Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06.B- Community Development 0 RESOLUTION(ID #2256) DOC ID: 2256 G CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO—REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ( Public Hearing From: Margo Wheeler M/CC Meeting Date: 02/19/2013 Prepared by: Tony Stewart, Dept: Community Development Ward(s): 5 Subject: Resolution of the City of San Bernardino Adopting the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report, Adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, Adopting the Spring Trails Specific Plan No. SP10- 01, Adopting General Plan Amendment No. GPA 02-09 Including Pre-Annexation of the Spring Trails Project Site, Approving Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 15576 (Subdivision No. 02-09) and Authorizing Execution of Development Agreement No. 11-01 for the Spring Trails Project; and an Ordinance Adopting Development Code Amendment No. DCA 12-10 to Add the Spring Trails Specific Plan to the List of Special Purpose Districts and Recognize the Specific Plan's Development Standards. (FIRST READING) Financial Impact: The project site is currently located in the County of San Bernardino's jurisdiction,within the City's sphere of influence. Therefore, the site, and adjacent 26.4 acres,must be annexed into the City. Should annexation occur, the City will be responsible for maintaining the infrastructure associated with the newly annexed area(streets, water and sewer lines, etc.), as well as provide serivices (police, fire, parks),which may have a direct impact upon the General Fund. Mayor to open the hearing. . . Motion: 1) Close the hearing; and adopt the resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2009111086); adopting the Mitigation Monitoring/ Reporting Program; adopting the Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations; and approving the Spring Trails Specific Plan No. 10-01, General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 02-09, Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 15576 (Subdivision No. 02-09), and authorizing execution of Development Agreement (DA)No. 11-01 based on the findings of fact in the staff report and subject to the Conditions of Approval; and 2) Lay over for final adoption the ordinance approving Development Code (DCA) No. 12-10. Synopsis of Previous Council Action: None. Background: PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant requests approval of the following: Updated:2/14/2013 by Henry Empeno Jr.G Packet Pg. 108 2256 Specific Plan (SP) No. 10-01 under the authority of Development Code Chapter 19.64, to establish development standards specifically for development of 304 single-family lots, 107.8 acres of open space, hiking trails, roadways and three detention basins on the 352.8-acre project site formerly known as the Martin Ranch(Attachment 9); General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 02-09 under the authority of Development Code Chapter 19.50, to establish the Spring Trails Specific Plan as the pre-zoning for the 352.8-acre project site and establish the Residential Estate (RE) land use district for the additional 26.4-acre annexation area; Development Code Amendment(DCA)No. 12-10 under the authority of Development Code Chapter 19.42, to add the Spring Trails Specific Plan to the list of Special Purpose Districts contained within Section 19.10.030,to recognize the Spring Trails Specific Plan and its unique development standards (minimum lot size, hillside standards, fire protection standards) as deviations from the typical Development Code standards and as standards that are applicable only to the Spring Trails Specific Plan project area. Tentative Tract Map No. 15576 (Subdivision No. 11-01)under the authority of Development Code Chapter 19.66 to subdivide the 352.8-acre site into 304 single-family lots plus parcels for common open space, water tanks, etc.(Attachment 5); and Development Agreement (DA) No. 11-01 (Attachment 10) under the authority of Development Code Chapter 19.40, to set forth binding development agreements between the City and the applicant. The Spring Trails project site is currently within the City of San Bernardino's unincorporated sphere of influence ("SOI") and is proposed to be annexed into the City. The project also includes the annexation of an adjacent 26.4-acre area consisting of six parcels owned by various property owners. The area is adjacent to the west of the project site along Meyers Road and currently has four occupied, multiple-acre lots. It is being included in the annexation element of the project to prevent the creation of a county"island" within the City of San Bernardino, which would not be allowed under regulations governing the Local Agency Formation Commission of San Bernardino County. A land use proposal has not been submitted for this 26.4-acre area, and it is not owned or otherwise under the control of the applicant. For these reasons, no development would occur on these parcels as part of this project. The Spring Trails Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map No. 15576 will accommodate 304 single-family detached units (303 new units and one existing residence), separated by open space corridors, drainage ways, roadways, and sloped areas. A system of pathways will connect the residences with neighborhood parks and natural open spaces. Development will be focused onto approximately 241.5 acres, or about 68 percent of the total site, and will include nine acres of parks and 125.1 acres of internal slopes and fuel modification zones. The remaining 32 percent of Spring Trails will be preserved as natural open space. If the project is approved by the City, the applicant will then submit an application with the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to annex the subject 352.8-acre Spring Trails Specific Plan project area and the adjacent 26.4-acre area to the immediate southwest of the site Updated:2/14/2013 by Henry Empeno Jr.G Packet Pg. 109 2256 into the City. Further, should the project be approved and annexed, the applicant would come back at a later date to process a Development Permit for the design of the on-site improvements �.� (residential units,parks),per the standards set forth in the Spring Trails Specific Plan. It is anticipated that the project will be phased, with complete buildout anticipated to occur within approximately three years from the start of construction. This phasing, however, is based on a judgment of future planning and market factors, and therefore is subject to change. The project, however,would be developed in the following sequence: Phase l (approximately one year) • Offsite grading and improvement of the primary and secondary access roads; • Offsite backbone utilities (water, sewer, drainage, etc.); • Onsite backbone utilities; • Rough grading of Spring Trails Project site (approximately 200 acres) for development of residential lots,roadways, trails, detention basins, and parks; and • Detention basins improved. Phase 2 (approximately 2.5 years) • Residential development would sequence from the south and continue northward. Infrastructure, roadways, fuel modification zones, parks, and landscaping necessary to serve residential development would be phased accordingly; • Improvements in this phase would generally follow the sequence of water improvements, which are divided into three pressure zones; • Sewer, storm drain, dry utilities, and roadway paving would be sequenced with improvements in each water pressure zone; • Trails,parks, and common area landscaping in each pressure zone would occur prior to or concurrent with issuance of residential building permits for that pressure zone; and • Fuel modification zones necessary to support the development in each zone would occur as noted in the Fire Protection Plan. SETTING/SITE CHARACTERISTICS The project site is located in the unincorporated area of Verdemont in San Bernardino County, north of Meyers Road and northwest of the northerly terminus of Little League Drive, in the City's sphere of influence. The site is surrounded by natural open space on all sides, with rural, single-family properties also located to the south and west. The site is located on slopes ranging from nearly flat to over 30 percent. Cable Creek traverses the north-central portion of the site, and the Meyers Canyon drainage traverses the center of the site. Cable Creek and its northern tributary provide a year-round source of water and a wildlife corridor across the site. Branches of the San Andreas Fault traverse the southern and northern portions of the site. A 1 l2kv electric transmission line traverses the entire western portion of the site in a north-south direction. Currently, there is no infrastructure serving the site. Primary access is proposed from an extension of Verdemont Drive to Little League Drive. Required secondary access is proposed via a new right-of-way that will run from the southwestern portion of the site southward to ('a.r Interstate 215. The applicant has not acquired all of the properties for either the primary or secondary access routes to the site. This issue is discussed in detail within the analysis, below. Updated:2/14/2013 by Henry Empeno Jr.G I Packet Pg. 110 2256 O As the project is currently located in an unincorporated part of San Bernardino County, it is subject to the County's zoning. Additionally, since the site is located within the City's sphere of influence, it is designated by the City's General Plan as being Residential Estate (RE - one-acre minimum lot size) and within the Verdemont Heights Area Plan, which calls for large-lot single- family residences and a rural character. Table 1, below, depicts the existing land use and General Plan land use designations of the site and surrounding properties. TABLE 1: SITE AND SURROUNDING LAND USES LOCATION LAND USE GENERAL PLAN Subject Site Natural open space and a single- Existing County: Resource family residence Conservation(RC) and Rural Living, 5-ac. min. Lot size(RL-5) Existing City: Verdemont Heights Area Plan Proposed City: Spring Trails Specific Plan Overlay and maintain Residential Estate(RE) (for the 26.4 acres located outside of the Spring Trails Specific Plan area North Natural open space RC and RL-5 Count South Single-family residences and Single Residential, 1-ac. min. Lot natural open space size(RS-1) (County), and RE (City) East Natural open space RC (County), and Residential Low and RE (City) West Single-family residence and RL-5 (County), and RE(City) natural open s ace PROJECT HISTORYBACKGROUND To 1917 - The property was owned by the Martin family and known as Cable Canyon Ranch. 1943 - The U.S. Government used a portion of the property as a small arms target range in conjunction with the nearby Camp Ono. May 1, 1990 -Montecito Equities (applicant) purchased property. September 1996 The project site was placed in the City of San Bernardino's Sphere of Influence. �) 1996 -Applications for the "Martin Ranch"Project entitlements were first submitted to the City V Updated:2/14/2013 by Henry Empeno Jr.G Packet Pg. 111 2256 1998 - A Notice of Preparation ("NOP") for an EIR was first released; and a public scoping meeting was held in April 1998. However, the 1998 Draft EIR was rejected by the City's Planning Department due to certain deficiencies. December 2, 2002 - The formal application for GPA 02-09 and TTM 15576 (Sub. No. 02-09) is filed. December 2002 - A revised draft EIR was released; comments to the 2002 draft EIR focused on nearby neighbors' concerns regarding traffic, and based on these comments, a decision was made to revise and recirculate the EIR. The City and applicant agreed to reform the plan to create an access point along a different route than Meyers Road. October 2003 - While the applicant and the City were negotiating a new route for the primary access point to the project site, a major fire burned through the project site, destroying the vegetation. Due to the changes in the road and the project site, the applicant and the City agreed to prepare a new Draft EIR. June 10, 2004 - A Notice of Preparation (NOP) reflecting the revised project was issued, and a public scoping meeting was held on June 30, 2004. The 2004 draft EIR addressed traffic/access input, as well as other issues necessitated by the passage of time and change in the development landscape, but was never circulated for public review. The necessary approvals contemplated in 2004 included: 1) a General Plan Amendment to allow the pre-zoning of the project site and adjacent county property, establishment of a Hillside Management Overlay District, and to allow lot size averaging in the Residential Low District; 2) pre-zoning of the Martin Ranch property to a Planned Residential Development District; 3) annexation by the City; 4) creation of a Hillside Management Overlay District ("HMOD"); and 5) a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the project site into approximately 359 lots including 330 single-family residential lots. 2005 - The necessary project approvals were revised to include pre-zoning the Martin Ranch property to Residential Low; pre-zoning the "County island"property to Residential Estate; and a Development Code Amendment to allow lot size averaging in the HMOD. A Development Agreement with the City was also proposed to control the development of the Martin Ranch site, with a land use plan, design guidelines, development standards, and a description of off-site improvements, as well as a reimbursement provision for costs of offsite improvements advanced by the developer that exceeded the fair share contribution of the project. A new Draft EIR was prepared in 2005 to address significant changes to the project, including alternate access roads; change in lot sizes; new project objectives; and increased traffic improvement costs. In sum, five versions of a screencheck DEIR were prepared. September 1, 2005 - the San Bernardino Design and Environmental Review Committee (D/ERC) reviewed the Martin Ranch Draft EIR, and determined that additional information and analyses would be necessary before the Draft EIR could be released for public review. July 17, 2006 - The City released a completed Draft EIR. Significant issues were raised within ���•✓✓r' comment letters received, and the City and applicant decided to direct that a revised Draft EIR be Updated:2/14/2013 by Henry Empeno Jr.G 2256 prepared to address these comments, primarily related to noise, air quality, biological resources, geotechnical and fire safety issues. 2007 - Work continued on a revised Draft EIR, but another fire on the site occurred in 2007, necessitating further project changes. June 11, 2009 -The D/ERC released the preparation of the Initial Study for review. November 19, 2009 - The project was reviewed again by the D/ERC, which recommended that a new NOP for an EIR be released for public review. November 24, 2009 - The NOP was released for public review, along with an Initial Study. December 14, 2009 -A public scoping session was held to obtain comments on the Initial Study. March 3, 2010 -The formal application for SP 10-01 is filed. July 14, 2011 -Due to significant technical issues, which needed to be addressed, the D/ERC did not approve the release of the revised Draft EIR until this date. July 26, 2011 - Community meeting to discuss the project and the Draft EIR public review period. i July 29, 2011 through September 12, 2011 - The 45-day public review period for the revised Draft EIR occurred. Comments from the following agencies and organizations were received: California Department of Fish and Game; California Department of Transportation; California Regional Water Quality Control Board; Center for Biological Diversity; County of San Bernardino Department of Public Works; Department of the Army Corps of Engineers; Devore Rural Protection Association; Local Agency Formation Commission; Native American Heritage Commission; Omnitrans; San Bernardino Audubon Society; and the South Coast Air Quality Management District; plus comment letters from 40 individuals, many of whom reside or own property in the project vicinity. September 5, 2011 (approx. date) - a non-City-sponsored community meeting was held to discuss the project impacts. October 10,2011 - The formal application for DA 11-01 is filed. May 3, 2012 - The D/ERC met on the revised project and recommended that the project and EIR be forwarded to the Planning Commission for action. October 18, 2012 - A community meeting was held to present the latest version of the proposed project to the public. October 29, 2012 -The formal application for DCA 12-10 is filed. November 1, 5 and 6, 2012 -Revised exhibits and documents were submitted. Updated:2/14/2013 by Henry Empeno Jr.G Packet Pg. 113 2256 O November 14, 2012 - the Planning Commission held a public hearing on all of the Spring Trails project components except for DA 11-01, which the applicant requested to be continued. After considering the Facts and Findings in the staff report and hearing public testimony, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the project to the Mayor and Common Council by a vote of 7:0 (with one abstention). January 23, 2013 - the Planning Commission held a public hearing on DA 11-01, which the applicant requested to be continued from the November 14, 2012 Planning Commission meeting. After considering the Facts and Findings in the staff report and hearing public testimony, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the DA to the Mayor and Common Council by a vote of 5:2. Analysis: This analysis focuses on the following key issues regarding the Spring Trails project: • Deviation from Development Code standards (minimum lot size and Foothill Fire and Hillside Management Overlay District standards); • The site is located in a Very High Hazard Severity Zone for fires; © • The site is located in a high wind area; • The San Andreas Fault traverses the site in several locations; • Water drainage courses, including Cable Creek and its tributaries, traverse the site in several locations; • The drainage courses and adjacent forest lands are important habitat areas; and • Infrastructure, including primary and secondary access to the site, is not currently provided. These items are discussed in more detail below. As noted above, the northernmost 160 (approximate) acres of the Spring Trails Specific Plan area is currently designated by the San Bernardino General Plan as Resource Conservation (RC) and the remainder is designated as Rural Living, five-acre min. Lot size (RL-5), while the San Bernardino General Plan designates the entire project area as Residential Estate (RE), which calls for a minimum lot size of one acre and as being within the Verdemont Estates portion of the Verdemont Heights Area Plan. The Specific Plan proposes an average lot size of 29,000 square feet. The largest lots are proposed on the northern portion and upper elevations of the site, and the largest lot will measure 18.3 acres. The smallest lots are proposed on the lower elevations © and southern portion of the project, and the smallest lot will measure 10,801 square feet. In many instances the legal lots will extend beyond the buildable area and include graded slopes, fuel modification zones, steep slopes, and open spaces. It should be noted that while the Updated:2/14/2013 by Henry Empeno Jr.G I Packet Pg. 114 s.e 2256 minimum one-acre lot size will not be provided for each lot, the proposed lots are clustered into the least steep portions of the site, resulting in minimum lot sizes under one acre. However, on a gross basis, the project still complies with the density restrictions of the Residential Estate land use category in that 307 units are proposed on 352.8 acres. Tentative Tract Map No. 15576 is proposed to subdivide the Spring Trails project site into the 304 single-family residential lots and the lots for parks and open space and water tanks within the project area. The project as proposed will not comply with the Development Code regarding minimum lot size and standards pertaining to the Foothill Fire and Hillside Modification Overlay District. Therefore,the Spring Trails Specific Plan is proposed to establish development standards that are unique to the project area, rather than strictly adhering to the standards set forth in the San Bernardino Development Code. In addition to establishing a minimum lot size of 10,081 square feet for the project area (vs. The current minimum size requirement of one acre), the Spring Trails Specific Plan also proposes standards that deviate from, although generally maintain the intent of, the Foothill Fire Zones (FF) Overlay and Hillside Management (HMOD) Overlay Districts. Table 2, below, provides a comparison of the Specific Plan's proposed standards with the Development Code's standards. TABLE 2: COMPARISON OF SPRING TRAILS SPECIFIC PLAN WITH HMOD SBDC Requirement(FF and HMOD Spring Trails Specific Plan Overlay Districts ® The maximum density on any parcel shall not The average slope of the project, calculated exceed: Average Slope(%) -Units Per Acre 0 from Lot 1 to Lot 296 is 11.6%. Per the to 15 - 2.0 15+to 25 - 1.0 25+to 30 -0.5 30+ HMOD,this allows a density of up to 2 and above- 0.1 DU/Ac. The proposed project calls for 304 units on 352.8 acres for an overall density of .86 DU/Ac. MINIMUM PARCEL SIZE No absolute The minimum parcel size will be 10,801 minimum parcel size,widths and depths are square feet. specified. SETBACKS Front, side, and rear setbacks Front: 15 feet Side: 10 feet Street Side: 10 feet shall be determined based upon the precise Rear: 15 feet From Fuel Mod. Zone: 25-50 development plan and environmental studies feet and in conformance with FF (Foothill Fire Zones) Overlay requirements. BUILDING HEIGHT Applicable only to in-fill Not applicable; however,the maximum height single family residential construction of more will be 35 feet. than 1 story on existing lots of record, if there is a grade separation of more than 8 feet and less than 20 feet between the average level of the lot proposed for construction and the immediately uphill lot. INGRESS AND EGRESS A tentative tract or hi compliance. The primary access road will ® parcel map shall provide for at least 2 different have a 34' paved width and the secondary standard routes for ingress and egress. access road will have a 24' paved width. Standard ingress/egress road is a route which is Updated:2/14/2013 by Henry Empeno Jr. G 6.B 2256 dedicated to the City and has a minimum paved width of 24 feet. Streets in this overlay district shall conform to A. Primary Access Road(Verdemont Drive) the following standards: A. Local hillside street - This matches the road section approved from standards shall be used to minimize grading Little League Drive to just east of the project and erosion potential while providing adequate boundary. 34' paved width in 50' right-of-way access for vehicles, including emergency (R/W) Max. Slope of 12% Secondary Access vehicles. The right-of-way shall be 48.5 feet Road 24' paved width in 50' R/W Max. Slope with 40 feet of paved width and parking on of 12% Primary Local Street- This section both sides and a sidewalk on 1 side. B. Streets matches or exceeds the above requirements. shall have a paved width of 32 feet with 40' paved width in 50' R/W Max. Slope of parking and sidewalk on 1 side of the street 12% B. Secondary Local Street -The only and right-of-way 40.5 feet, subject to proposed R/W is 0.5' less than the above review and recommendation by the Fire Chief standard. 32' paved width in 40' R/W. The and the City Engineer,with approval by the proposed street section is short by 0.5' Commission. C. Grades of streets in the Sidewalk on 1 side of the street Max. Slope of hillside management areas shall be as provided 12% Cul-De-Sac I- This section exceeds the in this subsection,unless otherwise approved standards above,with sidewalk on 2 sides. 36' in writing by the Public Services,Fire, and paved width in 46' R/W. This section exceeds Public Works Departments. Hillside collector the HMOD standard Sidewalk on both sides of and arterial street shall not exceed 8%. Hillside the street Max. Slope of 8% Cul-De-Sac II- residential local streets shall not exceed 15%. The proposed R/W is 0.5' less than the above D. Minimum horizontal curve of streets shall standard. 32' paved width in 40' R/W. The be in accordance with Caltrans computational proposed street section is short by 0.5' methods using design speed estimated by the Sidewalk on 1 side of the street. Max. Slope of Public Works Department. E. One way streets 9% C. The Primary Access Road is at 12% may be permitted where it can be shown that max, greater than the 8%per this standard. they reduce the overall amount of cut and fill The Secondary Access Road is at 12% max, required. F. Cul-de-sacs to a maximum of 750 greater than the 8%per this standard. All other feet in length may be permitted with a streets within the map boundary are residential maximum of 30 dwelling units, and to a streets, and the max. Grade is 12%, less than maximum of 1,000 feet in length with a the 15%permitted per this standard. D. The maximum of 20 dwelling units and shall Primary Access road and all internal streets terminate with a turnaround area not less than comply with this. The Secondary Access 40 feet in radius to curb face. G. Sidewalks on Road will have measures implemented to only 1 side of a street may be permitted in account for the tight curves, in cooperation hillside areas subject to the approval of the with the Public Works Department. E. No City Engineer. H. All other street one-way streets are proposed. F. All cul-de- improvement standards shall conform to the sacs on the map comply with the above standard plans and specifications of the City standards. G. Street sections comply with the Engineer. street standards in the HMOD, and sidewalks on 1 side of the street where streets have lots only on 1 side of the street. H. The primary and secondary access road sections have been coordinated with the Public Works Department. �.. SOILS/GRADING A. Grading of any site shall A. The average existing slope across the Updated:2/14/2013 by Henry Empeno Jr.G 2256 conform to the following grading standards, project is 11.6%. Per the grading criteria, based upon the percent of the natural slope. redistribution of earth is permitted. Bl. The City Engineer shall review and make The entire site will be graded. At the project recommendation to the Planning Commission limits, the site will be blended into the existing on the proposed grading. 1. 0 - 15%. topography. B2. Grading has been conducted Redistribution of earth over large areas may be to protect existing major drainage permitted. 2. 15+-25%. Some grading may courses/canyons. C. The slopes will be occur, but landforms must retain their natural protected through acceptable measures as character. Padded building sites may be approved by the Public Works Department. D. allowed,but custom foundations, split level There are no proposed slopes greater than 2:1. designs, stacking and clustering is expected to Terraces are provided as required for slopes mitigate the need for large padded building over 30' in height. areas. 3. Limited grading may occur,however, major topographic features shall retain their natural landforms. Special hillside architectural and design techniques are expected in order to conform to the natural land form,by using techniques such as split level foundations of greater than 18 inches, stem walls, stacking and clustering. 4. Greater than 30%. Development and limited grading can only occur in this category if it can be clearly demonstrated that safety, environmental, and aesthetic impacts will be avoided. Use of larger lots, variable setbacks and variable building structural techniques such as stepped or pole foundations are expected. Structures shall blend with the natural environment through their shape, materials and colors. Impact of traffic and roadways is to be minimized by following natural contours or using grade separations. B. Grading shall be designed to: 1. Conserve natural topographic features and appearances by means of land sculpturing to blend graded slopes and benches with natural topography. 2. Retain major natural topographic features such as canyons and prominent landmarks. C. All graded areas shall be protected from wind and water erosion through acceptable slope stabilization methods such as planting, walls, or netting. Interim erosion control plans shall be required, certified by the project engineer, and reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department, D. Slopes created by grading the site shall not exceed 50 percent or 2:1, without a soils report and stabilization study indicating Updated:2/14/2013 by Henry Empeno Jr.G 2256 O a greater permissible slope; or shall not exceed 30 feet in height between terraces or benches; except that the Planning Commission may permit slopes exceeding these dimensions where the slopes will result in a natural appearance and will not create geological or erosion hazards. FIRE SAFETY All developments in this 1. The comparison of the Specific Plan's overlay zone shall comply with the standards proposed standards with the street design of the FF (Foothill Fire Zones)District. The standards for the HMOD and FF Districts is standards cover such items as,but not limited provided above. 2. The project will be to: 1. Street standards shall be the same as required to comply with the driveway those in the HMOD standards (discussed standards set forth in the Development Code. above) 2. Driveways to residential garages 3. The Fire Plan in the Specific Plan more than 30 feet in length are limited in their (beginning on page 3-53)provides standards grades based on length, with no portion of a for markers (figure 3.26). 4. The Fire Plan in driveway exceeding a grade of 15%unless the Specific Plan sets forth a landscaping plan approved by the Fire Chief and City Engineer. for the project, including roadside vegetation. 3. Street markers and addresses shall be 5. The Water Plan in the Specific Plan (Table provided. 4. All roadside vegetation shall be 3.9) indicates a minimum of 1,500 gallons per maintained and dead vegetation removed. 5. minute (gpm)will be provided (this will be in Hydrants shall be provided,marked, and be addition to the maximum daily demand if 254 visible with clear access. A minimum of two gpm, for a total of 1,750 gpm). Hydrants will hose spigots facing the foothills/wildlands shall be required to be installed to meet be provided per house. The minimum fire flow Development Code standards. 6. The project shall be 1,000 gallons per minute. 6. All fills applicant will be required to submit erosion shall be compacted. Erosion and drainage and drainage control plans per Development control plans must be approved prior to permit Code Standards. The Fire Plan and Landscape issuance, and the cut and fill slopes shall be Plan in the Specific Plan sets forth standards landscaped with fire resistant vegetation. 7. for landscaping of the project, including listing Structures shall conform to fire zone standards plant species for the different landscape zones and be constructed of fire-resistant materials. 8. on the site. 7. The Fire Plan in the Specific Structures shall be set back from steep slopes Plan sets forth standards for the use of fire- or slopes over 30 feet in height at least 30 feet. resistant building materials and installation of Structures shall be located only where the fire sprinklers in all of the project's structures. upgraded slope is 50% or less. 9. Structures 8. The Specific Plan requires that buildings be in narrow canyon mouths or ridge saddles must set back a minimum of 25 to 50 feet from be approved by the City Engineer and Fire natural areas. 9. Structures are not proposed on Department. 10. A fuel modification plan is ridgelines, and all of the lots, except lots 30 required. 11. All proposed parcel lines must be and 233 have been approved in concept for placed at the top of slope. 12. Future future development by the Fire Department. purchasers shall be advised of the fire hazard 10. The Fire and Landscape Plans set forth designation applicable to the property. 13. standards for landscaping in the fuel Fuel modification zones shall be maintained modification areas. 11. The project will be when required through homeowners' conditioned to place all property lines at the associations, assessment districts, or other top of slope. 12. The project will be means. conditioned to require that the project CC&Rs Updated: 2/14/2013 by Henry Empeno Jr. G I Packet Pg. 118 2256 include a disclosure statement of the applicable fire hazard zones on-site. 13. The Specific Plan sets forth standards for on-going maintenance of the fuel modification zones and other on-site improvements. GEOTECHNICAL 1. Any subdivision within In compliance. Per page 3-75 of the Specific the Alquist-Priolo "Special Studies Zone" shall Plan: Due to the potential seismic and geologic conduct a geologic study in conformance with hazards,proposed development in Spring the requirements of the Zone. This study shall Trails is subject to the following: ■ All be prepared by a certified engineering structures in Spring Trails shall be required to geologist. 2. No structure for human meet or exceed the applicable seismic design occupancy shall be permitted within 50 feet of standards of the California Building Standards an active or potentially active fault trace. Code, which correspond to the level of seismic Sensitive and high occupancy structures as risk in a given location. ■ Construction of defined in the General Plan shall maintain a habitable buildings shall not occur over or minimum 100 foot setback. 3.No emergency within 50 feet of any known active fault or as facilities, community facilities, or places of required by the geotechnical analyses. ■ No general public assembly(not including open water reservoir or booster pump station shall space areas) shall be permitted within the be constructed within 15 feet of an active fault. Alquist-Priolo Zone. 4. All structures within ■ Grading for building pads and roads shall the trace shall require the seismic features of conform to specifications of the geologist, the structure to be reviewed and approved by a based on a soils study and final geotechnical professional engineer specializing in study. ■ Flexible materials and joints shall be seismic/structural design. 5. The Building used for infrastructure(e.g.,roads, sewer and Official may require special construction water lines) located across known faults. ■ methods of structures where it has been Flexible pipe fittings shall be used to avoid gas determined to have potential geologic hazards. or water leaks. Flexible fittings are more 6. A statement shall be included at the time of resistant to breakage. ■ The final project purchase agreement and at the close of escrow grading plan shall be reviewed by the City to the purchaser of each lot within the geologist. Project shall be required to comply development, which informs the prospective with provisions of the Alquist-Priolo Act with owner of the potential for seismic activity, and regard to any required studies or notice as the the potential hazards. Project is not exempted therefrom. WATER/DRAINAGE A. On-site catch basins The maximum pad coverage is proposed to be or siltation basins, as well as energy absorbing 50%. Proposed Drainage Facilities ■ Drainage devices, may be required as a means to prevent area A. Runoff in drainage area A is handled erosion as well as to provide for ground water from a combination of undisturbed recharge. B.Natural drainage courses should watercourses, detention basins,rain gardens, be protected from grading activity. C. Where and media filtration systems. ■ The significant brow ditches are required, naturalize with plant drainageways in the northern part of Spring materials and native rocks. D. Maximum Trails remain virtually untouched. The two coverage of a parcel by impervious surfaces forks of Cable Canyon will remain undisturbed shall not exceed 40% of the gross land area, through the Spring Trails site while the and such maximum may be reduced by the unnamed tributary, which enters the property Director in areas where the slope exceeds 15%. from the east as two drainages,remains undisturbed except for those portions flowing through culverts under two streets. ■ Drainage Updated:2/14/2013 by Henry Empeno Jr.G 2256 from a 35.6-acre developed area is routed into detention basin A,which is on the western edge of the site and discharges into Cable Canyon. ■ The flows from the areas north of Cable Canyon are not routed into a detention basin; instead, each residential lot will be designed with a rain garden to treat the flows on the residential lot. Media filtration devices will be used to treat the flows on the streets prior to discharging into Cable Creek. In all, 39.3 acres in the northern portion of the project, including 15.1 acres of off-site drainage, are handled in this manner. ■ Drainage area B. Drainage area B is divided into two areas that handle flows from a developed area and an undeveloped area. ■ Drainage from a 21.8-acre, on-site, developed area is routed into detention basin B, which is located on the southwestern edge of the site and discharges into a natural flow line and ultimately into Cable Canyon. ■ Drainage from an undeveloped 17.5-acre area, which includes both on- and off-site lands, flows under a new street and is discharged into an existing flow line south of the site and ultimately into Cable Canyon. ■ Drainage area C. Drainage area C is a 209.8-acre area that includes both on- and off-site lands. ■ Drainage from a 96.8-acre, on-site, developed area drains into detention basin C,which is located in the southwestern corner of the project and eventually discharges into an unnamed flow line west of Meyers Creek and into Cable Creek. ■ Drainage from a 107.8- acre undeveloped, on-and off-site area flows south through a culvert under the primary access street. ■ Drainage area D. Drainage area D is made up of Meyers Canyon and its tributary areas along the southeastern edge of the site. This drainage area consists of a total of 339.3 on- and off-site acres(319.8 off-site acres and 19.5 undeveloped on-site acres). Drainage from this area flows through a culvert under the primary access street and eventually into Cable Creek. Brow ditches will be required to be constructed and treated per the HMOD standards. Updated:2/14/2013 by Henry Empeno Jr.G Packet Pg. 120 2256 ANIMAL AND PLANT LIFE A. Areas of a In compliance. The Fire and Landscape Plans site which are identified in the environmental within the Specific Plan establish standards for study as having biological significance shall be preserving and protecting the wildlife corridors preserved,unless exempted by the Planning that traverse the site,by including standards Commission through the Conditional Use pertaining to landscaping on all portions of the Permit process. B.Natural vegetation shall be site(including standards for drought-tolerant, maintained wherever possible. If removal is native and fire-resistant plant materials), walls, required, reestablishment of a compatible plant and road crossings. material will be required at a ratio of at least 2:1. C. All exposed slopes and graded areas shall be landscaped with ground cover, shrubs, and trees. D. Existing mature trees shall be incorporated into the project where feasible. E. Water and energy conservation techniques shall be utilized, such as special irrigation techniques (e.g., drip irrigation), drought tolerant plant species, alluvial rockscape, etc. F. Wherever possible, fire resistant native vegetation shall be preserved and planted. G. Introduction of landscaping within the hillside areas should make maximum use of texture, color, and be capable of blending in with the natural landscape, and help to soften the effects of buildings,walls,pavement, and grading. H. Screening along roadways should make maximum use of berming and landscaping but shall not interfere with sight distance. DESIGN A. Dwelling units and structures shall In compliance. Per Chapter 3, "Development be compatible with the natural surroundings of Standards" and Chapter 4, "Design the area and shall not dominate the natural Guidelines" of the Specific Plan,the following environment. B. Exterior finishes of dwelling will be required regarding the development of units and structures should blend in with the the Spring Trails project area. Garage natural surroundings by using earth tone colors Variation: To avoid the monotony of projects and avoiding reflective materials or finishes. that employ the same garage placement (e.g., C. Site design should utilize varying setbacks, all front-entry garages), a variety of garage building heights, innovative building placements and orientations is required. techniques, and building and wall forms which Standard garage placement is a front-loaded serve to blend buildings into the terrain. D. garage set in from the front property line. Dwelling units and structures shall be sited in a Alternative garage orientation and placement manner that will: 1. Retain outward views from are required on 33 percent of the units. Roll-up each unit; 2. Preserve or enhance vistas, garage doors with automatic openers are particularly those seen from public places; 3. required for all garages. The following are Preserve visually significant rock potential alternative garage placements: ■ outcroppings,natural hydrology, native plant Side-entry garages ■ Split garages ■ Garages materials, and areas of visual or historical in courtyards or driveways with a porte significance. E. The highest point of any cochere ■ Straight-in garages in rear two-thirds structure shall not be located above the of the lot Product Variation: Spring Trails will Updated:2/14/2013 by Henry Empeno Jr.G 2256 ridgeline. A ridgeline is a long, narrow, be attractive and visually interesting. conspicuous elevation which is visible north of Accordingly, single-family residential Highland Avenue, from a freeway, major neighborhoods will include a variety of arterial, secondary arterial, or collector street, product types and design styles. ■ There which forms part of the skyline or is seen as a should be a minimum of three different distant edge against a backdrop of land at least material and color palettes.No two single- 300 feet horizontally behind it. (See graphic.) family detached homes with identical color or 1. Use the natural ridgeline as a backdrop for materials palettes shall be adjacent to or structures; 2. Use landscape plant materials as directly across the street from one another. ■ a backdrop; and 3. Use the structure to There shall be a minimum of three maximize concealment of cut slopes. F. elevation/facade designs.No two homes with Retaining Walls/Fences 1. Retaining walls identical elevation/facade designs shall be shall be used in the following manner: Upslope adjacent to or directly across the street from - One wall per lot not exceeding 8 feet in one another. ■ There shall be a minimum of height. Downslope- One wall per lot not three primary roof materials and roof designs. exceeding 42 inches in height may be used. No two homes with identical roof designs and Lots sloping with the street of access or other materials shall be adjacent to or directly across conditions -One retaining wall on each side of the street from one another. ■ The height of the lot may be used not exceeding 42 inches in walls and fences shall be measured from the height. Retaining walls adjacent to driveways - top of the highest adjacent grade unless Walls being an integral part of the structure adjacent to a public right-of-way, in which case may exceed 8 feet in height if necessary. 2. the measurement shall be taken from the side Exposed retaining walls facing roadways shall of the public right-of-way. ■ Rear or side be no greater than 5 feet in height. 3. Where yards. The maximum height of walls and retaining walls face roadways, they shall be fences in the rear and side yards shall be 6 feet. faced with aesthetically pleasing materials ■ Front yard. The maximum height of walls (e.g.,rock facing). and fences located between the front property line and the nearest building wall(either garage or habitable structure) shall be 3.5 feet. Thereafter, the provisions for walls in rear and side yards noted above shall apply. ■ Walls and view fences shall be constructed as detailed in Figure 3.1, Wall Details, and as required by the Fire Protection Plan in Appendix C. ■Barbed and razor wire, plain exposed concrete block, electronic fencing, and chain link are not permitted. Chain link may be used on a temporary basis at construction sites. Vinyl-coated chain link may be used as a fencing material for outdoor park facilities such as tennis courts, subject to approval of a Development Permit,per Section 19.44 of the San Bernardino Development Code. ■ All walls, fencing, or screening materials shall be maintained in a physical state consistent with the time of installation. Repair and/or replacement of damaged, defective, or severel Updated:2/14/2013 by Henry Empeno Jr.G 2256 weathered materials shall be completed immediately upon occurrence or within a minimum of 20 days of notification by the City. ■ All walls and fences shall be constructed of noncombustible materials. ■ All walls and fences in Spring Trails shall be designed and constructed to withstand 100 mile per hour winds or the standard in the City of San Bernardino Development Code in effect at the time of the building permit application. ■ Pilasters, articulation, and/or permanent landscaping screening shall be incorporated into the design of walls or fences that exceed 25 feet in length. Retaining Walls: ■ When a retaining wall is in the front yard: ■ The maximum retaining wall height may be 2 feet and may be directly topped with a maximum 18-inch wall or fence for a total height of 42 inches, or ■ The maximum retaining wall height may be 3 feet and, in this case, a maximum 3-foot-high wall or fence may be erected above the retaining wall with a minimum 3-foot landscaped setback from the back of the retaining wall. ■ For retaining walls on the perimeter, side, or rear property lines: ■ The maximum height of any solid retaining wall shall be 8 feet as measured from the lowest adjacent grade. Retaining walls may only exceed 8 feet if (1)they are not visible from public areas, or(2) they are visible from public areas and unique designs are incorporated to disguise or break up the mass of the retaining wall(e.g., offsets, landscape walls,unique materials, or public art). ■ The maximum height of any fence or wall on top of a retaining wall on the perimeter, side, or rear property lines shall be as would be allowed if there was no retaining wall. The project site is located within a Very High Hazard Severity Zone as designated by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection ("CAL FIRE"). Therefore, the EIR prepared for the project has established mitigation measures to reduce the impacts from fire hazards to levels that are less than significant. Further, once annexed to the City of San Bernardino, the project site would also be subject to the City's Development Code and _ established Foothill Fire Zones Overlay District (Development Code Chapter 19.15). The overlay district designates three zones within the wildland interface: Updated:2/14/2013 by Henry Empeno Jr.G Packet Pg. 123 2256 • Fire Zone A(Extreme hazard), characterized by slopes over 30 percent • Fire Zone B (High Hazard), characterized by slopes 15-30 percent • Fire Zone C (Moderate Hazard), characterized by slopes less than 15 percent The project site has approximately 121 acres in Fire Zone A, 112 acres in Fire Zone B, and 119 acres in Fire Zone C. The Overlay District specifies development standards relating to access and circulation, site and street identification, roadside vegetation, water supply, erosion control, construction and development design, and miscellaneous items. One of the components of the wildland fire defense systems for Spring Trails would be the implementation of fuel modification zones. The proposed plan within the Specific Plan includes the following defined fuel modification zones: • Fuel Modification Zone A (flat) - Noncombustible Construction: 20- to 35-foot setback zone for noncombustible construction only. Fuel Modification Zone A shall be maintained by the homeowner or the Homeowners' Association (HOA). At no time would the Fuel Modification Zone A be less than 20 feet. • Fuel Modification Zone B- Wet Zone (100 percent removal of undesirable plant species): First 50 to 200 feet from Fuel Modification Zone A. Fuel Modification Zone B shall be permanently irrigated, fully landscaped with approved drought-tolerant, deep-rooted, moisture-retentive material as container shrub material, or hydroseeded per the San Bernardino Fire Department (SBFD) Approved Plant List. Fuel Modification Zone B area shall be maintained by the homeowner, HOA, or landscape maintenance district ("LMD") as appropriate. • Fuel Modification Zone C - Dry Zone (50 percent thinning of the acceptable existing plant material): 40 to 185 feet. Fuel Modification Zone C shall be a non-irrigated area. Removal of all flammable undesirable species. Specimen and trees shall be retained as directed by the owner's representative but must be thinned a minimum of 50 percent, including removal of all low hanging foliage within three times the height of the understory shrubs or 10 feet, whichever is greater, along with dead or broken branches. All accumulated plant debris on the ground shall be removed. Fuel Modification Zone C area shall be maintained by the LMD. Additionally, note that the SBFD will not allow development of residential lots 30 and 233 at this time due to a lack of a sufficient fuel modification zone adjacent to these lots (Attachment 9, page 3-54). Therefore, unless the applicant is able to obtain additional land for additional fuel modification zone area,these lots will be required to be maintained as permanent open space(per Condition No. 10). With the implementation of the Fire Protection Plan's development standards and avoidance of developing lots 30 and 233, the project's EIR determined that the risk from fire would be reduced to less than significant levels. The fire zones are discussed in further detail in the Specific Plan (Attachment 9), beginning on page 1-12, while the Fire Protection Plan is discussed in detail beginning on age 3-53 of Attachment 9. Updated:2/14/2013 by Henry Empeno Jr.G Packet Pg. 124 2256 In addition to the site being located in a Very High Hazard Severity Zone, as noted above, the project is also located in an area that experiences high winds. Therefore, all on-site development will be required to be constructed per building code standards to meet these wind loads. Further, Condition No. 8 requires that the project Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs) regulate the placement of trash receptacles for pick-up during windy days. Further, the project's mitigation measures will regulate construction activities on windy days (refer to Attachment 6). The site is traversed by the San Andreas Fault in several locations. Therefore, a Seismic Safety/Geologic Safety Plan, which sets forth standards for development adjacent to the fault zone and for infrastructure that will cross the Fault is provided in the Specific Plan, beginning on page 3-75. Structures will not be permitted to be constructed in the fault zones. However, it should be noted that per the EIR prepared for the project, additional fault studies and trenching will be required as mitigation, which may require increased setbacks from the fault, revised grading of slopes within the fault zone, etc. With implementation of these measures, the project's EIR found that the impacts from the fault and related geologic hazards would be reduced to less than significant levels. There are four major drainage areas within the Spring Trails Project site. Upon development, some natural drainage courses onsite would be maintained, and some on- and off-site flows would be captured and routed through a series of catch basin inlets and storm drain systems. Captured stormwater would be conveyed to three on-site detention basins where it would be treated and discharged at a controlled rate into Cable Canyon. The drainage plan has been designed to ensure conveyance of the 100-year storm. Best Management Practices (`BMPs") for water quality treatment would include the extended detention basins and media filtration devices. These improvements would be designed and constructed in accordance with the City of San Bernardino and the San Bernardino County Flood Control District standards. A detailed discussion of the Specific Plan's Drainage Plan can be found in Attachment 9,beginning on page 3-107. Cable Creek and one of its tributaries that traverse the Spring Trails site are important wildlife corridors. Cable Creek is a year-round water source. The water source and associated vegetation provide cover and food resources traversing the project areas. The unnamed tributary, located in the northern third of the project area, provides an especially suitable avenue for wildlife movement due to the cover and foraging resources it currently provides. The South Coast Missing Linkages Project identified the Spring Trails project area as an important component in maintaining wildlife linkages between the San Bernardino Mountains and the San Gabriel Mountains to the west. Further, a number of mammal species have been directly observed on the site, while other mammal and bird species have been identified as likely to use the site and surrounding area for travel. While the riparian areas of Cable Creek and its tributary are not planned for development as part of the project, roads will cross the corridors at two locations. Therefore, to ensure that the project's impacts on these wildlife corridors will be maintained at less-than-significant levels, the Specific Plan (Attachment 9, page 3-76) sets forth standards for the construction of on-site infrastructure and improvements (setbacks from the corridors, fencing, lighting, landscaping, etc.) and the maintenance of the corridors. Additionally, as the project area is currently underserved by water infrastructure, the Specific r Plan establishes standards for the provision of water service to serve the project area and to Updated: 2/14/2013 by Henry Empeno Jr. G 2256 improve the provision of water to surrounding properties. The City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department would provide water service to Spring Trails, and currently provides service to pressure zones ranging from 1,249 feet to 2,100 feet. The nearest existing reservoir is the Meyers Canyon Reservoir, which is within the 2,100-foot pressure zone, but is not adequate for buildout of Spring Trails or Verdemont. Therefore, water would be supplied to Spring Trails from lower elevations by a combination of expanding and improving the off-site water system and the provision of on-site reservoirs and transmission lines. Off-site improvements would include the creation/improvement of a series of pump stations and transmission lines within the Verdemont community. In addition, three on-site reservoirs are proposed to meet the need for 2,300-, 2,500-, 2,700-, and 3,000-foot elevation pressure zones. The Water Plan is discussed in further detail in the Specific Plan,beginning on page 3-101. The Specific Plan also proposes standards to address off- and on-site roads and streets. Primary access to Spring Trails would be provided by a new road extending from the southeastern corner of the site and connecting to Little League Drive. Secondary access is planned via a new road extending from the southwestern comer of the site to the frontage road along I-215. Except for emergency access, the intersection of the secondary access road with Meyers Road is designed with barriers to prevent vehicular access onto Meyers Road. Circulation within Spring Trails will be provided by a loop road and a series of cul-de-sacs. Necessary public streets, both on- and off-site, would be improved by the developer and dedicated to the City. All roadways would be two-way travel-one lane in each direction-with varying treatments for parkways, sidewalks, and parking. A system of interconnected trails throughout the project area, and with connections to off-site trails is proposed. The proposed standards for the project's streets and roads can be found in Attachment 9, beginning on page 3-16. However, as noted above, the applicant is currently in negotiations with several property owners to obtain ownership or easement rights for both the primary and secondary access roads that would serve the site. However, the applicant does not have full control of the properties for these access roads. Therefore, if access is not obtained, the project will not be able to move forward, since both access roads are required to serve the project, per the project's mitigation measures and Condition No. 18. Note that the applicant has agreed by waiving the application of Government Code Section 66462.5, that the City will have no obligation to either approve a final tract map implementing TTM 15576 or assist with the acquisition of any properties needed by the applicant for the primary or secondary access routes. This will be addressed further in the project's Development Agreement. In addition to the comparison of the Development Code standards with the proposed Specific Plan standards regarding the FF and HMOD Overlay District requirements noted in Table 2, above, Table 3 provides a comparison of the residential development standards of the Development Code against the Specific Plan. TABLE 3: COMPARISON OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AND PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS STANDARD DEVELOPMENT CODE SPRING TRAILS SPECIFIC PLAN Minimum Lot One acre 10,081 square feet _ Size Setbacks Front: 35 feet Side: 5 feet Street Side: Front: 15 feet Side: 10 feet Street 15 feet Rear: 20 feet Side: 10 feet Rear: 15 feet Updated: 2/14/2013 by Henry Empeno Jr.G I Packet Pg. 126 2256 Maximum 3 stories/45 feet 35 feet Building Height DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT The applicant is proposing Development Agreement No. DA 11-01 as it pertains to the Spring Trails project to establish assurances between the City and the applicant relating to the buildout of the project. The following is a summary of the three primary items within the Agreement. 1. Since the applicant is still in the process of acquiring the rights-of-way for access to the site, the applicant is waiving the provisions of California Government Code Section 66462.5, thereby waiving rights to require condemnation of the properties needed for the access. 2. The applicant agrees to install and dedicate to the City all necessary sewer infrastructure for the project, but is requesting credit/reimbursement of excess Sewer Facilities Costs that benefit properties other than the project site. 3. The applicant agrees to construct and dedicate to the City all required Public Park infrastructure for the project, but is requesting credit/reimbursement of excess Public Park Facilities Costs. Approval of the Development Agreement will result in assurance to the applicant of vesting rights to develop the project site and will provide assurances to the City that infrastructure and parks serving the site will be constructed and dedicated to the City, and that development impact fees will be paid by the developer. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL OUALrI Y ACT(CEOA) An Environmental Impact Report(EIR)has been prepared in accordance with CEQA(available on the City's web site at www.sbcity.org<http://www.sbcity.org> - see "How do I..." and "Locate..."and click Planning Documents). The EIR(Attachment 7) identified potentially significant impacts of the project, discusses avoidance measures incorporated in the project design, and numerous mitigation measures proposed to further reduce potential impacts of the project. Comments were received on the Draft EIR. These comments, and the responses to comments, are provided within the Final EIR. Mitigation measures presented in the EIR have been included in the Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program (MM/RP), which is attached as Attachment 6, and also incorporated by reference in the Conditions of Approval (Attachment 3). The mitigation measures in the MM/RP will reduce all of the impacts of the project to less-than- significant levels, with the following exceptions: Air Ouali Updated:2/14/2013 by Henry Empeno Jr.G Packet Pg. 127 2256 Impact 5.2-1: The proposed project is not consistent with the applicable air quality management plan because construction-related air pollutant emissions would exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District's regional and localized emissions thresholds. Mitigation measures used to control construction and operational emissions would reduce project and cumulative level impacts but they would remain significant and unavoidable. Impact 5.2-1: Construction activities associated with the proposed project would generate short- term emissions that exceed SCAQMD's regional significance thresholds for NOx, PM10 and PM2.5 and would significantly contribute to the nonattainment designations of the South Coast Air Basin for ozone and particulate matter (PM10 and PM25). Mitigation measures would reduce the project's construction-related impacts but the project- and cumulative-level impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Impact 5.2-4: Construction activities associated with grading operations could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations of PM10 at the existing on-site residence and the surrounding off-site residences. Mitigation measures would reduce the project's construction- related impact on sensitive receptors but it would remain significant and unavoidable. Noise Impact 5:10-5: Project-related construction activities would result in temporary noise increase at the existing on-site residence and surrounding noise-sensitive receptors due to the length of the construction period, that is, approximately three years. Mitigation would reduce the project's impact on local sensitive receptors but it would remain significant and unavoidable. Transportation and Traffic Impact 5-14:2: Six freeway improvements would operate at unacceptable LOS for the year 2035: • The I-215 freeway segment between Palm Avenue and Devore Road (northbound and southbound); • The I-215 freeway segment between Devore Road and I-15 (northbound); • The I-15 Freeway segment between Glen Helen Parkway and Sierra Avenue northbound and southbound); and • The I-15 freeway segment between I-215 and Glen Helen Parkway(northbound). Spring Trails would generate traffic and would contribute to the unacceptable levels of service on these freeway segments Additionally, mainline improvements to the I-5 and I-215 in the project area are not included in a fee program at this time There are not feasible mitigation measures to reduce the significant impacts. As a result, these impact are significant and unavoidable. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact 5.16-1: Project-related construction activities would generate 5,660 metric tons (MTon) of CO2e and operational activity would generate about 9,559 MTon of CO2e. Mitigation Updated:2/14/2013 by Henry Empeno Jr.G I Packet Pg. 128 2256 measure would reduce GHG emissions from construction activities, area sources, energy use, and waste and recycling activities to levels that are less than significant; however, the vehicle GHG emissions would not be reduced to levels that are less than significant, and project- generated emissions of GHG would create significant and unavoidable impacts. Statement of Overriding Considerations As a result of the significant unavoidable adverse impacts the project would generate, Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines requires the lead agency to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable significant impacts, and to determine whether the impacts are acceptably overridden by the project benefits. If the City finds that the previously stated major project benefits outweigh the unavoidable significant adverse environmental impacts noted above, the City may, nonetheless, approve the project. Each of the separate benefits are hereby determined to be, in itself, and independent of other project benefits, basis for overriding all unavoidable environmental impacts identified in the EIR and these findings. The complete set of Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations is provided as Attachment 8. The City's findings set forth in Attachment 8 identified all of the adverse environmental impacts and feasible mitigation measures which can reduce impacts to less than significant levels where feasible, or to the lowest feasible levels where significant impacts remain. The findings have also analyzed three alternatives to determine whether there are reasonable or feasible alternatives to the proposed action, or whether they might reduce or eliminate the significant adverse impacts of the project. A summary of the project's benefits that outweigh the significant unavoidable adverse impacts is as follows: Finding: Having considered the unavoidable adverse impacts of the project, the City hereby determines that all feasible mitigation has been adopted to reduce or avoid the potentially significant impacts identified in the EIR, and that no additional feasible mitigation is available to further reduce significant impacts. Further, the City finds that economic, social and other considerations of the project related to provision of housing outweigh the unavoidable adverse impacts described above. The reason for accepting these remaining unmitigated impacts are described below. In making this finding, the City has balanced the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable environmental impacts, and has indicated its willingness to accept those effects. The City further finds that the project's benefits are substantial and override each unavoidable impact of the project. These benefits include substantial infrastructure that the project will directly and indirectly, through funding mechanisms, provide. These benefits include the following, which are laid out in greater detail in the findings (Attachment 8): • The water supply system for the area will be augmented to provide water to the new residents, but will also provide improved service to those existing residents in the area currently on City water. • Three on-site reservoirs will be constructed to provide better service and fire protection to the area. Updated:2/14/2013 by Henry Empeno Jr.G Packet Pg. 129 2256 • Off-site improvements to the water supply system include a series of pump stations and transmission lines within the Verdemont community. • Improved fuel modification zones will provide protection to both the proposed community as well as to the existing structures in the area. j • Project would be required to pay development impacts fees for law enforcement, schools, library, fire, traffic and other related fees that will supplement the City's funds and provide the necessary public services to the project. • Traffic improvements, including an additional westbound left turn lane at the intersection of Palm Avenue and Kendall Drive. i { In particular, the project scope includes substantial infrastructure improvements for water storage and delivery systems that will not only serve the project itself, but also benefit the larger community. The additional water storage and delivery systems will provide for more effective wildfire controls for existing residents as well as the proposed project given the additional safety and setback measures that 3 are incorporated into the project. The water infrastructure will also provide a source potable water for existing residents as well as a water source for firefighting personnel in the event of a wildfire. The project components related to fire hazards and safety, including construction, buffer zones, and other features will also provide additional benefits to those residents already located in the area as a means of preventing the spread of any wildfires through the area. Storm drainage improvements will also provide additional benefits related to the existing flood and erosion conditions prevalent in the area. The area and existing residents have faced historical issues with flooding, landslides and wildfires which will be substantially improved with the implementation of the proposed project. Funding mechanisms and impact fees that will be generated as part of the project will assist in roadway improvements and as well general fund contributions through property tax that can assist in funding necessary police, fire and safety services for the area. From an economic standpoint, the project will pay substantial fees that will benefit the City, including Development Impact Fees, School Fees, Library Fees permitting fees, public services fees, and related development fees that provide additional benefit both to the community by increasing the funding and services available, but also to the City. For example, the project will be required to pay additional fees to support police services in the amount of$183,506.18 and to pay library fees in the amount of $181,375.52. The project provides additional property taxes that will also contribute to public services. These fees are outlined in the fmdings and further identified in the EIR. The project will also provide the opportunity for construction jobs in the community for a substantial period of time, depending on how quickly the proposed project is built out. The project provides additional social benefits to the community and City as well. The project will dedicate more than 245 acres of permanent open space, including natural open space, controlled open space and parks, on site. The parks that are proposed as part of the project will include shade structures, tot lots, gardens, observation Updated:2/14/2013 by Henry Empeno Jr.G BERMI 2256 points, and other related features and offer opportunities for the community that are not currently present in the area. The project also provides an interconnected trail system that would include community trails for bicycle and pedestrian use, equestrian trails, and hiking trails. These proposed trails would substantially increase the recreational opportunities currently available in the City. Furthermore, the City has a limited base of available high-quality, low density residential development based upon a review of the MLS listings for the City as well as under General Plan designation areas for low density residential development. Such high-quality, low density housing is desirable to attract and retain top quality candidates for positions at the University and other institutions. According to the City of San Bernardino Housing Element Adopted June 20, 2011, approximately one-third of the City's housing stock is between 30 and 49 years old, with an additional 35.3 percent over 50 years old. (Pages 3-25 and 3- 26). Only 2,720 housing units were constructed between the years of 2000-2005, during the height of the housing boom. (Housing Element Adopted June 20, 2011,Table H-12). The household composition of the City shows that 82% of the City's households are moderate to very-low income, while only 18% are above Moderate income. (Id. Chart 4, pg. 3-17). There are few other proposed developments within the City at this time and thus the proposed Project will fill a residential need within the City as is envisioned within the City's General Plan. Such a need is identified generally in Housing Element policy 3.1.1, which states: "Provide adequate sites to accommodate the production of a variety of housing types through land use designation, zoning, specific plans, and overlay districts." As discussed above, the development of the project would result in significant and unavoidable adverse impacts with regard to Traffic and Transportation, Air Quality and Noise; however the benefits obtained from the project (listed above and in greater detail in Attachment 8) are sufficient to justify approval of the project. With regard to Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions, California Public Resource Code 21002 provides: "In the event specific economic, social and other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects can be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof." Section 21002.1(c) provides: "In the event that economic, social, or other conditions make it infeasible to mitigate one or more significant effects of a project on the environment, the project may nonetheless be approved or carried out at the discretion of a public agency..." Finally, California Administrative Code, Title 4, 15093 (a) states: "If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered `acceptable."' a) The project benefits include substantial infrastructure that the project will directly and indirectly, through funding mechanisms, provide. In particular, the project scope includes substantial infrastructure improvements for water storage and delivery systems that will not only serve the project itself, but also benefit the larger community. The additional water storage and delivery systems will provide for more effective wildfire controls for existing residents as well as the proposed project given the additional safety and setback measures that are incorporated into the project. The water infrastructure will also provide a source of potable water for existing residents as well as a water source for firefighting personnel in the event of a wildfire. The Updated:2/14/2013 by Henry Empeno Jr.G Packet Pg. 131 2256 © project components related to fire hazards and safety, including construction, buffer zones, and other features will also provide additional benefits to those residents already located in the area as a means of preventing the spread of any wildfires through the area. B) Storm drainage improvements will also provide additional benefits related to the existing flood and erosion conditions prevalent in the area. The area and existing residents have faced historical issues with flooding, landslides and wildfires which will be substantially improved with the implementation of the proposed project. Funding mechanisms and impact fees that will be generated as part of the project will assist in roadway improvements and as well general fund contributions through property tax that can assist in funding necessary police, fire and safety services for the area. C) The proposed project will also provide additional recreational sources for the community, creating hiking, equestrian and biking trails throughout the site and connecting an area that currently does not offer such sources of recreation to the residents of the City. D) Furthermore, a base of high-quality low density residential development is important for the ability of the City's institutions to hire and retain top quality candidates for positions at the University and other institutions. There are few other proposed developments within the City at this time and thus the proposed project will fill a residential need within the City as is envisioned within the City's General Plan. E) In addition to the safety, recreational, social and housing features that the project will provide, the project will offer employment during the construction phases and provide revenue �1 from the additional property taxes that the project will generate. The project will be required to pay additional fees to support police services in the amount of $183,506.18, pay schools fees, pay library fees in the amount of $181,375.52, improvement existing roadways and provide additional access points that otherwise may not occur, as well as pay other City development fees. The payment of fees and additional services benefit both the project and the surrounding community. F) As the CEQA Lead Agency for the proposed project, the City of San Bernardino has reviewed the project description and the project alternatives as presented in the EIR, and fully understands the project and project alternatives proposed for development. Further, the City finds that all potential adverse environmental impacts and all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the impacts from the project have been identified in the Draft EIR, the Final EIR and public testimony. The City also finds that a reasonable range of alternatives was considered in the EIR, and finds that approval of the project is appropriate. G) The City has identified economic and social benefits, important policy objectives and local and regional benefits that will result from approval of the Development Agreement, as discussed in above, and in Attachment G, the Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations that were prepared for the project, which result from implementing the project. The City has balanced these substantial social and economic benefits against the unavoidable significant adverse effects of the project. The City finds that the substantial social and economic benefits that will result from the project override the unavoidable environmental effects of the project. Updated:2/14/2013 by Henry Empeno Jr.G Packet Pg. 132 2256 ® FINDINGS OF FACT 1. SP/GPA/DCA/TTM/DA Finding: The proposed amendment is internally consistent with the General Plan The applicant is proposing a General Plan Amendment to establish the Spring Trails Specific Plan as the land use designation for the subject property. Further, a Development Code Amendment to add the Spring Trails Specific Plan as a Special Purpose Zone in the Development Code and recognize the land use standards contained within the Specific Plan as unique to the project area. A Tentative Tract Map is also proposed to subdivide the 352.8-acre project area into 304 lots for single-family residences and lots for water tanks,parks and open space. Currently, the property is located in the County, within the City's Sphere of Influence. The existing land use designation per the County General Plan is Resource Conservation (RC) and Rural Living, 5-ac. min. Lot size (RL-5), which requires a minimum five-acre lot size. Since the project is located in the City's Sphere of Influence, the City's General Plan currently designates the site Residential Estate, which calls for single-family residential lots with a minimum lot size of one acre. By establishing the Spring Trails Specific land as the land use designation for the property, which will include a change in minimum lot size for the site from a minimum of one acre to an average of one acre, the j project will then become consistent with the General Plan. The project is also consistent with the following General Plan policies: Land Use: Policy 2.1.1 Actively enforce development standards, design guidelines, and policies to preserve and enhance the character of San Bernardino's neighborhoods. Policy 2.1.2 Require that new development with potentially adverse impacts on existing neighborhoods or residents such as noise, traffic, emissions, and storm water runoff, be located and designed so that quality of life and safety in existing neighborhoods are preserved. Policy 2.2.1 Ensure compatibility between land uses and quality design through adherence to the standards and regulations in the Development Code and policies and guidelines in the Community Design Element. Policy 2.2.2 Require new uses to provide mitigation or buffers between existing uses where potential adverse impacts could occur, including, as appropriate, decorative walls, landscape setbacks, restricted vehicular access, enclosure of parking structures to prevent sound transmission, and control of lighting and ambient illumination. Policy 2.2.4 Hillside development and development adjacent to natural areas shall be designed and landscaped to preserve natural features and habitat and protect structures from the threats from natural disasters, such as wildfires and floods. Updated:2/14/2013 by Henry Empeno Jr.G 2256 ® Policy 2.3.3 Entries into the City and distinct neighborhoods should be well defined or highlighted to help define boundaries and act as landmarks. Policy 2.5.4 Require that all new structures achieve a high level of architectural design and provide a careful attention to detail. Policy 2.5.6 Require that new developments be designed to complement and not devalue the physical characteristics of the surrounding environment, including consideration of (site specific design considerations of the surrounding environment -remaining items omitted). Policy 2.6.1 Hillside development and development adjacent to natural areas shall be designed and sited to maintain the character of the City's significant open spaces and historic and cultural landmarks. Policy 2.7.1 Enhance and expand drainage, sewer, and water supply/storage facilities to serve new development and intensification of existing lands. Policy 2.7.2 Work with the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District to create additional water storage capacity and take advantage of the abundant water supplies. © Policy 2.7.5 Require that development be contingent upon the ability of public infrastructure to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate its demands and mitigate its impacts. Policy 2.8.1 Ensure that all structures comply with seismic safety provisions and building codes. Policy 2.8.2 Ensure that design and development standards appropriately address the hazards posed by wildfires and wind, with particular focus on the varying degrees of these threats in the foothills, valleys, ridges, and the southern and western flanks of the San Bernardino Mountains. Upon annexation into the City, under current conditions without the Specific Plan, the site would be designated as Residential Estate, and as appropriate based on slope studies, the Foothill Fire Zone, on both the City's General Plan and Zoning maps. The Residential Estate designation permits one dwelling unit per acre. Through the Spring Trials Specific Plan, development will be clustered into the most appropriate areas so that, when taken individually, certain lots exceeded the one unit per acre density limit and on a gross basis, the project will comply with the overall density restrictions of the Residential Estate land use designation. Spring Trails will be a 352.8- acre residential development in the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains. Spring Trails is proposed to accommodate 304 residences situated in several neighborhoods, which will be separated by open space corridors, drainageways, and sloped areas and interconnected by a series of trails and roadways. The development footprint of Spring Updated:2/14/2013 by Henry Empeno Jr.G 6.B 2256 Trails is proposed to be focused on the gently sloping alluvial benches between canyons, steep hillsides, and the Cable Canyon and Meyers Canyon drainageways. Development is proposed on approximately 242 acres, or 68 percent of the total site, and will include nine acres of parks and 125.1 acres of internal slopes and fuel modification zones. The remaining 32 percent of Spring Trails (111.3 acres) will be preserved as natural open space. The Specific Plan will establish unique development standards for the project site regarding minimum lot size and development standards for the hillside and high fire hazard zone components of the project. Where the Specific Plan is silent on Development Code standards, those Development Code standards will be required for fixture development of the site. The following elements of the Specific Plan promote the land use goals of the General Plan: • Providing approximately 111 acres of permanent open space. • Integrating Spring Trails into its physical surroundings by clustering development on the gentle slopes; avoiding steep slopes, ridgelines, and physical hazards; and preserving significant drainageways. • Including guidelines and standards that address unique entries, tailored landscaping, and detailed design factors that will help make Spring Trails a unique and high-quality neighborhood in San Bernardino. ■ Providing two points of access that directly connect to collector roads and avoid existing neighborhoods: the primary access connecting to Little League Drive and a new secondary access road connecting to Frontage Road. The secondary access road is designed to restrict non-resident access onto Meyers Road. • Providing two points of access for existing off-site residences and preserving an existing on-site residence. • Maintaining the significant natural drainage courses on the property and capturing on-and off-site stormwater flows and routing them through a series of catch basin inlets and storm drain systems that convey water to three on-site detention basins where it is treated and discharged at a controlled rate into Cable Canyon. The drainage system and detention basins will reduce stormwater runoff from the site to levels below those that existed prior to the project. • Minimizing the impacts of light intrusion and spillover. CSUSB is contemplating building an observatory on the nearby Badger Hill. To help preserve a dark nighttime sky, this Specific Plan includes controls on the type and design of lighting. • Providing design standards for unique entries to create a recognizable identity and sense of arrival. Updated:2/14/2013 by Henry Empeno Jr.G Packet Pg. 135 2256 ■ Providing design guidelines and development standards that will result in distinctively designed high-quality residences set among a system of unified lighting, streetscape, landscape, and parks. ■ Working with SBMWD to supply water to Spring Trails. Water from lower elevations by a combination of expanding and improving the off-site water system and the provision of on-site reservoirs and transmission lines. ■ Requiring the developer(s) to be responsible for constructing/funding their fair share of required on-and off-site infrastructure improvements, such as water lines, sewers, storm drains, recycled water lines, and streets. ■ Addressing the significant natural features on the site such as the San Andreas Fault system and natural drainage courses that cut through the project, including standards for infrastructure to withstand fault movement and avoiding development in the natural drainage courses, and protecting against wildland fires as detailed in the Safety responses below. Verdemont Heights Area Plan Policy 2.11 Create an identifiable and unique village that includes distinct residential neighborhoods and a full array of services and activities to meet the needs of residents of the area. Policy 2.11.1 Enhance the three distinct subareas that comprise Verdemont Heights: a. Verdemont Estates, which is located in the northwestern portion of the area west of Little League Drive, has a rural character and consists of the larger lot residential uses. Policy 2.11.2 Develop a trail system in Verdemont Heights and along Cable Creek that provide a complete access system and provides direct access to Verdemont Plaza. Policy 2.11.4 As shown on Figure LU-6, develop an integrated corridor enhancement system, including landscaping and signage, which are unique to Verdemont Heights. The following policies shall direct the development of corridors within Verdemont Heights: Policy 2.11.6 Ensure that new developments either provide their fair share of recreational facilities based upon the City's parkland requirements or appropriate in-lieu fees. Updated:2/14/2013 by Henry Empeno Jr.G Packet Pg. 136 2256 Spring Trails is in keeping with the Waal character of the northwestern portion of Verdemont Heights with an average lot size of 29,000 square feet. The largest lots will be located on the upper elevations of the site and the largest lot will measure 18.3 acres. The smallest lots are proposed on the lower elevations and the smallest lot will measure 10,801 square feet. The residences will be separated by open space corridors, drainage ways, and sloped areas and interconnected by a series of trails and roadways. Development will be focused onto approximately 242 acres, or 68 percent of the total site, and will include nine acres of parks and 125.1 acres of internal slopes and fuel modification zones. The remaining 32 percent of Spring Trails (111.3 acres) is proposed to be preserved as natural open space. Maximum buildout of the Spring Trails Specific Plan would accommodate approximately 1,028 residents. Based on the City's standard of five acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, full buildout of the Specific Plan would result in the need to provide 5.14 acres of parkland or an equivalent fee in lieu of dedicated parkland. Spring Trails will provide approximately 245.4 total acres of public and private parkland, open space, and trails and the nine acres of usable public and private parks exceed City requirements. In addition, there will be 3.8 miles of trails that provide access to the surrounding natural open spaces. The following elements of the Specific Plan promote the land use goals of the General Plan: ■ Guidelines and standards that address unique entries, tailored landscaping, and detailed design factors that will help make Spring Trails a unique, high-quality neighborhood in San Bernardino. ■ Providing standards for unique entries to create a recognizable identity and sense of arrival. Circulation Policy 62.2 Design each roadway with sufficient capacity to accommodate anticipated traffic based on intensity of projected and planned land use in the City and the region while maintaining a peak hour level ofservice (LOS) "C"or better. Policy 62.5 Design roadways, monitor traffic flow, and employ traffic control measures (e.g. signalization, access control, exclusive right and left turn-turn lanes, lane striping, and signage) to ensure City streets and roads continue to function safely within our Level of Service standards. Policy 6.3.4 Require appropriate right-of-way dedications of all new developments to facilitate construction of roadways shown on the Circulation Plan. © Policy 6.3.6 Locate new development and their access points in such a way that traffic is not encouraged to utilize local residential streets and alleys. I Updated:2/14/2013 by Henry Empeno Jr.G Packet Pg. 137 i 2256 ® Policy 63.7 Require that adequate access be provided to all developments in the City including secondary access to facilitate emergency access and egress. Spring Trails is proposed to consist of a hierarchy of streets, including collector and local roads, which will provide a comprehensive and connected street network and is designed to the specifications of the City of San Bernardino. Access to the project site will be provided via a new roadway extending from Little League Drive, and a new road extending south and connecting to the frontage road along I-215. These access points directly connect to collector roads and avoid existing neighborhoods: the primary access connecting to Little League Drive and a new secondary access road connecting to Frontage Road. The secondary access road is designed to restrict non-resident access onto Meyers Road, but will accommodate emergency vehicles. Spring Trails also provides two points of access for existing off-site residences. Further, per the project's mitigation measures, the applicant will be required to make improvements to the intersection of Palm Avenue and Kendall Drive, if these have not yet been done prior to the start of on-site construction. Spring Trails also includes a system of bicycle and pedestrian trails that interconnect all neighborhoods and provide connections to the surrounding areas and region. In addition, several natural drainage ways and sloped areas are used as open space corridors and pathways. Housing Policy 3.1.1 Accommodate the production of new housing units on currently vacant or underutilized land at densities and standards designated in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Spring Trails will accommodate 304 single-family detached housing units that will be designed to appeal to families, those looking to move up, and CSUSB faculty. The proximity of Spring Trails to the University may help attract teachers to the community and strengthen the ties between the City and University. The site is currently designated as Residential Estate on the City's General Plan Map. The Residential Estate designation permits one dwelling unit per acre and would accommodate a maximum of 352 units upon annexation of the site into the City without the Specific Plan. Spring Trails has been designed to cluster development into the most appropriate locations on the site, with the smaller lots concentrated on the less steep portions of the site and the larger lots on the steeper slopes. As a result, individual lots within Spring Trials may be smaller than the lot sizes called for in the City of San Bernardino General Plan and individual lots may exceed the density limit called for in the City's General Plan; however, on a gross basis, the specific plan complies with the density restrictions of the Residential Estate land use designation by proposing 304 units on 353 acres. © Community Design Policy 5.3.4 Enhance and encourage neighborhood or street identity with theme Updated:2/14/2013 by Henry Empeno Jr.G I Packet Pg. 138 2256 landscaping or trees, entry statements, enhanced school or community facility identification, and a unified range of architectural detailing. Policy 5.5.4 Setback garages from the street and minimize street frontage devoted to driveways and vehicular access. Policy 5.5.6 Ensure a variety of architectural styles, massing, floor plans, favade treatment, and elevations to create visual interest. Policy 5.5.7 In residential tract developments, a diversity of floor plans, garage orientation, setbacks, styles, building materials. The overall goal of the Specific Plan is to create an attractive and distinct community within the City of San Bernardino. The Spring Trails Specific Plan provides development standards and criteria for architecture, landscaping, entry monumentation, walls and fences, and other design elements in order to ensure a high-quality development and strong community character. In addition, Spring Trails is designed to enhance the aesthetic quality of San Bernardino through: • The compact design of Spring Trails limits the development footprint so that open lands will be maximized; natural drainageways will be maintained and incorporated into the design of the project as open space amenities and j landscaping; and hazards will be avoided or mitigated. • Avoiding development on ridgelines and steep slopes so that views of the mountains will not be not impacted. • Distinctively designed residences set among a system of unified lighting, streetscape, landscape, and parks. • Standards that require a variety of garage placements and setbacks,product types, colors, and materials. • Unique entries that will create a recognizable identity and sense of arrival. • An interconnected system of open spaces that will serve multiple purposes as drainage courses, pedestrian pathways, recreational and visual amenities, and separations between neighborhoods. Maintenance assessment district(s) will be responsible for maintaining the long-term aesthetic quality of Spring Trails. Maintenance responsibilities may be divided between a Master Homeowners' Association, Neighborhood Associations, Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District(s), and/or other maintenance mechanisms. Utilities and Public Services Updated:2/14/2013 by Henry Empeno Jr.G Packet Pg. 139 2256 © Policy 9.1.3 Require new development to connect to a master planned sanitary sewer system in accordance with the Department of Public Works' "Sewer Policy and Procedures". Where construction of master planned facilities is not feasible, the Mayor and Common Council may permit the construction of interim facilities sufficient to serve the present and short-term future needs. Policy 9.3.1 Provide for the construction of upgraded and expanded water supply, transmission, distribution, storage, and treatment facilities to support existing and new development. a Policy 9.4.6 Minimize the disturbance of natural water bodies and natural drainage systems. Policy 9.4.10 Ensure compliance with the Federal Clean Water Act requirements for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)permits, including requiring the development of Water Quality Management Plans, Erosion and Sediment Control Plans, and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans for all qualifying public and private i development and significant redevelopment in the City. Spring Trails has been designed with attention to the provision of services and infrastructure. According to initial studies, there is adequate supply, capacity, and j facilities to accommodate the buildout of Spring Trails. Dry Utilities. Spring Trails will be served with electric, gas, solid waste collection, telephone cable, and Internet (data) from companies serving the City of San Bernardino. The utility providers, including the Gas Company, Southern California Edison, Verizon, and Charter Communications, have indicated the ability to provide service to Spring Trails. Water. The City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department (SBMWD) will provide water services to Spring Trails. Water will be supplied to Spring Trails from lower elevations by a combination of expanding and improving the off-site water system and the provision of on-site reservoirs and transmission lines. Detailed water system improvement plan and supply analysis have been prepared and demonstrate that adequate water supply and service are available to accommodate the buildout of Spring Trails. Drainage. Spring Trails will maintain the significant drainage courses on-site to carry most of the off-site water through the site to existing drainage facilities. The drainage concept for Spring Trails is designed to either maintain natural drainage courses whenever possible or capture both on-and off-site stormwater flows and route them through a series of catch basin inlets and storm drain systems that convey water to three on-site detention basins where it will be treated and discharged at a controlled rate into Cable Canyon. The drainage system and detention basins will reduce stormwater runoff from the site to levels below those that existed prior to the project. Spring Trails will be required to comply with and obtain necessary NPDES and SWPPP permits. Sewer. The Spring Trails project lies within the City of San Bernardino sanitary sewer service area. Spring Trails will connect to the City's existing 10-inch sewer line that ends Undated:2/14/2013 by Henry Emneno Jr.G I Packet Pg. 140 2256 at Little League Drive and Meyers Road, which is then connected to the south to a major interceptor system and is eventually treated in the San Bernardino Water Reclamation Plant. Existing capacity is available in the sewer system to serve the buildout population within the City. The sewer facilities will be designed and constructed in accordance with the City of San Bernardino standards and specifications and in accordance with the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (latest edition). In addition, the infrastructure that crosses earthquake faults is designed to handle earthquakes and surface ruptures. Within Spring Trails, the developer(s) will be responsible for constructing/ funding their fair share of required on-and off-site infrastructure improvements, such as water lines, sewers, storm drains, recycled-water lines, and streets. All infrastructure improvements will be developed in conjunction with the roadway improvements. Parks, Trails, and Open Space Policy 8.3.9 Separate bikeway and trail systems from traffic and roadways wherever possible. Policy 8.3.10 Provide clear separation of hikers, joggers, and equestrians where possible. Q Policy 8.4.2 Continue to require developers of residential subdivisions to provide fee contributions based on the valuation of the units to fund parkland acquisition and improvements. Maximum buildout of the Spring Trails Specific Plan would accommodate approximately 1,028 residents. Based on the City's standard of five acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, full buildout of the Specific Plan would result in the need to provide 5.14 acres of parkland or an equivalent fee in lieu of dedicated parkland. Spring Trails will provide approximately 245.4 total acres of public and private parkland, open space, and trails. Further, the nine acres of usable public and private parks will exceed City requirements. In addition, there are 3.8 miles of trails proposed that will provide access to the surrounding natural open spaces. Spring Trails will be integrated and linked both internally and with surrounding uses via 3.8 miles of multi-purpose trails as well as on-street bike lanes. The open spaces and parks will be maintained by homeowners' associations and/or lighting and landscape maintenance district. Safety Policy 7.2.6 Require that all buildings subject to City jurisdiction adhere to fire safety codes. Policy 10.5.1 Ensure compliance with the Federal Clean Water Act requirements for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, including Updated:2/14/2013 by Henry Empeno Jr.G Packet Pg. 141 2256 developing and requiring the development of Water Quality Management Plans for all new development and significant redevelopment in the City. Policy 10.5.2 Continue to implement an urban runoff reduction program consistent with regional and federal requirements, which includes requiring and encouraging the following: • Increase permeable areas to allow more percolation of runoff into the ground; • Use natural drainage, detention ponds or infiltration pits to collect runoff • Divert and catch runoff using swales, berms, green strip filters, gravel beds and French drains; • Install rain gutters and orient them towards permeable surfaces; • Construct property grades to divert flow to permeable areas; • Use subsurface areas for storm runoff either for reuse or to enable release of runoff at predetermined times or rates to minimize peak discharge into storm drains; • Use porous materials, wherever possible,for construction of driveways, walkways and parking lots; and © Divert runoff away from material and waste storage areas and pollution-laden surfaces such as parking lots. Policy 10.5.4 Require new development and significant redevelopment to utilize site preparation, grading and foundation designs that provide erosion control to prevent sedimentation and contamination of waterways. Policy 10.8.2 Require that lifelines crossing a fault be designed to resist the occurrence of fault rupture. Spring Trails contains several significant natural features that have made safety a special concern in the design of the community. Significantly, the San Andreas Fault system runs through the project, natural drainage courses cut through the project, and wildland fire is a threat. Seismic Safety. Spring Trails includes three traces of the San Andreas Fault, which runs in an east-west direction through the northern and southern portions of the project site. These faults were precisely located through detailed geologic investigations to establish safe structural setback limits. Development in Spring Trails is sited to avoid the fault and comply with the Alquist-Priolo fault zone requirements. Development will be required to comply with the latest building codes, which are designed to resist damage from seismic shaking. In addition, the infrastructure that crosses earthquake faults must be designed to handle earthquakes and surface ruptures and the detailed structural plans will be approved in the grading, infrastructure, and building permit process as appropriate. In particular, this Specific Plan requires that: Updated:2/14/2013 by Henry Empeno Jr. G 2256 ■ All structures in Spring Trails shall be required to meet or exceed the applicable seismic design standards of the California Building Standards Code, which correspond to the level of seismic risk in a given location. ■ Construction of habitable buildings shall not occur over or within 50 feet of any known active fault or as required by the geotechnical analyses. ■ No water reservoir or booster pump station shall be constructed within 15 feet of an active fault. ■ Grading for building pads and roads shall conform to specifications of the ? geologist,based on a soils study and final geotechnical study. 1 ■ Flexible materials and joints shall be used for infrastructure (e.g., roads, sewer and water lines) located across known faults. ■ Flexible pipe fittings shall be used to avoid gas or water leaks. Flexible fittings are more resistant to breakage. ■ The final project grading plan shall be reviewed by the City geologist. I Drainage and Flooding. Because Spring Trails sits on an alluvial plain on the slopes of the San Bernardino Mountains, flooding and drainage is a critical factor. On a regional perspective, the drainage area of which Spring Trails belongs flows east into Cable Canyon, then into Cable Creek, and eventually into the Santa Ana River. The site itself consists of four major drainage patterns: • Drainage area A. A 2,030-acre drainage area (148.9 acres on-site and 1,881 acres off-site) that includes the west and east forks of Cable Canyon, which flow south through the northeastern corner of the property and meet a tributary flowing from the east. • Drainage area B. A 63.7-acre watershed (51.6 acres on-site and 12.1 acres off-site) comprises surface flow drainage that flows southwesterly through the center of the site and ultimately into Cable Canyon. • Drainage area C. A 198.2-acre watershed (128.4 acres on-site and 69.8 acres off- site) that consists of off-site surface flows and a defined drainage course that run onto the site and exit through the southeastern part of the project. • Drainage area D. A 341.6-acre drainage area(21.8 acres on-site and 319.8 acres off- site)that includes Meyers Creek. Spring Trails is designed to either maintain natural drainage courses or capture both on- and off--site stormwater flows and route them through a series of catch basin inlets and storm drain systems that convey water to three on-site detention basins where it is treated and discharged at a controlled rate into Cable Canyon. The drainage system and detention basins will reduce stormwater runoff from the site to levels below those that Updated:2/14/2013 by Henry Empeno Jr.G 2256 existed prior to the project. Spring Trails will be required to comply with and obtain necessary NPDES and SWPPP permits. Portions of Cable Canyon and Meyers Canyon are identified as 100-year flood zones, which are constrained to the deep channels of the creeks, and development is located to avoid these areas and minimize road crossings. Wildland Fire. Because of the adjacent San Bernardino National Forest, steep slopes, and high winds, the Spring Trails area is at risk from wildland fires. To ensure the safety of lives and property, a detailed fire analysis was conducted and an extensive fire protection plan was developed for Spring Trails that will protect development from wildland fires. Significant provisions of the fire protection plan include: • The protection of structures through the use of noncombustible exterior building materials, restriction on the use of cornice and eave vents, fire sprinklers, and compliance with the most current fire codes. • Greater levels of structure protection on the perimeters of the project. • Placement of streets on the perimeter of the project to provide a firebreak and a fast line of defense against fires. • Adequate access and maneuverability for fire protection vehicles. ■ Careful placement of fire hydrants and design of structures to facilitate fire suppression efforts and fire hose access. • Strict landscape and use zones, called fuel modification zones, which include private yards and extend approximately 170 to 230 feet from structures. Within the fuel modification zones, there are restrictions on the type, spacing, irrigation, and maintenance of landscaping. • Clear disclosure to potential homebuyers of the fire threat, preventative measures, and individual responsibilities. • Clear delineation of and maintenance responsibilities for the fuel modification zones. • Aggressive program to educate residents on the fire threat, landscaping requirements, and maintenance responsibilities. High Winds. The City of San Bernardino experiences periods of high winds, especially in the Cajon Pass and at the bottom of canyons. Spring Trails is included in the City's designated High Wind Area, which has certain appropriate building standards. Development in Spring Trails will be required to comply with the building standards for this area and will be designed and oriented to avoid the creation of wind tunnels that concentrate gusts in corridors. Updated:2/14/2013 by Henry Empeno Jr.G Packet Pg. 144 I 0 2256 i Environmental Sensitivity Policy 12.2.3 Pursue voluntary open space or conservation easements to protect sensitive species or their habitats. As noted above, the land plan for Spring Trails proposes development to be focused on 70 percent of the total site, avoiding significant drainage corridors, fault zones, steep slopes, and ridgelines. The remainder of the site will be preserved as open space. This open space, along with the avoidance of development of the on-site drainageways, and implementation of the project's mitigation measures, will ensure the project will protect sensitive species and their habitats. 2. SP/GPA/DCA/TTM/DA Finding: The proposed project would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. As noted in the analysis, above the project area is located in a high fire hazard/high wind area, and is traversed by the San Andreas Fault in two locations, and by several drainage courses and wildlife corridors. However, an EIR was prepared for the project, which identified the specific impacts associated with these impacts in relationship to the project, and identified mitigation measures to reduce these impacts to a level that is less than significant. The mitigation measures are listed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project, which will be included within the project's conditions of approval (Condition No. 5). Additionally, the Specific Plan includes specific development standards for fuel modification zones and landscaping to reduce the risk of fire, wildlife corridor protection, construction adjacent to the fault zones and drainage courses, etc. Additionally, the project will be required to construct all necessary infrastructure (access roads, on-site streets, water and sewer service, etc.). This infrastructure, particularly the new water tanks and related water system, will benefit not only project residents, but also adjacent properties. This is especially important in that the water pressure serving the area will be upgraded, which will be beneficial to fight fires that occur in the area. Further, the parks and trails will be constructed in conjunction with the project, which will be available for use by the public. Finally, the project will be required to pay all required impact fees, and the applicant may establish additional assessment districts to provide for the on-going maintenance of the project's infrastructure as well as the provision of public safety to serve the site. The Development Agreement will establish an agreement between the City and the applicant to provide assurances that the sewer and public park infrastructure required for the project will be constructed. Additionally, the sewer and public park infrastructure will serve properties that are adjacent to the project site. Therefore, as noted above, and in the project's Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, with implementation of the mitigation measures for the project, and with construction of the project's infrastructure, the project will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. 3. GPA Finding: The proposed amendment would maintain the appropriate balance of land ® uses within the City. Updated:2/14/2013 by Henry Empeno Jr.G 2256 The project would accommodate a total of 304 single-family residences (303 new plus one existing). According to the project's DEIR (page 5.11-4), per projections by the Southern California Association of Governments, the project is expected to have a jobs:housing ratio of 2:1, which is considered jobs-rich (an average ratio above 1.5:1 is considered jobs-rich). Therefore, the additional 303 units would help improve this jobs:housing ratio. Further, the City does not currently contain a large supply of upper- end single-family residential units. Therefore, the project would provide a type of housing that is currently unique to the City, and thus maintain the balance of land uses in the City. 4. GPA Finding: In the case of an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Map, the subject parcel(s) is 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(s) and the anticipated land use development(s). I As noted in the Analysis, above the EIR prepared for the project discussed that the project area is currently located in an area that contains several significant hazards (fire, flooding, earthquakes), and is also currently not served by any infrastructure (roads and utilities do not currently serve the site, except for the existing residence located in the northwester portion of the site). However, as noted above, the applicant is proposing to construct a full range of C infrastructure, including access to the site, internal streets a complete water system including three water tanks (which will also serve ad improve the water pressure of adjacent existing residences), sewer, utilities, parks, and trails However, it should be noted that as of this time, the applicant has not secured all of the property, or obtained easements for,the primary or secondary access roads that are required to serve the site. Additionally, the infrastructure will be designed to withstand earthquakes will avoid the steepest slopes and on-site watercourses, and will be designed with fire buffers, to reduce the probability of the proposed on-site residences from burning. The project will also serve as a buffer from fires for adjacent properties to the south of the site. Note that per the Fire Department lots 30 and 233 must be maintained as open space, due to a lack of adequate fire buffer area, unless the applicant is able to procure additional, off-site buffer area. It should also be noted that there is an existing SCE easement that traverses the western part of the site from north to south, to accommodate an existing ox of 112kv electric transmission lines. Due to the existing topography and the fact that these are major transmission lines, it is unlikely that these lines can be undergrounded. Therefore, the applicant has proposed to maintain the lots located entirely under the power lines as permanent open space, and proposes to locate the building ads outside of the easement for the lots that will contain portions of the easement across them. The project site is surrounded to the north and east by natural open space, and to the south and west by large-lot single-family residential properties and undeveloped land. Through the Spring Trails Specific Plan, the applicant is proposing to concentrate the Updated:2/14/2013 by Henry Empeno Jr.G 2256 smallest proposed lots (10,800 square feet minimum) on the southern portion of the site one the least steep slopes. Large lots, up to 18.3 acres in area, are proposed on the northern portion of the site on the steeper slopes. The proposed on-site residences would be separated from the surrounding off-site residences to the south and west by a combination of open space (parks and detention basins), large setbacks, grade differences and a trail. Landscaping and fencing will further block views from the site into adjacent properties. With the mitigation measures and development standards of the Spring Trails Specific Plan, the project will be designed to be adequately served by infrastructure (which will also serve adjacent properties), to mitigate potential impacts from hazards (and reduce those on adjacent properties) and be consistent with the adjacent single-family residences to the south and west of the project site, consistent with this finding. 5. TTM Finding: The design of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan. With the General Plan and Development Code Amendments, the design of the proposed subdivision will be consistent with the General Plan. Policy 2.2.1 requires projects to "ensure compatibility between land uses and quality design through adherence to the standards and regulations in the Development Code and policies and guidelines in the Community Design Element." As discussed in the Analysis and in Finding 1, above, the proposed project includes General Plan and Development Code Amendments to establish the Spring Trails Specific Plan as the land use designation for the project and establishes development standards that are unique to the project, which will establish consistency with this General Plan Policy with regard to adherence to regulations in the Development Code. Further, where the Specific Plan is silent on the Development Code standards, the existing Development Standards will apply to the project. Finally, as noted in Finding 1, above, the project will be physically separated from the adjacent residences to the south and west by open space (arks and detention basins) and grade differences. The adjacent off-site residences will be further buffered from the proposed on-site improvements with setbacks,walls and landscaping. 6. SP/TTM Finding: The site is physically suitable for the proposed land use designation(s) and type of development. As discussed in Finding 1, above, with construction of infrastructure to serve the project, and compliance with the project's mitigation measures (refer to Attachment 6) and the development standards set forth in the Development Code and Specific Plan, the site will be physically suitable for the proposed single-family development. Further, due to the on-site topography, which ranges from gently sloping portions to steep slopes and drainage channels with slopes greater than 30 percent, the applicant is proposing to concentrate the majority of the development on the least steep portions of the site, and incorporate the steeper slopes into the larger lots or within the common open space areas within the site,to preserve these areas. 7. TTM Finding: The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. Updated:2/14/2013 by Henry Empeno Jr.G Packet Pg. 147 2256 As noted in Finding 1, above, the project site is currently located outside the City limits and is designated by the County General Plan as Resource Conservation (RC) and Rural Living, 5-ac. min. Lot size (RL-5), which requires a minimum five-acre lot size. However, the applicant is proposing a Specific Plan, along with General Plan and Development Code Amendments to establish the land use designation of the site as the Spring Trails Specific Plan, which proposes an average lot size of one acre. Further, the Specific Plan sets forth development standards unique to the project with regard to development in the fire hazard and hillside areas, and infrastructure improvements. Additionally, due to the on-site topography, which ranges from gently sloping portions to steep slopes and drainage channels with slopes greater than 30 percent, the applicant is proposing to concentrate the majority of the development on the least steep portions of the site, and incorporate the steeper slopes into the larger lots or within the common open space areas within the site, to preserve these areas. With the implementation of the Specific Plan, the 352.8-acre site will be physically suitable to accommodate the proposed 304 single-family residential lots. 8. TTM Finding: The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage, or substantially and unavoidably injure fish of wildlife or their habitat. As noted above,the project site is surrounded by natural open space to the north and east, and partially to the south and west. Cable Creek and other tributaries traverse the site and serve as wildlife corridors. The project has been designed to provide 111.3 acres of natural open space around the north, east and west side of the site abutting the adjacent forest lands and in the southeastern portion of the site, on slopes greater than 30 percent Open space is also proposed within the drainage areas (i.e., Cable Creek and its tributary in the northern portion of the site). In addition, mitigation measures have been required of the project (refer to Attachment 6) to further ensure that wildlife in the vicinity is not disturbed during construction of the site and over the life of the project. However, as noted above, the project will result in significant unavoidable adverse impacts with regard to air quality, noise, traffic and GHG emissions after all applicable mitigation measures are applied. Consequently, also as discussed above, the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment 8), which demonstrates that the project's benefits to the community will override the significant unavoidable adverse impacts, must be approved. 9. TTM Finding: The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause serious public health problems. As noted above, the applicant will be required to construct a full range of infrastructure (access roads, internal streets, utility infrastructure) to serve the project site. Further, the Specific Plan is proposed to establish development standards that are unique to the proposed project, and where the Specific Plan is silent on the Development Code standards, those Development Code standards will apply. The project will be required to comply with the standards of the Development Code and Specific Plan as applicable. Updated:2/14/2013 by Henry Empeno Jr.G }: , 2256 However, as noted above, the applicant has not procured all of the property or easements for the primary and secondary access roads that are required to serve the project site. Therefore, if the applicant is unable to procure either the primary or secondary access to service the site, the project will not be able to move forward. Additionally, as noted above, the project will result in significant unavoidable adverse impacts with regard to air quality, noise, traffic and GHG emissions after all applicable mitigation measures are applied. Consequently, also as discussed above, the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment 8), which demonstrates that the project's benefits to the community will override the significant unavoidable adverse impacts must be approved. 10. TTM Finding: The design of the subdivision and related improvements will not conflict with any easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with any public or private easements. All documentation relating to easements and dedications will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to recordation of the Final Map. Existing easements will be reserved in place or relocated, as necessary. As noted in Finding 1, above the proposed lots that will be located entirely under the existing SCE electric transmission lines will be preserved as open space, while the remainder of the lots proposed within the SCE easement will have their building pad areas located outside of the easement area. 11. SP Finding: The proposed plan shall ensure development of desirable character which will be compatible with existing and proposed development in the surrounding neighborhood. The project site is surrounded by natural open space to the north, east and west, and by single-family residences and vacant properties to the west and south. The existing neighborhood is Waal in character. As noted in Finding 1, above, the project is located in a the Verdemont Heights subarea of the City's General Plan, which also calls lots with a minimum size of one acre and a rural character. The Specific Plan is proposing single- family lots with a minimum lot size of 10,081 square feet (approximately '/ acre) to over 18 acres, with an average lot size of over one acre. The plan proposes to concentrate the smaller lots on the less steep portions of the site to preserve the areas with steeper slopes as open space. Additionally, slopes will be maintained throughout the interior portion of i the site to further break up the concentration of the lots, thus adding to the rural character of the proposed project. Finally, with implementation of the development standards and project conditions of approval (Attachment 3), the Specific Plan will provide for a single- family residential project that will maintain the slopes surrounding the project area as open space and require that lots range from approximately '/< acre to over 18 acres in size to provide compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. 12. SP Finding: The proposed plan will contribute to a balance of land uses so that local residents may work and shop in the community in which they live. i a i i Packet Pg. 149 Updated:2/14/2013 by Henry Empeno Jr.G s.e 2256 As noted in Finding 3, above, the City is expected to be "job-rich", which means that there will be more jobs than housing units available in the City. The project proposes to add 303 new high-end single-family units to the City's housing stock. This is a type of housing that is not prevalent in the City and therefore, will also add to the variety of housing types available in the City. Such high-quality, low density housing is desirable to attract and retain top quality candidates for positions at the University and other institutions, and as such would contribute additional residents who would work and shop in the City. 13. DA Finding: The Development Agreement is consistent with any applicable Specific Plan. The Development Agreement will implement all requirements of the Spring Trails Specific Plan. 14. DA Finding: The Development Agreement is consistent with the Development Code. The Development Agreement does not allow any uses or set standards outside of those allowed by Title 19 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code. Conclusion: The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and the design of the improvements conforms to applicable standards of the Development Code. The Environmental Impact Report has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, including many mitigation measures that will protect public health and safety. Attachments: 1. Ordinance Certifying the Final EIR, approving the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, adopting the Facts,Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and approving SP 10-01 and DCA 12-10 2. Resolution approving GPA 02-06, TTM 15576 and DA 10-01 3. Conditions of Approval 4. Location and Aerial Maps 5. Tentative Tract Map 15576, date stamped November 1, 2012 6. Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program 7. Final Environmental Impact Report, including comments on the Draft EIR and responses to comments 8. Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 9. Spring Trails Specific Plan City Attorney Review: Supaortina Documents: Ord 2256 (PDF) EXHIBIT 1 to Ord. (DOCX) i� Reso 2256 (PDF) Updated:2/14/2013 by Henry Empeno Jr.G 2256 EXHIBIT 1 to Reso. (PDF) EXHIBIT 2 to Reso. (PDF) Attachment 3 -Draft COA (PDF) Attachment 4- Location Map (SPRING TRAILS) (PDF) Attachment 4- Sphere of Influence Map (SPRING TRAILS) (PDF) ATTACHMENT 5A- TR15576 TIM Sheet 1 (PDF) ATTACHMENT 5B -TR15576 TTM Sheet 2 (PDF) ATTACHMENT 5C -TR15576 TIM Sheet 3 (PDF) ATTACHMENT 6 -MMRP (PDF) ATTACHMENT 7 - Spring Trails SP FEIR (PDF) ATTACHMENT 8 - SOC (PDF) ATTACHMENT 9 - Spring Trails SP Oct 2012 Final (PDF) agrmt 2256 (PDF) ATTACHMENT 10 - Spring Trails DA (PDF) ATT. 10.1 Dev Agmt Exhibits (PDF) ATTACHMENT 11 -PC Staff report- 11-14-12 (PDF) Attachment 12 - 11.14.12 Minutes APPROVED (PDF) ATTACHMENT 12.A - Correspondence received at 11-14-12 PC mtg. (PDF) ATTACHMENT 13 -PC Staff report- 1-23-13 (PDF) Attachment 14- 1.23.13 PC Minutes draft (PDF) ATTACHMENT 14.A- Correspondence received at 1.23.13 PC mtg. (PDF) v Updated: 2/14/2013 by Henry Empeno Jr. G Packet Pg. 151 ORDINANCE NO. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE FACTS, FINDINGS AND STATEMENT 3 OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS; CERTIFYING THE FINAL 4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN; AND ADOPTING DEVELOPMENT 5 CODE AMENDMENT NO. DCA 12-10 TO ADD THE SPRING TRAILS SPECIFIC PLAN TO THE LIST OF SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS AND RECOGNIZE THE 6 SPECIFIC PLAN'S DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. 7 SECTION 1. RECITALS 8 WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino adopted 9 the City General Plan by Resolution No. 2005-362 on November 1, 2005;and w WHEREAS, the Spring Trails project is within the City's sphere of influence and the F 10 City determined that a Specific Plan for Spring Trails was appropriate; and c 11 WHEREAS, on November 19, 2009, the Development/Environmental Review C 12 Committee (D/ERC) reviewed plans for the Spring Trails Project ("Project") and ;O 13 recommended that a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Project's Environmental Impact Report(EIR)be released for public review; and N 14 WHEREAS, on November 24, 2009, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation H 15 (NOP) of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to responsible agencies, interested parties � 16 and the public to solicit comments and concerns regarding the scope of analysis to be Ln conducted for the Spring Trails Project EIR; and N 17 T WHEREAS, on December 14, 2009, the City conducted a public scoping meeting to 0 18 provide information about the Spring Trails Project and to receive public comments on the d 19 scope of analysis to be conducted for the Spring Trails Project EIR; and WHEREAS, all comments received at the public scoping meeting and in responses to a 20 the NOP were considered in the preparation of a Draft EIR for the Spring Trails Project, and 21 were incorporated in the Draft EIR; and 22 WHEREAS, on July 14, 2011, the D/ERC recommended that the Draft EIR be 23 released for public review; and WHEREAS, a Draft EIR for the Spring Trails Project was circulated for a 45-day 24 public review from July 29, 2011 through September 12, 2011, and three comment letters 25 were received by the City; and 26 WHEREAS, a Final EIR for the Spring Trails Project was prepared pursuant to CEQA O requirements, including the Draft EIR, technical appendices to the Draft EIR, responses to all 27 comments submitted in response to the Draft EIR, and changes to the Draft EIR; and 28 1 Packet Pg. 152 MN 1 WHEREAS, on November 14, 2012, the Planning Commission of the City of San Bernardino held a noticed public hearing on the Spring Trails Project to consider written and 2 oral comments on the Project(except Development Agreement No. DA 11-01), the Final EIR, 3 the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Facts, Findings and Statement of 4 Overriding Considerations; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after considering the public testimony and 5 Findings of Fact in the staff report, by a vote of 7:0 (with one abstention) recommended that 6 the Mayor and Common Council not adopt the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding 7 Considerations, not certify the Final Environmental Impact Report, not adopt the Mitigation 8 Monitoring and Reporting Program, and recommended denial of the Project to the Mayor and Common Council; and 9 WHEREAS, on January 23, 2013, the Planning Commission held a noticed public 10 hearing to consider public testimony and the staff report on Development Agreement No. DA 11 11-01; and _ CL WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after considering the public testimony and y 12 Findings of Fact in the staff report, by a vote of 4:2 recommended denial of the Development N 13 Agreement to the Mayor and Common Council; and R 14 WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing for the Mayor and Common Council's c consideration of the proposed Ordinance was published in The Sun newspaper on February 8, 2 15 2013. 1 to 16 WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council conducted a noticed public hearing on N 17 February 19, 2013, and fully reviewed and considered the Final EIR; the Mitigation Ta 18 Monitoring and Reporting Program; the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations; and the recommendation of the Planning Commission with respect to the E L Project. cc 20 a 21 NOW THEREFORE, THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 22 23 SECTION 2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINDINGS 24 THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO 25 HEREBY MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: A. The facts and statements contained in the above-Recitals are true and correct. 26 B. The Final EIR for the Spring Trails Project, comprised of the Draft EIR and 27 technical appendices, a list of all persons and agencies that submitted comments on the Draft ' 28 EIR, all written comments on the Draft EIR, text changes to the Draft EIR, and written 2 PacketPg. 153 1 responses to all comments, was prepared pursuant to CEQA requirements and is attached as "Attachment 7" to the Council staff report dated February 19, 2013, and incorporated herein 2 by reference. 3 C. The Mayor and Common Council exercised independent analysis and judgment in 4 its review of the Spring Trails Project Final EIR, and considered all contents of the Final EIR prior to taking an action on certification of the Final EIR, and prior to making a decision on 5 the Project. 6 D. The Final EIR has identified all significant adverse environmental effects of the 7 Project as set forth in the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, 8 attached as "Attachment 8" to the Council staff report dated February 19, 2013, and incorporated herein by reference. 9 E. Although the Final EIR identifies certain significant adverse environmental effects 10 that would result if the Project is approved, all significant adverse environmental effects that 11 can feasibly be avoided or mitigated, will be avoided or mitigated by the implementation of a the mitigation measures as set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the y 12 Final EIR. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan is attached as "Attachment 6" to N N 13 the Council staff report dated February 19, 2013,and incorporated herein by reference. N 14 F. Potential mitigation measures and other Project alternatives not incorporated into or $ adopted as part of the Project were rejected as infeasible, based on specific economic, social LA 15 z or other considerations as set forth in the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding 16 Considerations. LO N N N 17 G. The Mayor and Common Council has given great weight to the significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR. The Mayor and 18 Common Council find that the significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts are 19 clearly outweighed by the economic, social and other benefits of the Project as set forth in the M 20 Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations. a 21 H. The Mayor and Common Council hereby finds that the findings contained in the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations with respect to the significant 22 impacts identified in the Final EIR for the Spring Trails Project, are true and correct, and are 23 based on substantial evidence in the record, including documents comprising the Final EIR. 24 I. The Final Environmental Impact Report; Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan; 25 and the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations reflect the independent review, analysis and judgment of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San 26 Bernardino. 27 28 3 Packet Pg. 154 6.B.a I SECTION 3. CERTIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO 2 HEREBY FIND that the Final EIR for the Spring Trails Project (SCH #2009111086) is 3 adequate and complete in that it addresses the environmental effects of the Project and fully 4 complies with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City's Environmental Review Procedures. The Final EIR is 5 hereby certified; the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations are hereby 6 adopted; and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan is hereby adopted. 7 SECTION 4. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 12-10 8 Development Code Amendment No. DCA 12-10 (attached as Exhibit 1 to this 9 Ordinance and incorporated herein by reference) is hereby approved based upon the Findings 10 of Fact contained in the Staff Report to the Mayor and Common Council dated February 19, 2013, and incorporated herein by reference. Development Code Section 19.10.030 is hereby CL 11 amended to add Subsection(7)as shown in Exhibit 1. co 12 `Ln SECTION 5. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION N 13 In accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance, the Planning Division is hereby N 14 directed to file a Notice of Determination with the County of San Bernardino Clerk of the ° .4 15 Board of Supervisors certifying the City's compliance with the California Environmental 16 Quality Act in preparing and adopting the Final Environmental Impact Report; the Facts, N Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations; and the Mitigation Monitoring and r 17 s Reporting Plan for the Project. The Planning Division shall forward a copy of the Notice of p 18 Determination to the State Clearinghouse. c m 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 Packet Pg. 155 ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN 1 BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE FACTS, FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF 2 OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS; CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; ADOPTING THE MITIGATION 3 MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN; AND ADOPTING DEVELOPMENT 4 CODE AMENDMENT NO. ACA 12-10 TO ADD THE SPRING TRAILS SPECIFIC PLAN TO THE LIST OF SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS AND RECOGNIZE THE 5 SPECIFIC PLAN'S DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. 6 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing ordinance was duly adopted by the Mayor 7 and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at a meeting thereof, held on 8 the day of 2013, by the following vote to wit: 9 L 10 C 11 Council Members: AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENT Q 12 MARQUEZ LO cli JENKINS 13 VALDIVIA a 14 SHORETT 4 15 KELLEY 16 JOHNSON N N 17 MC CAMMACK v 0 18 19 Georgeann Hanna, City Clerk r 20 a 21 The foregoing Ordinance is hereby approved this day of 2013. 22 23 PATRICK J. MORRIS, Mayor 24 City of San Bernardino 25 Approved as to form: 26 JAMES F. PENMAN City Attorney 27 28 By: 5 Packet Pg. 156'; EXHIBIT 1 CHAPTER 19.10 SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS 19.10.030 LAND USE DISTRICT SPECIFIC STANDARDS 7. Specific Plan No. 10-01, Spring Trails This Specific Plan district is intended to provide for the development of 304 single-family lots 107.8 acres of open space hiking trails, roadways and three detention basins on the 2 352.8-acre project site fonnerly known as the Martin Ranch. The site is located in the unincorporated area of Verdemont in San Bemardino County, north of Meyers Road and rn northwest of the northerly terminus of Little League Drive. Lo N N N 0 O r F m 2 X W C d E t U W Y Q Packet Pg. 157 RESOLUTION NO. 2 RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE FACTS, FINDINGS AND STATEMENT 3 OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS; CERTIFYING THE FINAL 4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN; ADOPTING THE SPRING TRAILS 5 SPECIFIC PLAN NO. SP10-01; ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GPA 02-09 INCLUDING PRE-ANNEXATION OF THE SPRING TRAILS PROJECT 6 SITE; APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TIM) NO. 15576 (SUBDIVISION NO. 02-09); AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 7 NO. 11-01. 8 SECTION 1. RECITALS 9 WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino adopted 10 the City General Plan by Resolution No. 2005-362 on November 1, 2005; and 11 WHEREAS, the Spring Trails project is within the City's sphere of influence and the C City determined that a Specific Plan for Spring Trails was appropriate; and 12 WHEREAS, the Spring Trails Specific Plan proposes development of 304 single- N 13 family residential lots within a 352.8-acre site situated within a currently unincorporated area ,,:, 14 of Verdemont in the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains, north of Meyers Road and o northwest of the northerly terminus of Little League Drive (APNs 348-071-05 through -10, d 15 348-111-03, -04, -07) -08,-30, and-44); and 16 WHEREAS, the Project proposes approval of Spring Trails Specific Plan No. SP10- N 17 01; General Plan Amendment No. GPA 02-09, including pre-annexation of the site and m 18 adjacent 26.4-acre area; approval of Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 15576 (Subdivision No. 02-09) to subdivide the Project area; and approval of Development Agreement No. 11-01 E 19 ('Spring Trails Project"or"Project"); and 20 WHEREAS, on November 19, 2009, the Development/Environmental Review 21 Committee (D/ERC) reviewed plans for the Spring Trails Project and recommended that a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Project's Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be released 22 for public review; and 23 WHEREAS, on November 24, 2009, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation 24 (NOP) of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to responsible agencies, interested parties 25 and the public to solicit comments and concerns regarding the scope of analysis to be conducted for the Spring Trails Project EIR; and 26 WHEREAS, on December 14, 2009, the City conducted a public scoping meeting to 27 provide information about the Spring Trails Project and to receive public comments on the 28 scope of analysis to be conducted for the Spring Trails Project EIR; and 1 Packet Pg. 158 ME 1 WHEREAS, all comments received at the public scoping meeting and in responses to the NOP were considered in the preparation of a Draft EIR for the Spring Trails Project, and 2 were incorporated in the Draft EIR; and 3 WHEREAS, on July 14, 2011, the D/ERC recommended that the Draft EIR be 4 released for public review; and WHEREAS, a Draft EIR for the Spring Trails Project was circulated for a 45-day 5 public review from July 29, 2011 through September 12, 2011, and three comment letters 6 were received by the City; and 7 WHEREAS, a Final EIR for the Spring Trails Project was prepared pursuant to CEQA 8 requirements, including the Draft EIR, technical appendices to the Draft EIR, responses to all comments submitted in response to the Draft EIR, and changes to the Draft EIR; and w 9 WHEREAS, on November 14, 2012, the Planning Commission of the City of San 10 Bernardino held a noticed public hearing on the Spring Trails Project to consider written and c 11 oral comments on the Project(except Development Agreement No. DA 11-01), the Final EIR, C the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, and the Facts, Findings and Statement of 12 Overriding Considerations; and N 13 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after considering the public testimony and M l 14 Findings of Fact in the staff report, by a vote of 7:0 (with one abstention) recommended that c the Mayor and Common Council not adopt the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding > 15 Considerations, not certify the Final Environmental Impact Report, not adopt the Mitigation 16 Monitoring and Reporting Plan, and recommended denial of the Project to the Mayor and N 17 Common Council; and °a m WHEREAS, on January 23, 2013, the Planning Commission held a noticed public 18 hearing to consider public testimony and the staff report on Development Agreement No. DA E 19 11-01; and 20 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after considering the public testimony and a 21 Findings of Fact in the staff report, by a vote of 4:2 recommended denial of the Development Agreement to the Mayor and Common Council; and 22 WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing for the Mayor and Common Council's 23 consideration of the proposed Resolution was published in The Sun newspaper on February 8, 24 2013. WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council conducted a noticed public hearing on 25 February 19, 2013, and fully reviewed and considered the Final EIR; the Mitigation 26 Monitoring and Reporting Plan; the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding 27 Considerations; and the recommendation of the Planning Commission with respect to the 28 Project. 2 6.B.c 1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND AND DETERMINED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO 2 AS FOLLOWS: 3 4 SECTION 2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINDINGS A. The facts and statements contained in the above-Recitals are true and correct. 5 B. The Final EIR for the Spring Trails Project, comprised of the Draft EIR and 6 technical appendices, a list of all persons and agencies that submitted comments on the Draft 7 EIR, all written comments on the Draft EIR, text changes to the Draft EIR, and written 8 responses to all comments, was prepared pursuant to CEQA requirements and is attached as "Attachment 7" to the Council staff report dated February 19, 2013, and incorporated herein w 9 by reference.. 10 C. The Mayor and Common Council exercised independent analysis and judgment in c 11 its review of the Spring Trails Project Final EIR, and considered all contents of the Final EIR C prior to taking an action on certification of the Final EIR, and prior to making a decision on 12 the Project. N 13 D. The Final EIR has identified all significant adverse environmental effects of the 14 Project as set forth in the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, `o_ attached as "Attachment 8" to the Council staff report dated February 19, 2013, and 15 incorporated herein by reference. 16 E. Although the Final EIR identifies certain significant adverse environmental effects N 17 that would result if the Project is approved, all significant adverse environmental effects that 18 can feasibly be avoided or mitigated, will be avoided or mitigated by the implementation of the mitigation measures as set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the £ 19 Final EIR. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan is attached as "Attachment 6" to 20 the Council staff report dated February 19,2013, and is incorporated herein by reference. 21 F. Potential mitigation measures and other Project alternatives not incorporated into or adopted as part of the Project were rejected as infeasible, based on specific economic, social 22 or other considerations as set forth in the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding 23 Considerations. 24 G. The Mayor and Common Council has given great weight to the significant 25 unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR. The Mayor and Common Council find that the significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts are 26 clearly outweighed by the economic, social and other benefits of the Project as set forth in the 27 Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations. 28 3 Packet Pg. 160 1 H. The Mayor and Common Council hereby finds that the findings contained in the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations with respect to the significant 2 impacts identified in the Final EIR for the Spring Trails Project, are true and correct, and are 3 based on substantial evidence in the record, including documents comprising the Final EIR. 4 I. The Final Environmental Impact Report; Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan; and the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations reflect the independent 5 review, analysis and judgment of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San 6 Bernardino. 7 8 SECTION 3. CERTIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The Final EIR for the Spring Trails Project (SCH #2009111086) is adequate and a 9 complete in that it addresses the environmental effects of the Project and fully complies with 10 the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA),the CEQA Guidelines, 11 and the City's Environmental Review Procedures. The Final EIR is hereby certified; the C Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations are hereby adopted; and the 12 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan is hereby adopted. N 13 M 14 SECTION 4. PROJECT FINDINGS OF FACT AND APPROVAL c Spring Trails Specific Plan No. SP10-01, General Plan Amendment No. GPA 02-09 > 15 (Exhibits 1 and 2 to this Resolution, attached and incorporated herein by reference), and 16 Tentative Tract Map No. TTM 15576 (Subdivision No. 02-09) are hereby approved based N 17 upon the Findings of Fact contained in the Staff Report to the Mayor and Common Council dated February 19, 2013, and subject to the Conditions of Approval (Attachment 3 to said W 18 W Staff Report) and both are incorporated herein by reference. d 19 r ZO SECTION 5. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FINDINGS AND APPROVAL a A. Development Agreement No. DA 11-01, Attachment 10 to the Staff Report to 21 the Mayor and Common Council dated February 19, 2013, is hereby approved based upon the 22 Findings of Fact contained in said Staff Report, and both are incorporated herein by reference. 23 The Mayor is authorized and directed to execute Development Agreement No. DA 11-01 on behalf of the City. The authorization to execute the Development Agreement is rescinded if 24 the parties fail to execute it within sixty (60) days from the date of adoption of this 25 Resolution.. 26 B. Notwithstanding any other provision herein, Development Agreement No. DA 27 11-01 shall take effect until 30 days after the adoption of this Resolution by the Mayor and `✓ 2$ Common Council,and execution of the Agreement by both parties. 4 s B 1 SECTION 6. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION In accordance with the provisions of this Resolution, the Planning Division is hereby 2 directed to file a Notice of Determination with the County of San Bernardino Clerk of the 3 Board of Supervisors certifying the City's compliance with the California Environmental 4 Quality Act in preparing and adopting the Final Environmental Impact Report; the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations; and the Mitigation Monitoring and 5 Reporting Plan for the Project. The Planning Division shall forward a copy of the Notice of 6 Determination to the State Clearinghouse, 7 8 SECTION 7. ANNEXATION In accordance with the provisions of this Resolution, the Planning Division is hereby 9 directed to prepare and file an application with the Local Agency Formation Commission 10 ("LAFCO")to initiate annexation of the Spring Trails Specific Plan property. c 11 to 12 /// N N 13 r 14 H A 15 W 16 N N 17 N d 18 C d 19 M 20 a 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 Packet Pg:162 ' ME RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 1 SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE FACTS, FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF 2 OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS; CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; ADOPTING THE MITIGATION 3 MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN; ADOPTING THE SPRING TRAILS 4 SPECIFIC PLAN NO. SP10-01; ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GPA 02-09 INCLUDING PRE-ANNEXATION OF THE SPRING TRAILS PROJECT 5 SITE; APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TTM) NO. 15576 (SUBDIVISION NO. 02-09); AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 6 NO. 11-01. 7 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the Mayor 8 and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at a meeting thereof, held on N 9 cc the day of 12013, by the following vote to wit: 10 11 Council Members: AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENT y 12 MARQUEZ N N JENKINS 13 VALDIVIA 14 ° SHORETT " 15 KELLEY Lo 16 JOHNSON N N 17 MC CAMMACK N d 18 C N 19 Georgeann Hanna, City Clerk m 20 a 21 The foregoing Resolution is hereby approved this day of 22 2013. 23 PATRICK J.MORRIS, Mayor 24 City of San Bernardino 25 Approved as to form: JAMES F. PENMAN 26 City Attorney 27 28 By: 6 Packet Pg:-163 ® EXMBIT 1 The General Plan,page 2-3, is revised to add the Spring Trails Specific Plan to Table LU-1 as follows: Land Use Element Relationship to Land Use Regulatory Documents 2. Specific Plans Table LU-1 Approved Specific Plans N City of San Bernardino Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan CALMAT(A.K.A. Cajon Creek Specific Plan) CL Highland Hills Specific Plan �? Paradise Hills Specific Plan Cq Paseo Las Placitas Specific Plan (Also known as the Mt. Vernon Corridor Specific Plan) San Bernardino International Trade Center Specific Plan Spring Trails Specific Plan 0 University District Specific Plan Ln University Business Park Specific Plan 6 N O O H CO 2 X W c m E L U m a Packet Pg. 164 k 6.B.e EXHIBIT 2 - GENERAL PLAN MAP F N BERNARDINO DIVISION SPRING TRAILS unvru 1 LOCATION MAP 1 HEARING DATE: 2/19/13 N I � I F C n 3 q LO 3 N c" O Ln _.� .. > 1 ' , O 6 N O N N m S / Project Site w E _ U W.fESTATE{W ST � RESA7E TA EOY4 IRl IPIp T ` Packet Pg. 165 C ATTACHMENT 3 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Tentative Tract Map No. 15576(Subdivision No. 02-09) 1. Final map processing shall be in substantial conformance to the submitted map date stamped November 1, 2012, for a subdivision of one 352.8-acre parcel into 304 single- family residential parcels plus parcels for common open space,parks and water tanks. 2. Within two years of the original approval date, the filing of the final map with the Council shall have occurred or the approval shall become null and void. Expiration of a tentative map shall terminate all proceedings and no final map shall be filed without first processing a new tentative map. The City Engineer must accept the final map or N tentative map documents as adequate for approval by Council prior to forwarding them to the City Clerk. The date the final map shall be deemed filed with the Council is the date on which the City Clerk receives the map. CL EXPIRATION DATE: Two years from final MCC approval LO N N 3. The review authority may, upon application and for good cause, grant up to three N extensions of time not to exceed 12 months each pursuant to Development Code a 0 Section 19.66.170 and the State Map Act. The applicant must file an application, U processing fees, and all required submittal items, 30 days prior to the expiration date(s). The review authority shall ensure that the project complies with all Development Code provisions in effect at the time of the requested extension. M 4. In the event this approval is legally challenged, the City will promptly notify the E s applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and will cooperate fully in the defense of o this matter. Once notified, the applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold a harmless the City of San Bernardino (City), any departments, agencies, divisions, boards or commission of the City well as predecessors, successors, assigns, agents, E directors, elected officials, officers, employees, representatives and attorneys of the City from any claim, action or proceeding against any of the foregoing persons or entities. The applicant further agrees to reimburse the City for any costs and attorneys' fees which the City may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action, but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his or her obligation under this condition. The costs, salaries, and expenses of the City Attorney and employees of his office shall be considered as"attorney's fees" for the purpose of this condition. As part of the consideration for issuing this permit, this condition shall remain in effect if this Tentative Tract Map is rescinded or revoked,whether or not at the request of applicant. 5. Subdivision of the project site is subject to the attached mitigation measures in the Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program (MM/RP), incorporated by reference in 77M No. 15576(Subdivision No. 02-09) MCC Meeting: February 19, 2013 Page 1 ® these Conditions of Approval (Attachment 6 to the MCC Staff Report dated February 19,2012). 6. The applicant must record the MM/RP with the parcel map to run concurrent with the property. 7. The applicant must submit the final map to the Land Development Division for plan check and recordation. 8. The applicant must submit project Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs) to the Community Development Director for review and approval. The CC&Rs must include requirements that homeowners in the project do not place trash containers outside for pickup on days where the wind will exceed 25 miles per hour, and for the maintenance of trash receptacles in open space areas on such windy days, and must disclose the presence of the on-site Fault Hazard and Fire Hazard zones and drainage r and wildlife corridors. i a 9. Prior to map recordation, should the property owner of a residential property located �? immediately adjacent to the subject project request that views onto their property be LO blocked from on-site project improvements, the applicant must provide details and/or notes on the final map drawings to demonstrate the views onto the subject adjacent a property(ies) will be blocked. Such design features or notes may include, but not be (`✓, limited to, relocating the trail onto the internal project streets, constructing solid walls, ensuring the proposed on-site residences facing the adjacent properties will have a e` single-story design, or other feasible means to ensure privacy of the adjacent off-site 1: property owners is maintained to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. E r U A 10. For the life of the project, Lots 30 and 233 must remain as permanent open space, or a until such time that the applicant demonstrates the availability of sufficient Fuel Modification Zone area to meet the requirements of the San Bernardino Fire Department. The applicant must note this requirement on the final map drawings and project CC&Rs. 11. Drainage and Flood Control: a. All necessary drainage and flood control measures will be subject to requirements of the City Engineer, which may be based in part on the recommendations of the San Bernardino County Department of Transportation and Flood Control. The developer's Engineer must furnish all necessary data to Land Development Division relating to drainage and flood control. b. A drainage study will be required for the project prior to Grading Permit. Any drainage improvements, structures or storm drains needed to mitigate downstream impacts or protect the development shall be designed and constructed at the developer's expense, and right-of-way dedicated as necessary. The applicant shall secure all departmental approvals and permits from the County of San Bernardino for all culvert crossings and bridges. A Packet Pg. 167 TTMNo. 15576(Subdivision No. 02-09) MCC Meeting: February 19, 2013 Page 3 C. All drainage from the development must be directed to an approved public drainage facility or within a public drainage easement. If not feasible, proper drainage facilities and easements must be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. The applicant must design the detention basins in accordance with the "Detention Basin Design Criteria for San Bernardino County", and be modified to contain a 100-year storm. Each detention basin is required to have an access road to maintain the basin and must be shown on the site plan. e. The applicant must provide a scour analysis and routing analysis using the HEC-RAS method for all basins that will be constructed adjacent to natural water courses to ensure that the basins will be adequately protected from y erosion. ` rn f. The project is located in Zone D on the FEMA Federal Insurance Rate Maps a (FIRM). Map Number 0607IC7910H Map Revision 08/28/2008 and Map Q) Number 06071C7930H with Map Revision 08/28/2008. The developer will be responsible for providing technical data verifying that the subject parcels are not within a 100-year storm, otherwise, the developer is required to provide a elevation certificates prepared in accordance with FEMA regulations to prove o that all parcels are not subject to flooding in a 100-year storm. These R certificates must be provided in a form that is suitable for submittal to FEMA o in order to obtain a Letter of Map Revision(LOMA). 4 g. The applicant must submit to Land Development for review and approval prior r to Grading permit, a Hydrology and Hydraulic Study, including detention basin routing, street capacities, and a mudflow tributary to and within the a project area as well as off-site areas that could potentially be impacted by the project. Appropriate bulking factors and scour analyses are required for all crossing structures and engineered slopes abutting the channels. 5 R h. Proposed individual lots located north of Cable Canyon will be required to a retain 100% of their storm run-off since this area of the residential development cannot be routed into an extended detention basin. The residential lots in this location will utilize on-site rain gardens or detention areas as part of their mitigation. Deed Restriction will be required for parcels 281 through 303 and submitted to Land Development prior to Grading Permit issuance for the applicable phase. i. No cross lot drainage is allowed within the residential development without an exclusive drainage easement for the subject parcel. Packet Pg. 168 77MNo. 15576(Subdivision No. 02-09) MCC Meeting: February 19, 1013 Page 4 O j. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or map recordation, whichever comes first, the structures, terrace drains, storm drains, irrigation lines or any manufactured slopes shall not be located within a seismic zone and/or within a geologic setback until additional feasibility studies per the California Building Code are reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and County Geologist to support the construction of the structures. k. The applicant must secure license Agreements/Joint Use Agreements from the County of San Bernardino for all crossings through Flood Control District Property prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. 1. The applicant is required to obtain permits for all natural drainage course crossings and streambed alterations from US Army Corp of Engineers, San Bernardino County Flood Control District, and the State Department of Fish and Game prior to issuance of a grading permit. R m. Rick Engineering has submitted a Preliminary Full Categorical Water Quality E Management Plan (WQMP) to Land Development and the plan is currently C under review. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for this project is required to be submitted to Land Development. The Building N Official, prior to issuance of any permit, shall approve the WQMP and the SWPPP. o U n. The Building Official, prior to grading plan approval, shall approve an Erosion 6 Control Plan. The plan must be designed to control erosion due to water and Q wind, including blowing dust, during all phases of construction, including M Y graded areas which are not proposed to be immediately built upon. E s 12. Grading and Landscaping a a. The applicant is required to submit all geotechnical investigation studies to the County Geologist for review and recommendation and incorporate his E recommendations and findings into the Grading Plan and the Site Development plans. b. The site and grading plans are required to be signed by a Registered Civil Engineer and a grading permit will be required. The grading plan shall be prepared in accordance with the City's "Grading Policies and Procedures" and the City's "Standard Drawings", unless otherwise approved by the Building Official. The Grading Plan is required to be submitted to Land Development for review and approval. C. Pad elevations shown on the rough and/or precise grading plan must not vary more than one-foot for interior pads or one-half foot for exterior pads from the pad elevations shown on the tentative tract map as approved by the Planning (�J Commission. Exterior pads are those pads immediately adjacent to existing streets or existing residential areas. TTMNo. 15576(Subdivision No. 02-09) MCC Meeting: February 19, 2013 Page 5 d. Perimeter walls and landscaping & irrigation in the Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District must be installed and accepted by Public Works prior to acceptance of rough grading. e. If more than five (5) trees are to be removed from the site, a tree removal permit conforming to the requirements of Section 19.28.090 of the Development Code must be obtained by the applicant from the Department of Community Development - Planning Division prior to issuance of any grading permits. i f. This project will move more than 5,000 cubic yards of earthwork and the grading shall be supervised in accordance with Section 3317.2 of the California Building Code and a grading bond will be required. The amount of the bond is to be determined by the Building Official. g. If the grading plan indicates export or import, the source of the import material or the site for the deposition of the export must be noted on the grading plan. Q Permit numbers shall be noted if the source or destination is in the City of San U) Bernardino. N N h. A liquefaction evaluation is required for the site since the project area lies a within the Bunker Hill Basin area. This evaluation must be submitted to, and o U approved by, the Land Development Division prior to issuance of a grading V permit. Any grading requirements recommended by the approved liquefaction o evaluation shall be incorporated in the grading plan. i. An on-site Improvement Plan is required for this project. Where feasible, this plan shall be incorporated with the grading plan and must conform to all requirements of Section 15.04-167 of the Municipal Code. =° a j. Rear lot lines are required to be located at the top of slope for all lots with privately maintained slopes and shall be shown on the tentative tract map. E U R k. Off-site permission must be obtained and submitted to the Land Development a Division for all off-site grading and drainage shown on the Tentative Tract map. 1. A Drainage Acceptance letter is required to be submitted to the Land Development Division for drainage draining to adjacent properties. m. The public right-of-way,between the property line and top of curb (also known as"parkway") along adjoining streets must be landscaped by the developer and maintained in perpetuity by the property owner. Details of the parkway landscaping must be included in the project's on-site landscape plan,unless the parkway area is included in a Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District, in which case, a separate landscape plan must be provided. Packet Pg. 170 77MNo. 15576(Subdivision No. 02-09) MCC Meeting: February 19, 2013 Page 6 © 13. Public Use Maintenance and Public Safety District a. A Maintenance District for all Public Infrastructure including culvert crossings, bridges, drainage facilities, streets, detention basins within the project area must be included in a Maintenance District and is required to be formed prior to map recordation. b. A Special District for a Paramedic, Police and Fire Protection Public must be included in a Special District and is required to be formed prior to map recordation. C. Prior to sale of each parcel the applicant must provide the City's Real Property Section of the Public Works Division with a signed copy of the "Notice of Assessment District"disclosure for each property purchaser. I � 14. Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District Q L r a. A Landscape Lighting Maintenance District (LLMD) must be implemented to N maintain landscaping and street lighting within Tract 15576. CC b. The Landscape Lighting Maintenance District must include all in-development o street lighting and may share a common electric meter with the landscape irrigation controllers. The cost of installing the street lighting system must be 0 bonded as part of the faithful performance, labor and materials, and warranty M bond required for approval by the City Council and recording of the tract or d parcel map. r C. The street light construction and installation details must be shown on the a street improvement plans. The following information must be shown on the LLMD plans for reference only. v i. Location of all street lights to be maintained by the LLMD, and a ii. The lumen or wattage of each street light to be maintained by the LLMD. d. The cost of installation of landscaping and irrigation system in the Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District must be bonded as part of the faithful performance, labor & materials, and warranty bond required for approval by the City Council and recording of the tract map. e. All required maintenance districts must be formed prior to Map recording. The Maintenance District formation requires a minimum of four (4) months after approval of plans. TTMNo. 15576(Subdivision No. 02-09) MCC Meeting: February 19, 2013 Page 7 f. Separate sets of Landscape Plans must be provided for the Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District to the Land Development Division for review and approval prior to map recordation. g. The final map drawings must include a statement requiring that the landscaping and irrigation system shall be installed in the Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District and accepted by the City Engineer prior to application for occupancy of any house in that phase in the subdivision. h. The final map drawings must include a statement requiring that prior to sale of each parcel the Developer shall provide the City's Real Property Section of the Public Works Division with a signed copy of the "Notice of Assessment District"disclosure for each property purchaser. N 15. Utilities ` rn c a. The applicant must design and construct all public utilities to serve the project Q site in accordance with City Municipal Code, City Standards and requirements �? of the serving utility, including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer and cable N TV. N. a b. The Sewer Capacity Study submitted on July 20, 2009 by Rick Engineering 0 has been accepted. The sewer design is required to comply with the accepted w Ca Sewer Capacity Study and must be constructed in accordance with the City's "Sewer Policy and Procedures" and City Standard Drawings. M C. This project is not located in the sewer service area maintained by the City of San Bernardino therefore; the project is required to be annexed into the City of San Bernardino before service can begin. r a d. Utility services must be placed underground and easements provided as required. s U e. A street cut permit, from the City Engineer,will be required for utility cuts into a Myers Road and Little League Drive. f. All existing overhead utilities and utilities that interfere with new construction adjacent to or traversing the site on either side of the street are required to be relocated and placed underground in accordance with Section 19.30.110 of the Development Code. The existing Southern California Edison Towers located on the project site may remain, and mitigations measures set by Southern California Edison must be implemented. 16. Mapping a. A Final Tract Map based upon field survey will be required. b. All street names shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer prior to Map recordation. Packet Pg. 172 7TMNo. 15576(Subdivision No. 02-09) MCC Meeting: February 19, 2013 Page 8 C. This Map is located in an Assessment District. If the assessment has not been paid off, the applicant must submit an apportionment application to the Real Property section of the Public Works Division and pay the fee established by ordinance. Application forms can be obtained from the Real Property Section at(909)384-5026. d. All rights of vehicular ingress/egress must be dedicated from the following existing streets: i. Meyers Road ii. Verdemont Drive ' N 17. Improvement Completion a. Street, sewer, drainage improvement, traffic signals, and Landscape and a Lighting Maintenance District landscape and irrigation plans for the entire C.O. project must be completed, subject to the approval of the City Engineer, prior to the Map recordation. a b. If the construction/installation of required improvements, including o landscaping and irrigation within the Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District, are not completed prior to Map recordation, an improvement security o accompanied by an agreement executed by the developer and the City will be M required. c i m E C. The applicant must pay the street light energy fee to pay cost of street light m energy for a period of four (4) years. The exact amount shall be determined a and will become payable prior to map recordation. 18. Street Improvement and Dedications a. For the streets listed below, dedication of adequate street right-of-way (R.W.) to provide the distance from street centerline to property line and placement of the curb line(C.L.) in relation to the street centerline shall be as follows: i Packet Pg. 173 77MNo. 15576(Subdivision No. 02-09) MCC Meeting: February 19, 2013 Page 9 Rieht of Curb Linefft.)or Street Type Wa ft. Improvement Width Primary Access Road 50 34 Primary Local Street 50 40 Secondary Local Street 40 32 Cul-De-Sac I 40 36 Cul-de-Sac H 40 32 CL Lo b. A corner line of sight/sight distance evaluation is required due to the proposed N side embankment slopes of streets. a 0 C. Construct Driveway Approaches per City Standard No. 203. Remove existing driveway approaches that are not part of the approved plan and replace with o full height curb &gutter and sidewalk. M C d. All Curb return radii on local streets are required to be 25 feet minimum. s v e. Two independent means of access to the project shall be provided. Each shall have a minimum paved width as indicated above. Additional width may be a required for drainage control and traffic safety. The proposed secondary access road shall be a minimum paved width of 24 feet and it shall be offered for dedication. 19. Phasing a. If the project is to be developed in phases, each individual phase must be designed to provide maximum public safety, convenience for public service vehicles, and proper traffic circulation. In order to meet this requirement, the following will be required prior to the finalization of any phase: The construction of the Secondary Access to the project. b. Improvement plans for the total project or sufficient plans beyond the phase boundary to verify the feasibility of the design must be complete to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. C. A plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Division, Fire, and Planning Departments, indicating what improvements will 77MNo. 15576(Subdivision No. 02-09) MCC Meeting: February 19, 2013 Page 10 ® be constructed with the given phase, subject to the following: The construction of the Secondary Access and the drainage facility that will be impacted by the construction of the previous phase. d. Dead-end streets must be provided with a minimum 40-foot radius paved turn around. e. Half width streets must be provided with a minimum 28 foot paved width. f. Street improvements must be completed beyond the phase boundaries, as necessary to provide secondary access to the project site. g. Drainage facilities, such as storm drains, channels, earth berms and block walls, must be constructed, as necessary, to protect the development from off- site flows. ` rn c h. A properly designed water system must be constructed, which is capable of Q providing required fire flow, including a system loop or extending beyond the Cn phase boundaries. N N_ i. Easements for any of the above and the installation of necessary utilities must a be completed. o j. Phase boundaries must correspond to the lot lines shown on the approved o tentative map. M c 20. Required Engineering Plans E r U t0 a. A complete submittal for plan checking will consist of: • street improvement plans (may include street lights or street lighting may E be separate plan); w ■ sewer plans (Private sewers may be shown on on-site improvement plan; a public sewers must be on a separate plan with profile); ■ storm drain plans (Private storm drains may be shown on on-site improvement plans; public storm drains must be on a separate plan with profile); ■ traffic signal plans; • signing and striping plan (may be on sheets included in street improvement plan); 1 • lighting (on-site lighting may be included in on-site improvement plan or may be on a separate stand-alone plan); Packet Pg. 175 7TMNo. 15576(Subdivision No. 02-09) MCC Meeting: February 19, 2013 Page 11 ■ grading (may be incorporated with on-site improvement plan); ■ on-site landscaping and irrigation; ■ landscaping and irrigation in the Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District; and ■ other plans as required. Piecemeal submittal of various types of plans for the same project will not be allowed. ■ All required supporting calculations, studies and reports must be included in the initial submittal (including but not limited to drainage studies, soils reports, structural calculations). N b. The rough grading plan may be designed and submitted in combination with F the precise grading plan. a C. All off-site improvement plans submitted for plan check must be prepared on �!? the City's standard 24"x 36" sheets. A signature block satisfactory to the City Engineer or his designee must be provided. a ^ d. After completion of plan checking, final Mylar drawings, stamped and signed U [`J! by the Registered Civil Engineer in charge, must be submitted to the City Engineer and/or Building Official for approval. o M e. Electronic files of all improvement plans/drawings must be submitted to the City Engineer. The files must be compatible with AutoCAD 2000, and include E a .DXF file of the project. Files must be on a CD and must be submitted at the Co same time the final Mylar drawings are submitted for approval. a f. Copies of the City's design policies and procedures and standard drawings are available at the Public Works Counter for the cost of reproduction. They are also available at no charge at the Public Works Web Site at h�://www.sbci�.org//www.sbci�.org. a 21. The applicant must submit the following required Engineering Permits for review and approval: a. Grading permit; b. On-site improvements construction permit (except buildings - see Development Services-Building Division), including landscaping; and C. Off-site improvement constructions permit. 22. All plan check, permit, inspection, and impact fees are outlined on the Public Works Fee Schedule. A deposit in the amount of 100% of the estimated checking fee for each set of plans will be required at time of application for plan check. The amount of Packet Pg. 176 1TMNo. 15576(Subdivision No. 02-09) MCC Meeting: February 19, 2013 Page 12 the fee is subject to adjustment if the construction cost estimate varies more than 10% from the estimate submitted with the application for plan checking. The current fee schedule is available at the Public Works Counter and at hu://www.sbcily.or Traffic Engineering The applicant must implement all mitigation measures set forth in the latest Traffic Study submitted for the project by Kunzman and Associates, dated May 16, 2011. The additional westbound left turn lane at the intersection of Palm Avenue and Kendall Drive identified in the traffic study shall be completed by the Final Inspection of the 150th unit within the Project. N End of Conditions of Approval for TTM 15576(Sub. No. 02-09) ~ m C Q U7 LO N N N_ a o R C] M C U E L U R Q C d E V f6 a Packet Pg. 177 6.B.g ATTACHMENT 4 - LOCATION MAP CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION PROJECT: SPRING TRAILS 1 LOCATION MAP 1 NORTH MCC HEARING DATE: 2/19/13 N F C .Q N N N N N J Q C H CENSER E z Z CENSER ATION(RQ a g m \ U J County Project Site E U RURAL LIVING(RL 5) Q � RESID ESTATE IR d E Counts' Q li SIDE ST TE)PEI /( RESIDE 1N LDW/RL) PUBLIC E ODD CONTROL IPELI R Packet Pg. 178 6.B.h ATTACHMENT 4 — SPHERE OF INFLUENCE MAP CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO IIPLANNING DIVISION PROJECT: SPRING TRAILS SPHERE OF INFLUENCE MAP 1 NORTH MCC HEARING DATE: 2119/13 sz N N J a Ava�f• � z 2 CL fn CL m s U y w C I w O C. Project Site rn l y r (( t I ® Sphere of Influence II Packet Pg. 179 Rio, 4 Rn G^sus , AZ. -4 gi � _� `���—a �\ S 1 �a�,, rte„-. •. 4 prr t'u -- RICK 1 Elf, iflIIIIINIU,�ti ��;i a� ,w �lUJl11U •�� i , �A ���\ ✓jr 'L -_ ` — r .Y MEMO- MONO as � Q \ Y s a,r a„ YN NP z � r i �Y--t AIM- TENTATIVE...C. ....n. 15576 a "SPRING TRAILS" 11 T- J � x Ste; .1,ws„E (slieal 6uiadS 99ZZ) daWW 91N3WHOV11V .3u8wy3e33V M W Ltl r c m ° z E vh rq o a� o D E o c E d U y �-• c �d o � y E CC U o U U O � 00 H E my N Z Yk O c Q d � JV0 rr aNZ U cc Z cc o anM p 0w I t 1 ¢ i c J a• Z 2 a m o ¢ ¢ ¢ N Z 2 LL P Fr 000 Z O c a 00 _ v Z 'y ° d°m �.o A o `o F- o vin `m A o 'O o= `2 0 BEw . 6 c . m 9 v am Q .G 3 � E oa o oL ° •v.. E ° hr ° '� cyh � A'�a waE_i °m = oo o w y c a3 o to .`° o E S v c i o o � y E vmE - E .2 -5 y .0 H L C C C y C N O L O(/� T U t O _ Y3 U U N ° 'S2 .2 g e h Q td O U C N CO O O O t6 L > `c' d U cc N ° U a 'S O 4f O O d :3 dmc maoo E °cy m ° `° c ° v o o °c OEvivOm mc 6g c- c°> 03 `0 '-' a.- � °c cc E .o C mdY m co Tn $ o Wa 'a E i� � � $ c BEd o 'acwa 0 of c °' o iv a a E A = c c°.� .�_.. c o 3 c n o o a o c a N A O y L U O 3 > a ,... co w L'c E c°a n a' y c°i ° m v .td. C 3 w- c°� °' c o ie > 0 re ,v_' o, m `° 3 > v Aomc A ma -o b y .W E E c c EL ordd o of `° E c�}4o °>' corm °-' c c``�- dy y =>E .0�->' EE y m _ ° `o � oacyo » aoi v � t ° � o o. E o 5 .`°c � '° o � L .Sc E `°„ ° vi Q E . c O d m m O w m $ a O ° m v 3 0 m L E 3 0 m E E m 'G g,J. J •� N Q N � LLJ N (slieal 6uudS 99ZZ) dHWW 91N3WHDb'lltl :;uawyae;;y v _ m e ,a �o y m o p Rl N Y o : v V N a o e m � z �o E o E E a � n n a o m ao mo ° moFi I� c c AAoN �'o 0 o U c c E ° E 2 .- CJ o U o U U a o U C p 2 O y a a c C o O C U E a .0° c � w ' c 'v o A Q) U w L a c o s 0 � o 0 Y C U U O C p = U U 0 Q C b 2 m E y y C 2 o 0 O U U C Y N O � 'AOd } CC A N a - Uy = Up � -SO V y y L A r N 6 lY N a O E G N 3 O o O y y ° OJ ¢V N CS N L moc �>av v 3 vm~ AE mmj ,a°� L a`� 3 °S °-' E c r r _ V a O d c mo a°i � 3 a17 �. Ez w .� c QL.. ma IS Z o6—2 naci ° do d O O y N O O N T > d N L' M U A a y O N . 12 N O Q y0 Od O N n 9 yA' ptU o OA yyA $A y —N yE E j Q 8 yNT o > `° — E E 42 Em E o o cr i U- U Ly ` p N .= Nom` y S j -3 -5 E y L 715 o m S m j �c A' ¢ E ° o 'Ot vo d o ' ` c o o 2 b C o o L L d E o � m m E ° °N �Y pM M�` C61 IQ: A E to Oj M .S2 o 'GL yL t0 ,O o o C A *E5 d U y C 5> c E i C A O O Sp 2 p 0 aUi `-° E • • • S o } E • - A` V of c E o. 0E N a � 0.i N M N N (slieal 6uudS : 95ZZ) dUWW 91N9WHOViIV .3u8wy3e;3y N 00 m l � a? g a IL e Q U .�. c ¢ 4h A o d U V N d c Q 0 e :? tz I Ed n� o = c E � U O U O U fA C �= o E_ a = C y O d E = o � d a a .j a d T ° m o \ U m O o •C � = Q m E 20 CC G a O � o v O y T V .2 =°i N° [E E ow rn° nN c C o o O io .N A p y.ar co A o. ca •ca�$m° r O 5 =0 ov°i, w(7 N N N C °' 00 c - ° 2 n n= C E ° oE °c El m m C3 E3 Ecm < Ec v mo w 4z C6 0 _ m d tl `_'° `o � u me 3o r,°'- .°a E .m Tnia (n � t° � aa > E y so T{O N fA �.. NtC O. C [O Cl N p O Y .O .° O O N _ .O C tC C y (n r v O fFC L r N N N p a O. y O N N C C Y O.Z Ol O R Ol p C O c n i � UU '> .ne CC m .E n ° 9 � .�d pZ ° = 2t o ma p no. 3 p = y' nva . m ME m ina E � ° !° `° d .e cam LE � 6j = UO ° E `-OE � v=i �g ° -dp a2 p = v . R c a� E m :? a `m o ca ° n =a co E oy � '> v mv+ o m > ono v, cm_.+ o " °c � � c _ cLiE m �^ m w = oE '`o.S o .n y 'ova a ho _ td a`O1i a¢ p � c ° Z u, ° «° nc - = t6 °c '.>� E >a_ o O ¢ cin tO_ m� ac o p O R >T gm N taO ` -j,, td r` E "O $ C p •-r O >i L O td > Q d N 'Q E A C T V C N C C [O >J n O. 4) fA V! E C (O p Vl C UN '° NU Ni5t ° 6r 06 Otd OMOdNV- FO' N N2N2C :G dnL C ¢ a 0 G .n Eo >. �i" ..°a O °. 00 coin c '� o ° vE - a> Z ob°'i °c L ("L o0o Z car ° vim a. R O N O y L ° O D C E d ° O.N i0 N N 'O ° fn 3 C N C (p O lY 6 E N N 6 N tO d y a _ 'N _ V O N d:C N O n 2 n 2 p C C O I N ` Q C O ° 2 w O� A C d 'E d y L A C C U N Q N O '� C = O f0 U A E O N N C O > N C $ C p p = 6 :2 - 2 O > U 2 0 E:g E .°a3c°» ¢ r°p�o°Em oE.s c°� � m ,,, `nas = 3 �g =o vNOa T � � cc E� ;° h n 5 o m 2L°°', 3na� to .ad � d ° moiad �n ° �ovE � o r m E rcaE we ° C o '` • • w .`o_ ai c E= c =+ v+ cY ac 1 °Z v ° A ` piA �,`m° o U � a` m `m > �sci°i oo. c°aa B E o SEoc 'cnn .: 0 � a m M �- LLJ (`� (shell BuiadS 99ZZ) dNWW 91N3WHOtlllb' .Iuawg3BIIV m m m a� L a a c o y w N u ° S E p m o C N a y� V o � C � a o H n� m c E w e m E m i a cr m cr o c ° � 00) ml a c C co c n C 2 O � m W rm E O t ' N VV U l O r'O O m E m 515 omo moo a mH H � E � 3 7 Lm >,$m E o •y i�O y , 00. E — E c° ' E o o.$ '° c R' m - c ° .o m a o f ° �° 3 m U E E 0 o u € a m 'U `' 0 0 c °' h a ° o m a° .'L3 m °� .°-. ,°m o aci °-'• c m °' ? a w <' `° m m p o t ts o E2 2 'c o. n > E m wV mE :E r? = € $ 'o c9 A dc'a m > om °c_ °' E >' y >'$ V5. S] 0N m ° _ m N ° R- 4 N C "t . :5 C C O VO S2 c°i 6 o 2 :2 A ° ¢ z U " m o 9 $ a � m cmi y m m o ,Lit � �' a o y m c > o � m 7u C m a n w y o m `o :° T m rn c c $ y 3 rn m E m m @m o 0 aon ac m a f E o 46 n `- > d °'5 $ oE $ n tl Aw`oa y 'in � mw Q.`-'• Y m E � w $ Yi m ° .o 9 = . vF oW m ; m r`e mcmam °o c . m ` m oaoo om $ ° E v' c°'imdacaaa a fi p N V! O m p U Z $ T� U l0 C C C N y m C L d G E '°- d u E y ? o `° d o aci n a A m c w a c .L- v E .a N fE C L' VI m n O Q. O C N O N O N C ~- r m •yi(A G m d N N V N N O 'O 6 C C 0 ° N L L_ C C > 6 0 L °' p C �y m'~ E U C C H C 6 > o o n E V o Eam � 'S n�o �a� �'o . mdomrocQ °a rn m .°- 'ydmm � o ° o °e .°- o- o nE m � waa °�' z morn 3 .°_ o nn$ w ¢ E m � $ 3aCi ° O o o ° nS = E `oro r=iiE � .40 y Y � '� a (sliejl BuiadS : 99ZZ) d21WW 91N3WH3ViiV .Iuawy3ePV m o ° ti cc E O c m � s $ �o v Z II tt o � E 9 E aEid `o aEiy `o �i a o m mo m t o mot Ir m 0 p0o to '�O N 'c,C• N '�O yC m ° E E ° E U Q U UU U y m ai c -yao 'E cm y E mo $curia `oi H o+ E d o a d 1 C i °1 ¢ 6 E v api ai'i m C C p O C ai E a a a o � Y a7 O N C L N c p y H ° H ii O T d (ti rs o ,a Yo am o a . E a'°mc"e � ac cr vimO1 �c `m�'`mc' �'� oh m`oo a °_ ayyi U E EAEt AaN °- RcE� L ' H>,a .A'Sc m 'RT coo - ° - o m oc E2 cp U H do ri6� � °°' �m -S n'S S2 ES - 'na aaE yccE o � °� ai - U ° .a Yamc(jA � .°'- °co ° coac=iEoc a «Lm, '.'°yo cLOEm c 3 ° onc m d £ ° o °c �+ �? E c m 6 0 y O O 6 U 'N O O C E C A 'U y y O y ` d r V_ 6. N U O C a Y O'er 8L U RN f=p U N i. U $ {Q U U C A N N • ° WO n0 U O U 7w =0 0 t •O N i r N ° E -Lm GJ C O v b d .00 m O °N o C C t0 S 'O c m m a o . E Eo �o > 9 O m y3 in mEmmm' my �m E �_ ca�oi 4i �° ivo � nmc y �° Oma' °c �° nco. LCm � `R cm ° ' a� aoi ' .m. a mLL- m ° mcin a°'3o ciao E ° m � � �' m � � °m o yy EaYa Ec 0ram `ca ° E mL-. Wg=— o�L VLim `a � mc tiZm a�ioo 'E m Hiay r` � g D oA c m `o = E oov c = am m = ooh ° _ maa y ,00 Ei � °c � >° °E�' vcE .•°. h L y a m w c o ra c E o ° y iao m m m m c o m L = ca m m m S m is ° - cE moo aEi -o iaoEE iamc m n,m .a a; E '- EE o c��.� ci2nE �a omZ .�v -°amooao aca c " c > E N U n0. �y m y .y N N m CC n N oo9aA `� m °como 'E °' °' 6v tdoma`� " � moa°i � c °°cLm �Ad °ct �° O ° • w w � N M V m M c (sliej1 BUIJdS : 99ZZ) dNWW 91N3WHOV11`d auawyae;;y 00 m ° n W N Y is ° „`o o E e � R y o E y E � U O U U a ° C � y E d � o d a Q) T o � n O a y c � 2 c C C o C oc d C O � E cc d9 m Qm a £ T�� d C O U d N O N .w ` N M w O N N >. V omm `Om E �' at°i y co ot = n y :o xw cO c O o-c O c o>_A LN O, Ltw m A 0 A m Vy J c a N tO 0 h r y7 U n U` m O O @'H fA L Y T n.4-3 w c p OI y Ev 'E -o O a O ati3 . .a d c A O O _ — E w E o r m .•C,°__', .O wN c 'Ar°e f/l o E 3 = o N y 2S ° = O c ,e o c - : 6 ° = . mt ¢ W" E o 2 on � yE 12. aE 'i m o E [Ao oo Ecpoc c E a ° Y o�v�y`°A�°m e c-'an ocmNN o>°. 0a E-.�'¢c.c.mw°Zwq '1�.�o w`w d`E w e c°°9°a 'h � A ° E ` c L L ca m :F U Y°� o av E E 2 C N Lg o � c c a ov = ffo o ° o w2 , :oL IS Z. - a a % ` .55 ° L . vS ° ° y°�V Mamo �YC ` ° - A d o c ° - m °d 0 a y a y E t n N a ; om o E w cRE E E °'� pcp - w m o me Wi o ° aa a E m o L 'v a � E °�Y waai Cy ii ,S m m m m Zpcma E L 16 2 E - a o' - £ j `` Ea a tg :2 .5 y y M~.O C tl°�Ti.' N 6 O y E { O O t0 > N 0 C19 0 H n r > • V E6 6 p) C n c — n C C V] L L N tC t0 N H O O U m m > E S o w o - ME m O £ m 3 `o E o m of �- `a n w c L n a 3 n w d E U S 13 y � a L m (sliejl6uudS : 99ZZ) dNWW 9lN9WHOV11V :)uawy3e;IV m m rm r' m a m . r o — � s � a a o H y¢�c m 2 o, c C v N a a v ct o c Ej o i y C o Q Q C o O � W, y `o m ohm m $ oLac°i'E Lm `o a a°mmdaZi 3 °"' E2 w � c oay wm ��° N °N' a ° � O � CNC - � >, m $ m � oc � � yy � mo �� vi r? 2,` m ¢ is .3 o, mmoo mL> m � 3 � E '�a ° amo n ca � ia n �o m - .� c> m � main cam m om mm mono o o m H i`a m o o S 3 m a o V o o o c c a aai E c ° m n ani ` ie n °-' 3 i. a m .E* � `n3 a ¢ omL.' m �' ' .on om ' �a -° °E�' 3 ° a9i w m m= o- L iamvi - cm E2 -92 nL _ nm om '.ti� m a O n T X O Vl N ¢ m C m T m U 9_ U m y C 'O O O t6 U (O t0 N m m Qi rL. L >i m a y o `mmw co 'e m ¢ y cm me o - o aydn` m m mcn -° - m 'LC- m °' cni o�c> 'o coo oy v 3 om iay °'Fa m ° E ° L. d `m ° oo �. w -� m m of E 'nv mvo c m y SE '- yo� Y c-25 CowA m md - aSc oomA " a`� oAy ..°_' v mat E2 -M °' a-o E ° ° ° O� � c y ow > ac o A m m m m wa `o E GeV E °. o � mov H Mw E N % N O g � Ea o.w3 rom 'aamE Ec °o m co o. ma3 Y ; OA O ` OI— m Vim . m > ° o c m 6 n E mnL� y d C V r c° $ E a (speal6uiads 9SZZ) d21WW 91N9WH3ViI ' :;uawy3ePV 0 rn m z E vWh � u o Q � a c � «� y O u o 1z I I I I At a E o a _ c E d m o H 00 U O CUC 42 C y 1= n N m is .c C ° m N a a a C c Q C o G O � m E o '°i E ° c p O O N C V C t0 O)o O N n N r 9 L y t0 4�L C E N C a n m y 49 y !P n 3 m 2 ° A o micro o °o " p� ci o E ° o o� ° o =m-. LA a ' oy Acmn m cn �a 'o3E `LO =w o c m a n a m o m Cm� ° c U o m d o m c m aci c v o a �y � y -v mo nc 'ao. t° 2 o E .0 a a m � E`s E v m 43 fi 3: 3 mm om tO aiL aami ° a�i o m = Ev " cmi > E 9wm�c � m o me ma °m mE � " E > L °' h E N m 5 Ac ¢ E oac°, �AOy cin m -_ m OC n p O [6 A C y 0 ?� y U '° G r J O O w n c (6 O m E T= A C O '° C > L ° N d N E N E U t/1 U V N IO O O N d N y y >i d a U O N >i C N fO y d L rL. p N U t0 U N N L U y L N C�J fV N tO C ti Vl d N 'c c wmia o v ` � E 'c ny E `-° m D n 'm> L �a mE conm co cfO c - n m c me a._ E $ v� co mm mom y°. `R $ Ed oc� o moo � L m m �aY ° �a •«' 30 00 ° '� ¢ �o c oE � mm ;c c ° o `nm Nn> o ` a o E oUm oL-' oao o : tO nt m � c a c m ` o 'ats =oc C of m > C C a5 A U m o ' 7a U� o �d mYi � my ~voii ms > of y yn EmE.o y nc m •.- E mmm � c .o m �oEm mk°.. ccm�a >, nc Z � � � � o oO Y3 oc 3 mo . mm c m om �a o a is �a t6 cy >. v° acim vi c E c EGC °.,i _� E �o ° c !? m m o o T v •¢6 a° y 'c ° • • • • • • • Ev� QnHmo m mac ° m c �caiA g L7 oU • � w9 N ro � m m (slieal BUIJdS 99ZZ) dUWW 91N3WHDVIiV :Iuawyae};y r rn m a B m 0 d yo v g II � z 'o o. v E ;co mom mo ° [.a N g y ° E E rc U o U o U U _ o _ U w O Q ° C m m H n a y O N d � i a ° 2 ° o e m � O ° _ d O y E2 G EaE� o O = +� v C Vl ` y >�'�� L Q U N � (6 L N d >?—O fO a G1 � •N 3 n 2Ec RIG o -Z H = � Emc « c� `o o. ob wy L°coa°�im o� y G c c o E:_' c w c S is c 5 c o p �_ 'w «°--c m w a'x o y >' Ha 35 °'3 `o_ ra ° ° ETava oL°', ' D� 2 :F- mA E > of m omcua�iDCA ' ° o. c E nc E mc � co � c ddL °m dooms 4 m mU mEcLo O ° o � N 'OO ° d mE ago °. cY p « o ° LE ° o a°i3o aEi E EE ` � 0 U Q n C d (O N y d y E N - L W °' 3 N N p n O'C V C U N DS VJ U C N fO j O d N ¢ D T C N 2] �p D U N C O VI U C_ N C O• N tEd 'O d y T U to p Q O d_ E ° � LEm `o - � E .c- c3L ycc EaF m m 2 E .C 'y m _Two w ACL wo m p o o .- n n' ° ° mE ° p '- "- o o wdY � °-OCw E °' 3 .0 � .-. yam �M y w ° 2 J N 6 C N N d n O y n y C ° C O m O N O. y O w p N C O O �p m o w w '�a w °JE > > LU n mw o _ ob Eye w x m � T.- o n lL 'O j w w w m °c' Un� mE m Ep w ° 'o C m �V fL mw wm _`° ''c om•o c D''° 'O yco - o O m mE r � E oA mn v o L o Rnd - c m . c E � ° '� E c �a T aE nco Lc 0 L 0 E�Q) o E ia E° °C'.ow[O mao .D pn3'O awcO dn w N"'a_�' ° w O I wc°'=Y a omfO p�O tE d E ° a ym° nw " E C U o b ¢ - c c E y p U w _d �m w p -a y C E `N O 0.Si o` � mc 6 O >d O om . m ` 3r , - i D Vl d ° Vl [O f0 O E T C C 2 .0 T O O p N w y N - $ w C U N 'P E m E m 6 m C ami ai Ol O m ,Z 75 m N U C •p C w N w i5 O „m„ w U y E � U p N d j C E O C m a`> t a� H �a w o E . ° 's m 4g oc anicy � m �£ mY ° o omL� do ° Qm oU aai ¢ E [[ Woa: nL-.� niL5 E2co Eoya` v nc°� ES ¢ Ea �+ vita) a 33 E S mwn y w � � a m (slieal6uiadS : 99ZZ) dNWW 91N3WH3Vlltl :Iuawy3e;3y N Of m I � a a d ° c W Y m ° U a co CZ � o — �o � z gd gd c `o E E � n v E a Ed ,ao C � mom moc [� y o p o A to G to 0 C O ° E ° E m U o U o m U U U � c N O N O .� cow � E ti EL +Ni iz d N d O) 1 y a d cc C C O O y C ,'A°_� O aVi O 2 m B a Oa C R O v> tt V .I a a~Ci ie °i .3ccttl cam = c c m y L �o- c;�` o E a —°O c2 -0 _ - _ m o ° -C o ca a> as mm ?cc°.i � oc °c QO f9 mL.. o 'ow "m aYCi � ,°ea F9ot w m > � £ om � v �° a °o_ °' dc vms Av m mp ova ao my oo � Aao � p � � . E c m � mnm $ o � m m > m'v c ' oEm � 'cup . H m L iO Ol m m 01 y N "p O ry 01_ O. m p U T N > > O L a — c o ° L v o se a s o. U S N ce y E 2 :@ m `m a z° ! o.cE _ma y" « °-' a .°pc a3mi cmic m oo F°4` octOiY `.°_� A � c E — a cu. `o.� .� U � U oc c°i �= L- om Twa mc � m " ° E0NAya v'iyc � L- L `°_ c� Lm. L 9 .c `o m b a c > r'�'•� L S w A m .p c m 'o" c a E m ° o d n a o v Tn -r °' m ✓ n � = m U tO N° C r o a? yoo opo ME 2 y IS y LL C o C[`O' lL •cT d �nO C m c a p c r m c m �c m ` U � n�a Sa'o m o a oa � " •���'` c p p ca -4 E L E c . m c c Z `O m m c v d w m c_v p U O E O m $ y U > Y tO m y c y A n QI W Ocy m � .m> o. c omm E g v _� a o°waLm. ym om ¢ RE n 0 yo SE dm x my m ? 2 EE '� ..�5 o�m O O h�13 m E m p N 12 C; 0vmm'2 _ 3Ei6 aEi Fi aEi � � E ° cc°.i ooa mo° c°a '- EEEE s a om ° = a2 c� V yU U 6 N O O O L O >j A U O d A O d m E 'p E E E 2r E C CV O.L m m tO m o 0 o r U r E S m `-U n L E z vi O N O r N M M M (sliejl 6uijdS : 99ZZ) dNWW 9lN3WHOV-L-L ' :lu8wy0el}y M m I T r m ;G,Z, a ° z E m co °� 2 v I I I 0 a o jr o y a� G C v O1 L a v � ro IL ti c C o nn C O s, O A _m C E (P ° d N C W c 01 L C C N i=JI C $ 'O E N O Vl O C U A C N O C fn i�. Vl U N A A O N c nd � � oL.. � Eo � oa mYw "= y 3oam dio ornUm a 3 ° nm 02 m Ec� c w ym � ,—"° 2 s °c y °' £ A o ° a °— D v c °� E $ ww onA Ea Yea = E Q^' v otO `° L• ca is ch ,yo " O E2 �E y o v 5 .0= c n a m 'w m s c mw ° H ym N y m y g n O o Cq p U 9 r N Cy O i �a�c O t°0 YoTC dE n yAs.yr .m- `"oA a+ o x nox N A E -S 8 .2 yO a vc o E E m a N E x ° U. C N > d Q 4 N O E N O L J O N U �E E L `a s n c tO q ^h y y e O 09 y^ o cm a>°ii a 4°- °�>' > >n,°°_ n `«_°. c A y L � v � N a = � c c � U n:-:� c T o � � �• C Zi O E 6 A C N U V r E N N N A >` ° g A u m A < &O 'O 1= _� C A C O U E N c E 1p a> A m E Z r p O A � r a> A A o N ad-. . a c a� a C y qN U U U N A Y ai m N °O O O n E d o � N mN y c h �A a U5W O _C E 3r m m o a W A y a `s m y m E y c E m C7 U a ° m d « w C M V N [O n y � C RE C $ L a M .s AE s v i A 3 mN 9 y E A n c V M FL- m ` .1 ti tl �tl O (s�ieal BUIJdS 99ZZ) dNWW 91NBWHOVI.LV .;uawyaeUV _ v m cas m ° e E m a c Q it Z tt c c C ° cE � E °' •S a, a 9`o on wont Q+ v a o C U O U o U U c ° oa � c o y 'o m '3 Ot � Ot c C O. Y > O v � a a � o C C d ¢o Q°g y n d � d .92.a o U 1p y 0 wm Ln m c " y v m o a°i = �oE v ° .oLO � m M = WW wt - mEmHC vioiO `mm C y o c of y � 3 m nA > oa m oa Hy ..� c � dm v1 LL CC N L = ME O N O A rd+ IO ` X U Yj $ L V! y N y C a C N L N E O U O O= V oY EH E � c w 'H `o o °I' 2 s16 in `o. u� ° ° A .riE fR$$ w Yo y � aH ° 'ohm cc `" E mingo °' � mc' y'Z• s. $ m d d ° E ° A A m >. d� cm a im= vi E� mJ' c E 'w m � E m aEi c '�m-' m wm . o. aE =. 8o2 > � .~m-. w ° ym woyG mv �° aUg 'a E c W c E a> w b = N ' E LL � C cv 'a°a E N N w C ° = - d d �gO 'c_0m 1 v vmi N v-N N o a9 i v•b c m o ai �J d m 0 aca> a H = ° C j C V E 8 = te 2l90 a m mmr E- n E > om - - A E N h v F ° n.2 tO _„ t v) E E E E m a a. C _.. ¢ o �L-' E `c° B o a c m is c d o c c m m y r vi c c LL y m a� m m ° m a o . V5 m io a = om °m ° ` a3yt o. ° w .� m �N > yA2,° pa> bia v« `� anv.o. °JE � cm c E dS � Eo cO1dc Em ynrn cW of °m Emc � '-' c ccrncEiv aci cE0000 m � � aO .°. E nc E .� cma� c °c ci 2 = .yyE rA 0000 L = •0 0 a dEmmn ° Em w c m 'on Ay '� E ' c � E n� cc c .n ? ccmic . � cW -e—am ° moiv i iecm E c ?' LC oc - Yo `o. d DoE E .om c > > > > tOC = m o � ?i �omoH o 1co 5 ° moEi°iO xmn ' tont° -S .n- 6= Q ' cc � oaan o � ti .wo m N 0.� N ch a ch ci (sliealBuiadS 99ZZ) dNWW 9 LNgVUHOV-LI / :Iuawy3e;}y N m I T r ° a a ZL e o z v p U d C ` L CZ Y 'N st ° o E E R 0 e E m C o CC D d ag cE U O U a a y C C a-dJ C > 4y ~ °6 � O C O L � d H L a C r ', T � = a s N a N E A ° O ° Er C d Z a ro U Y y Oi a y T y — C N O G d ryy 0 3 - � c �_ �„°y tOC cNE °' o aaic 3 Ea a `oa O N N d .26 y y Si Y` > w A j• A w N (p 'i a A y [O a N d .° tC t0 b O L C A Vl y N EO r A C O y tO d w c'.EowAVE2,` v .tO �a � a 'Q5ama3iAy Aa yc c °' aYEE � nn ° y 'c A UN ` .pc yo� o � Zo �° mom � m~ E cym w Ad .2mE ¢ o $ ,�° y Eo y ^°-idmyamc ..j °' € Sym $ �'.io am w.- iey ° y �`aAao dE " y�QA `m °oa S E oco ae o Z� a� =!? > a ° -= a 'U > C $ E O y O N N Q N y N G O OI N y =m y O C E T A C d j m 0 L M � C T o' iri ° U C N H O C A . 'C ¢ Na yN r. � N a O tC Q A 6 fA/l L �C 6 Vl O N d i:J o' E p O O A 1, > wyc m .` mo � o A .cE A E C 9 A y A N N E N a d E y N r r0 �? U N O y 'C .L1' A A E. N MriiU c ° Oi = ° 3d d A EO'Y m .s ,. ydcZ, A A,� `-' om ° ai = `° 5 ah m O ` O U d A a O C. C C7 y m 'q it w ``o 3o ME d '� aa' w ` a Elm � aih wm -° � Aaa � ° OLA. °' mN .� O > C 8 U C _N m O C U L T y $ n y y y C A G A C y da ESA-' dd ° cmo ° AC C E °' " ° ` °' °' ° c 5 'ao.E Vi.m wR cg E f0 A O ° r d U fO O N $ d a A a S y N O d N r Ol - L C C .. C O Y' > > °' y > 66�' rY'iiE Ew v cEFi 7' m ° o ° `v y w cv '�c�i 3 0 V cu $ � mmcLL c m oS m `o > no nm'a oa> >. c3 ° Aom c Ao o ._ o • d o o o d A o m a, c } $ c> 3 3 N � ~ 4i N C; (sliejl BuudS : 99ZZ) d8WW 9lN3WHOV-L.LV :;UOWLl3U V a m or a. o E x 0 e o fi y° � z `o 0 E fi tz o m o y c y E cr U o U c 0 � c c � ' o C y v v o U t y rz \ m C v n Q Q Q V w o G CC a p O fi � O O d01— Lr Up 00 � om•—E °y C°� =� 'cciL y o �°y v m y,H.tea .d= o m m acm L Y LC^y+ y�m 5 5 OE` w A 5 '5 2 c 4:3 j; > c o Ay>+ i`a = N rm. c%> 13 c°a 'sgOO. ` amoo m m m Y .° w E >`� °` ° $ Na m m v A m Q c .o ` m c t `o rmii c i o o °m `o c ° `o -a > �° € Cp nv � m m ° Q n._ LmoE mom °'... ma o �em '..°w c � hc }fir m A A $ .. E CJ Vl O r y ..0 OJ O O = iA m L n d y N wj N C C C N > .CO' O .- T-r y L O m 9 O. U �E:J N O 6i U E y p N y y n `O �' N d V Ol C N C U N -C-- > U ° mm E vni A o omamdvmEc $ in m Evni Yv c = moo n.o v% °' $ Qo a VJ (n C ^2 N U y to > E wd. W fo y `L ° Eo L„ Eyd a d " m ,m, c m `o E2 c� >. MEw a_Ei m °m � t � ° mo � ieaoE A 'a ° °a io m �� �aC; m � o� nmEncbmnE Lm2o c ` ao € ° mTaw m `� w 4'q min ° m rm ° 3o EUOiao Uo mAa >m om ^ cem ° $ na :ooa_cmi �r C c � oaci v � jE y ami Nom w � $ aai � o y .J ° � A o � coa°i � m m � o'a° c w o oast iv o oa 3t� ' ra °' ao °� o d ° o m n > y .m. n m E O v m m S y m y ° m 3 ` ° fi • m `nvEEv Via !? ¢ > � mad o.w E3 cmimoo°O� +: Ch 4p J � a 0 a (slieal 6uiadS 99ZZ) dNWW 91N3WHOV11V .luawyaellV r m I rn c m y ° c E U c m a� � z y � U I I I f o f o f � E � E ' E '2 a a n a a me o E mo o m o a •� F E m E m E m E m m a p m � p 0 m� � E � E � E � E ClO UO UO UO U U U U U O) m ° C C U U E y E co ca ai°iay c 01 a o m d c tL` d d a a _ cc Q) H C N ° N p A api O E . O U O U V d C U L U N O U Q G a w o Q c c c d` ZT Y N JS N E C T r � y ° U C N 9 Em °a ioa ma ° �`o c w E Eon mma .2 'o � = 'mo �_'U mom°- 'om `° A v `-' o ° c ° � m m mco E'er E diao h p°iUa aA ° p Ecr3i� o+ vi iaoUa2 E wra v o E - . oom Sao °am = E pg 'Td 0. cw c p+ 3 ° aciR N ° adt+°aa E E caa m 'O m p 0 y w m to p . a_ O mC O O O = M- -N y ' y o- .0 m y nL A � = ° Z j=- um mp aE 1O aL mE c ° iai .2 'mo 'Epca- m I m E p min o Q m m m m m m °- m E :� m m c L o c a o m a $ om= mLa ° iLimm ci Ed c$ a mcUcLa ,,y.. mAG rri °c_ of ion @ L CL v— C m m O m L my 0) {O y m w m y f6 P{O A 'oA y ocmoo E 3 ° ma c � E- S mN is 5 .2 0 .`.= ,'O° c m SE 3 ° �� m na`ac E � HC m E a a T o L p m c c m c Ti m w2 U m m o m m as mo t '� > m m � E o � aE2o c mm ' � c `o miE L mE !P ? y `i '-ac ° Eom $ w 2`c °' ° m � EU � idchc Ewa E . . .om ° $ � yEy m mymo :om and `o _ a ° m m °c Qom ° c ° c = - oE ycLa -° H ° . pin om c � '�YL Acs cma �aomoo 3c> o � o ¢ v ° `° aEaa m Emma � ° o _ ma m �- E `° �N maim `maoEH ai api E "aa ° cE E ,5 cc �•". fi o � mFL- S n ° E .� r°a y � ° - >' pmmlL- coERO ° o .E o «: >' ° L a�i c d C r� c a .ce ° o. 1O p A o> E m p C `.° 'O 'CO m T 6 V >i O o 6 m tim 0 �` C YO c m o n o p .~m- m y w o mU C9 � � a Em 'co o `° mcJ °c m c .cd j �`2Y c `nmm Z+ c � m c aE ` � a, m ry E mmc y va - o iep 'cp c m° pmo oU ma ma R TL =p m E 'o m !y W O+ nm $ - m mACymc `+° m ." y .m- a 'cY ' aci cEm > omo mF o m ._ m E gm S� E � «`m , 8H `m-° o � � Ci .mc .�m.. E 'OmA °tea = .z� c ym °cw _ E � L.. c°.i m c m� C It E d E E t a p x v v E c �v ,� E A a C a H E p c m y o p L m 'l o is 3 3 m $ E °m com � cmi aXi °amp, m Eo 'aA O � cE o ° � 'c °a - ° m°n � `-'' -° .m. m .cew � acm aZ`m �..° wp vE '^ a c a �' aocc '° m m wmm � cw 5 mE = >'vm ° E .mvlCAC°aH °a9 acLa o dao = Eia cmi9 � c°i � 'o v � > cmEa m c c • 'y m a 'm E U m m a `m c S m [� v 'a ? m n V E .`a .h0 QO ti Via ° I N h mp (slieal 6uiadS 99ZZ) dNWW 91N3WHOVIid WOWL13e;1y w ao � e a m R. s c oz0 a o H y�c m a e E_ V ~ C V a m � o c is i C p aCi Q E c CC o nw 2 E m :c °' c CO oc °noZm c9 oAO 'o is A oa � c E h S :5 c=i m myo .°'. m � :? v oTi oid `oo a E 'er `a Acc - c a s 55 E h E. A .�°2 n o� `�° m w A m C w .... me nE °� ER=:Fi 3 ° aoc -42 mAa o noS °._ o 000 - o v a; oiaE o mta ° m .� o- EmE E o+ o�� « a � L E $ w ° Yo $,_' 3 � E9E ° A �" ma 'o E V `m oi� � y >. n mma-a ,.°_3 E � m a� of °c vom ya � c EU nmAVi � .'Sv- iv °o co� cO ° i. c oyw nEc m Ay c6' - y - mo,army «? 3E v Eo AoS $ AO ooc ` moo *. y o L a aci 'd E E d a m g t y m n{ H E A m L t > .°-' ° A a m o v°i a° m `-a a' A dt i aAC a' com Zm ai 'o5 m .o � E c no ° � c > OE AQC •`� Ea 'o ACa� om v ° a o ,°p � � moin � m9y fn cy o 0 o A m m y c o f a+ o o E ° A v m E - c icy ° c._ m io coo m m 9 � iO m .� con dm co � � ° ydo�a i � 'o c° t 'a° wa�iE �' ASm-OO2 1 .2 Em a CG Oi o�J5 coa .m. m o f y $ o > �6 ao £ m mmE: arc ymmaKim u, 3cC_ m °n `m E 3aom mE w a m .o ocy EA� EZ $ ccmi �' oEcL �e `a w w mo ° h oAa mE2 c myv 30 oawm dm A« ucmi cL vyoiAcyAL ° y 3 .� tO 5o f0� 6 C O L L n U h O y ° C G> G O A U 60C C EF r CV +tea H N p0 ti w" N (spoil BUUdS 99ZZ) dMAJ 9 LN3WHDVI-LV auaw43e44y m — m m I �- �D a m of e d _O = S2 c o w 0 0 J2 2 U o is c c ° o U C D1 = O A C c � O � O d a m cc a c o c v k-9 U C y O "U It v y Q a C a C p N N ¢ C O y Q O y U C cr d N y O ON C C ` •° f0 O a R y Y a y iG V m ° mm `j Aa.�io � c .aw- m' ° N y @ N C r r Q T U ¢ O N 2 5 a_ O O 9 n S a$yi n ina —°° = T .ya m .a m E dmc Na .'t f `° >+ tg . � € ° .°'..a y, �.'C my ai � L« E c°i .Em tr a K. . o `m L dL" y m a E o ° c ,Y mm . d ai ac E w `°-o3 E c6.O o p a m .cL_a m = c c m o_ Q m 7"• r.G d oa m � c> °' m $ aEi Fio Hyn cE c"ia qp " c = ca v+ 3 � � aEE ada yFa � o o. o $ N y .a a� ,3 n c ° L A Adyo.� 7o AaLOC6 w c Ao vi ym c m y A w E m N ? mL EEmm nm tOro € v c ° A oo c m n a> L c E a°i y « ¢ = c d c� Y > o v o g A moo.$ Ey Y EL arc � °cam '�u co a .aO U ova a, o 'a N Y o ° aEi m' 12 ayi -a a -t t ° L ° Em cam^ oy > o o > E E m w a 3 is E > S >v �m m a- E 3 ° L« c �' O ° o v� ctOimct6.� -=, mm c oL -OaE c Qy `o_ = U ? rmw Qc> m U d U y ' o C r N M — h I� a � � CCD O Lq v � � (spil BuudS 99ZZ) dNWW 91N3WHOV11V :Iu8wg3e 43V 0 m I N a ° cc E W u 7G 0 Q _o o S2 a o mow mow E E E d O O O O U U A w y h N C 0 n ° t N e_ m C5 E E 06 C O � o E a o � - d` o L d U a c d � •� c w c w 'c-m-� £ c 2 N fn d y E nvv o nU.° o o.w o y c C7 U � t' C7 ° o A N U d y O N U CC O s O « o s C6 vA o w d° n ` w c 1 c N °oU E N a 0 N oc a °c y c> c '° A d d > C N A fn a_ d U •O r¢ n= d N L C p °� a VJ a p C :v w 3: .22 'wE ° cu aNi �`vmem AC � c mmo ° o °caH aoi '° ym °� E 'o o �] EEm c m b9 o a N o m A � m� o a =o+£ � mo ° � d �« coif >. c E � y .cma°i y d •�` ? ca '� .f9a `m ° mom `o a P3 m '= c ao AL Li=' a£ U r`�'iico iE E dwho.� w c5c cc°� oo � EE m o £m c a 2 c2 S .as i £ o5 6° o` £D`° m « ' - do m A E $ "o E y ` a m 'o -o°A ti c o 9tm �wam> w-O v m —c c CA) f2 n m 0 R E <°> tl i«o a�v{ 'mya c Oaa a2 n > 'n d O E m oo aA Yb LM oot w Y d PQ .:_° Y A c m a A '9ay c> °c, aE> hmy o E � Ec o d c ca °'v°t mn.o m °c'mL o ?wc :m o n t�o :c gy m m m mL mw id r= �o m a o co £ 5 a ° o co dA £o p `m 4a 0 Z. YN _A m > a 3 a L N O A E !oC -9 N N cO oa o O C w A C y ~- y y 01 Vl O d C GDJ C N N L N 'C C O.'O E - :0 ,6 :5 N 3 00 0 oaE m _N C o a « o o $ ° ° o m o ° !0o o t ° ? ^ y y n o ° E Z 2 Eu O" V H• W ¢ tl ti D •w0 d0 ti a x N M D N U� LLY D p (sliejl6uudS 9SZZ) dNWW 91N3WHOVIId .;uaw43e;Iy 0 m� N m � a z E vh N o v V p, w o d c c O 'O ° G ll. LL N LL O O O Cj ;oo ¢ c = ai3LL E E v � 00 cw =ALL = 'o mU mU cU d m U � C N O O O Q- G C 3: U m c c c c GM y .Sn 2 5 n d d d d O a ct O cz 0 3 a y o ; ¢ mEE '* cz r y 2 = v = o w C O y O E r ¢r 0 J U C `9 a a m = 4 _ M o a > Ya $ o aEi m = °Jn M o oa ; Nina o c �NY }.y° ° n nc $ $ •a° ° �' " n H $ m 3 A o ca b +y m c fL, E 2 p d N t0 W > > E lV I6 r = 4 O T C N 'O E p U N iV Vl pVV L Loa cMn.m-. c E �¢ °' �oo � 0o a"°im mm � o `n - $ cmi ¢ Ao EgaE .. oa�Eix 3 cU Ey c .+ = gym c = C $ m N m o [ff a jr m m - o .• o o m $ M g n `m c :c m - L .- o m c = '° L a a m a mmv mO 3 >+ Aay mwo $ M my ¢ p9 > o c 'vi n a� �SLL $ 3 ac $ mom c� - y o o N ° ' 5a cME Mmn m E 3 � � �' m � E mM 0 � c 'm5a 'MC °° o E i $ � ci .`e $ �` > A SO dmom .- M mo9 m yam_ cEE O C L C M °e Y aO 6 2 `$y y c M°° =c O d d o m O c M c o c a F � L � ° n- M M m o a y C M M MN L 0 U =e.EC eo¢ o m m Y p gm o m c n =i m N O l m om��o$MM d m E o a Lfm.=p M3, o N$no M m c ooa O l y Rw m N= C 0 O 3 `c $ � °ME >m WO m 'U ° o - m> Le _cE 0 - 00 Op 7u= E _$ m v > c c E > ° E � ' 0 M > m$ ° = mm �¢ ' E mf3 o o N y m Y 5 0 n=C M oTm m CO ti f oa 7rL. "Rw t°CN lsl..'Q m n N N O m m m C M d O°iJ C y J .t°j R Y O ¢ O o c mo m 0 M c$i E - A E 'a A � o c m c y o n m °m E ` ° w E ma 3 °' M On$ M m m o p m o m . o m a m a M L 3 m L m M U L N O U C > m U O 2 19 m ° c o,E =coo ° m o $ tO p. nca •$ic amid a 'o E ° °°' o • i`. V m p y O '� O .'J M L = ? a O p p. >i m O L N N C — J ° N m — m O ' 3 U Z 3 E w M F- E 5 ¢ M M O p fn > ...i o ii Q s 2 c 0 w f (sliejy 6uiadS : 99ZZ) dNWW 91N3WH3tlllb' :)uawyae))y N m I N D 0 a m U o � C c ° O m O p o V o y ZE � m U N Q O C L O. E _ y � a _ y C � d d a v � o c a ° d y w C QZ E a C O is ° v� cdamEm cram c a cL - o c+i a oEL.. c otc°ym mw E ES a�°'iR nca mvv ° Taco 2 d m C "'�•` c m ' w '.eo o EE vm oiOdE m 'y �a 0 H 834 S'E c° 'c rn� c > w F °c o ` 5n � —a° 6 $ c c do o - o o ° o o d y ° o ^ v o a c Y fn' = ° y E m °' d m ° mEcd , `o.wo Em `oocao Emo ° 3 =w CR oE 'c E m °o mf° da> 'c 'm mcv EA yAm °m — am; 24! °J 9 o.'m . ° L cc -6.r L o o v o o ' ° E E o c_ NNma°i � aS9my NC m "OO O_ c0 E ca y 4,75 :°. `O m o ^°i- .°'.. rn E a�? m m - C =O ° ° `? coE ' a0w L C O y E N a o L N ' = vi N ' E p 0 VJ O L 'O a1 a1 O O d o C E w a E o @ dow «SEocc c d NCO ca�°'i � � c mo A ,o .a o° w °c mym c m = E .� E E NNa Eo Notcy E mcv� a.o o A --' c_' a `o. � 'a �i my fy mymacV o. ° m � C6. miav � °°m � a m °°— aai -°o `oHm o ,rc °j ai v' k 3 v tO E•oc o > o `«° .c 2 o 2 � coa N co°i d N y m c a c y. 3 m `° O c 3 0 ¢ c L w - 'c mH a� o f o c v 0 m E 5 m fn o. 'm o v c �° — c of � cQ c oc E_ o no > Ly >.00 '� o M °^ d O N N N [a IO t0 y C N N (O 'O U .�-' N "O U L N O L O O O O d C N 3 d d C G V 1 N d S m t� u- o o w 'o N LL 'o `oN EN V a H IL- oa 3 E m 3 v b $ n¢ O yo N m N a N m (spej16uuds 99ZZ) dUWW 91N3WHOV11V :ivawyoellV PER m e m N ° O V N V C N . 2 V C � O W 1�1 m N N � N N A C � d O � C 07 G O) y � O v l ti 3 a W N ct O C � o y i C a y co w C p m m m E � a G ° O � to O� ry O` ry n O OI °' m w Q m is 'm �+ d y — c m iv �i c c n'- a> E o m c E w ti of y v w e �cpi .pp- v a o a w m y p 2 w c v EL a m e M 0 � E C X Y y? ° C C '9 O id U 2 E `� n o Tp E p m o mn $ a itlo o > ya y > v o• y c � S E a hL. a S .`_ g a � � �' 3 �' h o E :°- a Y �' a�i n A 2 m tOV ° � °—' v � m aL •,C. c o G o H > E r m c,tl q - "E o 'er ° A ` V E E`R E;5 :2 l • • • • • • n a m c — • • ° m ' R • o ra Y L m ° E o N b N w d0 � O s 0 (sliejl6uiadS 9SZZ) dMWW - 91N3WH3VIIY :IU8wy3B)IV � 0 m N i0- m � c w Y U O v V V d c M a o EE cE 'O EE E E EE EE c ,� n a E m -2 Ao � o `m o Leo ° E d E d E ° E M O O o� m 'O 4 to'� O VJ '� 0 M '� U U y� of of `oE `: E of of o chi o i o 'G o U o chi o m O O) O Ol td C C C C C C 'O G C C U N U ti m c c c c c m c m $ =o $ m CD Q) C C C C O a O O O O O O 2 d 0 d U U U U a c M o o Ll a s o C C C U C U U L G 2E °- 0 E O O O O O C ¢= m U U U U y U d Cc0 Q O fn U U U U V Y _ m m .2 t3 m L m ioOm M m $ y M O +y w ° o mE 'a -`-' Ec E va m w m m > g M c E, d E 'm o �.`3 5 c E aci ° H - c C o $ a m cM Ea o Ef ' M a O `m -p — - T .m-. � N ? � - c — c � � „ E U move m m m m l� °- tO d vi ° `v 'O ° c ° a c > m m .� O N C m O T OI S] a N ti lL U L p ` [O ` N p too " Ec cm cc m v_� E yY a y yi� vi io .E Ads ; m N a m L c w 'N '9 L E m E L o m L F `m y E .2 }s p U z m (A V) N O' N O O C O C N ° M Vl m N U _m m E > R 'Z'j C�j Y.° m $ O � < `� n= ° o ° c°�aya~ci a> c ° ac o Ep` i tl mSm m o ado 5 c °m '�o a % 'oc o mvm 2iv 2 E E `�p m a W w E °m `O� co 'c omm _ moic amid . moc [7 c 3 ° m E: - d m o n m n c . c t6 c $ p.¢ c o h z .0 c �'i cc v oiv cmd mE ` u � sac maM Q m .. mi 2 ° m o a m 2 ooc McE m ,�' m > o Q :am c cc a�i cvi ` 'aim ami � a-Oic in 'E yAo� oE d ma E ¢ OW . m, �2 v ° 5 'c o y c yo _a'm o m Y E .o y Z m E d E - m E ncOEE m mm u� orom Eo mm 5 C C • m is — m m m a°i m `� c = .a m tO a v ° E ` c m n- d 0 L L m L O L 6',C O �-. ow m L U O O L z F Ham . r O HomFc (no UaM Hamm rYo f- O N M V itJ m T Q r O � O O O O O O N M (sllejl6uudS 99ZZ) dNWW 91N3WHOVi-LV auawyaeliV N Q7 ( N m j m m m � a d ,y° ¢ v W E o v V a o _ y N Ln a �m E o E o o •c o c oa `2 c — c pis ? A ac vd � •od RC a ` '� m w o d A d O y y CJ R h� N w <nw o3 y Y ° Cc a E E a A m c m c E E yT y U H U y O (cc G p ¢Ei m y d e O � a, a O C T p U y E 1O r U �E c C R n«o m n c o y o �A O n � 000C h A a ao CynA a A m a oa� F5-K-ni S 'c G E Q 2 m N`C p U] y o tl E .A- ¢ H c o 'Oy E >. y LL a d c y c `° c y °' '> � °ic @OO ° cv `na '� ao �� 2 mTOy 2c oaf° Ac 2c °' a y � y oaL_o o2Emcy cc� °' y `m o E c Lp� c� � � �° aEc 'm h H '_-' -RO a�°i y c 'L A o `m A p c vy a�i y m .-� A w R c ° 5 a A R ^� m cp co c yoREo c �cm cnm c EY •, p. g . c t E d m .. V'i vni -2 Y a) E C°.f a O a N E C°? Ai_ V tCd CAJ O` fn ayi O. O O y Q y N r C ° d C o inL m y v a aoyi ¢E°aci Evm —U y o �°o i J ym wc a�E+'m o�y Y o o o d o»> y '' y•—``c° ry y U o m o ° o y` y- 'a E mE OicO.ov° =y Acc°i t5 o O L.°A°.. c °E .y V m =m y .Sm _ A m eq m oy i: 9mm z'v ° Av L c 3 e R tl� •p� a a ' 3 vi A y c o a = c $ A v v '° ° °' Q E ° macima Owa a°imRr= E � o m2 � E: ° EoA p AEA .°- ° tt � c.L� oa � nnc EL ° `o_ ° � E ° y `� v Nw `� iao � Lry � vc y C O d C A O y C N r �..'d 1� d y y d 0 R A "c o T o `�° m v c o m c a �- a a o �`is E O a O R y N 'O y •2 a) 01 O R U C O L p A G` A 'O O A' p l O 2 > O A A R O y d A P j A O n O W O O d N d m L v W .Rr 1 2 U C d N 6 y Crl d d U N m O y O �i 6 E d y Y R A O p V c nydo m � oocc `o. mo 'c � c oon�, � • • • It o. mw �. -S m N atl O N M c{ R V Q (slieal BuiadS : 99ZZ) dNWW 91N3WHOV11V :IuawyoePV N � I N o V Q a u O l h o d 5 E U O .0 'O C � n Ot O Gi A O A O A O �Y m E N E N N 1.4� d O C 6 m 0 YJ ni p U m O U � Gc o A Z'._ A d._ A �•._ y o`A is o f of S E 3 A U O U O U O cn U U U y A d Y O y O O of c E � aci cE cE CE W L � a w rz o c ~ G p pCi C 6 G G U O U O # t OI ° = A N .2 — toA b vi FL-- a A = of o .E in c A m E d c« 1° � o y L O n— C C (n 'C ` A N L A O O °. .° C N T 2 A L C a C VJ y C7 't 'mE oE >. n '°uE t°o .`� .°oiti °JJO E C s m y c b m T A a � A N m o Ya y m c io o c Ac o c AyA yE cD OOC°a o i. G y tV T% O N rtOf o. T y N N Vl y N E A R A Ai1' Ay Cf7 N C E Y "O A [O E 'C C T N O U C = l0 U O F ° A S o v` E 5 - 2 H . 'YDa� o r .� c y a A y ^E : a 3 N oO.,8 Ea oc_ °E -U om =A n VaEC i. a�f° dC 'G EC m O'Ua.A- r_N N= , O N Y L U $ m .- y = c c E2 L OW m Ti e c '2= ° C m p C o cz N A o n o C Ey 0o E ¢dc c o O v vi c`°n i A On to c 0E y° y °T E c w` o E w° "ayi utO i°3 o oo.w° E a "2 O m m° m !a E 2 aU rc if a ca 42 o °o a E � Oi a m° FlCpt q. W ES � vaNi .E aacimy cydya°i �d c E $ y nic `o � n� oc H °� E V-2 c o to $ y $ - o t° A `� � c ° oTa c°i � 'So oyomam u' o- y � caNtO1on o c d Y d o• o w 0 ti W 2 c°0A 41 v o y0 w m d c v - W t7 - ac L" o mA�E t o m m o y A y vo o o c. a N° 4 -P-1 c E o - ' .2 E .A-cc 0 a pV+ jN dALLW 6 j2ONN ° 6� �i0A � A � aiOnAAO p ' t= ¢ o co LL9 O N (h L (spejl BUIJdS 99ZZ) dNWW 91N3WH�V11V :4uaw43e;;V _ r 0 i0 a y O a ° ¢ E IL R o a o v c ito LL O y O OE O y O OF= '2 o. '2 . c ''2 E v n n Ot o Ao Ao m `mo mo a F E > E d " E > E > m O a> > o m > `o o. m > `o m > vl aOC L m ` C 0 ` ¢ m 0 O C 0 O in m c c m c c ° E ° E ° ° E ° E 'E E ' E ' E U U U U U U U U U E ° _ E c E c E c � G yo, aoia yn y5 moo. c N O 's O .E O a U O p OC m ' y .tea .mow oa o 3a a� a ,3 W c � ` o o c A � '° y = Z Q ;O O d a�i aVi d m C J c 'o 'o 'o o o c c C C d` a a d` a c m n N O y _ O N a� oCE5,cYm w 'g ? A � c> mc a a> a� � aa Lo EA Ec_ rc O L d y O y ° d m � a = L ° - N E C C ~ N y $ d � noQUd °J ci - > c m cmo � o, mc c o m !1n� > � n d` ao o E m " dm i' E Cm3 m E A m `L 0 :2 s co L« mo. m m m $ c�i " c om � Ea° Oh H 3 m _Np •w (n '> m ° oa c c °' o.� m °>� ° '3E M= 3 ° awm c 'pYm a cU Cmic vi ° m� > ie �' -:5z and � o� 3 :n EnE DEL 3 mom .° m ccy h L` c « aU. m - dc c ° no v - cF g oo w .a O 'Cm > '•�. ° o E EL>.. c m mca n `o .°'. ocmm a, y and w5 3na om._ a> c a oo. o, T _ mU n ca a ELL y N O) L m O d d O m S] O) C CV >^L (O mA° •� m E m - c m � m a..d- o. y 0 0 �' o 0 3 o m c a a a c ti c °a vii - v n c c m a L m o 2 a c m am o EU a ° m oc om is c o o .cL .S3- cm eq > m° r ° > c $ `o a> �o oa �nE °o5 = �' 0 � � m E � � oY = ati c°'i 3 ac oA - m d m.� in da c a� oa o ° o� m .� v E m aL � .Z+ 3 °a °' m C2oc°� ° `� A 2S = - .Riamcw � w `o. °� > 3m = o EEw S c y m y c w '� ` y�m �' m .°_? c m o. a m c� - ` o� c �' � a o L m c a � N C a O N V U_ ' N M. L V! Of g .= T— n m Y Y y d C C y m N T E > U Vl O 9 y Y N N O [O VI N N [�C y C 'C C �,� C O E mUGH R $ N d ° m > $ L y �'O Na C ` CUd OC fC d $ $ 6L mwm0 O m " aci _ o 2 =� Y > m _ `o"' oNam � a nAama3i E ova 20 � � aaicm dL9L E � V m as o2 n ° as c `oc � a� caa � . o. > -a -na m d ° 'v c C • a ra n a a m ° m ME m m n ¢ G W5 = �0 m ti aO v �n co r m rn <c co cc co cc <c mei.L mjdS : s z knn - ,agWwDV 3V #_43e m § cz EL - a }i $ k\ � ; \ ) �f \ \ A & ( � � a k k } \ \i \ \ � ! / | $ \ \ / , \ \ \ f ° ® � k \ \\ \ ) / § ma / / / FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORT FOR THE SPRING TRAILS SPECIFIC PLAN w F- rn G SCH NO, 2009111086 0 U) Ln Ln N N_ W LL M U) N F C Q prepared for: z z CITY OF SAN w BERNARDINO = U Q F Contact: Q Tony Stewart c d E r U A Y prepared by: Q THE PLANNING CENTERIDC&E Contact: JoAnn C. Hadfield Principal, Environmental Services OCTOBER 2012 Packet Pg.209 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORT FOR THE SPRING TRAILS SPECIFIC PLAN y L F- 0 S SCH NO. 2009111086 w N N_ W W LL a U) Ml :` F 07 C L CL prepared for: z z Uj CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO 2 U Q F Community Development Department Contact: Q 300 North 'D"Street Tony Stewart San Bernardino, CA 92418 Tel: 909.384.5057•Fax.909.384.5080 E Stewart_To @sbcity.org prepared by: THE PLANNING CENTERIDC&E 3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100 Contact: Santa Ana, CA 92707 JoAnn C. Hadfield Tel: 714.966.9220 •Fax: 714.966.9221 Principal, Environmental f E-mail:information @planningcenter.com Services F Website:www.planningcenter.com MEL-01.OE OCTOBER 2012 Packet Pg.210 Table of Contents Section Page 1. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................i-1 1.1 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................1-1 1.2 FORMAT OF THE FEIR....................................................................................................1-1 1.3 CEQA REQUIREMENTS REGARDING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES.......................1-2 2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS..............................................................................................2-1 3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR........................................................................................3-1 N 3.1 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................3-1 m 3.2 DRAFT EIR REVISIONS IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS..............................3-1 F 3.3 CORRECTIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR.............................................................................3-15 3.3.1 Revisions due to the Change in Preferred Development Plan (Electrical Power S 0. Lines) 3-15 m 3.3.2 Other Revisions to the Draft EIR.......................................................................3-27 co 3.4 REVISED AND NEW FIGURES......................................................................................3-29 n N_ x W LL (L y w H rn S APPENDICES n U) A. Kunzman Associates Response to Caltrans Comments t� B. Kunzman Associates Response to County of San Bernardino Department of Public Works z Comments w 2: s U Q F- F Q c d E U a Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page i Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page Figure3-3 Development Plan..........................................................................................................3-31 Figure 3-3a Alternative (Underground Electrical Lines) Development Plan .....................................3-33 Figure3-4 Zoning Map....................................................................................................................3-35 Figure 3-4a Alternative (Underground Electric Lines) Zoning Map..................................................3-37 Figure 3-8 Trails, Parks, and Open Space Plan..............................................................................3-39 Figure 3-8a Alternative (Underground Electric Lines)Trails, Parks, and Open Space Plan............3-41 N Figure 4-6 Existing Land Use Designations....................................................................................3-43 Figure 5.3-1 Plant Communities Map.................................................................................................3-45 Figure 5.14-5 Existing Average Daily Traffic Volumes.........................................................................3-47 c a y N N W LL a. LIST OF TABLES `o (�J� Table Page y Table t Jurisdictional Impacts....................................................................................................2-25 °c Table 5.14-2 Existing Intersection Delay and Level of Service'..........................................................3-14 Q Table1-1 Land Use Summary.......................................................................................................3-16 Table3-1 Land Use Summary.......................................................................................................3-18 r� Table 3-1A Alternative Land Use Summary.....................................................................................3-19 ~ z Table 5.11-5 Projected Growth and Jobs/Housing Ratio According to SCAG..................................3-23 W Table 5.11-6 Projected Growth and Jobs/Housing Ratio According to the City's General Plan .......3-23 i Table 5.12-3 Estimated Student Generation for the Proposed Project..............................................3-24 L) h Table 5.13-1 Open Space, Parks, and Recreation Facilities..............................................................3-25 F Q c m E t U R Q Page ii The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 Packet Pg. 212 1. Introduction 1.1 INTRODUCTION This Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 at seq.) and CEQA Guidelines (California Administrative Code Section 15000 et seq.). y According to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15132, the FEIR shall consist of: c L (a) The Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) or a revision of the Draft; rn (b) Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in summary; N N_ (c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies comments on the Draft EIR; LL w (d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and a consultation process; and co N (e) Any other information added by the Lead Agency. rn This document contains responses to comments received on the Draft EIR for the Spring Trails Specific Plan project during the public review period, which began July 29, 2011, and closed September 12, rp 2011. This document has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and represents the independent judgment of the Lead Agency. This document and the circulated Draft EIR comprise the FEIR, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines, Section 15132. Z w 1.2 FORMAT OF THE FEIR = U Q F This document is organized as follows: a Section 1, Introduction. This section describes CEQA requirements and content of this FEIR. E r Section 2, Response to Comments. This section provides a list of agencies and interested persons U Y commenting on the Draft EIR; copies of comment letters received during the public review period, and a individual responses to written comments. To facilitate review of the responses, each comment letter has been reproduced and assigned a number (A-1 through A-11 for letters received from agencies and organizations, and R-1 through R-41 for letters received from residents). Individual comments have been numbered for each letter and the letter is followed by responses with references to the corresponding comment number. Section 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR. This section contains revisions to the Draft EIR text and figures as a result of the comments received by agencies and interested persons as described in Section 2, and/or errors and omissions discovered subsequent to release of the Draft EIR for public review. The responses to comments contain material and revisions that will be added to the text of the FEIR. The City of San Bernardino staff has reviewed this material and determined that none of this material Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 1-1 "Packet Pg213 1 . Introduction constitutes the type of significant new information that requires recirculation of the Draft EIR for further public comment under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. None of this new material indicates that the project will result in a significant new environmental impact not previously disclosed in the Draft EIR. Additionally, none of this material indicates that there would be a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that will not be mitigated, or that there would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation described in Section 15088.5. 1.3 CEQA REQUIREMENTS REGARDING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 (a) outlines parameters for submitting comments, and reminds persons and public agencies that the focus of review and comment of Draft EIRs should be "on the sufficiency of y the document in identifying and analyzing possible impacts on the environment and ways in which significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they a, suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the (n adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible. ...CEQA does not require a to lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or LO N demanded by commenters. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as W long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR." 'W' LL d CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 (c) further advises, "Reviewers should explain the basis for their U) comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence." Section 15204 (d) also states, m "Each responsible agency and trustee agency shall focus its comments on environmental information germane to that agency's statutory responsibility." Section 15204 (e) states, "This section shall not be u�i used to restrict the ability of reviewers to comment on the general adequacy of a document or of the lead agency to reject comments not focused as recommended by this section." Z w In accordance with CEQA, Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, copies of the written responses to public agencies will be forwarded to those agencies at least 10 days prior to certifying the environmental czi impact report. The responses will be forwarded with copies of this FEIR, as permitted by CEQA, and will F conform to the legal standards established for response to comments on Draft EIRs. Q c d E s U Q Page 1-2 •The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 Packet Pg. 214 2. Ke't n to romme;pts Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines requires the Lead Agency (City of San Bernardino) to evaluate comments on environmental issues received from public agencies and interested parties who reviewed the Draft EIR and prepare written responses. This section provides all written responses received on the Draft EIR and the City of San Bernardino's responses to each comment. rn Comment letters and specific comments are given letters and numbers for reference purposes. Where a sections of the Draft EIR are excerpted in this document, the sections are shown indented. Changes to N the Draft EIR text are shown in underlined text for additions and stdkeeut for deletions. to LO N The following is a list of agencies and persons that submitted comments on the Draft EIR during the public review period. rY DU LL IL Number m a Reference Commenting Persan/Agency Date of Comment Page No. — t Agencies & Organizations Al California Department of Fish and Game September 12,2011 2-3 A2 California Department of Transportation September 21,2011 2-17 Q A3 California Regional Water Quality Control Board Se tember 8,2011 2-21 m A4 Center for Biological Diversity September 12,2011 2-27 A5 County of San Bernardino Department of Public Works September 1,2011 2-45 Z A6 Department of the Army Corps of Engineers August 17, 2011 2-51 W A7 Devore Rural Protection Association September 10, 2011 2-57 A8 Local Agency Formation Commission September 12, 2011 2-61 a A9 Native American Heritage Commission August 25, 2011 2-65 A10 Omnitrans August 24,2011 2-71 a All San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society September 11,2011 2-77 Al2 South Coast Air Quality Management District September 9, 2011 2-89 E Residents R R1 Form Letter—submitted by the following individuals: 2-97 Q (all of San Bernardino,CA 92407 unless otherwise noted) . Brandt, Gary&?,4119 W. Meyers Road, September 9,2011 . Chapin, Leann,4113 W. Meyers Road September 8, 2011 . Chun?, Du W., 18535 Grandview Avenue September 10, 2011 . Cranford,Kerry, 3260 Greystone Road September 8, 2011 . Garrison, Christine, 5694 North G Street September 10,2011 . Garrison, Ronnie,5694 North G Street September 10,2011 . Helt,Alaina, 18558 Santa Fe Avenue September 10,2011 . Helt,John, 22592 Mariam Way, Grand Terrace, CA 92313-5214 September 10,2011 . Helt, Steve, 18558 Santa Fe Avenue September 10,2011 . Hughes, Robert?, 18525 Grandview Avenue September 11,2011 . Larson,Ton a,Address? September 10,2011 Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-1 2. Response to Comments Number Reference Commenting Person/Agency Date of Comment Page No. • Lloyd,Terry, 18858 Cajon Blvd., September 11,2011 • Lyman,Andy, 1660 Cable Lane September 8, 2011 • Martinez, Ray?, 1675 Deercrest Drive September 11,2011 • Martinez,Susan L., 1675 Deercrest Drive September 11, 2011 • M, Cyn?, 18510 Santa Fe Avenue September 11, 2011 • Minor, Lawrence?,18533 Santa Fe Avenue September 11,2011 • Minor,Teri, 18533 Santa Fe Avenue September 11,2011 • Montgomery,William S.,3284 Greystone Road September 11,2011 • Onken,James R., 3985 W. Meyers Road No date • Payne, Nicole M., 3985 W. Meyers Road No date • Payne,Shelly M., 3985 W. Meyers Road No date • Potter,Arlean C.,3783 W. Meyers Road September 12,2011 Q • Romero, Karina, 3284 Greystone Road September 11,2011 • Sims, Ronald E., 18557 Santa Fe Avenue September 11,2011 • Sims,Shan! R.,18557 Santa Fe Avenue September 11,2011 N • Wade, Mike,6758 Ventura September 11,2011 R2 Behrens, Edward-list address for all Se tember 12,2011 2-111 R3 Casas, Denise September 11,2011 2-117 LL R4 Casas, Pascual September 11,2011 2-121 N R5 Cranford, Kerry letter 1 September 9, 2011 2-125 y R6 Heyman, Martin and Gwen September, 2011 2-129 m R7 Kaplan, Lynette McLean and Richard September 11,2011 2-133 R8 Kirtle ,Troy and Patricia, Gloria Evans, and James V.Quiroz September 11, 2011 2-147 5 R9 Mitchell, Hank September 1,2011 2-155 R10 Mitchell, Kevin September 12,2011 2-165 R11 O'Neill,Stephen,Judy,and Jennifer No date 2-169 R12 Potter,Arlean C Letter 1 No date 2-175 w R13 Rodrick,Coril n September 9, 2011 2-181 = R14 Smith,Carol S. September 9, 2011 2-185 R15 Signature list of opposing persons No date 2-189 F 7=- Name is best guess or illegible I Q C Q E r U R a Page 2-2 The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 Packet Pg. 216 2. Response to Comments LETTER At -California Department of Fish and Game (8 pages) - Il I• California Natural Resources Agency EDMUND G. BROWN JR..Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME CHARLTON H.BONHAM,Director htto 11w dfg ca goy Inland Deserts Region 3602 Inland Empire Blvd.,Suite C-200 Ontario,CA 91764 (909)484-0167 ILnU\� SSSIIEPP LL11 4 22011111 m September 12,2011 CITYOF SAN BERNARDINO F DEVELOPMENTSERVICES pI DEPARTMENT C Terri Rahal,City Planner a Community Development Department _ v) City of San Bernardino 300 North'D'Street LO San Bernardino,CA 92418 N N_ C Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Spring Trails Specific Plan u! City of San Bernardino,County of San Bernardino,SCH#2009111086 LL a in Dear Ms. Rahal: 2 The Department of Fish and Game(Department)appreciates this opportunity to comment F- on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Spring Trails Speck Plan.The Department is responding as a Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources[Fish and Game Code sections 711.7 and 1802 and the California Environmental Quality Act rn Guidelines(CEQA)section 153861 and as a Responsible Agency regarding any discretionary actions(CEQA Guidelines section 15381),such as a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement(Section 1600 at seq.)or a California Endangered Species Incidental Z Take Permit(Fish and Game Code Sections 2080 and 2080.1). Z ILI For this project the Department will be acting as a Trustee and Responsible Agency.As per = Section 15096 of the California Environmental Quality Act statute,as a Responsible Agency Q the Department is obligated to focus its comments on any shortcomings in the CEQA document,the appropriateness of the CEQA document utilized,and additional alternatives At-1 or mitigation measures which the CEQA document should include. Q The proposed project consists of the development of 307 single-family lots on 352.8 acres in m the unincorporated area of the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains.Also involved are j E two new access roads,9 acres of parks,125.1 acres of slopes and fuel modification zones L and 111.3 acres of natural open space.The site is located south and east of the community r of Devore and extends northward from Meyers Road into the San Bernardino National Q Forest. Foothill Development The foothills, canyons and riparian areas of San Bernardino County are critical to the preservation of many threatened and endangered species and species of special concem. This is because flatland and alluvial fan areas of the southern part of the County have been or are being rapidly and intensively developed to the detriment of native species.This fact Conserving California's'WiMifeSince 1870 Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-3 Packet Pg. 217 6.B.m 2. Response to Comments Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Spring Trails Deveiopmeni County of San Bernardino —SCH 2009111086 Page 2 of 8 leads the Department to conclude that conservation of foothill sites and riparian areas that abut the National Forest are necessary for the survival of many of these sensitive species in San Bernardino County,including those listed in this comment letter.Simply conserving the Al-1 mountains will not ensure conservation of native species. Chapter IV(a)of the County of cont'd San Bernardino 2007 General Plan Update discusses the Valley Region and stales: "This .R Region is urbanized with few existing natural open space areas.'Page 6-22 of the County's F Conservation Element states"...impacts to[Valley chaparral habdats]should be avoided co wherever possible.' E Q The DER discusses the biological resources of the site in the context of southern California. rn The County of San Bernardino has no jurisdiction over Riverside,Orange or L.A.counties and cannot rely on the conservation of resources in these areas.The County of San Al-2 Bernardino has jurisdiction over lands within the County and an assessment of natural <N.t resources such as Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub(RAFSS),Riversidean Sage Scrub (RSS),and species of special concern should be considered in the context of the Valley K Region of the County,The FEIR should include an assessment of the importance of this site I M. in the context of the status of species of special concern,i.e.,remaining intact areas of u' RAFSS and RSS,major wildlife corridors,existing conserved areas and an assessment, A1-3 y the trend of the development of remaining foothill open space areas within the County of w San Bernardino. ca The foothill ravines and drainages provide cover,food and water for resident native species, � including deer,mountain lion,bobcat,and coyote.These drainages often provide the only c sources of water for native wildlife.Due to microclimate differences and the presence of .a water,the foothill drainages and ravines are the most densely populated and diverse wildlife rn areas in this region and provide a major source of food and water.For this reason the Department advocates the conservation of existing,remaining riparian drainages in the A14 foothill areas.Development into the foothills also increases the risk of predation of domestic ~ animals by top predators,such as mountain lions,bobcats and coyotes and this creates tZyr additional burdens on Department Wardens.The Department routinely deals with inquiries regarding wildlife-human interface conflicts and often has to respond in person,thus = incurring additional expenses and diverting staff and resources away from conservation and U law enforcement activities.The DER proposes that the future Housing CC&Rs will include measures regarding keeping dogs on leashes and cats in yards,however,this type of agreement is very difficult to enforce.The Department recommends alternate mitigation measures,including a barrier between development and the Cable Creek area. In addition Al-5 c to the presence of domestic dogs and cats,residential subdivisions also attract raccoons, d skunks,rabbits,squirrels and other small animals that constitute a major source of food for E top predators.This potential predator issue should be thoroughly addressed. v m The proposed development represents an extension and intensification of residential Q development into the foothills.There is no development north,east and west of the site. Typically,the cost of developing in foothills is much more than developing on relatively Flat Aid land,because of increased grading and infrastructure costs. Normally development In steep foothill and canyon areas are designated for one residential unit per 5, 10,20 or even 40 acre lots.Although there are residential projects below the project site there are none to the north,east or west. 3 1 Page 2-4 The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 Packet Pg..218 2. Response to Comments Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Spring Trails Development County of San Bernardino —SCH 2009111086 Page 3 of 8 Impacts to Species Biological assessments were conducted between 1998 and 2009.Biological Resource Assessments for the project site include the following:General Biological Resources a Assessment Update,Martin Ranch Property in 2004;Rare Plant Survey Letter Report in - 2009;Biological Resources Assessment and Report for the Martin Ranch in 1998;a Biological Technical Report Update in 2002,and a Biological Technical Report: Proposed Secondary Access Road in 2002. Al-7 m .L Focused biological surveys were conducted between 1998 and 2009 for the following °- V) species: Least Bell's Vireo and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Focused Survey Report, 2007;San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat PresencelAbsence Trapping Surveys in 2009, 'p Results of a Live Trapping Survey for the Federally Endangered San Bernardino Kangaroo N Rat on the Secondary Access Route in 2002,and Results of Focused Presence/Absence Surveys for the Coast California Gnatcatcher in 2002. w The Department advises that any biological habitat assessments or walkovers be u_ conducted within a year of distribution of the CEQA document.A thorough assessment of a- rare plants and rare natural communities,following the Depannt me 's November 2009 Al.g guidance for Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities. The guidance document can be found at the following fink:hrtow "eta ca oovN�ogmtlzLa,�rndGhlmfc/ornrocds f Survey' and Evaluat'na imnans rAf f— t7) c Habitat assessments that identify the possibility of listed,threatened or endangered plants or animals should also provide the results of any focused surveys in the CEQA document. U) CEQA documents that rely on future surveys or regulatory compliance(with the exceptfan of Al- , pre-construction surveys for burrowing owl or bird nests)as mitigation may not satisfy the r Department's obligations under CEQA and may require future supplemental documents Z processed via CEQA. 1 w Sensitive habitats on the site include:2.1 acres of California Walnut Woodland, .4 acres of S Canyon Uve Oak Woodland,19.2 acres of chaparral,11.4 acres of nonnative3 grassland, U 86.9 acres of northern mixed chaparral,4.4 acres of RAFSS, 168.4 acres of RSS Sage I F Scrub,19.8 acres of RSS Sage Scrub/Califomia Walnut Woodland,25A acres of Southern 4 Sycamore-Alder Riparian Woodland, 1.6 acres of Southern Willow Scrub and,7.4 acres of southern Willow Saub/California Walnut Woodland,and 7.5 acres of Sycamore Alluvial Woodland. E The site has a moderate to present probability of four state or federal endangered(E)or AI-10 threatened(T)species,26 species of special concern(SSC),and 8 foraging species of special concern. Q Sensitive species on the site include: Plummer's mariposa lily,California black walnut, ocellated Humboldt lily,Los Angeles pocket mouse(SSC), San Diego desert woodrat (SSC),Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse(SSC),least Bell's vireo(S/F Endangered), Bell's sage Sparrow(SSC), southern California rufous-crowned sparrow(SSC),Lawrence's goldfinch,sharp-shinned hawk(SSC),coastal western whiptail,and San Diego homed lizard (SSC). Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-5 Packet Pg. 219 6.B.m -- 2. Response to Comments Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Spring Trails Development H County of San Bernardino —SCH 2009111086 Page 4 of 8 Species that have moderate or high potential to occur on the site include: American badger, California leaf-nosed bat(SSC),Occult little brown bat(SSC),pallid San Diego pocket mouse,San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit(SSC),San Bernardino kangaroo rat(FE),ring- tailed cat(SSC),southwestern willow flycatcher(FE,SE),black-chinned sparrow, loggerhead shrike(SSC),yellow-breasted chat(SSC),yellow warbler(SSC),California - glossy snake(SSC),California silvery legless lizard(SSC),coast patch-nosed snake, rosy boa(SSC),San Bernardino mountain kingsnake(SSC),San Diego banded gecko(SSC), two-striped garter snake(SSC),and yellow-blotched salamander(SSC). Animals that may use the site for foraging include:chipping sparrow(SSC),Cooper's hawk �- (SSC),Ferruginous hawk(SSC),golden eagle(SSC),Medin(SSC),northern harrier(SSC), prairie falcon(SSG),white-tailed kite(SSC),and Swainson's hawk(SSC). N Other animals found on-site include: coyote,bobcat,mountain lion,mule deer,black bear, N. deer mouse,California mouse,cactus mouse,dusky-footed woodrat,arroyo southwestern W toad,great homed owl,turkey vulture,red-tailed hawk,red-shouldered hawk,American w kestrel and LL (L The project site contains only three percent of non-native vegetation.The remainder of the rn project is high quality habitat,including RSS,RAFSS,southern willow riparian,black walnut w trees,Mexican elderberry,mulefat,canyon oak,Bay laurel,narrow leaf cottonwood,a year- 9I 'm round source of water,surrounded on three sides by native habitat,adjacency to San Al-10 Bernardino National Forest lands,critical habitat for SBKR and a nursery site for mule deer. W,I'd The site functions as a wildlife corridor and supports mountain lions,coyotes,deer and bear. _ If the deer persist in Cable Creek and the site in general future development will be subject to potential predation by top predators. t` The proposed impacts are as follows: F Z 1. Potential removal of 100-300 mariposa lily plants; W 2. Loss of San Bernardino kangaroo rat designated Critical Habitat; 2 3. Overall loss of 265.2 acres of high quality natural habitat; V 4. Loss of 26.4 acres of riparian habitat; Q 5. Loss of 168 acres of RSS; H 6. Loss of 4.4 acres of RAFSS; Q 7. Loss of 1 acre of Southern willow scrub(SWS); 8. Loss of 6 acres of SWS and black walnut 9. Loss of 350-600 walnut trees,2.1 acres and 31.6 acres of mixed habitat;walnut E trees; 10.Loss of 2.0 acres of sycamore habitat; U 11.Loss of springs; a 12.Loss of numerous State species of special concern; 13.Loss of a significant wildlife corridor; 14.Loss of a mule deer nursery; 15.Loss of a 6.2 ac seasonal wetland; 16.Loss of foraging habitat for raptors; 17.Potential impacts to SBKR,least Bell's vireo(LBV),southwestern willow flycatcher, and coastal California gnatcalcher(CCGn). Page 2-6 The Planning Center I DC&E October 2012 Packet Pg.220 6.B:m 2. Response to Comments 1 Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Spring Trails Development County of San Bernardino —SCH 2009111086 Page 5 of 8 Proposed Proiect Mitigation 1. Mitigate the loss of Los Angeles Pocket Mouse(LAPM)habitat at a 1:1 ratio; 2. Mitigate for the loss of RSS at a 1:3 ratio,(one acre for every three impacted); w 3. Mitigate for the loss of SBKR critical habitat at a 1:1 ratio offsite; 4. Signage and buyer awareness program regarding wildlife; 5. Restrict dogs to leash and cats to property boundary under jurisdiction of Al-10 ~ Homeowners Association; cont'd r 6. For 28.4 acres of riparian replace on a 1:1 ratio by acquiring offsite mitigation lands 'a of like habitat as determined by CDFG,or paying in-lieu fees to mitigation land rn bank as per CDFG; 7. Replace 220 black walnut trees. to N Department Concerns 1 The Department has many concerns regarding the proposed development of this site. I W The FEIR should address the following: mitigation for DFG jurisdictional water should LL occur at a minimum ratio of 3:1,seasonal wetland mitigation measures,analysis of the Al 11 (L biological resources at the seasonal wetland and its use by wildlife;the location of springs and their use by wildlife,the location of detention basins and their impact on y Cable Creek,the total number of native trees that will be removed and mitigation for the losses,an estimate on how much of the site is used by foraging raptors,adherence to the Department's 2009 plant survey guidelines,updated focused surveys for SBKR, CCGn, SW WFI;the impact of the loss of these resources on the Valley Region,and •� provision of a Habitat Management and Monitoring Plan.In addition,the applicant must C submit a 1600 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement Notification,a California Endangered Species Act incidental take permit and potentially a United States Fish t` and Wildlife Federal Endangered Species Act permit.Any mitigation lands should At 12 replace the habitat and species lost to development.If replacement lands cannot be Z found that include the key elements of the site biology,then the County should {{ consider that the project mitigation does not reduce the impacts to a level below I = significance. U a Mitigation measures tend to mitigate impacts to specific species or habitats.This site contains numerous sensitive biological resources,a mule deer nursery,a wildlife corridor ; 4 identified by the Missing Linkage wildlife movement project,and is a functioning ecosystem, with upland and riparian elements.As has been stated by the County,the Valley Region is urbanized with few existing natural open space areas. The proposed mitigation does not E take into account the unique nature of this site and its importance to wildlife.In order to be At 13 v an effective wildlife corridor,the corridor must be separated from the proposed development by a buffer of a minimum of 300 feet or a buffer and a barrier.The Department recommends that the project be redesigned to better protect biological resources..For instance,a more a effective biological development proposal for this site would be to eliminate the northernmost portion of the development,including conserving the stream that trends northeast to southwest.Then a barrier could be constructed between the remaining northernmost development and the preserved area to protect the area and potential future 1 residents. t i � 1 I Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-7 Packet Pg. 221 6.13.m 2. Response to Comments Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Spring Trails Development County of San Bernardino —SCH 2009111086 Page 6 of 8 California Endangered Species Incidental Take Permit The criteria defining the requirements for a CESA ITP are found in Tide 14 CCR,Sections 783.4(a)and(b).These require that the take is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity,the impacts of the take are minimized and fully mitigated,the measures to minimize and fully mitigate impacts are roughly proportional to the impact on the species,maintain the w applicant's objectives to the greatest degree possible,and are capable of successful .R implementation.This section also requires that adequate funding is provided to implement the mitigation measures and that issuance of an ITP will not jeopardize the continued I m existence of a State-listed species. .2 a If these requirements regarding the least Bell's vireo are not satisfied prior to approval of the At 14 N Final Environmental Impact Report(FEIR),then a subsequent CEQA document must be prepared so that it can be reviewed by the public and comply with the Department's duties w as a Responsible Agency under CEQA. If the project involves the take of a Federal threatened or endangered species the project D applicant will have to consult with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service(Service).If LL the impacts and mitigation from the Service are not Included in the CEQA document,a d subsequent CEQA document will have to be prepared and reviewed by the Department. rn N Streambed Alteration Agreements and CEQA ra # I` A jurisdictional delineation was conducted in 2009 and determined that there was 23.256 in acres of DFG jurisdiction and 9.37 acres of impact to state jurisdictional waters.The site ` contains 14 unnamed streams and one seasonal wetland.The main hydrological feature is a Cable Canyon(east and west fork). The seasonal wetland in the southern part of the site is rn 6.2 acres,is fed by streams and is therefore jurisdictional.The seasonal wetland and the r` streams that feed it would be developed.Cable Creek begins in the National Forest,runs I through the northern part of the site, parallels the State 15 Highway and outlets to Devil Z Creek and Cajon Creek. w Al-15 � The area of impact of jurisdictional waters in the DEIR varies from 13.3 to 9.37. This needs U to be clarified in the FOR.The Seasonal wetland should be included with CDFG jurisdiction. F The DEIR states that mitigation will occur at a 1:1 ratio and shall be offs @e,either through acquisition of like habitat or in-lieu fees. ! Q If the CEQA documents do not fully identify potential impacts to lakes,streams,and = associated resources and provide adequate avoidance,mitigation,monitoring,funding s E sources,a habitat management plan and reporting commitments,additional CEQA documentation will be required prior to execution(signing)of the Agreement.In orderto avoid delays or repetition of the CEQA process,potential impacts to a stream or lake,as Q well as avoidance and mitigation measures need to be discussed within this CEQA document. The Department opposes the elimination of drainages,lakes and their associated habitats. The Department recommends avoiding the stream and riparian habitat to the greatest extent I At-16 possible.Any unavoidable impacts need to be compensated with the creation and/or restoration of in-kind habitat either on-site or off-site at a minimum 3:1 replacement-to- Page 2-8 The Planning Center I DC&E October 2012 Packet Pg. 222 6.B.m 2. Response to Comments _ 1 Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Spring Trails Development County of San Bernardino --SCH 2009111086 Page 7 of 8 impact ratio,depending on the impacts and proposed mitigation.Additional mitigation requirements through the Department's Streambed Alteration Agreement process may be At-16 required depending on the quality of habitat impacted,proposed mitigation,project design, cont'd and other factors. N We recommend submitting a notification early on,since modification of the proposed project may be required to avoid or reduce impacts to fish and wildlife resources.To obtain a Streambed Alteration Agreement notification package,please call(562)430-7924. The following information will be required for the processing of a Streambed Alteration Agreement and the Department recommends incorporating this information to avoid subsequent CEQA documentation and project delays: LO N 1) Delineation of lakes,streams,and associated habitat that will be temporarily and/or permanently impacted by the proposed project(include an estimate of impact to each habitat type); w 2) Discussion of avoidance measures to reduce project impacts;and, Al-17 u- 3) Discussion of potential mitigation measures required to reduce the project a impacts to a level of insignificance. 2 N Section 15370 of the CEQA guidelines includes a definition of mitigation.It states that i A mitigation includes: { rn 1) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action, Q 2) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation, r-- 3) Rectifying the impact by repairing,rehabilitating,or restoring the impacted (- environment, Z 4) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and W maintenance operations during the life of the action, _ 5) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or Q environments. F- F- In the absence of speck mitigation measures in the CEQA documents,the Department ! Q believes that it cannot fulfill its obligations as a Trustee and Responsible Agency for fish and wildlife resources. Permit negotiations conducted after and outside of the CEQA process y deprive the public of its rights to know what project impacts are and how they are being E mitigated in violation of CEQA Section 15002. Also,because mitigation to offset the impacts At-18 r was not identified in the CEQA document,the Department does not believe that the Lead Agency can make the determination that impacts to jurisdictional drainages and/or riparian Q habitat are"less than significant'without knowing what the speck impacts and mitigation measures are that will reduce those impacts. Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-9 Packef Pg.223 2. Response to Comments Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Spring Trails Development County of San Bernardino --SCH 2009111086 Page 8 of 8 Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Please contact Robin Maloney-Rames, Environmental Scientist,at(909)980-3818,if you have any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, L Is#,Enwronmental Scientist C CL rn to N N FM- ix w LL a N M L F 2A C d to r F Z w x U a h F a d E U a Page 2-10 The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 Packet Pg:224 6.B.m 2. Response to Comments Al. Response to Comments from the California Department of Fish and Game, dated September 12, 2011. ^.1-1 The City acknowledges the resource value of the San Bernardino Mountain foothills and the relationship of these resources to the survival of sensitive species. Al-2 The discussion of biological resources found on the project site is presented in the context of the Valley Region of San Bernardino County, not the significantly larger region of southern California as suggested by the Department's letter. Al-3 The biological analysis in the Draft EIR recognizes the biological value of the proposed project site to the numerous federal and state species of concern and F species of special concern. The availability of RAFSS, RSS and chaparral plant communities with minimal disturbance as live-in habitats and the importance of this a site for wildlife movement along the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains was rn thoroughly vetted in the Draft EIR analysis and is further clarified in this FEIR. LO N Al-4 The City recognizes the importance of the various riparian habitats and drainages found onsite and their value for resident native species. As such, the project was Of designed to avoid the majority of impacts to these sensitive biological resources, LL where feasible. Project implementation, however, would impact 13.3 acres of the o. 27.1 acres of the onsite state jurisdictional waters. As included in revised Mitigation N Measure No. 3-6 (see Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR), to mitigate for impacted S riparian habitat, the applicant shall 1) acquire offsite permanent mitigation lands of like that is biologically equivalent or superior habitat as determined by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG); and/or 2) pay appropriate in-lieu fees to an Q appropriate permanent mitigation land bank as determined by CDFG (McGill 2012). U) r- A11-5 Protecting the biological value of Cable Creek is a priority of the project. Per Mitigation Measure 3-4, a 300-foot-wide zone with a fence barrier shall be designed w with approval by the City of San Bernardino Community Development Department and constructed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits.The width of 300 feet is a chosen because this is the average width of the Cable Creek bed, the flattest part of the corridor which animals would be using. The fence would most likely be wooden and eight feet tall but the actual type and height would be determined by CDFG. It would stretch the entire length of the property along Cable Creek. The barrier would d isolate the creek from the development and ensure the biological integrity of the E Cable Creek as riparian habitat and as a wildlife corridor is maintained. The barrier R will be designed to preclude the creation of an attractive nuisance that could attract G domestic dogs and cats and other small mammals that constitute a food source for top predators. Ai-6 The development footprint for the proposed project is governed by existing topography, drainage, and vegetation conditions. The development areas are located on the gently sloping alluvial benches between canyons, steep hillsides, and the Cable Canyon and Meyers Canyon drainage ways. The new development will be governed by standards detailed in the Spring Trails Specific Plan and upon approval, the project site's land use designation and zoning will be "Specific Plan". The overall density of the project will be less than one dwelling unit per acre (304 units/353 acres) and therefore, comparable to the pre-zoning designation of RE, Spring Trails Specifrc Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-11 6.B.m 2. Response to Comments which allows development at one dwelling per acre. The development plan for Spring Trails, however, clusters development into the most appropriate areas, resulting in individual lots that would be smaller than one acre in size. The Spring Trails Specific Plan zoning replaces the City's Hillside Management Overlay District (HMOD). Consistency with the HMOD is not required. The engineering and grading plans for the proposed project have been designed so the project fits the natural topography of the project site. Housing and infrastructure are clustered on naturally flatter portions of the site to avoid dangers associated with hillside development. The site-specific hillside development restrictions are consistent with the City's General Plan, as described in Appendix B "General Plan ro Consistency Analysis" of the Specific Plan. In addition, the project is consistent with the Foothill Fire Zone Overlay District, which contains development restrictions for hillside development in fire-prone areas, as described in Appendix D "Foothill Fire Zones Overlay District Conformance" of Specific Plan. co Al-7 The comment recites the historic biological studies and reports prepared for the N project site. There is no comment on the EIR and no response is required. Ai-8 Numerous biological inventories have been conducted on the project site over the U1 past ten years and the site's biological resources values have been well established. CL Even so, pre-clearance surveys will be conducted per Mitigation Measure 3-1 for N each federally and state listed species that have a potential to occur onsite. Sensitive plant surveys will follow the Department's November 2009 guidance for special F status native plant populations and natural communities. Please refer to Revised Mitigation Measure 3-1 is included in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, which includes the follow-on requirements if any sensitive species are discovered during rn the pre-clearance surveys. At-9 The 2009 Habitat Assessment was updated in May 2011 and included the results of w previously prepared habitat assessments and focused surveys. Reports are included in their entirety in the Draft EIR technical appendices. The EIR, therefore, does not U rely on future surveys. However, pre-clearance surveys will be conducted for each F potentially occurring sensitive plant and wildlife species as specified in Mitigation q Measure 3-1 (see Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR). c d Al-10 The comment lists the habitat and sensitive species that have been found on the E project site and summarizes the proposed biological resource mitigation included in the Draft EIR. No response is required. a Al-11 Mitigation for impacts to CDFG jurisdictional water will be biologically equivalent or superior in terms of value and function to offset the impacts to CDFG jurisdictional water including seasonal wetland, drainages and springs (see revised mitigation measure 3-6, in Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR). Impacts as identified in this comment have been addressed in the Draft EIR and revised mitigation measures provided in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, to provide additional detail. The 1602 Streambed Alteration Permit application process will further refine final development and design requirements for the project. Page 2-12 •The Planning Center I DC&E October 2012 2. Response to Comments The types and number of native and non-native trees that will be removed as part of the project has been addressed in the Draft EIR and is supported by two arborist reports included in the Draft EIR technical appendices. As disclosed in the Draft EIR, since the inventory of trees on the site is now dated, mitigation is provided to require an updated inventory of tree resources within the project footprint. In accordance with Mitigation Measure 3-13, all native trees will be replaced at a 1:1 ratio, with the minimum number of trees replaced at 220 trees. Exchange ratios by size of tree as well as performance standards required for tree mitigation are also included in Mitigation No. 3-13. As stated in the Draft EIR, the project site lacks expansive grassland habitat and is dominated by dense RSS and chaparral plant communities, significantly limiting the amount of suitable foraging habitat for raptor species. It is estimated that suitable rn raptor foraging habitat is restricted to 12.5 acres of open grassland habitat. L Q A Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan will be prepared as part of the Section 404 Wetland Permit. N N_ Al-12 The applicant must acquire a Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFG as C� well as Incidental Take Permits from both the CDFG and USFWS to mitigate w LL potential impacts to federally and state listed species that occur onsite, as well as (L compensation for the loss or adverse modification to USFWS designated critical U) O habitat. Offsite mitigation lands must replace the function and value of the habitat R lost by site development. A survey of such available lands has identified feasible h options that would reduce project impacts to less than significant. Contiguous off- site mitigation lands are identified in revised Mitigation Measure 3-7, included below - in Chapter 3,Revisions of the Draft EIR, of this FEIR (McGill 2012). vi r Ai-13 See Response to Comment A1-5. A barrier will be installed at the outer limits of the California Walnut Woodland that surrounds Cable Creek at its interface with the RSS w habitat on the hillsides above the canyon bottom. Per Mitigation Measure 3-4, this 300-foot barrier shall be designed with approval by the City of San Bernardino Community Development Department and constructed prior to the issuance of F occupancy permits. This will provide a buffer inside the barrier fence that will be ~ 4 located on either side of Cable Creek. This combination of a barrier and buffer should protect the natural resources associated with the use of Cable Creek as well d as the wildlife movement corridor that found in association with Cable Creek. The E r applicant did evaluate the possibility of not developing north of Cable Creek and constructing a barrier on the south side of Cable Creek, isolating the riparian, RSS a and chaparral habitats north of Cable Creek from the development. Ai-14 The mitigation under the two ITP permits for impacts to least Bell's vireo (LBVI), a federal and state listed species, will principally focus on avoidance of areas with suitable habitat for the species and minimization of impacts at the outer edge of the buffer area surrounding suitable habitat. Two individual LBVI were identified within the riparian habitat associated with Cable Creek. Cable Creek and LBVI occupied riparian habitat will be completely avoided and no impacts will occur. In addition, a p 300-foot-wide zone surrounding the creek will also be avoided providing a significant buffer on each side of the creek and occupied LBVI habitat. Finally, the outer edges of the 300-foot buffer zone will be fenced to preclude access into Cable Creek and Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-13 —oa 2. Response to Comments occupied LBVI habitat except for passive recreational use of a trail crossing over Cable Creek, further protecting Cable Creek and occupied LBVI habitat from potential impacts. Use of the trail will be designed to minimize impacts to Cable Creek and occupied LBVI habitat. Draft trail designs will be reviewed with USFWS and CDFG prior to ground disturbing activities to ensure impacts are either avoided or minimized to the maximum extent possible. All of these above avoidance and minimization measures will be fully funded by the project applicant prior to any ground disturbing activities and developed prior to project construction. Assurances of funding will be built into the state and federal ITPs through the development of a Property Action Report (PAR) and provision of an agreed upon endowment. In addition, a letter of credit or other appropriate funding assurance will be filed with CDFG providing a secondary rn commitment to implement the mitigation. c a Al-15 The onsite seasonal wetland discussion in the DEIR has been modified to reflect the fact that impacts to waters of the State will be limited to a total potential impact of N 13.3 acres, including the 6.2 acres of a seasonal wetland. A total of 13.8 acres of N waters of the State will be avoided. The 13.3 acres of identified impacts shall be C� mitigated through the acquisition and conservation of biologically equivalent or w LL superior waters of the State. The applicant has identified 51.5 acres of riparian o_ habitat, including a seasonal wetland, in the lower reach of Cable Canyon, adjacent (n to but outside the project boundary that provides biological superior waters of the State. This property is available for mitigation and the applicant is in initial negotiations with the owner for acquisition. If this property is not obtained, the project applicant will identify and purchase another property of like habitat prior to c ground disturbing activities. Once this property or another property of like habitat (n value is acquired, a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan will be prepared for the long-term preservation and management of the property. The HMMP will be conditioned in the wetlands permit application prior to ground disturbing activities. w The adequacy of the mitigation will be approved by the CDFG as part of their 2 approval and issuance of a Streambed Alteration Agreement for impacts to waters of L) the State. Q F_ Ai-16 The project has been designed to avoid sensitive biological resources, including jurisdictional waters, while at the same time achieving the majority of the project aai objectives, including economic viability. Impacts that cannot be avoided will be E L mitigated by developing biologically equivalent or superior preservation offsite, as described in revised Mitigation Measure 3-6, included in Chapter 3, Revisions to the C Draft EIR, of this FEIR. Per this mitigation measure, the applicant will 1) acquire offsite permanent mitigation lands that are biologically equivalent or superior habitat as determined by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG); and/or 2) pay appropriate in-lieu fees to an appropriate permanent mitigation land bank as determined by CDFG (McGill 2012). This will be documented and submitted to CDFG by the City for review and approval as part of the 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement. Al-17 The comment lists the standard requirements for submitting a Streambed Alteration Agreement notification and the CEQA definition of mitigation. These comments have been noted. Page 2-14 •The Planning Center I DC&E October 2012 J'I Packet Pg. 228 2. Response to Comments Ai-18 The Draft EIR fully discloses the potential biological resource impacts of the project and provides mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. As appropriate, these measures include follow up, confirmation resource surveys and requirements for preparation of more detailed mitigation plans prior to issuance of grading permits (e.g., prior to ground disturbance). Pursuant to CEQA, the measures include performance standards that assure the public effective mitigation even though some details may not be available at this time. tq L G .L a CN N N_ of W LL a U) uJ F- L Q cZ C U F F Q c v E s U t4 Q C Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino Page 2-15 Packet Pg. 229 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. y L C Q 04 N N_ w W LL IL U) N L H O1 C �L U) v/ n z Z W 2 U Q F F Q a d E r M M Q Page 2-16 •The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 Pa66eYPg..230' 6.B.m 2. Response to Comments LETTER A2-California Department of Transportation (1 page) 5 A -UYIT�r InJA M1MA-6LSIfiRS.TRANSPMITAIION ANp NU1!SIN_O A6LNCV C MD I OROWNIr Cow.rn DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 8 ('2/aL�P0 PLANNING D (��i`` V D 464 WEST 4th STREET,6th FLOOR,MS 725 SAN BERNARDINO,CA 92401-1400 SEP 2 6 2011 PHONE (909)383-0557 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO N FAX (909)383-5936 DEVELOPMENT BERVIDES .@ TTY (909)3836300 DEPARTMENT f- tT C September 21,2011 08-SBD-215115 P.M.13.87-14.104 City of San Bernardino tO ry Community Development Department N, Atm;Terri Rahhal 300 North"D"Street San Bernardino,CA 92418 a a rn Subject:Springs Trail Draft EB2-329 Single Family Detached Residential Dwellings Units N M Dear Ms.Rahhal, 3 1 a The California Department of Transportation(Caltrans)has reviewed the draft Traffic Impact to Analysis for the proposed Spring Trails project for the construction of 329 single family r detached residential dwellings units in the City of San Bernardino. The methodologies for this F- report appears to be adequate,however,please consider the following comments. tZ t. Table 1,Figures 4,5,and 6;there are two different ears of traffic data collected for the 2 Y I A2-1 = proposed study. Label and verify the existing year(i.e.2008 or 2009) Q H 2, Existing truck volumes should be counted and then converted to Passenger Car I I l- Equivalent(PCE)volumes using PCE factors 1.5,2.0,and 3.0 for 2-axle,3-axle,and A2-2 , 4-or-more-axle trucks,respectively. Please verify the PCE calculations factor in Appendix B(traffic count worksheets),should be reflected in figures 5 and 6. E t We appreciate the opportunity to offer comments concerning this project. If you have any questions regarding this letter,please contact Dan Kopulsky at(909)3834557 for assistance. Q Sincerely, DANIEL KOPULSKY Office Chief Community Planning/Local Development Review "Cphrom improrrs mrAilin•m'mti Cohfnnlin` Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-17 Packet Pg. 231 6.B.m © 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. N R L Cm LOC L Q N LO N N W LL a w N A N Q N F Z W 2 U a a v E z a Page 2-18 The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 Packet Pg.232 6 B:m .. 2. Response to Comments A2. Response to Comments from California Department of Transportation, dated September 21, 2011. A2-1 Table 1 and Figures 4, 5, and 6 of the traffic study have been revised to indicate the existing year as a footnote or in the legend (see Appendix A of this FEIR). In the Draft EIR, Table 5.14-2 and Figure 5.14-5 have been revised to reflect the changes. The revised table and figure are found in Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this FEIR. A2-2 Existing intersection traffic conditions were established through morning and evening peak hour traffic counts obtained by Kunzman Associates, Inc. from w October 2008 (see Appendix B of the traffic study) and the resulting Passenger Car E` Equivalent traffic volumes (see Appendix C of the traffic study) are shown on Figures 5 and 6 of the traffic study, respectively. The revised traffic study figures are in c Appendix A of this FEIR. m co CM N N_ X W LL a. N F 01 C Q N r F Z W 2 U Q F H Q c E r v m Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino Page 2-19 W-Pg233 . } 3 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. N L C O N to In N N W LL a 0) N L F C �L Q z Z W U Q F F Q c m E t v m Y Q Page 2-20 The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 PacKetgPg 234 { 6.B.m © 2. Response to Comments Letter A3-Regional Water Quality Control Board (3 pages) II California Regional Water Quality Control Board (� Santa Ana Region 3737 Main Stated,Sae 500.RHUside.California 92501-3348 EJmunJ G.Wuwn.lr. Matthew Rodriquez Phone(951)7824130•FAx(951)7816288 So N,Jar www.wa1erboard1c.owA.t. (m—o' Emirou„zmuf I -J V�a V L7 September 8,2011 SEP 12 2011 M Terri Rahhal H City of San Bernardino Planning Dept. C1TY'F SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENTSERv,cE 300 North D Street DEPARTMENT S San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001 °- U) DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR SPRING TRAILS SPECIFIC PLAN, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.15576,MEYERS ROAD AT LITTLE LEAGUE DRIVE,CITY w OF SAN BERNARDINO,SCH#2009111086 `= Dear Ms. Rahhal: M, Staff of the Regional Water Quality Control Board,Santa Ana Region(Regional Board),has a. reviewed the City of San Bernardino's(City)Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR)for the N proposed Spring Trails Specific Plan(Project). The Regional Board has commented ` Il previously on the former Martin Ranch Specific Plan(February 3,2003)and for the Spring F Trails Speck Plan Initial Study(December 31,2009). The DEIR encourages additional comments, given minor changes to the Project and new information. L The Project involves the proposed construction of a residential development in the most A3-1 northwestern portion of the City of San Bernardino,to the northeast of Interstate 215; Meyers Road. A376.5-acre Project area(Tentative Tract Map No. 15576)would be formed l- by the annexation of 26.4 acres(four existing lots)to 352.8 existing acres. Approximately z 241.5 acres would be graded toward the completion of 307 residences and three detention u3 basins,with the remainder dedicated as natural open space. _ U We believe that the Final EIR should incorporate the following comments in order for the Project F to best protect water quality standards(water quality objectives and beneficial uses)contained in a the Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin, 1995,as amended(Basin Plan): c N Alternative Site Plan - E r As requested in our 2009 letter,the Final EIR should address how Project infrastructure �Uda, could avoid the site's numerous drainages. The Jurisdictional Delineation(Appendices D7 Q and D8)indicates that a minimum of 7.37 impacted acres are jurisdictional to the U.S. A3-2 Army Corps of Engineers and the Regional Board(Table 1),and 9.37 impacted acres are jurisdictional to the California Department of Fish and Game(Table 2). The Final EIR should direct the Project to avoid impacts to waters of the state and U.S.,and to water quality standards,to the greatest extent possible. Therefore,we request that the Final EIR advocate adoption of the Alternative Site Plan described in Section 7(Figure 7.2)as the P3-3 "environmentally superior aternative-" The Alternative Site Plan would reduce the Project to 175 houses and withdraw the Project footprint from several water bodies. If this alternative is considered infeasible,the Final EIR should explain why. Californiawronrnenral Protection Agency Re P Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-21 6.B.m 2. Response to Comments u Tom Rahhal -2- September 8,2011 Jurisdictional Delineation The Final EIR should provide a combined Jurisdictional Delineation with combined tables, including all impacted lengths and acreage of the affected water bodies. The current Project footprint(DEIR Figure 7)would develop the higher elevations of an alluvial fan that , � has coalesced from drainages emerging from(north to south)Cable Canyon,an unnamed m canyon, and Meyers Canyon. For the identified drainages,tributaries,and a vegetated seasonal wetland, 15 of 17 water bodies will have wetland or non-wetland portions directly rn impacted by the Project(Jurisdictional Delineation Appendix D8,Section 6.0,p.43-5, E A341 Tables 1 and 2). °- rn In a separate portion of the Jurisdictional Delineation(Appendix D7 Section 6.0),a N separate Table 1 and Table 2 list approximately six additional water bodies that may be N impacted by the Project's primary or secondary access roads(p. 10,21-4). However,no N impacted acreage is listed,perhaps because road alternatives have not been finalized. All Project jurisdictional areas,per agency,should be combined in the above-mentioned single j table along with the impacted channel lengths and acreages. LL a All of these drainages constitute waters of the state. If the proposed discharges of,fill to y waters of the state are not subject to Corps jurisdiction and regulated through a Clan Water A3-5 Act Section 404 Permit and Section 401 Water Quality Standards Certification F- (Certification),they may be regulated by waste discharge requirements(WDRs)issued by the Regional Board under authority of the California Water Code. I .a Mitigation N n The final EIR should specifically identify mitigation for the proposed impacts to jurisdictional z waters and their beneficial uses. Intermittent Beneficial Uses specified in the Basin Plan w for the Cable and Meyers Canyon watercourses,and extended to their tributaries are A38 Municipal Supply(MUN), Groundwater Recharge(GWR),Water Contact Recreation = (REC1), Non-Contact Water Recreation(REC2),Cold Freshwater Habitat(COLD),and Q Wildlife Habitat(WILD). Mitigation of impacts to these beneficial uses will be necessary to obtain Certification of the Project. Q Aside from the proposed open space dedication, Mitigation Measure Table 1-2(Measures 3- =y 2,3-3, 3-4)proposes construction of"appropriate culvert and stream crossings"that do not E inhibit flow regimes,avoidance of some drainage portions,vegetational planting,and offsite A3-7 v habitat replacement at a 1:1 ratio of acreage. All stream crossings must allow for m unobstructed wildlife movement. Consultation with this office prior to submitting an a application for the Certification is strongly encouraged,in order to discuss opportunities for further avoidance of these waters of the U.S.and state. State policy directs that there shall be no net loss of wetlands. Impacts to the indicated wetland acreage must be mitigated such that there is no net loss of wetland acreage, function or service. We believe that studies should be conducted and presented,as part of A38 the final EIR,to assess and document the current condition and function of the wetlands that will be impacted by the Project. The findings of these studies should be used as a benchmark for wetlands mitigation. Calijorniavironmental Protection Agency k1P r Page 2-22 The Planning Center I DC&E October 2012 Packet Pg. 236 2. Response to Comments Terri Rahhal -3- September 8,2011 If you have any questions,please contact Glenn Robertson at(951)782-3259,or arobertson&waterboards ca goy,or me at(951)782-3234,or madelsonawaterboards.ca.gov Sincerely, N �f vv�.Q..G •CEO-- Mark G.Adelson,Chief Regional Planning Programs Section CL Cl) cc: State Cl ousa uo U.S.Army y Corps ps or Engineers,Los Angeles—Jason Lambed N U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service,Carlsbad—Jenness Mcedde California Department of Fish and Game,Ontario—Joanna Gibson Q, X:Groberte on MagnolialDalaICEOArCEOA Respon3c%=I11-City of son Bernardino—Spring Trails Specific flan—New 2011 Round.doc LL a to N H C Q fA n F LU W 2 U Q F- F Q c d E t v la r M Q Caiijorniivironmentai Protection Agency Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino Page 2-23 Pacl�e�Pg 237=` Btry� 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. U) L r C Q 04 N U. N_ W a N CL L H C L U) vI z Z cW C U a a d E m a Page 2-24 The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 Pac etPg238 . 2. Response to Comments A3. Response to Comments California Regional Water Quality Control Board, dated September 8, 2011. ,^.3-1 The comment provides a summary of the project and introduces the commenter's water quality concerns. No response is necessary. A3-2 The City recognizes the importance of the various riparian habitats and drainages found onsite and their value to maintaining water quality of state jurisdictional waters. As such, the project was designed, including the design of the infrastructure for the project, to avoid impacts to these natural drainages, where feasible. However, impacts will occur to 13.3 acres of the 27.1 acres of jurisdictional waters of the state. y Best Management Practices will be proposed and implemented as part of acquiring the various wetland permits, including the 401 Water Quality Certification, to ensure the impacts on water quality are minimized and/or mitigated. c CL U) A3-3 Chapter 7 of the Draft EIR does conclude that the 'Alternative Site Plan' alternative is the environmentally superior alternative. In concurrence with this comment, the Draft N EIR discloses that this alternative would preserve the natural drainage as much as possible and reduce impacts to hydrology, water quality and biological resources. W The Draft EIR also explains why the financial viability of this alternative is uncertain. LL As with the proposed project,the Alternative Site Plan would require the construction a of major infrastructure improvements, including the construction of two offsite v, access roads, extension of domestic water service and three water reservoirs, and extension of sewer service to the site. As with the proposed project, the Alternative Site Plan would also include costly mitigation programs, including a comprehensive tree replacement program. a U) It is noted that the Alternative Site Plan is the preferred alternative of the RWQCB. A3-4 The following chart presents the combined results of the two jurisdictional u delineations.The corresponding text has been corrected to reflect these acreages. x U Q F- Table 1 Jurisdictional lm acts c Corps Jurisdiction CDFG Jurisdiction Existing Acres Impacts Acres Existing Acres Impacts Acres Project Site 12.66 7.37 23.26 9.37 :4 Access Road 3.19 3.19 3.39 3.39 Totals 15.85 10.56 26.65 12.76 A3-5 The City recognizes that all these drainages constitute waters of the state. All of these drainages are also waters of the US and will be regulated under Section 401 of j the Clean Water Act. As such, the applicant will prepare a 401 Water Quality Certification application as part of its environmental and entitlement clearance I process. All permits will be processed and approved prior to issuance of grading permits. Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-25 R e 2 2. Response to Comments A3-6 The Beneficial Uses identified for the site drainages in the Basin Plan are identified in the Draft EIR (see Section 5.7-1). Mitigation to protect water quality is detailed in the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (May 2009) and Hydrology and Water Quality Report (June 2009) included in Draft EIR Appendices 11 and 12, respectively. The project design features and Best Management Practices included in these reports are summarized in the Section 5.7, Hydrology and Water Quality of the Draft EIR. The measures include construction and operation requirements and address both the project site and access roads. Although additional engineering details will likely result in refinements of these BMPs during the 401 Water Quality Certification permit process, the Draft EIR adequately discloses existing resources, beneficial uses, and sufficient BMP detail (including responsible parties and timing for implementation), to assure mitigation for the beneficial uses will reduce impacts to ~ less than significant. 'C A3-7 The applicant will consult, as recommended, with the Regional Water Quality Control C Board prior to finalizing its initial 401 Water Quality Certification application to ensure that potential impacts to all beneficial uses are addressed and appropriately N mitigated as part of the permitting process. N- W A3-8 The potential seasonal wetland (6.2 acres) was identified as a "problem area" w U- because while hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology were present, no Q. apparent hydric soil indicators were present during the delineation. The approximate N boundary or this potential seasonal wetland was therefore delineated based primarily on vegetation and hydrology criterion. A subsequent study of the seasonal F- wetland system will be conducted prior to the permitting process to verify that the feature is indeed a wetland system and to provide the additional data needed on Q current condition and function of the wetlands for determining wetland mitigation. As U) noted in this comment, wetland acreage will be mitigated such that there is no let loss of wetland acreage, function or service. See also, revised Mitigation Measure z No. 3-6, Section 3.0,Revisions to the Draft EIR. w x U a a E U R a Page 2-26 The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 Packet Pg.240 6.B.m 2. Response to Comments LETTER A4—Center for Biological Diversity (10 page/pages) I . r li CENTER for R10LOGICAL,DIVERSITY �"` pmhAmg undnr7oring wbmrlrt9Drhou andim(x.i&drprrta thmugb raena,rdvralion,poGry,andsnaronmrntaf bra By FAX and Fed Es 9/12/2011 Terri Rahhal,City Planner City of San Bernardino •a Community Development Department W 300 North"D^Street,3'u Floor San Bernardino,CA 92418.0001 FAX:909-384-5080 N Re:Draft Environmental Impact Report for Spring Trails Specific Plan(SP).No.10-1, 0� General Plan Amendment(GPS)No.02-09,and Tentative Tract Map(TTM)No. 15576 W (Subdivision No.02-09)SCH#2009111086 U. a Dear Terri Rahbal: y N The following comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for Spring Trails Specific Plan(SP).No.10-1,General Plan Amendment(GPS)No.02-09,and Tentative Trail I' Map(TTM)No.15576(Subdivision No.02-09)SC14#2009111086 (the"DEIR')are submitted °1 on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity(the"Center').The Center is a non-profit , •= environmental organization dedicated to the protection of native species and their habitats in the M Western Hemisphere through science,policy,and environmental law. The Center has over 320,000 members and on-line activists throughout California and the western United States, including residents of San Bernardino County in the vicinity of the Spring Valley projeet site. Z W The DEIR indicates that the proposed project site has high natural resource values:from the occurrence of numerous rare plant communities(see below)to its importance as a wildlife A4-1 2 movement corridor(Penrod et al.2004). We have reviewed the DEIR and offer the following U Q comments. H F The DEIR Fails to Meet the Requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Q I � An EIR is a detailed statement,prepared under the California Environmental Quality Act, d Public Resources Code§§21000-21 178("CEQA'I,describing and analyzing all significant E impacts on the environment of a proposed project and discussing ways of mitigating or avoiding o those effects. Pub.Res.Code§21100;14 CCR§ 15362. The purpose ofan EIR"is to inforrn :o• the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions Q before they are made:' Laurel Heights Improvement Association v.Regents of University of California,6 Cal.4th 1112,1123(1993)(emphasis in original)(citations omitted). An EIR should provide decision making bodies and the public with detailed information about the effect a pDroppppsad pro act is likck to havee on thp environment,m list wayys in which the significant ArilOnB•Cali2rnia•Revlatla•New Mexico•AWS9a•Oregpn•wasningron•lllinors•Minnesota•verinDni•Washingtaq DC Ileene Anderson, Biologist 8033 Sunset Boulevard,9447•Los Angeles,CA 90046-2401 tat,(323)654.5943 fa,(323)650.4620 email:isndersmalbiologkaldirersity.org I x»w.Biddgica/Divnsity.4rg Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-27 Packet Pg. 241 6.B.m 2. Response to Comments effects of a project might be avoided or minimized,and to indicate alternatives to the project. Pub.Res.Code§21061; 14 Cal.Code Regs.("CCR")§15002. California courts have emphasized that an EIR should:disclose all relevant facts;provide a balancing mechanism A4-1 whereby decision makers and the public can weigh the costs and benefits ofa project;provide a confd means for public participation;provide increased public awareness of environmental issues; a provide for agency accountability;and provide substantive environmental protection. Because •M the DEIR for the Spring Trails obscures,rather than illuminates,the environmental impacts of A4-2 N the proposed project,the DEIR is inadequate to meet both the procedural and substantive mandates ofCEQA. 1 c L The project area encompasses some of the most ecologically sensitive and increasingly W rare habitats in southern California,and is thus critically important for our region's threatened, A4_3 endangered,and sensitive species.The Center strongly urges the City of San Bernardino to w require redrafting and re-circulating another EIR that takes into account these comments. N N_ The DEIR Fails to Adequately and Appropriately Analyze Impacts to Biological K Resources.,Including Designated Critical Habitat. W LL The proposed Spring Trails project would result in the overall direct loss of the following N sensitive and rare plant communities:more acres of Riversidian Sage Scrub(RSS)than are described as occurring on site! Table 5.3-5 indicates that 168A acres of RSS will be impacted by � the project development(DEIR at 5.349,however,Figure 5.3-1(DEIR at 5.3-5)indicates that h only 167.9 acres occurs on site. The same type of inaccuracy between the Figure 5.3-1 and Table 5.3-5 is found for four other on-site rare plant communities including RSS/CW W, A44 c RAFSS,SSARW,and SAW.These discrepancies in acreage for a rare plant communities arc .Q important based on the need for substantial mitigation(sec below).It strongly suggests potential to inaccumcies in other"estimates"of vegetation types on the proposed project site. CEQA requires clear and consistent identification and analysis of impacts. F Z Simply the fact that almost half of the on-site plant communities(number wise)and W spatially a majority of the site is covered with we communities points to the fact that the proposed project is poorly sited in an area rich with highly imperiled plants and animals. _ U These rare plant communities arc classified as sensitive and require special protection,as F' they arc being lost at an alarming rate locally,regionally,and state-wide. The proposed project A4_5 1 q m fails to avoid adverse impacts to those sensitive plant communities.Furtherore since the proposed project fails to avoid or minimize impacts to these rare plant communities,the DEIR proposes woefully inadequate mitigation. At a minimum the mitigation ratio for these rare punt m communities and the rare species that they support should be 5:1. Even with this more .fie reasonable mitigation ratio,we note that the project will cause a net loss to the rare communities and the species they support.r +° Q The impacts of this major project will be severe,particularly given the size and scope of I A4-6 the proposed development as well as the location of the project within a regionally critical 1 Moilar a al.2009 2 Page 2-28 The Planning Center I DC&E October 2012 Packet Pg. 242 6.B.m 2. Response to Comments 1 a wildlife movement corridor. Unfortunately,the DEIR's analyses of direct,indirect and I A4-8 cumulative impacts to biological resources are woefully inadequate,as described in further detail eonfd below. Moreover,indirect and off site impacts from the proposed project not adequately in identified or analyzed. The project will adversely affect an additional unknown number of acres 'R of important habitats for at-risk species adjacent to the project area It is important to bear in A4-7 IL mind that"conservation"lands will still be seriously degraded by fuel modification and edge pt effects. The project is also directly in the path of one of the most critical regional wildlife c corridors connecting the San Bernardino and San Gabriels(Penrod ct al.2004). (See Movement Q, Corridors below), N Critical Habitat ran N N Parts of the project fall within the federally designated critical habitat for the San I K Bernardino Kangaroo Rat(Dipodomys merriami par )(SBKR). The DEIR downplays the importance of these lands,by indicating that no SBKR were trapped"on site". Yet Appendix D9 W LL recognizes that the area is likely occupied d C5P rte the fact that after only 5 nights of tm PP m no (L SBKR were detected(D-9 at pg.H. The purpose of critical habitat is notjust to protect occupied habitat,but to provide for recovery of listed species.Listed species are already well down the rn path to extinction and absent adequate habitat to rebuild the species population numbers that critical habitat provides,will likely continue their decline towards extinction. No analysis of the impact to Critical Habitat is included. Critical habitat should be analyzed at the planning stage A4-8 not only to prevent arty`take"of or jeopardy to the species,but also to promote recovery of the listed species. See Sierra Club v.US.Fish& Wildlife Service,2001 U_£App.LEXIS 3936(5th I o. Cir.1001)).The failure of the DEIR to analyze adverse modification of Critical Habitat for the to SBKR is unfathomable.The DEIR has abjectly failed to provide the public with the information r-to make an informed opinion as to the project's likely impacts to biological resources. These omissions alone render the EIR inadequate and require recirculation. This new W information.not analyzed in the EIR,shows a new,substantial environmental impact resulting LU either from the project. CEQA Guidelines§15088.5. _ U While we recognize that critical habitat designation for the California gnatcatcher was removed F from the proposed project area in 2007,it does not relieve the DEIR from avoiding,minimizing Aq_g F and mitigating impacts to the RSS community. However.the DEIR instead dismisses the habitat Q impacts and proposes a d Furthermore the DEIR incorrectly states that"While a number of California Species of E Special Corimm(SSC)have been observed within the RSS areas of the site,these species are not afforded specific legal protection..."(DEIR at pg.5.3-50). Under CEQA,impacts to SSC must A4-10 .f6. be avoided,minimized and if not- mitigated.Despite the DEIWs downplay of impacts to RSS, it provides no quantitative analysis of the substantial declines in RSS,but instead unsubstantiatively claims that there are"many thousands of acres still remaining". While no 3 C Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-29 Packet Pg. 243 6.B;m 2. Response to Comments ' . II historical records are available on the project site or surrounding area,RSS in Riverside County A4-10 over the past 60 years have been documented to have declined over 60%2 I cont'd The DEIR fails to offer any information about the number of acres of each habitat existing in the region,how this comperes to the historical number of acres,and how many N additional acres are proposed for elimination by other projects in the area. The EIR also A4-11 to provides literally no data about population estimates for the various wildlife and plant species that currently inhabit the project site,either before or after project buildout. tT c The DEIR does not provide an impartial and thorough analysis of the impacts of the a project to biological resources. Some of the habitat proposed for elimination by the Spring Trails to Specific Plan is annual grasslands. The E1R misrepresents the importance of remaining grassland habitat—including lands dominated by non-native grasses and fortis—to wildlife N species in the project area. Although non-native,this type of vegetation not only can support N numerous sensitive species—and in fact provides some of the only remaining habitat for these species due to the widespread historic elimination of native habitats—but also has the potential to be restored. Unfortunately,the DEIR basically ignores the importance of the grasslands on A4-12 W the project site. U" CL U) Scientists estimate the remaining grassland habitat in California at 36%of its original rn acreage[. Remaining grasslands are frafmcmed by urbanization,which has likely accelerated the decline of several grassland species. Thus,these wildlife species are now dependent on all F_ remaining grassland types—native or non-native—for habitat. The DFIR fails to evaluate the rn impact of the loss of presumably all of the non-native grasslands on site to development. The 5 FIR also provides no population estimates for grassland dependent species in the area,either a onsite or in the overall planning area, fA The"analyses"provided in the DEIR are not quantitative,objective,rigorous H examinations of the past and current populations of species in the project area and in southern Z California,and how the project,alone and in tandem with additional past and future development W projects in the area,will affect these populations. Simply stating that the project will not 2 significantly impact the species because they arc known to occur elsewhere is by no means a () sufficient project-level analysis. The conclusions of no significant impact are not based on any A4-t3 H meaningful analysis or even common sense. If the habitat currently occupied by these species is l- destroyed,individuals will be eliminated from the project site and forced to seek shelter Q elsewhere in an arcs of San Bernardino County that is also rapidly losing much of its remaining open space and suitable habitat. This is a biological impact that must be identified and analyzed y and ifpossible avoided or mitigated. It is improper for the DEIR to simply conclude without any E evidence that the impact will not be significant. t U m Movement Corridors Q 2 Mimdra and DClranl 1998. 3 CPir 2000 b lbid 4 v Page 2-30 The Planning Center I DC&E October 2012 Packet Pg. 244 6.B.m 2. Response to Comments The South Coast Wildlands Project is a collaborative effort amongst ecologists and regulatory agencies to design linkages to establish connectivity between large blocks of habitats in southern California. in September 2004,the South Coast Wildlands Project released their report entitled"A Linkage Design for the San Gabriel-San Bernardino'" The proposed Spring _ Trails Master Plan Development project includes urban development within the boundary of the A4-14 y linkage described in the report. Therefore,the project will adversely impact a regionally critical 'V3 wildlife movement corridor.5 However,the EIR disregards the importance of the site to wildlife F- movement and neglects altogether even to mention the South Coast Wildlands,which is readily p1 available online and from regulatory agencies. The DEIR fails to illuminate that the project site is within and adjacent to a recognized,regionally critical linkage. The EIR provides a false picture of the project's true impacts to wildlife movement. N Edge Effects tcOn N N- The EIR fails to evaluate indirect impacts to sensitive habitats,including impacts associated with the establishment of fuel modification zones,unperrnitted recreational activities, the introduction of non-native plants,the introduction of pets,noise,and the loss and disruption W of essential habitat due to edge effects. LL a rn The DEIR's"analysis"is inadequate and fails to quantify the effects and to adequately to demonstrate how the design features will minimize impacts.The EIR fails to identify and 'to properly evaluate impacts to species and ecosystems from invasive exotics species.Many exotic I F` plant species invade disturbed areas and then spread into wildlands,carried by wind,fire,vehicle tT A4-15 tires,etc� Moreover,landscaping with exotic species within the housing units can easily be a e vector for introducing invasive exotics into adjacent habitats,regardless of whether the slopes CL directly adjacent to natural areas are planted with natives. to The discussion on invasive species also completely neglects to mention invasive non- F plant species. The best available data on edge effects for southern California habitats document Z the collapse of native not population due the invasion of argentine ants up to 200 m(650 ft)from W irrigated areas,'and predation by house cats which decimate small vertebrate populations within = 100 to 300 meters(radius of 32 ha home range reported by Hall et al.2000)8. U Q Buffers for the Cable or Meyers Creeks are inadequate. In fact fuel modification could F affect and degrade the biological resources in these areas.. Maintaining appropriate,fully Q protected buffer strips between streams and upland soil-disturbing activities is critical to sustaining aquatic and riparian ecosystems.°. Most of the current literature about estimating A4-16 aGi appropriate widths of riparian buffo strips takes into account the complexity of landscapes. The E U.S.Forest Service and U.S.BLM have provided a width-adjustment method based on measured L distances of sediment plumes from roads and landings:for a 50 percent slope adjacent to an Q 5 Penrod et at.2009; 6 Bossmd d.1200D 7 Suara d al.199E R Bock 0.12002 9 Pn an et a1.1996;,Reid and Hilton 1998 5 Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino Page 2-31 `" Packet Pg. 245 6.B.m 2. Response to Comments ephemeral channel,the riparian protection width distance would be about 550 feet from either side of the stream edge. Additional research conducted as part of the Siena Nevada Ecosystem Project(Erman et al. 1996)provided guidance for designating riparian buffers that incorporate steepness of surrounding slopes and erodability of soils: this research concluded that if the A4-16 average slope were 25 percent,the buffer width should be 524 feet on either side of the stream, cont'd in and if the slope were 50 pereen4 the buffer should be 672 feet. 'the DEIR fails to cite any available scientific literature about appropriate buffer widths. Both the Cable and Meyers Creeks H Watersheds are at serious risk of degradation from the proposed project. sn c The DEIR fails to provide for reasonable,feasible mitigation measures to avoid and a minimize adverse impacts to biological resources. For affected sensitive habitat and vegetation types,the EIR should have prioritized avoidance,followed by onsite habitat replacement at a co mitigation ratio calculated to ensure success,followed by onsite restoration and enhancement `O followed by off-site mitigation. The DEIR also fails to specify that the identification and N purchase of mitigation areas,with establishment ofetfcetive long-term management,would ...- occur prior to any grading. W tt1 Specific,feasible,and en LL forceable mitigation measures for impacts associated with fuel I1 modification zones,unpermitted recreational activities,the introduction of non-native plants,the to introduction of pets,noise,and the loss and disruption of essential habitat due to edge effects are A4_17 2 available but were not incorporated in the EIR,including but not limited to the following: 'rp F- • minimum 300-foot setbacks between developed area,including roads and fuel an modification,and sensitive habitat areas • conditions prohibiting non-leashed outdoor pets(including cats) a • requiring,where appropriate,walls or fences that will inhibit domestic animals from harassing and harming native species including"cat-proor fencing to prevent feral and house cats from accessing sensitive habitat F- • capture programs to control feral cats Z W • techniques to control non-native invasive species � • prohibiting the use of pesticides and other toxic chemicals around homes = • requiring the use of native vegetation in landscaping U • providing public education regarding rare,threatened and endangered species and how Q local communities can help protect them ~ Q • requiring gates to restrict access to lands set aside for habitat preservation C The Project Must Comply ae 1 ply with the Endangered Species Act E t The project is subject to the Endangered Species Act("Act"),and must Cully comply with the � Act's provisions. Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973,and Federal regulations issued pursuant to section 4(d)of the Act,prohibit take ofendangered and threatened species Q without a special exemption. 16 U.S.C.1531 et seq. Section 7 of the Act requires Federal A4-18 agencies to consult with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service("USF WS')should it be determined that their actions may affect federally listed threatened or endangered species.Take is defined as harass,harm,pursue,hunt,shoot,wound,kill,trap,capture or collect,or attempt to 6 C Page 2-32 The Planning Center I DC&E October 2012 Packet Pg. 246 2. Response to Comments engage in any such conduct. Harm is further defined by USFWS to include significant habitat modification or degradation that actually kills or injures a listed species by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns,including breeding,feeding,or sheltering. Harass is defined by USF WS as an action that creates the likelihood of injury to a listed species by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which A4-1 g y include,but are not limited to,breeding,feeding,or sheltering. Incidental take is defined as take eord'd 'R that is incidental to,and not the purpose of,the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. ~ Under the terms of section 7(b)(4)and section 7(o)(2),such incidental taking is not considered to M be a prohibited taking under the Act provided that such taking is in compliance with the e Incidental Take Statement. .Q In Approval of the proposed project will result in harm and harassment of the SBKR by direct destruction of critical habitat. These impacts of the sort that the Ninth Circuit has i° previously held constitute take"of listed species. Polila v.Hawaii Department of Land and N Natural Resources,832 F.Id 1106, 1108(9th Gr.1988).(shcep grazing within the woodland PJL habitat of the endangered Palila bird in Hawaii caused habitat modification that constituted QY "take"under the ESA);Forest Conservation Council v.Rosboro Lumber Co.,50 R3d 781, 788 W (9th Or.1993)(testimony of a biologist who declared that proposed timber harvest was A4-19 d reasonably certain to injure a northern spotted owl pair by significantly impairing their essential W behavioral patterns,including breeding,feeding,and sheltering,if proved at trial,would y demonstrate the reasonable certainty of harm necessary for an injunction under the ESA); Marbled Mmretet,83 Rid ar 1067-68(enjoining logging of trees used by threatened seabird for nesting). lust as in Forest Conservation Council and Marbled Murrelet,destruction of critical habitat on the site will significantly impair essential behaviors of listed species. This is not c changed by the number of individual birds or the age of the trots. As the Marbled Murrelet court .Q emphasized,`9n this circuit,we have repeatedly held that an imminent threat of future harm is In sufficient for the issuance of an injunction under the ESA." 83 F.3d at 1064(citations omitted). ' n Private landowners,corporations,state or local governments,or other non-Foderal F Z landowners who wish to conduct activities on their land that might incidentally harts(or"take") W wildlife that is listed as endangered or threatened must first obtain an incidental take permit from the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service. To obtain a app p = permit the applicant must develop a Habitat A4-20 U Conservation Plan(HCP),designed to offset any harmful effects the proposed activity might Q have on the species. No incidental take statement has been issued,and no Habitat Conservation Plan is present to allow for take of threatened species. The project cannot proceed in violation of G the Endangered Species Act. c The DEHI Improperly Defers CEQA Mandated Environmental Review to E s Many of the inadequacies of the DEIR identified in these comments can be attributed to e the fact that the DEIR improperly defers identification and analysis of Spring Trails Specific Q Plan Development impacts,as well as formulation of specific mitigation measures,to later stages A4-21 of project development This deferral frustrates informed decision-making and violates CEQA. "An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision-makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of 7 C Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-33 Packet Pg. 247 6.B.m 2. Response to Comments environmental consequences." CEQA Guidelines§ 15151. See Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa,Inc.v.32nd District Agricultural Association,41 Cal.3d 929(1986)("the EIR must contain facts and analysis,not just the agency's bare conclusions or opinions.');Berkeley Keep A4-21 Jets Over the Bay Committee v.Board of Port CommJssionere.,91 Cal.App.41h 1344(2001); cont'd Stamvlaur Natural Heritage Project v.County of Stanislaus,48 Cal App.41h 182(1996). a L h The DEIR also fails to adequately analyze the"interface with adjacent Forest Service � land area"(DEIR at 2-3). The DEIR only addresses fire issues as mitigation. No impact on 5 illegal trails or other impacts to adjacent Forest Service land is fully disclosed. A4-22 fl' Failure to include information resulting from the Spring Trails project frustrates informed decision making regarding the project and denies the public's an ability to comment on impacts to to resulting from the project. N N_ The DEIR Fails to Analyse a Meaningful Range of Feasible Alternatives. 2 W An DEIR is required to describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project which LL would feasibly attain most of its basic objectives but would avoid or substantially lessen its N significant effmts. 14 CCR§ 15126.6(a). The City has a substantive duty to adopt feasible, rn (/ate environmentally superior alternatives. Pub.Res.Code§21002;14 CCR§§15002(a)(3), A4-23 •@ 15021(a)(2). A lead agency cannot abdicate this duty unless substantial evidence supports a finding that the alternative is infeasible. Sat,e.g.,Citizens of Goleta Valley v,Board of Supervisors, 197 Cal-App.3d 1167, 1181(1988). e The DEIR fails to describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the Spring Trails Specific N Plan.The lack of a reasonable range of alternatives is tied to both the failure to properly identify r and analyze environmental impacts of the project,particularly impacts to biological resources, A4-24 H and the overly narrow"project objectives"which the City has imposed on the project.All DEIR Z alternatives include the same"development envelope"and grading limits. i W The e DEIR also Coils to include any alternative based on preservation of portions of the S U site and inclusion of all or part of the site in ongoing efforts to maintain and restore essential Q wildlife condors in the San Bernardino Mountains. The alternatives analysis in the DEIR must A4-25 F be revised to include a meaningful range of alternatives that avoid N otd the environmental i � g impacts Pan Q the Spring Trails Specific Plan once those impacts are properly identified and analyzed. c Conclusion s A lead agency must recirculate an E[R for further public comment under any of four � circumstances: A4-26 { Q (1) When the new information shows a new,substantial envirommental impact resulting either from the project or from a mitigation measure; j 8 V Page 2-34 •The Planning Center I DC&E October 2012 Packet Pg. 248 �-- 2. Response to Comments 1 (2) When the new information shows a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact,except that recirculation would not be required if mitigation that reduces the impact to insignificance is adopted; (3) When the new information shows a feasible alternative or mitigation measure that clearly 1 would lessen the environmental impacts of a project and the project proponent declines to adopt N the mitigation measure;or (4) When the draft Elk was"so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in F nature"that public comment on the draft Elk was essentially meaningless. pt Guidelines§15088.5. a Based on the comments above,it is clear that the DEIR must be re-drafted and . to Conditions(1)and(3)above will be met by meaningful and adequate discussion of the project to description,impacts,mitigation measures,and cumulative impacts. The combined effect of A4-26 u+ these omissions makes it clear that the fourth condition has also been met. confd N_ The above-described defects must be corrected before the City can lawfully approve the W project. The DEIR for the Spring Trails Specific Plan fails to adequately disclose,analyze, LU avoid,minimize,and mitigate the environmental impacts of the proposed project. As detailed LL above,the DEIR fails to comply with CEQA and fails to provide necessary information about the v impacts of the project in many areas including biological resources,air quality,and water to resources,and did not consider in adequate detail new information. 'm Neither decision-makers not the public can make informed decisions about the costs to tT the environment of the proposed project based on this fundamentally flawed and cursory environmental review. Tbc Center looks forward to reviewing a revised Elk that takes into `L account the issues raised in this comment letter and in letters provided by the San Bernardino in Valley Audubon and others. r z w Sincerely, 2 U H H i Q Ileene Anderson C Biologist m Center for Biological Diversity L U A Q 9 Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-35 Packet Pg. 249 6.B.m 2. Response to Comments 1 B Literature Cited(reference provided on CD) Bock,C.E.,K.T.Vierling,S.L.Haire,J.D.Boone,and W.W.Merkle.2002.Patterns of Rodent Abundance on Open-Space Grasslands in Relation to Suburban Edges. Conservation Biology 16(6):1653-1658 m Hossard,C.C.,J.M.Randall and M.C.Hoshovsky. 2000.Invasive Plants of California's F Wildlands.University ofCalifomia Press. Berkeley,CA.Pgs.360. nai��cloded-boor- pt c City of San Bernardino,County of San Bernardino,California Division of Forestry,Foothill Fire `p, Protection District,West End Resource Conservation District,East Vaelly Resource to Conservation District,U.S.Soil Conservation District and U.S.Forest Service 1983. The Foothills Communities Protective Greenbelt Program, ran N N-. CPIF(California Partners in Flight).2000,Version 1.0."17re drag grassland bird conservation , � plan:a strategy for protecting and managing grassland habitats and associated birds in California 1 W (B.Allen,lead author).Point Reyes Bird Observatory,Stinson Beach,CA. <L httn:llwww.prbo.orgfcalpigplans,html tL to Erman,D.C.,N.A.Herman,L.Costick,and S.BockwitL 1996. Management and Lend Use a Buffers;Appendix 3. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final report to Congress,Vol.M, Assessments and scientific hasis for management options. Davis: University of California, i F`- Centers for Water and Wildland Resources (rtoi-,ncl�ded boor) rn C Minnich,RA.and RJ.Dczzani 1998.Historical Declines ofCoastal Sage Scrub in the `p- Rivemide-Perris.Plain,California.Western Birds 29:366-391. N r- Moilanen,A, A.I.A.van Teeffelen,Y.Ben-Haim,and S.Ferrier 2008. How Much (- Compensation is Enough?A Framework for Incorporating Uncertainty and Time Discounting Z When Calculating Offset Ratios for Impacted Habitat. Restoration Ecology 17(4):470-478. W 2 Penrod,K.,G Cabanero,P.Beier,C.Luke,W.Spencer,E.Rubin,S.Loo and K.Meyer. 2004. (,) South Coast Missing Linkages Project: A Linkage Design for the San Gabriel-San Bernardino F Connection, South Coast Wildlands Idyllwild,CA w�vwscwidlands.og I- Q Reid,L M.and S.Hilton. 1998. Buffering the buffer. USDA Forest Service Gen Tech.Rep. PS W-GTR-168. Suarez,A.V.,D.T.Bolger and T.I.Case.1998.Effects of fragmentation and invasion on native s ant communities in coastal southern California.Ecology 79(6):2041-2056 r�o Q 10 Page 2-36 •The Planning Center I DC&E October 2012 Packet Pg. 250 2. Response to Comments A4. Response to Comments from Center for Biological Diversity, dated September 12, 2011. A4-1 The comment provides an introduction to the letter and an overview of CEQA requirements. It does not contain any comments on the Draft EIR. A4-2 It is the City's opinion that the Draft EIR clearly discloses the existing biological resources present on the project site; and the potential impacts that could result from project implementation. Mitigation measures have been proposed to offset identified impacts to a less than significant level.Additional clarification is provided in this Final EIR. The EIR meets both the substantive and procedural requirements of CEQA. 1 A4-3 None of the conditions which would require re-circulation of the Draft EIR under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 apply. There are no new significant impacts c or changes that would result in substantial increases to the impacts identified in the w Draft EIR, or feasible alternatives that have been identified that are not addressed in the Draft EIR. This Final EIR does 'clarify and amplify' information included in the c N Draft EIR. Recirculation is not required for such changes to the Draft EIR. N A4-4 The acreage calculations in the text and Table 5.3-5 are correct. Figure 5.3-1 has LL been revised to be consistent with the rest of the document. The revised Figure 5.3-1 a is provided in Section 3.4 Revised and New Figures. 'o N A4-5 The loss of sensitive habitats will be mitigated by acquisition of offsite permanent mitigation lands that are biological equivalent or superior as determined by the rn California Department of Fish and Game or payment of in-lieu fees to an appropriate permanent mitigation land bank as determined by CDFG (see revised mitigation v°) measure 3-7 in Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR) (McGill 2012). This mitigation reduces the project's impacts to sensitive habitats to less than significant. A consultation with CDFG would take place as part of the 1602 Streambed Alteration w Agreement and 2081 Incidental Take Permit and with USFWS as part of an Incidental Take Permit under the federal Endangered Species Act. F- A4-6 It is the City's opinion that the Draft EIR provides an adequate level of analysis for ~ ¢ direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to biological resources as discussed in Draft EIR Section 5.3, Biological Resource. Specific responses are provided in A4-14 and v A4-15 below. E r U w A4-7 See Response to Comment A4-6. a A4-8 An analysis of critical habitat was provided in Section 5.3.1 on page 5.3-33. Additional information on critical habitat was also provided in Table 5.3-4 and on Figure 5.3-4. A4-9 This comment regarding the loss of critical habitat for CAGN is incomplete. Without the full text of the comment, it is not possible to provide a meaningful response. It should be noted, however, that CAGN Critical Habitat does not occur within the project site or access road. There will be no loss or adverse modification of CAGN Critical Habitat from the proposed project. Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-37 as 0 2. Response to Comments A4-10 The loss of 168.4 acres of RSS habitat is expected to displace or adversely impact some of the species of special concern (SSC) that could occur on the project site. However, the applicant will purchase and permanently protect RSS habitat that is biologically equivalent to or superior than the 168.4 acres of onsite RSS habitat as determined by the CDFG (McGill 2012). The protected habitat will provide suitable habitat for many of the SSC species. Implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce the RSS impacts to less than significant (see revised mitigation measure 3-6 in Section 3,Revisions to the Draft EIR). A4-11 The project site is a 352.8-acre property located in the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains.A significant portion of the habitats in the San Bernardino Mountains and N the adjacent San Gabriel Mountains are undeveloped. The San Bernardino National E Forest manages 676,666 acres but several thousand additional acres are in private M ownership or under other governmental management. An inventory of all undeveloped habitats in the region and comparison to historical acres as suggested vii in this comment, is not required by CEQA. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines (Section 15130, Discussion of Cumulative Impacts, b), "the discussion should be guided by N standards of practicality and reasonableness, and should focus on the cumulative impact to which the identified other projects contribute rather that the attributes of Of other projects which do not contribute to the cumulative impact." An analysis of the w LL magnitude suggested in the comment is not required to identify the impacts of the a project on biological resources. The County of San Bernardino intends to take on V) this task and is in discussion with federal, state, and private entities regarding the y development of a regional habitat conservation plan to cover all these undeveloped habitats but has not formally started the preparation of the plan. This plan, once rn implemented, will provide management for sensitive plant communities and wildlife habitats in the region. rn r Focused surveys on the project site are required to determine the project's impact on a particular species. Focused surveys for sensitive species determine the w presence or absence of the species, they do provide an indication of the total population Copies of focused survey reports are included in the technical appendices. Presence of sensitive species will be mitigated through Mitigation F Measures 3-1 through 3-9. A4-12 The project site supports 11.4 acres of non-native grasses (NNG). NNG are invasive m and often displace native plant communities following disturbance. The non-native E L grasslands found onsite support very dense NNG that do not provide the open habitat needed by sensitive species such as burrowing owl and San Bernardino kangaroo rat known to occur in this area.The predominant wildlife species observed within the non-native grassland found onsite are California ground squirrels and gophers. Neither species are sensitive and both are associated with heavily disturbed habitats. Although non-native grasslands are used for foraging by raptor species, the 11.4 acres provide only a small percentage of the needed foraging habitat for raptor species and its loss would not be considered a significant impact to foraging raptor species. A4-13 The Draft EIR does provide quantification of the number of acres for each plant �? community or habitat type found on the project site, as well as discusses changes that have occurred on the project site over the last ten years. The current site Page 2-38 The Planning Center I DC&E October 2012 6.B.m 2. Response to Comments conditions are the baseline from which future impacts due to project development was determined and upon which the requirements for mitigation is being developed. The Draft EIR recognizes that the loss of several of the sensitive riparian habitats and the RSS habitat will be considered a significant loss without mitigation. However, these habitats will be replaced offsite through the acquisition and permanent protection of biologically equivalent or superior conservation areas (see Response to Comment Al-4 and revised Mitigation Measure 3-6 in Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this FEIR) (McGill 2012). The review and approval of the proposed offsite conservation properties will be coordinated with CDFG through the 1602 and 2081 permit processes and USFWS through the Section 7 Consultation process. a A4-14 The City recognizes the importance of the wildlife movement corridor that occurs ~ along Cable Creek and the project has been designed so that this important corridor is preserved. A barrier will be installed at the outer limits of the California Walnut c Woodland that surrounds Cable Creek at its interface with the RSS habitat on the vat hillsides above the canyon bottom (see Response to Comment Ai-5). This will provide a buffer of approximately 300 feet inside the barrier fence that will be located N on either side of Cable Creek (see revised Mitigation Measure 3-4 in Section 3, N Revisions to the Draft EIR). This combination of a barrier and buffer is designed to Of protect the natural resources associated with the use of Cable Creek as well as the M LL wildlife movement corridor that is found in association with Cable Creek. a U) N A4-15 The Draft EIR does address indirect impacts, in particular the potential for the �.... introduction of non-native, invasive plant species into the native habitat that will remain in the project area. Specific mitigation measures such as required adherence to the use of approved plant species for landscaping are provided in the Draft EIR to Q avoid the introduction on non-native, invasive plant species (Mitigation Measure 3-7). N Other mitigation measures have been included to control the introduction of non- native predators such as domestic cats and dogs, as well as to avoid creating z conditions that could attract native predators (Mitigation Measure 3-5). w x A4-16 As discussed above in Response to Comment A4-14,a barrier will be installed at the U outer limits of the California Walnut Woodland that surrounds Cable Creek at its interface with the RSS habitat on the hillsides above the canyon bottom (see Response to Comment A1-5 and revised Mitigation Measure 3-4, included below in Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR). This will provide a buffer that includes the full extent of the relatively flat canyon bottom that occurs on either side of Cable Creek, E approximately 300 feet in width. A barrier fence will be installed on either side of the canyon bottom to isolate the riparian habitat found on the canyon bottom from the surrounding development and will be designed to allow access into the Cable Creek area only at designated points and only for permitted/passive recreational activities. This combination of a protective barrier, controlled access points and a buffer will protect the natural resources found in Cable Creek as well as the wildlife movement corridor that occurs along Cable Creek. As noted above, the barrier will be established at the interface of the relatively flat canyon bottom with the steep slopes of the canyon walls. The Commenter suggests using the slope of the land to determine the size of the buffer. However, the buffer zone is on relatively flat ground, less than 15 percent slope, and the barrier fence would be at the base of steep slopes. The riparian habitat that provides wildlife movement opportunities through Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-39 Packet Pg.253 ` 2. Response to Comments the canyon bottom ends at the interface with the steeper canyon walls that support Riversidean sage scrub habitat. A4-17 The project design did consider the avoidance measures first, minimization measures second, and mitigation measures last as reasonable and feasible range of mitigation measures. However, the possible implementation of these measures had to be balanced against the economic viability of the project. The Center for Biological Diversity's (CBD's) letter mentions several feasible and enforceable mitigation measures for controlling indirect impacts on native habitats on wildlife species as a result of project development. All of these measures will be included in the Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) that is being prepared as part of the regulatory permitting process, in the appropriate Covenants, Codes and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that each home owner will have to sign, as well as in the noxious weed control plan that will be prepared prior to the issuance of grading a permits. All of these plans will be reviewed by the appropriate agencies prior to a) approval and implementation and prior to any ground disturbing activities. N A new Mitigation Measure 3-6 has been added to the Draft EIR to incorporate the CBD's suggested HMMP mitigation measures. These measures shall also be a incorporated into the CC&Rs and the noxious weed control plan: a a. 3-6 The following provisions shall be included in the Habitat Mitigation y N Monitoring Plan, the Covenants, Codes, and Restrictions, and the noxious weed control plan: F- rn c • Setbacks between developed area, including roads and fuel Q modification zones, and sensitive habitat areas shall be a minimum of m 300 feet. Z • Walls and/or fences that will inhibit domestic animals from harassing w and harming native species, including "cat-proof'fences to prevent feral = and house cats from accessing sensitive habitat, shall be implemented Q on the project site. F • Programs to capture feral cats should be implemented. C d • Non-native invasive plant species shall be controlled through weed s control techniques. Y • Native vegetation shall be used in landscaping. • Educational materials and programs shall be provided to inform residents of rare, threatened, and endangered species and how local communities can help protect them. • Gates shall be used to restrict access to lands set aside for habitat protection. A4-18 The City is aware that this project is subject to the state and federal Endangered Species Act. Potential impacts to a federally or state listed species will be avoided Page 2-40 •The Planning Center I DC&E October 2012 Packek P6.'25.4 6.B.m 2. Response to Comments through project design. The proposed avoidance measures will be reviewed with CDFG and USFWS. The detailed measures will be reviewed and refined as part of the regulatory permitting processes (1602 Streambed Alteration Permit and 2081 ITP from CDFG and the Section 7 Consultation process with USFWS to offset potential loss or adverse modification of critical habitat)for this project. A4-19 An access road will cross designated Critical Habitat for SBKR. Presence and absence protocol surveys within the proposed alignment for the access road have been negative, indicating that this portion of Critical Habitat is not occupied. However, since implementation of the project will result in the loss of Critical Habitat for SBKR within jurisdictional waters, a Section 7 Consultation between the US Army Corps of Engineers and USFWS must be conducted before the Corps can issue a F 404 permit. L A4-20 As indicated above in Responses to Comments A3-5 and A3-19 above, the applicant r° will consult with CDFG and USFWS about the requirements for ITPs. Due to the nature of the habitats found onsite, potential impacts to federally and state listed N species would occur within jurisdictional waters of the US and of the State, requiring N additional consideration by the regulatory and wildlife agencies of impact to list x species as part of the wetland permitting processes. Ti LL a- A4-21 The Draft EIR has identified project impacts and feasible mitigation measures to N reduce project impacts. The commenter does not identify any specific instances N S where the Draft EIR defers impact analysis and mitigation measures. Where some F situations dictate that additional evaluation is necessary to refine mitigation to an engineering or final design level, e.g., geotechnical impacts and biological resource Q impacts, performance standards are provided in the mitigation measures. rn A4-22 The US Forest Service commented on previous Draft EIRs for the project site on April 6, 1998, March 17, 2003 and July 8, 2004. In each case, their comment letters w emphasized that they neither supported nor opposed the development but sought to insure that appropriate mitigation would be required for impacts on National Forest U lands. In particular, their three letters mentioned that Forest lands would not be made available for support of the development and that the Specific Plan and Q resulting EIR needed to clearly address the detailed wildland fire concerns listed in their March 17, 2003 letter. The Specific Plan for Spring Trails does consider and v address each of the issues outlined by the US Forest Service in the above listed E letters. Copies of each of the US Forest Service letters are available at the City of San Bernardino's Planning Department. a A4-23 The Draft EIR has included a reasonable range of alternatives and has adequately analyzed these in comparison to the proposed project's impacts. Per Response to Comment A4-6, the Draft EIR has adequately disclosed and identified the proposed project's potentially significant impacts to biological resources. The project objectives for the proposed project have been established by the City to identify the general intentions and goals of the proposed project. They provide direction for how the proposed project can be economically viable while still taking into consideration the environmental and service constraints of the area. The project's objectives represent realistic development goals and restraints of the proposed project. Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-41 2. Response to Comments The discussion of alternatives in Chapter 7 of the Draft EIR adequately discusses the feasibility of all project alternatives and identifies Alternative 3 as the environmentally superior alternative. However, the elimination of lots on the project site in accordance with Alternative 3 would make the project economically infeasible. A4-24 The commenter is incorrect in stating that all of the project alternatives would have the same development envelope as the proposed project. See Section 7, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR, for a full description of the project alternatives. Only one alternative, Alternative 4, the Reduced Daily Grading Alternative, would have the same development envelope as the proposed project. Alternative 1, No Project/No Development Alternative, does not involve any development. Alternative 2, No Cz Project/Existing General Plan Alternative, would only require grading of individual housing pads and access roads. Alternative 3, the Alternative Site Plan, would avoid M sensitive areas of the project site and reduce the grading footprint from 224.3 acres a to 147.5 acres (a reduction of 43 percent). rn c� A4-25 Alternative 1, 2, and 3 would all preserve portions of the site.Alternatives 1 and 2, as N required by CEQA, assume the site is not developed or developed under the existing land use designations, respectively. By nature, they would reduce impacts to of biological resources because they would avoid developing sensitive areas. I Alternative 3 was intentionally designed to reduce the grading footprint to reduce a. construction-related air quality and noise impacts, which are identified as significant N N and unavoidable impacts in the Draft EIR. As noted by the commenter, alternatives should avoid or reduce the significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed project. However, by reducing the project's development footprint, this alternative also avoids the biologically sensitive areas (see Figures 7-1 and 7-2 of the Draft EIR). Z The revised site plan for Alternative 3 has a reduced footprint that is based on the (n project's site constraints. For example, the jurisdictional wetlands in the southeast corner of the project site and the entire northern portion of the site (north of Cable z Canyon Creek) would be avoided (with the exception of the water tank, which would w still be needed to supply the site). x U A4-26 The commenter is incorrect in stating that the Draft EIR has qualified for recirculation. As stated in the comment, the following reasons have been provided Q for why the Draft EIR would need to be re-circulated: c m • When new information shows a new, substantial environmental impact resulting s either from the project or from a mitigation measure; a • When new information shows a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact, except that recirculation would not be required if mitigation that reduces the impact to insignificance is adopted; • When new information shows a feasible alternative or mitigation measure that clearly would lessen the environmental impacts of a project and the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measure, and; • When the draft EIR was "so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature"that public comment on the Draft EIR was essentially meaningless (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5). Page 2-42 The Planning Center I DC&E October 2012 ackef Pg;256, p2. Response to Comments No new information that would cause significant and unavoidable impacts has been identified since the circulation of the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR adequately identifies and discusses CEQA impacts based on the information available and new information identified by commenters does not create new significant impacts. Mitigation measures have been revised per suggestions of the CBD and other agencies and commenters. These revisions have been made in response to concerns identified by commenters. Based on the responses to CBD's comments provided above,there is no need to re- circulate the Draft EIR because none of the criteria above have been met. w L C Q N N N J V- a. N N I � I Q U1 z Z W r 2 U H e a c E s U (6 w Q I Suring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-43 Packet Pg. 257 trw 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. a L rn c L Q U) kn CM N N W LL IL 0) Yl L r m E CL L y o n F Z W 2 U Q F F Q c d E s U m a Page 2-44 •The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 6.B.m 2. Response to Comments LETTER A5-County of San Bernardino Department of Public Works (3 pages) DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS FLOOD CONTROL. LAND DEVELOPMENT&CONSTRUCTION .OPERATIONS SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT . SURVEYOR .TRANSPORTATION 290 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO _ 825 East Thid Street .San aernadino,CA 92415.0835.(909)387A104 GRANVILLE M.'BGW'BOWMAN,P.E.,P L 5. Fax(909{387.8130 OireclordPUdm works September 1,2011 I-1��r�12��1f72 D IILInDU`j File: 10(ENV)-4.01 N � Tend Rahhal,City Planner SE? U 1 2011 ~ City of San Bernardino CRY Of SAN BERNARDINO C Community Development Department DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 'L 300 North"D"St.,3d Floor DEPARTMENT C- San Bernardino,CA.92418 to RE: NOTICE OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT(DEIR)FOR THE SPRING TRAILS to N SPECIFIC PLAN Dear Ms.Rehhal: w Thank you for giving the San Bernardino County Department of Public Works (Department) the LL opportunity to comment on the above-referenced project. The environmental document was circulated to OL other Divisions within our Department and the following are their comments: <n Traffic Division(Ed Petra P.E. (9091387-8239): ~ 1. Intersection 4,Kendall Drive at Little League Drive:The eastbound through lane does not have the I A5-1 minimum 10%growth as stated on page 3 of the report. a 2. Intersection 4,Kendall Drive at Little League Drive:The existing morning volumes on Figure 5 do I A5 2 N not match the count sheets. ' r Permit Operations Support Division(James McKenzie Jr.,PWE 11,(909)387.79411: Z A5-3 LLB 1. In Section 1.4 Project Summary—the report shows the project beginning in 2010—this date should be updated. _ U Transportation Planning Division(Omar Gonzalez PWE III (9091387-8164): FF_ A5d Q 1. There is a difference between the number of lots discussed in the Traffic Appendix(329 sites)and , the main dots(307 sites). c 2. The San Bernardino General Plan circulation(page 14[221)on Appendix K shows a collector roatl ry connecting Cable Canyon Road with Meyers Road.This connection is not addresses in mitigation) A56 E of the identified impacts. Water Resources Division(Mary Lou Mennilliod.P.E..(909)387.8222): Q Reference is made to your August 3, 2011, Interoffice Memo, referencing pertinent documents on A5-8 the share drive,requesting our review and recommendations for the subject Draft EIR. The City of San Bernardino is asking for comments on a DEIR for the Spring Trails Specific Plan formerly known as the Martin Ranch.The subject development is currently in an unincorporated portion of the County. awes USua.:�in rRECOk:GD9VatE1LX affdNl7hFFn _. rts,teats. IPII acir._ . CaelFmu\e CRta UJIMf..td'rl(PnOK. BwroaG lknil CJiYCC/.P... x1rIF C-0II[R'tS ... .. I,AY IkM i Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-45 °z<s&m 2. Response to Comments City of San Bernardino September 1,2011 Page 2 of 2 We have previously commented on this site by Interoffice Memo dated April 6, 1998. A copy is included for you use(see attached). A5-6 N The information provided in the April 6, 1998 memo is still considered accurate with the exception of cont'd 'ro the FEMA Flood Zone determination. The site is located in Flood Zone"D,"according to the most current FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map,Panel No.060270.7930H,dated August 28,2008. pr c_ We have reviewed the DER and our comments are as follow: ` Arr7 a rn 1. We recommend that the project incorporate the County's regulations for development in a eD FEMA Flood Zone°D." N A5 8 N 2. All of our previous comments still apply. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact the specific individuals that W have provided that specific comment,as listed above. L" a rn VZ ICP m la er enlal anagement Division rn JS:PE:mb/CEOA Comments to DER_SwBemarG�SpringTrails$pWflcPlaa.dx r- Attachment F- Z W cc: Patrick Egle g S U Q F F Q c m E ._ 0 A V V Q Page 2-46 •The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 �Pacl�et Pg.260° 2. Response to Comments / IN t EROFFICE MEMO DATE: April C{ PHONE:72515 N FROM: MAIL CODE:0835 — Water Resources Division F TO: JIM BORCUK,Chief File No.2-30911.00°�— 5 Environmental Management Division IT 15576 a N SUBJECT: ZONE 2, CABLE CREEK CHANNEL-NOTICE OF PREPARATION DRAFT C14 ENVIRONMENTALIMPACTREPORT-MARTIN RANCH-CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO N_ of Reference is made to a Marry 30, 1998, Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR for the subject development, seat to us from the City of San Bernardino, requesting our review and recommendations. to N The 352.8 acre site is located north of Meyers Road and east of Martin Rank Road in the 3 � unincorporated area north of the City of San Bernardino. According to the most recent Flood F— Insurance Rafe Map,dated March 18,1996,the entire site lies within Zone X,areas determined to be outside the 500-ym floodplam. .� a The site also Has within the drainage area tributary to the Flood Control District's Cable Creek r Channel. During the historic floods of January and February, 1969, Cable Creek Channel H sustained major erosion damage to its banks and levees. The floodflows washed out a drilm W protecting a bridge crossing at Interstate Highway 15. At other locations along the highway,large A5-9 LU quantities of debris and mud were deposited on the pavement, fames were damaged and the = shoulders and median ship were eroded U F- F H In July of 1993,BSI Consultants,Inc.,on behalf of the Flood Control District,prepared a drainage Q study using the City of San Bernardino's Land Use Plan dated June 2, 1989. It should be noted that the pmposed development was not anticipated nor shown on the City's[and Use Platt,and m the addition of 352.8 acres of"developed"watershed will have a significant and adverse impact to s both existing and proposed channel improvements for Cable Creels Out communes are as follows: Q A5-10 1. The Draft EIR should address the impact of additional runoff that will be created by this development on Cable Creek and include mitigation measures. 2. Otter hydrology issues seem to have been adequately identified. I A5-11 If you have any questions,or if you need additional information,please call Marylou Memm lliod at(909)387-2515. M1F.MLM:AF:b1b IDNM44AA Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-47 Packet Pg. 261 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. N L cn C CL to v/ LO N N [Y w LL a. N L F C �L a n H z w x U a a d E r v m Page 2-48 The Planning Center I DC&E October 2012 ��Packe�P� 2�, 2. Response to Comments A5. Response to Comments from San Bernardino Department of Public Works, dated September 1, 2011. A5-1 The East Valley Traffic Model forecasts were used in the traffic impact analysis. Appendix C of the traffic impact analysis includes the future growth increment calculation worksheets for the study area intersections. The eastbound movement at Intersection 4, Kendall Drive at Little League Drive shows a nominal (negative) increase in growth based upon the traffic model forecasts. However, the overall intersection shows an increase from existing traffic volumes to Year 2035 traffic volumes of 39% [(400 - 288)/288] during the morning peak hour and of 91% [(530 - y 277)/277] during the evening peak hour. L A5-2 The morning peak hour traffic count worksheet provided by National Data and rn c Surveying Services had an Excel worksheet error. However, the traffic impact a analysis did use the correct traffic volumes. Appendix C of the traffic study includes rn the future growth increment calculation worksheets that are based upon the peak hour turning movement volumes. N A5-3 The description in Section 1.4, Project Summary, has been updated with the correct project start date, 2013. In accordance with proposed construction phasing, the w project would be complete in 2015, assuming no changes to future planning a. decisions and market forces occur. The revised text is in Section 3 of this FEIR, y Revisions to the Draft EIR. A5-4 As discussed in Section 5.14 of the Draft EIR, Transportation and Traffic, the traffic ° study and the project description differ in the total number of proposed housing Q units. The traffic study assumes 329 units, the originally proposed number, and the U) Draft EIR assumes 307, the currently proposed number. Previous development plans for the Spring Trails project had included 329 units. Instead of revising the traffic study, the traffic analysis in the Draft EIR is based on 329 units, which provides U3 a more conservative estimate of traffic impacts. No revisions to the Draft EIR are = made in response to this comment. a A5-5 The circulation map in the City of San Bernardino's Circulation Element (Figure 5.14- q 1 of the Draft EIR) shows Cable Canyon Road and Meyers Road connecting. However, this map shows projected roadway locations at the buildout of the San Bernardino General Plan and not current conditions. These two roads are not E currently connected. Since it is not guaranteed that these roads would connect in the future, the environmental analysis of the traffic impacts in the Draft EIR does not assume this connection. A5-6 The comments from the Water Resources Division of the San Bernardino County Public Works Department include the previous comments on the previously proposed Martin Ranch project. The previous comments are included in the Interoffice Memo dated April 6, 1998. It is noted that all comments are the same with the exception of the comment on the FEMA Flood Zone determination. The most recent FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) indicates that the project site is in Flood Zone D, not X.This issue is addressed in Response to Comment A5-7. Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-49 2. Response to Comments A5-7 The project site is in FEMA Flood Zone D, not X. Zone X has a low to moderate flood risk area and is above the 100- and 500-year flood levels. Zone D is used to classify areas of undetermined flood risk because not enough analysis has been conducted for the area. Chapter 19.16 of City of San Bernardino's Development Code (Flood Plain Overlay District) restricts development in areas of special flood hazards, areas of flood-related erosion hazards, and areas of mud slide, as identified by the FEMA FIRMS. Development restrictions do not apply to Zone D as it is not in one of these zones. The Draft EIR has been revised to reflect the accurate flood zone designation. The revised text is found in Section 3,Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this FEIR. A5-8 Responses to the previous comments of the Department of Public Work's Interoffice a Memo are provided in Response to Comments A5-9 and A5-10. rn A5-9 The comment regarding the 1969 Cable Creek Channel flood is noted. In regards to n the comment about the proposed project's impact to natural drainage in the area, y the Draft EIR addresses hydrology impacts in Section 5.7, Hydrology or Water Quality. The proposed project's impact to the existing drainage conditions are N discussed in both the hydrology study and the Draft EIR. With the implementation of best management practices (BMPs), standard conditions, and the specific plan's W design features, it was determined that hydrology impacts would be less than LL significant. a N (` A5-10 Section 5.7,Hydrology and Water Quality, addresses additional onsite runoff entering F m Cable Creek and finds the impact to be less than significant. Although Cable Creek � is not included on the Clean Water Act's list of impaired waters (Section 303(D)), the down stream creek, Lytle Creek, is included on the list. Water pollutants during the Q construction and operational phase of the proposed project have potential to affect rn the water quality of Cable Creek. A water quality management plan and a r stormwater pollution prevention plan will be prepared for the proposed project, both z of which include BMPs that would reduce water quality impacts. In addition, project w design features will reduce water quality impacts to Cable Creek. As determined in 2 x the Draft EIR, impacts to Cable Creek are less than significant. Q A5-11 Comment noted. Q c d E L U Co a Page 2-50 The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 Packet Pg.264 2. Response to Comments LETTER A6-Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers (3 pages) D v� DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY LOS ANGELES DISTRICT.CORPS OF ENG I NEERS ,CLM •n�V( 0 P.O BOX 5327n G7y J �p 9�, y LOSANGELES.CALIFORNIA9005&2325 � SgA,ar <y/1 •@ August 17,2011 f� IFS c C µM1YIO U) nTTlphIXf Office of the Chief (o Regulatory Division N N_ I � Terri Rahhal ti Community Development Department a 300 North'D"Street,3rd Floor to San Bernardino,California 9241 8-0001 A M m Dear Ms.Rahhai: .Q It has Come to our attention that you plan to develop the area formerly known as Martin Ranch in San Bernardino,California. This activity may require a U.S.Army Corps of Engineers r permit. Z A Corps of Engineers permit is required for: w 2 S a) the discharge of dredged or fill material into,including any redeposit of dredged Q material other than incidental fallback within,"waters of the United StateS'and adjacent F- wetlands pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972. Examples include,but are not Q limited to, A6-1 1, creating fills for residential or commercial development,placing bank protection, d temporary or permanent stockpiling of excavated material,building road crossings,backfilling E for utility line crossings and constructing outfall structures,dams,levees,groins,weirs,or other structures, t6 2. mechanized landclearing,grading which involves filling low areas or land leveling, Q ditching,channelizing and other excavation activities that would have the effect of destroying or degrading waters of the United States, 3. allowing runoff or overflow from a contained land or water disposal area to re-enter a water of the United States, Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 3-51 Packet Pg. 265 2. Response to Comments -2- 4. placing pilings when such placement has or would have the effect of a discharge of fill w material; 'm An application for a Department of the Army permit is available on our website: A6-1 h J/www.s l.usace.am mil/re ulato /en 4345a. df. If you have an questions, lease °a"Id r ttP P Y g rY g P Y Y 4 P . contact Daniel Swenson of my staff at 213.452.3414 or via email at Daniel.P.Swensondvsace.army.mil. Please refer to this letter and SPL-2011.00765-DPS in your to reply. p V) N Sincerely, i K LL a to Daniel P.Swenson rn Chief,Los Angeles Section North Coast Branch Regulatory Division rn .Q U) r N Z W S U a +t a I 1 E s U (6 i Q jI I Page 2-52 The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 Packet Pg.266 2. Response to Comments 0 °oso r D m D c mx � b y m w m y � ym Y ti 0 0 2 R o bD ~ N TO e Q l .. to �y a N LL IL 0 \) w �= c a Z � W a E - mQ �s a Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-5 3 Packet Pg267;; +'3 YAxyt � 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. N L F M C Q LO N LO N N N_ W W LL (L U) y L rn c L CL n z Z cW C U a a d E r v m Y a Page 2-54 The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 r,�PackePg268��- 2. Response to Comments A6. Response to Comments from Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, dated August 17, 2011. A6-1 Comment acknowledged. As disclosed in the Draft EIR and in this Final EIR, the applicant will apply for a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit. N L F C Q Ln N N LLN_ W a. y N M L F m C Co n N Z W U a a d ;_ s U R a Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino Page 2-55 P Ii6 Pg 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. N H C Q f0 N N N_ S W LL Q N N ca F— C Q F- Z W S U a F— F— a Y C d E t m Page 2-56 •The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 Packwe�P�270 s.a.rn" 2. Response to Comments LETTER A7-Devote Rural Protection Association (2 pages) D E V O R E R U R A L PROTECT ON ASSOCIATION 1043 Woodlawn Ave,Devore,CA 92407 N L b- t September 10,2011 N Terri Rattled,City Planner tfOra City of San Bernardino N Community Development Department N- 300 N."D"Street,3"Floor San Bernardino,Ca.914180001 L LL IL RE:Spring Trails Specific Plan SP 10-01 V) Dear Ms.Rahhal: T re As representatives for the residents of the community of Devore,we would like to go on record as being opposed to the F_ Spring Trails Project and feel some issues addressed in the DmB EIR to be insufficient to protect the residents of Verdemont and ultimately the residents of Devon.The following issues are of concern to our residents: .L a 1.) Traffic-Adding up to 3600 vehicles per day(3 100 based on"low population"estimates)to the already V.) overburdened roadwaysRteeways in the area with no infrastructure improvements,will Create a nightmare in traffic ti congestion.This will impact residents of all the surrounding areas,including Devote.With infrastructure A7-1 F modifications,such as widening oNaff tamps to 2 lanes on the 1-215 at Palm Avenue and/or adding an on ramp Z northbound on the 1.215 and an off ramp south bound on the(-215 at Liule League Drive could alleviate a great deal L of this congestion. 2 2.) Fire mitigation-With dense developments,comes higher fire hazards.This project being located in the foothills of U the San Bernardino Mountains,which has experienced several devastating Bres in recent decades.escalates the danger to a much higher level.In a major fire,high-density homes can turn a fire into a raging wild land inferno. I- hopscotching from house to house,building in intensity,causing fudher desimction and possible loss of life as we A7-2 Q have seen in past occurrences.Limiting the number of humes0eccping the minimum acreage per parcel to no less than between i and 5 acres(currently at 5 acres)would further help mitigate the extreme fire hazard in the area IncreascdAarger open"green planhng"areas will help in minimizing the spread of firms. Staggering these"green belts"help to stop the"wick effect"in spreading fires, E U 3.) Wind-The area in which the project is located is subject to violent winds of up to 100.mph.These can be very .m-. destructive and totally devastating when a fire is present.Increased open arms of"green planting"would help A7-3 Q minimize the impact of blowing dust and trash. 4.) LocalfEndangered Species Habitat-With no behind buffer for wildlife,many species may become stre ssed and ultimately die out in the area.With dense housing in the project area,the sole remaining habitat for wildlife rill be the Cable Canyon area.Leaving a"buffer"zone on the upper project time would serve as a corridor for wildlife. Leaving native trees or replacing all Imes that are removed will also help maintain wildlife habitat and encourage all A74 species to remain.Devore residents enjoy the wildlife that lives in and around the area.but would be overburdened with added wildlife moving to our community. Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-57 6.B.m 2. Response to Comments Thank you for addressing our concerns.We look forward to being notified of any and all progress on this project. Sincerely, H crle Henry app m President ✓✓✓ Vic resident- Devorc Rural Protection Association D(. .' e ore Rural Pru4dion Association C tD n N N W lL �/� a Nba'' rn N Steve Melt to Secretary !- Devore Rural Protection Association m Q N H Z W S U Q H F- 4 c d E z U Q 3 Page 2-58 •The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 Packet Pg. 272 2. Response to Comments A7. Response to Comments from Devore Rural Protection Association, dated September 10, 2011. A7-1 Based on the traffic study, revised May 2011, the proposed project would generate approximately 3,149 vehicle trips per day. This total trip generation is based on the Institute of Traffic Engineer's Trip Generation (8th Edition, 2008) handbook. Infrastructure improvements at Palm Avenue and Interstate 215 (1-215) include adding an additional southbound left turn approach lane and installing traffic signals at both the north- and southbound ramps. With these improvements, the level of service (LOS) at opening year will be LOS B for both the north- and southbound ramps. At project buildout, the northbound onramps will have an LOS D and the southbound onramps will have an LOS C. These are all acceptable LOS values per the City of San Bernardino's LOS threshold. There are currently no on- and off-ramps at the junction of Little League Drive and I- y 215. Little League Drive travels over 1-215 and drivers must enter the freeway at either Palm Avenue or Glen Helen Parkway. The California Department of N Transportation (Caltrans) does not have any improvements planned for the Little League Drive/1-215 junction. The only improvements to Caltrans facilities included in the Draft EIR are those that have been previously identified by Caltrans. These include the improvements to the Palm Avenue/I-215 Interchange, found in the San a Bernardino Associated Governments Development Mitigation Nexus Study (2009), w N and the 1-215 mainline improvements, found in the 1-15/1-215 Devore Interchange Reconfiguration Project Study Report (but are not currently funded). r`- m c A7-2 Fire impacts are addressed in Section 5.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and M 0. they are based on the analysis and findings in the Fire Protection Plan (July 2011) prepared for the proposed project by Firesafe Solutions. The analysis in the Fire Protection Plan uses weather information from the Devore remote access weather z station (RAWS) and the BEHAVE Fire Behavior Prediction and Fuel Modeling System us to model the intensity of a fire approaching the project site. The fire models include z information on flame length, wind speed, and slope. As shown in the fire history of U the project site, the risk of fire is significant. Worst-case scenarios were used to develop the fuel modification plan, which includes allowable plant palate, the Q distance of separate landscaping zones from buildings, and building setbacks from each other. m E As mentioned in the comment, the distance between homes becomes a risk during m intense fires because of the fire's potential to jump between structures. The a commenter has requested the "green space" between buildings be increased and to keep the lots no smaller than one to five acres. In the Fire Protection Plan, the fuel modification zones created for the proposed project are based on a systems approach to address fire prevention and are the appropriate size for the project as it is proposed.The concept behind the systems approach is to create fuel modification zones in which the fire is systematically deprived of available fuel to reduce the size of the flame and the amount of heat that would be generated. Each of the three fuel modification zones is described in detail in Section 5.6 of the Draft EIR. The maintenance and clearing of prohibited vegetation will depend on a strict enforcement routine, which includes a Lighting and Landscape Maintenance District (LLMD), the Homeowners' Association (HOA), and individual homeowners. The San Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-59 Packet Pg. 273 2. Response to Comments Bernardino Fire Department (SBFD) is responsible for approving annual reports from the Homeowners' Association. Annual reports must be submitted every year the project is in place. The fuel modification zones and plan are designed specifically for the project site. Increasing the distance between lots would not be as effective as maintaining fire- resistant landscaping in the fuel modification zones. The requirements prescribed in the Fire Protection Plan, using fire-resistant building materials, and the implementation of the Fuel Modification Plan, the risk from fire would be reduced on the project site. N A7-3 The effect of high velocity winds has been taken into account for fire modeling F through the Computer Fire Behavior Prediction and Fuel Modeling System a (BEHAVE) modeling software. Based on the weather data obtained from the Devore Remote Area Weather Station (RAWS), high velocity winds reached speeds of 71 a Cn miles per hour. The worst-case scenarios created in the BEHAVE software for the proposed project assume maximum wind occurring in conjunction with wildfire u° events.The Fire Protection Plan has been designed assuming these inputs. As mentioned by the commenter, wind also becomes problematic in regards to dust w and debris. During construction, dust and debris would be controlled by limiting LL CL dust-inducing construction activities when wind speeds are over 25 miles per hour, watering soil and equipment, covering loose materials with tarp, and using chemical y stabilizers to reduce soil erosion. Mitigation measure 2-1, in Section 5.2,Air Quality, 2 of the Draft EIR, applies to Section 5.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and requires these actions to be completed, reducing construction-related dust and S debris from affecting neighboring properties. a The Specific Plan Development Standards outline requirements for Trash Collection. As described in the Specific Plan, the outdoor trash receptacles would be entirely z enclosed with a solid fence. This would reduce the amount of trash that could be w blown around by the wind. Also stipulated in the Specific Plan is the following: _ U • The CC&Rs shall include detailed responsibilities of each homeowner for trash container drop-off and pick-up, container spacing, as well as penalties for noncompliance. • All individual containers must be returned within 24 hours of collection. E U t6 To assure that trash and debris is also controlled in common areas (i.e., parks and trails)the following development standard has been added to the Specific Plan: • The Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District (LLMD) shall be responsible for trash collection and maintenance within common areas. Procedures shall detail responsibilities and timing for trash collection (daily, weekly, etc.) and shall include provisions for forecasted high wind events. No additional mitigation measures are needed to control wind-blown debris. A7-4 See Responses to Comments Al-13 and A4-14 for a discussion of how the project design would accommodate Cable Creek. Page 2-60 •The Planning Center I DC&E October 2012 Packet Pg. 274 2. Response to Comments LETTER AS—Local Agency Formation Commission (2 pages) i LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION 215 North"D^Street Suite 204 • San Bernardino,CA 92415-0490 (909)383-9900 • Fax(909)383-9901 E-mail, lafcoolalCo.sbcounty.gov • wwwsbciafco.org established by the SNhEarCaiiJnmb to serve the CltbenR Ci 5p 1.10[ahkU am the COUntyur San Ber,M,tllno N September 12,2011 L�JSEP COMMISSIONERS i S 2911� Wmbar Terri Rahhal, City Planner GINGEACOLEMAN City of San Bernardino city Member N Community Development Department S,cialmcn a 300 North"D"Street, V Floor of JAME&V.W1%TAuA V..QUtr San Bernardino,CA 9241 M001 r Speeiel DNVkt 1 U IARRr IACCALLON RE: Notice of Completion/Notice of Availability of a Draft EIR as aty Member BRAD MIIZEL ELT,Chair for the Spring Trails Specific Plan N ewNOlwpeniso,e y JAwcE RUIHEAFORD Dear Ms. Rahhal: ewd orww��e"n F Of ALTERNATES LAFCO received the Spring Trails Speck Plan and Draft EIR. After BOB COLVEN reviewing the documents,LAFCO has the following comments and/or NIEL,Member concerns: NEIL DERV r e"EmmwRErwie"N 4. Environmental Setting RON, Tw.SMIIH Z Spurt mnAn W VIANEwJLLIAMS . Section 4.3.12 General Plan and Zoning(City of San = u r Member Bernardino),page 4-24, indicates that the project site is zoned C Residential Estate(RE)in the City. However,there is no F NAWt£EN ROWNGSMADNAlO additional statement that the additional 26.4 acres is also A8•1 Q Eaaaee Omrer zoned as RE especially since the City's land use map(shown 5AMUELMARnNEZ On Figure 4.6)shows the area with a different color than what m SenimrArCO"" MICHAEL TOME is shown as the area with the RE designation. L WCOArNIES, U t6 It is LAFCO's suggestion that the area labeled as"Area to be Q PNGELAM.SGNELL annexed along with Spring Trails"on the City's land use map wemyantR m.wmmwi� be replaced with an outline instead of a different color to A8-2 RFBEC<A LDK4V o•RREruenre me camnassien clearly show that the additional 26.4 acre area is also designated by the City as RE. By having a color,the area can LEGAL COUNSEL be interpreted as having a different land use designation. cLARNN.ALZOR Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino Page 2-61 2. Response to Comments • NOCINOA Draft EIR Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 2 of 2 • Section 4.3.12 General Plan and Zoning(City Sphere of Influence), page 4-24, _ third paragraph,indicates that the project site and adjoining parcels total 377 acres. Please note that the project site(352.8 acres)and the additional area A8-3 F (26.4)totals to 379.2 acres. Based on some of the land use data identified in on the report,the 377 acres may be the total of the project site and the offsite I acreage for the primary and secondary access roads—not the additional area to fl be annexed. u� 5. Environmental Analysis N Section 5.8 Land Use and Planning,County of San Bernardino General Plan, J page 5.8-4,identifies the northern 160 acres as private unincorporated land. LL "Private Unincorporated"is not a land use designation under the County's list of ABA y Land Use Zoning Districts.Although the area is privately owned,the County's y land use designation for the area is still Resource Conservation(RC)which allows for 1 dwelling unit per 40 acres. ~ rn It is also LAFCO's suggestion that the area labeled as"Private Unincorporated" rn be removed from the County's land use map(shown on Figure 4.6)in order to clearly show what the land uses are in the County. By having a different color AS-5 and/or label for"Private Unincorporated", it will be construed by a reader that z Private Unincorporated is a specific land use designation under the County's w jurisdiction. x U a • Section 5.8 Land Use and Planning, page 5.8-8,again designates the norther 160 acres as private unincorporated land. Please see comment above related I A88 a to Resource Conservation. c W Thank you again for allowing us to provide comments to the Draft EIR and Specific Plan. s If you have any questions concerning the information outlined above,please do not hesitate to contact me or Samuel Martinez,Assistant Executive Officer, at(909)383-9900. Q Please maintain LAFCO on your distribution list to receive further information related to this process. We look forward to working with the City on its future processing of this project. Sincerely, t� KA HLEEN ROLLINGS-McDONALD Executive Officer Page 2-62 The Planning Center I DC&E October 2012 Packet Pg.276 2. Response to Comments A8. Response to Comments from Local Agency Formation Commission, dated September 12, 2011. A8-1 As stated in the comment, the 26.4-acre area to be annexed with the project site is also pre-zoned Residential Estate (RE) by the City. Chapter 4 of the Draft EIR, Environmental Setting, has been revised to clarify that both the project site and the 26.4-acre area are pre-zoned with the same land use. Figure 4-6 has also been revised. The revised text is found in Section 3.2 of the FEIR, Revisions in Response to Written Comments, and the revised figure is found in Section 3.3, Revised and New Figures. N A8-2 See Response to Comment A8-11. � rn A8-3 The total combined acreage of the project site and the 26.4-acre area is 379.2 acres, not 377 acres. The error has been fixed and the revised text is found in Section 3.2 of the FEIR,Revisions in Response to Written Comments. N A8-4 The northern portion of the project site is currently designated as Resource Conservation (RC) by the County. Although the land is privately owned,the land use X designation is RC. This has been clarified in Chapter 5.8 of the Draft EIR Section 5.8, us U_ Land Use and Planning, as included in Section 3.2 of the FEIR, Revisions in a Response to Written Comments. U) N A A8-5 Figure 46 of the Draft EIR has been revised to more clearly indicate the County's F land use designations. The northern portion of the project site is now the same color as the rest of the RC-designated areas. The revised figure is in Section 3.3 of this - FEIR. rn A8-6 The text on page 5.8-8 of the Draft EIR has been revised to indicate the site is designated in the County's General Plan as RC. The revised text is in Section 3.2 of w this FEIR. 2 x U Q a E c U Q Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-63 Packet Pg. 277 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. CL N L F C N n w to N N (Y w LL a w Ul L F C Q U) r F z w x U Q H F a w d E t v m z Q Page 2-64 The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 P� 8 , 2. Response to Comments LETTER A9-Native American Heritage Commission (3 pages) STATE�ORU N .:. 9pOg Brown h Go__ NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 915 CAPITOL MALL,ROOM 181 SACRAMENTO.CA 95811 '1w (918)65}8151 G)Sa¢ Web Fax(M)SV-530 JMRGSa 90v 11 a. n.xc®P.men.o81 RIP Ito— August 25,2011 :! AUS26 t/ y Ms.Tern Rahhal,Deputy Director S qrE O{Fq t- Clty of San Bernardino Development Services Department H/NO HOUSS C 300 North"D'Street .Q San Bemardino,CA 92418 U) Re:SCH#2009111066:CEQA Notice of Comoletiom draft Environmental Impact Report Mai (DEIR)for the "Spring Traiils Environmental Impact Report Protect"located in the n1 City of San Bernardino:San Bernardino County California, lY Dear Ms. Rahhal: W LL The Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC),the State of California y 'Trustee Agency'for the protection and preservation of Native American cultural resources rn pursuant to California Public Resources Code§21070 and affirmed by the Third Appellate Court in the case of EPIC v.Johnson(1985: 170 Cal App,3' 604).The NAHC wishes to comment on the proposed project. This letter includes state and federal statutes relating to Native American .a historic properties of religious and cultural significance to American Indian tribes and interested U) Native American individuals as'consulting parties'under both state and federal law.State law also addresses the freedom of Native American Religious Expression in Public Resources Code h §5097.9. F Z W The California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA–CA Public Resources Code :E 21000-21177,amendments effective 3/18/2010)requires that any project that causes a U substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource,that includes A9-1 Q archaeological resources,is a'signifiicant effect'requiring the preparation of an Environmental I– Impact Report(EIR)per the CEQA Guidelines defines a significant impact on the environment G as's substantial,or potentially substantial,adverse change in any of physical conditions within an area affected by the proposed project,including...objects of historic or aesthetic significance." In order to comply with this provision,the lead agency is required to assess m whether the project will have an adverse impact on these resources within the'area of potential E effect(APE),and if so,to mitigate that effect.The NAHC Sacred Lands File(SLF)search resulted as follows: Native American cultural resources were not identified within one-half ;6 mile of the'area of potential effect(APE). Q The NAHC'Sacred Sites;as defined by the Native American Heritage Commission and the Califomia Legislature in California Public Resources Code§§5097.94(a)and 5097.96. Items in the NAHC Sacred Lands Inventory are confidential and exempt from the Public Records Act pursuant to California Government Code§6254(r). Early consultation with Native American tribes in your area is the best way to avoid unanticipated discoveries of cultural resources or burial sites once a project is underway. I [r Culturally affiliated tribes and individuals may have knowledge of the religious and cultural V Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-65 Packet Pg. 279 6.B.m 2. Response to Comments I significance of the historic properties in the project area(e.g.APE). We strongly urge that you make contact with the list of Native American Contacts on the attached list of Native American contacts,to see if your proposed project might impact Native American cultural resources and to obtain their recommendations concerning the proposed project Pursuant to CA Public Resources Code§5097.95,the NAHC requests that the Native American consulting parties be a provided pertinent project information. Consultation with Native American communities is also a •� matter of environmental justice as defined by California Government Code§65040.12(e). Pursuant to CA Public Resources Code§5097.95,the NAHC requests that pertinent project information be provided consulting tribal parties. The NAHC recommends avoidance as defined t_ by CEQA Guidelines§15370(a)to pursuing a project that would damage or destroy Native .Q American cultural resources and Section 2183.2 that requires documentation,data recovery of rn cultural resources. rn Furthermore,the NAHC is of the opinion that the current project remains under the N N jurisdiction of the statutes and regulations of the National Environmental Policy Act(e.g. NEPA; 42 U.S.C.4321.43351). Consultation with tribes and interested Native American consulting tr parties,on the NAHC list,should be conducted in compliance with the requirements of federal NEPA and Section 106 and 4(9 of federal NHPA(16 U.S.C.470 at seq), 36 CFR Part 800.3(t) i LL (2)&.5,the President's Council on Environmental Quality(CSO,42 U.S.0 4371 of seq.and I{i a NAGPRA(25 U.S.C.3001-3013)as appropriate. The 1992 Secretary of the Interiors Standards rn for the Treatment of Historic Properties were revised so that they could be applied to all historic A9-1 resource types included in the National Register of Historic Places and including cultural coned landscapes. Also,federal Executive Orders Nos. 11593(preservation of cultural environment), ~- 13175(coordination&consultation)and 13007(Sacred Sites)are helpful,supportive guides for Section 106 consultation. The aforementioned Secretary of the Interiors Standards include recommendations for all'lead agencies'to consider the historic context of proposed projects and to'research'the cultural landscape that might include the'area of potential effect.' Confidentiality of"historic properties of religious and cultural significance'should also be (- considered as protected by California Government Code§6254(r)and may also be protected Z under Section 304 of he NHPA or at the Secretary of the Interior discretion if not eligible for uJ listing on the National Register of Historic Places.The Secretary may also be advised by the = federal Indian Religious Freedom Act(cf.42 U.S.C., 1996)in issuing a decision on whether or U not to disclose items of religious andfor cultural significance identified in or near the APES and 4 possibility threatened by proposed project activity. I 4 Furthermore, Public Resources Code Section 5097.98,California Government Code §27491 and Health&Safety Code Section 7050.5 provide for provisions for accidentally discovered archeological resources during construction and mandate the processes to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a project location other than a'dedicated cemetery'. m To be effective,consultation on specific projects must be the result of an ongoing a relationship between Native American tribes and lead agencies,project proponents and their contractors,in the opinion of the NAHC.Regarding tribal consultation,a relationship built around regular meetings and informal involvement with local tribes will lead to more qualitative consultation tribal input on specific projects. C Page 2-66 The Planning Center I DC&E October 2012 Packet Pg. 280 2. Response to Comments If you have any questions about this response to your request,please do not hesitate to contact me at(916)658-X91. Sincerely, .� y ' � F Dave Sing t n Program Analys c Cc: State C aringhouse rr LO Attachment:Native American Contact List N N_ W LL a rn Vl Cc L r rn CLc L (n vI F Z I1J U Q F F Q c m E t U R w Q 1 Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-67 Packet Pg 281 -< s sp= �s 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. N L C Q y m 04 N N [Y W LL LL U) w L rn C �L Q z Z cW G U Q F F Q c d E t U W Q Page 2-68 The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 © 2. Response to Comments Ag. Response to Comments from Native American Heritage Commission, dated August 25, 2011. A9-1 The City of San Bernardino contacted Native American tribes for SB 18 consultation on January 13, 2010, using the list of tribes provided by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in their comment letter on the Notice of Preparation for the Spring Trails Specific Plan Draft EIR. No responses were received by the City. Additionally, the City contacted tribes on April 26, 2012, to notify them of the 45-day referral period for the proposed Spring Trails Specific Plan pursuant to SB 18 Government Code §65352. The tribes contacted for the 45-day referral period a include the tribes previously contacted for the SB 18 consultation and additional •0 tribes from NAHC's updated 2012 contact list for San Bernardino County, which was provided by Dave Singleton of NAHC on April 2, 2012. No responses were received from any of the representatives contacted. _ Q V) NAHC has suggested that the project is under the jurisdiction of the statutes and regulations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 — c N 43351). The proposed project does not trigger environmental review under NEPA N because there are no federal funds involved nor is the project a federal undertaking. tr However, as stated above, consultation with Native American tribes per SB 18 has LL been completed as part of the cultural resources assessment. In addition, the a Archaeological and Paleontological Resources Assessment Report with Mitigation w Plan for the Spring Trails Project (August 2010) prepared for the proposed project [\.r� includes the results of sacred lands search and an assessment of properties that may be on a local, state, or national historic record. The results of these assessments indicate that significant impacts would not occur to historic properties Q and that there are no sacred lands on or near the project site. U) NAHC also suggests confidentiality of historic properties of religious and cultural z significance should be considered. To maintain confidentiality, the City has only w released a restricted version of the cultural resources assessment to the public, one x that does not show the locations of historic and cultural sites. Q Lastly, the Draft EIR includes mitigation measures consistent with Public Resources ~ a Code Section 5097.98 regarding the accidental disturbance of archaeological c resources. E t v m Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino Page 2-69 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. w H m c y n co N N N [Y W LL IL U) N F C O. N z Z W 2 U a a Y C d E z u m Y a Page 2-70 •The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 k.P KePg' 284Y' 2. Response to Comments LETTER Al —Omnitrans (3 pages) 1 r, _.< m August 24,2011 75 Terri Rahhal,City Planner I— m City of 58n Bernardino w S Community Development Department CL 300 North"D"Street,3'v Floor y San Bernardim,CA 92438-0001 ip N Subject:Comments Regarding Draft EIR for Spring Trails Specific Plan N cli Dear Ms.Rahalh. W W 1 would like to extend my sincere thanks for offering Omnitrans the opportunity to provide comments on the LL Environmental Impact Report for the Spring Trails Specific Plan. I was hired at Omnitrans in July as a Planning Projects d Manager working on transit and land use. Please add my name to your mailing list for all land use related Inquiries in A70-1 W N the future. to The comments below pertain to both the draft Spring Trails Specific Plan and the EIR document. I tT C Provision of Alternative 7ransoortati2n. Section 5:14.1 of the EIR states that"the project[Spring Trails(provides for � alternative transportation." As the legislative definition of"alternative transportation"encompasses public Q- U) transportation and non-motorized transportation,I would like to see more clarification on how the Spring Trails development will provide alternative transportation. F, As mentioned In the EIR,there is an Omnitrans Route 7 bus stop approximately 2 miles away from Spring Trails,and Z W there will also be an sbX bus rapid transit park-and-ride stop.approximately 2 miles away in the future. Given that the A10.2 = average acceptable walking distance is generally considered to be 0.25 miles and the average acceptable bicycling V distance is between 1 and 3 miles(or even shorter depending on the existence of steep terrain),it is unclear how H residents would travel the two(2)mile distance to the Route J or sb%bus stop via alternative transportation. f— Q From the diagrams shown in the plan,there do not seem to be non-motorized connections for residents of Spring Trails to leave the development,as shown in the draft Spring Trails Specific Plan or the EIR. The Magnolia trail shown in Figure C d 5.14-4 in the EIR does not connect to the Spring Trails development but begins approximately 2 miles away. It is not L made clear in the Spring Trails Specific Plan or the EIR document whether the roads immediately adjacent to the to R development are safe for bicyclists or pedestrians;what amenities exist[here currently such as bike lanes or sidewalks; .=. or whether any future non-motorized improvements will be made. Q Public Transportation. Although the EIR contains a section on public transportation,there Is no language mentioning I All 0-3 the availability of ACCESS service for individuals with disabilities. It is recommended to add the following language: t Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-71 A Packet Pg85 - X, FIM 2. Response to Comments ADA paratransit service is door-to-door demand-response service provided to individuals who have disabilities that limit them from being able to ride a fixed route,and there is an application process to register for the service. Rides must be scheduled between one day and seven days in advance. Because the Spring Trails project site is located more than 0.75 miles away from the end of the route 7, A10-3 Omnitrans is not required under the Americans with Disabilities Act to provide paratransit service to coni'd a residents of Springs Trails. Thus,the current ACCESS service area boundary ends at Frontline and Little •� League Drive. ACCESS also provides service to residents of the City of San Bernardino outside of that F ACCESS service area for a$5 surcharge,which will Include residents of Spring Trails once the City of San Bernardino annexes the area. ACCESS fares with surcharge range from$7.75 to$10.75 one way, C depending upon travel distance,which Is$15.50 to$21.50 round trip(compared with a fare of$0.60 per trip on the fixed route buses for seniors or individuals with disabili ties). .. Notes on the DraLt Conceptual Site Design Shown In the Plan Document. Although it is noted in the draft Spring Trails N Specific Plan that the conceptual diagrams for the site design are merely conceptual and not final,I have the following N suggestions to be taken into consideration when the site design is finalized: K D1 The draft plan for the Spring Trails project mentions on page 3-35 the goal of'reducing auto use within the community." Al 4 a This statement needs better definition for two reasons:1)there is no baseline from which to"reduce"vehicle miles d fn driven because the community does not yet exist;2)it is not made clear how the site design minimizes auto use. a The draft plan also cites on page 2-2 a goal of providing"a network of internal trails." However,the diagram on page 2- 9 does not show a connected network of trails. Half of the cut de sacs are connected by trails,and not all streets in the cross section diagrams are shown with sidewalks on both sides or at all. Thus,it is not made clear whether all residents of the development would be able to access the parks shown on the diagram on page 2-9 or other destinations within 'Q the development without using a car. A plan view of the site design with all sidewalks and crosswalks detailed,as well as to a pedestrian circulation analysis,would help to explain this. r F-- Sustalnability. More description is needed of how the Spring Trails development will promote conservation of Z resources.To reiterate the comments provided in the EIR from the Center for Biological Diversity,any assertion of a ill A10-5 sustainable development must include an assessment of the total carbon footprint of the development,calculated = based on per-person or per-household greenhouse gas(GHG)emissions. GHG emissions result from long-term vehicle UU miles travelled and household energy usage in addition to construction processes,manufacture of construction F— equipment and materials,and manufacture and Installation of infrastructure to serve the development. f— Q Similarly,since the EIR asserts that the Spring Trails development will minimize or reduce energy usage,it would be helpful to see a comparison of the short-term and long-term energy use that will be generated by the Spring Trails I A1D6 development compared with other types of developments,such as an urban Infill development. L O Tables 5.8-2 and 5.8-3 in the EIR also could provide more explanation of how the project addresses consistency with the M following regional goals from SCAG's Regional Growth and Development Plan: Q pobcy OSC-8.Local govemments should encourage patterns of urban development and land use,which Al D-7 reduce costs on infrastructure and make better use of existing facilities. policy OSC-10:Developers and local governments should promote injifl development and redevelopment to revitalize existing communities. 2 Page 2-72 •The Planning Center I DC&E October 2012 Packet Pg.286 I I 2. Response to Comments Policy OSC•13:Developers and local governments should encourage multiple use spaces and encourage redevelopment in areas where it wilt provide more apportunities for recreational uses and access to natural areas close to the urban care. policy WA-11;Developers and local governments should encourage urban development and land uses to make greater use of existing and upgrodedfacilities prior to incurring new infrastructure costs. w Policy EN-8r Developers should Incorporate and local governments should include the following land use A10-7 F principles that use resources efficiently,eliminate pollution and significantly reduce waste into their coned t71 projects,zoning codes and otherfmplementahon mechanisms: C Mixed-use residential and commercial development that is connected with public transportation CL and utilizes existing infrastructure. Land use and planning strategies to increase biking and walking trips. tp LO N RTP G3:Preserve and ensure a sustainable regional transportation system. N UP G6:Encourage land use and growth patterns that complement our transportation investments and 1% Improves the cost-effectiveness of expenditures. UJ LU Infrastructure Needs. In Chapter 6 of the draft Spring Trolls Specific Plan,which lists the infrastructure improvements a rn that will be financed by the developer,it would be helpful to see a projection of the long-term infrastructure in maintenance costs that will be incurred by the City of San Bernardino. This would help someone reading the plan to AtaB as understand how the long-term costs of the development.are being balanced between public and private funds. I— It may also be worth considering a Low-Impact Development-type design as another alternative in the OR..This would a help to Illustrate how the infrastructure costs could he minimized by clustering development on a small portion of the a y site. r Conclusion..Thank you again for providing us this opportunity to comment on the project. Omnitrans looks forward to F continuing its work on transportation and land use in close partnership with the City of San Bernardino In the future. W Please feel free to contact me if you need any additional clarification or further information related to the comments 2 herein. U Q Sincerely, F~- Q V r. d tea.2akr; E t Anna Rahtx R Planning Projects Manager _ (909)379-7256 Q 3 i t Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino Page 2-73 PacketPg28T 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. L r C C Q LO N N N W LL CL U) N cc r c 'L vI IQ^ r Z cW C U Q r r Q V C E L V N Q Page 2-74 •The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 1000*Wl 2. Response to Comments A10. Response to Comments from Omnitrans, dated August 24, 2011. A10-1 Comment noted. At 0-2 Section 5.14.1 of the Draft EIR does not state that project provides for alternative transportation. Draft EIR Section 5.14.1, Transportation and Traffic, includes a discussion of the alternative transportation available in the City of San Bernardino and a description of different classes of bike lanes. Under the discussion of environmental impacts in Section 5.14.3, the threshold statement indicates that the proposed project provides access to alternative forms of transportation, including w public transportation. It does not suggest that public transportation such as buses would be available onsite. Onsite bike paths, which connect to the City's street network (and indirectly to the primary regional multipurpose trail at Magnolia Avenue) will be provided. When the primary roadway is extended to meet Little - League Drive, it will have a bicycle/pedestrian path, separate from the road. This vii path is designated as a Community Trail in Figure 3.10 of the Specific Plan. It is not expected that residents would walk to the bus stop to use public transit but biking to N the Omnitrans Route 7 bus stop, a little over two miles from the project site, would be feasible. U. w The proposed project would not prevent the use of or negatively impact alternative a and public transportation systems. y At 0-3 As requested, the Draft EIR public and alternative transportation text has been revised to include this discussion (see Section 3.2,Revisions to the Draft EIR). r L Q At 0-4 These comments pertain to the Draft Specific Plan and not the Draft EIR. No rn response is necessary. z At 0-5 The responses to the comments on the Draft EIR from the Center for Biological w Diversity are provided in this FEIR under comment letter A4. The proposed project's = greenhouse gas emissions are calculated and discussed in Draft EIR Section 5.16. a Although mitigation measures 16-1 through 16-5 would reduce the proposed project's greenhouse gas emissions, the project would have a significant and a unavoidable greenhouse gas emission impact, as discussed in Section 5.16. Chapter 5 of Spring Trails Specific Plan includes a description of sustainability m measures and design features. s U At 0-6 A comparison of energy use between the proposed project and other types of projects, such as in-fill projects, is beyond the scope of the EIR. The project analysis of the EIR is meant to determine how much energy would be generated by the proposed project and whether the existing facilities and supplies would be able to serve the proposed project. The project analysis is not intended to compare the proposed project's energy demand with other types of land uses or projects located elsewhere in the City. A discussion of alternative projects is provided in Section 7, Project Alternatives, in the Draft EIR. The energy requirements of CEQA are discussed in Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines. "Potentially significant energy implications of a project shall be considered in an EIR to the extent relevant and applicable to the project (2012 CEQA Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-75 Packet Pg. 289 f 4 2. Response to Comments Guidelines, Appendix F)." The discussion in Appendix F lists suggested energy characteristics of the project that may be listed in the project description, the environmental setting, impact analysis, and mitigation measures. These characteristics include existing energy consumption, the proposed project's energy consumption, how it complies with energy requirements, and how it would impact energy infrastructure and supply sources. The project minimizes and reduces its potential energy use by implementing energy and water conservation measures outlined in the Specific Plan and by incorporating the most recent mandatory green building standards for residential structures y (California Green Building Code). The EIR does not assert that it would reduce or minimize energy use when compared with other types of projects or land uses; it merely states that for this project site and type of project, the proposed development would implement development standards that reduce the amount of energy used. c a At 0-7 Per the suggestion, the discussion of how the project complies with these policies on (Table 5.8-2 and 5.8-3 of the Draft EIR) has been revised. The discussion of the N project's compliance with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Goal G3 has not been revised. RTP G3 asks for preserving and ensuring a sustainable regional Q� transportation system. The proposed project would contribute traffic on 1-215 but it LU would not directly alter the regional transportation system. The sustainability of the a freeway system would not be altered. y The revised text for the remaining discussions is included in Section 3.2 of this FEIR, Revisions to the Draft EIR. ° c C CL Al 0-8 The first part of this comment is a comment on the Draft Specific Plan and does not rn concern the Draft EIR. In response to the second part of the comment, regarding the inclusion of a low-impact project alternative, see Chapter 7,Alternatives, of the Draft z EIR. There are two alternatives, the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative and w the Alternative Site Plan, that would develop a smaller portion of the site. Buildout x under the County's General Plan would only allow 38 homes over the entire site and L) the Alternative Site Plan would allow 175. The comparison of these alternatives to the proposed project is discussed in full detail in the Draft EIR. a c m E t U t6 Q Page 2-76 The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 Packet Pg. 290 2. Response to Comments LETTER Al 1 —San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society (6 pages) San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society P.O.Boa 10973,San Bernardino,California 92423-0973 September 11,2011 'R L F Terri Rahbal c Deputy Director L Development Services Department CL 300 North"D"Street to San Bernardino,CA 92418 m E-mail:rahhal_te @sbcity.org N Rc.:Spring Trails Environmental Impact Report W LL Dear Ms.Rahhal, (' rn I submit these comments on behalf of the San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society (SBVAS). T As with this projects previous incarnation as Martin Ranch, SBVAS remains opposed to its ( Art-1 approval ar c Aesthetics:We believe these impacts are significant,as the natural landscape of the western San .Q Bernardino Mountains will be permanently altered. This region is the gateway to the San I A11-2 y Bernardino Valley,and should be maintained in its natural state. F Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions: These impacts are listed as Significant and IZ Unavoidable. When does a community like San Bernardino take the initiative and say these Lu impacts need to stop? The way to avoid the significant greenhouse gas impacts is to deny the A11-3 = project. All the mitigation measures about recycling,carpooling and Title 24 standards are well Q and good,but the fact remains that the construction and use of 307 new housing units will cause I— a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions, all for a housing development we do not Q need,when the housing market is glutted with foreclosures and financially unsustainable homes. i; c Biological Resources: We are distressed at the potential loss of 168 acres of Riversidean Sage m Scrub,a sensitive plant community. Mitigation for this loss is listed as replacement off-site at a t 1:3 ratio(one acre replaced for every 3 acres lost),or fees in lieu of replacement. This is lower as than the replacement ratios of riparian habitat and other sensitive plant communities in western At t-0 Q San Bernardino County. No justification is given for the 1:3 ratio. We propose an appropriate ratio of 2:1. We also request that all aspects of this mitigation be subject to the approval of the California Department of Fish and Game,with oversight by the California Native Plant Society. As it stands in the DEIR, mitigation via in-lieu fees is subject only to the Community Development Director. n (f?R 0 W R D �LL11LL111 SEEP 12 2011 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT NPOES Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-77 Packet Pg:291 E6.B:rn 2. Response to Comments The City of San Bernardino Hillside Management Overlay District (HMOD) requires a replacement of native shrubs at a ratio of at least 2:1.This would adhere to the stated purpose of the HMOD to protect the natural and topographic character of our hillsides, including environmentally sensitive plants and features. We are aware that this replacement ratio is often interpreted as facilitating planting of native shrubs within the housing development itself. At 1-4 N However,there simply would not be room for the number of shrubs required given that 168 acres confd F of RSS will be destroyed,along with significant acreage of other plant communities containing RSS plants. Also, the simple replacement of shrubs within the development does nothing to protect the natural character of our hillsides,and does not replace the intact RSS ecosystem that .Q supports a wide variety of native animals both large and small that will not be supported by rn isolated shrubs in peoples' front yards. In adc on,the use of RSS shrubs in the buffer zones would be dangerous and inappropriate, given the strict limits on flammability imposed by the N Fire Protection Plan for this proposed development. We strongly suspect that it will be impossible to appropriately and locally replace the RSS from 1 x this site. This plant community has experienced severe losses along the coastal slope of the San LL Bernardino Mountains due to housing,agriculture, flood control projects and increased fire due All-5 a to human influences. We doubt the project proponents will be able to find 336 contiguous acres to of RSS in this area that is for sale,let alone the inappropriately low 56 acres they are offering. T This is grounds for denying the project,not for listing yet another significant but unavoidable impact. ~ rn c The mitigation measures relating to California Walnut are similarly unworkable. California 'a Walnut Woodland is listed as a rare and sensitive plant community.Simply digging them up and rn planting them in peoples' front yards does nothing to maintain this native plant community and At t 6 r, the various animals that depend on the walnut trees for shelter and food. California Walnut F Woodland and ripariarJCalifomia Walnut Woodland need to be replaced at a 2:1 ratio,just like Z the RSS habitat replacement The proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impacts to this w plant community to less than significant. t U Mitigation Measure 3-10 concerning nesting birds is not science-based and is not valid. H Different species of birds initiate nesting at different times. Many neetropical migrants do not nest until May. Therefore,a single nesting survey 14 days prior to the nesting season could take place as early as February 10 and would miss many birds that would nest later.In addition,many birds attempt second nestings if conditions allow. These would also take place well after the At 1-7 m single nesting survey required. Furthermore,forcing construction to wait only until the young t have fledged has no scientific basis,as most species continue to feed and protect their young for around two weeks after fledging.They depend on the resources of their nesting territory during =°• much of this period. in other words, Mitigation Measure 3-10 does little more that pay lip Q service to protecting nesting birds via the Federal Migratory Bird Act,and will have very limited real benefits.The impacts to nesting birds cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the measures proposed. Wildlife Corridors: All mitigation measures designed to maintain the functionality of the Northern Wildlife Corridor are in direct conflict with the fire protection plan,and will likely be I At 1-8 overruled by the Fire Marshall. This plan is based on clearing of vegetation, not protecting it, `rr.. Page 2-78 The Planning Center I DC&E October 2012 Packet Pg. 292 2. Response to Comments and fire protection will no doubt hold the tnunp card. The Wildlife Corridor mitigation measures Ai t 8 are written to allow for the supremacy of the fire protection plan,and are therefore hollow and rom,d invalid I San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (SBKR): This species will probably not be impacted by the project except where the planned secondary access road crosses Cable Creek Wash. I say "probably" because of the experience of San Bernardino County Museum biologists at the ~ Etiwanda Fan,where SBKR occurs in very low levels in habitat very similar to the RSS habitat c on the project site. These low populations are often not detected by standard protocol surveys CL such as those conducted on the project site. Cable Creek Wash is included in Critical Habitat for v) this endangered species. Mitigation for habitat destruction and direct mortality related to the A'1-9 proposed secondary access road should focus on preserving habitat within Cable Creek Wash N itself.Many local projects purchase credits at the local habitat land banks across the freeway in Cajon Wash or on the Etiwanda Fan to fulfill their "take" requirements. We strongly recommend against this. It will be far more valuable biologically to maintain and protect the Critical Habitat in Cable Creek itself, which would contribute to the recovery of the species, I LL recovery facilitated by reintroduction of the species to Cable Creek Wash from the nearby but isolated y population in Cajon Creek, N Species of Special Concern: There are a few of these species that were detected on-site by biological consultants,and several more that were listed as having a high or moderate potential to occur on site. Through my 20 years of working in Devine,I have had many opportunities to observe wildlife in the area, from Kimbark Canyon just west of the project site, to the Cable Q Canyon alluvial fan directly below the project site,to Baily Canyon just east of the project site to and other nearby locations.I can attest that the following animals of SSC status are present in the ' close vicinity,and are almost certainly on the project site as well. i can provide dates and exact r locations for these species if required. iz Two-striped garter snake(Kimbark Canyon;Devote) � Western spadefoot toad(Badger Canyon) California glossy snake(Cajon Wash,closest location at Cable Creek crossing of 1215) UQ California silvery legless lizard(Cable Creek Wash below project) r California patch-nosed snake(Cable Creek Wash below project) San Bernardino ring-neck snake(Devote;Kimbark Canyon;Cable Creek Wash below project) San Diego banded gecko(Devil Canyon nw of California State University,San Bernardino) Rosy boa(Devote;Glen Helen Parkway) Q) San Gabriel Mountains slender salamander(Kimbark Canyon; Devil Canyon) Contrary to the E account in the DEIR,this species does not breed in water. The live oak woodlands along Cable Creek at the northwest portion of the project are perfect for this species. Cactus Wren (previously in Cable Creek Wash, large population still persists in Cajon Wash Q south of project site) , Golden eagle, a fully protected species. Seen foraging all around the project site, south to confluence of Lytle/Cajon Creek, west to Devine, east to Palm Avenue and north over the mountains to Silvetwood Lake. Other SSC raptors(White-tailed kite,Ferruginous hawk,Northern harrier,Swainson's hawk)are occasionally seen migrating and foraging in the immediate vicinity. Coopers hawks are frequently seen foraging in the immediate vicinity,probably breed locally. Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-79 6.B.m 2. Response to Comments San Diego Black-tailed jackrabbit(Cable Creek Wash) Other species of interest that occur in the immediate vicinity of the project and almost certainly on it are Spotted Skunk, Long-tailed Weasel, American Badger, Bobcat, Black Bear, and Mountain Lion. I did not personally see the latter three species, but I have been shown photographs and given verbal accounts documenting their occurrence in Devore. R When the above list of species is added to those SSC animals observed on site,i.e. San Diego All-10 desert woodrat,Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse, Los Angeles pocket mouse,Rufous- c»nfd s crowned sparrow, Bell's sage sparrow, Sharp-shinned Hawk, Coastal desert whiptail,and San .Q Diego homed lizard,a formidable and significant number of species of special concern will be to negatively affected by the project. The cumulative affect of the project along with the many other development projects in the vicinity will be highly detrimental to the wildlife of the region. N Many of these species arc tied to RSS habitat,and cannot survive in an urbanized envimnment. No mitigation is offered for this long list of animals that will lose their habitat from the project.It may be that no appropriate mitigation is possible, given the paucity of similar large swaths of tY foothill sage scrub habitat in the western portion of the San Bernardino Mountains. LL a to Geology and Soils: Trenching will be required to determine final setbacks from all the strands a of the San Andreas and related faults where they traverse the project area In all likelihood,this will eliminate much of the housing in the fault zone,rendering this wide belt uninhabitable. The All-11 t subsequent project will look much like the Alternative Site Plan,at least in the lower portions of the project. Severe earthquakes also have the potential to damage roads and disable essential a service lines such as water and electricity, making evacuation during a natural emergency rtt difficult or impossible. j r We request that the geological trenching be subject to restoration requirements.Measures should Z be required to minimize ground disturbance and introduction of non-natives, plus the full w restoration to a natural state when the trenches are re-filled. 2 All-12 U If the trenching results require changes in the design plan,the EIR process should be reopened, H and the new project analyzed and publicized so that the public and government officials will be 4 able to decide if the newly designed project is feasible and desirable. This Supplemental EIR should be published prior to recordation of the final maps,and should automatically nullify any prior approvals given by the City Council. m E L Fire: The approval of this project in light of the severe danger from fire and other natural disasters requires a huge leap of faith by the Council Members,the Fire Marshall and the public at large. Can the Council Members and the Fire Marshall truly stand behind approval of this Q project when they know beyond a shadow of a doubt that there will be devastating fires and a severe earthquake on this property in the future? And for what benefit? Tax dollars that will be All-13 eaten up by the increased costs required to maintain a development in perpetuity in an intrinsically unsafe location? Is the City really convinced that the fair-share agreement to continue funding the Verdemont Fire Station is enough to counterbalance the inevitable loss of property that will play out when this slope bums again? Will the City officials be able to sleep at night when there is a distinct possibility that someone will lose their life in a natural disaster at Page 2-80 •The Planning Center I DC&E October 2012 Packet Pg. 294 2. Response to Comments Spring Trails? We at SBVAS are at a loss to understand the so-called logic that would be I All-13 employed to approve Spring Trails given the certainty of devastating fire events in the future. cont'd Many of the fire prevention mitigation measures depend unrealistically on voluntary cooperation w from the Homeowners Association(HOA),such as no exposed wood on their buildings and lots, and maintenance and inspection of the buffer zones.One annual inspection by the HOA for fire m code compliance and one inspection by a Wildland Fire Protection Specialist every five years is ~ nowhere near enough vigilance to maintain a fire-safe community at this location.200 feet is not c enough of a fuel modification setback to stop a wind-driven fire at this location when spotting is Ali-14 a predicted to reach as far as 1.4 miles.We at SBVAS recognize the necessity of planning for fires, rn and acknowledge the value of the Fire Safe plan submitted to the City in reducing the dangers to the potential future residents of Spring Trails. Yet we must reiterate that the City Planners and N Council,by approving this project,are accepting responsibility for loss of property and,heaven forbid, loss of life when the next wildfire sweeps over this area. I remember watching the presentation of the Fire Safe representative at a planning department meeting on this project. L What struck me was the reaction of this well-intentioned man when I asked him if he would be LL willing, in the context of fire safety, with all other factors being equal,to relocate and live at a Spring Trails.His reaction was an uncomfortable silence. N Hydrology and Water Quality: The DEIR states that the project will increase surface water flows into the drainage systems, yet this is not considered a significant impact. As with the F- DEIR analysis of fire danger, I have the unique perspective of having worked in Devore for 20 °r c years,and I witnessed the effects of flooding in Devote and the KOA campground. Yes,that .Q was an unexpectedly intense storm, and the hydrology models and infrastructure planned for rn Spring Trails are designed to accommodate a 100-year event. Again,it all comes back to what All-15 risks the City Council and the public are willing to take. I suggest that the Council Members are t- willing to take more risks than the people that live in the area, people who know that storms tZ don't read predictions about how much min w411 drop in any particular area Given the historical propensity of this local area for heavy storm events,coupled with an increasingly unstable and = unpredictable global weather regime, we at SBVAS consider the hydrology and flood risk for a this project is higher than is predicted in the DER,and could result in flooding damage. h Land Use Planning: We feel that this project is in conflict with the Hillside Management Q Overlay District, the Foothill Fire Zone Overlay and the San Bernardino City Code, for the reasons stated in the sections above. With regards to the preservation of habitat and wildlife,we Ail-16 E feel the project is in violation of CEQA and the Federal Migratory Bird Act for the reasons stated E L in the sections above. m Public Services: With regards to the secondary access route, we request full disclosure on the a status of land purchases and easements that would allow this road to proceed.We have been told that the project proponents do not have all the land or easements they need for this road,despite All-17 having several years to acquire them and despite the fact that this was one of the major reasons Martin Ranch was rejected. If what we have heard is true,then we think this project should not even be brought up for consideration. With regards to School Services,I found it unrealistic that no mitigation was deemed necessary All-18 Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-81 Packet Pg.295 6.B.m 2. Response to Comments for the increase in student population from the project. Having worked in the San Bernardino City Unified School District for 20 years,I can tell you that saying the influx of new students A11-18 (even without arguing the numbers)will have no impact is ludicrous,especially in the current confd financial crisis that has forced our local schools to increase class size and implement other drastic measures just to keep their doors open. Ln cu Transportation and Traffic; This project will not alleviate an already substandard Level of ~ Service for local traffic,even with the planned mitigation measures.We are also concerned about c the uncertainty surrounding the Secondary Access Route and the planned but unfunded Interstate Alt-19 •Q 151215 Interchange Reconstruction. Without an access route to the interchange that avoids the Palm Avenue Exit,local traffic impacts from this project will be unacceptable. LO N N Alternatives: SBVAS could support either No Project Alternative. We took a close look at the Alternative Site Project,but ultimately,it is still too destructive to RSS habitat. As discussed earlier, we are convinced that the mitigation measures regarding RSS are extremely inadequate. �LL We are also concerned that the Alternative Site Plan will still be subject to the same dangers a from natural disasters,particularly fire,and would not be safe for prospective residents. Despite Al 1-20 the size reduction from the proposed project,the Alternative Site Plan would still be a major housing development that is not needed,and would create damaging levels of air pollution and M greenhouse gases. Concerns about the secondary access route remain,along with other impacts ~ on traffic. Hydrology, Geology, Land Use Planning, Aesthetics, and Public Services will still have costs and impacts that we contend will be problematic. .Q N We find it interesting that on page 7-28, in the discussion of the Ability to Attain Project ' Objectives,we find the statement that the viability of this alternative is uncertain with regards to N the project costs and the ability to bring in a reasonable financial return. There is no definitive All 21 W statement that this alternative will not bring a reasonable financial return and therefore not meet goal number 9 for the project. Yet in Table 7.7, the Alternative Site Plan is listed as not = fulfilling goal number 9. This discrepancy suggests that the `reasonable financial return" Q criterion is very fluid and indefinite. For this reason,we feel this criterion should not be given a great deal of weight in the approval process, and in particular should not be invoked in any 4 Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding this project. c Q) D" you for the oppo t ' to submit these comments. ave Ga o G CO San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society a Conservation Committee 909 783 2417 davegoodward @earthlink.net Page 2-82 The Planning Center I DC&E October 2012 Packet Pg. 296 2. Response to Comments Al 1. Response to Comments from San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society, dated September 11, 2011. A11-1 Comment noted. All-2 Draft EIR Section 5.1, Aesthetics, uses visual simulations to depict the proposed project at various stages of development and at full buildout. Although the proposed project would alter the appearance of the San Bernardino foothills in this area, the impacts were found to be less than significant. View simulations from various public vantage points, included in Section 5.1 of the Draft EIR, show that the proposed project would be visible but would not significantly change the landscape. The y .E specific plan includes vegetation screening and proposes landscaping and design features that blend with the existing environment. The aesthetic character of the project area would be altered but as described in Section 5.1, the impacts are not c a significant. U) All-3 As stated by the commenter, short-term air pollutant emissions generated by N project-related construction activities and long-term GHG emissions would exceed SCAQMD'S significance thresholds. These impacts were considered significant unavoidable impacts of the project. The Alternative analysis identifies that the No LL Project Alternative would eliminate the significant, unavoidable air quality and GHG Q. impacts of the project. This comment is noted. ) A11-4 As described in the Draft EIR Land Use discussion under Impact 5.8.3 (DEIR page h 5.8-48), the proposed project would replace the Hillside Management Overlay s c District (HMOD) with the proposed development restrictions of the Specific Plan. a This section of the DEIR describes how the Spring Trails grading plan and rn development standards achieve the overall goals of the HMOD to minimize the height of visible slopes, provide for more natural-appearing manufactured slopes, z minimize grading quantities, minimize slope maintenance and water consumption, w and provide for stable slopes and building pads. x U As detailed in DEIR Section 5-3, Biological Resources, the loss of 168.4 acres of RSS habitat will be mitigated by the purchase of biologically equivalent or superior habitat offsite as determined by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) G or payment of in-lieu fees. The applicant has identified RSS habitat within the d immediate area that is available for purchase and that would be permanently E protected RSS habitat (see Response to Comment A1-4 and revised Mitigation w Measure 3-6, included in Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR) (McGill 2012). The a mitigation plan is consistent with Fire Protection Plan prepared for the project. Although not subject to the HMOD specifications, the project has been designed to be consistent with the HMOD objectives to protect the natural and topographic character of the hillsides. Of the total 352.8 acres, the project site has 111.3 acres of natural open space (outside the project footprint) and 126 acres of controlled open space (planted with fuel modification vegetation, including native vegetation, as approved by the Fire Marshall). The open space acreage totals 237.3 acres (67 percent of the project site). These open space areas would maintain the character of the foothills. Further, the HMOD restrictions only apply to hillsides of 15 percent or Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-83 0 2. Response to Comments greater slope (approximately 133 acres of the project site). The onsite preservation of open space (237.3 acres) offsets visual impacts to natural vegetation. A11-5 As noted in Response to Comment All-4, the applicant has already located a sufficient quantity and quality of offsite mitigation habitat to replace the 168.4 acres of RSS habitat that will be lost by site development. As stated above, an evaluation of the quality of this conservation area will be conducted to document that the proposed mitigation is biologically equivalent to or superior to the 168.4 acres of onsite RSS habitat(McGill 2012). All-6 Impacts to an estimated 2.1 acres of California Walnut Woodland will be mitigated at 7 a 2:1 ratio. The applicant has identified 4.2 acres of California Walnut Woodland on r adjacent property along Cable Creek, adjacent to the project site that will provide the needed mitigation. The applicant is in discussion with the landowner to purchase this property for mitigation. If the applicant is unable to acquire this property, the (n applicant will be required to find another biologically equivalent or superior property(ies) acceptable to the wildlife agencies before the proposed mitigation N measures will be met and the various wetland and take permits can be issued (prior to project site disturbance). w LL Ail-7 Mitigation Measure 3-11 has been modified to require that the developer conduct o clearance surveys 10 days prior to construction and then at 3 days prior to N N construction between February 1 and August 31. This mitigation measure will be clarified with CDFG prior to its implementation. r rn All-8 The commenter is concerned that Mitigation Measure 3-12, meant to maintain the Q natural habitat in the Northern Wildlife Corridor, would be trumped by the Fire U) Protection Plan, which includes fuel modification to control the advance of wildfires. As shown on Figure 5.6-1 of the Draft EIR, the Northern Wildlife Corridor would be z landscaped in accordance with the Fire Protection Plan Zones A and B, the "Fuel w Modification Plant Palette," and the "Building Setback" zones. These zones require a z thinning, mowing, and pruning of native vegetation. None of the zones may contain U any plants that are on the SBFD's Undesirable Plant Species list (Appendix I of the Q Fire Protection Plan). If plants are removed in this area because they are on c Undesirable Plant Species list, they must be replaced with native, approved plant species. Since the requirements of these fire protection zones may require removal d of sensitive plant species, Mitigation Measure 3-12 has been revised to reduce E impacts to biological resources by requiring that a vegetation restoration and m maintenance plan with specified criteria be created for the Northern Wildlife Corridor. a Criteria include restoring and enhancing vegetation, providing riparian habitat, planting replacement native trees, maintaining clear passage through the corridor, reducing and redirecting artificial light, constructing bridges with soft bottoms, and incorporating any other recommendations from the "A Linkage Design for the San Gabriel-San Bernardino Connection" report (from the 2004 South Coast Missing Linkages Project). Grading and construction activities may require clearing or damage of portions of the vegetation in the Northern Wildlife Corridor. However, per mitigation measure 3- 12 in the Draft EIR, the northern and southern wildlife corridors would restore and maintain native plant cover. As mentioned above Mitigation measure 3-12 has been Page 2-84 The Planning Center I DC&E October 2012 Packet Pg. 298 2. Response to Comments revised to require the development and implementation of a vegetation restoration and management plan (see Chapter 3,Revisions to the Draft EIR). At 1-9 The access road would cross through unoccupied SBKR Critical Habitat. This area of critical habitat is also considered jurisdictional waters of the US and any fill within this area will require a Section 404 wetlands permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps will need to consult with USFWS under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act regarding the loss or adverse modification of critical habitat, occupied or not. Through this process, both the Corps and USFWS will require an appropriate level of mitigation to offset any impacts from the loss of SBKR N Critical Habitat. M L All-10 The commenter has provided a list of species that have been observed by biologists M on the project site and surrounding area. An additional list of species of special - concern that have been observed in the area is also provided. The observance of En these species has been noted. Numerous biological surveys, which are used to supplement the biological assessment, have been completed and documented in N the biological appendices to the Draft EIR. The species of special concern listed in the comment were not observed onsite during biological assessments unless noted fe otherwise (see Table 5.3-4 of the Draft EIR). The loss of RSS habitat is addressed in w LL Response to Comment At 1-4. (L U) N All-11 The comment is correct in stating that additional geotechnical investigations still need to be completed on the project site. However, not all splays of the San Andreas Fault need to be investigated further. c L The three lineaments of the San Andreas fault that are known to be active, identified uai as splays A, B, and C on Draft EIR Figure 5.5, Geology and Soils, are given 50 foot setbacks. This determination came as a result of the geotechnical research z completed in the Kleinfelder investigations in 1997, 1998, and 2000. These reports Lu indicate that a portion of splay A and splays E and D are not active. To confirm the x determinations made in these reports, fault trenching and additional geotechnical Q investigations are required to make final site design requirements. These investigations could not be completed on the project site due to site constraints and q would need to be completed after site grading and before the recordation of the final maps (Mitigation Measures 5-1 through 5-3). The proposed project must incorporate all final design recommendations of the additional investigations and findings. E U A During an earthquake, the infrastructure and roadways on the site may become a damaged. The proposed project has incorporated design features to reduce the risks related to emergency situations (see Table 5.14-6 Draft EIR Section 5.14, Transportation and Traffic which explains how the proposed project has been designed for efficient emergency access and evacuation). In addition, the infrastructure that lies across earthquake fault splays would be designed to withstand earthquake fault ruptures, as described in the Draft Specific Plan. At 1-12 Additional trenching would be completed after the grading of the areas that must be ® trenched, after ground disturbance has already taken place.The additional trenching must be completed at this time because site constraints prohibit surveyors from accessing these portions of the site as they are now. Before grading of the project Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-85 Packet Pg. 299 2. Response to Comments site can occur, pre-construction clearance surveys must be conducted for each of the federally and state listed species that have a potential to occur onsite. If the trenching results require changes to the site plan that would potentially cause new significant impacts, supplemental environmental review may be required. At that time the City would review changes to the plan and determine the appropriate CEQA process and documentation. Ail-13 This comment regarding the City's responsibility in approving the project has been noted. The scope of CEQA does not cover economic and social effects of a project, such as tax benefits, per CEQA Guidelines Section 15131. Potential fire impacts and effects on existing fire protection facilities are discussed in Sections 5.6, Hazards and m Hazardous Materials, and 5.12,Public Services, of the Draft EIR. See also Responses F to Comments A7-2 and A7-3 for a discussion of the fire analysis methods. The information as disclosed in the Draft EIR will be used by City decision-makers in Q reviewing the project. co Al 1-14 See Responses to Comments A7-2 and A7-3. N N_ All-15 The City understands the hydrology and flooding risks associated with the proposed W project's site. As discussed in hydrology study, the project site is not within a high LL risk flood zone as identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency a (FEMA), but floods have occurred historically in the area. The hydrological report N (Rick Engineering 2010) and analysis in the Draft EIR address the potential environmental impacts of storm events. The proposed onsite stormwater collection system would collect all onsite flows and direct them to detention basins or rain gardens. The detention basins are designed to detain stormwater so that it drains at a a normal rate. Per the City's standards, they must collect less than or equal to 90 rn percent of the pre-project flows during 2-, 10-, 25-, and 100-year storm events. Offsite drainage rates would not be significantly impacted from the proposed project z and the risk from flooding is found to be less than significant. w x All-16 As discussed in Section 5.8, Land Use and Planning, the proposed project is not in a conflict with the Hillside Management Overlay District (HMOD). When the proposed F Specific Plan is adopted, the zoning of the site would be changed to Specific Plan. q As part of the development regulations for the Specific Plan zoning, hillside development regulations that are specific to this site would be implemented. These supersede the City's existing HMOD regulations. E E U R The City's Development Code would be followed in respects to creating a new land n use district (Specific Plan) and complying with the Foothill Fire Zones Overlay District (See Sections 5.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and 5.14, Transportation and Traffic). Compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) is discussed in Section 5.3, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR. Mitigation 3-10 of the Draft EIR restricts construction activities when nesting birds are present. Ail-17 The primary and secondary access roads are part of the project description, are described in Section 3, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, and are shown on Figures 3-3,Development Plan, and 3-6, Circulation Plan, of the Draft EIR. The City of Page 2-86 •The Planning Center I DC&E October 2012 KNOWN] 2. Response to Comments San Bernardino Fire Department requires two access roads be built to this project in order to provide emergency access and evacuation routes. In addition, per mitigation measure 14-3 in Section 5.14, Transportation and Traffic, in the Draft EIR, the access roads must be built to the Fire Department's minimum standards prior to the placement of combustible material on the project site. Developer is either under contract to purchase or pursue permits for use with respect a majority of the necessary right-of-way for the primary and secondary access roads. To the extent the primary and secondary access roads require the acquisition of additional right-of-way, or for the construction of any public improvements on property not owned by the Developer, Government Code Section y 66462.5 will control the Parties' rights and obligations with respect to that public improvement, except as to those properties specifically identified in the Development Agreement. CL U) For those properties located within the City of San Bernardino, the City will provide reasonable, non-financial assistance in connection with Developer's attempts to N acquire any Access Property which is held by a public agency. Furthermore, except Fq- as to those properties specifically identified in the Development Agreement, the City 0� may assist in condemnation proceedings for the right-of-way necessary to complete LL the access roads, after reasonable and diligent efforts by the Developer to (L separately acquire the property. However, San Bernardino will have no obligation to U) y either approve a final tract map implementing the Tract Map or assist in any material �d way in connection with the acquisition of those properties specifically identified in the Development Agreement. With regard to that real property lying outside the municipal limits of the City of San U) Bernardino, the Developer shall work with the City and the government agency with jurisdiction over that property to pursue the right-of-way through the use of eminent z domain proceedings. w All-18 The projected student populations are based on the generation rate used by the San a Bernardino City Unified School District (SBCUSD). As disclosed in Draft EIR, Section 5.12.4.3, SBCUSD would charge the project Level 2 fees of$5.40 per square foot for a single-family residential units. School fees levied by school districts under SB 50 are defined as comprising full mitigation for a project's impacts on public schools. E A11-19 After the implementation of mitigation measures, local traffic on City streets would R operate at acceptable levels of service per the City's standard thresholds (see Table 5.14-7 in Draft EIR Section 5.14, Transportation and Traffic). As stated by the commenter, Caltrans' proposed improvements to the 1-215 mainline improvements identified in the 1-15/1-215 Devore Interchange Reconfiguration Project Study Report are currently planned but unfunded. This significant and unavoidable impact is identified in the Draft EIR. Al 1-20 The commenter's support of either No Project Alternative is noted. ® A11-21 CEQA requires a discussion of reasonable projects alternatives that would "feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-87 ,-- 2. Response to Comments the alternatives (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6). The EIR shall include sufficient information about each alternative to allow a meaningful evaluation and comparison to the proposed project, but is not required to analyze the alternatives at the same level of detail as the proposed project. The discussion on page 7-28, of the Draft EIR, provides a reasoned analysis of why the Alternative Site Plan alternative is unlikely to realize a reasonable return on investment. This does not contradict Table 7-7. A .E F rn c a N N W LL a N R F C CL N n F Z W 2 U Q Q c m E M U R Q Page 2-88 •The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 Packet Pg. 302 2. Response to Comments LETTER Al2-South Coast Air Quality Management District (5 pages) South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar,CA 91765-4178 - (909)396-2000•www.agmd.gov N - E-Mailed:September 9.2011 /���S September 9,2011 ~ Rahhal_Te@sbcity.org Vu O c SFP a err 9 N Ives.Terri Rahhal ��oFS4.v 1p11 .. Community Development Department es,* SFZ B �kggo N City of San Bernardino 'H,,' �eS° 300 North"D"Street,3`d Floor San Bernardino,CA 92418-0001 W W LL a Review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report(Draft EIR) for the Proposed Spring Trails Specific Plan Proiect y - H The South Coast Air Quality Management District(AQMD)appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above-mentioned document. The following comments are meant as 'a guidance for the lead agency and should be incorporated into the final environmental y impact report(final EIR)as appropriate. ' n Based on a review of the draft EIR the AQMD staff is concerned about the project's 2 construction air quality impacts and greenhouse(GHG)emissions impacts. Specifically, W the lead agency has determined that the project's construction emissions will exceed the M AQMD's CEQA significance thresholds for NOx,PM10 and PM2.5 resulting in Q Al2-1 significant regional,localized and cumulative air quality impacts. Further,the project will have significant GHG emissions impacts that are primarily from mobile sources Q related to a substantial increase of vehicle trips associated with the proposed project's operations. However,the lead agency fails to adequately address this increase in mobile source emissions and does not require any mitigation measures to address mobile source d emissions reductions. Therefore,the AQMD staff recommends that the lead agency E minimize the project's significant air quality impacts and GHG emissions impacts by er requiring additional mitigation pursuant to Section 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines. Details regarding these comments are attached to this letter, Q Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino Page 2-89 '0'8" #8 ,Pg 30p3 6.B.m 2. Response to Comments Ms.Terri Rahhal 2 September 9,2011 AQMD staff is available to work with the lead agency to address these issues and any I Al2-1 other questions that may atise. Please contact Dan Garcia,Air Quality Specialist CEQA coned Section,at(909)396-3304,if you have any questions regarding the enclosed comments. N Sincerely, _ v /41 llkk t- Ian MacMillan c Program Supervisor,CEQA Inter-Governmental Review .Q Planning,Rule Development&Area Sources N cc N N Attachment V IM:DG ED W LL SBCI10802-01 0l Control Number U) N m i Q r F Z { W 2 U Q N t-- a_ c m E U A Q L Page 2-90 The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 2. Response to Comments Ms.Terri Rahhal 3 September 9,2011 Mitigation Measures for Construction Air Quality Impacts I. The lead agency concluded that the proposed project will have significant construction-related air quality impacts. Specifically,the lead agency determined that the project will have significant NOx,PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. Therefore, N AQMD staff recommends that the lead agency consider additional mitigation measures pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 including the following ~ c • Provide temporary traffic controls such as a flag person,during all phases of a construction to maintain smooth traffic flow, Alt-2 U • Provide dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction trucks and equipment co on-and off-site, • Reroute construction trucks away from congested streets or sensitive receptor { areas, 11 • Appoint a construction relations officer to act as a community liaison concerning w on-site construction activity including resolution of issues related to PMI0 a generation, CL • Improve traffic flow by signal synchronization,and ensure that all vehicles and • equipment will be properly tuned and maintained according to manufacturers' specifications,and Require the use of the cleanest burning diesel haul trucks available,such as trucks F- that meet 2010 model year EPA standards. c Further,the AQMD staff recommends that the lead agency revise air quality rn mitigation measure 2-3 as follows: ' r I-- • During project construction,all construction,equipment operating on the project + w site shall meet EPA-Ccrtifled Tier 3 emissions standards,or higher according to Ui the following: _ U • Project Start,to December 31,2014:All offroad diesel-powered construction h equipment greater than 50 hp shall meet Tier 3 offroad emissions standards. In addition,all construction equipment shall be outfitted with BACT devices certified by CARB.Any emissions control device used by the contractor; achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a t E Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations. V_ • Post-January 1,2015:All offroad diesel-powered construction equipment a greater than 50 hp shall meet the Tier 4 emission standards,where available. In addition,all construction equipment shall be outfitted with BACT devices certified by CARB.Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations. Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-91 Packet Pg. 305 2. Response to Comments Ms.Terri Rahhal 4 September 9,2011 ✓ A copy of each unit's certified tier specification,BACT documentation,and CARB or SCAQMD operating permit shall be provided at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment. ✓ Encourage construction contractors to apply for AQMD"SOON"funds. Incentives could be provided for those construction contractors who apply for Al2-3 AQMD"SOON"funds. The"SOON"program provides funds to accelerate cont'd clean up of off-road diesel vehicles,such as heavy duty construction e equipment. More information on this program can be found at the following a website: h_pt ,llwww acmd pov/tao/implementation/SOONProgram him N For additional measures to reduce off-road construction equipment,refer to the mitigation measure tables located at the following website: wanv aomd eov/cega/handbook/mitieation/MM intro himl. Mitigation Measures for Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts LL a 2. Based on a review of the GHG Emissions Analysis(Section 5.16 of the draft EIR)the rn �. AQMD staff is concerned about the project's significant GHG emissions impacts. w Specifically,the lead agency determined that a substantial amount of GHG emissions I �. will be emitted during the project's operational phase from transportation sources. ~ Also,the lead agency determined that the project would be inconsistent with regional transportation strategies(e.g.,SCAG Compass Blueprint)intended to reduce vehicle .Q miles traveled(VMT). As a result,the lead agency concluded that the project's to substantial GHG emissions and inconsistent transportation measures result in Al2.4 r. significant GHG impacts. t— Z Further,under SB 375 SCAG is required to develop a sustainable community strategy i w (SCS)as a part of the 2012 RTP that achieves regional GHG reduction targets of 8% _ per capita for the planning year 2020 and 13%per capita for 2035. However,the lead Q agency has not stipulated specific mitigation measures or targets to reduce the substantial(i.e.,approximately 500/0)increase in mobile source emissions allowed under the proposed project. Therefore,pursuant to Section 15126A of the CEQA 4 Guideline and consistent with the SCS the lead agency should minimize the project's c significant air quality impacts by incorporating the transportation mitigation measures d found in the greenhouse gas quantification report'published by the California Air E Pollution Control Officer's Association in the final EIR. 'California Air Pollution Control Officer's Ass«iation. August 2010. Quantifying Greenhouse Gaz Mitigation Measures. Accessed at http:/A w .capcm.org/wp-contcnt/upload&2Ol0/11/CAPCOA• Quanti fixation-Report-9-14-Final.pdf Page 2-92 The Planning Center I DC&E October 2012 Packet Pg. 306 2. Response to Comments ;F 0 �H C [ ° Pu n N y s ° O A � � C r (p LO ' 3 N 7 = N A y r D W n m LL N n 3 ^' m LO N M _ N A mn � � � J c a CO Z W U F t Q C y t _ V R Q Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino Page 2-93 Packet Pg.,307 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. H! .R L S Q N N N_ W LL Q N A F- c Q U) n F 2 W U F- F- F Q C d E t U c6 Y Q Page 2-94 The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 A iweo Ma08rr; 6.B:m 2. Response to Comments Alt. Response to Comments from South Coast Air Quality Management District, dated September 9, 2011. Al2-1 The South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) concerns regarding the significant unavoidable air quality and GHG emissions impacts identified by the project are noted. Specific responses to the Commenter's request for additional mitigation to reduce significant impacts of the project are below. As appropriate, the SCAQMD comments and guidance will be incorporated into this Final EIR. Al2-2 Mitigation Measure 14-4 was incorporated in the Transportation and Traffic section of the EIR. This mitigation measure requires that traffic control plans be prepared to minimize construction-related traffic congestion. It has been revised to incorporate the mitigation measures suggested by the commenter. However, it will be 01 impossible to completely avoid driving construction trucks away from congested c streets or residential and school land uses on at least some portion of the vai construction route. The majority of truck trips would occur during the first phase of construction,when grading is occurring. After this phase, truck trips would be fewer. ry The suggested mitigation measure to direct trucks away from congested streets and sensitive land uses has not been incorporated. w U. Mitigation Measure 2-1 in the Air Quality section of the EIR requires enhanced a- fugitive dust control measures. In accordance with the Commenter's request, a Mitigation Measure 2-1 has been modified (see Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft R EIR). m c Per the traffic study, traffic signals are warranted for existing traffic conditions at Q Palm Avenue at 1-215 Freeway northbound and southbound ramps. Caltrans m improvements and these intersections include traffic signals, which are anticipated to be installed in Year 2012. The traffic signals timing will be coordinated when z installed and no mitigation is necessary. UJ x Mitigation Measure 10-1 in Section 5.10, Noise, requires that the construction U contractor properly maintain and tune all equipment so no additional mitigation is F warranted. q Use of trucks that meet 2010 emission standards for haul activities is not feasible because the construction contractor for the proposed project would likely E subcontract for haul services and therefore does not have direct control over the R model year trucks used by subcontractors. In addition, 2010 model year trucks are 4 too new to be readily integrated in most truck fleets. For example, even trucks accessing the San Pedro Bay Ports are not required to have 2007 model year or newer trucks until 2013 and 2010 model year or newer trucks are not required to be used at Ports until January 1, 2023. Given that State and Federal grant programs have been utilized to upgrade the drayage fleet at Ports, it is highly unlikely that trucks in construction fleets can be mandated to have newer trucks without equivalent financial incentives. Al2-3 Mitigation measure 2-3 has been revised based on the recommendations of SCAQMD for off-road construction equipment (see Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR). Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-95 2. Response to Comments Mitigation measures listed online were considered and applicable measures were incorporated. The comment on SCAQMD's Surplus Off-Road Opt-In for NO„ (SOON) fund is noted. The SOON program provides funds to accelerate cleanup of off-road diesel vehicles, such as heavy duty construction equipment. Because there is no calculation for measuring a decrease in emissions based on this recommendation and no way to monitor emission reductions, CEQA does not consider this a mitigation measure; however, the comment is noted and is included in the administrative record. Al 2-4 SCAQMD's concerns regarding the significant unavoidable GHG emissions impacts identified by the project are noted. The increase in transportation-related GHG emissions generated by the project has been quantified and was accounted for in F the determination of significant unavoidable GHG emissions impacts of the project. The EIR considered applicable single-family residential measures listed in the U) California Air Pollution Control Officer's Association's (CAPCOA) Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures. Alternatives to the project that would involve N changes in the land use intensity, type, or locations (CAPCOA reference LUT-1 through LUT-8) to reduce GHG emissions were considered in Chapter 7 of the Draft W EIR,Alternatives to the Proposed Project, in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines. LL a The commenter suggests implementing the transportation mitigation measures N y found in the CAPCOA Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures. The EIR did not identify transportation-related mitigation measures because no feasible r measures are available that would affect the alternative mobility choices available for m residents in the proposed low-density, single-family residential neighborhood as the Q area is currently underserved by transit service and personal vehicles are the U) primary mode of choice (CAPCOA reference TST-3). Pedestrian and bike routes on surface streets are available and will be provided within the development (CAPCOA z reference SDT-1 and SDT-5); however, these alternative modes of transportation w may not be the primary mode of choice for suburban commuters as a result of the jobs-housing disparity in the local San Bernardino area. The Sustainable czi Communities Strategy (SCS), adopted by the Regional Council of the Southern F California Association of Governments (SCAG), addresses the land use connection q in reducing passenger vehicle VMT (vehicle miles traveled). Because of the project's location and posted speed limits on major arterials that allow access to the site, a d neighborhood electric vehicle (NEV) network would not provide the needed E connectivity between jobs and housing (CAPCOA reference SDT-3). In order to encourage residents to purchase the cleanest vehicles available, a new mitigation measure 16-10 has been added based on the recommendations of SCAQMD for GHG emissions to encourage residents to purchase plug-in electric hybrid vehicles or all electric-powered vehicles (see Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR). 16-10 Garages shall be electrically wired to accommodate electric vehicle charging. The location of the electrical outlets shall be specified on building plans. Page 2-96 The Planning Center I DC&E October 2012 2. Response to Comments LETTER R1 —Group Letter (3 pages) The following form letter was submitted independently by 27 individual parties as listed in the commenter's summary table in Section 2, including each sender's address.The original letters are on file at the City s Community Development Department and are available for viewing upon request. ,wd,es:�g�t(�N/2NA�U/NO Savo � :r C dme —� to Terri Rabbal,City Planner m City of San Bernardino N LO Community Development Department N 300 North"D"Street•3"Floor " San Bernardino.CA 92418-OMI W RE Spring Traits Specific flan SP 1001 and Tract Map(TTM)No. 15.576 LL CL V) Dear Ms.Rahhal: N 1 am opposed to the proposed Spring Trails Projiml and fund the conclusions in the Draft IIR faulty,misleading,not enforceable and a detriment to the Verdemonl Community F" and city. Some of my main conecros and oppositions are: C- l. Zoning change from 5 acre parcels to 10,800 sq.foot lots W 2. Annexing of Iraq into the city from the county r 3. Density-306 homes vs 38 Z 4. Not all the land for the access roads has been acquired 5. project does not have a right of way across Martin Ranch Road W 6. All access will be put onto Little League = 7. Only Freeway access will be PalmAve. UU 8. 216.7 acres will be graded over a three month period 9. Half of the development will be slopes up to 30' F 10.Orading will put 17,929 woks on local roads-total traffic added each day Q 1,494 vehicles P,hI 9 •• It."...levels of(pollutants during grading)above CA Air Resource Board thresholds..." E 12. Project will produce"...significant and unavoidable increase in greenhouse V gasses..." to 13.Project will be built on 3 active faults 14.Faults will be under roadways-earthquake may hinder evacuation a 15.Project site experiences 70100 mile windslerosion and fire hazards 16.Project site is in High Fire,High Wind Zone 17.Two fires on site in the last ten years-2003 and 2007 Is.Chemicals,pollutants,and pesticides will leach into ground water-degrading the water in nearby wells of Meyers and Martin Ranch residents 19.Bulk of the project is cul-de-sacs=fire hazard for defense and evacuation 20.Creates more imperious surface for run off-2003 flood deaths at KOA 21.Detention Basins serve as parks-hazard to children-vector control-pcsdcides Spring Trailr Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-97 Packet Pg. 311 M 63.rn ,r- 2. Response to Comments 22.Noise levels above acceptable levels for sensitive receptors for 3 years 23.Sensitive receptors at North Verdemont Elem.,Palm Elam.,Caesar Chavez Junior High,Western Reg.Little League,Verdemont Comm Ctr and Lib. 24.Population figures are not based on national standards of 2.3 children per _ household N 25.Population should be 1320 vs. 1028 26.School population estimate too low—should be 700 vs.214 I- 27.School study numbers are outdated-2009 numbers 28.Fees will only cover 13 policemen for I year 29.Average non-violent police response time not accurate per neighborhood experience 30.Fire response time is above National Standard of 8 minutes(flashover) fD -study cites 12-13 minutes N 31.Fire force has been reduced in the city by 25% `- 32.All fire mitigation is based on"fire Planting Zones" -not enforceable with current city code and not maintainable with current '+l LL LLMD a 33.Schools at capacity-will necessitate portables or busing- 34.Parks as detention basis in an area that regularly has heavy rainfall is lifo- y threatening I 35.Drawing do not show the split equestrian-pedestrian nails R1-t � 36.Enforcement of off road and ATV will be impossible-already not able to confd enforce in the local washes-will encroach into National Forest 'L 37.Will make"...unacceptable levels of service..."on local roads and Freeway CL U) 215 ramp 38.Palm and 215 northbound already rated as"F'-project will move southbound to"F` ~ Z 39.Cul-de-sacs limit and impede traffic flow 40.Project MUST cul-de-sac Meyers Road-parents will bypass islands and planned access routes to take kids to school U 41.3100 vehicles per day is not an accurate number as their population numbers H are wrong F- 42.Project needs to construct sound walls on west and southern sides of projects Q to protect current homes from the massive increase in traffic and noise 43.Traffic study does not factor in already approved projects between Little eai League and Palm,the 900 Unit University Hills Project and the CA State peak E travel hours which differ from the normal peak business hours 44.Water infra-stmcmre needs to have all phases in prior to the oonstruction of homes Q 45.With the zone costs of water it is doubtful that the HOA will keep zones watered 46.New large water line up Meyers must not reduce lanes or stop normal flow of already low pressure volume-fire hazard evacuation,no water for fire flow 47.Will be unable to curtail forestry creawres and trash problems 48.Will be unable to mitigate wind and trash problems Page 2-98 The Planning Center I DC&L+ October 2012 Packet Pg. 312 2. Response to Comments 49.Project abuts National Forest on three sides-fire fighting costs will be billed back to the city-under state legislative consideration 50.Grading will be during the windy season-3 water downs per day will not stop blowing dirt-weekendsM 51.Project includes S.B.K-rat habitat and is home to an endangered Swainson's a hawk 52 Project will only be replacing"native trees"-loss of 2000 non-native trees- wind breaks,erosion barriers,habitat 53.Study states"...long term irreversible change to environment..." 'a 54,study claims they will wash down all trucks and tires prior to entering site N enforcement? 55.Fire Mitigation Plan relies so1e1 on"planting zones" fO N 56.Types of plants will be restricted-how is this enforceable? 57.HOA and LLMD will never be able to police,cite,mitigate and fund this 58.Fuel modifications zones MUST be in place for Phase 1 � 59.There is no mitigation for high winds and fire t LL Our fires come during Santa Ana winds. p, 60.Fire resistant building materials must be used on entire tract RI-1 h 61.Contrary to study report,fires come from all directions cont'd 62 Slopes make fires spreader quicker and fire fighting more difficult-125.1 acres in of slope F_ 63.Cut-de-sacs will slow fire fighting and impede fire engines G 64.No parking in bulbs of cul-de-sacs will not be enforceable-police cut 52 ' 'Q officers this year,code short handed and rarely responsive to calls 65.Plan allows wood fences and outbuildings 66.States that a structure tire will require 15 firemen-that equals 5 stations in r S.B:if that many are available during wildfire season Z 67.Study predicts flames up to IOD feet W 68.Greenbelts will only be inspected for the first 5 years-then what? _ 69.Vent problems-technically will only be able to vent on one side U 70.Study stales insulation will be cellulose,shredded newspaper,recycled cotton- highly flammable F- 71.Need to require a hose bib on each side or every house Q c Please enter chest concerns;and challenges into the comments on the Spring-Trails � Project. Thank you for your time and consideration of my concerns. U U Sincerely, m Namc.V.a2.nXJ��L7.d_.LY7�.t3"1 Address y�f`7 1.f� /lve-y es A/ L SAk �vA�f�:n�d� Lip- q�`fa7 Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-99 Packet Pg. 313 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. N L F C L Q N cm N N Cr W LL a. y ((\r N F OI C .y a F- z w x U Q F F Q V C W L U R V Q Page 2-100 •The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 2. Response to Comments r R1. Response to Comments from Group Letter, dated variously September 8 through 11, 2011. R1-1 The comment letter contains numerous concerns of neighboring residents. To comprehensively address the concerns, topical responses have been provided. Comment numbers from the letter are referenced to assure that all items have been addressed). Zoning/Land Use Changes (Re: Comments 1-3) The project site and the 26.4-acre parcel that is being annexed along with the proposed project are both prezoned as Residential Estate (RE) under the City's zoning code, which allows development at the density of one dwelling unit per acre. r Upon approval of the project, the land use and zoning designations for the project c site would be redesignated to"Specific Plan."The Specific Plan zoning and land use Q designation is consistent with the existing prezoning for the site (one dwelling unit rn per acre). As discussed in Chapter 3 of the Draft EIR, Project Description, the lots range in size from 10,801 square feet to 18.3 acres. The average lot size is 29,000 N square feet. The clustering of development to areas that are most feasibly N developable causes density to be greater in these areas. However, the average X density of the entire 352.8-acre project site would be 0.87 dwelling units per acre. LL Although the proposed development would not be consistent with the County's a General Plan Land Use designations, the proposed project is consistent with the N N City's prezoning for the project site. Upon project approval and annexation to the City, the site's general plan land use designation and zoning would be consistent with the City's General Plan and zoning. The project site is within the City's Sphere of Influence (SOI), which means it rn currently is subject to the County's General Plan and Zoning Code development regulations but it is also an area of probable expansion by the City. When the project z site was added to the City's SO[ in 1996, as approved by the Local Agency w Formation Commission (LAFCO), it was prezoned by the City for RE. As stated in California Government Code, section 56375 (a)(7) "[tjhe decision of the commission 0 with regard to a proposal to annex territory to a city shall be based upon the general plan and prezoning of the city." a Acquisition of Land by Project Applicant (Re: Comment 4-5) s The primary and secondary access roads are part of the project description, are U described in Section 3, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, and are shown on a Figures 3-3, Development Plan, and 3-6, Circulation Plan, of the Draft EIR. The City of San Bernardino Fire Department requires two access roads be built to this project in order to provide emergency access and evacuation routes. In addition, per mitigation measure 14-3 in Section 5.14, Transportation and Traffic, in the Draft EIR, the access roads must be built to the Fire Department's minimum standards prior to the placement of combustible material on the project site. The secondary and primary access roads require the acquisition of remaining parcels in order to complete the entire roadway. The applicant is working with the land owners of these properties to finalize these transactions. The proposed Development Agreement for the Spring Trails Specific Plan specifically outlines the I Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-101 i Packet Pg. 315 6.B.m 2. Response to Comments necessary steps for the acquisition of the parcels for primary and secondary access roads. Access to the Project Site (Re: Comment 6-7 40) The majority of Little League Drive would not receive all of the trips from the project site. Future residents of the proposed project would access the project site via one of two main access roads. The primary access road would connect to an extension of West Verdemont Drive and enter the project site west of Little League Drive. As shown in Draft EIR Figure 5.14-6, Projected Trip Distribution, about 1,700 hundred average daily trips (approximately 54 percent) would travel along the primary access T road and onto Little League Drive to access adjacent roadways and Interstate 215 (1- F 215). The remaining 1,400 average daily trips (46 percent) would travel along the secondary access road to the frontage road. The segment of Little League Drive that c would receive the majority of the vehicle trips would be improved to accommodate (n the additional traffic from the proposed project. These vehicles would only travel for a short distance on Little League Drive before crossing the freeway. N N To prevent residents of the proposed project from entering Meyers Road from the 0� secondary access road, Meyers Road will either be turned into a cul-de-sac to the ED east of the secondary access road (with gated emergency access only) or the a secondary access road will be designed to have a median that prevents access to U) v, Meyers Road. These design options are included in the Spring Trails Specific Plan (Figure 3.9). The majority of the project traffic would access 1-215 at Palm Avenue but this is not Q the only freeway access for the proposed project.A portion (11 percent) would travel <n north along Kendall Avenue/Cajon Boulevard to access the freeway at Glen Helen Parkway. The traffic study includes analysis of traffic impacts at the Palm Avenue z ramps at 1-215. With the proposed roadway improvements, the Palm Avenue/1-215 w interchange would operate with acceptable LOS values during both the morning and evening peak hours for both the northbound and southbound ramps. a Construction Phasing and Grading (Re: Comments 8-10) a As described in Draft EIR Section 3.4.6, grading of the access roads and the d proposed project site would take approximately three months in the first year of E construction. This time estimate was used to determine a conservative number of truck haul trips per day during the grading period. Assuming this length of time, there would be approximately 249 truck trips per day (an equivalent of 1,494 passenger cars). The environmental impacts of these truck trips are discussed in Draft EIR Section 5.14, Transportation and Traffic, in the Draft EIR. Approximately 121 acres are on slopes of 30 percent or more, 112 acres are on slopes between 15 and 3 percent, and 119 acres are on slopes of 15 percent or less. As shown in Draft EIR Figure 5.1-1, the proposed project focuses development on flatter areas. The Spring Trails Specific Plan included development restrictions and © development guidelines for areas with steep slopes. Although the Specific Plan's development restrictions supersede the Hillside Management Overlay Zone Page 2-102 The Planning Center I DC&E October 2012 2. Response to Comments requirements, development on slopes of 15 percent or more would be subject to development restrictions (see discussion of Impact 5.8-3 in the Draft EIR). Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Re: Comments 11-12, 50) General concerns about the proposed project's impacts related to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions are mentioned in the comment letter (comments 11 and 12). These environmental impacts are discussed full detail in Draft EIR Sections 5.1, Air Quality, and 5.16, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The concern over these issues is noted and will be forwarded to decision-makers for their consideration. _N t6 Construction dust generated during grading would be reduced by watering down soil during grading activities during all phases of the grading process. The first phase of construction would be limited to rough grading, installation of backbone S utilities, and the construction of detention basins. After this, individual lots and v°i improvements would be completed sequentially starting from the south and moving north. During construction, even when grading is not occurring, all exposed surfaces N must be watered at a minimum of every three hours and at least three times a day (Mitigation Measure 2-1). Soil stabilizers will also be used to control wind erosion M (Mitigation Measure 2-1). Additionally, grading activities would only occur when Fu LL winds are 25 miles per hour or less (Mitigation Measure 2-1). These steps effectively a reduce dust and debris from being blown around on the project site by high winds. y a N This mitigation measure is enforced by the City during construction site inspections. Earthquakes and Related Hazards (Re: Comments 13-14. 19. 39) As shown in Draft EIR Figure 5.5-3 and mentioned in the comment letter, active fault u°i lines cross the project site. As required by the California Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, no residential structure is allowed within 50 feet of a known active z fault line and all homeowners would be notified of the hazards via disclosures in their w title reports and the project CC&Rs. The geotechnical studies prepared for the proposed project site (Kleinfelder 2000 and Leighton Associates 2009) have 0 included design parameters and development restrictions for the project site that are Q consistent with the Alquist-Priolo Act, the Seismic Hazard Mapping Act, and the state a and City's building code. See Response to Comment Ail-11 for a discussion of additional investigations required prior to final map recordation. Hazards associated m with San Andreas Fault splays are discussed in Draft EIR Section 5.5, Geology and E soils. The project site has been designed to meet the Foothill Fire Zones Emergency Access Design Standards, as discussed in Draft EIR Section 5.14.3. Compliance with these design standards is required to ensure the site is accessible as possible and can be evacuated as efficiently as possible during emergency situations (Comments14, 19, and 39). See Table 5.14-6 in Draft EIR Section 5.14, Transportation and Traffic. Fire and Wind Hazards (Re: Comments 15-17. 19, 32, 39, 45 48, 55-67, 69-71) The project site is subject to high winds and is susceptible to wild fires, as has been documented in the Draft EIR (Section 5.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials). Items Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-103 Packet Pg. 317 2. Response to Comments 15, 16, 17, and 55 of the comment letter mention high wind and fire concerns. See Response to Comment A7-2 for a response to fire hazard concerns and Response to Comment A7-3 for a response to high wind concerns. Items 56 and 57 of the comment letter state concerns related to enforcing the maintenance of the fuel modification zones. As discussed in A7-2, the enforcement of these fuel modification zones would be a joint effort by the homeowners, the HOA, the LLMD, and the San Bernardino Fire Department (responsible to annual report approvals). The fuel modification zones would be completed during the second construction phase (as described in the Spring Trails Specific Plan). The first phase of construction would be limited to rough grading, installation of backbone utilities, and the construction of detention basins. The plantings required to establish the fuel modification zones would have a better chance of surviving if planted during the second phase of construction,when additional site disturbance would be minimal. Therefore, they are m included in Phase II of construction, not Phase I. a In regards to high winds blowing onsite trash (comment 48), as described in the Specific Plan, the outdoor trash receptacles are entirely enclosed with a solid fence N for aesthetic purposes. This would also help reduce the amount of trash that is Fl- blown around by the wind. If high winds are blowing on trash pick-up days, the M residents shall not place trash on the curb for pick-up. Per the CC&Rs, residents LL shall call the City of San Bernardino's Integrated Waste Management District (IWMD) a- to schedule another day for trash pick-up (Mitigation Measure 6-8). Public spaces, N N such as trails and parks would be maintained by the LLMD and the HOA. Trash and debris would be removed from these places, reducing the likeliness that it will be ~ blown around in the wind. No additional mitigation measures are needed to control m wind-blown debris. a In response to comments 60, 61, 69, 70, and 71, fire susceptibility of building material and the methods used to determine the direction of fire approach are z discussed under responses A7-2 and A7-3. They are also discussed in full in the LU Draft EIR (Section 5.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials) and the Fire Protection = Plan (Draft EIR Appendix G. Home would be constructed with fire-retardant materials as discussed in Section 8 of the Fire Protection Plan (Compliance Matrix). The required number of hose bibs per house is two per the City of San Bernardino c Development Code. However, due to the high fire risk in this area, a minimum of four hose bibs will be provided per house and included in the specific plan (Chapter 3, Development Code, of the Specific Plan). The types of insulation used in houses would be restricted to those allowed by the Foothill Fire (FF) Zones Overlay District. r Paper-faced insulation would be prohibited per the Specific Plan (San Bernardino Municipal Code Chapter 15.10).The use of the materials listed in Draft EIR Mitigation Measure 16-4 would be subject to approval by the Fire Chief. The direction fire may originate from is based on the historic weather and fire data used in the BEHAVE fire modeling software. Cul-de-sac roadways have been designed to specifically accommodate fire engines, as shown on Draft EIR Table 5.14-6 (comment 63). Parking on cul-de-sac bulbs is not allowed per Foothill Fire Zones Overlay District code and would be enforced by Othe City. Page 2-104 The Planning Center I DC&E October 2012 Packet Pg. 318 2. Response to Comments Per the Specific Plan, fencing and other nonresidential structures would be constructed of noncombustible material (comment 65). In response to item 66, it is not clear where the Draft EIR states that 15 firefighters would be required to combat a structure fire. Groundwater Contamination (Re: Comment 18) Comment 18 mentions the concern of possible drinking water contamination due to onsite runoff carrying chemicals and pesticides into groundwater wells. As N discussed under Impact 5.7-4 Draft EIR Section 5.7, Hydrology and Water Quality, R onsite runoff would be captured in catch basins, inlets, and storm drain systems and F would be conveyed to three extended detention basins for water quality treatment a) and detention. A final water quality management plan (WOMP) will require the implementation of operational best management practices (BMPs) that would vii reduce the potential for onsite contaminants to affect offsite water wells. See Draft EIR Section 5.7 for additional discussion of this issue. LO N N Drainage and Flooding (Re: Comments 20-21 34) ED LL A hydrology and drainage study has been prepared for the project site, which a addresses existing and proposed drainage patterns and describes site design N requirements to detain and treat onsite flows in either detention basins or rain gardens. The increase in impervious surface is factored into the analysis in the hydrology study, which is incorporated into Draft EIR Section 5.7, Hydrology and Water Quality, and included in its entirety as Draft EIR Appendix 11. Q The use of detention basins as parks is a common practice to create a multipurpose open space. The detention basins are designed to hold floodwaters from a 100-year z flood and would have an emergency spillway that would convey 1,000-year flood w flows for their respective drainage area. As the detention basins would be = maintained by the Homeowners Association, it would be their responsibility to notify Q the public and close detention basins when they are not safe for use. 4 Noise (Re: Comments 22-23.42) c d Comments 22, 23, and 42 indicate concern regarding noise exposure for sensitive land uses and existing residences surrounding the project site. The exposure of sensitive land uses to construction and operational noises is discusses in full detail d in Draft EIR Section 5.10, Noise. The Draft EIR concluded that exposure to construction noise sources over an approximately three-year period would be a significant and unavoidable project impact. This concern is noted and will be forwarded to decision-makers for their consideration. Operational noise impacts, which include traffic and stationary noise sources, were quantified in the analysis in Section 5.10, Noise, and determined to be less than significant. Project-related traffic at buildout year 2013 would cause noise levels to increase by more than three decibels (dBA) on the new access roads, along Little League Drive, and Belmont Avenue between Little League Drive and Magnolia Avenue. However, ambient noise levels would not exceed the City's standard for Spring Trails Specifzc Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-105 Packet Pg. 319 2. Response to Comments outdoor noise in a residential area (65 dBA Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL)) under year 2013 with project conditions along these roadways. Residential uses would generate stationary noise sources on the project site, including heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units from residential units, and noise from landscaping activities. HVAC units and other equipment would be acoustically engineered with mufflers and barriers to ensure that no exceedance of the City's noise standards would occur. Population (Re: Comments 24-25) The population estimate used in the Draft EIR is based on the 2009 Department of Finance (DOF) factor of 3.34 persons per household specifically for the City of San Bernardino. The DOF updates population statistics on an annual basis and this information is used by the California Housing and Community Development Department to determine regional housing need. The most up-to-date information at U) the time of EIR preparation was 2009. The Department of Finance 2010 data for County of San Bernardino average household size information is 3.34 and the 2010 N average household size of the City is 3.30. The proposed project's population N projection of 1,025 persons is therefore reasonable and conservative. w LL Public Services a V) N i School Services(Re: Comments 26-27, 33) `r... ~ These comments request that different student generation rates be used to m determine future populations and that the analysis should update the existing school Q enrollment information. The student generation rate is based on the rate used by the m San Bernardino City Unified School District (SBCUSD) for single family detached residential units at the time of the EIR preparation. The estimated student z populations (102 elementary students, 52 middle school students, and 60 high Lu school students) are accurate projections and are based on typical methods for = addressing environmental impacts to school facilities. Q The existing enrollment figures are from academic year 2008/09. The most recent c data available is for academic year 2009/10. To provide a response to this comment, the enrollment information for 2009/10 was researched. For North Verdemont Elementary School, the enrollment in 2009/10 was 494, compared to 518 in 2008/09 E (a decrease of 24 students). For Cesar E. Chavez Middle School, the enrollment in 2009/10 was 1,054, compared to 1,077 in 2008/09 (a decrease of 23 students). For Cajon High School, the enrollment in 2009/10 was 2,913, compared to 2,636 in 2008/09 (an increase of 277 students). This does not change the impact level significance assessment of school service impacts in the Draft EIR. The proposed project would still require the payment of school impact fees per Senate Bill 50 and these fees would constitute full mitigation of school impacts as established by that legislation. Police Services (Re:Comments 28-29) It is assumed that comment 28 is referring to developer impact fees required to be paid by the project applicant ($183,506.18). The fees contribute to fund equipment Page 2-106 The Planning Center I DC&E October 2012 Pact'Pg320 li.Bm 2. Response to Comments and facilities. Police staffing is funded through the City's General Fund Property tax generated by the proposed project would contribute to the City's General Fund on an ongoing-basis. The San Bernardino Police Department (SBPD) has stated that the proposed project would cause a slight increase in calls to the project area. In regards to response time, the information used in the Draft EIR is based on the data provided by the SBPD for the Northwest Police District. Fire Service (Re: Comments 30-31, 49) As stated in the Draft EIR, the fire response time is greater than the average N response time for the San Bernardino Fire Department (SBFD). The implementation CO of the Fire Protection Plan is meant to reduce the risk of wild fires and to delay their F advance, giving SBFD ample time to reach the site. See Response to Comment A7-2 for a discussion of the fuel modification zones and their purpose. Q As stated in the Draft EIR, the SBFD has an automatic aid agreement with the San Bernardino County Fire Department (SBCoFD) and is also a participating agency in N the California Master Mutual Aid Agreement, in which participating local and state agencies agree to provide mutual aid in dealing with disasters including fire, flood, and earthquakes. Vegetation fires on the project site would result in a multiagency LL response, which would include the US Forest Service under this agreement. a Financial agreements pursuant to the Mutual Aid Agreement are beyond the scope N of this EIR. m r Parks and Recreation (Re: Comments 35-36) °' In response to item 35 of the comment letter, the equestrian/pedestrian trail is not m shown as a split trail because it does not separate equestrian and pedestrian uses. Both would be able to the use the single eight-foot wide trail. The trail is shown in z Draft EIR Figure 3-8. LU x In response to Comment 36, trail access and routes will be clearly marked, encouraging hiking, biking, and equestrian activities. All-terrain vehicles (ATV) would not be allowed to use these trails and trails would not extend into the US Forest a Service lands. Per the Specific Plan, all onsite trails would have fencing or other markings that indicate their location and designated use. The trails would be jointly maintained by the HOA and the LLMD. These organizations would reinforce the use L of these trails and would restrict ATV use of these trails or access to the US Forest R Service land from these trails. B Traffic(Re: Comments 37-38.41.43) In response to Comment 41, the projected number of vehicle trips (3,149) is based on land use, not population. The generation factor used is the standard generation factor used by traffic engineers for single-family residential land uses (as found in the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation, 8'"edition, handbook). In response to Comment 43, the traffic analysis completed for the proposed project uses projected traffic growth from the East Valley Traffic Model to determine the proposed project's impact in combination with expected growth in the area. 1 Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino Page 2-10 7 Packet Pg. 321 2. Response to Comments Determining traffic during the morning and evening peak hours is consistent with the San Bernardino Congestion Management Plan methodology. California State Traffic peak hours apply only to state highways and are not used to determine traffic impacts. Water Utilities (Re: Comments 44, 46) As discussed in the Draft EIR, the remaining offsite water improvements (Phase II of the Verdemont improvements) must be constructed prior to the issuance of any residential building permits on the project site. The water improvements for the three pressure zones on the project site would be constructed in phases that coincide with .E the construction of utilities of each zone and must be completed prior to the issuance of residential building permits for their respective zone. The phasing of the infrastructure and development would not put the site at risk for fire. Development c would only occur in the zone that has water availability. Before development would U) be allowed in the next zone,water infrastructure must be in place. co LO N There would not be any new water lines constructed in Meyers Road. As shown in `= Figure 3-11 of the Draft EIR, and discussed in Section 5.15, Utilities and Service Q� Systems, a 20-inch water line is proposed as part of the Phase II Verdemont LL improvements. This line would connect the offsite infrastructure with the onsite o infrastructure. It would travel through the primary access road, not Meyers Road, N f' and, as mentioned above, it would be constructed prior to the issuance of any l`✓ residential building permits. It would not cause delays in evacuations. In addition, it F would be connected to a future water tank and would not affect existing fire flow. m 'C Q Wildlife and Biological Impacts (Re: Comments 47, 51-52) w r In response to Comment 47, the issue of the urban-wildlife interface is discussed z under Impact 5.3-1 in Draft EIR Section 5.3, Biological Resources. Under CEQA, a w significant impact would only occur when sensitive species are threatened by the x proposed development. However, the proposed project's potential to attract all a types of wildlife is of concern for residents and wildlife agencies because of the nuisance and dangers associated with these interactions. Mitigation measures have a been included to reduce the attraction of wildlife to the project site. When properly •• enforced, mitigation measures would reduce the opportunities for urban-wildlife impacts to occur. E U Impacts to biologically sensitive species and trees are discussed in Draft EIR Section 5.3, Biological Resources, and Section 5.17, Forestry Resources (Comments 51 and 52). As discussed in Section 5.17, Forestry Resources, the eucalyptus trees do not meet the definition of "forest land" as defined by Section 12220(g) of the Public Resources Code (PRC) because it does not support, and has not historically supported, 10 percent native tree cover. In addition, the eucalyptus trees are prime fuel for forest fires;the removal of these trees is requested in the Fire Protection Plan because it would greatly reduce a prominent fuel source for fires. ® Impacts San Bernardino kangaroo rat (SBKR) and Swainson's hawk habitat are discussed in Section 5.3, Biological Resources, in the Draft EIR. Although the proposed secondary access road partially covers SBKR habitat, no SBKR's have Page 2-108 The Planning Center I DC&E October 2012 NOMMI 2. Response to Comments been observed on the project site during biological surveys. Because the SBKR habitat is also jurisdictional waters of the US, both the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) mitigation to offset these impacts is proposed (Mitigation Measure 3-6). Swainson's hawk, a state-listed threatened species, and other raptors use the site for foraging. However, despite the relatively large number of raptor species observed on the site over the years, it does not appear that the site is frequented for long periods of time by raptor species. The project site lacks expansive grassland habitat and is generally dominated by dense Riversidean sage scrub and chaparral. These habitats do not provide particularly favorable conditions for foraging raptors due to the lack of prey visibility. It can therefore be concluded that the site provides only marginally suitable foraging habitat for raptors and that these species would be more likely to rely on other areas F for the majority of their foraging activities. rn .E- Although development of the project site would change the existing terrain and v¢i natural erosion barriers, the project site would be designed and landscaped to avoid erosion (see Section 3 of the Specific Plan, Development Standards). Also, the LO N project is required to comply with the Clean Water Act, which requires an Erosion N and Sediment Control Plan, and the City's Foothill Fire Zones Overlay District, which W has development standards for erosion. LL IL Other (Re: Comments 53, 69) N N The commenter is correct in stating the EIR concludes that project implementation r would result in "significant irreversible changes" Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines rn Section 15126.2(c),these changes are listed in Draft EIR, Chapter 9. a Comment 69 states "vent problems - technically will only be able to vent on one side." The meaning of this comment is unclear and therefore a response could not z be drafted. m I U Q F Q:r 1 i c E L U < a j 3 i j Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-109 Packet Pg. 323 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. N H W C L Q co N N N w LL CL (n N F C L CL F z w x U Q F Q Y G E U R r Q Page 2-110 The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 Packet Pg324 2. Response to Comments LETTERR2—Edward Behrens (2 pages) Terri Rahhal From: edwant behrens<ersdb2000 @yahoo.com> sent: Monday,September 12,201110;12 AM To: Terri Rahhai,sigrid.behrens @wcpd.org Subject Comments re-Spring Trails'FIR to LL F- Comments regarding"Spring Trails" Environmental Impact Report. r- September, 2011. to We have been residents of San Bernardino and the North Verdemont area for over twenty years. t During that time we have watched the growth and development of this area. 41) We have commented on the ill-advised project now called"Spring Trails"in the past and this N Environmental Impact Report does little to allay our concerns and fears. Mu TRAFFIC: t` While any Increase in residences creates additional traffic,the number of residences to be created in a this project and the extremely limited access will only greatly increase the traffic flow in the area R2-2 w and on existing streets,particularly in the morning and evening when residents might be expected to to be leaving and returning home. I' rn c It should be noted that there are three schools(two elementary and one middle school)directly on Q what may be reasonably expected to be access routes of the new residences and in the moming and to afternoon these roads are already crowded with parents and school buses dropping off or picking up R2-3 r: students. Additional residential trac of the volume which might be expected will greatly negatively impact w ffi safety and increase pollution and congestion. x U DRAINAGE AND POTENTIAL FLOODING: F The area where my residence stands has flooded in the past,only eight years ago.Our property and Q the property of many of our neighbors as well as many streets flooded.This was after a fire,but fires in the area occur with alarming frequency. R2-0 m E If drainage from additional paving and building in the area is directed down into our area,flooding will occur again,and not just during a"one hundred year"rain and perhaps not only after a fire. 03 Even now,during heavy rains drainage capability is sometimes at or near capacity and my Q observation after living here over 20 years is that additional run off cannot be managed without damage to existing facilities and residences. CEMETARY DISTURBANCE: It is my understanding that old and historic graves are located in the project area. While the current view of some in our society may be that nothing should stand in the way of I R2-5 making money,our society should be respectful of history and those that have gone before us. I Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino Page 2-111 Pat:610§ -325 2. Response to Comments The unnecessary disturbance of graves should be abhorrent to everyone and should neither be R2_5 accepted or allowed. mnrd WILDLIFE: The North Verdemont area is and has always been rich with wildlife.Beside such animals as raccoons,skunks,hawks,snakes of many variety and owls,we have personally observed deer,bear, w mountain lion,and bobcat living and thriving in this area. M Disrupting and destroying the habitat of these animals for commercial considerations,especially R2E when many of the current residents moved here specifically for the rural environment offered, c again should be unacceptable.The mere setting aside of some other piece of land does nothing to a moderate the harm done to the location in question and the people and animals currently living r!? there. to LO N CONSTRUCTION: While the disruption of the lifestyles and enjoyment of current residents property from construction R2-7 is somewhat temporary,it is still perhaps measured in many months or years,and is a real factor to LL consider. a rn The pollution and safety concerns that may be expected from construction equipment and the T movement of large vehicle over relatively narrow and winding residential streets cannot be R2-8 r` dismissed. rn c L Physical damage to those same street from the use of large vehicles and heavy trucks will occur and I rn will be permanent.This city is already graced with too many"pot holes"and cracked streets to add R29 additional unnecessary stress and damage to the roads,which may then have that damage F exaggerated with the coming of winter rains. Z w n We have witnessed a number of similar projects in the general area,all of which promised to U mitigate any damage or disruption but still resulted in heavy pollution,blowing dust and debris R2-10 Q being left for residents to clean up and damage to existing roadways,in some cases a distance from F the actual project. Q c CONCLUSION: It is my conclusion and recommendation that this project has been and remains unacceptable for a number of reasons.No adequate and acceptable solutions to the problems this project presents have m been found. Q The environmental impact report should not be accepted and the project disapproved. Edward and Sigrid Behrens 6868 Little League Dr. San Bernardino,Ca 92407 z Page 2-112 •The Planning Center I DC&E October 2012 Packet POO 2. Response to Comments R2. Response to Comments from Edward Behrens, dated September 12, 2011. R2-1 Comment acknowledged. This comment will be forwarded to decision-makers for their consideration. R2-2 The traffic generated by the proposed project is discussed in Chapter 5.14, Transportation and Traffic, of the Draft EIR. Although the proposed project would contribute traffic to the local roadways, all City roads would operate at acceptable levels of service during the morning and evening peak hours with the implementation of mitigation measures (see Table 5.14-7 of the Draft EIR). As identified in the Draft EIR (Section 5.14, Transportation and Traffic), freeway .5 segments along 1-215 would experience unacceptable levels of service with or ~ without the proposed project. c L R2-3 As discussed in Section 5.14, Transportation and Traffic, of the Draft EIR, the only ai intersections near North Verdemont Elementary School and Cesar Chavez Middle School that would have an unacceptable LOS, and require improvements, are the N Kendall Avenue/Palm Avenue intersection and the Palm Avenue/1-215 northbound and southbound ramps intersections. As stated in Mitigation Measure 14-1, the Kendall Avenue/Palm Avenue intersection would either be constructed through a fair LL share fee program or by the project applicant. The Palm Avenue/1-215 northbound d and southbound ramps intersections improvements would be constructed with a fair N share fee program. With these roadway improvements, the intersections would CU operate at acceptable levels of service. rn R2-4 See the discussion on flooding and drainage under Response to Comment A5-9. Q C R2-5 Section 5.4, Cultural Resources, discusses the Meyers Family Cemetery and mitigation measures to avoid disturbance to the grave site. Concerns regarding the z potential presence of the Meyers Family Cemetery on the project site were raised w during the public comment period on the Notice of Preparation/Initial Study x (November 24, 2011, through December 23, 2011) and at the public scoping a meeting (December 14, 2009). In response, the analysis in the cultural resource report was expanded to include ground-penetrating radar, which detects objects a buried underground. The findings indicated that two rectangular anomalies are present in the expected location of the Meyers Family Cemetery. At this time, it is not known whether the cemetery site would require grading. Mitigation Measure 4-5 E provides options for preserving the burials depending on whether the area would be disturbed or not. If the site of the presumed coffins must be graded, the project a applicant would work with the Meyers family to excavate the remains with respect. The applicant would hire a qualified archaeologist to develop a work plan that would include an agreement with the Meyers family as to the disposition of any human skeletal remains. R2-6 Since the project site is undeveloped and partially within the San Bernardino National Forest (SBNF), the presence of biological resources has been a priority issue of discussion in the Draft EIR. Section 5.3, Biological Resources, of the Draft ® EIR, identifies which sensitive species and types of native habitat are present on the project site. Mitigation measures have been proposed to reduce the proposed project's impacts to sensitive species and native habitat. Section 5.3 also identifies Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-113 Packet Pg. 327 2. Response to Comments mitigation measures to reduce the negative impacts associated with the urban- wildlife interface. Discouraging animals from entering the site in search of food would help reduce impacts to other, non-sensitive species in the project area. As discussed in Response to Comment A4-17, the design of the proposed project did consider habitat avoidance measures first, minimization measures second, and mitigation measures last as reasonable and feasible range of mitigation measures. This commenter's opinion regarding the proposed mitigation will be forwarded to decision-makers for consideration. 132-7 The environmental impacts of construction are fully addressed in Section 5.2, Air Quality, 5.10, Noise, and 5.14, Transportation and Traffic. As concluded in Draft EIR, Chapter 6, Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts, the project's construction- related air quality and noise impacts are significant and unavoidable. Decision- makers must adopt a statement of overriding considerations to approve the project c in light of these significant impacts. (r) c� 132-8 Section 5.2, Air Quality, addresses construction-related air quality impacts. As N identified in the Draft EIR, after the implementation of mitigation measures, concentrations of PM10 would still exceed the local ambient air quality standard Q� (AAQS) threshold at the onsite sensitive receptor. Concentrations of criteria air M LL pollutants at offsite sensitive receptors would be below AAQS thresholds. a N In regards to construction traffic, see the discussion of construction traffic impacts in Section 5.14-3 of the Draft EIR. Construction-related traffic, such as haul trucks, would generate 249 truck trips per day (a passenger car equivalent of 1,494 trips). The generation of construction traffic would potentially impact the intersection of Z Kendall Avenue and Palm Avenue during the AM and PM peak hours. Therefore, rn construction vehicles are prohibited from using this intersection during these hours. Additional mitigation measures, including the development of a construction traffic z plan, are also required, as described in Section 5.14 of the Draft EIR. Other than haul w trucks, large construction equipment would be transported to the project site and x remain on the site until work was completed. Construction traffic impacts would be a less than significant. F- Q R2-9 Construction impacts to traffic flow are discussed and mitigated in DEIR Section 5.14, Transportation and Traffic, in the Draft EIR. Mitigation Measure 14-4 requires preparation of a construction management plan for the proposed project, including E E the requirement to establish truck haul routes on appropriate facilities. To address y the concerns in this comment, Mitigation Measure 14-4 is supplemented as follows: a Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall prepare a construction traffic plan that shall be approved by the City of San Bernardino Public Works/Engineering Division. The construction traffic plan shall: • Prohibit project construction traffic from using the Kendall Drive/Palm Avenue intersection during the morning peak hour (7:00 AM and 9:00 AM) and the evening peak hour (4:00 PM and 6:00 PM) • Establish truck haul routes on the appropriate transportation facilities. Page 2-114 •The Planning Center I DC&E October 2012 Packet Pg. 328 . .m 2. Response to Comments • Require that the Proiect developer Provide a photo or video inventory of existina haul route roadway conditions Prior to the commencement of any grading or construction activity and a subsequent inventory upon development completion Interim condition reports shall be provided to the Public Works/Engineerina Division as specified in the Construction Traffic Management Plan. The developer shall be reauired to repair any construction-related roadway damages as determined by and to the satisfaction of the Public Works/Engineering Division. • Provide Traffic Control Plans (for detours and temporary road closures) that N meet the minimum Caltrans, City, and County criteria. L • Minimize offsite road closures during the peak hours. CL • Keep all construction-related traffic onsite at all times. R2-10 All of the construction-related air quality, noise, and traffic environmental impacts N have been mitigated to the extent feasible, as described in the Draft EIR. This concern is acknowledged and will be forwarded to decision-makers for their consideration. U. a N r 'i a Z Z w x U Q H H Q c v E t U R Q Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-115 Packet Pg. 329 6.B.m 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. N .5 LOL F- C Q tD N N W LL Q 0) y m c L '^Q vI n H Z W m Z U Q F F Q c m E L v m Y Q Page 2-116 The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 gem Pg330 . tt s Bai, 2. Response to Comments LETTER R3-Denise Casas (2 pages) Denise Casas 3695 W.Meyers Road San Bernadine,CA 92407 September 11,2011 w L Ms.Terri Rahhal,City Planner c Development Services Department .a 300 North D Street rn San Bernardino,CA 92418 RE:Spring Trail Specific Plan SP]0-Ol and Tract Map(ITM)No. 15576(formerly Martin Ranch Road Project) W Ui Dear Ms.Rahhal, LL IL Please enter,for the record,my opposition in the proposed Spring Trails Project. 1 live in N an area that would be impacted greatly by many factors if this development is approved. I R3-1 am at the base of Meyers Road near the intersection with Little League Drive. N There are many reasons why I'm opposing this project. All the land needed for this project has not been acquired and the project does not have a right of way across Martin R3-2 'Q Ranch Road. I believe the study is not accurate in the figures reported. The population will be much M-3 F- higher than projected by the EIR. Traffic increases will further tax an already crowded W area by the Verdemont Elementary School and Cesar Chavez school. This area is already R34 a bottleneck that residents of Meyers Road and above have to deal with on a daily basis. _ This traffic study does not factor in the already approved projects between Little League Q and Palm Avenue. These area schools are already capped so any developments being built means that additional children would have to be bused to a different school. I R3-5 Q All freeway,access will be Palm Avenue and they are already overtaxed,with the north r bound onramp already at an"E"rating. This project would bring the southbound ramp to I RM E an-17'rating as well. v m I was here for the fires and subsequent evacuations in October 2003 and October 2007. Q Nothing is mentioned about the 2007 fire. The evacuation in the event of another fire would be drastically hindered with this large increase in population. This arcs RW experiences winds of up to 120 m.p.h.The projected fire response is 12 to 13 minutes. A house will pretty much be completely engulfed and a total loss in that timeframe. Then there is the fact that this project will be build on three active faults,which will be I R3-8 under the roadways(a potential evacuation disaster). Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-117 Packe>`;P� 331*" 6.B.m 2. Response to Comments 1 f This project will produce levels of pollutants during grading-above CA Air Resource I R3-9 Board threshold and will produce"significant and unavoidable increase in greenhouse gasses". This means I'll be breathing this in?? m Our forestry creatures would be pushed back even further. They're already venturing into the lower areas near the Little League baseball field in search of food. They would lose R3-10 more of their natural habitat. .L I have lived here for fourteen years now and plan on staying here the rest of my life. 1'd I Ui R3-11 like to be able to have horses and maintain my acre. Rezoning to allow this project would threaten the lifestyle I moved here for. N N For the above reasons and many more,I feel that this development should not be allowed 04 to proceed. It must be more strictly regimented and monitored. The developer should be made to adhere to the zoning already in place and work within those boundaries set forth. R3-12 LL They should be willing to greatly consider the infrastructure and the impact of the N a. development,not only on the vegetation and wildlife,but also on the community already W in place. 1 ask you to den the approval of this project and to make m concern available to the ~ Y Y aPP P J Y (R3-13 m developer and other developers in this area. L Q Sincerely, � W 2 U Q F- E- 4 c m E U U to Q Page 2-118 •The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 Packet Pg. 332 2. Response to Comments R3. Response to Comments from Denise Casas, dated September 11,2011. R3-1 Comment acknowledged. R3-2 See Response to Comment At 1-17. R3-3 The projected population for the project is based on the most current, area specific persons per household information (please refer to the Population and Housing discussion in the Response to Letter R1) R3-4 The traffic analysis completed for the proposed project uses projected traffic growth from the East Valley Traffic Model to determine the proposed project's impact in F combination with expected growth in the area. As discussed in Section 5.14, c Transportation and Traffic, of the Draft EIR, the only intersections near North c Verdemont Elementary School and Cesar Chavez Middle School that would have an rn unacceptable LOS, and require improvements, are the Kendall Avenue/Palm Avenue intersection and the Palm Avenue/1-215 northbound and southbound ramps N intersections.As stated in Mitigation Measure 14-1, the Kendall Avenue/Palm Avenue intersection would either be constructed through a fair share fee program or by the re project applicant. The Palm Avenue/1-215 northbound and southbound ramps w LL intersections improvements would be constructed with a fair share fee program. a With these roadway improvements,the intersections would have less than significant U) g impacts. w M R3-5 Please refer to the discussion regarding school services under Public Services in Response to Letter RI. Q U) R3-6 See Response to Comment A7-1. The commenter is correct in stating that the proposed project would result in unacceptable service levels at the Palm Avenue/1- x- 215 north- and southbound ramps without mitigation. However, the intersection Z improvements incorporated into the project as mitigation measures would improve LOS to acceptable levels. L) R3-7 See Responses to Comments A7-2, A7-3, and RI-1 for discussions of the fire q analysis methods and fire response times. The commenter incorrectly states that the 2007 fire is not mentioned in the Draft EIR. This fire is mentioned in the site's fire d history discussion in Section 5.6.1 of the Draft EIR. E t U A 133-8 See Response to Comment Al 1-1 t. R3-9 Section 5.2, Air Quality, addresses construction-related air quality impacts. As identified in the Draft EIR, after the implementation of mitigation measures, concentrations of PM,o would still exceed the local ambient air quality standard (AAQS) threshold at the onsite sensitive receptor. Concentrations of criteria air pollutants at offsite sensitive receptors would be below AAQS thresholds. As discussed in Section 5.16, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, in the Draft EIR, the operation of the proposed project would generate greenhouse gases and cause © significant and unavoidable greenhouse gas impacts. However, greenhouse gas emissions are of concern because of the effect they have on Earth's atmosphere Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-119 Paok 2. Response to Comments and potential climate change impact. They would not have direct health effects on humans. R3-10 Section 5.3, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR discusses the proposed project's potential to affect natural habitat and the species in the area. It also discusses the urban-wildlife interface between the proposed project and the San Bernardino National Forest (SBNF). As stated in Response to Comment A4-5, impacts to onsite biological habitat would be mitigated through the conservation of biologically equivalent habitat offsite. Conserving the offsite habitat would allow animals to use it undisturbed by the proposed development. N The City and the applicant understand that the placement of the proposed project adjacent to the SBNF may attract animals to the project site as they search for food. m R3-11 Implementation of the proposed project would not alter offsite zoning, land use, or rn density. Potential indirect impacts of the proposed project on surrounding properties La are addressed in the respective sections of the Draft EIR (air quality, noise, N aesthetics, etc.). The proposed project is consistent with the City's anticipated residential use for the project site as included in the General Plan (pre-zoning for this W site in its sphere of influence). Furthermore, future residents of the proposed project LL would be required to sign an acknowledgment that they are going to reside adjacent n to animal/horse-keeping properties and this statement will be in the proposed N N project's CC&Rs. �. R3-12 The City will take these issues into consideration when making a decision on the � project. In regards to the County zoning and land use designations, the zoning and Q land use topic is discussed in Response to Comment R1-1. When the project site rn was added to the SOI in 1996, it was given the prezoning designation of Residential Estate (RE), allowing a density of one unit per acre. As identified in the comment, z this density is greater than the County's land use designation. The buildout of the w project site under the County's land use designation is discussed as an alternative to the proposed project (Section 7, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR). As discussed, U buildout under the County's General Plan would still require the construction of F infrastructure and the access roads. Depending on infrastructure and roadway costs q and the revenue gained from home sales, buildout under the County General Plan L may not be financially feasible. In addition, the secondary access road would most m likely connect to Meyers Road, contributing traffic to this roadway, which is not E preferred by residents in the area. m R3-13 This comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to decision-makers. Page 2-120 •The Planning Center I DC&E Octoher 2012 Packet Pg. 334 6.B.m 2. Response to Comments LETTER R4—Pascual Cases (2 pages) j { Pascual Cases 3695 W.Meyers Road San Bernardino,CA 92407 September 11,2011 N R F- Ms.Terri Rahhal,City Planner Development Services Department a 300 North D Street rn San Bernardino,CA 92418 N RE:Spring Trail Specific Plan SP 10-01 and Tract Map pTM)No.15576(formerly CN- Martin Ranch Road Project) w Dear Ms.Rahhal, LL a. N Please enter,for the record,my opposition in the proposed Spring Trails Project I live in N an area that would be impacted greatly by many factors if this development is approved. I R4-1 am at the base of Meyers Road near the intersection with Little League Drive. I believe F the study is not accurate in the figures reported. I feel the population will be much higher R4-2 at than projected by the EIR. Traffic increases will further tax an already crowded area by the Verdemont Elementary School and Cesar Chavez school. This area is already a R4-3 °' bottleneck that residents of Meyers Road and above have to deal with on a daily basis. N Not to ment ion,these schools are already capped so any developments being built would I R4-4 I-- mean that additional children would have to be bused to a different school. Z W The 215 freeway tamps at Palm Avenue in San Bernardino are already overtaxed with the north bound onrmnp already at an'F"rating. This project would bring the 114-5 U southbound tamp to an"F rating as well. H t— I was here for the fires and subsequent evacuations in October 2003 and Octotpr 2002 G Nothing is mentioned about the 2007 fire. The evacuation in the event of another fire R4-6 and/or earthquake would be drastically hindered with this large increase in population. d E t With the fires comes the destruction of vegetation to prevent or at least reduce erosion. � The ruin we had on Christmas Day 2003,proved the drainage is not adequate nor was the R4-7 wash below my house maintained to allow for the runoff. Q I have lived here for fourteen years now and plan on staying here the rest of my life. 1'd R4-B like to be able to have horses and maintain my acre. Rezoning to allow this project would threaten the lifestyle 1 moved here for. I feet that this development should be much mom strictly regimented and monitored. The R4-9 developer should be made to adhere to the zoning already in place and work within those V { Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-121 { Packet Pg. 335 2. Response to Comments boundaries set forth. They should be willing to greatly consider the infrastructure and the R49 impact of the development,not only on the vegetation and wildlife,but also on the con'd community already in place. 1 ask you to deny the approval of this project and to make m concern available to the w Y PPm P 1 Y I R4-19 •� developer and other developers in this area. to c Sincerely, C r/7 w N N W LL a. g to ! N n1 C Q N n F Z W 2 U Q F F Q V C d E v m Y V Q Page 2-122 The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 Packet pg;336;' v s m.' 2. Response to Comments R4. Response to Comments from Pascual Cases, dated September 11, 2011. 114-1 Comment noted. R4-2 See the discussion on population under Response to Comment R1-1. R4-3 See Response to Comment R3-4. R4-4 See the discussion of school services under Response to Comment R1-1. y R4-5 See Response to Comment R3-6. L R4-6 See Response to Comment R3-7. rn c R4-7 See the discussion on drainage and flooding under Response to Comment R1-1. m 114-8 Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15131, the scope of CEQA does not cover economic N and social effects of a project unless they directly result in a physical impact. R4-9 See Response to Comment R3-12. LL IL R4-10 Comment noted. y N L f- 01 c Q F Z W 2 U Q N F Q C d E t V R Y Y Q Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-123 Pack Pg�33��, 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. N L F 61 C C. N 04 N N w W LL (L U) N L F C �L Q n z Z W 2 U Q F F Q Y C E V V V Q Page 2-124 The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 P' W- 'N'% 8, ? 2. Response to Comments LETTER R5—Kerry Cranford (1 page) 1 Terri Rahhal From: kerrycranford<kcmnfordS4 @yahoo.com> i Sent: Friday,September 09,2011525 PM To: Terri Rahhal;Kelly-Ch @cisan-berbnardirto.ca.us;Lany.Heastey @ver¢on.net Subject Spring Trails Development N This statement is in regards N the Spring Trails Housing Development Being a new resident of San Bernardino,I am F- completely in"utter disbelief that the City of San Bernardino is even considering giving its approval on allowing a 61 development of this size to move forward- Our home values have"dropped"approximately 35%or more, in the short time we have lived here. I know that the'whole country'is experiencing the same.When I read what I call the"State of San Bernardino County",the numbers of unemployement forctosures,and short sales ranks right up with the nations R51 N highest! .. Our intentions when we moved from Covina,CA was to Purchase a'7arge home that we"aswrtred"would be for future ir) investment purposes.That dream has faded. If we could sell our home right now and make 112 of our current loss N back..."would. Many of my neighbors feel the same way. Now,the City of San Bernardino is contemplating allowing a housing devetopement to be built,in lieu,of all the W "unfavorable"facts that have arose from issues that pertain to and not limited to;public services,geological impacts,road I R5-2 W LL conditions,fire threats,mudslides,wind patterns,schools,and the list goes on. Our area,at the moment can not accommodate the childem who live here when it comes the schools. As I understand they are being bused to other d schools?There are no grocery stores,pharmacies,one freeway off ramp and yet this development will bring a 1,000+ R5-3 N new residents..0 those 306«home selll My question,"DO any of you live near where this development is being y planned?' Like the old saying,'Walk a day in my shoes to experience the truth!" M I � Am I opposed to this developement.-YES! I and many of my neighbors feel that it will place many"burdens"on ALL the ~ present homeowners in the immediate vacinity of this planned development. Just because someone"owns a piece of properly'does not given them the right(s)W'build at wilr there has to be"limitations'. There has to be considerations given to present homeowners.Afterall,they(we)are the ones who have been paying taxes,electing and depending on d individuals such as yourself to"protect"their/our interests within the community where we reside. R5-4 � I urge you to hear us...be aware that we-ARE NOT IN FAVOR-of this development The"significant impact'that this t- proposed development will place on exisiling homeowners is tremendous. It unit change our lives...it will change our day f- to day existence...and NOT FOR THE GOOD! W We,the homewoners have entrusted you and all of the names that appear on this email to make delusions-on our behalf. _ Decisions Nat_should_'benefR"those who have chosen to call this area of San Bernardino..'HOME". U With Respect, H Kerry L C2nfard i Q 3280 Greystone Road San Bernardino,California 92407 G 909-804-8218 d E t U R a CONFIOENTLILITY NOTICE iiv emai anO any alle JxluMa may wmaurmrvWbM�aoardeMal or xgaly DrlviepeGmMVlron.1l YOU ere mi uw aY.oaea I.dDlaat.Yvu em OalrlM Dram umvanP Imwwgan,eaamun,wvPM.wDrtrro,asbmdwn m ue oru»canema u poronnee.am.uw Efe�mYOCmonmblbn RNary Pal,to IISG Mle,to IlSril1511 snd my'appirabN laxa. Ilyou reagwrl mN m error.DMaae ruby Va comer by mpry e- maJ arq Eelak lasmaaaape. i Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-125 Packet Pg. 339 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. N R L F CL N m N N N_ (Y w LL a. CL N L F OI C L U) v/ r- F Z CW G_ U Q F F Q c m E M U A Q Page 2-126 The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 2. Response to Comments R5. Response to Comments from Kerry Cranford (Letter 1), dated September 9, 2011. 135-1 Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15131, the scope of CEQA does not cover economic and social effects of a project unless they directly result in a physical impact. R5-2 The purpose of the CEQA is to provide objective analysis of potential environmental impacts and a process for public disclosure and public involvement in the decision process.This comment is acknowledged. 135-3 See the discussion of school services under Public Services in the Response to Letter R1. The comment about the provision of social services (grocery stores, —' pharmacies, etc.) is noted. The commenter is incorrect that the project only has one freeway access point. There are two points of access to 1-215: Glen Helen Parkway and Palm Avenue. a R5-4 The commenter's strong opposition to the proposed project is acknowledged and so this comment will be forwarded to decision-makers for consideration. 'n N N W LL a. Ul 1- C L Q z Z W V a a d E r a Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino Page 2-127 "Pac'�I�Tet;t�g' 341�s 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. N 157 L S L Q to N N N_ fY W W a. y N L F C L Q F- Z cW _C U r C d E t V N Q Page 2-128 •The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 �Packet Pg�342`-t 6.B.m 2. Response to Comments LETTER R6—Martin and Gwen Heyman (1 page) C� R6.1 7E(n)ZAI (\10 >z N N uj R6-2 a \ = i N R64 �— W � U Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-129 Packet Pg. 343 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. N L F m C Q N to 47 N N w W LL IL U) N �W H C L Q CO) F Z W 2 U Q r Q c a E s U m a Page 2-130 The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 Pacl�e�Pgy344� O :• 2. Response to Comments R6. Response to Comments from Martin and Gwen Heyman, dated September, 2011. R6-1 The commenter's opinion that the proposed housing development is not suited for the project site is acknowledged. 116-2 The operational-related environmental impacts of grading are discussed in Section 5.2, Air Quality, and Section 5.10, Noise. The physical impacts associated with aesthetics and geotechnical/soil impacts are addressed in Sections 5.1 and 5.5, respectively. R6-3 Please refer to specific Responses R1-1 and All-11 for additional information related to emergency evacuation and risks. rn c a rn m LO N N_ _W W LL o. U) © N A F C L a r F- z w x U Q F H Q c m E L V w a Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino Page 2-131 PackeW 3`45 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. N L Q� C Q N N w W LL a U) N m C L Q z Z ¢W G U Q F- F Q c m E r U R Q Page 2-132 The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 I-It Pac400 346 © 2. Response to Comments LETTER 7—Lynette McLean and Richard Kaplan (7 pages) 3793 W.Meyers Road San Bernardino,Ca 92407 September 11,2011 N Terri Rahbal,City Planner 'A Cit of San Bernardino Community Development Department rn 300 North"D"Street,30 Floor � San Bernardino,CA 97418-0001 tZ to RE: Spring Trails Specific Plan SP 10-01 and Tentative Tract Map(TTM)No. 15576 to N Dear Ms.Rahhal: W Zoning Ei The fact that this project even takes up the time and resources of the Planning R7-1 U. Department,when it doesn't even own all of the land utilized in the access wads and has y not been able to secure the right-of-way through key properties for the secondary access, rn is beyond comprehension. The county parcel is zoned for 5 acres per parcel. The county turned down this project and the city should follow suit. Ail surrounding homes are F zoned at the county minimum of one house per 5 acres or residential estate lots at t acre. R7-2 This rezoning and annexation of county parcels is not in the best interests of the current c residents,fire safety,and utilization of current city resources. It does not serve the best .Q interests of the future residents,the Verdemont community,or the city. W r. One-acre lots were not easily defended in the 2003 and 2007 fires and greater density in F- 10,800 square foot lots will only increase the dangers and increase the likelihood of fires R73 W (as quoted in this EIR). 2 Air Ouallity U This project will greatly diminish the quality of air creating,"...levels of(pollutants) F ...above CA Air Resource Board thresholds...". This will continue for the 3 year Q projected build out period and will present hazardous levels to the sensitive receptors in the adjacent areas of: North Verdemont Elementary School,Palm Elementary School, R7 4 Caesar Chavez Middle School,Western Regional Little League,Blast Soccer and the i= Verdemont Community Center and Library. I'm sure if you polled die parents of the s children at these facilities,you would find that they are in opposition to any project that puts their child's respiratory health at risk for the high levels of particulates that will be Q present in the air. In addition the project is quoted as generating,"...significant and unavoidable increase(s)in greenhouse gasses..:' The geological study for the project is troubling. This project is built on three active faults(central portion and northern). Though no homes will be built on the fault line, R7-5 they will be within 50 feet of the faults and many of the roads cross fault lines. What happens when the access roads are destroyed during a possible earthquake? How will the Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-133 6.B.rn © 2. Response to Comments q city evacuate the residents? The true evaluation of earthquake vulnerability cannot be assessed without extensive trenching(per a No CA geologist). This study is R7-6 speculation and wishful thinking at best. The secondary access road has soils that could cont'd be subject to liquefaction in the event of an earthquake. y Hazards - Existing natural hazards play a large role in determining the unfeasibility of this pt development. Winds in the area blow from 60-125 miles per hour,not 60-100 as the study states. The tract is in a State identified High Fire,High Wind Zone. Combine the a two and you have a perfect combination for uncontrollable wild fires as has been the case during the Panorama Fire,the Old Fire,the Grande Prix Fire and the Martin Ranch Fire. R78 Tbc 125.1 acres of slope slated for this project will make fire suppression difficult and dangerous to defend. The fact that the project is surrounded by National Forest on three sides increases the dangers of fire and also increases the difficulty of defending this tract. tY The pollutants that will be carried into the ground water and streams from pesticides, household chemicals,building materials,automobile products,animal waste,and trash I 117-7 LL will degrade the current water table and pollute nearby wells and wildlife habitats. N The proposed two access roads all feed into Little League Drive and the Palm/215 N Freeway entrances,thus creating traffic gridlock and density beyond the design of current traffic flow. The bulk of the project is designed as cul-de-sacs which inhibit the flow of R7-8 traffic in emergencies and make fire fighting not only more difficult,but will slow response times and result in more loss of property and lives. Q Hydrology to The addition of three detention basins that double as parks is negligent and misleading, r With the regular large amounts of rain that accumulate in many single storms during the H rainy season in the foothills it is criminal to designate basins as parks. It will also be Z necessary to have trees planted on the southern edge of each of these basins to mitigate W R7-9 � failure of the basins sides,erosion,and as a deterrent to dust and debris blowing during 2 the windy seasons. The project creates far too much impervious surface over the 216.7 U acres to deal with the large amounts of rainfall and will possible result in the flooding of H homes located down by the creeks and storm drains,which are only designed to meet the N Q run off of current homes c m Norse E Noise levels during construction will be above the acceptable levels for sensitive u receptors for up to three years,and possibly with the current economy more. This has a m strong negative impact on the children at the local schools,athletic organizations,parks Q and playgrounds. There is no mitigation for this. The only noise mitigation is for the one house located in the tract. The project needs to construct sound walls on the site near all R7.10 homes that abut the project or are located across the street from the project. This will not only aid in the reduction of sound,but also cut down on the pollution from dust,dirt and construction activities. In addition,with the increase in traffic,the project will need to put in permanent sound walls near existing homes to mitigate the noise from the influx of 3500 cars per day. Page 2-134 The Planning Center I DC&E October 2012 6t, . 2. Response to Comments Poulation The population projections for the project are skewed and faulty. Regional figures show that each family has 23 children. Normally young families move into new subdivisions. Hence,the population estimates should stand at 1320 for households and 700 children for w school analysis. The increase in population numbers makes the traffic projections within 8741 'R the report faulty and the increase in school age children puts the school enrollments above the current capacity. At present all local schools are capped on enrollment. The pt school studies(2007-2009)are dated and no longer valid. The addition of this project will necessitate the import of portable school modules or bussing outside the to neighborhood. •• U) Public Services a The Public Service section of the study is based on fantasy. Two years ago the city cut 2597o of the Fire Department lowering each firehouse to 3 vs.the National Standard of 4 fire fighters per station. This year the city cut 52 policemen. The city budget is in dismal W shape. The study cites that average police response time is 43 minutes on crime and 46.1 L- on residential theft/non-violent calls. If you speak with local residents you will find that R7-12 (L U) these numbers do not reflect the reality of responses. The study states that the response rn time for fire/emergency calls will be 12-15 minutes. 8 minutes is the time of"Flashover" •� when a house is totally engulfed in flames. How will this increased response time"factor F in"to an area identified as High Wind/High Fire? If one house goes up,what keeps it pr from spreading to the next home based on the proximity of 10,800 foot lots? What will L those extra four minutes mean to a heart attack or stroke victim? The funding given to a the city for law enforcement will only fund 13 policeman for only 1 Year. to n Recreation If the basins are to serve as parks,who will come out and fence the area during storms R7-13 Z I ~ W and high ran off? What about periods when we get three to five days of consecutive rain? What about vector control when the basins have reached saturation and there is 87-14 U standing water? What pesticides will be safe to use in an area where children will be I R7-16 playing? The traits portion of the plan does not show the split equestrian/pedestrian trail. F The trail connectors that the project cites are not in place. Who will be around to make R7-16 Q sure that off road vehicles and ATVs am not ridden on surrounding properties and the National Forest? The 52 laid off officers? The HOA? Currently,San Bernardino police R7.17 m are unable to stop and enforce the riding of ATVs and off road vehicles in the creek beds E and washes:how will the addition of more responsibility improve the situation? v m Transp2rtation and Traffic Q The transportation and traffic section of the EIR demonstrates the total lack of concern for the current residents and the negligence of the builder and the city if they approve this R7-1 8 tract. The intersection of Palm and 215 for the northbound ramp is already rated as"F. The study states that the project will put the southbound ramp also at an"F"rating. Again,the developers do not own all the land shown for access roads. The routing of all traffic onto Little League and Palm will put Palm and Little League in gridlock. The ( R749 numerous cut-de sacs in the project do not make for traffic flow and looking at current trends•will be greatly hampered by the parking of vehicles and motor homes. With the Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-135 Packet"Pg349 6.B.m 2. Response to Comments shortage of police,parking violations are not cited. The project must cul-de-sac West Meyers Road either at the Martin Ranch intersection or at 3793 W.Meyers. The"pork R7.19 chop"option will only create hundreds of u-tutus as parents transport their children to cont'd school and activities. The u-tums,in turn,will create accidents. Meyers must not a become the third access road for this project The proposed access roads cross fault fines I R7-20 R and will fail in an earthquake. With the volume of traffic on the primary access road,the ~ development needs to put a sound wall on the Meyers face to mitigate sound,light,and R7-21 green house exhaust. The Traffic Study does not take into account the developments I R7-22. c north of Meyers between Palm and Little League that have already received approval,the a Univ.Hills Project(that is approved-900 units),and the Cal State Traffic peak hours that are MWF every hour on the hour and TTH on the half hour every hour and a hall I R7-23 Ln u) N N The water for this project must not be put in"in phases"and must be complete prior to I R7-24 bringing any building materials on site due to the high fire danger. When there is no I R7-25 power there is no water in this area. Fall's Santa Ana's often disrupt power in the area L- e statement that the HOA and LLMD will pay to water greenbelts E- for up to four days. Th W ® is wildly optimistic. Once residents see what"zone water charges"are they will agree to R7-26 N cut back or cease watering green belts. The LLMD maintenance of greenbelts is a faulty R claim. LLMD has been unable to maintain current greenbelts on a much smaller scale. } With the cutbacks of city parks and maintenance staffs to below bare bones this 19 m maintenance claim is pure fantasy. When the water fine is run up W.Meyers Road the city needs to insure that there are two lanes accessible at all times,due to fire danger and R7-27 `L emergency access. The city also needs to insure that during this phase that full water pressure will be available at all times to the Meyers residents,again fire danger. r. Trash with respects to wind and wild land creatures will be unmanageable. Local { P- residents in the lower portions of Verdemont have not been able to solve the wind and R7-28 W tmsh problems. They will not be able to mitigate the wind. Trash days will become g creature days(from the National Forest). Creature incursions call for more police calls. U a Forestry and Environment F A high-density project of this scope should not abut the National Forest The proposed a wild life corridors are over roads! The animals will become road kill. The city should R7-29 strictly enforce the"no grading during nesting season." On previous projects this has not been enforced. This project is removing over 2000 trees. There will be hawk's nests• owl's nests,and we do have an endangered Swainson's hawk in the area. The I u enforcement of the dog-leash law will be impossible and dogs will venture into the R7-30 m National Forest and creatures will come out of the forest and kill and eat the cats and dogs and then everyone will be up in arms. The secondary access road runs through identified S.B. K rat territory. The water used in landscaping will draw animals out of the forest and into the development during the dry season. The project will be eliminating 2000 non-native trees without replacement. Between the grading and the R7-31 elimination of vegetation the study states that it will create,"...long term irreversible change to the environment..:' Perhaps unknown to the city and planning,almost all the current residents in Verdemont moved up here for the proximity to the forest and the existence of native vegetation and open spaces. The report states that all cocks. Page 2-136 •The Planning Center I DC&E October 2012 B.B.rn 2. Response to Comments including tires,will be washed down of all non-native din and debris prior to entering the I R7-31 site. Who will be inspecting and monitoring this mediation? cont'd Fire Mitigation Plan N Probably the most reckless portion of the study is the Fire Mitigation Plan. The entire •� plan is based on the premise of regulated and enforced modification zones. In a city that FL is not able to enforce standard,every day major code violations this premise is ludicrous and criminal in its implications. The HOA and LLMD will not be able to make residents R7-32 comply with the"Approved Plant list"inspect all front,side and back yards; mediate c- all violations;trim;weed;and abate violations. The HOA and LLMD will not be able to N maintain or fund watering of the three zones. Contrary to the"Plan"modification zones must be in place for the first phase of the project. The development must have fire N resistant building materials on all homes,notjust the outer edge homes. Fires have come from all directions. The Plan states that fires have only come from the east. The best fire-break for the project would be an exterior road on the outer perimeter of the project. �U More than half of this project is slopes. Slopes bum more rapidly. Fire response time R17-33 tL, exceeds the National Standard and permits"Flashover." Cul-de-sacs will slow fire a suppression in that engines will have to circulate around the tract to reach some houses as the fire spreads. Illegal parking on the cull-de-sacs will prevent fire engines from entering.The plan will permit wood out buildings. The plan will permit wood fencing. F Plan states that a structure fire,i.e.one house will require 15 fire fighters. In San R7-34 Bernardino this means 5 stations. Will that many stations even be available in fire season 5 or a wild land fire event? Santa Ana winds come from all directions and are not limited ra to the north and east as the plan states. The plan predicts that flames will reach 100 feet. What mitigation is there for this? The plan stales that green belts will be inspected and mitigated May 1 and Sept. 1. Since 2003,1 have had to contact the city and county F regarding fire abatement and it has taken anywhere from 5 weeks to 6 months to have fire W hazards abated. In fact,the developer of this tract has had to be cited every year since 2003. So much for abatement and responsibility. The plan states that there will be no = roof vents on wild land or foothill sides. In this development that is three sides of every U Q house. The plan states that there will be no turbine vents. Who will inspect and enforce R7-35 this? What about all house fans? The EIR states that they will be using cellulose, c shredded newspaper or recycled cotton for insulation. These are highly flammable options. On meeting with Fire Marshall Dupree last week,he found these options unacceptable. There is no mention of requiring residents to clean out gutters. With the E high winds and factoring in the fact that the homes abut the National Forest,perhaps this U would be a wise requirement,though,how would one enforce it? The plan calls for only ro two hose bibs on each house. Might I suggest from experience after my rebuild from the Q 7003 Old Fire,that each house should have bibs on all four sides. Lastly,I know from experience(I personally approached sales offices of new developers)that prospective buyers are not informed about the High Wind High Fire Zone rating. I would suggest that all sales people be required to tell prospective buyers,prior to escrow,the dangers of living in this area. Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-13 Packet Pg. 351 i 2. Response to Comments Conclusion In summary,this project is not safe in terms of fire,traffic and evacuation during a catastrophic event. The city will be unable to provide adequate basic public services to support this community. Geology and hydrology make this proposal a danger to current w and future residents. The negative environmental effects of the grading and building 117-36 � process will endanger the lives and health of current residents and local children. The F traffic created by this project will put the entire area in gridlock and serve to discourage people from moving to the area and cause current residents to relocate. The destruction •� of habitat land and the conversion from 5-acre parcels to 10,800 sq R lots will a detrimentally impact the wildlife and the life style of local residents. to to N N N_ Sincerely K W t/ LL v:Yl� a Lynette McLean Kaplan y /1itt� 3793 W.Meyers Road in San Bernardino,CA 92407 F• m c a rn Richard Kaplan 3793 W.Meyers Road F- San Bernardino,CA 92407 W U Q H F Q :7 c d E U m Page 2-138 •The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 " Pac eYP935 2. Response 6Comments ?� !}\ % \ a § � m LO Cm / U. Im � ( m & § § / « k JCa � Spring Tra±s APln 2£ #! City f San Bernardino -azr&a9 ? M.N�: 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. N F- m C a m LO N N_ le W LL CL N N F Ol C Q F Z W 2 U a a d E u u Y Y a Page 2-140 •The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 2. Response to Comments R7. Response to Comments from Lynette McLean and Richard Kaplan, dated September 11, 2011. R7-1 See Response to Comment At 1-17. R7-2 As discussed under Response to Comment R1-1 (land use and zoning heading),the project site is currently subject to the development regulations of the County's land use designation (Rural Living —5 acre parcels [RL-5]). However, it is also part of the City's SOI and prezoned under the City's zoning code for Residential Estate (RE), which allows 1 unit per acre. The inclusion of the project site into the City's SOI was approved by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) in 1996. The SOI w L expansion and prezoning of the project site as RE land use are reflected in the City's r General Plan, which provides guidelines for appropriate development of the City into the future. The proposed land use is consistent with the City's General Plan visions a for the site. �o R7-3 See Responses to Comment A7-2 and A7-3, as well as the discussion of Fire and 'c N Wind Hazards in Response to Comment Letter R1. cli ac R7-4 The commenter's concerns regarding the significant unavoidable air quality and a GHG emissions impacts identified by the project are noted. Localized air pollutant Q. impacts to sensitive receptors, including schools, in the vicinity of the proposed co y project were analyzed. As identified in the dispersion modeling for the proposed project, receptors outside the boundaries of the proposed project site would not be exposed to elevated concentrations of air pollutants. Onsite receptors and regional criteria air pollutants and GHG emissions generated by the proposed project that Q affect the nonattainment designations of the South Coast Air Basin were considered rn significant unavoidable impacts of the proposed project. Mitigation measures are r incorporated in the EIR to reduce potentially significant impacts of the project; z however these impacts would remain a significant and unavoidable. LU x R7-5 See the discussion of earthquakes and related hazards under Response to Q Comment R1-1 and Response to Comment All-11. ~ Q R7-6 See Responses to Comment A7-2 and A7-3, as well as the discussion of fire and wind hazards in Response to Comment Letter R1. E E R7-7 See the discussion of groundwater contamination under Response to Comment Ri- 1. The proposed project's impact to the water quality of adjacent habitats is G discussed in Responses to Comments A5-9 and A5-10. R7-8 As noted by the commenter, project-generated traffic would use Little League Drive and Palm Avenue to travel to and from the project site. As discussed in Response to Comment R1-1, the local roadways would experience an increase in traffic but impacts would be reduced to less than significant impacts with the implementation of mitigation measures. In response to the concern about emergency access, see the discussion of earthquakes and related hazards and fire and wind hazards under Response to Comment R1-1. R7-9 See the discussion of drainage and flooding under Response to Comment RI-1. Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-141 Pakef,]?g 355 mrt 2. Response to Comments 137-10 Due to distance, noise impacts from project construction to the North Verdemont Elementary School, a sensitive receptor, would be below 55 dBA Lq and would not cause adverse noise impacts to children, or disrupt activities at the school. Construction-generated noise would increase the ambient noise environment to homes in the vicinity of the project site. Overall project-related construction activities would take approximately three years to complete, however, noise impacts at a given receptor would be intermittent as construction moves around the project site, and as the center of activity moves according to the construction phase. Because of the overall duration of construction activities and intensity of noise produced from heavy construction equipment running continuously, project-related construction activities would result in significant noise impacts at nearby existing residential uses. m Due to the site size and topography that slopes down towards the nearby homes, sound walls would not be very effective, resulting in temporary noise barriers with c lengths of several hundred feet and heights above 12 feet. Mitigation Measures 10-1 a through 10-6 were included to reduce noise generated by construction activities to N the extent feasible: LO N N 10-1 The construction contractor shall properly maintain and tune all construction equipment to minimize noise emissions. FZ 10-2 The construction contractor shall fit all equipment with properly operating N mufflers, air intake silencers, and engine shrouds no less effective than as y originally equipped by the manufacturer. m F= rn 10-3 The construction contractor shall locate all stationary noise sources (e.g., generators, compressors, staging areas) as far from offsite residential receptor locations as is feasible. 10-4 Construction activities, including haul trucks and deliveries, shall be limited w to between 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM Monday through Saturdays, except on W federal holidays. _ v 10-5 The project applicant shall post a sign, clearly visible onsite, with a contact F name and telephone number of the project applicant's authorized ¢ representative to respond in the event of a noise complaint. E 10-6 The construction contractor shall install temporary sound blankets at least six feet in height along the boundaries of the onsite residence. Y Due to the number of soil haul trips that would be required, amount of heavy construction equipment needed, and duration of construction activities, construction noise impacts to homes adjacent to the project site would remain significant and unavoidable. As for long-term operational noise impacts, the proposed project would generate 3,149 average daily trips. The noise analysis demonstrated that when the project is fully operational in 2013, project-related traffic would cause noise levels to increase o by more than 3 dBA on existing homes along Little League Drive, and Belmont Avenue between Little League Drive and Magnolia Avenue. However, while noise increases would be greater than 3 dBA, resulting in perceptible noise increases, the Page 2-142 The Planning Center I DC&E 0aober 2012 2. Response to Comments future ambient noise levels would not exceed 65 dBA CNEL to receptors along these roadways. Implementation of the proposed project would not exceed thresholds, and therefore noise impacts would be less than significant. R7-11 Seethe discussion of school services under Response to Comment R1-1. 137-12 See the discussion of police and fire services in Response to Comment 111-1. As stated here and in the Draft EIR, the information on response times was obtained from the San Bernardino Police and Fire Departments. Based on the correspondence with the departments at the time the Draft EIR was prepared, the project's impact to services was found to be less than significant with the implementation of mitigation measures and payment of impact fees. The mitigation for the proposed project includes participation of the project applicant in the fair- m share funding for the continued operation and maintenance of the Verdemont Fire Station. A one-time fair-share contribution equivalent to the Community Facilities rn District Number 1033 "in-lieu fee" established by Resolution Number 2004-107 of the Mayor and Common Council would mitigate the long-term impact of the project on N emergency services of the Fire Department. In addition, as discussed in Response to Comment R1-1, the implementation of the Fire Protection Plan and the fuel o! modification plan is meant to slow the rate fire spreads on the project and lessen the LU fire intensity. The houses are also designed to deter fire through the use of non- Q. flammable building materials and insulation. ) A It should be noted that per CEQA, significant public service impacts occur when the � proposed project would require the construction of new or expanded facilities to maintain service, which would cause environmental impacts. The proposed project Q would not require the construction of new facilities but would contribute funding to U assist in funding long-term operations at the existing fire and police stations. Z R7-13 As mentioned in the drainage and flooding discussion in Response to Comment R1- w 1, detention basins are commonly used as recreational spaces. The maintenance and operation of these would be the responsibility of the LLMD and HOA. The HOA a the will be responsible for closing access to the detention basins during peak storm periods. Future residents will be notified of the hazards related to the detention basin a and their restricted uses in the individual property title reports and in the proposed project's CC&Rs. During periods of heavy storms, the detention basins would not be used as parks. The hydrology study describes the design of the proposed detention E basins as being modeled off the anticipated flow rates that would occur during a w 100-year flood. Each detention basin also includes an emergency spillway that Q would convey 1,000-year flood flows for their respective drainage area. 137-14 The purpose of detention basins is to slow and filter runoff water before it enters the offsite drainages and creeks. Contrary to retention basins, they would not hold standing water for long periods of time and attract vectors to the area. 117-15 The pesticides used at residences on the project site would be typical pesticides used in residential areas. If pesticides are used on the detention basins to control O weeds or insects, they would be the same as those used on residential lots due to their proximity to residential homes and their use as public space. Spring Tradlr Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-143 2. Response to Comments 137-16 See the parks and recreation discussion under Response to Comment R1-1. R7-17 See Response to Comment A4-22 regarding the project's impacts of US Forest Service lands. R7-18 See Response to Comment A7-1. The commenter is correct in stating that the proposed project would bring the LOS at the Palm Avenue/1-215 north- and southbound ramps to unacceptable levels. However, the intersection improvements incorporated into the project as mitigation measures would improve LOS to acceptable levels. 137-19 As discussed in Response to Comment 112-2, the City's local roadways, including Little League Drive and Palm Avenue, would experience an increase in traffic but impacts would be reduced to less than significant impacts with the implementation a of intersection and roadway improvements. See Table 5.17-7 in Section 5.14, rn Transportation and Traffic, in the Draft EIR, for the projected levels of service at local intersections with the proposed project and improvements. N N_ The greatest number of units on a cul-de-sac in the Specific Plan is eleven units. W This would not cause a substantial amount of traffic on a single cul-de-sac.There are W LL also four primary local roads on the project site that would have sufficient space for Q onsite traffic to reach one of two access roads during rush hour periods. In addition, ) per the Specific Plan development code, parking would not be allowed on the bulbs of cul-de-sac streets and all cul-de-sac streets have been designed to accommodate fire engines. L Q As described in the access to the project site discussion in Response to Comment R1-1, making Meyers Road a cul-de-sac would be one of two options to prevent access to Meyers Road from the project site. z w 137-20 See Response to Comment At 1-11. x U R7-21 In response to the request to place a sound wall along the project site's southern < boundary to eliminate noise impacts, see Response to Comment R16-10. It is a assumed that this request is to control operational, long-term noise impacts. The majority of the noise created by the residential development would be from vehicles, which would not exceed the 65 dBA level. Residential land uses do not typically E generate high levels of noise. The proposed project would also not generate R excessive amounts of light. The nearest lots are approximately 250 to 300 feet away a from the closest existing residences along Meyers Road. As discussed in Section 5.1, Aesthetics, of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would incorporate the guidelines of the International Dark Sky Program and the City's development code. The design guidelines of the Specific Plan also contain lighting requirements. All exterior light would be shielded and directed inwards to reduce light spillage onto adjacent properties. Greenhouse gas exhaust would not be reduced by a sound wall. Greenhouse gases do not affect humans directly but cumulative build up in the I atmosphere and cause global warming. If the commenter was referring to other air pollutants, please see Section 5.2,Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, which describes how operational concentrations of criteria air pollutants do not exceed the ambient air I quality standards and operational air quality impacts are less than significant. a i Page 2-144 •The Planning Center I DC&E October 2012 a . 2. Response to Comments 117-22 See Response to Comment R3-4. R7-23 See the traffic discussion under Response to Comment R1-1. R7-24 See the discussion on utilities under Response to Comment R1-1. R7-25 Comment noted. R7-26 See Responses to Comment A7-2 and A7-3. N R7-27 See the discussion on utilities under Response to Comment R1-1. L R7-28 The Specific Plan Development Standards outline requirements for Trash Collection. As described in the Specific Plan, the outdoor trash receptacles are entirely - enclosed with a solid fence. This would reduce the amount of trash that could be ai blown around by the wind. LO N Also stipulated in the Specific Plan is the following: • The CC&Rs shall include detailed responsibilities of each homeowner for trash LL container drop-off and pick-up, container spacing, as well as penalties for a noncompliance. y • All individual containers must be returned within 24 hours of collection. � To assure that trash and debris is also controlled in common areas (i.e., parks and Q trails) the following development standard has been added to the Specific Plan: N The Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District (LLMD) shall be responsible for trash collection and maintenance within common areas. Procedures shall w detail responsibilities and timing for trash collection (daily,weekly, etc.) and shall = include provisions for forecasted high wind events. U No additional mitigation measures are needed to control wind-blown debris. c R7-29 The commenter raises concerns of biological impacts. Wildlife corridors and onsite £ tree removal are discussed in Responses to Comments A4-14 and A2-11, respectively. Impacts to nesting birds would be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation measure 3-10. Q R7-30 Section 5.3,Biological Resources, discusses the urban-wildlife interface between the project site and the San Bernardino National Forest. The requirement to keep dogs on leashes and cats indoors is a feasible mitigation measure to reduce the risk of house pets attracting wildlife. Enforcement of this rule would be monitored strictly by the HOA. 137-31 Tree removal and replacement is discussed in Response to Comment At-11. O Although grading would cause significant and unavoidable air quality impacts, the removal of vegetation is not a significant and unavoidable impact identified in the Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-145 Packet Pg. 359 2. Response to Comments Draft EIR. The construction contractor is responsible for monitoring the washing down of trucks prior to entering the project site. R7-32 See Response to Comment R7-2 and 137-3 and the discussion of fire and wind hazards under Response to Comment R1-1. 137-33 The Fire Protection Plan uses historic data to determine the worst-case scenario. Fires would come from all directions but those originating in the undeveloped areas to the north and east would pose the greatest risk, based on the data in the Fire Protection Plan. The entire site would be protected from fires equally, no matter the direction from which they are coming. The fuel modification zones are designed the same on all sides of the project site. As discussed in Responses to Comments A7-2, r A7-3, and 112-1, the fuel modification zones are designed to retard the advance fire, _ helping to reduce the intensity of fires and allowing more time for firefighters to reach c the site. The cul-de-sac design is also discussed under Response to Comment R1-1. m In addition, per the Specific Plan zoning, parking on cul-de-sac bulbs and wooden (o fencing would not be allowed. In addition, the Specific Plan encourages N nonflammable materials such as natural stone, approved manufactured or cultured stone, painted or natural brick, precast concrete, ceramic tile, slump block, and fire- W resistant horizontal or vertical wood siding or approved manufactured siding (e.g., M LL cementitious board) on all buildings on the project site. Per the Fire Protection Plan, a wooden exterior structures would not be allowed: "Excluding openings, all exterior N N elements, including walls, garage doors, fences, etc., shall be free of exposed wood (as defined in Chapter 15.10 of the City's Municipal Code, Foothill Fire Zone Building Standards) (Construction and Development Design provision H)." R7-34 It is not clear where the Draft EIR states that 15 firefighters would be required to fight uCL i structure fires. In the event of an intense wildfire, the City's fire department would be assisted by the county and state's fire departments through the Mutual Aid Agreement, as discussed in Section 5.6,Hazards and Hazardous Materials. w x 137-35 See Response to Comment 137-2 and R7-3 and the discussion of fire and wind Q hazards under Response to Comment R1-1. F a R7-36 Comment noted. c v E U U Q Page 2-146 •The Planning Center I DC&E October 2012 Packet Pg. 360 6.B.m ® 2. Response to Comments LETTER R8-Troy and Patricia Kirtley, Gloria Evans, and James V. Quiroz (3 pages) i Ms.Terri Rahhal,city Planner Development Services Department 300 North"E"Street _ San Bernardino,CA 92418 a L September 11,2011 ~ C In reference to the EIR and Draft Specific Plan that have been released for the Spring Trails .Q Development,following are some some concerns that we have that would dramatically affect the area to and we feel should be addressed prior to the approval of either. W LO N EXISTING WELLS We all would like the assurance that our current wells would not be contaminated by the addition of this Of LU development and that the City upon approval of the development would make a guarantee that the U- quality of our wells would not be affected and perform periodic testing at the city's expense to assure R8-1 fry the continuance of healthy drinking water. We would also like a guarantee from the city that if at any w time in the future our wells become contaminated we will be provided with a continued source of safe A I drinking water in the form of a city provided 2"water meter connection and continued water service at no cost,as this could potentially become a huge financial burden on the existing property owners that rn had not been otherwise anticipated prior to the development. Q MAINTENANCE OF LANDSCAPING AND OPEN SPACE AREAS N r We would like the assurance from the City that they will govern the Home Owners Association(HOA) j— and Landscaping and Lighting District(LLMD)that are responsible for maintaining the landscaping and Z W open space areas throughout the development and assure that these organizations will always be R8-2 properly governed and will be performing their duties properly. If at any time either or both of these = V organizations should become dissolvent the City will assume the role of these organizations and Q continue the maintenance accordingly so as to provide adequate fire protection and the desired aesthetics of the planned community. Q c LOT SRE REQUIREMENTS to The Specific Plan indicates a minimum let size of 1 acre,however,it will be averaged throughout the U entire project thus allowing for a minimum lot size of 10,801 square feet or approximately X acre. It @ appears that the lots adjacent to our property are the minimum lot size thus allowing for fifteen Q residences being built directly around our property. When we purchased the property in this area the R 8-3 main appeal was the lot size and ratio of residences allowing for privacy. Under the current zoning the maximum number of houses that would be built adjacent to our property would be three to four as opposed to the proposed fifteen in the Spring Trails Development. We ask that the lot sizes be kept to a minimum of 1 acre throughout the development,thus allowing for the continuance of the rural community we have become accustomed to. 1 Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-147 Packet Pg. 361 2. Response to Comments TRAILS According to Figure 3-8 showing the Trails,Parks and Open Spaces,there will be a 4-foot hiking trail which begins with a trail head directly across the street from our front yard and only travels the R84 (a perimeter of our properties directing the public to meander the edges of our properties,thus allowing •M s no privacy for our residences. We ask that this trail be removed from the trail system. I- fA C FENCES AND WALLS CL We ask that a 6 to 8 foot block wall be constructed along the North and East sides of our properties to I y try and minimize the lack of privacy being brought on by this development. Along with providing R8-5 to privacy,the addition of the block wall would help ensure that trash and debris from houses to the North W) N would not blow into our yards during the high Santa Ana winds that continually blow in this area. IX TWO STORY HOMES IW We ask that the addition of two story homes not be allowed on the properties directly surrounding our ( R8$ rn properties in order to minimize the invasion of privacy and try to allow for a somewhat continuance of w the privacy we have become accustomed to. Its r_ H SECONDARY ACCESS ROAD C0 C We would like to let you know that we have not nor will not allow access across our properties or •� privately owned Martin Ranch Rd. for the secondary access road as depicted in Figure 3-6 Circulation R 8-7 Q Plan. n F MARTIN RANCH RD.ACCESS Z W We would like the assurance that our access from the North end of our privately owned,Martin Ranch = Rd.,to the South end of Martin Ranch Rd.at Meyers Rd.not be altered in any way. We would like to be U assured that we will not be denied this access and our easement of this road not be affected in any way RS$ I-- by the addition of the Spring Trails Development. We also ask that the developer provide electric gates Q maintained by the City in order to allow our access and keep the public off of out private road. C d TRAFFIC ON LITTLE LEAGUE DR. L Currently the traffic on Little League Dr.between Meyers and Belmont is extremely excessive during the N hours of the school beginning and ending with the busses and parents all arriving at the same time along Q with the current residents trying to access this road. It seems that with the addition of a population in excess of 1,000 or an addition of 3,149 daily trips all using this primary access road,this narrow two lane RB-9 road would be a disaster waiting to happen,especially in the event of a fire during these hours. The Draft Specific Plan states there will be improvements to Little League Dr,north of Meyers Rd.,however, there is no mention of improvements to Little League Dr.between Belmont and Meyers. The school property should be modified so as not to allow any cars or busses on this section of the road and the existing road should widened to allow for two lanes of traffic in both directions. Currently cars park on 2 Page 2-148 •The Planning Center I DC&E October 2012 Packet P�� 362.-: 2. Response to Comments both sides of the road and parents and children are crossing this road in all areas,stopping traffic in both I R8-9 directions. It is extremely dangerous at this time and would become even more so with the addition of cont'd this many vehicles. W We strongly urge you to consider all of the above concerns we currently have with the development of '@ the Spring Trails community. We would like to see that this project be completed in a way that R 8-10 I will preserve our privacy and current way of life as much as possible,will not infringe in any Of c way on our privately owned roads and property and will not become in any way a future 'a financial burden on any of the existing home owners. N Sincerely, in N N Troy and Patricia Kirtley APN 0348-111.41-0000 1661 Martin Ranch Rd. W LL IL 4 Z ��1V ' f Troy Kirley Patricia Kitttey F m Gloria Evans C APN 0348-111-28.0000 Q' N 3403 Martin Ranch Rd. n z '49q (� Z Va 't"efa . W Gloria Evans = U Q James V.Quiroz F- N APN 0348-111-40-0000 Q 1681 Martin Ranch Rd. G d L 1 4es V.Quiroz Q 3 Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino Page 2-149 -11 W6 Y*� e 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. q/ L H 07 C Q y fD N N_ W LL IL (n N F C L Ia v, n z Z cW C_ U Q F F Q Y G d E t V R Y Y Q Page 2-150 •The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 �Packef�Pg r36�4. © 2. Response to Comments R8. Response to Comments from Troy and Patricia Kirtley, Gloria Evans, and James V. Quiroz, dated September 10,2011. 138-1 The potential for project runoff to contaminate surrounding groundwater wells is discussed in DEIR, Section 5.7, Hydrology and Water Quality. As described, the residences surrounding the project site are reliant upon well water for their potable water usage and in some cases, these wells are relatively shallow, with a water table of approximately 50 feet or more. Historical farming uses and the related fertilizers and other amendments, however, have not had an impact on the water table. Based on proposed Best Management Practices (BMPs) for both construction activities and long-term operations, as well as stringent regulatory requirements, the DEIR a .R concludes that project-related impacts to water quality would be less than significant. As described, onsite runoff would be collected and treated onsite before discharged to receiving waters. Q N Since the environmental analysis does not indicate a potentially significant impact to groundwater quality, CEQA does not require mitigation such as the measures N requested by this commenter (City monitoring of well water quality and guarantee of water service at no cost if wells are determined to be contaminated). In the event of W water contamination, a determination of the contamination source would be LL necessary, and the resident would have legal recourse to remedy the situation. The a commenter's concern will be forwarded to decision-makers for consideration. n .B R8-2 The HOA and LLMD must be created as specified in the Specific Plan. As a private F development, the City does not have the authority to assume the responsibilities of s the HOA and LLMD. The Spring Trails Specific Plan requires the formation of a Q master and neighborhood HOAs as well as a LLMD. R8-3 The commenter is correct in noting that although the overall site density would be z one dwelling per acre as averaged over the entire site, individual lots could be w substantially smaller. As described in Response to Comment R7-1, lots would range in size from 10,801 square feet to 18.3 acres, and the average lot size would be 29,000 square feet. Adoption of the Specific Plan would allow clustering development within the most developable areas of the project site from both a a topographic and resource protection standpoint. For comparison, DEIR Section 7, Alternatives, evaluates optional development alternatives, including development in accordance with the existing General Plan and Zoning designations. E U A The proposed Specific Plan requires a discretionary approval by City decision- a makers (the City Council) to amend the project site's land use designation. CEQA and the preparation of an EIR is an objective process to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the proposed change. The privacy concerns expressed in the comment, however, are not under the purview of CEQA. The commenter's concerns and preference to maintain larger sites on the Spring Trails property are noted and will be forwarded to decision-makers for consideration. 138-4 The proposed four-foot hiking trail would travel along the northern boundary of the property at 1661 Martin Ranch Road. The commenter's concern is that this would i affect the privacy of residents along this trail. It should be noted that this trail would be used solely for hiking and would not be used by bicycles or horses, which limits Spring Trails Specific Plan Final BIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-151 Packet Pg. 365 2. Response to Comments the noise and traffic on the trail. Generally, CEQA does not address the social impacts of a project unless they result in physical environmental impact (CEQA Guidelines Section 15131). For this reason, privacy issues have not been addressed in the Draft EIR. It should be noted, however, that there will be approximately 265 feet between the existing residence and the proposed housing (approximately 175 feet between existing residence and property line + 75 feet of proposed undeveloped open space on the project site + 15-foot setback on the proposed residential lot). This distance would be adequate to maintain privacy. It should also be noted that the Specific Plan includes design practices that would improve privacy between on- and offsite residents, including fencing, landscaping screens, and avoiding the direct alignment of windows. If it is determined by the City and project R applicant that the trail should be moved, the final trail location and use would be r`- noted in the final tract map for the proposed project. R8-5 The Specific Plan includes both Development Standards (regulations) and Design ai Guidelines for walls and fences. As stated in the Spring Trail Specific Plan, "[w]alls and fences will predominantly be located around the perimeter boundaries of N individual residences where they interface with open spaces, streets, parks, or off- site land uses." Fences would be used along the perimeter of the project site to X maintain privacy of the off- and on-site residents. The design specifications of LL individual walls and fences are not within the purview of CEQA and would be a. determined as development plans go through the design review and building (n permits process.The commenter's requests will be forwarded to decision-makers. R8-6 The Specific Plan Design Guidelines indicate that houses would have a variety of c one- and two-story profiles and have recessed second stories in some places to Q provide privacy. Additional measures to improve privacy would be taken, such as V) requiring windows on second stories to not directly align with windows on adjacent lots, including offsite lots. This detailed review, along with the determination of one- z story and two-story homes will occur in subsequent development and design review w stages of the project. The commenter's requests will be forwarded to decision- makers. R8-7 Comment noted. q R8-8 As proposed, residents would maintain their private access roads along the entire length of Martin Ranch Road. The residents who currently live along Martin Ranch E Road would be able to access Martin Ranch Road from Meyers Road and residents living in the Spring Trails development would not be able to access Meyers Road a (due to the blockades where the secondary access road crosses Meyers Road). The secondary access road would split Martin Ranch Road where the secondary access road enters the project site. However, there is no connection between the secondary access road and the southern half of Martin Ranch Road. The residents that live along Martin Ranch Road to the north of the secondary access road would access their private drive from the secondary access road. There would be no reason for Spring Trails residents to travel on this northern portion of Martin Ranch Road since it would only lead to an offsite residence. Since the southern half of Martin Ranch Road does not connect to the secondary access road, there is no need to install j electric gates. It should be noted that the City would not be responsible for maintaining electric gates on private access roads. Page 2-152 The Planning Center I DC&E October 2012 Packet Pg. 366 2. Response to Comments R8-9 See Response to Comment R16-9. R8-10 Comment noted. N L H Cn C L CL Ln N N N_ W LL a N L F C7 C L CL U) F Z W 2 U Q F Q c v E M 0 m w Q Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-153 PacktPg 367: 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. N L r 67 C Q N LO 04 N N_ w W LL IL (n N L r m c L Q fA r r z w x U Q r F- E v m a Page 2-154 The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 packet Pg 368''; 2. Response to Comments LETTER R9- Hank Mitchell (7 pages) SPRING TRAILS SPECIFIC PLAN f> SP TRACT TENTAIVE TRACT MAP TTM #15576 heU 'y4�N��SO ATTENTION: CO TERRI RAHAL CITY PLANNER FOR: N CITY OF SANBERNARDINO,CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT w 300 N. D ST. " a. SANBERNARDINO,CALIFORNIA 92418 N H CONTENTS: RESPONSE BY : HANK MITCHELL Q TO: EIR OF JULY,2011 FOR TTM#15576 v* MAILED: 9-8-2011 USPO CERT/ RR z W S U Q H F- Q c m E r v m Q Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino Page 2-155 N Paek,�Pg�369 `!, 6.B.m 2. Response to Comments 1 �a Spring Trails EIR,2011 9-1-2011 Responding to EIR of July 29,2011 Hank Mitchell p/o 9837 w SanBemardino,California 92427 909-885-8770 '- F- rn Meyer's Grave Site: CULTURAL RESOURCES a FOREMOST ON THIS PROJECT,is the care and proper handling of the Meyer w Family grave site,known to the Meyer Families,and to the local historians,and also the to local residents;that all due respect and closure be afforded to the families of the Julius N Meyer Clan,established in the late 1880s,that proper and all legal care is given- As a resident,highly involved in the Meyer Family grave site issue,I am very pleased that this issue has been mentioned,located in the initial EIR. I would ask that the w developer meet and maintain an ongoing relationship with the Meyer Family(they have ti written to the developer)and their counsel,to assure proper and legal requirements are a met.This issue is not to hold up the project what so ever,but to give closure to a great R9-1 V) family with deep roots in Verdemont,dating back over 130 yrs. y Of course any monument to this family(naming of streets,parks,trails etc.)and its early developing and planting of crops in the"Spring Trails Sphere of Influence"and or the history of the Meyer family influences;would be voluntary by the developer,but c very much appreciated by those who are proud of,and relish the history of Verdemont, D. with the Meyer Family being one of the more famous and colorful contributors to t? Verdemont's growth. r` I thank the developer and their staffs,and Cogstone,and Terri Rabid,senior planner for City of Sar Bernardino,for their concerns,efforts and findings in the EIR and working W with myself and Nick Cataldo and the Meyer Family. Very Sincerely x Hank Mitchell U a a Infrastructure: c d Safety,Streets,Flood controls,Fire and Emergency Evacuation routes,future build E outs styles and street designs and layouts. This project does not help with any upgrades to the current,aging,less than R9-2 quality,Verdemont Infrastructure in place at this time;but will severely impact that a same current infrastructure. Re: t Streets: Verdemont road ways and their current conditions and currently in use,will not support any heavy traffic necessary in the initial start up of this project,nor will it be able to handle increased flows from noijust the 300+homes on this project,but the future build R9-3 out of over 750+more probable homes that will follow when neighboring acreages are split as this project wants to do and densities increase exponentially. Page 2-156 The Planning Center I DC&E October 2012 6.B.m 2. Response to Comments ONCE'IfIF:CITI'AGREES TO ALLOW'St'CII DENSITI'IN AN RE-I AREA. THE WHOLE HILL SIDE WILL RETnUSALLMEDTO REZONE AND R93 OVER DENSIFV TIIE HILLS OF VERDENIONT,IIIPACfING BEYOND coda REASON,TRE CURRENT INF'RASTRUCPURF.. y Spring Trails NEW ROADWAYS OF: VERDEMONT AVE. ABOVE, AND THE SECONDARY OUTLET:(UN NAMED)TO R94 THE WEST AND BELOW: 1It ST BE PLANNED FOR 25 1R a BU1I.D OCT. C/) #1—CAN NOT LOOP BACK TO LITTLE LEAGUE DR.ONLY; R9-5 REASONS BEING: FOR EMERGENCY PURPOSES DURING FIRE ( N EVACUATIONS #2—MUST BE 4 LANES DUE TO THE FUTURE PROBABLE w BUILD OUT OF 700 MORE RESIDENCES I OR/MUST BE 2 Ras LL ui LANES WITH PARKING ON BOTH SIDES WITH A CENTER fL TURN LANE. w #3 SECONDARY ROUTE MUST BE INCREASED FROM THE EIR STATED SIZE TO AT LEAST 4 LANES SINCE THIS WILL BE THE FASTEST ROUTE FOR FREEWAY ACCESS UNDER °' G NORMAL CONDITIONS CONSIDERING THE FUTURE BUILD OUT OF 25 YEARS,AND FOR EMERGENCY EVACUATION S R9-7 AND FIRE ASSAULT TEAMS AND EQUIPMENT,ARRIVING FROM OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS;OR,FOR ANY MAJOR EVENT, AND THERE HAVE BEEN 3 EVENTS IN 10 YEARS,4 IN 20 YEARS ru AND IT IS A WELL KNOWN FACT THAT FIRES OCCUR IN THIS = AREA WITH DEVASTATING RESULTS. Q MOST FIRES ARE PUSHED BY WINDS BETWEEN 50 AND 100 MPH.THE ROADWAYS STATED IN THIS FIR ARE NOT ~ RM Q SUFFICIENT FOR FUTURE BUILD OUT OR SAFE STREETS DESIGNS FOR HIGH DENSITY TRAFFIC FLOWS OF THE NEXT j 25 YEARS. E #4-MEYERS ROAD WAY MUST BE CUL-DE SAC IN SUCH A u WAY TO USE ONLY IN EMERGENCY EVACUATIONS,AND R9-9 a KEEP OPEN TO THE CURRENT HOME OWNERS UP TO AND INCLUDING MARTIN RANCH ROAD. FIRE EVACUATIONS IN THE PAST HAVE BEEN CAOTIC"IN THE LEAST",WITH FIRE ASSAULT TEAMS AND EQUIPMENT Rs-lo ARRIVING AND RESIDENTS TRYING TO LEAVE(CHOKE POINT BEING LITTLE I,F.AG(TF, DR.,AT I-11E I-215)....THE Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-157 Packet Pg. 371 © 2. Response to Comments ENORMOUS INCREASE IN RESIDENTS AND VEHICLES WILL OVERLOAD THE CURRENT EIR DESIGNED ROADS IN THIS PROJECT AT THE SAME CHOKE POINT. Ryan THIS PROJECT OVER INDULGES WITH TOO MANY CUL DE conl'd N .R SACS AND CREATES AN ENORMOUS SAFETY HAZARD IN AN F EMERGENCY EVACUATION EVENT WITH CONFLICTING TRAFFIC FLOWS(EXITING RESIDENTS WITH BELONGINGS VS EMERGENCY VEHICLES ENTERING). ° rn DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROLS N Lower Canyon flows from this project and other planned projects that will most r" assuredly develop, impacts NEGATIVELY on streams and culverts(Meyer Canyons)due to increased run offs from all new"non-Pervious"(non absorbing)soils 1 w with in this project and any other projects,being channeled from this or other projects to U. Meyer Canyons(East and West)thence flowing to smaller channels,culverts,and iL unprotected roadways from over flows in 100 yr and 50 yr flood conditions. w Ie:Meyer Canyon flows at: •� 1:Meyers Road Culvert ( In sudden storms,develops debris F blockages in heavy flows of 7 inches or more[a known quantity in the past]), hence, rn flooding across Meyers roadway. 2:Belmont ave ( Sits below Meyers road and is only 10% a of Meyer's road culvert in size,and roadway is only less than 2 feet above restricted flows),and will overflow it's culvert and lower levees in a 4 or more inch sudden storm event. F Meyers Creek,from above Meyers Road,is sand and rock and not wide or deep w enough to handle 50 and or 100 year flood conditions.See:'49,,'57,'69,'83,'04 R&11 2 flooding records of less than 50 and 100 year flows. _ Meyers Creek,prior to Belmont ave.and below Belmont ave.,is not improved,nor U will it handle the heavy increase of flows from this project or any other projects,due to the almost 100%change from pervious to non-pervious soils on this project. There are Q no city plans to improve this channel infrastructure,all the way to Cable Creek, _ THUS: The developer of this project and city of SanBemardino would therefore be subject to E possible legal action when flooding occurs, causing property damage and possible injury to lives and or live stocks,since it is on record to the city,of the distinct m probability of this flooding oocurance and legal ramifications there-in. d UNTII.THIS ISSUE IS ADDRESSED: 'I'll I.PROPER CHANNELING OF M1:N ERS CANYONS TO CABLE CREEK.FORA 500/1041 N EAR FLOOD IIIREAT,OF TIIE COMPLETE RIEI'F.R(:ANION(S)F.:(S-r.1ND\YF.Isr FLOOD AND DEBRIS FLOW ALL TIIF,W:kY'I'O('ABLE('REEK,\ND TIIE COP:NT1'OF S%N. BERNARDINO FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL; NO PROJECT FROM 1IAGNOLL('I O 5418 IIN RANCH )IF.SA CAN BE APPROVED.There is already on record,residents addressing the possibility of legal R9�12 action against the city of SanBemardino and city approved developers and/or Page 2-158 The Planning Center I DC&E October 2012 Packet Pg. 372 ® 2. Response to Comments contractors there in(also in sealed postal envelope and dated),due to city of SanBemardino not addressing this issue for the safety of the residents below this alluvial fan flow(that includes slopes near MacAfee canyon over to Martin Ranch Mesa)down to Cable Creek channel. 119-12 to Any impacts to the Cable Canyon Creek to the West is unknown to my self,but wnfd m must have some of the same considerations for adding extra heavy flows from the new, F-- non absorbent(non-0pervious)landscape of this project to a canyon that already has it's rn own problems with flooding with out this project adding to the issue. ALL UPGRADES MUST BE IN PLACE BEFORE ANY C to NEW DEVELOPMENT BEGINS- 04 N Density of Housing V The proposed housing density of this project on the ridges or slopes will definitely I tY impact the natural outlines of serene views from below that have been appreciated for -t3 LL over 250 years by non native and 1500 years of residents native to this area. IL This area is designated by county in 2'h to 5 acre parcels I believe,and the rest of the to area with in the limits of the City of SanBemardino are designated as One(1)Residential t±t Estate per acre(RE-1),and was insisted upon by a gentleman named; Joe Bonadiman in 1986,who as a Verdemont citizen advisory committee member,signed off on the F Verdemont Area Plan of 1986,that:areas designated "RES 1",is to preserve nual lifestyle by allowing single family detached homes on one acre sized lots having large a areas of open space between dwellings and allowing the raising of domestic animals". to This concept was not meant to average 306 homes over 300+acres,and then build them on 10,800 foot lots in a high density confined,restricted area;such as R9-14 r this project suggest Z 'I'1I AT IS F('NNYJ FUZZY\IAI II AND NOT N"ITII IN I I I E ORIGIN:\L UJ CONCEPT OF TIIE VER DEMONT AREA PLAN OR I It CURRENT 2 Gf:NERAI.PLAN. U Averaging is not what the current residents planned on when they built their custom F homes up in Verdemont on the mesas or alluvial fans,especially on the Meyers Mesa r and the Martin Ranch Mesa,or they would have built else where.This concept being Q proposed,is contrary and is very disrespectful to the current residents who came here c based on the current concepts. E Rezoning this area cannot go fnruard until a Inastel' plan is developed for t Verdemont.utilizing a fill I tility Studv,Public Ww Ls study,Engineering studs, Traffic study and street designs for safety,cmttinuits,and a full Ilydrolnggy study to 119-15 ~ upgrade all drainages for the Eno year flood plan for future build out for ne.kt 25 Q years and in place both on paper and physically in place in I vrdentont. All rezoning issues must be apprmrd by the'current residents in it nun partisan reoiomtl public vote with public input and representation. WILD LIFE Finally,I would like to up date you on the wild life recently re—established in the area Mountain lion attacks on live stock are rising in 2010 and 2011,(photographic proof is R9-16 available),as are their presence in the Martin Ranch mesa,Cable Canyon down to the Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino a Page 2-159 Packet�Po'373; 6.B.m 2. Response to Comments V convergence to Meyers Creek,for which there are at least three known to live in the canyon(photographic proof available). Bear tracks as low as the old KOA camp,up into the Cable Canyon(photographic R9-16 proof available),and Bobcats laying up in the upper Meyers Canyons(west and east), conl'd N while hunting all the way to the 1-215 freeway and across the foothills alluvial.( '� photographic proof available). I- I IN GENERAL............' c V) NO MORE PROJECTS FOR 1'FRDEA1ONT UN71L THERE IS.1 to Alrt STh R PLAN FOR AL L I NFRAS'TR UTURES and THEY:i RE N DEVELOPED AND IN PLACE. W 1 There is no general,thoroughly designed, refined and approved U- upgraded infrastructure design for the foothills"in-toto" of R9-17 N Verdemont.There is no general plan that ties one project to another w with smooth flow of traffic,Flood control, trails, parks,streets, pedestrians,fire,public works,utilities, etc. ~ 2 Thus, there should be no more development, until the current °1 residents are safe from any new development impacts to their aging I Q infrastructure. U) 3 There is no way that the city can agree to or approve funny math project,that has a "NEGATIVE IMPACT" on a known ailing z infrastructure. R9-16 W 4 The city should not use flat land general concepts in an area this x large with extreme slopes and not being able to upgrade it's own U infrastructure to accept a"known threat" to that same infrastructure. F 5 The city can not in it's current financial condition, nor in the near Q future,see the funding to support such a project in the area of fire safety, public works,animal control,or infrastructural growth. 6 This project will in short terms, bring large development fees to R915 the city; But for the long run will create a burden on the city's services, Q infrastructure and tax the current residents of their life styles already built in and for their longevity of living in the foothills of Verdemont. 7 This project like all the others,does not build for the smooth growth of the future of 25 years, but only for the immediate moment in time.The city of SanBernardino, must plan for the I R9 20 future, not have the developers tell the city what to do. Page 2-160 The Planning Center I DC&E October 2012 Packet Pg. 374 2. Response to Comments 8 There is no good reason for the city to accept this area into the city limits if they cannot support the increase of demands on the city services since the taxes collected over the following years will not R9-21 support the service demands other than to deny the current citizens of maintaining their current tirestyles and collecting large F- initial impact fees that are only for immediate banking for the rn city's ailing coffers. a rn Bank Mitchell j 1 dnhmitchellnverizon.net t U) U) P/O 9837 1' -N"- SanBernardino, 92427-0837 w LL a- rn N F- 01 C L Q n F Z w x U Q F- F- E r U A Q I Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-161 375x:': 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. ill N L F C a 3 04 j N j N. S i W LL a. N ® F- U) r F- Z W S U Q F F a Y C Cd G t cc R Y Y a 3 F Page 2-162 The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 �� acket P'g�'3 6" C2. Response to Comments R9. Response to Comments from Hank Mitchell, dated September 1, 2011. R9-1 See Response to Comment R1-5. R9-2 The design of roadways in regards to safety is discussed in Response to Comment R1-1, under the discussion of fire and wind hazards. As described in Section 5.14, Transportation and Traffic, and Section 5.15, Utilities and Service Systems, in the Draft EIR, improvements to the water, wastewater, and traffic infrastructure would be completed in the Verdemont area prior to the development of the propose project. R9-3 See Response to Comment R2-1 for a discussion of the project's traffic impacts. The 'm proposed project would only place 306 new residences on the project site. Since there are no plans to develop adjacent lots, the Draft EIR only assesses the impacts of the 304 (plus one existing) residences. If additional development projects are to — occur, the environmental impacts of these would be addressed in a separate w environmental document. N N R94 The primary and secondary access roads are designed to accommodate the N buildout of the project. LL R9-5 At this time, the City does not have funding in place to extent the frontage road LL between Little League Drive and Glen Helen Parkway. For this reason, the Draft EIR ) cannot assume that this road would be built at the time the project is operational. Therefore, traffic from the secondary access road must be routed back to Little F League Drive. The traffic from the primary access road would be able to access either Little League Drive or Magnolia Drive so traffic would not all be directed onto Q Little League Drive. � R9-6 See Response to Comment R9-3. z w R9-7 The secondary access road has been designed to accommodate normal and = emergency project traffic exiting the site. As discussed in both the Draft EIR (Section Q 5.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials) and in the Draft Specific Plan, the project < complies with the design requirements of the Foothill Fire Zones Overlay District for c emergency access and evacuation. c d R9-8 See Response to Comment R9-7. E U t0 R9-9 See the discussion on the cul-de-sac roads under the project site access discussion a under Response to Comment R1-1. R9-10 As mentioned in Response to Comment R9-7 and in the cul-de-sac discussion under Response to Comment R1-1 (project site access), the project site has been designed to meet the safety design standards of the Foothill Fire Zones Overlay District. Offsite roadways would be improved to accommodate project-generated traffic, which would help reduce the congestion during an emergency situation. s R9-11 See Response to Comment A11-15. R9-12 Comment noted. Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-163 NUMENIMI ' 6B 2. Response to Comments R9-13 See Response to Comment Al 1-2. R9-14 See the discussion of land use and zoning under Response to Comment R1-1 and Response to Comment R17-3. R9-15 The Draft EIR for the Spring Trails Specific Plan is meant to address the environmental impacts of the proposed project. This comment is made in reference to larger planning concerns for the area and does not concern the environmental analysis of the Draft EIR. As part of the Draft EIR analysis, project-related impact analysis addresses the proposed project's individual and cumulative impacts to the surrounding infrastructure. These impacts are based on and supported by technical studies, including traffic, geological, and hydrological stud , and engineering 9 9 9� Y 9� 9 ~ plans for water and wastewater conveyance. These studies have determined the proposed project's potential impacts to the infrastructure in the area and provide a mitigation to lessen these impacts. v) �c R9-16 The wildlife comments are noted. Impacts to wildlife and biological resources are N fully discussed in Section 5.3,Biological Resources, of this Draft EIR. x R9-17 See Response to Comment R9-15. ED a. R9-18 Comment noted. U) N R9-19 The fees that must be paid by the developer are identified in the Draft EIR. The payment of these fees would allow improvements to be made that would reduce = impacts to less than significant levels. Q R9-20 Comment noted. Z R9-21 Comment noted. x U a F r a c d E s u m V a Page 2-164 •The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 Packet Pg. 378° 2. Response to Comments LETTER R10—Kevin Mitchell (1 page) 1 Terri Rahhal From: kevin@tektimesystems.com Sent: Monday,September 12,20113:19 PM To: Terri Rahhal Subject: Spring Trails EIR 2011 ) Dear Staff, - N R To be brief,my previous written comments over the years regarding the EIR's on spring trails(aka Martin Ranch Project) H have not yet been satisfactorily addressed. My brother,Hank Mitchell,submitted his response In greater detail on 9-01- R10-1 rn C 11,of which i agree with what he has written. 'Q rn To highlight our concerns: m Density: The area is zones RE(one house per acre)for good reasons;te:rural lifestyle,horse property,natual habitat, N R10-2 and more. This zoning was agreed upon in the 1980's by City Council and the applicant and the residents of Verdemont, during the General Plan Adoption. lX W Flooding: There will be additional storm run off due to more impervious ground(streets,driveways,house pads,etc). I R10-3 LL Myers Creek MUST be improved at Belmont and Myers streets before development. d U) Fire Prevention: I do not see any safeguards in place to maintain a long term(10 years or more)fire buffer. I R104 y Sidewalks: Will sidewalks be installed within this project and down to Little League Dr.for children walking to and ~ from North Verdemont Elementary and Ceaser Chavez Middle Schools. R10-5 I Im Infrastructure: We see no major improvement to the Verdemont infrastructure to handle this size of development. f) Will the city require the developer to return our streets to the same or better condition after the development is given a ( R10-6 conditional use permit or certificate of occupancy. this is to cover the 20,000 plus truck trips due to exporting soils, cement and other heavy laden vehicles transporting materials to the job site. Z W Thank you, 2 Kevin Mitchell U 6794 Little League Dr. San Bernardino,CA 92407 F 1 Q c m E t f) R Q 1 Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-165 Packet Pg. 379 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Vl L Q to N N N_ w W LL a. y a L F S L Q N F Z W U a a d E r a Page 2-166 •The Planning Center I DC&E October 2012 PacKt Pg:380= 2. Response to Comments R10. Response to Comments from Kevin Mitchell, dated September 12, 2011. R10-1 Comment noted. R10-2 See the discussion of land use and zoning under Response to Comment R1-1 and Response to Comment R17-3. R10-3 See Response to All-15. R10-4 See Responses to Comments A7-2 and A7-3 and the discussion of fire and wind hazards under Response to Comment R1-1. L R10-5 Sidewalks would be provided on the project site and along the primary access road, as described in the Draft Specific Plan. The primary access road connects to Little a League Drive, which already has sidewalks. As part of the proposed project, the rr� portion of Little League Drive north of Meyers Road would be improved to match the portion south of Meyers Road, with sidewalks. Pedestrians, including students N attending Cesar Chavez Middle School and North Verdemont Elementary School N would be able to use the sidewalks. w LL R10-6 See Response to Comment R1-9. 0. f9 L H m C Q r F Z W 2 U Q N F Q c d E s v A a Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino Page 2-167 Packet K} b N w 6Bm41 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. N LL r C CL w LO N N lY w LL a co N L r m c a U z z w x U Q F H a d E r a Page 2-168 The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 Packet Pg:382 ; Q2. Response to Comments LETTER R11 -Stephen,Judy, and Jennifer O'Neill (3 pages) Ms.Terri Relabel,City Planner Development Services Dept. 300 North"E"StreetlSan Bernardino,CA 92418 w Ms.Rahhal, We are writing to you as concerned citizens regarding the Martin Ramh Master Planned Development,which seems to have as many lives as a cat Z Q The latest Environmental Impact Study(EIS)shows numerous"Potentially Significant y Impact"indicators.Will the city ignore these,as they have done before?Who speaks for m the present residents in this area?This project has no obvious benefits for the area...only N to city coffers and developers. N. Many of these issues precede the disastrous fire four years ago and are consequently in R11-1 u need of additional review,particularly with regards to fire danger.We might add that LL planting and maintaining a green belt around the development as the developers propose N is fine on paper but prohibitive in terms of water usage alone.Having the"Homeowners w !� Association"police the planting and maintenance is ludicrous.The city,itself,can't even inspect and police the developments already in place in the area! I Parks and o land?Hardly!How does this plan out on those steep slopes?. B the wa c Pan Y P P Pte• Y Y. (Rtt-2 we're very interested and concerned about the National Forest boundaries, a C The proposed secondary access road appears to cut off residents on the west side of (RI W r Verdemont. F— Z Traffic impact alone should preclude this development as indicated in the EIS.We have uA totally inadequate road infrastmetum...the city can't even maintain what we have in the (R11-4 2 western Verdemont area.We have to fix our own pot-holes and clear the roads ourselves Q after storms. F— Traffic studies done by the developers are suspiciously low. Residents of the area will Q suffer traffic delays,congestion and degradation of rural quality of life issues for seven I R115 c (!)years of project development because the present infrastructure is inadequate already. E E r The city has already called into question the developers assumptions regarding water .U� usage and availability.Who pays for the additional pumping facilities required m bring 1 11115 . water to the development?Putting reservoirs in the hills next to active fault lines is not a Q reasonable solution.Rupture of these reservoirs would endanger all the residents in the I R11-7 area Contamination of the existing water table is inevitable with the scale of consttuct!on and the number of the homes.Many of us are on wells with no access to city water.What R11-8 happens to us in this case?1 don't think that the city is prepared to deal with lawsuit issues over who wasrs responsible for mining the water table. It's one negative scenario after another. Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-169 Pack4 Pg:383 6.B.m 2. Response to Comments With regards to code enforcement,we can only say that we believe that the city should treat the developer the same way that they treat the other residents in the area.Four years ago the issue of the Rodriguez home on Meyers Road came before the City Council.At that time it was stated by the city that it didn't matter whether your acreage was I acre or R11-9 w twenty:code said ONE HOUSE PER PARCEL-To allow this development means — changing the law,not just for the developer,but for all the other people in the area who cc want to put mom than one home on their land.The report is claiming 78 acres of higher ~ rn density.What does the Audubon Society and the current residents have to say about this? CL If this monstrosity happens,the plan shows limited parking per residence.These folks are going to be parking extra cars and off-road vehicles in the cul-de-sacs. How are the fire R11-10 trucks going to get in when the fires start blazing? There have been five fuel in the last 9 N years in that area N. Is money and influence going to prevail once again?Someone in the city needs to stand „a—, up for the rural homeowner who,increasingly,is being ignored.If the city approves this a project we think it entirely likely that a class-action lawsuit will follow.Those of us in CL the Verdemont area of San Bernardino are concerned that we will be marginaHzed by large developers who have access to city officials.It is already happening with y developments approved for this area.If this project is approved,how long will it take I `� them to petition the city to allow a density inereasejust like the one the city approved for R11-11 ~ the project west of the Pet Cemetery? � c .Q We think people buying in that area would have to know the truth about the hazards and to dangers awaiting them.If we knew,we'd never buy there. r We hope that the Planning Department and the City Council will act to deny this project Z approval.The citizens of Verdemont,Devore and northwest San Bernardino will be w watching with interest. _ U Respectfull F- Stephen O'Neill Q Judy O'Neill Jennifer O'Neill 7465 Martin Ranch Rd Verdemont,CA 92407 Page 2-170 •The Planning Center I DC&E October 2012 Packet Pg. 384 6.B.m 2. Response to Comments 909-880-3475 N F- F- 01 C Q m In N N_ w W LL Q „A N F OI C Q y r F 2 W 2 U Q r Q c d E s U Q Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-171 Packet=Pg. 385 6.B.m 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. F m S a V) N N_ W LL a. N y M F c CL U) n H Z W 2 U a a v E r U W Q Page 2-172 •The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 packe4 R�386 2. Response to Comments R11. Response to Comments from Stephen, Judy, and Jennifer O'Neill (no date). .R11-1 See Response to Comment A7-2 and A7-3 and the discussion of wind and fire hazards under Response to Comment R1-1. R11-2 It is not apparent what the concern of the commenter is in regards to parks and open space. The parks identified on Figure 3-8, Trails, Parks, and Open Space Plan, of the Draft EIR, shows the locations of the three parks that would be available to residents. As described in Section 5.13, Recreation, of the Draft EIR, at total of 7 acres are dedicated as public park space and 2 acres are private park space. The public and private parks would not be on sloped terrain. In regards to the urban- wildlife interface with the San Bernardino National Forest, See Response to Comment A4-22. C R11-3 It is not clear which residents the commenter is mentioning in this comment. Without y more information,an adequate response cannot be provided. LO N R11-4 See Response to Comment R2-1. R11-5 The projected number of vehicle trips (3,149) is an accurate estimate. The us LL generation factor used is the standard generation factor used by traffic engineers for a single-family residential land uses (as found in the Institute of Transportation N Engineers' Trip Generation, 8'" edition, handbook). Roadway intersections would be T improved to reduce traffic impacts to less than significant levels and improvements r`- would be made to Little League Drive during the construction of the primary and �+ secondary access roads. Q rn R11-6 As described on Table 5.15-12 in Section 5.15, Utilities and Service Systems, the infrastructure improvements to the water supply system in the Verdemont area z would be funded through the San Bernardino Municipal Water Department's Capital w Improvements Plan. The first phase is already funded and the second phase would x be added to the CIP or funded with fair share contribution from the developer U through a separately negotiated funding plan (per mitigation measure 15-1). All F onsite improvements would be funded and built by the developer. a R11-7 As described in Section 5.7, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR, the onsite reservoirs would be designed and constructed per seismic safety regulations. More E specifically, steel and reinforced concrete tank design is governed by regulations and standards authored by the American Water Works Association (AWWA) and California Department of Public Health (CDPH). Compliance with these regulations would reduce the flooding hazard of these tanks. R11-8 See the discussion of drainage under Response to Comment R1-1 for a response to the groundwater contamination concern. This issue is also discussed in Section 5.7, Hydrology and Water Quality. R11-9 The land use and zoning of the project site would change with the adoption of the proposed project. The new zoning and land use designations would be Specific Plan under the City's Zoning Code and the City's General Plan. When the City approves the specific plan, it will approve the new zoning and land use Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-173 Packet Pg. 387 Q2. Response to Comments designations. See the zoning and land use discussion under Response to Comment R1-1. R11-10 Each residential unit would have a two-car garage and driveway for parking cars. Cars would not be allowed to park in the bulbs of cul-de-sac roadways to allow for emergency access (per the Foothill Fire Zones Overlay District restrictions). See the discussion of fire and wind hazards under Response to Comment R1-1. R11-11 Comment noted. A L C Q LO N N N W LL a. y F W C Q n F Z W U U Q N F Q c CD E M Q Page 2-174 The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 rc Pa a Pte' .r . . B.B:m 2. Response to Comments LETTER R12-Arlean C. Potter (4 pages) 1 �9�83 GJ. /�01 m F Q U) N N_ '76 LL O a u L�OYs.0-�iu/ CiC�' C6aC��d�ri .�r7�-J N ~ �f R12-1 CL W S U �o Q _ H R12-2 V C E Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-175 Packet Pg. 389 6.B.m 2. Response to Comments i i X723 mold 7 � at2. R725 R! U. i a F= R12-6 'C" z LU V � U s L Page 2-176 The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 Packet Pg. 390 2. Response to Comments N R L k C .Q to co N a rl f[?F'I N T �L�v K LU LL m, Q N Ol C Q _ N �A W 2 U Q F- Q :: U Q Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIK City of San Bernardino Page 2-177 t'Pap—AW 0 39t. 2. Response to Comments �3 _$ c NO;, ». % „ SrIkyTg�S L IM d4 S °W Q s CO) 19 N N o � i W LL ° Q t () Z N O oO°b R /� pp CD F Q Or v n 16 w F a Z o w i 'p,LTu� t� _ t 3°g ( a F K F 4 � Q � s G O. d Im.c �A L IS � pig V m og %cn n ua ! Z 21 , wa' Page 2-178 •The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 Q2. Response to Comments R12. Response to Comments from Arlean C. Potter (Letter 1) (no date). R12-1 The residents of the proposed project do not have access to Meyers Road. Only emergency vehicles would be able to access this roadway. As such, the proposed project would not affect the current conditions of Meyers Road or its intersection with Little League Drive. R12-2 See Response to Comment At 1-17. R12-3 Per mitigation measures 14-2 and 14-3, the project access roads must meet the Fire Department's minimum standards prior to the placement of combustible material on the project site. They must be completed to the Public Works Department's r= engineering standards prior to issuance of occupancy permits. The proposed project would not go through until these requirements are met. a R12-4 The project site and access roads are designed to meet the Foothill Fire Zone Overlay District's development standards (see Table 5.14-6 of the Draft EIR). This N would improve access to and from the project site during an emergency evacuation. Meyers Road would only be used for emergency access if the primary and secondary access roads are not accessible. The public would not be allowed to LL access this road. y N R12-5 As part of the proposed project, new water reservoir tanks, pumping stations, and transmission lines would be installed on and offsite. As described in Section 5.15, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft EIR, the water infrastructure must provide a fire flow of 1,500 gallons per minute. As designed, the water infrastructure would be Q able to meet this requirement once all infrastructure has been developed. W R12-6 Comment noted. z W R12-7 See Response to Comment Al 1-15. x U R12-8 See Response to Comment R29-9. F Q Y G d E r v m Y Q Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino Page 2-179 Packet Pg " 393' ms 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. N H cn LO ' C Q LO N N N_ fY Mu LL a rn N m i c CL I r z w x U Q F F Q c d E t U m Y Y Q Page 2-180 The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 Packet 0004 Q2. Response to Comments LETTER R13-Corilyn Rodrick (2 pages) Sept.9,2011 Terri Rahhal Div Planner lh�yDll/Jta •m City of San Bernardino SfP ~ CommnnifyDevelo meraDept. I D rn 300 N.D Street.3TFloor cf r,S L San Bernardino CA 91418 � oEp nj sfgRoMO y nRrME�traces .. m LO N Dear Miss Rahhal, Ft W Recently I aneruled a presentation regarding the Spring Trails Specific Plan SP 10-01 u! and Tentative Tract May(77M)No 15576. LL R13-1 a. The though,of new homes and people working was very encouraging. When it became to N known flat the/o!sizes had been reduced I was very disappointed. •� I feel very strongly that all infrastructures must be in place before the first home is built.I ( F- do believe if homes are built before more access roads and water expansion is data,the R13-2 occupants would be living in a death trap.. a to I hope you will not approve the plan as it currently is proposed. I R13-3 r F Thank you for your time and consideration z w Sincerely, _ U F Q Corilyn Rc&ick 27541rvingion Ave. m San Beruvdino,CA 92407 E t U m a Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-181 Packet,Pg �95�,j 2. Response to Comments , M � LO N CL W LL � a H CL L .eA 't in W S U Q F F Q B E 4. L u r Page 2-182 The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 Ila MONO 2. Response to Comments R13. Response to Comments from Corilyn Rodrick, dated September 9, 2011. R13-1 Comment noted. R13-2 In regards to the construction phasing of project access roads, see Response to Comment R33-3. In regards to the phasing of water infrastructure, see the discussion of water utilities under Response to Comment R1-1. R13-3 Comment noted. N L F m C L a LO N N N_ LL w a rn N C L n ti z z w x U Q F- h Q V C E E V R Y V Q Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-183 Packe4 Rg" 397,", AM 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. N F C C. N w LO N N_ (Y w LL a. U) U1 r c a r- F w w x U Q H 9 Q c d E L U Q Page 2-184 •The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 PacketzPg 398x,;. 6.B.m 2. Response to Comments LETTER R14—Carol S. Smith (2 pages) N m September 9,2011 F- M Tam Rehhal,City Plannef E- city of San Bernardino !Z Community Development Department (n 300 North D Street,3rd Floor Sar Bernardino.CA 92418 tD rO N N Re:Sprang Trails Project �- Dear Ms.Rahhal: LL I am extremely concerned about the proposed Spring Trails Project. There are so many negative a aspects of this project E is completely beyond my comprehension how anyone would even consider V) going forward with it before the issues are dealt with and resolved. Indeed,many of the issues simply N cannot be resolved- The existing infrastructure of this area is completely inadequate to handle hundreds of more houses R14-1 H and thousands more people. A small sample to be considered: t77 C Construction problems: Years(7)of heavy truck traffic using Meyers Road-the only road-which is '- hazardous even for cam. By-the-way-a car lost control on a curve,ended in my front yard. My R14-2 �- neighbor had the same problem. To say nothing about the noise,pollution,dirt. Please dual tell me N these trucks will be cleaned and inspected every day. Its not going to happen. r The existing roads(of,that is,road)cannot possibly handle hundreds(thousands)more cars per day I R14-3 F' without wriousty impacting all the residents. Z 1 W We walk in the sheet now-no sidewalks. Any safety concerns for cldldren walking to school? I R14d S Existing school enrouments are capped. Where are these new children supposed to go to school? U More huge school bases on Meyers Road? To go where? I suggest a visit to the comer of Little ( R14-5 Q ck League and Meyers Road around 3pm. Parents double parked picking up their children for blos! F Very dangerous. I creep by at Smph in case a child dashes into the street. Add hundreds mom Q children? The Old Fire-2003. The 2007 fire. High d.1tY(rouses put more people in halms way. My Solutions ( d to deal with an out of control fire whipped by 80-100mph winds? I've been Mrough loth,evacuated R14-6 both times. Donl jell me it wool happen again. OF COURSE IT WILL How will thousands of people t get out of here with their lives? This ohe reality should stop this Wants] situation. U Airy solution to Iha earhqueka fault? We are Itterally on the fault It's not some far away thing. I know it's a threat all Californians lire with,but some reality needs to be faced before houses are built directly R14-7 Q on top of IL We the potential owners be informed of this fact? Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-185 Packet Pg. 399 2. Response to Comments Population fact: More people,more dime. There have been relelivelY few ainres since I moved here I R14-8 in tgo?. ww increase in police wifl be evailado? SB Is sketched W the On*as h Is. An article in the Sun today stated unamptmyrneM for SB County is over 14%.Thousands of homes in I R14-9 bankruptcy crow.Vino vat buy these homes? Commuters from Los Angela with on at$41921 nw o N and going who(mows Prow high? Them are many,marry more Issues. Then are lust a few of my major ancems. There am so few I R14-10 F- beauhhd neighborhoods in San Bernardino. Please don't Wm tiro area into another East Highland Ql Ranch or Morarw Valley. L Thank you for your agemion. Q fD Card S.Sa t U) 3705 West Meyers Road N N San Bernardino.CA 92407 `-' W W CL rn N .R F C Q N r F Z W 2 U Q H F Q c m E R Y Q Page 2-186 a The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 Pac�iet Pgx�400�;? ® 2. Response to Comments R14. Response to Comments from Carol S. Smith, dated September 9, 2011. R14-1 Comment noted. R14-2 During construction, haul trucks would have to use Meyers Road to access the project site prior to the construction of the access roads. Once the access roads have been constructed, which would be completed during site grading, the haul trucks would use this access road and would not use Meyers Road. Construction- related air pollution and noise are discussed in Sections 5.2 and 5.8 of the Draft EIR, respectively. Construction-related air quality impacts would be mitigated (see Mitigation Measures 2-1 through 2-3) but are still considered significant and unavoidable. Construction-related noise impacts are also mitigated but would remain significant and unavoidable on a project level. c CL R14-3 See Response to Comment R2-1. <n co R14-4 See Response to Comment R10-5. N N_ R14-5 In regards to the school capacity comment, see the discussion on school services of under Response to Comment R1-1. Little League Drive would be extended to LL connect to the proposed primary access road and improved with sidewalks and a crosswalks. This would improve the safety of Little League Drive on the north side of N �r/" Meyers Road, where students may be walking back home after school. Sidewalks E already exist along the southern portion of Little League Drive. The streets surrounding North Verdemont Elementary School are marked as a school zone and the posted speed limit is 25 miles per hour. The school zone lets drivers know that Q they should exercise caution when traveling through the area. Additionally, as with rn all elementary schools in the San Bernardino City Unified School District, crossing guards are employed to help elementary students cross intersections (Board Policy z 5142.2). These actions help prevent vehicle/pedestrian accidents mentioned by the Lu commenter. _ U R14-6 See Responses to Comments A7-2 and A7-3 and the fire and wind discussion under < Response to Comment RI-1. R14-7 See the discussion of earthquakes and related hazards under Response to Comment R1-1. E E U R R14-8 See the discussion of police service under Response to Comment R1-1. Q R14-9 Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15131, the scope of CEQA does not cover economic and social effects of a project unless they directly result in a physical impact. R14-10 Comment noted. Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-187 rpx `r— s s 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. CL a L r C y o N N N_ W LL a. w N CL L r rn c L U) v! n r Z W 2 U Q F- E r U R Y Q Page 2-188 •The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 Packet Pg�402r�i :�sem 2. Response to Comments LETTER R15-Signature List of Opposing Persons (7 pages) I am in opposition to the proposed Spring Trails Specific Plan P 10-01 and find the EIR faulty, inaccurate and feel that this project will degrade: air quality,water quality,safety; add to traffic congestion and grid-lock,tax and overburden police, R L fire,schools,and the water supply. It is also incongruous with the character and needs of the rural atmosphere of the existing c residents. The rezoning and approval should NOT be rn permitted. �o N N NAME/ADDRESS SIGNATURE 1.G-rg o!r Me(-T 1$55$ SA. A F-4 AVE S' $ CA) %ZY07 uw. 2. uai I fCCln1 \.rr 1 QzX�1 / � y 3.� 9 S' m C 4. IZ r. S aya a) 5. 5A 9,)J/0-7 6. 0 1 Mira - w LU R15-1 = U 7. e' F 9 SG/ P r ! 00) S d Q 8. rhapin C E t y//9 lv. /�1���F.es ,P� S,onlit�.2��gzn�nio 9.�yra� 10. n c 3777 W 8e1171Ce7 .-e 'Fg/ G& 'i7Aldiio �1Yc r 11. C7 376d Li77la L q12. fkr(A 33$ lfiif rw Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino Page 2-189 Mme, Pace: 2. Response to Comments I am in opposition to the proposed Spring Trails Specific Plan PS 10-01 and find the EIR faulty,inaccurate and feel that this project will degrade: air quality,water quality,safety; add to y traffic congestion and grid-lock,tax and overburden police, fire,schools,and the water supply. It is also incongruous with the character and needs of the rural atmosphere of the existing c residents. The rezoning and approval should NOT be rn permitted. Ln N N NAME\/ADDRESSNAT 1.�n1t\i\ONE fr�t�f A/ LU �CxeNti t Q y Mmm 1rP cior b LL 2. (hm m� tom, ., �nN c � - CL 3395 metbers Rd sue, H 3. 3 // L- h S o, c 4. 3 (3. 92yG7 ° U) C U 2- Sp VC' Z 6. w 3zo1 Mi ec N. 97,90-1 R15-1 = 7 -'Wtrti9 Utc7 /4SOD m; ) oontd �O 8. �ASI 37` 3 E R 2-YV a c Q t V R 10. USA C eaY r+f�n e/C [ 1dlr b) s$ 12. JDay, Page 2-190 •The Planning Center I DC&E October 2012 {Pa ktPg404 . Q2. Response to Comments I am in opposition to the proposed Spring Trails Specific Plan P 10-01 and find the EIR faulty,inaccurate and feel that this project will degrade: air quality,water quality,safety; add to w traffic congestion and grid-lock, tax and overburden police, fire,schools,and the water supply. It is also incongruous with the character and needs of the rural atmosphere of the existing c residents. The rezoning and approval should NOT be N permitted. CD In N NAME 1 ADDRESS Slpl_�ATURB 1 � MU LL y 6 L rn 4. qD �SCea+4 ST CL rn 5. cmm"uio cdd tjt r` Z 6. e, PAL twrtt� ��t� M 690 z-rarrc R15-7 2 confd U 7 1�r�b nrn �u 'J7rJ�J W rhe�trs [� ¢ A rd t� Zg6y Rrd, d c m 9 Gtekl E U A� HQ r 10. 4 a Wkk I1� 11. 12. v y 3 ` 9 w rl�ykit y Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-191 Packet Pg. 405 2. Response to Comments I am in opposition to the proposed Spring Trails,SMific Plan P 10-01 and find the EIR faulty, inaccurate and feel that this project will degrade: air quality,water quality,safety; add to w traffic congestion and grid-lock, tax and overburden police, fire,schools,and the water supply. It is also incongruous with the character and needs of the rural atmosphere of the existing residents. The rezoning and approval should NOT be N permitted. N NAME/ADDRESS I NAT w CM 1. EV �art-Cw 27oS Cr r.cw < � W t p LL 2. l ORr.,t t a. Y-7 y 3. L a r k S r f- � 1 � w - r ALA 1UF �- z 6. W R1S1 = _ n ' <4 CA 8. 9. b7 Meyers S CA D E v a 11. 4 A 77 Llo- 12. SRCA. 2 0 Page 2-192 •The Planning Center I DC&E October 2012 °' tacp� 4 6 2. Response to Comments ..•aiarvo->xrv- .++._x'r:.u.wx®x .m'.-r:i4ac'.Nwv.W.Mwcw:.�a:.v+...a..... s... ..... ..m: `"Y' n°w ••••• •.n.. t°...ax+.4ti+ tw.%5t.'}'.5°re'vvg3�R?I.SiYa.: I am in opposition to the proposed Spring Trails Specific Plan PS 10-01 and find the EIR faulty,inaccurate and feel that this project will degrade: air quality,water quality,safety; add to Ul traffic congestion and grid-lock,tax and overburden police, y fire,schools,and the water supply. It is also incongruous with the character and needs of the rural atmosphere of the existing c residents. The rezoning and approval should NOT be m permitted. LO N N ADDRESS I 1.�% o,✓s� �t>.dsfaars � � 'r LL 2. G a. N 3. to n C 4.�' �_ ,ate,L< /Y�/ niiJ 2n�f�Q �f�CR �auo w F 6. LIJ C/ 1 R15-1 = 7. /7/ r P In 72 6i�Fitr r 9z`/�� =Wd U 8._ Z. rr2- r Z3S C a T`` St ; Q c d 9. W. d CE s U A 10. G.arri 11. x4*-1 Ago P1JA✓OGt 7�Of PL21wrn K/L 44 12.�terrv-R,aers W6 l ,. Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-193 Pa �a'P9O Y;�B Brir"t,r� 2. Response to Comments I am in opposition to the proposed Spring Trails Specific Plan PS 10-01 and find the EIR faulty,inaccurate and feel that this project will degrade: air quality,water quality,safety; add to y traffic congestion and grid-lock, tax and overburden police, fire,schools,and the water supply. It is also incongruous with the character and needs of the rural atmosphere of the existing c residents. The rezoning and approval should NOT be C permitted. to U) N NA ME/ADDRESS Sl NATURE LL I. Paz i w 2 a M519 d&Z y any ,tee z c 4. c uai 5. J K Ya, I %5760 h2¢YeaS For �yf4. ZCl. Z 6.agge W� R15-1 = 7 conrd Q F F 8. •C Q c d E v sK- f0 10.�11� ir,�cuxt 9.��a� a 11.✓/.n E'.rsY1,✓.scHG6'� 670 t 776E e erWlld` 12. Ag l 460 L S r t-, Page 2-194 •The Planning Center I DC&E October 2012 xPac ettP ,t 2. Response to Comments I am in opposition to the proposed Spring Trails Specific Plan P 10-01 and find the EIR faulty,inaccurate and feel that this project will degrade: air quality,water quality,safety; add to y traffic congestion and grid-lock,tax and overburden police, R fire,schools,and the water supply. It is also incongruous with the character and needs of the rural atmosphere of the existing c residents. The rezoning and approval should NOT be N permitted. Ln N NAME/ADDRESS SIGN4 URE N 1. l�ettlyn it wt 's � `YSH 41 # tr LL 2. L r y ,Yd,9;7 W, 17V ETS 3. 11ag 6�a&i s - F 4. 35 NE A�lE-. CL Z Z G. 't' R15-1 U 7. cont'd F H Q 8. c m 9. t u R 10. 11. 12. Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino Page 2-195 �q 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. y F M C Q N co N N N_ W LL a. U) © N M F m C Q U1 r z z w x U a H H a d E s U V W a Page 2-196 The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 Ima wou"i . 2. Response to Comments R15. Response to Signature List of Opposing Persons (no date). R15-1 The list of opposing persons has been noted and documented as part of the public record. N F m G .y Q N co N N N_ w W LL a. U) ® w m rn C Q F Z W 2 Q Q F F Q c m E s v m Y Q Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 2-197 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. N CL L F C L o LO LO N N_ w W LL M U) r- A rn c L a n F Z cW G_ a F a CD Cd C V V a Page 2-198 The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 p':. ke= , `-"6Bm :r^ 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR 3.1 INTRODUCTION This section contains revisions to the Draft EIR based upon (1) additional or revised information required to prepare a response to a specific comment; (2) applicable updated information that was not available at the time of Draft EIR publication; and/or (3) typographical errors. This section also includes additional N mitigation measures to fully respond to commenter concerns as well as provide additional clarification to F mitigation requirements included in the Draft EIR. The provision of these additional mitigation measures c does not alter any impact significance conclusions as disclosed in the Draft EIR. Changes made to the •c Draft EIR are identified here ini to indicate deletions and in underlined text to signify rn additions. LO LO N 3.2 DRAFT EIR REVISIONS IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS W The following text has been revised in response to comments received on the Draft EIR. w U. (L U) ® Page 1-4, Section 1.4, Proiect Summary. The following text change has been made in response to w Comment A5-3,from San Bernardino County Department of Public Works. F_ Upon approval, the two-phased construction process of the proposed project would begin in 2012 294-0 S L and end in 2015 2943, assuming no changes to future planning decisions and market forces occur. CL Page 4-24 Section 4.3.12 General Plan and Zoning. The following text change has been made in y response to Comment A8-1,from the Local Agency Formation Commission. F I z w As seen in Figure 4-6, the entire project site and the 26.4-acre area to be annexed with the Proiect site 2 are is currently prezoned in the General Plan by the City of San Bernardino and identified as Residential X Estate (RE), allowing one dwelling unit per acre. F F 4 Page 4-24, Section 4.3.12, General Plan and Zoning. The following text change has been made in response to Comment A8-3,from the Local Agency Formation Commission. s U The proposed project includes a request for annexation of the project site and adjoining parcels (a total m Y of approximately 379.2874 acres) into the City of San Bernardino. The annexation process would begin Q pending approval of the project application by the San Bernardino Mayor and Common Council. Page 5.2-28-5.2-29, Section 5.2-7, Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measure 2-1 has been revised in response to Comment All 2-2, from the South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2-1 Ongoing during grading and construction, the construction contractor shall implement the following measures in addition to the existing requirements for fugitive dust control under South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403 to further reduce PM10 and PMzt emissions. The Applicant shall appoint a construction relations officer to act as a community liaison concerning on-site construction activity. To assure compliance, the Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 3-1 :Packet;Pg 413 { p3. Revisions to the Draft EIR City shall verify that these measures have been implemented during normal construction site inspections: • During all grading activities, the construction contractor shall reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and watering within two weeks of the end of the grading phase. Native, fire-resistant plants should be used in accordance with the Fuel Modification Plan. This would achieve a minimum control efficiency for PM,,of 5 percent. • During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall sweep streets with N Rule 1186-compliant, PM,,-efficient vacuum units on a daily basis if silt is carried R over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling. c • During active debris removal and grading, the construction contractor shall suspend Q grading operations when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour.This would achieve an an emissions control efficiency of 98 percent for PM10 under worst-case wind conditions. a N_ • During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall maintain a minimum 24-inch freeboard on trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose LL materials and tarp materials with a fabric cover or other suitable means. This would iL achieve a control efficiency for PM10 of 91 percent. N A • During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall water exposed � ground surfaces and disturbed areas a minimum of every three hours on the construction site and a minimum of three times per day. This would achieve an Q emissions reduction control efficiency for PM10 of 61 percent. N r • During active debris removal, the construction contractor shall apply water to Z disturbed soils at the end of each day. This would achieve an emissions control w efficiency for PM10 of 10 percent. a • During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall limit onsite vehicle F speeds on unpaved roads to no more than 15 miles per hour. This would achieve a a control efficiency for PM10 of 57 percent. m • The construction contractor shall apply chemical soil stabilizers to reduce wind erosion.This would achieve a control efficiency of up to 80 percent. Q Page 5.2-29-5.2-30, Section 5.2-7, Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measure 2-3 has been revised in response to Comment Al 2-2, from the South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2-3 Ongoing during grading and construction, the construction contractor shall implement the following measures to further reduce construction exhaust emissions of NO,. To assure compliance, the City shall verify that these measures have been implemented during normal construction site inspections: The Project Applicant shall specify in the construction bid that construction contractors are required to use construction equipment rated by that meets the a Page 3-2 •The Planning Center I DC&E October 2012 Packet Pg. 414 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR United States Environmental Protection Agency as having TieF 3 eF higher exhaust by type and Fnedel yeaF shall be maintained by the eeffitWetian eefitFaeteF en Certified Emissions Standards according to the following schedule: • From the end of 2012 to December 31. 2014, all project-related off-road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower shall meet Tier 3 off-road emissions standards. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations. L • After January 1. 2015, all off-road diesel-Dowered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower shall meet the Tier 4 emission standards. Any c CL emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 4 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine, as defined by CARB N regulations • A copy of the equipment engine's (unit) certified tier specification. Best w U. Available Control Technology (BACT) documentation. and CAR or SCAQMD o. operating permit shall be provided to the City at the time of mobilization of N each applicable unit of equipment. h • The construction contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment is properly c serviced and maintained to the manufacturer's standards to reduce operational Q emissions. Cn • The construction contractor shall limit nonessential idling of construction equipment to no more than five consecutive minutes. w x Page 5.3-60, Section 5.3.7. Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measure 3-1 has been revised in response to Comment A11-8,from the California Department of Fish and Game. 4 3-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, preconstruction clearance surveys will be a conducted within the proposed rp oiect impact areas for potentially occurring sensitive E plant and wildlife species including Plummer's mariposa lily, burrowing owl. least Bell's m vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, coastal California onatcatcher. Los Angeles pocket mouse, and the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. Plant surveys will be conducted according to California Department of Fish and Game's November 2009 guidelines for special status native plant populations and natural communities. Avian and small mammal surveys will be conducted by a United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) authorized biologist following USFWS protocol survey guidelines For mariposa ft,jwlhe appropriate bleeming peFied by a qualified bielegist. the appropriate blooming period is defined as occurring within the months of April, May, and June, or as indicated by positive verification of blooming at a documented reference location. Surveys must only be conducted during a year of at least average precipitation, as determined by official precipitation records. The surveys should positively identify and quantify all individuals on or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed impact areas. Any individuals confirmed within the project impact area shall be considered for possible Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 3-3 Packet Pg. 415 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR salvage and relocation into suitable receptor sites located onsite within preserved areas, if feasible. Any individuals confirmed in the immediate vicinity of a proposed impact area shall be flagged and appropriately fenced off from construction zones to prevent inadvertent impacts. Individuals confirmed within areas proposed for preservation onsite shall be properly recorded and avoided during any revegetation or other efforts anticipated in the long term during project operation. All observations shall be accurately reported to the California Natural Diversity Database, the California Native Plant Survey, the Consortium of California Herbarium, and/or other herbarium or sensitive species databases as determined by the qualified biologist. If least Bell's vireo, southwestern flycatcher or coastal California gnatcatcher are found within or immediately adjacent to the project site, those areas identified as occupied by the species found onsite will be .R fenced off, including a 500-foot buffer, from the construction zones to prevent inadvertent impacts. Individuals found within the areas proposed for onsite conservation m shall be properly recorded and the conservation area fenced off to avoid inadvertent = impacts. Each of these three avian species is federally and/or state listed. Anv potential rn impact to these species and/or their habitat will require an endangered species permit from the listing wildlife agency(s) prior to any ground disturbing activity. CDFG and N USFWS will be notified within 24 hours of a positive sighting and the appropriate focused surveys reports will be submitted to the wildlife agencies as required by each agency. W This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Community Development w Director. If L.A. pocket mouse or San Bernardino kangaroo rat are found within or (L immediately adjacent to the project site or access roads, those areas identified as U) occupied by the species found onsite will be fenced off, including a 500-foot buffer, from the construction zones to prevent inadvertent impacts. Individuals found within the areas proposed for onsite conservation shall be properly recorded and the conservation area fenced off to avoid inadvertent impacts. San Bernardino kangaroo rat is federally listed. Q Any potential impact to these species and/or its habitat will reauire an endangered rn species permit from USFWS prior to any around disturbing activity. USFWS will be notified within 24 hours of a positive siahtina and the focused survey report will be z submitted to USFWS as required by each that agency. This measure shall be w implemented to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. x v a Page 5.3-60 - 5.3-61, Section 5.3.7, Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measure 3-2 has been revised F in response to Comment At-11, from the California Department of Fish and Game. a c v 3-2 To mitigate for impacts to unoccupied critical habitat of the federally endangered San E Bernardino kangaroo rat, the project applicant shall acquire offsite permanent mitigation R lands of like habitat quality as determined by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) during the Section 7 consultation process. Mitigation lands must be acquired prior to the a issuance of grading permits, and shall incorporate appropriate long-term management provisions such as deed restrictions, endowments, and/or other management mechanisms to provide for the long-term conservation of the habitat. Potential properties include, but are not limited to, those in the Cajon Creek Conservation Bank managed by located in the ^' Rialto and San Bernard in areas. These mitigation lands are contiguous with Cable Creek and the project site and shall be acquired at a replacement ratio of 1:1 (one acre replaced for every one acre impacted). This measure does not preclude the imposition of additional mitigation requirements that may be initiated by the USFWS during the Section 7 consultation process. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Page 3-4 The Planning Center I DC&E October 2012 Packet Pg. 416 6.B.m 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Page 5.3-61, Section 5.3.7. Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures 3-3 and 3-4 have been revised in response to Comment Al-13, from the California Department of Fish and Game, and Comment A4-14,from the Center for Biological Diversity. 3-3 To mitigate for potential impacts to hydrological processes and subsequent degradation of habitat for the federally endangered San Bernardino kangaroo rat and other sensitive species, all roadway crossings or other improvements proposed within critical habitat for the species shall be designed in such a manner as to not substantially alter the natural flow regimes through impacted sensitive habitat areas. These designs shall include, but shall not necessarily be limited to, the installation of appropriately sized culverts and stream crossings that allow for natural flow and uninhibited downstream hydrological a processes. Design of these improvements shall be undertaken in consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and other responsible agencies. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director prior to the rn issuance of grading permits. 3-4 Any hiking and equestrian trails or other facilities developed within Cable Creek or other riparian areas on the site shall be designed to avoid impacts to wildlife movement cl� throuah the area and to minimize impacts to riparian and other wildlife habitats eew4* M the GeneFal Plan. These requirements shall include, but not (L necessarily be limited to: 1) no ground disturbance may take place within 50 feet of the rn ordinary high-water mark of the associated stream channel; 2) erosion, sedimentation, and runoff from the proposed improvements must be minimized by the implementation 6 of appropriate best management practices, the installation of appropriate runoff rn diversions, and/or the planting of native vegetation; 3) Vegetation removal will be S minimized to the maximum extent possible; and 4) appropriate signage shall be installed rn in at least five locations alongside these facilities to educate users as to the importance of riparian ecosystems, the species that rely upon them, and the importance of avoiding F unnecessary impacts and disturbance. In addition a barrier will be installed at the outer w limits of the California Walnut Woodland that surrounds Cable Creek at its interface with 2 the RSS habitat on the hillsides above the canyon bottom. This will provide a buffer of approximately 300 feet inside the barrier fence that will be located on either side of Cable F Creek. The distance of 300 feet is based on the average width of the flat bottom of the creek basin, where animals would be using corridor. The fence would likely be a wooden structure, eight feet in height, and would extend the length of the property along Cable Creek. The barrier design and placement shall be approved by the Community L Development Department prior the issuance of building permits and it shall be constructed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. This measure shall be d implemented to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. [This measure also provides mitigation for Impact 5.3-4 as related to impacts to wildlife corridors. See Mitigation Measure 3-9] Page 5.3-62, Section 5.3.7, Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures 3-6 has been added in response to Comment A4-17, from the Center for Biological Diversity. 3-6 The following provisions shall be included in the Habitat Mitigation Monitoring Plan. the /^ Covenants. Codes. and Restrictions, and the noxious weed control plan: I (V Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Pabe 3-5 PacketPg.417 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR • Setbacks between developed area including roads and fuel modification zones, and sensitive habitat areas shall be a minimum of 300 feet. • Non-leased pets (e.a., cats and dogs) shalt not be allowed outdoors Walls and/or fences that will inhibit domestic animals from harassing and harming native species including "cat-proof' fences to prevent feral and house cats from accessing sensitive habitat shall be implemented on the project site. Programs to capture feral cats should be implemented. R Non-native invasive plant species shall be controlled through weed control techniques. c Q • Pesticides and other toxic chemicals shall be prohibited around homes. N Native veaetation shall be used in landscaping. N • Educational materials and programs shall be provided to inform residents of W rare threatened and endangered species ecies and how local communities can help m. protect them. y N • Gates shall be used to restrict access to lands set aside for habitat protection. m Page 5.3-62, Section 5.3.7, Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measure 3-7 has been revised in S L response to Comment Ai-11, California Department of Fish and Game and Comment A4-10, from C the Center for Biological Diversity. z 3-76 To mitigate impacts to 168.4 acres of Riversidean sage scrub (RSS), d-26.4 acres of w � riparian plant communities, 10.56 acres of US Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) _ jurisdictional waters and 12.76 acres of California Department of Fish and Game a (CDFG) jurisdictional wetland, the project applicant shall purchase and permanently protect RSS riparian and jurisdictional habitat that is biologically equivalent to or q superior than the affected onsite acreages de eRe ef the fellewing, ;ay, api)FOPFiate in liell fees m Mitigation Y lands must be acquired prior to the issuance of grading permits, and shall incorporate a appropriate long-term management provisions such as deed restrictions, endowments, and/or other management mechanisms to provide for the long term conservation of the habitat. Potential properties include, but are not limited to, those managed by San Bernardino County Special Districts located in the Glen Helen, Rialto, and Rancho Cucamonga areas. Mitigation Iands feF ripaFian habitat she" be aeqUiFed at as every _h-^^ ^^•^^ impa This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. i Page 3-6 The Planning Center I DC&E October 2012 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Page 5.3-63 - 5.3-64, Section 5.3.7 Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measure 3-11 has been revised in response to Comments All-7 from the San Bernardino Audubon Society. 3-119 With regard to the protection of nesting birds, one of the following must occur: 1) Construction should occur outside of the avian nesting season (approximately February 16 through August 31); or 2) If construction must occur during the nesting season, then a preconstruction nesting bird surrey of the site shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 104 days prior to construction activities and then at 3 days prior to the start of construction. If active nests are found onsite, then they must be _ avoided by an appropriate buffer until any young birds have fledged and the nest has completed its cycle, as determined by a qualified biologist. If construction occurs outside of the avian nesting period, then construction may commence without further ~ impediment, commensurate with other regulatory and mitigation requirements. This S measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. LO N N Page 5.3-64, Section 5.3.7 Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measure 3-12 has been revised in response to Comments Al-11, Al-16, and Al-18, from the California Department of Fish and W Game, A4-5, A4-13, and A4-18 from the Center for Biological Diversity, and All-8 from the w Audubon Society. y N 3-124 Two known wildlife corridors are present on the project site and may be impacted by the 6 proposed project unless mitigation is incorporated: 1) the unnamed tributary of Cable Creek that flows in an east-to-west direction in the northern third of the project site = L (referred to here as the Northern Corridor); and 2) the outwash of Cable Creek adjacent to the Interstate 215 freeway that is proposed to be crossed by the secondary access road (referred to here as the Southern Corridor). For these corridors, the following must occur: z w 2 Northern Corridor:A vegetation restoration and maintenance plan shall be prepared by = the applicant and submitted to the Community Development Director and the Fire Marshall for review and approval prior to issuance of any grading permits The Plan shall include detailed measures to: a c 1) Restore enhance and maintain native vegetation to the maximum extent allowed by m E the Fire Protection Plan Naitiye vegetation within this OOFFidef must be F89teFed, u 4 2) Provide riparian vegetation that provides high-quality foraging opportunities, cover, and other habitat values shall be as the preferred vegetation type in this area, unless specifically prohibited by the Fire Protection Plan; 3) Use this area shall-be-as the preferred location for the planting of replacement native trees as outlined in the tree replacement requirements of Mitigation Measure 3-144, unless specifically prohibited by the Fire Protection Plan; 4) Maintain the corridor ^~^"wed free of fences, walls, or other obstructions that prevent passage of animals through the corridor; Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 3-7 Packet Pg:479, 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR 5) Redirect and reduce any lighting associated with the project in this area, including street lights and residential lights, so it is shall-be-of the minimum output required and shall be down-shielded to prevent excessive light bleed into adjacent areas; 6) Construct any road crossings, bridges, culverts, etc., shall be eenstruste with soft bottoms with an openness ratio of at least 0.9 (openness ratio=height x width/length), and; 7) Incorporate additional recommendations as outlined in the report entitled "A Linkage Design for the San Gabriel-San Bernardino Connection" (South Coast Missing Linkages Project 2004) may be ineeFPOFat^d-as feasible and appropriate. w .S Southern Corridor: 1) Any bridge, culvert, or other road crossing structure shall be designed in such a manner as to allow for the maintenance of natural flow through the Q structure and downstream of the structure, as conditioned by the US Fish and Wildlife U) Service during the Section 7 permitting and by the California Department of Fish and Game during 1602 and 2081 permitting processes preeess; 2) any road crossings, N bridges, culverts, etc., shall be constructed with soft bottoms with an openness ratio of at least 0.9 (openness ratio=height x width/length); and 3) additional recommendations X as outlined in the report entitled "A Linkage Design for the San Gabriel-San Bernardino Connection" (South Coast Missing Linkages Project 2004) may be incorporated as a feasible and appropriate. y These measures shall be incorporated into site development plans and must be reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of grading permits. This measure does not m r preclude the requirement of additional mitigation that may be initiated by the US Fish Q and Wildlife Service, the US Army Corps of Engineers, the Regional Water Quality rn Control Board, or the California Department of Fish and Game during the regulatory permitting process. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the z Community Development Director. W x Page 5.6-27, Section 5.6.7. Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure has been Q revised in response to Comment A7-3,from the Devore Rural Protection Association. F a 6-8 The development of Spring Trails shall follow development guidelines outlined in the San Bernardino General Plan for high wind areas (Policies 10.10.1 through 10.10.8, E listed below). The building plans must be approved by the building official. If the normally-scheduled trash and recycling pick-up day falls on a day with high wind which would cause debris to blow around, residents shall call the City's Integrated Waste Management District to reschedule trash pick-up and all trash and recycling canisters shall be kept in their enclosures or inside to prevent them from blowing over. This provision shall also be included in the Covenants Codes and Restrictions for the proposed project. Policy 10.10.1: Ensure that buildings are constructed and sited to withstand wind hazards. Policy 10.10.2: Require that development in the High Wind Hazard Area, as designated in Figure S-8 [of the San Bernardino General Plan], be designed and constructed to withstand extreme wind velocities. Page 3-8 The Planning Center I DC&E October 2012 • ac 20 ' IN 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Policy 10.10.3: Periodically review the structural design requirements for wind in the Building Code to reflect wind conditions and property damage experienced as well as advances to current construction technology. Policy 10.10.4: Require that structures be sited to prevent adverse funneling of wind onsite and on adjacent properties. Policy 10.10.5: Require that multi-story residential, commercial, and industrial buildings be designed to prevent wind tunnel effects around their base and in passageways. Policy 10.10.6: Construct public infrastructure (lighting poles, street lights, bridges, etc.) to withstand extreme wind velocities in High Wind Hazard areas. rn Policy 10.10.7: Maintain police, fire, medical, and other pertinent programs to respond to a wind-caused emergencies. rn <n Policy 10.10.8: Initiate a review of the wind hazard potential as it applies to various parts N of the City and, if merited,tailor the design standards accordingly. w Peas 5.7-12, Section 5.7.1. Environmental Setting. The following text change has been made in LL response to Comment A5-7,from the County of San Bernardino Department of Public Works. N Flood Hazards r •�_ ao Designated Flood Zones a The project site is in FEMA Zone DBE, which is given to areas of undetermined flood zone risk because of y a lack of flood risk analysis for the area. Flood insurance rates for these areas are commensurate with the uncertainty of the flood risk. meaning that it is eutside ef the 400 yeaF and 600 year , The z flood zones for the Spring Trails site has been determined from aeeerdingte Flood Insurance Rate Maps w Map Nos. 06071C7910H and 06071C7930H. Page 5.7-19, Section 5.7.3. Environmental Impacts. The following text change has been made in a response to Comment A5-7,from the County of San Bernardino Department of Public Works. c m Impact Analysis: The entire project site is in FEMA flood hazard zone DX meaning that there is E insufficient analysis in the area to determine the extent of flood risk. For areas of undetermined flood risk, insurance rates are commensurate with the uncertainty of the flood risk. Chapter 19.16 of City of San Bernardino's Development Code (Flood Plain Overlay District) restricts development in areas of special flood hazards areas of flood-related erosion hazards, and areas of mud slide, as identified by the FEMA FIRMs Development restrictions do not apply to Zone D as it is not in one of these zones. Compliance with the City's development codes would ensure thatpProject development would not result in flood hazards to people or structures or redirect flood flows within a 100-year flood hazard area. This analysis is applicable to both the preferred development plan and the alternative (undergroundeaerhead electric lines) development plan. Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 3-9 Packet Pg. 421 6.B.m 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Pages 5.8-3 through 5.8-4, Section 5.8.1 Environmental Setting. The following text change has been made in response to Comment A8-4, from the Local Agency Formation Commission. The project site and the adjacent 26.4-acre annexation area are in San Bernardino County and in the City of San Bernardino's unincorporated sphere of influence. The site is currently subject to County of San Bernardino's General Plan and Zoning Code. As shown in Figure 4.6, Land Use Designations, under the County's General Plan, the northern portion of the site, approximately 160 acres, is designated as Resource Conservation in the County's General Plan Although the project site is It private unincorporated land within the San Bernardino National Forest the surrounding areas are publicly- _ owned. N Aden (RG) On the Geunty's GeneFal Plan. Ginee the site is pFivately owned, deskj om�—The southern portion of the site, approximately 190.6 acres, is designated Rural Living (RL-5), which allows up to one dwelling unit per five acres.The northern portion of the adjacent 26.4-acre annexation area is designated Rural Living (RL-5) and the southern portion of the annexation area is rn designated Single Residential (RS-1), which allows up to one dwelling unit per acre. LO m N Page 5.8-8, Section 5.8.1, Environmental Setting. The following text change has been made in response to Comment A8-5, from the Local Agency Formation Commission. w u_ The Spring Trails site was placed in the City of San Bernardino's Sphere of Influence in September 1996, y when the Local Agency Formation Commission approved a sphere of influence expansion for the City of 2 San Bernardino. A sphere of influence, as defined by California Government Code, is a "plan for the probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency as determined by the Commission." ~ s While the land is in the sphere of influence, the county retains land use authority. Under the County of 5 San Bernardino's authority, the County General Plan designated approximately 160 acres in the northern portion of the site as Resource Conservation (RC) and approximately 190.6 . acres in the southern portion of the site Rural Living (RL-5), which allowed up to one dwelling unit per five acres. z w Page 5.8-31, Section 5.8.3. Environmental Impacts. The following revision to Table 5.8-2 has been a made in response to Comment A10-7, from Omnitrans. h a Policy 0SC-8:Local governments should encourage patterns of Generally Consistent.,As outlined in Chapter 3,Project urban development and land use that reduce costs on Description,of the Specific Plan,the proposed project would m infrastructure and make better use of existing facilities. consist of up to 307 single-family residential dwelling units that E would require the construction of new roads and water,sewer, and other utility and infrastructure systems. Q As discussed in Please-refake-Sections 5.12,Public Services, and 5.15,Utilities and Service Systems, at hew the public services and facilities system would need to be expanded to be able to accommodate the proposed project. However,many of the provisions outlined in Chapter 5, Sustainability, of the Specific Plan would help reduce the need of and impacts on infrastructure costs and existing facilities.For example,to help minimize the impacts on costs and use of existing water and drain facilities,measures in the Specific Plan include the diversion of runoff into detention basins to reduce drainage runoff;the use of pervious paving materials to reduce stormwater runoff;the installation of moisture sensors and other Page 3-10 •The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR similar irrigation technology to reduce water needs;and the use of water-saving landscaping techniques,such as drip irrigation systems and drought-tolerant plant species.To help minimize the use of electricity facilities,measures in the Specific Plan include the installation of insulation with at least 75 percent recycled content;the use of low-voltage fixtures and energy- efficient bulbs;the use of natural ventilation techniques,such as operable windows,to take advantage of airflow for cooling interiors,reducing the amount of energy needed for cooling;the use of"cool roofs"to cool building interiors and increase stormwater retention;the installation of water-and energy- w saving fixtures and appliances,such as showerheads,toilets, — washing machines,clothes dryers,refrigerators,and dishwashers certified as EnergyStar®-compliant;and the incorporation of building materials that take advantage of heat storage or thermal mass to reduce energy needed for heating rn and cooling interiors. LO In addition the proposed proiect would make much-needed N improvements to the existing utility infrastructure by improving roadways water and wastewater conveyance systems,and stormwater drains These improvements need to be made in the LU area to improve traffic flow,help defend the area from wildfires a and reduce effects of flooding and stormwater overflow.Some U) of the improvements that would serve the proiect site the Verdemont Area Phase I water infrastructure imorovements, have already been started because they are needed to improve the water service in the area whether or not the proposed project ° is approved and developed.The Verdemont Area Phase II a improvements would also be built with or without the proposed cn proiect. F D I ._ ._ _. ._ C_ _. _5.12, O__. _ C_ _ d o 16 b We Z W a U Q H f— C Page 5.8-32, Section 5.8.3, Environmental Impacts. The following revision to Table 5.8-2 has been m made in response to Comment At 0-7,from Omnitrans. E U A Policy OSC-10:Developers and local governments should Inconsistent AIeFApSfisaAle:The project site is not an infill or 4 promote infill development and redevelopment to revitalize redevelopment site the proposed proiect does not support this existing communities. ol>l icy. ;p'im'p`wei this pimp""is Ral"p"im"a"'" Page 5.8-33, Section 5.8.3, Environmental Impacts. The following revision to Table 5.8-2 has been made in response to Comment A10-7, from Omnitrans. Policy OSC-13:Developers and local governments should Generally Consistent:The project site is not near the urban encourage multiple use spaces and encourage redevelopment in core but it does encourage recreational uses and provides areas where it will provide more opportunities for recreational access to natural areas.The provision of recreational needs is uses and access to natural areas close to the urban core. I addressed in Section 5.13,Recreation.The parks and open Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 3-11 a M 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR space design standards of the Specific Plan outline the necessary provisions to provide for usable and accessible recreational and people-gathering areas within the project site. Open space requirements and streetscape design elements would work in concert to create a pedestrian-friendly environment for residents and visitors.As shown in Figure 3-8, Trails,Parks,and Open Space Plan,recreational amenities would include two neighborhood parks,a dog park,and a comprehensive system of pedestrian and multiuse trails.As shown on Figure 3-8,the trail system would also include trailheads and observation points at key locations,and would connect to a planned regional trail system.See also response to N RCP Policy OSC-9. rn c .i Page 5.8-36, Section 5.8.3. Environmental Impacts. The following revision to Table 5.8-2 has been rn made in response to Comment At 0-7,from Omnitrans. Ln N N Policy EN-8:Developers should incorporate and local Partial Generally Consistent:The proposed project would governments should include the following land use principles that consist of a master-planned residential development,and would use resources efficiently,eliminate pollution and significantly not consist of mixed-use development or have access to public LL reduce waste into their projects,zoning codes and other transportation.However,as shown on Figure 3-8,Trails,Parks, a implementation mechanisms: and Open Space Plan,the proposed project would include a xn Mixed-use residential and commercial development that is comprehensive system of pedestrian and multiuse trails connected with public transportation and utilizes existing incorporated into the circulation plan.As shown in Figure 3-8, E infrastructure. the proposed system of trails would connect internally and to the a . Land use and planning strategies to increase biking and planned offs to regional trails.The proposed trails would not only S walking trips. provide a form of recreation and exercise for residents of the rn proposed project and surrounding communities,but would also provide an alternative mode of transportation for them and link x- them to the existing and planned City's biking circulation s stem. w x U Q Page 5.8-43, Section 5.8.3, Environmental Impacts. The following revision to Table 5.8-3 has been F made in response to Comment At 0-7,from Omnitrans. 4 c d RTP G6:Encourage land use and growth patterns that Consistent The project's proposed land uses would E complement our transportation investments and improves the complement the existing and proposed circulation and cost-effectiveness of expenditures. transportation facilities in and around the project area. For example,the residential land uses would beaseated and a se of-existing and future vehicular arxd+envepisdlaHransportation systems and would not require the construction of new roadway systems (with the exception of the project access roads).The residents would use the existing local City-owned roadways and the state freeway system.Where necessary,improvements to existing roadways would be made to maintain the appropriate level of service.These improvements are required through mitigation measures in the Draft EIR.Some of these improvements would be funded by the developer and others would be funded in part by the developer throuoh a fair share fee. Page 3-12 •The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 Packet Pg. 424 ® 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR The oroiect would also allow access to the regional trail system and the City's Public bus route indirectly.Omnitrans Route 7 travels to the Ohio Avenue/Palm Avenue intersection.Residents of the proposed oroiect may travel by bike along the onste trails to City streets to access this bus stop.Onsite trails are As shown in Figure 3-8,Trails,Parks,and Open Space.Afthouah there are no direct bus route connections to the proposed project the design of the oroiect does not prevent residents from accessing the bus route., .The proposed trails would not only provide a form of recreation and exercise for residents of the proposed project and surrounding y communities,but would also provide an alternative mode of L° transportation. PAPF13YOFROMS would be nstallodaREVBFfl'Rd9dtaP.Aq';F64ha CL N N N Page 5.14-9. Section 5.14.1. Environmental Setting. The following text change has been made in response to Comment A10.9,from Omnitrans. ILL a Impact Analysis: The City of San Bernardino supports public and alternative transportation options in a addition to vehicle travel. There are two main forms of public transportation, the Omnitrans bus service ,i and a Metrolink station that connects the City with regional train stations. The nearest bus stop to the project site is an Omnitrans stop at Palm Avenue and Ohio Street, over two miles walking distance from ° the project site. Bus service from this stop connects passengers to the main Metrolink Station near the Q intersection of West Third Street and North K Street in San Bernardino. U) Omnitrans also provides paratransit service, which complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. ADA does not require this service to be provided when residences are more than Lu 0.75 miles from the nearest bus stop. However. Omnitrans provides this service to residences outside its = service boundary for a surcharge fee. U Q r- Page 5.14-10, Section 5.14.1, Environmental Setting (Table 5.14-2). The following revision to Table Q 5.14-2 has been made in response to Comment A2-1, from the California Department of Transportation. E s U _R Q I Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 3-13 Packet Pg. 425 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Table 5.14-2 Existing Intersection Delay and Level of Service'- Peak Hour Delay in Seconds(LOS) Intersection Traffic Control M_ _orning Evening Little League Drive(NS)at:'" Meyers Road EW CSS 12.0-13 9.3-A Belmont Avenue EW AWS 8.9-A 7.4-A Frontage Road EW CSS 12.2-13 8.9-A Kendall Drive EW CSS 9.7-A 9.6-A Magnolia Avenue(NS)at: y Belmont Avenue(EW) AWS 7.6-A _ 7.1-A Palm Avenue NS at: ~ Belmont Avenue EW AWS 9.8-A 9.2-A c Irvington Avenue EW TS 14.5-13 15.4-13 o Kendall Drive EW TS 31.3-C 31.2-C y 1-215 Freeway NB Ramps EW CSS 29.2-D 29.9-D to 1-215 Freeway SB Ramps EW AWS 34.8-D 14.2-13 N Source:Kunzman Associates 2009. CSS=cross-street stop;AWS=all-way stop;TS=traffic signal;NS= north—south;EW=east—west;NB=northbound;SB=southbound Notes: MU 'Based on discussions with City of San Bernardino staff and information from a previous traffic study,it is projected that a nominal increase in traffic d LL volumes has occurred in the study area from Year 2008 to Year 2011. in N Page 5.14-45, Section 5.14.7, Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measure 14-4 has been revised in response to Comment At 2-2,from the South Coast Air Quality Management District. c a rn 14-4 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall prepare a n construction traffic plan that shall be approved by the City of San Bernardino Public z Works/Engineering Division. The construction traffic plan shall: w x • Prohibit project construction traffic from using the Kendall Drive/Palm Avenue v intersection during the morning peak hour (7:00 AM and 9:00 AM) and the evening H peak hour (4:00 PM and 6:00 PM) c • Establish truck haul routes on the appropriate transportation facilities. E t U • Provide Traffic Control Plans (for detours and temporary road closures) that meet the ;? minimum Caltrans, City, and County criteria. Q • Minimize offsite road closures during the peak hours. • Keep all construction-related traffic onsite at all times. • Provide temporary traffic controls, such as a flag person, during all phases of construction to maintain smooth traffic flow. I j Page 3-14 The Planning Center I DC&E October 2012 Pacltet Pgx426; 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Page 5.16-23, Section 5.16-7, Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measure 16-4 has been added in response to Comment Ri-1, Group Letter. 16-4 Applicants for new developments in Spring Trails shall submit evidence to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief that the project uses insulation with at least 75 percent recycled content, such as cellulose, newspaper, or recycled cotton. Page 5.16-23, Section 5.16-7, Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measure 16-10 has been added in w response to Comment Al2-2, from the South Coast Air Quality Management District. L 16-10 Garages shall be electrically wired to accommodate electric vehicle charging. The c location of the electrical outlets shall be specified on building plans. a 3.3 CORRECTIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR N N N 3.3.1 Revisions due to the Change in Preferred Development Plan (Electrical Power W Lines) w LL The project site is traversed by 112 kilovolt (kV) electrical lines owned by Southern California Edison 0. (SCE). Initially, at the time of the release of the Draft EIR, the applicant had selected a preferred w development plan that would assume the power lines would be undergrounded. Now the preferred development plan is to have the SCE power lines remain aboveground. m c Universal changes have been made in each environmental topical section of the Draft EIR to correct the y preferred and alternative overhead power line development plans. Since the revisions are reciprocated in each section, they are not all included below. The revisions below are from sections that discuss or analyze the electrical powerlines in more detail. iz Page 1-5, Section 1-4, Project Summary.The following text has been revised. L) H The Spring Trails plan assumes that the Southern California Edison (SCE) overhead electric lines that Q traverse the western portion of the site will remain aboveground be leeated undeFgFsand. In the event that SCE prefers that the overhead electric lines to eaRnet-be located underground, an alternative plan accommodating the lines belowabeve ground is included for analysis in this EIR. The alternative plan is identical to the preferred plan except that it contains 3064 single-family detached units (3053 new units ;a and 1 existing residence) and the SCE electric lines are located underground abeve Freund (see Q Chapter 3, Project Description). Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 3-15 Racket�P,g 42T�. 6.B.m 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Table 1-1 Land Use Summary Land Use Acres ` : Maximum Density Units' Developed Area Residential 70.9 1 unit per lot 3036 Private Lot(existing) 2.2 1 unit 1 Parks public and private 9.0 Open Space-Controlled 125.1 Utilities 1.2 N Roads onsite 33.1 Subtotal 241.5 3047 ~ - ar Undeveloped Area Open Space-Natural 111.3 in Subtotal 0nsite 352.8 3047 Ln Offsite Acres N Roads/Grading(offsite) 23.7 Total(On-and Off-site) 376.5 _ 3047 w Source:Spring Trails Specific Plan. _ a ' Variations to account for final roadway alignments and grading may result in a minor shifting of acres. U) Statistics are based upon buildable area depicted on Figure 2.2 of the Specif ic Plan instead of the legal lot area to give a true picture of the use of the w land.See Figure 3-4,Zoning Map,for the zoning designations. Lots 30 and 233,as numbered on Tract Map 15576,are undevelopable unless the building pads are reconfigured in a manner that is acceptable to the Fire Chief.If they are not reconfigured accordingly,the total units developed would be 30163. c a Page 1-6, Section 1-4, Project Summary.The following text has been revised. ti h Z Spring Trails is 29,000 square feet (0.67 acres). The largest lots (up to 18.3 acres) are on the northern g portion and upper elevations of the site, and the smallest lots (10,801 square feet or 0.25 acre) are on the = lower elevations and southern portion of the project. The buildable and nonbuildable areas of each lot are depicted on Figure 3-3,Development Plan, and also on Figure 3-4,Zoning Map, in Chapter 3, Project c Description. The buildable and nonbuildable areas of each lot for the alternative plan with underground eFheaEl lectric lines are depicted in Chapter 3 in Figure 3-3A, Alternative (Underground9verhead Electric Lines) Development Plan. E s U Page 3-1. Section 3. Prolect Description.The following text has been revised. 1 As described in detail in this section, the Spring Trails Specific Plan proposes development of 3047 single-family lots within a 352.8-acre site situated within an unincorporated area of the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains. The proposed development footprint would encompass approximately 68 percent of the project site, including 9 acres of parks and 12_65.4 acres of internal slopes and fuel modification zones. The remaining 32 percent of Spring Trails (111.3 acres) would remain in natural open space. Page 3-16 •The Planning Center I DC&E October 2012 e 4 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Page 3-7 through 3-8. section 3.4.1. Development Plan.The following text has been revised. Figure 3-3, Development Plan, depicts the proposed development for the project site. This is the preferred development plan and it assumes that the Southern California Edison (SCE) overhead electric lines that traverse the western portion of the site would remain aboveground be •^'^^^'^d ndeFgre nd- Figure 3-3A,Alternative (Underground Overhead-Electric Lines) Development Plan, depicts an alternative plan with the electric lines accommodated below abeve ground, in the event that they are not left aboveground. Both plans are described in more detail below. Preferred Development Plan y L The development footprint focuses on the gently sloping alluvial benches between canyons, steep hillsides, and the major drainages (Cable Canyon and Meyer Canyon)that characterize the property. Q The project site (352.8 acres) is within the City of San Bernardino's unincorporated sphere of influence (SOI) and will be annexed into the City. The proposal also includes the annexation of an adjacent 26.4- N acre area consisting of six parcels owned by various property owners (outlined on Figure 3-2). The area is adjacent to the west of the project site along Meyers Road and currently has four occupied, multiple- acre lots. It is being included in the annexation element of the proposed project to prevent the creation of 1i a county island within the City of San Bernardino. The creation of an island is not allowed under a LL regulations governing the Local Agency Formation Commission of San Bernardino County. A land use U) proposal has not been submitted for this 26.4-acre area and it is not owned or otherwise under the control of the applicant. For these reasons, no development would occur on these parcels as part of this E r project. � The Spring Trails plan accommodates 304-7 single-family detached units (3036 new units and 1 existing w residence), which are set among neighborhoods separated by open space corridors, drainage ways, roadways, and sloped areas. Underneath the central portion of the electric line easement,the land use is F designated as Open Space-Controlled The northern portion of the electric line easement is designated w as residential in Figure 3-3m however, development is not permitted within the electric line easement. A 2 system of pathways connects the residences with neighborhood parks and natural open spaces. 3: Development is focused onto approximately 241.5 acres, or about 68 percent of the total site, and < includes 9 acres of parks and 125.1 acres of internal slopes and fuel modification zones. The remaining Q 32 percent of Spring Trails (111.3 acres) is preserved as natural open space. A statistical analysis of the site plan is provided in Table 3-1,Land Use Summary. m E r V R 4 Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 3-17 Packet Pg. 429 6.B.m Q3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Table 3-1 Land Use Summary Land Use Acres ' z Maximum Density Units' Developed Area Residential 70.9 1 unit per lot 303& Private Lot(existing) 2.2 1 unit 1 Parks(public and rivate 9.0 Open Space-Controlled 126.054 Utilities 1.2 n Roads onsite 33.1 L Subtotal 1 241.5 1 1 3047 ~ Undeveloped Area a Open Space-Natural 111.3 rn Subtotal Onsite 352.8 3047 Offsite Acres N_ Roads/Grading(offsite) 23.7 Total 376.5 1 1 3047 w Source:Spring Trails Specific Plan. ' Variations to account for final roadway alignments and grading may result in a minor shifting of acres. y z Statistics are based upon buildable area depicted on Figure 2.2 of the Specific Plan instead of the legal lot area to give a true picture of the use of the ur land.See Figure 3-4,Zoning Map,for the zoning designations. ' Fa Lots 30 and 233,as numbered on Tract Map 15576,are undevelopable unless the building pads are reconfigured in a manner that is acceptable to the Fire Chief.If they are not reconfigured accordingly,the total units developed would be 3035. ~ rn a Paqe 3-8 through 3-9, Section 3.4.1, Development Plan.The following text has been revised. N Alternative (Undergrounded Overhead Electric Lines) Development Plan z W As shown in Figure 3-3A, the alternative plan for Spring Trails is the same as the preferred plan in every respect except for the treatment of the land above beneath-the undergrounded above-greund electric Q lines and the number of residential lots. The alternative plan contains 3074 single-family detached units h (3063 new units and 1 existing residence). Underneath the central portion of the electric line easement, a the land use is designated as Open Space-Controlled. The northern portion of the electric line easement c is designated as residential in Figure 3.3A; however, development is not permitted within the electric line E easement. A statistical analysis of the alternative plan is provided in Table 3-1 A, Alternative Land Use Summary. 4 I f Page 3-18 •The Planning Center I DC&E October 2012 Packet Pg.430 F- 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Table 34A Alternative Land Use Summary Land Use Acres Maximum Density Units3 Developed Area Residential 70.90 1 unit per lot 3055 Private Lot existing 2.2 1 unit 1 Parks(public and private) 9.0 Open Space-Controlled 125.16.9 Utilities 1.2 Roads onsfte 33.1 Subtotal 241.5 3064 ~ Undeveloped Area a Open Space-Natural 111.3 u> Subtotal Onsite 352.8 3064 LO 011site Acres N Roads/Grading(offsite) 23.7 Total 376.5 3064 M LL Source:Spring Trails Specific Plan. ' Variations to account for final roadway alignments and grading may result in a minor shitting of acres. fn s Statistics are based upon buildable area depicted on Figure 2.2 of the Specific Plan instead of the legal lot area to give a true picture of the use of the w land.See Figure 3-4,Zoning Map,for the zoning designations. 3 Lots 30 and 233,as numbered on Tract Map 15576,are undevelopable unless the building pads are reconfigured in a manner that is acceptable to the fire Chief.If they are not reconfigured accordingly,the total units developed would be 3042. rr L ,^Q v/ The buildable and nonbuildable areas of each lot for the alternative plan with underground eyerhead electric lines isare depicted in Figure 3-3A and also in Figure 3-4A, Alternative (Underoround0veFhead F Electric Lines)Zoning Map. w x Page 3-10, Section 3.4.3.Trails and Open Space.The following text has been revised. a F t- Figure 3-8, Trails, Parks, and Open Space Plan, illustrates the recreational improvements proposed for Q Spring Trails. As detailed in Table 3-1, 245.4 acres of the 352.8-acre site are planned as open space, including natural open space, controlled open space, and parks. Two neighborhood parks would be E public, serve the dual function as detention basins, and include shade structures and tot lots. One private park is proposed to include a thematic garden, observation point, a tot lot, and other amenities such as an outdoor fireplace,water feature, picnic benches, and gazebo. A private, enclosed dog park is d also proposed. If permitted by SCE a park and/or trail may be located under the electric lines as a permitted use; however,they are not assumed in the buildout of the preferred plan In the alternative plan with under roq and eveNaead electric lines, the area planned as open space in Spring Trails totals 125_16 acres. The;e aad#ieFla1-,0.9 fewer acres of open space than above what is shown in the preferred development plan aeeemrnedates ^` - `^' `"^ ^ ^FhAREJ lines.As shown in Figure 3-8A,Alternative (UndergroundAveFbead Electric Lines) Trails, Parks, and Open Space Plan, the land abov^•��ndemeath-the central portion of the SCE easement is designated as residential altemative plan. Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 3-19 Packet Pg�431 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Paae 5.6-7, Section 5.6.1, Environmental Setting.The following text has been revised. Applicable Plans, Policies, and Regulations for Public Infrastructure Southern California Edison The Spring Trails project assumes that the overhead electric lines would remain aboveground on the project site. In the event that the overhead electric lines on the Spring Trails project site are moved underground or relocated within the project site, Southern California Edison requires the following information to proceed with the relocation of their electric transmission facilities. y R L L Paae 5.6-9. Section 5.6.3, Environmental Impacts.The following text has been revised. a c Alternative (UnderaroundOve449ad Electric Lines) Development Plan vat co The Spring Trails project assumes that the SCE overhead electric lines that traverse the western portion N of the site will remain abovearound. , In the event that the overhead electric lines N eannet be leeated must be undergrounded, an alternative plan accommodating the lines above rr underground is proposed for the project site. The alternative plan for Spring Trails is the same as the FLi LL preferred plan in every respect except for the treatment of the land above beneath the (L underabeveground electric lines and the number of residential lots. Both scenarios are analyzed in this U) A section. Page 5.6-21 through 5.6-22. Section 5.6.3, Environmental Impacts. The following text has been c revised. a U) Impact 5.6-5: it Me prejest i6 built with Me Southern California Edison 115 W transmission lines F above ^F^••^d ii;e fines would potentially expose construction workers Z w and residents to hazards of electric shock and/or electric and magnetic fields. [Threshold H-3 in part] Impact Analysis:As shown in Figure 3-3,Development Plan, in Section 3 the plan assumes that the SCE c overhead electric lines that traverse the western portion of the site would be located aboveground underground. In the event that SCE prefers that the overhead electric lines to eannet be undergrounded, an alternative plan accommodating the lines underground above-gfeand is proposed for the site (see LE Figure MA, Alternative (Underground Averhead Electric Lines) Development Plan). The alternative plan for Spring Trails is the same as the preferred plan in every respect except for the treatment of the land above beneath-the abeveunderground electric lines and the number of residential lots. In the preferred plan-this�e, underneath the central portion of the electric line easement, the land use is designated as Open Space-Controlled. The northern portion of the electric line easement is designated as residential in Figure 3-3; however, development is not permitted within the electric line easement. The SCE easement would be landscaped in accordance with the approved Fire Protection Plan for Spring Trails. If permitted by SCE, a park and/or equestrian/pedestrian trail may be located under the electric lines as a permitted use; however, they are not assumed in the design of the alternative plan. The preferred development plan and the alternative development plan with underground e•erhead electric lines presents potential hazards related to proximity to future residential uses: Page 3-20 •The Planning Center I DC&E October2012 Packet Pg. 432 - 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR • Although SCE makes provision for earthquakes in the design and construction of overhead transmission lines, extreme seismic shaking and earth rupture on the San Andreas fault may snap lines or topple towers, resulting in live power to the ground. • During construction, accidental contact with the towers or wires is possible. • Resident youths may be tempted to play on or climb the towers. • Residents may be exposed to electric and magnetic fields (EMF). These lines would pose both construction and operational risks to workers or residents on the site. Contact with the wires by an elevated excavator arm, raised bucket, or other equipment designed for overhead work would have potentially fatal consequences. There is also the risk that residents may be y tempted to climb on or vandalize the supporting towers. Though slight, the risk of electrical shock F because of such activity does exist. Worker and residents would also be susceptible to electromagnetic ~ fields (EMFs) because of the location of the lines on the project site. The SCE easement does not cross into the adjacent 26.4-acre annexation area. Q The project proposes to allow feleeate the 115 kV lines to be aboveground ufldefgFOUnd PF'eF t8 Site N we .14 he PIiFniAAtREl If SCE prefers the 115kV lines eannet to be relocated underground,then the project would underground these lines prior to site developmenth^ '^ ^^^e—m—F .lode the ^.,^.h^^.+ -'^^`-:^ lines. This alternative plan is described in Chapter 3,Project Description, and is illustrated in Figure MA, LL Alternative ctric Lines) Development Plan. Figure MA shows the relationship a_ between the easement and residential lots. Instead of Open Space-Controlled, the area above the N electric lines would be used for three additional residential lots. Undo each the ^'^^`r•^ line ease^'^^' the land use Is designated Open Spaee GeRtFelled. As proposed, he northern portion of the electric i line easement is designated residential in Figure 3.3A; however, development is not permitted within the ° electric line easement. Q ch Page 5.6-23 through 5.6-24. Section 5.6.6. Level of Significance Before Mitigation. The following F- text has been revised. z W Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, the following Q impacts would be less than significant: 5.6-1 and 5.6-2. 4 Without mitigation,the following impacts would be potentially significant: m • Impact 5.6-3 The topography and physical conditions of the proposed project site puts it at E high risk for fires, potentially causing damage, injury, or death to property and R people on the site. In addition, two lots (Lot 30 and 233) would be a undevelopable due to deficient space for fuel modification. • Impact 5.6-4 Development of Spring Trails in a designated high wind area would place residents, construction workers, and on- and offsite property at risk of injury, death,and/or damage caused by high wind conditions. • Impact 5.6-5 Tthe Southern California Edison 115 kV transmission lines und the lines would potentially expose construction workers and residents to hazards of electric shock. Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 3-21 Packet Pg. 433 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Page 5.6-26, Section 5.6-7. Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measure 6-6 has been revised. 6-6 Aall flammable vegetation within the SGE Southern California Edison 115 W overhead transmission lines easement shall be removed, by the Homeowners Association, on an ongoing basis, except for that needed for erosion control and soil stability. Pages 5.11-8 through 5.11-9. Section 5.11.3. Environmental Impacts. The following text has been N revised. R L Impact 5.11-1: Based on an average household size of 3.34, 3047 units located on the project site would Introduce approximately 1,0125 new residents to the City of San Bernardino. rn (Threshold P-11 m Impact Analysis: The proposed project would result in population growth in the project area by directly introducing 3047 new single-family residential units into the City of San Bernardino. Using an average household size of 3.34 persons,' the proposed project would add up to 1,0125 new residents to the City w of San Bernardino. The alternative (undergroundeverhead electric lines) development plan would LL introduce 3064 new single-family residential units into the City of San Bernardino. Based on an average y household size of 3.34 persons, the alternative plan would add up to 1,0245 new residents to the City. T The impacts related to population and housing would be similar for both scenarios; therefore, the preferred development plan is used for the analysis below. c L Pages 5.11-9 through 5.11-10. Section 5.11.3, Environmental Impacts. The following text has been rn revised. Z z Jobs/Housing Balance w x SCAG applies the jobs/housing ratio at the regional and subregional level as a tool for analyzing the fit between jobs, housing, and infrastructure. Although no ideal jobs/housing ratio is adopted in state, regional, or city policies, SCAG considers an area balanced when the jobs/housing ratio is 1.35; 4 communities with more than 1.5 jobs per dwelling unit are considered jobs-rich. The proposed project c would consist of 3049 residential units and would not provide any jobs. Table 5.11-5 shows the projected growth from 2005 to 2035 for the City and the County with and without the proposed project. By 2035, the City is projected to grow by 36.6 percent in housing, 32.1 percent in population, and 65.5 percent in w employment. SCAG's forecast predicts a strong growth in employment, as the City's jobs/housing ratio was 1.65 in 2005 and is expected to increase to 2.00 by 2035. The projected 2035 jobs/housing ratio at buildout with the project would be 1.99, 0.01 less than the jobs/housing ratio at buildout without the project. The proposed project would create a jobs/housing ratio that is slightly more balanced compared to the projected buildout in the area, improving the jobs/housing ratio within the City. tL.... ' Population generation factor is based on the Department of Finance's 2009 City/County Population and Housing Estimates. Page 3-22 •The Planning Center I DC&E October 2012 Packet Pg: 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Table 5.11-5 Pro"ected Growth and Jobs/Housing Ratio According to SCAG Projected Adjusted Adjusted Projected Growth Buildout with Growth Buildout (2005- Proposed Project (2005- 2005 (2035) 2035) Increase (2035) 2035) Difference City of San Bernardino Population 201,049 265,515 32.1°k 1,1L11 266,5340 32.6% 0.5% Employment 94,917 157,088 65.5% 0 157,088 65.5% 0% Households 57,698 78,619 36.3% 3047. 78,9236 36.8% 0.5% Jobs/Housing Ratio 1 1.65 2.00 1.99 County of San Bernardino 1= Population 1,971,318 3,133,801 59.0% 1,0125 3,134,8126 59.0% 0.5% to - c Employment 704,239 1,254,749 78.2% 0 1,254,749 78.2% 0% Q Households 567,277 972,561 71.4% 3047- 972,8656 71.5% 0.1% v) Jobs/Housing Ratio 1 1.24 1.29 1.29 Sources:SCAG's 2008 Regional Transportation Plan Growth Forecast. N N W Page 5.11-10, Section 5.11.3, Environmental Impacts.The following text has been revised. LL a. U) Table 5.11-6 H Projected Growth and Jobs/Housfn g Ratio According to the City's General Plan F General Plan Buildout Proposed Increase General Plan Buildout with project c Population 319,241 1,0125 320,2566 a Employment 355,629 0 355,629 rn Households 95,664 3047 95,96874 Jobs/Housing Ratio 3.7 3.7 z Sources:City of San Bernardino 2005a. W 2 U Page 5.12-3, Section 5.12.2.3, Environmental Impacts.The following text has been revised. Impact 5.12-1: The proposed project would introduce 3047 residences and about 1,0125 m Residents into a very high fire hazard severity zone in the San Bernardino city Fire E Department service Area, thereby increasing the requirement for fire protection facilities and personnel. [Threshold FP-1] a Impact Analysis: The project would include 304.7 homes, four parks, and roadways for site and internal access to the roughly 353-acre project site. The project is expected to add about 1,0125 residents to the site. Therefore, project development is expected to result in an increase in calls for SBFD fire and emergency medical services. At project completion, SBFD response time to emergency calls to the farthest part of the site from the Verdemont Fire Station is expected to be 12 to 13 minutes. This is seven to eight minutes more than the standard SBFD response time of five minutes. After a reduction in staff from four to three firefighters, staffing at the station was recently restored to four firefighters (Moon 2009). The addition of the Spring Trails development to the area served by the Verdemont Fire Station may result in increased demand on emergency fire services. To offset the additional demand caused by new development projects, the City requires a fair-share contribution from new developments to help fund ongoing operation and maintenance of the Verdemont Fire Station. Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 3-23 Packet Pg:435" IntB "' w� �A 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Page 5.12-9, Section 5.12.3.3, Environmental Impacts.The following text has been revised. Impact 5.12-2: The proposed project would introduce new structures and Residents into the San Bernardino police department's service boundaries, thereby increasing the requirement for police protection and personnel. [Threshold PP-11 Impact Analysis: Upon annexation of the project site and county island, the SBPD would be providing police services to the project site. This would expand SBPD's service area and would likely result in an increase in calls for SBPD services. Such an increase in calls would be expected to create a need for additional police staff. The City of San Bernardino's development impact fee for law enforcement is a $597.74 per unit for detached single-family residential units. With a total of 3047 units, F $181.712.96306:45 would be charged to the project developer as law enforcement development impact fees.These fees may be spent on facilities, equipment, or vehicles. _ CL Pages 5.12-1 through 5.12-12, Section 5.12.4.3, Environmental Impacts. The following text has been revised. r N_ W Table 5.12-3 U. Estimated Student Generation for the Proposed Project ai Schoo/Level Student Generation Rate' Households Total Student Generation y Elementary 0.3310 3047 1012 Middle 0.1695 3047 52 rn High 0.1933 3047. 5960 ' Dolinka Group 2008. to F As shown in Tables 5.12-2 and 5.12-3 the project is estimated to generate roughly 1012 additional Z W students in the attendance area of North Verdemont Elementary School, 52 students in the attendance area of Cesar Chavez Middle School, and 5960 students in the attendance area of Cajon High School. There is existing unused capacity at Cesar Chavez Middle School and Cajon High School to accommodate project-generated students. However, the unused capacity at North Verdemont Q Elementary School is 82 students, less than project-generated elementary school students. The project would create a potential need for teachers and support staff at the elementary, middle, and high school r levels. In addition, the project may create a need for additional elementary school classroom space, E depending on population trends in the area. Y V Q Page 5.12-13, Section 5.12.5.3, Environmental Impacts. The following text has been revised. Impact 5.12-4: The proposed project would add roughly 1,0125 residents to the project site, increasing the service needs for the Dorothy Inghram Branch Library. [Threshold LS-1] Impact Analysis: The project would include 304-7 single-family homes and would also involve the annexation of the project site into the City of San Bernardino. Upon annexation, the project would be in the service area of the San Bernardino Public Library, and the Dorothy Inghram Branch Library would be the closest SBPL facility. The average household size in the City of San Bernardino is roughly 3.34 persons. Therefore, the project at completion would be expected to add roughly 1,0125 persons to the Page 3-24 •The Planning Center I DC&E October 2012 Packet Pg 436 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR City. The 26.4-acre annexation area includes 13 current residents. The project along with the annexation area would thus result in an increase in demands for library service in the City. At a ratio of two volumes per resident, the project would create a need for roughly 2,0350 additional library items. The annexation area would create a need for roughly 26 additional library items. The project-generated increase in population would also create increased need for technology such as computers at the Inghram Branch Library, and would contribute to a need for additional staffing. The library facilities fee that the City would charge to the project, $596.63 per residential unit, would help the SBPL to meet the project-related increase in demands for library services. Page 5.13-5, Section 5.13.3., Environmental Impacts.The following text has been revised. w L Proposed Trails, Parks, and Open Space Plan W C •L As shown on Figure 3-8, Trails, Parks, and Open Space Plan, Spring Trails accommodates 3047 single- U) family detached units (3036 new units and 1 existing residence) and a system of pathways that would connect the residences with neighborhood parks and natural open spaces. Development is focused N within approximately 241.5 acres, or 68 percent of the total site, and includes 9 acres of parks and 12654 acres of internal slopes and fuel modification zones. The remaining 32 percent of Spring Trails (111.3 acres) is preserved as natural open space. w U. a Spring Trails would provide approximately 246_35-0 acres of public and private parkland, open space, rn and trails, as summarized in Table 5.13-1 and described in detail below. Also, Table 5.13-2, Maintenance Plan, describes the maintenance responsibilities for the neighborhood parks and trails in the project F area. c •L Q U) Table 5.13-1 Open Space, Parks, and Recreation Facilities F_ Parks/Recreation Facilities Acres w Public Parks 9.0 Open Space-Natural 111.3 Q Open Space-Controlled 12_6&4 Total 246.36-4 Q t_ d E Page 5.13-8, Section 5.13.3., Environmental Impacts.The following text has been revised. m V M Impact 5.13-1: The proposed project would include up to 304-7 residential dwelling units to the San a Bernardino area, resulting in a subsequent increase in use of existing recreational facilities and a possible demand for additional facility development. [Thresholds R-1 & R-2] Impact Analysis: According to the Parks, Recreation, and Trails Element of the San Bernardino General Plan, five acres of parkland and/or recreations facilities per 1,000 population is required for residential development projects. The maximum buildout of the Spring Trails Specific Plan would accommodate 304-7 units. Based on the City of San Bernardino's General Land Use Element, the 2008 average household size is 3.34 persons, and the project would therefore generate a population of approximately 1,0125 residents (304-7 units x 3.34 = 1,0125). Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 3-25 ftaclel{P437 , 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Based on the Quimby Act legislation allowing a maximum parkland dedication standard of 3 acres per 1,000 population, approximately 3.054 acres of parkland or equivalent fees or improvements would be required to serve the residents of the proposed project. Based on the City's General Plan performance standard for parks and recreation facilities (5 acres per 1,000 population),the project would generate the need for 5.018 acres of parkland. The Spring Trails Specific Plan would provide 246_35.4 acres of public and private parkland, open space, trails, and recreational amenities on the project site. More specifically, 9.0 of the 245.4 acres would be designated public and private parks: 2.0 acres of private parks and 7.0 acres of public parks. Therefore, the project would exceed the City requirements by 3.9987 acres of parkland. Additionally, the project responds to the City's Parks, Recreation, and Trails Element Goals 8.1 and 8.3 by providing parks and creating a trail system that would connect to future and existing regional and City trails. The parks and open space components would provide passive and active recreational opportunities. The exact M number, precise location, configuration, type, and amount of amenities and facilities, and the size of the c parks and open space areas would be established at the time of development of the tentative tract map(s) of the proposed project. N The proposed parks and open space acreage of the Spring Trials Specific Plan would meet and exceed the amount of parkland and/or recreation facilities defined by the Quimby Act and the more conservative performance standard outlined in the City's General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project's parks and w LL open space components would ensure that recreational facilities would be available to new residents of a. the proposed project. Since park needs would be met and exceeded onsite, it is not expected that the U) residents of the proposed project would, in any appreciable manner, need to use City or regionwide A E`er parks that are located offsite. Additionally, the proposed public parks, trails, and open space components would also serve residents of the existing and future surrounding communities. Impacts from construction of the parks and trail system are included in the discussion of impacts for the overall c development in this EIR. m" The above analysis is applicable to both the preferred development plan and the alternative (underaroundeveFhead electric lines) development plan. w Cumulative Impacts c=i Buildout of the Spring Trails Specific Plan would accommodate 3047 residential units, generating a total c of 1,0125 residents. According to the Parks, Recreation, and Trails Element, the City is currently deficient in park space and needs 787.6 acres of public parkland to provide for the projected population. The d project itself would generate a need for a total of 5.013 acres of parkland. However, the project would s provide 9 acres of public and private parkland and an additional 246_35:4 acres of open space, providing additional acreage beyond the park requirements and lessening the City's overall parkland needs. a Page 3-26 •The Planning Center I DC&E October 2012 1' Packet Pg.438 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR 3.3.2 Other Revisions to the Draft EIR The following revisions have been made to correct text, tables, and/or figures in the Draft EIR. Page 5.3-49, Section 5.3.3, Environmental Impacts. The following text revision has been made to Impact 5.3-2. IMPACT 5.3-2: DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD RESULT IN IMPACTS TO SIX RIPARIAN PLANT COMMUNITIES TOTALING 26_7 26:4 ACRES.Also, 168.4 ACRES OF RIVERSIDEAN SAGE SCRUB,A SENSITIVE NON-RIPARIAN PLANT COMMUNITY, WOULD BE IMPACTED. PORTIONS OF THE SITE WITHIN USFWS-DESIGNATED L° CRITICAL HABITAT FOR SAN BERNARDINO KANGAROO RAT WOULD BE ~ rn IMPACTED. [THRESHOLD B-2] a Page 5.3-50, Section 5.3.3, Environmental Impacts. The following text revision has been made to Impact 5.3-2. N N The mitigation provided in Section 5.3.7 of this EIR provides for the purchase and permanent w preservation of offsite mitigation lands and/or the payment of in lieu fees to appropriately offset the LL project's impact to RSS. For the reasons cited above, the prescribed mitigation for RSS for this project is a. set at a ratio 1:3 (one acre replaced for every three acres impacted). The mitigation also requires that the T applicant demonstrate that suitable mitigation lands have been identified and are available for acquisition, either through direct purchase or the payment of fees. The project applicant has identified several hundred acres of potential mitigation lands containing suitable RSS habitat along the alluvial fans of the San Bernardino and elMountains. These lands are available for purchase and v`a dedication to an appropriate conservation management organization. This dedication and management would ensure the long-term conservation status of this sensitive habitat type in the San Bernardino Valley. It can therefore be concluded that the prescribed mitigation is feasible and would thus mitigate z the project's impacts in this regard to less than significant levels. w x U Page 5.3-50, Section 5.3.3, Environmental Impacts. The following text revision has been made to F Impact 5.3-2. Q c Invasive Plant Impacts m E As discussed previously, the project site represents good quality habitat and a diverse mosaic of plant communities and is unusual for its relative lack of invasive plant species. Unlike other areas along the front range of the San Bernardino Mountains, the project site has not converted to large areas of nonnative grassland. Only 11_4 42-6 acres of the project site, or about 3 percent, has converted to this community type. The areas immediately surrounding the site, particularly in the SBNF, are also relatively unaffected by type conversion. Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 3-27 P�. MPO , 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Pape 5.5-26, Section 5.5.3. Environmental Impacts.The following text revision has been made. IMPACT 5.5-9 PART OF THE PROJECT WOULD BE DEVELOPED WITHIN A HILLSIDE MANAGEMENT OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT(HMOD); THE SPECIFIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS REPLACE THE HMOD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. [THRESHOLD G-9] Roughly 67 percent (133 acres) of the project site is within the Hillside Management Overlay District (HMOD), which covers all areas with slopes of 15 percent or greater. The HMOD contains development _ performance standards, including standards regarding soils and grading, geotechnical standards, and a standards requiring that vegetation on slopes, including graded slopes, be preserved or reestablished; such standards are listed above in Section 5.5.1. The Spring Trails hillside desian and development standards have been prepared to be site-specific for the proposed project and are consistent with the General Plan, replacing the HMOD development standards Since the alternative and preferred a development plans would require development of similar magnitude this analysis is applicable to both •• the preferred development plan and the alternative (overhead electric lines) development plan Under LO N eeF}lpliaRe°, ith the . Fements:f the I-IMOD that aFe deSGFibed in Seetien 5.5.1. W LL Page 5.6-26, Section 5.6-7. Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measure 6-7 has been revised. a N Lots 30 and 233 R rn 6-7 Development of Lots 30 and 233 shall only occur when the following conditions are met. � No development shall occur without the review and approval of the San Bernardino Fire a Chief. r • The onsite fuel modification shall consist of irrigated 'Zone A" and "Zone B" that z will remain within the Spring Trails property. An irrigated 'Zone A" shall be a w non-combustible setback zone within the pad area between the residential structure and the wildland urban interface area, traditionally the furthest portion a of the pad. 'Zone B" shall be a landscaped irrigated zone beyond 'Zone A" and terminating at the project boundary, with non-combustible construction which c will act as a"heat-sink"from an impending wild fire. "Zone C" shall extend offsite c as fuel modification. "Zone C" will be a temporary off-site fuel modification until E the adjoining property is, or will be, developed. If this is the scenario an easement will be required for maintenance of the "Zone C". If the adjoining property is developed prior to the development of the Spring Trails project, then a the off-site fuel modification will not be required for Lots 30 and 233. The total fuel modification distance for lots 30 and 233 will be a minimum of 170 feet. • For Lot 30, Zone A shall have a minimum/maximum distance of 20 feet, Zone B shall have a minimum distance of 8850 feet and a maximum distance of 443111 feet, and Zone C shall have a minimum distance of 3740 feet and a maximum distance of 62100 feet (a total of 15,469 square feet off-site Zone C). • For lot 233, Zone A shall have a minimum/maximum distance of 20 feet, Zone B shall have a minimum distance of 68 feet and a maximum distance of 429139 feet in width, and Zone C shall have a minimum distance of 43 feet and a Page 3-28 The Planning Center I DC&E October 2012 w.. Paces 6.B.m 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR maximum distance of 80 feet (a total of approximately 20,706 square feet off-site Zone C . Page 5.8-13, Section 5.8-3. Environmental Impacts.The following text revision has been made. General Plan and Zoning The project would be consistent with the City of San Bernardino General Plan. Under the existing General Plan designation of RE, the maximum density is 1 dwelling unit per acre. The project would require a General Plan Amendment to change the existing land use designation to Specific Plan. Residential Lew (R6), allewing 8.1 dwelling ts peF aere, an ineFease of 2.1 dwelling nits . The 'CO PeF project would be annexed into the City of San Bernardino and zoned Specific Plan RE(--^_.stem with c, existing prezening). The project's overall density over the 352.8-acre site would be 0.87 dwelling units 5 L per acre. rn CL cD Page 13-2. Chapter 13, Bibliography.The following text revision has been made. N N McGill, Tom. 2012. Memorandum: Availability of Conservation Properties for the Spring Trails Specific Plan. LL o. 3.4 REVISED AND NEW FIGURES N The following figures have been revised. w c L Q Z Z cW C U a a m E z U a Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino •Page 3-29 PacketPg.441 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR This page intentionally left blank. N L F S Q LO 04 N N_ w w LL a co ql L F C CL n n z z w x U Q F F Q c m E r v m Q Page 3-30 •The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 F cket Pg42 BHm 3. Revision to the Draft E[R Development Plan Legend it y `.ZR� C� aesmennal Opan Space NaWral $j 0 OpenSpaae Cpnsmlled tiN �'• �� ��� Parks ubli, eased * /q be on a i - y RN Prmary KCw 4+ Notice: u % Y Read J/ 1.Th.Oeveppmerrl Fiona;Bhue rePresenblpn 0/Ihe w �� ese R d spat eboellM lmaseMSt SWC er \ ' Garden Ye Y1 are h C INg maY be locabd 9/aCm'slupe v, VVV Park / area parks.mach Y. nd pe 5p srea5.Th. reaveloperso abb Eln Tebb,21 is knead 1. V, rears far. /ate c 2 Meseadonneen,ravatoe ave-leaneralikeriderski. �VViiib�a , ^ eta b la bl a Rob r c rha spay rren,1,s Fg ors -Idr dsaoabgmbsshas In— se ka L maFreorerePresenrs menbmbddeven scent Patbmolspary Tk,iner I rav lavers ro a Y^ madwey alynmer Is arM"he grMing s a bred blenpad Parob oreba MI tl MmMen Eaisnng+✓ , '/V Neighborhood Park l✓tJ "y ey be adeperthep vamnaor Chapbr 6. as c Re eta -Neighborhood ♦\ _ Adni nsearro and ImdemenAtion. E Nearmnjo Pak It <Th pva/ned de 1pmanl plan assumes that flte '� Above-Ground SCE SCE p rs 11 bankso above pmtmd.Me man wondarY ✓ \'^ Powerlinebsement the pawerlines nfor[a la fetl undo YA Snelt De usetlll ,reread A[[esSRpatl t re snare beans'vend ..earaes,everasame brrmmg � y � pad mnryttmdm plan m me nre _ fv; F amk 6 vs bi(Man bona,Tmik SpnFr PW Fiv(EIR '!he➢6nsing6ra • Flyure" Pclwr Po.AAi B.B.m 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR This page intentionally left blank. N H C a w m N N_ 2 W LL CL w N F- F- 0) C a w r H Z W 2 U FQ F Q c m E r U R Q Page 3-32 •The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 Packe 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Alternative (Underground Electric Lines) Development Plan legend ` i O xeadenealoarzloweleareas Open$pace Natural tf sh t ® Open space controlled x: 'aft uniny h f" f F 9oae / l f.TSCE,. aliva Can,,be1 nl%an wTCe WI etll r � -� IIre SCEpowerllne5 cerr0l Rtl urgergrouM LL T 1. aNan View p ,r P P' P A[ ,R. Y rekhannalve wbpmB PI n apmania m I prose rrse rl n' spec£eoileyal aMWalatM1e era wh 0 nW.,mad c Yi �, • an-ae. TSbpe an SpaM1S.medwnys.'In Teen spa no as ebpme fpcfe IN M1 rin t ek w � 4.0 Neyatlt M fl9 m. aMan 91M1e h IWrn (7 1a,I" ppg * �ys ate@ T p M M1 an bb W ecfa I e 5p'9 s as fn/s Z Fpe nrs reef to ssnea � „T. Wliq` 54 qov Q 4.Th i � •� Wv by F 9rtaPraapere,e W Sp"'r gTIerMd ea M Minn, EalL e '..t•,Y Y' RafideMtb i d•. ar{ustmana,na.a .'a'9 ants—eWhs.1,041 E la %Fa area tl ldad p tl M19 nani Ml.use O mpe .y be adepw/n poi a fcnaplar j a 4�.•_ e.adm' nar rro lrnple t 1 _ a �Lj}t � - yf lilt y�%r• pads an reronfi 9uredma me naerexePANero Meng .� fF . �1 n SobffW � Spn gTw45p5Rc P!®Frvl EIR TMPb.,C-an, F19 3-3a PecFN P9.M5 O 6.B.m 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR This page intentionally left blank. CL N F Q7 C N n w N N N W LL a N H m C CL U) F- z w x U Q H H Q c m E L V R V Q O Page 3-34 The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 Pack 3.Reviriow to the Draft EIR LeRna Zoning Map 0 Residential Eutate t 0 oeeespece Pans —"— site Roundar, _ Parcel Llnei � C g � Primary PCOta �'I( � -Garden View• / f e mR Park`•�" �• A . Nei6tibroti l Park l�� K EaistlnR� Neighborhood E Ri idence'a grk11 Remain J Above Ground SCE The Zo ing Map i5 a deehou or 0e ionirg dosgnabon < F\ Poweaine Easement w6acn rw I..S doe to ov2inls Gran a.faurf _ ` Secondary _ _ S aM abce areas.".tame,doe.nw provide¢ Arress Road iaM budaiwarewme an eae eglem tl mearore..nen dide r n the m e verwame.end eawewe sneer m.a far.Figure 2 PoV&opmew vran, FF yy�� d 4� snarrgare.�. srw.lraeo � Spur,TmiL S�RnFr Plw FiWPIR MPbiniq GUr Figore]J RaoIW Fg.Ni C 6.B.m 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR This page intentionally left blank. N H C CL w m N N N_ w LL a. U) w F rn c a U) n F z w x U FQ F Q c d E z v R z Page 3-36 The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 Packet Pg.448 II I 3.Revisions to the Draft EIR Alternative (Underground Electric Lines) Zoning Map Y � Nesltlentlal ESGG r 0 Open Spaee FI� Parks ' --- sae eaaamrr _ --•—•—•---- j - - _ • Gutlrn View•1 01 Park a �Do,Park� v•� k L a � rve�gnmmaee Paa I—� c v Eai N,ght-h if F to zitlence to Park II Remain _ TM ANemaOVe ZOnlrrg Mapue CepHron o/fneronry < nedyaaroa weaen br rro.e.e.eeer000nsramrs ` lea,nd mot as 2Nazores and Sbpe areas me xana,tloes Az raIPmNEe -YY o2lenaOMaNKK e aTn0ne0reuepblpne,n le te n taMshr e nKKio.,op, .e.., Fjm,,2Z 1a.% A aoahMpmim(Pan a N9oeen. rea .Sprieg TwGSpgFr P/u FVa,PAR Tb Plavnp Gun Ffgi— a PaaPn P9.MY 6.B.m 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR This page intentionally left blank. N L F Im CL C n w m N N_ Q: W LL IL w N L H Im C G n H Z W 2 U ~Q Q c m E r U R Page 3-38 The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 Packet Pg.450 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR s�: Trails, Parks, and Open Space Plan P Y?s .•"er?�Y° sue: , F y. , unpe � ;- y•t c° k t o Residential ( Open Spare q }( G2Lea 51u0et _ ( T 4 e l:kot EOUestnan/Peletean Tell f rJ .r li ...... ¢.IOm Una.unry rn11(0n Street) g ...... a-tpnt Htngroll m` Planned Tall Ipmkel I6 L, nallkeaa LL G.ede V.• • a papt(niana .$ • Park 1prnMe) / ._, (Ye C IMF �_� l.•r�"� r w 0oaPar, •�c .mlpn (pnpalel t P opo Q LL `�• ry m ebbpppa park 1—� a NeigbborbooEPar���• Above-0r.una SCE a P erl'ne Easement Ac onaar� Accesspoad _ � n r. ^r scp.a r earreemamoameman y oa loraraennce oo rrnres p Sv'.IFr.q eoo Spn.g 7eia4 slnf+c vW Fivl EIR MPGaacag Lw Il li Paclwt Pq.tl1 O 6.B.m O3. Revisions to the Draft EIR This page intentionally left blank. N H C1 C a m N N N_ w W LL a U) N H Ql C a n F Z W 2 U Q a c d E t Y Q O Page 3-40 The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 Packet Pg.452 C 3.Revisions to the Draft EIR Alternative (Underground Electric Lines) Trails, Parks, and Open Space Plan al• < w.na 0 PesHendal i yP 1 Open Spare — ParYs Stated Si.,, upon, Me hoot Fwe9nan/Pedearlan rral p LL`s • i } R ..... a fore Cnmmunlq Ted(On Street) — �.� •.,, �' ...... afpot NlMlne Trall ry" Planned nail(ottite) g a Isa ire RtGY y- OMeMtlan Polnt Ct • flmtl irzllnead WE l� • G den Vi n, Park(priv tel l� Lf1. p rx / • Co pn •� /. IpnVa1. top ropmed L .`.'' Neighborhood part l.—/ e NeIRFbm FOOd PSI ITS—�` � � v 6 sa-nmn' alas nmd Al . Seneg T,,4 Spar is Pbn PiW EIR T6 P/a.ig Cora•"'.Nike O B.B.m 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR This page intentionally left blank. H F C a n N N_ D: W LL IL va w H rn c a y r z w x U a a d E r U Y Y a Page 3-42 •The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 Packet Pg.454 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Existing Land Use Designations N4 W, 4 WWWR n Bernardino National Forest Private PC Unincorporated Private Unincorporated ring Traits A Pr ' ct Site RL-5 S-20 G" RL-S rn City of San Bernardino A LL County of San Bernardino Land Use rX Z W County of San Bernardino Hillside Management F- JI Spring Trails Project Site 1; Area to be annexed along with E RE Spring Trails RE 90 RL RE Hillside Management \,% ♦ City of San Bernardino Land Use NOT TO SCAUE T Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR The Planning Center • Figure 4-6 1 Packet Pg.455 6.B.m 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR This page intentionally left blank. N H Ol C n w N N_ S W LL a 2 N F C a y H 2 W S U a a C d E A a O Page 3-44 The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 Packet Pg.456 B.B.m 5. Environmental Analysis Plant Communities Map O PmIeG Site I Vegeltol TYP• Calilomia Walnut WnntllarM(CWW)(2.1 Aces) Canyon live Oak Wa lantl(GLOW)(13A.) _ CeonoOus Crassill Cheparral(CCC)(10.1 Aaes) - _.'-;7{Y ,J M Cbanal Cbapanal(CC)( 0 al • 9 AC A; Disturbed(D)(3 7Apes) ! M Eumll(EUC)(55 Apes) M EumlWh aatiWmalean Sage&nib(EUCRt55)(12.1 Apes) 1 M NonreMre Grasall(NNG)(11A Ayes) M Northern MWetl Chapeval(NMC)(9T.9Aaes) � M Ornamental(0)(0 7Acre) f M Rlverstlean Alluvial Farr Sege Somb(RAFSS)(4.4 Acres) Allillial Rlversgean Sage Scrub(RSS)(100.4 Apes) [mow, �Rivers4eanSage SCmWCalilomia Walnut Waatllentl(RSSICWW)(19.9 Aau) Kr. M Snutbem Sy a,a Altlm Riparian Wcodlantl(SSARW)(254 Agee) S utlnem Willow Scwb(SWS)(16Aaes) MSONnam Willow ScmWCalM is WWmt WwdlaM(SWSICWW)(7.4Aaes) M Syrana re Alluvial Wootllantl(SAW)(7.5Aaes) f6 k' lT NpS a� d / � N GTR .; LL �] a rxg 7 �s . n l N f lA IJ$ � W L J " t •'14x.1 K � kr F,..:'�G°t Scale(1M) Solace:PB58J.ESRllmegirlg 2011 Spring Tral Drofr E(R The Plnsaing Centn F/g,re 5.21 P&Cket Pg.457 6.B.m 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR This page intentionally left blank. N F CD C d Ln N N N_ W W a co N F C a N n F 2 W 2 U FQ F a d E r m R Q Page 3-46 The Planning Center DC&E October 201 Packet Pg. 458 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Existing Average Daily Traffic Volumes r--T "J _l I I � I I I I I Devote Road r-- 154.0 I I Santa Fe Avenue / Cable Canyon Road t Site' N 62.0 i 2 r� F- 03 133.0 ) I-15 Freeway p r ; co C'. r LO 67.0 r aara i� NOM -�- � W m m y � a � i y M UL CL i Glen Helen Parkway / 0 2 0.1 ' F 1-215 Freeway ^� Little League Drive 1_0 c ° 1.2 G °a 40.1 0.7 0.5 to gap o• 1.2 m @ 0.1 y Z 2.5 0.9 �m Q 0.2 1.5 ague 4.8 C . 0.7 2.7 �F ro 1.7 U Legend q1" eOGjo� 2.6 �e��P° T 6.5 F • =Numbers represent thousand vehicles per day a, 3.7 ¢ 2.7 =Vehicles Per Day(1000's) 7'2 13.3 NOM =Nominal,Less Than 50 18.6 Kendall Odve E Vehicles Per Day 12.7 / r 1.6 V ---=Future Roadway 7.0 ¢ 66.0 NOTE: Based upon discussions with City of San Bernardino staff and information within a previous traffic study,it is projected that a nominal increase in traffic volumes has occurred in the study area from Year 2008 to Year 2011. The existing average daily traffic volumes on the freeways were obtained from the 2009 Traffic Volumes on California State Highways from the Califomia Department of Transportation. NOTTOSOAUE Source:Kunzman Associates Inc. T Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR The Planning Center Figure 5.14-5 Packet Pg. 459 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR This page intentionally left blank. m R L C Q LO N N N_ w LL! LL a U) N F- r L I^Q v/ z Z W U Q r a d E L U A O Page 3-48 •The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 sBm ; Appendices Appendix A. Kunzman Associates Response to Caltrans Comments N L m C a LO LO N N_ w W LL a a c CL n F Z W 2 U a F F Q c m E s U R w a Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino jPac�Cet Pg 461; Appendices This page intentionally left blank. CL N L r C y n to Ln N N W LL a y N r m c a U) n r z w x U a r r Q d E L U R Q O The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 Packet Pg. 462 KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. OVER 355 YEARS OF EXCELLENT SERVICE October 5, 2011 Ms.Victoria Mata, Director of Planning USA GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT CO. 100 Pacifica,Suite 345 Irvine, CA 92618 rn Dear Ms. Mata: CL 1n INTRODUCTION Lo N The firm of Kunzman Associates, Inc. is pleased to provide responses to comments regarding the Spring cli Trails Traffic Impact Analysis (May 16, 2011). Comments were received from Caltrans in a letter dated at ED September 21, 2011. The proposed development is located north of Meyers Road and west of Little LL League Drive in the City of San Bernardino. The project site is proposed to be developed with 329 y single-family detached residential dwelling units. r COMMENT 1 a' c Q Table 1, Figures 4, 5, and 6; there are two different years of traffic data collected for the proposed study. T Label and verify the existing year(i.e. 2008 or 2009). F- z Lu RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1 x U Table 1, Figures 4, 5, and 6 are attached and labeled with their existing year as a footnote or in their F legend. Q y C COMMENT 2 E L Existing truck volumes should be counted and then converted to Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) volumes using PCE factors 1.5, 2.0, and 3.0 for 2-axle, 3-axle, and 4-or-more-axle trucks, respectively. a Please verify the PCE calculations factor in Appendix B (traffic count worksheets), should be reflect in figures 5 and 6. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 2 Existing intersection traffic conditions were established through morning and evening peak hour traffic counts obtained by Kunzman Associates, Inc. from October 2008 (see Appendix B of the traffic study) 1111 TowN&COUNTRY ROAD,SwTe 34 ORANGE,CALIFORNIA 92868 (714)973-8383 W W W.TRAFFIC-ENGINEER.COM A-1 Packet Pg°463,� Ms.Victoria Mata, Director of Planning USA GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT CO. October 5, 2011 and the resulting Passenger Car Equivalent traffic volumes (see Appendix C of the traffic study) are shown on Figures 5 and 6, respectively. It has been a pleasure to service your needs on this project. Should you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call at(714) 973-8383. Sincerely, a KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES , INC. KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. QPOF ESS/'04, �•l .0 ° Carl Ballard Z m CL co v Z William Kunzman, P.E. N 3 No.TR0056 m Principal Associate ZD Principal * TAAFF�G �� a #4320d n. q�OF CAI ) cc: Ms.JoAnn Hadfield,THE PLANNING CENTER ~ rn Ms. Leah Boyer,THE PLANNING CENTER CL N n F W W 2 U Q F F Q c W E t v m W W W.TRAFFIC-ENGINEER.COM PG2 Table 1 Existing Intersection Delay and Level of Services Intersection Approach Lanes Peak Hour Traffic Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Delay-LOS 3 Intersection Control° L I T R L T I R L T R L T R Morning Evening Little League Drive INS)at: Meyers Road(EW)-#1 CSS 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 12.0-8 9.3-A Belmont Avenue(EW)-#2 AWS 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 8.9-A 7.4-A Frontage Road(EW)-#3 CSS 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 12.2-B 8.9-A _ Kendall Drive(EW)-#4 CSS 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 9.7-A 9.6-A Magnolia Avenue(NS)at: 1` Belmont Avenue(EW)-#5 AWS 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 7.6-A 7.1-A C Palm Avenue(NS)at: � a Belmont Avenue(EW)-#6 AWS 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 9.8-A 9.2-A rn Irvington Avenue(EW)-#7 TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 14.5-B 15.4-B N Kendall Drive(EW)-#8 T5 1 2 1> 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 31.3-C 31.2-C N N I-215 Freeway NB Ramps(EW)-#9 CSS 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 29.2-D 29.9-D I-215 Freeway SB Ramps(EW)-#10 AWS 1 1 1 1 2 0 0 1 1 0 1 1» 34.8-D 14.2-B W W a N C ` H C L CL U) n z Z W U Q F- F Q c d E L U r Based upon discussions with City of San Bernardino staff and information within a previous traffic study,it is protected that a nominal increase in traffic volumes has M occurred in the study area from Year 2008 to Year 2011. Q 2 When a right turn is designated,the lane can either be striped or unstriped.To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L=Left;T=Through;R=Right;>=Right Turn overlap;>>=Free Right Turn s Delay and level of service calculated using the following analysis software:Traff Version 7.9.0215(2008). Per the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual,overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement for movements sharing a single lane)are shown. s CSS=Cross Street Stop;AWS=All Way Stop;TS=Traffic Signal 9 A_3 , ,... P 5 @de Figure 4 Existing Average Daily Traffic Volumes r--i J _l I I I 1 ` I I 1 Devore Road r- 154.0 I I Santa Fe Avenue I � N Cable Canyon Road i Site 62.0 C r J 'i- 7^e (A 133.0 w 04 1-15 Freeway p r ; C-4. a t � 67.0 LL NOM 1 ;0 Glen Helen Parkway / 0.2 0.1 c 1-215 Freeway ^OOfO Little League Drive 1.0 In S0 �0.1 1.2 0.7 0.5 Z m g �..0 0.1 1.2 ° W 7�ho�t S 0.9 �a Q 0.2 1.5 ye�4e 4.6 Ua 2.5 H 0.7 2.7 F m 1.7 Q eiO,eo`/ q e��/7o Q�106.5 e� 2.6 °o T a) °^a 3.7 7.2 13.3 raj Legend 16.6 Kendall Drive w 12.7 / Q 2.7 =Vehicles Per Day(1000's) 1.6 NOM =Nominal,Less Than 50 Vehicles Per Day 7'0 66.0 NOTE: Based upon discussions with City of San Bernardino staff and information within a previous traffic study,it is projected that a nominal increase in traffic volumes has occurred in the study area from Year 2008 to Year 2011. The existing average daily traffic volumes on the freeways were obtained from the 2009 Traffic Volumes on California State Highways from the California Department of Transportation. 4320d14 KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. OVER 30 YEAR5 OF EXCELLENT SERVICE A44 Packet Pg. 466 6.B.m Figure 5 Existing Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes r--i .-J L----- I � � 1 I ' Devore Road r--' I I 1 1 1 Santa Fe Avenue f 1 ; I ' Cable Canyon Road Site L /� 1 N I R 1 F rJ � Legend fn \ Volumes are in I-15 Freeway O I Passenger Car U7, ap, i Equivalent's NOTE: Based upon discussions with City of San Bernardino staff and information within a previous u" o a � traffic study,it is projected n `.� that a nominal increase in y traffic volumes has occurred in in the study area from Year h Glen Helen Parkway 2008 to Year 2011. - I-215 Freeway ^�fa Little League Drive a 9p rn �eaaa� Rpaa n @ F- ei a7pnrq�enG LU U ' 4 0 4-2 _ 2 140 04-45 2 Qa @o -Y ,9 ry/�9to Q��m�J� FQ- d ° ° S--D%S E 28� 107 7� to3 Kendall Drive m 106 0 39 0 207 0 .. 3 4-41 g 4 0 4-34 5 4-22 ffi 6 4-I Q D dbb7 o 'dbbs a bb�i a s4 a b so-°nI ef 5 6 �P a 5� ° 43 3 5-0 80 28--I> 18 0� 67 0 10a 26 67� 308 780 844 a 676 0 7 4-11 8 04-223 9 4-319 447 dbbs123 4 dbbsm9 a dbbso9 a �bbr76 14 ° 9 41 P ° 51� ° 0s ° TP ° 20,ggTP 77a 153a - Oa 39� 297 7% 542 a 149 4320d15 KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. Intersection reference numbers are in upper left comer of turning movement boxes. OVER 3O YEARS of ExCELLENT SERVICE 12 A-5 Packet Pg. 467 Figure 6 Existing Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes r--, J L----- I 1 � 1 1 1 1 1 Devon Road I 1 Santa Fe Avenue Site w Cable Canyon Road m I � I � 1 � .\ ? Legend Volumes are in N 1-15 Freeway C I ' 1 Passenger Car cm ao Equivalent's Of oeo i � r NOTE: Based upon W discussions with City of San L- a'o• Bernardino staff and N information within a previous traffic study,it is projected \ n that a nominal increase in i traffic volumes has occurred F- in the study area from Year C Glen Helen Parkway j 2008 to Year 2011. T Q I-215 Freeway ^ooja Little League Drive to 9° r °oaoi RO°'a z @ w Oo`P c r�veOO Q e 2 e Colo o 9to .�e Q 1 4-2 A 2 4-28 9 �@ qy d b b sit a d b b sn 4 °�aa e�O° P E D 0-D 0s ° Y ID m 103 a 68 23 0 65 Kendall Drive Q 410 40c 230 1910 3 4-33 4 X28 5 4-11 .°., 6 4-14 4 4-4 e'^ 4-95 4-12 ., 4-12 dbb �8 4 41b6 0 4 dbbsI 4 4�bbs-29 4 D 0�' 41 YID D 22s dl Y P D 1s 41 T lD D 5s 4 lD 4 --- 92-4, I7-0 -e- 15--l> 83 03 43 293 39 0 n 10 349 211 0 425 0 740 a 493 0 7 4-9 8 R 4-181 9 4-493 R 10 4-214 3 `�- 4-129 R+e 4-0 al 1 S99 4 1 d b 61x347 14 of 16 s55 4 d b 6 s29 4 D 3-4 4I `I' ID D 51s 4I q D O� dl T ID D 32- d p ID 92-., -1 1743 03 ��e 163 RMP n 626 c 885 n 491 n 440 4320d/6 KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. Intersection reference numbers are in upper left corner of turning movement boxes. OVER 30 YEARS OF E%CELLENT SERVICE A-16 Packet Pg. 468 Appendices Appendix B. Kunzman Associates Response to County of San Bernardino Department of Public Works Comments N .R F- m C Q y N N N_ W U- 0. w A F- rn c CL F- z w x U Q F- F- Q c m E L v Spring Trails Specific Plan Final EIR City of San Bernardino Packet Pg�469'', Appendices This page intentionally left blank. CL N F Ql C a N N N_ m W LL a. U) N R F C �L a n H Z W U Q F F Q c m E t U R a The Planning Center DC&E October 2012 P" e!Pg 470;r. __c .. P n 6.13.m KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. OVER 35 YEARS OF EXCELLENT SERVICE November 28, 2011 Ms.Victoria Mata, Director of Planning USA GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT CO. 100 Pacifica,Suite 345 Irvine, CA 92618 N M Dear Ms. Mata: r c INTRODUCTION a In The firm of Kunzman Associates, Inc. is pleased to provide responses to comments regarding the Spring U) C14 Trails Traffic Impact Analysis (May 16, 2011). Comments were received from the County of San N. Bernardino in a letter dated September 1, 2011. The proposed development is located north of Meyers W Road and west of Little League Drive in the City of San Bernardino. The project site is proposed to be LL developed with single-family detached residential dwelling units. w J. N COMMENT 1 F- rn Intersection 4, Kendall Drive at Little League Drive: The eastbound through lane does not have the c L minimum 10%growth as stated on page 3 of the report. rn r RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1 Z w The East Valley Traffic Model forecasts were used in the traffic impact analysis. Appendix C of the traffic = impact analysis includes the future growth increment calculation worksheets for the study area a intersections. The eastbound movement at Intersection 4, Kendall Drive at Little League Drive shows a nominal (negative) increase in growth based upon the traffic model forecasts. However, the overall a intersection shows an increase from existing traffic volumes to Year 2035 traffic volumes of 39% [(400- 288)/288] during the morning peak hour and of 91%[(530-277)/277] during the evening peak hour. E U A COMMENT 2 Q Intersection 4, Kendall Drive at Little League Drive: The existing morning volumes on Figure 5 do not match the count sheets. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 2 So noted. The morning peak hour traffic count worksheet provided by National Data and Surveying Services had an Excel worksheet error. However, the traffic impact analysis did use the correct traffic 1111 Tow Sr COUNTRY RoAc,Subs 34 ORANGE.CALIFORNIA 92868 (714)973-8393 W W W.TRAFFIC-ENGINEER.COM B-1 Packet Pg. 471 6.B.m Ms.Victoria Mata, Director of Planning USA GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT CO. November 28, 2011 volumes. Appendix C of the traffic impact analysis includes the future growth increment calculation worksheets that are based upon the correct peak hour turning movement volumes. COMMENT 3 There is a difference between the number of lots discussed in the Traffic Appendix (329 sites) and the main docs(307 sites). RESPONSE TO COMMENT 3 a At the time the traffic impact analysis was completed, 329 single-family detached residential dwelling ~ m units was proposed. The traffic impact analysis depicts a conservative analysis compared to the 307 S single-family detached residential dwelling units currently proposed. COMMENT 4 N N_ The San Bernardino General Plan circulation (page 14[22]) on Appendix K shows a collector road 25 connecting Cable Canyon Road with Meyers Road. This connection is not addressed in mitigation of the LL a identified impacts. rn N RESPONSE TO COMMENT 4 `c° F- rn The Year 2035 traffic model includes the roadway network assumed for the traffic impact analysis. The F City of San Bernardino General Plan Circulation Element illustrates the roadway network for General rn Plan Buildout conditions. The Year 2035 roadway network does not assume the collector road r connection of Cable Canyon Road with Meyers Road. z W 2 It has been a pleasure to service your needs on this project. Should you have any questions or if we can = be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call at(714) 973-8383. F Sincerely, Q KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES , INC. �OQPD AE tCsF KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. W 3 No,TR0056 Z n Carl Ballard * XG * William Kunzman, P.E. Principal Associate �q RAFF �Q Principal #4320d 1 'OFCA1 cc: Ms.JoAnn Hadfield,THE PLANNING CENTER Ms. Leah Boyer,THE PLANNING CENTER WWW.TRAFFIC-ENGINEER.COM B22 %Packet`Pill s472 6Bnn-.� O N H C CL U) 04 N N © U) 00 F Z W 2 U a a d Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding a Considerations for the Spring Trails Specific Plan C October 2012 M661-000--1062350.1 Packe4Pg'y473��' TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................1 R. PROJECT SUMMARY........................................................................................................1 A. Site Location.................................................................................................................l B. Project Description......................................................................................................l C. Actions Covered by the EIR.......................................................................................7 D. Project Objectives........................................................................................................8 III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION................................9 General Finding On Mitigation Measures .......................................................................10 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND FINDINGS.........................................................11 A. Impacts Identified as Less Than Significant Requiring No Mitigation................l l 1. Aesthetics..............................................................................................................11 2. Air Quality. ..........................................................................................................18 3. Biological Resources............................................................................................20 4. Cultural Resources..............................................................................................21 m c 5. Geology and Soils.................................................................................................22 a 6. Hazards and Hazardous Materials....................................................................27 7. Hydrology/Water Quality...................................................................................30 8. Land Use and Planning.......................................................................................39 9. Mineral Resources...............................................................................................45 L) 10. Noise......................................................................................................................45 0 11. Population and Housing......................................................................................52 co 12. Public Services.....................................................................................................55 13. Recreation.............................................................................................................59 w 14. Traffic Impacts. ...................................................................................................61 = 15. Utilities and Service Systems..............................................................................62 16. Greenhouse Gas Emissions.................................................................................69 17. Forest Resources..................................................................................................72 a B. Potentially Significant Impacts Which Can Be Mitigated Below a Level of Significance and Mitigation Measures.....................................................................73 Ec 1. Biological Resources............................................................................................73 w 2. Cultural Resources............................................................................................105 3. Geology and Soils...............................................................................................110 4. Hazards and Hazardous Materials..................................................................113 5. Land Use and Planning.....................................................................................124 6. Public Services. ..................................................................................................125 7. Traffic and Circul ation.....................................................................................128 8. Utilities and Service Systems............................................................................131 9. Forest Resources................................................................................................136 C. Impacts Analyzed in the EIR and Determined to be Significant and Unavoidable..............................................................................................................138 1. Air Quality. ........................................................................................................138 2. Noise....................................................................................................................145 3. Traffic.................................................................................................................148 i M681-M-106]350.1 Packet Pg. 474 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page r^ 4. Greenhouse Gas Emissions...............................................................................149 D. Additional Topics Required by CEQA..................................................................155 1. Significant Irreversible Environmental Effects..............................................155 2. Growth Inducing Impacts.................................................................................156 E. Project Alternatives.................................................................................................158 1. No Project/No Development Alternative.........................................................159 2. No Project/Existing County General Plan Alternative..................................161 3. Alternative Site Plan..........................................................................................163 4. Reduced Daily Grading Alternative. ...............................................................165 5. Environmentally Superior Alternative............................................................166 F. Statement of Overriding Considerations...............................................................167 1. Findings Related to Traffic and Transportation Impacts. ............................170 2. Findings Related to Air Quality Impacts. .......................................................171 3. Findings Related to Noise Impacts...................................................................172 4. Findings Related to Greenhouse Gas Emissions.............................................172 V. ADOPTION OF A MONITORING PLAN FOR THE CEQA MITIGATION Q MEASURES......................................................................................................................173 VI. APPROVING THE PROJECT........................................................................................174 VII. REGARDING STAFF DIRECTION ..............................................................................174 N VIILREGARDING CONTENTS AND CUSTODIAN OF RECORD..................................174 0 cn z W x U a a d E L v l6 a 11 M681-000-1062350.1 Packet Pg. 475 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations I. INTRODUCTION The City of San Bernardino ("City") makes the Findings described below in connection with the City's approval of the Spring Trails Specific Plan ("Project" or "Spring Trails"). The Project proposes development of 304 single-family lots, in addition to a single existing residence, within a 352.8-acre site situated within an unincorporated area of the foothills of the Santa Bernardino Mountains. The Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") was prepared by the City acting as lead agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). Hereafter, the Notice of Preparation, Notice of Availability, Draft EIR, Technical Studies, Final EIR containing Responses to Comments and textual revisions to the Draft EIR, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will be referred to collectively herein as the "EIR" unless otherwise y specified. These Findings are based on the entire record before the City, including the EIR. The 2 City adopts the facts and analyses in the EIR, which are summarized below for convenience. ~ m The omission of some detail or aspect of the EIR does not mean that it has been rejected by the City. H. PROJECT SUMMARY N N ^ A. Site Location. 0 o The Project is located within unincorporated San Bernardino County on the northern edge of the City of San Bernardino and in the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains. The site is z approximately 1.5 miles east of the unincorporated community of Devore and the junction of W n Interstate 215 (I-215) and I-15. The Project is bounded by the San Bernardino National Forest on = three sides, and the Verdemont community of unincorporated San Bernardino County on the southern side. The Project is approximately one-third mile northwest of the intersection of a Meyers Road and Little League Drive. Primary access is from a new roadway extending from • Little League Drive, and secondary access will be provided by a new road extending south and E connecting to the frontage road along I-215. Freeway access is from the Palm Avenue interchange and the Glen Helen Parkway/Devore Road interchange. B. Proiect Description. The Project site (352.8 acres) is within the City of San Bernardino's unincorporated sphere of influence ("SOI") and will be annexed into the City. The Project also includes the annexation of an adjacent 26.4-acre area consisting of six parcels owned by various property owners. The area is adjacent to the west of the Project site along Meyers Road and currently has four occupied, multiple-acre lots. It is being included in the annexation element of the Project to prevent the creation of a county "island" within the City of San Bernardino, which would not be allowed under regulations governing the Local Agency Formation Commission of San Bernardino County. A land use proposal has not been submitted for this 26.4-acre area, and it is C not owned or otherwise under the control of the applicant. For these reasons, no development would occur on these parcels as part of this Project. 1 M681.000-1062350.1 6:B.n Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Under the "Preferred Development Plan", the Spring Trails Specific Plan will accommodate 304 single-family detached units (303 new units and one existing residence), set among neighborhoods separated by open space corridors, drainage ways, roadways, and sloped areas. A system of pathways will connect the residences with neighborhood parks and natural open spaces. Development will be focused onto approximately 241.5 acres, or about 68 percent of the total site, and will include nine acres of parks and 125.1 acres of internal slopes and fuel modification zones. The remaining 32 percent of Spring Trails (111.3 acres) will be preserved as natural open space. The Preferred Development Plan assumes that the Southern California Edison ("SCE") overhead electric lines that traverse the western portion of the Project site would remain above- ground. Underneath the central portion of the electric line easement, the land use is designated as Open Space-Controlled. The northern portion of the electric line easement is designated as residential; however, development is not permitted within the electric line easement. The average lot size in Spring Trails is 29,000 square feet. The largest lots are on the m northern portion and upper elevations of the site, and the largest lot measures 18.3 acres. The smallest lots are on the lower elevations and southern portion of the project, and the smallest lot vai measures 10,801 square feet. In many instances the legal lots extend beyond the buildable area and include graded slopes, fuel modification zones, steep slopes, and open spaces. N Approximately 241.5 acres of the total site would be improved for the onsite development of residential lots, roadways, trails, detention basins, fuel modification zones, and parks. An o additional 23.7 acres would be graded and improved for offsite access, including 4.2 acres for the primary access road and 19.5 acres for the secondary access road. F Z w Alternative (Underground Electric Lines)Development Plan x U F In the event that it becomes feasible or necessary to do so, an "Alternative Development F Plan" is proposed, which is identical to the Preferred Development Plan in every respect, except a for the electric lines would be relocated underground. The Alternative Development Plan contains 307 single-family detached units (306 new units and one existing residence). E Access Roads and Circulation a Primary access to Spring Trails would be provided by a new road extending from the southeastern corner of the site and connecting to Little League Drive. Secondary access is planned via a new road extending from the southwestern corner of the site to the frontage road along I-215. Except for emergency access, the intersection of the secondary access road with Meyers Road is designed with barriers to prevent vehicular access onto Meyers Road. Circulation within Spring Trails will be provided by a loop road and a series of cul-de-sacs. Necessary public streets, both on- and off-site, would be improved by the developer and dedicated to the City. All roadways would be two-way travel---one lane in each direction—with varying treatments for parkways, sidewalks, and parking. The roadway types are: • Primary Access Road (50 ft. Right-of-Way (ROW))would provide the main access for residents and guests to enter and leave Spring Trails; 2 M681-000-1062350.1 Packet Pg. 477 6.B.n Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations • Secondary Access Roadway (50 ft. ROW) is intended as an alternative street for local traffic to access arterial streets outside the project site. General public would not be able to access Meyers Road from the Secondary Access Road through the use of a barrier. Emergency vehicles would only be allowed to access Meyers Road from the Secondary Access Road. • Primary Local Street (50 ft. ROW) would provide primary internal access within Spring Trails. • Secondary Local Road (40 ft. ROW ) would provide resident access in the northern portion of the project and include parallel parking on one side of the street. • Cul-de-Sac I (46 ft. ROW ) would connect to the local streets and provide access to homes on both sides of the street. c • Cul-de-Sac H (40 ft. ROW) would connect to the local streets and provide access to Q homes on only one side of the street. U) Trails and Open Space U C A total of 245.4 acres of the 352.8-acre site are planned as open space, including natural open o space, controlled open space, and parks. Two neighborhood parks would be public, serve the 00 dual function as detention basins, and include shade structures and tot lots. One private park is z proposed to include a thematic garden, observation point, a tot lot, and other amenities such as an w outdoor fireplace,water feature, picnic benches, and gazebo. A private, enclosed dog park is also proposed. Under the Preferred Development Plan with overhead electric lines, 126 acres is F planned as open space, with an additional 0.9 acres of open space to accommodate the SCE a easement for the overhead electric lines. The land underneath the central portion of the SCE easement is designated as Open Space-Controlled. If permitted by SCE, a park and/or trail may be located under this portion of the electric lines as a permitted use; however, they are not t assumed in the buildout of the Preferred Development Plan. a A diverse system of interconnected trails would include a community trail (8-foot-wide trail within street ROW ) for pedestrian and bicycle use; equestrian/pedestrian trail (12-foot-wide trail surfaced with decomposed granite or similar surface and connecting with existing offsite trail); and 4-foot-wide hiking trails. Storm Drainage There are four major drainage areas within the Spring Trails Project site. Upon development, some natural drainage courses onsite would be maintained, and some on- and off-site flows would be captured and routed through a series of catch basin inlets and storm drain systems. Captured stormwater would be conveyed to three onsite detention basins where it would be treated and discharged at a controlled rate into Cable Canyon. The drainage plan has been designed to ensure conveyance of the 100-year storm. Best Management Practices (`BMPs") for 3 M681-000--1063350.1 6.B.n Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations water quality treatment would include the extended detention basins and media filtration devices. These improvements would be designed and constructed in accordance with the City of San Bernardino and the San Bernardino County Flood Control District standards. Water Supply System The City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department would provide water service to Spring Trails, and currently provides service to pressure zones ranging from 1,249 feet to 2,100 feet. The nearest existing reservoir is the Meyers Canyon Reservoir, which is within the 2,100- foot pressure zone, but is not adequate for buildout of Spring Trails or Verdemont. Therefore, water would be supplied to Spring Trails from lower elevations by a combination of expanding and improving the offsite water system and the provision of onsite reservoirs and transmission lines. Offsite improvements would include the creation/improvement of a series of pump stations and transmission lines within the Verdemont community. In addition, three onsite reservoirs are proposed to meet the need for 2,300-, 2,500-, 2,700-, and 3,000-foot elevation pressure zones. F Based upon the projected buildout of Spring Trails, total projected water demands are: L Q • Average Daily Demand—328 gallons per minute (gpm) rn • Maximum Daily Demand—568 gpm • Maximum Peak Hour Demand— 1,136 gpm U The water facilities for Spring Trails have been sized to meet maximum demand in addition o to fire flow requirements. Fire flow capacity is designed to provide 1,500 gpm for four hours. Pumping stations would be designed with 100 percent redundancy in the event that one or more z of the pumping units fails, and would be equipped with onsite generators that can operate in a U1 blackout or emergency condition. The pipelines that connect pump stations to the reservoirs x would be a maximum of 20 inches in diameter. All looping lines would be 12 inches in diameter, a and other distribution pipelines would be 8 inches in diameter. a Sewer Collection d E r The Spring Trails Project lies within the City of San Bernardino sanitary sewer service area. Spring Trails would connect to the City's existing 10-inch sewer line, which ends at Little a League Drive and Meyers Road, then connects to the south to a major interceptor system, and is eventually treated in the San Bernardino Water Reclamation Plant. Existing capacity is available in the sewer system to serve the buildout population within the City. The sewer facilities would be designed and constructed in accordance with the City of San Bernardino standards and specifications and in accordance with the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (latest edition). The sewer mains would be located in public street rights-of-way where possible. If not, they would be constructed within dedicated public utility easements. The sewer system would be dedicated to and maintained by the City of San Bernardino. Fuel Modiz&ation and Fire Protection The entire Project site is within a Very High Hazard Severity Zone as designated by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection ("CAL FIRE"). Once annexed to the City 4 M681-000--1062350.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations of San Bernardino, the Project site would also be subject to the City's Development Code and established Foothill Fire Zones Overlay District (Development Code Chapter 19.15). The overlay district designates three zones within the wildland interface: • Fire Zone A (Extreme hazard), characterized by slopes over 30 percent • Fire Zone B (High Hazard), characterized by slopes 15-30 percent • Fire Zone C (Moderate Hazard), characterized by slopes less than 15 percent The Project site has approximately 121 acres in Fire Zone A, 112 acres in Fire Zone B, and 119 acres in Fire Zone C. The Overlay District specifies development standards relating to access and circulation, site and street identification, roadside vegetation, water supply, erosion control, construction and development design, and miscellaneous items. Upon annexation of the project site (352.8 acres) and the adjacent 26.4-acre parcel of land into the City, the annexed areas will be detached from the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District and its Valley Service Zone. One of the components of the wildland fire defense systems for Spring Trails 2 would be the implementation of fuel modification zones. The proposed plan includes the following defined fuel modification zones: Q U) • Fuel Modification Zone A (flat) - Noncombustible Construction: 20- to 35-foot setback zone for noncombustible construction only. Fuel Modification Zone A shall be cm maintained by the homeowner or the HOA. At no time would the Fuel Modification Zone U A be less than 20 feet. o co • Fuel Modification Zone B- Wet Zone (100 percent removal of undesirable plant species): z First 50 to 200 feet from Fuel Modification Zone A. Fuel Modification Zone B shall be W permanently irrigated, fully landscaped with approved drought-tolerant, deep-rooted, moisture-retentive material as container shrub material, or hydroseeded per SBFD Approved Plant List. Fuel Modification Zone B area shall be maintained by the a homeowner,HOA, or landscape maintenance district("LMD") as appropriate. v • Fuel Modification Zone C - Dry Zone (50 percent thinning of the acceptable existing s plant material): 40 to 185 feet. Fuel Modification Zone C shall be a nonirrigated area. Removal of all flammable undesirable species. Specimen and trees shall be retained as a directed by the owner's representative but must be thinned a minimum of 50 percent, including removal of all low hanging foliage within three times the height of the understory shrubs or 10 feet, whichever is greater, along with dead or broken branches. All accumulated plant debris on the ground shall be removed. Fuel Modification Zone C area shall be maintained by the LMD. This Project does not contain any 30 percent thinning"D"fuel modification zones. General Proiect Phasing and Schedule It is anticipated in the DEIR that the Project will be phased, with complete buildout anticipated to occur within approximately three years of the start of construction. This phasing, 5 M681-000-1062350.1 I Packet Pg. 480 I Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations however, is based on a judgment of future planning and market factors, and therefore is subject to change. The Project,however,would be developed in the following sequence: Phase l (approximately one year) • Offsite grading and improvement of the primary and secondary access roads; • Offsite backbone utilities(water, sewer, drainage, etc.); • Onsite backbone utilities; • Rough grading of Spring Trails Project site (approximately 200 acres) for development of residential lots, roadways,trails, detention basins, and parks; and • Detention basins improved. Phase 2 (approximately 2.5 years) • Residential development would sequence from the south and continue northward. _ Infrastructure, roadways, fuel modification zones, parks, and landscaping necessary to N serve residential development would be phased accordingly; • Improvements in this phase would generally follow the sequence of water improvements, which are divided into three pressure zones; CL • Sewer, storm drain, dry utilities, and roadway paving would be sequenced with improvements in each water pressure zone; N • Trails,parks, and common area landscaping in each pressure zone would occur prior to or N G concurrent with issuance of residential building permits for that pressure zone; and 0 0 • Fuel modification zones necessary to support the development in each zone would occur as noted in the Fire Protection Plan. C� r Z In accordance with Section 8.54.070 of the City of San Bernardino's Municipal Code, construction would be limited to the hours between 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM. _ U Q F- Estimated Earthwork C Based on preliminary estimates, the earthwork for the Project site itself is anticipated to balance. The primary and secondary access roads, however, would require substantial cut, and the net export requirement for the Project is 251,000 cubic yards (cy). Based on an estimated 14 cy capacity per haul truck, an estimated 17,929 truck trips would be required to export soil to Q complete the access roads. This is estimated to occur over an approximately three-month period, and therefore,based on a six-day week, would require approximately 249 truck trips per day. Development Agreement A Development Agreement is proposed as part of the Project approvals. The Development Agreement includes certain Project conditions that benefit the Project, as well as local and regional benefits. These conditions include: • Dedication to the City of San Bernardino right-of-way for water main lines and related V facilities, easements for the construction and operation of water tank sites, and right-of- way for sewer main lines and related facilities; 6 M681-000-1064350.1 6.B.n Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Construction of water lines and related facilities including water tanks within the • easement shown in the Tract Map for the Project site and dedication of those facilities to the City; and • Construction of sewer main lines and related facilities within the easements shown in the Tract Map and dedication of those facilities to the City. In exchange, the Development Agreement provides for vested development rights for the Project and reimbursement of those costs that exceed the fair share of the Project for the improvements. C. Actions Covered by the EIR Vi The following requested discretionary actions are necessary to allow for implementation F of the Project: • City of San Bernardino Mayor and Common Council: cn • Approve General Plan Amendment (GPA-02-09), including preannexation of the N Project site and adjacent 26.4 acre area; o Approve Development Code Amendment (DCA 12-10) to add the Spring Trails Specific Plan to the list of Special Purpose Districts in the Development Code; F Z w • Zone the annexed site as Specific Plan (consistent with existing pre-zoning) and x the 26.4-acre adjacent area as Residential Estate (up to 1 du/acre); a F • Adopt Spring Trails Specific Plan; a • Approve Tentative Tract Map (TTM 15576); E z • Approve Development Agreement; a • Approve Project-specific Water Quality Management Plan; • Issue Grading Permits and Building Permits; • A Development Permit will be required for the design of the single-family units. As a side note, the Hillside Management Overlay zone set forth in Chapter 19.17 of the City of San Bernardino Municipal Code does not apply in this matter as the Specific Plan sets forth a fire protection plan that is in accordance with the City's Municipal Code. Thus, the Conditional C Use Permit called for in Section 19.17.050 of the Development Code is not required prior to construction. Instead, a Development Permit is required prior to construction to evaluate the 7 M681-WO-1062360.1 Packet Pg.482 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations project design against the Specific Plan and other regulations, and to ensure consistency with the Fire Protection Plan. • Local Agency Formation Commission ("LAFCO"): o Approve annexation of the 352.8-acre Project site and adjoining parcels representing 26.4 acres into the City of San Bernardino (379.2 acres total). • U.S.Army Corps of Engineers: o Issuance of a Section 404 permit under the federal Clean Water Act. • Regional Water Control Board: w Ali F • Water Quality Certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act; �+ L Q • National Pollution Discharge Eliminations System permit under Section 402 of �? the Clean Water Act. N N_ • California Public Utilities Commission/Southern California Edison 0 �../ o Review of the Project with regard to the SCE transmission line easement and maintenance right-of-way through the Project site. z w D. Project Objectives a The Project objectives are as follows: a 1. Develop a high-quality, low-density residential community that optimizes the unique characteristics of the project site, including maximizing view opportunities. s 2. Assure adequate roadway access to the development while preserving the integrity of surrounding communities. 3. Enhance City trail facilities by expanding the system and integrating project-site trails with existing and proposed hiking, equestrian, and bicycle trails within the surrounding community. 4. Comply with policies for land use development within and adjacent to the San Bernardino National Forest. 5. Minimize the development footprint and maximize available open space areas. �j 6. Design a safe community cognizant of natural conditions, including wildland fires, flooding, and seismic hazards. 8 M681-000-1063350.1 1 I 6.B.n Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 7. Minimize environmental impacts associated with construction of improvements and long- term operation of the new community. 8. Create an attractive,viable project, and realize a reasonable return on investment. III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The City conducted an extensive review of this Project which included a Draft EIR and a Final EIR, including technical reports; along with a public review and comment period. The following is a summary of the City's environmental review of this Project: • On November 24, 2009, the City circulated an Initial Study ("IS") and Notice of N Preparation ("NOP") identifying the environmental issues to be analyzed in the 2 Project's EIR to the State Clearinghouse, responsible agencies, and other interested parties. The NOP (Appendix A to the Draft EIR) identified potential environmental impacts related to: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, y Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources,Noise, N Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation/Traffic, Utilities and Service Systems, and was the basis for the determination that an EIR p should be prepared for the Project. co • The NOP public review period was 30 days. The City accepted a number of w written comments from various State, regional and local agencies. The City Z considered these comments when determining the final scope of the EIR's a analysis. The scope of the issues identified in the comments related to each of the < impact areas which are analyzed within the EIR, as listed above, with several a comments concentrated on fire hazards. d E • The Draft EIR was distributed for public review and the City filed a Notice of L Availability ("NOA") with the State Clearinghouse on July 29, 2011, commencing the 45-day review period. a • The City received a total of 12 comment letters from public agencies and 41 comment letters from residents. The City prepared specific responses to all comments. The responses to comments are included in the Final EIR. • Notice of the Common Council hearing to consider the Project was provided in the following newspapers of general and/or regional circulation: the San Bernardino County Sun on February 8, 2013. , c 9 MNI1 -1062350.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of overriding Considerations On February 19, 2013,the Common Council held a public hearing to consider the Project and staff recommendations. The Common Council, after considering written comments and public testimony on the EIR, determined that no new information was presented that would require recirculation of the EIR. Following public testimony, submission of additional written comments, and staff recommendations, the Common Council voted to certify the EIR, adopt these Findings, and approve the Project, including: Certification of the Environmental Impact Report; approval of General Plan Amendment (GPA-02-09); approval of the zoning designation for the Project site of Specific Plan; approval of the Spring Trails Specific Plan; approval of Tentative Tract Map (TTM 15576); approval of the Development Agreement; and approval of the Project-specific Water Quality Management Plan. IV. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT FINDING y ca The City selected and retained the Planning Center as the environmental consultant to prepare the EIR. The Planning Center prepared the EIR under the supervision and direction of CL the City's planning staff. (n �n Finding: The EIR for the Project reflects the City's independent judgment. The City has N exercised independent judgment in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21082.1(c)(3) in retaining its own environmental consultant, directing the o C' consultant in the preparation of the EIR, as well as reviewing, analyzing and revising material prepared by the consultant. Z Z A. General Findin¢ On Miti¢ation Measures 2 X U In preparing the Conditions of Approval for this Project, City staff incorporated the mitigation measures recommended in the EIR as applicable to the Project. In the event that the a Conditions of Approval do not use the exact wording of the mitigation measures recommended in the EIR, in each such instance, the adopted Conditions of Approval are intended to be identical or substantially similar to the recommended mitigation measure. Any minor revisions r were made for the purpose of improving clarity or to better define the intended purpose. a Finding: Unless specifically stated to the contrary in these findings, it is the City's intent to adopt all mitigation measures recommended by the Draft EIR which are applicable to the Project. If a measure has, through error, been omitted from the Conditions of Approval or from these Findings, and that measure is not specifically reflected in these Findings, that measure shall be deemed to be adopted pursuant to this paragraph. In addition, unless specifically stated to the contrary in these Findings, all Conditions of Approval repeating or rewording mitigation measures recommended in the EIR are intended to be substantially similar to the mitigation measures recommended in the EIR and are found to be equally effective in avoiding or lessening the identified environmental impact. In each instance, the Conditions of Approval contain the final wording for the mitigation measures. 10 M681-000-1062350.1 Packet Pg. 485 6.B.n Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND FINDINGS City staff reports, the EIR, written and oral testimony at public meetings or hearings, these Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and other information in the administrative record, serve as the basis for the City's environmental determination. The detailed analysis of potentially significant environmental impacts and proposed mitigation measures for the Project is presented in Section 5 of the Draft EIR. Responses to comments from the public and from other government agencies on the Draft EIR are provided in Section 2 of the Final EIR. The EIR evaluated seventeen (17) major environmental categories for potential impacts including: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, y Mineral Resources, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation/Traffic, Utilities and Service Systems, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Forest Resources. Both Project-specific and cumulative impacts were evaluated. Of these 17 major c environmental categories, the City concurs with the conclusions in the EIR that the issues and N sub-issues discussed in Sections A and B below either are less than significant without mitigation, or can be mitigated to a less than significant level. N N Unless otherwise indicated, the analysis of each of the impact areas contained in o Sections A and B herein is applicable both the Preferred Development Plan and the ell) Alternative (Underground Electric Lines) Development Plan. Z Z A. Impacts Identified as Less Than Significant Requiring No Mitigation. w x The following issues were found in the EIR as having no potential to cause significant r impacts, and therefore require no Project-specific mitigation. In the presentation below, each Q resource issue is identified and the potential for significant adverse environmental effects is C discussed. E 1. Aesthetics. a a. Substantial Adverse Effect on a Scenic Vista. Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Finding: Impacts related to Aesthetics are discussed in detail at Section 5.1 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record,the City finds that the potential for the Project to have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista is less than significant, and therefore, no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of the Finding: According to the California Scenic Highway Mapping System of the California Department of Transportation, the Project site is not on or near a major state-designated scenic 11 M6H1-000-1062350.1 Packet Pg. 486 1 6.B.n Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Chighway. (EIR at 5.14). Goal OS 5, Policy OS 5.3, of the County of San Bernardino General Plan designates I-15 from the junction with I-215 northeast to the Nevada state line, excepting all incorporated areas, as a County Scenic Route. The Project site is not visible when traveling northbound on the I-15. (Id.). Changes to the landscape would occur during mass grading, completion of the first phases of home construction, and at full buildout. (EIR at 5.1-14). Onsite grading and home construction would be most visible from commercial properties and to north- and southbound travelers along I-215 between Palm Avenue and Glen Helen Parkway. (Id.). The EIR contains simulated photographs to demonstrate how the site may look during site grading, during the first phase of home construction and after Project completion while traveling north on I-215 at the Palm Avenue off-ramp; as well as how the Project site may appear during the initial grading phase, during the `- first phase of Project housing construction and after Project u i completion from prominent views from the southwest at � Glen Helen Parkway and the railroad tracks south of Cajon N Boulevard. (See EIR Figures 5.1-3 to 5.1-8). L) o The simulated photographs contained in the EIR demonstrate how the view toward the site from the east- southeast would be virtually unchanged after Project w completion. (EIR at 5.1-15). The view of the Project site = from the east-southeast is blocked by the hilly terrain. (EIR Figure 5.1-9). Mass grading and single-family homes � without landscaping would be plainly visible from these a vantage points. However, due to the residential units' low scale, especially in comparison to steep hillsides, they E would not interfere with the dominant view and backdrop of the San Bernardino Mountains. The project would not be a out of scale with the existing viewshed and would not dominate the landscape. Rooflines would not encroach into the skyline or the dominant gdgelines. (EIR at 5.1-15). Due to the Project's low density, the Specific Plan's design guidelines and design concepts, the large amount of open space preservation, and proposed landscaping, the homes would not dominate the views. (Id.). Since the Project site contains slopes with a 15 percent or greater grade, the development guidelines of the HMOD would be followed, and have been incorporated into the Specific Plan C Development Standards. The majority (76 percent) of the Project site on slopes of 15 percent or greater grade would be preserved as open space, and the remaining acres would 12 MUI-000-1062350.1 Packet Pg. 487 6.B.n Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations follow HMOD development standards. (Id.). In the Preferred Development Scenario, the SCE electric lines would be visible from areas adjacent to the Project site, as they currently are. (Id.). For these reasons, the potential for the Project to have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista is less than significant, and no mitigation is required. b. Scenic Resources. Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. N Finding: Impacts related to Aesthetics are discussed in detail at Section 5.1 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the potential for the Project to substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway is less than <n significant, and therefore, no mitigation is required. N N Facts in Support of the Finding: The County of San Bernardino General Plan designates I- " 15 as a County Scenic Route, from the junction with I-215 0 C northeast to the Nevada state line, excepting all incorporated areas. Due to area topography, the freeway co interchange elevation, and speed of travel, the Project site w is not visible to motorists once they pass the I-215 = interchange and head northbound on the I-15. (EIR at 5.1- a 15). The interchange itself is approximately one mile long. F Motorists traveling northbound at 65 miles per hour would a be on the interchange for less than a minute, and may have r a view of the Project site looking east for a few seconds E before the Project site is behind them. (Id.). Traveling R southbound on the I-15, motorists do not see the norther a portion of the Project site due to prominent ridgelines, nor do they see the southern portion of the Project site from the I-215 junction, because road contours and the northbound lanes of the I-15 and I-215 interchange and associated traffic interfere with views. (Id.). The Project site is only visible from the northbound I-15 before the I-215 junction. This portion of I-15 is not designated a scenic highway. In the Preferred Development Scenario, the SCE electric lines would be visible from areas adjacent to the project site, as they currently are. (Id.). For these reasons, the potential for Q the Project to substantially damage scenic resources is less than significant, and no mitigation is required. 13 M681-W0--1062750.1 6.B.n Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations C. Degradation of Visual Character. Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Finding: Impacts related to Aesthetics are discussed in detail at Section 5.1 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the potential for the Project to substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings is less than significant, and therefore, no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of the Finding: Implementation of the Project would alter existing landform and involve substantial grading. The visual character of the majority of the Project site would be N changed from undeveloped open space to a low-density residential development. (EIR at 5.1-14). The development footprint encompasses approximately 241.5 acres, or 68 percent of the total site, and includes areas for the onsite C development of residential lots, roadways, trails, detention basins, fuel modification zones, and parks. Approximately N 193.0 acres of the total site would be graded and improved. (Id.). An additional 23.7 acres would be graded and U 0 improved for offsite access, including 4.2 acres for the primary access road and 19.5 acres for the secondary access road. The Project is designed to preserve significant w watersheds, severely sloped areas, and seismic hazard areas and incorporate them into the land plan as open space. The Project's design accounts for the potential impacts of the a hazards posed by seismic activity, flooding, and wildland a fires. (Id.). As a result, the Project includes 245.4 acres of open space, consisting of 9 acres of parks, 125.1 acres of internal slopes and fuel modification zones, and 111.3 acres of preserved natural open space. The SCE Alternative Development Plan includes 246.3 acres of open space, a consisting of 9 acres of parks, 126 acres of internal slopes and fuel modification zones, and 111.3 acres of preserved natural open space. (Id.). The EIR contains simulated photographs to demonstrate how the site may look during site grading, during the fast phase of home construction and after Project completion while traveling north on I-215 at the Palm Avenue off- ramp; as well as how the Project site may appear during the Q initial grading phase, during the first phase of Project housing construction and after Project completion from prominent views from the southwest at Glen Helen 14 M691-000-1062350.1 6.B.n Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Parkway and the railroad tracks south of Cajon Boulevard. (See EIR Figures 5.1-3 to 5.1-8). The simulated photographs contained in the EIR demonstrate how the view toward the site from the east- southeast would be virtually unchanged after Project completion. (EIR at 5.1-15). The view of the Project site from the east-southeast is blocked by the hilly terrain. (EIR Figure 5.1-9). Mass grading and single-family homes without landscaping would be plainly visible from these vantage points. However, due to the residential units' low scale, especially in comparison to steep hillsides, they would not interfere with the dominant view and backdrop of the San Bernardino Mountains. The Project would not be w out of scale with the existing viewshed and would not dominate the landscape. Rooflines would not encroach into the skyline or the dominant ridgelines. (EIR at 5.1-15). c Due to the Project's low density, the Specific Plan's design W guidelines and design concepts, the large amount of open space preservation, and proposed landscaping, the homes N would not dominate the views. Since the Project site contains slopes with a 15 percent or greater grade, the o development guidelines of the HMOD would be followed, and have been incorporated into the Specific Plan Development Standards. The majority (76 percent) of the w Project site on slopes of 15 percent or greater grade would = be preserved as open space, and the remaining acres would Q follow HMOD development standards. (Id.). For these reasons, the potential for the Project to substantially a degrade the visual character of the Project site or its surroundings is less than significant, and no mitigation is L required. d. Light and Glare. Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Finding: Impacts related to Aesthetics are discussed in detail at Section 5.1 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the potential for the Project to create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area is less than significant, and therefore, no mitigation © is required. 15 Me81-000—IN2350.1 Packet Pg. 490 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Facts in Support of the Finding: Additional lighting would be required to provide nighttime street, trail, and building illumination for the Project. Other sources of light include security lighting, nighttime traffic, and light associated with the nighttime use of the residences. In addition to the adjacent residential land uses, other light-sensitive land uses includes the California State University at San Bernardino (CSUSB) observatory, currently being constructed on Little Badger Hill on the CSUSB campus, between three and four miles east of the Project site. (EIR at 5.1-15). Nighttime lighting has the potential to create light pollution, which occurs when lighting is directed upward and gets scattered by the atmosphere. To observatories, this light competes with starlight and interferes with the ability to see the night sky N clearly. Observatories require atmospheric darkness so that the night sky can be viewed clearly. (EIR at 5.1-16). The use of lighting within the Spring Trails Project would <n be consistent with the dark sky guidelines suggested by the International Dark Sky Association(www.darksky.org) and N with the City of San Bernardino Development Code. (EIR at 5.1-11). A detailed lighting plan, including specifications o and design standards, would be submitted as part of the construction documents. (Id.). Pursuant to Section 19.20.03.014 of the City's Development Code and the w design criteria in the Spring Trails Specific Plan, lights = associated with the Project development would be shielded a and directed toward the interior of the site. (EIR at 5.1-1; 5.1-12). Exterior lighting would be designed, arranged, a directed, or shielded in such a manner as to contain direct illumination onsite, thereby preventing excess illumination t and light spillover onto adjoining land uses and/or roadways and without adversely affecting day or nighttime c views in the project area. (EIR at 5.1-16). Lighting would be installed to accommodate safety and security, while minimizing impacts on surrounding residential areas and the CSUSB observatory. (Id.). For these reasons, the potential for the Project to create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area is less than significant, and no mitigation is required. C. Cumulative Impacts. O Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would result in cumulatively significant visual/aesthetic impacts. 16 MM W-IM350.1 Packet Pg. 491 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Finding: Impacts related to Aesthetics are discussed in detail at Section 5.1 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record,the City finds that the potential for the Project to result in cumulatively significant visual/aesthetic impacts is less than significant, and therefore, no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of the Finding: The adjacent developed communities and undeveloped parcels to the south and southwest are designated Residential Estate (RE) in the City of San Bernardino's General Plan. (EIR at 5.1-16). Continued conversion of rural and undeveloped lands to low-density residential suburban land uses would change the aesthetic character of the area. The adjacent 26.4-acre annexation area consists of six rural residential parcels, four of which are occupied with residences and related structures. Access to four of the y parcels is from Meyers Road, with the remaining two 2 obtaining access from Martin Ranch Road prior to entering the Project site. There is currently no planned development for this adjacent area. (EIR at 5.1-3). This Project would C incrementally contribute to both direct and indirect light and glare affecting the nighttime aesthetic character of the N region. The entire Project site is currently prezoned by the City of San Bernardino as RE. In the context of the City's p General Plan, the Verdemont area is residential in nature. The Project's features and detailed design criteria per the co Specific Plan and the HMOD meet the City's goal to w provide a variety of housing stock, including upscale = homes. The Project clusters development to maintain a undeveloped open space on approximately 30 percent of ` the site. (EIR at 5.1-16). Eventually, as residential a development occurs in the remaining undeveloped areas south and southwest of the Project site, the character of the rE Verdemont area would be changed into a more suburban community, as intended by the General Plan. By a maintaining open space and preserving the dominant view and backdrop of the San Bernardino Mountains, the Project would protect the natural components that contribute to the scenic value of the area, including existing terrain, vegetation, and major ridgelines. (Id.). For these reasons, the Project's contribution to cumulative impacts related to aesthetics will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. O 17 M01.000-106]350.1 6.B.n Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 2. Air Quality. a. Violate Air Ouality Standard-Operations. Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project's long-term operations will violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. Finding: Potential impacts of the Project on Air Quality are discussed in detail in Section 5.2 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project's long term operations will not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation during operations, and therefore, no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of the Finding: Project-related vehicle trips were obtained from the Project-specific traffic impact analysis. (EIR Appendix r`- K). Based on the trip generation rate in the traffic study, the Project would generate a total of 3,149 average daily trips LO ("ADT") at project buildout in Year 2013. (EIR at 5.2-16). Air pollutant emissions modeling is based on mobile- and N stationary-source emissions for each of the land uses. Based on computer modeling, the Project would result in an U increase of air pollutant emissions for both mobile and w stationary sources. However, Project-related emissions would not exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management z District ("SCAQMD") regional emissions thresholds for LU the analyzed pollutants. (EIR Table 5.2-8). Therefore, the Project would not cumulatively contribute to the 03, PM1o, F and PM2.5 nonattainment designations of the South Coast a Air Basin. Consequently, the proposed Project's operational air quality impact is considered less than significant. (EIR at 5.2-16). Therefore, because long-term L operations of the Project will not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or a projected air quality violation; impacts are considered to be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. b. EEx osure of Sensitive Receptors-Operations. Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project's long-term operations will expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Finding: Potential impacts of the Project on Air Quality are discussed in detail in Section 5.2 of the Draft. EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that long-term O Project operations will not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and therefore,no mitigation is required. 18 M681.000-1062350.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Facts in Support of the Finding: Carbon monoxide (CO) hot spots are typically produced at intersections, where traffic congestion is highest because vehicles queue and are subject to reduced speeds. Typically, for an intersection to exhibit a significant CO concentration, it would operate at level of service ("LOS") E or worse. Based on the traffic impact analysis prepared for the Project (EIR Appendix I), under future year With Project conditions, the following intersections are projected to operate at LOS E or worse before traffic improvements: • Palm Avenue at I-215 freeway NB ramps (LOS E during AM peak hour and LOS F during PM peak hours for Year 2013); and Mn • Palm Avenue at I-215 freeway SB ramps (LOS F during AM peak hour for Year 2013). (EIR at 5.2- ~ rn 25). a In Intersections listed above for 2013 are most conducive to the formation of CO hot spots and were modeled during the N worst-case peak hour of congestion. Because technological 0 Q improvements in later-model cars have made significant o emissions reductions in CO, background CO concentrations in the South Coast Air Basin and vehicle emissions would be lower in 2030 than in the Project buildout year, Year w 2030 conditions were not modeled. Project-related traffic = would not exceed any of the state one- or eight-hour CO a ambient air quality standards ("AAQS") at the study area r intersections at buildout year plus cumulative growth a conditions. (EIR Table 5.2-11). Consequently, sensitive receptors in the area would not be significantly affected by z CO emissions generated by operation of the proposed Project, and localized air quality impacts related to mobile- a source emissions would therefore be less than significant. To estimate concentrations of air pollutants generated from operation of the Project at nearby existing and proposed sensitive receptors, the Project's maximum daily operational emissions were compared to the operational localized significance thresholds (LSTs). In accordance with SCAQMD methodology, only onsite stationary sources were included in the analysis. Project-related vehicles traveling on- and offsite are not included in the O analysis. (EIR 5.2-26). Project emissions would not exceed the LST screening level criteria for CO, NOZ, PMIO, or PM2.5, and therefore operation of the Project would not 19 M691-0O11-1062350.1 Packet Pg.494 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations expose offsite and onsite sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. (EIR Table 5.2-12). Therefore, on a localized level, the Project's potential to result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations during long-term Project operations is less than significant, and no mitigation is required. C. Cumulative Impacts-Qperations. Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project will result in cumulatively significant operational air quality impacts. Finding: Potential impacts of the Project on Air Quality are discussed in detail in Section 5.2 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City fmds that the potential for the Project to result in cumulatively significant operational air quality impacts 2 is less than significant, and therefore, no mitigation is required. m Facts in Support of the Finding: With respect to operational air quality emissions, any project that does not exceed or can be mitigated to less than the daily regional threshold values is not considered by the SCAQMD to be a substantial source of air pollution and N C does not add significantly to a cumulative impact. (EIR at 5.2-27). Operation of the Project would not result in emissions in excess of the SCAQMD regional emissions F thresholds for long-term operation for VOC, NOx, CO, w PM,o, and PM2.5. (Id.). Therefore,the Project's contribution = to cumulative operational air quality impacts would be less a than significant, and no mitigation is required. 3. Biological Resources. E a. Cumulative Impacts. Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project will result in cumulatively significant impacts to Biological Resources. Finding: Impacts related to Biological Resources are discussed in detail in Section 5.3 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the potential for the Project to result in cumulatively significant impacts to Biological Resources is less than significant, and therefore, no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of the Finding: The Spring Trails Project site contains a number of unique and uncommon characteristics that provide for a wide diversity of plant and animal species, especially within the O onsite riparian areas. (EIR at 5.3-59). However, specific aspects of the Project's design, as well as the implementation of the required mitigation measures would 20 M681-W--1062350.1 6.B.n Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations successfully avoid or mitigate significant impacts to these resources. (Id.). The most significant area of riparian habitat on the Project site is Cable Creek, and that area is outside of the Project footprint and would not be impacted by the Project. Additional Project design features and required mitigation would conserve and/or enhance existing onsite riparian features and wildlife corridors. (Id.). Mitigation is also recommended that would require additional offsite conservation of riparian areas and other important habitats. While continued development within the greater San Bernardino region has decreased the amount of available high quality habitat in the area, this Project does not cumulatively contribute to that decrease. (Id.). The most important habitat values are maintained on the site, and certain aspects of the Project's design, such as the permanent preservation of Cable Creek, actually provide long-term benefits to the region in terms of biological resource conservation. Based on each of these U) factors, it can be determined that the Project would not present a significant cumulative impact to biological N resources. (Id.). Therefore, cumulative impacts to biological resources will be less than significant, and no 0 mitigation is required. F- 4. Cultural Resources. w x a. Historic Resources. a Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would cause a substantial change in a the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5. E 0 Finding: Impacts related to Cultural Resources are discussed in detail in Section 5.4 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project will not a cause a substantial change in the significance of a historical resource, and therefore,no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of the Finding: The Spring Trails Project area was assessed for historical resources during multiple surveys. During this assessment, no historical resources, as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, were observed. (EIR at 5.4-12). There are no structures, buildings, or other built environment resources with historical value in the project area. (Id.). Therefore, there are no known historical resources on the o Project site, and no mitigation is required. 21 M681-0 -1062350.1 Packet Pg. 496 6.B.n Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations b. Development in Sensitive Archaeological Area. Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would be developed in a sensitive archeological area, as identified in the City's General Plan. Finding: Impacts related to Cultural Resources are discussed in detail in Section 5.4 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project will not be developed in a sensitive archeological area as identified in the City's General Plan, and therefore,no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project site is not located in an area of concern for archaeological resources, and is not located within an area of known resources or areas that could reasonably contain resources and which had demonstrable surface integrity as N of November 1987. (See EIR Figure 5.4-1). Therefore, no L mitigation is required. m L 5. Geology and Soils. C a. Cut and Fill. N N C Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would involve earth movement (cut and/or fill). co Finding: Impacts related to Geology and Soils are discussed in detail at Section 5.5 of the z Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that while the Project would w involve grading on about 216.7 acres of land,with roughly 3.1 million cubic yards of cut and 2.8 million cubic yards of fill, Project earth movement would not result F in substantial adverse erosion or dust impacts and, therefore, no mitigation is a required. c d Facts in Support of the Finding: In addition to the specified amounts of cut and fill grading, s the Project would involve roughly 251,000 cubic yards of soil export. (See EIR Table 5.5-2). Project features are a incorporated into the Spring Trails Specific Plan that would minimize soil erosion. (EIR at 5.5-21). For example, all graded slopes shall be stabilized and planted with the approved trees, shrubs, and groundcovers listed in the Landscape Zones Plant Palette, Table 3.6 in the Specific Plan Design Guidelines. The Grading Plan in the Development Standards for the Spring Trails Specific Plan has been devised with overall goals, including minimizing grading quantities, minimizing slope maintenance and water consumption, and providing for stable slopes and building pads. (Id.). Specific guidelines in the Grading Plan include: minimize grading where possible; avoid grading in 22 M681-000-1063350.1 6.B.n Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Careas where slopes exceed an average of 15 percent to the greatest extent possible; terrace drains and benches shall be added where slope height exceeds 30 feet, in accordance with the Uniform Building Code. (Id.). In some instances, benches should be widened to provide for dual use as a recreation trail; existing significant drainage courses shall be maintained as much as possible; final grading design shall adhere to the final soils report recommendations; grading shall be performed under the supervision of a registered soils engineer; a stone water pollution prevention program ("SWPPP") must be prepared and processed prior to grading; natural terrain must be preserved as much as possible by focusing development in the development footprint; earth retention systems, where slopes can be planted to blend with the natural terrain, F should be used where possible; and all cut-and-fill slopes shall be revegetated to control erosion. (EIR at 5.5-22). n rn These guidelines would meet City and state development standards and soil stability would be maintained. In N addition, the Safety Plan requires that Grading for building ® pads and roads shall conform to specifications of the o geologist, based on a soils study and final geotechnical study. (Id.). In addition to the Project guidelines and development standards described above, the Project would w prepare and implement a SWPPP specifying BMPs for = minimizing pollution of stonnwater during project a construction. Categories of BMPs that would be included in the SWPPP include erosion control BMPs that cover and/or a bind soil to prevent soil from entering runoff; and sediment control BMPs, such as barriers, that intercept and filter out s soil that has been detached and transported by flowing water. Implementation of BMPs specified in the SWPPP a would help stabilize project site slopes while vegetation planted by the Project matures. (Id.). After implementation of Project guidelines, Specific Plan development standards, and BMPs for erosion control and sediment control to be specified in the project's SWPPP, Project development is not expected to result in substantial erosion, and no mitigation is required. b. Landslides. Mudslides or Subsidence. © Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project site is subject to potential hazards from landslides,mudslides or subsidence. 23 M681-000-1062350.1 Packet Pg. 498 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Finding: Impacts related to Geology and Soils are discussed in detail at Section 5.5 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project site is not subject to potential hazards from landslides, mudslides or subsidence and, therefore,no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of the Finding: The maximum gradient of the natural slopes on the site approach is 1.2:1 (horizontal:vertical). Proposed cut-and- fill slopes would be designed at grades of 2:1, with maximum slope heights of 80 feet. Such cut-and-fill slopes have been analyzed and found to be grossly stable. (EIR at 5.5-24). Cut slopes that expose bedrock will tend to weather over time and would be planted with deep-rooted vegetation. No surface indications of slope instability or significant"out of slope" geologic bedding conditions were N observed onsite, and no significant natural slope instability exists onsite. (Id.). The site plan avoids the lower portions M of Cable Canyon and Meyers Canyon, which could act as Q channels for mudflows. The site plan also avoids the rn steeper slopes near the northern end of the site. All cut-and- fill slopes created by the Project would be vegetated, N thereby controlling erosion and reducing mudflow hazard. L) There are no substantial groundwater or oil withdrawals in o the area that could lead to subsidence, and the potential for ground subsidence is regarded as low. (Id.). Therefore, no mitigation is required. w x C. Expansive Soils. a Potential Significant Impact: Whether Project development would create substantial a hazards arising from expansive soils. E Finding: Impacts related to Geology and Soils are discussed in detail at Section 5.5 of the rs Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that Project development a would not create substantial hazards arising from expansive soils and, therefore, no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of the Finding: Expansive soils are generally characterized as having the ability to undergo significant volume change due to increases or decreases in the moisture content of the soil. (EIR at 5.5-25). The Spring Trails site is predominated by relatively recent alluvial deposits (from the Holocene and Pleistocene age). These deposits have led to the existence of sands and sands with gravel in the upper layers (5 to 10 © feet deep) and the gravelly sands (sand with silt, cobbles, and occasional boulders) of the lower layers (below 10 feet). (Id.). These layers are generally medium dense to 24 M691-000-1062350.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Overy dense throughout most of the site and have dry to moist conditions. The geotechnical analysis did not determine these soils to be prone to expansion. Therefore, the expansion potential of soils is low to very low. (Id.).No specific geotechnical recommendations for expansive soils were made, and no mitigation is required. d. Modification of Unique Geological Feature. Potential Significant Impact: Whether Project development would modify a unique geological feature. Finding: Impacts related to Geology and Soils are discussed in detail at Section 5.5 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that although the Project will be developed over the San Andreas Fault, the Project will not substantially ca change the physical and geological characteristics of the fault and, therefore, no mitigation is required. CL Facts in Support of the Finding: The San Andreas Fault is considered to be a unique geological feature, and five splays of the San Andreas Fault N occur on the site. (EIR at 5.5-7). The majority of the segment of Splay A on the Project site would remain open p space, while the balance of the splay would be graded. Most of Splays B, C, and D would be graded, and most of Splay E would remain open space. (EIR at 5.5-25). w However, the grading on Splays A, B, C, D, and E would = not substantially change the physical and geological a characteristics of the fault, and therefore, no mitigation is F- required. a r 0) e. Unstable Soils. E r Potential Significant Impact: Whether Project grading and construction would be 9 conducted so as to result in substantial amounts of unstable a soils. Finding: Impacts related to Geology and Soils are discussed in detail at Section 5.5 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that Project grading and construction will not be conducted so as to result in substantial amounts of unstable soils and,therefore,no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of the Finding: Project features are incorporated into the Spring Trails Specific Plan that would prevent grading and construction O activities from creating substantial amounts of unstable soils. (EIR at 5.5-25). Specifically, the following development standards in the Grading Plan and Safety Plan 25 M661-M-1062350.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations of the Spring Trails Specific Plan would aid in preventing the creation of substantial amounts of unstable soils: 1) final grading design shall adhere to the final soils report recommendations; 2) grading shall be performed under the supervision of a registered soils engineer; and 3) final grading plans shall be prepared and certified by a registered civil engineer and registered geotechnical engineer in the State of California Board of Professional Registration and approved by the City Engineer. (Id.). Thus, impacts in this area will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. f. Hillside Management Overlay Zoning District. N Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would conflict with the provisions of ;? the Hillside Management Overlay Zoning District ("HMOD"). `- .Q Cn Finding: Impacts related to Geology and Soils are discussed in detail at Section 5.5 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project's N development standards will replace the provisions of the HMOD and, therefore, no mitigation is required. o Facts in Support of the Finding: Roughly 67 percent (133 acres) of the Project site is within the HMOD, which covers all areas with slopes of 15 w percent or greater. (EIR at 5.5-26). The HMOD contains = development performance standards, including standards a regarding soils and grading, geotechnical standards, and ` standards requiring that vegetation on slopes, including a graded slopes, be preserved or reestablished. (Id.). The Specific Plan for the Project contains hillside design and s development standards that have been prepared to be site- specific for the proposed project and are consistent with the Q General Plan. The HMOD design guidelines would not be necessary. Thus, no mitigation is required. g. Cumulative Impacts. Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would result in cumulatively significant impacts to Geology and Soils. Finding: Impacts related to Geology and Soils are discussed in detail at Section 5.5 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that Project will not result in © cumulatively significant impacts to Geology and Soils and, therefore, no mitigation is required. 26 M681-M-1052350.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Facts in Support of the Finding: Impacts to geology and soils are specific to the geologic and soils conditions on a particular project site. Mitigation of geologic, seismic, and soil impacts of development projects would also be specific to each site. Compliance with modern building standards, such as the UBC and CBC, serves to reduce seismic-related risks. Therefore, no adverse cumulative impacts related to soils and geology are anticipated, and no mitigation is required. (EIR at 5.5-26). 6. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. a. Routine Transport Use and/or Disposal of Hazardous Materials. Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would create a significant hazard to the y public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; or through s reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions L involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. N Finding: Impacts related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials are discussed in detail at N Q Section 5.6 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the p risk to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; or through reasonably foreseeable upset and co accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the w environment by the Project is less than significant and, therefore, no mitigation is = required. a Facts in Support of the Finding: The proposed Project includes 304 single-family lots under the preferred development scenario, or 307 single-family lots under the alternative development scenario. These will E consist of new single-family lots, and one existing single- family residence in the western portion of the site, bordering Cable Canyon Creek to the south. If the existing Q single-family home were to be demolished prior to Project construction, it may result in the need to transport and dispose of hazardous materials. (EIR at 5.6-9). However, it is anticipated to remain during and after development of the Project, and therefore no demolition activities are anticipated. (Id.). In general, the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials is associated with industrial land uses and not residential land uses. The Project would consist only of residential land uses with associated parks O and open space. Construction and operation of the new single-family homes may include the use of hazardous substances such as paints, solvents, finishes, and cleaners, 27 M681AM-1062350.1 Packet Pg. 502 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations but these substances would not be substantially different from other household products. (Id.). Additionally, the site has not been included on any state or federal lists of hazardous materials sites, so the development of the site would not necessitate the removal or cleanup of any hazardous materials. Therefore, it is not anticipated that construction or operation activities would involve inadvertent exposure to hazardous materials due to their removal from the site. (Id.). The routine transport, use, and/or disposal of significant amounts of hazardous materials is not expected to occur during the construction or operation of this Project. (Id.). Since there would not be any substantial amount of hazardous materials present on the Project site for a significant amount of time during Project construction or operation, there would also not be F any foreseeable upset or release of hazardous materials, and therefore no mitigation is required. `- a b. Emergency Response or Evacuation Plan. N N Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response o plan or emergency evacuation plan. m Finding: Impacts related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials are discussed in detail at w Section 5.6 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the 2 Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an a adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and, therefore, F no mitigation is required. a c Facts in Support of the Finding: The City has an emergency management plan and a hazard mitigation plan that outline the potential risks, hazards, and emergency situations that the City may face and the best =° methods for preventing or managing these situations. (EIR a at 5.6-10). The emergency management plan and the hazard mitigation plan, which have been developed in compliance with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, are used by the City to reduce and eliminate the effects of natural and human-caused disasters. Spring Trails would follow the guidelines and regulations of the City's emergency and hazard mitigation plans. Since the site has high potential for fires, there is substantial need for fire emergency access. (Id.). The Spring Trails Specific Plan includes measures that would allow the site to be accessible during fire emergencies and which can be applicable for other emergencies. These are outlined in the City's Foothill 28 M681-000-1062350.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Fire Zone Overlay District requirements, and Spring Trails' compliance with these standards is substantiated in Appendix D of the Specific Plan. (See EIR Table 5.14-7). The adjacent 26.4-acre annexation area would follow the guidelines and regulations of the City's emergency and hazard mitigation plans. (Id.). In sum, the proposed Project and the adjacent 26.4-acre annexation area would not conflict with the City's emergency planning, and therefore no mitigation is required. C. Cumulative Impacts. Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would result in cumulatively significant impacts related to Hazards and Hazardous N Materials. rn Finding: Impacts related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials are discussed in detail at Section 5.6 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the vai Project would not result in cumulatively significant impacts related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials and, therefore,no mitigation is required. N ,f^ Facts in Support of the Finding: The assessment of potential cumulative impacts with regard o to hazards and hazardous materials relates to the ability for impacts to occur offsite. (EIR at 5.6-23). The hazardous materials study area considered for cumulative impacts w consisted of(1) the area that could be affected by proposed = Project activities, and (2) the areas affected by other a projects where activities could directly or indirectly affect F the presence or fate of hazardous materials on the proposed a Project site. (Id.). The land uses surrounding the Project site are either vacant or residential. There would be little E chance for a hazardous materials release in the surrounding area that would cause cumulative impacts with the a proposed Project. Cumulative analysis for fire and wind hazards is completed with similar parameters. (Id.). Cumulative impacts could occur when adjacent projects, in combination with the proposed Project, would increase the number of people being exposed to fire and wind hazards. (Id.). At this time no development is planned for the areas adjacent to the proposed Project; thus, no cumulative impacts would occur, and no mitigation is required. C 29 M681-000-1062350.1 Et;6.B.n Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 7. Hydrology/Water Quality a. Alter Existing Drainage Pattern. Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite. Finding: Impacts related to Hydrology and Water Quality are discussed in detail in Section 5.7 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that development of the Project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or y substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite, and therefore,no mitigation is required. rn Facts in Support of the Finding: Drainage from Offsite: At Project completion, offsite drainage would enter the project site from the north and east. (EIR at 5.7-16). Two drainage courses within N Drainage Area A that flow into the site from the north are N Cable Canyon West and East Forks. These two drainages, o which merge onsite, would remain undisturbed and would exit the west side of the site as they do now. Four drainages would enter the site from the east. The northerly two of w these drainages are tributaries to Cable Canyon and are in = Drainage Area A. (EIR Figure 3-8). These two drainages would pass through a culvert under proposed Street "A", merge and continue flowing westerly, pass through a culvert under proposed Street "DD", then continue to the southwest before merging with the West and East forks of Cable Canyon. (EIR at 5.7-16). This combined drainage then flows to the west and exits the site into Cable Creek. - South of the Project site, the Cable Creek drainage would a pass through culverts under the Secondary Access Road. The third drainage course that enters the site from the east would be collected in a proposed brow ditch north of proposed Street"O" and west of proposed Street "W". This drainage would then be conveyed around the water reservoir tank and discharged to an existing flow line. (Id.). The last drainage course entering the site from the east consists of Meyers Canyon and tributary areas in Drainage Area D; Meyers Canyon enters the site near its southeast O corner. A culvert crossing is proposed under the Primary Access Road(Street"N'). (See EIR Figure 3-8). 30 M691-000--1062550.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Drainage from Onsite: Drainage from the site at Project completion would be conveyed in a series of storm drain systems that would route water into three Extended Detention Basins for treatment and detention. (Id.). (EIR Table 5.7-2 and Figure 3-8). Drainage Area A consists of Cable Canyon, including the west and east forks of Cable Canyon and tributary areas. (EIR at 5.7-17). Drainage from the two northernmost residential areas, north of Cable Canyon, would not be routed into an extended detention basin, but routed instead into media filtration vaults where the water quality volume would be treated, after which the runoff would be discharged into Cable Canyon. Water quality volumes for each detention basin that would be built as part of the Project are listed in EIR Table 5.7-3. y One of these areas is 17.3 acres, while the second is 22.0 acres. Basin "A" compensates for this discharge from the site into Cable Canyon by overdetaining runoff from other Q parts of Drainage Area A onsite. (Id.). Drainage Area B, 45.5 acres in area, is divided into two subareas. Subarea 1 would be the developed area onsite of 21.8 acres that would N be routed into basin `B" plus the 1.6-acre basin and 4.6 acres of open space downstream of the basin outlet. o Subarea 2 would be 17.5 acres of onsite and offsite undeveloped area that would cross under Street "I" and °' then discharge into an existing flow line. (EIR at 5.7-18). W Drainage Area "C" consists of 209.8 acres, roughly 89.0 = acres of which would be in the developed area onsite and a would drain into basin "C". The remaining 107.8 acres would be onsite and offsite undeveloped areas that would a be collected north of Street "H". (Id.). Drainage Area "D" consists of 339.3 acres: 319.8 acres offsite and 19.5 onsite. r Drainage from Area "D" would enter the site near the Y southeastern site boundary, flow through a culvert under a the proposed Primary Access Road (Street "A"), and then exit the site. This drainage would not be directed into a detention basin or media filtration vault. Surface flows from the secondary access road will be conveyed into a 5- foot concrete drainage ditch located within a 13-foot graded shoulder on both sides of the road. The runoff will then be collected in storm drain inlets and conveyed through a storm drain underneath the secondary access road where it will be discharged into Cable Creek. (Id.). o Detention Basin Capacities: Drainage volumes and rates from developed portions of the site would be increased compared to existing conditions due to the increase in 31 M681-000-1062350.1 6.B.n Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations _ impervious surfaces onsite. (Id.). The three proposed detention basins would be local detention facilities maintained by the owner or homeowners association. The maximum capacity of each of the detention basins is designed to store onsite runoff from the drainage area tributary to the respective basin in order to lower the rate of outflow from the basin to the piedevelopment rate in a 100- year, 24-hour storm. (Id.). Each basin would also be equipped with water quality treatment features and would provide treatment for runoff. The total capacity and water quality treatment capacity of each of the three basins is listed in EIR Table 5.7-3. Emergency spillways are proposed for each of the three basins to convey the 1,000- year peak flow for the respective basin's tributary y watershed. (Id.). rn Debris Flows and Culvert Sizes: The Project site is in the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains. (Id.). Therefore, u large debris flows may occur in watersheds in the area, especially in years after a fire. Debris flows would increase N the volume of material flowing down drainages. (Id.). Culverts in the Project were designed to accommodate o estimated debris flow volumes that would occur in a 100- year storm four years following a fire. (EIR Table 5.7-4). Project drainage features would meet requirements of the w San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual and would limit = runoff from the site at Project completion to existing levels. a (EIR at 5.7-19). In sum, impacts to existing drainage r patterns will be less than significant, and no mitigation is a required. E L b. Groundwater Recharge. Potential Significant impact: Whether the Project would substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted). Finding: Impacts related to Hydrology and Water Quality are discussed in detail in Section O 5.7 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that development of the Project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in 32 M691-000-106]150.1 Packet Pg. 507 Facts and Findings and Staten►ent of Overriding Considerations aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level, and therefore, no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of the Finding: Project development would increase impervious surfaces on the Project site. (EIR at 5.7-19). The resulting increase in drainage from most of the developed parts of the site would be conveyed to three extended detention basins. (Id.). Stormwater would infiltrate into underlying sediment through the bottoms of the basins. The Project would not include substantial infiltration zones except for the basins. The infiltration rate in the three basins would total roughly 2.01 cfs. (Id.). At Project completion, onsite groundwater recharge of stormwater from a two-year, 24-hour storm would be reduced about 1.3 percent compared to recharge y from the same size storm in existing conditions. (Id.). Project development would not substantially reduce groundwater recharge from the site and therefore, no mitigation is required. a°i C. 100-Year Flood Hazard Area. N Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would place housing within a 100-year o flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map; or place within a 100-year flood w hazard area structures which would impede or redirect = flood flows. Finding: Potential impacts related to Hydrology and Water Quality are discussed in detail a in Section 5.7 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that development of the Project will not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard E area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map; or place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows, and therefore, no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of the Finding: The entire Project site is in FEMA flood hazard zone X, meaning that it is outside of both 100-year and 500-year flood plains. (EIR at 5.7-19). Much of the Project site is on the lower slopes of the San Bernardino Mountains. Large debris flows may occur in local watersheds, especially in years after a fire. After Project development, debris flows j originating upstream of the Project site may flow through 11J O drainages crossing the site; debris flows are not expected to originate onsite. Culverts where drainages on the site would cross under roadways have been designed to accommodate 33 M681-000-1062350.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations the increase in volume due to sediment that would occur in a debris flow. All proposed improvements, including building pads, roads, and reservoirs, would be outside of the area that would be flooded by debris flows during a 100-year storm. Project development is not expected to create substantial hazards to persons arising from debris flows. (EIR at 5.7-27). Project development would not result in flood hazards to people or structures or redirect flood flows within a 100-year flood hazard area, and therefore, no mitigation is required. d. Violate Water Ouality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements. V1 Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Q Finding: Impacts related to Hydrology and Water Quality are discussed in detail in Section co 5.7 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that development N of the Project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements and will not otherwise substantially degrade water quality, and p therefore,no mitigation is required. co Facts in Support of the Finding: Construction: Potential sources of pollutants from w construction activities on the site include exposed soil, _ construction materials, and construction equipment. (EIR a at 5.7-20). Project clearing, grading, excavation, and < construction activities may impact water quality due to a sheet erosion of exposed soils and subsequent deposition of particles and pollutants in drainage ways. (Id.). Grading E activities in particular lead to exposed areas of loose soil, as well as sediment stockpiles which are susceptible to uncontrolled sheet flow. The use of materials such as fuels, a solvents, and paints also present a risk to surface water quality due to an increased potential for these materials and related pollutants to contaminate stormwater. Additionally, storage, refueling, and maintenance of construction equipment onsite result in the potential for fuels and other substances to contaminate stormwater. (Id.). Measures for reducing potential pollution from construction activities would include obtaining coverage under the © General Construction Permit for discharges of stormwater runoff from the construction site. (Id.). The General Construction Permit is the coverage issued by the State 34 M681-W--10 350.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Water Resources Control Board ("SWRCB") that allows the discharges of stormwater to waters of the United States from construction projects. In order to get coverage under the General Construction Permit,the discharge should be in compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") and implement a Storm Water Sampling and Analysis Strategy for monitoring of construction site runoff. In order to obtain coverage under the General Construction Permit, the Project owner would be required to submit a Notice of Intent to the SWRCB to file for permit coverage, and prepare and implement a SWPPP onsite. A Notice of Intent must be filed, and the SWPPP must be prepared prior to commencement of soil- disturbing activities at the Project site. (Id.). The SWPPP y must contain a site map(s) showing the construction site F perimeter, existing and proposed buildings, lots, roadways, stormwater collection and discharge points, general topography before and after construction, and drainage U) patterns across the Project. The SWPPP must list BMPs that would be used to protect stormwater runoff and N describe the placement of those BMPs. Additionally, the SWPPP must contain a visual monitoring program and a o rn chemical monitoring program for "nonvisible"pollutants to be implemented if there is a failure of the BMPs. (Id.). Typical temporary BMPs that would be used during w construction include good housekeeping practices and = erosion and sediment control measures. Good a housekeeping practices include street sweeping, waste disposal, vehicle and equipment maintenance, concrete a washout area, materials storage, minimization of hazardous materials, and proper handling and storage of hazardous r materials. (Id.). Design standards for the BMPs are set forth by the County of Bernardino and the California Storm c Water Management handbooks. Construction BMPs for this project would be selected, constructed, and maintained so as to comply with all applicable ordinances and guidance documents. (EIR at 5.7-22). Upon implementation BMPs as specified in the project's SWPPP, Project construction would not result in substantial pollution of receiving waters, and therefore, no mitigation is required. (Id.). Operations: Pollutant sources that are expected to be O generated by Project operation are sediment/turbidity, nutrients, trash and debris, oxygen-demanding substances, bacteria and viruses, oil and grease, and pesticides. (Id.). 35 M681-000-1062350.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations OWith regard to the operational phase of the Project, site design, source control, and treatment control BMPs as dictated by County and City Stormwater management plans would be implemented. (Id.). The residences surrounding the Project site are reliant upon well water for their potable water usage. In some cases, these wells are relatively shallow, with a water table of approximately 50 feet or more. Although historical farming uses and the related fertilizers and other amendments have not had an impact on the water table, BMPs would be used to reduce contaminants in runoff from the Project site, lessening any potential impacts to potable drinking water to nearby residences. (EIR Tables 5.7-5 to 5.7-7). A Project-specific water quality management plan ("WQMP") (EIR N Appendix II) has been prepared for the Project, and specifies site design, source control, and treatment control BMPs as required by the San Bernardino County Q Stormwater Program Model Water Quality Management U) Plan Guidance. The site design BMPs, source control LO BMPs, and treatment control BMPs incorporated into the N Project plans must address the potential pollutants from the U Project. (EIR at 5.7-24). The WQMP includes BMPs that o cr would be implemented during both design and operation of co the Project, and describes long-term operation and maintenance requirements for BMPs. (EIR Table 5-7-7). w The Project applicant would be responsible for carrying out = all BMP operations and maintenance activities. (EIR at a 5.7-25). Prior to building or grading permit closeout or the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or certificate of use, a the applicant shall demonstrate: that all structural BMPs have been constructed and installed in conformance with s approved plans and specifications; that the applicant is prepared to implement all nonstructural BMPs described in a the approved Project-specific WQMP; and that an adequate number of copies of the approved Project-specific WQMP are available for the future owners/occupants. (EIR at 5.7- 26). After implementation of site design, source control, and treatment control BMPs, as specified in the Project's WQMP, Project operationS would not cause substantial pollution of receiving waters, and no mitigation is required. e. Create or Contribute Runoff Water. Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial 36 MNI1 -1063350.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations additional sources of polluted runoff, such as from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks, or other outdoor areas. Finding: Impacts related to Hydrology and Water Quality are discussed in detail in Section 5.7 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that development of the Project will not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, and therefore, no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of the Finding: Design standards for BMPs are set forth by the County of San Bernardino and the California Storm Water Management handbooks, and construction BMPs for this Project would be selected, constructed, and maintained so as to comply with all applicable ordinances and guidance documents. Upon implementation BMPs as specified in the project's SWPPP, Project construction would not result in N substantial pollution of receiving waters. (EIR at 5.7-22). Site design, source control, and treatment control BMPs as p dictated by the County and City Stormwater management plans would be implemented. The Project-specific WQMP F would be required by the City of San Bernardino to address w management of urban runoff from the Project site, and = specifically address site design, source control, and a treatment control BMPs to minimize the impact of urban runoff from the Project. Site design BMPs would be used to a control and filter runoff from residential uses for collection r in detention basins located at strategic points on the Project L site. (Id.). On- and offsite stormwater would be collected and routed a through a series of catch basins, inlets, and storm drain systems that would convey water to three extended detention basins for water quality treatment and detention. These systems would be designed and constructed in accordance with the City of San Bernardino and the San Bernardino County Flood Control District standards. Properly engineered basins reduce infiltration issues by adsorbing common residential chemicals into basin linings. (Id.). Successful implementation of the controls contained in the WQMP would reduce the amount of contaminants in Gi surface flow and groundwater by controlling the contaminants at the source. (EIR at 5.7-23). Accordingly, 37 M681-000-1062350.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations the potential for the Project to create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff is less than significant, and no mitigation is required. f. Dam Failure. Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would expose people or structures to to a significant risk of injury, loss or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. Finding: Impacts related to Hydrology and Water Quality are discussed in detail in Section N 5.7 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that development of the Project will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of injury, loss or death involving flooding (including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam), and therefore,no mitigation is required. vei Facts in Support of the Finding: There are no dams or enclosed bodies of water upstream N from the Project site that could pose a hazard of flooding to the site due to a seiche or the failure of a dam. (EIR at 5.7- o 27). The Project would involve construction and operation co of three reservoirs onsite. (EIR Figure 3-9). The °' reservoirs would have capacities of 900,000 gallons, Z LU 900,000 gallons, and 2,500,000 gallons. The reservoirs would be enclosed tanks, the design and construction of a which would comply with existing seismic safety regulations. (EIR at 5.7-27). Accordingly, the risk of a flooding is less than significant, and no mitigation is r required. E m g. Cumulative Impacts. a Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would result in cumulatively significant impacts related to Hydrology and Water Quality. Finding: Impacts related to Hydrology and Water Quality are discussed in detail in Section 5.7 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that development of the Project will not result in cumulatively significant impacts related to Hydrology and Water Quality, and therefore, no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of the Finding: Potential related projects are those development projects that would increase the amount of impervious surfaces and consequently cause increased runoff within the Santa Ana 38 M681-000-1062350.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations River Watershed. (EIR at 5.7-27). Each related project would be required to include project features that would detain onsite any increase in runoff from 100-year storm events until after the storm. After the construction and operation of required drainage features within related projects, substantial cumulative impacts to the capacity of the storm drainage system in the region are not expected to occur. (Id.). Given that the proposed Project would also be required to include drainage features so that the Project would not cause a net increase in runoff into the existing storm drainage system in the region, the Project is not anticipated to have a cumulatively considerable adverse impact on storm drainage capacity. Reach Four of the Santa Ana River, downstream from the vicinity of the Project site, is included on the 303(d) list as impaired by pathogens 2 (bacteria and viruses). Therefore, pathogens are pollutants of concern in the vicinity of the Project site. (Id.). Other - projects in the Santa Ana Watershed can be expected to U). increase the amounts of contaminants that could enter stormwater. (EIR at 5.7-28). However, other projects N would be required to comply with the same NPDES regulations for minimizing water pollution as would the o 1� proposed project. Related projects would be required to co prepare and implement SWPPPs and WQMPs, specifying BMPs that would be used to minimize contaminants w discharged into receiving waters. After compliance with = existing regulations, cumulative impacts to water quality a are not expected to be substantial, and the Project is not anticipated to have cumulatively considerable impacts on a water quality. (Id.). Thus,no mitigation is required. E r 8. Land Use and Planning. y a. Conflict with Land Use Plans. Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Finding: Impacts related to Land Use and Planning are discussed in detail at Section 5.8 of © the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project will not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with 39 M681-000-1062350.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, and therefore,no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of the Finding: General Plan/Specific Plan: The Project would be consistent with the City of San Bernardino General Plan. (EIR at 5.8-13). Under the existing General Plan designation of RE, the maximum density is one dwelling unit per acre. The Project would require a General Plan Amendment to change the existing land use designation to Residential Low (RL), allowing 3.1 dwelling units per acre, an increase of 2.1 dwelling units per acre. The Project would be annexed into the City of San Bernardino and zoned RE (consistent with existing prezoning). (Id.). The Project's overall density would be 0.87 dwelling units per acre. The density on the developed area (241.5 acres) F would be 1.27 dwelling units per acre. (EIR at 5.8-14). Development will be focused, or clustered, onto n approximately 241.5 acres, or 68 percent of the total site, and includes 9 acres of parks and 125.1 acres of internal slopes and fuel modification zones. The remaining 32 N percent of Spring Trails (111.3 acres) is preserved as natural open space. The average lot size in Spring Trails is o 29,000 square feet. The largest lots are on the northern portion and upper elevations of the site, and the largest lot F measures 18.3 acres. (Id.). The smallest lots are on the w lower elevations and southern portion of the Project, and = the smallest lot measures 10,801 square feet. In many a instances, the legal lots will extend beyond the buildable F area and include graded slopes, fuel modification zones, a steep slopes, and open spaces. E t The Preferred Development Plan is the same as the Alternative Development Plan in every respect except for Q the treatment of the land beneath the aboveground electric lines and the number of residential lots. ad.). In this respect, the Preferred Development Plan differs from the Preferred Development Plan in that it would provide 126 acres of internal slopes and fuel modification zones, and 70 acres would be attributable to residential lots. The Preferred Development Plan contains 304 single-family detached units and the overall density over the 352.8-acre site would be 0.86 dwelling units per acre. The density on the developed area (241.5 acres) would be 1.26 dwelling units Q per acre. The Project would exceed County General Plan designation RL-5 of one dwelling unit per five acres. However, once annexed into the City of San Bernardino, 40 MM 1-000--1062350.1 INNIMMKIINOMM Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations the Project would be consistent with the General Plan and Development Code. ad.). Specific plans are required to be consistent with the goals and policies of the governing general plan. The Project implements and exemplifies the goals and policies of the City of San Bernardino General Plan. (E1R Table 5.8-1). Future development within the Spring Trails Specific Plan area must be consistent with this Specific Plan. All projects that are found to be consistent with this Specific Plan will likewise be deemed consistent with the City's General Plan. (Id). San Bernardino County Association of Governments (SCAG): The proposed Project will be consistent with the applicable SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) policies. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in significant land use impacts related to v°i relevant SCAG policies, goals, and principles. (EIR Table Ln 5.8-2). Likewise, the Project will be consistent with the N applicable goals of the SCAG Regional Transportation Plan 0 ("RTP"), and implementation of the Project would not o result in significant land use impacts related to relevant RTP goals. (EIR Table 5.8-3). The Project will also be F consistent with advisory SCAG Compass Growth Vision w ("CGV") principles, and would not result in significant = land use impacts related to the advisory CGV principles. a (EIR Table 5.8-4). a San Bernardino National Forest Land Management r Plan ("SBNF"): The northern portion of the Project site r (approximately 160 acres) is located within the boundaries of the SBNF. The upper 160 acres of the Project are private a lands within the SBNF. Since the Project site is privately held, it is not subject to the Land Management Plan. However, all areas adjacent to the Project site, within the SBNF, are subject to the Land Management Plan. Public access by residents would be restricted and unlawful. (EIR at 5.8-47). Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation Plan: In 1999, the USFS proposed to prohibit road construction and reconstruction in inventoried roadless areas within the O national forests. That portion of the SBNF surrounding the Project site (at the Project boundary), and continuing in the northwesterly direction is identified as an inventoried 41 M681-000-1062350.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations roadless area. However, the Project site is not within the inventoried roadless area, and is thus not subject to this plan. (See EIR Figure 5.8-1). City of San Bernardino Tree Ordinance: The development of the Project would remove up to 2,400 trees (220 native species, 2,170 eucalyptus, and 10 ornamental nonnative trees) from the Project site. The majority of the eucalyptus trees were planted as part of a eucalyptus plantation. The applicant would be required to replace the 220 native tree species with similar native species, as required by the City's tree ordinance. The required tree replacement has been incorporated as Project Mitigation Measure 3-13, which would ensure the project's C compliance with the City's tree ordinance. In sum, because the Project will not conflict with any land use plan, policy or regulation, impacts in this area are less than significant, and no mitigation is required. N N b. Development Within Hillside Management Overlay District. N U Potential Significant Impact: Whether development would occur within the Hillside Management Overlay District. Z Z Finding: Impacts related to Land Use and Planning are discussed in detail at Section 5.8 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project's a development standards will replace the provisions of the HMOD and, therefore, no mitigation is required. a c Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project site would be subject to the HMOD since it E would involve development in areas of 15 percent slope or m greater. (See EIR Figure 5.8-2). The overall goals of the site-specific grading guidelines are to minimize the height a of visible slopes, provide for more natural-appearing manufactured slopes, minimize grading quantities, minimize slope maintenance and water consumption, and provide for stable slopes and building pads. (EIR at 5.8- 48). The total Project area that is proposed for grading is 216.7 acres, which includes 193.0 acres onsite and 23.7 acres offsite. Onsite grading encompasses roughly 2.7 million cubic yards and would balance onsite. (The primary access road would require approximately 171,000 cubic yards of cut and 55,000 cubic yards of fill, which necessitates exporting approximately 116,000 cubic yards. The secondary access street would require 244,000 cubic 42 M681 400-1061350.1 6.B.n Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Cyards of cut and 109,000 cubic yards of fill, which necessitates exporting approximately 135,000 cubic yards. Total export equals 251,000 cubic yards. (Id.). Spring Trails has been responsibly designed to fit into the existing landscape, at the same time meeting the intent of the HMOD. Project development would avoid steep hillside areas and clusters development in the lower foothill areas. This has the following benefits in terns of grading impacts: • Minimizes hillside grading and scarring that would be visible from public rights-of-way; • Preserves the Cable Canyon and Meyers Canyon drainage courses in their natural conditions and minimizes impacts on natural topography; • Maintains significant natural drainage courses within the proposed development area to enhance water quality. (Id.). .Q In The Specific Plan for the Project contains hillside design and development standards that have been prepared to be N site-specific for the proposed project and are consistent O with the General Plan. The HMOD design guidelines o would not be necessary. Thus,no mitigation is required. 00 Z C. Development Within Foothill Fire Zones. w Potential Significant Impact: Whether development would occur within Foothill Fire a Zones A and B or C, as identified in the City's General F Plan. a Finding: Impacts related to Land Use and Planning are discussed in detail at Section 5.8 of E the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that although development of the Project will be within Foothill Fire Zones A and B and C, all development will comply with the Foothill Fire Overlay District standards and therefore, no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of the Finding: The overlay district identifies 3 foothill fire zones: A, Extreme Hazard; B,High Hazard; and C, Moderate Hazard. Approximately one third of the site is in Fire Zone A, one third of the site is in Fire Zone B, and the remaining third is in Fire Zone C. (EIR Figure 5.8-2). Areas in the Foothill Fire Zones are required to be developed with proper building separation, landscaping, and building materials; ^ adequate emergency access and evacuation routes; and Vsufficient water resources. (EIR at 5.848). To ensure the safety of property and lives, a detailed fire safety analysis 43 M681-000-1062350.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations was conducted by FireSafe Planning Solutions and a fire protection plan was prepared, which factored in wind patterns, fuel types (vegetation), topography, weather patterns, and historical burn patterns to determine the potential severity of wildfires and appropriate protection methods. (EIR at 5.8-49). A comparison of the provisions of this Specific Plan with the Foothill Fire Overlay District is provided in Appendix D of the Specific Plan. The table in Appendix D shows the Project's compliance with the Foothill Fire Overlay District standards for access and circulation, site and street identification, roadside vegetation, water supply, erosion control, construction and development design, and other miscellaneous standards such as disclosure to property owners and responsible parties for fuel modification zone maintenance. Spring Trails is compliant with all standards laid out in the Foothill Fire Overlay District. (Id.). The fire protection plan Q prepared by FireSafe Planning Solutions was approved by � the San Bernardino County Fire Department and incorporated into the Spring Trails Specific Plan. N Accordingly, the potential for impacts related to development within Foothill Fire Zones is less than o significant, and no mitigation is required. Z d. Cumulative Impacts. LU Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would result in cumulatively a significant impacts related to Land Use and Planning. a Finding: Impacts related to Land Use and Planning are discussed in detail at Section 5.8 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project will not r result in cumulatively significant impacts related to Land Use and Planning and R therefore,no mitigation is required. Q Facts in Support of the Finding: Development of the Project and the annexation of the adjacent 26.4 acre area, in addition to other cumulative development, could cause City-wide land use and planning impacts. (EIR at 5.8-49). However, upon adoption of the Spring Trails Specific Plan, the Project would be consistent with applicable plans, policies, and regulations of the San Bernardino General Plan,the City's zoning regulations, and SCAG's RCPG and RTP. (Id.). Additionally, as with the proposed Project and the 26.4-acre annexation area, other cumulative projects would also be subject to compliance with the local and regional plans reviewed in this section. (Id.). Implementation of the cumulative projects would not i 44 MU3-W--1062350.1 Packet Pg. 519 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations combine with the proposed Project to result in cumulatively considerable land use impacts, and no mitigation is required. 9. Mineral Resources. a. Loss of Mineral Resources. Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state; or result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan. CU Finding: Impacts related to Mineral Resources are discussed in detail at Section 5.9 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project will not =_ L result in the loss of availability of any known mineral resource, and therefore, no 0. mitigation is required. N Facts in Support of the Finding: Younger alluvium is present on the Project site, which may be suitable as construction aggregate, but is present onsite 0 in limited amounts, mainly in Cable Canyon and Myers :n Canyon. (See EIR Figure 5.5-1). Most of the site surface consists of older terrace deposits, which are not thought to w be suitable as aggregate because the boulders and gravel in these deposits are moderately weathered and crumbly, suggesting they break down easily. (EIR at 5.9-4). There are no mineral resource recovery sites designated in the a City of San Bernardino General Plan on or near the Project site, and there are no existing mineral resource recovery operations on or next to the Project site. (Id.). Accordingly, impacts to mineral resources will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. 10. Noise. a. Substantial Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise. Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the Project; specifically, whether based on the City of San Bernardino standard for maximum outdoor noise levels in residential areas, Project- related traffic would increase the CNEL at any noise- 1 45 M681-000-1061350.1 i Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations sensitive receptor by an audible amount, 3 dBA and ambient noise levels exceed 65 dBA. Finding: Potential Noise impacts of the Project are discussed in detail at Section 5.10 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City fmds that the Project will not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project, because Project-related traffic will not increase the CNEL at any noise-sensitive receptor by an audible amount, and therefore,no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of the Finding: The operations phase of the Project would generate noise primarily associated with vehicular trips. (EIR at 5.10-17). According to the Project's traffic impact analysis, the Project would generate 3,149 average daily trips (ADT), N with 247 trips in the morning peak-hour and 333 trips in the evening peak hour. (Id.). A 3 dB change in noise levels is considered to be the minimum change discernible to the human ear. (Id.). Project-related traffic at buildout year y 2013 would cause noise levels to increase by more than 3 dBA on the new access roads, along Little League Drive, N and Belmont Avenue between Little League Drive and N Magnolia Avenue. (EIR Figure 5.10-6). However, ambient o noise levels would not exceed 65 dBA CNEL under year 2013 with Project conditions along these roadways. A portion of the segment of Little League Drive south of w Frontage Road would be within the 65 dBA CNEL ambient = noise contour, however, there are no noise-sensitive a receptors present. (EIR at 5.10-18). Consequently, implementation of the Project would not cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels; noise impacts would be less than significant in year 2013, and no E mitigation is required. R b. Noise Levels in Excess of Standards. Q Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; specifically, whether noise generated by buildout of the Project would result in stationary (non-transportation) noise that results in a noise nuisance at noise-sensitive receptors as determined in Chapter 8.54, Noise Control, of the City's Municipal Code; or result in interior noise levels in habitable noise- sensitive areas that exceed 45 dBA CNEL or exterior noise 46 M681-000.-1063350.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations L levels at single-family residential noise-sensitive areas exceed 65 dBA CNEL. Finding: Potential Noise impacts of the Project are discussed in detail at Section 5.10 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project will not result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of any standard, and therefore, no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of the Finding: Noise may have a significant impact if the Project constructs a noise-sensitive land use in an area that is incompatible due to excessive noise. (EIR at 5.10-18). The City of San Bernardino has adopted a land use compatibility criteria for the siting of new noise-sensitive land uses within the City. (See EIR Table 5.10-3). Per the y City of San Bernardino General Plan, noise-impacted projects are defined as residential projects with noise levels that exceed the City's "Normally Acceptable" compatibility criteria. For residential projects, noise-impacted projects are those that are exposed to exterior noise levels of 65 dBA CNEL or greater. Noise-impacted projects are N required by the City to include upgraded noise insulation features (e.g., windows, doors, attic baffling) that achieve p (`+) an exterior-to-interior noise level of 45 dBA CNEL. (EIR ") at 5.10-18).The majority of future ambient noise at the F Project area would be generated by local roadway traffic. w (Id.).Noise-sensitive portions of the Project site include the = interior of the residential dwelling units, and the exterior a noise-sensitive areas of these uses. Traffic on the local roadways under Year 2013 With Project conditions would a not generate noise levels that exceed the exterior noise level of 65 dBA CNEL. (EIR Figure 5.10-5). Noise- s sensitive uses would be exposed to exterior noise levels of 50 dBA CNEL and under. Pursuant to the California Building Code, noise-sensitive habitable rooms would be required to be designed to achieve an interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL. In general, exterior-to-interior transmission loss from standard building construction results in a minimum attenuation of 24 dBA under windows-closed conditions and 12 dBA under windows- open conditions. (EIR at 5.10-18). Therefore, interior noise levels would not exceed the interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL. Consequently, noise impacts at the onsite noise-sensitive receptors would be less than significant. i OResidential uses would generate stationary noise sources on the Project site, including heating, ventilation, and air 47 M681-000-I062350.1 Packet Pg. 522 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations conditioning (HVAC) units from residential units, and noise from landscaping activities. (EIR at 5.10-27). HVAC units and other equipment would be acoustically engineered with mufflers and barriers to ensure that no exceedance of the City's noise standards would occur. (Id.). Consequently, proposed residential uses would not generate substantial noise, and impacts to nearby noise- sensitive receptors would be less than significant. Thus, no mitigation is required. C. Groundbome Vibration. Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or y groundbome noise levels; specifically, whether construction equipment would produce perceptible levels of vibration (78 VdB) during the daytime at offsite vibration- sensitive structures, or produce vibration that is strong y enough to cause vibration-induced architectural damage based on the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), which is 0.2 in/sec for typical wood-framed buildings or 0.5 in/sec for reinforced concrete, steel, or timber structures. o Ul Finding: Potential Noise impacts of the Project are discussed in detail at Section 5.10 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project will not w result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration = or groundbome noise levels, and therefore, no mitigation is required. a Facts in Support of the Finding: Construction operations can generate varying degrees of a ground vibration, depending on the construction procedures and the construction equipment. (EIR at 5.10-27). E Construction equipment can produce vibration from vehicle travel as well as grading and building activities. No pile driving,blasting, or other vibration-intensive activity would be required in the construction effort. (Id.). The highest levels of vibration would be experienced when a heavy piece of construction equipment is operating or passes in proximity to the nearby vibration-sensitive structures. Levels of vibration produced by construction equipment are evaluated against the FTA's significance threshold for vibration annoyance of 78 VdB for residential structures during the daytime. (Id.). Although the maximum vibration levels associated with certain construction activities could be perceptible in certain instances, vibration events would be infrequent throughout the day, would occur during the least vibration-sensitive portions of the day, and equipment 48 M681-000-1062350.1 6.B.n Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations would be used for a short duration when working in close proximity to vibration-sensitive receptors. (EIR at 5.10- 28). Additionally, construction activities are typically distributed throughout a project site. Therefore, construction vibration is based on average vibration levels (levels that would be experienced by sensitive receptors the majority of the time) that exceed the FTA's criteria for vibration-induced annoyance at sensitive residences during the day of 78 VdB. While construction equipment could operate as close as 65 feet to the nearest offsite vibration- sensitive residential structures (onsite Secondary Access Road), most of the heavy construction equipment would operate at greater distances (average distance of 761 feet). (Id.). Average vibration levels from construction of the w Project would not exceed the FTA criteria for vibration F annoyance at the surrounding residential uses or at the m existing onsite residence. (EIR Table 5.10-7). Consequently, impacts would be less than significant. a°i LO Development of the Project would require construction of N two access roads into the project site from the existing arterials. (EIR at 5.10-28). The primary access road would p connect at the southeast entrance of the site and the secondary access road would connect to the southwest CO entrance of the project site. Roadway construction would w include grading, foundation work, and asphalt paving that = would extend beyond the Project site boundary into the a surrounding properties. (Id.). While construction equipment F at the roadway construction areas could operate as close as 55 feet to the nearest offsite vibration-sensitive receptor, most of the heavy construction equipment would operate at L greater distances. (Id.). Average vibration levels from construction of the Project would not exceed the FTA criteria for vibration annoyance at the surrounding residential uses. (EIR at Table 5.10-8). Consequently, impacts would be less than significant. The FTA criterion for vibration-induced architectural damage is 0.20 inch per second for the peak particle velocity("PPV') for wood-framed structures. (EIR at 5.10- 29). Project-related construction vibration was evaluated i for its potential to cause architectural damage in comparison to the FTA's architectural damage criteria for the closest offsite structure. Onsite construction activities associated with the Project would occur at distances that I O would result in PPV levels below the FTA's criteria for 1 49 M68i-000--1062350.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Ovibration-induced architectural damage at the nearest off- ; and onsite vibration-sensitive structures. (EIR Table 5.10- 1 9). Consequently, impacts would be less than significant at off- and onsite receptors. Similar to onsite construction activities, vibration levels from roadway-related construction activities would also result in PPV levels below the FTA's criteria for vibration-induced architectural damage at the nearest offsite vibration-sensitive structures. (EIR Table 5.10-10). Consequently, impacts would be less than significant at offsite receptors, and no mitigation is required. d. Cumulative Impacts. N Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would result in or contribute to a significant cumulative noise impact. M Finding: Potential Noise impacts of the Project are discussed in detail at Section 5.10 of the CL Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project will not result in or contribute to a significant cumulative noise impact, and therefore, no N mitigation is required. U O C, Facts in Support of the Finding: Project-related cumulative noise impacts may occur if, under Project conditions, there is a substantial increase in overall cumulative noise (3 dBA or more), the Project w contributes 0.1 dBA or more to the overall cumulative noise increase, and the ambient noise environment is above = U 65 dbA CNEL. (EIR at 5.10-36). Buildout year 2013 < conditions would not result in any cumulative noise a impacts along the roadway segments within the study area. (EIR Figures 5.10-5 to 5.10-7). Roadway segments where the ambient noise environment would be 65 dBA CNEL or r higher, such as along Palm Avenue and I-215 corridor, L° would not result in cumulative noise increases of 3 dB or a more under buildout year 2015 with project conditions. (EIR at 5.10-36). For roadway segments—such as the secondary access road from I-215 to the Project site and the primary access road from the Project site to Meyers Road—where cumulative noise would exceed 3 dB under buildout year 2013 conditions, ambient noise levels would not exceed 65 dBA CNEL. (Id.). A small portion of the segment of Little League Drive south of Frontage Road would result in a 3 dB increase in cumulative noise under year 2013 With Project conditions. (Id.). This would be O within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour, and the Project would contribute at least 0.1 dB to the overall cumulative 50 MUI1 N0-106]]50.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations noise increase. However, there are no noise-sensitive uses in this area. Consequently, the Project's contribution to cumulative noise would be less than significant, and Project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable for buildout Year 2015 conditions. (Id.). Potential noise impacts from Project-related traffic were evaluated to assess cumulative increases in the ambient noise environment in the vicinity of noise-sensitive receptors for horizon year 2030. (Id.). By horizon year 2030, considerable growth in the San Bernardino area is anticipated. Therefore, future traffic growth within the City of San Bernardino in horizon year 2030, in addition to Project-related traffic growth,would also result in increases tW in the ambient noise levels within the City. The ambient noise along a portion of the primary access road—from Belmont Avenue to just north of Meyers Road—would exceed 65 dBA CNEL, cumulative noise would exceed 3 dB, and the Project would contribute at least 0.1 dB. (EIR N Figure 5.10-11). However, there are no existing noise- N sensitive receptors within the vicinity of this particular portion of the roadway segment. Other roadway segments, o cr such as Palm Avenue north of I-215, would be within co ambient noise levels of 65 dBA CNEL or higher; however, cumulative noise would not exceed 3 dB. Consequently,the w Project's contribution to cumulative noise would be less = than significant and project impacts would not be a cumulatively considerable for horizon year 2030 With- Project conditions. (EIR at 5.10-37). a C 0) Unlike transportation noise sources, whose effects can r extend well beyond the limits of the project site, stationary noise generated by a project only impacts sensitive C receptors adjacent to the project site. (Id.). As no significant stationary noise impacts from Project implementation were identified, and the City of San Bernardino restricts stationary noise generated on a property from creating a nuisance to other noise-sensitive receptors, cumulative stationary-source noise generation would also be less than significant. (Id.). Like stationary-source noise, cumulative construction noise and vibration impacts are confined to a localized area of O impact. Consequently, cumulative impacts would only occur if other projects are being constructed in the vicinity of the Project at the same time as the Project. (Id.). Since 51 MNI-000--1063350.1 6.B.n Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Othere are no other planned projects in the vicinity of the Project area, there are no cumulative construction-related noise and vibration impacts. Accordingly, the potential for the Project to result in cumulative noise impacts is less than significant, and no mitigation is required. 11. Population and Housing. a. Substantial Population Growth. Potential Significant impact: Whether the Project would induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure). Finding: Impacts related to Population and Housing are discussed in detail at Section 5.11 c of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project will w not induce substantial population growth either directly or indirectly, and therefore,no mitigation is required. N N Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project would result in a slight population growth in the Project area, by directly introducing up to 304 new o single-family residential units into the City of San C� Bernardino. Using an average household size of 3.34 z persons, the Project would add up to 1,015 new residents to W the City of San Bernardino. (FEIR at 3-12). The = U population for the City of San Bernardino in 2005 was F 201,049 and is projected to increase to 265,515 in 2035. a (EIR Table 5.11-1). The City's General Plan currently •• designates the Project site as Residential Estate (RE), which allows for one dwelling unit per acre. However, the Project would require a General Plan Amendment to change the existing land use designation to Residential Low (RL), allowing 3.1 dwelling units per acre, an increase of 2.1 dwelling units per acre. (EIR at 5.11-9). The City's projected buildout population under the existing land use designations is approximately 319,241 (General Plan 2005), which includes 276,264 persons in the City and 42,976 persons in the City's sphere of influence. The Project would increase the overall buildout population from 319,241 to 320,256, but more specifically, the projected population of 42,976 persons in the City's sphere of influence would increase to 43,991. The projected population increase that would be generated by the Project would represent approximately 0.32 percent of the buildout 52 M681-000-1062350.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Cpopulation forecast for the City of San Bernardino. Although the proposed land use designation would allow for 2.1 more dwelling units per acre than the existing general plan, the Project would only result in a nominal increase in the overall projected buildout population. (Id.). The City of San Bernardino is a jobs-rich community. According to SCAG, the total employment within the City will grow from 81,115 jobs in 2000 to 157,088 jobs in 2035, for a total increase of 75,973 jobs, representing 93.7 percent growth. This reflects an annual growth rate of approximately 2,171 jobs or 2.7 percent. Implementation of the Project would create short-term jobs during the construction phase; however, the Project itself would not provide any jobs. (Id.). SCAG applies the jobs/housing M ratio at the regional and sub-regional level as a tool for analyzing the fit between jobs, housing, and infrastructure. Although no ideal jobs/housing ratio is adopted in state, y regional, or city policies, SCAG considers an area balanced when the jobs/housing ratio is 1.35; communities with N more than 1.5 jobs per dwelling unit are considered jobs- C rich. The Project would consist of 309 residential units and p would not provide any jobs. (Id.). By 2035, the City is o projected to grow by 36.6 percent in housing, 32.1 percent co in population, and 65.5 percent in employment. (EIR w Table 5.11-5). SCAG's forecast predicts a strong growth in = employment, as the City's jobs/housing ratio was 1.65 in a 2005 and is expected to increase to 2.00 by 2035. The projected 2035 jobs/housing ratio at Project buildout would a be 1.99, or 0.01 less than the jobs/housing ratio at buildout without the Project. The Project would create a t jobs/housing ratio that is slightly more balanced compared to the projected buildout in the area, improving the a jobs/housing ratio within the City. (EIR at 5.11-9). By buildout year 2035, the county is projected to grow by 71.4 j percent in housing, 32.1 percent in population, and 65.5 percent in employment. In 2005, the jobs/housing ratio was 1.24 and is projected to increase to 1.29 in 2035, maintaining an overall balance between the number of jobs and number of households within the county. The Project would not change the projected buildout ratio between jobs and housing in the county. (EIR Table 5.11-5). As previously mentioned, there is some variation between the City's and SCAG forecasts because different growth rates O were used to determine the projections. EIR Table 5.11-6 shows the job/housing ratio according to the City's 53 MM-"-1062350.1 i Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations projections in their General Plan. At Project buildout, the City predicts that their jobs/housing ratio would be 3.7. (EIR at 5.11-10). Infrastructure improvements are required for the Project, and a primary access road would have to be constructed from the terminus of Little League Drive and extended west to the northeastern corner of the Project site, along with a secondary access road. These access roads would only accommodate the Project. The development of the Project would also require the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities and infrastructure, the construction of new pipelines on the Project site, and potentially an upgrade of the existing pipeline at Little League Drive. (Id.). Additionally, there would be three proposed detention basins that would be maintained by the y owner or homeowners association. This would improve the fire flow in the higher elevations of the Project site and its vicinity. (EIR at 5.11-11). The Local Agency Formation a Commission approved a sphere of influence expansion in <n September 1996 for the City, which placed the Project site and adjacent area within the City of San Bernardino's N sphere of influence. Therefore, these improvements are consistent with planned growth for the City. (Id.). To the o extent that these improvements would accommodate co growth that could not occur otherwise, they would be considered growth inducing. Since substantial growth is w anticipated and planned for the City, surrounding growth = accommodated by these improvements is not considered a significant, and no mitigation is required. b. Cumulative Impacts. E Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would result in or contribute to a C cumulatively significant impact related to Population and a Housing. Finding: Impacts related to Population and Housing are discussed in detail at Section 5.11 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project will not result in or contribute to a cumulatively significant impact to Population and Housing, and therefore, no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of the Finding: Implementation of the Project would contribute to the growth of the City of San Bernardino. (EIR at 5.11-11). However, the Project's cumulative housing and population impact provides benefits for the jobs/housing ratio, regional housing goals that promote housing production, and state- mandated fair share housing programs. (Id.). The Project 54 M681-000..1062350.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations © provides the City with more housing, which decreases the job/housing ratio by 0.01 at the projected buildout in 2035, according to SCAG projections. According to the projections in the General Plan, the Project would not change the projected buildout ratio between jobs and housing in the City. As a result, the Project would not make a considerable contribution to cumulative growth impacts, and no mitigation is required. 12. Public Services. a. Police Protection. Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would result in a substantial adverse N physical impact associated with the provisions of new or Ca physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction E of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in Cn order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection N services. U O Finding: Impacts related to Public Services are discussed in detail at Section 5.12 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project will not result in a substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provisions of w new or physically altered governmental facilities for police protection services, and therefore,no mitigation is required. a Facts in Support of the Finding: Upon annexation of the Project site and the 26.4-acre a annexation area, the San Bernardino Police Department ("SBPD") would provide police services to the Project site. (EIR at 5.12-9). This would expand SBPD's service area s and would likely result in an increase in calls for SBPD services. Such an increase in calls would be expected to a create a need for additional police staff. (Id.). The City of San Bernardino's development impact fee for law enforcement is $597.74 per unit for detached single-family residential units. With a total of 304 units, $181,712.96 would be charged to the Project developer as law enforcement development impact fees. (Id.). These fees may be spent on facilities, equipment, or vehicles, and will reduce any impacts to police protection services to a less than significant level. Accordingly, no mitigation is Orequired. 55 MMIi -1062350.1 6.B.n Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations b. School Services. Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would result in a substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provisions of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives for school services. Finding: Impacts related to Public Services are discussed in detail at Section 5.12 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project will not result in a substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provisions of new or physically altered governmental facilities for school services, and N therefore, no mitigation is required. CO Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project is estimated to generate roughly 101 additional c students in the attendance area of North Verdemont 1n Elementary School, 52 students in the attendance area of Cesar Chavez Middle School, and 59 students in the N attendance area of Cajon High School. (FEIR 3-23,Table N 5.12-3). The existing four occupied, multiple-acre lots U within the 26.4-acre annexation area would continue to be serviced by the San Bernardino City Unified School District Service Area. (EIR at 5.12-12). There is existing w unused capacity at Cesar Chavez Middle School and Cajon 2 High School to accommodate project-generated students. � However, the unused capacity at North Verdemont F Elementary School is 82 students, less than Project- a generated elementary school students. (Id.). The Project would create a potential need for teachers and support staff E at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. In C addition, the Project may create a need for additional ° elementary school classroom space, depending on a population trends in the area. SBCUSD would charge the project Level 2 fees of $5.40 per square foot for single- family residential units. (Id.). School fees levied by school districts under SB 50 are defined as comprising full mitigation for a project's impacts on public schools, and thus, no additional mitigation is required. C. Library Services. Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would result in a substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provisions of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or 56 M681.000-(06]350.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives for library services. Finding: Impacts related to Public Services are discussed in detail at Section 5.12 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project will not result in a substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provisions of new or physically altered governmental facilities for library services, and therefore,no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project would include 304 single-family homes and would also involve the annexation of the Project site into the City of San Bernardino. (EIR at 5.12-13). Upon annexation, the Project would be in the service area of the San Bernardino Public Library, and the Dorothy htghram Branch Library would be the closest San Bernardino Public .e Library ("SBPL") facility. (Id.). The average household size in the City of San Bernardino is roughly 3.34 persons. Therefore, the Project at completion would be expected to N add roughly 1,015 persons to the City. The 26.4-acre annexation area includes 13 current residents. The Project, o along with the annexation area would thus result in an increased demand for library service in the City. (M.). At a ratio of two volumes per resident, the Project would create w a need for roughly 2,030 additional library items. The 2 annexation area would create a need for roughly 26 additional library items. (Id.). The Project-generated F increase in population would also create increased need for technology such as computers at the Inghram Branch Library, and would contribute to a need for additional E staffing. (Id.). The $596.63 per residential unit library facilities fee that the City would charge to the Project, would help the SBPL to meet the Project-related increase in a demands for library services and reduce impacts to a less than significant level, and thus no mitigation is required. d. Cumulative Impacts. Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would result in a cumulatively significant impact to provision of public services. Finding: Impacts related to Public Services are discussed in detail at Section 5.12 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project will not result in a cumulatively significant impact to provision of public services, and therefore,no mitigation is required. 57 M681-000-1062350.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Facts in Support of the Finding: Fire Protection Services: Cumulative impacts on fire services would occur if additional development is planned for the surrounding area, increasing the need for Fire Station 232 to provide emergency service to the area. There is potential for cumulatively significant impacts to occur, requiring additional fire service facilities and personnel. The citywide population is expected to increase from 201,049 in 2005 to 265,515 in 2035, an increase of roughly 32.1 percent. Other developments in the City would be assessed Fire Protection Development Impact Fees, as would the Project. Such fees would help to reduce cumulative impacts to fire protection. (EIR at 5.12-7). Police Services: Cumulative impacts on police services would occur if additional development is planned for the r surrounding area, increasing the need for police services to rn the area. At General Plan buildout the City of San a Bernardino, including areas now in the sphere of influence, is projected to have a population of roughly 265,515, an N increase of 64,466, or 32.1 percent, over the 2005 N population of 201,049. Additional developments in the City would be charged law enforcement development impact o tr fees, as would the Project. Such fees, which may be spent on facilities, equipment, and vehicles, would help reduce cumulative impacts to police protection. (EIR at 5.12-9). w x School Services: If there are other residential projects in the Verdemont area in addition to the Project, the District � anticipates the need for more classrooms and staffing at the a elementary school level. The District expects increases in staffing at the middle school and high school levels without L facilities impacts. School fees levied on related projects pursuant to SB 50 would constitute mitigation for those projects' impacts on schools. (EIR at 5.12-12). Library Services: The City of San Bernardino estimates that the City's population will increase to about 265,515 by 2025, including the areas now in the City's sphere of influence, an increase of 64,466, or 32.1 percent, over the 2005 population of 201,149. The Project would account for roughly 1 percent of that population increase. Growth in the City will lead to increased demand for library services. (EIR at 5.12-13). New or expanded library facilities will O be needed, in addition to increases in materials, technology, and staffing. The SBPL is funded mostly through the City's General Fund. New developments built in the City will 58 M661-000-1063750.1 { Packet Pg. 533 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Cgenerate increased tax revenue, thus expanding the General Fund. Cumulative development therefore would not have a substantial adverse impact on library services, and the Project's impacts on library services would not be cumulatively considerable. (EIR at 5.12-14). In sum, the Project's payment of development impact fees will reduce cumulative impacts to the provision of public services to less than significant levels, and no mitigation is required. 13. Recreation. a. Recreational Facilities. N .0 Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational S facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated; or include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an N N adverse physical effect on the environment. p Finding: Impacts related to Recreation are discussed in detail in Section 5.13 of the Draft F EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not increase w the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities = such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be a accelerated; or include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect a on the environment; and, therefore,no mitigation is required. v E Facts in Support of the Finding: According to the Parks, Recreation, and Trails Element of the San Bernardino General Plan, five acres of parkland and/or recreations facilities per 1,000 population is required a for residential development projects. (EIR at 5.13-8). The maximum buildout of the Spring Trails Specific Plan would accommodate 304 units. Based on the City of San Bernardino's General Land Use Element, the 2008 average household size is 3.34 persons, and the Project would therefore generate a population of approximately 1,015 residents (303 units x 3.34 = 1,015). (FEIR at 3-23). Based on the Quimby Act legislation allowing a maximum parkland dedication standard of 3 acres per 1,000 population, approximately 3.05 acres of parkland or O equivalent fees or improvements would be required to serve the residents of the Project. Based on the City's General 59 MM OM-102350.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Plan performance standard for parks and recreation facilities (5 acres per 1,000 population), the Project would generate the need for 5.01 acres of parkland. The Spring Trails Specific Plan would provide 246.3 acres of public and private parkland, open space, trails, and recreational amenities on the Project site. (Id.). More specifically, 9.0 of the 246.3 acres would be designated public and private parks: 2.0 acres of private parks and 7.0 acres of public parks. Therefore, the Project would exceed the City requirements by 3.99 acres of parkland. Additionally, the Project responds to the City's Parks, Recreation, and Trails Element Goals 8.1 and 8.3 by providing parks and creating a trail system that would connect to future and existing regional and City trails. (Id.). The parks and open space components would provide passive and active recreational 2 opportunities. The exact number, precise location, configuration, type, and amount of amenities and facilities, Q and the size of the parks and open space areas would be U) established at the time of development of the tentative tract N map(s) of the Project. (Id.). The proposed parks and open N space acreage of the Spring Trials Specific Plan would meet and exceed the amount of parkland and/or recreation 0 facilities defined by the Quimby Act and the more conservative performance standard outlined in the City's General Plan. Therefore,the Project's parks and open space w components would ensure that recreational facilities would = be available to new residents of the Project. (Id.). Since a park needs would be met and exceeded onsite, it is not expected that the residents of the Project would, in any a appreciable manner, need to use City or regionwide parks v that are located offsite. Additionally, the proposed public r parks, trails, and open space components would also serve U residents of the existing and future surrounding a communities. (Id.). Thus, impacts related to recreational facilities are less than significant, and no mitigation is required. b. Cumulative Impacts. Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would result in cumulatively considerable impacts to the use, construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Finding: Impacts related to Recreation are discussed in detail in Section 5.13 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record,the City finds that the Project would not result in 60 M631-M--I062350.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations cumulatively considerable impacts to the use, construction or expansion of recreational facilities; and,therefore, no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of the Finding: Buildout of the Spring Trails Specific Plan would accommodate 304 residential units, generating a total of 1,015 residents. (FEIR at 3-23). According to the Parks, Recreation, and Trails Element, the City is currently deficient in park space and needs 787.6 acres of public parkland to provide for the projected population. The Project itself would generate a need for a total of 5.01 acres of parkland. (Id.). However, the Project would provide 9 acres of public and private parkland and an additional 246.3 acres of open space, providing additional acreage beyond the park requirements and lessening the City's overall N parkland needs. (Id.). The Project will increase the cumulative acreage of parks in the City, improving the City's current deficiency of parkland. Additionally, the ` Spring Trails Specific Plan meets the goals of the Parks, u Recreation, and Trails Element of the General Plan— 9D encourage creation of a system of parks, bikeways, trails, N and recreation facilities that serve residents needs and connect different neighborhoods to the City; and develop a p system of open spaces, bikeways, and trails to connect individual neighborhoods into the fabric of the entire F community. (EIR at 5.13-9). Thus, the Project will not w result in cumulatively considerable impacts to the use x construction or expansion of recreational facilities; and, therefore, no mitigation is required. a 14. Traffic Impacts. E a. Hazards Due to Design Feature. m Potential Signiticant Impact: Whether the Project would substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) or result in inadequate emergency access. Finding: Impacts related to Traffic and Circulation are discussed in detail in Section 5.14 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project will not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or result in inadequate emergency access, and therefore,no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of the Finding: The proposed Spring Trails Specific Plan would involve the development of single-family residences with a local roadway network of cul-de-sac right-of-ways, a main loop 61 M681-M-1062350.1 Packet Pg. 536 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations road, and two access roads. (EIR at 5.1444). These two access roads would connect the Project site to the existing Meyers Road, Little League Drive, and Perrin Road. The access roads and onsite circulation would follow the design standards of the FF District that allow emergency access to the site, and would not create any dangerous conditions. (Id.). Thus, impacts in this area are less than significant, and no mitigation is required. b. Alternative Transportation. Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g.,bus turnouts,bicycle racks). N Finding: Impacts related to Traffic and Circulation are discussed in detail in Section 5.14 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project will not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative C transportation, and therefore, no mitigation is required. N Facts in Support of the Finding: The proposed roadway network of the Spring Trails project includes two access roads, a primary local street, a p secondary local street, and two types of cul-de-sac streets. Cr (EIR at 5.1444). There are no planned public transit uses co for the site, but residents would have indirect access to the w Omnitrans bus system (approximately two miles to bus = stop). Private vehicles would most likely be the most a common form of transportation used onsite since the site is not in the immediate vicinity of public transit stations. If a bus or other public transit service were expanded in the area of the Project, the Project would not interfere with E potential routes. (EIR at 5.14-39). The Project's trail system would tie into area-wide trails that would help facilitate access to public transit, and would provide trails a and routes for pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian use. (EIR at 5.1444). Thus, impacts in this area are less than significant, and no mitigation is required. 15. Utilities and Service Systems. a. Stormwater Drainaee Facilities. Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board; or require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing 62 M681-000-1062350.1 Packet Pg. 537 6.B.n Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations ofacilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Finding: Potential impacts related to Utilities and Service Systems are discussed in detail in Section 5.15 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board; or require or result in the construction of new .storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects; and, therefore, no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of the Finding: The development of the Project would require the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities and infrastructure. (EIR at 5.15-21). For the most part, natural drainage patterns would be preserved with the development of the site. Major improvements would include three stormwater detention basins that would also serve as community parks. (Id.). Two of these, in the western and southern portion of the site,near Meyers Road,would serve as neighborhood parks. The other, in the south-central N portion of the site, would be a dog park. The water in these detention basins would be treated and then discharged at a p controlled rate into Cable Canyon Creek. (Id.). Other stormwater drainage facilities would consist of 24-inch to F 96-inch reinforced concrete pipes that would be placed w along the major looped road. Culverts would be constructed = to maintain natural drainage patterns in each of the a drainage areas (A, B, C, and D) where proposed roadways would otherwise obstruct the drainage flow. (EIR Figure a 3-9). Prior to site grading, a stormwater pollution prevention plan permit must be approved by the Santa Ana s Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). A water quality management plan has also been prepared for the a Spring Trails Specific Plan in accordance with the Santa Ana RWQCB. This plan includes BMPs to reduce the volume, rate, and amount of stormwater runoff that must be treated and reduce the potential for urban runoff and pollutants from coming into contact with one another. (EIR at 5.15-21). Although the proposed development would necessitate the construction of new facilities and infrastructure, their construction would help to maintain the natural drainage patterns of the site and would control the stormwater runoff flow so that it would not exceed the O capacities of Cable Canyon Creek leaving the site. The existing stormwater drainage patterns of the adjacent 26.4- acre annexation area would not be impacted by the Project, 63 M681-000-1062350.1 Packet Pg. 538 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations and would continue to function as it does currently. (Id.). Thus, impacts in this area are less than significant, and no mitigation is required. b. Wastewater Treatment. Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments. Finding: Potential impacts related to Utilities and Service Systems are discussed in detail in Section 5.15 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City fords that the Project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments; and, therefore, no mitigation is required. rn Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project would be served by the City's Public Works N Department upon the annexation of the Project site. The design, construction, and conveyance capabilities of the p sewer lines are the responsibility of the Project engineer and would be required to follow the Public Works Department sewer design policies and requirements. (EIR z at 5.15-21). The proposed sewer lines would connect to the 2 eight-inch sewer line at the intersection of Meyers Road a and Little League Drive. (EIR Figure 3-12). A residential F wastewater generation rate of 182 gpd per acre was used to a determine the daily flow rates of the proposed Project. This rate is used for developments with residential densities of E one unit per acre or less. The Sewer Capacity Analysis prepared for the Project found that the flow rate of the 5 proposed project would reach 327,283.2 gallons per day a (366.6 afy). (EIR Appendix L). The Margaret H. Chandler Water Reclamation Plant ("WRP") has a projected wastewater flow of 35,828 afy in 2015 (31.985 mgd). (EIR at 5.15-22). With a capacity of 33 mgd, the plant would have remaining capacity for 1.015 mgd. The Project's expected wastewater flow of 327,283.2 gpd is within the projected flow capacity of the WRP near opening year 2013 (35,828 afy in 2015). The onsite sewer lines would be eight inches in diameter, designed to accommodate a flow O rate of 1.354 cubic feet per second (cfs) (203 gpm). The actual onsite flow would be 0.5064 cfs. (Id.). The Sewer Capacity Study assessed the existing conditions of the 64 MNIA"--1062350.1 Packet Pg. 539 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations C' sewer system that would be used by the Project and the capacity that would be required for proposed sewer lines. The report used the City of San Bernardino Public Works Sewer Policy and Procedures design criteria for sanitary sewers based on City sewer buildout conditions in year 2020. The City's Sewer Master Plan is based on City buildout in 2020. (Id.). The analysis of the existing sewer system found that four locations had a pipe flow over that of the design flow for the pipe section. These four locations were still below the full flow capacity of the sewer pipe sections. (Id.). Since all pipeline sections are still within the full flow capacity, upgrades are not required. The existing sewer system would be able to accommodate the wastewater flow from the Project. However, the slope of the proposed pipeline in Verdemont Drive is not known. F Depending on this slope, the pipeline would be either 8 or 10 inches in diameter. If a 10-inch pipeline is used, the a existing pipeline at Little League Drive would need to be <n upgraded from 8 to 10 inches, since it is not recommended L0 to have a 10-inch pipeline upstream of an 8-inch pipeline. N (Id.). The Project would require the construction of new pipelines on the Project site, most likely of 8- inch o diameter, and potentially an upgrade of the existing pipeline at Little League Drive. The construction of new pipelines and pipeline improvements is designed within the w road right-of-ways. (Id.). Potential environmental impacts = associated with these improvements were addressed in the a EIR in conjunction with the assessment of the development footprint, and found to be less than significant. a Accordingly,no mitigation is required. d E L C. Landfill Capacity. a Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs; or fail to comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Finding: Potential impacts related to Utilities and Service Systems are discussed in detail in Section 5.15 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs; or fail to comply with O federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste; and, therefore, no mitigation is required. 65 MNI1 -1063350.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Facts in Support of the Finding: The proposed Spring Trails specific plan involves 304 residential units that would generate solid waste to be disposed at Mid-Valley and/or San Timoteo landfills. (EIR at 5.15-26). The solid waste generated by each residential unit can be estimated at 12.23 pounds of household waste per dwelling unit per day. (Id.). Based on this estimation, the Project would generate approximately 1,357,040 lbs/year (678 tons of solid waste per year, or 1.85 tons per day). San Timoteo Landfill can receive a maximum of 1,000 tons per day until 2016. (Id.). Since this closure date is not long after the buildout of the Project, the majority of the waste from the Project would go to the Mid-Valley landfill, which has a closure date of 2033. (Id.). The Mid- Valley Landfill can receive up to 7,500 tons of waste per day, and the average daily waste flow is 2,790 tons. (Id.). F The daily wasteflow plus the wasteflow of the Project totals 2,791.88 tons per day, which would be under the permitted daily capacity of the landfill. (Id.). The County and City of cn San Bernardino have recycling programs and incentives to N reduce the amount of solid waste being transported to N landfills. The waste reduction and pollution prevention programs of the City help both residents and businesses o reduce waste and find recycling solutions. The City offers pick-up services for waste, green waste, and recycling for residents and businesses. Impacts related to solid waste W generation would be less than significant. (Id.). _ U The City of San Bernardino was in compliance with AB 939 in 2005 and 2006 based on the 50 percent waste diversion rate. (EIR Table 5.15-17). In 2007 and 2008, San d Bernardino did not meet the per capita disposal rate targets, E but these numbers do not necessarily indicate R noncompliance. (See EIR Table 5.15-18). The figures a must be reviewed and approved by the board before they are used to determine the City's compliance with AB 939 (and SB 1016). These figures have not yet been approved by the board, and the effect Spring Trails would have on the City's ability to meet its diversion targets is speculative. (EIR at 5.15-26). In worst-case conditions, the Project would decrease the amount of waste being diverted from landfills, and lessen the City's likelihood of compliance with AB 939. Residents living in Spring Trails would participate in City-sponsored waste and recycling collection programs. (Id.). Residential wasteflow generated during the operation of the Project would have to be incorporated into the City's calculations on how to meet the 50 percent 66 M681 0 --1062350.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Cdiversion goal. Although it would increase the amount of waste that would need to be disposed of by the City, this increase is not expected to cause significant impacts. (Id.). Construction material waste must also be reported to CalRecycle to indicate compliance with AB 939. Construction material waste would also need to be incorporated into the City's calculations to meet the 50 percent diversion goal; however, since there would not be demolition of existing structures involved with the construction activities, there would not be a substantial amount of waste to be discarded. (EIR at 5.15-27). In sum, the Project would be adequately served by the Mid-Valley and San Timoteo Sanitary landfills and would comply with AB 939, and no mitigation is required. N d. Cumulative Impacts. z Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would result in cumulatively N considerable impacts to Utilities and Service Systems. LO N N Finding: Potential impacts related to Utilities and Service Systems are discussed in detail in " Section 5.15 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the p Project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to Utilities and Service Systems; and, therefore, no mitigation is required. F z Lu Facts in Support of the Finding: Stormwater/Wastewater: Cumulative impacts caused by the need to construct additional stormwater conveyance L) infrastructure could occur if Spring Trails were to use the same infrastructure as other developments. (EIR at 5.15- a 23). The Spring Trails Project would discharge its treated stormwater into Cable Canyon Creek at a controlled rate. E (Id.). Impacts could occur if development north of or z immediately adjacent to Spring Trails contributed stormwater runoff to the same drainage system as Spring Trails. Since Spring Trails is immediately surrounded by unincorporated San Bernardino County or San Bernardino National Forest, it is unlikely that development would occur in these areas. (Id.). Additionally, any future developments would be required to ensure that there would not be any net peak increase in stormwater flow to the existing infrastructure. There would not be any cumulatively significant impacts related to the construction of stormwater facilities. (Id.). The proposed Spring Trails Specific Plan would generate 63 afy of wastewater. This represents 0.18 percent of the total wastewater flow capacity of the WRP (35,828 afy). (Id.). In combination 67 MMIi -1002350.1 Packet Pg. 542 6.B.n Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations with growth in the area, the Project would not have cumulatively significant impacts on wastewater infrastructure. The sewer study prepared for this report analyzed the Project's contribution to projected flow rates of the existing sewer system in 2020. The projected flow rates were acquired from the City's Sewer Master Plan for year 2020 and incorporates projected growth in the service area. (Id.). Since the Project's wastewater flow would not exceed the full capacity flows of the existing sewer system as projected in 2020, there would not be any cumulative impacts related to the need for additional sewer system improvements. (Id.). Solid waste: Solid waste planning in San Bernardino County is guided by the San Bernardino County Solid M Waste Management Plan, which directs the actions of the San Bernardino County Solid Waste Advisory Committee. (EIR at 5.15-27). The City of San Bernardino has a representative on this committee. The need for any N additional landfills or transfer stations in the future must be /y incorporated into the solid waste management plan. The p (`r) EIR for the San Bernardino General Plan Update estimates "? that, at buildout, the City would be generating 2,628 tons of F solid waste per day (after diversion). (Id.). The Mid-Valley w landfill can receive up to 7,500 tons of solid waste per day = through its closure date in 2033. Over 70 jurisdictions send a solid waste to this landfill, and the total daily disposal averages 2,790 tons. (Id.). Between 2005 and 2007, total a tons disposed per year decreased from 855,135 to 762,729 tons. When the Project's disposal rate(1.89 tons per day) is LE included with the buildout disposal rate for the City (2,628 R tons per day), the total is 2,629.89 tons per day, which is a more than the current daily average for the landfill but less than the maximum capacity. (Id.). The proposed Project would not significantly contribute to the projected solid waste flow from the City of San Bernardino or to the maximum daily permitted disposal rate for the Mid-Valley landfill, and thus, no mitigation is required. 68 M681-000-1062350.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 16. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. a. Conflict with Applicable Plan. Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Finding: Potential impacts from Greenhouse Gas Emissions are discussed in detail in Section 5.16 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not conflict with the California Air Resources Board's ("CARB") Scoping Plan; and,therefore, no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of the Finding: The CARB Scoping Plan identifies that reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels means "cutting approximately 30 co percent from business-as-usual emissions levels projected for 2020, or about 15 percent from today's levels." (EIR at 5.16-18). On a per capita basis, that means reducing our CL annual emissions of 14 tons of CO2e (13 MTons) for every man, woman, and child in California to about 10 tons (9 N MTons) per person by 2020." A 30 percent per capita N reduction, or approximately 4 MTons less GHG emissions o per person, is necessary to achieve the emissions reduction of the Scoping Plan. (Id.). z z Traffic trips associated with new and redevelopment projects contribute indirect emissions of air pollutants. (Id.). The most effective way to reduce emissions is through a substantial reduction in vehicle trips and trip a lengths. While local and regional governments cannot directly regulate vehicles and vehicle emissions, they can implement land use regulations and strategies to reduce VMT. (Id.). Such strategies can include better integration t: of land use and transportation planning to reduce trip a lengths between residential areas to employment centers and amenities, and to promote greater public transit use and alternative modes of transportation. (Id.). Strategies to implement such land use policy can either be incentive based, such as compliance with the SCS, or penalty based, such as indirect source review. Regional strategies include the Sustainable Communities Strategy ("SCS") for the SCAG region, and the Compass Blueprint 2% Strategy. (EIR at 5.16-19). O Transportation contributes a large percentage of the state's GHG emissions and research shows that increasing a 69 M681-000-106235D.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations community's or development's density and accessibility to job centers are the two most significant factors for reducing VMT through design. (Id.). Consistency with the SCS for the SCAG region would reduce VMT and trips within the region as a whole. Regional GHG emissions reduction targets and the SCS have not yet been established for the SCAG region. According to the 2008 Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP), SCAG's Land Use and Housing Action Plan can be expected to result in a 10 percent reduction in VMT in 2035 when compared to current trends. In general, VMT serves as a proxy for jobs/housing balance, urban design, transit accessibility, and other urban form issues. (Id.). The Compass Blueprint is a component of the Land Use and Housing element of the 2008 RCP in achieving sustainable land uses and policies. The framework of the Compass Blueprint strategy focuses on four areas in achieving sustainable a development: mobility, livability, prosperity, and U) sustainability. (Id.). Key aspects of the Compass Blueprint W in reducing VMT include developing housing near regional N employment centers and amenities and encouraging transit- oriented development. The Project would be consistent o with one aspect of the mobility element of the Compass Blueprint by locating residential development near an employment center (i.e., the City of San Bernardino). (Id.). w However, the Project is not a mixed-use development; it is = a proposed master planned single-family residential a development. Additionally, it would not be in proximity to F amenities, as the majority of amenities would be a approximately four miles or more from the Project site, nor would it be near readily accessible public transit, as the t nearest transit stop would be approximately over a mile to the east. (Id.). Energy use and related activities for buildings is the second largest contributor to California's GHG emissions. (Id.). Energy efficiency and conservation measures are identified as a best performance standard for development projects. In general, there are two strategies for reducing GHG emissions from the Electricity sector: 1) reducing the amount of energy consumed; and 2) reducing the GHG emissions resulting from electricity production. (Id.). The Project would have little control over the latter, and the CEC has determined that the success of reducing GHG emissions from electricity production depends largely on the success of California's renewable-energy and energy- 70 M681-000-106]350.1 Packet Pg. 545 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Qefficiency programs. Consequently, GHG emissions reductions can be achieved through the design and construction of new green buildings, because green buildings offer a comprehensive approach to reducing GHG emissions across multiple sectors (Energy Use, Water, Waste, and Transportation). (Id.). Water use also requires significant amounts of energy. Approximately one- fifth of the electricity and a third of the non-power plant natural gas consumed in the state are associated with water use. Measures to increase water use efficiency and reduce water demand would reduce electricity demand from the Water sector,therefore reducing GHG emissions. (Id.). The California Water Resources Control Board has prepared a draft "20X2020" Water Conservation Plan that outlines the state's strategies to achieve a 20 percent reduction in per capita urban water use statewide by 2020. `- (EIR at 5.16-20). The Scoping Plan considers using the cn green building framework as a mechanism that enables GHG reductions in other sectors. In July 2008, the N California Building Standards Commission adopted the L) /^ Green Building Standards Code that includes mandatory o vfeatures for residential structures and voluntary standards for nonresidential structures. (Id.). As of January 1, 2010, all new structures would be constructed to achieve the w performance standards of the 2008 Building and Energy = Efficiency Standards, which are approximately 15 percent L) a more energy efficient than the 2005 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards. (Id.). The new standards also require a improvements in water efficiency for plumbing fixtures and a target of 50 percent landscape water conservation E reduction. While the current code is voluntary for nonresidential structures, the Commission is in the process of developing mandatory provisions in the 2010 edition of the California Green Building Standards Code. Transportation, energy efficiency, and water reductions measures implemented by the state as outlined in CARB's Scoping Plan would reduce Project-related GHG emissions. (Id.). Implementation of transportation, water, and energy efficiency measures of CARB's Scoping Plan would reduce emissions by 39 percent, or 3,863 MTons of GHG in year 2020 from BAU. (EIR Table 5.16-7). The Project would be consistent with the statewide emissions reduction strategies /'►� outlined in the Scoping Plan. (Id.). Therefore, impacts (v) associated with consistency with plans to reduce GHG 71 M681-000-1062350.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations emissions are considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required. 17. Forest Resources. a. Conflict with A licable Plan. Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)). N Finding: Potential impacts from the Project on Forest Resources are discussed in detail in Section 5.17 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds the Project site is not considered timberland or zoned timber production. Although 5 resources within the Project site qualify as forest land per California Resources Cn Code Section 12220 would be impacted by Project implementation, this impact is less than significant and, therefore, no mitigation is required. N Facts in Support of the Finding: The drainages in the northern (Cable Creek) and southern U 0 portions (Meyers Creek) of the Project site contain native w tree species that exhibit the characteristics of forest lands. Implementation of the Project would develop single-family w residences and result in the removal of 220 native species trees on the project site. Therefore, the Project could conflict with Project site's ability to continue to be designated as forest land. (EIR at 5.174). a The Project site was previously been used for agriculture, E and a previous landowner grew eucalyptus trees to be used as windrows for crop protection, with a secondary use as firewood. (Id.). Despite the presence of the eucalyptus a trees, the site does not include timberland as defined by PRC Section 4526, which would require the project site to be capable of growing "a crop of trees of any commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products." (Id.). Per Section 895.1 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations ("CCIV), "commercial species" is defined as "those species found in group A and those in group B that are found on lands where the species in group A are now growing naturally or have grown naturally in the recorded past." (EIR at 5.17-4). The commercial species O list for the Southern Forest District is shown at EIR Table 5.17-1. Although eucalyptus trees are included in group B, 72 M68I-00 1051350.1 Packet Pg. 547 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Othe Project site does not have any naturally occurring trees of species that are included in group A. (EIR Table 5.3-3). Therefore, per this definition, the Project site does not meet the definition of timberland. Implementation of the Project would not conflict with or cause a rezoning of any designated timberland areas. (EIR. at 5.17-5). The Project site is in the Verdemont community of unincorporated San Bernardino County and in the City of San Bernardino's sphere of influence ("SOI"). (Id.). The Project site is not currently zoned for timberland production per CPRC 51104. The site is currently subject to County of San Bernardino's General Plan and Zoning Code. As shown in Figure 4.6 of the County's General Plan, "Land Use Designations," the northern portion of the site, y approximately 160 acres, is designated as private co unincorporated land within the San Bernardino National Forest. (Id.). The southern portion of the site, a approximately 190.6 acres, is designated Rural Living (RL- rn 5), which allows up to one dwelling unit per five acres. Since the Project site is within the City of San Bernardino's N SOI, the entire project site is currently prezoned by the City © as Residential Estate (RE), allowing one dwelling unit per o acre. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not conflict with or cause a rezoning of any timberland production zone. (Id.). Impacts would be less than w significant, and no mitigation is required. _ U Q B. Potentially Significant Impacts Which Can Be Mitigated Below a Level of Significance and Mitigation Measures. Q C 0 1. Biological Resources. r U a. Candidate. Sensitive or Special Status Species. :? Potential Significant Impact: The EIR evaluated and concluded that the Project could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Finding: Impacts related to Biological Resources are discussed in detail at Section 5.3 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that development of the proposed Project would involve the loss or modification of approximately 265.2 acres of natural habitat and the wildlife species. These activities could potentially impact special stats plant and animal species, critical habitat designated by the 73 M681-000-1062350.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Fish and Wildlife Service; and indirect impacts to sensitive plant and animal habitats could also occur. However,these impacts can be mitigated to a less-than- significant level through implementation of Mitigation Measures 3-1 to 3-5 and 3- 13. These Mitigation Measures are adopted and incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, and will be implemented as specified therein,thereby reducing this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level: 3-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, preconstruction surveys within the proposed impact areas for Plummer' mariposa lily shall be conducted in the appropriate blooming period by a qualified biologist. The appropriate blooming period is defined as occurring within the months of April, May, and June, or as indicated by positive verification of blooming at a documented reference location. Surveys must only be conducted during a year of at least average precipitation, as determined by official precipitation records. The surveys should positively identify and quantify all individuals on or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed impact areas. Any individuals confirmed within the project impact area shall be considered for possible salvage and relocation into suitable receptor sites located onsite within preserved areas, if feasible. Any individuals confirmed in the C immediate vicinity of a proposed impact area shall be flagged and appropriately fenced offfrom construction zones to prevent inadvertent impacts. Individuals confirmed within N areas proposed for preservation onsite shall be properly recorded and avoided during © any revegetation or other efforts anticipated in the long term during project operation. o All observations shall be accurately reported to the California Natural Diversity Database, the California Native Plant Survey, the Consortium of California Herbarium, F and/or other herbarium or sensitive species databases as determined by the qualified Z W biologist. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Community = Development Director. L) a 3-2 To mitigate for impacts to unoccupied critical habitat of the federally endangered San Bernardino kangaroo rat, the project applicant shall acquire offsite permanent mitigation lands of like habitat quality as determined by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) E during the Section 7 consultation process. Mitigation lands must be acquired prior to the y issuance of grading permits, and shall incorporate appropriate long-term management Q provisions such as deed restrictions, endowments, and/or other management mechanisms to provide for the long-term conservation of the habitat. Potential properties include, but are not limited to, those managed by San Bernardino County Special Districts located in the Glen Helen, Rialto, and Rancho Cucamonga areas. Mitigation lands shall be acquired at a replacement ratio of 1:1 (one acre replaced for every one acre impacted). This measure does not preclude the imposition of additional mitigation requirements that may be initiated by the USFWS during the Section 7 consultation process. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 3-3 To mitigate for potential impacts to hydrological processes and subsequent degradation of habitat for the federally endangered San Bernardino kangaroo rat and other sensitive species, all roadway crossings or other improvements proposed within critical habitat for the species shall be designed in such a manner as to not substantially alter the natural 74 M681-000..1062350.1 Packet Pg. 549 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations flow regimes through impacted sensitive habitat areas. These designs shall include, but shall not necessarily be limited to, the installation of appropriate culverts and stream crossings that allow for natural flow and uninhibited downstream hydrological processes. Design of these improvements shall be undertaken in consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and other responsible agencies. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of grading permits. 3-4 Any hiking and equestrian trails or other facilities developed within Cable Creek or other riparian areas on the site shall be designed to comply with provisions in the General Plan. These requirements shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: 1) no ground disturbance may take place within 50 feet of the ordinary high-water mark of the associated stream channel; 2) erosion, sedimentation, and runoff'from the proposed improvements must be minimized by the implementation of appropriate best management practices, the installation of appropriate runoff diversions, and/or the planting of native vegetation; 3) Vegetation removal will be minimized to the maximum extent possible; and a 4) appropriate signage shall be installed in at least five locations alongside these facilities to educate users as to the importance of riparian ecosystems, the species that In rely upon them, and the importance of avoiding unnecessary impacts and disturbance. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Community Development N Director. [This measure also provides mitigation for Impact 5.3-4 as related to impacts to Owildlife corridors. See Mitigation Measure 3-9f o 3-5 The applicant shall prepare a signage and a buyer awareness program to be implemented to inform homeowners of the proximity to sensitive wildlife areas. The purpose of this W program shall be to (1)prevent wildlife from being attracted to the housing development 2 and (2)prevent household pets from preying on and harassing the local sensitive species. a l Materials and literature provided to the residents shall address the implications and dangers of living adjacent to natural open space areas. To prevent wildlife from being attracted to the project site, the materials shall provide information on homeowner's benefits and responsibilities associated with living close to natural wildlife habitats. E Specific responsibilities of homeowners shall be described in these materials and be included in the Homeowners Association (HOA) Covenants, Codes, & Restrictions (CC&R). These measures shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following: a • The storage and disposal of ALL food or refuse that is edible by or attractive to wildlife shall be placed in Wildlife-Resistant Refuse Enclosures and Containers. These containers shall meet applicable standards of testing by the Living With Wildlife Foundation and be bear resistant for 60 minutes so long as they are able to meet the City of San Bernardino' Refuse and Recycling Division's restrictions for pick-up and onsite sizing. Examples of Wildlife- Resistant Refuse Enclosures and Containers are provided by the Living with Wildlife Foundation (http:11www bMt omJ. i • The project applicant shall coordinate with the City of San Bernardino Refuse and Recycling Division to ensure all refuse 75 MMI-000--1062350.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations facilities conform to their sizing and pick-up requirements. All refuse containers shall be designed to be consistent with the City of San Bernardino Refuse and Recycling Division restrictions. • With the exception of birdfeeders, no person shall intentionally feed or knowingly leave or store any reftire,food product, pet food, or other product edible by wildlife on any premises in a manner which would constitute a lure, attraction, or enticement of wildlife on property within the development • Birdfeeders must be suspended on a cable or other device so as to be inaccessible to bears and other wildlife, and the area below the feeders must be kept free from seed debris. If a wild animal gains access to a birdfeeder, the condition allowing access must be corrected or the birdfeeder removed. m • To limit the amount of time refuse is on the curb, trash should be set out and ~ rn brought back inside between specified hours on pick-up day (to be detailed in the proposed or future uture HOA CC&Rs). Cn To prevent the disturbance of wildlife (and sensitive species) by domestic pets, the program shall inform residents of the impacts their pets have on local animals. Cat- owners shall be informed of measures to keep their pets within their property boundaries o and dog-owners shall keep their dogs on a leash while outside (except within designated dog parks). These measures would also serve to lessen the likelihood of domestic pets being preyed upon by wild predators. w a The buyer awareness materials will be included in a sales disclosure statement and in the Homeowners Association (HOA) CC&Rs. A copy of the buyer awareness materials shall F be approved by the Community Development Director and available to residents upon request. m 3-13 Significant tree resources that are removed f om the site during project development shall be replaced at a 1:1 ratio or at the exchange ratios specific below. Significant tree 2 resources are defined as any native or nonnative ornamental tree—excluding species of a the Eucalyptus genus—that is healthy, structurally sound, and over 20 feet in height. For California black walnut (Juglans californica var. californica), all specimens of the species shall be regarded as significant, regardless of size or height. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a certified arborist shall conduct an inventory of all significant trees within the development footprint. This inventory shall be used to determine the number and types of significant trees that will be impacted and the subsequent replacement quantities. The number of replacement trees shall be, at a minimum, 220 trees. Should the aforementioned inventory determine that a greater number of significant trees will be impacted, then that quantity shall be used in determining replacement quantities. For purposes of replacement ratios, the following exchange ratios shall be used: 1) one 36- Cinch box tree is equivalent to one replacement tree; 2)five I5-gallon trees are equivalent 76 M681-000-1062350.1 Packet Pg. 551 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations ® to one replacement tree; 3) 10 five-gallon trees are equivalent to one replacement tree; and 4) 15 one-gallon trees are equivalent to one replacement tree. During the development of the project, the project applicant shall incorporate the recommendations as set forth in the project arborist report (Integrated Urban Forestry 1998). A certified arborist shall be retained at the developer's expense to oversee the implementation of these requirements and to specify other requirements as deemed appropriate. The measures to be followed include, but are not limited to, specified protocols for the following. 1) the removal of nonnative trees from the site; 2) the removal and transplantation, when feasible, of structurally sound and healthy native trees to other areas of the project site; 3) the installation of tree protection barriers on all trees to be preserved that are within the reach of vehicles and equipment; 4) tree protection training of construction personnel by a certified arborist; 5) irrigation of trees where the natural water supply is interrupted or diminished or where protected trees may w require additional water to endure construction-induced stresses; 6) subsequent replacement of any trees that are damaged or have not survived transplantation and relocation; and 7) implementation of the tree replacement plan, as outlined in the first paragraph of this measure. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Q Community Development Director. N N Facts in Support of the Finding: Approximately 100 to 300 Plummer's mariposa lily plants and approximately 350 to 600 individual California black p walnut trees of varying ages would be impacted by Project development. Both are listed as sensitive by the California Native Plant Society ("CNPS"). Impacts to USFWS- w designated critical habitat for San Bernardino kangaroo rat = ("SBKR') would also occur, as would impacts to Los a Angeles pocket mouse. Potential impacts to least Bell's vireo ("LBV") and southwestern willow flycatcher a ("SWF") are also present. (EIR at 5.345). No plant species listed as either threatened or endangered under the r Federal Endangered Species Act ("FESA") or the R California Endangered Species Act ("CESA") is known to C occur on the Project site. This finding is based on numerous focused surveys and habitat assessments conducted on the site since 1998. Since no federal- or state-listed species occurs on the site, there would be no impact to these species from Project development. (Id.). Although numerous biological inventories have been conducted on the Project site over the past ten years and the site's biological resources values have been well established, the applicant is aware that habitat assessments and focused surveys need to be updated. As such, pre-clearance surveys O will be conducted for each of the federally and state listed species that have a potential to occur onsite, including sensitive plant surveys following the CDFG's November 77 M681-000--1062350.1 6.B.n Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 2009 guidance for special status native plant populations and natural communities. Special Status Plant Species: Two plant species listed as sensitive by the CNPS have been documented to occur on the Project site. (EIR at 5.345). Plummer's mariposa lily has been previously observed within unconfumed areas of the Project site during at least two surveys. There is suitable habitat on the site and it can be assumed that the species is present. It is not known, however, if the recorded occurrences were in an area of the site that is proposed for development. (EIR at 5.3-46). Potential impacts to this non-listed CNPS List 113.2 species is not anticipated to be significant due to the relative abundance of this species on a regional scale. According to the CNPS listing guidelines, this species is known from 21 to 80 occurrences throughout its range, interpreted as anywhere between 3,000 to 10,000 c individuals, or 10,000 to 50,000 occupied acres. The u°i Project would result in the removal of an estimated 100 to 300 individuals. This represents a small portion of the total N known population and any impacts would not jeopardize O the existence of this species or elevate its sensitivity or o listing status under the CNPS, California Natural Diversity Database ("CNDDB"), global and state heritage rankings, F- the FESA, or CESA. (Id.). Despite the fact that Plummer's w mariposa lily is not specifically protected under state law, _ mitigation imposed during the Section 1602 permitting U a process would likely be required at some level for this species. For this reason, Mitigation Measure 3-1 will be a incorporated to identify specimens that are located within the Project impact area. These specimens should be L avoided or relocated as feasible. Adherence to these requirements would lessen the Project's impact in this a regard to less than significant levels. (Id.). California black walnut is also present on the site, and potential impacts to this nonlisted CNPS List 4.2 species are not anticipated to be significant due to the relative abundance of this species on a regional scale. (Id.). According to the CNPS listing guidelines, this species is known from at least 21 to 80 occurrences throughout its range, which is interpreted as anywhere between 3,000 to 10,000 individuals that are known, or 10,000 to 50,000 occupied acres. The Project would result in the removal of O approximately 350 to 600 individuals of varying ages. This represents a small portion of the total known population. 78 M681-000-1063350.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations (Id.). These impacts would not jeopardize the existence of this species or elevate its sensitivity or status under the CNPS, CNDDB global and state heritage rankings, the FESA, or CESA. While California black walnut is not specifically protected under state law, mitigation initiated during the Section 1602 permitting process would likely be required at some level for this species. For this reason, Mitigation Measure 3-13 is required to salvage and relocate healthy specimens, and/or to plant new specimens within areas to be preserved onsite, which would lessen the Project's impact in this regard to less than significant levels. Special Status Wildlife Species: Numerous small mammal trapping sessions have been conducted on the Project site F over the last 11 years, but none of the survey efforts have revealed the presence of any federal- or state-listed small mammal species. (Id.). Even though portions of the site are vai within designated critical habitat for SBKR, it appears that LO the species is absent from the site. This is likely due to the N separation of the site from existing SBKR populations by U o the I-215 freeway, other roadways, a railroad, and o residential and commercial development. The Riverside Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub ("RAFSS") habitat on the site is co suitable for SBKR, but there appears to be lack of effective w linkage with adjacent populations. Regardless, since = portions of the site are within designated critical habitat for a the species, consultation with the USFWS under Section 7 of FESA would be required. Mitigation requirements a derived from this consultation would serve to lessen the m Project's potential impacts to SBKR. (Id.). In anticipation r of those agency requirements, Mitigation Measures 3-2 and 3-3 are required to reduce the Project's impacts in this a regard to less than significant levels, by requiring the adoption of BMPs to avoid direct and indirect impacts to remaining habitat areas, and also imposes specific design requirements to lessen additional impacts to offsite areas and to provide for the continued movement of animals through the area. Mitigation Measure 3-1 also requires the purchase and permanent preservation of offsite mitigation lands and/or the payment of in-lieu fees, and that the applicant demonstrate that suitable mitigation lands have been identified and are available for acquisition. (EIR at ^ 5.3-47). Mitigation ratios for offsite habitat purchases are typically based on a number of factors, including the quality of the habitat to be replaced and whether or not the 79 M681-000-1062350.1 I III 6.B.n Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations impacted area is actually occupied by the species in question. In the case of this Project, the onsite RAFSS habitat that would support SBKR is of good quality, but has been determined through repeated surveys to not be occupied by SBKR. Accordingly, the prescribed mitigation for the loss of unoccupied SBKR critical habitat for this project is set at a ratio 1:1 (one acre replaced for every one acre impacted). The Project applicant has identified several hundred acres of potential mitigation lands containing suitable RAFSS habitat along the alluvial fans of the San Bernardino Mountains. These lands are available for purchase and dedication to an appropriate conservation management organization. This dedication and management would ensure the long-term conservation y status of this sensitive habitat type in the San Bernardino M Valley. It can therefore be concluded that the prescribed mitigation is feasible, and would mitigate the Project's impacts in this regard to less than significant levels. (Id.). u°i �n Two California Species of Special Concern ("SSCs") are N known to occur on the Project site. Both San Diego pocket mouse and Los Angeles pocket mouse have been captured o during each of the survey efforts on the site. Potential impacts to San Diego pocket mouse are not typically considered significant under CEQA because this species is w widespread and abundant on a local and regional level. _ (Id.). Impacts to Los Angeles pocket mouse, however, a could be considered potentially significant since the preferred habitat of the species is narrow and the species is not known to be locally or regionally abundant. The status of SSC, however, does not afford any specific legal L protections, and therefore this impact can be considered less than significant. Nevertheless, the potential adverse a impact to Los Angeles pocket mouse could be of concern to regulatory agencies such as CDFG. (Id.). It is likely that CDFG would impose some level of mitigation during the Section 1602 permitting process to account for this impact. Because Los Angeles pocket mouse generally occurs in the same area as the SBKR's designated critical habitat, mitigation required by the USFWS during the Section 7 process and as discussed in the paragraphs above would serve as mitigation for Los Angeles pocket mouse as well. For that reason, mitigation specific to Los Angeles pocket mouse is not recommended. Rather, it is recommended that Mitigation Measures 3-2 and 3-3 for SBKR be implemented in order to lessen the Project's impact to both 80 M681-000--1062350.1 6.B.n Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations CSBKR and Los Angeles pocket mouse to less than significant levels. (Id.). Birds: Based on repeated negative findings for coastal California gnatcatcher ("CAGN") during numerous survey efforts, as well as the site's recent exclusion from designated critical habitat, it is reasonable to assume that the species does not occur upon the Project site. (Id.). The riparian areas within Cable Creek provide suitable habitat for the SWF, though focused surveys conducted in 2007 returned negative findings. However, LBV was observed along Cable Creek in 2007. It is therefore possible that the species could be present farther east of this location within Cable Creek. (EII2 at 5.348). Individual Take Permits ("ITPs") will be acquired to offset potential impacts to r LBV, which is a federally and state listed species. Separate ITPs will be acquired from CDFG, through a 2081 ITP application, and from USFWS, through a Section 7 U) consultation. Mitigation under these permits will be adequately funded and will ensure that the Project does not N jeopardize the continued existence of the species. Direct f " development of the riparian areas of Cable Creek is not o proposed as part of the Project's development.No homes or other structures would be located within the riparian areas that would be most likely to contain LBV and SWF. w However, the ITP will also provide BMPs to avoid indirect = impacts to the species. An evaluation of the adequacy of a the existing CEQA documentation to cover any F unanticipated minimization and mitigation measures a included in the final ITPs will be made when the permits are issued. If additional CEQA documentation is required L for review by CDFG to comply with its duties as a S° Responsible Agency under CEQA, the subsequent a documentation will be prepared at that time. 1 In addition, the hiking/equestrian trail that is planned for this area could impact LBV and SWF if they are present I and if the trail is not designed thoughtfully with the aim of avoiding impacts to these species. (Id.). For that reason, Mitigation Measure 3-4 will be incorporated to assure that the trail's design, construction, and use would not impact I the creek bottom in a manner that could create a significant impact to these species. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3-4 would reduce the level of this potentially significant impact to less than significant levels. (Id.). i 81 M681-000--1063350.1 i s Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Reptiles and Amphibians: No federal- or state-listed reptile species has ever been observed on the Project site, and none is expected to occur. (Id.). With regard to amphibians, habitat assessments conducted over the last 11 years have concluded that marginally suitable habitat for arroyo southwestern toad and mountain yellow-legged frog is present along Cable Creek. Neither of these species, however, has been detected during both general habitat assessment surveys or focused surveys conducted in the area. (Id.). Based on these findings, it is likely that neither species is present on the Project site. Furthermore, direct development of the riparian stretches of Cable Creek is not proposed as part of the Project's development. Mitigation Measure 3-4 for the proposed hiking/equestrian trail would N also lessen the Project's potential impacts in this regard to less than significant levels. (Id.). rn E Indirect Impacts to Special Status Species: Since the cn Project site would be surrounded on three sides by existing wild areas that are known to provide suitable habitat for a N number of animal species, it can be assumed that wild animals would continue to be present in these adjacent wild o areas following Project development. (Id.). These animals would come into contact with the proposed development at F the wildland-urban interface ("WUI") and in surrounding W areas. The introduction of domestic animals would also 2 x potentially impact sensitive wildlife species in the area, as U well as more common wildlife species. Domestic cats, for � instance, are particularly adept at preying on wild animals a such as birds, small mammals, and reptiles. Domestic cats tend to be several times as abundant in WUI areas as all E t other mid-sized wild predators combined, including bobcats and foxes. In some contexts, cat predation may a supersede habitat loss as a primary threat to birds' survival. Other domestic animals, such as unrestrained dogs, can harass wildlife and can thus deny wild animals from using otherwise suitable habitat. (EIR at 5.349). However, implementation of Mitigation Measure 3-5 will reduce this potentially significant impact to less than significant levels. b. Riparian Plant or Other Sensitive Natural Communities. Potential Significant Impact: The EIR evaluated and concluded that the Project could have a substantial adverse effect on a riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California 82 M6&1-000-1062350.1 Packet Pg. 557 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Finding: Impacts related to Biological Resources are discussed in detail at Section 5.3 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that development of the Project would result in impacts to six riparian plant communities totaling 26.4 acres. Also, 168.4 acres of Riversidean sage scrub, a sensitive nonriparian plant community, would be impacted, as well as portions of the Project site within USFWS-designated habitat for the SBKR. This impact is potentially significant, but can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through implementation of Mitigation Measures 3-6 to 3-8. These Mitigation Measures are adopted and incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, and will be implemented as specified therein, thereby reducing this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level: y 3-6 To mitigate impacts to 168.4 acres of Riversidean sage scrub (RSS) and 26.4 acres of ~ riparian plant communities, the project applicant shall do one of the following, or a combination thereof, prior to the issuance of grading permits: 1) acquire offsite y permanent mitigation lands of like habitat as determined by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG); and/or 2)pay appropriate in-lieu fees to an N appropriate permanent mitigation land bank as determined by CDFG Mitigation O lands must be acquired prior to the issuance of grading permits, and shall o incorporate appropriate long-term management provisions, such as deed restrictions, "' endowments, and/or other management mechanisms to provide for the long-term F conservation of the habitat. Potential properties include, but are not limited to, those w managed by San Bernardino County Special Districts located in the Glen Helen, _ Rialto, and Rancho Cucamonga areas. Mitigation lands for riparian habitat shall be acquired at a replacement ratio of 1:1 (one acre replaced for every one acre F impacted). Mitigation lands for RSS shall be acquired at a replacement ration of 1:3 a (one acre replaced for every three acres impacted). 771is measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. E 3-7 All real property sold within the development shall contain within the real estate 9 contract appropriate Covenants, Codes, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) to require only the a use of approved plants on any and all parcels within the development. Approved plants are defined as those listed in the Fire Protection Plan (Firesafe Planning Solutions 2008) and incorporated into the Spring Trails Specific Plan. All plants classified as "invasive" or "noxious" by the US Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS) shall be specifically prohibited from use in any part of the development, unless specifically authorized within the Fire Protection Plan or the Specific Plan. Enforcement shall be instituted through the project's Homeowner's Association (HOA) and specific enforcement measures shall be j provided within the HOA' charter. Enforcement measures may include, but not necessarily be limited to, the imposition of fines, liens, property-owner reimbursed removal of unauthorized plants, and/or other mechanisms. This measure must be 83 M681-000--106]350.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations implemented prior to the sale of the first residential lot and shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 3-8 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer or his designee shall submit to the City a noxious weed control plan prepared by a qualified specialist that shall be implemented during construction of the project. The plan shall contain specific measures to be adopted to lessen or eliminate the inadvertent introduction of noxious weeds onto the site or surrounding areas. At a minimum, the plan shall incorporate each of the following requirements: 1) all construction equipment used on the site shall be thoroughly washed prior to transport to the project site; 2) cleaning and washing of equipment includes washing and/or steam cleaning of tires, undercarriages,frames, and other parts of the equipment where mud, dirt, and other debris could be located; 3) offsite cleaning areas shall be clearly identified; and 4) straw bales and other erosion control products shall be certified as "weed fee". The y plan shall be reviewed by a qualified third party with expertise in the field of noxious weed control. Other control measures may be added by that specialist as deemed appropriate. Following approval of the plan, the plan shall be implemented throughout the construction phase of the project and overseen by a qualified In specialist at monthly intervals. During monitoring, the specialist shall have the authority to require corrective measures to assure the success of the plan. This N measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Community Development U Director. o Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project would result in impacts to Riversidean Sage co Scrub (RSS) and six riparian plant communities. The w Project could also have indirect impacts on surrounding = undeveloped lands. Portions of the site are located within a USFWS-designated critical habitat for the SBKR. (EIR at F- 5.3-49). The seven riparian plant communities found on the a Project site are considered sensitive plant communities by CDFG, USFWS, and CLAPS. Six of these communities E would be impacted by the Project. In addition, the RSS found on the site is considered a sensitive plant community, even though it is not a riparian community. (EIR Table 5.3-5). Riversidean Sage Scrub: The Project would remove nearly all of the 168.4 acres of the RSS located on the site. CDFG regards RSS as a sensitive community. Therefore, the loss of 168.4 acres of RSS would be a significant impact. If the Project site contained listed species that were dependent upon RSS for their continued viability, then the RSS on the site could be considered of high value and the mitigation required would therefore be greater. (EIR at 5.349). However, no listed species dependent upon RSS have been detected on the site. This conclusion is based on 84 MMI1 -1062350.1 Packet Pg. 559 6.B.n Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Cover 11 years of general habitat assessment work and numerous focused surveys. While a number of California Species of Special Concern (SSC) have been observed within the RSS areas of the site, these species are not afforded specific legal protection as are formally listed species. (EIR at 5.3-50). Further, RSS remains relatively abundant throughout San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, with many thousands of acres still remaining. Notwithstanding, the loss of 168.4 acres of RSS habitat is expected to displace or adversely impact some of the SSC that could occur on the Project site. However, the applicant will purchase and permanently protect RSS habitat that is biologically equivalent or superior to the 168.4 acres of onsite RSS habitat, and will provide suitable habitat for _Z;� many of these species. (Final EIR at 3-5). Specifically, M Mitigation Measure 3-6 provides for the purchase of offsite m mitigation lands and/or the payment of in lieu fees to CL appropriately offset the Project's impact to RSS. (Id.). U)i Mitigation Measure 3-6 also requires that the applicant demonstrate that suitable mitigation lands have been N identified and are available for acquisition, either through 0 direct purchase or the payment of fees. The Project y applicant has identified several hundred acres of potential mitigation lands containing suitable RSS habitat along the alluvial fans of the San Bernardino and San Gabriel w Mountains. These lands are available for purchase and = dedication to an appropriate conservation management organization. (Id.). This dedication and management would F ensure the long-term conservation status of this sensitive habitat type in the San Bernardino Valley. It can therefore be concluded that the prescribed mitigation is feasible, and r would thus mitigate the Project's impacts in this regard to less than significant levels. a Riparian Plant Communities: Seven riparian plant communities are present on the site, and six of these would be impacted by Project development. (EIR Table 5.3-5). The 25.4 acres of southern sycamore-alder riparian woodland ("SSARW") present on the site are located along the upper reaches of Cable Creek and are outside of the Project footprint. Therefore, they would not be impacted by the proposed development. (EIR at 5.3-50). Each of the remaining six communities, totaling 26.4 acres, that would O be impacted by the project represent valuable habitat and are considered high priority for conservation by CDFG, USFWS, and CNPS. Loss of these communities would 85 M681-000-1062350.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations represent a significant impact. Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub is one of these riparian communities. (Id.). Besides the direct impacts associated with Project development, indirect impacts to offsite areas of RAFSS could also result from downstream impacts to the community from the secondary access road proposed across Cable Creek. The roadway could interrupt the stream flows and the occasional scourings that are required to maintain the long- term viability of RAFSS. If these processes are interrupted, RAFSS typically begins to convert to other community types that do not offer the same habitat characteristics. (Id.). This is especially relevant since the secondary access road areas are located in USFWS-designated critical habitat for SBKR. SBKR require the fluvial conditions that are present in properly functioning RAFFS habitat, so both RAFSS and SBKR are related in the type of conditions they require for their long-term viability. Therefore, the possible a indirect loss of additional RAFSS habitat would represent a In further significant impact. N N Based on the Project's anticipated direct and indirect �^ impacts on Corps, RWQCB, and CDFG jurisdictional N areas, the Project applicant would be required to acquire a number of wetland permits prior to Project implementation. These permits would include a Section 404 permit from the w Corps, a Section 401 permit from the RWQCB, and a = Section 1602 permit from CDFG. (Id.). In addition, a consultation with the USFWS under Section 7 of the FESA r would be required, because portions of the Project site are a within unoccupied critical habitat for SBKR. Each of these v agencies would impose mitigation measures to offset the E loss of jurisdictional and habitat areas. In anticipation of f? these agency requirements, mitigation is recommended in a this EIR to reduce the Project's impacts in this regard to less than significant levels. (Id.). Mitigation Measure 3-6 includes measures relating to the adoption of BMPs to avoid direct and indirect impacts to remaining riparian areas and Project design requirements to lessen impacts to offsite areas, and also requires the purchase of offsite mitigation lands and/or the payment of in-lieu fees. The mitigation further requires that the applicant demonstrate that suitable mitigation lands have been identified and are available for acquisition, either through direct purchase or the payment of fees. (EIR at 5.3-51). The Project applicant has identified areas of potential mitigation lands containing suitable riparian habitat along the alluvial fans and foothills 86 M681.OW--106235U.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations f� of the San Bernardino and San Gabriel Mountains. These lands are available for purchase and dedication to an appropriate conservation management organization. This dedication and management would ensure the long-term conservation status of these sensitive habitat types in the San Bernardino Valley. (Id.). It can therefore be concluded that Mitigation Measure 3-6 is feasible, and would mitigate the Project's impacts to riparian habitats to less than significant levels. Mitigation for impacts to RAFSS habitat has already been discussed above in regards to mitigation for unoccupied critical habitat for SBKR. Since the unoccupied SBKR habitat that would be impacted by the Project is composed exclusively of RAFFS, Mitigation Measure 3-2 (which is prescribed for unoccupied SBKR N habitat)would also serve to mitigate for impacts to RAFFS. (Id.). It can therefore be concluded that impacts on the Project site associated with RAFFS would be mitigated to a less than significant levels. cn LO Invasive Plant Impacts: The Project site represents good N quality habitat and a diverse mosaic of plant communities, and is unusual for its relative lack of invasive plant species. o (EIR at 5.3-51). Unlike other areas along the front range of the San Bernardino Mountains, the Project site has not converted to large areas of nonnative grassland. Only 11.4 w acres of the Project site, or about 3 percent, has converted = to this community type. The areas immediately surrounding a the site, particularly in the San Bernardino National Forest, F are also relatively unaffected by type conversion. The placement of a residential community into an area of native vegetation represents a potential impact to these E surrounding natural areas. Nonnative species can be inadvertently introduced into native habitats in a number of a ways, including: 1) the use of invasive species within the landscaping palette; 2) After construction has finished, residents can unknowingly introduce invasive species by using them for landscaping purposes on their properties, or 3) seeds or other invasive plant parts can be inadvertently imported onto the site during construction activities. (Id.). The first of these potential impacts can be avoided or mitigated through the selection of an appropriate plant palette that does not include species identified as invasive or otherwise undesirable. The proposed plant palette for the Project contains no federal- or state-listed invasive plants. (`.!) (See EIR Appendix G). One species within the proposed plant palette (Aptenia cordifolia) was determined to be 87 M681-000-1062350.1 I i Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Cpotentially invasive based on the list contained in Invasive Plants of California Wildlands (Bossard et al. 2000). However, the palette specifically prohibits the use of Aptenia cordifolia in areas adjacent to wildlands. Rather, planned uses for the species are restricted to interior portions of the site. Since the species spreads vegetatively rather than through seed dispersal, use of the species within interior portions of the development would pose minimal risk in regards to establishment within wildland areas. (EIR at 5.3-52). Mitigation Measure 3-7 will be incorporated to place restrictions on homeowners through the use the covenants, codes, and restrictions, which will be regulated through the homeowner's association to prohibit the use of known invasive plants. (Id.). By restricting the use of N recognized invasive species by homeowners, the F inadvertent introduction of invasive species can be avoided. Mitigation Measure 3-8 will impose controls on activities during the construction process that could result in the (n transport of invasive species onto the site on vehicles and construction equipment, including the thorough washing of N vehicles and equipment before they reach the site. Straw bales, erosion control products, and other potential invasive o plant nexuses must be certified"weed free", in addition to a number of other requirements. (Id.). Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3-7 to 3-8 will reduce impacts in this w area to less than significant levels. _ U a C. Jurisdictional Areas and Riparian Habitats . Potential Significant Impact: The EIR evaluated and concluded that the Project could have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected r wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act U (including but not limited to marsh, veinal pool, coastal, a etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. Finding: Impacts related to Biological Resources are discussed in detail at Section 5.3 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the potential for the Project to have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means is potentially significant, but can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through implementation of Mitigation Measures 3-3, 3- 6 and 3-11. These Mitigation Measures are adopted and incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, and will be 88 M681-0W-1062350.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Oimplemented as specified therein, thereby reducing this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level: 3-3 To mitigate for potential impacts to hydrological processes and subsequent degradation of habitat for the federally endangered San Bernardino kangaroo rat and other sensitive species, all roadway crossings or other improvements proposed within critical habitat for the species shall be designed in such a manner as to not substantially alter the natural flow regimes through impacted sensitive habitat areas. These designs shall include, but shall not necessarily be limited to, the installation of appropriate culverts and stream crossings that allow for natural flow and uninhibited downstream hydrological processes. Design of these improvements shall be undertaken in consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and other responsible agencies. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of grading permits. w L 3-6 To mitigate impacts to 168.4 acres of Riversidean sage scrub (RSS) and 26.4 acres of riparian plant communities, the project applicant shall do one of the following, or a combination thereof, prior to the issuance of grading permits: 1) acquire offsite permanent mitigation lands of like habitat as determined by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG); and/or 2) pay appropriate in-lieu fees to an appropriate N permanent mitigation land bank as determined by CDFG. Mitigation lands must be © acquired prior to the issuance of grading permits, and shall incorporate appropriate 0 long-term management provisions, such as deed restrictions, endowments, and/or other management mechanisms to provide for the long-term conservation of the habitat. Potential properties include, but are not limited to, those managed by San Bernardino w County Special Districts located in the Glen Helen, Rialto, and Rancho Cucamonga = areas. Mitigation lands for riparian habitat shall be acquired at a replacement ratio of 1:1 (one acre replaced for every one acre impacted). Mitigation lands for RSS shall be F acquired at a replacement ration of 1:3 (one acre replaced for every three acres impacted). This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. E r U 3-11 Two known wildlife corridors are present on the project site and may be impacted by the proposed project unless mitigation is incorporated: 1) the unnamed tributary of Cable Creek that flows in an east-to-west direction in the northern third of the project site (referred to here as the Northern Corridor); and 2) the outwash of Cable Creek adjacent to the Interstate 215 freeway that is proposed to be crossed by the secondary access road (referred to here as the Southern Corridor). For these corridors, the following must occur: Northern Corridor: 1) Native vegetation within this corridor must be restored, enhanced and maintained to the maximum extent allowed by the Fire Protection Plan; 2) riparian vegetation that provides high-quality foraging opportunities, cover, and other habitat values shall be the preferred vegetation type in this area, unless specifically prohibited by �! the Fire Protection Plan; 3) this area shall be the preferred location for the planting of �/ replacement native trees as outlined in the tree replacement requirements of Mitigation 89 M681-000-1062350.1 Packet Pg. 564 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Measure 3-11, unless specifically prohibited by the Fire Protection Plan; 4) the corridor shall be maintained free offences, walls, or other obstructions; 5) any lighting associated with the project in this area, including street lights and residential lights, shall be of the minimum output required and shall be down-shielded to prevent excessive light bleed into adjacent areas; 6) any road crossings, bridges, culverts, etc., shall be constructed with soft bottoms with an openness ratio of at least 0.9 (openness ratio=height x width/length); and 7) additional recommendations as outlined in the report entitled `A Linkage Design for the San Gabriel-San Bernardino Connection" (South Coast Musing Linkages Project 2004) may be incorporated as feasible and appropriate. Southern Corridor. 1) Any bridge, culvert, or other road crossing structure shall be designed in such a manner as to allow for the maintenance of natural flow through the structure and downstream of the structure, as conditioned by the US Fish and Wildlife Service during the Section 7 permitting process; 2) any road crossings, bridges, culverts, N etc., shall be constructed with soft bottoms with an openness ratio of at least 0.9 (openness ratio=height x width/length); and 3) additional recommendations as outlined ~ m in the report entitled 'A Linkage Design for the San Gabriel-San Bernardino Connection" (South Coast Missing Linkages Project 2004) may be incorporated as <n feasible and appropriate. N These measures shall be incorporated into site development plans and must be reviewed O and approved prior to the issuance of grading permits. This measure does not preclude p the requirement of additional mitigation that may be initiated by the US Fish and Wildlife m Service, the US Army Corps of Engineers, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, or co the California Department of Fish and Game during the regulatory permitting process. w This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Community Development = Director. c> a Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project would impact areas under the jurisdiction of a the Corps, RWQCB, and CDFG. The Project applicant would be required to apply for relevant regulatory permits E related to such impacts. The jurisdictional delineations prepared for the Project site determined that 15.85 acres are subject to U.S. Army Corps jurisdiction, and 26.65 acres are subject to CDFG jurisdiction. Impacts to U.S. Army Corps jurisdictional waters are limited to 10.56 acres, and 12.76 acres of CDFG jurisdictional areas. (EIR Appendix D8). Approximately 6.2 acres of the identified jurisdictional areas are in a potential seasonal wetland in the southern third of the site near the San Andreas Fault (EIR Figure 5.3-3), which is accounted for in all of the above acreage calculations. All 6.2 acres will be lost due to development of the Project. (These 6.2 acres of seasonal wetland was identified as a "problem area" because while hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology were present, no apparent hydric soil indicators were present 90 MNI1 -1062350.1 6.B.n Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Cduring the delineation. The approximate boundary or this potential seasonal wetland was therefore delineated based primarily on vegetation and hydrology criterion. A subsequent study of the seasonal wetland system will be conducted prior to the permitting process to verify that the feature is indeed a wetland system and to provide the additional data needed on current condition and function of the wetlands for determining wetland mitigation. With the completion of the draft 401 permit, the applicant will confer with the Water Quality Control Board regarding the adequacy of the existing CEQA documentation, and if warranted, subsequent CEQA documentation will be prepared. (Id.). N The wetlands quantities listed consider all of the identified jurisdictional areas located within the Project development footprint and consider all grading and slopes proposed for a development. (EIR at 5.3-52). The Project applicant would cn be required to acquire a number of wetlands permits prior to Project implementation. These permits would include a N Section 404 permit from the Corps, a Section 401 permit U from the RWQCB, and a Section 1602 permit from CDFG. A Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan will be prepared co as part of the Section 404 permit. (EIR at 5.3-53). Since the Project would impact more than 0.5 acres of Corps w jurisdictional areas, the Project would be required to obtain = a Section 404 Individual Permit rather than apply for rJ a clearance under the Nationwide Permit. Consultations with F the USFWS under Section 7 of the ESA would also be a required, as portions of the Project site are within critical habitat for SBKR. Each of these agencies would impose E mitigation measures to offset the loss of jurisdictional and habitat areas. (EIR at 5.3-53). In anticipation of those a agency requirements, Mitigation Measures 3-3, 3-6 and 3- 11 are recommended to reduce the Project's impacts in this regard to less than significant levels. (Id.). The mitigation requires the adoption of BMPs to avoid direct and indirect impacts to remaining habitat areas, and also imposes specific design requirements to lessen additional impacts to offsite areas and to provide for the continued movement of animals through the area. The mitigation also requires the purchase of offsite mitigation lands and/or the payment of in-lieu fees. Finally, the mitigation also requires that the applicant demonstrate that suitable mitigation lands have C been identified and are available for acquisition. (Id.). The Project applicant has identified areas of potential riparian 91 M681-000-1062350.1 Packet Pg. 566 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations mitigation lands containing suitable riparian habitat along the alluvial fans and foothills of the San Bernardino and San Gabriel Mountains. These lands are available for purchase and dedication to an appropriate conservation management organization. This dedication and management would ensure the long-term conservation status of these sensitive habitat types in the San Bernardino Valley. (Id.). All mitigation for impacts to CDFG jurisdictional water will be biologically equivalent or superior in terms of value and function to offset the impacts to CDFG jurisdictional water including seasonal wetland, drainages and springs. The final requirements for mitigation will result from the 1602 Streambed Alteration Permit application process. As stated above, the City and y the applicant will confer with CDFG once a draft 1602 permit is available, regarding the adequacy of the CEQA evaluation and to determine if additional CEQA documentation is needed.. It can therefore be concluded In that Mitigation Measures 3-3, 3-6 and 3-11 are feasible, and would thus mitigate the Project's impacts to federally- N protected wetlands and riparian habitats to less than significant levels. 0 co d. Wildlife Corridors. Z W Potential Significant Impact: The EIR evaluated and concluded that the Project could = interfere substantially with the movement of a native a resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with F established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, a or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. E Finding: Impacts related to Biological Resources are discussed in detail at Section 5.3 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the potential for the Project to affect wildlife movement and wildlife nursery sites is potentially significant, but can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through implementation of Mitigation Measures 3-9 to 3-12. Raptor foraging habitat and nesting birds would not be affected. These Mitigation Measures are adopted and incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, and will be implemented as specified therein, thereby reducing this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level: 3-9 Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3-4 to mitigate potential impacts to sensitive species in Cable Creek shall also be applied to Impact 5.3-4. l J 3-10 With regard to the protection of nesting birds, one of the following must occur. 1) v Construction should occur outside of the avian nesting season (approximately February 92 M681-000-1063350.1 6.B.n Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations C15 through August 31); or 2)If construction must occur during the nesting season, then a preconstruction nesting bird survey of the site shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 14 days prior to construction activities. If active nests are found onsite, then they must be avoided by an appropriate buffer until any young birds have fledged and the nest has completed its cycle, as determined by a qualified biologist. If construction occurs outside of the avian nesting period, then construction may commence without further impediment, commensurate with other regulatory and mitigation requirements. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 3-11 Two known wildlife corridors are present on the project site and may be impacted by the proposed project unless mitigation is incorporated: 1) the unnamed tributary of Cable Creek that flows in an east-to-west direction in the northern third of the project site (referred to here as the Northern Corridor); and 2) the outwash of Cable Creek adjacent u to the Interstate 215 freeway that is proposed to be crossed by the secondary access road (referred to here as the Southern Corridor). For these corridors, the following must c occur. .Q In Northern Corridor: 1) Native vegetation within this corridor must be restored, enhanced and maintained to the maximum extent allowed by the Fire Protection Plan; 2) riparian N vegetation that provides high-quality foraging opportunities, cover, and other habitat values shall be the preferred vegetation type in this area, unless specifically prohibited by 0 (VJ the Fire Protection Plan; 3) this area shall be the preferred location for the planting of replacement native trees as outlined in the tree replacement requirements of Mitigation Measure 3-11, unless specifically prohibited by the Fire Protection Plan; 4) the corridor z w shall be maintained free ree of fences, walls, or other obstructions; 5) any lighting associated = with the project in this area, including street lights and residential lights, shall be of the minimum output required and shall be down-shielded to prevent excessive light bleed into adjacent areas; 6) any road crossings, bridges, culverts, etc., shall be constructed with a soft bottoms with an openness ratio of at least 0.9 (openness ratio=height x width/length); and 7) additional recommendations as outlined in the report entitled `A s Linkage Design for the San Gabriel-San Bernardino Connection" (South Coast Missing Linkages Project 2004) may be incorporated as feasible and appropriate. Southern Corridor: 1) Any bridge, culvert, or other road crossing structure shall be designed in such a manner as to allow for the maintenance of natural flow through the structure and downstream of the structure, as conditioned by the US Fish and Wildlife Service during the Section 7 permitting process; 2) any road crossings, bridges, culverts, etc., shall be constructed with soft bottoms with an openness ratio of at least 0.9 (openness ratio=height x width/length); and 3) additional recommendations as outlined in the report entitled `A Linkage Design for the San Gabriel-San Bernardino Connection" (South Coast Missing Linkages Project 1004) may be incorporated as feasible and appropriate. These measures shall be incorporated into site development plans and must be reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of grading permits. This measure does not preclude 93 M681-000-1052350.1 Packet Pg. 568 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations the requirement of additional mitigation that may be initiated by the USFish and Wildlife Service, the US Army Corps of Engineers, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, or the California Department of Fish and Game during the regulatory permitting process. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project would result in impacts to an area that is used by a number of species for nursery sites, foraging, and movement. The Project site also provides habitat for nesting birds and marginally suitable habitat for foraging raptors. (EIR at 5.3-53). There is substantial evidence to indicate that the Project site serves as a corridor for a wide variety of wildlife species. Such areas are usually considered significant when they are determined to be of regional importance or otherwise contribute to regional conservation goals. The Project site can be considered to be composed of two principal parts in regard to wildlife a movement. The first component is Cable Creek, which cn serves as an obvious corridor since it contains perennial water, adequate cover and food resources, and allows for N the unimpeded movement of animals between higher and lower elevations. The riparian areas of Cable Creek are not 0 planned for development, so the use of this corridor by wildlife would not be significantly impacted as a result of the proposed Project. (Id.). The exception to this is at the w southern end of the site, where the outwash of Cable Creek would be crossed by the secondary access road. This U a roadway and associated culverts and drainage F improvements could create a barrier to wildlife where a currently no barrier exists. However, the roadway would be relatively narrow and can be designed in such a manner so t that wildlife movement is not substantially impeded. In ti addition, the roadway would be constructed in USFWS- a designated critical habitat for SBKR. (Id.). Furthermore, as part of the consultation process, USFWS would impose mitigation aimed at reducing the impact of the roadway on SBKR. These requirements would likely result in a positive benefit for other wildlife species as well. Therefore, mitigation required as part of this process would reduce the Project's impact to wildlife movement within Cable Creek to less than significant levels. (EIR at 5.3-54). In anticipation of these agency requirements, Mitigation G Measures 3-9 and 3-12 will be incorporated to reduce the Project's impacts in this regard to less than significant levels, and include specific design requirements aimed at 94 M681-000-1062350.1 Packet Pg. 569 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations ... allowing the unrestricted movement of wildlife within the lower portion of Cable Creek. (Id.). With implementation of these measures, the Project's impact in regard to the secondary access road crossing at Cable Creek would be less than significant. The second component relating to wildlife movement deals with wildlife movement across the site in an east-to- west direction and vice-versa. While the Cable Creek corridor on the western side of the site provides movement along a relatively narrow corridor in a north-to-south direction, the Project site itself provides lateral movements through a much wider area and across the base of the mountain front. (Id.). This impact could be considered significant, because the Project would effectively create a substantial barrier to wildlife movement across a large area. This potential impact can be mitigated by retaining and/or improving existing areas on the Project site that are conducive to wildlife movement. The large a tributary that crosses the northern third of the site provides v2 the most effective avenue for wildlife movement across the �o site. (EIR Figure 5.3-2). This is due to the fact that the N areas on both sides of the property at this point are 0 essentially natural in composition and therefore allow animals to move across the site without having to navigate substantial human-made barriers. The tributary also affords movement into and out of Cable Creek and thus to areas w both to the north and south of the site. Other portions of the = Project area, especially the southern two-thirds of the site, a do not offer these benefits. Those areas are somewhat blocked on the west by existing development, and they do a not contain streams or other features that would be attractive to wildlife in terms of movement. (EIR at 5.3- E 54). Retaining and/or improving this corridor would represent the greatest benefit to wildlife in terms of lateral a movement across the site. The tributary offers specific characteristics, such as cover and foraging resources which make it especially suitable for wildlife movement. (Id.). In response to EIR comments received from CDFG, a barrier will also be constructed that will isolate Cable Creek from the development of the Project, and ensure that the biological integrity of Cable Creek as riparian habitat and a wildlife corridor is maintained. Care will be taken in selecting the barrier in an effort to preclude creating an O attractive nuisance that could attract domestic dogs and cats and other small mammals that constitute a food source for top predators. (EIR at 5.3-61). The barrier will be installed 95 M681-000--1062350.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Oat the outer limits of the California Walnut Woodland that surrounds Cable Creek at its interface with the RSS Habitat on the hillsides above the canyon bottom. This will provide a buffer of approximately 300 feet inside the barrier fence that will be located on either side of Cable Creek. This combination of a barrier and buffer should protect the natural resources associated with the use of Cable Creek as well as the wildlife movement corridor that found in association with Cable Creek. The applicant also evaluated the possibility of not developing north of Cable Creek and constructing a barrier on the south side of Cable Creek, isolating the riparian, RSS and chaparral habitats north of Cable Creek from the development. However, this would result in the loss of 24 estate lots from the development, and would not be economically viable as the result of the F substantial infrastructure that is required for the development of the site, The project requires substantial CL infrastructure costs in terms of utilities, fire suppression, and roadways, in addition to the amenities included in the overall Specific Plan. Specifically, the project must acquire N and develop both primary and secondary access roads, water tanks for fire suppression, utilities including water, 0 sewer and electricity, as well as include fire protection and fire barriers at substantial cost to the project. These costs co are in addition to mitigation requirements and the w acquisition of mitigation lands. The infrastructure = requirements create a substantial burden on the project and L) a decrease the "per lot" ratio of return substantially with the F elimination of each lot. Elimination of the 24 lots does not a reduce the overall burdens of infrastructure costs and mitigation requirements for the Project,but reduces the rate E of return by 9%. a In sum, with implementation of the barrier and Mitigation Measures 3-9 to 3-12, the Project's impact to wildlife corridors would be less than significant. Wildlife Nursery Sites: There is substantial evidence to indicate that the site provides habitat that is suitable for use as a wildlife nursery site. (Id.). Based on a number of observations over the years, the use of the site as a nursery site by mule deer is reasonably well established. Other species may utilize the site for this purpose as well,but this ^ has not been observed or confirmed. Regardless, (v} development of the Project site would disallow its continued use as a nursery site by mule deer. In i 96 M681-000--IW350.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Cdetaining whether or not the loss of this nursery site would constitute a significant impact, the species making use of the site must be considered. If a sensitive or listed species were known to use the area as a nursery site, then the loss of the site would be more problematic than if it were used by more common species. For this site, no sensitive or listed species has been observed using the site for nursery purposes. Mule deer are the only species that have been positively confirmed to use the area for this purpose, though it is likely that a number of other species, such as small mammals and birds, use the site for this purpose as well. None of these species, however, is a listed or sensitive species. (EIR at 5.3-55). Mule deer is a common species that is not regionally or locally threatened or endangered. The species occurs in great quantities F throughout the region and western North America. rn Statewide, CDFG considers mule deer to be common and abundant. In 2008, CDFG issued 237,083 deer hunting tags vci statewide and an estimated 29,612 animals were harvested. o In Deer Hunt Zone D14, (the CDFG management zone in N which the Project is located), CDFG and USFS consider mule deer populations to be stable or slightly declining. It 0 is therefore reasonable to conclude that mule deer co populations within the San Bernardino Mountains will be stable or perhaps even increase over the next several years. w (Id.). CDFG manages mule deer through a number of = means, the most well known of which is hunting. Hunting a is used as a tool to control species populations and to avoid F overstocking within particular areas. The proposed Project a site is located within CDFG Deer Hunt Zone D14, which is r- a zone that covers all of the San Bernardino Mountains L portion of the SBNF as well as some peripheral areas. For at least the last decade, CDFG has maintained a hunt tag quota of 3,000 for Zone D14. This overall stability in CDFG's management of mule deer in the San Bernardino Mountains is consistent with the agency's determination that the mule deer population in the area is relatively stable. (Id.). Considering the overall abundance and the relative stability of mule deer populations in the area, it is reasonable to conclude that the loss of the nursery area on the Project site would be unlikely to result in anything but a negligible decline in the overall population of mule deer in the region, or even in this portion of the San Bernardino Mountains. The Project site is surrounded on three sides by the SBNF, which provides substantial open space opportunities for use as alternative nursery sites by mule 97 M681-000-1062350.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Cdeer. In addition, the Project would continue to maintain Cable Creek as an undisturbed perennial water source and wildlife corridor. Since a lack of perennial water is a major limiting factor in the maintenance of mule deer populations, the conservation of this watercourse would provide a substantial benefit to mule deer. Accordingly, the loss of this nursery site for mule deer would be less than significant. However, to avoid direct impacts to mule deer during the fawning season, Mitigation Measure 3-12 is recommended to lessen the potential for impacts to mule deer during initial grubbing and vegetation clearing, and includes specific requirements for scheduling vegetation clearing outside of the mule deer fawning season. (Id.). N Nesting Birds: The Project site provides suitable habitat for a wide variety of nesting bird species. (EH2 at 5.3-56). ~ Breeding season typically runs from mid-February through late August. Ideally, ground-disturbing activities should In take place outside of the breeding season, and doing so would reduce the Project's impact to nesting birds to less N than significant levels. (Id.). If this is not possible and it is necessary to conduct ground-disturbing activities during the p breeding season, then appropriate pre-construction surveys w should be initiated in accordance with Mitigation Measure co 3-10 to determine the presence or absence of nesting birds w prior to construction. (Id.). Compliance with Mitigation = Measure 3-10 would reduce the Project's impact to less a than significant. F Raptor Foraging Habitat: The Project site lacks expansive grassland habitat and is for the most part E dominated by dense Riversidean sage scrub and chaparral. R (Id.). These habitats do not provide particularly favorable conditions for foraging raptors due to the lack of prey ¢ visibility. It is estimated that suitable raptor foraging habitat is restricted to 12.5 acres of open grassland habitat.. It can therefore be concluded that the site provides only marginally suitable foraging habitat for raptors and that these species would be more likely to rely on other areas for the majority of their foraging. Accordingly, the Project would not result in a significant impact to raptor foraging habitat. (EIR at 5.3-56). O 98 M681-000-1063350.1 Packet Pg. 573 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations e. Conflict with Local Policy. Ordinance or Habitat Conservation Plan. Potential Significant Impact: The EIR evaluated and concluded that the Project could conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance, or conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Finding: Impacts related to Biological Resources are discussed in detail at Section 5.3 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the potential for the Project to conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological y resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance, or to conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan is potentially significant, but can be mitigated to aless-than-significant level w through implementation of Mitigation Measures 3-13 to 3-14. These Mitigation Measures are adopted and incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and N Reporting Program for the Project, and will be implemented as specified therein, Othereby reducing this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level: p 3-13 Significant tree resources that are removed from the site during project development shall be replaced at a 1:1 ratio or at the exchange ratios specific below. Significant tree z W resources are defined as any native or nonnative ornamental tree—excluding species of = the Eucalyptus genus—that is healthy, structurally sound, and over 20 feet in height. For v California black walnut (Juglans californica var californica), all specimens of the species shall be regarded as significant regardless ofsize or height. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a certified arborist shall conduct an inventory of all significant trees within the development footprint. This inventory shall be used to determine the number r and types of significant trees that will be impacted and the subsequent replacement a quantities. The number of replacement trees shall be, at a minimum, 220 trees. Should the a aforementioned inventory determine that a greater number of significant trees will be impacted, then that quantity shall be used in determining replacement quantities. For purposes of replacement ratios, the following exchange ratios shall be used: 1) one 36- inch box tree is equivalent to one replacement tree; 2)five 15-gallon trees are equivalent to one replacement tree; 3) 10 five-gallon trees are equivalent to one replacement tree; and 4) 15 one-gallon trees are equivalent to one replacement tree. During the development of the project, the project applicant shall incorporate the recommendations as set forth in the project arborist report (Integrated Urban Forestry 1998). A certified arborist shall be retained at the developer's expense to oversee the implementation of these requirements and to specify other requirements as deemed appropriate. The measures to be followed include, but are not limited to, specified i protocols for the following: 1) the removal of nonnative trees from the site; 2) the 99 M681-0OW-1063750.! i Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations removal and transplantation, when feasible, of structurally sound and healthy native trees to other areas of the project site; 3) the installation of tree protection barriers on all trees to be preserved that are within the reach of vehicles and equipment; 4) tree protection training of construction personnel by a certified arborist; 5) irrigation of trees where the natural water supply is interrupted or diminished or where protected trees may require additional water to endure construction-induced stresses; 6) subsequent replacement of any trees that are damaged or have not survived transplantation and relocation; and 7) implementation of the tree replacement plan, as outlined in the first paragraph of this measure. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 3-14 Prior to the commencement of ground-disturbing activities, the developer shall retain the services of qualified specialists, approved by the City, to oversee the long-term effectiveness of the biological resources mitigation required in this EIR. When y appropriate, the services of these specialists may be combined so long as the person(s) so F employed possess the requisite training and skills necessary to effectively carry out their rn duties to professional standards. Those specialists shall conduct reviews of the project c site for a minimum offive years, as measured from the day of beginning of initial ground 1n disturbance. Reviews shall be conducted, as applicable, on a monthly basis for the first year following initiation, on a quarterly basis during the second and third years, and on N an annual basis during the fourth and fifth years. The intensity of monitoring may be increased or the monitoring period extended if the City or relevant Responsible Agency 0 (i.e., CDFQ USFWS, RWQCB, etc.) determines that conditions on the ground warrant such action. The qualified specialists to be retained and the nature of their duties are as follows: w x Biologist: A qualified biologist shall monitor the effectiveness of Mitigation Measures 3- Q 1, 3-2, 3-4, 3-6, 3-10, 3-11, 3-12, and 3-14. a Noxious/Invasive Plant Control Specialist: A person who is qualified in the field of noxious plant management and control shall monitor the effectiveness of Mitigation E Measures 3-7 and 3-8. Arborist:A certified arborist shall monitor the effectiveness of Mitigation Measure 3-13. a Hydrologist/Stormwater Control Specialist: A qualified hydrologist and/or stormwater control specialist shall monitor the effectiveness of Mitigation Measures 3-3, 3-4, and 3- 6. Following each monitoring session, these specialists shall file brief reports with the Community Development Director concerning the effectiveness of the prescribed mitigation. The specialist shall identify and call out any corrective actions required to assure that the purposes of the mitigation are being effectively pursued. The developer shall comply with any corrective measures so prescribed. Monitoring may cease if the j qualified specialist determines that the terms of the mitigation have been satisfactorily 100 M681-000-106]3501 Packet Pg. 575 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations implemented and that further monitoring is no longer required. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Facts in Support of the Finding: The City of San Bernardino has adopted a tree ordinance that regulates the removal and replacement of native and nonnative trees that are impacted by development. City General Plan policies and goals would also apply to the site. (EIR at 5.3-56). Development of the Project would result in the removal of approximately 2,400 trees. The majority of native trees are located within and around Cable Creek or in the northern portion of the site, and are not within the development footprint. (See EIR Table 5.3- 3; Figure 5.1-1). These trees would not be impacted by the Project. Of the approximately 2,400 trees within the y development footprint, only about 220 of these (less than 1 percent) are native species, mostly walnut and sycamore. Impacts to California Walnut Woodland will be limited to Q 2.1 acres as the Project is currently proposed, and there are m sufficient acres of California Walnut Woodland in the area o to adequately mitigate for the loss of the 2.1 acres of this N sensitive habitat.. The majority of the trees requiring ® removal are part of a remnant eucalyptus plantation 0 (approximately 2,170 trees). The remaining nonnative trees that would be removed consist of approximately 10 ornamental nonnative trees. (EIR at 5.3-56). Eucalyptus w presents a specific problem for this site because they are = nonnative and present a severe fire hazard. A great many of a the trees are in poor condition and were classified as hazard F trees in the arborist reports within the EIR. Eucalyptus trees a are extremely flammable and in many areas are considered nuisance species. The Fire Protection Plan prepared for the E Project mandates that all eucalyptus on the site be removed. These trees were originally planted as part of a cultivated c eucalyptus plantation, primarily for the purpose of fuel wood production. Since tree plantations are specifically exempted from the mitigation requirements of the City of San Bernardino Tree Ordinance, replacement of these trees is not required. (EIR at 5.3-57). While eucalyptus can provide suitable nesting locations for raptors and other birds, their marginal biological value must be weighed against the hazards they present to public safety and their ability to carry wildfire to developed areas and surrounding wildlands. Based on these considerations, the removal of O the eucalyptus on the Project site can be considered an overall benefit to the area, and therefore a less than significant impact. 101 M681-0W--I W2350.1 6.B.n Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Conversely, native trees provide specific natural resource value in that they provide nesting habitat for raptors and cover and foraging habitat for other avian species, and they are important components of the natural ecosystem. (Id.) The trees are also aesthetically pleasing and therefore constitute an important resource in this regard. The City's Tree Ordinance requires that "significant" trees be mitigated. In determining what constitutes a significant tree, the initial arborist report prepared for the site determined that healthy, structurally sound, native and ornamental trees over 20 feet in height be considered significant. Approximately 220 trees on the site met these criteria during the 1998 tree inventory. The removal of these trees during Project development would be F considered a potentially significant impact, and thus subject to the mitigation requirements of the City's Tree Ordinance. (Id.) Since the initial inventory of trees on the vii site is a over 12 years old and the exact count of significant trees may have changed, Mitigation Measure 3-13 is N incorporated to require an updated inventory of tree L) resources within the Project footprint. Mitigation Measure o 3-13 requires that specific management recommendations co contained in the arborist reports be implemented. These recommendations include protocols for removal and w relocation of native trees, tree protection during = construction, and the preservation of specific trees on the a Project site. Performance measures are provided to mandate replacement ratios and the types and sizes of specimens a required to meet the terms of the mitigation. Specifically, all trees will be replaced at a 1:1 ratio, with a minimum of r 220 trees replaced. All tree replacement will be done in i compliance with recommendations set forth in the two a arborist reports prepared for the Project, and as directed by the City's Heritage Tree Ordinance.. Measures are also included to mandate improvements to tree resources in specific areas of the site. (Id.) Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3-13 would comply with the City of San Bernardino Tree Ordinance and would reduce the Project's impacts in this regard to less than significant { levels. I City of San Bernardino General Plan: The City's O General Plan provides a number of goals and policies directed toward the conservation of biological resources. The goals and policies generally center around three 102 M681A00-1063350.1 Packet Pg. 577 6.B.n Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Cprincipal areas: 1) General conservation goals and special requirements for development within Biological Resource Management Areas (`BRMAs") (Goal 12.1); 2) Protection of riparian areas (Goal 12.2); and 3) The conservation of open space and other priority areas(Goal 12.3). General Plan Goal 12.1 contains policies that require developments to be designed in a manner that is sensitive to unique biological resources, and it also prescribes specific conditions for developments proposed within BRMAs. According to Figure NRC-2 of the General Plan, the project site is located within a BRMA. To be consistent with the General Plan, projects in BRMAs must submit biological resource assessments and other information that identifies the proposed project's impacts on sensitive biological m resources. (EIR at 5.3-57). The Spring Trails Project site has been the subject of numerous technical studies over the E last decade. As such, the Project is consistent with this requirement. Projects within BRMAs are required to identify mitigation measures to eliminate significant N adverse impacts to sensitive biological resources. (Id.). As discussed above, a number of mitigation measures have o been identified for the Project, and upon implementation of `? these measures no significant impacts remain. Therefore, F the Project is consistent in this regard as well. Projects w within BRMAs are required to define a plan to monitor the = effectiveness of prescribed mitigation. The establishment of a such a monitoring program is prescribed as Mitigation Measure 3-14 for this Project, which includes requirements for annual surveys for a minimum of five years after project development, actions to be taken if certain performance L measures are not met, and methods for overseeing the monitoring program. (EIR at 5.3-58). With implementation a of Mitigation Measure 3-14, the Project is consistent with this policy of the General Plan. Finally, the policies within Goal 12.1 require that projects consider and discuss the restoration of significant habitats. While the General Plan is not particularly clear on this issue, it appears that the intent of the policy is to provide for the restoration of habitats that have been degraded or otherwise historically altered through human activity. This policy does not particularly apply to this Project, since the bulk of the habitat on the site is intact and is not degraded. (Id.). Regardless of the policy's intent, the Project as designed and mitigated would improve specific areas of habitat within the Project area. Most notably, the mitigation prescribed for wildlife 103 M681-000--1062350.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations corridor conservation also includes requirements to improve habitats in those areas. Improvements include the planting and maintenance of additional native vegetation to enhance wildlife foraging and movement areas. In addition, the most significant habitat on the Project site, the riparian areas of Cable Creek,would be preserved and would not be impacted by the Project's development. Finally, the Project applicant would be required to purchase offsite mitigation lands or pay in-lieu fees for the permanent preservation of sensitive wildlife habitat within the region. (Id.). Based on these considerations, it is thus reasonable to conclude that the Project meets and exceeds the overall goals of the policy. N General Plan Goal 12.2 contains policies that pertain to the conservation of riparian resources. The goal also contains directives on what activities are specifically allowed to occur within riparian areas. (Id.). The General Plan specifies that development and grading within 50 feet of riparian corridors is prohibited unless no feasible N alternative exists. In the case of the Spring Trails Project, © the riparian corridor of Cable Creek lies outside of the o Project footprint. (Id.). In regard to the hiking and equestrian trail that is planned for this area, Mitigation F Measure 3-4 (discussed above) imposes specific restrictions w on the trail's proximity to the creek as well as other design = requirements to protect riparian resources. Two other a riparian corridors on the site would be spanned by F roadways. However, Mitigation Measure 3-11 for these a bridges and/or culverts will minimize impacts to riparian areas, and requires the enhancement of the large area of E riparian vegetation that crosses the northern third of the site. These enhancements would allow for the onsite a conservation of this area and provide opportunities for wildlife movement within this corridor. (Id.). Based on each of these mitigation requirements, together with other Project design features, the Project would be in compliance with all General Plan policies relating to the conservation of riparian areas. General Plan Goal 12.3 provides directives as to types of habitats that are considered a high priority for long-term preservation. The goal specifically calls out the City's desire to preserve the riparian corridor of Cable Creek. Since the Project would permanently conserve the Cable Creek corridor, the Project is consistent with the General 104 M681.000-1062350.1 Packet Pg. 579 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations CPlan in this regard. (Id.). The plan also specifies other high priority habitat types, including endangered species habitat, alluvial scrub vegetation, riparian vegetation, and native walnut woodlands. The Spring Trails Project would provide for the conservation of each of these resource types, either through onsite conservation and/or enhancement, or through the purchase and dedication of offsite mitigation lands. (EIR at 5.3-59). Therefore, it can be determined that the Project is consistent with the General Plan in this regard. In sum, incorporation of Mitigation Measures 3-13 to 3-14 will reduce impacts in this area to less than significant levels. 2. Cultural Resources. y a. Archeological Resources. c Potential Significant Impact: The EIR evaluated and concluded that the Project could In cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5. N Finding: Impacts related to Cultural Resources are discussed in detail at Section 5.4 of the o Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that this impact is potentially y significant but can be mitigated to a less than significant level through the implementation of Mitigation Measures 4-1 to 4-3. These mitigation measures are w adopted and incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program n for the Project, and will be implemented as specified therein, thereby reducing a: this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level: 4-1 Preconstruction archaeological testing by a qualified archaeologist is required to evaluate the significance of historic Cable Canyon Ranch. A qualified archaeologist must £ be present for grubbing, devegetation, and demolition of the spring, remnant stone structure, and fence to protect resources that may be revealed by these activities. y Subsequent to vegetation removal but before construction, the archaeologist will perform ¢ controlled mechanical excavation inside and outside the house area to locate features present below the ground surface. Once located, the archaeologist should develop a formal treatment plan (plan of work including research questions to be answered and containing an agreement with an accredited repository). Excavation of subsurface features can include additional mechanical excavation or hand excavation as warranted by the features. Discovery of features and recovery of archaeological materials will require extensive sampling, documentation, laboratory work, identification, analysis, and interpretation. The final report should include formal evaluation and significance assessment of each feature and the project catalog and be filed with the City, the San Bernardino Archaeological Information Center, and the repository (San Bernardino County Museum recommended). The site records should also be updated. 105 M681-M-106]350.1 Packet Pg. 580 a Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations O4-2 If testing determines that the Cable Canyon Ranch complex meets significance criteria, then preconstruction archaeological data recovery excavations by a qualified archaeologist is required to mitigate the adverse impacts of construction on historic Cable Canyon Ranch. The archaeologist should develop a formal data recovery plan (plan of work including research questions to be answered and containing an agreement with an accredited repository). Excavation of subsurface features can include additional mechanical excavation or hand excavation as warranted by the features. Discovery of features and recovery of archaeological materials will require extensive sampling, documentation, laboratory work, identification, analysis, and interpretation. The final report should include the project catalog and be filed with the City, the San Bernardino Archaeological Information Center, and the repository (San Bernardino County Museum recommended). The site records should also be updated. 4-3 Construction grading in and around the Cable Canyon Ranch complex must be y monitored by a qualified archaeologist to ensure that any subsurface features or refuse deposits that were not located during previous phases of archaeological work are found ~ and evaluated. The City should refuse to issue a final occupancy permit until all mitigation is demonstrated to have been performed, including curation of the project 6n documents and artifacts. tn N N Facts in Support of the Finding: Eight (8) historical archeological resources were recorded r^ within the Project area. (EIR at 5.4-12). A spring reported N J [!. to have associated water features was noted in earlier surveys,but obscured by vegetation in recent surveys. Most of the resources do not meet significance criteria under w CEQA. (EIR Table 5.4-1). However, some sites have = potential to have subsurface components that would yield a information new to history. These sites require further r investigation. Should those investigations yield CRHR- eligible archaeological materials, then destruction of those resources as a result of Project construction would be a E significant impact. The potentially significant resources are Q expected subsurface privies and trash features associated with Cable Canyon Ranch, in addition to both surface and possibly subsurface water features associated with the Cable Canyon Ranch spring. (EIR at 5.4-12). Mitigation through archaeological data recovery as prescribed by Mitigation Measures 4-1 to 4-3 would reduce impacts in this area to less than significant. b. Paleontological Resources of Unique Geological Feature. Potential Significant Impact: The EIR evaluated and concluded that the Project could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature. 106 i M681-000--1063350.1 Packet Pg. 581 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Finding: Impacts related to Cultural Resources are discussed in detail at Section 5.4 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record,the City finds that this impact is potentially significant but can be mitigated to a less than significant level through the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4-4. This mitigation measure is adopted and incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, and will be implemented as specified therein, thereby reducing this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level: 4-4 Cultural resources sensitivity training is required for all earth-moving personnel. This training will review the types of archaeological and paleontological resources that might be found, along with laws for the protection of resources. In the event of an unanticipated discovery, all work must halt within a 30 foot radius of the find. Work may not continue until the find has been evaluated by a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist, depending on the nature of the discovery. All discoveries require N scientific samples and documentation, including a final report. rn Facts in Support of the Finding: According to the Cogstone Study(EIR Appendix E), there are several sedimentary formations that are old enough to contain the remains of extinct Pleistocene animals; however, these sediments are so coarse that they are not N conducive to the preservation of significant fossil resources. (EIR at 5.4-13). Additionally, the survey found p no signs of any paleontological resources within the Project o co area. However, an unanticipated discovery of paleontological resources during grading and excavation of w the site could occur and result in paleontological resource = impacts if not mitigated. Therefore, Mitigation Measure 4-4 a will be incorporated to require cultural resources training for all earth-moving personnel, and will reduce impacts in a this area to a less than significant level. E C. Disturbance of Human Remains. Potential Significant Impact: The EIR evaluated and concluded that the Project could a disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. Finding: Impacts related to Cultural Resources are discussed in detail at Section 5.4 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that this impact is potentially significant but can be mitigated to a less than significant level through the implementation of Mitigation Measures 4-5 and 4-6. These mitigation measures are adopted and incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, and will be implemented as specified therein, thereby reducing this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level: 4-5 The applicant shall implement one of the mitigation measures outlined below to address 107 M681-000--1062350.1 Packet Pg. 582 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations anomalies found at the presumed location of the Meyers Family Cemetery. The applicant shall consult with the Meyers family descendents in the selection of the appropriate mitigation options for the Meyers Family Cemetery in conjunction with the proposed development. It shall be a high priority to implement an option that most closely meets the desires of the family to the extent feasible under the final approved development and grading plans. In the event the final development and grading permits do not require grading or other disturbance of the anomaly sites, one of the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: L The burial site anomalies/remains shall remain undisturbed. This can be accomplished either by complete avoidance of the project area or alternatively by "capping" the site. Capping the site would involve scraping existing vegetation and providing up to two feet of compacted fill material over the site. No activity under this option shall excavate lower than one foot below grade to remove y existing vegetation or soil. Replacement vegetation may be placed for f tture open space such as a park. Plans to cap the site shall be prepared and reviewed/approved by a certified archaeologist prior to the disturbance of the a j cemetery site surface. In addition, a covenant in the deed shall restrict any future In jexcavation within 25 feet of the anomalies. 2. The applicant shall coordinate with the Meyers family to facilitate excavation of the anomalies to determine if they represent coffins and, if so, to coordinate 0 reburial at a private or public cemetery to be determined by the family. Under this option,preconstruction archaeological testing by a qualified archaeologist is required. The archaeological testing must consist of mechanical excavation of w overburden and hand excavation near the anomalies to determine if they = represent coffins. The excavation shall occur under the supervision of a certified archaeologist and a Meyers family representative. If the anomalies are F demonstrated not to contain coffins, no further work will be required. If coffins ¢ are present, the family shall determine the desired deposition. This may include transfer of the undisturbed coffins for reburial or option 3 below. The applicant r shall be responsible for the transport of relocating the remains for the family. If 2 desired by the family, the applicant shall also be responsible for funding a family Q memorial plaque near to the original burial site. In the event the site is not avoided as part of the final development and grading permits, and testing demonstrates that coffins are, in fact, present, the applicant shall implement option 2 or option 3 below: 3. A qualified archaeologist shall develop a formal treatment plan (plan of work including research questions to be answered). The excavation team shall include a qualified osteologist. Excavation may include mechanical excavation of overburden and hand excavation of human skeletal materials. The treatment plan should include an agreement with the Meyers family as to the disposition of any O human skeletal remains. A final report shall include formal evaluation and the project catalog and be filed with the City and the San Bernardino Archaeological Information Center. The site record should also be updated. 108 M681-000--1062350.1 Packet Pg. 583 6.B.n Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 4-6 If human remains are discovered at any time, the applicant shall follow guidelines addressed in California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. This requires that work in the vicinity must halt and the county coroner must be notified immediately. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner will contact the Native American Heritage Commission. All discoveries require verification and documentation, including a final report. Facts in Support of the Finding: The Native American Heritage Commission was contacted, and no sacred land was identified on the Project site. (EIR at 5.4-13). However, the Meyer Family Cemetery site has been located using geophysical investigation, and two graves appear to be present. It is unknown whether the rectangular areas represent intact graves or removal excavations. Human skeletal remains are considered significant under CEQA for potential to yield information new to history, and the Project site requires further a investigation. (Id.). Should those investigations yield CRHR-eligible archaeological materials, any destruction of o those resources as a result of Project construction would be N a significant impact. Thus, mitigation through f archaeological data recovery as prescribed by Mitigation 0 Measures 4-5 and 4-6 will be incorporated in order to reduce impacts to less than significant. z w d. Cumulative Impacts. _ U Potential Significant Impact: The EIR evaluated and concluded that the Project could result in cumulative impacts to Cultural Resources. Q Finding: Impacts related to Cultural Resources are discussed in detail at Section 5.4 of the E Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that this impact is potentially significant but can be mitigated to a less than significant level through the a implementation of Mitigation Measures 4-1 to 4-6, as discussed above. These mitigation measures are adopted and incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, and will be implemented as specified therein, thereby reducing potentially significant cumulative impacts to a less than significant level: Facts in Support of the Finding: Future construction projects in the City of San Bernardino are required to undergo environmental review. (EIR at 5.4- 14). If there is a potential for significant impacts on cultural or paleontological resources, an investigation would be O required to determine the nature and extent of the resources and identify appropriate mitigation measures. (Id.). Neither the Project nor cumulative development in accordance with 109 M681-000-1062350.1 6.B.n Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations the City's General Plan is expected to result in significant impacts to cultural or paleontological resources, provided site-specific surveys and test and evaluation excavations are conducted to determine whether the resources are unique archaeological or historical resources and appropriate mitigation is implemented prior to grading. (Id.). Implementation of the appropriate mitigation measures would reduce cumulative impacts to a less than significant level. 3. Geology and Soils. a. Exposure of People or Structures to Potential Adverse Effects. Potential Significant Impact: The EIR evaluated and concluded that the Project could expose people or structures to potential adverse effects from rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong ground L shaking, or seismic-related ground failure such as Cn liquefaction and settlement. N N Finding: Impacts related to Geology and Soils are discussed in detail at Section 5.5 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that this impact is potentially 0 0 significant, but can be mitigated to a less than significant level through the '? implementation of Mitigation Measures 5-1 to 5-3. These mitigation measures are adopted and incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program w for the Project, and will be implemented as specified therein, thereby reducing this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level: a 5-1 Prior to recordation of final maps, additional fault studies shall be conducted to the satisfaction of the geotechnical consultant of record on the project and the City Engineer. These studies shall include: E r U 1. Trenching across Splay E to locate the splay and gauge its activity in order to y determine the required width of setbacks from the splay. a 2. A trench across Splay A in the western part of the site to confirm the location of the splay in that part of the site and to aid in determining the width of required setbacks from the splay. 3. A trench between Splays A and B in the central part of the site. If the geotechnical consultant recommends expanded or modified setbacks from faults based on the findings of such additional studies, then the project will be required to comply with such setbacks, and any lots that would not be developable according to the © development standards of the Specific Plan will be eliminated prior to recordation of 7TM 15576 or the associated phase of TTM 15576. 110 M681-000-1062350.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 5-2 Prior to recordation of final maps, a detailed design-level geotechnical investigation report shall be prepared and submitted with engineering grading plans to further evaluate liquefaction, seismic settlement, lateral spreading, subsidence, collapsible soils, corrosive soils, slope stability including earthquake-induced landslides, and other geotechnical constraints and provide site-specific recommendations to address such conditions, if determined necessary. The geotechnical reports shall be prepared and signed/stamped by a Registered Civil Engineer specializing in geotechnical engineering and a Certified Engineering Geologist. The project will be required to comply with any recommendations that are made in the report of such investigation. 5-3 For each phase of the project, at the completion of grading and before project construction begins, final geotechnical testing for corrosive soils and expansive soils shall be conducted. A final geotechnical report for the relevant phase shall be prepared and signed/stamped by a Registered Civil Engineer specializing in geotechnical y engineering and a Certified Engineering Geologist. Such report shall contain 2 recommendations to address corrosive soils and expansive soils, as determined necessary. The project will be required to comply with any recommendations that are a made in the report of such investigation. N Facts in Support of the Finding: Five splays, or lineaments, of the San Andreas Fault have N been identified onsite. Four of these splays are within Alquist-Priolo Fault Zones. (EIR 5.5-22). Fault trenching 0 studies onsite found evidence that three lineaments, A, B, co and C, are active splays of the fault. The onsite segments of Lineaments A, B, and C are within an Alquist-Priolo w Earthquake Fault Zone that covers much of the southern = half of the site. The fourth lineament, lineament E, is within a a second Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone near the F northwest corner of the site and part of the fifth lineament, a lineament D, partially runs through the eastern edge of the Project site, not in an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone. (EIR r Figure 5.5-3). Lineament E and D are not thought to be an active fault splays. Setbacks extending 50 feet from each side of the three active lineaments have been designated so that no structures would be built in the setbacks. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 5-1, additional investigation will be conducted to confirm findings in the geotechnical studies prepared for the Project, and trenching on the western part of Lineament A where trenching studies were not done previously in 1995. In addition, setbacks recommended by the Project geotechnical consultant would be incorporated into the project design; compliance with such recommendations would be required conditions of approval by the City of San Bernardino. 111 M681-000-1063350.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations The San Andreas Fault passes through the Project site, and several other faults in the region could potentially generate strong ground shaking at the site. (EIR at 5.5-23). The intensity of ground shaking used for the purpose of structural design is derived from the California Building Code ("CBC"), which contains seismic safety requirements for structures that will be adhered to for this Project. Seismic safety provisions in the CBC are developed with the intent that most structures would remain standing during and after an earthquake so that occupants would be able to evacuate, although many structures would be expected to be substantially damaged in a strong earthquake and would require repairs before they would be habitable again. (Id.). y L The potential for liquefaction on most of the Project site is considered to be low due to older alluvial/colluvial soils a underlying the bulk of the site, plus the depth of In groundwater, which is thought to be more than 50 feet LO below ground surface under most of the site. (Id.) There are N two limited areas of the site that are or may be susceptible to liquefaction: the lower parts of the Cable Canyon and 0 Meyers Canyon drainages in the southern part of the site; and an isolated part of the eastern part of the site along the northeast side of the San Andreas Fault,where groundwater w was found at 20 feet bgs in two borings. (Id.) The site plan = almost entirely avoids placing homes over recent alluvium a in the Cable Canyon and Meyers Canyon drainages. The F geotechnical feasibility study for the Project recommends removal of loose or soft earth materials and undocumented fill to a depth of two to five feet below existing grades or E two feet below the bottom of proposed footing depths, whichever is greater. (EIR at 5.5-24). Deeper removals are a anticipated in isolated areas of the site, including the areas susceptible to liquefaction. Additionally, the Project site is not within a liquefaction hazard zone identified in the City of San Bernardino's General Plan. (Id.) i i The subsurface soils under most of the site are relatively j dense and thus are not expected to be prone to substantial seismic settlement. (Id.) Near-surface soils may be settlement prone; however, near-surface soils under the sites of homes, roads, and other improvements would be removed and replaced with compacted fill. Seismic settlement may pose a hazard where loose soils have been found near the San Andreas Fault. (Id.) However, 112 M68 -WO-1062350.1 i y Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Odevelopment in this area would be limited to nonstructural improvements, and settlement-prone soils may be overexcavated to limit seismic settlement. In sum, incorporation of Mitigation Measures 5-1 to 5-3 will reduce impacts from rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong ground shaking, or seismic-related ground failure such as liquefaction and settlement to less than significant levels. 4. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. a. Risk of Fire. Potential Significant Impact: The EIR evaluated and concluded that the Project could result in exposure of people or structures to a significant N risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to the urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. S CL W Finding: Impacts related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials are discussed in detail at Section 5.6 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that this cm impact is potentially significant, because the Project site is in a very high fire N ® hazard zone and could expose structures and/or residents to fire danger. Two lots o (Lots 30 and 233) would not have sufficient space for fuel modification. m However, this impact can be mitigated to a less than significant level through the co implementation of Mitigation Measures 6-1 to 6-7. These mitigation measures are w adopted and incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 2 for the Project, and will be implemented as specified therein, thereby reducing a this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level: r a 6-1 The Fire Protection Plan shall be approved by the City of San Bernardino Fire c Department prior to commencement of grading. The Fire Marshal shall have the E authority to modify, increase, or reduce the necessary size and location of any of the v recommended Fire Management Zones and setbacks, based on a lot-by-lot inspection at time of grading. A minimum of 170 feet of ftel modification plus enhanced structural treatments listed in the Fire Protection Plan are needed to provide a safe buffer between the wildland and the structures. 6-2 Prior to introduction of combustible materials on any lot, the developer or builder shall clear all flammable vegetation, including weeds to four inches in height or below (leave enough site. The builder shall maintain each site in this condition until the homeowner takes responsibility and installs irrigation and fire-resistive landscaping as approved by the Homeowners Association. All landscaping must be in compliance with the guidelines in the approved Fire Protection Plan. All manufactured slopes, internal common areas, and open spaces shall comply with the criteria set forth in the Fire Protection Plan and shall not have any vegetation of the type prohibited in this plan (undesirable plant list). 113 M681-000--1062350.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of overriding Considerations �f 6-3 The Homeowners Association shall assure that all fuel modification on private lots is in accordance with the requirements in the plan. 6-4 An annual inspection of the property for compliance with the approved plan shall be done by the Homeowners Association with a written letter of compliance sent to the San Bernardino Fire Department. Every five years, an approved Wildland Fire Protection consultant funded by the HOA shall inspect the site and a report shall be submitted to the San Bernardino Fire Department. Onsite Roadway Vegetation 6-5 Vegetation shall be modified and/or cleared, either by the Landscape Maintenance District or the Homeowners Association on each side of any onsite road in accordance with the approved Fire Protection Plan. L SCE Easement C 6-6 If the project is built with the Southern California Edison 115 kV transmission lines vii remaining aboveground, all flammable vegetation within the SCE overhead electric line easement shall be removed, on an ongoing basis, except for that needed for erosion N control and soil stability. O Lots 30 and 233 CO 6-7 Development of Lots 30 and 233 shall only occur when the following conditions are met. z No development shall occur without the review and approval of the San Bernardino Fire W Chief. • The onsite fuel modification shall consist of irrigated "Zone A" and "Zone B" that will remain within the Spring Trails property. An irrigated "Zone A"shall be a non-combustible setback zone within the pad area between the residential structure and the wildland urban interface area, traditionally the furthest portion of the pad. "Zone B"shall be a landscaped irrigated zone beyond "Zone A" and Y terminating at the project boundary, with non-combustible construction which will act as a "heat-sink"from an impending wild fire. "Zone C" shall extend offsite as fuel modification. "Zone C" will be a temporary off-site fuel modification until the adjoining property is, or will be, developed. If this is the scenario, an easement will be required for maintenance of the "Zone C. " If the adjoining property is developed prior to the development of the Spring Trails project, then the off-site fuel modification will not be required for Lots 30 and 233. The total fuel modification distance for lots 30 and 233 will be a minimum of 170 feet. • For Lot 30, Zone A shall have a minimum/maximum distance of 20 feet, Zone B Oshall have a minimum distance of 88 feet and a maximum distance of 113 feet, and 114 M681-000-1062350.1 6.B.n Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Zone C shall have a minimum distance of 37 feet and a maximum distance of 62 feet(a total of 15,469 square feet). • For lot 233, Zone A shall have a minimum/maximum distance of 20 feet, Zone B shall have a minimum distance of 68 feet and a maximum distance of 112 feet in width, and Zone C shall have a minimum distance of 43 feet and a maximum distance of 80 feet(a total of approximately 20,706 square feet). Facts in Support of the Finding: The high fire risk associated with the natural features and conditions of the site causes the proposed development to be at a high fire risk and the impacts would be potentially significant. (EIR at 5.6-14). The entire Spring Trails Project site and the adjacent 26.4-acre annexation area is in a very high fire hazard severity zone as identified in the y California Fire Plan. (EIR at 5.6-10). The City's General Plan also identifies areas of very high and high fire hazards ~ in the areas immediately adjacent to the Project site. Since the Project site has not yet been annexed to the City, the portions of the fire hazard zones that would lie across the Project site and the adjacent 26.4-acre annexation area are N not indicated in the General Plan. (Id.) Periodic wildfire is a normal part of the environment in those areas along the o front of the San Bernardino and San Gabriel mountains and in the adjacent San Bernardino National Forest, which surround the northern, western, and eastern portions of the w site. When the winds are high, there is a risk of the fire = spreading out of control and burning the Project residences a and existing residences in the adjacent 26.4- acre F annexation area. The residences in the 26.4-acre annexation 4 area would be subject to all applicable rules and regulations regarding fire safety found in the San Bernardino E Municipal Code. (Id.) A fire risk analysis for the Project was performed (EIR a Appendix G), which concluded that due to the steep terrain, highly flammable chaparral vegetation of the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains, and exposure to high-velocity winds, the site has high susceptibility to fire. (EIR at 5.6-10). Construction of the Project would expose future residents and structures to potentially dangerous wildfire(s) from the wildland to the northeast, northwest, and/or the southwest. The northeast exposure is a mix of chaparral and a few larger trees with a topography that is primarily upslope from the structures, with only a small amount level or downslope. This area is at risk for fire mainly when a northeast (Santa Ana) wind passes. The 115 M681-OW--1063350.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations topography and fuel would otherwise drive fires away from the Project area. (Id.) The southeast exposure also consists of mixed chaparral. However, it has no real northern aspects to the topography that would increase fuel loading, and also has no wind shelter. (EIR at 5.6-11). Additionally, this area does not tend to have the old-growth, closed- canopy fuel type found in the other areas adjacent to the Project site. Areas within this exposure immediately to the east of the project site that may contain fuels are either in the drainage bottom or would be graded and replanted with appropriate vegetation. Fuels that would remain after Project development would be mostly in the downstream drainage of Meyers Canyon and outside of the fuel modification zones that would be created. (Id.) A northeast wind event would take fire away from the structures in this F area. The only potential wind-driven fire in this area that would pose a significant risk would be from a beat- generated onshore wind. While these winds may prevail in ai this area, they tend to be less intense and generally higher in moisture content. The southwest exposure runs across a N combination of developed and open, undeveloped land. U Fires originating offsite in this area would be fueled by 0 mixed native/nonnative grass and shrublands. The fire would approach the Project site from the southwest and CO could spread and intensify if it reached the tree canopies W under future conditions if vegetation is not managed. (Id.) _ Compliance with current City standards for weed a abatement and brush clearance should keep this area safe. F The southwest exposure only presents fire issues during a a southwest wind event, which, like the southeast exposure, tends to be less intense and generally higher in moisture z content. The northwest exposure is the most significant risk to the Project. During a northeast wind, the Cable Creek Q drainage and Cable Canyon Creek will channel winds and fire down to the area below the Project site. (Id.) This drainage is deep and full of native and nonnative vegetation that has survived through all of the recorded fire history because it tends to receive natural irrigation year-round. However, the vegetation on the sides of the drainage is primarily northern mixed chaparral and Riversidian sage scrub, both of which provide substantial fuel beds. (Id.) In addition to the topography and vegetation of the area, two prevailing wind events common to the area also contribute O to the fire risk. The Santa Ana winds and winds produced by the thermal heating in the Mojave Desert would both be 116 MNI1 -1062750.1 6.B.n Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations channeled by canyons in the area, increasing and concentrating the effects of these winds. (Id.) Fire risk factors were modeled to predict possible wildland fire behavior that could occur at the Project site based on characteristic features, including topography, vegetation, and weather. (EIR at 5.6-11). The worst-case scenario is a fire with Santa Ana winds reaching 70 miles per hour and a combination of dead and live fuels that would cause the hottest, fastest-moving fire. (EIR Tables 5.6-1; 5.6-2). The maximum anticipated flame lengths would be approximately 100.3 feet. (Id.) This type of fire occurs in the fall in chaparral vegetation, with approximately 16 tons per acre, at 6 to 10 feet in depth, producing 8,000 British y thermal units per pound (BTU/Ib) of fuel. Additionally, under worst-case scenario conditions, fire would spread at a rate of 40 feet per second (27.2 miles per hour), and spotting distances would reach approximately 1.4 miles. (EIR at 5.6-12). N Fuel Modification Plan: The Project site has a combination of high risk(number of ignitions), high hazard o (intensity of fire), and high value (proposed development), � requiring significant mitigation measures in order to reduce 00 fire risk. (Id.) A fuel modification zone would be required w to reduce impacts of fire on the Project. Fuel modification 2 areas are designed to gradually reduce fire intensity and a flame lengths from advancing fire by placing thinning zones, restricted vegetation zones, and irrigated zones ¢ adjacent to each other on the perimeter of all structures and adjacent open space areas. (Id.) Three fuel modification zones have been established within the fuel modification U area: w • Fuel Modification Zone A (flat): Noncombustible construction This applies to the 20 to 35 feet of the flat area setback zone near noncombustible construction only. Fuel Modification Zone A should be maintained by the homeowner or the HOA. At no time should the Fuel Modification Zone A be less than 20 feet. • Fuel Modification Zone B (wet zone): 100 percent removal of undesirable plant species. This applies to the fast 50 to 200 feet from Fuel Modification Zone A. Fuel Modification Zone B shall be permanently irrigated; fully landscaped with approved drought- 117 M681-000-1052350.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Otolerant, deep-rooted, moisture-retentive material such as container shrub material; or hydroseeded per a plant list approved by the SBFD. All undesirable plants must be removed. A complete list of undesirable plant species is supplied in the Spring Trails Fire Protection Plan. Hand-seeding of bare areas may need to be performed six months after the hydroseeding establishment period. Fuel Modification Zone B would be maintained by the homeowner, HOA, or landscape maintenance district(LMD) as appropriate. o Fuel Modification Zone C (dry zone): 50 percent thinning of native shrubs. The area 40 to 185 feet from a structure would be Fuel Modification Zone C. This zone would be a non-irrigated area and would require ca the removal of all flammable undesirable species as listed in the Spring Trails Fire Protection Plan. Specimen trees should be retained as directed by the w owner's representative but must be thinned a minimum of 50 percent. This zone also requires the removal of all N low-hanging foliage within three times the height of the understory shrubs or 10 feet, whichever is greater, N along with dead or broken branches. All accumulated plant debris on the ground would be removed. Fuel � Modification Zone C area should be maintained by the w LMD. x V Q (See EIR Figures 5.6-1; Figure 5.6-2). a Additionally, buildings not on the wildland interface/fuel r modification zones would be set back from the adjacent L property lines or any natural area adjacent to the homes by 2 a 25- to 50-foot building setback. This zone would have no a combustible construction allowed within it. (EIR at 5.6- 13). Systems Approach: The concept behind this and most other fuel modification plans is to create a fuel modification zone in which the fire is systematically deprived of available fuel to reduce the size of the flame and the amount of heat that would be generated. (Id.) The maximum flame length of 100 feet is achieved at the junction of the wildland and Fuel Modification Zone C. For O this reason, Fuel Modification Zone C is a minimum of 100 feet in width (measured on the flat plane not less than 100 feet regardless of the slope). Fuel Modification Zone C 118 MNI1 -1062350.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations would have 50 percent of the available fuel that was in the wildland. (Id.) It would also have little to no dead materials or fine fuels. This would reduce flame lengths to a manageable size. When the flame front arrives at the junction of Fuel Modification Zones B and C, it should be reduced by 50 percent. Fuel Modification Zone B is a minimum of 50 feet in width and it is irrigated. The combination of the distance and the heat sink effect of the moist vegetation should keep flames from reaching the Fuel Modification Zone A/B junction. In the event that they do, however, a minimum 20-foot setback zone (Fuel Modification Zone A) is established with no combustible construction being allowed in this fuel modification zone at any time. Additionally, advanced construction features would be used to prevent convection or radiant heat from F igniting the structure. (Id.) In areas where fuels, topography, slope, and aspect align, additional depth has - been added to the fuel modification zones. This occurs on w the upper portions of the project, where vegetation is below the structures, and on the east side of the project, where N canyon winds may be channeled and thus intensified. (Id.) /^ The final area for an increased fuel modification zone is on o En the east side of the project, located on the only cul-de-sac where total alignment can occur. (EIR at 5.6-14; Figures 5.6-1; 5.6-2). W Construction Phasing Management Plan: All vegetation management would be done on private lots prior to work F beginning on those lots and prior to any combustible a construction materials being brought onsite. (EIR at 5.6- 14). Vegetation management in all common areas, parks, E construction sites, medians, planters, roadsides, etc., would be done as required in this plan at the start of the construction phase and continued throughout the Project. (Id.) Adequate fuel breaks acceptable to the San Bernardino Fire Department would be created around all grading, materials storage areas, laydown areas, site work, and other construction activities in areas adjacent to the vegetation. (Id.) Public Education: In addition to the built-in fuel modification zones and construction techniques, the active participation of the homeowners is necessary to adequately protect Spring Trails. (Id.) Accordingly, the Specific Plan requires the following: 119 MMI-000--1062350.1 6:B:n Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations © o The fire threat, fuel modification zone requirements, maintenance responsibilities,protection plans, approved plant palette, list of unacceptable plants, preventative measures, and evacuation routes shall be disclosed to potential homebuyers prior to the sale of any residence and readily available to homeowners upon request. (1d.) The HOA would sponsor annual clinics conducted by fire professionals to educate residents on the fire threat, fuel modification zone requirements, maintenance responsibilities, protection plans, landscaping requirements, preventative measures, and evacuation routes. (1d.) With the implementation of Mitigation Measures 6-1 to 6- 7, impacts from wildfire risk will be reduced to less than F significant. L Q b. High Winds. m �o Potential Significant Impact: The EIR evaluated and concluded that the Project could N result in exposure of people or structures to a significant /� risk of loss, injury, or death involving high winds. N (v) Finding: Impacts related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials are discussed in detail at Section 5.6 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that this w impact is potentially significant, because the Project site is in a very high fire = hazard zone and could expose structures and/or residents to fire danger. Two lots a (Lots 30 and 233) would not have sufficient space for fuel modification. F However, this impact can be mitigated to a less than significant level through the implementation of Mitigation Measures 6-8 and 6-9. These mitigation measures are adopted and incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting LE Program for the Project, and will be implemented as specified therein, thereby reducing this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level: a 6-8 The development of Spring Trails shall follow development guidelines outlined in the San Bernardino General Plan for high wind areas (Policies 10.10.1 through 10.10.8). The building plans must be approved by the building official. • Policy 10.10.1: Ensure that buildings are constructed and sited to withstand wind hazards. • Policy 10.10.2: Require that development in the High Wind Hazard Area, as designated in Figure S-8 [of the San Bernardino General Plan], be designed and constructed to withstand extreme wind velocities. o Policy 10.10.3: Periodically review the structural design requirements for J wind in the Building Code to reflect wind conditions and property damage fir• experienced as well as advances to current construction technology. 120 MM 1-000-1062750.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations © • Policy 10.10.4: Require that structures be sited to prevent adverse funneling of wind onsite and on adjacent properties. • Policy 10.10.5: Require that multi-story residential, commercial, and industrial buildings be designed to prevent wind tunnel effects around their base and in passageways. • Policy 10.10.6: Construct public infrastructure (lighting poles, street lights, bridges, etc.) to withstand extreme wind velocities in High Wind Hazard areas. • Policy 10.10.7: Maintain police,fire, medical, and other pertinent programs to respond to wind-caused emergencies. • Policy 10.10.8: Initiate a review of the wind hazard potential as it applies to various parts of the City and, if merited, tailor the design standards accordingly. N 6-9 Implementation of Mitigation Measure 2-1 (Section 5-2, Air Quality) would reduce construction-related wind-blown dust impacts. rn 'C Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project would construct residential homes in an area U). exposed to high winds. Although the City of San Bernardino General Plan has not officially designated the N iProject site or the adjacent 26.4-acre annexation area in the High Wind Area because they are not within the City N limits, its location falls in line with areas along the foothills that have been designated in this area. (EIR at 5.6-14). Areas exposed to high winds can potentially experience w health and safety issues related, but not limited, to air = quality, soil erosion, motor-vehicle accidents due to a decreased visibility, wind-driven property damage, and exacerbation of fire hazards. (Id.) Project-related a construction activities, particularly during site preparation v such as grading, could potentially expose soils to wind r erosion. This creates potential for windblown dust and soil to migrate offsite, adversely affecting adjacent properties a during periods of high wind conditions. Furthermore, windblown dust, particularly during Santa Ana wind conditions, could reduce visibility along I-215, a heavily traveled highway approximately 0.7 mile southwest of the site, affecting travel and increasing the probability of motor-vehicle accidents. hi addition to reduced visibility, high winds could also result in property damage and harm to surrounding residences from wind-driven debris picked up from loose onsite construction materials. (Id.) Winds would not only have the potential to impact the surrounding area during Project development, but also the proposed residences and land uses onsite. (EIR at 5.6-21). Winds have been measured and have the potential to reach in 121 M681-000-1062350.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations © excess of 90 to 100 miles per hour. Winds at these speeds could potentially cause damage to the homes and land uses proposed on the Project site. Damage could be caused to roofs, fences, windows, and landscaping. Moreover, high winds are a main contributing factor for the high fire risk hazard in the area. (Id.) Santa Ana wind conditions significantly increase the fire hazard in the area when combined with the fuels present due to the low moisture content and low relative humidity. (Id.) Implementation of Mitigation Measures 6-8 and 6-9 will reduce impacts related to high winds to less than significant levels. C. Hazardous Emissions. N Potential Significant Impact: The EIR evaluated and concluded that if the Project is built R within the Southern California Edison 115 kV transmission ~ rn lines remaining aboveground, the lines would potentially expose construction workers and residents to hazards of C electric shock and/or electric and magnetic fields. N N Finding: Impacts related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials are discussed in detail at Section 5.6 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that this o impact is potentially significant, but can be mitigated to a less than significant level through the implementation of Mitigation Measure 6-10. This mitigation co measure is adopted and incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and w Reporting Program for the Project, and will be implemented as specified therein, _ thereby reducing this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level: I � 6-10 If the project is built with the Southern California Edison 115 kV transmission a lines remaining aboveground, the development plans shall be drawn to accommodate SCE safety measures including. r • Operators of construction equipment with overhead lift capability, cranes, a backhoes, and similar equipment shall abide by state safety clearances and undergo SCE-approved safety training, as needed, before operating the equipment onsite. • Near residences, a safety strip meeting SCE standards shall be required beside the SCE right-of-way. • Easements shall be employed as needed to prevent damage to the towers, shield residents from harm, and guarantee SCE maintenance access. Facts in Support of the Finding: The Preferred Development Plan assumes that the SCE overhead electric lines that traverse the western portion of the site would be located above-ground. "IR Figure 3- 122 M661-000--1062350.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 8). While consideration that the overhead electric lines may be undergrounded in considered in the Alternative Development Plan,undergrounding the size of SCE lines in question here is not currently feasible. The Preferred plan accommodates the lines above ground as proposed for the site. (FEIR Figure 3-8 and 3-8a). The Preferred Development Plan for Spring Trails is the same as the alternative plan in every respect, except for the treatment of the land beneath the aboveground electric lines and the number of residential lots. (Figure 3-8 and 3-8a). In the Preferred Development Plan, underneath the central portion of the electric line easement, the land use is designated as Open Space-Controlled. The northern portion of the electric line easement is designated as residential; however, N development is not permitted within the electric line F easement. (Id.). The SCE easement will be landscaped in accordance with the approved Fire Protection Plan for - Spring Trails. If permitted by SCE, a park and/or equestrian/pedestrian trail may be located under the electric lines as a permitted use; however, they are not assumed in N the design of the Preferred Development Plan. (Id.). The Preferred Development Plan and the Alternative 0 Development Plan with underground electric lines presents potential hazards related to proximity to future residential co Z uses: w x • Although SCE makes provision for earthquakes in the a design and construction of overhead transmission lines, F extreme seismic shaking and earth rupture on the San Andreas fault may snap lines or topple towers, resulting in live power to the ground. s U • During construction, accidental contact with the towers a or wires is possible. • Resident youths may be tempted to play on or climb the towers. • Residents may be exposed to electric and magnetic fields (EMF). (Id.). These lines would pose both construction and operational risks to workers or residents on the site. Contact with the ^ wires by an elevated excavator arm, raised bucket, or other (�./'� equipment designed for overhead work would have potentially fatal consequences. There is also the risk that 123 M681-000--1062350.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations residents may be tempted to climb on or vandalize the supporting towers. Though slight, the risk of electrical shock because of such activity does exist. Worker and residents would also be susceptible to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) because of the location of the lines on the project site. The SCE easement does not cross into the adjacent 26.4-acre annexation area. (Id.). The Alternative Project proposes to relocate the 115 kV lines underground prior to site development; therefore, the risks associated with electrical shock and physical contact with the lines would be eliminated. If the 11 AV lines cannot be relocated underground, then the Project would be built to accommodate the overhead electric lines, as described above. (FEIR at 3.3, Figure 3-8 and 3-8a). The concern with proximity to electric transmission lines is exposure of residents to electric and magnetic fields (EMFs). Since EMF emission is not reduced when transmission lines are a undergrounded, this would be a concern in both 1n development scenarios. (Id.). Over the past 30 years researchers have studied the potential effects of EMF N exposure both nationally and internationally in an effort to determine whether EMF exposure is carcinogenic. EMFs 0 are everywhere in modern society, and there is no evidence that living near electric transmission lines is any more detrimental to human health than living in a modern house. w (Id.). Notwithstanding, Mitigation Measure 6-10 will be = incorporated to ensure that impacts related to the potential a presence of overhead electric lines will be less than significant. a w d 5. Land Use and Planning. L U lv a. Conflict with Habitat Conservation Plan. a Potential Significant Impact: The EIR evaluated and concluded that the Project could conflict with the adopted U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Critical Habitat. Finding: Impacts related to Land Use and Planning are discussed in detail at Section 5.8 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that this impact is potentially significant but can be mitigated to a less than significant level through the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3-2. This mitigation measure is adopted and incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, and will be implemented as specified therein, thereby reducing this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level: 124 M681-W--1061350.1 6.B.n Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 3-2 To mitigate for impacts to unoccupied critical habitat of the federally endangered San Bernardino kangaroo rat, the project applicant shall acquire offsite permanent mitigation lands of like habitat quality as determined by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) during the Section 7 consultation process. Mitigation lands must be acquired prior to the issuance of grading permits, and shall incorporate appropriate long-term management provisions such as deed restrictions, endowments, and/or other management mechanisms to provide for the long-term conservation of the habitat. Potential properties include, but are not limited to, those managed by San Bernardino County Special Districts located in the Glen Helen, Rialto, and Rancho Cucamonga areas. Mitigation lands shall be acquired at a replacement ratio of 1:1 (one acre replaced for every one acre impacted). This measure does not preclude the imposition of additional mitigation requirements that may be initiated by the USFWS during the Section 7 consultation process. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. N Facts in Support of the Finding: Approximately 3.9 acres of habitat for this federally o endangered species would be modified, which conflicts USFWS-designated critical habitat. a with the policies of the gn � ino kangaroo rats have (EIR at 5.8-47 . No San Bernard (E ) n observed on the Project site but development of the N been � p N area must follow the policies of the habitat plan. Portions of L) the secondary access road alignment at the southern end of 0 C the site are located within USFWS-designated critical , habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat (see EIR Figure 5.34). Even though repeated surveys in the area w have been negative for the presence of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat, the presence of critical habitat requires Q consultation with the USFWS under Section 7 of Federal F Endangered Species Act. The USFWS would impose a mitigation to offset these impacts. (EIR at 5.8-47). In anticipation of those agency-imposed requirements, and as r discussed previously, Mitigation Measure 3-2 has been incorporated into the Project to reduce the Project's impacts in this regard to less than significant levels. 6. Public Services. a. Fire Protection and Emergency Services. Potential Significant Impact: The EIR evaluated and concluded that development of the Project could result in a substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provisions of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to 125 M681-000-1062350.1 i 6.B.n Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection services. Finding: Impacts to Public Services are discussed in detail at Section 5.12 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that this impact is potentially significant, as the Project will introduce 304 residences and about 1,015 residents into a very high fire hazard severity zone in the San Bernardino County Fire services area, thereby increasing the requirement for fire protection facilities and personnel. However, this impact can be mitigated to a less than significant level through implementation of Mitigation Measure 12-1. This mitigation measure is adopted and incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, and will be implemented as specified therein, thereby reducing this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level: N 12-1 Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall participate on a fair-share F basis in funding the continued operation and maintenance of the Verdemont Fire rn Station. A one-time fair-share contribution equivalent to the Community Facilities a District Number 1033 "in-lieu fee" established by Resolution Number 2004-107 of m the Mayor and Common Council would mitigate the long-term impact of the project on emergency services of the Fire Department. As an alternative, an irrevocable N agreement to annex the project site to Community Facilities District Number 1033 U would satisfy this obligation. o m Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project would include 304 homes, four parks, and F roadways for site and internal access to the roughly 353- w acre Project site. The Project is expected to add about 1,015 x residents to the site. (EIR at 5.12-3). Therefore, Project a development is expected to result in an increase in calls for San Bernardino Fire Department ("SBFD") fire and a emergency medical services. At Project completion, SBFD response time to emergency calls to the farthest part of the r j site from the Verdemont Fire Station is expected to be 12 to y 13 minutes. This is seven to eight minutes more than the a standard SBFD response time of five minutes. After a a reduction in staff from four to three firefighters, staffing at j the station was recently restored to four firefighters. The addition of the Spring Trails development to the area served by the Verdemont Fire Station may result in increased demand on emergency fire services. (Id.). To offset the additional demand caused by new development projects, the City requires a fair-share contribution from new developments to help fund ongoing operation and i maintenance of the Verdemont Fire Station. (EIR at 5.12- 4). The response force (three fire engines, one aerial ladder truck, and a chief officer with a minimum of fifteen personnel) needed to effectively combat a structure fire 126 � M681-000--1062350.1 6.B.n Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations would need to be capable of being assembled at points within the Project site. The third engine and aerial ladder truck to complete an effective response would come from a station farther away: from Fire Station 227 at 282 West 40th Street (6.75 miles from Project entrance) or from SBCoFD Station 2 in Devore (3.75 miles from project entrance). San Bernardino County Fire Department Station 2 has daily staffing of three full-time firefighters supplemented by a company of paid call firefighters as needed, and is equipped with one type 1 (structure) engine, one type 3 (wildland) engine, and one type 5 patrol vehicle. (Id.). While the San Bernardino County station is physically closer, additional time and effort would be required to coordinate with the County, which could delay y the response. Either would come with a minimum of three firefighters. The aerial ladder truck, with four firefighters, would come from Fire Station 224 located at 2641 E Street c (7.85 miles from Project entrance. (EIR Figure 5.12-1). A w fire battalion chief would also be dispatched. N N In the event of a major wildfire on or threatening the site, U additional firefighting resources would be brought to the 0 area. Other City fire stations would respond as needed. (EIR at 5.124). The SBFD has five type 3 (wildland) engines, which are deployed at Fire Stations 225, 226, 227, w 228, and 323. The three closest fire stations to this Project = have wildland engines. In addition, there is a county/CAL a FIRE station nearby in Lytle Creek (Fire Station 20) and a new county fire station will be built as part of a new a development in the southern Lytle Creek area, south of the Glen Helen Regional Park in Devore. (Id.). The new station t is dependent on development in the area and may be delayed with changes in the housing market. Vegetation a fires result in a multiagency response, which would include CAL FIRE and the USFS. A fire protection/fuel modification plan has been required for the Project. (EIR Appendix G). The fire plan is designed to reduce the risks related to the high fire potential of the site. Topography, vegetative, weather, and structural components were used to analyze the setting and provide measures for reducing risks. It also meets the fire safety standards of the Foothill Fire Zone Overlay District(FF District) Standards (Chapter 15.10 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code), Building Safety Enhancement Area Building Standards (Chapter C 15.11 Municipal Code), City of San Bernardino Development Code (Chapter 19.15), and City Fire Code 127 M681-000-1052350.1 Packet Pg. 602 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations (Chapter 15.16). The fire protection plan divides the Project site into three zones, Fuel Modification Zone A (flat, noncombustible construction), Fuel Modification Zone B (wet zone, 100 percent removal of undesirable plant species), and Fuel Modification Zone C (dry zone, 50 percent thinning of the native shrubs). (EIR Figures 5.6- land 5.6-2). The fire protection plan also includes vegetation management guidelines, the allowed and undesirable plant palettes, planting maintenance and spacing guidelines, a construction management plan, infrastructure/structural construction features and requirements, and a compliance matrix to be used by the developer, residents, and the homeowners association of Spring Trails to reduce fire risks. The minimum fire flow required for this project is 1,500 gallons per minute (gpm) 2 at 20 pounds per square inch (psi) pressure for a minimum rn duration of four hours. Fire hydrants are required at a Q spacing of no more than 300 feet. (EIR at 5.12-4). Water v3 for fire flow would be provided by expanding and N improving the offsite water system, and by onsite reservoirs and transmission lines. (EIR Figures 3-10 and 3-11). The U Project would use infrastructure at pressure zones at 0 elevations of 2,100 feet, 2,300 feet, 2,500 feet, 2,700 feet, and 3,000 feet. The Project site falls in the 2,300, 2,500, 2,700, and 3,000 zones. Fire-flow storage required for each w of the three onsite pressure zones is 360,000 gallons. (EIR = at 5.12-7). Project water system improvements would be a sized to provide required fire flow in addition to meeting project water demands. Pumping stations would be Q designed with 100 percent redundancy in the event that one r or more of the pumping units fails, and equipped with t onsite generators that can operate in a blackout or emergency condition. The four occupied, multiple-acre lots a within the 26.4-acre annexation area would continue to be serviced by the City of San Bernardino Fire Department. (Id.). Implementation of Mitigation Measure 12-1 will reduce impacts to fire protection and emergency services to a less than significant level. 7. Traffic and Circulation. a. Substantial Increase in Traffic. Potential Significant Impact: The EIR evaluated and concluded that development of the Project could cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and 128 MMI1 W-1062350.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of overriding Considerations ocapacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips,the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections). Finding: Impacts to Traffic and Circulation are discussed in detail at Section 5.8 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that this impact is potentially significant, because the Project would generate 3,149 average daily trips, 247 morning peak hour, and 333 evening peak hour trips to the Project area, thereby contributing to existing and future unacceptable levels of service at the Palm Avenue/I-215 ramps intersections and at the Palm Avenue/Kendall Drive intersection. However, these impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level through implementation of Mitigation Measures 14-1 to 14-4. These mitigation measures are adopted and incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, and will be implemented as specified L therein, thereby reducing this potentially significant impact to a less than F significant level: 14-1 If at the time combustible materials are placed on the project site the Palm Avenue/Kendall Drive intersection has not been improved, the project shall be responsible for funding and constructing the dual westbound left turn lane N intersection improvements at Palm Avenue/Kendall Drive. All improvements to this '" /^\ intersection must be completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Public o (Vj Works/Civil Engineering prior to issuance of occupancy permits. `I CO 14-2 The easterly (primary) project access road between Little League Drive and the w project site shall be constructed and paved to meet the City of San Bernardino Fire = Department's minimum standards prior to placement of combustible materials on the a project site. The access road shall be designed and constructed to meet the City of F San Bernardino Public Works/Engineering Division's design standards prior to ¢ issuance of occupancy permits. Concurrently, the segment of Little League Drive north of Meyers Road shall be improved to Public Works Department design E standards. s U .v 14-3 The westerly (secondary)project access road shall be constructed and paved to meet the City of San Bernardino Fire Department's minimum standards prior to placement of combustible materials on the project site. The access road shall be designed and constructed to meet the City of San Bernardino Public Works/Engineering Division's design standards prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. 14-4 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall prepare a construction traffic plan that shall be approved by the City of San Bernardino Public Works/Engineering Division. The construction traffic plan shall. • Prohibit project construction traffic from using the Kendall Drive/Palm O Avenue intersection during the morning peak hour (7:00 AM and 9:00 AM) and the evening peak hour (4:00 PM and 6:00 PM) 129 M681-000-1062350.1 i 6.B.n Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations O • Establish truck haul routes on the appropriate transportation facilities. • Provide Traffic Control Plans (for detours and temporary road closures) that meet the minimum Caltrans, City, and County criteria. • Minimize offsite road closures during the peak hours. • Keep all construction-related traffic onsite at all times. Facts in Support of the Finding: The City of San Bernardino has an acceptable intersection Level of Service ("LOS") standard of D or better. All area intersections are currently operating at an acceptable LOS. (EIR Table 5.14-2). N Operational Phase: Spring Trails would include the development of 304 single-family detached houses, with rn the final phase of construction to be completed by year L 2013. (EIR at 5.14-42). The analysis in this report quantifies the impacts of 329 single-family units, and therefore slightly overstates the actual impact anticipated N for the 304-unit single-family residential development. The © traffic generated by Spring Trails would increase the p number of trips on local roadways and freeways, thereby `o worsening the LOS on these systems. (Id.). The following 00 intersections would operate at unacceptable levels of w service during AM and PM peak hours: _ U • I-215 northbound ramps and Palm Avenue; F • I-215 southbound ramps and Palm Avenue; a • Palm Avenue and Kendall Drive d E Without roadway improvements, these Project area intersections would have unacceptable levels of service (E c or worse). (EIR at 5.14-43). However, interchange improvements to the Palm Avenue and I-215 ramps intersection are included in the SANBAG Nexus Study funded by the City of San Bernardino Regional Circulation System Fee. (Id.). These improvements would improve the LOS to B during morning peak hour traffic on the northbound ramp, to D during evening peak hour traffic on the northbound ramp, and to C during both morning and evening peak hour traffic on southbound ramps. Development impact fees paid by the Project applicant O would contribute to the Regional Circulation System Fee. Improvements to the Palm Avenue/Kendall Drive intersection are not included in a City plan or program. 130 M681-000-1067350.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations (Id.). If the necessary improvements to this intersection are not in place at the time the Spring Trails Project is completed, a significant impact would result. Construction Phase: Construction traffic would contribute to deficiencies at the Palm Avenue/I-215 northbound and southbound ramps intersections during morning and evening peak hours (7:00 to 9:00 AM and 4:00 to 6:00 PM respectively), resulting in a significant impact. (Id.). However, implementation of Mitigation Measures 14-1 to 14-4 will reduce impacts to less than significant during both the operational and construction phases of the Project. 8. Utilities and Service Systems. w a. Construction of New Water or Wastewater Treatment Facilities. Potential Significant Impact: The EIR evaluated and concluded that development of the Project would require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or ex o In water or avast expansion f p N existing facilities, the construction of which could cause Q significant environmental effects; and would not have o sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from rn existing entitlements and resources, and new and/or expanded entitlements would be needed. w Finding: Impacts to Utilities and Service Systems are discussed in detail at Section 5.15 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that this impact is potentially significant, because the Project would use 529 acre-feet of water per year ("AFY"), a 79 AFY more than the 2005 Urban Water Management Plan ("UWMP") projections, thus increasing water demand on the San Bernardino Basin, and requiring the £ construction of additional water distribution infrastructure,including reservoirs,pump stations, and water mainlines that are not part of a Capital Improvements Plan. 2 However, these impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level through a implementation of Mitigation Measure 15-1. This mitigation measure is adopted and incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, and will be implemented as specified therein, thereby reducing this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level: 15-1 Completion of the Phase II Verdemont water delivery infrastructure improvements shall be verified by the SBMWD prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Spring 1 Trails. The offsite improvements as shown in Table 5.15-13, include the east reservoir, east pump station, and east 20-inch transmission main. The project applicant shall contribute fair-share funding for the improvements through development impact fees or through an alternate financial arrangement with the SBMWD. A funding and phasing program for the improvements shall be in place (e.g., Capital Improvements 131 M681-000--1062350.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Program) or negotiated with the project applicant prior to issuance of building permits. Facts in Support of the Finding: Although the Project site would be designated as Residential Low in the General Plan, water demand for the Project site is based on average density over the entire Project site area (352.8 acres). Considering the overall Spring Trails development of 304 residential dwelling units on 352.8 acres of land,the average parcel size for the entire development is estimated at 0.87 units per acre. (EIR at 5.15-12). Proposed development plans indicate that individual parcels would range in size from 10,000 to over 600,000 square feet, averaging 27,337 square feet or 0.62 acres. Hence, this development would fall under the Residential Estate category with an average water demand of 0.93 gpm per acre. (Id.). Based on a total development of 353 acres, rather than 85 percent buildout under the existing General Plan, the average annual water demand is n estimated at 328 gpm, or 529 afy. (EIR Table 5.15-10). The assumptions made by the City's General Plan for N residential land uses of the Project site were used in �^— determining water demand in the 2005 UWMP. (EIR o (``.. Table 5.15-8). The UWMP assumes a demand of 450 afy for the Project site. The projected water demands of the CO Spring Trails Project are higher by 79 afy (17.5 percent). w (EIR Table 5.15-11). The two projected water demands = assume that buildout of the site under either the Spring a Trails or General Plan projection would occur at the same r time. (EIR at 5.15-13). Maximum daily demand flows can Q be used to determine the amount of onsite water storage needed for the Project. During days of high demand and s peak hours, the water demand for the site would increase. R Between average days and high demand days, the gpm rate a would increase by a factor of 1.73, resulting in a total rate of 568 gpm on high demand days. Between high demand days and peak hours, the gpm rate would increase by a factor of 2, resulting in a peak hour demand rate of 1,136 gpm. (Id.). Spring Trails would require the construction of new water supply infrastructure. SBMWD has begun planning for infrastructure expansion in the Verdemont area that would accommodate Spring Trails. This expansion, the O Verdemont infrastructure improvements, would occur in two phases and is needed to serve the 2,300- foot pressure zone. These improvements were analyzed for 132 M681-000-1062350.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Cenvironmental impacts in 2007. A mitigated negative declaration was approved by the SBMWD Board of Water Commissioners in April of 2007. Funding for these improvements was approved by the City, is included in SBMWD's Capital Improvements Program, and is incorporated into the 2009-2010 City budget. (EIR at 5.15-14). The second phase for the Verdemont infrastructure improvements would connect the 2,100-foot pressure zone to the 2,300-foot pressure zone and is necessary to bring water supply to the Spring Trails site. These improvements would be required for supplying water and maintaining appropriate water storage for the Spring Trails project. y Currently, there is no funding planned for these F improvements. (EIR at 5.15-15). In addition to the proposed Verdemont infrastructure improvements, the Spring Trails plan includes onsite infrastructure (n improvements to be completed by the developer. (EIR Figure 3-10). The onsite improvements would need to be N constructed and funded by the developer prior to the 0 development of the site. (EIR at 5.15-15). The pipelines o within the development are considered distribution lines for co all practical purposes. The pipelines that connect pump stations to the reservoirs would be a minimum of 20 inches w in diameter. (Id.). All looping lines would be 12 inches in = diameter and other distribution pipelines would be 8 inches L) a in diameter. The Phase I and Phase II improvements would need to be included in the SBMWD Capital Improvements a Plan (CIP) and incorporated into the City's budget. Phase I improvements were included in the 2009-2010 City E Budget, but the Phase II improvements were not. (Id.). R Funding for the offsite improvements in the CIP would a come from developer impact fees, which would be paid in part (fair share) by the developer. The existing and planned 1 infrastructure would have enough capacity to support the i Project. (Id.). Fire flow for Spring Trails would need to meet a requirement of 1,500 gpm with a four hour duration, as j indicated by the San Bernardino Fire Department. SBMWD would be able to meet this demand once the proposed I infrastructure in the 2,300-foot zone is completed. The O same pipelines that would supply the site with domestic water would also be used for fire suppression through connections with fire hydrants. (EIR at 5.15-16). 133 M681-000-1062350.1 i 6.B.n Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations © 2009 was the third consecutive drought year for California, and the impacts were seen through changes to water allocations of SWP water. (Id.),In April 2011, CDWR increased water allocations to 80 percent of the requested amounts. SBVMWD, the SWP contractor for the San Bernardino Valley, is included on this list of contractors and should receive 82,080 acre-feet in 2011, 80 percent of its entitlement. Projected SWP reliability throughout future years is uncertain. (Id.). Ultimate contract amounts total 4.2 million afy, but yearly deliveries are only a fraction of this amount. SBMWD and other water agencies reliant on some portion of SWP water should reduce their dependence on this source of water and focus on alternative technologies, y conservation efforts, and storage activities to guarantee F water supply in the future. The BHG Basin is the most - important source of water for the SBMWD. Approximately CL 1.5 million acre-feet of groundwater in the basin is extractable. (Id.). In 2008, the cumulative change in N groundwater storage since 1934 was a negative 354,595 N acre-feet. (EIR Table 5.15-2). The last year the basin had a positive cumulative change was 1998 (74,083 afy). The o increasing urban growth in the San Bernardino Valley would only create a greater demand on the BHG Basin co water supply; water levels are most likely to continue w dropping unless greater conservation efforts are enforced. _ (EIR at 5.15-17). a r F Spring Trails Specific Plan includes a number of design guidelines and practices that would improve onsite water conservation. (Id.). Some of these guidelines and practices t include: " a • Required diversion of stormwater runoff into onsite detention basins to enable recharge; • Recommended collection of rainwater and additional stormwater runoff by diverting runoff to pervious surfaces or bioswales to reduce unnecessary runoff; • Required use of high efficiency, xeriscape irrigation systems to reduce the amount of water devoted to landscaped areas; • Includes bubbler irrigation and low-angle, low-flow nozzles on sprayheads; o Required installation of properly programmed EvapoTranspiration-based controllers on 134 M68I-00 1062350.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations homeowners' properties with the appropriate information for the homeowners; • Required installation of motion sensors and other similar irrigation technology to ensure that landscaping is watered only as needed; • Required planting of plant species that are drought tolerant,heat resistant, and hardy; • Prohibition of the use of large turf areas in landscaping by substituting water-conserving native groundcovers or perennial grasses, shrubs, and trees; • Recommended construction of trails with pervious materials such as earth or decomposed granite; • Required grouping of plants with similar water requirements together, a technique known as hydrozoning; • Recommended mulching of planting beds and apply c compost and environmentally friendly fertilizers to u°i promote healthy topsoil, maximize plant growth, reduce plant replacement, and reduce the need for N longer or more frequent irrigation run times. u OThe following practices are recommended for o buildings: Z w • Required installation of water-efficient faucets = and appliances in residences; a • Required installation of sensor-operated faucets F in nonresidential buildings; a • Recommended use of toilets that use less than d 1.6 gallons per flush, waterless urinals in E nonresidential buildings, and faucets and showerheads that use less than 2.5 gallons per a minute. The implementation of these practices would help to reduce the amount of water by reducing the water used by each residence and through controlling water loss in public areas by using water-smart landscaping and reclamation techniques. (EIR at 5.15-18). In sum, the required funding by the Applicant of the Phase II Verdemont infrastructure improvements prior to issuance O of occupancy permits, as required by Mitigation Measure 15-1, will reduce impacts in this area to less than significant. 135 MMI-000--105]350.1 6.B.n Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 9. Forest Resources. a. Loss of Forest Land. Potential Significant Impact: The EIR evaluated and concluded that development of the Project would result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use; or involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of forest land to non- forest use. Finding: Impacts to Forest Resources are discussed in detail at Section 5.17 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that this impact is potentially significant, because the Project would remove 220 native trees, requiring replacement of trees per the City's tree ordinance. However, these impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level through implementation of Mitigation E Measure 3-13 for Biological Resources, as described above. This mitigation N measure is adopted and incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, and will be implemented as specified therein, N thereby reducing this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level: U O Facts in Support of the Finding: Implementation of the Project would involve the removal of approximately 2,400 trees within the development footprint. Approximately 220 of these are native species w and 2,170 are eucalyptus. (EIR at 5.17-5). The areas of = Cable Creek, Cable Canyon, and Meyer Creek contain the a majority of native trees and are considered forest land. r (EIR Table 5.3-3). However, the Project would be required a to comply with the City's Tree Ordinance, which would require replacement of any removed native trees. (EIR at E 5.17-5). Native species of trees within this affected area R would have the potential to be impacted by development .2 from direct removal of forest resources and indirectly from forest resources removed as a result of fuel modification activities. Areas within Fuel Modification Zone B would require removal of all undesirable plant species,while areas within Zone A would require a 50 percent thinning of native species. (EIR at 5.17-6). The City's Tree Ordinance requires that "significant" trees be mitigated. In determining what constitutes a significant tree, the initial arborist report prepared for the Project determined that healthy, structurally sound native and ornamental trees over 20 feet in height would be considered significant. (Id.). Approximately 220 trees on the site met these criteria during the 1998 tree inventory. Thus the removal of these 136 M681-000-I062350.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations trees during Project development would be considered a potentially significant impact and thus subject to the requirements of the City's Tree Ordinance. To ensure that removed native trees are adequately replaced and to comply with the City's Tree Ordinance, impacts to forest resources are considered potentially significant without incorporation of Mitigation Measure 3-13. (Id.). Eucalyptus trees present a particular problem for this site because they are nonnative and a severe fire hazard. (Id.). Eucalyptus can also be considered an invasive species. They were formerly included on List A of invasive species by the California Exotic Pest Plant Council (CalEPPC). List A of the Exotic Pest Plants of Greatest Ecological N Concern in California consists of the most invasive F wildland pest plants, documented as aggressive invaders w that displace natives and disrupt natural habitats. The list `- highlights the nonnative plants that are serious problems in v°i wildlands such as national forests. (Id.). The Project site shares its northern border with the San Bernardino National N Forests and the eucalyptus trees are a potential threat to U native plant communities in the national forest. The 1999 0 CaIEPPC exotic pest plant list was updated by the California Invasive Plant Council in 2006, and the status of co blue gum eucalyptus changed to "moderate." The USDA w Forest Service identifies the blue gum eucalyptus as highly = flammable and recommends the tree not be planted near a homes and other structures. (Id.). Lastly, Section 12220(g) r of the PRC defines "forest land" as land that can support 10 a percent native tree cover of any species, including v hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for L management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water a quality, recreation, and other public benefits. (EIR at 5.17- 7). The land where the eucalyptus trees are currently located cannot be identified as forest land because it cannot and has not supported 10 percent native tree cover. Furthermore, Section 4793(f) of the PRC defines "forest land conservation measures" as measures designed to protect, maintain, or enhance the forest resource system, including soil and watershed values, diversity of forest species, and protection of a forest stand from fire. (Id.). These measures include thinning, shaded fuel breaks, and other land treatments or forest resource improvement projects consistent with PRC Section 4794. Based on these considerations, the removal of the eucalyptus from the 137 M681-000-1062350.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Project site can be considered an overall benefit in protecting the adjacent native forest stands from fire and in maintaining a diversity of native species; therefore, it is a less than significant impact to forest resources. With incorporation of Mitigation Measure 3-13, impacts to native trees will also be less than significant. C. Impacts Analyzed in the EIR and Determined to be Significant and Unavoidable. With the implementation of all available and feasible mitigation measures recommended in the EIR, the following adverse impacts of the Project stated below are considered to be significant and unavoidable,based upon information in the EIR and in the administrative record. These impacts are considered significant and unavoidable despite the imposed mitigation y measures,which will reduce impacts to the extent feasible. M rn 1. Air Quality. CL a. Conflict With Air Quality Plan-Construction. N Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR concluded that the Project will conflict with or obstruct implementation of the SCAQMD Air Quality U 0 Management Plan ("AQMP") because construction-related w air pollutant emissions would exceed the SCAQMD regional and local emission thresholds. w Finding: Impacts related to Air Quality are discussed in detail in Section 5.2 of the Draft EIR. Mitigation measures applied for short-term construction activities of the a Project would lessen impacts from construction-related air pollutant emissions. However, based on the entire record, the City finds that this conflict with the SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan is potentially significant and cannot be E reduced to a less-than-significant level through implementation of mitigation s measures. Accordingly, the potential for the Project to conflict with or obstruct n implementation of the SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan remains a significant and unavoidable. The following mitigation measures will mitigate impacts to Air Quality to the extent feasible: 2-1 Ongoing during grading and construction, the construction contractor shall implement the following measures in addition to the existing requirements for fugitive dust control under South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403 to further reduce PMto and PM2.5 emissions. To assure compliance, the City shall verify that these measures have been implemented during normal construction site inspections: • During all grading activities, the construction contractor shall reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and watering as quickly as possible. This would achieve a minimum control efficiency for PM�o of 5 percent. 138 M6a1-0OD-1064350.1 Packet Pg. 613 6.B.n Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations • During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall sweep streets with Rule 1186—compliant, PM10-efficient vacuum units on a daily basis if silt is carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling. • During active debris removal and grading, the construction contractor shall suspend grading operations when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour. This would achieve an emissions control efficiency of 98 percent for PMto under worst-case wind conditions. • During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall maintain a minimum 24-inch freeboard on trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials and tarp materials with a fabric cover or other suitable means. This would achieve a control efficiency for PMIo of 91 percent. Mn • During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall water exposed ground surfaces and disturbed areas a minimum of every three hours on the a construction site and a minimum of three times per day. This would achieve an 1!? emissions reduction control eff ciency for PMIo of 61 percent. N N • During active debris removal, the construction contractor shall apply water to 0 Q disturbed soils at the end of each day. This would achieve an emissions control eff ciency for PMIo of 10 percent. o, Z Z • During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall limit onsite LU vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to no more than 15 miles per hour. This would achieve a control efficiency for PMIo of 57 percent. F • The construction contractor shall apply chemical soil stabilizers to reduce wind erosion. This would achieve a control efficiency of up to 80 percent. L 2-2 During all grading activities, the daily area disturbed shall be limited to a maximum of 1° 35 acres. 2-3 Ongoing during grading and construction, the construction contractor shall implement the following measures to further reduce construction exhaust emissions of NOx. To assure compliance, the City shall verify that these measures have been implemented during normal construction site inspections: • The Project Applicant shall specify in the construction bid that construction contractors are required to use construction equipment rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as having Tier 3 or higher exhaust emission limits for equipment over 50 horsepower. A list of construction equipment by type and model year shall be maintained by the construction contractor onsite. 139 M661-W--1062360.1 i Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations • The construction contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment is properly serviced and maintained to the manufacturer's standards to reduce operational emissions. • The construction contractor shall limit nonessential idling of construction equipment to no more than five consecutive minutes. Facts in Support of the Finding: There are two key indicators of a project's consistency with an AQMP: 1) Whether the project would result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of the AAQS or interim emission reductions in the AQMP; and 2) Whether the project would exceed the assumptions in the AQMP. The AQMP strategy y is, in part, based on projections from local general plans. F (EIR at 5.2-12). Long-term emissions from the Project would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for regional a emissions (EIR Table 5.2-8) and would therefore not contribute to an increase in frequency or severity of air N quality violations and delay attainment of the AAQS or interim emission reductions in the AQMP. Therefore, the Project's operation-related emissions result in a less than o CIO significant air quality impact. Thus, the Project would be consistent with the AQMP under the first indicator with z regard to long-term emissions. (Id.). However, with respect LU to short-term emissions, this Project would not be = consistent with the AQMP under the first indicator, because a short-term construction emissions of NOx, PM10, and PM z.s associated with the project would exceed the SCAQMD a regional and localized significance thresholds, which are d the basis for determining if a project would cumulatively L { contribute to the regional nonattainment designations of the a South Coast Air Basin. (See EIR Table 5.2-7). The South ',. Coast Air Basin is designated by the state and EPA as nonattainment for 03, PM10, and PM2.5. (EIR at 5.2-12). The Project would be considered consistent with the j AQMP under the second indicator, because the proposed development under the Spring Trails Specific Plan is consistent with the City of San Bernardino General Plan, I and thus would not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP, ? which is based in part, on local general plan projections. (EIR at 5.2-14). However, since both indicators would not be met, both Project and cumulative level impacts are considered significant and unavoidable, due to the Project's V inconsistency with the AQMP. i 140 M661-WO--1062350.1 1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations b. Cumulatively Considerable Increase of Criteria Pollutant- Construction. Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR concluded that the Project's construction activities will result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the Project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. Finding: Impacts related to Air Quality are discussed in detail in Section 5.2 of the Draft EIR. Specifically, the Project will generate short-term emissions that exceed SCAQMD's regional significance thresholds for NOx, PM10, and PM2.5, and would significantly contribute to the nonattainment designations of the South Coast Air Basin for ozone and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). Fugitive dust mitigation measures applied for short-term construction activities of the Project would lessen impacts from construction-related air pollutant emissions. However, based on the entire record, the City finds that this impact cannot be reduced to a L less-than-significant level through implementation of mitigation measures. Accordingly, the potential for the Project to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the Project region is non-attainment N remains significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measures 2-1 to 2-3 (listed above) will mitigate Air Quality impacts related to criteria pollutants to the extent p feasible. Facts in Support of the Finding: Construction activities produce combustion emissions from w various sources, such as onsite heavy-duty construction = vehicles, vehicles hauling materials to and from the site, a and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew. < Grading activities produce fugitive dust emissions (PM10 a and PM2.5) from soil-disturbing activities. (EIR at 5.2-15). Exhaust emissions from construction activities onsite E would vary daily as construction activity levels change. Construction activities associated with new development a occurring in the Project area would temporarily increase localized PM10, PM2.5, VOC, NOx, and CO concentrations in the Project vicinity and regional emissions within the South Coast Air Basin. (Id.). The primary source of construction-related CO, SOx, VOC, and NOx emissions is gasoline- and diesel-powered heavy-duty mobile construction equipment. Primary sources of PMto and PM2.5 emissions would be clearing activities, excavation and grading operations, construction vehicle traffic on unpaved ground, and wind blowing over exposed earth surfaces. In addition, architectural coating operations can also generate substantial VOC emissions. Project-related construction air pollutant emissions would occur from 141 M681-000-1062350.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations C' construction of the Project. Emissions from construction activities were calculated on a daily basis and were compared to the SCAQMD's maximum daily regional emissions thresholds, which revealed that grading activities would result in air pollutant emissions that exceed the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds for NOx, PMIo, and PMz.s. (EIR Table 5.2-7). All other analyzed pollutants were found to be less than the SCAQMD's significance thresholds. The primary source of NOx emissions would be from construction equipment exhaust during grading operations. NOx is a precursor to both the formation of 03 and particulate matter (PMIo and PM2.5)- The primary sources of PMIo and PMzs would be fugitive dust during grading and clearing during these operations. Emissions of PMIo and PMz_s that exceed the SCAQMD's F regional significance threshold would significantly contribute to the particulate matter (PMIo and PM2.5) nonattainment designations of the South Coast Air Basin. (n Consequently, emissions of NOx, PMIo, and PMz.s that exceed the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds N would significantly contribute to the 03 and particulate L) matter (PMIo and PMz.$) nonattainment designations of the o C South Coast Air Basin. (EIR at 5.2-15). Both Project and co cumulative level impacts would be significant relative to the Project's consistency with the SCAQMD's regional w significance thresholds for NOx, PMIO, and PMz,s, and the = Project's contribution to the nonattainment designations of a the South Coast Air Basin for ozone and particulate matter F (PMIo and PMzs)• Mitigation Measures 2-1 and 2-2 would reduce PMIo and PMz,s emissions from Project-related construction activities to below the SCAQMD regional thresholds. Similarly, a Mitigation Measure 2-3 would reduce NOx emissions during construction activities by approximately 31 percent or approximately 149 pounds per day. (EIR at 5.2-30). However, NOx emissions from Project-related construction activities would continue to exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds. (EIR Table 5.2-13). Consequently, Project and cumulative level impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. C 142 M681-000-1062350.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations C. Exposure of Sensitive Receptors-Construction. Potential Significant Impact: The EIR concluded that the Project's construction activities will expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Finding: Impacts related to Air Quality are discussed in detail in Section 5.2 of the Draft EIR. Specifically, the Project's construction activities could expose offsite sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations of PM10 and could expose the existing onsite receptor to substantial pollutant concentrations of both PMIO and PM2,5.Based on the entire record, the City finds that this impact cannot be reduced to a less-than-significant level through implementation of mitigation measures. Accordingly, the potential for the Project's construction activities to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations remains significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measures 2-1 to 2-3 (listed above) will reduce the concentration of air N pollutants at nearby sensitive land uses to the extent feasible. m Facts in Support of the Finding: Project emissions would exceed the screening level criteria for LSTs of NOx, PM10 and PM2.5 during Project-related grading activities. (EIR Table 5.2-9). The maximum emissions of CO from Project-related construction N activities would not exceed the LST screening level criterion, and would therefore not result in substantial CO 0 pollutant concentrations at nearby sensitive receptors. (EIR at 5.2-16). z Because emissions of NOX, PMIO, and PM2.5 would exceed the LST screening level criteria for a five-acre site during a grading operations, concentrations generated by Project- r related construction activities during grading were modeled at nearby sensitive receptors surrounding the site. (EIR at 5.2-17). The maximum concentrations for NOx, PMIO, and E PM2.5 would occur during the overlap of mass grading and z trenching operations. (See EIR Figures 5.2-1 through 5.2- a 3). The highest concentration of NOx offsite is 120 •g/m3. (EIR Figure 5.2-1). However, the offsite areas that would be exposed to this concentration level do not have any sensitive receptors. (EIR at 5.2-18). This concentration, when converted to parts per million (ppm), would result in a concentration level of approximately 0.1 ppm. At the highest concentration, construction-related emissions of NOx would not exceed the LST of 0.18 ppm. Additionally, areas with elevated NOx concentrations would occur primarily in the southern portion of the Project site and therefore the existing onsite residence would not be exposed to elevated levels of NOx. Therefore, Project- related construction activities would not expose off- and 143 M68]-000-1062750.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations onsite sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations of NOx. (Id.). The concentration of PM2.5 would be below the LSTs at the surrounding offsite receptors,but would exceed the LSTs at the existing onsite receptor. (EIR Figure 5.2-3). In addition, construction activities would generate substantial concentrations of PMIo at the existing onsite residence and the surrounding offsite receptors. (EIR Figure 5.2-2). Consequently, the Project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of PMIo and PM2.5 during grading activities, with Project level impacts being potentially significant. N Mitigation Measures 2-1 through 2-3 would reduce regional construction emissions and therefore reduce localized concentrations of air pollutant emissions during construction activities. With the implementation of /n mitigation, construction emissions of NOX would be reduced to below the LST screening level criteria; however, N PMIo and PM2.5 would continue to exceed the LST screening level criteria. (EIR Table 5.2-14). p Implementation of Mitigation Measures 2-1 and 2-2 would reduce the concentration of PMIo and PM2.5 at the existing sensitive receptors. (EIR Figures 5.2-4 and 5.2-5). The w concentration of PM2.5 would fall below the AAQS, and = therefore localized air quality impacts from construction- related PM2.5 would be reduced to less than significant. The concentration of PMIo would also be reduced to below the AAQS at the offsite receptors. However, concentrations of PMIo would continue to exceed the AAQS at the existing t onsite receptor. Consequently, even with incorporation of mitigation measures, PMIo generated during grading activities would continue to exceed the AAQS, and therefore generate substantial concentrations of air pollutants at sensitive receptors, resulting in a significant and unavoidable Project-level impact for PMIo• d. Cumulative Impacts-Construction. Potential Significant Impact: The EIR concluded that the Project's contribution to cumulative construction-related air quality impacts would be significant. ( Finding: Impacts related to Air Quality are discussed in detail in Section 5.2 of the Draft EIR. �✓ Specifically, the Project's contribution to cumulative construction-related air quality impacts 144 M691-000--1062350.1 6.B.n Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations would be significant. Based on the entire record, the City finds that this impact cannot be reduced to a less-than-significant level through implementation of mitigation measures. Accordingly, the potential for the Project to contribute to cumulative construction-related air quality impacts remains significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measures 2-1 to 2-3 (listed above) will reduce the concentration of air pollutants at nearby sensitive land uses to the extent feasible. Facts in Support of the Finding: The South Coast Air Basin is in nonattainment for 03 and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). (EIR at 5.2-27). Construction of cumulative Projects will further degrade the regional and local air quality. Air quality will be temporarily impacted during construction activities. Mitigation Measures 2-1 to 2-3 would assist in mitigating these cumulative impacts, and can be applied to all similar cumulative projects. However, even with the implementation of mitigation measures, Project-related e construction emissions would still exceed the SCAQMD c significance thresholds for NOx, PM10 and PM2.5, and w cumulative emissions would result in greater exceedances. Therefore, the Project's contribution to cumulative N construction-related air quality impacts will remain significant and unavoidable. (1d.). o 2. Noise. F Z w a. Substantial Temrooraa or Periodic Increase in Ambient Noise. x U Significant Unavoidable Impact: The EIR concluded that the Project will cause a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in a the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project. E J_ Finding: Impacts related to Noise are discussed in detail in Section 5.10 of the Draft EIR. Mitigation measures applied for construction activities of the Project would lessen noise impacts. c However, based on the entire record, the City finds that construction activities will substantially elevate the ambient noise environment at noise-sensitive uses for a substantial period of time, and cannot be reduced to a less-than-significant level through implementation of mitigation measures. Accordingly, the potential for the Project to cause a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project remains significant and unavoidable. The following mitigation measures will mitigate construction noise impacts to the extent feasible: 10-1 The construction contractor shall properly maintain and tune all construction equipment Cto minimize noise emissions. 145 M681-000-I062350.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 10-2 The construction contractor shall fit all equipment with properly operating mufflers, air intake silencers, and engine shrouds no less effective than as originally equipped by the manufacturer. 10-3 The construction contractor shall locate all stationary noise sources (e.g., generators, compressors, staging areas) as far from offsite residential receptor locations as is feasible. 10-4 Construction activities, including haul trucks and deliveries, shall be limited to between 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM Monday through Saturdays, except on federal holidays. 10-5 The project applicant shall post a sign, clearly visible onsite, with a contact name and telephone number of the project applicant's authorized representative to respond in the event of a noise complaint. 10-6 The construction contractor shall install temporary sound blankets at least six feet in height along the boundaries of the onsite residence. G Q /n Facts in Support of the Finding: Two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during construction: First, the transport of workers and movement N of materials to and from the site could incrementally � O increase noise levels along local access roads; and/or short- o Cr term noise impacts could occur during site preparation, grading, and/or physical construction. (EIR at 5.10-30). Mitigation Measures 10-1 through 10-6 would reduce noise w generated by construction activities to the extent feasible. _ However, due to the number of soil haul trips that would be a required, amount of heavy construction equipment needed, and duration of construction activities, this impact would a remain significant and unavoidable. (Id.). v E t The transport of workers and equipment to the construction site would incrementally increase noise levels along site a access roadways. Even though there would be a relatively high single-event noise exposure potential with passing trucks, the expected number of workers and trucks is small relative to the background traffic. Truck trips would be spread throughout the workday. (Id.). Therefore, these impacts are less than significant at noise receptors along the construction routes. However, the number of truck trips associated with soil haul operations would be high, and would increase the number of trucks on the local roadways during construction of the access roads due to amount of O soil that would be transported. While truck trips associated with soil haul operations would last for only a three-month period, as shown in the table, soil haul trips would 146 MNI-M--1062350.1 Packet Pg. 621 6.B.n Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations substantially increase the ambient noise environment along the roadway. (EIR Table 5.10-11). Consequently, truck trips associated with soil haul operations would result in significant noise impacts for the noise-sensitive uses along the roadway during grading activities. (EIR at 5.10-30). Onsite project-related construction noise would generate noise levels ranging from 45 dBA Leq to 91 dBA Leq at the surrounding noise-sensitive receptors and between 73 dBA Leq to 80 dBA Leq at the existing onsite residence. (EIR Table 5.10-12). Average noise levels would be lower than maximum noise levels, and would range from 38 dBA Leq to 70 dBA Leq at the nearby offsite noise-sensitive receptors and 53 dBA Leq to 60 dBA Leq at the existing onsite residence. (EIR Table 5.10-13). Roadway-related construction noise would generate noise levels ranging from 50 dBA Leq to 88 dBA Leq at the surrounding noise- _ sensitive receptors. (EIR Table 5.10-14). Average noise u°i levels of each construction phase would be lower than o maximum noise levels, and would range from 45 dBA Leq N to 65 dBA Leq at the nearby noise-sensitive receptors. (EIR Table 5.10-15). Construction activities would elevate 0 ambient noise levels during the daytime at the residences CO surrounding the Project site and the proposed access roadways. (EIR at 5.10-35). The City allows for noise w from construction activities, but limits it to the least noise- sensitive portions of the day. The Project would comply L) rQ with the City's Municipal Code, as specified in Section r 8.54.070. Construction activities would not occur in the a evening or late night hours when people are more sensitive to noise. (Id.). While maximum construction-generated r noise would substantially increase the ambient noise environment, average construction-generated noise levels a (i.e., noise levels that would be experienced by noise- sensitive receptors the majority of the time) would be much lower. Construction of the offsite portions of the access roads would last approximately three to six months; however, overall project-related construction activities would take approximately three years to complete. (Id.). Because of the extended duration of construction activities and intensity of noise produced from heavy construction equipment running continuously, project-related construction activities would result in significant noise /1 impacts at the surrounding existing residential uses. 147 M681-000-1062350.1 Packet Pg. 622 6.B.n Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 3. Traffic. a. Exceed Level of Service Standard. Significant Unavoidable Impact: The EIR concluded that the Project will exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. Finding: Impacts related to Traffic are discussed in detail in Section 5.14 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that Project-related trip generation in combination with existing and proposed cumulative development would result in designated roads and/or highways exceeding the San Bernardino Association of Governments' Congestion Management Plan ("CMP") service standards. No funding program is currently available for the proposed Caltrans/SANBAG I-215 and I-15 freeway mainline improvements, and no mitigation measures are available to reduce this impact. Accordingly, the potential for the Project to exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion E management agency for designated roads or highways remains significant and unavoidable. N Facts in Support of the Finding: The traffic analysis for Spring Trails was completed in N accordance with the definition of deficiency of the San Bernardino County CMP. (EIR at 5.1443). For freeway o facilities, the definition of deficiency is based on to maintaining a level of service standard of LOS E or better, except where an existing LOS F is already identified. There w are two roadways identified in the CMP that would be 2 impacted by project traffic: a 0 1-215 freeway a o I-15 freeway d E Four segments of these two freeways are expected to have s an LOS of F during morning peak hours with or without the Z Project in year 2035, and six segments are expected to have a an LOS of F during evening peak hours with or without the Project in year 2035. (EIR Table 5.14-5). All of these segments, except the northbound and southbound segments of I-15 between Sierra Avenue and Glen Helen Parkway, are included in the Caltrans improvement plans for the Devore interchange. (EIR at 5.14-43). With improvements, four of these freeway segments would operate at acceptable levels. However, the following freeway segments would continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS for year 2035 Cwith improvements: 148 M661- 0 --!061360.1 Packet Pg. 623 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Qo The I-215 freeway segment between Palm Avenue and Devore Road(northbound and southbound); • The I-215 freeway segment between Devore Road and I-15 (northbound) • The I-15 freeway segment between Glen Helen Parkway and Sierra Avenue (northbound and southbound); and • The I-15 freeway segment between I-215 and Glen Helen Parkway(northbound) (EIR Table 5.14-8). Spring Trails would generate traffic that would contribute to the unacceptable levels of service on these freeway segments. Additionally, mainline improvements to the I-15 and I-215 in the Project area are not included in a fee program at this time. (EIR at 5.1444). As a result these impacts are significant and unavoidable, and cannot be mitigated. c b. Cumulative Impacts. <n Significant Unavoidable Impact: The EIR concluded that the Project will result in N cumulatively significant traffic impacts. U O Finding: Impacts related to Traffic are discussed in detail in Section 5.14 of the Draft EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project will result in cumulatively significant F_ traffic impacts. No funding program is currently available for the proposed Caltrans/SANBAG I- w 215 and I-15 freeway mainline improvements which would mitigate this impact, which will = remain significant and unavoidable. a Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project would result in both Project-specific and a cumulative potentially significant traffic impacts. (EIR at d 5.1444). The local roadways would experience growth in E average daily trips as a result of not only this Project, but Q other growth in the area. Recommended intersection and a freeway segment improvements would improve cumulative traffic conditions based upon the East Valley Traffic Model and Project-specific projections. (Id.). However since some of these improvements are not funded at this time, cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable. 4. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. a. Generation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Significant Unavoidable Impact: The EIR concluded that the Project will generate greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions, either directly or 149 M661-000-1062350.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. Finding: Impacts related to GHG emissions are discussed in detail in Section 5.16 of the Draft EIR. Mitigation measures applied during both construction and operations of the Project would reduce GHG emissions to the extent feasible. However, based on the entire record, the City finds that Project-related GHG emissions would significantly cumulatively contribute to global climate change in California, and that this impact cannot be reduced to a less-than- significant level through implementation of mitigation measures. Accordingly, the potential for the Project to generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment remains significant and unavoidable. The following mitigation measures will mitigate impacts from GHG emissions to the extent feasible: Construction N 16-1 Applicants for new developments in Spring Trails shall submit evidence to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director that the project uses recycled materials for at least 5 percent of construction materials. Recycled materials may In include salvaged, reused, and recycled content materials. Recycled and/or salvaged building materials shall be shown on building plans submitted to the City. N 16-2 Applicants for new developments in Spring Trails shall submit evidence to the p Iv} satisfaction of the Development Services Director that the project uses 20 percent locally manufactured and produced building materials, which are defined as F materials manufactured or produced within 500 miles of the project. w 16-3 Prior to the issuance of building permits, applicants for Spring Trails shall prepare a a construction waste management plan to reduce construction debris and material by < diverting at least 50 percent of the total of all project-related nonhazardous construction and debris from landfills to recycling or reuse operations (based on the C&D requirements of Section 6-3.602 of the City of Ontario Municipal Code). The construction waste management plan shall identify the amount of construction debris z by type that would be generated and the maximum weight of each material type that =° can feasibly be diverted from landfills. 16-4 Applicants for new developments in Spring Trails shall submit evidence to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director that the project uses insulation with at least 75 percent recycled content, such as cellulose, newspaper, or recycled cotton. 16-5 Applicants for new development proposals in Spring Trails shall require the construction contractor to provide carpooling for workers to and from the work site on days that construction activities require 200 or more workers. These requirements shall be demonstrated to the Development Services Director prior to the issuance of grading permits and shall be noted on the grading plan cover sheet and discussed at all pregrade meetings. 150 M681-000--1062350.1 Packet Pg. 625 i 6.Bn Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Operation Energy Efficiency 16-6 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, residential development plans shall be required to demonstrate that the overall project exceeds 2008 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards (Ttle 24)for energy efficiency by 15 percent. Design strategies to meet this standard may include maximizing solar orientation for daylighting and passive heating/cooling, installing appropriate shading devices and landscaping, and utilizing natural ventilation. Other techniques include installing insulation (high R value) and radiant heat barriers, compact fluorescent and/or light emitting diode bulbs, low-e window glazing or double paned windows, energy-efficient appliances (e.g., Energy Star appliances), cool roofs, and cool pavement. 16-7 Applicants shall provide all homeowners with information regarding energy- efficiency rebate programs offered by utility providers and government agencies. F rn c Water Conservation and Efficiency Q 16-8 Applicants for new developments in Spring Trails shall submit evidence to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director that all toilets, urinals, sinks, N showers, and other water fixtures installed onsite shall be ultra-low-flow water fixtures that exceed the Uniform Plumbing Code. Examples are: 1.28 average gallons O per flush high efficiency toilets, 2 gallon per minute (gpm) efficient bathroom faucets, V) 2.2 gpm efficient kitchen faucets, and 2.2 gpm efficient shower heads. Z Z 16-9 Mulch planting beds and apply compost and environmentally friendly fertilizers to w promote healthy topsoil, maximize plant growth, and reduce plant replacement in the Spring Trails community parks and landscaping. This also reduces the need for F longer or more frequent irrigation run times. a Forest Resources s 3-12 Significant tree resources that are removed from the site during project development shall be replaced at a 1:1 ratio or at the exchange ratios specified below. Significant tree resources are defined as any native or nonnative ornamental tree--excluding species of the Eucalyptus genus—that is healthy, structurally sound, and over 20 feet in height. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a certified arborist shall conduct an inventory of all significant trees within the development footprint. This inventory shall be used to determine the number and types of significant trees that will be impacted and the subsequent replacement quantities. The number of replacement trees shall be, at a minimum, 220 trees. Should the aforementioned inventory determine that a greater number of significant trees will be impacted, then that quantity shall be used in determining replacement quantities. The following exchange ratios shall be used: 1) one 36-inch box tree is equivalent to one replacement tree; 2)five 15-gallon trees are equivalent to one replacement tree; 3) ten 5-gallon trees are equivalent to one replacement tree; and 4)fifteen one-gallon trees are equivalent to one replacement tree. { 151 M691-000--1062350.1 i _i 6.B.n Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations During the development of the project, the project applicant shall incorporate the recommendations as set forth in the project arborist report (Integrated Urban Forestry 1998). A certified arborist shall be retained at the developer's expense to oversee the implementation of these requirements and to specify other requirements as deemed appropriate. The measures to be followed include, but are not limited to, specified protocols for the following: 1) the removal of nonnative trees from the site; 2) the removal and transplantation, when feasible, of structurally sound and healthy native trees to other areas of the project site; 3) the installation of tree protection barriers on all trees to be preserved that are within the reach of vehicles and equipment; 4) tree protection training of construction personnel by a certified arborist; 5) irrigation of trees where the natural water supply is interrupted or diminished or where protected trees may require additional water to endure construction-induced stresses; 6) subsequent replacement of any trees that are damaged or have not survived transplantation and relocation; and 7) implementation of the tree replacement plan, as outlined in the first paragraph of this measure. This 2 measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Development Services c Director. CL N Facts in Support of the Finding: The proposed Project is not a regionally significant project pursuant to SCAG's Intergovernmental Review criteria and N the CEQA Guidelines. The development contemplated by the Spring Trails Specific Plan would contribute to global p climate change through direct emissions of GHG from onsite area sources, offsite energy production required for F onsite activities and water use, and vehicle trips generated w by the Project. (EIR at 5.16-10). Construction activities = would consume fuel and result in the generation of GHG a emissions. Construction of the Project is anticipated to commence year 2012, until the anticipated completion year a 2015. Construction-related GHG emissions would cease c upon completion of the construction phase of individual r development projects. Emissions from construction activities were calculated on an annual basis based on the construction phasing and equipment list provided by the applicant. (EIR Table 3-4). Construction emissions associated with the Project are amortized based on a 30- year project lifetime and included in the Project's GHG emissions inventory. (EIR Table 5.16-3). Fossil fuels used by construction equipment would generate GHG emissions. To reduce these, California has adopted a low carbon fuel standard. The low carbon fuel standard would reduce the carbon content of fuel of both gasoline and diesel fuel, j thereby reducing GHG emissions from fuel from ^ construction equipment by 10 percent. (EIR at 5.16-11). The standard went into effect in year 2010 and requires transportation fuel sold in California to have a 10 percent 152 M681-000-1062350.1 Packet Pg. 627 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations reduction in average carbon intensity by year 2020. The compliance path of the 10 percent reduction target would be incremental and would be "back-loaded"—that is, more reductions would be required in the last five years than the first five years. (Id.). Construction activities would commence after 2010 and would therefore incrementally benefit from this statewide GHG reduction requirement. However, due to the scale of the development activities associated with the Project, emissions would be potentially cumulatively significant without implementation of mitigation measures to reduce carbon emissions. (Id.). Approximately 220 native trees within the boundaries of the Project site meet the definition of forest resource. The loss of these forest resources would remove carbon sinks as the forest land is converted to new development associated m with the Spring Trails Specific Plan. (Id.). Trees and other a vegetation remove CO2 emissions through the In photosynthesis process by uptaking CO2 and emitting oxygen. The current inventory (2002-2004) in California shows forests as a carbon sink of 4.7 MM Tons of CO2e. However, carbon sequestration has declined since 1990 and o BAU for 2020 assumes no net emissions from forest co resources. (Id.). Loss of forest resources to development increases GHG emissions levels as less carbon is w sequestered (i.e., stored as plant material). Additionally, _ wildfires also contribute to GHG emissions. Removal of rQ the 220 native trees would result in a loss of forest F 1 resources and therefore a loss of potential carbon a sequestration. These trees are required to be replaced in accordance with the City's Municipal Code Section E 19.28.090. Mitigation Measure 5.3-11 requires that these trees are replaced at a 1:1 ratio (or at the exchange ratios a specified in the mitigation measure). Because the trees would be replaced, the carbon sequestration loss from these forest resources is considered nominal and no significant impact would occur; this sector is not included in the GHG emissions inventory. (EIR at 5.6-12). For the operations phase, the Project's GHG emissions are separated into emission sources for the applicable GHG emissions Sectors established by CARB. (Id.). Transportation Sector emissions are produced from vehicular travel to and from the Project site. Electricity Sector sources are indirect GHG emissions from the energy (purchased energy and energy from water use) that is 153 M681-000-10623511.1 Packet Pg. 628 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations produced offsite. Recycling and Waste Sector includes emissions associated with waste disposal generated by the Project. (Id.). Area sources (Commercial and Residential Sector emissions sources) are owned or controlled by the project (e.g., natural gas combustion, boilers, and furnaces) and produced onsite. The emissions estimates for the Project do not take into account the GHG emission reductions associated with changes to the Building and Energy Efficiency standards, California Appliance Energy Efficiency regulations, California Renewable Energy Portfolio standard, California low carbon-content fuel legislation, changes in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards (Pavley), and other early action measures in the Scoping Plan to reduce GHG emissions. (EIR Table 5.16-4). Hence, the emissions F inventory represents the project's BAU emission scenario. The largest source of emissions is from the Transportation a Sector. While development patterns can influence travel behavior and travel modes, these emissions are indirect sources of GHG, not directly controlled by applicants for N new development in the proposed Spring Trails Specific L) Plan. (EIIi at 5.6-12). Project-related Electricity Sector 0 emissions (water and purchased energy) represent the second largest proportion of emissions associated with the F project due to the anticipated average square footage of the w single-family dwellings units that would be developed on _ each lot. Average lot size would be approximately 27,337 a square feet (0.6 acre), with the largest lot at 13.9 acres and F the smallest lot at 10,800 square feet (0.2 acre). (Id.). These a two sectors are followed by area sources associated with the Commercial and Residential Sector and Recycling and L Waste. These direct sources of emissions can be controlled by new development by ensuring that structures are built a efficiently to reduce demand on energy use, that nonpotable/recycled water is used where available to reduce demand of potable water use, and that recycling is available onsite to decrease the amount of waste sent to landfills. (Id.). The Project would generate a net increase of approximately 9,748 MTons of GHG per year or 9.4 MTons per service population based on a net increase of 1,035 people. (EIR Table 5.16-4). There is currently no threshold adopted by SCAQMD for development projects that defines at which point GHG emissions generated by a project becomes significant. However, SCAQMD's Working Group for a 154 M681-000-1062350.1 Packet Pg. 629 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations CGHG Significance Threshold has proposed a threshold of 3,000 MTons. Consequently, the total increase in GHG emissions onsite from the Project is considered to be substantial in the absence of mitigation. In order to determine whether GHG emissions associated with the Project are significant, a consistency analysis with transportation and nontransportation GHG reduction strategies was conducted. (EIR at 5.16-13). Almost half of the increase in GHG emissions due to the Project is from transportation sources. The Project is inconsistent with several transportation strategies aimed at reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by incorporating mixed-use or locating within 1/2 mile of services and transit. y (EIR Table 5.16-5). Therefore, the Project's transportation sources are considered to substantially contribute to GHG emissions in California. The Project's non-transportation a sector GHG emissions would potentially significantly In contribute to the State's GHG emissions inventory. (EIR N Table 5.16-4). Even with implementation of mitigation, N this impact will remain significant and unavoidable. O [V, D. Additional Topics Required by CEQA. co m 1. Significant Irreversible Environmental Effects. w CEQA mandates that any significant irreversible environmental changes that would be v involved in the Project be addressed as part of the EIR process. (CEQA Guidelines 15126(c)). An impact would fall into this category if: the project would involve a large commitment of a nonrenewable resources; the primary and secondary impacts of the project would generally commit future generations to similar uses; the project involves uses in which irreversible damage E could result from any potential environmental incidents associated with the project; or the proposed consumption of resources is not justified. a In the case of the proposed Project, implementation would involve a long-term irreversible change to the existing environmental conditions, resulting in the following significant irreversible environmental effects: • Implementation of the Project would include construction activities that would entail the commitment of nonrenewable and/or slowly renewable energy resources, human resources, and natural resources such as lumber and other forest products, sand and gravel, asphalt, steel, copper, lead, other metals, and water. • An increased commitment of social services and public maintenance services (e.g., police, fire, schools, libraries, and sewer and water services) would also be required. The 155 M681-WO-1062350.1 Packet Pg. 630 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations energy and social service commitments would be long-term obligations in view of the low likelihood of returning the land to its original condition once it has been developed. • An increase in Project-related vehicle trips would accompany Project-related population growth. Over the long term, emissions associated with such vehicle trips would continue to contribute to the South Coast Air Basin's nonattainment designation for ozone (03) and particulate matter(PM2.5 and PM10). • Project-generated vehicle trips would increase emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) to levels that are above the California Air Resource Board thresholds for both buildout year 2013 and future year 2030. Vehicle-related GHG emissions would cause significant and unavoidable impacts. 2. Growth Inducing Impacts. ca CEQA requires a discussion of ways in which a project could be growth-inducing. The CEQA Guidelines, specifically Section 15126.2(d), identify a project as growth-inducing if it fosters economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing either directly cn (such as by proposing new homes and businesses, or indirectly (such as through extension of roads or other infrastructure) in the surrounding environment. Impacts related to growth N inducement would also be realized if a project provides infrastructure or service capacity which 0 accommodates growth beyond the levels currently permitted by local or regional plans and policies. hi general, growth induced by a project is considered a significant impact if it directly co or indirectly affects the ability of agencies to provide needed public services, or if it can be demonstrated that the potential growth significantly affects the environment in some other way. w The Spring Trails Project would be built in an area that presently does not have any a public infrastructure such as water and wastewater pipelines; onsite roads; or electrical, natural gas, or telecommunication utilities. The 304-unit residential development plan would require the Q expansion of these public infrastructure services. The surrounding community of Devore has limited infrastructure to support the expansion of these services. For example, the water and E wastewater infrastructure must be expanded in the community of Devore before it can be expanded to the Spring Trails site. Roadway improvements, electrical service, natural gas a service, and telecommunication systems must be expanded in the area connecting the project to existing development as well. The expansion of onsite infrastructure for Spring Trails would not itself induce growth in the area, since it would be used solely by residences in Spring Trails, but the expansion of infrastructure in the community of Devore may cause indirect growth, such as on the 26.4-acre County area being annexed with the Project site. Additional development in Devore could be supported by the expansion of infrastructure in this area, allowing for development that would not otherwise be supported. The expansion of infrastructure in Devore is being completed to serve the Spring Trails development and other development in the area, so the Project is not the ® sole reason for the expansion. However, the approval of the Spring Trails development would guarantee the completion of all required infrastructure improvements in the surrounding area and on the Project site, since these expansions are necessary for project operation. 156 M681-M-1062350.1 6.B.n Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations The 26.4-acre annexation area is in San Bernardino County and in the City of San Bernardino's unincorporated sphere of influence. The site is currently subject to County of San Bemardino's General Plan and Zoning Code. Under the County's General Plan, the northern portion of the 26.4-acre annexation area is designated as Rural Living (RL-5), which allows up to one dwelling unit per five acres, and the southern portion of the annexation area is designated as Single Residential (RS-1), which allows up to one dwelling unit per acre. Since the 26.4-acre annexation area is within the City of San Bernardino's SOI, the annexation area is currently prezoned by the City as Residential Estate (RE), allowing one dwelling unit per acre. Annexation into the City would allow some land owners within the 26.4-acre area to develop their property at densities greater than what is currently permitted under the County's General Plan. The public services that would serve the Spring Trails Project, including police, fire protection, school, and library services, would require varying degrees of expansion. The San y Bernardino City Fire Department and the San Bernardino County Fire Department would service CO the site during a fire emergency. The nearest City fire station (232) would increase its staffing levels from three to four to service the site. Any expansion of police services would be financed c through the law enforcement developer fees charged to the Project applicant. According to the rn San Bernardino Police Department, the Spring Trails Project would cause a slight increase in ro police service calls. N The Project is anticipated to generate 101 elementary school students, 52 middle school o students and 59 high school students,based upon the estimated population growth resulting from the additional residential units. (FEIR at pg. 3-22). The Project will be required to pay school impact fees to the San Bernardino City Unified School District pursuant to Education Code w Section 17620 and Government Code Section 65995 to offset the additional students entering the = District. Payment of fees to a school district, under Senate Bill 50, is considered full mitigation L) a for a project's impacts on public schools. (DEIR at 5.12-12). Furthermore, the nearest high school (Cajon High School) and the nearest middle school to the Project (Cesar Chavez Middle a School) have more than sufficient additional capacity for any new students generated by the r Project. It should be noted that the nearest high school (North Verdemont Elementary School) L has capacity for an additional 82 students. (DEIR at 5.12-11). a The Project will also be required to pay additional fees for library services. The Project will add an estimated 1,015 persons upon full build-out. (FEIR at3-23). A library system is considered adequate if the system can provide two volumes per persons. Because the library system is well established,with the additional population anticipated from the Project, the library would only be required to add an additional 26 items to remain adequate. The City's Library Facilities Fee of $596.63 per residential unit is sufficient to supply the additional items and maintain a less than significant impact on libraries (DEIR at 5.12-13). The fees that are required to be paid as part of the Project are sufficient to meet Project demands and any additional impacts that are placed on services, including the services of fire, police, library, and school facilities. The fees would be applied to all existing and future [♦/) development in the area and thus benefit not just the Project, but the overall community through 157 M661-000--1062350.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Cexpanded and increased services. The increase in services for the area may encourage other development in the area and act as an inducement to future growth. Spring Trails includes residential development that would provide housing for employees of the San Bernardino area. The City of San Bernardino is considered to be jobs-rich, with a projected jobs-to-housing balance of 2.00 in 2035 (without project). Jobs in the City of San Bernardino are expected to grow from 81,115 jobs in 2000 to 157,088 jobs in 2035. With the proposed Project, the jobs-to-housing balance would be 1.99 in 2035. This would create a more balanced jobs-to-housing ratio. The Project would not create a need for additional housing, nor would it create a demand for jobs. The approval of Spring Trails would require the approval of discretionary actions that may set precedents for future projects with similar characteristics. Spring Trails would require approval o£ A General Plan Amendment(GPA-02-09) to approve the annexation of the site and change the site's land use designation; a Development Code Amendment (DCA 12-10) to E recognize the Spring Trails Specific Plan as a Special Purpose District; a Specific Plan (SP 10- 01); a Tentative Tract Map (TTM 15576); and a Development Agreement with the City. The a approval of these actions change the existing restrictions on growth set by the general plan and In zoning laws, which may encourage growth of a similar manner in the areas surrounding Spring Trails or other undeveloped areas near or in the City of San Bernardino. N If additional development were allowed in the vicinity of the project, it would cause o additional environmental impacts. However, future projects would need to complete environmental review, and discretionary approval would need to be given to projects following ~ review by the Common Council. Spring Trails would not change the existing protocol for project w approval, and would not provide precedents or make it more likely for other projects to gain = approval of similar applications. a Based on the foregoing, the Project should not result in unforeseen nor unmitigable a growth-inducing impacts. E E. Proiect Alternatives. m Section 21100 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15126 of the State CEQA a Guidelines require an EIR to identify and discuss a No Project/No Development Alternative as well as a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed Project that would feasibly attain most of the basic Project objectives, and would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant environmental impacts. "CEQA recognizes that in determining whether and how a project should be approved, a public agency has an obligation to balance a variety of public objectives, including economic, environmental, and social factors and in particular the goal of providing a decent home and satisfying living environment for every Californian"(CEQA Guidelines, Section 15021(d)). The EIR analyzed the following four (4) alternatives to the Project as proposed, and evaluated these alternatives for their ability to meet the Project's objectives as described in 158 M681A -106]350.1 Packet Pg. 633 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations QSection II.D above. The No Project alternative is presented consistent with the requirements of the CEQA Guidelines §15126.6. The remaining alternatives were selected based on their ability to fulfill the basic Project Objectives and their capability for reducing significant impacts of the proposal. Alternatives selected for evaluation are described below. 1. No Project/No Development Alternative. For the purposes of the DEIR Alternatives Analysis, the No Project Alternative is considered to be equivalent to a "No Build" scenario. That is, if the Project or some similar development proposal is not implemented on the subject site, there are no other known or probable scenarios for the subject property, in which case the site would likely remain in its current state for the foreseeable future, and no discretionary approvals would be required. The No Project/No Development Alternative would preserve the existing physical N conditions of the Project site. It assumes there would be no development of any type nor would development occur under existing land use designation parameters. This alternative would preserve the site for open space and would preclude the development of the site under the City or County General Plan land use designations. The low-density residential development and Spring w Trails Specific Plan would not be implemented, and supporting infrastructure (i.e., roads and utility infrastructure) would not be built. With this alternative, the site would remain open for N future land use proposals. O U O The No Project/No Development Alternative would avoid impacts related to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards F (wind, hazardous materials), hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, public w services, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems. Compared to the proposed = Project, impacts would be similar for mineral resources. It would not reduce impacts to hazards a directly related to fire since the site would remain undeveloped. The groves of eucalyptus trees represent a high fire hazard for the site. This project would not extend water improvements to the a project site that would benefit firefighting for the site and also benefit surrounding residences. Overall, this alternative would reduce environmental impacts relative to the proposed Project and t would reduce the following significant impacts of the proposed Project to less than significant: R a • Air Quality (construction-related pollutant emissions) • Greenhouse Gas Emissions(traffic-related greenhouse gas emissions) • Noise(construction-related noise near sensitive receptors) • Transportation and Traffic (project's contribution to CMP freeway segment unacceptable level of service) The No Project/No Development Alternative would not achieve the Project Objective of developing the Site as envisioned by the City's 2005 General Plan (Objective 1). The site is designated for residential development and is included in the City's General Plan Housing Element. The City has a limited base of available high-quality, low density residential development based upon a review of the MLS listings for the City as well as under General Plan designation areas for low density residential development. Such high-quality, low density housing is desirable to attract and retain top quality candidates for positions at the University and 159 MUI-M-1062150.1 Packet Pg. 634 6.B.n Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations other institutions. According to the City of San Bernardino Housing Element Adopted June 20, 2011, approximately one-third of the City's housing stock is between 30 and 49 years old, with an additional 35.3 percent over 50 years old. (Pages 3-25 and 3-26). Only 2,720 housing units were constructed between the years of 2000-2005, during the height of the housing boom. (Housing Element Adopted June 20, 2011, Table H-12). The household composition of the City shows that 82% of the City's households are moderate to very-low income, while only 18% are above moderate income. (Id. Chart 4, pg. 3-17). There are few other proposed single-family residential developments within the City at this time and thus the proposed Project will fill a residential need within the City as is envisioned within the City's General Plan. Such a need is identified generally in Housing Element policy 3.1.1, which states: "Provide adequate sites to accommodate the production of a variety of housing types through land use designation, zoning, specific plans, and overlay districts." The Verdemont Heights Area Plan, found on page 2-75 of the General Plan Land Use Element and in which this Project site is located, further discusses strategy to meet the Housing Element policy 3.1.1, indentifying in strategy 4 on page 2-83 to "Promote the development of higher end housing." rn Nor would the alternative provide any of the amenities of the proposed Project, and thus Q would not be able to meet Objectives 2, 3, 4 and 5. Housing Element policy 3.1.1 further U) encourages the development of a variety of housing, including high-quality, low-density housing, stating: "Provide adequate sites to accommodate the production of a variety of housing types N through land use designation, zoning, specific plans, and overlay districts." City does not have a 0 large variety of high-quality, low-density housing and the proposed project would provide additional variety as anticipated in the Housing Element Policy 3.1.1. The Verdemont Heights Area Plan, found on page 2-75 of the General Plan Land Use Element and in which this Project F site is located, further discusses strategy to meet the Housing Element policy 3.1.1, indentifying w in strategy 4 on page 2-83 to "Promote the development of higher end housing." _ U a In addition, the site in its current state does not provide access for community recreational uses and does not provide access to hiking or equestrian trails, despite its proximity to the San a Bernardino National Forest. The Proposed Project provides additional recreational opportunities for the community, such as public and private parks, equestrian trails, and hiking trails. E Project Objectives 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8 would be met under the No Project/No Development a Alternative. Although the No Project/No Development Alternative would not include the construction of roadways, it would not interfere with the existing roadway system in the area and would essentially meet Objective 2 because it would not interfere with the surrounding community. The No Project/No Development Alternative would be consistent with land use policies of the surrounding San Bernardino National Forest (Objective 5). Since the Project site would be undeveloped, it would not be required to meet land use development policies of the SBNF, and it would be consistent with SBNF land use plans. Since the No Project/No Development Alternative precludes development of the site, it would not create a development footprint and would maintain open space, allowing it to meet Objective 6. Objective 7 would also be met, because the No Project/No Development Alternative would avoid all significant environmental impacts of construction and long-term improvements of the proposed Project. 160 M681�000-1062350.1 Packet Pg. 635 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Finding: Based on the entire record, the City finds that the No Project/No Development Alternative would not fully meet the basic Project Objectives. Accordingly, the City rejects the No Project/No Development Alternative. 2. No Project/Existing County General Plan Alternative. Under the No Project/Existing County General Plan Alternative, the Project site would not be annexed to the City of San Bernardino, and it would be developed in accordance with the land use designations and related overlay constraints included in the County of San Bernardino General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The general plan (2007) designates the southern portion of the project site (approximately 190.6 acres) as Residential Estate (RL-5), with a minimum lot size of five acres, and the northern portion (approximately 160 acres) as private unincorporated land in the San Bernardino National Forest. The 26.4-acre area to be annexed with the Project site (though not part of the proposed co site plan) would be designated RS-1, with a minimum lot size of one acre. However, since the Existing County General Plan Alternative would not involve annexation to the City, the 26.4- acre area would not become a county island, and is therefore not considered part of this Project alternative. N Site grading and home construction would be limited to the RL-5 portion of the site (the N approximately 190.6-acre southern half). With a minimum lot size of five acres, a maximum of o 38 homes could be developed, resulting in a gross density of 0.20 units/acres for the 190.6 acres. Earthwork would be substantially reduced for this alternative. Only a portion of each five-acre lot for each residential unit developed under the County General Plan would be graded. The size w of the graded area would depend on the individual house size and amount of driveway/access road needed to serve the house. a This alternative assumes that primary access would be provided from the existing Meyers a Road, and secondary or emergency access could be provided by Martin Ranch Road. The development of new roads would not be required to provide access to the 38 homes. E Development would most likely be concentrated within the area of fewest constraints, primarily the area characterized with slopes less than 15 percent. The No Project/Existing County General Plan Alternative would comply with County development restrictions, including zoning overlay areas for Fire Safety, Geological Hazards, and Open Space. According to the San Bernardino County Hazards Overlay Map, the southern portion of the project site is within Fire Safety Area 3 (FS3), which covers areas generally south of FS 1 (the northern portion of the site, which is within the San Bernardino National Forest) and areas within the wildland-urban interface. As outlined in Section 82.13.030, "Fire Safety Areas," of the San Bernardino County Municipal Code, FS1 includes areas in the mountains and valley foothills. It includes all the land generally within the San Bernardino National Forest boundary and is characterized by areas with moderate and steep terrain and moderate to heavy fuel loading, contributing to high fire hazard conditions. FS3 includes lands just to the south of the mountain FS area. These lands are primarily within the wildland-urban interface of the Valley Region and consist of varying terrain, from relatively flat to steeply sloping hillside areas. Development in 161 M681-000-IM2350A 6.B.n Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations FS3 is prone to wildfire primarily because of its proximity to FS1 zones. FS3 areas are also subject to Santa Ana wind conditions that have the potential to dramatically spread wildland fires. The Geological Hazards Overlay Zone map also shows the site in landslide and earthquake fault zones. The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would reduce impacts related to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards, hydrology and water quality, noise, public services, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems (solid waste and wastewater). Compared to the proposed Project, impacts would be similar, although slightly reduced, for land use and planning, mineral resources, and population and housing. Utility and service impacts directly related to population- based demand factors (water supply, solid waste generation, and wastewater generation) would be substantially reduced for this alternative in comparison to the proposed Project. The infrastructure to serve the project site under the No Project/Existing County General Plan _Z;� Alternative would not be guaranteed, however, as the City would not have jurisdiction over the 2 site. The 38 units under this alternative, however, would be unlikely able to amortize the major infrastructure upgrades—particularly for domestic water delivery and storage—that would be c required to adequately provide water and fire flow requirements to the Project. (DEIR 7.5.18, W page 7-17). N N Similarly, it would not provide the benefit to other area residents associated with these improvements under the proposed Project. Overall, this alternative would reduce environmental o impacts relative to the proposed Project and would reduce the following significant impacts of the proposed Project to less than significant: Z w • Air Quality(construction-related pollutant emissions) _ • Greenhouse Gas Emissions (traffic-related greenhouse gas emissions) a • Transportation and Traffic (project's contribution to CW freeway segment unacceptable level of service) a c a+ The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative, the City could not ensure that the Project s would achieve Objective 1 as it would have no control or oversight over the development of the lots. The Project site is located within the City's sphere of influence and is designated in the a City's 2005 General Plan as Residential Estates that entail lots of 1 acre per residence. If the site is constructed under the County General Plan, it would not be annexed to the City and would be consistent with the County land use designation consisting of 5 acre residential lots. A Specific Plan would not be required for the build-out of the 38 lots and therefore the design criteria and guidelines included in the Specific Plan setting forth strict guidelines to ensure "high quality design" (Specific Plan, page 4-1) would not be implemented as part of the Project. Nor would the landscaping, sidewalk and other criteria that are implemented as part of the Specific Plan to "integrate areas of development with open space areas in a manner that provides a natural transition between the two elements" (Id.)be required under the County Code. The Proposed Project includes 304 lots that will average one acre per lot throughout the development by clustering the lots and ensuring substantial open space is preserved. The extent to which the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative could achieve Objectives Nos. 2, 3 162 M6H1-000-1062350.1 Packet Pg. 637 6.B.n Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations and 4 would be largely dependent on the potential financial return on 38 homes and the ability to fund amenities (including hiking, equestrian, and bicycles trails) and required infrastructure to assure a high quality development. The additional requirements for parks found within the City's Code would not be required, and hiking, equestrian and bicycle trails would not be required under the County's General Plan and thus may not be considered as part of the overall development. The cost to construct Project access roadways, site grading, and infrastructure and building construction would be partially financed through or balanced by the property sales on the Project site. It is uncertain whether Objective 8 could be achieved and a reasonable return on investment achieved. Since the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would have fewer residential units, the total construction and operation costs may not be offset by the property sales, and this Project Objective would not be met. The inclusion of fewer amenities would offset some of the cost for roadways,water, sewer, fire control and other required improvements for the Project, but would lessen the benefit of the Project to the surrounding community. Furthermore, the City would not benefit from the development through the collection of Development Impact Fees, rn Library Fees, and infrastructure improvements that would be paid under the proposed Project. `- Instead, the County would be the recipient of any such fees and the beneficiary of any property vei tax increases resulting from the improvements. It is also unlikely that Objective 2 could be achieved under the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative, because the description and N analysis above assumed that this alternative would be served by existing Project-area access roads. Access via Meyers Road is opposed by the surrounding community, and would be o perceived as not preserving the integrity of the Verdemont community. Project objective Nos. 4 through 7 could be achieved under the No Project/Existing General w Plan Alternative. Development would be avoided in the San Bernardino National Forest and = increase the buffer between forest-owned land and developed areas relative to the proposed a Project. It would maximize open space and would be designed to respect natural conditions, F including wildland fires, flooding, and seismic hazards (Objectives 5 and 6). Construction- Q related measures to mitigate noise and air quality impacts as well as long-term operational mitigation measures of the proposed Project could be assumed to also apply to this alternative, E thereby achieving Project Objective No. 7. L R Q Finding: Based on the entire record, the City finds that the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would not fully meet the basic Project Objectives. The City therefore rejects the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative. 3. Alternative Site Plan. A conceptual Alternative Site Plan was developed to evaluate the potential to modify the proposed Project to minimize or eliminate the significant impacts of the project (construction- related air quality and noise impacts). Since this alternative also reduces the number of housing units, it was also intended to reduce long-term operational, significant unavoidable greenhouse gas emission (GHG) impacts. The approach taken to reduce these impacts was to prepare a concept that would reduce the size of the area graded and the corresponding volume of 163 M681-000--1062350.1 Packet Pg. 638 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations earthwork. Based on the opportunity to reduce the development footprint, another objective of this alternative was to minimize other environmental impacts to the extent possible. This conceptual site design would have a total onsite development footprint of 137.6 acres (123.8 graded acres and 13.8 acres of fuel modification area), a reduction of 43 percent from the proposed Project's onsite development area of 241.5 acres. Assuming the same development density as the proposed Project (1.27 du/ac), this alternative would yield 175 single-family homes. This results in a slightly greater percentage of a 46% overall reduction in the number of houses. Onsite circulation would remain essentially the same, with the exception of some road adjustments on the western portion of the site and the removal of one of two roads that connect the northern quarter of the site with the reservoir tank. Project access would remain the same as with the proposed project. The primary access road would enter the site on the southeast as an extension of Verdemont Drive, and the secondary access road would enter the site from the southwest and connect to the frontage road along I-215. C L The Alternative Site Plan would reduce, but not eliminate the short-term air quality and w noise impacts. It would have similar greenhouse gas emission impacts as the proposed Project, LO and would be inconsistent with the transportation strategies of reducing VMT. Cultural N Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, and L) Population and Housing impacts would also be similar. All other impacts (aesthetics, biological in resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, utilities and service systems, and forest resources) would be lessened � in comparison to the proposed Project. w x The Alternative Site Plan has the potential to attain most of the proposed Project's U a objectives, but would not fully realize the anticipated development of infrastructure and high- quality housing needs of the City. a d The 43% reduction in the number of units and reduction in overall project scope would L impact the ability to achieve Project objectives 2, 3 and 8 as the overall construction of m infrastructure and payment of fees would also be reduced by the same approximate percentage. a From the economic standpoint of the City, the proposed Project, as opposed to the alternative, will pay substantial fees that will benefit the City, including Development Impact Fees, School Fees, Library Fees permitting fees, public services fees, and related development fees that provide additional benefit both to the community by increasing the funding and services available,but also to the City. For example, the Project will be required to pay additional fees to support police services in the amount of $183,506.18 and to pay library fees in the amount of $181,375.52, The Project provides additional property taxes that will also contribute to public services. These fees are outlined in the findings and further identified in the EIR. The Project will also provide the opportunity for construction jobs in the community for a substantial period of time,depending on how quickly the proposed Project is built out. The 43% reduction in units also makes it infeasible from the developer's standpoint to create an attractive, viable project and realize a reasonable return on investment as stated in 164 M681-W­1062350.1 Packet Pg. 639 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations CObjective 8. Although the overall fees that will be paid to the City will be reduced, the Project still requires substantial infrastructure costs in terms of utilities, fire suppression, and roadways, in addition to the amenities included in the overall Specific Plan. Under this Alternative,the cost per residence increases substantially with the reduction in the overall number of units, resulting in a 37% increase in cost per unit to construct while the potential sale price for each unit would remain steady. With fewer units, the cost to provide and construct infrastructure in addition to the proposed residential units would not be balanced by project revenues. The Project as proposed includes major infrastructure improvements, including the construction of two offsite access roads, extension of domestic water service and three water reservoirs, and extension of sewer service to the site. These infrastructure improvements are necessary in order to implement and adequately manage the wildfire managements plan and buffer areas, as well as to service the proposed residential units under both this Alternative as well as the proposed Project. Both the proposed Project and the Alternative Site Plan would also include and require costly mitigation programs, including a comprehensive tree replacement program. These costs are not reduced proportionately with the reduction of the number of units as the infrastructure is still necessary for the remaining development. The financial viability of this alternative is infeasible considering these costs. c CL rn Finding: Based on the entire record,the City finds that the Alternative Site Plan Alternative would not fully meet the basic Project Objectives. The City therefore rejects the N Alternative Site Plan Alternative. o 4. Reduced Daily Grading Alternative. Cr m F The Reduced Daily Grading Alternative was defined and evaluated for its potential to w reduce air quality impacts. The air quality impacts of the proposed project pertain to the emission = of NOX from construction activities at a local and regional level. The primary source of NOX a emissions is vehicle emissions, particularly heavy construction equipment. The Reduced Daily F Grading Alternative assumes that both the number of acres graded per day and the number of a construction vehicles onsite per day would be reduced by 75 percent. This would make the grading phase approximately four times as long as would be under the proposed Project. E The Reduced Daily Grading Alternative would grade the project site over a period of 12 a months rather than 3 months. The 12-month schedule would likely be extended even more due to rainy season interruptions. All of the listed equipment would be reduced from eight to two, with the exception of the water trucks. Site development after grading would be the same as the proposed Project, and other project characteristics would be the same. The total number of units built would be 304, and site access and circulation would be the same as under the proposed Project. The Reduced Daily Grading Alternative would substantially reduce construction-related air quality impacts. Daily NOx emissions would be reduced from 740 to 181 pounds per day,but would still exceed the significance threshold of 100 pounds per day. Impacts to noise and traffic o during construction would be worsened by the Reduced Daily Grading Alternative because of the extended construction period. Hydrology and water quality impacts would also be worse, because sediment runoff would increase during the longer construction period. Other 165 M6&1-000-1063350.1 Packet Pg. 640 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations construction-related impacts would be similar to the proposed Project, and long-term operational impacts would be the same as for the proposed Project. The Reduced Daily Grading Alternative would implement the same proposed site plan and Specific Plan as the proposed Project, and would attain most the proposed Project objectives. Extending the construction grading activities over a year, however, could jeopardize the economic viability of the Project and a reasonable return on investment for both the City and the developer (Objective 8). This Alternative would require a greater dedication of the City's resources to verify permit requirements for a longer period of time. The payment of development fees would also be extended as such fees would only be required as certain stages of development would be met. Furthermore, the number of jobs for construction workers would decrease. From the developer's standpoint, the length of time necessary to complete the grading would greatly exceed any cost savings as well as limit the number of jobs created as a result of the project build-out as the grading schedule, equipment mix, and workers included in the y proposed Project description are based on typical construction activities. The extended schedule 2 would likely result in costly inefficiencies. Under the mitigation requirements for the Project, timing of grading and construction affects the potential biological impacts resulting from the a project, as is identified in the EIR. In Where construction schedules must be drawn out, other phases must be delayed and the N potential for repeated studies and other requirements increases. This increases costs to both the 0 City and the developer as greater resources from both will be required, makes effective cr construction phasing and planning difficult, and the extended construction period would also co limit the Project's ability to minimize environmental impacts associated with construction of improvements (Objective 7). w x Finding: Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Reduced Daily Grading a Alternative would not fully meet the basic Project Objectives. The City therefore F rejects the Reduced Daily Grading Alternative. a C O) 5. Environmentally Superior Alternative. r Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires the identification of the c environmentally superior alternative. The No Project/No Development and the No Project/Existing General Plan alternatives would be the environmentally superior alternatives of the Project alternatives evaluated. The elimination or substantial reduction of units developed and natural area disturbed would reduce environmental impacts. Neither of these alternatives would result in any significant,unavoidable impacts. The State CEQA Guidelines also require the identification of another environmentally superior alternative if the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative. Of the remaining project alternatives, Alternative 3 —Alternative Site Plan Alternative is considered environmentally superior. QThe Alternative Site Plan Alternative would eliminate 129 lots and reduce site development by 43%. This would, in turn, reduce each of the significant, unavoidable impacts 166 M681-000--1062350.1 Packet Pg. 641 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations identified for the project as proposed, including short-tern, construction-related air quality and noise impacts and long-term greenhouse gas emission impacts. The overall reduction of the development footprint and anticipated reduction in earthwork quantities would reduce, but not eliminate the significant air quality and noise impacts. Although it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 43 percent, it would still emit a substantial amount of greenhouse gases and would have similar impacts. The Alternative Site Plan would be able to meet the majority of the project objectives. The Alternative Site Plan would also reduce a number of impacts, but not all, that were identified as potentially significant in this DEIR but have been reduced to less than significant. Specifically, the Alternative Site Plan would reduce aesthetic, biological, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, utilities, and forest resource impacts. However, the Alternative Site Plan Alternative is not financially feasible based upon the additional burden placed upon the Project to develop infrastrature, including water and sewer capacity, to provide protective measures, water towers, buffer zones and infrastructure for wildfire protection, and the y implementation of recreational and trail uses. The cost per residence increases substantially with the reduction in the overall number of units, resulting in a 37% increase in cost per unit to m construct while the potential sale price for each unit would remain steady. With fewer units, the a cost to provide and construct infrastructure in addition to the proposed residential units would vi not be balanced by project revenues. These features benefit the community as a whole and provide protection from fire, floods and landslides to existing residents. They add substantial cost to the project that the Alternative Site Plan Alternative does not support economically. U o F. Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City of San Bernardino adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations with w respect to the significant unavoidable impacts associated with adoption of the Project as = addressed in the EIR, specifically: a 1) Air Quality; a 2) Noise; 3) Traffic and Transportation; and E 4) Greenhouse Gas Emissions. This section of the findings specifically addresses the requirement of Section 15093 of a the CEQA Guidelines, which requires the lead agency to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable significant impacts, and to determine whether the impacts are acceptably overridden by the Project benefits. If the City finds that the previously stated major project benefits outweigh the unavoidable significant adverse environmental impacts noted above, the City may, nonetheless, approve the Project. Each of the separate benefits are hereby determined to be, in itself, and independent of other Project benefits, basis for overriding all unavoidable environmental impacts identified in the EIR and these findings. The City's findings set forth in the preceding sections identified all of the adverse environmental impacts and feasible mitigation measures which can reduce impacts to less than O significant levels where feasible, or to the lowest feasible levels where significant impacts remain. The findings have also analyzed three alternatives to determine whether there are 167 M681-000-1064350.1 6.B.n Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations reasonable or feasible alternatives to the proposed action, or whether they might reduce or eliminate the significant adverse impacts of the Project. The EIR presents evidence that implementing the development of the Project will cause significant adverse impacts which cannot be substantially mitigated to non-significant levels. These significant impacts have been outlined above, and the City makes the following finding: Finding: Having considered the unavoidable adverse impacts of the Project, the City hereby determines that all feasible mitigation has been adopted to reduce or avoid the potentially significant impacts identified in the EIR, and that no additional feasible mitigation is available to further reduce significant impacts. Further, the City finds that economic, social and other considerations of the Project related to provision of housing outweigh the unavoidable adverse impacts described above. The reason for accepting these remaining unmitigated impacts are described below. In making this finding, the City has balanced the benefits of the Project y against its unavoidable environmental impacts, and has indicated its willingness to accept those effects. The City further finds that the Project's benefits are substantial and override each unavoidable impact of the Project. These benefits include substantial infrastructure that the Project will directly and indirectly, through funding N N mechanisms, provide. These benefits include the following, which are laid out in greater detail in the findings: p • The water supply system for the area will be augmented to provide water to the new residents,but will also provide improved service to those w existing residents in the area currently on City water. • Three onsite reservoirs will be constructed to provide better service and a fire protection to the area. • Offsite improvements to the water supply system include a series of pump a stations and transmission lines within the Verdemont community. • Improved fuel modification zones will provide protection to both the r proposed community as well as to the existing structures in the area. • Project would be required to pay development impacts fees for law a enforcement, schools, library, fire, traffic and other related fees that will supplement the City's funds and provide the necessary public services to the Project. • Traffic improvements, including an additional westbound left turn lane at the intersection of Palm Avenue and Kendall Drive. In particular, the Project scope includes substantial infrastructure improvements for water storage and delivery systems that will not only serve the Project itself, but also benefit the larger community. The additional water storage and delivery systems will provide for more effective wildfire controls for existing residents as O well as the proposed Project given the additional safety and setback measures that are incorporated into the Project. The water infrastructure will also provide a source potable water for existing residents as well as a water source for 168 M691-000--1062350.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Cfirefighting personnel in the event of a wildfire. The Project components related to fire hazards and safety, including construction, buffer zones, and other features will also provide additional benefits to those residents already located in the area as a means of preventing the spread of any wildfires through the area. Storm drainage improvements will also provide additional benefits related to the existing flood and erosion conditions prevalent in the area. The area and existing residents have faced historical issues with flooding, landslides and wildfires which will be substantially improved with the implementation of the proposed Project. Funding mechanisms and impact fees that will be generated as part of the project will assist in roadway improvements and as well general fund contributions through property tax that can assist in funding necessary police, fire and safety services for the area. N From an economic standpoint, the project will pay substantial fees that will R benefit the City, including Development Impact Fees, School Fees, Library Fees ~ rn permitting fees, public services fees, and related development fees that provide S additional benefit both to the community by increasing the funding and services available, but also to the City. For example, the Project will be required to pay additional fees to support police services in the amount of$183,506.18 and to pay N library fees in the amount of $181,375.52, The Project provides additional property taxes that will also contribute to public services. These fees are outlined p in the findings and further identified in the EIR. The Project will also provide the opportunity for construction jobs in the community for a substantial period of cO time, depending on how quickly the proposed Project is built out. The Project w provides additional social benefits to the community and City as well. The Project will dedicate more than 245 acres of permanent open space, including natural a open space, controlled open space and parks, on site. The parks that are proposed F as part of the Project will include shade structures, tot lots, gardens, observation a points, and other related features and offer opportunities for the community that are not currently present in the area. The Project also provides an interconnected E trail system that would include community trails for bicycle and pedestrian use, equestrian trails, and hiking trails. These proposed trails would substantially increase the recreational opportunities currently available in the City. Furthermore, the City has a limited base of available high-quality, low density residential development based upon a review of the MLS listings for the City as well as under General Plan designation areas for low density residential development. Such high-quality, low density housing is desirable to attract and retain top quality candidates for positions at the University and other institutions. According to the City of San Bernardino Housing Element Adopted June 20, 2011, approximately one-third of the City's housing stock is between 30 and 49 years old, with an additional 35.3 percent over 50 years old. (Pages 3-25 and 3- O 26). Only 2,720 housing units were constructed between the years of 2000-2005, during the height of the housing boom. (Housing Element Adopted June 20, 2011,Table H-12). The household composition of the City shows that 82% of the 169 M681-000-1062350.1 Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations QCity's households are moderate to very-low income, while only 18% are above Moderate income. (Id. Chart 4, pg. 3-17). There are few other proposed developments within the City at this time and thus the proposed Project will fill a residential need within the City as is envisioned within the City's General Plan. Such a need is identified generally in Housing Element policy 3.1.1, which states: "Provide adequate sites to accommodate the production of a variety of housing types through land use designation, zoning, specific plans, and overlay districts." The Verdemont Heights Area Plan, found on page 2-75 of the General Plan Land Use Element and in which this Project site is located, further discusses strategy to meet the Housing Element policy 3.1.1, indentifying in strategy 4 on page 2-83 to "Promote the development of higher end housing." Additional benefits are as follows: N 1. Findings Related to Traffic and Transportation Impacts. R a. Increased Traffic. 1z There are two roadways identified in the CMP that would be impacted by Project traffic: `n 1-215 freeway and I-15 freeway. Four segments of these two freeways are expected to have an N LOS of F during morning peak hours with or without the project in year 2035, and six segments are expected to have an LOS of F during evening peak hours with or without the Project in year 2035. All of these segments, except the northbound and southbound segments of I-15 between Sierra Avenue and Glen Helen Parkway, are included in the Caltrans improvement plans for the Devore interchange. w With improvements, two of these freeway segments would operate at acceptable levels. However, six freeway segments would continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS for year F 2035: a • The I-215 freeway segment between Palm Avenue and Devore Road (northbound and southbound) • The I-215 freeway segment between Devore Road and I-15 (northbound) • The I-15 freeway segment between Glen Helen Parkway and Sierra Avenue (northbound and southbound). • The I-15 freeway segment between I-215 and Glen Helen Parkway(northbound). Spring Trails would generate traffic that would contribute to the unacceptable levels of service on these freeway segments. Additionally,mainline improvements to the I-15 and I-215 in the Project area are not included in a fee program at this time. There are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce the significant impacts, which will remain significant and unavoidable. However, benefits obtained from the Project are sufficient to justify approval of the Project. These impacts are overridden by the Project benefits described in Section II.D of this document, as well as the local and regional benefits that will be realized under the Development Agreement, described in Section II.B of this document. 170 M68I-0 O-1062350.1 6.B.n Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations b. Cumulative Impacts. Development of the Project will contribute incrementally to Traffic and Transportation impacts that are cumulatively considerable, significant, and unavoidable when considered within the context of traffic that will be generated by other known or probable developments, as discussed above. This is a cumulatively considerable impact that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. However, benefits obtained from the Project are sufficient to justify approval of the Project, and these impacts are overridden by Project benefits described in Sections II.B and II.D of this document. 2. Findings Related to Air Quality Impacts. a. Construction Emissions. The Project is not consistent with the applicable air quality management plan because ca construction-related air pollutant emissions would exceed the SCAQMD's regional and localized emission thresholds. Mitigation measures used to control construction and operational emissions would reduce Project and cumulative level impacts, but they would remain significant and rn unavoidable. N Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would generate short-term emissions that exceed SCAQMD'S regional significance thresholds for NOx, PM1o, and PM2.5, U and would significantly contribute to the nonattainment designations of the South Coast Air o Basin for ozone and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). Construction activities associated with m grading operations could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations of z PM10 at the existing onsite residence and the surrounding offsite residences. Mitigation measures UJ would reduce the Project's construction-related impacts, but the project- and cumulative-level and unavoidable. a impacts would remain significant � P g F Q However, benefits obtained from the Project are sufficient to justify approval of the Project, and these impacts are overridden by Project benefits described in Sections U.B and II.D E of this document. r y_ b. Cumulative Impacts. a i The South Coast Air Basin is in nonattainment for 03 and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). Construction of cumulative projects will further degrade the regional and local air quality. Air quality will be temporarily impacted during construction activities. Even with the implementation of mitigation measures,Project-related construction emissions would still exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds for NOx, PM10 and PM2.5, and cumulative emissions would result in greater exceedances. These are cumulatively considerable air quality impacts which cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. However, benefits obtained from the Project are sufficient to justify approval of the Project, and these impacts are overridden by the Project benefits described in Sections II.B and II.D of this document. 171 M681-0 -1062350.1 Packet Pg. 646 6.B.n Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations O3. Findings Related to Noise Impacts. Project-related construction activities would result in temporary noise increases at the existing onsite residence and surrounding noise-sensitive receptors due to the length of the construction period, that is, approximately three years. Mitigation would reduce the Project's impact on local sensitive receptors, but this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. However, benefits obtained from the Project are sufficient to justify approval of the Project, and these impacts are overridden by the Project benefits described in Sections II.B and H.D of this document. 4. Findings Related to Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Project-related construction activities would generate 5,660 metric tons (MTon) of CO2e and operational activity would generate about 9,559 MTons of CO2e. Mitigation measures N would reduce GHG emissions from construction activities, area sources, energy use, and waste and recycling activities to levels that are less than significant; however, the vehicle GHG emissions would not be reduced to less-than-significant levels, and Project-generated vehicle S L emissions of GHG would create significant and unavoidable impacts. However, benefits In obtained from the Project are sufficient to justify approval of the Project, and these impacts are overridden by the Project benefits described in Sections II.B and II.D of this document. N ^ California Public Resource Code 21002 provides: "In the event specific economic, social o and other conditions make infeasible such Project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects can be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof" Section 21002.1(c) provides: "In the event that economic, social, or other conditions make it infeasible to w mitigate one or more significant effects of a project on the environment, the project may nonetheless be approved or carried out at the discretion of a public agency..." Finally, U California Administrative Code, Title 4, 15093 (a) states: "If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered `acceptable."' E The Project benefits include substantial infrastructure that the Project will directly and t indirectly, through funding mechanisms, provide. In particular, the Project scope includes =° substantial infrastructure improvements for water storage and delivery systems that will not only a serve the Project itself, but also benefit the larger community. The additional water storage and delivery systems will provide for more effective wildfire controls for existing residents as well as the proposed Project given the additional safety and setback measures that are incorporated into the Project. The water infrastructure will also provide a source potable water for existing residents as well as a water source for firefighting personnel in the event of a wildfire. The Project components related to fire hazards and safety, including construction, buffer zones, and other features will also provide additional benefits to those residents already located in the area as a means of preventing the spread of any wildfires through the area. Storm drainage improvements will also provide additional benefits related to the existing flood and erosion conditions prevalent in the area. The area and existing residents have face historical issues with flooding, landslides and wildfires which will be substantially improved 172 MMI-M-!06]350.1 1 6.B.n Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations with the implementation of the proposed Project. Funding mechanisms and impact fees that will be generated as part of the project will assist in roadway improvements and as well general fund contributions through property tax that can assist in funding necessary police, fire and safety services for the area. The proposed Project will also provide additional recreational sources for the community, creating hiking, equestrian and biking trails throughout the site and connecting an area that currently does not offer such sources of recreation to the residents of the City. Furthermore, a base of high-quality low density residential development is important for the ability of the City's institutions to hire and retain top quality candidates for positions at the University and other institutions. There are few other proposed developments within the City at this time and thus the proposed Project will fill a residential need within the City as is envisioned within the City's General Plan. `J y In addition to the safety, recreational, social and housing features that the project will provide, the Project will offer employment during the construction phases and provide revenue from the additional property taxes that the Project will generate. The Project will be required to N pay additional fees to support police services in the amount of$183,506.18, pay schools fees, pay library fees in the amount of $181,375.52, improvement existing roadways and provide N additional access points that otherwise may not occur, as well as pay other City development N O fees. The payment of fees and additional services benefit both the Project and the surrounding 0 0 community. w co As the CEQA Lead Agency for the proposed Project, the City of San Bernardino has z reviewed the Project description and the Project alternatives as presented in the EIR, and fully UJ understands the Project and Project alternatives proposed for development. Further, the City = finds that all potential adverse environmental impacts and all feasible mitigation measures to F reduce the impacts from the Project have been identified in the Draft EIR, the Final EIR and a public testimony. The City also finds that a reasonable range of alternatives was considered in the EIR and this document, Section IV.E above, and finds that approval of the Project is appropriate. The City has identified economic and social benefits, important policy objectives and a local and regional benefits that will result from approval of the Development Agreement, as discussed in Sections II.B and II.D above, which result from implementing the Project. The City has balanced these substantial social and economic benefits against the unavoidable significant adverse effects of the Project. The City finds that the substantial social and economic benefits that will result from the Project override the unavoidable environmental effects of the Project. VI. ADOPTION OF A MONITORING PLAN FOR THE CEOA MITIGATION MEASURES Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code requires this City to adopt a monitoring or C reporting program (MMRP) regarding the changes in the Project. The MMRP is adopted because it fulfills the CEQA mitigation monitoring requirements: 173 M681-000--1063350.1 6.B.n Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Oa) The MMRP is designed to ensure compliance with the changes in the Project an d mitigation measures imposed on the Project during Project implementation; and b) Measures to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements or other measures. VII. APPROVING THE PROJECT Based on the entire record before the San Bernardino Common Council, including the Findings and all written and oral evidence presented, the San Bernardino Common Council hereby approves the Project with all the mitigation measures and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as set forth in this Resolution. N M VIII. REGARDING STAFF DIRECTION A Notice of Determination shall be filed with the Clerk of the County of San Bernardino a within five (5) working days of final Project approval. LO N N O I certify that this Resolution was duly passed and adopted by the San Bernardino 0 Common Council on the day of 2013. 00 DC. REGARDING CONTENTS AND CUSTODIAN OF RECORD w The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these a findings have been based are located at the City of San Bernardino, Community Development F Department, 300 N. "D" Street, Third Floor, San Bernardino, California 92418. The custodian a for these records is This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6. E a Q 174 M681-W--M2350.1 Packet Pg. 649 6.B.o N F SPRING Q T R A I L S N . N R DRAFT SPECIFIC PLAN LL October, 2012 N Y 0 .lit N i a M rn Z W S V Q Q Y C E r v m Q ,.Rac a=Pg 650 .; SPRING T R A I L S This page intenftonaly left blank. N H' Cm C C. N rD N N N R C LL N r O N Y V 0 IL N N OI C C. W H 2 W 2 U Q H H Q c d E L V w a Spring Trails Specific Plan 6 1. O N H O C Q N to N N � N R C LL N 0 O N w V 0 O Q m N R t F Gf C Q y m H 2 W PREPARED FOR: x U City of San Bernardino Contact: M. Margo Wheeler a 300 North"D"Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 r U 909.384.5357 a SUBMITTED BY: Montecito Equities, Ltd. Contact:Tom Wilkinson 100 Pacifica, Suite 345 Irvine, CA 92618 Packe Pg s52 4` - GkBO". SPRING T R A I L S Tbis page intendonaly left blank. w LO rn c a rn co N N 10 C LL N r O N V V O IL N a F- C7 c CL to rn z Z W S U Q F- F- Q :: C m E s U A Y Q Spring Trails Specific Plan PRacket Pg G53^ SPRING T R A I L S ACKNOWLEDGMENTS City Council Patrick J. Morris, Mayor Virginia Marquez,Councilwoman,Ward 1 IM c Robert Jenkins,Councilman,Ward 2 John Valdivia,Councilman,Ward 3 Q rn Fred Shorett,Councilman,Ward 4 Chas A. Kelley,Councilman,Ward 5 to Rikke Van Johnson,Councilman,Ward 6 Wendy McCammack,Councilwoman,Ward 7 N c U. Planning Commission 0 N John Coute, Chairman Bob Brown O Lance Durr Frederick Grochulski (. m N Larry Heasley,Vice-Chair Dan Jimenez R Andrew Machen Jim Mulvihill ~ rn c Amelia S. Lopez `c. U) rn Z City Staff W M. Margo Wheeler, Community Tony Stewart,City Planner Q Development Director Q c d Consultants r The Planning Center Rick Engineering 1580 Metro Drive 1223 University Avenue Suite 240 Costa Mesa,CA 92626 Riverside,CA 92507 Tel: 714.966.9220 Tel:951.782.0707 Kunzman &Associates Firesafe Planning Solutions 1111 Town&Country Road,Ste 34 31720 Los Rios Street Orange,CA 92868 San Juan Capistrano,CA 92675 Tel: 714.973.8383 Tel: 949.240.5911 Spring Trails Specific Plan Packet;Pg 654x,` rte. Acknowledgments This page intemionaly left blank. Vi R F- H 0 C L Q Ln N N N A C U- N r N N U 0 a rn N R N Im C L Q N F Z W ji S U a F H a E r R V a October 2012 Packet Pg. 655 6.B.o S P R I N G L R A I L > TABLE OF (CONTENTS Section Page Introduction....................................................................................... 1-1 ProjectSummary.............................................................................................1-1 R ProjectLocation..............................................................................................1-2 Formatof the Document..............................................................................1-7 Terminology....................................................................................................1-7 a Conceprual/Illustrattve Graphics.................................................................1-8 .. Relationship to Other Plans/Agencies........................................................1-8 to Surrounding Environment..........................................................................1-10 Development Concept..................................................................2-1 U- GuidingPrinciples..........................................................................................2-1 w SpringTrails.....................................................................................................2-3 N U Development Standards................ 3-1 Land Use Designations and Permitted Uses..............................................3-1 -� Development Standards................................................................................3-4 MobilityPlan.................................................................................................3-16 Trails,Parks,and Open Spaces..................................................................3-35 Fire Protection Plan.....................................................................................3-53 a SafetyPlan......................................................................................................3-75 U) Wildlife Corridors.........................................................................................3-76 rn LandscapePlan.............................................................................................3-81 z Infrastructure and Utility Plan....................................................................3-97 w Design Guidelines............................................................................4-1 Introduction.....................................................................................................4-1 C Community-Wide Design Guidel ines..........................................................4-2 Residential Design Guidelines....................................................................4-11 d E L Sustainability.....................................................................................5-1 U Intent and Application...................................................................................5-1 Green Infrastructure......................................................................................5-1 Landscaping.....................................................................................................5-2 Building-Level Sustainability.........................................................................5-3 Resource Conservat ion..................................................................................5-5 Sustainability Resource Guide......................................................................5-6 Administration and Implementation.......................................6-1 AlternativePlan...............................................................................................6-1 Spring Trails Specific Plan Page i i Packet Pg. 656 Contents Administering the Plan..................................................................................6-1 Responsibility..................................................................................................6-1 Applicability.....................................................................................................6-2 Interpretations.................................................................................................6-2 Specific Plan Amendment.............................................................................6-2 Severability.......................................................................................................6-3 _ Phasing, Capital Improvements, and Maintenance...................................6-4 cc c CL y to W N N APPENDICES LL Appendix A: Glossary of Terms a 0 Appendix B: General Plan Consistency Analysis Appendix C: Fire Protection Plan a. N Appendix D: Foothill Fire Zones Overlay District Conformance w .m Appendix E: Tentative Tract Map m c Appendix F: Alternative Plan Q rn rn i- z w x U Q F F Q c d E t U w a Page ii October 2012 f?ac tP657 SPRING T R A I L S LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page Figure 1.1 Regional Location....................................................................1-3 N Figure 1.2 Local Vicinity............................................................................1-5 R Figure 1.3 Earthquake Faults..................................................................1-13 � Figure 1.4 Topography(Fire Zones)......................................................1-15 Figure 1.5 Drainage and Flooding(Predevelopment).........................1-21 In Figure 2.1 Development Footprint..........................................................2-7 Figure 2.2 Development Plan...................................................................2-9 N Figure' 2.3 Zoning Ma 2-13 Figure 3.1 Wall Details...............................................................................3-7 Figure 3.2 Circulation Plan......................................................................3-19 ii Figure 3.3 Primary Access Road.............................................................3-21 Figure 3.4 Secondary Access Road.........................................................3-23 Figure 3.5 Primary Local Street..............................................................3-25 I /'\ Figure 3.6 Secondary Local Street..........................................................3-27 a [\�1 Figure 3.7 Cul-de-Sac I.............................................................................3-29 cn N Figure 3.8 Cul-de-Sac II...........................................................................3-31 Figure 3.9 Meyers Road Options............................................................3-33 t` Figure 3.10 Trails,Parks,and Open Space Plan.....................................3-37 Figure 3.11 Equestrian/Pedestrian Trail Conceptual Cross- 0. Section...............................................................................3-39 w Figure 3.12 Hiking Trail Conceptual Cross-Section. ...........................3-41 Figure 3.13 Neighborhood Park I Conceptual Site Plan.......................3-45 z Figure 3.14 Neighborhood Park H Conceptual Site Plan.....................3-47 g Figure 3.15 Dog Park Conceptual Site Plan............................................3-49 = U j Figure 3.16 Garden View Park Conceptual Site Plan............................3-51 F Figure 3.17 Fire Protection Plan(Northern Project Area)...................3-59 Figure 3.18 Fire Protection Plan(Southern Project Area)....................3-61 w Figure 3.19 Fuel Modification Section 1-1..............................................3-63 m Figure 3.20 Fuel Modification Section 2-2..............................................3-63 t Figure 3.21 Fuel Modification Section 3-3..............................................3-65 y Figure 3.22 Fuel Modification Section 4-4..............................................3-65 Q Figure 3.23 Fuel Modification Section 5-5..............................................3-67 Figure 3.24 Fuel Modification Section 6-6..............................................3-67 Figure 3.25 Fuel Modification Section 7-7..............................................3-69 Figure 3.26 Fire Protection Plan Details.................................................3-71 Figure 3.27 Wildlife Corridors...................................................................3-79 Figure 3.28 Landscape Zones....................................................................3-83 Figure 3.29 Conceptual Grading Plan......................................................3-99 Figure 3.30A Conceptual Water Plan........................................................3-103 Spring Trails Specific Plan Page iii Packet Pg. 658 Contents Figure 3.30B Conceptual Water Plan........................................................3-105 Figure 3.31 Conceptual Drainage Plan..................................................3-109 Figure 3.32 Conceptual Sewer Plan........................................................3-115 Figure 4.1 Primary Entry Concept...........................................................43 Figure 4.2 Secondary Entry Concept.......................................................4-5 N .m H C Q N LIST OF TABLES N N N Table Page LL Table 2.1 Preferred Plan Development Potential..............................2-11 `14 Table 3.1 Land Use and Zoning Categories..........................................3-2 N Table 3.2 Permitted Uses..........................................................................3-3 O /^1 Table 3.3 Residential Development Standards.....................................3-5 a Table 3.4 Development Standards—Other Uses.................................3-5 Table 3.5 Open Space,Parks,and Recreation Facilities Summary...........................................................................3-35 Table 3.6 Landscape Zones Plant Palette............................................3-85 c Table 3.7 Plant Removal List.................................................................3-95 a Table 3.8 On-Site Water Storage Facilities........................................3-102 Table 3.9 On-Site Water Pumping Requirements............................3-102 a) Table 3.10 Utility Providers...................................................................3-113 w Table 5.1 Sustainability Resource Guide................................................5-7 Table 6.1 Maintenance Plan.....................................................................6-6 = U Q F- Q c m E U A Q Page iv October 2012 Packet Pg. 659 : sso�fi' Section 1 cc INTRODUCTION N to h N � N R C LL N r 0 N U 0 IL Cn L F Q N rn H Z W 2 U Q F F- Q c m E L V A r Q Packeti *660 ; SPRING T R A I L S This page intentionally left blank. N .R F- F OI C Q N N N N i C LL N r O N Y V O IL rn A F- rn c a y rn H Z W m 2 U Q H Q r c m E t U CO r Q Spring Trails Specific Plan Packet•'Pg'661.1 SPRING T It A I L S INTRODUCTION Project Summary Spring Trails is a 352.8-acre residential community in the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains.The preferred plan accommodates 304 single-family lots ranging from 10,801 square feet to 18 acres. The development footprint of Q. Spring Trails encompasses 68 percent of the total site (242 acres), on gently N sloping alluvial benches between canyons,steep hillsides,and the Cable Canyon LO and Meyers Canyon drainageways.The remaining 32 percent(111 acres)remains open space.There are 3.8 miles of hiking trails that traverse the site and provide View looking southeast from the Spring access to parks and natural open space. An alternative plan is depicted in Trails site. Appendix F that assumes the existing SCE power line would be relocated and N could accommodate 307single family lots. o N Spring Trails is carefully designed to respect the San Andreas Fault system, O which crosses the northern and southern ends of the project;the Cable Canyon a- and Meyers Canyon drainageways;and steep slopes.These features have been y incorporated into Spring Trails as open space. 2 rn Purpose of the Specific Plan rz The purpose of the Spring Trails Specific Plan is to provide unique development vt standards and guidelines to allow the creation of a high-quality residential F community. w The California Government Code,Section 65450,establishes the authority for v cities and counties to adopt specific plans by resolution as policy or by < ordinance as regulation,identify the required contents of a specific plan, and mandate consistency with the general plan.A specific plan enables enhanced or L innovative development and design options not possible under conventional d zoning controls. The Spring Trails Specific Plan is a regulatory document E providing a means of implementing a site-specific development proposal in accordance with the goals and policies of the City of San Bernardino General Plan. The City of San Bernardino Municipal Code Chapter 19.64 describes the purpose,requirements,regulations,and procedures for preparation of a specific plan in the City. As required by the California Government Code, a General Plan Consistency Analysis has been prepared for this Specific Plan (see Appendix B). Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 1-1 Packet Pg. 662 Introduction Project Location As shown in Figure 1.1,RegionalLocadon,Spring Trails is on the northern edge of the City of San Bernardino in the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains. The site is approximately 1.5 miles east of the unincorporated community of Devote and the junction of Interstate 215 (I-215) and I-15. Spring Trails is N bounded by the San Bernardino National Forest on three sides and Verdemont Heights on the southern side. rn C As shown in Figure 1.2, Local Vicinity, Spring Trails is in Verdemont Heights, z 0. approximately one-third mile northwest of the intersection of Meyers Road and v). little League Drive.Primary access is from a new roadway connecting to Little League Drive and a secondary roadway via a new road extending south and <Ne connecting to the frontage road along I-215.Freeway access is from the Palm Avenue interchange and the Glen Helen Parkway/Devote Road interchange. U. N O N U a ,n L rn c L Q I a) z Z cW C U Q H H Q c m E U (0 Q Page 1-2 October 2012 Packet Pg. 663 SPRING T R A I- L 5 Figure 1.1: Regional Location Hesperia 138 173 Vi F- 138 _- C CL y BFUe Jay ,,1 ao \ N N N \\ De'yore � � ' Crestline m _ 1 18 - IL *SITE o N r O IL Verdemont 18 _ W N CSU w is San Bernardino F w:. c r >�'c CL n x f _ D F W l - - 210 ___ / \. \l San a Fontana I Bernardino Rialto Highland Q - v U w a V NOTTO SCq(E Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 1-3 Packet Pg. 664 Introduction This page intenlionaly left blank. N F C L Q to LO N N 16 C LL N r O N U O Q CO N F AI C L Q y rn F Z W S U FQ F Q C d E L V N Q Page 1-4 October2012 ifopi(co P�X685, 14"s:s SPRING T R A I L 5 Figure 1.2: Local Vicinity It >"n �'fJy wa 4 a. to a '• LP 0 j �" eJ r A N rL r�r '-d r„-= Ae`JLPe PROJECT SITE ;` ,` oN +�' a z �` � N Secondary ' � N � w Access Roady d' "' sus` ° ' 4; p rL r L+n Acces's�Ro� rS� w C I d t Ir t L nSS+L IY. " "aU Map Source:Google Earth Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 1-5 Introduction This page intennonaly left blank. N L F m C Q y LO N N N N C LL N r O N Y V O Q N L F- O C �L Q N O H Z W S U Q F N Q c d E L U A Q Page 1-6 October 2012 �Pa�acketsP��667 . 6.B.o i SPRING O T R A I L S i Format of the Document The Spring Trails Specific Plan is organized into the following sections. Section 1:Introduction.This section describes the purpose,intent,authority, N and scope of the Specific Plan: compliance with guiding documents, project 2 setting,and a summary of opportunities and constraints. ~ rn c Section 2: Development Concept. This section explains the vision and C development concept.The land use plan and buildout statistics are also included in this section. tn N N_ Section 3:Development Standards.This section provides the allowable uses, R development standards, circulation plan, open space plan, and utility and S L infrastructure plans. N N Section 4:Design Guidelines.This section lays out guidelines that define the aesthetic character of Spring Trails. 0 O a c1) Section 5:Sustainabiliry.This section describes opportunities and guidelines � for environmentally sustainable development in Spring Trails. F- M Section 6:Administration and Implementation.This section contains the S development processing and amendment procedures, as well as phasing, for N Spring Trails. a Appendices. The appendices contain definitions,a General Plan consistency w analysis, fire safety plan, and a comparison of this Specific Plan to the City's x Foothill Fire Zones Overlay District. v v F-- Terminology Statements occur in this plan in the form of policies,standards,and guidelines E that create expectations of actions intended to successfully implement the plan. The following terms clarify the level of commitment described in the plan and reflect expected outcomes. Shall — This type of policy is always to be followed. "Shall" represents an absolute commitment to the guidance expressed in the policy. Similar action words:require,enforce,must,ensure. Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 1-7 Packet Pg. 668 Introduction Should—This type of policy is to be followed in most cases and exceptions or degrees of implementation are acceptable with valid reasons. Similar action words: encourage, supposed to. Allow — This type of policy permits and supports someone else's initiative unless there is a very good reason not to. Similar action words:permit. w Restrict—This type of policy sets specified limits within which action and/or F implementation will occur. Similar action words:control,limit,contain. a c Prohibit — This type of policy requires the active prevention of specified r) conditions or decisions. Similar action words: forbid,ban. Ln N Other terminology may appear in certain policy statements.These terms are to be interpreted according to their similarity to the appropriate term described c above. ii N r N Conceptual/Illustrative Graphics Some illustrations, product prototypes, and accompanying descriptions aai contained in this Specific Plan are conceptual and are labeled accordingly.These illustrations are intended to depict the desired character and are not to be taken F as compulsory or as dictating exact building types,material types,architectural c styles,or final amenity designs. Q Relationship to Other Plans/Agencies Z W Pre-Annexation Prior to adoption of this Specific Plan,the entire site was in the jurisdiction of the County of San Bernardino and annexation of approximately 379 acres into Q the City of San Bernardino was necessary. The area of annexation associated with Spring Trails consisted of the project site and an adjacent 26.4-acre area E required to prevent the creation of a county island within the City. u m The Spring Trails site was placed in the City of San Bernardino's Sphere of a Influence in September 1996,when the Local Agency Formation Commission (I.AFCO) approved a Sphere of Influence Expansion for the City of San Bernardino.Government Code Section 56706 states that a sphere of influence is the plan for the probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency as determined by LAFCO. While the land is in the sphere of influence, the county retains land use authority. Under the County of San Bernardino's authority,the County General Plan designated approximately 160 acres in the northern portion of the site Resource Conservation (RC) and approximately Page 1-8 October 2012 C SPRING T R A I L S 190.6 acres in the southern portion of the site Rural Living (RL-5), which allowed up to one dwelling unit per five acres. Prior to annexation and adoption of this Specific Plan,the City's General Plan and Zoning maps designated the entire site,which was within their Sphere of Influence,as Residential Estate(RE),which allowed one dwelling unit per acre. General Plan Upon annexation into the City,the entire Spring Trails site will be designated Spring Trails Specific Plan on both the City�s General Plan and Zoning maps. The existing Residential Estate designation permits one dwelling unit per acre. N Through the Spring Trials Specific Plan, development has been clustered into the most appropriate areas so that individual lots may exceed the density limit; m j however, on a gross basis the specific plan still complies with the density E I L" restrictions of the Residential Estate land use designation (307 units on 353 w jacres).The Specific Plan also demonstrates compliance with the City's Foothill N { Fire Zone development standards. Upon annexation,the 26.4-acre additional U ! annexation area will be designated RE. (L ,) Specific plans are required to be consistent with the goals and policies of the En governing General Plan. The General Plan Consistency Analysis,included as F Appendix B,discusses how the project implements and exemplifies the goals and policies of the City of San Bernardino General Plan.Future projects within the Specific Plan must be consistent with this Specific Plan(Government Code, v¢) Sections 65455, 66473.5, 65860,and 65401). All projects that are found to be a, consistent with this Specific Plan will likewise be deemed consistent with the z City's General Plan. w x Verdemont Heights Area Plan According to the State General Plan Guidelines,an area plan provides focused a policies for a particular geographic area within a general plan.Spring Trails is in the Verdemont Heights Area Plan, which presents the General Plan-level development and use guidance for a 3,409-acre area in the northwestern corner of the City. Spring Trails is in the Verdemont Estates subarea of the Verdemont Heights Area Plan,which calls for a rural character and large-lot residential uses. As stated in the General Plan,the goal of the Verdemont Heights Area Plan is to: "Create an identifiable and unique village that includes distinct residential neighborhoods and a full array of services and activities to meet the needs of residents of the area." Issues addressed in the Area Plan include: Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 1-9 Packet Pg. 670 Introduction • Developing a Plan-wide trail system that connects to the rest of the City • Increasing active park lands • Creating gateways and landscaped corridors Municipal Code and Zoning The Spring Trails Specific Plan is adopted by Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council and serves as the zoning for the project site.It provides the F standards and development criteria to guide future development of the site.The text and diagrams of the Specific Plan address the planning of necessary Q infrastructure and facilities as well as land uses and open space. Future U) subdivisions, building permits, and public works projects must be consistent LO with the Specific Plan(Government Code Sections 65455,66473.5,65860,and N 65401). R View from the southwestern edge of the jy site,looking north,with the gently Environmental Impact Report N sloping areas proposed for The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was adopted to inform C°1 development in the foreground and the decision makers,staff,and the public about the potential environmental impacts u n. untou ched in th e backgroun d of development. The CEQA process provides an opportunity to address n. potential impacts in order to maintain California's environmental quality. Compliance with CEQA requires that a project be evaluated for potential impacts before being approved. The adoption of a specific plan is a project subject to CEQA. In accordance with CEQA, the City has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2009111086) to Q accompany the Spring Trails Specific Plan.The EIR analyzes the project and its U) alternatives to identify potential significant environmental impacts associated rn with the development of the Spring Trails Specific Plan area. The EIR is z incorporated into this Specific Plan by reference and is attached under separate W cover. _ U F- r Surrounding Environment a a San Bernardino Mountains E U Spring Trails is on the western flank of the San Bernardino Mountains,which =° run for approximately 60 miles east from the Cajon Pass to the Coachella Valley. a The highest peak in the range is Mount San Gorgonio,which has an elevation of 11,501.6 feet and is the highest peak in southern California.Most of the range is in the San Bernardino National Forest. Faulting As shown on Figure 1.3 Spring Trails includes three traces of the San Andreas Fault zone, which runs in an east—west direction through the northern and Page 1-10 October 2012 Packet Pg. 671 6.B.o SPRING T R A I L S southern portions of the project site.Accordingly,prior to the creation of the land plan 26 trenches and detailed geologic studies were conducted to locate earthquake faults and assess geologic conditions in Spring Trails (see EIR appendices). The southern portion of the site is traversed by two faults:the main trace of the San Andreas Fault and,to its north,a secondary extension feature of the main f` trace fault.The fault zone of the main trace ranges from approximately 50 feet to 150 feet wide and the fault zone of the secondary trace is approximately 40 c L feet wide. m Spring Trails has been designed to comply with the requirements of the Alquist- N Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, which prevents the construction of =' buildings used for human occupancy within 50 feet of active faults. c U. Topography N 0 As shown in Figure 1.4, the topography of the site varies from steep (over 30 N N i .s U percent slopes) in the north and southeast portions of the site to gentle (0-15 0 percent slopes)in the central portion of the site.The elevation of the site ranges w from approximately 2,010 feet above sea level at its southern boundary to v approximately 3,540 feet at the northern boundary, a difference of 1,530 feet. The site slopes to the southwest at approximately 10 to 15 percent. 6, The site has been shaped by the San Andreas Fault and the Cable Canyon and rn Meyers Canyon drainageways and includes gently sloping alluvial benches, canyons, and steep hillsides. z W Hillside Management Overlay = U The City has established the Hillside Management Overlay District to ensure that development occurs in a manner that: a Protects a hillside's natural and topographic character and identity, m environmental sensitivities, aesthetic qualities, and the public health, E safety,and general welfare.This protection is obtained by ensuring that development does not create soil erosion,silting of lower slopes,slide damage, flooding problems, and severe cutting or scarring. It is the Images of the site'stopography.Top intent to encourage a sensitive form of development while still allowing and second from top:views south and for residential uses which complement the natural and visual character southeast showing gently sloping area of the City and its hillsides. proposed for development.Third from top:view east with gently sloping area The Spring Trails Specific Plan contains site-specific hillside design and in foreground and steeper slopes development standards that are consistent with the General Plan and replace the behind.Bottom:view north of steeply Hillside Management Overlay for this site. The Hillside Management Overlay slopes areas that will not be developed. zone does not apply in the Spring Trails Specific Plan and the Conditional Use Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 1-11 Packet Pg. 672 Introduction Permit called for in Section 19.17.050 of the Development Code is not required prior to construction. Instead, a Development Permit is required prior to construction and will be reviewed to ensure consistency with the Fire Protection Plan detailed in this Specific Plan. Slope Stability N Slope failures can be hazardous to buildings, reservoirs, roads, and utilities. R Therefore,the impact must be mitigated or structures need to be built in areas that have the least potential to be impacted. Accordingly, extensive on-site geologic studies were conducted to pinpoint potential landslide areas (see EIR CL appendices). The geologic studies indicate that significant natural slope instability is not present on the portions of the site where development is N proposed. m Foothill Fire Zones LL N Because of the adjacent San Bernardino National Forest,steep slopes,and high o winds,the Spring Trails area is at risk from wildland fires.Chapter 19.15 of the 04 San Bernardino Development Code, Foothill Fire Zone Overlay District, has O been established to "mitigate the spread of fire, to help minimize property a damage and to reduce the risk to the public health and safety." The Foothill N Fire Zone Overlay District identifies three fire zones with different degrees of hazard based on slope,type of fuel,and natural barriers.The foothill fire zones ~ rn are: E L Q • Fire Zone A, Extreme Hazard. Areas with slopes of 30 percent or rn greater. Z • Fire Zone B,High Hazard.Areas with slopes of 15-30 percent 2 x • Fire Zone C,Moderate Hazard.Areas with slopes of 0-15 percent F As shown on Figure 1.4,approximately one third of the site is in Fire Zone A, a one third of the site is in Fire Zone B,and the remaining third is in Fire Zone C. m Areas in the Foothill Fire Zones are required to be developed with proper building separation, landscaping, and building materials; adequate emergency access and evacuation routes;and sufficient water resources.A comparison of a the provisions of this Specific Plan with the Foothill Fire Zones Overlay District is provided in Appendix D. California Fire Plan(CAL FIRE) also ranks the wildland fire hazard using four main criteria: fuels, weather, assets at risk, and level of service (which is a measure of a fire department's success in initial-attack fire suppression).While the fire hazard severity zone maps are currently being updated,the entire project site is in a very high fire hazard severity zone (CAL FIRE 2007a). Page 1-12 October 2012 Packet Pg. 673 SPRING T R A I L S Figure 1.3: Earthquake Faults �Yra' W rt u4 r �J0cP rt m c u- I PROJECT , o SITE r, >r . N of W . ;NIL V.BA vt�.,.}A'+ ✓. '" �. F IF- �' .. §, ' J/ t �T�� ..�`+ 5 �Y • ., y++'♦ i 1 '^'A e i° ,,r � ""C- � to ♦ '.�. 3�'s� '�:, Z (�', 5 �'Ka . r Y( ,� • ,J Map Source:Google Earth Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 1-13 Packet Pg. 674 �y �a vim. .v Introduction Thi page intentionally left blank. N L C Q Lo N N N C LL N r O N V V O Q rn a L rn c Q y rn F Z W 2 U F t- Q C d E r U m Q Page 1-14 October 2012 IT Pac a Pg675 t ,V i { RS J 1 rf • +83�*�t� +} r 1 r �+, �* � .. � �iM1,i:'` �•fly° tl f i Le>end (Foothill 15-30%Slope (Foothill Firezone B) /r Greater than 30%Slope (Foothill Fire Zone A) Introduction This page intenlionaly left blank. N L F Q N to N N N R c LL N r O N V 0 IL U) w L rn c �L Q N F Z cW C U Q F F- Q C d E t U w a Page 1-16 October2012 a i © SPRING T R A I L S i To ensure the safety of property and lives, a detailed fire safety analysis was conducted by FireSafe Planning Solutions and a fire protection plan was prepared (see Appendix C). The fire analysis factored in wind patterns, fuel types(vegetation),topography,weather patterns,and historical burn patterns to determine the potential severity of wildfires and appropriate protection methods. w Using the BEHAVE Computer Fire Behavior Prediction and Fuel Modeling System,FireSa£e Planning Solutions assumed a worst-case scenario of Santa Ana winds(northeasterly)and the prevailing southwest wind to determine potential n flame height,rate of spread,and spotting distance.These results were then used to determine the safest combination of preventative measures that ensure the LL„ protection of property and lives.The recommended preventative measures are N incorporated into this Specific Plan as standards for fuel modification zones, w c setbacks,landscaping methods/materials,construction materials/methods,and U- building protection systems. N 0 N High Wind Areas o The City of San Bernardino experiences periods of high velocity winds, a especially in the Cajon Pass and at the bottoms of canyons.These winds have Ln been known to cause severe damage to roofs, utility poles, and traffic signals. Spring Trails is included in the City's designated High Wind Area,which has certain building standards. Development will be required to comply with the S building standards for this area and should be designed and oriented to avoid m the creation of wind tunnels that concentrate gusts in corridors. a, Z Flooding and Drainage LU Because Spring Trails sits on an alluvial plain on the slopes of the San v Bernardino Mountains, flooding and drainage are critical factors.A hydrology < study was conducted to carefully study the drainage patterns affecting the site Q (see EIR appendices). As shown on Figure 1.5,there are four major drainage patterns affecting Spring E Trails: ■ Cable Canyon and its tributaries form the dominant topographic feature of the northern portion of the site. The east and west forks of Cable Canyon flow south through the northeastern corner of the property and then meet a tributary flowing from the east. This unnamed tributary enters the property from the east as two drainages, which merge approximately 600 feet west of the eastern property boundary. All Cable Creek as itpasses through the eventually drain into Cable Creek Wash,which runs parallel to I-215 spring Trails site. Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 1-17 manWE Introduction and is funneled into a concrete channel. This watershed comprises 148.9 acres of on-site and 1,881 acres of off-site drainage area. • Meyers Creek touches the southeastern comer of the site and forms a 30-to 50-foot-deep canyon,which is the dominant topographic feature of the southeastern portion of the site.This watershed comprises 21.8 acres of on-site and 319.8 acres of off-site drainage area. • Surface drainage that flows southwest through the center of the project cm and ultimately into Cable Canyon.This watershed comprises 51.6 acres of on-site and 12.1 acres of off-site drainage area. CL • Off-site surface drainage that flows onto the site and exits through southeastern part of the project.This watershed comprises 128.4 acres of on-site and 69.8 acres of off-site drainage area. c The Federal Emergency Management Agency has classified Cable Canyon and N Meyers Creek as 100-year flood zones,specifically the deep channels that have c cut into the alluvial fan.Development within a 100-year flood zone is prohibited unless adequate protection from flood hazards is provided. Spring Trails is O designed to avoid grading or construction of residences in the flood plains. n. Wildlife Corridors Canyon bottoms and riparian areas provide the greatest opportunity for wildlife c movement since they provide suitable cover,forage resources,and year-round a or seasonal water sources.As shown on Figure 1.5,Spring Trails contains two � primary areas of wildlife movement: Cable Creek and an unnamed tributary of h Cable Creek located in the northern third of the site. Z w Cable Creek provides a natural wildlife corridor and a year-round water source. v The vegetation associated with this water source also provides cover and food F resources for animals traveling between upland areas above the project site to valley areas below the site.The unnamed tributary of Cable Creek that crosses the northern third of the site provides the most effective avenue for wildlife d movement across the site.The tributary offers cover and foraging resources that E make it especially suitable for wildlife movement. The South Coast Missing Linkages Project (2004) identified the Spring Trails site and the surrounding area as an important component in maintaining wildlife population linkages between the San Bernardino Mountains and the San Gabriel Mountains to the west. Species such as mountain lion,American badger,mule deer,and a number of small mammal and bird species were identified as being likely to use the site and the surrounding area for travel between various habitat areas in the greater Cajon Pass area. A number of mammal species have been either directly observed, or their presence deduced by diagnostic sign (track, Page 1-18 October 2012 SPRING T R A I L S scat, burrows, etc.) including the desert cottontail, California ground squirrel, bobcat,coyote,mule deer,mountain lion,and black bear. The riparian areas of Cable Creek and the unnamed tributary are not planned for development; however roads will cross the identified wildlife corridors at two locations: 1) at the southern end of the site,where the outwash of Cable w Creek will be crossed by the secondary access road;and 2)in the northern half CU of the project where the unnamed tributary will be crossed by two roads. Development standards contained in Chapter 3 will ensure that the wildlife corridor crossings accommodate the movement of wildlife through the site. rn Transmission Lines N N Three 112-kilovolt Southern California Edison(SCE)transmission lines traverse i the western portion of the site from north to south. SCE also has an access 5 easement over the project site to service these transmission lines. In the N preferred plan, the SCE transmission lines remain above ground and will N preclude the use of three lots. If the transmission lines can be located ® underground and the right-of-way relocated,then the alternative plan contained o in Appendix F will be utilized for the development of the project site and would SCE transmission lines,which traverse a allow the development of 307 units. Final engineering plans will commence the western edge of the site from north Mn during the final engineering portion of the project. to south. w c CL z z W x U Q H N Q m >_ U A Q Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 1-19 Packet Pg. 680 L"31"'.).,so ' Introduction This page inienhonaly left blank. N R L F Q to Ln N N N C LL N C) O N U 0 a N m L F C Q 01 F 2 W m S U Q F- a E- Q E L V R w Q Page 1-20 October 2012 Packet Pg. 681 SPRING T R A I L S Figure 1.5: Drainage and Flooding (Pre-Development) CU N L F C L Q U) CM N N C A LL N r O N w 0 a C vI Drainage Area Boundary Drainage area A � Drainage Area B Drainage Area C � � Drainage Area D Map Source:Google Earth Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 1-21 Introduction Tbis page intenlionaly left blank. a rn c a N m N N N f6 C U- N 0 O N Y V O a N N A F- OI C Q N Q1 H Z W 2 U Q F F Q M C CD E L V A w Q C) Pagel-22 October 2012 Pic a 'P X68 Section 2 DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT Q M �o N N . N R C LL N 0 O N U 0 Q U) H R F- H OI C Q O H Z W Z U Q Y C E U R Q �P ckeP 684-` SPRING I' R A I L S Tbis page intenfionali left blank. a ` L r Q to to In N N R C U- 04 r O N « U 0 IL rn N h CR C 'L Q y rn z 2 W S U Q F- Q c m E r U « Spring Trails Specific Plan Packet Pg. 685 i © SPRING T R A I L S DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT Guiding Principles Spring Trails is envisioned as a high-quality,residential living environment that ""5 ' � is sensatively integrated into its physical surroundings. The following are the �' guiding principles for Spring Trails. w Sensitive to Physical Surroundings. Carefiilly weave Spring Trails into its N physical surroundings by: �+ R • Accounting for the potential impacts of the hazards posed by seismic S LL activity,flooding,and wildland fires. N 0 • Preserving significant watersheds, severely sloped areas, and seismic `" hazard areas and incorporating them into the land plan as open space. p a [ • Minimizing the development footprint and area of grading and "N disturbance. m • Prohibiting residential development in the fault zones. - • Using lighting systems that respect habitat in the adjacent National n Forest. ' MOW& rn • Considering the long-term desires of the City as expressed in its W General Plan. x U Distinctive Identity.Create a distinctive identity for Spring Trails through: - F Examples of the types of residential Q ■ The provision of design and architectural standards in the Specific Plan development and street scenes that lead to a variety of architectural styles, floor plans, materials, and envisioned in Spring Trails. e E colors. s U ■ A tailored array of streetscaping,signage,and lighting. ■ Unique entries that create a recognizable character and sense of arrival. ■ A tailored palette of landscaping that is fire resistant and drought tolerant and is carefully located to highlight significant features. ■ Distinctively designed residences set among a system of open spaces and parks. Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 2-1 Packet Pg. 686 6:B.o ODevelopment Concept Unique Living Opportunities. Provide new living opportunities in San Bernardino to take advantage of the surrounding mountains and foothills,valley views, the National Forest, and proximity to the University, and that include recreational amenities and open spaces. Promote Health and Wellness. Promote personal health and wellness in _ Spring Trails through: • A system of open spaces that serves multiple purposes as drainage rn courses, pedestrian pathways, recreational and visual amenities, and S e� separations between residences. cn • An internal system of integrated pathways. N N_ • Connections to regional trail systems. c Examples of the character envisioned in ■ A variety of parks and amenities that encourage outdoor use. N r Spring Trails. a • Educational features that provide an understanding of the physical a features of the site. O © ! a '! Sustainability.Incorporate active and passive energy and resource conservation "N measures,such as the preservation of significant drainage corridors,provision of y bioswales for water quality,provision of pedestrian pathways,drought-tolerant landscaping,and utilization of green building techniques/materials. c .y a oe r- z W x U Q H H Q c m Examples of the unique recreational E amenities envisioned in Spring Trails. a Page 2-2 October 2012 Packet Pg. 687 s.a.o SPRING T R A I L S Spring Trails Spring Trails is a 352.8-acre residential development that is nestled in the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains. Because of the geologic and hydraulic forces that have shaped the site,the development footprint of Spring w Trails is focused on the gently sloping alluvial benches between canyons,steep r hillsides,and the Cable Canyon and Meyers Canyon drainageways,as shown on Figure 2.1,Development Footprint,includes all graded and developed areas as well L as areas within the fuel modification zones. rn As shown on Figure 2.2,Development Plan, the preferred plan for Spring Trails N accommodates 304 single-family detached units (303 new units and 1 existing residence), which are set among neighborhoods separated by open space 73 corridors, drainage ways, roadways, and sloped areas. The preferred plan assumes that the SCE power lines will be remain in-place above ground.Under a the central portion of the power line easement, the land use is designated as N Open Space-Homeowner Maintained. If permitted by SCE,a park and/or trail O may be located under this portion of the power lines as a permitted use; n. however, they are not assumed in the buildout of the alternative plan. The is, northern portion of the power line easement is designated as residential on Exam plesof the physical community Figure 2.2; however, development is not permitted within the power line envisioned in spring Trails. easement. °1 a An alternative plan that assumes that the SCE power lines will be located u) underground is contained in Appendix F. The alternative plan is identical to the rn preferred plan except that it contains 307 single-family detached units(306 new Z units and 1 existing residence). x In Spring Trails,pathways connect residents with parks and to 3.8 miles of trails v that provide access to the surrounding natural open spaces. Development is focused onto approximately 242 acres, or 68 percent of the total site, and includes 9 acres of parks and 125.1 acres of internal slopes and fuel modification zones.The remaining 32 percent of Spring Trails (111.3 acres)is preserved as E natural open space. o Ca The average lot size in Spring Trails is 29,000 square feet.The largest lots are on the northern portion and upper elevations of the site, and the largest lot measures 18.3 acres.The smallest lots are on the lower elevations and southern portion of the project, and the smallest lot measures 10,801 square feet. It is r important to note that in many instances the legal lots extend beyond the buildable area and include graded slopes, fuel modification zones,power-line easements,steep slopes,and open spaces.The buildable and nonbuildable areas Examples of the type of multipurpose of each lot are depicted on Figure 2.2 and Tract Map 15576,which accompanies trail envisioned in spring Trails. this Specific Plan. Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 2-3 Development Concept Primary access to Spring Trails is provided by a new road extending from the southeastern comer of the site,connecting to Little League Drive. Secondary access is provided by a new road extending from the southwestern comer of the site to a frontage road along I-215.Vehicular access from the secondary access road to Myers Road will controlled by one of the two options discussed in Section 3. Within Spring Trails, circulation is provided by a loop road and a _ series of cul-de-sacs. Approximately 193 acres of the total site is graded and improved for the on-site development of residential lots, roadways, trails, detention basins, fuel Q modification zones,and parks.An additional 23.7 acres is graded and improved rn for off-site access,including 4.2 acres for the primary access road and 19.0 acres for the secondary access road. N Spring Trails includes several drainage improvements that collect and convey storm flows in a manner that reduces the amount of storm runoff to levels 'u. below those existing on the site prior to development. Chiefly, the existing o Cable Canyon and Meyers Canyon drainageways remain largely untouched with w the exception of the crossings for necessary roadway and infrastructure O improvements.In addition,on-and off-site stormwater flows are collected and a. routed through a series of catch basin inlets and storm drain systems that cN v convey water to three on-site detention basins,which double as parks.Water and sewer service is provided through connections to existing facilities in the r- southeastern portion of the project site. There are three water storage tanks c' along the eastern edge of the project to provide water service for three elevation a N zones. rn As noted earlier,Spring Trails is in the Foothill Fire Zone and a fire protection w plan has been woven into the design of the community to ensure its long-term safety.The fire protection plan for Spring Trails includes: czi • The protection of structures through the use of noncombustible Q exterior building materials;restrictions on the use of cornice and eave vents;fire sprinklers;and compliance with the most current fire codes. • Greater levels of structure protection on the perimeters of the project • Adequate access and maneuverability for fire protection vehicles.And Q careful placement of fire hydrants to facilitate fire suppression efforts and fire hose access. • Strict landscape and use zones,called fuel modification zones,wherein there are restrictions on the type of uses and the species, spacing, irrigation,and maintenance of landscaping. Page 2-4 October 2012 g SPRING T R A I L S • Clear disclosure to potential homebuyers of the fire threat,preventative measures, and individual responsibilities. • Clear delineation of and maintenance responsibilities for the fuel modification zones. w Land Plan and Buildout Preferred Development Plan The preferred land use plan for Spring Trails is shown on Figure 2.2,Development rn Plan,and is a true representation of the use of land,irrespective of legal lot lines. Figure 2.2 shows the areas where buildings may be located,graded slope areas, N parks, roadways, and open space areas. Figure 2.2 includes categories that describe the actual use and character of land in Spring Trails. If the alternative plan is utilized, Figure 2.2A contained in Appendix F may be used instead. LL N r O N Y V O (L U) N cc H tT C CL y rn F 2 W U Q F- F Q Y C d I_ L V w Q Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 2-5 Development Concept This page intenfionaly left blank. a L F a c L Q LO 04 N N R C LL N r O N w V 0 Q Vi L F C �L Q r Z cW C_ U 4 F N Q C d E r v m Y Q Page 2-6 October 2012 Packet Pg. 691 f -t Aa�TS�C` �? rf lip � s ^. �k '; •N� IT r y.. Ail O ;, .. v tii�y ✓✓ ".e is9 n ty✓ ./' �� t f a s T / � 4Ys • -I Ley, end �",�'' 9 p T5 151lo0 e �t ,,v^Q %d,Slopei 15 p� ,/30 Gr'�eaier.than30% Slope ff • ' ®/0®� Stpiffij%;rails Development Foo pfnntt 1 iti Y �:. '. xoriTO.-., B o tA` CDevelopment Concept Tbit page intentionally left blank. N H 01 C j C 6 y co N N N R C LL N 0 O N M v O © a CO N R H t� C a rn rn z w x U Q E— F a Y C d E t V R Q Paget-8 October 2012 Packet Pg. 693 ,R 1,N Figure 2.2 Development Plan sa�� Le`enl Reedennai o,—SPam-Nal _ OW Spam-Homeowner Maintained _ — Parka MIR, Road c i Notes: r 1.Thahano stpned"Of hueandsan st olme um orlara srespectnre dlkgsllN lines andsnows me reas ashes4 malarial oonmfea waded sbpe i r areas,packs,mrawsys,am open slam al ire a _ davelopnenf poroMlel.Vwwn In Tahle2fis keyedb rar rqure. s b dalbmininq this sal dahat SaM Nanda,ll _ aM duiaahle area of eaM bf wRhin SpirlgT l,mis Fgure aM ifs asswaafed land ose mfe5vrl shad rA C• r I "0 3.This F5r^T reps f (n -fa,w'edde 4oP'rrerN ' pad o,Spmg T rel nd norad/uslnrerdsb i i'wbY l d=nfi arMons, . Iali,ganas, V L. �I Olbhk�nspermeX nso ts�r6 uMax5 k I E-eng � I f AWn-marion and Iplpl Mh Re Itlen a to Neigiibwho06'.i Remain Park 11 b,"Y 4.Th pekmtlde bpn fp assumes MM me SLE,aem .11masio a6orewouM ihegen canumedoAnommal'anall',asm 2. shall ua l( Steam., `xN "� 1 f.' me poarenineseerocerocatetl urgerwound Ames Rwa pass moonfivare wl dalsoxndial to budding unjess His Lou pads am rnnnfiguretlina manrw,emeµeUle to Xre Ne Meyers Figu fesnkted sign r,Nre/ re it options) s)FBwe3.9 for design npnanal SpIngtrails5penfic Plan 9 Pa[tr[Pg.6N y� e.B.o Development Concept This page intenl7onaly left blank. N F m E a U) to H N N N C LL N r O N Y U 0 0. U) N F Ol C O Of H Z W S U Q l- Q Y E L U A Y Y Q Paget-10 October 2012 Packet Pg. 695 6.B.o S P R I N G T R A I L S The development potential of the preferred plan is shown in Table 2.1 and is keyed to the actual buildable area depicted on Figure 2.2 instead of the legal lot lines, so that a clear picture of the use of each acre is understood. When determining the use, development standards, and buildable area of each lot within Spring Trails, Figure 2.2 and its associated land use categories shall govern. If the alternative plan is utilized instead of the preferred plan,the plans y contained in Appendix F may be utilized for the development of Spring Trails and all other provisions of this Specific Plan shall be in place. c This Specific Plan allows minor adjustments per the provisions of Section 6, rn 0. Administration and Implementation,in response to unforeseen physical conditions that necessitate changes in final roadway alignments and widths,grading areas, N buildable pad configurations,and land use boundaries. = m C Table 2.1 Preferred Plan Development Potential N 0 N its 3 Po v O a Residential 70.0 1 unit per lot 303 1,015 a Private Lot(existing) 2.2 1 unit 1 3 A Parks(public and private) 9.0 Open Space- c Homeowner Maintained 126.0 a Utilities s 1.2 ti Roads(on-site) 33.1 a) F- Subtotal 241.5 304 1,018 w Undeveloped Area Open Space-Natural 111.3 U Total F F Total 352.8 304 1,018 Off-Site Access c a Roads/Grading(off-site) 23.7 � t Notes: m As discussed in Section 6,Administrotionandlmplementation,variations to account for final Q roadway alignments and grading may result in a minor shifting of acres. 'Statistics are based upon buildable area depicted on Figure 2.2 instead of the legal lot area to give a true picture of the use of the land.See Figure 2.3,Spring Trails Zoning Map,for the zoning designations. 'Lots 30 and 233,as numbered on Tract Map 15576,are undevelopable unless the building pads are reconfigured in a manner that is acceptable to the Fire Chief. If they are not reconfigured accordingly,the total units developed will be 302. <Population is based on 3.35 persons per unit (Table 2: E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates,1/1/2007). Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 2-11 Packet Pg. 696 Development Concept Zoning As noted,there area variety of lot sizes ranging from 18.3 acres to10,801 square feet.However,portions of some lots may not be built upon as they contain fault zones, graded internal slopes, steep external slopes, water tanks, permanent w open space, or trail easements. The buildable area of each lot has been m determined and is shown on Figure 2.2 (preferred plan) or Figure 2.2A (alternative plan).However,a zoning designation is required to be linked to legal c lot lines,which does not provide a true picture of the use and buildable area of Spring Trails. Therefore, a zoning map has been prepared to satisfy the requirements of the law,though it is not the determining factor for the location N of development in Spring Trails.Figure 2.3,Zoning Map,and Table 3.1 describe - the zoning of each parcel.When determining the use,standards,and buildable area for any legal lot, Figure 2.2, Development Plan, or Figure 2.2A,Alternative LL Development Plan, shall govern. N 0 N U Q CL V) w o� E a rn r Z W x U a a d E s R a C Page 2-12 October 2012 Packet Pg.697 P R I N Figure 3.3 Zoning Map aa�� [A rM, - Legend Residential karate open spare r —__ Side Boundary I A0 ..� i Portal It Prima Roetl —� Gardenv Park 4Pg Park Neighborhood Park'✓ •` Ealsd ng.J J J,.ghb.rhood v ,E'` 'Y RPntlenee to Park It r Remain Above-Ground SCE The Zch kof offing cornea tlesgnaut (\\ Pow¢rlinp Eat¢m¢nt a/easnnd Hoxeuer,tlue fomMs esnWMv ea Access Road aas Sbpe ereea Mowdepo COes nN povNe a Access Road euepilwe endeleaMOUlpeOk Breen/earn b[ Theraftore iE e.aimea—ago. �rngdo,zz oererovmeni Man. Y: sshapyp W. fed . [ tlfic Plzn Pagii g Attachment ATTACHMENT 9-SOdn9 Trails So Oct 2012 Final(325fi'Sprang Trolls) a 6.B.o Development Concept This page intentionally deft blank. H H C Q y m N N N N C LL N r O N a.. U O CL N N v F C 6 y m F Z W S U Q Q c c m E r Q m Q Paget-14 October 2012 Packet Pg.699 6.B.o Section 3 rn DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS LIM N � N A C LL N 0 O N U U O CL U) N H m C CL N Q1 F 2 W 2 U a a C d E t U R Q Packet Pg. 700 6.B.o S P R I N G This page intentionally 1e blank. H H G1 C a w N Ln N N N C LL N r N N r V 0 a. y N F C CL w a z z w x U Q Q c d E t v m Q Spring Trails Specific Plan Packet Pg. 701 6.B.o S P R I N I S R A I L S DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS This section includes land use designations, permitted uses, and development standards that are intended to shape the physical form of Spring Trails. In 'a addition,it includes the mobility plan,parks and open space plan,preliminary m grading plan,and infrastructure plans. F- rn C Unless expressly stated,the Spring Trails Specific Plan development standards c. shall supersede the relevant provisions of the City of San Bernardino's N Development Code.Any development regulation and guideline not addressed in W this Specific Plan shall be subject to the City's adopted regulations in place at the N time of the individual request. E U- Land Use Designations and N Permitted Uses o a Table 3.1,Llrnd Use and Zoning Categories,provides a description of each land use w and zoning category in Spring Trails.The uses allowed in each land use category are summarized in Table 3.2, Permitted Uses. This Specific Plan allows minor adjustments per the provisions of Section 6,Administration and Implementation. c Minor adjustments include interpretations that facilitate the approval of unlisted c uses that are similar to listed uses in nature and impact. The inclusion of any N uses not expressly listed in Table 3.2 may be permitted subject to a CD determination by the Director of Community Development made pursuant to z the Minor Amendments procedures set forth in Section 6 of this Specific Plan. x U Q H N Q C m E r v m Q O Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 3-1 Packet Pg. 702 s.s.o Development Standards Table 3.1 Land Use and Zoning Categories Land Use Category Zoning Category (Figure 2.2) Description of Category (Figure 2.3) Residential Uses Residential Accommodates single-family Residential y detached uses with a maximum density of 1 dwelling unit per lot. Other Uses Q C Parks Accommodates public and Parks a private recreational amenities U) such as tot lots,sports courts N and fields,picnic areas,joggers' N exercise courses,dog play areas, community gardens,and recreational facilities.Parks may ii_ also double as detention basins. Open Space-Natural Accommodates the preservation Residential and N (OS-N) of natural open space areas that Open Space are not graded or used for fuel CL modification areas. m Open Space- Accommodates open spaces Residential and Homeowner that are used for internal and/or Open Space Maintained(OS-HM) graded slopes,fuel modification rn areas,landscaped areas,and detention areas that do not o' double as parks. m Utility(U) Accommodates water tanks and Residential other utilities for public benefit. Z W Roads Accommodates on-and off-site Roads M streets. U The above-ground power line is a permitted use in the land use and zoning H categories in the location depicted on Figure 2.2A contained in Appendix F. ~ Q c d E t U l0 w Q Page 3-2 October 2012 Packet Pg. 703 s.B.o Zap S P R I N G T R A I 1. S Table 3.2 Permitted Uses Use 'A W CT 10J gob 0 Residential Uses Notes: Community care facility(6 or fewer patients) P X X X X . Permitted Use (P):Use allowed a Congregate care,assisted living facilities,and nursing X X X X X subject to the provisions homes, applicable to that district. Da ca re center X X X X X • Development Permit (D): Use allowed subject to the approval M Day care homes,family(6 or fewer children) P X X X X of a minor discretionary y 0. Day care homes,family(7 to 12 children) C X X X X entitlement, which may be " Guest House D X X X X granted underthe provisionsof N Patio covers and gazebos D X X X X Section 19.44 of the City of San Residential care facility X X X X X Bernardino Development Code. Second dwelling(granny)unit D X X X X Conditional Use Permit(C):Use allowed subject to approval ofa LL Single-family detached dwellings and garages p X X X X major discretionaryentitlement, (attached and detached) which may be granted under t°y Recreational Uses the provisions of Section 19.36 Open spaces/parks P P P P P of the City of San Bernardino O 4 Pla equipment P P X X X Development Code. y Swimming pool/spa a P P X X X Prohibited Use (X): Use is not w permitted. Tennis courts(lit and unlit) D D X X X Home Occupation Permit (H): Trails(including bicycles,equestrian,pedestrian) P P P P P Use allowed per the provisions rn Accessory Uses of this section and Chapter Antennae,vertical/satellitedish P X X C X 19.54 of the Development Code. a Fences and walls P P P P X . Temporary Use Permit(T):Use Vl permitted per the provisions of a Recreational vehicle and boat storage P X X X X H this section and Chapter 19.70 Z Storage structures(less than or equal to 120 sf) P X X X X of the Development Code. W Storage structures(greater than to 120 sf)and barns D X X X X Theabove-groundpowerlineis 2 Other Uses a permitted use in the land use Q Homefinding center(temporary) D X X X X and zoning categories in the Private/public utility facilities C C C D X location depicted on Figure 2.2A contained in Appendix F. Wireless telecommunication facilities X C C C X Home Occupations E Subject to(H) home occupation permit H X X X X Temporary Uses Subject to(T)temporary use permit T T T X X G Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 3-3 PacketPg.704 6.B.o Development Standards Development Standards As discussed in Section 2, the buildable area of each lot does not necessarily match lot lines and the buildable area of each lot is depicted on Figure 2.2 or Figure 2.2A and Tract Map 15576.Therefore,the development standards in this section,unless specifically stated,relate to the buildable pad limits depicted on Figure 2.2 or Figure 2.2A and Tract Map 15576. Development standards are m subdivided as follows: c c • Development standards,Tables 3.3 and 3.4,provide standards for each land use category and include such provisions as building height N and setback requirements. a • General development standards provide regulations that apply to LL most,if not all,land use designations within Spring Trails. N r 0 N 0 IL rn A w c a U) m z z w x U Q H H Q c m E r U R w Q O Page 3-4 October 2012 Packet Pg. 706 6.B.o S P R I N G I R A I L S Table 3.3 Residential Development Standards Lot Standards Density 1 unit per lot Minimum lot size 10,800 sf Building Pad Standards' a As shown on Figure 2.2 and Buildable pad location Tract Map 15576 t' Minimum pad width 70 ft E Minimum pad depth 100 ft ° rn Maximum pad coverage 50% Front setback for habitable structure 15 ft tCv N Front setback for front-entry garage 20 ft Front setback for side-entry garage 15 ft c Front setback for unenclosed porch 12 ft `L N Interior side setback for habitable structure loft b Projections into interior side setback' 4 ft U Exterior side setback for habitable structure loft O Projections into exterior side setback z 4 ft N Rear setback for habitable structure 15 ft Projections into rear setback' 4 ft Maximum height 35 ft a' E Maximum buildable pad coverage(main 50% a structure plus accessory structures> 120 sf) rn Accessory structures,patio covers,gazebos, See pages 3-12 and 3-13 barns,play equipment,and storage structures z (>to 120 sf) w Fire Zone Setback 25-50 ft as depicted on Figures = 3.17 and 3.18.Overrides all other Q setbacks. Notes: 'All setbacks shall be measured from the buildable pad as depicted on Figure 2.2 and Tract y Map 15576. E 'Projections are architectural features that extend beyond the building face. Projections include features such as eaves,chimneys,bay windows,stairways,and other architectural detailing.California Building Code requirements take precedence over this requirement. Q Table 3.4 Development Standards-Other Uses Standard Park OS-C OS-N Utilities Height of structure 25 ft Not Not 35 ft Allowed Allowed (� Setback of structure from 15 ft Not Not loft property lines Allowed Allowed Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 3-5 Packet Pg. 706 Development Standards I General Development Standards The following General Development Standards apply to all uses within Spring Trails and may be supplemented by provisions of the project's CC&Rs. Antennas Per Chapter 19.20.030 (3),Antennas,Satellite Dishes and Telecommunication y Facilities, of the Development Code,using the spirit and intent of the Spring Trails Specific Plan as a guide. M c Cornice and Eave Projections N Per Chapter 19.20.030 (17), Projections into Setbacks, of the Development Ln Code,using the spirit and intent of the Spring Trails Specific Plan as a guide. N Cornices and eaves shall be designed according to the standards set forth in California Building Code Chapter 7A. LL Detention/Drainage b Detention and drainage areas shall be permitted in all land use designations as necessary and on a case-by-case basis. When possible, these areas should be O V designed to blend in with the surrounding development, landscaped, and w ♦r�/ designed to accommodate uses that can be flooded, such as active passive recreation and natural open space. Fences and Walls E Per Section 19.20.030 (8),Fences and Walls,of the Development Code,using r°' the spirit and intent of the Spring Trails Specific Plan as a guide.In addition,the following standards shall apply. z w • The height of walls and fences shall be measured from the top of the = highest adjacent grade unless adjacent to a public right-of-way,in which v case the measurement shall be taken from the side of the public right- F of-way. a • Rear or side yards.The maximum height of walls and fences in the rear a and side yards shall be 6 feet. L U • Front yard.The maximum height of walls and fences located between ,«0 the front property line and the nearest building wall (either garage or habitable structure)shall be 3.5 feet.Thereafter,the provisions for walls in rear and side yards noted above shall apply. • Walls and view fences shall be constructed as detailed in Figure 3.1, Wall Detailr,and as required by the Fire Protection Plan in Appendix C. Page 3-6 October 2012 �1 0...6�F:.et.;. Tin. I S P R I N G T R A I L S Figure 3.1:Wall Details Block Wall ALL Q SPECIFICATIONS PER STRUCTURAL ENGINEER N PROPERTY LINE V C CI d AO m N o - - C4 o m n C LL N r O N a+ I I i Q SEC TION d ELEVATION uASGNRY WALL y CID C View Wall CL U) w ALL FOOONG,REBAR AND INSTALLATION CIEAR IELPERFD GLASS NEw PANELS Z SPECiTCATgNS PER STRUCTURAL ENGINEER INSTALLED AFPROMMATELY 6'O.C. W PROPERTY LINE V a A'CLEAR TEMPERED GL H C1A55 N PA VIEW PANELS CC INSTALLED APPROXIMATELY Q APPROMATELY 6'O.C. y C o C � L SLIMNSTONE WAU V y N FINISH GRADE SUMPSTONE WALL r�AGE ELEVATION SECTION r Spring Trails Specific Plan Pa a 3-7 6.B.o Development Standards This page intentionalj left blank. N H C CL N Ln N N N i C W N T N N w V 0 a (A N F Of c CL U) M H Z W 2 U FQ F a Y C d E r U R r.' Q Page 3-8 October 2012 ea� vnn 6.B.o O S P R I N G i R A I L S • Barbed and razor wire,plain exposed concrete block,electronic fencing, and chain link are not permitted. Chain link may be used on a temporary basis at construction sites. Vinyl-coated chain link may be used as a fencing material for outdoor park facilities such as tennis courts,subject to approval of a Development Pemrit,per Section 19.44 of the San Bernardino Development Code. H • All walls, fencing, or screening materials shall be maintained in a physical state consistent with the time of installation. Repair and/or replacement of damaged,defective,or severely weathered materials shall a be completed immediately upon occurrence or within a minimum of 20 days of notification by the City. N N • All walls and fences shall be constructed of noncombustible materials. • All walls and fences in Spring Trails shall be designed and constructed LL to withstand 100 mile per hour winds or the standard in the City of San Bernardino Development Code in effect at the time of the building N pemut application. o O ■ Pilasters,articulation,and/or permanent landscaping screening shall be y incorporated into the design of walls or fences that exceed 25 feet in H length. m Retaining Walls a • When a retaining wall is in the front yard: cn • The maximum retaining wall height may be 2 feet and may be rn directly topped with a maximum 18-inch wall or fence for a total z height of 42 inches,or LU • The maximum retaining wall height may be 3 feet and,in this case, v a maximum 3-foot-high wall or fence may be erected above the retaining wall with a minimum Moot landscaped setback from the back of the retaining wall. c • For retaining walls on the perimeter,side,or rear property lines: E • The maximum height of any solid retaining wall shall be 8 feet as measured from the lowest adjacent grade.Retaining walls may only =° exceed 8 feet iE (1) they are not visible from public areas, or (2) they are visible from public areas and unique designs are incorporated to disguise or break up the mass of the retaining wall (e.g.,offsets,landscape walls,unique materials,or public art). • The maximum height of any fence or wall on top of a retaining wall on the perimeter,side,or rear property lines shall be as would otherwise be allowed if there was no retaining wall. Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 3-9 PackatPa Development Standards Garage Variation To avoid the monotony of projects that employ the same garage placement(e.g., all front-entry garages), a variety of garage placements and orientations is required. Standard garage placement is a front-loaded garage set in from the front property line.Alternative garage orientation and placement are required on 33 percent of the units. Roll-up garage doors with automatic openers are a required for all garages. The following are potential alternative garage Placements: 0 c • Side-entry garages rn CL • Split garages • Garages in courtyards or driveways with a porte cochere N • Straight-in garages in rear two-thirds of the lot m c Garage Sales LL N Garage sales are permitted once every six months for a maximum period of 48 N consecutive hours. O Glossary ran N See Appendix A of this Specific Plan for a definition of terms. Hillside Management Most foothills(areas of 15 percent average slope or greater)within Spring Trails m have been preserved as open space.Development and use in the areas with an average slope of 15 percent or greater shall comply with Chapter 19.15 of the z Development Code. x Home-Finding Center a Home-finding centers are long-term,temporary home sales facilities.They are Q permitted administratively with approval by the Community Development Department during review of tract maps.The duration,location,and required parking and landscaping shall be determined during this review. Upon closure, r home-finding centers are required to revert to the underlying land use per the a approved tract maps. Home Occupations Home occupations include a vocation such as lawyer,engineer,music teacher, or art teacher that is carried on solely by the occupant of the premises. Home occupations are allowed in any residence per the provisions of Chapter 19.54 of the Development Code provided all of the following provisions are met. Page 3-10 October 2012 Pack Pe 6.B.o S P R I N t' K n i t S s ■ There is no alteration in the residential character of the premises. ■ All operations are carried on within the dwelling. • No more than 15 percent of the dwelling is used to conduct a home occupation. N • No merchandise or articles are displayed for advertising purposes. Fes` CM ■ No assistants are employed at the premises. a ■ The premises are not used as a point of sale or for walk-in trade. LO N • Any necessary permits or licenses from appropriate regulating agencies are obtained and fully complied with. c_ • All operations in connection with the home occupation are conducted t` N so as to prevent the emanation of any dust,gas, smoke, noise, fumes, c odors,vibrations,or electrical disturbances. U a. Landscaping ti All setback areas fronting on or visible from a public street and all w recreation/common open space areas shall be landscaped and permanently F maintained in an attractive manner. Such landscaping shall primarily consist of c turf, lawn, groundcovers, trees, shrubs, and other living plants. Artificial turf a may be utilized on up to 10% of the front yard area or common areas within CO public view and up 100% in private yards behind solid walls. Permanent, 100 a percent automatic irrigation facilities shall be provided in all landscaped areas as z appropriate for the landscape type. Landscaping shall comply with the W Landscape Zones Plant Palette (Table 3.6) and the fire protection plan in this v section. Q H N Lighting a M The use of lighting within the community shall not be excessive and shall be °i E consistent with the dark sky guidelines suggested by the International Dark Sky t v Association(www.darksky.org).A detailed lighting plan,including specifications and design standards,shall be submitted as part of the construction documents. The following policies shall apply to lighting in Spring Trails. • Lighting shall be directed on the driveways and walkways and away from adjacent property. ^ • Walkway lighting shall be low-level fixtures (e.g., bollards), spaced to provide adequate walkway illumination, and shall not intrude into the residential dwelling units. Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 3-11 Parka Development Standards • Light standards shall be energy efficient and in scale with the height and use of the structures on-site. • Light standards shall not exceed 15 feet above finish grade.The 15-foot height limit may be waived as deemed necessary by the City Engineer. • Lighting shall be decorative,in keeping with the architectural theme of 'a the facility served,and shall be located within landscape planter areas. • All lighting, including security lighting, shall be directed away from adjoining properties and the public right-of-way. a U) • The level of lighting shall not exceed 0.5 foot-candle at any residential N property line or at the perimeter of the developed areas adjacent to the N areas designated as Open Space-Natural. m c • A lighting plan shall be prepared for all public areas within Spring a Trails.The lighting plan shall establish uniform lighting standards with regard to style, materials, and colors in order to ensure consistent N design.The lighting plan shall be submitted to the City for review and O approval. a N • Game-court lighting is permitted on a case-by-case basis. Prior to installation,all game-court lighting shall be reviewed and approved by the City of San Bernardino and any other responsible governing agency. c Court lighting fixtures shall not exceed 30 feet in height. a U) • Exterior lighting maybe used to illuminate significant exterior features a and landscaping. z w Location of Accessory Structures • A detached accessory structure less than 120 square feet and 6 feet in height and children's play equipment may be located in any rear or side yard provided necessary access is maintained. " c m • A detached accessory structure exceeding 120 square feet and/or 6 feet _ in height(e.g.bam,shed,guest house,etc...) are limited to a maximum of 35 feet in height, shall comply with the setbacks applicable to the main structure, shall not be closer than 10 feet to any other structure, shall not cause the maximum buildable pad coverage requirement to be exceeded.A detached accessory structure shall be compatible with the materials and architecture of the main dwelling of the property. In addition,such accessory structures shall not have openings facing a rear or side property line.This requirement may be waived by the Planning �\ Commission based on findings that such buildings,if constructed on V Page 3-12 October 2012 SPRING 1' R A I L S the rear or side property lines, will not be detrimental to adjacent properties. Location of Patio Covers and Patio Enclosures Patio covers and patio enclosures,defined as nonhabitable space in the adopted California Building Code, may be attached to the rear and/or side of a residential structure provided that the minimum setbacks are maintained as measured to the posts and support members.Eaves may encroach two feet into m the setback. Patio covers shall be consistent with Chapter 19.15 of the San a Bernardino Development Code. (n N Nonconforming Uses N Per Chapter 19.62,Nonconforming Structures and Uses,of the Development m Code,using the spirit and intent of the Spring Trails Specific Plan as a guide. LL N r Parking and Loading Standards N Minimum Number of Parking Spaces p 0. • Two enclosed garage spaces per unit. ■ Public parks may use on-street parking w Parking Design and Use Provisions m c • General provisions. Per Section 19.24.060, Design Standards, of the Q Development Code, using the spirit and intent of the Spring Trails Cn Specific Plan as a guide. m z • Driveways for single-family detached residential units. Driveways w greater than 30 feet in length shall have maximum grade of 10 percent i for a minimum distance of 20 feet from the garage.Driveways less than v 30 feet in length shall have a maximum grade of 12 percent fora � minimum distance of 20 feet from the garage.No portion of a driveway shall exceed a grade of 15 percent, unless approved by the Fire Chief c and City Engineer. E s U • Handicapped parking. Per Section 19.24.050, Handicapped Parking Requirements,of the Development Code. • Recreational vehicles (RVs). The parking or storing of recreational vehicles,dismounted campers,camper shells,boats,trailers,or similar recreational items on streets and lawns, landscaped areas, or other unpaved surfaces within the front yard is prohibited. Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 3-13 Parke Development Standards Product Variation Spring Trails will be attractive and visually interesting.Accordingly,single-family residential neighborhoods will include a variety of product types and design styles. • There should be a minimum of three different material and color palettes. No two single-family detached homes with identical color or m materials palettes shall be adjacent to or directly across the street from F' one another. S c L a • There shall be a minimum of three elevation/facade designs. No two homes with identical elevation/facade designs shall be adjacent to or D directly across the street from one another. • There shall be a minimum of three primary roof materials and roof designs. No two homes with identical roof designs and materials shall LL be adjacent to or directly across the street from one another. No N a-i Public Utility Lines o CL Per Section 19.30.110,Underground Utilities,of the Development Code. (0 N Satellite Dishes F Per Section 19.20.030(3),Antennas,Satellite Dishes and Telecommunications E Facilities,of the Development Code. N m Screening z z • All utility connections shall be coordinated with the development of the W site and should not be exposed, except where deemed appropriate or U necessary by the City. • Utility equipment, such as surface-mounted transformers, pedestal- a mounted terminal boxes and meter cabinets,and sprinkler manifolds, c may be placed above ground provided they are screened from view E inside the building or enclosed structure, or by landscaping, parapet v wall, or other architectural element.All vent pipes and similar devices y° that are attached to the building shall be painted to match the building. All roof-access ladders shall be located inside structures. • All roof-mounted equipment,such as mechanical equipment,tanks,and ducts, shall be screened on all sides from street-level public view and neighboring residences by landscaping, parapet wall, decorative enclosure,or other architectural element.Equipment screening shall be designed and painted to match the building and shall be equal to the maximum height of the equipment. Page 3-14 October 2012 © S P R I N G T R A I L S • All storage,including cartons, containers, materials, or trash, shall be shielded from view within a building or area enclosed by a solid fence or wall not less than six feet in height. • Ground-mounted equipment, including heating and air conditioning units and trash receptacles,shall be completely screened from the view a of surrounding properties through the use of screen walls,landscaping, A or other methods. rn c • Exposed gutters,downspouts,vents,louvers,and other similar elements o shall be painted to match the surface to which they are attached,unless w the elements are incorporated as part of the design element of the site. to N N Second Dwelling Units c Per Section 19.04.030(P),Second Dwelling Unit Housing Design Standards,of ii the Development Code. 0 N Signs O o Per Section 19.22,Sign Regulations,of the Development Code.Specifically,the N regulations governing signs in residential districts for Neighborhood y Identification on Table 22.01 shall apply to Spring Trails. i` m Street Access CL Per Section 19.20.030(1),Access,of the Development Code. cn m Trash Collection z w Trash in Spring Trails will be serviced by individual collection with the following = provisions: v a ■ Collection vehicles must be able to provide service without backing up. a c ■ 25 feet of overhead clearance is required at collection points. °' E L • All homes serviced using individual containers shall have a minimum of 44 square feet(4'x l l� of designated space for each container and the space for the storage of three containers. The container storage space does not have to be contiguous.The approved site plan must identify the designated container storage area. • All containers must be stored in a space easily accessible for the resident that is screened from view from the street. O Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 3-15 Packet Pg. 716 Development Standards • The conditions, covenants, and restrictions shall include detailed responsibilities of each homeowner for trash container drop-off and pick-up,container spacing,as well as penalties for noncompliance. • All individual containers must be retuned within 24 hours of collection. a Mobility Plan Spring Trails is designed with an efficient multimodal circulation system that S provides safe and efficient internal and external connectivity.The Mobility Plan, 0. as detailed below, describes the network of streets and multiuse trails within Spring Trails that provide a range of options for vehicular, pedestrian, N equestrian,and bicycle mobility. N A Vehicular Circulation ;L N As shown in Figure 3.2,Circulation Plan,the Spring Trails Specific Plan consists c of a hierarchy of streets,described below.Primary access to Spring Trails will be © provided at the southeast comer of the project site via a street extending from O Little League Drive to the project site.Secondary access to Spring Trails will be 0. via a street extending from the western edge of the project site to a frontage H road along Interstate 215.All necessary public streets,both on-and off-site,shall be improved by the developer and dedicated to the City.The typical street cross- , sections and plan views are illustrated in Figures 3.3 through 3.8. c CL y n Street Types Primary Access Road z w The primary access road provides the main access for residents and guests to enter and leave Spring Trails. A typical cross-section and plan view are v illustrated in Figure 3.3. F- F a Secondary Access Road c The secondary access road is intended as an alternative street for local traffic to °i E access arterial streets outside the project site. A typical cross-section and plan view are illustrated in Figure 3.4. �«0 a Secondary Access Road—Special Segment This designation identifies the segment of the Secondary Access Road that contains curves and grading and where it is desirous to reduce vehicular speeds to safe levels. To reinforce posted speed limits,the applicant will install design treatments,such as landscaping,medians,or pavement changes,which provide O visual cues to drivers to reduce speed. The design treatments shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to construction of the Secondary Access Road. Page 3-16 October 2012 Packet Pg.717 6.B.o SPRING i R A I L S Primary Local Street The primary local street provides access to residences within Spring Trails. A typical cross-section and plan view are illustrated in Figure 3.5. Secondary Local Street A secondary local street serves residential estate lots in the northern part of Spring Trails.A typical cross-section and plan view are illustrated in Figure 3.6. m c Cul-de-Sac I o Streets designated as cul-de-sac I connect to the local streets and provide access N to homes on both sides of the street.A typical cross-section and plan view are N illustrated in Figure 3.7. m Cul-de-Sac II = LL Streets designated as cul-de-sac II connect to the local streets and provide access a to homes on only one side of the street.A typical cross-section and plan view N are illustrated in Figure 3.8. O © Secondary Road- Meyers Road Intersection Options vi Local residents expressed a desire to prevent project-related traffic from accessing the eastern side of Meyers Road and negatively impacting their quality of life. In response,the intersection of Meyers Road and the Secondary Access O7 c Road shall be designed to either prevent or discourage access to Meyers Road. o The final design will be determined by the City Engineer in consultation with u) local residents. z z As shown in Figure 3.9,Meyers Road Options,there are two proposed options for w the treatment of the intersection of Meyers Road and the Secondary Access v Road. Q • Option 1—Cul-De-Sac the east side of Meyers Road at the intersection a with the Secondary Access Road. In this option, Meyers Road is y disconnected via a cul-de-sac on the eastern side of Meyers Road. An L emergency access road and gate allow emergency access to residents on the eastern side of the Secondary Access Road. On the western side of the Secondary Access Road, full access to and from Meyers Road is maintained. • Option 2 —Restrict left turn movements from the Secondary Access Road to Meyers Road. In this option, the intersection of the Meyers and Secondary Access Roads are realigned and offset and a raised median prevents left-hand turning movements from the Secondary O Access Road onto eastbound Meyers Road yet still allows full turn movements from Meyers Road to the Secondary Access Road. The j1 1 i Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 3-17 i Packet Pg. 718 6.B.o Development Standards ability to make a left-hand turn movement onto westbound Meyers Road is maintained in this option. Off-Site Access Points In the locations depicted on Figure 3.2 as Off-Site Access Points, driveways shall be provided to allow access to adjacent properties. N Off-Site Improvements i`- Little League Drive will be extended to the project site and,north Meyers Road, will be improved to City standards. Other necessary off-site improvements, o such as the Palm Avenue/I-215 and Glen Helen Parkway improvements, are part of the City's Master Facility Plan and will be funded through developer Ln impact fees. `' m c U_ N r O N U O a 0- N H E Q N 01 z z w x U Q F Q c m E L U A Q C Page 3-18 October 2012 Packet Pg.719 P R I N Figure 3.2 Circulation Plan a^�� /(. Y legend '�:' h:: J �r.t. (Gie(y� ntvsA�wnalss luw/ �f' s®wva�v dlwloM �A' � � � � s®mvr�ASa-kWd��NgSUa�AA - Pdrmyl�Pm11�RNlj .,. a� s�aavml�dNd'mM .� R cdaesllacrcY.� r :. f— WitlikOoBigl®tim '.eµ. I�m PrRSaebrmnm.nme Reelmnrm�N mwlmlmm.am.me.A.a.RI J' a t /-9 J �T is *� rsnpaa restnttea¢rea {` l rKp PRpre s s ro..a.wn r Secondary Access Road a � PR 8 Or Spi g Trails Spxific Plan Pape,19 Attachment.ATTACHMENT 9-Spring Trails SP Oct 2012 Final(P15fi:Spring Trails) O B.B.o Development Standards This page intentionally left blank. N H W C a w m N N N A C LL N 0 O N Y U Q IL w N H O C CL rn rn z z W 2 U Q Q Y C E L V A Q Page 3-20 October 2012 Packet Pg.721 6.B.o S P R I N G T R A I L S Figure 3.3 Primary Access Road tib qw � y J3 r ` • a F C C � V / 10 8' 5' 5' 12' 12' 5' 3' LL N Walk Parkwa Emg. Travel Travel Emg. U. or Landscape c Lane Lane N 13' 34' p Q. N 50' R L R.O.W. LO w c L Q Q z Z W C • 6_ H F Q c E - L w Q ' r Q Not to Scale , Spring Trails Specific Plan Pacle 3-21 Packet Pg. 722 6.B.o CDevelopment Standards Tbis page intentionally left blank. N R F M C Q N l0 N N N R C LL N r O N U 0 a rn w rn c CL rn rn H z w x U Q a d E r U R r a Page 3-22 October 2012 Packet Pg.723 S P R I N G T R A I L S Figure 3.4 Secondary Access Road Concrete Drainage Concrete Drainage ° Ditch(Typical) Ditch(Typical) w 'R a c 1 C a \, v4 N c LL / N r � N 11' 12' 12' 11' Graded Travel Travel 40 Graded 0, 10 0 Only Only y 13' 24' 13' H H rn 50' CL R.O.W. W • HH ~ c ' Q c E - r Q Not to Scale . Spring Trails Specific Plan Pace 3-23 Packet Pg. 724 6.B.o Development Standards Thu page intentionally left blank. N H C .Q N l0 N N N t0 C LL N r O N U O CL N N F- H C Q N a) H Z W 2 U Q H F Q C N E r U m a C Page 3-24 October 2012 Packet Pg. 725 6.B.o S P R I N G T R A I L S Figure 3.5 Primary Local Street 0 c c td ^ N N N A c 5 5' 8' 12' 12' 8' 5' 5' ii 10 CIA P.U.E Walk Parking Travel Travel Parking Walk P.U.E 0 N 40' V U IL rn N 50' A R.( W. I` M2.1 LLM m • c a V) am H ' Z W U Q F _ Q C • c m • "" E r V . � Q Not to Scale Spring Trails Specific Plan Pacle 3-25 Packet Pg.726 6.B.o �.. Development Standards This page intentionally left blank. N f- m C a w m N N N N C LL N 0 O N U U O IL N H m .E- CL w rn z z W U FQ F Q c m E r U R r+ Q Page 3-26 October 2012 Der4nl }Dn 797 I S P R I N G T R A I L S Figure 3.6 Secondary Local Street ss" � F E CL n o LHM pO0 Ln N N N 5' 8' 12' 12' 3' 5' LP.U.E Walk Parking Travel Travel Landscape LL. N r 32' N O IL 40' rn N R.O.W. f- c a m „ � H . 2 W S Q F F Q E • v ' Q �J V r Not to Scale Spring Trails Specific Plan Pa e 3-27 Packel tPa.728 I j s.e.o i CDevelopment Standards This page intentionally left blank. I I w I I � S j c y h N N C LL N 0 O N w U O CL w H A F- H CL C n to m F Z W V Q Q M C d E L U A a.r r Q Page 3-28 October 2012 Dsn41 M Di. %90 I 6.B.o Q S P R I N G T R A I L S Figure 3.7 Cul-de-sac I CL I � � C N _ to N N N LPU.E 5' 8' 10' 10' 8' 5' 5' c Walk Parking Travel Travel Parking Walk P.U.E N 0 36' I 1 O a 46' a R. .W. i h m l C V (n O) F IIJ 2 Q r s ♦ � Q C d E Q Not to Spring Trails Specific Plan Pa e 3-29 Packet Pg. 730 6.B.o Development Standards This page intentionally le blank. N H O C a to Lo N N N N C LL N r O N V O IL U) N F Co C CL N O) F Z W S U FQ F a d E t v A a Page 3-30 October 2012 Packet Pg.737 6.B.o S P R I N G T R A I 1. S Figure 3.8 Cul-de-sac II a� v 00. V1 to a o � <D N N N R L 5' S' 8' 12' 12' 3' c P.U.E Walk Parking Travel Travel Landscape 0 N 32' O a y 40' m F Z W 2 U Q H Q c y E z v a 1 e Not to Scale Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 3-31 Packet Pg. 732 6.B.o Development Standards This page intentionally left blank. N r rn c CL ch N N N C LL N O N U 0 a N F- N CI c a rn r z w x U Q H F Q c d E s U lC Q Page 3-32 October 2012 Packet Pg. 733 6.B.o S P R I N G I R A I L S Figure 3.9 Meyers Road Options Option 1: Cul-de-sac at Meyers Road Option installs a cul-de-sac on Meyers �\\ Road east of secondary access road w i \ i \ Meyers Road will no longer be a \\\ through road Ezlsr.MrERS RD carE \\ • Emergency only access will be provided rn I \ between secondary access road and EMERGENCY ACCESSiONLY Meyers Road a I \ I EXIST.DRIVEWAY • A gate will be installed on emergency _ \ \\ m \ �! access from secondary access road a CUL-DE-SAC N \ O \\ / CL w N SECONDARY M Not to Scale ACCESS RDAD �•}�� 'PO � C a Option 2: Restricted Left Turn from Secondary Access Road to Meyers Road m Option installs a curbed median on Z w �\\ secondary access road CURB MED"'N Left turn from southbound secondary >_ Eas xD \ access road to eastbound Meyers Road I_ j0st' \\ blocked by curbed median a / \ c 1 Full turn movements from Meyers Road m E to secondary access road is provided I m 1 I EXIST.DRIVEWAY Creates a split intersection of Myers a \ \\ I \ \\ Road and secondary access road SECONDARY ACCESS ROAD \ Not to Scale \ Spring Trails Specific Plan Pa e 3-33 Packet Pg. 734 6.B.o Development Standards This page intentionally left blank. CL N L r c L n N N R C LL N r O N U O a N L F W C CL U) am H Z W 2 U a a r v E r U a Page 3-34 October 2012 Packet Pg.735 B.B.o O — SPRING T R A If. S S Trails, Parks, and Open Spaces As shown on Figure 3.10, Trails, Parks, and Open Space Plan, the Spring Trails Specific Plan provides parks and open space that serve multiple functions: as recreational opportunities, as buffers, as visual landmarks, and as an i interconnecting system of trails.The parks and open space are easily accessible to every resident in Spring Trails.Parks are located to ensure that all homes are within three-quarters of a mile of a park and are interconnected by a 5 comprehensive system of trails. rn Maximum buildout of the Spring Trails Specific Plan would accommodate 307 N units and a population of approximately 1,028 residents. Based on the City's N standard of 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents,full buildout of the Specific m Plan would result in the need to provide 5.14 acres of parkland or an equivalent S LL fee in lieu of dedicated parkland. N 0 N Spring Trails provides approximately 246.3 total acres of public and private 0 o parkland, open space, and trails, as summarized in Table 3.5 and further a described below. The 9.0 acres of usable public and private parks exceed the y City requirements. If permitted by SCE, a park and/or equestrian/pedestrian T Z trail may be located under the power lines;however,they are not assumed in the buildout of the preferred plan or for purposes of park credits. If SCE permits use of this easement,then the usable open space would increase by 0.9 acres. .1 CL U) Table 3.5 Open Space, Parks, and Recreation Facilities F- Summary w Parks/Recreation Facilities Acres x Private Parks 2.0 Q Public Parks 7.0 Open Space-Natural 111.3 4 Open Space-Homeowner Maintained 126.0 Total 246.3 E r v m Trails a A diverse and comprehensive trails system is an integral part of Spring Trails. The 3.8 mile long,interconnected trail system will allow residents to walk or hike to neighborhood parks and within open space. The varied designs and scenic locations of planned trails will encourage trail use, help to reduce automobile use within the community,and promote healthier lifestyles.The trail O system is also expected to connect to future and existing regional and City trails. All trail connections will be planned in coordination with the Parks and Recreation Department and the Community Development Department. Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 3-35 Packet Pg. 736 Development Standards Appropriate access and use restrictions should be determined prior to construction of any trail connections. The planned trail system consists of a community trail, equestrian/pedestrian trails, and hiking trails, as shown on Figure 3.10, Trails, Parks, and Open Space Plan, and described below. N Community Trail F The community trail is an 8-foot-wide trail surfaced with decomposed granite or c other appropriate surface and located within the primary access road right-of- �I way. It is intended for pedestrian and bicycle use. See Figure 3.3,Primary Access Road, for a conceptual cross-section of the 8-foot wide community trail. vOi N N_ Equestrian/Pedestrian Trails a c Equestrian/pedestrian trails are 12-foot-wide trails surfaced with decomposed C4 granite or other appropriate surface. Equestrian/pedestrian trails will include c observation points at scenic vistas.Access control fencing may be provided if needed for public safety. See Figure 3.11 for a conceptual cross-section of this trail. a N Hiking Trails As shown on Figure 3.9,hiking trails are conceptual and represent the need to provide off-street connections in certain locations;however,the exact alignment — is not predetermined in the Specific Plan and will be established with the w approved tract map. Hiking trails will generally be a minimum of 4 feet wide. Examples of the types of trails and See Figure 3.12 for a conceptual cross-section of the hiking trail. z pedestrian paths envisioned in Spring w Trails. Trailheads = U Trailheads occur at Neighborhood Parks I and II and Garden View Park,and are identified on Figure 3.10, Traih, Parks;and Open Space Plan.Trailheads shall a have maps of the trail system and signs to advise people of miles and regulations, c trail etiquette,and pemnitted trail uses. m E r Observation Points Observation points are areas with spectacular views of the surrounding natural I open space elements. Observation points are strategically located along the multipurpose and equestrian trails, as shown on Figure 3.10, Trails, Parks and Open Space Plan. Observation points should include benches,trash receptacles, shade structures,hitching posts,and educational kiosks describing local geology Examples of the types ofpedestrion and habitat. If access to water is readily available, drinking fountains and dog Camenities envisioned in Spring Trails. comfort stations should also be provided. Page 3-36 October 2012 0 P RI .0 Figure 3.10 Trails,Parks,and Open Space Plan Legend neadenL-al �• ,. a * ''� 1=1511111111111111 open spa[o .'5 .. Parks GW,d 9opes y T OOlty 12-foot EauennaMftd tnao Trail Imo •'{' •••••• a-foM Communal Tr I(On-street) ���y ��� 3r � �� .aa..• 4faotN kng Tril 1r ••• Plannee Tra l lofhael Observation Point J^ Tni mm Garden Vlew `• Park((Private) F fk • • go N / aa� ' } T�� i - 'OO6 Per ••a ••••• Co no 1 _ -.jPriwtel t PM _ - e1lsNe o-all NeighbarhOOd Pork L 1 ighbo,h..O Pa • e S -. - � • A + ~ t Above SCE P 1io.1lIe ft F.io¢M¢Ilt f F4 7 se goes ft.ROM .J IfjomlMMby SLE a park endbrepwsManbaeyesfnen {, hoilmeYbeWakemn& Msserlmes. I ,r a $ �} SpInq TAns SpMfi[Plan Faae 3d] b rs AtYOMmM:ATTACHMENT 9-9pnsq Tnga SP Oct M11 Firel 13368:Spine Trans) Development Standards This page intentionally left blank. N F- O C M n m H N N R C LL N 0 O N 0 V 0 CL w `w" H F W C CL m z z w x U Q H H a Y C CD E L V N v r Q Page 3-38 October 2012 Packet Pg. 739 S P R I N G T R A I L S Figure 3.11 Equestrian/Pedestrian Trail Conceptual Cross-Section w F _ _ Q T N CM r 1 jp C IL sre 4 N O 0. =(u 1 �'1 w "m m c CL y m Decomposed Granite z Trail Z Shoulder Shoulder LU 2 12' U Q c m E L V A Q Not to Scale ` Note: This illustration is conceptual in nature and is intended to show the range of facilities accommodated within the feature and potential arrangement of improvements. The exact size, configuration, and level/type of the improvements will be determined during the grading process. Spring Trails Specific Plan Pace 3-39 Packet Pg. 740 6.B.o �..r Development Standards Thispage intentionally left blank- (W R H Of C a U) m N N N N C LL N r O N M V 0 a. v w w rn c CL y m F Z W S U rQ F Q Y C E t V yR V Q Page 3-40 October 2012 Packet Pg. 741 S P R I N G T R A I L S Figure 3.12 Hiking Trail Conceptual Cross-Section 9 CI ` d 04 � e � t N CM C_ lam._ ILL N �r yyy « Li U Q a y N F W 4' 2'., °t C Trail TerraX a Drain y Shoulder o� 10' Z w x U Q F- F Q :7 c d E M U A « Q Not to Scale Note: This illustration is conceptual in nature and is intended to show the range of facilities accommodated within the feature and potential arrangement of improvements. The exact size, configuration, and level/type of the improvements will be determined during the grading process. Spring Trails Specific Plan Pa e 3-41 Packet Pg. 742 B.B.o CDevelopment Standards This page intentionally left blank. W F- c a w ro N N N A E LL N r O N V V O IL U) H r F C C. y Of r z w x U a a c m E r v m C Page 3-42 October 2012 Packet Pg. 743 i SPRING T R A I L S Parks Neighborhood Parks. Neighborhood parks are public parks that offer a localized opportunity for outdoor recreation in Spring Trails. The two neighborhood parks in Spring Trails are dual-use parks that also serve as water detention basins.Conceptual Mustratives of each of the two neighborhood parks 'a are shown in Figure 3.13, Neighborhood Park I Conceptual Site Plan, and j Figure 3.14, Neigbborhood Park II Conceptual Site Plan. Specific recreational amenities depicted in Figures 3.13 through 3.16 are representational and will be m S { determined in the final park plan approved by the City. Additional amenities C may include but are not limited to: gathering areas that provide active and j passive recreation for the adjacent residents,shade structures,and tot lots. N I Dog Park.This private,1.6-acre park is conceptually envisioned to consist of a completely enclosed play area for dogs and an adjacent unenclosed family picnic a area that includes view benches and a group picnic structure. A conceptual w illustrative of the park is shown on Figure 3.15, Dog Park Conceptual Site Plan. N Specific recreational amenities depicted in Figure 3.15 are representational and will be detemrined in the final park plan approved by the City. In the final O EL + O design,this park may not include a dog park facility.If a dog park is developed, V) the dog play area shall be secured by a combination tubular steel fence with w decorative pilasters along the perimeter of the dog play area facing the local street.A chain-link fence shall secure the play area around the remainder of the c boundary. - CL rn Garden View Park. Garden View Park is a 0.4-acre private park with a Q, thematic garden,an observation point,and a tot lot.A conceptual illustrative of Z Garden View Park is shown in Figure 3.16,Garden View Park Conceptual Site Plan. LU Specific recreational amenities depicted in Figure 3.16 are representational and = will be determined in the final park plan approved by the City. Additional v¢ amenities may include but are not limited to:an outdoor fireplace,water feature, picnic benches, and gazebo. c d E s U R , I �F O Examples of the types of recreational j amenities envisioned in Spring Trails. Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 343 Packet Pa.744 i 6.B.o CDevelopment Standards This page intentionally left blank. a Ii 'R F- c y m i i N C LL 1 N 1 r I N Y V O a w i i H rn c a y m F 2 W 2 U Q Q Y C d E t V Y Y Q Page 3-44 October 2012 Packet Pg.745 i SPRING analr Figure3.13 Neighborhood Park l Conceptual Site Plan \- \ Federalist/ \,v Equestrian Trail MNbIN v ume re 1 ants area with Dog,Fount / Shelter wind Interpretive Fountain, Searing,and lnterprefige aiosk n Hitching Past with garea for Hanes and So - Group Picnic i Area Open Field &Fond Concreas MR, 11 Or iIdrens all A. k less Gme Haisslli9 lfldN2aon 15[WICnsdainnrachin antlilwaenetl fo show _—� N rcle range olracwies awa+vlmaaree warm me reaavl—son, dI. —� n gamentmas,,sPi Par The axaaal d.*V Par'.n.anele�reu o n ryye orme lmpoaeme.WS n+a Oe eNemerne eumgnre graeinq ano —� v euitlmgppnna pereaa. SptlngTrails SpmTr Plan Pape 3-a5 m Attachment ATTACHMENT 9-Spring Trails SP Oct 2012 Final(3268:Spring Trails) 6.B.o Development Standards This page intentionally left blank. N H Im C a y Ln N N N i A t LL N O N V U) CL U) I " rn a U) m F Z W 2 U I F Q Y C d 1 V N W Q 1 Page 3-46 October 2012 Packat Pa. 747 Figure 3.14 Neighborhood Park 11 Conceptual Site Plan Areareni / -Clean Flel{_ \ .. Equestrian Hitching Past Nest Meawit Dog Lamson Entry Pl� \ 6NtlOn MM king Fountain, Sedi antl) rpre4ve Nso It sore:mu mpnrarron is mrwepNal;n name a�w;s mremrearo.cnow .'—\� �\ me raryle ofmdgrlpa accommooetea w:rmw me(earwe anepore,aal �` 8 naft trergemmrorimprovem me exact Saeconfigure0on arq kueu 1 / �/'��1 p YPo a(Iha impovemertd xifl As OeMmnetl tlurag the 9atlnl9 antl � l / / r P� 01 btipv10Gd/IIIIf P'o255. a gpin9T ells pttifi[ <( AtYCM1menf.ATTACHMENT 9-Sptlnp Trails Sp Oct 2012 Final(II66:Spring Trans) 6.B.o Development Standards This page intentionally left blank. N r rn c CL cn LO co N N R C W N r O N a.� U O a N N F C CL U) T H Z W 2 U a a d E r U m Page 3-48 October 2012 Packet Pq. 749 1' It ., FigureMS Dog Park Conceptual Site Plan Entry Plaza l J` Dog play rule. Bemh l — G 6u Double Gated cou seturiry Entry Wm oR Main(enaneB gf Sfatlon Road prinWnB HIXnHTmll A Ae This illusb&im is wocoo.l in rurwe antllc intentletl Al sMw U,a range atPaenme:aupmmptlatetl.ahip me rearwe aroporermai s,rengame,x otlmgrovemems. me exan size,con"tron,mw hreu p type orthe imprev rea win be Cerermi U eonng the PaNng aW o m a 1 DuiMing Ganret P'emu. a � g5,19fills SPttlfi[Plan Page 3.a b AIYCM1mem:ATTACXMENT9-Spring Trails Sp Oct 2012 Fine 13366:Spring Treilel 6.B.o Development Standards This page intentionally left blank N L rn Loc c N Lo N N A C W N r O N u U 0 a N N F- F m C Q N Qf H Z W 2 U Q H F Q C m E t U A Y Q Page 3-50 October 2012 Packet Pg. 751 I' R Ira Figure 3.16 Garden View Park Conceptual Site Plan —� 1 lguia ,re re post F,slide / Potlest nTrall Point Children,may Area Genera Viessol ® Role Garden Pedestrian Crossing /1 Pedestrian Crossing [/ Spnnq Trails Specific Plan Page35l m Attachment:ATTACHMENT 9-Spring Trails SP Oct 2012 Final(2356:Spring Trails) 6.B.o Development Standards This page intentionally left blank N F C� C a to 1D N N N A C LL N r O N V 0 CL y w F rn c CL rn rn z z w x U Q Q r c d E t v m Q Page 3-52 October 2012 Packet Pg. 753 S.B.o S P R I N G T R A I I 9 Fire Protection Plan Spring Trails is in an area that is designated as a very high fire hazard area.To protect lives and property,an extensive fire protection plan has been developed as part of the Spring Trails Specific Plan. The objective of the fire protection a Plan is to assist the developers, builders, homeowners, and special districts/associations to understand and comply with the approved features of the development.The Eire protection plan will help the San Bernardino City Fire s Department(SBFD) provide fire,rescue,and EMS services to Spring Trails in N an effective and efficient manner.The fire protection plan includes: LO N N ■ Fire Risk Assessment zt ■ Fuel Modification Zones ■ Vegetation Management Guidelines LL ■ Allowed and Undesirable Plant Palettes N 0 ■ Planting Maintenance and Spacing Guidelines c' U © ■ Construction Phasing Management Plan O ■ Infrastructure/Structural Construction Features and Requirements ai ■ Compliance Matrix listing all of the building and development standards to be applied to the project ` rn E The fire protection plan was prepared in accordance with the requirements in a various codes in the City of San Bernardino Municipal Code,including: m ■ Chapter 15.10. Foothill Fire Zone Building Standards z ■ Chapter 15.16.Amended Fire Code LU ■ Chapter 19.15. Foothill Fire Zone Overlay District v ■ Chapter 19.17.Hillside Management Overlay District ■ Chapter 19.30. Subdivision Regulations c This section provides a summary of the fire protection plan,which is contained in Appendix C.Since the Hillside Management Overlay zone does not apply,the Conditional Use Permit called for in Section 19.17.050 of the Development 2 Code is not required prior to construction. Instead, a Development Pemrit is a required prior to construction to ensure consistency with the Fire Protection Plan. Fuel Modification Zones © One of the most basic components of fire protection is to change and reduce the fuel that allows a fire to burn. Simply put if there is no fuel, there is no fire.In Spring Trails,there are three zones,called fuel modification zones,where Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 3-53 Packet Pg. 754 Development Standards the type, spacing, irrigation, and maintenance of landscaping are strictly Crit eria Lots 30 and Criteria Fire Protection controlled. The fuel modification zones will keep the flames far enough away t Development of Lots 30 and 233 shalt from structures that,in combination with other efforts,the buildings will not only occur when the following ignite.The locations of fuel modification zones are shown on Figures 3.17 and conditions are met and if approved by 3.18. Cross-sections of the fuel modification zones are shown on Figures 3.19 the Fire chief • The total fuel modification distance through 3.26.Descriptions of the fuel modification zones are detailed below. w for lots 30 and 233 shall be a 'R minimum of 170 feet. Lots 30 and 233 are currently considered unbuildable and shall be used as part 1`- • The fuel modification shall consist of of fuel modification zone B.However,these lots may be made to be buildable if • Zone A-an irrigated landscape the provisions in the adjacent text box are followed and if approved by the Fire c zone within the Spring Trails Chief.Lot 307 contains an existing home and fuel modification on lot 307 shall to property. .. • Zone B-an irrigated landscape be maintained by the existing homeowner. N zone within the Spring Trails N property between Zone A and Fuel Modification Zone A. This zone provides a 20- to 35-foot defensible the project boundary allowing only non-combustible space for fire suppression forces and protects structures from radiant and construction. convective heat. Fuel modification zone A includes these requirements: ii • Zone A-an irrigated landscape C4 between the residential structure ■ Fuel modification zone A shall be as shown on Figures 3.17,3.18 and °+ and the wildland interface.Zone C shall extend between zone B 3.26,and in no case shall fuel modification zone A be less than 20 feet. 0 and offsite to the required a raimmum distances noted below. ■ Fuel modification zone A shall be located on a level graded area at the til Zone C may be a temporary off- top or base of a slope between zone B and the structure. w site fuel modification zone until the adjoining property is F_ developed.Until the adjacent ■ Fuel modification zone A shall be maintained by the homeowner c property is developed,an and/or LLMD. - casement will be required for N maintenance of zone C.If the ■ Combustible construction is not allowed. adjoining property is developed F_ prior to the development of the Z Spring Trails,then the off-site ■ Automatic irrigation systems are required to maintain healthy vegetation w fuel modification will not be with high moisture content. required for Lots 30 and 233. U • For Lot 30,Zone A shall have a ■ Irrigation shall be maintained outside the drip line of native oak trees. minimum/maximum distance of 20 Q feet,Zone B shall have a minimum ■ Plant material shall be selected from Table 3.6, Landscape Zones Plant distance of 50 feet and a maximum palette. distance of 111 feet,and Zone C shall at have a minimum distance of 40 feet E and a maximum distance of 100 feet(a ■ Complete removal of fire-prone plant species and minimal allowance total of 15,469 square feet off-site for retention of selected native vegetation as required in Table 3.7,Plant Zone C). Removal.List. • For lot 233,Zone A shall have a minimum/maximum distance of 20 ■ The first 20 feet from the structure shall consist of well-irrigated,well- feet,Zone B shall have a minimum distance of 68 feet and a maximum spaced,approved fire-resistant groundcover, shrubs,or lawn. distance of 139 feet in width,and Zone C shall have a minimum ■ Approved trees must be properly located, spaced, and limbed up to distance of 43 feet and a maximum one-third their height or six feet from the ground. distance of 80 feet(a total of approximately 20,706 square feet off- site Zone C). Page 3-54 October 2012 Packet Pg. 755 � P R 1 N G T T R A I 1. S ■ Fire-resistant plants and shrubs shall be kept to a maximum height of 18 inches. ■ Shrubs or plants shall not be planted under trees. ■ Grasses must be kept to less than four inches high.Groundcover must N be low profile and kept to less than six inches high. m H • Pruning of foliage to reduce fuel load and vertical continuity, and the removal of plant litter and dead wood are required as necessary. Q rn • Vegetation is not allowed within 10 feet of chimneys,and tree canopies are not allowed within 10 feet of structures. N • Chipped biomass or wood bark shall not be permitted within 30 feet of structures. ii N • Special considerations are permitted for rare and endangered species, N geologic hazards,tree ordinances,or other conflicting restrictions and 3 o shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Chief. 0 a. U) ■ Required maintenance includes ongoing removal and/or thinning of rn combustible material,replacement of dead/dying fire-resistant planting, maintenance of the operational integrity, programming of irrigation systems,and regular pruning. a Fuel Modification Zone B. This zone provides 50 to 200 feet of irrigated m landscaped areas to help reduce combustible fuels. Fuel modification zone B includes the following requirements: W ■ Fuel modification zone B shall be as shown on Figures 3.17,3.18,and 3.26 and in no case shall fuel modification zone B be less than 50 feet. < Q ■ Fuel modification zone B shall be maintained by LLMD. c m ■ Combustible construction is not allowed. E r U A • Landscape plans shall delineate that portion of the fuel modification area that will be permanently irrigated. • Plant material selection, irrigation system design, and the landscape maintenance management plan shall sensitively address water conservation practices and include methods for erosion control to protect against slope failure. © • All irrigation shall be kept a minimum of 20 feet from the drip line of any existing native Quercus (oak) species. Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 3-55 Packet Pq. 756 6.B.o Development Standards • Plant material shall be selected from Table 3.6, Landscape Zones Plant Palette. • Complete removal of fire-prone plant species and minimal allowance for retention of selected native vegetation as required in Table 3.7,Plant Removal List. N • Ground cover shall be maintained at a height not to exceed 18 inches. i F • Native grasses shall be allowed to seed and shall be cut after annual tM seeding to a maximum height of eight inches. a� • Irrigation shall be designed to supplement native vegetation and W establish/maintain planted natives and ornamentals. • Trees and tree-form shrubs (shrubs that naturally exceed four feet in c pruned height) shall be spaced and in conformance with the ii requirements in Figure 3.26. c N • Tree-form shrubs less than four feet in height and other shrubs shall be O spaced so they do not create an excessive fuel mass and can maintained d Q in accordance with specified spacing,as indicated on Figure 3.26. N • Sensitive and/or protected species shall be identified on the fuel F modification plans and tagged in the field for further disposition. c .` • Landscaping shall be in accordance with the planting guidelines and rn CL spacing standards as specified in Appendix C. m r • Special considerations are permitted for rare and endangered species, w geologic hazards,tree ordinances,or other conflicting restrictions and n shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Chief. t) Fuel Modification Zone C. This zone provides a nonirrigated 50 percent C thinning zone with removal of all dead and dying vegetation and undesirable species. Zone C is 40 to 185 feet in width surrounding the developed areas. E Thinning zones are utilized to reduce the fuel load of wildland fires. Fuel z modification zone C includes the following requirements: • Fuel modification zone C shall be as shown on Figures 3.17,3.18,and 3.26. • Removal of all dead and dying vegetation,with all fuels reduced to a maximum of 8 to 12 inches in height. C ■ Fuel modification zone C shall be maintained by an LLMD. Page 3-56 October 2012 Packet Pg.757 Q SPRING T R A I L S • To maintain proper coverage, native grasses shall be allowed to go to seed.Native grasses shall be cut after annual seeding. Cut heights shall not exceed eight inches. • Any plants selected for planting in this zone will be chosen from the approved plant list in Table 3.6, Landscape Zones Plant Palette, for the w setback,irrigated,or thinning zone. r • Complete removal of fire-prone plant species and minimal allowance c for retention of selected native vegetation as required in Table 3.7,Plant �`0 Removal List. N • Special considerations are permitted for rare and endangered species, geologic hazards,tree ordinances,or other conflicting restrictions and shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Chief. c LL • Reduce fuel loading by reducing the fuel in each remaining shrub or tree c without substantial decrease in the canopy cover or removal of tree w V © holding root systems. p CL ■ Removal is required of all low-hanging tree foliage within three times N the height of the understory shrubs or 10 feet,whichever is greater. • Sensitive and/or protected species shall be identified on the fuel modification plans and tagged in the field for further disposition. Q CO • Trees and tree-form shrubs (shrubs that naturally exceed four feet in m height) shall be spaced and pruned in conformance with the z requirements shown in Figure 3.26. w • Tree-form shrubs less than four feet in height and other shrubs shall be U spaced so they do not create an excessive fuel mass and can maintained Q in accordance with specified spacing as indicated on Figure 3.26. a • Maintain sufficient cover to prevent erosion without requiring planting. E L Fuel Modification Plant Palette Zone. Plant material within the fuel modification plant palette zone must be on the approved Spring Trails Fuel a Modification Plant Palette in Table 3.6,Landscape Zones Plant Palette. No plant material from Table 3.7, Plant Removal List, shall be allowed in any fuel modification zone.This area shall be irrigated and must be maintained per the maintenance standards set forth in the fuel modification plan in Appendix C. Irrigated Manufactured Slopes. This area identifies manufactured slopes obeyond or in the vicinity of the fuel modification zones and is intended to reduce the fuel load of a manufactured slope. Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 3-57 Packet Pg. 758 Development Standards • Plant material shall be selected from Table 3.6, Landscape Zones Plant Palette. • Shall be maintained on a year round basis by LLMD. Roadside Brush Clearance.This area requires removal of all undesired plant species and thinning of at least 50 percent of all existing vegetation 10 to 20 feet a from curb face. Any plant material installed must be fully irrigated and from Table 3.6, Landscape Zones Plant Paktte. This area will be maintained by the existing homeowner or LLMD. CL U1 Brush Clearance. Brush clearance includes areas around project water tanks and shall consist of removal of all dead and dying shrubs,and all plant material N from Table 3.7,Plant Removal List.This will be maintained by the LLMD. i Building Setback.Buildings not on the wildland interface/fuel modification E LL zones shall be set back 25 to 50 feet from the adjacent property lines or any N natural area adjacent to the homes. This zone shall have no combustible N construction within it. o O Additional Fuel Modification Requirements.The following shall be required � for the completion and maintenance of all fuel modification zones. w ■ The fuel modification zones shall be identified on the ground,with the markers identified as detailed in Appendix C. E CL ■ Prior to issuance of building permits in each sequence of Phase 2 (see U? Section 6 for the phasing plan), the fuel modification zones shall be completed to the levels deemed necessary by the Fire Chief. z W ■ Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy for the first building in i each sequence of Phase 2,the fuel modification zones shall be installed and completed per the fire protection plan and inspected and approved F- by the Fire Chief. ■ Prior to conveyance to the HOA of the maintenance responsibilities for the fuel modification zones,a meeting will be held with the SBFD Fire Inspector, landscape design professional, landscape installation Y 1 contractor,HOA representative,and LLMD representative to discuss 4 j the requirements and responsibilities for each fuel modification zone and the fire protection plan. i ■ The fuel modification zones shall be maintained as originally installed j and approved. j i I { Page 3-58 October 2012 0 PRLN S Figure 3.17 Fire Protection Plan(Northern Project Areal NOBS: free one shrub lamipns eeplctetl witM1in the/vet moeirycotian aones am t Conrtrvction Feature Legend nIX emR Oneart onlyinteneM[o[covey thehH OnesMUbsponng.epuiremenn p I mm inee in this fire fiAna lPlon.fleje.tO figure 3l6 Jw'Tre rand Te[-/Dion iAF� I' �� I +a'^ laN.n . n nv.'n A—� asro. SMnvh huninp we Sappro for New Wan6ngs one IDmmnp Zones' A O a a An—I.N.aa..mv.m... +u bVi.a. .A an.nn..m.omn•m.me.zmrA...me r.n.mm.arv. `. ( _ see enla as ent'6 on Figure 3.18 FIi � h�an j Sy idol Legend cana l Ali w °C • I U F el Modiflca on bases Legato r.. wu LL .J A.AaA A if rWapnW Won ilpm 9.1111 s 2g O ' - re -- --'1 i •il�h� i i i i i�lil �J _ . ..., vluW�^'+nef mUe w.m ? gym."." P.a.... won _seumrxw,a-a: m.e...A.�e<�.a..,�n�.N ^� —a3100 scale(36°x60')wall of this figure is provided in appendix C. y Saint,Rails Specific Plan Pape35a S AM[M1mem:AT -5 - a Spring Trails SP Oct 204 Final(2256:Sprang Trails) 0 6.B.o Development Standards This page intentionally left blank. N H tT C a N N N 7; C LL N r O N U O d N F m C Q N N Z W 2 U Q H E- Q c Q E t v m Page 3-60 October 2012 Packet Pg.761 P K I A G Figure 3.18 Fire Protection Plan(Southern Project Areal l Construction Feat Legend t [E NoiFS' i e shrub 1 oti Mptt a ni !h )uN Wfimem ernes oe l eY t( ( ene anner and per mg,interned W essurs rhe freei shrub Appeal repulrements nialarges'an par Fire nM.N .011.Igure 3.16) f w'Ties had Leeform al 1. 1k�39 es same vrun-ngprle sppNng%,Nrwvlanong:one mendsmnes F n ;8 I, �,n.sbom e.. .„..c..a ai Symbol Legend . assa2e hus,i ran —n—gran-iiiierid—lu—nir—par. all n,a p ddw aaal W l ., k -a....." It 'd Fuel Modification lanes Legend Is i aprand F nr LL • / ltl'la / a W� oigi :Ball aP l / v .I m a I , h — as e, a w ..urns R...har basis Nunn- AM sale(3ra6A"l version ofthis fyure is provided in Appendix\ EN Figure .17 R' � ENLARGEMENT Figure .17 oso, =h—Nwire..'autu.....m—hur..a see Figure 3.1) � Figure 3.1T Spring Trails Specific Plan Pape 361 Q Attachment ATTACHMENT 9-Sprang Tells Sp Oct 2012 Final(RRM:Sprang Trails) 6.B.o Development Standards This page tntentionaly left blank. H H C CL y to N N N A C LL N r j O N V V O IL M H F C a w m z z W 2 U Q a V C E t V y10 Y a Page 3-62 October 2012 Packet Pg. 763 S P R I N G T R A I L S Figure 3.19 Fuel Modification Section 1-1 RO W�TO ROM. yyy5" N a y 2O w tar OPEN SPACE N iMEA 2O1EE Z EC N Im TOTAL FUE1 MOOIF1G1pN A C LL N 0 N N w U 0 CL U) yr Figure 3.20 Fuel Modification Section 2-2 t` rn c NEAR VANp a PAD EWE mmII ''mmII cy � Z W 2 U FQ F Q I c d E L U O1 r ar RT 196' OPEN SPACE Q 2ONEA ZONES ZONEC 206' TOTAL FUEL NOpP MN fir f-' Not to Scale Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 3-63 Packet Pg. 764 6.B.o Development Standards This page intentionally left blank. N F- 0) G Q N tO N N N A C LL N r O N U 0 a N H m CL C N n W r z w x U Q H H Q m E t m Q Page 3-64 October 2012 Packet Pg. 765 a <; o P R I N T S T R A I L 5 Figure 3.21 Fuel Modification Section 3-3 REAR TARO PRaP LNE w H a c CL w x so ZONE A ZONE S H N t>t' OPEN WALE N TOT&FUEL WOW I ION A C LL N r O N Y 0 CL t N rA Figure 3.22 Fuel Modification Section 4-4 rn E CL U) m r z w FRONL FARO 2 R.O.W.TOR O.W. a r C dC G w 1w OPEN SPALE L ZONE A ZONES 41 A 215 TOTAL FUEL LgOIFICATION a firelgt Not to Scale Spring Trails Specific Plan Pacle 3-65 Packet Pg.766 i 6.B.a CDevelopment Standards This page intentionally left blank. N F lA C a N N I N to C LL N r O N w U O CL N m H CP C 6 V) T H Z W 2 U Q H Q c m E t U A Q O Page 3-66 October 2012 Packet Pa. 767 S P R I N G T R A I L S Figure 3.23 Fuel Modification Section 5-5 AEM YARD PAD EDGE PNOPERTY LINE F IT ACCEW MVATE 3Ni C MfVE DRNE pyk .0 CL rn W) N _v/ N A C LL N 2oY O ZONE B ZONE A N 2]D V TOTrLL FUEL MOOIFMATION O CL rn w Figure 3.24 Fuel Modification Section 6-6 rn c REM YAM F Z W FU F Q c m E r v 9 OPEN SPADE IN SB B1 MINE ZONEB ZDNEA 200 TOTAL FUEL MOOIFIOATION fire®Not to Scale Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 3-67 Packet Pg.768 6.B.o Development Standards This page intentionally left blank. N f r C .a N N N C LL N r O N U O IL Cn N L L CL N W F Z W 2 2 U Q H F Q c m E t U m Q Page 3-68 October 2012 Packet Pg. 769 S P R I N G T R A I L S Figure 3.25 Fuel Modification Section 7-7 REM YARD PAO EIX E PIiDPERfY LINE V/ ® y I � H u tp ACCESS PRIVATE I; O DRVE DRIVP 6 Vl to N N N A C LL N r awe apFA Alp N TOTAL FUFL MDgFICATON V 0 a y N N .E- 06 rn m z z W S V Q H F Q r C d E L V N r+ Q Not to Scale fires Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 3-69 Packet Pg. 770 6.B.o v Development Standards This page intentionally left blank N L H C L CL N to N N N N C IL N T 0 N Y U 0 CL N N L F C CL U) a H Z W S U ~Q F Q c m E t U R Y_ Q Page 3-70 October 2012 Packet Pg.771 P R I \G Figure 3.26 Fare Protection Plan Details TYPICAL FUEL MODIFICATION AND CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS TREE AND TREE-FORM SHRUB PRUNING AND SPACING FOR NEW PLANTINGS AND THINNING ZONES :—. .... a ....... IDENTIFICATION MARKER DETAIL a '11A"•♦'••'-�'^°�'•�•�°r' '�"'-� w•r•-a- r— -EGEaX Q — a w..w.w ,..�.r......r.....r.r.rw.r 77 Q. NELMODIfIGTION PLANT PALLETTE(Peter to Figures 3.1]and 3.18) sprang trails sperifi[Plan Pape3-]r b Attachment ATTACHMENT 9-Sprang Kula SP IXL 30II Final(3358:Sprang Treilc) a Development Standards This page intentionally left blank. N H O C a N N N C LL N r O N V 0 a to _ N H C a w rn z z w x U a 1= a 4) d E t A a Page 3-72 October 2012 Packet Pg.773 6.B.o SPRING T R A I L S Building Construction/Protection Systems By themselves, the setbacks, materials, and methods stipulated in the fuel modification zones are not enough to prevent structures from igniting.Airborne embers can ignite fires great distances from the flames themselves.Many homes actually bum from the inside out due to embers blowing into attic vents or under barrel tiles. Therefore, structures in Spring Trails shall adhere to the following standards: m • All structures shall be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers built per a the specifications of the SBFD. • Roof coverings shall be a minimum Class A roof assembly. N N_ • All structures within 200 feet of a fuel modification edge,as shown on Figures 3.17 and 3.18, shall receive enhanced construction on all four sides of the structure per California Building Code, Chapter 7A. In N addition, the following requirements from San Bernardino Municipal o Code Chapter 15.10 shall apply: v OFencing, fascias,patios,exterior trim,and other exterior elements 0 shall be of approved noncombustible or ignition-resistant material. y 1 Vinyl window frame assemblies shall have the following i characteristics: m ° Frames shall have welded corners and metal reinforcement in m the interlock area, _ .Q Dual-paned insulated glazed units with at least one pane of tempered glass, Frame and sash profiles are certified in AAMA Lineal w Certification Program(verified by an AAMA product label or a Certified Products Directory), v • Certified and labeled to ANSI/AAMA/NWWDA101/I.S.2-97 for structural requirements. Attic and underfloor vents shall be protected by corrosion-resistant noncombustible wire mesh with maximum 1/8-inch openings or d E provide equivalent protection.Attic vents shall not face wildlands. • Roof-mounted turbine vents shall not be permitted. .6 • All roof coverings shall be of nonwood materials with at least a Class A fire-retardant rating. • Paper-faced insulation shall be prohibited in attics or ventilated spaces. • There shall be four exterior hose bibs per house. ■ All structures within Spring Trails but outside of the area 200 feet from j O a fuel modification zone edge,as shown on Figures 3.17 and 3.18,shall receive Enhanced Construction on all four sides of the structure per Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 3-73 Packet Pg. 774 Development Standards California Building Code, Chapter 7A, Phase II, regarding roofing, venting,and rain gutters only. Ongoing Education In addition to the built-in fuel modification zones and construction techniques, the active participation of the homeowners is necessary to adequately protect Spring Trails.Accordingly,the following shall be required: • The fire threat, fuel modification zone requirements, maintenance m responsibilities, protection plans, approved plant palette, list of a unacceptable plants,preventative measures,and evacuation routes shall be disclosed to potential homebuyers prior to the sale of any residence o and readily available to homeowners upon request. N • The HOA shall sponsor annual clinics conducted by fire professionals c to educate residents on the fire threat, fuel modification zone S LL requirements, maintenance responsibilities, protection plans, landscaping requirements, preventative measures, and evacuation N routes. O 0- w rn c CL U rn H Z W U Q r c m E t �o a Page 3-74 October 2012 Packet Pg.775 B;B.o SPRING T R A I L S Safety Plan Postfire/Flood Recovery Plan Hillsides that have burned as a result of wildfires may be subject to debris flows, which can fill downstream drainage corridors,debris basins,and flood control channels beyond their capacity.Accordingly,the following shall be required: al ■ Prior to issuance of building permits, a postfire/flood recovery plan a shall be in place to address the maintenance of drainage facilities and w debris removal after a significant fire or flooding event.The recovery W plan shall be developed with input from the City of San Bernardino,San N Bernardino County Flood Control District, and the Spring Trails landscape maintenance district and/or homeowners association. LL Seismic/Geologic Safety o N Spring Trails is in the San Andreas Fault zone and includes three traces of the O San Andreas Fault,which runs in an east—west direction through the northern 0 and southern portions of the project site (see Figure 1.3). These faults were IL precisely located through detailed geologic investigations (see the EIR appendices) to establish safe structural setback limits. m Due to the potential seismic and geologic hazards, proposed development in c Spring Trails is subject to the following: 0 • All structures in Spring Trails shall be required to meet or exceed the r applicable seismic design standards of the California Building Standards Z w Code,which correspond to the level of seismic risk in a given location. x • Construction of habitable buildings shall not occur over or within 50 feet of any known active fault or as required by the geotechnical 4 analyses. c • No water reservoir or booster pump station shall be constructed within E 15 feet of an active fault. L U A w • Grading for building pads and roads shall conform to specifications of the geologist,based on a soils study and final geotechnical study. • Flexible materials and joints shall be used for infrastructure(e.g.,roads, sewer and water lines)located across known faults. • Flexible pipe fittings shall be used to avoid gas or water leaks. Flexible O fittings are more resistant to breakage. • The final project grading plan shall be reviewed by the City geologist. Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 3-75 Packet Pg. 776 6.B.o Development Standards Wildlife Corridors As described in Chapter 1,Spring Trails contains two important corridors for wildlife movement: 1) the unnamed tributary of Cable Creek that flows in an east-to-west direction in the northern third of the project site (northern corridor); and 2) the outwash of Cable Creek adjacent to the Interstate 215 w freeway(southern corridor). m The northern corridor is crossed by an access roadway in two locations and the secondary access road crosses the southern corridor. As shown in Figure 3.27, Q Spring Trails preserves these corridors as natural drainageways,open space,and w wildlife movement, even under the roadway crossings. Accordingly, the to following requirements apply the corridors: m Northern Corridor E LL N • As shown on Figure 3.27, the northern corridor shall be a minimum b 100 foot wide open space corridor with a minimum of 50 feet P1 separation between the nearest development pad and the centerline of p O the creek. a ■ Native vegetation within this corridor must be maintained to the a maximum extent allowed by the Fire Protection Plan • Riparian vegetation that provides high-quality foraging opportunities, m cover, and other habitat values shall be the preferred vegetation type, unless specifically prohibited by the Fire Protection Plan. <n • The corridor shall be maintained free of fences, walls, or other m obstructions. ~ z • Any lighting associated with the project in this area, including street 2 lights and residential lights, shall be of the minimum output required v and shall be down-shielded to prevent excessive light bleed into adjacent areas. a • Any road crossings,bridges,culverts,etc.shall be constructed with soft c bottoms with an openness ratio of at least 0.9(openness ratio=height x E width/length). z U • Additional recommendations, as outlined in the report entitled A t6 Linkage Design for the San Gabriel-San Bernardino Connection(South a Coast Missing Linkages Project,2004),may be incorporated as agreed upon by the City Engineer and applicant. Southern Corridor © ■ Any bridge,culvert,or other road crossing structure shall be designed in such a manner as to allow for the natural drainage flow through/under Page 3-76 October 2012 Packet Pg. 777 6.B.o SPRING T R A I L S the structure and downstream of the structure, as conditioned by the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service during the Section 7 permitting process. ■ Any road crossings,bridges,culverts,etc.shall be constructed with soft bottoms with an openness ratio of at least 0.9(openness ratio=height x width/length). _ ■ Additional recommendations as outlined in the report entitled A H Linkage Design for the San Gabriel-San Bernardino Connection(South i- Coast Missing Linkages Project,2004) may be incorporated as agreed 0 upon by the City Engineer and applicant. Q In These measures shall be incorporated into site development plans,and must be N reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of grading permits. These N requirements shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. c LL N r O N w U O a w Vi h lT C a m N z w x U Q F- E L U t0 r a 1 Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 3-77 Packet Pg. 778 6.B.o Development Standards This page intentionally left blank. N R C .L Q N O N N N A C LL N 0 O N w U © U) IL rn N m c .Q N m H Z W S U Q F- r m E t U A w Q O Page 3-78 October 2012 Packet Pg. 779 B:B.v S P R I N G I R n i I_ s Figure 3.27 Wildlife Corridors Northern Corridor ■ � � N • I' v 2 I r',., I- r� � f0 f�! i ILL • r O N V O Not to w Southern Corridor Location Map aA Vt _ _ c T•f." .. O a* • :� „¢y, I Northern Z Corridor i. 17 I Q d. ? � e Itrry Y tx L d I_ r Leeend O Wildlife Road Crossing n n M 04 --•— Wildlife Corridor(100' minimum width) n Refer to Page 3-74 for standards and guidelines related to wildlife corridors and crossings. Spring Trails Specific Plan Pace 3-79 Packet Pg. 780 6.B.o Development Standards Tbzr page intentionally left blank. H .i H C a w m 04 N N A C LL N r O N r V 0 CL w H H O/ C a N m H Z W 2 V FQ F Q V C d E r r M Q Page 3-80 October 2012 Packet Pg.781 B.B.o S P R I N G I R A I L S Landscape Plan Landscape Theme The Spring Trails landscape has been designed to reflect the natural beauty of w the surrounding environment and elements of sustainability. Plant materials A have been chosen based on the area's environmental conditions and fire protection needs,as well as the aesthetics they will bring to the community.The c landscape is designed to enhance the walkability of the community by leading v`0 residents to parks and open space.The landscape design guidelines for Spring Trails are intended to guide the project developer by describing the design intent N for the landscape features and amenities of Spring Trails.The landscape design e" concept is intended to create elements of design continuity to reinforce a"sense of place" for the community as a whole. a N Landscape Zones N V The intent of designating landscape zones is to seamlessly and naturally blend O the community landscape with the surrounding natural environment. Plant y CL material proposed for each landscape zone is consistent with the landscape `' a zones plant palette described in Table 3.6.The designated landscape zones are _ shown in Figure 3.28,Landscape Zones,and are described below. rn E Natural Open Space Zone rnn The natural open space zone contains a mixture of Riverside-an sage scrub, chaparral,nonnative grassland,and several riparian and woodland communities. F This area is generally located in the perimeter areas of Spring Trails outside of w the fuel modification zones and will be preserved. If any intentional or = unintentional grading occurs within this zone,the development contractor shall V restore this zone to its original state. Examples of the types ofthe variety of landscaping that can be found in Spring Q Transition Open Space Zone Trails. The transition open space zone is primarily located on the perimeter,ungraded E slopes of the development footprint and provides an interface between natural n open space areas and the more formal landscape of the residential neighborhoods. The transition open space zone is intended to be planted in R such a manner as to blend into the ungraded natural areas.This zone is in fuel modification zone C and plant materials in the transition open space zone shall be on the approved fuel modification plant palette found in Table 3.6. Refined Open Space Zone © The refired open space zone generally consists of open space areas within Spring Trails and includes natural and manufactured slopes and the SCE power line easement.Portions of the refined open space zone are in fuel modification Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 3-81 Development Standards zones A and B,and plant materials in the refined open space zone shall be on the approved Landscape Zones Plant Palette in Table 3.6. Theme Zone The theme zone occurs in parks and along streets in Spring Trails. The streetscape plant palette should provide a unifying theme and a sense of permanence. It is also intended that the landscape features within this zone, such as entry monuments,also provide character supportive to the landscape r theme of Spring Trails,setting the tone and establishing the uniqueness of the c community. a rn Landscape Plant Palette N The plant palette presented in Table 3.6 contains plant species appropriate for CM each landscape zone in Spring Trails (refer to Figure 3.28,Landscape Zones).All c plant materials presented in Table 3.6 are approved for use within the fuel iL jmodification zones of Spring Trails.Proposed plant materials and their location shall be consistent with the Spring Trails Fuel Modification Plan described in r°+ Section 3 and contained in Appendix C. OU O a Landscape Zones Plant Palette y The plant palette presented in Table 3.6 shall be used as the landscape selection along streets,parks,and in developed and controlled open space areas.All plant materials contained in Table 3.6 are approved for use within the fuel modification zones in Spring Trails. m m Z Z W x U Q N F Q C N E t U A 1 Q I O i Page 3-82 October 2012 Packet Pg. 783 1 ti �r as , Figure 3.28 Landscape Zones Legend Residertoil Natural Open Space Zone Trassibor,Open Spars Zone, Ratner!Open Sione Zone There Zone Attachment ATTACHMENT 9 Spring Trails SP Oct 2012 Final(2256:Spring Trailg) r B.B.o Development Standards This page intentionally left blank. N F C a y W) N N N A C LL N 0 N N Y U O a y N F C a N m H Z W S U Q a Y E t V y� V a Page 3-84 October 2012 Packet Pg.785 B.B.o S P R I N G T R A I L S Table 3.6 Landscape Zones Plant Palette w L r Q Acermacro h lum Big Leaf Maple o Alnus cordata Italian Alder p p W N Alnus rhombifolia White Alder p p o N Arbutus unedo Strawberry Tree p p W Beaucamea recurvata Bottle Palm p p W Ceratonia sill ua Carob p p W LL Cercis occidentahs Western Redbud p p W N Citrus species Citrus p p W N Enobotryajaponica Lo uat p p p N v Erythrina species Coral Tree p p W EL EL Fei'oa sellowiana Pineapple Guava p p p N Ginkgo biloba Maidenhair Tree p p W Ju lans califomica California Black Walnut p p p N La erstroemia indica Crape Myrtle p p W rn La unaria patersonii Primrose Tree p p I W Li uidambar styraciflua American Sweet Gum p p W n ° Liriodendron tuli fera Tulip Tree p p W Lyonothamnus floribundus ssp. Fernleaf Ironwood p p W r as lenifolius Z w Macadamia inte rifolia Macadamia Nut p p W Maytenus boaria Ma ten Tree p p W v Metrosideros excelsus New Zealand Christmas p p N F Tree Parkinsonia aculeata Mexican Palo Verde p X Pistacia chinesis Chinese Pistache p p W y Pittos orum tobira Tobira p p n E L Pittos orum undulatum Victorian Box p X Q m Plantanusracemosa California Sycamore p p p W Popolus fremonth Western Cottonwood p p p o Prunus caroliniana Carolina Cherry Laurel p X Prunus l onii Catalina Cherry X Punica granatum Pomegranate p p N Quercus a nfolia Coast Live Oak P P P o Quercus en elmannii En elmann Oak X Querous ilex Holly Oak W Querous kello ii California Oak N Querous subar I Cork Oak X Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 3-85 Packet Pg.786 s.s.o Development Standards Table 3.6 Landscape Zones Plant Palette 71 ', S �' E N to CL W CL 0 Botanical Names Common Names I z 1- IM Rhus lances I African Sumac N Sambucus mexicana Mexican Eldeterry P o fl Stenicar us sinuatus Firewheel Tree W v). Umbellularia californica California Laurel o to Shrubs N Abelia x grandiflora Glossy Abelia P p 1W Acacia redolens Desert Carpet' Desert Carpet p n Achillea millefolium Common Yarrow P X LL Achillea tomentosa Woolly Yarrow P W 0 Aloe arborescens Tree Aloe p N N Alogyne hue eii Blue Hibiscus P W O Amofpha huticosa Western False Indi obush P o o- Antirrhinum nuttalianum ss . no common name o w Arctosta h los glandulosa ss . Eastwood Manzanita o Arctostaphylos hookeri Monterey Monterey Carpet Manzanita p P W Carpet' Arctosta h los pungens no common name p p N c Arctosta h los refu ioensis Refu io Manzanita p p N Cn Arctosta h los x`Greens here' Greens here Manzanita P P W Atri lexcanescens Four-Wing Saltbush P X Z Atri lex lentiformis ss .brewed Brewer Saltbush P X w Baccharis emo i Emory Baccharis o 2 x Baccharis salicifoha Mulefat P P P o Bacharis pilularis ssp. Chaparral Bloom p p p W o consan uinea a Bougainvillea s ectabilis Bougainvillea p p Nn L; Brickellia califomica no common name P p P o m Camissonia cheiranthifiloa Beach Evening Primrose o E Carpentaria califomica Bush Anemone P P W A Ceanothus gloriosus Point Reyes' Point Reyes Ceanothus W a Ceanothus griseus'Louis Louis Edmunds Ceanothus p p W Edmunds' Ceanothus gdseus var. Carmel Creeper Ceanothus p p W horizontalis Ceanothus g6seus var. Yankee Point Ceanothus p p W horizontalis O Ceanothus megarcaipus Big Pod Ceanothus P P P o Ceanothus prostratus Squaw Carpet Ceanothus W Ceanothus s inosus Green Bark Ceanothus o Page 3-86 October 2012 Packet Pg. 787 SPRING T R A I L S Table 3.6 Landscape Zones Plant Palette 00 01 r1rcommon Nam .cc z N F Botanical Names es WIO IM C Ceanothus verrucosus Wart-Stem Ceanothus W a Cistus h bridus White Rockrose W N Cistus incanus no common name W Cistus incanus ss . Corsicus no common name W N Cistus salviifolius Sa eleaf Rockrose W Cistus x u ureus Orchid Rockrose W Cneoridium dumosum Bushrue o LL Comarosta h lis diversifolia Summer Holly W o �' Convolvulus cneorum Bush Morning Glory N N Co rosma pumila Prostrate Co rosma p W v Cotoneaster a me i no common name p W O a Cotoneaster buxifolius no common name p W rn Crassula ovate Jade Tree p X Dendromecon ri ida Bush Poppy p p 0 Dodonaea viscose Ho seed Bush p p N ~ rn Echium candians Pride of Maderia P P W E Elaeagnus pungens Silverber W ° U) Encelia califomica California Encelia p p o m Epilobium canum[Zauschnena Hoary California Fuschia p p p o' califomica] Z w Enodictycon crassifolium Thick Leaf Yerba Santa p p p o Eriodict con trichocal x Yerba Santa p p P o = U Edo h llum confertiflorum no common name p p Iwo Escallonia species Several varieties I p I p N Fremontondendron califomicum California Flannelbush p p W Galvezia s eciosa Bush Snapdragon p p W m Garrya elli to Silktassel p p W E r Grevillea'Noellii' Grevillea A Grewia occidentalis Starflower p p W Hakea suaveolens Sweet Hakea p p N n Hardenbergia com toniana Lilac Vine P p W Helianthemum sco arium Rush Rose p I p I p o Heteromeles arbutifolia To on p p p on- Hypencum cal ycimum Aaron's Beard p X Isocoma menziesii Coastal Goldenbush p p p o lsomeris arborea Bladde od o Keckiella antirdrinoides Yellow Bush Penstemon o Keckiella cordifolia Heart Leaved Penstemon p p p o Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 3-87 Packet Pg.788 B.B.o Development Standards Table 3.6 Landscape Zones Plant Palette 00 00 0 0. H F Keckiella temata Blue Stemmed Bush p p p o Penstemon a Lantana camara cultivars Yellow Sae p p W Lantana montevidensis Trailing Lantana p p W Lavandula dentata French Lavender p p W N Lavandula stoechas'Otto Quast' Spanish Lavender Le tos eemum laevi atum Australian Tea Tree p p W m c Leuco h Ilum frutescens Texas Ranger p Ip W LL Li ustrum a onicum Texas privet p p N N Limonium perezii Sea Lavender p X N Lonicera japonica 'Halliana' Hall's Japanese p X 0 O Honeysuckle Lonicera subs icata Wild Honeysuckle o rail Lotus sco arius Deerweed p p p 0 Mahonia aquifolium'Golden Golden Abundance Oregon p p p W Abundance' Grape rn Mahonia nevenii Nevin Mahonia W Malacothamnus fasciculatus Chapparal Mallow P p p o a y Melaleuca neso hila Pink Melaleuca p p W M o orum debile no common name p p N F M o orum insulare Boob alla p p W Z w Nerium oleander Oleander P X 2 Nolina cismontana Chapparal Nolina p p p o = U Nolina species Mexican Grasstree p p N Osmanthus fra rans Sweet Olive p Ip I W F' Penstemon species Beard Tongue p X Photinia fraseria no common name p p W aci Plumba o auritulata Plumba o Cape p P W E r Portulacaria afra Elephant's Food X M Potentilla glandulosa Sticky Cinquefoil p P P o Prunus caroliniana'Bri ht'n Tight' Flowering Plum W Prunus ilicifolia ss .Ilicifolia Holly Leafed Cherry 0 Pu a species Pu a P 1p I W P racantha species Firethorn W Quercus berberdifolia California Scrub Oak p p p o n Quercus dumosa Coastal Scrub Oak p p p o n* © Rhamnus alaternus Italian Buckthorn p X Rhamnus californica California Coffee Berry o Rhamnus crocea Redber o Page 3-88 October 2012 Packet Pg. 789 6.B.o SPRING T R A I L S Table 3.6 Landscape Zones Plant Palette kL N r ra c Rhamnus crocea ss .Ilicifolia Holl leaf Redberry P p I p 10 a Rha hiole is species Indian Hawthorne p p N Rhus inte rifolia Lemonade Berry o n Rhus ovata Su arbush p p p o n r Ribes aureum Golden Currant p p p o Ribes indecorum White Flowering Currant p p p o c Ribes speciosum Fuschia Flowering p p p o ii Goosebberry 1 N Ribes vibumifolium Evergreen currant p p W ° N Romne a coulter Matilta Poppy p p p o' Romne a coulted White Cloud' White Cloud Matili'a Po X O Rosmarinus ofcinalis Rosemary W n U) Salvia greggii Autums Sae p p W n w Santolina virens Green Lavender Cotton p p W Solanum dou lasii Douglas Nightshade p p p o ~ rn Symphoricarpos mollis Creeoinq Snowber o E- Tacoma stans Stenolobium stans Yellow Bells p p W c Trachelos ermum'asminoides Star Jasmine P p p N CD Trichosstems lanatum Woolly Blue Curls p p P o Vibumum'a onicum Japanese Viburnum p P n z w Weston is fruticosa no common name p p W X losma con estum Shiny X losma p p W = U Yuccaspecies Yucca X F Yucca whi lei Yucca o Groundcover Aeonium decorum Aeonium p NN y Aeonium simsu no common name B r Agave victoriae- inae no common name A'u a re tans Car et Bu le Aloe aristata no common name Aloe brevifoli no common name A tenia cordifolia x Red A le' Red A le A tenia Arctosta h los Pacific Mist' Pacific Mist Manzanita IP P W Arctosta h los edmundsii Little Sur Manzanita p p W Arotosta h los uva-ursi Bearberry p P W Artemisia caucasica Caucasian Artesmisia p p N Baccharis pilularis var.pilularis Twin Peaks#2' p X Baffle a Multiradiata Desert Marigold p p N Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 3-89 Packet Pg. 790 s.B.o �... Development Standards Table 3.6 Landscape Zones Plant Palette CL r 00 00 N 06 0 06 C Botanical Names Common Names 1A =0 N H Bou ainvillea'Oh la la' bougainvillea p p n c Carissa macrocar a Green Carpet Natal Plum p p N o Carpobrotus chilensis Sea Fig Ice Plant p X Ceanothus griseus horizontalis Yankee Point p p W to Cerastium tomentosum Snow-in-Summer p p W a N Chrysanthemum leucanthemum Oxeye Dais X Cistus cris us no common name p p W c Co rosma kirkii Creeping Co rosma p p I W LL Corea pulchella Australian Fuscia p p N N Coreo sis lanceolata Coreo sis p W r Cotoneaster con estus'Likian ' Likiang Cotoneaster p p W Cotoneasterhorizontalts Rock Cotoneaster p p W y Crassula lactea no common name p X rn Crassula multicava no common name p X , Crassula tetragon no common name NN Croton californicus California Croton rn Delos erma'Alba' White trailing Ice Plant M Drosanthemum floribundum Rosea Ice Plant ai Drosanthemum his idum no common name Drosanthemum s eciosus Dewflower Euon mus fortunei Winter Creeper Euon mus w Festucaovina'Glauca' Sheep Fescue p p n x Ficus pumilla Creeping Fig n V Fragaria chiloensis Wild Strawberry/Sand p p N Strawberrya Frankenia salina Alkali Heath p p p Mpo Gaillardia x randiflora Blanketflower aci Gazania hybrids South African Dais E E Gazania ri ens leucolaena Training Gazania Gelsemium sem ervirens Carolina Jessamine a Grindelia stricta Gum Plant Heliathemum mutabile Sunrose Heliotro ium curassavicum Salt Heliotrope Helix c anariensis English Ivy p X Iberis sem ervirens Edging Cand tuft p p N Iberis umbellatum I Globe Cand tuft N Iva ha esiana Poverty Weed p p W Lam ranthus filicaulis Redondo Creeper p X Lam ranthus s ectabilis Trailing Ice Plant p X Page 3-90 October2012 Packet Pg. 791 SPRING T R A I L S Table 3.6 Landscape Zones Plant Palette CL C Ircommon Names I—kn TO K 41 06 X Botanical Names N f- C1 C Lam rathus aurantiacus Bush Ice Plant X a Le mus condensatus Giant Wild Rye p p o m Limonium ctinatum no common name X c Lotus comiculatus Bird's Foot Trefoil X N Male hors luteola Training Ice Plant X M o orum Pacificum' no common name W M o orum parviffolium no common name W LL Nassella sti a le idra Foothill Needle grass o N Nassella sti a ulchra Purple Needle rass o Oenothera belandied Mexican Evening Primrose p p W v 0 hio 0 on japonicus Mondo Grass p X U Osteos rmum fruticosum Training African Dais X of Parthenocissus tricus idata Boston Ivy P p W T Pelargonium peflatum Ivy Geranium P p W Pennisetum setaceum'Little Little Bunny Fountain Grass p p W Bunny' Planta o sem ervirens Evergreen Plantain p X U) Potentilla tabernaemontanii Spring Cinquefoil p X Salvia sonomensis Creeping Sae W n O Santolina chamaecyparissus Lavender Cotton p p W Z w Sedum acre Goldmoss Sedum p X Sedum album Green Stonecrop p X = U Sedum confusum no common name I p X Sedum lineare no common name p X I' a Sedum x rubrotinctum Pork and Beans p X Senecio se ens no common name p X d Sis rinchium bellum Blue Eyed Grass p p p o E r Tecomaria ca ensis Cape Honeysuckle p X A Teucarium chamedrys Germander p p N a Th mus serpylium Lemon Thyme p p N Trifolium fra erum'O'Connor's' O'Connor's Legume I p X Trifolium hirtum'H ron' H ron Rose Clover X Verbena eruviana no common name N Verbenas ecies Verbena X Vinca minor Dwarf Periwinkle X-IE Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 3-91 Packet Pg. 792 6.B.o Development Standards Table 3.6 Landscape Zones Plant Palette 00 NO wE Botanical Names Common Names at tA z IM N F Vines G Distinctis buccinatoria Blood-Red Trumpet Vine p p N a Vitis girdiana Desert Wild Grape P I P I P 10 H droseed Mix O N Clarkia bottae Showy Fairwell to Spring o N Collinsia hetero h Ilia Chinese Houses p p p o Coreo sis califomica California Coreo sis p p p o c Enastrum sapphirinum Mojave Woolly Star p p p 0 'L Gna halium califomicum California Everlasting o c Lasthenia califomica Dwarf Goldfields p p p 0 N Lu inus arizonicus Desert Lupine W O Lu inus benthamii Sider Lupine p p W a Lupinus sparsitiorus Loosely Flowered Annual p p p o rn Lupine/Coulters Lupine Nemo hilia menziesn Baby Blue Eyes p o Planta o erecta California Plantain p o Planta o insulans Woolly Plantain p p tp _ Q Cactus N 0 untia littoralis Prickly Pear p o* Q 0 untia oncola Oracle Cactus p P P o* z 0 untia prolifera Coast Cholla o. w Flower x Eschscholzia californica California Poppy p P p W 0 v a Lu inus bicolor Sky Lupine P P I P 10 H Mimulus species Monkeynower o* a Oenothera hooker California Evening Primrose N Grass E Bromus carinatus California Brome P P W 0 s U Vul is m uros Zorro' Zorro Annual Fescue p X Herb a Dichelostemma ca itatum Blue Dicks P P P o Eschscholzia mexicana Mexican Poppy P X Palms Brahea armata Mexican Blue Palm/Blue p p N n Hes er Palm Brahea brande eei San Jose Hes er Palm p p N n Brahea edulis Guadalupe Palm p p Nn Page 3-92 October 2012 Packet Pg.793 SPRING T R A I L S Table 3.6 Landscape Zones Plant Palette Botanical Names Common Names a) N H C nials a Ambrosia chammissonis Beach Bur-Sae o Peren N Ani ozanthus flavidus Kangaroo Paw p P W c Artemisia cnoce hala Beach Sa ewort X N Gilia le tantha Show Gilia W Gilia tricolor Bird's Eyes W c Gilia ca data Globe Gilia o Hes eraloe arvdiora Red Yucca W Juncus acutus Sin Rush o Kni hofia uvada Red Hot Poker W v Lotus hermannii Northern Woolly Lotus p p p o 0 a Mirabilis califomica Wishbone Bush p p p 10 N Oenothera s eciosa Show Evening Primrose W Sature'a chandleri San Miguel Savory P p p o F Scirpis scutus Hard Stem Bulrush o m Scirous californicus California Bulrush P p p o Solanum xantii Purple Nightshade p p p o a Strelitzia nicolai Giant Bird of Paradise p p W Strelitzia re inae Bird of Paradise p p W (- Verbena lasiostach s Western Vervain p p 2 10 Z w Xannithorrhoee species Grass Tree p W 2 x Succulents v Agave attenuata Century Plant I ip ip W Agave shawii Shaw's Century Plant p p W ~ Aloe vera Medicinal Aloe p p W Dudle a lanceolata Lance-leaved Dudle a o m Dudle a ulverulenta Chalk Dudle a o r p= Permitted R x= Plant species prohibited in wet and dry fuel modification zones adjacent to wildlands. Acceptable on all other fuel modification locations and zones. ¢ W= Plant species appropriate for use in wet fuel modification zones adjacent to wildlands. Acceptable in all other wet and irrigated dry(manufactured slopes)fuel modification locations and zones. o= Plant species native to local area.Acceptable in all fuel modification wet and dry zones in all locations. N= Plant species acceptable on a limited basis(maximum 30%of the area)in wet fuel modification zones adjacentto wild lands.Acceptable on all other fuel modification zones. locally collected. N = Not native but can be used in all zones. n= Plant species acceptable on a limited use basis.Referto qualification requirements following plant palette. Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 3-93 Packet Pg.794 6.B.o Development Standards Qualification Statements for Select Plant Species • Acacia redolens desert carpet.May be used in the upper half of fuel modification zone B. The plants may be planted at 8-foot on-center, maximum spacing in meandering zones not to exceed a mature width of 24 feet or a mature height of 24 inches. • Bougainvillea spectabilis (procumbent varieties). Procumbent to w' mounding varieties may be used in the middle levels of fuel modification zone B.The plants may be planted in clusters at 6-foot on- center spacing,not to exceed eight plants per cluster. Mature spacing c between individual plants or clusters shall be 30 feet minimum. c • Brahea armata.Additional information may be required as directed by N the Fire Department. N • Brahea brandegeel. Additional information may be required as A directed by the Fire Department. a N • Brahea edulis. May be used in upper and middle levels of fuel N modification zone B.The plants shall be used as single specimens with C mature spacing between palms of 20 feet minimum. O IL ■ Hakea suaveolens. May be used in the middle levels of fuel a modification zone B.The plants shall be used as single specimens with mature spacing between plants of 30 feet minimum. i`- ■ Heteromeles arbutifolia.May be used in the middle to lower levels of c fuel modification zone B.The plants may be planted in clusters of up to rn three plants per cluster. Mature spacing between individual plants or dusters shall be 30 feet minimum. Z LU • Liquidambar styraciflua. May be used in the middle levels of fuel modification zone B.The plant shall be used as single specimens with U mature spacing between trees of 30 feet minimum. • Quercus berberdifolia. Additional information may be required as a directed by the Fire Department. E • Quercus dumosa. May be used in the middle to lower levels of fuel modification zone B. The plants may be planted in dusters of up to M three plants per duster. Mature spacing between individual plants or dusters shall be 30 feet minimum. • Rhos ovata. May be used in the middle to lower levels of fuel modification zone B of inland areas only.The plants may be planted in dusters of up to 3 plants per duster.Mature spacing between individual /�� plants or dusters shall be 30 feet minimum. C • Rosmarinus officinalis. Additional information may be required as ��// directed by the Fire Department. Page 3-94 October 2012 Packet Pg. 795 6.B.o S P R I N G P R A I 1. • Salvia greggii.Additional information may be required as directed by the Fire Department. • Salvia sonomensis.May be used in the middle to upper levels of fuel modification zone B. The plants may be planted in clusters of up to three plants per cluster. Mature spacing between individual plants or clusters shall be 15 feet minimum. m Plant Removal List a .E- The plant materials contained in Table 3.7 are prohibited in Spring Trails and a shall be removed from all fuel modification zones and developed areas. w W> N N Table 3.7 Plant Removal List 79 Botanical Names Common Names E The following plant species shall be rem o all fuel modification zones: Adenostomafasciculatum Wild Turnip,Yel low Mustard N Adenostomasparsifolium Red Shanks Anthemixcotula Mayweed 0 CL Artemisiacalifornica California Sagebrush rn Brassicani ra Black Mustard Brassicara a Chamise Cardario droba Noary Cress,Perennial Pepper grass c Centaureo solstitols Yellow Star Thistle c Cirsium vulgare Wild Artichoke N Con zaconadensis Horseweed Cortaderia selloona Pampas Grass F' z Cupressussp. Cypress w Cyanra cardunculus Artichoke Thistle = Datura wri htii Jimsonweed U Q Erio num fasciculatum Common Buckwheat ~ Eucalyptus sp. Eucalyptus Q Foeniculum vul are Fennel c m Heterothaca grandiflora Telegraph Plant E Juni erussp. Juniper A Lactucaserriola Prickly Lettuce Malosma laurina Laurel sumac Q Nicotiona bigelevil Indian Tobacco Nicotana glauca Tree Tobacco Pinus sp. Pine Salvia mellifera Black sage Salsola australis Russian Thistle/Tumlewood Silybummarianum Milk Thistle Ricinus connunis Castor Bean Plant Urtica urens Burning Needle Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 3-95 Packet Pg. 796 6.B.o Development Standards This page intentionally left blank. N H Cm C Q N O N N N N C LL N 0 O N U O O IL N E- m C a M z z w x U Q F- E r v A Q 1 Page 3-96 October 2012 Packet Pg.797 6.B.o SPRING T R A I L S Infrastructure and Utility Plan Grading and Infrastructure Plans Introduction This section details the on-/off-site plans for the grading, potable water, drainage, and sewer systems necessary to accommodate buildout of Spring Trails. a In Grading Plan N Spring Trails has been responsibly designed to fit into the existing landscape,at the same time meeting the intent of the City of San Bernardino Hillside Management Overlay Zone.The Conceptual Grading Plan for Spring Trails is E LL illustrated in Figure 3.29, Conceptual Grading Plan. N r 0 N The total area that is proposed for grading is 216.7 acres,which includes 193 acres on-site and 23.7 acres off-site. On-site grading encompasses roughly 2.7 0 a 3 million cubic yards and will balance on-site. The primary access street will N require approximately 171,000 cubic yards of cut and 55,000 cubic yards of fill, which necessitates exporting approximately 116,000 cubic yards.The secondary access street will require 244,000 cubic yards of cut and 109,000 cubic yards of fill, which necessitates exporting approximately 135,000 cubic yards. These c earthwork quantities are preliminary and do not account for shrinking,bulking U) and or removals. m z Development within Spring Trails avoids steep hillside areas and clusters w development in the lower foothill areas.This has the following benefits in terms = of grading impacts: v • Minimizes hillside grading and scarring that would be visible from ¢ public rights-of-way. w ■ Preserves the Cable Canyon and Meyers Canyon drainage courses in their natural conditions and minimizes impacts on natural topography. • Maintains significant natural drainage courses within the proposed development area to enhance water quality. The overall goals of the site-specific grading guidelines are to minimize the height of visible slopes, provide for more natural-appearing manufactured © slopes, minimize grading quantities, minimize slope maintenance and water consumption,and provide for stable slopes and building pads.All preliminary and final grading plans shall be prepared in accordance with the Uniform Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 3-97 Packet Pg. 798 Development Standards Building Code and Title 15 of the City of San Bernardino Municipal Code, except as modified herein and approved by the City Engineer. General Guidelines • Minimize grading where possible. • Avoid grading in areas where slopes exceed an average of 15 percent,to the greatest extent possible. F • Where a cut or fill slope is privately owned and is adjacent to a lot line, the lot line should be located at the top of the slope.In some cases the rn CL property line may be located at the bottom of a slope where the property line extends to a road or the property line may be located in N the middle of a slope at a drainage bench to prevent cross-lot drainage. m • Terrace drains and benches shall be added where slope height exceeds LL 30 feet, in accordance with the Uniform Building Code. In some a r instances, benches should be widened to provide for dual use as a N { recreation trail. a. • Existing significant drainage courses shall be maintained as much as a. possible. • Final grading design shall adhere to the final soils report rr recommendations. 5 CL • Grading shall be performed under the supervision of a registered soils u? engineer. a) Z Z • Final grading plans shall be prepared and certified by a registered civil Lu engineer and registered geotechnical engineer in the State of California v Board of Professional Registration and approved by the City Engineer. ■ Prepare and process a stormwater pollution prevention plan(SWPPP) prior to grading. E • Preserve the natural terrain as much as possible by focusing development in the development footprint shown on Figure 2.1. 1 � Or Page 3-98 October 2012 Packet Pg. 799 P R I N G Figure 339 Conceptual Grading Plan Legend ��— Propafed Gap., Eusang Call � rw -T-= 2:151ape 1 .BOA A _ )Y � f I J k) r Ptn k�K � Spying Trails Speefic Plan e]93 m 8 gttacM1manC ATTACHMENT 9-Spring Trails a ails SP Oct 3513 Final Itt56:Spring Trails) a 6.B.o Development Standards This page intentionally 1eft blank N F r C Q N N N l6 C LL N 0 N N U O CL U) N cc F- m C L a m r z w x U Q H F Q c d E t v m Q Page 3-100 October 2012 Packet Pg.801 S.B.o SPRING T R A [ I. • Retaining walls may be used to minimize slope heights, especially in areas that are not visible from public tights-of-way. • Earth retention systems,where slopes can be planted to blend with the natural terrain,should be used where possible. N ■ All cut-and-fill slopes shall be revegetated to control erosion. r Water Plan .Q The City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department (SBMWD) will U) provide water services to Spring Trails and currently provides service to pressure zones ranging from 1,249 feet to 2,300 feet.Spring Trails lies between the 2,300 N to 3,000-foot pressure zones. The nearest existing reservoir is the Meyers Canyon Reservoir, which is within the 2,100-foot pressure zone but is not c_ adequate for buildout of Spring Trails or Verdemont Heights.Therefore,water 'L will be supplied to Spring Trails from lower elevations by a combination of c expanding and improving the off-site water system and the provision of on-site reservoirs and transmission lines. p Q a As shown on Figures 3.30A and B,Conceptual TP/aterPlan,off-site improvements y include the creation/improvement of a series of pump stations and transmission m lines in Verdemont Heights. In addition,SBMWD has identified the need for additional reservoirs. a Based upon the projected buildout of Spring Trails,the maximum daily demand w is 568 gallons per minute(gpm). The on-site water facilities necessary to serve O1 r the total water demands of Spring Trails include three reservoirs in the 2,500, w 2,700,and 3,000-elevation pressure zones as well as transmission lines traversing the project. The storage requirements for each pressure zone are detailed on czi Table 3.8. In addition,the water system serving Spring Trails and the locations of the reservoirs are shown on Figures 3.30A and B. C The water facilities for Spring Trails were sized per SBMWD guidelines and a� to meet maximum demand in addition to fire flow requirements (see Table t 3.9). Pumping stations shall be designed with 100 percent redundancy in the M event that one or more of the pumping units fails,and shall be equipped with on-site generators that can operate in a blackout or emergency condition. O Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 3-101 Packet Pg. 802 6.B.o Development Standards Table 3.8 On-Site Water Storage Facilities _L,1111 Akio Immajimim Units 11 137 Maximum Daily 20 gpm 44 gpm 254 gpm 250 gpm Demand(gpm) Emergency Storage' 28,800 gins 63,360 gins 365,760 gins 360,000 gins Ci Operational Stora e2 7,200 gins 15,840 gins 91,440 gins 90,000 gins m Fire Flow Stora e3 360,000 Ins I 360,000 Ins 1 360,000 gins 360,000 gins Total Storage 396,000 gins 439,200 gins 817,200 gins 810,000 gins S Required °L Storage Provided 4 4,000,000 Ins I 2,500,000 Ins 900,000 gins 900,000 gins m gins= gallons;gpm=gallons per minute N Equivalent to one full day of maximum demand Equivalent to 25%of one full day of maximum demand 'Fire flow required of 1,500 gpm for four-hour duration = <Includes on and off-site reservoirs serving the Spring Trials(2007 SBMWD Master Plan) iy N r C Table 3.9 On-Site Water Pumping Requirements rr N v 2,500 2,700 3,000 p Units "- 137 135 y a (A Maximum Daily 20 gpm 44 gpm 254 gpm 250 gpm a Demand(gpm) Fire Flow Requirement 1,500 gpm 1,500 gpm 1,500 gpm 1,500 gpm Total Capacity 2,048 gpm 2,004 9pm 1,750 gpm NA Hp=horsepower a y C1 F The details of all water facilities,their sizing,and hydraulic analysis can be found w in the CDM report(October 17,2003)and Dexter Wilson report(December 30, _ 2003) in the EIR appendices. Q a C V E t v A fr a Page 3-102 October 2012 Packet Pg. 803 P R I N Figure 3.30A Conceptual Water Plan Legend �.� L.—.... Proposed 3000 Zone I Future 3000 Zone WIL ReserverTani(0.9 MG) Proposed 27MOO Zone WL Proposed 2400 Zone WL _ Proposed 2300 Zone WL 3000ZOne Proposed 1916 Zone WL i Pump Statin(1,]SO GPM) — Proposed 2700Zone —— — Eusnna and Proposed 2300 Zane WL ReservalrTak(sl(0.9 MG) — EvISW62100 Zane WL - 270OZOne — Evi5En61916 Zone WL Pump Stamps(2,004 GPM) 0 3000 Pressure Zone(135 units) w. \. Protected 2500 ZOM Proposed 23M 2500 '\, ( RetervolrTankls112.5 MG) O 2500 Pressure Zone(24 unks) - \ O 25x0 Pressure zone lz4 andzl zone Pump5tatlon .� Rroposed23o04.01 0 2300 Pressure Zone(ss units) g RexrwlrTank X.OMGI � 2100 Pressure Zone vawe ( �ROposed 2300ZOne L�`V.o I Pump Srarion(3,526 GPM) 0 1916Pwsurc 7me %,. a Mayen Canyon Reservon 2100 Zone(2.0 All h it Reservoir 5 1916 Zone(5.0 MG1 ice` w s.ea v i Propased Belmont Ave.Pump 5ttVrmr2500ZOne(1000GPMI £• Q��Meyers Canyon Pump Stvtion `hags t, 1100 ZMagnolia Station ia Ave Ae e.Pum P,m M1 "a Magnolia Ave Goode, �—' PumPSIarVnl].ISOvVMI en Palm Ave.PUmp S[[ �� it `T 916ZOne QJ000PM) Palm Ave flesery- �� nher� a� )2a Zane15325M61 - - P Im AVe.Ba er PUmp L' Sbfion 111,650GPM) ' S Sourte:PBSL,2005 and lilrANeld 2009 a Sgin9Trails5pn'Ilo Plan Paoe l-1 o3 te F AWCM1mnI:ATTACHMENT 9-Sprinq hails SP Oct 2012 Final(2256:Spring Trails) 1 O I 6.B.o Development Standards Tbispage intentionally left blank. y H C n rn m N N N A C LL N r O N Y U O CL w y Z H C a N 01 H Z W 2 U FQ F a Y C d E r v R a Page 3-104 October 2012 Packet Pg. 805 P R I N G Figure 3.30B Conceptual Water Plan t mr LeBerM allo M T J 100 L R2.0 MGl Plepesed Internal Water Main Future 3000 Zone WL P 1 zrd 3300[one Proposed Zl00Zane WL a Pump SIInn 3 2 GPMi *�Pe t N Te"O.-O 9 Mini ry Proposed 2s00 Zone rP Proposed]SW Zone WL \ p osM 23W Zone WL N o i, k0113.S MG! _F rOP Pmpoxd 30002an E ne Us4ng Z10OZone WL Pum SE' GPM! 2IOO Zone p. P S'a". 13004 GPM, i p dI30U2 ne� (� 30W Pressure Zone 1136 units) Reservoir True s10.9 MG)�s\\ P R rvo rTn'In40 MG1 %j 0 Z]00 Pressure Zone 1138 units) r _ 0 3500 Presure IDne(24 units) wak 2300 Pressure Zane(11 units) Tan Pumpstan ' Ne serva r Tank S Group Road 1 u s `+Propmed 2300t , Zone Pump slat io V 4 Access Road RAF . tl {[t•,, `may sooner nails SPeaft Han Page]-las Attachment FIiNCHMENT 9-9pnng Trails SP Oct 2012 Final)]356'.Sprang Trails) 6.B.o Development Standards Tbis page intentionally left blank. N H m C a to kn N N R C LL N r O N w U 0 IL U) N F Cm C a rn m z z w x U a a C d E s U R r Q Page 3-106 October 2012 Packet Pg. 807 B.B.o S P R I N G 1 K A 1 1. S Drainage Plan Existing Conditions The drainage area to which Spring Trails belongs flows into Cable Canyon,then into Cable Creek,then into the Devil Creek Diversion Channel,then into the Lytle Creek Wash, and eventually into the Santa Ana River. On the site itself, there are four major drainage patterns affecting Spring Trails, as shown on Figure 1.5: m .a • Drainage area A.A 2,030-acre drainage area(148.9 acres on-site and 1,881 acres off-site) that includes the west and east forks of Cable LO Canyon, and an unnamed blue-line stream that drains into the project N from the east in a southwesterly direction.The west fork flows south through the property and meets the east fork flowing from the east.The east fork enters the property from the east as two drainages, which LL merge approximately 600 feet west of the eastern property boundary. 0 N • Drainage area B.A 63.7-acre watershed (51.6 acres on-site and 12.1 0 © acres off-site) comprised of surface flow drainage that flows southwesterly through the center of the site and ultimately into Cable of Creek. w M • Drainage area C.A 198.2-acre watershed(128.4 acres on-site and 69.8 ~ m acres off-site) that consists of off-site surface flows and a defined drainage course that run onto the site and exit through the souther rn part of the project. m r • Drainage area D.A 341.6-acre drainage area (21.8 acres on-site and w 319.8 acres off-site) that includes drainage from Meyers Canyon. s U Proposed Drainage Facilities r The proposed drainage improvements are shown on Figure 3.31, Conceptual Drainage Plan. The drainage concept for Spring Trails is designed to either c maintain natural drainage courses or capture both on- and off-site stormwater flows and route them through a series of catch basin inlets and storm drain systems,which convey water to three on-site detention basins where it is treated =° and discharged at a controlled rate into Cable Canyon. The following is a description of the proposed drainage facilities for each drainage area discussed above: ■ Drainage area A. Runoff in drainage area A is handled from a combination of undisturbed watercourses, detention basins, rain ® gardens,and media filtration systems. The significant drainageways in the norther part of Spring Trails remain virtually untouched. The two forks of Cable Canyon will Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 3-107 Packet Pg. 808 6.B.o Development Standards remain undisturbed through the Spring Trails site while the unnamed tributary,which enters the property from the east as two drainages,remains undisturbed except for those portions flowing through culverts under two streets. • Drainage from a 35.6-acre developed area is routed into detention basin A, which is on the western edge of the site and discharges _ into Cable Canyon. w • The flows from the areas north of Cable Canyon are not routed into a detention basin;instead,each residential lot will be designed rn with a rain garden to treat the flows on the residential lot. Media filtration devices will be used to treat the flows on the streets prior to discharging into Cable Creek. In all, 39.3 acres in the northern m portion of the project,including 15.1 acres of off-site drainage,are N handled in this manner. m ■ Drainage area B.Drainage area B is divided into two areas that handle 5 flows from a developed area and an undeveloped area. N • Drainage from a 21.8-acre, on-site, developed area is routed into N detention basin B,which is located on the southwestern edge of the O site and discharges into a natural flow line and ultimately into Cable O Canyon. N Drainage from an undeveloped 17.5-acre area,which includes both H on- and off-site lands, flows under a new street and is discharged F into an existing flow line south of the site and ultimately into Cable Canyon. E a ■ Drainage area C. Drainage area C is a 209.8-acre area that includes both on- and off-site lands. • Drainage from a 96.8-acre, on-site, developed area drains into w detention basin C,which is located in the southwestern comer of 2 the project and eventually discharges into an unnamed flow line v • west of Meyers Creek and into Cable Creek. Drainage from a 107.8-acre undeveloped, on- and off-site area a flows south through a culvert under the primary access street. c � v ■ Drainage area D.Drainage area D is made up of Meyers Canyon and r its tributary areas along the southeastern edge of the site.This drainage area consists of a total of 339.3 on- and off-site acres (319.8 off-site 4 acres and 19.5 undeveloped on-site acres). Drainage from this area flows through a culvert under the pritnary access street and eventually into Cable Creek. i o Page 3-108 October 2012 Packet Pg.809 P R I V G Figure 3.31 Conceptual Drainage Plan Legend 1 Qf 1� zA-hen acP t( • 30-irrh RCP b#afi 1` TP 36IncRCP ;w N '(l hei RCP •� 2 d i I a aeilwM1 flLP 6DArsh RCP C[M1er PCP >------< RCB Cull —� Carla Basin with Werzl e - r Damage AmnA Drainage Area B �I Oninage Area C •� Damage Arcs > Det Too - RCP Reinforcer! P Concrete pe A... Basin Rce Reiall rancme BOa Detention Ba } Dete n onaan4 IT„2a ,g sw` n e. Roae "r Irk s Sp-grain Sperifir Plan Paae3-1W AtlacnmenL ATTACHMENT 9-Spring Trails SP Oct 2012 Final(2268:Spring ianlz) 6.B.o Development Standards This page wentionaly left blank. W f' O C a N N Ln N N A C LL N r O N V V O a. w F C CL N Oi H Z W 2 U FQ F Q Y C d E r u x Page 3-110 October 2012 Packet Pg.811 s.a.o SPRING T R A 1 L S 7 I, The proposed storm drain system for Spring Trails will reduce the risk of flooding within the project through the following: • The drainage system and detention basins will reduce stormwater runoff from the site to levels at or below those that existed prior to the project. Vl • The proposed storm drain system will be able to convey the on- and "m off-site flow to downstream discharge points. F' m c • Construction of the storm drain system will ensure the conveyance of Q the 100-year runoff away from the project site,and the conveyance of off-site flow through the site to existing natural channels, thereby ;o eliminating flooding hazards. Drainage outlets, energy dissipaters, extended detention basins, rain gardens, media filtration units, and other drainage facilities will be designed to control N urban runoff pollutants caused by the development of the project.In addition, c site designs that reduce urban runoff and pollutant transport by minimizing w impervious surfaces and maximizing on-site infiltration have been incorporated O into the project.A Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP)that includes best n. management practices (BMPs) has been prepared for Spring Trails in m accordance with the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. The WQMP can be found in the EIR appendices. c Spring Trails will include BMPs designed to reduce the volume, rate, and amount of stormwater runoff that must be treated,and reduce the potential for urban runoff and pollutants to come into contact with one another.Some of the BMPs that may be incorporated into Spring Trails include: W ■ Infiltrating roof runoff into landscaped areas. v t- ■ Rain gardens. w • Media filtration units for street flows that are not treated by a detention basin. E r U • Hydrodynamic separation and pollutant screening. a ■ Efficient irrigation systems and landscape maintenance. ■ Common-area litter control. ■ Sweeping of public and private streets and parking lots. C.4 ■ Drainage facility inspection and maintenance. ■ Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System(MS4) stenciling and signage. Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 3-111 Packet Pg. 812 Development Standards ■ Protection of slopes and channels with riprap,landscaping,and other appropriate methods. As described in Section 2,Cable Canyon and Meyers Canyon are identified as 100-year flood zones. The 100-year flood levels are constrained to the deep channels of the creeks and development is located to avoid these areas and w minimize road crossings. — FL— Sewer Plan L The Spring Trails project lies within the City of San Bernardino sanitary sewer rn CL service area. A sewer capacity study was conducted by Rick Engineering (see EIR Appendices)that concluded that the existing sewer system has the capacity N to accommodate the development of Spring Trails. _- m A general layout of the sewer system is shown on Figure 3.32, Conceptual Sewer a Plan. Spring Trails will connect to the City's existing 10-inch sewer line in little N League Drive,which then connects to a major interceptor system to the south N and is eventually treated in the San Bernardino Water Reclamation Plant. The only offsite improvement that may be required is North Little League Drive, 0 which may upgraded from an 8"to a 10"line depending upon the ultimate slope of as determined in final engineering. w The sewer facilities will be designed and constructed in accordance with the City c of San Bernardino standards and specifications and in accordance with the c Standard SpeafrcationsforPublic Works Construction(latest edition).The sewer mains w will be located in public street rights-of-way where possible.If not,they will be constructed within dedicated public utility easements.The sewer system will be z dedicated to and maintained by the City of San Bernardino. x U Q H H Q C d E L V A Q Page 3-112 October 2012 6.B.o SP RING T R A I 1. S Dry Utilities Spring Trails will be served with electric, gas, water, sewer, solid waste collection,telephone cable,and Internet(data) from companies serving the City of San Bernardino,as shown in Table 3.10. w R Table 3.10 Utility Providers ~ Utility Provider a Electricity Southern California Edison w Gas Southern California Gas Companyo Water San Bernardino Municipal Water Department N Sewer San Bernardino Public Works Department Solid Waste Collection City of San Bernardino Refuse&Recycling Division M Telephone Verizon Cable Charter Communications N U ' n SCE owns three 112 kv transmission lines that run north—south along the � N western boundary of Spring Trails. SCE also has an access easement over the •� project site to service these transmission lines.The easement will be relocated to h accommodate the transmission lines underground within the project. This design will be finalized during the final engineering stages of the project Q approvals. w rn Z Z w M x U Q H F a a W E z m Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 37113 Packet Pg.814 s.s.o Development Standards Tbzrpage intentionally left blank. w R H C C. LO N N N R C LL N r O N U 0 IL rn N F- F- 0) C 'C 6 W F Z W 2 U Q H F a a N E L U R Q Page 3-114 October 2012 Packet Pg. 875 Figure 3.32 Conceptual Sewer Plan y.' Legend Con _ 4i erisd y ....1 to u ndw ,. t t� ' - s ppdzry- _ .' a a: 6oaa —�-- Spring Taih Specific Plan y P AM[M1menL ATTACHMENTS-Spring Trans SP Ott 3012 Final 2256 S ane 3-115 9 1 �Spring Trails) Development Standards This page intentionally left blank. N F O! C Q rA O O N N A C LL N 0 O N Y U O IL N N F- Im C Q rA O F Z W 2 U a F F a C Q E L U R Y a Page 3-116 October 2012 �PcgP 87 "7TM"�rRt r�. ¢Bo Section 4 Cn DESIGN GUIDELINES of. In N N R C LL N r O N U ® O a Vi R F- F C Q T F Z W 2 U Q Q c d E s U R Q Packef:Pg 818 - SPRING T R A I L S This page intentionally 1e blank. N R F- F O1 C Q N In N N N !D C LL N r O N V V O a N h m C Q N A f- 2 W 2 U a k a d E L U A w a Spring Trails Specific Plan Packet Pg."879 6.B.o SPRING T R A I L S DESIGN GUIDELINES Introduction y The Spring Trails Design Guidelines provide general criteria for architecture, — landscaping,entry monumentation,walls and fences,and other design elements c in order to ensure a high quality development and strong community character. CL The overall goal of these Design Guidelines is to create an attractive and distinct N community within the City of San Bernardino and adhere to Verdemont Area ,f°n Plan policies in the General Plan. m These guidelines are intended to: c u- ✓ N • Provide guidance to builders,engineers,architects,landscape architects, c and other professionals in order to obtain high quality design. N • Provide the City of San Bernardino with the necessary assurances that k a �V) the Spring Trails community will be developed in accordance with a *, certain quality and character as set forth in this document. '2 • Integrate areas of development with open space areas in a manner that G provides a natural transition between the two elements. Q to The Design Guidelines are intended to be flexible and work in concert with the Development Standards contained in Section 3. Variation and customization z within the context of the guidelines is encouraged in order to achieve LU individually distinctive neighborhoods complemented by recreational amenities. _ These guidelines shall be followed in the design and buildout of the community—they shall not be viewed as voluntary. These guidelines shall be — Q implemented through the review of development plans through the building permit process. m IN& e Format The Design Guidelines are arranged to first address aspects at the community- wide level and then at the residential level. The community-wide design guid elines address the layout and design of the entire community including Examples of the quality ofresidenrial acommon landscape and streetscape treatment. At the residential level, the design expected in Spring Trails. j guidelines address details such as orientation, massing, and architectural 1 treatment. { Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 4-1 Design Guidelines moil munll.Y-vide Design Guidelines Community-wide guidelines apply to Spring Trails as a whole.They are intended to create a strong community identity through the use of consistent streetscape, entry monumentation,landscaping,and lighting elements.The landscape design concept and plant palette for Spring Trails can be found in Section 3. w .R F= Entries and Monuments The character of the community entries should be simple and restrained 1 according to an identifiable hierarchy within Spring Trails.Entries are intended i� to enhance the community architectural theme and provide community identity. N N_ The entry treatments described below provide the desired quality of the entry C monument types.The exact design,configuration,and content of each will be E determined in detailed site plans with detailed landscape plans. N 0 u Primary Entry Monument The primary monument is the most prominent in Spring rails d O i Entry monumentsshouldusenatural P �' en�' ig T an P P a materials. represents the most significant design treatment.The primary entry monument w will be located off the primary entry road near Neighborhood Park I. The landscaping at the primary entry, in concert with the signage, lighting, and r hardscape elements,will form the scenic gateway into Spring Trails. CL The primary entry monument should incorporate distinctive signage,attractive landscaping,and distinguishing elements.These may consist of a stone veneer rn wall and landscaping that includes a Inge specimen tree. Please see Figure 4.1 z for the primary entry monument concept. w x Secondary Entry Monument F i In addition to the primary entry monument,Spring Trails will feature a smaller monument located where the secondary entry road intersects the wester project boundary. E The secondary entry monument should consist of a small-scale pilaster monument within a distinctive landscaped area. The secondary entry should reflect the character and materials of the primary entry monument using trees, shrubs,groundcover,signage,and lighting.Refer to Figure 4.2 for a secondary entry monument concept. O Page 4-2 October 2012 Packet Pg. 821 SPRING T R A I L S Figure 4-1: Primary Entry Concept CL N v +5 C r� qq C LO N N C N rU) N R F Of Plan View Location Map c — - g U) W N k r ` E v •`� rri y ` Q y •� �i Tt"a `� , . � � 1• yrq. V Px /-p t3.�� r '4: .. ir y � Not to c�le Note: This illustration is conceptual in nature and is intended to show the range of facilities accommodated within the feature and potential arrangement of improvements. The exact size, configuration, and level/type of the improvements will be determined during the grading and building permit process. Spring Trails Specific Plan Pa '4 3 Packet Pg. 822 seo`n. Design Guidelines Tbis page intenionaly left blank. N R F tm C L Q rn Ln N N N 10 C LL N O N V O a N N F 01 C L Q N m F 2 W 2 U a a a C Cd G t U R w a Page4-4 October 2012 c et 823 SPRING T R A I L S Figure 4-2:Secondary Entry Concept CL s s N LO a LL 0 JJ O IL IL N F Plan View Location Map CL U) CD z z w � i x � Q O Y C E L f IA7.n Not to Scale Note: This illustration is conceptual in nature and is intended to show the range of facilities accommodated within the feature and potential arrangement of improvements. The exact size, configuration, and level/type of the improvements will be determined during the grading and building permit process. Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 4-5 �CPack tttPg 824 Design Guidelines This page intentionally left blank. N F C Q N Ln h N N C U- N 0 O N G 0 O a IL N i F OI C C Q CO O F Z W 2 U Q F F Q c m E t v A a C Page 4-6 October 2012 Pac a p� o SPRING T R A I L S Landscaping Landscape within Spring Trails will be planted with combinations of evergreen and deciduous canopy trees with flowering evergreen shrubs and groundcovers. It is intended that the landscape provide a theme and continuity throughout aigw,4 Spring Trails,enhance desirable views, screen undesirable views,beautify and N control erosion of graded slopes exposed to public views, preserve existing landscape material(whenever possible),and enhance interfaces between graded and natural open space areas. Landscaping for streets within Spring Trails is discussed in the Landscape Plan section of Section 3. a C • Streetscape elements,such as landscaping,lighting,street furniture,and D signage,should create an attractive,consistent,and cohesive community N image. c ■ Streetscape elements,such as lighting,landscaping,and street furniture, u should complement the surrounding architectural styles. o N • Special patterned paving should be provided at important intersections 0 Q and trail crossings within the Specific Plan area. Landscaping plays a critical role in the a. character of a development and must N ■ All landscaping shall comply with the approved trees, shrubs, and be thoughtfully in tegrated into a groundcovers listed in Table 3.6,Landscape Zones Plant Palette. community. rn • Landscaping along major streets and at project entries should be tasteful 2 and consistent to create an attractive and cohesive community identity. l y Formal plantings of nonnative species may be used at key entries and a, intersections to highlight these areas. z w • Water usage should be minimized through the planting of native and low-water species and the utilization of water-efficient and drip v irrigation systems. Walls and Fences Walls an E d fences will predominantly be located around the perimeter boundaries s of individual residences where they interface with open spaces,streets,parks,or r _' a off-site land uses. Excessive use of walls and fencing can impair the aesthetic a quality of Spring Trails and,therefore,shall be carefully designed to complement the setting and community theme. ■ Solid walls and fences should not dominate the street scene. They should only be used when necessary for noise attenuation,privacy,and shielding of incompatible adjacent uses. Perimeter walls(top)and view fencing (bottom)should blend in with the surrounding landscape and architecture. Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 4-7 Packet Pg. 826 Design Guidelines ■ Wall faces that are visible to the public should be constructed of attractive materials and finished with architectural detailing or articulation. The incorporation of high quality materials and surface articulation are strongly encouraged. Walls and/or wall surfaces not visible to the public do not need the same high level of detail. ■ Pilasters should be incorporated into wall design, especially at entries y and important community intersections. Pilaster placement shall L° conform to the City of San Bernardino Municipal Code. ■ Trees, vines, and landscaping should be used to soften the visual N appearance of the walls. LO LO ■ Where solid walls are necessary,split-face block,stone,or materials with similar visual qualities should be used. m � . ■ Long,monotonous walls are to be avoided.Walls should be modulated LL � N with breaks, recesses, and offsets, especially at entries and important o intersections. Long walls should be made more attractive and visually interesting through the incorporation of surface articulation and p pilasters. CL V) ■ View fences provide a visually attractive alternative to solid walls and fences. They allow for safety and privacy while preserving views and creating a more visually appealing neighborhood.View fences should be c used instead of solid walls when feasible, especially when facing onto `c parks and trails. N rn ■ View fences should incorporate visually attractive materials such as z tubular steel,decorative metal,and/or stone(or faux-stone).If the site w conditions permit, the first two to three feet of a combination view v fence shall be a concrete block wall,with the base portion of the wall ¢ being split-face block,stone,or materials with similar visual qualities. 4 ■ Thematic fencing (e.g., split-rail fencing constructed of woodcrete or 't~�A vinyl)should be used as a separation between decomposed granite paths E adjacent to streets or as safety barriers. The exact location of the L) fencing shall be approved during the final tract process in coordination with the Parks and Recreation Department and the Community Development Department. Examples of the types of thematic fencing and gates thatshould be used o Fencing should be three to four feet high,depending on slope in Spring Trails. and site conditions. o To accommodate wildlife movement and avoid its excessive use,fencing is not necessary along trails in the areas designated Open Space (natural or homeowner maintained) and should Page 4-8 October 2012 o SPRING T R A I L S only be used to provide separation between streets,properties, sensitive habitat,or parks. • An appropriate substitute (plants, rocks, etc...) may be used instead of fencing. • Entrances to the trails should be designed with a gate or feature to restrict access to motorized vehicles to essential emergency or maintenance vehicles. @ c Lighting Q C Lighting within Spring Trails is intended to help define vehicular and pedestrian circulation patterns,provide safe pedestrian movement,distinguish community N entries and activity areas,and contribute to the overall landscape theme of the community. The goal is to provide a sense of place by varying fixtures and illumination levels. LL N • Attractive and consistent lighting elements should be provided along N streets within the neighborhood.The height,brightness,and spacing of I f>y t the lighting elements should be appropriate to the scale and speed of O the street. a to N ■ Lighting fixtures should be compatible with the architectural styles of R surrounding buildings and yet consistent throughout the community. c • Entry areas (both pedestrian and vehicular) and highly used recreation Q areas shall be creatively lit to develop a sense of place and arrival. U) - = rn • All exterior lights shall be shielded and focused to minimize spill light Examples of the types of fighting in Z into the night sky or adjacent properties. Spring Trails. w M • The lighting concept of the entry monuments is to illuminate the sign v graphics and gently wash the site elements, walls, and pilasters with r light. • Lighting standards should be consistent with City safety and illumination requirements for rural areas. R • Wall-mounted lighting fixtures shall be selected according to the a individual style of the building. • Exterior lighting on homes should be set to automatic timers. • Provide low-contrast lighting and use low-voltage fixtures and energy- efficient bulbs, such as compact fluorescent (CFL) and light-emitting diode (LED)bulbs. Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 4-9 Packet Pg. 828 Design Guidelines • Refer to Section 5,Sustainab&o,for additional standards and guidelines pertaining to lighting within Spring Trails. • Refer to the Residential Design Guidelines for design guidelines pertaining to lighting fixtures placed on homes. Parks R • Recreation and open space areas should be designed to accommodate the needs of different ages and abilities. c CL • Canopy trees should be used to provide shade. Informal groupings create visual interest and are encouraged. N • Ample outdoor furniture should be provided. This furniture should match the surrounding architectural styles,materials,and colors. U_ • A combination of hard and soft paving may be used depending on the N r- function of the recreational amenity. U • Active areas may utilize turf,grasses,and ornamental plantings.Passive O areas should primarily be composed of drought-tolerant species. 0. Common Recreation Facilities Common recreation facilities may include picnic shelters, barbecue areas, or 0 other such amenities and facilities, as appropriate to the community. Because a common facilities act as key character elements in neighborhoods,the following should be considered when designing such facilities: Z Z • Structures should exhibit a high level of quality and attention to detail 2 on all visible sides of the structure. _ U Q • All architectural and community elements, such as street furnishings, benches,and lighting standards,should be consistent with the selected a overall architectural character of the community. y E Graded Slopes • Where feasible, grading shall be minimized by following the natural a ground contours. • Human-made landforms shall be graded to avoid unnaturally sharp or straight edges and planes. The top and toe of graded slopes shall be rounded to avoid harsh,machine-made appearance. © • Significant natural vegetation should be retained and incorporated into the project whenever feasible. Page 4-10 October 2012 Packet Pg. 829 B.B.o SPRING ■ All graded slopes shall be stabilized and planted with the approved trees,shrubs,and groundcovers listed in Table 3.6,Landscape Zones Plant Palette. Residential Design Guidelines N L Creating street scenes that function aesthetically and have visual interest is a m primary community objective. The following basic elements and criteria are intended to develop variations in appearance and a sense of individuality for each Q- home. Neighborhoods that have nearly identical homes and streets without variation in product placement and form are not allowed. N N Building Level Guidelines Architectural Style N • The massing,character,and detailing of the architectural styles should N be as authentic to the selected styles as possible. However, 1 contemporary adaptation of traditional vernacular styles is acceptable. a ■ The choice of architectural expression must be derived primarily from m the respective buildin g typology (e.g.,row towns courtyard buildin gs, single-family homes). Architectural styles should be accurate and appropriate for the building typology.Refer to the Architectural Styles a section at the end of this section. m • Use architectural elements that form an integral part of the building and z avoid ornamentation and features that appear to be cheap and tacked w on. _ U Q Building Orientation a • Use residential entrances to activate the street,and utilize elements such as canopies, porches, stoops, trellises, and courtyards as transitional spaces between the private and public realms. • Orient buildings to face streets, parks, and open spaces/trails. This a orientation will create more attractive, safe, and pedestrian-friendly streetscapes and public spaces. Variety and Aesthetic Quality ■ A variety of single-story heights and profiles should be provided while stepping back second-story massing where appropriate. Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 4-11 Packet Pg. 830 Design Guidelines ■ Each residence should include at least one significant single-story element on an exposed front or side elevation, such as: • Front or wraparound porch (minimum 6 feet deep and 10 feet wide) • Roofed porte-cochere • Single-story living space in conjunction with a second-story recess w of at least 5 feet • Pop-out gable element,enclosed or open c ■ Adjacent homes of the same architectural style should not have identical elevations or colors. Rather, a rich variety of architectural styles, elevations,colors,and detailing is encouraged. N N_ ■ Porches, detailed entries, and stoops add to the character of a neighborhood and should be incorporated. These features should be LL varied along the street to create visual interest.If possible,these features N should project forward of a front-entry garage door. N ■ Entry features, such as gates, trellises, arches, and arbors should be O employed to add visual interest and variety within the neighborhood. { ■ Variation in floor plans, unit types, roof forms, colors, and materials M adds character and visual interest to a neighborhood. Two identical F units may not be placed adjacent to each other. c L Q ■ Exercise creativity and individual expression in conceiving and u1 interpreting architectural form. Z Z ■ Apply massing breaks,such as eroded building comers and entry courts, W to promote visibility and allow block transparency. Create variety in v building mass by providing adequate vertical and horizontal offsets. Q Environmental Considerations a • Where possible,building articulation and form should be expressive of and driven by environmental and site conditions such as solar orientation,views,noise,prevailing winds,and local climate.Plan forms that employ features such as courtyards, plazas, and patios are encouraged. • Builders are encouraged to incorporate sustainable design features. Refer to Section 5,Sustainability, for more detailed guidelines. Enhanced Architectural Treatment ■ Neighborhood quality is enhanced by adding a home plan designed specifically for a comer condition,or by enhancing an interior lot plan Page 4-12 October 2012 O SPRING T R A I L S for use on the comer, with additional architectural elements and/or details found on the front elevation. • Buildings plotted at corner locations become important design features. These areas are focal points in the streetscape and as such should be places for architectural elements such as articulation, comer glazing, a color,and material accents. F • All corner homes should include wrapping materials and continued c articulation around to the side fagade.All material changes shall occur n on an inside comer such as a porch,fireplace,niche,bay window,etc., or coincide with an architectural element that conceals the material O change. R Roofs LL • Roof forms of each home should be appropriate to the architectural 0 style. U • A variety of roof forms is encouraged to provide visual interest to the a neighborhood and to avoid a monotonous roofline. N • Roofs should exhibit variety between different plans by using front-to- F rear and side-to-side gabled and hipped roofs and/or by the rn introduction of single-story elements. Q U) • Overly complex and distracting roof forms are discouraged. rn • High-quality composition, concrete, or clay tiles should be used in w conjunction with the style of the home. _ • Roof materials, colors, and treatments should correspond to the F individual character or style of the home or building and should be a compatible with the overall look of the neighborhood. m r ■ Skylights and roof vents are prohibited on sloped roofs facing public E � streets. U Garages a ■ The front elevation should focus on the home,not the garage. ■ Garage wall planes on front elevations should be recessed. ■ Garage door surrounds should be articulated with trellises, trim, ^ enhanced materials,or other methods to help minimize the architectural (v; impact of the garage door. Spring Trails Specific Plan Page a-t 3 Packet Pg. 832 Design Guidelines • Garage door appearance should be varied by using door patterns, colors,and windows appropriate to individual architectural styles. • The installation of elements such as an attached trellis beneath a single- story garage roof fascia and/or trims above the garage door header,or landscaped pockets along driveways is encouraged. N Colors and Materials F- m Each elevation should have a minimum of three colors; four is r preferred.For example,one field color,one trim color,and two accent Q colors.This helps to establish variation among architectural styles and N products within a neighborhood and community. °r N N ■ Each neighborhood shall have a minimum of three different roof colors and profiles. c LL ■ Individual single-family homes shall not have identical color schemes adjacent to one another. N U ■ Hue variation in adjacent homes shall be provided to create diversity a �vl within the neighborhood. N I N ■ Use materials, colors, and details to enrich building character and emphasize human scale by employing rich, durable, and high quality finishes at the street level. Q U) ■ Materials shall be fire resistant per the fire protection plan in Section 3. h ■ Accent materials should be used to enhance and reinforce the w architectural style and composition of individual homes and should provide variety in the street scene. Selective use of appropriate czi materials, color, and placement can provide maximum impact while imparting a sense of unique character to each home. a ■ Natural stone, approved manufactured or cultured stone, painted or natural brick, precast concrete, ceramic tile, slump block, and fire- t resistant horizontal or vertical wood siding or approved manufactured @ siding(e.g.,cementitious board) are encouraged. Q ■ Culmination of accent materials shall temunate at inside comers or coincide with an edge or architectural element to conceal changes in material Where views are limited or edges concealed by an architectural element,accent materials should terminate at privacy wall conditions. O Page 4-14 October 2012 Packet Pg. 833w'• © SPRING T R A I L S Doors,Windows,and Entries ■ Doors shall be protected by a deep recess, porch, or other covered element. ■ The home entry should be considered a focal point when designing the N front elevation. L ■ Proportions and alignment shall be appropriate to individual architectural styles. Q U) ■ Highly reflective glazing is prohibited. Ln ■ Recessed windows shall be a minimum of two inches in depth. ■ Recessed windows are encouraged to be 12 inches or greater in depth if c appropriate based on architectural style. N ■ Style-appropriate grates, shutters,and tile surrounds are encouraged. N U 1 O ■ Direct alignment of windows between homes shall be avoided to ensure a. privacy. N ■ Provide articulation and rhythm of windows, doors, and balcony openings, using a variety of devices such as canopies, awnings, or railings. c CL ■ The placement of windows should be designed to work with interior vI uses and to provide"eyes on the street." F Z w Rakes and Eaves x • Where appropriate to individual style, larger eave overhangs are encouraged to provide opportunities for shading and relief. Q • When exposed, rafter tails shall be a minimum of four inches and painted or stained. E r U Articulation and Detailing a • Articulate elements such as roof overhangs,canopies,and parapets to add interest to building silhouettes. • Varied architectural detailing and projections should be used to accentuate specific features and ensure a visually pleasing and varied experience. Architectural projections may include elements such as cantilevered massing, secondary roof changes,and bay windows. Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 4-15 Packet Pg.834 Design Guidelines • The second-story portion of all elevations of homes shall include a variety of window treatments, single-story elements,roof projections, etc. • Architectural trim applied to all elevations is encouraged for consistency with the front elevation and architectural style. Vi Balconies • Balconies are encouraged for both aesthetic and practical purposes. They are useful in breaking up large wall planes, offsetting floors, Q providing shade,creating visual interest, and adding human scale to a rn building. N • Balconies should be designed as integral elements with details, eaves, with the architectural style and other A supports,and railings consistent ty � elements of the building design. ii= N r • Balconies should be partially recessed into the mass of the building or N serve as a projecting element. O a Exterior Lighting Fixtures =� • Where fixtures are not an important focal point,light sources shall be m concealed and concentrated. ~ rn c • Lighting used on walls and walkways shall focus light downward and Q provide appropriate down-casting hardware to minimize glare. N rn • Ambient light shall be cast downward to reduce the impact on the z neighborhood. w x • Surface-mounted lights shall not be permitted in garage door soffits. v Q • Wall-mounted lighting fixtures shall be selected according to the Q individual style of the home or building. d E Screening • Storage and maintenance areas and other ancillary uses shall be screened Q from public view whenever reasonably possible. • Accessory structures, such as storage areas, refuse receptacles, mechanical equipment,parking structures,backflow preventers,loading docks, security fences, and similar uses can seriously detract from the visual quality of an area.Therefore,care must be taken to minimize the visual impact of these uses through site design and visual shielding. O When possible,these uses should be located away from roadways and public views, behind buildings, or in enclosed structures. Effective Page 4-16 October 2012 Packet Pg. 835 3 © SPRING T R A I L S shielding methods include landscaping, berms,walls and fences, and ornamental screening. • Accessory structures should be designed to look like a continuation or extension of the primary structure. They should have architectural detailing and landscaping similar to the primary structure. N • Any equipment mounted on the roofs shall be screened to minimize its visibility from the street. 0 CL N N 75 C LL N r O N U 0 o d IL N i H to C Q Qt r z w x U ¢ F F- E U R a Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 4-17 Packet Pg. 836 Design Guidelines Tbis page intentionally left blank N F- C Q to Lo N N N C N O N Y V 0 IL u, Ca m c c CL I rn F- Z w x U Q F- F- Q Y C E L V Q I Page 4-18 October 2012 L4 Section 5 SUSTAINABILITY Ul N N R C LL N 0 O N w V 0 IL U) N R L C Q F Z QW G_ U a F r a Y C Cd G t V R V a Packet Pg:i 838; 0 S SPRING [ [' R A I L S This page intentionally 1e blank. N F O1 C CL LOrn m N CIj G IL N r O N w U Q � a rn N cc tm I i a w F- z w x U Q F- r H Q m E L Q Spring Trails Specific Plan �mm ckePg��839,; C SPRING T R A I L S SUS IAINABILITY Intent and Application y L The 1987 Brundand Report of the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development defines sustainability as"meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their a own needs." A goal of Spring Trails is to create a sustainable and resource- efficient community. uDi N N_ These guidelines establish a framework that is to be used to evaluate how proposed developments meet the objectives for sustainable development. 5 Future developers must demonstrate compliance with these guidelines through N the development review process and proposals will be evaluated based upon N compliance with those measures labeled"required"and the incorporation of any measures labeled"suggested"in this section. O a- f An additional resource, the Sustainability Resource Guide, which is a list of providers and entities that offer green building and sustainability programs,is m provided at the end of this section. rn C L Q Green Infrastructure U' Green infrastructure integrates natural systems and capitalizes on opportunities w for creating multipurpose systems, thereby using land and resources more = efficiently. Implementing green infrastructure and related methods for O watershed management improves water quality, conserves water, and reduces runoff volumes,peak flows,and durations.In addition to these direct benefits a to the watershed, implementing such methods also benefits the quality and c availability of biological habitat,provides energy conservation by reducing the heat trapping and impervious areas of typical land development, and can be E U aesthetically pleasing. :a Preserve natural drainage courses to Q • Required—Divert runoff into detention basins to allow water recharge, minimize stormwater runoff and reduce drainage runoff, and control the rate of storm flows from the Provide opportunities esrrian and recreational amenities.hies. site. • Suggested— Collect rainwater on-site through the use of stormwater management practices such as the incorporation of infiltration basins Cand bioswales. Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 5-1 Packet Pg. 840 Sustainability r.. ■ Suggested — Grade property to divert stormwater flow to permeable NZ areas, following natural drainage contours to the greatest extent possible. ■ Suggested — Where applicable, create curb cuts to allow stormwater flows to drain to permeable or landscaped areas. ■ Suggested — Where possible, use pervious or open-grid paving for driveways,walkways,plazas,and parking areas.Implement small-scale Collect water in bioswales to provide a design features,such as"Hollywood"or dual-track driveways. L cost-effective alternative to traditional Q- stormwaterdrainage systems and serve ■ Suggested—Use pervious paving materials wherever possible to reduce N as landscaping buffers. the negative effects of stormwater runoff and to facilitate groundwater LO N recharge. ■ Suggested — Utilize bioswales, particularly with native or drought- c tolerant grasses,to collect and filter water runoff. N 0 N Landscaping o O a Sustainable landscaping practices help promote water conservation, reduce �N water demand, and control water and irrigation costs. Efficient irrigation Z techniques help reduce water demand while sustainable landscape design can i- lead to the reduction of the heat-island effect (the absorption of solar heat in paved surfaces), improved environmental habitat, and reduced overall a maintenance and replacement cost. • Required—Install high efficiency,xeriscape irrigation systems to reduce w Utilize drought tolerant landscaping the amount of water devoted to landscaped areas, such as drip and such as the California buckwheat bubbler irrigation and low-angle,low-flow nozzles on sprayheads. czi (Eriogonum fasciculatum). Q • Required—Install and correctly program automated irrigation systems a to reduce water use. .. Y • Required — Install properly programmed EvapoTranspiration-based E controllers on homeowners' properties. These are weather based controllers with greater efficiency.In addition,supply homeowners with information on how to properly program their controller using the a Metropolitan Water District's guidelines as a reference. • Required — Install moisture sensors and other similar irrigation technology to ensure that landscaping is watered only as needed. • Required—Plant selection shall be based on species that are drought tolerant,heat resistant,and hardy.Native plant material should also be closely examined and considered for most landscape areas. Page 5-2 October 2012 s.a.o /►� SPRING R A I L s L S T R A (`n,) • Required — Prohibit the use of large turf areas in landscaping by substituting water-conserving native groundcovers or perennial grasses, shrubs,and trees. • Suggested—Trails shall be constructed of pervious materials such as earth or decomposed granite. w R • Required— Group plants with similar water requirements together, a technique known as hydrozoning.A plant reference is available from the California Department of Water Resources. Permeable paving materials allow c. water and air to filter through to • Suggested — Mulch planting beds and apply compost and the ground underneath,reducing to environmentally friendly fertilizers to promote healthy topsoil, stormwater runoff and associated need N maximize plant growth,and reduce plant replacement.This also reduces for standard drainage infrastructure. the need for longer or more frequent irrigation run times. iL N Building-Level Sustainability N The following are sustainable building practices and techniques that provide safe a © and healthy living environments. N Building Materials C • Suggested—Use 20 percent locally manufactured and produced building materials, defined as materials manufactured or produced within 500 I m miles of the project. U a, z • Suggested — Strive to use rapidly renewable or recycled building w materials and products for at least 5 percent of the total value of = materials.Flooring alternatives like bamboo,wheatboard,and cork are U rapidly renewable materials.Linoleum,exposed concrete,and recycled- content ceramic tiles are also desirable materials. Operable windows allow natural air • Suggested— Encourage the installation of insulation with at least 75 Flow through interiors,reducing energy °D percent recycled content, such as cellulose, newspaper, or recycled needed for cooling. cotton. Q Indoor/Outdoor Air Quality • Required — Use only flooring and insulation products that are low emitters of volatile organic compounds (VOq and formaldehyde. • Required—Use only low- and zero-VOC paints, finishes, adhesives, o caulks,and other substances to improve indoor air quality and reduce the harmful health effects of off-gassing. Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 5-3 Sustainability ■ Required—In compliance with Air Quality Management District Rule 445, new homes are prohibited from permanently installing wood- burning devices unless: they are Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)Phase II-Certified,pellet-fueled,masonry heaters;meet US EPA emission standards,or are dedicated gaseous-fueled fireplaces. Lighting ■ Required—Use shielded fixtures, avoiding overhead lighting of areas ~ rn such as walkways. CL ) Y` ■ Required—Provide low-contrast lighting and use low-voltage fixtures and energy-efficient bulbs, such as compact fluorescent and light emitting diode bulbs. N ■ Required — Use automated occupancy sensors in nonresidential buildings that automatically shut off lights when rooms are unoccupied LL N r 0 Building Envelope N to U " - ■ Required — Install radiant barriers to reduce summer heat gain and a Reduce lightpollution(top)by installing winter heat loss. cN lighting fixtures that direct light ■ Required — Use natural ventilation techniques, such as operable F downward or only where it is needed windows,to take advantage of airflow for cooling interiors,reducing the (bottom). amount of energy needed for cooling. CL ■ Suggested—As practical, design taller windows that start close to the v1 ceiling to optimize daylighting of interiors. F z LU ■ Suggested—Consider installing light shelves,architectural features that bounce light farther into interiors, to optimize daylighting. _ U ■ Suggested—Consider the use of"cool roofs,"which are painted with a highly reflective coating or employ light-colored materials, or "green roofs,"vegetated areas on roofs that contain plants in engineered soil, Energy-efficient lighting products,such to cool building interiors and increase stormwater retention. E as this compact fluorescent bulb,use 75 percent less energy and last 10 times ■ Required — Install water- and energy-saving fixtures and appliances, longer than standard incandescent such as showerheads, toilets, washing machines, clothes dryers, a bulbs. refrigerators,and dishwashers certified as Energy Star compliant. ■ Suggested—Install recirculating hot water systems to reduce the need to heat water, or tankless water heaters that heat water as needed instead of storing hot water in tanks,thus reducing standby energy use. ■ Required—Utilize a minimum insulation value of R30 in ceilings. ■ Required—Install programmable thermostats in all units. Page 5-4 October2012 Packet Pg. 843 s.B.o SPRING T R A [ L 5 Resource Conservation Actions that increase water and energy efficiency and conserve resources offer tremendous cost savings to both builders and future residents. A substantial reduction in energy use can be achieved through techniques such as building design that maximize shading and insulation; high performance heating, w ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems; and use of natural daylighting.The use of high-performance appliances and irrigation systems that M minimize water and energy use can substantially impact the amount of resources .a that flow into and out of the community. y N Water • Required—Install only low-water-consumption,Energy Star—compliant c appliances and fixtures. U. r • Required — Install only sensor-operated faucets in nonresidential N buildings. ` ` III v o • Suggested—Install dual flush or other toilets using less than 1.6 gallons to per flush. ,9 ;1 1 y By taking into account solar orientation .R • Suggested—Install waterless urinals in nonresidential buildings. of the building,overhangs and other F devices placed on the exterior of M buildings sunlight S • Suggested — Install faucets and showerheads using 2.5 gallons per g g Q minute or less. interiors,lowering heatgain and the N amount ofenergy needed for cooling. w • Required — Use water-saving landscaping techniques, such as drip z irrigation systems and drought-tolerant plant species. (For a more LU detailed list of water-saving techniques and practices, see the = Landscaping section of this section.) C r Energy a • Required—Install only energy-efficient windows,such as models with d spectrally selective low-e glass and with wood, vinyl, or fiberglass frames. • Required—Incorporate building materials that take advantage of heat storage or thermal mass to reduce energy needed for heating and cooling interiors. Materials such as concrete, masonry, and wallboard store heat absorbed during the day and slowly release it throughout the ! evening, thereby moderating indoor temperatures over a 24-hour period. • Suggested — Encourage participation in energy-efficiency rebate programs offered by utility providers and government agencies. Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 5-5 Packet Pg. 844 Sustainability Heating,Ventilation and Air Conditioning • Required — Design and install HVAC systems according to the standards provided by the Air Conditioning Contractors of America handbooks or other comparable high-performance HVAC standards. • Required—Install sealed-combustion/sealed-duct furnaces and water heaters for increased efficiency and indoor air quality. • Required—Install only EnergyStar—qualified ceiling fans to circulate air, improve comfort, and reduce the demand on heating and cooling Q systems. N m N Sustainability Resource Guide c Table 5.1 presents a consolidated list of available programs, resources, and LL potential funding sources to assist in implementing the sustainability guidelines presented in this section.Since the programs and efforts of the various agencies ° and providers that serve the Spring Trails community may change over time,it is O encouraged to check with the relevant entity for current programming and 0. incentives. -� N R F- C C CL Q1 H Z W 2 U Q F- E s U N Q Page 5-6 October 2012 Packet Pg. 845 SPRING 7 R A I L S Table 3.1 Sustainability Resource Guide Provider Program Energy Southern Sustainable For multiple-building and/or mixed- www.sce.com _ California Edison Communities use projects.Provides design (SCE) Program assistance,training,education,and financial incentives relating to a energy efficiency,demand response, and self-genera !on. Q SCE and Southern Savings By Design For nonresidential projects.Provides www.socalgas.com/business California Gas design assistance,energy analysis, N Company and financial incentives. Southern Advanced Home For residential projects.Offers www.socalgas.com/ California Gas Program(Part of financial incentives through either a construction/ahp/ 5 Company ENERGY STAR New performance-based or measure- www.sce.com/ N Homes Program) based approach. RebatesandSavings/ c California Energy New Solar Homes For new residential construction. www.gosolarcalifornia.ca.gov N U Commission Partnership Financial incentives for production /nshp O (NSHP) homes with solar panels that exceed a Title 24 by 15%as a standard feature. .N Infrastructure I ; '.> R No current programs;see policies and strategies outlined earlier in this section. r' Fuscoe Sustainable Guidelines for street development www.cityofirvine.org/depts/ c Engineering and Travelways created in partnership with the cd/redevelopment/ City of Irvine Guidelines Orange County Fire Authority for the Redevelopment Great Park Community. O Dept. z Water and Wastewater— : . ,, ,,.„,;., _„ LU Metropolitan California Friendly General provisions and design www.bewaterwise.com = U Water District Homes;California standards for residential F Friendly landscaping. a Landscape Building Level US Green Building Leadership in Sustainable community and www.usgbc.org L Council Energy and building-level rating system. Environmental Q Design(LEED) US Department of Energy Star Certifies homes and products for www.energystar.gov Energy energy efficiency. Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 5-7 Packet Pg. 846 s.s.o Sustainability This page intenfionaly left blank. N L F C •L Q N Ln 1r7 N i .N.. A C_ i N r O N V V O CL rn N w 1 H al C L 1 Q i rn w I � I � c 1 � E v A V ¢ I Page 5-8 October 2012 Packet Pg. 847 Section 6 IMPLEMENTATION N . N R C LL N r O N Y V O ® a a. N R L F Q F Z cW C U Q H H Q Y d C G L U R Q © SPRING i' R A I L S Tbis page intentionally left blank. Ln N L Q Ln N N N C LL N r N N U 0 ^ N (v w N 0 L i- OI C CL rn z z w x U Q F H Q c d E t v A Y Q Spring Trails Specific Plan SPRING 1" R A I L S ADMINISTRATION AND IMPLEMENTATION California Government Code Section 65451(a)(4) requires that specific plans t` contain a "program of implementation measures, including regulations, rn Programs,public works projects, and financing measures." This section sets c CL forth the procedures needed to administer and implement the Spring Trails (n Specific Plan. LO N N Alternative Plan cu u_ As noted,the preferred plan assumes that the SCE power lines will remain in N place and above ground,thereby precluding the development of three residential lots. However,the property owner is seeking permission from SCE to place the 0 power lines underground or relocate them. If successful, it would allow the n_ development of 307 single-family detached units (306 new units and 1 existing (n residence). The plan for this possibility is included in Appendix F as an alternative,has been analyzed in the EIR,and is identical to the preferred plan except for the number of units and the SCE power line easement. If the alternative plan is utilized instead of the preferred plan, then the plans and Q development potential contained in Appendix F shall be utilized. All other w provisions of this Specific Plan shall remain in effect and shall apply to the o alternative plan. Z w x Administering the Plan The Spring Trails Specific Plan shall comply with all procedural requirements cited in the City of San Bernardino Development Code,Chapter 19.64,Specific Plans.Whenever the regulations contained in this Specific Plan conflict with the E regulations of the City of San Bernardino Development Code,the provisions of this Specific Plan shall take precedence. Responsibility Following approval of this Specific Plan by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino, the City's Director of Community Development shall be responsible for administering the provisions of the Spring Trails Specific Plan in accordance with the provisions of this Specific Plan, the State of California Government Code, and the Subdivision Map Act. All necessary Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 6-1 Packet Pg. 850 OAdministration and Implementation permits and approvals shall be processed through the City's permit and application processes as noted in Article IV,Administration,of the City of San Bernardino Development Code. Applicability 2 All development in the Specific Plan area shall comply with the requirements F and standards set forth in this document Where there are conflicts between the following standards and those found in the City of San Bernardino Development Code,the standards contained in this document shall apply.The w provisions of the City of San Bernardino Development Code shall apply to any area of site development, administration, review procedures, environmental N review, landscaping requirements, and parking regulations not expressly addressed by this Specific Plan document LL N Interpretations N ^ When there is a question or ambiguity regarding the interpretation of any 0 a. provision of this Specific Plan,the Director of Community Development has the authority to interpret the intent of such provision. In interpreting this w Specific Plan, the City's Director of Community Development shall give F consideration to the Vision of this Specific Plan while ensuring that rn development can proceed in accordance with the terms of this Specific Plan and the approved tentative map. m rn The Director of Community Development may, at his/her discretion, refer interpretations to the Planning Commission for consideration and action.Such a w referral shall be accompanied by specific details,information,and analyses that = tie the information to the Director's decision.The Planning Commission shall make similar findings in conjunction with its decision. The Planning Commission action may be appealed to the Mayor and Common Council.All interpretations made by the Director of Community Development may be appealed to the Planning Commission in accordance with the appeal procedures E set forth in the Chapter 19.52 of the City of San Bernardino Development Code. m Specific Plan Amendment Modifications to the Specific Plan text and/or exhibits may be necessary during the development of the project. Depending on the nature of the proposed Specific Plan amendment, additional environmental analysis may be required, ^ pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.Any modifications to the (A/) Specific Plan shall occur in accordance with the amendment process described Page 6-2 October 2012 Packet Pg. 851 C SPRING T R A I L S in this section. These amendments, should they occur, are divided into major and minor amendments. Major Amendments If, after making written findings, an amendment is deemed major by the m Director of Community Development,it will be processed in the same manner as the original Specific Plan,as directed by Chapter 19.64,Specific Plans,of the City of San Bernardino Development Code. c CL N Minor Amendments U) Minor amendments include simple modifications to text or exhibits that do not: N N change the meaning,intent,or materially alter the nature or scope of the Specific Plan;increase the maximum allowable density;or exceed the total units of the 6 c Specific Plan.Minor amendments include,without limitation,minor changes in LL locations of streets,public improvements,or infrastructure;minor changes in the configuration or size of parcels;minor modification of land use boundaries N to conform with street alignments or easements; and interpretations that ou © facilitate the approval of unlisted uses that are similar in nature and impact to a listed uses. Minor amendments to the Spring Trails Specific Plan require approval of the i`- Director of Community Development. Minor amendments may be accomplished per the procedures contained in Chapter 19.60, Minor Q Modifications,of the San Bernardino Development Code.Any determination or N action taken by the Director may only be appealed to the Planning Commission. m In a similar manner, any action taken by the Planning Commission may be z appealed to the Mayor and Common Council. Any determination or action W taken by the City Engineer may only be appealed directly to the Mayor and = Common Council.All appeals shall be reviewed and processed according to the procedures set forth in Chapter 19.52,Hearings and Appeals,of the City of San Q Bernardino Development Code. v E Severability If any section, subsection, sentence, clause,or phrase of this Specific Plan,or Q future amendments or additions hereto,is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this plan. O Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 6-3 Packet Pg. 852 s.B.o Administration and Implementation Phasing, Capital Improvements; and Maintenance Infrastructure Improvements Within Spring Trails, the developer(s) will be responsible for constructing/ w funding their fair share of required on-and off-site infrastructure improvements. All infrastructure improvements will be developed in conjunction with the roadway improvements. .L Q Development Phasing N Phase 1 N • Off-site grading and improvement of the primary and secondary access roads. u- N • Off-site backbone utilities (water, sewer, drainage, dry utility line N extensions to site,and necessary improvements) o • Approximately 200 acres of the Spring Trails site will be rough graded an for development of residential lots, roadways, trails, detention basins and parks. r L rn • Detention basins improved L Q • All on-site roadways roads will be undercut with the rough grading N r- Phase 2 Z W • Residential development will sequence from the south to the north. _ Infrastructure, roadways, fuel modification zones, parks, and v landscaping necessary to serve development will be phased accordingly. • Improvements will generally follow the sequence of the water improvements,which are divided into the following pressure zones: • On-site 2500 pressure zone improvements, including the transmission line and reservoir, prior to issuance of residential building permits in this zone. ¢ • On-site 2700 pressure zone improvements, including the pump station, transmission line, and reservoir, and replacement of the existing 16-inch water line in Meyers Road, prior to issuance of residential building permits in this zone. • On-site 3000 pressure zone improvements, including the pump station, transmission line, and reservoir, prior to issuance of residential building permits in this zone. i Page 6-4 October 2012 O SPRING T R A I L S • Main gateway/entry features prior to or concurrent with the issuance of residential building permits in the 2700 pressure zone. • Trails,parks,and common area landscaping in each pressure zone will occur prior to or concurrent with the issuance of residential building permits for that pressure zone. R L • Fuel modification zones necessary to support physical development in each pressure zone will occur as noted in the Fire Protection Plan. CL • Sewer,storm drain,dry utilities,and roadway paving will be sequenced U? with improvements in each water pressure zone. �r N N It should be emphasized that the phasing program described in this section is a projection based on a judgment of future planning and market factors.There- c fore,it is not to be taken as a compulsory development sequence.Development LL area sequencing may change as the result of future conditions that neither the c City nor the developer has knowledge of as of the date of this submittal. N However, the basic standards will not change and compliance is required regardless of shifts In the composition of each development phase. The a developers of property in Spring Trails will be required to comply with all w grading,drainage,and road improvements as specified in the Specific Plan. F- zn c CL U) o) F- z w x U Q F- E U R Q Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 6-5 Packet Pg. 854 Administration and Implementation Maintenance Table 6.1 describes maintenance responsibilities in Spring Trails. Table 6.1 Maintenance Plan Type Developed By Maintained By Owned By streeisc'ape ' Primary and Secondary Entry Roads Master Developer City City Primary and Secondary Local Roads and cul- Master Developer City City de-sacs Entry Features/Landscaping Master Developer HOA HOA W) C'4 Street Lighting Master Developer City LLMD/HOA/City Community Walls and Fences Master Developer HOA HOA (a Interior Neighborhood Walls and Fences Guest Builder Homeowner Homeowner LL Parks and Open Space Private Parks Master Developer HOA/LLMD HOA/LLMD 04 Public Parks Master Developer HOA/LLMD City U 0 Trails Master Developer HOA/LLMD city EL Detention Basins Master Developer HOA/LLMD HOA/LLMD to 0 Cable Creek and Meyers Open Space Areas Master Developer HOA/LLMD City Fuel Modification Zone A Master Developer LLMD/Homeowner Homeowner Fuel Modification Zones B and C I Master Developer LLMD HOA/Homeowner Infrastructure Water Systems(on-and off-site) Master Developer City city a> Nonpotable Water Systems Master Developer City City Sewer Systems(on-and off-site) Master Developer city ci Z Drainage Sys ms(on-and off-site) Master Developer City/SBCFC: City/SBCFC LLMD=Landscape and Lighting District or special maintenance district HOA=Homeowners'Association(Master or Neighborhood) SBCFC=San Bernardino County Flood Control Note:Certain facilities and improvements may be subject to reimbursement agreements. 4.; E Master Homeowners Associations Common areas identified within the Specific Plan shall be owned and maintained by a permanent private maintenance organization.These areas may include common recreation areas,open space,circulation systems,landscaped easements,landscaped areas at entryways and roadways,paseos,and amenities such as the clubhouse. Page 6-6 October 2012 1 Packet Pg. 855 SPRING [`r/1 r x A t t s Neighborhood Homeowners Associations In certain residential areas of the project,smaller homeowners associations may be created to provide maintenance for common areas and facilities that only benefit residents in the immediate area. Open Space and Parks Open space and parks not directly associated with a particular neighborhood a� shall be the responsibility of a landscape and lighting district or a public facilities c CL maintenance district. v> m Project Roadways N All public roadways shall be incorporated into the City's system of roads for operation and maintenance.All private roads shall be owned and maintained by either the master homeowners'association or a neighborhood association. N 0 N Financing Strategies , 0 © The financing of construction,operation,and maintenance of public improve- a. ments and facilities will include a combination of mechanisms. However, the N developer shall ultimately be responsible for all fair-share costs associated with R implementing the project, including but not limited to the costs of providing infrastructure and complying with all mitigation measures, conditions of approval,and other requirements of the project. CL U) Various financing strategies may be used to fund the public facility F improvements specified by the Specific Plan.Financing may involve a combina- Z w tion of impact fees and exactions,special assessment districts,landscaping and lighting districts,community facilities districts,and other mechanisms as agreed c=j to by the developer and City.In addition,the developer may utilize options such < as a maintenance district or privatization of streets,parks,and related facilities, a in order to address the costs of ongoing maintenance and repairs. c d The City and developer will cooperate to ensure that the public facilities are built E in accordance with all requirements of the Specific Plan. Development @ agreements and conditions of approval may be used to facilitate this process. Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 6-7 Packet Pg. 856 1113 B 'a Administration and Implementation This page intenlionaly left blank. a L F Q� C Q N U) N N N R S LL N r O N Y U 0 Q N Ul L F C 'C Q N H Z W S U Q F- E t cc Y Q Page 6-8 October 2012 Packet Pg. 857 N N OI C APPENDICES N Ln N N � N R C LL N 0 O N U 0 a N N F- OI C Q Of F Z W 2 U Q H r C d L V w w Q Packet Pg.8$8 SPRING T R A I L S This page intenfionalj left blank. N C Q O N N N A C LL N 0 O N Y V 0 �j Q �r� A N :u F ✓T C Q y F Z W U a l a F- r E ti v 1 Q i 7 Spring Trails Specific Plan �6Bo • O SPRING T R A I L S TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page a� Appendix A: Glossary CL In Appendix B: General Plan Consistency Analysis ......................5 Ln LandUse .....................................................................................6 N Circulation.................................................................................11 R Housing.....................................................................................12 a CommunityDesign..................................................................12 0 Utilities and Public Services....................................................14 w v Parks, Trails, and Open Space................................................16 0 a. Safety..........................................................................................17 y Environmental Sensitivity.......................................................22 R a� Appendix C: Fire Protection Plan.................................................25 Q Appendix D: Foothill Fire Zones Overlay District Conformance 35 ~ x Appendix E:Tentative Tract Map.................................................43 a Appendix F: Alternative Plan.........................................................45 a d E cc I, V a Spring Trails Specific Plan Page i -"Packet,Pg,880 Appendix This page intenhonaly left blank N L Cm L CL Ln m N N N A C LL N r O N V 0 a N L r C L Q z Z W U Q F H Q c d E t U m Y Q Page ii October 2012 Pack�eti Pg 861 : 6kB o " SPRING C R A I L S APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY Accessory use:A use incidental and subordinate to the principle use of a lot or building located on that lot R Acres, gross: The entire acreage of a site. Gross acreage is calculated to the centerline of proposed bounding streets and to the edge of the right-of-way of c 'C existing or dedicated streets. n Acres,net:The portion of a site that can actually be built on.The following are N not included in the net acreage of a site: public or private road rights-of-way, public open space, and publicly owned floodways. c LL Bikeways: A term that encompasses bicycle lanes, bicycle paths, and bicycle N routes. ° N U Buildable Area/Buildable Pad: For purposes of this Specific Plan,refers to O © the area where a structure may be erected on a lot.The buildable area/pad does a not necessarily coincide with the legal lot lines and accounts for graded slope y areas,fault zones,and fuel modification zones where building is not permitted. A rn Buildout: Development of land to its full potential or theoretical capacity as c permitted under current or proposed planning or zoning designations. n Density,residential:A measurement of the number of permanent residential r re of land.Densities specified may be expressed in units per Z dwelling units a ac p w g P P Y eYP gross acre or per net developable acre. (See"Acres,gross"and"Developable x acres,net.'D O ~- Developable acres, net: The portion of a site that can be developed and is assumed for the purpose of density calculations. This area would include the building pad but not public or private road rights-of-way and flood control E channels. U M Developable land: Land that is suitable for structures and can be developed Q without hazards to, disruption of, or significant impact on natural resource areas. Dwelling unit:A room or group of rooms(including sleeping,eating,cooking, and sanitation facilities, but not more than one kitchen), that constitutes an independent housekeeping unit, occupied or intended for occupancy by one © household on a long-term basis. Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 1 Packet Pg. 862 OAppendix Family: (1) Two or more persons related by birth, marriage, or adoption (Census Bureau); (2) An individual or a group of persons living together who constitute a bona fide single-family housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit, not including a fraternity, sorority, club, or other group of persons occupying a hotel,lodging house,or institution of any kind (State of California). Granny flat: See "Second unit." R F- Household: All those persons (related or unrelated), who occupy a single M housing unit. (See"Family.') .c Q N Housing unit: The place of permanent or customary abode of a person or family.A housing unit may be a single-family dwelling,a multifamily dwelling,a N condominium, a modular home, a mobile home, a cooperative, or any other residential unit considered real property under state law.A housing unit has,at least,cooking facilities, a bathroom, and a place to sleep. It also is a dwelling ii that cannot be moved without substantial damage or unreasonable cost. (See `" "Dwelling unit,""Family,"and"Household.'D N U Intensity, building: For residential uses, the actual number or the allowable a range of dwelling units per net or gross acre. N .R Land use classification: A system for classifying and designating the F appropriate use of properties. .L a Median:The dividing area,either paved or landscaped,between opposing lanes N of traffic on a roadway. z z Neighborhood:A grouping of residential,commercial,service,and recreational W uses that are related by their orientation,design,or access points. v Nonconforming use: A lawful use of a building or land,or any part thereof, existing at the time of the adoption of this title that does not conform to the ¢ regulations for the district in which it is located as set forth in this title. m E Open space land: Any parcel or area of land or water that is essentially unimproved and devoted to an open space use for the purposes of (1) the preservation of natural resources,(2)the managed production of resources,(3) ¢ outdoor recreation,or (4) public health and safety. Parcel: A lot in single ownership or under single control,usually considered a unit for purposes of development. Parkland: Land that is publicly owned or controlled for the purpose of Oproviding parks,recreation,or open space for public use. Page 2 October 2012 I Packet Pg.863 SPRING T R A I L S Parking area, public: An open area, excluding a street or other public way, used for the parking of automobiles and available to the public,whether for free or for compensation. Parks: Open space lands for the primary purpose of recreation. Parkway:A piece of land between the rear of a curb and the front of a sidewalk m usually used for planting low ground cover and/or street trees,also known as a s c "planter strip." •c n w Recreation, active: A type of recreation or activity that requires the use of . organized play areas including,but not limited to,softball,baseball,football,and N soccer fields;tennis and basketball courts;and various forms of children's play equipment. LL Recreation,passive:Type of recreation or activity that does not require the use of organized play areas and includes multipurpose trails and picnic areas. 0°4 U Right-of-way:A strip of land occupied or intended to be occupied by certain 0 transportation and public use facilities,such as roads,railroads,and utility lines. of N ca Second unit:A self-contained living unit either attached to or detached from the primary residential unit on a single lot.A"granny flat"is one type of second t- C unit intended for the elderly. _ .Q Street, collector: A relatively low speed (25-30 mph), relatively low volume Q (5,000-20,000 average daily trips) street that provides circulation within and z between neighborhoods.Collectors usually serve short trips and are intended for LU collecting trips from local streets and distributing them to the arterial network. _ U Q Street,local:A low-speed(15-25 mph),low-volume (less than 5,000 average r daily trips) street that provides circulation within neighborhoods.Local streets Q provide direct access to fronting properties and are not intended for through- c traffic. Local streets are typically not shown on the Circulation Plan, Map, or E Diagram. Street, private/private road: Privately owned (and usually privately Q maintained) motor vehicle access that is not dedicated as a public street. Typically the owner posts a sign indicating that the street is private property and limits traffic in some fashion.For density calculation purposes,private roads are excluded when establishing the total acreage of the site. Streets,through:Streets that extend continuously between other major streets in the community. Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 3 Packet Pg. 864 © Appendix Structure: Anything constructed or erected that requires a location on the ground (excluding swimming pools,fences,and walls used as fences). Subdivision:The division of a tract of land into defined lots,either improved or unimproved,which can be separately conveyed by sale or lease, and which can be altered or developed."Subdivision"includes a condominium project as _ defined in Section 1350 of the California Civil Code and a community apartment project as defined in Section 11004 of the Business and Professions F Code. M c Zoning:The division of a city or county by legislative regulations into areas,or U) zones, that specify allowable uses for real property and size restrictions for buildings within these areas;a program that implements policies of the General N Plan. m c LL N r O N U 0 c Q (n rn F Z W 2 U Q F r Q c v E U A Q Page 4 October 2012 Packet Pg. 865 S P R I N G V TR A I L S APPENDIX B: GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS The San Bernardino General Plan,adopted in November 2005, sets the long- term strategy for City.The General Plan Vision states: r rn developing an adequate and diverse.supply of quality housing is one of our primary goals. Current and future residents need a balanced supply of housing, sQ providing opportunities for first time bomebuyers, students, estates, those in need of or choosing multi family units, and individuals seeking single family homes. N N However, we do not want sterile living arrangements;instead, we offer safe and attractive neighborhoods with quality homes and a range of recreational amenities. LL We want to create a place where San Bernan#no's homeowners and renters take pride in their surroundings and contribute to the beautifuation and upkeep of our ° community. We desire a place where we can own our homes, raise our families, and 0 then retire in our community. n This appendix provides an analysis of how the Spring Trails Specific Plan y R directly implements this vision and the goals of the City of San Bernardino General Plan. Please note that not every goal or policy of the General Plan is addressed as this analysis is focused only on the relevant goals and policies. Q U) M z z w x U Q F- Q c m >_ U Q Spring Trails Specific Plan Page S FPacket Pg. 866 Appendix Land Use General Plan Goals and Policies Goal 2.1:Preserve and enhance San Bernardino's unique neighborhoods (land Use) Policy 2.1.1 Actively enforce development standards, design guidelines, and policies to R preserve and enhance the character of San Bernardino's neighborhoods. (LU-1) m c Policy 2.1.2 Require that new development with potentially adverse impacts on existing Q neighborhoods or residents such as noise, traffic, emissions, and storm water runoff, be m located and designed so that quality of life and safety in existing neighborhoods are LO preserved (LU-1) N Goal 2.2. Promote development that integrates with and mimmites impacts on surrounding land uses. (land Use) LL N Policy 2.2.1 Ensure compakbility between land uses and quality design through adherence N to the standards and regulations in the Development Code and policies and guidelines in the Community Design Element. (LU-1) a { w Policy 2.2.2 Require new user to provide mitigation or buffers between existing uses where m potential adverse impacts could occur, including, as appmpriate,decorative walls, landscape ` setbacks, restricted vehicular access, enclosure ofparking structures to prevent sound c transmission, and control of lighting and ambient illumination. (LU-1) .Q Polity 2.2.4 Hillside development and development adjacent to natural areas shall be designed and landscaped to preserve natural features and habitat and protect structures from z the threats from natural disasters, such as wildfires and floods (LU-1) x Goal 2.3:Create and enhance dynamic, recogni.Zable places for San Bernardino's residents employees, and visitors. (land Use) — Policy 2.3.3 Entries into the City and distinct neighborhoods should be well defined or highlighted to help done boundaries and act as landmarks. (CD-1 and CD-3) E R Goal 2.5 Enhance the aesthetic quality of land uses and structures in San Bernardino. Q Policy 2.5.4 Require that all new structures achieve a high level of architectural design and provide a careful attention to detail (LU-1) Policy 2.5.6 Require that new developments be designed to complement and not devalue the physical characteristics of the surrounding environment,including consideration of(site speafie Cdesign considerations of the surrounding environment-remaining items omitted) Page October 2012 Packet Pg. 867 O SPRING T R A I L S Goal 2.6 Control development and the use of land to minimize adverse impacts on significant natural, bistony cultural, habitat, and hillside resources. Aug 2.6.1 Hillside development and development adjacent to natural areas skald be designed and sated to maintain the character of the City's significant open spaces and historic and _ cultural landmarks. (LU-1) L Goal 2.7 Pmdde for the development and maintenance ofpubkc infrastructure and sennces to ~ rn support existing and future residents, businesses, recreation, and other uses. 0 N Policy 2.7.1 Enhance and expand drainage,sewer,and water supp#1 storage facikides to serve m new development and intensification of existing lands. (U-1) O N N_ Polity 2.7.2 Work with the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District to create � additional water storage capacity and take advantage of the abundant water supplies (U-1) LL N r Policy 2.7.5 Require that development be contingent upon the ability ofpubhc infrastmaure to N provide sufficient capacity to accommodate its demands and mitigate its impacts (LU-1) 0 O Goal2.8Protect the life and property of residents, businesses, and visitors to the City of San a Bernardino from crime and the hazards of jlood,fire, seismic risk, and liquefaction. Poh'cy 2.8.1 Ensure that all structures comp# with seismic safety provisions and building codes (LU-1) Q Poh'cy 2.8.2 Ensure that design and development standards appro nately address the hazards m posed by wildfires and wind,withparlicularfocus on the varying degrees ofthese threats in the z foothills, valleys, ridges, and the southern and western flanks of the San Bernardino w Mountains. (L.0-1 andA-1) _ U Specific Plan Response a Upon annexation into the City, the entire Spring Trails site was designated as Residential Estate,and as appropriate based on slope studies,the Foothill Fire W d Zone,on both the City's General Plan and Zoning maps.The Residential Estate designation permits one dwelling unit per acre. Through the Spring Trials �? Specific Plan, development was clustered into the most appropriate areas so that,when taken individually,certain lots exceeded the one unit per acre density limit yet on a gross basis still complied with the overall density restrictions of the Residential Estate land use designation. Spring Trails is a 352.8-acre residential development in the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains. Spring Trails accommodates 304 residences (307 © residences in the alternative plan) situated in several neighborhoods,which are separated by open space corridors, drainage ways, and sloped areas and Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 7 Packet Pg. 868 Appendix interconnected by a series of trails and roadways.The development footprint of Spring Trails is focused on the gently sloping alluvial benches between canyons, steep hillsides, and the Cable Canyon and Meyers Canyon drainageways. Development is focused onto approximately 242 acres, or 68 percent of the total site, and includes 9 acres of parks and 125.1 acres of internal slopes and fuel modification zones.The remaining 32 percent of Spring Trails(111.3 acres) _ is preserved as natural open space. L The following elements of the Specific Plan promote the land use goals of the m General Plan: a rn • Providing approximately 111 acres of permanent open space. N N • Carefully weaving Spring Trails into its physical surroundings by clustering development on the gentle slopes; avoiding steep slopes, ridgelines, and physical hazards;and preserving significant drainage ways. U. N • Including guidelines and standards that address unique entries, tailored N landscaping,and detailed design factors that will help make Spring Trails a unique neighborhood in San Bernardino. 0 © a ■ Providing two points of access that directly connect to collector roads and N avoid existing neighborhoods: the primary access connecting to Little F League Drive and a new secondary access road connecting to Frontage Road.The secondary access road is designed to restrict non-resident access onto Meyers Road. (n rn • Providing two points of access for existing off-site residences and z preserving an existing on-site residence. LU x • Maintaining the significant natural drainage courses on the property and a capturing on-and off-site stormwater flows and routing them through a series of catch basin inlets and storm drain systems that convey water to Q three on-site detention basins where it is treated and discharged at a controlled rate into Cable Canyon. The drainage system and detention basins will reduce stormwater runoff from the site to levels below those that existed prior to the project. Q • Minimizing the impacts of light intrusion and spillover. CSUSB is contemplating building an observatory on the nearby Badger Hill.To help preserve a dark nighttime sky, this Specific Plan includes controls on the type and design of lighting. • Providing unique entries to create a recognizable identity and sense of O arrival. Page 8 October 2012 Packet Pg. 869 O SPRING T R A I L S • Proving design guidelines and development standards that will result in distinctively designed residences set among a system of unified lighting, streetscape,landscape,and parks. • Working with SBMWD to supply water to Spring Trails.Water from lower elevations by a combination of expanding and improving the off-site water system and the provision of on-site reservoirs and transmission lines. rn • Requiring the developer(s)to be responsible for constructing/funding their fair share of required on-and off-site infrastructure improvements,such as C water lines, sewers, storm drains,recycled-water lines,and streets. N • Addressing the significant natural features on the site such as the San Andreas Fault system and natural drainage courses that cut through the m project and protecting against wildland fires as detailed in the Safety U. responses below. N 0 N Verdemont Heights Area Plan o a in General Plan Goals and Policies .a Goal 2.1:Preserve and enhance San Bernardino's unique neighborhoods. (Land Use) ~ a� c Policy 2.11 Create an identifiable and unique village that includes distinct residential fl neighborhoods and a full array of services and activities to meet the needs of residents of the N rn area. F z w Policy 2.11.1 Enhance the three distinct subareas that Comprise Verdemont Heights: _ U a. Verdemont Estates, which is located in the northwestern portion of The area west of I1ttle League Drive, has a rural character and consists of the larger lot residential uses Q 2.11.2 Develop a trail system in Verdemont Heights and along Cable Creek that provide a complete access system and provides direct access to Verdemont Plaza L U R 2.11.4 As shown on Figure LU-6, develop an integrated corridor enhancement system, Q including landscaping and signage, which are unique to Verdemont Heights. The following policies shall direct the development of corridors udthin Verdemont Heights•. 2.11.6 Ensure that new developments eitherprovide theirfair share of recreational facilities based upon the City's parkland requirements or appropriate in-lieu fees. C Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 9 FPacket Pg. 870 6.B.o Appendix Specific Plan Response Spring Trails is in keeping with the rural character of the northwestern portion of Verdemont Heights with an average lot size of 29,000 square feet.The largest lots are on the upper elevations of the site and the largest lot measures 18.3 acres.The smallest lots are on the lower elevations and the smallest lot measures 10,801 square feet The residences are separated by open space corridors, drainage ways, and sloped areas and interconnected by a series of tails and F roadways.Development is focused onto approximately 242 acres,or 68 percent of the total site,and includes 9 acres of parks and 125.1 acres of internal slopes and fuel modification zones.The remaining 32 percent of Spring Trails (111.3 acres)is preserved as natural open space. N Maximum buildout of the Spring Trails Specific Plan would accommodate approximately 1,028 residents. Based on the City's standard of 5 acres of -FU parkland per 1,000 residents, full buildout of the Specific Plan would result mi the need to provide 5.14 acres of parkland or an equivalent fee in lieu of dedicated parkland. Spring Trails provides approximately 245.4 total acres of public and private parkland, open space,and trails and the 9.0 acres of usable public and private parks exceed City requirements. In addition, there are 3.8 a. miles of trails that provide access to the surrounding natural open spaces. N The following elements of the Specific Plan promote the land use goals of the F General Plan: r: CL • Including guidelines and standards that address unique entries, tailored m landscaping,and detailed design factors that will help make Spring Trails a o unique neighborhood in San Bernardino. z w • Providing unique entries to create a recognizable identity and sense of = arrival. v ¢ r C v E t U Q Page 10 October 2012 Packet Pg. 871 SPRING 1' R A I L S Circulation General Plan Goals and Policies Goal 6.1:Provide a well-maintained street system. (Circulation) N Goal 6.2.Maintain Ocient traffic operations on City streets. (Circulation) Poksy 6.2.2 Design each roadway witb sufficient capacity to accommodate anticipated traffic based on intensity ofprojected and planned land use in the City and the region while ° maintaining a peak hour level of service(LOS) "C"or better. 04 N Pokcy 6.2.5 Design roadways,monitor traffe flow, and employ traffic control measures (eg. signah.Zation, access control, exclusive right and left turn-turn lanes, lane striping, and signage)to ensure City streets and roads continue to function safety within our Level of 'u. Service standards. cN 0 N Goal 6.3:Provide a safe circulation system. (Circulation) Pokry 6.3.4 Require appropriate right-of-way dedications of all new developments to faciktate construction of roadways shown on the Circulation Plan. (LU-1) R i F Pokcy 6.3.6 Locate new development and their access points in such a way that traffic is not encouraged to utih.Ze local residential streets and alleys. (LU-1) c a Policy 6.3.7 Require that adequate access be provided to all developments in the City rn including secondary access to faciktate emergency access and egress(LU-1). F— z w Specific Plan Response Spring Trails consists of a hierarchy of streets,including collector and local roads, which provides a comprehensive and connected street network and is designed Q to the specifications of the City of San Bernardino.Access to the project site will be provided via a new roadway extending from Little League Drive,and a new road extending south and connecting to the frontage road along I-215. These access points directly connect to collector roads and avoid existing ° neighborhoods:the primary access connecting to Little League Drive and a new ! secondary access road connecting to Frontage Road.The secondary access road is designed to restrict non-resident access onto Meyers Road.Spring Trails also provides two points of access for existing off-site residences. Spring Trails also includes a system of bicycle and pedestrian trails that interconnect all neighborhoods and provide connections to the surrounding areas and region.In addition,several natural drainage ways and sloped areas are used as open space corridors and pathways. Spring Trails Specific Plan Page I I Packet Pg. 872 O Appendix Housing General Plan Goals and Policies Goal 3.1:Fadktate the development of a variety of types of housing to meet the needs of all income levelr in the City of Sand Bernardino. (Housing) N Pokey 3.1.1 Accommodate the production of new housing units on currently vacant or F underutih.Zed land at densities and standards designated in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. CL en Specific Plan Response LO N Spring Trails accommodates 304 single-family detached housing units(307 units in the alternative plan) that appeal to families,those looldng to move up,and CSUSB faculty.The proximity of Spring Trails to the University may help attract ii teachers to the community and strengthen the ties between the City and University. N U Prior to approval of this Specific Plan, Spring Trails was designated as a O Residential Estate on the General Plan Map.The Residential Estate designation permits one dwelling unit per acre and would accommodate a maximum of 352 units.Policies 2.2.4 and 2.6.1 of the City of San Bernardino General Plan as well as provisions in the Development Code allow for the clustering of development within the density limits permitted by the underlying Residential Estate land use Q category. Spring Trails was designed to cluster development into the most appropriate locations. As a result,individual lots within Spring Trials may be smaller than the lot sizes called for in the City of San Bernardino General Plan z and individual lots may exceed the density limit called for in the City's General uj Plan; however, on a gross basis, the specific plan complies with the density v restrictions of the Residential Estate land use designation (304 units on 353 acres or 307 units in the alternative plan). Q c Community Design E U A General Plan Goals and Policies a Goal 2.5. Enhance the aesthetic quakily of land uses and structures in San Bernardino. (Land Use) Goal 5.3:Recognize unique features in individual districts and neighborhoods and develop a program to create uning design themes to identify areas throughout the City. ® (Community Design) Page 12 October 2012 Packet Pg. 873 C SPRING T R A I L S Policy 5.3.2 Distinct neighborhood identities should be achieved by applying streetscape and landscape design, entry hrahwents, and architectural detaiing standards, which are tailored to each particular area and also incorporate citywide design features Policy 5.3.4 Enhance and encourage neighborhood or street identity uitb theme landscaping or trees, entry statements, enhanced school or community facilio identification, and a unified range of architectural detailing. rn Goal 5.4:Ensure individual projects are well designed and maintained. (Communio CL L Design) w n Goal 5.5. Develop attractive, safe, and comfortable single family neighborhoods. N 04 (Communio Design) `s m Polity 5.5.4 Setback garages firm the street and minimize street frontage devoted to U. driveways and vehicular access. N 0 N Policy 5.5.6 Ensure a varied of architectural soles, massing,floorplans,fafade treatment, and elevations to create visual interest. O O n c� Policy 5.5.77n residential tract developments, a diversity of jloorplans,garage orientation, setbacks, soles, building materials, 16 rn Goal 12.8:Preserve natural features that are characteristic of San Bernardt'no's image. (Natural Resources and Conservation) rn am Specific Plan Response z w The overall goal of the Specific Plan is to create an attractive and distinct = community within the City of San Bernardino.The Spring Trails Specific Plan provides development standards and criteria for architecture,landscaping,entry monumentation,walls and fences,and other design elements in order to ensure Q a high quality development and strong community character. m In addition, Spring Trails is designed to enhance the aesthetic quality of San E Bernardino through: a ■ The compact design of Spring Trails limits the development footprint so that open lands are maximized;natural drainage ways are maintained and incorporated into the design of the project as open space amenities and landscaping;and hazards are avoided or mitigated. ■ Standards that require a variety of garage placements and setbacks,product types,colors,and materials. Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 13 FPacket Pg. 874 Appendix • Unique entries that create a recognizable identity and sense of arrival. • Avoiding development on ridgelines and steep slopes so that views of the mountains are not impacted. • An interconnected system of open spaces that serve multiple purposes as drainage courses,pedestrian pathways,recreational and visual amenities,and o separations between neighborhoods. R • Distinctively designed residences set among a system of unified lighting, 0' streetscape,landscape, and parks. rn .. Maintenance assessment district(s)will be responsible for maintaining the long- ;o j term aesthetic quality of Spring Trails. Maintenance responsibilities may be j divided between a Master Homeowners Association, Neighborhood Associations, Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District(s), and/or other S maintenance mechanisms. U N O N Utilities and Public Services o CIO General Plan Goals and Policies R Goal 2.7.-Provide for the development and maintenance of Pub&infrastructure and services to support existing and future residents, businesses, recreation, and other uses. (Land Use) CL Goal 9.1:Provide a system of wastewater collection and treatment facilities that will N adequate#convey and treat wastewatergenerated by existing and future development on the City's service area (Utilities) Z w 2 Policy 9.1.3 Require new development to conned to a masterplanned sanitary sewer system v in accordance with the Department of PubAc Works'"Sewer Policy and Procedures" F Wbere construction of macterplanned facilities it not feasibk, the Mayor and Common Q Council may permit the construction of interimfatififies sufficient to serve the present and _ sbort-term future needs. r E r Goal 9.3:Provide water supp#,transmission, distribution, storage, and treatment facilities R to meetpresent and future water demands in a timely and cost effective manner. (Utikties) Q Policy 9.3.1 Provide for the construction of upgraded and expanded water supply, transmission, distribution,storage, and treatment facilities to support existing and new development. (LU-1 and U4) Goal 9.4:Provide appropriate storm drain and flood control facilities where necessary. � © (Utikties) 3 Page 14 October 2012 Packet Pg. 875 s.e.o T t Policy 9.4.5 Implement flood control improvements that maintain the integrity of significant riparian and other environmental habitats. Policy 9.4.6 Minimize the disturbance of natural water bodies and natural drainage systems (LU-1) N Polity 9.4.8 Minmu.Ze the amount of impervious surfaces in conjunction with new L development. (LU-1) ~ rn Policy 9.4.10 Ensure comph'ance with the Federal Clean WaterAct requirements for C National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)permits,including requiring the development of WaterQuality Management Plans, Erosion and Sediment N Control Plans, and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans for all qualifying public and private development and signicant redevelopment in the City. (LU-1) LL Goal 9.5.-Provide adequate and orderly system for the collection and disposal of sold waste N to meet the demands of new and existing development in the City. (Utikties) N U © Goal 9.6.-Ensure an adequate, safe, and order#supp#of ekctncal energy is available to O support existing and future land uses witbin the City on a project leveL (Utilities) a. N Goal 9.7.-Ensure an adequate supp#of naturalgas is available to support existing and 6 future land uses within the City at a project leveL (Utilities) c Goal 9.8.-Ensure the operation and maintenance of telecommunications systems to support w existing and future land uses witbin the City. (Utilities) a> Goal 9.10.Ensure that the costs of infrastructure improvements are borne by those who w benefit. (Utikties) _ U Specific Plan Response a Spring Trails has been designed with a careful attention to the provision of services and infrastructure.According to initial studies,there is adequate supply, capacity, and facilities to accommodate the buildout of Spring Trails. U t6 Dry Utilities. Spring Trails will be served with electric, gas, solid waste collection,telephone cable,and Internet(data)from companies serving the City of San Bernardino.The utility providers,including the Gas Company,Southern California Edison,Verizon,and Charter Communications, have indicated the ability to provide service to Spring Trails. Water.The City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department (SBMWD) will provide water services to Spring Trails. Water will be supplied to Spring ' �V} Trails from lower elevations by a combination of expanding and improving the Spring Trails Specific Plan Page IS Packet Pg. 876 Appendix off-site water system and the provision of on-site reservoirs and transmission lines. Detailed water system improvement plan and supply analysis have been prepared and demonstrate that adequate water supply and service are available to accommodate the buildout of Spring Trails. Drainage. Spring Trails maintains the significant drainage courses on-site to carry most of the off-site water through the site to existing drainage facilities. The drainage concept for Spring Trails is designed to either maintain natural L° drainage courses or capture both on-and off-site stormwater flows and route c them through a series of catch basin inlets and storm drain systems that convey Q water to three on-site detention basins where it is treated and discharged at a controlled rate into Cable Canyon. The drainage system and detention basins will reduce stormwater runoff from the site to levels below those that existed N prior to the project. Spring Trails will be required to comply with and obtain R necessary NPDES and SWrrr permits. � LL Sewer.The Spring Trails project lies within the City of San Bernardino sanitary o sewer service area.Spring Trails will connect to the City's existing 10-inch sewer N line that ends at Little League Drive and Meyers Road,which is then connected 0 O to the south to a major interceptor system and is eventually treated in the San (L Bernardino Water Reclamation Plant.Existing capacity is available in the sewer ) system to serve the buildout population within the City.The sewer facilities will be designed and constructed in accordance with the City of San Bernardino r standards and specifications and in accordance with the Standard Specifications for c Public Works Construction(latest edition). a In addition, the infrastructure that crosses earthquake faults is designed to a handle earthquakes and surface ruptures. z w Within Spring Trails, the developer(s) will be responsible for constructing/ _ U funding their fair share of required on-and off-site infrastructure improvements, F such as water lines, sewers, storm drains,recycled-water lines, and streets.All a infrastructure improvements will be developed in conjunction with the roadway improvements. a� E z v Parks, Trai Is, and Open Space a General Plan Goals and Policies Goal 8.1:Improve the quakt ,of life in San Bernar&•no by providing adequate parks and recreation facilities and services to meet the needs of our residents. (Parks, Recreation, and Trails) Goal 8.2.-Design and maintain ourparks and recreation facilities to maximize safety, ` function, beauty, and efficiency. (Parks, Recreation, and Trails) I Page 16 October 2012 Packet Pg. 877 © SPRING T R A I L S Goa18.3:Develop a well-designed gstem of interconnected multi purpose trails, bikeways, and pedestrian paths. (Parks, Recreation, and Trails) Policy 8.3.9 Separate bikeway and trail systems from traffic and roadways wherever possible. (PRT-1) N Policy 8.3.10 Provide clear separation of bikers,joggers, and equestrians wbere possible. (PRT-1) rn c Goal8.4Provide adequate funding forparkland and trailr acquisition, improvements, N maintenance, and programs U) N Policy 8.4.2 Continue to require developers of residential subdivisions to provide fee N contributions based on the valuation of the units to fund parkland acquisition and improvements. (LU-1) c LL N Policy 8.4.4 Continue and expand mechanisms by which the City may accotg fts and N dedications ofparks, trail, open space, and facilities (PAT-2) 6 O Specific Plan Response a w N Maximum buildout of the Spring Trails Specific Plan would accommodate approximately 1,028 residents. Based on the City's standard of 5 acres of 1' rn parkland per 1,000 residents, full buildout of the Specific Plan would result in S .y the need to provide 5.14 acres of parkland or an equivalent fee in lieu of CL dedicated parkland. Spring Trails provides approximately 245.4 total acres of public and private parkland, open space, and trails and the 9.0 acres of usable public and private parks exceed City requirements. In addition, there are 3.8 w miles of trails that provide access to the surrounding natural open spaces = U Spring Trails will be integrated and linked both internally and with surrounding F uses via 3.8 miles of multi-purpose trails as well as on-street bike lanes. The a open spaces and parks will be maintained by homeowners associations and/or lighting and landscape maintenance district. s U CO Safety a General Plan Goals and Policies Goal 2.8:Protect the life andpmperty of residents, businesses, and visitors to the City of San Bernardino from crime and the bazards offlood,fire, seismic risk, and liquefaction. (Land Use) �j Goal 7.1:Protect the residents of San Bernardino from criminal activity and reduce the incidence of crime. (Public Facilities and Services) Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 17 Packet Pg. 878 Appendix Goal 7.2. Protect the residents and structures of San Bernardino from the hazards of fire. (Pubkc Fadhizes and Services) Pokcy 7.2.6 Require that all buildings subject to City jurisdiction adhere to fire safety codes. (LU-1) Goal 1O.6.Protect the kves and properties of residents and visitors of the City from flood bazards. (Safety) rn Goal 10.5 Reduce urban run-off from new and existing development. CL N Pokoy 10.5.1 Ensure compkance with the Federal Clean WaterAct requirements for National Pollutant Discharge Ekmination System (NPDES)permits, including N developing and requiring the development of WaterQualidy Management Plans for all new development and significant redevelopment in the City. (LU-1) LL Poky 10.5.2 Continue to implement an urban runoff reduction program consistent with regional and federal requirements, which includes requiring and encouraging the following: N U • Increase permeable areas to allow more percolation of runoff into the ground; 0 1 • Use natural drainage;detention ponds or infiltration pits to collect runoff; w • Divert and catch runoff using swales, berms,green strip filters,gravel beds and rn French drains; a C • Install rain gutters and orient them towards permeable surfaces; • Constructproper[ygrades to divertjlow to permeable areas; w x Use subsurface areas for storm runoff either far reuse or to enable release of runoff at predetermined times or rates to minimize peak di scbarge into storm drains; • Use porous materials, wbereverpossible,for construction of driveways, walkways and parking lots;and U • Divert runoff away from material and waste storage areas and pollution-laden surfaces such as parking lots. (LU-1) Q Pokry 10.5.4 Require new development and sign ficant redevelopment to utilize site preparation,grading and foundation designs that provide erosion control to prevent sedimentation and contamination of waterways. (LU-1) Goal 1O.7.•Protect kfe, essential kfek'nes, and property firm damage resulting from seismic activity. (Safety) Page 18 October 2012 Packet Pg. 879 C SPRING T R A I L S Goal 10.8 Prevent the loss of life,serious injuries, and major disruption caused by the collapse of or severe damage to vulnerable buildings in an earthquake. Policy 10.8.2 Require that lYfeh'nes crossing a fault be designed to resist the occurrence of fault rupture. N Goal 10.9:Minimize exposure to and risks firm geologic activities. (Safety) rn Goal 10.10:Protectpeople and property from the adverse impacts of winds. (Safety) .L a Goal 10.11:Protect people and propero from urban and wildland fire hazards. (Safety) LO N N Specific Plan Response Spring Trails contains several significant natural features that have made safety a c special concern in the design of the community. Significantly,the San Andreas LL N Fault system runs through the project,natural drainage courses cut through the c project, and wildland fire is a threat. N U 0 Seismic Safety. Spring Trails includes three traces of the San Andreas Fault, n. which runs in an east—west direction through the northern and southern N portions of the project site.These faults were precisely located through derailed m 1 geologic investigations to establish safe structural setback limits.Development in Spring Trails is sited to avoid the fault and comply with the Alquist-Priolo requirements.Development is required to comply with the latest building codes, rn which are designed to resist damage from seismic shaking.In addition,as noted in Section 3, Development Standards, the infrastructure that crosses earthquake F faults must be designed to handle earthquakes and surface ruptures and the w detailed structural plans will be approved in the grading, infrastructure, and = building permit process as appropriate.In particular,this Specific Plan requires a that: r • All structures in Spring Trails shall be required to meet or exceed the applicable seismic design standards of the California Building Standards E Code,which correspond to the level of seismic risk in a given location. r U R • Construction of habitable buildings shall not occur over or within 50 feet of any known active fault or as required by the geotechnical analyses. • No water reservoir or booster pump station shall be constructed within 15 feet of an active fault. • Grading for building pads and roads shall conform to specifications of the Ogeologist,based on a soils study and final geotechnical study. Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 19 Packet Pg. 880 CAppendix • Flexible materials and joints shall be used for infrastructure (e.g., roads, sewer and water lines)located across known faults. • Flexible pipe fittings shall be used to avoid gas or water leaks. Flexible fittings are more resistant to breakage. • The final project grading plan shall be reviewed by the City geologist. N Drainage and Flooding.Because Spring Trails sits on an alluvial plain on the slopes of the San Bernardino Mountains, flooding and drainage is a critical factor. On a regional perspective, the drainage area of which Spring Trails y belongs flows east into Cable Canyon, then into Cable Creek, and eventually .. into the Santa Ana River.The site itself consists of four major drainage patterns: ,tor, N N • Drainage area A.A 2,030-acre drainage area(148.9 acres on-site and 1,881 acres off-site)that includes the west and east forks of Cable Canyon,which c flow south through the northeastern corner of the property and meet a N tributary flowing from the east. o N • Drainage area B.A 63.7-acre watershed (51.6 acres on-site and 12.1 acres © off-site)comprises surface flow drainage that flows southwesterly through a the center of the site and ultimately into Cable Canyon. 'y • Drainage area C.A 198.2-acre watershed(128.4 acres on-site and 69.8 acres F off-site)that consists of off-site surface flows and a defined drainage course that run onto the site and exit through the southeastern part of the project Q • Drainage area D.A 341.6-acre drainage area (21.8 acres on-site and 319.8 acres off-site) that includes Meyers Creek. z w Spring Trails is designed to either maintain natural drainage courses or capture = both on-and off-site stormwater flows and route them through a series of catch a basin inlets and storm drain systems that convey water to three on-site detention basins where it is treated and discharged at a controlled rate into Cable Canyon. The drainage system and detention basins will reduce stormwater runoff from the site to levels below those that existed prior to the project Spring Trails will be required to comply with and obtain necessary NPDES and SWPPP permits. m Portions of Cable Canyon and Meyers Canyon are identified as 100-year flood zones, which are constrained to the deep channels of the creeks, and development is located to avoid these areas and minimize road crossings. Wildland Fire.Because of the adjacent San Bernardino National Forest,steep slopes,and high winds,the Spring Trails area is at risk from wildland fires.To ensure the safety of lives and property, a detailed fire analysis was conducted and an extensive fire protection plan was developed for Spring Trails that will Page 20 October 2012 Packet Pg. 881 © SPRING T R A I L S protect development from wildland fires. Significant provisions of the fire protection plan include: • The protection of structures through the use of noncombustible exterior building materials, restriction on the use of cornice and eave vents, fire sprinklers,and compliance with the most current fire codes. v^ • Greater levels of structure protection on the perimeters of the project. rn c • Placement of streets on the perimeter of the project to provide a firebreak Q and a first line of defense against fires. V) • Adequate access and maneuverability for fire protection vehicles. N • Careful placement of fire hydrants and design of structures to facilitate fire c suppression efforts and fire hose access. S LL N • Strict landscape and use zones,called fuel modification zones,which include N private yards and extend approximately 170 to 230 feet from structures. Within the fuel modification zones, there are restrictions on the type, O O spacing,irrigation,and maintenance of landscaping. a N ■ Clear disclosure to potential homebuyers of the fire threat, preventative measures,and individual responsibilities. s c • Clear delineation of and maintenance responsibilities for the fuel �`aI modification zones. a> • Aggressive program to educate residents on the fire threat, landscaping Z requirements,and maintenance responsibilities. g x High Winds.The City of San Bernardino experiences periods of high winds, F especially in the Cajon Pass and at the bottom of canyons. Spring Trails is Q included in the City's designated High Wind Area,which has certain appropriate building standards.Development in Spring Trails is required to complywith the building standards for this area and will be designed and oriented to avoid the E creation of wind tunnels that concentrate gusts in corridors. C Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 21 Packet Pg. 882 s.e.o Appendix Environmental Sensitivity General Plan Goals and Policies Goal 2.6.-Control development and the use of land to minimize adverse impacts on rignicant natural, bistoriy cultural habitat, and billside resources. (Land Use) m 'm Goal 10.4:Minimize the threat of surface and subsurface water contamination and rn Promote restoration of bealtbfulgrmndwater resources. (Safety) Q Goal 10.5:Reduce urban run-off from new and existing development. (Safety) u� mLO cli Goal 12.1:Conserve and enhance San Bernardino's biological resources. (Natural Resources and Conservation) LL c_ Goal 12.2:Protect riparian corridors to provide habitat for fish and wildlife. (Natural N Resources and Conservation) N Goal 12.3:Establish open space corridors between and to protected wikllands. (Natural O © Resources and Conservation) a A Policy 12.2.3 Pursue voluntary open space or conservation easements to protect sensitive rR species or their habitats. (NR-1) ~ rn c 'C Goal 12.5:Promote air quality that is compatible witb the health, well-being, and CL en enjoyment of life. (Natural Resources and Conservation) m Goal 12.6:Reduce the amount of vehicular emissions in San Bernardino. (Natural w Resources and Conservation) _ U Goal 13.1:Conserve scarce energy resources. (Energy and Water Conservation) h Goal 13.2:Manage and protect the quality of the City's surface waters andground water L basins. (Energy and Water Conservation) c r E Specific Plan Response a The Spring Trails Specific Plan includes guidelines that address sustainable and green building practices for the individual building as well as overall community design.The sustainability guidelines address the use of active and passive energy and resource conservation measures—such as efficient landscaping and building designs—and utilization of other green building techniques/materials.The land plan for Spring Trails is based on this commitment.In particular,development © is focused on 70 percent of the total site,avoiding significant drainage corridors, fault zones,steep slopes,and ridgelines. i Page 22 October2012 Packet Pg. 883 6.B.o O SPRING T R A I L S Another critical sustainability issue is water and watershed management.Spring Trails includes the following elements to address the critical issues of water conservation,water quality,and watershed management: • The compact design limits the development footprint;open lands that can absorb runoff are maximized. • Natural drainage ways are maintained and incorporated into the design of CO the project as open space amenities. E Q • Landscaping and irrigation materials and methods are designed to increase u. efficiency and minimize water demand. N N N • Efficient,water-conserving technologies,such as low-flow toilets,are used. m C • Drainage outlets,bioswales,and other permeable surfaces will be designed LL to control urban runoff pollutants caused by the development of the c project. w u O 3 Q O ,N N P- C 'C Q F Z W 2 U Q F- F Q c d E U a a E Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 23 Packet Pg. 884 Appendix Tbis page infenfionaly left blank. N R L F C Q. N O O N N R C W N r O N w U 0 a U) N L F C �L Q LD r Z W i= S U Q F H Q c m E s U R Q Page 24 October 2012 Packet Pg. 885 SPRING T R A I L S APPENDIX C: FIRE PROTECTION PLAN N L F C Q O N N N R C U- 0 a N L F m C Q N T f 2 W S U Q H h Q c d L U N V Q Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 25 Packef Pg:`886:':' Appendix Tbis page intenlionaly left blank. N F C Q. y m N N N 16 C U- NN r V O IL N �l6 F ✓T C C 01 H Z W Z U Q F h Q c N E t U A w Q Page 26 October 2012 Packet Pg. 887 SPRING T R A I L S Insert 36"x60"Fire Protection Plan Sheet 1 —To be provided in final version N R F C Q LO to tm N N N l6 C_ LL N r O N U O Q rn N F C Q N z Z W 2 U Q f— r Q V L_ d I_ t V M Q Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 27 �.lP cketPg 4 hwcL,-t� �-'� s. a Appendix Thi page intenfionaly left blank. N L F t� C �L Q CO Ln 04 N N W C LL N r O N Y V 0 a. y L rn c c rn rn F z w x U Q H F Q C c d E s v m Q Page 28 October 2012 P c ePr889� ` SPRING T R A I L S Insert 36"x60"Fire Protection Plan Sheet 2—To be provided in final version y .ia L r CD LO c L Q N LO N N l6 C LL N r O N U O a N N L F 01 C O. (n F Z W 2 U Q E— F Q w C CD E t V w Q Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 29 P 9 h � Appendix This page intentionaly left blank. N R L r S L Q LO N N N m S LL N r O N w V 0 a Co a L F c CL 0 F- Z W 2 U Q H F- Q c d E s v R Y Q Page 30 October 2012 O SPRING T R A I L S Insert 36"x60" Fire Protection Plan Sheet 3—To be provided in final version N F GI C Q y to to N N R C LL N r O N Y U O O d rn N F C .L Q O h Z W 2 U Q F- F Q c Q E v m M Q Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 31 Packet Pg. 892 Appendix This page intentionally left blank. a F- m c CL Ln N Ln N N R C U- 0 CL U) N F- m C Q CO rn z 2 W 2 U Q F- E L U W r Q Page 32 October2012 Packet Pg. 893 SPRING T R A I L S Insert 36"x60" Fire Protection Plan Sheet 4—To be provided in final version W F m C Q rn w Ln N N A C U. N r O N U 0 Q N N cc H 01 C Q N rn F Z W S U a F r a d E m U a Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 33 Pac'e£,Pg*894, > et.. Appendix Tbi r page intendonaly left blank. N N O C CL N N N N N R C LL N r O N V 0 a N N R F 01 C Q rn Ql F Z W 2 U Q H F- E t Cc R Q Page 34 October 2012 Q acke 895 ; SPRING T R A I L S APPENDIX D: FOOTHILL FIRE ZONES OVERLAY DISTRICT CONFORMANCE y L F This section outlines Spring Trails'compliance with the standards contained in the City of San Bernardino's Foothill Fire Zones Overlay District.Spring Trails a is located within the City's FF (Foothill Fire Zones Overlay) District. The y overlay district identifies 3 foothill fire zones that have different degrees of hazard.The foothill fire zones are:A-Extreme Hazard,B-High Hazard,and C- 04 Moderate Hazard.Development within Spring Trails is within Fire Zone C.The following table describes Spring Trails'compliance with the standards contained c_ in the FF District (Section 19.15.040). N r O FF District Standards Section FF District Standard Spring Trails Compliance v 0 a y ,7:ACCess Will Crrculatron w 1.A. Local hillside street standards shall be Cul-de}--sacs with homes used to minimize grading and erosion fronting on both sides have i- potential while providing adequate a right-of-way of 46 feet c access for vehicles,including emergency with parking on both sides a vehicles.The right-of-way shall be 45.5 and a paved width of 36 a) feet with 40 feet of paved width and feet.Cul-de-sacs with rn parking on both sides and a sidewalk on homes fronting on only Z 1 side.(A+B) one side have a right-of- w way of 40 feet with parking on one side and a paved Q width of 32 feet. All other streets have a right-of-way Q of 50 feet,except as noted in 1.B.below. I.B. Streets shall have a paved width of 32 Secondary local roads have t feet with parking and sidewalk on 1 side a right-of-way of 40 feet U� of the street only and right-of-way of with parking and sidewalk Q 40.5 feet,subject to review and on one side of the street recommendation by the Fire Chief and and a paved width of 32 the City Engineer,with approval by the feet. Commission.(A+B) 1.C. Subdivisions shall be designed to allow emergency vehicle access to wildland areas behind structures.This is to be accomplished in either of 2 ways: Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 35 Packet Pg 896" Appendix Section FF District Standard Spring Trails Compliance 1.Provide a perimeter street along the Spring Trails provides a entire wildland side of development or perimeter road along portions of the eastern side of the development 2.Provide a fuel-modified area,a Spring Trails also provides a minimum of 150 feet in depth from the minimum 170-foot-deep w rear of the structure,adjacent to the fuel-modified area from the F subdivision and connected to the rear of structures that are interior street by flat 12 foot minimum adjacent to wildland areas. E L access ways placed no more that 350 a feet apart.If designed as a gated easement,access ways may be part of a LO side yard.(A+B+C where abuts N wildland) 1.D. No dead-end streets are permitted. Spring Trails does not have a Temporary cul-de-sacs are required. dead-end streets. 1.E. All permanent cul-de-sac turnarounds Cul-de-sacs within Spring o and curves shall be designed with a Trails are designed with a a minimum radius of 40 feet to the curb minimum radius of 40 feet face.No parking shall be allowed on the and no parking will be o_ bulb of a cul-de-sac.(A+B+Q allowed on the bulb of the -1) cul-de-sac. 1 F. Cul-de-sacs to a maximum of 750 feet in The cul-de-sacs comply m length may be permitted with a with this requirement. The rn maximum of 30 dwelling units,and to a maximum proposed cul- E maximum of 1,000 feet in length with a de-sac length is 885 feet rn maximum of 20 dwelling units.(A+B) with 9 D.U. 1.G. Driveways to residential garages of more Driveways greater than 30 than 30 feet in length shall extend for a feet in length shall have Z W minimum distance of 20 feet from the maximum grade of 10%for E garage,on a maximum grade of 5%. a minimum distance of 20 = U Driveways less than 30 feet in length feet from the garage. F shall have a maximum grade of 8%for a Driveways less than 30 feet a minimum distance of 20 feet from the in length shall have a garage.No portion of a driveway shall maximum grade of 12%for exceed a grade of 15%,unless approved a minimum distance of 20 E by the Fire Chief and City Engineer. feet from the garage.Any Driveways shall be designed so that the variance would require =° algebraic difference in grades will not approval from the Fire a cause a vehicle to drag or hang-up. Chief and/or City Engineer. (A+B+C) 1.H. Hillside collector and arterial streets shall Primary local roads with a not exceed 8%grade.Hillside residential 50-foot right-of-way are streets shall not exceed 15%grade. designed with a maximum Grades of streets shall be as provided in grade of 12%. this subsection,unless otherwise approved in writing by the Public Page 36 October 2012 Packet Pg. 897 SPRING T R A I L S Section FF District Standard Spring Trails Compliance Services,Fire,and Public Works Departments.(A+B+C) 1.1. Atentative tract or parcel map shall Spring Trails provides two provide for at least 2 different standard points of access to the means of ingress and egress which development. N provide safe,alternate traffic routes R subject to approval by the Fire Department.The two separate means of access shall be provided pursuant to a Section 19.30.200 of this Development u! Code.(A+B+C) 2.Site and Street Identification 04 N 2.A. Non-combustible and reflective street Spring Trails will include markers shall be visible for 100 feet noncombustible,reflective c pursuant to City standards.(A+B+C) street markers that will be U. visible for 100 feet. 2.B. Non-combustible building addresses of Spring Trails will provide N contrasting colors shall be placed on the noncombustible building 0 structure fronting the street.Four inch addresses of contrasting high(residential)and 5 inch high colors on structures a (commercial)lettering and numbers fronting the street. visible at least 100 feet are required. (A+B+C) ~ rn 3.Roadside Vegetation 3. All vegetation shall be maintained and All vegetation within m all dead plant material shall be removed Spring Trails will be for a distance of 10 feet from curbline. maintained by either the (A+B+C) Master Homeowners Z w Association or Landscape and Lighting Maintenance = U District. Q F H Q 4.A. Static water sources such as fire hydrants Static water sources within and wells shall have clear access on each Spring Trails will have clear side of at least 15 feet.(A+B+C) access on each side of at E least 15 feet. u 4.B. A minimum of 2 private spigots facing A minimum of 2 private Q the foothills/wildlands shall be required spigots facing the for each structure.(A+B+C) foothills/wildlands will be provided on each structure within Spring Trails. 4.C. Fire hydrants shall be identified with Fire hydrants will be approved blue reflecting street markers. identified with approved (A+B+C) blue reflecting street markers within Spring Trails. Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 37 Packet Pg. 898 Appendix Section FF District Standard Spring Trails Compliance 4.D. Each cul-de-sac greater than 300 feet in Cul-de-sacs within Spring length shall have a minimum of 1 Trails over 300 feet in hydrant.(A+B+C) length will have at least one fire hydrant. 4.E. Minimum fire flow shall be 1,000 gallons Spring Trails will provide a per minute.(A+B+C) minimum fire flow of 1,000 gallons per minute. 6 5.Erosion Control rn S.A. All fills shall be compacted.(A+B+C) All fills within Spring Trails will be compacted. w S.B. For all new projects,erosion and Erosion and drainage drainage control plans must be prepared control plans have been N by a licensed civil engineer,and be prepared by a licensed civil approved prior to permit issuance. engineer. m (A+B+C) LL S.C. The faces at all cut and fill slopes shall be The faces of all cut-and-fill a planted with a ground cover approved slopes within Spring Trails N by the City Engineer.This planting shall will be planted with ground be done as soon as practicable and prior cover approved by the City 0 to final inspection.Planting of any slope Engineer. a- less than 5 feet in vertical height,or a cut m slope not subject to erosion due to the An automatic irrigation erosion-resistant character of the system will be installed for materials,may be waived by the City planted slopes in excess of c Engineer.An automatic irrigation system 15 feet in vertical height, a shall be installed for planted slopes in unless recommended N excess of 15 feet in vertical height,unless otherwise in the recommended otherwise in the preliminary soils report or z preliminary soils report or waived by the waived by the City w City Engineer.If required by the City Engineer. _ Engineer,a recommendation for types of planting materials shall be obtained The Landscape Architect r from a Landscape Architect.The will provide the City Landscape Architect shall,prior to final Engineer with a statement c inspection,provide the City Engineer that the planting has been E with a statement that the planting has done in compliance with U been done in compliance with recommendations ° recommendations approved by the City approved by the City a Engineer.(A+B+C) Engineer. S.D. Erosion landscaping plans shall All erosion landscaping incorporate the use of fire resistant plans within Spring Trails vegetation.(A+B+C) will use fire-resistant vegetation. S.E. All parties performing grading All parties performing operations,under a grading permit grading operations within issued by the City Engineer,shall take I Spring Trails will take Page 38 October 2012 Packet Pg. 899 SPRING T R A I L S Section •. reasonable preventive measures,such as reasonable preventive sprinkling by water truck,hydroseeding measures to avoid earth or with temporary irrigation,dust other materials from the palliatives,and/or wind fences as premises being deposited directed by the City Engineer,to avoid on adjacent streets or earth or other materials from the properties.Earth or other R premises being deposited on adjacent materials that are F" streets or properties,by the action of deposited on adjacent storm waters or wind,by spillage from streets or properties will be a conveyance vehicles or by other causes. completely removed by the N Earth or other materials which are permittee as soon as to deposited on adjacent streets or practical,but in any event, N properties shall be completely removed within 24 hours after by the permittee as soon as practical,but receipt of written notice in any event within 24 hours after receipt from the City Engineer,or LL of written notice from the City Engineer within additional time as to remove the earth or materials,or allowed by written notice N within such additional time as may be from the City Engineer. allowed by written notice from the City Engineer.In the event that any party a performing grading shall fail to comply w CO with these requirements,the City F Engineer shall have the authority to M engage the services of a contractor to remove the earth or other materials.All °L N charges incurred for the services of the I contractor shall be paid to the City by F the permittee prior to acceptance of the Z W grading.(A+B+C) x 6.Construction and Development Design.lu � 6.A. Building standards governing the use of Materials and construction < materials and construction methods for methods for structures structures contained within the Foothill within Spring Trails will be Fire Zones shall be in accordance with in accordance with the San aa) the San Bernardino Municipal Code Bernardino Municipal Code. E L Section 15.10. Q 6.B. A slope analysis shall be filed with all A slope analysis has been discretionary applications for all projects prepared and is included as in Fire Zones A&B consistent with the part of the Spring Trails Hillside Management section of the Specific Plan. General Plan and Section 19.17.080(2)of this Development Code.(A+B) 6.C. Structures shall be located only where No structure within Spring the upgraded slope is 50%or less.If the Trails is adjacent to a slope Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 39 Packet Pg. 900 Appendix Section FF District Standard Spring Trails Compliance building pad is adjacent to a slope which greater than 50%. is greater than 50%and is greater than 30 feet in height,a minimum pad setback of 30 feet from the edge of the slope is required.The setback may be less than 30 feet only when the entire slope,or 100 feet adjacent to the E building pad,whichever is less,is landscaped with fire resistant vegetation L and maintained by an automatic CL U)irri ation system.(A+B) 6.1). All proposed property lines shall be In some cases the property N placed at the top of slopes,except where line may be located at the the original parcel's exterior boundary bottom of a slope where R line does not extend to the top of the the property line extends S slope.(A+B+C) to a road or the property w line may be located in the o middle of a slope at a 04 drainage bench to prevent p cross-lot drainage. a 6.E. Development on existing slopes This condition does not y exceeding 30%or greater may occur if in apply in Spring Trails. R conformance with all applicable ordinances,statutes and California c Environmental QualityAct review.(A) Q 61. Structures shall be permitted in narrow This condition does not � canyon mouths or ridge saddles,only if apply in Spring Trails. w approved by the City Engineer and Fire Z Department.(A+B) w 6.G. All new structures requiring permits, All structures within Spring = including accessory structures,guest Trails will conform to all v housing or second units shall conform to applicable fire zone � all applicable fire zone standards. standards. (A+B+C) c 6.1-1. Excluding openings,all exterior All exterior elements, E elements,including walls,garage doors, including walls,garage fences,etc.,shall be free of exposed doors,fences,etc.,will be M wood(as defined in Chapter 15.10). free of exposed wood,as (A+B,and C where abuts wildlands.) provided for in the Spring Trails Fire Protection Plan. 6.1. The minimum distance between Development within Spring structures shall be 60 feet in ZoneAand Trails occurs on slopes less 30 feet in Zone B,unless otherwise than 15%(Zone C); approved by the Fire Chief with therefore,this standard Concurrence by the Development does not apply. Review Committee.(A+B) Page 40 October 2012 SPRING T R A I L S Section FF District Standard Spring Trails Compliance 6J. Afuel-modification plan or a reasonable The Spring Trails Fire equivalent alternative as approved by Protection Plan includes a the Fire Chief is required.The plan shall fuel-modification plan that include a"wet zone"of a minimum includes"wet zones"and depth of 50 feet of irrigated landscaping "thinning zones"as y behind any required setback and required by this standard.A L° "thinning zones"of a minimum depth of fire model has been ~ 01 100 feet of drought tolerant,low volume prepared and submitted to .L 2 vegetation,adjacent to any natural area the San Bernardino Fire m behind structures and provisions for Department. maintenance.A fire model shall be fo w prepared pursuant to Section CIJ 19.30.200(6)(D)(3).(A+B,and C where abuts wildlands.) c LL N r O N U 0 CL rn N R L F E Q U) CM F- Z cW C_ U Q H F- E L U W Q Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 41 aa RO ft d. Appendix Section FF District Standard Spring Trails Compliance 6.K. Retrofitting of any element is required This condition does not when more than 25%replacement of apply in Spring Trails. that element occurs;i.e.,roofing,fencing. However,future retrofitting (A+B+C) of any element will be required when more than _ 25%replacement of that w element occurs:i.e., t` roofing,fencing. cm 7.Miscellaneous - - .2 7.A. All future transfers of property shall All future transfers of C disclose to the purchaser at the time of property within Spring purchase agreement and the close of Trails will be required to N escrow the high fire hazard designation disclose to the purchaser at applicable to the property.(A+B+C) the time of purchase agreement and the close of escrow the high fire hazard N designation applicable to 0 the property. 7.6. Firebreak fuel modification zones shall Firebreak fuel modification O be maintained,when required,through zones within Spring Trails o. homeowner associations,assessment will be maintained by N districts or other means.(A+B+C) either the Master m Homeowners Association or Landscape and Lighting c Maintenance District. Q rn rn Z Z w x U Q F F- Q c m E U R Q Page 42 October 2012 Packet Pg. 903 SPRING T R A I L S APPENDIX E: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N F C Q N O O N N A C LL N 0 O N Y U 0 a rn N Co F 67 C Q W O F Z W 2 U Q Q c m E r U m Q Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 43 P c Appendix This page intendonaly left blank. a L _m Q Ln N Ln N N C LL N O N w V 0 a y N F C Q N m F Z W S U Q F H Q C v E L U @ Q Page 44 October 2012 awe AWRINI SPRING T R A I L S APPENDIX F: ALTERNATIVE PLAN If the SCE power lines can be located underground or relocated, then the Alternative Development Plan contained in these appendices may be utilized for the development of Spring Trails. All other provisions of this Specific Plan shall R remain in effect and shall apply to the alternative plan. r c The alternative plan for Spring Trails is the same as the preferred plan in every a respect except it is assumed that the above-ground power lines can be relocated N or located underground and the number of developable residential lots can uOi increase by three (from 304 to 307) as shown on Figure 2.2A, Alternative Development Plan. In the alternative, the power lines would be above ground m north of Cable Creek and then either be relocated or located underground south L of Cable Creek.The northern portion of the power line easement is designated av as residential on Figure 2.2A;however,development is not permitted within the N power line easement. O a. Zoning A zoning designation is linked to legal lot lines but does not provide a true F- picture of the buildable area of Spring Trails as portions of many lots contain fault zones,graded internal slopes,steep external slopes,water tanks,permanent Q- open space,trail easements,or above-ground power lines and may not be built m upon. Figure 2.3A,Alternative Zoning Map,has been prepared to satisfy zoning F- law but is not the determining factor for the location of development in Spring w Trails. If the alternative plan is utilized,Figure 22A,Altemadve Development Plan, E shall govern when determining the use, standards, and buildable area for any v legal lot. F- a a) E U 16 Q Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 45 Packet Pg. 906 6.B.o Appendix Table 2.1 A Alternative Plan Development Potential Maximum Land Use Acres',' Density Units' . . Residential 70.9 1 unit per lot 306 1,025 CU Private Lot(existing) 2.2 1 unit 1 3 I- rn Parks(public and private) 9.0 = Open Space- L Homeowner Maintained 125.1 Utilities 1.2 O Roads(on-site) 33.1 Subtotal 241.5 307 1,028 Undeveloped Area e'` iL Open Space-Natural 1 111.3 a Total N Tota 11 352.8 307 1,028 Off-Site Access © n Roads/Grading(off-site) 23.7 N N Notes: m 'As discussed in Section 6,Administration and Implementation,variations to accountfor - final roadway alignments and grading may result in a minor shifting of acres. Statistics are based upon buildable area depicted on Figure 2.2A instead of the legal lot 'Q area to give a true picture of the use of the land.See Figure 2.3A,Alternative Zoning Map, y for the zoning designations. 3 Lots 30 and 233,as numbered on Tract Map 15576,are undevelopable unless the building pads are reconfigured in a manner that is acceptable to the Fire Chief.If they are Z not reconfigured accordingly,the total units developed will be 305. w Population is based on 3.35 persons per unit(Table 2:E-5 City/County Population and = Housing Estimates,1/1/2007). U F- Open Space a _ The Alternative Trails,Parks,and Open Space Plan,Figure 3.10A,is identical to the open space and parks plan shown on Figure 3.10 in the Specific Plan except m that the power line easement is assumed to be relocated and those portions Q designated as the Open Space-Homeowner Maintained category on Figure 3.10 developed as residential.Therefore,in the alternative plan,there is a reduction of.9 acres of Open Space-Homeowner Maintained land;however,the amount of open space that is assumed to be usable park land is not changed from the preferred plan. O Page 46 October 2012 SPRING T R A I L 5 In the alternative plan,Spring Trails provides approximately 245.4 total acres of public and private parkland,open space,and trails,as summarized in Table 3.5A below. Table 3.5A Open Space, Parks, and Recreation Facilities Summary Parks/Recreation Facilities Acres rn Private Parks 2.0 c Public Parks 7.0 °- tn Open Space-Natural 111.3 Open Space-Homeowner Maintained 125.1 N Total 245.4 m c Landscape Theme O N The landscape theme in the alternative plan is identical to that for the preferred u plan except that,with the location of the power lines,the area under the power 0 lines is developed as residential and is no longer identified as a refined landscape vai zone. As discussed in Chapter 3, Development Standards, the refined open space zone generally consists of natural and manufactured slopes and the plant F palette presented in Table 3.6 contains plant species appropriate for each landscape zone. S U) Other Refinements Z W There may be other minor revisions to the grading plan and the placement of = utility lines that may accompany the alternative plan. These will addressed Q through the grading plan and tract map process and must be in substantial conformance with the alternative plan. Q c m E L V W V Q Spring Trails Specific Plan Page 47 IAN,'O- et g 808. Appendix This page intendonaly left blank. N F Ql C L Q fQ O N N N C LL N r O N V 0 a Co N F 01 C L Q N rn F Z W S U Q F F a c d E r U @ w a Page 48 October 2012 Packet Pg. 909 PRItJG Figure 22AAltrnatlw Davelopnsalst Wan Leaerld Residential oeaelopableacas g- open5pace Nawal - OPen Space-Homeowner Maintained Paft MIRY Road £ yN N I Me: u r M)Ili AH aXce paverop kcWad bwillb wild it e I aGa the SCEpoverfirres can be roc&ee lmesrgoune Park .( 2➢ PJ of fta oflanf R'anisahu a _..r (.re Mbm OaI ffb arbaanmmbpe[b Ikgsl N KKale, raded,ope alas xhks, rabbeesmay Ce >+ lgcazed grease race are pens reaewan a0 Tkokn pace .m ee Ipmenrpwelvial slgwn mTede on 2 lAlskeyodlethe,Was M 3 OOg P Park a db u ieave ab )gI ore c n of ewe N nm lo 3ppnenn9 f T f rMIs Mar Park w W —• I vA .'- r Figure andgs assocafeelane use cafe�ries snail 2 t umlry� w a L Neinmhood Park development Fgwa rapreSeM tree remaearemr k Exisling� 8 pe_I pattern of SaMg Trails arts mirror 6 Residence[o Neighborhood - d" a Mama res ro roaWreyalignmeMS and cam"9rativg Remain Parts 11 d� £c 6 leabk pad coPfi gurafions anal land usa F ��\ bobodame maybe maw per fire prowaiam dCMpMr E 8 AdmiM.#rafron and l pementabor 6 R...Ray 1 Loh mar.133 unbuigege umb55 le buikirg M1.,. Att6a Rwe - allreema manner accepfanlaroma pads are remnf frc cbiel Meyer Road r9l oreac(ea5 h mFiguce3.9br design o . . 1 ..- pti nzl . ElJ Sping Trails SPeofie Plan Pac Fer Pg9t0 CAppendix Thispage intentionally left blank. N H C Q (A 40 N N N A C LL N r O N Y O CL N N F C O U) m F Z W S U a a Y C d E t U y. Y a Page 50 October 2012 Packet Pg. 977 0 P R I N G Il9 Figure 2.3A Alternative Zoning Map Legend ' Residential Estate Open Spam yk•.,F . Parks .mays Site Bound s Parcel Lines pp 9a ^n .—.—_—_—.�•_'—_ Primary Ik ford ��Garden View _� g Park / V� 6 7� z [\/l�\J,� •� Neighborhood Park I, 6 R E an g \..rveipbbornooa ,v a Parts 11 Remain i { neAeemafivaZOiWMapisadpMnoffhezonirrg `\\ rearsewrisposr ofeeer,h lW Homes,due rooarlsbfl4V5 < - - �Seronaar, rech 2tt ones and uve at,Xre zoning does ^I;r ggg,,,rrr arms,Read Mpo He ryueq[Y /(M aM OUrkleOb aee �V .1 Genes" TM1emfom vh defemriningmeuae, ' � of Cara,aMOUikHAb Ior KK,Fpve221, � r � Attem& CeveropmeMM ,ahal/govern. &If Sprang Trails SPeofic Plan va. vactrt Pos+x 6.B.o CAppendix This page intentionally left blank. N F C 'v a y CD N N N A C LL N O N Y /^ O { a N N F- 01 C CL N rn F Z W 2 U a a Y C d E t U Y a 1 Page 52 October 2012 Packet Pg. 913 PRING r • Figure 3.10A Alternative Trails,Parks,and Open Space Plan Legend Residential op<ns e alga. 4 Grads •F � "y a ! "�' � Graded Slopes umnr c r.J -P • lz-fan LgoenrpNPetlestnan roil 6fom Community Trell(On-Street) b ' �• . 1feetH ft,,Tal Punned Tad(en:ae) .$ ��nudon Point � milbeaa � • ' Garden View. •. Dark Ipr yap/( .F n AS • O1 .� • D.,Park \\ 3: % IPr areal m G s �} U ' LLNeighborhood Park l�/ a rei6bbaraood➢ar 11^••. F: C ALAFu,ess Road El- sPln9naussGeti9r wan G s, Pxgt Pa.9R B.B.o Appendix This page intenlionaly left blank. N H C CL y to N N N m C LL N r O N a.. V O CL N N F- F Im C CL N 01 H Z W 2 U FQ F r c m E r 0 m Page 54 October 2012 Packet Po.915 m r d l • ��! i a�♦�aa• .ice .! .—inr �rr� � i • ♦ �� ♦ - ' r- . � II� ♦ ♦ i � • • ♦ i�♦ iii � - L Tmnsibon D�n Space Zone WZ r 6 Appendix Thir page intentionally left blank. N t r 01 C Q U) m N N N R C U. N r O N w V 0 a N N r C Q N O r z w x U a r r c m E t v Y ¢ O Page 56 October 2012 6.B.p RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND �.,. WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: The City of San Bernardino 300 North"D" Street, 2"d Floor San Bernardino, CA 92418 Attn: City Clerk AM: &empt from Recording Fees pursuant to Govemment Code Section 17383 N R F.. iT C .Q to N SPRING TRAILS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 0 between N THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, N a California charter law city and municipal corporation and E r U t6 Q MONTECITO EQUITIES, LTD. a California limited partnership Sp m6e1."o"-IW16711 Packet Pg. 918 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. DEFINITIONS AND EXHIBITS....................................................................................3 1.1. Definitions...............................................................................................................3 1.2. Exhibits................................................................................................................... 7 2. GENERAL PROVISIONS............................................................................................... 7 2.1. Binding Effect of Aereement.......................................................................I.......... 7 2.2. Ownership...............................................................................................................7 2.3. Term........................................................................................................................ 7 2.4. Assignment.............................................................................................................8 2.5. Voluntary Amendment or Cancellation of Agreement........................................... 8 2.6. Termination............................................................................................................. 8 y 2.7. Notices.................................................................................................................... 9 m L 3. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY.................................................................... 10 L a 3.1. Vested Right to Develop....................................................................................... 10 N 3.2. Effect of Agreement on Land Use Regulations.................................................... 10 3.3. Timing of Development........................................................................................ 10 N 3.4. Changes and Amendments to Existing Development A nrovals......................... 10 © 3.5. Reservations of Authority..................................................................................... 11 3.6. Subsequent Development A.rmrovals.................................................................... 12 :L 3.7. Modification or Suspension by State or Federal Law........................................... 12 3.8. Provision of Real Property Interests by San Bernardino...................................... 12 W 3.9. Third Party Permits and Approvals and Utilities.................................................. 13 N 3.10. Tentative Tract Map Extension............................................................................. 14 N E L 4. PUBLIC BENEFITS....................................................................................................... 14 4.1. Development Impact Fees..................................................................................... 14 d 4.2. Additional Permits and Approvals........................................................................ 14 t 4.3. Construction of Sewer Lines and Sewer Line Costs............................................. 15 r 4.4. Reserved ............................................................................................................. 15 a 4.5. Excess Sewer Facilities Credit.............................................................................. 15 4.6. Sewer Fees Credit.................................................................................................. 15 4.7. Reimbursement from Developers of Sewer Benefited Properties........................... 16 4.8. Credit and Reimbursement for Excess Public Park Facilities Dedication............... 16 5. PUBLIC FINANCING................................................................................................... 17 5.1. Financing............................................................................................................... 17 6. REVIEW FOR COMPLIANCE..................................................................... .........17 6.1. Periodic Review.................................................................................................... 17 6.2. Procedure.............................................................................................................. 17 6.3. Proceedings for Modification or Termination...................................................... 18 i Spring mils Development4gae .412 M681-000—IM16n.1 6.4. Hearing on Modification or Termination.............................................................. 18 6.5. Certificate of Agreement Compliance.................................................................. 18 6.6. No Cross-Defaults................................................................................................. 18 7. PREVAILING WAGES................................................................................................. 19 7.1. Public Works Determination................................................................................. 19 8. DEFAULT AND REMEDIES....................................................................................... 19 8.1. Remedies in General............................................................................................. 19 8.2. Specific Performance............................................................................................ 19 8.3. Release..................................................................................................................20 8.4. San Bernardino's Termination of Agreement or Exercise of Other Remedies Upon Montecito's Default..............................................................................................20 _ 8.5. Montecito's Termination of Agreement or Exercise of Other Remedies Upon San " Bernardino's Default.............................................................................................20 9. THIRD PARTY LITIGATION.....................................................................................20 a 9.1. Third Party Litigation Concerning Agreemen t..................................................... 20 N 10. MORTGAGEES.................................................................................................I...........21 10.1. Mortgagee Protection............................................................................................21 N 11. REDEVELOPMENT AREA.........................................................................................21 > v 12. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS..............................................................................22 LO LO 12.1. Recordation of Agreement.................... .....................22 N ........................................... 12.2. Entire Agreement..................................................................................................22 E 12.3. Estoppel Certificates.............................................................................................22 12.4. Severability...........................................................................................................22 12.5. Interpretation and Governing Law.............................................................. .....22 12.6. Section Headings .................................................................. ...............................22 7 12.7. Singular and Plural................................................................................................22 12.8. "Including."...........................................................................................................22 a 12.9. Time of Essence....................................................................................................23 12.10. Calendar Periods...................................................................................................23 12.11. Waiver...................................................................................................................23 12.12. No Third Party Beneficiaries................................................................................23 12.13. Municipal Code.....................................................................................................23 12.14. Permitted Delays...................................................................................................23 12.15. Mutual Covenants.................................................................................................23 12.16. Successors in Interest............................................................................................23 12.17. Counterparts..........................................................................................................24 12.18. Jurisdiction and Venue..........................................................................................24 12.19. Project as a Private Undertaking...........................................................................24 12.20. Further Actions and Instruments...................................................................... 24 12.21. Eminent Domain...................................................................................................24 ii Spring Trails D.I.pmn4 Agreement 412 M58I-000--IM16n.1 Packet Pg. 92� 12.22. Attome sv ' Fees.....................................................................................................24 12.23. Authority to Execute.............................................................................................24 I i i N F- >r C Q N N N r n_ � N d N N N E R C d L V R Q 111 Spring Tails Developmem Agrmmem-012 M6g1-0 0--1001672.1 Packet Pg. 921 O SPRING TRAILS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT This Spring Trails Development Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into between the City of San Bernardino, a California charter law city and municipal corporation ("San Bernardino"), and Montecito Equities, Ltd., a California limited partnership (hereinafter "Montecito"). This Agreement is dated as of ' 2013 for reference only. This Agreement will not become effective until the "Effective Date" (defined below). San Bernardino and Montecito are entering into this Agreement in reliance on the facts set forth in the Recitals, below. RECITALS A. San Bernardino is authorized under Government Code Section 65864, et M. and City Municipal Code Chapter 19.40 (collectively, "Development Agreement Law") to enter into binding development agreements with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property for the development of that property. C B. Montecito owns or has an equitable interest in real property consisting of the approximately three hundred fifty-three (353) acres of land ("Property") described in attached Exhibit A and depicted in attached Exhibit B ("Site Plan"). Although the Property is presently r located in the unincorporated territory of San Bernardino County, California ("County"), it is or o will become the subject of an application under Government Code Section 56000, et seq. before the A San Bernardino County Local Agency Formation Commission ("LAFCO"), to annex the Property into San Bernardino's municipal limits ("Annexation Proceedings"). N C. Montecito applied to San Bernardino for approval and enactment of this Agreement N as the primary governing instrument for the development and use of the Property. San Bernardino's E Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") and Common Council ("Common Council") have conducted public hearings and have found that this Agreement is consistent with San r Bernardino's General Plan("General Plan"),including the General Plan Land Use Element. r U D. On 20 the Common Council adopted its Resolution No. a ("Enacting Resolution"), which approved this Agreement. The Enacting Resolution became effective on the date of its adoption. E. By adopting the Enacting Resolution, the Common Council elected to exercise its governmental powers with regard to the Development of the Property at the present time rather than later. This Agreement binds San Bernardino and future Common Councils and limits the Common Council's future exercise of its police powers. This Agreement has been extensively reviewed by the Planning Commission and the Common Council, both of which found it to be fair, just and reasonable and in the best interests of San Bernardino's citizens and the health, safety and welfare of the public. F. San Bernardino has complied with all California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code Section 21000, et Mg.) ("CEQA') requirements with respect spi,Trvb Dcvdopmem Agra M414 1 MUI-000--1001672.1 6.B.p to the approval of this Agreement and of the Project, through the Common Council's certification of that certain Environmental Impact Report# ("EIR'). G. Developer proposes to subdivide and develop the Property as a phased residential development project in accordance with the following Development Approvals: 1. General Plan Amendment No. 02-09, approved by Resolution No. on 20_ 2. Specific Plan No. , approved by Resolution No. on 20_ 3. Tentative Tract Map 15576 (SUB No. 02-09) ("Tract Map"), approved by Resolution No. on 20_ H. San Bernardino has placed certain conditions on its approval of the Tract Map R (collectively, "Conditions of Approval"), including (but not limited to) requirements that Montecito: Q 1n 1. Dedicate to San Berardino (or its designee) rights-of-way for water main lines and related facilities("Water Line Easements"),easements for the construction and operation N of water tank sites ("Tank Easements") and rights-of-way for sewer main lines and related O facilities("Sewer Line Easements'. 0 2. Construct water lines and related facilities, including water tanks ("Water Lines")within the easements shown in the Tract Map and dedicate them to San Berardino. 3. Construct sewer main lines and related facilities ("Sewer Lines") within the N easements shown in the Tract Map and dedicate them to San Bernardino. 4. Improve seven (7) acres of the Property as shown on the Tract Map with public park improvements ("Public Park Facilities") and dedicate the land and improvements to San Bernardino. U R I. The Sewer Line Easements and Sewer Lines all benefit properties (collectively, "Sewer Benefited Properties") in addition to the Property. The Sewer Benefited Properties are depicted on attached Exhibit E. The Sewer Line Easements and the Sewer Lines are referred to in this Agreement as the"Sewer Facilities". J. San Bernardino and Montecito acknowledge that Montecito's obligation to improve and dedicate the Public Park Facilities may exceed the Project's fair share obligation for public park and recreational facilities as provided by the Land Use Regulations and state law. The Public Park Facilities benefit properties (collectively, "Park Benefited Properties") in addition to the Property. The Park Benefited Properties are depicted on the attached Exhibit F. © K. All of San Bernardino's prior actions and approvals with regard to this Agreement complied with all applicable legal requirements related to notice,public hearings, findings, votes, and other procedural matters. 2 Spring TadsD elopmem Agmm"t410 M681-0 0—1001672.1 ; 6 L. The development of the Property in accordance with this Agreement will provide substantial benefits to San Bernardino. This Agreement eliminates uncertainty in planning and provides for the orderly development of the Property, ensures the progressive installation of necessary public improvements to serve the Project, and serves the purposes of the Development Agreement Law. M. In order to assure the vesting of its legal rights to develop the Property in accordance with this Agreement, Montecito has previously incurred and in the future will incur costs substantially exceeding those which it would incur in the absence of this Agreement . I. DEFINITIONS AND EXHIBITS. I.I. Definitions. The following initially capitalized terms used in this Agreement have the following meanings: y A. "Access Property(ies)" has the meaning ascribed to the term in Section 3.8.B. rn c B. "Agreement"means this Development Agreement. ai C. "Annexation Proceedings" has the meaning ascribed to the term in N Recital B. o D. "Annual Monitoring Report" has the meaning ascribed to the term in c Section 6.1. d E. "CEQA" has the meaning ascribed to the term in Recital F. LO N N F. "Certificate of Agreement Compliance" or "Certificate" has the E meaning ascribed to the term in Section 6.5. m G. "Common Council" means the Common Council of the City of San d Bernardino. E r v A H. "Conditions of Approval" has the meaning ascribed to the term in Recital a H. I. "County" has the meaning ascribed to the term in Recital B. J. "Dedicate" or "Dedication" means Montecito's offering the public improvement in question for acceptance by San Bernardino into its system of public improvements, all in accordance with San Bernardino's reasonable and customary policies and procedures for the acceptance of publicly-dedicated improvements. K. "Development" means the subdivision and improvement of the Property for the purposes of constructing or reconstructing the structures, improvements and facilities © comprising the Project, including grading; the construction of infrastructure and public and private facilities related to the Project, whether located within or outside the Property; the 3 Spring Trails@ Jopmam Agreemem-014 M69 1.000—I 00167.1 Packet,Pg.924': construction of buildings and structures; and the installation of landscaping. "Development' does not include the maintenance of any building, structure, improvement or facility after its construction and completion. L. "Development Agreement Law" has the meaning ascribed to the term in Recital A. M. "Development Approvals" mean all approvals, permits and other entitlements applicable to the Development of the Property, including: specific plans and specific plan amendments; tentative and final subdivision and parcel maps; conditional use permits, public use permits and site plans; zoning; variances; and grading and building permits. N. "Development Exactions" mean any exaction (other than a Development Impact Fee) imposed by San Bernardino in connection with a Development Approval or in connection with the granting of any right, privilege or approval pertaining to the Development of y the Property, including requirements for land dedication or for public construction. O. "Development Impact Fee" means a monetary payment authorized by Government Code Section 66001, et M., whether imposed legislatively on a broad class of vii development projects or on an ad hoe basis to a specific development project. N N P. "Development Plan" means the Existing Development Approvals and the Existing Land Use Regulations applicable to Development of the Property. If any Existing Development Approvals by their terms supersede any Existing Land Use Regulations, then °- N "Development Plan"means the superseding Existing Development Approvals. ix Q. "Director"has the meaning ascribed to the term in Section 3.4. N N N R. "Dwelling Units"mean single-family residential dwelling units, including E detached and attached dwelling units. S. "Effective Date"means the date which is the later of: d E L I. The date on which the Enacting Resolution is no longer subject to 0 referendum or judicial challenge; or Q 2. The date on which the Annexation Proceedings are complete and not subject to further administrative or judicial challenge. T. "EIR"has the meaning ascribed to the term in Recital F. U. "Enacting Resolution" has the meaning ascribed to the term in Recital D. V. "Excess Public Park Facilities Credit' has the meaning ascribed to the term in Section 4.8. W. "Excess Sewer Facilities Credit' has the meaning ascribed to the term in Section 4.5. 4 4 Spng Trails N,ebpmeno.9Sreeme.011 +. M681-0 0—10016]2.1 PaC Ce Pg'�f925;; 6.B.p X. "Existing Development Approvals" mean all Development Approvals approved or issued by San Bernardino prior to or the same day as the effective date of the Enacting Resolution,including the Development Approvals described in Recital G. Y. "Existing Land Use Regulations" mean all Land Use Regulations in effect on the effective date of the Enacting Resolution, including the Land Use Regulations listed on the attached Exhibit C. Z. "Fair Share Park Obligation" has the meaning ascribed to the term in Section 4.8.A. AA. "General Plan"has the meaning ascribed to the term in Recital C. BB. "LAFCO"has the meaning ascribed to the term in Recital B. N CC. "Land Use Regulations" mean all of San Bernardino's ordinances, resolutions, codes, rules, regulations and official written policies governing land development, including those governing: the permitted use of land; the density or intensity of use; subdivision - requirements, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings; the reservation or dedication m of land for public purposes; and the design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to the development of property, all as may be modified or supplemented N by the Existing Development Approvals. "Land Use Regulations"do not include any ordinance, resolution, code, rule, regulation or official policy governing: the conduct of businesses, `r professions, and occupations; taxes and assessments; the granting of encroachment permits and N the conveyance of rights and interests that provide for the use of or the entry upon public ,->, property; or the exercise of the power of eminent domain. X DD. "Lot" means any legally subdivided lot of the Property which is intended N for residential or commercial uses. E rn EE. "Minor Exception" or "Minor Modification" have the meanings E ascribed to the terms in Section 3.4. E L FF. "Montecito" means Montecito Equities, Ltd., a California limited partnership, its successors and assigns. a GG. "Mortgagee" means a mortgagee of a mortgage, a beneficiary under a deed of trust, or any other security-device lender, and their successors and assigns. HH. "Notice"has the meaning ascribed to the term in Section 2.7.A. Il. "Park Benefited Properties" has the meaning ascribed to the term in Recital J. JJ. "Park Fair Share Contribution"has the meaning ascribed to the term in 1'^ Section 4.8.D. 5 Spring T,0,Dadop.mt ASI..ent-014 Packet P 926 M681-000--1001612.1 g' ^ KK. "Party" means either San Bernardino or Montecito, individually. "Parties"mean San Bernardino and Montecito, collectively. LL. "Person' means and refers to any association, corporation, governmental entity or agency, individual, joint venture, joint-stock company, limited liability company, partnership, trust, unincorporated organization, or other entity of any kind, including San Bernardino and Montecito. MM. "Planning Commission' has the meaning ascribed to the term in Recital C. NN. "Project" means the Development of the Property as contemplated by the Development Plan, as the Development Plan may be further defined, enhanced or modified in accordance with this Agreement. 00. "Property" means the real property described on Exhibit A and depicted F on Exhibit B. �+ PP. "Public Park Facilities"has the meaning ascribed to the term in Recital H. /n Lo QQ. "Public Park Facilities Costs" has the meaning ascribed to the term in N Section 4.8. QRR. "Qualifying Conditions" has the meaning ascribed to the term in Section 3.8.C. SS. "Reservations of Authority" mean the rights reserved to San Bernardino under Section 3.5. N E TT. "San Bernardino' means the City of San Bernardino, a California charter law city and municipal corporation,its successors and assigns. a, UU. "Sewer Lines"has the meaning ascribed to the term in Recital H. r U VV. "Sewer Line Costs"has the meaning ascribed to the term in Section 4.3. a WW. "Sewer Line Easements" has the meaning ascribed to the term in Recital H. XX. "Site Plan'has the meaning ascribed to the term in Recital B. YY. "Special District'has the meaning ascribed to the term in Section 5.1. ZZ. "Subsequent Development Approvals" mean all Development Approvals approved by San Bernardino subsequent to its approval of this Agreement. O AAA. "Subsequent Land Use Regulations" mean all Land Use Regulations adopted and effective after the effective date of the Enacting Resolution. 6 Spring V611 Dmlop-eM Aga 14 M691-ODD-1001673.1 a6: BBB. "Term"has the meaning ascribed to the term in Section 2.3. CCC. "Tract Map"has the meaning ascribed to the term in Recital G. DDD. "Transfer"has the meaning ascribed to the term in Section 2A.A. EEE. "Transferee" has the meaning ascribed to the term in Section 2A.A. FFF. "Transferor"has the meaning ascribed to the term in Section 2A.A. GGG. "Sewer Fees"has the meaning ascribed to the term in Section 4.6. HHH. "Sewer Benefited Properties" has the meaning ascribed to the term in Recital I. N III. "Sewer Facilities"has the meaning ascribed to the term in Recital I. JJJ. "Sewer Facilities Costs" has the meaning ascribed to the term in Section c 4_5. rn KKK. "Sewer Fair Share Contribution" has the meaning ascribed to the term N in Section 4.5. 1.2. Exhibits. The following documents are attached to a part of this Agreement: c y Exhibit A Legal Description of Property Exhibit B Site Plan Exhibit C Partial Listing of Existing Land Use Regulations N Exhibit D Estimate of Sewer Line Construction Costs Exhibit E Depiction of Sewer Benefited Properties Exhibit F Depiction of Park Benefited Property M c d 2. GENERAL PROVISIONS. s v 2.1. Binding Effect of Agreement. The Property is made subject to this Agreement and the Development of the Property may be carried out in accordance with this Agreement. a The benefits and burdens of this Agreement touch and concern the Property and bind Montecito and all future owners of all or any portion of the Property. 2.2. Ownership. Montecito represents to San Bernardino that Montecito is either the owner of fee simple title to the Property or has an equitable interest in the Property. 2.3. Term. The term ("Term") of this Agreement will commence on the Effective Date and will expire on the twenty-fifth (25th) anniversary of the Effective Date, unless terminated sooner by operation of some other provision of this Agreement. Spring Trails Development Agreemem-014 $Packet P9' 2 M681.000--10016]2.1 `-,.+x.".df£ (� 2.4. Assignment. F� A. Right to Assign. Montecito may sell, transfer or assign (collectively, "Transfer") the Property in whole or in part (provided that no partial Transfer may violate the Subdivision Map Act, Government Code Section 66410, et seq.) to any Person at any time. As used in this Section 2.4, the term"Transferor"means the person or entity (including Montecito) making the Transfer and the term "Transferee" means the Transfer recipient. Any Transfer must be made in strict compliance with all of the following conditions: 1. No Transfer of any right or interest in this Agreement may be made unless made together with the Transfer of all or a part of the Property. 2. Within thirty (30) days after a Transfer, the Transferor must notify San Bernardino in writing of the Transfer and provide San Bernardino with a copy of an agreement executed by the Transferee by which the Transferee expressly and unconditionally assumes all the Transferor's duties and obligations under this Agreement with respect to the F portion of the Property transferred. L 3. If San Bernardino holds security given by the Transferor with N respect to any obligation being assigned to the Transferee, then the Transferee must provide San Bernardino with security to secure performance of the obligations assigned to the Transferee, N which may not exceed the amount of the security previously provided to San Bernardino by the Transferor to secure the performance of the same obligations. B. Subsequent Assignment. Any subsequent Transfer after an initial Transfer may be made only in accordance with this Section 2.4. X 0 N C. Automatic Termination of Agreement With Respect to Individual N Improved Lot Upon Completion of Construction and Sale or Lease to Public. This Section 2.4 E does not apply to any improved Lot that has been finally subdivided and which is sold or leased R for a period of at least one (1) year. Any Lot satisfying the foregoing requirements will E automatically be released from this Agreement concurrently with the sale or lease. r 2.5. Voluntary Amendment or Cancellation of Agreement. This Agreement may be is voluntarily amended or cancelled in whole or in part only with the written consent of San a Bernardino and all Persons holding fee title to that portion of the Property to which the amendment or cancellation will apply. The amendment or cancellation process must comply with Government Code Section 65868. This Section 2.5 does not limit the operation of Government Code Section 65869.5. 2.6. Termination. A. This Agreement will automatically terminate upon the occurrence of any of the following events: O1. Expiration of the Term. Spring 8 Tr4sD'eririW�mm-014 M a a Packet Pg.929 ;46 g1p .: 2. Entry of a final judgment setting aside, voiding or annulling the adoption of the Enacting Resolution. 3. Adoption of a referendum measure overriding or repealing the Enacting Resolution. 4. Completion of the Project, as evidenced by the issuance of all required occupancy permits and San Bernardino's (or other applicable public agency's) acceptance of all required public dedications. 5. Upon the applicable Party's election to terminate this Agreement under Section 8.4 and Section 8.5. If the terminating Party under Section 8.5 does not own the entirety of the Property, then the termination will apply only to that portion of the Property owned by the terminating Party. B. To the extent that the conditions set forth in Section 4.3 through Section c CL 4_8, inclusive, for credit, reimbursement and similar matters continue to exist, San Bernardino's obligations under such sections will survive the termination of this Agreement for any reason. N N 2.7. Notices. A. As used in this Agreement, the term "Notice"means any request, demand, ° approval, statement, report, acceptance, consent, waiver, appointment or other required or permitted communication. an an B. All Notices must be in writing and will be considered given: N 1C G I. When delivered in person to the recipient named below. cc 2. On the date of delivery shown on the return receipt, after deposit in d the United States mail in a sealed envelope,postage prepaid, as either registered or certified mail, r return receipt requested. a 3. On the date of delivery shown in the records of a reputable delivery service(e.g. UPS or Federal Express). C. All Notices must be addressed as follows: If to San Bernardino: If to Montecito: City of San Bernardino Montecito Equities, Ltd. 300 North"D" Street, 2"d Floor 100 Pacifica, Suite 345 San Bernardino, CA 92418 Irvine, CA 92618 Attn: City Manager Attn: Thomas G.Wilkinson 9 Spring Trails MmbpmeN Ajim..014 M691-000..10016n.1 Packet Pg 9,30. 6.B.p with a copy to: with a copy to: City of San Bernardino Gresham Savage Nolan &Tilden,APC 300 North"D" Street, 6th Floor 550 E. Hospitality Lane, Suite 300 San Bernardino, CA 92418 San Bernardino, CA 92408-4205 Attn: City Attorney Attn: Mark A. Ostoich and Kevin K.Randolph D. Either Party may, by Notice given at any time, require subsequent Notices to be given to another Person or to a different address, or both. Notices given before receipt of Notice of change of address will not be invalidated by the change. E. Transferees will be entitled to Notices sent by San Bernardino which pertain to that portion of the Property owned by the Transferee. 3. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY. rn 3.1. Vested Right to Develop. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, Montecito has a the legally vested right to develop the Property in accordance with the Development Plan. The (n Project is subject to any Subsequent Development Approvals required to complete the Project. The permitted uses, the density and intensity of use, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, the design, improvement, and construction standards applicable to Development of the Property and Development Exactions with respect to the Property are those set forth in the Development Plan. 3.2. Effect of Agreement on Land Use Regulations. Except as otherwise allowed by the Reservations of Authority, San Bernardino's rules, regulations and official policies governing N the Development of the Property will be the Existing Land Use Regulations. y E 3.3. Timing of Development. Nothing in this Agreement is a covenant to develop or construct the Project. The Parties acknowledge that Montecito cannot predict if, when or the rate at which phases of the Project will be developed. Such decisions depend upon numerous factors that are not within Montecito's control, such as market demand, interest rates, absorption, r completion and other similar factors. The California Supreme Court held in Pardee Construction a Co. v. City of Camarillo (1984) 37 Cal.3d 465, that the failure of the litigants in that case to provide for the timing of development resulted in a later adopted initiative restricting the timing of development to prevail over the litigants' agreement. The Parties intend to cure that deficiency by providing that Montecito has the right to develop the Project in the order, at the rate and at the times that Montecito, in its sole and absolute discretion, determines to be appropriate, subject only to any Development Plan timing or phasing requirements. 3.4. Changes and Amendments to Existing Development Approvals. The Parties acknowledge that the passage of time may demonstrate that changes to this Agreement are necessary or appropriate. If the Parties determine that changes are necessary or appropriate, then they will, unless otherwise required by law, implement those changes through operating memoranda. These memoranda will be approved on behalf of San Bernardino as follows: 10 Spring Trails Dcvelopment 4rrem nt-014 Packet Pg. 931 M681-000—10016711 6.B.p A. By the Community Development Director ("Director") in the case of minor changes which would qualify as either a "Minor Exception" under Municipal Code Chapter 19.58 or a"Minor Modification"under Municipal Code Chapter 19.60 and in any other case where the Director is authorized by this Agreement to act. B. By the Planning Commission in the case of changes related to land use or development standards which are not subject to clause(A). C. By the Common Council in the case of any other changes not subject to clause(A) or(B) above, or if otherwise legally required. D. The Director will determine whether a proposed change is subject to approval by the Director, the Planning Commission or the Common Council, as the case may be. Each operating memorandum will become part of this Agreement after its execution by all required Persons. 3.5. Reservations of Authority. .L A. Any contrary provision in this Agreement notwithstanding, the following, but only the following, Subsequent Land Use Regulations will apply to the Development of the Property: Est ^ 1. Procedural regulations relating to hearing bodies, petitions, (vJ applications, Notices, findings, records, hearings, reports, recommendations, appeals and any other procedural matter. 2. Regulations governing construction standards and specifications, including San Bernardino's Building Code, Plumbing Code, Mechanical Code, Electrical Code, N Fire Code and Grading Code, that are applied uniformly to all development projects in San E Bernardino similar to the Project. 3. Regulations which do not conflict with the Development Plan and E which are reasonably necessary to protect the public health and safety of the residents of the Project or the immediate community. To the greatest extent possible, these regulations must be ° applied and construed to provide Montecito with all of the rights and assurances provided under a this Agreement. Any regulation, whether adopted by initiative or otherwise, limiting the rate or riming of Development of the Property will conflict with the Development Plan and will not be applicable to Development of the Property. 4. Regulations that conflict with the Development Plan if Montecito has given its written consent to those regulations. B. The Parties acknowledge that San Bernardino is restricted in its authority to limit its police powers by contract. This Agreement will be construed, contrary to its stated terms if necessary, to reserve to San Bernardino all those police powers that cannot be restricted Oby contract. 11 Spring TWIS De MepmW Agee ent-014 y MMI-0DO--1001611.1 6.B.p 3.6. Subsequent Development Approvals. When acting on Subsequent Development Approvals, San Bernardino may apply only the Existing Land Use Regulations and those Subsequent Land Use Regulations that are permitted under the Reservations of Authority. Any Subsequent Development Approval will be automatically vested under this Agreement. Without limiting the effect of the foregoing, the Parties acknowledge that San Bernardino has certain standards regarding final maps and that such standards can become difficult to meet in a hillside development. As and when Montecito processes any final map for approval by San Bernardino, the San Bernardino City Engineer is hereby authorized to cooperate with Montecito in applying such standards in a way that both achieves the goals of the Subdivision Map Act and is fair and reasonable to Montecito. 3.7. Modification or SusRension by State or Federal Law. If a State or Federal law or regulation which is enacted after the Effective Date prevents the Parties' compliance with any of this Agreement's provisions, then that provision will be modified or suspended to the extent and for the time necessary to achieve compliance with the conflicting State or Federal law. This Agreement's remaining provisions will continue unaffected. The Parties will amend this Agreement to preserve, to the greatest extent possible, the benefits that would arise to the Parties under this Agreement, but for the conflicting State or Federal law. Upon the repeal of the `o. conflicting State or Federal law or upon the occurrence of any circumstance that removes their `" effect upon this Agreement, this Agreement's provisions will be automatically restored to their N full original effect and any amendment that the Parties may have entered into under this Section 3_7 will terminate. © 3.8. Provision of Real Property Interests by San Bernardino. d A. Except as provided in clause (B) and clause (C), below, if the Development Exactions require Montecito to construct any public improvement on property not to owned by it, then Government Code Section 66462.5 will control the Parties' rights and N obligations with respect to that public improvement. E rn B. Clause (A) above notwithstanding, Montecito is either under contract to c purchase or pursing permits for use with respect to portions of the following property (or interest E in property) within San Bernardino's municipal limits and on which a public improvement to provide primary or secondary access to the Project will be constructed("Access Property(ies)"): a • Ronald Martin(APN 348-111-11) • Muscupiabe Ranch,LLC (APN 348-101-77) • San Bernardino Municipal Water Department(APN 348-101-76) • San Bernardino County Flood Control District (Cable Creek) • Property formerly known as the Bice Property, which is now owned by the successor to the City of San Bernardino Economic Development Agency 12 Spnn TmilsDelopmentAymement-014 ev M681-NO.-mm672I Packet Pg. 933 6.B.p Montecito hereby waives the provisions of Government Code Section 66462.5 with respect to the foregoing Access Properties. With respect to the foregoing Access Properties, Montecito and San Bernardino agree that San Bernardino will have no obligation to either approve a final tract map implementing the Tract Map or assist in any material way in connection with the acquisition of an Access Property; however, San Bernardino will provide reasonable, non-financial assistance in connection with Montecito's attempts to acquire any Access Property which is held by a public agency. In addition, in no event will any condition of approval related to a public improvement to be located on an Access Property be deemed waived as a result of the application of Government Code Section 66462.5. C. In addition, clause (A) above notwithstanding, on the condition that the qualifying conditions described in clauses (1) through (3) below("Qualifying Conditions") are satisfied with regard to the Access Properties owned by Gloria Evans (APN 348-111-28) and R Michael and Laura Kelley (APN 348-111-27) and located outside San Bernardino's municipal limits, Montecito hereby waives the provisions of Government Code Section 66462.5 with respect to such Property Interests. The Qualifying Conditions with respect to such Property N Interests are as follows: N (1) The public improvement is required in order to provide secondary N access to the Project and is to be located on property not owned by Montecito or under its r control. e 0 .y (2) The public improvement will be located on property outside San Bernardino's municipal limits. X N N (3) Despite reasonable good faith efforts, San Bernardino has been N unable to secure those approvals needed to permit San Bernardino to exercise its powers of E condemnation with respect to the property on which the public improvement will be located, from the governmental agency with jurisdiction over such property. E D. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, Montecito will acquire either a fee or permanent easement interest in all the Access Properties no later than the fifth(S'h) anniversary of the Effective Date. 3.9. Third Party Permits and Approvals and Utilities. The Parties acknowledge that this Agreement does not bind third party governmental and non-governmental agencies which are not under San Bernardino's control. San Bernardino will use its best efforts to assist Montecito in obtaining all third party governmental and non-governmental agencies' permits and approvals which are necessary for the Development of the Property, including: A. Permits, approvals and rights of way which are required for the installation of public improvements, driveways and utility connections and utility services such as electrical, © gas, water, sewer, storm drain, telephone and cable television; and B. Other permits and approvals which may be issued by third party government agencies such as the California Department of Transportation and the South Coast 13 Spring T.H.D.Iopnnert Agrt Wm 14 M681-M—1001672.1 Air Quality Management District. In addition, at Montecito's request, San Bernardino will assist Montecito in negotiating with third-party government agencies and non-government agencies with respect to disputes concerning processing fees and development impact fees levied by those third party government agencies and non-government agencies. connection with the installation of utility The Parties acknowledge that in C. g facilities which will be owned by private utility companies, it may lower the overall project cost for the utility installation project to be a San Bernardino project. In the event Montecito requests San Bernardino to undertake such a utility installation project, San Bernardino's City Engineer is hereby authorized to do so; provided, however, that Montecito bears San Bernardino's entire direct and indirect cost of the same. 3.10. Tentative Tract Map Extension. As authorized by Government Code Section 66452.6, the Tract Map and any other tentative subdivision or parcel map approved in connection with Development of the Property will be effective for a period equal to the longer L of: rn c A. Eight(8) years from the date of San Bernardino's approval of the tentative Q subdivision or parcel map; or Ln Ln B. The expiration or earlier termination of the Term. © 4. PUBLIC BENEFITS. o 4.1. Development Impact Fees. > A. Amount and Components of Fee. Subject to Section 4.6. Montecito will LO pay all Development Impact Fees and other fees and charges imposed by San Bernardino and N applicable to Development of the Property, the submission and revision of Development Approvals E applications, and inspection of Project improvements. Montecito will pay the Development Impact Fees and other fees and charges in the amount and when required under the then-current applicable E San Bernardino ordinance or resolution. The Project is subject to future increases in Development Impact Fees. 4.2. Additional Permits and Approvals. The only Subsequent Development Approvals a required for Development of the Property in accordance with the Development Plan are: A. Design approvals required by the Municipal Code for the structures to be built on the Property; B. Building permits;and C. Certificates of occupancy or other equivalent permits. Upon Montecito's request, San Bernardino will accept and diligently process applications for the j foregoing permits and approvals and will promptly make all required inspections. Spring Tails Dwelopmem Agmemem-014 14 M681-0 00—1001612.1 6.B.p 4.3. Construction of Sewer Lines and Sewer Line Costs. A. If Montecito implements the Project, then in accordance with the Conditions of Approval, Montecito will construct the Sewer Lines and dedicate them to San Bernardino upon completion as required by this Section A. The Sewer Lines will be completed in a good, workmanlike, and commercially reasonable manner, with the standard of diligence and care normally used by duly qualified persons performing comparable work. As used in this Agreement, the term "Sewer Line Costs" means the actual third party costs and expenses incurred by Montecito in connection with the design, engineering, construction, installation and testing of the Sewer Lines, and includes the cost of the temporary and permanent real property interests reasonably necessary in connection with the foregoing activities (all of the foregoing, collectively"Sewer Line Costs"). A non-binding budgetary estimate of the Sewer Line Costs is attached as Exhibit D. B. Following their completion, Montecito will dedicate the the Sewer Lines to San Bernardino or its designee and San Bernardino will accept the Dedication within ninety (90) days following Montecito's offer. At the time of Dedication, Montecito will provide San Bernardino with a detailed accounting of the total Sewer Line Costs, together with reasonable C supporting documentation. 0 4.4. [Reserved . N 4.5. Excess Sewer Facilities Credit. o A. As used in this Agreement, the term "Sewer Facilities Costs" means an d amount equal to the Sewer Line Costs (determined in accordance with Section 4.3). As used in this Agreement, the term "Excess Sewer Facilities Credit" means an amount equal to fifteen N percent (15%) of the Sewer Facilities Costs. Montecito will be credited and reimbursed the N Excess Sewer Facilities Credit as set forth in Section 4.6 and Section 4.7. E rn B. Immediately following the determination of the total Sewer Line Costs as described in Section 4.3, the parties will calculate the Sewer Facilities Costs and San Bernardino E will allocate the Excess Sewer Facilities Credit among the Sewer Benefited Properties on a percentage basis, calculated based on San Bernardino's reasonable determination of the benefit a received from the Sewer Facilities by each Sewer Benefited Property (each such allocation being a "Sewer Fair Share Contribution'). The aggregate of the Sewer Fair Share Contributions of the Sewer Benefited Properties must equal one hundred percent (100%) of the Excess Sewer Facilities Credit. C. San Bernardino acknowledges that the credits and reimbursement paid to Montecito in accordance with Section 4.6 and Section 4.7 are considered payment for costs normally borne by the public, as described in Labor Code Section 1720(c)(3). San Bernardino has no direct financial obligation to Montecito with respect to the Excess Sewer Facilities Credit other than to provide the credits and facilitate the reimbursement described in Section 4.6 and © Section 4.7. 4.6. Sewer Fees Credit. San Bernardino may impose on the Project certain Development Impact Fees related to sewer facilities or to sewer capacity rights necessary to Spring huts De.J.p..t Ag,a MI-014 15 MW-000--10 01613.1 provide sanitary sewer services to the Project (collectively, "Sewer Fees"). Rather than pay the applicable Sewer Fees at the time that they would otherwise be payable under the Land Use Regulations,and until the Excess Sewer Facilities Credit has been fully credited or reimbursed to Montecito, Montecito may apply a portion of the then-current Excess Sewer Facilities Credit in lieu of paying an equivalent amount of Sewer Fees. The then-current amount of the Excess Sewer Facilities Credit will be reduced by the amount of the credited Sewer Fees. 4.7. Reimbursement from Developers of Sewer Benefited Properties. Until the Excess Sewer Facilities Credit has been fully credited or reimbursed to Montecito under Section 4.6 or this Section 4.7, as a condition to the issuance of any approval or entitlement for the development of a Sewer Benefited Property, San Bernardino will require that the developer of that Sewer Benefited Property pay to Montecito the applicable Sewer Fair Share Contribution of the Sewer Benefited Property. The then-current balance of the Excess Sewer Facilities Credit will be reduced by the amount paid to Montecito. N 4.8. Credit and Reimbursement for Excess Public Park Facilities Dedication. F rn A. Pursuant to City Development Code Section 19.30.320, San Bernardino a has imposed a Development Exaction against the Project for purposes of providing public parks rn and recreational amenities. Provided that Montecito implements the Project, this Development co Exaction requires Montecito to dedicate and improve Public Park Facilities on the Property N which exceed the Project's "fair share" obligation for public park facilities as established by the '- San Bernardino Development Code and state law("Fair Share Park Obligation"). o B. As used in this Agreement, the term "Public Park Facilities Costs" means the aggregate of the actual third party costs and expenses incurred by Montecito in connection with the acquisition, design, engineering, construction and installation of the Public N Park Facilities, and includes the cost of the temporary and permanent real property interests N reasonably necessary in connection with the foregoing activities. The term"Excess Public Park E Facilities Credit"means the total Public Park Facilities Costs in excess of the dollar value of the R Project's Fair Share Park Obligation, as determined in good faith by the City. d E C. Following their completion, Montecito will dedicate the Public Park 6 Facilities to San Bernardino and San Bernardino will accept the Public Park Facilities within a ninety (90) days following Montecito's offer. At the time of the Dedication, Montecito will provide San Bernardino with a detailed accounting of total Public Park Facilities Costs, together with reasonable supporting documentation. D. San Bernardino will allocate the Excess Public Park Facilities Credit among the Park Benefited Properties on a percentage basis, calculated based on San Bernardino's reasonable determination of the benefit received from the Public Park Facilities by each Park Benefited Property (each such allocation being a "Park Fair Share Contribution'. The aggregate of the Park Fair Share Contributions of the Park Benefited Properties must equal . one hundred percent(100°/x) of the Excess Public Park Facilities Credit. E. As a condition to the issuance of any approval or entitlement for the development of a Park Benefited Property, San Bernardino will require that the developer of that Spring Tntls Development Agreement-014 16 M681-000—10016722.1 Park Benefited Property pay to Montecito the applicable Park Fair Share Contribution of the �., Park Benefited Property. F. San Bernardino acknowledges that the reimbursement paid to Montecito in accordance with this Section 4.8 is considered payment for costs normally borne by the public, as described in Labor Code Section 1720(c)(3). San Bernardino has no direct financial obligation to Montecito with respect to the Excess Public Park Facilities Credit other than the reimbursement described in this Section 4.8. 5. PUBLIC FINANCING. 5.1. Financine. Upon a Party's written request, the other Party will cooperate in the formation of a special assessment district, community facilities district or alternate financing mechanism (collectively, a "Special District") to pay for the construction or maintenance of _ those public improvements required by the Development Plan, including school facilities. —" Montecito will be reimbursed from the proceeds of any debt financing issued by a Special r District to the extent that Montecito spends funds for the construction and/or maintenance and operation of public improvements. Tax rates or assessments of the Special District may not Q exceed San Bernardino's adopted policies regarding public financing districts. This Section 5.1 is not a commitment by San Bernardino to adopt a resolution of formation to form a Special District. Montecito acknowledges that the adoption and approval of a resolution of formation is a N legislative act within San Bernardino's unencumbered discretion. Likewise, Montecito is not obligated to approve the formation of a Special District and Montecito reserves all of its legal o rights in that regard. A 6. REVIEW FOR COMPLIANCE. N 6.1. Periodic Review. As required by San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 19.40.070, the Director will review this Agreement annually, on or before each anniversary of E the Effective Date. The purpose of the review will be to ascertain Montecito's good faith compliance with the terms of this Agreement. Montecito will submit an annual monitoring report ("Annual Monitoring Report") in a form prepared and approved by the Director within E thirty (30) days after the Director's written request. The Annual Monitoring Report must be accompanied by the then-current annual review and administration fee set by resolution of the Common Council. A. The Common Council may order a special review of Montecito's compliance with this Agreement at any time. The Director will conduct the special review. 6.2. Procedure. A. During either a periodic review or a special review, Montecito will be required to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of this Agreement. B. Upon completion of a periodic review or a special review, the Director will submit a report to the Common Council setting forth the evidence concerning Montecito's good faith compliance with this Agreement. 17 Spring Treils De IoWem Agreement-014 M691- —100168.1 C. If the Common Council finds on the basis of substantial evidence that Montecito has complied in good faith with this Agreement,then the review will be concluded. D. If the Common Council makes a preliminary finding on the basis of substantial evidence that Montecito has not complied in good faith with this Agreement,then the Common Council may modify or terminate this Agreement in accordance with Section 6.3 and Section 6.4. Prior to proceeding under Section 6.3 and Section 6.4,San Bernardino must provide Montecito with Notice and opportunity to cure as provided under Section 8.4. 6.3. Proceedings for Modification or Termination. If Montecito fails to cure, or to commence to cure, as applicable, the matters constituting the basis for the Common Council's preliminary finding under Section 6.2.1) as required by Section 8.4, then San Bernardino may proceed to modify or terminate this Agreement following the procedures set forth in this Section 6_3 and in Section 6.4. San Bernardino must hold a noticed public hearing concerning the modification or termination and provide Montecito with Notice of the hearing. The Notice must m include the following: rn e A. The time and the place of hearing, which must be no less than thirty (30) Q days following the date of Notice; LO eq B. The specific action, whether amendment or termination, which San N Bernardino proposes to take;and C C. Such other information as is reasonably necessary to inform Montecito of N the nature of the proceeding and the alleged facts supporting San Bernardino's preliminary W finding under Section 6.2.D. x 6.4. Hearing on Modification or Termination. At the time and place set for the public N hearing on modification or termination, Montecito must be given an opportunity to be heard and E present witnesses and evidence on its behalf. If, at the conclusion of the public hearing, the CU Common Council finds, based upon substantial evidence, that Montecito has not complied in good faith with this Agreement, then the Common Council may terminate or modify this E Agreement and impose any conditions it determines as are reasonably necessary to protect San Bernardino's interests. The Common Council's decision will be administratively final and a subject to judicial review under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5. 6.5. Certificate of Agreement Compliance. If at the conclusion of a special or periodic review Montecito is found to be in compliance with this Agreement, then San Bernardino will issue a"Certificate of Agreement Compliance" ("Certificate") to Montecito stating that, after the most recent periodic or special review, this Agreement remains in effect and Montecito is not in default of this Agreement. The Certificate must be in recordable form, contain information necessary to communicate constructive record Notice of the finding of compliance, state whether the Certificate is issued after a periodic or special review, and state the anticipated date of the next periodic review. Montecito may record the Certificate with the San Bernardino County Recorder, 6.6. No Cross-Defaults. San Bernardino acknowledges that Montecito may Transfer all or portions of the Property to other Persons in accordance with Section 2.4, San Bernardino 18 Sprig Trails Development Agreement-OIC Packet P 939 M681-000--10016]2.1 9' 6.B.p further acknowledges that title to all or portions of the Property may become vested in Mortgagees or a Mortgagee's successor as a result of foreclosure, or the acceptance of a deed in lieu of foreclosure, by a Mortgagee. San Bernardino agrees that defaults under this Agreement by an owner of a portion of the Property will not be a default as to any other portion of the Property. In other words, a default by Montecito with respect to its obligations pertaining to that portion of the Property retained by Montecito following a Transfer will not constitute a default as to any Person other than Montecito or permit San Bernardino to exercise any remedy under this Agreement or otherwise with respect to any other portion of the Property other than that portion owned by Montecito. Similarly, a default by a Transferee with respect to its obligations pertaining to the portion of the Property owned by that Transferee will not constitute Montecito's default or permit San Bernardino to exercise any remedy under this Agreement or otherwise as to any portion of the Property other than the portion owned by the defaulting Transferee. San Bernardino agrees that, if more than one Person holds title to the Property, then the rights and obligations of the Persons holding title to the Property are the distinct and several obligations of each Person. R 7. PREVAILING WAGES. c 7.1. Public Works Determination. Montecito is aware of California Labor Code Section 1770, el se ., which requires the payment of prevailing wage rates and the performance N of other obligations if it is determined that any of the works of construction required or permitted by this Agreement constitute public works paid for in whole or in part with public funds. It is Montecito's sole responsibility to determine whether the work required or permitted by this o Agreement is subject to Labor Code Section 1770, et M. 8. DEFAULT AND REMEDIES. N 8.1. Remedies in General. The Parties acknowledge that neither Party would have N entered into this Agreement if it were to be liable for monetary damages under this Agreement. E In general, and subject to those procedural prerequisites required under the Development R Agreement Law or this Agreement, each of the Parties may pursue any remedy at law or equity available for the breach of this Agreement, except that neither Party will be liable in monetary E damages (other than attorneys fees under Section 12.22)to the other Party, or to any successor in interest of that Party, or to any other Person. Each Party covenants not to sue for monetary a damages or claim any monetary damages related to any of the following: A. Any breach of this Agreement or for any cause of action that arises out of this Agreement; or B. Any taking, impairment or restriction of any right or interest arising under this Agreement; or C. Any dispute regarding the application or interpretation of this Agreement. 8.2. Specific Performance. The Parties acknowledge that specific performance and O other non-monetary relief are particularly appropriate remedies for the enforcement of this Agreement for the following reasons: Spring Trails Dewlopmmt ApmMem 411 1 M681400—1001672.1 6.B.p © A. Money damages are unavailable against the Parties. B. Due to the size,nature and scope of the Project, it may not be practical or possible to restore the Property to its natural condition once Montecito has begun to implement this Agreement. After such time, Montecito may be precluded from other options it may have had with regard to the Property. Moreover, Montecito has invested significant time and resources in the planning and processing of the Project. Montecito will be investing even more time and resources in implementing the Project in reliance upon this Agreement and it is not possible to determine the sum of money that would adequately compensate Montecito if San Bernardino were to breach its obligations. 8.3. Release. Except for the right to recover attorneys fees under Section 12.22. Montecito, for itself, its successors and assignees, releases San Bernardino, its officials, officers, agents and employees from any and all monetary claims, demands, actions, or suits of any kind or nature arising out of any liability, known or unknown, present or future, including, any claim or liability based upon Article 1, Section 19 of the California Constitution, the Fifth Amendment ~ of the United States Constitution, or any other law or ordinance that seeks to impose any monetary liability whatsoever upon San Bernardino because it entered into this Agreement or because of the terms of this Agreement. Ln Ln N 8.4. San Bernardino's Termination of Agreement or Exercise of Other Remedies Upon Montecito's Default. Subject to its strict compliance with Sections 6.3 and 6.4 San Bernardino may terminate or modify this Agreement upon Montecito's failure to perform any material duty o or obligation under this Agreement. San Bernardino may terminate or modify this Agreement or N exercise its other remedies only after providing written Notice of default to Montecito setting forth the nature of the default and the actions, if any, required to cure the default and only if Montecito has failed to take the actions and materially cure the default within sixty (60) days N after its receipt of the Notice. If a default is of a type that cannot be cured within sixty(60) days E but can be cured within a longer time, then Montecito must within sixty (60) days commence the actions necessary to cure the default and thereafter diligently proceed to materially cure the f0 default. E 8.5. Montecito's Termination of Agreement or Exercise of Other Remedies U P on San Bernardino's Default. Montecito may terminate this Agreement or exercise its other remedies a upon San Bernardino's failure to perform any material duty or obligation under this Agreement. Montecito may terminate this Agreement or exercise its other remedies only after providing written Notice of default to San Bernardino setting forth the nature of the default and the actions, if any, required by San Bernardino to cure the default and only if San Bernardino has failed to take such actions and materially cure the default within sixty (60) days after its receipt of the Notice. If a default is of a type that cannot be cured within sixty (60) days but can be cured within a longer time, then San Bernardino must within sixty (60) days commence the actions necessary to cure the default and thereafter diligently proceed to materially cure the default. 9. THIRD PARTY LITIGATION. 9.1. Third Pgly Litigation Concerning A Bement. Montecito will indemnify and defend San Bernardino and its agents, officials, officers, independent contractors, subcontractors, 20 Spri Trails Development Ag¢cmml-014 ng MM-000 .1001612.1 and employees against any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Agreement or of any Subsequent Development Approval. San Bernardino must promptly notify Montecito of any claim, action or proceeding which is subject to this Section 9.1 and San Bernardino must cooperate in the defense. San Bernardino may, in its discretion and at its sole cost, participate in the defense of any claim, action or proceeding. This Section 9.1 will survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 10. MORTGAGEES. 10.1. Mortgagee Protection. This Agreement does not prevent or limit Montecito, in its sole discretion, from encumbering the Property or any portion or any improvement thereon with any mortgage, deed of trust or other security device. San Bernardino acknowledges that a Mortgagee may require Agreement interpretations and modifications. San Bernardino will meet with Montecito and the Mortgagee's representatives to negotiate in good faith with regard to any requested interpretation or modification. San Bernardino may not unreasonably withhold its consent to any requested interpretation or modification if the interpretation or modification is consistent with this Agreement. All Mortgagees will be entitled to the following rights and privileges: Q i j A. Montecito's breach of this Agreement will not defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any mortgage made in good faith and for value. N B. Upon a Mortgagee's written request, San Bernardino will provide a copy . of any Notice of default given to Montecito concurrently with the Notice to Montecito. The Mortgagee will have the right, but not the obligation, to cure the default within any remaining cure period allowed Montecito under this Agreement. X C. Any Mortgagee who comes into possession of the Property or any portion N of it pursuant to foreclosure of the Mortgagee's security instrument or its acceptance of a deed in E lieu of foreclosure will take the Property or portion subject to this Agreement. Any other ca provision of this Agreement to the contrary notwithstanding, no Mortgagee will have any r obligation to perform any of Montecito's obligations or to guarantee their performance. E However, if any of Montecito's obligation are conditions precedent to San Bernardino's obligations, then Montecito's obligations will continue to be conditions precedent to San Q Bernardino's performance of its obligations. 11. REDEVELOPMENT AREA. San Bernardino warrants that the Property is not currently located within a San Bernardino redevelopment project area. San Bernardino further warrants that the Property and the Project are not obligated to provide affordable housing or otherwise fund the development of affordable housing under the Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et 1W.) or under any other law. O Spring 2m'I.Development Agrtement-014 1 NAM14W--1001672.1 12. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 12.1. Recordation of Agreement. This Agreement and any amendment or cancellation of it will be recorded with the San Bernardino County Recorder by the City Clerk in accordance with Government Code Section 65868.5. 12.2. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire understanding and agreement of the Parties. There are no oral or written representations, understandings or ancillary covenants, undertakings or agreements that are not contained or expressly referred to in this Agreement. Parol evidence will not be admissible to interpret this Agreement. 12.3. Estoppel Certificates. Within ten (10) days following a Party's written request, and at not cost to the requesting Party, the other Party will certify in writing that, to its actual current knowledge: A. This Agreement is in full force and effect and is binding upon the F certifying Party. B. This Agreement has not been amended or modified, except as expressly v¢i described in the estoppel certificate. N C. The requesting Party is not in default of its obligations under this N Agreement, and that there have been no events that with the passage of time, the giving of notice, or both, would constitute the requesting Party's default under this Agreement, except as °- `" expressly described in the estoppel certificate. 12.4. Severability. Every provision of this Agreement is a separate and independent covenant. If any provision is, or the application of the provision in certain circumstances is, to N any extent, found to be invalid or unenforceable for any reason whatsoever, then the remainder of this Agreement, or the application of that provision to circumstances other than those to which it is invalid or unenforceable, will not be affected. The Parties will negotiate in good faith any amendments or operating memoranda necessary to cure any invalidity or unenforceability. E z 12.5. Interoretation and Governing Law. This Agreement and any dispute concerning it will be governed and interpreted in accordance with California's procedural and substantive a laws, without regard to its conflicts of laws principles. This Agreement will be construed as a whole according to its fair language and common meaning. The rule of construction that ambiguities in a document are to be resolved against the drafting party may not be employed in interpreting this Agreement. Each Party acknowledges that it was represented by counsel in this Agreement's negotiation and preparation. 12.6. Section Headings. All section headings and subheadings are inserted for convenience only and do not affect this Agreement's construction or interpretation. �— 12.7. Singular and Plural. The singular of any word includes the plural. ( 12.8. "Including." Unless the context requires otherwise, the term "including" means �✓ "including,but not limited to." 22 5,dng TraA,De �elop M-014 s6e1mo—M1672.1 12.9. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence as to the performance of any obligation as to which time is an element. 12.10. Calendar Periods. All references to "years", "quarters", "months" and "days" are references to calendar years, quarters, months and days. 12.11. Waiver. A Party's failure on any one or more occasions to insist upon strict compliance by the other Party, or a Party's failure on any one or more occasions to exercise its rights upon the other Party's default, is not a waiver of that Party's right to demand strict compliance by the other Party on any future occasion. 12.12. No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the Parties and their successors and assigns. Except as provided in Section 10,no other person or entity has any right of action based upon this Agreement. N 12.13. Municipal Code. All Municipal Code references are references to the Municipal Code as it exists on the Effective Date or at the time of inquiry, whichever is less restrictive or requires a lesser level of performance. _ .Q 12.14. Permitted Delays. Neither Party will be in default of an obligation if that Party's inability to perform or delay in performing that obligation is caused by matters which are not N within the performing Parry's reasonable control, including: casualty; acts of God; civil j-- commotion; war; insurrection; riots; strikes; walkouts; picketing or other labor disputes; market factors;unavoidable shortages of materials or supplies; damages to work in progress by reason of N fire, flood, earthquake or other casualty; litigation which prohibits or delays any aspect of the > Development; initiatives or referenda; moratoria; acts or the failure to act of any other government agency (except that San Bernardino's acts or its failure to act will not excuse its N performance); unanticipated restrictions which are imposed or mandated by government or N non-government agencies; and the enactment of conflicting State or Federal laws, regulations or E judicial decisions. R a c 12.15. Mutual Covenants. The covenants contained herein are mutual covenants and are E conditions to the concurrent or subsequent performance by the benefitted Party. B 12.16. Successors in Interest. The burdens of this Agreement are binding upon, and the a benefits of this Agreement inure to, the Parties' permitted successors in interest. All provisions are enforceable as equitable servitudes and constitute covenants running with the land. Each covenant to do or refrain from doing some act with regard to the Development of the Property: A. Is for the benefit of and is a burden upon all portions of the Property. B. Runs with the Property and all portions. C. Is binding upon each Party and its successors in interest during the term of r� that Party's or its successors' ownership of the Property or any portion. V 23 Spring Trails Development Agreement-014 M681-000--10016]2.1 6.B.p 12.17. Counterparts. This Agreement will be executed in three (3) counterparts, which will be construed together and have the same effect as if the Parties had executed the same instrument. 12.18. Jurisdiction and Venue. All legal actions and proceedings to enforce or interpret this Agreement must be filed and tried in San Bernardino Superior Court or other legally appropriate court and venue. 12.19. Project as a Private Undertaking. The Project is a private development and neither Party is acting as the agent of the other in any respect. Each Party is an independent contracting entity with respect to this Agreement. No partnership, joint venture or other association of any kind is formed by this Agreement. The only relationship between San Bernardino and Montecito is that of a government entity regulating the development of private property by a private party. U) 12.20. Further Actions and Instruments. Each Party must cooperate with the other and F provide reasonable assistance to the other in the performance of the other Party's obligations. Upon a Party's request, the other Party must promptly execute (with notary acknowledgment if Q required) those instruments, and take any reasonable actions, necessary to evidence or 7n consummate the transactions expressly described, or which are a logical extension of the h transactions described, in this Agreement. N ® 12.21. Eminent Domain. No provision of this Agreement expands, limits or restricts San Bernardino's exercise of its eminent domain powers. y d 12.22. Attorneys' Fees. If either Party files any action or brings any action or proceeding against the other pertaining to the interpretation or enforcement of this Agreement, N then the prevailing Party will recover as an element of its costs of suit and not as damages its N costs of suit, expert fees, consultant costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees as fixed by the Court. E "Reasonable attorneys' fees" include the fully burdened salaries and expenses of the lawyers employed in the San Bernardino City Attorney's office. d E 12.23. Authority to Execute. Each natural person executing this Agreement on behalf of a Party represents that he or she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of that Party and that he or she has the authority to bind that Party to this Agreement. a [Signature pages follow] 24 Spr eg T.H,D.I.pmea Avr..M-014 M691-M-1001672.1 Packet Pg. 945 SIGNATURE PAGE TO SPRING TRAILS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT "SAN BERNARDINO" The City of San Bernardino, a California charter law city and municipal corporation ATTEST: By: Patrick J. Morris, Mayor N H Georgeann Hanna, City Clerk Q U) APPROVED AS TO FORM: Cq James F. Penman,City Attorney By: o .N m a! N N w STATE OF CALIFORNIA E rn R COUNTY OF E On 2011, before me, Notary Public, personally appeared proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence)to be the person(s)whose name(s)is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted,executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature of Notary Public 25 Spring Tnib D.Wgmw Apm —414 MMI-WO-IWI672.1 © SIGNATURE PAGE TO SPRING TRAILS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT "MONTECITO" Montecito Equities, Ltd., a California limited partnership By: Name: Title: Manager rn o. w �o N N V O .y d STATE OF CALIFORNIA LO N N COUNTY OF N E On 2011, before me, Notary Public, personally appeared proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence)to be the person(s)whose name(s)is/are subscribed to the within E instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or entity upon behalf of which the person(s)acted,executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature of Notary Public Sprang Tails Developmcnt Agreemeno-014 26 M681-X0--10016721 EXHIBIT A TO SPRING TRAILS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Legal Description of Property DIVISION L• PARCEL A: PARCEL 4 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 3809, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF _ CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 44 OF PARCEL MAPS,PAGE 20, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. F rn c PARCEL B: a rn PARCEL 4 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 3810, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 34 OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGE 92, IN THE N OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. N PARCEL C: x A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR PRIVATE ROAD PURPOSES OVER AND ACROSS A E STRIP OF LAND, 60 FEET IN WIDTH, SHOWN AS MARTIN RANCH ROAD ON PARCEL MAP a NO. 3540 IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 31 OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGE 84, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY o RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. 0 SAID EASEMENT IS APPURTENANT TO PARCELS A AND B ABOVE. Q DIVISION II: d E PARCEL 1: v m THE EAST ONE-HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST ONE- a QUARTER, AND THE EAST ONE-HALF OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER, AND THE SOUTH ONE- HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE 5 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT OF THE SURVEY OF SAID LAND APPROVED JUNE 24, 1898,IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. PARCEL 2: O LOTS 1 AND 2, THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER AND THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 26, Exhibit A Sping'pmils Development Ageemevt-014 M681-000--1001672.1 6.B.q TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE 5 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT OF THE SURVEY OF SAID LAND APPROVED JUNE 24, 1898, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. PARCEL 3: ALL THAT PORTION THE TOWN OR IRVINGTON AND THE LANDS OF IRVINGTON LAND AND WATER COMPANY, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE MAP THEREOF RECORDED IN BOOK 3 OF MAPS, PAGE 9, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF LOT 79 AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP WHICH POINT IS ALSO THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF LOT 19 OF MEYERS AND y BARCLAY SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF THE MUSCUPIABE RANCHO, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF,RECORDED IN BOOK 2 OF MAPS,PAGE 32,RECORDS OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY; a THENCE NORTH 400 50'EAST ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 19 WHICH IS ALSO THE NORTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY OF LOT 79 AS DELINEATED ON THE N AFORESAID MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 3 OF MAPS, PAGE 9, TO THE NORTHERLY cli BOUNDARY OF THE MUSCUPIABE RANCHO, AS SHOWN ON MAP OF SURVEY MADE BY w O GEORGE H. PERRIN, APPROVED BY THE UNITED STATES SURVEYOR GENERAL FOR CALIFORNIA ON JUNE 24, 1898; w THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE BOUNDARY OF THE MUSCUPIABE RANCHO AS rn ESTABLISHED BY SAID SURVEY MAP TO AN ANGLE POINT IN SAID BOUNDARY LINE- a > d THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SUCH BOUNDARY OF SAID RANCHO MUSCUPIABE IN A SOUTHERLY DIRECTION TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 79; THENCE FOLLOWING THE BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT 79 IN A NORTHWESTERLY a DIRECTION TO AN ANGLE POINT; c" d THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 79 TO AN ANGLE POINT, r WHICH IS ALSO A POINT ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF LOT 19 OF THE AFORESAID r MEYERS AND BARCLAY SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF THE MUSCUPIABE RANCHO; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 4: LOT"A"AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF A RESUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF MEYER AND BARCLAY TRACT, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 12 OF MAPS, PAGE 18,RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. EXCEPTING THEREFROM 5 ACRES IN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT, AS © CONVEYED TO ROBERT B. MEYER BY DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 173, PAGE 156 OF DEEDS,RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. Exhibit A Spring Trails Development Agraemet 414 M681-000--10016@.1 6.B.q © PARCEL 5: LOT"C"AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF A RESUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF MEYER AND BARCLAY TRACT,IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 13 OF MAPS,PAGE 32,RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. N L .Q U) tD N N N r Q © w X W E rn a 0 0 a V d I_ (.1 a Exhibit A Spring Tunis Development A,rm=nt-014 M6$I-W0--1001612.1 Packet Pg. 950 OEXHIBIT TO B SPRING TRAILS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Site Plan F- ai c CL y in N N N_ N Y T3 wx w E m d 0 0 1- H a Y C d E L v R Q Exhibit B Spring Toils Development Ageement-013 M681-000..100167'.1 �y ll'7 0prSr a �vri dA M-m qL � {y I! w � —gam t �( /Alv "S � 1 Rw 111 II : r X1, 19 �,Vp`, MA Ir �� • p�� A R'� t i 5 0m, U�1d��S�rSy\ - MINI r _ _ 11 w , r i � 6.B.q © r mho Q A) Z� T J T Q © / L \\ \ X T O T \ C E L V R ' 1 muva nan•n�e. 15576 'AAAIXI PAA16A' `L��W,GYA'S Exhibit B Spring Trails Dk clWmaa Agreement-(114 M681400--IW16U.1 Packet.Pg.954 s.s.q O EXHIBIT C TO SPRING TRAILS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Partial Listing of Existing Land Use Regulations tions • City of San Bernardino General Plan. o Verdemont Heights Area Plan. • Spring Trails Specific Plan. o San Bernardino Foothill Fire Zone development standards. rn c o Land use and zoning categories, including residential uses and other uses such as a parks, open space — natural, open space — homeowner maintained, utility and roads. N N_ o Permitted uses, including residential uses, recreational uses, accessory uses and N temporary uses. o General and specific development standards. w E w • To the extent not addressed in the Spring Trails Specific Plan, the City of San Bernardino a Municipal Code. o 0 r Q r c m E r U M Q C Exhibit C Spring Tmils Development Ag =nt-014 Me81-000--mo1e72.1 Packet Pg. 955 © EXHIBIT D TO SPRING TRAILS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Estimate of Sewer Line Construction Costs Estimated sewer line construction cost(including $1,300,000 related facilities) N R H to C Q Cm N N N a_ ^ E (v x w E rn Q v 0 0 F F— Q w c d E t v R Q C Exhibit D Spring Trails Development Agrtement-016 M681-060--IN16721 Packet Pg. 956 6.B.q EXHIBIT E TO SPRING TRAILS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Depiction of Sewer Benefited Properties Sewer Benefit Area N L F- G L Q to N N N N r Q L X W Q d r O r F F a v E U l6 Q 1 e SPRING T A I L S Exhibit E Spring Trails Development A,neemeat4114 M681-000--10016721 Packet Pg. 957 i B.B.q O EXHIBIT F TO SPRING TRAILS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Depiction of Park Benefited Properties Park Benefit Area C CL N N N N (8 � X Y X t m Q 41 I 2 tv 1 RW� F x' a 1` F Ie 1� Q n 1 , 'Il60 .:eQ � E "fit r.� $PRANG Exhibit F Spring Traik Development Agreement-010 M681-000--1001612.1 Packet Pg. 958 fi AGENDA ITEM#5 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION CASE: Spring Trails Specific Plan (SP) No. 10-01, General Plan Amendment (GPA) No 02-09 Development Code Amendment (DCA) 12-10, H Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 15576 (Subdivision No. 02-09), Development Agreement (DA)No. 11-01 HEARING DATE: November 14,2012 WARD: 5 C OWNERIAPPLICANT: Montecito Equities,Ltd. N 100 Pacifica, Suite 345 Irvine,CA 92618 Contact: Jeff Weber 949-254-0135 jeffweberl©msn.com r fo REQUEST/LOCATION: A U Spring Trails: a proposal for the development of 304 single-family lots, 107.8 acres of open a. space, hiking trails, roadways and three detention basins on the 352.8-acre project site formerly known as the Martin Ranch. The site is located in the unincorporated area of Verdemont in San z Bernardino County, north of Meyers Road and northwest of the northerly terminus of Little W League Drive, in the City of San Bernardino's sphere of influence. Primary access to the site is planned as a westerly extension of Verdemont Drive. A secondary access road is proposed to F connect the western portion of the site to the I-215 frontage road. Annexation to the City of San a Bernardino is proposed for the 352.8-acre project site and an adjacent 26.4-acre area. Specific Plan No. 10-01 will establish development standards that are unique to the project area TTM No. 15576 (Subdivision No. 02-09) will be the instrument to subdivide the project area as noted above. GPA No. 02-09 will establish the Spring Trails Specific Plan as the pre-zoning for the M project site, and will establish the RE, Residential Estate land use district for the additional 26.4- acre annexation area. DCA No. 12-10 will add the Spring Trails Specific Plan to the list of Special Purpose Districts and recognize the Specific Plan's development standards. Assessor Parcel Numbers: 0348-071-05, -06,-07, -09, -10, 0348-101-50, 0348-111, -03, -04, -07, -08, -09, -30, -36, -47 through-50 � Pecliet Pg 959u':; Spring Trails ' 8 SP No. 10-01, GPA No. 02-09, DCANo. 12-10, 7TMNo. 15576(Sub.No. 02-09), DA No. 11-01 P.C. Meeting: November 14,2012 Page 2 CONSTRAINTS/OVERLAYS: Spring Trails Specific Plan Overlay(proposed), Foothill Fire/High Fire Hazard Zone, High Wind Zone,Alquist-Priolo Zone,Hillside Management Overlay District ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS: ❑ Exempt from CEQA, Section 15332—Infill Development ❑ No Significant Effect ❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration with Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program ® Environmental Impact Report with Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program and Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations (available on the City's web site at c www.sbcity.org—see"How do I..."and"Locate..." and click Planning Documents) y N STAFF RECOMMENDATION: cm ® Approval N r ® Conditions ❑ Denial ❑ Continuance to: ® Recommend to Mayor and Common Council r CL d R co PROJECT DESCRIPTION a The applicant requests approval of the following: Z w Specific Plan (SP) No. 10-01 under the authority of Development Code Chapter 19.64, to 2 establish development standards specifically for development of 304 single-family lots, 107.8 a acres of open space, hiking trails, roadways and three detention basins on the 352.8-acre project F site formerly known as the Martin Ranch(Attachment H); Q c General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 02-09 under the authority of Development Code Chapter E 19.50,to establish the Spring Trails Specific Plan as the pre-zoning for the 352.8-acre project site R and establish the Residential Estate (RE) land use district for the additional 26.4-acre annexation a area; Development Code Amendment(DCA)No. 12-10 under the authority of Development Code Chapter 19.42,to add the Spring Trails Specific Plan to the list of Special Purpose Districts contained within Section 19.10.030,to recognize the Spring Trails Specific Plan and its unique development standards (minimum lot size, hillside standards, fire protection standards) as deviations from the typical Development Code standards and as standards that are applicable only to the Spring Trails Specific Plan project area. Packet P960 :•; Spring Trails SP No. 10-01, GPA No. 02-09, DCA No. 12-10, 7TMNo. 15576(Sub. No. 02-09),DA No. 11-01 P.C.Meeting: November 14,2012 Page 3 Tentative Tract Map No 15576 (Subdivision No. 11-01)under the authority of Development Code Chapter 19.66 to subdivide the 352.8-acre site into 304 single-family lots plus parcels for common open space,water tanks, etc.; and Development Agreement (DA) No. 11-01 under the authority of Development Code Chapter 19.40,to set forth binding development agreements between the City and the applicant. The Spring Trails project site is currently within the City of San Bernardino's unincorporated sphere of influence ("SOI") and is proposed to be annexed into the City. The project also N includes the annexation of an adjacent 26.4-acre area consisting of six parcels owned by various property owners. The area is adjacent to the west of the project site along Meyers Road and currently has four occupied, multiple-acre lots. It is being included in the annexation element of c the project to prevent the creation of a county "island"within the City of San Bernardino, which C Co would not be allowed under regulations governing the Local Agency Formation Commission of San Bernardino County. A land use proposal has not been submitted for this 26.4-acre area, and N it is not owned or otherwise under the control of the applicant. For these reasons, no development would occur on these parcels as part of the Spring Trails project. 4 The Spring Trails Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map No. 15576 will accommodate 304 single-family detached units(303 new units and one existing residence),separated by open space corridors, drainage ways, roadways, and sloped areas. A system of pathways will connect the a residences with neighborhood parks and natural open spaces. Development will be focused onto approximately 241.5 acres, or about 68 percent of the total site, and will include nine acres of R parks and 125.1 acres of internal.slopes and fuel modification zones. The remaining 32 percent of Spring Trails will be preserved as natural open space. a T If the project is approved by the City, the applicant will then submit an application with the z Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to annex the subject 352.8-acre Spring Trails LU Specific Plan project area and the adjacent 26.4-acre area to the immediate southwest of the site x into the City. Further, should the project be approved and annexed, the applicant would come a back at a later date to process a Development Permit for the design of the on-site improvements Q (residential units,parks),per the standards set forth in the Spring Trails Specific Plan. c d It is anticipated that the project will be phased, with complete buildout anticipated to occur L within approximately three years of the start of construction. This phasing,however, is based on w a judgment of future planning and market factors, and therefore is subject to change. The project, a however, would be developed in the following sequence: Phase I (approximately one year) • Offsite grading and improvement of the primary and secondary access roads; • Offsite backbone utilities (water, sewer,drainage, etc.); • Onsite backbone utilities; • Rough grading of Spring Trails Project site(approximately 200 acres)for development of residential lots, roadways,trails, detention basins,and parks; and • Detention basins improved. Pack'eE#P�g 961 Spring Trails SP No. 10-01, GPA No. 02-09, DCA No. 12-10, TTMNo. 15576(Sub.No. 02-09),DA No. 11-01 P.C. Meeting: November 14, 2012 Page 4 Phase 2 (approximately 2.5 years) • Residential development would sequence from the south and continue northward. Infrastructure, roadways, fuel modification zones, parks, and landscaping necessary to serve residential development would be phased accordingly; • Improvements in this phase would generally follow the sequence of water improvements, which are divided into three pressure zones; • Sewer, storm drain, dry utilities, and roadway paving would be sequenced with improvements in each water pressure zone; H • Trails,parks, and common area landscaping in each pressure zone would occur prior to or F concurrent with issuance of residential building permits for that pressure zone; and 0) • Fuel modification zones necessary to support the development in each zone would occur a as noted in the Fire Protection Plan, y m N SETTINGlSITE CHARACTERISTICS N N The project site is located in the unincorporated area of Verdemont in San Bernardino County, north of Meyers Road and northwest of the northerly terminus of Little League Drive, in the City's sphere of influence. The site is surrounded by natural open space on all sides,with rural, single-family properties also located to the south and west. The site is located on slopes ranging o from nearly flat to over 30 percent. Cable Creek traverses the north-central portion of the site, as and the Meyers Canyon drainage traverses the center of the site. Cable Creek and its northern tributary provide a year-round source of water and a wildlife corridor across the site. Branches y of the San Andreas Fault traverse the southern and northern portions of the site. A 1 12k electric a transmission line traverses the entire western portion of the site in a north-south direction. Currently, there is no infrastructure serving the site. Primary access is proposed from an z extension of Verdemont Drive to Little League Drive. Required secondary access is proposed W via a new right-of-way that will run from the southwestern portion of the site southward to Interstate 215. The applicant has not acquired all of the properties for either the primary or F secondary access routes to the site. This issue is discussed in detail within the analysis,below. As the project is currently located in an unincorporated part of San Bernardino County, it is E subject to the County's zoning. Additionally, since the site is located within the City's sphere of influence, it is designated by the City's General Plan as being Residential Estate (RE—one-acre minimum lot size) and within the Verdemont Heights Area Plan, which calls for large-lot single- family residences and a rural character. Table 1, below, depicts the existing land use and General Plan land use designations of the site and surrounding properties. Pact etii9 962`. Spring Trails SP No. 10-01, GPA No. 02-09,DCA No. 12-10, TTMNo. 15576(Sub. No. 02-09), DA No. 11-01 P.C. Meeting: November 14,2012 Page 5 TABLE 1: SITE AND SURROUNDING LAND USE x Existing County: Resource Conservation(RC) and Rural Living, 5-ac.min. lot size(RL-5) Existing City: Verdemont Heights Area Plan Natural open space and a single pro Proposed City: Spring Trails family residence Subject Site p y p g rn Specific Plan Overlay and maintain Residential Estate (RE) rn (for the 26.4 acres located outside of the Spring Trails Specific Plan N area N North Natural open space RC and RL-5 (County) Single-family residences and Single Residential, l-ac. min. lot South size (RS-1) (County),and natural open space RE (City) a RC(County), and East Natural open space Residential Low(RL) and RE r City) v Single-family residence and RL-5 (County), and a. West natural open space RE(City) F_ Z PROJECT HISTORY/BACKGROUND x U To 1917—The property was owned by the Martin family and known as Cable Canyon Ranch. F r 1943 — The U.S. Government used a portion of the property as a small arms target range in c conjunction with the nearby Camp Ono. E r May 1, 1990—Montecito Equities(applicant) purchased property. r September 1996 — The project site was placed in the City of San Bernardino's Sphere of Influence. 1996 -Applications for the"Martin Ranch"Project entitlements were first submitted to the City 1998 - A Notice of Preparation ("NOP") for an EIR was first released; and a public scoping meeting was held in April 1998. However, the 1998 Draft EIR was rejected by the City's ® Planning Department due to certain deficiencies. Packet P�'�963��;, Spring Trails 6r' SP No. 10-01, GPA No. 02-09, DCA No. 12-10, TTW No. 15576(Sub.No. 02-09),DA No. 11-01 P.C.Meeting: November 14, 2012 Page 6 December 2, 2002—The formal application for GPA 02-09 and TTM 15576 (Sub.No. 02-09) is filed. December 2002 -A revised draft EIR was released; comments to the 2002 draft FIR focused on nearby neighbors' concerns regarding traffic, and based on these comments, a decision was made to revise and recirculate the EIR. The City and applicant agreed to reform the plan to create an access point along a different route than Meyers Road. October 2003 - While the applicant and the City were negotiating a new route for the primary access point to the project site, a major fire burned through the project site, destroying the vegetation. Due to the changes in the road and the project site,the applicant and the City agreed to prepare a new Draft EIR. a June 10, 2004 - A Notice of Preparation (NOP) reflecting the revised project was issued, and a y public scoping meeting was held on June 30, 2004. The 2004 draft FIR addressed traffic/access N input, as well as other issues necessitated by the passage of time and change in the development landscape, but was never circulated for public review. r v The necessary approvals contemplated in 2004 included: 1) a General Plan Amendment to allow the pre-zoning of the project site and adjacent county property, establishment of a Hillside Management Overlay District, and to allow lot size averaging in the Residential Low District; 2) c pre-zoning of the Martin Ranch property to a Planned Residential Development District; 3) d annexation by the City; 4) creation of a Hillside Management Overlay District ("HMOD"); and m 5) a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the project site into approximately 359 lots including 330 y single-family residential lots. a 2005 - The necessary project approvals were revised to include pre-zoning the Martin Ranch property to Residential Low; pre-zoning the "County island" property to Residential Estate; and w a Development Code Amendment to allow lot size averaging in the HMOD. A Development s Agreement with the City was also proposed to control the development of the Martin Ranch site, a with a land use plan, design guidelines, development standards, and a description of off-site F improvements, as well as a reimbursement provision for costs of offsite improvements advanced by the developer that exceeded the fair share contribution of the project. E A new Draft EIR was prepared in 2005 to address significant changes to the project, including alternate access roads; change in lot sizes; new project objectives; and increased traffic Sq improvement costs. In sum, five versions of a screencheck DEIR were prepared. September 1,2005 - the San Bernardino Design and Environmental Review Committee (D/ERC) reviewed the Martin Ranch Draft EIR, and determined that additional information and analyses would be necessary before the Draft FIR could be released for public review. July 17, 2006 - The City released a completed Draft EIR. Significant issues were raised within comment letters received, and the City and applicant decided to direct that a revised Draft FIR be Packe�Pg Spring Trails SP No. 10-01, GPA No. 02-09, DCA No. 12-10, TTMNo. 15576(Sub. No. 02-09), DA No. 11-01 P.C. Meeting: November 14, 2012 Page 7 prepared to address these comments, primarily related to noise, air quality, biological resources, geotechnical and fire safety issues. 2007 - Work continued on a revised Draft EIR, but another fire on the site occurred in 2007, necessitating further project changes. June 11,2009—The D/ERC released the preparation of the Initial Study for review. November 19,2009 - The project was reviewed again by the D/ERC, which recommended that a H new NOP for an EIR be released for public review. 2 0 November 24,2009-The NOP was released for public review, along with an Initial Study, CL December 14,2009 -A public scoping session was held to obtain comments on the Initial Study. . Ln N March 3,2010—The formal application for SP 10-01 is filed. N r July 14, 2011 -Due to significant technical issues,which needed to be addressed,the D/ERC did not approve the release of the revised Draft EIR until this date. r July 26, 2011 — Community meeting to discuss the project and the Draft EIR public review N period. R July 29, 2011 through September 12, 2011 - The 45-day public review period for the revised U Draft EIR occurred. Comments from the following agencies and organizations were received: a California Department of Fish and Game; California Department of Transportation; California Regional Water Quality Control Board; Center for Biological Diversity; County of San Z Bernardino Department of Public Works; Department of the Army Corps of Engineers; Devore w Rural Protection Association; Local Agency Formation Commission;Native American Heritage Commission; Omnitrans; San Bernardino Audubon Society; and the South Coast Air Quality F Management District; plus comment letters from 40 individuals, many of whom reside or own ¢ property in the project vicinity. c d September 5, 2011 (approx. date) — a non-City-sponsored community meeting was held to discuss the project impacts. October 10, 2011 —The formal application for DA 11-01 is filed. May 3, 2012—The D/ERC met on the revised project and recommended that the project and EIR be forwarded to the Planning Commission for action. October 18, 2012 —A community meeting was held to present the latest version of the proposed project to the public. October 29,2012—The formal application for DCA 12-10 is filed. Pa` eti Pg965 Spring Trails SP No. 10-01, GPA No. 02-09, DCA No. 12-10, TTMNo. 15576(Sub.No. 02-09),DA No. 11-01 P.C. Meeting: November 14,2012 Page 8 November 1, 5 and 6,2012—Revised exhibits and documents were submitted. ANALYSIS This analysis focuses on the following key issues regarding the Spring Trails project: • Deviation from Development Code standards (minimum lot size and Foothill Fire and Hillside Management Overlay District standards); L • The site is located in a Very High Hazard Severity Zone for fires; L • The site is located in a high wind area; u°i �o • The San Andreas Fault traverses the site in several locations; N N • Water drainage courses, including Cable Creek and its tributaries, traverse the site in several locations; • The drainage courses and adjacent forest lands are important habitat areas; and c c d L • Infrastructure, including primary and secondary access to the site, is not currently provided. y U a These items are discussed in more detail below. As noted above, the northernmost 160 (approximate) acres of the Spring Trails Specific Plan w area is currently designated by the San Bernardino General Plan as Resource Conservation (RC) 2 and the remainder is designated as Rural Living, five-acre min. lot size (RL-5), while the San Bernardino General Plan designates the entire project area as Residential Estate (RE), which calls for a minimum lot size of one acre and as being within the Verdemont Estates portion of the ¢ Verdemont Heights Area Plan. The Specific Plan proposes an average lot size of 29,000 square feet. The largest lots are proposed on the northern portion and upper elevations of the site, and the largest lot will measure 18.3 acres. The smallest lots are proposed on the lower elevations and southern portion of the project, and the smallest lot will measure 10,801 square feet. In a many instances the legal lots will extend beyond the buildable area and include graded slopes, fuel modification zones, steep slopes, and open spaces. It should be noted that while the minimum one-acre lot size will not be provided for each lot,the proposed lots are clustered into the least steep portions of the site, resulting in minimum lot sizes under one acre. However,on a gross basis, the project still complies with the density restrictions of the Residential Estate land use category in that 307 units are proposed on 352.8 acres. Tentative Tract Map No. 15576 is proposed to subdivide the Spring Trails project site into the 304 single-family residential lots and the lots for parks and open space and water tanks within the project area. Packet Pg 966'%` Spring Trails -- 6 SP No. 10-01, CPA No. 02-09, DCA No. 12-10, 7TMNo. 15576(Sub.No. 02-09), DA No. 11-01 P.C. Meeting: November 14,2012 Page 9 The project as proposed will not comply with the Development Code regarding minimum lot size and standards pertaining to the Foothill Fire and Hillside Modification Overlay District. Therefore,the Spring Trails Specific Plan is proposed to establish development standards that are unique to the project area, rather than strictly adhering to the standards set forth in the San Bernardino Development Code. In addition to establishing a minimum lot size of 10,081 square feet for the project area(vs.the current minimum size requirement of one acre),the Spring Trails Specific Plan also proposes standards that deviate from, although generally maintain the intent of, the Foothill Fire Zones (FF) Overlay and Hillside Management (HMOD) Overlay Districts. Table 2, below, provides a comparison of the Specific Plan's proposed standards with the v. Development Code's standards. TABLE 2: COMPARISON OF SPRING TRAILS SPECIFIC PLAN WITH HMOD rn c L CL U) SBDC Requirement(FF and HMOD Spring Trails Specific Plan Overlay Districts) N The maximum density on any parcel shall not The average slope of the project, calculated exceed: from Lot 1 to Lot 296 is 11.6%. Per the Average Slope(%) -Units Per Acre HMOD,this allows a density of up to 2 0 to 15 - 2.0 DU/Ac. 15+to 25 - 1.0 d ' 25+to 30 -0.5 The proposed project calls for 304 units on tr_ 30+ and above- 0.1 352.8 acres for an overall density of.86 DU/Ac. U a MINIMUM PARCEL SIZE The minimum parcel size will be 10,801 No absolute minimum parcel size,widths and square feet. z depths are specified. w x SETBACKS Front: 15 feet F Front,side, and rear setbacks shall be Side: 10 feet a determined based upon the precise Street Side: 10 feet development plan and environmental studies Rear: 15 feet m and in conformance with FF(Foothill Fire From Fuel Mod. Zone: 25-50 feet Zones) Overlay requirements. a BUILDING HEIGHT Applicable only to in-fill single family Not applicable; however, the maximum height residential construction of more than 1 story on will be 35 feet. existing lots of record, if there is a grade separation of more than 8 feet and less than 20 feet between the average level of the lot proposed for construction and the immediately �► uphill lot. el<et�P ,9& Spring 7Yails SP No. 10-01, GPA No. 02-09,DCA No. 12-10, TTMNo. 15576(Sub.No. 02-09), DA No. 11-01 P.C.Meeting: November 14,2012 Page 10 WINGRESS AND EGRESS A tentative tract or parcel map shall provide for In compliance. The primary access road will at least 2 different standard routes for ingress have a 34' paved width and the secondary and egress. Standard ingress/egress road is a access road will have a 24' paved width. route which is dedicated to the City and has a minimum paved width of 24 feet. Streets in this overlay district shall conform to the following standards: A. Local hillside street standards shall be used A. to minimize grading and erosion potential Primary Access Road(Verdemont Drive)— ~ while providing adequate access for vehicles, This matches the road section approved from L including emergency vehicles. The right-of- Little League Drive to just east of the project w way shall be 48.5 feet with 40 feet of paved boundary. width and parking on both sides and a sidewalk 34' paved width in 50' right-of-way (R/W) N on 1 side. Max. slope of 12% w B. Streets shall have a paved width of 32 feet Secondary Access Road with parking and sidewalk on 1 side of the 24' paved width in 50' R/W street only and right-of-way 40.5 feet, subject Max. slope of 12% c to review and recommendation by the Fire 0. Chief and the City Engineer,with approval by primary Local Street—This section matches or the Commission. exceeds the above requirements. 40' paved width in 50' R/W a C. Grades of streets in the hillside management Max. slope of 12% areas shall be as provided in this subsection, unless otherwise approved in writing by the B w Public Services,Fire,and Public Works Secondary Local Street—The proposed R/W is 2 Departments. Hillside collector and arterial , less than the above standard. U _ 0 5 street shall not exceed 8%. Hillside residential . 32' paved width in 40' R/W. The proposed local streets shall not exceed 15%. street section is short by 0.5' Sidewalk on 1 side of the street c D. Minimum horizontal curve of streets shall d be in accordance with Caltrans computational Max. slope of 12% J methods using design speed estimated by the w Public Works Department. Cul-De-Sac I—This section exceeds the a standards above,with sidewalk on 2 sides. E. One way streets may be permitted where it 36' paved width in 46' R/W. This section can be shown that they reduce the overall exceeds the HMOD standard amount of cut and fill required. Sidewalk on both sides of the street Max. slope of 8% F. Cul-de-sacs to a maximum of 750 feet in length may be permitted with a maximum of Cul-De-Sac 11 - The proposed R/W is 0.5' less 30 dwelling units,and to a maximum of 1,000 than the above standard. t feet in length with a maximum of 20 dwelling 32' paved width in 40' R/W. The proposed Packer 68: ..,.� 9 �.; Spring Trails SP No. 10-01, GPA No. 02-09, DCA No. 12-10, TTMNo. 15576(Sub.No. 02-09), DA No. 11-01 P.C.Meeting: November 14, 2012 Page 11 units and shall terminate with a turnaround street section is short by 0.5' area not less than 40 feet in radius to curb face. Sidewalk on 1 side of the street. Max. slope of 9% G. Sidewalks on only 1 side of a street may be permitted in hillside areas subject p J to the C. approval of the City Engineer. The Primary Access Road is at 12%max, greater than the 8%per this standard. H. All other street improvement standards shall conform to the standard plans and The Secondary Access Road is at 12% max, H specifications of the City Engineer. greater than the 8%per this standard. All other streets within the map boundary are o, residential streets, and the max. grade is 12%, a less than the 15%permitted per this standard. U) LO LO D. N N The Primary Access road and all internal N- The comply with this. r The Secondary Access Road will have measures implemented to account for the tight c curves,in cooperation with the Public Works d Department. m E. a No one-way streets are proposed. F. z All cul-de-sacs on the map comply with the LU above standards. _ U Q F G. a Street sections comply with the street standards in the HMOD,and sidewalks on 1 side of the E street where streets have lots only on 1 side of the street. m Q H. The primary and secondary access road sections have been coordinated with the Public Works Department. SOILS/GRADING Packe#Pgr969,' Spring Trails SP No. 10-01, GPA No. 02-09, DCA No. 12-10, TTMNo. 15576(Sub.No. 02-09), DA No. 11-01 P.C. Meeting: November 14, 2012 Page 12 A. Grading of any site shall conform to the A. The average existing slope across the following grading standards,based upon the project is 11.6%. Per the grading criteria, percent of the natural slope. The City Engineer redistribution of earth is permitted, shall review and make recommendation to the Planning Commission on the proposed grading. 1. 0 - 15%. Redistribution of earth over large areas may be permitted. 2. 15+ -25%. Some grading may occur, but a landforms must retain their natural character. Padded building sites may be allowed,but custom foundations, split level designs, a stacking and clustering is expected to mitigate the need for large padded building areas. �o 3. Limited grading may occur,however, major B 1. The entire site will be graded. At the N topographic features shall retain their natural project limits, the site will be blended into the " cm landforms. Special hillside architectural and existing topography. design techniques are expected in order to conform to the natural land form, by using B2. Grading has been conducted to protect r techniques such as split level foundations of existing major drainage courses/canyons. r greater than 18 inches, stem walls,stacking d and clustering. C. The slopes will be protected through ` 4. Greater than 30%. Development and limited acceptable measures as approved by the Public a grading can only occur in this category if it can Works Department. be clearly demonstrated that safety, a environmental, and aesthetic impacts will be D. There are no proposed slopes greater than avoided.Use of larger lots, variable setbacks 2:1. Terraces are provided as required for z and variable building structural techniques slopes over 30' in height. LU such as stepped or pole foundations are expected. Structures shall blend with the F natural environment through their shape, a materials and colors. Impact of traffic and roadways is to be minimized by following d natural contours or using grade separations. r R B. Grading shall be designed to: 1. Conserve natural topographic features and appearances by means of land sculpturing to blend graded slopes and benches with natural topography. 2. Retain major natural topographic features such as canyons and prominent landmarks. C. All graded areas shall be protected from NAA09 a Spring Trails SP No. 10-01, GPA No. 02-09, DCA No. 12-10, TTM No. 15596(Sub.No. 02-09), DA No. 11-01 P.C. Meeting., November 14, 2012 Page 13 wind and water erosion through acceptable slope stabilization methods such as planting, walls, or netting. Interim erosion control plans shall be required,certified by the project engineer,and reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. D. Slopes created by grading the site shall not exceed 50 percent or 2:1,without a soils report e and stabilization study indicating a greater permissible slope; or shall not exceed 30 feet in height between terraces or benches; except that the Planning Commission may permit N slopes exceeding these dimensions where the slopes will result in a natural appearance and N will not create geological or erosion hazards. FIRE SAFETY All developments in this overlay zone shall 1. The comparison of the Specific Plan's comply with the standards of the FF(Foothill proposed standards with the street design Fire Zones) District. The standards cover such standards for the HMOD and FF Districts is r items as,but not limited to: provided above. d 1. Street standards shall be the same as those in 2. The project will be required to comply with the HMOD standards(discussed above) the driveway standards set forth in the 2. Driveways to residential garages more than Development Code. U 30 feet in length are limited in their grades 3. The Fire Plan in the Specific Plan a based on length,with no portion of a driveway (beginning on page 3-53) provides standards exceeding a grade of 15%unless approved by for markers(figure 3.26). z the Fire Chief and City Engineer. 4. The Fire Plan in the Specific Plan sets forth W 3. Street markers and addresses shall be a landscaping plan for the project, including czi provided. roadside vegetation. ¢ 4. All roadside vegetation shall be maintained 5. The Water Plan in the Specific Plan (Table and dead vegetation removed. 3.9) indicates a minimum of 1,500 gallons per 5. Hydrants shall be provided,marked,and be minute (gpm) will be provided (this will be in visible with clear access. A minimum of two addition to the maximum daily demand if 254 hose spigots facing the foothills/wildlands shall gpm, for a total of 1,750 gpm). Hydrants will :° be provided per house. The minimum fire flow be required to be installed to meet a shall be 1,000 gallons per minute. Development Code standards. 6. All fills shall be compacted. Erosion and 6. The project applicant will be required to drainage control plans must be approved prior submit erosion and drainage control plans per to permit issuance, and the cut and fill slopes Development Code Standards. The Fire Plan shall be landscaped with fire resistant and Landscape Plan in the Specific Plan sets vegetation. forth standards for landscaping of the project, including listing plant species for the different landscape zones on the site. 7. Structures shall conform to fire zone 17. The Fire Plan in the Specific Plan sets forth PaclieE1 k# ,] u... Spring Trails SP No. 10-01, GPA No. 02-09,DCA No. 12-10, TTMNo. 15576(Sub.No. 02-09),DA No. 11-01 P.C. Meeting: November 14, 2012 Page 14 standards and be constructed of fire-resistant standards for the use of fire-resistant building materials. materials and installation of fire sprinklers in 8. Structures shall be set back from steep all of the project's structures. slopes or slopes over 30 feet in height at least 8. The Specific Plan requires that buildings be 30 feet. Structures shall be located only where set back a minimum of 25 to 50 feet from the upgraded slope is 50% or less. natural areas. 9. Structures in narrow canyon mouths or 9. Structures are not proposed on ridgelines, ridge saddles must be approved by the City and all of the lots, except lots 30 and 233 have Engineer and Fire Department. been approved in concept for future H 10. A fuel modification plan is required. development by the Fire Department. 11. All proposed parcel lines must be placed at 10. The Fire and Landscape Plans set forth the top of slope. standards for landscaping in the fuel 12. Future purchasers shall be advised of the modification areas. rn fire hazard designation applicable to the 11. The project will be conditioned to place all property. property lines at the top of slope. N 13. Fuel modification zones shall be 12. The project will be conditioned to require N. cm maintained when required through that the project CC&Rs include a disclosure homeowners' associations, assessment statement of the applicable fire hazard zones districts,or other means. on-site. 13. The Specific Plan sets forth standards for c on-going maintenance of the fuel modification d zones and other on-site improvements. CO GEOTECHNICAL a 1. Any subdivision within the Alquist-Priolo In compliance. Per page 3-75 of the Specific "Special Studies Zone" shall conduct a Plan: geologic study in conformance with the Due to the potential seismic and geologic z requirements of the Zone. This study shall be hazards,proposed development in Spring W prepared by a certified engineering geologist. Trails is subject to the following: _ 2.No structure for human occupancy shall be ■ All structures in Spring Trails shall be F permitted within 50 feet of an active or required to meet or exceed the applicable a potentially active fault trace. Sensitive and seismic design standards of the California high occupancy structures as defined in the Building Standards Code,which correspond to General Plan shall maintain a minimum 100 the level of seismic risk in a given location. foot setback. M Construction of habitable buildings 3.No emergency facilities, community shall not occur over or within 50 feet of any a facilities, or places of general public assembly known active fault or as required by the (not including open space areas) shall be geotechnical analyses. permitted within the Alquist-Priolo Zone. ■ No water reservoir or booster pump. 4. All structures within the trace shall require station shall be constructed within 15 feet of an the seismic features of the structure to be active fault. reviewed and approved by a professional ■ Grading for building pads and roads engineer specializing in seismic/structural shall conform to specifications of the geologist, design. 5. The Building Official may require special based on a soils study and final geotechnical ack_t 72 Spring Trails SP No. 10-01, GPA No. 02-09, DCA No. 12-10, TTMNo. 15576(Sub. No. 02-09), DA No, 11-01 P.C. Meeting. November 14, 2012 Page 15 construction methods of structures where it has study. been determined to have potential geologic r Flexible materials and joints shall be hazards. used for infrastructure (e.g., roads, sewer and 6. A statement shall be included at the time of water lines)located across known faults. purchase agreement and at the close of escrow ■ Flexible pipe fittings shall be used to to the purchaser of each lot within the avoid gas or water leaks.Flexible fittings are development,which informs the prospective more resistant to breakage. owner of the potential for seismic activity, and ■ The final project grading plan shall be the potential hazards. reviewed by the City geologist. w Project shall be required to comply with provisions of the Alquist-Priolo Act with regard to any required studies or notice as the vi Project is not exempted therefrom. LO N N WATER/DRAINAGE N A. On-site catch basins or siltation basins, as The maximum pad coverage is proposed to be v well as energy absorbing devices,may be 50%. required as a means to prevent erosion as well r as to provide for ground water recharge. Proposed Drainage Facilities c ■ Drainage area A. Runoff in drainage d B.Natural drainage courses should be area A is handled from a combination of protected from grading activity. undisturbed watercourses, detention basins, rain gardens, and media filtration systems. C. Where brow ditches are required,naturalize ■ The significant drainageways in the a with plant materials and native rocks. northern part of Spring Trails remain virtually untouched. The two forks of Cable Canyon z D. Maximum coverage of a parcel by will remain undisturbed through the Spring w impervious surfaces shall not exceed 40%of Trails site while the unnamed tributary,which the gross land area,and such maximum may be enters the property from the east as two reduced by the Director in areas where the drainages,remains undisturbed except for slope exceeds 15%. those portions flowing through culverts under c two streets. ■ Drainage from a 35.6-acre developed area is routed into detention basin A,which is Y on the western edge of the site and discharges a into Cable Canyon. ■ The flows from the areas north of Cable Canyon are not routed into a detention basin; instead,each residential lot will be designed with a rain garden to treat the flows on the residential lot. Media filtration devices will be used to treat the flows on the streets prior to discharging into Cable Creek. In all, 39.3 acres in the northern portion of the project,including h:'x PacketPgt973° Spring Trails ` SP No. 10-01, GPA No. 02-09, DCA No. 12-10, TPM No. 15576(Sub. No. 02-09), DA No. 11-01 P.C. Meeting: November 14, 2012 Page 16 ©. 15.1 acres of off-site drainage, are handled in this manner. ■ Drainage area B. Drainage area B is divided into two areas that handle flows from a developed area and an undeveloped area. ■ Drainage from a 21.8-acre,on-site, developed area is routed into detention basin B,which is located on the southwestem edge of the site and discharges into a natural flow w line and ultimately into Cable Canyon. ■ Drainage from an undeveloped 17.5- acre area,which includes both on-and off-site lands, flows under a new street and is C discharged into an existing flow line south of the site and ultimately into Cable Canyon. N ■ Drainage area C. Drainage area C is a 209.8-acre area that includes both on- and off- r site lands. v ■ Drainage from a 96.8-acre,on-site, developed area drains into detention basin C, © which is located in the southwestern corner of d the project and eventually discharges into an unnamed flow line west of Meyers Creek and into Cable Creek, 0 U ■ Drainage from a 107.8-acre a undeveloped, on- and off-site area flows south through a culvert under the primary access z street. w ■ Drainage area D. Drainage area D is made up of Meyers Canyon and its tributary F areas along the southeastern edge of the site. a This drainage area consists of a total of 339.3 on- and off-site acres (319.8 off-site acres and E 19.5 undeveloped on-site acres). Drainage from this area flows through a culvert under y the primary access street and eventually into Cable Creek. Brow ditches will be required to be constructed and treated per the HMOD standards. ANIMAL AND PLANT LIFE A. Areas of a site which are identified in the In compliance. The Fire and Landscape Plans Q environmental study as having biological within the Specific Plan establish standards for significance shall be preserved,unless preserving and protecting the wildlife corridors exempted by the Planning Commission that traverse the site,by includin standards 'Packet Pg.974 ir Spring Trails s .x. ,...�c SP No. 10-01, GPA No. 02-09, DCA No. 12-10, TTM No. 15576(Sub.No. 02-09), DA No. 11-01 P.C.Meeting., November 14, 2012 Page 17 through the Conditional Use Permit process. pertaining to landscaping on all portions of the B.Natural vegetation shall be maintained site(including standards for drought-tolerant, wherever possible. If removal is required, native and fire-resistant plant materials), walls, reestablishment of a compatible plant material and road crossings. will be required at a ratio of at least 2:1. C. All exposed slopes and graded areas shall be landscaped with ground cover,shrubs, and trees. D. Existing mature trees shall be incorporated into the project where feasible. m E. Water and energy conservation techniques rn shall be utilized,such as special irrigation techniques (e.g.,drip irrigation),drought y tolerant plant species, alluvial rockscape, etc. F. Wherever possible,fire resistant native N vegetation shall be preserved and planted. G. Introduction of landscaping within the hillside areas should make maximum use of texture, color, and be capable of blending in with the natural landscape, and help to soften the effects of buildings,walls,pavement, and d (`r grading. H. Screening along roadways should make maximum use of berming and landscaping but a shall not interfere with sight distance. F Z DESIGN w A. Dwelling units and structures shall be In compliance. Per Chapter 3,"Development _ compatible with the natural surroundings of the Standards"and Chapter 4,"Design area and shall not dominate the natural Guidelines" of the Specific Plan,the following Q environment. will be required regarding the development of the Spring Trails project area. d B. Exterior finishes of dwelling units and s structures should blend in with the natural Garage Variation: w surroundings by using earth tone colors and To avoid the monotony of projects that employ avoiding reflective materials or finishes. the same garage placement(e.g., all front-entry garages), a variety of garage placements and C. Site design should utilize varying setbacks, orientations is required. Standard garage building heights,innovative building placement is a front-loaded garage set in from techniques, and building and wall forms which the front property line. Alternative garage serve to blend buildings into the terrain. orientation and placement are required on 33 percent of the units. Roll-up garage doors with automatic openers are required for all garages. D. Dwelling units and structures shall be sited I The following are potential alternative garage Packet Pg;975 Spring Trails ° SP No. 10-01, CPA No. 02-09,DCA No. 12-10, TTMNo. 15576(Sub.No. 02-09),DA No. 11-01 P.C.Meeting: November 14, 2012 Page 18 in a manner that will: placements: 1. Retain outward views from each unit; ■ Side-entry garages 2. Preserve or enhance vistas, particularly those ■ Split garages seen from public places; ■ Garages in courtyards or driveways 3. Preserve visually significant rock with a porte cochere outcroppings,natural hydrology,native plant ■ Straight-in garages in rear two-thirds of materials, and areas of visual or historical the lot significance. Product Variation: E. The highest point of any structure shall not Spring Trails will be attractive and visually m be located above the ridgeline.A ridgeline is a interesting.Accordingly, single-family long,narrow,conspicuous elevation which is residential neighborhoods will include a c visible north of Highland Avenue,from a variety of product types and design styles. C freeway, major arterial, secondary arterial,or ■ There should be a minimum of three CD collector street,which forms part of the skyline different material and color palettes.No two N or is seen as a distant edge against a backdrop single-family detached homes with identical 'IL CA of land at least 300 feet horizontally behind it. color or materials palettes shall be adjacent to (See graphic.) or directly across the street from one another, r 1. Use the natural ridgeline as a backdrop for ■ There shall be a minimum of three structures; elevation/facade designs.No two homes with 2. Use landscape plant materials as a backdrop; identical elevation/facade designs shall be d and adjacent to or directly across the street from 3. Use the structure to maximize concealment one another. R of cut slopes.. ■ There shall be a minimum of three o F. Retaining Walls/Fences primary roof materials and roof designs.No 1. Retaining walls shall be used in the two homes with identical roof designs and z following manner: Upslope-One wall per lot materials shall be adjacent to or directly across w not exceeding 8 feet in height. the street from one another. z Downslope -One wall per lot not exceeding 42 q The height of walls and fences shall be F inches in height may be used. measured from the top of the highest adjacent a Lots sloping with the street of access or other grade unless adjacent to a public right-of-way, w conditions-One retaining wall on each side of in which case the measurement shall be taken the lot may be used not exceeding 42 inches in from the side of the public right-of-way. height. ■ Rear or side yards. The maximum Y Retaining walls adjacent to driveways-Walls height of walls and fences in the rear and side a being an integral part of the structure may yards shall be 6 feet. exceed 8 feet in height if necessary. ■ Front yard. The maximum height of 2. Exposed retaining walls facing roadways walls and fences located between the front shall be no greater than 5 feet in height. property line and the nearest building wall 3. Where retaining walls face roadways,they (either garage or habitable structure) shall be shall be faced with aesthetically pleasing 3.5 feet. Thereafter,the provisions for walls in materials (e.g., rock facing). rear and side yards noted above shall apply. Packet Pg 97B Spring Trails SP No. 10-01, CPA No. 02-09, DCA No. 12-10, TTM No. 15576(Sub.No. 02-09), DA No. 11-01 P.C. Meeting: November 14,2012 Page 19 ■ Walls and view fences shall be constructed as detailed in Figure 3.1, Wall Details,and as required by the Fire Protection Plan in Appendix C. ■ Barbed and razor wire,plain exposed concrete block,electronic fencing, and chain link are not permitted. Chain link may be used on a temporary basis at construction sites. Vinyl-coated chain link may be used as a fencing material for outdoor park facilities such as tennis courts, subject to approval of a rn Development Permit,per Section 19.44 of the San Bernardino Development Code. to ■ All walls, fencing, or screening CO materials shall be maintained in a physical N state consistent with the time of installation. Repair and/or replacement of damaged, defective,or severely weathered materials shall r be completed immediately upon occurrence or r within a minimum of 20 days of notification by r the City. d ■ All walls and fences shall be � constructed of noncombustible materials. ■ All walls and fences in Spring Trails cLi shall be designed and constructed to withstand a 100 mile per hour winds or the standard in the City of San Bernardino Development Code in z effect at the time of the building permit w application. _ ■ Pilasters,articulation, and/or permanent F landscaping screening shall be incorporated a into the design of walls or fences that exceed 25 feet in length. L Retaining Walls: ■ When a retaining wall is in the front yard: ■ The maximum retaining wall height may be 2 feet and may be directly topped with a maximum 18-inch wall or fence for a total height of 42 inches, or ■ The maximum retaining wall height may be 3 feet and, in this case, a maximum a- foot-high wall or fence may be erected above the retaining wall with a minimum 3-foot PackeYPg 977w Spring Trails SP No. 10-01, GPA No. 02-09, DCA No. 12-10, TTM No. 15576(Sub.No. 02-09), DA No. I]-o1 P.C.Meeting: November 14, 2012 Page 20 landscaped setback from the back of the retaining wall. ■ For retaining walls on the perimeter, side,or rear property lines: ■ The maximum height of any solid retaining wall shall be 8 feet as measured from the lowest adjacent grade. Retaining walls may only exceed 8 feet if: (1) they are not visible from public areas,or(2)they are visible from public areas and unique designs are incorporated to disguise or break up the mass of the retaining wall (e.g., offsets, landscape walls,unique materials, or public art). N r The maximum height of any fence or wall on top of a retaining wall on the N perimeter, side, or rear property lines shall be Cy- as would be allowed if there was no retaining r wall. T The project site is located within a Very High Hazard Severity Zone as designated by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection ("CAL FIRE"). Therefore, the EIR d prepared for the project has established mitigation measures to reduce the impacts from fire hazards to levels that are less than significant. Further, once annexed to the City of San Bernardino, the project site would also be subject to the City's Development Code and established Foothill Fire Zones Overlay District (Development Code Chapter 19.15). The a overlay district designates three zones within the wildland interface: Z Z • Fire Zone A(Extreme hazard),characterized by slopes over 30 percent w n • Fire Zone B (High Hazard),characterized by slopes 15-30 percent = U • Fire Zone C(Moderate Hazard),characterized by slopes less than 15 percent F Q The project site has approximately 121 acres in Fire Zone A, 112 acres in Fire Zone B, and 119 acres in Fire Zone C. The Overlay District specifies development standards relating to access and circulation, site and street identification, roadside vegetation, water supply, erosion control, construction and development design, and miscellaneous items. One of the components of the wildland fire defense systems for Spring Trails would be the implementation of fuel modification a zones. The proposed plan within the Specific Plan includes the following defined fuel modification zones: • Fuel Modification Zone A (flat) - Noncombustible Construction: 20- to 35-foot setback zone for noncombustible construction only. Fuel Modification Zone A shall be maintained by the homeowner or the Homeowners' Association (HOA). At no time would the Fuel Modification Zone A be less than 20 feet. Packet fig` 978+.), Spring Trails SPNo, 1&01, GPA No. 02-09,DCA No. 12-10, TTMNo. 15576(Sub. No. 02-09), DA No. 11-01 P.C. Meeting: November 14, 2012 Page 21 • Fuel Modification Zone B- Wet Zone (100 percent removal of undesirable plant species): First 50 to 200 feet from Fuel Modification Zone A. Fuel Modification Zone B shall be permanently irrigated, fully landscaped with approved drought-tolerant, deep-rooted, moisture-retentive material as container shrub material, or hydroseeded per the San Bernardino Fire Department (SBFD) Approved Plant List. Fuel Modification Zone B area shall be maintained by the homeowner, HOA, or landscape maintenance district ("LMD")as appropriate. • Fuel Modification Zone C - Dry Zone (50 percent thinning of the acceptable existing e plant material): 40 to 185 feet. Fuel Modification Zone C shall be a non-irrigated area. cc Removal of all flammable undesirable species. Specimen and trees shall be retained as directed by the owner's representative but must be thinned a minimum of 50 percent, including removal of all low hanging foliage within three times the height of the understory shrubs or 10 feet, whichever is greater, along with dead or broken branches. CO All accumulated plant debris on the ground shall be removed. Fuel Modification Zone C N area shall be maintained by the LMD. N T Additionally, note that the SBFD will not allow development of residential lots 30 and 233 at v this time due to a lack of a sufficient fuel modification zone adjacent to these lots(Attachment H, page 3-54). Therefore, unless the applicant is able to obtain additional land for additional fuel modification zone area,these lots will be required to be maintained as permanent open space (per d Condition No. 10). m With the implementation of the Fire Protection Plan's development standards and avoidance of developing lots 30 and 233, the project's EIR determined that the risk from fire would be a reduced to less than significant levels. The fire zones are discussed in further detail in the Specific Plan (Attachment H), beginning on page 1-12, while the Fire Protection Plan is z discussed in detail beginning on age 3-53 of Attachment H. w x In addition to the site being located in a Very High Hazard Severity Zone, as noted above, the F project is also located in an area that experiences high winds. Therefore, all on-site development will be required to be constructed per building code standards to meet these wind loads. Further, Condition No. 8 requires that the project Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs) E regulate the placement of trash receptacles for pick-up during windy days. Further, the project's mitigation measures will regulate construction activities on windy days(refer to Attachment D). w a The site is traversed by the San Andreas Fault in several locations. Therefore, a Seismic Safety/Geologic Safety Plan, which sets forth standards for development adjacent to the fault zone and for infrastructure that will cross the Fault is provided in the Specific Plan,beginning on page 3-75. Structures will not be permitted to be constructed in the fault zones. However, it should be noted that per the EIR prepared for the project, additional fault studies and trenching will be required as mitigation, which may require increased setbacks from the fault, revised grading of slopes within the fault zone, etc. With implementation of these measures, the project's EIR found that the impacts from the fault and related geologic hazards would be reduced to less than significant levels. Pacltet Pct=979r Spring Trails SP No. 10-01, GPA No. 02-09, DCA No. 11-10, 7TMNo. 15576(Sub. No. 02-09), DA No. 11-01 P.C. Meeting. November 14, 2012 Page 22 There are four major drainage areas within the Spring Trails Project site. Upon development, some natural drainage courses onsite would be maintained, and some on- and off-site flows would be captured and routed through a 'series of catch basin inlets and storm drain systems. Captured stormwater would be conveyed to three on-site detention basins where it would be treated and discharged at a controlled rate into Cable Canyon. The drainage plan has been designed to ensure conveyance of the 100-year storm. Best Management Practices ("BMPs") for water quality treatment would include the extended detention basins and media filtration devices. These improvements would be designed and constructed in accordance with the City of San Bernardino and the San Bernardino County Flood Control District standards. A detailed discussion of the Specific Plan's Drainage Plan can be found in Attachment H, beginning on rn page 3-107. S CL U) Cable Creek and one of its tributaries that traverse the Spring Trails site are important wildlife to corridors. Cable Creek is a year-round water source. The water source and associated vegetation N provide cover and food resources traversing the project areas. The unnamed tributary, located in the northern third of the project area, provides an especially suitable avenue for wildlife movement due to the cover and foraging resources it currently provides. The South Coast Missing Linkages Project identified the Spring Trails project area as an important component in s maintaining wildlife linkages between the San Bernardino Mountains and the San Gabriel Mountains to the west. Further, a number of mammal species have been directly observed on the d site, while other mammal and bird species have been identified as likely to use the site and surrounding area for travel. While the riparian areas of Cable Creek and its tributary are not R planned for development as part of the project, roads will cross the corridors at two locations. cn Therefore, to ensure that the project's impacts on these wildlife corridors will be maintained at a less-than-significant levels, the Specific Plan (Attachment H, page 3-76) sets forth standards for the construction of on-site infrastructure and improvements (setbacks from the corridors, z fencing, lighting, landscaping, etc.) and the maintenance of the corridors. Ui x Additionally, as the project area is currently underserved by water infrastructure, the Specific F Plan establishes standards for the provision of water service to serve the project area and to a improve the provision of water to surrounding properties. The City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department would provide water service to Spring Trails, and currently provides service d to pressure zones ranging from 1,249 feet to 2,100 feet. The nearest existing reservoir is the E Meyers Canyon Reservoir, which is within the 2,100-foot pressure zone, but is not adequate for w buildout of Spring Trails or Verdemont. Therefore, water would be supplied to Spring Trails a from lower elevations by a combination of expanding and improving the off-site water system and the provision of on-site reservoirs and transmission lines. Off-site improvements would include the creation/improvement of a series of pump stations and transmission lines within the Verdemont community. In addition, three on-site reservoirs are proposed to meet the need for 2,300-, 2,500-, 2,700-, and 3,000-foot elevation pressure zones. The Water Plan is discussed in further detail in the Specific Plan,beginning on page 3-101. CThe Specific Plan also proposes standards to address off- and on-site roads and streets. Primary access to Spring Trails would be provided by a new road extending from the southeastern corner Packet"Pg 980`+:; Spring Trails 6 r SP No. 10-01, GPA No. 02-09, DCA No. 12-10, TTMNo. 15576(Sub. No. 02-09), DA No. 11-o1 P.C. Meeting: November 14, 2012 Page 23 of the site and connecting to Little League Drive. Secondary access is planned via a new road extending from the southwestern corner of the site to the frontage road along I-215. Except for emergency access, the intersection of the secondary access road with Meyers Road is designed with barriers to prevent vehicular access onto Meyers Road. Circulation within Spring Trails will be provided by a loop road and a series of cul-de-sacs. Necessary public streets, both on- and off-site, would be improved by the developer and dedicated to the City. All roadways would be two-way travel-one lane in each direction-with varying treatments for parkways, sidewalks, and parking. A system of interconnected trails throughout the project area, and with connections to off-site trails is proposed. The proposed standards for the project's streets and roads can be 'w found in Attachment H, beginning on page 3-16. However, as noted above, the applicant is currently in negotiations with several property owners to obtain ownership or easement rights for both the primary and secondary access roads that would serve the site. However, the applicant does not have full control of the properties for these access roads. Therefore, if access is not y obtained, the project will not be able to move forward, since both access roads are required to serve the project, per the project's mitigation measures and Condition No. 18. Note that the N applicant has agreed by waiving the application of Government Code Section 66462.5, that the F% City will have no obligation to either approve a final tract map implementing TTM 15576 or cm assist with the acquisition of any properties needed by the applicant for the primary or secondary access routes. This will be addressed further in the project's Development Agreement. r In addition to the comparison of the Development Code standards with the proposed Specific a Plan standards regarding the FF and HMOD Overlay District requirements noted in Table 2, above, Table 3 provides a comparison of the residential development standards of the m Development Code against the Specific Plan. a TABLE 3: COMPARISON OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AND PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS z w �„�4" . `fJ � .r i�,�,.i:�f r � ,•'ti� rM ° sie Y +�-•°� i ��'�� .��3�`^.i.k °�°'; .�8'. c ti ' � Minimum Lot Size One acre 10,081 square feet E Front: 35 feet Front: 15 feet Side: 5 feet Side: 10 feet a Setbacks Street Side: 15 feet Street Side: 10 feet Rear: 20 feet Rear: 15 feet Maximum 3 stories/45 feet 35 feet Building Height „ Packet;Fgk981 ' W. r, Spring Trails IXTO ,r ' SP No. 10-01, GPA No. 02-09,DCA No, 12-10, TTMNo. 15576(Sub. No. 02-09), DA No. 11-01 P.C.Meeting: November 14,2012 Page 24 The applicant is also preparing a Development Agreement(DA 10-01)for the project regarding infrastructure improvements. However,the Development Agreement is still being prepared and will be presented to the Mayor and Common Council at a later date. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL OIIALITY ACT (CEOA) An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared in accordance with CEQA (available on the City's web site at www.sbcit�org—see "How do I..." and "Locate..."and click Planning Documents). The Draft EIR (Attachment E) identified potentially significant impacts of the project, discusses avoidance measures incorporated in the project design, and numerous mitigation measures proposed to further reduce potential impacts of the project. Comments were received on the DEIR. These comments,and the responses to comments,are provided within the .L preliminary Final EIR (FEIR) prepared for the project (Attachment F). Mitigation measures y presented in the EIR have been included in the Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program (MM/RP), which is attached as Attachment D, and also incorporated by reference in the N Conditions of Approval (Attachment C). The mitigation measures in the MM/RP will reduce all �- cm of the impacts of the project to less-than-significant levels,with the following exceptions: v Air Quality r Impact 5.2-1: The proposed project is not consistent with the applicable air quality management d plan because construction-related air pollutant emissions would exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District's regional and localized emissions thresholds. Mitigation measures used to control construction and operational emissions would reduce project and U cumulative level impacts but they would remain significant and unavoidable. n r Impact 5.2-1: Construction activities associated with the proposed project would generate short- z term emissions that exceed SCAQMD's regional significance thresholds for NOx, PM10 and UJ PM2.5 and would significantly contribute to the nonattainment designations of the South Coast Air Basin for ozone and particulate matter (PM10 and PM25). Mitigation measures would F reduce the project's construction-related impacts but the project- and cumulative-level impacts a would remain significant and unavoidable. c d Impact 5.2-4: Construction activities associated with grading operations could expose sensitive r receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations of PM10 at the existing on-site residence and the surrounding off-site residences. Mitigation measures would reduce the project's construction- a related impact on sensitive receptors but it would remain significant and unavoidable. Noise Impact 5:10-5: Project-related construction activities would result in temporary noise increase at the existing on-site residence and surrounding noise-sensitive receptors due to the length of the construction period, that is, approximately three years. Mitigation would reduce the project's impact on local sensitive receptors but it would remain significant and unavoidable. P cket`Pg 98 " Spring Trails SP No. 10-01, GPA No. 02-09,DCA No. 12-10, TTMNo. 15576(Sub.No. 02-09),DA No. 11-01 P.C. Meeting: November 14, 2012 Page 25 Transportation and Traffic Impact 5-14.2: Six freeway improvements would operate at unacceptable LOS for the year 2035: • The I-215 freeway segment between Palm Avenue and Devore Road (northbound and southbound); • The 1-215 freeway segment between Devore Road and I-15 (northbound); • The 1-15 Freeway segment between Glen Helen Parkway and Sierra Avenue northbound w and southbound); and • The I-15 freeway segment between I-215 and Glen Helen Parkway(northbound). L Spring Trails would generate traffic and would contribute to the unacceptable levels of service vii on these freeway segments Additionally, mainline improvements to the 1-5 and 1-215 in the LO project area are not included in a fee program at this time There are not feasible mitigation measures to reduce the significant impacts. As a result, these impact are significant and N unavoidable. v Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact 5.16-1: Project-related construction activities would generate 5,660 metric tons (Won) c a of CO2e and operational activity would generate about 9,559 MTons of CO2e. Mitigation measure would reduce GHG emissions from construction activities, area sources, energy use, in and waste and recycling activities to levels that are less than significant; however, the vehicle a GHG emissions would not be reduced to levels that are less than significant, and project- generated emissions of GHG would create significant and unavoidable impacts. Z Z LU Statement of Overriding Considerations x U As a result of the significant unavoidable adverse impacts the project would generate, Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines requires the lead agency to balance the benefits of a proposed a project against its unavoidable significant impacts, and to determine whether the impacts are acceptably overridden by the project benefits. If the City finds that the previously stated major E project benefits outweigh the unavoidable significant adverse environmental impacts noted above, the City may, nonetheless, approve the project. Each of the separate benefits are hereby y determined to be, in itself, and independent of other project benefits, basis for overriding all a unavoidable environmental impacts identified in the FIR and these findings. The complete set of Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations is provided as Attachment G. The City's findings set forth in Attachment G identified all of the adverse environmental impacts and feasible mitigation measures which can reduce impacts to less than significant levels where feasible, or to the lowest feasible levels where significant impacts remain. The findings have also analyzed three alternatives to determine whether there are reasonable or feasible alternatives to the proposed action, or whether they might reduce or eliminate the significant adverse impacts of the project. A summary of the project's benefits that outweigh the significant unavoidable adverse impacts is as follows: Packef Pg983 Spring Trails SP No. 10-01, GPA No. 02-09, DCA No. 12-10, 7TMNo. 15576(Sub.No. 02-09), DA No. 11-01 P.C.Meeting: November 14,2012 Page 26 Finding: Having considered the unavoidable adverse impacts of the project, the City hereby determines that all feasible mitigation has been adopted to reduce or avoid the potentially significant impacts identified in the EIR, and that no additional feasible mitigation is available to further reduce significant impacts. Further, the City finds that economic, social and other considerations of the project related to provision of housing outweigh the unavoidable adverse impacts described above. The reason for accepting these remaining unmitigated impacts are described below. In making this finding, the City has balanced the benefits of the Project w against its unavoidable environmental impacts, and has indicated its willingness F to accept those effects. c The City further finds that the project's benefits are substantial and override each C unavoidable impact of the project. These benefits include substantial infrastructure that the project will directly and indirectly, through funding N mechanisms, provide. These benefits include the following, which are laid out in greater detail in the findings(Attachment G): v • The water supply system for the area will be augmented to provide water to the new residents, but will also provide improved service to those r existing.residents in the area currently on City water. ° CL a • Three on-site reservoirs will be constructed to provide better service and fire protection to the area. • Off-site improvements to the water supply system include a series of U pump stations and transmission lines within the Verdemont community. a • Improved fuel modification zones will provide protection to both the proposed community as well as to the existing structures in the area. z • Project would be required to pay development impacts fees for law g enforcement, schools, library, fire, traffic and other related fees that will supplement the City's funds and provide the necessary public services to the project. a • Traffic improvements, including dual left turn lanes at the intersection of Palm Avenue and Kendall Drive. E E In particular, the project scope includes substantial infrastructure improvements 2 for water storage and delivery systems that will not only serve the project itself, a but also benefit the larger community. The additional water storage and delivery systems will provide for more effective wildfire controls for existing residents as well as the proposed project given the additional safety and setback measures that are incorporated into the project. The water infrastructure will also provide a source potable water for existing residents as well as a water source for firefighting personnel in the event of a wildfire. The project components related to fire hazards and safety, including construction, buffer zones, and other features will also provide additional benefits to those residents already located in the area as a means of preventing the spread of any wildfires through the area. Packet Pg 984`'°: Spring Trails • 6 Br r SP No. 10-01, GPA No. 02-09, DCA No. 12-10, TTMNo. 15576(Sub. No. 02-09), DA No. 11-01 P.C. Meeting: November 14, 2012 Page 27 Storm drainage improvements will also provide additional benefits related to the existing flood and erosion conditions prevalent in the area. The area and existing residents have faced historical issues with flooding, landslides and wildfires which will be substantially improved with the implementation of the proposed project. Funding mechanisms and impact fees that will be generated as part of the project will assist in roadway improvements and as well general fund contributions through property tax that can assist in funding necessary police, fire and safety services for the area. N From an economic standpoint, the project will pay substantial fees that will benefit the City, including Development Impact Fees, School Fees, Library Fees F_ permitting fees, public services fees, and related development fees that provide additional benefit both to the community by increasing the funding and services y available, but also to the City. For example, the project will be required to pay additional fees to support police services in the amount of$183,506.18 and to pay N library fees in the amount of $181,375.52. The project provides additional property taxes that will also contribute to public services. These fees are outlined in the findings and further identified in the EIR. The project will also provide the r opportunity for construction jobs in the community for a substantial period of time, depending on how quickly the proposed project is built out. The project provides additional social benefits to the community and City as well. The project c will dedicate more than 245 acres of permanent open space, including natural open space, controlled open space and parks, on site. The parks that are proposed R as part of the project will include shade structures, tot lots, gardens, observation points, and other related features and offer opportunities for the community that a are not currently present in the area. The project also provides an interconnected trail system that would include community trails for bicycle and pedestrian use, z equestrian trails, and hiking trails. These proposed trails would substantially W increase the recreational opportunities currently available in the City. x U F¢- Furthermore, the City has a limited base of available high-quality, low density � residential development based upon a review of the MLS listings for the City as ¢ well as under General Plan designation areas for low density residential d development. Such high-quality, low density housing is desirable to attract and s retain top quality candidates for positions at the University and other institutions. According to the City of San Bernardino Housing Element Adopted June 20, ¢ 2011, approximately one-third of the City's housing stock is between 30 and 49 years old, with an additional 35.3 percent over 50 years old. (Pages 3-25 and 3- 26). Only 2,720 housing units were constructed between the years of 2000-2005, during the height of the housing boom. (Housing Element Adopted June 20, 2011,Table H-12). The household composition of the City shows that 82%of the City's households are moderate to very-low income, while only 18% are above Moderate income. (Id Chart 4, pg. 3-17). There are few other proposed developments within the City at this time and thus the proposed Project will fill a residential need within the City as is envisioned within the City's General Plan, Packet Pg�985,! Spring Trails SP No. 10-01, GPA No. 02-09, DCA No. 11-10, TTMNo. 15576(Sub.No. 0,--09), DA No. 11-01 P.C.Meeting: November 14, 2012 Page 28 Such a need is identified generally in Housing Element policy 3.1.1, which states: "Provide adequate sites to accommodate the production of a variety of housing types through land use designation,zoning, specific plans, and overlay districts." As discussed above, the development of the project would result in significant and unavoidable adverse impacts with regard to Traffic and Transportation, Air Quality and Noise; however the benefits obtained from the project (listed above and in greater detail in Attachment G) are sufficient to justify approval of the project. N With regard to Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions, California Public Resource Code 21002 provides: "In the event specific economic, social and other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects can be approved in spite of c one or more significant effects thereof." Section 21002.1(c) provides: "In the event that N economic, social, or other conditions make it infeasible to mitigate one or more significant effects of a project on the environment, the project may nonetheless be approved or carried out at N the discretion of a public agency..." Finally, California Administrative Code, Title 4, 15093 (a) states: "If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects,the adverse environmental effects may be considered `acceptable. The project benefits include substantial infrastructure that the project will directly and indirectly, through funding mechanisms, provide. In particular, the project scope includes substantial °o infrastructure improvements for water storage and delivery systems that will not only serve the d project itself, but also benefit the larger community. The additional water storage and delivery R systems will provide for more effective wildfire controls for existing residents as well as the y proposed project given the additional safety and setback measures that are incorporated into the a. project. The water infrastructure will also provide a source of potable water for existing residents as well as a water source for firefighting personnel in the event of a wildfire. The project components related to fire hazards and safety, including construction, buffer zones, and w other features will also provide additional benefits to those residents already located in the area _ as a means of preventing the spread of any wildfires through the area, a r h Storm drainage improvements will also provide additional benefits related to the existing flood a and erosion conditions prevalent in the area. The area and existing residents have faced historical issues with flooding, landslides and wildfires which will be substantially improved s with the implementation of the proposed project. Funding mechanisms and impact fees that will be generated as part of the project will assist in roadway improvements and as well general fund contributions through property tax that can assist in funding necessary police, fire and safety services for the area. The proposed project will also provide additional recreational sources for the community, creating hiking, equestrian and biking trails throughout the site and connecting an area that currently does not offer such sources of recreation to the residents of the City. Furthermore, a base of high-quality low density residential development is important for the ability of the City's institutions to hire and retain top quality candidates for positions at the University and other institutions. There are few other proposed developments within the City at Packet Pg,986''. Spring Trails NOW SP No. 10-01, GPA No. 02-09,DCA No. 12-10, TTMNo: 15576(Sub.No. 02-09),DA No. 11-01 P.C.Meeting: November 1 q, 2012 Page 29 this time and thus the proposed project will fill a residential need within the City as is envisioned within the City's General Plan. In addition to the safety, recreational, social and housing features that the project will provide, the project will offer employment during the construction phases and provide revenue from the additional property taxes that the project will generate. The project will be required to pay additional fees to support police services in the amount of $183,506.18, pay schools fees, pay library fees in the amount of $181,375.52, improvement existing roadways and provide. additional access points that otherwise may not occur, as well as pay other City development w fees. The payment of fees and additional services benefit both the project and the surrounding R community. c As the CEQA Lead Agency for the proposed project, the City of San Bernardino has reviewed w the project description and the project alternatives as presented in the EIR, and fully understands the project and project alternatives proposed for development. Further, the City finds that all N potential adverse environmental impacts and all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the impacts from the project have been identified in the Draft EIR, the Final EIR and public r testimony. The City also finds that a reasonable range of alternatives was considered in the EIR, and finds that approval of the project is appropriate. The City has identified economic and social benefits, important policy objectives and local and a regional benefits that will result from approval of the Development Agreement, as discussed in 07 above, and in Attachment G,the Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations R that were prepared for the project, which result from implementing the project. The City has N balanced these substantial social and economic benefits against the unavoidable significant a. adverse effects of the project. The City finds that the substantial social and economic benefits that will result from the project override the unavoidable environmental effects of the project. Z w FINDINGS OF FACT x U I. SP/GPA/DCA/TTM Finding: The proposed amendment is internally consistent with the F General Plan c The applicant is proposing a General Plan Amendment to establish the Spring Trails E Specific Plan as the land use designation for the subject property. Further, a Development Code Amendment to add the Spring Trails Specific Plan as a Special Purpose Zone in the Development Code and recognize the land use standards contained within the Specific Plan as unique to the project area. A Tentative Tract Map is also proposed to subdivide the 352.8-acre project area into 304 lots for single-family residences and lots for water tanks, parks and open space. Currently, the property is located in the County, within the City's Sphere of Influence. The existing land use designation per the County General Plan is Resource Conservation (RC) and Rural Living, 5-ac. min. lot size (RL-5), which requires a minimum five-acre lot size. Since the project is located in the City's Sphere of Influence, the City's General Packet Pg;987 v r Spring Trails SP No. 10-01, GPA No. 02-09, DCA No. 12-10, TTMNo. 15576(Sub.No. 02-09), DA No. 11-01 P.C. Meeting: November 14, 2012 Page 30 © Plan currently designates the site Residential Estate, which calls for single-family residential lots with a minimum lot size of one acre. By establishing the Spring Trails Specific land as the land use designation for the property, which will include a change in minimum lot size for the site from a minimum of one acre to an average of one acre, the project will then become consistent with the General Plan. The project is also consistent with the following General Plan policies: Land Use: Policy 2.1.1 Actively enforce development standards, design guidelines, and policies to preserve and enhance the character of San Bernardino's neighborhoods. CL U) Policy 2.1.2 Require that new development with potentially adverse impacts on existing neighborhoods or residents such as noise, traffic, emissions, and storm water runoff, be N located and designed so that quality of life and safety in existing neighborhoods are N preserved Policy 2.2.1 Ensure compatibility between land uses and quality design through adherence to the standards and regulations in the Development Code and policies and c guidelines in the Community Design Element. Q CL Policy 2.2.2 Require new uses to provide mitigation or buffers between existing uses a where potential adverse impacts could occur, including, as appropriate, decorative walls, landscape setbacks, restricted vehicular access, enclosure of parking structures to a prevent sound transmission, and control of lighting and ambient illumination. Z Z Policy 2.2.4 Hillside development and development adjacent to natural areas shall be w designed and landscaped to preserve naturalfeatures and habitat andprotect structures from the threats from natural disasters, such as wildfires and f oods. F Policy 2.3.3 Entries into the City and distinct neighborhoods should be well defined or highlighted to help define boundaries and act as landmarks. E E Policy 2.5.4 Require that all new structures achieve a high level of architectural design w and provide a careful attention to detail. Policy 2.5.6 Require that new developments be designed to complement and not devalue the physical characteristics of the surrounding environment, including consideration of (site specific design considerations of the surrounding environment -remaining items omitted). Policy 2.61 Hillside development and development adjacent to natural areas shall be designed and sited to maintain the character of the City's significant open spaces and historic and cultural landmarks. Packet Pg'�988x:.z Spring Trails SP No. 10-01, GPA No. 02-09, DCA No. 12-10, TTMNo. 15576(Sub.No. 02-09),DA No. 11-01 P.C. Meeting: November 14, 2012 Page 31 Policy 2.7.1 Enhance and expand drainage, sewer, and water supply/storage facilities to serve new development and intensification of existing lands. Policy 2.7.2 Work with the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District to create additional water storage capacity and take advantage of the abundant water supplies. Policy 2.7.5 Require that development be contingent upon the ability of public infrastructure to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate its demands and mitigate its y impacts. rn Policy 2.8.1 Ensure that all structures comply with seismic safety provisions and building a codes. N Lo Policy 2.8.2 Ensure that design and development standards appropriately address the N hazards posed by wildfires and wind, with particular focus on the varying degrees of " these threats in the foothills, valleys, ridges, and the southern and western flanks of the v San Bernardino Mountains. Upon annexation into the City, under current conditions without the Specific Plan, the c site would be designated as Residential Estate, and as appropriate based on slope studies, d the Foothill Fire Zone,on both the City's General Plan and Zoning maps. The Residential Estate designation permits one dwelling unit per acre. y U Through the Spring Trials Specific Plan, development will be clustered into the most a appropriate areas so that, when taken individually, certain lots exceeded the one unit per acre density limit and on a gross basis, the project will comply with the overall density z restrictions of the Residential Estate land use designation. Spring Trails will be a 352.8- � acre residential development in the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains. Spring Trails is proposed to accommodate 304 residences situated in several neighborhoods, F which will be separated by open space corridors, drainageways, and sloped areas and a interconnected by a series of trails and roadways. The development footprint of Spring Trails is proposed to be focused on the gently sloping alluvial benches between canyons, steep hillsides, and the Cable Canyon and Meyers Canyon drainageways. Development E is proposed on approximately 242 acres, or 68 percent of the total site, and will include w nine acres of parks and 125.1 acres of internal slopes and fuel modification zones. The a remaining 32 percent of Spring Trails (111.3 acres) will be preserved as natural open space. The Specific Plan will establish unique development standards for the project site regarding minimum lot size and development standards for the hillside and high fire hazard zone components of the project. Where the Specific Plan is silent on Development Code standards, those Development Code standards will be required for future development of the site. The following elements of the Specific Plan promote the land use goals of the General Plan: Packe Pg �89' Spring Trails SP No. 10-01, GPA No. 02-09, DCA No. 12-10, TTMNo. 15576(Sub. No. 02-09),DA No. 11-01 P.C. Meeting: November 14, 2012 Page 32 O • Providing approximately 111 acres of permanent open space. • Integrating Spring Trails into its physical surroundings by clustering development on the gentle slopes; avoiding steep slopes, ridgelines, and physical hazards; and preserving significant drainageways. • Including guidelines and standards that address unique entries, tailored landscaping, and detailed design factors that will help make Spring Trails a unique and high-quality neighborhood in San Bernardino. y • Providing two points of access that directly connect to collector roads and avoid existing neighborhoods: the primary access connecting to Little League Drive S and a new secondary access road connecting to Frontage Road. The secondary y access road is designed to restrict non-resident access onto Meyers Road. N N • Providing two points of access for existing off-site residences and preserving an N existing on-site residence. v • Maintaining the significant natural drainage courses on the property and capturing on-and off-site stormwater flows and routing them through a series of catch basin c inlets and storm drain systems that convey water to three on-site detention basins d + where it is treated and discharged at a controlled rate into Cable Canyon. The drainage system and detention basins will reduce stormwater runoff from the site R to levels below those that existed prior to the project. a • Minimizing the impacts of light intrusion and spillover. CSUSB is contemplating building an observatory on the nearby Badger Hill. To help preserve a dark Z nighttime sky, this Specific -Plan includes controls on the type and design of w lighting. _ U Q • Providing design standards for unique entries to create a recognizable identity and a sense of arrival. c m • Providing design guidelines and development standards that will result in distinctively designed high-quality residences set among a system of unified V lighting, streetscape, landscape, and parks. Q • Working with SBMWD to supply water to Spring Trails. Water from lower elevations by a combination of expanding and improving the off-site water system and the provision of on-site reservoirs and transmission lines. • Requiring the developer(s) to be responsible for constructing/funding their fair share of required on-and off-site infrastructure improvements, such as water lines, sewers, storm drains,recycled water lines,and streets. Packet Pg�990„< B� # Spring Traits G SP No. 10-01, GPA No. 02-09,DCA No. 12-10, TTM No. 15576(Sub.No. 02-09), DA No. 11-01 P.C.Meeting: November 14, 2012 Page 33 ■ Addressing the significant natural features on the site such as the San Andreas Fault system and natural drainage courses that cut through the project, including standards for infrastructure to withstand fault movement and avoiding development in the natural drainage courses, and protecting against wildland fires as detailed in the Safety responses below. Verdemont Heights Area Plan Policy 2.11 Create an identifiable and unique village that includes distinct residential neighborhoods and a full array of services and activities to meet the needs of residents R ofthe area. rn c Policy 2.11.1 Enhance the three distinct subareas that comprise Yerdemont Heights: Q a. Verdemont Estates, which is located in the northwestern portion of the area N west of Little League Drive, has a rural character and consists of the larger lot N residential uses. N r v Policy 2.11.2 Develop a trail system in Verdemont Heights and along Cable Creek that provide a complete access system and provides direct access to Verdemont Plaza. 0 0 Policy 2.11.4 As shown on Figure LU-6, develop an integrated corridor enhancement d system, including landscaping and signage, which are unique to Verdemont Heights. The _ following policies shall direct the development of corridors within Verdemont Heights: C� U a Policy 2.11.6 Ensure that new developments either provide their fair share of recreational facilities based upon the City's parkland requirements or appropriate in-lieu F fees. Z w Z. Spring Trails is in keeping with the rural character of the northwestern portion of a Verdemont Heights with an average lot size of 29,000 square feet. The largest lots will be F located on the upper elevations of the site and the largest lot will measure 18.3 acres. The smallest lots are proposed on the lower elevations and the smallest lot will measure 10,801 square feet. The residences will be separated by open space corridors, drainage r ways, and sloped areas and interconnected by a series of trails and roadways. Development will be focused onto approximately 242 acres, or 68 percent of the total a site, and will include nine acres of parks and 125.1 acres of internal slopes and fuel modification zones. The remaining 32 percent of Spring Trails (111.3 acres) is proposed to be preserved as natural open space. Packet Pg $91 °, Spring Trails SP No. 10-01, GPA No. 02-09, DCA No. 12-10, TTMNo. 15576(Sub. No. 02-09),DA No. 11-01 P.C. Meeting: November 14,2012 Page 34 Maximum buildout of the Spring Trails Specific Plan would accommodate approximately 1,028 residents. Based on the City's standard of five acres of parkland per 1,000 residents,full buildout of the Specific Plan would result in the need to provide 5.14 acres of parkland or an equivalent fee in lieu of dedicated parkland. Spring Trails will provide approximately 245.4 total acres of public and private parkland, open space, and trails and the nine acres of usable public and private parks exceed City requirements. In addition, there will be 3.8 miles of trails that provide access to the surrounding natural open spaces. w The following elements of the Specific Plan promote the land use goals of the General Plan: ~ a� c • Guidelines and standards that address unique entries, tailored landscaping, and y CL detailed design factors that will help make Spring Trails a unique, high-quality .. neighborhood in San Bernardino. N N • Providing standards for unique entries to create a recognizable identity and sense of arrival, v , Circulation r C Policy 6.2.2 Design each roadway with sufficient capacity to accommodate anticipated d traffic based on intensity of projected and planned land use in the City and the region while maintaining a peak hour level of service (LOS) "C"or better. in U a Policy 6 2.5 Design roadways, monitor trafc flow, and employ traffic control measures (e.g. signalization, access control, exclusive right and left turn-turn lanes, lane striping, F and signage) to ensure City streets and roads continue to function safely within our w Level of Service standards. x U Policy 63.4 Require appropriate right-of-way dedications of all new developments F to facilitate construction of roadways shown on the Circulation Plan. ¢ c Policy 63.6 Locate new development and their access points in such a way that traffic r is not encouraged to utilize local residential streets and alleys. V Policy 63.7 Require that adequate access be provided to all developments in the ¢ City including secondary access to facilitate emergency access and egress. Spring Trails is proposed to consist of a hierarchy of streets, including collector and local roads, which will provide a comprehensive and connected street network and is designed to the specifications of the City of San Bernardino. Access to the project site will be provided via a new roadway extending from Little League Drive, and a new road extending south and connecting to the frontage road along I-215. These access points directly connect to collector roads and avoid existing neighborhoods: the primary access connecting to Little League Drive and a new secondary access road connecting to Frontage Road. The secondary access road is designed to restrict non-resident access 6ck LPg992 Spring Trails SP No. 10-01, GPA No. 02-09, DCA No. 12-10, TTMNo. 15576(Sub. No. 02-09),DA No. 11-01 P.C.Meeting: November 14, 2012 Page 35 onto Meyers Road, but will accommodate emergency vehicles. Spring Trails also provides two points of access for existing off-site residences. Further, per the project's mitigation measures, the applicant will be required to make improvements to the intersection of Palm Avenue and Kendall Drive, if these have not yet been done prior to the start of on-site construction. Spring Trails also includes a system of bicycle and pedestrian trails that interconnect all neighborhoods and provide connections to the surrounding areas and region. In addition, several natural drainage ways and sloped areas are used as open space corridors and N pathways. Housing c CL Policy 3.1.1 Accommodate the production of new housing units on currently vacant or y underutilized land at densities and standards designated in the Land Use Element of the N General Plan. C. N r Spring Trails will accommodate 304 single-family detached housing units that will be v designed to appeal to families, those looking to move up, and CSUS13 faculty. The r proximity of Spring Trails to the University may help attract teachers to the community and strengthen the ties between the City and University. e. The site is currently designated as Residential Estate on the City's General Plan Map. The Residential Estate designation permits one dwelling unit per acre and would 0 accommodate a maximum of 352 units upon annexation of the site into the City without a the Specific Plan. Spring Trails has been designed to cluster development into the most appropriate locations on the site, with the smaller lots concentrated on the less steep portions of the site and the larger lots on the steeper slopes. As a result, individual lots w within Spring Trials may be smaller than the lot sizes called for in the City of San _ Bernardino General Plan and individual lots may exceed the density limit called for in the a City's General Plan; however, on a gross basis, the specific plan complies with the F density restrictions of the Residential Estate land use designation by proposing 304 units a on 353 acres. E L Community Design Policy 5.3.4 Enhance and encourage neighborhood or street identity with theme landscaping or trees, entry statements, enhanced school or community facility identification, and a unified range of architectural detailing. Policy 5.5.4 Setback garages from the street and minimize street frontage devoted to driveways and vehicular access. Packe Pg 993, s . Spring Trails SP No. 10-01, GPA No. 02-09,DCA No. 12-10, TTMNo. 15576(Sub.No. 02-09), DA No. 11-01 P.C. Meeting: November 14,2012 Page 36 Policy 5.5.6 Ensure a variety of architectural styles, massing, floor plans, fagade treatment, and elevations to create visual interest. Policy 5.5.7 In residential tract developments, a diversity of floor plans, garage orientation, setbacks, styles, building materials. The overall goal of the Specific Plan is to create an attractive and distinct community within the City of San Bernardino. The Spring Trails Specific Plan provides development standards and criteria for architecture, landscaping, entry monumentation, walls and H fences, and other design elements in order to ensure a high-quality development and strong community character. ~ c In addition, Spring Trails is designed to enhance the aesthetic quality of San Bernardino C through: U) • The compact design of Spring Trails limits the development footprint so that open lands will be maximized; natural drainageways will be maintained and incorporated into the design of the project as open space amenities and landscaping; and hazards will be avoided or mitigated. • Avoiding development on ridgelines and steep slopes so that views of the a mountains will not be not impacted. R • Distinctively designed residences set among a system of unified lighting, y streetscape, landscape,and parks. a. • Standards that require a variety of garage placements and setbacks, product types, colors,and materials. w x • Unique entries that will create a recognizable identity and sense of arrival. • An interconnected system of open spaces that will serve multiple purposes as a drainage courses, pedestrian pathways, recreational and visual amenities, and separations between neighborhoods. L v Maintenance assessment district(s) will be responsible for maintaining the long-term a aesthetic quality of Spring Trails. Maintenance responsibilities may be divided between a Master Homeowners' Association, Neighborhood Associations, Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District(s),and/or other maintenance mechanisms. Utilities and Public Services Policy 9.1.3 Require new development to connect to a master planned sanitary sewer system in accordance with the Department of Public Works' "Sewer Policy and Procedures'. Where construction of master planned facilities is not feasible, the Mayor Packet Pg: 994'' spa s Spring Trails SP No. 10-01, GPANo. 02-09, DCANo. 12-10, 7TMNo. 15576(Sub.No. 02-09), DA No. 11-01 P.C. Meeting. November 14,2012 Page 37 and Common Council may permit the construction of interim facilities sufficient to serve the present and short-term future needs. Policy 9.3.1 Provide for the construction of upgraded and expanded water supply, transmission, distribution, storage, and treatment facilities to support existing and new development. Policy 9.4.6 Minimize the disturbance of natural water bodies and natural drainage systems. y Policy 9.4.10 Ensure compliance with the Federal Clean Water Act requirements for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)permits, including requiring the development of Water Quality Management Plans, Erosion and Sediment Control in Plans, and Storm Water Pollution Prevention.Plans for all qualifying public and private development and significant redevelopment in the City. N Spring Trails has been designed with attention to the provision of services and infrastructure. According to initial studies, there is adequate supply, capacity, and facilities to accommodate the buildout of Spring Trails. t: Dry Utilities. Spring Trails will be served with electric, gas, solid waste collection, °o telephone cable, and Internet (data) from companies serving the City of San Bernardino. The utility providers, including the Gas Company, Southern California Edison, Verizon, and Charter Communications, have indicated the ability to provide service to Spring U Trails. a. Water. The City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department (SBMWD) will F provide water services to Spring Trails. Water will be supplied to Spring Trails from w lower elevations by a combination of expanding and improving the off-site water system = and the provision of on-site reservoirs and transmission lines. Detailed water system a improvement plan and supply analysis have been prepared and demonstrate that adequate F water supply and service are available to accommodate the buildout of Spring Trails. Q c Drainage. Spring Trails will maintain the significant drainage courses on-site to carry E most of the off-site water through the site to existing drainage facilities. The drainage 0 concept for Spring Trails is designed to either maintain natural drainage courses a whenever possible or capture both on-and off-site stormwater flows and route them through a series of catch basin inlets and storm drain systems that convey water to three on-site detention basins where it will be treated and discharged at a controlled rate into Cable Canyon. The drainage system and detention basins will reduce stormwater runoff from the site to levels below those that existed prior to the project. Spring Trails will be required to comply with and obtain necessary NPDES and SWPPP permits. Sewer. The Spring Trails project lies within the City of San Bernardino sanitary sewer service area. Spring Trails will connect to the City's existing 10-inch sewer line that ends at Little League Drive and Meyers Road,which is then connected to the south to a major PackgE Pg-995 Spring Trails # SP No. 10-01, GPA No. 02-09, DCA No. 12-10, TTMNo. 15576(Sub.No. 02-09), DA No. 11-01 P.C. Meeting: November 14, 1012 Page 38 interceptor system and is eventually treated in the San Bernardino Water Reclamation Plant. Existing capacity is available in the sewer system to serve the buildout population within the City. The sewer facilities will be designed and constructed in accordance with the City of San Bernardino standards and specifications and in accordance with the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (latest edition). In addition, the infrastructure that crosses earthquake faults is designed to handle earthquakes and surface ruptures. Within Spring Trails, the developer(s) will be responsible for constructing/ funding their fair share of required on-and off-site infrastructure improvements, such as water lines, I sewers, storm drains, recycled-water lines, and streets. All infrastructure improvements c will be developed in conjunction with the roadway improvements. y (o Parks, Trails,and Open Space N Policy 8.3.9 Separate bikeway and trail systems from traffic and roadways wherever possible. Policy 8.3.10 Provide clear separation of hikers, joggers, and equestrians where t possible. d Policy &4.2 Continue to require developers of residential subdivisions to provide fee contributions based on the valuation of the units to fund parkland acquisition and cn U improvements. o Maximum buildout of the Spring Trails Specific Plan would accommodate approximately z 1,028 residents. Based on the City's standard of five acres of parkland per 1,000 w residents, full buildout of the Specific Plan would result in the need to provide 5.14 acres of parkland or an equivalent fee in lieu of dedicated parkland. Spring Trails will provide approximately 245.4 total acres of public and private parkland, open space, and trails. a Further, the nine acres of usable public and private parks will exceed City requirements. In addition, there are 3.8 miles of trails proposed that will provide access to the r surrounding natural open spaces. u m Spring Trails will be integrated and linked both internally and with surrounding uses via a 3.8 miles of multi-purpose trails as well as on-street bike lanes. The open spaces and parks will be maintained by homeowners' associations and/or lighting and landscape maintenance district. Safety Policy 7.2.6 Require that all buildings subject to City jurisdiction adhere to fire safety codes. Packet'"E�996ky; Spring Trails '".«AY SP No. 10-01, GPA No. 02-09, DCA No. 12-10, TTM No. 15576(Sub.No. 02-09), DA No. 11-01 P.C.Meeting: November 14, 2012 Page 39 Policy 10.5.1 Ensure compliance with the Federal Clean Water Act requirements for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, including developing and requiring the development of Water Quality Management Plans for all new development and significant redevelopment in the City. Policy 10.5.2 Continue to implement an urban runoff reduction program consistent with regional and federal requirements, which includes requiring and encouraging the following: Vi • Increase permeable areas to allow more percolation of runoff into the ground; • Use natural drainage, detention ponds or infiltration pits to collect runoff, c L • Divert and catch runoff using swales, berms, green strip filters, gravel beds and m French drains; to N • Install rain gutters and orient them towards permeable surfaces; N 7 • Construct property grades to divert f ow to permeable areas; • Use subsurface areas for storm runoff either for reuse or to enable release of runoff at predetermined times or rates to minimize peak discharge into storm c drains; d L • Use porous materials, wherever possible,for construction of driveways, walkways and parking lots; and w U Divert runoff away from material and waste storage areas and pollution-laden a surfaces such as parking lots. Z Z LU Policy 10.5.4 Require new development and significant redevelopment to utilize site preparation, grading and foundation designs that provide erosion control to prevent sedimentation and contamination of waterways. a Policy 10.8.2 Require that lifelines crossing a fault be designed to resist the occurrence offault rupture. E L V Spring Trails contains several significant natural features that have made safety a special r concern in the design of the community. Significantly, the San Andreas Fault system runs a through the project, natural drainage courses cut through the project, and wildland fire is a threat. Seismic Safety. Spring Trails includes three traces of the San Andreas Fault, which runs in an east—west direction through the northern and southern portions of the project site. These faults were precisely located through detailed geologic investigations to establish safe structural setback limits. Development in Spring Trails is sited to avoid the fault and comply with the Alquist-Priolo fault zone requirements. Development will be required to comply with the latest building codes, which are designed to resist damage from seismic PckeP997i• Spring Trails SP No. 10-01, GPA No. 02-09, DCA No. 12-10, TTMNo. 15576(Sub.No. 02-09), DA No. 11-01 P.C. Meeting: November 14, 2012 Page 40 shaking. In addition,the infrastructure that crosses earthquake faults must be designed to handle earthquakes and surface ruptures and the detailed structural plans will be approved in the grading, infrastructure, and building permit process as appropriate. In particular, this Specific Plan requires that: • All structures in Spring Trails shall be required to meet or exceed the applicable seismic design standards of the California Building Standards Code, which correspond to the level of seismic risk in a given location. • Construction of habitable buildings shall not occur over or within 50 feet of any known active fault or as required by the geotechnical analyses. rn • No water reservoir or booster pump station shall be constructed within 15 feet of rn an active fault. U) CM N • Grading for building pads and roads shall conform to specifications of the geologist,based on a soils study and final geotechnical study. N v • Flexible materials and joints shall be used for infrastructure (e.g., roads, sewer and water lines) located across known faults. r 0 0. • Flexible pipe fittings shall be used to avoid gas or water leaks. Flexible fittings are more resistant to breakage, y co ■ . The final project grading plan shall be reviewed by the City geologist. a Drainage and Flooding. Because Spring Trails sits on an alluvial plain on the slopes of z the San Bernardino Mountains, flooding and drainage is a critical factor. On a regional LU perspective, the drainage area of which Spring Trails belongs flows east into Cable = Canyon, then into Cable Creek, and eventually into the Santa Ana River. The site itself a consists of four major drainage patterns: a • Drainage area A. A 2,030-acre drainage area (148.9 acres on-site and 1,881 acres off-site)that includes the west and east forks of Cable Canyon, which flow south E through the northeastern comer of the property and meet a tributary flowing from the east. a • Drainage area B. A 63.7-acre watershed (51.6 acres on-site and 12.1 acres off-site) comprises surface flow drainage that flows southwesterly through the center of the site and ultimately into Cable Canyon. • Drainage area.C. A 198.2-acre watershed (128.4 acres on-site and 69.8 acres off- site) that consists of off-site surface flows and a defined drainage course that run onto the site and exit through the southeastern part of the project. Packet Pg 99y8` Spring Trails s" SP No. 10-01, GPA No. 02-09, DCA No. 12-10, TTMNo. 15576(Sub.No. 02-09),DA No. 11-01 P.C. Meeting: November 14, 2012 Page 41 ■ Drainage area D. A 341.6-acre drainage area(21.8 acres on-site and 319.8 acres off- site)that includes Meyers Creek. Spring Trails is designed to either maintain natural drainage courses or capture both on- and off-site stormwater flows and route them through a series of catch basin inlets and storm drain systems that convey water to three on-site detention basins where it is treated and discharged at a controlled rate into Cable Canyon. The drainage system and detention basins will reduce stormwater runoff from the site to levels below those that existed prior to the project. Spring Trails will be required to comply with and obtain U) necessary NPDES and SWPPP permits. Portions of Cable Canyon and Meyers Canyon are identified as 100-year flood zones, r- which are constrained to the deep channels of the creeks, and development is located to C avoid these areas and minimize road crossings. LO N Wildland Fire. Because of the adjacent San Bernardino National Forest, steep slopes, and high winds, the Spring Trails area is at risk from wildland fires. To ensure the safety r of lives and property, a detailed fire analysis was conducted and an extensive fire protection plan was developed for Spring Trails that will protect development from wildland fires. Significant provisions of the fire protection plan include: 0 0 • The protection of structures through the use of noncombustible exterior building d materials, restriction on the use of cornice and eave vents, fire sprinklers, and R compliance with the most current fire codes. in U CL • Greater levels of structure protection on the perimeters of the project. • Placement of streets on the perimeter of the project to provide a firebreak and a w first line of defense against fires. _ v • Adequate access and maneuverability for fire protection vehicles. F a • Careful placement of fire hydrants and design of structures to facilitate fire d suppression efforts and fire hose access. E s • Strict landscape and use zones, called fuel modification zones, which include a private yards and extend approximately 170 to 230 feet from structures. Within the fuel modification zones, there are restrictions on the type, spacing, irrigation, and maintenance of landscaping. • Clear disclosure to potential homebuyers of the fire threat, preventative measures, and individual responsibilities. • Clear delineation of and maintenance responsibilities for the fuel modification zones. Packet Pg 999;;„7' Spring Trails SP No. 10-01, GPA No. 02-09 DCA No. 12-10, 7TMNo. 15576(Sub. No. 02-09),DA No. 11-01 P.C. Meeting: November 14, 2012 Page 42 ■ Aggressive program to educate residents on the fire threat, landscaping requirements, and maintenance responsibilities. High 'Winds. The City of San Bernardino experiences periods of high winds, especially in the Cajon Pass and at the bottom of canyons. Spring Trails is included in the City's designated High Wind Area, which has certain appropriate building standards. Development in Spring Trails will be required to comply with the building standards for this area and will be designed and oriented to avoid the creation of wind tunnels that concentrate gusts in corridors. u, Environmental Sensitivity C Policy 12.2.3 Pursue voluntary open space or conservation easements to protect m sensitive species or their habitats. LO N As noted above, the land plan for Spring Trails proposes development to be focused on 70 percent of the total site, avoiding significant drainage corridors, fault zones, steep slopes, and ridgelines. The remainder of the site will be preserved as open space. This open space, along with the avoidance of development of the on-site drainageways, and implementation of the project's mitigation measures, will ensure the project will protect sensitive species and their habitats. d 2. SP/GPA/DCA/TTM Finding: The proposed project would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. w U a. As noted in the analysis, above,the project area is located in a high fire hazard/high wind area, and is traversed by the San Andreas Fault in several locations, and by several z drainage courses and wildlife corridors. However, an EIR was prepared for the project, LU which identified the specific impacts associated with these impacts in relationship to the project, and identified mitigation measures to reduce these impacts to a level that is less a than significant. The mitigation measures are listed in the Mitigation Monitoring and a Reporting Program for the project (Attachment D), which will be included within the project's conditions of approval (Condition No. 5). The Specific Plan includes specific development standards for fuel modification zones and landscaping to reduce the risk of fire, wildlife corridor protection, construction adjacent to the fault zones and drainage o courses, etc. Additionally, the project will be required to construct all necessary a infrastructure (access roads, on-site streets, water and sewer service, etc,), This infrastructure, particularly the new water tanks and related water system, will benefit not only project residents, but also adjacent properties. This is especially important in that the water pressure serving the area will be upgraded, which will be beneficial to fight fires that occur in the area. Further, the parks and trails will be constructed in conjunction with the project, which will be available for use by the public. Finally, the project will be required to pay all required impact fees, and the applicant may establish additional assessment districts to provide for the on-going maintenance of the project's infrastructure as well as the provision of public safety to serve the site. Therefore, as `�P�cketi Pg�1000; Spring Trails SP No. 10-01, GPA No. 02-09,DCA No. 12-10, TTMNo. 15576(Sub.No. 02-09),DA No. 11-01 P.C.Meeting. November 14, 2012 Page 43 noted above, and in the project's Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment G), with implementation of the mitigation measures for the project, and with construction of the project's infrastructure, the project will not be detrimental to the public interest,health,safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. 3. GPA Finding: The proposed amendment would maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the City. The project would accommodate a total of 304 single-family residences (303 new plus one existing). According to the project's DEIR (page 5.11-4), per projections by the 2 Southern California Association of Governments, the project is expected to have a ~ a� jobs:housing ratio of 2:1, which is considered jobs-rich (an average ratio above 1.5:1 is considered jobs-rich). Therefore, the additional 303 units would help improve this C jobs:housing ratio. Further, the City does not currently contain a large supply of upper- to end single-family residential units. Therefore, the project would provide a type of N housing that is currently unique to the City, and thus maintain the balance of land uses in the City. v 4. GPA Finding: In the case of an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Map, the subject parcel(s) is physically suitable (including, but not limited to, access, provision of r 'r utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and absence of physical constraints)for d the requested land use designation(s) and the anticipated land use development(s). R M As noted in the Analysis, above, the EIR prepared for the project discussed that the project area is currently located in an area that contains several significant hazards (fire, n flooding, earthquakes), and is also currently not served by any infrastructure (roads and utilities do not currently serve the site, except for the existing residence located in the Z northwestern portion of the site). W x However, as noted above, the applicant is proposing to construct a full range of F infrastructure, including access to the site, internal streets a complete water system including three water tanks (which will also serve ad improve the water pressure of adjacent existing residences), sewer, utilities, parks, and trails However, it should be noted that as of this time, the applicant has not secured all of the property, or obtained easements for, the primary or secondary access roads that are required to serve the site. w a Additionally, the infrastructure will be designed to withstand earthquakes will avoid the steepest slopes and on-site watercourses, and will be designed with fire buffers,to reduce the probability of the proposed on-site residences from burning. The project will also serve as a buffer from fires for adjacent properties to the south of the site. Note that per the Fire Department lots 30 and 233 must be maintained as open space, due to a lack of adequate fire buffer area, unless the applicant is able to procure additional, off-site buffer area. �i Packet Pg 11fQ9;',` Spring Trails SP No. 10-01, GPA No. 02-09, DCA No. 12-10, TTMNo. 15576(Sub. No. 02-09), DA No. 11-01 P.C. Meeting., November 14, 2012 Page 44 It should also be noted that there is an existing SCE easement that traverses the western part of the site from north to south, to accommodate an existing ox of 112kv electric transmission lines. Due to the existing topography and the fact that these are major transmission lines, it is unlikely that these lines can be undergrounded. Therefore, the applicant has proposed to maintain the lots located entirely under the power lines as permanent open space, and proposes to locate the building ads outside of the easement for the lots that will contain portions of the easement across them. The project site is surrounded to the north and east by natural open space, and to the a south and west by large-lot single-family residential properties and undeveloped land. 2 Through the Spring Trails Specific Plan, the applicant is proposing to concentrate the ~ a� smallest proposed lots (10,800 square feet minimum) on the southern portion of the site one the least steep slopes. Large lots, up to 18.3 acres in area, are proposed on the y northern portion of the site on the steeper slopes. The proposed on-site residences would be separated from the surrounding off-site residences to the south and west by a N combination of open space (parks and detention basins), large setbacks, grade differences and a trail. Landscaping and fencing will further block views from the site into adjacent properties. With the mitigation measures and development standards of the Spring Trails Specific t Plan, the project will be designed to be adequately served by infrastructure (which will d also serve adjacent properties), to mitigate potential impacts from hazards (and reduce those on adjacent properties) and be consistent with the adjacent single-family residences 2 to the south and west of the project site, consistent with this finding. a 5. TTM Finding: The design of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan. Z w With the General Plan and Development Code Amendments, the design of the proposed = subdivision will be consistent with the General Plan. Policy 2.2.1 requires projects to F "ensure compatibility between land uses and quality design through adherence to the Q standards and regulations in the Development Code and policies and guidelines in the Community Design Element" As discussed in the Analysis and in Finding 1, above, the proposed project includes General Plan and Development Code Amendments to establish the Spring Trails Specific Plan as the land use designation for the project and establishes development standards that are unique to the project, which will establish consistency with this General Plan Policy with regard to adherence to regulations in the Development Code. Further, where the Specific Plan is silent on the Development Code standards, the existing Development Standards will apply to the project. Finally, as noted in Finding 1, above, the project will be physically separated from the adjacent residences to the south and west by open space (arks and detention basins) and grade differences. The adjacent off-site residences will be further buffered from the proposed on-site improvements with setbacks,walls and landscaping. Packet+,Pg:�1002 B�Y Spring Trails SP No. 10-01, GPA No. 02-09,DCA No. 12-10, TTMNo. 15576(Sub.No. 02-09), DA No. 11-01 P.C. Meeting: November 14, 2012 Page 45 6. SPMM Finding: The site is physically suitable for the proposed land use designation(s) and type of development. As discussed in Finding 1, above, with construction of infrastructure to serve the project, and compliance with the project's mitigation measures (refer to Attachment D) and the development standards set forth in the Development Code and Specific Plan, the site will be physically suitable for the proposed single-family development. Further, due to the w on-site topography, which ranges from gently sloping portions to steep slopes and drainage channels with slopes greater than 30 percent, the applicant is proposing to ~ a� concentrate the majority of the development on the least steep portions of the site, and incorporate the steeper slopes into the larger lots or within the common open space areas rn within the site,to preserve these areas. Ln N 7. TTM Finding: The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. cm N r As noted in Finding 1, above, the project site is currently located outside the City limits and is designated by the County General Plan as Resource Conservation (RC) and Rural Living, 5-ac. min. lot size '(RLr5), which requires a minimum five-acre lot size. r However, the applicant is proposing a Specific Plan, along with General Plan and d Development Code Amendments to establish the land use designation of the site as the Spring Trails Specific Plan, which proposes an average lot size of one acre. Further, the N Specific Plan sets forth development standards unique to the project with regard to U development in the fire hazard and hillside areas, and infrastructure improvements. a Additionally, due to the on-site topography, which ranges from gently sloping portions to r i steep slopes and drainage channels with slopes greater than 30 percent, the applicant is Z proposing to concentrate the majority of the development on the least steep portions of Ui the site, and incorporate the steeper slopes into the larger lots or within the common open csi space areas within the site, to preserve these areas. With the implementation of the Specific Plan, the 352.8-acre site will be physically suitable to accommodate the proposed 304 single-family residential lots. c v 8. TTM Finding: The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage, or substantially and unavoidably injure fish of wildlife or their w habitat. a As noted above,the project site is surrounded by natural open space to the north and east, and partially to the south and west. Cable Creek and other tributaries traverse the site and serve as wildlife corridors. The project has been designed to provide 111.3 acres of natural open space around the north, east and west side of the site abutting the adjacent forest lands and in the southeastern portion of the site, on slopes greater than 30 percent r Open space is also proposed within the drainage areas (i.e., Cable Creek and its tributary in the northern portion of the site). In addition, mitigation measures have been required Packet Pg 41003 Spring Trails SP No. 10-01, GPA No. 02-09,DCA No. 12-10, 7TMNo. 15576(Sub.No. 02-09), DA No. 11-01 P.C. Meeting: November 14, 2012 Page 46 of the project (refer to Attachment D) to further ensure that wildlife in the vicinity is not disturbed during construction of the site and over the life of the project. However, as noted above, the project will result in significant unavoidable adverse impacts with regard to air quality, noise, traffic and GHG emissions after all applicable mitigation measures are applied. Consequently,also as discussed above,the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment G), which demonstrates that the project's benefits to the community will override the significant unavoidable adverse impacts, must be approved. y R 9. TTM Finding: The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause serious public health problems. .Q U) As noted above, the applicant will be required to construct a full range of infrastructure (access roads, internal streets, utility infrastructure) to serve the project site. Further, the N Specific Plan is proposed to establish development standards that are unique to the proposed project, and where the Specific Plan is silent on the Development Code standards,those Development Code standards will apply. The project will be required to comply with the standards of the Development Code and Specific Plan as applicable. t: However, as noted above,the applicant has not procured all of the property or easements d for the primary and secondary access roads that are required to serve the project site. Therefore, if the applicant is unable to procure either the primary or secondary access to rn service the site,the project will not be able to move forward. U a Additionally, as noted above, the project will result in significant unavoidable adverse impacts with regard to air quality, noise, traffic and GHG emissions after all applicable z mitigation measures are applied. Consequently,also as discussed above,the Statement of W Overriding Considerations (Attachment F), which demonstrates that the project's benefits X to the community will override the significant unavoidable adverse impacts must be F approved. a 10. TTM Finding: The design of the subdivision and related improvements will not conflict E with any easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. R The design of the subdivision will not conflict with any public or private easements. All documentation relating to easements and dedications will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to recordation of the Final Map. Existing easements will be reserved in place or relocated, as necessary. As noted in Finding 1, above the proposed lots that will be located entirely under the existing SCE electric transmission lines will be preserved as open space, while the remainder of the lots proposed within the SCE easement will have their building pad areas located outside of the easement area. Packet Pg. 1004,; Spring Trails SP No. 10-01, GPA No. 02-09, DCA No. 12-10, TTM No. 15576(Sub.No. 02-09), DA No. 11-01 P.C. Meeting: November 14, 2012 Page 47 11. SP Finding: The proposed plan shall ensure development of desirable character which will be compatible with existing and proposed development in the surrounding neighborhood. The project site is surrounded by natural open space to the north, east and west, and by single-family residences and vacant properties to the west and south. The existing neighborhood is rural in character. As noted in Finding 1, above, the project is located in the Verdemont Heights subarea of the City's General Plan, which also calls lots with a 2 minimum size of one acre and a rural character. The Specific Plan is proposing single- m family lots with a minimum lot size of 10,081 square feet(approximately ''/< acre) to over 18 acres, with an average lot size of over one acre. The plan proposes to concentrate the smaller lots on the less steep portions of the site to preserve the areas with steeper slopes C as open space. Additionally, slopes will be maintained throughout the interior portion of the site to further break up the concentration of the lots,thus adding to the rural character N of the proposed project. Finally, with implementation of the development standards and project conditions of approval (Attachment C),the Specific Plan will provide for a single- v family residential project that will maintain the slopes surrounding the project area as open space and require that lots range from approximately % acre to over 18 acres in size to provide compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. o CL 12. SP Finding: The proposed plan will contribute to a balance of land uses so that local residents may work and shop in the community in which they live. 2 y U As noted in Finding 3, above, the City is expected to be "job-rich", which means that a. there will be more jobs than housing units available in the City. The project proposes to add 303 new high-end single-family units to the City's housing stock. This is a type of z housing that is not prevalent in the City and therefore, will also add to the variety of w housing types available in the City. Such high-quality, low density housing is desirable to attract and retain top quality candidates for positions at the University and other F institutions, and as such would contribute additional residents who would work and shop a in the City. c Q CONCLUSION The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and the design of the improvements a conforms to applicable standards of the Development Code. The Environmental Impact Report has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, including many mitigation measures that will protect public health and safety. 4'06cke4 Pg x1005 Spring Trails SP No. 10-01, GPA No. 02-09,DCANo. 12-10, 7TMNo. 15576(Sub.No. 02-09),DA No. I1-01 P.C. Meeting: November 14,2012 Page 48 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the Mayor & Common Council: 1. Certify the Environmental Impact Report(SCH#2009111086). 2. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program(Attachment D). 3. Adopt the Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment " :r c 4. Approve Spring Trails Specific Plan (SP) No. 10-01, General Plan Amendment (GPA) a No. 02-09, Development Code Amendment (DCA) 12-10, Tentative Tract Map (TIM) w No. 15576 (Subdivision No. 02-09), Development Agreement (DA) No. 11-01 based on N the findings of fact in the Staff Report and subject to the Conditions of Approval cm (Attachment C). N v Respectfully Submitted, 0 Tony Stewart, P� y Deputy Director/City Planner a. Approved for Distributio w x U h M. Margo Wheeler,AICP a Community Development Director E r U Attachments: A. Location Map(Refer to Figure 1.2 in the Specific Plan for the Aerial) a B.Tentative Tract Map 15576, date stamped November 1, 2012 C. Conditions of Approval D. Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program E.Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report(CD) F. Preliminary Final Environmental Impact Report,including comments on the DEIR and responses to comments G.Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations H.Spring Trails Specific Plan PacketPg 1006, 6.B.r ATTACHMENT A — ZONING MAP CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION PROJECT: SPRING TRAILS LOCATION MAP NORTH HEARING DATE: 11/14/2 012 N H C Q N t15 N N N r V IL RE SOUR E CORSERVATIOIt IRCI O Q L_ ✓ _ (n ri County Project Site 2 `J = /h V � I RUUL LIVI14G(R45) a ws /FST�Tft \ V N covnt� I @ , s smf /STPA 0 1 um LOW OtU PUS K F�W/pU�fC illiOL Packet Pg. 1007 m.tv TTAC� 6.B.r CL F- \ l ' �\ �, fir. �' �fi�� • 1������ ��. a I� ? rVA _ memaave�;�-. - -_ - - ® .•mssu,.rriners,° E�uTi'•."L+ u L { ^L inns__ P71^'x�g'n�'%yi, : a4;YI:L4 t9 • vwsc�.vn.n-ec-- =_ -_ _ __ rrrmw. _ rae-�:.a.-m.n•°- n-acara.-.acJr-r-s� �'L'7"•e .�1.� L 4 Q fF r: S'. _•}r*.'I';?�ie�eY'9 -_- -aeraaevrrasn+mvr° R�ha_.w�•'L'.° •`a• 2"A1YtiA'SL^SYW-M �fiil„V1.1!'YS0.N•' — — _ I � � _ —n .".-i Sy4TA-H0. iTJ'L%tl: as'b r-• i _ C ---_� .y...n. rex r r. xa 1r5 5`7x6 — am—is SPNIN9 4WAU _ A _ _ j PacKet Pg. 1008'" . �` (�� •�� 1 l� � `� 'fig' , •'� � -- �` � �- y CL CIA d w - j E e y Ww- S, - 1f557�6 BRING MW Packet Pg. 1009 f TWA t _ F �4 W nW(f iw�u cq ' N v N r r � O tn \ V r ' W ` ?. I F— c d �t Q �J i! 15576 '89RIPo®TPoAII&' , — — •I� ®��:wEErz ♦�Z Packet Pg. 1010 6.B.r ATTACHMENT C CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Tentative Tract Map No. 15576 (Subdivision No.02-09) 1. Final map processing shall be in substantial conformance to the submitted map date stamped November 1,2012, for a subdivision of one 352.8-acre parcel into 304 single- family residential parcels plus parcels for common open space,parks and water tanks. 2. Within two years of the original approval date, the filing of the final map with the H Council shall have occurred or the approval shall become null and void. Expiration of F a tentative map shall terminate all proceedings and no final map shall be filed without first processing a new tentative map. The City Engineer must accept the final map or a tentative map documents as adequate for approval by Council prior to forwarding them to the City Clerk. The date the final map shall be deemed filed with the Council LO is the date on which the City Clerk receives the map. N EXPIRATION DATE: Two years from final MCC approval v 3. The review authority may, upon application and for good cause, grant up to three extensions of time not to exceed 12 months each pursuant to Development Code c Section 19.66.170 and the State Map Act. The applicant must file an application, d processing fees, and all required submittal items, 30 days prior to the expiration R date(s). The review authority shall ensure that the project complies with all .2 Development Code provisions in effect at the time of the requested extension. a 4. In the event this approval is legally challenged, the City will promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and will cooperate fully in the defense of w this matter. Once notified, the applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold = harmless the City of San Bernardino (City), any departments, agencies, divisions, a boards or commission of the City well as predecessors, successors, assigns, agents, F directors, elected officials, officers, employees, representatives and attorneys of the City from any claim, action or proceeding against any of the foregoing persons or r entities. The applicant further agrees to reimburse the City for any costs and E attorneys' fees which the City may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action,but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his or her obligation under a this condition. The costs, salaries, and expenses of the City Attorney and employees of his office shall be considered as "attorney's fees"for the purpose of this condition. As part of the consideration for issuing this permit, this condition shall remain in effect if this Tentative Tract Map is rescinded or revoked,whether or not at the request of applicant. 5. Subdivision of the project site is subject to the attached mitigation measures in the Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program (MM/RP), incorporated by reference in these Conditions of Approval (Attachment D). Packet Pg."1017,> 71'MNo. 15576(Subdivision No. 02-09) O6 B r P. C. Meeting: November 14, 2012 Page 2 6. The applicant must record the MM/RP with the parcel map to run concurrent with the property. 7. The applicant must submit the final map to the Land Development Division for plan check and recordation. S. The applicant must submit project Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs) to the Community Development Director for review and approval. The CC&Rs must include requirements that homeowners in the project do not place trash containers outside for pickup on days where the wind will exceed 25 miles per hour, and for the maintenance of trash receptacles in open space areas on such windy days, and must 2 disclose the presence of the on-site Fault Hazard and Fire Hazard zones and drainage rn and wildlife corridors. CL N 9. Prior to map recordation, should the property owner of a residential property located immediately adjacent to the subject project request that views onto their property be N blocked from on-site project improvements, the applicant must provide details and/or notes on the final map drawings to demonstrate the views onto the subject adjacent property(ies) will be blocked. Such design features or notes may include, but not be limited to, relocating the trail onto the internal project streets, constructing solid walls, ensuring the proposed on-site residences facing the adjacent properties will have a single-story design, or other feasible means to ensure privacy of the adjacent off-site d property owners is maintained to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. R to U 10. For the life of the project, Lots 30 and 233 must remain as permanent open space, or a until such time that the applicant demonstrates the availability of sufficient Fuel Modification Zone area to meet the requirements of the San Bernardino Fire z Department. The applicant must note this requirement on the final map drawings and w project CC&Rs. _ U Q 11, Drainage and Flood Control: a a. All necessary drainage and flood control measures will be subject to d requirements of the City Engineer, which may be based in part on the s recommendations of the San Bernardino County Department of Transportation CO and Flood Control. The developer's Engineer must furnish all necessary data to Land Development Division relating to drainage and flood control. b. A drainage study will be required for the project prior to Grading Permit. Any drainage improvements, structures or storm drains needed to mitigate downstream impacts or protect the development shall be designed and constructed at the developer's expense, and right-of-way dedicated as necessary. The applicant shall secure all departmental approvals and permits from the County of San Bernardino for all culvert crossings and bridges. Packet kb� 2 TTM No. 15576(Subdivision No. 02-09) P. C. Meeting: November 14, 2012 Page 3 c. All drainage from the development must be directed to an approved public drainage facility. If not feasible, proper drainage facilities and easements must be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. The applicant must design the detention basins in accordance with the "Detention Basin Design Criteria for San Bernardino County", and be modified to contain a 100-year storm. Each detention basin is required to have an access road to maintain the basin and must be shown on the site plan. e. The project is located in Zone D on the FEMA Federal Insurance Rate Maps H (FIRM). Map Number 06071C7910H Map Revision 08/28/2008 and Map Number 06071C7930H with Map Revision 08/28/2008. The developer will be responsible for providing technical data verifying that the subject parcels are not within a 100-year storm, otherwise, the developer is required to provide C elevation certificates prepared in accordance with FEMA regulations to prove that all parcels are not subject to flooding in a 100-year storm. These N certificates must be provided in a form that is suitable for submittal to FEMA in order to obtain a Letter of Map Revision(LOMA). r v f. The applicant must submit to Land Development for review and approval prior to Grading permit, a Hydrology and Hydraulic Study, including detention r basin routing, street capacities, and a mudflow tributary to and within the d project area as well as off-site areas that could potentially be impacted by the project. Appropriate bulking factors and scour analyses are required for all R co crossing structures and engineered slopes abutting the channels. a g. The detention basins located within the residential development are required to retain a five-year storm before discharging storm runoff. Low flow outlets and z concrete lined emergency overflow spillways are required for all basins. The W emergency overflow spillways are required to accommodate a 100- year storm x and outlet to a public facility. a h. The low flow outlets and emergency overflow spillways shall be designed to a match pre-existing flow characteristics and incorporate appropriate energy dissipation measures as needed. Intermediate and permanent measures for the t discharging of storm water shall be mitigated as stated for each phase of the project. a i. Proposed lots located north of Cable Canyon will be required to retain 100% of their storm run-off since this area of the residential development cannot be routed into an extended detention basin. The residential lots in this location will utilize on-site rain gardens.or detention areas as part of their mitigation. Deed Restriction will be required for parcels 281 through 303 and submitted to Land Development prior to Grading Permit issuance for the applicable phase. j. No cross lot drainage is allowed within the residential development without an exclusive drainage easement for the subject parcel. PackelPg 1013.: A63 B rXll TTMNo. 15576(Subdivision No. 02-09) " P. C.Meeting: November 14, 2012 Page 4 k. Structures, terrace drains, storm drains, irrigation lines or any manufactured slopes shall not be located within a seismic zone and/or within a geologic setback. 1. The applicant must secure license Agreements/Joint Use Agreements from the County of San Bernardino for all crossings through Flood Control District Property prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. m. The applicant is required to obtain permits for all natural drainage course crossings and streambed alterations from US Army Corp of Engineers, San Bernardino County Flood Control District, and the State Department of Fish R and Game prior to issuance of a grading permit, rn c n. Rick Engineering has submitted a Preliminary Full Categorical Water Quality Q Management Plan (WQMP) to Land Development and the plan is currently under review. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for this project is required to be submitted to Land Development. The Building cm Official, prior to issuance of any permit, shall approve the WQMP and the r SWPPP. v o. The Building Official, prior to grading plan approval, shall approve an Erosion Control Plan. The plan must be designed to control erosion due to water and c wind, including blowing dust, during all phases of construction, including d graded areas which are not proposed to be immediately built upon. R y 12. Grading and Landscaping a a. The applicant is required to submit all geotechnical investigation studies to the County Geologist for review and recommendation and incorporate his w recommendations and findings into the Grading Plan and the Site Development plans, c=i b. The site and grading plans are required to be signed by a Registered Civil a Engineer and a grading permit will be required. The grading plan shall be prepared in accordance with the City's "Grading Policies and Procedures" and the City's "Standard Drawings", unless otherwise approved by the Building Official. The Grading Plan is required to be submitted to Land Development for review and approval. a C. Pad elevations shown on the rough and/or precise grading plan must not vary more than one-foot for interior pads or one-half foot for exterior pads from the pad elevations shown on the tentative tract map as approved by the Planning Commission. Exterior pads are those pads immediately adjacent to existing streets or existing residential areas. d. Perimeter walls and landscaping & irrigation in the Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District must be installed and accepted by Public Works prior to acceptance of rough grading. PacketPg .7014 7TM No. 15576(Subdivision No. 02-09) P. C. Meeting: November 14, 2012 Page 5 e. If more than five (5) trees are to be removed from the site, a tree removal permit conforming to the requirements of Section 19.28.090 of the Development Code must be obtained by the applicant from the Department of Community Development - Planning Division prior to issuance of any grading permits. f. This project will move more than 5,000 cubic yards of earthwork and the grading shall be supervised in accordance with Section 3317.2 of the California Building Code and a grading bond will be required. The amount of the bond is to be determined by the Building Official. H g. If the grading plan indicates export or import,the source of the import material or the site for the deposition of the export must be noted on the grading plan. Permit numbers shall be noted if the source or destination is in the City of San Bernardino. �o N N h. A liquefaction evaluation is required for the site since the project area lies N within the Bunker Hill Basin area. This evaluation must be submitted to, and approved by, the Land Development Division prior to issuance of a grading permit. Any grading requirements recommended by the approved liquefaction evaluation shall be incorporated in the grading plan. c a i. An on-site Improvement Plan is required for this project. Where feasible, this plan shall be incorporated with the grading plan and must conform to all requirements of Section 15.04-167 of the Municipal Code. `n U a j. Lot Lines are required to be located at the top of slope of the lot and must be shown on the tentative tract map. z w k. Off-site permission must be obtained and submitted to the Land Development = Division for all off-site grading and drainage shown on the Tentative Tract a map. 1. A Drainage Acceptance letter is required to be submitted to the Land a Development Division for drainage draining to adjacent properties. L U M. The public right-of-way, between the property line and top of curb (also known as "parkway") along adjoining streets must be landscaped by the developer and maintained in perpetuity by the property owner. Details of the parkway landscaping must be included in the project's on-site landscape plan,unless the parkway area is included in a Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District, in which case, a separate landscape plan must be provided. Packet!Pg 1015.; s s.rm 77MNo. 15576(Subdivision No. 02-09) P. C. Meeting: November 14, 2012 Page 6 13. Public Use Maintenance and Public Safety District a. A Maintenance District for all Public Infrastructure including culvert crossings, bridges, drainage facilities, streets, detention basins within the project area must be included in a Maintenance District and is required to be formed prior to map recordation. b. A Special District for a Paramedic, Police and Fire Protection Public must be included in a Special District and is required to be formed prior to map recordation. rn E C. Prior to sale of each parcel the applicant must provide the City's Real Property aCL i Section of the Public Works Division with a signed copy of the "Notice of �LO; Assessment District" disclosure for each property purchaser. N N r 14. Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District r a. A Landscape Lighting Maintenance District (LLMD) must be implemented to maintain landscaping and street lighting within Tract 15576. a d b. The Landscape Lighting Maintenance District must include all in-development street lighting and may share a common electric meter with the landscape irrigation controllers. The cost of installing the street lighting system must be a bonded as part of the faithful performance, labor and materials, and warranty bond required for approval by the City Council and recording of the tract or F parcel map. w x G. The street light construction and installation details must be shown on the a street improvement plans. The following information must be shown on the F LLMD plans for reference only. V d i. Location of all street lights to be maintained by the LLMD,and r v ii. The lumen or wattage of each street light to be maintained by the LLMD. d. The cost of installation of landscaping and irrigation system in the Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District must be bonded as part of the faithful performance, labor & materials, and warranty bond required for approval by the City Council and recording of the tract map. e. All required maintenance districts must be formed and bonded prior to Map recording. The Maintenance District formation requires a minimum of four(4) months after approval of plans. Pack"eti�� 1Q1n6 TTMNo. 15576(Subdivision No. 02-09) P. C. Meeting: November 14, 2011 Page 7 f. Separate sets of Landscape Plans must be provided for the Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District to the Land Development Division for review and approval prior to map recordation. g. The final map drawings must include a statement requiring that prior to sale of each parcel the Developer shall provide the City's Real Property Section of the Public Works Division with a signed copy of the "Notice of Assessment District"disclosure for each property purchaser. 15. Utilities H a. The applicant must design and construct all public utilities to serve the project site in accordance with City Municipal Code, City Standards and requirements of the serving utility, including gas, electric, telephone,water, sewer and cable y TV. U) N b. The Sewer Capacity Study submitted on July 20, 2009 by Rick Engineering Fs� has been accepted. The sewer design is required to comply with the accepted Sewer Capacity Study and must be constructed in accordance with the City's "Sewer,Policy and Procedures" and City Standard Drawings. C. This project is not located in the sewer service area maintained by the City of a San Bernardino therefore; the project is required to be annexed into the City of San Bernardino before service can begin. d. Utility services must be placed underground and easements provided as a required. e. A street cut permit,from the City Engineer,will be required for utility cuts into w Myers Road and Little League Drive. _ U f. All existing overhead utilities and utilities that interfere with new construction F adjacent to or traversing the site on either side of the street are required to be a relocated and placed underground in accordance with Section 19.30.110 of the Development Code. The existing Southern California Edison Towers located £ on the project site may remain, and mitigations measures set by Southern California Edison must be implemented. =° 16. Mapping a. A Final Tract Map based upon field survey will be required. b. All street names shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer prior to Map recordation. C. This Map is located in an Assessment District. If the assessment has not been paid off, the applicant must submit an apportionment application to the Real Property section of the Public Works Division and pay the fee established by PacketPg, 1b17 B 7TMNo. 15576(Subdivision No. 02-09) P. C. Meeting: November 14, 2012 Page 8 ordinance. Application forms can be obtained from the Real Property Section at(909)384-5026. d. All rights of vehicular ingress/egress must be dedicated from the following streets: i. Meyers Road ii. Verdemont Drive N 17. Improvement Completion F a. Street, sewer, drainage improvement, traffic signals, and Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District landscape and irrigation plans for the entire uni project must be completed, subject to the approval of the City Engineer, prior LO to the Map recordation. N b. If the construction/installation of required improvements, including landscaping and irrigation within the Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District, are not completed prior to Map recordation, an improvement security accompanied by an agreement executed by the developer and the City will be o required. d C. The applicant must pay the street light energy fee to pay cost of street light energy for a period of four (4) years. The exact amount shall be determined and will become payable prior to map recordation. ° 18. Street Improvement and Dedications z w a. For the streets listed below, dedication of adequate street right-of-way (R.W.) to provide the distance from street centerline to property line and placement of the curb line(C.L.) in relation to the street centerline shall be as follows: c d E z u m Q Packet Pg 1078 1 TTMNo. 15576(Subdivision No. 02-09) P. C.Meeting: November 14, 2012 Page 9 Right of Curb Line(ft.)or Street Type Wa ft. Improvement Width Primary Access Road 50 34 Primary Local Street 50 40 Secondary Local Street 40 32 m c Cul-De-Sac I 40 36 rn N Cul-de-Sac II 40 32 N r a r b. A corner line of sight/sight distance evaluation is required due to the proposed side embankment slopes of streets. 0 0. C. Construct Driveway Approaches per City Standard No. 203. Remove existing driveway approaches that are not part of the approved plan and replace with full height curb& gutter and sidewalk. a. a d. All Curb return radii on local streets are required to be 25 feet minimum. Z e. Two independent means of access to the project shall be provided. Each shall UJ have a minimum paved width as indicated above. Additional width may be = required for drainage control and traffic safety. The proposed secondary Q access road shall be a minimum paved width of 24 feet and it shall be privately F owned and maintained. a w c d 19. Phasing E 0 0 a. If the project is to be developed in phases, each individual phase must be designed to provide maximum public safety, convenience for public service vehicles, and proper traffic circulation. In order to meet this requirement, the following will be required prior to the finalization of any phase: The construction of the Secondary Access to the project. b. Improvement plans for the total project or sufficient plans beyond the phase boundary to verify the feasibility of the design must be complete to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. C. A plan .must shall be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Division, Fire, and Planning Departments, indicating what improvements will Packet�Pg X1019`.. .w 7TMNo. 15576(SubdivisionNo. 02-09) `',6 P. C.Meeting: November 14, 2012 Page 10 be constructed with the given phase, subject to the following: The construction of the Secondary Access and the drainage facility that will be impacted by the construction of the previous phase. d. Dead-end streets must be provided with a minimum 40-foot radius paved turn around. e. Half width streets must be provided with a minimum 28 foot paved width. f. Street improvements must be completed beyond the phase boundaries, as necessary to provide secondary access to the project site. m m g. Drainage facilities, such as storm drains, channels, earth berms and block i walls, must be constructed, as necessary, to protect the development from off- y site flows. Cm N h. A properly designed water system must be constructed, which is capable of N providing required fire flow, including a system loop or extending beyond the r phase boundaries. i. Easements for any of the above and the installation of necessary utilities must r be completed. d L j. Phase boundaries must correspond to the lot lines shown on the approved 2 N tentative map. U a. 20. Required Engineering Plans z a. A complete submittal for plan checking will consist of: W ■ street improvement plans (may include street lights or street lighting may F be separate plan); Y ■ sewer plans (Private sewers may be shown on on-site improvement plan; public sewers must be on a separate plan with profile); Y ■ storm drain plans (Private storm drains may be shown on on-site a improvement plans; public storm drains must be on a separate plan with profile); ■ traffic signal plans; ■ signing and striping plan (may be on sheets included in street improvement plan); ■ lighting (on-site lighting may be included in on-site improvement plan or may be on a separate stand-alone plan); Packet Pg. 1020 77'MNo. 15576(Subdivision No. 02-09) P. C. Meeting: November 14, 2012 Page 11 • grading (may be incorporated with on-site improvement plan); • on-site landscaping and irrigation; • landscaping and irrigation in the Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District; and • other plans as required. Piecemeal submittal of various types of plans for the same project will not be allowed. N • All required supporting calculations, studies and reports must be included in the initial submittal (including but not limited to drainage studies, soils reports, structural calculations), a rn b. The rough grading plan may be designed and submitted in combination with the precise grading plan. N C. All off-site improvement plans submitted for plan check must be prepared on r the City's standard 24" x 36" sheets. A signature block satisfactory to the City I Engineer or his designee must be provided. r d. After completion of plan checking, final Mylar drawings, stamped and signed d by the Registered Civil Engineer in charge, must be submitted to the City Engineer and/or Building Official for approval 0 U e. Electronic files of all improvement plans/drawings must be submitted to the ° City Engineer. The files must be compatible with AutoCAD 2000, and include a.DXF file of the project. Files must be on a CD and must be submitted at the z same time the final Mylar drawings are submitted for approval. W x f. Copies of the City's design policies and procedures and standard drawings are F available at the Public Works Counter for the cost of reproduction. They are Q also available at no charge at the Public Works Web Site at http://Www.sbeity.or E O 21. The applicant must submit the following required Engineering Permits for review and approval: a a. Grading permit; b. On-site improvements construction permit (except buildings - see Development Services-Building Division),including landscaping; and C. Off-site improvement constructions permit. 22. All plan check, permit, inspection, and impact fees are outlined on the Public Works Fee Schedule. A deposit in the amount of 100% of the estimated checking fee for each set of plans will be required at time of application for plan check. The amount of Packef,Pg:1021 77MNo. 15576(Subdivision No. 02-09) 6 Br P. C. Meeting., November 14, 2012 Page 12 the fee is subject to adjustment if the construction cost estimate varies more than 10% from the estimate submitted with the application for plan checking. The current fee schedule is available at the Public Works Counter and at http•//www.sbcity.ore. 23. Traffic Engineering The applicant must implement all mitigation measures set forth in the latest Traffic Study submitted for the project by Kunzman and Associates, dated May 16,2011.. N L End of Conditions of Appro val for TTM 15576 (Sub. No. 02-09) L Q U) m N N N N r r r 0 O Q d L R M U Q z z w x U Q F Q c v E r v m �acketP� �„1�022 6.B.s ?eERNnROrNa Jahn Ca ac,Chair Spy_ °y Larry Heasley,lice-Chair Jan nceDff CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO Lance Durr Andrea,Machen COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FaG"ka£D IN\\ Amelia S.Lopez Fredenck Grochulski 300 North "D"Street, San Bernardino, California 92418 Dan C.Jimenez Phone: (909)384-505715071 • Fax:(909)384-5080 Bob Brown,Alf. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 14, 2012 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 12-10 —" .E DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 12-07 CL DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 12-08 In SPRING TRAILS SPECIFIC PLAN (SP) NO. 10-01, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA) NO. 02-09, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT (DCA) NO. 12-10, °w TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TTM) NO. 15576 (SUBDIVISION NO. 02-09), o DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT(DA)NO. 11-01 a a GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT(GPA)NO. 12-05 in O N 3 C_ N r V r r N C d E Z U A a C d E t 2 Q Page 1 of 12 11/14/2012 Packet Pg. 1023; Chair Coate called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioner Jimenez led the flag salute. Present: Commissioners: Brown, Conte, Durr, Heasley, Jimenez, Lopez, Machen, and Mulvihill. Excused: Grochulski. Absent: None. Staff present: M. Margo Wheeler, Community Development Director; Henry Empeno, Jr., Senior Deputy City Attorney; Tony Stewart, City Planner; Aron Liang, Senior Planner; Laura Weidemann, Assistant Planner, Lori Farris, Development Services Technician, Gary Akers, Senior Civil Engineer, Robert Eisenbeisz, City Engineer, and Eric Esquivel, Fire Marshall. ADMINISTRATION OF OATH Aron Liang administered the oath. L Q CONSENT AGENDA: U' N M. Margo Wheeler, Community Development Director, gave a brief presentation of the consent agenda, which included the recommended approval of the meeting minutes of October o 17, 2012, the recommended continuance of Items 2 to the December 12, 2012 meeting, the o recommended approval of Items 3, 4, and 6, and the striking of Item 7 due to previous motion to K a table item. a Commissioner Mulvihill made a motion to approve the consent agenda. Commissioner Jimenez seconded the motion. N r The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Brown, Conte, Durr, Jimenez, Lopez, Machen and Mulvihill.Nays: None. Abstain: Heasley. Excused: Grochulski. Absent:None. N PUBLIC COMMENTS -ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA d No comments. E U R PUBLIC HEARINGS Y a 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 12-10 — A request to modify the approved E Conditional Development Permit No. 944, for an existing social service use E (residential alcohol and drug abuse recovery facility) for men and women by y expanding from one lot with nine clients to three lots with eight units and 52 clients, a located at 840 — 856 North Arrowhead Avenue in the Residential Medium (RM) land use district. Environmental Determination: Exempt from CEQA, Section 15301 —Existing Facilities Owners: Mei Shou Chen and New House Inc. ® Applicant: Inland Valley Recovery Services APN: 0140-213-08, 09 and 10 Page 2 of 12 11/14/2012 Ward: 1 The Planning Commission continued Conditional Use Permit No. 12-10 to the December 12, 2012 Planning Commission meeting. 3. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 12-07 —A proposal to amend Title 19 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code, Land Use/Subdivision Regulations, also known as the San Bernardino Development Code, to ensure consistency throughout the Development Code and with certain state laws, and to allow limited retail sales in the Industrial Heavy Land Use District. N Proposed by: City of San Bernardino Environmental Recommendation: Exempt from CEQA—Section 15061(b)(3) CL The Planning Commission recommended approval of Development Code Amendment No. W 12-07 to the Mayor and Common Council on December 3,2012. N N 4. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 12-08 —A proposal to amend Title °w 19 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code, Land Use/Subdivision Regulations, also 0 known as the San Bernardino Development Code, to revise the standards contained a within Chapter 19.70,Temporary Use Permits. a. Proposed by: City of San Bernardino 3 Environmental Recommendation: Exempt from CEQA—Section 15061(b)(3) N The Planning Commission recommended approval of Development Code Amendment No. 12-08 to the Mayor and Common Council on December 3,2012. 5. SPRING TRAILS SPECIFIC PLAN (SP) NO. 10-01, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA) NO. 02-09, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT (DCA) NO 12-10 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TIM) NO. 15576 r (SUBDIVISION NO. 02-09) DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (DA) NO. 11-01 Fq — A proposed specific plan and related tentative tract map for development of 304 a single-family lots, 108 acres of open space,hiking trails,roadways and three detention basins on the 350.6-acre project site formerly known as the Martin Ranch. The site is located in the unincorporated area of Verdemont in San Bernardino County, north of Meyers Road and northwest of the northerly terminus of Little League Drive, in the ° City of San Bernardino's sphere of influence. Primary access to the site is planned as a a westerly extension of Verdemont Drive. A secondary access road is proposed to connect the western portion of the site to the I-215 frontage road. Annexation to the City of San Bernardino is proposed for the 350.6-acre project site and an adjacent 26.4-acre area. GPA No. 02-09 will establish the Spring Trails Specific Plan as the pre-zoning for the project site, and will establish the RE, Residential Estate land use district for the additional 26.4-acre annexation area. DCA No. 12-10 will establish © the Spring Trails Specific Plan and its development standards as a Special Purpose District in the Development Code. The Planning Commission will also consider the Page 3 of 12 11/14/2012 proposed Final Environmental Impact Report, Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program; and Facts, Findings, and Statements of Overriding Considerations under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) for the project. Environmental Determination: Proposed Environmental Impact Report (SCH # 2009111086) Owner/Applicant: Montecito Equities, Ltd. Representative: Jeff Weber APNs: 0348-071-05, -06, -07, -09, -10, 0348-101-50, 0348- 111-03, -04, -07, -08, -09, -30, -36, -47 through-50 Ward: 5 L r Tony Stewart,Deputy Director/City Planner,gave a detailed presentation on the project. L Q Jeff Weber, Montecito Equities Ltd, 385 Pacific Avenue, Irvine, CA, Project Applicant, U) introduced himself to the Planning Commission, stated his agreement to the proposed N Conditions of Approval, and introduced Brian James,with the Planning Center. 0 Brian James, The Planning Center DC&E, 3 McArthur Place, Santa Ana, CA, gave a o brief presentation on the project on behalf of the applicant. a a Chair Conte explained a supplemental memorandum for the record, received by the Planning Commission,with revisions to the proposed Conditions of Approval. 3 Henry Empeiio, Jr., Senior Deputy City Attorney, clarified that the revisions to the N Conditions of Approval were for the Tentative Tract Map. T Chair Coate provided instruction to the audience on the procedure for public speakers on the project and provided clarification that the action that would be taken on this project would be a recommendation to the Mayor and Common Council for final action at a later Council meeting. R Blake Barton, 1590 Martin Ranch Road, San Bernardino, CA, stated his opposition to a the project and expressed his concerns about the effects on wildlife, the impacts on well water for existing residents, and explained his experiences with wild fires and high winds in E L the area. r w Q Arlean Potter, 3783 W. Meyers Road, San Bernardino, CA, stated her opposition to the project and expressed her concerns about the impacts of construction, the potential for decreased water pressure for existing residents due to an increase in local demand, and explained her experiences with high wind related power outages in the area. Lynette Kaplan, 3793 W. Meyers Road, San Bernardino, CA stated her opposition to the project and explained her concerns about lot averaging and density for the project, the impacts on air quality, traffic, fire safety,wildlife, crime, and noise generated by the proposed project and the construction process. She also stated her disagreement with the level of Page 4 of 12 11/14/2012 Oreliance the project would have on the proposed homeowner's association. Commissioner Mulvihill asked for additional information from the applicant on fire suppression characteristics for the project. Gene Begnell, Firesafe Planning Solutions, 203 N. El Camino Real, San Clemente, CA, explained the details of the fire protection plan for the project on behalf of the applicant. Commissioner Mulvihill inquired about who had the responsibility to maintain the fuel modification areas for the project? N R Gene Begnell stated that the homeowners association would have that responsibility. Commissioner Mulvihill inquired about how long the fire behavior program had been Q around. Ln N Gene Begnell stated that the science behind the fire behavior model has been around, in various forms, for over 20 years, and explained the general process of analyzing fire °w behavior. p W Jeff Weber added that the Fuel Modification Plan had been reviewed and approved by the a San Bernardino Fire Department. Chair Conte asked for clarification on whether the private parks proposed in the plan would be private to the residents or open to the public. N v Jeff Weber clarified that the private parks planned would be open to public use but would be maintained privately by the homeowners association. a Richard Kaplan, 3793 W. Meyers Road, San Bernardino, CA, stated his opposition to the project and shared that he had met with the developer at a Town Meeting and shared his E concern about unanswered questions and an increase of density in a rural area. a a Lauri Kelley, 1701 Martin Ranch Road, Devore, CA, stated her opposition to the project and shared her concerns about the increase in density and access to the project site. z U r Buck Mau, 2109 W. Meyers Road, Devore Heights, CA, stated his opposition to the a project and shared his concerns about the lack of street improvements leading to the project site, the potential increase in property taxes for adjacent properties, and suggested electric gates be integrated on Meyers Road at the location of secondary access. Jeff Weber stated that a gate at the suggested location was planned by the developer and that it would be equipped with a knox box for the Fire Department. He stated that the purpose of the gate was to keep traffic from the project from routinely using Meyers Road as a means of regular egress. Page 5 of 12 11/14/2012 FIMMMI !^ Mike Wade, 3229 W. Meyers Road, San Bernardino, CA, stated his opposition to the `.. project. He shared his concerns about the access points to the project site,the increase on Fire Department resources, the effect the development would have on water pressure in the area, and the negative effects on wildlife. Hank Mitchell, 3766 Belmont Avenue, San Bernardino, CA stated his opposition to the project. He shared his concerns about infrastructure maintenance, the hydrology, and the effects on potentially historic resources in the area. He encouraged the Planning Commission to consider the effects on the entire Verdemont area as a whole, beyond just the scope of the project site. N Dave Goodward, 22430 Pico Street, Grand Terrace, CA, San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society and Center for Biological Diversity, stated his opposition to the project and shared his concern about the loss of natural habitat for wildlife and the importance of Q conservation and wild land mitigation. He stated that he did not find responses to comments U) in the Final EIR to be sufficient. N N Teri Minor, 18533 Santa Fe Avenue, Devore, CA stated her opposite to the project and w shared her concerns about the impact the proposed project would have on views,wildlife, and o the rural lifestyle of existing residents. a a Chair Conte summarized that the primary concerns that he had heard from residents present were regarding fire safety, water pressure, traffic concerns, and hydrology, and requested that the applicant address the concerns discussed. N r Jeff Weber stated that the project takes into consideration fire behavior models, and that the primary access road was designed to take residents away from fire danger areas. He added r that the improvement to water infrastructure provided by the development would improve N water pressure for existing residents. d Lynette Kaplan, 3793 W. Meyers Road, San Bernardino, CA added concerns that project E site sustained fire damage in 2003 and 2007 and that the owners of the project site have been o cited previously for weed abatement. a Commissioner Heasley noted that there could potentially be a higher incident rate regarding E fires from an increase in population to the area. a Arlean Potter, 3783 W. Meyers Road, San Bernardino, CA, shared concerns about fire protection plans for the area with the addition of the proposed project and inquired about whether existing development would be offered the same level of fire protection as the proposed development. Eric Esquivel, Battalion Chief, San Bernardino Fire Department, explained that fire protection measures, from the Fire Department perspective, depend on the unique circumstances of a specific wildfire and that the goal of the Fire Department is to protect the most property possible. Page 6 of 12 11/14/2012 Packet Pg. 1028 c.6.s Blake Barton, 1590 Martin Ranch Road, San Bernardino, CA, shared his concerns about the project being located in a high fire area with high winds, and the potential effects on resources that City budget cuts would have the Fire Department. Jeff Weber stated the project proposed two options for the project's connection to Meyers Road and stated an openness to work with the Fire Department. He stated that the project would be contributing an estimated 1.8 million dollars to the Verdemont CFD, to contribute to resources for fire protection. Eric Esquivel, Battalion Chief, stated that the City would also receive assistance from —" outside agencies in the case of a large fire. e Mike Wade,3229 W. Meyers Road, San Bernardino,CA, stated his concern that the water Q reservoirs proposed in coordination with the project would not be fully utilized. N LO N Eric Esquivel, Battalion Chief, explained that the Fire Department would connect to the available water through fire hydrants. °w Commissioner Heasley clarified for the record that the water reservoirs referenced were a water tanks with potable drinking water that would be also be accessible through fire a hydrants. Arlean Potter, 3783 W. Meyers Road, San Bernardino, CA, shared her frustrations over previous experiences with the performance of fire hydrants near her home and doubts that the N proposed water infrastructure would be enough to support the existing and proposed development. r Chair Conte inquired with the applicant to discuss the hydrology of the site in respect to mitigating flood conditions. E Richard O'Neal, Rick Engineering, 1770 Iowa Avenue, Suite 100, Riverside, CA, R explained the hydrology and drainage plan of the project site and stated that the detention a basins were being designed to County of San Bernardino criteria. E Jeff Weber clarified that additional flows that the project site would be creating would be retained on-site so that the project would not be contributing to overflow conditions a downstream. Chair Conte inquired with staff about whether the proposed hydrology was sufficient and whether there concerns about the capacity of downstream culverts. Robert Eisenbeisz, City Engineer, Public Works Department, explained the retention plan to retain drainage flows on-site so that it would not contribute to any problems downstream. He added that the engineering would be worked out in the fmal engineering stage. Page 7 of 12 11/14/2012 6.B.s © Commissioner Mulvihill inquired how present drainage in the area was handled. Hank Mitchell, 3766 Belmont Avenue, San Bernardino, CA, stated that drainage in the area is currently absorbed with runoff present from Meyers Road. He expressed concerns about the addition of impervious surfaces and refuted the Environmental Impact Report's claim that the measures provided by the development will decrease flow. Robert Eisenbeisz, City Engineer, explained mitigation measures in regard to hydrology and drainage proposed in the development. N Commissioner Brown asked the applicant if they would assist the City in improving the drainage culverts downstream. Q Jeff Weber stated that they would be open to participating in technical studies but reserve `.`. judgment on any physical improvements to off-site drainage infrastructure. N N Commissioner Mulvihill inquired with staff on whether there are any funds developed for °w large infrastructure projects, that developers would contribute to, that would improve the o drainage infrastructure downstream from the project site. a a Robert Eisenbeisz, City Engineer, explained that there was not currently a specific fund ® relegated to that limited area of infrastructure. He further stated that analysis through a nexus ; study would have to be done to determine sources, percentages of contribution, whether establishing such a fund would be feasible. v Commissioner Mulvihill stated that he would support a nexus study and fund for the drainage infrastructure in this specific area, where all developers within the area would N contribute as projects were developed. c m M. Margo Wheeler, Community Development Director, stated that a condition of E approval could be placed to state that when such a nexus study is done, that the developer be CU responsible for their share. Y_ Commissioner Mulvihill stated his support for a condition of approval requiring a nexus z study. a Jeff Weber stated that the nexus study would be completed by the City, and that the City would incur the costs of producing an extensive drainage report to calculate and determine fees. He stated that the developer wishes to be a good neighbor and would be open to meeting with residents further to discuss downstream drainage concerns related to the project site. M. Margo Wheeler, Community Development Director, clarified that the applicant is only responsible for their project and the correction of any impacts from their project. She further stated that the City was not in the position to accept the responsibility of funding the production of a study at the immediate time. Page 8 of 12 11/14/2012 Packet Pg. 1030 Henry Empeiio, Jr., Senior Deputy City Attorney, explained that in addition to the on-site drainage improvements proposed with the project there was also a storm drain development impact fee that would be paid. He asked the City Engineer to explain the impact fee further. Robert Eisenbeisz, City Engineer, explained the storm drain mitigation development impact fee, based off of the master facilities plan. He explained that the fees fund master plan drains, rather than localized areas that drain into master plan drains. He stated that the final engineering stage will require a deeper analysis into the drainage plan, but that the preliminary drainage plan proposes to mitigate drainage by retaining it on-site. Vi Richard Kaplan, 3793 W. Meyers Road, San Bernardino, CA, expressed his concerns about the increase in density and the multitude of issues that must be addressed in this type of development. a U) Hank Mitchell, 3766 Belmont Avenue, San Bernardino, CA, asked the Planning N Commission to consider whether the City would want the responsibility of not fixing the N outdated infrastructure while approving additional development in the area. °w Dave Goodward, 22430 Pico Street, Grand Terrace, CA, San Bernardino Valley a Audubon Society and Center for Biological Diversity, expressed his concerns about the a ® impacts on fire safety created by an increase in population and density in a rural area. Y Commissioner Heasley inquired of the applicant whether the earthwork being done would be considered a balanced project. v Jeff Weber indicated that they would be balanced on-site, but that the off-site work would r require export of earth. N r Commissioner Heasley expressed concern that there were no conditions of approval that addresses the probable of enhanced deterioration of the roadways created by the hauling of E dirt from construction. a Jeff Weber stated that the final engineering design would be calculated to minimize the r amount of dirt required to be hauled off-site, to achieve balanced earthwork. E t U Commissioner Heasley expressed his support for conditioning a photographic survey of the a roadway, before and after construction, so that the accelerated deterioration of the roadway due to construction traffic can be mitigated. Jeff Weber stated his support for the condition, but stated that they should only be responsible for a portion of the repair and that they cannot control the routine wear and tear from existing traffic. Chair Conte agreed with the Mr. Weber's statement. Page 9 of 12 11/14/2012 Packet Pg. 1031 s.s.s Commissioner Heasley inquired about the width of the secondary access road. Jeff Weber explained that the City standard would require a fifty-foot width for a public street; however, due to the fact that the secondary access will be maintained as a private road, the proposed width is 24 feet. Robert Eisenbeisz, City Engineer, explained that the 24-foot width is the minimum required by the Fire Department for secondary access, and would include signing designating "no parking"to allow clear fire access. Commissioner Heasley inquired about whether the private road would be dedicated to the —" City in the future, as a public road. r c Robert Eisenbeisz, City Engineer, explained that the road would require upgrading to City Q standards before the City accepts the dedication of the road. Ln N Mike Wade, 3229 W. Meyers Road, San Bernardino, CA, stated his concern about designing a road as a private road if it was going to be used by the public. °w Jeff Weber stated that the secondary access has a width of 24 feet, but that the primary a access is proposed to meet the City's public road standards. a ( Commissioner Durr asked for staff clarification on the difference between a General Plan v and a Specific Plan. N Margo Wheeler, Community Development Director, explained that the application is qT requesting a change from the current General Plan designation to a new General Plan designation and described the public hearing procedure involved in this level of application. She further explained the differences between a General Plan and Specific Plan. r d Commissioner Mulvihill explained that the Specific Plan would provide more specific E standards for the area on top of the General Plan requirements. a Chair Coute explained that he could understand both sides presented by the applicant and members of the public. He stated he felt that the project, as a whole, was a positive addition E to the area,but that there were concerns that needed to be addressed. w Commissioner Heasley explained that he was not opposed to the nature of the project but that he had concerns about the impacts created by the project that requires mitigation. He shared his concern that the lot averaging was taking into consideration the amount unbuildable land. Commissioner Mulvihill reiterated his concerns about putting off a nexus study on area drainage to a future date. Page 10 of 12 11/14/2012 Packet Pg. 1032 Chair Conte asked for clarification on the proposed revisions to the Conditions of Approval explained on the supplemental memorandum provided to the Planning Commission by staff. Tony Stewart, Deputy Director/City Planner, explained the supplemental memorandum, revised conditions, and clarified the slope maintenance responsibilities when a lot line abuts a road maintained by the homeowners' association. Richard O'Neal, Rick Engineering, 1770 Iowa Avenue, Suite 100, Riverside, CA, explained changes to the conditions of approval to notate that the detention basins will be designed to per the San Bernardino County criteria, that a slope feasibility study shall be _ reviewed by the city prior to constructing in any seismic zone, and specifications regarding —" geological setback requirements. Tony Stewart,Deputy Director/City Planner, clarified that Condition of Approval number Q "11K" has been revised to the wording "Structures, terrace drains, storm drains, irrigation U) lines or any manufactured slopes shall not be located within a seismic zone and/or within a N geologic setback until a slope stability and a feasibility study has been approved and accepted by Land Development." Potential addition of Condition #24, requested by the Planning °w Commission, regarding a required photographic study of the roadway to mitigate damage o from construction-related vehicles would also be added. X a a ^ Commissioner Heasley made a motion to recommend denial to the Mayor and Common N [ ) Council of Spring Trails Specific Plan (SP)No. 10-01, General Plan Amendment (GPA)No. ���••r/// 02-09, Development Code Amendment (DCA) No. 12-10, and Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 5 No. 15576 (Subdivision No. 02-09), to not certify the Environmental Impact Report (SCH N #2009111086), adoption of Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program(Attachment D), or the v adoption the Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment G), based on the Findings of Fact determined by the Planning Commission, and to continue Development Agreement (DA) No. 11-01 to the December 12, 2012 Planning Commission meeting. E L Commissioner Mulvihill seconded the motion. m a The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Brown, Conte, Durr, Heasley, Lopez, Machen and Mulvihill. Nays: None. Abstain: Jimenez. Excused: Grochulski. Absent:None. E r U t6 6. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA) NO. 12-05 — A request to amend the a San Bernardino General Plan Circulation Element to close a 225-foot long portion of 3`a Street between "J" Street and the railroad right-of-way to the east, close a 160-foot long segment of"I" Street between Rialto Avenue and the railroad right-of-way to the south to facilitate the construction of the Downtown San Bernardino Passenger Rail Project, and to add text to acknowledge the future passenger rail service by SANBAG. Page 11 of 12 11/14/2012 Packet Pg. 1033 6.Bs ' Environmental Determination: Environmental Impact Report (SCH # 2011051024) and Revised Environmental Assessment Owner/Applicant: SANBAG Representative: Lance Schulte APN: Citywide Ward: 1 (Street Closures) and Citywide The Planning Commission recommended approval of General Plan Amendment No. 12-05 to the Mayor and Common Council at their December 3, 2012 meeting, based on the _ Findings of Fact contained in the Staff Report. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Q 7. UPDATE ON STATUS OF THE CITY'S TRAIL SYSTEM U) Ln Lo The Planning Commission struck the item from the agenda due to a previous motion on Cq October 18,2012 to table the item. ❑ w PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS/ANNOUNCEMENTS a None. a DIRECTOR'S REPORT 3 C c M. Margo Wheeler, Community Development Director reminded the Planning Commission N that the next meeting would be held on December 12, 2012. v ADJOURNMENT N r Commissioner Mulvihill made a motion which was unanimously carried, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 9:05 p.m. The next regular meeting was scheduled for E Wednesday, December 12, 2012 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, First Floor, 300 North R "D"Street, San Bernardino, California. a c m E L Minutes Adopted by Planning Commissioners: Date Approved: Minutes Prepared by: Lori Farris 0 Development Services Technician Page 12 of 12 11/14/2012 Packet Pg. 1034 �rf � LL)� t#3 Y 1ckPiu1 f SPRING TRAILS PLAN AND EIR 2011 Summary of Main Points. Annexation and Zoning changes required -from county to city/all existing county homes will be annexed -from min. 5 acre parcels to 10,800 sq. ft. lots -306 homes vs 38 homes R Developers don't own all the land for the two access roads m -still lacking 5 parcels -do not have right of way through Martin Ranch Road N -both access roads will intersect at Little League and use Palm N Freeway ramps Air Quality -352.8 acre parcel/ project 216.7 acres —68% of site -grading 193 on site /23.7 off site-35 acres per day N -exporting 251,000 cubic yards of dirt -17.929 trucks over three months on local streets -trucks plus construction traffic 1743yehicleper day -125.1 acres of internal slopes tq -t a., ttigh -report states . . ."levels of(pollutants) above CA Air Resource Board 0 thresholds. . ." d ". . Significant and unavoidable increase in greenhouse gasses. . ." Geology -built on three active faults (central portion of project and northern) -faults will be under roads o -earthquake may wipe out access roads -1/2 project slopes a N Hazards -winds 70-100 mph-no mitigation is set up for winds z LU -fire-area has burned twice in last ten years / 2003,2007 and in x previous fires -chemicals, pollutants and pesticides will leach into the ground water Q -Martin/Meyers homes on wells -more run off will be diverted into nearby creeks E r -evacuation routes Y -two access roads feed onto Little League a -bulk of project cut-du-sacs Hydrology -creates more impervious surface equaling more run off -three basins to collect water / basins also serve as parkas? Packe4?Pg 1035' Noise the only sound wall will be around the one existing house in the development -no mitigation for sound for"sensitive receptors"-kids -two schools, Western Little League, Blast Soccer, Verdemont Comm. Ctr. and Lib. Are sensitive receptiors -predicted 3 year build out (in this economy?) Population -EIR says 1028 residents vs 1320 residents (using nat. standard) L -national figures give 2.3 children per household cn -EIR school numbers 214 children vs 700 children to -school study numbers on report from 2007-2009 Public Services -will pay in fees for 1.3 cops U -city cut 52 policemen this year-funds to city will fund 11/3 N policeman for only one year �Da -average response time (per EIR) 4.3 min. crime'46./1 min. res. theft -local residents have found these times don't reflect reality -fire response time will be 12-13 minutes d -flash over (when house is engulfed in flames) is 8 min. -fire cut 25% of force last year / only three man crews on engines -EIR necessitates that there will be an increased need for: -code enforcement/ fire planting zones, parking, . watering green belts,etc, y -elementary and junior high at capacity / will necessitate portables d 0 Recreation -basins will serve as parks / dangers? Vector control? q -drawings do not show a split trail/equestrian-pedestrian F -enforcement of ATV/off-roading into National Forest? w -connectors for trails not in place x Transportation and Traffic a -project will make". . .unacceptable levels of service. . ." a -intersection Palm and 215 already rated a "F" lowest level for NB ramp. Project will put SB ramp at -few through streets cul-du-sacs-are not safe for fire, limits traffic flow a -project must put a cul-du-sac at Meyers and Martin intersection or after 3793 W. Meyers-without this all traffic will come down Meyers up to another 3600 cars per day -most direct route to schools is down Meyers Packet P� 1038 ; Transportation and Traffic (cont.) -3100 more vehicles per day in area(number based on "their low pop. estimates") -roads cross fault lines -no sound walls mentioned for any surrounding properties -study doesn't include any already approved projects i.e. all N developments between Little League and Palm, the 900 unit Univ. Hills Dev. or the peak Cal State commute hours (different from - standard commute hours) a Utilities U) -water to be put in"in phases" cm cm -if there is no power-there is no water -CA and Inland Empire experiencing water shortages -HOA and LLMD will pay for power and water for green belts -new water line will be run up Meyers N -road accessibility during wor6vacuation problems? -water access during worl0fire danger? r -trashf/enforcement and forest creatures -trash and wind Forestry and Environment -project abuts national forest -wildlife corridor over roads ti� -no grading during nesting season Feb.-Aug:�� r -they will "move or protect"nests y -will they grade in high wind season-yes in winds up to 25 mph O -all dogs on leases-enforcement? -S.B. K-rat habitat-will trade out 1:1 a N -we have an endangered Swainson's Hawk r -water will draw animals out of forest Z w -they will only replace the 220 native trees not the others x -(losing 2000 plus trees)=less habitat for birds and creatures a -study states ". . .long term irreversible change to environment. . ." a -claims they will inspect and wash down all trucks, tires prior to bringing on site (do you believe this?) E r Fire Mitigation Plan -will create three-planting zones A, B, and C a -will restrict types of plants to approved list -140A and LLMD will maintain green belt's and Zone C -HOA and LLMD will inspect all yards for compliance�F�b+�(� 1C(iS -HOA and LLMD will mediate all violations Racke#'Pa 1037- WO W4 . Fire coat. -HOA and LLMD will pay for water and vegetation -no mitigation for high winds -fire resistant building materials upgrades only on east side of development. -2003 and 2007 fires came from east, south and west -no road on outer boundary of development on west and north (fire requires this) -fire response time over national standard 8 min.flashover Q -study cities 12-13 minutes -125.1 acres of internal slopes-fire moves more rapidly on slopes 3 Ctffo?5 �e_ N cul-du-sacs slow fire vehicle response -parking creates problems for engine access E -no parking in bulb of cuI-du-sac l wk-bol h (acc a -earthquake road failure /fire/ evacuation scenario N allowswood out building, a -allo4wood fences 5 feet from houses -states structure fire needs 15 firemen/ in S.B. that is 5 en¢iness3 Stltr(B�zS -states winds come from all four directions=fire from all directions -predicts flames up 100 feet -greenbelts -inspected monthly year 1, quarterly 2 & 3,will monitor 5 years d -then what? 0 -inspections will be by a qualified wildland safety inspector am prior to May 1" and Sept. 1" o -they say you can and can't plan shrubs under trees??? -no vents to wildlands or foothills / 3 sides of each house qualify as a N wildlands or foothills i -no turbine vents/who will inspect? All house fans??? No mention LU -insulation will be cellulose, shredded newspaper or recycled cotton X -no mention of cleaning debris from gutters -only two bibs required per exterior/perhaps one on each side? -disclosure of high fire, high wind during escrow -should be told to buyers rp for to purchase L R w a Packed Pg�„1038 s.s.t ( ` x November 10,2012 To: City of San Bernardino Planning Commission N From:James Onken/Shelly Payne/Nicole Payne 3 3985 W.Meyers Road rn c San Bernardino,CA 92407 Q L Re: Spring Trails/Martin Ranch Project N N This letter is to reiterate my concerns that were previously addressed in another letter. Unfortunately, 6 that letter was not presented to you by the City of San Bernardino.My concerns are as follows: E U a • When I built my home,the zoning was 5 acres per house.They want to reduce this over 20 N r times smaller to 10,800 sq ft lots.What about 1 house per acre? v • wells. My well is 35 years old and the water is excellent. All of my neighbors and I are on private There will be significant runoff due to construction and grading of the proposed project.This will cc most certainly affect and damage our existing wells. I want assurance that we will be provided access to city water at no cost to us. U N • The existing roads cannot handle the amount of traffic that will be generated.There is already severe congestion at N.Verdemont School in the morning and afternoon. it is already a danger to the children as well as residents.The additional homes will each have minimum 2 cars.That's over 600 additional vehicles on the roads.It will take 30 minutes to go 2 miles. 0 CL L• The proposed houses are built too close together for this area.We have very high winds and it is a high fire hazard area. I have been here for all of the major fires,and there was already too 0 U much congestion.What happens with all of these additional families? a • We do not have adequate police protection.The response at this time is slow,if they respond at N all.We have called 911 for gunshots, hunters,and suspicious vehicles.They are either tco busy z or we are just not a priority. What will the response time be when we have over 300 additional w Lu x families in such a small area? a The infrastructure at this time is not adequate to support these additional homes in such close proximity a to each other. This area is not prepared for such a large development at this time. m E z Thank you m C` ACCO FW' Packet Pg. 1039 To: City Of San Bernardino Planning Commission Nov. 8,2012 H 'R This letter is to reaffirm our opposition to the"Spring Trails"project. Attached is the previous email that was sent to Teri Rabhal, City Planner,on Sept. 12,2011. a As we have stated in the past,this project presents unnecessary and unacceptable fire danger, flood danger to existing residents,increased traffic danger to nearby schools,particularly during N Ln the beginning and ending of the school day, as well as greatly increased traffic at all times on. two lane residential streets. It will also lead to the loss of wildlife and wildlife habitat. U This project has been and remains ill conceived,poorly planned and inappropriate to its location. a. We urge that it will again be disapproved. v r 3 w Edward Behrens Sigrid Behrens c 6868 Little League Dr. a San Bernardino, Ca. 92407 ° CL 909-880-3252 L 0 U Q N r Z W i U F Q c f d E r m Y A. t a Packet Pgr 10411 0 omintrits re "Spring Trails" EIR B.B.t ` Comments re "Spring Trails" EIR 1 behrens [ersdb2000 @yahoo.Com] "aei. -,onday, September 12,201110:11 AM - - ro: rahhai_te @sbcity.org;Sigrid Behrens Comments regarding "Spring Trails" Environmental Impact Report. September, 2011. We have been residents of San Bernardino and the North Verdemont area for over twenty years. During that time we have watched the growth and development of this area. We have commented on the ill-advised project now called"Spring Trails" in the past and this Environmental Impact Report does little to allay our concerns and fears. y LO LO cm TRAFFIC: N While any, increase in residences creates additional traffic, the number of residences to be created in this project and the extremely limited access will only greatly increase the traffic flow in the area and on E existing streets,particularly in the morning and evening when residents might be expected to be leavings a returning home. N v It should be noted that there are three schools (two elementary and one middle school) directly on what may be reasonably expected to be access routes of the new residences and in the morning and afternoon thecP roads are already crowded with parents and school buses dropping off or picking up students. E onal residential traffic of the volume which might be expected will greatly negatively impact safet d ari . increase pollution and congestion. „ DRAINAGE AND POTENTIAL FLOODING: The area where my residence stands has flooded in the past, only eight years ago. Our property and the o. property of many of our neighbors as well as many streets flooded. This was after a fire, but fires in the a Ow occur with alarming frequency. If drainage from additional paving and building in the area is directed down into our area, flooding will N occur again, and not just during a"one hundred year"rain and perhaps not only after a fire: Even now, during heavy rains drainage capability is sometimes at or near capacity and my observation al w living here over 20 years is that additional run off cannot be managed without damage to existing facilitii X and residences. F a CEMETARY DISTURBANCE: 16s my understanding that old and historic graves are located in the project area. E U While the current view of some in our society may be that nothing should stand in the way of making a money, our society should be respectful of history and those that have gone before us. T' nnecessary disturbance of graves should be abhorrent to everyone and should neither be accepted o 4 ed. WILDLIFE: PacketPg. 1041 Comments re "Spring Trails"EIR The North Verdemont.area is and has always been rich with wildlife. Beside such animals as raccoons, . S, hawks, snakes of many variety and owls,we have personally observed deer, bear, mountain lion a,._ oobcat living and thriving in this area. Disrupting and destroying the habitat of these animals for commercial considerations, especially when many of the current residents moved here specifically for the rural environment offered, again should be unacceptable. The mere setting aside of some other piece of land does nothing to moderate the harm don to the location in question and the people and animals currently living there. N N L CONSTRUCTION: While the disruption of the lifestyles and enjoyment of current residents property from construction is somewhat temporary, it is still perhaps measured in many months or years, and is a real factor to conside CL The pollution and safety concerns that may be expected from construction equipment and the movement N large vehicle over relatively narrow and winding residential streets cannot be dismissed. Y Physical damage to those same street from the use of large vehicles and heavy trucks will occur and will U permanent. This city is already graced with too many "pot holes" and cracked streets to add additional N unnecessary stress and damage to the roads, which may then have that damage exaggerated with the coming of winter rains. We have witnessed a number of similar projects in the general area, all of which promised to mitigate an ge or disruption but still resulted in heavy pollution, blowing dust and debris being left for resident up and damage to existing roadways, in some cases a distance from the actual project. d C CONCLUSION: It is my conclusion and recommendation that this project has been and remains unacceptable for a numb a of reasons. No adequate and acceptable solutions to the problems this project presents have been found. U L L The environmental impact report should not be accepted and the project disapproved. a N Edward and Sigrid Behrens 6868 Little League Dr. UJ San Bernardino, Ca.92407 x U a ; a d e r R y r Q 1 Packet Pg. 1042"' '# A Bstz Planning commission 11-14-2012 Hand Out item#A Part 1 of 2 items November 14,2012 Re: Spring Trails To the Planning Commission and Community Development Director: N N This is a general statement to which many previous letters on definite issues have been filed with the city and the developer,and should be reentered to your body for discovery on this project and it's EIR s,filed in the past/current, and are matter of w record at SanBemardino City Hall under the direction of Terri Rahal. Ln Ln I have also submitted a combined work of 400 man hours to your commission, city council,ways and means,D/ERC,the mayor(2 copies)on September, 2008,entitled" ar VERDEMONT SPECIIJC INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PLAN" as a suggestion E to and addendum to,this meeting issue tonight. a My closing statement here-in will sum it all up N v 1-This project is in the county out of your purvue. 2-This project and it's impact on the existing infrastructure below it(that is already failing)cannot singularity be reviewed for just it's impact,but the environmental impact of the 5 other projects already submitted that will impact the very same existing infrastructure ,thus exponentially affecting the greater failure of the existing d infrastructure. 3-Verdemont roadway(primary outlet)is not stated to be completed to Palm ave, only d the creek crossing to Little League. Until the completion of Verdemont to Palm ave, c from Little League dr., Little League dr. will be the primary and secondary inlet and H outlet. 4-The secondary outlet on this project, loops back to the same Little League dr. ,thus compounding the failure of the transportation corridor Q Little League dr. , and adding a to the severe lack of transportation corridors to evacuate during such events as the N "Panorama","Old"and"Martin"Fires",competing also with the huge numbers of F "FIRE STRIKE TEAMS,that were rushed into the same area on the same and now w existing road ways,that will not be enlarged or non-looped, thus clogged at the = CHOKE POINTS of Little League dr. /1-215;,and later... Palm and Verdemont dr when and if Verdemont rd, gets completed) and this particular existing choke point will � service 2 of the other five projects in this area,yet to be built. a 5 - Of the 5 other projects,three(approx.280 residences)will impact the same corridor Little League dr.),thus exponentially again impacting the existing transportation L infrastructure. m 6-The Spring Trails project only mitigates hydrology numbers to the edge of it's a perimeter,but does not mitigate the 500 yr, flows or the 100 year flows,nor any series of storms in a season(48 inches or more),causing increased flow from and beyond the project's perimeter into"F"rated flood channels currently in place. There are no improved flood channels near or below this project or 5 of the other 5 projects, to receive such run off and since the other 5 projects will share the same non Packet;Pg:�1tl43 �Mw existent channels,the infrastructure below this and the other 5 projects are uncontrolled dangerous and a threat to both life and property assets. Storms in this area can and have brought rains in some years with(32+to 48+ inch seasons)up to 7 inches in a 24 hour(2004) period with several 2 and 3 inch storms that immediately followed, causing severe flooding(photographic proof 2004 )in the Cable and Meyers Creek flows. With the 6 projects subtracting approximately 1500 to 2000 acres of pure percolating H soils, and adding as much as 2500 acres of non percolating surfaces,that will flow to 2 these non existent channels,it is obvious that any build out will definitely threaten life = and property assets. Q 7-The Spring Trails project does not mitigate the historical "Mojave Indian Trail and �? encampments"(see inserts, pages 4 and 5)of the native tribes and explorers while Ln traveling from the Colorado River to the San Gabriel Mission. This trail partially divides part of the project in half, and the drainage basin to the north west of this project,will m percolate into the large array of Belmont Springs currently flowing well ( historic E Native Indian camp sites)just below it and into the ground water beyond,thus a contaminating the springs and beyond. r 8-This AVERAGING OF RESIDENCES PER ACRE defies recent statements made v by the deputy director of community development and WILL HAVE DEVASTI.NG EFFECTS ON FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF VERDEMONT AND T14E. HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT: See e-mail stream below: _m_..._.__..._._,....._._.......,._°_._..,._ ._,_...__._.._............_.._._._,...,_......_..,..,__ .. ._.............._,.._._._.,.....,....,.__........._._... From:Tony Stewart[mailto:Stewart To®sbcity.org] Sent: Monday, November 05, 201212:34 PM To: dnhmitchell @verizon.net Cc: Margo Wheeler d Subject. RE:Agenda Item 6 a, 12-5-12 Council meeting c CL Iq "Yes,with the exception of the properties along the 1-215 right-of-way,the properties are designated RE,and yes,any proposed changes to the land uses in the area would require v noticed public hearings before the Planning Commission and Mayor and Common Council." a N r Tony Stewart, A.I.C.P. Z Lu Deputy Director/City Planner Community Development Department City of San Bernardino 300 N. "D" St. ¢ San Bernardino,CA 92418 c d 909.384.5270 E (909) 384-5988 (Fax) sbcitv.org a facebook.com/sbcitygov ® From: D&H Mitchell[mailto:dnhmitchell@verizon.net] Sent: Monday,November 05, 201212:04 PM To:Tony Stewart Cc: Margo Wheeler; Larry Heasley; Fred Shorett;James Penman;Joseph Valdivia Packet Pg,1044 - (PD); Chas Kelley;Wendy McCammack; Pat Morris;van7ohnson_Ri; Robert D. Jenkins;Virginia Marquez Subject: RE:Agenda Item 6 a, 12-5-12 Council meeting Tony and Margo, Thank you for your response. 1 cannot emphasize enough the Importance of any attempt to modify zones changes up here and the reaction that would entail.I would also assume that any changes would have to go thru notification to the residents prior to any w attempt to change such,so that public input and concerns can be given prior to any i city legislative or council vote changes to the RE-1. ~ m c Statement to be qualified by Deputy Director: CL **It is the understanding at this point then, that REA , one dwelling per physical acre, based on the 1986 VOrdemontarea plan (SEE ITEM N #`B, PART2OF HAND OUT)is still in force for the area bounded by Little League Dr ( north westerly)., and the 1-215 freeway (north there of), E with the exception of the Byce property up thru the Martin Ranch area and over to Grandview ( inclusive of those areas with in the city's sphere of N influence). v Thank you Tony and Margo for your response on this and 1 am forwarding it to my Y neighbors for their comfort. Hank Mitchell ° m Cc MEIM MEMBERS 2 --------------------------------•------------------------ m ..........::IN CLOSING::::::::: " d c NO ONE PROJECT CAN BE SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL IN y THE VERDEMONT AREA ABOVE BELMONT AVE, WITII OUT A o SPECIFIC INFRASTRIJCTURE PLAN IN PLACE,WITH UP GRADES AND INFRASTRUTURE REQUIREMENTS TO RECEIVE AND TO MEET A 50 YEAR BUILD OUT IN PLACE (NON EXISTANT TO DAY); (2 alluvial fans and 9 canyons and the removal of 70%of the percolating soils),high slopes over 15%,dense z traffic flows, general pedestrian safety, very heavy drainage flows,and most of all;the UJ traffic is not mitigated to the fact that there are two elementary schools and a middle school on the primary outlet route( failing the safe streets for child act),which include F very heavy bus traffic twice daily(early am and early evening)to compete with the a enormous 3100 new vehicle traffic flows per day created by this project. The City General plan cannot fully comprehend and deal with issues on these E alluvials, and the lack of infrastructure,to allow any approvals on the slopes of Verdemont and thus: a A NEW SPECIFIC HILLSIDE INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN AND DESIGN MUST BE COMPLETED AND IN PLACE BEFORE ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT CAN PROCEED SAFELY OR WITH OUT LEGAL LIABILITIES TO THE CITY AND THE DEVELOPERS. Packet;pg ,1045 al'�'3 .S{je, "r �` 4 ilk + 4s� @��e `roc �#3 'r�,' � „ / � 4 : s.}. Z•,a�•a .;� o ' M me(.•` m �sci„ h'z1•, �.7,Ma�.r' , 1 �t f 2 m . t..7�-(•F�� /.l.• �. ��it r.,_. r .:6 y K ;.. �, t..K : �,�qq��'� �e O IV dw�j� ,j � . . t ,N _ la^t •C.-���t:` L.s.ia, 2 E-1 ��� 3 !°�� ,t�'. jge{ ` 4 •�J�Syy�f�A` fi: _ � ���`. � t(+$ .ti 6 q� e°yst�'r:� `u`�jp-.; Q i ; Zt •� yp»� , V T .?+y� •J •S t``rTC[y 1 +F yL• 'A W� `di6TMrt � C f�l a•�°rt dj� ,�/jr/' s �r'{� ,�'iS1 t�•�.,,�;. ��F- f °° o z 1, k� {$�(' Y z :t �a 7 E 1 n. � ¢ Lr a sL' I Nk � _ € F f. '. i `„ri Packet Pg. 1046 n. kRIT'AGE OF THE VALLEY' for the occasiart, and rce or foz r d tac awns of �ovltatevr ` .' l�xnezt ser out with were e } rtzont cod, all t p sse �4 � w The. . rest fat < Y at rd: ,� `' robbe r dens t i� d e4p �;x 5 od, water, a hall } ° �l1� tip r'xs$ed �(�ry � Q. ,> sib' i rred,29 T� " y x :r k ,.. .; s �4� raid. n e ancier Q LO y .T S� � 1 ,• � n f .� Ilx tll � . !• t (y ft � k 4C`+. [ �NSS1�M'Y !.'fF_ W j F h� ; (}� E _I(�T� �� t '1 a..4yy��•p F 4 � f.� _ ♦ Y � eaN(\rY'ilt' � )l•f��a `` 73 i 'Y - xa• r n �.421r rete thylns�ve right-to cut trnxber on. tta ", Ait: of th+ mountains to the north a d . �drr"fie which he proposed to construct alongthe line o Mon a. Trail• The petition was granted, and Band' work cxently to enable him to transport to s ove , ve worked the trail suf- o Placed in the crotch of greet tree l mbs called "r it. she to y down logs were e the trail by oxen (>axeach aching the stee itch near and hauled . ;.;4 . ' tlie nazi; the logs were t p p the bottom a from; the lizards d sdeowii to the pie they aauld .bE allowed to Sint laded lizards lay at t ` w,, 1Qald o c4�rr tas W 1t Wired went zzito fie`. `� old for a Asa i T nxber n in.inCO ardo Cot a ndition W to- tory ada J. a E C T r�q o Ia county. e u d z c noon to fan iwhen he moved a awe � ,1Y carried Q ,*, ¢ � .' � tinder his CO do Yorba and —n aml on, �z r a J n Wilso n n i r '3. �'• s a. t'�. y obt '' '1 d�! aI ned from P B 8401 PA• 88 et se N was living 4. 3. $• on traif Packet Pg. 1047 B " © Spring Trails hearing Item#B Part 2 of 2 Items Planning Commission 11-14-12 Submittal of facts with summary re: Current regulations of development from July 1986. VERDEMONT AREA PLAN Approved and adopted by SanBernardino City council,Planning commission July, 1986, c Here in enclosed are excerpts from the above stated document,marked pages 1 thru 6, and have highlighted points to review,re: The Spring Trails Project. u 1- You will note on page 2(i of original document)the members of the committee to draw up this document, one of which is the person who later initiated the Martin N Ranch Project/AKA/SPRING TRAILS PROJECT,Mr. Joe Bonadiman. 2- Please note the plan elements stated on page 3 (13 of original document) 3- Please note the zoning regulations on page 4( 10 of original document) and the fact a that these regulations have been adhered to for 26+years by every home and ranch owner with in the Verdemont Area Plan influence and followed every regulation set by the city since and up till now(Spring Trails want to break open the Zoning and thus result in high density housing next door to the large parcels and rural usage ranchettes,that have live stock and/or, producing fields of edible vegetation)which will ultimately cause friction and poor mix blending of residential housing styles) , and the technique of averaging will have enormous negative impact on the rest of the Verdemont area build out and the existing infrastructure below this project which in some areas is rated'F", 4- Please note on page 5 ( 13 of original document)the stated definition of record for RE-1 or(res-1)as highlighted. °CL 5- Please note on page 6(39 of original document)the stated purpose and plan recommendations of this document that again,have been adhered to for 26+years U and should be honored and respected by the city for administering this plan to all the current residents to build and abide by all these years. 4 6- To create high density housing and visual degradations opposite to the last 26+ F years of development would be very disrespectful and insulting to the current w residents efforts to maintain this rural lifestyle with their independent and well = achieved exercise in making Verdemont what it is today. 7- Finally, by opening up a Pandora's box,by using anew approach to skirting the F Verdemont Area Plan,by averaging residences per acre and not t residence per a gross acre as prescribed,other developers in the same area are hungry for this action m to apply in order to allow them to do the same and create even more dense housing, E thus the current residents in this rural designed lifestyle with-in this dual alluviall 9 R canyon area,will be impacted by over crowding,excessive traffic, over taxing the a existing infrastructure below this project;that is not mitigated to be improved before or after this project or any of the 5 other projects in the immediate area are finished. Development must be held up to complete a true Verdemont Area Specific Infrastructure Plan, and have the new infrastructure design upgrades in place to Packet;Pgt.1 Q48x' 6 B tak protect all current residents and receive the new projects in the almost 2500 acres of available land above Belmont avenue, or else,resulting in total failure of the existing infrastructure,and possibly creating some legal ramifications from damages or losses due to those failures. 9- #s 6 ,7,8 do not take any educated degrees to figure out and are plain as day to a good eye for : 1-safe and child safe streets ,wide streets(50 year build out),well coordinated street layouts for safe and proper flow(ie access for emergency access H and evacuation), controlled intersections for downhill speeds; 2-proper drainages and corrected culverts (sized) and safely designed and maintained flood channels for up to 100 year flood regulations or even 500 year; 3-utilities (liquid and c electrical) planned and available for 50 yr build out and in prior to start of build y up; 4-and least of all : can the city of SanBernardino provide all the services CO necessary to any and all of the new projects in the Verdemont area with it's unique N requirements not normal to the lower areas of the valley? 10-This project is not the real problem, it is the impact(on all the above and more concerns by the residents)that it and the other 5 projects together will have and are not being addressed prior to coming here tonight and should have. Politics have N played a huge part in this and the other 5 projects getting this far and will probably N advance it a with out the concerns here-in being even addressed. R d v d d 0 C d V C 0 0. N d 0 O U Q N r Z Z W 2 U Q F F a C C . d E L v A Y V Q V ,PacketPg�1ti49-_ �? 1,0 pk . ;�ts� a Tot Y1M�' Y V a N r R a 1 d * U Qf . L C y 0 a w m 0 N ' hll Ylft, �< AY Ah r`' z w d4Yax"m kip U 9''g RF { t' ... ,... .r ...........�.....,..w..u...n.v.i..,...,..v«..n.,....n..�..w.«+i.rw� .. �r�.l.....ma... w...xi.n:n..w... ..,...,+ww.+r.<........,�,-.......1Feu:.��� .,w.n.i...in-:...:4"..: r..i.u.�...�.,. Packet Pg. 1050 !t R r�v'R''kj a .�cXa rti ` �.,Fe�Y vdF „{a !� t .I,•� 3,.'k'�'J�w ha'Y ro ,iT��y „^ ��y�� 7 .v"3`F'a Rrac} }Jf(S" „1 tey. ��;t'�}`xtr�'r�.,�r, :.s,�.. e.<i.•. d .v�#.".� � AOk + $Atl'..3{A*71AL"d1gOc �1�:1.'V�.rt`;lA N !SVIP In"Ox NOV � Sathat all � 9K Y ry i LO cq CL N CU ' •Y+��(Z A t i Vp ���a�py� E A tl ✓✓�g ...///��� v+I }.p�y 'e i.::JS i E �1 3k`j1r) .s°t..°�ary\. •d fr ,p � p�.�f�� �{ ��£! i'i1[: n AdN6o: �eA � ' t• `'��✓ it�b.K ry 7y�a;' C S ••r Y ' VFM )D 4 �I�.+�Ersx$ R �� 1 "O C ?. tttt fa .1 yp M�4J}'3 J Q. R TO yy�IM F py�J�M y S SSI 2f6F 'M cam^ .. 'V l{�NG�Ya i.y�M dry` Ygrrrk y�?fir�EYtty� 'll,y4 N t���4 YEW>YA {Yry�y�y' Ih�. I�Y�I x�f�,fy-t�CCCy}sfi.'��t�titlr��y ��. w �cMIRIMi rfrw5't. g� r1{1- r p{s aSr ryrY f - i.g .k �yyM A} 4�4�tSp�YCg6��A ta aa u* a a 4vwr.l�..+.r.. •`..w�wr.�'�++W+l�[:� ...r:iw.Y.:w�MYmv-n.�:+en..a..Mw.�...rn... .n. n � . f- C n - N son,k4m, Ow An LO E U CL N r r d CL L r�1 �/+y�z Wo � �e� aU+��r 5'LT�i +' Mnk 3 4 �v "1 O l�41 IT$ ►, for d U y a Ap uj kA Vex + h� i i} x Ila RV y ytltl ryp' a all Qh�tpt�4� bp' held d � ibe' 3kAt'•„st .the element. © q , it s.a.t '�.akild.: li g4A8.C.!►x. 93*4 "i zoning 0+04is"Acy 5 c CL LOA $1;Ldl l'r¢ 1tlrr/gm 4tte' � '. � N ituxma iteamm sn,GibX : r UCL CN CD •- �;4:.: tlta�llt�' gg4t�3l�tcy trga#,da�►�1a#' �• ,'�• t �°�' tNertse�,:: 2Y<a �. Boas $ i r,aidr� ► " �# �reebi n . �x A '� ' Colt CStAln��4ib1 � a "pl. N N w K L v ' Lip F c Q14 6.0.1 Y r 3 ri,. :2 um i ss ei�isCittq ��rid .uses w.ithiq the project L dy g 3 s1M4�ts kAe 1otan andiBEclputan. Of F tai use$' t �aa9boa at tbe liras ai plan m � N for V09, ri O. '€ 1a ,3 gyre is u6 $+ u u ►. Etta. ak all, � : » 1 �q�a/s� w�eg� 3�1vV*yob �O• .N A wall ?## A.. cQ q U4la$a titu;tl AQ ip1kA �' yAirteQ\ i t11� ' �S ;. E u4?�t �17 [y��y�yypyyy--AK X d POW to $� a-€'yIlow r yy .y�y'��yy mi Mill MOO 'AAAFFF aMA"'1i Y ' d CL q ,y L u \ #04 ri as a w a o s ' Z LLI iA COOP, , ho r�r � � Olt �1� fiy#ion, E �41�l�1,04 t r �bk ` ti8 7 a� h0u, a ` fti a vriitr + a! © ` 14 ci :nMt n hit ,DeyelopMent and Design Element 2 ca kiR .Wm': ,x'0.44 YM$ '1t Litt, pV@ Q d1,h. t aafe� iSt r�r t i O Ear CN 040, 01. ";'OIL ,ti« kt .t1 1' �R• i -q E f f 93t? t �1 StU $ /1 ° $ udd p iAll Q 411k a Spa N CL 0, UVAC co" AKI WA �. CL k t .dr ► ia #r, .� dk e ; a ty .. W • `� rtom, 4,, v E U a.. Q 39 VVI Packet Pg. 1055 ' `6B.0 AGENDA ITEM#1 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION CASE: Spring Trails Development Agreement (DA) No. 11-01 [Ref. Specific Plan (SP) No 10-01 General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 02-09, H Development Code Amendment (DCA) 12-10 Tentative Tract Map (TTM)No 15576 (Subdivision No. 02-09)1 ~ c a CONTINUED y HEARING DATE: January 23, 2013 N N_ WARD: 5 M r C7 OWNER/APPLICANT: Montecito Equities, Ltd. N 100 Pacifica, Suite 345 Irvine, CA 92618 c Contact: Jeff Weber 949-254-0135 jeffweberl@msn.com y U a M REQUEST/LOCATION: z W A Development Agreement for the implementation of the Spring Trails project, which is = proposed to consist of a specific plan for development of 304 single- family lots, 107.8 acres of a open space, hiking trails, roadways and three detention basins on the 352.8-acre project site F formerly known as the Martin Ranch. The site is located in the unincorporated area of a Verdemont in San Bernardino County, north of Meyers Road and northwest of the northerly terminus of Little League Drive, in the City of San Bernardino's sphere of influence. Primary t access to the site is planned as a westerly extension of Verdemont Drive. Assessor Parcel Numbers: 348-071-05 through-10, 348-111-03, -04, -07, -08, -30, 44 CONSTRAINTS/OVERLAYS: Spring Trails Specific Plan Overlay (proposed), Foothill Fire/High Fire Hazard Zone, High Wind Zone, Alquist-Priolo Zone, Hillside Management Overlay District ,�PackekP�1Q56 s.B.� Spring Trails SP No. 10-01, GPA No. 02-09, DCA 12-10, TTMNo. 15576(Sub. No. 02-09), DA No. 11-01 November 14,2012 �j Page 2 V ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS: ❑ Exempt from CEQA, Section 15332—Infill Development ❑ No Significant Effect ❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration with Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program ® Environmental Impact Report with Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program and Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations (available on the City's web site at _ www.sbcitv.ore—see"How do I..."and"Locate..."and click Planning Documents) r STAFF RECOMMENDATION: c ® Approval ❑ Conditions N ❑ Denial ❑ Continuance to: ® Recommend to Mayor and Common Council 0 0 a m PROJECT DESCRIPTION co The applicant is requesting approval of Development Agreement(DA)No. 11-01 (Attachment A) under the authority of Development Code Chapter 19.40, to set forth binding development ° agreements between the City and the applicant regarding the proposed Spring Trails project. r z z UJ The Spring Trails project consists of Specific Plan (SP) No. 10-01, General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 02-09, Development Code Amendment (DCA) 12-10, Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 15576(Subdivision No. 02-09). The Planning Commission previously heard and acted upon F all of the project components except for the proposed Development Agreement at their a November 14, 2012 meeting. The applicant had requested that the Development Agreement be considered at a later date, as work was still required on the document. After hearing the staff report and considering the facts and findings and public testimony on the project, the Commission recommended denial of the project to the Mayor and Common Council. The project site is currently within the City of San Bernardino's unincorporated sphere of influence ("SOI") and is proposed to be annexed into the City. The project also includes the annexation of an adjacent 26.4-acre area consisting of six parcels owned by various property owners. The area is adjacent to the west of the project site along Meyers Road and currently has four occupied,multiple-acre lots. It is being included in the annexation element of the project to prevent the creation of a county "island" within the City of San Bernardino, which would not be allowed under regulations governing the Local Agency Formation Commission of San Bernardino County. A land use proposal has not been submitted for this 26.4-acre area, and it is not owned or otherwise under the control of the applicant. For these reasons, no development would occur on these parcels as part of this project. Spring Trails SP No. 10-01, GPA No. 02-09, DCA 12-10, 7TMNo. 15576(Sub.No. 02-09),DA No. 11-01 November 14,2012 Page 3 The Spring Trails Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map No. 15576 will accommodate 304 single-family detached units (303 new units and one existing residence), separated by open space corridors, drainage ways, roadways, and sloped areas. A system of pathways will connect the residences with neighborhood parks and natural open spaces. Development will be focused onto approximately 241.5 acres, or about 68 percent of the total site, and will include nine acres of parks and 125.1 acres of internal slopes and fuel modification zones. The remaining 32 percent of Spring Trails will be preserved as natural open space. GPA No. 02-09 will establish the Spring Trails Specific Plan as the General Plan Land Use designation for the site and DCA 12-10 N CU will recognize the Spring Trails Specific Plan within the Development Code. rn If the project is approved by the City, the applicant will then submit an application with the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to annex the subject 352.8-acre Spring Trails Specific Plan project area and the adjacent 26.4-acre area to the immediate southwest of the site N into the City. Further, should the project be approved and annexed, the applicant would come back at a later date to process a Development Permit for the design of the on-site improvements M (residential units, parks),per the standards set forth in the Spring Trails Specific Plan. M N r SETTING/SITE CHARACTERISTICS j o a The project site is located in the unincorporated area of Verdemont in San Bernardino County, d) north of Meyers Road and northwest of the northerly terminus of Little League Drive, in the City's sphere of influence. Primary access to the site is planned as a westerly extension of 'a Verdemont Drive. A secondary access road is proposed to connect the western portion of the site a to the 1-215 frontage road. Z Currently, there is no infrastructure serving the site. Primary access is proposed from an W extension of Verdemont Drive to Little League Drive. Required secondary access is proposed = via a new right-of-way that will run from the southwestern portion of the site southward to a Interstate 215. The applicant has not acquired all of the properties for either the primary or Q secondary access routes to the site. This issue is discussed in detail within the analysis, below. .. d As the project is currently located in an unincorporated part of San Bernardino County, it is r subject to the County's zoning. Additionally, since the site is located within the City's sphere of R influence, it is designated by the City's General Plan as being within the Verdemont Heights Area Plan, which calls for large-lot single-family residences and a rural character. Table 1, below, depicts the existing land use and General Plan land use designations of the site and surrounding properties. i- .8 Spring Trails SP No. 10-01, GPA No. 02-09,DCA 12-10, 7TMNo. 15576(Sub.No. 02-09), DA No. 11-01 November 14,2012 Page 4 TABLE 1: SITE AND SURROUNDING LAND USES LOCATION LAND USE GENERAL PLAN Existing County: Resource Conservation (RC) and Rural Living, 5-ac, min. lot size(RL-5) Existing City: Verdemont Heights H Subject Site Natural open space and a single- Area Plan F family residence Proposed City: Spring Trails rn Specific Plan Overlay and Residential Estate(RE) (for the vii 26.4 acres located outside of the o N Spring Trails Specific Plan area N North Natural open space RL-5 (County) M Single-family residences and Single Residential, 1-ac. min. lot South size (RS-1) (County), and natural open space e RE(City) a Resource Conservation(RC) East Natural open space (County), and Residential Low(RL) and RE c) (City) a. West Single-family residence and RL-5 (County), and natural open space RE(City) z W % PROJECT HISTORYBACKGROUND To 1917—The property was owned by the Martin family and known as Cable Canyon Ranch. a Y 1943 — The U.S. Government used a portion of the property as a small arms target range in conjunction with the nearby Camp Ono. a September 1996 — The project site was placed in the City of San Bernardino's Sphere of ¢ Influence. 1996 -Applications for the"Martin Ranch"Project entitlements were first submitted to the City 1998 - A Notice of Preparation ("NOP") for an FIR was first released; and a public scoping meeting was held in April 1998. However, the 1998 Draft EIR was rejected by the City's Planning Department due to certain deficiencies. CDecember 2002 - A revised draft FIR was released; comments to the 2002 draft EIR focused on nearby neighbors' concerns regarding traffic, and based on these comments, a decision was made pacKet P1059i 6.B.0 Spring Trails SP No. 10-01, GPA No. 02-09, DCA 12-10, 7TMN6. 15576(Sub.No. 02-09),DA No. 11-01 November 14,2012 �J Page 5 r/ to revise and recirculate the EIR The City and applicant agreed to reform the plan to create an access point along a different route than Meyers Road. October 2003 - While the applicant and the City were negotiating a new route for the primary access point to the project site, a major fire burned through the project site, destroying the vegetation. Due to the changes in the road and the project site,the applicant and the City agreed to prepare a new Draft EIR. June 10, 2004 - A Notice of Preparation (NOP) reflecting the revised project was issued, and a public scoping meeting was held on June 30, 2004. The 2004 draft EIR addressed traffic/access input, as well as other issues necessitated by the passage of time and change in the development landscape,but was never circulated for public review. n The necessary approvals contemplated in 2004 included: 1)a General Plan Amendment to allow the pre-zoning of the project site and adjacent county property, establishment of a Hillside N Management Overlay District, and to allow lot size averaging in the Residential Low District; 2) - pre-zoning of the Martin Ranch property to a Planned Residential Development District; 3) annexation by the City; 4) creation of a Hillside Management Overlay District ("HMOD"); and N 5) a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the project site into approximately 359 lots including 330 single family residential lots. a 2005 - The necessary project approvals were revised to include pre-zoning the Martin Ranch property to Residential Low; pre-zoning the "County island" property to Residential Estate; and w a Development Code Amendment to allow lot size averaging in the HMOD. A Development a Agreement with the City was also proposed to control the development of the Martin Ranch site, with a land use plan, design guidelines, development standards, and a description of off-site improvements, as well as a reimbursement provision for costs of offsite improvements advanced w by the developer that exceeded the fair share contribution of the project. _ U A new Draft EIR was prepared in 2005 to address significant changes to the project, including alternate access roads; change in lot sizes; new project objectives; and increased traffic a improvement costs. In sum,five(5)versions of a screencheck DEIR were prepared. d E September 1, 2005 - the San Bernardino Design Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the Martin Ranch Draft EIR, and determined that additional information and analyses would be necessary a before the Draft EIR could be released for public review. July 17, 2006 - The City released a completed Draft EIR. Significant issues were raised within comment letters received, and the City and applicant decided to prepare a revised Draft EIR to address these comments,primarily related to noise, air quality,biological resources, geotechnical and fire safety issues. O 2007 - Work continued on a revised Draft EIR, but another fire on the site occurred in 2007, necessitating further project changes. 1 Spring Trails SP No. 10-01, CPA No. 02-09, DCA 12-10, TTMNo. 15576(Sub. No. 02-09), DA No. 11-01 November 14,2012 Page 6 November 19, 2009 - The Project was reviewed again by the DRC, which recommended that a new NOP for an EIR be released for public review. November 24, 2009 -The NOP was released for public review, along with an Initial Study. December 14, 2009 -A public scoping session was held to obtain comments on the Initial Study. July 14,2011 -Due to significant technical issues, which needed to be addressed, the D/ERC did not approve the release of the revised Draft EIR until this date. r July 29, 2011 through September 12, 2011 - The 45-day public review period for the revised Draft EIR occurred. Q C September 22, 2011 - A revised Planning Permit application was submitted to the City for the Ln project, now referred to as "Spring Trails", and included a request for approval of the Spring Trails Specific Plan (SP) No. 10-01; General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 02-09 and Tentative Tract Map (TTM)No. 15576 to allow for development of 307 single-family dwellings, 111 acres M of undeveloped open space, hiking trails and nine acres of parks on the 352.8-acre project site formerly known as the Martin Ranch. Annexation to the City of San Bernardino was also r proposed for the 352.8-acre project site and an adjacent 26.4-acre area. GPA No. 02-09 was a proposed to establish the SP as the pre-zoning for the project site, establish the Residential Estate Land Use District (RE) for the additional 26.4-acre annexation area, and incorporate project 2 access roadways in the GP Circulation Element. U) a. May 3, 2012—The D/ERC met on the revised project and recommended that the project and EIR be forwarded to the Planning Commission for action. z w October 18, 2012 —A community meeting was held to present the latest version of the proposed project to the public. F November 1, 5 and 6, 2012—Revised exhibits and documents were submitted. Q c m November 14, 2012 —the Planning Commission held a public hearing on all of the Spring Trails t project components except for DA 11-01, which the applicant requested to be continued. After r considering the Facts and Findings in the staff report and hearing public testimony, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the project to the Mayor and Common Council. ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing Development Agreement No. DA 11-01 as it pertains to the Spring Trails project to establish assurances between the City and the applicant relating to the buildout of the project. The following is a summary of the three primary items within the Agreement. 1. Since the applicant is still in the process of acquiring the rights-of-way for access to the site, the applicant is waiving the provisions of California Government Code Section Packet PQ'�Rgt1 Spring Trails SP No. 10-01, GPA No. 02-09, DCA 12-10, 7TMNo. 15576(Sub.No. 02-09), DA No. 11-01 November 14,2012 �j Page 7 V 66462.5, thereby waiving rights to require condemnation of the properties needed for the access. 2. The applicant agrees to install and dedicate to the City all necessary sewer infrastructure for the project, but is requesting credit/reimbursement of excess Sewer Facilities Costs that benefit properties other than the project site. 3. The applicant agrees to construct and dedicate to the City all required Public Park infrastructure for the project, but is requesting credit/reimbursement of excess Public Park Facilities Costs. rn CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT(CEOA) .Q An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared in accordance with CEQA (available on the City's web site at w)Aw.sbcity.ore—see "How do I..."and"Locate..."and click Planning Documents). The Draft EIR identified potentially significant impacts of the project, discusses M avoidance measures incorporated in the project design, and numerous mitigation measures M proposed to further reduce potential impacts of the project. Comments were received on the DEIR. These comments, and the responses to comments, are provided within the preliminary Final EIR(FEIR) prepared for the project. Mitigation measures presented in the EIR have been a included in the Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program (MM/RP). The mitigation measures in the MM/RP will reduce all of the impacts of the project to less-than-significant levels,with the following exceptions: a Air Qualfty Impact 5.2-1: The proposed project is not consistent with the applicable air quality management w plan because construction-related air pollutant emissions would exceed the South Coast Air x Quality Management District's regional and localized emissions thresholds. Mitigation a measures used to control construction and operational emissions would reduce project and a cumulative level impacts but they would remain significant and unavoidable. .. C d Impact 5.2-1: Construction activities associated with the proposed project would generate short- L term emissions that exceed SCAQMD's regional significance thresholds for NOx, PM10 and U PM2.5 and would significantly contribute to the nonattainment designations of the South Coast a Air Basin for ozone and particulate matter(PM10 and PM25). Mitigation measures would reduce the project's construction-related impacts but the project- and cumulative-level impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Impact 5.24: Construction activities associated with grading operations could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations of PM 10 at the existing on-site residence and the surrounding off-site residences. Mitigation measures would reduce the project's construction- related impact on sensitive receptors but it would remain significant and unavoidable. Spring Trai SP No. 10-01,GPA No. 01-09,DCA 12-10, 7TMNo. 15576(Sub.No. 02-09),DA No. 11-01 November 14,2012 Page 8 Noise Impact 5:10-5: Project-related construction activities would result in temporary noise increase at the existing on-site residence and surrounding noise-sensitive receptors due to the length of the construction period, that is, approximately three years. Mitigation would reduce the project's impact on local sensitive receptors but it would remain significant ad unavoidable. Transportation and Traffic N Impact 5-14:2: Six freeway improvements would operate at unacceptable LOS for the year co 2035: C CL • The I-215 freeway segment between Palm Avenue and Devore Road (northbound and �? southbound); • The I-215 freeway segment between Devore Road and I-15 (northbound); • The I-15 Freeway segment between Glen Helen Parkway and Sierra Avenue northbound M r and southbound); and N • The I-15 freeway segment between I-215 and Glen Helen Parkway(northbound). 0 Spring Trails would generate traffic and would contribute to the unacceptable levels of service d jon these freeway segments Additionally, mainline improvements to the I-5 and I-215 in the project area are not included in a fee program at this time There are not feasible mitigation 0 measures to reduce the significant impacts. As a result, these impact are significant and U unavoidable. a M Greenhouse Gas Emissions z w Impact 5.16-1: Project-related construction activities would generate 5,660 metric tons (MTon) _ of CO2e and operational activity would generate about 9,559 MTon of CO2e. Mitigation F measure would reduce GHG emissions from construction activities, area sources, energy use, and waste and recycling activities to levels that are less than significant; however, the vehicle GHG emissions would not be reduced to levels that are less than significant, and project- E generated emission of GHG would create significant and unavoidable impacts. _ U Statement of Overriding Considerations a As a result of the significant unavoidable adverse impacts the project would generate, Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines requires the lead agency to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable significant impacts, and to determine whether the impacts are acceptably overridden by the project benefits. If the City finds that the previously stated major project benefits outweigh the unavoidable significant adverse environmental impacts noted above, the City may, nonetheless, approve the project. Each of the separate benefits are hereby determined to be, in itself, and independent of other project benefits, basis for overriding all unavoidable environmental impacts identified in the EIR and these findings. The City's findings identified all of the adverse environmental impacts and feasible mitigation measures which can imiLilliellillillitil 111111111 Spring Trails SP No. 10-01,GPA No. 02-09, DCA 12-10, TTM No. 15576(Sub.No. 02-09),DA No. 11-01 November 14,2012 Page 9 reduce impacts to less than significant levels where feasible, or to the lowest feasible levels where significant impacts remain. The findings have also analyzed three alternatives to determine whether there are reasonable or feasible alternatives to the proposed action, or whether they might reduce or eliminate the significant adverse impacts of the project. A summary of the project's benefits that outweigh the significant unavoidable adverse impacts is as follows: Finding: Having considered the unavoidable adverse impacts of the project, the City hereby determines that all feasible mitigation has been adopted to reduce or avoid the potentially significant impacts identified in the EK and that no additional feasible mitigation is available to further reduce significant impacts. Further, the F City fords that economic, social and other considerations of the project related to provision of housing outweigh the unavoidable adverse impacts described above. .c The reason for accepting these remaining unmitigated impacts are described N below. In making this finding, the City has balanced the benefits of the Project LO against its unavoidable environmental impacts, and has indicated its willingness to accept those effects. M The City further finds that the project's benefits are substantial and override each unavoidable impact of the project. These benefits include substantial infrastructure that the project will directly and indirectly, through funding a ( mechanisms, provide. These benefits include the following, which are laid out in �'•+� greater detail in the findings: U) • The water supply system for the area will be augmented to provide water a to the new residents, but will also provide improved service to those M existing residents in the area currently on City water. • Three on-site reservoirs will be constructed to provide better service and w fire protection to the area. s • Off-site improvements to the water supply system include a series of a pump stations and transmission lines within the Verdemont community. • Improved fuel modification zones will provide protection to both the Q proposed community as well as to the existing structures in the area. d • Project would be required to pay development impacts fees for law E enforcement, schools, library, fire, traffic and other related fees that will supplement the City's funds and provide the necessary public services to a the Project. • Traffic improvements, including dual left turn lanes at the intersection of Palm Avenue and Kendall Drive. In particular, the project scope includes substantial infrastructure improvements for water storage and delivery systems that will not only serve the project itself, but also benefit the larger community. The additional water storage and delivery systems will provide for more effective wildfire controls for existing residents as well as the proposed project given the additional safety and setback measures that are incorporated into the project. The water infrastructure will also provide a Spring Trails SP No. 10-01, GPA No. 02-09,DCA 12-10, TTMNo. 15576(Sub.No. 02-09), DA No. 11-01 November 14,2012 Page 10 source potable water for existing residents as well as a water source for firefighting personnel in the event of a wildfire. The project components related to fire hazards and safety, including construction, buffer zones, and other features will also provide additional benefits to those residents already located in the area as a means of preventing the spread of any wildfires through the area. Storm drainage improvements will also provide additional benefits related to the existing flood and erosion conditions prevalent in the area. The area and existing residents have faced historical issues with flooding, landslides and wildfires y which will be substantially improved with the implementation of the proposed project. Funding mechanisms and impact fees that will be generated as part of the a, project will assist in roadway improvements and as well general find CL contributions through property tax that can assist in funding necessary police, fire and safety services for the area. N N From an economic standpoint, the project will pay substantial fees that will M benefit the City, including Development Impact Fees, School Fees, Library Fees M permitting fees, public services fees, and related development fees that provide N additional benefit both to the community by increasing the funding and services available, but also to the City. For example, the project will be required to pay o l — additional fees to support police services in the amount of$183,506.18 and to pay 0 library fees in the amount of $181,375.52. The project provides additional @ property taxes that will also contribute to public services. These fees are outlined U) in the findings and further identified in the EIR. The project will also provide the a opportunity for construction jobs in the community for a substantial period of time, depending on how quickly the proposed project is built out. The project provides additional social benefits to the community and City as well. The project w will dedicate more than 245 acres of permanent open space, including natural = open space, controlled open space and parks, on site. The parks that are proposed L) as part of the project will include shade structures, tot lots, gardens, observation F points, and other related features and offer opportunities for the community that a are not currently present in the area. The project also provides an interconnected trail system that would include community trails for bicycle and pedestrian use, L equestrian trails, and hiking trails. These proposed trails would substantially increase the recreational opportunities currently available in the City. Furthermore, the City has a limited base of available high-quality, low density residential development based upon a review of the MLS listings for the City as well as under General Plan designation areas for low density residential development. Such high-quality, low density housing is desirable to attract and retain top quality candidates for positions at the University and other institutions. According to the City of San Bernardino Housing Element Adopted June 20, 2011, approximately one-third of the City's housing stock is between 30 and 49 years old, with an additional 35.3 percent over 50 years old. (Pages 3-25 and 3- 26). Only 2,720 housing units were constructed between the years of 2000-2005, Packet Pg. 1065 Spring Trails SPNo. 10-01, GPANo. 02-09, DCA 12-10, 7TMNo. 15576(Sub.No. 02-09),DA No. 11-01 November 14,2012 Page 11 during the height of the housing boom. (Housing Element Adopted June 20, 2011,Table H-12). The household composition of the City shows that 82%of the City's households are moderate to very-low income, while only 18% are above Moderate income. (Id Chart 4, pg. 3-17). There are few other proposed developments within the City at this time and thus the proposed Project will fill a residential need within the City as is envisioned within the City's General Plan. Such a need is identified generally in Housing Element policy 3.1.1, which states: "Provide adequate sites to accommodate the production of a variety of housing types through land use designation, zoning, specific plans, and overlay districts." N The Verdemont Heights Area Plan, found on page 2-75 of the General Plan Land Use Element and in which this Project site is located, further discusses strategy to meet the Housing Element policy 3.1.1, identified in strategy 4 on page 2-83 to `c "Promote the development of higher end housing." cn As discussed above, the development of the project would result in significant and unavoidable N adverse impacts with regard to Traffic and Transportation, Air Quality and Noise; however the benefits obtained from the project(listed above) are sufficient to justify approval of the project. M N With regard to Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions, California Public Resource Code 21002 f°- provides: "In the event specific economic, social and other conditions make infeasible such o project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects can be approved in spite of d one or more significant effects thereof." Section 21002.1(c) provides: "In the event that 4:: economic, social, or other conditions make it infeasible to mitigate one or more significant effects of a project on the environment,the project may nonetheless be approved or carried out at a the discretion of a public agency..." Finally, California Administrative Code, Title 4, 15093 (a) states: "If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental F effects,the adverse environmental effects may be considered `acceptable."' w 2 The project benefits include substantial infrastructure that the project will directly and indirectly, czi through funding mechanisms, provide. In particular, the project scope includes substantial F infrastructure improvements for water storage and delivery systems that will not only serve the a project itself, but also benefit the larger community. The additional water storage and delivery systems will provide for more effective wildfire controls for existing residents as well as the proposed project given the additional safety and setback measures that are incorporated into the project. The water infrastructure will also provide a source of potable water for existing residents as well as a water source for firefighting personnel in the event of a wildfire. The a project components related to fire hazards and safety, including construction, buffer zones, and other features will also provide additional benefits to those residents already located in the area as a means of preventing the spread of any wildfires through the area. Storm drainage improvements will also provide additional benefits related to the existing flood and erosion conditions prevalent in the area. The area and existing residents have faced historical issues with flooding, landslides and wildfires which will be substantially improved C with the implementation of the proposed project. Funding mechanisms and impact fees that will be generated as part of the project will assist in roadway improvements and as well general fund Packet Pg. 1066 s.e.0 Spring Trails SP No. 10-01, GPA No. 02-09,DCA 12-10, TTM No. 15576(Sub.No. 02-09), DA No. 11-01 November 14,2012 Page 12 contributions through property tax that can assist in funding necessary police, fire and safety services for the area. The proposed project will also provide additional recreational sources for the community, creating hiking, equestrian and biking trails throughout the site and connecting an area that currently does not offer such sources of recreation to the residents of the City. Furthermore, a base of high-quality low density residential development is important for the ability of the City's institutions to hire and retain top quality candidates for positions at the University and other institutions. There are few other proposed developments within the City at this time and thus the proposed project will fill a residential need within the City as is envisioned within the City's General Plan. a In addition to the safety, recreational, social and housing features that the project will provide, the project will offer employment during the construction phases and provide revenue from the N additional property taxes that the project will generate. The project will be required to pay additional fees to support police services in the amount of$183,506.18, pay schools fees, pay library fees in the amount of $181,375.52, improvement existing roadways and provide N additional access points that otherwise may not occur, as well as pay other City development fees. The payment of fees and additional services benefit both the project and the surrounding o community. a As the CEQA Lead Agency for the proposed Project, the City of San Bernardino has reviewed w the project description and the project alternatives as presented in the EIR, and fully understands a the project and project alternatives proposed for development. Further, the City finds that all potential adverse environmental impacts and all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the impacts from the project have been identified in the Draft EIR, the Final EIR and public z LU testimony. The City also finds that a reasonable range of alternatives was considered in the EIR, and finds that approval of the project is appropriate. _ U a The City has identified economic and social benefits, important policy objectives and local and a regional benefits that will result from approval of the Development Agreement, as discussed in above, and in Attachment G, the Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations that were prepared for the project, which result from implementing the project. The City has balanced these substantial social and economic benefits against the unavoidable significant adverse effects of the project. The City finds that the substantial social and economic benefits a that will result from the project override the unavoidable environmental effects of the project. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Development Agreement is consistent with the General Plan, in that approval of the associated General Plan Amendment (GPA 02-09) will establish the Spring Trails Specific Plan as the land use designation for the subject property. i Packet Pg. 1067 a 6.B.0 Spring Rails SP No. 10-01, GPA No. 02-09,DCA 12-10, TTMNo. 15576(Su6.No. 02-09),DA No. 11-01 November 14,2012 Page 13 2. The Development Agreement is consistent with any applicable Specific Plan, in that the Development Agreement will implement all requirements of the Spring Trails Specific Plan. 3. The Development Agreement is consistent with the Development Code, in that the Development Agreement does not allow any uses or set standards outside of those allowed by Title 19 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code. 4. The Development Agreement will promote the welfare and public interest of the City, in that the Development Agreement will establish an agreement between the City and the applicant to provide assurances that the sewer and public park infrastructure required for the project will be constructed. Additionally, the sewer and public park infrastructure c will serve properties that are adjacent to the project site. Thus, the Development y Agreement will promote the welfare and public interest of the City. N N N_ CONCLUSION M The proposed Development Agreement is consistent with the General Plan and Development N Code. The Environmental Impact Report has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, including many mitigation measures that will protect public health and safety. a RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the Mayor & Common a Council approve Development Agreement No. DA 11-01, subject to the Facts and Findings M contained in the staff report. z w Respectfully Submitted. a a Tony Stewart,AICP Deputy Director/City Planner E a Approved for Distribution: J M. �go eeler,AICP Community Development Director r` `— Attachment A: Draft Spring Trails Development Agreement Packet Pg. 1068 10 s*6 g j ATTACHMENT A RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: The City of San Bernardino 300 North"D" Street, 2nd Floor San Bernardino, CA 92418 Attn: City Clerk N r c AM: Exemptfrom Recording Feesptvsunnl to Government Code Section 17383 Q' U) ea N N N_ Cl) a— M N r SPRING TRAILS r DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT CL � � m between U V a M THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, a California charter law city and municipal corporation Uj x V a and a Y G MONTECITO EQUITIES, LTD. L a California limited partnership a Spring Trails Development Ag ent-014 WS I-W0..100 102 1 -Packet Pg Mo69xf'' 6.B.0 �.,., TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. DEFINITIONS AND EXHIBITS....................................................................................3 1.1. Definitions............................................................................................................... 3 1.2. Exhibits................................................................................................................... 7 2. GENERAL PROVISIONS...............................................................................................7 2.1. Binding Effect of Agreement.................................................................................. 7 2.2. Ownership............................................................................................................... 7 2.3. Term........................................................................................................................ 7 R 2.4. Assignment............................................................................................................. 7 rn 2.5. Voluntary Amendment or Cancellation of Agreement........................................... 8 2.6. Termination............................................................................................................. 8 2.7. Notices....................................................................................................................9 LO N 3. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY.................................................................... 10 Cq 3.1. Vested Right to Develop....................................................................................... 10 3.2. Effect of Agreement on Land Use Regulations.................................................... 10 N 3.3. Timing of Development........................................................................................ 10 3.4. Changes and Amendments to Existing Development Approvals......................... 10 _ o 3.5. Reservations of Authority..................................................................................... l l m 3.6. Subsequent Development Approvals.................................................................... I 1 3.7. Modification or Suspension by State or Federal Law........................................... 12 3.8. Provision of Real Property Interests by San Bernardino...................................... 12 a 3.9. Third Party Permits and Approvals and Utilities.................................................. 13 3.10. Tentative Tract Map Extension............................................................................. 14 z z 4. PUBLIC BENEFITS.......................................................................................................14 Lu 4.1. Development Impact Fees..................................................................................... 14 4.2. Additional Permits and Approvals........................................................................ 14 F 4.3. Construction of Sewer Lines and Sewer Line Costs............................................. 14 a 4.4. Reserved]............................................................................................................. 15 4.5. Excess Sewer Facilities Credit.............................................................................. 15 a1 E 4.6. Sewer Fees Credit ................................................................................................. 15 U 4.7. Reimbursement from DeveloQers of Sewer Benefited Properties........................... 15 Cc 4.8. Credit and Reimbursement for Excess Public Park Facilities Dedication............... 16 5. PUBLIC FINANCING...................................................................................................17 5.1. Financing............................................................................................................... 17 6. REVIEW FOR COMPLIANCE.................................................................................... 17 6.1. Periodic Review...................................................................... ............................. 17 6.2. Procedure.............................................................................................................. 17 �..,. 6.3. Proceedings for Modification or Termination...................................................... 18 i Spring TTmhD elopm AV m"12 vssl�—1001672.1 PacketPg. 1070 6.4. Hearing on Modification or Termination.......................... .................................... 6.5. Certificate of Agreement Compliance.................................................................. 18 6.6. No Cross-Defaults................................................................................................. 18 7. PREVAILING WAGES................................................................................................. 19 7.1. Public Works Determination................................................................................. 19 8. DEFAULT AND REMEDIES.......................................................................................19 8.1. Remedies in General............................................................................................. 19 8.2. Specific Performance............................................................................................ 19 8.3. Release..................................................................................................................20 8.4. San Bernardino's Termination of Agreement or Exercise of Other Remedies Upon Montecito's Default..............................................................................................20 a 8.5. Montecito's Termination of Agreement or Exercise of Other Remedies Upon San Bernardino's Default.............................................................................................20 N N 9. THIRD PARTY LITIGATION.....................................................................................20 T 9.1. Third Party Litigation Concerning Agreement.....................................................20 N 10. MORTGAGEES.............................................................................................................21 r 0 10.1. Mortgagee Protection................................................... ....................................21 °- V11. REDEVELOPMENT AREA.........................................................................................21 cc U) 12. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS..............................................................................21 a 12.1. Recordation of Agreement....................................................................................21 C� r 12.2. Entire Agreement..................................................................................................21 12.3. Estoppel Certificates.............................................................................................22 w 12.4. Severability...........................................................................................................22 x 12.5. Interpretation and Governing Law........................................................................22 L) a 12.6. Section Headings ..................................................................................................22 12.7. Singular and Plural................................................................................................22 a 12.8. "Including."...........................................................................................................22 c m 12.9. Time of Essence....................................................................................................22 E 12.10. Calendar Periods...................................................................................................22 12.11. Waiver...................................................................................................................22 a 12.12. No Third Party Beneficiaries................................................................................23 12.13. Municipal Code.....................................................................................................23 12.14. Permitted Delays...................................................................................................23 12.15. Mutual Covenants.................................................................................................23 12.16. Successors in Interest............................................................................................ 23 12.17. Counterparts..........................................................................................................23 12.18. Jurisdiction and Venue..........................................................................................23 12.19. Proiect as a Private Undert aking...........................................................................23 12.20. Further Actions and Instruments...........................................................................24 12.21. Eminent Domain...................................................................................................24 ii Srym{Trails 0.+elupmeet Apcawnt-017 s.a.0 12.22. Attorneys' Fees.....................................................................................................24 12.23. Authority to Execute.............................................................................................24 N R L F C L Q llJ N N M r M N O Q 1 R y U a M F- z w x U Q F- E t U R Q �Lt Spring Tcti4 Devclopmm�Ageament-013 N681-I --140161 2.1 Packet Pg. 1072 s.s.0 �..� SPRING TRAILS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT This Spring Trails Development Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into between the City of San Bernardino, a California charter law city and municipal corporation ("San Bernardino"), and Montecito Equities, Ltd., a California limited partnership (hereinafter "Montecito"). This Agreement is dated as of , 2012 for reference only. This Agreement will not become effective until the "Effective Date" (defined below). San Bernardino and Montecito are entering into this Agreement in reliance on the facts set forth in the Recitals,below. RECITALS 5 a rn A. San Bernardino is authorized under Government Code Section 65864, et s_q. and City Municipal Code Chapter 19.40 (collectively, "Development Agreement Law") to enter to N into binding development agreements with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property for the development of that property. M B. Montecito owns or has an equitable interest in real property consisting of the r approximately three hundred fifty-three (353) acres of land ("Property") described in attached Exhibit A and depicted in attached Exhibit B ("Site Plan"). Although the Property is presently a located in the unincorporated territory of San Bernardino County, California ("County"), it is or IN., will become the subject of an application under Government Code Section 56000, et seq. before the R San Bernardino County Local Agency Formation Commission("LAFCO"), to annex the Property into San Bernardino's municipal limits ("Annexation Proceedings"). a M C. Montecito applied to San Bernardino for approval and enactment of this Agreement F as the primary governing instrument for the development and use of the Property. San Bernardino's w Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") and Common Council ("Common Council") have conducted public hearings and have found that this Agreement is consistent with San v Bernardino's General Plan("General Plan"),including the General Plan Land Use Element. D. On 20, the Common Council adopted its Resolution No. ("Enacting Resolution'), which approved this Agreement. The Enacting Resolution v became effective on the date of its adoption. CU E. By adopting the Enacting Resolution, the Common Council elected to exercise its a governmental powers with regard to the Development of the Property at the present time rather than later. This Agreement binds San Bernardino and future Common Councils and limits the Common Council's future exercise of its police powers. This Agreement has been extensively reviewed by the Planning Commission and the Common Council, both of which found it to be fair, just and reasonable and in the best interests of San Bernardino's citizens and the health, safety and welfare of the public. F. San Bernardino has complied with all California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code Section 21000, et SeMc.) ("CEQA") requirements with respect 1 Sgi,TM4 Dwdo .t A,...,-014 M68"OD-1001672.1 6.B.0 to the approval of this Agreement and of the Project, through the Common Council's certification of that certain Environmental Impact Report# ("ETR"). G. Developer proposes to subdivide and develop the Property as a phased residential development project in accordance with the following Development Approvals: 1. General Plan Amendment No. 02-09, approved by Resolution No. on 20_ 2. Specific Plan No. approved by Resolution No. on 20 a 3. Tentative Tract Map 15576 (SUB No. 02-09) ("Tract Map"), approved by Resolution No. on ,20_ a U) H. San Bernardino has placed certain conditions on its approval of the Tract Map Ln (collectively, "Conditions of Approval"), including (but not limited to) requirements that Montecito: M r 1. Dedicate to San Bernardino (or its designee) rights-of-way for water main N lines and related facilities("Water Line Easements'),easements for the construction and operation of water tank sites ("Tank Easements") and rights-of-way for sewer main lines and related c facilities("Sewer Line Easements"). d 2. Construct water lines and related facilities, including water tanks ("Water B Lines")within the easements shown in the Tract Map and dedicate them to San Bernardino. a 3. Construct sewer main lines and related facilities ("Sewer Lines") within the easements shown in the Tract Map and dedicate them to San Bernardino. z W 4. Improve seven (7) acres of the Property as shown on the Tract Map with = public park improvements ("Public Park Facilities") and dedicate the land and improvements to U San Bernardino. Q I. The Sewer Line Easements and Sewer Lines all benefit properties (collectively, "Sewer Benefited Properties") in addition to the Property. The Sewer Benefited Properties are E depicted on attached Exhibit E. The Sewer Line Easements and the Sewer Lines are referred to in this Agreement as the"Sewer Facilities". a J. San Bernardino and Montecito acknowledge that Montecito's obligation to jimprove and dedicate the Public Park Facilities may exceed the Project's fair share obligation for public park and recreational facilities as provided by the Land Use Regulations and state law. The Public Park Facilities benefit properties (collectively, "Park Benefited Properties") in addition to the Property. The Park Benefited Properties are depicted on the attached Exhibit F. K. All of San Bernardino's prior actions and approvals with regard to this Agreement complied with all applicable legal requirements related to notice,public hearings, findings, votes, and other procedural matters. 2 Spdry TMIs Development Ag mmt-014 N1681-M.-I W 167?I 6.B.0 L. The development of the Property in accordance with this Agreement will provide substantial benefits to San Bernardino. This Agreement eliminates uncertainty in planning and provides for the orderly development of the Property, ensures the progressive installation of necessary public improvements to serve the Project, and serves the purposes of the Development Agreement Law. M. In order to assure the vesting of its legal rights to develop the Property in accordance with this Agreement, Montecito has previously incurred and in the future will incur costs substantially exceeding those which it would incur in the absence of this Agreement . N 1. DEFINITIONS AND EXHIBITS. r- 1.1. Definitions. The following initially capitalized terms used in this Agreement have the following meanings: Q A. "Access Property(ies)" has the meaning ascribed to the term in Section 3.8.B. N B. "Agreement"means this Development Agreement: M M N C. "Annexation Proceedings" has the meaning ascribed to the term in Recital B. 0 D. "Annual Monitoring Report" has the meaning ascribed to the term in Section 6.1. U) E. "CEQA"has the meaning ascribed to the term in Recital F. a M F. "Certificate of Agreement Compliance" or "Certificate" has the F meaning ascribed to the term in Section 6.5. w G. "Common Council" means the Common Council of the City of San Bernardino. H. "Conditions of Approval'has the meaning ascribed to the term in Recital c H. " E r I. "County"has the meaning ascribed to the term in Recital B. a J. "Dedicate" or "Dedication" means Montecito's offering the public improvement in question for acceptance by San Bernardino into its system of public improvements, all in accordance with San Bernardino's reasonable and customary policies and procedures for the acceptance of publicly-dedicated improvements. K. "Development" means the subdivision and improvement of the Property for the purposes of constructing or reconstructing the structures, improvements and facilities comprising the Project, including grading; the construction of infrastructure and public and private facilities related to the Project, whether located within or outside the Property; the construction of buildings and structures; and the installation of landscaping. "Development" 3 Spring Tteib Development Areetacm-01 A M68I-000--100 1 EP_.1 6.B.0 does not include the maintenance of any building, structure, improvement or facility after its construction and completion. L. "Development Agreement Law" has the meaning ascribed to the term in Recital A. M. "Development Approvals" mean all approvals, permits and other entitlements applicable to the Development of the Property, including: specific plans and specific plan amendments; tentative and final subdivision and parcel maps; conditional use permits, public use permits and site plans; zoning;variances; and grading and building permits. y "A N. "Development Exactions" mean any exaction (other than a Development Impact Fee) imposed by San Berardino in connection with a Development Approval or in connection with the granting of any right, privilege or approval pertaining to the Development of CL the Property,including requirements for land dedication or for public construction. .. LO LO O. "Development Impact Fee" means a monetary payment authorized by Government Code Section 66001, et s�Mc., whether imposed legislatively on a broad class of M development projects or on an ad hoc basis to a specific development project. M N P. "Development Plan" means the Existing Development Approvals and the Existing Land Use Regulations applicable to Development of the Property. If any Existing o Development Approvals by their terms supersede any Existing Land Use Regulations, then m "Development Plan"means the superseding Existing Development Approvals. U) Q. "Director"has the meaning ascribed to the term in Section 3.4. 0 IL R. "Dwelling Units" mean single-family residential dwelling units, including M detached and attached dwelling units. Z w S. "Effective Date"means the date which is the later of: s U 1. The date on which the Enacting Resolution is no longer subject to referendum or judicial challenge; or a c 2. The date on which the Annexation Proceedings are complete and E not subject to further administrative or judicial challenge. V A T. "EIR'has the meaning ascribed to the term in Recital F.- Q U. "Enacting Resolution"has the meaning ascribed to the term in Recital D. V. "Excess Public Park Facilities Credit" has the meaning ascribed to the term in Section 4.8. W. "Excess Sewer Facilities Credit" has the meaning ascribed to the term in Section 4.5. 4 Spring Trap DndaWmt Ag Mt-010 M691-WO.-IOOI67'1 X. "Existing Development Approvals" mean all Development Approvals approved or issued by San Bernardino prior to or the same day as the effective date of the Enacting Resolution, including the Development Approvals described in Recital G. Y. "Existing Land Use Regulations" mean all Land Use Regulations in effect on the effective date of the Enacting Resolution, including the Land Use Regulations listed on the attached Exhibit C. Z. "Fair Share Park Obligation" has the meaning ascribed to the term in Section 4.8.A. w AA. "General Plan"has the meaning ascribed to the term in Recital C. c BB. "LAFCO"has the meaning ascribed to the term in Recital B. Q CC. "Land Use Regulations" mean all of San Bernardino's ordinances, N resolutions, codes, rules, regulations and official written policies governing land development, N including those governing: the pemiitted use of land; the density or intensity of use; subdivision M requirements, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings; the reservation or dedication M of land for public purposes; and the design, improvement and construction standards and `.' specifications applicable to the development of property,all as may be modified or supplemented by the Existing Development Approvals. "Land Use Regulations" do not include any ordinance, o resolution, code, rule, regulation or official policy governing: the conduct of businesses, d professions, and occupations; taxes and assessments; the granting of encroachment permits and m the conveyance of rights and interests that provide for the use of or the entry upon public in property; or the exercise of the power of eminent domain. a DD. "Lot" means any legally subdivided lot of the Property which is intended for residential or commercial uses. ~ z W EE. "Minor Exception" or "Minor Modification" have the meanings z ascribed to the terms in Section 3.4. FF. "Montecito" means Montecito Equities, Ltd., a California limited Q partnership, its successors and assigns. E GG. "Mortgagee" means a mortgagee of a mortgage, a beneficiary under a deed of trust, or any other security-device lender, and their successors and assigns. HH. "Notice"has the meaning ascribed to the term in Section 2.7.A. II. "Park Benefited Properties" has the meaning ascribed to the term in Recital J. JJ. "Park Fair Share Contribution" has the meaning ascribed to the term in Section 4.8.D. KK. "Party" means either San Bernardino or Montecito, individually. "Parties"mean San Bernardino and Montecito, collectively. 5 S,&,TWI.D..Wpm A�w-014 M661-000 IWII6l11 Nu LL. "Person" means and refers to any association, corporation, governmental entity or agency, individual, joint venture, joint-stock company, limited liability company, partnership, trust, unincorporated organization, or other entity of any kind, including San Bernardino and Montecito. MM. "Planning Commission" has the meaning ascribed to the term in Recital C. NN. "Project" means the Development of the Property as contemplated by the Development Plan, as the Development Plan may be further defined, enhanced or modified in N accordance with this Agreement. r 00. "Property" means the real property described on Exhibit A and depicted on Exhibit B. a PP. "Public Park Facilities"has the meaning ascribed to the term in Recital H. N N QQ. "Public Park Facilities Costs" has the meaning ascribed to the term in M Section 4.8. A M N RR. "Qualifying Conditions" has the meaning ascribed to the term in Section 3.8.C. t 0 0. W i SS. "Reservations of Authority" mean the rights reserved to San Bernardino under Section 3.5. m y U TT. "San Bernardino" means the City of San Bernardino, a California charter a law city and municipal corporation, its successors and assigns. UU. "Sewer Lines"has the meaning ascribed to the term in Recital H. w x W. "Sewer Line Costs"has the meaning ascribed to the term in Section 4.3. a WW. "Sewer Line Easements" has the meaning ascribed to the term in Recital H. v XX. "Site Plan" has the meaning ascribed to the term in Recital B. YY. "Special District"has the meaning ascribed to the term in Section 5.1. ZZ. "Subsequent Development Approvals" mean all Development Approvals approved by San Bernardino subsequent to its approval of this Agreement. AAA. "Subsequent Land Use Regulations" mean all Land Use Regulations adopted and effective after the effective date of the Enacting Resolution. BBB. "Term"has the meaning ascribed to the term in Section 2.3. CCC. "Tract Map"has the meaning ascribed to the term in Recital G. 6 Spring Tmb Development Agreement 414 a681.000- W16-12.i P Ckel P' ' 10x8 ODDD. "Transfer"has the meaning ascribed to the term in Section 2A.A. EEE. "Transferee"has the meaning ascribed to the term in Section 2A.A. FFF. "Transferor"has the meaning ascribed to the term in Section 2A.A. GGG. "Sewer Fees"has the meaning ascribed to the term in Section 4.6. HHH. "Sewer Benefited Properties" has the meaning ascribed to the term in Recital I. N III. "Sewer Facilities"has the meaning ascribed to the term in Recital I. rn JJJ. "Sewer Facilities Costs" has the meaning ascribed to the term in Section a 4.5. N �o KKK. "Sewer Fair Share Contribution" has the meaning ascribed to the term N in Section 4.5. " M 1.2. Exhibits. The following documents are attached to a part of this Agreement: N Exhibit A Legal Description of Property r a Exhibit B Site Plan d Exhibit C Partial Listing of Existing Land Use Regulations Exhibit D Estimate of Sewer Line Construction Costs ;? Exhibit E Depiction of Sewer Benefited Properties rn U Exhibit F Depiction of Park Benefited Property a M 2. GENERAL PROVISIONS. z W 2.1. Binding Effect of Agreement. The Property is made subject to this Agreement = and the Development of the Property may be carried out in accordance with this Agreement. The benefits and burdens of this Agreement touch and concern the Property and bind Montecito F and all future owners of all or any portion of the Property. a c 2.2. Ownership. Montecito represents to San Bernardino that Montecito is either the owner of fee simple title to the Property or has an equitable interest in the Property. m 2.3. Term. The term ("Term") of this Agreement will commence on the Effective Date and will expire on the twenty-fifth (25h) anniversary of the Effective Date, unless terminated sooner by operation of some other provision of this Agreement. 2.4. Assignment. A. Right to Assign. Montecito may sell, transfer or assign (collectively, "Transfer") the Property in whole or in part (provided that no partial Transfer may violate the Subdivision Map Act, Government Code Section 66410, et seq.) to any Person at any time. As used in this Section 2.41 the term"Transferor"means the person or entity(including Montecito) 7 Spring Toile Development Agmement-014 WWI-WO--10016)'_.1 6.B.0 © making the Transfer and the term "Transferee" means the Transfer recipient. Any Transfer must be made in strict compliance with all of the following conditions: 1. No Transfer of any right or interest in this Agreement may be made unless made together with the Transfer of all or a part of the Property. 2. Within thirty (30) days after a Transfer, the Transferor must notify San Bernardino in writing of the Transfer and provide San Bernardino with a copy of an agreement executed by the Transferee by which the Transferee expressly and unconditionally assumes all the Transferor's duties and obligations under this Agreement with respect to the N portion of the Property transferred. 3. If San Bernardino holds security given by the Transferor with respect to any obligation being assigned to the Transferee, then the Transferee must provide San Q Bernardino with security to secure performance of the obligations assigned to the Transferee, which may not exceed the amount of the security previously provided to San Bernardino by the Transferor to secure the performance of the same obligations. M B. Subsequent Assignment. Any subsequent Transfer after an initial Transfer M may be made only in accordance with this Section 2.4. C. Automatic Termination of Agreement With Respect to Individual o Improved Lot Upon Completion of Construction and Sale or Lease to Public. This Section 2.4 d does not apply to any improved Lot that has been finally subdivided and which is sold or leased r for a period of at least one (1) year. Any Lot satisfying the foregoing requirements will U) automatically be released from this Agreement concurrently with the sale or lease. a 2.5. Voluntary Amendment or Cancellation of Agreement. This Agreement may be voluntarily amended or cancelled in whole or in part only with the written consent of San z Bernardino and all Persons holding fee title to that portion of the Property to which the w amendment or cancellation will apply. The amendment or cancellation process must comply with Government Code Section 65868. This Section 2.5 does not limit the operation of F Government Code Section 65869.5. 2.6. Termination. d E s A. This Agreement will automatically terminate upon the occurrence of any of the following events: a 1. Expiration of the Term. 2. Entry of a final judgment setting aside, voiding or annulling the adoption of the Enacting Resolution. 3. Adoption of a referendum measure overriding or repealing the Enacting Resolution. 4. Completion of the Project, as evidenced by the issuance of all required occupancy permits and San Bernardino's (or other 8 Sping Trails De Otl ent ASrtemcnt-014 N6S 1.000—100167'_.1 6.B.0 applicable public agency's) acceptance of all required public dedications. 5. Upon the applicable Parry's election to terminate this Agreement under Section 8.4 and Section 8.5. If the terminating Party under Section 8.5 does not own the entirety of the Property, then the termination will apply only to that portion of the Property owned by the terminating Party. B. To the extent that the conditions set forth in Section 4.3 through Section N 4.8• inclusive, for credit, reimbursement and similar matters continue to exist, San Bernardino's R obligations under such sections will survive the termination of this Agreement for any reason. rn c 2.7. Notices. CL A. As used in this Agreement,the term"Notice"means any request, demand, approval, statement, report, acceptance, consent, waiver, appointment or other required or permitted communication. M ci B. All Notices must be in writing and will be considered given: 1. When delivered in person to the recipient named below. a 2. On the date of delivery shown on the return receipt, after deposit in the United States mail in a sealed envelope, postage prepaid, as either registered or certified mail, in return receipt requested. a 3. On the date of delivery shown in the records of a reputable delivery service(e.g. UPS or Federal Express). z w C. All Notices must be addressed as follows: _ U Q If to San Bernardino: If to Montecito: a City of San Bernardino Montecito Equities,Ltd. c 300 North"D" Street, 2°d Floor 100 Pacifica, Suite 345 E San Bernardino, CA 92418 Irvine,CA 92618 Attn: City Manager Attn: Thomas G.Wilkinson =° a with a copy to: with a copy to: City of San Bernardino Gresham Savage Nolan&Tilden, APC 300 North"D" Street, 2°d Floor 550 E. Hospitality Lane, Suite 300 San Bernardino, CA 92418 San Bernardino, CA 92408-4205 Attn: City Attorney Attn: Mark A. Ostoich and Kevin K. Randolph 9 Spring Trai4Dwcb MApe W-014 ++681400-mm572.1 Packet Pg. 1081 oD. Either Party may,by Notice given at any time, require subsequent Notices to be given to another Person or to a different address, or both. Notices given before receipt of Notice of change of address will not be invalidated by the change. E. Transferees will be entitled to Notices sent by San Bernardino which pertain to that portion of the Property owned by the Transferee. 3. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY. 3.1. Vested Right to Develop. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, Montecito has y the legally vested right to develop the Property in accordance with the Development Plan. The Project is subject to any Subsequent Development Approvals required to complete the Project. The permitted uses, the density and intensity of use, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings,the design, improvement, and construction standards applicable to Development of the CL Property and Development Exactions with respect to the Property are those set forth in the Development Plan. N N_ 3.2. Effect of Agreement on Land Use Regulations. Except as otherwise allowed by M the Reservations of Authority, San Bernardino's rules, regulations and official policies governing M the Development of the Property will be the Existing Land Use Regulations. N 3.3. Timing of Development. Nothing in this Agreement is a covenant to develop or a construct the Project. The Parties acknowledge that Montecito cannot predict if, when or the rate v at which phases of the Project will be developed. Such decisions depend upon numerous factors that are not within Montecito's control, such as market demand, interest rates, absorption, cn completion and other similar factors. The California Supreme Court held in Pardee Construction a Co. v. City of Camarillo (1984) 37 Ca1.3d 465, that the failure of the litigants in that case to M provide for the timing of development resulted in a later adopted initiative restricting the timing F of development to prevail over the litigants' agreement. The Parties intend to cure that deficiency w by providing that Montecito has the right to develop the Project in the order, at the rate and at the = times that Montecito, in its sole and absolute discretion, determines to be appropriate, subject only to any Development Plan timing or phasing requirements. < F- 3.4. Changes and Amendments to Existing Development Approvals. The Parties acknowledge that the passage of time may demonstrate that changes to this Agreement are E necessary or appropriate. If the Parties determine that changes are necessary or appropriate, then they will, unless otherwise required by law, implement those changes through operating B memoranda. These memoranda will be approved on behalf of San Bernardino as follows: a A. By the Community Development Director ("Director") in the case of minor changes which would qualify as either a "Minor Exception" under Municipal Code Chapter 19.58 or a"Minor Modification"under Municipal Code Chapter 19.60 and in any other case where the Director is authorized by this Agreement to act. B. By the Planning Commission in the case of changes related to land use or development standards which are not subject to clause (A). 10 s,rmgTmh De;4.Mm tA�.t-o14 m69wm--1016-121 Packet Pg. 1082 6.B.0 C. By the Common Council in the case of any other changes not subject to clause(A)or(B) above, or if otherwise legally required. D. The Director will determine whether a proposed change is subject to approval by the Director, the Planning Commission or the Common Council, as the case may be. Each operating memorandum will become part of this Agreement after its execution by all required Persons. 3.5. Reservations of Authority. A. Any contrary provision in this Agreement notwithstanding, the following, but only the following, Subsequent Land Use Regulations will apply to the Development of the Property: n 1. Procedural regulations relating to hearing bodies, petitions, applications, Notices, Findings, records, hearings, reports, recommendations, appeals and any ;r°, other procedural matter. M 2. Regulations governing construction standards and specifications, M including San Bernardino's Building Code, Plumbing Code, Mechanical Code, Electrical Code, Fire Code and Grading Code, that are applied uniformly to all development projects in San Bernardino similar to the Project. °o. d 3. Regulations which do not conflict with the Development Plan and which are reasonably necessary to protect the public health and safety of the residents of the rn Project or the immediate community. To the greatest extent possible, these regulations must be a applied and construed to provide Montecito with all of the rights and assurances provided under this Agreement. Any regulation, whether adopted by initiative or otherwise, limiting the rate or timing of Development of the Property will conflict with the Development Plan and will not be w applicable to Development of the Property. x U 4. Regulations that conflict with the Development Plan if Montecito F has given its written consent to those regulations. a B. The Parties acknowledge that San Berardino is restricted in its authority v to limit its police powers by contract. This Agreement will be construed, contrary to its stated E L terms if necessary, to reserve to San Bernardino all those police powers that cannot be restricted by contract. 3.6. Subsequent Development Approvals. When acting on Subsequent Development Approvals, San Bernardino may apply only the Existing Land Use Regulations and those Subsequent Land Use Regulations that are permitted under the Reservations of Authority. Any Subsequent Development Approval will be automatically vested under this Agreement. Without limiting the effect of the foregoing, the Parties acknowledge that San Bernardino has certain standards regarding final maps and that such standards can become difficult to meet in a hillside j O development. As and when Montecito processes any final map for approval by San Bernardino, i the San Bernardino City Engineer is hereby authorized to cooperate with Montecito in applying 11 S,mg Tnvh Dev<lopmenl Aga W-014 M681-000--IM1672.I 6.B.0 v such standards in a way that both achieves the goals of the Subdivision Map Act and is fair and reasonable to Montecito. 3.7. Modification or Suspension by State or Federal Law. If a State or Federal law or regulation which is enacted after the Effective Date prevents the Parties' compliance with any of this Agreement's provisions, then that provision will be modified or suspended to the extent and for the time necessary to achieve compliance with the conflicting State or Federal law. This Agreement's remaining provisions will continue unaffected. The Parties will amend this Agreement to preserve, to the greatest extent possible, the benefits that would arise to the Parries under this Agreement, but for the conflicting State or Federal law. Upon the repeal of the N conflicting State or Federal law or upon the occurrence of any circumstance that removes their effect upon this Agreement, this Agreement's provisions will be automatically restored to their full original effect and any amendment that the Parties may have entered into under this Section 3.7 will terminate. uQi 3.8. Provision of Real Property Interests by San Bernardino. N N_ A. Except as provided in clause (B) and clause (C), below, if the M Development Exactions require Montecito to construct any public improvement on property not M owned by it, then Goverment Code Section 66462.5 will control the Parties' rights and N obligations with respect to that public improvement. 0 CL B. Clause (A) above notwithstanding, Montecito is either under contract to purchase or pursing permits for use with respect to portions of the following property(or interest in property) within San Bernardino's municipal limits and on which a public improvement to in provide primary or secondary access to the Project will be constructed("Access Property(ies)"): a • Ronald Martin(APN 348-111-11) z • Muscupiabe Ranch,LLC (APN 348-101-77) w V • San Bernardino Municipal Water Department(APN 348-101-76) F a • San Bernardino County Flood Control District(Cable Creek) c 0 • Property formerly known as the Bice Property, which is now r owned by the successor to the City of San Bernardino Economic Development Agency Montecito hereby waives the provisions of Government Code Section 66462.5 with respect to the foregoing Access Properties. With respect to the foregoing Access Properties, Montecito and San Bernardino agree that San Bernardino will have no obligation to either approve a final tract map implementing the Tract Map or assist in any material way in connection with the acquisition of an Access Property; however, San Bernardino will provide reasonable, non-financial assistance in connection with Montecito's attempts to acquire any Access Property which is held by a public agency. In addition, in no event will any condition of approval related to a public improvement to be located 12 Spring Trails Iopmcnt Agrammt-014 616gi-000.--IM167'.i Packet Pg. 1084 s.s.0 on an Access Property be deemed waived as a result of the application of Government Code Section 66462.5. C. In addition, clause (A) above notwithstanding, on the condition that the qualifying conditions described in clauses (1) through (3) below ("Qualifying Conditions") are satisfied with regard to the Access Properties owned by Gloria Evans (APN 348-111-28) and Michael and Laura Kelley (APN 348-111-27) and located outside San Bernardino's municipal Emits, Montecito hereby waives the provisions of Government Code Section 66462.5 with respect to such Property Interests. The Qualifying Conditions with respect to such Property Interests are as follows: y (1) The public improvement is required in order to provide secondary access to the Project and is to be located on property not owned by Montecito or under its control. a 1n (2) The public improvement will be located on property outside San `Ln° Bernardino's municipal limits. M (3) Despite reasonable good faith efforts, San Bernardino has been M unable to secure those approvals needed to permit San Bernardino to exercise its powers of condemnation with respect to the property on which the public improvement will be located, from the governmental agency with jurisdiction over such property. a D. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, Montecito will acquire either a fee or permanent easement interest in all the Access Properties no later than the ur fifth(5m) anniversary of the Effective Date. U IL 3.9. Third Party Permits and Approvals and Utilities. The Parties acknowledge that this Agreement does not bind third party governmental and non-governmental agencies which z are not under San Bernardino's control. San Bernardino will use its best efforts to assist Montecito in obtaining all third party governmental and non-governmental agencies' permits and approvals which are necessary for the Development of the Property, including: a r a A. Permits, approvals and rights of way which are required for the installation of public improvements, driveways and utility connections and utility services such as electrical, d gas,water, sewer, storm drain,telephone and cable television; and t U B. Other permits and approvals which may be issued by third party government agencies such as the California Department of Transportation and the South Coast Air Quality Management District. In addition, at Montecito's request, San Bernardino will assist Montecito in negotiating with third-party government agencies and non-government agencies with respect to disputes concerning processing fees and development impact fees levied by those third party government agencies and non-government agencies. C. The Parties acknowledge that in connection with the installation of utility facilities which will be owned by private utility companies, it may lower the overall project cost for the utility installation project to be a San Bernardino project. In the event Montecito requests San Bernardino to undertake such a utility installation project, San Bernardino's City Engineer is 13 Spring Trails Dwelap gApsme 014 .N6Y 1-Ofq--11016711 hereby authorized to do so; provided, however, that Montecito bears San Bernardino's entire direct and indirect cost of the same. 3.10. Tentative Tract May Extension. As authorized by Government Code Section 66452.6, the Tract Map and any other tentative subdivision or parcel map approved in connection with Development of the Property will be effective for a period equal to the longer of A. Eight(8) years from the date of San Bernardino's approval of the tentative subdivision or parcel map;or w I R B. The expiration or earlier termination of the Term. w c 4. PUBLIC BENEFITS. CL 4.1. Development Impact Fees. LO N N A. Amount and Components of Fee. Subject to Section 4.6, Montecito will M pay all Development Impact Fees and other fees and charges imposed by San Bernardino and applicable to Development of the Property, the submission and revision of Development Approvals N applications, and inspection of Project improvements. Montecito will pay the Development Impact Fees and other fees and charges in the amount and when required under the then-current applicable o San Bernardino ordinance or resolution. The Project is subject to future increases in Development d impact Fees. rn 4.2. Additional Permits and Approvals. The only Subsequent Development Approvals U required for Development of the Property in accordance with the Development Plan are: a M A. Design approvals required by the Municipal Code for the structures to be z built on the Property; w z B. Building permits;and a C. Certificates of occupancy or other equivalent permits. Q Y Upon Montecito's request, San Bernardino will accept and diligently process applications for the E foregoing permits and approvals and will promptly make all required inspections. R 4.3. Construction of Sewer Lines and Sewer Line Costs. a A. If Montecito implements the Project, then in accordance with the Conditions of Approval, Montecito will construct the Sewer Lines and dedicate them to San Bernardino upon completion as required by this Section A. The Sewer Lines will be completed in a good, workmanlike, and commercially reasonable manner, with the standard of diligence and care normally used by duly qualified persons performing comparable work. As used in this Agreement, the term "Sewer Line Costs" means the actual third party costs and expenses incurred by Montecito in connection with the design, engineering, construction, installation and testing of the Sewer Lines, and includes the cost of the temporary and permanent real property interests reasonably necessary in connection with the foregoing activities (all of the foregoing, 14 Spring roils Dcr Wb n[Ae t-014 M681-000--100167 2.1 Packet Pg. 1086 collectively"Sewer Line Costs"). A non-binding budgetary estimate of the Sewer Line Costs is attached as Exhibit D. B. Following their completion, Montecito will dedicate the the Sewer Lines to San Bernardino or its designee and San Bernardino will accept the Dedication within ninety (90) days following Montecito's offer. At the time of Dedication, Montecito will provide San Bernardino with a detailed accounting of the total Sewer Line Costs, together with reasonable supporting documentation. 4.4. Reserved]. y 4.5. Excess Sewer Facilities Credit. rn c A. As used in this Agreement, the term "Sewer Facilities Costs" means an a amount equal to the Sewer Line Costs (determined in accordance with Section 4.3). As used in this Agreement,the term "Excess Sewer Facilities Credit" means an amount equal to fifteen LO percent (15%) of the Sewer Facilities Costs. Montecito will be credited and reimbursed the N Excess Sewer Facilities Credit as set forth in Section 4.6 and Section 4.7. M M B. Immediately following the determination of the total Sewer Line Costs as described in Section 4.3, the parties will calculate the Sewer Facilities Costs and San Bernardino will allocate the Excess Sewer Facilities Credit among the Sewer Benefited Properties on a a percentage basis, calculated based on San Bernardino's reasonable determination of the benefit received from the Sewer Facilities by each Sewer Benefited Property(each such allocation being a "Sewer Fair Share Contribution"). The aggregate of the Sewer Fair Share Contributions of in the Sewer Benefited Properties must equal one hundred percent (100%) of the Excess Sewer a Facilities Credit. M C. San Bernardino acknowledges that the credits and reimbursement paid to zz Montecito in accordance with Section 4.6 and Section 4.7 are considered payment for costs normally borne by the public, as described in Labor Code Section 1720(c)(3). San Bernardino has no direct financial obligation to Montecito with respect to the Excess Sewer Facilities Credit other than to provide the credits and facilitate the reimbursement described in Section 4.6 and a Section 4.7. Y c N 4.6. Sewer Fees Credit. San Bernardino may impose on the Project certain r Development Impact Fees related to sewer facilities or to sewer capacity rights necessary to CO provide sanitary sewer services to the Project(collectively, "Sewer Fees"). Rather than pay the applicable Sewer Fees at the time that they would otherwise be payable under the Land Use Regulations, and until the Excess Sewer Facilities Credit has been fully credited or reimbursed to Montecito, Montecito may apply a portion of the then-current Excess Sewer Facilities Credit in lieu of paying an equivalent amount of Sewer Fees. The then-current amount of the Excess Sewer Facilities Credit will be reduced by the amount of the credited Sewer Fees. 4.7. Reimbursement from Developers of Sewer Benefited Properties. Until the Excess Sewer Facilities Credit has been fully credited or reimbursed to Montecito under Section 4.6 or this Section 4.71 as a condition to the issuance of any approval or entitlement for the development of a Sewer Benefited Property, San Bernardino will require that the developer of 15 Spmg TMUD lop cntAgee M-014 H681-wn--100167.1 Packet Pg. 1087 s.6.� that Sewer Benefited Property pay to Montecito the applicable Sewer Fair Share Contribution of the Sewer Benefited Property. The then-current balance of the Excess Sewer Facilities Credit will be reduced by the amount paid to Montecito. 4.8. Credit and Reimbursement for Excess Public Park Facilities Dedication. A. Pursuant to City Development Code Section 19.30.320, San Bernardino has imposed a Development Exaction against the Project for purposes of providing public parks and recreational amenities. Provided that Montecito implements the Project, this Development Exaction requires Montecito to dedicate and improve Public Park Facilities on the Property which exceed the Project's"fair share" obligation for public park facilities as established by the San Bernardino Development Code and state law ("Fair Share Park Obligation"). >r B. As used in this Agreement, the term "Public Park Facilities Costs" Q means the aggregate of the actual third party costs and expenses incurred by Montecito in W connection with the acquisition, design, engineering, construction and installation of the Public Park Facilities, and includes the cost of the temporary and permanent real property interests reasonably necessary in connection with the foregoing activities. The term"Excess Public Park , Facilities Credif'means the total Public Park Facilities Costs in excess of the dollar value of the M j Project's Fair Share Park Obligation, as determined in good faith by the City. N C. Following their completion, Montecito will dedicate the Public Park Facilities to San Bernardino and San Bernardino will accept the Public Park Facilities within C ninety (90) days following Montecito's offer. At the time of the Dedication, Montecito will provide San Bernardino with a detailed accounting of total Public Park Facilities Costs, together y with reasonable supporting documentation. U CL D. San Bernardino will allocate the Excess Public Park Facilities Credit among the Park Benefited Properties on a percentage basis, calculated based on San z Bernardino's reasonable determination of the benefit received from the Public Park Facilities by w each Park Benefited Property (each such allocation being a "Park Fair Share Contribution"). The aggregate of the Park Fair Share Contributions of the Park Benefited Properties must equal < one hundred percent(100%)of the Excess Public Park Facilities Credit. a E. As a condition to the issuance of any approval or entitlement for the development of a Park Benefited Property, San Bernardino will require that the developer of that s Park Benefited Property pay to Montecito the applicable Park Fair Share Contribution of the Park Benefited Property. F. San Bernardino acknowledges that the reimbursement paid to Montecito in accordance with this Section 4.8 is considered payment for costs normally borne by the public, as described in Labor Code Section 1720(c)(3). San Bernardino has no direct financial obligation to Montecito with respect to the Excess Public Park Facilities Credit other than the reimbursement described in this Section 4.8. 16 Spin&Trih DVcI0W=ASre M-014 M6S I-000-10016]].1 ® 5. PUBLIC FINANCING. 5.1. Financing. Upon a Party's written request, the other Party will cooperate in the formation of a special assessment district, community facilities district or alternate financing mechanism (collectively, a "Special District") to pay for the construction or maintenance of those public improvements required by the Development Plan, including school facilities. Montecito will be reimbursed from the proceeds of any debt financing issued by a Special District to the extent that Montecito spends funds for the construction and/or maintenance and operation of public improvements. Tax rates or assessments of the Special District may not exceed San Bernardino's adopted policies regarding public financing districts. This Section 5.1 is not a commitment by San Bernardino to adopt a resolution of formation to form a Special District. Montecito acknowledges that the adoption and approval of a resolution of formation is a legislative act within San Bernardino's unencumbered discretion. Likewise, Montecito is not obligated to approve the formation of a Special District and Montecito reserves all of its legal C rights in that regard. 6. REVIEW FOR COMPLIANCE. M 6.1. Periodic Review. As required by San Bernardino Municipal Code Section M 19.40.070, the Director will review this Agreement annually, on or before each anniversary of the Effective Date. The purpose of the review will be to ascertain Montecito's good faith compliance with the terms of this Agreement. Montecito will submit an annual monitoring a report ("Annual Monitoring Report") in a form prepared and approved by the Director within d thirty (30) days after the Director's written request. The Annual Monitoring Report must be accompanied by the then-current annual review and administration fee set by resolution of the V) Common Council a A. The Common Council may order a special review of Montecito's compliance with this Agreement at any time. The Director will conduct the special review. w 6.2. Procedure. i F A. During either a periodic review or a special review, Montecito will be — required to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of this Agreement. Q C 0) B. Upon completion of a periodic review or a special review, the Director E L will submit a report to the Common Council setting forth the evidence concerning Montecito's good faith compliance with this Agreement. a C. If the Common Council finds on the basis of substantial evidence that Montecito has complied in good faith with this Agreement, then the review will be concluded. D. If the Common Council makes a preliminary finding on the basis of substantial evidence that Montecito has not complied in good faith with this Agreement, then the Common Council may modify or terminate this Agreement in accordance with Section 6.3 and Section 6.4. Prior to proceeding under Section 6.3 and Section 6.4. San Bernardino must provide ? Montecito with Notice and opportunity to cure as provided under Section 8.4. 17 Splmg Tni4 Development Agme 014 M681-000-.1001673.1 Packet Pg. 1089 6.3. Proceedings for Modification or Termination If Montecito fails to cure, or to commence to cure, as applicable, the matters constituting the basis for the Common Council's preliminary finding under Section 6.2.1) as required by Section 8.4, then San Bernardino may proceed to modify or terminate this Agreement following the procedures set forth in this Section 6.3 and in Section 6.4. San Bernardino must hold a noticed public hearing concerning the modification or termination and provide Montecito with Notice of the hearing. The Notice must . include the following: A. The time and the place of hearing, which must be no less than thirty (30) days following the date of Notice; N B. The specific action, whether amendment or termination, which San Bernardino proposes to take; and m C. Such other information as is reasonably necessary to inform Montecito of u�i the nature of the proceeding and the alleged facts supporting San Bernardino's preliminary finding under Section 6.2.D. 6.4. Hearing on Modification or Termination. At the time and place set for the public hearing on modification or termination, Montecito must be given an opportunity to be heard and N present witnesses and evidence on its behalf. If, at the conclusion of the public hearing, the Common Council finds, based upon substantial evidence, that Montecito has not complied in o good faith with this Agreement, then the Common Council may terminate or modify this d Agreement and impose any conditions it determines as are reasonably necessary to protect San Bernardino's interests. The Common Council's decision will be administratively final and N subject to judicial review under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5. a 6.5. Certificate of Agreement Compliance. If at the conclusion of a special or periodic review Montecito is found to be in compliance with this Agreement, then San Bernardino will z issue a "Certificate of Agreement Compliance" ("Certificate") to Montecito stating that, after w the most recent periodic or special review, this Agreement remains in effect and Montecito is not = in default of this Agreement. The Certificate must be in recordable form, contain information a necessary to communicate constructive record Notice of the finding of compliance, state whether a the Certificate is issued after a periodic or special review, and state the anticipated date of the next periodic review. Montecito may record the Certificate with the San Bernardino County Recorder. E A 6.6. No Cross-Defaults. San Bernardino acknowledges that Montecito may Transfer a all or portions of the Property to other Persons in accordance with Section 2.4. San Bernardino further acknowledges that title to all or portions of the Property may become vested in Mortgagees or a Mortgagee's successor as a result of foreclosure, or the acceptance of a deed in lieu of foreclosure,by a Mortgagee. San Berardino agrees that defaults under this Agreement by an owner of a portion of the Property will not be a default as to any other portion of the Property. In other words, a default by Montecito with respect to its obligations pertaining to that portion of the Property retained by Montecito following a Transfer will not constitute a default as to any Person other than Montecito or permit San Bernardino to exercise any remedy under this Agreement or otherwise with respect to any other portion of the Property other than that portion owned by Montecito. Similarly, a default by a Transferee with respect to its obligations 18 Spri,mils Dc,ek,p A® m414 V631.01V—1001692.1 i pertaining to the portion of the Property ty owned by that Transferee will not constitute Montecito's default or permit San Bernardino to exercise any remedy under this Agreement or otherwise as to any portion of the Property other than the portion owned by the defaulting Transferee. San Bernardino agrees that, if more than one Person holds title to the Property, then the rights and obligations of the Persons holding title to the Property are the distinct and several obligations of each Person. 7. PREVAILING WAGES. 7.1. Public Works Determination. Montecito is aware of California Labor Code N Section 1770, et seq., which requires the payment of prevailing wage rates and the performance of other obligations if it is determined that any of the works of construction required or permitted by this Agreement constitute public works paid for in whole or in part with public funds. It is Montecito's sole responsibility to determine whether the work required or permitted by this Agreement is subject to Labor Code Section 1770, et seq. 8. DEFAULT AND REMEDIES. N M 8.1. Remedies in General. The Parties acknowledge that neither Party would have M entered into this Agreement if it were to be liable for monetary damages under this Agreement. In general, and subject to those procedural prerequisites required under the Development j Agreement Law or this Agreement, each of the Parties may pursue any remedy at law or equity a available for the breach of this Agreement, except that neither Party will be liable in monetary damages (other than attorneys fees under Section 12.221 to the other Party, or to any successor in R interest of that Parry, or to any other Person. Each Party covenants not to sue for monetary rn damages or claim any monetary damages related to any of the following: a A. Any breach of this Agreement or for any cause of action that arises out of this Agreement; or z w B. Any taking, impairment or restriction of any right or interest arising under = this Agreement; or r C. Any dispute regarding the application or interpretation of this Agreement. v j 8.2. Specific Performance. The Parties acknowledge that specific performance and Ec other non-monetary relief are particularly appropriate remedies for the enforcement of this Agreement for the following reasons: Q A. Money damages are unavailable against the Parties. B. Due to the size, nature and scope of the Project, it may not be practical or possible to restore the Property to its natural condition once Montecito has begun to implement this Agreement. After such time, Montecito may be precluded from other options it may have had with regard to the Property. Moreover, Montecito has invested significant time and resources in the planning and processing of the Project. Montecito will be investing even more time and resources in implementing the Project in reliance upon this Agreement and it is not possible to 19 Spring math DW4o mt Ag mt-014 M6&1-0(X)- 10016721 Packet Pg. 1091 6.B.0 Odetermine the sum of money that would adequately compensate Montecito if San Bernardino were to breach its obligations. 8.3. Release. Except for the right to recover attorneys fees under Section 12.22, Montecito, for itself, its successors and assignees, releases San Bernardino, its officials, officers, agents and employees from any and all monetary claims, demands, actions, or suits of any kind or nature arising out of any liability, known or unknown, present or future, including, any claim or liability based upon Article I, Section 19 of the California Constitution, the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, or any other law or ordinance that seeks to impose any monetary liability whatsoever upon San Bernardino because it entered into this Agreement or N because of the terms of this Agreement. 8.4. San Bernardino's Termination of Agreement or Exercise of Other Remedies Upon Montecito's Default. Subject to its strict compliance with Sections 6.3 and 6.4, San Bernardino a may terminate or modify this Agreement upon Montecito's failure to perform any material duty N or obligation under this Agreement. San Bernardino may terminate or modify this Agreement or LO exercise its other remedies only after providing written Notice of default to Montecito setting CM forth the nature of the default and the actions, if any, required to cure the default and only if , Montecito has failed to take the actions and materially cure the default within sixty (60) days M after its receipt of the Notice. If a default is of a type that cannot be cured within sixty(60) days N but can be cured within a longer time, then Montecito must within sixty(60)days commence the © actions necessary to cure the default and thereafter diligently proceed to materially cure the a default. 8.5. Montecito's Termination of Agreement or Exercise of Other Remedies Upon San rn Bernardino's Default. Montecito may terminate this Agreement or exercise its other remedies a upon San Bernardino's failure to perform any material duty or obligation under this Agreement. Montecito may terminate this Agreement or exercise its other remedies only after providing written Notice of default to San Bernardino setting forth the nature of the default and the actions, w if any, required by San Bernardino to cure the default and only if San Bernardino has failed to take such actions and materially cure the default within sixty (60) days after its receipt of the Notice. If a default is of a type that cannot be cured within sixty (60) days but can be cured < within a longer time, then San Bernardino must within sixty (60) days commence the actions necessary to cure the default and thereafter diligently proceed to materially cure the default. c N 9. THIRD PARTY LITIGATION. R 9.1. Third Party Litigation Concerning Agreement. Montecito will indemnify and defend San Bernardino and its agents, officials, officers, independent contractors, subcontractors, and employees against any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Agreement or of any Subsequent Development Approval. San Bernardino must promptly notify Montecito of any claim, action or proceeding which is subject to this Section 9.1 and San Bernardino must cooperate in the defense. San Bernardino may, in its discretion and at its sole cost, participate in the defense of any claim, action or proceeding. This Section 9.1 will survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 20 Spfi gTmi Dcaclp =Afire W-0l4 M621-OW.-1001672.1 �j 10. MORTGAGEES. 10.1. Mortgagee Protection. This Agreement does not prevent or limit Montecito, in its sole discretion, from encumbering the Property or any portion or any improvement thereon with any mortgage, deed of trust or other security device. San Bernardino acknowledges that a Mortgagee may require Agreement interpretations and modifications. San Bernardino will meet with Montecito and the Mortgagee's representatives to negotiate in good faith with regard to any requested interpretation or modification. San Bernardino may not unreasonably withhold its consent to any requested interpretation or modification if the interpretation or modification is consistent with this Agreement. All Mortgagees will be entitled to the following rights and a privileges: A. Montecito's breach of this Agreement will not defeat, render invalid, °c diminish or impair the lien of any mortgage made in good faith and for value. Q C B. Upon a Mortgagee's written request, San Bernardino will provide a copy N of any Notice of default given to Montecito concurrently with the Notice to Montecito. The CA Mortgagee will have the right, but not the obligation, to cure the default within any remaining M cure period allowed Montecito under this Agreement. M N C. Any Mortgagee who comes into possession of the Property or any portion of it pursuant to foreclosure of the Mortgagee's security instrument or its acceptance of a deed in o lieu of foreclosure will take the Property or portion subject to this Agreement. Any other d provision of this Agreement to the contrary notwithstanding, no Mortgagee will have any m obligation to perform any of Montecito's obligations or to guarantee their performance. in However, if any of Montecito's obligation are conditions precedent to San Bernardino's a obligations, then Montecito's obligations will continue to be conditions precedent to San Bernardino's performance of its obligations. z z 11. REDEVELOPMENT AREA. x San Bernardino warrants that the Property is not currently located within a San a Bernardino redevelopment project area. San Bernardino further warrants that the Property and the Project are not obligated to provide affordable housing or otherwise fund the development of a affordable housing under the Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.) or under any other law. E L U 12. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 12.1. Recordation of Agreement. This Agreement and any amendment or cancellation of it will be recorded with the San Bernardino County Recorder by the City Clerk in accordance with Government Code Section 65868.5. 12.2. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire understanding and agreement of the Parties. There are no oral or written representations,understandings or ancillary covenants, undertakings or agreements that are not contained or expressly referred to in this Agreement. Parol evidence will not be admissible to interpret this Agreement. 21 Spring hilt Dwelo =tA®emimt-014 N681-0q--10116'/_'.1 Packet Pg. 1093 6.B.0 12.3. Estoppel Certificates. Within ten (10) days following a Party's written request, and at not cost to the requesting Party, the other Party will certify in writing that, to its actual current knowledge: A. This Agreement is in full force and effect and is binding upon the certifying Party. B. This Agreement has not been amended or modified, except as expressly described in the estoppel certificate. C. The requesting Party is not in default of its obligations under this Agreement, and that there have been no events that with the passage of time,the giving of notice, F or both, would constitute the requesting Party's default under this Agreement, except as expressly described in the estoppel certificate. Q N 12.4. Severability. Every provision of this Agreement is a separate and independent covenant. If any provision is, or the application of the provision in certain circumstances is, to N any extent, found to be invalid or unenforceable for any reason whatsoever, then the remainder of this Agreement,or the application of that provision to circumstances other than those to which it is invalid or unenforceable, will not be affected. The Parties will negotiate in good faith any N amendments or operating memoranda necessary to cure any invalidity or unenforceability. 0 O 12.5. Interpretation and Governing Law. This Agreement and any dispute concerning it will be governed and interpreted in accordance with California's procedural and substantive laws, without regard to its conflicts of laws principles. This Agreement will be construed as a whole according to its fair language and common meaning. The rule of construction that ambiguities in a document are to be resolved against the drafting party may not be employed in a interpreting this Agreement. Each Parry acknowledges that it was represented by counsel in this Agreement's negotiation and preparation. z W 12.6. Section Headings. All section headings and subheadings are inserted for = convenience only and do not affect this Agreement's construction or interpretation. a 12.7. Singular and Plural. The singular of any word includes the plural. c 12.8. "Including." Unless the context requires otherwise, the term "including" means E "including,but not limited to." U 12.9. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence as to the performance of any obligation as to which time is an element. 12.10. Calendar Periods. All references to "years", "quarters", "months" and "days" are references to calendar years, quarters, months and days. 12.11. Waiver. A Party's failure on any one or more occasions to insist upon strict compliance by the other Party, or a Party's failure on any one or more occasions to exercise its rights upon the other Party's default, is not a waiver of that Party's right to demand strict compliance by the other Parry on any future occasion. 22 Slain&Trail,Development Aje t-014 M6SI-MO—100 16711 12.12. No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the Parties and their successors and assigns. Except as provided in Section 10,no other person or entity has any right of action based upon this Agreement. 12.13. Municipal Code. All Municipal Code references are references to the Municipal Code as it exists on the Effective Date or at the time of inquiry, whichever is less restrictive or requires a lesser level of performance. 12.14. Permitted Delays. Neither Party will be in default of an obligation if that Parry's inability to perform or delay in performing that obligation is caused by matters which are not within the performing Party's reasonable control, including: casualty; acts of God; civil commotion; war; insurrection; riots; strikes; walkouts; picketing or other labor disputes; market t` factors; unavoidable shortages of materials or supplies;damages to work in progress by reason of c fire, flood, earthquake or other casualty; litigation which prohibits or delays any aspect of the a Development; initiatives or referenda; moratoria; acts or the failure to act of any other goverment agency (except that San Bernardino's acts or its failure to act will not excuse its CA performance); unanticipated restrictions which are imposed or mandated by government or non-government agencies; and the enactment of conflicting State or Federal laws, regulations or M judicial decisions. M N 1 12.15. Mutual Covenants. The covenants contained herein are mutual covenants and are conditions to the concurrent or subsequent performance by the benefitted Party. °o. 12.16. Successors in Interest. The burdens of this Agreement are binding upon, and the benefits of this Agreement inure to, the Parties' permitted successors in interest. All provisions n are enforceable as equitable servitudes and constitute covenants running with the land. Each covenant to do or refrain from doing some act with regard to the Development of the Property: a M A. Is for the benefit of and is a burden upon all portions of the Property. z w B. Runs with the Property and all portions. _ U a C. Is binding upon each Party and its successors in interest during the term of that Party's or its successors' ownership of the Property or any portion. a c 12.17. Counterparts. This Agreement will be executed in three (3) counterparts, which E will be construed together and have the same effect as if the Parties had executed the same v instrument. 9 12.18. Jurisdiction and Venue. All legal actions and proceedings to enforce or interpret this Agreement must be filed and tried in San Bernardino Superior Court or other legally appropriate court and venue. 12.19. Project as a Private Undertaking. The Project is a private development and neither Party is acting as the agent of the other in any respect. Each Party is an independent contracting entity with respect to this Agreement. No partnership, joint venture or other association of any kind is formed by this Agreement. The only relationship between San 23 Spring Rdk Dwdop Agrc W-014 M691-00-1001672,1 PacketPg. 1095 Bernardino and Montecito is that of a government entity regulating the development of private property by a private parry. 12.20. Further Actions and Instruments. Each Party must cooperate with the other and provide reasonable assistance to the other in the performance of the other Party's obligations. Upon a Party's request, the other Party must promptly execute (with notary acknowledgment if required) those instruments, and take any reasonable actions, necessary to evidence or consummate the transactions expressly described, or which are a logical extension of the transactions described, in this Agreement. 12.21. Eminent Domain.No provision of this Agreement expands, limits or restricts San Bernardino's exercise of its eminent domain powers. rn c 12.22. Attorneys' Fees. If either Party files any action or brings any action or Q proceeding against the other pertaining to the interpretation or enforcement of this Agreement, then the prevailing Party will recover as an element of its costs of suit and not as damages its Ln costs of suit, expert fees, consultant costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees as fixed by the Court. "Reasonable attorneys' fees" include the fully burdened salaries and expenses of the lawyers M employed in the San Bernardino City Attorney's office. M N r 12.23. Authority to Execute. Each natural person executing this Agreement on behalf of ^ a Party represents that he or she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of that o (v Party and that he or she has the authority to bind that Party to this Agreement. d [Signature pages follow] y U a c� z z w x U Q r a c E r U Q 24 SpmgTmk Devc*o tAgrmment-014 n1691 4100—IM1672.1 Packet Pg. 1096 6.B.0 CSIGNATURE PAGE TO SPRING TRAILS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT "SAN BERNARDINO" The City of San Bernardino, a California charter law city and municipal corporation y t ATTEST: By: Name: `o. Title: Mayor 1n N City Clerk N M r M APPROVED AS TO FORM: N r 0 0 CL By: City Attorney 3 V CL M E- STATE OF CALIFORNIA w COUNTY OF = V Q On 2011, before me, Q Notary Public, personally appeared , proved to ' me on the basis of satisfactory evidence)to be the person(s)whose name(s)is/are subscribed to the within E instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized t capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or entity upon behalf Ue. of which the person(s) acted,executed the instrument. a I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature of Notary Public 25 Spring Tale Dwelopmmn Apr mt-011 %81-000--10015]2.1 Packet Pg. 1097 EM © SIGNATURE PAGE TO SPRING TRAILS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT "MONTECITO" Montecito Equities,Ltd., a California limited partnership m By: Name: Title: Manager in N Cl) M N r 0 O O. v O fA U STATE OF CALIFORNIA a M COUNTY OF z w On 2011, before me, Notary Public, personally appeared proved to a me on the basis of satisfactory evidence)to be the person(s)whose name(s)is/are subscribed to the within F instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s),or entity upon behalf of which the person(s)acted,executed the instrument. L I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing r paragraph is true and correct. Q WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature of Notary Public 26 Spine T,eik DvOop =Ap M-ow Packet Pg..1098 NG8I-WO—100 1672.1 © EXHIBIT A TO SPRING TRAILS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Legal DescriLtion of Property DIVISION I: a PARCEL A: F rn PARCEL 4 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 3809, IN THE COUNTY OF SAM BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 44 OF PARCEL MAPS,PAGE 20, IN THE In OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. N PARCEL B: M r PARCEL 4 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 3810, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF N CALIFORNIA,AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 34 OF PARCEL MAPS,PAGE 92, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. 0 O a PARCEL C: m A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR PRIVATE ROAD PURPOSES OVER AND ACROSS A N STRIP OF LAND, 60 FEET IN WIDTH, SHOWN AS MARTIN RANCH ROAD ON PARCEL MAP a NO. 3540 IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 31 OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGE 84, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. z w SAID EASEMENT IS APPURTENANT TO PARCELS A AND B ABOVE. x U DIVISION II: Q PARCELI: c m THE EAST ONE-HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST ONE- E QUARTER, AND THE EAST ONE-HALF OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF THE a SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER, AND THE SOUTH ONE- Q HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE 5 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT OF THE SURVEY OF SAID LAND APPROVED JUNE 24, 1898,IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. PARCEL 2: ® LOTS I AND 2,THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER AND THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 26, Exhibit A Spring Tr WDmlopm tAg W.014 11681-000--100167-.1 �+ TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE 5 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT OF THE SURVEY OF SAID LAND APPROVED JUNE 24, 1898, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. PARCEL3: ALL THAT PORTION THE TOWN OR IRVINGTON AND THE LANDS OF IRVINGTON LAND AND WATER COMPANY, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE MAP THEREOF RECORDED IN BOOK 3 OF MAPS, PAGE 9, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: F rn COMMENCING AT THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF LOT 79 AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP WHICH POINT IS ALSO THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF LOT 19 OF MEYERS AND BARCLAY SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF THE MUSCUPIABE RANCHO, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF,RECORDED IN BOOK 2 OF MAPS,PAGE 32,RECORDS OF SAN BERNARDINO N COUNTY; M THENCE NORTH 400 50' EAST ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 19 WHICH A IS ALSO THE NORTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY OF LOT 79 AS DELINEATED ON THE f AFORESAID MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 3 OF MAPS, PAGE 9, TO THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF THE MUSCUPIABE RANCHO, AS SHOWN ON MAP OF SURVEY MADE BY 0 GEORGE H. PERRIN, APPROVED BY THE UNITED STATES SURVEYOR GENERAL FOR a CALIFORNIA ON JUNE 24, 1899; @ THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE BOUNDARY OF THE MUSCUPIABE RANCHO AS w U ESTABLISHED BY SAID SURVEY MAP TO AN ANGLE POINT IN SAID BOUNDARY LINE; a M THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SUCH BOUNDARY OF SAID RANCHO MUSCUPIABE IN A F SOUTHERLY DIRECTION TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 79; z w 2 THENCE FOLLOWING THE BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT 79 IN A NORTHWESTERLY = U DIRECTION TO AN ANGLE POINT; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 79 TO AN ANGLE POINT, a WHICH IS ALSO A POINT ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF LOT 19 OF THE AFORESAID MEYERS AND BARCLAY SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF THE MUSCUPIABE RANCHO; E t v R THENCE NORTHWESTERLY TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. a PARCEL 4: LOT"A"AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF A RESUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF MEYER AND BARCLAY TRACT,IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 12 OF MAPS,PAGE 18,RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. EXCEPTING THEREFROM 5 ACRES IN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT, AS CONVEYED TO ROBERT B. MEYER BY DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 173, PAGE 156 OF DEEDS,RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. Exhibit A Sprin Tmb DwdapneN Ape mt-ota MMAW—I(A16I2.I PARCELS: LOT"C" AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF A RESUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF MEYER AND BARCLAY TRACT,IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO,STATE OF CALIFORNIA,AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 13 OF MAPS,PAGE 32,RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. N L F C �L Q to N N N M r M N r 0 O Q d R V U) U Q 00 F- z w x U a H H a d E z U m V a Exhibit A Spft Tmmn cloymentA�nt-ou M681-01JO- W16121 P cket Pg 110,1 6.B.0 EXHIBIT B TO SPRING TRAILS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Site Plan N r S a rn to U) N N_ Cl) r M N r 0 O Q f y U a th r z w x U Q r r Q Y d E u v m Q Exhibit B Spring Trails Development Agmanan-01 I msewoo—IN1672_.l '�PaCkei 1102;: 4 �� . a i; lltdy.-t+' trc -,--'`�`.`y ac __`3c ctielTf��6/'4 � h�s�=TmGdi WK '- A MR � r G{_%s°<✓��v, q.4���� Avg� �y ik.\�., � ��u�}� �a ! r irf1��,.,.� ��6 �j��'11\`vF�f�lw1`y�,�'�r�°v �►71 ve., kill gg+ AA� IIrM�A AInINmq AA A A 1 � i / r i r C_ y C Y. N co N C-4 Cl) i A \. N O O a d may.__ �JJ a T h. W F- 15576 a •xwa n+eo• L J s Exhibit B $peloy 7tai4 Develapmm Ape�mt-014 M68 I-0110..IN1672.1 x Pac @ g wU5 .. . B , EXHIBIT C TO SPRING TRAILS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Partial Listine of Existing Land Use Regulations • City of San Bernardino General Plan. w o Verdemont Heights Area Plan. F c • Spring Trails Specific Plan. a rn o San Bernardino Foothill Fire Zone development standards. Ln N o Land use and zoning categories, including residential uses and other uses such as parks, open space — natural, open space — homeowner maintained, utility and roads. n o Permitted uses, including residential uses, recreational uses, accessory uses and c temporary uses. a d o General and specific development standards. 2 t, to U • To the extent not addressed in the Spring Trails Specific Plan,the City of San Bernardino o. Municipal Code. M F- z W U Q F- F Q c m E t v m Y Q A Exhibit C Spmle Twits Dmdopm Ap ma014 \4681-000-10016'2.1 OEXHIBIT D TO SPRING TRAILS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Estimate of Sewer Line Construction Costs Estimated sewer line construction cost(including $1,300,000 N related facilities) L rn c a rn ro Cm N N M r M N r 0 O a d m U CL 9 M z z w x U Q H H Q c d E t v R Exhibit D Spring Tmih Deve%o tApm -014 M681-M-1001612.1 0:0 s sa EXHIBIT E TO SPRING TRAILS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Depiction of Sewer Benefited Properties [To be supplied] N F.. m C 6 N N N N M A N r 0 0 o. d L W U a M z z w x U Q H F Q c d E U m Y Q Exhibit E SpinaTWh U.Mo tAan w414 M68"00-1001672.1 , � i• P cli ;f Pg ,1t�08 5' a` t y pF p t it Mr-mm k� �/�* -��.��r t�tl t t �; r�p�. �F�•i° t �Sse�y� f Y 1 �j a i �1 t f YPfti ly� t � • � X�� . 1 1 a v. EXHIBIT F SPRING TO AGREEMENT DEVELOPMENT Properties Depiction of Park Benefited Benefit CL Park • j - CL a. LU Exhibit F 0 �A� N � 9• l I 0t 1110 { y L F Of C a y m LO N N_ Cl) I M N I O © C L " U a M z z w x U Q F- F a E u a a 9R"Akar Larry Heashy,Chair Lance Dvhi!({ ce-Cho CITY OF SAN BERN ARDINO Lance Darr Andrew Machen `�.. Amelia s Lam COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Frederick Grochuleki Dan C.Jimenez 300 North `D"Street, San Bernardino, California 92418 aaa9rown,Att. Phone:(909)384-505715071 • Fax:(909)384-5080 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 23,2013 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 12-10 AND VARIANCE NO. 13-01 N DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (DA)NO. 11-01 r`- c CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION NO. 12-01 C GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 12-03 AND DEVELOPMENT CODE N AMENDMENT NO. 13-01 a a C_ is U a M r M N r V r C d L U A Q C W E L U t6 Q Page 1 of 10 12/12/2012 Packet Pg. 1112 Commissioner Healsey called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioner Mulvihill led the flag salute. Present: Commissioners: Brown, Durr, Grochulski, Heasley, Jimenez, Mulvihill, Machen. Excused: Lopez. Absent: None. Staff present: M. Margo Wheeler, Community Development Director; Henry Empeiio, Jr., Senior Deputy City Attorney; Tony Stewart, City Planner; Aron Liang, Senior Planner. ADMINISTRATION OF OATH Aron Liang administered the oath. N CONSENT AGENDA: m M. Margo Wheeler, Community Development Director, gave a brief presentation of the `❑ consent agenda, which included the recommended approval of the meeting minutes of December U' 12, 2012 and the continuance of Item 5 to the February 27,2013 meeting. N N Commissioner Mulvhill made a motion to approve the consent agenda. w R Commissioner Durr seconded the motion. U) v 3 O The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Brown, Durr, Grochulski, Heasley, Jimenez, Mulvihill,Machen. Nays:None. Abstain:None. Excused: Lopez. Absent: None. u a �z Commissioner Healsey presented a Proclamation of Appreciation to outgoing Planning M Commission chairman, John Come, for his years of service. N v Councilman Fred Shorett gave a brief speech of appreciation for John Conte's service as r Planning Commission chairman. d E s PUBLIC COMMENTS -ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA w No comments. r d PUBLIC HEARINGS E U A 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 12-10 AND VARIANCE NO. 13-01 —A request to modify the approved Conditional Development Permit No. 944, for an existing social service use (residential alcohol and drug abuse recovery facility) for men and women by expanding from one lot with nine patients to three lots with eight units and 37 patients with a variance to permit a reduction of the lot area from one acre to 22,500 square feet. The project site is located at 840— 856 North Arrowhead Avenue in the Residential Medium(RM) land use district. �11 Environmental Determination: Exempt from CEQA, Section 15301 — `,J Existing Facilities Page 2 of 10 12/12/2012 6.B.v Owners: Mei Shou Chen and New House hic. Applicant: Inland Valley Recovery Services APN: 0140-213-08, 09 and 10 Ward: I Aron Liang, Senior Planner, gave a brief presentation of the project. Bill Christopher, Urban Concepts, representing Inland Valley Recovery Services introduced himself to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Mulvihill inquired with staff about zoning requirements and whether there N were any locational criteria for the proposed use required. Tony Stewart, Deputy Director/City Planner, stated that there are several land use districts in which special care facilities were permitted with a Conditional Use Permit but that the �n Development Code did not currently have additional locational criteria setting distance requirements from other similar facilities. N N Commissioner Mulvihill expressed his concern about the over-concentration of recovery centers within the subject neighborhood. U) v Commissioner Jimenez inquired about the impact of noise, vandalism, and traffic on the area. Commissioner Brown asked the applicant if any of the residents of the facility are registered sex offenders. N Stacy Blackstone, Inland Valley Recovery Services, stated that the facility does not allow registered sex offenders. E r Henry Empeiio, Jr., Senior Deputy City Attorney, advised the Planning Commissioners on the recent history of code and building violations issued to the property which resulted in q the applicant's revised submittal, the addition of several conditions of approval, and a decrease in the total number of patients proposed. Additionally, Mr. Empeno advised the Planning Commission on the applicant's proposal for a variance from the minimum lot size for social service use, and shared concerns about the findings that must be met for approval. d Aron Liang, Senior Planner, explained the due diligence undertaken by staff for addressing the findings of the project which determined staff's recommendation in the staff report. Henry Empefio, Jr., Senior Deputy City Attorney, clarified to the Planning Commission how requirements for residential social service uses differ from general residential uses. Commissioner Jimenez inquired about whether a similar variance request could be approved for other uses in the area. Page 3 of 10 12/12/2012 Packet,Pg. 1114 s.s.� M. Margo Wheeler, Community Development Director, explained that each variance is reviewed on its own merit,based the unique circumstances affecting the site. Lawrence Schoelz, 816 N. Arrowhead Avenue, stated his opposition to the project, and shared his experiences of perceived impacts affecting the office building that he manages, located to the south of the subject site, caused by the existing social service use. Mr. Schoelz also shared his concern that the research performed by staff only included police calls for the subject site and not for the surrounding neighborhood. Debbi Matley, 380 W. 17`h Street, San Bernardino, DMV Neighborhood Association President, stated her opposition of the project and shared her concern that she did not feel the use was compatible with a residential neighborhood due to additional impacts generated as a higher intensity use. m Commissioner Mulvihill inquired to Mrs. Matley, as President of the DMV Neighborhood Association, on whether she's aware if any residents of the subject residential recovery center had participated in any neighborhood clean-up events. N N Debbi Matley stated that she has not been aware of any residents of the subject facility R participating in any community service events in which the DMV Neighborhood Association N participated in. 3 Commissioner Mulvihill inquired whether other residents within the same neighborhood had a history of volunteering for community service events. a M r Debbi Matley explained that the specific area of the neighborhood, in general, has had ry limited participation, but that the DMV Neighborhood Association has not reached out into that specific area as much. c m Jill Robbins, 2617 N. E Street, San Bernardino, CA stated her opposition to the project E and shared her concerns about safety impacts the project has on the existing residential neighborhood and stressed her displeasure about how the structures on the subject properties a have been allowed to become dilapidated. d E John Matley, 380 W. 17th Street, San Bernardino, CA stated his opposition to the project and stated his concerns about the concentration of similar facilities located in low-income residential areas. Nick Gonzalez, 3288 Mayfield Avenue, Arrowhead Neighborhood Association President, stated the objection of the neighborhood association to the project. He stated his concern about the existing facility's history of operating beyond the scope of approval of their previous Conditional Use Permit and the proximity of the alcohol & drug recovery center to nearby liquor stores. O Page 4 of 10 12/12/2012 Packet'P& 1115 6.B.v Commissioner Mulvihill asked Mr. Gonzalez, that if in his experiences of participating in the Arrowhead Neighborhood Association or working with the Mayor's Office, if he's been aware if any residents of the facility and participated in any community clean-up events. Nick Gonzalez explained that the neighborhood of which the project is located has had very limited participation in community service events and that he was not aware of any residents of this specific facility participating, but felt that conditions of approval on similar types of social service uses should include a participation element in community service and clean-up events to better the neighborhood. Commissioner Mulvihill shared his concern on whether the existing facility has done their N part to become good neighbors in the past. j Roger Henderson, 2516 Valencia Avenue, San Bernardino, CA stated his opposition to c 1 the project and shared his concerns about the impact of facility on surrounding property values. cm N Maria R. Covarrubias, 829 N. Mayfield Avenue, San Bernardino, CA stated her opposition to the project and shared her preference that a block wall be constructed around CU the facility to mitigate noise impacts on surrounding residents. ! Sandra Olivas, 845 N. Mayfield Avenue, San Bernardino, CA stated her opposition to the project and explained that as a neighbor to the existing facility, she has had issues with residents of the facility jumping and damaging her fence, littering, smoking, and using aa.. profanity. Ms. Olivas explained that she felt the use did not preserve or enhance the historic value of the neighborhood. N r Michael Denmon, 837 N. Mayfield Avenue, San Bernardino, CA stated his opposition to the project and shared his concerns that the facility has on crime and drug use within the neighborhood, and objected to the number of residents the facility proposes to accommodate. r A Miguel Giron, 835 N. Mayfield Avenue, San Bernardino, CA stated his opposition to the a project and explained his concerns about littering and damage sustained to fences which abut J the project site. E Kathy Mallon, 1293 W. 35`" Street, San Bernardino, CA stated her opposition to the project and shared her concerns about the nature of the use, the affect the use has on property a values, a shortage of parking for the facility, and inquired about the number of parolees that reside in the facility. John Conte, 108 N. Waterman Avenue, San Bernardino, CA stated his opposition to the project and shared his concerns about the number of out of town residents the facility would accommodate and the impact the facility has on the quality of life for the single family residences in the neighborhood. Commissioner Machen inquired whether the facility has maintained a valid state license. Page 5 of 10 12/12/2012 OStacy Blackstone, representing New House Inc. and Inland Valley Recovery Services, stated that the facility does have a current state license for 52 residents and has been operating within state regulations for 30 years. She explained that the facility had undergone a recent management change from New House to Inland Valley Recovery Services and that the new management is seeking to resolve all previous issues that has come to light since they have taken over. Commissioner Heasley shared his concerns about the behavior of residents of the facility and the affect the facility has previously had on the surrounding neighborhood. Commissioner Brown inquired about the property owner, Mei Shou Chen, and noted her lack of participation at public hearings on the project. rn C Stacy Blackstone stated that she believes that the property owner has owned the subject properties for approximately six years. to N Commissioner Brown inquired about whether the property owner resided outside of the City N of San Bernardino. o Stacy Blackstone stated that she believed that the property owner did reside outside of the City of San Bernardino. © CL Commissioner Mulvihill inquired about the applicant's facility in Upland, California and a whether the two facilities are of similar quality. M N Stacy Blackstone explained that the two facilities provided the same level of service but that the structures at their San Bernardino facility were older. r N Bill Christopher, Urban Concepts, stated that approximately 80% of residents of the s facility have been from San Bernardino, when the facility was at maximum occupancy, and that as the management has reduced the occupancy,priority has been given to San Bernardino c residents. m E Commissioner Mulvihill shared his concern that the applicant's San Bernardino facility may m be of lower quality than their facility in Upland, California and noted that the variance proposed was for a significant deviance from the minimum lot size requirement. a Bill Christopher, Urban Concepts, explained that the intent of the applicant, having recently taken over management of the existing facility, was to improve the quality of the facility. He further explained that he felt the facility met the findings for a variance. Commissioner Jimenez made a motion to deny Conditional Use Permit No. 12-10 and J Variance No. 13-01. I Commissioner Mulvihill seconded the motion. Page 6 of 10 12/12/2012 The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Brown, Duff, Grochulski, Heasley, Jimenez, Machen and Mulvihill.Nays:None. Abstain:None. Excused: Lopez. Absent: None. M. Margo Wheeler announced the action is final in the absence of an appeal to the Community Development Department within 15 days. 4. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (DA) NO. 11-01 — Spring Trails Development Agreement. Environmental Determination: Proposed Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2009111086) Owner/Applicant: Montecito Equities,Ltd. Representative: Jeff Weber APN: 0348-071-05, -06, -07, -09, -10, 0348-101- cn CL 50, 0348-111-03, -04, -07, -08, -09, -30, -36, -47 through-50 N Ward: 5 w Tony Stewart,Deputy Director/City Planner, gave a brief presentation of the project. N d ^ Henry Empeiio, Jr., Senior Deputy City Attorney, advised the Planning Commission on [ ) the definition and process of a Development Agreement. a Commissioner Mulvihill noted that the Planning Commission recommended denial of the Spring Trails Specific Plan and related applications at a previous Planning Commission N meeting and shared his concerns about recommending approval of the Development Agreement for the same project. c d Commissioner Brown explained that, economically, the City of San Bernardino could s benefit from new development and an increased tax base. R c Frank Schnetz, 215 N. "D" Street, introduced himself as the real estate consultant for the developer of the project, and explained why the Development Agreement was not included with previously considered Spring Trails Specific Plan at the Planning Commission's previous meeting. a Commissioner Mulvhill expressed his concerns that the City was not getting enough out of the Development Agreement from the applicant. Monica Soares, 7575 W. Meyers Road, San Bernardino, CA stated that she lived on six and a half acres in the area. She stated her opposition to the agreement and explained her concerns about the increase in density. Lynette Kaplan, 3793 W. Meyers Road, San Bernardino, CA stated her opposition to the agreement and shared her concerns about the project including an increase in density, the lack of Page 7 of 10 12/12/2012 6.B.v access roads in place for the project, traffic impacts, geologic hazards, fire safety, and the effect on wildlife. Hank Mitchell, 3766 Belmont Avenue, San Bernardino, CA stated his opposition to the agreement and shared his concerns about the impact the project will have on existing infrastructure. Richard Kaplan, 3793 W. Meyers Road, San Bernardino, CA stated his opposition to the agreement and stated that he did not feel it was the right time for this type of development. James Onken, 3985 W. Meyers Road, San Bernardino, CA stated his opposition to the agreement and cited concerns about the increase in density, the increase in traffic the project will y bring to the area, and the affect the project may have on the existing resident's water wells. m Valerie Henry, 967 Knoll Street, Devore, CA, Devore Rural Protection Association, stated her opposition to the agreement and shared her concerns about how the project may compromise N fire safety. N Buck and Cathie Mau, 2109 Meyers Road, Devore Heights, CA stated their opposition to the N agreement and shared their concerns about the increase in density and stated that they felt the City of San Bernardino needs jobs more than additional homes. N U1 Frank Schnetz stated that if the last two pieces of property for the project are not obtained that © the project will not happen,per the Development Agreement. U a Commissioner Heasley shared his concerns that the Development Agreement does not include r additional infrastructure improvements to specifically address the traffic flow impact that would N be created by the project. v Commissioner Mulvihill inquired about whether the drainage and infrastructure improvements that are included in the project were going to be constructed concurrently with the new homes proposed in the Spring Trails Specific Plan. U Robert Eisenbeiz, City Engineer, explained the drainage requirements that the project would be a subject to and stated that the project would be required to meet all City requirements. c d E Commissioner Heasley explained his concerns about the negative impacts that the project, as proposed,would have on existing residents. a Commissioner Brown made a motion to recommend approval of Development Agreement No. 11-01. Commissioner Jimenez seconded the motion. The motion failed by the following vote: Ayes: Brown, Jimenez. Nays: Durr, Grochulski, OHeasley, Jimenez, Machen and Mulvihill.. Abstain: None. Excused: Lopez. Absent: None. Page 8 of 10 12/12/2012 Packet Pg. 1119 s.a.� Q Commissioner Mulvihill made a motion to recommend denial of Development Agreement No. 11-01. Commissioner Machen seconded the motion. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Durr, Grochulski, Heasley, Jimenez, Machen and Mulvihill.Nays: Brown, Jimenez. Abstain: None. Excused: Lopez.Absent: None. M. Margo Wheeler announced the action would continue to the Mayor and Common Council at their February 19, 2013 meeting. 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION NO. 12-01 — A request to modify previously approved Conditional Use Permit No. 9145, for an existing restaurant with a drive-thru to add a second drive-thru lane, modify the building fagade, and convert a play area into lobby area, for the property located at 4155 University Parkway in the Commercial General(CG-1) land use district. CL Environmental Determination: Exempt from CEQA, Section 15332 — Infill N Development Projects Owner: Camden Holdings, LLC w Applicant: Ron Underwood/Bickel Underwood Architecture N d APN: 0266-561-21 Ward: 5 a. The Planning Commission continued Conditional Use Permit Modification No. 12-01 to the M February 27,2013 Planning Commission meeting. co N r 6. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 12-03 AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 13-01 — A proposal to establish separate General Plan Land Use and Zoning Maps, to amend the General Plan to reflect the two maps, and to amend Title 19 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code, Land r Use/Subdivision Regulations, also known as the San Bernardino Development Code, to establish standards for Zoning Map Amendments within Chapter 19.74, Zoning Map Amendments. No land use or zoning amendments are proposed for any specific parcel with this proposal. L Environmental Determination: Exempt from CEQA, Section 15061(b)(3) y Applicant: City of San Bernardino APN: Citywide Wards: All Tony Stewart,Deputy Director/City Planner gave a brief presentation of the project. Commissioner Machen stated his support of the General Plan Amendment and Development Code Amendment. © Henry Empeno, Jr., Senior Deputy City Attorney briefed the Planning Commission on the history of the adoption of the existing one map system. Page 9 of 10 12/12/2012 Packet Pg. 1120 Commissioner Brown made a motion to recommend approval of General Plan Amendment No. 12-03 and Development Code Amendment No. 13-01, based on the Findings of Fact container in the staff report. Commissioner Mulvihill seconded the motion. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Brown, Durr, Grochulski, Heasley, Jimenez, Mulvihill, Machen.Nays:None. Abstain: None. Excused: Lopez. Absent: None. M. Margo Wheeler announced the action would continue to the Mayor and Common Council at their February 19, 2013 meeting. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ~ m c 7. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Q Commissioner Heasley was elected Chair of the Planning Commission. to Commissioner Mulvihill was elected Vice-Chair of the Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS/ANNOUNCEMENTS a Commissioner Mulvihill requested that staff look into the possibility of setting locational y criteria for social service uses. M. Margo Wheeler confirmed that the matter would be looked into and brought back for a discussion in a future Director's Report. M r M DIRECTOR'S REPORT N r v None. V C ADJOURNMENT E L U Commissioner Mulvihill made a motion which was unanimously carried, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 8:52 p.m. The next regular meeting was scheduled for c Wednesday, February 27, 2013 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, First Floor, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. E r U R a Minutes Adopted by Planning Commissioners: Date Approved: Minutes Prepared by: Lori Farris Development Services Technician Page 10 of 10 12/12/2012 Packet Pg. 1121 © Agenda Item#4-Development Agreement(DA)No.11-01-Spring Trains Agreement Let me start with the fact that when the developers bought this parcel they knew they were zoned atone house per 5 acres. They are not being abused or cheated by this zoning. Going from 5 acres to 10,800 lots is unacceptable. There should be a 1 physical acre minimum. No averaging of land use. 1/3 of this project is basically unbuildable by our current HMO D regulations. Secondly,how can the F city even think of annexing 352 acres,with 304 homes to service,when they are in bankruptcy,having reduced staff to below bare bones levels and they are having a difficulties servicing their current residents? rn With that said,I am having trouble understanding the appearance of CNI negligence by staff in recommending that this project be approved by the m commission and the city council. The Planning Commission has rejected the EIR and E voted against the project. Staff claims that the benefits of dollars in the city's a coffers'and the addition of medium priced homes far out weigh the hazards that M will be put on local residents by degrading air quality,water quality,the traffic N impacts,fire safety, creating an evacuation gridlock,and environmental devastation Y to a key wildlife corridor. 6 d This project will bring air quality to levels of pollutants above the CA Air Resource Board thresholds. It will bring significant and unavoidable (per the EIR) increases in greenhouse gasses to residents and hundreds of sensitive receptors- two schools,the Western Little League Complex and the Verdemont Comm. Center and Library. Are you willing to put local children's'health at risk? The chemical o contaminants from the additional homes will enter the water system and make all wells unusable. 17,929 truckloads of dirt carried over local roads,an additional o 1,743 construction vehicles per day, 125.1 acres of internal slopes,roads and access U roads built on 3 active faults.putting 3,200 more residential vehicles at the Palm/215 interchange,already rated at an"F"and no improvements on the r CALTRANS books in the next ten years. w Perhaps the most troubling oversight by staff in recommending this project a for approval is that the project does not have access roads only the fantasy of what they"think"they will have. To approve a tract of 304 homes without access a roads for evacuation is at best delusional and on face value criminal. If one bothered c to read the backup documents,you would have seen that Fire Marshall Dupree diet E not approve 304 homes,only 302. The Spring Trails unenforceable "fire mitigation plan"based on"planting zones"will fail due to lack of oversight,enforcement,and a abatement An HOA will not have the clout, money or manpower to function. This development will be a tinderbox with over 1000 residents at high risk. The Development Agreement cedes all parks to the city. The city,having reduced the Parks budget to below 1980's levels,will not be able to maintain any BVII 2 3 20B CITY%SA, packet- 1122 DEVEtnw ir additional parks or abate weeds,maintain flood retention basins/parks,or police safety issues. Flood mitigation is based on the retention basins. This is a project premised on a proposed Home Owners Association that will be all things to all situations. One has merely to look at the developments of the last ten years in the Verdemont area to see that LMDs are not maintained,parks are rift with dead vegetation and the last thing on 80%of homeowners agendas is regulated u, landscaping. Fire response time(per the EIR) is at 12-13 minutes. Flashover is F when a house becomes totally engulfed is at 8 minutes. Average police response rn time is stated as 4.3 minutes. I can tell you from personal experience this fall,it took a anywhere from 10 minutes to 25 minutes to get a response on an"armed"person y call. What will be the real response time for fire and police? Ln N N With the constant winds of the last two weeks clocked at over 45mph (a regular occurrence),how will the developer ever cover,water and plant 193 acres E during grading? Dust levels above Air Quality Standards,soil erosion,health a hazards. ... M t urge the Planning Commission to deny this development agreement and strongly recommend that the city council deny this project. We are not opposed to development: we are for safe well planned infrastructure$Wonted development. y d v Lynette McLean Kaplan 5th Ward Fire Commissioner o a 3793 W. Meyers Road a San Bernardino, CA 92407 0 U Q a F Z W S U Q F F Q y d E L U V_ Q Packet Pg1�'123°k i w To: Planning Commission Date: Jan. 23, 2013 Subject: Spring Trails Development From: Buck and Cathie Mau N This project is still not where it needs to be! F What is best for the area and the people that live here? cn Most of us moved here to get away from the City and Enjoy the peace and quiet of the area. All the wild life Is a bonus. Now you are considering a project that,will / N Take that away from us. First and most important, we Want to stay in the County. We are retired and live on E A fixed income. City means more tax burden with a Cq No improvements. If you rezone us ;to city you will Be infringing on our rights. You will in danger our N Lives with possible well contamination, flooding due To erosion,traffic evacuation with fires and earthquakes. d Do the right thing and what best for the area leave the Zoning as is. That is the most common since approach. U C d Respectively o a y Buck and Cathie Mau o 2109 W. Meyers Rd. U Devore Heights Ca. 92409 Parcel Number 0348-111-47-0-000 Z w 2 U Q H F Q r c m E r v m Q Packet Pg 1124.;... 6.B.w W stn. V:• .�j,ii- y.. .y: Larry Walker - - ml 2012 ANNUAL SECURED PROPERTY TAX BILL FISCAL YEAR JULY 01,2012 TO JUNE 30,2013 CL U) Mailed to MAIL,SUCK 172 West Third Street,San Bernardino,CA 9241 90 13187-630 .M.�T�cxCollecton c -1 2108 MEYEflS RD www DEVORE HEIGHTS CA 92407 PROPERTY ASSESSMENT CNTL•00547; R E Land ..77000'. - t, -.'Improvement Flxlures ImprovementPenaHy - 0.7 Pam0blP t t 120315979 1 0007010 r 1.308200 Other Ex9mptlons _ i 269000 0 ,. "SO 4) `s�" �� �� xs�.a 9 e TAX DISTRIBUTION 0�i Ao OF JAN 01,2012 SUCK 11.01-2012 $1,792•$4 n N kU CATHIEL r :.'_OENERAWTA%:LEVY 20.09 ., .'CO VECTOR CONTROL ..$00.912-22&9.. .H..2 d .,Pei)t4A {�� 02-01-2013 $1,76293 9Ard9DNOCOMMCOLLftiQtiOtiP 909382-4022 t23:.4Z O 2109-MEYERS RD DEV "9t'2i0pL 90ryPS " 90ea@t 1104 - 208;4. d R Total "9CHALLY,MU IWTH 013TNO .., Taxes Due 30 VALLEY MUNI NRR 013T NO O . CL N PARCEL MAP 9689 PARCEL I - - O vr•+<�_,.r ... ,;v:. r .+�;- _ ,.:„:: , . . .z r,_a:•.e EiiY"bxyy ..:. .. {... . F Z Make checks payable to SBC Tax Collector ” Q KEEP THIS PORTION OF YOUR TAX BILL Q O 0) E t V t. S'. Q qb' V 'T H F.' O L CL y to to IL Mrs pq N N 07 U r St C'f ! �^� Proje�et Site"' N v a ti OW 68s — t��-'d-7—a— ooc� y c j O 1 � N O U a v z z w x U Q F F Q :: c v E L U R a Packet Pg. 1126 / C p L y.O.W /1 y_ 1 I am in opposition to the proposed Spring Trails Specific Plan SP 10-01 and find the EIR faulty, inaccurate and feel that this project will degrade: air quality, water quality, safety; add to traffic congestion and grid-lock, tax and overburden police-, fire, schools, and the water supply. It is also incongruous with the character and needs of the rural atmosphere of the �: residents. The rezoning and approval should NOT be JABS 2 3 2013 permitted. Date Xl 111 Q CITY OF SAN BERNARDIN DEVELOPMENT SERVICE NAME / ADDRESS SIGNATURE DEPARTMENT N Z E 2. .b ► b w5 - M of eve 3. s c� 4 ✓r v �7S d V 5. ,o 4-- C O ff V. \h CLU. llfr L (OZ3J� VC'��¢ Illonfan � U 7. cicle.G . db�►�'f- Qn W 87.7 5 r ?1, C U F 10. veeN (2KAkCs E ILI 11 . ��✓� ��`• a ,�y r 12. Packet Pg. 1127 DEil I am in opposition to the proposed Spring Trails Specific Plan SP 10-01 and find the EIR faulty, inaccurate and feel that this project will degrade: air quality, water quality, safety; add to traffic congestion and grid-lock, tax and overburden police, fire, schools, and the water supply. It is also incongruous with N the character and needs of the rural atmosphere of the existing residents. The rezoning and approval should NOT be CL permitted. Date�(�n C NAME / ADDRESS SIGNATURE N E U CL 2. M r 3. VNm 5. CL 6. 7. de S. U Q H 9. a v 10. E U 16 11 . Q 12. Packet Pg. 1128 Entered Into Rec. at MCC/CDC Mtg: 2/�1 / by, Jt 1 Agenda Item N 9': by, Cify CIerWCDC Secretary City of San Bernardino Montecito Equities, LTD Spring Trails, San Bernardino CA Fiscal Revenue Analysis Summary January 8, 2013 Exhibit Amount Annual Recurring Revenues Property Tax A $ 153,216 Total Annual Proposed Public Safety CFD Special Taxes A 60,800 Sales Tax B 65,165 Total Estimated Project Utility User Tax Revenue at Buildout C 110,365 Total Annual Recurring Revenue $ 389,546 One Time City/Fees D $ 13,685,884 Temporary Employment Generated E 618 EXHIBIT A Montecito Equities, LTD Spring Trails, San Bernardino CA Property Tax Calculations January 8, 2013 Property Tax Assessed Value $ 182,400,000 Base Ad Valorem Rate 1.000% Base Ad Valorem Tax $ 1,824,000 City Share of Base Tax (a) 8.40% Annual City Share of Base Ad Valorem Tax $ 153,216 Footnotes: (a) Per San Bernardino county Auditor-Controller's Office, FY 2012-13. Public Safety CFD Proposed Public Safety CFD Per Unit $ 200 Number of Units 304 Total Annual Proposed Public Safety Special Taxes $ 60,800 EXHIBIT B Montecito Equities, LTD Spring Trails, San Bernardino CA Offsite Sales Tax January 8, 2013 Spending by Residents: Factor Total Aggregate Incomes(See Below) $ 40,128,000 Consumer Expenditures (a) 77.0% $ 30,897,680 Taxable Spending(a) 30.1% $ 9,309,316 Less: Outside of City Capture(estimate) 30.0% $ (2,792,795) Net Taxable Spending in City $ 6,516,521 Annual Sales Taxes to City 1.0% $ 65,165 Household Income Calculation: Avg.Sales Price $ 600,000 Down Payment 20% $ 120,000 Loan Amount $ 480,000 Interest Rate 5.0% Term (years) 30.00 Annual Mortgage Payment $30,921 HOA $ 150 $ 1,800 Maintenance/Insurance $ 200 $ 2,400 Property Taxes 1.80% $ 10,800 Total Annual Housing Costs $ 45,921 % Income spent on Housing 35% Annual Income Required $ 131,203 Annual Income Required (rounded) $ 132,000 Total Residential Units 304 Total Aggregate Incomes $ 40,128,000 Footnotes: (a) Per Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey, 2010. Exhibit C Montecito Equities, LTD Spring Trails, San Bernardino CA Utility User Tax Revenue January 8, 2013 Estimated Utility User Tax(a) $ 22,725,000 City Population 2012 (b) 211,674 Per Capita Utililty User Tax $ 107 (1) Total Project Residential Units 304 Average Household Size (c) 3.38 Total Estimated Population in Project 1,028 (2) Total Estimated Project Utility User Tax Revenue at Buildout(1)X(2) $ 110,365 Footenote: (a) Total annual estimated Fiscal Year 2012/13 Utility User Tax. Per FY 2012/13 City of San Bernardino Budget. (b) Per California Department of Finance. (c) Per US Census Bureau. Exhibit D Montecito Equities LTD, Spring Trails City Development Impact Fees City of San Bernardino January 8, 2013 Fees to be Paid- Est.Building Permit I Plan Check Fees Notes Per Unit Total Square Footage(Living Space) It] 3,200 3200, Square Footage(Garage) ill 450 450 Building Permit Valuation($50ISquare Foot of Living Space) It] $ 600,000 $ 600,000 Total No.of Units Ill 304 304 City of San Bernardino Building Permit [2] 770 234,080 Plan Check [2] 471 143,108 Misc. ]2] 120 36,480 Sub-Total $ 1,361 413,668 Development Impact Fees City/County Impact Fees City of San Bernardino Local Circulation System Fee 121 233 70,814 Regional Circulation System Fee (21 2,435 740,240 Stone Drain Fee [2] 3,926 1,193,477 Venlemont(Chestnut Drainage Fee-$0.299/Square Foot) 121 957 290,867 Verdemont(Palm Box Culvert/Signal Fee-$0.023/Square Foot) [2] 74 22,374 Law Enforcement Fee (2] 639 194,277 Fire Suppression Fee (2] 792 240,795 Library Facilities Fee [2] 638 193,919 Aquatic Facilities Fee [2] 326 99,137 Public Meeting Facilities Fee (21 1,090 331,220 Parkland and Open Space Fee (2] 9,518 2,893,429 Cultural Development Fee (21 3,000 912,000 Sub-Total 23,627 b 1,182,550 Waterand Sewer Fees City of San Bernardino Sewer Connection and Inspection(5 Bd/2 Be Home) 121 2,128 646 845 City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department Sewer Capacity Charge (3] 3,500 1,064000 Water Connection Fees(34'x 3/4")" [3] 7,110 2,161440 Sub-Total 12,738 $ 3,872,285 Total Excluding Verdemont CFD 1033 In-Lieu Fee E 37,725 $ 11,468,503 CFD No.1033 Verdemont)Residential In-Lieu Fe [4] 7,294 2,217,381 Total Including Verdemont CFD 10331n-Lieu Fee E 45,019 13,685,884 Footnotes: Please note that the Analysis above does not include the following:applicable fee credits,potential CFD/AD proceeds or potential impact of a Development Agreement,Mitigation Agreement,SB 50 Agreement or similar agreement. [1]Repeesenls information from Montecito Equities LTD. [2]Represents the applicable fees per the City of San Bernardino. [3]Represents the applicable water fees per the City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department."Please note that per the Conditions of Approval,upgrades and construction of new water system facilities will need to be completed in order for the Water Department to be able to serve the Tract(ie booster pump stations,2,300 It level reservoir,etc.). [4]Verdemont CFD 10331n-Lieu Fee FTY 2012-13. EXHIBIT E Montecito Equities, LTD Spring Trails, San Bernardino CA Employment Generated January 8, 2013 DURING BUILDOUT: Construction Spending Land Development Offsite Work $ 7,317,000 Onsite Work 33,377,000 Subtotal Land Development $ 40,694,000 Building Construction Cost($50 Sq Ft x 304 units x 3200 Average Sq Ft House Size) $ 48,640,000 Total Construction Spending $ 89,334,000 Person Years of Employment Total Construction Spending $ 89,334,000 Construction Industry- Employment Factor (a) 20.77 Total Person Years of Employment Created 1,855 Development Period (Years) 3.00 Average Annual Employment 618 Footnotes: (a)California Regional Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II)using 2003 data, US. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis.Jobs are shown per$1,000,000 of construction or planning expenditures. GRESHAM I SAVAGE Jennifer.GuentherC?GreshamSavage.com • San Bernardino Office ATTORNEYS AT LAW (909)890-4499 • fax(909)890-9877 byfefd lnt=� l / .. February 19, 2013 A xndr '!em y-}; ( ` nr *W091my City a gun 600rdiho Councilmembers Spring Trails Specific Plan Council Meeting Re: Response to Comments Regarding Spring Trails Specific Plan (Ms.Ashley Mankus, Cle Elum,WA.,et al.) Dear Councilmembers: It is my understanding that the members of the Council have received a number of nearly identical emails from individuals outside of the City of San Bernardino, and in many cases from outside the State of California. A review of a sample of these emails shows that the individuals have little or no connection or interest in either the proposed Project or the City of San Bernardino. This lack of interest should,be considered by the Council in its weighing of the import of such correspondence in their decision-making process. In order to challenge a proposed project, a party must demonstrate standing. In order to demonstrate standing, a petitioner must have an interest in, and a geographical nexus to,the subject matter of the litigation. In addition, the letters appear to offer little in the way of substantive comments. Even so, we want to ensure that each of the issues raised are addressed and provide a response, as follows: 1. Fire Danger. The project is consistent with the Foothill Fire Zone Overlay District, which contains development restrictions for hillside development in fire-prone areas, as described in Appendix D "Foothill Fire Zones Overlay District Conformance' of the Spring Trails Specific Plan. SAN BERNARDINO 550 East Hospitality Lane, Suite 300 • San Bernardino, California 92408 <9 RIVERSIDE 3750 University Avenue, Suite 250 • Riverside, California 92501 SAN DIEGO 501 W. Broadway, Suite 800 • San Diego, California 92101 LOS ANGELES 333 South Hope Street, 35th Floor • Los Angeles, California 90071 CreShamSavane.rnm .e.ai_nm_ oa<ca Spring Trails Council Meeting February 19,2013 Page 2 Potential fire impacts are addressed in Section 5.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and are based on the analysis and findings in the Fire Protection Plan (July 2011) prepared for the proposed project by Firesafe Solutions. The analysis in the Fire Protection Plan uses weather information from the Devore remote access weather station ("RAWS") and the BEHAVE Fire Behavior Prediction and Fuel Modeling System to model the intensity of a fire approaching the project site. The fire models include information on flame length, wind speed, and slope. As shown in the fire history of the project site, the risk of fire is significant. Worst-case scenarios were used to develop the fuel modification plan, which includes allowable plant palate, the distance of separate landscaping zones from buildings, and building setbacks from each other. In the Fire Protection Plan, the fuel modification zones created for the proposed project are based on a systems approach to address fire prevention and are the appropriate size for the project as it is proposed. The concept behind the systems approach is to create fuel modification zones in which the fire is systematically deprived of available fuel to reduce the size of the flame and the amount of heat that would be generated. Each of the three fuel modification zones is described in detail in Section 5.6 of the Draft EIR. The maintenance and clearing of prohibited vegetation will depend on a strict enforcement routine, which includes a Lighting and Landscape Maintenance District ("LLMD"), the Homeowners' Association ("HOA"), and individual homeowners. The San Bernardino Fire Department("SBFD") is responsible for approving annual reports from the Homeowners' Association. Annual reports must be submitted every year the project is in place. The fuel modification zones and plan are designed specifically for the project site. The requirements prescribed in the Fire Protection Plan, using fire-resistant building materials, and the implementation of the Fuel Modification Plan, the risk from fire would be reduced on the project site. Each home within the Specific Plan development would be constructed with fire- retardant materials as discussed in Section 8 of the Fire Protection Plan (Compliance Matrix). The required number of hose bibs per house is two per the City of San Bernardino Development Code. However, due to the high fire risk in this area, a minimum of four hose bibs will be provided per house and included in the specific plan(Chapter 3,Development Code, of the Specific Plan). The types of insulation used in houses would be restricted to those allowed by the Foothill Fire (FF) Zones Overlay District. Paper-faced insulation would be prohibited per the Specific Plan (San Bernardino Municipal Code Chapter 15.10). The use of the materials listed in Draft EIR Mitigation Measure 16-4 would be subject to approval by the Fire Chief. The direction fire may originate from is based on the historic weather and fire data used in the Spring Trails Council Meeting February 19,2013 Page 3 BEHAVE fire modeling software. Cul-de-sac roadways have been designed to specifically accommodate fire engines, as shown on Draft EIR Table 5.14-6. Parking on cul-de-sac bulbs is not allowed per Foothill Fire Zones Overlay District code and would be enforced by the City. In addition, per the Specific Plan, fencing and other nonresidential structures would be constructed of noncombustible material. The primary and secondary access roads are part of the project description, and are described in Section 3, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, and are shown on Figures 3-3, Development Plan, and 3-6, Circulation Plan, of the Draft EIR. The City of San Bernardino Fire Department requires two access roads be built to this project in order to provide emergency access and evacuation routes. In addition, per mitigation measure 14-3 in Section 5.14, Transportation and Traffic, in the Draft EIR, the access roads must be built to the Fire Department's minimum standards prior to the placement of combustible material on the project site. The project site has been designed to meet the Foothill Fire Zones Emergency Access Design Standards, as discussed in Draft EIR Section 5.14.3. Compliance with these design standards is required to ensure the site is accessible as possible and can be evacuated as efficiently as possible during emergency situations. (See Table 5.14-6 in Draft EIR Section 5.14, Transportation and Traffic). As stated in the Draft EIR, the fire response time is greater than the average response time for the SBFD. The implementation of the Fire Protection Plan is meant to reduce the risk of wild fires and to delay their advance, giving SBFD ample time to reach the site. As stated in the Draft EIR, the SBFD has an automatic aid agreement with the San Bernardino County Fire Department ("SBCoFD") and is also a participating agency in the California Master Mutual Aid Agreement, in which participating local and state agencies agree to provide mutual aid in dealing with disasters including fire, flood, and earthquakes. Vegetation fires on the project site would result in a multiagency response, which would include the U.S. Forest Service under this agreement. 2. Proximity to Faults. The three lineaments of the San Andreas fault that are known to be active,identified as splays A, B, and C on Draft EIR Figure 5.5, Geology and Soils, are given 50 foot setbacks. This determination came as a result of the geotechnical research completed in the Kleinfelder investigations in 1997, 1998, and 2000. These reports indicate that a portion of splay A and splays E and D are not active. To confirm the determinations made in these reports, fault trenching and additional geotechnical investigations are required to make final site design requirements. These investigations could not be completed Spring Trails Council Meeting February 19, 2013 Page 4 on the project site due to site constraints, but will be completed after site grading and before the recordation of the final maps (Mitigation Measures 5-1 through 5-3). The proposed project must incorporate all final design recommendations of the additional investigations and findings. As required by the California Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, no residential structure is allowed within 50 feet of a known active fault line and all homeowners would be notified of the hazards via disclosures in their title reports and the project CC&Rs. The geotechnical studies prepared for the proposed project site (Kleinfelder 2000 and Leighton Associates 2009) have included design parameters and development restrictions for the project site that are consistent with the Alquist-Priolo Act, the Seismic Hazard Mapping Act, and the state and City's building code. Due to the potential risk for infrastructure and roadways on the site to become damaged during an earthquake, the proposed project has incorporated design features to reduce the risks related to emergency situations (see Table 5.14-6 Draft EIR Section 5.14, Transportation and Traffic which explains how the proposed project has been designed for efficient emergency access and evacuation). In addition, the infrastructure that lies across earthquake fault splays would be designed to withstand earthquake fault ruptures, as described in the Draft Specific Plan. 3. Endangered Species. In general, the biological analysis in the Draft EIR recognizes the biological value of the proposed project site to the numerous federal and state species of concern and species of special concern. The Draft EIR fully discloses the potential biological resource impacts of the project and provides mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. As appropriate, these measures include follow up, confirmation resource surveys and requirements for preparation of more detailed mitigation plans prior to issuance of grading permits (e.g., prior to ground disturbance). The availability of plant communities with minimal disturbance as live-in habitats and the importance of this site for wildlife movement along the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains were thoroughly vetted in the Draft EIR analysis. The City recognizes the importance of the various riparian habitats and drainages found onsite and their value for resident native species. As such, the project was designed to avoid the majority of impacts to these sensitive biological resources, where feasible. Numerous biological inventories have been conducted on the project site over the past Spring Trails Council Meeting February 19, 2013 Page 5 ten years and the site's biological resources values have been well established. Even so, pre-clearance surveys will be conducted per Mitigation Measure 3-1 for each federally and state listed species that have a potential to occur onsite. The specific concerns referenced in your letters are addressed more fully below: a. San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat. Impacts to the San Bernardino kangaroo rat ("SBKR") are discussed in Section 5.3, Biological Resources, in the Draft EIR. Although the proposed secondary access road partially covers SBKR habitat, no SBKR's have been observed on the project site during biological surveys. Because the SBKR habitat is also jurisdictional waters of the US, both the US Army Corps of Engineers ("Corps") and US Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS") mitigation to offset these impacts is proposed (Mitigation Measure 3-6). Additionally, in response to comments received from the California Department of Fish and Game, Mitigation Measure 3-1 was revised to require pre-construction clearance surveys by a qualified biologist for the SBKR. If the presence of any SBKR are found within or immediately adjacent to the project site or access roads, those areas identified as occupied by the species found onsite will be fenced off, including a 500-foot buffer, from the construction zones to prevent inadvertent impacts. Individuals found within the areas proposed for onsite conservation shall be properly recorded and the conservation area fenced off to avoid inadvertent impacts. SBKR is a federally listed species, which means that any potential impact to these species and/or its habitat will require an endangered species permit from USFWS prior to any ground disturbing activity. USFWS will be notified within 24 hours of a positive sighting, and the focused survey report will be submitted to USFWS as required by each that agency. b. Riversidean Sage Scrub. The loss of 168.4 acres of Riversidean Sage Scrub ("RSS") habitat is expected to displace or adversely impact some of the species of special concern that could occur on the project site. However, the applicant will purchase and permanently protect RSS habitat that is biologically equivalent to or superior than the 168.4 acres of onsite RSS habitat as determined by the CDFG (McGill 2012). The protected habitat will provide suitable habitat for many of the SSC species. Implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce the RSS impacts to less than significant (see revised mitigation measure 3-6 in Section 3,Revisions to the Draft EIR). Spring Trails Council Meeting February 19, 2013 Page 6 C. Wildlife Corridor. The City recognizes the importance of the wildlife movement corridor that occurs along Cable Creek, and protecting the biological value of Cable Creek is a priority of the project. Per Mitigation Measure 3-4, a 300-foot-wide zone with a fence barrier shall be designed with approval by the City of San Bernardino Community Development Department and constructed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. The width of 300 feet is chosen because this is the average width of the Cable Creek bed, the flattest part of the corridor which animals would be using. The fence would most likely be wooden and eight feet tall but the actual type and height would be determined by CDFG. It would stretch the entire length of the property along Cable Creek. The barrier would isolate the creek from the development and ensure the biological integrity of the Cable Creek as riparian habitat and as a wildlife corridor is maintained. In addition, Mitigation Measure 3-12 has been revised to reduce impacts to biological resources by requiring that a vegetation restoration and maintenance plan with specified criteria be created for the Northern Wildlife Corridor. Criteria include restoring and enhancing vegetation, providing riparian habitat, planting replacement native trees, maintaining clear passage through the corridor, reducing and redirecting artificial light, constructing bridges with soft bottoms, and incorporating any other recommendations from the "A Linkage Design for the San Gabriel-San Bernardino Connection" report(from the 2004"South Coast Missing Linkages Project'). 4. Cost of Services Provided by City of San Bernardino. The projects impact to provision of City services was found to be less than significant with the implementation of mitigation measures and payment of impact fees. The mitigation for the proposed project includes participation of the project applicant in the fair-share funding for the continued operation and maintenance of the Verdemont Fire Station. A one-time fair-share contribution equivalent to the Community Facilities District Number 1033 "in-lieu fee' established by Resolution Number 2004-107 of the Mayor and Common Council would mitigate the long-term impact of the project on emergency services of the Fire Department. It should be noted that under CEQA, significant public service impacts occur when the proposed project would require the construction of new or expanded facilities to maintain service, which would cause environmental impacts. The proposed project would not require the construction of new facilities, but would contribute funding to assist in funding long-term operations at the existing fire and police stations. Spring Trails Council Meeting February 19, 2013 Page 7 5. Regional Need for Housing. By 2035, the City is projected to grow by 36.6 percent in housing, 32.1 percent in population, and 65.5 percent in employment. The Southern California Association of Governments ("SCAG's") forecast predicts a strong growth in employment, as the City's jobs/housing ratio was 1.65 in 2005 and is expected to increase to 2.00 by 2035. Although no ideal jobs/housing ratio is adopted within any state, regional, or city policies, SCAG considers an area to be "balanced" when the jobs/housing ratio is 1.35; communities with more than 1.5 jobs per dwelling unit are considered "jobs-rich". The projected 2035 jobs/housing ratio at buildout with the project would be 1.99, 0.01 less than the jobs/housing ratio at buildout without the project. The proposed project would create a jobs/housing ratio that is slightly more balanced compared to the projected buildout in the area,improving the jobs/housing ratio within the City. Very truly yours, `>fer M. Guenther, of RESHAM SAVAGE NOLAN&TILDEN, A Professional Corporation JMG:crb 4 TO: CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MAYOR AND COMMON COUN63L, DATE: FEBRUARY 19"'2013 ��•III�' SUBJECT: SPRING TRAMS DEVELOPMENT FROM: BUCK AND CATHIE MAU THIS PROJECT IS STILL NOT WHERE IT NEEDS TO BE!!! THIS PROJECT IS NOT GOOD THE AREA! IF YOU ALLOW THE PROJECT AS IT STANDS, YOU WILL BE INFRINGING ON THE RIGHTS OF US THAT DON'T WANT TO BE TAKEN INTO THE CITY. WE ALL KNOW THE CITY IS BROKE, SO THERE WILL BE NO INPROVEMENTS. A LOT OF US ARE ON WATER WELLS. WE HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT OUR WELLS WILL BE CONTAMINATED. DUE TO CHEMICALS SUBSTANCE FROM WEED KILLERS,FERTILIZERS AND ETC. HOW CAN THE CITY VOTE THIS IN KNOWING IT COULD ENDANGER OUR LIVES? IF THIS IS ALLOWED TO HAPPEN,CAN THE CITY AFFORD THE LAWSUITS? THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO BUILD ON THERE PROPERTY, THEY KNOW IT WAS IN THE COUNTY,AND IT NEEDS TO STAY IN THE COUNTY. TRAFFIC IS BAD NOW AROUND SCHOOLS,FREEWAY ENTRANCE AND EXIT. WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF WE HAD A FIRE OR EARTHQUAKE? THESE ISSUES ARE ONLY THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG! I WOULD HOPE THE CITY WOULD DO THE RESPONIBLE THING AND THE COMMON SINCE APPROACH AND VOTE THIS PROJECT DOWN FOR THE GOOD OF THE CITIZENS! WE VOTE NO ON THE PROJECT RESPECTIVELY, BUCK AND CATHIE MAU 2109 MEYERS RD. DEVORE HEIGHTS, CA.92407 PARCEL NUMBER 0348-111-47-0-000 Entered Into Rec. of MCC/CDC Mtg. i� Agenda Item No. r R by. ,N/ City Clerll/CDC Secretary City of San Bernardino iI a � - cousemrarnu�q 1 vvuia lrvxwpw+l "110 `[ mcye.fs �• aurnw rn rne;i �' + ✓LV DC� 5 o- � PvnnWUynipi `. L 1 r' � am wiriJ ' Y" I\ ;z 81•:1,.. . � I• Entered Into Rec, at MCC/CDC Mfg, by: -G 3 Agenda I em No: Lynette McLean Kaplan by: _ Slh Ward Fire Commissioner City CierVCDC Secretary 3 793 W. Meyers Road City of San Bemardino San Bernardino, CA 92407 (across from the proposed project site) we know from current situations in North Verdemont, the LMD maintenance hasn't worked. 125.1 acres of this development will be internal slopes. Slopes burn faster that flat lots. Fire response time is stated at 1213 minutes. Flash over-when a house becomes engulfed in f1smoc ;c at 8 minutes. The city is willing to put c.•cr 1000 lives at risk to put development money in the city coffers. City Code, HMOs and City Maintenance Crews will never be able to fulfill this elaborate fire mitigation plan. Staff is at bare bone levels and HMOs have no clout. Average police response time is stated as being 4.3 minutes. I can tell you from personal experience this fall, it took anywhere from 10 to 25 minutes to get a response on an "armed" person call. Public safety will bean issue for this development, but the city will be getting money for the coffers- probably to be used to pay off previous debt. The project lies on 3 active faults. No houses will be built on the faults, but the roadways will traverse faults. When the roads fail and the broken gas lines ignite how will the residents evacuate? By approving this project the council is in effect signing the death sentences for over 1000 residents. In this "State Identified High Wind" zone the developer is going to grade 193 acres on site (this doesn't include the additional acreage for access roads). They will be exporting 251,000 cubic yards of dirt in 17,924 trucks over local streets. Streets the developer will not be repaving. Construction traffic alone will add another 1,743 vehicle a day to the already overcrowded local streets. The dust and particulate pollution will bring the air quality for 3 schools. the Western Regional Little League, the Blast Soccer Complex and the Verdemont Comm. Center and Library to (per the EIR) "Levels of (pollutants) above the CA Air Resource Board thresholds." It will increase greenhouse gases (per the EIR) to significant levels. In other words, it puts our kids at risk for respiratory ailments, but the city will be adding money to the coffers. Even with the detention basins that are designed for the project there will be excess run off. 304 homes, driveways, and roads create a lot of impervious surface. Run off will contaminate the wells of all the families currently living within the area. In addition, the detention basins/parks will ue maintained. Parks has cut their budget ti,,, :;-cr 10% this year anf! w acres. And now we are going Lo add another 9 acres of parks and detention basins to clean out-Parks that serve as Fire and Flood Mitigation Zones. Traffic is also a major problem with this development: The Palm/Kendall exit off the 215 Freeway is already rated at a "D" and "r This doesn't even factor in the 900 units that have been approved for University Hills and the developments that are already approved between Palm and little league at the base of the foothills. This project will put 3,600 more cars on local streets, 3,600 more cars at the intersection of Palm and Kendall. Cal Trans does NOT have any plan to improve this intersection in the next ten years. Traffic gridlock-failed evacuation routes. So we have a new development for a bankrupt city that cannot service its current residents. A city that has cut back code enforcement positions, cut fire positions by ZS% and police by over 100 officers. The Planning Dept has recommended approval for a development that is landlocked, will degrade air quality, water quality, create traffic gridlock and put its residents at risk for death. Frightening impacts. it is up to you to decide "money for the city coffers" V.S. responsible development supported by adequate infrastructure, staffing, and safe and sane zoning. No; ") I'm Richard Kaplan and I live at 3793 W. M ,.pry of San Berri,j,,,,, I have 50 yrs. of experience with the County of San Bernardino in Engineering and Construction of subdivisions, roadways and flood control facilities. I would like for the council to consider these questions: Did the Developer come to the city after he couldn't or wouldn't meet County Standards? The city, in its current bankruptcy status, with bare bones staffing is unable to handle this project without incurring tremendous cost in contracting outside engineering professionals to check and insure that plans are viable and meet standards. Where will the city find the funding to hire outside staff in light of its insolvency? Will lack of funds cause the city to use short cuts and not pay attention to major problems with the development? Will the city just look the other way and let hazardous conditions be created? Why is the present Staff recommending approval to Council, NOT taking into consideration the disapproval by past Staff The Planning Commission volumes of concerns voiced by local residents' in letters, emails and in numerous Public Forums? Why has Staff chosen to ignore The California Environmental Quality Act? In the current EIR's the following impacts are over the allowable levels: Air quality, Noise levels, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Transportation and Traffic at the Kendall/Palm Intersection, increased traffic will affect the 215 Freeway Off-ramp, already rated as an "F." All of the above are listed as "significant impacts and unavoidable." Has Staff 1... ,: CU dt t.t-: ,ail ,3ernardino County's Drainage Maps for the area of development? I have and found this development to be in a Zone 'D', the worst area for drainage and flooding. It has a note that flood damage cannot be determined for a one hundred year storm. The Assistant Director for San Bernardino Co., Kevin Blakeslee also advised me that the Developer and his Engineer have not requested any of the Hydrology information from the County. I have doubts regarding the incomplete Engineering for drainage "on site" or "off site" of this development. This project has numerous 2:1 slopes. 2:1 slope is very difficult to plant landscaping vegetation to protect against erosions. After the Old Fire in 2003 we've experienced mudflows at the KOA Camp Ground and at the bottom of Meyers Rd. at the creek crossing when the existing pipe silted up. Thanks to Mr. Penman the City got it cleaned out using city resources. Another CMP down stream also overflowed and the City improved the drainage pipe, but it's still not large enough to handle increased flows from new rooftops and paved streets. This should be a major concern to the City. There are three detention basins for this Development and one of them is across the street from my home. Will they become areas for off road bikes and other off road toys? I've seen it happen in other locations. Who do we call to enforce the illegal activities when our Police are already over extended? Will these detention basins eventually silt up and who is going to maintain them? LMDs have failed to be maintained in Verdemont and the Parks Dept. is already overwhelmed. During construction, the disturbed soil from grading is going to leave the residents on Meyers Rd. very vulnerable to mud- flows. With the high intensity of rain we get it's very likely the Storm Water Pollution Protection will fail. I would like to have the City Council recall what happened after the Panorama Fire to Harrison Basin and the homes below 40th St., east of Sierra Way. The City approved a development of homes against the County's recommendations and the basin drainage plugged up with mud and debris destroying these homes. Lawsuits followed. Now it's a green belt. Another flooding failure ?__ _ _-,,..L MNLUly *hc Uiu community below Sth St., East of Boulder, which was impacted uy ?nbris and mudflows from East Highlands Ranch's slope failures. The debris and mud plugged up storm drains causing the flooding and mudflows over 5th St. causing many homes to be destroyed by the flow of mud and water. Both sites had Registered Engineering studies and approval. What makes City Staff think this can't happen here? I don't want Meyers Rd. to be another "City greenbelt." I'm asking City Council to listen to the concerns of the residents living here- to listen to their Planning Commissioners who have denied this development. This subdivision with 304 homes doesn't belong in this area filled with the natural hazards of fire, high winds and potential earthquakes from the 3 active faults this project sits upon. This area is very rural and has many expensive homes on acreage. It is horse property and a wildlife refuge for deer, bobcats, coyotes, bears, mountain lions, small mammals, nesting owls and hawks. It is a wildlife corridor between the National Forest and the streambed. The area also has the endangered San Bernardino K rat. Rattlesnakes are plentiful. Grading is not supposed to occur in nesting season- Feb. 15th to August 31. This means that the developer will be grading during the top high wind seasons. The residents living here do not want the changes that Staff has implied. The wells we have up here have very good drinking water. The Water Dept. has provided us with a mobile pump for increased water pressure at the fire ►re tIVIAT Staff is not listening to what I--- .._,wents are saying. if this development goes forward the liability to the City for this project is very high. I ask the C4 Co-LmcI;, Would you be willing to live in the same conditions and health hazards that you are expecting the local residents to endure for 3 plus years?" Thank you