HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-210
1
2
RESOLUTION NO. 93 210
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
3 SAN BERNARDINO, APPROVING A PREANNEXATION AGREEMENT WITH THE SAN
BERNARDINO VALLEY WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT RELATING TO PARCELS
4 B&C OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION ANNEXATION NO. 2751.
5 WHEREAS, the San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District
6 Board of Directors has voted to establish a Groundwater
7 Replenishment Assessment Charge applied to all groundwater produced
8 within their District boundaries; and
9 WHEREAS, the San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District
10 has submitted a proposal to annex territory within its existing
11 sphere of influence to their District, a portion of which is
12 territory located within the boundaries of the city of San
13 Bernardino; and
14 WHEREAS, the Board of Water Commissioners have met with
15 representatives of the San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation
16 District to discuss the Groundwater Replenishment Assessment Charge
17 and the proposed annexations, and support the programs proposed by
18 the District to improve groundwater quality and other programs that
19 provide benefit to the city of San Bernardino; and
20 Whereas, a preannexation agreement has been proposed which
21 would limit the Groundwater Replenishment Assessment Charge and
22 exclude groundwater that is produced for local domestic purposes
23 through groundwater contamination remediation projects.
24 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
25 OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS:
26 That the agreement regarding the annexation of City of San
27 Bernardino territory to the San Bernardino Valley Water
28 Conservation District be approved, and that the Mayor of the City
June 14, 1993
-1-
RES 93-210
RESOLUTION APPROVING A PREANNEXATION AGREEMENT WITH SAN BERNARDINO
VALLEY WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT RELATING TO PARCELS B&C OF LAFCO
ANNEXATION NO. 2751.
1 of San Bernardino is hereby authorized and directed to execute said
2 agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1, and
3 incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth at
4 length herein.
5 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly
6 adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San
7 Bernardino at a regular meeting thereof, held
8 on the . 21st day of June , 1993, by the
9 following vote to wit:
10 COUNCILMEMBERS: AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENT
11 NEGRETE x
12 CURLIN x
13 HERNANDEZ x
14 OBERHELMAN x
15 OFFICE VACANT
16
17
18
19
20
21 of
22
23
POPE-LUDLAM
x
MILLER
x
a,~ (2~~
RaChel Clark, CITY CLERK
The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this ~~Q
day
June
, 1993.
4/vdJ
- ..~ ,.--
Edward V. Negrete, Mayor PrQ Tem
City of San Bernard1no
--
24
APPROVED AS TO FORM
25 AND LEGAL CONTENT:
26
27
JAMES F. PENMAN
city Attorney
28
-2-
.
...
Res 93-210
".
AGREEKENT REGARDING ANNEXATION OF CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO TERRITORY TO THE SAN BERNARDINO
VALLEY WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into as of August 2 , 1993, by
and between the SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT,
a special governmental district formed and operating under the
Water conservation District Law of 1931, as amended, California
Water Code section 74000, et ~ (hereinafter, the "District") and '
the CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, a municipal corporation (hereinafter,
the "City"), and the BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF
SAN BERNARDINO (hereinafter "Board").
RECITALS
A. For over eighty years, the District and its predecessor-
in-interest have conducted groundwater replenishment activities for
the purpose of conserving local water supplies and increasing the
supply of groundwater for the lands and residents within the
boundaries of the District.
B. The City boundaries include approximately 2,166 acres of
real property situated adjacent to but outside of the boundaries of
the District, but within the "sphere of influence" of the District
as designated by the Local Agency Formation Commission of the
county of San Bernardino (hereinafter, "LAFCO") pursuant .to
Government Code section 56425, et ~, which lands are more
particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference (such lands are hereinafter
referred to as the "Subject Territory") .
C. The City and Board operate seven (7) water producing
facilities within the subject Territory, which water producing
facilities produce groundwater from the groundwater basin which
underlies the District and other lands.
D. In accordance with Water Code Section 75500, et~, the
District has levied a groundwater charge on groundwater produced
from facilities located within the boundaries of the District
(hereinafter, the "Groundwater Charge") .
E. In accordance with Government Code section 56650, et
~, the District has adopted its Resolution No. 314, making
application to LAFCO for the annexation of approximately 4,908.8
acres of land to its boundaries, all of which are within the
District's sphere of influence, and including the subject Territory
(the proposed annexation of the Subject Territory to the District's
boundaries is hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Annexation") .
FS2\13110IS042-OOO312039i06.3 06/10193
Altaclunenl IV - Page 1
EXHIBIT -1-
RES 93-,210
. .'
,
F. The District, the city, and the Board mutually desire to
enter into this Agreement to set forth the conditions governing the
subject Annexation.
EXECUTORY AGREEMENTS
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the facts recited above,
and the covenants, conditions and promises contained herein, the
parties hereto agree as follows:
SECT:ION ONE:
ANNEXAT:ION OF THE SUBJECT TERR:ITORY
TO THE D:ISTR:ICT
1.1 The District shall take all reasonable actions to pursue
and complete the annexation of the subject Territory to the
District.
1.1.1 The District shall submit the terms and conditions
of this Agreement as part of the proposed terms and conditions
of the subject Annexation.
1.1.2 The District shall request that LAFCO incorporate
this Agreement into its resolution making determinations with
respect to the Subject Annexation.
1.2 Neither city nor Board shall oppose, file any protest to,
initiate any legal or administrative proceeding to challenge, or
otherwise take any action to hinder or interfere with the
annexation of the Subject Territory to the District in accordance
with this Agreement.
SECT:ION TWO:
LEVY AND COLLECT:ION OF GROUNDWATER
CHARGES FROM GROUNDWATER PRODUCT:ION
FROM W:ITH:IN THE SUBJECT TERR:ITORY
2.1 The subject Territory shall be subject to the levy and
collection of the Groundwater Charge from and after the effective
date of the subject Annexation. From and after the date on which
the subject Territory is subject to a Groundwater Charge, the city
and the Board shall file all groundwater production reports, and
make all payments for groundwater production, in accordance with
Water Code section 75610, et sea.
2.2 In the event that the District determines at any time
during the term of this Agreement to levy and collect a Groundwater
Charge in an amount in excess of Ten Dollars ($10.00) per acre-foot
of groundwater produced by the city or the Board from within the
subject Territory (as adjusted in accordance with paragraph 2.2.2
FS'l113110IS042.000312039806.3 06110193
2
Attachment IV . Page 2
RES 93-2l0
, "
"
below), and the city or the Board does not consent in writing to
such Groundwater Charge, the District shall, within thirty (30)
days following the receipt by the District of the city's or the
Board's payment of such Groundwater Charge, reimburse to the city
or the Board an amount equal to the Annexation Reimbursement.
2.2.1 For purposes of this Paragraph 2.2, the term
"Annexation Reimbursement" shall be calculated for a six-month
period set forth in Water Code section 75611 (i.e., January 1
through June 30; July 1 through December 31) in accordance
with the following formula:
AR = (GW - B) x AF
Where:
AR = the Annexation Reimbursement amount.
GW = the Groundwater Charge levied by the District upon
groundwater production by the City or the Board
from groundwater producing facilities located
within the Subject Territory.
B = the Base Groundwater Charge, in the amount of
$10.00 per acre-foot of groundwater produced by the
city or the Board from groundwater producing
facilities located within the Subject Territory,
adjusted in accordance with paragraph 2.2.2 below.
AF = the quantity (in acre-feet) of groundwater produced
by the city or the Board from groundwater producing
facilities located within the Subject Territory.
2.2.2 The Base Groundwater Charge described in paragraph
2.1.1 above shall be adjusted annually in accordance with the
"Consumer Price Index for Urban wage Earners and Clerical
Workers Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside Area (All Items)"
(hereinafter, the "CPI"), compiled by the United states
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor statistics (1982-1984 =
100), or such successor index as may be published by the
united states Department of Labor in lieu of the CPI;
provided, however, that the Base Groundwater Charge shall not
increase by an amount in excess of two percent (2.0%)
annually, notwithstanding any higher increase in the CPl. In
the absence of the CPI or any successor index, the parties
shall jointly select an alternative index, subject to the same
maximum annual increase.
2.3 In the event that the city and the District, or the Board
and District as the case may be, mutually determine in writing that
groundwater production by city or the Board within the subject
FS2\131\OIS042-0003\2039806.3 06/10193
3
Attaclunent IV . Page 3
RES 93-210
, "
"
Territory is for the purpose of removing non-naturally occurring
contamination, non-naturally occurring pollution, or other non-
naturally occurring substances impairing the use of groundwater,
that the groundwater production is for domestic, potable uses, and
that the well head treatment facilities used for such activities
are funded entirely with public monies, District shall reimburse to
the city or the Board an amount equal to the Groundwater Charge
assessed against such publicly funded groundwater production.
2.4 In the event that the District enters into an annexation
agreement with the city of Riverside, a municipal corporation,
which establishes the condition of capping the Groundwater
Replenishment charge on all of the city of Riverside's water
production within the District's current boundaries, then the
parties shall amend this agreement to provide that the same
provision shall apply to the city and the Board.
SECTION THREE:
MISCELLANEOUS
3.1 Notices: Except as otherwise set forth hereinabove, all
notices, payments, transmittals of documentation and other writings.
required or permitted to be delivered or transmitted to any of the
parties under this Agreement shall be personally served or
deposited in a united states mail depository, first class postage
prepaid, and addressed as follows:
If to District:
San Bernardino Valley Water conservation
District
101 E. Redlands Blvd., suite 247
P.O. Box 1839.
Redlands, California 92373-0581
Attn: General Manager
If to city:
city of San Bernardino
300 North "D" street
San Bernardinor CA 92418
Attn: c~ty Adm~n~strator
If to Board:
Board of Water commissioners
300 North "D" Street
5th Floor
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Attn:
General Manager
or such other address
writing. service of
completed forty-eight
mail depository.
as either party may direct to the other in
any instrument or writing shall be deemed
(48) hours after deposit in a United States
FS2\131\OIS042..(l(XJ3\2039806.3 06/10/93
4
Attachment IV - Page 4
RES 93-210
.'
. ..
. .
3.2 Condition subseauent and Term: This Agreement shall be
subject to the condition subsequent that the subject Annexation is
completed. Thereafter, this Agreement shall continue for so long
as the Subject Territory is within the boundaries of the District.
3.3 Warrantv of Authoritv: Each officer of the District,
the Board, and the city affixing his or her signature to this
Agreement warrants and represents by such signature that he or she
has the full legal authority to bind his or her respective party to
all of the terms, conditions and provisions therein, that his or
her respective party has the full legal right, power, capacity and
authority to enter into this Agreement and perform all of its
provisions and obligations, and that no other approvals or consents
are necessary in connection therewith.
3.4 Headinqs: The titles and headings of sections and
paragraphs of this Agreement, as herein set forth, have been
inserted for the sake of convenience only, and are not to be taken,
deemed or construed to be any part of the terms, covenants or
conditions of this Lease, or to control, limit or modify any of the
terms, covenants or conditions hereof. .
3.5 Inteqration. Construction and Amendment: This Agreement
constitutes the entire understanding of the District, the Board,
and the city as to those matters contained herein, and no prior
oral or written understanding shall be of any force or effect as to
those matters covered by this Agreement. This Agreement shall be
governed by the laws of the state of California, and shall be
construed as if drafted by all parties hereto. Except as provided
herein, this Agreement may not be modified, altered or amended
except in writing signed by the District, the Board, and the city.
3.6 Successors: This Agreement, and all of the terms,
conditions and provisions herein, shall inure to the benefit of,
and be binding upon, the District, the Board, and the City, and
their respective successors and assigns.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement
PS2\131\015042..ooooU039806.3. 06110193
5
Attaclunent IV - Page 5
RES 93-210
.'
, A RESOLUTION OF THE "'YOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF "'HE CITY OF SAN
: : aERNARDINO, APPROVI~ A PREANNEXATION AGREEMENT ITH THE SAN BERNARDINO
. 'VALLEY WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT RELATING TO PARCELS B&C OF THE LOCAL
AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION ANNEXATION NO. 2751.
as of the date first written above.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
RUTAN & TUCKER
By f}(j/l;~,(3 rd'l~~
Dav~ Cosg ove
General Counsel, San
Bernardino Valley Water
conservation District
SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY WATER
CONSERVATION DISTRICT
L,.~" PO'"lrh ,
J President
I~~y ;Z;../~~
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
JAMES F. PENMAN
city Attorney, City
of San Bernardino
/~/V"d~~;r-
Mayor Pro Tem
Edward V. Negrete
Attest:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
AND LEGAL CONTENT:
. ~
By I~ 7-. (e~
(]
f2~w~
I city Clerk
Rachel Clark
BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS OF
THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
APPROVED AS TO FORM
AND ux;AL CCNl'ENl':
.TAMF:S F. PFNM1\N. Citv Attornev
General Counsel, Board of
:;z~~.&
'!J;"tg""j y/ d~
Marga t H. Chandler
presi! ent
c{!~!(2~
Deputy City Clerk and EX-Officio
Secretary
1'SlI131101S042-0003\203980l\.3 06110193
6
Attachment IV - Page 6
,-
RES 93-2WQTn m
IbJ.19.1393 09:04 AM
P02
AGREEMENT REGARDING ANNEXATION OF
CITY OF RIVERSIDE TERRITORY TO
SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
AND PAYMENT OF GROUNDWATER CHARGE
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into as of , 1993
by and between the SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY WATER CONSERVATION
DISTRICT ("Conservation District"), a special district formed and
operating under the Water Conservation District Law of 1931, as
amended, California Water Code Sections 74000 ct sea., and the CITY
OF RIVERSIDE, a charter municipal corporation ("the City"), AGUA
MAMSA WATER COMPANY, a mutual water company ("Agua Mansa"), MEEKS
& DALEY WATER COMPANY, a mutual water company ("Meeks & Daley"),
RIVERSIDE HIGHLAND WATER COMPANY, a mutual water company
("Riverside Highland") and the WESTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT OF
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, a municipal water district formed and operating
under the Municipal Water District Law of 1911, as amended,
california Water Code Sections 71000 et sea. ("western"). The
city, Agua Mansa, Meeks & Daley and Riverside Highland are referred
to in this Agreement collectively as "Producers." All of the above
entities are referred to collectively in this Agreement as the
"parties."
RECITALS
A. For over eighty years, tha Conservation District and
its predecessor-in-interest have conducted groundwater replenish-
ment activities for the purpose of conserving local water supplies
Attaclunent IV - Page 7
JlUl87891
RES 93-210 From rn
Nov. 19. 1993 0'3:04 AI1
P03
and increasing the supply of groundwater for the lands and resi-
dents within the boundaries of the District.
B. The Producers own various interests in real property
situated adjacent to but outside of the boundaries of the
Conservation District, but within the "sphere of influence" of the
Conservation District. Such lands are hereinafter referred to as
the "Subject Territory."
C. The Producers also own and operate various water
producing facilities either within the Conservation District or
within the sphere of influence of the Conservation District which
produce groundwater from the groundwater basin which underlies the
Conservation District and other lands.
D.' Pursuant to the Municipal Water District Law of
1911, California Water code Sections 71000 et ~., Western has the
authority to oversee the water use of the Producers and has pro-
tected the rights of the Producers in prior litigation.
E. Pursuant to Government Code Section 56650, ~ ~.
the Conservation District adopted Resolution No. 314 on January 14,
1993 rnaking application to the Local Agency Forrnl:ltion cOlll1\1ission of
the County of San Bernardino ("LAFCO") for the annexation of the
land identified as Parcel A in Exhibit "A" which is within the
District's sphere of influence and includes the Subject Territory.
F. On May 3, 1993, pursuant to Government Code Sections
56650 ~~. the conservation District adopted Resolution No. 318,
establishing a groundwater charge on the production of groundwater
within the boundaries of the Conservation District, and making cer-
t.il j n fi no i ngf; rp.l eVilnt t.hp.r.eto. Pl.lnnlllnt. t.o Gover.nmp.nt. Cnop.
JLW18789'
-2-
Attachment IV - Page 8
RES 93-210
Frdtn : m
l'lov. 19. 1993 . 09: 04 AI1
P04
sections 56650 et ~., the Conservation District may levy suoh
groundwater charges on an annual basis.
G. pursuant to Resolution No. 318, the conservation
Distriot levied, assessed, and affixed a groundwater charge in the
amount of $1.00 per aore foot for agrioultural water and $4.00 per
aore foot for non-agrioultural water.
H. pursuant to Resolution No. 318, the Conservation
District found that the entire Conservation District oonstituted a
single zone of benefit for the imposition of this oharge and that
the amounts charged were reasonably necessary for the replenish-
ment, augmentation and-proteotion of water supplies for all users
within the conservation District's boundaries.
I. Prior to the adoption of Resolution No. 318, the
Producers protested to the Conservation District orally and/or in
writing the levy of the groundwater charge. Among other things,
the Producers expressed concerned about the particular uses of the
money to be derived from the groundwater charge, increases in the
groundwater charge which may be imposed by the conservation
District in the future, the relationship between the groundwater
charge and the benefits to the Producers, and the relationship of
the groundwater charge to the judgment issued by the River.ide
Superior Court in Case No. 7842. Western, in its role as desoribed
in paragraph D above, shares these concerns.
J. Detailed disoussions have been held between the
parties regarding resolution of these concerns. At this time, the
parties recognize that a long-term mutually satiSfactory solution
is not il1U1\ediately forthcoming. Therefore, the parties have agreed
JlUl87891
-3-
Attachment IV - Page 9
RES 93-2l0
From m
"ov.19.1993 09:04 AM
P05
to the following terms with regard to Resolution No. 318 only.
This Agreement is not intended to applY to future resolutions or
actions adopted or taken by the conservation Distriot to levy 8ub-
sequent groundwater charges.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
1. The Produoers shall pay the groundwater charge as
set forth in Resolution No. 318 of $1.00 per ~cre foot for agr1- .
cultural water and $4.00 per acre foot for non-agricultural water.
2. The Conservation Distriot shall withdraw the port.ion .
of its annexation application now pending before LAFCO as described
in paragraph E above that relates to the land identified as Parcel
A in Exhibit "A". The conservation District agrees not to reflle
an applioation with LAFCO for annexation of the land identified in
Exhibit "A" prior to November 1, 1994 and agrees further that
completion of such annexation proceedings, as evidenced by LAFCO'S
exeoution of a certificate of completion, shall not ocour prior to
July 1, 1995.
The Conservation Distriot agrees that any
groundwater charge whioh may be adopted by it in 1994 or 1995 will
not applY to any land identif!ed as Parcel A in Exhibit "A".
3. The parties agree to make a good-fa! th effort to
establish a mutually satisfactory working relationship among them-
selves, to develop a strategy for the management of the groundwater
wi thin the conservation District I s jurisdiotion, and any other
actions as the parties so agree.
4. A committee shall be oreated to review information
and provide input to the conservation Distriot regarding the use
and implementation of the groundwater charge imposed by Resolution
Attachment IV . Page 10
JLW187891
-4-
RES 93-2l0
Fr-6i-ll m
I'bo. 19. 1993 09: 04 AI1
P06
No. 318 and any subsequent groundwater charges which may be imposed
by the Conservation District. Any person or entity that extracts
groundwater from within the District boundaries shall be eligible
for membership on the co~ittee.
5. This Agreement and the payment of the charqesset
forth in paragraph :I. above are in no way intended to waive the
rights of any party to challenge any subsequent groundwater charge
that may be levied by the conservation District.
The parties
expressly reserve all rights to challenge any such subsequent
groundwater charge.
6. No party shall be liable for any act or omission of
any other party.
7. Any notice, instrument or other writing required to
be given or delivered by this Agreement shall be given or delivered
by personal delivery or by United states Mail, first class postage
and addressed a~ follows (or to such other person or address as any
party may direct to the other in writing) :
If to Conservation District: San Bernardino Valley Water
Conservation District
101 East Redlands Boulevard
suite 247
P.O. Box 1839
Redlands, CA 92373-0581
Attention: General Manager
If to city:
city of Riverside
Public utilities Department
3900 Main street
Riverside, CA 92552
Attention: Public Utilities
Director
AltachmenllV . Page 11
JLII\87891
-5-
RES 93-219
From
m
Hov.19..1993 .09:04 AI1
Pel7
If to Agua Mansa:
Agua Mansa Water Company
31315 Cheney street
P.O. BoX 3000
Lake Elsinore, CA 92531-3000
Attention: Ganoral Manager
If to Western:
Meeks & Daley Water company
31315 Cheney street
P.O. BoX 3000
Lake Elsinore, CA 92531-3000
Attention: General Manager
Riverside Highland Water company
1450 Washington street
colton, CA 92423
Attention: General Manager
Western Municipal Water District of
Riverside county
P.O. Box 5286
Riverside, CA 92517-5286
Attention: General Manager
8. This Agreement represents the entire understanding
If to Meeks & Daley:
If to Riverside Highland:
of the parties as to those matters oontained herein, and no prior
oral or written understanding shall be of any force or effect with
respect to those matters covered by this Agreement. This Agreement
shall be governed by the laws of the state of California and oon-
strued as if drafted by all of the parties hereto. This Agreement
may not be modified, altered or amended, except in writing, siqned
by all parties hereto.
Attaclunent IV - Page U
JL~'87891
-6-
RES 93-210
From m
Dated:
\ L-I<"l-93
Approved as to form:
By:
Attorneys for
conservation District
Dated:
Dated:
Approved as to form:
By:
Attorney for City
Dated:
Dated:
Approved as to form:
By:
Attorney for
Riverside Highland
Dated:
JlW181891
Nov.19..1993 09:04 AM
P08
SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY WATER
CONSERVATION DISTRICT
By. ~~
Title: '
CITY OF RIVERSIDE
By:
Title:
RIVERSIDE HIGHLAND WATER COMPANY
~r~4(~~~~ -
Attaclunent IV - Page 13
-7-
RES 93-210
From rn
Nov. 19. 1993 09:04 AM
P09
Dated:
AGUA MANSA WATER COMPANY
By:
'I'itle:
Approved as to form:
By:
Attorney for A9ua Mansa
Dated:
Dated:
MEEKS & DALEY WATER COMPANY
By:
Title:
Approved as to form:
By:
Attorneys for
Meeks " Daley
DatC!d:
Dated:
WESTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT OF
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
~~t?4ij#j~ - '-
........
Approvod as to form:
By: ~ T ffi~14#
Attorney for Western
Dated: );#!' /.?, /7:73 Attachment IV-Page 14
,
JW18T891 -8-
i-
RES 93,...nO___._____ ----..-----
~ . ............1
~ITY OF ~ PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
l
3900 Main Street. Rivenide. California. 92522
. -,_..-..-,
oo~@~owrnlID
JUN 1 7 1993
June 14, 1993
B Il-l. O. CARNAHAN
Public Utilities DI,!,tor
LAFCO
San Bernardino CoUnty
Cecilia Lopez-Hernandez, LAFCO Analyst
San Bernardino County LAFC9
175 West Fifth Street
San Bernardino, CA 92415-0490
Dear Ms. Lopez-Hernandez:
Subject:
SAN BERNARDINO LAFCO FILENO. 2751, SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO.2
The San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District (SBVWCD) has existed for over 60
years. During this period the sole function of SBVWCD has been to operate spreading basins
to percolale (recharge) storm flows into the Bunker Hill Basin. This Basin generally overlies
the Cities of Redlands, Highland, Loma Linda, and San Bernardino. During all this time it has
operated without imposing a pump tax. Recently, however, SBVWCD undertook proceedings
to levy a groundwater extraction charge (pump tax) on all wells within its boundaries. This
includes approximately 20 wells of lhe City of Riverside. The statute requires the preparation
of an engineering report in order to support any such charge. This report was prepared by
Geoscience although none of the agencies that will be affected by the groundwater charge were
requested to provide detailed input that could have been used in the preparation of the
engineering report.
On May 5, 1993, the SBVWCD adopted Resolution No. 318 which includes a groundwater levy
on all water extracted witllin the SBVWCD. This pump tax was adopted over the objections of
the water exporters who are the plaintiffs of the 1969 Court Judgement in tlle case of Western
Municipal Water District v. East San Bernardino Countv Water District. Case No. 78426,
Riverside Superior Court. In that Judgement the rights of the City of Riverside, among others,
to pump water from the Bunker Hill Basin were determined, reduced to the safe yield of the
Basin, and fixed. Riverside cannot pump in excess of its rights under the Judgement, does not
contribute to any overdraft in the Basin, and cannot benefit from additional recharge by the
SBVWCD. This pump tax could have a significant financial impact on the water consumers of
Riverside, even though the City will not benefit to any measurable extent from the SBVWCD
pump tax.
Attachment V . Page 1
_.__..._~~.
RES ?3-2.1_Q_ __ ___ _.__
1
.'-\
At the present time, the City of Riverside is reviewing its options, including legal remedies, in
regard to the SBVWCD groundwater charge. Attached is a list of legal and technical issues
Riverside intends to address in challenging the SBVWCD groundwater charge.
Now the SBVWCD seeks to expand its boundaries to cover its entire zone of influence by
annexing additional territory. The proposed annexation would include approximately 25
additional wells of the City of Riverside, and thus subject the City to the threat of further pump
taxes without commensurate benefit.
The City of Riverside objects .to the proposed annexation, and at a minimum requests that
LAFCO delay any action regarding Area "A" for six months to allow time to try to sort out the
legal and equitable issues involved. The two areas, Area "A" and Areas "B and C," have
entirely different population and land use characteristics, have different groundwater
characteristics, and are utilized by different water agencies. Separating the two areas for
purpose of this annexation proceeding should pose no special problems.
The matter included in the attached statement, though addressed to the present pump tax effort,
apply equally to the proposed annexation.
Sincerely,
CJkQ.W~
Q ffi Bill D. Carnahan
() Public Utilities Director
BDC/DVG/alp
cc: Dieter P. Wirtzfeld
David V. Garcia
Edward L. Kostjal
ANNEX-IAPCO,LTR
Attachment V - Page 2
RES 93-210
----------------'---- - ------
'1
"1
LEGAL AND TECHNICAL ISSUES CHALLENGING THE SAN BERNARDINO
VALLEY WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT (SBVWCD)
GROUND WATER CHARGE
In reference to the attached SBVWCD's Resolution #318 and Part 9 - Ground Water Charge,
Chaplers 1, 2, and 3 (Division 21) of the Water Code, the ground water charge is notjustitied
because the Board of SBVWCD did not comply with the requirements of the water code for
adopting the ground water charge. In addition, the Board determined that the entire Bunker Hill
ground water basin constitutes a single zone of benefit even though the engineering report
identified eight sub-basins with unique responses. If it is determined that the proposed ground
water charge is legal, then it is only equitable that the charge be based on the zones of benefits.
SBVWCD also failed to co~ply with the California Environmental Act (CEQA) prior to
implementing the groundwater charge.
A. The SBVWCD did not comply with the Water Code as follows:
1. The groundwater charge will not protect public health and safety as claimed by
SBVWCD in paragraph 2 of its Resolution No. 318 and as required by the Water Code.
In enacting the legislation allowing water conservation districts to impose groundwater
charges in certain limited situations, the Legislature provided that such groundwater
charges must be in "furtherance of district activities in the protection and augmentation
of water supplies for users, which are necessary for the public health, welfare and
safety". (Wat. Code ~ 75521. To the contrary, the proposed SBVWCD's ground water
recharge activities may adversely affect the public health, welfare and safety of those that
work or live within the "Pressure Zone" in the San Bernardino area. This is because the
proposed recharging activities may cause ground water levels in the pressure zone to rise
to a level that may result in liquefaction during a major earthquake. In addition, ground
water level increases in the pressure zone may result in increase concentrations of
contamination in drinking water supplies from wells within the pressure zone. This is
because contaminants normally are found closer to ground surface.
2. The proposed need for ground water recharge was based on water conditions of the entire
Bunker Hiil basin, rather than' "water supplies of the district" as required by Section
7556l(c) of the Water Code. Whereas, the SBVWCD only covers about half of the
Bunker Hill basin, the district based its estimates of annual overdraft on the entire basin
rather than ground water supplies within the district as required under Section 75506 .
The district can only levy a ground water charge for the replenishment of ground water
within the district (Section 7556Ie)."
The legally required engineering report that was prepared by Geoscience determined
accumulated overdraft and annual overdraft for the entire Bunker Hill Basin, and did not
estimate the corresponding overdrafts within the SBVWCD. The SBVWCD Board
misstated this fact as part of its resolution. Paragraph 4 of Resolution #318 states
"WHEREAS, at the regular meeting of the Board of directors on March I, 1993, the
SBVWCD accepted an engineer's investigation and report, prepared by GEOSCIENCE
Support Services Incorporated, relating to ground water conditions in the Bunker Hill
basin underlyin!! the District boundaries."
AttacJunent V - Page 3
RES 93~21(}----.'
'1
"""'\
3. Section 75522 states "The ground water charges are authorized to be levied upon the
production of ground water from all water producing facilities, whether public or private,
within the district or a zone or zones thereof for the benefit of all who rely directly or
indirectly upon the ground water supplies of the district or a zone or zones thereof'. The
Geoscience engineering report contains no evidence that it benefits all water users within
the SBVWCD for the SBVWCD to recharge the basin. The recharge may adversely
impact Riverside's, or other municipal, wells in the event ground water levels rise into
layers where contaminants are present.
4. Section 75505 defines "accumulated overdraft" "which means the amount of water
necessary to be replaced in the intake areas of the ground water basins within the
SBVWCD or any zone or zones thereof to prevent the landward movements of salt water
into the fresh ground V\~ter body, or to prevent subsidence of the land within the district
or any zone or zones thereof as determined by the board from time to time". It seems
that the major intent of the Water Code (Ground Water Charge) was to prevent sea water
intrusion or land subsidence. However, Resolution No. 318, Section ID states "The
accumulated overdraft as of the last day of the preceding water year is zero." It appears
the SBVWCD has inappropriately levied the ground water charge since there is no need
for surface distribution (artificial recharge) to prevent land subsidence nor prevent sea
water intrusion (or ground water degradation). To the contrary, the proposed recharge
may result in degradation of downstream ground water quality.
5. The SBVWCD's engineering report is in error, when used to determine the safe yield of
the basin. Section JJ of the Resolution states "The water necessary for surface
distribution in the District is 30,000 acre-feet". The Water Code requires this "Finding
and determination" to be "for the ensuing water year" (Wat. Code ~ 75547). We believe
the estimated surface distribution requirement of 30,000 acre-feet is in error because the
basis for the amount is Figure 28 of the engineering report prepared by Geoscience
which shows that the minimum annual average basin-wide precipitation of 25 inches
would be necessary to support ground water production at the legally established "Safe
Yield" of the basin. The court has determined the natural safe yield of Bunker Hill basin
as 232,000 A.F., Le, the amount of ground water which could be derived solely from
natural precipitation in the absence of imported water and the return flows therefrom, and
without contributions from new conservation. The average annual precipitation in the
basin is 18 inches (Geoscience: San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District,
Engr. Report, Vol 1, page 14, March 1993), which is less than the 25 inches determined
in the engineering report to support the safe yield.
RTh ~
1. Courts have required a close nexus between the imposition of a charge such as that
imposed by SBVWCD and the benefits to be received as a result of the charge. In
addition, Water Code Section 7522 provides that the groundwater charges must benefit
all who rely on the groundwater supplies of the district. The groundwater charge
imposed by SBVWCD does not benefit the City of Riverside for the following reasons:
2. Section 75540 states "Prior to the establishment of any ground water charge, the board
2
Attachment V - Page 4
RES'-cj3=-iio'" .-
'1
"\
shall establish a zone or zones within the district within which the ground water charge
will be effective. Such zone or zones shall be established and may be amended to the
extent and in the manner prescribed in Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 75560) of
this part. A zone may include the entire district". The SBVWCD determined that the
Bunker Hill Basin "acts as unit", and therefore determined one zone for the entire
SBVWCD. However, the Geoscience report showed that Bunker Hill ground water basin
consists of eight distinct sub-basins that will not react similarly to recharge and
production of water. The SBVWCD should have designated each sub-basin, within the
SBVWCD, as a zone of benefit for the purpose of determining, the equitable ground
water charge within each zone.
3. The wells that are closest to the SBVWCD' s percolation basins will benefit the most
from the proposed and previous recharge of the basin. The wells farthest from the
SBVWCD's percolation basins and in the pressure zone have historically received
insignificant benefits from the SBVWCD's recharge activities. This is mainly because
of the hydrogeology (mainly barriers to ground water flow) of the Bunker Hill Basin and
the miles of distance between the pressure zone and the SBVWCD's percolation basins.
Ground water levels in the Redlands area were approximately 280 feet below ground
surface during 1992. This was determined using information from the engineering report
prepared for the SBVWCD by Geoscience. In the pressure zone area water levels were
approximately 40 feet below the ground surface during 1992. Ground water recharge
by the SBVWCD, significantly increase water levels in the Redlands area, whereas in the
pressure zone the increase is insignificant.
The relationship between water levels and pumping costs is directly related because the
higher the lift, the higher the energy cost. It costs approximately $13.50 per acre-foot
of water lifted every 100 feet. Therefore, if water levels in the pressure zone were only
raised approximately 5 feet, the energy cost savings per acre-foot would be $0.68 per
acre-foot, whereas in the Redlands area if water levels increase the 100 feet the energy
savings would be $13.50 per acre-foot of water pump from wells.
4. Rather than benefitting the City as required by law, the groundwater charge could
actually harm the City's wells.
Recharge activities by the SBVWCD may accelerate the migration of the Redlands
contaminant plume. The plume contains TCE & DBCP contaminants. The result of the
accelerated migration of the plume will be that Riverside wells may become contaminated
much sooner than if migration of the plume were not affected by recharge activities of
the SBVWCD.
5. SBVWCD is proposing to waste public funds by duplicating efforts of others. Since
others are undertaking these efforts, no particular benefit is achieved by the imposition
of SBVCD's groundwater charge. Section 2 of the Resolution states that "the District
is undertaking programs for comprehensive management of the entire basin within its
jurisdiction". There is no need for the SBVWCD to take on this responsibility because
the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (SBVMWD) has already taken the
3
Attachment V - Page 5
RES 93-210
'1
.~
,
leadership role. The SBVMWD has already contracted with the United States Geological
Survey and CDM Engineering Consultants to develop a comprehensive basin management
and master plan for the entire Bunker Hill basin. SBVWCD already participates through
its membership on the Committee reviewing the proposed basinwide masterplan. The
contract includes the development of a computer-based Geographic Information Systems
(GIS) to monitor basin conditions and water quality. In addition, the EPA, regional
Water Quality Control Board and other state and federal agencies may exercise their
authority over many of the programs SBVWCD proposes to fund by its groundwater
charge.
6. SBVWCD failed to recognize that the City of Riverside's production from the Bunker
Hill basin is limited by the court's judgement in Western Municipal Water District v.
P".t San Bernardino C..ountv Water District (Case No. 78426). In that judgement, the.
rights of the City and others were reduced to the safe yield of the hasin and limited to
a fixed amount. The City of Riverside cannot pump in excess of its rights under this
judgement, does not contribute to any overdraft in the basin and therefore, cannot benefit
from additional recahrge by SBVWCD. Therefore, the groundwater charge could have
a significant financial impact on the water consumers of Riverside, even though the City
will not benefit to any measurable extent form the groundwater charge.
C. The OUl:pose of the Groundwater Char!!e is beyond SBVWCD's statutory powers.
1. Section 75596 of the Water Code provides that groundwater charges must be in addition
to any general tax or assessment levied within the district. Funds raised by any
groundwater charge cannot produce funds for district purposes that would exceed the
amount deemed necessary to be used in the "replenishment, augmentation and protection
of water supplies for users within the district."
As noted above SBVWCD proposes to use the funds received from the groundwater
charge for activities already undertaken by other agencies. Therefore, it is unclear how
this amount is "necessary" for the "replenishment, augmentation and protection" of the
water supplies of SBVWCD as required by the Water Code. Moreover, SBVWCD
claims that it will use the funds from the groundwater charge for various activities,
without supporting how these activities fall within SBVWCD's statutory purpose of
"replenishment, augmentation and protection of water supplies." (see also ~ 75523
providing that proceeds from groundwater charges must be "exclusively" for district
purposes.)
D
1. The SBVWCD's resolution states that "the ground water charge adopted herein is
statutorily exempt from CEQA under Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section
15273." However, previous replenishment by the SBVWCD resulted in environmental
damage (flooding of basements in pressure zone).
2. "Moreover, Section 15723 exempts the establishment of rates or fares for the purpose
of 'meeting operating expenses, including employee wage rates and fringe benefits, or
4
Attachment V - Page (j
RES. .93~2Hl---'-"-
'1
--,
for purchasing or leasing supplies, equipment or material.' Section 15273 (c) provides
that the public agency must incorporate 'written findings' in its record in which an
exemption under this section is claimed setting forth with 'specificity' the basis for the
claim of exemption. SBVWCD has failed to do this. Rather, in its resolution,
SBVWCD states merely that the charge will be used for meeting operating expenses and
purchasing or leasing equipment and materials. It appears that the groundwater charge
will be used for purpose beyond these since in the Resolution, SBVWCD claims that it
will use the funds for basin cleaning, water quality sampling and various basin studies.
Therefore, the use of this exemption is improper.
3. SBVWCD claimed that its actions were exempt under two other sections of CEQA: State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (maintenance of exisiting public faicilities) and_State
CEQA Guildlines Sectipn 15306 (information collection). These exemptions are also
inapplicable. Section 15301 exempts very limited activities involving negligible or no
expansion of use beyond previous existing uses. Section 15301 limits information
collection to activities which "do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an
environmental resources". Both of these exemptions are limited in that they cannot be
used if the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type over time is
significant or if there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant
effect on the environment due to "unusual circumstances." (State CEQA Guidelines ~
15300.2.) The information collection exemption is further qualified in that it is
inapplicable when used in a particularly sensitive environment. (~15300.2(a).)
As discussed above, recharge may adversely impact the City's or other municipalities'
wells if groundwater levels raise into layers where contaminates are present. Because
there is a possibility of significant effect in this instance and because SBVWCD has failed
to specify how these exemptions apply, SBVWCD has failed to properly comply with
CEQA. Further environmental evaluation should have been conducted prior to adopting
the groundwater charge."
DVG/ZPIBABS/mes
sbvwcd2.693
5
Attachment V . Page 7
RES 93-210
....._-~._~...~..-----_.~ ."
.' ~
- ..
-\
"\
LAW OFFICES
AKLUFI AND WYSOCKI
3.03 TI!:NTt-t STREET, SUITe tSlO
.;OSE.PM S. AKLUf"I
OAV'D L. WYSOCKI
RIVERSIDE. CALIFDRNIA. IZ5Dl
A"U:A CODE 7'4
ill m@rnnwm[ID
JUN 1 6 1993
Tf;LCPI'10NC eez.~!5480
TCU:COPIER 68Z.ze."
June 15, 1993
LAFCO
San Bernardino County
Ms. Cecelia Lopez-Hernandez
LAFCO Analyst
San Bernardino county LAFCO
175 West Fifth Street
San Bernardino, CA ,,92415-0490
VIA TELECOPIER AND MAIL
909-387-5871
Re: San Bernardino LAFCO File No. 2751, San Bernardino
Valley Water conservation District Annexation No.2
Dear Ms. Lopez-Hernandez:
For years now, we have had the honor and pleasure of representing,
as their general legal counsel, two time-honored water purveyors
in the Temescal Valley:
The Meeks and Daley Water company
The Agua Mansa Water company
Our clients have owned, for many, many years, jUdicially-
recognized water rights in the San Bernardino Valley.
On June 13, 1993, we learned that the San Bernardino Valley Water
Conservation District proposes to annex territory that includes
water wells owned and operated by our clients. The purpose of
t 's letter is to conve our clients' unconditional rotest to he
annexation proceedinq.
You should know that, without notice to us, the Water Conservation
District adopted, on May 5, 1993, a resolution to tax our clients'
pumping rights, which have been established by a court of law.
There is no legal basis for the tax, and we have been authorized
to pursue legal action to stop it as against our clients. Because
our clients' water rights have been established by:court order,
the Water conservation District's pump tax is illegal, as a matter
of law.
The proposed annexation is merely another component of the Water
conservation District's strategy to develop alternate sources of
revenue to support its operations out of.fear of its loss of
ad valorum property taxes, a fact that the District admits.
AttacJunent V - Page 8
RES 93-210 .
--\
--,
- .
Ms. cecelia Lopez-Hernandez
Page 2
June 15, 1993
We have reviewed the protest letter addressed to you by the City
of Riverside, and we concur with, and join in, the City's protest,
because the city's factual and legal position is virtually
identical to that of our clients'. Therefore, please be advised
that we hereby adopt, by this reference, the City of Riverside's
objection, and the grounds therefor, as if they were our clients'
own. Our clients also join in (and supplement) the city's minimum
request that LAFCO delay anv action until the legal issues
presented by the Water conservation District's "pump tax" and
annexation application have been resolved.
Finally, we wish to note that we are aware that the fact that
merely adopting the city of Riverside'S opposition as our own may
be interpreted as "lukewarm" opposition. However, we do this only
because we just recently learned of the annexation proposal and
little time remains to register our own, detailed, objection.
Thus, out of necessity, we take this abbreviated approach to
register our clients' protest. If we had had the time, our
protest to the entire annexation application would have been
original and in great detail.
Very truly yours,
AKLUFI AND WYSOCKI
q~_(lj1tY;t'
JOSEPH S. AKLUFI t ~
JSA:dvh
cc: Meeks and Daley Water Company
Agua Mansa Water Company
Attachment V - Page 9
_'o~_o;.____ 0 _~____._'__ __ .._ on 0
RES 93-210
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
175 Wcst Fifth Strect. San Bernardino, CA 9241S-Q490
Pho...: (909) 387-S866
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
VICINITY MAP
APPLICANT: San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation
District
PROPOSAL: LAFCO 2751 - Reorganization to include
Annexations to the San Bernardino Valley Water
Conservation District (Annexation #2)
SEE ATTACHED MAP
LOCATION: Parcel A includes the area within the Santa
Ana River bed generally bordered on the west by 'E'
street in the City of San Bernardino, on the north
by Norton Air Force Base, on the east by Orange
Street in the City of Redlands, and on tbe south
by existing District boundaries;
Parcel B/C is within the boundaries or sphere of
influence of the City of San Bernardino and is generally
bounded on the west by Waterman Avenue, on the north
by a combination of 40th Street, David Way, the San
Bernardino National Forest boundary, and parcel
boundaries; on the east by the existing boundaries of
tbe San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District,
and on the south by a combination of Baseline, parcel
boundaries and Highland Avenue.
DATE OF ISSUANCE OF PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OCTOBER 20, t993
EFFECTIVE DATE OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
Pursuant to provisions of the California Environmentat Quality Act and the Local Agency Formation Commission Environmental
Review Guidelines, the above referenced project has been determined not to have a significant effect upon the environment. An
Environmental Impact Report will not be required.
Reasons to support tbis finding are included in the written Initial Study on file in the office of the Local Agency Formation
Commission.
Attachment VI - Page 1
RES 93-210
.- --,-- -.-.----..
.~
.........-r
-
r
"
~.
'.
RES .93=-ZlO,.__,__.________,_.,_______._ ---- -.-.-.,-----..- .---"'--' -.--.--.
San Bernardino County
LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
Initial Study Environmental Checklist Form
A.
Title of Proposed Project:
B.
Applicant or Proponent:
C.
.
General Location of Project:
D. Project Description
LAFCO #2751, Reorganization to include
Annexations to the San Bernardino Valley Water
Conservation District (Annexation #2)
San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation
District
LAFCO #2751 is a proposal annexation of
approximately 4,909 acres (7.7 square miles) of
land that is located in the east San Bernardino
Valley including: the north-central, south and
southeastern portions of the City of San
Bernardino, western portion of the City of
Highland, northwest portion of the CitY of
Redlands, and portions of unincorporated County
area in the same general area. See the attached
map.
The San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District (District) has responsibility for
ground water replenishment activities in the Bunker Hill Basin in San Bernardino County.
These water replenishment activities augment the Basin's ground water supplies and confer
a benefit to all water consumers that rely upon the Basin's aquifer. The proposed
reorganization will result in annexation of the entire Sphere of Influence into the District's
boundaries. The District indicates that this will increase the tax base and permit
development of additional water conservation facilities in the future. No specific new
facilities or enhanced water conservation actions are proposed or have been identified at
this time. Water replenishment activities at existing District facilities east of the proposed
annexation areas would continue.
,
Approval of this reorganization would not cause any identifiable physical changes to the
environment. The District has no jurisdiction over land uses with the area proposed for
annexation. The various cities and the County would continue to control any future
development on the 7.7 square miles of territory proposed for annexation. No additional
services would be provided which could result in growth inducement. The only activities
permitted by the District are related to water conservation, including potential facilities for
which permission from the land owners would be required before any facilities in the
annexation area could be implemented. Therefore, in this Initial Study it is assumed that
the land use designations in each city and in the County will control future land use
development and any facilities proposed by the District to conserve water will require
AltacJunenl VI - Page 3
RES 93-210-.,.-----.-..
independent evaluation when identified in the future. Until specific projects are proposed
and approved by landowners, any consideration of specific facilities is considered speculative
and beyond the ability of the Commission to forecast for the proposed annexation. Thus,
it is concluded that engaging in speculation about future District facilities at this time would
be inappropriate and would not provide the Commission with pertinent information for the
environmental effects of annexation.
E. Initial Study Environmental Checklist Form
This concludes the description of the proposed project and the circumstances surrounding
the reasons for preparing this Initial Study. The Environmental Checklist Form follows this
project description along with substantiation developed in support of the conclusions
checked in the Form. Supporting information is provided for all Checklist issues. Where
mitigation is required to reduce a potentially significant impact to a nonsignificant level, it
is illustrated by showing an - on the Form.
2
AttacJunent VI - Page 4
RESu~~210
II. Identification of maximum potential environmental-effects of the proposed project.
The purpose is to identify any potenti211y significant impacts and discuss mitigation
measures for identified impacts. Responses are substantiated by summarizing the
assessment of significant impacts and referencing documents used as research (e.g.,
Alquist-Priolo Study Zone Maps for Seismic Hazards). Include quantification of
changes caused by the project's development at maximum potential buildout from
existing status.
NATURAL HAZARDS
Yes Maybe No
1. Geologic Hazards. Will the proposed project result
in significant impacts related to:
a.
Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic
substructures?
x
b.
Change in topography or ground surface relief
features?
x
c.
The destruction, covering or modification of
any unique geologic or physical features?
x
d.
Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
x
e.
Exposure of people or property to water-related
seismic hazards such as seiche?
x
SUBSTANTIATION (check if project is located in the Geologic Hazards Overlay District):
1.a The project area contains two significant faults, San Andreas and San Jacinto, that
pose the potential for damage to any structures or facilities. No areas with potential
for landslides exists within the project area Since no facilities or habitable structures
are proposed at this time, no potential significant adverse impacts due to unstable
earth conditions are identified and no mitigation is required.
1.b. Based on a review of the topographic maps for the project area, the area is
essentially flat. The overall slope of the area is about 5% from north to south. No
specific development is proposed that could alter topography within the project area
and, based on the lack of hills and steep slopes within the project area, no potential
for major topographic alterations can occur. No significant adverse topographic
impacts are identified and no mitigation is required.
3
Attachment VI - Page 5
RES93~210--,-.--.....,.-_.- ..-.----.
l.c. -No known unique geologic or physical features are known to occur within the project
area and no specific development is forecast to occur if the annexation is approved.
Therefore, no significant impacts to such features has been identified and no
mitigation is required.
J.d. The San Andreas and San Jacinto Faults occur in or adjacent to the annexation area
and the area could be subject to significant ground shaking during a regional
earthquake. The County General Plan and Background Geotechnical documents
identify the severity of potential earthquakes in the San Bernardino Valley. No
development is forecast to occur with the annexation of the project area and any
future projects would be approved under the citie~' and County's existing General
Plans and Development Codes and they must be mitigated by implementing stringent
UBC requirements.. With implementation of city and County building requirements;; .-
no potential for significant geotechnical hazards has been identified.
I.e. There are no known lakes or streams with sufficient water within the project area to
cause water-related seismic hazards. The high water table at the western edge of the
Bunker Hill Basin creates a significant potential for liquefaction. Without any
proposed development, no potential has been identified for significantexposure..to
water-related seismic damage. No mitigation is required.
References
Bo1tUgno. EJ. and Spittler, T.E. 1986. Geologic Map of the San Bernardino Quadrangle, Scale 1:250.000.
Fife, Donald L. e~ al, 1976. Geologic HaZ/1rds ill Southwestem San Bemardillo Counl)l Califomia, Special Repott
113.
San Bernardino County. 1988, San Bemardino County General Plan Update, Background Report Natural HlJUll"ds
Geologic Issue.
San Bernardino COUllI)'. - 1989. San Bemardino County General PlaJl Update, HlJUll"d Maps.
San Bernardino County. 1989, San Bemardino COUllty General Plan Update.
San Bernardino County. 1991. Development Code.
u. S. Geological Survey. 1981 (Photorevised). San Bernardino North and South Quadrangles, 7.5 Minute Series
(Topographic)
4
AltacJunenl VI - Page Ii
RES 93-210
.. --~_._.__.._~_...--._-_._~--
Yes Maybe No
2. Flood Hazards. Will the proposed project result
in significant impacts related to:
a.
Changes in currents, or the course of
direction of water movements?
x
b.
Changes in deposition, erosion, or siltation
that may modify the channel of a river, stream,
bay, inlet, or lake?
x
c.
Alterations to the course or flow of flood
waters?
x
d.
Change in the amount of surface water in
any water body?
x
e.
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface runoff?
x
f.
Exposure of people or property to water-related
hazards such as flooding or dam inundation?
x
SUBSTANTIATION (check if project is located in the Flood Plain Safety Overlay District
or Dam Inundation Overlay):
2.a. The portion of the project area within the Twin Creek and Santa Ana River channels
are identified as a flood hazard zone, FP-l, due to water elevations during the 100-
year storm. The County General Plan and Development Code control development
within flood hazard and stream channel areas. These controls, combined with the
lack of any specific development proposals results in a finding that no potential
significant changes in the currents or course of direction of any flowing water. No
mitigation is required.
2.b. No development is proposed as a result of annexation; therefore, no potential
changes are forecast to deposition, erosion or siltation of any river or stream in the
annexation area. No potential for significant impact exists and no mitigation is
required.
2.c. No development is proposed as a result of annexation; therefore, no potential
alterations are forecast to the course or flow of flood waters (two major stream
channels pass through this area, Twin Creek and the Santa Ana River). No
mitigation is required.
5
AttacJunent VI - Page 7
RES 93-210_. ,-.-,-------
2.d. No development is proposed as a result of annexation; therefore, no potential
changes to the volume of water in any water body have been identified. No
mitigation is required.
2.e. No development is proposed as a result of annexation; therefore, no potential
changes to the absorption rates, drainage patterns, or runoff of water have been
identified. No mitigation is required.
2.f. The General Plan Flood Hazard maps identify areas subject to flooding and
inundation behind along the two stream channels within the annexation area. No
development is proposed as a result of annexation; therefore, no potential additional
exposure to people or property to water-related hazards has been identified. No
mitigation is required.
References
City of San Bernardino. 1988. Ci/v of San Bernardino General Plan Unda/e Technical BackPrOund ReDOrt.
City of San Bernardino. 1989, Ci/v of San Bernardino General Plan,
San Bernardino County. 1989. San Bernardino COlln/v General Plan Unda/e.
San Bernardino County, 1989. San Bernardino COllnrv General Plan Unda/e. Hazard Mans.
Yes Maybe No
3. Fire Hazards. Will the proposed project result
in significant impacts related to:
a.
Exposure of people or property to wildland
fires?
x
SUBSTANTIATION (check if project is located in the Fire Safety Overlay District):
3.a. The General Plan Fire Safety Overlay District does not identify any wildland fire
hazard area within the project area. No development is proposed as a result of
annexation; therefore, no potential additional exposure of people or property to
wildland fire hazards has been identified. No mitigation is required.
References
City of San Bemardino, 1988. Cirv of San Bernardino General Plan Undate Technical BackPrOund ReDOrt.
City of San Bernardino. 1989. Ci/v of San Bernardino General Plan.
San Bemardino County. 1989. San Bernardino Coun/I' General Plan Undate.
San Bernardino County. 1989. Sail Bernardino Cormrv General Plan Unda/e. Hazard MaDS.
6
AttacJunenl VI - Page 8
REs-9T..:no--------..~,.--..--.--~.-,.-.., '.,
Yes Maybe No
4. Wind/Erosion. Will the proposed project result
in significant impacts related to:
a.
Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils,
either on or off the site?
x
SUBSTANTIATION:
4.a. No development is proposed as a result of annexation; therefore, no potential
changes to the potential for wind and water erosion have been identified. . No
mitigation is requir~d.
References
City of San Bernardino. 1988. CiN of San Bemardino General Plan Undare Technical Backmmnd Rmort.
City of San Bernardino. 1989. CiN of San Bemardino General Plan.
San Bernardino County. 1989. San Bemardino CounN General Plan Undare.
San Bernardino County. 1989. San Bemardino COllnN General Plan Undar.. Hazard Mans.
J\1ANMADE HAZARDS
Yes Maybe No
5. Noise. Will the proposed project result
in significant impacts related to:
a.
Increases in existing noise levels?
x
b.
Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
x
SUBSTANTIATION (check if the project is located in the Noise Hazard Overlay District
or is subject to severe noise levels according to the General Plan Noise Element):
5.a. The project area contains land that falls within the Norton Air Force Base Noise
Hazard Overlay District. Depending upon future development of Norton as a
co=ercial airport, the Noise Hazard Overlay District may be revised. However, no
development is proposed as a result of annexation and no habitable facilities would
be constructed by the District under any circumstances; therefore, no potential
increase in existing noise levels or exposure to significant noise have been identified.
No mitigation is required.
7
Attachment Vi - Page !I ,
RES 93-21O_____.___~ -.' ,-..-
5.b. No development is proposed as a result of artnexation; therefore, no potential
generation of severe noise levels or exposure of people to severe noise levels is
forecast to occur. General Plan policies and Development Code requirements in the
cities and County require a review of noise exposure and implementation of
measures to ensure incompatible, noise sensitive uses are protected. No mitigation
is required.
References
City of San Bernardino. 1988. City of Son Bemordino General I'lon Undote Technical Bockl!round Renort.
City of San Bemardino, 1989. City of 5011 Bemordillo General I'lon.
San Bernardino County. 1989. Son Bemordino County General I'lon Uodote.
San Bemardillo County. 1988. Son Bernordillo County General 1'1011 Uodote Bockl!roll1ld Reool1: Noirt!.
Yes Maybe No
6. Aviation Safety. Will tbe proposed project result
in significant impacts related to:
a.
Exposure of people to risk from aircraft
operations? _
x
SUBSTANI1ATION (check if project is located in the Airport Safety Overlay District):
6.a. The General Plan Hazard Overlay maps identify an Airport Safety Overlay District
in the vicinity of Norton. General Plan policies and Development Code
requirements strictly control uses in such areas. However, no development is
proposed as a result of annexation; therefore, no potential increased exposure of
bumans or property to risk from aircraft operations has been identified. No
mitigation is required.
References
City of San Bemardino. 1988. City of Son Bernardino General I'lon Uodote Tt!chnicol BockPround Rt!DOrt.
City of San Bernardino. 1989. City of Son Bt!rnordino Gt!TIt!ral I'lon.
San Bt!mardillo County. 1989. Son Bernordillo County Gt!nt!ral I'lon Uodott!.
San Bemardino County. 1988. Son Bernordillo County General I'lon Uodott! Bockl!roll1ld Reool1: Tronsnol1orion
Svstems and Noise.
8
Attachment VI - Page 10
RES..93~21O._.. ".'-.'--'--"""-" ," .-.-.
Yes Maybe No
7. Hazardous/Radioactive Materials. Will the proposed
project result in significant impacts related to:
a.
A risk of an explosion or the release of
hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals,
or radiation) in the event of an accident
or upset conditions?
x
b.
Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or an emergency evacuation
plan?
x
c.
Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard?
x
d.
Exposure of people to potential health hazards?
x
SUBSTANTIATION:
7.a. No development is proposed as a result of annexation; therefore, no potential
generation of new hazardous materials or wastes is forecast and no new potential for
accidental releases of hazardous material or waste, or explosions is forecast to occur.
A detailed regulatory structure has been created to ensure that hazardous materials
and wastes are properly managed and no additional mitigation is required to ensure
that such materials/wastes are properly managed.
7.b. No development is proposed as a result of annexation; therefore, no potential for
interference with any emergency response plans or evacuation plans has been
identified. No mitigation is required.
7.c. No development is proposed as a result of annexation; therefore, no potential for the
creation of any health hazards has been identified. No mitigation is required.
7.d. No development is proposed as a result of annexation; therefore, no potential for the
exposure of people to any health hazards has been identified. No mitigation is
required. .
References
City of San Bernardino. 1988. CilV of Son Bernardino General Plan Uodale Tecllllical BackPTCJl/nd Reool1.
City of San Bernardino. 1989. CilV of San Bernardino General Plan,
9
Attachment VI - Page 11
RES 93-210.
San Bemardino County. 1989. Sail BemordillO COllnlV Gelleral PlOII Undore.
San Bernardino County. 1990. San Bemordi1Jo Cnrmfv Hazardous Waste Manopement Plan.
10
AttacJunent VI - Page U
RES 93-210, .._.___,__n
NATIJRAL RESOURCES
Yes Maybe No
8. Biological Resources. Will the proposed project
result in significant impacts related to:
a.
I..oss, reduction, or deterioration of habitat
and/or change in diversity of species of
plants or animals?
x
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare, threatened, or endangered species
of plants or animals?
x
c.
Introduction of exotic species of plants
or animals into an area, or in a barrier
to the normal replenishment or migration
of existing species?
x
SUBSTANTIATION (check if project is located in the Biological Resources Overlay or
contains habitat for any species listed in the California Natural Diversity Database):
8.a. A review of the County's and City's General Plan Background Biological Resources
do=ent indicates several sensitive or listed species occur in the annexation area.
For example, the San Bernardino Pocket Mouse, Santa Ana River Woolly Star, and
others occupy major portions of the stream channels and adjacent alluvial fan sage
scrub habitat within the annexation area. However, no development is proposed as
a result of annexation; therefore, no potential for loss of habitat or individual animals
or plants has been identified. No mitigation is required.
8.b No development is proposed as a result of annexation; therefore, no potential for loss
of sensitive habitat or individual sensitive or listed animals or plants has been
identified. No mitigation is required.
8.c. No development is proposed as a result of annexation; therefore, no potential for
introduction of exotic species or creation of barriers has been identified. No
mitigation is required.
References
City of SQJl Bernardillo. 1988. Citv of SOli Bcrnordillo GCllcrol PlOII Uodo/e Technical Bockvround ReDOrt.
City of SQJl Bernardino. 1989. Citv of SOli Bernardino Gellerol PIOII,
SQJl Bernardino COUllty. 1989. SOli Bemordino COl/lltv General Plan Undo/c.
11
Attachment VI - Page 13
I RES 93-210
- _..~ ._~-~......------_.-----~~_. ~,- .-.
San Bernardino County,
Resources.
1988. SOli Benfordhro County General Plan Undo/I! Backvround Reoorl: Bio/OPical
Yes Maybe No
9. Cultural/Paleontologic Resources. Will the proposed
project result in significant impacts related to:
a.
The alteration or destruction of a prehistoric
or historic archaeological site?
x
b.
Physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric
or historic building, structure, or object?
x
C.
A physical change that would affect unique
ethnic cultural values?
x
d.
Restricting existing religious or sacred uses
within the potential impact area?
x
e.
Any alteration or destruction of fossil remains?
x
SUBSTANTIATION (check if the project is located in the Cultural or Paleontologic
Resources overlays or cite results of cultural resource review):
9.a. Both prehistoric and historic archaeological sites are located within the project area
according to County records. However, no development is proposed as a result of
annexation; therefore, no potential for alteration or destruction of prehistoric/historic
archaeological sites has been identified. No mitigation is required.
9.b. No development is proposed as a result of annexation; therefore, no potential for
alteration or alteration or disturbance of historic structures has been identified. No
mitigation is required.
9.c. No development is proposed as a result of annexation; therefore, no potential for
physical impacts on features with ethnic values has been identified. No mitigation
is required.
9.d. No development is proposed as a result of annexation; therefore, no potential for
restriction of religious or sacred activities has been identified. No mitigation is
required.
9.e. No development is proposed as a result of annexation; therefore, no potential for
alteration or destruction of paleontological (fossil) resources has been identified. No
mitigation is required.
12
AttacJunent VI - Page 14
RES 93-210
- ~~-_.~-_._---------,.....
References
City of San Bernardino. 1988. City of Son Benrordino General Plan Undate Technical Ba.ckf!T'()und Renort.
City of San Bernardino. 1989, Ci,... of Son Bernardino General Plan.
San Bernardino County. 1989. Son Benrardino Conn" General Plan Uodate.
San Bernardino County. 1988. Son Bernardino COlin" General Plan Uodate Backvrollnd Rmort: Cultuml
Resources.
Yes Maybe No
10. Air Quality. Will the proposed project result
in significant impacts related to:
a.
Substantial air emissions or deterioration of
ambient air quality?
x
b.
The creation of objectionable odors?
x
c.
Alteration of air movement, moisture or
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally?
x
SUBSTANI1ATION (discuss conformity with the South Coast Air Quality Management
Plan, if applicable):
lO.a. As outlined in the San Bernardino County Air Quality Element to the General Plan
and the most recent South Coast Air Quality Management District Air Quality
Management Plan, air quality, particularly ozone and particulates (PM10) remain
unhealthful in the South Coast Air Basin and the project area. However, no
development is proposed as a result of annexation; therefore, no potential for
significant air pollution emissions and related air quality deterioration has been
identified. No mitigation is required.
lO.b. No development is proposed as a result of annexation; therefore, no potential for
significant objectionable odor emissions and related deterioration of the surrounding
area has been identified. No mitigation is required.
lO.c. No development is proposed as a result of annexation; therefore; no potential for any
changes in local and regional climate has been identified. No mitigation is required.
References
City of San Bernardino. 1988. Ci,. of SOli Bernardino General Plan Uodate Tecllllical Backvrollnd Reoort.
13
Attachment VI - Page 15 ,
RES 93-?10
City of San Bemardillo. 1989, CiN of Sail Bemardillo Gelleral Plall.
San Bemardlno County. 1989. Son Bemordino COWltv General Plan Undate.
San Bemardino County, 1992, Sail Bemardillo COUIIN General Plan Air OualiN Elemellt.
South Coast Air Quality Mallagemellt District Halldbook. 1993. Air OualiN Handbook for lnmlementinp the
Califomia Ellvirollnrelltal Ol/aliN Act (CEOA ),
Yes Maybe No
11. Water Supply/Water Quality. Will the proposed
project result in significant impacts related to:
Changes in th'e quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or withdrawals,
or through interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations (onsite)?
a.
x
b.
Substantial reduction in the amount of water
otherwise available for public water supplies?
x
c.
Alteration of the direction or rate of flow
of ground waters?
x
d.
Pollution, contamination, or any change in
the quality of groundwater (toxics, nitrates,
fluorides, salts, etc.)?
x
e.
Discharge into surface waters, or any
alteration of surface water quality,
including, but not limited to, temperature,
dissolved oxygen, or turbidity?
x
SUBSTANTIATION:
11.8. No development is proposed as a result of annexation; therefore, no potential for
additional water withdrawals, water additions or construction that might intercept an
aquifer has been identified. Note that the long-term goal of the District is to
increase percolation of surface water into the Bunker Hill aquifer, but any specific
proposals would have to be individually reviewed in the future. ~o mitigation is
required.
l1.b. No development is proposed as a result of annexation; therefore, no potential for
additional water withdrawals and reduction in water resource available for public
water supplies has been identified. No mitigation is required.
14
Attachment VI - Page 16 _
RES"'93'-"2TI,--'-'
ll.c. No development is proposed as a result of annexation; therefore, no additional
potential for pollution of surface or ground water has been identified. No mitigation
is required.
l1.d. No development is proposed as a result of annexation; therefore, no potential for
additional water withdrawals and change in the direction of ground water flow has
been identified. No mitigation is required.
ll.e. Please refer to l1.d. which addresses the potential for surface water pollution. No
potential exists for the proposed annexation to cause adverse surface water discharges
and related pollution.
References
City of San Bernardino. 1988. CiN of San Bernardino General Plan Undare Technical Backl!T'Ound Renart.
City of San Bernardino. 1989. Cirv of San Bernardino General Plan.
San Bernardino County. 1989. San Bernardino COIIIIN General Plan Undate.
San Bernardino County. 1988., San Bernardino CounN General Plan Vndare Backl!T'Ound Renart: Water Suqp/v
and ResDurces.
Yes Maybe No
u. Open Space/Recreation/Scenic. Will the proposed
project result in significant impacts related to:
a.
The quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities?
x
b.
The obstruction of any scenic vista or view
open to the public?
x
c.
The creation of an aesthetically offensive
site open to public view?
x
d.
New light or glare?
x
SUBSTANTIATION (check if project is located within the viewshed of any Scenic Route
listed in the General Plan):
12.a. No development is proposed as a result of annexation; therefore, no potential for
alteration of any recreational opportunities has been identified. No mitigation is
required.
15
Attachment VI - Page 17
RES 93-210
12.b. No development is proposed as a result of annexation; therefore, no potential for
alteration of visual setting and obstruction of any scenic vista or public view has been
identified. No mitigation is required.
12.c. No development is proposed as a result of annexation; therefore, no potential for
creating aesthetically offensive public views has been identified. No mitigation is
required.
12.d. No development is proposed as a result of annexation; therefore, no potential for
irtstalling new sources of light or glare has been identified. No mitigation is required.
References
City of San Bernardino. 1988. Cit"l' of San Bernardino General Plan Uodate Technical BackPrOund Reoort.
Oty of San Bernardino. 1989. Cirv of San Bernardino General Plan,
San Bernardino County. 1989. San Bernardino Counrv General Plan Uodate.
San Bernardino County. 1988. San Bernardino COllnrv General Plan Undare BockPrOlllld Reoort: Ooen Soace
Resources.
Yes Maybe No
13.
Soils/Agriculture. Will the proposed project
result in significant impacts related to:
a.
Disruptions, displacements, compaction, or
over covering of the soil?
x
b.
Loss of agricultural soils?
x
c.
Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop?
x
SUBSTANTIATION (check if project is located in the Important Farmlands Overlay):
B.a. The vast majority of land within the annexation area is urban development or flood
plain. No development is proposed as a result of annexation; therefore, no potential
for disturbing important farmland soils, i.e. prime agricultural soils, is forecast to be
nonsignificant.
13,b. Please refer to the evaluation in B.a. which addresses loss of agricultural soils.
B.c. Please refer to the evaluation in 13.a and b. which addresses the reduction in acreage
of land devoted to agricultural crops.
16
AltacJunent VI - Page 18
RES 93-210
._-- ~-~_....".-.- ..._- ,---- ,,- .-
References
Qty of San Bernardino, 1988. Cir... of San Bernardino General Plan Uodafe Teclmical Backrmmnd ReDOrt.
City of San Bemardino, 1989. CiN of San Bernardino General Plan.
San Bemardino County. 1989. San Bernardino COll/IN General Plan Uodafe,
Yes Maybe No
14. Mineral Resources. Will the proposed project result
in significant impacts related to:
a.
The prohibition or restriction of development of
any mineral.resource rated as Classified or
Designated by the State Mining and Geology
Board?
x
SUBSTANTIATION (check if project is located within the Mineral Resource Zone
Overlay):
14.a. . Mineral resource zones are identified for the project annexation area...No
development is proposed as a result of annexation; therefore, no potential for
limitations on access to mineral resources or for mineral resource due to annexation
has been identified. No mitigation is required.
References
City of San Bemardino. 1988. CiN of San Bernardino General Plan Uodafe Teclmical Backr!round Reoort.
City of San Bernardino. 1989, CiN of San Bernardino General Plan.
San Bemardino County, 1989. San Bernardino Counn. General Plan Undate.
17
AttacJunent VI - Page 19
RES 9l-21G--- ---.'.
MANMADE RESOURCES
Yes Maybe No
15/16. Utilities/Infrastructure. Will the proposal
result in significant impacts related to a need
for new systems, or substantial alterations to
the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? X
b. Co=unications systems? X
c. Water? X
d. Sewer? X
e. Storm water drainage? X
f. Solid waste and disposal? X
SUBSTANTIATION:
15/16,a-f.
No development is proposed as a result of annexation; therefore, no potential
for significant impact to the utility infrastructure of the project area has been
identified. Electricity to the area will continue to be provided by SCE,
natural gas by SCG, water is provided by individual water purveyors and
private wells, septic wastes are managed by delivery to one of the area's
wastewater treatment systems or by subsurface septic tank/leach line systems,
storm water will continue to be managed by the County within the stream
channels and flood control facilities, and solid waste will be collected by
private companies. This represents no change from the present circumstances.
No mitigation is required.
Rd'erences
Oty of San Bernardino. 1989. CilV of San Bernardino General Plan.
City of San Bernardino. 1988. CilV of San Bernardino General Plan Undate Technical BackPround Ren011
City of San Bernardino. 1991. CilV of San Bernardino Source Reduction and Recvclinp Elernent. Final Draft
San Bernardino County. 1989. San Bernardino CounlV General Plan Undo/e.
San Bernardino County. 1988. San Bemardino COltnlV General Plan Undate BackmJl/nd Ren011: Solid Waste..
County of San Bernardino. 1989. San Bemardino COlmlV Solid Warte ManoPl!ment Plan 1989-1990 Undo/e.
PrelirninaTV Draft.
18
Attachment VI - Page 20
,___n
RES 93-,21!l
- ~ ~-'~- ..~.. ._,._-----~_._. -~, --.-
Yes Maybe No
17. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposed
project result in significant impacts related to:
a.
Generation of substantial additional vehicular
movement?
x
b.
Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demand for new parking?
x
c.
Substantial effect upon existing transportation
systems?
x
d.
Alterations to present patterns of circulation
or movement of people and/or goods?
x
e.
Alterations to waterborne, rail, or air traffic?
x
f.
Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,
bicyclists, equestrians, or pedestrians?
x
SUBSTANTIATION:
17.a-f. No development is proposed as a result of annexation; therefore, no potential for
significant impact to the circulation system and traffic flow, to parking requirements,
to alternative circulation systems, or to traffic hazards has been identified for the
project area. No mitigation is required.
References
City of San Bernardino, 1988. Cir" of San Bernardino General Plan Undare Technical Backvrollnd Reool1,
Qty of San Bemardino. 1989. Cill' of San Bernardino General Plan.
San Bemardino County. 1989, San Bernardino Collnll' General Plan Undare.
San Bemardino County. 1988. San Bernardino COllnll' General Plan Unda,e BackPround ReDol1:
TranmoT1ation /Cirrulodon Svstem.
19
AttacJunent VI - Page 21
RES 93-210
Yes Maybe No
18. Energy. Will the proposed project result in
significant impacts related to:
a.
An increase in the rate of consumption
of any natural resources?
x
b.
Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
x
c.
Substantial increase in demand upon existing
sources of energy, or require the development
of new sources of energy?
x
SUBSTANTIA110N:
18.a-c.
No development is proposed as a result of annexation; therefore, no potential
for significant impact to available energy resources or the existing energy
suppliers has been identified. No mitigation is required.
References
City of San Bemardino. 1988. Ci,. of Son Bcmordino General Pion Uodote Technicol BockPrOulld ReD011.
City of San Bemardillo. 1989. Ci,. of SOli Bemordillo Generol Pion.
San Bernardillo County. 1989. SOli Bemordino COlin" Generol PlOII Uodote,
Yes Maybe No
19. Housing/Demographics/Socioeconomics. Will the
proposed project result in significant impacts
related to:
a.
An effect on existing housing, or creation of
a demand for additional housing?
x
b. Alteration of the location, distribution,
density, or growth rate of the human
population of the area?
SUBSTANTIATION:
19.a. No development is proposed as a result of annexation. Based on this information,
no additional potential for growth or increased demand for housing in the project
area has been identified. No mitigation is required.
20
AttacJunent VI - Page 22
RES 93."UO
____ -" ~"f-..~~-- ..~.
19.b. No development is proposed as a result of annexation. Based on this information,
no additional potential for growth or alterations in growth patterns in the project
area has been identified. No mitigation is required.
References
City of San Bernardino. 1988. GiN of San Bernardino General Plan Uoda(e Technical Backvround Reoort.
City of San Bernarmno. 1989. GiN of San Bernardino General Plan.
San Bernardillo CoWlty. 1989. Sail Bernardino GoulIN General Plan Uoda(e.
San Bernarmno County. 1988. San Bernardillo GaunN General Plan Uodale Backvround Reoarts: Hounnvand
Growth Inducement.
Yes Maybe No
20. Public Services. Will the proposed project result
in significant impacts related to a need for new or
altered gove=ental services in:
a.
Fire protection?
x
b.
Police protection?
x
c.
Schools?
x
d.
Parks or other recreational facilities?
x
e.
Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads?
x
f.
Other gove=ental services?
x
SUBSTANTIATION:
20.a. Fire protection will continue to be provided by local fire protection agencies within
each land use jurisdiction. No development is proposed as a result of annexation;
therefore, no potential for significant impact to the project area's fire protection
capabilities and service has been identified. No mitigation is required.
20.b. Law enforcement service will continue to be provided by the County Sheriff or local
city police departments. No development is proposed as a result of annexation;
therefore, no potential for significant impact to the project area's law enforcement
capabilities and service has been identified. No mitigation is required.
21
Attachment VI - Page 23
RES 93-:-210
_, .~__.______._..,_. u,._..
20.c. Educational services will continue to be provided by,the school districts that currently
serve the project area. No development is proposed as a result of annexation;
therefore, no potential for significant impact to the project area's school districts and
their educational capabilities and service has been identified. No mitigation is
required.
20.d. Parks departments in the respective jurisdictions will continue to be provide
recreational services within the project area. No development is proposed as a result
of annexation; therefore, no potential for significant impact to the project area's
recreational resources has been identified. No mitigation is required.
20.e. No development is proposed as a result of annexation; therefore, no potential for
significant impact to the project area due to increased maintenance activities has
been identified. No mitigation is required.
20J. Other governmental services will not be affected by the proposed annexation because
no development is proposed. Therefore, no potential for significant impact to the
project area due to other governmental services has been identified. No mitigation
is required.
References
City of San Bernardino. 1988. Cit\! of San Bernardino Ge,!eral Plan Uodate Teclmical Backvround Reoort.
City of San Bernardino. 1989. Cit\! of San Bernardino General Plan.
San Bernardino County. 1989. Sail Bernardino Count\! General Plan Uodate.
IA1Io'D USE
Yes . Maybe No
21. Will the proposed project result in significant
impacts related to:
a.
A substantial alteration of the present
or planned land use of an area? (Consider
the Official Land Use Designation of the
project site and surrounding property, as
well as their Improvement Level designations
on the General Plan Infrastructure Overlay
and any relevant Resource Overlays.)
x
SUBSTANTIATION:
22
AttacJunent VI . Page 24
RES 93-210 ~.,.___ .'___... ....'- ,_...
21.a. No development is proposed as a result of annexation and the District does not bave
any land use authority with the respective jurisdictions. Based on this information,
no additional potential for alteration of the present land use patters will be created
by annexation. No mitigation is required.
R~erences
City of HipJUand. 1992 City of Hi"Mand General Plan,
City of Red/antis. 197& City of Redlantis General Plan.
City of San Bernardino. 1988. City of San Bernardino General Plan U"dale Technical Backvround Re"ort.
City of San Bernardino. 1989. City of San Bernardino General Plan.
San Bernardino County. 1989. San Bernardino County General Plan U"dale.
.-
,
23
Attachment VI . Page 25
RES 93~210.. . .----.- .-.'
22. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Yes Maybe No
a.
Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal co=unity, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
x
b.
Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the
environment is one which occurs in a relatively
brief, definitive period of time while long-term
impacts will endure well into the future.)
x
c.
Does the project have impacts which are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project
may impact on two or more separate resources where
the impact on each resource is relatively small,
but where the effect of the total of those impacts
on the environment is significant.)
x
d.
Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
x
SUBSTANTIATION:
If LAFCO authorizes annexation of the areas requested by the District, the findings in this
Initial Study indicate that no adverse environmental impacts will occur. This review has
determined that no specific projects are "waiting in the wings" for annexation, and it would
be beyond the Commission's ability to foresee what future development might occur if the
annexation is approved. Therefore, the San Bernardino County LAFCO concludes that the
proposed reorganization has no potential to cause any significant adverse environmental
impacts and a Negative Declaration should be issued.
24
AttacJunent VI - Page U
RES 93...2W,
III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation:
Please refer to the discussion provided in each environmental issue section which provides
a full discussion and substantiation of the findings in the Environmental Checklist Form.
IV. Mitigation Measures to be included in project Conditions of Approval! Mitigation
Monitoring Program:
None
~
Date
Initial ?:gJ:valuation Prepared By:
Signature
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
. . ~.
The proposed project WOULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment (Mitigation Measures are not included for the project)
and a NEGATIVE DEClARATION should be prepared.
IXI
The proposed project MAY have a significant adverse effect on the I I
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT' REPORT should be required:
Signature
Date
For The Local Ae:enc;y Formation Commission
REFERENCES (list author or agency, date, and title)
See the reference list at the end of each environmental issue in the Environmental Checklist
Form.
25
AttacJunent VI - Page 27