be in
person or by your attor-
ney.
IF YOU ARE A CRED-
ITOR or a contingent
creditor of the decedent,
you must file your claim
with the court and mail a
copy to the personal rep-
resentative appointed by
the court within the later
of either (1) four months
from the date of first is-
suance of letters to a
general personal repre-
sentative, as defined in
section 58(b) of the Cal-
ifornia Probate Code, or
(2) 60 days from the date
of mailing or personal
delivery to you of a no-
tice under section 9052
of the California Probate
Code.
Other California statutes
and legal authority may
affect your rights as a
creditor. You may want to
consult with an attorney
knowledgeable in Cali-
fornia law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the
file kept by the court. If
you are a person inter-
ested in the estate, you
may file with the court
a Request for Special
Notice (form DE-154) of
the filing of an inventory
and appraisal of estate
assets or of any petition
or account as provided
in Probate Code section
1250. A Request for Spe-
cial Notice form is avail-
able from the court clerk.
Attorney for Petitioner
RYAN E. FENDER - SBN
315532
LAW OFFICES OF
RYAN E. FENDER, APC
300 E. STATE ST.,
SUITE 200
REDLANDS CA92373
Telephone (909) 726-
9580
6/26, 7/3, 71l0/26
CNS-4054437#
YUCAIP$C�4LIMESA
NEWSL 4
ATTACHMENT 4
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 785
CONSUMER PRICE INDEXES PACIFIC CITIES AND U. S. CITY AVERAGE March 2026
(All items indexes. 1982-84=100 unless otherwise noted. Not seasonally adjusted.) All Urban Consumers (CPI-U)
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W)
Percent Change
Percent Change
Year
1 Month
Year
1 Month
Indexes
Indexes
MONTHLY DATA
ending
ending
ending
ending
Mar
Feb
Mar
Feb
Mar
Mar
Mar
Feb
Mar
Feb
Mar
Mar
2025
2026
2026
2026
2026
2026
2025
2026
2026
2026
2026
2026
U. S. City Average .............................................. 319.799
326,785
330.213
2.4 3.3
1.0 313.250
319.422
323.500
2.2 3.3
1.3 West................................................................... 339.627
346.990
350.226
2.7 3.1
0.9 331.207
337.391
341.234
2.4 3.0
1.1 West - Size Class A'. ....................................... 350.126
358.741
361.945
2.8 3.4
0.9 338.367
345.591
349.452
2.6 3.3
1.1 West - Size Class B/C2...................................... 197.611
201.223
203.193
2.5 2.8
1.0 199.181
202.373
204.720
2.3 2.8
1.2 Mountain .................................................. 132.875
135.389
137.043
2.3 3.1
1.2 133.970
136.207
138.110
1.9 3.1
1.4 Pacific3..................................................... 131.689
134.695
135.789
2.9 3.1
0.8 132.669
135.265
136.647
2.6 3.0
1.0 Los Angeles -Long Beach -Anaheim, CA...........
340.6481
348.361
352.221
2.9 3.4
1.1 328.2461
335.6121
340.105
2.91 3.61
1.3 Percent Change
Percent Change
Year
2 Months
Year
2 Months
Indexes
Indexes
BI-MONTHLY DATA
I
ending
ending
ending
ending
(Published for odd months)
Mar
Jan
Mar
Jan
Mar
Mar
Mar
Jan
Mar
Jan
Mar
Mar
2025
2026
2026
2026
2026
2026
2025
2026
2026
2026
2026
2026
Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA3...........
136.511
139.602
140.728
3.2 3.1
0.8 137.608
140.384
141.610
3.4 2.9
0.9 San Diego -Carlsbad, CA .................................. 384.880
391.981
397.284
2.6 3.2
1.4 364.528
369.084
376.122
2.1 3.2
1.9 Urban Hawaii ............................................. 346.816
355.266
359.495
2.4 3.7
1.2 346.075
353.370
357.176
2.1 3.2
1.1 Percent Change
Percent Change
Year
2 Months
Year
2 Months
Indexes
Indexes
BI-MONTHLY DATA
ending
ending
ending
ending
(Published for even months)
Feb
Dec
Feb
Dec
Feb
Feb
Feb
Dec
Feb
Dec
Feb
Feb
2025
2025
2026
2025
2026
2026
2025
2025
2026
2025
2026
2026
Phoenix -Mesa -Scottsdale, AZ° ......................
184.264
186.730
187.481
2.2 1.7
0.4 183.386
184.878
185.277
1.7 1.0
0.2 San Francisco -Oakland -Hayward, CA ................ 354.432
358.568
363.211
3.0 2.5
1.3 350.836
353.216
356.964
3.1 1.7
1.1 Seattle -Tacoma -Bellevue, WA ........................... 358.096
365.447
372.121
3.1 3.9
1.8 351.165
359.292
364.364
3.1 3.8
1.4 Urban Alaska .............................................. 269.022
272.355
273.181
1.91 1.5
0.3 266.7961
271.308
271.282
2.91 1.71
0.0 1 Population over 2,500,000 2 Population 2,500,000 and under, Dec 1996 = 100 3 Dec 2017=100 4 Dec 2001 =1 00 1967=100 base year indexes and tables with semiannual and annual average data are available at: www.bis.gov/regions/westifactsheet/consumer-price-index-data-tabies.htm Release date April 10, 2026. The next release date is scheduled for May 12, 2026. For questions, please contact us at [email protected] or (415) 625-2270. 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 786
ATTACHMENT 5
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 787
City of Yucaipa
Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District
Zone Chart with Credits
FY 2026-2027
Zone
Tract
c
J
c
J
6 Total Annual
Zone Assessment
FY 2026-27
Number of
Equivalent
Dwelling
Units (EDUs)
Assessment
Per EDU
Estimated
Ending Balance
per Zone for FY
2025-26
Amount of
Credit per
Zone at FY
2026-27
Assessment
per EDU Less
Credit
A95
13521
X
X
$59,791.50
90 664.35
353,923.87
14,947.88
498.26
B95
12222
X
X
$441,070.68
109
4,046.52
1,165,652.93
110,267.67
3,034.89
C96
15306
X
-
$221.92
19 11.68
4,285.30
11.68 D96
14294/-2
X
X
$11,284.68
103
109.56
37,710.25
109.56
E96
13851
X
-
$225.00
3 75.00
3,771.88
-
75.00 F97
15661/-1
X
X
$14,450.34
34 425.01
43,941.88
3,612.59
318.76
G98
15182
X
-
$659.68
16 41.23
2,816.30
41.23 H98
14852/-1,2
X
X
$43,907.32
212
207.11
101,746.91
10,976.83
155.33
198
14592
X
$439.12
11 39.92
1,649.99
-
39.92 J98
14100
X
$738.08
7 105.44
4,173.56
184.52
79.08 K98
14693
X
X
$2,038.70
5 407.74
25,934.27
509.68
305.81
L98
15765
X
$477.09
27 17.67
1,453.98
119.27
13.25 M98
14287
X
$219.72
6 36.62
2,500.94
54.93 27.47
N98
15848
X
$1,039.17
67 15.51
3,258.42
-
15.51 098
13799/-1,2,3
X
X
$12,278.76
34 361.14
24,675.60
-
361.14
P99
15468
X
$1,614.69
21 76.89
14,127.68
403.67
57.67 099
14502
X
$227.68
8 28.46
679.90
-
28.46 R99
15758
X
$478.26
18 26.57
1,947.91
26,57
S00'
13589
X
X
(353.34)
-
T01
15548
X
X
$66,758.50
62 1.076.75
214,612.15
16,689.63
807.56
U01
10130/-1
X
X
$7.498.50
15 499.90
10,811.80
-
499.90
Vol
16088
X
X
$17,389.53
47 369.99
33,339.20
-
369.99
W01
15967/-1,2
X
X
$37,739.13
33 1,143.61
245,297.80
9,434.78
857.71
X01
16031
X
X
X
$55,482.24
71 781.44
198,535.90
13,870.56
586.08
Y
16060
X
X
X
$3,906.60
20 195.33
14,873.24
976.65
146.50
Z
15854
X
X
$10,243.80
14 731.70
1,597.81
731.70
AA
15933
X
X
$2,604.24
8 325.53
(7,158.79)
325.53
BB
15638
X
X
X
$10,335.96
18 574.22
17,728.07
574.22
CC
16152
X
X
X
$9,277.35
15 618.49
13,965,93
618.49
DD
16293
X
$828.48
16 51.78
3,479.20
51.78 EE
14429
X
X
X
$79,128.54
57 1,388.22
44,688.37
1,388.22
FF
16453
X
X
X
$14,249.79
27 527.77
26,673.06
527.77
GG
14625
X
X
X
$142,457.24
71 2,006.44
348,171.46
35,614.31
1,504.83
HH
16355
X
X
X
$22,812.90
10 2,281.29
103,499.57
5,703.23
1,710.97
II
16531
X
X
-
$25,424.64
16 1,589.04
108,713.11
6,356.16
1,191.78
JJ
16405
X
X
X
$9,726,50
10 972.65
14,169.44
-
972.65
KK
16030
X
X
$4,673.46
33 141.62
(8,639.87)
141.62
LL
16783
X
-
X
$4,459.20
16 278.70
9,275.89
278.70
MM
16268
X
X
X
$20,973.92
22 953.36
953.36
NN
16801
X
X
X
$13,054.02
6 2,175.67
35,564.01
3,263.51
1,631.75
00 16802
X
-
$791.15
5 158.23
3,129.62
197.79
118.67
PP
16694
X
X
X
$24,634.88
16 1,539.68
127,369.33
6,158.72
1,154.76
QQ`
16055
X
X
X
14 31,030.61
-
RR
16633
X
X
$4,070.18
6 678.36
21,070.09
1.017.55
508.77
SS
19901
X
X
X
$8,353.40
22 379.70
18,732.02
-
379.70
TT
17056
X
X
$13,705.16
7 1,957.68
5,347.86
1,957.88
UU"
-
W
16555
X
X
$7,253.80
5 1,450.76
3,905.95
1,450.76
WW
17145
X
X
X
$6,329.40
5 1,265.88
26,677.40
1,582.35
949.41
)(X..
273.10
-
YY
17901
X
$728.02
4 182.01
5,853.93
182.01
136.50
ZZ
15195
X
X
$9,640.48
16 602.53
36,980.74
2,410.12
451.90
AAA"
BBB
14806
X
X
X
$6,728.40
8 841.05
40,784.48
1,682.10
630.79
CCC
N/A
X
$672.86
1 17
39.58 3,131.55
168.22
29.69 DDD
N/A
X
$2,426.96
101
26.38 3,312.19
26.38 EEE
20130
X
X
X
$55,566.72
144
385.88
11,961.26
385.88
FFF
17349
X
X
X
$4,851.00
22 220.50 1
4,439.35
220.50
Total Maximum Assessment $1,295,939.34 1769 $ 3,580,136.66 $ 246,384.69 Less: Credits 246,384.69
2026-2027 Net Assessments $1,049,554.65
Zones are not individual tracts, but contain multiple parcels annexed for LED lighting improvements within the CDBG target area. " Zones have not been annexed into the District and assessments have not begun.
T:\FinancelAssessments\2026-2027 Assessment Processing\SP001-LLMD\Zone Chart 2026-2027 with Refunds 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 788