HomeMy WebLinkAboutVerdemont Heights City Council (SAFER Appeal) Response Letter (9-2-26)
66131174.1
Brent R. McManigal
Director
bmcmanigal@fennemorelaw.com
550 E Hospitality Ln, Suite 350
San Bernardino, California 92408
PH (909) 723-1807 | FX (909) 890-9877
fennemorelaw.com
September 2, 2026
VIA E-MAIL
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City
Council
City of San Bernardino
201 North E Street, 3rd Floor
San Bernardino, California 92401
cityofsanbernardino@sbcity.org
Chantel Choice, Senior Planner
Community Development & Housing
Department
City of San Bernardino
201 North E Street, 3rd Floor
San Bernardino, California 92401
choice_ch@sbcity.org
Re: Verdemont Heights Residential Development (Tentative Tract Map No. 20707)
Supplemental Response to August 31, 2026 SAFER Appeal Comment
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:
This firm represents the Project Applicant for the Verdemont Heights Residential Development,
Tentative Tract Map No. 20707 (the “Project”). We submit this brief supplemental response to the
August 31, 2026 letter submitted by Lozeau Drury LLP on behalf of Supporters Alliance for
Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”), including the memorandum prepared by SAFER’s
consultant, Mr. Patrick Sutton.
The City Council can and should deny the appeal. SAFER’s August 31 letter was submitted two
days before the City Council hearing and raises air quality, greenhouse gas, and noise arguments
that were not presented to the Planning Commission and were not included with SAFER’s July 27
appeal. The consultant memorandum attached to SAFER’s letter is dated May 17, 2026, meaning
this information existed before the Planning Commission hearing and before SAFER filed its
appeal. SAFER offers no explanation for waiting until the eve of the City Council hearing to
submit it.
City of San Bernardino – City Council
September 2, 2026
Page 2
66131174.1
More importantly, the August 31 letter does not identify a new Project fact or newly discovered
environmental impact. It instead reframes the Project through assumptions that are not established
by the City’s record including: a hypothetical accelerated construction schedule, assumed
overlapping construction and occupancy, a characterization of the site as “natural lands” rather
than an underutilized vacant site within an urbanized residential area that has been routinely disced
for weed abatement as required by the Fire Department, and a City of Los Angeles noise
methodology substituted for the City’s analysis. Those assumptions do not show that the IS/MND
inaccurately described the Project or that the Project will cause a significant unmitigated
environmental impact.
SAFER’s air quality argument treats CalEEMod’s modeling duration as though it were the
Project’s actual construction schedule. But the IS/MND explains that the CalEEMod analysis uses
default parameters, including default assumptions regarding construction duration and phasing, to
estimate emissions in the absence of finalized Project-specific construction details. SAFER’s
consultant does not identify a Project-specific schedule, grading plan, equipment fleet, or phasing
plan demonstrating that the default parameters materially understate emissions or that the Project
will be constructed under the accelerated scenario assumed in the August 31 letter. Instead, he
substitutes a different set of assumptions for the default parameters used in the City’s analysis
without providing substantial evidence that those assumptions are inaccurate or that they would
result in a significant unmitigated impact.
SAFER’s overlapping construction and operation argument is likewise speculative. SAFER’s
consultant states that the subdivision appears to be separated into phases and that phased projects
“typically” involve occupancy of some phases while others remain under construction. The City’s
conditions contemplate that the Project may be developed in phases and require phase-specific
improvement plans addressing public safety, public services, and traffic circulation. But those
conditions do not establish that construction and occupancy will overlap, identify the timing or
sequence of any phases, or authorize occupied homes to be located adjacent to active construction.
SAFER identifies no approved phasing plan, construction schedule, or Project-specific emissions
or noise analysis demonstrating that any actual phase sequence would cause a significant impact.
SAFER’s diesel particulate matter comment also does not establish a significant health risk.
SAFER’s consultant did not prepare a health risk assessment, did not calculate a Project-specific
cancer-risk number, did not model diesel particulate dispersion, and did not identify any applicable
risk threshold that the Project would exceed. He simply argues that an additional study should be
prepared. A request for additional analysis is not substantial evidence that the Project will cause a
significant environmental impact.
SAFER’s greenhouse gas argument similarly rests on an overstated description of the Project and
an improper attempt to turn selected CARB Scoping Plan policy attributes into mandatory CEQA
thresholds. SAFER’s consultant characterizes the Project as converting “natural lands” into single-
City of San Bernardino – City Council
September 2, 2026
Page 3
66131174.1
family homes, but that is not a fair description of the City’s record. The IS/MND describes the
Project Site as vacant land within an urbanized, primarily residential area, and the City staff report
describes the subdivision as future residential development on an underutilized vacant site
compatible with surrounding residential uses. In fac, the property is routinely disced to comply
with the City's weed abatement ordinance. SAFER’s consultant also faults the Project for not
satisfying selected Scoping Plan residential attributes such as 20 dwelling units per acre, 20 percent
affordable housing, reduced parking, and all-electric appliances. Those policy attributes are not
mandatory significance thresholds for every residential subdivision and do not override the
IS/MND’s quantified GHG analysis.
Finally, SAFER’s noise argument substitutes a different methodology and different assumptions
for the City’s analysis. The IS/MND used the Federal Transit Administration construction-noise
threshold because the City of San Bernardino does not establish a numeric construction-source
noise threshold. The IS/MND found construction noise would remain below that threshold and
includes construction-noise best management practices. SAFER’s consultant instead applies City
of Los Angeles construction-noise guidance and assumes equipment operating as close as 30 feet
from existing residences. That alternative calculation does not show that the City’s analysis is
unsupported or that the Project will result in an unavoidable significant impact.
The City Council is not required to delay action, recirculate the IS/MND, or require an EIR based
on late-submitted assumptions. CEQA requires substantial evidence in light of the whole record.
Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion, and assumptions not grounded in Project-specific
facts do not require an EIR. The whole record before the City supports the City’s determination
that the Project’s environmental impacts have been adequately analyzed and mitigated to less than
significant levels.
For these reasons, the Project Applicant respectfully requests that the City Council deny SAFER’s
appeal, find that SAFER’s August 31 letter does not provide substantial evidence requiring an EIR
or recirculation, uphold the Planning Commission’s July 14, 2026 approval, adopt the IS/MND
and MMRP, and allow the Project to proceed.
Respectfully submitted,
FENNEMORE LLP
Brent R. McManigal
City of San Bernardino – City Council
September 2, 2026
Page 4
66131174.1
BMCM