Agenda packet — Mayor and City Council, November 6, 2024 (part 4 of 4)

Potential Significant Impact:

Cumulative Impacts.

Whether the Project would result in or contribute to a
cumulatively significant impact related to Population and Housing.

Finding: Impacts related to Population and Housing are discussed in detail at Section 5.11 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that the Project will not result in or contribute to a cumulatively significant impact to Population and Housing, and therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: Implementation of the Project would contribute to the growth of the City of San Bernardino. (EIR at 5.11-11).

However, the Project’s cumulative housing and population impact provides benefits for the jobs/housing ratio, regional housing goals that promote housing production, and statemandated fair share housing programs. (Id.). The Project provides the City with more housing, which decreases the job/housing ratio by 0.01 at the projected buildout in 2035, according to SCAG projections. According to the
projections in the General Plan, the Project would not
change the projected buildout ratio between jobs and
55 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 827
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations housing in the City. As a result, the Project would not make a considerable contribution to cumulative growth impacts, and no mitigation is required.

12. Public Services.
a.

Potential Significant Impact:

Police Protection.

Whether the Project would result in a substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provisions of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection
services.

Facts in Support of the Finding: Upon annexation of the Project site, the San Bernardino Police Department (“SBPD”) would provide police services to the Project site. (EIR at 5.12-9). This would expand SBPD’s service area and would likely result in an increase in calls for SBPD services. Such an increase in calls would be expected to create a need for additional police staff. (Id.). The City of San Bernardino’s development impact fee for law enforcement is $597.74 per unit for detached
single-family residential units. With a total of 304 units (reduced to 215 units), $181,712.96 would be charged to the Project developer as law enforcement development
impact fees. (Id.). These fees may be spent on facilities, equipment, or vehicles, and will reduce any impacts to
police protection services to a less than significant level.

Accordingly, no mitigation is required.
b. School Services.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would result in a substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provisions of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in 56 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 828
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other
performance objectives for school services.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project is estimated to generate roughly 101 additional students in the attendance area of North Verdemont
Elementary School, 52 students in the attendance area of Cesar Chavez Middle School, and 59 students in the
attendance area of Cajon High School. (FEIR 3-23, Table

5.12-3). There is existing unused capacity at Cesar Chavez Middle School and Cajon High School to accommodate
project-generated students. However, the unused capacity at North Verdemont Elementary School is 82 students, less than Project-generated elementary school students. (Id.).

The Project would create a potential need for teachers and support staff at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. In addition, the Project may create a need for
additional elementary school classroom space, depending on population trends in the area. SBCUSD would charge
the project Level 2 fees of $5.40 per square foot for singlefamily residential units. (Id.). School fees levied by school districts under SB 50 are defined as comprising full
mitigation for a project’s impacts on public schools, and thus, no additional mitigation is required.
c. Library Services.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would result in a substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provisions of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other
performance objectives for library services.

Finding: Impacts related to Public Services are discussed in detail at Section 5.12 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that the Project will not result in a substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provisions of new or physically altered governmental facilities for library services, and therefore, no mitigation is required. 57 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 829
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project would include 304 single-family homes (reduced to 215 units) and would also involve the
annexation of the Project site into the City of San
Bernardino. (EIR at 5.12-13). Upon annexation, the
Project would be in the service area of the San Bernardino Public Library, and the Dorothy Inghram Branch Library
would be the closest San Bernardino Public Library
(“SBPL”) facility. (Id.). The average household size in the City of San Bernardino is roughly 3.34 persons. Therefore, the Project at completion would be expected to add roughly 1,015 (711 persons at 215 units) persons to the City. The Project would thus result in an increased demand for library service in the City. (Id.). At a ratio of two volumes per resident, the Project would create a need for roughly 2,030 additional library items. (Id.). The Project-generated
increase in population would also create increased need for technology such as computers at the Inghram Branch
Library, and would contribute to a need for additional
staffing. (Id.). The $596.63 per residential unit library facilities fee that the City would charge to the Project, would help the SBPL to meet the Project-related increase in demands for library services and reduce impacts to a less than significant level, and thus no mitigation is required. d. Cumulative Impacts.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would result in a cumulatively significant impact to provision of public services.

Facts in Support of the Finding: Fire Protection Services: Cumulative impacts on fire services would occur if additional development is planned for the surrounding area, increasing the need for Fire
Station 232 to provide emergency service to the area. There is potential for cumulatively significant impacts to occur, requiring additional fire service facilities and personnel.

The citywide population is expected to increase from
201,049 in 2005 to 265,515 in 2035, an increase of roughly

32.1 percent. Other developments in the City would be
assessed Fire Protection Development Impact Fees, as
would the Project. Such fees would help to reduce
cumulative impacts to fire protection. (EIR at 5.12-7). 58 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 830
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Police Services: Cumulative impacts on police services
would occur if additional development is planned for the surrounding area, increasing the need for police services to the area. At General Plan buildout the City of San
Bernardino, including areas now in the sphere of influence, is projected to have a population of roughly 265,515, an increase of 64,466, or 32.1 percent, over the 2005
population of 201,049. Additional developments in the City would be charged law enforcement development impact
fees, as would the Project. Such fees, which may be spent on facilities, equipment, and vehicles, would help reduce cumulative impacts to police protection. (EIR at 5.12-9).

School Services: If there are other residential projects in the Verdemont area in addition to the Project, the District anticipates the need for more classrooms and staffing at the elementary school level. The District expects increases in staffing at the middle school and high school levels without facilities impacts. School fees levied on related projects pursuant to SB 50 would constitute mitigation for those projects’ impacts on schools. (EIR at 5.12-12).

Library Services: The City of San Bernardino estimates
that the City’s population will increase to about 265,515 by 2025, including the areas now in the City’s sphere of
influence, an increase of 64,466, or 32.1 percent, over the 2005 population of 201,149. The Project would account for roughly 1 percent of that population increase. Growth in the City will lead to increased demand for library services. (EIR at 5.12-13). New or expanded library facilities will be needed, in addition to increases in materials, technology, and staffing. The SBPL is funded mostly through the City’s General Fund. New developments built in the City will
generate increased tax revenue, thus expanding the General Fund. Cumulative development therefore would not have a substantial adverse impact on library services, and the Project’s impacts on library services would not be
cumulatively considerable. (EIR at 5.12-14).

In sum, the Project’s payment of development impact fees will reduce cumulative impacts to the provision of public services to less than significant levels, and no mitigation is required.
59 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 831
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

13. Recreation.
a.

Potential Significant Impact:

Recreational Facilities.

Whether the Project would increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated; or include
recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.

Finding: Impacts related to Recreation are discussed in detail in Section 5.13 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that the Project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated; or include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment; and, therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: According to the Parks, Recreation, and Trails Element of the San Bernardino General Plan, five acres of parkland and/or recreations facilities per 1,000 population is required for residential development projects. (EIR at 5.13-8). The maximum buildout of the Spring Trails Specific Plan would accommodate 304 units. Based on the City of San
Bernardino’s General Land Use Element, the 2008 average household size is 3.34 persons, and the Project would
therefore generate a population of approximately 1,015
residents (303 units x 3.34 = 1,015, or 711 persons at 215 units). (FEIR at 3-23). Based on the Quimby Act
legislation allowing a maximum parkland dedication
standard of 3 acres per 1,000 population, approximately

3.05 acres of parkland or equivalent fees or improvements would be required to serve the residents of the Project.

Based on the City’s General Plan performance standard for parks and recreation facilities (5 acres per 1,000
population), the Project would generate the need for 5.01 acres of parkland. The Spring Trails Specific Plan would provide 246.3 acres of public and private parkland, open space, trails, and recreational amenities on the Project site. (Id.). More specifically, 9.0 of the 246.3 acres would be designated public and private parks: 2.0 acres of private parks and 7.0 acres of public parks. Therefore, the Project would exceed the City requirements by 3.99 acres of
60 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 832
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations parkland. Additionally, the Project responds to the City’s Parks, Recreation, and Trails Element Goals 8.1 and 8.3 by providing parks and creating a trail system that would
connect to future and existing regional and City trails. (Id.).

The parks and open space components would provide
passive and active recreational opportunities. The exact number, precise location, configuration, type, and amount of amenities and facilities, and the size of the parks and open space areas would be established at the time of
development of the tentative tract map(s) of the Project. (Id.). The proposed parks and open space acreage of the Spring Trials Specific Plan would meet and exceed the
amount of parkland and/or recreation facilities defined by the Quimby Act and the more conservative performance
standard outlined in the City’s General Plan. Therefore, the Project’s parks and open space components would ensure
that recreational facilities would be available to new
residents of the Project. (Id.). Since park needs would be met and exceeded onsite, it is not expected that the
residents of the Project would, in any appreciable manner, need to use City or regionwide parks that are located
offsite. Additionally, the proposed public parks, trails, and open space components would also serve residents of the existing and future surrounding communities. (Id.). Thus, impacts related to recreational facilities are less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
b.

Potential Significant Impact:

Cumulative Impacts.

Whether the Project would result in cumulatively
considerable impacts to the use, construction or expansion of recreational facilities.

Finding: Impacts related to Recreation are discussed in detail in Section 5.13 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that the Project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to the use, construction or expansion of recreational facilities; and, therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: Buildout of the Spring Trails Specific Plan would accommodate 304 residential units, generating a total of 1,015 residents. (FEIR at 3-23). According to the Parks, Recreation, and Trails Element, the City is currently
deficient in park space and needs 787.6 acres of public parkland to provide for the projected population. The
Project itself would generate a need for a total of 5.01 acres 61 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 833
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations of parkland. (Id.). However, the Project would provide 9 acres of public and private parkland and an additional 246.3 acres of open space, providing additional acreage beyond the park requirements and lessening the City’s overall
parkland needs. (Id.). The Project will increase the
cumulative acreage of parks in the City, improving the
City's current deficiency of parkland. Additionally, the Spring Trails Specific Plan meets the goals of the Parks, Recreation, and Trails Element of the General Plan—
encourage creation of a system of parks, bikeways, trails, and recreation facilities that serve residents needs and connect different neighborhoods to the City; and develop a system of open spaces, bikeways, and trails to connect
individual neighborhoods into the fabric of the entire
community. (EIR at 5.13-9). Thus, the Project will not
result in cumulatively considerable impacts to the use, construction or expansion of recreational facilities; and, therefore, no mitigation is required.

14. Traffic Impacts.
a.

Potential Significant Impact:

Hazards Due to Design Feature.

Whether the Project would substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) or result in inadequate emergency access.

Finding: Impacts related to Traffic and Circulation are discussed in detail in Section 5.14 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that the Project will not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or result in inadequate emergency access, and therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The proposed Spring Trails Specific Plan would involve the development of single-family residences with a local
roadway network of cul-de-sac right-of-ways, a main loop road, and two access roads. (EIR at 5.14-44). These two access roads would connect the Project site to the existing Meyers Road, Little League Drive, and Perrin Road. The
access roads and onsite circulation would follow the design standards of the FF District that allow emergency access to the site, and would not create any dangerous conditions. (Id.). Thus, impacts in this area are less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
62 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 834
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations b.

Potential Significant Impact:

Alternative Transportation.

Whether the Project would conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks).

Finding: Impacts related to Traffic and Circulation are discussed in detail in Section 5.14 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that the Project will not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation, and therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The proposed roadway network of the Spring Trails project includes two access roads, a primary local street, a
secondary local street, and two types of cul-de-sac streets. (EIR at 5.14-44). There are no planned public transit uses for the site, but residents would have indirect access to the Omnitrans bus system (approximately two miles to bus
stop). Private vehicles would most likely be the most
common form of transportation used onsite since the site is not in the immediate vicinity of public transit stations. If bus or other public transit service were expanded in the area of the Project, the Project would not interfere with potential routes. (EIR at 5.14-39). The Project’s trail system would tie into area-wide trails that would help
facilitate access to public transit, and would provide trails and routes for pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian use. (EIR at 5.14-44). Thus, impacts in this area are less than
significant, and no mitigation is required.

15. Utilities and Service Systems.
a. Stormwater Drainage Facilities.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board; or require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.

Finding: Potential impacts related to Utilities and Service Systems are discussed in detail in Section 5.15 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that the Project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board; or require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or 63 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 835
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects; and, therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The development of the Project would require the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities and
infrastructure. (EIR at 5.15-21). For the most part, natural drainage patterns would be preserved with the development of the site. Major improvements would include three
stormwater detention basins that would also serve as
community parks. (Id.). Two of these, in the western and southern portion of the site, near Meyers Road, would serve as neighborhood parks. The other, in the south-central
portion of the site, would be a dog park. The water in these detention basins would be treated and then discharged at a controlled rate into Cable Canyon Creek. (Id.). Other
stormwater drainage facilities would consist of 24-inch to 96-inch reinforced concrete pipes that would be placed
along the major looped road. Culverts would be constructed to maintain natural drainage patterns in each of the
drainage areas (A, B, C, and D) where proposed roadways would otherwise obstruct the drainage flow. (EIR Figure 3-9). Prior to site grading, a stormwater pollution
prevention plan permit must be approved by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). A water
quality management plan has also been prepared for the
Spring Trails Specific Plan in accordance with the Santa Ana RWQCB. This plan includes BMPs to reduce the
volume, rate, and amount of stormwater runoff that must be treated and reduce the potential for urban runoff and
pollutants from coming into contact with one another. (EIR at 5.15-21). Although the proposed development would
necessitate the construction of new facilities and
infrastructure, their construction would help to maintain the natural drainage patterns of the site and would control the stormwater runoff flow so that it would not exceed the
capacities of Cable Canyon Creek leaving the site. Thus, impacts in this area are less than significant, and no
mitigation is required.
b. Wastewater Treatment.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments.
64 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 836
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Finding: Potential impacts related to Utilities and Service Systems are discussed in detail in Section 5.15 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that the Project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments; and, therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project would be served by the City’s Public Works Department upon the annexation of the Project site. The design, construction, and conveyance capabilities of the sewer lines are the responsibility of the Project engineer and would be required to follow the Public Works
Department sewer design policies and requirements. (EIR at 5.15-21). The proposed sewer lines would connect to the eight-inch sewer line at the intersection of Meyers Road and Little League Drive. (EIR Figure 3-12). A residential wastewater generation rate of 182 gpd per acre was used to determine the daily flow rates of the proposed Project. This rate is used for developments with residential densities of one unit per acre or less. The Sewer Capacity Analysis
prepared for the Project found that the flow rate of the proposed project would reach 327,283.2 gallons per day
(366.6 afy). (EIR Appendix L). The Margaret H. Chandler Water Reclamation Plant (“WRP”) has a projected
wastewater flow of 35,828 afy in 2015 (31.985 mgd). (EIR at 5.15-22). With a capacity of 33 mgd, the plant would have remaining capacity for 1.015 mgd. The Project’s
expected wastewater flow of 327,283.2 gpd is within the projected flow capacity of the WRP near opening year
2013 (35,828 afy in 2015). The onsite sewer lines would be eight inches in diameter, designed to accommodate a flow rate of 1.354 cubic feet per second (cfs) (203 gpm). The actual onsite flow would be 0.5064 cfs. (Id.). The Sewer Capacity Study assessed the existing conditions of the
sewer system that would be used by the Project and the
capacity that would be required for proposed sewer lines.

The report used the City of San Bernardino Public Works Sewer Policy and Procedures design criteria for sanitary sewers based on City sewer buildout conditions in year
2020. The City’s Sewer Master Plan is based on City
buildout in 2020. (Id.). The analysis of the existing sewer system found that four locations had a pipe flow over that of the design flow for the pipe section. These four locations were still below the full flow capacity of the sewer pipe sections. (Id.). Since all pipeline sections are still within the full flow capacity, upgrades are not required. The existing 65 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 837
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations sewer system would be able to accommodate the
wastewater flow from the Project. However, the slope of the proposed pipeline in Verdemont Drive is not known.

Depending on this slope, the pipeline would be either 8 or 10 inches in diameter. If a 10-inch pipeline is used, the existing pipeline at Little League Drive would need to be upgraded from 8 to 10 inches, since it is not recommended to have a 10-inch pipeline upstream of an 8-inch pipeline. (Id.). The Project would require the construction of new pipelines on the Project site, most likely of 8- inch
diameter, and potentially an upgrade of the existing
pipeline at Little League Drive. The construction of new pipelines and pipeline improvements is designed within the road right-of-ways. (Id.). Potential environmental impacts associated with these improvements were addressed in the EIR in conjunction with the assessment of the development footprint, and found to be less than significant.

Accordingly, no mitigation is required.
c.

Potential Significant Impact:

Landfill Capacity.

Whether the Project would be served by a landfill with
insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs; or fail to comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

Finding: Potential impacts related to Utilities and Service Systems are discussed in detail in Section 5.15 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that the Project would not be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs; or fail to comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste; and, therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The proposed Spring Trails specific plan involves 304 residential units (reduced to 215 units) that would generate solid waste to be disposed at Mid-Valley and/or San
Timoteo landfills. (EIR at 5.15-26). The solid waste
generated by each residential unit can be estimated at 12.23 pounds of household waste per dwelling unit per day. (Id.).

Based on this estimation, the Project would generate
approximately 1,357,040 lbs/year (678 tons of solid waste per year, or 1.85 tons per day). San Timoteo Landfill can receive a maximum of 1,000 tons per day until 2016. (Id.).

Since this closure date is not long after the buildout of the Project, the majority of the waste from the Project would 66 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 838
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations go to the Mid-Valley landfill, which has a closure date of 2033. (Id.). The Mid-Valley Landfill can receive up to
7,500 tons of waste per day, and the average daily waste flow is 2,790 tons. (Id.). The daily waste flow plus the waste flow of the Project totals 2,791.88 tons per day, which would be under the permitted daily capacity of the landfill. (Id.). The County and City of San Bernardino have recycling programs and incentives to reduce the amount of solid waste being transported to landfills. The waste
reduction and pollution prevention programs of the City help both residents and businesses reduce waste and find recycling solutions. The City offers pick-up services for waste, green waste, and recycling for residents and
businesses. Impacts related to solid waste generation would be less than significant. (Id.).

The City of San Bernardino was in compliance with AB
939 in 2005 and 2006 based on the 50 percent waste
diversion rate. (EIR Table 5.15-17). In 2007 and 2008, San Bernardino did not meet the per capita disposal rate targets, but these numbers do not necessarily indicate
noncompliance. (See EIR Table 5.15-18). The figures
must be reviewed and approved by the board before they
are used to determine the City’s compliance with AB 939 (and SB 1016). These figures have not yet been approved by the board, and the effect Spring Trails would have on the City’s ability to meet its diversion targets is speculative. (EIR at 5.15-26). In worst-case conditions, the Project would decrease the amount of waste being diverted from
landfills, and lessen the City’s likelihood of compliance with AB 939. Residents living in Spring Trails would
participate in City-sponsored waste and recycling collection programs. (Id.). Residential waste flow generated during the operation of the Project would have to be incorporated into the City’s calculations on how to meet the 50 percent diversion goal. Although it would increase the amount of waste that would need to be disposed of by the City, this increase is not expected to cause significant impacts. (Id.).

Construction material waste must also be reported to
CalRecycle to indicate compliance with AB 939.

Construction material waste would also need to be
incorporated into the City’s calculations to meet the 50 percent diversion goal; however, since there would not be demolition of existing structures involved with the
construction activities, there would not be a substantial amount of waste to be discarded. (EIR at 5.15-27). In sum, 67 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 839
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations the Project would be adequately served by the Mid-Valley and San Timoteo Sanitary landfills and would comply with AB 939, and no mitigation is required.
d.

Potential Significant Impact:

Cumulative Impacts.

Whether the Project would result in cumulatively
considerable impacts to Utilities and Service Systems.

Finding: Potential impacts related to Utilities and Service Systems are discussed in detail in Section 5.15 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that the Project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to Utilities and Service Systems; and, therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: Stormwater/Wastewater: Cumulative impacts caused by the need to construct additional stormwater conveyance
infrastructure could occur if Spring Trails were to use the same infrastructure as other developments. (EIR at

5.15-23). The Spring Trails Project would discharge its treated stormwater into Cable Canyon Creek at a controlled rate. (Id.). Impacts could occur if development north of or immediately adjacent to Spring Trails contributed
stormwater runoff to the same drainage system as Spring Trails. Since Spring Trails is immediately surrounded by unincorporated San Bernardino County or San Bernardino
National Forest, it is unlikely that development would
occur in these areas. (Id.). Additionally, any future
developments would be required to ensure that there would not be any net peak increase in stormwater flow to the
existing infrastructure. There would not be any
cumulatively significant impacts related to the construction of stormwater facilities. (Id.). The proposed Spring Trails Specific Plan would generate 63 afy of wastewater. This represents 0.18 percent of the total wastewater flow
capacity of the WRP (35,828 afy). (Id.). In combination with growth in the area, the Project would not have
cumulatively significant impacts on wastewater
infrastructure. The sewer study prepared for this report analyzed the Project’s contribution to projected flow rates of the existing sewer system in 2020. The projected flow rates were acquired from the City’s Sewer Master Plan for year 2020 and incorporates projected growth in the service area. (Id.). Since the Project’s wastewater flow would not exceed the full capacity flows of the existing sewer system as projected in 2020, there would not be any cumulative 68 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 840
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations impacts related to the need for additional sewer system improvements. (Id.).

Solid waste: Solid waste planning in San Bernardino
County is guided by the San Bernardino County Solid
Waste Management Plan, which directs the actions of the San Bernardino County Solid Waste Advisory Committee.
(EIR at 5.15-27). The City of San Bernardino has a
representative on this committee. The need for any
additional landfills or transfer stations in the future must be incorporated into the solid waste management plan. The
EIR for the San Bernardino General Plan Update estimates that, at buildout, the City would be generating 2,628 tons of solid waste per day (after diversion). (Id.). The Mid-Valley landfill can receive up to 7,500 tons of solid waste per day through its closure date in 2033. Over 70 jurisdictions send solid waste to this landfill, and the total daily disposal averages 2,790 tons. (Id.). Between 2005 and 2007, total tons disposed per year decreased from 855,135 to 762,729 tons. When the Project’s disposal rate (1.89 tons per day) is included with the buildout disposal rate for the City (2,628 tons per day), the total is 2,629.89 tons per day, which is more than the current daily average for the landfill but less than the maximum capacity. (Id.). The proposed Project
would not significantly contribute to the projected solid waste flow from the City of San Bernardino or to the
maximum daily permitted disposal rate for the Mid-Valley landfill, and thus, no mitigation is required.

16. Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
a.

Potential Significant Impact:

Conflict with Applicable Plan.

Whether the Project would conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

Finding: Potential impacts from Greenhouse Gas Emissions are discussed in detail in Section 5.16 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that the Project would not conflict with the California Air Resources Board’s (“CARB”) Scoping Plan; and, therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The CARB Scoping Plan identifies that reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels means “cutting approximately
30 percent from business-as-usual emissions levels
69 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 841
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations projected for 2020, or about 15 percent from today’s
levels.” (EIR at 5.16-18). On a per capita basis, that
means reducing our annual emissions of 14 tons of CO2e
(13 MTons) for every man, woman, and child in California to about 10 tons (9 MTons) per person by 2020.” A
30 percent per capita reduction, or approximately 4 MTons less GHG emissions per person, is necessary to achieve the emissions reduction of the Scoping Plan. (Id.).

Traffic trips associated with new and redevelopment
projects contribute indirect emissions of air pollutants. (Id.). The most effective way to reduce emissions is
through a substantial reduction in vehicle trips and trip lengths. While local and regional governments cannot
directly regulate vehicles and vehicle emissions, they can implement land use regulations and strategies to reduce VMT. (Id.). Such strategies can include better integration of land use and transportation planning to reduce trip
lengths between residential areas to employment centers and amenities, and to promote greater public transit use and alternative modes of transportation. (Id.). Strategies to implement such land use policy can either be incentive
based, such as compliance with the SCS, or penalty based, such as indirect source review. Regional strategies include the Sustainable Communities Strategy (“SCS”) for the
SCAG region, and the Compass Blueprint 2% Strategy.
(EIR at 5.16-19).

Transportation contributes a large percentage of the state’s GHG emissions and research shows that increasing a
community’s or development’s density and accessibility to job centers are the two most significant factors for reducing VMT through design. (Id.). Consistency with the SCS for the SCAG region would reduce VMT and trips within the
region as a whole. Regional GHG emissions reduction
targets and the SCS have not yet been established for the SCAG region. According to the 2008 Regional
Comprehensive Plan (RCP), SCAG's Land Use and
Housing Action Plan can be expected to result in a
10 percent reduction in VMT in 2035 when compared to
current trends. In general, VMT serves as a proxy for
jobs/housing balance, urban design, transit accessibility, and other urban form issues. (Id.). The Compass Blueprint is a component of the Land Use and Housing element of
the 2008 RCP in achieving sustainable land uses and
policies. The framework of the Compass Blueprint strategy 70 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 842
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations focuses on four areas in achieving sustainable
development: mobility, livability, prosperity, and
sustainability. (Id.). Key aspects of the Compass Blueprint in reducing VMT include developing housing near regional employment centers and amenities and encouraging transitoriented development. The Project would be consistent with one aspect of the mobility element of the Compass
Blueprint by locating residential development near an
employment center (i.e., the City of San Bernardino). (Id.).

However, the Project is not a mixed-use development; it is a proposed master planned single-family residential
development. Additionally, it would not be in proximity to amenities, as the majority of amenities would be
approximately four miles or more from the Project site, nor would it be near readily accessible public transit, as the nearest transit stop would be approximately over a mile to the east. (Id.).

Energy use and related activities for buildings is the second largest contributor to California’s GHG emissions. (Id.).

Energy efficiency and conservation measures are identified as a best performance standard for development projects. In general, there are two strategies for reducing GHG
emissions from the Electricity sector: 1) reducing the
amount of energy consumed; and 2) reducing the GHG
emissions resulting from electricity production. (Id.). The Project would have little control over the latter, and the CEC has determined that the success of reducing GHG
emissions from electricity production depends largely on the success of California’s renewable-energy and energyefficiency programs. Consequently, GHG emissions reductions can be achieved through the design and
construction of new green buildings, because green
buildings offer a comprehensive approach to reducing
GHG emissions across multiple sectors (Energy Use,
Water, Waste, and Transportation). (Id.). Water use also requires significant amounts of energy. Approximately onefifth of the electricity and a third of the non–power plant natural gas consumed in the state are associated with water use. Measures to increase water use efficiency and reduce water demand would reduce electricity demand from the
Water sector, therefore reducing GHG emissions. (Id.).

The California Water Resources Control Board has
prepared a draft “20X2020” Water Conservation Plan that outlines the state’s strategies to achieve a 20 percent 71 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 843
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations reduction in per capita urban water use statewide by 2020. (EIR at 5.16-20). The Scoping Plan considers using the
green building framework as a mechanism that enables
GHG reductions in other sectors. In July 2008, the
California Building Standards Commission adopted the
Green Building Standards Code that includes mandatory
features for residential structures and voluntary standards for nonresidential structures. (Id.). As of January 1, 2010, all new structures would be constructed to achieve the
performance standards of the 2008 Building and Energy
Efficiency Standards, which are approximately 15 percent more energy efficient than the 2005 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards. (Id.). The new standards also require improvements in water efficiency for plumbing fixtures and a target of 50 percent landscape water conservation
reduction. While the current code is voluntary for
nonresidential structures, the Commission is in the process of developing mandatory provisions in the 2010 edition of the California Green Building Standards Code.

Transportation, energy efficiency, and water reductions measures implemented by the state as outlined in CARB’s Scoping Plan would reduce Project-related GHG emissions. (Id.). Implementation of transportation, water, and energy efficiency measures of CARB’s Scoping Plan would reduce emissions by 39 percent, or 3,863 MTons of GHG in year
2020 from BAU. (EIR Table 5.16-7). The Project would be consistent with the statewide emissions reduction strategies outlined in the Scoping Plan. (Id.). Therefore, impacts associated with consistency with plans to reduce GHG
emissions are considered less than significant, and no
mitigation is required.

17. Forest Resources.
a.

Potential Significant Impact:

Conflict with Applicable Plan.

Whether the Project would conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland
zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code section 51104(g)).

Finding: Potential impacts from the Project on Forest Resources are discussed in detail in Section 5.17 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that the Project site is not considered timberland or 72 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 844
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations zoned timber production. Although resources within the Project site qualify as forest land per California Resources Code Section 12220 would be impacted by Project implementation, this impact is less than significant and, therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The drainages in the northern (Cable Creek) and southern portions (Meyers Creek) of the Project site contain native tree species that exhibit the characteristics of forest lands.

Implementation of the Project would develop single-family residences and result in the removal of 220 native species trees on the project site. Therefore, the Project could conflict with Project site’s ability to continue to be
designated as forest land. (EIR at 5.17-4).

The Project site was previously been used for agriculture, and a previous landowner grew eucalyptus trees to be used as windrows for crop protection, with a secondary use as firewood. (Id.). Despite the presence of the eucalyptus trees, the site does not include timberland as defined by PRC Section 4526, which would require the project site to be capable of growing “a crop of trees of any commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products.” (Id.). Per Section 895.1 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (“CCR”), “commercial species” is defined as “those species found in group A and those in group B that are found on lands where the species in group A are now growing naturally or have grown naturally in the
recorded past.” (EIR at 5.17-4). The commercial species list for the Southern Forest District is shown at EIR Table

5.17-1. Although eucalyptus trees are included in group B, the Project site does not have any naturally occurring trees of species that are included in group A. (EIR Table 5.3-3).

Therefore, per this definition, the Project site does not meet the definition of timberland. Implementation of the Project would not conflict with or cause a rezoning of any
designated timberland areas. (EIR at 5.17-5). The Project site is in the Verdemont community of unincorporated San Bernardino County and in the City of San Bernardino’s
sphere of influence (“SOI”). (Id.). The Project site is not currently zoned for timberland production per CPRC
51104. The site is currently subject to County of San
Bernardino’s General Plan and Zoning Code. As shown in
Figure 4.6 of the County’s General Plan, “Land Use
Designations,” the northern portion of the site,
approximately 160 acres, is designated as private
unincorporated land within the San Bernardino National
73 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 845
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Forest. (Id.). The southern portion of the site,
approximately 190.6 acres, is designated Rural Living (RL5), which allows up to one dwelling unit per five acres.

Since the Project site is within the City of San Bernardino’s SOI, the entire project site is currently prezoned by the City as Residential Estate (RE), allowing one dwelling unit per acre. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not conflict with or cause a rezoning of any timberland
production zone. (Id.). Impacts would be less than
significant, and no mitigation is required.

B. Potentially Significant Impacts Which Can Be Mitigated Below a Level of Significance and Mitigation Measures.

1. Biological Resources.
a. Candidate, Sensitive or Special Status Species.

Potential Significant Impact: The EIR evaluated and concluded that the Project could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Finding: Impacts related to Biological Resources are discussed in detail at Section 5.3 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that development of the proposed Project would involve the loss or modification of approximately 265.2 acres of natural habitat and the wildlife species. These activities could potentially impact special stats plant and animal species, critical habitat designated by the Fish and Wildlife Service; and indirect impacts to sensitive plant and animal habitats could also occur. However, these impacts can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through implementation of Mitigation Measures 3-1 to 3-5 and 3-13. These Mitigation Measures are adopted and incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, and will be implemented as specified therein, thereby reducing this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level:
3-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, preconstruction surveys within the proposed impact areas for Plummer ’s mariposa lily shall be conducted in the appropriate blooming period by a qualified biologist. The appropriate blooming period is defined as occurring within the months of April, May, and June, or as indicated by positive verification of blooming at a documented reference location. Surveys must only be conducted during a year of at least average precipitation, as determined by official precipitation records. The surveys should positively identify and quantify all individuals on or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed impact areas. Any individuals confirmed within the project 74 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 846
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations impact area shall be considered for possible salvage and relocation into suitable receptor sites located onsite within preserved areas, if feasible. Any individuals confirmed in the immediate vicinity of a proposed impact area shall be flagged and appropriately fenced off from construction zones to prevent inadvertent impacts. Individuals confirmed within areas proposed for preservation onsite shall be properly recorded and avoided during any revegetation or other efforts anticipated in the long-term during project operation.

All observations shall be accurately reported to the California Natural Diversity Database, the California Native Plant Survey, the Consortium of California Herbarium, and/or other herbarium or sensitive species databases as determined by the qualified biologist. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
3-2 To mitigate for impacts to unoccupied critical habitat of the federally endangered San Bernardino kangaroo rat, the project applicant shall acquire offsite permanent mitigation lands of like habitat quality as determined by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) during the Section 7 consultation process. Mitigation lands must be acquired prior to the issuance of grading permits, and shall incorporate appropriate long-term management provisions such as deed restrictions, endowments, and/or other management mechanisms to provide for the long-term conservation of the habitat. Potential properties include, but are not limited to, those managed by San Bernardino County Special Districts located in the Glen Helen, Rialto, and Rancho Cucamonga areas. Mitigation lands shall be acquired at a replacement ratio of 1:1 (one acre replaced for every one acre impacted).

This measure does not preclude the imposition of additional mitigation requirements that may be initiated by the USFWS during the Section 7 consultation process. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 3-3 To mitigate for potential impacts to hydrological processes and subsequent degradation of habitat for the federally endangered San Bernardino kangaroo rat and other sensitive species, all roadway crossings or other improvements proposed within critical habitat for the species shall be designed in such a manner as to not substantially alter the natural flow regimes through impacted sensitive habitat areas. These designs shall include, but shall not necessarily be limited to, the installation of appropriate culverts and stream crossings that allow for natural flow and uninhibited downstream hydrological processes.

Design of these improvements shall be undertaken in consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and other responsible agencies. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of grading permits.
3-4 Any hiking and equestrian trails or other facilities developed within Cable Creek or other riparian areas on the site shall be designed to comply with provisions in the General Plan. These requirements shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: 1) no ground disturbance may take place within 50 feet of the ordinary high-water mark of the associated stream channel; 2) erosion, sedimentation, and runoff from the proposed improvements must be minimized by the implementation of appropriate best management practices, the installation of appropriate runoff diversions, and/or the planting of native vegetation; 3) Vegetation removal will be minimized to the maximum extent possible; and 75 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 847
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 4) appropriate signage shall be installed in at least five locations alongside these facilities to educate users as to the importance of riparian ecosystems, the species that rely upon them, and the importance of avoiding unnecessary impacts and disturbance.

This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. [This measure also provides mitigation for Impact 5.3-4 as related to impacts to wildlife corridors. See Mitigation Measure 3-9]
3-5 The applicant shall prepare a signage and a buyer awareness program to be implemented to inform homeowners of the proximity to sensitive wildlife areas. The purpose of this program shall be to (1) prevent wildlife from being attracted to the housing development and (2) prevent household pets from preying on and harassing the local sensitive species.

Materials and literature provided to the residents shall address the implications and dangers of living adjacent to natural open space areas. To prevent wildlife from being attracted to the project site, the materials shall provide information on homeowner ’s benefits and responsibilities associated with living close to natural wildlife habitats.

Specific responsibilities of homeowners shall be described in these materials and be included in the Homeowners Association (HOA) Covenants, Codes, & Restrictions (CC&R). These measures shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following:
 The storage and disposal of ALL food or refuse that is edible by or attractive to wildlife shall be placed in Wildlife-Resistant Refuse Enclosures and Containers. These containers shall meet applicable standards of testing by the Living With Wildlife Foundation and be bear resistant for 60 minutes so long as they are able to meet the City of San Bernardino’s Refuse and Recycling Division’s restrictions for pick-up and onsite sizing. Examples of WildlifeResistant Refuse Enclosures and Containers are provided by the Living with Wildlife Foundation (http://www.lwwf.org/).
 The project applicant shall coordinate with the City of San Bernardino Refuse and Recycling Division to ensure all refuse facilities conform to their sizing and pick-up requirements. All refuse containers shall be designed to be consistent with the City of San Bernardino Refuse and Recycling Division restrictions.  With the exception of birdfeeders, no person shall intentionally feed or knowingly leave or store any refuse, food product, pet food, or other product edible by wildlife on any premises in a manner which would constitute a lure, attraction, or enticement of wildlife on property within the development  Birdfeeders must be suspended on a cable or other device so as to be inaccessible to bears and other wildlife, and the area below the feeders must be kept free from seed debris. If a wild animal gains access to a birdfeeder, the condition allowing access must be corrected or the birdfeeder removed.
76 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 848
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations  To limit the amount of time refuse is on the curb, trash should be set out and brought back inside between specified hours on pick-up day (to be detailed in the proposed or future HOA CC&Rs).

To prevent the disturbance of wildlife (and sensitive species) by domestic pets, the program shall inform residents of the impacts their pets have on local animals. Catowners shall be informed of measures to keep their pets within their property boundaries and dog-owners shall keep their dogs on a leash while outside (except within designated dog parks). These measures would also serve to lessen the likelihood of domestic pets being preyed upon by wild predators.

The buyer awareness materials will be included in a sales disclosure statement and in the Homeowners Association (HOA) CC&Rs. A copy of the buyer awareness materials shall be approved by the Community Development Director and available to residents upon request.
3-13 Significant tree resources that are removed from the site during project development shall be replaced at a 1:1 ratio or at the exchange ratios specific below. Significant tree resources are defined as any native or nonnative ornamental tree—excluding species of the Eucalyptus genus—that is healthy, structurally sound, and over 20 feet in height. For California black walnut (Juglans californica var. californica), all specimens of the species shall be regarded as significant, regardless of size or height. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a certified arborist shall conduct an inventory of all significant trees within the development footprint. This inventory shall be used to determine the number and types of significant trees that will be impacted and the subsequent replacement quantities. The number of replacement trees shall be, at a minimum, 220 trees. Should the aforementioned inventory determine that a greater number of significant trees will be impacted, then that quantity shall be used in determining replacement quantities. For purposes of replacement ratios, the following exchange ratios shall be used: 1) one 36-inch box tree is equivalent to one replacement tree; 2) five 15-gallon trees are equivalent to one replacement tree; 3) 10 five-gallon trees are equivalent to one replacement tree; and 4) 15 one-gallon trees are equivalent to one replacement tree.

Facts in Support of the Finding: Approximately 100 to 300 Plummer’s mariposa lily plants and approximately 350 to 600 individual California black walnut trees of varying ages would be impacted by Project development. Both are listed as sensitive by the California Native Plant Society (“CNPS”). Impacts to USFWSdesignated critical habitat for San Bernardino kangaroo rat (“SBKR”) would also occur, as would impacts to Los
Angeles pocket mouse. Potential impacts to least Bell’s vireo (“LBV”) and southwestern willow flycatcher
(“SWF”) are also present. (EIR at 5.3-45). No plant
species listed as either threatened or endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act (“FESA”) or the
California Endangered Species Act (“CESA”) is known to
occur on the Project site. This finding is based on numerous focused surveys and habitat assessments conducted on the site since 1998. Since no federal- or state-listed species occurs on the site, there would be no impact to these
species from Project development. (Id.). Although
numerous biological inventories have been conducted on
the Project site over the past ten years and the site’s biological resources values have been well established, the applicant is aware that habitat assessments and focused surveys need to be updated. As such, pre-clearance surveys will be conducted for each of the federally and state listed species that have a potential to occur onsite, including sensitive plant surveys following the CDFG’s November
2009 guidance for special status native plant populations and natural communities.

Special Status Plant Species: Two plant species listed as sensitive by the CNPS have been documented to occur on
the Project site. (EIR at 5.3-45). Plummer’s mariposa lily has been previously observed within unconfirmed areas of the Project site during at least two surveys. There is
suitable habitat on the site and it can be assumed that the species is present. It is not known, however, if the recorded occurrences were in an area of the site that is proposed for development. (EIR at 5.3-46). Potential impacts to this non-listed CNPS List 1B.2 species is not anticipated to be significant due to the relative abundance of this species on a regional scale. According to the CNPS listing guidelines, this species is known from 21 to 80 occurrences throughout 78 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 850
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations its range, interpreted as anywhere between 3,000 to 10,000 individuals, or 10,000 to 50,000 occupied acres. The
Project would result in the removal of an estimated 100 to 300 individuals. This represents a small portion of the total known population and any impacts would not jeopardize
the existence of this species or elevate its sensitivity or listing status under the CNPS, California Natural Diversity Database (“CNDDB”), global and state heritage rankings, the FESA, or CESA. (Id.). Despite the fact that Plummer’s mariposa lily is not specifically protected under state law, mitigation imposed during the Section 1602 permitting
process would likely be required at some level for this species. For this reason, Mitigation Measure 3-1 will be incorporated to identify specimens that are located within the Project impact area. These specimens should be
avoided or relocated as feasible. Adherence to these
requirements would lessen the Project’s impact in this
regard to less than significant levels. (Id.).

California black walnut is also present on the site, and potential impacts to this nonlisted CNPS List 4.2 species are not anticipated to be significant due to the relative abundance of this species on a regional scale. (Id.).

According to the CNPS listing guidelines, this species is known from at least 21 to 80 occurrences throughout its range, which is interpreted as anywhere between 3,000 to 10,000 individuals that are known, or 10,000 to 50,000
occupied acres. The Project would result in the removal of approximately 350 to 600 individuals of varying ages. This represents a small portion of the total known population. (Id.). These impacts would not jeopardize the existence of this species or elevate its sensitivity or status under the CNPS, CNDDB global and state heritage rankings, the
FESA, or CESA. While California black walnut is not
specifically protected under state law, mitigation initiated during the Section 1602 permitting process would likely be required at some level for this species. For this reason, Mitigation Measure 3-13 is required to salvage and relocate healthy specimens, and/or to plant new specimens within areas to be preserved onsite, which would lessen the
Project’s impact in this regard to less than significant levels.

Special Status Wildlife Species: Numerous small mammal
trapping sessions have been conducted on the Project site over the last 11 years, but none of the survey efforts have 79 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 851
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations revealed the presence of any federal- or state-listed small mammal species. (Id.). Even though portions of the site are within designated critical habitat for SBKR, it appears that the species is absent from the site. This is likely due to the separation of the site from existing SBKR populations by the I-215 freeway, other roadways, a railroad, and
residential and commercial development. The Riverside
Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (“RAFSS”) habitat on the site is suitable for SBKR, but there appears to be lack of effective linkage with adjacent populations. Regardless, since
portions of the site are within designated critical habitat for the species, consultation with the USFWS under Section 7 of FESA would be required. Mitigation requirements
derived from this consultation would serve to lessen the Project’s potential impacts to SBKR. (Id.). In anticipation of those agency requirements, Mitigation Measures 3-2 and 3-3 are required to reduce the Project’s impacts in this regard to less than significant levels, by requiring the adoption of BMPs to avoid direct and indirect impacts to remaining habitat areas, and also imposes specific design requirements to lessen additional impacts to offsite areas and to provide for the continued movement of animals
through the area. Mitigation Measure 3-1 also requires the purchase and permanent preservation of offsite mitigation lands and/or the payment of in-lieu fees, and that the
applicant demonstrate that suitable mitigation lands have been identified and are available for acquisition. (EIR at

5.3-47). Mitigation ratios for offsite habitat purchases are typically based on a number of factors, including the
quality of the habitat to be replaced and whether or not the impacted area is actually occupied by the species in
question. In the case of this Project, the onsite RAFSS habitat that would support SBKR is of good quality, but has been determined through repeated surveys to not be
occupied by SBKR. Accordingly, the prescribed mitigation for the loss of unoccupied SBKR critical habitat for this project is set at a ratio 1:1 (one acre replaced for every one acre impacted). The Project applicant has identified several hundred acres of potential mitigation lands containing
suitable RAFSS habitat along the alluvial fans of the San Bernardino Mountains. These lands are available for
purchase and dedication to an appropriate conservation
management organization. This dedication and
management would ensure the long-term conservation
status of this sensitive habitat type in the San Bernardino Valley. It can therefore be concluded that the prescribed 80 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 852
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations mitigation is feasible, and would mitigate the Project’s impacts in this regard to less than significant levels. (Id.).

Two California Species of Special Concern (“SSCs”) are
known to occur on the Project site. Both San Diego pocket mouse and Los Angeles pocket mouse have been captured
during each of the survey efforts on the site. Potential impacts to San Diego pocket mouse are not typically
considered significant under CEQA because this species is widespread and abundant on a local and regional level.
(Id.). Impacts to Los Angeles pocket mouse, however,
could be considered potentially significant since the
preferred habitat of the species is narrow and the species is not known to be locally or regionally abundant. The status of SSC, however, does not afford any specific legal
protections, and therefore this impact can be considered less than significant. Nevertheless, the potential adverse impact to Los Angeles pocket mouse could be of concern to regulatory agencies such as CDFG. (Id.). It is likely that CDFG would impose some level of mitigation during the
Section 1602 permitting process to account for this impact.

Because Los Angeles pocket mouse generally occurs in the same area as the SBKR’s designated critical habitat,
mitigation required by the USFWS during the Section 7
process and as discussed in the paragraphs above would
serve as mitigation for Los Angeles pocket mouse as well.

For that reason, mitigation specific to Los Angeles pocket mouse is not recommended. Rather, it is recommended that Mitigation Measures 3-2 and 3-3 for SBKR be
implemented in order to lessen the Project’s impact to both SBKR and Los Angeles pocket mouse to less than
significant levels. (Id.).

Birds: Based on repeated negative findings for coastal
California gnatcatcher (“CAGN”) during numerous survey
efforts, as well as the site’s recent exclusion from
designated critical habitat, it is reasonable to assume that the species does not occur upon the Project site. (Id.). The riparian areas within Cable Creek provide suitable habitat for the SWF, though focused surveys conducted in 2007
returned negative findings. However, LBV was observed
along Cable Creek in 2007. It is therefore possible that the species could be present farther east of this location within Cable Creek. (EIR at 5.3-48). Individual Take Permits
(“ITPs”) will be acquired to offset potential impacts to LBV, which is a federally and state listed species. Separate 81 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 853
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations ITPs will be acquired from CDFG, through a 2081 ITP
application, and from USFWS, through a Section 7
consultation. Mitigation under these permits will be
adequately funded and will ensure that the Project does not jeopardize the continued existence of the species. Direct development of the riparian areas of Cable Creek is not proposed as part of the Project’s development. No homes or other structures would be located within the riparian areas that would be most likely to contain LBV and SWF.

However, the ITP will also provide BMPs to avoid indirect impacts to the species. An evaluation of the adequacy of the existing CEQA documentation to cover any
unanticipated minimization and mitigation measures
included in the final ITPs will be made when the permits are issued. If additional CEQA documentation is required for review by CDFG to comply with its duties as a
Responsible Agency under CEQA, the subsequent
documentation will be prepared at that time.

In addition, the hiking/equestrian trail that is planned for this area could impact LBV and SWF if they are present
and if the trail is not designed thoughtfully with the aim of avoiding impacts to these species. (Id.). For that reason, Mitigation Measure 3-4 will be incorporated to assure that the trail’s design, construction, and use would not impact the creek bottom in a manner that could create a significant impact to these species. Implementation of Mitigation
Measure 3-4 would reduce the level of this potentially
significant impact to less than significant levels. (Id.).

Reptiles and Amphibians: No federal- or state-listed
reptile species has ever been observed on the Project site, and none is expected to occur. (Id.). With regard to
amphibians, habitat assessments conducted over the last 11 years have concluded that marginally suitable habitat for arroyo southwestern toad and mountain yellow-legged frog is present along Cable Creek. Neither of these species, however, has been detected during both general habitat
assessment surveys or focused surveys conducted in the
area. (Id.). Based on these findings, it is likely that neither species is present on the Project site. Furthermore, direct development of the riparian stretches of Cable Creek is not proposed as part of the Project’s development. Mitigation Measure 3-4 for the proposed hiking/equestrian trail would also lessen the Project’s potential impacts in this regard to less than significant levels. (Id.).
82 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 854
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Indirect Impacts to Special Status Species: Since the
Project site would be surrounded on three sides by existing wild areas that are known to provide suitable habitat for a number of animal species, it can be assumed that wild
animals would continue to be present in these adjacent wild areas following Project development. (Id.). These animals would come into contact with the proposed development at the wildland-urban interface (“WUI”) and in surrounding areas. The introduction of domestic animals would also
potentially impact sensitive wildlife species in the area, as well as more common wildlife species. Domestic cats, for instance, are particularly adept at preying on wild animals such as birds, small mammals, and reptiles. Domestic cats tend to be several times as abundant in WUI areas as all other mid-sized wild predators combined, including
bobcats and foxes. In some contexts, cat predation may
supersede habitat loss as a primary threat to birds’ survival.

Other domestic animals, such as unrestrained dogs, can
harass wildlife and can thus deny wild animals from using otherwise suitable habitat. (EIR at 5.3-49). However,
implementation of Mitigation Measure 3-5 will reduce this potentially significant impact to less than significant levels. b.

Potential Significant Impact:

Riparian Plant or Other Sensitive Natural Communities.

The EIR evaluated and concluded that the Project could
have a substantial adverse effect on a riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.

Finding: Impacts related to Biological Resources are discussed in detail at Section 5.3 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that development of the Project would result in impacts to six riparian plant communities totaling 26.4 acres. Also, 168.4 acres of Riversidean sage scrub, a sensitive nonriparian plant community, would be impacted, as well as portions of the Project site within USFWS-designated habitat for the SBKR. This impact is potentially significant, but can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through implementation of Mitigation Measures 3-6 to 3-8. These Mitigation Measures are adopted and incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, and will be implemented as specified therein, thereby reducing this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level:
83 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 855
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 3-6 To mitigate impacts to 168.4 acres of Riversidean sage scrub (RSS) and 26.4 acres of riparian plant communities, the project applicant shall do one of the following, or a combination thereof, prior to the issuance of grading permits: 1) acquire offsite permanent mitigation lands of like habitat as determined by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG); and/or 2) pay appropriate in-lieu fees to an appropriate permanent mitigation land bank as determined by CDFG. Mitigation lands must be acquired prior to the issuance of grading permits, and shall incorporate appropriate long-term management provisions, such as deed restrictions, endowments, and/or other management mechanisms to provide for the long-term conservation of the habitat.

Potential properties include, but are not limited to, those managed by San Bernardino County Special Districts located in the Glen Helen, Rialto, and Rancho Cucamonga areas. Mitigation lands for riparian habitat shall be acquired at a replacement ratio of 1:1 (one acre replaced for every one acre impacted). Mitigation lands for RSS shall be acquired at a replacement ration of 1:3 (one acre replaced for every three acres impacted). This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
3-7 All real property sold within the development shall contain within the real estate contract appropriate Covenants, Codes, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) to require only the use of approved plants on any and all parcels within the development. Approved plants are defined as those listed in the Fire Protection Plan (Firesafe Planning Solutions 2008) and incorporated into the Spring Trails Specific Plan. All plants classified as “invasive” or “noxious” by the US Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) shall be specifically prohibited from use in any part of the development, unless specifically authorized within the Fire Protection Plan or the Specific Plan. Enforcement shall be instituted through the project’s Homeowner ’s Association (HOA) and specific enforcement measures shall be provided within the HOA’s charter. Enforcement measures may include, but not necessarily be limited to, the imposition of fines, liens, propertyowner reimbursed removal of unauthorized plants, and/or other mechanisms. This measure must be implemented prior to the sale of the first residential lot and shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 3-8 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer or his designee shall submit to the City a noxious weed control plan prepared by a qualified specialist that shall be implemented during construction of the project. The plan shall contain specific measures to be adopted to lessen or eliminate the inadvertent introduction of noxious weeds onto the site or surrounding areas. At a minimum, the plan shall incorporate each of the following requirements: 1) all construction equipment used on the site shall be thoroughly washed prior to transport to the project site; 2) cleaning and washing of equipment includes washing and/or steam cleaning of tires, undercarriages, frames, and other parts of the equipment where mud, dirt, and other debris could be located; 3) offsite cleaning areas shall be clearly identified; and 4) straw bales and other erosion control products shall be certified as “weed free”. The plan shall be reviewed by a qualified third party with expertise in the field of noxious weed control. Other control measures may be added by that specialist as deemed appropriate. Following approval of the plan, the plan shall be implemented throughout the construction phase of the project and overseen by a 84 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 856
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations qualified specialist at monthly intervals. During monitoring, the specialist shall have the authority to require corrective measures to assure the success of the plan. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project would result in impacts to Riversidean Sage Scrub (RSS) and six riparian plant communities. The
Project could also have indirect impacts on surrounding undeveloped lands. Portions of the site are located within USFWS-designated critical habitat for the SBKR. (EIR at

5.3-49). The seven riparian plant communities found on the Project site are considered sensitive plant communities by CDFG, USFWS, and CNPS. Six of these communities
would be impacted by the Project. In addition, the RSS
found on the site is considered a sensitive plant community, even though it is not a riparian community. (EIR Table

5.3-5).

Riversidean Sage Scrub: The Project would remove
nearly all of the 168.4 acres of the RSS located on the site.

CDFG regards RSS as a sensitive community. Therefore,
the loss of 168.4 acres of RSS would be a significant
impact. If the Project site contained listed species that were dependent upon RSS for their continued viability, then the RSS on the site could be considered of high value and the mitigation required would therefore be greater. (EIR at

5.3-49). However, no listed species dependent upon RSS
have been detected on the site. This conclusion is based on over 11 years of general habitat assessment work and
numerous focused surveys. While a number of California
Species of Special Concern (SSC) have been observed
within the RSS areas of the site, these species are not afforded specific legal protection as are formally listed species. (EIR at 5.3-50). Further, RSS remains relatively abundant throughout San Bernardino and Riverside
Counties, with many thousands of acres still remaining.

Notwithstanding, the loss of 168.4 acres of RSS habitat is expected to displace or adversely impact some of the SSC that could occur on the Project site. However, the applicant will purchase and permanently protect RSS habitat that is biologically equivalent or superior to the 168.4 acres of onsite RSS habitat, and will provide suitable habitat for many of these species. (Final EIR at 3-5). Specifically, Mitigation Measure 3-6 provides for the purchase of offsite mitigation lands and/or the payment of in lieu fees to
appropriately offset the Project’s impact to RSS. (Id.).

Mitigation Measure 3-6 also requires that the applicant 85 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 857
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations demonstrate that suitable mitigation lands have been
identified and are available for acquisition, either through direct purchase or the payment of fees. The Project
applicant has identified several hundred acres of potential mitigation lands containing suitable RSS habitat along the alluvial fans of the San Bernardino and San Gabriel
Mountains. These lands are available for purchase and
dedication to an appropriate conservation management
organization. (Id.). This dedication and management would ensure the long-term conservation status of this sensitive habitat type in the San Bernardino Valley. It can therefore be concluded that the prescribed mitigation is feasible, and would thus mitigate the Project’s impacts in this regard to less than significant levels.

Riparian Plant Communities: Seven riparian plant
communities are present on the site, and six of these would be impacted by Project development. (EIR Table 5.3-5).

The 25.4 acres of southern sycamore-alder riparian
woodland (“SSARW”) present on the site are located along the upper reaches of Cable Creek and are outside of the Project footprint. Therefore, they would not be impacted by the proposed development. (EIR at 5.3-50). Each of the
remaining six communities, totaling 26.4 acres, that would be impacted by the project represent valuable habitat and are considered high priority for conservation by CDFG,
USFWS, and CNPS. Loss of these communities would
represent a significant impact. Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub is one of these riparian communities. (Id.). Besides the direct impacts associated with Project development, indirect impacts to offsite areas of RAFSS could also result from downstream impacts to the community from the
secondary access road proposed across Cable Creek. The
roadway could interrupt the stream flows and the
occasional scourings that are required to maintain the longterm viability of RAFSS. If these processes are interrupted, RAFSS typically begins to convert to other community
types that do not offer the same habitat characteristics. (Id.). This is especially relevant since the secondary access road areas are located in USFWS-designated critical habitat for SBKR. SBKR require the fluvial conditions that are
present in properly functioning RAFFS habitat, so both
RAFSS and SBKR are related in the type of conditions they require for their long-term viability. Therefore, the possible indirect loss of additional RAFSS habitat would represent a further significant impact.
86 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 858
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Based on the Project’s anticipated direct and indirect
impacts on Corps, RWQCB, and CDFG jurisdictional
areas, the Project applicant would be required to acquire a number of wetland disturbance permits prior to Project
implementation. These permits would include a Section
404 permit from the Corps, a Section 401 permit from the RWQCB, and a Section 1602 permit from CDFG. (Id.). In
addition, consultation with the USFWS under Section 7 of the FESA would be required, because portions of the
Project site are within unoccupied critical habitat for SBKR. Each of these agencies would impose mitigation
measures to offset the loss of jurisdictional and habitat areas. In anticipation of these agency requirements,
mitigation is recommended in this EIR to reduce the
Project’s impacts in this regard to less than significant levels. (Id.). Mitigation Measure 3-6 includes measures relating to the adoption of BMPs to avoid direct and
indirect impacts to remaining riparian areas and Project design requirements to lessen impacts to offsite areas, and also requires the purchase of offsite mitigation lands and/or the payment of in-lieu fees. The mitigation further requires that the applicant demonstrate that suitable mitigation lands have been identified and are available for acquisition, either through direct purchase or the payment of fees. (EIR at

5.3-51). The Project applicant has identified areas of
potential mitigation lands containing suitable riparian habitat along the alluvial fans and foothills of the San Bernardino and San Gabriel Mountains. These lands are
available for purchase and dedication to an appropriate conservation management organization. This dedication
and management would ensure the long-term conservation
status of these sensitive habitat types in the San Bernardino Valley. (Id.). It can therefore be concluded that Mitigation Measure 3-6 is feasible, and would mitigate the Project’s impacts to riparian habitats to less than significant levels.

Mitigation for impacts to RAFSS habitat has already been discussed above in regards to mitigation for unoccupied critical habitat for SBKR. Since the unoccupied SBKR
habitat that would be impacted by the Project is composed exclusively of RAFFS, Mitigation Measure 3-2 (which is
prescribed for unoccupied SBKR habitat) would also serve to mitigate for impacts to RAFFS. (Id.). It can therefore be concluded that impacts on the Project site associated with RAFFS would be mitigated to less than significant levels. 87 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 859
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Invasive Plant Impacts: The Project site represents good quality habitat and a diverse mosaic of plant communities, and is unusual for its relative lack of invasive plant species. (EIR at 5.3-51). Unlike other areas along the front range of the San Bernardino Mountains, the Project site has not
converted to large areas of nonnative grassland. Only 11.4 acres of the Project site, or about 3 percent, has converted to this community type. The areas immediately surrounding the site, particularly in the San Bernardino National Forest, are also relatively unaffected by type conversion. The
placement of a residential community into an area of native vegetation represents a potential impact to these
surrounding natural areas. Nonnative species can be
inadvertently introduced into native habitats in a number of ways, including: 1) the use of invasive species within the landscaping palette; 2) After construction has finished, residents can unknowingly introduce invasive species by using them for landscaping purposes on their properties, or 3) seeds or other invasive plant parts can be inadvertently imported onto the site during construction activities. (Id.).

The first of these potential impacts can be avoided or
mitigated through the selection of an appropriate plant palette that does not include species identified as invasive or otherwise undesirable. The proposed plant palette for the Project contains no federal- or state-listed invasive plants. (See EIR Appendix G). One species within the proposed
plant palette (Aptenia cordifolia) was determined to be potentially invasive based on the list contained in Invasive Plants of California Wildlands (Bossard et al. 2000).

However, the palette specifically prohibits the use of
Aptenia cordifolia in areas adjacent to wildlands. Rather, planned uses for the species are restricted to interior portions of the site. Since the species spreads vegetatively rather than through seed dispersal, use of the species within interior portions of the development would pose minimal risk in regards to establishment within wildland areas. (EIR at 5.3-52). Mitigation Measure 3-7 will be incorporated to place restrictions on homeowners through the use the
covenants, codes, and restrictions, which will be regulated through the homeowner’s association to prohibit the use of known invasive plants. (Id.). By restricting the use of recognized invasive species by homeowners, the
inadvertent introduction of invasive species can be avoided.

Mitigation Measure 3-8 will impose controls on activities during the construction process that could result in the transport of invasive species onto the site on vehicles and 88 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 860
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations construction equipment, including the thorough washing of vehicles and equipment before they reach the site. Straw bales, erosion control products, and other potential invasive plant nexuses must be certified “weed free”, in addition to a number of other requirements. (Id.). Implementation of
Mitigation Measures 3-7 to 3-8 will reduce impacts in this area to less than significant levels.
c.

Potential Significant Impact:

Jurisdictional Areas and Riparian Habitats.

The EIR evaluated and concluded that the Project could
have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means.

Finding: Impacts related to Biological Resources are discussed in detail at Section 5.3 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that the potential for the Project to have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means is potentially significant, but can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through implementation of Mitigation Measures 3-3, 3-6 and 3-11. These Mitigation Measures are adopted and incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, and will be implemented as specified therein, thereby reducing this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level:
3-3 To mitigate for potential impacts to hydrological processes and subsequent degradation of habitat for the federally endangered San Bernardino kangaroo rat and other sensitive species, all roadway crossings or other improvements proposed within critical habitat for the species shall be designed in such a manner as to not substantially alter the natural flow regimes through impacted sensitive habitat areas. These designs shall include, but shall not necessarily be limited to, the installation of appropriate culverts and stream crossings that allow for natural flow and uninhibited downstream hydrological processes.

Design of these improvements shall be undertaken in consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and other responsible agencies. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of grading permits.
3-6 To mitigate impacts to 168.4 acres of Riversidean sage scrub (RSS) and 26.4 acres of riparian plant communities, the project applicant shall do one of the following, or a combination thereof, prior to the issuance of grading permits: 1) acquire offsite permanent mitigation lands of like habitat as determined by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG); and/or 2) pay appropriate in-lieu fees to an appropriate 89 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 861
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations permanent mitigation land bank as determined by CDFG. Mitigation lands must be acquired prior to the issuance of grading permits, and shall incorporate appropriate long-term management provisions, such as deed restrictions, endowments, and/or other management mechanisms to provide for the long-term conservation of the habitat.

Northern Corridor: 1) Native vegetation within this corridor must be restored, enhanced and maintained to the maximum extent allowed by the Fire Protection Plan; 2) riparian vegetation that provides high-quality foraging opportunities, cover, and other habitat values shall be the preferred vegetation type in this area, unless specifically prohibited by the Fire Protection Plan; 3) this area shall be the preferred location for the planting of replacement native trees as outlined in the tree replacement requirements of Mitigation Measure 3-11, unless specifically prohibited by the Fire Protection Plan; 4) the corridor shall be maintained free of fences, walls, or other obstructions; 5) any lighting associated with the project in this area, including street lights and residential lights, shall be of the minimum output required and shall be down-shielded to prevent excessive light bleed into adjacent areas; 6) any road crossings, bridges, culverts, etc., shall be constructed with soft bottoms with an openness ratio of at least 0.9 (openness ratio=height x width/length); and 7) additional recommendations as outlined in the report entitled “A Linkage Design for the San Gabriel-San Bernardino Connection” (South Coast Missing Linkages Project 2004) may be incorporated as feasible and appropriate.

Southern Corridor: 1) Any bridge, culvert, or other road crossing structure shall be designed in such a manner as to allow for the maintenance of natural flow through the structure and downstream of the structure, as conditioned by the US Fish and Wildlife Service during the Section 7 permitting process; 2) any road crossings, bridges, culverts, etc., shall be constructed with soft bottoms with an openness ratio of at least 0.9 (openness ratio=height x width/length); and 3) additional recommendations as outlined in the report entitled “A Linkage Design for the San Gabriel-San Bernardino Connection” (South Coast Missing Linkages Project 2004) may be incorporated as feasible and appropriate.
90 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 862
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations These measures shall be incorporated into site development plans and must be reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of grading permits. This measure does not preclude the requirement of additional mitigation that may be initiated by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the US Army Corps of Engineers, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, or the California Department of Fish and Game during the regulatory permitting process.

This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project would impact areas under the jurisdiction of the Corps, RWQCB, and CDFG. The Project applicant
would be required to apply for relevant regulatory permits related to such impacts. The jurisdictional delineations prepared for the Project site determined that 15.85 acres are subject to U.S. Army Corps jurisdiction, and 26.65 acres are subject to CDFG jurisdiction. Impacts to U.S. Army
Corps jurisdictional waters are limited to 10.56 acres, and

12.76 acres of CDFG jurisdictional areas. (EIR Appendix D8). Approximately 6.2 acres of the identified
jurisdictional areas are in a potential seasonal wetland in the southern third of the site near the San Andreas Fault (EIR Figure 5.3-3), which is accounted for in all of the above acreage calculations. All 6.2 acres will be lost due to development of the Project. (These 6.2 acres of seasonal wetland was identified as a “problem area” because while hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology were
present, no apparent hydric soil indicators were present during the delineation. The approximate boundary or this potential seasonal wetland was therefore delineated based primarily on vegetation and hydrology criterion. A
subsequent study of the seasonal wetland system will be conducted prior to the permitting process to verify that the feature is indeed a wetland system and to provide the
additional data needed on current condition and function of the wetlands for determining wetland mitigation. With the completion of the draft 401 permit, the applicant will
confer with the Water Quality Control Board regarding the adequacy of the existing CEQA documentation, and if
warranted, subsequent CEQA documentation will be
prepared. (Id.).

The wetlands quantities listed consider all of the identified jurisdictional areas located within the Project development footprint and consider all grading and slopes proposed for development. (EIR at 5.3-52). The Project applicant would be required to acquire a number of wetlands permits prior to Project implementation. These permits would include a 91 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 863
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Section 404 permit from the Corps, a Section 401 permit from the RWQCB, and a Section 1602 permit from CDFG.

A Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan will be prepared as part of the Section 404 permit. (EIR at 5.3-53). Since the Project would impact more than 0.5 acres of Corps
jurisdictional areas, the Project would be required to obtain a Section 404 Individual Permit rather than apply for
clearance under the Nationwide Permit. Consultations with the USFWS under Section 7 of the ESA would also be
required, as portions of the Project site are within critical habitat for SBKR. Each of these agencies would impose
mitigation measures to offset the loss of jurisdictional and habitat areas. (EIR at 5.3-53). In anticipation of those agency requirements, Mitigation Measures 3-3, 3-6 and 3- 11 are recommended to reduce the Project’s impacts in this regard to less than significant levels. (Id.). The mitigation requires the adoption of BMPs to avoid direct and indirect impacts to remaining habitat areas, and also imposes
specific design requirements to lessen additional impacts to offsite areas and to provide for the continued movement of animals through the area. The mitigation also requires the purchase of offsite mitigation lands and/or the payment of in-lieu fees. Finally, the mitigation also requires that the applicant demonstrate that suitable mitigation lands have been identified and are available for acquisition. (Id.). The Project applicant has identified areas of potential riparian mitigation lands containing suitable riparian habitat along the alluvial fans and foothills of the San Bernardino and San Gabriel Mountains. These lands are available for
purchase and dedication to an appropriate conservation
management organization. This dedication and
management would ensure the long-term conservation
status of these sensitive habitat types in the San Bernardino Valley. (Id.). All mitigation for impacts to CDFG
jurisdictional water will be biologically equivalent or superior in terms of value and function to offset the impacts to CDFG jurisdictional water including seasonal wetland, drainages and springs. The final requirements for
mitigation will result from the 1602 Streambed Alteration Permit application process. As stated above, the City and the applicant will confer with CDFG once a draft 1602
permit is available, regarding the adequacy of the CEQA evaluation and to determine if additional CEQA
documentation is needed. It can therefore be concluded that Mitigation Measures 3-3, 3-6 and 3-11 are feasible, and would thus mitigate the Project’s impacts to federally92 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 864
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations protected wetlands and riparian habitats to less than
significant levels.
d.

Potential Significant Impact:

Wildlife Corridors.

The EIR evaluated and concluded that the Project could
interfere substantially with the movement of a native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.

Finding: Impacts related to Biological Resources are discussed in detail at Section 5.3 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that the potential for the Project to affect wildlife movement and wildlife nursery sites is potentially significant, but can be mitigated to a less-thansignificant level through implementation of Mitigation Measures 3-9 to 3-12.

Raptor foraging habitat and nesting birds would not be affected. These Mitigation Measures are adopted and incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, and will be implemented as specified therein, thereby reducing this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level:
3-9 Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3-4 to mitigate potential impacts to sensitive species in Cable Creek shall also be applied to Impact 5.3-4. 3-10 With regard to the protection of nesting birds, one of the following must occur: 1) Construction should occur outside of the avian nesting season (approximately February 15 through August 31); or 2) If construction must occur during the nesting season, then a preconstruction nesting bird survey of the site shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 14 days prior to construction activities. If active nests are found onsite, then they must be avoided by an appropriate buffer until any young birds have fledged and the nest has completed its cycle, as determined by a qualified biologist. If construction occurs outside of the avian nesting period, then construction may commence without further impediment, commensurate with other regulatory and mitigation requirements. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
3-11 Two known wildlife corridors are present on the project site and may be impacted by the proposed project unless mitigation is incorporated: 1) the unnamed tributary of Cable Creek that flows in an east-to-west direction in the northern third of the project site (referred to here as the Northern Corridor); and 2) the outwash of Cable Creek adjacent to the Interstate 215 freeway that is proposed to be crossed by the secondary access road (referred to here as the Southern Corridor). For these corridors, the following must occur:

Northern Corridor: 1) Native vegetation within this corridor must be restored, enhanced and maintained to the maximum extent allowed by the Fire Protection Plan; 2) riparian 93 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 865
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations vegetation that provides high-quality foraging opportunities, cover, and other habitat values shall be the preferred vegetation type in this area, unless specifically prohibited by the Fire Protection Plan; 3) this area shall be the preferred location for the planting of replacement native trees as outlined in the tree replacement requirements of Mitigation Measure 3-11, unless specifically prohibited by the Fire Protection Plan; 4) the corridor shall be maintained free of fences, walls, or other obstructions; 5) any lighting associated with the project in this area, including street lights and residential lights, shall be of the minimum output required and shall be down-shielded to prevent excessive light bleed into adjacent areas; 6) any road crossings, bridges, culverts, etc., shall be constructed with soft bottoms with an openness ratio of at least 0.9 (openness ratio=height x width/length); and 7) additional recommendations as outlined in the report entitled “A Linkage Design for the San Gabriel-San Bernardino Connection” (South Coast Missing Linkages Project 2004) may be incorporated as feasible and appropriate.

These measures shall be incorporated into site development plans and must be reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of grading permits. This measure does not preclude the requirement of additional mitigation that may be initiated by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the US Army Corps of Engineers, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, or the California Department of Fish and Game during the regulatory permitting process.

This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project would result in impacts to an area that is used by a number of species for nursery sites, foraging, and movement. The Project site also provides habitat for
nesting birds and marginally suitable habitat for foraging raptors. (EIR at 5.3-53). There is substantial evidence to indicate that the Project site serves as a corridor for a wide variety of wildlife species. Such areas are usually
considered significant when they are determined to be of regional importance or otherwise contribute to regional conservation goals. The Project site can be considered to be composed of two principal parts in regard to wildlife
movement. The first component is Cable Creek, which
serves as an obvious corridor since it contains perennial water, adequate cover and food resources, and allows for 94 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 866
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations the unimpeded movement of animals between higher and
lower elevations. The riparian areas of Cable Creek are not planned for development, so the use of this corridor by wildlife would not be significantly impacted as a result of the proposed Project. (Id.). The exception to this is at the southern end of the site, where the outwash of Cable Creek would be crossed by the secondary access road. This
roadway and associated culverts and drainage
improvements could create a barrier to wildlife where
currently no barrier exists. However, the roadway would be relatively narrow and can be designed in such a manner so that wildlife movement is not substantially impeded. In addition, the roadway would be constructed in USFWSdesignated critical habitat for SBKR. (Id.). Furthermore, as part of the consultation process, USFWS would impose
mitigation aimed at reducing the impact of the roadway on SBKR. These requirements would likely result in a positive benefit for other wildlife species as well. Therefore,
mitigation required as part of this process would reduce the Project’s impact to wildlife movement within Cable Creek to less than significant levels. (EIR at 5.3-54).

In anticipation of these agency requirements, Mitigation Measures 3-9 and 3-12 will be incorporated to reduce the Project’s impacts in this regard to less than significant levels, and include specific design requirements aimed at allowing the unrestricted movement of wildlife within the lower portion of Cable Creek. (Id.). With implementation of these measures, the Project’s impact in regard to the secondary access road crossing at Cable Creek would be
less than significant. The second component relating to wildlife movement deals with wildlife movement across the site in an east-to- west direction and vice-versa. While the Cable Creek corridor on the western side of the site
provides movement along a relatively narrow corridor in a north-to-south direction, the Project site itself provides lateral movements through a much wider area and across
the base of the mountain front. (Id.). This impact could be considered significant, because the Project would
effectively create a substantial barrier to wildlife movement across a large area. This potential impact can be mitigated by retaining and/or improving existing areas on the Project site that are conducive to wildlife movement. The large tributary that crosses the northern third of the site provides the most effective avenue for wildlife movement across the site. (EIR Figure 5.3-2). This is due to the fact that the 95 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 867
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations areas on both sides of the property at this point are
essentially natural in composition and therefore allow
animals to move across the site without having to navigate substantial human-made barriers. The tributary also affords movement into and out of Cable Creek and thus to areas
both to the north and south of the site. Other portions of the Project area, especially the southern two-thirds of the site, do not offer these benefits. Those areas are somewhat
blocked on the west by existing development, and they do not contain streams or other features that would be
attractive to wildlife in terms of movement. (EIR at 5.3- 54). Retaining and/or improving this corridor would
represent the greatest benefit to wildlife in terms of lateral movement across the site. The tributary offers specific characteristics, such as cover and foraging resources which make it especially suitable for wildlife movement. (Id.).

In response to EIR comments received from CDFG, a
barrier will also be constructed that will isolate Cable Creek from the development of the Project, and ensure that the biological integrity of Cable Creek as riparian habitat and a wildlife corridor is maintained. Care will be taken in selecting the barrier in an effort to preclude creating an attractive nuisance that could attract domestic dogs and cats and other small mammals that constitute a food source for top predators. (EIR at 5.3-61). The barrier will be installed at the outer limits of the California Walnut Woodland that surrounds Cable Creek at its interface with the RSS Habitat on the hillsides above the canyon bottom. This will provide a buffer of approximately 300 feet inside the barrier fence that will be located on either side of Cable Creek. This combination of a barrier and buffer should protect the
natural resources associated with the use of Cable Creek as well as the wildlife movement corridor that found in
association with Cable Creek. The applicant also evaluated the possibility of not developing north of Cable Creek and constructing a barrier on the south side of Cable Creek, isolating the riparian, RSS and chaparral habitats north of Cable Creek from the development. However, this would
result in the loss of 24 estate lots from the development, and would not be economically viable as the result of the substantial infrastructure that is required for the
development of the site, The project requires substantial infrastructure costs in terms of utilities, fire suppression, and roadways, in addition to the amenities included in the overall Specific Plan. Specifically, the project must acquire 96 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 868
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations and develop both primary and secondary access roads,
water tanks for fire suppression, utilities including water, sewer and electricity, as well as include fire protection and fire barriers at substantial cost to the project. These costs are in addition to mitigation requirements and the
acquisition of mitigation lands. The infrastructure
requirements create a substantial burden on the project and decrease the “per lot” ratio of return substantially with the elimination of each lot. Elimination of the 24 lots does not reduce the overall burdens of infrastructure costs and
mitigation requirements for the Project, but reduces the rate of return by 9%.

In sum, with implementation of the barrier and Mitigation Measures 3-9 to 3-12, the Project’s impact to wildlife
corridors would be less than significant.

Wildlife Nursery Sites: There is substantial evidence to indicate that the site provides habitat that is suitable for use as a wildlife nursery site. (Id.). Based on a number of observations over the years, the use of the site as a nursery site by mule deer is reasonably well established. Other species may utilize the site for this purpose as well, but this has not been observed or confirmed. Regardless,
development of the Project site would disallow its
continued use as a nursery site by mule deer. In
determining whether or not the loss of this nursery site would constitute a significant impact, the species making use of the site must be considered. If a sensitive or listed species were known to use the area as a nursery site, then the loss of the site would be more problematic than if it were used by more common species. For this site, no
sensitive or listed species has been observed using the site for nursery purposes. Mule deer are the only species that have been positively confirmed to use the area for this purpose, though it is likely that a number of other species, such as small mammals and birds, use the site for this
purpose as well. None of these species, however, is a listed or sensitive species. (EIR at 5.3-55). Mule deer is a
common species that is not regionally or locally threatened or endangered. The species occurs in great quantities
throughout the region and western North America.

Statewide, CDFG considers mule deer to be common and
abundant. In 2008, CDFG issued 237,083 deer hunting tags statewide and an estimated 29,612 animals were harvested.

In Deer Hunt Zone D14, (the CDFG management zone in
97 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 869
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations which the Project is located), CDFG and USFS consider
mule deer populations to be stable or slightly declining. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that mule deer
populations within the San Bernardino Mountains will be stable or perhaps even increase over the next several years. (Id.). CDFG manages mule deer through a number of
means, the most well-known of which is hunting. Hunting is used as a tool to control species populations and to avoid overstocking within particular areas. The proposed Project site is located within CDFG Deer Hunt Zone D14, which is a zone that covers all of the San Bernardino Mountains
portion of the SBNF as well as some peripheral areas. For at least the last decade, CDFG has maintained a hunt tag quota of 3,000 for Zone D14. This overall stability in
CDFG’s management of mule deer in the San Bernardino
Mountains is consistent with the agency’s determination that the mule deer population in the area is relatively stable. (Id.). Considering the overall abundance and the relative stability of mule deer populations in the area, it is
reasonable to conclude that the loss of the nursery area on the Project site would be unlikely to result in anything but a negligible decline in the overall population of mule deer in the region, or even in this portion of the San Bernardino Mountains. The Project site is surrounded on three sides by the SBNF, which provides substantial open space
opportunities for use as alternative nursery sites by mule deer. In addition, the Project would continue to maintain Cable Creek as an undisturbed perennial water source and wildlife corridor. Since a lack of perennial water is a major limiting factor in the maintenance of mule deer
populations, the conservation of this watercourse would provide a substantial benefit to mule deer. Accordingly, the loss of this nursery site for mule deer would be less than significant. However, to avoid direct impacts to mule deer during the fawning season, Mitigation Measure 3-12 is
recommended to lessen the potential for impacts to mule deer during initial grubbing and vegetation clearing, and includes specific requirements for scheduling vegetation clearing outside of the mule deer fawning season. (Id.).

Nesting Birds: The Project site provides suitable habitat for a wide variety of nesting bird species. (EIR at 5.3-56).

Breeding season typically runs from mid-February through late August. Ideally, ground-disturbing activities should take place outside of the breeding season, and doing so would reduce the Project’s impact to nesting birds to less 98 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 870
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations than significant levels. (Id.). If this is not possible and it is necessary to conduct ground-disturbing activities during the breeding season, then appropriate pre-construction surveys should be initiated in accordance with Mitigation Measure 3-10 to determine the presence or absence of nesting birds prior to construction. (Id.). Compliance with Mitigation Measure 3-10 would reduce the Project’s impact to less
than significant.

Raptor Foraging Habitat: The Project site lacks
expansive grassland habitat and is for the most part
dominated by dense Riversidean sage scrub and chaparral. (Id.). These habitats do not provide particularly favorable conditions for foraging raptors due to the lack of prey visibility. It is estimated that suitable raptor foraging habitat is restricted to 12.5 acres of open grassland habitat.

It can therefore be concluded that the site provides only marginally suitable foraging habitat for raptors and that these species would be more likely to rely on other areas for the majority of their foraging. Accordingly, the Project would not result in a significant impact to raptor foraging habitat. (EIR at 5.3-56).
e. Conflict with Local Policy, Ordinance or Habitat Conservation Plan.

Potential Significant Impact: The EIR evaluated and concluded that the Project could conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance, or conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

Finding: Impacts related to Biological Resources are discussed in detail at Section 5.3 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that the potential for the Project to conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance, or to conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan is potentially significant, but can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through implementation of Mitigation Measures 3-13 to 3-14. These Mitigation Measures are adopted and incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, and will be implemented as specified therein, thereby reducing this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level:
99 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 871
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 3-13 Significant tree resources that are removed from the site during project development shall be replaced at a 1:1 ratio or at the exchange ratios specific below. Significant tree resources are defined as any native or nonnative ornamental tree—excluding species of the Eucalyptus genus—that is healthy, structurally sound, and over 20 feet in height. For California black walnut (Juglans californica var. californica), all specimens of the species shall be regarded as significant, regardless of size or height. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a certified arborist shall conduct an inventory of all significant trees within the development footprint. This inventory shall be used to determine the number and types of significant trees that will be impacted and the subsequent replacement quantities. The number of replacement trees shall be, at a minimum, 220 trees. Should the aforementioned inventory determine that a greater number of significant trees will be impacted, then that quantity shall be used in determining replacement quantities. For purposes of replacement ratios, the following exchange ratios shall be used: 1) one 36- inch box tree is equivalent to one replacement tree; 2) five 15-gallon trees are equivalent to one replacement tree; 3) 10 five-gallon trees are equivalent to one replacement tree; and 4) 15 one-gallon trees are equivalent to one replacement tree.

During the development of the project, the project applicant shall incorporate the recommendations as set forth in the project arborist report (Integrated Urban Forestry 1998). A certified arborist shall be retained at the developer’s expense to oversee the implementation of these requirements and to specify other requirements as deemed appropriate. The measures to be followed include, but are not limited to, specified protocols for the following: 1) the removal of nonnative trees from the site; 2) the removal and transplantation, when feasible, of structurally sound and healthy native trees to other areas of the project site; 3) the installation of tree protection barriers on all trees to be preserved that are within the reach of vehicles and equipment; 4) tree protection training of construction personnel by a certified arborist; 5) irrigation of trees where the natural water supply is interrupted or diminished or where protected trees may require additional water to endure construction-induced stresses; 6) subsequent replacement of any trees that are damaged or have not survived transplantation and relocation; and 7) implementation of the tree replacement plan, as outlined in the first paragraph of this measure. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
3-14 Prior to the commencement of ground-disturbing activities, the developer shall retain the services of qualified specialists, approved by the City, to oversee the long-term effectiveness of the biological resources mitigation required in this EIR. When appropriate, the services of these specialists may be combined so long as the person(s) so employed possess the requisite training and skills necessary to effectively carry out their duties to professional standards. Those specialists shall conduct reviews of the project site for a minimum of five years, as measured from the day of beginning of initial ground disturbance. Reviews shall be conducted, as applicable, on a monthly basis for the first year following initiation, on a quarterly basis during the second and third years, and on an annual basis during the fourth and fifth years. The intensity of monitoring may be increased or the monitoring period extended if the City or relevant Responsible Agency (i.e., CDFG, USFWS, RWQCB, etc.) determines that conditions on the ground warrant 100
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 872
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations such action. The qualified specialists to be retained and the nature of their duties are as follows:

Biologist: A qualified biologist shall monitor the effectiveness of Mitigation Measures 3-1, 3-2, 3-4, 3-6, 3-10, 3-11, 3-12, and 3-14.

Noxious/Invasive Plant Control Specialist: A person who is qualified in the field of noxious plant management and control shall monitor the effectiveness of Mitigation Measures 3-7 and 3-8.

Arborist: A certified arborist shall monitor the effectiveness of Mitigation Measure 3-13.

Hydrologist/Stormwater Control Specialist: A qualified hydrologist and/or stormwater control specialist shall monitor the effectiveness of Mitigation Measures 3-3, 3-4, and 3-6.

Following each monitoring session, these specialists shall file brief reports with the Community Development Director concerning the effectiveness of the prescribed mitigation. The specialist shall identify and call out any corrective actions required to assure that the purposes of the mitigation are being effectively pursued. The developer shall comply with any corrective measures so prescribed. Monitoring may cease if the qualified specialist determines that the terms of the mitigation have been satisfactorily implemented and that further monitoring is no longer required. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The City of San Bernardino has adopted a tree ordinance that regulates the removal and replacement of native and nonnative trees that are impacted by development. City
General Plan policies and goals would also apply to the site. (EIR at 5.3-56). Development of the Project would result in the removal of approximately 2,400 trees. The majority of native trees are located within and around
Cable Creek or in the northern portion of the site, and are not within the development footprint. (See EIR Table

5.3-3; Figure 5.1-1). These trees would not be impacted by the Project. Of the approximately 2,400 trees within the development footprint, only about 220 of these (less than 1 percent) are native species, mostly walnut and sycamore.

Impacts to California Walnut Woodland will be limited to

2.1 acres as the Project is currently proposed, and there are sufficient acres of California Walnut Woodland in the area to adequately mitigate for the loss of the 2.1 acres of this sensitive habitat. The majority of the trees requiring
removal are part of a remnant eucalyptus plantation
(approximately 2,170 trees). The remaining nonnative trees that would be removed consist of approximately
101
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 873
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 10 ornamental nonnative trees. (EIR at 5.3-56). Eucalyptus presents a specific problem for this site because they are nonnative and present a severe fire hazard. A great many of the trees are in poor condition and were classified as hazard trees in the arborist reports within the EIR. Eucalyptus trees are extremely flammable and in many areas are considered nuisance species. The Fire Protection Plan prepared for the Project mandates that all eucalyptus on the site be removed.

These trees were originally planted as part of a cultivated eucalyptus plantation, primarily for the purpose of fuel wood production. Since tree plantations are specifically exempted from the mitigation requirements of the City of San Bernardino Tree Ordinance, replacement of these trees is not required. (EIR at 5.3-57). While eucalyptus can
provide suitable nesting locations for raptors and other birds, their marginal biological value must be weighed
against the hazards they present to public safety and their ability to carry wildfire to developed areas and surrounding wildlands. Based on these considerations, the removal of the eucalyptus on the Project site can be considered an overall benefit to the area, and therefore a less than
significant impact.

Conversely, native trees provide specific natural resource value in that they provide nesting habitat for raptors and cover and foraging habitat for other avian species, and they are important components of the natural ecosystem. (Id.) The trees are also aesthetically pleasing and therefore constitute an important resource in this regard. The City’s Tree Ordinance requires that “significant” trees be
mitigated. In determining what constitutes a significant tree, the initial arborist report prepared for the site determined that healthy, structurally sound, native and ornamental trees over 20 feet in height be considered
significant. Approximately 220 trees on the site met these criteria during the 1998 tree inventory. The removal of these trees during Project development would be
considered a potentially significant impact, and thus subject to the mitigation requirements of the City’s Tree
Ordinance. (Id.) Since the initial inventory of trees on the site is over 12 years old and the exact count of significant trees may have changed, Mitigation Measure 3-13 is
incorporated to require an updated inventory of tree
resources within the Project footprint. Mitigation Measure 3-13 requires that specific management recommendations
contained in the arborist reports be implemented. These 102
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 874
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations recommendations include protocols for removal and
relocation of native trees, tree protection during
construction, and the preservation of specific trees on the Project site. Performance measures are provided to mandate replacement ratios and the types and sizes of specimens required to meet the terms of the mitigation. Specifically, all trees will be replaced at a 1:1 ratio, with a minimum of 220 trees replaced. All tree replacement will be done in compliance with recommendations set forth in the two
arborist reports prepared for the Project, and as directed by the City’s Heritage Tree Ordinance. Measures are also
included to mandate improvements to tree resources in
specific areas of the site. (Id.) Implementation of
Mitigation Measure 3-13 would comply with the City of
San Bernardino Tree Ordinance and would reduce the
Project’s impacts in this regard to less than significant levels.

City of San Bernardino General Plan: The City’s
General Plan provides a number of goals and policies
directed toward the conservation of biological resources.

The goals and policies generally center around three
principal areas: 1) General conservation goals and special requirements for development within Biological Resource Management Areas (“BRMAs”) (Goal 12.1); 2) Protection
of riparian areas (Goal 12.2); and 3) The conservation of open space and other priority areas (Goal 12.3).

General Plan Goal 12.1 contains policies that require
developments to be designed in a manner that is sensitive to unique biological resources, and it also prescribes specific conditions for developments proposed within BRMAs.

According to Figure NRC-2 of the General Plan, the project site is located within a BRMA. To be consistent with the General Plan, projects in BRMAs must submit biological
resource assessments and other information that identifies the proposed project’s impacts on sensitive biological
resources. (EIR at 5.3-57). The Spring Trails Project site has been the subject of numerous technical studies over the last decade. As such, the Project is consistent with this requirement. Projects within BRMAs are required to
identify mitigation measures to eliminate significant
adverse impacts to sensitive biological resources. (Id.). As discussed above, a number of mitigation measures have
been identified for the Project, and upon implementation of these measures no significant impacts remain. Therefore, 103
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 875
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations the Project is consistent in this regard as well. Projects within BRMAs are required to define a plan to monitor the effectiveness of prescribed mitigation. The establishment of such a monitoring program is prescribed as Mitigation
Measure 3-14 for this Project, which includes requirements for annual surveys for a minimum of five years after project development, actions to be taken if certain performance measures are not met, and methods for overseeing the
monitoring program. (EIR at 5.3-58). With implementation of Mitigation Measure 3-14, the Project is consistent with this policy of the General Plan. Finally, the policies within Goal 12.1 require that projects consider and discuss the restoration of significant habitats. While the General Plan is not particularly clear on this issue, it appears that the intent of the policy is to provide for the restoration of habitats that have been degraded or otherwise historically altered
through human activity. This policy does not particularly apply to this Project, since the bulk of the habitat on the site is intact and is not degraded. (Id.). Regardless of the policy’s intent, the Project as designed and mitigated would improve specific areas of habitat within the Project area.

Most notably, the mitigation prescribed for wildlife
corridor conservation also includes requirements to
improve habitats in those areas. Improvements include the planting and maintenance of additional native vegetation to enhance wildlife foraging and movement areas. In addition, the most significant habitat on the Project site, the riparian areas of Cable Creek, would be preserved and would not be impacted by the Project’s development. Finally, the Project applicant would be required to purchase offsite mitigation lands or pay in-lieu fees for the permanent preservation of sensitive wildlife habitat within the region. (Id.). Based on these considerations, it is thus reasonable to conclude that the Project meets and exceeds the overall goals of the
policy.

General Plan Goal 12.2 contains policies that pertain to the conservation of riparian resources. The goal also contains directives on what activities are specifically allowed to occur within riparian areas. (Id.). The General Plan
specifies that development and grading within 50 feet of riparian corridors is prohibited unless no feasible
alternative exists. In the case of the Spring Trails Project, the riparian corridor of Cable Creek lies outside of the Project footprint. (Id.). In regard to the hiking and
equestrian trail that is planned for this area, Mitigation 104
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 876
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Measure 3-4 (discussed above) imposes specific restrictions on the trail’s proximity to the creek as well as other design requirements to protect riparian resources. Two other
riparian corridors on the site would be spanned by
roadways. However, Mitigation Measure 3-11 for these
bridges and/or culverts will minimize impacts to riparian areas, and requires the enhancement of the large area of riparian vegetation that crosses the northern third of the site. These enhancements would allow for the onsite
conservation of this area and provide opportunities for wildlife movement within this corridor. (Id.). Based on each of these mitigation requirements, together with other Project design features, the Project would be in compliance with all General Plan policies relating to the conservation of riparian areas.

General Plan Goal 12.3 provides directives as to types of habitats that are considered a high priority for long-term preservation. The goal specifically calls out the City’s desire to preserve the riparian corridor of Cable Creek.

Since the Project would permanently conserve the Cable
Creek corridor, the Project is consistent with the General Plan in this regard. (Id.). The plan also specifies other high priority habitat types, including endangered species habitat, alluvial scrub vegetation, riparian vegetation, and native walnut woodlands. The Spring Trails Project would provide for the conservation of each of these resource types, either through onsite conservation and/or enhancement, or
through the purchase and dedication of offsite mitigation lands. (EIR at 5.3-59). Therefore, it can be determined that the Project is consistent with the General Plan in this regard. In sum, incorporation of Mitigation Measures 3-13 to 3-14 will reduce impacts in this area to less than
significant levels.

2. Cultural Resources.
a.

Potential Significant Impact:

Archeological Resources.

The EIR evaluated and concluded that the Project could
cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5.

Finding: Impacts related to Cultural Resources are discussed in detail at Section 5.4 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that this impact is potentially significant but can be mitigated to a less 105
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 877
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations than significant level through the implementation of Mitigation Measures 4-1 to 4-3. These mitigation measures are adopted and incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, and will be implemented as specified therein, thereby reducing this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level:
4-1 Preconstruction archaeological testing by a qualified archaeologist is required to evaluate the significance of historic Cable Canyon Ranch. A qualified archaeologist must be present for grubbing, devegetation, and demolition of the spring, remnant stone structure, and fence to protect resources that may be revealed by these activities.

Subsequent to vegetation removal but before construction, the archaeologist will perform controlled mechanical excavation inside and outside the house area to locate features present below the ground surface. Once located, the archaeologist should develop a formal treatment plan (plan of work including research questions to be answered and containing an agreement with an accredited repository). Excavation of subsurface features can include additional mechanical excavation or hand excavation as warranted by the features. Discovery of features and recovery of archaeological materials will require extensive sampling, documentation, laboratory work, identification, analysis, and interpretation. The final report should include formal evaluation and significance assessment of each feature and the project catalog and be filed with the City, the San Bernardino Archaeological Information Center, and the repository (San Bernardino County Museum recommended). The site records should also be updated. 4-2 If testing determines that the Cable Canyon Ranch complex meets significance criteria, then preconstruction archaeological data recovery excavations by a qualified archaeologist is required to mitigate the adverse impacts of construction on historic Cable Canyon Ranch. The archaeologist should develop a formal data recovery plan (plan of work including research questions to be answered and containing an agreement with an accredited repository). Excavation of subsurface features can include additional mechanical excavation or hand excavation as warranted by the features. Discovery of features and recovery of archaeological materials will require extensive sampling, documentation, laboratory work, identification, analysis, and interpretation. The final report should include the project catalog and be filed with the City, the San Bernardino Archaeological Information Center, and the repository (San Bernardino County Museum recommended). The site records should also be updated.
4-3 Construction grading in and around the Cable Canyon Ranch complex must be monitored by a qualified archaeologist to ensure that any subsurface features or refuse deposits that were not located during previous phases of archaeological work are found and evaluated. The City should refuse to issue a final occupancy permit until all mitigation is demonstrated to have been performed, including curation of the project documents and artifacts.

Facts in Support of the Finding: Eight (8) historical archeological resources were recorded within the Project area. (EIR at 5.4-12). A spring reported to have associated water features was noted in earlier
106
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 878
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations surveys, but obscured by vegetation in recent surveys. Most of the resources do not meet significance criteria under CEQA. (EIR Table 5.4-1). However, some sites have
potential to have subsurface components that would yield information new to history. These sites require further investigation. Should those investigations yield CRHReligible archaeological materials, then destruction of those resources as a result of Project construction would be a significant impact. The potentially significant resources are expected subsurface privies and trash features associated with Cable Canyon Ranch, in addition to both surface and possibly subsurface water features associated with the
Cable Canyon Ranch spring. (EIR at 5.4-12). Mitigation
through archaeological data recovery as prescribed by
Mitigation Measures 4-1 to 4-3 would reduce impacts in
this area to less than significant.
b.

Potential Significant Impact:

Paleontological Resources of Unique Geological Feature.

The EIR evaluated and concluded that the Project could
directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature.

Finding: Impacts related to Cultural Resources are discussed in detail at Section 5.4 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that this impact is potentially significant but can be mitigated to a less than significant level through the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4-4. This mitigation measure is adopted and incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, and will be implemented as specified therein, thereby reducing this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level:
4-4 Cultural resources sensitivity training is required for all earth-moving personnel. This training will review the types of archaeological and paleontological resources that might be found, along with laws for the protection of resources. In the event of an unanticipated discovery, all work must halt within a 30-foot radius of the find. Work may not continue until the find has been evaluated by a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist, depending on the nature of the discovery. All discoveries require scientific samples and documentation, including a final report.

Facts in Support of the Finding: According to the Cogstone Study (EIR Appendix E), there are several sedimentary formations that are old enough to contain the remains of extinct Pleistocene animals;
however, these sediments are so coarse that they are not conducive to the preservation of significant fossil
resources. (EIR at 5.4-13). Additionally, the survey found 107
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 879
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations no signs of any paleontological resources within the Project area. However, an unanticipated discovery of
paleontological resources during grading and excavation of the site could occur and result in paleontological resource impacts if not mitigated. Therefore, Mitigation Measure 4-4 will be incorporated to require cultural resources training for all earth-moving personnel, and will reduce impacts in this area to a less than significant level.
c.

Potential Significant Impact:

Disturbance of Human Remains.

The EIR evaluated and concluded that the Project could
disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.

Finding: Impacts related to Cultural Resources are discussed in detail at Section 5.4 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that this impact is potentially significant but can be mitigated to a less than significant level through the implementation of Mitigation Measures 4-5 and 4-6. These mitigation measures are adopted and incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, and will be implemented as specified therein, thereby reducing this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level:
4-5 The applicant shall implement one of the mitigation measures outlined below to address anomalies found at the presumed location of the Meyers Family Cemetery. The applicant shall consult with the Meyers family descendants in the selection of the appropriate mitigation options for the Meyers Family Cemetery in conjunction with the proposed development. It shall be a high priority to implement an option that most closely meets the desires of the family to the extent feasible under the final approved development and grading plans. In the event the final development and grading permits do not require grading or other disturbance of the anomaly sites, one of the following mitigation measures shall be implemented:

1. The burial site anomalies/remains shall remain undisturbed. This can be accomplished either by complete avoidance of the project area or alternatively by “capping” the site. Capping the site would involve scraping existing vegetation and providing up to two feet of compacted fill material over the site. No activity under this option shall excavate lower than one foot below grade to remove existing vegetation or soil. Replacement vegetation may be placed for future open space such as a park. Plans to cap the site shall be prepared and reviewed/approved by a certified archaeologist prior to the disturbance of the cemetery site surface. In addition, a covenant in the deed shall restrict any future excavation within 25 feet of the anomalies.
108
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 880
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

2. The applicant shall coordinate with the Meyers family to facilitate excavation of the anomalies to determine if they represent coffins and, if so, to coordinate reburial at a private or public cemetery to be determined by the family. Under this option, preconstruction archaeological testing by a qualified archaeologist is required. The archaeological testing must consist of mechanical excavation of overburden and hand excavation near the anomalies to determine if they represent coffins. The excavation shall occur under the supervision of a certified archaeologist and a Meyers family representative. If the anomalies are demonstrated not to contain coffins, no further work will be required. If coffins are present, the family shall determine the desired deposition. This may include transfer of the undisturbed coffins for reburial or option 3 below. The applicant shall be responsible for the transport of relocating the remains for the family. If desired by the family, the applicant shall also be responsible for funding a family memorial plaque near to the original burial site. In the event the site is not avoided as part of the final development and grading permits, and testing demonstrates that coffins are, in fact, present, the applicant shall implement option 2 or option 3 below:

3. A qualified archaeologist shall develop a formal treatment plan (plan of work including research questions to be answered). The excavation team shall include a qualified osteologist. Excavation may include mechanical excavation of overburden and hand excavation of human skeletal materials. The treatment plan should include an agreement with the Meyers family as to the disposition of any human skeletal remains. A final report shall include formal evaluation and the project catalog and be filed with the City and the San Bernardino Archaeological Information Center. The site record should also be updated. 4-6 If human remains are discovered at any time, the applicant shall follow guidelines addressed in California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. This requires that work in the vicinity must halt and the county coroner must be notified immediately. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner will contact the Native American Heritage Commission. All discoveries require verification and documentation, including a final report.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The Native American Heritage Commission was contacted, and no sacred land was identified on the Project site. (EIR at 5.4-13). However, the Meyer Family Cemetery site has been located using geophysical investigation, and two
graves appear to be present. It is unknown whether the
rectangular areas represent intact graves or removal
excavations. Human skeletal remains are considered
significant under CEQA for potential to yield information new to history, and the Project site requires further
investigation. (Id.). Should those investigations yield CRHR-eligible archaeological materials, any destruction of those resources as a result of Project construction would be 109
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 881
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations a significant impact. Thus, mitigation through
archaeological data recovery as prescribed by Mitigation Measures 4-5 and 4-6 will be incorporated in order to
reduce impacts to less than significant.
d. Cumulative Impacts.

Potential Significant Impact: The EIR evaluated and concluded that the Project could result in cumulative impacts to Cultural Resources.

Facts in Support of the Finding: Future construction projects in the City of San Bernardino are required to undergo environmental review. (EIR at

5.4-14). If there is a potential for significant impacts on cultural or paleontological resources, an investigation would be required to determine the nature and extent of the resources and identify appropriate mitigation measures. (Id.). Neither the Project nor cumulative development in accordance with the City’s General Plan is expected to
result in significant impacts to cultural or paleontological resources, provided site-specific surveys and test and
evaluation excavations are conducted to determine whether the resources are unique archaeological or historical
resources and appropriate mitigation is implemented prior to grading. (Id.). Implementation of the appropriate
mitigation measures would reduce cumulative impacts to a less than significant level.

3. Geology and Soils.
a. Exposure of People or Structures to Potential Adverse Effects.

Potential Significant Impact: The EIR evaluated and concluded that the Project could expose people or structures to potential adverse effects from rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong ground shaking, or seismic-related ground failure such as
liquefaction and settlement.
110
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 882
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Finding: Impacts related to Geology and Soils are discussed in detail at Section 5.5 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that this impact is potentially significant, but can be mitigated to a less than significant level through the implementation of Mitigation Measures 5-1 to 5-3. These mitigation measures are adopted and incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, and will be implemented as specified therein, thereby reducing this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level:
5-1 Prior to recordation of final maps, additional fault studies shall be conducted to the satisfaction of the geotechnical consultant of record on the project and the City Engineer.

These studies shall include:

1. 2.

Trenching across Splay E to locate the splay and gauge its activity in order to determine the required width of setbacks from the splay.

A trench across Splay A in the western part of the site to confirm the location of the splay in that part of the site and to aid in determining the width of required setbacks from the splay.

3. A trench between Splays A and B in the central part of the site. If the geotechnical consultant recommends expanded or modified setbacks from faults based on the findings of such additional studies, then the project will be required to comply with such setbacks, and any lots that would not be developable according to the development standards of the Specific Plan will be eliminated prior to recordation of TTM 15576 or the associated phase of TTM 15576. 5-2 Prior to recordation of final maps, a detailed design-level geotechnical investigation report shall be prepared and submitted with engineering grading plans to further evaluate liquefaction, seismic settlement, lateral spreading, subsidence, collapsible soils, corrosive soils, slope stability including earthquake-induced landslides, and other geotechnical constraints and provide site-specific recommendations to address such conditions, if determined necessary. The geotechnical reports shall be prepared and signed/stamped by a Registered Civil Engineer specializing in geotechnical engineering and a Certified Engineering Geologist. The project will be required to comply with any recommendations that are made in the report of such investigation. 5-3 For each phase of the project, at the completion of grading and before project construction begins, final geotechnical testing for corrosive soils and expansive soils shall be conducted. A final geotechnical report for the relevant phase shall be prepared and signed/stamped by a Registered Civil Engineer specializing in geotechnical engineering and a Certified Engineering Geologist. Such report shall contain recommendations to address corrosive soils and expansive soils, as determined necessary. The project will be required to comply with any recommendations that are made in the report of such investigation.
111
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 883
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Facts in Support of the Finding: Five splays, or lineaments, of the San Andreas Fault have been identified onsite. Four of these splays are within Alquist-Priolo Fault Zones. (EIR 5.5-22). Fault trenching studies onsite found evidence that three lineaments, A, B, and C, are active splays of the fault. The onsite segments of Lineaments A, B, and C are within an Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zone that covers much of the southern
half of the site. The fourth lineament, lineament E, is within a second Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone near the
northwest corner of the site and part of the fifth lineament, lineament D, partially runs through the eastern edge of the Project site, not in an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone. (EIR Figure 5.5-3). Lineaments E and D are not thought to be active fault splays. Setbacks extending 50 feet from each side of the three active lineaments have been designated so that no structures would be built in the setbacks. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 5-1, additional investigation will be conducted to confirm findings in the geotechnical studies prepared for the Project, and trenching on the western part of Lineament A where trenching studies were not done
previously in 1995. In addition, setbacks recommended by the Project geotechnical consultant would be incorporated into the project design; compliance with such
recommendations would be required conditions of approval by the City of San Bernardino.

The San Andreas Fault passes through the Project site, and several other faults in the region could potentially generate strong ground shaking at the site. (EIR at 5.5-23). The intensity of ground shaking used for the purpose of
structural design is derived from the California Building Code (“CBC”), which contains seismic safety requirements for structures that will be adhered to for this Project.

Seismic safety provisions in the CBC are developed with the intent that most structures would remain standing
during and after an earthquake so that occupants would be able to evacuate, although many structures would be
expected to be substantially damaged in a strong
earthquake and would require repairs before they would be habitable again. (Id.).

The potential for liquefaction on most of the Project site is considered to be low due to older alluvial/colluvial soils underlying the bulk of the site, plus the depth of
groundwater, which is thought to be more than 50 feet
below ground surface under most of the site. (Id.) There are 112
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 884
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations two limited areas of the site that are or may be susceptible to liquefaction: the lower parts of the Cable Canyon and Meyers Canyon drainages in the southern part of the site; and an isolated part of the eastern part of the site along the northeast side of the San Andreas Fault, where groundwater was found at 20 feet bgs in two borings. (Id.) The site plan almost entirely avoids placing homes over recent alluvium in the Cable Canyon and Meyers Canyon drainages. The
geotechnical feasibility study for the Project recommends removal of loose or soft earth materials and undocumented fill to a depth of two to five feet below existing grades or two feet below the bottom of proposed footing depths,
whichever is greater. (EIR at 5.5-24). Deeper removals are anticipated in isolated areas of the site, including the areas susceptible to liquefaction. Additionally, the Project site is not within a liquefaction hazard zone identified in the City of San Bernardino’s General Plan. (Id.)
The subsurface soils under most of the site are relatively dense and thus are not expected to be prone to substantial seismic settlement. (Id.) Near-surface soils may be
settlement prone; however, near-surface soils under the sites of homes, roads, and other improvements would be
removed and replaced with compacted fill. Seismic
settlement may pose a hazard where loose soils have been found near the San Andreas Fault. (Id.) However,
development in this area would be limited to nonstructural improvements, and settlement-prone soils may be
overexcavated to limit seismic settlement. In sum,
incorporation of Mitigation Measures 5-1 to 5-3 will reduce impacts from rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong ground shaking, or seismic-related ground failure such as liquefaction and settlement to less than significant levels.

4. Hazards and Hazardous Materials.
a.

Potential Significant Impact:

Risk of Fire.

The EIR evaluated and concluded that the Project could
result in exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to the urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands.

Finding: Impacts related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials are discussed in detail at Section 5.6 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs 113
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 885
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations with the City finding that this impact is potentially significant, because the Project site is in a very high fire hazard zone and could expose structures and/or residents to fire danger. Two lots (Lots 30 and 233) would not have sufficient space for fuel modification. However, this impact can be mitigated to a less than significant level through the implementation of Mitigation Measures 6-1 to 6-7. These mitigation measures are adopted and incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, and will be implemented as specified therein, thereby reducing this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level:
6-1
6-2
The Fire Protection Plan shall be approved by the City of San Bernardino Fire Department (now County Fire) prior to commencement of grading. The Fire Marshal shall have the authority to modify, increase, or reduce the necessary size and location of any of the recommended Fire Management Zones and setbacks, based on a lot-by-lot inspection at time of grading. A minimum of 170 feet of fuel modification plus enhanced structural treatments listed in the Fire Protection Plan are needed to provide a safe buffer between the wildland and the structures.

Prior to introduction of combustible materials on any lot, the developer or builder shall clear all flammable vegetation, including weeds to four inches in height or below (leave enough site. The builder shall maintain each site in this condition until the homeowner takes responsibility and installs irrigation and fire-resistive landscaping as approved by the Homeowners Association. All landscaping must be in compliance with the guidelines in the approved Fire Protection Plan. All manufactured slopes, internal common areas, and open spaces shall comply with the criteria set forth in the Fire Protection Plan and shall not have any vegetation of the type prohibited in this plan (undesirable plant list). 6-3
6-4
The Homeowners Association shall assure that all fuel modification on private lots is in accordance with the requirements in the plan.

An annual inspection of the property for compliance with the approved plan shall be done by the Homeowners Association with a written letter of compliance sent to the San Bernardino Fire Department. Every five years, an approved Wildland Fire Protection consultant funded by the HOA shall inspect the site and a report shall be submitted to the San Bernardino Fire Department.

Onsite Roadway Vegetation
6-5 Vegetation shall be modified and/or cleared, either by the Landscape Maintenance District or the Homeowners Association on each side of any onsite road in accordance with the approved Fire Protection Plan.
114
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 886
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCE Easement
6-6 If the project is built with the Southern California Edison 115 kV transmission lines remaining aboveground, all flammable vegetation within the SCE overhead electric line easement shall be removed, on an ongoing basis, except for that needed for erosion control and soil stability.

Lots 30 and 233
6-7 Development of Lots 30 and 233 shall only occur when the following conditions are met.

No development shall occur without the review and approval of the San Bernardino Fire Chief.
 The onsite fuel modification shall consist of irrigated “Zone A” and “Zone B” that will remain within the Spring Trails property. An irrigated “Zone A” shall be a non-combustible setback zone within the pad area between the residential structure and the wildland urban interface area, traditionally the furthest portion of the pad. “Zone B” shall be a landscaped irrigated zone beyond “Zone A” and terminating at the project boundary, with non-combustible construction which will act as a “heat-sink” from an impending wild fire. “Zone C” shall extend offsite as fuel modification. “Zone C” will be a temporary off-site fuel modification until the adjoining property is, or will be, developed. If this is the scenario, an easement will be required for maintenance of the “Zone C.” If the adjoining property is developed prior to the development of the Spring Trails project, then the off-site fuel modification will not be required for Lots 30 and 233. The total fuel modification distance for lots 30 and 233 will be a minimum of 170 feet.


For Lot 30, Zone A shall have a minimum/maximum distance of 20 feet, Zone B shall have a minimum distance of 88 feet and a maximum distance of 113 feet, and Zone C shall have a minimum distance of 37 feet and a maximum distance of 62 feet (a total of 15,469 square feet).

For lot 233, Zone A shall have a minimum/maximum distance of 20 feet, Zone B shall have a minimum distance of 68 feet and a maximum distance of 112 feet in width, and Zone C shall have a minimum distance of 43 feet and a maximum distance of 80 feet (a total of approximately 20,706 square feet).

Facts in Support of the Finding: The high fire risk associated with the natural features and conditions of the site causes the proposed development to be at a high fire risk and the impacts would be potentially significant. (EIR at 5.6-14). The entire Spring Trails
Project site is in a very high fire hazard severity zone as identified in the California Fire Plan. (EIR at 5.6-10). The City’s General Plan also identifies areas of very high and high fire hazards in the areas immediately adjacent to the 115
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 887
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Project site. Since the Project site has not yet been annexed to the City, the portions of the fire hazard zones that would lie across the Project site and the adjacent 26.4-acre area are not indicated in the General Plan. (Id.) Periodic wildfire is a normal part of the environment in those areas along the front of the San Bernardino and San Gabriel mountains and in the adjacent San Bernardino National Forest, which
surround the northern, western, and eastern portions of the site. (Id.)
A fire risk analysis for the Project was performed (EIR Appendix G), which concluded that due to the steep
terrain, highly flammable chaparral vegetation of the
foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains, and exposure to high-velocity winds, the site has high susceptibility to fire. (EIR at 5.6-10). Construction of the Project would expose future residents and structures to potentially dangerous wildfire(s) from the wildland to the northeast, northwest, and/or the southwest. The northeast exposure is a mix of chaparral and a few larger trees with a topography that is primarily upslope from the structures, with only a small amount level or downslope. This area is at risk for fire mainly when a northeast (Santa Ana) wind passes. The
topography and fuel would otherwise drive fires away from the Project area. (Id.) The southeast exposure also consists of mixed chaparral. However, it has no real northern
aspects to the topography that would increase fuel loading, and also has no wind shelter. (EIR at 5.6-11). Additionally, this area does not tend to have the old-growth, closedcanopy fuel type found in the other areas adjacent to the Project site. Areas within this exposure immediately to the east of the project site that may contain fuels are either in the drainage bottom or would be graded and replanted with appropriate vegetation. Fuels that would remain after
Project development would be mostly in the downstream
drainage of Meyers Canyon and outside of the fuel
modification zones that would be created. (Id.) A northeast wind event would take fire away from the structures in this area. The only potential wind-driven fire in this area that would pose a significant risk would be from a heatgenerated onshore wind. While these winds may prevail in this area, they tend to be less intense and generally higher in moisture content. The southwest exposure runs across a combination of developed and open, undeveloped land.

Fires originating offsite in this area would be fueled by mixed native/nonnative grass and shrublands. The fire
116
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 888
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations would approach the Project site from the southwest and
could spread and intensify if it reached the tree canopies under future conditions if vegetation is not managed. (Id.) Compliance with current City standards for weed
abatement and brush clearance should keep this area safe.

The southwest exposure only presents fire issues during a southwest wind event, which, like the southeast exposure, tends to be less intense and generally higher in moisture content. The northwest exposure is the most significant risk to the Project. During a northeast wind, the Cable Creek drainage and Cable Canyon Creek will channel winds and
fire down to the area below the Project site. (Id.) This drainage is deep and full of native and nonnative vegetation that has survived through all of the recorded fire history because it tends to receive natural irrigation year-round.

However, the vegetation on the sides of the drainage is primarily northern mixed chaparral and Riversidian sage scrub, both of which provide substantial fuel beds. (Id.) In addition to the topography and vegetation of the area, two prevailing wind events common to the area also contribute to the fire risk. The Santa Ana winds and winds produced by the thermal heating in the Mojave Desert would both be channeled by canyons in the area, increasing and
concentrating the effects of these winds. (Id.)
Fire risk factors were modeled to predict possible wildland fire behavior that could occur at the Project site based on characteristic features, including topography, vegetation, and weather. (EIR at 5.6-11). The worst-case scenario is a fire with Santa Ana winds reaching 70 miles per hour and a combination of dead and live fuels that would cause the hottest, fastest-moving fire. (EIR Tables 5.6-1; 5.6-2). The maximum anticipated flame lengths would be
approximately 100.3 feet. (Id.) This type of fire occurs in the fall in chaparral vegetation, with approximately 16 tons per acre, at 6 to 10 feet in depth, producing 8,000 British thermal units per pound (BTU/lb) of fuel. Additionally, under worst-case scenario conditions, fire would spread at a rate of 40 feet per second (27.2 miles per hour), and
spotting distances would reach approximately 1.4 miles. (EIR at 5.6-12).

Fuel Modification Plan: The Project site has a
combination of high risk (number of ignitions), high hazard (intensity of fire), and high value (proposed development), requiring significant mitigation measures in order to reduce 117
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 889
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations fire risk. (Id.) A fuel modification zone would be required to reduce impacts of fire on the Project. Fuel modification areas are designed to gradually reduce fire intensity and flame lengths from advancing fire by placing thinning
zones, restricted vegetation zones, and irrigated zones adjacent to each other on the perimeter of all structures and adjacent open space areas. (Id.) Three fuel modification zones have been established within the fuel modification area:
o Fuel Modification Zone A (flat): Noncombustible
construction This applies to the 20 to 35 feet of the flat area setback zone near noncombustible construction
only. Fuel Modification Zone A should be maintained
by the homeowner or the HOA. At no time should the
Fuel Modification Zone A be less than 20 feet.
o Fuel Modification Zone B (wet zone): 100 percent
removal of undesirable plant species. This applies to
the first 50 to 200 feet from Fuel Modification Zone A.

Fuel Modification Zone B shall be permanently
irrigated; fully landscaped with approved droughttolerant, deep-rooted, moisture-retentive material such as container shrub material; or hydroseeded per a plant list approved by the SBFD. All undesirable plants must
be removed. A complete list of undesirable plant
species is supplied in the Spring Trails Fire Protection Plan. Hand-seeding of bare areas may need to be
performed six months after the hydroseeding
establishment period. Fuel Modification Zone B would
be maintained by the homeowner, HOA, or landscape
maintenance district (LMD) as appropriate.
o Fuel Modification Zone C (dry zone): 50 percent
thinning of native shrubs. The area 40 to 185 feet from a structure would be Fuel Modification Zone C. This
zone would be a non-irrigated area and would require
the removal of all flammable undesirable species as
listed in the Spring Trails Fire Protection Plan.

Specimen trees should be retained as directed by the
owner’s representative but must be thinned a minimum
of 50 percent. This zone also requires the removal of all low-hanging foliage within three times the height of the understory shrubs or 10 feet, whichever is greater,
along with dead or broken branches. All accumulated
plant debris on the ground would be removed. Fuel
118
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 890
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Modification Zone C area should be maintained by the
LMD.
(See EIR Figures 5.6-1; Figure 5.6-2).

Additionally, buildings not on the wildland interface/fuel modification zones would be set back from the adjacent
property lines or any natural area adjacent to the homes by a 25- to 50-foot building setback. This zone would have no combustible construction allowed within it. (EIR at

5.6-13).

Systems Approach: The concept behind this and most
other fuel modification plans is to create a fuel
modification zone in which the fire is systematically
deprived of available fuel to reduce the size of the flame and the amount of heat that would be generated. (Id.) The maximum flame length of 100 feet is achieved at the
junction of the wildland and Fuel Modification Zone C. For this reason, Fuel Modification Zone C is a minimum of 100 feet in width (measured on the flat plane not less than 100 feet regardless of the slope). Fuel Modification Zone C would have 50 percent of the available fuel that was in the wildland. (Id.) It would also have little to no dead materials or fine fuels. This would reduce flame lengths to a
manageable size. When the flame front arrives at the
junction of Fuel Modification Zones B and C, it should be reduced by 50 percent. Fuel Modification Zone B is a
minimum of 50 feet in width and it is irrigated. The
combination of the distance and the heat sink effect of the moist vegetation should keep flames from reaching the Fuel Modification Zone A/B junction. In the event that they do, however, a minimum 20-foot setback zone (Fuel
Modification Zone A) is established with no combustible construction being allowed in this fuel modification zone at any time. Additionally, advanced construction features
would be used to prevent convection or radiant heat from igniting the structure. (Id.) In areas where fuels,
topography, slope, and aspect align, additional depth has been added to the fuel modification zones. This occurs on the upper portions of the project, where vegetation is below the structures, and on the east side of the project, where canyon winds may be channeled and thus intensified. (Id.) The final area for an increased fuel modification zone is on the east side of the project, located on the only cul-de-sac 119
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 891
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations where total alignment can occur. (EIR at 5.6-14; Figures

5.6-1; 5.6-2).

Construction Phasing Management Plan: All vegetation
management would be done on private lots prior to work
beginning on those lots and prior to any combustible
construction materials being brought onsite. (EIR at

5.6-14). Vegetation management in all common areas,
parks, construction sites, medians, planters, roadsides, etc., would be done as required in this plan at the start of the construction phase and continued throughout the Project. (Id.) Adequate fuel breaks acceptable to the San
Bernardino Fire Department would be created around all
grading, materials storage areas, laydown areas, site work, and other construction activities in areas adjacent to the vegetation. (Id.)
Public Education: In addition to the built-in fuel
modification zones and construction techniques, the active participation of the homeowners is necessary to adequately protect Spring Trails. (Id.) Accordingly, the Specific Plan requires the following:
o The fire threat, fuel modification zone requirements, maintenance responsibilities, protection plans, approved plant palette, list of unacceptable plants, preventative measures, and evacuation routes shall be disclosed to
potential homebuyers prior to the sale of any residence and readily available to homeowners upon request. (Id.) The HOA would sponsor annual clinics conducted by fire
professionals to educate residents on the fire threat, fuel modification zone requirements, maintenance
responsibilities, protection plans, landscaping requirements, preventative measures, and evacuation routes. (Id.)
With the implementation of Mitigation Measures 6-1 to
6-7, impacts from wildfire risk will be reduced to less than significant.
b. High Winds.

Potential Significant Impact: The EIR evaluated and concluded that the Project could result in exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving high winds.
120
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 892
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Finding: Impacts related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials are discussed in detail at Section 5.6 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that this impact is potentially significant, because the Project site is in a very high fire hazard zone and could expose structures and/or residents to fire danger. Two lots (Lots 30 and 233) would not have sufficient space for fuel modification. However, this impact can be mitigated to a less than significant level through the implementation of Mitigation Measures 6-8 and 6-9. These mitigation measures are adopted and incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, and will be implemented as specified therein, thereby reducing this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level:
6-8 The development of Spring Trails shall follow development guidelines outlined in the San Bernardino General Plan for high wind areas (Policies 10.10.1 through 10.10.8). The building plans must be approved by the building official. o Policy 10.10.1: Ensure that buildings are constructed and sited to withstand wind hazards.
o Policy 10.10.2: Require that development in the High Wind Hazard Area, as designated in Figure S-8 [of the San Bernardino General Plan], be designed and constructed to withstand extreme wind velocities.
o Policy 10.10.3: Periodically review the structural design requirements for wind in the Building Code to reflect wind conditions and property damage experienced as well as advances to current construction technology.
o Policy 10.10.4: Require that structures be sited to prevent adverse funneling of wind onsite and on adjacent properties.
o Policy 10.10.5: Require that multi-story residential, commercial, and industrial buildings be designed to prevent wind tunnel effects around their base and in passageways.
o Policy 10.10.6: Construct public infrastructure (lighting poles, street lights, bridges, etc.) to withstand extreme wind velocities in High Wind Hazard areas. o Policy 10.10.7: Maintain police, fire, medical, and other pertinent programs to respond to wind-caused emergencies.
o Policy 10.10.8: Initiate a review of the wind hazard potential as it applies to various parts of the City and, if merited, tailor the design standards accordingly. 6-9 Implementation of Mitigation Measure 2-1 (Section 5-2, Air Quality) would reduce construction-related wind-blown dust impacts.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project would construct residential homes in an area exposed to high winds. Although the City of San
Bernardino General Plan has not officially designated the Project site in the High Wind Area because they are not within the City limits, its location falls in line with areas along the foothills that have been designated in this area. (EIR at 5.6-14). Areas exposed to high winds can
121
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 893
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations potentially experience health and safety issues related, but not limited, to air quality, soil erosion, motor-vehicle accidents due to decreased visibility, wind-driven property damage, and exacerbation of fire hazards. (Id.) Projectrelated construction activities, particularly during site preparation such as grading, could potentially expose soils to wind erosion. This creates potential for windblown dust and soil to migrate offsite, adversely affecting adjacent properties during periods of high wind conditions.

Furthermore, windblown dust, particularly during Santa
Ana wind conditions, could reduce visibility along I-215, a heavily traveled highway approximately 0.7 mile southwest of the site, affecting travel and increasing the probability of motor-vehicle accidents. In addition to reduced visibility, high winds could also result in property damage and harm to surrounding residences from wind-driven debris picked up from loose onsite construction materials. (Id.) Winds would not only have the potential to impact the surrounding area during Project development, but also the proposed
residences and land uses onsite. (EIR at 5.6-21). Winds have been measured and have the potential to reach in
excess of 90 to 100 miles per hour. Winds at these speeds could potentially cause damage to the homes and land uses proposed on the Project site. Damage could be caused to roofs, fences, windows, and landscaping. Moreover, high winds are a main contributing factor for the high fire risk hazard in the area. (Id.) Santa Ana wind conditions
significantly increase the fire hazard in the area when combined with the fuels present due to the low moisture content and low relative humidity. (Id.) Implementation of Mitigation Measures 6-8 and 6-9 will reduce impacts
related to high winds to less than significant levels.
c.

Potential Significant Impact:

Hazardous Emissions.

The EIR evaluated and concluded that if the Project is built within the Southern California Edison 115 kV transmission lines remaining aboveground, the lines would potentially expose construction workers and residents to hazards of electric shock and/or electric and magnetic fields.

Finding: Impacts related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials are discussed in detail at Section 5.6 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that this impact is potentially significant, but can be mitigated to a less than significant level through the implementation of Mitigation Measure 6-10. This mitigation measure is adopted and incorporated into the 122
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 894
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, and will be implemented as specified therein, thereby reducing this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level:
6-10 If the project is built with the Southern California Edison 115 kV transmission lines remaining aboveground, the development plans shall be drawn to accommodate SCE safety measures including:
o Operators of construction equipment with overhead lift capability, cranes, backhoes, and similar equipment shall abide by state safety clearances and undergo SCEapproved safety training, as needed, before operating the equipment onsite. o Near residences, a safety strip meeting SCE standards shall be required beside the SCE right-of-way.
o Easements shall be employed as needed to prevent damage to the towers, shield residents from harm, and guarantee SCE maintenance access.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The Preferred Development Plan assumes that the SCE overhead electric lines that traverse the western portion of the site would be located above-ground. (FEIR Figure
3-8). While consideration that the overhead electric lines may be undergrounded in considered in the Alternative
Development Plan, undergrounding the size of SCE lines in question here is not currently feasible. The Preferred plan accommodates the lines above ground as proposed for the site. (FEIR Figure 3-8 and 3-8a). The Preferred
Development Plan for Spring Trails is the same as the
alternative plan in every respect, except for the treatment of the land beneath the aboveground electric lines and the number of residential lots. (Figure 3-8 and 3-8a). In the Preferred Development Plan, underneath the central portion of the electric line easement, the land use is designated as Open Space-Controlled. The northern portion of the electric line easement is designated as residential; however,
development is not permitted within the electric line
easement. (Id.). The SCE easement will be landscaped in accordance with the approved Fire Protection Plan for
Spring Trails. If permitted by SCE, a park and/or
equestrian/pedestrian trail may be located under the electric lines as a permitted use; however, they are not assumed in the design of the Preferred Development Plan. (Id.). The Preferred Development Plan and the Alternative
Development Plan with underground electric lines presents potential hazards related to proximity to future residential uses:
123
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 895
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations o Although SCE makes provision for earthquakes in the
design and construction of overhead transmission lines, extreme seismic shaking and earth rupture on the San
Andreas fault may snap lines or topple towers, resulting in live power to the ground.
o During construction, accidental contact with the towers or wires is possible.
o Resident youths may be tempted to play on or climb the towers.
o Residents may be exposed to electric and magnetic
fields (EMF). (Id.).

These lines would pose both construction and operational risks to workers or residents on the site. Contact with the wires by an elevated excavator arm, raised bucket, or other equipment designed for overhead work would have
potentially fatal consequences. There is also the risk that residents may be tempted to climb on or vandalize the
supporting towers. Though slight, the risk of electrical shock because of such activity does exist. Worker and
residents would also be susceptible to electromagnetic
fields (EMFs) because of the location of the lines on the project site. The SCE easement does not cross into the
adjacent 26.4-acre area. (Id.). The Alternative Project proposes to relocate the 115 kV lines underground prior to site development; therefore, the risks associated with
electrical shock and physical contact with the lines would be eliminated. If the 115kV lines cannot be relocated
underground, then the Project would be built to
accommodate the overhead electric lines, as described
above. (FEIR at 3.3, Figure 3-8 and 3-8a). The concern
with proximity to electric transmission lines is exposure of residents to electric and magnetic fields (EMFs). Since EMF emission is not reduced when transmission lines are undergrounded, this would be a concern in both
development scenarios. (Id.). Over the past 30 years
researchers have studied the potential effects of EMF
exposure both nationally and internationally in an effort to determine whether EMF exposure is carcinogenic. EMFs
are everywhere in modern society, and there is no evidence that living near electric transmission lines is any more detrimental to human health than living in a modern house. (Id.). Notwithstanding, Mitigation Measure 6-10 will be 124
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 896
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations incorporated to ensure that impacts related to the potential presence of overhead electric lines will be less than
significant.

5. Land Use and Planning.
a.

Potential Significant Impact:

Conflict with Habitat Conservation Plan.

The EIR evaluated and concluded that the Project could
conflict with the adopted U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Critical Habitat.

Finding: Impacts related to Land Use and Planning are discussed in detail at Section 5.8 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that this impact is potentially significant but can be mitigated to a less than significant level through the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3-2. This mitigation measure is adopted and incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, and will be implemented as specified therein, thereby reducing this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level:
3-2 To mitigate for impacts to unoccupied critical habitat of the federally endangered San Bernardino kangaroo rat, the project applicant shall acquire offsite permanent mitigation lands of like habitat quality as determined by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) during the Section 7 consultation process. Mitigation lands must be acquired prior to the issuance of grading permits, and shall incorporate appropriate long-term management provisions such as deed restrictions, endowments, and/or other management mechanisms to provide for the long-term conservation of the habitat. Potential properties include, but are not limited to, those managed by San Bernardino County Special Districts located in the Glen Helen, Rialto, and Rancho Cucamonga areas. Mitigation lands shall be acquired at a replacement ratio of 1:1 (one acre replaced for every one acre impacted).

Facts in Support of the Finding: Approximately 3.9 acres of habitat for this federally endangered species would be modified, which conflicts
with the policies of the USFWS-designated critical habitat. (EIR at 5.8-47). No San Bernardino kangaroo rats have
been observed on the Project site, but development of the area must follow the policies of the habitat plan. Portions of the secondary access road alignment at the southern end of the site are located within USFWS-designated critical
habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat (see EIR
Figure 5.3-4). Even though repeated surveys in the area have been negative for the presence of the San Bernardino 125
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 897
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations kangaroo rat, the presence of critical habitat requires consultation with the USFWS under Section 7 of Federal
Endangered Species Act. The USFWS would impose
mitigation to offset these impacts. (EIR at 5.8-47). In anticipation of those agency-imposed requirements, and as discussed previously, Mitigation Measure 3-2 has been
incorporated into the Project to reduce the Project’s impacts in this regard to less than significant levels.

6. Public Services.
a.

Potential Significant Impact:

Fire Protection and Emergency Services.

The EIR evaluated and concluded that development of the Project could result in a substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provisions of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection services.

Finding: Impacts to Public Services are discussed in detail at Section 5.12 of the Draft EIR.

Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that this impact is potentially significant, as the Project will introduce 304 residences (reduced to 215 residences) and about 711 residents into a very high fire hazard severity zone in the San Bernardino County Fire services area, thereby increasing the requirement for fire protection facilities and personnel. However, this impact can be mitigated to a less than significant level through implementation of Mitigation Measure 12-1. This mitigation measure is adopted and incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, and will be implemented as specified therein, thereby reducing this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level:
12-1 Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall participate on a fair-share basis in funding the continued operation and maintenance of the Verdemont Fire Station. A one-time fair-share contribution equivalent to the Community Facilities District Number 1033 “in-lieu fee” established by Resolution Number 2004-107 of the Mayor and Common Council would mitigate the long-term impact of the project on emergency services of the Fire Department. As an alternative, an irrevocable agreement to annex the project site to Community Facilities District Number 1033 would satisfy this obligation.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project would include 304 homes (reduced to 215 units), four parks, and roadways for site and internal access to the roughly 350-acre Project site. The Project is expected to add about 711 residents to the site. (EIR at 5.12-3). 126
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 898
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Therefore, Project development is expected to result in an increase in calls for San Bernardino Fire Department
(“SBFD”) fire and emergency medical services. At Project completion, SBFD response time to emergency calls to the farthest part of the site from the Verdemont Fire Station is expected to be 12 to 13 minutes. This is seven to eight minutes more than the standard SBFD response time of five minutes. After a reduction in staff from four to three
firefighters, staffing at the station was recently restored to four firefighters. The addition of the Spring Trails
development to the area served by the Verdemont Fire
Station may result in increased demand on emergency fire services. (Id.). To offset the additional demand caused by new development projects, the City requires a fair-share contribution from new developments to help fund ongoing operation and maintenance of the Verdemont Fire Station. (EIR at 5.12-4). The response force (three fire engines, one aerial ladder truck, and a chief officer with a minimum of fifteen personnel) needed to effectively combat a structure fire would need to be capable of being assembled at points within the Project site. The third engine and aerial ladder truck to complete an effective response would come from a station farther away: from Fire Station 227 at 282 West 40th Street (6.75 miles from Project entrance) or from
SBCoFD Station 2 in Devore (3.75 miles from project
entrance). San Bernardino County Fire Department Station 2 has daily staffing of three full-time firefighters
supplemented by a company of paid call firefighters as
needed, and is equipped with one type 1 (structure) engine, one type 3 (wildland) engine, and one type 5 patrol vehicle. (Id.). While the San Bernardino County station is
physically closer, additional time and effort would be
required to coordinate with the County, which could delay the response. Either would come with a minimum of three firefighters. The aerial ladder truck, with four firefighters, would come from Fire Station 224 located at 2641 E Street (7.85 miles from Project entrance. (EIR Figure 5.12-1). A fire battalion chief would also be dispatched.

In the event of a major wildfire on or threatening the site, additional firefighting resources would be brought to the area. Other City fire stations would respond as needed. (EIR at 5.12-4). The SBFD has five type 3 (wildland)
engines, which are deployed at Fire Stations 225, 226, 227, 228, and 323. The three closest fire stations to this Project have wildland engines. In addition, there is a county/CAL 127
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 899
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations FIRE station nearby in Lytle Creek (Fire Station 20) and a new county fire station will be built as part of a new
development in the southern Lytle Creek area, south of the Glen Helen Regional Park in Devore. (Id.). The new station is dependent on development in the area and may be
delayed with changes in the housing market. Vegetation
fires result in a multiagency response, which would include CAL FIRE and the USFS. A fire protection/fuel
modification plan has been required for the Project. (EIR Appendix G). The fire plan is designed to reduce the risks related to the high fire potential of the site. Topography, vegetative, weather, and structural components were used to analyze the setting and provide measures for reducing risks. It also meets the fire safety standards of the Foothill Fire Zone Overlay District (FF District) Standards (Chapter

15.10 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code), Building
Safety Enhancement Area Building Standards (Chapter

15.11 Municipal Code), City of San Bernardino
Development Code (Chapter 19.15), and City Fire Code
(Chapter 15.16). The fire protection plan divides the Project site into three zones, Fuel Modification Zone A (flat,
noncombustible construction), Fuel Modification Zone B
(wet zone, 100 percent removal of undesirable plant
species), and Fuel Modification Zone C (dry zone, 50
percent thinning of the native shrubs). (EIR Figures 5.6- 1and 5.6-2). The fire protection plan also includes
vegetation management guidelines, the allowed and
undesirable plant palettes, planting maintenance and
spacing guidelines, a construction management plan,
infrastructure/structural construction features and
requirements, and a compliance matrix to be used by the developer, residents, and the homeowners association of Spring Trails to reduce fire risks. The minimum fire flow required for this project is 1,500 gallons per minute (gpm) at 20 pounds per square inch (psi) pressure for a minimum duration of four hours. Fire hydrants are required at a spacing of no more than 300 feet. (EIR at 5.12-4). Water for fire flow would be provided by expanding and
improving the offsite water system, and by onsite reservoirs and transmission lines. (EIR Figures 3-10 and 3-11). The Project would use infrastructure at pressure zones at
elevations of 2,100 feet, 2,300 feet, 2,500 feet, 2,700 feet, and 3,000 feet. The Project site falls in the 2,300, 2,500, 2,700, and 3,000 zones. Fire-flow storage required for each of the three onsite pressure zones is 360,000 gallons. (EIR at 5.12-7). Project water system improvements would be
128
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 900
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations sized to provide required fire flow in addition to meeting project water demands. Pumping stations would be
designed with 100 percent redundancy in the event that one or more of the pumping units fails, and equipped with
onsite generators that can operate in a blackout or
emergency condition. (Id.). Implementation of Mitigation Measure 12-1 will reduce impacts to fire protection and emergency services to a less than significant level.

7. Traffic and Circulation.
a.

Potential Significant Impact:

Substantial Increase in Traffic.

The EIR evaluated and concluded that development of the Project could cause an increase in traffic which is
substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections).

Finding: Impacts to Traffic and Circulation are discussed in detail at Section 5.8 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that this impact is potentially significant, because the Project would generate 3,149 average daily trips, 247 morning peak hour, and 333 evening peak hour trips to the Project area, thereby contributing to existing and future unacceptable levels of service at the Palm Avenue/I-215 ramps intersections and at the Palm Avenue/Kendall Drive intersection. However, these impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level through implementation of Mitigation Measures 14-1 to 14-4. These mitigation measures are adopted and incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, and will be implemented as specified therein, thereby reducing this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level:
14-1 If at the time combustible materials are placed on the project site the Palm Avenue/Kendall Drive intersection has not been improved, the project shall be responsible for funding and constructing the dual westbound left turn lane intersection improvements at Palm Avenue/ Kendall Drive. All improvements to this intersection must be completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works/Civil Engineering prior to issuance of occupancy permits.
14-2 The easterly (primary) project access road between Little League Drive and the project site shall be constructed and paved to meet the City of San Bernardino Fire Department’s minimum standards prior to placement of combustible materials on the project site. The access road shall be designed and constructed to meet the City of San Bernardino Public Works/Engineering Division’s design standards prior to issuance of occupancy permits. 129
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 901
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Concurrently, the segment of Little League Drive north of Meyers Road shall be improved to Public Works Department design standards.
14-3 The westerly (secondary) project access road shall be constructed and paved to meet the City of San Bernardino Fire Department’s minimum standards prior to placement of combustible materials on the project site. The access road shall be designed and constructed to meet the City of San Bernardino Public Works/Engineering Division’s design standards prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. 14-4 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall prepare a construction traffic plan that shall be approved by the City of San Bernardino Public Works/Engineering Division. The construction traffic plan shall:
 Prohibit project construction traffic from using the Kendall Drive/Palm Avenue intersection during the morning peak hour (7:00 AM and 9:00 AM) and the evening peak hour (4:00 PM and 6:00 PM)
 Establish truck haul routes on the appropriate transportation facilities.  Provide Traffic Control Plans (for detours and temporary road closures) that meet the minimum Caltrans, City, and County criteria.
 Minimize offsite road closures during the peak hours.  Keep all construction-related traffic onsite at all times.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The City of San Bernardino has an acceptable intersection Level of Service (“LOS”) standard of D or better. All area intersections are currently operating at an acceptable LOS. (EIR Table 5.14-2).

Operational Phase: Spring Trails would include the
development of 304 single-family detached houses
(reduced to 215 units), with the final phase of construction to be completed by year 2013. (EIR at 5.14-42). The
analysis in this report quantifies the impacts of 329 singlefamily units, and therefore slightly overstates the actual impact anticipated for the 304-unit (now 215-unit) singlefamily residential development. The traffic generated by Spring Trails would increase the number of trips on local roadways and freeways, thereby worsening the LOS on
these systems. (Id.). The following intersections would operate at unacceptable levels of service during AM and PM peak hours:
130
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 902
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations o I-215 northbound ramps and Palm Avenue;
o I-215 southbound ramps and Palm Avenue;
o Palm Avenue and Kendall Drive
Without roadway improvements, these Project area
intersections would have unacceptable levels of service (E or worse). (EIR at 5.14-43). However, interchange
improvements to the Palm Avenue and I-215 ramps
intersection are included in the SANBAG Nexus Study
funded by the City of San Bernardino Regional Circulation System Fee. (Id.). These improvements would improve the LOS to B during morning peak hour traffic on the
northbound ramp, to D during evening peak hour traffic on the northbound ramp, and to C during both morning and
evening peak hour traffic on southbound ramps.

Development impact fees paid by the Project applicant
would contribute to the Regional Circulation System Fee.

Improvements to the Palm Avenue/Kendall Drive
intersection are not included in a City plan or program. (Id.). If the necessary improvements to this intersection are not in place at the time the Spring Trails Project is
completed, a significant impact would result.

Construction Phase: Construction traffic would contribute to deficiencies at the Palm Avenue/I-215 northbound and southbound ramps intersections during morning and
evening peak hours (7:00 to 9:00 AM and 4:00 to 6:00 PM respectively), resulting in a significant impact. (Id.).

However, implementation of Mitigation Measures 14-1 to
14-4 will reduce impacts to less than significant during both the operational and construction phases of the Project.

8. Utilities and Service Systems.
a.

Potential Significant Impact:

Construction of New Water or Wastewater Treatment Facilities.

The EIR evaluated and concluded that development of the Project would require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects; and would not have
sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, and new and/or
expanded entitlements would be needed.
131
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 903
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Finding: Impacts to Utilities and Service Systems are discussed in detail at Section 5.15 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that this impact is potentially significant, because the Project would use 529 acre-feet of water per year (“AFY”), 79 AFY more than the 2005 Urban Water Management Plan (“UWMP”) projections, thus increasing water demand on the San Bernardino Basin, and requiring the construction of additional water distribution infrastructure, including reservoirs, pump stations, and water mainlines that are not part of a Capital Improvements Plan. Note that water demand and wastewater generation will be less than discussed in this finding based on reducing the size of the project from 307 units to 215 units. However, these impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level through implementation of Mitigation Measure 15-1. This mitigation measure is adopted and incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, and will be implemented as specified therein, thereby reducing this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level:
15-1 Completion of the Phase II Verdemont water delivery infrastructure improvements shall be verified by the SBMWD prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Spring Trails. The offsite improvements as shown in Table 5.15-13, include the east reservoir, east pump station, and east 20-inch transmission main. The project applicant shall contribute fairshare funding for the improvements through development impact fees or through an alternate financial arrangement with the SBMWD. A funding and phasing program for the improvements shall be in-place (e.g., Capital Improvements Program) or negotiated with the project applicant prior to issuance of building permits.

Facts in Support of the Finding: Although the Project site would be designated as Residential Low in the General Plan, water demand for the Project site is based on average density over the entire Project site area (350 acres). Considering the overall Spring Trails development of 304 residential dwelling units on 350 acres of land (note this has been reduced to 215 units at this time), the average parcel size for the entire development is estimated at 0.87 units per acre. (EIR at 5.15-12).

Proposed development plans indicate that individual
parcels would range in size from 10,000 to over 600,000 square feet, averaging 27,337 square feet or 0.62 acres.

Hence, this development would fall under the Residential Estate category with an average water demand of 0.93 gpm per acre. (Id.). Based on a total development of 353 acres, rather than 85 percent buildout under the existing General Plan, the average annual water demand is estimated at 328 gpm, or 529 afy. (EIR Table 5.15-10). The assumptions
made by the City’s General Plan for residential land uses of the Project site were used in determining water demand in the 2005 UWMP. (EIR Table 5.15-8). The UWMP
assumes a demand of 450 afy for the Project site. The
132
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 904
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations projected water demands of the Spring Trails Project are higher by 79 afy (17.5 percent). (EIR Table 5.15-11). The two projected water demands assume that buildout of the site under either the Spring Trails or General Plan
projection would occur at the same time. (EIR at 5.15-13).

Maximum daily demand flows can be used to determine the amount of onsite water storage needed for the Project.

During days of high demand and peak hours, the water
demand for the site would increase. Between average days and high demand days, the gpm rate would increase by a
factor of 1.73, resulting in a total rate of 568 gpm on high demand days. Between high demand days and peak hours,
the gpm rate would increase by a factor of 2, resulting in a peak hour demand rate of 1,136 gpm. (Id.).

Spring Trails would require the construction of new water supply infrastructure. SBMWD has begun planning for
infrastructure expansion in the Verdemont area that would accommodate Spring Trails. This expansion, the
Verdemont infrastructure improvements, would occur in
two phases and is needed to serve the 2,300- foot pressure zone. These improvements were analyzed for
environmental impacts in 2007. A mitigated negative
declaration was approved by the SBMWD Board of Water
Commissioners in April of 2007. Funding for these
improvements was approved by the City, is included in
SBMWD’s Capital Improvements Program, and is
incorporated into the 2009–2010 City budget. (EIR at

5.15-14).

The second phase for the Verdemont infrastructure
improvements would connect the 2,100-foot pressure zone to the 2,300-foot pressure zone and is necessary to bring water supply to the Spring Trails site. These improvements would be required for supplying water and maintaining
appropriate water storage for the Spring Trails project.

Currently, there is no funding planned for these
improvements. (EIR at 5.15-15). In addition to the
proposed Verdemont infrastructure improvements, the
Spring Trails plan includes onsite infrastructure
improvements to be completed by the developer. (EIR
Figure 3-10). The onsite improvements would need to be
constructed and funded by the developer prior to the
development of the site. (EIR at 5.15-15). The pipelines within the development are considered distribution lines for all practical purposes. The pipelines that connect pump 133
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 905
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations stations to the reservoirs would be a minimum of 20 inches in diameter. (Id.). All looping lines would be 12 inches in diameter and other distribution pipelines would be 8 inches in diameter. The Phase I and Phase II improvements would need to be included in the SBMWD Capital Improvements
Plan (CIP) and incorporated into the City’s budget. Phase I improvements were included in the 2009–2010 City
Budget, but the Phase II improvements were not. (Id.).

Funding for the offsite improvements in the CIP would
come from developer impact fees, which would be paid in part (fair share) by the developer. The existing and planned infrastructure would have enough capacity to support the Project. (Id.).

Fire flow for Spring Trails would need to meet a
requirement of 1,500 gpm with a four-hour duration, as
indicated by the San Bernardino Fire Department. SBMWD
would be able to meet this demand once the proposed
infrastructure in the 2,300-foot zone is completed. The same pipelines that would supply the site with domestic water would also be used for fire suppression through
connections with fire hydrants. (EIR at 5.15-16).
2009 was the third consecutive drought year for California, and the impacts were seen through changes to water
allocations of SWP water. (Id.). In April 2011, CDWR
increased water allocations to 80 percent of the requested amounts. SBVMWD, the SWP contractor for the San
Bernardino Valley, is included on this list of contractors and should receive 82,080 acre-feet in 2011, 80 percent of its entitlement. Projected SWP reliability throughout future years is uncertain. (Id.). Ultimate contract amounts total 4.2 million afy, but yearly deliveries are only a fraction of this amount. SBMWD and other water agencies reliant on some
portion of SWP water should reduce their dependence on
this source of water and focus on alternative technologies, conservation efforts, and storage activities to guarantee water supply in the future. The BHG Basin is the most
important source of water for the SBMWD. Approximately

1.5 million acre-feet of groundwater in the basin is
extractable. (Id.). In 2008, the cumulative change in
groundwater storage since 1934 was a negative 354,595
acre-feet. (EIR Table 5.15-2). The last year the basin had a positive cumulative change was 1998 (74,083 afy). The
increasing urban growth in the San Bernardino Valley
would only create a greater demand on the BHG Basin
134
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 906
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations water supply; water levels are most likely to continue
dropping unless greater conservation efforts are enforced. (EIR at 5.15-17).

Spring Trails Specific Plan includes a number of design guidelines and practices that would improve onsite water conservation. (Id.). Some of these guidelines and practices include:
o Required diversion of stormwater runoff into onsite
detention basins to enable recharge;
o Recommended collection of rainwater and
additional stormwater runoff by diverting runoff to
pervious surfaces or bioswales to reduce
unnecessary runoff;
o Required use of high efficiency, xeriscape irrigation systems to reduce the amount of water devoted to
landscaped areas;
o Includes bubbler irrigation and low-angle, low-flow
nozzles on spray heads;
o Required installation of properly programmed
EvapoTranspiration-based controllers on
homeowners’ properties with the appropriate
information for the homeowners;
o Required installation of motion sensors and other
similar irrigation technology to ensure that
landscaping is watered only as needed;
o Required planting of plant species that are drought
tolerant, heat resistant, and hardy;
o Prohibition of the use of large turf areas in
landscaping by substituting water-conserving native
groundcovers or perennial grasses, shrubs, and
trees;
o Recommended construction of trails with pervious
materials such as earth or decomposed granite;
o Required grouping of plants with similar water
requirements together, a technique known as
hydrozoning;
o Recommended mulching of planting beds and apply
compost and environmentally friendly fertilizers to
promote healthy topsoil, maximize plant growth,
reduce plant replacement, and reduce the need for
longer or more frequent irrigation run times.

The following practices are recommended for
buildings:
135
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 907
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations o Required installation of water-efficient faucets
and appliances in residences;
o Required installation of sensor-operated faucets
in nonresidential buildings;
o Recommended use of toilets that use less than

1.6 gallons per flush, waterless urinals in
nonresidential buildings, and faucets and
showerheads that use less than 2.5 gallons per
minute.

The implementation of these practices would help to reduce the amount of water by reducing the water used by each
residence and through controlling water loss in public areas by using water-smart landscaping and reclamation
techniques. (EIR at 5.15-18).

In sum, the required funding by the Applicant of the Phase II Verdemont infrastructure improvements prior to issuance of occupancy permits, as required by Mitigation Measure 15-1, will reduce impacts in this area to less than
significant.

9. Forest Resources.
a.

Potential Significant Impact:

Loss of Forest Land.

The EIR evaluated and concluded that development of the Project would result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use; or involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of forest land to nonforest use.

Finding: Impacts to Forest Resources are discussed in detail at Section 5.17 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that this impact is potentially significant, because the Project would remove 220 native trees, requiring replacement of trees per the City’s tree ordinance.

However, these impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level through implementation of Mitigation Measure 3-13 for Biological Resources, as described above. This mitigation measure is adopted and incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, and will be implemented as specified therein, thereby reducing this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level:

Facts in Support of the Finding: Implementation of the Project would involve the removal of approximately 2,400 trees within the development
136
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 908
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations footprint. Approximately 220 of these are native species and 2,170 are eucalyptus. (EIR at 5.17-5). The areas of Cable Creek, Cable Canyon, and Meyer Creek contain the
majority of native trees and are considered forest land. (EIR Table 5.3-3). However, the Project would be required to comply with the City’s Tree Ordinance, which would
require replacement of any removed native trees. (EIR at

5.17-5). Native species of trees within this affected area would have the potential to be impacted by development
from direct removal of forest resources and indirectly from forest resources removed as a result of fuel modification activities. Areas within Fuel Modification Zone B would require removal of all undesirable plant species, while areas within Zone A would require a 50 percent thinning of
native species. (EIR at 5.17-6). The City’s Tree Ordinance requires that “significant” trees be mitigated. In
determining what constitutes a significant tree, the initial arborist report prepared for the Project determined that healthy, structurally sound native and ornamental trees over 20 feet in height would be considered significant. (Id.).

Approximately 220 trees on the site met these criteria
during the 1998 tree inventory. Thus, the removal of these trees during Project development would be considered a
potentially significant impact and thus subject to the
requirements of the City’s Tree Ordinance. To ensure that removed native trees are adequately replaced and to comply with the City’s Tree Ordinance, impacts to forest resources are considered potentially significant without incorporation of Mitigation Measure 3-13. (Id.).

Eucalyptus trees present a particular problem for this site because they are nonnative and a severe fire hazard. (Id.).

Eucalyptus can also be considered an invasive species.

They were formerly included on List A of invasive species by the California Exotic Pest Plant Council (CalEPPC).

List A of the Exotic Pest Plants of Greatest Ecological Concern in California consists of the most invasive
wildland pest plants, documented as aggressive invaders that displace natives and disrupt natural habitats. The list highlights the nonnative plants that are serious problems in wildlands such as national forests. (Id.). The Project site shares its northern border with the San Bernardino National Forests and the eucalyptus trees are a potential threat to native plant communities in the national forest. The 1999 CalEPPC exotic pest plant list was updated by the
California Invasive Plant Council in 2006, and the status of 137
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 909
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations blue gum eucalyptus changed to “moderate.” The USDA
Forest Service identifies the blue gum eucalyptus as highly flammable and recommends the tree not be planted near
homes and other structures. (Id.). Lastly, Section 12220(g) of the PRC defines “forest land" as land that can support 10 percent native tree cover of any species, including
hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including
timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits. (EIR at

5.17-7). The land where the eucalyptus trees are currently located cannot be identified as forest land because it cannot and has not supported 10 percent native tree cover.

Furthermore, Section 4793(f) of the PRC defines "forest land conservation measures" as measures designed to
protect, maintain, or enhance the forest resource system, including soil and watershed values, diversity of forest species, and protection of a forest stand from fire. (Id.).

These measures include thinning, shaded fuel breaks, and other land treatments or forest resource improvement
projects consistent with PRC Section 4794. Based on these considerations, the removal of the eucalyptus from the
Project site can be considered an overall benefit in
protecting the adjacent native forest stands from fire and in maintaining a diversity of native species; therefore, it is a less than significant impact to forest resources. With
incorporation of Mitigation Measure 3-13, impacts to
native trees will also be less than significant.

C. Impacts Analyzed in the EIR and Determined to be Significant and Unavoidable.

With the implementation of all available and feasible mitigation measures recommended in the EIR, the following adverse impacts of the Project stated below are considered to be significant and unavoidable, based upon information in the EIR and in the administrative record.

These impacts are considered significant and unavoidable despite the imposed mitigation measures, which will reduce impacts to the extent feasible.

1. Air Quality.
a. Conflict With Air Quality Plan-Construction.

Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR concluded that the Project will conflict with or obstruct implementation of the SCAQMD Air Quality
Management Plan (“AQMP”) because construction-related
138
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 910
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations air pollutant emissions would exceed the SCAQMD
regional and local emission thresholds.

Finding: Impacts related to Air Quality are discussed in detail in Section 5.2 of the Draft EIR. Mitigation measures applied for short-term construction activities of the Project would lessen impacts from construction-related air pollutant emissions.

However, based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that this conflict with the SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan is potentially significant and cannot be reduced to a less-than-significant level through implementation of mitigation measures. Accordingly, the potential for the Project to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan remains significant and unavoidable. The following mitigation measures will mitigate impacts to Air Quality to the extent feasible:
2-1 Ongoing during grading and construction, the construction contractor shall implement the following measures in addition to the existing requirements for fugitive dust control under South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403 to further reduce PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. To assure compliance, the City shall verify that these measures have been implemented during normal construction site inspections:
 During all grading activities, the construction contractor shall reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and watering as quickly as possible. This would achieve a minimum control efficiency for PM10 of 5 percent.  During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall sweep streets with Rule 1186–compliant, PM10-efficient vacuum units on a daily basis if silt is carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling.  During active debris removal and grading, the construction contractor shall suspend grading operations when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour. This would achieve an emissions control efficiency of 98 percent for PM10 under worst-case wind conditions.
 During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall maintain a minimum 24-inch freeboard on trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials and tarp materials with a fabric cover or other suitable means. This would achieve a control efficiency for PM10 of 91 percent.  During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall water exposed ground surfaces and disturbed areas a minimum of every three hours on the construction site and a minimum of three times per day. This would achieve an emissions reduction control efficiency for PM10 of 61 percent. 139
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 911
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations  During active debris removal, the construction contractor shall apply water to disturbed soils at the end of each day. This would achieve an emissions control efficiency for PM10 of 10 percent.
 During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall limit onsite vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to no more than 15 miles per hour. This would achieve a control efficiency for PM10 of 57 percent.
 The construction contractor shall apply chemical soil stabilizers to reduce wind erosion. This would achieve a control efficiency of up to 80 percent. 2-2
2-3
During all grading activities, the daily area disturbed shall be limited to a maximum of 35 acres.

Ongoing during grading and construction, the construction contractor shall implement the following measures to further reduce construction exhaust emissions of NOx. To assure compliance, the City shall verify that these measures have been implemented during normal construction site inspections:
 The Project Applicant shall specify in the construction bid that construction contractors are required to use construction equipment rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as having Tier 3 or higher exhaust emission limits for equipment over 50 horsepower. A list of construction equipment by type and model year shall be maintained by the construction contractor onsite.  The construction contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment is properly serviced and maintained to the manufacturer’s standards to reduce operational emissions.
 The construction contractor shall limit nonessential idling of construction equipment to no more than five consecutive minutes.

Facts in Support of the Finding: There are two key indicators of a project’s consistency with an AQMP: 1) Whether the project would result in an
increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of the AAQS or interim emission
reductions in the AQMP; and 2) Whether the project would exceed the assumptions in the AQMP. The AQMP strategy
is, in part, based on projections from local general plans. (EIR at 5.2-12). Long-term emissions from the Project
would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for regional
emissions (EIR Table 5.2-8) and would therefore not
contribute to an increase in frequency or severity of air quality violations and delay attainment of the AAQS or
interim emission reductions in the AQMP. Therefore, the 140
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 912
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Project’s operation-related emissions result in a less than significant air quality impact. Thus, the Project would be consistent with the AQMP under the first indicator with regard to long-term emissions. (Id.). However, with respect to short-term emissions, this Project would not be
consistent with the AQMP under the first indicator, because short-term construction emissions of NO , PM , and PM

2.5 X 10
associated with the project would exceed the SCAQMD
regional and localized significance thresholds, which are the basis for determining if a project would cumulatively contribute to the regional nonattainment designations of the South Coast Air Basin. (See EIR Table 5.2-7). The South Coast Air Basin is designated by the state and EPA as
nonattainment for O3, PM , and PM . 10 2.5 (EIR at 5.2-12).

The Project would be considered consistent with the
AQMP under the second indicator, because the proposed
development under the Spring Trails Specific Plan is
consistent with the City of San Bernardino General Plan, and thus would not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP,
which is based in part, on local general plan projections. (EIR at 5.2-14). However, since both indicators would not be met, both Project and cumulative level impacts are
considered significant and unavoidable, due to the Project’s inconsistency with the AQMP.
b. Cumulatively Considerable Increase of Criteria PollutantConstruction.

Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR concluded that the Project’s construction activities will result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the Project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.

Finding: Impacts related to Air Quality are discussed in detail in Section 5.2 of the Draft EIR. Specifically, the Project will generate short-term emissions that exceed SCAQMD’s regional significance thresholds for NOx, PM , and PM , and 10 2.5 would significantly contribute to the nonattainment designations of the South Coast Air Basin for ozone and particulate matter (PM and PM ). Fugitive dust 10 2.5 mitigation measures applied for short-term construction activities of the Project would lessen impacts from construction-related air pollutant emissions. However, based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that this impact cannot be reduced to a less-than-significant level through implementation of mitigation measures. Accordingly, the potential for the Project to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the Project region is non-attainment remains significant and unavoidable. Mitigation 141
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 913
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Measures 2-1 to 2-3 (listed above) will mitigate Air Quality impacts related to criteria pollutants to the extent feasible.

Facts in Support of the Finding: Construction activities produce combustion emissions from various sources, such as onsite heavy-duty construction vehicles, vehicles hauling materials to and from the site, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew.

Grading activities produce fugitive dust emissions (PM10 and PM2.5) from soil-disturbing activities. (EIR at 5.2-15).

Exhaust emissions from construction activities onsite
would vary daily as construction activity levels change.

Construction activities associated with new development occurring in the Project area would temporarily increase localized PM , PM , VOC, NOx, and CO concentrations 10 2.5 in the Project vicinity and regional emissions within the South Coast Air Basin. (Id.). The primary source of
construction-related CO, SOx, VOC, and NOx emissions is gasoline- and diesel-powered heavy-duty mobile
construction equipment. Primary sources of PM10 and
PM2.5 emissions would be clearing activities, excavation and grading operations, construction vehicle traffic on unpaved ground, and wind blowing over exposed earth
surfaces. In addition, architectural coating operations can also generate substantial VOC emissions. Project-related construction air pollutant emissions would occur from
construction of the Project. Emissions from construction activities were calculated on a daily basis and were
compared to the SCAQMD’s maximum daily regional
emissions thresholds, which revealed that grading activities would result in air pollutant emissions that exceed the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds for NOx, PM10,
and PM2.5. (EIR Table 5.2-7). All other analyzed
pollutants were found to be less than the SCAQMD’s
significance thresholds. The primary source of NOx
emissions would be from construction equipment exhaust
during grading operations. NOx is a precursor to both the formation of O3 and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5).

The primary sources of PM10 and PM2.5 would be fugitive dust during grading and clearing during these operations.

Emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 that exceed the SCAQMD’s
regional significance threshold would significantly
contribute to the particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5)
nonattainment designations of the South Coast Air Basin.

Consequently, emissions of NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 that
exceed the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds
would significantly contribute to the O3 and particulate 142
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 914
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations matter (PM and PM ) nonattainment designations of the 10 2.5 South Coast Air Basin. (EIR at 5.2-15). Both Project and cumulative level impacts would be significant relative to the Project’s consistency with the SCAQMD’s regional
significance thresholds for NOx, PM , and PM , and the 10 2.5 Project’s contribution to the nonattainment designations of the South Coast Air Basin for ozone and particulate matter (PM and PM ). 10 2.5
Mitigation Measures 2-1 and 2-2 would reduce PM10 and
PM2.5 emissions from Project-related construction activities to below the SCAQMD regional thresholds. Similarly,
Mitigation Measure 2-3 would reduce NOx emissions
during construction activities by approximately 31 percent or approximately 149 pounds per day. (EIR at 5.2-30).

However, NOx emissions from Project-related construction activities would continue to exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds. (EIR Table 5.2-13). Consequently, Project and cumulative level impacts would remain significant and
unavoidable.
c. Exposure of Sensitive Receptors-Construction.

Potential Significant Impact: The EIR concluded that the Project’s construction activities will expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Finding: Impacts related to Air Quality are discussed in detail in Section 5.2 of the Draft EIR. Specifically, the Project’s construction activities could expose offsite sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations of PM10 and could expose the existing onsite receptor to substantial pollutant concentrations of both PM10 and PM2.5. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that this impact cannot be reduced to a less-than-significant level through implementation of mitigation measures. Accordingly, the potential for the Project’s construction activities to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations remains significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measures 2-1 to 2- 3 (listed above) will reduce the concentration of air pollutants at nearby sensitive land uses to the extent feasible.

Facts in Support of the Finding: Project emissions would exceed the screening level criteria for LSTs of NOx, PM10 and PM2.5 during Project-related
grading activities. (EIR Table 5.2-9). The maximum
emissions of CO from Project-related construction
activities would not exceed the LST screening level
criterion, and would therefore not result in substantial CO 143
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 915
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations pollutant concentrations at nearby sensitive receptors. (EIR at 5.2-16).

Because emissions of NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 would exceed
the LST screening level criteria for a five-acre site during grading operations, concentrations generated by Projectrelated construction activities during grading were modeled at nearby sensitive receptors surrounding the site. (EIR at

5.2-17). The maximum concentrations for NOx, PM10, and
PM2.5 would occur during the overlap of mass grading and trenching operations. (See EIR Figures 5.2-1 through

5.2-3). The highest concentration of NOx offsite is 120 μg/m3. (EIR Figure 5.2-1). However, the offsite areas that would be exposed to this concentration level do not have any sensitive receptors. (EIR at 5.2-18). This
concentration, when converted to parts per million (ppm), would result in a concentration level of approximately 0.1 ppm. At the highest concentration, construction-related emissions of NOx would not exceed the LST of 0.18 ppm.

Additionally, areas with elevated NOx concentrations
would occur primarily in the southern portion of the Project site and therefore the existing onsite residence would not be exposed to elevated levels of NOx. Therefore, Projectrelated construction activities would not expose off- and onsite sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations of NOx. (Id.).

The concentration of PM2.5 would be below the LSTs at the surrounding offsite receptors, but would exceed the LSTs at the existing onsite receptor. (EIR Figure 5.2-3). In
addition, construction activities would generate substantial concentrations of PM10 at the existing onsite residence and the surrounding offsite receptors. (EIR Figure 5.2-2).

Consequently, the Project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5 during
grading activities, with Project level impacts being
potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures 2-1 through 2-3 would reduce
regional construction emissions and therefore reduce
localized concentrations of air pollutant emissions during construction activities. With the implementation of
mitigation, construction emissions of NOX would be
reduced to below the LST screening level criteria; however, PM10 and PM2.5 would continue to exceed the LST
screening level criteria. (EIR Table 5.2-14).
144
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 916
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Implementation of Mitigation Measures 2-1 and 2-2 would reduce the concentration of PM10 and PM2.5 at the existing sensitive receptors. (EIR Figures 5.2-4 and 5.2-5). The concentration of PM2.5 would fall below the AAQS, and
therefore localized air quality impacts from constructionrelated PM2.5 would be reduced to less than significant. The concentration of PM10 would also be reduced to below the AAQS at the offsite receptors. However, concentrations of PM10 would continue to exceed the AAQS at the existing
onsite receptor. Consequently, even with incorporation of mitigation measures, PM10 generated during grading
activities would continue to exceed the AAQS, and
therefore generate substantial concentrations of air
pollutants at sensitive receptors, resulting in a significant and unavoidable Project-level impact for PM10.
d.

Potential Significant Impact:

Cumulative Impacts-Construction.

The EIR concluded that the Project’s contribution to
cumulative construction-related air quality impacts would be significant.

Finding: Impacts related to Air Quality are discussed in detail in Section 5.2 of the Draft EIR. Specifically, the Project’s contribution to cumulative construction-related air quality impacts would be significant. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that this impact cannot be reduced to a less-than-significant level through implementation of mitigation measures.

Accordingly, the potential for the Project to contribute to cumulative construction-related air quality impacts remains significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measures 2-1 to 2-3 (listed above) will reduce the concentration of air pollutants at nearby sensitive land uses to the extent feasible.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The South Coast Air Basin is in nonattainment for O3 and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). (EIR at 5.2-27).

Construction of cumulative Projects will further degrade the regional and local air quality. Air quality will be temporarily impacted during construction activities.

Mitigation Measures 2-1 to 2-3 would assist in mitigating these cumulative impacts, and can be applied to all similar cumulative projects. However, even with the
implementation of mitigation measures, Project-related
construction emissions would still exceed the SCAQMD
significance thresholds for NOx, PM10 and PM2.5, and
cumulative emissions would result in greater exceedances.

Therefore, the Project’s contribution to cumulative
145
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 917
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations construction-related air quality impacts will remain
significant and unavoidable. (Id.).

2. Noise.
a. Substantial Temporary or Periodic Increase in Ambient Noise.

Significant Unavoidable Impact: The EIR concluded that the Project will cause a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the
Project.

Finding: Impacts related to Noise are discussed in detail in Section 5.10 of the Draft EIR.

Mitigation measures applied for construction activities of the Project would lessen noise impacts. However, based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that construction activities will substantially elevate the ambient noise environment at noise-sensitive uses for a substantial period of time, and cannot be reduced to a less-than-significant level through implementation of mitigation measures. Accordingly, the potential for the Project to cause a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project remains significant and unavoidable. The following mitigation measures will mitigate construction noise impacts to the extent feasible:
10-1 The construction contractor shall properly maintain and tune all construction equipment to minimize noise emissions.
10-2 The construction contractor shall fit all equipment with properly operating mufflers, air intake silencers, and engine shrouds no less effective than as originally equipped by the manufacturer.
10-3 The construction contractor shall locate all stationary noise sources (e.g., generators, compressors, staging areas) as far from offsite residential receptor locations as is feasible.
10-4 Construction activities, including haul trucks and deliveries, shall be limited to between 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM Monday through Saturdays, except on federal holidays. 10-5 The project applicant shall post a sign, clearly visible onsite, with a contact name and telephone number of the project applicant’s authorized representative to respond in the event of a noise complaint.
10-6 The construction contractor shall install temporary sound blankets at least six feet in height along the boundaries of the onsite residence.
146
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 918
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Facts in Support of the Finding: Two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during construction: First, the transport of workers and movement of materials to and from the site could incrementally
increase noise levels along local access roads; and/or shortterm noise impacts could occur during site preparation, grading, and/or physical construction. (EIR at 5.10-30).

Mitigation Measures 10-1 through 10-6 would reduce noise generated by construction activities to the extent feasible.

However, due to the number of soil haul trips that would be required, amount of heavy construction equipment needed, and duration of construction activities, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. (Id.).

The transport of workers and equipment to the construction site would incrementally increase noise levels along site access roadways. Even though there would be a relatively high single-event noise exposure potential with passing trucks, the expected number of workers and trucks is small relative to the background traffic. Truck trips would be spread throughout the workday. (Id.). Therefore, these
impacts are less than significant at noise receptors along the construction routes. However, the number of truck trips associated with soil haul operations would be high, and would increase the number of trucks on the local roadways during construction of the access roads due to amount of soil that would be transported. While truck trips associated with soil haul operations would last for only a three-month period, as shown in the table, soil haul trips would
substantially increase the ambient noise environment along the roadway. (EIR Table 5.10-11). Consequently, truck
trips associated with soil haul operations would result in significant noise impacts for the noise-sensitive uses along the roadway during grading activities. (EIR at 5.10-30).

Onsite project-related construction noise would generate noise levels ranging from 45 dBA Leq to 91 dBA Leq at
the surrounding noise-sensitive receptors and between 73 dBA Leq to 80 dBA Leq at the existing onsite residence. (EIR Table 5.10-12). Average noise levels would be lower than maximum noise levels, and would range from 38 dBA
Leq to 70 dBA Leq at the nearby offsite noise-sensitive receptors and 53 dBA Leq to 60 dBA Leq at the existing
onsite residence. (EIR Table 5.10-13). Roadway-related
construction noise would generate noise levels ranging
from 50 dBA Leq to 88 dBA Leq at the surrounding noisesensitive receptors. (EIR Table 5.10-14). Average noise 147
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 919
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations levels of each construction phase would be lower than
maximum noise levels, and would range from 45 dBA Leq
to 65 dBA Leq at the nearby noise-sensitive receptors.
(EIR Table 5.10-15). Construction activities would elevate ambient noise levels during the daytime at the residences surrounding the Project site and the proposed access
roadways. (EIR at 5.10-35). The City allows for noise
from construction activities, but limits it to the least noisesensitive portions of the day. The Project would comply with the City’s Municipal Code, as specified in Section

8.54.070. Construction activities would not occur in the evening or late-night hours when people are more sensitive to noise. (Id.). While maximum construction-generated
noise would substantially increase the ambient noise
environment, average construction-generated noise levels (i.e., noise levels that would be experienced by noisesensitive receptors the majority of the time) would be much lower. Construction of the offsite portions of the access roads would last approximately three to six months;
however, overall project-related construction activities would take approximately three years to complete. (Id.).

Because of the extended duration of construction activities and intensity of noise produced from heavy construction equipment running continuously, project-related
construction activities would result in significant noise impacts at the surrounding existing residential uses.

3. Traffic.
a. Exceed Level of Service Standard.

Significant Unavoidable Impact: The EIR concluded that the Project will exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency
for designated roads or highways.

Finding: Impacts related to Traffic are discussed in detail in Section 5.14 of the Draft EIR.

Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that Project-related trip generation in combination with existing and proposed cumulative development would result in designated roads and/or highways exceeding the San Bernardino Association of Governments’ Congestion Management Plan (“CMP”) service standards. No funding program is currently available for the proposed Caltrans/SANBAG I-215 and I-15 freeway mainline improvements, and no mitigation measures are available to reduce this impact.

Accordingly, the potential for the Project to exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion 148
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 920
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations management agency for designated roads or highways remains significant and unavoidable.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The traffic analysis for Spring Trails was completed in accordance with the definition of deficiency of the San Bernardino County CMP. (EIR at 5.14-43). For freeway
facilities, the definition of deficiency is based on
maintaining a level of service standard of LOS E or better, except where an existing LOS F is already identified. There are two roadways identified in the CMP that would be
impacted by project traffic:
o I-215 freeway
o I-15 freeway
Four segments of these two freeways are expected to have an LOS of F during morning peak hours with or without the Project in year 2035, and six segments are expected to have an LOS of F during evening peak hours with or without the Project in year 2035. (EIR Table 5.14-5). All of these
segments, except the northbound and southbound segments of I-15 between Sierra Avenue and Glen Helen Parkway,
are included in the Caltrans improvement plans for the
Devore interchange. (EIR at 5.14-43). With improvements, four of these freeway segments would operate at acceptable levels. However, the following freeway segments would
continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS for year 2035 with improvements:
o The I-215 freeway segment between Palm Avenue
and Devore Road (northbound and southbound);
o The I-215 freeway segment between Devore Road
and I-15 (northbound) • The I-15 freeway segment
between Glen Helen Parkway and Sierra Avenue
(northbound and southbound); and
o The I-15 freeway segment between I-215 and Glen
Helen Parkway (northbound) (EIR Table 5.14-8).

Spring Trails would generate traffic that would contribute to the unacceptable levels of service on these freeway
segments. Additionally, mainline improvements to the I-15 and I-215 in the Project area are not included in a fee program at this time. (EIR at 5.14-44). As a result, these impacts are significant and unavoidable, and cannot be
mitigated.
149
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 921
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations b. Cumulative Impacts.

Significant Unavoidable Impact: The EIR concluded that the Project will result in cumulatively significant traffic impacts.

Finding: Impacts related to Traffic are discussed in detail in Section 5.14 of the Draft EIR.

Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that the Project will result in cumulatively significant traffic impacts. No funding program is currently available for the proposed Caltrans/SANBAG I-215 and I-15 freeway mainline improvements which would mitigate this impact, which will remain significant and unavoidable.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project would result in both Project-specific and cumulative potentially significant traffic impacts. (EIR at

5.14-44). The local roadways would experience growth in average daily trips as a result of not only this Project, but other growth in the area. Recommended intersection and
freeway segment improvements would improve cumulative
traffic conditions based upon the East Valley Traffic Model and Project-specific projections. (Id.). However, since some of these improvements are not funded at this time, cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

4. Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
a. Generation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

Significant Unavoidable Impact: The EIR concluded that the Project will generate greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment.

Finding: Impacts related to GHG emissions are discussed in detail in Section 5.16 of the Draft EIR. Mitigation measures applied during both construction and operations of the Project would reduce GHG emissions to the extent feasible. However, based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that Project-related GHG emissions would significantly cumulatively contribute to global climate change in California, and that this impact cannot be reduced to a less-than-significant level through implementation of mitigation measures.

Accordingly, the potential for the Project to generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment remains significant and unavoidable. The following mitigation measures will mitigate impacts from GHG emissions to the extent feasible:
150
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 922
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Construction
16-1 Applicants for new developments in Spring Trails shall submit evidence to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director that the project uses recycled materials for at least 5 percent of construction materials. Recycled materials may include salvaged, reused, and recycled content materials. Recycled and/or salvaged building materials shall be shown on building plans submitted to the City. 16-2
16-3
Applicants for new developments in Spring Trails shall submit evidence to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director that the project uses 20 percent locally manufactured and produced building materials, which are defined as materials manufactured or produced within 500 miles of the project.

Prior to the issuance of building permits, applicants for Spring Trails shall prepare a construction waste management plan to reduce construction debris and material by diverting at least 50 percent of the total of all project-related nonhazardous construction and debris from landfills to recycling or reuse operations (based on the C&D requirements of Section 6-3.602 of the City of Ontario Municipal Code). The construction waste management plan shall identify the amount of construction debris by type that would be generated and the maximum weight of each material type that can feasibly be diverted from landfills.
16-4
16-5
Applicants for new developments in Spring Trails shall submit evidence to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director that the project uses insulation with at least 75 percent recycled content, such as cellulose, newspaper, or recycled cotton.

Applicants for new development proposals in Spring Trails shall require the construction contractor to provide carpooling for workers to and from the work site on days that construction activities require 200 or more workers. These requirements shall be demonstrated to the Development Services Director prior to the issuance of grading permits and shall be noted on the grading plan cover sheet and discussed at all pregrade meetings.

Operation
Energy Efficiency
16-6 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, residential development plans shall be required to demonstrate that the overall project exceeds 2008 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24) for energy efficiency by 15 percent. Design strategies to meet this standard may include maximizing solar orientation for daylighting and passive heating/cooling, installing appropriate shading devices and landscaping, and utilizing natural ventilation. Other techniques include installing insulation (high R value) and radiant heat barriers, compact fluorescent and/or light emitting diode bulbs, low-e window glazing or double-paned windows, energy-efficient appliances (e.g., Energy Star appliances), cool roofs, and cool pavement. 151
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 923
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 16-7 Applicants shall provide all homeowners with information regarding energyefficiency rebate programs offered by utility providers and government agencies.

Water Conservation and Efficiency
16-8 Applicants for new developments in Spring Trails shall submit evidence to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director that all toilets, urinals, sinks, showers, and other water fixtures installed onsite shall be ultra-low-flow water fixtures that exceed the Uniform Plumbing Code. Examples are: 1.28 average gallons per flush high efficiency toilets, 2 gallon per minute (gpm) efficient bathroom faucets,

2.2 gpm efficient kitchen faucets, and 2.2 gpm efficient shower heads. 16-9 Mulch planting beds and apply compost and environmentally friendly fertilizers to promote healthy topsoil, maximize plant growth, and reduce plant replacement in the Spring Trails community parks and landscaping. This also reduces the need for longer or more frequent irrigation run times.

Forest Resources
3-12 Significant tree resources that are removed from the site during project development shall be replaced at a 1:1 ratio or at the exchange ratios specified below. Significant tree resources are defined as any native or nonnative ornamental tree—excluding species of the Eucalyptus genus—that is healthy, structurally sound, and over 20 feet in height. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a certified arborist shall conduct an inventory of all significant trees within the development footprint. This inventory shall be used to determine the number and types of significant trees that will be impacted and the subsequent replacement quantities. The number of replacement trees shall be, at a minimum, 220 trees. Should the aforementioned inventory determine that a greater number of significant trees will be impacted, then that quantity shall be used in determining replacement quantities. The following exchange ratios shall be used: 1) one 36-inch box tree is equivalent to one replacement tree; 2) five 15-gallon trees are equivalent to one replacement tree; 3) ten 5-gallon trees are equivalent to one replacement tree; and 4) fifteen one-gallon trees are equivalent to one replacement tree.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The proposed Project is not a regionally significant project pursuant to SCAG’s Intergovernmental Review criteria and the CEQA Guidelines. The development contemplated by
the Spring Trails Specific Plan would contribute to global climate change through direct emissions of GHG from
onsite area sources, offsite energy production required for onsite activities and water use, and vehicle trips generated by the Project. (EIR at 5.16-10). Construction activities would consume fuel and result in the generation of GHG
emissions. Construction of the Project is anticipated to commence year 2012, until the anticipated completion year 2015. Construction-related GHG emissions would cease
upon completion of the construction phase of individual development projects. Emissions from construction
activities were calculated on an annual basis based on the construction phasing and equipment list provided by the applicant. (EIR Table 3-4). Construction emissions
associated with the Project are amortized based on a
30-year project lifetime and included in the Project’s GHG emissions inventory. (EIR Table 5.16-3). Fossil fuels used by construction equipment would generate GHG emissions.

To reduce these, California has adopted a low carbon fuel standard. The low carbon fuel standard would reduce the carbon content of fuel of both gasoline and diesel fuel, thereby reducing GHG emissions from fuel from
construction equipment by 10 percent. (EIR at 5.16-11).

The standard went into effect in year 2010 and requires transportation fuel sold in California to have a 10 percent reduction in average carbon intensity by year 2020. The compliance path of the 10 percent reduction target would be incremental and would be “back-loaded”—that is, more reductions would be required in the last five years than the first five years. (Id.). Construction activities would
commence after 2010 and would therefore incrementally
benefit from this statewide GHG reduction requirement.

However, due to the scale of the development activities associated with the Project, emissions would be potentially cumulatively significant without implementation of
mitigation measures to reduce carbon emissions. (Id.).
153
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 925
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Approximately 220 native trees within the boundaries of the Project site meet the definition of forest resource. The loss of these forest resources would remove carbon sinks as the forest land is converted to new development associated with the Spring Trails Specific Plan. (Id.). Trees and other vegetation remove CO2 emissions through the
photosynthesis process by uptake of CO2 and emission of oxygen. The current inventory (2002–2004) in California shows forests as a carbon sink of 4.7 MM Tons of CO2e.

However, carbon sequestration has declined since 1990 and BAU for 2020 assumes no net emissions from forest
resources. (Id.). Loss of forest resources to development increases GHG emissions levels as less carbon is
sequestered (i.e., stored as plant material). Additionally, wildfires also contribute to GHG emissions. Removal of
the 220 native trees would result in a loss of forest
resources and therefore a loss of potential carbon
sequestration. These trees are required to be replaced in accordance with the City’s Municipal Code Section

19.28.090. Mitigation Measure 5.3-11 requires that these trees are replaced at a 1:1 ratio (or at the exchange ratios specified in the mitigation measure). Because the trees would be replaced, the carbon sequestration loss from these forest resources is considered nominal and no significant impact would occur; this sector is not included in the GHG emissions inventory. (EIR at 5.6-12).

For the operations phase, the Project’s GHG emissions are separated into emission sources for the applicable GHG
emissions Sectors established by CARB. (Id.).

Transportation Sector emissions are produced from
vehicular travel to and from the Project site. Electricity Sector sources are indirect GHG emissions from the energy (purchased energy and energy from water use) that is
produced offsite. Recycling and Waste Sector includes
emissions associated with waste disposal generated by the Project. (Id.). Area sources (Commercial and Residential Sector emissions sources) are owned or controlled by the project (e.g., natural gas combustion, boilers, and furnaces) and produced onsite. The emissions estimates for the
Project do not take into account the GHG emission
reductions associated with changes to the Building and
Energy Efficiency standards, California Appliance Energy Efficiency regulations, California Renewable Energy
Portfolio standard, California low carbon-content fuel
legislation, changes in the Corporate Average Fuel
154
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 926
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Economy (CAFE) standards (Pavley), and other early
action measures in the Scoping Plan to reduce GHG
emissions. (EIR Table 5.16-4). Hence, the emissions
inventory represents the project’s BAU emission scenario.

The largest source of emissions is from the Transportation Sector. While development patterns can influence travel behavior and travel modes, these emissions are indirect sources of GHG, not directly controlled by applicants for new development in the proposed Spring Trails Specific
Plan. (EIR at 5.6-12). Project-related Electricity Sector emissions (water and purchased energy) represent the
second largest proportion of emissions associated with the project due to the anticipated average square footage of the single-family dwellings units that would be developed on each lot. Average lot size would be approximately 27,337 square feet (0.6 acre), with the largest lot at 13.9 acres and the smallest lot at 10,800 square feet (0.2 acre). (Id.). These two sectors are followed by area sources associated with the Commercial and Residential Sector and Recycling and Waste. These direct sources of emissions can be controlled by new development by ensuring that structures are built efficiently to reduce demand on energy use, that
nonpotable/recycled water is used where available to
reduce demand of potable water use, and that recycling is available onsite to decrease the amount of waste sent to landfills. (Id.).

The Project would generate a net increase of approximately 9,748 MTons of GHG per year or 9.4 MTons per service
population based on a net increase of 1,035 people. (EIR Table 5.16-4). There is currently no threshold adopted by SCAQMD for development projects that defines at which
point GHG emissions generated by a project becomes
significant. However, SCAQMD’s Working Group for a
GHG Significance Threshold has proposed a threshold of
3,000 MTons. Consequently, the total increase in GHG
emissions onsite from the Project is considered to be
substantial in the absence of mitigation. In order to
determine whether GHG emissions associated with the
Project are significant, a consistency analysis with
transportation and nontransportation GHG reduction
strategies was conducted. (EIR at 5.16-13).

Almost half of the increase in GHG emissions due to the Project is from transportation sources. The Project is
inconsistent with several transportation strategies aimed at 155
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 927
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by incorporating
mixed-use or locating within ½ mile of services and transit. (EIR Table 5.16-5). Therefore, the Project’s transportation sources are considered to substantially contribute to GHG emissions in California. The Project’s non-transportation sector GHG emissions would potentially significantly
contribute to the State’s GHG emissions inventory. (EIR Table 5.16-4). Even with implementation of mitigation,
this impact will remain significant and unavoidable.

D. Additional Topics Required by CEQA.

1. Significant Irreversible Environmental Effects.

CEQA mandates that any significant irreversible environmental changes that would be involved in the Project be addressed as part of the EIR process. (CEQA Guidelines 15126(c)).

An impact would fall into this category if: the project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources; the primary and secondary impacts of the project would generally commit future generations to similar uses; the project involves uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental incidents associated with the project; or the proposed consumption of resources is not justified.

In the case of the proposed Project, implementation would involve a long-term irreversible change to the existing environmental conditions, resulting in the following significant irreversible environmental effects:
 Implementation of the Project would include construction activities that would entail the commitment of nonrenewable and/or slowly renewable energy resources, human resources, and natural resources such as lumber and other forest products, sand and gravel, asphalt, steel, copper, lead, other metals, and water.  An increased commitment of social services and public maintenance services (e.g., police, fire, schools, libraries, and sewer and water services) would also be required. The energy and social service commitments would be long-term obligations in view of the low likelihood of returning the land to its original condition once it has been developed.  An increase in Project-related vehicle trips would accompany Project-related population growth. Over the long term, emissions associated with such vehicle trips would continue to contribute to the South Coast Air Basin’s nonattainment designation for ozone (O3) and particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10).
 Project-generated vehicle trips would increase emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) to levels that are above the California Air Resource Board thresholds for both buildout year 2013 and future year 2030. Vehicle-related GHG emissions would cause significant and unavoidable impacts.
156
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 928
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations The Commission concurs with the preceding findings regarding Significant Irreversible Environmental Effects.

2. Growth Inducing Impacts.

CEQA requires a discussion of ways in which a project could be growth-inducing. The CEQA Guidelines, specifically Section 15126.2(d), identify a project as growth-inducing if it fosters economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing either directly (such as by proposing new homes and businesses, or indirectly (such as through extension of roads or other infrastructure) in the surrounding environment. Impacts related to growth inducement would also be realized if a project provides infrastructure or service capacity which accommodates growth beyond the levels currently permitted by local or regional plans and policies. In general, growth induced by a project is considered a significant impact if it directly or indirectly affects the ability of agencies to provide needed public services, or if it can be demonstrated that the potential growth significantly affects the environment in some other way.

The Spring Trails Project would be built in an area that presently does not have any public infrastructure such as water and wastewater pipelines; onsite roads; or electrical, natural gas, or telecommunication utilities. The 304-unit residential development plan (now reduced to 215 units) would require the expansion of these public infrastructure services. The surrounding community of Devore has limited infrastructure to support the expansion of these services. For example, the water and wastewater infrastructure must be expanded in the community of Devore before it can be expanded to the Spring Trails site. Roadway improvements, electrical service, natural gas service, and telecommunication systems must be expanded in the area connecting the project to existing development as well.

The expansion of onsite infrastructure for Spring Trails would not itself induce growth in the area, since it would be used solely by residences in Spring Trails, but the expansion of infrastructure in the community of Devore may cause indirect growth, such as on the 26.4-acre County area adjacent to the Project site. Additional development in Devore could be supported by the expansion of infrastructure in this area, allowing for development that would not otherwise be supported. The expansion of infrastructure in Devore is being completed to serve the Spring Trails development and other development in the area, so the Project is not the sole reason for the expansion. However, the approval of the Spring Trails development would guarantee the completion of all required infrastructure improvements in the surrounding area and on the Project site, since these expansions are necessary for project operation.

The public services that would serve the Spring Trails Project, including police, fire protection, school, and library services, would require varying degrees of expansion. The San Bernardino County Fire Protection District (County Fire) would service the site during a fire emergency. The nearest fire station (232) would increase its staffing levels from three to four to service the site. Any expansion of police services would be financed through the law enforcement developer fees charged to the Project applicant. According to the San Bernardino Police Department, the Spring Trails Project would cause a slight increase in police service calls. 157
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 929
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations The Project is anticipated to generate 101 elementary school students, 52 middle school students and 59 high school students, based upon the estimated population growth resulting from the additional residential units. (FEIR at pg. 3-22). The Project will be required to pay school impact fees to the San Bernardino City Unified School District pursuant to Education Code Section 17620 and Government Code Section 65995 to offset the additional students entering the District. Payment of fees to a school district, under Senate Bill 50, is considered full mitigation for a project’s impacts on public schools. (DEIR at 5.12-12). Furthermore, the nearest high school (Cajon High School) and the nearest middle school to the Project (Cesar Chavez Middle School) have more than sufficient additional capacity for any new students generated by the Project. It should be noted that the nearest high school (North Verdemont Elementary School) has capacity for an additional 82 students. (DEIR at 5.12-11).

The Project will also be required to pay additional fees for library services. The Project will add an estimated 711 persons upon full build-out. (FEIR at3-23). A library system is considered adequate if the system can provide two volumes per persons. Because the library system is well established, with the additional population anticipated from the Project, the library would only be required to add an additional 26 items to remain adequate. The City’s Library Facilities Fee of $596.63 per residential unit is sufficient to supply the additional items and maintain a less than significant impact on libraries (DEIR at 5.12-13).

The fees that are required to be paid as part of the Project are sufficient to meet Project demands and any additional impacts that are placed on services, including the services of fire, police, library, and school facilities. The fees would be applied to all existing and future development in the area and thus benefit not just the Project, but the overall community through expanded and increased services. The increase in services for the area may encourage other development in the area and act as an inducement to future growth.

Spring Trails includes residential development that would provide housing for employees of the San Bernardino area. The City of San Bernardino is considered to be jobs-rich, with a projected jobs-to-housing balance of 2.00 in 2035 (without project). Jobs in the City of San Bernardino are expected to grow from 81,115 jobs in 2000 to 157,088 jobs in 2035. With the proposed Project, the jobs-to-housing balance would be 1.99 in 2035. This would create a more balanced jobs-to-housing ratio. The Project would not create a need for additional housing, nor would it create a demand for jobs.

The approval of Spring Trails would require the approval of discretionary actions that may set precedents for future projects with similar characteristics. Spring Trails would require approval of: A General Plan Amendment (GPA–02-09) to approve the annexation of the site and change the site’s land use designation; a Development Code Amendment (DCA 12-10) to recognize the Spring Trails Specific Plan as a Special Purpose District; a Specific Plan (SP 10- 01); a Tentative Tract Map (TTM 15576); and a Development Agreement with the City. The approval of these actions changes the existing restrictions on growth set by the general plan and zoning laws, which may encourage growth of a similar manner in the areas surrounding Spring Trails or other undeveloped areas near or in the City of San Bernardino. 158
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 930
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations If additional development were allowed in the vicinity of the project, it would cause additional environmental impacts. However, future projects would need to complete environmental review, and discretionary approval would need to be given to projects following review by the Common Council. Spring Trails would not change the existing protocol for project approval, and would not provide precedents or make it more likely for other projects to gain approval of similar applications.

Based on the foregoing, the Project should not result in unforeseen nor unmitigable growth-inducing impacts. The Commission concurs with the preceding findings regarding Growth Inducing Impacts.

E. Project Alternatives.

Section 21100 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15126 of the State CEQA Guidelines require an EIR to identify and discuss a No Project/No Development Alternative as well as a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed Project that would feasibly attain most of the basic Project objectives, and would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant environmental impacts.
“CEQA recognizes that in determining whether and how a project should be approved, a public agency has an obligation to balance a variety of public objectives, including economic, environmental, and social factors and in particular the goal of providing a decent home and satisfying living environment for every Californian” (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15021(d)).

The EIR analyzed the following four (4) alternatives to the Project as proposed, and evaluated these alternatives for their ability to meet the Project’s objectives as described in Section II.D above. The No Project alternative is presented consistent with the requirements of the CEQA Guidelines §15126.6. The remaining alternatives were selected based on their ability to fulfill the basic Project Objectives and their capability for reducing significant impacts of the proposal. Alternatives selected for evaluation are described below.

1. No Project/No Development Alternative.

For the purposes of the DEIR Alternatives Analysis, the No Project Alternative is considered to be equivalent to a “No Build” scenario. That is, if the Project or some similar development proposal is not implemented on the subject site, there are no other known or probable scenarios for the subject property, in which case the site would likely remain in its current state for the foreseeable future, and no discretionary approvals would be required.

The No Project/No Development Alternative would preserve the existing physical conditions of the Project site. It assumes there would be no development of any type nor would development occur under existing land use designation parameters. This alternative would preserve the site for open space and would preclude the development of the site under the City or County General Plan land use designations. The low-density residential development and Spring Trails Specific Plan would not be implemented, and supporting infrastructure (i.e., roads and 159
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 931
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations utility infrastructure) would not be built. With this alternative, the site would remain open for future land use proposals.

The No Project/No Development Alternative would avoid impacts related to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards (wind, hazardous materials), hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, public services, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems. Compared to the proposed Project, impacts would be similar for mineral resources. It would not reduce impacts to hazards directly related to fire since the site would remain undeveloped. The groves of eucalyptus trees represent a high fire hazard for the site. This project would not extend water improvements to the project site that would benefit firefighting for the site and also benefit surrounding residences.

Overall, this alternative would reduce environmental impacts relative to the proposed Project and would reduce the following significant impacts of the proposed Project to less than significant:
 Air Quality (construction-related pollutant emissions)  Greenhouse Gas Emissions (traffic-related greenhouse gas emissions)  Noise (construction-related noise near sensitive receptors)  Transportation and Traffic (project’s contribution to CMP freeway segment unacceptable level of service)
The No Project/No Development Alternative would not achieve the Project Objective of developing the Site as envisioned by the City’s 2005 General Plan (Objective 1). The site is designated for residential development and is included in the City’s General Plan Housing Element. The City has a limited base of available high-quality, low density residential development based upon a review of the MLS listings for the City as well as under General Plan designation areas for low density residential development. Such high-quality, low density housing is desirable to attract and retain top quality candidates for positions at the University and other institutions. According to the City of San Bernardino Housing Element Adopted June 20, 2011, approximately one-third of the City’s housing stock is between 30 and 49 years old, with an additional 35.3 percent over 50 years old. (Pages 3-25 and 3-26). Only 2,720 housing units were constructed between the years of 2000-2005, during the height of the housing boom. (Housing Element Adopted June 20, 2011, Table H-12). The household composition of the City shows that 82% of the City’s households are moderate to very-low income, while only 18% are above moderate income. (Id. Chart 4, pg. 3-17). There are few other proposed single-family residential developments within the City at this time and thus the proposed Project will fill a residential need within the City as is envisioned within the City’s General Plan. Such a need is identified generally in Housing Element policy 3.1.1, which states: “Provide adequate sites to accommodate the production of a variety of housing types through land use designation, zoning, specific plans, and overlay districts.” The Verdemont Heights Area Plan, found on page 2-75 of the General Plan Land Use Element and in which this Project site is located, further discusses strategy to meet the Housing Element policy 3.1.1, identifying in strategy 4 on page 2-83 to “Promote the development of higher end housing.”
Nor would the alternative provide any of the amenities of the proposed Project, and thus would not be able to meet Objectives 2, 3, 4 and 5. Housing Element policy 3.1.1 further 160
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 932
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations encourages the development of a variety of housing, including high-quality, low-density housing, stating: “Provide adequate sites to accommodate the production of a variety of housing types through land use designation, zoning, specific plans, and overlay districts.” City does not have a large variety of high-quality, low-density housing and the proposed project would provide additional variety as anticipated in the Housing Element Policy 3.1.1. The Verdemont Heights Area Plan, found on page 2-75 of the General Plan Land Use Element and in which this Project site is located, further discusses strategy to meet the Housing Element policy 3.1.1, identifying in strategy 4 on page 2-83 to “Promote the development of higher end housing.” In addition, the site in its current state does not provide access for community recreational uses and does not provide access to hiking or equestrian trails, despite its proximity to the San Bernardino National Forest. The Proposed Project provides additional recreational opportunities for the community, such as public and private parks, equestrian trails, and hiking trails.

Project Objectives 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8 would be met under the No Project/No Development Alternative. Although the No Project/No Development Alternative would not include the construction of roadways, it would not interfere with the existing roadway system in the area and would essentially meet Objective 2 because it would not interfere with the surrounding community. The No Project/No Development Alternative would be consistent with land use policies of the surrounding San Bernardino National Forest (Objective 5). Since the Project site would be undeveloped, it would not be required to meet land use development policies of the SBNF, and it would be consistent with SBNF land use plans. Since the No Project/No Development Alternative precludes development of the site, it would not create a development footprint and would maintain open space, allowing it to meet Objective 6. Objective 7 would also be met, because the No Project/No Development Alternative would avoid all significant environmental impacts of construction and long-term improvements of the proposed Project.

Finding: Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that the No Project/No Development Alternative would not fully meet the basic Project Objectives. Accordingly, the Commission concurs with the City rejection of the No Project/No Development Alternative.

2. No Project/Existing County General Plan Alternative.

Under the No Project/Existing County General Plan Alternative, the Project site would not be annexed to the City of San Bernardino, and it would be developed in accordance with the land use designations and related overlay constraints included in the County of San Bernardino General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The general plan (2007) designates the southern portion of the project site (approximately 190.6 acres) as Residential Estate (RL-5), with a minimum lot size of five acres, and the northern portion (approximately 160 acres) as private unincorporated land in the San Bernardino National Forest.

Site grading and home construction would be limited to the RL-5 portion of the site (the approximately 190.6-acre southern half). With a minimum lot size of five acres, a maximum of 38 homes could be developed, resulting in a gross density of 0.20 units/acres for the 190.6 acres. 161
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 933
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Earthwork would be substantially reduced for this alternative. Only a portion of each five-acre lot for each residential unit developed under the County General Plan would be graded. The size of the graded area would depend on the individual house size and amount of driveway/access road needed to serve the house.

This alternative assumes that primary access would be provided from the existing Meyers Road, and secondary or emergency access could be provided by Martin Ranch Road. The development of new roads would not be required to provide access to the 38 homes.

Development would most likely be concentrated within the area of fewest constraints, primarily the area characterized with slopes less than 15 percent.

The No Project/Existing County General Plan Alternative would comply with County development restrictions, including zoning overlay areas for Fire Safety, Geological Hazards, and Open Space. According to the San Bernardino County Hazards Overlay Map, the southern portion of the project site is within Fire Safety Area 3 (FS3), which covers areas generally south of FS1 (the northern portion of the site, which is within the San Bernardino National Forest) and areas within the wildland-urban interface. As outlined in Section 82.13.030, “Fire Safety Areas,” of the San Bernardino County Municipal Code, FS1 includes areas in the mountains and valley foothills. It includes all the land generally within the San Bernardino National Forest boundary and is characterized by areas with moderate and steep terrain and moderate to heavy fuel loading, contributing to high fire hazard conditions. FS3 includes lands just to the south of the mountain FS1 area. These lands are primarily within the wildland-urban interface of the Valley Region and consist of varying terrain, from relatively flat to steeply sloping hillside areas. Development in FS3 is prone to wildfire primarily because of its proximity to FS1 zones. FS3 areas are also subject to Santa Ana wind conditions that have the potential to dramatically spread wildland fires. The Geological Hazards Overlay Zone map also shows the site in landslide and earthquake fault zones.

The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would reduce impacts related to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards, hydrology and water quality, noise, public services, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems (solid waste and wastewater). Compared to the proposed Project, impacts would be similar, although slightly reduced, for land use and planning, mineral resources, and population and housing. Utility and service impacts directly related to populationbased demand factors (water supply, solid waste generation, and wastewater generation) would be substantially reduced for this alternative in comparison to the proposed Project. The infrastructure to serve the project site under the No Project/Existing County General Plan Alternative would not be guaranteed, however, as the City would not have jurisdiction over the site. The 38 units under this alternative, however, would be unlikely able to amortize the major infrastructure upgrades—particularly for domestic water delivery and storage—that would be required to adequately provide water and fire flow requirements to the Project. (DEIR 7.5.18, page 7-17).

Similarly, it would not provide the benefit to other area residents associated with these improvements under the proposed Project. Overall, this alternative would reduce environmental 162
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 934
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations impacts relative to the proposed Project and would reduce the following significant impacts of the proposed Project to less than significant:
 Air Quality (construction-related pollutant emissions)  Greenhouse Gas Emissions (traffic-related greenhouse gas emissions)  Transportation and Traffic (project’s contribution to CMP freeway segment unacceptable level of service)
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative, the City could not ensure that the Project would achieve Objective 1 as it would have no control or oversight over the development of the lots. The Project site is located within the City’s sphere of influence and is designated in the City’s 2005 General Plan as Residential Estates that entail lots of 1 acre per residence. If the site is constructed under the County General Plan, it would not be annexed to the City and would be consistent with the County land use designation consisting of 5-acre residential lots. A Specific Plan would not be required for the build-out of the 38 lots and therefore the design criteria and guidelines included in the Specific Plan setting forth strict guidelines to ensure “high quality design” (Specific Plan, page 4-1) would not be implemented as part of the Project. Nor would the landscaping, sidewalk and other criteria that are implemented as part of the Specific Plan to “integrate areas of development with open space areas in a manner that provides a natural transition between the two elements” (Id.) be required under the County Code.

The Proposed Project includes 304 lots (now reduced to 215 lots) that will average one acre per lot throughout the development by clustering the lots and ensuring substantial open space is preserved. The extent to which the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative could achieve Objectives Nos. 2, 3 and 4 would be largely dependent on the potential financial return on 38 homes and the ability to fund amenities (including hiking, equestrian, and bicycles trails) and required infrastructure to assure a high-quality development. The additional requirements for parks found within the City’s Code would not be required, and hiking, equestrian and bicycle trails would not be required under the County’s General Plan and thus may not be considered as part of the overall development.

The cost to construct Project access roadways, site grading, and infrastructure and building construction would be partially financed through or balanced by the property sales on the Project site. It is uncertain whether Objective 8 could be achieved and a reasonable return on investment achieved. Since the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would have fewer residential units, the total construction and operation costs may not be offset by the property sales, and this Project Objective would not be met. The inclusion of fewer amenities would offset some of the cost for roadways, water, sewer, fire control and other required improvements for the Project, but would lessen the benefit of the Project to the surrounding community.

Furthermore, the City would not benefit from the development through the collection of Development Impact Fees, Library Fees, and infrastructure improvements that would be paid under the proposed Project. Instead, the County would be the recipient of any such fees and the beneficiary of any property tax increases resulting from the improvements. It is also unlikely that Objective 2 could be achieved under the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative, because the description and analysis above assumed that this alternative would be served by existing Project-area access roads. Access via Meyers Road is opposed by the surrounding 163
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 935
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations community, and would be perceived as not preserving the integrity of the Verdemont community.

Project objective Nos. 4 through 7 could be achieved under the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative. Development would be avoided in the San Bernardino National Forest and increase the buffer between forest-owned land and developed areas relative to the proposed Project. It would maximize open space and would be designed to respect natural conditions, including wildland fires, flooding, and seismic hazards (Objectives 5 and 6). Constructionrelated measures to mitigate noise and air quality impacts as well as long-term operational mitigation measures of the proposed Project could be assumed to also apply to this alternative, thereby achieving Project Objective No. 7.

Finding: Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would not fully meet the basic Project Objectives. The Commission concurs with the City and therefore rejects the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative.

3. Alternative Site Plan.

A conceptual Alternative Site Plan was developed to evaluate the potential to modify the proposed Project to minimize or eliminate the significant impacts of the project (constructionrelated air quality and noise impacts). Since this alternative also reduces the number of housing units, it was also intended to reduce long-term operational, significant unavoidable greenhouse gas emission (GHG) impacts. The approach taken to reduce these impacts was to prepare a concept that would reduce the size of the area graded and the corresponding volume of earthwork. Based on the opportunity to reduce the development footprint, another objective of this alternative was to minimize other environmental impacts to the extent possible.

This conceptual site design would have a total onsite development footprint of 137.6 acres (123.8 graded acres and 13.8 acres of fuel modification area), a reduction of 43 percent from the proposed Project’s onsite development area of 241.5 acres. Assuming the same development density as the proposed Project (1.27 du/ac), this alternative would yield 175 single-family homes. This results in a slightly greater percentage of a 46% overall reduction in the number of houses.

Onsite circulation would remain essentially the same, with the exception of some road adjustments on the western portion of the site and the removal of one of two roads that connect the northern quarter of the site with the reservoir tank. Project access would remain the same as with the proposed project. The primary access road would enter the site on the southeast as an extension of Verdemont Drive, and the secondary access road would enter the site from the southwest and connect to the frontage road along I-215.

The Alternative Site Plan would reduce, but not eliminate the short-term air quality and noise impacts. It would have similar greenhouse gas emission impacts as the proposed Project, and would be inconsistent with the transportation strategies of reducing VMT. Cultural Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, and 164
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 936
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Population and Housing impacts would also be similar. All other impacts (aesthetics, biological resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, utilities and service systems, and forest resources) would be lessened in comparison to the proposed Project.

The Alternative Site Plan has the potential to attain most of the proposed Project’s objectives, but would not fully realize the anticipated development of infrastructure and highquality housing needs of the City.

The 43% reduction in the number of units and reduction in overall project scope would impact the ability to achieve Project objectives 2, 3 and 8 as the overall construction of infrastructure and payment of fees would also be reduced by the same approximate percentage.

The current project design includes an approximate 30% reduction of units due to further evaluation of fault hazards on the site. From the economic standpoint of the City, the proposed Project, as opposed to the alternative, will pay substantial fees that will benefit the City, including Development Impact Fees, School Fees, Library Fees permitting fees, public services fees, and related development fees that provide additional benefit both to the community by increasing the funding and services available, but also to the City. For example, the Project will be required to pay additional fees to support police services in the amount of $183,506.18 and to pay library fees in the amount of $181,375.52, The Project provides additional property taxes that will also contribute to public services. These fees are outlined in the findings and further identified in the EIR. The Project will also provide the opportunity for construction jobs in the community for a substantial period of time, depending on how quickly the proposed Project is built out.

The 43% reduction in units also makes it infeasible from the developer’s standpoint to create an attractive, viable project and realize a reasonable return on investment as stated in Objective 8. The developer has indicated that the 30% reduction in the number of units can result in a sustainable project over the long-term. Although the overall fees that will be paid to the City will be reduced, the Project still requires substantial infrastructure costs in terms of utilities, fire suppression, and roadways, in addition to the amenities included in the overall Specific Plan.

Under this Alternative, the cost per residence increases substantially with the reduction in the overall number of units, resulting in a 37% increase in cost per unit to construct while the potential sale price for each unit would remain steady. With fewer units, the cost to provide and construct infrastructure in addition to the proposed residential units would not be balanced by project revenues. The Project as proposed includes major infrastructure improvements, including the construction of two offsite access roads, extension of domestic water service and three water reservoirs, and extension of sewer service to the site. These infrastructure improvements are necessary in order to implement and adequately manage the wildfire managements plan and buffer areas, as well as to service the proposed residential units under both this Alternative as well as the proposed Project. Both the proposed Project and the Alternative Site Plan would also include and require costly mitigation programs, including a comprehensive tree replacement program. These costs are not reduced proportionately with the reduction of the number of units as the infrastructure is still necessary for the remaining development. The financial viability of this alternative is infeasible considering these costs. 165
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 937
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Finding: Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that the Alternative Site Plan Alternative would not fully meet the basic Project Objectives. The Commission concurs with the City and therefore rejects the Alternative Site Plan Alternative.

4. Reduced Daily Grading Alternative.

The Reduced Daily Grading Alternative was defined and evaluated for its potential to reduce air quality impacts. The air quality impacts of the proposed project pertain to the emission of NOX from construction activities at a local and regional level. The primary source of NOX emissions is vehicle emissions, particularly heavy construction equipment. The Reduced Daily Grading Alternative assumes that both the number of acres graded per day and the number of construction vehicles onsite per day would be reduced by 75 percent. This would make the grading phase approximately four times as long as would be under the proposed Project.

The Reduced Daily Grading Alternative would grade the project site over a period of 12 months rather than 3 months. The 12-month schedule would likely be extended even more due to rainy season interruptions. All of the listed equipment would be reduced from eight to two, with the exception of the water trucks. Site development after grading would be the same as the proposed Project, and other project characteristics would be the same. The total number of units built would be 304 (now reduced to 215 units), and site access and circulation would be the same as under the proposed Project.

The Reduced Daily Grading Alternative would substantially reduce construction-related air quality impacts. Daily NOX emissions would be reduced from 740 to 181 pounds per day, but would still exceed the significance threshold of 100 pounds per day. Impacts to noise and traffic during construction would be worsened by the Reduced Daily Grading Alternative because of the extended construction period. Hydrology and water quality impacts would also be worse, because sediment runoff would increase during the longer construction period. Other construction-related impacts would be similar to the proposed Project, and long-term operational impacts would be the same as for the proposed Project.

The Reduced Daily Grading Alternative would implement the same proposed site plan and Specific Plan as the proposed Project, and would attain most the proposed Project objectives.

Extending the construction grading activities over a year, however, could jeopardize the economic viability of the Project and a reasonable return on investment for both the City and the developer (Objective 8). This Alternative would require a greater dedication of the City’s resources to verify permit requirements for a longer period of time. The payment of development fees would also be extended as such fees would only be required as certain stages of development would be met. Furthermore, the number of jobs for construction workers would decrease. From the developer’s standpoint, the length of time necessary to complete the grading would greatly exceed any cost savings as well as limit the number of jobs created as a result of the project build-out as the grading schedule, equipment mix, and workers included in the proposed Project description are based on typical construction activities. The extended schedule would likely result in costly inefficiencies. Under the mitigation requirements for the Project, 166
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 938
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations timing of grading and construction affects the potential biological impacts resulting from the project, as is identified in the EIR.

Where construction schedules must be drawn out, other phases must be delayed and the potential for repeated studies and other requirements increases. This increases costs to both the City and the developer as greater resources from both will be required, makes effective construction phasing and planning difficult, and the extended construction period would also limit the Project’s ability to minimize environmental impacts associated with construction of improvements (Objective 7).

Finding: Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that the Reduced Daily Grading Alternative would not fully meet the basic Project Objectives. The Commission concurs with the City and therefore rejects the Reduced Daily Grading Alternative.

5. Environmentally Superior Alternative.

Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires the identification of the environmentally superior alternative. The No Project/No Development and the No Project/Existing General Plan alternatives would be the environmentally superior alternatives of the Project alternatives evaluated. The elimination or substantial reduction of units developed and natural area disturbed would reduce environmental impacts. Neither of these alternatives would result in any significant, unavoidable impacts.

The State CEQA Guidelines also require the identification of another environmentally superior alternative if the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative. Of the remaining project alternatives, Alternative 3 – Alternative Site Plan Alternative is considered environmentally superior. The Commission concurs with this finding and given the reduction in total units to 215 units, the project that can be developed, if LAFCO 3188A is approved, would be consistent with this finding.

The Alternative Site Plan Alternative would eliminate 129 lots and reduce site development by 43%. This would, in turn, reduce each of the significant, unavoidable impacts identified for the project as proposed, including short-term, construction-related air quality and noise impacts and long-term greenhouse gas emission impacts. The overall reduction of the development footprint and anticipated reduction in earthwork quantities would reduce, but not eliminate the significant air quality and noise impacts. Although it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 43 percent, it would still emit a substantial amount of greenhouse gases and would have similar impacts. The Alternative Site Plan would be able to meet the majority of the project objectives. The Alternative Site Plan would also reduce a number of impacts, but not all, that were identified as potentially significant in this DEIR but have been reduced to less than significant. Specifically, the Alternative Site Plan would reduce aesthetic, biological, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, utilities, and forest resource impacts. However, the Alternative Site Plan Alternative is not financially feasible based upon the additional burden placed upon the Project to develop infrastructure, including water and sewer capacity, to provide protective 167
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 939
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations measures, water towers, buffer zones and infrastructure for wildfire protection, and the implementation of recreational and trail uses. The cost per residence increases substantially with the reduction in the overall number of units, resulting in a 37% increase in cost per unit to construct while the potential sale price for each unit would remain steady. With fewer units, the cost to provide and construct infrastructure in addition to the proposed residential units would not be balanced by project revenues. These features benefit the community as a whole and provide protection from fire, floods and landslides to existing residents. They add substantial cost to the project that the Alternative Site Plan Alternative does not support economically.

F. Statement of Overriding Considerations.

The San Bernardino County Local Agency Formation Commission adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations with respect to the significant unavoidable impacts associated with adoption of the Project as addressed in the EIR, specifically:
1)
2)
3)
4)
Air Quality;
Noise;
Traffic and Transportation; and
Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

This section of the findings specifically addresses the requirement of Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, which requires the lead agency to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable significant impacts, and to determine whether the impacts are acceptably overridden by the Project benefits. If the Commission finds that the previously stated major project benefits outweigh the unavoidable significant adverse environmental impacts noted above, the Commission may, nonetheless, approve the Project. Each of the separate benefits are hereby determined to be, in itself, and independent of other Project benefits, basis for overriding all unavoidable environmental impacts identified in the EIR and these findings.

The City’s findings, concurred in by the Commission, set forth in the preceding sections identified all of the adverse environmental impacts and feasible mitigation measures which can reduce impacts to less than significant levels where feasible, or to the lowest feasible levels where significant impacts remain. The findings have also analyzed three alternatives to determine whether there are reasonable or feasible alternatives to the proposed action, or whether they might reduce or eliminate the significant adverse impacts of the Project. The EIR presents evidence that implementing the development of the Project will cause significant adverse impacts which cannot be substantially mitigated to non-significant levels. These significant impacts have been outlined above, and the Commission makes the following finding:

Finding: Having considered the unavoidable adverse impacts of the Project, the Commission hereby determines that all feasible mitigation has been adopted to reduce or avoid the potentially significant impacts identified in the EIR, and that no additional feasible mitigation is available to further reduce significant impacts.

Further, the Commission finds that economic, social and other considerations of the Project related to provision of housing outweigh the unavoidable adverse impacts described above. The reason for accepting these remaining unmitigated 168
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 940
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations impacts are described below. In making this finding, the Commission has balanced the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable environmental impacts, and has indicated its willingness to accept those effects.

The Commission further finds that the Project’s benefits are substantial and override each unavoidable impact of the Project. These benefits include substantial infrastructure that the Project will directly and indirectly, through funding mechanisms, provide. These benefits include the following, which are laid out in greater detail in the findings:
 The water supply system for the area will be augmented to provide water to the new residents, but will also provide improved service to those existing residents in the area currently on City water.
 Three onsite reservoirs will be constructed to provide better service and fire protection to the area.
 Offsite improvements to the water supply system include a series of pump stations and transmission lines within the Verdemont community.
 Improved fuel modification zones will provide protection to both the proposed community as well as to the existing structures in the area.  Project would be required to pay development impacts fees for law enforcement, schools, library, fire, traffic and other related fees that will supplement the City’s funds and provide the necessary public services to the Project.  Traffic improvements, including dual left turn lanes at the intersection of Palm Avenue and Kendall Drive.

In particular, the Project scope includes substantial infrastructure improvements for water storage and delivery systems that will not only serve the Project itself, but also benefit the larger community. The additional water storage and delivery systems will provide for more effective wildfire controls for existing residents as well as the proposed Project given the additional safety and setback measures that are incorporated into the Project. The water infrastructure will also provide a source potable water for existing residents as well as a water source for firefighting personnel in the event of a wildfire. The Project components related to fire hazards and safety, including construction, buffer zones, and other features will also provide additional benefits to those residents already located in the area as a means of preventing the spread of any wildfires through the area.

Storm drainage improvements will also provide additional benefits related to the existing flood and erosion conditions prevalent in the area. The area and existing residents have faced historical issues with flooding, landslides and wildfires which will be substantially improved with the implementation of the proposed Project. Funding mechanisms and impact fees that will be generated as part of the project will assist in roadway improvements and as well general fund contributions through property tax that can assist in funding necessary police, fire and safety services for the area.

From an economic standpoint, the project will pay substantial fees that will benefit the City, including Development Impact Fees, School Fees, Library Fees permitting fees, public services fees, and related development fees that provide additional benefit both to the community 169
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 941
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations by increasing the funding and services available, but also to the City. For example, the Project will be required to pay additional fees to support police services in the amount of $183,506.18 and to pay library fees in the amount of $181,375.52, The Project provides additional property taxes that will also contribute to public services. These fees are outlined in the findings and further identified in the EIR. The Project will also provide the opportunity for construction jobs in the community for a substantial period of time, depending on how quickly the proposed Project is built out. The Project provides additional social benefits to the community and City as well. The Project will dedicate more than 245 acres of permanent open space, including natural open space, controlled open space and parks, on site. The parks that are proposed as part of the Project will include shade structures, tot lots, gardens, observation points, and other related features and offer opportunities for the community that are not currently present in the area. The Project also provides an interconnected trail system that would include community trails for bicycle and pedestrian use, equestrian trails, and hiking trails. These proposed trails would substantially increase the recreational opportunities currently available in the City.

Furthermore, the City has a limited base of available high-quality, low density residential development based upon a review of the MLS listings for the City as well as under General Plan designation areas for low density residential development. Such high-quality, low density housing is desirable to attract and retain top quality candidates for positions at the University and other institutions. According to the City of San Bernardino Housing Element Adopted June 20, 2011, approximately one-third of the City’s housing stock is between 30 and 49 years old, with an additional 35.3 percent over 50 years old. (Pages 3-25 and 3-26). Only 2,720 housing units were constructed between the years of 2000-2005, during the height of the housing boom. (Housing Element Adopted June 20, 2011, Table H-12). The household composition of the City shows that 82% of the City’s households are moderate to very-low income, while only 18% are above Moderate income. (Id. Chart 4, pg. 3-17). There are few other proposed developments within the City at this time and thus the proposed Project will fill a residential need within the City as is envisioned within the City’s General Plan. Such a need is identified generally in Housing Element policy 3.1.1, which states: “Provide adequate sites to accommodate the production of a variety of housing types through land use designation, zoning, specific plans, and overlay districts.” The Verdemont Heights Area Plan, found on page 2-75 of the General Plan Land Use Element and in which this Project site is located, further discusses strategy to meet the Housing Element policy 3.1.1, identifying in strategy 4 on page 2-83 to “Promote the development of higher end housing.”
Additional benefits are as follows:

1. Findings Related to Traffic and Transportation Impacts. a. Increased Traffic.

There are two roadways identified in the CMP that would be impacted by Project traffic:

I-215 freeway and I-15 freeway. Four segments of these two freeways are expected to have an LOS of F during morning peak hours with or without the project in year 2035, and six segments are expected to have an LOS of F during evening peak hours with or without the Project in year 2035. All of these segments, except the northbound and southbound segments of I-15 between 170
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 942
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Sierra Avenue and Glen Helen Parkway, are included in the Caltrans improvement plans for the Devore interchange.

With improvements, two of these freeway segments would operate at acceptable levels.

However, six freeway segments would continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS for year 2035:
 The I-215 freeway segment between Palm Avenue and Devore Road (northbound and southbound)
 The I-215 freeway segment between Devore Road and I-15 (northbound)  The I-15 freeway segment between Glen Helen Parkway and Sierra Avenue (northbound and southbound).
 The I-15 freeway segment between I-215 and Glen Helen Parkway (northbound).

Spring Trails would generate traffic that would contribute to the unacceptable levels of service on these freeway segments. Additionally, mainline improvements to the I-15 and I-215 in the Project area are not included in a fee program at this time. There are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce the significant impacts, which will remain significant and unavoidable.

However, benefits obtained from the Project are sufficient to justify approval of the Project.

These impacts are overridden by the Project benefits described in Section II.D of this document, as well as the local and regional benefits that will be realized under the Development Agreement, described in Section II.B of this document. The Commission concurs with the preceding findings.
b. Cumulative Impacts.

Development of the Project will contribute incrementally to Traffic and Transportation impacts that are cumulatively considerable, significant, and unavoidable when considered within the context of traffic that will be generated by other known or probable developments, as discussed above. This is a cumulatively considerable impact that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. However, benefits obtained from the Project are sufficient to justify approval of the Project, and these impacts are overridden by Project benefits described in Sections II.B and II.D of this document. The Commission concurs with the preceding finding.

2. Findings Related to Air Quality Impacts.
a. Construction Emissions.

The Project is not consistent with the applicable air quality management plan because construction-related air pollutant emissions would exceed the SCAQMD’s regional and localized emission thresholds. Mitigation measures used to control construction and operational emissions would reduce Project and cumulative level impacts, but they would remain significant and unavoidable.

Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would generate short-term emissions that exceed SCAQMD’S regional significance thresholds for NOx, PM , and PM , 10 2.5 171
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 943
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations and would significantly contribute to the nonattainment designations of the South Coast Air Basin for ozone and particulate matter (PM and PM ). Construction activities associated with 10 2.5 grading operations could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations of PM10 at the existing onsite residence and the surrounding offsite residences. Mitigation measures would reduce the Project’s construction-related impacts, but the project- and cumulative-level impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

However, benefits obtained from the Project are sufficient to justify approval of the Project, and these impacts are overridden by Project benefits described in Sections II.B and II.D of this document. The Commission concurs with the preceding finding. b. Cumulative Impacts.

The South Coast Air Basin is in nonattainment for O3 and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). Construction of cumulative projects will further degrade the regional and local air quality. Air quality will be temporarily impacted during construction activities. Even with the implementation of mitigation measures, Project-related construction emissions would still exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds for NOx, PM10 and PM2.5, and cumulative emissions would result in greater exceedances. These are cumulatively considerable air quality impacts which cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. However, benefits obtained from the Project are sufficient to justify approval of the Project, and these impacts are overridden by the Project benefits described in Sections II.B and II.D of this document. The Commission concurs with the preceding finding.

3. Findings Related to Noise Impacts.

Project-related construction activities would result in temporary noise increases at the existing onsite residence and surrounding noise-sensitive receptors due to the length of the construction period, that is, approximately three years. Mitigation would reduce the Project’s impact on local sensitive receptors, but this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

However, benefits obtained from the Project are sufficient to justify approval of the Project, and these impacts are overridden by the Project benefits described in Sections II.B and II.D of this document. The Commission concurs with the preceding finding.

4. Findings Related to Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

Project-related construction activities would generate 5,660 metric tons (MTon) of CO2e and operational activity would generate about 9,559 MTons of CO2e. Mitigation measures would reduce GHG emissions from construction activities, area sources, energy use, and waste and recycling activities to levels that are less than significant; however, the vehicle GHG emissions would not be reduced to less-than-significant levels, and Project-generated vehicle emissions of GHG would create significant and unavoidable impacts. However, benefits obtained from the Project are sufficient to justify approval of the Project, and these impacts are overridden by the Project benefits described in Sections II.B and II.D of this document. The Commission concurs with the preceding finding.
172
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 944
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations California Public Resource Code 21002 provides: “In the event specific economic, social and other conditions make infeasible such Project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects can be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof.” Section 21002.1(c) provides: “In the event that economic, social, or other conditions make it infeasible to mitigate one or more significant effects of a project on the environment, the project may nonetheless be approved or carried out at the discretion of a public agency…” Finally, California Administrative Code, Title 4, 15093 (a) states: “If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered ‘acceptable.’”
The Project benefits include substantial infrastructure that the Project will directly and indirectly, through funding mechanisms, provide. In particular, the Project scope includes substantial infrastructure improvements for water storage and delivery systems that will not only serve the Project itself, but also benefit the larger community. The additional water storage and delivery systems will provide for more effective wildfire controls for existing residents as well as the proposed Project given the additional safety and setback measures that are incorporated into the Project. The water infrastructure will also provide a source potable water for existing residents as well as a water source for firefighting personnel in the event of a wildfire. The Project components related to fire hazards and safety, including construction, buffer zones, and other features will also provide additional benefits to those residents already located in the area as a means of preventing the spread of any wildfires through the area.

Storm drainage improvements will also provide additional benefits related to the existing flood and erosion conditions prevalent in the area. The area and existing residents have face historical issues with flooding, landslides and wildfires which will be substantially improved with the implementation of the proposed Project. Funding mechanisms and impact fees that will be generated as part of the project will assist in roadway improvements and as well general fund contributions through property tax that can assist in funding necessary police, fire and safety services for the area.

The proposed Project will also provide additional recreational sources for the community, creating hiking, equestrian and biking trails throughout the site and connecting an area that currently does not offer such sources of recreation to the residents of the City.

Furthermore, a base of high-quality low-density residential development is important for the ability of the City’s institutions to hire and retain top quality candidates for positions at the University and other institutions. There are few other proposed developments within the City at this time and thus the proposed Project will fill a residential need within the City as is envisioned within the City’s General Plan.

In addition to the safety, recreational, social and housing features that the project will provide, the Project will offer employment during the construction phases and provide revenue from the additional property taxes that the Project will generate. The Project will be required to pay additional fees to support police services in the amount of $183,506.18, pay schools fees, pay library fees in the amount of $181,375.52, improvement existing roadways and provide additional access points that otherwise may not occur, as well as pay other City development 173
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 945
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations fees. The payment of fees and additional services benefit both the Project and the surrounding community.

As the CEQA Responsible Agency for the proposed Project, the Commission has reviewed the Project description and the Project alternatives as presented in the EIR, and fully understands the Project and Project alternatives proposed for development. Further, the Commission finds that all potential adverse environmental impacts and all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the impacts from the Project have been identified in the Draft EIR, the Final EIR and public testimony. The Commission also finds that a reasonable range of alternatives was considered in the EIR and this document, Section IV.E above, and finds that approval of LAFCO 3188A is appropriate.

The City has identified economic and social benefits, important policy objectives and local and regional benefits that will result from approval of the Development Agreement, as discussed in Sections II.B and II.D above, which result from implementing the Project. The Commission concurs with this finding. The Commission has balanced these substantial social and economic benefits against the unavoidable significant adverse effects of the Project. The Commission finds that the substantial social and economic benefits that will result from the Project override the unavoidable environmental effects of the Project.

V. APPROVING THE PROJECT
Based on the entire record before the San Bernardino County Local Agency Formation Commission, including the Findings and all written and evidence presented, the Commission hereby approves LAFCO 3188A with the finding that the City will implement all the mitigation measures and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

VI. REGARDING STAFF DIRECTION
A Notice of Determination shall be filed with the Clerk of the County of San Bernardino Board within five (5) working days of final Project approval.

VII. REGARDING CONTENTS AND CUSTODIAN OF RECORD
The documents and materials that constitute the record for the Commission’s actions related to the Complete FEIR are located at the Local Agency Formation Commission for San Bernardino County, 1170 West 3rd Street, Unit 150, San Bernardino, California 92415-0490.

The custodian for these records is the San Bernardino County LAFCO. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6. 174
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Packet Page. 946

ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS RELATED TO
THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO’S APPROVAL OF THE

SPRING TRAILS SPECIFIC PLAN
 Notice of Determination
 Spring Trials Specific Plan Resolution
 Spring Trials Specific Plan Ordinance
 Spring Trials Specific Plan Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations  Spring Trials Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring Program  Spring Trials Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report  Spring Trials Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report o Appendix A - Initial Study and Notice of Preparation
o Appendix B - Comments on the Initial Study and Notice of Preparation o Appendix C - Air Quality Modeling Result
o Appendix D1 - Arborist Report (Integrated Urban Forestry 1998) o Appendix D2 - General Biological Assessment (MBA 2007) o Appendix D3 - Least Bell’s Vireo & Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Focused Survey (MBA 2007) o Appendix D4 - Updated Arborist Report (MBA 2007)
o Appendix D5 - Habitat Assessment Report (MBA 2008)
o Appendix D6 - General Biological Resources Assessment Update (NRA 2004) o Appendix D7 - Jurisdictional Delineation for the Access Roads (PBS&J 2011) o Appendix D8 - Jurisdictional Delineation for the Project Site (PBS&J 2009) o Appendix D9 - San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Survey Report (PBS&J 2009) o Appendix D10 - Rare Plant Survey Report
o Appendix D11 - Biological Resources Review (PBS&J 2009) o Appendix D12 - Biological Resources Assessment (compiled) (PBS&J 2011) o Appendix D13 - Biological Resources Assessment (PCR 1999) o Appendix D14 - San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Survey Report (SCD 2002) o Appendix D15 - Biological Report Update (WLB 2002)
o Appendix D16 - Coastal California Gnatcatcher Survey (WLB 2002) o Appendix D17 - Biological Report for the Access Roads (WLB 2002) o Appendix E - Archaeological and Paleontological Resources Assessment o Appendix F1 - Geotechnical Report (Kleinfelder 2000)
o Appendix F2 - Seismic Design Parameters (Leighton and Associates 2009) o Appendix G - Spring Trails Fire Protection Plan
o Appendix H1 - Precise Fuel Modification – Sheet 1 (on CD only) o Appendix H2 - Precise Fuel Modification – Sheet 2 (on CD only) o Appendix I1 - Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan o Appendix I2 - Hydrologic and Water Quality Report
o Appendix J - Noise Monitoring Results
o Appendix K - Traffic Impact Analysis
o Appendix L - Sewer Capacity Study
Packet Page. 947
Draft Resolution No. 3291
Attachment 4
Packet Page. 948

LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION

FOR SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
1170 West Third Street, Unit 150, San Bernardino, CA 92415-0490 (909) 388-0480  Fax (909) 388-0481
[email protected]
www.sbclafco.org
PROPOSAL NO.: LAFCO 3188A
HEARING DATE: OCTOBER 16, 2019
RESOLUTION NO. 3291

A RESOLUTION OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO MAKING DETERMINATIONS ON LAFCO 3188A -

REORGANIZATION TO INCLUDE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND TO THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT ZONE FP-5 SAN BERNARDINO, AND DETACHMENT FROM COUNTY SERVICE AREA 70 (SPRING TRAILS SPECIFIC PLAN). The reorganization area encompasses approximately 350 acres, which is generally located north of the Verdemont neighborhood, east of the community of Devore and northeasterly of the I-215 Freeway. The area is bordered by parcel lines on the north and east, a combination of parcel lines and the centerline of West Meyers Road (existing City of San Bernardino boundary) on the south, and parcel lines (portion of existing City of San Bernardino boundary) on the west, within the City of San Bernardino’s existing sphere of influence.

On motion of Commissioner _______, duly seconded by Commissioner _____, and carried, the Local Agency Formation Commission adopts the following resolution:

WHEREAS, an application for the proposed reorganization in San Bernardino County was filed with the Executive Officer of this Local Agency Formation Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the Commission”) in accordance with the Cortese-KnoxHertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Government Code Sections 56000 et seq.), and the Executive Officer has examined the application and executed his certificate in accordance with law, determining and certifying that the filings are sufficient; and,
WHEREAS, at the times and in the form and manner provided by law, the Executive Officer has given notice of the public hearing by the Commission on this matter; and, WHEREAS, the Executive Officer has reviewed available information and prepared a report including his recommendations thereon, the filings and report and related information having been presented to and considered by this Commission; and, 1 Packet Page. 949
RESOLUTION NO. 3291
WHEREAS, the public hearing by this Commission was originally called for August 21, 2019 and continued to October 16, 2019 at the time and place specified in the notice of public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, at the hearing, this Commission heard and received all oral and written support and/or opposition; the Commission considered all plans and proposed changes of organization, objections and evidence which were made, presented, or filed; it received evidence as to whether the territory is inhabited or uninhabited, improved or unimproved; and all persons present were given an opportunity to hear and be heard in respect to any matter relating to the application, in evidence presented at the hearing.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Commission does hereby determine, find, resolve, and order as follows:

DETERMINATIONS:

SECTION 1. The proposal is approved subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter specified:

CONDITIONS:

Condition No. 1. The boundaries of this change of organization are approved as set forth in Exhibits “A” and “A-1” attached.

Condition No. 2. The following distinctive short-form designation shall be used throughout this proceeding: LAFCO 3188A.

Condition No. 3. All previously authorized charges, fees, assessments, and/or taxes currently in effect by the City of San Bernardino (annexing agency) shall be assumed by the annexing territory in the same manner as provided in the original authorization pursuant to Government Code Section 56886(t).

Condition No. 4. The City of San Bernardino shall be required to initiate annexation of the totally-surrounded island within one year of the Commission’s approval of LAFCO 3188A (a copy of which is attached as Exhibit B). A resolution by the City Council of the City of San Bernardino shall be submitted to the Executive Officer of LAFCO outlining the City’s commitment to fulfilling this requirement prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Completion for LAFCO 3188A. A status report shall be provided to the Commission at the six month date outlining the progress of the City of San Bernardino in fulfilling its obligation.

Failure on the part of the City of San Bernardino to fulfill its commitment to annex the totallysurrounded island shall require that the next annexation proposed to the City of San Bernardino, either by the City through resolution or by property owner/registered voter petition, include a condition requiring the initiation of annexation of the totally-surrounded island. Said condition of approval shall be deemed completed upon the issuance of the Certificate of Filing for said island.

Condition No. 5. The City of San Bernardino shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the Local Agency Formation Commission for San Bernardino County from any legal expense, legal action, or judgment arising out of the Commission’s approval of this proposal, including any reimbursement of legal fees and costs incurred by the Commission. 2 Packet Page. 950
RESOLUTION NO. 3291
Condition No. 6. Pursuant to Government Code Section 56886.1, public utilities, as defined in Section 216 of the Public Utilities Code, have ninety (90) days following the recording of the Certificate of Completion to make the necessary changes to impacted utility customer accounts.

Condition No. 7. The date of issuance of the Certification of Completion shall be the effective date of the reorganization.

SECTION 2. The Commission determines that approval of LAFCO 3188A will create an unincorporated island completely surrounded by the City of San Bernardino. Since the inclusion of the island area would likely terminate the annexation proposal due to the number of registered voters within said island, the Commission determines, pursuant to the provision of Government Code Section 56375(m), to waive the restrictions on the creation of a totally-surrounded island contained within Government Code Section 56744 because it would be detrimental to the orderly development of the community, and it further determines that the area to be surrounded by the City of San Bernardino cannot reasonably be annexed to another city or incorporated as a new city.

SECTION 3. The Commission determines that:
a)
b)
c)
this proposal is certified to be legally uninhabited;
it has 100 % landowner consent; and,
no written opposition to a waiver of protest proceedings has been submitted by any subject agency.

Therefore, the Commission does hereby waive the protest proceedings for this action as permitted by Government Code Section 56662(d).

SECTION 4. DETERMINATIONS. The following determinations are required to be provided by Commission policy and Government Code Section 56668:

1. 2.

The reorganization area is legally uninhabited containing four (4) registered voters as certified by the Registrar of Voters as of July 22, 2019.

The County Assessor’s Office has determined that the total assessed valuation of land within the reorganization area is $1,978,576 as of August 9, 2019, broken down as: $1,876,890 (land) and $101,686 (improvements).

3. 4.

The reorganization area is within the sphere of influence assigned the City of San Bernardino.

Legal notice of the Commission’s consideration of the proposal has been provided through publication in the The Sun, a newspaper of general circulation within the area. As required by State law, individual notification was provided to affected and interested agencies, County departments, and those individuals and agencies having requested such notice.

5. In compliance with the requirements of Government Code Section 56157 and Commission policies, LAFCO staff has provided individual notice to:
3 Packet Page. 951
RESOLUTION NO. 3291


landowners (2) and registered voters (4) within the reorganization area (totaling 6 notices); and,
landowners (84) and registered voters (96) surrounding the reorganization area 1,350 feet from the exterior boundary of the proposal area (totaling 180 notices).

Comments from registered voters, landowners, and other individuals and any affected local agency in support or opposition have been reviewed and considered by the Commission in making its determination.

6. 7.

The City of San Bernardino pre-zoned the reorganization area through its approval of the Spring Trails Specific Plan with the following underlying specific pan zone designations: Residential (Estate), Open Space, and Parks. These zoning designations are consistent with the City’s General Plan and are generally compatible with the surrounding land uses in the area. The City’s pre-zone designations will remain in effect for a minimum of two years following annexation unless specific actions are taken by the City Council.

The Southern California Associated Governments (“SCAG”) adopted its 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy pursuant to Government Code Section 65080. LAFCO 3188A is in close proximity with the I215 Freeway, which is part of the RTP-SCS’s highway improvement (expansion/rehabilitation) program adding high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes between the I-210 and the I-15 Freeways for completion by 2035.

8. 9.

The City of San Bernardino adopted an updated Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in October 2016 (Resolution No. 2016-209), which was developed by County Fire, the City’s fire service provider. Said LHMP includes the Spring Trails project as one its potential residential development. County Fire also has its MultiJurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan approved by FEMA in July 2017.

A Complete Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared and certified as adequate by the City of San Bernardino for its approval of the Spring Trails Specific Plan (SCH No. 2009111086). The Commission, its staff, and its Environmental Consultant have independently reviewed the City’s Complete Final EIR and found it to be adequate for the reorganization decision.

The Commission certifies that it has reviewed and considered the City’s Complete Final EIR and the effects outlined therein, and as referenced in the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, prior to reaching a decision on the project. By considering the Complete Final EIR adopted by the City of San Bernardino and adopting the revised Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the proposal, the Commission is reconfirming its position regarding the adequacy of the City’s Complete Final EIR and originally-approved Statement of Overriding Considerations in light of the reduced Project scope, for purposes of its approval of LAFCO 3188A as a Responsible Agency under CEQA. 4 Packet Page. 952
RESOLUTION NO. 3291
The Commission hereby acknowledges the mitigation measures and mitigation monitoring and reporting program contained in the City’s Complete Final EIR and finds that no additional feasible alternatives or mitigation measures will be adopted by the Commission. The Commission finds that all changes, alterations, and mitigation measures are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City and other agencies, and not the Commission. The Commission finds that it is the responsibility of the City to oversee and implement these measures and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program.

The Commission hereby adopts the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the environmental effects of the reorganization (a copy of which is attached as Exhibit C). The Commission finds that all feasible changes or alterations have been incorporated into the project; that these changes are the responsibility of the City and other agencies identified in the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations and the City’s Complete Final EIR; and that specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible adoption of the alternatives identified in the City’s Complete Final EIR.

The Commission directs its Executive Officer to file a Notice of Determination within five (5) days with the San Bernardino County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors.

The Commission, as a Responsible Agency, also notes that this proposal is exempt from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife fees because the fees were the responsibility of the City of San Bernardino as a CEQA Lead Agency.

10. The reorganization area is served by the following local agencies: County of San Bernardino, Inland Empire Resource Conservation District, San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, San Bernardino County Fire Protection District, its Valley Service Zone, and its Zone FP-5 (fire protection and emergency medical response), and County Service Area 70 (multi-function unincorporated County-wide).

County Service Area 70 will be detached and its sphere of influence reduced upon successful completion of this proposal. None of the other agencies will be directly affected by the completion of this proposal as they are regional in nature.

11. The City of San Bernardino has submitted a plan for the extension of municipal services to the study area as required by Government Code Section 56653, which indicate that the City of San Bernardino can, at a minimum, maintain the existing level of service delivery and can improve the level and range of services currently available in the area.

The certified Plan for Service and Fiscal Impact Analysis have been reviewed and compared with the standards established by the Commission and the factors contained within Government Code Section 56668. The Plan for Service and the Fiscal Impact Analysis conform to those adopted standards and requirements.

12. The reorganization proposal complies with Commission policies that indicate the preference for areas proposed for development at an urban-level land use be included within a City so that the full range of municipal services can be planned, funded, extended and maintained.
5 Packet Page. 953
RESOLUTION NO. 3291
However, approval of this proposal will create an island of unincorporated territory that will be totally-surrounded by the City of San Bernardino. LAFCO 3188A cannot be expanded to include the unincorporated island without the risk of termination due to known registered voter protest within the island area.

13. The reorganization area can benefit from the availability and extension of municipal services from the City of San Bernardino and its Municipal Water Department as evidenced by the Plan for Service certified by the City and its Municipal Water Department.

14. 15.

This proposal will assist the City of San Bernardino’s ability to achieve its fair share of the regional housing needs as it proposes to build the addition of 215 single-family residential units.

With respect to environmental justice, which is the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the location of public facilities and the provision of public services, the following demographic and income profile was generated using ESRI’s Community Analyst for the City of San Bernardino and the reorganization and adjacent unincorporated areas (2019 data):

Demographic and Income
Comparison
City of
San Bernardino
(%)
Reorganization
Area and
Adjacent
Unincorporated
Area (%)
Race and Ethnicity
• African American Alone
• American Indian Alone
• Asian Alone
• Pacific Islander Alone
• Hispanic Origin (Any Race)
Median Household Income

13.5 %

1.3 %

4.2 %

0.4 %

68.3 %
$43,515

7.0 %

0.9 %

4.3 %

0.3 %

37.9 %
$104,564
Through future development, the reorganization area will benefit from the extension of services and facilities from the City and, at the same time, the approval of the reorganization proposal will not result in the unfair treatment of any person based on race, culture or income.

16. 17.

The County of San Bernardino (for itself and on behalf of the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District) and the City of San Bernardino have successfully negotiated a transfer of property tax revenues that will be implemented upon completion of this reorganization. This fulfills the requirements of Section 99 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.

The map and legal description, as revised, are in substantial compliance with LAFCO and State standards through certification by the County Surveyor’s Office.

SECTION 5. The primary reason for this reorganization is to receive municipal services from the City for the proposed Spring Trails Specific Plan. The Commission recognizes that the area is difficult to develop due to constraints, among others, of being on an active fault line and located in a fire hazard area with slopes and high winds. The Commission 6 Packet Page. 954
RESOLUTION NO. 3291
staff emphasizes the importance of the mitigation measures being implemented to minimize or reduce the impacts to the extent feasible.

SECTION 6. The affected territory shall not be taxed for existing bonded indebtedness or contractual obligations of the City of San Bernardino through the reorganization. The regular County assessment rolls are utilized by the City of San Bernardino.

SECTION 7. Approval by the Local Agency Formation Commission indicates that completion of this proposal would accomplish the proposed change of organization in a reasonable manner with a maximum chance of success and a minimum disruption of service to the functions of other local agencies in the area.

SECTION 8. The Commission hereby orders the territory described in Exhibits “A” and “A-1” reorganized. The Commission hereby directs, that following completion of the reconsideration period specified by Government Code Section 56895(b), the Executive Officer shall prepare and file a Certificate of Completion, as required by Government Code Section 57176 through 57203, and a Statement of Boundary Change, as required by Government Code Section 57204.

SECTION 8. The Executive Officer is hereby authorized and directed to mail certified copies of this resolution in the manner provided by Section 56882 of the Government Code.

THIS ACTION APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Local Agency Formation Commission for San Bernardino County by the following vote:

AYES: COMMISSIONERS:

COMMISSIONERS:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO )
I, SAMUEL MARTINEZ, Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission for San Bernardino County, California, do hereby certify this record to be a full, true, and correct copy of the action taken by said Commission by vote of the members present as the same appears in the Official Minutes of said Commission at its regular meeting of October 16, 2019.

DATED:
_________________________________

SAMUEL MARTINEZ
Executive Officer
7 Packet Page. 955

ANNEXATION OF THE SPRING TRAILS
SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT AND THE 26-

ACRE TOTALLY SURROUNDED ISLAND
WARD 5
Packet Page. 956
Project Overview
In March 2013, the City of San Bernardino approved the Spring Trails Specific Plan (SP 10-01), which included a variety of underlying entitlements. The Specific Plan approvals included the adoption of
Resolution No. 2013-34 that certified the Final
Environmental Impact Report, the adoption of a
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, and the adoption of a General Plan Amendment (GPA 02-09)
(including the pre-annexation of the Specific Plan area); approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 15576; and
approval of a Development Agreement.

SPRING TRAILS ANNEXATION
Packet Page. 957

SPRING TRAILS ANNEXATION

LAFCO ACTION
On October 16, 2019, LAFCO adopted Resolution No.
3091 approving the annexation of the Spring Trails Specific Plan Project Area (LAFCO Annexation No.
3188A) into the City of San Bernardino, subject to certain conditions of approval.

During the processing of the annexation, a 26-acre area, including six parcels was removed from the annexation resulting in an unincorporated island
surrounded by the City of San Bernardino.

Packet Page. 958

SPRING TRAILS ANNEXATION

PLAN FOR SERVICE
After annexation, the City of San Bernardino is anticipated to provide services including general government, community development, police protection, local parks and recreation, community services and public works’ services. The City of San Bernardino has annexed into the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District (SBCFPD) and its Service Zone FP-5 for fire protection and emergency medical response services. Since the Spring Trails annexation area is already within SBCFPD and Service Zone FP-5, the SBCFPD will continue to be the service provider for fire protection and emergency medical services.

The County of San Bernardino will continue to provide other services such as regional parks and recreation, regional flood control and drainage and health and welfare.

Packet Page. 959

SPRING TRAILS ANNEXATION

SALES AND USER TAX
As shown in Table 2-5, estimated annual offsite retail sales and use tax from taxable purchases made by future Spring Trails Specific Plan residents are
projected at $62,332 after buildout. This estimate is based on total household income projected at about $48.97 million after buildout (28 percent of residential valuation of about $167.75 million). At 33 percent of household income, the projected retail taxable
purchases made by Spring Trails’ residents are
projected at about $15.5 million after buildout. The fiscal analysis assumes that 35 percent of the retail taxable purchases, or about $5.42 million, will be made annually in the City at buildout.

Packet Page. 960

SPRING TRAILS ANNEXATION

CITY GENERAL FUND IMPACT
A recurring surplus of $37,705 is projected to the City General Fund for the Spring Trails Annexation after buildout, as shown in Table 5-1. The projected surplus after buildout is based on recurring revenues of about $493,179 and recurring costs of about $455,474. This projection includes assumed revenues from the recently adopted CFD 2018-1 tax for safety services. The revenueto-cost ratio is estimated at about 1.08 after buildout. A small surplus of $827 is projected for Year 1, which is planned for onsite grading and offsite infrastructure capital improvements. With completion of new housing units in Year 2 (Phase 1), a surplus of $3,328 is projected. The projected surplus increases to $9,949 for Phase 2 (Year 3) and by Phase 3 (Year 4) a surplus of $20,351 is projected. When the final units are developed in Phase 4 (Year 5), the projected surplus to the General Fund is $37,705.

Packet Page. 961

SPRING TRAILS ANNEXATION

CITY COST ASSUMPTIONS
The General Fund cost factors that are used in preparing the fiscal analysis for the Spring Trails Annexation are presented in Table 6-3.

These factors are based on the City’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2022-23 Adopted Budget net expenditures shown in Table 6-3 and the City’s population and service population estimates that are presented in Table 6-1. City General Fund expenditures are projected for general government, or overhead functions; community development; police; parks, recreation and community services; public works; and transfers from the General Fund to the Animal Control Fund and to Library services. Water and sewer operations are assumed to not impact the General Fund because they are enterprise functions and maintenance costs are assumed to be covered through the payment of user fees and charges. Fire protection to the City is provided by the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District, and these costs are not included in this analysis.

Packet Page. 962

SPRING TRAILS ANNEXATION
LAFCO Action
Ø As part of the annexation, LAFCO imposed Condition of Approval No. 4, requiring the City to initiate annexation of the totally surrounded island within on year of the Commission’s approval of the Spring Trails Annexation (LAFCO 3188A).

City Actions Since LAFCO’s Approved
Action
Ø January 15, 2020 – City considered the annexation of the remaining unincorporated island abutting the Spring Trails Specific Plan Project.

Ø March 18, 2020 – Council discussed the item in closed session because of threat of litigation.

Ø May 6, 2020 – Item considered by the City Council and tabled.

Packet Page. 963
The Spring Hills Specific Plan
Project, approved in March
2023, requires annexation into
the City limits. LAFCO requires
the City to initiate the annexation
of both the Spring Trails Specific
Plan Area and an abutting 26-
acres of totally surrounded area.

SPRING TRAILS ANNEXATION
2021 – 2025 Strategic Targets and
Goals
Ø Annexation is consistent with Key Target No.1 – Secure a long-term revenue source. The area is
within the City’s Sphere of Influence and anticipated
for development as identified in the General Plan.

Ø Key Target No. 4(b) – Update the General Plan and
Development Code as it ensures this property
meets the General Plan uses and will be included in
a future City annexation.

Packet Page. 964

SPRING TRAILS ANNEXATION
Recommendations
Ø That the Mayor and City Council adopt Resolution making application to the LAFCO Commission for San Bernardino
County for reorganization to include Annexation to the City of San Bernardino and Detachment from County Service
Area 70, generally known as the Spring Trails Specific Plan.

Ø That the Mayor and City Council adopt Resolution making application to the LAFCO Commission of San Bernardino
County for reorganization to include Annexation to the City of San Bernardino and Detachment from County Service
Area 70, known as the 26-acre totally surrounded island.

Ø Direct City Manager to transmit the Resolution to the Director of LAFCO.

Packet Page. 965

SPRING TRAILS ANNEXATION
(1) The administrative record has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City’s Local CEQA Guidelines.
(2) The application for annexation is covered by the certified Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse
#2009111086) for the Spring Trails Specific Plan Project (Specific Plan No. SP10-01; General Plan Amendment No.

GPA 02-09, including pre-annexation of the Spring Trails site; Tentative Tract Map No. 15576 (Subdivision No. 02- 09); and Development Agreement No. 11-01) approved February 19, 2013. No further environmental review is required for the project pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15162.
(3) The determination of CEQA exemption reflects the
independent judgment of the City Council.

CEQA
Ø As the decision-making body for the project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the
information contained in the administrative record for the proposed project. Based upon the facts and
information contained in the administrative record, including all written and oral evidence presented to
the City Council.

Packet Page. 966

SPRING TRAILS ANNEXATION
Thank you.

Questions?
Packet Page. 967

DISCUSSION
City of San Bernardino
Request for Council Action
Date: November 6, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
From: Andrea Russell, Director of Human Resources;
Rochelle Clayton, Acting City Manager
Department: City Manager's Office
Subject: Confirm Appointment and Approve Employment
Agreement for the Position of City Manager
Recommendation:

It is recommended that the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California, approve and authorize the Mayor to execute an employment agreement for the position of City Manager with Rochelle Clayton, with an effective date of October 2, 2024, as decided by the City Council and reported in public on the same date.

Executive Summary
During its Closed Session meeting on Wednesday, October 2, 2024, the Mayor and City Council voted unanimously to appoint Rochelle Clayton as the City Manager. The City Council directed the City Attorney to prepare an employment contract with a salary of $325,000 and certain terms of the agreement identical to the terms provided for in the previous city manager agreement, to be approved at the next scheduled Mayor and City Council Meeting.

Background
Rochelle Clayton was appointed as the Acting City Manager on May 22, 2024. The Mayor and City Council discussed the appointment of a City Manager and provided direction for consideration to be discussed in September 2024, leading to the 8-0 vote to appoint Ms. Clayton as the City Manager on October 2, 2024.

Discussion
The Employment Agreement presented sets forth the terms of employment, effective October 2, 2024. The Employment Agreement provides for all of the following:

Term: Section 2: There is no specific term for a set period of years. Instead the Agreement will continue indefinitely until terminated.

Packet Page. 968
Compensation: Section 3: Salary will initially be $325,000. On October 2, 2025 the salary will increase by the consumer price index with a cap of 5% and this will continue for each year that the Agreement is in effect.

Benefits: Section 3.2: Benefits will be the same as those provided under the Executive Benefits Resolution which is attached.

Car Allowance: Section 6: A vehicle allowance in the amount of $775.00 per month per Resolution No. 2024-034 or as amended.

Relocation Benefit: Section 7: One-time relocation benefit of $10,000, if relocation to a residence within the boundaries of the City is accomplished before October 2, 2026.

Severance Payment: Section 11.7: Provides for a severance payment of six-months base salary only (no other benefits or payments) if the Agreement is terminated without cause.

GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953(c)(3) ANNOUNCEMENT
Effective January 1, 2017, Government Code Section 54953(c)(3) requires the Mayor, Mayor Pro Tempore, or other presiding officer to orally report a summary of a recommendation for a final action on the salaries, salary schedules, or compensation paid in the form of fringe benefits of a local agency executive, as defined in Section 3511.1(d) of the Government Code, during the open regular meeting in which the final action is to be taken and prior to the motion to approve.

ORAL REPORT BY MAYOR
Prior to a motion to approve the City Manager Employment Agreement, the Mayor shall make an oral summary report of the Salary, Benefits, and Severance provisions of the City Manager Employment Agreement that are unique to this agreement. “In accordance with Government Code Section 54953(c)(3), a summary of the City Manager’s salary and benefits is reported as follows:

The annual salary of the assignment of City Manager will be $325,000. The City Manager will receive a monthly auto allowance as set forth in Resolution 2024-034 and an annual cost of living adjustment set at the designated CPI, subject to a 5% maximum cap.

The City Manager will receive all other benefits and compensation that are applicable as set forth in the Executive Compensation and Benefits Plan approved by Resolution 2022-59 and is eligible for a severance payment equal to six months base pay.

Packet Page. 969
These benefits are set forth in detail in Resolutions 2024-034 and 2022-59 attached to this staff report.”
2021-2025 Strategic Targets and Goals
The authorization to execute the Employment Agreement aligns with Key Target No. 2: Focused Aligned Leadership and Unified Community.

Fiscal Impact
The salary and benefits for the City Manager are included in the FY 2024/25 Operating Budget.

Conclusion
It is recommended that the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California, approve and authorize the Mayor to execute an employment agreement for the position of City Manager with Rochelle Clayton, with an effective date of October 2, 2024, as decided by the City Council and reported in public on the same date.

Attachments
Attachment 1 - Employment Agreement
Attachment 2 - Resolution 2022-59
Attachment 3 - Resolution 2024-034
Ward:

All Wards
Synopsis of Previous Council Actions:

May 22, 2024 Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino Appointed to Acting City Manager
October 2, 2024 Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino Voted to Appoint as City Manager
Packet Page. 970
Final Version 10/30/2024 (SRC)

CITY MANAGER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
This City Manager Employment Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into as of the 6th day of November, 2024 (the “Effective Date”), between the City of San Bernardino (hereinafter referred to as the “City”) and Rochelle Clayton (hereinafter referred to as the “City Manager” or the “Employee”). City and City Manager/Employee are sometimes referred to in this Agreement as “Party” and collectively as “Parties.”

RECITALS
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Mayor and City Council of the City to retain the services of Employee as City Manager; and
WHEREAS, Employee is competent, trained and qualified for the position of City Manager; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Mayor and City Council to provide certain benefits, establish certain conditions of employment and to set certain working conditions of the City Manager.

NOW, THEREFORE, the above named Parties hereby mutually agree and promise as follows:

1. Duties, Acceptance of Appointment, Hours of Work, Regional Liaison. 1.1 Duties.

The City Manager shall perform those duties and have those responsibilities that are commonly assigned to a city manager of a city in California, and as may be further set forth in the City’s Charter and Municipal Code. City Manager shall perform such other legally permissible and proper duties and functions consistent with the Office of the City Manager, as the Mayor and City Council shall from time to time assign. It is expected that City Manager shall abide by the ICMA Code of Ethics. City Manager is encouraged to participate in community and civic affairs.

1.2 Acceptance of Appointment.

City Manager hereby accepts the appointment as City Manager of the City of San Bernardino subject to all terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement.

1.3 Hours of Work
It is recognized that City Manager devotes a great deal of time outside the normal office hours-schedule, and to that end, Employee shall be allowed to establish an appropriate work schedule recognizing the normal City work schedule and community meetings.

Packet Page. 971
Final Version 10/30/2024 (SRC)

1.4 Devotion to City Business
The City Manager’s position is full-time. City Manager shall not engage in any business, educational, professional, charitable, or other activities that would conflict or materially interfere with performance of her City Manager duties, except as may be specifically authorized by the Mayor and City Council.

2. Term.

This Agreement shall be deemed effective on October 2, 2024 (“Commencement Date”) and shall continue unless terminated earlier in accordance with Section 11.

3. Compensation.

3.1 Salary
City agrees to pay City Manager, and City Manager agrees to accept from City, as compensation for services rendered by City Manager pursuant to this Agreement, an annual base salary, commencing on the Commencement Date, the annual base salary shall be in the amount of Three Hundred and Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($325,000.00) (hereinafter “Annual Base Salary”), payable in installment payments in the same manner and at the same times as salaries of other executive managers of the City are paid.

Commencing October 2, 2025 and each year thereafter, said Annual Base Salary shall be automatically increased by the percentage change to the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI–U) for the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario area for the preceding 12 months ending in July (subject to a 5% maximum cap) (“CPI Increase”).

The term “Annual Base Salary” as used in this Agreement shall also include any such adjustments approved by the Mayor and City Council other than payments not eligible to be added to the City Manager’s Annual Base Salary pursuant to the terms of any applicable salary resolution of City.

Any salary adjustment shall be memorialized by an amendment to this Agreement.

3.2 Benefits
Except for such benefits as are inconsistent with this Agreement (including, for example any CPI Increase) or the position of City Manager, City Manager shall receive all such other benefits and compensation that are generally applicable to new Executive employees of the City as set forth in the Executive Compensation and Benefits Plan approved by Resolution No. 2022-59 (as amended by the Side Letter executed October 18, - 2 -
Packet Page. 972
Final Version 10/30/2024 (SRC)
2022), as the same may be modified from time to time after the date of this Agreement, including but not limited to CalPERS retirement benefits, health insurance, life insurance, holidays, administrative leave, vacation leave, executive leave, and sick leave. In the event the City Manager’s employment is terminated, either voluntarily or involuntarily, the City Manager shall be compensated for accrued leave in accordance with the Executive Compensation and Benefits Plan.

4. Performance Evaluation.

The Mayor and Council shall review the City Manager’s job performance at least once annually. The City Manager shall remind the Mayor and Council of its obligations under this Section each year and shall work with the Mayor and Council in finding an appropriate time to place her annual evaluation on the agenda. The Mayor and Council shall in writing and in accordance with criteria established by the Mayor and Council in consultation with the City Manager, develop the annual performance reviews and evaluations. The Mayor and Council shall provide the City Manager a reasonable and adequate opportunity to discuss the City Manager's evaluation with the Mayor and Council.

The annual performance reviews and evaluations shall be reasonably related to the City Manager's written job description and shall be based, in whole or in part, on goals for the City Manager's performance that are jointly developed and adopted by the Mayor and Council and the City Manager.

5. Bonds.

City shall bear the full cost of any fidelity or other bonds required of City Manager under any law or ordinance.

6. Vehicle Allowance.

City agrees to pay to the City Manager, during the term of this Agreement and in addition to other salary and benefits herein provided a vehicle allowance as provided in Resolution No. 2024-034 (currently at $775.00 per month) or as amended or its successor.

7. Relocation Benefit.

As an incentive for City Manager to relocate her primary residency to location within the boundaries of the City of San Bernardino, City shall pay City Manager a one-time relocation benefit of $10,000. The relocation benefit shall be available until October 2, 2026. If City Manager has not relocated to the City within said period of time the relocation benefit shall expire. If City Manager relocates as provided under this Section, City shall process payment of the relocation payment within 30-days of the City Manager showing proof of relocation as demonstrated by a change of voter registration, an address on a California driver’s license or proof of residential utilities in her name at an address within the City.

Packet Page. 973
Final Version 10/30/2024 (SRC)

8. General Business Expenses

8.1 City agrees to budget and pay for professional dues and subscriptions for City Manager necessary for Employee’s continuation and participation in national, regional, state and local boards, task-forces, conferences and meetings, associations and organizations desirable for City Manager’s continued participation, professional growth, and advancement, and for the benefit of the City.

8.2 City agrees to budget and pay for travel and subsistence expenses of City Manager for professional and official travel, board and task-force meetings, conferences, and occasions to adequately continue the professional development of City Manager and to pursue necessary official functions for City.

8.3 City recognizes that the City Manager may incur expenses of a nonpersonal, job-related nature that are reasonably necessary to the City Manager’s service to the City. The City agrees to either pay such expenses in advance or to reimburse the expenses, so long as the expenses are incurred and submitted in accordance with the City’s normal expenditure reimbursement procedures. To be eligible for reimbursement, all expenses must be supported by documentation meeting the City’s normal requirements and must be submitted within time limits established by the City.

9. Abuse of Office or Position.

Pursuant to Government Code Sections 53243, 53243.1 and 53243.2, if City Manager is convicted of a crime involving an abuse of Employee’s office or position, all of the following shall apply: (1) if Manager is provided with administrative leave pay pending an investigation, City Manager shall be required to fully reimburse City such amounts paid; and (2) if City pays for the criminal legal defense of City Manager (which would be in its sole discretion, as it is generally not obligated to pay for a criminal defense), City Manager shall be required to fully reimburse City such amounts paid; and (3) if this Agreement is terminated, any Severance Pay and Severance Benefits related to the termination that City Manager may receive from City shall be fully reimbursed to City or void if not yet paid to City Manager. For purposes of this Section, abuse of office or position means either: (1) an abuse of public authority, including waste, fraud, and violation of the law under color of authority; or (2) a crime against public justice, including, but not limited to, a crime described in Title 7 (commencing with Section 92) of Part 1 of the Penal Code.

10. Notices.

Any notice required or permitted by this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be personally served upon the other Party, or sent by United States Postal Service, postage prepaid and addressed to the appropriate Party as follow:

Packet Page. 974
Final Version 10/30/2024 (SRC)
If to City: Attn: Mayor and City Council
City of San Bernardino
If to City Manager: Personal Address on File
City Manager
Notice shall be deemed given as of the date of personal service or upon the date of deposit in the course of transmission with the United States Postal Service.

11. Termination.

11.1 At-Will Employee
City Manager shall serve at the will and pleasure of the Mayor and City Council. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent, limit or otherwise interfere with the right of the Mayor and City Council to suspend from duty, remove from office or otherwise terminate the services of City Manager at any time, at the sole discretion of the Mayor and City Council. This Agreement may be terminated as follows.

11.2 Termination – Mayor and Council Vote
The Mayor and City Council may remove the City Manager with or without cause by motion adopted by five (5) affirmative votes of the Mayor and City Council. If the City Manager is terminated without cause she shall be entitled to a severance payment as provided for in Section 11.7.

11. 3 Resignation
City Manager may voluntarily resign her position as City Manager, after giving City at least sixty (60) days written notice prior to the effective date of such resignation, unless such notice is waived in whole or part by the Mayor and City Council.

In the event the City Manager resigns from her employment with City, the City Manager shall not be entitled to any Severance Pay.

11.4 Death
If, during the Term or any extended Term, the City Manager dies, the City Manager’s estate shall receive Accrued Salary and Benefits, but shall not be entitled to any additional compensation or payment, including Severance Pay.

11.5 Disability
In the event the City Manager is permanently disabled or is otherwise unable to perform her duties because of sickness, accident, injury, or mental incapacity Packet Page. 975
Final Version 10/30/2024 (SRC)
for a period of six (6) consecutive months, the City may terminate the City Manager’s employment and this Agreement.

11.6 For Cause Termination
The City Council may remove the City Manager For Cause at any time without prior notice by motion adopted by the affirmative votes of a majority of the City Council. “For Cause” for purposes of this Agreement shall mean any of the following:
(a) Conviction of, or plea of guilty or nobo contendre to, any crime or offense (other than minor traffic violations or similar offenses) which is likely to have a material adverse impact on the City or on the City Manager’s reputation; (b) Gross misconduct which is likely to have a material adverse impact on the City or on the City Manager’s reputation;
(c) Proven failure of the Manager to observe or perform any of her duties and obligations, if that failure continues for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of his receipt of notice from the City Council specifying the acts or omissions deemed to amount to that failure; or
(d) Any other action or inaction by the City Manager that materially and substantially impedes or disrupts the performance of the City and its organizational component units, is detrimental to employee or public safety, violates properly established rules or procedures, or adversely affects the reputation of the City, its officers, or its employees. Examples, include, but are not limited to lying, knowingly making misrepresentations or failing to disclose information to the City Council.

11.7 Severance Pay
In the event this Agreement is terminated, without cause, pursuant to Section 11.2 of this Agreement, the City Manager shall receive a severance payment, in a lump sum, equal to six (6) months of City Manager’s then monthly Base Salary or, if lesser, an amount equal to the Annual Base Salary remaining on the unexpired term of the contract (“Severance Pay”). Such severance payment shall be City Manager’s sole remedy for termination without cause under Section 11.2 of this Agreement. The Severance Pay shall only be paid after the City Manager executes a waiver and release agreement prepared by the City Attorney in a form substantially similar to that one set forth as Exhibit “A” to this Agreement.

City Manager shall not be eligible for Severance Pay if this Agreement is terminated for any reason other than, without cause, pursuant to Section 11.2 of this Agreement.

Packet Page. 976
Final Version 10/30/2024 (SRC)

12. General Provisions.

12.1 This writing constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior oral or written representations or written agreements on the subject matter hereof, which may have been entered into between the parties. No modification or revision to this Agreement shall be of any force or effect, unless the same is in writing and executed by the Parties hereto.

12.2 Each Party agrees and acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises, or agreements, orally or otherwise, have been made by any party, or anyone acting on behalf of any Party, which are not embodied herein and that any agreement, statement, or promise not contained in this Agreement shall not be valid or binding on either Party.

12.3 If any provision, or portion thereof, contained in the Agreement is held unconstitutional, invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement, or portion thereof, shall be deemed severable, shall not be affected and shall remain in full force and effect.

12.4 This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the law of the State of California. Venue shall be in San Bernardino County.

12.5 This Agreement shall be construed as a whole, according to its fair meaning, and not in favor or against any Party. By way of example and not in limitation, this Agreement shall not be construed in favor of the party receiving a benefit or against the Party responsible for any particular language in this Agreement.

12.6 City Manager acknowledges that he has had an opportunity to consult legal counsel in regard to this Agreement, that he has read and understands this Agreement, that he is fully aware of its legal effect, and that he has entered into it freely and voluntarily and based on his own judgment and not on any representations or promises other than those contained in this Agreement.

12.7 In any dispute arising out of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall recover its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

13. Other Terms and Conditions of Employment
The City, only upon written agreement with City Manager, shall fix any such other terms and conditions of employment, as it may determine from time to time, relating to the performance of the City Manager, provided such terms and conditions are not inconsistent with or in conflict with the provisions of this Agreement, the City Code, or any other law, ordinance or City Resolution.

Packet Page. 977
Final Version 10/30/2024 (SRC)

14. Indemnification

14.1 City shall defend, hold harmless and indemnify City Manager against any tort, professional liability claim or demand or other legal action, whether groundless or otherwise, arising out of any alleged act or omission occurring in the performance of City Manager’s duties or resulting from the exercise of her judgment or discretion in connection with the performance of her duties, unless the act or omission involved unlawful conduct. City shall not unreasonably refuse to provide for legal representation at City’s expense. Legal representation, provided by City for City Manager, shall extend until a final determination of the legal action including any and all losses, damages, judgment, interests, settlements, fines, court costs, and the reasonable costs and expenses of legal proceedings, including appeals, and including attorneys’ fees, and expert witness fees and all other trial and appellate costs, and other liabilities incurred, imposed upon, or suffered by such City Manager in connection with or resulting from any claim, action, suit, or proceeding, actual or threatened, arising out of or in connection with the performance of City Manager’s duties.

14.2 City agrees to pay all reasonable litigation expenses of City Manager throughout pendency of any City-related litigation to which City Manager is a party, witness or advisor to the City. Such expense payments shall continue beyond City Manager’s employment with the City as long as litigation is pending. Post-employment, City agrees to pay City Manager for reasonable consulting fees, travel expenses and other costs, when City Manager serves as a witness, advisor or consultant to City regarding pending litigation.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this City Manager Employment Agreement on this 6th day of November, 2024.

EMPLOYEE/CITY MANAGER CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Rochelle Clayton, City Manager Helen Tran, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City Clerk City Attorney
Packet Page. 978
Final Version 10/30/2024 (SRC)
Exhibit “A”

GENERAL WAIVER AND RELEASE
I, the undersigned, do hereby acknowledge and attest that I have read and understood Section 11.7 of my Employment Agreement with the City of San Bernardino and hereby agree that by accepting Severance Pay in the amount of twelve (12) months’ or, if lesser, an amount equal to the Annual Base Salary remaining on the unexpired term of the Agreement, I agree to waive all rights to further claims, remedies, or legal action against the City of San Bernardino, its officers and employees.

In exchange for receipt of the Severance Pay, and all other salary and benefits owing, I and my representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns do hereby completely release and forever discharge the City of San Bernardino and its related entities and their present and former officers, directors, council members, agents, employees, attorneys, and successors (collectively, “Released Parties”) from all claims, rights, demands, actions, obligations, liabilities, and causes of action of every kind and character, known or unknown, mature or unmatured, which I may have now or in the future arising from any act or omission or condition occurring on or prior to the date this General Waivers and Release is signed whether based on tort, contract (express or implied), or any federal, state, or local law, statute, or regulation (collectively, the “Released Claims”). Released Claims shall also include, but not be limited to, claims for wages or other compensation due, severance pay, bonuses, sick leave, vacation pay, life or health insurance, or any other fringe benefit. This General Waivers and Release specifically releases and waives any and all claims arising out of my employment and separation from employment with the City of San Bernardino, including but not limited to claims arising under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), the California Labor Code, the California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”), the California Constitution, federal Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), the federal Equal Pay Act (“EPA”), the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), tort and contract claims, privacy claims, and any other applicable state, federal, local or other laws that may apply.

I knowingly and voluntarily waive any and all rights or benefits that I may now have, or in the future may have, under the terms of Section 1542 of the California Civil Code, which provides as follows:

A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS

WHICH THE CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO

EXIST IN HIS OR HER FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING

THE RELEASE, WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM OR HER MUST

HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS OR HER SETTLEMENT
WITH THE DEBTOR.

Packet Page. 979
Final Version 10/30/2024 (SRC)
EXHIBIT A – TEMPLATE WAIVER AND RELEASE
I acknowledge that I have read and understand this waiver and voluntarily and knowingly am waiving my right under Section 1542 to pursue unknown or unanticipated claims, rights, demands, actions, obligations, liabilities, and causes of action of any kind that may have materially affected this General Waivers and Release.

Unless otherwise required by law, I shall not file any claim, sue or initiate an action against any Released Party or participate in any compliance review, action, or proceeding, individually or as a member of a class, under any contract (express or implied), or any federal, state, or local law, statute, or regulation pertaining in any manner to the Released Claims.

By signing this Agreement, I certify that Employee has read all of this Agreement, understands its terms and conditions, and knowingly and voluntarily consents to such terms. Employee acknowledges that the Company has advised Employee in writing to consult with an attorney before signing this Agreement. Employee certifies that Employee has been given at least twenty-one (21) days to consider this Agreement, and that Employee’s signature below indicates either that Employee has taken twenty-one (21) days to consider this Agreement, or has knowingly and voluntarily waived some or all of this consideration period. In addition, Employee has seven (7) days from the date of signing this Agreement to revoke the Agreement, after which the Agreement will become final and binding (which shall be deemed the “Effective Date” of this Agreement). If Employee does not execute and return this Agreement upon expiration of the twenty-one (21) day period, the Agreement and any severance payment offer it contains shall be deemed rescinded and no longer offered to Employee.

Approved and Agreed to By:

City Manager

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Mayor
[DO NOT SIGN]
[FOR TEMPLATE PURPOSES ONLY]
Packet Page. 980
Packet Page. 981
Packet Page. 982
Packet Page. 983
Packet Page. 984
Packet Page. 985
Packet Page. 986
Packet Page. 987
Packet Page. 988
Packet Page. 989
Packet Page. 990
Packet Page. 991
Packet Page. 992
Packet Page. 993
Packet Page. 994
Packet Page. 995
Packet Page. 996
Packet Page. 997
Packet Page. 998
Packet Page. 999

Mayor and City CouncilNovember 6, 2024

Mayor and City Council
November 6, 2024