[{"_1":2,"_98":-5,"_99":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,74,86],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},"mediaId",6509323,"mediaKeyId","5427894-eb184bb0637b397d85f3e778a179251a","parentId",5427894,"title","San Bernardino council approves settlement, authorizes litigation and clears multiple permits and contracts","audioSeconds",6518,"startMs",960000,"endMs",7478000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5427894-eb184bb0637b397d85f3e778a179251a&start=960&end=7478","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5427894-eb184bb0637b397d85f3e778a179251a/thumbnail_960000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6509323/San-Bernardino/San-Bernardino-County/California/San-Bernardino-council-approves-settlement-authorizes-litigation-and-clears-multiple-permits-and-contracts","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6509323-1cbbbfcbd1139bdc54a04d36ae60f684/orig.mp4?Expires=1771200044&Signature=l9Tp3gmiCBDKAfAKgtmrOmOw3YruaTPBb8ZIywm7P73aPaFkObDyfbr3ychb7I3zK6Nfp-aBap0~E4x9UmXhizFAaCjzVdQbF~Lvzlvq0B3lcvpslQ1gXcvc~qtFmON8fAaS~Q4SBlIGS4t~L9CRYuxpBboUevps-qwM0voflmlpZ14UtpwLUhF9-X9D77KHFAoUw5fgzyYer76j5bIaL3xOJu2Eww~zVY4fBD0o8U56w-0H3JufkFxWLjAXLcAm0Kw-opYt30oz~wdmXFd30DINVFeOG2FQz59wk2jzJdSVZUN-Y6b0D9hudacI42RBEhnawzBX3SZzKaO3wB1Gbw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-07-18T23:30:57.277Z","article","The San Bernardino Mayor and City Council took a range of formal actions at the meeting, including closed‑session reportable items, land‑use approvals and contract awards.

Closed session outcomes
- Settlement: The council reported a closed‑session settlement in the case Daniel Felix v. Andrew Sibini, et al., U.S. District Court case no. 5:24‑CV‑01494. The council authorized settlement in the amount of $1,800,000. The motion was made by Council Member Sanchez, seconded by Council Member Charette, and approved 5‑1 with Council Member Ortiz recorded as voting no.
- Litigation authority: Counsel reported the council unanimously authorized initiation of litigation for two receivership cases. The motion recorded was by Council Member Charette, seconded by Council Member Sanchez, and passed 6‑0. Staff said details of the receivership cases will be made public when the cases are filed.

Key open‑session votes (high level)
- Adaptive reuse (Item 2): The council approved Development Permit D‑23‑19 to convert an approximately 2,430‑square‑foot commercial building at 975 North D Street into four residential units (about 607 square feet each) and to construct covered parking. The Planning Commission had recommended approval; the council voted to adopt the resolution approving the adaptive reuse (voice/electronic vote recorded as unanimous).
- Solid‑waste delinquent assessments (Item 4): The council confirmed assessments for delinquent solid‑waste collection service charges for FY 2025‑26 and approved placing the liens on the county tax roll if unpaid. Staff listed outreach and recent collection reductions; the vote to confirm assessments passed unanimously.
- Midwest Veterinary Supply contract amendment (Consent Item 6): The council approved Amendment 2 to the goods purchase agreement with Midwest Veterinary Supply to increase the not‑to‑exceed amount (the contract began as a local vendor arrangement and later was purchased by Midwest). Council discussion noted the original RFP and that the vendor supplies a wide range of pharmaceuticals and vaccines; public comment urged transparency about how funds and mobile clinic services will be used. The council voted to approve the amendment.
- Construction contracts and capital work (Consent Item 18 and others): The council awarded a sidewalk/curb project to the lowest responsive bidder (DM and G Construction) based on unit price per linear foot; the council also approved various consent items and pulled Item 9 (EV charging) for further legal review.
- Park restrooms (Item 22): The council authorized staff to allocate $63,000 from measure funding to make minor repairs and authorized an RFP for contracted ongoing park restroom maintenance and janitorial service for a prioritized list of 14 parks. Staff said more extensive ADA and capital rehabilitation would need separate CIP funding.

Why it matters: The closed‑session settlement was a notable cash settlement reported publicly; the two litigation authorizations expand the city’s legal action in receivership matters, and multiple open‑session votes affect housing conversions, utility and public‑works projects, animal‑services purchasing and parks maintenance. Several items prompted public comment and questions about transparency, vendor selection and long‑term maintenance obligations.

Provenance: City attorney closed‑session report (transcript excerpt at 332.565–341.865 and 342.46–380.63), adaptive reuse presentation and public hearing (transcript excerpt at 1020.295–1318.58), and consent/action votes (various: adaptive reuse vote recorded near 1974.565; contract approvals and park allocation discussion at 7567.655–7778.400).","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","SBCC071625","oneSentenceSummary","At the meeting the council reported a closed‑session settlement and authorized two litigation filings, approved an adaptive reuse conversion to four units, confirmed delinquent solid‑waste assessments for the tax roll, amended an animal‑services contract and allocated funds to rehab park restrooms among other approvals.","taxTitle","San Bernardino, San Bernardino County, California","taxId",9775,"location","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_47":80,"_49":81,"_51":82,"_53":83,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":84,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":85,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6509328,"Council approves 138‑home Foothill‑Macy Route 66 residential project; developer and residents seek infrastructure assurances",1714,2007000,3721000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5427894-eb184bb0637b397d85f3e778a179251a&start=2007&end=3721","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5427894-eb184bb0637b397d85f3e778a179251a/thumbnail_2007000.jpg","/articles/6509328/San-Bernardino/San-Bernardino-County/California/Council-approves-138home-FoothillMacy-Route-66-residential-project-developer-and-residents-seek-infrastructure-assurances","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6509328-602cdb989b30bdb0b845af5545dfe9ea/orig.mp4?Expires=1771200044&Signature=AfdkSw9nETZVX8lVALZjiH6Qd0OSuu2QgBCEccszBhsH-BQnITLPQz7erYX-4ee6Jagl0d40edDw5qEgxAbJocRzeSa7bFxsEMmEdw6COWMcX8rv-9SIebuUmSEM6MJ75wRiCLc05X53ftoQ-i1Jl5N8B4lA9745O1TiowhSfE6GnCifM1Yewe78jClGnNs78bY5~dqvWql0npjeqrK6ZJ2fI06YO1Gi~4wUuxQUKGqPQ7c3Nry088M3wMgy5H7lRQCymawxyS24sh34H6yG-r~rXLBZ5kIbgnf7Sm9YEHTgU31c86NTm-yxjYMvPQ0vJS7pGyOa65t0CcKTyVTqgQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The San Bernardino Mayor and City Council voted unanimously to approve a package of entitlements for the Foothill and Macy Route 66 residential project in Ward 6, including a mitigated negative declaration, a general plan amendment (GPA 24‑01), a zoning map amendment, tentative tract map 20695 and a development permit for a planned unit development (PUD). The council also introduced the first reading of the ordinance to rezone the site and scheduled the second reading for Aug. 6.

What the project would do: Staff and the developer described a 15.71‑acre PUD at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Macy Street proposing 138 single‑family units in clustered ‘‘motor‑court’’ layouts. Plans shown to council include six floor plans (three‑ to five‑bedroom homes), three architectural styles and common open spaces, on‑site guest parking and landscaping. The subdivision would create lots ranging from roughly 2,400 to 4,100 square feet; home sizes were presented between about 2,325 and 3,076 square feet.

Public comment and council questions
- Speakers from the community urged more affordable ownership options and raised concerns about infrastructure and nearby services. Dolores Armstead asked whether the local streets, water and other infrastructure already support 138 homes and whether homes would be offered for sale rather than converted to rentals; city staff and the developer said the project is expected to be market homes for sale and that the developer intends to make the site shovel‑ready to attract a national homebuilder.
- A representative of the San Bernardino County Youth Advisory Board and a local resident told the council adaptive residential projects can reduce blight and provide housing options compared with vacant properties.
- Council members pressed the developer and staff on topics including traffic, entry and emergency access, park and amenity plans, and coordination with economic development to attract future commercial services to serve new residents.

Developer remarks and market expectations
- The landowner/developer reported that the property was previously proposed for truck parking and that, after community outreach, they repositioned the site for residential use. The developer said a national builder had shown interest but recently paused due to market conditions; the developer said the family business plans to get the project shovel‑ready and expects to market the homes for sale rather than as a rental product.

Council action and implementation
- Staff recommended adopting the mitigated negative declaration, approving the GPA, introducing the ordinance for rezoning, adopting the subdivision resolution and approving the development permit; the council followed staff recommendations and voted to approve the package and to schedule the ordinance second reading on Aug. 6.

Provenance: Planning staff presentation (transcript excerpt at 2014.94–2045.93) and vote confirmation (transcript excerpt at 3712.66–3713.96).","The council approved a general plan and zoning change, subdivision map and development permit for a planned unit development of 138 single‑family homes at Foothill and Macy, approving environmental findings and scheduling a second ordinance reading; the developer said homes are expected to be market‑rate for sale, not rentals.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6509334,"San Bernardino council forwards Spring Trails tax-sharing resolution to LAFCO after divided vote",2393,8430000,10823000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5427894-eb184bb0637b397d85f3e778a179251a&start=8430&end=10823","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5427894-eb184bb0637b397d85f3e778a179251a/thumbnail_8430000.jpg","/articles/6509334/San-Bernardino/San-Bernardino-County/California/San-Bernardino-council-forwards-Spring-Trails-tax-sharing-resolution-to-LAFCO-after-divided-vote","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6509334-0ffe845fb612f07965973e6c558a5556/orig.mp4?Expires=1771200044&Signature=atPE3zojWc-iaT6RBOuoQD5FcZ-u8HpwuBVEuRHqsjmr1pV4pPabp40A4EkL0VZkrC0MGmHc52AT~bavRmzI5gghGWDjqkpY~~bt4AOgxdxi4Y5KXJTlWke~PvvnOf2HhXe~7OFFD3mhS8V9ZejT7-BcJQWhHuiN4i37Oy5a2nAgr-H93~VYNdm~vLJ3GV5BHXqpWVub9Z-jSIZDCVaZZRHBazc3qCS3oPzzZrL4hBNmTdi96q1~ao-7exETnx1AYGydeqCRBIBLmSEOqo-uS4mHDFSfJ-K6-2w~zxZ5euUaBOKZ8ai~SHPqdp7TivdmRdqS1ckJXYVaMjT2bH45fw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The San Bernardino Mayor and City Council voted to send a tax‑sharing resolution for the Spring Trails specific‑plan annexation to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), a procedural step LAFCO requires to open an annexation hearing. The council approved the resolution 5‑1, with Council Member Kanas recorded in opposition.

The council and staff said the action implements terms of a 2022 settlement agreement related to the project. Staff told the council that LAFCO requires a tax‑exchange resolution by Aug. 6 for the agency to schedule its annexation hearing; without that step, staff said, LAFCO would not proceed and the city could face legal consequences under the settlement.

Why it matters: The Spring Trails site has been discussed for more than a decade. It includes a large, mostly undeveloped tract east of the city that was covered by a specific plan and a 2013 environmental review. Supporters say the plan unlocks housing supply and infill development on a property that has been dormant for years. Opponents on the council and several members of the public warned that the site presents engineering and infrastructure challenges — including limited access, proximity to fault and fire hazards, and uncertain sewer and road improvements — and said the city could inherit costs if the land remains undeveloped.

Council debate and next steps
- Council members repeatedly noted the project’s long history; staff said the specific plan and environmental documents date back to 2013 and earlier. Several members urged careful review at the forthcoming LAFCO hearing rather than halting the required procedural step. City staff said the annexation decision itself still depends on the LAFCO process and that the council’s action was to transmit the tax resolution so LAFCO can open a formal public hearing.
- The council was told LAFCO also expects an adjoining 26‑acre “island” of parcels to be included in the annexation; staff said LAFCO dislikes donut‑shaped jurisdictional gaps and asked the city to include the island as part of the filing.
- If the LAFCO hearing moves forward, council members said they expect staff, the mayor and council members to present the city’s concerns and conditions during that public process.

Legal and fiscal context
- Staff and the city attorney described the action as part of a settlement the city entered in October 2022; language in that settlement requires the city to file annexation paperwork for the project.
- Staff emphasized that the tax resolution itself does not automatically transfer property tax revenue to the city but is a required procedural step for LAFCO to consider the annexation. Several council members asked for more detailed fiscal estimates of the city’s service obligations if the property remains undeveloped.

What remains unresolved: The annexation must be approved by LAFCO at a public hearing. If affected residents or property owners object, LAFCO will receive those comments before taking a decision. City staff said additional technical questions — about sewer connections, secondary access and the condition of the 26‑acre adjacent island — will need to be addressed during later approvals and any future development review.

Provenance: Staff presentation introducing the annexation tax‑resolution and context (transcript excerpt at 8430.835–8469.095) and the vote announcement and clerk’s confirmation of the result (transcript excerpt at 10419.41–10423.19).","The City Council voted 5-1 to send a tax-exchange resolution for the long‑running Spring Trails specific‑plan area to the Local Agency Formation Commission, a move staff said was required under a prior settlement; opponents on the council raised infrastructure, safety and fiscal concerns.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

San Bernardino council approves settlement, authorizes litigation and clears multiple permits and contracts

Council approves 138‑home Foothill‑Macy Route 66 residential project; developer and residents seek infrastructure assurances

San Bernardino council forwards Spring Trails tax-sharing resolution to LAFCO after divided vote