1 2
3 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE
FACTS, FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, 4 CERTIFYING THE FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
5 REPORT, ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PLAN, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN AND THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT 6 SPECIFIC PLAN, ADOPTING THE UNIVERSITY HILLS SPECIFIC PLAN 7 AND APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 18969, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 186% AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18140.
8 9
10 11
12 13
RESOLUTION NO. 2008- 422
SECTION I. RECITALS
a) WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino (" City") adoptedthe General Plan for the City, and the University District SpecificPlan, by Resolution No. 2005- 362 on November 1, 2005; and b) WHEREAS, Inland Communities Corp. made application for the 14 University Hills Specific Plan and associated Tentative Parcel Map No, 18969, Tentative 15 16
17 Tract Map No. 18696 and Tentative Tract Map No. 18140; and c) WHEREAS, a SubsequentEnvironmental Impact Report was completed 18 for the project by Michael Brandman Associates; and
19 20
21 d) WHEREAS, the University District Specific Plan includes the area proposedfor developmentunder the University Hills Specific Plan; and e) WHEREAS, on Apri117, 2008, the Environmental Review
22 Committee determined that the University Hills Specific Plan could have significant 23 24
25 26
27 28
effects on the environment, and thus warranted preparation of a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA); and
f) WHEREAS, the Notice of Preparation, indicatingthe intent of the City to prepare a Draft SubsequentEnvironmental Impact Report was made known to the 1 2008- 422
comments from April 24, 2008 to May 23, 2008; and
g) WHEREAS, on May 7, 2008, the City held a public scopingmeetingto solicit public comments on the preparationof the Draft SubsequentEIR; and h) WHEREAS, the City considered the concerns and comments received during the Notice of Preparation comment period in the preparationof the Draft SubsequentErR, pursuant to CEQA; and
i) WHEREAS, a Draft SubsequentEIR was distributed for a 45-day public review period from August 1, 2008 to September15, 2008; and 2 2008- 422
3 2008- 422
Division staff report, and the recommendation of the PlanningCommission; and r) WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council made no substantial modifications to the University Hills Specific Plan, Tentative Parcel Map No. 18969, Tentative Tract Map No. 18696, and Tentative Tract Map No, 18140 which were not considered by the PlanningCommission during its public hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL HEREBY
4 2008- 422
1. 2.
3. 4.
5. 6.
Initial Study;
Notice of Preparation;
Responsesto the Notice of Preparation;
Draft SubsequentEIR;
7. Notice of Completion;
List of persons, organizationsand public agenciescommenting on the Draft SubsequentEIR;
Comments received on the Draft SubsequentEIR during and after the public review period;
Responsesto comments on the Draft SubsequentEIR.
5 2008- 422
E. Although the Final SEIR identifies certain significant adverse environmental effects that would result if the University Hills Specific Plan, Tentative Parcel Map No. 18969, Tentative Tract Map No. 18696 and Tentative Tract Map No. 18140 are adoptedand approved, all significant adverse environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided or mitigatedwill be avoided or mitigated by the implementationof the mitigation measures as set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and ReportingPlan for the Final SEIR, The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit C and incorporatedherein by reference, F, The Final SEIR has described the alternatives to the University Hills Specific Plan, even thoughthese alternatives may impedethe attainment of the objectives 6 If
2008- 422
1 Specific Plan, set forth ill the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding 2 Considerations.
3 I. The Final SubsequentEnvironmental Impact Report, the Mitigation 4 5 Monitoring and Reporting Plan, and the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding 6 Considerations reflect the independentreview, analysisand judgment of the Mayor and 7 Common Council of the City of San Bernardino.
8 SECTION III. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FINDINGS
9 10
11 12 A. The proposedGeneral Plan Amendment No. 08- 03 is consistent with the 13 following General Plan goalsand policies:
14 2. 2 Promote development that integrates with and minimizes impacts on 15 surroundingland uses.
16 2. 2.2 Requirenew uses to provide mitigation or buffers between existing uses 17 where potential adverse impacts could occur, including, as appropriate, 18 decorative walls, landscape setbacks, restricted vehicular access, 19 enclosure of parking structures to prevent sound transmission, and control 20 of lighting and ambient illumination.
21 2, 2.4 Hillside developmentand development adjacentto natural areas shall be 22 designed and landscaped to reserve natural features and habitat and 23 protect structures from the threats from natural disasters, such as wildfires 24 and floods.
25 The proposedproject will cluster residential development, provide more open space than 26 the currently approvedSpecific Plan, and has integrateda comprehensivefire protection 27 buffer into the document to assure protectionof the residents in the future. The plan also 28 Based upon substantial evidence in the record, the Mayor and Common Council herebyfind:
7 2008- 422
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 the open space area will not be impacted by development, and can also be studied 12 further.
13 B. The proposedamendments will not be detrimental to the public interest, 14 health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. The proposed General Plan 15 Amendment is consistent with General Plan policies, and the projectsassociated with the 16 Specific Plan will be required to comply with all City requirementsfor infrastructure 17 development, including sanitary sewer and domestic water. Further, the SpecificPlan 18 has been designedto protect the future residents from fire through integration of a fire 19 protection plan; and from geotechnicalhazards through restrictions on developmentin 20 and near earthquakefault zones.
21 C. The proposedamendments will maintain the appropriatebalance of land 22 uses within the City. The proposedAmendment is located in an area where open space 23 and residential land uses are proposed in the General Plan and University District 24 Specific Plan currently. General Plan Amendment No. 08- 03 proposes an increase in the 25 amount of open space land, and proposes residential densities greater than those 26 currently planned in the Paradise Hills Specific Plan, in order to allow a clustered 27 developmentplan. The proposed Specific Plan will impact less land and cluster the 28 residential land uses, rather than impacting natural resources in Badger Canyon. Land uses open space to minimize the hazards associated with flooding and earthquake faulting on the site,
2. 6 Control developmentand the use of land to minimi7.e adverse impactson significant natural, historic, cultural, habitat and hillside resources.
2. 6. 1 Hillside developmentand developmentadjacentto natural areas shall be designedand sited to maintain the character of the City' s significantopen spaces and historic and cultural landmarks.
The proposed Amendment will allow for the preservation of Badger Canyon for biological and geologic study. In addition, historic resources identified as occurring in 8 2008- 422
1 use and circulation element amendments proposedby General Plan Amendment No. 08- 2 3
03 apply equally to corresponding elements of the University District Specific Plan, which was adoptedconcurrentlywith the General Plan by Resolution No. 2005- 362, D. Being a case of an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Map, the subjectparcelsare physically suitable ( including but not limited to, access, provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and absence of physical constraints) for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development. The proposedproject has integrateddesigns which will minimize slope impacts, provide a backbone circulation and utility system, and be visually buffered from the surrounding 4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 areas.
12 SECTION IV, UNIVERSITY HILLS SPECIFIC PLAN FINDINGS
13 14
15 herebyfind:
16 A, The proposedplan is consistent with the General Plan and the University 17 District Specific Plan. The University Hills SpecificPlan is located within the University 18 District Specific Plan area, and is consistent with that Plan' s Vision, in that it will 19 provide physical connectivity between the Specific Plan area and the University; be a 20 part of the University Town concept by providing an area where faculty housingwill be 21 provided within the Plan; participate in transit efforts to connect the Plan area to the 22 University and other parts of the City; and enhance the regional recreational link in the 23 area by extendingplannedregionaltrails throughthe University Hills SpecificPlan area. 24 B. The proposedplan will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, 25 safety, convenience or welfare of the City. The Specific Plan includes standards which 26 will protect residents from the San Andreas Fault, and the potential for ground rupture 27 associated with the Fault, through prohibitions on developmentin those areas. The Plan 28 also incorporatesbio- swales into open space and slopes to allow for the filtration of 9 Based upon substantial evidence in the record, the Mayor and Common Council 2008- 422
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 are shallow enough to build upon. The site will be terraced to allow for flatter 12 developmentareas. The intensity of developmentproposedallows for 234, 8 acres to be 13 preservedas permanent open space, which will provide a valuable resource for the 14 project' s residents, the University, and the City as a whole, 15 D. The proposedplan will ensure the development of a desirable character 16 which will be compatible with existing and proposeddevelopmentin the surrounding 17 neighborhood. The site is visually isolated from surrounding neighborhoods, and 18 developmentof the project will have only minimal impacts on surrounding views, as 19 demonstrated in the Specific Plan and SEIR. The character of the development, although 20 more intense than lands to the south and west, is consistent with the University District 21 Specific Plan concepts of an urban village in association with the University, which is 22 adjacentto the property,
23 E. The proposedplan will contribute to a balance of land uses so that local 24 residents may work and shop in the community in which they live. The Specific Plan 25 will include connections to local transit, and will be within walking distance of the 26 California State University, San Bernardino ( CSUSB) campus. The Plan also includes a 27 planning area reserved for University faculty housing, which could generate up to 60 28 units within close proximity to CSUSB. In addition, the project is convenient to local surface water, which will prevent pollution. The Specific Plan also requires the clubhouse be constructed to meet LEED requirements, which will reduce potential impacts on greenhousegases. The. mitigation measures included in the EIR will also protect the residents and visitors to the project area from environmental hazards, C. The subject property is physically suitable for the requested land use designation(s) and the anticipated land use development. The areas designated for restricted or prohibited developmentwithin the Specific Plan are those where hazards could occur, The balance of the site where developmentwill be permitted is gently sloping, and outside the City' s Hillside Management Overlay, meaningthat the slopes 10 2008- 422
1 commercial areas, and with the extension of pathways, trails and sidewalks as plannedin 2 the SpecificPlan, will be easilyaccessible for shoppingand employment.3 Based upon substantial evidence in the record, the Mayor and Common Council 11 2008- 422
D, The site is physically suitable for the proposeddensity of development.
The tentative parcel map implements the Specific Plan planning areas, which are designed to accommodate higher densities of residential units in areas suitable for development, to allow greater open space preservation. The open space land is also included in the parcel map, and will be restricted as open space in perpetuity upon recordation of the parcelmap,
E. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage, or substantiallyand unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The design of the parcelmap, and the mitigation measures included in the SEIR for the project, assure that areas of environmental hazards are restricted or prohibited 12 2008- 422
1 parcel map will also provide a connection to CampusParkway through the University, 2 pursuant to a written agreement between the University and the applicant. 3 4
5 6 herebyfind:
7 A. The proposedtentative tract map is consistent with the General Plan, the 8 University Hills Specific Plan and the DevelopmentCode, The proposedtract map will 9 create 26 single family residential lots which are consistent with the development 10 standards established in the Specific Plan.
11 B. The design of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General 12 13 Plan. The tract map implementsplanning area 12 of the Specific Plan, which allows for 14 single family residential units on lots of the size proposed. The tentative tract map is 15 also consistent with the high quality design goals and policies of the General Plan, 16 insofar as it implements a master planned community which will have extensive 17 amenities for its residents,
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 SECTION VI. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO, 18696 FINDINGS
Based upon substantial evidence in the record, the Mayor and Common Council C. The site is physically suitable for the type of proposeddevelopment. The tract map does not occur in areas designatedfor restricted or prohibited development within the Specific Plan. The site is gently sloping, and outside the City' s Hillside ManagementOverlay District, The lots within the tentative tract map will be terraced to allow for flatter developmentareas,
D. The site is physically suitable for the proposeddensityof development.
The Tract Map proposes 26 lots on 3, 11 acres, consistent with the density of 3. 2 to 9. 0 units per acre allowed in the Standard Lot Detached ( SLD) designationassignedto the 13 2008- 422
acre.
14 2008- 422
c. The site is physically suitable for the type of proposeddevelopment. The 15 2008- 422
1 developmentareas in the SpecificPlan, nor does it occur adjacentto any open space area 2 proposednorth of the tract map,
3 F, The designof the subdivision is not likely to cause serious public health 4 5 problems. The tentative tract map is not within a restricted developmentarea, and is not 6 on the San Andreas Fault. The design of the tentative tract, as conditioned, will meet 7 City requirementsfor sight-lines and street widths for surroundingstreets, to allow safe 8 transport through the site.
9 G, The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements do not 10 conflict with any easements, acquiredby the public at large, for access through or use of 11 property within the proposedsubdivision. The tentative tract map incorporatesexisting 12 13 easernents without interfering with them, Any easements created through the master 14 parcel map ( TPM No. 18969) for the project, will be implementedin the tentative tract 15 map as necessary,
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 SECTION VIII. CERTIFICATION OF THE SUBSEOUENT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND AND DETERMINED by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino that the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report ( SCH # 2007071155) is adequateand complete in that it addresses the environmental effects of General Plan Amendment No. 08- 03, the University Hills Specific Plan, Tentative Parcel Map No, 18969, Tentative Tract Map No. 18696 and Tentative Tract Map No. 18140, and fully complies with the requirementsof the California Environmental Quality Act, the CEQA Gnidelines and the City' s Environmental Review Procedures. The Final SubsequentEnvironmental Impact Report 16 2008- 422
1 . is hereby certified; the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations are 2 hereby adopted; and the Mitigation Monitoring and ReportingPlan is hereby adopted. 3 SECTION IX. ADOPTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND 4 5
UNIVERSITY HILLS SPECIFIC PLAN
6 Based upon the above- referenced findings, General Plan Amendment No. 08-03 7 and the University Hills Specific Plan No. 07- 01 ( attached and incorporatedherein as 8 Exhibits D and E, respectively) are herebyadopted.
9 SECTION X. APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 18% 9. TENTATIVE 10 TRACT MAP NO. 18696 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18140 11 Based upon the above- referenced findings, Tentative Parcel Map No. 18969, Tentative 12 13 Tract Map No. 18696 and Tentative Tract Map No, 18140 ( attached and incorporated 14 herein as Exhibits F, G, and H, respectively) are herebyapproved. 15 SECTION XI. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
16 17
hereby directed to file a Notice of Determination with the County of San Bernardino 18 19
20 Environmental Quality Act in preparing and certifying the Final Subsequent 21 Environmental Impact Report and adopting the Facts, Findings and Statement of 22 Overriding Considerations, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, General Plan 23 Amendment No. 08- 03, the University Hills Specific Plan, Tentative Parcel Map No. 24 25
26 27
28 In accordance with the provisions of this Resolution, the Planning Division is Clerk of the Board of Supervisorscertifying the City' s compliancewith the California 18969, Tentative Tract Map No. 18696 and Tentative Tract Map No. 18140. A copy of the Notice ofDetennination will be forwarded to the State Clearinghouse. 17 2008- 422
18 2008- 422
1 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE 2 FACTS, FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS,
CERTIFYING THE FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
3 REPORT, ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PLAN, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN AND THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT 4 SPECIFIC PLAN, ADOPTING THE UNIVERSITY HILLS SPECIFIC PLAN 5 AND APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 18969, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18696 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18140.
6 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoingResolution was duly adoptedby the Mayor and 7 joint .
Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at a regular meetingthereof, held 8 9
on the 17~ h day of November 2008, by the following vote to wit:
10 Council Members:
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 Navs Abstain AbsentAves
ESTRADA L
BAXTER x
BRINKER x
DERRY x
KELLEY
x
JOHNSON L
xMC CAMMACK
k~
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 Rachel G. Clark, City Clerk
The foregoingresolution is herebyapprovedthis /~ dayofNoverilber, 2008, PATRICK J. MORRIS, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
By:
J esF. Penman
ity Attorney
19 I' ..
Exhibits to the Resolution of the city of San Bernardino adopting the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, certifying the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, amending the General Plan and the Univenity District Specific Plan, adopting the Univenity BiOs Specific Plan and approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 18969, Tentative Tract Map No. 18696 and Tentative Tract Map No. 18140:
Exhibit A 1 - 4 ( Bound Document)
1. Initial Study
Z. Notiee of Preparation (NOP)
3. Responsesto NOP
4. Draft Subsequent
Environmental Impaet Report
Exhibit A 5: Notiee of Completion
Exhibit A 6 - 8 ( Bound Document)
6. List of persons, organizations and
pub1ieagenciescommenting on the
Draft SubsequentEnvironmental
Impaet Report (DSEIR)
7. Comments received on the DSEIR
during and after the public comment
period
8. Responsesto comments on the DSEIR
Exhibit B: Environmental Findings of Faet and Statement of Overriding Considerations Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan ( Bound with Exhibit A 6 - 8) Exhibit D: General Plan Amendment No. 08-03
Exhibit E: University Hills Specific Plan ( Bound Doeument) Exhibit F: Tentative Parcel Map No. 18969 ( Large Format Map) Exhibit G: Tentative Traet Map No. 18696 ( Large Format Map) Exhibit H: Tentative Traet Map No. 18140 ( Large Format Map) EXHIBIT A 1- 4
Bound Document)
DRAFT
Environmental Impact Report
University Hills Specific Plan
City of San Bernardino, California
SCH # 2007071155
EXHIBIT A
1. Initial Study
2. Notice of Preparation ( NOP)
3. Responses to NOP
4. Draft Subsequent Environmental
Impact Report
il' L,
rl~'
V
Ii
Prepared by:
Michael Brandman Associates
621 Carnegie Drive, Suite 100
San Bernardino, CA 92408
Contact: Kent Norton, Project Director
l;Jlll; ch. ldl1r:mJm,1,} h",.; u.!<'s
Draft EIR
August 1, 2008
I .
EXHIBIT A 5
I
City of San Bernardino Development Services Department
Notice of Completion and Availability of Draft Subsequent EIR To: Responsibleand Interested Agencies, SpecialInterest Groups, Local Residents, and Other Interested Persons
From: City of San Bernardino DevelopmentServices Department 300 North D Street, San Bernardino, CA 92418
Contact: Terri Rahhal, City Planner
CLERK OF THE BOARD
AUG . 1 7.008
COUNlY OF
SAN BERNARDINO
The City of San Bernardino is the Lead Agency and has released for publicreview a Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposedproject. The Draft SubsequentEIR is supportedby the previouslycertified EIR for the Paradise Hills SpecificPlan, Subject: University Hills SpecificPlan Draft SubsequentEIR Project Title: University Hills SpecificPlan
Project Location: The ProposedProjectis located in the northern portionof the City of San Bernardino in San Bernardino County, California, It is located just north of the California State University San Bernardino ( CSUSB) campus on 404 acres of vacant land in the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains, Access to the projectarea is proposed via Campus Parkway offNorthpark Boulevard to the west and from Little Mountain Road off NorthparkBoulevard to the east.
Project Description: The UHSP consists of 404, 3 total acres, with 169, 5 acres or 42 percent of the site proposedfor residential and related uses, including 10, 2 acres of parksand recreational uses, The project proposes a total of980 units with a gross density of2.4 dwelling units per acre ( 980 units divided by 404.3 acres) and a net density of 5, 8 units per acre, excludingnatural open space ( 980 units divided by 169, 5 acres).
Residential densities range from 0, 0 to 20 dwelling units per acre, The lowest densities ( 0- 3, 1 units per acre) are located north of the San Andreas Fault and include single-family detached estate homes. Immediately south of the San Andreas Fault in the West Village area are standard detached lots ( 3,2- 9 units per acre).
Mixed Detached and Attached units ( 9, 1- 15 units per acre and 17 units per acre, reSl>ectively) are located in the interior and perimeterof the site, The highestdensities ( 15. 1- 20 units per acre) are generallylocated in the interior portionsof the West Village area around the clubhouse and in the East Village area behind Badger Hill, Four ( 4) acres of the highestdensity area ( PlanningArea 16) will be dedicated to CSUSB for exclusive use as faculty housing (approx, 60 units), Three subdivisions are currently proposed: Tentative Parcel Map No, 18969, Tentative Tract Map 18696 and Tentative Tract Map 18140.
Significant Environmental Effects: The Draft SubsequentEIR identifies significant unavoidable adverse impactson air quality, populationlhousinggrowthinducementlSCAG consistency, and transportation,
Public Review Period: The Draft SubsequentEIR is available for public review beginningAugust 1, 2008 and ending September15, 2008, during which time the public and interested partiesare invited to comment on the Draft SubsequentE1R for the proposedproject. Public comments may be sent during this time period to the following name and address:
City of San Bernardino DevelopmentServices Department
300 North D Street, San Bernardino, CA 92418
Contact: John Oquendo, Assistant Planner or
cniv er<;i!.Y.biJIs( i~5hiilW_ rg
See Counter Planning Staff
to View Documents
c
m
r-
m
c
Qo
0 o
en
I
m
C
1'_.
I .
The Draft Subsequent ElR is Available for Public Review at the following locations:
City of San Bernardino DevelopmentServices Department, 300 N, " D" Street, 3'" Floor, San Bernardino, CA 92418,
Feldheym Central Library, 555 W, 6" Street, San Bernardino, CA 92410 City of San Bernardino web site, www.sbcitv. on.:
Public Meetings: The City of San Bernardino Planning Commission and the Mayor and Common Council will consider the University Hills SpecificPlan and the Draft SubsequentEnvironmental Impact Report (EIR) at noticed public hearings, Agendasfor the public meetingsof the City of San Bernardino are routinely posted on the City' s web page,
Presence of the Site on Lists Enumerated under Sedion 65962. 5 of the Government Code: The proposed projectsite is not included on any lists compiledpursuantto Section 65962, 5 of the Government Code, I ,. . "
ill
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXHIBIT A 6 - 8 and EXHIBIT C
U_"'~~'-'='~""'''~-'''''~~'~
L;.,~~;: it' F:..~~
Bound Document) ~; l
5r~~:..':,~~~;:,~;'_:':W~' :;:?~~:,/;;~~~~~S~f:~? i:~':,;.:: ::f Final EnvironmemallmpactRepon
UniversilVHills Specific Plan CilVof San Bernardino
SGB #2001011155
October 22, 2008
EXHIBIT A
6. Ust of persons, organizations and
public agencies commenting on the
Draft Subsequent Environmental
Impact Report ( DSEIR)
7. Comments received on the DSEIR during
and after the public comment period
8. Responses to comments on the DSEIR
EXHIBIT C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Pian Iichacl Brandman Associates 621 E. CarnegieDrive, Suite 100
San Bernardino, CA 924118
I'
EXHIBIT B
Environmental Findings of Fact for the
Environmental Impact Report
University Hills Specific Plan
State Clearinghouse # 2007071155)
Prepared for:
City of San Bernardino
Planning Department
300 N, D Street
San Bemardino, CA 92418
909. 384, 5080
Contact: Terri Rahhal, City Planner
P.
DiJl",...
A~,J.
4{ jT .. , J,......
t/t, ....( v
L=t! Ii"-'::
Prepared by:
Michael Brandman Associates
621 E, Carnegie Drive, Suite 100
San Bernardino, CA 92408
909, 884, 2255
Contact: Kent Norton, AICP, REA,
Director of Environmental Services
Draft October 9, 2008
EnIl# lonnlMIaI FIndIngs of hct
UrIlvwWIy"'" SpecIfIc""'" EIR InttDdut:fIon
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SectIon 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................... 2 1, 1 - Project Description ................,........................................................................... 2
1.2 - Background and Project History .......................................................................,3 1, 3 - Statutory and Regulatory Requirements.............,.....................,.....................,,,4 1, 4 - Summary of Environmental Findings .................................................................5 Section 2: Finding Regarding Impacts that are Leu Than Significant and, Therefore, do not Require Mitigation ............................................................................ 7 2, 1 - Aesthetics, Light, and Glare......................,..,..........................,.......................... 7 2, 2 - Agricultural and Mineral Resources,.......................,.........,.,.....,......................,. 7 2, 3 - Recreation"...... '.',....,......,....., ,..,..,.."..,........,....,.. ,.........,..,................, ...." ....,.., 8 2, 4 - Cumulative
Impacts..."."..,..,.............,..,..,............"..".....,......,...............,..,......,8 2, 5 -
Summary............"....,..,.."..,...,..,....."..,..,.......,...............,.....,..,..........,..........,,16 Section 3: Finding Regarding Potentially Significant Effects that have been Mitigated to Below a Level of Significance with the Adoption of MitigationlI_ u.... .................................................................................................... 17 3, 1 - Biological Resources................,................,...........................,........................, 17 3, 2 - Cultural Resources"....,.."..,...,..,..,.."..,.....,..".."..,..,..".,..,...,....,..........,..,..,.... 18 3, 3 - Geology and Soils ......,..............,........,................,........................,..,............... 20 3, 4 - Hazards and Hazardous
Materials.........................,..,................................,...., 21 3, 5 - Hydrology and
WaterQuality..,..................,...........................................,.........22 3, 6 - Land use ................"..,..,..,..,......,..,..,..........,.....,...,...........,........,..,..,..,.,..,....., 24 3, 7 -
Noise..,.., ..., ,.,..,.."..... '.,........" ,.".. ,.. '...,..'.."",.., ,....,.., .......... ....,...,....,..,..,..,.... 25 3, 8 - Public Services,..,..,..,........,.."..,......,...,.....,....."..,.,....,....,.."..,.,........,....,..,...., 27 3, 9 - Utilities,.,...,..,..,..,..,..,.....,.., ......,..,..,... ,........,..",.. ......,..,..,..".., ............,.. ,....,.... 27 3, 10 - Cumulative
Impacts..............,.....,..,.."..,..,..,..."...."..,........,..,....,............,..,..,28 Section 4: Finding Regarding Impacts not Mitigated to Below a Level of Slgnlflcance304, 1 - Air Quality,.....,.."....,..,......,.............,..,....,....."."..,......,....".......,............,.."..." 30 4, 2 - Population and Housing and SCAG Consistency ..........................,.................32
4. 3 - Transportation ..,...,....,..,.....,..,.."....,......,.."..,.."..'...........,'.',........"....,..,..'..,." 33
4.4 - Cumulative, ....,..,.... ........ ,.......",..,.. ,."..,..,.., ,......... ,...."....,.., '.,..,... ....,....,.....,.. 36 Section 5: Finding Regarding Growth Inducing, Unavoidable Adverse, and Irreversible Impacts ....................................................................................................... 39 5, 1 - Growth Inducing Impacts................................................................................, 39
5. 2 - Irreversible Impacts .................,...,..............,...,..".............,..,..,..,.."....,..,..,..,... 40 Section 6: Finding Regarding Alternatives to the Propo. ed ProJ8Ct.............................42 6, 1 - No ProjectlNo Development Altemative,............,............................................. 43 6, 2 - No Project - General Plan DevelopmentA
ltemative.......................,................44
6, 3 - Modified Specific Plan
Altemative......,..................................,..........................44
6.4 - EducationallnstitutionITechnologyPark Altemative ........................................ 46 6, 5 - Alternative Sites ,........,.............."..,.."..,..,..,..,..,..,..,..,..,..,....,....,..,..,..,....,....... 46 Section 7: Statement of Overriding Con. lderatlons.......................................................50 EnvInJnmene./ Fllldlt",. of FfIct
SpecHfc"""EIR nfJoducIIon
SK' DOit't;>~.. '"""' '
c. '. ",-. - "" "
L! ., ^ + C....,_.! I.."._._~.,.~.__ ". C-.,-., .'._~.' '. . ,', ,,' ~.'_. _,' '_ ,.,' _,.._'..,." i .. ',: c, o.. .,,' _: .,". __.: '..'. -_.__ ,',' ''._"__-._,. _ _ ; f~ Y;;J\: iL' T~;;:+,O:;:<,'k'Z--_~;;<(,--;i::{-~:ti::Jt'x~__:-'_;.',_-;-::.:',';(,'-,_; -_'",/>_,1';'" i'_~ fi';i -"~?-g~n~~;,;:;~~~.:- ~~~
This document contains the findings requiredunder the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA) (Public Resources Code, ~ 21000, et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines ( California Code of Regulations, Title 14, fi 15000 et seq.), specificallyCEQA Guidelines fi 15091, supportingthe certification of the UniversityHills SpecificPlan (UHSP) Environmental ImpactReport (EIR) and approvalof the projectby the City of San Bernardino ( City).
1. 1 - Project Description
The University Hills SpecificPlan consists of 404. 3 total acres, with 169. 5 acres or 42 percent of the site proposedfor residential and related uses, including 10,2 acres ofpmts and recreational uses. The projectproposes a total of 980 units with a gross densityof 2.4 dwellingunits per acre ( 980 units divided by 404. 3 tota1 acres) and a net densityof 5, 8 units per acre, excludingnatura1 open space ( 980 units divided by 169. 5 acres). A tabular summary of the projectcomponents is provided in Table 3- 3.
A conceptualland plan for the ProposedProjectis shown in Exhibit 3- 5 and photographsof the site are shown in Exhibit 3-6. Residential densities range from 0. 0 to 20 dwellingunits per acre.
The lowest densities ( 0- 3.1 units per acre) are located north of the San Andreas Fault and include single-family detached estate homes. Immediatelysouth of the San Andreas Fault in the West Village area are standard detached lots ( 3.2- 9 units per acre). Mixed Detached and Attached units
9. 1- 15 units per acre and 17 units per acre, respectively) are located in the interior and perimeterof the site. The highestdensities ( 15. 1- 20 units per acre) are generallylocated in the interior portionsof the West Village area around the clubhouse and in the East Village area behind BadgerHill. Four ( 4) acres of the highestdensity area ( planning Area 16) will be dedicated to CSUSB for exclusive use as faculty housing (approx. 60 units).
It is estimated the UHSP projectwill eventuallysupport a population of 3,283 persons based upon the maximum buildout of980 units times an average of3.35 persons per unit. This household size is based on 2000 US census data and the latest City demographicfactors.
The UHSP contains 10.3 acres ofpmts includinga . 2. 2- acre privateclubhouse in the West Village area which can accommodate a pool and tennis courts and other active amenities, two O.5-acre recreational facilities in the East Village area, a 5- acre " California Walnut Grove Linear Park" along BadgerCreek, and the 2. 1-acre Glider Park (planning Area 1) in the northwest comer of the site which will providea safe approachzone for the hanggliderslandingat the adjacentAndy Jackson Airpark. The projecthas an internal pedestrian/walking trails system that connects to a multi- purpose trail consistent with the plannedregionaltrail for this area. The Projectwill preserve 234. 8 acres ( or 58 percent of the site) as natura1 open space that is proposedto be used by the nearbyCSUSB as a land laboratory" called the " Akkad Preserve," The land laboratorywill have minimal improvements but may include limited trails, signage, fencing, and various teachingstations, A detailed summary of the proposedland use plan for the UHSP is providedin Table 3-4, PlanningArea Land Uses, Env# nJnInMIIIII'ItHIIIIp of_
Unlvwslty _ SpecItIc ",." EIR InfI' DducfIon
1. 2. Background and Project History
1. 2. 1 - Background
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines ~ 15051, the City of San Bernardino is the lead agency for the University Hills SpecificPlan, with primary land use authority over the ProposedProject. The City determined that the projectmay have significant impactson the environment; therefore, a Draft SubsequentEnvironmental ImpactReport (EIR) was prepared. The City issued a Notice of Preparation of a SubsequentEnvironmental ImpactReportbetween August28, 2007 through September27, 2007, inviting comments from responsibleagencies, other regu1atoryagencies, organizationsand individuals pursuant to CEQA Guidelines ~ 15082, In response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP), the City received written comments which assisted the City in identifyingthe issues and alternatives for analysisin the Draft EIR. The City also held a scopingmeetingat City of San Bernardino City Hall on September18, 2007 to inform the public and interested agenciesabout the projectand to solicit public comments on the scope of the environmental issues to be addressed in the Draft EIR.
Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, the City prepareda Draft EIR ( State ClearinghouseNo. 2007091039) to analyzethe project's potentialadverse environmental impacts. Upon completionof the Draft EIR dated May 16, 2008, the City initiated a 45-daypubliccomment periodfrom May 16, to June 30, 2008, by filing a Notice of Completion (NOC) with the State Clearinghousefor the Governor' s Office of Planningand Research and publishinga Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft EIR in a newspaper of generalcirculation within the City' s jurisdiction ( CEQA Guidelines ~ 15087).
Copiesof the Draft EIR were distributed to state agenciesthroughthe State Clearinghouse. The NOA was sent to public agencies, organizations, and individuals and indicated where copiesof the Draft EIR could be obtained, or available fur review. The City made copiesof the Draft EIR available for local review at the City of San Bernardino Public Library 510 E, Florida Avenue, San Bernardino, CA 92543; San Bernardino Unified School District 2350 W. IAltl1am Ave, San Bernardino, CA 92545; City of San Bernardino PlanningDept 445 Florida Avenue San Bernardino, CA 92543.
During the public review period for the Draft EIR, the City consulted with and requestedcomments from all responsibleand trustee agencies, other regu1atol)' agenciesand other interested parties pursuant to CEQA Guidelines ~ 15086,
During the public review period, the City received 303 written comments on the Draft EIR. The City providedwritten response to comments received from the commentingagencies/individuals pursuant to Public Resources Code ~ 21092. 5. The response to comments includes the comments received on the Draft EIR, a list of those commenting, and the City' s response to the significantenvironmental pointsraised in the review and consultation process. The Final EIR for the project consists of the Draft EIR ( incorporatedby reference), the response to comments, mitigationmonitoringreport program ( MMRP), and changesto the Draft EIR which clarifY, supplement, or updatethe information provided in the Draft EIR, None of the changesor supplementalinformation in the Final EIR J.
En__ IaI Rnd/nfISofFllct
Un'-""Y Hills s" ldflc,.,." SR In_
constitute significantnew information as defined by CEQA Guidelines ~ 15508, 5, Therefore, CEQA does not requirerecirculation of the Draft EIR
In summary, the Final EIR includes the Draft EIR, Responseto Comments ( RTC), corrections and additions to the Draft EIR, and a Mitigation Monitoring ReportProgram (MMRP),
1. 2. 2 - Project HIstory
The project, which was fonner1yknown as The Paradise Hills SpecificPlan, was submitted to the City of San Bernardino in 1991 and approvedin 1993. The City of San Bernardino General Plan and DevelopmentCode govern land use and zoningon the projectsite. Both of these plansidentify the project site as governedby the Paradise Hills SpecificPlan. Currently, the proposedUniversity Hills SpecificPlan is not consistent with the City of San Bernardino General Plan Land Use. However, the projectproposes to do a General Plan amendment, making the proposedprojectsite consistent with the General Plan Land Use. If approved, the University Hills SpecificPlan (UHSP) would replacethe Paradise Hills SpecificPlan relative to land use on the ProposedProjectsite. The approvedParadise Hills SpecificPlan proposed504 residential units on approximately229 acres ( 56. 7 percent) with 175 acres ( 43.3 percent) to remain as natural open space. The residential units were divided into areas in the " foothill" developmentzone ( 383 units on 110. 6 acres or 3.5 units per acre average density) and areas in the " hillside" developmentzone ( 121 units on 117, 9 acres or 1 unit per acre average density).
The PHSP has a gross densityof 1.25 units per acre ( 504 units on 404 acres) and a net densityof2. 2 units per acre ( 504 units on 229 acres - total size minus open space). Due to economic conditions, the projectwas never built.
1. 3 - Statutory and Regulatory Requlrementa
These fmdings are based upon the information in the record of proceedings, including, but not limited to, the Final EIR, staffreports, projectapplicant's materials, MMRP, and the testimonypresentedat publichearings.
Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines precludesthe City from approvingor carryingout a project for which a Draft EIR has been certified that identifies any significant environmental effects unless the City makes one or more of the following written finding(s) for each of those significanteffects accompaniedby a brief explanationof the rationale for each finding:
1. Changesor alterations have been required in, or incorporatedinto, the project which will avoid or substantiallylessen the significantenvironmental impactas identified in the Draft EIR; or
2, Such changesor alterations are within the responsibilityand jurisdiction of a public agency other than the City, and such changeshave been adoptedby such other agency, or can and should be adoptedby such other agency; or
3, Specificeconomic, social, legal, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Draft EIR. is':&~~\iLiZ',':~;,
En"""""'**' RndIrIt1s of F8ct
CJnI--"Y ",.. Spec:Hfc ,."", EIR
Sections 15092 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines requirethat if the projectwill cause significant unavoidable adverse impacts, the City must adopta Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to approvingthe projecL A Statement of Overriding Considerations states that any significant adverse projecteffects are acceptableif expectedprojectbenefits outweighunavoidable adverse environmental impacts,
1. 4. Summary of Environmental Findings
As set forth in more detail below, the City of San Bernardino PlanningDepartmentbas endeavored in goodfaith to set forth the basis for its decision to approve the ProposedProject. All of the findings made by the City of San Bernardino are based upon its consideration of the Final ElRand the substantial evidence within the record as a whole. Each of these environmental issues is described in Section 2 (Introduction) and in Section 1 ( Executive Summary) of the Draft EIR.
Environmental impactsidentified in the Final EIR which the City of San Bernardino finds are less than significantand do not require mitigation are as follows:
Aesthetics, Light, and Glare;
Agricultural and Mineral Resources;
Mineral Resources; and
Recreation.
Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentiallysignificant, but which the City of San Bernardino finds can be mitigatedto a less than significantlevel throughthe impositionof mitigation measures and/ or conditions set forth herein are as follows:
Biological Resources;
Cultural Resources;
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity;
Global Climate Change;
Hazards and Hazardous Materials;
Hydrology and Water Quality;
Land Use and Planning;
Noise;
Public Services;
Utilities.
Environmental impactsidentified in the Final EIR as potentiallysignificant but which the City of San Bernardino finds cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level despitethe imposition of all feasible mitigation measures are as follows:
Air Quality;
Populationand housingand SCAG
Consistency; and
Transportationand Circulation.
Environmental impactsidentified in the Final EIR as cumulative, unavoidable adverse, and irreversible are described in Section 5 of this document ij;'::i'~:';:;:i;
En_ tIIIRndI... 01_
Unw..lfy HIlls SpecHfc Plan ElR 1nln>ducll0I/
Environmental impactsidentified in the Final ElR as growth-inducing, unavoidable adverse, and irreversible are described in Section 6 of this document.
Alternatives to the ProposedProjectthat might eliminate or reduce significantenvironmental impacts are described in Section 7 of this document.
Public Resources Code ~ 21081. 6 requiresthe City to prepare and adopta mitigation monitoringand reportingprogram for any projectfor which mitigation measures have been imposedto assure compliancewith the adoptedmitigation measures, Prior to taking action to approve the project, the City of San Bernardino was presentedwith, heard, reviewed, and considered all of the infonnation and data in the administrative record, including, but not limited to, the Final ElR and all oral and written testimonypresentedto it duringmeetingsand hearings. The Final ElR reflects the independentjudgmentof the City of San Bernardino and is deemed adequatefor pwposes of making decisions on the merits of the projectand its related actions. No comments made in the public hearingsconducted by the City of San Bernardino PlanningDepartmentor any additional information submitted to the City have producedany substantial new information requiringrecirculation or additional environmental review of the Draft ElR WIder CEQA because no new significant environmental impactswere identified, no substantial increase in the severityof any environmental impactswould occur and no feasible mitigation measures, as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, were rejected,
1aI FIndInga of F/ Jct
Un'--"Y HIlla SpecIfIc""" EIR
Rn" lJfI "-"*'" Impects Ihat... L_ _ SIfInIIfcant
and, 77I...ro... do""' Requ/I'e~ fIo, l
1 ... ~ {... I' ~,,~ ' f ' t I j, I ' 0
i1;'
W',.
2* '".;> -:. t>~~,~. _ 4~ J j.."' i,' f,,'i-"~' lt~' l,,~4.t-l!ist ,$ 1,' : t'". J>J%::i!; j tI' 'I ~ \ i .'" '" ~ . ~ ' -.. \ ~ . ~ '" '" ' ~ ~! I ~ ; L;~:~~:4;~~~t4
OIf'J.!
The City of San Bernardino PlanningDepartmentfinds that the following environmental impacts identified in the Draft EIR are less than significant, and as a result, mitigation is not requiredunder CEQA.
2. 1 . Aesthetics, Light, and Glare
From the visual simulations, it appears most views of the site would be obstructed by BadgerHill, especiallyfrom existingresidences to the southeast, and by the Kendall Hills, which will block views from the southwest includingthe 1-215 Freeway. Limited views of the site, especiallythe upper portions adjacentto the San Andreas Fault and BadgerCanyon, will occur with distance from the site, including from residences across NorthparkBoulevard to the southwest and from the Cal State University San Bernardino campus. The SpecificPlan landscapingguidelinesindicate that manufactured slopeswill be replanted, but some of these slopesmay be visible vom locations south and southwest of the site, The upper slopesof the San Bernardino Mountains and BadgerCanyon will remain as permanent open space and views of these areas will not changefrom present conditions.
Several policies in the City of San Bernardino General Plan recognizethat the project site ( as the PHSP site) will be developedwith residential uses. The proposedUHSP land plan increases developmentintensityon the alluvial fan areas bnt clusters or concentrates residences south of the San Andreas Fault and out of BadgerCanyon. On balance, the proposedUHSP land planappears to be equivalentor superiorto the previouslyapprovedPHSP in terms of visual impacts, The project site is not visible from 1-215 or SR- 18, and neither of these are designatedscenic routes in the vicinity of the projectsite. Developmentof the ProposedProjectwould not affect views of the hills from 1-215 because of the interveningKendall Hills. For these reasons, the ProposedProject will have a less than significant impacton Aesthetics Light and Glare.
2. 2 - Agricultural and Mineral Resources
Accordingto the Farmland Mappingand Monitoring Program (FMMP) maps preparedby the California Resources Agency, there is no designatedPrime Farmland, UniqueFarmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importanceon the projectsite or adjacentareas, In addition, the site does not contain enoughprime agriculturalsoils or other physicalcharacteristics that would yield a significantLESA Model score, Furthermore, accordingto the City of San Bernardino General Plan, the projectarea is not designatedfor agriculturaluse, and there are no active Williamson Act contracts in placefor any portion of the projectarea or adjacentareas,
Accordingto the California Departmentof Conservation' s Mineral Land Classification report for the area, the projectsite occurs within an area that has been classified as MRZ- 3, These are areas where En.".""".",. RndInrIs of_
Unlvwslty HIlls SpecIIfc ",." ElR
Rmllng RlJgaIdng Impecfa _... Lea ",." Sl/ lnlflcMt
and, .".., aAn. do not RequIte IIltItIatlv..
the significanceof mineral depositscannot be evaluated from available data. However, it should be noted that no mineral production currentlyoccurs on or adjacentto the projectarea. Soil composition, depth-to- bedrock, and other factors make the site unattractive for sand and graveloperations, These types of operationsare better suited to valley bottoms and arroyo channels, not the mountain foothills where the projectis located, Other valuable mineral resource constituents are not known to occur in the projectarea. For these reasons, the ProposedProject will have a less than significant impact on Agriculture and Mineral Resources,
2. 3 - Recreation
The ProposedProjectwould increase the City' s populationand have a correspondingincrease in park usage. However, the ProposedProject would provide 10.3 acres of onsite park facilities and the equivalentof 6. 1 acres of in- lieu fee payments to acquireand developadditional parklandto offset its contribution to increase park usage.
The City' s General Plan shows the Foothills RegionalTrail goes throughthe ProposedProjectsite.
The University Hills SpecificPlan proposes a regionaltrail alongthe extension of CampusParkway throughthe site in a northwest- southeast direction to provideconnections to the future planned extension of the Foothills Trail to the east and west of the project site.
In addition, the projectwould providenon- vehicular paths, sidewalks, etc. for projectresidents to travel within the project and to the CSUSB campus without usingpersonalvehicles. For these reasons, the ProposedProjectwill have a less than significant impacton Recreation.
2. 4 - Cumulative Impac1B
2. 4. 1 - Aesthetics, LIght, and Glare
The analysisarea for evaluation of cumulative impactsto aesthetics resources includes views of the southwestern portion of the San Bernardino Mountains to the north. Views of the site from surroundingareas are somewhat limited by the Kendall Hills to the southwest and BadgerHill immediately south of the site. The slopeswith elevations above 2, 000 feet are readilyvisible from downtown San Bernardino and other locations in this portion of the San Bernardino Valley where views are not blocked to the north. Views of the site from the 1-215 Freewayare effectively blocked by the low Kendall Hills ( alongthe north side of Kendall Drive west of University Parkway), Developmentof the project as proposedwill not requiregradingabove 1,900 feet elevation other than the one reservoir pad, which means no manufactured slopeswill be visible at a distance away from this project. Similarly, plannedstructures are residential in nature and generallyone to three stories in height, Since views of the site are restricted on an area- wide basis, so too would be glarefrom reflections off windows or direct views of night lightingsuch as streetlights. The projectdoes not contain any lightedathletic fields so there will be no glarefrom this potential source. For these reasons, the project will not have cumulative impactsrelative to views or glare, EmIl"""".",., FlndI_ 01_
UnIVW1lllyHIlla SpecIIfc _ EIR
FInding RegIIn1Ing",."..". _... Lea _ SIgnIbnt
71terwtoIw. do not".".",. ~ I
This area is essentiallyvacant at present and bounded by national forest land on the north. Nighttime lighting levels are very low at present, althoughthere is considerable spillover from night lighting at the CSUSB to the south. If the ProposedProject is built, it will contribute to an overall increase in ambient nighttimelight levels referred to as " skyglow" by the International Dark SkyAssociation, the most prominentgroup that monitors this urban and suburban developmentimpact www, darkskies. onz), The developmentstandards of the SpecificPlan limit the insta1lation of lighting fixtures to the degreerequiredfor public safetyby policeand fire personnel. In addition, lighting levels will be relatively low, in tenns of urban development, since the projectis all residential and will have no commercial or institutional facilities that are lightedat night (e. g., shoppingcenter).
Potential impactswould be reduced further by review of proposedlighting plansduring subsequent developmentreview of the projectas specificmaps or buildingsare proposed.
Cumulative impactanalysisis guidedby buildout assumptionsidentified in the Land Use Section of the San Bernardino General Plan, Within the City and surroundingvacant areas, approvedand additional developmentwould result in additional lighting and surfaces that will create glare. The General Plan estimates the City will grow by 23, 568 units from now until buildout, which will disturb thousands of acres of land (fable LU- 3, City General Plan 2(05), but a relatively small amount of this plannedgrowth will occur in the foothills and areas surroundingthe ProposedProject site, While the ProposedProjectwill incrementallycontribute to an increase in skyglow, this area is plannedfor residential developmentand its contributions to ambient lighting levels is considered to be not cumulatively considerable.
2. 4. 2 - Agricultural and Minerai Resources
The analysisarea for evaluation of cumulative impactsto the entire City and this portion of the San Bernardino Valley.
The project, when combined with other projectsanticipatedin the General Plan, would not result in cumulative impacts, Other projectsthat would occur under Genera1 Plan bui1dout may affect the availability of existing or historical agriculturalland or areas with identified mineral resources.
Future developmentwould also be requiredto comply with the City of San Bernardino General Plan, Fulfillment of these requirementswould ensure that no significant impactson these specializedland uses will occur from other projectsthat would occur under buildouL
2. 4. 3 - BIological Resources
The analysisarea for evaluation of cumulative impactsto biologicalresources includes this westem portion of the San Bernardino Mountains, its foothills alongthe southern slopeof the mountains, as well as the canyons that drain these slopes, down to CajonCreek and ultimatelyto the Santa Ana River southwest of the projectarea. The projectwill develop160 acres of alluvial fan terrace area covered by chaparralwith vegetationof disturbed grasslandand native scrub vegetation. Some of these lands overlapcritical habitat for the Califomia gnatcatcherand San Bernardino kangaroorat, However, neither of these specieswere found on the project site. Conversely, the project would preserve 235 acres of land comprisingthe foothills and canyons of middle and upper BadgerCanyon, J>.
y,;.,t_'''''+ {
i:\,--;i;:;&:'
En"""""**' RtdtIrIa of Fact
HI" SpecIfIc""" ElR
Rndng RejJ8nllIIfI""""'" fhat _ t.. a -. S/ prJfIcIJnt
d, ~ do_"- quI"~_
which is a majordrainagein this portionof the foothills. With mitigation, potentialimpactsto listed animal specieswere reduced to less than significant levels. With the preservationof BadgerCreek and its feeder canyons, potential regional impactsfrom this project on biological resources are not considered to be cumulativelyconsiderable,
2. 4. 4 - Cultural Resources
The analysisarea for evaluation of cumulative impactsto cultural resources includes the entire City as outlined in the San Bernardino General Plan. The projectvicinity represents an area with prehistoric settlement by several Native American groups prior to Spanishand Mexican settlement, and then American settlement duringthe mid- nineteenth century, The projectsite and surroundingareas are largelyvacant at present. The site appears to contain remnants of a small residential " camp" and homestead but this area will remain in pennanent open space so there are no impactsin this regard.
Developmentof the projectsite will contribute to the incremental loss of vacant lands that may contain cultural artifacts or resources, Potentiallysignificantimpactswere found for historic, archaeological, and paleontologicalresources, and for human remains, due to the possibility of encounteringan unanticipatedfind during excavation. Mitigation measures are proposedto reduce the potentiallysignificant impactto less than significantlevels. With implementationof these mitigation measures, impactsto cultural resources would not be cumulativelyconsiderable.
2. 4. 5 - Geology, Solis, and Seismicity
The analysisarea for evaluation of cumulative impactsto geology, soils, and seismicityincludes this portion of San Bernardino County, due to the presence of several branches of the San Andreas Fault that cross the site. The various geotechnicalinvestigationsevaluated subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at the projectsite. The existingdocuments contained the results of extensive field explorations, laboratorytesting, engineeringanalyses, and designrecommendations for previous developmentprojectsat or near the projectsite. From these documents, geotechnicalconclusions and preliminary recommendations for planning of the proposeddevelopmentwere developed.
Cumulative impact analysisis guidedby buildout assumptionsidentified in the Land Use Section of the San Bernardino General Plan, Within the City and surroundingvacant areas, approvedand additional developmentwould result in additional excavation activities and further intensification of land use that could potentiallyimpactgeology, soils, and seismicity in the area. The General Plan estimates the City will grow by 23, 568 units from now until buildout, which will disturb thousands of acres ofland ( Table LU- 3, City General Plan 2005).
Potentiallysignificantproject-level impactswere found concerningexposure of persons or structures to seismic hazards due to the presence of several faults onsite. Potentiallysignificant impactswere also found concerningsubstantial erosion or loss oftopsoil during site construction, The Proposed Projectwould develop980 residential units in this portionof the City. The General Plan identifies areas in the City where additional growth will occur that contain various geotechnicalconstraints, including faults and soil erosion. However, only a small amount of this growth will occur proximate to the San Andreas Fault Zone. The City' s General Plan, DevelopmentCode, developmentreview EmIt~ RtIfMn(pI ofF8ct
UnlvwsIty HIlla SpecIfIc Plan EIR
R"'*'lI Regeldllfl""""'" _.. LMa",." SIgnIIIcant
end, TIreI.... do not Requh _.,., so..
process, and uniform buildingcode all requiredetailed geotechnicalstudies for proposed developmentwhich identilY impactsand appropriatemitigation for suspectedgeotechnicalhazards, similar to the process appliedto the USHP project.
Implementationof the UHSP projectand future developmentunder the General Plan, consistent with developmentguidelinesfrom required geotechnicalstudies, will help reduce potentialearth- related cumulative impactsto less than significantlevels, Therefore, the ProposedProjectwill not make a substantial contribution to cumulativelyconsiderable impactsrelative to geology, soils, and seismicity,
2. 4. 6. Huards and Huardous Materials
The analysisarea for evaluation of cumulative impactsto hazards and hazardous materials includes the University District subarea identified in the San Bernardino General Plan as well as the City as a whole. Cumulative impactanalysisis guidedby buildout assumptionsidentified in the Land Use Section of the San Bernardino General Plan. Citywide, approvedand additional developmentwill result in additional excavation activities and further intensification of land use that could potentially impacthazards and hazardous materials in the area. Developmentof the City is expectedto increase housingby 23, 568 units from now until buildout, with some of that land beingvacant while other lands have been developed.
Developmentof the ProposedProjectwould result in an increased demand for fire protection services, resultingin the need for additional fire protectionfacilities and personnelto cover the ProposedProject, Potentiallysignificant impactswere not found concerning: (1) location on a site that would create a potentialhazard to the public and the environment; (2) exposure of sensitive receptors to hazardous emissions, materials, substances, or waste; or ( 3) impedingthe implementation of or physically interferingwith an adoptedemergency response or evacuation plan. The Proposed Projectwould develop980 residential units in an outlyingvacant area, but residential developmentin generaldoes not generate significant amounts of hazardous materials. Growth of industrial and to a lesser degreecommercial uses in the City would generate more risk and potential impactsrelative to hazardous materials on a cumulative basis, With implementationof best management practicesand by following regulations, the ProposedProjectwould not make a substantial contribution to a cumulatively considerable impact relative to hazardous materials.
2. 4. 7. Hydrology and Water Quality
The analysisarea for evaluation of cumulative impactsto hydrologyand water quality includes the University District sub- area, identified in the San Bernardino General Plan as well as the City as a whole. The projectsite is currentlyvacant and does not consume potablewater. The Preliminary Hydrology Reportwas preparedto present an initial analysisof the ProposedProject's effects on the local and regionaldrainagebasin and to serve as a backgroundfor subsequentreports, such as a Stormwater Control Plan and a SWPPP, that are requiredduringthe developmentprocess. These and other subsequentdocuments will detail the designrecommendations for the control of stormwater for the projectsite and be used to meet local and regionalregulatoryrequirements.
I' . .
EnvtIOllllHJ/llJll FIntItnp of".",
JrrNwsIIy Hm. SpecIIIc ,.,." EIR
Flm611f1 ~ Impecta tIrM... L_ 1IIan S/ fInIIIcMf
8IId, TIleI..... do not RwquIrellllle-_
Cumulative impact analysisis guided by buildout assumptionsidentified in the Land Use Section of the San Bernardino General Plan. Citywide, approvedand additional developmentwill result in additional excavation activities and further intensification of land use, which could potentially impact hydrologyand water quality in the area. The tota1 residential units are expectedto increase from 59, 146 at present to 82, 714 at buildout, representingan increase of 23, 568 units, Potentiallysignificantimpactswere not found concerningthe creation of additional impervious surface coverage and alteration of existingdrainagepatterns, potentiallyleadingto downs1ream floodingor substantial erosion or siltation on- or off site. Potentiallysignificantimpactswere found relatingto adverse impactsto water qualityduringconstruction, adverse impactsto water quality from land use activities associated with the ProposedProject, substantial depletionof groundwater suppliesor substantial interference with groundwaterrecharge, and creation of runoff water that could exceed the capacityof existingor plannedstonnwater drainagesystems. The ProposedProjectwould develop980 residential units in this University District subarea. When taken into account with all residential and commercial buildout anticipatedin the General Plan, the ProposedProjectwould result in a significant cumulative effect. However, the designof the project will incorporatewater retention basins and bio- swales to increase infiltration of water as the new project is built.
The ProposedProjectwould cause a net increase in potablewater demand by almost a million gallons per dayin relation to existingdemand on the projectsite. The City' s WSA bas indicated that this demand is accounted for in their long-tenn water supplyplanningand would not requirethe developmentof additional supplies. Unfortunately, City staff indicate that reclaimed water is not and will not be available to the project area at a cost effective rate due to its elevation ( i. e., too high), and there is no infrastructure in placeor plannedto providereclaimed water to the projectsite. Even with the ongoinguncertaintyof importedwater for Southern Califomia and the City' s General Plan goal of usingrecycledwater whenever practical, this impactis considered less than significantdue to the designand location of the projectrelative to water and reclaimed water. Furthermore, with the design of the projectand recommended mitigation measures, the EIR concluded that water- related impacts of the ProposedProject would be reduced to less than significant levels. Therefore, the project will not have a cumulatively considerable impact regardinghydrologyand water quality,
2. 4. 8 - Land Use
The analysisarea for evaluation of cumulative impactsto land use includes the University District subarea and the City as a whole, as identified in the San Bernardino General Plan. The project site and its surroundingsare vacant. The General Plan designationfor the projectsite is Residential Low RL) in the steeperareas and Residential Suburban ( RS) in the flatter portionsof the site - these designationswould allow from 750 to 966 residential units to be built on the site, dependingon how units were placedor clustered in hillside areas ( see Section 4. 8, Land Use, and 4.10, Populationand Housing, for more infonnation on potential bui1dout estimates). In addition, the City approvedthe Paradise Hills Specific Plan which would allow 504 units to be built on the site.
U.'
I' .
FfndItI(Jaofl' Kt
IJrI/- wty HII/a SpecHfc""" ElR
Rn"/ JfI Rep....1I /mpacIs _... LMa"" Slgnlllcant
and, 171.-, do not RequI,.IIIIIp_
Cumulative impact analysisis guidedby buildout assumptionsidentified in the Land Use Section of the San Bernardino General Plan, Within the City, approvedand additional residential and commercial developmentwill result in additional excavation activities and further intensification of land use. Total residential units will increase from 59, 146 units at presentto 82, 714 units at buildout.
The University Hills projectwould increase the intensityof developmenton the projectsite by 95 percent comparedto the PHSP ( 980 vs, 504 units). However, it is estimated that approximately 750 to 966 units could be built on the UHSP projectsite under the RL and RS designationsof the General Plan, dependingon how units were actuallyclustered in hillside areas. Developmentunder the UHSP would represent an increase of 1.5 to 31 percent over that allowed under the Genera Plan.
Section 4. 10, Populationand Housing, of the EIR concluded that the Projectwould have siguificant populationand housingimpactsbecause it was not consistent with SCAG growthprojections, however, it does not appear the Projectwould make significantcontributions to cumulative land use impactsrelated to growth.
The projectwill intensifythe land use designatedby the General Plan by up to 31 percent. When combined with other projects anticipatedin the General Plan, it is not anticipatedthat this potential amount of changewould result in cumulatively considerable land use impacts, Other projectsthat would occur under General Plan buildout would not physicallydivide an established community, and they would be requiredto demonstrate compatibility with surroundingland uses and complywith the City of San Bernardino General Plan and DevelopmentCode, Fulfillment of these requirements would ensure that no significantimpactson land use occur from other projectsthat would occur under buildout,
2. 4. 9 - Noi..
The analysisarea for evaluation of cumulative noise impactsencompasses the ambient noise environment around the projectsite as well as roadwaysthat would experienceincreases in traffic volumes from project-generatedtrips. The cumulative noise impactanalysisis gnidedby evaluating increases in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity relative to existing conditions. Construction noise would result in temporary increases in ambient noise levels, and mitigation is proposedthat would require implementationof noise control measures during construction activities. Because construction would be tempormy, ambient noise levels would not experiencea pennanent increase and, therefore, no cumulatively considerable increase would occur. The ProposedProjectwould result in construction and operationalvibration. Construction and operationalvibration would not exceed significancethresholds at the nearest land uses ( the residences south of PlanningAreas 18 and 20 off of North I Street) and, therefore, would not be cumulative considerable. Projectresidential units would not be exposedto substantial vibration from vehicular activities due to the nature of the project (i. e., suburban residential), Therefore, projectresidents would not be exposedto significant sources of vibration or noise, and impactswould not be cumulativelyconsiderable. Vehicular trips generatedby the ProposedProjectwould not cause ambient noise levels alongany affected roadway segments to exceed acceptablenoise standards under openingyear or buildout conditions, Therefore, the ProposedProjectwould not have a cumulative considerable impactrelated to increased ambient En_,., Flnd/tIf1aof_
UnIvwsIty HIlla SpecIIIc ",." ElR
FlndllIfI Reg/ IIdIIfI """"'* _... LMs .... SItP""CIlIJ' lIIId, 7llerebw, do not RequIre -.,.,,0. 1
noise levels on nearbyroadways. Onsite noise associated with the ProposedProjectwould not result in ambient noise levels increasingto unacceptablelevels at any surroundingland uses, Therefore, the ProposedProjectwould not have a cumulative considerable impactrelated to increased ambient noise levels at surroundingland uses. Onsite noise associated with the ProposedProjectmay expose projectresidents to unacceptablelevels. Mitigation is proposedthat would requirethe installation of various structural noise attenuation measures to ensure that interior residential noise levels are within acceptablestandards to reduce impactsto a less than significantlevel. Therefore, the Proposed Projectwould not have a cumulative considerable impactrelated to exposure of projectresidents to unacceptablenoise levels. In summary, the ProposedProject would not resuh in increases in ambient noise that would be cumulativelyconsiderable.
Accordingto the City of San Bernardino General Plan Environmental Impact Report (2005 EIR), noise impactswould be significantafter buildout until the San Bernardino Airport Master Plan has been adoptedby the San Bernardino International Airport Authority (SBIAA) and corresponding noise contours have been established the extent of impactto parklandnear the airport cannot be detennined, Parkland is designatedas a sensitive use in the General Plan and should the noise contour exceed the limitations established by the General Plan no foreseeable mitigation could be accomplishedif the parkwere to remain in use. Under those circumstances, the impactwould be considered a significantadverse and unavoidable impact. The proposedUHSP is approximately
7.5 miles from the San Bemardino International Airport and is therefore outside the five ( 5) mile noise contour and will not impactedbe impacted,
2. 4. 10 - Population and Housing
The analysisarea for evaluation of cumulative impactsto population and housingencompasses the SANBAG area and the entire Southern California regionas monitored by SCAG.
Cumulative impactanalysisis guidedby the populationgrowthassumptionsincluded in the City of San Bernardino General Plan and SANBAG' s projections, The City of San Bernardino General Plan anticipates significant growth in San Bernardino between 2005 and 2030, The California Department of Finance estimated San Bernardino' s population to be 200, 280 in 2005, The General Plan projected a five- year increment for the City' s population; the projected2007 population for the City is 205, 010.
According to SCAG the City' s population for the year 2010 will be 207, 021. The average annual increase in the City' s populationis 1.5 percent. The average annual increasein the City' s 2007 populationin combination with a 1.5 percent annual increase would make the total population 214, 466 by the year 2010, The ProposedProjectis anticipatedto open in 2010, SCAG anticipates that the City' s populationwould be 207, 021 persons that year, indicatingthat actual growthhas occurred at a much lower rate than anticipated. The ProposedProject's residential uses would directly add an estimated 3, 283 residents to the City' s populationover approximatelya 5-year periodor through2015, The ProposedProjectwould not create substantial new employmentopportunities because this is a residential project.
II'
ElI_,., I' IndInrIaof_
Unl-.lly Hills Spet:ItIc ,.,." EIR
FIndInrI Regan1Ing /mpIIcfJI- aN Las _ Slfl/ lllkMt
17NIw/ln, donotRequh~ J
For the purposes of providing a worst-case scenario analysis, it is assumed that all of the 3,283 new residents of the projectwould also be new residents to the City, SANBAG' s forecast for population growth in San Bernardino is the same as that contained in the General Plan. Based on the existing population (205, 010) and accountingfor expectedpopulationgrowthbetween 2010 and 2015 ( 1.5 percent annually) , the City' s estimated populationin 2010 without the ProposedProjectwould be 207, 021 residents. The addition of the 3, 283 new residents associated with the ProposedProject would bring the populationto 210, 304, exceedingthe City and SCAG' s 2010 populationprojectionof 207, 021 persons by two ( 2) percent. With the addition of populationgrowth induced by the Proposed Project, the City' s 2015 populationis estimated to be 212, 143 persons, which would slightly exceed the SANBAG' s 2015 projection (208, 860) by two ( 2) percent. Althoughthe slight addition of population from the proposedproject is projectedto exceed SANBAG' s 2010 projectionsby two ( 2) percent, the ProposedProjectwould not represent a cumulativelyconsiderable growth-inducing impact relative to populationand housing.
2. 4. 11 . Public Services and Recreation
The analysisarea for evaluation of cumulative impactsto public services and recreation includes the entire City of San Bernardino. The City of San Bernardino Parks and CommunityServices Departmentowns and maintains 52 park sites totaling 540 acres. Of these sites, 10 are dedicated communityparks, 19 are neighborhoodparks, 3 are specialuse parks, and 17 are pocketor mini- parks.
Cumulative impactanalysisis guidedby buildout assumptionsidentified in the Land Use Section of the San Bernardino General Plan. Within the subareas that constitute the City, approvedand additional residential and commercial developmentwill resuh in a further intensification of land use and continue to placedemands on public services and recreation resources comparedwith existing conditions. Within the City, residential developmentwill increase the housing stock from 59, 146 units to 82, 714 units (+ 72 percent), and substantial developmentwill also occur in the Sphere of Influence area ( a total of95, 664 units at bui1dout [ Table LU- 3, CSB General Plan 2005]).
Among public services and recreation resources, potentially significantimpactswere found only for fue protection and emergency medical services, and trails. Potentially significant impactswere found regardingfire protection and emergency medical services that were due to the location of the project relative to existing police and fue facilities. Other projectsthat would occur under buildout could include mixed use projectswith multistory buildingsand both residential and commercial uses combined. Therefore, when considered with other projectsassociated with bui1dout, the Proposed Projectwould resuh in cumulative impactsfor fue protectionand emergency medical services. Since impactsfor these resources are potentially significantfor the ProposedProjectseparately, there would be a cumulativelyconsiderable impactregardingfue protectionand emergency medical services.
However, the same types of mitigationsthat would reduce these projectspecificimpactsto less than significant would be developedfor other projectsassociated with buildout ( i, e" dedication of sites for new policeand fue facilities). After mitigation, therefore, no cumulativelyconsiderable impactsto fire protectionand emergency medical services would occur. An incremental increase in impactsto r
En_ FlndInp ofFect
umvw.IIy HI" SpecHIcPlan Ell!
Finding R- e-,.. / mpIJcIs _.. ..... ..... Slgllllfcant and, 7IJ..lIIIn. do not Requ/Iw-" etlon
local and regionaltrails was also found associated with increased numbers of residents and trail users in outlying areas. Other projectsthat would occur during buildout would also increase numbers of residents and new employeesand create additional use of the Foothill Trail and other trails beyond that anticipatedfor the ProposedProject. The projectis installingthe section of trail within its boundaries, so the ProposedProjectis not expectedto result in cumulative impactsto trails.
2. 4. 12. Utilities
The project, when combined with other projectsanticipatedin the General Plan, would not result in cumulative impacts. However, other projectsthat would occur under General Plan bui1dout may increase the amount of energy consumed by the City. Other projectsin the planningarea would be requiredto provide adequateassessment of local and regionalenergy facilities to conclude the future project would not significantly increase demands on energy consumption. Furthennore, future developmentwould be requiredto complywith the City of San Bernardino General Plan. Therefore, because increased consumptionof energy by the ProposedProjectand other developmentsin the City have to complywith the City' s General Plan, or are alreadyanticipatedby local or regional energy facilities, the cumulative energy impactsof the ProposedProjectwould be less than significant. A detailed discussion of impactsand mitigation measure can be found in Section 4. 14, Utility Systems,
2. 5 - Summary
Regionalgrowth may eventually result in a number of cumulatively considerable impacts, including traffic and air quality. However, the ProposedProjectwill not make significant contribution to any of these cumulativelyconsiderable impactseither duringconstruction or from use of the planned improvements.
En_ 1III RndllIfIS ofF/lct
HIlla SpecIfIc""" E1R
FInd"" /tefIaIdtIfI- lfaIIy SIgnI/IcMt EIIIIcla
haw /) eM II1II:. I rllv _. UIIeI of S/ gIJ/flcence
wIIh llleAdoptJon of~ l_
The City of San Bernardino PlanningDepartmentfinds that the following environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR are potentiallysignificantbut can be mitigatedto 8 less than significant level through the impositionof mitigation measures and/ or conditions identified in the Final EIR and summarized below,
3. 1 - Biological Resources
3. 1. 1 - Potentially Slgnlflcantlmpact
Implementationof the projecthas the potentialto adverselyimpactPlummer' s mariposalily, burrowing owl, nestingbirds, and jurisdictionalland.
3. 1. 2 - Finding
With consideration of the above infonnation and the implementationof mitigation measures BIO- 18 throughBIO- lc, and BIO- 38, the project's impactsto biological resources are found to be less than significant.
3. 1. 3 - Facts In Support of Finding
The project-specificenvironmental effects will be eliminated or substantiallylessened to less than significant levels by implementationof the following mitigation measures, as identified in the Final EIR:
MM Blo- 1.
MM BlO- 1b
Plummer' s Marisposa Lily. During the springprior to grading, the developershall retain 8 qualifiedbiologist to conduct a focused survey of the proposeddevelopment areas to detennine if this speciesis present onsite. The survey shall be conducted accordingto the standard protocolestablished by CDFG. If the speciesis present, the developershall fund relocation of the plantsto 8 suitable location within the permanent open space area.
Burrowing OwL Within 30 daysof gradingor any grounddisturbance activities on the projectsite, 8 qualified biologist shall conduct 8 focused survey to detennine if burrowingowls are present onsite, The survey shall be conducted accordingto the standard protocol established by CDFG. If burrowingowls are detennined to be present on the site, mitigation shall follow the CDFG guidelinesincluding passive relocation. If vegetationremoval or grounddisturbance beginswithin 30 daysof the focused survey, no pre-construction survey would be required. Ifvegetation removal or grounddisturbance activities beginafter 30 daysof the focused survey, 8 subsequent pre-construction survey would be required.
En."""",."., Rodlllga 01 Feet
JlIIvwsHy HIla SpecIIIc""" SR
RmInfI~ -... ySlflnl/ff:Mlt~
fIrat""". _ - If\.. I r/ II> Below al. ewl oIS/ fIIIIIIcMCfI Adoption 0I11111t,dw. .........
MM BIO- 1c NestiDgBirds. If trees or largeshrubs ( over 4 feet in height) will be removed during the nestingseason ( February 1 throughAugust 31), a qualified biologist shall conduct a nestingbird survey no more than 30 daysprior to any disturbance to identifYany potentialnestingactivity. If passerinebirds are found to be nesting, or there is evidence of nestingbehavior within 250 feet of the impactarea, the biologist shall determine an appropriatebuffer that shall be requiredaround the nests, No vegetationremoval or ground disturbance would occur within this buffer, For raptor species---birds of prey ( e. g., hawks and ow1s}-this buffer would generallybe 500 feet. A qualified biologistshall monitor the nests closelyuntil it is detennined that the nests are no longeractive, at which time construction activities may commence within the buffer area, Construction activity may encroach into the buffer area at the discretion of the biological monitor,
MM- BIO-3a Jurisdictional Laud. Prior to grading, the developershall obtain a Clean Water Act Section 404 Pennit from USACE, a Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification from the RWQCB ( Santa Ana Region), and a Streambed Alteration Agreementfrom CDFG if jurisdictiona11andwill be impacted. Offsite mitigation, if necessary, shall be provided at a minimum 1: I ratio dependingon location and importanceof the jurisdictional land removed, If the projectprovidesonsite mitigation equalor in excess of its identified impact (i, e., removal of jurisdictiona11and), no permits may be necessary. This determination shall be made by qualified biologistsin consultation with City Planning, USACE, and CDFG staffbased on the final land plan and value assignedto the proposedbio- swales and other drainageimprovementsonsite,
3. 2 - Cultural Resources
3. 2. 1 - Potentially Significant Impact
Implementationof the projecthas the potentialto adverselyimpactunidentified cultural, archaeological, paleontologicalresources,
3. 2. 2 - Finding
With consideration of the above information and the implementationof mitigationmeasures CUL- 1 through CUL-4, the project's impactsto cultural resources are found to be less than significant
3. 2. 3. Facts In Support of Finding
The project-specific environmental effects will be eliminated or substantiallylessened to less than significantlevels by implementationof the following mitigationmeasures, as identified in the Final EIR:
MM CUL- 1 The developershall retain a qualified historian to survey the buildingremnants between PlanningAreas 18 and 20 to detennine if theyhave any historical significanceprior to excavation of the site. Due to their condition, theycould not be 11 .
Rnd1ttg8 oIFect
I. InIvenItyHJIg SpecIfIc ",." SR
Rndlng Regal"'''' PoIL. 1IMIySIgn/ fIc8nt ElIlIcts
IIIUIt-.. JlID _. L. wIoISIo.~
with ilia AdoptIon oIl111~"""__
MM CUL- 2
MM CUL-3
preservedor protectedin placeeven if it is determined they bad bistorical significance, If they are determined to be significant, the developersball retain a qualifiedbistorian to document the resource cbaracteristics for arcbival purposes prior to demolition. The historian will prepare a report and submit it to the appropriateinfonnation center for their records,
The developersbal1 retain a qualified arcbaeo1ogistto monitor gradingto the satisfaction of the staffs of the County Museum and City DevelopmentServices Department. If potentiallysignificantarchaeologicalor bistoric resources are encountered during subsurface activities, all construction within a 100- foot radius of the find sball cease until the monitor determines wbether the resource requiresfw1her study. The developershall include a standard inadvertent discoveIYclause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction sball be recorded on appropriate DPR forms and evaluated for significancein terms of CEQA criteria by a qualified archaeologist. Potentially significantculturaI resources consist of, but are not limited to, glass, ceramics, stone, bone, wood, rock and shell artifacts or features, including hearths, stroctura1 remains, or pre- bistoric dumpsites, If the resource is determined to be significantunder CEQA, a qualified archaeologistshall prepare and implementa researcb designand archaeologicaldata recoveIY plan, if necessary. The archaeologistshall also performappropriatetechnical analyses, prepare a full written report and file it with the appropriateinformation center, and providefor pennanent curation of the recovered resources.
Prior to the start of excavation, a qualified paleontologicalmonitor will be retained to conduct an oosite monitoringprogram to ensure protection of previouslyunknown paleontologicalspecimens, In the event a fossil is discovered duringconstruction of the ProposedProjectwhen the paleontologicalmonitor is not present, excavation within 100 feet of the find shall be temporarily baited until the discoveIYis examined by a qualified paleontologist, in accordance with Societyof Vertebrate Paleontology standards. The developershall include a standard inadvertent discoveIYclause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement, Tbe paleontologistsbal1 notifYthe City of the proceduresthat must be followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the fmd. If the find is determined to be significantand the Paleontologistdetermines that avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologistshall designand carry out a data recoveIY plan consistent with the Societyof Vertebrate Paleontologystandards. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval, Upon approval, the plan shall be incorporatedinto the project. The Paleontologistsball also performappropriatetechnical analyses, prepare a full written report and file it with the appropriateinformation center, and provide for permanent curation of any recovered resources,
En"'_ F/ tIdInfISof Feet
UnJvenlty HIlla Spec:IfIc Plett EIR
Rndlng ~"..,.. PDtenIIIIIIySIgnIffcent EII' ecCs
IIIIIt haw been "',,-"". 1110 Below. IAoIeI of ~ 1IfIcan". willi 1M Adapffaft of IfIIJs..,.lIoW1 ...........
MM CUL-4 Ifhuman remains are encountered during earth-disturbing activities for the Proposed Project, all work within 100 feet of the find shan stop immediatelyand the San Bernardino CountyCoroner' s office shall be notified, If the Coroner detennines the remains are Native American in origin, the NAHC will be notified and, in turn, will notifYthe person determined to be the Most Likely Descendent ( MLD). The MLD will provide recommendations for treatment of the remains ( CEQA Guidelines 15064.5; Health and SafetyCode ~ 7050. 5; Public Resources Code ~~ 5097, 94 and 5097, 98).
3. 3 - Geology and Soils
3. 3. 1 - Potentially Significant Impact
Because the projectis located in a seismicallyactive region, the impactsin regardto geologyand soil are considered potentiallysignificant. California has stringentpermittingand buildingdesign standards designedto minimize the adverse impactsin the event of an earthquake. However, the Project may be damagedby seiche flows, soil erosion or topsoil loss, unstable geologicunits, and expansivesoils.
3. 3. 2 - FInding
With consideration of the above infonnation and the implementationof mitigationmeasure GE0- 1a, GEO- 1b, GEO- 3a, and GE0- 3b, the project's impactsto Geologyand Soils are found to be less than significant.
3. 3. 3 - Facta in Support of FindIng
The project-specific environmental effects will be eliminated or substantiallylessened to less than significant levels by implementationof the following mitigation measures, as identified in the Final EIR:
MM GEO- 1a Prior to the recordation of any map in the area north of the South Branch of the San Andreas Fault (planning Area 15), detailed geologicinvestigationsshall be prepared to detennine slopestability, landslide limits, and specific structura1 and grading requirementsto identifYthe most appropriatedesignand construction requirements for specific building foundations. This studymust demonstrate that any residences to be built in this area will not be subjectto landslides, or that risks associated with any landslide features or conditions can be alleviated or reduced to a level equivalentto that of other residential planningareas in the project. This measure shall be implementedto the satisfaction of the City Planner in consultation with the City Geologistor qualified geotechnicalpersonnelretained by the City, MM GEO- 1 b Prior to the recordation of any tract map in the area north of the South Branch of the San Andreas Fault ( PlanningArea 15), the developermust demonstrate that the reservoir in PlanningArea 22 will have no impacton any homes in PlanningArea 15 FlndInfIa ofFoJct
um-. IIy HIla SpecIIfc Plan SR
FInding R." enIIng ~ SIooll/lcant ~
u". ,..., lIIIJ:.-t..4I1l1_. UveI of SIglIllkM".
AdGpIIon oflfll%o-.....-
MM GEO-3a
MM GE0-3b
from a seiche event that could occur from strong seismic ground shaking. The reservoir must be designedto withstand anticipatedseismic shaking, and must be dykedor otherwise protectedso as to protect downstream homes from seiche flow damage.
Prior to the commencement of gradingactivities, the applicantshall retain a qualified geotechnicalconsultant to test any areas plannedfor developmentthat are underlain by existing importedfill soils to determine their in situ compactionand suitability for excavation and reuse as engineeredfill. Soil testingcan be avoided if the applicant elects to remove the fill and placeit either in areas where it will not support buildings, be located in pavedor landscapedareas, or be disposedof off site, This measure shall be implementedto the satisfaction of the City Geologist.
The developershall implementthe gradingrecommendations identified in the GeoMat 2007 and the CHJ 2006 reports, Prior to the commencement of building construction, the applicantshall retain a qualified engineerto designfoundations adequateto support the ProposedProject's structures where necessary, based on the recommendations of the GeoMat 2007 study. Settlement analysisshall be performed once the structural designloads and foundation system geometJy have been defined for each building,
3. 4 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3. 4. 1 - Potentially SIgnificant Impact
The drainageprotectionand plannedimprovementsof the projectdo not rely on any USFS facilities or improvementsto protect the site. In addition, a post-disasterrecovery planwill be incorporated into the SpecificPlan and the following mitigation measure is beingadded to address this concern raised by the City PlanningCommission,
3. 4. 2 - Finding
With consideration of the above information and the implementationof mitigation measure HAZ- 1, the project' s impactsto hazards and hazardous material are found to be less than significant.
3. 4. 3 - Facts In Support of Finding
The project-specificenvironmental effects will be eliminated or substantiallylessened to less than significant levels by implementationof the following mitigation measures, as identified in the Final EIR:
MM HAZ- 1 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the developershall prepare a Post- FirelFlood RecoveryPlan for review and approvalby the City. As appropriate, this plan shall incorporateplanningguidelinesfrom the Alluvial Fan Task Force ( AFTF) established by the California Departmentof Water Resources ( DWR). The plan will EnIlllunlnMlW ~ oIFact
UIII-.Hy HIlla $fMdIIc ,.,." ElR
RndIIIfI R.".,..,." ~ SIgnIIIant--
eM II/ IIf,oIWIo Below. LenI oI~
wIfh the AdoptIon of . 1Iit-IM ......"..
identifYthe potentialrisks to projectresidents from various natural hazards from being located in the fire- prone foothills and adjacentto a largenatural waterway BadgerCreek). The planwill outline measures to be implementedafter major fires or floods that will helpprotect future projectresidents to the degreepractical. When approved, this plan shall be incorporatedinto the SpecificPlan.
3. 5 - Hydrology and Water Quality
3. 5. 1 - Po18ntlally Significant Impact
Implementationof the projecthas the potentialto adverselyimpactwater quality and groundwater.
Mitigation is requiredto offset any impactsto waters quality and groundwater.
3. 5. 2 - Finding
With consideration of the above infonnation and the implementationof mitigation measures HYD- 1a, HYD- 1b, HYD- 2a, HYD- 2b, and HYD- S, the project's impactsto water quality and groundwaterare found to be less than significantafter mitigation,
3. 5. 3 - Facta In Support of Finding
The project-specific environmental effects will be eliminated or substantiallylessened to a less than significantlevel by implementationof the following mitigation measures, as identified in the Final EIR:
MM HYD- 1a Prior to the issuance of gradingpermitsfor any portion or phaseof the project, the project applicantshall receive City approvalSWPPP and GradingPlan to the City of San Bernardino that identifYspecificactions and BMPs to prevent stonnwater pollution from construction sources. These BMPs shall be consistent with the ConceptualWater Quality ManagementPlan preparedfor the projectby PBS&] Engineers (see OElR Appendix G). The plansshall identifYa practicalsequence for site restoration, BMP implementation, contingencymeasures, responsibleparties, and agency contacts. The applicant shall include conditions in construction contracts requiring the plansto be implementedand shall have the ability to enforce the requirementthroughfmes and other penalties. The plansshall incorporatecontrol measures in the following categories:
Soil stabilization practices;
Dewateringpractices (if necessary);
Sediment and runoff control practices;
Monitoring protocols; and
Waste management and disposalcontrol practices,
Once approvedby the City, the applicant's contractor shall be responsiblethroughout the duration of the projectfor installing, constructing, inspecting, and maintainingthe control measures included in the SWPPP and GradingPlan, En"""""-'" RndI,.". 01 FIlet
UnIvwdy HIlla SpecIfIc Plan ElR
FIndItrt1RIJlMd. IfI "-',.", S/ gfI/flcMt E/ IlocIs
fINJt haw ..... 1II1Ipted ID ___. t.. v8I 01 SIgnIIIance the AdGp/Ion 0I111f1pf1on .........
MM HYD- 1b
MM HYD. 2a
Each SWPPP shall identify pollutantsources that could affect the quality of stonnwater dischargesfrom the construction site. Control practicesshall include those that effectively treat target pollutants in stonnwater dischargesanticipatedfrom projectconstruction sites. To protect receivingwater quality, the SWPPP shall include, but is not limited to, the following elements:
Temporaryerosion control measures ( such as fiber rolls, staked straw bales, detention basins, temporary inlet protection, check dams, geofabric, sandbag dikes, and temporary revegetationor other groundcover) shall be employed for disturbed areas,
No disturbed surfaces will be left without erosion control measures in place duringthe winter and springmonths ( September30 - March 30), Sediment shall be retained onsite by a system of sediment basins, traps, or other appropriatemeasures. Of critical importanceis the protectionof existing catch basins that eventuallydrain to CajonCreek.
The construction contractor shall prepare Standard OperatingProcedures for the handlingof hazardous materials on the construction site to eliminate or reduce dischargeof materials to stonn drains,
BMPs performanceand effectiveness sha1l be determined either by visual means where applicable (i, e., observation of above- nonnal sediment release), or by actual water samplingin cases where verification of contaminant reduction or elimination, ( inadvertent petroleumrelease) is requiredto determine adequacyof the measure.
Native grasses or other appropriatevegetativecover shall be established on the construction site as soon as possible after disturbance.
LandscapingMaullgement Plan. The developershall developand implementa LandscapingManagementPlan ( LMP) for landscapedareas with the goal of reducing potential dischargeof herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers, and other contaminants to local waterways, All contractors involved in project-related landscapingconducted duringthe individual pbasesof development, as well as maintenance oflandscaping following project completion, shall completetheir work in strict compliancewith the LMP. The applicantshall be responsiblefor ensuringthat requirementsof the LMP are provided to and instituted by future projectland owners and managers following projectcompletion. The LMP shall be preparedby a licensed landscapearchitecture fmu with experiencein methods to reduce or eliminate the use oflandscape chemicals that could cause adverse effects to the environment. At a minimum, this LMP shall:
I
En"""""""'''' RndllIfIS of"-ct
UnIvwsIty Hilla SpecIfIc ",." EIR
RndIng R, pnIng Pofwr1IMIy SIgnII/<:anf EIIKW
that have "- ifill. IW ID __. '-- ofSlgnHlcance
wIfh IIIe Adop/IDn 01111........' .........
Requirethat pesticidesand fertilizers not be appliedin excessive quantities, and only appliedat times when rain is not expectedfor at least 2 weeks, in an effort to minimize leachingand runoff into the stonn drainagesystem,
2. Encouragethe use of organicfertilizers and mulchingof landscapedareas to inhibit weed growth and reduce water demands,
3, Utilize native, perennial, drought-tolerant vegetationto minimize irrigation needs.
4. Specifythe maintenance measures to be used ( e. g" mowing) and will specify an applicationschedule for all fertilizer amendments and pesticide applications,
5. Identify a list of preferredherbicides and pesticidesand instances in which their use would be appropriateand the associated applicationrate.
MM HYD- 2b Water QuaUty MalntenaDc:e Reports. The UHSP projectshall fonn a Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District ( LLMD) to monitor water qualityand provide regularreports to the City regardingwater quality on the projectsite. A qualified professionalshall be retained throughthe LLMD to prepare and provideannual documentation to the City Engineerthat the onsite BMPs ( i. e., water quality devices, improvements, and procedures) are functioningas plannedto effectivelyprotect water quality both onsite and on downstream uses/ drainages. This includes the function and condition of bioswales, street sweeping, etc. These reports shall be made to the satisfaction of the City Engineerin consultation with the RWQCB if necessary, If a report indicates water quality objectivesare not beingmet and/ or the RWQCB has expressedconcerns in this regard, the LLMD will take appropriatesteps and/ or make appropriateimprovementsto achieve these objectives, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer,
MM HYD-6 Prior to approvalof any final maps, the developershall submit drainageplansto the City Public Works Departmentfor review and approval. The City shall review and approve all storm drain improvementplansprior to issuance of any encroachment or building pennits that involve flood control facilities,
3. 8 - Land use
3. 8. 1 - Potentially Significant Impact
PlanningArea 24, which is the only planningarea adjacentto USFS land, is proposedas pennanent open space that will be a " land laboratory" for the California State University San Bernardino CSUSB) campus, The Projectdeveloperis requestedto work with the City and United States Forestry Service staff to install signageat appropriatelocations clearly identifyingthe USFS 11 Enlllronmenflll FIrKIIngs of F..:t
Unlvwsfty HI" SpecHIc Plan EIR
RtKlng ~ F-. tIaIIy SIg/ IHICIJntEII' ecls
III haw ...... 1IItIir<.. d 10 Below. '-- of SiflJrIIIance with the AdoptIon 01 "'~ I __
boundmyadjacentto the ProposedProjectsite, especiallywhere any fU'e road or trails enter USFS property from the University Hills site,
3. 6. 2 - Finding
With consideration of the above infonnation and the implementationof mitigation measure LU- 1, the project's impactsto hazards and hazardous material are found to be less than significant.
3. 6. 3 - Facts In Support of FindIng
The project-specificenvironmental effects will be eliminated or substantiallylessened to less than significantlevels by implementationof the following mitigation measures, as identified in the Final EIR:
MM LU- 1 Prior to issuance of any occupancy permits, the developershall coordinate with City, CSUSB, and USFS staffs to identifYnecessary access pointsand appropriate locations for such signageto clearly identifythe USFS boundmyalongthe perimeter of the University Hills property ( i. e., PlanningArea 24). Such signagewill be placed at strategiclocations, includingany road or trai1 access points, to the satisfaction of the City in consultation with CSUSB and USFS staffs.
3. 7 - Nol. e
3. 7. 1 - Potentially Significant Impact
Implementationof the project has the potential to adverselyimpactsensitive receptors from short- term construction activities and temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels. Mitigation is requiredto offset any impactsto noise and sensitive receptors.
3. 7. 2 - Finding
With consideration of the above infonnation and the implementationof mitigationmeasures NOI- 1 throughNOI- I i, the project's impactsto noise are found to be less than significant.
3. 7. 3 - Facts in Support of Finding
The project-specific environmental effects will be eliminated or substantiallylessened to a less than significant level by implementationof the following mitigation measures, as identified in the Final EIR:
MM NOM. At the time the gradingpennit applicationis submitted, the project applicantshall submit a Construction Noise MitigationPlan to the City for review and approval.
The plan shall depict the location of stagingareas for construction equipmentand describe how noise would be mitigatedfor any nearbysensitive receptors..
MM NOI- 1b Stationarynoise- generatingequipment (such as pumps and generators) will be located as far as possiblefrom nearbynoise- sensitive receptors (i.e., homes south of j
Envl,..""., W RndIt1f18at Fact
Un~ Hills SpecIIIc Plan E1R
Rndlng RepnI1ng PoIMtIaIIy Slgn/llcMI E/ I'ecflI
that """" - 1II1lIt,.dW to Below. ~ of SIgn/ IIcMa
lINJ Adopf/on of 111....._ .........
MM NOl-1e
MM NOI- id
MM NOI- ie
MM NOt- if
MM NOI- ig
MM NOI- ih
MM NOI- il
PA 16- 20) and no closer than 200 feet from any existinghome within the Proposed Projectsite once occupancy has begun.
Noise- generatingequipmentwill be shielded from nearbynoise- sensitive receptors by noise- attenuatingbuffers such as structures or haul truck trailers, Onsite noise sources located less than 600 feet from noise- sensitive receptors will be equippedwith noise- reducingenginebousings.
Portable acoustic barriers able to attenuate at least 6 dB will be placedaround noise- generatingequipmentin the " East Village" portion of the projectsite, Water tanks and equipmentstorage, staging, and warm- up areas will be located as far from noise- sensitive receptors as possible, and at least 200 feet from any existing borne within the ProposedProjectsite once occupancy has begun.
All construction equipmentshall utilize noise reduction features ( e, g., muftlers and engineshrouds) that are no less effective than those originally installed by the manufacturer.
No construction equipmentshall be allowed to idle for more than 5 minutes if it is within 100 feet of an existinghouse,
Prior to approval of any subsequenttentative tract maps, the developershall submit noise studies as appropriatefor any residences within the projectto assure that exterior and interior noise levels meet City noise standards based on actual final floor elevations, actual roadwaycross sections and elevations, onsite topographyafter grading, etc. Walls or other attenuatingimprovementsshall be installed as needed based on the results of these studies to assure onsite residences meet the City' s noise regulations,
En."."",."", FIrHI/nt1S of FKt
UnIYwslly HIlls SpecJ1fc ,.,., EIR
R~~_~ Slgn/ lfcMtEIIKIs
haw _ 11114. !wI III Below. ....., of Sll/ llllflCMce
flJaAdaptIonofJIHI:. ...._
3. 8 - Public Services
3. 8. 1 - Potentially Significant Impact
Implementationof the projecthas the potentialto adverselyimpactlibrary services, Mitigation is requiredto offset any impactsto library services.
3. 8. 2 - Finding
With consideration of the above information and the implementationof mitigation PSR-4a and PSR- 4b, the project's impactsto libnuy services are found to be less than significant.
3. 8. 3 - Facts In Support of Finding
The project-specificenvironmental effects will be eliminated or substantiallylessened to a less than significant level by implementationof the following mitigation measures, as identified in the Final EIR:
MM PSR.... Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the project, the developershall contact the City Library Director in writing and offer to provide up 2, 000 square feet of building space in the clubhouse ( plus parking), for a future satellite library facility, The developershall provide the City PlanningDepartmentwith written confirmation whether or not the Library Director chooses to locate a library facility on the Specific Plan property, based on the needs of the Departmentat that time relative to staffing and facilities.
MM PSR-4b Prior to issuance of the first building permft for the project, the developer shall demonstrate that the project can be connected via the internet to City library and other information technology systems, This may involve wireless or hard- wired connections, dapending on the City's requirements at the time of hookup,
3. 9 - Utilities
3. 9. 1 - Potentially Significant Impact
Implementationof the project has the potential to adverselyimpactsolid waste capacity. Mitigation is requiredto offset any impactsto solid waste capacity.
3. 9. 2 - Finding
With consideration of the above information and the implementationof mitigation measures US-4a and US-4b, the project's impactsto solid wast are found to be less than significant
3. 9. 3 - Facts in Support of Finding
The project-specificenvironmental effects will be eliminated or substantiallylessened to a less than significantlevel by implementationof the followingmitigationmeasures, as identified in the Final EIR:
En_ fill RndI"fIII ofFect
Un~ H/IIaSpecHfc Plan EIR
RndIIIfI Rllllr1fng PoIJtnflally Slgn/ffcllnt ~
IWIo~. L. w ofStt,.""*_
wIfh fheMopl/otl of~.......
MM US4 Prior to the issuance of buildingpennits, the applicantshall submit a Construction Debris RecyclingPlan to the City of San Bernardino identifying the proceduresby which construction and demolition would be salvagedand recycledto the maximum extent feasible. The plan shall include proof that a construction and demolition debris recycleris under contract to the applicantto perfonnthis work, This Plan shall achieve at least a 50 percent reduction in construction waste, to the satisfaction of the City Planner,
MM US-4b Prior to the issuance of occupancy pennits, the developershall providethe City with written assurance that all projectresidents will be providedwith infonnation on City and County waste reduction and disposalactivities, This infonnation may be provided by the developeror home owners association ( HOA) as appropriate. This measure shall be implementedto the satisfaction of the City Planner.
3. 10 - Cumulative Impacts
Potentially Significant Impact
The ProposedProjectmay have the potentialto have cumulative impactswithin three ( 3) miles of the projectsite.
Finding
With consideration of the above information, implementationof projectspecificmitiglltion measures was found to reduce impactsfiom the cumulative projectsto less than significantlevels, Therefore, no additional mitiglltion is needed other than projectlevel mitigationmeasures, Facts In Support of Finding
The project-specificenvironmental effects will be eliminated or substantiallylessened to a less than significant level by implementationof the following mitiglltion measures, as identified in the Final EIR:
3. 10. 1 - Global Climate Change
Potentially Significant Impact
The Projectmay have potentialimpactto contribute to global green house gasses and globalclimate change,
Finding
With consideration of the above information and the implementationof mitigationmeasure A1R- 9a and A1R- 9b, the project's direct or indirect contribution to greenhousegas emissions will be reduced to less than significant levels.
Enlll_ tIII FItJd/nfIs ofFer:t
Un/ vwsllyHilla Spec///c ",." EIR
RndI"II ~ FIoIWI-,. SlQn/llC8nt~
tltathlNebeM. B_ T~ fo8elaw. LlWfllot_~
wIfh 1M Adop/IoII of II/ IIeIIIIOd ......"..
Fac1B In Support of FindIng
The project-specific environmental effects will be eliminated or substantiallylessened to less than significant levels by implementationof the following mitigation measures, as identified in the Final EIR:
MM AIR'" Areas and/ or facilities to encourage recyclingshall be providedand installed in all MDA and A ( attached) residential areas ( planning Areas 5, 6, 8- 11, 13, 14, 16, ' 8, and 20) and in the clubhouse ( planning Area 7) consistent with City requirements.
MM AlR-8b To increase energy efficiency, the following measures shall be implementedto the satisfaction of the City of San Bernardino: a) there shall be a minimum 10 percent reduction in all buildings, combined space heating, cooling, and water heatingenergy comparedto the current Title 24 Standards; b) the projectshall incorporatelight roof colors and cool pavements in the residential drivewayareas; c) each appliance (i, e" washer/ dryers, refrigerators, stoves, etc.) providedby the builder must be Energy Star qualified if an EnergyStar designationis applicablefor that appliance; d) low- flow appliances (i. e., toilets, dishwashers, shower heads, washingmachines) shall be installed and; e) solar poweredwater heaters and photovo1taiccells ( solar panels) shall be offered to homebuyersas an option.
En"""""."., FlndIn(Ja 01 FIIct
SpecIIfc Plan EIR
Flnclng RiIgIItcIng Impecfa not
IIIIIgMed III Below. '-- oISi...~
f';, 1' ,
I
t.t"" . ,~ i'~ t~~~ .-;vl . . < I; ~ ~
l~--'&""'
T~ 11M OWny'~'"""'~,'! l!:~ A'
S~,,-(,-:_:-::~, :~'_-;;' ~"-:::':"'~ .,'(:-: :;;.'-?c.~~; ;--;:;:,?t:--Jt'~'_:'-X(:3,;:~S(Y:<:5-;-:-~>'T<':: :::-'.,:. ..::< CEQA Guidelines Section 15126, 2( a)(b) requiresan Final EIR to identify and focus on the significant environmental effects of the ProposedProject, includingeffects that cannot be avoided if the ProposedProjectwere implemented,
This section describes significantimpacts, including those that can be mitigatedbut not reduced to a less than significant level. Where there are impactsthat cannot be alleviated without imposinga projecta1temative, the EIR implications, and the reason why the projectis beingproposed, notwithstandingthe Final EIR effect, are described. With implementationof the proposedmitigation measures, the Project will not create any significantenvironmental impacts.
4. 1 - Air Quality
4. 1. 1 . Potentially Significant Impact
Implementationof the projecthas the potential to adverselyimpactair quality and existingemissions of greenhousegases. In addition the ProposedProjecthas the potentialto adverselyimpactPM! o and PM2.s levels, and may exceed SCAQMD localized daily thresholds. Other potentiallysignificant impactcan occur over the short- term duration of the ProposedProject (i. e., duringconstruction),
4. 1. 2. Finding
With consideration of the above information and even with the implementationof mitigation measures AIR- I a throughAIR- 1g, and AIR- 3a through AIR- 3d, the project's impactsto air quality criteria pollutantsare found to be significantand unavoidable,
4. 1. 3. Facts In Support of Finding
After the implementationof the identified mitigation measures, emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides ( ND,J, carbon monoxide ( CO), su1fiu oxides ( SO,.), and particulate matter 2.5 (PM2. 5) will continue to exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan' s ( SCAQMD) regional emission significancethresholds during construction and VOC, NOx" and CO duringoperationsand, thus, are considered significantand unavoidable impacts.
MM A1R- 1a Prior to construction of the proposedimprovements, the projectproponent will providea Fugitive Dust Control Plan (FDCP) that will describe the applicationof standard best management practicesto control dust duringconstruction. Best management practiceswill include:
Application of water on disturbed soils a minimum of two times per day; Using track-out prevention devices at construction site access points; Stabilizingconstruction area exit points;
Limiting onsite construction traffic to 15 miles per hour on unpavedroads; Limiting onsite construction traffic to 25 miles per hour on pavedroads; l1li FlndInga 0IF8t:t
IJnIvWslly HJb SpecIfIc""" BR
MM AlR- ib
MM AlR- ic
MM AlR- id
MM AIR- i.
MM AIR- if
MM AlR- ig
FlndInt1~~ not
II/ IJgafedfD Below. '-- 01 Slpdllcence
Pavingor providing a hard surface for onsite roads to reduce fugitive dust; Coveringdirt haul vehicles; and
Replantingdisturbed areas as soon as practical and other measures, as deemed appropriateto the site, to control fugitive dust,
The FugitiveDust Control Plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approvalprior to grading.
Prior to construction of the proposedimprovements, a Construction Traffic Control Plan ( CTCP) will be reviewed and approvedby the City. The CTCP will describe in detail safe detours around the projectconstruction site and providetemponuy traffic control ( Le" flag person) during construction related truck haulingactivities.
During construction of the proposedimprovements, construction equipmentshall be properlymaintained at an offsite location, including proper tuning and timing of engines, Equipmentmaintenance records and equipmentdesignspecification data sheets shall be kept on- site duringconstruction.
During construction of the proposedimprovements, all contractors wiu be advised not to idle construction equipmenton the site for more than five minutes.
During construction of the proposedimprovements, onsite electrical hook ups shall be providedfor electric construction tools including saws, drills and compressors, to eliminate the need for diesel poweredelectric generators.
Onsite gradingequipmentwill complywith one or more of the following:
Use of onsite gradingand construction equipmentequippedwith oxidized diesel catalystand fueled with aqueous diesel fuel duringgradingand construction operationswith a reduced equipmentfleet or hours of operationtotaling a maximum of 17, 000 horsepowerhours per day;
Use of onsite grading and construction equipmentequippedwith oxidized diesel catalystwith a reduced equipmentfleet or hours of operationtotaling a maximum of 14, 000 horsepowerhours per day;
Use of onsite gradingand construction equipmentfueled with aqueous diesel fuel duringgradingand construction operationswith a reduced equipmentfleet or hours of operationtotaling a maximum of 13, 000 horsepowerhours per day; and Reduce the gradingand construction equipmentfleet or hours of operationto a maximum total of 10,000 horsepowerhours per day,
Implementationof the Short- Tenn Air Quality Mitigation Measures shall be documented in an Air Quality MitigationImplementationPlan, This plan will detail each mitigation measure and include daily logsdocumentingimplementationof each En"'''''''''''''''' FIndInga of Feet
HIlla SpecHfc Pfen ElR
RndI"II Reg8Id"ll1mpects not
to _. 1. fIIIeI ofSlflnIlk:8nce
mitigation measure. Daily logsfor each pieceof construction equipmentwill include the hours per daythe equipmentran. A master daily logwill document the hours of operationall equipmentran each day, The master daily log will also document timing and tuning of equipment, the type of fuel used on construction equipment, and any add-on emissions reduction equipmentused such as oxidized diesel catalysts, MM A1R-3lI The projectproponent shall install bicycle racks at the clubhouse, MDA and A attached) housingareas ( PlanningAreas 6, 8- 11, 13, 14, 16, 18, and 20), and all park sites to encourage non- vehicular trips within the project, MM A1R-3b The projectdesignshall include signspostedin visible placesin any truck parking areas that state, '' No Idling,"
MM A1R-3c The projectproponent will coordinate with CSUSB to install improvementsthat will support future shuttle transit service for project residents, includingbus turnouts, bus shelterslbenches, street lighting, and safe ingress/egress between the designatedbus stop and adjacentuses. The developerwill install identified improvementswhen the applicableroad is constructed. ,
MM A1R-3d Provide onsite infonnation for clubhouse employeesregardinglocal car pools, bus schedules and shuttle services in the area that service the projectsite, includingmaps showingthe routes of transit services and employeecarpooldestinations.
4. 2 - Population and Housing and SCAG Conslst8ncy
4. 2. 1 . Potentially Significant Impact
Implementationof the projecthas the potential to induce population growth beyondthe SCAG local and regional forecasts,
4. 2. 2 - Finding
With consideration of the above infonnation, implementationof the ProposedProjectwill cause the SCAG Consistencyand regional growth to be significant and unavoidable.
4. 2. 3. Facts In Support of Finding
Although forecasted populationgrowth in San Bernardino for 2010 is projectedto exceed the SCAG projections, the proposedUHSP projectwould significantly exacerbate this condition by addingan additional 476 units ( 980 - 504) or 12 percent of growth. SCAG populationnumbers are the basis for other regionalplans (e. g., regionalhousingallocation strategies), and populationgrowthin excess of the forecast represents a significantgrowth inducement impact. No mitigation is available to reduce this impactto a less than significantlevel; therefore, growth inducement beyondthe SCAG local and regionalforecasts is a significantunavoidable impactof the ProposedProject, Furthennore, the ProposedProject is generallyconsistent with the policies of the City' s general Plan, except for the provision of employmentin a housingrich sub- region. The Draft EIR concluded that En_,., FIndIngs of FIlet
Un~_ SpecIIfcl'tanEIR
FI".. RegenIng / mpIIcts not
Mlfleal>edII> Below. UtnJI of S/ fInIIINnce
these inconsistencies mean the project will have a significant impact relative to growth inducement and minor inconsistencies with regionalgrowthpoliciesand there is no feasible mitigationavailable to eliminate this impact,
4. 3 - Transportation
4. 3. 1 - Potentially Significant Impact
Implementationof the project has the potentialto create operationsat intersections to degradeto unacceptablelevels without plannedimprovementsin the openingyear, In addition, five intersections are expectedto operate at unacceptablelevels of service by 2030. With mitigation measures TRANS- 1, TRANS- 2, and TRANS- 8, impactsto intersections will be less than significant, However, impacts to freewayoperationsare significantand unavoidable,
4. 3. 2 - Finding
With consideration of the above infonnatiOD, implementationof the ProposedProjectwill cause freewayoperationsto be significantand unavoidable.
4. 3. 3 - Facts in Support of Finding
MM TRANS- 1 Prior to the issuance of the flTSt building permit, the developershall install or provide fair share payments to the City to install improvementsreferred to in Table 5 in the TIA ( KA 2008).). Iffair share payments are not paidprior to issuance of the first building permits, the UHSP will be requiredto install improvements, and be reimbursed by the City upon completion. . Improvementsinclude:
Traffic signalat NorthparkBoulevard and CampusParkway;
Cross Street Stopat Little Mountain Drive and ProjectAccess; Add two ( 2) 1eft- turn lanes on northbound leg of University Parkwayat Northpark Boulevard;
Add two ( 2) 1eft- turn lane on northbound 1-215 Freewayramp; Add a left- turn lane on the northbound leg of Little Mountain Drive at Project Access;
Add a right-turn lane on the northbound leg of Little Mountain Drive at Project Access;
Add a left- turn lane on the southbound legof North park Boulevard at Campus Parkway;
Add a throughlane to the eastbound legof Little Mountain Drive at Project Access;
Add a right- turn-over1ap to the eastbound legof UniversityParkwayat NorthparkBoulevard;
Add a right-turn lane to the eastbound leg of Little Mountain Drive at Project Access;
En_ RndItogs of,..."
UnWwslly Hils SpecIIIc ",." EIR
RndlrtgR,,"'1lfI1g"""""'_
M/ tlf1ItIed10 _. LeIIwI of~
Add a left- turn lane to the westbound legof North parkboulevard at Campuss Parkway;
Ad~ three ( 3) left- turn lanes to the westbound leg of University Parkwayat NotthparkBoulevard;
Add a left turn lane to the westbound legof Little Mounntain Drive at Project Access;
Add a throughlane to the westbound legof North parkBoulevard and Campus Parkway; and
Add a through lane to the westbound leg of Little Mountain Drive atProject Access;
Add a right-turn lane to the westbound legof University Parkwayat Northpark Boulevard.
To implement this measure, a right- turn lane can be stripedor unstriped, but to function as a right- turn lane, there must be sufficient width for right- turn vehicles to travel outside the throughlanes.
The TIA for this projectestimated that the fair share cost for these improvementswould be just over
4.1 miIlion as of when the TIA was prepared (July 2, 2008). Exhibit 4.12- 3 iIlustrates the proposed improvementsthat the project will need to implement. With construction of these improvements, LOS at local intersections will meet the City' s General Plan thresholds.
MM TRAMS- 2 Prior to the issuance of the 600111buildingpennit, the developersha11install or providefair share payments to the City for installation of improvementsrefeJTed to in Table 8 in the TIA ( KA 2008).). If fair share payments are not paidprior to the issuance of the 600111building permit, the UHSP wiIl be requiredto install improvements, and be reimbursed by the City upon completion. Improvements include:
Cross street stop at CampusParkwayat 1-215 Freewaynorthbound ramp; Cross street stop at CampusParkwayat 1-215 Freewaysouthbound ramp; Add a thoroughlane on northbound legof campus Parkwayand Kendall Drive;
Add a thoroughlane on the northbound leg of campus Parkwayand at 1-215 Freewaynorthbound ramp;
Add a thoroughlane onnorthbound leg of campus Parkwayand at 1-215 Freewaysouthbound ramp;
Add a right-turn lane onnorthbound legof University Parkwayat Kendall Drive;
Add a right-turn lane on the northbound legof UniversityParkwayat 1-215 Freewaysouthbound ramp;
Add a left- turn lane on the southbound legof CampusParkwayat 1-215 Freeway southbound ramp;
EnvltDmnental FInd... of Feet
IJnIveIWty HIlla SpecIfIc Plan EIR
Flndllfl R Iii ., p' l1 /mpecIs not
III11pled to 8eIow. L. w of Slf/nlffance
Add a thorough lane on the southbound leg of CampusParkway at Kendall Drive;
Add a thoroughlane on the southbound legof CampusParkwayat 1-215 Freewaynorthbound ramp;
Add a thoroughlane on the southbound leg of CampusParkwayat 1-215 Freewaysouthbound ramp;
Add a right-turn lane on the southbound leg of University Parkwayat 1-215 Freewaynorthbound ramp;
Add a right-turn lane on the eastbound legof University Parkwayat 1-215 Freewaynorthbound ramp;
Add a left- turn lane on the eastbound legof CampusParkwayat Kendall Drive;
Add a left- turn lane on the eastbound legof CampusParkwayat 1-215 Freewaynorthbound ramp;
Add a right-turn lane on the westbound leg of CampusParkwayat 1-215 Freewaynorthbound ramp.
To implementthis measure, a right- turn lane can be stripedor unstriped, but to function as a right- turn lane, there must be sufficient width for right-turn vehicles to travel outside the throughlanes.
As shown in Table 4.12- 6, all intersections would meet the City' s General Plan thresholds with improvementsby 2030 after the implementationof the improvementsoutlined in Measure MM-- TRAN8- 2.
MM T~ Prior to the commencement of construction, the developershall providea Construction Traffic, Staging, and ParkingManagementPlan to the City of San Bernardino for review and approval. All construction contracts sha1l include a clause requiringcompliancewith the Construction Traffic, Staging, and Parking ManagementPlan and the developershall be able to enforce the provisionsof the plan through penalties, up to and including, termination of the contract. The plan shall include the following provisions:
Construction truck traffic shall be limited to the following designatedroutes:
CampusParkwayfrom the site and west ofNorthpmk Boulevard to Kendall Drive, and Kendall Drive from CampusParkwayto Palm Avenue, Construction truck traffic shall be prohibitedon all other roadways, unless compellingcircumstances warrant such movements ( e. g., a major traffic accident).
Signageshall be installed at construction truck ingressand egress points alerting motorists to such movements.
Soil, debris, or other loose materials shall be covered with tarps or other restrainingmaterial duringhaul movements on roadways
En_ FIndInga ofFect
Un/ vwwllyHills SpecIfIc ,.,." EIR
Rn<<ng RIll dltg / mpacIa not
fIIJCed10 Below alAll-' of Slgnllfcanca
On- site and off- site construction stagingand parkinglocations shall be identified, as weU as any necessary. shuttle service needed to transport workers from off- site locations, For safetyreasons, off- site stagingor parking shall not be allowed west of North parkBoulevard or on the CSUSBCal State San Bernardino campus.
A pre-construction conference shall be held advisingall construction contractors of the requirementsof the Construction Traffic, Staging, and ParkingManagementPlan.
4. 4 - Cumulative
4. 4. 1 - PotentiaUy Significant Impact
The ProposedProjectmay have the potentialto create cumulative impactswithin three (3) miles of the projectsite. Areas that have a cumulative impactby the ProposedProjectthat are significantand unavoidable are listed and defined below,
Air Quality
The analysisarea for evaluation of cumu1ative impactsto air quality includes the South Coast Air Basin ( SCAB), which is identical to the boundaries of the SCAQMD. The SCAB includes the counties of Orange, Los Angeles, Imperial, and Ventura, Riverside, and San Bernardino ( including the City of San Bernardino),
Cumulative impactanalysisis guidedby buildout assumptionsidentified in the Land Use Section of the San Bernardino General Plan, Within the projectregion, and the SCAB, approvedand additional developmentwill result in additional excavation activities and further intensification of land use, which could potentially lead to impactsto air quality in the area. Within the City of San Bernardino, the total residential units will increase from 59, 146 units at present to 82, 714 units at buildout 23, 568 units or I. S percent average annual growth). Construction and operationof these additional land uses would emit substantial quantities of criteria pollutantsthat would likely exceed SCAQMD' s daily significancethresholds.
Potentially significant impactswere not found for exposure of construction workers or the public to substantial amounts of toxic air pollutants, creation of carbon monoxide bot spots that would exceed federal or State concentration standards, exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or generationof objectionableodors that would affect a substantial number of people, Significant, unavoidable impactswere found concerningconstruction and operationalemissions that exceed SCQMD thresholds, inconsistencywith the projectionscontained in the Air Quality ManagementPlan, and emissions representingonly an incremental contribution of globalgreenhouse gases, The ProposedProjectwould develop980 residential units in this vacant outlying area of the City. This represents 4, 2 percent of the growth expectedin the City from now until buildout.
When taken into account with all residential and commercial buildout anticipatedin the General Plan, the ProposedProjectwould result in a significantcumulative effect. Therefore, this effect would be EnvlTol_ W F/ ndInfpofFect
Un~_ SpecIffc""" EIR
FItJdIIfI~~ not
MII1gaIH '" ___. u.. I of SIgn/lfcence
cumulativelyconsiderable without mitigation applied, since the effect of this project by itself is a potentially significantimpact. However, accordingto the City of San Bernardino General Plan Environmental Impact Report (2005 ElR), air quality would be significantafter buildout during long tenn and short term construction, and contributingto cumulativelyconsiderable net increase of criteria pollutantsfor which the projectregion is in a state of non- attainment. Therefore, project-level emissions would be cumulativelysignificantand unavoidable due to the City' s significantand unavoidable buildout projectionsfor regionalair quality.
Mitigation in the fonn of extensive air pollution control measures is proposed, but it would not reduce projectconstruction and operationemissions below SCQMD thresholds; however, it would prevent projectgreenhousegas emissions from beingcumulativelyconsiderable.
Transportation
The analysisarea for evaluation of cumulative impactsto transportationincludes the University District subarea identified in the San Bernardino General Plan, as well as the City as a whole. The Traffic Impact Analysis analyzedthe traffic impactsof the ProposedProjectand looked at traffic impactsat openingyear and at buildout of the project. Project-level traffic impactsare found in several intersections that would exceed the General Plan threshold of LOS C at peakhour, and, will therefore have a significantimpact. N addition, significant impactsare related to cumulative traffic and congestionon the 1-215 Freewayin the vicinity of the ProposedProject.
Cumulative impactanalysisis guidedby buildout assumptionsidentified in the Land Use Section of the San Bernardino General Plan. Within the University District subarea, approvedand additional developmentwill result in additional excavation activities and further intensification of land use that could potentiallyimpacttransportationin San Bernardino. Furthermore, the ProposedProjectwill contribute to cumulativelyconsiderable traffic impactseven with implementationof all feasible projectspecificmitigation.
A number of roadway improvementswould be implementedin conjunctionwith the ProposedProject that would help reduce cumulative traffic impacts. Potentia11ysignificant impactswere not found concerningthe creation of inadequateaccess for emergency services or conflicts with the General Plan. Potentially significant impactswere found for congestionduring peakhours along this portion of the 1-215 Freeway,
When taken into account with all residential and commercial buildout anticipatedin the General Plan, the ProposedProjectwould result in a significantcumulative effect on area traffic. Therefore, this effect would be cumulativelyconsiderable without mitigation applied, since the effect of this project by itself is a potentiallysignificantimpact. Wilh implementationof projectmitigation measures MM TRANS- 1 throughMM TRANS- 8, project impactswill not make substantial contributions to cumulativelyconsiderable degradationof intersection performancebut will contribute to ongoing freewaycongestion.
En"'_ 1aI FIrodItIp of Feet
lInl...ny HIlla SpecI/fc Plan EIR
RndltI/II ~"'' 11 /mpecfs-
fa Below. L. etfeIof SJspdllcMce
However, accordingto the City of San Bernardino Environmental Impact Report (2005 EIR), the City does not cooperate with the regionaltransportationagenciestoward mitigating impactsto regional transportationfacilities, However, potentialtraffic impactsto the freewaymainline segments and ramps were evaluated and mitigationmeasures were suggestedto reduce impacts. However, the City stated that improvementsto the freewaysystem are the responsibilityof the existingregional transportationagenciesand not the City of San Bernardino, Without the authorityto implementthe mitigationmeasures, the impactto freewaysegments would remain significantand unavoidable requiring a statement of overridingconsiderations. Therefore, project-level traffic would be cumulatively significant and unavoidable due to the City' s significantand unavoidable buildout projections.
EnI/ tnJnmenfJI/ FItItIIttg. of Feet
lJn/ YwsIfyHIlla Spedffc Plan SR
Rnclng~ rtfI_ Io""
I' ropoaCPruJect
5. 1 - Growth InducIng Impacts
5. 1. 1 - Description
There are two types of growth-inducingimpactsthat a projectmay have: direct and indirect. To assess the potentialfor growth-inducingimpacts, the project's characteristics that may encourage and facilitate activities that individually or cumulativelymay affect the environment must be evaluated CEQA Guidelines Section 15126. 2[ d]).
5. 1. 2 - Finding
Direct growth-inducing impactsoccur when the developmentof a projectimposesnew burdens on a communityby directly inducingpopulationgrowth, or by leadingto the consln1ction of additional developmentsin the same area. Also included in this category are projectsthat remove physical obstacles to populationgrowth (such as a new road into an undevelopedarea or a wastewater treatment plantwith excess capacitythat could allow additional developmentin the service area).
Construction of these types of inftastructure projectscannot be considered iso1ated from the developmentthey facilitate and serve. Projectsthat physicallyremove obstacles to growthor projects that indirectly induce growthmay providea catalystfor future unre1ated developmentin an area, such as a new residential community, that requiresadditional commercial uses to support residents, The ProposedProjectwould result in the developmentof 980 units on 404 acres in an outlying but somewhat suburbanizingarea ( e. g" developmentto the west alongCampusParkway). The residential units included in the ProposedProjectwould be expectedto result in direct population growth of 3, 283 new residents. The ProposedProject is expectedto create only a few new jobs at the clubhouse.
Section 4, 10 of the Draft EIR examined the project's contributions to local as well as regional housingand populationgrowth and found it to be in excess of that outlined in the City' s General Plan that was used for estimatinggrowth impactsby SCAG, Althoughby itself the projectwould only incrementallyincrease growth, it would contribute to an overall cumulative increase that may not have been anticipatedin regionalplanningefforts. Therefore, the project is considered somewhat growth inducing. This increase will be offiet somewhat by the fact that the projectis in an area that is not plannedfor additional suburban development, so its actual influence on area- wide growthwill likely be limited.
The projectsite is not currentlyserved by infrastructure althoughroads and utilities are generally adjacentor nearbyto the site. However, the ProposedProjectwould requirethe extension of roadwaysand utility systems into areas not presentlyserved; therefore, the ProposedProjectcould be considered to be removinga barrier to potentialgrowththroughthe extension of urban infrastructure.
J. JL ""
Envlmnmenlal RndltIfIS of Feet
HIlls SpecItIc Plan EJR
R" dIng Repldltfl AIfIenIaIIw8 10 ",.
Prrlpt>>ed Prf1/eCf
The Riverside-Corona Feeder suppliesseveral southern California Counties, includingSan Bernardino. The supplier connects to the Santa Ana River watershed and suppliesover 400, 000 acre- feet of groundwater per year, New wet year water will corne from local runoff, includingregulated releases from Seven Oaks Reservoir and the State Water Project. The R-C Feeder is a multiple benefit regionalwater supplyproject. The water will be stored in San Bernardino Valley and Chino groundwaterbasins. Stored water will be delivered to consumers througha new groundwater pumpingcapacity. The new pumpingand deliverycapacitywill enable water to be stored safelyby providing the means to control local water tables,
The water supplyassessment proposes the UHSP will connect to reservoirs, similar to the Riverside- Corona Feeder. The reservoirs will include a common inlet/ outlet pipewith flexible connections, isolation valves and an altitude valve to prevent overflow. To improvemixing in the tank, each inlet/ outlet pipelinewould have two check valves, forcing water to travel a greater distance from inlet to outlet in a circular motion. The reservoirs would have separateoverflow pipesand drain pipesthat would dischargeto a concrete gutter. The gutter would convey stonn flows, reservoir overflows and drainagealongthe access road to the downstream developmentstonn drain.
5. 1. 3 - Facts in Support of Finding
Because of its size and intensity, as well as its destination potential, the ProposedProjectmay be a catalystfor future unrelated projects. This may include new developmentprojectsor redevelopment of existing properties. Note that no such projectshave been identified at the time of this writing, and it would be speculativeto identify any potentiallocations or types of projects,
5. 2 - IrreV81'81bl8 Impacts
5. 2. 1 - Description
Section 15126, 2{ c) of the CEQA Guidelines requiresa discussion of the extent to which a Proposed Project will commit nonrenewable resources to uses those future generationswill probablybe unable to reverse so that such current consumption may be justified,
5. 2. 2. Finding
The CEQA Guidelines describe three distinct categoriesof significant irreversible changes; they are defined as " changesin land use that would commit future generations", "irreversible changesfrom environmental actions", " and consumption of non- renewable resources", The Draft EIR has evaluated the project's commitment to these irreversible changesin the implementationof the project and has found that the use of such resources is justified by the long-term benefits of the project. However, the ProposedProjectwould not be consistent with Air Quality, PopulationIHousinglSCAGConsistency, and FreewayTransfonnationa1 uses,
5. 2. 3 - Facts In Support of Finding
The projectsite will be in long-term used as a residential development. In addition, the new uses will be utilized as a resource for the City over the long-term, In addition, 10ng-tenn developmentof the L1J ,"
Env/n)nm..."" FItHIInp of FfM:t
umv..IIy'" SpecIfIc""" E1R
F1....IIfI~~ Ia"..
Proposed Project
projectwilI be similar to other residential developmentprojectsin the City of San Bernardino.
Analysesof all three distinct categoriesof significantirreversible changesare defined as:
Ch8ngw In Land Use That Would Commit Future Generet/ons The projectproposes to construct 980 residential units. The ProposedProjectwill consists of 404. 3 total acres, with 169. 5 acres or 42 percent of the site proposedfor residential and related uses, including10.2 acres of parksand recreational uses. The projectproposes a gross densityof2. 4 dwelling units per acre ( 980 units divided by 404. 3 tota1 acres) and a net densityof 5, 8 units per acre, excludingnatural open space ( 980 units divided by 169.5 acres). Residential densities range from 0.0 to 20 dwelIing units per acre, This changein land use is more compatiblewith the sUlTOundingarea, therefore, the changein land use would not commit future generationsto a significantchangein land use,
Irreversible CIItmges from Environmental Actions
Irreversible changesto the environment could occur ifhazardous substances are released associated with developmentof the Project. Compliancewith the requirementsand mitigation measures would reduce impactto less than significant. No other sources of irreversible changesfrom environmental actions are forecast to occur.
Consumption of Non- Reneweb1e Resources
Consumptionof non- renewable resources would be the conversion of agricu1turallandto urban uses, consumptionof energy resources such as electricityand natura1 gas, and the loss of potentialmining resources,
The Draft EIR detennined that developmentof the projectsite would not result in a significantimpact on land that is considered suitable for agricu1tura1use. IN addition, the site is not identified as a mineral resource site and more suitable locations in the sUlTOundingregionsare currently beingused as mineral resource sites. Given the proximity to CSUSB, the site would not be a suitable for mining of mineral resources in the future.
The projectwilI consume non- renewable energy resources duringconstruction and operationsuch as petroleumproducts, construction materials, electricityand natura1 gas. Construction impactsto non- renewable would be short- term. Operationof the Projectis requiredto complywith mandatoI)' requirementsof Title 24 in regardto energy efficient building designand is requiredto utilize energy conservation measures duringoperationsof the facilities within the project.
Enlll_ taI - 1If1lJof Fact
UnIvw8lly HI/I8 SpedIfc Plan EIR
RndIng~~ Io""
PrvJet:t
CEQA requiresthat a Final EIR evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to a project, or to the location of the project, which: 1) are capableof avoidingor substantiallylesseningany significant adverse environmental impactassociated with the project; and 2) may be feasiblyaccomplishedin a successful manner within a reasonable periodof time consideringthe economic, environmental, social and technologicalfactors involved ( CEQA Guidelines ~ 15126, 6).
A Final EIR must only evaluate reasonable alternatives to a projectwhich could feasiblyattain most of the projectobjectivesand evaluate the comparativemerits of the alternatives ( CEQA Guidelines A 15126. 6; Sierra Club 1/. COU1ItyofNapa, 121 Cal. App. 4th1490 [ 2004]). In all cases, the consideration of alternatives is to be judged againsta rule of reason ( CEQA Guidelines A 15126. 6,).
The lead agency is not requiredto select the environmentallysuperioralternative identified in the Final EIR if the alternative does not providesubstantial advantagesover the ProposedProjectand: 1) throughthe impositionof mitigation measures the environmental effects of a projectcan be reduced to a less than significantlevel; or 2) there are social, economic, technologicalor other considerations which make the alternative infeasible.
The discussion of alternatives is requiredto include the "No project" alternative. CEQA further requiresthat the City identify an environmentallysuperioralternative. If the "No project" alternative is the environmentallysuperioralternative, an environmentallysuperioralternative must be identified from among the other a1tematives ( CEQA Guidelines, A 15126. 6.).
CEQA Guidelines A15126. 6 requiresa Final EIR to evaluate an alternative site when an alternative location would avoid or substantiallylessen significanteffects. The Final EIR considered five ( 5) alternatives that may reduce anticipatedimpactsto less than significant levels, or will improvethe acceptabilityor successful implementationof the residential improvements. A swnmary of Project Alternative Impactsare contained in Table 1.
The objectivesfor the projectas identified in the Final EIR and considered by the City are the following:
Include high-quality, high-densityhousingin a mixed- use settingto increase the diversityof housingopportunitiesin San Bernardino and providehousingoptionsthat are not currently available to local residents;
Use high-quality architecture and landscapingthat will maintain and enhance the aesthetic character of the City of San Bernardino;
Envlnlnm8llW FInd... of Fact
U111wta11yHIlla SpecIIfc ,.,." SR
F/ ndInfI Repdfl/l AIIJtmatIvN 10 tile
Propa.. d Project
Provide a " sustainable" communitythat encompasses construction as well as daily living in tenns of energy and water conservation, wise choice and use of building materials, reduction of air pollutants, safety, wa1kabilityand connectivityto surroundinguses, etc,; Provide ampleamenities includinga community clubhouse and extensive trail system to encourage healthyand enjoymentof open space,
Maximize roadwaysafetythroughthe provisionof multiple vehicular ingressand egress opportunitiesto the ProposedProject internal roadwaysand parkingfacilities and improvementsto the surroundingcirculation system;
Create increased new property and sales taxes annually, in perpetuity, for the City of San Bernardino, and increased annual property taxes for San Bernardino Countyand various other local government agencies; and
Increase property values in the City of San Bernardino and surroundingunincorporatedCounty areas.
6. 1 - No ProjectlNo Development Alternative
6. 1. 1 - Description
CEQA requiresthat a "No Project" a1ternative be evaluated comparedto the ProposedProject, The No Project alternative evaluates existingconditions on the site in the absence of the ProposedProject, Under this a1ternative, the projectsite would remain vacant would not be developedinto a residential community, Assumingthe project site remains vacant, all significantimpactswill be avoided.
However, any benefits of the projectrelated to providinghousingopportunitiesfor families as well as providing infrastructure in an area that is undergoingsurroundingresidential developmentwould not be realized.
6. 1. 2 - Finding
This alternative would eliminate any adverse environmental impactsassociated with developingthe project site into a residential community, It would also eliminate the significant impactsassociated with the project (i. e. air quality, population, housing, and SCAG consistency, transportation),
6. 1. 3 - Facta In Support of Finding
The No Project - No DevelopmentAlternative would eliminate the seven significantimpactsof the ProposedProjectrelative to construction and occupancy of the proposedUHSP. However, it would result in an indirect impactto future growth of the City. Furthennore, this alternative does not achieve any of the objectivesof the ProposedProject.
I
Envll' OlJlDMI8I Flnd/nfIS of Feet
Unlwtslly HIlls SpecH/c Plan ElR
Flm. ng Rill...... AIIlIrrIlIffws 10 the
1' raposCPruject
6. 2 - No Project - General Plan Development Alternative
6. 2. 1 - Description
Under this alternative, the site would be developedunder the approvedPHSP as outlined under the previousElR certified in 1993, which allowed 504 residential units.
6. 2. 2 - Finding
Under this alternative, there would be similar impactsassociated with the ProposedProject, as the land use designationis the similar for the existingGeneral Plan/ Specific Plan as the ProposedProject, Developingthe Projectarea for residential uses could have potential adverse impactson the adjacent residential development. It would potentiallyincrease impactsrelated to Aesthetics, Light, and Glare, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources Geology, Soils, and Seismicity, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Hydrologyand Water Quality,
6. 2. 3 - Facts In Support of Finding
The No Project - General Plan DevelopmentAlternative would have incrementallyfewer impacts related to 10ng-tenn occupancy of the project site since it would allow the developmentof approximately half the number of units comparedto the ProposedProject (504 vs. 980 or 48. 5%)1 However, the UHSP proposes aggressivewater and energy conservation measures that would substantiallyreduce the differences in these impacts. This alternative would have similar or increased short- term air quality impactsfrom gradingbut reduced construction- related impacts (i. e., fewer units). Long-tenn air quality impactsunder this alternative would be reduced to less than significant levels, This alternative may have increased impactson biologicaland cultural resources, and the City' s water distribution system if developmentwere to occur as outlined in the previouslyapproved Paradise Hills Specific Plan, This alternative would also create increased risks to project residents and residences related to wildand fues and geotechnicalconstraints. Growth inducement and impacts related to consistencywith SCAG growth policieswould be reduced to less than significantlevels under this alternative. This alternative does not meet the objectivesof the project to the same degree as the ProposedProjectin that the PHSP does not contain CUJTent water or energy conservation strategies,
6. 3 - Modified Specific Plan Alternative
6. 3. 1 - Description
To reduce air quality and growth inducement impacts, this alternative would be phasedand have more " mixed" uses ( i, e., 100, 000 square feet of commercial and other non- residential) on the site. It would also have fewer residential lots ( approximately700 units) but with higherdensities than those allowed under the UHSP to be able to cluster units more effectively. This alternative would likely requiremany buildingswith 3-4 stories rather than 2- 3 story buildingsunder the current UHSP. The CUJTent " clubhouse" area would become more of a community center under this alternative, with taller buildingsand approximately100, 000 square feet of a mixture of commercial and professionaloffice uses, Each residential planningarea would be largeroverall than under the UHSP, and each would be En"""'......"" FlndIrIp of F8ct
HI" SpecIIIc Plan E1R
FIn...." ~ 1IfI AJ/ IJIn."". 1o the
ProposN ProJet:I
built on padsthat could be more isolated in tenns of grading. At present, the land plan requiresthat the entire developmentarea ( approximately 170 acres) be gradedat one time to balance earthwork onsite ( i. e" no substantial import of soil onto or export of soil off of the site), Balancingearthwork within a developmentarea is an importantconsideration of projectdesign, not only for cost, but to minimize the import or export of soil from the site, which could significantly increase short- tenn traffic, noise, and air quality impacts. The only feasible way to accomplishthis balancingwith smaller planningareas would be to " pair" two planningareas, one upslopeand one downslope, and use the cut material from the upper area to create a padfor the lower area. This would necessarily create a more terraced look to the development,
The road system would be similar to that of the proposedUHSP but there would be more open space between the PlanningAreas and the projectwould be built over a longerperiodof time to reduce short- tenn construction impacts,
6. 3. 2. Finding
Under this alternative, impactsfrom residential developmentwoud be either equivalentor reduced; however, the alternative would not reduce environmental impactsin regardto Air Quality and Transportation,
6. 3. 3. Facta in Support of Finding
The Modified Specific Plan Alternative would have incrementallyfewer impactsrelated to long-tenn occupancy of the project site since it would allow the developmentof fewer residential units comparedto the ProposedProject (700 vs. 980 or 40 percent less), However, the addition of commercial and office uses under this " mixed use" plan would generate a greater amount of traffic than the ProposedProject, especiallyduring peakperiods. The mixed uses would helpreduce the number and lengthof vehicular trips off of the projectsite, This alternative could reduce short- term ( daily) air quality impactsfrom gradingand construction to less than significant levels, however, it would extend those impactsover a longerperiod of time if developmentphasingwere increased ( i. e., from 5 to 10 years), Long-term air quality impactsunder this alternative would increased by addingnon- residential uses, and would still exceed significance thresholds.
This alternative would have equivalentimpactson biological and cultural resources, and would likely create similar risks to projectresidents and residences ( and businesses and employees) related to wildand fires and geotechnicalconstraints, Growth inducement and impactsrelated to consistency with SCAG growthpolicieswould be reduced to less than significant levels under this alternative.
This alternative would meet some of the objectivesof the project, Em/t"""".,. w RIIdtngs of F/ Jct
Un,.,.,..", HIls SpecIIIc Plan E1R
Rrdl/fllfeprdllfl-"' Io lite
Propoad ProJect
6. 4 - EducationallnatitutlonfTechnology Park Alternative
6. 4. 1 - Description
The University District Specific Plan identifies the generalarea for technologypark uses, which would be supportedand will benefit from research at the University , To reduce air quality and growth inducement impacts, this alternative would eliminate residential uses and placean educational institution and related technologyuses in this area to support CSUSB. These uses could be in conjunctionwith or in support of the Cal State San Bernardino campus. The proposedalternative would house approximately2, 75 million square feet of office space, industrial use, and educational research for information technologies. Based on discussions with the San Bernardino City Unified School District, this plandoes not envision K- 12 facilities at this time, The road system would be similar to that of the proposedUHSP but there might be more open space between various buildings or uses, and theymay be built over a longerperiodof time to reduce short- term construction impacts.
6. 4. 2 - Finding
Long-term air quality impactswould not be reduced as the educational institutionltechnologypark uses would generate more vehicular peakhour traffic. However, additional impactswould be similar or reduced comparedto the ProposedProject.
6. 4. 3. Facts In Support of Finding
The Educational Institutionffechno10gyPark Altemative would producevery different impacts comparedto those from the residential uses of the ProposedProject. It would likely generate more peakhour traffic, but non- peakhour traffic may be substantiallyless that that of the ProposedProject.
The addition of educational and institutional uses under this plan would likely not reduce short- term daily) air quality impactsfrom grading and construction to less than significantlevels due to the need to gradethe entire area for efficient site planning, Long-term air quality impactsunder this alternative would probablybe higherthan those producedby residential uses, and would still exceed significancethresholds.
This alternative would have equivalent impactson biologicaland cultural resources, and would likely create similar risks to project employeesand students rather than to projectresidents and residences in terms of wildand fires and geotechnicalconstraints. Growth inducement and impactsrelated to consistencywith SCAG growth policies would be reduced to less than significantlevels under this alternative. Although the alternative projectmay meet certain objectivesto the same degreeas the ProposedProject, it does not meet all the specificprojectobjectivesalreadyoutlined in the approved PHSP.
6. 5 - Alternative Sites
6. 5. 1 - Description
CEQA requiresthe evaluation of alternative sites if movingthe ProposedProjectto another site would eliminate or avoid one or more significantimpactsof the ProposedProject. The impactsto both short- term and long-term air quality would occur regardlessof location, The significantimpact 1' "
Env# 1DIIIJ.. IaI FIndInp ofFect
HIII8 SpecIlJcPlan EIR
RndhItIIhpIl''' lI~ fa / he
Frvpoeed PrlJject
to freewaytraffic might be reduced by a different location, but the 1-215 Freewayexperiencessimilar levels of congestionfrom its intersection with the 1-15 four miles to the north down to its intersection with the 1- 10 Freewaysix miles to the south
6. 5. 2. Finding
It is not likely that an aItemative location would eliminate the significanttraffic impactof the ProposedProject. Unless the UHSP projectcan be buih with mixed uses or adjacentto a transit center ( no sites of this size available near the San Bernardino center), the ProposedProjectcannot be made consistent with the growthprojectionsor policiesof SCAG.
6. 5. 3. Facts In Support of Finding
The ahernative location would not eliminate the significant impactsof the ProposedProject. Based on discussions with City staff and a survey of the surroundingarea, there are no other vacant sites of this size in the northern portion of San Bernardino. This analysisdemonstrates that impactsof developmentas proposedunder the UHSP on an alternative site would be equivalentto those of the UHSP developedon this location. Therefore, an ahernative site is not a feasible or viable option for this project
EnwrorJl/flll/ al F/ ndInf1aof F8ct
UnIvwslty HIlls SpecIlJc Plan EIR
RndhItI "-'*"'~ fa / he
Frvpoeed PrlJject
Table 1: Summary of Project Altematlva ' mpacta
Em.1ror~,nrnt ProtIa.... No, Prvjeot-Ho::.:: r::.; IfodIIIM ~ U'. IJIIllI ]at.....;' ProI' i!t ~'" ' · .,.. , SIl.......... ' fTr ...,,.... 1III,m..a~.,'..... .~
Aesthetics, Less than No impact Somewhat i Equivalentbut Increased but I...I Ligb~ and significant i increased i more non- than significantGlare' I --- J residential uses ! __ J,I Air Quality ---! SlllDifkut i No impact j'Less Slgnithanll..
nt i Less than
I " SillDlflcant I
Iii significantI =:
on
I S11lD11I..nt : No impact i Slgnifkut i Sl1lD11Icut i
I Biological ILess than
1:0 impact i ~:=~ t- It: i:.., mixed ~+
LeSSiIi8D---- 1
E~ r:~:::'~ 'NNoO: ~:-In'~
banudtl...--+-~
thth:anM: J~Less:-than~-----
jiGeology, Soils, ILess than _...-'
I
and Seismic' Significant than si - cant si&1>!f! cant significant __Hazards and Less than No impact IReduced but I...
ILess than , Significant
i HaDrdous Significant ~ than significant significant ' Inusecreasedbam181i~~ -
LHydrologyand Less than No impact Increased but less I Less than - - Less tbaD---- It:-;u~: ~::
t
No impact ~ ;~
fi~
f~=~ ut leSS
I ~~~:~f-Noise-- I ~:: t ----
i- No impBCt ~:;;:::" d I... - ~ =~-: I= tIDCfeasedbUll...L Si . cant ~ l than significant _ filia.. significant . than significant _ I, Population. Slgnlllcant No impact I Less than ! Less than I Less than Housing, and Growth Inducing '
I
significant
I
significant i significantSCAG
1_& SCAG policies
l_<;:onsistency + f-==: ..I Public Services Less than No impact Reduced but lesS-~ educed but....i- Mixed but I... 1'_
and Recreation Si' cant than si ' cant than significant __ Ithan significant'l Tnmsportation S.... III..nt , No impact Slgnlllcut Slgnlllcut i Slplflcut I
and_~ ilwlati:", ~ con~: _ I Fwy congestion Local traffic ,& I Local traffic _& I Agriculture and Less than
LNo impact -- - -!- Less ttWi------ t-~ :,,~!'!!... . ..~ :.:- on Mineral Significant I I, significant Isignificant . significantResources ftilitysYstemsI Less thantNo impact iReduced------ j Reduce<t---- + Reduced-- - i I--MeetSProjeclI ~~ifican!-- 1--NO -- - ! NoItOsame--+ NoltO-_-- tNo----- iIQbiectiv~__ L______ 1 _____.. lde~___. ld~____ ! ... _.. _~ ..._.. 1 En""""'-' IaI R..,.. of F8ct
HIlla SpecItrcPlan EIR Rndlng RltJ ...... AIflImdtIw fa /he Frvpoeed PrlJject
6. 5. 4. Finding
The Final EIR detennined that the ProposedProjectwould produce significant impactsto Air Quality, Population, Housingand SCAG Consistency, and Transportation, The Final EIR also determined the project could potentiallycontribute to cumulativelyconsiderable impactsto Air Quality and Transportstion; however, the recommended measures do not reduce impactsunder the less than significantthreshold. All five alternatives reduce at least one of the three significantand unavoidable impacts; however, theycreate potentialland use compatibilityconflicts between the alternate uses and the General Plan. In addition the alternatives would not fully implementthe project's objectivesof providing an active residential communitywith connectivityto the existingresidential uses. Since none of the alternatives are considered environmentsIlysuperiorto the ProposedProject, theyare rejectedin favor of the ProposedProject.
6. 5. 5. Facts In Support of Finding
None of the aItematives achieve the objectivesof the projectto the same degreeas the Proposed Project. The environmentsI effects of each alternative in relation to the ProposedProjectare summarized in Table 1.
EnIllronmMIaI RIIfI1nt1aof F8ct
HIlls SpecIIIc""" ElR SIlIIlt._ t of OvwrIdIng Cona/deI-' S~' 1': fta~_^:,_'-:--" TION8ctlii~ fi """" V' lf~"'",," ~_"'" CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 ( a) states that:
CEQA requiresthe decision- makingagency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a ProposedProjectagainstits unavoidable environmental risks when determiningwhether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a ProposedProjectoutweighthe unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered " acceptable."
Where the decision of the public agency allows the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the Final EIR but are not avoided or substantiallylessened the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR and/ or other information in the record. This ststement may be necessary if the agency also makes a fmdingunder Section I 509 I ( a)(2) or 15091 ( a)(3).
As identified above, the City of San Bernardino fmds that the projectdoes producesignificantand un- mitigable impactsto Air Quality, Population, Housingand SCAG Consistency, and Transportation, and, therefore, requires a Statement of OverridingConsiderations. The findingshave also analyzeda number of alternatives to determine whether they are reasonable and feasible alternatives to the proposedaction and whether they might reduce or eliminate the significantimpacts of the proposedaction. The City of San Bernardino finds that the projectwill provide specific economic, social, and other benefits that outweighthe unavoidable adverse environmental impactsof the project, such that those impactsare considered acceptable. Each of the benefits of the Proposed Projectcited is herebydetermined to be, in itself and independentlyof the other projectbenefits, a basis for overridingall significantadverse environmental impactsidentified in the EIR and in these fmdings. These benefits are as follows:
I, The Paradise Hills project land plan proposedextensive gradingand developmentwithin the middle and upper reaches of BadgerCanyon, however, that projectwas never built. In addition to the General Plan designatingthe project site as a Specific Plan, the Land Use Plan in the City' s Land Use Element designatesthe lower ( southern) portion of the site for Residential Suburban RS) uses with a densityof 4.5 units per acre ( 7, 200 square foot lots), and the northern portion i. e" north of the San Andreas Fault and in the middle and upper reaches of BadgerCanyon) for Residential Low ( RL) developmentat 3.1 units per acre. The UniversityHills Specific plan addresses the steep slopessurroundingBadgerCreek and designatedit as OpenSpace (OS). 2, The northern portions of the site are mitigatedwith a Hillside ManagementOverlayas well as a Foothill Fire Zone Overlayto helpto minimize the spreadof wildfires, property damage, and reduce the risk to the public health and safety.
l,-- .
En""",."..", FImIIngs of F8ct
1Jn'--"Y HI" SpecIlJc ,.,." EIR SIlt"-nent ofOvwrldlntl ConBidel-'
3. The University Hills Specific Plan replacesthe Paradise Hills Specific Plan and includes a new land use map, zoningdistricts, developmentstandards, designguidelines, and infrastructure requirementsfor the developmentof the site. The following elements of the Specific Plan promote the land use goalsof the General Plan:
Placinghousingin close proximity to CSUSB.
Accommodatingup to 60 faculty units, which will create a direct and long-1asting relationshipwith CSUSB.
Orientingthe developmentand clubhouse toward CSUSB.
Allowing CSUSB to share conference facilities in the clubhouse.
Dedicatingapproximately235 acres of permanent open space to CSUSB as a " land laboratory."
Carefully weavingUniversityHills into its physicalsurroundingsby clustering developmenton the lower slopesand away from physicalhazards, preservingsignificant drainageways.
4. The Project allows residents the opportunityto live, work, and playin the immediate area. This reduces the need to use the automobile, which in turn reduces congestion, improvesair quality, fosters walking, and improvesoverall health and wellness.
5. University Hills is a significantopportunity for the City to achieve many goalsdescribed in its General Plan, such as providing housingtypes suitable for a varietyof lifestylesand incomes.
University Hills accommodates a range of living opportunitiesincludingestate, single-family detached, small- lot detached, cluster court homes, townhomes, and stacked flats, In addition, University Hills provides fOur acres that will be dedicated to CSUSB and can accommodate up to 60 units for exclusive use as facultyhousing.
6. University Hills accommodates 980 residences situated in several neighborllOods, which are separatedby open space corridors, drainageways, and slopedareas and interconnected by a series of trails and roadways,
7. Developmentis focused onto approximately170 acres, or 42 percent of the totsI site and is mainly concentrated south of the South Branch of the San Andreas Fault on the lower portions of the site where the average slopesare generallybelow 15 percent. North of the South Branch of the San Andreas Fault, approximately235 acres, or 58 percent of the site, remains undevelopedand is designatedas permanent open space. It will be dedicated to CSUSB for use as a laboratoryto studythe local biology, habitat, and geology. The compact designlimits the development footprintso that open lands are maximized; natural drainageways are maintained and w
En"',.""".",., FInd/nrIS ofF8ct
HI" SpecIlJc,."". EIR StiI,.,-. tofo.. mav. IV ~
incorporatedinto the designof the project as open space amenities; landscapingand hazards are avoided or mitigated.
8, The land laboratorycontains a variety of native plant species; natural drainages, includingBadger Creek; and the San Andreas Fault system. The proximityof these features to the CSUSB campus provides uniqueeducational opportunities. It is envisioned that the biology, geology, geography and environmental studies, and science education departmentswould be the primaryusers of the land laboratory, but it could be used by other disciplines.
9. Uuiversity Hills is designedand programmedto create a long-term and synergisticrelationship with CSUSB. In particular, UniversityHills directlyrespondsto input from the University throughthe provision ofland for faculty housing, the 235-acre land laboratory, pathways, bike lanes, and the California Walnut Grove Linear Park.
10. UniversityHills is designedto minimhe the impactsofIight inlrusion and spillover. CSUSB is contemp1atingbuildingan observatoryon BadgerHill immediatelyadjacentto UniversityHills.
To helppreserve a dark nighttime sky, this SpecificPlan includes strict controls on the type and designof lighting.
II. Uuiversity Hills is also located within the University District SpecificPlan, which was approved November 1, 2005, The UniversityDistrict SpecificPlan acts as the umbrella document for a 6, 375- acre area, of which UniversityHills is a part. The intent of the UniversityDistrict Specific Plan is to " lay a foundation for the integrationof the University into the surroundingcommunity."The UniversityDistrict SpecificPlan focuses on creating:
Pedestrian-oriented developments
A seamless connection between the communityand University Integrated cwriculum with CSUSB
A '' university town"
Enhanced link to regional recreation
An efficient vehicular and pedestriansystem
A range of housingtypes to accommodate a wide range of population, includingUniversity facultyand staff.
Qualityhousing
The University District SpecificPlan assumed the Paradise Hills Specific Plan in its land use planand was amended to reflect the land plan for UniversityHills in conjunctionwith this project.
EXHffiIT D
General Plan Amendment 08- 03 consists of the following changes:
1. Amendment of the Land Use Map to changethe land use designationswithin the project area to:
LargeLot Detached ( LLD)
Standard Lot Detached ( SLD)
Mixed Detached/ Attached Residential ( MDA)
Attached Residential ( A)
Parks (P)
Clubhouse
Internal Slopes
OpenSpace
Consistent with Figure2- 9 of the University Hills SpecificPlan.
2. Amendment of the University District SpecificPlan to changethe following:
University District SP Fi2Ure Chanlle Consistent
With University Hills
Snecific Plan Filrure
Figure2- 9
Figure3- 1
Figure 3- 11
Figure2- 6 ( OpenSpace)
Figure 7 Land Use Plan
Figure 8 Vehicular Circulation Plan
Figure9 Trails Plan
Figure10 Open SpacePlan
I......
Ii
1\I:
wt.,
J
EXHIBIT F
Large-Format Map)
DEVB. OPER / APPLICANT
INLAND COMMUNITIES CORP,
1801 AVENUE OF THE STARS, SUITE 1205
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
PH: ( 310) 277- 7551
CONTACT: MOHAMAD YOUNES
ARED UNDER THE SUPrRIASION OF:
Engineering
Planning
Surveying
Construction Services
7 !Jl' J$DAlE'"
Rea D#'. DlJ/.JO,It>>
10370 Hemet sl Suite 200
Riverside. CA 92503
Phone: ( 951) 358- 1433
Fox: ( 951) 358- 1434
MASTER PARCEL MAP NO. 18969
stBJIVISION NO.
PAGE t OF 5
OWItER
FONTANA CORNERS III
A LIMITED CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP
1801 AVENUE at THE STARS, SUITE 1205
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
PH: ( 310) 277- 7551
CONTACT: JIM AHMAD
RflfSION
NO. DAlE' ~ 7ION BY
III
EXHIBIT G
Large-Format Map)
DEVELOPER / APPLICANT
INLAND COMMUNITIES CORP.
1801 AVENUE OF THE STARS, SUITE 1205
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
PH: ( 310) 277- 7551
CONTACT: MOHAMAD YOUNES
PREPARED IJNDCR THE: SlJl'ERVISION OF':
k/.'.ABBAS I' AIIlZ
1I.c. E./ IIo. H~
PREPARED Bn
i ( n / 0/
1MIE'
11m DIP. 1lIJ/.J01l>>
0310 Hemet st Suite 200
Riverside, CA 92503
Phone: ( 95/) 358- 1433
Fax: ( 951) 358- 1434
J
Engineering
Planning
Surveying
Construction Services
TENTAnVE TRACT MAP NO. 1B696
SI. E1DMSIONNO.
PAGE 1 OF 1
OWlloER
FONTANA CORNERS 11/
A LIMITED CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP
1801 A VENUE OF THE STARS, SUITE 1205
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
PH: ( 310) 277- 7551
CONTACT: JIM AHMAD
RE1AS1ON
NO. 1M IE' 0ESafIPT/ON BY
b.
EXHIBIT H
III
Large-Format Map)
DEVELOPER / APPLICANT
INLAND COMMUNITIES CORP,
1801 AVENUE OF THE STARS, SUITE 1205
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
PH: ( 310) 277- 7551
CONTACT: MOHAMAD YOUNES
PREPARED UNDER THC StJPER'tfSIONOF:
AMUFA
R.CL No. 64]J4
PREPARED B)!
Engineering
Planning
Surveying
Construction Services
q/ l1/ of
DAlE'
Rm CXP. t1lf,/.JO/llII
10370 Hemel sl Suile 200
RiverSide, CA 92503
Phone: ( 951) 358- 1433
Fax: ( 951) 358- 1434
TENTATM TRACT MAP NO. 18UO
SU1DfVISION NO.
PAGE 1 OF 1
NO.
OWllER
FONTANA CORNERS 1/1
A LIMITED CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP
1801 A VENUE OF THE STARS, SUITE 1205
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
PH: ( 310) 277- 7551
CONTACT: JIM AHMAD
RE1IISION
DESCRIPTIONDAlE' BY
b.