HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-0661
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
iV1
F.
211
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-66
RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE 2004 COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY (CEDS).
WHEREAS, the Federal Economic Development Administration (EDA) is an agency
that provides grant assistance to economically distressed areas as authorized by the Public
Works and Economic Development Act of 1965; and
WHEREAS, EDA supports local, State, and regional economic development efforts
within the United States; and
WHEREAS, EDA provides direct grants, on a cost -share basis, for projects that will
cerate and retain private -sector jobs and leverage public and private investment in distressed
areas; and
WHEREAS, to ensure sound planning and coordination of local, State, and Federal
funding in response to local needs and objectives, EDA has a statutory requirement that public
works and economic adjustment projects funded by EDA must be consistent with a CEDS
approved by EDA for the project area; and
WHEREAS, a CEDS Committee consisting of various representatives of the
community was established for the purpose of developing a Comprehensive Economic
Development Strategy for the City of San Bernardino; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Bernardino CEDS Committee developed the CEDS for
the purpose of applying for EDA grant funding and the CEDS has received preliminary
approval from EDA.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the Mayor and Common Council hereby adopts the 2004
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS), attached hereto and marked
Attachment A; and
SECTION 2. The Mayor or her designee is hereby authorized to submit the 2004
CEDS to the Federal Economic Development Administration.
///
2004-66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
it
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
21
RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE 2004 COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY (CEDS).
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Mayor
it.
and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at a reg. meeting thereof, held on the
1st day of march 2004, by the following vote, to wit:
Council Members: AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENT
ESTRADA x
LIEN-LONGVILLE x
MCGINNIS x
DERRY x
KELLEY x
JOHNSON x
MCCAMMACK x
City Jerk
The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this 7N day of March
2004.
Approved as to
Form and legal content:
JA
Cit
M
h Valles, Mayor
of San Bernardino
"Attachment A"
2004
COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
(CEDS)
SM
Prepared by the CEDS Committee 2003
Adopted by the Common Council March 2004
City of San Bernardino
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy
2004
This Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy for San Bernardino has been prepared by a CEDS
Committee consisting of members of the community and staff of the City and Economic Development
Agency (see names below).
In preparing the CEDS, the Committee has utilized analysis and community input from the following
major City planning initiatives:
• Update of the General Plan, conducted during 2002 — 2003
• "Business -Industry Growth" (BIG) plan developed during 1998 — 1999 and adopted in April
1999 as the City's official economic strategy
• Application for an Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community designation, 1998
This 2004 CEDS is presented in four sections:
Analysis (pp. 4 — 29): Discussion of San Bernardino's physical, social, and economic
environment, its assets and challenges, regional trends, key economic opportunities, and
community involvement in economic planning.
II. Vision and Goals (pp. 31 — 32): Statement of the economic future envisioned for the city
ten and 20 years hence and goals for realizing the vision.
III. CEDS Action Plan (pp. 33 — 35): Presentation of initiatives, projects, and timelines for
pursuing the goals established in the CEDS vision.
IV. Evaluation (pp. 36 — 37): A framework with performance measures and indicators for
assessing progress in implementing the CEDS.
V. Projects (pp. 38): Listing of planned projects that support the CEDS.
VI. Attachments (pp.39-46)
CEDS Committee
Teri Baker, Sr. Administrative Analyst, City of San Bernardino
Glenn Baude, Code Compliance, City of San Bernardino
Bob Botts, Chief Administrative Officer, Garner Holt Productions
James Funk, Director, Development Services Department, City of San Bernardino
Michael Gallo, Executive Vice President, Kelly Space and Technology
Ray Gonzales, Region Manager, Southern California Edison
Ronald Graybill, Community Outreach Coordinator, Loma Linda University Medical Center
Barbara Halsey, Director, Jobs and Employment Services Department, County of San Bernardino
Lee Hanson, Professor of Management, California State University, San Bernardino
Dawkins Hodges, Executive Director, Neighborhood Housing Services of the Inland Empire
Gary Van Osdel, Executive Director, San Bernardino Economic Development Agency
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. SAN BERNARDINO CEDS ANALYSIS.................................................................................................4
A.
ENVIRONMENT, CHALLENGES, OPPORTUNITIES....................................................................4
1.
Overview.................................................................................................................................................
4
2.
Demographic, Socioeconomic, and Labor Force Characteristics.........................................................
4
3.
Geographic, Climatic, and Natural Resource Features..........................................................................
5
4.
Local Infrastructure.................................................................................................................................5
(a) Highways, Streets, Water, Sewers..................................................................................................
5
(b) Public Transit..................................................................................................................................
6
(c) San Bernardino International Airport .............................................................................................
6
5.
Major Sectors of the Economy and Employment Characteristics.........................................................
7
(a) Employment clusters.......................................................................................................................
7
(b) Prospective New Employment Sectors..........................................................................................
9
(c) Railroad Capacity — the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Intermodal Yard ...................................
10
6.
Local Policy Factors and Conditions Affecting Development............................................................
10
(a) Land Use Patterns and Problems..................................................................................................
10
(b) City Fiscal Capacity......................................................................................................................
13
(c) Local Utility Users Tax................................................................................................................
13
7.
Important Community Conditions Affecting Development................................................................
13
(a) Housing and Blight.......................................................................................................................
14
(b) Primary and Secondary Education...............................................................................................
14
(c) Health and Well-Being.................................................................................................................
15
8.
New Economic Opportunities..............................................................................................................
15
(a) "Lakes and Streams" Downtown Revitalization Project.............................................................
15
(b) Norton — San Bernardino International Airport (Alliance California) ........................................
16
(c) Santa Fe Depot District.................................................................................................................
16
(d) University District........................................................................................................................
17
(e) Arrowhead Springs Resort ............................................................................................................
17
(f) Stadium Business Park..................................................................................................................
18
B. REGIONAL TRENDS IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA & THE INLAND EMPIRE ..................... 18
1. Population Growth................................................................................................................................. 19
2. "Smart Growth".................................................................................................................................... 19
3. Rising Housing Costs — Commuter Work Force................................................................................. 20
4. Defense Downsizing and Manufacturing Industry Migration............................................................. 20
5. Growth of Logistics and Warehousing................................................................................................. 21
C. LOCAL & REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RESOURCES ........................................
21
1. Municipal Agencies..............................................................................................................................21
2. County Organizations...........................................................................................................................22
3. Joint Powers Authorities.......................................................................................................................
22
4. Higher Education Institutions...............................................................................................................
23
5. Local Private Groups............................................................................................................................
23
6. Regional Agencies and Groups............................................................................................................
24
D. ENGAGEMENT OF THE COMMUNITY IN ECONOMIC PLANNING ...................................... 24
1. Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community (EZ/EC) Application.................................................... 24
2. Business -Industry Growth Strategy..................................................................................................... 26
3. General Plan Update.............................................................................................................................27
2
4. CEDS Committee................................................................................................................................. 28
E. SUMMARY......................................................................................................................................... 28
II. SAN BERNARDINO CEDS VISION AND GOALS........................................................................... 30
A. VISION.................................................................................................................................................30
B. GOALS.................................................................................................................................................30
C. INTERRELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN GOALS................................................................................ 31
III. CEDS ACTION PLAN.......................................................................................................................... 32
A. GUIDING PRINCIPLES ......................................
B. INITIATIVES.......................................................
.............................................................. 32
...................................................................... 32
IV. CEDS EVALUATION........................................................................................................................... 35
A. EVALUATION ASSUMPTIONS...................................................................................................... 35
B. EVALUATION STRUCTURE — CEDS COMMITTEE................................................................... 35
C. PERFORMANCE INDICATORS: RATIO TREND AND PROJECT INDICATORS .................... 35
1. Ratio Trend Indicators.......................................................................................................................... 36
2. Project Indicators ..................................................................................................................................36
V. PROJECTS.............................................................................................................................................. 37
VI. ATTACHMENTS..................................................................................................................................38
ATTACHMENT 1:
San Bernardino Economic Development Agency Services ....................................
38
ATTACHMENT 2:
San Bernardino Empowerment Zone Vision Statement, 1998................................
39
ATTACHMENT 3:
Business Advisory Council Members, 1998 - 2000................................................
40
ATTACHMENT 4:
Business Industry Growth (BIG) Strategy Initiatives and Status ............................
41
ATTACHMENT 5:
Community Participants, General Plan Update, 2002 - 2003.................................
43
ATTACHMENT 6:
Reports and Works Referenced in CEDS Document ..............................................
45
3
I. SAN BERNARDINO CEDS ANALYSIS
A. ENVIRONMENT, CHALLENGES, OPPORTUNITIES
1. Overview
San Bernardino is a city of approximately 190,000 residents, 60 square miles in size, situated 65
miles due east of Los Angeles and 50 miles west of Palm Springs. Incorporated in 1854, it is one
of the oldest communities in Southern California and the seat of San Bernardino County,
geographically the largest county in the continental United States.' The city is located in the
heavily populated southwest corner of the county, part of the Riverside -San Bernardino Primary
Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA), population 3,373,000.
Owing, in significant part, to a loss of a number of major employers, San Bernardino has been an
economically distressed community for the better part of two decades. In 1983 Kaiser Steel in
nearby Fontana, built during World War II, laid off much of its 9,000-person workforce, many of
whom were San Bernardino residents. Another 4,000 jobs were eliminated in 1992 by the
closure of the Santa Fe railroad Pacific coast locomotive works, which was first established in
San Bernardino in 1885. Concurrently, between 1991 and 1994 Norton Air Force Base, the
city's largest employer since World War 11, was decommissioned at the cost of another 10,000
jobs. Deprived of these longstanding employers and many of the ancillary businesses they
supported, the community has suffered a variety of economic and social problems. These
include chronic unemployment and concomitant need for public assistance, disinvestment in
housing stock and consequent blight, and poor health conditions among many poorer residents.
During the second half of the 1990s, the city's circumstances thankfully began to take a turn for
the better. In part, reinvigoration stemmed from strong growth in the state and national
economies. But in addition a new mayor — who first took office and formed a new
administration in 1998, and whose popularity returned her to office in 2001 — has helped initiate
or has endorsed a number of major economic and community revitalization efforts over the past
five years. These initiatives are addressed later in this plan.
2. Demographic, Socioeconomic, and Labor Force Characteristics
In terms of population makeup, education, and affluence, San Bernardino may be characterized
as an ethnically mixed city with income, education levels, and property values that fall below the
average for the County of San Bernardino, itself among the less wealthy counties in California.
By ethnicity, the city's population is 29 percent white, 48 percent Hispanic, 16 percent black,
and four percent Asian (in comparison, the county is 44 percent white, 39 percent Hispanic, nine
percent black, and five percent Asian). Just eight percent of residents have bachelor degrees,
'20,062 square miles —compared with, for instance, the state of Maryland, which is just 9,775 square miles. (Source:
McCormack's Guides, Riverside & San Bernardino 2001.)
'Data cited in this section are from 2002 City of San Bernardino Community & Economic Profile, San Bernardino Economic
Development Agency; and Economic Analysis for an Update of the Land Use Element of the General Plan, Economic Research
Associates, March 2002.
4
compared with ten percent in the county, while 26 percent of persons age 25 and older have
completed high school. Median annual household income in 2001 was $33,604, against a
countywide median of $45,795 (36 percent less). Median home price in January 2000 was
$86,250, 20 percent below the County median of $109,000.
During the decade 1990-to-2000, San Bernardino's population grew at an annual rate of 1.4
percent, which trailed the county's growth rate of 1.8 percent. In 2000 the city hosted
approximately 79,000 jobs, 5.46 percent of all jobs in the Riverside -San Bernardino PMSA.
This figure represented a proportional decline since 1990, when the city claimed 5.66 percent of
the PMSA's total employment. However, city employment did begin to improve somewhat in
the late 1990s. From a high of 13.9 percent in 1993, unemployment in September 2002 had
fallen to 7.9 percent 3
3. Geographic, Climatic, and Natural Resource Features
San Bernardino is situated in the "Inland Empire" area of Southern California, a sub -region of
greater Los Angeles consisting of western Riverside and San Bernardino counties and edges of
eastern Los Angeles County.° San Bernardino is located in a valley bounded on the north by the
San Bernardino mountains. Cajon Pass, long the major entryway into the Los Angeles basin
from the east, transects the mountains just north of the city. Interstate 15 and transcontinental
rail lines come through Cajon Pass and San Bernardino.
In its natural state, the San Bernardino valley is desert. Summer temperatures range between 60
and 100 degrees, winter temperatures between 45 and 75 degrees. Annual rainfall averages just
eight inches. Since the 1940s the area has been plagued by smog, resulting from offshore winds
that blow inland from the Los Angeles area. Thankfully however, modern air quality controls
have begun to mitigate the smog problem.
San Bernardino has no natural resources which are conspicuously different from those of other
Inland Empire communities, with one big exception: water. The city sits atop a 1,000-foot deep
underground lake, about the size of Lake Shasta, which is owned by the San Bernardino Valley
Municipal Water District. The community thus enjoys local control of a resource that offers the
potential to eventually transform its economy through sale of water to Southern California.
4. Local Infrastructure
San Bernardino is endowed with all primary forms of public infrastructure, albeit of varying
states of repair:
(a) Highways, Streets, Water, Sewers
The city sits at the junction of Interstate 10 and Interstate 215. I-10 runs along its southern
boundary. I-215, which intersects I-15 (the route to Las Vegas) immediately north of the city
'Source: California Employment Development Department, http://www/ca.mis.ca.gov.
4The greater Los Angeles metropolitan area consists of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties.
limits at the mouth of Cajon Pass, bisects the city on its west side. The I-215 freeway was built
in the late 1960s to replace old U.S. 66 as the main transcontinental highway into Southern
California. Constructed with a limited number of west side -serving freeway on/offramps, it has
long been a wall between the rest of the community and the west side, which has a
predominantly Hispanic and black population. Through loss of commercial activity once tied to
Route 66, the west side has become perhaps the most economically distressed zone within the
city, with the greatest unemployment, health, and crime problems. A major renovation of I-215
is scheduled to commence in 2004 to upgrade interchanges and open access to the west side. At
some point after completion of the I-215 Freeway Improvement Project, the east/west arterial
streets leading to its interchanges will also have to be widened to accommodate expected
increases in traffic and assorted economic development.
The city has a total of 64 miles of surface streets laid out in a conventional grid network, with all
main intersections being signalized. As an older street network, much of the infrastructure is
ageing or needs to be upgraded to accommodate future traffic loads. In recent years, the City has
been increasing investment in street improvements and maintenance.
As with its street network, San Bernardino's water and sewer systems also are aging. Since the
late 1990s the City has increased the volume of water and sewer system rehabilitation and new
construction projects being carried out under its Capital Improvement Program.
(b) Public Transit
Public transit is provided by Omnitrans, an agency of San Bernardino County. Bus routes serve
all areas of the community, used primarily by lower -income residents. Because the city is spread
over 60 square miles, traveling to its various districts and neighborhoods is really only feasible
by vehicle; like most Southern California communities, it is essentially auto -dependent.
Fortunately, traffic congestion generally is not severe, at least on most surface streets during
most of the day (congestion naturally is greater on main arterials near freeways).
(c) San Bernardino International Airport
Former Norton Air Force Base, located completely within the city limits on the east side, has
been transferred from the military to two local Joint Powers Authorities (JPAs) for
redevelopment as a civilian airport, named San Bernardino International Airport, and a new
commercial -industrial district for the city. Local government members of the JPAs, which share
a joint board, are the County and City of San Bernardino and the adjacent Cities of Colton,
Highland, and Loma Linda. The San Bernardino International Airport Authority (SBIAA),
formed in 1992, has responsibility for the 600 acres of airport property. The Inland Valley
Development Agency (IVDA), formed in 1990, has authority over the 1,300 acres of the
remainder of the former base. The base property is part of a 15,000-acre redevelopment area.
Since the mid-1990s, some $20,000,000 has been invested in redevelopment of the former base,
mainly for street and infrastructure improvements and building demolition. Most of the old Air
Force buildings are commercially substandard and in need of major remediation (asbestos), but
some have nonetheless become home to about 70 small private or public organizations
0
employing approximately 2,000 persons (1,700 full time). In 2000, the site received a six -year
state Local Agency Military Base Recovery (LAMBRA) designation, the equivalent of an
Enterprise Zone, which provides incentives for attracting industry.5 Although the airport has
also been designated a Foreign Trade Zone, it has yet to attract commercial passenger or air
cargo business, in part because it competes with Ontario International Airport just 20 miles west.
Nonetheless, efforts to lure commercial carriers are a central part of San Bernardino airport
redevelopment plans. In 2002 a ten-year master -development agreement was executed with
Hillwood Investments, developer of the successful Alliance Texas air cargo airport in the Dallas -
Fort Worth area. Hillwood's stated aim is to transform the Norton area into a commercial
aviation center with ancillary industrial and warehouse facilities, to be called "Alliance
California." The airport and surrounds are seen as the keystone of future economic growth and
revitalization of the greater San Bernardino area.
5. Major Sectors of the Economy and Employment Characteristics
(a) Employment clusters
An analysis of San Bernardino's economy and employment clusters recently was performed by
Economic Research Associates as part of the updating of the City's General Plan.6 According to
the ERA analysis, in 2000 eight sectors accounted for 46 percent of the city's 79,000 jobs (as
well as 39 percent of business sales volume and 32 percent of establishments):
Table 1. Top 8 San Bernardino Employment Sectors
Sector
Employment
Establishments
Health services
9,771 13%
467
8.1%
Educational services
8,498 11 %
137
2.4%
Public administration
7,510 10%
224
3.9%
Real estate
2,251 3%
280
4.9%
Business services
2,084 3%
266
4.6%
Special trade contractors
1,633 2%
207
4.6%
Printing & publishing
1,536 2%
62
I.1 %
Legal services
1,112 2%
187
3.3%
One of the most striking — and in terms of future economic prosperity, troubling — facts disclosed
by these and the data in the next two tables is the lack of any significant amount of
manufacturing or other high -wage, private industry among the leading economic sectors. Public
sector and non-profit (health care) employment are the city's two largest occupational groups,
the former reflecting its function as county seat.
By comparison, the largest concentrations of private -sector employment are mainly retailing and
services (sectors with over 1,000 employees are shown in Table 2):
5Local Agency Military Base Reuse Area application, Inland Valley Development Agency, May 1999.
6Economic Analysis for an Update of the Land Use Element of the General Plan, cited previously.
Table 2. Leading Non -Manufacturing Industry/Employment Sectors
Sector
Employment
Establishments
Eating & drinking
4,913
341
Miscellaneous retail
2,713
370
Wholesale trade— durable goods
2,447
233
Lumber & wood products
2,290
2
Auto dealers & service stations
2,275
195
General merchandise
2,195
34
Food stores
2,154
195
Business services
2,084
266
Auto repair, service & parking
1,615
275
Home furnishings
1,331
189
Engineering & management services
1,272
166
Local passenger transportation
1,209
16
Personal services
1,063
303
Total
27,561
2,585
Most of these businesses mainly serve local customers, with the exception of restaurant and retail
activities located along the interstate highways that draw outside wealth into the local market.
The limited range of establishments that entail manufacturing employment is shown in Table 3:
Table 3. Manufacturing Employment and Establishments
Sector
Employment
Establishments
Rubber & plastics
347
7
Furniture & fixtures
280
9
Chemical & allied products
252
9
Transportation equipment
218
13
Industrial machinery & equipment
170
18
Miscellaneous manufacturing
139
18
Stone, clay & glass products
137
9
Paper & allied products
92
3
Apparel & other textile products
91
6
Textile mile products
65
1
Electric & electronic equipment
51
2
Primary metal products
36
3
Instruments & related products
23
3
Lumber & wood products 11 2
Total 1,912 103
The 1,900 manufacturing -related jobs documented in Table 3 account for less than three percent
of total employment. While predominance of retail and service employment is hardly unusual
for modern U.S. cities, the near -absence of manufacturing -related jobs or services traded in
outside markets (e.g., management or engineering consulting, architectural design, software
programming) means that San Bernardino has quite limited export -oriented economic capacity.
In general, a city's economy must export some of its economic product to outside regional, state,
national, or international markets in order to draw outside income with its multiplier effects on
local revenues and incomes. 7 In other words, it is private -industry exporting which usually
determines whether or not a city is prosperous.
To a degree, San Bernardino's dearth of private -industry export activity is compensated by
government employment that serves to inject tax revenues generated elsewhere into the local
economy (the economic impact of the loss of Norton AFB employment stemmed from the
withdrawal of federal revenues coming to San Bernardino from outside). However, public sector
revenue transfers can rarely be a full substitute for vibrant private -industry export activity like
manufactured goods or high -value services. Accordingly, it can generally be stated that the long-
term employment challenge for San Bernardino is twofold:
• To expand, through business attraction and local business development, private sector
export activity whether manufacturing, high -value services, transportation and logistics,
high-tech, or similar higher -paying industry sectors.
• To preserve, and if possible expand existing higher -income health, educational services,
and public administration employment (particularly county, state, and federal).
(b) Prospective New Employment Sectors
The County of San Bernardino has identified existing employment sectors that seem to offer
potential for further growth within the San Bernardino metropolitan area.8 These include:
• Warehousing and logistics (including air cargo)
• Transportation
• Light manufacturing
• Food processing
• Health care and hospitals
• Office management service
• High-tech
Among these industry/occupational areas, transportation and logistics would seem to be
particularly promising because of San Bernardino's location along interstate highways, its
existing rail intermodal yard (see next section), and San Bernardino International Airport.
In addition, City economic development efforts should also focus on seeking to lure high-
technology businesses. Although there presently is little technology industry within the city (or
the region), bolstering the potential to cultivate local high-tech is the fact that Loma Linda
University Medical Center (LLUMC), a research university with some interest in technology
Ito economics, the role and significance for city economies of export production is explained in "export base" theory. See Emil
Malizia and Edward Feser, Understanding Local Economic Development (1999), Center for Urban Planning Research.
"Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, County of San Bernardino, 2000, p. 251.
transfer and commercialization, is located next door to San Bernardino. Because the City of
Loma Linda has very limited available industrial space, the potential exists for medical device -
making ventures that might one day be launched from LLUMC to establish their facilities in San
Bernardino. This has already occurred with one high-tech business, Optivus Technology, which
was "spun off' from the university in 1993 to market and sell an $80 million system for the
treatment of cancer, and has been located in San Bernardino from its inception.
(c) Railroad Capacity — the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Intermodal Yard
San Bernardino remains a significant rail node because the BNSF railroad has an intermodal
facility at the former locomotive yards along Mount Vernon Avenue and the I-215 freeway,
where containers are transshipped to and from trains and trucks. Current container volume is
410,000 annually, a near ten -fold growth between 1991 and 2001.9 Since the intermodal yard
went into operation, a major trucking company, Yellow Freight, has co -located a 26-acre facility
adjacent to it.
Given the steady growth of the logistics industry in Southern California because of the role
played by Long Angeles -Long Beach ports in Pacific Rim trade (see Section C-5, p. 22), it is
conceivable that rail -related activity could once again become an employment hub for San
Bernardino, particularly if the airport area develops as hoped. However, expansion of intermodal
and related transportation activities, if it happens, will also bring a major increase in truck traffic
on city streets. Consequently, City officials have some concerns that intermodal growth might
ultimately benefit the region more than it does San Bernardino, once the costs in increased street
maintenance and repair and noise impacts on local property values are taken into account. But
that caveat noted, the City recognizes that intermodal and transportation have potential as a
future growth sector of the local economy.
6. Local Policy Factors and Conditions Affecting Development
In pursuing development of new industry, San Bernardino faces some significant policy (land
use, fiscal, political) challenges.
(a) Land Use Patterns and Problems
San Bernardino was originally settled (1850s) around the present downtown area, with later
commercial and residential development spreading to the west side around the railroad complex
(see map next page). Up through World War II and even after, citrus and truck farming were
common on the edges of town as well as within city limits, particularly on the east side of
downtown and around what in 1942 became Norton AFB. Following the war, as growth
extended into the north end, as well as eastward toward the neighboring community of Highland,
there was only limited municipal effort to manage the pattern of development. Numerous lots
throughout the city once used for farming (or never used for anything) were leapfrogged and left
undeveloped, especially east of Waterman Avenue and around Norton AFB.
92002 City of San Bernardino Community & Economic Profile, cited previously.
10
UgeN
Q ca ,
® Ro
- Cen
O SCV
-Nof
Q ltii
Sovl
®Tjo
NUM
11
Today, despite San Bernardino's being an established urban area, considerable acreage east of
downtown is a patchwork of developed and vacant parcels mixing commercial and residential
uses, much of it blighted and poorly served by infrastructure. Some 40 percent of the city falls
within a redevelopment area. Efficient land assemblage is impeded by the fact that many
individual owners hold title to small parcels. In addition, there are a number of County islands
within City limits over which the City has little or no authority. These conditions increase the
difficulties and costs of developing land or redeveloping it for urban infill. Consequently, even
as developer interest in San Bernardino grows, much available land — particularly in the vicinity
of the airport and its approaches (e.g., along Tippecanoe Avenue north from I-10) — is unready
for development. The City is preparing a Tippecanoe Master Infrastructure Plan to encourage
and facilitate new investment in and around the airport, and market forces presumably will begin
to create incentives to assemble and clear properties in this and other areas. However, the process
will probably be slower and costlier than might have been the case with more effective land use.
With general regard to land use patterns, it should be noted that San Bernardino presently has six
main commercial areas: (1) downtown around the Civic Center (2nd and "D" streets); (2) the
Hospitality Lane area along the I-10 freeway on both sides of Waterman Avenue, developed over
the past 30 years; (3) longstanding commercial development along Base Line Street and
Highland Avenues between from the I-215 east to the city of Highland; (4) the San Bernardino
west side along the Mount Vernon corridor; (5) the north end of town on the west side of 1-215
above University Parkway, which is home to the city's main industrial park; (6) and the north
end east of I-215 around Cal State San Bernardino, an area that is predominantly residential, but
increasingly draws retail business to serve the north end population.
As of August 2002, the city had 11 million square feet of industrial space, with vacancy in about
1 million square feet. Lease rates were among the lowest in the Riverside -San Bernardino
county area, $0.36 per square foot per month, making industrial property in the city very
competitive in strict terms of property costs.10 However, it is revealing to note the limited
amount of industrial space in San Bernardino relative to other leading Inland Empire cities:
Table 4.
Industrial Space in Key Inland Empire Cities
City
Population
Industrial Space
Industrial Space
(sq. ft.)
per Resident (sq. ft.)
Corona
123,000
25,550,000
207.7
Ontario
152,000
81,000,000
532.9
Riverside
260,000
17,500,000
67.3
San Bernardino
190,000
11,000,000
57.9
Ultimately, only market forces (facilitated by accommodating City policy) can expand the
amount of industrial space in San Bernardino so that in the future the city will be more nearly
comparable to and competitive with neighbor communities.
102002 City of San Bernardino Community & Economic Profile, cited previously.
12
(b) City Fiscal Capacity
In 1991 and 1992 the City's revenues fell dramatically because of recession, necessitating a
round of job cuts that eliminated about 100 positions. The revenue decline was compounded by
the phase -out of Norton AFB that not only eliminated federal jobs and revenues, but reduced
local sales taxes through loss of military patronage of off -base retail and service establishments
and housing. In 1998 the Economic Development Agency also had to make reductions, laying
off 25 employees.
While finances have since stabilized, staffing levels have not been fully restored to former levels.
Consequently some departments, among them Development Services (responsible for planning,
zoning, and project approval), are understaffed in some areas. A related problem is that some
professional staff salaries have fallen below average levels for the area labor market, making it
harder to attract or keep qualified talent. In 2000 a compensation study was conducted which
resulted in a general increase that made salaries more competitive. Staffing has not been
increased, however. Given fiscal problems in California government since early 2002, no
significant increases are likely in the near future.
(c) Local Utility Users Tax
San Bernardino's municipal tax structure does not differ greatly from that of neighbor
jurisdictions, with one exception: the City imposes an eight percent Utility Users Tax (UUT) on
residential and commercial electricity, gas, telephone, and cable service. Critics have claimed
that the UUT significantly raises costs of doing business compared with neighbor communities,
although whether this is true is unclear, as other local costs (land and labor particularly) are
lower than in neighbor cities, to say nothing of the Los Angeles -Orange County area.
In response to this concern, the City implemented a one-time UUT Rebate Program to all
residents and businesses for August and September of 2001, which totaled $855,000. In
addition, the City in July of 2001 adopted a strategy to systematically reduce the tax based on a
formula. The formula takes into consideration the growth in certain major General Fund
revenues, and uses a portion of that growth to determine the amount of potential reduction. Each
March the Finance Department uses the formula to calculate a possible UUT reduction. In
December 2002 the City deliberated making a .15% reduction in the tax (which would have
reduced total UUT fees paid by businesses and residents by $375,000 in 2003), but elected not to
because of the state's uncertain fiscal situation. Additional financial incentives are available to
qualified businesses from the EDA (Attachment 1).
7. Important Community Conditions Affecting Development
Three pressing community problems — deficiencies in housing, education, and healthcare — are
interwoven with San Bernardino's economic weaknesses in a complex, cause -and -effect
relationship of long duration. It is beyond the scope of programs presented in this CEDS to
actually solve these problems, but it is to be hoped that as the CEDS is implemented they may
begin to abate.
13
(a) Housing and Blight
One of the central challenges confronting San Bernardino is to reverse two -plus decades of
deterioration and blight in older residential districts. According to the 2000 Census, 11 percent
of the city's 63,500 housing units are vacant, many of these in an advanced state of disrepair.
Housing stock also is aged: based on 1987 data (the most recent available), 47 percent of housing
is older than 30 years, while 19 percent is between 20 — 30 years old, averages which have
probably not changed greatly. As property values have fallen, absentee landlords have bought up
many housing units. As a result, the city's owner -occupancy rate has fallen to 52 percent (versus
59 percent in 1980).
In the past, municipal blight -busting efforts tended to be fragmented. More recently though City
responses have improved, building upon a system of Neighborhood Associations created through
community organization to tackle blight at the neighborhood level, and supported in various
ways by the City and Economic Development Agency. Currently there are about 40 active
Neighborhood Associations, which identify priorities and develop remedies that may include
City assistance in such areas as crime reduction, police presence, HUD foreclosures, and
maintenance and beautification. A liaison in the Mayor's office works with the Neighborhood
Associations to coordinate their efforts with the City. The Economic Development Agency has
at various times provided limited resources to the Associations to accomplish beautification
projects in a number of neighborhoods. It also sponsors a Mortgage Assistance Program (MAP)
and an Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resale (ARR) program, which together have helped over
1,000 households achieve home ownership over the past five years. In the same period it has
helped to rehabilitate some 1,500 housing units. Some of this investment has been targeted in six
Neighborhood Improvement Projects (NIPS) established by the City to promote revitalization,
development of new senior citizen housing, and housing preservation. Most recently (in 2001), a
Beautification Action Team or BAT, a cross -departmental unit comprised of managers of the
Departments of Animal Control, Code Enforcement, Development Services, Fire, Parks and
Recreation, Police, and the Economic Development Agency, was created. Its mandate is to
develop and begin implementing a comprehensive, long-term strategy for containing and
eliminating blight. To date, a tentative strategy has been outlined, but securing the resources to
act on it is proving to be a challenge. By way of summary, it is clear to most City officials and
community leaders that if new investment is to be attracted to reinvigorate the economy and
revitalize neighborhoods, blight has to be checked and reversed.
(b) Primary and Secondary Education
Local schools grapple with pressing resource constraints and academic achievement problems
inherent to a distressed economy. On one hand, schools must cope with the resource challenges
that make it difficult to ensure adequate investment and maintenance of school facilities or
competitive teacher salaries. In turn, schools struggle to educate successfully, reflected in the
fact that San Bernardino student achievement scores on statewide tests are generally lower than
the state average. The State Department of Education utilizes an Academic Performance Index
(API) that assigns a rating ranging from 200 to 1,000 based on student scores on statewide
achievement tests, with a performance goal of 800 for all schools. In 2001, elementary, middle,
and high schools in the city of San Bernardino had a relatively low average API of
14
approximately 570.11 San Bernardino (city and county) also has one of the state's lowest
college -going rates for high school graduates. In part, low college attendance reflects the "blue-
collar" nature of the regional economy, its historically limited employment opportunity for
university graduates, and a commensurate lack of established college -going traditions in
families. In reflection of this regional heritage (as well as larger statewide problems in primary
and secondary education), high levels of remediation are required for undergraduate students
entering local colleges and universities.12 From the perspective of economic development, the
import of San Bernardino's educational problems is that cultivating and sustaining an
employable, skilled work force is a significant challenge.
(c) Health and Well -Being
In addition to education problems, San Bernardino County and City have some potentially
serious health conditions. There are no categories of the Year 2010 Health Objectives for the
Nation in which the County has met goals. According to the California Department of Health
Services annual report, California Health Status Profiles for Counties: 2001, the areas where it
does worse than the rest of California include cancer deaths, firearm deaths, homicide, infant
mortality, births to teens, suicides, strokes, and auto accidents.13
For the nine years ending in 1999, the 92410 and 92411 zip codes on the west side had a rate of
births -to -teens of 19.3 percent, compared to an overall state rate of 12.4 percent (56 percent
greater). In the same area, the infant death rate was 10.6 per thousand, compared to 7.7 for the
County (38 percent greater).
8. New Economic Opportunities
Over the past five years (since 1998), a number of opportunities have emerged for redeveloping
or enhancing key areas of the city.
(a) "Lakes and Streams" Downtown Revitalization Project
Because of its underground lake, San Bernardino has a high water table, which is believed to
pose a danger of soil liquefaction and extreme damage and even collapse of buildings in the
event of a major earthquake. In addition, future population growth projected for the area served
by the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District will eventually require construction of
new water storage facilities. To address both of these problems, a plan emerged in the late 1990s
from within the Water District to construct a surface lake or lakes to store water. As this "Lakes
and Streams" project crystallized, the Water District, local business interests, and eventually City
officials came to agree that it had the potential to revitalize the greater downtown area by
clearing blighted development for a system of urban lakes and streams surrounded by new
housing and amenities (shops, parks, botanical gardens).
(California Department of Education, 2000 — 2001 Academic Performance Index (API) Growth Report,
http://api.ede.ca.gov/api2000base
12See http://www.asd.calstate.edu/remediation00-re=ates-sb.htm.
"See Http://www.dhs.ca.gov/hisp.chs/phweek/cprofile200l/profile200l.htm.
15
In 1999 a San Bernardino Regional Water Resources Authority was formed, consisting of the
Water District, the City and its Water Department, and the Inland Valley Development Agency,
to develop a detailed concept and scope of work and determine the costs of carrying out a Lakes
and Streams project. As of August 2002, the concept as developed by consultants — originally
named "Vision 20/20" and now called the Downtown Revitalization Project — proposes creating
a new "Garden City" in San Bernardino within an area of as much as 700 acres. The Project
Area encompasses much of the existing downtown and surrounds. Two lakes would anchor it at
either end, with a variety of water amenities spread throughout. As the project's draft Specific
Plan states, "The entire Project Area currently represents a mixture of substandard commercial,
industrial and residential uses, coupled with [some] newer, though under -performing commercial
development .... This area is economically depressed and surrounded by low-income residential
neighborhoods. The general perception is that the area is undesirable and unsafe." 10. Projected
cost of redeveloping the area through the plan is estimated to be between $150 and $200 million.
Expectation is that financing would be obtained though a combination of grants, water sales, and
bonds. The project would be constructed in phases, requiring up to 20 years to complete. If the
projected schedule were met, land clearance could commence in June 2004.
At the present writing, many implementation details remain to be determined. These include
exact shape of lakes; whether a stream will connect them; number of dwellings to be demolished
and historically valuable dwellings that will have to be moved; number of residents that will
require resettlement from substandard conditions to adequate housing; and financial assistance to
be provided to relocate. Numerous public meetings have been held to deliberate these matters,
with more yet to come. A decision on the project is expected in 2003.
(b) Norton — San Bernardino International Airport (Alliance California)
Commercial redevelopment of the San Bernardino airport area has been a priority of the City of
San Bernardino and neighbor jurisdictions since the announcement in 1990 of the forthcoming
closure of Norton AF13. The current plans for the site, centered on the existing airport and
creation of an industrial, warehouse, and distribution center (Alliance California), were described
earlier (see Section A-4-b, pp. 6 — 7). In previous years, Economic Development Administration
funds have been secured for various airport -area infrastructure improvements, and it is possible
that additional applications could be made to EDA in the future. A particular need and
opportunity identified for the airport area over the past year (since 2001) has been to create an
infrastructure plan (the Tippecanoe Master Infrastructure Plan, mentioned earlier) for the base
redevelopment project area. Once this plan has been completed, it will facilitate future
infrastructure improvements and new construction in the area.
(c) Santa Fe Depot District
San Bernardino's Santa Fe Depot is a historic structure built in 1918 in the Mission Revival
architectural style, located on the southwest side of town next to today's BNSF intermodal rail
yard. The 57,360 square foot building is registered as both a national and state historical site.
Currently it is the San Bernardino stop for the Southern California Metro Link commuter rail
system, but otherwise it is unused. Long decaying, the depot has been the object of several
14San Bernardino Revitalization Specific Plan, San Bernardino Regional Water Resources Authority, August 2002.
16
redevelopment plans over the years. Commencing in 1998, the City began to build a grant fund
to restore the structure, and by August 2002 had obtained the $13 million needed for structural
rehabilitation and seismic retrofit. In September 2002 the City awarded a contract to commence
and complete restoration, which is scheduled for completion in January 2004.
Long-term plans envision developing a "mercado" or market with mixed -use retail and offices in
and around the depot. For this purpose the City and Economic Development Agency are
exploring acquisition of property to the south of the depot. The depot area is particularly
important as the primary historic preservation district in the city.
(d) University District
The campus of California State University at San Bernardino, located on the north end of the
city, was inaugurated in 1964, at which time there was only limited development in its
surrounding area. In the years since, new housing (both single family and apartments) and retail
space have grown up around the campus. In authorizing this construction, the City made little
effort to try to harmonize it with the campus architecture, or to exploit the opportunity presented
by the campus to promote a "college town" atmosphere in the north end.
As part of the City's General Plan update (see Section D-3 below, p. 28), a University District
Specific Plan is being prepared whose purpose is to set standards for future development around
Cal State that will better integrate it and the surrounding area physically and visually. This will
be promoted through unified landscaping, signage, street naming, and related approaches. An
additional goal of the University District Specific Plan is to encourage and facilitate growth of
technology businesses or other appropriate types of industry around the campus, working in
cooperation with the University administration. Standards in the Specific Plan allow for a
business/tech park that would abut CSUSB on approximately 100 acres fronting the south side of
Northpark Boulevard between University Parkway and Campus Parkway. The business/tech
park would contain approximately 25,000 sq. ft. of retail floor area designed to serve the special
needs of the campus and the businesses in the park, and approximately 400,000 sq. ft. of
buildings for commercial offices, technology activities, and a conference center. The property in
question is owned by the San Bernardino Water Department. Ownership and the power to
establish zoning standards give the City both a major incentive and the control needed to ensure
that only desired kinds of growth occur there in the future, to include 150 — 200 single family
houses priced in the $325,000 - $500,000 range. The general goal will be to stimulate the
emergence of a new economic and employment hub in the north end of the city, one which
capitalizes on the unique human, educational, and research assets of the campus.
In 2002, University Parkway into the campus was repaved as part of a city capital improvement
project, while Caltrans completed an upgrade of the offramp at University Parkway and I-215.
Funding has also been allocated to extend an existing street on the north end of campus to
improve access to it, construction of which is scheduled to start in 2003.
(e) Arrowhead Springs Resort
17
Arrowhead Springs is a former resort hotel located on 1,916 acres of property in unincorporated
territory on the north side of San Bernardino below Waterman Canyon, entrance to the San
Bernardino mountains. The present hotel complex, which is the fourth to stand on the site, was
built in the early 1940s (the first was erected in the 1880s). Originally a retreat for movie stars
and other celebrities, the hotel has been closed for many years. Now, a private real estate
company has developed a concept for transforming the property into a hotel, conference, and
residential destination.
The master plan for development of 556 acres of the Arrowhead Springs property includes a
175-acre golf course and an upscale corporate office complex; a "residential hill -town"
community of 272 homes on 52 acres and a senior retirement village abutting the most southerly
portion of the golf course; an upscale single family residential neighborhood abutting the most
northerly portion of the golf course; a "village walk" shopping complex; and an education and
entertainment park focusing on community sustainability principles and the world of water. The
remaining portion of the property would be open space, watershed, and wilderness. The plan
envisions an exemplar of a sustainable community with on -site water, electricity, and sewer
treatment. Building on the romance of artesian wells, geothermal waters, steam heating and mud
baths, and movie star nostalgia, Arrowhead Springs would become a world -class demonstration
of a sustainable community in harmony with the natural environment. As part of the
development terms the City would annex the property. In September 2002, the City approved an
agreement with a consultant firm to prepare the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan, Traffic Impact
Analysis, Environmental Impact Report, Development Agreement, and Annexation Documents
for the property, to be funded by the developer/owner of the property in the amount of $470,000.
(f) Stadium Business Park
In the early 1990s the City's Redevelopment Agency oversaw the construction of a minor league
baseball stadium on "E" Street several blocks south of the Civic Complex east of I-215. In 2002,
plans emerged to expand upon the stadium by building a three-story Stadium Business Park
office complex and parking structure, estimated to have a completed market value of around $80
million. The concept for the proposed project includes amending the development code to
permit construction and operation of 450,000 sq. ft. of building floor area and water features.
The Stadium Business Park project would require acquisition and consolidation of approximately
30 acres. It would have excellent freeway access, and is envisioned to attract corporate
headquarter -type tenants.
B. REGIONAL TRENDS IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA & THE INLAND EMPIRE
San Bernardino's regional economy can be viewed in terms of two areas: the five -county greater
Los Angeles area, and within that, the Inland Empire (Riverside -San Bernardino counties). The
Inland Empire long has been overshadowed by the "coastal region" both economically, in terms
of comparative sophistication and wage levels of existing industry, and culturally, in terms of
variety and quality of civic, cultural, and recreational institutions.
However, because of relative abundance of open land available for development, the Inland
Empire is also understood to be the "next frontier" for Southern California growth. As such, it is
c
IC
generally expected that in the next two decades there will be an accelerating eastward migration
of industry, investment, and housing construction that will transform the Inland Empire's
physical, economic, and cultural environment. San Bernardino's challenge will be to capture an
appropriate share of the anticipated growth while coping with the consequences of new housing
and population, rising traffic congestion, and increasing consumption of critical resources such
as water.
The next sections discuss five regional trends that will affect future economic conditions in and
around San Bernardino.
1. Population Growth
For the five -county greater Los Angeles area as a whole, population over the next 20 years (to
2020) is projected to increase 22 percent, from 16,694,000 to 21,752,000. Within Los Angeles,
Orange, and (to a lesser extent) Ventura counties this increase will primarily be internal
population growth, occurring in older, built -out communities whose population density will also
rise. In contrast, population growth in San Bernardino and Riverside counties will stem from
both natural internal growth and from in -migration, increasing two -county population from 3.2
million in 2000 to a projected 5.6 million in 2020.15
2. "Smart Growth"
As the growth occurs, San Bernardino -Riverside counties and their cities, like the rest of
Southern California, will be forced to confront the regional realities of looming constraints on
water supply and solid waste disposal (landfill) capacity, as well as rising pressures on
transportation systems. Recognizing these impending problems, there is growing discussion
among policy makers of the desirability of adopting so-called "smart growth" practices that seek
to use resources more efficiently through greater recycling of water and solid waste, along with
infill development of new housing.
However, instituting smart growth practices in communities, industry, and among consumers is
likely to be a challenge, given ever-increasing need for new housing throughout Southern
California, coupled with resistance to denser development. Several studies were released in
2002 that document a severe housing shortage in the state, pointing to the immediate need to
construct new housing, particularly for low-income residents.16 At the same time, another report
(released in October 2002) asserts that the Inland Empire has the most severe sprawl problem in
the United States — a condition resulting in substantial part from demand for traditional low -
density Southern California housing development.17
"Sprawl Hits the Wall.: Confronting the Realities of Metropolitan Los Angeles, Southern California Studies Center, University of
Southern California, 2001.
"California Budget Project, Locked Out 2002. See www.cpb.org,
17Measuring Sprawl and Its Impact. http://Smartgrowthamerica.com; Los Angeles Times, "Swallowed by urban sprawl: relocating
to Inland Empire puts people in the midst of what they fled, researchers, find," October 19, 2002.
19
Given the cross -pressures of acute housing need versus apparent consumer preferences for
decentralized construction, it remains to be seen how quickly or to what extent smart growth
controls will take root, particularly in the Inland Empire. Ultimately, appropriate State policies
and incentives may be necessary to guide, cajole, or compel local governments into employing
smart growth strategies18 — provided State government has the will or ability to enact such
legislation.
3. Rising Housing Costs — Commuter Work Force
A contributing factor to smart growth challenges in the Inland Empire has been the emergence of
the region as the home of a substantial commuter population, a consequence of the long-term rise
of housing costs in the Los Angeles -Orange County area. Prior to the 1970s, the Inland Empire's
work force largely was employed within the region. But since then, Riverside -San Bernardino
counties have become something of a bedroom suburb of the coastal counties as people
employed there have been unable to afford housing, and have moved east to take advantage of
housing prices in the Inland Empire which currently average about $200,000 less than in Los
Angeles and Orange Counties.
Today, some 300,000 of the Inland Empire's approximately 1.6 million workers commute west
20 miles or more to generally better -paying jobs than are available locally. This development
has had two negative consequences: traffic and commuting times on Inland Empire freeways
have been rising, while the region suffers a kind of "brain drain" as substantial numbers of what
are believed to be skilled, educated people commute west for work. The upside is that a growing
population of educated workers is gradually improving the region's capacity to create and attract
higher -wage work. If and as such employment actually takes root on a significant scale, it
should begin to draw commuters off the freeways into local jobs. At the same time it should
begin to elevate regional incomes and prosperity.
4. Defense Downsizing and Manufacturing Industry Migration
For all of Southern California, the pivotal economic event of the 1990s was the abrupt post -Cold
War downsizing of the aerospace industry that had fueled economic growth since World War II,
and the regional adjustment to the ensuing loss of high -wage defense jobs and related base
closures.19 The trauma of the event has yet to be transcended. As 2000 Census data show,
median income in Los Angeles County fell 6.7 percent during the decade (compared to growth of
21.5 percent in the 1980s), a direct consequence of defense downsizing, which eliminated some
85,000 high -wage manufacturing jobs. 20 In the Inland Empire the major blow came from base
closures, including Norton AFB in 1994 and the shock of losing its 10,000 jobs.
18The role of state government in instituting smart growth approaches is addressed in The Regional City. Planning jar the End of
Sprawl, Peter Calthorpe and William Fulton, Island Press, 2001.
19Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide, Southern California Association of Governments, 1996.
20,, Income Drop in `90s Cut a Broad Swath, Data Show," Los Angeles Times, August 27, 2002.
20
On the positive side, in the wake of the defense cutbacks, Southern California has seen a
proliferation of new, small companies in high tech and media -related industry sectors.
Concentrated at the present time in the coastal zone, the technology -industry trend is fueling an
exodus of older manufacturing activities like furniture -making and plastic injection molding into
the less expensive Riverside -San Bernardino area. 21 Migration of light manufacturing to the
Inland Empire is expected to continue for some years to come, improving the region's job base
and income levels as a result of the higher relative wages of manufacturing employment.
5. Growth of Logistics and Warehousing
Even more significant for the Inland Empire than growth of manufacturing has been its
emergence as a center for warehousing and logistics, evidently the "highest and best use" of its
available land and the basis of its "regional advantage." The growth of warehousing/logistics is
tied to the rising importance of the Los Angeles -Long Beach harbor complex for U.S. — Pacific
Rim trade. Warehouse development has been accelerated by construction of the Alameda
Corridor, a below -grade rail bed from the ports to the rail yards in Los Angeles, completed in
2002. Over the next decade, an Alameda Corridor East is to be built from Los Angeles to Colton
Junction next door to San Bernardino on the city's south side, to facilitate flow of rail -carried
goods to and from Southern California. At present, the Inland Empire's warehouses are
concentrated mainly in the area around Ontario airport southwest of the junction of Interstates 10
and 15. However, new ones increasingly are being constructed farther east, in Fontana between
Ontario and Colton, and it is anticipated that pressure will grow to also build them in San
Bernardino, where a regional distribution center for the Kohl's retail chain was erected in 2002.
Employment -wise, warehouse development is a mixed blessing: it provides jobs and property tax
revenues but consumes large amounts of land while returning a low ratio of jobs per square foot.
Nor are wage rates generally comparable to manufacturing, although they appear to be higher in
more sophisticated, automated warehouses. Whether warehousing in fact is the "highest and
best" use of San Bernardino's available commercial property is a point of debate among City
officials. Their preference would be for more manufacturing and technology -related industry
and employment, if it can be attracted or cultivated through local startup businesses.
C. LOCAL & REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RESOURCES
San Bernardino and the larger county and Inland Empire region have a variety of organizations
and groups, both public and private, to serve as resources for economic development efforts.
1. Municipal Agencies
First and foremost in importance as an economic development resource is the San Bernardino
Economic Development Agency, a combined redevelopment and economic development
organization that offers an array of technical assistance, land assemblage, loan, and related
programs to promote business retention, expansion, and attraction and real estate development.
21 Manufacturing in the Los Angeles FiveCountyArea, Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation, September
2001.
21
In its role as Redevelopment Agency under state law, the Economic Development Agency
manages designated Redevelopment Project Areas in the city, of which there are 1 1 (see map p.
11). Services and capabilities are summarized in Attachment 1.
A second municipal agency important to economic development is the San Bernardino
Employment and Training Agency (SBETA), which is responsible for training and placing un-
and underemployed residents in jobs. SBETA provides for adults job training, dislocated worker
training, summer youth training and youth job training, assistance for older workers, and
assistance with education linkages. SBETA contracts with local schools and public and private
organizations to train individuals, and then places them.
Other City agencies directly or indirectly important to economic development are:
The Department of Development Services, which is responsible for planning, zoning, and
building and public works maintenance, construction, and capital improvements;
Code Enforcement, which regulates compliance with residential and commercial property
codes, a vital need given the city's blight problems and the deterrent to development
posed by blight and its resultant negative community image.
2. County Organizations
As county seat, San Bernardino is host location of many key County government offices. Of
particular importance among these is the County's Economic and Community Development and
Public Services Group, responsible for countywide economic development, redevelopment, and
community development functions, to include workforce investment. The County is generally
prohibited from spending federal or other funds within the City limits. However, County and
City economic development officials and staff interact with and work together in many formal
and informal ways (a County Workforce Investment manager participated in preparing this
CEDS). Thus, City and County staff involved in economic and community development often
are able and willing to serve as resources for each other.
Also to be noted, the County has prepared an approved CEDS for San Bernardino County. This
document (cited previously) has been utilized in the preparation of the present plan, which is
intended to be compatible with the County's CEDS.
3. Joint Powers Authorities
As stated before, two joint powers authorities (JPAs) have been created to manage
redevelopment of former Norton Air Force Base and San Bernardino International Airport.
Although airport development has sometimes been complicated by the involvement of multiple
government authorities in decision -making, staff of both JPAs work closely with the City of San
Bernardino, particularly its Development Services Department, in the planning and approval of
commercial development on the property. The JPAs have provided a forum for metropolitan -
wide discussion and coordination of airport development, given the representation on their
governing boards of elected representatives of the member local governments.
22
4. Higher Education Institutions
San Bernardino is home to two higher education institutions: California State University, San
Bernardino (CSUSB), and the San Bernardino Valley Community College District, which
includes San Bernardino Valley College (SBVC) and Crafton Hills College located in Yucaipa
next door to San Bernardino. In addition, several other universities are close to the city.
University of Redlands, a private college, is in the adjacent town of Redlands immediately east.
Loma Linda University Medical Center is in Loma Linda along San Bernardino's south border.
Twelve miles west is the University of California, Riverside.
Like colleges and universities across the nation today, all of these institutions are trying to
become as engaged as they can in local economic and community development efforts. San
Bernardino Valley College is particularly active in efforts to train residents for work in technical
and production positions in local businesses, on its own and as part of the statewide Ed/Net
Program. Cal State San Bernardino, which has a College of Business and Public Administration,
focuses on managerial and professional education, both in degree programs and through its
College of Extended Learning, which provides specialized training programs. In addition,
CSUSB has established an entrepreneurship center and a technology transfer program which
both aim to increase local entrepreneurial and small business creation and growth. Although
University of Redlands, Loma Linda University, and UC Riverside have not generally been as
active as the other two schools in San Bernardino economic development, they do participate in
regional efforts that affect the city (see discussion below). In addition, some of their faculty or
other staff have rendered valuable service to various local community -betterment efforts,
commonly on a voluntary basis.
5. Local Private Groups
San Bernardino has a number of private organizations or groups that play some role in economic
development or related activities. These include the San Bernardino Area Chambers of
Commerce, and the Black and Hispanic Chambers of Commerce. Also, as discussed previously
there are some 40 active neighborhood associations that are vital to residential blight abatement
efforts. A non-profit organization focusing on housing needs, which has worked closely with
both Neighborhood Associations and the City and Economic Development Agency, is
Neighborhood Housing Services of the Inland Empire (NHSIE). Among other services NHSIE
rehabilitates housing for sale to moderate -income citizens and provides a variety of training
programs relating to home ownership and maintenance.
Another important private group in San Bernardino is a non-profit local advocacy organization
named Inland Action, which consists of approximately 60 prominent local business people and a
small number of elected officials. Formed in the early 1960s to preserve Norton Air Force Base
as an operational installation, Inland Action's mission ever since has been to identify significant
economic and legislative concerns of San Bernardino and pursue ways to address them. Besides
Norton renewal, Inland Action's focus has tended to be on transportation and revitalization of the
downtown area.
23
6. Regional Agencies and Groups
The Inland Empire has a number of regional organizations and groups whose functions affect
city economic development in varying ways.
The most important of these entities is the San Bernardino Area Governments (SANBAG), the
local transportation -planning agency. SANBAG is responsible for planning and coordinating
regional road and rail system development. It also allocates federal and state transportation
dollars to local agencies. Among other services to San Bernardino, SANBAG has contributed to
the fund established to rehabilitate the Santa Fe Depot.
Another regional group, responsible for marketing the region to attract business, is the Inland
Empire Economic Partnership (IEEP). This is a dues -based, public -private collaborative whose
members include both county governments and some of the municipalities from both counties
(including San Bernardino), along with a number of higher education institutions and businesses.
IEEP also oversees a regional film commission and tourist bureau, a state -funded regional
technology alliance intended to support development of technology industry, and a Small
Business Development Center located in Riverside, among other functions. As a voluntary
organization lacking political authority over member agencies, IEEP has no power to make and
implement policy, but it can serve as a forum for developing common agendas to benefit the
region, such as mitigating city -versus -city rivalry over businesses.
The City of San Bernardino is also an active member of the League of California Cities. The
League provides information and advocacy regarding legislation, education, legal activity, and
other information specific to cities' top concerns. City of San Bernardino councilmembers serve
on the Leagues' Inland Empire Division Legislative Task Force and on the Housing,
Community, and Economic Development Committee.
D. ENGAGEMENT OF THE COMMUNITY IN ECONOMIC PLANNING
Three previous City planning efforts involving community participation have provided the
foundation for the present CEDS. These are:
• The Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community application effort: spring — fall 1998
• Development of the Big -Industry Growth (BIG) strategy: summer 1998 — spring 1999
• The City of San Bernardino General Plan update: spring 2002 — fall 2003
1. Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community (EZ/EC) Application
Shortly after assuming office in March 1998, San Bernardino Mayor Judith Valles directed the
Economic Development Agency to prepare an application for competition for a ten-year federal
Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community (EZ/EC) designation, to be awarded by the Housing
and Urban Development Administration commencing in 1999. An EZ/EC designation for San
Bernardino would have bought $10 million annually in federal funding ($100 million total) to
24
carry out a decade -long community -based strategy for urban reinvestment, job -creation, and
local program development and implementation.
By federal mandate, EZ/EC applications must be prepared through a process of community -
based workshops, analysis, and strategy -setting, involving as large and representative a group as
possible of community stakeholders. Over 200 community members participated in preparing
San Bernardino's EZ/EC application. Their role is described in the application document:
"Through the spring and summer following the Mayor's directive... to prepare an EZ/EC
application, an array of community -based groups and organizations was mobilized to conduct
the myriad discussions, meetings, and workshops required to assess the community's
weaknesses, strengths, and opportunities and to develop strategies to address them. These
groups included San Bernardino's `Neighborhood Associations'; local health and human
services organizations and groups, including hospitals, churches, and faith -based groups;
business associations; various governmental entities from local, state and federal levels; and
education institutions. The participants were formed into a number of stakeholder groups and
subcommittees to perform the various analyses required for preparing the actual EZ/EC
strategy .... A Stakeholder Subcommittee selected the boundaries of the nominated
Empowerment Zone, pursuant to the criteria of the EZ/EC grant." 22
The area selected for the Empowerment Zone was on San Bernardino's west side, in addition to
a non-contiguous "developable site" at San Bernardino International Airport. The evaluation of
the state of the community and its goals and priorities for revitalization — the articulation of the
desired outcome of the Empowerment Zone a decade hence — were expressed in the EZ/EC
vision statement, which is reproduced in Appendix 2. Toward that vision, the EZ/EC application
outlined a strategy based on community -based action in four broad categories, for each of which
specific programs were enumerated. In order of presentation in the application, the four strategic
categories were defined and titled as follows:
(1) A New Economy for San Bernardino: Business and Job Creation
(2) Decent Housing, Safe Neighborhoods for the Empowerment Zone
(3) Health and Well Being
(4) Education for the Future Community
The goal for the first, "new economy" category was to increase business and employment
opportunities in the Empowerment Zone. Among the economic development programs proposed
were:
• Creating a City Hall -based "Business Support Network"
"City of San Bernardino, Application for an Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community Designation, October 1998, p. ii.
25
• Pursuing large-scale commercial and residential blight abatement in the EZ/EC to create
a more attractive business climate.
• Identifying potential infrastructure projects for EZ/EC grant support.
As the EZ/EC application and the Business -Industry Growth (BIG) strategy (see next section)
were being developed during the same period and involved some of the same individuals, there
was some cross-fertilizing of ideas and initiatives in the two efforts. The EZ/EC application
made direct reference to the BIG plan, noting that "Regardless of whether the City is designated
an Empowerment Zone, it must pursue a long-term strategy for economic renewal. The resulting
citywide plan is called the Business -Industry Growth strategy, or "BIG"... [It] seeks to cultivate
growth of `production businesses,' i.e., manufacturers and service firms that export output to
state, national and global markets, as well as `clustering' or concentration of a specific industry
or industries in San Bernardino" (p. vii).
Although San Bernardino was not awarded an Empowerment Zone designation, the community -
based community assessment and goal -setting which came from the application process
influenced the development of the BIG plan and some of the priorities that were defined in it. As
discussed below, efforts to address some if not all of these priorities have been carried out under
the umbrella of BIG.
2. Business -Industry Growth Strategy
At roughly the same time that the EZ application effort commenced, Mayor Valles also
convened a Business Advisory Council (BAC) of local business leaders to develop a
comprehensive economic strategy for the entire City (see Attachment 3, list of BAC members).
Between May and October 1998, the BAC met approximately half a dozen times in two-hour
working sessions to deliberate community economic and related problems and identify ways to
begin addressing them.
As indicated above, the fruit of the BAC's work was a plan dubbed the Business -Industry
Growth strategy, or BIG. A first draft of the BIG plan was completed by the BAC in October
1998, then revised and developed further for formal adoption by the Common Council as the
City's economic strategy in April 1999.23 In preparing the plan, the BAC drew upon previous
studies, in particular a consultant report with recommendations prepared for the Economic
Development Agency in 1995.24 Analysis and specific priorities established in the EZ/EC
application also were incorporated. In the same spirit as the EZ/EC document, BIG recognized
the interwoven character of San Bernardino's economic challenges. In reflection of this
interconnectedness, the BIG plan was organized around a set of seven elements:
• Business and industry
73City of San Bernardino, Business -Industry Growth Strategy, April 1999.
24San Bernardino Economic Development Agency, San Bernardino Economic Development Strategy, Final Report, 1995.
00
• City government
• Marketing and publicity
• Downtown renewal and promotion
• Housing
• Community appearance and quality of life
• Colleges and universities
Particular economic revitalization needs emphasized in BIG were:
• Expanding the city's industrial base and manufacturing -related employment
• Promoting export -oriented private -industry "clusters" where opportunities exist
• Improving City Hall processes so as to be more "business friendly"
• Checking and reversing blight of residential and commercial areas
Within each of BIG's seven elements, a set of initiatives was formulated to begin pursuing
revitalization efforts. A total of 20 initiatives was established, an average of about three per
element. From 1999 onward, efforts were made to achieve as much progress as possible on the
BIG initiatives, given limited resources available. Attachment 4 summarizes the initiatives and
their implementation status. As can be seen from the table presented there, some progress has
been made on most, if not all of the initiatives. However, it has not been possible (again owing
to lack of available resources) to evaluate impacts of these implementation efforts.
Ultimately, the contribution and impact of BIG has been to articulate a specific understanding of
San Bernardino's economic needs and prospective solutions which has influenced subsequent
City and EDA economic development -related efforts, and which has been incorporated in the
present CEDS. Of particular note, BIG has contributed to institution of an ongoing process -
improvement employee empowerment program in the Development Services Department (called
the "Winning Team" program), and the creation in 2001 of the cross -departmental Beautification
Action Team (BAT) to develop a long-term strategy for combating and reversing blight.
3. General Plan Update
Under state law, San Bernardino like all California cities is required to prepare a periodic update
of its General Plan, which governs land use in the city through zoning standards. As part of the
update process, opportunities for community participation and input are required. In addition to
holding community meetings, the plan must be approved by the City's Planning Commission
followed by the Common Council, in public meetings that are noticed in advance. The City's
last General Plan update was completed in 1988.
The present General Plan update effort commenced public meetings in January 2002 (see
Attachment 5, Community Participants in General Plan Meetings). An initial workshop with the
Common Council, City and Economic Development Agency staff, and community stakeholders
27
to explain the planning process was followed by a series of four community meetings held in
different locations, attended by a total of approximately 60 residents. Additionally, a workshop
was held with representatives of the business community to solicit their views and record their
concerns.
In preparing the new General Plan, the City's Development Services Department has been able
to make use of previous planning documents including BIG, as well as shape the plan to
accommodate the new development opportunities facing the city described previously (e.g.,
Lakes and Streams, Santa Fe Depot project). For the present General Plan, a number of special
elements are being prepared. These include the following:
• University District Specific Plan
• Tippecanoe Master Infrastructure Plan
• Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan
• Santa Fe Depot District Specific Plan
Elements related to these plans may be appropriate projects for consideration for CEDS funding
in the future.
4. CEDS Committee
To prepare the present plan, a CEDS committee was formed in the summer of 2002 (see list of
Committee members, p. 1). Consisting of community members, most of who had participated in
creating the BIG plan, and officials of the City and Economic Development Agency, the
Committee reviewed previous City planning documents as well as the requirements for preparing
a CEDS.
E. SUMMARY
The essential point to derive from the preceding analysis is that San Bernardino is an older
Southern California city that seeks to restore its former economic vibrancy and has promising
opportunities to do so. As a community located inland from the Los Angeles -Orange County
area in the Inland Empire sub -region, San Bernardino will be in the path of the economic growth
which will be occurring in Southern California over the next 20 years. It is likely to become a
hub of logistics and transportation -related activity, and possibly also light manufacturing
industry which is now migrating inland from Greater Los Angeles. As part of these industry
trends, the city can anticipate becoming the target of an increasing level of business investment
and migration in the next five to seven years (2003 — 2010) as industrial space in the west end of
San Bernardino county fills up and growth must come farther east, a process already well along.
Likewise, the community can anticipate substantial growth in its population and housing stock.
In attracting and generating its desired share of future growth, San Bernardino must overcome
several great challenges. One is the extensive residential and commercial blight that has arisen
in various locations of the city. There is no question, based on comments from outside
businesses and investors evaluating the city, that arresting blight and improving physical
appearance is vital to attracting the kind of high -wage industry the community desires and needs.
M
A related challenge is to prepare developable land with necessary infrastructure so that property
can be developed cost-effectively.
A variety of important projects have been launched or are being planned which offer the
potential for the kind of change that can spark overall transformation of the local economy.
These initiatives include the Lakes and Streams Downtown Revitalization Project; the Santa Fe
Depot restoration; the development of San Bernardino International Airport as a transportation -
industrial hub; the annexation and development of the historic Arrowhead Springs resort; and
encouragement of technology and related industry around Cal State San Bernardino. In
conjunction with the containment and reduction of blight, these projects represent the focus of
San Bernardino economic development in the next decade. It is a purpose and ambition of this
CEDS to help bring these opportunities to fruition.
29
IL SAN BERNARDINO CEDS VISION AND GOALS
Based on the analysis presented in the preceding pages, the following vision and goals are
established for the CEDS:
A. VISION
San Bernardino's CEDS is intended to increase availability of higher -wage industrial and export -
oriented private -sector employment in the community, the key to raising incomes. In pursuit of
these employment targets, the plan is also designed to promote transformation of the city's
housing stock through rehabilitation of existing deteriorated housing and attraction of new
housing, both of which are essential to reduce excessive absentee -owner and housing rental rates
and stabilize neighborhoods with long-term owners and residents. Finally, the CEDS aims to
help reverse, and ultimately eliminate blight in neighborhoods and commercial areas, an
imperative for making San Bernardino attractive for local reinvestment and for new investment
from outside.
B. GOALS
The City will undertake appropriate efforts designed to achieve the following six CEDS goals by
or before the end of the next decade (2003 — 2013). Goals are listed in general order of priority
(note: rationale for these priorities is found in the pages of the report shown in parenthesis at the
conclusion of each goal statement):
GOAL 1: Increase industrial and other export -oriented private -sector employment to
between 5 — 10 percent of the city labor force (see pp. 7 — 9).
GOAL2: Maintain or increase current levels of public agency and health care employment
(see pp. 7 — 9).
GOAL 3: Increase median household income so that it equals the median household income
of San Bernardino County (see p. 14).
GOAL 4: Increase the home ownership rate so that it equals the prevailing County home
ownership rate (see p. 14).
GOAL 5: Reduce blight by at least 10 percent of its present (2003) geographic area (see
p. 14).25
GOAL 6: Maintain a CEDS committee that will meet at least once annually to review and
advise the City on preparing the annual update of the CEDS and continuing its
implementation (note: required by Economic Development Administration).
2iAnalysis of blight currently underway will make it possible to evaluate the impact of City blight -abatement efforts and to
identify whether or not blight is being reduced (see footnote no. 10).
30
In addition, it is the ambition of this CEDS to make possible achievement of the following long-
term goals within 20 years (by 2023):
GOAL 7: Increase San Bernardino median income so that it equals or exceeds median
household income for the five -county greater Los Angeles area (see pp. 14,
18 - 21).
GOAL 8: Increase the City's home ownership rate so that it equals or exceeds the state
home ownership rate (see pp. 14, 18 — 21).
GOAL 9: Reduce blight in the city's residential and commercial districts to less than 20
percent of its present (2003) geographic area (see pp. 14, 18 — 21).
C. INTERRELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN GOALS
In terms of the effect that achieving each of these goals will have on the development potential
of the City and its underlying economic problems, the following general statements may be
made:
• Increasing the level of industrial and other export -oriented private -sector employment
(Goal 1) will serve to increase median income (Goal 3), and should in turn help to
eventually increase home ownership rates (Goal 4).
• Bolstering the economic vitality of the City (effects of Goals 1 and 3) should help to
maintain or expand government employment (Goal 2), by reducing incentives to relocate
government facilities to more economically attractive communities.
• If and as the City succeeds in attracting medical device maker companies (an industry
recruitment target), the location of such firms in San Bernardino should help bolster
existing health care employment (Goal 2) by building an image as a health-care industry
center.
• Rising incomes/wealth that should result from making progress on Goals 1 — 4 should in
turn increase value of housing stock, housing investment, and resources available to
reduce blight.
• Accomplishment of Goals 1 — 5 between 2003 and 2013 will help generate the necessary
momentum to achieve Goals 6 — 8 over the course of the following decade (to 2023).
31
III. CEDS ACTION PLAN
This section presents an Action Plan for implementing the CEDS. The Action Plan contains a
set of "Guiding Principles" and 14 initial Initiatives designed to support the CEDS goals that
were presented in the preceding section (Goals related to Initiatives are shown in parenthesis).
Specific projects related to the different Initiatives are listed in Section V following.
This is a first -year Action Plan. In preparing it, it has been assumed that future updates will
becopme more detailed and extensive as (a) projects are implemented and begin taking effect,
and (b) the CEDS becomes increasingly institutionalized as a City planning and policy
document. Some of the first -year initiatives outlined below will be carried on in future years.
A. GUIDING PRINCIPLES
In pursuing the CEDS vision and implementing the Action Plan, the City will act in accordance
with the following guiding principles:
• "District" development: Seek to stimulate and guide heightened levels of development
within a set of priority "districts" whose revitalization or enhancement will help promote
the economic vitality for surrounding areas and thereby the entire community;
• Industry clustering: Encourage "clustering" (concentration) of particular industries and
related and supporting types of businesses, as much as possible building upon existing
and potential employment nodes (e.g., transportation and logistics; medical device
manufacturing), but also remaining open to other industries if/as opportunities emerge;
• Manufacturing and technology industries: Give priority to attracting and developing high -
wage -paying manufacturing and technology industries;
• Partnerships: Collaborate with local public and private organizations and leaders,
community groups, and educational institutions in order to tap and involve the full range
of resources, energies, and abilities available in the community;
• Regional approach: Coordinate development efforts with neighbor municipalities and
jurisdictions to help ensure that CEDS initiatives make full use of regional advantages
and also benefit the region as well as San Bernardino;
• Citizen engagement: Involve residents and community members to the fullest extent
possible in planning, developing, and implementing CEDS-related initiatives and
programs, to help ensure that they reflect the will and need of the community.
B. INITIATIVES
The following Initiatives are established for the first -year CEDS Action Plan (Initiatives likely to
be continued in subsequent years are indicated by M-Y):
32
1. Identify and collect data necessary to report evaluation measures (ratio trend and
project indicators, discussed in Section IV following) for monitoring progress of
implementation of the CEDS (Goals 1 — 9; M-Y).
2. Establish the following general priorities for development and job growth for City/EDA
economic development efforts (Goals 1, 2; M-Y):
Priority 1: Manufacturing (including medical devices)
Priority 2: Transportation
Priority 3: Commercial — Back Office
Priority 4: Regionally -serving retail
Priority 5: Health care
Priority 6: Government (especially state and federal)
Priority 7: Warehousing
Priority 8: Technology and related professional/engineering services
Internal documents and plans are to be amended to specify these targets; economic
development staff will review current programs to determine extent to which Priorities 1 — 7
already are being pursued.
3. Complete BAT mapping analysis of blight to determine extent and locations of blight, to
include ranking of areas in terms of severity of blight (Goal 5).
4. Complete updating of the General Plan and forward to Planning Commission and City
Council for adoption (Goals 1 — 5).
5. As part of the General Plan update, commence implementing the following plans/projects and
report status of implementation for the second -year CEDS update (Goals 1, 3, 5; M-Y):
• Tippecanoe Master Infrastructure Plan
• Santa Fe Depot District Plan
• Arrowhead Springs Master Plan
• University District Plan
• Stadium Business Park Plan
6. Review status of the City's economic development "streamlining system"
(Development/Environmental Review Committee/DERC; Economic Development Action
Team/EDAT; Office of Small Business Liaison; Business Support Program/BizNet) and
make recommendations for continuing, modifying, or eliminating elements (Goals 1, 2)
Review number of land development issues that require Planning Commission approval of
conditional use permits, with the goal of reducing the need for Planning Commission
approvals (Goal 1).
8. Continue discussions with BNSF railroad to expand their intermodal facility at their existing
location (Goal 1).
33
9. Inventory locations/properties suitable for construction of new industrial space to house new
light and medium industry; review zoning to determine whether zoning changes are needed to
facilitate industrial development for (Goal 1).
10. Review current economic development outreach and communication programs for industrial
and manufacturing recruitment to determine how programs should be altered or expanded
(Goal 1, 3).
11. Encourage IVDA, SBIAA, and Hillwood Investments to identify "manufacturing -related
activities or capabilities needed at San Bernardino International Airport (e.g., storage with
docks, refrigerated storage for food, flowers and other perishables, freight consolidators and
Customs Inspection with holding areas) and discuss how they and the City/EDA can
collaborate to attract such investments (Goal 1; M-Y)
12. Inventory needs and identify feasible steps that may be taken to expand the scale and impact
of the various housing and home ownership programs offered by the City/EDA (Goal 4).
13. Identify initial resources that can be dedicated to the BAT to enable it to commence
organized blight -abatement efforts (Goal 5).
14. Act on appropriate opportunities to do any or all of the following in implementing the
CEDS (Goals 1— 6; M-Y):
• Utilize partnerships with local public and private organizations and leaders,
community groups, and educational institutions;
• Coordinate efforts with neighbor municipalities and jurisdictions;
• Involve residents and community members.
15. Identify sources of "Environmental Justice" grant funding that might be pursued to assist in
pursuing home -ownership, housing restoration, and blight -abatement priorities (Goal 4, 5).
34
IV. CEDS EVALUATION
This section explains the assumptions, approaches, and indicators (ration trend and project
indicators) that will be used to evaluate progress in implementing the CEDS.
A. EVALUATION ASSUMPTIONS
In general, measures used to evaluate an economic development strategy can only provide
indication — as opposed to conclusive evidence — of any impacts of that strategy. This is so
because private -sector economic processes like job -creation, business formation or relocation, or
expansion of business revenues are all things over which municipal government has only limited
influence. Rarely can local government policy and strategy actually cause specific types of
industry growth to occur. At best, they may facilitate a desired type of growth through
appropriate goals or practices, e.g., identification of types of industry deemed suitable for a
community and development of appropriate zoning and infrastructure to support targeted
industries; ensuring that local regulatory practices take feasible account of business needs.
In the case of the San Bernardino CEDS, the primary purpose of performance measures will be
to provide indication to the City and the CEDS committee about whether or not efforts carried
out under the umbrella of CEDS appear to be advancing CEDS goals. For instance, are
manufacturing employment or median income increasing, or is blight being reduced?
While the "Master Indicators" defined below will not be able to measure conclusively whether
CEDS-funded initiatives are having desired effects, the Project Indicators will be somewhat
more definitive in the sense that projects will have explicit (stated) purposes, costs, and
schedules, which will be evaluated/measured following completion of implementation. Every
feasible effort will be made to provide quantitative or other tangible measurement of the effect of
projects upon the CEDS Goals they are intended to support.
B. EVALUATION STRUCTURE—CEDS COMMITTEE
A CEDS committee, consisting of community representatives and City and Economic
Development Agency staff, will convene no less than once annually to review CEDS status and
advise the City on changes that should be made in the plan and related efforts.
The City will have responsibility for collecting and reporting data and information to evaluate
progress in implementing the CEDS, as well as prepare annual updates of the plan.
C. PERFORMANCE INDICATORS: RATIO TREND AND PROJECT INDICATORS
In the context of the present plan, ratio trend indicators are evaluation measures designed to
monitor progress made on CEDS Goals. These are quantitative measures that will use data from
the year 2000 (2003 for blight) as baseline for monitoring multi -year trends. Project indicators
are measures related to specific projects that will involve both quantitative and qualitative
indices as appropriate or available.
35
1. Ratio Trend Indicators
Five ratio trend indicators will be utilized to measure progress toward CEDS goals. Change in
Master Indicators will be reported annually as part of each CEDS update.
GOAL 1 *
%Industrial employment
Total city employment
*Sectors to be included (see
Table 3, p. 8)
Rubber & plastics
Furniture & fixtures
Chemical & allied products
Transportation equipment
Industrial machinery & equipment
Miscellaneous manufacturing
Stone, clay & glass products
Paper & allied products
Apparel & other textile products
Textile mile products
Electric & electronic equipment
Primary metal products
Instruments & related products
Lumber & wood products
GOAL 3
City median household income
County median household income
GOAL 5***
2003 % of blight
2008 % of blight
GOAL 2**
%Govemment/health care employment
Total city employment
**See Table 2, p. 7
GOAL 4
City homeownership rate
County homeownership rate
***
The 2002-03 blight survey will be repeated in 2007-08 and results compared
2. Project Indicators
Project indicators will include and report the following elements:
• Project name and brief description
• Goal project supports
• Narrative explanation of how project supports goal
• Actual to budgeted cost
• Scheduled and actual completion date
• Quantitative project impacts (as relevant)
• Other aspects as relevant
36
V. PROJECTS
This section presents a tentative list of projects suitable for CEDS funding which support one or
more of the Goals and Initiatives outlined in preceding sections (Goal and Initiative indicated in
parenthesis):
1. University Parkway: Minor striping and signal timing improvements to existing
operation, and widening of the south side of University Parkway between Hallmark
Parkway and 1-215 Freeway Southbound On -ramp to add an exclusive right -turn lane
from University Parkway Eastbound onto I-215
Freeway Southbound On -ramp. Estimated cost $6000.
2. Southside of University Parkway: Converting the "signal controlled right -turn lane",
which would require widening the I-215 Freeway Southbound On -ramp to provide
sufficient merging distance for free flowing right -turn traffic. Estimated cost $200,000 to
$600,000 (depending on the alternative approved by Caltrans).
3. I-215 Freeway/University Parkway On -Ramp Loop: Ultimate goal: constructing a loop
ramp from Westbound University Parkway onto Southbound I-215 Freeway. With the
loop ramp, the existing I-215 Freeway Southbound On -ramp would be converted to right -
turn only access from Eastbound University Parkway. Estimated cost $5,000,000 to
$10,000,000
4. Santa Fe Depot Area: Install street (including sewer, water, storm drain and utility) and
signal improvements needed to offset the cost of stimulating private sector
redevelopment o the Historic Santa Fe Depot Area. Estimated cost $1,000,000.
5. Median Landscape Improvement Project at Waterman Ave. and Mill Street. Estimated
cost $300.000.
6. Traffic Signal and Street Improvements at San Bernardino Ave. and Mountain View Ave.
Estimated cost $200,000.
37
VI. ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT 1: San Bernardino Economic Development Agency Services
Economic Development Agency
Business Consulting & Assistance
Economic Development Action Team (EDAT) — project fast -tracking
Small Business Liaison (Ombudsman)
Biz/Net — Business Support Network (information technical assistance, for high -growth
companies)
Site location
Seminars and Workshops (through Small Business Development Center, onsite)
Business planning
Money management
Labor relations & payroll tax
Accounting software
SBA loans
Home -based businesses
Financial Assistance
Micro Loan Program (up to $25, 000)
Grow San Bernardino Fund (SBA 7a loan— $25,000 - $1 million)
SBA 504 loan ($250,000 - $1 million)
Blight Eradication Grants (up to $5,000)
Information -Promotion (publications)
Demographic data
Representation at trade shows
Event assistance
Other
Housing Programs
Mortgage Assistance Programs (MAP)
Redevelopment Agency (for businesses located in Redevelopment Project Areas)
Infrastructure development assistance
Sewer connection fee assistance
Storm drain fee assistance
Traffic impact fee assistance
38
ATTACHMENT 2: San Bernardino Empowerment Zone Vision Statement, 1998
For well over a decade, San Bernardino has been a city struggling with economic decline and the
consequent demoralizing problems of crime, poverty, poor health, and decay.
But now the city is in transition. The recent election of a dynamic, action -oriented Mayor, Judith
Valles; the subsequent appointment of a competent city administration; and the community -wide
engagement of citizens in the creation of a vision and plan for the future is producing a major
shift in thinking. For the first time in recent memory, there is a palpable belief that San
Bernardino could, once again, become "An All -American City."' This newfound hope is
evidenced in the Empowerment Zone motto, "Together We Can."
The path to renewal for San Bernardino lies in transforming today's conditions in the four key
areas that are the focus of the EC/EZ strategy: in businesses and jobs; in housing; in health and
human services; and in education. Acting decisively in these four areas, this is what we will
have achieved by 2010:
Through our strategy of "economic gardening" and partnership with universities to create new
local industry through technology transfer, San Bernardino will have become home to a broad
diversity of manufacturing and service "production" businesses that pay high wages as a result of
the economic value of their goods and services, and thereby enable the city to enjoy sustained
low unemployment and rising incomes.
Under the leadership of our Neighborhood Associations and using our nationally acclaimed
Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resale Program for neighborhood renewal, housing and blighted
neighborhoods will have been rehabilitated and populated with new homeowner families.
Health and wellness in the Empowerment Zone, whose statistics today rank among the worst in
the nation, will have been dramatically reversed through the creation of a comprehensive system
of individual, family, and neighborhood health support provided through the City, churches, and
community -based organizations, all working in accordance with the principle of empowerment
of the citizen, not paternalism for the needy.
Finally, through partnerships and joint action at all levels, our educational system, from primary
school to universities, will have become much more closely attuned than today to the training
and skill needs of industry, thereby to provide our youth, and our students of all ages, with the
educational opportunity and skills that the future economy and community will demand.
.San Bernardino was designated an "All -American City' in 1976.
39
ATTACHMENT 3: Business Advisory Council Members, 1998 - 2000
Jaime Alvarez, Alvarez & Associates
Marjorie Anderson -Nielson, President, Anco Manufacturing, Inc.
Ann Atkinson, Center Chevrolet
Bob Botts, Chief Administrative Officer, Garner Holt Productions
June Durr, Marketing & Public Affairs Director, Mayor's Office
Mark Edwards, Mirau, Edwards, Cannon, Harter & Lewin
Michael Gallo, Executive Vice President, Kelly Space and Technology
Ray Gonzales, Region Manager, Southern California Edison Company
Lee Hanson, Professor of Management, California State University, San Bernardino
Edmard "Duke" Hill, real estate developer
John Hosing, Economics and Politics, Inc.
William E. Leonard, Sr., real estate developer
Martin Matich, President, Matich Corporation
Ed Moncrieff, Executive Director, Neighborhood Housing Services of the Inland Empire
Judy Penman, Executive Director, San Bernardino Area Chambers of Commerce
Larry Quiel, President, Quiel Brothers Sign Co.
Faron Roberts, Phoenix Information Center
Donald L. Rogers, CPA
Teri Rubi, Executive Assistant to the Mayor
Larry Sharp, CEO, Arrowhead Credit Union
Denny Shorett, President, Crown Printers
Fred Wilson, City Administrator
40
ATTACHMENT 4: Business Industry Growth (BIG) Strategy Initiatives and Status
BUSINESS & INDUSTRY
Description
Status
1. BizNet/Business Support Network
Program to support local
Implemented; ongoing (Economic
businesses using
Development Agency)
information databases and
market analysis
2. Project on Local Industry Mapping (PLIM)
Analysis of industry
Completed (1999); results utilized in
structure of city and
establishing BizNet program
primary industry sectors
3. Business Recruitment & Marketing Needs Review
Identification of potential
Partially undertaken (1999 — 2001);
sectors for business
identification of (1) transportation and
recruitment
logistics and (2) medical devices as
recruitment targets
4. High -Tech Action Group (HTAG)
Small group of local
Not implemented; not deemed useful at
high-tech executives to
present time owing to lack of high-tech
advice on high-tech
industry in city and region
strategy
SAN BERNARDINO CITY GOVERNMENT
5. CEOTalks
Mayor discussions with
Conducted second half 1998 (discussions
prominent CEOs to tap
occurred with approximately 10 CEOs)
their thinking
6. Business Climate Survey
Random -sample
Conducted summer 1999, results presented
telephone survey of city
to City Council and publicized in local
businesses to identify
newspapers; subsequently utilized in
needs and concerns
"Competitive City Trainin "(No. 8 below)
7. Streamlining/Best-Practices Program
Process improvement via
Implemented in Development Services
employee empowerment
Department commencing fall 2000;
program
ongoing
8. "Competitive City" Training
Training on city
Implemented spring 2000 (version of the
economic needs and BIG
training has subsequently been adopted for
for key city staff
statewide use by California Association for
(approximately 70
Local Economic Development CALED
9. Economic Development Action Team (EDAT)
6-person team of lead
Implemented fall 1999; has since lapsed
development officials to
"fast -track" priority
proj ects
10. Small Business Liaison
Office to address
Implemented fall 1999; ongoing
complaints of small local
businesses
MARKETING AND PUBLICITY
11. San Bernardino Inf nnercial
Business recruitment
Prepared summer 1998; Update will be
video
complete by 6/03
12. "Mayor's Community Update" cable TV show
Monthly community and
Commenced 1998; ongoing bi-monthly
economic affairs program
13. Economic Outreach Information
Business spotlighting
Regularly feature new and unique
businesses in the Mayor's Spotlight,
quarterly News of the City
14. Marketing Solicitation Materials/Marketing
City Information
➢ City web -site redesign (Fall 2003)
Package
➢ Upgrade City brochure w/individual
sheets for press kits/business
solicitations
> New media partner for News for the
City -Business Press (3/03)
Bus Shelter Ads — renewed for
41
14. Continued.....
promoting News of the City and other
public information (3/03)
i Bilingual PSAs re illegal vendors (3-
03)
DOWNTOWN RENEWAL AND PROMOTION
15. Downtown Development Strategy
Identification of priorities
Developed summer 1999
and approaches for
revitalization
HOUSING
16. Housing Strategy
Identification of priorities
Developed 1999
and approaches for
rehabilitating old housing
and attracting new
housing
COMMUNITY APPEARANCE & QUALITY OF LIFE
17. Blight Removal and Cleanup
Involve the
Ongoing — Newly formed apartment
community in blight
associations are working with
removal efforts by
established neighborhood
fostering
associations to remove blight.
partnerships.
HIGHER EDUCATION
18. Campus Leaders' Orientation to BIG
Briefing on BIG to local
Not implemented; but campuses have
college and university
contributed to San Bernardino economic
leaders with goal of
revitalization in a variety of ways (e.g.,
recruiting campus support
technical advice to City/EDA, service on
committees and task forces, assistance
obtaining student interns)
19. Project Loma Linda University & Medical Center
Program to promote
Not implemented
Technology Transfer
technology
commercialization of
LLUMC medical research
EYA
ATTACHMENT 5: Community Participants, General Plan Update, 2002 - 2003
Evelyn Alexander, resident
Lillice Anderson, resident
Dora and Freddy Avellanda, residents
Tiawatha Blair, resident
Gina Bothner, reporter, San Bernardino County San
Robert Botts, Chief Administrative Officer, Garner Holt Productions
Robert Brendza, [title], Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railroad
Wilbur Brown, resident
Karen Brucato, resident
Joe Cyventes, resident
David DeMauro, Vice President of Administration, California State University, San Bernardino
Lou Deetz, resident
Richard Eberst, Professor of Health Science, California State University, San Bernardino
Rick Fobes, resident
Michael Gallo, Executive Vice President, Kelly Space & Technology
Jane Ann Godiger, resident
Harvey Gregory, resident
Lee Hanson, Professor of Management, California State University, San Bernardino
Linda Hart, resident
Chris Havener, resident
Sherida and Larry Heasley, residents
John A. Hillman, resident
Hardy Johnson, resident
Schenelle Johnson, resident
Chas Kelley, resident
Randy and Jennifer Kent, residents
Peggy Knon, resident
Amy Ko, resident
Bruce Ko, resident
Aron S. Liang, resident
William E. Leonard, Sr., Real estate developer
John and Tommie Lowe, residents
Andy Lyman, resident
John Magness, [title], Hillwood Investments
Andie and Ginette Malenfant, residents
Bob Martinez, resident
aJ
Alafona McGaw, resident
Bruce McGaw, resident
Gloria Merrill, resident
Beth Myer, resident
James Mulvihill, Professor of Geography, California State University, San Bernardino
Jenny Oveilon, resident
Alfred Palazzo, resident
Jaime Pena, resident
Judy Penman, Executive Director, San Bernardino Area Chambers of Commerce
Pam Pescamilla, resident
Thomas Pierce, Professor of Economics, California State University, San Bernardino
Brian Prestin, resident
Donald and Dorothy Resvaloso, residents
Lloyd Roberts, resident
Corilyn Roderick, resident
James and Kandy Roe, residents
Bruce Satzger, President, Community Hospital of San Bernardino
Denny Shorett, President, Crown Printers
William Shum, Campus Architect, California State University, San Bernardino
Donald Singer, Executive Director, Inland Action
Sherry Skolfield, resident
Joyce Smith, resident
Mary Solis, resident
Freddie Spellacy, real estate agent
Marcey Stanton, resident
James Tate, resident
Tom Timmreck, resident
Bill Troost, resident
John A. Valdivia 11, resident
Angie Varela, resident
Eric Vaughn, resident
Kay F. Walker, resident
Danny Ward, resident
Scott West, resident
Bardella Wilson, resident
Evelyn Wilson, resident
Kattie Zamanjahromi, resident
44
ATTACHMENT 6: Reports and Works Referenced in CEDS Document
California Budget Project, Locked Out 2002, October 2002. See www.cpb.org.
California Department of Education, 2000 —2001 Academic Performance Index (API) Growth Report. See
http://api.cde.ca.gov/api2000base.
Calthorpe, Peter, and Fulton, William, The Regional City: PlanningJir the End of Sprawl, Island Press, 2001.
City of San Bernardino, Business -Industry Growth Strategy, April 1999.
City of San Bernardino, Application Jim an Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community Designation, September
1998.
County of San Bernardino, Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, 1998.
Economic Research Associates, Economic Analysis fir an Update of the Land Use Element of the General Plan.
Prepared for the City of San Bernardino Department of Development Services, March 2002.
Fulton, William, The Reluctant Metropolis. The Politics of Urban Growth in Los Angeles, Solano Press Books,
1997.
Inland Valley Development Agency, Local Agency Military Base Reuse Area application, May 1999
Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation, Manufacturing in the Los Angeles Five -County Area,
September 2001.
Los Angeles Times, "Swallowed by urban sprawl: relocating to Inland Empire puts people in the midst of what they
fled, researchers find," October 18, 2002.
Los Angeles Times, "Income Drop in `90s Cut a Broad Swath, Data Show," August 27, 2002
McCormack's Guides, Riverside & San Bernardino 2001.
San Bernardino Economic Development Agency, 2002 City of San Bernardino Community & Economic Profile.
San Bernardino Economic Development Agency, San Bernardino Economic Development Strategy, Final Report,
1995.
San Bernardino Regional Water Resources Authority, San Bernardino Revitalization Specific Plan, August 2002.
Smart Growth America, Measuring Sprawl and its Impact, October 2002. See http://smartgrowthamerica.com.
Southern California Association of Governments, Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide, March 1996.
Southern California Studies Center, University of Southern California: Sprawl Hits the Wall: Confronting the
Realities of Metropolitan Los Angeles, 2001.
45