Mayor and City Council
November 6, 2024

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

DATE: OCTOBER 8, 2019

FROM: SAMUEL MARTINEZ, Executive Officer

TO: LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION

SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM #9: 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)

BACKGROUND INFORMATION
:

This item was continued from the Commission’s August 21, 2019 hearing at the request of the property owner (with concurrence from the City) to allow the property owner and the City enough time to evaluate and consider the proposed condition(s) that LAFCO staff is recommending.

No change has occurred since then; therefore, staff’s recommendations remain the same for LAFCO 3188A. For reference, the original staff report for LAFCO 3188A, dated August 14, 2019, is included as Attachment #1 and includes the links to each attachment.

However, the Commission—as part of its motion at the August Hearing—req uested that staff provide a discussion regarding access to and from the project site in order to provide for a better understanding of the issues related to traffic (circulation) as well as fire safety.

Circulation

The Spring Trails project will have two main access points. The primary access road (dash line with pink highlight), which provides the main access to and from Spring Trails project, is a 2-way undivided road that extends from North Little League Drive to the Spring Trails project at the southeastern section of the project site. From North Little League Drive (also a 2-way undivided road), access to the I-215 Freeway can be Agenda Item #9 – LAFCO 3188A
City of San Bernardino Reorganization (Spring Trails SP) October 8, 2019
2 reached from either Palm Avenue (via West Little League Drive or Kendall Avenue) or Devore Road/Glen Helen Parkway (via Kendall Avenue and Cajon Boulevard).

T
he secondary access road (dash line with orange highlight), which is intended as an alternative street for local traffic to access arterial streets outside the project, is also a 2-way undivided road that runs along the western boundary of the Spring Trails project.

It will connect to North Little League Drive via Frontage Road. From North Little League Drive, access to the freeway is the same as the primary access road.

Fig. 1 – Circulation Map
Agenda Item #9 – LAFCO 3188A
City of San Bernardino Reorganization (Spring Trails SP) October 8, 2019
3 It should be noted that the intersection of Meyers Road and the secondary access road will be constructed in such a way that either prevents or discourages access to Meyers Road.

All necessary public streets, both on-site and off-site (including the extension of North Little League Drive), will be improved by the developer. Other necessary off-site improvements, such as the Palm Avenue/I-215 Freeway and Glen Helen Parkway improvements, are part of the City’s Master Facility Plan and will be funded through developer impact fees.

Fire Safety (Hazards)
A
s identified in the original staff report, no change in actual service provider will occur upon completion of the annexation since the City of San Bernardino was annexed into the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District (County Fire) and its Valley Service Zone. The area proposed for annexation is already within the boundaries of County Fire.

T
he closest fire station is Station #232 located on 6065 Palm Avenue, which is approximately 2.1 miles away from the project site. The next closest fire station is Station #2 located in Devore (1511 Devore Road), which is approximately 4.2 miles away from the project site.

T
he Spring Trails project evaluated response times for a number of stations using time/distance calculations from the different fire stations to the project site via Meyers Road. Below are the drive times for the two stations nearest the project site:

Station MPH Miles Time

1. Station #232 45 0.78 01:02
25 0.16 00:23
35 0.43 00:44
35 0.70 01:12
Meyers 2.07 03.21
Ranch 3.31 05:29
Farthest 3.74 06:13

2. Station #2 45 2.35 03:08
35 1.38 02:22
Meyers 3.75 05:30
Ranch 4.97 07:38
Farthest 5.40 08:22
B
ased on the calculations identified in the Spring Trails Fire Protection Plan, Station #232 can reach the farthest portion of the site in 6m 13s and Station #2 can get to the farthest portion of the site in 8m 22s.

Agenda Item #9 – LAFCO 3188A
City of San Bernardino Reorganization (Spring Trails SP) October 8, 2019
4 LAFCO staff also prepared its own analysis of the drive times from both stations to the farthest portion of the project site using the primary access road and based on actual speed limits. Staff’s analysis indicates that Station #232 can reach the farthest portion of the site in 7m 12s, and Station #2 can get to the farthest portion of the site in 11m 42s.

Fig. 2 – Drive Times
Agenda Item #9 – LAFCO 3188A
City of San Bernardino Reorganization (Spring Trails SP) October 8, 2019
5 The Spring Trails Fire Protection Plan outlines a number of mitigation measures including fuel modification zones, vegetation management guidelines, planting maintenance and spacing guidelines, as well as infrastructure/structural construction features and requirements.

COMMENTS RECEIVED:

At the August 21, 2019 hearing, the Commission received oral comments. All written comments received prior to and at the August 21 hearing can be accessed on the LAFCO website:
• Comments received prior to the August 21, 2019 hearing:
http://www.sbcounty.gov/uploads/LAFCO/AgendaNotices/20190821/Item_08_Att1.pdf • Comments received at the August 21, 2019 hearing:
http://www.sbcounty.gov/uploads/LAFCO/AgendaNotices/20190821/Item_08_Att3.pdf S
ince then, additional comments have been received, which are included as Attachment #2 to the staff report. Overall, approximately 80 written comments have been received from landowners, registered voters, and other individuals, including one from a council member of the City of San Bernardino, Mr. Henry Nickel, and one from a non-profit organization.

Most of the comments came from residents who live in the Verdemont area within the City of San Bernardino as well as residents from the unincorporated Devore community.

Approximately 10 (unverified) letters opposing the project came from the island area itself.

Mos
t of the comments relate to fire, high wind, and earthquake issues including limited accessibility during an emergency. School traffic was also cited in some of the letters.

Other comments relate to the City’s inability to provide code inspections/enforcement, reduced services and slow response times, and issues related to road repair and maintenance.

CONCLUSION:

A
s outlined in the original staff report, the Spring Trails Specific Plan requires a broad range and level of municipal services that are only available through the City of San Bernardino. The project would benefit from the extension of the City’s services as well as the continuation of fire protection and emergency medical response services from County Fire and its Valley Service Zone based upon the anticipated development of 215 (current configuration) single-family residences, open space, parks, and other public facilities.

T
he Spring Trails Specific Plan was approved and adopted by the City with certain guidelines, conditions of approval, and mitigation measures. Therefore, the Commission’s approval of LAFCO 3188A assumes that the City will adhere to the parameters that have been imposed on the Spring Trails Specific Plan and the Agenda Item #9 – LAFCO 3188A
City of San Bernardino Reorganization (Spring Trails SP) October 8, 2019
6 mitigation measures outlined in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Spring Trails Specific Plan.

H
owever, as noted in the August 14, 2019 staff report, approval of this proposal calls into question the issue related to the adjacent unincorporated area that will become totally-surrounded by the City of San Bernardino. This report provides for options for addressing the creation of said island territory. Staff recommendations are to:
• I
nclude a determination required by Government Code Section 56375(m), which can be applied to this proposal; and,
• I
nclude a condition that requires the City to initiate the totally-surrounded island area within one year of the Commission’s approval of LAFCO 3188A.

F
or all these reasons, and those outlined throughout this staff report and the original staff report dated August 14, 2019, staff recommends approval of LAFCO 3188A.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

T
he staff recommends that the Commission approve LAFCO 3188A by taking the following actions:

1. W
ith respect to the environmental review:
a. C
ertify that the Complete Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and other related environmental documents prepared by the City of San Bernardino for the Spring Trails Specific Plan have been independently reviewed and considered by the Commission, its staff and its Environmental Consultant;
b. D
etermine that the Complete Final EIR for the project prepared by the City is adequate for the Commission’s use as a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Responsible Agency for its determination related to LAFCO 3188A.
c. D
etermine that the Commission does not intend to adopt alternatives or additional mitigation measures for the Spring Trails Specific Plan, and that the mitigation measures identified for the project are the responsibility of the City and others, not the Commission;
d. A
dopt the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations as presented by the Commission’s Environmental Consultant and attached to the staff report (Attachment #3); and,
Agenda Item #9 – LAFCO 3188A
City of San Bernardino Reorganization (Spring Trails SP) October 8, 2019
7 e. Direct the Executive Officer to file the Notice of Determination within five days, and find that no further Department of Fish and Wildlife filing fees are required by the Commission’s approval since the City, as CEQA Lead Agency, has paid said fees.

2. A
pprove LAFCO 3188A, with the following determination: 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.

3. A
pprove LAFCO 3188A with the following conditions:
a. T
he 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 and process under standard protest proceedings. 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 totally- surrounded 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.
b. T
he standard LAFCO terms and conditions that include, but are not limited to, the “hold harmless” clause for potential litigation costs by the applicant and the continuation of fees, charges, and/or assessments currently authorized by the annexing agency, and the identification that the transfer of utility accounts will occur within 90 days of the recording of the Certificate of Completion.

4. W
aive protest proceedings, as permitted by Government Code Section 56662(d), with 100% landowner consent to the reorganization; and, Agenda Item #9 – LAFCO 3188A
City of San Bernardino Reorganization (Spring Trails SP) October 8, 2019
8 5. Adop
t LAFCO Resolution No. 3291 (Attachment #4) setting forth the Commission’s determinations, terms, and conditions of approval concerning LAFCO 3188A.

Atta
chments:

1. Original Staff Report for LAFCO 3188A Dated August 14, 2019

2. Letters Received After the August 21, 2019 Hearing

3. Letter from Tom Dodson and Associates and Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Environmental Documents Related to the City of S
an Bernardino’s Approval of the Spring Trails Specific Plan

4. Draft Resolution No. 3291
Original Staff Report for
LAFCO 3188A
Dated August 14, 2019
Attachment 1

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

DATE: AUGUST 14, 2019

FROM: SAMUEL MARTINEZ, Executive Officer
MICHAEL TUERPE, Project Manager
JEFFERY LUM, LAFCO GIS/Database Analyst
ROBERT ALDRICH, Consultant

TO: LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION

SUBJECT: Agenda Item #8: 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)

INITIATED BY:

Property Owner Petition – Montecito Equities, Ltd., landowner

BACKGROUND:

The reorganization proposal is an annexation to the City of San Bernardino (hereafter the “City”) and to Zone FP-5 San Bernardino1 of the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District, and detachment from County Service Area 70. The proposal encompasses approximately 350 acres and 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 boundary) on the west, within the City’s existing sphere of influence.

A vicinity map is included as Attachment #1 to this report. The map below (Figure 1) provides a general location of the area to be annexed into the City.

For over 20 years, the Local Agency Formation Commission and its staff have been involved in discussions with the City and/or the landowner regarding the delivery of services for a development proposal within the annexation area known as the Spring Trails Specific Plan, or its predecessor—Martin Ranch.

1 The proposal area is already within the San Bernardino County Protection District and its Zone FP -5.

The annexation into “Zone FP-5 San Bernardino” would isolate the special tax revenues of Zone FP-5 to the service area of the City.

Agenda Item #8 – LAFCO 3188A
City of San Bernardino Reorganization (Spring Trails SP) August 14, 2019

2 Fig. 1 – Vicinity Map

Sphere of Influence Expansion (LAFCO 2808)

In 1996, the Commission reviewed and considered
a sphere of influence expansion proposal, LAFCO
2808, which was initiated by the property owner to
include the proposal area (known then as Martin
Ranch) into the City’s sphere of influence (see
Figure 2). The Commission approved the sphere
expansion proposal noting that future development
would logically be served by the City and that the
City should assume the primary role in developing
the land use and service plans for the area. It was
outlined at that time that the approval of the sphere
expansion was simply to allow the landowner and
the City to move forward in completing the pre-
zoning, general plan amendment, and a
comprehensive Environmental Impact Report for
the project.

Fig. 2 – LAFCO 2808
Agenda Item #8 – LAFCO 3188A
City of San Bernardino Reorganization (Spring Trails SP) August 14, 2019

3 Project History

This primer box provides a history of the project since its inception in 1996.

The Spring Trails Specific Plan (or Martin Ranch) is a project that the City of San Bernardino has extensively reviewed, evaluated, and ultimately approved (and/or adopted) after years of processing. The Martin Ranch project was first submitted to the City in 1996. In 1998, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was issued for the project; however, the ensuing Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was rejected by the City’s Planning Department.

In December 2002, the application for the General Plan Amendment (GPA 02-09) and Tentative Tract Map (15576) was filed with the City. A revised Draft EIR was released in 2002. In October 2003, a major fire burned through the project site requiring preparation of a new Draft EIR. In 2004, a new NOP reflecting the revised project was issued by the City. It included a general plan amendment and pre-zoning for the project site and the adjacent unincorporated (island) area which designated the area as Planned Residential Development, the establishment of a Hillside Management Overlay District to allow lot size averaging, and a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the project site into approximately 359 lots. However, the 2004 Draft EIR, which addressed traffic, access, as well as other issues, was never circulated for public review.

In 2005, the project was again revised to pre-zone the project site to Residential Low and the adjacent unincorporated (island) area to Residential Estate. A new Draft EIR was not released until 2006 when the City released a completed Draft EIR. Significant issues were again raised, and the City opted to prepare a revised Draft EIR to address concerns related to noise, air quality, biological resources, geotechnical issues and fire safety.

In 2007, another fire on the site required further changes to the project. A new NOP was released for public review in 2009 along with an Initial Study. In March 2010, the application for the Specific Plan (SP 10-01) was filed with the City. Due to significant technical issues, the revised Draft EIR was not released until July 2011. Applications for a Development Agreement (DA 11-01) and a Development Code Amendment (DCA 12-10) were filed with the City in October 2011 and October 2012, respectively.

In November 2012, the City’s Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the component actions for the Spring Trails Specific Plan (except for the Development Agreement portion of the project which was continued at the request of the property owner) but recommended denial of all the actions. In January 2013, the City’s Planning Commission held another public hearing to consider the Development Agreement, and it also recommended denial of the proposed Development Agreement.

Finally, on February 19, 2013, the City Council reviewed and considered the Final EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations and the recommendations of the City’s Planning Commission related to the Spring Trails Specific Plan, the General Plan Amendment, the Development Code Amendment, Tentative Tract Map 15576 to subdivide the project site into 304 single-family residential lots and the project’s Development Agreement. The City Council reversed the Planning Commission’s recommendations and approved and/or adopted all actions related to the Spring Trails Specific Plan.

Agenda Item #8 – LAFCO 3188A
City of San Bernardino Reorganization (Spring Trails SP) August 14, 2019

4 Prior Proposal (LAFCO 3188)

In March 2015, the property owner—Montecito Equities, Ltd—submitted a property owner petition including the application materials for the proposed reorganization to the City (see Attachment #2). The applicant not only requested the annexation of its properties but also included the adjacent unincorporated area totaling approximately 376 acres (see Figure 3).

It should be noted that t he City (and the applicant)
included the adjacent unincorporated area as part of
its proposal to prevent the creation of a totally -
surrounded unincorporated island territory within the
City. This is why the adjacent 26-acre unincorporated
area was included in the City’s environmental
assessment for the project.

However, during the circulation of the Notice of Filing for LAFCO 3188, the Registrar of Voters (ROV)
certified on July 2, 2015 that there were 16 registered voters within the reorganization area (see Attachment
#3). That changed the annexation proposal from
being (initially) an “uninhabited” annexation (less than 12 registered voters) to an “inhabited” annexation
which allows for registered voter protest . This also
meant likely termination due to registered voter
protest—primarily from within the unincorporated
island area. As a result, the applicant requested that LAFCO suspend the processing of its application
proposal pending the outcome of the voter registration
verification process by the ROV.

Current Proposal (LAFCO 3188A)

After almost a year, there still was no resolution from the ROV on the applicant’s request for verification of
registered voters within the annexation area . This
prompted the applicant to submit a revised application
proposal that removed the adjacent unincorporated
area from its proposal boundary (see Attachment #4).

Figure 4 illustrates the applicant’s revised boundary
that excludes the adjacent unincorporated area .

Hence, the current proposal, LAFCO 3188A, creates
a totally-surrounded island territory within the City.

The reason for the delay in processing this proposal
since the time it was re-initiated by the applicant was Fig. 3 – LAFCO 3188
LAFCO
3188
Fig. 4 – LAFCO 3188A
LAFCO
3188A
Agenda Item #8 – LAFCO 3188A
City of San Bernardino Reorganization (Spring Trails SP) August 14, 2019

5 due to the modifications that had to be incorporated into the Plan for Service and Fiscal Impact Analysis to reflect the change in fire service between the City and County Fire, as well as the property tax transfer process between the County and the City.

Property Tax Transfer Process

In May 2017, both the County and the City were scheduled to approve their respective property tax transfer resolutions; however, the City ended up not agreeing to the exchange and took no action on its property tax transfer resolution at that time. This prompted the dispute resolution process outlined in Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99(e) that requires mediation and/or arbitration.

As the Commission is fully aware, the tax sharing formula in San Bernardino County (between the County and cities) is calculated in the same manner as all other annexations.

However, because of the City’s unique property tax exchange process with County Fire through its fire reorganization, the City raised questions on whether an alternative formula was appropriate. The County and the City jointly retained a third-party consultant (David Taussig and Associates) to perform an independent financial analysis of the property tax revenues. That process took several months to get underway and was finally completed in June 2018. Negotiations continued until all parties agreed.

The City adopted its property tax resolution on March 20, 2019, and the County, likewise, adopted its property tax resolution on May 21, 2019, determining the amount of property tax revenues to be exchanged among the County, the City, and County Fire.

BOUNDARIES:

The proposal, as submitted by the applicant, includes the annexation of properties solely associated with the Spring Trails Specific Plan and does not include the adjacent unincorporated area that, should LAFCO 3188A be approved by the Commission, will become a totally-surrounded island within the City of San Bernardino. In staff’s view, the Commission has the following options to address the island area:

Agenda Item #8 – LAFCO 3188A
City of San Bernardino Reorganization (Spring Trails SP) August 14, 2019

6 Option 1

Option 1 is to approve the proposal, LAFCO 3188A,
as submitted by the applicant. This would leave an
unincorporated area totally surrounded by the City.

Clearly, it would be LAFCO staff’s preference not to
create an island. Therefore, if the Commission
chooses option 1, LAFCO staff would recommend
that the Commission make certain determinations
related to the creation of the island, and as a
condition of approval require the City to initiate a new reorganization to annex the island area as a separate
proposal (see Figure 5).

Option 2

The Commission could modify the proposal by
expanding LAFCO 3188A to include the
unincorporated (island) area adjacent to the proposal
area, which would be the exact same area as the
prior proposal – LAFCO 3188 (see Figure 6).

As outlined in the earlier discussion related to the
prior proposal (LAFCO 3188) on pages 4 and 5, the
inclusion of the island area would change the
annexation proposal from being an uninhabited
annexation to an inhabited annexation since there
would be at least 12 registered voters within the
modified proposal.

From the beginning of the City’s consideration of the
Spring Trails project, many have expressed
opposition to the project. Since most of the
registered voters are from within the island portion of the modified area, the probability of termination of the expanded proposal would be highly likely.

Based on the options outlined above, LAFCO staff
recommends the Commission choose Option 1.

Although not an ideal boundary, it is LAFCO staff’s position that the imposition of the Condition of Approval related to the island area as well as the Determination related to the creation of the island, allows a mechanism for the Spring Trails Specific Plan, which is an easily identifiable boundary for service delivery, to be annexed into the City of San Bernardino for the services it requires.

A detailed comparison of the two options follows on the next two pages.

Fig. 6 – Option 2
Fig. 5 – Option 1

Agenda Item #8 – LAFCO 3188A
City of San Bernardino Reorganization (Spring Trails SP) August 14, 2019

7 Option 1
Applicant’s Proposal Boundary, as Submitted to LAFCO

Proposal Boundary and Description:

A reorganization of 350 acres to include annexation
of only the Spring Trails Specific Plan (shown in red).

Pros:
 The Commission identified the City as the
logical service provider for the area by
expanding the City’s sphere of influence in
1996.
 Reorganization area will benefit from the
extension of City services.
 No other agency can logically provide
municipal-level services to this area.
 Proposal has 100% landowner consent,
allowing for the waiver of protest and
eliminating the possibility of termination.

Cons:
 Applicant’s proposal boundary creates an unincorporated island (completely surrounded by the City, shown in yellow) which is prohibited under Government Code §56744, unless certain determinations can be made (see Discussion below).  The landowners and registered voters of the island (being outside the reorganization area) would lack a process to overturn the Commission’s action.

Discussion:

 Although an island of unincorporated area is being created, the Commission has the statutory ability to waive the restrictions of creating an island (§56744) if it finds that the restrictions would be detrimental to the orderly development of the community and that the areas enclosed by the annexation cannot be reasonably annexed to another city or incorporate as a city. A determination pursuant to §56375 has been included in the Commission’s draft resolution and in the Recommendation portion of this report.

 A condition of approval is being recommended that would require the City to initiate a separate reorganization to annex the island within one year of completion of LAFCO 3188A, and undergo standard protest proceedings on said island. The condition is included in the Commission’s draft resolution and in the Recommendation portion of this report.

Fig. 7 – Option 1
Agenda Item #8 – LAFCO 3188A
City of San Bernardino Reorganization (Spring Trails SP) August 14, 2019

8 Option 2
Expanded Proposal Boundary

Expanded Boundary and Description:

An expanded reorganization area of 376 acres to
include annexation of the Spring Trails Specific Plan
(350 acres) and adjacent 26-acre unincorporated
area.

Pros:
 The Commission identified the City as the
logical service provider to the area by
expanding the City’s sphere of influence in
1996.
 Environmental Assessment already includes
the adjacent 26-acre unincorporated area.
 Spring Trails Specific Plan area will benefit
from the extension of City services.
 No other agency can logically provide
municipal-level services to this area.
 Expanded boundary will not create an island.
 The proposal would include a protest proceeding whereby island landowners and registered voters could submit a protest to oppose the reorganization in order to overturn the Commission’s action.

Cons:
 Registered voter opposition within the expanded boundary would likely result in sufficient protest to terminate the reorganization.
 Without annexation to the City, the project—which requires municipal services—most likely would not be able to develop.

Discussion:

 This option is available to the Commission should it choose not to make a determination to waive the restrictions of creating an island.

 The Commission would have to continue the item in order to provide proper noticing.

 The Spring Trails project and reorganization would be decided by the registered voters within the reorganization area (not the landowners).

Fig. 8 – Option 2
Agenda Item #8 – LAFCO 3188A
City of San Bernardino Reorganization (Spring Trails SP) August 14, 2019

9 The remainder of this report contains the following information:
 Land Use
o County designations and City land use/pre-zone designations o Spring Trails Specific Plan
o Constraints: fire hazard, fault zone, circulation, high wind areas, flood and drainage  Service Issues and Effects on Other Local Governments  Environmental Considerations
 Waiver of Protest Proceedings
 Conclusion
 Recommendations
 Determinations
 Attachment Listing

LAND USE:

The reorganization area is predominantly vacant with the exception of an existing single- family residence on one of the parcels (see Figure 9). The area is surrounded by a combination of National Forest boundary and vacant lands to the east; a combination of residential development including Meyers Road to the south; a combination of residential development, vacant lands, and the National Forest boundary to the west; and the National Forest boundary to the north.

Fig. 9 – Aerial Map

Agenda Item #8 – LAFCO 3188A
City of San Bernardino Reorganization (Spring Trails SP) August 14, 2019

10 County Land Use Designations:

The County’s current land use designations for the reorganization area are: RL-5 (Rural Living, 5 acres minimum), which provides sites for rural residential uses and incidental agricultural uses; and RC (Resource Conservation), which provides sites for open space and recreational activities, and single-family homes on large parcels.

City’s Land Use/Pre-zone Designation(s):

The City of San Bernardino has assigned the reorganization area as Spring Trails Specific Plan District and has been pre-zoned the area as “Specific Plan No. 10-01, Spring Trails” under its Special Purpose Zones through the City’s consideration of Ordinance No. MC- 1386, which was adopted on March 5, 2013. The underlying Spring Trails Specific Plan zoning designations within the reorganization area are Residential (Estate), Open Space, and Parks, which will take effect upon completion of the annexation process.

The Spring Trails Specific Plan zone designations are the pre-zoning for the proposal area as required by Government Code §56375(a)(7). Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code §56375(e), these zoning designations shall remain in effect for a period of two (2) years following annexation unless specific actions are taken by the City Council at a public hearing.

The Spring Trails Specific Plan

The Spring Trails Specific Plan (Included as Attachment #5), is a proposed development within the 350-acre annexation area that was approved by the City Council of the City of San Bernardino in February 2013. At that time the Specific Plan was approved by the City, it contemplated development of 307 new single-family residential lots on approximately 242 acres and the remainder area for open space, parks, slopes, and other uses (see Figure 10).

Agenda Item #8 – LAFCO 3188A
City of San Bernardino Reorganization (Spring Trails SP) August 14, 2019

11 Fig. 10 – Original Development Plan Fig. 11 – Current Development Plan

However, since the City’s approval of the Specific Plan, the land area to be developed and the total number of residential lots have been reduced. Through subsequent analysis of the geology and soils within the Specific Plan area, it has been determined by the landowner that it is only feasible to construct 215 residential lots, and the land area to be developed has been significantly reduced from 242 acres to 199 acres (see Figure 11). The Current Development Plan configuration is also included as part of Attachment #1.

Constraints

Development of the Spring Trails Specific Plan includes a number of challenges that the Commission should be aware of given the location of the project. Below is a summary of some, but not all, of the constraints associated with the Spring Trails Specific Plan.

The Spring Trails is on the northern edge of the City in the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains. The area is generally bounded by the San Bernardino National Forest on three sides and the elevation of the site ranges from approximately 2,010 feet above sea level at its southern boundary to approximately 3,540 feet at the northern boundary. The topography of the site varies from steep (over 30% slopes) in the north and southeast portions of the site to gentle (0–15% slopes) in the central portion of the site. The site slopes to the southwest at approximately 10 to 15%.

Agenda Item #8 – LAFCO 3188A
City of San Bernardino Reorganization (Spring Trails SP) August 14, 2019

12  Fire Hazard

Because the San Bernardino National Forest is
adjacent to the project site, with steep slopes and
high winds, the Spring Trails Specific Plan area is
at risk from wildland fires (see Figure 12). The
Foothill Fire Zone Overlay District identifies three
fire zones with different degrees of hazard based
on slope, type of fuel, and natural barriers.

Approximately one third of the site is in Fire Zone
A (Extreme Hazard with slopes 30% or greater),
one third of the site is in Fire Zone B (High Hazard
with slopes of 15–30%), and the remaining third is
in Fire Zone C (Moderate Hazard with slopes of
0–15%). As noted in the Spring Trails Specific
Plan, areas in the Foothill Fire Zones are required
to be developed with proper building separation,
landscaping, and building materials; adequate
emergency access and evacuation routes; and
sufficient water resources.

The recommended preventative measures are incorporated in the Specific Plan as standards for fuel modification zones, setbacks, landscaping methods/materials, construction materials/methods, and building protection systems. The Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Specific Plan also outlines mitigation measures on fire safety.

 Fault Zone

The site includes three traces of the San Andreas
Fault zone, which runs in a general east–west
direction (see Figure 13). As noted in the Spring
Trails Specific Plan, the southern portion of the
site is traversed by two faults: the main trace of
the San Andreas Fault and a secondary trace just
north of the main trace. The fault zone of the main
trace ranges from approximately 50 feet to 150
feet wide and the fault zone of the secondary
trace is approximately 40 feet wide.

The Spring Trails Specific Plan has been
designed to comply with the requirements of the
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, which
prevents the construction of buildings within 50
feet of active faults. Setbacks and additional fault
studies are included as mitigation measures in the
Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Spring
Trails Specific Plan.

Fig. 13 – Earthquake Faults
Fig. 12 – Topography (Fire Zones)
Agenda Item #8 – LAFCO 3188A
City of San Bernardino Reorganization (Spring Trails SP) August 14, 2019

13  Circulation

Spring Trails require two points of access that directly connect to collector roads and avoid existing neighborhoods. The primary access road to Spring Trails will be through the southeast corner of the project site via a street extending from Little League Drive to the project site. Secondary access to Spring Trails will be via a street extending from the western edge of the project site to a frontage road along the I-215 Freeway. The secondary access road is designed to restrict non-resident access onto Meyers Road. The Mitigation Monitoring Program outlines mitigation measures to address wildlife corridors.

 High Wind Areas

The City of San Bernardino experiences periods of high velocity winds, especially in the Cajon Pass and at the bottoms of canyons. Spring Trails is included in the City’s designated High Wind Area, which has certain building standards. Development will be required to comply with the building standards for this area. The Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Specific Plan outlines development guidelines for high wind areas.

 Flooding and Drainage

Because Spring Trails sits on an alluvial plain on the slopes of the San Bernardino Mountains, flooding and drainage are also critical factors. Spring Trails is designed to avoid grading or construction of residences in the flood plains.

These are just some of the constraints associated with the Spring Trails Specific Plan.

LAFCO staff emphasizes the importance of the mitigation measures being implemented to minimize or reduce the impacts. These mitigation measures must be implemented by the City to allow development of the project. However, the Commission has no direct responsibility in implementing these mitigation measures.

Agenda Item #8 – LAFCO 3188A
City of San Bernardino Reorganization (Spring Trails SP) August 14, 2019

14 SERVICE ISSUES AND EFFECTS ON OTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:

In every consideration for jurisdictional change, the Commission is required to look at the existing and proposed service providers within an area. Due to the vacant nature of the lands currently, government service requirements are minimal – primarily law enforcement and fire protection. The current service providers within the reorganization area include the California Highway Patrol for law enforcement along existing roadways in unincorporated areas, County of San Bernardino, San Bernardino County Fire Protection District, its Valley Service Zone, and its Zone FP-5, and County Service Area 70 (unincorporated, multi- function entity). In addition, the regional independent special districts, Inland Empire Resource Conservation District and the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (State Water Contractor), overlay the reorganization area.

Plan for Service:

The City of San Bernardino has provided a “Plan for Service” for this proposal as required by law and Commission policy. The Plan includes a Fiscal Impact Analysis outlining its ability to provide its range of services and ongoing maintenance and operation to the area given the anticipated revenues and expenditures associated with the project. Also included with the materials for review is the Development Agreement approved by the City and the applicant, outlining land use assumptions, financing and service requirements for the reorganization area. The City of San Bernardino’s certified Plan for Service and Fiscal Impact Analysis and its Municipal Water Department’s certification of the Plan for Service are included as Attachment #6 to this report. In general, the Plan identifies the following:

 Water Service:

Water service will be provided by the City’s Municipal Water Department, as outlined in its Plan for Service. Current storage facilities nearest to Spring Trails is the Meyers Canyon Reservoir, but is not adequate for buildout of Spring Trails. Therefore, water will be supplied to Spring Trails by a combination of expanding and improving the offsite water systems and the provision of onsite reservoirs and transmission lines.

The City’s Municipal Water Department outlines the need for the developer to enter into an agreement with Department and provide its share of funding to construct the infrastructure necessary to serve the new pressure zones. In addition, the developer must enter into a developer-installed agreement and provide a performance bond to install the required transmission and distribution mains for construction.

 Sewer Service:

There is no sewage collection system within the area at the present time. The Sewer Capacity Study concludes that the City’s existing sewer system has the capacity to accommodate the project. The City’s wastewater collection system has transferred from the City’s Public Works to the City’s Municipal Water Department.

Agenda Item #8 – LAFCO 3188A
City of San Bernardino Reorganization (Spring Trails SP) August 14, 2019

15 Spring Trails would connect to the existing 10-inch main located on Little League Drive. The only offsite improvement that may be required is in North Little League Drive, which may be upgraded from an 8-inch to a 10-inch main.

 Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Response:

In 2016, the City of San Bernardino was annexed into the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District (County Fire), its Valley Service Zone, and its Zone FP-5 for fire protection and emergency medical response services. The area being annexed is already within the boundaries of County Fire; therefore, fire protection and emergency medical response services will continue to be provided by County Fire and its Valley Service Zone. No change in actual service provider will occur upon completion of the annexation.

The entire LAFCO 3188A is currently designated as State Responsibility Area (SRA) lands. This designation would be removed upon annexation to the City and the financial burden for fire protection becomes a responsibility of the City.

Fire stations and equipment of the City have since been transferred to County Fire through the City’s fire reorganization. The closest fire station is Station 232 (6065 Palm Avenue) located approximately two miles away from the project site. Water facilities for fire protection will meet water flow demands for the project.

As a result of the County Fire reorganizations, one of the conditions that was agreed upon was to account for the special tax generated from within the different areas being annexed into County Fire by creating subzones of County Fire’s Service Zone FP-5. In the case for the City, Zone FP-5 San Bernardino was created to isolate said funding generated from the City. Therefore, LAFCO 3188A includes annexation to Zone FP-5 San Bernardino as part of the overall reorganization in order to isolate the funding generated from reorganization area within the City of San Bernardino.

 Law Enforcement:

Law enforcement responsibilities will shift from the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department to the City of San Bernardino Police Department. The area is served by a main police station located at 710 North D Street, and four designated geographical patrol districts. The project area is within the City’s patrol beat B1 in the Northwest Patrol District.

 Park and Recreation:

Regional park and recreation services are currently provided by the County Regional Parks system. The closest regional park is Glen Helen Regional Park, which has various recreation activities. Due to the primarily vacant nature of the reorganization area, local park amenities are not currently provided.

The City of San Bernardino has a variety of parks and recreation facilities. The closest City park is the Al Guhin Park located approximately 1.3 miles from the Agenda Item #8 – LAFCO 3188A
City of San Bernardino Reorganization (Spring Trails SP) August 14, 2019

16 proposal area. The Spring Trails project plans to develop neighborhood parks, natural open space, as well as pedestrian/equestrian trails.

 Solid Waste

Solid waste services are currently provided by Burrtec Industries within the reorganization area and within the City of San Bernardino (by contract). No change in service provider will occur through the annexation.

 Schools

The area is within the San Bernardino City Unified School District (SBCUSD). Upon annexation, SBCUSD will continue to be the school district with North Verdemont Elementary School, Chavez Middle School, and Cajon High School.

As required by Commission policy and State law, the Plan for Service submitted by the City of San Bernardino and its Municipal Water Department show that the extension of the City’s services to the reorganization area are required to provide the level of service anticipated by the Spring Trails Specific Plan. Such service extensions will exceed current service levels provided through the County as the area is primarily vacant at the present time.

Agenda Item #8 – LAFCO 3188A
City of San Bernardino Reorganization (Spring Trails SP) August 14, 2019

17 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS:

The City’s processing of the Spring Trails Specific Plan project included the preparation and certification of an Environmental Impact Report that was finalized by the City in 2013.

LAFCO’s Environmental Consultant, Tom Dodson and Associates, has reviewed the City’s Complete Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which includes the Draft EIR and the Final EIR, and indicated that the City’s environmental documents are adequate for the Commission’s use as a responsible agency for LAFCO 3188A. Copies of the City’s Complete Final EIR and all associated documents, were provided to Commissioners on July 22, 2019. Mr. Dodson has indicated in his letter to the Commission, included as Attachment #9 to this report, the actions that are appropriate for the review of LAFCO 3188A, which are:

 Certify that the Commission, its staff, and its Environmental Consultant have individually reviewed and considered the environmental assessment for the Spring Trails Specific Plan prepared by the City of San Bernardino;

 Determine that the Complete Final EIR is adequate for the Commission’s use in making its decision related to LAFCO 3188A;

 Determine that the Commission does not intend to adopt alternatives or additional mitigation measures for the project; that the mitigation measures identified in the City’s environmental documents for the Spring Trails project are the responsibility of the City and others, not the Commission;

 Adopt the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations as presented by Mr. Dodson, which are the conclusions made regarding the significance of a project in light of the impacts and mitigation measures that have been identified. A copy of this Statement is included as a part of Attachment #9 to this report; and,

 Direct the Executive Officer to file the Notice of Determination within five days and find that no further Department of Fish and Wildlife filing fees are required by the Commission’s approval since the City, as lead agency, has paid said fees.

WAIVER OF PROTEST PROCEEDINGS:

The reorganization area is legally uninhabited (as determined by the Registrar of Voters office) and LAFCO staff verified that the study area possesses 100% landowner consent to the annexation. Therefore, if the Commission approves LAFCO 3188A and none of the affected agencies have submitted written opposition to a waiver of protest proceedings, staff is recommending that protest proceedings be waived. The actions would include direction to the Executive Officer to complete the reorganization following completion of the mandatory reconsideration period of 30-days.

Agenda Item #8 – LAFCO 3188A
City of San Bernardino Reorganization (Spring Trails SP) August 14, 2019

18 CONCLUSION:

In the mid-90s, the applicant already began planning the development of its landholdings that encompass the Spring Trails Specific Plan area. This began by a request to LAFCO for expansion of the City’s sphere of influence in 1996. The first development project was originally called “Martin Ranch”. As noted in the History Section of this report, the prior Martin Ranch and the current Spring Trails Specific Plan has been in the making for more than 20 years with numerous changes to the project description and multiple Draft EIRs prepared and revised since its inception. The final project approved and/or adopted by the City of San Bernardino, which is the Spring Trails Specific Plan, requires a broad range and level of municipal services that are only available through the City of San Bernardino.

The reorganization area will benefit from the extension of the City’s services as well as the continuation of fire protection and emergency medical response services from the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District and its Valley Service Zone based upon the anticipated development of 215 (current configuration) single-family residences, open space, parks, and other public facilities.

The Spring Trails Specific Plan was approved and adopted by the City with certain guidelines, conditions of approval, and mitigation measures. Therefore, the Commission’s approval of LAFCO 3188A assumes that the City will adhere to the parameters that have been imposed on the Spring Trails Specific Plan and the mitigation measures outlined in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Spring Trails Specific Plan.

However, approval of this proposal calls into question the issue related to the adjacent unincorporated area that will become totally-surrounded by the City of San Bernardino. This report provides for options for addressing the creation of said island territory. Staff recommendations are to:

 Include a determination required by Government Code Section 56375(m), which can be applied to this proposal; and,

 Include a condition that requires the City to initiate the totally-surrounded island area within one year of the Commission’s approval of LAFCO 3188A.

For all these reasons, and those outlined throughout the staff report, staff recommends approval of LAFCO 3188A.

However, should the Commission choose Option 2 (to expand the proposal) then the Commission would have to continue the item in order to provide proper noticing.

Agenda Item #8 – LAFCO 3188A
City of San Bernardino Reorganization (Spring Trails SP) August 14, 2019

19 RECOMMENDATIONS:

The staff recommends that the Commission approve LAFCO 3188A by taking the following actions:

1. With respect to the environmental review:

a. Certify that the Complete Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and other related environmental documents prepared by the City of San Bernardino for the Spring Trails Specific Plan have been independently reviewed and considered by the Commission, its staff and its Environmental Consultant;

b. Determine that the Complete Final EIR for the project prepared by the City is adequate for the Commission’s use as a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Responsible Agency for its determination related to LAFCO 3188A.

c. Determine that the Commission does not intend to adopt alternatives or additional mitigation measures for the Spring Trails Specific Plan, and that the mitigation measures identified for the project are the responsibility of the City and others, not the Commission;

d. Adopt the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations as presented by the Commission’s Environmental Consultant and attached to the staff report; and,

e. Direct the Executive Officer to file the Notice of Determination within five days, and find that no further Department of Fish and Wildlife filing fees are required by the Commission’s approval since the City, as CEQA Lead Agency, has paid said fees.

2. Approve LAFCO 3188A, with the following determination: 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.

3. Approve LAFCO 3188A with the following conditions:

a. 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 and process under standard protest proceedings. 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 Agenda Item #8 – LAFCO 3188A
City of San Bernardino Reorganization (Spring Trails SP) August 14, 2019

20 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 totally-surrounded 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.

b. The standard LAFCO terms and conditions that include, but are not limited to, the “hold harmless” clause for potential litigation costs by the applicant and the continuation of fees, charges, and/or assessments currently authorized by the annexing agency, and the identification that the transfer of utility accounts will occur within 90 days of the recording of the Certificate of Completion.

3. Waive protest proceedings, as permitted by Government Code Section 56662(d), with 100% landowner consent to the reorganization; and,

4. Adopt LAFCO Resolution No. 3291 setting forth the Commission’s determinations, terms, and conditions of approval concerning LAFCO 3188A.

Agenda Item #8 – LAFCO 3188A
City of San Bernardino Reorganization (Spring Trails SP) August 14, 2019

21 DETERMINATIONS:

The following determinations are required to be provided by Commission policy and Government Code Section 56668 for any changes of organization/reorganization proposal:

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

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

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

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

5. In accordance with State law and adopted Commission policies, LAFCO has provided individual notice to:

 landowners (2) and registered voters (4) within the reorganization area (totaling 6 notices); and,

 landowners (84) and registered voters (96) surrounding the reorganization area (totaling 180 notices).

Included as Attachment #7 to this report is a comment letter received by LAFCO staff from an area resident prior to the publication of the report. The letter outlines concerns related to the project such as fire safety (e.g. housing densities, slope issues, and previous fires in the area, etc.), issues regarding the access roads (e.g. roads built on fault lines, vehicle trips per day, etc.), and issues related to services from the City as well as utilities across fault lines.

Comments from landowners and registered voters and any affected local agency in support or opposition will be reviewed and considered by the Commission in making its determination.

6. The City of San Bernardino adopted the Spring Trails Specific Plan (SP #10-01) along with a General Plan Amendment (GPA #02-09) and a Development Code Amendment (DCA #12-10), which pre-zoned the reorganization area as Spring Trails Specific Plan with the following underlying specific plan zone designations:

Residential (Estate), Open Space, and Parks. These pre-zone/specific plan zone Agenda Item #8 – LAFCO 3188A
City of San Bernardino Reorganization (Spring Trails SP) August 14, 2019

22 designations are consistent with the City’s General Plan and are generally compatible with surrounding land uses within the City and in the County.

Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 56375(e), these pre-zone designations shall remain in effect for two years following annexation unless specific actions are taken by the City Council.

7. The Southern California Associated Governments (SCAG) adopted its 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP-SCS) pursuant to Government Code Section 65080. LAFCO 3188A is in close proximity with the I-215 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. 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 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan that was approved by FEMA in July 2017.

Information contained in the Safety Element of the City’s General Plan related to Urban and Wildland Fires is included as Attachment #8.

9. As a CEQA responsible agency, the Commission’s Environmental Consultant, Tom Dodson of Tom Dodson and Associates, has reviewed the City’s environmental documents for the reorganization proposal and has indicated that the City’s environmental assessment for the Spring Trails Specific Plan are adequate for the Commission’s use as CEQA responsible agency. Copies of the City’s Complete Final EIR and all associated documents were provided to Commission members on July 22, 2019 and are also included (as web links) as part of Attachment #9 to this report (Environmental Documents Related to the City of San Bernardino’s Approval of the Spring Trails Specific Plan). Mr. Dodson has prepared his recommended actions for LAFCO 3188A, which are outlined in the narrative portion of the Environmental Considerations section (page 17 of the staff report).

Attachment #9 also includes the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations that has been prepared for the Commission’s use in addressing this project.

10. The reorganization area is presently served by the following public 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)
County Service Area 70 (multi-function unincorporated County-wide)

Agenda Item #8 – LAFCO 3188A
City of San Bernardino Reorganization (Spring Trails SP) August 14, 2019

23 The area will be detached from County Service Area 70 and its sphere of influence reduced as a function of the reorganization. None of the other agencies are affected by this proposal as they are regional in nature.

11. A plan was prepared for the extension of services to the reorganization area, as required by law. The Plan for Service and the Fiscal Impact Analysis, as certified by the City and its Municipal Water Department, indicates that the City can maintain and/or improve the level and range of services currently available in the area. A copy of this plan is included as a part of Attachment #6 to this report.

The 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 Commission finds that the Plan for Service and the Fiscal Impact Analysis conform to those adopted standards and requirements.

The Plan indicates that the revenues to be provided through the transfer of property tax revenues and existing and potential financing mechanisms are anticipated to be sufficient to provide for the infrastructure and ongoing maintenance and operation of the services to be provided from the City of San Bernardino and its Municipal Water Department as well as the services from the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District and its Valley Service Zone. A copy of the Plan for Service is included as a part of Attachment #6 to this report.

12. The reorganization proposal complies with Commission policies and directives and State law that indicate the preference for areas proposed for urban intensity development to be included within a City so that the full range of municipal services can be planned, funded, extended, and maintained.

However, approval of this proposal will create an island of unincorporated territory that will be totally-surrounded by the City of San Bernardino.

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

14. This proposal will have an effect on 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.

15. 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):

Agenda Item #8 – LAFCO 3188A
City of San Bernardino Reorganization (Spring Trails SP) August 14, 2019
24 Demographic and Income
Comparison
City of
San Bernardino
(%)
Reorganization
Area and
Adjacent
Unincorporated
Area (%)
Race and Ethnicity
• African American Alone 13.5 % 7.0 %
• American Indian Alone 1.3 % 0.9 %
• Asian Alone 4.2 % 4.3 %
• Pacific Islander Alone 0.4 % 0.3 %
• Hispanic Origin (Any Race) 68.3 % 37.9 %
Median Household Income $43,515 $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. The County of San Bernardino (for itself and acting 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.

17. The maps and legal descriptions, as revised, are in substantial compliance with LAFCO and State standards through certification by the County Surveyor's Office.

SM/
Attachments:

1. Vicinity Map, Reorganization Map, and Current Development Plan Configuration

2. Applicant’s Landowner Petition and Application Documents

3. ROV Certification of Registered Voters within LAFCO 3188 Dated July 2, 2015

4. Letter from Applicant Dated June 22, 2016 Regarding Resubmittal of Application

5. Spring Trails Specific Plan and Recorded Development Agreement

6. City of San Bernardino’s Certified Plan for Service/Fiscal Impact Analysis, Certification from the City’s Municipal Water Department

7. Comment Letter Received Prior to Staff Report Publication

8. Safety Element Portion of the City’s General Plan related to Urban and Wildland Fires

9. Letter from Tom Dodson and Associates and Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Environmental Documents Related to the City of San Bernardino’s Approval of the Spring Trails Specific Plan

10. Draft Resolution No. 3291 for LAFCO 3188A

Letters Received After the
August 21, 2019 Hearing
Attachment 2

Letter from Tom Dodson and
Associates and Facts, Findings
and Statement of Overriding
Considerations, and
Environmental Documents
Related to the City of San
Bernardino’s approval of the
Spring Trails Specific Plan

Attachment 3

TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
Mailing Address: PO Box 2307, San Bernardino, CA 92406-2307 Physical Address: 2150 N. Arrowhead Avenue, San Bernardino, CA 92405 Tel: (909) 882-3612 ✦ Fax: (909) 882-7015 ✦ Email: [email protected]

July 31, 2019

Mr. Samuel Martinez
Executive Officer
Local Agency Formation Commission
1170 West 3rd Street, Unit 150
San Bernardino, CA 92415-0490

Dear Sam:

LAFCO 3188A consists of a request by the City of San Bernardino (City) for a Reorganization to include Annexation to the City 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 proposed Reorganization area consists of approximately 350 acres located generally east of Devore and northeasterly o the I-215 Freeway. The property and current City of San Bernardino boundary is shown on the attached aerial photo of the project area. The Reorganization area is within the City of San Bernardino northern Sphere of Influence. If the Commission approves LAFCO 3188A, the project site can be developed under the Spring Trails Specific Plan which currently proposes 215 new residential lots.

The City of prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR, SCH No. 2009111086) and certified the Final EIR on February 19, 2013 for this project to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State CEQA Guidelines. This document concluded that implementation of the proposed residential development in accordance with the adopted Specific Plan would result in significant adverse environmental impacts to the environment even after implementation of a number of mitigation measures that all fall within the City’s jurisdiction. Because the EIR identified unavoidable significant adverse environmental impacts, the City adopted a Facts, Findings, and Stat ement of Overriding Considerations weighing the project benefits with the identified adverse environmental impacts. LAFCO was identified as one of the Responsible Agencies under CEQA for this proposed Reorganization.

As a CEQA Responsible Agency, LAFCO is required to rely upon the EIR certified by the City of San Bernardino in 2013. One of the requirements for utilizing a certified EIR by a Responsible Agency is to verify that the original document is still adequate for use when the agency considers the EIR for the action evaluated in the EIR. In this case the Reorganization is an essential step in the final approval process for implementing the residential development entitled by the Spring Trails Specific Plan. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 al lows an original document to be used by a Responsible Agency under the following conditions:

Under Section 15162, a subsequent EIR or negative declaration is required only when:

(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require majo r revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;

(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circu mstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the EIR due to the involvement of any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or

(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:

(A) The project will have one or more si gnificant effects not discussed in the previous negative declaration;

(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;

(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasibl e would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternative; or

(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerabl y different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

I have reviewed the original EIR to deter mine whether any substantial changes have occurred during the intervening six (6) years that would result in any new significant impacts or greater impacts than identified in this document. In fact , one major change in the project would substantially reduce all impacts of the proposed project. The original project would have resulted in 242 acres of development and 111 acres of open space. The total number of residential units approved by the City was 307. Due to additional geology and soil data obtaine d subsequent to the EIR’s certification, the project design was revised. The current design will allow about 199 acres to be developed and an estimated 154 acres will be retained in open space and other non-residential uses. The total number of residential units now proposed is 215. This substantial reduction in the number of units, plus positive changes in air emission reductions and overall project footprint provide assurance that the project that would be allowed to proceed after annexation will have less overall impact than the originally approved project. Therefore, I recommend that the Commission rely upon the City’s EIR as adequate for LAFCO’s Responsible Agency CEQA environmental determination. Further, I am recommending that the Commission consider the certified EIR as a CEQA Responsible Agency as the appropriate CEQA environmental determination for LAFCO 3188A.

Based on a review of LAFCO 3188A and the pertinent sections of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, I believe it is appropriate for the Commission's CEQA environmental determination to cite the City ’s EIR as adequate documentation in accordance with the Commission's CEQA Responsible Agency status. The Notice of Determination for the project was filed on February 19, 2013. Based on a field review of the site and review of the environmental issues in the City’s document, no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred since its adoption that would require additional environmental documentation or review. Under this situation, I recommend that the Commission take the following steps if it chooses to approve LAFCO 3188A, acting as a CEQA Responsible Agency:

1. Indicate that the Commission staff and environmental consultant have independently reviewed the City's EIR and found them adequ ate for the City’s proposed Reorganization.

2. The Commission needs to indicate that it has considered the EIR and environmental effects, as outlined in the EIR, prior to reaching a decision on the project and finds the information substantiating the EIR adequate for approval of the Reorganization.

3. The Commission should indicate that it does not intend to adopt alternatives or mitigation measures for this project. Mitigation measures were required for this project and they will remain the responsibility of the City to implement.

4. Adopt the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations.

5. File a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk of the Board as a CEQA Responsible Agency.

If you have any questions regarding these recommendations, please feel free to give me a call.

Sincerely,

Tom Dodson

TD/cmc

M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding
Considerations
for the
Spring Trails Specific Plan
August 2019
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

i
M681-000 -- 1000746.1

I. PROJECT SUMMARY........................................................................................................ 1 A. Site Location. ............................................................................................................... 1 B. Project Description. .................................................................................................... 2 C. Actions Covered by the EIR....................................................................................... 8 D. Project Objectives ....................................................................................................... 9 II. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ............................. 10 III. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT FINDING ....................................................................... 11 A. General Finding On Mitigation Measures .............................................................. 11 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND FINDINGS ........................................................ 12 A. Impacts Identified as Less Than Significant Requiring No Mitigation. .............. 12

1. Aesthetics. ............................................................................................................ 12

2. Air Quality. .......................................................................................................... 18

3. Biological Resources. .......................................................................................... 21

4. Cultural Resources.............................................................................................. 22

5. Geology and Soils. ............................................................................................... 23

6. Hazards and Hazardous Materials.................................................................... 28

7. Hydrology/Water Quality .................................................................................. 30

8. Land Use and Planning. ..................................................................................... 40

9. Mineral Resources. ............................................................................................. 46

10. Noise. .................................................................................................................... 46

11. Population and Housing. .................................................................................... 53

12. Public Services. .................................................................................................... 56

13. Recreation. ........................................................................................................... 60

14. Traffic Impacts. ................................................................................................... 62

15. Utilities and Service Systems.............................................................................. 63

16. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. ............................................................................... 69

17. Forest Resources. ................................................................................................ 72 B. Potentially Significant Impacts Which Can Be Mitigated Below a Level of Significance and Mitigation Measures. ................................................................... 74

1. Biological Resources. .......................................................................................... 74

2. Cultural Resources............................................................................................ 105

3. Geology and Soils. ............................................................................................. 110

4. Hazards and Hazardous Materials.................................................................. 113

5. Land Use and Planning. ................................................................................... 125

6. Public Services. .................................................................................................. 126

7. Traffic and Circulation..................................................................................... 129

8. Utilities and Service Systems............................................................................ 131

9. Forest Resources. .............................................................................................. 136 C. Impacts Analyzed in the EIR and Determined to be Significant and Unavoidable. ............................................................................................................ 138

1. Air Quality. ........................................................................................................ 138

2. Noise. .................................................................................................................. 146

3. Traffic................................................................................................................. 148

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

ii
M681-000 -- 1000746.1

4. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. ............................................................................. 150 D. Additional Topics Required by CEQA. ................................................................ 156

1. Significant Irreversible Environmental Effects. ............................................ 156

2. Growth Inducing Impacts. ............................................................................... 157 E. Project Alternatives. ............................................................................................... 159

1. No Project/No Development Alternative. ....................................................... 159

2. No Project/Existing County General Plan Alternative. ................................. 161

3. Alternative Site Plan. ........................................................................................ 164

4. Reduced Daily Grading Alternative. ............................................................... 166

5. Environmentally Superior Alternative. .......................................................... 167 F. Statement of Overriding Considerations. ............................................................. 168

1. Findings Related to Traffic and Transportation Impacts. ............................ 170

2. Findings Related to Air Quality Impacts. ....................................................... 171

3. Findings Related to Noise Impacts. ................................................................. 172

4. Findings Related to Greenhouse Gas Emissions. ........................................... 172 V. APPROVING THE PROJECT ....................................................................................... 174 VI. REGARDING STAFF DIRECTION .............................................................................. 174 VII. REGARDING CONTENTS AND CUSTODIAN OF RECORD ................................. 174

Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

1 M681-000 -- 1000746.1

CANDIDATE FINDINGS OF FACT AND

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS

REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS FROM APPROVAL OF
LAFCO 3188A, REORGANIZATION TO INCLUDE

ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT ZONE FP-5 SAN BERNARDINO, AND DETACHMENT FROM COUNTY SERVICE AREA 70
(SPRING TRAILS SPECIFIC PLAN)

I. INTRODUCTION

The San Bernardino County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO or Commission), in a pproving LAFCO 3188A for a Reorganization to include Annexation to the City of San Bernardino (“City”) and to the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District Zone FP-5 San Bernardino, and Detac hment from County Service Area 70 (Spring Trails Specific Plan), makes the findings described below and adopts the statement of overriding considerations presented at the end of these findings. The total area encompassed within the proposed Sphere expansion is estimated to be 350 acres.

The Commission makes the F indings described below in connection with the City’s approval of the Spring Trails Specific Plan (“Project” or “Spring Trails”). The current Project proposes development of 215 single-family lots, in addition to a single existing residence, within a 350-acre site situated within an unincorporated area of the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains.

The Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) was prepared by the Ci ty acting as lead agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). In co nsidering LAFCO 3188A, the Commission will be acting as a CEQA Responsible Agency. Hereafter, the Notice of Preparation, Notice of Availability, Draft EIR, Technical Studies, Final EIR containing Responses to Comments and textual revisions to the Draft EI R, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will be referred to collectively herein as the “EIR” unless otherwise specified. These Findings are based on the entire record before the Commission, including the EIR. The Commission adopts the fact s and analyses in the EIR, which are summarized below for convenience. The omission of some detail or aspect of the EIR does not mean that it has been rejected by the Commission.

I. PROJECT SUMMARY
A. Site Location.

The Project is located within unincorporated San Bernardino County on the northern edge of the City of San Bernardino and in the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains. The site is approximately 1.5 mile s east of the unincorporated commu nity of Devore and the junction of Interstate 215 (I-215) and I-15. The Project is bounded by the San Bernardino National Forest on three sides, and the Verdemont community of unincorporated San Bernardino County on the southern side. The Project is approx imately one -third mile northwest of the intersection of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

2 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Meyers Road and Little League Drive. Primary access is from a new roadway extending from Little League Drive, and secondary access will be provided by a new road exte nding south and connecting to the frontage road along I -215. Freeway access is from the Palm A venue interchange and the Glen Helen Parkway/Devore Road interchange.

B. Project Description.

The Project site ( 349.36 acres, or approximately 350 acres) is within the City of San Bernardino’s unin corporated sphere of influence (“SOI”) and will be annexed i nto the City.

LAFCO 3188A consists of a request by the City of San Bernardino (City) for a Reorganization to include Annexation to the City and to the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District Zone FP-5 San Bernardino, and Detac hment from County Service Area 70 (Spring Trails Specific Plan). There has been one major change in the project that would substantially reduce all impacts of the proposed p roject relative to the forecast in the EIR. The original pr oject would have resulted in 242 acres of development and 111 acres of open space. The total number of residential units approved by the City was 307. Due to additional geology and soil data obt ained subsequent to the EIR’s certification, the project des ign was revised. The current design will allow about 199 acres to be developed and an estimated 154 acres will be retained in open spa ce and other non-residential uses. The total number of resid ential units now proposed is 215. This substantial reduction in the number of units, plus positive changes in air emission reductions and overall project footprint provide assurance that the project that would be allowed to proceed after Reorganization will have less overall impact than the originally approved project.

Under the current “Preferred Development Plan”, the Spring Trails Specific Plan will accommodate 215 single-family detached uni ts, set among neighborhoods separated by open space corridors, drainage ways, roadways, and sloped areas. A system of pat hways will connect the residences with neighborhood parks and natural open spaces. Development will be focused onto approximately 199 acres, or about 56 percent of the total site, and will include 154 acres of open space, parks and internal slopes and fuel modification zones.

The Preferred Development Plan assumes that the Southern California Edison (“SCE”) overhead electric lines that traverse the western portion of the Project site would remain above- ground. 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.

The average lot size in Spring Trails is 29,000 square feet. The largest lots are on the northern portion and upper elevations of the site , and the largest lot measur es 18.3 acres. The smallest lots are on the lower elevations and southern portion of the project, and the smallest lot measures 10,801 square feet. In many instances the legal lots extend beyond the buildable area and include graded slopes, fuel modificati on zones, steep slopes, and open spaces.

Approximately 199 acres of the total site would be improved for the onsite devel opment of residential lots, roadways, trails, detention basins, fuel modification zones, and parks. An additional 23.7 acres would be graded and improved for offsite access, including 4.2 acres for the primary access road and 19.5 acres for the secondary access road.

Alternative (Underground Electric Lines) Development Plan Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

3 M681-000 -- 1000746.1

In the event that it becomes feasible or necessary to do so, an “Alternative Development Plan” is proposed, which is identica l to the Preferred Development Plan in every respect, except for the electric lines would be relocated underground. The Alternative Development Plan contains 215 single-family detached units.

Access Roads and Circulation

Primary access to Spring Trails would be provided by a new road extending from the southeastern corner of the site and connecting to Little League Drive. Secondary access is planned via a new road extending from the southwest ern corner of the site to the frontage road along I -215. Excep t for emergency access, the intersection of the secondary ac cess road with Meyers Road is designed with barriers to prevent vehicular access onto Meyers Road.

Circulation within Spring Trails wi ll be provided by a loop road and a series of cul -de-sacs.

Necessary public streets, both on - and off -site, would be impro ved by the developer and dedicated to the City. All roadways would be two -way travel—one lane in each direction —with varying treatments for parkways, sidewalks, and parking. The roadway types are:

 Primary Access Road (50 ft. Right-of-Way (ROW)) would provide the main access for residents and guests to enter and leave Spring Trails;

 Secondary Access Roadway (50 ft. ROW) is intended as a n alternative street for local traffic to access arterial stre ets outside the project site. General public would not be ab le to access Meyers Road from the Secondary Access Road through the use of a barrier.

Emergency vehicles would only be allowed to acce ss Meyers Road from the Secondary Access Road.

 Primary Local Street (50 ft. ROW) would provide primary internal access w ithin Spring Trails.

 Secondary Local Road (40 ft. ROW) would provide resident access in the northern portion of the project and include parallel parking on one side of the street.

 Cul-de-Sac I (46 ft. ROW) would connect to the local streets and provide access to homes on both sides of the street.

 Cul-de-Sac II (40 ft. ROW) would connect to the local streets and provide access to homes on only one side of the street.

Trails and Open Space

A t otal of 154 acres of the 350-acre site is planned as open sp ace, including natural open space, controlled open space, and parks. Two neighborhood parks would be public, serve the dual function as detention basins, and include shade structures and tot lots. One private park is proposed to include a thematic garden, observation point, a tot lot, and other amenities such as an Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

4 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
outdoor fireplace, water feature, picnic benches, and gazebo. A private, enclosed dog park is also proposed. Under the Preferred Develo pment Plan with overhead electric lines, 126 acres is planned as open space, with an additional 0.9 acres of open space to accommodate the SCE easement for the overhead electric lines. The land underneath the central portion of the SCE easement is designated as Open Space -Controlled. If permitted by SCE, a park and /or trail may be located under this portion of the electric lines as a permitted use; however, they are not assumed in the buildout of the Preferred Development Plan.

A diverse system of intercon nected trails would include a community trail (8 -foot-wide trail within street ROW) for pedestrian and bicycle use; equestrian/pedestrian trail (12 -foot-wide trail surfaced with decomp osed granite or similar surface and connecting with existing offsite tra il); and 4-foot-wide hiking trails.

Storm Drainage

There are four major drainage areas within the Spring Trails Project site. Upon development, some natural drainage courses onsite would be maintained, and some on - and off -site flows would be captured a nd routed through a series of catch basin inlets and storm d rain systems.

Captured stormwater would be conveyed to three onsite detention basins where it would be treated and discharge d at a controlled rate into Cable Canyon. The drainage plan has been designed to ensure conveyance of the 100 -year storm. Best Management Practices (“BMPs”) for water quality treatment would include the extended detention basins and media filtration devices.

These improvements would be designed and constructed in accordance wi th the City of San Bernardino and the San Bernardino County Flood Control District standards.

Water Supply System

The City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department would provide water service to Spring Trails, and currently provides service to pressu re zones ranging from 1,249 feet to 2,100 feet. The nearest existing reservoir is the Meyers Canyon Reservoir, which is within the 2,100 - foot pressure zone, but is not adequate for bui ldout of Spring Trails or Verdemont. Therefore, water would be supplied to Spring Trails from lower elevations by a combination of e xpanding and improving the offsite water system and the provision of onsite reservoirs and transmission lines. Offsite improvements would include the creation/improvement of a series of pump stati ons and transmission lines within the Verdemont community. I n addition, three onsite reservoirs are proposed to meet the need for 2,300 -, 2,500-, 2,700-, and 3,000 -foot elevation press ure zones.

Based upon the projected buildout of Spring Trails, total projected water demands are:

 Average Daily Demand – 328 gallons per minute (gpm) , reduced by about 30% due to current number of units
 Maximum Daily Demand – 568 gpm, reduced by about 30% due to current number of units
 Maximum Peak Hour Demand – 1,136 gpm , re duced by about 30% due to current number of units

Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

5 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
The water facilities for Spring Trails have been sized to meet maximum demand in addition to fire flow requirements. Fire flow capaci ty is designed to provide 1,500 gpm for four hours.

Pumping stations would be designed with 100 percent redundancy in the event that one or more of the pumping units fails, and would be equipped with onsite generators that can operate in a blackout or emer gency condition. The pipelines that connect pump stations to the reservo irs would be a maximum of 20 inches in diameter. All looping lines would be 12 inches in diameter, and other distribution pipelines would be 8 inches in diameter.

Sewer Collection

The City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department would provide wastewater service to the Spring Trails Project, which lies within its sanitary sewer service area. Spring Trails would connect to the City’s existing 10 -inch sewer line, which ends at Little League Drive and Meyers Road, then connects to the south to a major in terceptor system, and is eventually treated in the San Bernardino Water Reclamation Plant. Existing capacity is available in the sewer system to serve the bu ildout population within the City. The sewer facilities would be designed and constructed in accord ance with the City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Departm ent standards and specifications and in accordance with the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (latest edition). The sewer mains would be located in public street rights -of- way where possible. If not, they would be constructed within ded icated public utility easements.

The sewer system would be dedicated to and maintained by the Cit y of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department.

Fuel Modification and Fire Protection

The entire Project site is within a Very High Hazard Severity Zone as d esignated by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (“CAL FIRE”). Once annexed to the City of San Bernardino, the Project site would also be subject to the City’s Development Co de and established Foothill Fire Zones Overlay District (Dev elopment Code Chapter 19.15). The overlay district designates three zones within the wildland interface:

 Fire Zone A (Extreme hazard), characterized by slopes over 30 percent  Fire Zone B (High Hazard), characterized by slopes 15–30 percent  Fire Zone C (Moderate Hazard), characterized by slopes less than 15 percent

The Project site has approximately 121 acres in Fire Zone A, 112 acres in Fire Zone B, and 119 acres in Fire Zone C. The Overlay Distr ict specifies development standards relating to access and c irculation, site and street identification, roadside vegetation, water supply, erosion control, construction and development design, and miscellaneous items. The entire Project site is already within the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District and i ts Valley Service Zone , which is the fire service provider for the City . Any remaining references to the City Fire Department in this document should instead reference the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District.

Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

6 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
One of the components of the wild land fire defense systems for Spring Trails would be the implementation of fuel modification zones. The proposed plan includes the following defined fuel modification zones:

 Fuel Modification Zon e A (flat) - Noncombustible Construction: 20- to 35-foot setback zone for noncombustible construction only. Fuel Modification Zone A shall be maintained by the homeowner or the HOA. At no time would the Fuel Modification Zone A be less than 20 feet.

 Fuel Modification Zone B - Wet Zone (100 percent removal of undesirable plant species):

First 50 to 200 feet from Fuel Modification Zone A. Fuel Modification Zone B shall be permanently irrigated, fully landscaped with approved drought -tolerant, deep -rooted, moisture-retentive material as container shrub material, or hy droseeded per SBFD Approved Plant List. Fuel Modification Zone B area shall be maintained by the homeowner, HOA, or landscape maintenance district (“LMD”) as appropriate.

 Fuel Modification Zone C - Dry Zone (50 percent thinning of the acceptable existing plant material): 40 to 185 feet. Fuel Modification Zone C shall be a non -irrigated area.

Removal of all flammable undesirable species. Specimen and trees shall be retained as directed by the owner 's representative but must be thinned a minimum of 50 percen t, including removal of all low hanging foliage within three times the height of the understory shrubs or 10 feet, whichever is greater, along with dead o r broken branches.

All accumulated plant d ebris on the ground shall be removed. Fuel Modification Zone C area shall be maintained by the LMD.

This Project does not contain any 30 percent thinning “D” fuel modification zones.

General Project Phasing and Schedule

It is anticipated in the DEIR tha t the Project will be phased, with complete buildout anticipated to occur within approximately three years of the start of construction. This phasing, however, is based on a judgment of future planning and market f actors, and therefore is subject to change. The Project, however, would be developed in the following sequence:

Phase 1 (approximately one year)
 Offsite grading and improvement of the primary and secondary access roads;  Offsite backbone utilities (water, sewer, drainage, etc.);  Onsite backbone utilities;
 Rough grading of Spring Trails Project site (approximately 200 acres) for development of residential lots, roadways, trails, detention basins, and parks; and  Detention basins improved.

Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

7 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Phase 2 (approximately 2.5 years)
 Residential development wo uld sequence from the south and continue northward.

Infrastructure, roadways, fuel modification zones, parks, and landscaping necessary to serve residential development would be phased accordingly;  Improvements in this phase would generally follow the sequ ence of water improvements, which are divided into three pressure zones;
 Sewer, storm drain, dry utilities, and roadway paving would be sequenced with improvements in each water pressure zone;
 Trails, parks, and common area landscaping in each pressure zone would occur prior to or concurrent with issuance of residential building permits for that pressure zone; and  Fuel modification zones necessary to support the development in each zone would occur as noted in the Fire Protection Plan.

In accordance with Section 8.54.070 of the City of San Bernardino’s Municipal Code, construction would be limited to the hours between 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM.

Estimated Earthwork

Based on preliminary estimates, the earthwork for the Project site itself is anticipated to balance. The primary and secondary access roads, however, would require substantial cut, and the net export requirement for the Project is 251,000 cubic yards (cy). Based on an estimated 14 cy capacity per haul truck, an estimated 17,929 truck trips would be r equired to export soil to complete the access roads. This is estimated to occur over an approximately three -month period, and therefore, based on a six-day week, would require approximately 249 truck trips per day.

Development Agreement

A Development Agreement was proposed as part of the Project approvals. The D evelopment Agreement includes certain Project conditions that benefit the Project, as well as local and regional benefits. These conditions include:

 Dedication to the City of San Bernardino right -of-way for water main lines and related facilities, easements for the construction and operation of water tank sites, and right -of- way for sewer main lines and related facilities;

 Construction of water lines and related facilities including water tanks w ithin the easement shown in the Tract Map for the Project si te and dedication of those facilities to the City; and

 Construction of sewer main lines and related facilities within the easements shown in the Tract Map and dedication of those facilities to the City.

In exchange, the Development Agreement provides for vested development rights for the Project and reimbursement of those costs that exceed the fair share of the Project for the improvements.

Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

8 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
C. Actions Covered by the EIR
The following requested discr etionary actions are necessary to allow for implementation of the Project:
 City of San Bernardino Mayor and Common Council:

o Approve General Plan Amendment (GPA-02-09), including pre-annexation of the Project site;

o Approve Development Code Amendment (DC A 12-10) to add the Spring Trails Specific Plan to the list of Special Purpose Districts in the Development Code;

o Zone the annexed site as Specific Plan (consistent with existing pre -zoning) and the 26.4-acre adjacent area as Residential Estate (up to 1 du/acre);

o Adopt Spring Trails Specific Plan;

o Approve Tentative Tract Map (TTM 15576);

o Approve Development Agreement;

o Approve Project-specific Water Quality Management Plan;

o Issue Grading Permits and Building Permits;

o A Development Permit will be required for the design of the single-family units.

As a side note, the Hillside Management Overlay zone set forth in Chapter 19.17 of the City of San Bernardino Municipal Code does not apply in this matter as the S pecific Plan sets forth a fire protection plan that is in accordance with the City’s Municipal Code. T hus, the Conditional Use Permit called for in Section 19.17.050 of the Development Code is not required prior to construction. Instead, a Development Pe rmit is required prior to construction to e valuate the project design against the Specific Plan and oth er regulations, and to ensure consistency with the Fire Protection Plan.

 Local Agency Formation Commission (“LAFCO”):

o Approve LAFCO 3188A for a Reorgan ization to include Annexation to the City 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).

 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:

o Issuance of a Section 404 permit under the federal Clean Water Act.

Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

9 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
 Regional Water Control Board:

o Water Quality Certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act;

 National Pollution Discharge Eliminations System permit under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act California Department of Fish and W ildlife: Streambed Alteration Agreement

 California Public Utilities Commission/Southern California Edison

o Review of the Project with regard to the SCE transmission line easement and maintenance right-of-way through the Project site.

D. Project Objectives
The Project objectives are as follows:

1. Develop a high -quality, low -density res idential community that optimizes the unique characteristics of the project site, including maximizing view opportunities.

2. Assure adequate roadway access to the development while preserving the integrity o f surrounding communities.

3. Enhance City trail f acilities by expanding the system and integrating project -site trails with existing and proposed hiking, equestrian, and bicycle trails within the surrounding community.

4. Comply with policies for land use d evelopment within and adjacen t to the San Bernardino National Forest.

5. Minimize the development footprint and maximize available open space areas.

6. Design a safe community cognizant of natural conditions, including wildland fires, flooding, and seismic hazards.

7. Minimize environmental impacts associated with construction of improvements and long- term operation of the new community.

8. Create an attractive, viable project, and realize a reasonable return on investment.

The Commission concurs wi th the preceding project description whi ch includes revisions to the Project since it was approved in 2013.

Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

10 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
II. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The City conducted an extensive review of this Project which included a Draft EIR and a Final EIR, in cluding tec hnical reports; along with a public review and co mment period. The following is a summary of the City’s environmental review of this Project:
 On November 24, 2009, the City circulated an Initial Study (“IS”) and Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) id entifying the environmental issues to be analyzed in the Project’s EIR to the State Clearinghouse, responsible agencies, and other interested parties. The NOP (Appendix A to the Draft EIR) identified potential environmental impacts related to: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geol ogy and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation/Tr affic, Utilities and Service Systems, and was the basis for the determination that an EIR should be prepared for the Project.
 The NOP public review period was 30 days. The City accepted a number of written comments from various State, regional and local a gencies. T he City considered these comm ents when determinin g the final scope of the EIR’s analysis. The scope of the issues identified in the comments related to each of the impact areas which are analyzed within the EIR, as listed above, with several comments concentrated on fire hazards.
 The Draft EIR was dist ributed for public review and the City filed a Notice of Availability (“NOA”) with the State Clearinghouse on July 29, 2011, commencing the 45-day review period.
 The City received a total of 12 comment let ters from public agencies and 41comment letters f rom residents. The City prepared specific responses to all comments. The responses to comments are included in the Final EIR.  Notice of the Common Council hearing to consider the Project was pro vided in the following newspapers of gen eral and/or regional circulation: the San Bernardino Sun on February 8, 2013.
 On February 19, 2013, the Common Council held a public hearing to consider the Project and staff recommendations. The Common Council, aft er considering written comments and public testimony on t he EIR, determined that no new information was presented that would require recirculation of the EIR. Following public testimony, submission of additional written comments, and staff recommendations, the Common Council voted to certify the EIR, adopt thes e Findings, and approve the Pr oject, including: Certification of the Environmental Impact Report; approval of General Plan Amendment (GPA -02-09); approval of the zoning designation for the Project site of Specific Plan; approval of the Spring Trails Specific Plan; approval of Tentativ e Tract Map (TTM 15576); approval of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

11 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
the Development Agreement; and approval of the Project -specific Water Quality Management Plan.

The Commission has reviewed the Environmental Review and Public Participation summary and concurs that it is an accurate record of the review and participation events conducted by the City.

The Commission was afforded an opportunity to participate in this review process as a CEQA Responsible Agency and is using the certified Final EIR for the LAFC O 3 188A CEQA compliance process.

III. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT FINDING
The City selected and retained the Planning Center as the environmental consultant to prepare the EIR. The Planning Center prepared the EIR under the supervision and direction of the City’s planning staff.

Finding: The EIR for the Project reflect ed the City’s independent judgment and in reviewing the Final EIR as a CEQA Responsible Agency, the Commission concurs with the findings and conclusions presented below. The Commission has exercised independent judgment regarding the EIR as a CEQA Responsible Agency in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21082.1(c)(3).

A. General Finding On Mitigation Measures
In preparing the Condit ions of Approval for this Project, City staff incorporate d t he mitigation measures recommended in the EIR as applicable to the Project. In the event that the Conditions of Approval do not use the exact wording of the mitigation measures recommended in the EIR, in each such instance, the adopted Conditions of Ap proval are intended to be identical or substantially similar to the recommended mitigation measure. Any minor revisions were made for the purpose of improving clarity or to better define the intende d purpose by the City.

Finding: Unless specifically stated to the contrary in these findings, it is the City’s intent to adopt all mitigation measures recommended by the Draft EIR which are applicable to the Project. If a measure has, through error, been omitted from the Conditions of Approval or from these Fin dings, and that measure is not specifically reflected in these Findings, that measure shall be deemed to be adopted pursuant to this paragraph. In addition, unless specifically stated to the contrary in these Findings, all Conditions of Approval repeating or rewording mitigation measu res recommended in the EIR are intended to be substantially similar to the mitigation measures recommended in the EIR and are found to be equally effective in avoiding or lessening the identified environmental impact. In each instance, the Conditions of A pproval contain the final wording for the mitigation measures. The Commission understands this General Finding and concurs with reliance on the Conditions of Approval a s the final wording for EIR mitigation measures. Note th at the Commission has no respo nsibility for implementing any project-related mitigation measures.

Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

12 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND FINDINGS
City staff reports, the EIR, written and oral testimony at public meetings or hearings, these Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and other information in the administrative record, serve as the basis for the Commission’s environmental determination.

The detailed analysis of potentially signific ant environmental impacts and proposed mitigation measure s f or the Project is presented in Section 5 of the Draft EIR. Responses to comments from the public and from other government agencies on the Draft EIR are provided in Section 2 of the Final EIR.

The EIR evaluated seventeen (17) major environmental catego ries for potential impacts including: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population and Housin g, Public Services, Recreation , Transportation/Traffic, Utilities and Service Systems, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Forest Resources. Both Project -specific and cumulative impacts were evaluated. O f these 17 major environmental categories, the C ommission concurs with the conclusions in the EIR that the issues and sub-issues discussed in Sections A and B below either are less than significant without mitigation, or can be mitigated to a less than significant level.

Unless otherwise indicated, the analysi s o f each of the impact areas contained in Sections A and B herein is applicable to both the Preferred Development Plan and the Alternative (Underground Electric Lines) Development Plan.

A. Impacts Identified as Less Than Significant Requiring No Mitigation.

The following issues were fo und in the EIR as having no potential to cause significant impacts, and therefore require no Project -specific mitigation. In the presentation below, each resource issue is identified and the potential for significant adverse e nvironmental effects is discussed.

1. Aesthetics.
a. Substantial Adverse Effect on a Scenic Vista.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.

Finding: Impacts related to Aesthetics are discusse d i n detail at Section 5.1 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 a sce nic vista is less than significant, and therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: According to the California Scenic Highway Mapping System of the California Department of Transportation, the Project site is not on or near a major state-designated scenic Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

13 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
highway. (EIR at 5.1-4). Goal OS 5, Policy OS 5.3, of the County of San Bernardino General Plan designates I -15
from the junction with I -215 northeast to the Nevada state line, excepting all incorporated areas, as a County Scen ic Route. The Project site is not visible when traveling
northbound on the I -15. (Id.). Changes to the landscape would occur during mass grading, completion of the first phases of home construction, and at full buildout. (EIR at

5.1-14). Onsite grading and home construction would be most visible from commercial properties and to north - and southbound travelers along I -215 between Palm Avenue
and Glen Helen Parkway. (Id.). The EIR contains simulated photographs to demonstrate how the site may look during site grading, during the first phase of home construction and after Project completion whi le traveling north on I -215 at the Palm Avenue off -ramp; as well as how the Project site may appear during the initial grading phase, during the first phase of Project housing construction and after Project completion from pro minent views from the southwes t at Glen Helen Parkway and the railroad tracks south of Cajon Boulevard. (See EIR Figures 5.1-3 to 5.1-8).

The simulated photographs contained in the EIR
demonstrate h ow the view toward the site from the east - southeast would be virtually unchanged after Project
completion. (EIR at 5.1 -15). The view of the Project site from the east-southeast is blocked by the hilly terrain. (EIR Figure 5.1 -9). Mass grading and single -family homes
without landscaping would be plainly visible from these vantage points. How ever, due to the residential units’ low scale, especially in comparison to steep hillsides, they would not interfere with the dominant view and backdrop of the San Bernardino Mountains. The project would not be out of scale wi th the existing viewshed and w ould not dominate the landscape. Rooflines would not encroach into the skyline or the dominant ridgelines. (EIR at 5.1 -15).

Due to the Project’s low density, the Specifi c Plan’s design guidelines and design concepts, the large amount of open space preserva tion, and proposed landscaping, the homes would not dominate the views. (Id.). Since the Project site contains slopes with a 15 percent or greater grade, the development guidelines of the HMOD would be followed,
and have been incorporated into the Specific Plan
Development Standards. The majority (76 percent) of the Project site on slopes of 15 percent or greater grade would be preserved as open space, and the remaining a cres would Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

14 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
follow HMOD development standards. (Id.). In t he
Preferred Development Scena rio, the SCE electric lines would be visible from areas adjacent to the Project site, as they currently are. (Id.). For these reasons, the potential for the Project to h ave a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista is less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

b. Scenic Resources.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, tre es, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a st ate scenic highway.

Finding: Impacts related to Aesthetics are discussed in detail at Section 5.1 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that t he potential for the Project to substantially damage scen ic resources, including, but n ot limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway is less than significant, and therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The County of San Bernardino General Plan designates I - 15 as a County Scenic Route, from the junction with I -215 northeast to the Nevada state line, excepting all
incorporated areas. Due to area topography, the freeway interchange elevation, and speed of travel, the Project site is no t v isible to motorists once th ey pass the I -215 interchange and head northbound on the I -15. (EIR at 5.1- 15). The interchange itself is approximately one mile long.

Motorists traveling northbound at 65 miles per hour would be on the interchange for less th an a minute, and may have a vi ew of the Project site looking east for a few seconds before the Project site is behind them. (Id.). Traveling southbound on the I -15, motorists do not see the northern portion of the Project site due to prominent ridgelines, nor do they see the southern portion of the Project site from the I-215 junction, because road contours and the northbound lanes of the I -15 and I -215 interchange and associated traffic interfere wit h views. (Id.). The Project site is only visible from the northbound I-15 before the I -215 junction.

This portion of I -15 is not designated a scenic highway. In the Preferred Development Scenario, the SCE electric lines would be visible from areas adjacent to the project site, as they currently are. (Id.). For these reasons, the potential fo r the Project to substantially damage scenic resources is less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

15 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
c. Degradation of Visual Character.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would substantially degrade th e existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.

Finding: Impacts related to Aesthetics are discussed in detail at Section 5.1 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that the po tential for the Project to sub stantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings is less than significant, and therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: Implementation of the Project w ould alter existing landform a nd involve substantial grading. The visual
character of the majority of the Project site would be
changed from undeveloped open space to a low -density
residential development. (EIR at 5.1-14). The development footprint encompa sses approximately 241.5 acres , or 68 percent of the total site, and includes areas for the onsite development of residential lots, roadways, trails, detention basins, fuel modification zones, and par ks. Approximately 193.0 acres of the total site would be graded and improved. (Id.). A n additional 23.7 acres would be graded and
improved for offsite access, including 4.2 acres for the primary access road and 19.5 acres for the secondary access road. The Project is designed to preserve significant
watersheds, severely sloped areas, and seismic hazard areas and incorporate them into the land plan as open space. The Project’s design accounts for the potential impacts of the hazards posed by seismic activity , flooding, and wildland fires. (Id.).

The EIR contains si mulated photographs to demonstrate
how the site may look during site grading, during th e first phase of home construc tion and after Project completion while traveling north on I -215 at the Palm Av enue off - ramp; as well as how the Project site may appear du ring the initial grading phase, during the first phase of Project housing construction and after Project completion f rom prominent views from the southwest at Glen Helen
Parkway and the railroad t racks south of Cajon Boulevard. (See EIR Figures 5.1-3 to 5.1-8).

The simulated photographs contained in the EIR
demonstrate how the view toward t he site from the east - southeast would be virtually unchanged after Project
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

16 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
completion. (EIR at 5.1 -15). The view of the Project site from the east-southeast is blocked by the hilly terrain. (EIR Figure 5.1 -9). Mass grading and single -family homes
without landscaping would be plainly v isible from these vantage points. However, due to the residential units’ low scale, especially in comparison to steep hillsides, they would not interfere with the dominant view and backdrop of the San Bernardino Mountains. The Project would not be out of s cale with the existing viewshed and would not
dominate the landscape. Rooflines would not encroach into the skyline or the dominant ridgeli nes. (EIR at 5.1 -15).

Due to the Project’s low density, the Specific Plan’s design guidelines and design concepts, th e large amount of open space preservation, and proposed landscaping, the homes would not dominate the views. Since the Project site
contains slopes with a 15 percent or greater grade, the development guidelines of the HMOD wou ld be followed,
and have been incorporated into the Specific Plan
Development Standards. The majority (76 per cent) of the Project site on slopes of 15 percent or greater grade would be preserved as open space, and the remaining acres would follow HMOD deve lopment standards. (Id.). For these
reasons, the potential for the Project to substantially degrade the visua l character of the Project site or its surroundings is less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

d. Light and Glare.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely a ffect day or nighttime views in the area.

Finding: Impacts related to Aesthetics are discussed in detail at Section 5.1 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that the potential for the Project to create a new source of substantial light or glare which would a dversely affect day or nighttime views in the area is less than significant, and therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: Additional lighting would be required to pr ovide nighttime street, trail, and building illumination for the Project. Other sources of light include security lighting, nighttime traffic, and light associated with the nigh ttime use of the
residences. In addition to the adjacent residential land uses, other light-sensitive land uses include the California Stat e University at San Bernardino (CSUSB) observatory,
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

17 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
currently being constructed on Litt le Badger Hill on the CSUSB campus, between three and four miles east of the
Project site. (EIR at 5.1 -15). N ighttime lighting has the potential to create light pollutio n, which occurs when lighting is directed upward and gets scattered by the
atmosphere. To observatories, this light c ompetes with starlight and interferes with the ability to see the night sky clearly. Observatories require atmospheric darkness so that the night sky can be viewed clearly. (EIR at 5.1-16).

The use of lighting within the Spr ing Trails Project would be consistent with the dark sky guidelines suggested by the International Dark Sky Association (www.darksky.org) and with the City of San Bernar dino Development Code. (EIR at 5.1-11). A detailed lighting plan, including specifications and design standards, woul d be submitted as part of the construction documents. (Id.). Pursuant to Sectio n

19.20.03.014 of the City’s Development Code and the
design criteria in the Spring Trails Specific Plan, lights associated with the Project develo pment would be shielded and directed toward the interior of the site. (EIR at 5.1 -1;

5.1-12). Exterior lighti ng would be designed, arranged, directed, or shielded in suc h a manner as to contain direct illumination onsite, thereby preventing excess illumina tion and light spillover onto adjoining land uses and/or
roadways and without adversely affecting day or nigh ttime views in the project area. (EIR at 5.1 -16). Lighting w ould be installed to accommodate safety and security, while
minimizing impacts on surro unding residential areas and the CSUSB observatory. (Id.). For these reasons, the
potential for the Project t o create a new source of
substantial light or glare which wo uld adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area is less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

e. Cumulative Impacts.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would result in cumulatively significant visual/aesthetic impacts.

Finding: Impacts related to Aesthetics are discussed in detail at Section 5.1 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire rec ord, the Commission concurs with the City finding that the potential for the Pr oject to result in cumulatively significant visual/aesthetic impacts is less than significant, and therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

18 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Facts in Support of the Finding: The ad jacent developed communities and undeveloped parcels to the south and southwest are designated
Residential Estate (RE) in the City of San B ernardino’s General Plan. (EIR at 5.1 -16). Continued conversion of rural and undevelope d lands to low -density residen tial suburban land uses would change the aesthetic character of the area. The a djacent 26.4 -acre area consists of six rural residential par cels, four of which are occupied with
residences and related structures. Acc ess to four of the parcels is from Meyers Road, with the remaining two
obtaining access from Martin Ranch Road prior to entering the Project site. There is currently no planned dev elopment for this adjacent area. (EIR at 5.1 -3). This Project would incrementally contribute to both direc t and indirect light and glare affecting the nighttime aesthetic character of the region. The entire Project site is currently prezoned by the City of San Bernardino as RE. In the context of the City’s General Plan, the Verdem ont area is residential in nat ure.

The Project’s features and detailed design criteria per the Specific Plan and the HMO D meet the City’s goal to
provide a variety of housing stock , including upscale
homes. The Project clusters development to maintain
undeveloped open space on approxim ately 30 percent of
the site. (EIR at 5.1 -16). Eventually, as residential
development occu rs in the remaining undeveloped areas
south and southwest of the Project site, the character of the Verdemont area would be changed into a more suburban
community, as intended by the General Plan. By
maintaining open space and preserving the dominant view and backdrop of the San Bernardino Mountains, the Project would protect the natural components that contribute to the scenic value of th e area, including existing ter rain, vegetation, and major ridgelines. (Id.). For these reasons, the Project’s contributi on to cumulative impacts related to aesthetics will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

2. Air Quality.
a. Violate Air Quality Standard-Operations.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project’s long-term operations will violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projecte d air quality violation.

Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

19 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Finding: Potential impacts of the Project on Air Quality are discussed in detai l in Section

5.2 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs wit h the City find ing that the Project’s long -term operations w ill not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or pro jected air quality violation during operations, and therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: Project-related vehicle trips were obtained from the Project-specific traffic impact analysis. (EIR Appendix K). Based on the trip generation rate in the traffic study, the Project would generate a total of 3,149 average daily trips (“ADT”) at project buildout. (EIR at 5.2-16). Air pollutant emissions modeling is based on mobile - and stationary - source emissions for each o f the land uses. Based on
computer modeling, the Project would result in an increase of air pollutant emissions for both mobile and s tationary sources. However, Project -related emissions would not
exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District
(“SCAQMD”) regional emissions thre sholds for the
analyzed pollutants. (EIR Table 5.2 -8). Therefore, the Project would not cumulatively co ntribute to the O 3, PM10, and PM 2.5 nonattainment designatio ns of the South Coast Air Basin. Consequently, the proposed Pro ject’s
operational air quality impact is considered less than significant. (EIR at 5.2 -16). Therefore, because long -term operations o f the Project will not violate any air quality standard or c ontribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation; impacts are considered to be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

b. Exposure of Sensitive Receptors-Operations.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project’s l ong-term operations will expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Finding: Potential impacts of the Project on Air Quality are discussed in detail in Section

5.2 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that long-term Project operations wil l not expose sensitive recepto rs to substantial pollutant concentrations, and therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: Carbon monoxide (CO) hot spots are typicall y produced at intersections, where traffic congestion is highes t because vehicles queue and a re subject to reduced speeds.

Typically, for an intersection to exhibit a significant CO concentration, it would operate at level of service (“LOS”) E or worse. Ba sed on the traffic impact analysis prepared for the Project (EIR Appendix K), under future ye ar With Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

20 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Project conditions, the following intersections are projected to operate at LOS E or worse before traffic improvements:

o Palm Avenue at I -215 freeway NB r amps (LOS E
during AM peak hour and LOS F during PM peak
hours for Year 2013); and

o Palm Av enue at I -215 freeway SB ramps (LOS F
during AM peak hour for Year 2013). (EIR at 5.2 -
25).

Intersections listed above for 2013 are most conducive to the formation of CO hot spots and were modeled during the worst-case peak hour of congestion. Because tec hnological improvements in later -model cars have made significant emissions reductions in CO, background CO concentrations in the South Coast Air Basin and vehicle emissions would be lower in 2030 than in the Project buildout year, Year 2030 conditions wer e not modeled. Project -related traffic would not exceed any of the state one - or eight -hour CO ambient air quality standards (“AAQS”) at the study area intersections at buildout year plus cumulative growth
conditions. (EIR Tab le 5.2 -11). Consequently, sens itive receptors in the area would not be significantly affected by CO emissions generated by operation of the proposed
Project, and localized air quality impacts r elated to mobile- source emissions would therefore be less than significant.

To estimate concentrations of air pollutants generated from operation of the Project at nearby existing and proposed sensitive receptors, the Project’s maximum daily
operational emissions were compared to the operational
localized significan ce thresholds (LSTs). In accor dance with SCAQMD methodology, only onsite stationary
sources were included in the analysis. Project -related vehicles traveling on - and offsite are not included in the analysis. (EIR 5.2-26). Project emissions would not exceed the LST screening level crite ria for CO, NO 2, PM 10, or PM2.5, and therefore operation of the Project would not expose offsite and on site sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrat ions. (EIR Table 5.2 -12). Therefore, on a localized level, the Project’s potential to result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations during long -term Project operations is less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

21 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
c. Cumulative Impacts-Operations.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project will result in cumulatively significant operational air quality impacts.

Finding: Potential impacts o f the Project on Air Quality are discussed in detail in Sect ion

5.2 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that the potential for the Project to result in cumulatively significant operational air quality impacts is less than significant, and therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: With respect to operational air quality emi ssions, any project that does not exceed or can be mitigated to less than the daily regional threshold values is not considered by the SCAQMD to be a substantial s ource of air pollution and does not add significantly to a cumu lative impact. (EIR at

5.2-27). Operation of the Project would not result in
emissions in excess of the SCAQMD regional emissions
thresholds for long -term operation for VOC, NOx, CO,
PM10, and PM2.5. (Id.). Therefore, the Project’s contribution to cumulative operational air quality im pacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

3. Biological Resources.
a. Cumulative Impacts.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project will result in cumulatively significant impacts to Biological Resources.

Finding: Impacts related to Biological Resources are discussed in detail in Section 5.3 of the Draft EIR. Based on the enti re record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that the potential for the Project to result in cumulatively signif icant impacts to Biological Re sources is less than significant, and therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The Spring Trails Project site contains a number of u nique and uncommon characteristics that provide for a wide
diversity of plant and animal spec ies, especially within the onsite riparian areas. (EIR at 5.3 -59). However, specific aspects of the Pro ject’s design, as well as the
implementation of the required mitigation measures would successfully avoid or mitigate signi ficant impacts to these resources. (Id.). The most significant area of riparian habitat on the Project site is Cable Creek, and that area is outside of the Project footprint and would not be im pacted by the Project. Additional Project design features and
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

22 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
required mitigation would conserve and/or enhance existing onsite riparian features and wildlife corridors. (Id.).

Mitigation is also recommended that would require
additional offsite conservati on of riparian areas and other important habitats. While contin ued development within the gre ater San Bernardino region has decreased the
amount of available high -quality habitat in the area, this Project does not cumulatively contribute to that decrease. (Id.). The most important habitat values are maintained on the site, and certain aspects of t he Project’s design, such as the permanent preservation of Cable Creek, actually
provide long -term bene fits to the region in terms of
biological resource conservat ion. Based on each of these factors, it can be determined that the Project would not present a significant cumulative impact to biological
resources. (Id.). Therefore, cumulative impacts to
biological resources will be less than significant , and no mitigation is required.

4. Cultural Resources.
a. Historic Resources.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would cause a substantial change in the significance of a historical resource as define d in Section 15064.5.

Finding: Impacts related to Cultural Resources are discussed in detail in Section 5.4 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire recor d, the Commission concurs with the City finding that the Project will not cause a substantial change in the significance of a historical resource, and therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The Spring Trails Project area wa s assessed for historical resources during multiple surveys. During this assessment, no historical resources, as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, were observed. (EIR at 5.4 -12). There are no structures, build ings, or other built environme nt resources with historical value in the project area. (Id.).

Therefore, there are no known historical resources on the Project site, and no mitigation is required.

b. Development in Sensitive Archaeological Area.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would be developed in a sensitive archeological area, as identified in the City’s General Plan.

Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

23 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Finding: Impacts related to Cultural Resources are discus sed in detail in Section 5.4 of the Draft EIR. Based on the ent ire record, the Commission con curs with the City finding that the Project will not be developed in a sensitive archeological area as identified in the City’s General Plan, and therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The Proj ect site is not located in an area of concern for archaeological resources, and is not located within an area of known resources or a reas that could reasonably contain resources and which had d emonstrable surface integrity as of November 1987. (See EIR Figure 5.4-1). Therefore, no mitigation is required.

5. Geology and Soils.
a. Cut and Fill.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Proj ect would involve earth movement (cut and/or fill).

Finding: Impacts related to Geology and Soils are discussed in detail at Section 5.5 of the Draft EI R. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that while the Project would involve grading on about 216.7 acres of land, with roughl y 3.1 million cubic yards of cut and 2.8 million cubic yards of fill, Project earth movement would not result in substantial adverse erosion or dust impacts and, therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: In addition to the spe cified amounts of cut and fill grading, the Project would invol ve roughly 251,000 cubic yards of soil export. (See EIR Table 5.5 -2). Project features are incorporated into the Spring Trails Specific Plan that would minimize soil erosion. (EIR at 5.5 -21). F or example, all graded slopes shall be stabilized and planted w ith the approved trees, shrubs , and groundcovers listed in the Landscape Zones Plant Palette , Table 3.6 in the Specific Plan Design G uidelines. The Grading Plan in the
Development Standards for the Spring Trails Specific Plan has been devised with overall goals, including minimizing grading quantities, minimizing slope maintenance and
water consumption, and providing for stable slopes a nd building pads. (Id.). Specific guidelines in the Grading Plan include: minimize grading where possible; avoid grading in areas where slopes exceed an average of 15 percent to the greatest extent possible; terrace drains and benches shall be added where slope height exceeds 30 feet, in accordance with the Uniform Building Code. (Id.). In some instances, benches should be wid ened to provide for dual use a s a Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

24 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
recreation trail; existing significant drainage courses shall be maintained as much as possible; fi nal grading design shall adhere to the final soils report re commendations; grading shall be performed under the supervision of a
registered soils enginee r; a storm water pollution
prevention program (“SWPPP”) must be prepared and
processed prior to grading ; natural terrain must be
preserved as much as possible by f ocusing development in the development footprint; earth retenti on systems, where slopes can b e planted to blend with the natural terrain, should be used where possible; and all cut -and-fill slopes shall be revegetated to control erosion. (EIR at 5.5-22).

These guidelines would meet City and state development
standards and soil stability would be maintained. In
addition, the Safety Plan requires that Grading for building pads and roads shall confo rm to specifications of the
geologist, based on a soils stud y and final geotechnical study. (Id.). In addition to the Proje ct guidelines and development standards described above, the Project would prepare and implement a SWPPP specifying BMPs for
minimizing pollution of stormwater during project
construction. Categories of BMPs that would be included in the SWPPP include erosion control BMPs that cover and/or bind soil to prevent soil from entering runoff; and sediment control BMPs, such as barriers, that intercept and filter out soil that has been detached and tra nsported by flowing water. Implementation of BMPs specified in the SWPPP
would help stabilize project site slopes while vegetation planted by the Project matures. (Id.). After implementation of Project guidelines, Specific Plan development standards, and B MPs for erosion control and sediment control to be specified in the project’s SWPPP, Project development is not expected to result in substantial erosion, and no
mitigation is required.

b. Landslides, Mudslides or Subsidence.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project site is subject to potential hazards from landslides, mudslides or subsidence.

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 w ith the City finding that the Project site is not subject to po tential hazards from landslide s, mudslides or subsidence and, therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

25 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Facts in Support of the Finding: The maximum gradient of the natural slopes on the site approach is 1.2:1 (horizontal:vertical). Proposed cut -and- fill slop es would be designed at grades of 2:1, with
maximum slope heights of 80 feet. Such cut -and-fill slopes have been analyzed and found t o be grossly stable. (EIR at

5.5-24). Cut slopes that expose bedrock will tend to
weather over time and would be planted wi th deep-rooted vegetation. No surface indications of slope instability or significant “out of slope” geologic bedding conditions were observed onsite, and no significant natural slope instabili ty exists onsite. (Id.). The site plan avoids the lower portion s of Cable Canyon and Meyers C anyon, which could act as
channels for mudflows. The site plan also avoids the
steeper slopes near the northern end of the site. All cut-and- fill slopes created by the Project would be vegetated, thereby controlling erosion an d reducing mudflow hazard.

There are no substantial groundwater or oil withdrawals in the area that could lead to subsidence, and the potential for ground subsidence is regarded as low. (Id.). Therefore, no mitigation is required.

c. Expansive Soils.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether Project development would create substantial hazards arising from expansive soils.

Finding: Impacts related to Geology and Soils are discussed in detail at Sec tion 5.5 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that Project development would not create substantial hazards arising from expansive soils and, therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: Expansive soils are generally characterized as ha ving the ability to undergo si gnificant volume change due to
increases or decreases in the moisture content of the soil. (EIR at 5.5-25). The Spring Trails site is predominated by relatively re cent alluvial deposits (from the Holocene and Pleistocene age). These deposits have led to th e existence of sands and sands with gravel in the upper layers (5 to 10 feet deep) and the gravelly san ds (sand with silt, cobbles, and occasional boulders) of the lower layers (below 10 feet). (Id.). These layers are generall y medium dense to very dense t hroughout most of the site and have dry to moist conditions. The geotechnical analysis did not
determine these soils to be prone to expansion. Therefore, the expansion potential of soils is low to very low. (Id.). No Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

26 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
specific geotechnical recommendations f or expansive soils were made, and no mitigation is required.

d. Modification of Unique Geological Feature.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether Project developmen t would modify a unique geological feature.

Finding: Impacts related to Geology and Soils ar e discussed in detail at Section 5.5 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission conc urs with the City finding that although the Project will be developed over the San Andreas Fault, the Project will not subs tantially change the physical and geological characteristics of the fault and, therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The San Andreas Fault is considered to be a unique geological feature, and five splays of the San Andreas Fault occur on the site. (EIR at 5.5 -7). The majority of the segment of Splay A on the Project site would remain open space, while the balance of the splay would be graded.

Most of Splays B, C, and D would be graded, and most of Splay E would remain open space. (EIR at 5.5 -25).

However, the grading on Splays A, B, C, D, and E would
not substantially change the physical and geological
characteristics of the fault, and therefore, no mitigation i s required.

e. Unstable Soils.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether Project grading and cons truction would be conducted so as to result in substantial amounts of unstable soils.

Finding: Impacts related to Geology and Soils are discussed in detail at Sec tion 5.5 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that Project grading and construction will not be conducted so as to result in substantial amounts of unstable soils and, therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: Project features are inc orporated into the Spring Trai ls Specific Plan that would prevent grading and construction activities from creating substantial amoun ts of unstable soils. (EIR at 5.5 -25). Specifically, the fol lowing
development standards in the Grading Plan and Safety Pla n of the Spring Trails Specifi c Plan would aid in preventing the creation of substantial amounts of unstable soils: 1) final grading design shall adhere to the final soils report recommendations; 2) grading shall be performed under the Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

27 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
supervision of a reg istered soils engineer; and 3) final grading plans shall be prepared and certified by a registered civil engineer and registered geot echnical engineer in the State of California Board of Profes sional Registration and approved by the City Engineer. (Id.). Thus, impacts in this area will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

f. Hillside Management Overlay Zoning District.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would co nflict with the provisions of the Hillside Management Overlay Z oning District
(“HMOD”).

Finding: Impacts related to Geology and Soils are discussed in detail at Section 5.5 of the Draft EIR. Ba sed on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that the Project’s development standards will replac e the provisions of the HMOD and, therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: Roughly 67 percent (133 acr es) of the Project site is within the HMOD, which covers all areas with slopes of 15
percent or greater. (EIR at 5.5 -26). T he HMOD contains development p erformance standards, including standards regarding soils and grading, geotechnical standards, and standards requiring that vegetation on slopes, including graded slopes, be preserved or reestablished. (Id.). The Specific Plan for the Project contains hill side design and development standards that have been prepared to be site - specific for the proposed project and are consistent with the General Plan. The HMOD desig n guidelines would not be
necessary. Thus, no mitigation is required.

g. Cumulative Impacts.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would result in cumulatively significant impacts to Geology and Soils.

Finding: Impacts related to Geology and Soils are discussed in detail at Section 5.5 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, t he Commission concurs with the City finding that Project will not result in cumulatively significant im pacts to Geology and Soils and, therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: Impacts to geology and soils are specific to the geologic and soils conditions on a particular project site. Mitigation of geologic, seismic, and soil i mpacts of development
projects would also be specific to eac h site. Compliance Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

28 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
with modern building standards, such as the UBC and
CBC, serves to reduce seismic-related risks. Therefore, no adverse cumulative impacts related to soils and geology are anticipated, and no mitigation is required. (EIR at 5.5-26).

6. Hazards and Hazardous Materials.
a. Routine Transport, Use, and/or Disposal of Hazardous Materials.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would create a significant hazard to the public o r the environment through the routine transport, use, or dis posal of hazardous materials; or through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment.

Finding: Impacts related to Hazard s 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 find ing that the risk to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of h azardous materials; or through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment by the Project is less than significant and, therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The proposed Project includes 304 single -family lots under the preferred development scenario (reduced to 215 lo ts), or 307 single-family lots under the alternative development scenario. These will consist of new single -family lots, and one existing single-family residence in the western portion of the site, bordering Cable Canyon Creek to the south. If the existin g single -family home were to b e demolished prior to Project construction, it may result in the need to transport and dispose of hazar dous materials. (EIR at 5.6 - 9). However, it is anticipated t o remain during and after development of the Project, and there fore no demolition activities are anticipated. (Id.). In general, the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials is
associated with industrial land uses and not residential land uses. The Project would consist only of residential land uses with associated parks and open space. Construction and operation of the new single -family homes may include the use of hazardous subs tances such as paints, solvents, finishes, and cleaners, but these substances would not be substantially different from other household products. (Id.).

Additionally, the site has not been included on any state or federal lists of hazardous materials sites , so the
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

29 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
development of the site would not necessitate the r emoval or cleanup of any hazardous materials. Therefore, it is not anticipated that construct ion or operation activities would involve inadvertent exposure to hazardous materials due to their removal from the site. (Id.). The routine transport, use, and/or disposal of significant amounts of hazardous
materials is not expected to occur during the c onstruction or operation of this Project. (Id.). Since there would not be any substantial amount of haz ardous materials present on the Project site for a significa nt amount of time during Project construction or operation, the re would also not be any foreseeable upset or release of hazardous materials, and therefore no mitigation is required.

b. Emergency Response or Evacuation Plan.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would impair implementation of or physically i nterfere with an adopted emerg ency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

Finding: Impacts related to Hazards and Hazardous Mat erials are discussed in detail at Section 5.6 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with th e City find ing that the Projec t would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and, therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The City has an emer gency management plan and a ha zard mitigation plan that outline the potential risks, hazards, and emergency situations that the City may face and the best methods for preventing or managing the se situations. (EIR at 5.6 -10). The emergency management plan and the
hazard mitigation plan , which have been developed in
compliance with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, are used by the Cit y to reduce and eliminate the effects of natural and human -caused disasters. Spring Trails would follow the guidelines and regulations of the City’s
emergency and hazard mitigation plans. Since the site has high potential for fires, there is substantial ne ed for fire emergency access. (Id.). The Spring Trails Speci fic Plan includes measures that would allow the site to be accessible during fire emergencies and which can be applicable for other emergencies. These are outlined in the City’s Foothill Fire Zone Overlay District requirements, and Spring Trails’ compliance with these standards is substantiated in
Appendix D of the Sp ecific Plan. (See EIR Table 5. 14-7).

In sum, the proposed Project would not conflict with the Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

30 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
City’s emergency planning, and therefo re no mitigation is required.

c. Cumulative Impacts.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would result in cumulatively significant impacts related to Hazards and Hazardous
Materials.

Finding: Impacts rel ated to Hazards and Hazardous Mat erials are discussed in detail at Section 5.6 of the Draft E IR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that the Project would not result in cumulatively signif icant impacts related to Hazar ds and Hazardous Materials and, t herefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The assessment of potential cumulative impacts with regard to hazards and hazardous materials relates to the ability for impacts to occur offsite. (EIR at 5.6 -23). The hazardous materials study area considered for cumulative impacts
consisted of (1) the area that could be affected by proposed Project activities, and (2) the areas affected by other projects where activities co uld directly or indirectly aff ect the presence or fate of hazar dous materials on the proposed Project site. (Id.). The land uses surrounding the Project site are either vacant or residential. There would be little chance for a hazardous materials release i n the surrounding area that wo uld cause cumulative impacts with the
proposed Project. Cumulative analysis for fire and wind hazards is completed with similar parameters. (Id.).

Cumulative impacts could occur when adjacent projects, in combination with the proposed Project, would increa se the number of people being exp osed to fire and wind hazards. (Id.). At this time no develo pment is planned for the areas adjacent to the proposed Project; thus, no cumulative
impacts would occur, and no mitigation is required.

7. Hydrology/Water Quality
a. Alter Existing Drainage Pattern.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would subst antially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river , or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runof f in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite.

Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

31 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Finding: Impacts related to Hydrology and Water Quality are discussed in detail in Section

5.7 of the Draft EIR. Based on the enti re record, the Commission concurs with the City find ing that de velopment of the Project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially in crease the rate or amount of s urface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite, and therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: Drainage from Offsite : At Project completion, offsite drainage would enter th e project site from the north and east. (EIR at 5.7 -16). Two dr ainage courses within
Drainage Area A that flow into the sit e from the north are Cable Canyon West and East Forks. These two drainages,
which merge onsite, would remain undisturbed and would
exit the west side of the site as they do now. Four drainages would enter the site from the east. The northerly two of these drainages are tributaries to Cable Canyon and are in Drainage Area A. (EIR Figure 3 -8). These two drainages would pass through a culv ert under proposed Street “A”, merge and continue flowing weste rly, pass through a
culvert under proposed Street “DD”, then continue to the southwest before merging with the West and East forks of Cable Canyon. (EIR at 5.7 -16). This combined drainage then flows to the west and exits t he site into Cable Creek.

South of the Project site, the Cable Creek drainage would pass thro ugh culverts under the Secondary Access Road.

The third drainage course that enters the site from the east would be collected in a pr oposed brow ditch north of
proposed Street “O” and west of proposed Street “W”. This drainage would then be conveyed around the water
reservoir tank and discharged to an existing flow line. (Id.).

The last drainage course entering the site from the east consists of Meyers Canyon and tr ibutary areas in Drainage Area D; Meyers Canyon enters the site near its southeast corner. A culvert crossing is proposed under the Primary Access Road (Street “A”). (See EIR Figure 3-8).

Drainage from Onsite : Drainage from the site at Project completion would be conveyed in a series of storm drain systems that would route water into three Exten ded
Detention Basins for treatment and detention. (Id.). (EIR Table 5.7-2 and Figure 3 -8). Drainage Area A consists of Cable Canyon, including the west and east fo rks of Cable Canyon and tributary areas. (EIR at 5.7 -17). Drainage from the two northernmost residential areas, north of Cable Canyon, would not be routed into an extended detention
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

32 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
basin, but routed instead into media filtra tion vaults where the water qu ality volume would be treated, af ter which the runoff would be discharged into Cable Canyon. Water
quality volumes for each detention basin that would be
built as part of the Project are listed in EIR Table 5.7 -3.

One of these areas is 17.3 acres, while th e second is 22.0 acres. Basin “A” compensates for this discharge from the site into Cable Canyon by over-detaining runoff from other parts of Drainage Area A onsite. (Id.). Drainage Area B,

45.5 acres in area, is divided into two subareas. Subarea 1 would be the developed area onsite of 21.8 acres that would be routed into basin “B” plus the 1.6 -acre basin and 4.6 acres of open space downstream of the basin outlet.

Subarea 2 would be 17.5 acres of onsite and offsite
undeveloped area that would cross under S treet “I” and then discharge into an existing flow line. (EIR at 5.7 -18).

Drainage Area “C” c onsists of 209.8 acres, roughly 89.0 acres of which would be in the developed area onsite and would drain into basin “C”. The remaini ng 107.8 acres
would be onsite and offsite undeveloped areas th at would be collected north of Street “H”. (Id.). Drainage A rea “D” consists of 339.3 acres: 319.8 acres offsite and 19.5 onsite.

Drainage from Area “D” would enter the site near the
southeastern site boundary, flow through a culvert under the proposed Pri mary Access Road (Street “A”), and then exit the site. This drainage would not be directed into a detention basin or media filtration vault. Surface flows from the secondary access road will be conveyed into a 5 - foot concrete drainage ditch located within a 13-foot graded shoulder on both sides of the road. The run off will then be collected in storm drain inlets and conveyed through a
storm drain underneath the secondary access road where it will be discharged into Cable Creek. (Id.).

Detention Basin Capac ities: Drainage volumes and rates from developed portions of the site would be increased compared to existing conditions due to the increase in
impervious surfaces onsite. (Id.). The three prop osed
detention basins would be local detention facilities
maintained by the owner or homeowners association. The
maximum ca pacity of each of the detention basins is
designed to store onsite runoff from the drainage area
tributary to the respective basin in order to lower the rate of outflow from the basin to the predevelopment rate in a 100- year, 24 -hour storm. (Id.). Each bas in would also be
equipped with water quality treatment features and would Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

33 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
provide treatment for runoff. The total capacity and water quality treatment capacity of each of the three basins is listed in EIR Table 5.7 -3. Emergency spillways are
proposed for e ach of the three basins to convey the 1,000 - year peak flow for the respective basin’s tributary
watershed. (Id.).

Debris Flows and Culvert Sizes: The Project site is in the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains. (Id.). Therefore, large debris flows m ay occur in watersheds in the area, especially in years after a fire. Debris flows would increase the volume of material flowing down drainages. (Id.).

Culverts in the Project were designed to acc ommodate
estimated debris flow volumes that would occur in a
100-year storm four years following a fire. (EIR Table

5.7-4). Project drainage features would meet requirements of the San Bernardi no County Hydrology Manual and
would limit runoff from the site at Project completion to existing levels. (EIR at 5.7-19). In sum, impacts to existing drainage patterns will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

b. Groundwater Recharge.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would substant ially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantiall y with
groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells woul d drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted).

Finding: Impacts related to Hydrology and Water Quality are discussed in deta il in Section

5.7 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record , the Commission concurs with the City find ing that developm ent of the Project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering o f the local groundwater table level, and therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: Project development would increase impervious surfaces on the Project site. (EIR at 5.7 -19). The resulting in crease in drainage from most of t he developed parts of the site would be conveyed to three ex tended detention basins.
(Id.). Stormwater would infiltrate into underlying sediment through the bottoms of the basins. The Project w ould not Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

34 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
include substantial i nfiltration zones except for the basins.

The infiltration rate in the three basins would tota l roughly

2.01 cfs. (Id.). At Project completion, onsite groundwater recharge of stormwater from a two -year, 24 -hour storm would be r educed about 1.3 percent compa red to recharge from the same siz e storm in existing conditions. (Id.).

Project development w ould not substantially reduce
groundwater recharge from the site and therefore, no
mitigation is required.

c. 100-Year Flood Hazard Area.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood
hazard delineation map; or place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which wo uld impede or redirect
flood flows.

Finding: Potential impacts related to Hydrology and Wate r Quality are discussed in detail in Section 5.7 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that development of th e Project will not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map; or place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows, and therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The entire Project site is in FEMA flood hazard zone X, meaning that it is outside of both 100 -year and 500 -year flood plains. (EIR at 5.7-19). Much of the Project site is on the lower sl opes of the San Bernardino Mountains. Large debris flows may occur in local watersheds, especially in years after a fire. After Project development, debris flows originating upstream of the Pro ject site may flow through drainages crossing the site; debris flows are not expected to originate onsite. Culverts where drainages on the site would cross under roadways have been designed to accommodate
the increase in volume due to sediment that would o ccur in a debris flow. All pro posed improvements, including
building pads, roads, and reservoirs, would be outside of the a rea that would be flooded by debris flows during a 100-year storm. Project development is not expected to
create substantial hazards to persons arising from debris flows. (EIR at 5.7 -27). Project development would not
result in flood hazards to people or s tructures or redirect Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

35 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
flood flows within a 100 -year flood hazard area, and
therefore, no mitigation is required.

d. Violate Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge
Requirements.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would violate any water qu ality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade water quality.

Finding: Impacts related to Hydrology and Water Quality are discussed in detail in Section

5.7 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that development of the Project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge require ments and will not otherwise s ubstantially degrade water quality, and therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: Construction: Potential sources of pollutants from construction activities on the site include exposed soil, construction materials, and constr uction equipment. (EIR at 5.7 -20). Project clearing, grading, excavation, and construction ac tivities may impact water quality due to sheet erosion of exposed soils and subsequent deposition of particles and pollutants in drai nage ways. (Id.). Grading activities in particular lead to exposed areas of loose soil, as well as sediment stockpiles whic h are susceptible to
uncontrolled sheet flow. The use of materials such as fuels, solvents, and paints also present a risk to surface water quality due to an increased potential for these materials and related pollutants to contaminate stormwater. Addition ally, storage, refueling, and maintenance of construction
equipment onsite result in the potential for fuels and other substances to contaminate stormwater. (Id.).

Measures for reducing potential pollution from construction activities would include obtain ing coverage under the
General Construction Permit for discharges of stormwater runoff from the construction site. (Id.). The General
Construction Permit is the co verage issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (“SWRCB”) that allows
the discharges of stormwater to waters of the United States from construction projects. In order to get coverage under the General Construction Permit, the discharge should be in compliance with the National Po llutant Discharge
Elimination System (“NPDES”) and implement a Storm
Water Sampling and Analysis Strategy for monitoring of
construction site runoff. In order to obtain coverage under Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

36 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
the General Construction Permit, the Pr oject owner would be required to submit a Notice of Intent to the SWRCB to file for permit co verage, and prepare and implement a
SWPPP onsite. A Notice of Intent must be filed, and the SWPPP must be prepared prior to commencem ent of soil - disturbing activit ies at the Project site. (Id.). T he SWPPP must contain a site map(s) showing the construction site perimeter, existing and proposed buildings, lots, roadways, stormwater collection and discharge points, general
topography befo re and after construction, and drainage patterns across the Pro ject. The SWPPP must list BMPs
that would be used to protect stormwater runoff and
describe the placement of those BMPs. Additionally, the SWPPP must contain a visual monitoring program and a
chemical monitoring program for “nonvisible” pollutants to be im plemented if there is a failure of the BMPs. (Id.).

Typical temporary BMPs that would be used during
construction include good housekeeping practices and
erosion and sediment control measures. Good
housekeeping practices in clude street sweeping, waste
disposal, vehicle and equipment maintenance, concrete
washout area, materials storage, minimization of hazardous materials, and proper handling and storage of hazardous materials. (Id.). Design standards for the BMPs are set forth by the County of Bernardino a nd the California Storm
Water Management handbooks. Construc tion BMPs for
this project would be selected, constructed, and maintained so as to comply with all applicable ordinances and
guidance documents. (EIR at 5.7 -22). U pon
implementation BMPs as specified in the project’s SWPPP, Project construction would not r esult in substantial
pollution of receiving waters, and therefore, no mitigation is required. (Id.).

Operations: Pollutant sources t hat are expected to be
generated by Project operation are sedim ent/turbidity, nutrients, trash and debris, oxygen -demanding substances, bacteria and viruses, oil and grease, and pesticides. (Id.).

With regard to the operational phase of the Project, site design, source control, and tre atment control BMPs as
dictated by County and City Stormwater management plans would be imple mented. (Id.). The residences surrounding the Project site are reliant upon well water for their potable water usage. In some cases, these wells are relatively
shallow, with a water table of appro ximately 50 feet or more. Although historical farming uses a nd the related Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

37 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
fertilizers and other amendments have not had an impact on the water table, BMPs would be used to reduce
contaminants in runoff from the Project sit e, lessening any potential impact s to potable drinking water to nearby
residences. (EIR Tables 5.7-5 to 5.7-7). A Project-specific water quality management plan (“WQMP”) (EIR
Appendix I1) has been prepared for the Project, and
specifies site design, source control, and treatment control BMPs as required by the San Bernardino County
Stormwater Prog ram Model Water Quality Management
Plan Guidance. The site design BMPs, source control
BMPs, and treatment control BMPs incorporated into the
Project plans must address the potential pollutants fr om the Project. (EIR at 5.7 -24). The WQMP includes BMPs that
would be implemented during both design and operation of the Project, and describes long -term operation and
maintenance requirements for BMPs. (EIR Table 5 -7-7).

The Project applicant would be responsible for carrying out all BMP operations and maintenanc e activities. (EIR at

5.7-25). Prior to building or grading permit closeout or the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or certific ate of use, the applicant shal l demonstrate: that all structura l BMPs have been constructed and installed in conformance wi th approved plans and specifications; that the applicant is prepared to implement all nonstructural BMPs described in the approved Project-specific WQMP; and that an adequate number of copies of t he approved Project -specific WQMP are available for the futu re owners/occupants. (EIR at 5.7- 26). After implementation of site design, source control, and treatment control BMPs, as specified i n the Project’s WQMP, Project operations would not cause substa ntial
pollution of receiving waters, and no mitigation is required.

e. Create or Contribute Runoff Water.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capac ity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff, such as from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (incl uding washing), waste
handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks, or other outdoor areas.
.

Finding: Impacts related to Hydrology and Water Quality are discussed in detail in Section

5.7 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

38 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
the City find ing that development of the Project will not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional so urces of polluted runoff, and therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: Design standards for BMPs are set forth by the County of San Bernardino and the California Storm Water
Management handbooks, and construction BMPs for th is
Project would be selected, constructed, and maintained so as to comply with all applicable ordinances and guidance documents. Upon implementation BMPs as specified in the project’s SWPPP, Project construction would not result in substantial pollution of receiving waters. (EIR at 5.7 -22).

Site design, source contro l, and treatment control BMPs as dictated by the County and City Stormwater management
plans would be implemented. The Project -specific WQMP
would be required by the City of San Bernardino to a ddress management of urban run off from the Project site, and
specifically address site design, source control, and
treatment control BMPs to minimize the impact of urban
runoff from the Project. Site design BMPs would be used to control and filter runoff f rom residential uses for colle ction in detention basins located at strategic points on the Project site. (Id.).

On- and offsite stormwater would be collected and routed through a series of catch basins, inlets, and storm drain systems that would convey w ater to three extended
detention basins for water quality treat ment and detention.

These systems would be designed and cons tructed in
accordance with the City of San Bernardino and the San
Bernardino County Flood Control District standards.

Properly engine ered basins reduce infiltratio n issues by adsorbing common residential chemicals into basin linings. (Id.). Successful impl ementation of the controls contained in the WQMP would reduce the amount of contaminants in
surface flow and groundwater by controlli ng the
contaminants at the sou rce. (EIR at 5.7 -23). Accordingly, the potential for the Project to create or contribute runo ff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned storm water drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff is less t han significant, and no mitigation is required.

Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

39 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
f. Dam Failure.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would expose people or structures to a significant risk of injury, loss or death involving flooding, including flo oding as a result of the failu re of a levee or dam.

Finding: Impacts related to Hydrology and Water Quality are discussed in detail in Section

5.7 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City find ing that development of the Project will not expos e people or structures to a signi ficant risk of injury, loss or death involving flooding (including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam), and therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: There are no dams or en closed bodies of water upstream from the Project site that could pose a hazard of flooding to the site due to a seiche or the failure of a dam. (EIR at

5.7-27). The Project would involve construction and
operation of three reservoirs onsite. (EIR Figure 3-9). The reservoirs would have ca pacities of 900,000 gallons,
900,000 gallons, and 2,500,000 gallons. The reservoirs
would be enclosed tanks, the design and construction of which would comply with existing seismic safety
regulations. (EIR at 5.7 -27). Accor dingly, the risk of flooding is l ess than significant, and no mitigation is required.

g. Cumulative Impacts.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would result in cumulatively significant impacts related to Hydrology and Water
Quality.

Finding: Impacts related to Hydrology and W ater Quality are discussed in detail in Section

5.7 of the D raft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City find ing that development of the Project will not result i n cumulatively significant imp acts related to Hydrology and Wat er Quality , and therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: Potential related projects are those development projects that would increase the amount of impervious su rfaces and consequently cause increased runoff within the Santa Ana River Watershed. (EIR at 5.7 -27). Each related project would be required to include project features that would detain onsite any increase in runoff from 100 -year storm events until after the storm. After the construc tion and Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

40 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
operation of required dr ainage features within related projects, substantial cumulat ive impacts to the capacity of the storm drainage system in the region are not expected to occur. (Id.). Given that the proposed Proj ect would also be required to include drainage features so that the Project would not cause a net increase in runoff into t he existing storm drainage system in the region, the Project is not anticipated to have a cumulatively considerable adverse impact on storm drainage capacity. Reach Four of the Santa Ana River, do wnstream from the vicinity of the Project site, is included on the 303(d) list as impaired by pathogens (bacteria and viruses). Therefore, pathogens are pollutants of concern in the vicinity of the Project site. (Id.). Othe r projects in the Santa Ana Water shed can be expected to increase the amounts of contaminants that could enter
stormwater. (EIR at 5.7 -28). However, other projects
would be required to comply with the same NPDES
regulations fo r minimizing water pollution a s would the proposed project. Rel ated projects would be required to prepare and implement SWP PPs and WQMPs, specifying
BMPs that would be used to minimize contaminants
discharged into receiving waters. After compliance with existing regulations, cumulative impacts to water quality are not expected to be substantial, and the Project is not anticipated to have cumulatively considerable impacts on water quality. (Id.). Thus, no mitigation is required.

8. Land Use and Planning.
a. Conflict with Land Use Plans.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would conflict with any applicable land use pl an, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific p lan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for th e purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

Finding: Impacts related to Land Use and Planning are discussed in detail at Section 5.8 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire rec ord, the Commission concurs with the City finding that the Project will not conflict with any applicable land use plan, pol icy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, and therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

41 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Facts in Support of the Finding: General Plan/Specific Plan: The Projec t would be consistent with the City of San Bernardino General Plan. (EIR at 5.8 -13). Under the existing General Plan
designation of R E, the maximum density is one dwelling unit per acre. The Proje ct would require a General Plan Amendment to change the exis ting land use designation to Residential Low (RL), allowing 3.1 dwelling units per acre, an increase of 2.1 dwelling units per acre. The Project would be annexed i nto the City of San Bernardino an d
zoned RE (consistent with existing prezoning). (Id.). The Project’s overall density would be 0.87 dwelling units per acre. The density on the developed area (241.5 acres)
would be 1.27 dwelli ng units per acre. (EIR at 5.8 -14).

Development will be focuse d, or clustered, onto
approximately 241.5 acres, or 68 perce nt of the total site, and includes 9 acres of parks and 125.1 acres of internal slopes and fuel modification zones. The remaining
32 percent of Spring Trails (111. 3 acres) is preserved as natural open space. The average lot size in Spring Trails is 29,000 square feet. The largest lots are on the northern portion and upper elevations of the site, and the largest lot measures 18.3 acres. (Id.). The smallest lots are o n the lower elevations and southe rn portion of the Project, and the smallest lot measures 10, 801 square feet. In many
instances, the legal lots will extend beyond the buildable area and include graded slopes, fuel modification zones, steep slopes, and open spaces. (Id.).

The Preferred De velopment Plan is the same as the
Alternative Development Pl an in every respect except for the treatment of the land beneath the aboveground electric lines and the number of residential lots. (Id.). In this respect, the Pre ferred Development Plan differs f rom the Preferred Development Plan in that it would provide 126 acres of internal slopes and fuel modification zones, and 70 acres would be attributable to residential lots. The Preferred Development Plan contains 304 singl e-family detached
units and the o verall density over the 350-acre site would be 0.86 dwelling units per acre. The density on the
developed area (241.5 acres) would be 1.26 dwelling units per acre. The Project would exceed County General Plan designation RL -5 of one dwelling unit per five acres.

However, once annexed into the City of San Bernardino , the Project would be consistent with the General Plan and Development Code. (Id.).

Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

42 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Specific plans are required to be consist ent with the goals and policie s of the governing general plan. The P roject implements and exemplifies the goals and policies of the City of San Bernardino General Plan. (EIR Table 5.8 -1).

Future development within the Spring Trails Specific Plan area must be consistent with this Specific Plan. All projects that are found t o be consistent with this Specific Plan will likewise be dee med consistent with the City’s General
Plan. (Id.).

San Bernardino County Association of Governments
(SCAG): The proposed Proj ect will be consistent with th e applicable SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide
(RCPG) policies. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in significant land use impacts related to relevant SCAG policies, goals, and principles. (EIR Table

5.8-2). Likewise, the P roject will be consistent with the applicable goals of the SCAG Regional Transportation Plan (“RTP”), and implementation of the Project would not
result in significant land use impacts related to relevant RTP goals. (EIR Table 5.8-3). The Project will also be consistent with advisory SCAG Comp ass Growth Vision
(“CGV”) principles, and would not result i n significant land use impacts related to the advisory CGV principles. (EIR Table 5.8-4).

San Bernardino National Forest Land Management
Plan (“SBNF”): The northern portion of the Project site (approximately 160 acres) is located within the boundaries of the SBNF. The upper 160 acres of the Project are private lands within the SBNF. Since the Project site is privately held, it is not subject to the Land Manag ement Plan.

However, all areas adjacen t to the Project site, within the SBNF, are subject to the L and Management Plan. Public
access by residents would be restricted and unlawful. (EIR at 5.8-47).

Forest Service Roadless Are a Conservation Plan: In
1999, the USFS proposed to prohibit road con struction and reconstruction in inventoried roadless areas w ithin the national forests. That portion of the SBNF surrounding the Project site (at the Project boundary), and continuing in t he northwesterly direction is identified as an inventoried roadless area. However, the Project site is not within the inventoried roadless area, and is thus not subject to this plan. (See EIR Figure 5.8-1).

Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

43 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
City of San Bernardino Tree Ordinance: The
development of the Project would remove up to 2,400 trees (220 native sp ecies, 2,170 eucalyptus, and 10 ornamental nonnative trees) from the Project site. The majority of the eucalyptus trees were planted as part of a eucalyptus
plantation. The applicant woul d be required to replace the 220 native tree species with similar nat ive species, as required by the City’s tree ordinance. The r equired tree replacement has been incorporated as Project Mitigation Measure 3 -13, which would ensure the project’s
compliance with the City’s tree ordinance.

In sum, because the Project will no t conflict with any land use plan, policy or regulation, imp acts in this area are less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

b. Development Within Hillside Management Overlay District.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether development would occu r within the Hillside Management Overlay District.

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 t he City finding that the Project’s development standards will replace the provisions of the HMOD and, therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project site would be subject to the HMOD since it would involve development in areas of 15 percent slope or greater. (See EIR Figure 5.8 -2). The overall goals of the site-specific grading guidelines are to minimize the height of visible slopes, provide for more natural -appearing
manufactured slopes, m inimize grading quantities,
minimize slope maintenance and water cons umption, and
provide for stable slopes and building pads. (EIR at

5.8-48). The total Project area that is proposed for grading is 216.7 acres, which includes 193.0 acres onsite and 23.7 acres offsite. Onsite grading e ncompasses roughly 2.7
million cubic yards and would balance onsite. (The primary access road would require approximately 171,000 cubic
yards of cut and 55,000 cubic yards of fill, which
necessitates exporting approximately 11 6,000 cubic yards.

The seconda ry access street would require 244,000 cubic yards of cut and 109,000 cubic yards of fill, which
necessitates exporting approximately 135,000 cubic yards.

Total export equals 251,000 cubic yards. (Id.). Spring
Trails has been responsibly designed to fit in to the existing Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

44 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
landscape, at the same time meeting the intent of the
HMOD. Project development wou ld avoid steep hillside
areas and clusters development in the lower foothill areas.

This has the following benefits in terms of grading impacts:

o Minimizes hillside grading and scarring that would
be visible from public rights-of-way;
o Preserves the Cable C anyon and Meyers Canyon
drainage courses in their natural conditions and
minimizes impacts on natural topography;
o Maintains si gnificant natural drainage cou rses
within the proposed development ar ea to enhance
water quality. (Id.).

The Specific Plan for t he Project contains hillside design and development standards that have been prepared to be site-specific for the proposed proj ect and are consistent with th e General Plan. The HMOD design guideli nes
would not be necessary. Thus, no mitigation is required.

c. Development Within Foothill Fire Zones.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether development would occur within Foothill Fire Zones A and B or C, as identif ied in the City’s General Plan.

Finding: Impacts related to Land Use and Planning are discussed i n detail at Section 5.8 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that althoug h development of the Project w ill be within Foothill Fire Zones A and B and C, all development will comply with the Foothill Fire Overlay District standards and therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The overlay district i dentifies 3 foothill fire zone s: A, Extreme Hazard; B, High Hazard; and C, Moderate Hazard.

Approximately one third of the site i s in Fire Zone A, one third of the site is in Fire Zone B, and the remaining third is in Fire Zone C. (EIR Figure 5.8 -2). Areas in the Foothill Fire Zones ar e required to be developed with proper
building separation, landscaping, and building materials; adequate emergency access and evacuation routes; and
sufficient water resources. (EIR at 5.8 -48). To ensure the safety of propert y and lives, a detailed fire s afety analysis was conducted by FireSaf e Planning Solutions and a fire protection plan was prepared , which factored in wind
patterns, fuel types (vegetation), topography, weather
patterns, and historical burn patterns to deter mine the Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

45 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
potential severity of wildfires and appropriate protection methods. (EIR at 5.8 -49). A comparison of the provisions of this Specific Plan with the Foothill Fire Overlay District is provided in Appendix D of the Specific Plan. The table in Appendix D shows the Project’s complia nce with the Foothill Fire Overlay Dist rict standards for access and circulation, site and street i dentification, roadside
vegetation, water supply, erosion control, construction and development design, and other miscellaneous standards
such as disclosure to property owners and responsible
parties for fuel modification zone maintenance. Spring
Trails is compliant with all standards laid out in the Foothill Fire Overlay District. (Id.). The fire protection plan
prepared by Fire Safe Planning Solutions was ap proved by the San Bernardino County Fir e Department and
incorporated into the Spring Trails Specifi c Plan.

Accordingly, the potential for impacts related to
development within Foothill Fire Zones is less than
significant, and no mitigation is required.

d. Cumulative Impacts.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would result in cumulatively significant impacts related to Land Use and Planning.

Finding: Impacts related to Land Use and Planning are discussed in deta il at Section 5.8 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that the Project wil l not result in cumulatively significant impacts related to Land Use and Planning and therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: Development of the Project, in addition to other cumulative development, could cause City -wide land use and planning impacts. (EIR at 5.8 -49). However, upon adoption of the Spring Trails Specific Plan, the Project would be consistent with applicable plans, policies, and regulations of the San Bernardino General Plan, the City’s zoning regulations, and SCAG’s RCPG and RTP. (Id.). Additionally, as with the
proposed Project, other cumulative projects would also be subject to compliance with the local and regional plans reviewed in this section. (Id.). Implementation of the
cumulative projects would not co mbine with the proposed Project to result i n cumulatively considerable la nd use impacts, and no mitigation is required.

Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

46 M681-000 -- 1000746.1

9. Mineral Resources.
a. Loss of Mineral Resources.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would result in the loss of availabil ity of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state; or result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource
recovery site del ineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan.

Finding: Impacts related to Mi neral Resources are discussed in detail at Section 5.9 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that t he Project will not result in the loss of availability of an y known mineral resource, and therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: Younger alluvium is present on the Project site, which may be suitable as construction aggrega te, but is present onsite in limited amounts, mainly in Cabl e Canyon and Myers
Canyon. (See EIR Figure 5.5-1). Most of the site surfa ce consists of older terrace deposits, which are not thought to be suitable as aggregate because the boulders and gravel in these deposits are moderately weathered and crumbly,
suggesting they break down easily. (EIR at 5.9 -4). There are no mineral resour ce recovery sites designated in the City of San Bernardino General Plan on or near the Project site, and there are no exist ing mineral resource recovery operations on or next to the P roject site. (Id.). Accordingly, impacts to mineral resources will be les s than significant, and no mitigation is required.

10. Noise.
a. Substantial Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise l evels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the Project; specifically, whether based on the City of San Bernardino standard for maximum outdoor noise levels in residential areas, Project - related tr affic would increase the CNEL at any noise - sensitive receptor by an audib le amount, 3 dBA and
ambient noise levels exceed 65 dBA.

Finding: Potential Noise impacts of the Project are discussed in detail at Section 5.10 of the Draft EIR. Based on the enti re record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that the Project will not result in a substantial permanent increase in Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

47 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing w ithout the Project, because Project -related traffic will not increase the CNEL at any noise - sensitive receptor by an audible amount, and therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The operations phase of the Project would gener ate noise primarily associated with vehicular trips. (EIR at 5.10-17).

According to the Project’s traff ic impact analysis, the Project would generate 3,149 average daily trips (ADT), with 247 trips in the morning peak-hour and 333 trips in the evening peak hour. (Id.). A 3 dB change in noise levels is considered to be the minimum change discernible to the human ear. (Id.). Project -related traffic at buildout year 2013 would cause noise levels to increase by more than 3 dBA on the new access roads, along Lit tle League Drive, and Belmont Avenue between Little League D rive and
Magnolia Avenue. (EIR Figure 5.10-6). However, ambient
noise lev els would not exceed 65 dBA CNEL under year
2013 with Project conditions along these roadways. A
portion of the segment of Little League Drive south of
Frontage Road would be within the 65 dBA CNEL ambient
noise contour, howev er, there are no noise -sensitive
receptors present. (EIR at 5.10 -18). Consequently,
implementation of the Project would not cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels; noise impacts would be le ss than significant in year 2013, and no
mitigation is required.

b. Noise Levels in Excess of Standards.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise ordina nce, or applicable standards o f other agencies; specifically,
whether noise generated by buildout of the Project would result in stationary (non-transportation) noise that results in a noise nuisance at noise -sensitive receptors as determined in Chapter 8. 54, Noise Control , of the City ’s Municipal Code; or result in interior noise levels in habitable noise - sensitive areas that exceed 45 dBA CNEL or exterio r noise levels at single -family residential noise -sensitive areas exceed 65 dBA CNEL.

Finding: Potential Noise impacts of the Project are discussed in detail at Section 5.10 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that the Project will not result in exposure of pe rsons to or generation of noise levels in excess of any standard, and therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

48 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Facts in Support of the Finding: Noise may have a significant impact if the Project constructs a noise -sensitive land use in an area that is incompatible due to excessive noise. (EIR at 5.10-18). The City of San Bernardi no has adopted a land use
compatibility criterion for the siting of new noise -sensitive land uses within the City. (See EIR Table 5.10-3). Per the City of San Bernardino General Plan, noise-impacted
projects are defined as residential projects with noise levels that exceed the City’s “Normally Acceptable” compatibility criteria. For residential projects, noise -impacted project s are those that are exposed to exterior noise levels of 65 dBA CNEL or greater. Noise -impacted project s are
required by the City to include upgraded noise insulation features (e.g., windows, doors, attic baffling) that achieve an exterior-to-interior noise level of 45 dBA CNEL. (EIR at 5.10 -18). The majority of f uture ambient noise at the Project area wou ld be generated by local roadw ay traffic. (Id.). Noise-sensitive portions of the Project site include the interior of the residential dwelling units, and the exterior noise-sensitive areas of these uses. Traffic on the local roadways under Year 2013 With Project conditions would
not g enerate noise levels that exceed the exterior noise level of 65 dBA CNEL. (EIR Figure 5.10 -5). Noise -
sensitive uses would b e exposed to exterior noise levels of 50 dBA CNEL and under. Pursuant to the California
Building Code, noise-sensitive habitable room s would be required to be designed to achieve an interior noise
standard of 45 dBA CNEL. In general, exterior -to-interior transmission loss from standard building construction
results in a minimum attenuation of 24 dBA under
windows-closed conditions and 1 2 dBA under windows -
open conditions. (EIR at 5.10-18). Therefore, interior noise levels would not exceed the interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL. Consequently, noise impacts at the onsite
noise-sensitive receptors would be less than significant.

Residential uses would generate stationary noise sources on the Project site, including heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units from residential units, and
noise from landscaping activities. (EIR at 5.10-27). HVAC units and other equipment would be acoustically
engineered with mufflers and barriers to ensure that no exceedance of the City’s noise standards would occu r.
(Id.). Consequently, proposed residential uses would not generate substantial noise, and impacts to nearby noise - Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

49 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
sensitive receptors would be less than significant. Thus, no mitigation is required.

c. Groundborne Vibration.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibr ation or
groundborne noise lev els; specifically, whether
construction equipment would produce perceptible levels of vibration (78 VdB) during the daytime at offsite vibration - sensitive structures, or produce vibra tion that is strong enough to cause vibrati on-induced architectural damag e based on the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), which is 0.2 in/sec for typical wood-framed buildings or 0.5 in/sec for reinforced concrete, steel, or timber structures.

Finding: Potential Noise impacts of the Project are discussed in detail at Section 5.10 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that the Project will n ot result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noi se levels, and therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: Construction operations can generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the construction procedures and the con struction equipment. (EIR at 5.10 -27).

Construction equipment can produce vibration from vehicle travel as well as grading and building activities. No pile driving, blasting, or other vibration-intensive activity would be required in the construction effor t. (Id.). The highest levels of vibration would be experienced when a he avy
piece of construction equipment is operating or passes in proximity to the nearby vibration -sensitive structures.

Levels of vibration produced by construction equipment are evaluated against the FTA’s significance threshol d for vibration annoyance of 7 8 VdB for residential structures during the daytime. (Id.). Although the maximum vibration levels associated with certain c onstruction activities could be perceptible in certain insta nces, vibration events would be infrequent throughout the day, would occu r during the least vibration-sensitive portions of the day, and equipment would be used for a short duration when working i n close proximity to vibration -sensitive receptors. (EIR at 5.10- 28). Additionally, construction activi ties are typically distributed throughout a project site. Therefore,
construction vibration is based on average vibration levels (levels that would be experienced by sensitive receptors the Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

50 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
majority of the time) t hat exceed the FTA’s criteria for vibration-induced annoyance at sensitiv e residences during the day of 78 VdB. While construction equipment could
operate as close as 65 feet to the nearest offsit e vibration- sensitive residential structures (onsite Seconda ry Access Road), most of the heavy construc tion equipment would
operate at greater distances (average distance of 761 feet). (Id.). Average vibration levels from construction of the Project would not exceed the FTA criteria for vibration annoyance at the s urrounding residential uses or at the existing onsite residence. (EIR Tab le 5.10 -7).

Consequently, impacts would be less than significant.

Development of the Project would require construction of two access roads into the project site from the existing arterials. (EIR at 5.10-28). The primary acce ss road would connect at the s outheast entrance of the site and the
secondary access road would connect to the southwest
entrance of the project site. Ro adway construction would include grading, foundation work, a nd asphalt paving that would extend beyond the Project site boundary into the surrounding properties. (Id.). While construction equipment at the roadway construction areas could operate as close a s 55 feet to the nearest offsite vibration -sensitive recepto r, most of the heavy construction equipment would operate at greater dist ances. (Id.). Average vibration levels from construction of the Project would not exceed the FTA
criteria for vibration an noyance at the surrounding
residential uses. (EIR at Table 5 .10-8). Consequently, impacts would be less than significant.

The FTA cr iterion for vibration -induced architectural damage is 0.20 inch per second for the peak particle
velocity (“PPV’) for wood -framed structures. (EIR at

5.10-29). Project -related constru ction vibration was
evaluated for its poten tial to cause architectural da mage in comparison to the FTA’s architectural damage criteria for the closest offsite structure. Onsite construction activi ties associated with the Project would occur at distances th at would result in PPV levels below the FTA ’s criteria for vibration-induced architectural damage at the nearest off - and onsite vibration -sensitive structures. (EIR Table

5.10-9). Consequently, i mpacts would be less than
significant at off - and onsite rec eptors. Similar to onsite construction acti vities, vibration levels from roadway- related construction activities would also result in PPV Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

51 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
levels below the FTA’s criteria for vibration -induced
architectural damage at the nearest offsite vibration - sensitive structures. (EIR Table 5.10 -10). Consequent ly, impacts would be less than significant at offsite receptors, and no mitigation is required.

d. Cumulative Impacts.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would result in or contribute to a significant cumulative noise impact.

Finding: Potential Noise impacts of the Project are discussed in detail at Section 5.10 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that the Project will not result in or contribu te to a significant cumulative noise impact, and therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: Project-related cumulative noise impacts may occur if, under Project condit ions, there is a substantial increase in overall cumulative noise (3 dBA or more), the Project
contributes 0.1 dBA or more to the ove rall cumulative
noise increase, and the ambient noise environment is above 65 d BA CNEL. (EIR at 5.10 -36). Buildout year 201 3
conditions would not result in any cumulative noise
impacts along the roadway segments within the stu dy area. (EIR Figures 5.10-5 to 5.10-7). Roadway segments where
the ambient noise environment would be 65 dBA CNEL or
higher, such as along Palm Avenue a nd I -215 corridor, would not result in cumulative noise incr eases of 3 dB or more under buildout year 2 015 w ith project conditions. (EIR at 5.10 -36). For roadway segments —such as the
secondary access road from I-215 to the Project site and the primary acce ss road from the Project site to Meyers
Road—where cumulativ e noise would exceed 3 dB under
buildout year 2013 conditions, ambient no ise levels would not exceed 65 dBA CNEL. (Id.). A small portion of the
segment of Little League Drive south of Frontage Roa d
would result in a 3 dB increase in cumulative noise under year 2013 With Project conditions. (Id.). T his would be within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour, and the Project
would contribute at least 0.1 dB to the overall cumulative noise increase. However, th ere are no noise -sensitive uses in this area. Consequently, the Project’s contribution to cumulative noise would be less than significant, and Project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable for
buildout Year 2015 conditions. (Id.).

Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

52 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Potential nois e impacts from Project -related traffic were evaluated to ass ess cumulative increases in the ambient noise environment in the vicinity of noise -sensitive
receptors for horizon year 2030. (Id.). By horizon year 2030, considerable growth in the San Bernardino area is anticipated. Therefore, future traffic growth withi n the City of San Bernardino in horizon yea r 2030, in addition to Project-related traffic growth, would also result in increases in the ambient noise levels within the City. The ambient noise alon g a portion of the primary access road —from Belmont Avenue t o just north of Meyers Road —would
exceed 65 dBA CNEL, cumulative noise wo uld exceed
3 dB, and the Project would contribute at least 0.1 dB. (EIR Figure 5.10 -11). However, there are no existing
noise-sensitive receptors within the vicinity of this
particular portion of the roadway segment. Other roa dway segments, such as Palm Av enue north of I -215, would be within ambient noise levels of 65 dBA CNEL or higher;
however, cumulative noise would not exc eed 3 dB.

Consequently, the Project’s contribution to cumula tive noise would be less than significant a nd project impacts would not b e cumulatively considerable for horizon year 2030 With-Project conditions. (EIR at 5.10-37).

Unlike transportation noise sources, whose effects can
extend well beyond the limits of the project site, stationary noise generate d by a project only impacts se nsitive
receptors adjacent to the project site. (Id.). As no
significant stationary noise impacts from Project
implementation were identified, and the City of San
Bernardino restricts stationary noise generated on a
property f rom creating a nuisance to oth er noise -sensitive receptors, cumulative stationary -source noise generation would also be less than significant. (Id.).

Like stationary-source noise, cumulative construction noise and vibration impacts are confined to a local ized area of impact. Consequen tly, cumulative impacts would only
occur if other projects are being constructed in the vicinity of the Project at the same time as the Project. (Id.). Since there are no other planne d projects in the vicinity of the Project a rea, there are no cumulative c onstruction-related noise and vibration impacts. Accordingly, the potential for the Project to result in cumulative noise impacts is less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

53 M681-000 -- 1000746.1

11. Population and Housing.
a. Substantial Population Growth.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, b y
proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure).

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 Proj ect will not induce substantial population growth either directly or indirectly, and therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project would result in a slight p opulation growth in the Project area, by directly introducin g up to 304 new single-family residential units (reduced to 215 units, or 711 persons) into the City of San Bernardino. Using an average household size of 3.34 persons, the Project would add up to 1,015 new residents to the City of San Bernardino. (FEIR at 3-12). The population for the City of San Bernardino in 2005 was 201,049 and is projected to increase to 265,515 in 2035. (EIR Table 5.11 -1). The City’s General Plan
currently designates the Proj ect site as Residential Estate (RE), which allows for one dw elling unit per acre.

However, the Project would require a General Plan
Amendment to change the existing land use designation to Residential Low (RL), allowing 3.1 dwelling units per acre, an increase of 2.1 dwelling units per acre. (EIR at 5.11-9).

The City’s projected buildout population under the existing land use designati ons is approximately 319,241 (General Plan 2005), which includes 276,264 persons in the City and 42,976 persons in the City’ s sphere of influence. The
Project would increase the overall buildout population from 319,241 to 320,256, but more spe cifically, th e projected population of 42,976 persons in the City’s sphere of
influence would increase to 43,991. The projected
population increase that would be generated by the Project would represent approximately 0.32 percent of the buildout population forecast for the City of San Bernardino.

Although the proposed land use designation would allow
for 2.1 more dwelling units per acre tha n the existing general plan, the Project would only result i n a nominal increase in the overall projected buildout population. (Id.).

Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

54 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
The City of San Bernardino is a jobs -rich community.

According to SCAG, the total employment within the City will grow fr om 81,115 jobs in 2000 to 157,088 jobs in
2035, for a total increase of 75,973 jobs, representing 93.7 percent growth. This reflects an annual growth rate of approximately 2,171 jobs or 2.7 percent. Implementation of the Project would create short -term job s during the
construction phase; however, the Project itself would not provide any jobs. (Id.). SCAG applies the jobs/h ousing ratio at the regional and sub -regional level as a tool for analyzing the fit between jobs, housing, and infrastructure.

Although n o ideal jobs/housing ratio is adopted in state, regional, or city policies, SCAG considers an area balanced when the jo bs/housing ra tio is 1.35; communities with more than 1.5 jobs per dwelling unit are considered jobs - rich. The Project would consist of 30 9 residential units and would not provide any jobs. (Id.). B y 2035, the City is projected to grow by 36.6 percent in ho using, 32.1 p ercent in population, and 65.5 percent in employment. (EIR
Table 5.11-5). SCAG’s forecast predicts a strong growth in employment, as the City’s jobs/housing ratio was 1.65 in 2005 and is expected to increase to 2.00 by 2035. The
projected 2035 jobs/housing ratio at Project buildout would be 1.99, or 0.01 less than the jobs/housing ratio at buildout without the Project. The Proj ect would create a
jobs/housing ratio that is slightly more balanced compared to the projected buildout in the area, im proving the
jobs/housing ratio within the City. (EIR at 5.11 -9). By buildout year 2035, the county is projected to grow by 71.4 percent i n housing, 32.1 percent in population, and 65.5 percent in employment. In 2005, the jobs/housing ratio was

1.24 and is projected to increase to 1.29 in 2035,
maintaining an overall balance between the number of jobs and number of households within the coun ty. The Project would not change the projected buildout rati o between jobs and housing in the county. (EIR Table 5.11 -5). As
previously mentioned, there is some variation between the City’s and SCAG forecasts because different growth rates were used to de termine the projections. EIR Table 5.11 -6 shows the job/hous ing ratio according to the City’s
projections in their Gene ral Plan. At Project buildout, the City predicts that their jobs/housing ratio would be 3.7. (EIR at 5.11-10). Infrastructure improvements are required for the Project, and a primary access road wo uld have to be constructed from the terminus of Little Leag ue Drive and extended west to the northeastern corner of the Project site, Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

55 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
along with a secondary access road. These access roads
would only accommodate the Project. The development of
the Project would also require the construction of new
stormwater drain age facilitie s and infrastructure, the construction of new pipelines on the Project site, and
potentially an upgrade of the existing pipe line at Little League Drive. (Id.). Additionally, there woul d be three proposed detention basins that would be maintain ed by the owner or homeowners association. This would improve the fire flow in the higher elevations of the Project site and its vicinity. (EIR at 5.11 -11). The Local Agency Formation Commission ap proved a sphere of influence expansion in September 1996 fo r the City, w hich placed the Project site and adjacent area within the City of San Bernardino’s
sphere of influence. Therefore, these imp rovements are consistent with planned growth for the City. (Id.). To the extent that these improvements would accommoda te
growth tha t could not occur otherwise, they would be
considered growth inducing. Since substantial growth is anticipated and planned f or the City, surrounding growth accommodated by these improv ements is not considered
significant, and no mitigation is required.

b. Cumulative Impacts.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would result in or contribute to a cumulatively signifi cant impact related to Population and Housing.

Finding: Impacts related to Population and Housing are discussed in det ail at Section 5.11 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City find ing that the Project will not result in or contribute to a cumulatively significant impac t to Population and Housing, and therefore, no mitigation i s 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 housin g and population impact provides benefits for the jobs/housing ratio, regional housing goals that promote housing production, and state - mandated 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 be tween jobs and
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

56 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
housing in the City. As a result, the Project would not make a considerable contribution to cumulative g rowth impacts, and no mitigation is required.

12. Public Services.
a. Police Protection.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project wou ld result in a substantial adverse physical impact associate d with the provisions of new or physically altered governme ntal facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmen tal impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection
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 impa ct associated with the provisions of new or physically altered governmental facilities for police protection services, and therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: Upon annexation of the Project site, the San Ber nardino 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 c reate a need for additional police staff. (Id.). The City of San Bernardino’s development impact fee for law enforcement is $597.74 per u nit for detached
single-family residential units. With a tot al of 304 units (reduced to 215 units) , $181,712.96 would b e charged to the Project developer as law enforcement development
impact fees. (Id.). These fees may be spent on facilities, equipment, o r 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 g overnmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

57 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
order to maintain accept able service ratios or other
performance objectives for school services.

Finding: Impacts related to Public Services a re discussed in detail at Section 5.12 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that th e Project will not result in a substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provisions of new or physically altered governmental facilities for school services, and therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project is estimated to generate roughly 101 additional students in the attendance area of North Verdemont
Elementary Scho ol, 52 studen ts 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 C esar Chavez Middle School and Cajon High School to accommod ate
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 cr eate 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 ch arge
the project Level 2 fees of $5.40 per square foot for single- family 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 Servic es are discussed in detail at Section 5.12 of the Draft EIR . Based on t he entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that the Project will not result in a substantial adverse phy sical impact associated with the provisions of new or physically altered governmental facilities for library services, and therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

58 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project would include 304 single -family homes (reduced t o 215 units) and would also involve the
annexation of the Pr oject site into the City of San
Bernardino. (EIR at 5.12 -13). Upon annex ation, 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, an d would contri bute to a need for additional staffing. (Id.). The $596.63 per residential unit library facilities fee that th e City would charge to the Project, would help the SBPL to meet the Project-related increase in demands for library services and red uce 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.

Finding: Impacts related to Publ ic 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 cumulatively significant impact to provision of public services, and therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: Fire Protection Services : Cumulative impac ts 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 ad ditional fire service facilities and personnel.

The citywide population is expected to increase from
201,049 in 2005 to 265,515 in 2 035, an increase of roughly

32.1 percent. Other developments in the City would be
assessed Fire Protection Development Impac t Fees, as
would the Project. Such fees would help to reduce
cumulative impacts to fire protection. (EIR at 5.12-7).

Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

59 M681-000 -- 1000746.1

Police Servic es: 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 Pla n 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 Pro ject. Such fee s, 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 Proj ect, the Distr ict 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 project s 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 sp here of influence, an increase of 64,466, or 32.1 percent, over the 2005 population of 201,149. The Project wo uld 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 servi ces 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.

Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

60 M681-000 -- 1000746.1

13. Recreation.
a. Recreational Facilities.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project w ould increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that s ubstantial physical deterioration of the facility would occu r or be accelerated; or include
recreational facilities or require the c onstruction 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 S ection 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 f acilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse phys ical effect on the environment; and, therefore, no mitigatio n 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 pr ojects. (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 g enerate 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 dedic ation
standard of 3 acres per 1,000 population, approximatel y

3.05 acres of parkland or equivalent fees or improvements would be req uired to serve the residents of the Projec t.

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 Specifi c Plan would provide 246.3 acres of public and private parkland, open space, trails, and recreational amenities on the Proje ct site. (Id.). More specifically, 9.0 of the 246.3 acres wo uld be designated public and private parks: 2.0 acres of private parks and 7.0 acres of public parks. Therefore, t he Project would exceed the City requirements by 3.99 acres of
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

61 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
parkland. Additiona lly, the Project responds to the City’s Parks, Recreation, and Trails Element Goals 8.1 and 8.3 by providing parks and creating a tr ail system that would connect to future and existing regional and City trails. (Id.).

The parks and open space components wo uld provide
passive and active recreational opportunities. T he exact number, precise location, configuration, type, and amount of am enities and facilities, and the size of th e parks and open space areas would be established at the time of
development of th e tentative tract map(s) of the Project. (Id.). The proposed parks and open space acreage of the Spring Trials Specific Plan would m eet and exceed the
amount of parkland and/ or recreation facilities defined by the Quimby Act and the more conservative perfo rmance
standard outlined in the City’s General Plan. Therefo re, the Project’s parks and open space components would ensure
that recr eational facilities would be available to new residents of the Project. (Id.). Since park needs would be met and exceeded on site, it is not expected that the
residents of the Project w ould, in any appreciable manner, need to use City or regionwide parks th at are located
offsite. Additionally, the proposed public parks, trails, and open space components would also serve resident s of the existing and future surrounding communities. (Id.). Thus, impacts related to recreational facilities are less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

b. Cumulative Impacts.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would result in c umulatively considerable impacts to the use, construction or expansion of recreational facilities.

Finding: Impacts related to Recr eation are discussed in detail in Section 5.13 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with th e City finding that the Project would not result in cumulati vely 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 Trai ls Specific Plan would accommodate 304 residential units, ge nerating a total of 1,015 residents . (FEIR at 3 -23). According to the Pa rks, Recreation, and Trails Element, the C ity 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 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

62 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
of parkland. (Id.). Howe ver, 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 lesseni ng the City’s overall parkland needs. (Id.). The Project will increase t he
cumulative acreage of parks in the City , improving the City's current deficiency of parkland. Additionally, the Spring Tr ails Specific Plan meets the goals of the Parks, Recreation, and Trails Element of the General Plan —
encourage creation of a system o f parks, bikeways, trails, and recreation facilities that serve residents needs and connect different neighborhoods to the C ity; and develop a system of open spaces, bikeways, and trai ls 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. Hazards Due to Design Feature.

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

Finding: Impacts related to Traffic and Circulation ar e 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 r esult 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 ac cess roads. (EIR at 5.14 -44). These two access roads would connect the Project sit e to the existing Meyers Road, Little League Drive, and Perr in Road. The access roads and onsite circulation would follow the design standards of the FF District that allow e mergency 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.

Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

63 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
b. Alternative Transportation.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would co nflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transporta tion (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 r ecord, the Commission concurs with the City find ing that the Project will not conf lict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting al ternative 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 u ses 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 vi cinity of public transit stations. If bus or other public transit service were expanded in the area of the Project, the Proj ect would not interfere with potential routes. (EIR at 5.14 -39). The Project’s trail system would tie into area -wide trails that wou ld help facilitate access to public transi t, 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. Ba sed on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City find ing that the Project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Cont rol Board; or require or result in the construction of new storm water d rainage facilities or Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

64 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
expansion of existin g 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 fac ilities 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 tha t 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 sout h-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 reinf orced concrete pipes that would be placed along the major looped road. Culverts would be constructed to maintain n atural drainage patterns in each of the
drainage areas (A, B, C, and D) where prop osed 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 reduc e 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 5.1 5-21). Although the proposed development would
necessitate the construct ion of new facilities and
infrastructure, their construction would help to maintain the natural drainage patterns of the sit e and would control the stormwater runoff flow so that it wo uld not exceed the capacities of Cable Canyon Creek leaving the site. Thus, impacts in this area are less than si gnificant, and no mitigation is required.

b. Wastewater Treatment.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would result in a determina tion 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.

Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

65 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Finding: Potential impacts related to Utilities and Service Systems are discussed in detail in Section 5.15 of the Draft E IR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that the Project would not result in a determin ation by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or m ay serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the proje ct'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 s ewer line at the intersection of Meyers Road and Little League Drive. (EIR Figure 3 -12). A residential wastewater generation rate of 182 gpd pe r acre was used to determine the daily flow rates of the proposed Proje ct. This rate is used for developments wit h 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 wit hin 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 diamete r, designed to accommodate a flow rate of 1.354 cubic feet per second ( cfs) (203 gpm). The actual onsite flow wou ld 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 th e capacity that would be required for proposed sewer lines.

The report used the City of San Bernardino Public Wor ks Sewer Policy and Procedures design criteria for sanitary sewers based on City se wer buildout conditions in year 2020. The City’s Sewer Maste r Plan is based on City
buildout in 2020. (Id.). The analysis of the ex isting sewer system found that four locati ons had a pipe flow over that of the design flow for the pipe section. These four l ocations were still below the full flow capacity of the sewe r pipe sections. (Id.). Since all pipeline sections are still within the full flow capacity, upgrades are not req uired. The existing Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

66 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
sewer system would be able to accommodate the
wastewater flow f rom 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 diamete r. If a 10 -inch pipeline is used, the existing pipeline at Little League Drive woul d need to be upgraded from 8 to 10 inches, since it is not r ecommended to have a 10 -inch pipeline upstream of an 8 -inch pipeline. (Id.). The Project would require the constr uction of new pipelines on the Project site, most likely of 8 - inch
diameter, and p otentially an upgrade of the existing
pipeline at Little Lea gue 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 add ressed 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. Landfill Capacity.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would be served by a la ndfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate t he
project's solid waste disposal needs; or fail to comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulation s related to solid waste.

Finding: Potential impacts related to Utilities and Service Systems are discussed in detail in Section 5.15 of the D raft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City find ing that the Project would not be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the proje ct's solid waste disposal needs; or fail to comply with fede ral, 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 involv es 304 residential units (reduced to 215 units) that would generate solid waste to be disposed at Mid -Valley and/or San
Timoteo lan dfills. (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 estimati on, the Project would generate
approximately 1,357,040 lbs/year (678 to ns of solid waste per year, or 1.85 tons p er day). San Timoteo Landfill can receive a maximum of 1,000 tons per day until 201 6. (Id.).

Since this closure date is not long after the buil dout of the Project, the majority of the waste from the Project would Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

67 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
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 o f waste per day, and the average daily waste flow is 2,790 t ons. (Id.). The daily waste flow plus the waste flow of the Project tot als 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 redu ce the amount of solid waste being transported to landfills. The waste
reduction and pollution prevention program s of the City help both residents and businesses reduce waste and find recycling so lutions. The City offers pick -up services for waste, green w aste, 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 200 5 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 n umbers do not necessarily indicate
noncompliance. (See EIR Table 5.15 -18). The figu res
must be reviewed and approved by the board before they
are used to determine the City’s compliance with AB 939 (and SB 1016). T hese 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 wo rst-case conditions, the Project would decrease the amount of waste bei ng diverted from landfills, and lessen the City’s likelihood of compliance with AB 939. Residents living in Spring Trails wou ld
participate in City-sponsored waste and recycling collection programs. (Id.). Residential waste flow generated during the operation of the Project would have to be incorp orated into the City’s calculations on how to meet the 50 percent diversion goal. A lthough it would increase the amount of waste that would nee d 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 9 39.

Construction material waste would also need to be
incorporated into the City’s calculations to meet the 50 percent diversion go al; however, since there would not be demolition of existing structures involved with the
construction activities, there woul d not be a substantial amount of waste to be discarded. (EIR at 5.15-27). In sum, Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

68 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
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. Cumulative Impacts.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would res ult 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 wi th the City find ing that the Project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to Utilities and Servi ce 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 Pro ject 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 Sprin g 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 un likely that development would occur in the se 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 const ruction of stormwater facilities. (Id.). The proposed Spring Trails Specific Plan w ould generate 63 afy of wastewater. This represents 0.18 per cent 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 proj ected growth in the service area. (Id.). Since the Project’s wastewater flow would not exceed the full capacity flows of the existi ng sewer system as projected in 2020, ther e would not be any cumulative Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

69 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
impacts related to the need for additional sewer syst em 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 ac tions of the San Bernardino County Solid Waste Advisory Committee.
(EIR at 5.15 -27). The City of San Bernardino has a
representative on this co mmittee. The need for any
additional landfills or transfer stations in the future must be incorporated into the s olid waste management plan. The EIR for the San Bernardino General Plan Update esti mates 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 sol id 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 ye ar 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 pr ojected 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. Conflict with Applicable Plan.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would conflict with an applicable pl an, 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 o f the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City find ing that the Project would not conflict with the California Air Resources Board’s (“CA RB”) 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 f rom business -as-usual emissions levels
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

70 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
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 o f 14 tons of CO2e (13 MTons) for every man, woman, and child in Califor nia 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 indi rect emissions of air pollutants. (Id.). The most effective way to reduce emissions is
through a substantial reduction in vehicle trips and tri p lengths. While local and regional governments cannot
directly regulat e vehicles and vehicle emissions, they can implement land use regulations and strategies to reduce VMT. (Id.). Such strategie s can include better integration of land use and transportat ion planning to reduce trip lengths between residential areas to employ ment centers and amenities, and to promote greater public transit use and alternative modes of transportation. (Id.). Strateg ies to implement such land use policy can either be incentiv e based, such as compliance with the SCS, or penalty based, such as ind irect source review. Regional strategies i nclude the Sustainable Communities Strategy (“SCS”) for the
SCAG region, and the Co mpass Blueprint 2% Strategy.
(EIR at 5.16-19).

Transportation contributes a large percentage of the state’s GHG emissions and res earch 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 emissi ons reduction
targets and the SCS have not yet been established for the SCAG region . According to the 2008 Regional
Comprehensive Plan (RCP), S CAG's Land Use and
Housing Action Plan can be expected to result in a
10 percent reduction in VMT in 2035 when co mpared to
current trends. In general, VMT serves as a proxy for
jobs/housing balanc e, urban design, transit accessibility, and other urban form issues. (Id.). The Compass Blueprint is a component of the Land Use an d Housing element of
the 2008 RCP in achie ving sustainable land uses and
policies. The framework of the Compass Blueprint str ategy Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

71 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
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 transit- oriented development. The Project woul d be consistent
with one aspect of the mobility element of the Compass
Blueprint by locating residential developm ent 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 Proje ct site, nor would it be near readily accessible public tran sit, 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 emiss ions. (Id.).

Energy efficiency and conservation measures are identified as a best performance standard for development projects. In general, there are two strategies for red ucing GHG
emissions from the Electricity sector: 1) reducing the
amount of energy c onsumed; and 2) reducing the GHG
emissions resulting from el ectricity production. (Id.). The Project would have little control ove r the latter, and the CEC has determined t hat the success of reducing GHG
emissions from electricity production depends large ly on the success of California’s renewable -energy and energ y- efficiency programs. Consequently, GHG emissions
reductions can be ac hieved 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 one- fifth of the electricity and a third of the non –power plant natural gas consumed in the state are associated with water use. Measures to incr ease water use efficiency and reduce water demand would reduce electric ity 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 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

72 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
reduction in per ca pita 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 J uly 2008, the
California Building Standards Commission adopted the
Green Building Standards Code that includes ma ndatory
features for residential structures and voluntary standards for nonresidential structures. (Id.). As of January 1, 2010, all new struct ures would be constructed to achieve the performance standards of the 2 008 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 a lso require improvements in water efficiency for plumbing fixtures and a target of 50 percent landscape water con servation
reduction. While the current code is voluntary for
nonresidential structures, the Commission is in the process of developing mandator y provisions in the 2010 edition of the California Green Building Stand ards Code.

Transportation, energy efficien cy, 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 emiss ions reduction strategies outlined in the Scoping Plan. (Id.). Therefor e, impacts associated with consistency wit h plans to reduce GHG
emissions are considered less than significant, and no
mitigation is required.

17. Forest Resources.
a. Conflict with Applicable Plan.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would confl ict with existing zoning for, or cause rez oning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timbe rland (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 o f the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that the Project site is not considered timberland or Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

73 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
zoned timber production. Alt hough resources within the Project site qualify as forest land per California Resou rces Code Section 12220 would be impacted by Project impleme ntation, 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 Pro ject would develop single -family residences and result in the removal of 220 native species trees on the project site. Theref ore, 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 agri culture, and a previous landowner grew eucalyptus trees to be used as windrows for crop protection, with a secondary use as firewood. (Id.). De spite the presence of the eucalyptus trees, the site does not include t imberland as defined by PRC Section 4526, which would require the project site to be capable of growing “a crop of trees of a ny commercial species used to produce lumber and other fores t products.” (Id.). Per Section 895.1 of Title 14 of the California Cod e of Regulations (“CCR”), “commercial spec ies” is defined as “those species found in group A and those in group B that are fo und on lands where the species in group A are now growing na turally or have grown naturally in the
recorded past.” (EIR at 5.17 -4). The commercial species list for the South ern Forest District is shown at EIR Table

5.17-1. Although eucalyptus trees are inc luded in group B, the Project site does not have any natural ly 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 Pr oject would not conflict with or cause a rezoning of any
designated timberland areas. (EIR at 5.17 -5). The Project site is in the V erdemont 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 C ode. As shown in Figure 4.6 of the County’s General Plan, “Land Use
Designations,” the northern portion of the site,
approximately 160 acres, i s designated as private
unincorporated land within the San Bernardino N ational Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

74 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Forest. (Id.). The southern portio n of the site,
approximately 190.6 acres, is designated Rural Living (RL - 5), 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, impleme ntation of the Project would not conflict with or cause a re zoning 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 De partment of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Finding: Impacts related to Biological Resources are discussed in detail at Secti on 5.3 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that developmen t of the proposed Project would involve the loss or modification of approximately 2 65.2 acres of natural habitat and the wildlife species. Thes e 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 habit ats could also occur. However, these impacts can be mitigat ed to a less -than-significant level through implementation of Mitigatio n Measures 3 -1 to 3 -5 and 3 -13. These Miti gation Measures are adopted and incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Rep orting Program for the Project, and will be implemented as s pecified 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 appropr iate blooming period is defined as occurri ng within the months of April, May, and June, or as indicated by positive verificat ion 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 i n the immediate vicinity of the proposed impact areas. Any i ndividuals confirmed within the project Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

75 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
impact area shall be considered for possible salvage and relocation into suitable receptor sites located onsite within preserved areas, if feasible. Any ind ividuals confirmed in the immediate vicinity of a proposed i mpact 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 proper ly recorded and avoided during any revegetation or other eff orts anticipated in the long -term during project operation.

All observa tions shall be accurately reported to the California Natural Diversity Database, the California Native Plant Survey, the Cons ortium of California Herbarium, and/or other herbarium or se nsitive species databases as determined by the qualified biologist. Thi s measure shall be implemented to the sati sfaction of the Community Development Director.
3-2 To mitigate for impacts to unoc cupied critical habitat of the federally endangered San Bernardino kangaroo rat, the project applicant shall acquire offsite permanent mitigation lands of like habitat quali ty 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 Hel en, Rialto, and Rancho Cucamonga areas. Mitigation lands shall be acquired at a rep lacement 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 initia ted 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 process es 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 a s 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 issuanc e 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 neces sarily 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 a ppropriate best management practices, the installation of appropriate runoff divers ions, and/or the planting of native vegetation; 3) Vegetation removal will be minimized to the maximum extent possible; and Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

76 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
4) appr opriate signage shall be installed in at l east five locations alongside these facilities to educate users as to the importanc e of riparian ecosystems, the species that rely upon them, a nd the importance of avoiding unnecessary impacts and disturbance.

This measure shall be implemented to the satis faction 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 pu rpose 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 addres s the implications and dangers of living adjacent to natural open space areas. To prevent wildlife from being attracted to the proj ect site, the materials shall provide info rmation on homeowner’ s benefits and responsibilities associated with living close t o natural wildlife habitats.

Specific responsibilities of ho meowners shall be described in these materials and be included in the H omeowners Association (HOA) Covenants, Cod es, & 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 an d Containers. These containers shall meet applicable standards of testing by the Living With Wildlife Foundation and be bear resistant for 60 m inutes so long as they are able to meet the City of San Bernardino’ s Re fuse and Recycling Division’ s restrictions for pick -up and onsite sizing. Examples of Wildlife - Resistant Refuse Enclosures an d Containers are provided by the Living with Wildlife Foundation (http://www.lwwf.org/).
 The project applicant shall coordinate wi th the City of San Bernardino Refuse and R ecycling 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 ref use, 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 an imal gains access to a birdfeeder, the con dition allowing access must be corrected or the birdfeeder removed.

Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

77 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
 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 d etailed 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 pe ts have on local animals. Cat - owners shall be informed of measures to k eep their pets within their property bound aries and dog-owners shall keep their dogs on a leash while outside (except within designated dog parks). These measures would also serve to le ssen 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. Significan t 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 bl ack walnut (Juglans californica var. californica), all speci mens 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 tre es 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 nu mber of significant trees will be impacted, then that quantity shall be used in determining replacement quantitie s. For purposes of replacement ratios, the following exchange ratios shall be used: 1) one 36-inch box tree is equivalent to one replacement tr ee; 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 appli cant 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 overse e the implementation of these requirements and to specify ot her requirements as deemed appropriate. The measures to be followed inc lude, 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 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

78 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
relocation; and 7) implementatio n of the tree replacement plan, as outline d in the first paragraph of this measure. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.

Facts in Support of the Finding: Approximately 100 to 300 Plummer’s mariposa l ily plants and approximately 350 to 600 in dividual 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 USFWS -
designated critical ha bitat for San Bernardino kangaroo rat (“SBKR”) would also occur, as would impacts to Los
Angeles pocket mouse. Potential impa cts to least Bell’s vireo (“LBV”) and southwestern willow fl ycatcher
(“SWF”) are also present. (EIR at 5.3 -45). No plant
species listed as either threatened or endangered un der the Federal Endangered Species Act (“FESA”) or the
California Endangered Specie s Act (“CESA”) is known to occur on the Project site. This finding is based on numerous focused surveys and habitat assessments con ducted on the site since 1998. Since no fe deral- or state -listed species occurs on the site, there would be no impact to thes e
species from Project development. (Id.). Although
numerous biological inventories have been conducted on
the Project site over th e past ten years and the site’s biological resources values have been well established, the applicant is aware that habitat a ssessments and focused surveys need to be updated. As such, pre-clearance surveys will be conducted for each of the federally and s tate 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 l isted as sensitive by the CNPS have been d ocumented 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 l isting guidelines, this species is known from 21 to 80 occur rences throughout Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

79 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
its range, interpreted as anywhere between 3,000 to 1 0,000 individuals, or 10,000 to 50,000 occ upied 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 thi s species. For this reason, Mitigation Measure 3 -1 will be incorporated to identify specimens that are located within the Project i mpact area. These specimens should be
avoided or relocated as feasible. Adherence to these
requirements would lessen the Proj ect’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 t his species on a regional scale. (Id.).

According to the CNP S listing guidelines, this species is known from at least 21 to 80 occu rrences throughout its range, which is int erpreted 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 re moval 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 specie s or elevate its sensitivity or status under the CNPS, CNDDB global and state heritage rankings, the
FESA, or CESA. While Californi a black walnut is not
specifically protect ed under state law, mitigation initiated during the Section 1602 permitting process would likely be required at some level for this species. Fo r 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 im pact 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 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

80 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
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 S BKR, 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 railroa d, and
residential and commercial development. The Riverside
Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (“RAFSS”) habitat on the sit e is suitable for SBKR, but there appears to be lack of effective linkage with adja cent 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 le ssen the Project’s potential impacts to SBKR. (Id.). In anti cipation of those agency requirements, Mitigation Measures 3 -2 and 3-3 are required to reduce the Project’s impac ts in this regard to less than significant levels, by requiring the adoption of BMP s to avoid direct and indirect impacts to remaining habitat areas, and also imposes specific design requirements to lessen addition al 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 offsit e mitigation lands and/or the payment of in -lieu fees, and that the applicant demonstrate that suitable mitigatio n lands have been identified and are available for acquisition. (EIR at

5.3-47). Mi tigation ratios for offsite habitat purchases are typically based on a number of factors, including the
quality of the habitat to b e 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 prescribe d 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 po tential mitigation lands containing suitable RAFSS habitat along the alluvial fans of the San Bernardino Mountains. These lan ds are available for
purchase and dedication to an appropria te 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 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

81 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
mitigation is feasible, an d would mitigate the Project’s impacts in this regard to less than significant levels. (Id.).

Two California Spe cies of Special Concern (“SSCs”) are known to occur on the Project site. Both San D iego pocket mouse and Los Angeles pocket mouse have been cap tured
during each of the survey efforts on the site. Potential impacts to San Diego pocket mouse are not typicall y
considered significant under CEQA because this species is widespread and abundant on a local and regional level. (Id.). Impacts to Los Angele s pocket mouse, however,
could be considered potentially significant si nce the
preferred habitat of the species i s narrow and the species is not known to be locally or regionally abundant. The sta tus of SSC, however, does not afford any specific legal
protections, and therefore this impact can be considered less than signific ant. Nevertheless, the potential adverse impact to Los Angeles pocket mouse could be of concern to regulatory agencies such a s CDFG. (Id.). It is likely that CDFG would impose some leve l of mitigation during the
Section 1602 permitting process to account f or 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 f or 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 co astal California gnatcatcher (“CAGN”) during numerous survey
efforts, as well as the site’s recent exclusion from
designated critic al habitat, it is reasonable to assume tha t the species does not occur upon the Project site. (Id.). The riparian areas withi n Cable Creek provide suitable habitat for the SWF, though f ocused surveys conducted in 2007
returned negative findings. However, L BV was observed
along Cable Creek in 2007. It is therefore possible that the species could be present farther east of this lo cation 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 speci es. Separate Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

82 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
ITPs will be acquired from CDFG, through a 2081 ITP
application, and f rom USFWS, through a Section 7
consultation. Mitigation unde r these permits will be
adequately funded and will ensure that the Proj ect does not jeopardize the continued exis tence of the species. Direct development of the riparian areas of Cable Creek is no t 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 documentatio n to cover any
unanticipated minimization and mitigation measures
included in the final ITPs will be made when th e permits are issued. If additional CEQA documentation is required for review by CD FG to comply with its duties as a
Responsible Agency under C EQA, the subsequent
documentation will be prepared at that time.

In ad dition, the hiking/equestrian trail that i s planned for this area could impact LBV and SWF if they are present
and if the tra il is not designed thoughtfully with the aim of avoiding imp acts to these species. (Id.). For that reason, Mitigation Measure 3 -4 will be incorporated to assure that the tra il’s design, construction, and use would not impact the creek bottom in a manner th at could create a significant impact to these species. Imple mentation of Mitigation
Measure 3 -4 would reduce the level of this pote ntially 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 a ssessments 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. Ne ither of these species, however, has been detected during both general habitat
assessment surveys or focused surv eys conducted in the area. (Id.). Based on these findings, it is likely that neithe r species is present on the Project site. Furthermore, direc t development of the riparian stretches of Cable Creek is not proposed as part of the Project’s development. Miti gation Measure 3-4 for the proposed hiking/equestrian trail would also lessen the P roject’s potential impacts in this regard to less than significant levels. (Id.).

Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

83 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
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 interfa ce (“WUI”) and in surrounding areas. The introduction of dom estic animals would also potentially impact sensitive wildlife species in the area, as well as more common wildl ife 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 m id-sized wild predators combined, includin g
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 habi tat. (EIR at 5.3 -49). However, implementation of Mitigation Measure 3 -5 will reduce this potentially significant impact to less than significant levels.

b. Riparian Plant or Other Sensitive Natural Communities.

Potential Significant Impact: The EIR evaluated and concluded that the Project could have a substantial adverse effect on a riparia n 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 a nd Wildlife
Service.

Finding: Impacts related to Biological Resources are discussed in detail at Section 5.3 of the Draft EIR. Based on the ent ire record, the Commission concurs with the City finding that developm ent of the Project would result in impacts to six riparian plant communities totaling 26.4 acres. Also, 168.4 acres of Riversi dean sage scrub, a sensitive nonriparian plant community, wo uld 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. T hese Mitigation Measures are adopted and incorporated into the Mitigat ion Monitoring and Reporting Program for t he Project, and will be implemented as specified therein, thereby reducing this pote ntially significant impact to a less than significant level:

Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

84 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
3-6 To mitigate impacts to 168.4 acres of Riversidean sage scrub (RSS ) and 26.4 acres of riparian plant communi ties, the project applicant shall do one of the following, or a combination thereof, prior to the issuance of grading permits: 1) acquire offsit e 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 appr opriate long-term management provisions, s uch 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 Bernardi no County Special Districts located in the Glen Helen, Rialto, and Rancho Cucamonga areas. Mitigation lands for riparian habit at 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 implemen ted 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 C ovenants, Codes, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) to require only the use of approved plants on any and all parcels within the development. Approved pla nts 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 Cons ervation Service (NRCS) shall be specifically prohibited from use in a ny 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, proper ty- owner reimbursed removal of unauthorized plants, and/or o ther 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 qu alified 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 introductio n of noxious weeds onto the site or surrounding areas. At a minimum, t he 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) cleanin g and washing of equipment includes washing and/or steam cleaning of t ires, 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 bal es 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 me asures 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 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

85 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
qualified specialist at monthly intervals. During monitoring, the specialist shall have the authority to require corrective m easures 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 i n impacts to Riversidean Sage Scrub (RSS) and six riparian p lant communities. The
Project could also have indirect impacts on surr ounding 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, a nd 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 com munity. (EIR Table

5.3-5).

Riversidean Sage Scrub : The Project would remove
nearly all of the 168.4 acres of t he 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 th e RSS on the site could be considered of high value and the mitigation required woul d therefore be greater. (EIR at

5.3-49). However, no listed species dependent upon RSS
have been detected on the site. This conclu sion 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 th e 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 Bernardin o 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 pu rchase and permanently protect RSS habitat that is biologically equivalent or superior to the 168.4 acres of onsite RSS habitat, a nd 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 paym ent of in lieu fees to appropriately offset the Project’s impact to RS S. (Id.).

Mitigation Measure 3 -6 also requ ires that the applicant Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

86 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
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 Bernar dino and San Gabriel
Mountains. These lands are available fo r purchase and
dedication to an appropriate conservation management
organization. (Id.). This dedication and man agement 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 imp acted by Project development. (EIR Table 5.3 -5).

The 25.4 acres of sou thern sycamore -alder riparian
woodland (“SSARW”) present on the site are located along the upper reaches of Cable Creek and ar e outside of the Project footprint. Therefore, they would not be impacted by the proposed development. (EIR at 5.3 -50). Each of th e remaining six communities, totaling 26.4 acres, that would be impacted by the project represent valuable habitat and are con sidered high priority for conservation by CDFG, USFWS, and C NPS. 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 Pro ject 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 long - term viability of RAFSS. If these processes are interrupted, RAFSS typically begins to conver t to other community
types that do not off er the same habitat characteristics. (Id.). This is especially relevant since the se condary access road areas are located in USFWS-designated critical habitat for SBKR. SBKR require the fluvial conditions that are
present in properly functioning RAFFS habi tat, 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.

Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

87 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Based on the Project’s anticipat ed direct and indirect impacts on Corps, RWQCB, and CDFG jurisdictional
areas, the P roject applicant would be required to acquire a number of wet land disturbance permits prior to Project implementation. These permi ts 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 Secti on 7 of the FESA would be required, because portions of the
Project s ite are within unoccupied critical habitat for SBKR. Each of these agencies would impose mitigation
measures to offset the los s of jurisdictional and habitat areas. In anticipation of the se agency requirements,
mitigation is recommended in this EIR to redu ce 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 impa cts to remaining riparian areas and Project design requirements to le ssen 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 identifi ed areas of potential mitigation lands containing suitable ri parian habitat along the alluvial fans and foothills of the San Bernardino and San Gabriel Mountains. These lan ds are
available for purchase and dedication to an appropriate conservation manageme nt 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 t he Project’s impacts to riparian habitats to less than signif icant levels.

Mitigation for impacts to RAFSS habitat has already bee n discussed above in regards to mitigation for unoccupied critical habitat for SBKR. Since the unoccupied SBKR
habitat that wo uld be impacted by the Project is composed exclusively of RAF FS, Mitigation Measure 3 -2 (which is prescribed for unoccupied SBKR h abitat) would also serve to mitigate for i mpacts to RAFFS. (Id.). It can therefore be concluded that impacts on the Project si te associated with RAFFS would be mitigated to less than significant levels.

Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

88 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
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 unaffect ed by type conversion. The placement of a residential community into an area of native vegetation represents a potential impac t to these
surrounding natural areas. Nonnative species can b e
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 un knowingly introduce invasive species by using them for landsc aping purposes on their properties, or 3) seeds or other invasive pla nt parts can be inadvertently imported onto the site during construction activities. (Id.).

The first of these potential impac ts can be avoided or mitigated through the selection of an ap propriate plant palette that does not include species identified as i nvasive or otherwise undesirable. The proposed plant palette for the Project contains no federal - or state-listed invasive pla nts. (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 speci fically prohibits the use of Aptenia cordifolia in areas adja cent to wildlands. Rather, planned uses for the species are restricte d to interior portions of the site. Since the species spreads vegetatively rather than through seed dispersal, use of the spec ies within interior portions of the development would pose mi nimal 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 i nvasive species by homeowners, the
inadvertent introduction of invasive species can be avoided.

Mitigation Measure 3 -8 will impose controls on a ctivities during the construction process that could result in the transport of invasive species onto the site on vehicles and Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

89 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
construction equipment, including the thorough washing of vehicles a nd 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. Jurisdictional Areas and Riparian Habitats.

Potential Significant Impact: The EIR evaluated and conclud ed 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 disc ussed 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 subst antial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of t he Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, verna l pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means is potentiall y significant, but can be mitigated to a less -than-significant level through implementation of Mitigation Measures 3 -3, 3 -6 and 3 -11. These Mitig ation Measures are adopted and incorporated into the Mitigation Monit oring and Reporting Program for the Projec t, 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 substant ially alter the natural flow regimes throu gh impacted sensitive habitat areas. These designs shall include, but shall not nece ssarily be limited to, the installation of appropriate culver ts 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 Dire ctor 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 s hall do one of the following, or a combination thereof, prior to the issuance of grading permits: 1) acquire of fsite 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 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

90 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
permanent mitigation land bank as determ ined 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, end owments, 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 Ranc ho Cucamonga areas. Mitigation lands for riparian habitat shall be ac quired 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 ever y three acres impacted). This measure shall be implemented to the sat isfaction 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 incorp orated: 1) the unnamed tributary of Cable Creek that flows in an east -to-west direction in the northern third o f the project site (referred to here as the Northern Corridor); and 2) the outwash o f 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 corr idors, the following must occur:

Northern Corridor: 1) Native vegetation within this corridor must be restored, enhanced and maintained to the ma ximum extent allowed by the Fire Protection Plan; 2) riparian vegetation that provides high -quality foraging op portunities, 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 pla nting of replacement native trees as outli ned 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 i n 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 natur al flow through the structure and downstre am 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 openne ss ratio of at least 0.9 (openness ratio=height x width/length); and 3) additional recommendations as outlined in the report e ntitled “A Linkage Design for the San Gabriel -San Bernardino Connection” (South Coast Missing Linkages Project 2004) may be incorp orated as feasible and appropriate.

Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

91 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
These measures shall be incorporated into site development plans and must be reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of grading permits. This measu re 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 regu latory permitting process.

This measure shall be implemented to the s atisfaction 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 appl icant
would be required to apply for relevant regulatory permits related to such impacts. The jurisdictional de lineations 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 a re limited to 10.56 acres, and

12.76 acres of CDFG jurisdictional areas. (EIR Appendix D8). Approximately 6.2 acres of the ide ntified
jurisdictional areas are in a potential seasonal wetl and 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 ide ntified as a “problem area” because while hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology were
present, no apparen t hydric soil indicators were present during the delineation. The approximate bounda ry or this potential seasonal wetland was therefore delineate d 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 wetlan d mitigation. With the completion of the d raft 401 permit, the applicant will confer with the Water Quality Control Board rega rding 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 acq uire a number of wetlands permits prior to Project implementation. These permits would include a Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

92 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Section 404 permit from the C orps, a Section 401 permit from the RWQCB, and a Section 1602 permit from CDFG.

A Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan will be p repared 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 Sec tion 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 agen cies would impose
mitigation measures to offset the loss of jurisdict ional 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 indi rect impacts to remaining habitat areas, and also imposes
specific design requirements to lessen additional impacts to offsite areas and to provi de for the continued movement of animals through the area. The mitiga tion also requires the purchase of offsite mitigation lands and/or the payment of in-lieu fees. Finally, the mitigation also r equires that the applicant demonstrate that suitable mitigati on lands have been identified and are available for acquisition. (Id.). The Project applicant has identified ar eas of potential riparian mitigation lands containing suitable riparian habitat alon g the alluvial fans and foothills of the San Bernardino and San Gabriel Mountains. These lands are available for
purchase and dedi cation to an appropriate conservation management organization. This dedication and
management would ensure the long -term conse rvation
status of these sensitive habitat types in the San Be rnardino 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 jurisdicti onal water including seasonal wetland, drainages and springs. The final requirements for
mitigation will result from the 1602 Stre ambed Alteration Permit application proces s. As stated above, the City and the applicant will confer with CDFG once a draft 16 02
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 federally - Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

93 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
protected wetlands and riparian habitats to less than
significant levels.

d. Wildlife Corridors.

Potential Significant Impact: The EIR evaluated and conc luded 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 a ffect wildlife movement and wildlife nursery sites is potentially significant, but can be mitigated to a less -than- significant 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 Mea sure 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 prote ction of nesting birds, one of the following must occur: 1) Construction should occur outside of the avian nest ing 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 biologi st no more than 14 days prior to construct ion activities. If active nests are found onsite, then they must be avoided by an ap propriate buffer until any young birds have fledged and the n est 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, commens urate 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 tribut ary of Cable Creek that flows in an east -to-west direction in the nor thern 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). F or these corridors, the following must occur:

Northern Corridor: 1) Native vegetation within this corridor must be restored, e nhanced and maintained to the maximum extent allowed by the F ire Protection Plan; 2) riparian Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

94 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
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 sha ll be the preferred location for the planting of replacement native t rees as outlined in the tree replacement r equirements of Mitigation Measure 3-11, unless specifically prohibited by the Fire P rotection 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 cons tructed with soft bottoms with an openness ratio of at least 0.9 (openness ratio=height x width/length); and 7) additional rec ommendations as outlined in the report entitled “A Linkage Design for the San Gabriel -San Bernardino Connection” (South Coast Miss ing Linkages Project 2004) may be incorporated as feasible and appropriate.

Southern Corridor: 1) Any bridge, culvert, or othe r 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 condi tioned by the US Fish and Wildlife Service during the Section 7 permitting process; 2) any road crossings, bridges, culverts, etc., shall be cons tructed 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 Miss ing Linkages Project 2004) may be incorporated as feasible and appropriate.

These measures shall be incorporate d into site development plans and must be reviewed and approved prior to the issuanc e 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 o f 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 numb er of species for nursery sites, foraging, and movement. The Project site also provides habitat for
nesting birds and marginally s uitable 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 ar eas are usually
considered significant when they are determined to be of regional importance or otherwise contr ibute to regional conservation goals. The Project site can be considered to be composed of two principal parts in regard to wildlife
movement. Th e first component is Cable Creek, which
serves as an obvious corridor since it contains perennial water, adequa te cover and food resources, and allows for Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

95 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
the unimpeded movement of animals betwee n higher and
lower elevations. The riparian areas of Cable Cr eek are not planned for development, so the use of this corridor by wildlife would not be significantly impacte d 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 cu lverts and drainage
improvements could cre ate a barrier to wildlife where
currently no barrier exists. However, the roadway wo uld 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 USFWS -
designated critical habitat for SBKR. (Id.). Furthermore, as part of the consultati on process, USFWS would impose
mitigation aimed at reducing t he impact of the roadway on SBKR. These requirements would likely result in a positive benefit for other wildli fe species as well. Therefore, mitigation required as part of this process would red uce the Project’s impact to wildlife movement within Cable Cr eek to less than significant levels. (EIR at 5.3-54).

In anticipatio n 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 wi ldlife within the lower portion of Cable C reek. (Id.). With implementation of these measures, the Project’s impact in regard t o 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 re latively narrow corridor in a north-to-south direction, the Project s ite itself provides lateral movements thro ugh 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 m itigated by retaining and/or improving existing areas on the Project site that are c onducive 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 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

96 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
areas on both sides of the propert y at this point are
essentially natural in composition and th erefore allow animals to move across the site without having to navig ate substantial human-made barriers. The t ributary 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 othe r features that would be
attractive to wildlife in terms of m ovement. (EIR at 5.3 - 54). Retaining and/or improving this corridor wo uld
represent the greatest benefit to wild life 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 t o EIR comments received from CDFG, a
barrier will also be constructed that will isolate Cable Creek from the development of th e 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 s ource for top predators. (EIR at 5.3-61). The barrier will be install ed at the outer limits of the California W alnut 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 l ocated 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 a lso evaluated the possibility of not devel oping north of Cable Creek and constructing a barrier on the south side of Cable Cre ek, isolating the riparian, RSS and chaparral habitats north of Cable Creek from the development. However, this would
result in th e loss of 24 estate lots from the developm ent, and would not be economically viable as the result of the substantial infrastru cture that is required for the
development of the site, The project requires substantial infrastructure costs in terms of utiliti es, fire suppression, and roadways, in add ition to the amenities included in the overall Specific Plan. Specifically, the project must acquire Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

97 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
and develop both primary and secondary acce ss roads,
water tanks for fire suppression, utilities including water , sewer and electricity, as well as includ e 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 sub stantial burden on the project and decrease the “per lot” ratio of return substantially with the elimination of each lot. Eli mination of the 24 lots does not reduce the overall burdens o f 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 Proj ect’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 m ule 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 woul d disallow its
continued use as a nursery site by mule deer. In
determining whether or not the loss of this nursery site would con stitute a significant impact, the species making use of the site must be considered. If a sensitive or listed species were kno wn to use the area as a nursery site, then the loss of the si te would be more problematic than if it were used by more common spec ies. For this site, no
sensitive or listed species has been observed using the site for nursery purposes. Mule deer are the on ly species that have been positively confirmed to use the are a for this purpose, though it is likely that a number of other specie s, such as small mammals and birds, use th e site for this purpose as well. None of these species, however, is a listed or sens itive species. (EIR at 5.3 -55). Mule deer is a common species that is not regionally or locally threatened or endangered. The spec ies occurs in great quantities
throughout the region and western North America.

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

In Deer Hunt Zone D14, (the CDFG management zone i n
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

98 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
which the Project is located), CDFG and USFS consider
mule deer populations to be stable or slightly declining. It is therefore reasonable to c onclude that mule deer
populations within the San Bernardino Mountain s will be stable or perhaps even increase over the next several years. (Id.). CDFG manages mule deer through a number of
means, the most wel l-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 t he San Bernardino Mountains portion of the SBNF as well as so me peripheral areas. For at least the last decade, CDFG has maintain ed 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.). Consid ering the overall abundance and the relativ e 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 e ven in this portion of the San Bernardino Mountains. The Project site is surrounded on three sides by the SBNF, which provides substantial open s pace
opportunities for use as alternative nursery sites by mule deer. In addition, the Project would continue t o 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 th is 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 t o mule deer during the fawning season, Mitigation Measure 3 -12 is
recommended to lessen the potential for impac ts to mule deer during initial grubbing and vegetation clearing, and includes specif ic requirements for scheduling vegetation clearing outside of the mule deer fawning season. (Id.).

Nesting Birds : The Project si te provides suitable habitat for a wide var iety of nesting bird species. (EIR at 5.3 -56).

Breeding season typically runs from m id-February through late August. Ideally, ground -disturbing a ctivities should take place outside of the breeding season, and doin g so would reduce the Project’s impact to n esting birds to less Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

99 M681-000 -- 1000746.1
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 constru ction. (Id.). Compliance with Mitigation Measure 3 -10 would r educe the Project’s impact to less than significant.

Raptor Foragin g Habitat: The Project site lacks
expansive grassland habitat and is for the most part
dominated by dense Riversidean sage scru b and chaparral. (Id.). These habitats do not provide partic ularly favorable conditions for foraging raptors due to the lack of prey visibility. It is estimated that suita ble 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 e valuated and concluded that the Project could conflict with local policies or ordina nces protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preserva tion policy or ordinance, or conflict with the provisions of an adop ted habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Comm unity
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

Finding: Impacts related to Biological Resource s 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 polic ies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance, or to conflict with the provi sions of an adopted habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan is potentially significant, but ca n 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:

Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

100
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
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 rati os specific below. Significant tree resources are defined as any na tive or nonnative ornamental tree —excluding species of the Eucalyptus genus—that is healthy, structurally sound, and over 20 fe et 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 i nventory of all significant trees within the development footp rint. This inventory shall be used to determine the number and type s of significant trees that will be impacte d and the subsequent replacement quantities. The number of replacement trees shall be, at a minimum, 220 trees. Should the aforementioned inventor y determine that a greater number of significant trees will be impacted, then that quantity shall be used in d etermining 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 t he project, the project applicant shall incorporate the recommendations as set forth in the project arborist r eport (Integrated Urban Forestry 1998). A certified arborist shall be retained at th e developer’s expense to oversee the implementation of these r equirements 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 nonnati ve trees from the site; 2) the removal and transplantation, wh en 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 r each of vehicles and equipment; 4) tree protection training of construction personnel by a certified arborist; 5) irrigation of t rees where the natural water supply is interrupted or diminished or where protected trees may require additional water to endur e construction-induced stresses; 6) subsequent replacement of any trees that are damaged or have not survived transplantation and relocation; and 7) implementation of the t ree replacement plan, as outlined in the first paragraph of this measure. This measu re 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 requ ired 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 carr y out their duties to professional standards. Those specialist s shall conduct reviews of the project site for a minimum of five y ears, as measured from the day of beginning of initial ground disturbance. Reviews shall be conducted, as applicable, on a mont hly basis for the first year following initiation, on a quarte rly basis during the second and third years, and on an annual basis during the fourth and fifth years. The int ensity 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 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

101
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
such action. The qualified specialists to be retained and t he nature of their duties are as follows:

Biologist: A qualified biologist shall mon itor 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 Spec ialist: A person who is qualified in the fi eld of noxious plant management and control shall monitor the effectiveness of Mitig ation Measures 3-7 and 3-8.

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

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

Following each monito ring session, these specialists shall file brief reports with the Community Development Director concerning th e effectiveness of the prescribed mitigation. The specialist shall identify and call out any corrective actions required to assure that the purpos es 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 te rms 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 Ber nardino has adopted a tree ordinance that regulates the remova l and replacement of native and nonnative trees that are impacted b y development. City General Plan policies a nd goals would also apply to the site. (EIR at 5.3 -56). Development of the Project w ould result in the removal of approximately 2,400 trees. The majority of native trees are located within and around
Cable Creek o r 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 approximat ely 2,400 trees within the development footprint, only about 220 of these (less than 1 percent) are native spe cies, mostly walnut and sycamore.

Impacts to California Walnut Woodland will be limi ted to

2.1 acres as the Project is currently proposed, and the re 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
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

102
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
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 m any 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 w ere originally planted as part of a cultiva ted 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, replace ment of these trees is not required. (EIR a t 5.3 -57). While eucalyptus can provide suitable nesting locations for raptors and o ther 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 sur rounding wildlands. Based on these considerations, the removal of the eucalyptus on the Project site can be considered an overall benefit to the a rea, and therefore a less than significant impact.

Conversely, na tive trees provide specific natural resourc e 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 p leasing and therefore constitute an importa nt resource in this regard. The City’s Tree Ordinance requires that “significant” tr ees be
mitigated. In determining what constitutes a significan t 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 w ould 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 ha ve changed, Mitigation Measure 3 -13 is
incorporated to require an updated inventory of tree
resources within the Project footprin t. Mitigation Measure 3-13 requires that specific management r ecommendations contained in the arborist reports be implemented. These Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

103
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
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 typ es 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 wil l 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 th e site. (Id.) Implementation of
Mitigation Measure 3 -13 would com ply with the City of San Bernardino Tree Or dinance 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 conser vation goals and special requirements for development within B iological Resource Management Areas (“BRMAs”) (Goal 12.1); 2) Pro tection
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 resour ces, 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 consist ent with the General Plan, projects in BRMAs must submit biologic al resource assessments and other informati on 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 eliminat e significant
adverse impacts to sensitive biological resource s. (Id.). As discussed above, a number of mitigation measures hav e
been identified for the Project, and upon implementation of these measures no significant impacts remain. Therefore, Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

104
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
the Projec t 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, whi ch includes requirements for annual surveys for a minimum of five years after project development, actions to be taken if certa in performance measures are not met, and me thods 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 degrad ed 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 wildl ife
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 ha bitat on the Project site, the riparian areas of Cable Creek, would be preserved and would not be impacted by the Project’s dev elopment. Finally, the Project applicant would be required to purchase offsite mitigation lands or pay in -lieu fees for the perma nent preservation of sensitive wildlife habitat within the reg ion. (Id.). Based on these considerations, it is thus reasonable to conclude that the Project meets and exce eds 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 corrido rs is prohibited unless no feasible
alternative exists. In the case of the Spring Trails Project, the riparian corridor of Cabl e Creek lies outside of the Project footpri nt. (Id.). In regard to the hiking and
equestrian trail that is planned for this area, Mitigation Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

105
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
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 res ources. Two other
riparian corridors on the site would be spanned by
roadways. However , Mitigation Measure 3 -11 for these
bridges and/or culverts wi ll minimize impacts to riparian areas, and requires the enhanceme nt of the large area of riparian vegetation that crosses the northern third of the site. These enhancements would allow for the o nsite
conservation of this area and provide opportunities for wildlife movement within this corridor. (Id.). Based on each of t hese mitigation requirements, together with other Project design features, the Project would be in compliance with all General Pl an 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 lo ng-term preservation. The goal specifically calls out the City’s desire to preserve th e riparian corridor of Cable Creek.

Since the Project would pe rmanently conserve the Cable Creek corridor, the Project is consi stent 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 vegetat ion, and native walnut woodlands. The Spring Trails Project would provide for the conservation of each of th ese 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 c onsistent 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. Archeological Resources.

Potential Significant Impact: The EI R 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 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

106
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
than significant level through the implementation of Mitigation Measures 4 -1 to 4-3. These mitig ation measures are adopted and incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, and will be imp lemented as specified therein, thereby reducing this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level:
4-1 Preconstruction archaeological testing by a qual ified 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 ma y be revealed by these activities.

Subsequent to vegetation removal but before construction, the archaeologist will perform controlled mechanical ex cavation 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 res earch questions to be answered and containing an agreement wit h 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 f ormal evaluation and significance assessment of each feature and the project catalog a nd be filed with the City, the San Bernardino Archaeological I nformation 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 sig nificance criteria, then preconstruction archaeological data r ecovery excavations by a qualified archaeologist is required to m itigate the adverse impacts of construction on historic Cable Canyon Ranch. The archaeologist should develop a formal data recove ry plan (plan of work including research questions to be answe red and containing an agreement with an accredited repository). E xcavation of subsurface features can includ e additional mechanical excavation or hand excavation as warranted by the features. Di scovery of features and recovery of archaeological materials w ill require extensive sampling, documentation, laboratory work, i dentification, 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 refus e deposits that were not located during previous phases of archae ological work are found and evaluated. The City should refuse to issue a final occupancy permit until all mitigation is demonstra ted to have been performed, including curation of the project documents and artifacts.

Facts in Support of the Finding: Eight (8) historical archeological resources wer e recorded within the Project area. (EIR at 5.4 -12). A spring reported to have associa ted water features was noted in earlier Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

107
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
surveys, but obscured by vegetation in recent surveys. Most of the resources do not mee t significance criteria under CEQA. (EIR Ta ble 5.4 -1). However, some sites have
potential to have subsurface components that woul d yield information new to history. These sites require furthe r investigation. Should those investigations yield CRHR - eligible 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 subs urface 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. Paleontological Resources of Unique Geological Feature.

Potential Significant Impact: The EIR eva luated and concluded that the Project could directly or indire ctly 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. B ased 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 adopt ed and incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporti ng 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 sensitivi ty training is required for all earth -moving personnel. This training will review the types of archaeological and paleontologic al 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 ar chaeologist 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 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

108
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
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. Disturbance of Human Remains.

Potential Significant Impact: The EIR evaluated and conc luded that the Project could disturb human remains, including those interred outside o f 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 implem entation of Mitigation Measures 4 -5 and 4-6. These mitigation mea sures 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 Meyer s Family Cemetery. The applicant shall consult with the Meyers family descendants in the selection of the appropriat e mitigation options for the Meyers Family Cemetery in conjunction with the proposed development. It shall be a high priority to implement a n option that most closely meets the desires of the family to the extent feasible under the final approved developme nt and grading plans. In the event the final developme nt and grading permits do not require grading or other disturbance of the anomaly site s, one of the following mitigation measures shall be implemented:

1. The burial site anomalies/remains shall remai n 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 si te. No activity under this option shall excavate lower than one foot below grade to remove existing vegetation or soil. Replacement vegetati on may be placed for future open space such as a park. Plans t o 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.

Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

109
M681-000 -- 1000746.1

2. The applicant shall coordinate with the Meyers family to fac ilitate excavation of the anomalies to determine if th ey represent coffins and, if so, to coordinate reburial at a private or public cemeter y to be determined by the family. Under this option, preconstruction archaeological testing by a qualified archaeolo gist is required. The archaeological testing must cons ist of mechanical excavation of overburden and hand excavation near the anomalies to d etermine if they represent coffins. The excavation shall occur under the supervision of a certified archaeologist an d 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. T his may include transfer of the undisturbed coffins fo r reburial or option 3 below. The applicant shall be r esponsible 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 dev elop a formal treatment plan (plan of work including research questions to be answered). The excavation team shall include a qualified osteo logist. Excavation may include mechanical excavation of overburden and hand excavation of human skeletal materials. The treatment plan should include an agreement with th e Meyers family as to the disposition of any human skeletal remains. A final report sh all include formal evaluation and the project catalog and be filed with the City and the San Bernardino Archaeologic al 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 Sec tion 7050.5. This requires that work in the vicinity m ust halt and the county coroner must be notified immed iately. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner will contact the Native American Heritage Commission. All discoveries requi re 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 Pro ject site. (EIR at 5.4-13). However, the Meyer Family Cemeter y site has been located using geophysical investigatio n, and two
graves appear to be present. It is unknown whether the
rectangular areas represent intact graves or removal
excavations. Human sk eletal remains are considered
significant under CEQA for poten tial to yield information new to history, and the Proj ect 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 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

110
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
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.

Finding: Impacts related to Cultural Resources are discussed in detail at Section 5.4 o f the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission co ncurs with the City finding that this impact is potent ially significant but can be mitigated to a less than significant level through the implementation of Mitigation Measures 4 -1 to 4-6, as discussed above. These mitigation measures are adopted and incorp orated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, and will be implemented as spec ified therein, thereby reducing potentially significant cumulative impacts to a less than significant level:

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 paleontologica l resources, an investigation would be required to determine t he nature and extent of the resources and identify app ropriate mitigation measures. (Id.). Neither the Proje ct nor cumulative development in accordance with the City’s General Plan is expected t o result in significant impacts to cultural or paleontological resources, provided site -specific surveys and test an d evaluation excavations are conducted to determine wh ether the resources are unique archaeological or historical
resources and appropriate mitigation is implemented prior to grading. (Id.). Implementat ion of the appropriate
mitigation measures would reduc e 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 t hat the Project could expose people or structures to p otential adverse effects from rupture of a known earth quake fault, strong ground shaking, or seismic -related ground failure such as
liquefaction and settlement.

Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

111
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
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 c oncurs with the City finding that this impact is potentially significant, but can be m itigated to a less than significant level through the implemen tation of Mitigation Measures 5 -1 to 5-3. These mitiga tion measures are adopted and incorporated into the Mi tigation 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 studi es shall be conducted to the satisfaction of the geotechnical consultant of record on the project and the City Engineer.

These studies shall include:

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

2. A trench across Splay A in the western part o f the site to confirm the location of the splay in that part o f the site and to aid in determining the width of requ ired 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 record ation of final maps, a detailed design -level geotechni cal investigation report shall be prepared and submitted with engineering grading plan s to further evaluate liquefaction, seismic settlement, latera l spreading, subsidence, collapsible soils, corrosive soils, slope stability including earthquake -induced la ndslides, and other geotechnical constraints and provide site -specific recommendations to address such conditions, if determined necessary. The geot echnical reports shall be prepared and signed/stamped by a Registered Civil Engineer specializing in geotech nical 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 pro ject, at the completion of grading and before project construction begins, final geotechnical testing for corrosive soils and expansive soil s shall be conducted. A final geotechnical report for the rele vant phase shall be prepared and signed/stamped by a R egistered Civil Engineer specializing in geotechnical engineering and a Certified Engineering Geologist. Such report shall contain recommendations to address corrosive soils and expansive soils, as dete rmined necessary. The project will be required to comp ly with any recommendations that are made in the report of such investigation.

Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

112
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Facts in Support of the Finding: Five splays, or lineaments , of the San Andreas Fault have been identified onsite. Four o f these splays are within Alquist-Priolo Fault Zones. (EIR 5.5 -22). Fault trenching studies onsite found evi dence that three lineaments, A, B, and C, are active splays of the fault. The onsite s egments of Lineaments A, B, and C are within an Alquist -Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zone that covers much of the souther n 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, partial ly runs through the eastern edge of the Project site, not in an Alquist -Priolo Fault Zone. (EIR Figure 5.5-3). Lineament s 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 L ineament 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; compl iance 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 fo r the purpose of
structural design is derived from the California Building Code (“CBC”), which contains seism ic 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 liquefa ction on most of the Project site is considered to be l ow due to older alluvial/colluvial soils underlying the bulk of the site, plus the de pth of
groundwater, which is thought to be more than 50 feet
below ground surface under most of the site. (Id.) There are Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

113
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
two limited areas of the site that are or may be susceptible to liquefaction: the lower parts of the Cable Canyon and Meyers Canyon dr ainages 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 Cany on drainages. The
geotechnical feasibility study for t he Project recommends removal of loose or soft earth ma terials 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 liq uefaction hazard zone identified in the City of San Bernardino’s General Plan. (Id.)

The subsurface soils under mos t of the site are relatively dense and thus are not exp ected 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 nonstr uctural improvements, and settlement -prone soils may b e
overexcavated to limit seismic settlement. In sum,
incorporation of Mitigation Measures 5-1 to 5-3 will reduce impacts from rupture of a k nown 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. Risk of Fire.

Potential Significant Impact: The EIR evaluated and conclu ded that the Project could result in exposure of people or str uctures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or deat h involving wildland fires, including where wildlands a re adjacent to the urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands.

Finding: Impacts related to Hazards and Hazardous Material s are discussed in detail at Section 5.6 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

114
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
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 st ructures 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 incorporate d 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 The Fire Protection Plan shall be approved by the City of San Bernardino Fire Department (now Coun ty Fire) prior to co mmencement of grading. The Fire Marshal shall have the authority to modify, increase, or reduce the necessary size and location o f any of the recommended Fire Management Zones and set backs, based on a lot -by-lot inspection at time of grading. A minimum of 170 feet of fuel modification plus enhanced structural treatments l isted in the Fire Protection Plan are needed to provide a safe buffer between the wildland and the structures.

6-2 Prior to introduction of combustible materials on any lot, the developer or builder shall clear all flammable vegetation, including weeds t o four inches in height or below (leave enough site. The build er shall maintain each site in this condition until th e homeowner takes responsibility and installs irrigation and fire -resistive landscaping as approved by the Homeowners Association. All lands caping must be in compliance with the guidelines in the approv ed Fire Protection Plan. All manufactured slopes, inte rnal common areas, and open spaces shall comply with the criteria set for th in the Fire Protection Plan and shall not have any vegetation of the type prohibited in this plan (undesirable plant list).

6-3 The Homeowners Association shall assure that all f uel modification on private lots is in accordance with the requirements in the plan.

6-4 An annual inspection of the property for complian ce with the approved plan shall be done by the Homeowners Asso ciation with a written letter of compliance sent to th e 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.

Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

115
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
SCE Easement

6-6 If the project is built with the Southern California Edison 115 kV transmission lines remaining aboveground, all f lammable 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 th e 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 f ire. “Zone C” shall extend offsite as fuel modification. “Zone C” will be a temporary off-site fuel modification until the adjoin ing 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 modificat ion distance for lots 30 and 233 will be a minimum of 170 feet.

 For Lot 30, Zone A shall have a minimum/maximum dis tance of 20 feet, Zone B shall have a minimum distance of 88 feet and a m aximum distance of 113 feet, and Zone C shall have a minimum dista nce 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 mi nimum/maximum distance of 20 feet, Zone B shall have a minimum distance o f 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 propo sed development to be at a high fire risk and the impacts wo uld 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 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

116
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
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 enviro nment in those areas along the front of the San Bernardino and San Gabriel mountains and in the adjacent San Bernardin o N ational 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 flam mable chaparral vegetation of the
foothills of the San Bernardino Mountai ns, 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 potenti ally dangerous wildfire(s) fro m t he wildland to the northeast, northwest, and/or the south west. 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 le vel or downslope. This area is at risk for fire mainly when a northeast ( Santa Ana) wind p asses. 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 loadi ng, and also has no wind shelter. (EIR at 5.6-11). Additionally, this area does not tend to have the old -growth, closed - canopy fuel type found in the other areas adjacent to the Project site. Areas within this exp osure immediately to the east of the projec t site that may c ontain fuels are either in the drainage bottom or would be graded and replanted with appropriate vegetation. Fuels that would remain after
Project development would b e mostly in the downstream
drainage of Meyers Canyon and outside of the f uel
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 heat -
generated onshore win d. While these wi nds 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 n ative/nonnative grass and shrublands. The fire
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

117
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
would approach the Project site from the southwest and
could spread and intensify if it reached the tree canopies under future conditions if vegetati on is not managed. (Id.) Compliance with cu rrent City standa rds 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 moi sture 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 Pr oject 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 i s primarily northern mixed chaparral and Ri versidian 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 c ontribute to the fire risk. Th e 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 hou r and a combination of dead an d l ive 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 vegeta tion, with approximately 16 to ns per acre, at 6 to 10 feet in depth, prod ucing 8,000 Briti sh 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 hou r), and
spotting distances wou ld reach approximately 1.4 miles. (EIR at 5.6-12).

Fuel Mo dification 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 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

118
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
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 adv ancing fire by placing thinnin g zones, restricted vegetation zones, and i rrigated 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 modif ication area:

o Fuel Modificati on 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 Zon e 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 sha ll be permanently
irrigated; f ully landscaped with approved drought -
tolerant, 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 complet e 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 homeo wner, HOA, or landscape
maintenance district (LMD) as appropriate.

o Fuel Modification Zon e 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 a rea and would require
the remo val 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
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

119
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Modification Zone C area should be maintain ed 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 home s by a 25- to 50-foot building setback. This zone would have no combustible construction a llowed 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 t he fire is systematically
deprived of available fuel to reduce the size o f 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 (me asured on the fla t 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 f lame 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 di stance and the he at 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 combustib le 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 area s w here fuels,
topography, slope, and aspec t align, addition al 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 si de of the project, where canyon winds may be channeled and thus intensifi ed. (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 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

120
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
where total alignment can occur. (EIR at 5.6 -14; Figures

5.6-1; 5.6-2).

Construction Phasing Management Plan: All vegetation
management wou ld 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 area s,
parks, construction sites, medians, plan ters, 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 Departmen t w ould be created around all grading, materials storage are as, 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 p lants, 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 w ould sponsor annual clinics conducted by fi re 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 Mitigat ion 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 Pro ject could result in exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving high winds.

Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

121
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
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 Mitig ation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, and will be imple mented as specifi ed therein, thereby reducing this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level:

6-8 The development of Spring Trails shall follow development gui delines 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: Requir e t hat 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 wi nd onsite and on adjacent properties.
o Policy 10.10.5: Require that multi -story residentia l, commercial, and industrial buildings be designed to prevent wind tunnel effects around their base and in passageways.
o Policy 10.10.6: Construct public infrastruct ure (lighting poles, street li ghts, 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 con struct residentia l 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 foo thills that have been designated in this area. (EIR at 5.6 -14). Areas exposed to high winds can
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

122
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
potentially experience healt h and safety issues related, but not limited, to air quality, soil erosi on, motor-vehicle accidents due to decreased visibility, win d-driven property damage, and exacerbation of fire hazards. (Id.) Project- related construction activities, particularly duri ng site preparation such as grading, could potentially expose soils to wind erosion. This creates potential for windblown dust and s oil to migrate offsite, adversely affecting adjacent properties during periods of high wind conditions.

Furthermore, windblo wn dust, particularly during Santa Ana wind conditions, could reduce vis ibility 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 pick ed 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 u ses onsite. (EIR at 5.6 -21). Winds have been measured and h ave the potential to reach in
excess of 90 to 100 miles per hour. Winds at these speeds could potentially cause damage to th e homes and land uses proposed on the Project site. Damage could be caus ed to roofs, fences, windows, and landscaping. Moreover, hig h 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 pr esent due to the low moisture content and low relative humid ity. (Id.) Implementation of Mitigation Measures 6 -8 and 6 -9 will reduce impacts
related to high winds to less than significant levels.

c. Hazardous Emissions.

Potential Significant Impact: 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 constru ction 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 find ing that this impact is potentially significa nt, but can be mitigated to a less than significant level th rough the implementation of Mitigation Measure 6 -10. This mitigation measure is adopted and incorporated into the Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

123
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, and will be implemented as specified therein, thereby reducing this potentially s ignificant impact to a less than significant level:

6-10 If the project is built with the Southern California Edison 115 k V 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 SCE - approved 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 wou ld be located above -ground. (FEIR Figure
3-8). While consideration that the overhead electric lines may be undergrounded in consider ed in the Alternative
Development Plan, undergrounding the size of SCE lines in question here is not currently feasible. Th e 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, the y 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 haz ards related to proximity to future residential uses:

Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

124
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
o Although SCE makes provision for earthquakes in the
design and construction of overhead transmission lines, extreme seismic shak ing and earth rupture on the San
Andreas fault may snap lines or topple t owers, 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 operat ional risks to workers or residents on the site. Contact with the wires by an elevated excavator arm, raised bucket, or oth er equipment designed for overhead work would have
potentially fatal cons equences. There is also the risk that residents may be tempt ed to climb on or vandalize the
supporting towers. Though slight, the risk of electrical shock because of such activity doe s exist. Worker and
residents would also be susceptible to electromagneti c 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 developmen t; therefor e, the risks associated with electrical shock and physical c ontact 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 i n 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 tr ansmission lines is any more detrimental to human health than living in a modern house. (Id.). Notwithstanding, Mitigation Measure 6 -10 will be Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

125
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
incorporated to ensure that impacts relat ed to the p otential presence of overhead electric lines will be less th an
significant.

5. Land Use and Planning.
a. Conflict with Habitat Conservation Plan.

Potential Significant Impact: 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 miti gated to a less than significant level through the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3 -2. This mitigation mea sure is adopted and incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Repor ting Progra m 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 pr ior to the issuance of grading permits, and shall incorporate appropria te 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 properti es include, but are not limited to, those managed by San Bernardino Cou nty 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 ac re impacted).

This measure does not preclude the imposition of addition al mitigation requirements that may be initiated by the USFWS during the Section 7 consultation process. This me asure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.

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 USF WS-designated critical habitat. (EIR at 5.8 -47). No San Bernardino kangar oo rats hav e 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 southe rn end of the site are located within USFWS -designated critical
habitat f or 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 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

126
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
kangaroo rat, the presenc e of critical habitat requires consultation with the USFWS under Section 7 of Federa l 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. Fire Protection and Emergency Services.

Potential Significant Impact: The EIR eva luated 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 o rder 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 signif icant, 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 se rvices area, thereby increasing the requirement for fire protection facil ities and personnel. However, this impact can be mitigated to a less than significant level through impleme ntation of Mitigation Measure 12 -1. This mitigation measure is adopted and i ncorporated 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” establi shed by Resol ution 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 sit e and internal access to the roughly 350-acre Project site. The Project is expected to ad d about 711 residents to the site. (EIR at 5.12 -3).

Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

127
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Therefore, Project development is expected to result in an increase in calls for San Bernardino Fire Depart ment
(“SBFD”) fire and emergency medical services. At Project completion, SBFD response time to e mergency calls to the farthest part of the site from the Ver demont 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 add itional demand caused by new development projects, the City requires a fair -share contribution from new developments to help fund ongoing operation and mainte nance 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 Fi re Department Stat ion 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 (struc ture) engine, one type 3 (wildland) engine, and one type 5 patrol vehicle. (Id.). While the San Be rnardino County station is
physically closer, additional tim e and effort would be required to coordinate with the County, which could delay the response. Eith er would come with a minimum of three firefighters. The aerial ladder truck, wit h four firefighter s, 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 reso urces 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 st ations to this Pro ject have wildland engines. In addition, there is a county/C AL Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

128
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
FIRE station nearby in Lytle Creek (Fire Station 20) and a new county fire station will be buil t 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 devel opment 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 pro tection/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 analyz e 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 Buildin g Standards (Chapt er

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 cons truction), Fuel Mo dification Zone B (wet zone, 100 percent removal of undesira ble plant
species), and Fuel Modification Zone C (dry zone, 50
percent thinning of the native shru bs). (EIR Figures 5.6 - 1and 5.6 -2). The fire protection plan also includes
vegetation management g uidelines, the allowed and
undesirable plant palettes, plant ing maintenance and
spacing guidelines, a construction management plan,
infrastructure/structural construction features and
requirements, and a compliance matrix to be used by th e developer, resid ents, and the homeowners association of Spring Trails to red uce 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 ar e 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 us e infrastructure at pressure zones at
elevations of 2,100 fe et, 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 onsit e pressure zones i s 360,000 gallons. (EIR at 5.12 -7). Project water system imp rovements would be Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

129
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
sized to provide required fire flow in addition to meeting project water demand s. Pumping stations would be
designed with 100 percent redundancy in the event t hat one or more of the pumping units fails, and equipped with
onsite generator s 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. Substantial Increase in Traffic.

Potential Significant Impact: 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 lo ad and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a subs tantial 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 Se ction 5.8 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record , the Commission concurs w ith 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 pea k hour trips to the Project area, thereby contributing to ex isting 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 t han si gnificant 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, the reby r educing 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 l ane 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 betwee n 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 com bustible 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.

Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

130
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
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 desig ned 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 pre pare a construction traffi c 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 durin g 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 c onstruction to be completed by year 2013. (EIR at 5.14 -42). The
analysis in this report quantifies the impacts of 329 single - family units, and therefore slightly overstat es the actual impact anticipated for the 304 -unit (now 215 -unit) single- family residen tial 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.). T he following intersections would operate at unacceptab le levels of service durin g AM and PM peak hours:

Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

131
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
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, t hese P roject area
intersections would have unacceptable leve ls 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 Ber nardino 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 pe ak hour traffic on southbound ramps.

Development impact fees paid by the Project appli cant 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 mornin g 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 impac ts to less than significant during both the operational and construction phases of the Project.

8. Utilities and Service Systems.
a. Construction of New Water or Wastewater Treatment Facilities.

Potential Significant Impact: The EIR evaluated and concluded th at 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 res ources, and new and/or
expanded entitlements would be needed.

Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

132
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
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 im pact 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”) pro jections, 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 th at water demand and wastewater generation will be less than discussed in this fi nding 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 a dopted and incorporated in to 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. T he project applicant shall contribute fair - share 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 b e 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 dem and for the Project site i s 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 f rom 10,000 to over 600,000 square feet, averaging 27,337 square feet or 0.62 acr es.

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 a nnual 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
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

133
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
projected water demands of the Spring Trails Project are higher by 79 afy (17.5 percent). (EIR Table 5.15 -11). The two pro jected water demands assume that buildout of the site under eith er the Spring Tr ails 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 fo r th e Project.

During days of high demand and peak hours, the wa ter
demand for t he 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. Be tween high demand days and peak hours,
the gpm rate would increa se by a factor o f 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 Trai ls. 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 i s
incorporated into the 2009 –2010 City budget. (EIR at

5.15-14).

The second p hase 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 Spri ng Trails site. These improvements would be required for supplyi ng water and mai ntaining 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 V erdemont infrastructure improvements, the
Spring Trails plan inc ludes onsite inf rastructure
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 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

134
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
stations to the reservoirs would be a minimum of 20 inches in diameter. (Id.). All loo ping 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 I I 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 capa city 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 fo r 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. SBVMW D, t he 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 th is 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 sup ply in the futur e. 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 cumula tive 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
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

135
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
water supply; water levels are most likely to c ontinue 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 wou ld i mprove onsite water conservation. (Id.). Some of these guide lines and practi ces include:

o Required diversion of stormwater runoff into onsite
detention basins to enable recharge;
o Recommended collection of rainwater and
additional stormwater runoff b y 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 pro grammed
EvapoTranspiration-based controllers on
homeowners’ properties with the appropriate
information for the homeowners;
o Required installation of motion sensors and other
similar irrigation te chnology 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 o f 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 env ironmentally 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:

Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

136
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
o Required installa tion 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 les s than

1.6 gall ons per flush, waterless urinals in
nonresidential buildings , and faucets an d
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 usi ng water -smart l andscaping 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 impa cts in this area to less than
significant.

9. Forest Resources.
a. Loss of Forest Land.

Potential Significant Impact: 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 non - forest 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, requi ring replacement of trees per the City’s tree ordinance.

However, these impa cts 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 ado pted and incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Rep orting Program f or 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
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

137
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
footprint. Approximately 220 of these are native species and 2,170 are eucalyptus. (EIR at 5.17 -5). The areas of Cable Creek, Cab le Canyon, and Meyer Creek contain the majority of native trees and are con sidered forest l and. (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 h ave the potentia l to be impacted by development from direct removal of forest resources and indirectly from forest resources removed as a result of fuel modification activities. Are as 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 miti gated. In
determining what constitutes a significant tree, the initial arborist report prep ared 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 inventor y. 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 Ordin ance. To ensure tha t 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 pr esent a particular problem for this site because they are nonnative and a sever e 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 Counci l (CalEPPC).

List A of the Exotic Pest Plants of Greatest Ecological Concern in California consi sts 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 Projec t 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 na tional forest. The 1999 CalEPPC exotic pest plant list was updated by the
California Invasive Plant Council in 2006, and the status of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

138
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
blue gum eucalyptus changed to “moderate.” The USDA
Forest Service identifies the blue gum eucalyptus as highly flammable and recommends th e 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, fi sh 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 tr ee cover.

Furthermore, Section 4793(f) of the PRC defines "forest land conservation measures" as measures designed to
protect, maintain, or enhance the forest r esource 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 Sec tion 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 Mit igation 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 rec ommended in the E IR, 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 adm inistrative record.

These impacts are considered significant and unavoidable d espite the impose d 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 conclud ed that the Project will conflict with or obstruct implement ation of the SCAQ MD Air Quality
Management Plan (“AQMP”) because construction -related
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

139
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
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 o f 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 en tire 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 obs truct 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 construct ion contractor sh all 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 s hall verify that these measures have been implemented during normal construction site inspections:

 During all grading activities, the construction contractor shall reestablish ground cover on th e 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 operati ons when wind speed s exceed 25 miles per hour. This would achieve an emissions control efficienc y of 98 percent for PM 10 under worst-case wind conditions.

 During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall maintain a minimum 24 -inch fr eeboard on trucks h auling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials and tarp m aterials with a f abric 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 eve ry 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.

Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

140
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
 During activ e debris removal, t he 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 li mit onsite vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to no more than 15 miles per hour. T his 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 During all grading activities, th e daily area dist urbed shall be limited to a maximum of 35 acres.

2-3 Ongoing during grading and construction, the construction contractor shall implement the following measur es to further reduc e construction exhaust emissions of NOx. To assure complianc e, the City shall verify that these measures have been implemented during normal construction site inspections:

 The Project Applicant shall specify in the construction bid tha t 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 cont ractor shall ensure that all construction equipment is properly serviced and maintained to the manufacturer’s standards to reduce operational emissions.

 The c onstruction contrac tor 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 AQM P. The AQMP strategy
is, in part, based on projections from local general pla ns. (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 no t
contribute to an increase in frequency or severity of air quality violations and delay attainm ent of the AAQS or interim emission reductions in the AQMP. Therefore, the Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

141
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Project’s operation -related emissions result in a less than significant air quality i mpact. Thus, the Pr oject would be consistent with the AQMP under the first indi cator 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 NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 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 O 3, PM 10, and PM 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 Sprin g 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 genera l plan projections. (EIR at 5.2-14). However, since both indicators would not be met, both Proje ct and cumulative level impacts are
considered significant and unavoidable, due to the Project’s inconsistency with the AQMP.

b. Cumulatively Considerable Increase of Criteria Pollutant- Construction.

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 non - attainment under an applicabl e federal or state ambient air quality standard.

Finding: Impacts related t o 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 regiona l significance thre sholds for NOx, PM 10, and PM 2.5, and would significantly con tribute to the no nattainment designations of the South Coast Air Basin for ozone and particulate matter (PM 10 and PM2.5). Fugitive dust mitigation measures applied for short -term construction acti vities 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 impl ementation of mitigation measures. Accordingly, the potentia l 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 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

142
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Measures 2 -1 to 2 -3 (listed above) will mitigate Air Quality impa cts related to criteria pollutants to the extent feasible.

Facts in Support of the Finding: Construction activities produce combustion emissions from various sources, such as o nsite heavy -duty co nstruction vehicles, vehicles hauling materials to and from the site, and mot or vehicles transporting the construction crew.

Grading activities produce fugitive dust emissions (PM 10 and PM2.5) from soil-disturbing activities. (EIR at 5.2 -15).

Exhaust emis sions from construction activities onsite
would vary daily a s construction ac tivity levels change.

Construction activities associated with new development occurring in the Project area would temporarily increase localized PM10, PM2.5, VOC, NOx, and CO conc entrations in the Project vicinity and regional emissions wi thin the South Co ast 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 PM 10 and
PM2.5 emissions would be clearing activi ties, excavation and grading operations, construction vehicle traffic on unpaved ground, and wind blowing over exposed earth
surfaces. In addition, architectural coating operati ons can also genera te substantial VOC emissions. Project -related construction a ir pollutant emis sions would occur from construction of the Project. Emissions from construction activities were calculated on a daily basis and were
compared to the SCAQMD’s ma ximum daily regiona l
emissions thresholds, which revealed that grading activiti es would result i n air pollutant emissions that exceed the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds for NOx, PM 10, and PM 2.5. (EIR Table 5.2 -7). All other analyzed
pollutants wer e found to be less than the SCAQMD’s
significance thresholds. The primary sourc e of NOx
emissions would be from construction equipment exhaust
during grading operations. NOx is a precursor to both the formation of O 3 and particulate matter (PM 10 and PM 2.5).

The primary sourc es of PM 10 and PM2.5 would be fugitive dust during grading a nd clearing durin g these operations.

Emissions of PM 10 and PM2.5 that exceed the SCAQMD’s
regional significance threshold would significantly
contribute to the particulate matte r (PM 10 and PM 2.5) nonattainment designations of the South Coast Air Basin.

Consequently, emissi ons of NOx, PM 10, and PM 2.5 that exceed the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds
would significantly contribute to the O 3 and particulate Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

143
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
matter (PM10 and PM2.5) nonattainment designations of the 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 10, and PM 2.5, and the Project’s contribution to the nonattainment designations of the South Coast Air Basin f or ozone and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5).

Mitigation Measures 2 -1 and 2 -2 would reduce PM 10 and PM2.5 emissions from Project-related construction activities to below the SCAQMD regional thresholds. Similarly,
Mitigation Measure 2 -3 would reduce NO x 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 activ ities 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 t o substantial pollutant concentrations of PM 10 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 r eceptors 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 le vel criteria for LSTs of NOx, PM 10 and PM 2.5 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 substan tial CO Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

144
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
pollutant concentrations at nearby sensitive receptors. (EIR at 5.2-16).

Because emissions of NOX, PM 10, and PM2.5 would exceed the LST screening leve l criteria for a fi ve-acre site during grading operations, concentrations gener ated by Project - related 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 expose d to this concentra tion 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. The refore, Project - related construction activities would not expose off - and onsite sensitive receptors to substant ial 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 PM 10 at the existing onsite residence and the surrounding offsite receptors. (EIR Figu re 5.2 -2).

Consequently, the Project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of PM 10 and PM 2.5 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 activitie s. With the implementation of
mitigation, construction emissions of NOX would be
reduced to below the LST screening level criteria; however, PM10 and PM 2.5 would continue to exceed the LST
screening level criteria. (EIR Table 5.2 -14).

Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

145
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 2-1 and 2 -2 would reduce the concentration of PM 10 and PM2.5 at the existing sensitive receptors. (EIR Figur es 5.2 -4 and 5.2 -5). The concentration of PM 2.5 would fall below the AAQS, and
therefore localized air quality impacts from constru ction- related PM2.5 would be reduced to less than significant. The concentration of PM 10 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. Co nsequently, even with incorporation of mitigation measures, PM 10 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. Cumulative Impacts-Construction.

Potential Significant Impact: The EIR conclud ed 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 constru ction-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 mea sures.

Accordingly, the potential for the Project to contribute to cumulative construction-related air quality impacts remains sign ificant 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 (PM 10 and PM 2.5). (EIR at 5.2 -27).

Construction of cumulative Projects will further degrade the r egional and local a ir 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, PM 10 and PM 2.5, and
cumulative emissions would result in greater exceedances.

Therefore, the Project’s co ntribution to cumul ative
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

146
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
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 ambi ent noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project remains significant and unavoidable. The followi ng 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 originall y 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, i ncluding haul truck s 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 th e project applicant ’s authorized representative to respond in the event of a noise complaint.

10-6 The construction contractor sh all install temporary sound blankets at least six feet in height along the boundaries of the onsite residence.

Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

147
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Facts in Support of the Finding: Two types of short -term noise impacts could occur during construction: First, the transport of workers and move ment of materials to and from the site could incrementally
increase noise levels along local access roads; and/or short - term 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, thi s impact would remain significant and unavoidable. (Id.).

The transport of workers and equipment to the construction site wo uld incrementally i ncrease 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 traffi c. Truck trips woul d 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 nu mber 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 th e 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 le vels 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 ons ite residence. (EIR Table 5.10-12). Average noise levels would be lower than maximum noise levels, and would ran ge 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 noise - sensitive receptors. (EIR Table 5.10 -14). Average noise Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

148
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
levels of each construction phas e would be lower th an 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 sit e and the proposed access
roadways. (EIR at 5.10 -35). The City allows for noise
from construction activities, bu t limits it to the least noise - sensitive portions of the day. The Project would comply with the City’s Municipal Code, as spe cified in Section

8.54.070. Construction activities would not occur in the evening or late-night hours when people are more sensiti ve to noise. (Id.). While maximum construction -generated noise would substantially increase the ambient noise
environment, a verage construction -generated noise levels (i.e., noise levels that would be experienced by noise - sensitive 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 runn ing continuously, pr oject-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 agenc y for designated roads or highways.

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

Based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City find ing that Project-related trip generation in combination with existing and proposed cumulative development would result in designated roads and/or highways exceeding the San Bernar dino 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 redu ce this impact.

Accordingly, the potential for the Project to exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standa rd established by the county congestion Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

149
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
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 def iciency 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 roa dways identified in the CMP that would be
impacted by project traffic:

o I-215 freeway
o I-15 freeway

Four segments of these t wo freeways are expe cted 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 o f these segments, except the northbound and southbound segments of I -15 between Sierra Avenue and Glen Helen Parkway,
are included i n 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 fo r year 2035 with improvements:

o The I-215 freeway segment between Palm Avenue
and Devore Road (northbound and southbound);
o The I -215 freeway seg ment 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.

Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

150
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
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 fundi ng 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 a nd 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 c oncluded that the Project will generate greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on t he 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. Ho wever, based on the entire record, the Commission concurs with the City find ing that Project-related GHG emissio ns 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 gene rate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment remains signi ficant and unavoidable. T he following mitigation measures will mitigate impacts from GHG emissions to the extent feasible:

Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

151
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Construction
16-1 Applicants for new developments in Spring Trails shall submit evidence to the satisfaction of the Development Ser vices Director that the pr oject 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 Applicants for new developments in Spring Trails shall submit evidence to the satisfaction of the Deve lopment 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. 16-3 Prior to the issuance of building permits, applic ants for Spring Trails shall prepare a construction waste management plan to reduce construction debris and material b y diverting at least 50 pe rcent of the total of all project -related nonhazardous construction and debris from landfills to recycling or re use 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 Applicants for new developments in Spring Trails sha ll 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. 16-5 Applicants for new development proposals in Sprin g Trails shall require the construction contractor to provide carpooling for workers to and from the work site on days that construction a ctivities require 200 or more workers. These requirements shall be demonstrated to the Development Services Director p rior 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 ov erall project exceeds 2008 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24) for energy efficiency by 15 perce nt. 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 win dow glazing or double -paned windows, energy-efficient appliances (e.g., Energy Star appliances), cool roofs, and cool pavement.

Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

152
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
16-7 Applicants shall provide all homeowners with information regarding energy - efficiency rebate programs offered by utility providers and government agencies.

Water Conservation and Efficiency
16-8 Applicants for new developments in Spring Trails shall submit evide nce to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director that all toilets, urinals, sinks, showers, and other wate r fixtures installed onsit e shall be ultra -low-flow water fixtures that exceed the Uniform Plumbing Code. Examples are: 1.28 average gallo ns 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 landsc aping. This also reduces t he 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 specif ied 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 ar borist 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 tr ees will be impacted, then that quantity shall be used in determining replacement quantities. The following exchange ratios shall be used: 1) on e 36-inch box tree is equivalent to one replacement tree; 2) five 15 -gallon trees are equivalent to one replacem ent tree; 3) ten 5 -gallon trees are equivalent to one replacement tree; and 4) fifteen 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 develo per’ 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 pr oject 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 na tural water supply is interrupted or diminished or where protected trees may require additional water to endure Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

153
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
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 sat isfaction of the Development Services Director.

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 devel opment 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 5.1 6-10). 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. C onstruction-related GH G 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). Construct ion 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 thes e, California has adopted a low carbon fuel standard. The low carbon fuel standard would reduce the carbon conte nt of fuel of both gasoline and diesel fuel, thereby reducing GHG emissions from fuel from
construction equipment by 1 0 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 p ercent reduction in average carbon intensity by year 2020. The compliance path of the 10 percent reduction target woul d 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 potenti ally cumulatively significant without implementation of
mitigation measures to reduce carbon emissions. (Id.).

Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

154
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Approximately 220 native trees w ithin 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 Spe cific Plan. (Id.). Trees a nd other vegetation remove CO2 emissions through the
photosynthesis process by uptak e of CO2 and emi ssion 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 resourc es to development increases GHG emissions levels as less carbon is
sequestered (i.e., stored as plant material). Addit ionally, wildfires also co ntribute to GHG emissions. Removal of the 220 native trees would result in a loss of forest
resources and theref ore a loss of potential carbon
sequestration. These trees are required to be replaced in accordance with the City’s Mu nicipal 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 conside red 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 app licable GHG emissions Sect ors established by CARB. (Id.).

Transportation Sector emissions are produced from
vehicular travel to and from t he Project site. Electricity Sector sources are indirect GHG emissions from the energy (purchased energy and energy fr om 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 combust ion, boilers, and furnaces) and produced onsite. The emissions estimates for the
Project do not take into accoun t the GHG emission
reductions associated with changes to the Building and
Energy Efficiency standards, California Appl iance Energy Efficiency re gulations, California Renewable Energy
Portfolio standard, California low carbon -content fuel legislation, chang es in the Corporate Average Fuel
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

155
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Economy (CAFE) standards (Pavley), and other early
action measures in the Scoping Pla n 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 tr avel modes, these emission s 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) repre sent the
second largest pr oportion 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 larges t 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 o f emissions can be control led 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 am ount 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 bec omes
significant. However, SCAQMD’s Working Group for a
GHG Significance Threshold has proposed a threshold of
3,000 M Tons. Consequently, the to tal increase in GHG
emissions onsite from the Project is considered to be
substantial in the absence of mitigati on. In order to
determine whether GHG emissions associated with the
Project are significant, a consistency analysis wi th
transportation and nont ransportation GHG reduction
strategies was conducted. (EIR at 5.16-13).

Almost half of the increase in GHG emi ssions due to the Project is from transportation sources. The Project is
inconsistent with several transportation stra tegies aimed at Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

156
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
reducing v ehicle 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 Pro ject’s non -transportation sector GHG emissions would potentially significantly
contribute to the State’s GHG emi ssions 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 i rreversible 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 involv e 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, sa nd and gravel, asphalt, steel, copper, lead, other metals, and water.

 An increased commitment of social services and public maintenance servic es (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 Coas t Air Basin’s nonattainmen t designation for ozone (O3) and particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10).

 Project-generated vehicle trips would in crease emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) to levels that are above the California Air Resource Board thresholds for b oth buildout year 2013 and future year 2030. Vehicle -related GHG emissions would cause significant and unavoidable impacts.

Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

157
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
The Commissi on concurs with the preceding findings regarding Significant Irreversible Environmental Effects.

2. Growth Inducing Impacts.

CEQA requires a disc ussion 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 additiona l housing either directly (such as by proposing new homes and businesses, or indirectly (such as through extension of roads or other infra structure) in the surrounding environment. Impacts related to growth inducement would also be realized if a project p rovides 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 affe cts the ability of agencie s 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 hav e any public infrastructure such as water and wastewater pipelines; onsite roads; or electrical, natural gas, or telecommunication utiliti es. The 304 -unit residential development plan (now reduced to 215 units) would require the expansion of these public i nfrastructure services. Th e 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. R oadway 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 T rails 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 de velopment 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 tha t would serve th e Spring Trails Project, including police, fire protection, school, and library services, would requ ire 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 finan ced 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.

Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

158
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
The Project is anticipated to generate 101 elementary school students, 52 midd le school students and 59 high school students, based upon the estimated pop ulation 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 Scho ol 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 f ull mitigation for a project’s impac ts 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 th e 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 libr ary system is considered adequate i f 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 it ems 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 p art of the Project are sufficient t o meet Project demands and any additional impacts that are placed on services, including the services of fire , police, library, and school faci lities. The fees would be applied to all existing and future development in the area and thus benefit not just t he Project, but the overall community through expanded and increased services. The increase in services for t he 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 t o be jobs -rich, with a projected j obs-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 cre ate 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 actio ns that may set precedents for fut ure 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 Pla n (SP 10 - 01); a Tentative Tract Map (TTM 15576); and a Development Agreement with the City. T he approval of these actions changes the existing restrictions on growth set by the ge neral 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.

Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

159
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
If additional development were allowed i n the vicinity of the project, it w ould cause additional environmental impacts. However, future projects would n eed 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 proj ects to gain approval of similar applications.

Based on the foregoing, the Project should not result in unforeseen nor unmitigable growth-inducing im pacts. 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 Proje ct/No Development Alternative as well as a reasonable range of alternatives t o the proposed Project that w ould feasibly attain most of the basic Project objectives, and would avoid or substantially lessen any of the signi ficant environmental impacts.

“CEQA recognizes that in determining whether and how a project should be approve d, a public agency has an obl igation to balance a variety of public objectives, including economic, environmental, and social factors and in par ticular the goal of providing a dec ent 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 fo r 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 Object ives 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 Ana lysis, the No Project Alternative i s considered to be equivalent to a “No Build” scenario. That is, if the Proj ect 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 wo uld 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 Proje ct site. It assumes there would be no development of any type nor would development occur under existing land us e designation parameters. Thi s 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 des ignations. The low-density residential development and Spring Trails Specific Plan would not be implemente d, and supporting infrastructure (i.e., roads and Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

160
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
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 avo id impacts related to air qua lity, biological resources, cultural resources, geological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards (wind, hazardous materials), hydrology and wat er quality, land use and planning, noise, public services, transportation and traffic, and utilities and s ervice systems. Compared to the proposed Project, impacts would be similar for mineral resources. It would not redu ce 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 firefi ghting for the site and also benefi t 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 segmen t unacceptable level of service)

The No Project/No Development Alternative would not achieve the Project Object ive of developing the Site as envisioned by the City’s 2005 General Plan (Objective 1). The site is designated for residential development and i s included in the City’s General Pl an Housing Element. The City has a limited base of available high -quality, l ow 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. Su ch 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 o ld. (Pages 3 -25 and 3 -26). Only 2,720 housing units were constructed between the years of 2000 -2005, during the he ight of the housing boom. (Housing Element Adopted June 20, 2011, Table H -12). The household composition of th e 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 si ngle-family residential developments within the City at this time and thus th e proposed Project will fill a residential need within the City as is envisioned within the City’s General Plan. Such a need is identified gene rally in Housing Element policy 3.1 .1, which states: “Provide adequate sites to accommodate the production of a variety of housing types thro ugh land use designation, zoning, specific plans, and overlay districts.” The Verdemont Heights Area Plan, found o n page 2-75 of the General Plan Lan d Use Element and in which this Project site is located, further discusses strategy to meet the Housing El ement 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 an y of the amenities of the proposed Project, and thus would not be able to mee t Objectives 2, 3, 4 and 5. H ousing Element policy 3.1.1 further Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

161
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
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 ho using and the proposed project woul d 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 hiki ng or equestrian trails, despite its proximity to the San Bernardino National Forest. The Prop osed Project provides additional recreational opportunities for the community, such as public and private parks, equestrian tra ils, and hiking trails.

Project Objectives 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8 would be met under the No Project/No Developme nt Alternative. A lthough 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 wit h the surrounding community. The No Project/No Development Alternative would be consistent with land use policies of the surrounding San Bernard ino National Forest (Objective 5). Since the Project site would be undeveloped, it would not be required to meet land use develop ment 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, a llowing it to mee t 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 wo uld not be annexed to the City of San Bernardino, and it would be developed in accordance with the land use desi gnations and rela ted overlay constraints included in the County of San Bernardino General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The general plan (2007) des ignates 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.

Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

162
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Earthwork would be substantially reduced for this alternative. Only a porti on 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 de pend 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 Ran ch Road. The development of new ro ads would not be required to provide access to the 38 homes.

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

The No P roject/Existing County General Pla n Alternative would comply with County development restrictions, including zon ing 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 wit hin 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 mo untains and valle y 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 condition s. FS3 includes l ands 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 terrai n, from relatively flat to steeply sloping hillside areas. Development in FS3 is prone to wildf ire primarily because of its proximity to FS1 zones. FS3 areas are also subject to Santa Ana wind conditions that have the pote ntial to dramatically spread wildl and fires. The Geological Hazards Overlay Zone map also shows the site in land slide 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 se rvices, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems (solid waste and wastewater). Compared to the proposed Pr oject, impacts would be similar, a lthough slightly reduced, for land use and planning, mineral resources, and population and housing. Utility and service impacts directly related to population - based demand factors (water supply, solid waste generation, and wastewater generation) would be s ubstantially reduced for this alternative in comparison to the proposed Projec t. 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 jurisdi ction over the site. The 38 units under this alternative, however, would be u nlikely able to a mortize the major infrastructure upgrades —particularly for domestic water delivery and storage —that would be required to adequa tely provide water and fire flow r equirements to the Project. (DEIR 7.5.18, page 7-17).

Similarly, it would not provide the bene fit to other area residents associated with these improvements under the proposed Project. Overall, this alternative would redu ce environmental Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

163
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
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 unacceptabl e 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 C ity’s sphere of i nfluence 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 consist ent with the Coun ty 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 guid elines to ensure “high quality design” (Specific Plan, page 4 -1) would not be implemented as part of the Project. Nor would the landscaping, si dewalk 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 devel opment by cluster ing the lots and ensuring substantial open space is preserved. The extent to which the No Project/Existing General Plan Alterna tive could achieve Objectives Nos. 2, 3 and 4 would be largely dependent on the potential financial return on 38 homes and the ab ility 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 hik ing, equestrian a nd 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 constru ct 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 Object ive would not be met. The inclusi on 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, Libra ry Fees, and infr astructure 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 pr operty tax increases resulting from the improvements. It is also unlikely that Objective 2 cou ld be achieved under the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative, because the description and analysis above assumed that this alternative would be served b y existing Project -area access roads. Access via Meyers Road is opposed by the surrounding Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

164
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
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 Pro ject/Existing General Plan Alternative. Development would be avoided in the Sa n Bernardino National Forest and increase the buffer between forest -owned land and developed areas relative to the proposed Project. It would ma ximize open space and would be des igned to respect natural conditions, including wildland fires, flooding, and s eismic hazards (O bjectives 5 and 6). Construction - related 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 t he proposed Project to minimize or eliminate the significant impacts of the pr oject (construction- related air quality and noise impacts). Since this alternative also reduces the number of housing units, it was also intende d to reduce long -term operational, significant unavoidable greenhouse gas emission (GHG) impacts. The approach t aken to reduce th ese 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 a cres of fuel modification area), a reduction of 43 percent from the proposed P roject’s onsite d evelopment area of 241.5 acres. Assuming the same development density as the proposed Project (1.27 du/ac), this alternative wo uld 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 on e of two roads that connect the northern quarter of the site with the reservoi r tank. Project a ccess 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 t he 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 wo uld have similar greenhouse gas em ission impacts as the proposed Project, and would be inconsistent with the tra nsportation strat egies of reducing VMT. Cultural Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, and Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

165
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Population and Housing impacts would al so be similar. All other impacts (aesthetics, biological resources, geology an d soils, hydrolog y and water quality, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, utilities and service systems, and forest resourc es) would be lessened in comparison to the proposed Project.

The Alternative Site Plan has the potential to att ain most of the p roposed Project’s objectives, but would not fully realize the anticipated development of infrastructure and high - quality housing needs of the City.

The 43% red uction in the number of units and reduction in overall project scope would impact the ability t o 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 percentag e.

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 alter native, will pay substantial fees that will benefit the City, including Development Impact Fees, School Fees, Li brary Fees permit ting fees, public services fees, and related development fees that provide additional benefit both to the community by increasing the funding and services availa ble, 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 provide s additional property taxes that will also contribute to public services. These fees are outlined in the finding s and further identified in the EIR. The Project will also provide the opportunity for construction jobs in the community for a substantial per iod of time, depending on how quic kly the proposed Project is built out.

The 43% reduction in units also makes it infeasible fro m 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 includ ed in the overall Specific Plan.

Under this Alternative, the cost per residence increases substantially with the reduction in the overall numbe r of units, resulting in a 37% inc rease in cost per unit to construct while the potential sale price for each un it 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, includi ng 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 wil dfire 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 mitiga tion programs, in cluding 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.

Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

166
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
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 wit h the City and therefore rejects the Alternative Site Plan Alternative.

4. Reduced Daily Grading Alternative.

The Reduced Daily Grading Alternat ive 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 h eavy construction equipment. The Reduced Daily Grading Alternative assumes tha t 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 G rading 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, wit h the exception o f 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 numb er 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 t he 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 dedicatio n of the City’s resources to verify permit requirements for a longer period of time. The payme nt 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, th e 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 g rading 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 mitigati on requirements for the Project, Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

167
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
timing of grading and construction affects the potential biological impacts res ulting 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 o ther requirements increases. This increases costs to both the City and the dev eloper as greater resources from both will be required, makes effective construction phasing and planning difficult, and the extended constructi on period would also limit the Pro ject’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 elimina tion or substantial reduction of u nits 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 o f another environmentally superior alternative if the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alt ernative. Of the remaining project alternatives, Alternative 3 – Alternative Site Plan Alternative is considered environmentally superior. The Commission concurs with this findi ng and given the reduction in total units to 215 units, the project that can b e developed, if L AFCO 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 emi ssion impacts. The overall reducti on of the development footprint and anticipated reduction in earthwork quantit ies would reduce, but not eliminate the significant air quality and noise impacts. Although it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by approxim ately 43 percent, it would still e mit a substantial amount of greenhouse gases and would have similar impacts. T he Alternative Si te 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 ide ntified 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, pu blic services, recreation, transportation and traffic, utilities, and forest resource impacts. However, the Alte rnative Site Plan Alternative is not financially feasible based upon the additional burden placed upon the Project to develop infrastr ucture, in cluding water and sewer capacity, to provide protective Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

168
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
measures, water towers, buffer zones and infrastructure for wildfire prot ection, and the implementation of recreational and trail uses. The cost per residence increases substantially with the reducti on 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 r esidential units would not be bala nced 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 a ssociated with adoption of the Project as addressed in the EIR, specifically:
1) Air Quality;
2) Noise;
3) Traffic and Transportation; and
4) Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

This section of the findings specifically addresses the requirement of Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, which requir es the lead agency to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its u navoidable signif icant 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 b enefits, 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 significan t levels where fe asible, 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 elimin ate 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 avo id 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 Projec t relate d to provision of housing outweigh the unavoidable adverse impacts described above. The reason for accepting these remaining unmitigate d Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

169
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
impacts are described below. In making this finding, the C ommission 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 includ e substa ntial 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 i tself, 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 a s 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 an d safety, including construction, buffer zones, and other features will also provide additional benefits to those residents already located in t he area as a means of preventing th e 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 f looding, 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 road way improvements and as well genera l fund contributions through property tax that can assist in funding necessar y 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 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

170
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
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 pub lic services. These fees are outlin ed 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 a dditional 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 a re proposed as part of the Project will include shade structures, tot lots, gardens, observation points, and oth er relat ed features and offer opportunities for the community that are not currently present in the area. The Project also provides an intercon nected trail system that would incl ude community trails for bicycle and pedestrian use, equestrian trails, and h iking tr ails. These proposed trails would substantially increase the recreational opportunities currently available in the City.

Furthermore, the City has a limited base of avai lable 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 o ld, 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 mode rate 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 pr oposed Project will fill a residential need within the City as is envisioned within t he City’s General Plan. Such a need is identified generally in Housing Element policy 3.1.1, which states: “Provide adequate sites to a ccommodate 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 i s located, further discusses strategy to meet the Housing Element policy 3.1.1, identifying in strategy 4 on pag e 2 -83 t o “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 traf fic:

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 with out the project in year 2035, and s ix segments are expected to have an LOS of F during evening peak hours with o r without the Project in year 2035. All of these segments, except the northbound and southbound segments of I -15 between Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

171
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
Sierra Avenue and Glen Helen Parkway, are included in the Caltrans improvement plans for the Devore interchange.

With improvements, tw o of the se freeway segments would operate at acceptable levels.

However, six freeway segments would continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS f or year 2035:

 The I -215 freeway se gment 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 woul d 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 mi tigation 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 descri bed 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, a nd unavoidable when considered with in the context of traffic that will be generated by other known or probable d evelopments, 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 ove rridden 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 cont rol construction and operational emissions would reduce Project and cumulativ e level impacts, but they would remain significant and unavoidable.

Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would generat e short-term emissions that exceed SCAQMD’S regional significance thresholds for NOx, PM 10, and PM 2.5, Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

172
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
and would significantly contribute to the nonattainment designations of the South Coast Air Basin for ozone and particulate matter (PM 10 and PM2.5). Construction activities associated with 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 t he 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 Projec t 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 O 3 and particulate matter (PM 10 and PM2.5). Construction of cumulat ive projects will further degrade t he regional and local air quality. Air quality will be temporarily impacted d uring co nstruction activities. Even with the implementation of mitigation measures, Project-related construction emissions would still exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds fo r NOx, PM 10 and PM 2.5, and cumulative emissions would result in greater excee dances. These are cumulatively considerable air quality impacts which cannot be mitigated to a less -than-significant level. However, benefits o btained from the Project are suffic ient 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 ons ite residence and surrounding noise -sensitive receptors due to the length of the construction period, that is, approximately three years . Mitigation would reduce the Proje ct’s impact on local sensitive receptors, but this impact would remain signif icant and unavoidable.

However, benefits obtained from the Project are sufficient to justify approval of the Project, and these impacts are ove rridden by the Project benefits des cribed 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 to ns (MTon) of CO2e and operational a ctivity 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 sign ificant; 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, a nd 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.

Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

173
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
California Public Resource Code 21002 provides: “In the ev ent specific economic, social and o ther 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 p roject o n 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 ad verse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered ‘acceptable.’”
The Project benefits include substantial infrast ructure that the Project will direc tly 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 itsel f, but also benefit the larger comm unity. 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 sa fety, including construction, buffe r zones, and other features will also provide additional benefits to those re sidents already located in the area as a means of preventing the spread of any wildfires through the area.

Storm drainage improvements will al so provide additional benefits rela ted 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 pol ice, 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 ar e 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, recreat ional, social and housing features that the project will provide, the Project will offer employment during the c onstruction 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 se rvices in the amount of $183,506.18, pay schools fees, pay library fees in th e amount of $181,375.52, improvement existing roadways and provide additional access points that otherwise may not occur, as well as pay other C ity development Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

174
M681-000 -- 1000746.1
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 altern atives as presented in the EIR, and fully understands the Project and Project alternatives proposed for developm ent. Fu rther, the Commission finds that all potential adverse environmental impacts and all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the impacts from the Project have been identifi ed in the Draft EIR, the Final EIR and public testimony. The C ommission 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 C ity has identified economic and social benefits, important policy objectives and local and r egional 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 su bstantial social and economic benefits against the unavoidable significant adverse effects of the Project. The Commission finds that the substa ntial 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, includ ing the Findings and all written an d 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 fil ed 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 t he Local Agency Formation Commission for San Bernardino County, 1170 West 3rd Street, Unit 150 , San Bernardi no, 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.

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

Draft Resolution No. 3291
Attachment 4

1 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-Knox- Hertzberg 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,

RESOLUTION NO. 3291

2 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 totally- surrounded 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.

RESOLUTION NO. 3291

3 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) this proposal is certified to be legally uninhabited;

b) it has 100 % landowner consent; and,

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

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

4. 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:

RESOLUTION NO. 3291

4  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. 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.

7. 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 I- 215 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. 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 Multi - Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan approved by FEMA in July 2017.

9. 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.

RESOLUTION NO. 3291

5 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.

RESOLUTION NO. 3291

6 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. 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.

15. 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 13.5 % 7.0 %
• American Indian Alone 1.3 % 0.9 %
• Asian Alone 4.2 % 4.3 %
• Pacific Islander Alone 0.4 % 0.3 %
• Hispanic Origin (Any Race) 68.3 % 37.9 %
Median Household Income $43,515 $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. 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.

17. 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 RESOLUTION NO. 3291

7 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:

NOES: COMMISSIONERS:

ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:

ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

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