Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2005-362
1 RESOLUTION NO. 2005-362 2 3 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE FACTS, FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, 4 CERTIFYING THE FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, 5 ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN, CERTIFYING THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, AND ADOPTING THE 6 UPDATED GENERAL PLAN, THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN, 7 AND THE ARROWHEAD SPRINGS SPECIFIC PLAN. $ SECTION I. RECITALS 9 (a) WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San 10 gemardino ("City") adopted the Genera] Plan for the City by Resolution No. 89-159 on ll June 2, 1989; and ]2 (b) WHEREAS, the City initiated an update of its existing General Plan in 13 14 2001; and 15 (c) WHEREAS, the City retained The Planning Center to update the General l6 Plan and complete the environmental analysis; and 17 (d) WHEREAS, an Economic Conditions and Trends report was prepazed for 18 the General Plan Update Program; and 19 (e) WHEREAS, the City held a workshop with representatives of business 20 2l and industry in 2001 to elicit input concerning growth in the City; and 22 WHEREAS, the City held a series of community workshops in 2001 to 23 identify Citywide opportunities and constraints, and visions for the future growth of the 24 City; and 25 (g) WHEREAS, staff and the consultant interviewed the Mayor, the 26 Councilmembers, and the Planning Commission to seek their input and guidance; and 27 (h) WHEREAS, The Planning Center prepazed an Issues Report that 28 summarized the input received from the workshops and interviews; and 1 2005-362 1 (i) WHEREAS, the City determined that large scale changes in land use 2 patterns and land use designations were not necessary to achieve the City's goals; and 3 4 (j) WHEREAS, the City determined that shifts in policy focus, changes in 5 allowable uses, and emphasis on priorities were necessazy to achieve the City's goals; 6 and 7 (k) WHEREAS, the City determined that a Specific Plan for the University 8 District was appropriate to integrate California State University San Bemazdino with the 9 rest of the City; and 10 (1) WHEREAS, The University District Specific Plan focuses on aesthetic 11 l2 improvements in public rights-of--way and other programs designed to create an 13 identifiable district surrounding the University; and 14 (m) WHEREAS, the Arrowhead Springs area is within the City's sphere of 15 influence and the City determined that a Specific Plan for Arrowhead Springs was 16 appropriate; and 17 (n) WHEREAS, the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan proposes expansion of 18 19 the historic hotel and spa/resort, an 18-hole public golf course, multi-use recreational 20 amenities, a new hotel and conference center with office space, 1,350 residential units 2l and a "village" commercial center on a total of 1,916 acres, of which 1,400 acres will be 22 preserved as open space; and 23 (o) WHEREAS, The Planning Center, on behalf of the City, prepazed an 24 Initial Study for the Updated General Plan, University District Specific Plan, and 25 Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan; and 26 27 (p) WHEREAS, on November 4, 2004, the Environmental Review 28 2 2005-362 1 Committee determined that the Updated General Plan, University District Plan, and 2 Anrowhead Springs Specific Plan could have significant effects on the environment, and 3 4 thus warranted prepazation of a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) pursuant to 5 the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and 6 (q) WHEREAS, the Notice of Intent of the City to prepaze a Draft Program ~ Environmental Impact Report was made known to the public, responsible agencies and 8 other interested persons for their concerns and comments from November 29, 2004 to 9 December 28, 2004; and 10 (r) WHEREAS, on December 14, 2004, the City held a public scoping 11 12 meeting to solicit public comments on the prepazation of the Draft Program EIR; and 13 (s) WHEREAS, the City considered the concerns and comments received 14 during the Notice of Intent period in the prepazation of the Draft Program EIR, pursuant l5 to CEQA; and 16 (t) WHEREAS, a Draft Program EIR was distributed fora 45-day public 17 review period from July 25, 2005 to September 8, 2005; and 18 19 (u) WHEREAS, the City accepted additional comment letters through 20 September 16, 2005; and 2l (v) WHEREAS, four comment letters were received before the close of the 22 public review period and three comment letters were received before the end of the 23 extended public review period and written responses were provided to the commentors 24 on October 1, 2005; and 25 (w) WHEREAS, on September 29, 2005, the Environmental Review 26 27 Committee determined that the Final Program EIR adequately addressed all potential 28 impacts of the Updated General Plan, University District Specific Plan, and Arrowhead 3 2005-362 1 Springs Specific Plan and recommended certification of the Final Program EIR and 2 adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan; and 3 4 (x) WHEREAS, the Updated General Plan, University District Specific Plan, 5 and An•owhead Springs Specific Plan, the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, 6 the Comments and Responses, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, and the 7 Draft Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations were made available 8 to the public at the Development Services public counter, the Feldheym Library, and on 9 the City's web page; and 10 (y) WHEREAS, on November 3, 1993 the San Bernardino Associated ll l2 Governments adopted the Congestion Management Program (CMP) pursuant to 13 California Government Code Section 65809.3(a) which requires the county and cities to 14 adopt and implement "a program to analyze the impacts of land use decisions, including 15 an estimate of the costs associated with mitigating these impacts" on the CMP network l6 of roadways; and 17 (z) WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council adopted a Land 18 19 Use/Transportation Analysis Program for the City pursuant to the CMP for the City of 20 San Bemardino by Resolution No. 93-74 on Mazch 22, 1993; and 21 (aa) WHEREAS, the City determined that the Arrowhead Springs Specific 22 Plan met the thresholds in the CMP and thus warranted the prepazation of a Traffic 23 Impact Analysis (TIA) pursuant to the Congestion Management Program; and 24 (bb) WHEREAS, a Draft TIA was prepazed to address the traffic impacts of 25 the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan on designated CMP roadways and freeways, the 26 27 appropriate mitigation measures, and fair shaze contribution toward CMP roadway and 28 freeway improvements; and 4 2005-362 1 (cc) WHEREAS, the Draft TIA was made available to the various regional 2 and sub-regional agencies and to the adjacent jurisdictions for their review during a 21- 3 4 day review period which began on August 3, 2005 and ended on August 24, 2005 as 5 required by the CMP; and 6 (dd) WHEREAS, verbal and written comments were received on the Draft ~ TIA and responded to via changes to the Draft TIA; and 8 (ee) WHEREAS, with over 70,000 pazcels of land within the City of San 9 Bernardino, the Draft Updated General Plan, including the University District Specific 10 l l Plan and Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan, could affect the permitted use or intensity of l2 uses for more than 1,000 property owners; and 13 (ff) WHEREAS, after giving public notice as required by California 14 Government Code Section 65353(c) and 65091(a)(3), the City Plazming Commission 15 held a public hearing on October 11, 2005 in order to receive public testimony and l6 written and oral comments on the Updated General Plan, the University District Specific 17 Plan, the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan, the Final Program Environmental Impact l8 19 Report, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, the Facts, Findings and 20 Statement of Ovemding Considerations and the Draft TIA; and 21 (gg) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Development 22 Services Depaztment Staff Report on October 11, 2005, which addresses the Final 23 program EIR, the Updated General Plan, the University District Specific Plan, the 24 Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, the 25 26 Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations and the Draft TIA; and 27 (hh) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after receiving public testimony, 2g recommended that the Mayor and Common Council adopt the Facts, Findings and 5 2005-352 1 Statement of Overriding Considerations, certify the Final Program Environmental 2 hnpact Report, adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, adopt the Updated 3 4 General Plan, the University District Specific Plan, and the Arrowhead Springs Specific 5 Plan, and certify the Draft TIA; and 6 (ii) WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council conducted a noticed public I 7 hearing on November 1, 2005, pursuant to Government Code Section 65353(c) and 8 65091(a)(3), and fully reviewed and considered the Final Program EIR, the Mitigation 9 10 Monitoring and Reporting Plan, the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, the Updated General Plan, the University District Specific Plan, the 11 l2 Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan, the Draft TIA, the Planning Division staff reports, and 13 the recommendation of the Planning Commission; and i 14 (jj) WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council made no substantial 15 modifications to the Updated General Plan, the University District Specific Plan, and the j l6 Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan which were not considered by the Planning 17 Commission during its public hearing; 18 19 SECTION II. PROGRAM ENVIItONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 20 NOW, THEREFORE, THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL HEREBY 2l RESOLVE, FIND, AND DETERMINE THE FOLLOWING: 22 A. The facts and information contained in the above Recitals section are true 23 and correct, and are incorporated herein by reference. The Final Program Environmental 24 ~ Impact Report for the Updated General Plan, the University District Specific Plan, and ~ 25 26 the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan have been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A, and 27 28 i 6 ~ 2005-362 1 incorporated herein by reference, is the Final Program EIR which consists of the 2 following elements: 3 4 1. Initial Study; 5 2. Notice of Preparation; 6 3. Responses to the Notice of Preparation; 7 4. Draft Program EIR 8 5. Notice of Completion; 9 6. List of persons, organizations and public agencies commenting on the 10 Draft Program EIR; 11 l2 7. Comments received on the Draft Program EIR during and after the public 13 review period; 14 8. Responses to comments on the Draft Program EIR. 15 B. The Facts and Findings set forth in the Facts, Findings and Statement of l6 Overriding Considerations are true and are supported by substantial evidence in the 17 record, including those documents comprising the Final Program EIR. The Facts, 18 19 Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations is attached hereto as Exhibit B, and 20 is incorporated herein by reference. 21 C. The Final Program EIR was presented to the Mayor and Common 22 Council, who have reviewed and considered the information in the Final Program EIR 23 prior to its certification and prior to adoption of the Updated General Plan, the University 24 District Specific Plan, and the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan. 25 D. The Final Program EIR has identified all significant adverse 26 27 environmental effects of the Updated General Plan, the University District Specific Plan, 28 7 2005-362 1 and the Anrowhead Springs Specific Plan as set forth in the Facts, Findings and Statement 2 of Overriding Considerations. 3 4 E. Although the Final Program EIR identifies certain significant adverse 5 environmental effects that would result if the Updated General Plan, the University 6 District Specific Plan, and the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan aze adopted, all ~ significant adverse environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided or mitigated will be 8 avoided or mitigated by the implementation of the mitigation measures as set forth in the 9 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the Final Program EIIt. The Mitigation 10 11 Monitoring and Reporting Plan is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit C and 12 incorporated herein by reference. 1 g F. The Final Program EII2 has described the alternatives to the Updated l4 General Plan, the University District Specific Plan, and the Arrowhead Springs Specific l5 Plan, even though these altematives may impede the attainment of the objectives of the l6 Updated General Plan, the University District Specific Plan, and the Arrowhead Springs 17 Specific Plan, and may be more costly. The Mayor and Common Council finds that a 18 19 good faith effort was made to incorporate alternatives in the prepazation of the Final 20 Program EIR and a range of reasonable altematives were considered in the review 21 process of the Final Program EIR and the ultimate decision on the Updated General Plan, 22 the University District Specific Plan, and the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan. 23 G. Potential mitigation measures and other project alternatives not 24 incorporated into or adopted as part of the Final Program EIR were rejected as infeasible, 25 26 based on specific economic, social, or other considerations as set forth in the Facts, 27 Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations. 28 8 2005-362 1 H. The Mayor and Common Council have given great weight to the 2 significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. The Mayor and Common 3 4 Council find that the significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts are cleazly 5 outweighed by the economic, social, cultural, and other benefits of the Updated General 6 Plan, the University District Specific Plan, and the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan, set 7 forth in the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations. 8 I. The Final Program Environmental Impact Report, the Mitigation 9 Monitoring and Reporting Plan, and the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding 10 Considerations reflect the independent review, analysis and judgment of the Mayor and 11 • l2 Common Council of the City of San Bemazdino. 13 SECTION III. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINDINGS 14 Based upon substantial evidence in the record, the Mayor and Common Council 15 hereby find: l6 A. All elements of the General Plan have been updated in a coordinated way, 17 ensuring internal consistency of the General Plan document. 18 19 B. The Updated General Plan will not be detrimental to the public interest, 20 health, safety, convenience, or welfaze of the City. The Final Program EII2 contains an 21 analysis of potential significant adverse environmental impacts related to the Updated 22 General Plan. Although the Final Program EIR identifies unmitigated significant adverse 23 environmental impacts, the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 24 indicate that the potential benefits of the Updated General Plan and associated specific 25 plans outweigh the unmitigated significant adverse environmental impacts. 26 27 C. With few exceptions, the Updated General Plan maintains the existing 28 9 2005-362 1 General Plan land use designations. Therefore, the appropriate balance of land uses 2 reflected in the current General Plan is maintained by the proposed Updated General 3 4 Plan. 5 D. Very few properties aze proposed for land use designation changes 6 by the Updated General Plan. The properties aze identified specifically in the Final 7 Program Environmental Impact Report, which presents the rationale for each proposed 8 change and discusses the suitability, including physical characteristics of each proposed 9 site for the proposed land use designation. 10 l l SECTION N. UNNERSITY DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN FINDINGS l2 Based upon substantial evidence in the record, the Mayor and Common Council 13 hereby find: 14 A. The University District Specific Plan is consistent with goals and policies 15 of the existing General Plan, as well as revised policies of the proposed General Plan 16 Update, as follows: 17 Goa12.3 -Create and enhance dynamic, recognizable places for San Bernazdino's 18 19 residents, employees and visitors. 20 Policy 2.3.3 -Entries into the City and distinct neighborhoods should be well 21 defined or highlighted to help define boundaries and act as landmazks. 22 Policy 2.3.4 - Develop a cohesive theme for the entire City, aswell assub-themes 23 for neighborhoods to provide identity, help create a sense of community and add 24 to the City's personality. 25 26 B. The University District Specific Plan would not be detrimental to the 27 public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfaze of the City. The proposed specific 2$ plan would enhance the aesthetic appeazance and thematic identity of the University 10 2005-362 1 District. Public improvements, landscape design and signage programs of the specific 2 plan would create a sense of "place" to make the University District a distinct 3 4 neighborhood, well integrated with the City. 5 C. The University District is physically suitable for the improvements g proposed by the University District Specific Plan. The specific plan does not propose ~ different land use designations or any particular land development. Improvements 8 proposed by the specific plan aze design features to be incorporated in existing public 9 rights-of--way, or that may be reflected in private land development as consistent themes 10 for on-site signage, landscape or public art. 11 l2 D. The University District Specific Plan is focused on enhancing the 13 character of an existing neighborhood of the City. Adoption of the design features in the 14 specific plan will ensure desirable character of future public improvements, whether l5 installed by the City or by private development. The themes of the specific plan should 16 also carry into on-site improvements of future development projects. 17 E. Although the University District Specific Plan does not propose changes 18 19 to land use designations, it would enhance the community design elements that promote 20 the convenient balance of land uses existing and planned for the University District. 21 SECTION V. ARROWHEAD SPRINGS SPECIFIC PLAN FINDINGS 22 Based upon substantial evidence in the record, the Mayor and Common Council 23 hereby find: 24 A. The Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan is consistent with goals and policies 25 of the existing General Plan, as well as revised policies of the proposed General Plan 26 27 Update, as follows: 28 11 2005-362 1 Goal 2.2 -Promote development that integates with and minimizes impacts on 2 surrounding land uses. 3 4 Policy 2.2.4 -Hillside development and development adjacent to natural azeas 5 shall be designed and landscaped to preserve natural features and habitat and g protect structures from threats from natural disasters, such as wildfires and floods. 7 Goal 4.4 -Enhance, maintain and develop recreational, cultural, entertainment 8 and educational facilities within the City. 9 B. The Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan would not be detrimental to the 10 public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfaze of the City. The proposed plan 11 12 1°'ould enhance the balance and variety of commercial and residential land uses in the 13 City, in the interest of public welfare and convenience. The land use plan and 14 development standards conform to all applicable and current health and safety standazds. l5 Also, in the interest of the public, the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan respects the 16 natural environment in the layout of the proposed development plan and the extensive 17 dedication of natural open space on the project site. l8 19 C. The site is physically suitable for the land use designations and 20 development plan proposed by the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan. The land use plan 21 has been designed to conform to the physical features of the site, beginning with a scale 22 model of the existing ten•ain and the existing historic hotel structure. New development 23 proposed by the specific plan was added to the model to maintain respect for the 24 prominence of the existing hotel, the natural setting of the existing landform and sensitive 25 natural resources on the project site and in the surrounding azea. The site is physically 26 27 suitable for the proposed project because the project was designed specifically to conform 28 to the existing physical conditions of the site. 12 2005-362 1 D. The Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan includes a detailed development 2 plan, development standards and design requirements that will ensure compatibility with 3 4 the historic Arrowhead Springs Hotel, as well as the surrounding development and 5 undeveloped open space. The land use plan and development standazds of the specific 6 plan have been designed to ensure the highest quality of development, in a context that ~ would be compatible with the historic use of the property, while maintaining an 8 appropriate buffer and interface with sun•ounding open space and wildlands. 9 E. The hotels, convention center, office spaces and commercial village !0 proposed within the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan will provide a broad range of ll l2 employment opportunities for future residents of the project site, as well as neazby residents 13 in other azeas of the City. The specific plan will improve the balance of land use within the 14 City, by providing commercial and office floor space to amact new businesses to the City 15 and additional shopping and recreational opportunities for City residents and visitors to the 16 hotels and convention center. 17 SECTION VI. CERTIFICATION OF THE PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 18 19 PORT 20 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND AND DETERMINED by the Mayor 21 and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino that the Final Program 22 Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2004 1 1 1 1 32) is adequate and complete in that it 23 addresses the environmental effects of the Updated General Plan, the University District 24 Specific Plan, and the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan and fully complies with the 25 ~' requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the CEQA Guidelines and the 26 27 City's Environmental Review Procedures. The Final Environmental Impact Report is 28 13 2005-362 1 hereby certified; the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations are 2 hereby adopted; and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan is hereby adopted. 3 4 SECTION VII. ADOPTION OF THE UPDATED GENERAL PLAN AND SPECIFIC 5 PLANS g Based upon the above-referenced findings, the Updated General Plan, the 7 University District Specific Plan and the Anrowhead Springs Specific Plan (attached and 8 incorporated herein as Exhibits D, E, and F, respectively) are hereby adopted. 9 SECTION VIII. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 10 The TIA for the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan has been completed in 11 l2 compliance with the regional CMP and the City's Land Use/Transportation Analysis 13 Program and found to be consistent with the regional Congestion Transportation Plan 14 model. The TIA and all the evidence and information contained therein is attached hereto 15 as an appendix to Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, and is hereby certified. l6 SECTION IX. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION 17 In accordance with the provisions of this Resolution, the Planning Division is 18 19 hereby directed to file a Notice of Determination with the County of San Bernardino 20 Clerk of the Board of Supervisors certifying the City's compliance with the California 2l Environmental Quality Act in preparing and certifying the Final Program Environmental 22 Impact Report and adopting the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding 23 Considerations, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, the Updated General 24 Plan, the University District Specific Plan, and the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan, and 25 certifying the Traffic Impact Analysis. A copy of the Notice of Determination will be 26 27 forwarded to the State Clearinghouse. 28 14 2005-362 1 SECTION IX. EFFECTNE DATE 2 The certification of the Final Program EIR and the Traffic Irnpact Analysis, the 3 4 adoption of the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, the 5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, the Updated General Plan, the University 6 District Specific Plan and the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan shall be effective 7 immediately upon adoption of this Resolution. 8 SECTION X. ANNEXATION 9 In accordance with the provisions of this Resolution, the Planning Division is 10 l l hereby directed to prepaze and file an application with the Local Agency Fonnation l2 Commission (LAFCO) to initiate annexation of the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan l3 Property. 14 /// ] 5 /// 16 17 18 19 20 2l 22 23 24 25 ' 26 27 28 IS 2005-362 1 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE 2 FACTS, FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, CERTIFYING THE FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, 3 ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN, 4 CERTIFYING THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AND ADOPTING THE UPDATED GENERAL PLAN, THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN, 5 AND THE ARROWHEAD SPRINGS SPECIFIC PLAN. g I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Mayor and 7 joint adjourned Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at a regular meeting thereof, held 8 on the 1st day of November , 2005, by the following vote to wit: 9 Council Members: Aves Navs Abstain Absent 10 ESTRADA x 11 - - LONGVILLE x l2 - - MCGINNIS x 13 - 14 DERRY x - l5 KELLEY X 16 JOHNSON ~ - 17 MC CAMMACK x 18 19 2O Rachel G_ Cl.azk, City Clerk 21 The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this d day of Noy?w{~ber, 200ti. 22 ~`C,L 23 Judith Valles, Mayor 24 City of San Bernazdino 25 Approved as to form~landDLegal Content: 27 ames F. Penman 28 City Attorney 16 INDEMNITY AND HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT American Development Group, Inc., ("Developer") hereby agrees to protect, indemnify, defend (at the City's option) and hold harmless the City of San Bernardino ("City"), its elected and appointed officials, officers and employees from and against any and all losses, damages, claims, lawsuits or liabilities, including attorney fees, physical damage to tangible real or personal property, and for bodily injury, including death to any person, arising out of or related to the City's approval of the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan. The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties hereto warrant that they are duly authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of said parties and that by doing so, the parties hereto are formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by and through their respective authorized officers, as of the date following. Dated:. ~ ~ -~t/© .5~.____ ~~°~--~ Tom Thornburgh, sident Ameri n De opment Group, Inc. udith all s y ,City of San Bernardino APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTEN . ,~~~"_ es F. Penman i Attorney EBHIBIT "A° FINAL SAN BERNARD/NO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND ASSOCIATED SPECIFIC PLANS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH #2004111132 prepared jor• cm of sAN BERNARDINO Contact: Terri Rahha/, Principal Planner prepared by: THE PLANNING CENTER Contact: William Halligan, Esq., Director of Environmental $BNICBS SEPTEMBER 30, 2005 FINAL SAN BERNARD/NO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND ASSOCIATED SPECIFIC PLANS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH # 20041 f 1132 prepared for: CRY OF SAN BERNARD/NO City o/San Bernardino Contact: 300 North -D' Street Terri Rahhal, Principal San Bernardino, CA 92418-ODOi Planner prepared by: THE PLANNING CENTER 1580 Metro Drive Contact: Costa Mesa, CA 92626 William Halligan, Esq., Tel: 714.966.9220 • Fax: 714.966.9221 Director of Environmental E-mail: costamesaQplanningcenter.com Services Website: www.planningcentercom SBC-15.0 SEPTEMBER 30, 2005 Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................1.1 1.1 CEQA REQUIREMENTS REGARDING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES .......................1-1 2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ..............................................................................................2.1 3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR ........................................................................................3.1 APPENDICES A Calculation Sheets Genera! Plan Update and Acrrociated Specifrr Planr Fina/ EfR City of San Bernardino ~ Page i Table of Contents This page intentionalty la/t blank. i Page ii ~ The Planning Center September 2005 I i 1. Introduction Section 15088 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires the Lead Agency (City of Industry) to evaluate comments on environmental issues received from public agencies and interested parties who reviewed the Draft EIR and prepare written responses. This document contains responses to comments received on the San Bernardino General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), State Clearinghouse X2004111132, during the public review period, which commenced on July 25, 2005 and closed on September 8, 2005. This document has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and represents the independent judgment of the Lead Agency. This Response to Comments volume, together with the DEIR, technical appendices, and other written documentation prepared during the EIR process, as those documents may be modified by the City Council at the time of certification, will constitute the Final EIR, as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines, §15132, and the City of San Bemardino environmental document reporting procedures. This Response to Comments package is organized as follows: Section 1 provides a brief introduction to this report. Section 2 provides a list of agencies and interested persons commenting on the DEIR. This section also contains individual comments followed thereafter by responses. To facilitate review of the responses, an index number (e.g., A-1, A-2, B-1) has been assigned to each comment and to its corresponding responses. Section 3 contains revisions to the Draft EIR as a resuR of the comments by agencies and interested persons as described in Section 3. The responses to comments contained in this package contain material and revisions that will be added or made to the text of the Final EIR. City staff has reviewed this material and determined that none of this ^/~ material constitutes the type of significant new information that requires a second recirculation period for /Vla~`~~/Jl further public comment under CEQA Guideline §15088.5. None of this new material indicates thatthe project will result in a significant new environmental impact not previously disclosed in the DEIR. 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 §15088.5. 1.1 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 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 suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid ar mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible...CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by those submitting comments. 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 long as a good faRh effort atfull disclosure is made in the EIR" CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 (c) further advises, "Reviewers should explain the basis for their 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, "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 used to restrict Genera! Plan Updatr and ArtociateQ SperrJir Plant Final EIR City ojSan BernarQina ~ Page 1-1 1. Introduction 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 Page 1-2 • The Planning Center September 2005 2. Response to Comments This section includes all written responses received on the DEIR and the City's responses to each comment. Comment letters and specific comments are given letters and numbers for reference purposes. Where sections of the DEIR are excerpted in this document, the sections are shown indented. Changes to the DEIR text are shown in bold and Ital(cs for additions and strikeenF for deletions. The following is a list of agencies and persons that submitted comments on the DEIR during the public review period: Number Rehrence Commentln Peron/A arc Date of Comment Pa a No. A Britt W. Wilson, Moron o Band of Mission Indians Au ust 8, 2005 2-3 Brian Wallace, Southern California Association of B Governments Se tember B, 2005 2-15 C Rohan Kuru u, Omnitrans Se ember 8, 2005 2-t9 D Lisa Belenk ,Center for Biolo ical Diversi Se tember 8, 2005 2-35 Late LeMers Terry Roberts, State Clearing House and Planning E Unit Se tember 9, 2005 2-55 Daniel Kopulsky, California Department of F Trans ortation Se tember 12, 2005 2-59 Kathleen Rollings-McDonald, Local Agency G Formation Commission Se tember 14, 2005 2-65 General Plan Update and Arrociated Spetiftc Plant Final E!R City of San Bernardino ~ Page 2-1 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank Page ?-2 ~ The Planning Center September 2005 I 2. Response to Comments LETTER A -Morongo Band of Mission Indians (4 PAGES) MORONGO August 10. 2005 BANDOf MISSION Ms. Terci Rahhal INDIANS Principal Planner City of San Bernardino Development Services Department 300 North "D" Street San Bemardrno, CA 92418-0001 "1O"'~`""~9P` Re: General Plan (including Specific Plans for Arrowhead Springs and University DisVict) Dear Ms. Rahhal. On behaN of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians ("Tribe") incuding its Tribal Historian (Ernest H. Siva), thank you for meeting with me on August 8, 2005 to discuss the above referenced project in relation to consultation under Government Code §85352.3 (SB18). Also present was the city's Deputy DirectorlCiry Planner, Ms. Valerie Ross. Al As you know, we discussed several things including general plan policies, standard conditions etc. I also subsequently downloatled the city's General Plan environmental dowments and the cultural resources appendix. Based on our meeting and my review of the documents, the Tribe would like to make the following commentslrequests under the consultation process: Comments on EIR: 1. Page 5.4-2, sub-heading "California Senate Bill 18': First, the Tribewould like to commentl the city of San Bernardino and your general plan consultant for putting this language in the EIR. The Tribe requests this during consultation and you are the first city to actually have it in the A2 document prior to consultation. The Tribe does, however, note that the discussion about a "Traditional Tribai Cultural Site (TICS) Register" is not known to the Tribe to be a part of the SB18 language. You may wish to review this. As far as our SB78 consultation, R has no direct impact on the Tribe but'rf it is incorcect, it should come out of the document. 2. Figure 5.42, Archaeological Sensitivities Map: No concerns here but, again, the Tribe would like to compliment the city for having such a planning tool available to your staff. Basetl on our conversation, it is my A9 understanding that your planners would require Rewrds Search/Cultural Resource surveys for projects that fall within those sensitive areas. General Plan Update and Attociated Sperifrr Plant Final E!R City of Sarr Bernardrno ~ Page 2-3 ~ _ ..,..-_ 2. Response to Comments 3. Page 5.4-25, sub-heading Policy 11.1.2: This policy indicates that an "Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey' be maintained and updated and be used as part of the city's "environmental review process." The Tribe would like to request that if Native American cultural resources are included within that "Survey" that they are kept confidential and not available to the general public. It is unclear how the "Survey" would be pq used and that is why the Tribe is concerned over confidentiality of Native American resources. The Tribe suggests adding specific language about confidentiality to this policy point. 4. Page 5.4-26, Policy 11.1.4: Same comment as above concerning confidentiality. 5. Page 5.4-27, Policy 11.5.1, ?olicy 11.5.1: Same comment as above concerning confidentiality. 6. Page 5.4-27, Policy 11.5.2: This policy indicates that mitigation measures will be developed for projects in archaeological sensitive areas to '...remove artfacts, and retain them for educational display." If these artifacts are of Native American origin, the Tribe should be consulted. And certainly if any project within those areas is subject to SB18 consultation, the Tribe will have consultation comments regarding the disposition of any artifacts. As you know from our meeting, if Native American artifacts are collected ~ from a development site, the Tribe wants to right to seek the return of those artifacts. That does not mean that the Tribe is opposed to an educational facility having/using the artifacts, but the Tribe should be involved in determining the disposition of the artifacts. Therefore, if this policy concams Native American cultural resources, some language about consulting with the Tribe, either as reviewing agency or under formal SB18 consultations, should be added to the policy statement. 7. Page 5.4.30, Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions, 4"' bullet: I ~ See comment No. 1 above about SB18 "Register"; revise as appropriate. 8. Page 5.431, Mitigation Measures: GP 5.4-1 and GP 5.4-2 appear to be I A7 duplicative. Also, the measures include mitigations for the accidental discovery of human remains, but does not have a measure for the accidental discovery of cultural resources (some areas that may show -tow-sensitivity" to archaeological resources end up having buried ~ components that were not expected and those finds need to be addressed). The Tribe requests that the following standard condition be added to the list of mitigation measures: Page 2-4 ~ The Planning Center SePtem&r 2005 2. Response to Comments • In the event that Native American cultural resources are discovered during project developmenUconstruction, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on the overall project may continue during this assessment period. ~ If Native American cultural resources are discovered, the cont. developer/contractor shall immediately contact the City which shall contact the Morongo Band of Mission Indians ("Tribe"). If requested by the Tribe, the CitylDeveloper shall, in good faith, wnsult on the discovery and its disposition (e.g. avoidance, preservation, return of artifacts to tribe, etc.). 9. Page 5.4.34, 5'" bullet: This point indicates that any archaeological artifacts recovered "shall be donated to a qualfed scientific institution......" . As indicated above, the Tribe may seek return of Native A9 American cultural resources -with or without formal 5818 consultation. The Tribe suggests adding some language similar to that in comment No. 8 above about consulting with the Tribe in good faith regarding the disposition of artifacts. (see AHS 5.4-3C, page 5.4-37 that seems to address tribal concerns; perhaps use that language here.) \(/$~~~~~ The last four lines on this page contain similar language about "donation VV to a qualified scient~c institution." Again, the Tribe rewmmends revising A70 that language to reflect the Tribe's desire to take ownership of Native American cultural resources. 10. Page 5.4-36, 5'" bullet point: This bullet point has the same "donation to a qualified scient~c institution" language indicated above. Piease revise I A11 per comments above. Comments on the Archaeoloav Survey for the Arrowhead Sorinos Protect by SWCA Environmental. January 20.2005: 1. Page 12. Findings. 4'^ line: This section indicates a mono was "recovered." There is no further information on the disposition of the A12 mono. Was it kept by SWCA? Given to San Bernardino County Museum? The Tribe would like to request that the nano be donated by the property owner to the Tribe it at all possible. The Tribe would also seek the site record/artifact record from SWCA for the provenance of the mono. As you know from our meeting, I stressed the fact that the city and the Tribe are I pyg in formal, government-to~overnment wnsultations pursuant to Government f General Plan Update and Acrxiated Specific Planr Final E!R City of San Bernardino • Page 2-5 2. Response to Comments Code §65352.3; the Tribe is NOT merely providing public comments or "reviewing agency" comments. Consultation is to be conducted in good faith and is considered complete when, 'rf feasible, both parties agree. The Tribe's view is A13 that written records of our consultation substantiates those "good faith" ~Ot negotiations. In that light, the Tribe would ask that the city respond in writing to the Tribe's above comments, at which point we will know H we reached agreement or not Until the Tribe receives your response, tt shall consider our consultation open and ongoing. Thank you again for meeting with the Tribe and for having a well crafted document. Please contact me at (951) 755-5206 or Britt_wilson@morongo.org K I can provide any additbnal information. Si e Britt W. Wilson Project Manager 8 Cultural Resources Coordinator c. Emest H. Siva, Tribal Historian, Morongo Band of Mission Indians Thomas E. Linton, Director, Planning 8 Economic Dev. Dept, MBMI Page 2-6 ~ The Planning Center September 2005 2. Response to Comments A. Response to Comments Prom Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Dated August 10, 2005. A-1 This comment acknowledges that the Ciry and the Morongo Band of Mission Indians met on August 8, 2005 to discuss the project pursuant to SB 18. A-2 Beginning on page 5.4-2, Section 5.4-1 Environmental Setting of the DEIR starting with the second paragraph underthe heading California Senate Bill f8 has been modified (replaced) pursuantto the General Plan Guidelines 2005 Supplement (also known es Tribal Consultation Guidelines) published by the Governor's Office of Planning Research as follows: eere~enial-ae9viHes: , General Plan Update and Arrociated Specific Plant Final EIR City ojSan Bernardino ~ Page 2-7 2. Response to Comments Senafe 811118 was signed into lawln September 2004 and went Into ef/ect on March 1, 2005. tt places new requirements upon local gowmments for developments wtthin or near Tradttlonal Tribal Cultural Places (1TCP). Per SB 18, the law requires local jurisdictions to provkle oppo?tunlties for invohrement of CaIJ/ornia Native Americans tNbes in the land planning process /or the purpose o/ preserving traditional tribal cutturel places. The General Plan Guidelines, 2005 Supplement (also known as Trbal Consultation Guidelines) published by the Governor's O/fke of Planning and Research recommends that the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) provkle written In/ormaNon as soon as possible but no later than 30 days to Inform the Lead Agency N the proposed project !s determined to 6e fn proximity to a TTCP and another 90 days /or tribes to respond to a local government N they want to consult with the local gowmment to determine whether the pro/ect would haw sn adverse impact on the TTCP. Then Is no statutory Iimtt on the consultation duration. FoAy-/Ive days before the action Is publicly considered by the local government council, the local gowmment refers aetMn to agencies, following the CEQA pu68c review time frame. The CEQA public dlstHbutlon list may Include tribes listed by the NAHC who haw requested consultation or tt may not 11 the NAHC, the Wbe, and interested parties agree upon the mttlgation measures necessary for the proposed project, tt would be Included In the project's EIR. H both the Ctty and the tribe agree that adequate mttlgatlon or preservation measures cannot be taken, then netther party Is obligated to take action. Per SB 18, the law instttutes a new process which would require a city or county to consult wtth the NAHC and any appropHate Native American tH6e for the purpose o/preserving relevant TTCP prior to the adoption, revision, amendment, or update of a ctty's or county's general plan .While SB 18 does not specttkally mention eonsultatlon or notke requirements for adoption or amendment o/ specllic plans, the Final TMbal Guidelines advisee that SB 18 euquirements extend to apecNic plans as well, as State planning law requires local gowmments to use the acme process /or amendment or adoption of specttic plans as general plans (defined In GowmmeM Code 385453). In addttlon, SB f8 provides a new de/inttlon o/ TiCP requiring a tredltlonal assocktlon of the atte with Native AmeHcan tredttional beliefs, cultural proctlces, or ceremonies or the atte must be shown to actually haw been used for activttles related to tredttional beliefs, culture) practices, or ceremonies. Previously, the stte was de/fined to require only an aasoclatlon with tredttlonal belles, practices, Ilfeways, and ceremonial actlvttles. In addttlon, SB 181aw also amended Civil Code 3815.3 and adds Calttornla Native American tribes to the Ilst o/ entttles that can acquire and hold conservation easements for the purpose of protecting their cutturel places. A-3 The commentor is correct. Mitigation measures 5.4-1 and 5.4-2 in Section 5.4.7.1 address this issue by stating that City staff shall require studies to document the presence or absence of historic, archeological and/or paleontological resources in areas of documented or inferred resource presence. A-4 This comment expresses concern that Native American cultural resources, which are identified in the Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey (Policy 11.1.2 of the General Plan), be kept confidential and appropriate language added the General Plan. Accordingly, the following changes to Policies 11.1.2,11.1.4, and 71.5.1 have been incorporated into the Draft General Plan. Policy 11.1.2 on page 5.4-25 of Section 5.4.3.1 is hereby modified as follows: Policy 11.1.2: Maintain and update the Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey database files of historic, architectural, and cultural resources conducted in 1991, and integrate it into the City's ordinance and environmental review process. Prior to public distribution, Native American tribes should 6e consulted to address any issues o/con/identlality. Page 2-8 ~ The Planning Center September 2005 2. Response to Comments Policy 71.1.4 on page 5.4-26 of Section 5.4.3.7 is hereby modified a5 follows: Policy 11.1.4: Compile and maintain an inventory, based on the survey, of the Planning Area's significant historic, architectural, and cultural resources. PNor to publk distribution, Native American tribes should ba consutted to address anylssues o/ confidenttallty. Policy 11.5.1 on page 5.4-27 of Section 5.4.3.1 is hereby modified as follows: Policy 11.7.5: Continue to adopt historic district and overlay zone ordinances as described in the Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey Report. Consider the designation of Historic Districts and Historic Overlay Zones as described in the Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey Report. PNor to public distribution, Native Amertcan tribes should be consulted to address eny Issues of eonNdentlallly. A-5 This comment expresses concern over the disposition of Native American artifacts. Accordingly, the following changes to Policy 11.5.2 has been incorporated into the Draft General Plan, Policy 11.5.2 on page 5.4-27 of Section 5.4.3.1 is hereby modified as follows: PoBcy 71.5.2: Develop mitigation measures for projects located in archaeologically sensitive areas to protect such locations, remove artifacts, and retain them for educational display. Native American tHbea should be consulted to determine the disposition o/ any Native Amerkan artfacts d(scovered. A-6 Page 5.4-30, Section 5.4.4 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions, fourth bullet, is hereby modified as follows: ee~~ , • Senate HI1118 was signed into law 1n September 2004 and went into effect on March 1, 2005. K places new requirements upon local governments for developments within o? near Traditional Trlba! Cukural Places (TTCP). Per S8 t8, the law requires local jurisdictions to provide opportunities for involvement of CalHornla Native Americans tribes In the land plannfng Genera! Plan Updare and Artociated SperijJi Planf Final ElR Crry of San Bernardino ~ Page 2-9 2. Rerpon.re to Comments process for the purpose o! preserving trodfflonal tNbal cultural places. The General Pkn Guidelines, 2005 Supplement (also known as TNbal Consuffation Guidelines) published by the Governor's Offke of Planning and Research recommends that the Native AmeNcan Herffage CommJssion (NAHC) provide written information as soon as possible but rro labr than 30 days to inform the Lead Agency ff the proposed project b dehrmined to be in proximity to a TTCP and another 90 days forWbes fo respond to a local gowmment ff they want to conwff wltir the local gowmment to determine whether the project would haw an adwrae Impact on the TTCP. Thera Is no statutory Nmff on the consuffatlon duration. Irony-flue days beforo the action Is publicly conslderod by the local gowmment council, the local gowmment rohre sctbn to agencies, following the CEQA publk: review time frame. The CEQA public dlsfributlon 1(st may include trJbes IJsted by tife NAHC who have requested consultation or It may noL H the NAHC, the tribe, and interested parties agree upon the mfflgation measures necessary for tiro . proposed pro/ect, K would be included !n the project's E/R. ff both the City and the tNbe agree that adequate mitigation or preservation measures cannot be taken, then neither party !s obligated to take action. A-7 This comment expresses concern over the seemingly duplicative nature of mitigation measures 5.4- 1 and 5.4-2. Although similar, mitigation measures 5.4-1 and 5.4-2 are not duplicative. Mitigation measure 5.4-1 addresses historic resources, such es historic structures, while mitigation measure 5.4-2 addresses archeological and/or paleontological resources. A-8 Comment 1-8 is twofold. First, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians provides comment on the DEIR and requests an additional mitigation measure related to the accidental discovery Native American resources be placed in Section 5.4.7.1, Mitigation Measures for the San Bernardino General Plan. Second, as a part of the formal SB 18 consultation, which is still ongoing, the Morongo Bend of Mission Indians expresses procedural concern over being consulted to determine the disposition of Native American cultural resources and the right to seek the return of discovered artifacts. Part A of the following response will address the DEIR comment and part B will address the SB 18 procedural requests. (A) As to the General Plan Update DEIR comment, the City acknowledges the Tribe's desire to protect, preserve and be consulted anyfime Native American resources are discovered, accidentally or otherwise. The accidental discovery of archaeological resources is governed by Section 21082 of the Public Resources Code (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 (f)). The existing regulation states that as part of the objectives, criteria, and procedures required by Section 21082, a lead agency should make provisions for historical or unique archaeological resources accidentally discovered during construction. Accordingly, the following language has been added to page 5.4-2, Section 5.4.1, Environmental Setting, Regulatory Background, Cali/ornia Public Resources Code, as the 4'" bullet: • As part of the objectives, criteria, and procedures required by Section 21082 of the Public Resources Code, a lead agency should make provisions for historical or unique archaeological resources accidentally discovered during construction. These provisions should include an Immediate evaluation of the find by a qualified archaeologist. If the find is determined to bean historical or unique archaeological resource, contingency funding and a time allotment sufficient to allow for Implementation of avoidance measures or appropNate mitigation should be available. Work could continue on other parts of the building sfte while historical or unique archaeological resource mitigation takes place. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 (f)). Pagr 1-I U ~ The Planning Center September 2005 2. Response to Comments This General Plan DEIR is a program level document that broadly looks at the General Plan update's impact on CuRural Resources. However, the mitigation measure requested in comment A-8 is a specific, project-level mitigation measure regulating how to handle accideMaNy found Native American cutural resources. This type of mitigation measure is appropriate for a project specific EIR in which future entitlements provide triggers for ensuring compliance with the mitigation measure {i.e., approval of a Conditional Use Permit or issuance of a grading permit). However, a broad level program EIR, such as the current San Bernardino General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans DEIR, is not an appropriate vehicle for project-specific mitigation measures because there are no future approvals or entitlements that will trigger enforcement of said mitigation measures. Existing regulations protectthe accidental discovery of Native American cultural artifacts. Further, as stated in Section 5.4.3.1, adoption of the General Plan in itself will not tlirectly affect any archeological or paleontological resources. As a result, requested mitigation measure will not be inclutled in the General Plan FEIR. However, the procedures outlined within the mitigation measure itself are addressed in part B below. (B) As a part of the formal SB 18 consultation, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians expresses procedural concern over being consulted to determine the disposition of Native American cultural resources and the right to seek the return of tliscovered artifacts. Pursuant to Section 21082 of the Public Resources Code and as a part of the formal SB 16 consultation, which is still ongoing, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians and the City will need to establish a formal procedure for the disposition of Native American artifacts and cultural resources discovered within the City. Once agreed upon, this procedure will be the tool through which General Plan Policies related to Native American cultural and historic preservation are implemented, particularly revised policies 11.1.1, 11.1.4,11.5.1 and 11.5.2 (see comments A-4 and A-5 above). The details of the procedure for notifying the Morongo Band of Mission Indians upon the discovery of Native American cultural resources, the type and extent of the consultation that will take place to determine the disposition on Native American artifacts discovered, and the procedure through which the Tribe may seek the retum of cultural resources will have to worked out between the Tribe and Ciry of San Bernardino as a part of the SB 18 consultation process. The establishment of this process is beyond the scope ofthe General Plan Update DEIR. A•9 This comment expresses the Tribe's desire to be consulted to determine the dispostion of Native American artifacts. Page 5.4-33, Section 5.4.7,1, Mitigation Measure AHS 5.4-1 B, has been revised accortlingly as follows: AHS 5.4-1 B The DEIR concludes that there are or may be significant historical structures/resources not currently ascertainable within areas where ground disturbing activity is proposed by the project. Therefore, prior to issuance of the first preliminary or precise grading permit far development in the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan area, the landowner or subse- quent project applicant shall provide evidence that an qualified historic preservation professional has been retained by the landowner or subsequent project applicant, and has conducted a site survey of the development area at such time as all ground surfaces are visible after current uses are removed. If any sites are discovered, the historian shall conduct surveys and/or test level investigations. Testing and evaluation may consist of surtace collection and mapping, limited subsurface excavations, and the appropriate analyses and research necessary to characterize the artifacts and deposft from which they originated. Upon completion of the test level investigations, for sites are Genera! Plan Update and Arraciated Specific Paanr Fina! EIR Ciry of San Bernardino ~ Page 2-11 2. Response to Commentr determined to be unique a "historical resource" as set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, the following measures shall be undertaken: the historian shall submit its recommendations tothe landowner or subsequent project applicant and the Director of Community Development on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the site. Appropriate measures could include preservation in place through planning construction to avoid the historical resource, incorporation into greenspace, perks, or open space, data recovery excavations of the finds or compliance with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic buildings (1995). • Preparation of a research design for those sites determined to the °historical resources" that cannot be avoided that describes the recommended field investigations, and makes provisions for adequately recovering the scientifically consequential information from and about the `historical resource." • Conducting site excavations in accordance with the research design with en emphasis on obtaining an adequate sample for analysis within the limits of the research questions being addressed. Special studies such as pollen analyses, soil analyses, radiocarbon dating, and obsidian hydration dating should be conducted as appropriate. • Monitoring of all field excavations by a Native American representative. • Preparation of a final report of the Phase 3 data recovery work and submittal of the research design and final report to the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), and other agencies, as appropriate. • If any Native American archaeological artifacts are recovered, the project applicant shall contact the Cffy, which shall in turn contact the Morongo Band of Mission Indians and any other designated Tribe(s)' Wbal representaBve, as determined by the Native Amerkan Herffage Com- mission (NAHC) to notHy them of the discovery. The applkaM shall coordinate wffh the City of San Bemardlno and the designated Tribe(s) to determine, In good faith, the appropriate dlsposffion Native Amerkan artHacts and the designated Tribe(s) shall be given the opportunity to seek the return of any Native Amercan artHacts discovered. Any non-Native American archaeological artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be donated to a qualified scientific institution approved by the Director of Community Development where they would be afforded long-term preservation to allow future scientific study. A-10 This comment expresses the Tribe's desire to be consulted to determine the disposition of any Native American artifacts. Page 5.4-34, Section 5.4.7.1, Mitigation Measure AHS 5.4-2A, has been revised accordingly as follows: AHS 5.4-2A Prior to issuance of the first preliminary or precise grading permit, and for any subsequent permit involving excavation to increased depth, the landowner or subsequent project applicant shall provide evidence that an archaeologist and/or paleontologist have been retained by the landowner or subsequent project applicant, and that the consultant(s) will be presets during all grading and other significaMground disturbing activities. These consultants shall be selected from the roll of qualified Page 2-]2 ~ The Planning Center Se~tembrr 2005 2. Response to Comments archaeologist and paleontologists maintained bythe County of San Bernardino. Should any archeological/paleontological resources be discovered, the monitor is authorized to stop all grading in the immediate area of the discovery, and shall make recommendations to the Director of Development Services on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including but not limited to excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. If the resources are determined to be "historic resources" at that term is defined under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, mitigation measures shall be identified by the monitor and recommended to the Director of Development Services. Appropriate mitigation measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in greenspace, parks or open space, or daffi recovery excavations of the finds. No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Director approves the measures to protect these resources. If any Natlw AmeNcan pahontologhal or arohaeologlcal artifacts are recovered as a result mtlgation the City shall contact the Morongo Band o/ Mission Indians and any other designated TNbe(s)' Wba/ representative, as determined by the Natiw Amerman HeNtage Commission(NAHC) to notNy them of the discovery. The applicant shall coordinate with the City of San Bernardino and the designated 7rlbe(a) to determine, !n good faith, the appropNaM disposition Native AmsNcan artifacts and the designated Tribe(s) shall be given the opportunity fo seek the return of any Nathre AmeNcan art(lacts discovered. Any non-Native American paleontological or archaeological artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be donated to a qualified scientific institution approved by the '~~~1~ Director of Community Development where they would be afforded long-term ~riV preservation to allow future scientific study. rIC/ A-11 This comment expresses the Tribe's desire to be consulted to the determine the disposition of Native American artifacts. Page 5.4-35, Section 5.4.7.1, Mitigation Measure AHS 5.4-2C, has been revised accordingly as follows: AHS 5.4-2C The EIR concludes that there are or may be significant archaeological resources within areas where ground disturbing activity is proposed by the project. Therefore, prior to the first preliminary or precise grading permit for development in the Anowhead Springs Specific Plan area, each prebiatoric and hlstortc archeological site (listed below and described in Table 5.4-3) located wthin the project grading footprint must be tested and evaluated, following clearing and scraping activities. • CA-SBR-2268/H, including the four loci • CA-SBR-6870H • CA-SBR-7019H • CA-SBR-7020H • CA-SBR-7022H • CA-SBR-7049H • P1071-21 • P36-017732 Testing and evaluation may consist of surtace collection and mapping, limited subsurtace excavations, and the appropriate analyses and research necessary to characterize the artifacts and deposit from which they originated. Upon completion of the test level investigations, for sites are determined to be unique archaeological sites or historical resources as set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, the following Genera! Plan Update and Atrociated Specifrc Plant Final E/R Crry ojSan Bernardino ~ Page 2-13 2. Response to Comments measures shall be undertaken: the archaeologist shall submft its recommendations to, the landowner or subsequent project applicant and the Director of Community Development on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the sites. Appropriate measures for unique archaeological resources or historical resources could include preservation in place through planning construction to avoid archaeological sites; incorporation of sites within parks, greenspace, or other open space; covering the archaeological sites with a layer of chemically stable soil before building tennis courts, parking lots, or similar facilities on the site or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. When data recovery through excavation is the only feasible mitigation, a data recovery plan, which makes provision for adequately recovering the scientifically consequential information from and aboutthe historical resource, shall be prepared and adopted prior to any excavation being undertaken. Such studies shall be deposited with the California Historical Resources Regional Information Center. Archaeological sites known to contain human remains shall be Vented in accordance with the provisions of Section 7050.5 Health and Safety Code. • Preparation of a research design for those sites determined to the "historical resources" that cannot be avoided that describes the recommended field investigations, and makes provisions for adequately recovering the scientifically consequential information from and about the "historical resource." • Conducting site excavations in accordance with the research design with an emphasis on obtaining an adequate sample for analysis within the limits ofthe research questions being addressed. Special studies such as pollen analyses, soil analyses, radiocarbon dating, and obsidian hydration dating should be conducted as appropriate. • Monitoring of all field excavations by a Native American representative. • Preparation of a final report of the Phase 3 data recovery work and submittal of the research design and final report to the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), and other agencies, as appropriate. • h any Native American archaeological artHacts are recovered, the pro)eet applicant shall contact the CJty, which shall In turn contact the Morongo Band of Mission Indians and any other designated Trtbe(s)' tribal representative, as determined 6y the Native American HerRage Commission(NAHC) to notify them of the discovery. The applicant shall coordinate with the Clly o/San Bernardino and the designated Trtbe(s) to determine, in good faith, the appropriate disposRion Nathre Amertean artNacts and the designated Tribe(s) shall be given the opportunity to seek ~I the return of any Native Amercan artfacts discovered. Any non-Native i American archaeological artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be donated to a qual'rfied scientific institution approved by the Director of ~ Community Development where they would be afforded long-term preservation to allow future scientific study. A-12 Comment requests information on the recovery of a mano. This is a part of the SB t 8 Consultation, and not an DEIR issue. Please contact SWCA and the City of San Bernardino to facilitate the disposition of the artifact and for further information on the mano. This is an excellent opportunltyto establish the procedures discussed in comment A-8B above. Page 2-14 ~ The P(annisg Center September 2003 2. Recpon.re to Comments A-13 Comment noted. The SB 18 consultation is considered open and ongoing. LETTER B -Southern California Association of Governments (1 page) sour«ux uuras«u 6$eptertlber 2005 Ms. Tani Rahhai Prireipal Pknnar City d $an Barnartlno 3001'faral D Street San aemartlirro, CA 82118-0ODt ASSOCIATION of OOVERNMtMTS RE: Canmenb an aw Notice d CanDNtlon d • Draa Envimmertnl Rspon tar are Cny d Sen Bemereiro G.nera+Plen UDGn SCAG No. 120050aS0 MWr Oake 9.B Wesi Serenw St.Kr Daar ME. ReMel: u,n rwa Thank you tar submining aw NWioa a CartyrMlion of • Onll Envirennweal Raprxt for the City tm,nreies. c.um,x„ of ~' Barrurtlei0 Gansrsl Pon Update b SCAG for rauiaw entl mrnrrrant. As arxwkkf eWdnghotW for repionaay aigrrilKifll pxojacn. SCAG raviewe tlN CaflaiatMay of local voo,>~uts plats, prejaab, aad programs wtiar IlgioMl Dona. TTr activity k base0 on SCAG'a raaponslbahisa as ¦ regional plannng organization pwalnnl n titan antl IeMnl laws and ,r,~~, rr„~, reguktgna. Gurtlsnce provfdad by araw rawswa Y intended b asaiat local agencies anti 81 ~ s-w s proMet aponstxs n take actions that comnblae ro Ma aaakrment of ragianal goals and pdfr»a. ....«y..,.,.. SCAG snit has avatuatetl your submiasbn for corraklenty witn the Regional M,M, e,ri M, CompraMnsiw Pkn and Guido (RCPOI, are Ragronal Tranapalatbn Ptsn (RTP), antl tlN -.•,s....~...- Campasa ragianal growM vision. Tha Dreh Elq addraasas SCAG'a policies and lor9aaals '' :""'`.•,:.,::;, ~'.,.' approprianyr and has providW auaicNnt axplantlion of how an prgact helps meet and '°«"" support regional gook. Basetl on the mlormation provitled in Me EIR we have no IwtMr canmsnn. .' ~ ~-:~:~r«~•~~.u+-. A daaeription o1 the Dropasad Project was puplghad in IM Juty 15-31, 2005 :.++M.v.--.:.. ;::,,.:,.: Intargovammental Review Cnsnnghouss Rapon for public review antl comment. _ ~•w a.. ,°„w;,,tiw;:",a„" ~ ": II you have arty pwstions, Please carrnct ms at (2t31236/a57_ Thank you. •e. c.... .N.. M• r. ~.n m uxw• « he.re•~ ,. u", w.r;' Brian Wal4rw °`"•', ""«'" "''°:'•••••"'.' Assxian Regional Plarrrrer . '^. ~,..^• ~r:"',.^.' Intargovammentsl Review o..«. ~ r.«. , L.• M}x «...n via Mt eYw•,. ,.,.rv i~µ{^, x iA`~!. ..i,r,r i... a. Ytiin <ww M'M-r w n ?M~.....,rr .}-u- «ve •a, Ivry. u r. M-, N rrw ~ v...+.~ w«.~.~ DOCS a 113a61vi r.. w. «~, utinww l..~tir General Plan Update and Attociated Specific Planr Frna/ EIR City of San Bernardino • Page 2-15 2. Response to Comments This page left intentionalty blank. Page 2-7 6 ~ The Planning Center September 2005 2. Response to Comments B. Response to Comments From Southern Callfornla Asaoolatlon of Governments, bled September 6, 2005 B-t This comment acknowledges that the DEIR has adequately addressed SCAG's policies and forecasts, and there are no further comments. Comment is herby noted, included in the official environmental record of the proposed project, antl will be forwartled to the appropriate City of San Bernardino decision makers for their review and consideration. General Plan Update and ArJaiated Specifrr Planr Final EIR City of San Bernardino ~ Pagr 2-17 2. Response to Comments This page left intentionalty blank. i i I Page 2-18 ~ T!x Planning Center September 2005 2. Response to Comments Letter C - Omnitrans (13 pages) ~_-. \ ORI NITNA NS \~~// September h, '_I I(/i \Is. lbrri Rahhal Principal Pl:umcr Ciro of San Rcnrvdinu 711u ~nrlh "f)" titrccl S:m Bcntanlinu. CA 9?3I S-D(1171 KE: General I'I:m Draft F.ncironn)entulImpxct Report (DF.IR). SCllp 2110311113? Urar \15. Rxhhal' f h;ntk )uu lix the opportunity w rccieac the Drdi L•ncironntewal Ingtacl Itcpurl ID81R1 ti+r the above relircnccd nrojcel. The project i5 D17R for the cnntprchcnsin upJ:nc ul the ('ir:'. Gena;d flan. Phis provides a perfect opportunity to incorporate umuu supportive puhne. as nlun dlc (iurcral Plan th:u cw support and ingmlrc the yualitc of public N:vuparunion scnicc in the Ciq~ al San Bentardino. C1 :\s pan of the DEIR, a traffic sutdc ac:u eomplctal to determine the impacts Ihat th.• General I'I:m Land Use dcsi_natiotts avould have on the ('na'. :\hhoueh sea oral seentcnts :uul utlcr>ediuns aruu:J rcyuirc mitigation, a m:goritr of the points survca rd wuulJ not rcyuirc .ur. 6m11 of lttilCyilimt. ll'hila uansn curtnlnrs have not been included :n the ualiic impact report, ace Ica that :wd1 tr.urit corridor. aaill nut h:rte a major impact nn a IuaJaaa~'< keel of xrcice f LOSI given :hc rcpnrC; lindinl5. Currently. (hnnirranv IF pl uduc!ug a tr:dlic model Ih:n acill help 1:u11c Ih.• impart of a u'ansit corridor on San Uent.uJmo~.. load nrraaurk. l'he model Irts been accepted CZ h~. Ihr hrdcral -17:msn :\dnunistr:uion Q`I~.\1. Suuthan Calilinnia ~\ssociation id Gnccmmenls t ti(':1GL ;uul San Hemardiuo :\s5octamd (iuvenuncnts 15:1\8:\UI. Once the linal outputs :roc been produced, aac acill loin a clear undrrsunxlmg of the true impaet5 ul r:god tr:msu scn-rcc in the vallcc. 11 a to uulJ I:Lc to IJIa' 11115 nltl)UI'Inillll' x1:1111 to frlI11C~1 Ih:rt the transit supportive lan_tuac ou Ihr attached ducuman he included in the l'ira's General Pl:m ulxlam. Doing 5u denwnstrates !Irlt the local goccnunenl supports public U:mspurtulion ahidt in turns. alloaas us W ?cquirc CS (unJinl to implement such scn~icc Let ntc reassure coo thm including Ihcsc luals and policies acill not annmil tlu City inbt unacantc.l tran:i! ;cn Icr Inynoruntcnts wch as transit rnrridmc ~!trr iryuire Cnv appnn';d belitre actual desila ruuinerrinl um begin. General Plan Update and Aatociated SPerific Planr Final E!R City of San Bernardino ~ Page 2-19 2. Response to Comments \Is.'fcrn Rahhal September S. IIN)1 I'agc _' I hJllk VUn a~aln for this opponuniq• to provide comments. We look fimrard «r continuing m ev~rk e~ilh the City to improve the mobility needs o('lhc people of San Bernardino. tihoulJ vuu have any questions. please fiYl free to contact me at 909379 7?i I Respcctlully, Bohan Kungipu Director of Pl:mninc cc F7ai \Filsen. ('itc Administrator, Cily af5an Bemardino 'frri Naker. Senior Administrative Att:dvst. City of S:m Bernardino \ :cleric Noss, ('iW Pl:umer. City of San Bernardino Cnel. I I Page 2-20 ~ The Planning Center Septembn 2005 2. Response to Comments "I'ItANSI'1' S111'I'UR'I'1\'li I'1.,\NX .\NU I'lil.i(:II?S 'fllli ('I'll' (11~ S:\N ISL:RN:U2111Nf1 C:I?NP. R:U.I'I,.\N-.1:1N11:\Itl' 21105 lhr Pnlrr.d luntsn :\dutiui:uauau If I~A I. in rcvicacing funding lin~ Vansrt projects, looks Ltcnr:rhk ou projects Ihal hart sln,u4 Irmvl sagtpunrer politics iu n:giuual :uul loc. I plans, and couule unlntauv c:;. In the cast of the I? Slrccl 'transit Cuu~idor projtct, Ihrsr Vansil atpponivc polielrs m:y ,cell nm:m the diffcrenrc bcnvccn :gtpruv:d :nut r~lcction ul'our grant applieahun. \Cc h:n'c n~vmwrd the ('uy ul Sun Lta+ntardinu Lh:dl (icncrd flan da1cJ Jauuar}' ?IiOj lu xcc if it pmeidcs the lcpc ul language Ihal n•ill reeen'r a positive rovirn• Gom h1'A 'there arc several ilrnts in the Jrt? General Pl:m that arc supportive. of Imnsil in gcuct al and of the L• Stncl shX pmjul in punlcular for es:unpla•, recognition of Ihr li Snert shX project is provided in nvo srp:u;ne Lx atiuns. I.:unl use policies ?.2.3, 23.? :nut 2.J. i arc snplwrtivc of Ihr development ul Irutspnrtation corridors. Slalcntrnls in the University Strurgie arr:t :nut Ihr fi Street Corridor Slralrcia ra :uc transit-supponivc. Cinvlalion ISlenum Go:d O.c. contants several trutsil- cuppunicc policies. \\'hily thes•_ h;ms:t-suplxnlrvc polio^: h:n•e. been pnrcidcd in the drab licucr:d I'I:nl, we bclicrt• Iho stn m;ICr tr:msil suppnrticc Ix,hces will be ucalcd 16x1 rellccl Iho n:nnl traneil corridor :malc:.i: l.. ddlr iu utdei w adorer a posllivr I°1)\ In'iew. Ifackl'rnund r humu.ur. pnp:ucd ., 5\slrw-uvula I'r:utsil ('orridor I'lau in Seplcwber VIVA :•:hirh :m:d.ard x,cn nt.e•n tr.nrsu eartidors m the fhnnilrans syslcn:. This pl:m dctcmtiunl Ihr I' tillcrl t'uuiJ~n tuau t';rh lirrnia Sl:uc University 6:m liclnatdinu kr I~nna Linda Ihnvrrsily :nut \Irdk:d 1 elder m the 1'ih~ ul I„ner Luula :u; the highest priority cunvtrn tin' enh:mad htgh- yuahn cgnJ uansil serviecti :uul nnpn,rrntcros. The f: Slrccl 1'orndor ws ectcndul unnh lip I'ahu crux Junnl• the public ntcolvrntcnl process. (hunilraus is alrrcnth: prtp:otn an F \hrN I ian:al l ~nli~bn :\hcn:ulivc :\nalysis which a'rll rrsuh iu the sdcrtinn :nut adupuun of a L•calh~ prrlcrrcd aIR': nal iae ILI'AI for Ihc. P: Sncyl ('orridul fhr sdcrlcm ul Ihr LI'\ is ..:peeled m Lrte 'nu; ul e.n 11' =0110 I ha ::calve: of the cot ridur a lullou•mg 16e overall pl:nuung au.l project Jas elopntaan process lur li•da al!y liunled Ir:ne;il prnjecl prescribed by Ihr hI'A :nut is relyucJ Ihr New Soul I'rn. c>. lu reaie':•.inv, :wJ ratinv n:u,.il prnjccls for liutdine;, FI':\ ma'.h:dc: number nl. c'::duati~m l;irl..~r, \n hnponanl cv:duatiun criterion is "lix isling L:uul 1 isc. 'Ir:msit Suppuru:e Land 1 vc I'oli, nna Puunc 1'allctnt-' the I:unl use rating v:UCgnries im olved inrluilyd: U I Ia istinl; L:utJ 11:r J II. I ~ausil Suppurticc I'I:ms and I'olii its J lit I'n 14nm:utcr and ingracls ul l'ulivics U 1\ Ulhcr I and I rsv r'uro:ider:uians LJd~. I I \n.irhutvnl .\1 rsplain•• the ralm4 c:dcrorics. ndormatiun Irqucslcd b•: I~l`\ :uul .., . un n. nl:nn~n : e^.anhur rccnauJ :nxl luc.d polities P:u;a I ..1 h General Plan Update and Atiociated Specific Plant Final EIR City of San Bernardino ~ Page 2-2] 2. Response to Comments Ilrafl t:rncral Ilan finals lielaa•J In'1'ransit norr iu the m:ugiu nn pages ?-69 auJ 6~ 13 of Ilte Umlt (iurcrul Plan Jalal l:nm:n'p ?11U.1 aeknua'Icders Ihal the L Slrcel Transit Corridor is underway. Ilmvca•cr, :dlhough tr:msil is mcnlioncJ in the Juaunud, premium tonsil scn•icc rod dcvcloplnan adjacent W iI is not cngthasind ac n solulimr to nddres. traffic umgestiml :utJ air quality conccros or as a st r:dcgy to ?lonnagc uric J<velupureut. I'uhciu :nut :;ails trailed w trnnsil arc primarily include) iu Chapter 6 Circulation. 1'uhlic l7anal and Ch;gtlcr 2 Lan) Use. CGupuv - ('irr•trlnlinn oral Sulfgcvlcd Pnfir.•icr Pages n-?7 anJ 6-.R of the Urafl General flan incluJas a pantie Irnlusit Discussion and the pantie uansil goals :nut policies for Section 6 Cirenlalion. The language in the drill l icnernl I'I:m is pruviJa•J bcluav, lugdher w•ilh our suggestions for revisions fin boll prim). :\s the population grows, the Iea'el OI l'OI1gC511o11 011 5lreClS \\'lll :Iltin ntie. AS :1 1'C5llh, II hill bcvonre incroasingl}• nnpon:nu at provide :dtentale means of transponatiun. 1'ul+h: trauspurtation pla}:, :m i:nporlanl role in providing swell-balancer) trutspul~ati~n inn Gtr the Cny. A well pl;nmcd anJ e(licienl public v:ursponaliun s}'stnn provide. .m cs;rnlial primary orate of translwrtatiou lu Ihose avilhout access m :unuuutbilcs :nut an ;Jlcwauvc mode of tr:n'el In the nutlnrisls to help reduce the Demand and cnm;rstiou on the Cilc's street netnod.. 'late r:rrim,s nmdcs of public Imnsporl:nion iuchaling bus. a.unnurta r.lil. Jem:uul rezpunsice Ir:ntsporlation, etc., shnulrl proriJe cl7icicnl rnutcrucity anJ intr:gr aliou eln cuonlin:ucJ part:-:utJ-I idc Ihciliucs :wd nudll ne+Jal lnuuual~ l'he Coy plays a vital rok in the use of tr:msil through sonuJ land use pL•uming el torts and ensuring tlt:d developments arc Jesigued in n m:umer that lacihlalcs the provision of tr:uc;il s<rviccs. 16 .r1 r. I'unuolr a nclau+rk of anrlli-nmdal transponaliun Flcililics Ihal art s:dc. cilirlrnl.:utJ cunnceteJ to various points of Ilre city anJ the region. I'uhcy 1+.6.1 Grpprtrt Ibc efforts of regional, slate, and fralcrd ?l•cniic:: lu prncidc aJ~litiunal Inral anJ express bus scn•ice in the l'il}'. I'~~In} Igo.'. Crruc a par4tershyt wllh Unwilrans 6~ iJcnlila puhlir I r::u::pinlauuu in li a5lnlcuuc uceJs Ihal unpwce ualbilily • i I':1!!C ~ ~I b . ..m l:,.~.u.ei.., ....•u.A Pl.m o•..~,.•a. nl'.n Page 2-22 ~ The Planning Center September 2005 2. Response to Comments I'ohcy 6 6 l In conperaliwt \vith Unmilr;ms, require new devclopntrm io Inu,~iJc uausil faeililiax, such az bns shelters :ntJ lununns, as nrecss:uy anJ \t:rrr:nucJ bl d i. scale of the Jrrclopnrcnl. I L1 l- I ) I'ulicv o.b.~l. linsurr acccsxibi hty to pubhe tr:utspotlalinn tier u:niors :ut.l persons acilh Jisabilitics 1'~~hcy 6.0.5 ht cnopur:diun svtlh Umnitrans, explore melhoJs hr improec the rue, speed, :uul cllicicney lia tr:ntsil services. These melhoJs nucht include drdtcalcJ nr priority I:nteslsignals, rcJueed parkins standanls lire selected cure areas. :uul iucopun sling huelligrnt'I'rnnspnrlaliwt Syslan archilcclure. I'ulicv ir.o.h: tiuppun anJ encourage the provision of a r:urge of parru:utsil uppnilunilirs 0, complement bns and rail service 1'or specialize) uansil nccJs. 1'ulicv (t.(r./: I]Ilenllragl' Illt'ilSllrl'S IIli11 \\'111 (rlI11rC the I7111111)t'f of l'rhlell'-0I111CS IruvclcJ Juring peak periods. including the IiJlmving rxantplcs of these apes ul mca::ures: InccNiats for car-poalin,• :utJ v:ugvuding. 1'iehneui:J parlicr hit aar-puula auJ v:ugrouls. l'aurcmcndy Iuc:ar:J box slop:: with shchrrs. 1A-I I \Jrquale siJrwail: tciJlh 1'ur transit palnms :unl other palvslriuns. W Ricrclc anJ prdcslri:m anrsc w csistinl; and Otlure It ansil stations/slops. I'~aii,ot,8: I'nnnutr Ihr use of rvgxmis anJ c:mprntk by pructdiug x:d~. cuncaricN pai~k-:nut-riJc brcilums. I'uliry G.6A: 5upporl anJ a•nnmragc premium transit cnrridocv thrmrghuut the ('itr lu increase tr:wsil ridership, rcdurv traffic cwnl;estinu, imprncr air y u:diq~, and vurouragv nce~ drrclopnu'nt. 6t ruoprratimt nitlt Ilnmilrans. r\plon an initial prrtninm transit corridor linkin{( C5U56 and Ipnpitalilr L:un• sort other major aclieily n•ntrrs :Joni E Strrrt. ('onsiJer shared :uul reduced parking xtandards near premium transit stations that provide pedestrian-O'ivn<Ilp ruvirnnmcnts and incorporate trr':nrsil-6'iatilW srrriccs sorb as child Carr, conrruicucr retail, and huuciu~. ('Imprrr - (here!! Lnnd (Lsr auJ,S'u~; rerrJ Pnticirs >ecuun _' I-h.: I :ni,l 1 kr xenon iuchulss :r land use. map Ll!-? with I:uul use JcsiGn.rliuu::. In ;:coast, I:uul ?sc Jr:urnaliuns alum: the P Strcd l'mndur incluJcs cuuuncrci:J uses south .,I ' Ilu;hl:wa \tcuur :ntJ predominantly cunuucrccd :nrJ muhi-lannly Jeveb gnncN between lbc Page ' ~.1 1. r ~.,n•i.,~, ~m~wnr. n Arraiated S eci rc Plant Fina! E!R Ci o San Bernardino Page 2-23 I~ Genera! Plan U date a d P j ty j P i I 2. Response to Comments 111) Ptu•w:n• :utd t'alilirtnia St:dr University San Ikmanlino with single-liunily bctwcat IIiglJ:md r\caulr ,md =111 hrccway and again brhvicen California Slalc Iluivcnity Sao Ircmanlim+;nlJ Palm :lvantc. I)rali 1 i.•nvral Plan land use goals anJ policies That relate to Iansil are providcJ 6cloa•, Wgether with aw sut~lxsuuns for revisions. I.:\IVU 1151•: lidicy'_1.t. Sensiuvcly ullcgl ate regionally beneficial I:uul uses such as lrausportatiun curriJurs, Iluod control 5)'SlClllx, IIt1111V corridors, auJ recreational rnrtiJors iutn the cunununity (l.l I-I anJ CD-I ) I'ulicv ?..i.l (bmntemial centers, opat spaces, cduc:ltional I'acilitics, and ncrcalimlal I'acililics shadd be IinkcJ m residential ncighburhawds. (1-U-I 1 1'ulicy?.).;: I'romotc Jcvclopmcm Thal is cmnpxl, pedestrian-Crieudly, and saved by a variety ul'vanspurlalimt options along major enrtiJors and in ka•v actirity :Irc:ls 1I I I-I ) I'ulicy _'.t.'i: !uy+ruvementx ::hall he made to Iransporl:dion con iJurs Ihat promote phvsiral connrclivit)' and collect consistently high aesthetic values. (t'U-I ) 1'nlicy 23. hrtr{;r:uc dvcclupntcm policies with the rnalion of premium transil corridors to encourage ncu• Jea•rlopment in strate>:ic areas and corridor stratcRir arras l6 rongb: ('mu•cntratiul; mixrA-use commercial/residential uses, retail, cngdo)•ntent nppnrwnity, educational and civic/gova•rnmcnt uses arouuJ premium transit station/stops In encnn ra>;r urnsit riJership :md address :111' gaalitt• anJ tl attic cunpcstian ..bile prntcrtint: rstubliahed Iorv density rrsiJvntial uci>;hborhoods. 1'ruvidinl; incadires for increasrd densily development :uul tr:utsit-oriented Jcvclnpmenls within Y. mile of premiuw trutsil slalimis. 1'otenlial iuceulives include density bonuses, 1GlIt increases, a reduction in parkin' raptirentents, sort expedited rcricu~, etc. \\'orkin>; with Omuilr:ms and SAIVI3AC to prepare tlelailetl plans for land use anJ JevelopnteW of transil-oricnleJ dcvclopmenls along prcmimn transil corridors. I\Imlifying the Uercluputenl Cole (zoning code) to include transit supporlirc policies includinE: mixcJ nse, transil-oriented developmm~ts, inereasrd densily, redural parking rcyuirements, :md expedited zoniuR review fur projects :Jong premium Transit corridors. .Scorn,, it : l rrrr 1'ulides 'fhr I:utd I Isr sccnun ;dsu incluJa >paiali'rcJ coals and polil:ics rc1:dcJ str.Uegir p~+hrc :urns ul Ihr Pity shown w fi me LIl-5. "!Lc strategic ;ucas arc areas n•hcrc rh:ulgr Is rilba innuinem and need:: stinndaliutl;)miJ:nlra ur where cban,•,e is desinal :md Page J of t+ Gb~~.i <.n p. ~n:nam•• i., ~~.,.A rln~+~n~wn..n. u~.~ Pa a 2-24 • The Plannitr Center Septetlrber 2005 8 8 2. Response to Comments need: sliuuJ:nunth~uu(anuc." 'fhc slralrgtc plan areas :dlctcd by the li Snccl 1'nn'iJor m;ludo • \eiJernoul :\irt t.o spcci lie muttimt of transil is utchnltJ in the Jiscusstun ol'this slrulcgic area. • AdJ Ihr fulloe~ing policy w wpporl Ira usil, •"Prunsil :md Ir:ulsil-urienled Jt•rrlopnn•nls - .\l Ihr viciniq' of Palm .Avenue :md ICcudall I/rive is in close pntsimily lu Frcen•ay access and Uu•. lhtircrsity, this Incalian prurides an escellcul uppurtunily (ur a park :md ride lul, premium transil staliuns, and pnlcntial n'ansil-oriented derelnpntcnl prnnillcd at a hightr inlcnsilr 16an the surrounJiug neigh borhnnds." llie liuiver.:ily :\na ~Ihe Draft flan sl:dcs. -`fincuurage the Jevelnpntem of Trolley connections bdmucn the l lnircrsity and Joaa'nton'n :unl the 141ulrnlink station al the Sanla Fc Drpol." Fubslilatc the aaurds "transil for "trolley.. in the above senlenrc. ~, ~\Jd a near paltry, "Locale transil slalionlsutps in elnsv pnrsimily to the hiy,bcst uze :owns of 16e campus and near 6i~her Aensily 4udenl hooting lu redntc :unu Jeptudency. 1dd nrta' puller, '•Crt:de strum allracticrl~' dcsigneJ pedrstri:m liokagec to tr:utsil slalinnchlops from el:usraonts, rumnum fatililies and slu Jen Ufacullr 6nusiug.•• • I tuR'nl Men SII':d Cqt.' .\rca I'a:~c 3-07 stales. "14 non qe Jumntoavn ireitali:ation I+y srckinp, :ntJ I:u'iliuninG misrJ ux projects Ic.~., unnltinulinn nl tesidrnnal. ennvuetcial :unl ollicr nsaa.l.. • :\dd "esprcially adjacent lu a premiuw Ir:ulsil slalion" la This policy. \dd a nca' polity. "I'rucidr inccntins fur priealr prapcrq' to improvt• Ibe eneirmm~enl udjacenl lu premium Irrnsil slaliuns, including a rats of transil sopporled land uses, toll lit pedestrian-oriented ground Ivrcl nscs ndjaccnl lu Ibe slnliuns/slups, o•ider landscaped sirleta'alks, anJ padestrian :un cnilie.c' ('orriJur titratcgic :\nas Ircfcrs In Ilitddond Aernnc, li;uclinr .Aecnnc :nul I titrect tilratcgie .Areas I: tilted belaecen llighland ;\eenuc and '1°i Sheol only) P:na ?-7u - The pl:m dales, "G Stn~cl currently la. of 3UW 3 has the gnattst number of hansit trips in the fhnniuans systcut, which makes it :m ide:d tanJid;ne Inc ro:uhv:ry improrcutcros and rodcvclolnucros. lltr tih:degie Arca itself occupies a IunnrJ pnrtnm nl the. rnaJway haawtt•n I hghland Arcane nn the northern cud anJ ')"• Street au the sauthem enJ... ' 1'mrn!Ix~•nc uuh. ale P. 3bcd ::alum: I'a_:1r ~.I Genera! Plan Update and Assaiated Specific Plans Fina! EIR City ojSan Brrnardino ~ Page 2-25 2. Response to Comments r, Insert ", premium transit serrice," a6er '•roathr:q• improvements" in thr above pulley. I':u•cs 2-71 auJ '-72 includr 7Le Conidw Ingnrlrancnl I'ni>:cuu and :m option pal~Aagc 111 policy, regulatory auJ pmgmms That arc intended w stimulate private invcslnreW. On page 2-71, Priority Loc:xional prnjcGS arc !hose lhac I) develop or nnprovc commercial and/or miseJ uses on the intcrsecliuns of ancrials, and/or 2) replace snip commercial use xaNr resnlenlra! uses or inrprovod existing residential uses bcheccn the iutcrseelinn of arlenals. ., Add :uuUor 3j devdnp courrnrrci:d and/ur misrd rues adjatnrl to a premium Irausil si:Illnn. I'agc h n(f. rrQ }..:r 4nurulu:n 4[rvu1 M1'vul ~xnn.~nH Page 2-26 ~ Tfx Planning Center Septem6er2005 2. Response to Comments _ ...__-. ~.- dcvclnpmcnl annual major tramil Gtcililics -- j Lncal contprchuuivc plans or c:qul:d impnrrnncm i plans Ihnt give prionly In inlill deeclnpntenl and; ur pmvidc 1'or upporluniucs lire high dcnstry• rcdcvclnfuncm L:utJ ?nrscrc:num :uul ncntugcmcm (in»clh ro:magcntcnl plans (c.g., growth ntanagnncnl areas. urban grmclh bouuJar ics, I( agricuhural prescrvaliun plans. rgtnt space prescrv;diun plans) wilh maps 1'olieics Ibat allow lin trnnslia~ ufdcvclopntcnl riglus I}um open space or al,riculurral I:uxl to urban I areas _,~ f 11. '1'I2ANti1'f tilll'1'OIt'1'IVI? PLANS eW111'OId(:ICS (cmttinucd) b. '17ausil tiupporlire Cnrtidor 1'nlicies Inlarntation Regncacd_ Documentation Snlportiu~; _L:uul Ilse ('riteriou Plana :nrJ Iw.hcics in inuross<: rnrridor ; AJoptcd city, count}', and reginn:d phnts anJ :uxl srttion :n.•a Jtvebgnuuu policies and private sector pLms :uul inili:nrvcs Ihm ~ prunx+lc devclopmcnl in the Iransil corriJor .nul slaliun aromas; plans mac include ttcneral plants. specific pl:uts (subarea, slaliun area, etc.). rcdcvelopmcnl pnrjtrl pl:nls, nr nlhcr dislncl pl:urs I lixantplcs of Imnsil supput live policies iucludc: gcmcral policy sl:dcmcnl5 in support nl Ir:utsil as a principal mode ol'Irmsporlalinn milhin the I anriJur; Iwliacs Ihal uq+lxn't :ual pnnnnlc the usr i ~ i ul Imnsil;lwdicics!pl:utx Ihal ptnciJc tin hi::h ! dennily dtYelO1+111Q11 \Vilhlll Ihl' l~nrulor and slaUon arc:r.; and Ix,hcics That supp,+rt chongcs lu zonut4 within the coraiJur and sl:d ion arras ~ I'I;+ns aunt pOI141CF In CIIII:InCe Irarlllt- i I:Ientents of adopted city, county. auJ rcgumal ! Irirndh~ duuaacr of slatinu area plane and Iwlicics Ih:U pnmwle trausil-friatdl~ Jcv;.4npnter;i r:haracter of corridor and shttinn area de•: cloputcnt i s Pnlicics to punnolc mtccd-u<r pr o~crls c Policies In pnnnotc housing and n ausibw icWeJ retail ~, I'oliats tlral alluw•:pnxnnk• vcrtG::d znniu;: tcilhin the corridor I fa\adr impiocenrcnl prngr;uu; + ;ponds to suppnn tr:nuibnriomcd pl:utx ~ _ _ : 1'ricalc sector plans ?nJ imlialit~cs .+,naacm oirh tha public plans auJ politics 161cJ ohnrc I'Inn, to do+~clop pcJrstrian facilities :urJ t Raluircmuus and Iwlictcx tin sulctealAs, ! ruh:utrr disabled .recess rnnnecR'J slnmr anv;dkteay ntncarA::, :uul ..Ihrr i Genera! Plan Update and Assaiated SQecrfrc Plans Final EIR City of San Bernardino ~ Page 2-27 2. Rerponae to Comments ~ ~-~ palcslrimt lit+;ililp Jccclopntcm plans lia station an•as i ; <'aptlal iugmwcmenl plogranu lu atithonrr p+xlostrian-I}irudly Jcatyt in staliuu areas : 2'urh nmp 6ansilion plans onJ milespntas required unJcr t'f~lt }5,150(J)(2), mul ulhur plans fnr relrofining existing Ix+JcKlrinn iPl'nstructure to actannnuxlale pcrsrntx w•ilh Jisabililicx in station :ucas Slrr.•cl design widclinas or manuals addressing padcslrian and transit-oriutlcal street J+sigtt I Ihghling. slrcct fumilurc, siJcvvalk wiJlh, dc.) I'ot Ain,; policies lallon'auees fnr ~ Politics to rcvluce parking myuiremenl or cap rrduednus in parking nquirumwtts anJ parking in station araas ua0ic miticatiun raryiremcnts lie s I'olicias r_•slablishing nmxinuun allou~ahlu parking Jecelopnn•nt near station an:u, plans for lift new development in area. scn•cJ 6y tr:mcil earl; and-ndc Inl+. parking ntanagcmenl) : Shared parking allowances Nl:uulalnry tniuiumm ast lix p:nkigc in an•as r:rn'aal by vansil i I'm Aiur I:,,cs ~ _ ! _ _ II. lR:\NSfI' 5111'1'Oli'1'1\'E PLANS,\NU 1'ULIC11?S lvonlinuap c. tiuppurtivc %oniny Rc~nlatious Nc:u''1'nosil Stations Infartnalian Nequcslcd _ '.. _I)ncnntcnralion SrJtporting LanJ Usr t:rileriun ~ . %,aiinr oniiu:ntees Ihal support ~ - Unlinances ;nut mops Jcscribin)', rxisling zoning: ~ uterr.tard JrcclnpnuN density in tl:n6it I lallowahle usas anJ dansitias) i ~ .tanun area:: i Rnvau changes In zunin):_ onlin;ntecs L. allu+v m ' I encourage Ja•velupuam +vith nau:il ~:upiunln'e Jcnsi!ics and usas • ? 1'rmtsil overlap zoning Loning incnnivcs Ibr incrcasnl Jcrelopmuu w sl;ttion areas (density Ixnmsas, hausiog funJ suhsidia•s, irgulaliuu relaxation, cspaslilcd innin,e i '-_-.. _ I /.caning unliuanas IL:u enhance transit- %uuing tcgul:dions Ihal allo+v mixed-tut ,•rieuled ehandcr cal station at ca dcvelopwud drrc6gxucw :nut palcstran access Loniug roguhdiuns addressing placement nl building Ibutprinls, pedestrian lacililics, firpadr I IrCnllncnl.e. clc ' ~ - :\rchilectur al design guiJelinr.: :nut tncrh:micros j Ibr ingtlenmNahonhrnforeentem ul'Ihesr )',uidrlines ! %.canutc allca+c:utm:: lire rcJuceJ porkut I ' KcsiJenlial anJ axtunnerei:J pai Ainlt requvcnn•rns ' Inunununts :cant/m maamtunssl in slauun areas uuJcr cxisum; anun~ Page 2-28 ~ The Planning Center September 2005 2. Response to Comments --- I 7_olliugonlinanccspnrviJinglrJuceJpalkiu;; I , rcqulrements fur develnpulenl near vunsil sl:Jiuns I I. '1'R.\Ntil'I' tilll'1'OR'I'1\'IS I'L:\Nti :\NU 1'ULICI ba (cnnliuucd) J. 'fools w hnplcolcul Land Ilse 1'nlicia _ _ lu(urlnaliun Italucslcd _Iluc_umcut:diuu SuppurlinK Land Usc Crilcriun Uuti c:rch In j!uecrnnlcnl agcncicv anJ I'ronurliun anJ nutrwlJl acliviliu by the Ir:ulsil Ina• cnrmlrlmil}~ in snppnlt nl'I:md use ngl'IICy, IIIC:II tIIflSlhl'UUllti, :111<UOf regl»IIaI pl:mniuc agcncia>s in suppnrl of slalion area planting, growth nmlu~guncnt, anJ Iransil-orirallcJ Jcvtlopmu» toter-ha:al agreements. Ir.-soluGons. or Icllra-a nl' mdnrsnncnl from other guvemnlcnl agcllcics in ~ supp,rt rat' cmlydinating IanJ use planting with Iralssit invt.•dmenl a :\clions ul'olhrs groups, indnding Ch;nnlx:rs of ('oumwroc, prof~ssion;d developnlem groups, cili7avl cualilious, as well ac Illc privotclconunercial smlar, in support ollr:wsil-oricnroJ draulopnlent pmclicc4 Public uutrrlch m:ncrials and bntrhures j RcLUlalnq~ :rod lin:muol incentives to liegtdalnry incentives (e.g., Density onuses, ~ pnmu.lc n,n rn-suplwnlica•Jevcloputcnl slre:nnlineJ processing nl development :gaplications) for dcvelnpmcnls nc:o Imrtsil I %r+mng rcquin•ntuUx liar Irullie miligntion (c L.. ~ tcac anJ in-kind eonlrihmimsl and cnalions of hmc ~ .vetch mquircnreuls can ha: waiecd nr naluccd Inr ' locoti~ns near Iransil :,,lions'! ~ I'rogruns Ihal prouutlc or provide uuculiecs fi+r I Iransil-orienlaxl dcvclnpmcnl such as lac inctculent liu:nteiug tones, ors ubolr'mcm prolxams, anJ transiauriultcJ loan support programs l rihcr economic Dccelopntcnl aal revilaliza(ion I slmtegi~s lire sl:nion areas or within the corriJor I:I Brays ~o onj!aj!c II1C DCVCIUpnrlan (IIIIR:IeI1, IaIUC3r11nn. :111rI IIIVUIYCI11C111 ?CIIYIIII's ~ wmnuwily in sloliun-area pl:ulnin4 and targctnl al the Jevelopntenl connnunity (ineluJing tr:nuu-supponh~e Jcvdupmuri developers, properly owners, and linauuial iiutiluli+Na) . l iausit-oricnleJ ntarkct studies Liinl dm'clupumul pruginnts rand proposals ~ Lrlters of cndor.:ancnl ar other indicators of ~ support Gom the Ior.J Jceclupmrnt cunlntunitY I'ublia: ma uh~cmcnl in amidor auJ : Ihscription of public i»volvcnunt pn,cess, Ist:dion :nca pl:uuunp uwluJing corlidur:ual station :nca laud use I ~ ~ planninl!:rchvtNcs General Plan Update and Attociated SQertftt Plant Final EIR City ajSan Benrardino ~ Page 2-29 2. Response to Comments i - Ih:ls~iplian of the Icva•1 of panicip:uiun in I:uul nsc f ~ pl:uu»n(; arlivities:uul suppnt2 lur Iha~e activities ', by Ihr caarcr:d public and eonununily (:nnyts i :I'uhlic outreach atalcrials :uul brochwrs 111. 1'IsltF(»tl\l,\N('P..\NI) Ihll'ACTS OIr 1,.\NU USF: 1'OLICIIsS a. 1'er(uruunee of Land Ilse I'olicics hdorm:uiou liequcsled Ducunrcnl:dion Stgtpartiyg I_:Inrl Ilse C'ri(criou __.I 1)enumslr:urJ cases n(dcvrlopntrnll Docuntcntnlinn oCprulccLti Ihal bacc nrornlly barn I al7celyd by nvtsit lupln,niva pulirias buih wnsislcnl w'i161ransil-oricnlcJ design, ~ principlac (hi)•-her da7lsily, nrirnLrlirm lua•arJ street, pnwisiun of pedestrian acccl5 fiow transit. cla) Uocnnxatlalinn of projects Ihal incnrlx,r:uc a mix of nscs nr incroasrxl mnounts nl'hnusing tit:,uon ores dra'clnpmcul pn,pru,ds and . Lksan iptioo.c ;uul pl:uu tin' new develupwaan. atanie including ioim dcvcluputcnt proposals, including svr, 1}q,as nl'r~cs. :mJ clpraul Jah•s nl'stau n( anraurliuu and cunq,lrlinn :i III. I'Iilip012~1:\NCL :\NII IDII'AC'I:S (1p 1.:\NU 115 F. P111.IC11'S Inntlinurdl b. I'olential hupacl of Tr:msil 1'rnjerl ou Regional Land Ilse Ldarm:uion Ih~•xled _ _Uu_cumeula(iun Supporting Land Isar ('rin•rimt :ldaptabihlp of slaGon area land Grt I hscnptinn ur invsuurv of bout near tr:utsu ~ ' dca rlnpniont I sla»ons that is a'ae:ntl or avuilahla lin~ n•Jceulopnicnl, :uul :unuunl nl dr\clopnunt :ntlicipatcd li,r thcm+pan rte I 19 olreled Uuu'ihn•. for Jerclnpntenl .d 1(auon area pnq,crtics I ~\nurunl ul doecb,pntrnt olluweJ at station area build-uul competed In cxtslutg ;unouut of Jc\•clopnsul i ('nrridor ea nn note encnonmstt Kegional and wnidrn crunnn»c muditiuns nod ,a owth projccliore Ucvrlupnunt nrnrAcl trcndl in cxrstlug a,rridntl and 11a11U11 :IreB% (h1t :I(ea1 \\'llh l'%I5nlig 11:111111) i I k•nunutr,rtcd m:ul:el suplwn lia~ hi_rhrr-density ~ I and Iranlil'prxlcsh ian-uncntcd dcvclupnicm ~ j I .~~ahons of ntajur emplul'ntcnl rcn0.'ts in nc~ n:gunt. :uul expceleJ yrue'Ih m Ihcse .'suer. I'ruicctcd population, cuy,3oa•nu•ul, ;nxl gt o\vlh ~ ors m oaiidur ur station un•a> ronq,atcd to m;inn ~I I Page 2-j0 ~ The Planning Center September 2005 2. Response to Comments I\'. (1'1'Illil( LAND IISF. CUNSIDI?ItA'1'IONS (Optional) Infu_nnaliun l_icqucs_lrJ ~-- Ducu_mcnlalialt S~i)mrling l.anrl llsx (:rilrriou_I Usher wtidcnlilicJ ur unusual : I(egional plans ur ledicies Ihut ptnmule increased circumstances. cnndition>, of couslrniuLS community preservation and cnhmtumwtl under which the tr:nevil agency op¢nilca s Topoyaphy and which utllucncc local and regional s Rmwnficlds rcdcvclopmcm I land oa: policies, plans, :md : Central city rcdcvclupmenl ingtlcmrntation Dcvignaliun :ts a Flxlcral Gnlerprisc Gntei fnyxtwcnnenl Clonunwtily 'Ppx and condition ollnarl:cl Ic.l;., nsutl. sc;tsmtal) Intermudal connections Olha factor I ~I General Plan Update and Attoriated Specific Plan.r Final EIR City of San Bernardino ~ Page 2-31 2. Response to Comments This page intentionalty left blank. I i Page 2-33 ~ The Planning Center September 2005 I 2. Response to Comments C. Response to Comments From Omnitrans, Dated September 8, 2005 C-1 This comment voices an appreciation for the opportunity to review the DEIR and the opportunity to incorporate transit supportive policies into the General Plan. The comment also summarizes thatthe traffic study identfies segments that require mitigation and that some do not. This comment does not relate to the content or adequacy of the EIR. C-2 This comment informs the City of an impending traffic model, prepared by Omnitrans, that will identify potential impacts of transit projects on San Bernardino's roadways. This comment is herby noted, included in the official environmental record otthe proposed project, and will be forwarded to the appropriate City of San Bernardino decision makers for their review and consideration. C•3 The bulk of the comment letter, the six attached pages entitled "Transit Supportive Plans and Policies, The City of San Bernardino General Plan-January 2005" repeat a letter from Omnitrans to Mr. Fred Wilson dated June 23, 2005. This attachment requests that language supportive of the E Street sbX project and transit in general be added to the General Plan. Many of the broad policies already included in the Draft General Plan accommodate the requested language. However, in response to the original letter, the City has incorporated the following changes (additions in bold) into the Draft General Plan and will forward to the Planning Commission and City Council for adoption. These changes in the text of the Draft General Plan do not affect the content or analysis in DEIR. Circulation Element 6.1.1 Encourage measures that will reduce the number of vehicle-miles traveled during peak periods, including the following examples of these types of measures: ~V~VI • Incentives for car-pooling and vanpooling. • Preferential parking for car-pools antl vanpools. • An adequate, safe, and interconnected system of pedestrian and bicycle paths. • Corneniently located bus stops with shelters that are connected to pedestrian/bigrcle paths. (A-1) 6.1.2 Promote the use of car-pools and vanpools by providing safe, convenient park-and-ride facilities. 6.1.3 Work with Omnitrans to create transit corridors, such as the one currently being explored on E Street linking CSUSB to Hospitality Lane, to increase transit ridership, reduce traffic congestion, and improve air quality. 6.1.4 Consider the provision of incentives, such es reduced parking standards and density~ntensity bonuses, to those projects near transit stops that include transit-friendly uses such as child care, convenience retail, and housing. Land Use Element 2.4.6 Work with Omnitrans to explore initiatives that promote redevelopment near transit stops in order to encourage transit ridership, reduce vehicular trips, improve air quality, and improve traffic congestion: Genera! Plan Update and Attociated Specific Plant Final E!R City of San Bernardino ~ Page 2-33 2. Response to Comments a. Concentrate mixed use development, retail, employment, entertainment, educational, and civic/government uses within walking distance of transit stops. b. Explore the use of incentives that can be awarded to projects that provide pedestrian amenities (wide sidewalks, public plazas, seating areas, etc...) and/or include desirable uses located within walking distance (1 /2 mile) of transit stops. Incentives may include density bonuses, increases innon-residential floor area, reductions in parking requirements, and modified development standards. Downtown Strategic Plan Strategy #13 Encourage mixed use development and pedestrian friendly uses/development adjacent to transit stops. Verdemont Heights Area Plan Strategy #12 Working with Omnitrans, explore the feasibility of "transit friendly" uses, such as park-and- ride lots, higher density transit oriented developments, and transit stations. Page 2-34 ~ T/x Planning Center September 2005 2. Response to Comments Letter D -Center for Biological Diversity (12 pages of letter and one page acknowledging attachments) CENTER ~' ~~~)LOGICAL FOR ~ ~ I~'ERSTTY •'•..n? ..r. CAL11'DRNL\ AND TaACIFIC OFFICE Jrarriin; enA mrPorin, gomral rnu~~rrt+ur oad rwprd4Atpni<.r /h+uxs;h rrirnrr. rAnm/inN, pn/in, wiArnrrrrwrorrnrn//aa• September 8, 2005 VL•\ ELECTRONIC ~IAtL (e•ith Exhibits) Terri Rahhal. Principal Planner Cip~ of San 8cmardino Developmetn Services Ucparimcnt 300 North "U" Street San Bcmardino, CA 9241$-0001 ~encralnlan!a.xbcih~.ore Ile: Arroe~head Sprints Specific Plan anU Draft Environmental Impact Report for Ciq• of San Berardino General Plan L'pdatc and .4ssnciated Specific Plans Uear kls. Rahhal. 1. Introductien. These comments arc submittcJ on behalf of the Cenler for Biological Uivcnity ("Center"} un the combined Drah F.nvinmmcntul 4np:tet Report ("DE[R") fur the City of San Bemardino General Plan Update and Associated Spccilie Plans. including the Grneml Plan Update, the Cnicersity Specific Plan. and the Arrowhead Springs Spceitic Plan. The Center is a non-profit envirorunental organization dedicated to the prolcclion of native species and their habitats through science, policy. mtd envimnmemal law. The Cents has over 14.000 members throughout California and the western United Stators, including in San Bernardino County where D1 the projecu are located. The Center ohjects to the UEIR based on the inadequaty of the curtest environmental Documents particularly as they pertain to the Artoa•head Springs Specific Plan. The DEIR failcJ to identify and adequately analyze snroral potential enviroomen[aI impacts of the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan, and has failed to provide altomntives that would avoid those impacts or rnforceable mitigation measures W minimize those impacts. Must impnrtandy, the UEIR fails to provtide site-specific detailed information about the impacts of the Artowhcad Springs Spceilic flan un biological resourm and water rcwurces and improperly defers identification and analysis of those impacts in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"}. Tac>.,,+ Phova is :ilrcr City Jan Dlv¢rl .an f-rancisco }o~ltua Tn•u •Ibrtlanrl Lisa Bclcnkr. HtafF Attumec 11195 xtaLlcT $'i'RI:GT, SL'I'l l: it I • 5 U FN:Wr[ISCf +, C:.~ 9~i I(1 i l CI : (11 i) TV+-9682 eel. it l~ • c.\~: !11 i) 436-'168 i ISmail: Ibelcnf,r~ithiutu};ic:ddiccrsut.or}; • auwl+drr~erlhisinrr}7 Genera! Plan Updare and Atrtxiated Specific Plant Final E!R City ojSan Bernardino ~ Page 2-35 2. Response to Comments A revised, independent draft FIR must be prepare) for the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan that properly iJcntifies and analyzes the impacts of the proposed devcloptttcnt, analyus a meaningful range of alternatives that avoid thosr impacts, anD provides specific, dc[ailcd, cnforccablc mitigation measures to minimize impacts that cannot be avoided. An adequate EIR for the ArrowhcaJ Springs Specific Plan must indutk, at minimum: (1) identification and analysis of nnpacts w biological resources base) nn detailed, scientifically valid survtrys of D2 plants anJ animals on the prujea site and adjaccm to the project site: (2) a rncaningful range of altcmativcs that avoid those impacts incluJing at (cast one altcmativc based on preservation of the cumtttly undcvelop~d ponions of the site anJ inclusion of all or part of the site in ongoing cffons ro maintain anJ resurre essential wildlife corridor in the San Dcmardirw Mountains: anJ (3) specific, cnforccablc measures to mitigate impacts to biological resourecs, water resources. and other resnun:cs in the project area. 11. "f HE UEIR FAILS TO MEET THE REQUIREME.YfS OF THE CALIFORKIA EV\'IRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. An EIR is a Jttailcd statement, prepared unJer the Califomia Environmental Quality Act. Public Resources Cude $$ ?IOW-21178 ("CEQA"), describing and analyzing all significam impacts on the environment o(a proposed project anD discussing ways of mitigating or avoiJing those eUects. Pub. Rcs. Code y211 W: 14 CCR ~ 15363. Thc purpose of an EIR "is to infomt the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their Decisions btJort they arc made." Lnurel Neightr 6npmtrroam ~LCmciarion v. Regeers gJUniversin~ of Culilnrnin, fi Cal. 4th 1 I I?. 1113 (1993) (emphasis in original) (citations omitted). An EIR should pmvidc decision making holies and the public with detailed information about the effect D9 a proposed project is likely to have on the rnvironmcnt, to list ways in which the significant effects of a project might he avoideJ or minimize). and ro indicate altematives to the project. Pub. Rcs. Code ? 1061; 14 Cal. C'odc Rcgs. ("CC'R") ~ 15002. Califomia coons have emphasized that an EIR should: disclose all relevant facts: provide a balancing mechanism wherehy decision maker and the public can weigh the costs anJ benelits of a project; pmvidc a means for public participation; provide increased public awareness of environmental issues: provide Fur agrncy accounmbilin~; and proviJe subsrontive environmentnl protection. Decause of the combined DPIR for the Gcnrral Plan Update and the two Specific Plain obscurs, mthcr than illmninata, the environmental impacts of the proposed Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan, the DEIR is inadequate to meat both the procedural and substantive mandates of CEQA. A. The DEIR Improperly Deters CEQA plandalcd Environmental Rcvicw anJ Is \\'holly Inadequate For the Arrow•heaJ Springs Spcclfic Plan. Many of the inadequacies ohhe Df:IR identified in these comments can be attribute) to the fact that the DEIR improperly defer idenification and analysis of many of the ArtowhcaD Springs Spttific Plan's impacts, as well as fommlation of specific mitigation measures, to later D4 stages of project DeveWpment. This deferral frostmtes infomtcd decision-making and violates CEQA. Ste Smnislar+.c Natures/ /lrrimgr Projccr v. County nJ~Smnislans, 48 Cal. App. 4th 182 (199fi). Defercing analysis of the impacts of a project "until after adoption of the specific plan calling for the project to be built wawlJ appear to be putting the cart before the horse." /r/. at UEIR C'ommcnts For San Dtrnanlino GP Upttatc. Artuwhcad Springs SP, and Uniccrsity SP September 8, 2W5 Page 2 of 12 Page 2-36 ~ The Planning Center Septemha 2005 2. Response to Comments 200. For example, the DEIR Jcfcrs sitrspccific surveys for biological resources completely and proposes as a mitigation measnrc thot such surveys be conducted prior to issuance of grading pcrmns and prior to conswction of the golf course. DEIR at 5.3-18 m 51. Tfiis proccxlurc turns CEQA on its htad. Rather than idemify' anJ analyze impacts before project approval, the City is D4 mtentpting to approve the project first and analyze its impacts later. Such a process undermines infortncd decision making and the public's right to know tfic environmental consequences of proposed actions and comment upon them Aejore projects arc approved. Gmvel Heights lrnpruvenrenl association v. Regents u/Univrcritr aJ Cnlilornia. 6 Cal. 4th 1112, I I23 (1993). The (ailurc to provide detailed inl'ortnation and analysis regarding many environmental impacts highlights the rtccJ fur an iurlependem, site-specific EIR fur the Artowhead Springs IDS Specific flan. Unlike an 81R Cur a general plan update, CEQA requires that the EIR for a specific plan provide dttailcd, thorough environmental review for the project, not tttercly preliminary or programmatic revicsv. Ac the City is well mcnre, the CEQA Guidelines provide that residential projects, including land subdivision. zoning changes, and residential planned unit developments, that are consistent with a specific plan for which art EIR was prepared and adopted will often require no further CEQA compliance. 14 CCR pI51g2; ace also 14 CCR ~~' 151 gl (exemption for housing and nerghborhuod commercial facilities consistent with a specific plan for which an ECR was prcparcdl. Subsequent stages of development will only be required to prepare detailed subsequent or supplemental envirmnm'ttul review if the standards ol'CEQA Guidelines swttun ~' I S 162 arc met-that is, only iCsubstantial changes are made to the project, substantial changes occur to the project circumstances, or new information shows that tfie project will have impacts that were not considered or are moo xvcn. or mitigation measures could now be imposed that were infeasible nr unanalyzed at the time the EIR was prepared. 14 CCR ~ 1516?. Accordinely. the specific plan EIR is tfie stage at which a thorough environmental review under CEQA of a propoxd specific plan is required. An EIR for a specific plan must idemify and analyze the proicct's impacts, avoid those impae~s where possible, and impose specific, enl'orccablc mitigation measures to minimize those impacts. Ilcrc, the City is auempting to adopt a specific plan for Artowhead Springs that inchrdcs both lands curcntly within the City limits and lands that arc in the unincorporated portions of the C'uunty. The City apparently intends this specific plan to act as a'pre•zoning" that can be presented as part of its application to annex the entire Arow•hcad Springs area. See also DEIR, Appx. K. Anncxatimt Study. The proposed annexation u(lhc Atrow•hcad Springs area dots not D7 represent a logical extension of the City limits, but tether, w•i(1 "leap-frog" high intensity dcaclopment out oC the City and off the valley Oonr into the San Bcmardino Mountains- displacing open space, intcrCering with vital wildlife cortidors, destroying vital riparian resourecs, and degrading air and water quality. Of courx, the annexation process is itself a protect subject to CEQA review. Sec Ba7tmg r L.1FC0, 13 Cal. 3d 263 (1975). Because the DEIR is clearly inadequate for the adoption ol'the Artoo•head Springs Specific Plan, the Ciry cannot properly rely on this DEIR in the annexatiou process for Arowhead Springs, UFIR C'onnnenu Ibr San Bcmardino GP Update, ArrowhcaJ Springs SP, and University SP September ri. 200$ Page i of 12 General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plara Final EIR Ciry ojSan Bernardino ~ Page 2-37 2. Response to Comments B. The DEIR Fails 7'0 Properly Identify and Analyze The Dirccy Indirect, And Cumulative Impacts To Biological Resources. I. 'fhe DEIR fails to propery' Identify and analyze impacts to rare, threatened, and endangered species. As the Ciry is well aware, the vast tna3ority of the remaining endemic spttics in the San Bernardino Mountains arc largely restricted to National Foresl lands. The public has made tun enomuna incestmem in conservation and bas dedicated significant resources to maintaining habit:rt integrity anJ areas for wildli(c movement in the San &:mardino Mountains. Although the ~ Artow•hcad Springs area is surtounded by National Forest. the specific plan and the DEIR fail to properh• address the potential impacts of the Artowhead Springs Specific Plan on the biological resources of the surrounding area including, bw nol limited to. impacts from direct Toss of hahiun, habitat fragmentation, loss of access to critical water resources, and invasive plant and animal species. The DEIR relies on "fielJ surveys' conducted on [vvo consecutive days in November. 'OOd, that consist only' of brief observation of the site. DEIR Appx. B at B-I I. No pro[ocol survrys or other detailed surveys \rere conducted fur any species, although many endemic. rare. threaened, and endangered species, and species of concern arc known to inhabit anJ utilize the project site. instead, the biological resources section of the DEIR for the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan relies heavily on a literauve review including the Calilbmia Depanment of Fish and Gamc'z Calilirmia Natural Diversity Data Base. DEIR Appx. B at B-8. This is inadequate. As adisdaimcr for the CNDD6 kn'thc WilJlifc and Habitat Data Analysis Branch of DFG ~ warns: Important notice on the Proper use of the CNDUB: The CNDDB ...will nor is irsel{ oreer nc~ reyuiremerrtc of N~c C'ulijornin Enrirruunemol Qualilt' :I n (CEQ.U, nod it does nor replnn• nc~• neer! Jw cunducrin~ field nark. ('V DUB daldbaSC al ltttn[`w•\yw' (1fL'.ca. L'OV. N-hdab%bllllfmrChad notice.html (emphasis added 1. Tbc DEIR dues nut eccn attonpt to provide meaningful information regarding the D10 potcnnal impacts ol'the Artowhead Springs Specific Plan on endemic, rare, threatened and endangered species. For example, the DEIR fails to properly identify and analyze the replacement o(the natural riparian areas along Waterman Canyon and Wcst Twin Creek with a gulf course and impact. from the proposed creek realignment. Instead the DEIR defers identification and analysis of these critical issues to the be done gJrer project approval as part of obtaining grading permits. See DEIR at 53-50. The DEIR completely fails to discuss the impacts of the realignment of the creek and loss of native riparian babitat although the UEIR notes that many species use this area. For example, there is a high probabiliry that the Mountain ydlu\vIcggcd tiog may be found anJ a nwdcram probability that the California red-legged frog may M: found along Wcst Twin Crcck~R':ucrman Canyon and East Twin Creek. See Table 5.3-1. D11 .4s a "mitieation measure" the DEIR calls for 50 foot setback zmte and 25 foot buffer zones UEIR Comments Fur Sun Bentarduw GP Update, ArtowheaJ Spnngs SP, and University SP September 8.2W5 Paac 4 of I? Page 2-38 ~ The Planning Center September 2005 2. Response to Comments nlonq rhr realigned meek but providez no basis I'or this choice of mitigation measure or any evidence that it will be cRcetive. DEIR at 53-5U. The City is aucmpting to rum CEQA on its p~ T head by proposing mitigation measures for impacu to species mu have not yet been properly eoM identi0ed or analyzed. r\s another trample, although the DEIR acknowledges that the project would impact nearly all of the Southcm W illtns• riparian habitat, a majority of the Sycamore Willow w[wdlands. and a large area of Chemise chapartal on si[e, the DEIR completely fails analyze these mtpacts or provide any altcmatives to avoid them. DEIR at 5,3.41 Table 5.3-5. Again, the D12 DEIR simply adopts mitigation mcasures that are nest specific but mthcr depend on defcaed identification and analysis of impacts. DEIR at 5.3-48 to SU. This is entirely improper. The UEIR acknowledges that the thremened Santa Ana Sucker ("SAS") may occur within the site of the Artowhcad Springs Speeifrc Plan bu[, tether than require site-specific surveys, and identify and analyze impacts to this species, the DEIR simply states that it is "unknown" whether SAS occurs on site. UEIR at 5.3-42. The DElR then simply concludes that "if' the SAS occurs on site "then constmction would potemially impact [this] species." DEIR at 5.343. CEQA reyuircs more. Even for speckkJ dace which is krwun to occur on the project site the DEIR D13 provides na mraningl'ul analysis ol'rhe impacts of the projtxt. DEIR at 5.3.4? to 43. As another example. although nc~ project may impact the threatened thread-leaved brodiaea known to occur on site (DEIR at 5.3 ~G), the DEIR provides no specific information about the number or totem of these plants err nc~ porattial impacts to them-relying instead mt gencrel statements and, again, improperly Deferring specific runty requirements and analysis until after project approval. DE1R at 5.3-42 l'he UEIR also fails to identify or propcTly analyze impacts to other species including. but not lunittd to. Sun Gabriel slender salamander. Arroyo Toad, Califomia red-legged frog. \9ountain ycllox• Icggcd frog, San Diego I joined lizani, Coronado skink, orange throated whiptail. Coastal x•estcm whiptail. Rosy boa. Coast patch-nosed snake. Nnnhcm red-diamond mitlcsnake. White-tailed kite, Nonhern harticr, Cooper's hawk, bald eagle, golden eagle, Black D14 Switi, Loggerhead shrike. California Gnatcatcher, Southcm Califomia tutus-crowned sparrow, TuwnxnJb xtstcm big-cared bat, PnlliJ bat, Spotted bat. Califomia mastilT bat, Big frcrneikJ bat, Sun Diego Dlack-tailed jackrabbit, Los Angeles pocket mouse. San Bemanlinu kangaroo rnt. Nunhxestcm San Uiego pocket mouse, Sun Diego woodrat. Nelson's bighorn sheep, and minty ~Imu species known to occur me site. 1"hc lack of specific information regarding rare, ihrcateneD, anD endangered species in the DEIR is critical. Fur example, the DEIR starts that nc~ Mounmin yellow-IeggeJ frog pray occur in the \VCS[ Twin C'rcek/Waterman Canyon area, it the Mountain yellow-Icggcd fmg is present that I:mt is exrtcmdy important ue the analyses of the pmjcct's impacu. The most recent D75 publuhcd numbers of Mountain yellow-Icggcd liogs in Southcm Califomia is estimated to be 79 adult frogs. G7 Fcd. Rcg. at 44384. The USF\VS statcJ that "nc~ few remaining occurrences of this species in smrtbrm Califomia are now ur risk of extinction Any activity that results in ai~mrbance to the species or which may hams eggs, tadpoles or adult Dogs could negatively affect the conunucd survival of the UI'S." t</. It is therefore eztremcly probable that if the UEIR Comments Fbr San Bernardino GP UpJatc, Artowhcad Springs SI', and Lnivcrsity SP September 8, ?005 Paec 5 of 12 Gerrrral Plan Update and Arra'iated Spetijir Plant Frnal EIR City ojSan Bernardino • Page 1-39 2. Response to Comments Mountain ycllow'-Icggtd frog is present or if the site contains habitat for the spccics that could aid in its recovery, any level of habitat disturbance may jeopardize the continued existence of the D15 spccics. Given the precarious situation with this spccics, protocol suncys must be conducted to ~Ot detcmtine whether the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan site contains occupied habitat or cssemial habitat for the Mountain ycllow-legged frog. Punher, one of the potential causes of decline of the Mountain ycllow•-legged frog (and many other npariau spccics) is the developntem of dams and water diversiots in many of the major streams Ilowing through the Southern California mountains historically inhabited by [hc specicc h7 Fed. I(eg. ;tt 44383. In addition, wildfires have decreased habitat for this and other spccics. Se•c• Exhibit U, Impacts of dte 20U? Southern California Wildfires on Four Federally Listed Spccics. Given the increasing probability of drought in the region due to glottal warning D78 and other !'actors, the retention of water in streams that provide suitable breeding habitat fur the Mountain ycllow-IcggcJ (rog and other riparian species would be an imponam conservation measure. Howcstt, the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan calls for a natural stream to be realigned and water to be removed from the streams thmugh out the site and held in reservoirs or wtdcrground basins. See Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan at 121-124; UEIR, Figure 5.19. The impacts of such diversions on riparian-dependent species, including the Mountain ycllow-legged crag and other. must be more .epeeiJirallp addressed in the DEIR. Despite the fact that impacts to biological resources have barely been idrmified and none have been properly analyzed, the DIi1R makes the unfounded and astonishing assMion that 'pnten[ial signifcant impacts associated with biological resources would be reduced to a level of Icss than significant and nu unaroidablc impacts would occur:' DEIR at 53-51. The CEQA Guidelines require a mandatory finding o(significancc where the project will. irrn•r nliµ D17 "substantially rcducc the habitat of a fish ur wildlife spccics: cause a fish m wildlife population to drug below self=sustaining levels: threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community: [orJ suhstamtally rcducc tht number or rcsttict the range of an cndangcrcd, rare, or threatened spceiet " 14 CCR ~ I SU65. Because, at minimum, the project will restrict movement of many spccics along the West Twin CaYk-Wah~mtan Canyon riparian corridor and inhibit access w these scarce water resources, a mandatory lnding of significance is required here. The DEIR's failure m properly identify and analyze the potential impacts of the .\rrnwhcad Springs Specific Plan un biological r~sourees renders the DEIR wholly inadequate. Morcoccr, the imposition ofgeneral mitigation measures based uu a lack of infomtation fails to D18 comply with C'F.Q.4 and the lack of meaningful analysis of alternatives that would avoid impacts to bological resources ako render the UEIR wholly inadequate. Lastly. the DEIR completely fails to Discuss cumulative impacts m biological resources as required by CEQA. 2. The Dk:IR fails m analyze impacts to \Vildlife Corridors. The Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan will interfere with wilJlifc movcmem and impair I D19 key hnkagcs within the San Dcmardino Moumains. The South Coast \Vildlands rcpon emidcd "South Coast Missing Linkages Project: A Linkage Ucsign fur the San Gabriel -San Bernardino UEIR Cutmucnu Fur San Bmnardino GP Update, Arrowhead Springs SI', anJ Unircrsity SP September S. ?003 Pauc 6 of I? Page 2-40 ~ The Planning Center September 2003 2. Response to Comments C'onncrtion ~ f"Linkage Design") r examines key linkages required for wilJlife conservation within the San Dcmurtlinu Mountains hased on careful scientific studies of key species and habitat requinrncnts. The Linkage Design spccilically calls for the lands along Highway I R and m AnowhcaJ Springs to be preserved as part of these essential linkages and for wildlife bridges ur overpasses m be n+nslructeJ along I Iighway I R. See Exhibit A, Linkage (ksiga, Figure S5; D20 Existing Infms[rucutrc (showing potential crossings) Figure 56. Unlike the DF-IR, the Linkage llesign lakes a scienific, consenation baseJ. approach to the IanJsrape and has determined several key areas that :ve critical to preservation and conservaiun of the biological resources in the area. Sec Exhibit B. Conscrv~ation Planning Approrch. The DEIR completely fails to aJJress the issues miscd in the Linkage Design. The DEIR's discussion of wildlife corridors faits to accurately identify the use of the project area by wilJlife and is not based on any recent site specific surveys conJucteJ in accordance with scientific protocols. Inevitably. the failure to properly identify the impacts also D21 Icads to a complete failure lu analyze the impacts on wilJlife conidors. Thc DEIR simply provides nn meaningful basis for decision makers or the public to evaluate the impacts that the Anowhcad Springs Specific Plan would have on wildlife movement. Lastly, the inclusion of"priv~alc' hiking traik throughout the project site is puzzling given That the area is surrounded by National Forest lands. Srr Atrow'hcad Springs Specific Plan I D22 at v7, Ho\v avill [hose trails remain "pnvatc'"! If fencing or gates are intrndcd to be built around the open spare in the eastern punion of the property the impacts of those barriers on u~ildlitc comJors and movcmcm must be idcntificJ anJ evaluated as well. B. The DEIR Fails'Co Identify And Analyze "1'he Full Range Of Ulrec4 Indirect. And Cumulative Impacts To Surface )ti'ater Resources and Water Qualih~. Thc DF1R also faiLc ur pmpcrly iJcntify and analyze impacu lu surface water resources anJ uatcr quality. Thc Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan calls fur rcalibming a tteek anJ cunsmrcting miles of inliasrructure to arcommsxlate the ase of over 1,559,W0 gallons ol'water per Jay on the project site. Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan at I?2. The plan calls for utilizing nearly all of the on-site water availahle in the creeks and potential on-site wells -simply assuming that the current owner has the rights to use nearly all of this uatcr. ,Srr DEIR, Appx. I. D23 \\~:uer Supply Assessment, at I-R to 10. However, if that water has not previously been pw to heno0cial use on the project site that assumption tray be challenged. Oddly. the UEIR incluJes as a nrnigntion nrcasurr ensuring that all uatcr rights have bcrn gmnteJ through the State bel'urc :gtpn+eal ol'the tint Icntalivc unc[ map. DEI Ii aI 5. Li-10. Again, the City is putung the earl bctwc the horsy. under CEQA the City must ensure dtat adcyuate a•attt supplies arc availahlc anJ mus[ identify and analyze the impacts ul'that water use on the em~in>nment bejnre• approving the spccilic plan for the prgi.rt. i Thc entire Report is incoryxrmlcJ herein by rcfcrcnec and is available for Juwnload al han:~sra~ilJlands ore mic ~inel~nkr'r ~txrn ~'Jo rnloaA c:m"ab unrbem•uJinn lion. Two sections arc attached hereto as Exhibits A and H. UI~IIt Connncntc For San UcrnarJino GP Update. AtmwhcaJ Springs SP, anJ Unrvcrsity SP ~rptcmbcr 8. ?005 )'u_t' nl I] Genera! Plarr Update and Atsaciated Sprrifrr Plant Fina! E/R City ojSan Bernardino ~ Pagt 2-4f 2. Response to Comments The DEIR Joes not provide any meaningful analysis of the impac~ that the use of all of the available nn-site water will have on the surrounding emironmcnt. Bttause the DEIR fails to D24 pruviJr [his critical infunnatiun anD analysis it is inadequate. The UEIR aclutoa•Icdgcs that the project wuulD increase water demand by approximately 3.035 acre-feet at boil)-ow including both domestic and irrigation uses. DEIR at 5.15-6. In Drought years this demand will far outstrip the wmer resources on site and the propose) use of the Hunker Hill sub-basin for "balancing" high and low w•atcr years "has not been proven or D25 appmccd nor is their ccnainty regarding quantities u(wmcr gmtucd through the exercise of water rights." DEIR at 5.15-R. The DEIR also fails to analy-ec the impacts of using the Bunker Hill .ub-basin as a reservoir for prgjcct water ur the cumulativo impacts o(tho water cxtrac[ions requireD by this project when compureD with other projectc in the arcs. As a final fallback the DEIR contentplaus the use of imported State tVater Project water bm provides no analysis of the environmental impacts either locally or statewide. DEIR. Appx. 1, Water Supply Assessment. at 1-24. Indeed, the UEIR fails to acknowledge that in drought years these anJ other offsitc supplies may also be unccnain. Moreover, the imponcD water from the State tVater Project is ut a far lower quality than local crcck u~ateq this fact is rreither acknowledged nor analyzed. As a recent repon from a coalition of Southem Califomia water districts nmeD, due to the increased salinity of imported water supplies from the Sacmnrento D26 Dcha anJ Colorado River, use of such water "may nM be a viable strategy within a 20-year horimn (or Southem C;rli(amia." Exhibit C. Southem Califomia Salinity Coalition, 21102-2003 Strategic Action Plan. It is irresponsible for the City [n approve any emitlMnen[s for housing anJ hotrls. conlcrenee centers or other rnmnxrcial enterprises where the water supply is unecnain. It is cyan moo egregious for the City to approve the use of water anJ the destruction of a crcck anD the rratite riparian ecosystem in Waterman C'anyvm'West Twin Creek (or a golf course. In addition. the llE1R lads to iJentitj• and analyze the potential impacts from construction and operation of the propose) water oeatment plants, w•atcr Distribution system, pumping stations. and resen•oirs. Such impacts may include, but arc not limited to. loss of riparian areas. D27 creation ol'wastc, noise from pump operation, noise Gum conswction o(the project, pn,viding habitat anD opponunitics (or invasive species offish, amphibians, anD plants to become establisheD that may predate upon or Displace rnJwnic species. U- The UEIR Fails Tu Analyze A meaningful Range of Feasible.\Iternatices. An EIR is required to describe a range of reasonable altentatives t6 the project, which woulD fcasihly auxin nwst of its basic objectives but wuu1D avoid or subswntially lessen its significant c((ccts. 14 CCR ~ 15126.6(x). The C'iry has a sabstamive Duty to adopt feasible, environmentally superior almmatives. Pub. Res. C'odc § 21003: 14 CCR i5 15002fa)13), D28 I502I(a)(2). A IeaD agency cannot ahdicatc this Duty unless substantial evidence suppems a finding that the altcmalive is inl'easiblc. Ste. e•.g.. Ciri_rns n/'Go%rn f'olky v Rrwrd of Supen nun, 197 Cal..1pp. 3d 1167, i 181 (19881. UEIR Comments For San HcntarJmo GP Update. ArrowheaJ Springs SP, and University SI' September 8, 2005 Pace 8 of I'_ Page 2-42 ~ Tile Planning Center September 2005 2. Response to Comments The DEIR fails to describe a reasonable range of ahemativezs to the Arrowhead Springs Spccilic Plan. Thr lack of a reasonable range of ahcmativ~s is tied to both tlrc failure to properly D8 idcnuly ;md analyu environmental impacts of the pmjcc[, panicularly impacts to biological eOnt resources, and the overly narrow "project objectives" which the City has imposed on the project. Thr Df:IR fails to describe cccn unc project alternative that woulJ include less houstng. Moreover, the su called "Wetlands Avoidance Alternative,"which would climina[c the golf course -the project component that the DEIR admits will cause the greatest impacts to biologecal resources - is rolcctcd because it "tails w fully realize the goal of creating a uniyuc and resort [sic[ and the objective to create both passive anJ active recreational opportunities." D29 DEIR at 7--??. 'this makes no sense both as written and as one can only suppose it was intendrJ to be written. There arc myriad opportunities for active recreation in the Arrowhead Springs area that do nm require the sacrifice of an entire riparian corridor and the species that depend on it. The City cannot define its project objective so narrowly that it undcnnines meaningful CEOA review, puuing a gulf course in a riparian corridor is neither a proper nor a xnsible project oblccuve. 'I'hc DEIR also fails to include any alternative based on presenation of the currently undeveloped portions of the site and inclusion of all or part of the site in ongoing eflbrts to D30 mmnmin and restore essential wilJlil'e corridors in the San Bernardino Mountains. The ahemativcs analysis in the UEIR muu be revised to include a mcaningfid range of alternatives thm avoid the covironmental impacts of the Armwhcad Springs Specific Plan once thox impacu arc properly idcntifird and anah~zed. (/~~g/~\ E. The DEIR Fails to Properly Identify and Analyze: Dtany Other Project Impacts. ~I~/ In addition m the inadcquarics noted above, the DE[R fur the Arrowhead Spri» gs Spccilic Plan !ails to adeyuately identify and analyze impacts to local air quality and traffic in Amta~hcad Springs that will occur with build-out ol'the project. The DEIR also minimizes the D31 growth-inducing impacu of the project which will set a precedent for large-scale developmcm in the San Dcmardino Mountains by replacing a very small resort community with large intensive dcvclopmcnt. Moreover, the ill-concciv~d replacement of a riparian area Dy a gulf course will xt a precedent that other developers may seek to repeat. The DEIR also fails to properly identity and analyze the increased risks of lire due to build-out of the Arrmvhcad Springs Spccilic Plan, to provide meaningful altematires that will i avoid Ihcsc risks. or mitigation measures that address these specific risks. In addition, the I increased risk o(lire Jue to housing and commercial uses will tall disproponiomlely on National D32 Forest lands and the species that depend on them-Ihcsc areas have alrcaJ}• been heavily impacted by fire in recent years. The financial vests of fire fighting in the National Forest will be home by the public nt large, not by nc~ pmjcea proponent. Thex impacts need to be fully idcntifird and anal}•zed in an independent F.IR for the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan. UEIR Commenu Fur San Dcmardino CiP Update, Amwhead Springs SP, and University SP September S. 200i Paac 9 of I? II' i Genera! Plan Update and Attociated Spetifrc Plant Final EIR City of San Bernardino • Page 2-43 2. Response to Comments Lastly, the DEIR does not even attempt to analyze the cumulative impacts of the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan. While reliance nn a summary of projections for a cumulative impacts analysis in a general plan update may be appropriate, it is not appropriate for a project such as the Artowhcad Springs Specific Plan. Sec DEIR at 4.6. While the City's dairc to loft the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan inm the gcucral plan update is unJerstandable, the City D33 camun use this procedure to avoid the required CEQA analysis. The cumulative impacts of the built-out of the Artoehcad Springs Specific Plan must M: analy'zeJ along with ocher projects in the area that will similarly impact wilJlife corriJurs and bioloeical remurecs in the arcs, water resources, ant other environmental resources. The cumulative impacts analysis cannot only incluJe projects within the City and its Sphere of Inllucnce. The failure W properly analyze the cumulative impacts of the ArrowheaJ Springs Specific Plan alone render the DEIR inadequate. III. TIIE CI'll' SHOULD PREPARE AN I\UEPENDEN'f EIR FOR THE A12RO~YIIEAD SPRINGS SPECIFIC PLAN; FAILING THAT. THE CITY SHOULD REVISE AND RE-CIRCCLA'fE THE ENTIRE DEIR. 6ecausc the DEIR [ails to provide detailed site-specific information rcyuired by CEQA I D34 regarJing the Artowhcad Springs Specific Plan. the City should withJmw the DEIR as to that project and prepare a revised, independent, sul}iciently detailed EIR for the Artmvhead Springs Specific Plan. In the altcmativc, if the City chooses to keep the combined DEIR structure for the City General Plan Update, the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan, ant the University Specific Plan, it must revise ant rc-circulate the entire DEIR fur public review and comment. A Icad agency must re-circulate an EIR for 1'unher public comment under any of four circunsstances: (1) Whcn the new infom,atiun shows a new, substanial emironmemal impact resulting either from the proieYt or from a mitigation measure: \Vhen the new information showsa substantial increase in the severiq• oC an envirrn,mental Der _ impact, eseepl that recirculation would nut be required if mitigaiun that reduces the impact to insignificance is aJupted: (31 Whcn the new information shows a Icasible altcmativc or mitigation measure that clmrly woulJ lessen the em•ironmenWl impacts of a project and the project proponent declines w adopt [he mitigation measure; or (i) Wnen me drag EfR was ':co fw,Jamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature" that pubnc comment on the draft EIR wax essentially meaningless. CEQA Guidelines I SOfiS.S. Dascd m, the commenu above, it is clear that the E[R must be n-drafted xnd re- I circulmcd. Conditions 11 (2), and (3) anovr will be met by meaningful and adequate discussion D36 of the Arrow•hcaJ Springs Specific Plan's impacts. mitigation measures, and cumulative impacts. The combined effttt of these omissions makes it clear that the fourth condition has alw been met. DEIR Comments For San f3emarJino GP Update. Artmvhead Springs SP. and University SP September g. ?005 Page 10 of 12 Page 2-44 ~ The Planning Center September 2005 2. Response to Comments 1\'. CONCLUSION - In sum, the current DEIR has not adequately disclosed, analyzed, avoided, minimind, anJ miueatcd the cnvirmtmcnwl impacts of the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan. because of D37 the Jocumeni s shortcomings, fie puhlic and Decision makers cannot make informed decisions abom the proposed Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan's costs in areas including biological resources. water resaurccs, water quality, and air quality. Should the City wish to move farwaal with the Arrowhead Springs Spccitc Plan anJ annexation of Artowhcad Springs into the City, the Ccntcr looks forward to reviewing a rcwiscd. independent EIR for the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan. Thank you very much for your cansideratiott o(ihese comments. Sincerely. 'sr Lisa Belcnky Center for Biological Diversity List nt' Exhibits Exhibit A: Penrod, ct al.. South Coast Missing Linkages Project: A Linkage Design for the San Gabrel -San Bcmardino Connection. South Coast W ildlands Project. 2004, Linkage Design Exhibit 6: Penrtxl, et al., South Coast Missing Linkages Project A Linkage Design for the San Gabriel -San Bcmardino C'onncction, South Coast WilJlands Project 20(14, Conscrvatian Planniu_s Appnwch. Exhibit C: Sauthem California Salinity Coalition, 2002 ? W3 Strategic Action Plan, South~Ktt C'alilurnia Salinity Coalitioo in Aliiliation with tfic National N'atcr Research Instiwte. Exhibit D: Bradley and Band. Impacts of the _'003 Southern C'alifomia Wildfires on Four Federally Listed Species: Quino clxtkerspot butterlly, Mountain yellow'-legged frog, Coastal Cafilomia gnatcatchcr, Leas[ Hell's vireo, Ccntcr fur Biological Uivcrsity. CC frvithmn exhibits) Kathleen Rollings-McDonald, Exccmivc O17iccr San Dcmardino Counq• LAFCO I'3 \VCSt Filih Saect. Second Floor San Bcmardino, CA 92x15-0440 Field Supervisor USFNS- Ecological Services DEIR C'onvncnts Fur San Bcmardino GP Update, Arrmvhead Sprngs SP, and University SP September k. 2005 rata 1 I ar 12 Genera! Plan Update and Artaciated Specific Plant Final EfR City ojSan Beraardino ~ Page 2-45 2. Rerponce to Commentf Carlsbad Field Office 6010 Hidden Yallcv Road Carlsbad. CA 9201 I Aun: Karin Clcarv-Rost Cahfomia Departmcm of Fish and Game Los Alamitos Administrative Oflicc 4665 Lampson Avenue. Swtc J Los Alamitos, C'A 907?0 Aun: Curt Tauchcr, Regional Manager. Region 6 Steve Loc. Forest Biologist San Bcmardino National Forest Supervisors Oflicc 1824 S. C'ommercenter Circle San Bcmardino. CA 92408 sloc!~i ls. fcd.us DFIR Comments Fur San Bernardino GP Update, Arrowhead Springs SP, and University SP September 8.2005 Pave 12 of 12 Page 2-46 ~ The Planning Center SePtenrber 2005 2. Response to Comments The Exhibits A, B, C, and D cited and/or listed on page 11 of Letter D from the Center for Biological Diversity were received via a-mail in electronic iormat as an attachment to the letter and are available in electronic format on the City of San Bernardino website (www.sbcity.org) or in hard copy at the Development Services Department of the City located at 300 North "D" Street. II General Plan Update acrd Auaiated Specific Plant Final EIR City of Sari Bernardino ~ Page 2-47 i 2. Response to Comments This page intentionalty IeR blank. Page 2-48 ~ The Planning Center September 2005 2. Response to Comments D. Response to Comments From Center for Biological Diversity, Dated September 8, 2005 D-1 The Ciry of San Bernardino has complied with CEf]A Guidelines Sections 15120 to 15132 with regard to content of an EIR by providing distinctly different and complete impact analysis of all elements for the General Plan Update separate from the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan. As stated in Section 15146 of the CEQA Guidelines the degree of specficity required in an EIR should correspond to the degree of specificity of the underlying activity. Section 1.2.2, Type and Purpose of this DEIR fully explains that this document is a Program EIR for the purpose of implementation of the General Plan Update and implementation of a development plan for the Arrowhead Springs area. A program level EIR is the appropriate level of documentation forthe Arrowhead Springs Specfic Plan and Section 15168 of the Guidelines explains thoroughly the function of a program EIR. The level of analysis provided in the DEIR for the Anowhead Springs Specfic Plan is commensurate with a program level EIR where project level specificity (site specific design and construction detail) is not completely known. As tentative tract maps or subsequent site specific projects are submitted to the City, a review will be conducted to determine if they are within the scope of the certified program EIR in accordance with Section 15182 of the Guidelines. A "reasonable" range of altemafives were presented and analyzed for the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan per Section 15126.6, for the purposes of avoiding or reducing the significant environmental impacts of the project, which were determined to be the loss of riparian habitaUweOands and increased traffic. Mitigation measures for biological resource impacls have also been developed to minimize significant impacts and are enforceable through permit conditions, such as the requirement to "comply with project-specific permit conditions and requirements developed through consultation with USFWS and CDFG' before issuance of grading permits as stated in Mitigation Measure AHS 5.3-1 on page 5.3-48. The mitigation measures for impacts in the DEIR indicate responsible parties, minimum performance criteria and timing which form the basis for enforcement. For these reasons and others stated in responses that follow, the City concludes that the DEIR does provide an adequate analysis of the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan at a program level commensurate with the degree of specificity included in the specific plan. D-2 This comment and comments made elsewhere in this letter assert that a revised DEIR should be re- circulated or an independent draft EIR should be prepared for the Arrowhead Springs Specfic Plan due to lack of analysis of impacts of the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan or an appropriate range of alternatives or enforceable mitigation measures for the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan. As stated in comment response D-1, a program level analysis for all environmental subjects was prepared for the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan separate from the analysis of the General Plan Update but contained in the same document for efficiency. The format complies with the requirements of Section 15120 of the CEQA Guidelines to include an analysis of all environmental subjects of each project thus an independent EIR for Arrowhead Springs would not be necessary solely on the basis of format. Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines states four situations where re-circulation of an EIR would be required. In general, recirculation would be required if: 1) new information shows a new substantial impact, 2) new information shows a substantial increase in the severity of an impact unless mitigation reduces the impact to less than significant, 3) new information shows a feasible alternative or mitigation measure and the project proponent declines to adopt or 4) the DEIR is fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that public comment on the DEIR was essentially meaningless. Impact analysis of the Arrowhead Springs developmentwas based on a general development concept as described in Section 3.3.4.1, including a conceptual grading plan as shown in Figure 3.3-6. A program level analysis was conducted to the degree that development information was known with conservative assumptions about the extent of impacts. Given the General Plan L`pdate and Associated Specific Plans Final EIR City o(San Bernardino • Page 2-49 2. Response to Comments conceptual nature of the development plan, detailed scientifically valid surveys (focused surveys) were not considered warranted for a programmatic EIR. Court cases (Association of Irritated Residents et al., v. Counfy o/Madera et al. and Diamond H Dairy, Apri12003) have found that the lack of protocol level surveys does not in itself necessarily constitute a lack of adequacy in analysis. Field surveys were conducted on the Arrowhead Springs property and the biological resources report acknowledges that protocol level surveys were not conducted primarily due to seasonal restrictions. The field surveys along with extensive IRerature review, use of air photos and professional expertise and experience in the area conducting previous biological studies formed the basis for impact conclusions. For the reasons stated herein, none of the conditions requiring re-circulation of the DEIR have occurred, thus re-circulation is not necessary in accordance with Section 15088.5 of the CEOA Guidelines. Responses to concerns aboutthe range of alternatives and enforceable mitigation measures can be found in comment response D-t . D-3 See comment responses D-t and D-2. D-4 The DEIR did not defer identification and analysis of the impacts of the Arrowhead Springs development plan given the level of specificity required for a programmatic EIR. There was a broad, quantified approach to the analysis, appropriate for a program EIR that identified the extent of potential impacts based on the proposed development footprint. See comment response D-t for discussion of mitigation measures. D-5 As stated in comment response D-1, D-2 and D-4. D-6 The City agrees that this comment correctly describes the purpose of a Program EIR, which is the type of EIR that was prepared for the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan. For reasons stated in comment response D-1 and D-2 the City asserts that athorough environmental review in arcordance with CEQA was conducted commensurate with a programmatic EIR and the degree of specificity included in the specific plan. D-7 A portion of the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan currently lies within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of San Bernardino as shown on Figure 5.8-3. The remaining portion of the property is located within the sphere of influence (SOI) of the City as shown in Figure 5.8-1, Existing General Plan. Decisions on the extent of any City's SOI are determiged by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), giving consideraton to the potential of annexation of those areas into the City boundaries. Therefore, a decision on the logical extension of the City boundary has previously been made in favor of the potential annexation of Arrowhead Springs. Adoption of the Specific Plan will act as pre-zoning for an application to LAFCO for annexation of the remaining property. The DEIR along the comments and responses contained in this Final EIR will be used as resource information for the application. Comment responses D-t and D-2 support the City's finding that the DEIR is adequate. D-8 The plan of development for the Arrowhead Springs area takes into consideration the fact that it is surrounded by the National Forest by setting aside approximately t ,400 acres of open space and confining the most intensive uses to a centralized area where development already exists to avoid impact to the biological resources of the surrounding lands. The Specific Plan contains numerous development standards, which will be adopted by resolution and enforceable bylaw, that provide for the protection of the natural resources of the area including a requirement to preserve areas having "biological significance" (Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan, p.78), a mobility plan that avoids impact to drainages through use of bridges and reduction of noise through use of electric vehicles. A Page 2-50 ~ The Planning Center September 2005 2. Response to Comments thorough discussion of habitat loss (420.2 acres) can be found in Section 5.3.3.2, pages 5.3-41 to 5.3.45 of the DEIR. The Specific Plan and DEIR through development standards and mitigation measures, has properly addressed potential impacts to the surrounding forest lands. D-9 See discussion in comment response D-1 and D-2 on the adequacy of the DEIR with regard to protocol surveys. D-10 The DEIR has taken a conservative approach (commensurate with a Program EIR) in the analysis of impacts to Waterman CanyonNVest Twin Creek riparian area by assuming the full extent of impact to potential jurisdiction waters of the United States Army Corp of Engineers (USAGE) and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) as described on page 5.3-43 and 5.3-44. The extern of jurisdictional waters is shown on Figure 5.3.4. The impacts have been determined to the extent possible given that the final design of the golf course area has not been determined using the full eMent assumption. Mitigation measures prescribe a minimum standard for mitigation and provide performance standards to ensure impacts are adequately mitigated. D-11 Mitigation measures cited here establish a "minimum"standard for protection commensurate with a Program EIR. Listing the probability of occurence as "high° and °medium" for these species was conservative in keeping with a program level analysis. Page B-34 of Appendix B, Biological Resources states that populations of Mountain yellow-legged frogs were "identified more than 30 years ago, and may no longer persist along these drainages." Given that Waterman Canyon in particular has been altered considerably by recent flooding events and construction of the inland feeder project by the Metropolitan Water District, the probability listing in Table 5.3-4 is very conservative. This mitigation measure along with measures AHS 5.3-1, AHS 5.3-2A and AHS 5.3-28 provide for consultation with resource agencies who will determine the detailed mitigation program. D-12 The analysis as stated before is commensurate with a Program EIR, where exact details of development are not known. The extent of impacts in this regard is very conservative. The development standards for the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan require restoration of natural vegetation (p.78) and mitigation measures have been provided that assure a minimum standard with exact details to be negotiated with resource agencies. Section 7, Alternatives, provides a discussion of alternatives including a wetland avoidance alternative which would preserve the riparian vegetation to the greatest extent possible. D-13 See comment response D-1 and D-2 as to level of specificity of analysis required for a Program EIR. D-14 See comment response D-1 and D-2 as to level of specificity of analysis required for a Program EIR. D-15 See comment response D-t and D-2 as to level of specificity of analysis required for a Program EIR and comment response D-11. D•16 No damming of East Twin Creek is proposed as part of the proposed projectfor Arrowhead Springs. As discussed in Section 3,3.4.3, In/rasfrucfure, the exact location of the main channel of East Twin Creek has not been determined and is known to have shifted due to flooding events. Impacts have been assessed on the best approximation of its location. As indicated in the text in this section the hydrologic and wetland function of these drainages would be restored to approximate the °natural" location of the main channel while taking into consideration loss of habitat by replacing it and prevention of flooding. D-17 See comment response D• t and D-2 as to level of specificity of analysis required for a Program EIR and adequacy of analysis. General Plan Update and Auociated Sperifir Plan) Fina! E!R City of San Bernardino ~ Page 2-SI 2. Recponae to Comments D-18 See comment response D-1 and D-2 as to level of specificity of analysis required for a Program EIR and adequacy of analysis. D-19 The DEIR examined the impacts of development within the property boundaries of the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan with regard to wildlife corridors, taking into consideration that the development has no control over existing roadways adjacent to and through the property that may have already affected wildlife corridors. The analysis does note on pages 5.3.44 through 5.3-45 that impacts to wildlife corridors would be partially off-set by the preservation of over 70 percent of the property as open space including Strawberry Creek which will not be affected by any of the developmem. It further states that habitat fragmentation would not be substantial for most of the project since most of the development would take place in areas previously developed. The Specfic Plan does take into consideration wildlife corridors by providing bridges over water courses and canyons and culverts (which can be seen in conceptual locations on Figure3.3-10) to avoid blockage of wildlife linkages and drainages. The DEIR does identify the impacts to wildlffe corridors along Waterman Canyon as significant given the conservative approach to analysis commensurate with a Program EIR. Mitigation measures (AHS 5.3~A) with appropriate specificity have been developed for a Program EIR level analysis. D-20 See comment response D-19. D-21 See comment response D-20. D-22 The private hiking trails identified in the Specific Plan refer to existing dirt fire roads within the property that continue beyond the properly and circulate throughout the canyons and mountains. These roads are primarily maintained by the Forest Service for forestry patrol and fire-fightlng. Access to these roads from the Arrowhead Springs property will be restricted through management of the development without the need for fences or gates. Limiting general access by the public will minimize disturbance to existing wildlffe and potential damage to forest resources from motorized vehicle. D-23 Impacts to surface water resources have been analyzed in Section 5.7, Hydrologyand Water Oualily and in Section 5.15, Utiliffes and Service Systems. On page 5.15-2, under the heading Water Suppy is a description of the water rights which are further detailed in Appendix I, Water Suppty Assessment These water rights have been put to beneficial use and are available for use by the project as stated on Page 3-43 of the DEIR under the section titled Water Sources and documented in Appendix I. Because the amount of available on-site water is variable the analysis was conservative to look at worst case draught years and "average" flows but concludes that even under those circumstances there would be adequate water supplies (page 5.15-8). The State has the authority to limit the quantity of water to be appropriated for the protection of the environment. The mitigation measure was intended to assure the City that no limit had been placed on the quantities of water appropriated. For clarification, mitigation measure AHS 5.15-1 on page 5.15-10 is herby modified as follows: AHS 5.15-1 Prior to approval of the first Tentative Tract Map, evidence shall be provided to Public Works/Engineering to confirm the avallabJllty and quantity of existing tpeEapprepriate water rights pave-beeq~granteA through the State and that the drinking water system has obtained all appropriate operating and design permits through the Calffomia State Department of Heath Services. Page 2-52 ~ The Planning Center Septenrbcr 2005 2. Response to Comments 0-24 As stated above impacts from use of on-site water have been analyzed in Section 5.3, Biological Resources, Section 5.7, Hydrology and Water Quality and in Section 5.15, Utilities and Service Systems at a program level. See comment response D-1 and D-2 regarding specificity of analysis for a Program EIR. D-25 As stated in paragraph 2 on page 5.15-8, only under extraordinary circumstances does the possibility exist that water would be extracted from the Bunker Hill sub-basin that is not accounted for by "banking" excess water from high flow years. In an average year, 650 acre-feat would need to be obtained from the banked water in the basin and the analysis here is very conservative. Given that high water flow in West Twin Creek has been as much as 10,700 acre feet per year, close to 6,665 acre-feet of water could be banked in the Basin in a single year after the average demand is satisfied. It is unlikely that there would be a need for obtaining water in the Basirt that is not under the ownership of the mutual water companies supplying the development or from the State Water project. Impacts from cumulative water demand in the Basin can be found in Section 5. t 5.1.3 as part of the General Plan Update analysis. D-26 See comment response D-25 above. D-27 The conceptual grading footprint shown in Figure 3.3-6 formed the basis for the extent of impacts including vegetation removal. All utilities and facilities were assumed to be located within the grading footprint, thus afl construction impacts including noise and ak for those facilities were accounted for in the respective sections of the DEIR where appropriate. Operational impacts from these facilities were also included using conservative assumptions commensurate with the specificity of a Program EIR. D-28 Alternatives were selected on the basis of significant impacts which were determined to be biological resource impacts and traffic with the associated impacts of noise and air quality. The reduced intensity alternative would have reduced traffic by 38% or 9,339 average daily trips (ADT) at full build- out. Section 15126.6 of the CEOA Guidelines states that "an EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project." A reduced housing altemative was not selected because housing produces far less traffic impact than commercial development. The total residential component of the project represents only 30% of the ADT. Also the development footprint for the housing was far smaller than that of the golf course or commercial component; therefore, a reduced housing alternative would not have diminished the level of impacts to the extent that the reduced intensity and wetland avoidance alternatives would. Please refer to comment responses D-1 and D-2 regazding a "reasonable range of alternatives." D-29 The first objective of the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan as stated on Page 3-8 of Section 3.2.3 is: "Create a unique and economicalty viable mixed-use resort and residential living environment that utilizes the existing natural and historic resources to the greatest extent possible." (Italics added for emphasis.) The second objective is to preserve and enhance the historic hotel and spa and make them the centerpiece of the development. The second objective would not be possible without creating the viable mixed-use resort that includes a golf course to off-set the cost of historic restoration. A competitive luxury resort can not exist without the type of amenities that are planned for Arrowhead Springs. Additionally, the entire riparian corridorwill notbe sacrificed fora golf course as suggested here. As stated in comment response D-16, the hydrologic and wetland function of these drainages will be restored in conjunction with development ofthe golf course. These uses are not necessarily mutually exclusive. 0-30 As currently designed, the development preserves approximately 70% of the undeveloped portions of the site. Other than Waterman Canyon, wildlife corridors have been preserved with this plan of Genera! Plan Update and Arca-iated Specifrc Plant Final E!R Crty of San Bernardino ~ Page 2-53 2. Response to Comments development and the portion of the development that will be occupied by facilities is only about 100 acres larger than the existing facilities footprint. The wetland avoidance alternative takes into consideration the impacts to wildlife corridors in that area therefore is was not deemed necessary to provide an alternative that preserved more of the undeveloped area. D-31 Operational air quality impacts which assume full buildout can be found in Section 5.2.3.2 starting on page 5.2-18 and primarily summarized in Table 5.2-9. Traffic impacts can be found in Section 5.14.3.2 starting on page 5.14-30. The growth inducing impacts of the project are sufficiently detailed in Section 10 on Page 10-1. There are no other parcels within the jurisdiction of the City of San Bemardino and its sphere of influence located in the San Bemardino Mountains. Therefore, the City would have no control over other the growth of developments that may choose to locate in mountainous regions. As stated on Page 10-1 the infrastructure presented here is only sutficieM for this plan of development and any expansion beyond that would require an amendment and additional environmental documentation. See comment response D-16 for discussion of riparian areas. D-32 Section 5.12.1, Fire Protection and Emergency Services provides a complete analysis of impacts to fire services recognizing the need for fire fighting facilities to be located within the Arrowhead Springs development to reduce the threat of fire to the community and the forest lands and developing a mitigation measure (AHS 5.12-1) requiring facilities to be built. D-33 Since the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan area is within the SOI of the City of San Bernardino, tt is included in the summary of projections for the General Plan Update, which is considered an appropriate basis for analysis of cumulative impacts per Section 15130(b) (1) as stated on Page 46. D-34 See comment response D-1 and D-2. D-35 See comment response D-1 and D-2. D-36 See comment response D-1 and D-2. D-37 See comment response D-1 and D-2. Page 2-54 The Planning Center September200S 2. Response to Comments LETTER E -State Clearing House (1 page) ~r.wq! STATE OF CALIFORNIA ~ Governor's Office of Planning and Research .`~l . ~9aru.w' State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit Sran Wdrh .\mNd Dirmar Schx arzaegger Govcmar Scplcnrlwr9..005 ~~C~GOC7~~) Tcpi Rahhal •' ~ G~ati Ciry of San RcrrlJrd:Ml CI rY OF SAN BERNAflDINC 3(Nt VnrW D Srrttl. 3rd Floor pEVELOPMEAT SENVICfS Salt 13<rilardlnp. G\ 9:11 R•OOOI OEPANTA/ENT Sublen: Cin' of San Remardino Gerreul Plan Update and Associated Specific Plain EIR 10117: 201U11113'- Dear Terri Rahlul: "fhr Sutr Clcannghouse wbmnled thr shout rooted MaR FiR to selected start agrnciss fur review. 'she revrrw period duud un Septrmbtr 7, 2005, nd ru state agencin submitlevl commrnu by that dale. This Iettrr acknowledges dLtt }rou bare rnmplitd with Ilrr Sutc Clearinphousr rcrieu• requirements fm duR CnNmnmemal documents, pursuant to the Califnmia Em~irannnnul Qualiq~ Act. E7 Pletx toll the Sum Clcannuhoust at 1916 1 14 5-0613 if you love any questiortr regarding the cnvrolvnenul rcviru' process. if you haer a yurstion shoot tht abort-ruined projtct. please refer to the Icn-Jigs Sum Clmrinshousc number x'hrn conucMg this o0ia. linttrdr• ~ns Dircnor. Sun• Clraringhnuse 1a000E.N:Y. STRELR' P.O.aOX 30aa 9ACRAl1ENT0, CALiPORMA 95S323D46 TFS 191fi; 41SOfi1S PAX IPIfi)9a3.9018 rspr.opr.eapw i Genera! Plan Update and Addaiated Specific Plant Fina! E!R Ciry 6jSan Bernardrna ~ Page 2-SS i 2. Response to Comments This page IeR intentionally blank. I i, I i Page 2-56 ~ The Planning Center StQtember 2005 2. Response to Comments E. Response to Comments From California State Clearing House and Planning Unit, Dated September 9, 2005 E-1 This comment acknowledges that the City of San Bernardino has complied with the State Clearing House review requirements per CEOA and that no state agencies had submitted comments during the public review period. No response is necessary. Genera! Plan Update and Anaciated Specific Plant Fina! Ell City of San Bernardino ~ Page 2-57 2. Response to Comments This page left intentionaly blank. Ii { Page 2-58 ~ The Planning Center SeQtcmbe?2003 2. Response to Comments LETTER F Catifomia Department of Transportation {3 pages) ITiT'Ut (II IfOMS1A-tll'SCL A~\'IVIRY .AAA IttX:\Y\f-tliF,.t[Y _ ARVOI, DEPARTDIENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 8 PLANNING AND LOCAL ASSISTANCE IMS 7?I) J67 K'FST i" STREET, 6"FLOOR SAN BERNARDISO, CA 9:AILIAW F~~.~~~,~, PHONE 190v)]S)-1557 Nr mrrs~~ 1(1111 FAX (WM)) )Bt-541fi TTY IvIM71 J8t.6,iW September 12, 2005 City of San Bemardino Attention: Mrs. Terri Rahal Principal Planner Planning and Building Department 300 North D Street San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001 Dear Mrs. Rahal: Proposed Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan State Clearinghouse 200411 l 132 (OS-SBd- I S PM 9.15 +!-) The California Department of Transportation {Caltrans) has reviewed the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan and related environmental documents. The transmittal materials describe the original approved specific plan as approximately 1,350 dwelling units, hotel, office, commercial and golf courses on 1,916 acres. The site adjoins either side of State Route 18 (SR-I8) to west; to the south portions of the Waterman Flood Control Basin and then 40th Street; [o the north and east portions of the p~ San Bernardino National Forest. Duc to the number of dwelling units and other land uses that are proposed and that it abuts the SR-18right-of--way, we believe project developmrnt will impact existing State facilities. This is particularly true due to additional traffic on SR-I8 at the Arrowhead Road Intersection and south to State Route 30/I-210. We recommend that amendments to the specific plan consider the following design issues, studies and related specific plan amendments be undertaken or considered: . r-~(_ i~l;. D J I.; I i . thiJ "Cdewv ewpwr+.ROblli¢ xrou Ca/eorna ~,II1 JI JN::d NNANDINO Grurral Plan Update and AtSxiated Specific Plant Final E1R City ojSan Bernardino • Page 2-59 2. Response to Comments Mrs. Terri Rahal September 12, 2005 Page 2 Traffic Impact Mitigation: • Both the land use exhibit and the traftc impact study analysis appear to indicate that Arrowhead Road from SR-I8 will provide a major street correction to this development, however, no analysis of the 2007 and 2030 operational conditions, F2 signal warrant, taming movements etc appears to have been provided. This type of analysis is required. In this way the impacts of this development rosy be fully evaluated and effectively mitigated. • The Caltrans "Guide for [he Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies" (Guide), updated December 2002, states chat a Traffic Impact Study (T[S) may be needed when a project. "generates over 100 peak-hour trips assigned to a State highway facility". Since the anticipated traffic volume will greatly exceed the peak-hour trip thteshold, a F3 TIS that is prepared in accordance with the Guide and contains appropriate mitigation measures, should be provided for in the environmrntal document. A copy of the Guide can be downloaded at: htto~%iwww dot.ca eov/he!traffoos/devclooserv/oocrationalsvstems/reports • There are missing intersection taming movement volumes for several intersections. I F4 Please provide AM and PM peak hour voMmes for the year 2003, 2007, and 2030. • There are missing calculation sheets for Valencia Avenue and 30th Street and I F5 Valencia Avenue and 40th Street. • Year 2003 existing, year 2007, yeaz 2030 traffic volumes do not balance. Please I F6 check and balance the tam movements. • Provide traffic signal warrant study. I F7 Drainage ImQacts: • Existing capacity of affected State drainage systems cannot be exceeded. Should 100- year project runoff volumes be determined to exceed the maximum capacity of the existing State drainage facilities, construction of on-site detention basins, new Ft3 drainage systems or other impact mitigation will be required. I • Future review of project drainage design will includs an evaluation of runoff impacts to adjacent State Right-of Way (R/W). Where applicable, compliance with pertinent I F9 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)/water quality standards will be required. "fu4rum inprowt •oblrHan•u t'a((Iann" i Page 2-60 • The Planning Center September 2005 2. Rerpon.re to Commenta Mrs. Terri Rahal September 12, 2005 Page 3 Site Gradine: • Plans detailing slopes proposed (ur construction within or adjacent to existing State I F10 It/N' should be submitted w Caltrans for review prior to grading permit issuance. • Landscaping and irrigation of slopes may be required to provide adequate erosion comrot and to deter graffiti. Plant materials and irrigation devices selected for use I F11 may 6e subject to State standards. Preparation of landscape/irrigation plans for Caltrans review may also be required. • We appreciate the opportunity to offer comments concerning this project. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Mark Roberts, IGR/CEQA Liaison at (909) 383-2515 for assistance, Sincerely, '~ DANIEL KOPULSKY Office Chief Special Studies, IGR/CEQA Review c: Mark Roberts "Colnwu nnyrmr~ nrdd~ryu,ou CaflJonm General Plan Update and A.traciated Specijrr Plant Final EIR Ciry ojSan Bernardino ~ Page 2-61 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2-62 ~ The Planning Carter Scptember 2005 2. Response to Comments F. Response to Comments From California Department of Transportation, Dated September 12, 2005. F-1 This comment acknowledges receipt of DEIR and expresses concern over the potential for additional traffic on SR-18 at the entrance to Arrowhead Road and impact to SR30A-210. F-2 The existing Arrowhead Road from SR-18 will continue to provide access to the Site with the proposed development. However, with construction of a primary access road to the south from 40" Street, approximately 15% of project related trips would use the intersection of SR-1 B and Arrowhead Road - 5% destined to and from the south, and 10% destined to and from the north. This intersection will provide primary access to only 25%of project development by 2007 (i.e., Phase I or 2007 scenario), or approximately 7,500 daily trip generated from the project. The project's major access from 40" Street is expected to be in place prior to a trip generation threshold of 7,500 trips per day. The heaviest peak hour (PM peak hour in this case) trip generation under Phase i is estimated to be 516 trips (270 trips inbound, 246 trips outbound). Phase I development would include the renovation/redevelopment of an existing hotel, a chapel and a spring house as part of the commercial development. Trips assodated with these developments will not be considered new trips since the infrastructure is already designed and in operation to handle these trips. Therefore, the net new trips under Phase t development would not be large enough to have a significant impact at this location. Similarly, the 2030 scenario is expected to generate a total of approximately 2,075 trips during the heaviest PM peak hour (999 trips inbound, 1,078 trips outbound). Five percen! (5%) of these trips would amount to approximately 104 trips, induding trips that are not considered "new" trips. The critical movement from the iMersectionwill beleft-turn out, which will incude 5% of project related trips, or less than 100 net "new" trips. Therefore, a detailed study of this intersection was not deemed warranted. Sound traffic engineering judgment would not suggest signalization at this intersection, since SR-18 is on a downward grade from north to south and includes a prohibitive horizontal curvature at this location. From atraffic engineering viewpoint, it can be logically assumed that future traffic would find the proposed southern access to 40°1 Street more amactive to access the site in the event a potential impact materializes at the SR-18 access due to congestion. A detailed study of the location may be undertaken at that time when future traffic patterns are established and realistic mitigation measures can be identified. F-3 The Caltrans "Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies" updated December 2002 was reviewed and appropriately followed in preparing the traffic study for this project. As mentioned in response to Comment No. 2 atwve, the threshold of 100 peak hour trips is not expected to be exceeded by the project. However, based on specific details of the project, prevailing highway conditions, and the forecasted traffic volumes, it was determined that providing traffic counts for existing and future traffic conditions on SR-18 would adequately satisfy the Guide's requirements of a traffic study. These counts were provided in the study. F-4 The existing 2003 traffic counts of turning movements taken at all 14 study intersections are available for review and can be provided as needed. The 2007 and 2030 turn volumes are estimated based on existing turn volumes, ambient growth, related project information and SCAG traffic model runs. These estimated volumes were applied in calculating 2007 and 2030 V/C ratio, delays and level of service for the study intersections. These volumes are available in the level of service calculation sheets placed in the Technical Appendix of the traffic report. F-5 The missing calculation sheets for 14 intersections including the intersections with Valencia can be found in Appendix A of this FEIR document. Genera! Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans Final E!R City ojSan Bernardino ~ Page 2-63 2. Response to Comments F-6 The traffic volumes used in calculating level of service at the study intersections represent the heaviest hourly approach movements during the &hour peak period of a typical weekday. This was done to address the worst traffic scenario at each individual intersection. Two adjacent intersections may not experience the heaviest hourly volumes at the same hour because of varying traffic patterns of directional movemerris. Therefore, the volumes may not balance in most cases. Also, it should be noted that the traffic model utilized for this study is forecasting reduced trips at certain intersection locations because of proposed zone changes, land use modfications, network improvement, roadway reclassfication, etc. being considered to update the City of San Bernardino's General Plan. F-7 A traffic signal warrant study for the intersection of SR-18 and Arrowhead Road was deemed unnecessary because of reasons explained in comment response F-2 above. F-8 Comment is herby noted, included in the official environmental record of the proposed project, and will be forwarded to the appropriate City of San Bernardino decision makers for their review and consideration. F-9 Comment is herby noted, included in the official environmental record of the proposed project, and will be forwarded to the appropriate City of San Bernardino decision makers for their review and consideration. F-t 0 Comment is herby noted, included in the official environmental record of the proposed project, and will be forwarded to the appropriate City of San Bernardino decision makers for their review and consideration. F-11 Comment is herby noted, included in the official environmental record of the proposed project, and will be forwarded to the appropriate City of San Bernardino decision makers for their review and consideration. Pagr 2-64 ~ The Planning Center September 2005 2. Response to Comments Letter G- Local Agency Formation Commission (5 pages) Sep 1. 03 O1:33p LflFCO 909 397-3871 p,1 ~' LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION 175 Wert RIm 51roe4 Sacorld Roe SOn Benwd'Mto. G 91~N5•pa00 (90913a7.5196 Hr W091387.5971 •.-:a-• E•m76: pfCOi917100.39toIRl2YtloY Mrvrrl6sbWko.A9 esemnwoarnwsm>ooe~wm....•esaes..e.ao.es.ano.lse.awaw~n.rr.,w,•.s.• "«Ira Septembm 14, 200b cwwrsswncas Vto FacsvtiAc (909) 384.5080 mid nlquler mad .u..wa. ar. i0i° °iO""b1 Ma. Terri itahlul. Prindpal Planner ns muaw. vs agar Development 8ervlces Department '°`~" °im° pry d Sara Esrrrsrtltro :1pC."«, ~ 300 luornl •D• svicet "a,,,,~,,,,,,,,,,a, San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001 •w.• aamx.n wept euwaa RE: Notice d COlnOletiONNOliO9 of Availability d a Drag ur oa•ovr EnVIrOnTaM91 Impaet R9POrt vaawso • •ulsav "°` w'"°r Dear Ab. Rshtaal: a..cww•.c u.~~ 711e Loral Agency FOtmatiOn Cgnm1651017 has (BCMVW a Plotlce of /~ waew~na CornpNtleNAVallaernry of tM Gry d San BOfniftllrlO GanOral Plan Updaaa L ~,J and asaoasted Spsdfic Plans Drag Envirotattetttal Impaa Report (DEIR). lj`alpl~`I /l '"""V O1"'r"D A Dopy d this document here also bean farlevrdad to the Commbalon'a 10°`~ 0w"`• Environmental Constlhatet. Tam Dodson and Ataxelates. who may rcsporM a.~.+~aSwsr«wnn uncle/ saparaq eovar. AT[er rlVleNllflg the sUbmltre0 dowmmt, lAFCO has rwn+. weuc ra the following tlonvnanta: aar w..r ~•r•.ww ~ • The Gry tyeany tdmtmes In me Plgac[ Desl7tp[bn foal It wa11 Pre- mne Only •the unllecOtppfaled area wlthkl tt19 AllOwhead spling9 G7 8paaSfie Plan. Theraloro, all futluo onnoxanon opltgeaaone will 'TAFP re0uire that this OrOC9aa ba undertaken, making the City the lead fa~iwriM a •Y0•"00"MD apmly for the further required mvirvnmL•rttal asseasmerd. waA1tinr~~ The DEIR dd not Oddraat ma OnvironmentM impeeta from the City'a wown..,uw¦ Ixe-zonrcq d n+e AnoMhsad Sprirpa mw. Otwn that the w1d uae I G2 designenona are tfasngarg nom show assigned through the e><ISnrg swn•aar•nraa GmKil Plan, We Impacts s11ouW hav! been wady Wentlnad arq °iA ° °f°"'"G•" analys!ed in the land Use and Planning section d the environmental w wau enanyala. aaapuM C"n w wramnrccn • On Page 3-31 ttN Idantlflcagon of me Inlenda0 uses d ma EIR I G3 ~~CO"1O4 itlannfiea pee •Loral Aroa Formation C.Ommiisien•; the Cgrrea "'"`"'°° Idmti9cation is Local Agency Fonnetbn Cemmlasbn. Aaeal.ad falrlhl001 02~iirs Frs100 t1T 5171 is{IlY 00 Ial IfAlOA01 Oap 001 Genera! Plea Update and Altaiated Specific Plant Fiaal EIR City ojSan Bernardino !Page 2-6y 2. Response to Comments !p 14 OS O1:55p LFFGO 909 387-5971 p,Z CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO GEN. PLAN UPDATE NOCANOA-DEIR September ta, 2005 • Topic Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Wa haw no rommenis on the General plan portion of this bpic. • For the Arrowhead Springs Splsdfic Plan, on page 5.t}18. the first line to the paragraph Identifies 'MUnidpal Water DeDiltmenY is Ibrtstructirtq the Inlantl Feeder ProJ9ot - it ie the Metropolitan Water Oisthet rorASiruLYing these faalities. Page 5.6-20 includes a discussion of sewage spill averts G4 front the existing sewage treatment plats (ttterc is a duplication of the paragraph begrnninq 'Review of the Santa Ana Regipnal') and odter operational mncems. Tha DEIR identelea tt0 mlUgadon measuros for d+e new treatment plats. h would appear tltat the int5tpllat(on pf a new faci0y and the dismending and romovai of the old wastewater treatment Dlant would require some midpadon measures. • Topic -Hydrology and Water Qualiy. we nave no comments on the General Plan update portlon of this topic. ~ GS However, we haw the fodoAwng comments on the Arravltpad Springs Specific Plan portion. • Tha fequllemaM fOf trritlence of a Water ngh[ W sUDDOrt the in[endetl land uses, inducting the determ~nadon of maximum and minimum wrthtlrawals of water from the East and West Twin Creek watersheds, is deferred until the Gg approval of the first Tentative Tray Map (Mitigatkm Measure AH3 5.7-2A). In our opinion such evidence and detemtinations stlould t5e pmvlded prior to approval of the Spedfie Plan aeowtng for t,350 tlwvlNng units and Loa million square feet of commercol buifd~ngs. 7rte location o< tnis site wim an anticipated qdr COtlrse and residential uses above !WO percdabon ba5ilns used for recharge Of the Bunker M01 Basin appears to regwro very specific torttrols on ihp application of flerdliZare and pesticides. Mitigation Measure AHS 5.7-10 appears to provide for G7 submission of a management plan an how these tXternicals can be applltW and/or US@tl- TNS appears BaS:ly controllable for the call nurse management; how will it be implemented for the residential homes within this arcs? . The location Of Otsehargp from the wasWwa[pr tr@atmanT plant propose0 fer this Specific Plan is not listed in this portion Oi the DEIR for diswssion. G8 However, release of treated effluent into the existing streams may impact water Duality issues for tlownstrtam users and should lye evaluated in the Spedflc Plan portion of the Document 2 bnnl/ SIo-1/-1705 Ot aiAn Frrr-901 717 liTl To-CITY OF SAN sfANAA71 ftAS 7Ai Page 2-G6 • T!x Plan9rrrg Center September 2005 2. Response to Comments ~ 11 OS O1:SSp LRFGO 909 387-5871 p,a CITY OF SAN 9ERNARDINO 6EN. PLAN UPOATE NOP- DEIR $BptMltxrr 14, 2005 Topic -Public Services -Fire Protection The dtxx+mont (under Hazania and Hazardous Materials Section and the Public Services Section -Fire Protection and F~nergengr Services) identifies the Foothill FirB LOr18S that owAay pOfions Of fhe City, ifIClYdillg the erBe Of the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan. Ftovdever, there Is f1O mention That these arias ere deaignotod as State RssponsibiGty Areas (SRAC) for wlldlard nre protection. The document should irxlimte whetlter tx not the Ciry contracts with the State G9 Department of Forestry for retention of its serviop upon annexation, or if other tkiancial amngemants are made repenting wildtand Gre protection. Since the City is proposing to annex tta Arrowhead Springs area wniM is ownaw by Ws SRA tlesignstien, it is important to discwe fha removal of the SRA doslgnaHon from these lards upon annexation tdntx the finanaal rosponsit„Gty for State support in a adldtand nre sltuattan is transferred to tfle Ciry. - On page 5.12-4, related to the Artowhead Springs 3pedfw Plan, diappsion of Ore protedi0n isst5es is somewhat COnfuSing in that it irdipte5 that the Ciry provides for fire protection seMeaS m this area at ti1e request of County (not community) Sarvim Area 38 duo tp itc proximity. However, the G10 line folbwing this statement indicates 'Bemux the doaeat San Bemardino City Fire Department roswmxs are located signifxartlly farther away Than the GOSeSt County fire Departmtstt resources, the County Fire Department and the San Bomaroino City Firo Departrnent haw ostablifhad an automatic aid agreement for ttlis area' Clarifialion of this paragraph, we believe. is needed. - On page 5.12-6 it indicatec that the future fire dementia Jrom the Arrowhead Springs Spedic Plen hew not bsen determined. However, it is identified that the City's desired response time for 9096 of mils is five G11 minutes; but the antlG{ratetl response time within the SDedric plan area is 8 to 1 Z minutes. Due to me Ore haiard of Vlis area, along vAm fie residenGel component of this Speafic Plan, more dotailod information should be prepared prig to approval of the Sper~fle Plan. • Under the Ganaral Plan topic for fire protection, a Water pressure System was diswssed and an outline of fire hydrants Noted. There is Ro discussion G12 of such a system within the Arrowhead Spnnga Specific Plan. This should tk tncludetl to either ittentily tire existing conttWon or the needed imrastruaure to provide this level of protottion for the Speunc Plan Area. • Topic - Utilities and Service Systems We nave no comments on the General Plan pdrtlon Of this Topic, Wo haw wmmanta related to the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan portion of the Topic. J Rk~ind br-IM2555 Qf:59M Frw-005 757 5r71 Toi1TY OF SAM ISMIAFDI ?au 001 General Plan Update and Arraiated Specific Pleat Fiaa1 E!R City of San Bernardino • Page 2-67 2. Response to Comments p 1~ 05 O1: S6p LFiFG0 909 397-3671 p,7 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO OEN. PLAN UPDATE NOCMOA-bEIR September 14, 2005 • Water Supply: On page 5.f5-6 a discussion of water demand K outlined for domostic purposes. At the end of that discuasion it identifies that the irrigation system woub supply water for the goH nurse. parks, hrol modification zone and Omer lantlscapatl arox. However, in ottta pordons or the report n G13 identifies fhe srigation wmtsr system would supply Ma heads for fire now and fire hytlreMS. It is rtot dear that the assessment of this water demand is inrJUded in the diswssion of the irnpation system. . Mitigation Measure 5.15-1 idrrntfios that svida+oa shall ba provided to the City that approwiate water rights have bean granted for Ina drinking water system poor to approval of the first Tentative Trail Map. As outlined G14 eania, we believe the[ the deiehninatbn of the water ftghts avallr2ble ro support the anticipated developmerd should tx provided at the Spednc Plan stago authorizing the 1,350 dweNirq units er9d the commercial buildings. The Plan for Service referenced in this 6odibn (included as Appendix K to tt1e DEIR) states that the water provider for this project is to be the Arrowheatl Water and Power (AWP). a limited liability company forma! by me property owner, However, this document and the DEIR Does not G15 identify if this is proposed to be a private water company, govemo0 by ma CalNomia Public Utilities Commission, a mutual water company selling shares for service, governed by the Califomca Department of Corporatbns. or another type of entity authorized to charge for its water services. This should be identfetl m the document and ovaluatad if necessary. • sewer System: • The bEIR does not identify the operattlr of the wastewater systt9m. However. the Ptan fw .4ervices identifies that this service wtN be provided by the Del Rosa Mutual Water Comparry - a shareholder arced company. G78 Is cots Company audtdri2atl through vie DQpa7ImMt bi Gorpontlons to be a private sewage Drovider? If not, that process should tae undertaken and the requirements known and evaluated at this juncture. Mitigation Measure 5.152 should be expanded if rtecessary. • On page 5.15-14 N identifies that tho bio-aolids and rocydad water from the treatment Dlant used as inigation water have the potential to affect the water quality of local streams if not carcfuky corrtretled. It the irrigatwrl G17 syStom IL antcipated to provide the fire lbw and Ilre hydrant water uses Tor the project, would dlie nuee an impatt 10 downalroam ytara'? If itl, it should be identified end evaluated. 4 9uurad Sar16299[ 9hS2r• Fra-999 211 9171 Te-CITY OF [AN 1f9NAB91 Pap 991 Page 2-68 ~ The Planning Center SeQtem6er 2(JOS 2. Response to Comments ~ 11 OS 01:36p LNFCO 909 387-3871 p,3 CRV OF SAN BERNARDINO GEN. PU1N UPDATE NOP -DEIR September 14, 2005 • Solid Waste' - Under the identifiraatxi of Solid Waste for ttto Arrowhead Springs Spedfic Plan it states that opereGons have (xen tuROilOd in me ret~rit pact but the statement implies mat the service ties been pFOVided. No spedRc solid wacto provider is identified In the DEIR. However the Plan ftx Service Gt8 identifies mat this hoc been provided by ma 'County or San Bernardino-. The County ones not provide flu direG pidtup st5mce for solid waste disposal so the eorred provider should tx identified in me DEIR and the Plan for Sarvieo. • Upon annexaton mere is a five (5) year window ro e0ow for tranaiGOn from an existing prOWtler to Gry service. This shouts be darified in both me G19 DEIR and the Ptan for Sorixe, • Dry UtiFties: • Under Elegridty iho DEIR states mat this CerviCe is b Do provided t1y Souttiem Cali(omia Ediaon (SCE) through wntrads to itq Arrowhead water and Power LLC. Nowever, Arrwrhead Water acid Power is eri entity created by ttvz existng property owner t+mo receives service from 3GE. is G20 this the Centred idenlfied in the diswssion? Mow would mis contract be any different from an existing user's serviw? Tho text of this diswstion appears to indicate that the AWP will resell this service to the hones and businesses witnin the Specimc Plan. This stiouid be danfit:d. Our discussion in mis document does not indudo a thorough review and comment on me Plan for Service indudt:d as an ApperMix to the DEIR. This document will be reviewed in greater detail eithK Prior tb submission of an annexation application or Oxough the annexation review process itsoM. Thank you for providing LAFCO the oppoRuniry to provide comments to >M DEIR, Fleece maintain LAFCO on your distribution Ilst to receive furtl'ier information related to Uds process. +r ytw nave any QUeStlons regarding the information outlined atx7ve. please do ndt hesitate to contact my at (5709) 387.5866. Wv look forward to vvbrt4ng with ttie Crty m [he future. Sincere) _ ~ ~I KAilHLEEN r2DLLINGS-McDONAL0 Exewnvo Oficer u: Tom Godson, Tom Dodson 8 Associates, LAFCO Environmental Consultant 5 Arn. rid t•r-I1-)COS 57:57rx Fro-iC9 71) 5i7i Ts-CITY OF SAN iiANAADi Fop OOS Genera! Plan Update and Artaiated SpecFfc Plara Final EIR City of San Bernardrna ~ Page 2-G9 2. Refponfe to Commenta G. Response to Comments From Local Agency Formation Commission, Dated September 14, 2005. G-1 Comment is herby noted, included in the official environmental record of the proposed project, and will be forwarded to the appropriate City of San Bernardino decision makers for their review and consideration. G-2 This comment addresses the City's pre-zoning of unincorporated lands within the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan. Section 7.3.2.1 of the Draft EIR, NaProjectiExisting Zoning Alternative, specifically analyzes the impacts of development under the existing City and County land use designations in comparison with the proposed Arrowhead Spdngs Specific Plan. G-3 This comment identifies an error in the name of a responsible agency. The fourth listing of responsible agencies in Section 3.4, INTENDED USES OF THE EIR, Page 3-51 is hereby modified as follows: Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCO) Lxal Agency Formation Commission The fifth listing of responsible agencies in Section 3.4, INTENDED USES OF THE EIR Page 3-51 is hereby modified as follows: local Area Formation Commission (lAFCO) Loca/Agency Formation Comm)ssion G-4 This comment identifies en error in the in the name of the owner and builder of the Inland Feeder Project. In Section 5.6.1.2, the first line of the first paragraph under the heading Proximity to High- Pressure Water Lines on page 5.618 is hereby modified as follows: The Menieipel-MetropolRan Water 9epertment Distrkt (MWD) is constructing the Inland Feeder Project, which is nearly 44 miles of pipeline, 12 to 14 feet in diameter, which will convey water between Devil Canyon and MWD's Colorado River Aqueduct south of Lake Perris, near the City of San Jacinto. G-5 This comment addresses a duplication of the paragraph beginning "Review of the Santa Ana Regional." Section 5.8.1.2 the third paragraph under the heading Sewage Treatment System on page 5.620 is hereby modified as follows: The comment continues to express concern that there should be mitigation measures for the construction and operation of the new treatment plant and for the demolition of the old treatment plant. Chapter 5.15, Utilities and Service Systems, Section 5.15.2, Wastewater Treatment and Collection addresses the addition of a new wastewater treatment plant. As described in the project description on Page 3-44, the new wastewater treatment system would be relatively self-sustaining. Section 5.15.2.4 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions, subheading Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan and Mitigation Measure AHS 5.15-2, on pages 5.15-14 and 5.15-75 are sufficient to reduce alt impacts resulting from the addition of a new wastewater treatment plant to less than Page 2-70 ~ The Planning Center September 2005 2. Response to Comments significant. Additionally, potential odor from the new treatment plant was addressed in the Air Quality section on pages 5.2-21 to 5.2-22 and was found to be less than significant. Section 5.6.3.2 of the Hazardous and Hazardous Materials section of the DEIR analyzes the potential environmental impacts that may have resulted from operation of the existing wastewater treatment system on page 5.6-28 in AHS Impact 5.6.1. Mitigation measure AHS 6.51 b on page 5.6.32 is provided to address potential impacts from dismantling the existing plant. G-6 On page 5.15-2, under the heading Water Supply is a description of the water rights which are further detailed in Appendix I, Water SupplyAssessment. These water rights have been put to benefiaal use and are available for use by the project as stated on page 3.43 of the DEIR under the section titled Water Sources and documented in Appendix I. Because the amount of available on-site water is variable the analysis was conservative to look at worst case tlraugM years and "average" flows but concludes that even under those circumstances there would be adequate water supplies (page 5.15-6). The State has the authority to limit the quantity of water to be appropriated for the protection of the environment. The mitigation measure was intended to assure the City that no limft had been placed on the quantities of water appropriated. For clarification, mitigation measure AHS 5.15-1 on page 5.15.10 is herby modfietl as follows: AHS 5.15-1 Prior to approval of the first Tentative Trad Map, evidence shall be provided to Public Works/Engineering to confirm the availabll)ty and quantity of existing We4apprepriate water rights kare-9eeq-granteA through the State and that the drinking water system has obtained all appropriate operating and design permits through the California State Department of Heath Services. (/~~t~~~ G-7 Recycled water will not be used for residential lawns. ~V G-6 There will be no direct discharge to local streams from the waste water treatment system. Section 3.3.4.3, Inhastructure describes the treatment system on Page 3.44 including a discussion that all wastewater will be recycled for irrigation after tertiary treatment. Use of recycled water is discussed in Section 5.7.3.2 on page 5.7-26 and cross referenced to Section 5.3 Biological Resources and Section 5.15.1 water Supply and Distribution. G-9 In Section 3.3.4 of the project description for the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan, on Page 3-27, first paragraph, the text states that "upon annexation the areas currently designated as State Responsibility for wildland fire protection would be transferred to the City and the State would not longer have financial responsibility in these areas." G-t 0 The forth sentence incorrectly interchanged the words City and County. The first paragraph on page 5.12-4 of Section 5.12.1.1 is herby modified as follows: Only a portion of the Anowhead Springs Specific Plan area is located within the City limits of San Bernardino. While the southwestern tip of the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan area is currently serviced by the San Bernardino City Fire Department, details of which are described above, the majority of the existing developed area currently lies outside the service boundary for the Fire Department. These areas of the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan, designated as Community Service Area (CSA) 38, are serviced by the San Bernardino County Fire Department. Because the closest San Bernardino 6ityCounty Fire department resources are located significantly farther away than the closest 6eenArCRy Fire Department resources, the County Fire Department and the San Bernardino City Fire Department have established an automatic aid agreement for this area. The agreement calls for the San Bernardino City Flre DepartmeMto be the first responding agency to these areas. The County Fire Department will then send additional units to the area, and take over the Lenera/ Plan Update and Anociared Specrjrr Plant Fina! EIR Crty of Sas Bmrardino ~ Page 2-71 2. Response to Comments operations when they arrive. In addition, the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan area is considered a hazardous fire area, evidenced by the 2002 fire which affected a large portion of the planning area. G-11 At the time of the writing of the DEIR no decision had been made es to the type and location of facilities that would be required for the Arrowhead Springs area. Mitigation measure AHS Impact 5.12-1 was developed in response to that situation to ensure that appropriate facilifies were provided when needed. G-12 The water system that would supply water for fire protection is included in the discussion of water demand in Section 5.15.1, Water Supply and DisMbufion on page 5.15.6 with reference to Appendix J, Facilities Plan which provides details of the pressurization needed for the system. The water distribution system is shown in Figure 3.3.7. G-13 There will be two water systems with different sources of water primarily due to water quality issues. The poorer quality water from West Twin Creek will only be used for non-domestic purposes, supplemented with re-cycled water. The better quality water from Strawberry and East Twin Creeks will be used primarily for domestic purposed but may also be added to the irrigation system 'rf needed. The demand for each system is included in the discussion on page 5.15-7. G-14 See comment response G-6. G•15 The Water Supply Assessment (Appendix I) identifies the two water companies (Del Rosa Mutual Water Company and West Twin Creek Water Company) supplying water for the project as "mutual" water companies and they will remain mutual water companies, issuing shares to new customers in the project area as they become active as stated on Page I-5 of Appendix I. G-16 An application will be prepared to the Department of Corporations to include shares for recycled wastewater for the Del Rosa Mutual Water Company. Mitigation measure AHS 5.15-2 is hereby modified as follows: AHS 5.15-2 Prior to approval of the first Tentative Tract Map, evidence shall t>e provided to the Public Works/Engineering Division that appropriate permits have been obtained from the State Water Resources Board, the State Departrnent of Health Services, CalNornla Department of Corporations and the SCA~MD for the operation of the wastewater treatment plant including disposal of bio-solids and use of recycled water. G-17 Recycled water used for fire fighting would only be a concern if it were to reach a drinking water source in close proximity. If used to fight fires within the developed portions of the property, the water would be directed into a stormwater collection system where ft would be captured and treated to meet water quality standards the same as any of the storm water collected. The Anowhead Springs property extends to the percolation ponds to the south and no water is withdrawn from these streams in that area for drinking water purposes. I G-18 Page 5.15-18 states that currently solid waste collection is handled by a private hauler who disposes of the waste in the San Timoteo landfill once a month. G-19 The DEIR explains on page 5.15-20 that the City of San Bernardino provides both commercial and residential services on a fee basis. The existing provider is private therefore transition is not a concern for such a small amount. Arrangements with the City will be made as the project progresses. Page 2-72 ~ The Planning Center SeQtrmbcr 2005 2. Response to Comments G-20 Arrowhead Power and Water will be responsible for coordination of development of electrical utility systems but individual property owners will contract for service with SCE. AWP may consider functioning as a re-seller of electricity in the future but has no plans to do so at this time, Genera! Plan Update and Associated Specifrc Plans Final EIR City of San Sernardirro ~ Page 2-73 2. Response to Comments This page left intenNona/ty blank. I' Page 2-74 ~ The Planning Centtr September 2005 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR This section identifies any changes needed in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) to corrector clarify the information contained in the document. Changes made to the DEIR are identfied here in sNlkeeuE text-to indicate deletions and in bold and (talks to signify additions. t. Table 1.8-1, Section 1.8, of the DEIR, Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Levels of Significance After Mtigation is hereby modHied as shown on the following pages. Genera! Plan Update and Attaiated Specific Plant Final EIR City of San Bernardino ~ Page 3-1 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR This page intentionalty left blank. Page 3-2 ~ T!x Planning Center Scptcmba' 2003 fi d ~ t s y y p"' o ~~`,;. w :a = ~ ~ V ~ ~ y O 3 2 `ty ~ a tl o~ r k J ~ SL ~ ~ ~ ~ $ w ~ ~ R L ~ O ,fl w n~ ~ ~ r ~ v z v _ ~ ~ ~p ~ _ ~ i ~ 5 w ~, R w ~ ~ ,~ r » y °.'' a a ~ m~ ~ c ~ 'N ~ //~/~~/ Mid iS = y ~ ZS n; ~ a~ w a~ ~ ~ C ~m N G ~ 1 1 V ,~. 6 l ~ 1 ~ ~ C y C O °L O m ~ C ~ yf~ ~ ~ B ~ ~~t~'~ b y £ Wes. '~r~~ C~ V h v 8 R O ~i 3 m .3 Y O p. ~ a e t.. G ¢ f~ W ci~y,~~~$ U~ ~ gy~ C~~ P1 N ~ ~ yj 6 ; a Q~ s> _, ~m ~ cn ~' o Ol { ^ _T L ~ ~ V .m ~ .N C Vi ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CO p q ~ $ 'R A ~ $ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ A = ~ W ^ ~ . f~~. S ~ $ iQ~$~ ~ }}9~~ b ~ if '..r O TT.. p~"+i G ~ ~ ~ S m v; K r ~ N a ae ~, d, +-~ ~ w h v~ Y N Sg N ~ Y .~y O V M a b yQ~ cal G ,~ E y~ u ~ ~ E -+ ~ o ~, e ~ $ ~ N ~ r v v ~-~ V b' N w ~ E ~ "' ~ C ~ O ~ ~ $ d F, ~ N ~ yy N Q ti[f ~ ~ tD ES~ d a fi er R Y ~"~ m Z ~ $ ~ 3ry "~ p y O °a y~ g,V O p H y C Vr a $ ~ d 4 r ~ ~ ~' ~4 ~ ,fig ~ " v ~.5~ ,~~ s~g.. ,fie W o a d; h ~ a $~ Sj ~t77'fi e N '~ Q •1 `e`iy~f~/J drL~.C~~s ~ ~ A ~ 'V~ tll ~ r N ~ M ,~ l0 Y h ° o ..., x ~G g ~ ~p M e 4 £ e> a y ~ y O y im W O ~ W ~ V ~ y '~ • G t M t -g ~°1 '~ a V M i~ F-~ a ;' c ~ F ~ iL^ C r W ~ y G ~ C c~ i ~ ~ ~ y V ~ e. ~ ~' 'a a N ~ V~ m $ ~ ~ ,~ <, N 'F1 ~y a $ ~ s SS i~ p$ ~g O ~ R O 5 ~ H 8~ ~w#~~~u4 w ~a~ #S$~° ~ M ~ Y! ~2 $ m ~ ~ gg ~ ~~w Y y S b N', y t .., .- ~ Q W ~ N 4'1 T '~ ~ Q V~ Y • v b ~ ¢ ~ ~' Y ~ a`e .g M E ~ N~ w o ~ ~ ~$ o °m a ~ ~ o°. i O W ~' "~ ~ =o O ~C ~ w ~~g E ~ ~'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N .Fs ~~, °E. ~ v ¢ i c ~u a? . 3 5 H W a. ~ .r ~ v fi ° ~a as a ~ `o ~ off, `~' m ~ y Y. ~' O b C ~ Cp Cp ~ U M $ Oi tl O r¦ S 4 Q~ q ~ 7c MI~~yS$~Y J ~i tli `7~ +~i~~7~ Y. GG i{~~ $$$~Sjj pp ii b¦Q C ~0 W i L w+ i t Y ~ p M i7 If E V a Y 66 ~CiEC M C ~ ~ ~ far s~a_ a Y y t~`~ ~ ^ b ~ C' V Y ~ ,o a~ h w ~ a ~ ~ M ~ sa y ~pp W ~ 8 E ~ d V m J C 0 i W 0 m N g Q N y Y A Q, H W 'k • fi a ti a° r~ a N `~' m C C ~ y y i,~G~ ~ A 4. C A V y O as ~ 4 y o ~ c ~ y V m .Q' N ~ O C C N ~ Yf s tll ~ ~ O O ~ 3~+ m QQ CC ~ ~c oay'°~u°ao~ CpE m'L'+9et ~ BTU- F ~gA. ~ ~~~~~~°i3~~m~~~~ ~figS ~ ~ ~ ~ § ~ 8a lj ~ ~ ~ ~ R~~~~~N~~~~~~~ ~ ~ w 6 s ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~m~~ m -~ N ~ a _~~NA~ y o a g .N F G o N~ R y ~ ~ W M E y~ io o g iTi ~ ~m € ~, P ~ s o ~ ~ a W J O A ~ m m m E W a~~ N y ~ LL~ ~ 1 E Y~~ c~ W .L • ~ E ~U~g ~ ~ M E N ID N G s~ ~' w N h 1 ~ -~ C r` N 4 c y CW y ~ ii ~ y 'u ~ g $ ~ g '~5 ~ k # C d}~ ~ ~g ~ ~a ~N~~;.~° ~ agar '~~~~$,~~~,~ 3 m ~~Q NNRj ~u~~`~~ as A p $ ~ 9A Y e was ~ ~~+'g $.~s~ ~a~g~~^$g~ ~ ~ ~- ~ . Q N ,,. ~ ~ eb a m ~ cg • ° ?"= o M M • N p ~~~,/ Fit ~c i w ~g Cry 6~a _E ~' q `v s m n r O i ~ I = ~ W O a ~ N S W LY ° r v u n ~ a° e a 'c C pj tie, o. y ~ y c c ~ \ A ~ h ti ~ ` ~ ~ o V 'Y u ~ J 4 ~ a h 0 N C a m ...- a W m m N C H Q m a~ym q ,4 R e ~03 ~~'~.b'.~ { 5 C4 m ~o~> w a ~~~~,~og~~~ ~5~ ~ tae as ~ x v ~ ~u ° ~ 'Qb BLS ~ = e N g ,,yy Q~5i ~~~ddd C: ~ Lmm~' ~{~{,~~YO~ ~ ~ w"6paC SEQQ ~~~~~'9y G'~~~°y ~dgg yy~~~ v b A E ~ ~ o a b $ a e~ • w ¢ B ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ ti C. C ~ N f= m ° S. N Ci ~ ' om w bo £~.6° ~mc~E'U' E'E`omm~$L°~~ ~ w d m o ~ ~ ~ e ~ ~'ri ~ ~ _w O E y O ~ m =C y G ~ m N C q~q A W W a O e ~, d . E ~ A v ~ ~ c :'. a w m a _sq~m p N E °E_= O f: c~ct3 N e e~,yR i E _ ~ m fi tv m 'c U C. V ~ ~ pQ Y W `n =y `~~°N C h Fa 3.Y oU C • ny gmo ~ ~D Ea,°~y ~i ~,~tye n4. d a uaim~~ (~-~ 4~ a s~ a e $~ r,~ V ~ G V C H Hf. O - 'd v ~ m m t ' ~ Q y ~a _ ~ ,F ~ ~ ~ y N ~ O~ ~ m~ ~ ~~~~N~.~ v 3. c ~ ~ ffi x w c m y .6 Yii N ~C ~ yyti~~Q~g ~ ~ '~' N'Y~ QG~r o Ys 3~ $ die' W O"a g~g~~j73"~Pa~S $ NN~N6GOC~y 4~fj~R '^~ ? i~iG~~gg ~La~ w `~c~vvvU6 . g~,~ mr~. g~DDDNNN~ o~ "'^~: !f Si~ N t i. ~ ~ wQ1 ~ A N 1~ O ~ S W N ~ y a = G Ki E ~ ~ a oa E ~m 0 W C C` I ~ E H ~ ~, '. 14 r E d ~ ,, O y. R :,L~~ q = i p Ot ~C Ot,L~ C C h O y y C a ~ -°+ .Y, v ~ ~ y S ° ~eB ~" E ~ "c F3 ~ a ~92 Lid ~ N °~~,~ ~S+i~ St w m~e 3.2~w iO~ ~i£~ y °g m• c e o A=~ L.~~~1g' ~~.~88A ~8 yw ~ ~~g. ~ ~ L y ~ ~ C !YJ S ~ {mp }}}{{{~~`999ppp Y! q Cp ~ Np C ~ L ~ y~_q Z ~S Y Y~ ~ ~L'~t ~bG ~0~~~ N~ C.C3 C ~ O.r2 fy01 ~ O ~`o~d a~g3~~~~ u~~co Ss'~m m~Cr~~ a FF y C m pp Cp ~ N O N .1 3 ~~y O O p J A~ U D~ O , $C O y 0~ N~ cA 4 W O ~ A~ O ~L 8t~'^ CO S O t'O `' N f0.1$ O Y~.~~ N p W ~ ~ ~ ~ N N O ~ ,$ 000 ii E to n ~ ~ t0 ~ m ~ C ~' ~ C N ~ ~ ~O mC_N ~R$ m2+`e ¢8~c oCis ~o DTs T~-~~tn~u~79 ~ Cpn ~ yl ..tt~E~E f~ c3n`i f$pf '~ yNy m g ~ v o g ~' ~A COC ~ Qs ~{ls~ NL any in ~p L'C ~ VC y~NJ+N s ~pC O t~ t2 ~ y~ S O N~ S3 Y .SL ;w; y yy O~ E O d tD N ~SO ~ y O N C A O p N ~ aEo moC'S t7 ~•~°~~6a 3~~~~ ~£~$v E'U•~mmrvm~° o c o N m$ §4 S opNp iO ~,t°~~tgc+au O " Z '~.{' g E E c°+'m St~ E v.SN¢ v 'Fa yV ap ~ y q O ~ N ~ 'N ~ Q Y q ti ~ e $ M v ~ ~ E a " ;a 4 a 61 C~ y of O .a ti G W ~ ~ A i ~ y E °o N y V v fig` C ~~ycy y OO V v' y G fi ~ W `C O C 4 r se •a° c c C Oq v ~ C[' o ~ `" tt4. V o U mo > P v ~ EY vp gtl ~ ~ m = ~ S k e ~V O ~ m ~-$ a ms ~~'Y C c 8 wiu` ~'v ~ M Y ct~~ _ b L° W ,GO sSn° o~,~ ; B ~i•~t A3 V Q A N T C ]A i{{.. ~ m¦¦!! LJaaL~~ }}}yyy=555 nngyyg~~ 01 C d A~ A L' ~ 3~ C Z~~/l~ O A ~S N 'O SAO t ~ A > sl t E ~ E o~ ~ ^ ~ a ~ ~ w £ ~ d~ ~ ~ 'N ~ O a N~.1 q "'V G ~ w ~W am A U LYE V m P G V N C ti A ~ C W ao N .~2 O ~ W V 4~ y CEO b ~ Y ~ c ~ n ~ •- h E y ~ €~~e°a ~ W ~ m o N e E ' ~ ~30~ G ~ ~ to;o C C ~ .-pct ° ~ v' yC ~ A ~ ~o .C • F H c C ~ ~vnnA ~C .-. 0 3 a dr °u o A 5 I~. a ~ ~ ~ c° y.` p ~ J ~' ~ '~ r c C ~ i3 ` ~ ~ ~ C 4 R ~ ~ y J ~ y. eb,ffid'~~~ ~ V '~ ` v T ~y e .k ti m e h o ~~3 ~ a m~~~~ H ~ ~ O ~ '~'3$~ Q a ~ °' ~'~~ 5 $„ N ~ E~ 4 .y A~ h a ~ u ga ~a~ o d ~ ~ ~ m €, V y W a° O 'cR _ q m ~ r F - $~~~~ y $ d` Wm w ~ N > ^ 4 C Y W ~ ~s ~ v y N mN $ ti 43b ~t j~ ~ ~'1 V Qr 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR 2. Page 3-51, Section 3.4 of the DEIR, intended Uses of the EIR, rourth listing of Responsible Agencies is hereby modified as follows: Locsi Agency Formation Commission 3. Page 3-51, Section 3.4 of the DEIR, Intended Uses o(ttw EIR, fifth listing of Responsible Agencies is hereby modified as follows: Local Agency Formation Commission 4. Page 5.4.2, Section 5.4.1 of the DEIR, Environmental Setting under the heading California Public Resources Code Is hereby modified to add a fourth bullet as follows: As part of the objectives, criterta, and procedures required by Section 21082 of the Publk: Resources Code, a lead agency should make proWslons for historcai or unique arcf~aeokrg(cal resources seck/entally discowrsd during construction. Those provisions should include an Immed(ate evaluation o/ the ttnd 6y a qualHied archaeologist. Nthe ttnd>s determined to be an historical or unique archaeological resource, contingency funding and a ttms allotment suRiclent to allow for Implementstion of avoidance measures or appropr~te mitigation should be available. Work could continue on other parts of the building sibs while histortcal or unique archaeologicsl resource mitigation takes place. (CEQA Guidelines Section 75064.5 (f)). 5. Page 5.4-2, Section 5.4.1 of the OEIR, Environmental Setting under the heading Califomia Senate Bill 18 Is hereby modified as follows: eeFEw~er?iaiaetivitiee- . ~' Geue~al Plan Update and Ascaiated Speiifu Plant Final E(R City of San Bernardino ~ Page 3-13 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Senate 8!!! T8 was signed Into faw M September 2004 and went into effect on Maroh i, 2005. tt places rtew requirements upon local gowmments for dewbpments wtthln o?near 7radltkrnal Tribal Cufturel Places (17 CP). Per SB 18, the law roqulroslocal/urlsdicflons to provkfe opportunities for lnvolvsment of CalNomia NaBve AmeNcans tribes in the land planning process 1w the purpose of preserving tradttbnal tribal cultural places The General Plan Guidelines, 2005 SuppMment (also known as Tribal Consuftatlon Guidelines) published 6y the Gowmor's t)lflce of Planning and Researoh recommends that the Nathw American Herltage Commissbn (1JAHC) provMe written lnformatlon as soon as possible but no later than 30 days to Inform the Lead Agency N the proposed pro/eet is determined to be in proximity to s TTCP and another 90 days for tribes to respond to a local gowmment N tMy waM to consult wtth the local gowmment to determine whether the protect would haw an adverse impact on the 7TCP. There is no statutorylimlt on the consultation durotlon. Forty-five days belore the action is publicly considered by the local government council, the local gowmment raters action to agencies, foffowing the CEQA publk review time /rams. The CEQA publte dbtrlbutlon Ust may hrclude tNbes fisted by the NAHC who have requested consultaton a tt may not. N the NAHC, the tribe, and interested parties agree upon the mttigatbn measures necessary forthe proposed pro/ect, lt wouk! be included M the pro/ect's EIR. N both the City and the Mbe agree that adequate mitigation or preservation measures cannot be taken, then neither party Is obligated to take aetbn. Per S8 f 8, the law instttutes a new process which would require a city or county to consult with the NAHC and any appropriate Native American tribe for the purpose of preservng relevent TTCP pRor to the adoption, revisbn, amendment, or update of a city's or county's genera! plan . Whtte S8 T8 does not specNleally mention consultation or notice requirements for adoption or amendment of apeeNfc plans, the Final Tribal Guidelines advises that SB f 8 requirements extend to specltk plans as welt, as State planning faw requires local governments to use the same process for amendment or adoption of specNlc plans as genera! plans (defined In Government Code ¢65453). In addttbn, SB 78 provides a new definition of TfCP roqulring a trodltional association of the stte with Native AmeNcan trodttional beliefs, culture! preetlces, or ceremonies or the stte must be shown to actually haw been used /or activttles related to trediUonaf beNe/s, eutturel praetkes, or ceremonies. Previously, the site was defined to require only an association with tredltbna! belles, practices, 11/eways, and ceremonial activities. In addttion, SB 18 faw also amended Civil Code ¢815.3 and adds CalNornla Native AmeNcan tribes to the list of entities that sera acquire and hold conservation easements for the purpose of protecting their cultural places. 6. Page 5.4.25, Section 5.4.3 of the DEIR, Environmental Impacts is hereby modified as toilows: Polley ii.i.2: Maintain and update the Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey database files of historic, architectural, and cultural resources Conducted in 1991, and integrate it into the City's ordinance Page 3-14 ~ Tfx Planning Center September 2005 3. Revi.rionf to the Draft EIR and environmental review process. Prior to publk distribution, Nstive American tribes should be consulted to address any tssues of con/identlaltty. 7. Page 5.4.26, Section 5.4.3 of the DEIR, Environmental Impacts Is hereby modified as follows: Policy 11,1,4: Compile and maintain an inveMOry, based on the survey, of the Planning Area's signficant historic, architectural, and cultural resources. PNor ro publk d(strlbutlon, Native American tribes should be consulted to address any issues o1 conildentNltty. 8. Page 5.4-27, Section 5.4.3 of the DEIR, Environmental Impacts is hereby modified as follows: Policy i 1,1.5: Continue to adopt historic district and overlay zone ordinances as described in the Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey Report. Consider the designation of Historic Districts and Historic Overlay Zones as described in the Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey Report. Prior to publk distribution, Native Amerkan tribes should be consulted ro address any Issues of confldentisllty. 9. Page 5.4-27, Section 5,4.3 of the DEIR, Environmental ImpaMS is hereby modified as follows: Polley 11.5.2: Develop mitigation measures for projects located in archaeologically sensitive areas to protect such locations, remove art'rfacts, and retain them for educational display. Native American tribes should be eonsutted to determine the dlsposltlon o/arty NatJve American srt!laets dlseovered. 10. Page 5.4.30, Section 5.4.4 of the DEIR, Existing Regulations and Standard Condltions is hereby modified as follows: eefemeniaF~aetivNiees: , • Senate 811118 was signed into law In September 2004 and went Jnro e/fect on March 1, 2005. lt places new requirements upon local governments for developments within or nearTraditlonal Tribal Cultural Places (TTCP). Per SB 18, the law requires local jurisdictions to provide General Plan Update and Atrocrated Specific Plans Final Elli' Crey of San Benrardrno ~ Page 3-15 3. Revirion.r to the Draft EIR opportunRfes for lnvohrement of California Native Amerkans trl6es !n fhe land planning process for the purpose of preserving tndRional tribal cutiunl places. The Genenl Plan Guidelines, 2005 Supplement (also known as Tribal Consultation Guidelines) publkrhed by tlw Governor's OHke of Planning and Research recommends that the Native American HeNtags Commlasbn (NAHC) provide wAtten lntormation as soon as possible but no later than 30 days to Inform the Lead Agency N the proposed project is determined to be in proxlmRy to a TTCP and another 90 days for tHbes to respond to s local gowmmentlf eney want to conauR with the local govemment to determine whether fhe pro)sct would haw an adverse Impact on the TTCP. There Is no statutory Ilmk on the consultation duration. Forfytiw days before the action is publkly considered by the local govemment council, the local govemment rohn action to agencies, following the CEQA public revNw time home. The CEQA publk d?stributlon list may Include trl6es listed by the NAHC who haw requested consultation or K may not. ti the NAHC, the trtbe, and Interested parties ague upon the mMlgatlon measures necessary for the proposed project, !f would be Included In the project's EIR. H both the CRy and the fNbs ague that adequate mitigation or preservation measures cannot be taken, then neither party !s obligated to take action. 11. Page 5.4-33, Section 5.4.7 of the DEIR, Mitigation Measures is hereby modified as follows: AHS 5.4-18 The EIR concludes that there are or may be significant historical structures/resources not curcently ascertainable within areas where ground disturbing activity is proposed by the project. Therefore, prior to issuance of the first preliminary or precise grading permit for development in the Arcowhead Springs Specific Plan area, the landowner or subsequent project applicant shall provide evidence that an qualified historic preservation professional has been retained by the landowner or subsequent project applicant, and has conducted a site survey of the development area at such time as all ground surtaces are visible alter current uses are removed. If any sites are discovered, the historian shall conduct surveys and/or test level investigations. Testing and evaluation may consist of surface collection and mapping, limied subsurface excavations, and the appropriate analyses and research necessary to characterize the artifacts and deposit from which they originated. Upon completion of the test level investigations, for sites are determined to be unique a "historical resource" as set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 75064.5, the following measures shall be undertaken: the historian shall submit its recommendations to the landowner or subsequent project applicant and the Director of Community Development on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the sic. Appropriate measures could include preservation in place through planning construction to avoid the historical resource, incorporation into greenspace, parks, or open space, data recovery excavations of the finds or compliance with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic buildings (7995). Preparation of a research design for those sites determined to the "historical resources" that cannot be avoided that describes the recommended field investigations, and makes provisions for adequately recovering the scientifically consequential information from and about the "historical resource." • Conducting site excavations in accordance with the research design with an emphasis on obtaining an adequate sample for analysis within the limits of the research questions being addressed. Special studies such as pollen analyses, soil Page 3-16 ~ The Planning Center September 2005 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR analyses, radiocarbon dating, and obsidian hydration dating should be conducted as appropriate. Monitoring of all field excavations by a Native American representative. • Preparation of a final report of the Phase 3 data recovery work and submittal of the research design and final report to the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), and other agencies, as appropriate. • 1/ any Native Amercan archaeological artHaets aro recovered, the project applicant shall contact fhe City, which shall In tum contact the Morongo Band of Miaslon Indians and any other designabd Tribe(s)' tribal roprosentathre, as determined by the Nathro American He?Nage Commission(NAHCj to notHy them of fhs discovery. The applicant shall coordinate wNh the City of San Bernardino and the designated Tribe(s) to determine, Jn good filth, the appropriate disposition Natlw Amercan arfHaets and the designated Tribe(s) shall be given the opportunity to soak the rotum of any Native American artNacts discovered. Any non-Native AmeNcan archaeological artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be donated to a qualified scientific institution approved by the Director of Community Development where they would be afforded long- term preservation to allow future scientfic study. 12. Page 5.4.34, Section 5.4.7 of the DEIR, Mtigation Measures is hereby modified as follows: AHS 5.4-2A Prior to issuance of the first preliminary or precise grading permit, and for any subsequent permit involving excavation to increased depth, the landowner or subsequent project applicant shall provide evidence that an archaeologist and/or paleontologist have been retained by the landowner or subsequent project applicant, and that the consultant(s) will be present during all grading and other significant ground disturbing activities. These consultants shall be selected from the roll of qualfied archaeologist and paleontologists maintained bythe County of San (3emardino. Should any archeological/paleontological resources be discovered, the monitor is authorized to stop all grading in the immediate area of the discovery, and shall make recommendations to the Director of Development Services on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including but not limited to excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds in accordance with Section 15084.5 of the CE~A Guidelines. If the resources are determined to be "historic resources" at that term is defined under Section 15084.5 of the CE~A Guidelines, mitigation measures shall be identified by the monitor and recommended to the Director of Ii Develo ment Services. A ro riate mitt afion measures for significant resources could ~ P PP P 9 include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in greenspace, parks or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds. No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Director approves the measures to protect these resources. If any Nathre American paleontological or archaeological artHacts are recovered as a result mitigation the C1ty shall contact the Morongo Band of Mission Indians and any other designated Tribe(s)' tribal representathre, as determined by the Native American HerRage Commisslon(NANC) to notHy them of ~i the discovery. The applkant shall coordinate with the City of San Bernardino and the designated Tribe(s) to determine, in good faith, the appropriate disposkion Native American artifacts and the designated Tribe(s) shall be given the opportunity to seek the return of any Native American artifacts discovered. Any Genera! Plan Update and Arrociated Specific Plans Fisal EIR City of San Bernardino ~ Page 3-17 3. Revirionr to the Draft EIR non-Native American paleontological or archaeological artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be donated to a qualified scientific institution approved by the Director of Community Development where they would be afforded long-term preservation to allow future scientific study. 13. Page 5.4.35, Section 5.4.3 of the OEIR, Emrtronmental Impacts is hereby modMed as follows: AHS 5.4-2C The EIR concludes that there are or may be significant archaeological resources within areas where ground disturbing acfivity is proposed by the project. Therefore, prior to the first preliminary or precise grading permit for development in the Arowhead Springs Specific Ptan area, each prehistoric and historfc archeological site (listed below and described in Table 5.4-3) located within the project gradng footprint must be tested and evaluated, following clearing and scraping activities. • CA-SBR-2268/H, including the four loci • CA-SBR-6870H • CASBR-7019H • CA-SBR-7020H • CA-SBR-7022H • CA-SBR-7049H • P1071-21 • P36.017732 • Testing and evaluation may consist of surface collection and mapping, limited subsurface excavations, and the appropriate analyses and research necessary to characterize the artifacts and deposit from which they originated. Upon completion of the test level investigations, for sttes are determined to be unique archaeological sites or historical resources es set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, the following measures shall be undertaken: the archaeologist shall submit its recommendations to, the landowner or subsequent project applicant and the Director of Community Development on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the sites. Appropriate measures for unique archaeological resources or historical resourr~s could include preservation in place through planning construction to avoid archaeological sites; incorporation of sites within parks, greenspace, or other open space; covering the archaeological sites with a layer of chemically stable soil before building tennis courts, parking lots, or similar facilities on the site or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. When data recovery through excavation is the only feasible mitigation, a data recovery plan, which makes provision for adequately recovering the scientifically consequential information from and about the historical resource, shall be prepared and adopted prior to any excavation being undertaken. Such studies shall be deposited with the Caiifomia Historical Resources Regional Information Cellar. Archaeological sites known to contain human remains shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 7050.5 Health and Safety Code. • Preparation of a research design for those sites determined to the "historical resources" that cannot be avoided that describes the recommended field investigations, and makes provisions for adequately recovering the scientifically consequential information from and about the "historical resource." • Conducting site excavations in accordance with the research design with en emphasis on obtaining an adequate sample for analysis within the limits of the Page 3-18 •The Planning Center September 1005 3. Reviaiona to the Draft EIR research questions being addressed. Special studies such as pollen analyses, soil analyses, radiocarbon dating, and obsidian hydration dating should be conducted as appropriate. Monitoring of all field excavations by a Native American representative. Preparation of a final report of the Phase 3 data recovery work and submittal of the research design and final report to the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), and other agencies, as appropriate. It any Naflve American arohaeologkal artifacts are recovered, the project applicant shall contact fhe Clfy, whMh shall in tum contact the Morongo Band of MlssMn Indians and any other dssignated Tribe(s)' tribal representatMe, as defermined by the Nathre American Heritage Commisslon(NAHC) to notify them of fhe discovery. The applkant shall coordinate with fhe Clfy o/San Bernardino and the designated Tribe(s) to determine, in good faith, the appropriate dlsposRlon Native Amerkan sRHacts and the designated TNbe(s) shall be given fhe opportunity to seek the return of any Nathro Amercan artiNcts discovered. Any non-Native AmeAcan archaeological artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be donated to a qualified scient~c instiMion approved by the Director of Community Development where they would be afforded long-term preservation to allow future scientfic study. 14. Page 5.6.18, Section 5.6.1 of the DEIR, Environmental Setting is hereby modified as follows: The MdnieipeHMetropolitan Water BepeRmenE DlstNct (MWD) is constructing the Inland Feeder Project, which is nearly 44 miles of pipeline, l 2 to 14 feet in diameter, which will convey water between Devil Canyon and MWD's Colorado River Aqueduct south of Lake Perris, near the City of San Jacinto. 15. Page 5.6-20, Section 5.6.1 of the DEIR, Environmental Setting, third paragraph under the heading Sewage Treatment System is hereby modified (deleted) as follows: 16. Page 5.12-4, Section 5.12.1.1 of the DEIR, Environmental Setting, first paragraph under the heading Arrowhead Springs is hereby modified as follows: Only a portion of the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan area is located within the City limits of San Bernardino. ~ While the southwestern tip of the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan area is currently serviced by the San ~ Bernardino City Fire Department, details of which are described above, the majority of the existing developed area currently lies outside the service boundary for the Fire Department. These areas of the Arrowhead j Springs Specific Plan, designated as Community Service Area (CSA) 38, are serviced by the San Bernardino County Fire Department. Because the closest San Bernardino 6ittrCounty Fire department resources are • located significantly farther away than the closest 6eentyClty Fire Department resources, the County Fire Department and the San Bernardino City Fire Department have established an automatic aid agreement for this area. The agreement calls for the San Bernardino City Fire Departmentto be the first responding agency General Plan Update and Actaiated Specific Plant Final EIR City of San Bernardino ~ Page 3-19 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR to these areas. The County Fire Department will then send additional units to the area, and take over the operations when they arrive. In addition, the Arcowhead Springs Specific Plan area is considered a hazardous fire area, evidenced by the 2002 fire which affected a large portion of the planning area. 17. Page 5.15-10, Section 5.15.1 of the DEIR, Water Supply and Distribution Systems is hereby modified as follows: AHS 5.15-1 Prior to approval of the first Tentative Tract Map, evidence shall be provided to Public Works/Engineering to confirm the availabilityand gwnNfyofexiating t#jet apPrepr7ate water rights pere~een-grer+ted through the State and that the drinking water system has obtained all appropriate operating and design permits through the California State Department of Heath Services. 18. Page 5.15-15, Section 5.15.2 of the DEIR, Wastewater Treatment and Collection is hereby modified as follows: AHS 5.15-2 Prior to approval of the first Tentative Tract Map, evidence shall be provided to the Public Works/Engineering Division that appropriate permits have been obtained from the State Water Resources Board, the State Department of Health Services, CalHomia Department o/Corporations and the SCAQMD for the operation of the wastewater treatment plant including disposal of bio-solids and use of recycled water. i i 9 Page 3-20 ~ The Planning Center September 2005 Appendices Appendix A Calculation Sheets i i i Genera! Plan Update and Ataaiated Specific Plans Final E(R Thr Planning Cents 3 Appendices This page intentionalty letl blank. ~I i General Plan Update and Atraiated Specific Plant Final EIR Tix Planning Center TURNING MOVEI.IENT COUNT ' { I+RCJELT t[4[E Sr Mwbo _, (I 9oc~Er w c.~ E.-..s+7o ata Otn>C; N-65,AftT MwtrwRn 6W iAQT Ww TtYE NORT. EOVND 51717th lOVNO KS 5E8T R%!ND YElS[~OYND ! PEO CgLM E8f IhRU RCM IETT 11[R[J Re%fT TOT4 lFR 7NRY RGM1 [f)'7 1MRY RICM i0[.tl NC 4 [i tM O'OOC• t5 7C 70 0 1: n t6 it] 1/ 71, • e 4; . 1RS 0; 0 0 E J'tst710 N, 4 ) x 165 ,9 b] 1 6+, 56 0 b 6 2a 0, 0 0 0 OT iDOT ai Y fb; 0 L 2fe 2] ale e M 71 1 M . iw 7' 0 0 0 2-as0em 6:1 f6; 7 1' 1t` E ]ec a P. Q 7 O! S 3a7 0 0 0 7 mzoes -.e r.! D e a z:i 7 s-, 4 a n - T to o, o o t oe ,sae>a 4: as1. 1 s tw ,2 aEa a se x s sT~ s .es o' D D t awaeu .3~~ z; s t3 ta; to ioe a' s•' e1 s n' 7 2t7 0 0 0 0 -l-- - Deu.oFm St~~~ ] n; t56 9 2f, T f6 6: . 7C ,t 2,0 0! 01 . I nw+~ ri D o' 0' 0, 0 0 0 c 0 0 0, c 0 D 0' 0, C P,ir io [ q _ c_ D D- 0 0 C• c 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 t•. ]GnB 0 C 0! C 0 0 0, C c 0 D G 0 C Oj 01 t n af.c at c o' e_ e' _ c o e o e, e o 0 0 o e o~ o t ',:w,:o c D c _- c~- o o ~b o c. c D D n o D' 0 0 0 u+s,:x c o;- c' c o_o o c c D o D c c of o c t: ]o,: as c =c~ - -_ o o. 0 0 o c- c~ o c c c o c D o a~,]OC C 0! C; 0 0 0 D. C 0 0 D 0 0 0 D D; 6 to m,etl Y ts', ) ] G'~ 0 7~0 b; 1C T: 0 qt A NO 6 0 0~ t0 ~ t6 tste ~f9• ~1 > e; !5, be JO pC 6! 0 72 12 2M 6 DS 0 t 1 x3e,-e.] _ *a _ta~ . u w~ a gee iT to+i s as_ :a :ve ~ t o 0 0 ,e af.l'm ~ P:• ia[; t; ,:! 6 N' a: t0.: ]' :i Ya 20 7t] 0~ o t YM•1`tf 76 :!' G K. 9 DR, f1 IG, Q G 1:. 1e >•t C~ 3' 0~ D C IS V Si Ed Z'E -. 0 6:' . iG0 a?1_t!fi e2 0 123, 36 1JG 0, 0 1 1 ~ t'Y.r of Si 1+s! n a; h: - ~~1) _-bi a0' 63 i t G;1 ]t iu 7 D~ 0, R t _ ,'a(,CS G' of E 6 C O5` a6' 10C tJ s; H to Ye ~C ,~ Oj E f':AK-HOUR VOLUME ANALYSIS CfLC4L'.Ik] .M `IaUP.Wi'JMES!N !L'.USIFAtW.Yf1VYYC:U4E5AN , W e'a P ~ _ .n s- SF S' s 11 Na: '6 Et NR A- N~ 1•Y h. A' AV. .J 191.' _ _ ~+__-. _ ..:F N.t i4~'s `A:F AC.'..I:G: +LV.FD'-9 YCLV4Ei 4:!'e ri ~ cl $C ~ $: C FL Y.C 1 E: NT E• n _ h _ C C ' a ~;c..~ ~c . j +C El ` N4 1:` E_ Nti ]'] ET ,C air .e NT a:J C- ~ Y•T '7G EF 'N• 19 [A Nt ' I 4. 4 49 K N MN ' ! 1 J'] MZ Y _ i \ T,w."yuw..~.°o°""tw„y'r TURNING MOVEMENTCOUNi ?t~wbh-e~E.Ttlmct,ary,' ?Rw[CT RAYL Mewlrap aMro+ vltwtCT t.o: .e2 '. DaTF 011Y2C] h-S SiRGET wR•tnun E•W tTRFET; ae>tGW TWE MttRTw /DUl.C tOVtM fOUht) W r c M TOOUhT) E.w / ODOOK} - LFR TMRL• IuCM LER TMRU RIGM TOTAL I,.ER TMRO RIOM EEfT T21Ril RIOM TOTAL Sil iL Ey ' w OT.OOpt. i3 2. fl 1 O 3<7 t <N f 70 1t 11 10 2 fi3 2 / 0 - 1 D7~15-07.70 3• f] 3 t aft 13 EIf 7 1f M 11 23 2 Q 70 0 '0 .f 07;yp7:a5 I7 17f 3 7 71! 3t ta7 3 2! a) • h 7 177 3 0 0 - < 07,<SO{W <2 % 10 311 Y• <{7 f u <2 71 <1 t tY 7 O = _ ufoun) Z• 107, tt 7~ tf1 7s 42• f tt' 17 72 t] i M 0 0 0 t ua5li/.]0 _ 21 tt1 0 { IN 7 4W 7 11- U 1f tt 7 M • 0 0 ~ < u ]SLR bas tai 00 L 10 277 7 s2E i 7a i7 A 77 • 772 0 C 0 uaSC{StC ?tj 12+: 1{ H ta< 7 tt/ 70 M 1{ 30 31 11 1<1 0 0. O "t ++OG H.tt 0 0 C 0' C O 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 O 0 0- 0 t N Ktl a, 0 0, C 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0, 0 ( ,t2o,tu a e, c o' e e o e o', o a e, c o o e e: t +' ast: IX __J 0 c 0 0 O 0 0 O' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ca.q IS 0' 0' C' 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 t, O O 0 O p, t +St272 0 C C C C 0 0 0 0' O 0; 01 O O 0 O' 0' f ]ot}.as o~ a. a o 0 o a o 0 0 o e e f e f e t ua>uIX O' o, C, 0 C 0 0 0 0. 0 O; c 0 O 0 0~ 0 C tfi :476 t5 25~ 2?C. 2 6 t?7 ! <4 0 te' 7a 11' 7} 6 t/ 6 0 0 t +b tS17 as S2; 2t) tC 3 t)T { a13 0 t3 30 N N 12 171 6 0~ 0' _ t t,'.tb a] 20; ITO, ta~ t UO 7 60a 20. 73 t2 SS 15 U] 10 0 0 1 +<ai 1T.[q St, Oe!'_ Ot 6~ tt3 2 i:0 12 71, i0' a6 1] 137 3 7 0 f t7 LLt7~t1 10: 23? !' 0; 1q 0 <St a +e; t] 10 72 1} q 0 0, 0 L +'+>t/.]: tt )at, a 4 ltt • 61! • 1T, 10 0' }0 10 t7 0 ~- 0.. 0 - t +t 3Dtt.a] 7 Oz0' 6 7 t52 1 f0i ? 1]' 10 7 70 to a 0 0' 0 --'1 n ai[ z< ~o -e+t a t, u{ 2 <a a, tr, 1T ! 20 t % a t: E t PEAK•HOUR VOLUME ANALYSIS C•,h_V.e^VEaY r,C!'a lptGy[s.tu t~+~„ttCO aC.Y NCpR u - - kC L41+$Sl.. to 1362 }3 Sa .., S. b4 7C t] C. WR t7 CL KR Cl CT [T.[G [I CC YR Taa ~ F ._-„~ V." h. ti" Nu h'. hT hR t.r _ [a'. C'. _l~fn OC_aM N.7 ~-C'~C•+Y: S.A!'(Iti ~^.1„t•f^. 4Efl ., i+._a V._+L..Y [5~~~ [ Q [ _ ..- S S, Sc S SL { t. v., E4 b_ h, hT he h'. A- Aa C C C _ Tv _ h. h~ F:. ti. h~ ha t:i l+'! 1f OVgM~t`1'ti CGUtiT TURrItNG M oao+~"iO~ ~ ~ e'" s'7G~ei TMw R,c~ ° s .r_ q sc o 0 7f. ~ as N amfeT o q • o ° o O• w.y s7'n>{], your 702N' ~ aU° 1 q q 0 • a C s C TiR'J 1uG>n a!1 T O O O O 4 as 1 O O T.KJ~NA'i R:6KT ~~O !71 C yT q 1 ; 0 C tl 4 4 ~ q lia> O a,0 sit 4 4 a 0 p ? 6 CT ya,pt;1> = 41d 4 0. 1t{ II •a2 q, q 4 q O C i O O tl7 ai`413e s ,Ta O 4 .~,.. 4 !i4 q O • 4' a 4 0 07 itlDT•J O 1a1~ 0 7 qfl'. 4 aa{ O O a 0 O q, qt •sU tlG 1a{ 0 1 eel l 1 4 ° 0 4 of C{aay{:a> f aJ a O 2N 0 C 4 4 G p O q+. o e. a o 4 N a`''b ~ C 4 O q O q 0 q q 4 L O C. 0 tl e 0 O C O O. 4 h tl 0 tl q. O 0 O 6. tl 0 G O 6. C' C 0'. tl O O 4 6 ,. aw+"° c. c. 4 e'. d c q a'. tl e q o 0 0 11 151, lv 4. q ~-ql e 4 q q 0 O O O, O 4 a5.2 x c'. c'. c q o' f o e c c. 4 c', o. 11 qp-52.ai C C tl 4 C' C C. C~. C ti Ci O 0 a1 i5.2.]c a, 4 tl ° a 1 tl 4 q w ci o 0 a2 DOS] a5 C G 4 Q 4 2 a> 4 O S 62! 4 tl • q_ 0 > 0 q a2 s11]C" C 4 6CJ a O O C. 4 tl • q, q 0 2:a 6E .y'M a-yy !1 _'= ! .-tl 2i 2ll , a!S ~ q ~ 0, O C ! * a q ,csl,s.. ! 12.. ~ ,ss s4a c . r. ai,; ec y as 7!!: G ' ,{!: a Ui q t7S~+'17 S 1. '_` L ` ,ll a ,i 17 5p~ p ,7.la,i - a. ->': R~,yALY$15 ~~~~~'w~ i+lt ~~„s,]w p~pKNGURV4WME !i.'iiSEU?t'~~~ MT ~ . ~~L%'t~ f. WL • P Yr• , F. ? ? ~'•'- SG , ~ tP h M. -.~--~~ch !e S' Y.r< t r" a ~ QL'1Y,~i~ _ - i f• h' FP Sc > wa • h- ] tl w' - 54 ,~ CG ~ Y= Y v~P h' f4 ., h~ Sy S~ KSI C h. G Y~ L..Sy+" s ~ 5 { 5. SP n. F' : sa 5- M' q ~' r; --"' ~ M1 G^ F 1.: ate], J I Turrvp Yev,w•n!C•unt AlWjk's TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT •np•rw b3c e.E rrMEe i,srvy. •R0.iER MAYS Arrern•••SdMbt ?ACA:ER MC: eei CATS MfJ'+1C] • M-91TREET: Wa4rwun f~W STREET: ]aT SVM TIME NORTM OOUA'O eCIUTM OOUY W EDIT OOVMO WEST OOUMO E•W fEe OpYlfT lER TMRU R'GMT LER TRAY RtGMT TOTA: LLR TMRU AX.M kLR tf1AU NGlCT TOTAL !q Ot EL W oT.ooa z+s a, +a o o ase s •ra 1 0 /a o 0 1 u o 0 0 c-.+s-er.s1 to a o Sea a sae o 1 s + a o • e o e eaao.oT•s • +eT o a •u 1 su o e s e a + • 0 0 0 o-asuoe + m 1 c iq + s+r s / s o o e +0 0 0 0, a oou +s . o o srs o as + o e s o o T o 0 0 ca +sr,E so . +e+ o c s+s 1 w+ a c • o + a 1+ 0 0 0' as wea as a +n; + o soa / o + • a o • s o 0 0, Ct a51K OC a 150 ] 0 SH 1 aS + C tt 1 1 0 to O O O, ,! cC.++ t5 C 0' 0 0' 0; O 0 0: 0' 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 lS,t C' 0, 0 C 0. 0 C 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 „ 16„ s o o, o o: e, o 0 0 0 0 o e o 0 0 0 o ?.s,:a o e• o c: o o e e. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o e; u wu +s o. o, o o. 0 0 0 0 0 0 o e o a o 0 0; +:,s,:]: c' o c c~ o o c c c e o 0 0 o e e e' c ]C.+2 s o~ c o c o o e o c o e, a e o e e o u au oe o: c' o e o o e o c o e o 0 0 0, o o' ,: [6+L ES 13, SCJ C 0 tOG C 611 1' +' • G' 0, i 0 0 O 0~ ,5,5-!!I: L' a,! 1 0 2+6, C 45 1 1' 7 C' O, 0 +3 0 O 0; ,L SC-,E 15 t:i ]T C 0 a00~ 0 Q] C C~ 4 t' 0 6 10 0 0 0' a: !:.cc R' au C C a29~ 3 6Le~ Y +, la C 0~ 7 t0 0 O 0' 11 Gwt S tL 121 105 1 1 +9a, 6 622! al 0 --7 C S i 10 0' O e +' 1S!i.7: ,L' 11+ C O tT6~ C aM D 1, 1] C, 0 7 a+ 0 O 0 +']0 :):a1 ¦, SLO, C 0' Zak, 7 639 1 0 t0 C 0 • +e 0 0 0 ,r a1!!ti L 1,1' , 0 ,2Y + 6CL 0 1_ 7 1 7 +7 0 O 0 PEAF(•HOUR VOLUME ANALYSIS S+:S J' ~TEC AE AK MCUR YiwCM_7'! V R : <Tf T OEAK M'+LA Vn~1 Ea,M! 6 1525 1 ~-. So „- E. iK Si 6. , i~ n4 ] kl WA 1! LSS t ' S+'.CV:w"• ,:uK ~~...!~~i~'~~ ~.c+E9oE E,nUA Vr-L':YLS?i09~ OM < C C 9• 5" 5. ST 1. t? Et v. O El Y•K .- FR ML E E4 W'. __~.- C C C G•-.44"~~.°.~~• fs:i•L'.'wE+r_^'rS~'y'tr.lsu ,. r-.• T R v._ Er R Wra _- r ( ~ ! . Y•. i A: A^! A[ hL A' h~ ~ as 1N: , ?wpaM aq- O E Tr.,ea a T"""°Y°"'"""ac°"aa"'y'r TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT ~^o+ ?ROJECT r1waaE. .MwMSf e..,ro. . PR6IFLT NO' >a]] OATS O1MA] NS STREET: WW,nun E~W 3TRFCT: Ya TO[E NORTH a0UN0 iOtJT1, W Ta0UN0 MEET am0 EaY ? U~fT ' LEFT TNRV RIGM LFFT TMRU R1GM 70Tti LEFT TNRY RiGM ItFT TNRU R7GM TOTnL Nt. aL 4 w. 07.00-01:,3 t ttt O 0 K7 1 at0 0 a T 0 1 0 a 0 t ~~,0 WJa-0rA0 t tat a o as v faa 2 a • . t a 7e 0 O '.;0 mxarss . to + o ao. a ar a o / a to a u o o •o cr:asreoo , ue o + axa tt sa s a o E - a r at e o .o w.oouts c fug o o au a axa + t T t t a u o o .e w.+sw>v x' tsa' t c ate r aw o t a a a a a e o e w~aoea3 6 /ex' t o 7fi 1 aa7 T = 70 a a / b O O ~ O oe.as.o9oc e~ taa' o e: a,r a au s a to a T a at o o~ o t10at,.t5 O O 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 n +s, t to a O p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1t 7o-tt .3 0; O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 0• 0 0 0 0 0 +,.s.,x.w o ~ 0 0 0 o e o o e o e a o 0 0 0 0 uoau,s cl c o e o 0 0 0 0 o E' e o e a e o r.+s,xao c: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o e e' o• o o e o e r..la+rs c; or o 0 0 o c o 0 o e E o o e a o txasuce e' c, e o e o 0 0 0 o e o o a E o 0 ,a w,a ,s ,. su, ] r. a:+: x sac , t to E, e r xs E o ~ o ,a,s,a lc r. sa , c; a+t: a ss+ o a; a a; a a as e e 0 ,i 7o-t4.. a, ]xd t C. 209 T 63, a 6: 6 T; a 6 33 0 1 O ,e s,v oa -~ia s,,; t + :7t, a eTx a a; s x; E t, a1 0 0 0 ,>eo-,r,s ,J', an . d .90, a ra a e: e , t r z• a o 0 r~,s»-7C a ata; a e" ue a uE e e a 1. a Sx as E o o ,'.7v-R .5 -1~ a5< C C t0G a 601 6 ai 6 3 6 t6 a7 0 O 0 t`ai-:a oc ,7, a,:. x t~ f7a, x 607 E 2; 17 x e e O 0 0 PEAK•HOUR VOLUME ANALYSIS t • ter.:' s, E:.EIr+' K=..• l'4Y.:+lt'S~.~S_•!• t01aSfECPF! ! h•• ~ ~p v^~u°s~.,[ 4 ; 15.'.a 1 _ _ _ _ _ 3? ~ S• Sa ,: F_ v.n ,. E_ Wn ,: E' 010C-Oa 00 N^. t` ET KT h, h' na N: NT N~ r 6A ] _ _ E''- u~E'~i'~'- •s'1° v0:+"'L5 t•:^.ti hm\.<-to vt...ovrs vo[~_..L51f:0e L E c ti S. Sa 5_ ~ V•a f E: Y•R•_ • ft 1t COtx LL Y.- C ~ CT ~ Y.: C Ca Y.. L E~ ri: _ h'. h• F. h. 1.• ha C C C _ S-.C ~ .~?:, °C'._:_ °._~'->!'13 01! 1.:c14.*tn yt.t ~c~:v v0~_vu. err 1: C, ,E lit'.S \'.T J1 [l V _ J+ E^ Y.L Ek bl _ . h, h' hF h, h' hP 3: tJ:4 3 V ' TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT - FIYJJFL'1 IaWE Sr. Ear~lo ILTE C~'71C MS 7'AI~T. w.a~w~ C- W 71TPffl: OOM Sawn 1 TIME M(FtTI, R7UM'~ 80t•^N b{AO ?S GSr ~ WFEr F7~ F OO tY1<1MT lfR 7a0+U R1G,fi {EFT T01{/ IOf7tr TOrK LSr 7' U 1 O,CMr lSr iM10 : bWi iCRK ML a 1 {t yyi J,ooOrs x,~ ~ n 0' n7 tf/ ad , ,., N 17 lU D t. , 0, C G r taa: x n' r' is o' +ae, ,as zti o ~ +s xF m sa 7aO o o: c c -' - r. lan as u• .u, o'_tEn, !as w 7! _le' x 4 ,ip a ~ EF• o o! o. E Or ae.aem ar 9a: r io: ,oo, ~m ~ .sue Y Y V NF bl >4 0 C 0; ! OE OOQta V ~ E7 Y a tlr, t® ax t, X 7l a, It7 se xe. . 0 +, 0 0a tauES 3• St' 3 7 !»' tl'- G X tr e, 7T- u xea 0 0' , ar aoau •t' a~; Z: a ,n' t:G yr 0' 1: xf rT M D• lEi 0 0~ C; 0 eF w01t>) U :f~ ,K aE• • r ]7 ,7' N $er C D. 0 t n mt, u c c; c o c: c o o c o o t o o e, 0 c HtLttl7 C C' C [•-~ C~ t 0 D, C C 0 C 0 C- p-~~C 0 t:7P 1tU C- C C ~C t c t 0 0 C C o 0 0 0 0 n a'! flm 0 C, [ D' T G 0 0 C 0 0 C 0 0 0, C, 0 ¢06 )2ta 0, b C C; C, G 0 0 C C 0 O C C 0 j ,5+: A c N t t t' C 0 0 C 0 0 C C 0 0 0' 0' 0 ixwnis - e~ a ~ '~o o D' D a o t c o 0 0; o. o +=•Laofi" -- r, e. t - - c' -o e a o- o c e o o; o'~ o +c Do-!E is r:, :L!: e> s^ v as a'j n+ w >m o: o~ e to is u>o -4". 2a!i M1O ~-!:Jji'9 Ftc 7J X a' x` Y xra o 0'. a~ 6 to w+a as es~ c.' a ,;t; e^ :.-e '- 5' _:e: •,` as xw a Oi tl ! M aNT00 tF a1~'_~-b) a; ,C7 ,X e•• a, •, d0-~ ,0:' Ci ZF: , 01 1 1 t?Oe,r ,~ 5 ~aC~ b' _L_t,li •6 6e, S A :'0 lb~ t1t T 7:0 C 01 0' 0 !?6!rb y, J+a, T P'; H Itlf 9; 6' A~ ,Cb 0: 0.7 C CI = _ 0 , L'Y!T aS 5• ;a Jt ,: J C' Sa] 6', Y a0 33 'u 1 1^, G Oi ti I'aa !eT a: .ya~ 5` ta•l--_._d app 4 U 79; !Y.• Y P3 0 of 0: 0 FFAK-FiOUH VOLUME ANALYSIS GKGLJ.TFL'YfAlLCLV!LYLiI:'MGYW ,{D:ti O'fi:.^PFJf::-LL YfX'1V2Shl! ?ti l:, _ p + CR Si ! ~ µc .°.a ~ ~ L nc ~ . ~Y F= ML kP. nl L' n• s. Mi M? ' rc a~ s~ _ GA.C~J.TEL ^G•l. rn^L5'.~:vL~'ti•:r~ ltC. L: T~.F:LS:94.=. K't:.VG-Y_%w - C :F y ;hG':..litt'h,+1.:!OL.°.'Fa:?fi _ _ -_. .ti.L: ~!=v.'-C•.S Y:t:VGi _+v . V] aL` _ w s i s= ~- c ~ . A F: da L we _ ~ + , ,.`. N w. ,5.` Eft +M1 1 M1: M. 41, 1.: M1 MX Y 7:mr~ w..,~, ta:..t w~r7s~t TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT rrw•a K OL TrtBe Sarryt rIC.£R watt: Ane.trW Swn. 44vjtcl PR:7 SC7 MO 51157 CaTC CStp.97 N 7 StnEE7' VYwo. EM 570EI7: .On TiuE NOtRII x SOIRM MS 101tN [x O ItFT TNRI: kWtT L.[1'7 TI/IU RCMr T07K lf1T T7tIR! bGfL ItJ7 TI/Rl ItlGtft TO7tLL /4 A Iy rM C700G7;1S 16 C' 7 0 6 C 1f 0 37 1w la 7K 117 O 1 O ./ e7:lso7x :7 0 + o e n o x a sl s1 771 0 0 0 e C190L7.15 ]s C 7 0 0 41 0 70 b 77 W 100 0 2 .0 07:.50000 7t C 6 0 0 0 ]0 0 p Y 11 S! 117 0 ! 'C a.OCd:IS IS C S 0' 0 21 0 S+ K 1 Sa 1 0 ! 0 •0 a.ISOf!S 71 c 6 0~ 0 Z7 0 S7 71 !S 4 IY 0 0 0 ~ p axJ6 a5 19 C 7 G~ 0 7Z 0 SI U I7 S/ fal 0 1 0 0 xaso+x ]i o e o. o o ar o s+ 1+ n at fa o s 0 1 ux1:'IS o c/ a 1: 0 0 0 0 o e c o 0 0 0 o a u Isux c o: e c o~ e c o 0 0 0 0 o e o a o 0 uxu.a o a, c c 0 0 c 0 0 o c c o 0 0 0 0 0 l:.s l7.OC e, c e e o o c o 0 0 0 0 e c o 0 0 0 uo: uas c' c~ c c o• e c o c e e e e c o 0 0 0 IH.15 ISx o' G 0 c O: C c o 0 0 0 C 0 O o 0 0 0 l r x 15.5 6 C 0 C G C C 0 0 0 C C 0 C 0 0 0 0 Ir.! I70C C. C C G G C C O C 0 C C C C 0 0 0 C 1S OC ;6iS T. C 13 C Ci C a 0 6: 14 + 56 C NI 01 Z 0 0 1615)£x C Ir 0 W C SS 0 17 77 7 6s C ltl 0 0 0 1 1530 i6.s SZ C ]t C C C 66 0 6! M 1 6! 0 lk 0 O 0 7 15 aJ 17CC 57 C I) C C C 70 0 7C 7a LC 1t 0 171 0 i 0 0 I1 Wd7.15 as C 21 0 C C SS 0 6r Z7 7 6i 0 157 0 i 0 0 1'19 P:70 a9 C r7 C C! C 72 0 73 1. I7 6s 0 175 0 0 0 0 1730 17A5 s] C ]6 C G L 69 0 u 71 7 SC C lT9 O O 0 0 p as.:+OO 7: C 2a 0 G C 61 0 7r 17 S S} 0 157 0 0 0 0 PEAK HOUR VOLUME ANALYSIS fa'~~~•~M~_~R Y^U4f•.tY +'~~'T4~ohc r. MV[kuY•S tY C C C Sa ST SL SP S: SL 2:s ET [' IS G£ is w` 275 ET W' - la7 E~ h'_ 79 (r W: h_ h: h° h: M1 NC X C 7r ~ra+.rp t~„na y-.C ilyeeh~~•. ?~n~eiroa[tE MOVC YQVUtSIAC.'~ C L C Sa S. Sa S: S; c u w: c c wa - C l° ML C La N: - h' ne Nt h' ha C C - r _ 1 Tum~p YOVrRRnI CRRnIANyW TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT i•'R'•Ra eY"GE TraR4lwaRy>, vRQJl CT NAYG. AniMwe$ •sa IACJER NO •+e ORE.- Of.43g3 1i3 STREE•. Nan'sY E-w STRFR at+ T AYE NC RTN 60VF UTN SOYNO N3 TROVNO WEST NO E~W • VN' lER TNRV R:GNT LEE' TNAV RIGNT TOTAL lER TNRV R1GNT LER ~ TNRV RIGHT TCTAL NL SL i fL 1 fr OT.000T.i5 6, 0 2 C C- 0 ! 0~ N E a f0~ 0 +12 0, 0, o. 0 01.+!01.]0 +rl 0 1 0. 0. 0 0 u'. 2 E: N D 727 0; 0 0' 0 m ]OOT as +a; o c c o o o: u r : a +a + D: o: o m as0? oo u~ o, o c D e +r o'. u u ] x. o +u o~ a D o o9.ooaR +s of o c' D D +o o' .c; r ] cq o +o+ o x o, o oe +sa.]a r, o! + D~ o D ? e .+, e x aTi D w o' o- e' c L! ]O.u a T- c. c o, o o c a a 2 x D +o? D o c c to ai.+o CO1 s, c' e o c o s; a ft ! s; a? 0 +of 0~ Si c o Cb+t o, C C 0 0 0 0 0 0~ 0 0' C 0 c 0; 0, C C' ,s„ ]c o'. c D o 0 o a ~ e e; o D o e o' o; D c )~•''f s o. c o D o 0 0 0 0; a o. e o e o, o; off: o- as^o: o c o. ~ ~a o 0 0 -~ o e o o' o 0 0 0 o c'• c 213 0 C 0 6 0 0 0 0, 0 0 0' 0 0 0 01 0! 0'. 0 u is•: id o c' o c o. 0 0 0.. 0 0 0' o o D o 0 0! o as o c a c o 0 0 0 o. o e; e o 0 0~ o' D: D •x asv x o 0 0; c o.~ 0 0 0. o: o o: 0 0 0 0! o a' o ?>t, is t2 0 C 0 0 to 0 T?! 9 1: ar 0 t73 D! C 0 0 !i t5•tE ):, t2 D 0 0 0. 00 ]' O tla +' 0 0, 0 !s ]>t3 a! 22 0 a'. C 0' 0 2a 0 621 ! 1 0 ix0 0 0 0, 0 •sa<_.t•at 0 C +' 0 0 9 C e9~ 0 t' !e 0 q3 0', C 0~ 0 f. 9 C. +, 6 0 +0 0 ?6' N 0 t!T 1, C 0' 0 r; tgtT.JJ 9 01 _G 9 0~ 0 9 Di 90j +7 2~ 9:. 0 t1] 0 0 0 D •' l: iT a: :0• O} l~- D 0 .- 7] --_-0~ S+T f? t T: -_ 0 +69 0, 2~ - 0. 0 t-a:.tl P: t8 0. 0 0 M 0 HI ? 7'~ SC 0 tat 0; C 0~ 0 PEAK-HOUR VOLUME ANALYSIS St2~i'aa+~:~i/FI.LR. .Sl+lYES'f4 ~°il~E VcPt h'J.: R.YQIU t+E$'i4 L D 0 $^ + $L $P 3T $l C EL wR C Et +Iq --_. 0o ER w_ a ER w: w N' NR N. NT NR •3 L ] - La.4s.L'SE7?.EaK .ya ,SlV_4-El ny t_v A^'V<'E'PCAR rO•!R V4ILLYE$~NCCN L a a 3• $ $: $R $T $~ ] t: h: C E. w9 _ P n .v r:.'O v.: C f.T ~ 1':I _ tR 'n_ _ f^ w: w_ N' N= w, w' N~ e c e CiL^, LL3•E: 6:Fg NC CR .CtJ4E3~P4 ~:_^f!_!` 4f at ~Q~N VOlU4t414 v C ~- ~ tt wi C EL wR _ f : ,+: u CR n: N_ w NM N: M1 NR C ! 7in~0~""°°CO""a""s'F~ TURNWGMOVEMENTCOUNT ?neenaty,aETlbs~s,e.ete IRQIEC'I fLWF Me~.+e?{NNOV ?AOJELT MO: tL77 CM1TC. O,Q]A7 Is3 STAFET. ,Reu Ea`. STAEEt: i TLC IaOtkTI, OOUwO •OVT4 e0UW0 tE3 iR0UM0 Mt{: eOV,kp E•w I p~,.y. !FR 1'NRU RIC:tf7 tER TNAU RIOM TOtaC GEF7 TtMU AlOM7 LEiY TfIRU R+OIR T07A1 IEk Rt Ey ri„ Or11ppT;13 C. 7R, a ao, ir' 0 e1 a a 0 TS 0 TO 73 0 0 0 or ts.O r,70 a' Sl a td, a7 0 11s 0: 0 o Tf a T• 33 0 p 0 Or aO-07a5 0 7r ~ 41 y 0 117 0 0 0 e; 0 >s M 0 0 0 Or ISC{.OC 0 >J a 7a Zt 0 OC 0 0~ 0 TI' C 72 K 0 0 0 u.OGL1a7 0 ?e TO T{ 7r' o N 0 0 0 7~ 0 1l 75 0 0 0 o. Tsm.7c c as a To tw a eo e D e e D u r e e 0 a 7cel as o u e » v. D u o e e Tt, o a al o D a oa !s•oY oc o 7+ s 7/ 7/ o n o 0 o a, D Te 7s D o o. n aG•+1 T7 0- o, e G D' 0 0 0~ D c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 „ts+l:r o o~ c o, D o 0 0 0 o D a o 0 0 0 0 ., sc„.; _OL c, c e e. o e e, o D o 0 0 0 0 0, o +,ail]0 c' e o e; c, o c o D D o. a o o D e e u 00-t: is 0 0,' 0 O; 0, 0 0 O 0 0 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,S+I S: C C C G~ G 0 G 0 0' 0 0' 0 0 C 0 0 0 127412 aS C C C 0, C 0 C 0; 0 0 0, 0 0 O 0 0 G IZ aS-1)GC C C C C G+ 0 0 0, 0 D 0; O 0 0 0 o O tb C416,s ~ 7{ 1cJ 7^. SJ~ D /0, 0~ 0 C e~ 0 1} 77 0 0~ 0 ,6 1i-1a 7: G, a! l:~ 1•. 67~ D T26 D; D L a P 77 at 0 C 1 ,a 74+}.} C' 7G 1G' T7, 2a' 0 OS 0' 0 G 11' 0 72 70 0 0 0 .c .al rca c ss a, u: 'as o Tts D~ o o u o al as o 0 0 +r o4,r is tz xr' 7r o .n o, o c 7, o. as a2 0 7 7.- ti+: 7. et a; F: r., is o Toe o o c Ta, a 7e ao D~ 0 0 ,r7aaras c as v, 77' o Toa o; o~ o u, o 7a a. 0 7 a •ai,t oc ar 7 1a :a. 0 l0 C 0. G 0' 0 72 31 0, 0 0 PEAK-HOUR VOLUME ANALYSIS p 1_CL _a•• ~ vEa. M-~ ~p_l V~i.eV YJ-_S'!'ykav MGUw\"JV JVk}d4 0 /:, ti+ _ 55 S' {a S' S: C C_ ric. Si f. Wp _ G c! cH! C4 Wi G U -,,. WT C F; K. .' f? y b: M1 h'n A. 1.: hL C ,•- 1: C!_.5..~ ._-~..~~zi2'u f;c:y7re0 e: a..wO~e v^;c~.•.wOe~ e ` e u _ S: a' S_ S~ S' S: _ c c_ v4 C E: Yyo 1": A h' h. A hi C t _ C+;!~~_. •EO eta. ~o_; v_i.,~z eu f::': 4'GL..o[n..^vc~:w4c7 a4 < E~ v.= i~ _ _ E. wp ~ k-. x'. }2 E'. Y.. A_ AT Ae AL A'. Af O +[S Et T""'"oEf"'•'"'"E°"'"in""+"' TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT ~..R.f.asr~.E_Tfr"c!w.r. ~ROJEC'T E1NfC: AnwhW SaMOC PROJtR NO: fr2S OwTE. OtfJl'O] h32TREEl. i? E•V aTRER. fatrb•11 TIYC NCRTN OCUwD 60VTN ND M.S f N T N E•W ~fD NT ~ -- lFR 7NRJ R:GYT LEFT TNRV RlGfR T07K LER TNRV R,C:N7 I.ERT TNRY RIGM TOTAL IlL {t El M 07.OFC r:+s • +': S o 0 O 0 0 7x E a a' 0 Z7 0 0 .0 m:,s~Tx +s .' + o E o +T o u n • • 0 17 0 0 .e c:.aDaT-as +s +' + o o + v o. as r E u o 70 o e , o e7.asaaoa ,t 0 • + o e u e u a +a e a e 1 .'.e CS OOG.t3 0 0, 1 0~ 0 0 10 + 1f a Z a C a0 0 O 0 utsra ao +t o 0 0 0 0 o i o • • e R7 o a 'o w arcs as v c' 0 0 o e u o +s, E a s a a/ a t ,+ was-D9oc 1. c / 0 0 0 +s + u .a a, v o w o 0 0' t, x:: is o' e c o' D 0 o c o' o 0 0~ o e o o D It ti-tt 0 d C 0- C- 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 ,t lYt, a1 0 C C C e, e 0 0 0' C C e C 0 0 0 O 1t aSt2 e0 0 0 G D 0 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 e 0 0 0 0 ,. 06t3 t5 C} C 0 D; 0' 0 C 0' 0 0 0~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ets+a c• e. D D' o o e o. o~ E o o e a o 0 0 uao-u.aa C c' D 0 0 0 C 0 0~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 tl ci.t]K C• C C- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, 0 C 0 0 0; 0 ti Cr_1e t5 u C a C + 0 1t 0 1C 7 S Y 0 20 0 + 0' 11 tS1E 70 S' C F 0 0 Sa 0- +Y i ! t] 0 a•1 0 e~ 0 m lo-+c a 2t', c' • _ cl o + Ze o r +D a' u o aE D o e• t6 BIT Ca 1t; , i C; e, 2 ax 0 +i 1a +' i' 0 ai a 1 0 t7:L41T 15 19 C; t CI C 0 0 tC 17 6• 1.; 0 17 0 -O 1 C :.~CAO 20 G' ii G C~ 7 7: 6 tC' t. 1 12~. 0 77 0 0 e~ t773-t`aS 32 6. 6. C 1- S ]0 0 7 10 a 12~ 0 a0 0 0 0 "dn]:.: 21 C i G C. C 10 0 6 19 6 i' 0 a] 0- 1 0 PEAK•HOUR VOLUME ANALYSIS i~~_~.!TL:i.PEA'SM:Si0~.12'-~'trES~au 1.;,;LiILD ~F1K MaUP VOLUYCS~w., 1 C 1 ae ST ,,. ate. 6T 6: t f N5 0 El WR N; ET C: L` a] 15 ri~ 76 ET _ .,_ YIT 7. Ec r. T7 E~ h: 1.. hC 1.9 hl HT Nll 5 t'...~. P: r. r J'..4 1i ^:a_ ? W USTCO ~wR^~'JR VOIVYES.NQf,Jry C < C• -~ J . Sq 1= a' is ~ r, L E. ris Y. _ C F O K'. G k• ~ n_ r.. hY Al hT N't [ < C fJ,...••t' .`pG~!F4Ln .1'.~Y.1S1'Y !L:':5':7 pcw. -3CO YCSLE~ L~ g. 5: a' C E_ v.a C E: M: 1 e ,., ,d E• n_ L 2. ' / i V 1 i iJ 3 Te,n II9.bnrY East M.y~ 7URN1 NG MOVEMENT COUNT n[Y..e 7>r CE Trebc Yvn7[ MIO.FR NAY1: an~•a Sei.•a[ ?.e.[t • vO01ER wO 27737 [;ATL ~ OS/IS/O] N S S71RE:: Ya[n• E w fTllE1T: TIME hp7TN NS ST E~IT L1fT TNII7J ROM lE)•7 T7oN7 RfM TOTK IUT IIWU O16R LE7T TON eIOR TO7K M A [L wl 0?OD07.IS 17 It IS C a7 7. IOS 11 11 29 17 71 0 1K 0 0 0 0 0/:150730 TC 19 ! 1 er 113 ] u F b 122 0 a6 0 0 0 2 0/30-07.a5 71 7I 7a 3 S7 177 It al >S A I17 I 2b O 0 1 1 07A5-01W H ]2 1] S SO 27 177 17 S7 S2 Ie fl >a O 0 0 1 OI.OOp 13 IC 10 IC 1 >t 21 !h 11 ]7 SO 2S f0 1 U7 0 0 1 0 j a.1SOOx 16 IO 7 1 T !D N >V 3] 11 y Ib 0 0 1 Ob3C.0O aS X 2: f 1 al 16 IOr f a7 „ Il M /b 0 0 1 0 De AS09m 71 77 11 0 ]l la 111 9 b 21 ID 7f C lH 0 0 0 0 I:osllls o c e e o~ o c o a o e c a e o o c I:.lsllx c a c o m e a c o 0 o c o c o o a r.]cilas o a e c o 0 o c a e o o e o c o o c l:aaloo ai c e o; o c c e of 0 0 o e o e o o c ~ 17ee u~ls u c c o- o, e o e 0: o c c e o e e o e 1: a 17 7o e: o e c: o a a e a; o e a e o e e o c i uxuas c: c c a o a c e~ 0 0 0 e o c e o e Ilao-uoc r e o e, o e o e o=. e c e e o c a o e Isooia.n 7c: 7v is l Ia f lw ri a7 v 1: a0 c la o 0 o e !' :Sdb 1 T, 3a 7f t 72 f ]Y! I9 76: 7 Il 57 O 16S 1 C O C 1C X lE ai ]1 a7 79 T Y. 5 170 71 771 17 f 6S 0 If3 0 0 1 0 iSA5170C 2!. 5+ 30 ] ri 17 151 ri 09. 9 ffi 63 C 100 C 0 0 0 17« lA? .7, s7 Is u n e isl u r sa a sa 1 In o 0 o e 17.IS n.7c .], s: zb c, 77 11 ls7 x ul 77 I1 sr t 2n c e o e i~ 7c :7 a; 7r. aE 19 le a la: r: n 17 :o u c lu c o a• 1 1'a9 /40q 71. 75 I7 l' 79 O 119 21 Ob 16 1:• O 0 202 1 C 0: t PEAK•HOUR VOLUME ANALYSIS G~~•~^[M1~OG~~YM~Fy~ Y°I~Y[[.•Y L nIC[p 0[•~N CIO yI~{UYES Y l7: I55 10 Sn 57 SC S~ ST SE a: N: 2 E. wA :`5 C C7.IS:E:: w 3Li E M 1*i n. 7x f~ wE C` 9i SE - S? 5" S. SA S" S. ~ [ C_ Ne C EL W> C E" 1: x :::t e' E' *' n, ti' A~ f•: N' AP C C C -- -- __C FL['=__~S~°itti i...~ -:n ^:v ~^~~o v^~ ~u[S CY a i r s. F s* s: - I N• w° hT h: I FnpvY ~ T'""'"D Y°"'"""t COi"" """ 7 TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT q D E. rnITR: ati F40JCCT NAYC. •nP+A•W {pM•gf /ROJER NO: HS OaTE: OV]OQ) MS STREET 0.l ppta E-M'ETREET. llr•~eW pn.• TIYF MORTN BCUND DtTTN {OYMO NS EUTEOYNO YYE7IT UOYND HN • DCOYM iFR TNRY RIGM LEFT TMRV RIGNT 7O7µ IER TNRU 1 RIDM IEEE TNRU RIDYE ipTµ Ml al El Y2 DTabOt.t] 1x as » 7 tat a 70{ x; f{I •t f7 » 1 to 0 17 0 { alYa-017C 17 f0' N 11 ttt { 7U a 7{ ]T Y' it a ta7 0 » f a 07 ]007.as O TJ M to 1tS 7 ]60 a' Y, Y a0~ at • 707 2 N D' a ozaso{.x ix it: {s to tta a as s. a; w a as s tae { u a { waoa7e is tr {e 3t a {x a 2x{ z »' ar a taT t to o, t w.tsJ].u 75 a x. a. 01: a 7r 7 u 7s » »' • t7a o a o z 0{.76w 17 7T 6s 7T 7 H6 7 7J{ 7 IC, N B a7, a tY . { 0; { Ls scex z. sr n t Te s ua a lt' .T m 30. a taa o 7 e o ++oo-++ts c a e o 0 0 o c' e a o- o' o o D o o~ o ++ts,+3J o; o' Di D~. D o o e e e o o' 0 0 0 0 0 0 ++w,+s a' c' a o o; o o a c. e o o 0 0 0 o e: o +1_Ii120C C 0. 0 a 0, 0 D C' C. C 0 a'. 0 a 0 0 0 0 7:oo-T7•s c' a: a} o e, o o c c c a o 0 0 0, o a; o +its,z r c e' a o~ D~ 0 0 0 o e o e, o a a D o' D +x.To-uas ~ o~ o' 0 0 0 o D c' a' e o o' 0 0 a 0 0' o u as.3 ^c c' o 0 0' o; o a e c e c o' a o a' o. a'. o t6 a41fi t3 ]fi HS A. fi~ T3, a 77] a 7a 11 IT aa. a U{ 0 2, C { ti t5~+630 )t~ t27»~a5~1 a6 It 23t a' a{ 77 33 3a • taa 0 •' C t t6 ]a.ta a3 - ~a0'• tJ3, 4tT T •, a ]o{ 6~ N sE 7+ a$ a t/N t: 11~ a T t6vDt'CC at! tJB 1:, e6~ S 3ta T 35 17 t51 a! • t60 t . tY" 0~ p +'CGt!t5 5^, Ue IJj tt~ tOG' f 757 E aT 1] N; Y' 6 t){ a { 01 p -~ 1tt S1TJC as 175. U T H t0 ]Ja ta' 60, at xJ' •6' 6 i7a e a a- a V J6+!as aa, 1L: la e, 0J 5 ]+1 a, V' at 71 a7 • t{t ~ a 1. 0 3 c aita c: aa! t21 $C; a` eJ~ a 7q Y' a0 36 30 atl' tQ{ 0 0 e'- t PEAK•HOUR VOLUME ANALYSIS I'A~O~I•T(, Ff~6N M6UR 9D~L4E $~S4 ADN VSTEO pE!R wYY4 ~'OIilMES.aV t+ 1{s k _ a4 aT al a4 5: al L C'_ nR 11 C Wp +:/ fT OT t5-0e 15 Y•T la$ f7 WT +E7 E4 N'; 191 CR 1NL _ Ml ht AN A. NT h4 a$ 7T5 ]al _ ~~CL iI f E D pFJ1f MOV P L'Cl~'NE S~NOOY •1U$`E u PEAN NCUN V 7iUMELNOO~ 0 S 0 _ _ $R ST Sl ]p ST 3. E. NR a EL YJH Ei t•L41]LC Y. 0 fT Y/T C> n, L I E4 b~ M~ H- NF Al N: Hp O C 0 _ OaCU.1T~p PV4 nD..4 VClU4(i~P4 A~J'd 51(O P,(. P. N.J JF VSe.ILME.S`SN a7 36! 72 _ _ 7~ $'. SR S: St E~ N4 22 ~ E. wN tit ER N; t;I n~ +%J 339 t32 T'R"'"°tF°"'"'"EC°""`""""" TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT ~~Riria net a.e Trv!ee a,vr.yi r•RwErrwt++c wt„r.n.wsnnQn. rpwEerwo ,m OATE. 01rl9~O] 1+d STREET. 6tK a E~`rfTRFET. l+v+.aeA Q~1. THE MORTN UNO i0yrN OVN Wa T N T OVNO Eat' FFO ODUNT LEFT TMp:r RiONT S,EFT TNRV WONT f0iK IEFT TNRy R2GM la1r7 TMAy 14ONT 70TK M K El Sr ErcoaT.ls +a a' a s aE a Y l 17 x1 u a x TT r 1 a Er;ts.Et~o u 19 s is ss a +a! a a+ p u :r T +>, + o 0 OT400T;ai C] 11 t +t 69; a 1t1 T xt 7T 10 {2 T 1t7 i a f OLaS{t.00 ea Sa 6 59 t3 1 1e2 T e0 9Cx A as 1x 21x f f 0 GOOtA1f 15. 1J 7 tt Za x Tt a' 10 as 40 a7 f N 1 T L w rsu>< fe~ It 7 u f2 s lu 2 xa lx la a h o e a w aErw as xt Jt s lc u~ T ls1 + xs at is as a 91t a a s: a asr9.oe x2 7 s' at a lOt 2, xa Y x1 e M o ! a: t10C-t t.15 0' 0' 0 C 0 0 E Cj 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 tt tS-tt >a C, 0' 0 C~ 0~, 0 C C. 0 0 0. 0 0 0 C 0 0. n JG1:.aS C C C1 C Ci C C C 0 0 0 0 0 O C 0: 0 tt a5-t200 0, 0 0' 0' 0~ 0 C 0~ 0 0 C 0 0 0 0' 0 0 t2 atr.uts e, 9 e E e o e e, o e e o a o o. a 9, t:+s-r.,JE e'' e E o e, e e e' E E E, a o e e o e' +}.]au~s _ ea E o o E o e o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, ! o tr act100 C C' 0 0' C' C C C 0 0 0, 0 0 0 0! 0 0. 0vt5 tS 75 ].t to v; )0' 1 125 tL' x9 x7 t. » tJ] f / t t5 t5-tS JC 6C .~' 9 15; }i, 6 1St C s2 7S a ?a It N6 0' 1 te.]0-te a5 a] 4T, 30 7 JS; 2 1J9 t as A 1E' l0 t} t{} Y, 0 1' +e aSttM }t a9' t6 121 a7 T 1u ttj x5 tf li~ xr t! 1}t {'. a 1 +r ^d1T t5 }4- !S +S tt, tC 1!T 5 a5 t! +i le 1S iil 1, 0 1i +1 ti1T J' aJ: T1, 19 t JG', ) I6S 1[; a0 at 1E 33 t{ la} C' f 1 •r 1:.1] aS !:, S] 15' )8 6 tSS tai a6 xt tx, 2t Ia 11t C~ 1 0, caste ca a] as' l-., a tst 1]' )s }a n' }a In e' a f PEAK-HOUR VOLUME ANA! YSIS G!'.:L J!IGOlE{rN«.Y^.:C9Lit A'-.v)T o~ At +:2y?L'O~V++La:LV an SC E- SR S' a. 21 f: riR Op El riR vS C• •ste t; ri- t2: Er tnT _ E: r:: S7 CR r: _ w: w' FR w: M AR 1u rr a, ia.'V:ArtC_°°Ga" ••-aR ):.4YEi~!::y± !v-LVSJQ LC!T. ~.".' Y:LL'ui)•N:Ov C [ C _ Sv S S9 S• A'. A' w'J w . w o [ + Ca ~ ~yc^c.].. .-ovly'Y ~•4ey ~p~t•s-Or.•=~ °+..~.~ES~°Y. eR -. ST St A. w~ sv w'_ 6' AR +rt v TV't~F'a"'•""t0ir''""A'a'aV TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT _ Erwreo ur 4E Tr.me wY,t,; FRQIEG'l liwYF' MwwratMV. IROJERMO: Sa CATS O{AdOJ FN ]TREET. iLN ]vwt ErE STREET: TN{E M RTN N^ N Nd EAST MU T YN] E-W LfR 7NRY RIG1R lER TNRV R:ON'T TOTAL LEl7 7MAU R101R IER. TNRV R{CNT T07AL I!L i< EL M 0)aVC7a.• 0 0; T O 0' O 2] O 7i: 0 N 20 0 117 0 0 0 1 0!.t]-Orx C 0 i9 C; O O 27 0 7I 0 1a0 to 0 1FT 0 0 0 - 1 4r.aoa7.as c o et e o o n o -'v a w. u c to o 0 1 , as.:•7 w c c T7 e' o o n o ao 0 1»' 2s a -- ~ ---- - c -, c..oo u:TS o c w o e e w o :o o n 2+ 0 7u o a 1 { uas-cas7 0~. o aT o o _o a7 a t. o w /7 e n '0 0 1 ~ u asca aS 0 0 it 0 0 C bt 0, 2] 0 K 2i 0 7w O O 0 { Ca aSCO 00 ~ 0 C~ a0 0 0 C w 0 7a 0 N ]t 0 aw 0 0 0 r ~-~.-"r"~--' n 00tPts l 0 0 C 0 C; C 0 t. C: C o 0 0 0 0 -_ O- C { n~t L++>e 0, -Ot ~ C C' C; C 0 0, C' C 0 0 0 0 0• O C [ nao-nw E' e, a c• ci o 0 0, e 7 0 o c o 0 e e c ,1 .s tz.oC CI _ o~ o o-- al 0 0 0• o, a o_ _0 0 0 o e a r ~,i cis;:,s e, o, a o- o e o 3, o; a o o a o o e e r +s-u is I c o o, a c: 0 0 o c e o o, e e e e e < ao n as c; o o e e, o a e e; e o 0 0 0 0 o a c ;z<s_voc 4 c. o c~ c' c o e a. c o c c o a e o , .o ce-se u t e, +aa• c e o +w o; o; a s:! c l+e o; a o" • :<:::-taac _ c __c- +;.+I _e _c _e ta. o~ 2+ a ]s v. c a _ o +' o • to ]3~:6 t5 C- C~ Ni C O. 0 112 0 13 0 W ]71 C 116 0 1 0 :a aLty :G "-e --'i~l tta~ - e, •' o--- o +u o 22 0 7a ss; c tai o• e, o t100.t7.1$ C C,~ t::• C; 0~ C t11 0 17 0 03, 3T; C 1iD 0 C• 0 t Ltye7.J0 C U: 1]] e~ C 0 157- 0 10 0 07 271 0 .it O.. E _ - 17.]0.:7:.5 0 __Q _ 101 C ~ C• 0 77t 0 7S• C EG 20 0 12a 0 0 0 !!as-:E re C~ C; 1/i 0 Ot 0 11f 0 21 0 77 ]S 0 170 O O 0 PEAK-HOUR VOLUME ANALYSIS Ar•n F~AF NOLR VOW4E]dN f~E11RTa0 YEAR NOUN VOLOYESd4 6 C C - --- ]A S' SL fR tT al 0 Cl riR G ~ 4 YIl1 fa !T CL1aG.t5 vC ET ~__, riT 0 ER- ri, ail ~ C? +"- NL_. NT NS _ NL_ - NT NR 0 0 21t Ci_C.l~L1 __i~l~•-Cl F'./QILY!"S~A^JCM1 ~,.L~}LS.T.~RCL~~F~=•'~v~M1 0 C C su sT s: SR ac s_ - • C E: ri5 0 FL Y:R h: r.T NR A!. MT N6 O C rceuL. ren rr.. .0u?YnLV4ES~4 ~••'7-~S~IE! ~nYa Y4W4l~0!t 0 C O SR ]T SL ST SL C EL NS C CL M~ AL ti: AR M: A: IiR ' ' C C wf ~, Y EXHIBIT B FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR: GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND ASSOCIATED SPECIFIC PLANS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH #2004111132 prepared for.• CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO Contact: Terri Rahhal, Principal Planner prepared by: THE PLANNING CENTER Contact: William Halligan, Esq., Director of Environmental Services NOVEMBER 1, 2005 Table of Contents Section Paae INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ............................................................................................1 1.1 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS .........................................................................................................1 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS ........................................................................2 1.3 PROJECT SUMMARY .....................................................................................................3 1.4 DOCUMENT FORMAT ....................................................................................................4 PART A SAN BERNARDINO GENERAL PLAN .....................................................................6 Al FINDINGS ON PROJECT ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN THE DRAFT EIR ...................................................................................................................................6 A1.1 Alternatives Considered and Rejected During the Scoping/Project Planning Process .............................................................................................6 A1.2 Alternatives Selected for Analysis ...................................................................7 A2 FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIR/FEIR .................................................................11 A2.1 Air Quality .......................................................................................................11 A2.2 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................12 A2.3 Noise ..............................................................................................................14 A2.4 Transportation and Traffic ..............................................................................15 A2.5 Utilities and Service Systems ........................................................................18 A3 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ..................................................20 A3.1 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts .....................................................20 A3.2 Considerations in Support of the Statement of Overriding Considerations ...............................................................................................21 A3.3 Conclusion .....................................................................................................24 PART B ARROWHEAD SPRINGS SPECIFIC PLAN ............................................................26 81 FINDINGS ON PROJECT ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN THE DRAFT EIR .................................................................................................................................26 81.1 Altematives Considered and Rejected During the Scoping/Project Planning Process ...........................................................................................26 61.2 Alternatives Selected for Analysis .................................................................26 B2 FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIR/FEIR ..................................................................29 B2.1 Air Quality .......................................................................................................29 82.2 Biological Resources .....................................................................................30 B2.3 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................34 82.4 Geology and Soils ..........................................................................................40 B2.5 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................41 B2.6 Hydrology and Water Quality .........................................................................42 B2.7 Noise ..............................................................................................................45 B2.8 Public Services ..............................................................................................47 B2.9 Recreation ......................................................................................................47 62.10 Transportation and Traffic ..............................................................................48 62.11 Utilities and Services Systems .......................................................................49 B3 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ..................................................52 83.1 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts .....................................................52 63.2 Considerations in Support of the Statement of Overriding Considerations ...............................................................................................52 General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plan EIR City of San Bernardino • Page i Findings of Fact and Statement of overriding Considerations Table of Contents B3.3 Conclusion .....................................................................................................54 This page intentionally left blank. Page ii • The Planning Center October 2005 Introduction and Summary This document presents findings that must be made by the City of San Bernardino prior to approval of the project pursuant to Sections 15091 and 15093 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code. Under CEQA the Lead Agency (City of San Bernardino) is required to make written findings concerning each alternative and each significant environmental impact identified in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). The City of San Bernardino may find that: • changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project to avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the DEIRIFEIR; • such changes or alterations are within the purview and jurisdictions of another agency and have been adopted, or can and should be adopted, by that agency; or • specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the DEIR/FEIR Each of these findings must be supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. Evidence from the DEIR, FEIR and the mitigation monitoring program (MMP) is used to meet these criteria. 1.1 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub Resc. Code 21000, et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Guidelines) (14 Cal. Code Regs 15000, et seq.) promulgated thereunder, require that the environmental impacts of a project be examined before a project is approved. Specifically, regarding findings, Guidelines Section 15091 provides: (a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects on the environment. (2) Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can or should be, adopted 6y that other agency. (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR. (b) The findings required by subsection (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) The finding in subsection (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified feasible mitigation measures ' or alternatives. (d) When making the findings required in subsection (a)(1), the agency shall also adopt a program ' for reporting on or monitoring the changes, which lt has elther required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects. These measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plan EIR City of San Bernardino • Page 1 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Introduction and Summary (e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other materials, which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which its decision is based. The "changes or alterations" referred to in Section 15091(a)(1) above, that are required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects of the project, may include a wide variety of measures or actions as set forth in Guidelines Section 15370, including: (a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. (b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and ifs implementation. (c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment. (d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over Time by preservation and maintenance operations dudng the li/e of the action. (e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. Regarding a Statement of Overriding Considerations, Guidelines Section 15093 provides: (aJ CEQA requires the decision-maker to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. if the benefits of a proposal project outweigh fhe unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects maybe considered "acceptable". (b) Where the decision of the public agency allows the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not at least substantially mitigated, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. This statement maybe necessary if the agency also makes a finding under Section 15091(a)(2) or(a)(3). (c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding consideraGbns, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. Having received, reviewed and considered the Final Environmental Impact Report for the San Bernardino General Plan Update antl Associated Specific Plans, State Clearinghouse No. 2004111132 (FEIR), as well as all other information in the record of proceedings on this matter, fhe fallowing Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations (Findings) are hereby adopted by the City of San Bemardino (City) in its capacity as the CEQA Lead Agency. These Findings set forth the environmental basis for current and subsequent discretionary actions to be undertaken by the City and responsible agencies for the implementation of the General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans (Project). 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS In conformance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of San Bernardino conducted an extensive environmental review of the proposed Project. The environmental review process has included the following: • Completion of an Initial Study by the City of San Bemardino, which concluded that an EIR should be prepared, and the Notice of Preparation (NOP) which was released fora 30-day public review period from November 29, 2004 to December 28, 2004. Section 2.3 of the DEIR describes the issues Page 2 • The Planning Center October 2005 Introduction and Summary identified for analysis in the DEIR through the Initial Study, Notice of Preparation and public scoping process. • Preparation of a Draft EIR by the City of San Bernardino, which was made available fora 45-day public review period (July 25, 2005 -September 8, 2005}. The Draft EIR consisted of three volumes. Volume I contains the text of the Draft EIR. Volume II contains the Appendices for the San Bernardino General Plan update analysis, including the NOP, comments on the NOP, service fetters and supporting data and/or analysis of the following subjects: air quality, noise and traffic. Volume III contains the Appendices for the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan analysis induding the supporting data and/or analysis for air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geotechnical, hazards (Phase I Environmental Site Assessment), hydrology/water quality, noise, Vansportation and circulation, water supply, facility plan and annexation study. The Notice of Availability/Completion of the Draft EIR was sent to interested persons and organizations, was noticed in the San Bernardino County Sun and was posted at the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of San Bernardino County. • Preparation of a Final EIR, including the Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR. The Final EIR/Response to Comments contains the following: comments on the Draft EIR; responses to those comments; revisions to the Draft EIR and appended documents. The Final EIR/Response to Comments was released fora 10-day public review period on September 30, 2005. • Public hearings on the proposed Project, 1.3 PROJECT SUMMARY The proposed project consists of three main elements: 1) update of the City's General Plan; which includes 2) the University District Specific Plan; and 3) Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan with associated annexation. The General Ptan update consists of a comprehensive update to the City's General Plan with the exception of the Housing Element, which was adopted July 2003 and included but simply reformatted to fit the new document. The proposed General Plan Update refleds the community's view of its future and can be thought of as the blueprint for the City's growth and development. The general plan projects conditions and needs into the future as a basis for determining long-term objectives and policies for day-today decision-making. While the life of the General Plan is generally considered to be 20 years, the General Plan includes policies and programs that are short term, long term, and ongoing. Soma portions of the General Plan, such as the land use plan, are not linked to any timeline. The land use plan reflects build-out, which will occur through voluntary methods or redevelopment efforts throughout the life of the City. The general plan is considered "comprehensive" since it covers the territory within the boundaries of the City and any areas outside of its boundaries that relate to its planning activities (sphere of influence). The City of San Bernardino's total planning area is 45,231 acres, or 71 square miles. The General Plan is also comprehensive in that it addresses a wide variety of issues that characterize a city. These issues range from the physical development of the jurisdiction, such as general locations, timing, and extent of land uses and supporting infrastructure, to social concerns such as those identified in the housing element regarding housing affordability. To address this range of issues, the proposed General Plan is divided into i4 topical sections, or Elements the same as the existing General Plan: Introduction, Land Use, Housing, Economic Development, Community Design, Circulation, Public Facilities and Services, Parks, Recreation, and Trails, utilities, Safety, Historical and Archaeological Resources, Natural Resources and Conservation, Energy and Water Conservation and Noise. The General Plan is guided by a Vision Statement and Key Strategies, which describe the basic direction of the policies contained in this Plan and represent the community's view of its future. The University District is located in the northwestern portion of the City in the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains overlooking the Cajon Creek Wash and the Glen Helen Regional Park. The University District General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plan EIR City of San Bernardino • Page 3 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Introduction and Summary Specific Plan focuses on the aesthetic treatment of the public rights-of-way and other programs designed to create an identifiable district surrounding the University. The Specific Plan includes design guidelines addressing the treatment of landscaping, signage, banners, gateways, and pedestrian/bicycle connections. There are no unique land use changes or circulation system changes or developments proposed as a part of the University District Specific Plan, therefore analysis of the impacts of this Speck Plan were enveloped in the discussion of the General Plan update impacts. The Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan provides standards and guidelines for the use and development of 1,916 acres, including 368 acres that are currently located within the incorporated City boundary and the remaining 1,548 acres that are located in unincorporated County of San Bernardino but within the sphere of influence of the City. Included as part of this project, is the annexation of the 1,548 acres into the City of San Bernardino. The Specific Plan calls for a mixed use resort/residential development centered on the existing Arrowhead Springs Hotel and Resort/Spa and includes: 1,350 units including 36 single-family detached and 1,314 multi-family units; 1,044,646 square feet of existing and new commercial and office uses; a new 199- acre, 18-hole public golf course; the reuse of the historic Arrowhead Springs Hotel; a new 300-room hotel; a new conference center and reuse of the existing conference center and the reuse and expansion of the historic Arrowhead Springs spa/resort. Of the total non-residential area, 235,996 square feet exist and will be preserved and enhanced as a part of this plan. These non-residential uses could result in approximately 2,530 new jobs. The developable area is clustered into 506 acres near existing development and is distributed within 1,400 acres of open space and watershed, which will comprise 73 percent of the site. The Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan also includes a total of 21.0 acres of parks in the developed area. 1.4 DOCUMENT FORMAT This document summarizes the significant environmental impacts of the project, describes how these impacts are to be mitigated, and discusses various alternatives to the proposed project which were developed in an effort to reduce the remaining significant environmental impacts. All impacts are considered potentially significant prior to mitigation unless otherwise stated in the findings. Following this Introduction and Summary section, the document is divided into Iwo major sections: Part A -San Bernardino General Plan and Part B -Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan, consistent with the format of the DEIR that separated the impacts into General Plan (including the University District Specific Plan) and Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan. Each of those major sections contains the following three sub-sections: • Section (A or B) 1 -Findings on the Project Alternatives Considered in the Environmental Impact Report; • Section (A or B) 2 -Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts of the Proposed Project Identified in the DEIR/FEIR; • Section (A or B) 3 -Statement of Overriding Considerations; Section At or B1, Findings on the Project Alternatives Considered in the Environmental Impact Report, a presents alternatives to the project and evaluates them in relation to the findings set forth in Section 15091(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, which allows a public agency to approve a project that would result in one or more significant environmental effects if the project alternatives are found to be infeasible because of the specific economic, social, or other considerations. I Section A2 or B2, Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts of the Proposed Project Identified in the DEIR/FEIR, presents significant impacts of the proposed project that were identified in the FEIR, the mitigation measures identified in the MMP, the findings for the impacts, and the rationales for the findings. Section A3 or B3, Statement of Overriding Considerations, presents the overriding considerations for significant impacts related to the project that cannot be or have not been mitigated or resolved. These Page 4 • The Planning Center October 2005 Introduction and Summary considerations are required under Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines, which require decision makers to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risk in determining whether to approve the project. ~I i i i I General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plan EIR City of San Bernardino • Page S ' Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Part A -San Bernardino General Plan A1. FINDINGS ON PROJEGT ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN THE DRAFT EIR Al FINDINGS ON PROJECT ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1N THE DRAFT EIR A1.1 Alternatives Considered and Rejecfed During the Scoping/Project Planning Process The following describes the alternatives considered throughout this project that were eventually rejected: A1.1.1 General Plan As the General Plan was being created, it was clear that large scale changes in land use patterns and designations were not necessary to achieve the City's goals, which were centered on a desire to improve the City's image and functionality. Shifts in policy focus, changes in allowable uses, and emphasis on priorities would suffice. Strategic Policy Areas were created to identify key areas within the City and house focused policies intended to help achieve the Citys goals. The direction for each Strategic Policy area was developed in consultation with the City. While some of the initial policy recommendations shifted over time, the changes have been subtle and do not qualify as alternatives. However, land use alternatives were considered for the Verdemont Heights area. In Verdemont Heights, two alternatives were considered that were intended to allow amixed-use village core to develop within a proposed mixed-use land use designation. The two altematives both incuded a mixed-use village but varied in residential intensity. Alternative 1 accommodated 405 residential units, mostly on 3,600-square-foot lots, and 384,000 square feet of retail and office uses. Alternative 2 accommodated 181 residential units on 12,000-square-toot lots and 384,000 square feet of retail and office uses. These alternatives were rejected by the City due to concerns about higher residential density and the prevailing, detached residential character of the area. A1.1.2 University District Specific Plan The following three land use altematives to the proposed plan were developed during a design charette that occurred on December t 1, 2001. The altematives were presented at a joint meeting with University and City staff on August 7, 2002. At this workshop, Alternative 1 was selected as the preferred plan and eventually included in the University District Specific Plan. For a description of Alternative 1, please see Section 3, Project Description. The following alternatives were rejected due to concerns about changing the Master Plan for the University, concerns about increasetl residential intensification, and the status of pending projects at the intersection of University Parkway and Northpark Boulevard, which, subsequent to the review of altematives, were approved by the City. Alternative 2 The focus of Alternative 2 was on the construction of specialized housing (e.g., Sorority Row or Honors Housing) along the completed Loop Road in the western portion of campus and a new wnference center adjacent to the loop road on the east side of campus. The new conference center would provide facilities to host activities that are attended by the community and university students, which would further increase the interaction between the community and the University. In this alternative, existing traffic levels were maintained on Little Mountain Drive and University Parkway, and the completion of Campus Parkway would allow traffic into the University to be evenly distributed between these three access points. New parking structures were proposed adjacent to Coyote Drive and Sierca Drive to maximize the availability of areas where the University can construct new educational facilities and to minimize the physical distance separating the University from the community. Page 6 • The Planning Center October 2005 Part A -San Bernardino General Plan A1. FINDINGS ON PROJECT ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN THE DRAFT EIR Alternative 3 Alternative 3 intensified uses and buildings at the intersection of Northpark Boulevard and University Parkway. Intensified uses concentrate activity and facilitate the pedestrian traffic flow that is desired between the University and adjacent businesses and residences, promote more intense and lively urban activity, promote the use of transit, and estabish a more efficient use of services and infrastructure than the existing land uses and building configurations. New buildings were proposed at the four comers of the intersection of University Parkway and Northpark Boulevard to visually and physically establish this area as the gateway into the University. The areas within the University's boundaries would serve as the location for the admissions building or administrative offices and could be easily accessible by prospective students or administrative staff. This alternative included a new conference center at the southwest corner of University Parkway and Northpark Boulevard and specialized student housing (e.g. Sorority Row or Honors Housing) on the northeast portion of campus, south of the Paradise Hills Specific Plan area and just north of the loop road. To minimize conflicts between increased pedestrian activity and vehicular traffic, University Parkway was proposed to serve as a ceremonial entrance with limited traffic volumes and speeds. Campus Parkway and Little Mountain Drive were envisioned to carry the majority of daily traffic and new parking structures would provide the parking necessary to serve the University's needs while creating space for the new buildings that would be proposed as part of the intersection intensification. Alternative 4 Alternative 4 emphasized development of dense student housing along the Loop Road of the campus. This intensified hillside development was envisioned to create a compact, village atmosphere that emphasizes a sense of community and provides additional housing to accommodate increases in student population. The north side of Loop Road was envisioned to accommodate a golf course, nursery, botanical gardens, and recreational trails. In this altemative, the University Stadium was relocated to an area near Northpark Boulevard in order to concentrate major activity centers of the University and surrounding properties in one area, allow for more efficient vehicular access, and minimize traffic congestion on Loop Road. This altemative also included amixed-use project at the intersection of University Parkway and Northpark Boulevard. The combination of residential, office and retail uses at the gateway of the University were envisioned to draw pedesVian activity onto the campus, antl link the University to the surrounding community and conference center proposed just south of Northpark Boulevard. Retail uses within the mixed-use project would have created a visually interesting entryway and serve as a revenue source for the college. Since the majority of pedestrian activity would have occurred at the intersection of University Parkway and Northpark Boulevard, University Parkway was envisioned to serve as the ceremonial entrance with reduced volumes and speeds of vehicular traffic. Little Mountain Drive and Campus Parkway were envisioned to handle the majority of the traffic, and new parking structures would allow for the intensification of buildings. A1.2 Attematives Selected for Analysis CEQA states that an EIR must address "a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives" [Guidelines Section 15126.6(a)]. As described in Section 7.0 of this DEIR, two project alternatives for the General Plan update were identified and analyzed for relative impacts as compared to the proposed project: General Plan Update and Associated Speciftc Plan EIR City of San Bernardino • Page 7 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Part A -San Bernardino General Plan A1. FINDINGS ON PROJECT ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN THE DRAFT EIR • No ProjecUExisting General Plan Alternative • Reduced Intensity Alternative These alternatives have been determined to represent a reasonable range of alternatives that have the potential to feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but may avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. These altematives are briefly summarized below. A1.2.1 No-ProjecUExisting General Plan Altematlve The No ProjecUExisting General Plan Alternative, as required by the CEQA Guidelines, analyzes the effects of continued implementation of the City's existing General Plan. This alternative assumes the existing General Plan remains as the adopted long-range planning policy document for the City. Development would continue to occur within the City in accordance with the existing General Plan and Speck Plans. Build-out pursuant to the existing Genera! Plan would allow current development patterns to remain. The existing General Plan would not allow for the development in the SOI as envisioned in the proposed General Plan Update, which primarily involves the Martin Ranch on the northern border of the City and Arrowhead Springs. The No ProjecUExisting General Plan Altematlve would provide 99,233 dwelling units, increase population by 156,263 persons over the 2005 SCAG estimate of population, and provide a total of 369,923 jobs within the City at build-out, as compared to the proposed General Plan Update. The Arrowhead Springs area would not be developed as a specific plan and would not be annexed into the City. The No ProjecUExisting General Plan Altematlve would be considered the environmentally inferior altemative with regard to all impact categories except Population and Housing where this alternative would be superior due to ajobs-to-household ratio that would be more desirable and Mineral Resources, which would be considered environmentally neutral. Finding: Alternative Less Than Desirable The San Bemardino City Council finds that the No-ProjecUExisting General Plan Altematlve, while feasible, is less than desirable than the proposed project and rejected this alternative for the following reasons: • This Alternative would not attain many of the proposed project objectives for the General Plan update or the University District Specific Plan identified in Section 3.2.1 and 3.2,2, respectively. For the General Plan, the more critical objective to promote an attitude of entrepreneurship and action through a new era of collaboration and to develop a distinct personality Uoth at a community wide and neighborhood level would be difficult to accomplish with the existing General Plan without the vision and key strategies developed through the General Plan update process. • This alternative would not reduce or avoid the most significant effects of the proposed project. • Strategies to enhance and capitalize on the City assets, such as downtown and San Bemardino State University, would not be realized. • Comprehensive programs to address the inefficient strip-commercial land use patterns along City corridors and neighborhood enhancement would not be realized. • The benefit of having a consistent approach to planning decisions guided by documented Vision and Key Strategies would not be realized. Page 8 • The Planning Center October 2005 Part A -San Bernardino General Plan A1. FINDINGS ON PROJECT ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN THE DRAFT EIR A1.2.2 ReducedlntensityAlternative The Reduced Intensity Alternative focuses on reducing impacts on traffic and thus the impacts on air quality and noise by changing the allowable floor area ratio (FAR) of the commercial and industrial land uses to a range between 1.50 and 0.35 for commercial and between 0.50 and 0.25 for industrial uses thereby decreasing the number of jobs and the resulting traffic. The proposed General Plan assumes an FAR range between 3.0 and 0.70 for commercial and 1.00 and 0.70 for industrial uses. Estimated population and housing units would stay the same as the proposed project but job creation would be reduced to 178,443 from 355,629 in the proposed project, consequently reducing the jobs to household ratio. The Reduced Intensity Alternative would be considered the environmentally superior altemative as compared to the proposed General Plan for Aesthetics, Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Transportation and Traffic and Utilities. The Reduced Intensity Alternative would be considered environ- mentally neutral for Biological Resources, Geology and Soils, Land Use and Planning and Recreation. Finding: Alternative Less Than Desirable The San Bernardino City Council finds that the Reduced Intensity Alternative, while feasible, is less than desirable than the proposed project and rejected this alternative for the following reasons: • While this alternative is feasible, it would not meet the objective to "Tap into the Inland Empire's dynamic economy' or help the City "Deal with new fiscal realities", which are two important objectives ~~?V in accomplishing remaining objectives such as "Realize quality housing in safe and attractive neighborhoods". The City must work toward attracting better quality jobs by creating a positive development attitude toward new businesses and providing the opportunities for existing businesses to expand where they are located. This altemative would not accomplish those goals. • The allowable floor area ratios (FAR) are reduced to a point that they would prevent flexibility for developments to differ from typical market products. • The Reduced Intensity Alternative would reduce but not eliminate traffic impacts and the air quality impacts caused by increased traffic under the proposed project. However the benefit of having a strong local economy, which would be more difficult to accomplish with this altemative, may help to discourage long commute trips that contribute to regional air quality problems. 1' I General Plan Update and Associated Specif c Plan EIR City of San Bernardino • Page 9 Findings of Fact and Statement of overriding Considerations Part A -San Bernardino General Plan A1. FINDINGS ON PROJECT ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN THE DRAFT EIR This page intentionally lek 61ank. Page 10 • The Planning Center October 2005 Part A -San Bernardino General Plan A2. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIR/FEIR A2 FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IDENTIFIED !N THE DEIR/FE1R A2.1 Air Quality GP Impact 5.2-2: Construction activities associated with the proposed project would generate shon+-term emissions while long-teen operation of the project would generate additional vehicle trips and associated emissions in exeeedance of SCAQMD's threshold criteria. (Thresholds AQ-2 and AQ-3J The proposed project is expected to generate emissions levels that exceed AQMD threshold criteria for CO, ROG, NOx, and PM~o in the SoCAB, which is classified as anon-attainment area. Goals and Policies contained in the General Plan would facilitate continued City cooperation with the SCAQMD and SCAG to achieve regional air quality improvement goals, promotion of energy conservation design and development techniques, encouragement of alternative transportation modes, and implementation of transportation demand management strategies. However, additional mitigation measures would be required. Mitigation Measures: GP 5.2-2A Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the property owner/developer shall include a note on all grading plans which requires the construction contractor to implement ~i~!~ following measures during grading. These measures shall also be discussed at the ~_,_ pregrade conference. "~y~~ • Use low emission mobile construction equipment. • Maintain construction equipment engines by keeping them tuned. • Utilize existing power sources (i.e., power poles) when feasible. • Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference. • Minimize obstruction of through-traffic lanes. When feasible, construction should be planned so that lane closures on existing streets are kept to a minimum. • Schedule construction operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours to minimize traffic congestion. • Develop a traffic plan to minimize traffic flow interference from construction activities (the plan may include advance public notice of routing, use of public transportation and satellite parking areas with a shuttle service). GP 5.2-2B The City shall promote the use of low or zero VOC content architectural coatings for construction and maintenance activities. GP 5.2-2C The City shall reduce vehicle emissions caused by traffic congestion by implementing transportation systems management techniques that include synchronized traffic signals and limiting on-street parking. General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plan EIR City of San Bernardino • Page I1 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Part A -San Bernardino General Plan A2. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIR/FEIR GP 5.2-2D The City shall consider the feasibility of diverting commercial truck traffic to off-peak periods to alleviate non-recurrent congestion as a means to improve roadway efficiency. GP 5.2-2E The City shall promote the use of fuel efficient vehicles such as fuel hybrids when purchasing vehicles for the City's vehicle fleet. Finding: The policies contained in the proposed General Plan update are expected to reduce emissions associated with future development. However, even after the application of these policies and the mitigation measures listed above, implementation of the General Plan update when viewed as a whole project is expected to generate emissions levels in that exceed the AQMD threshold criteria for CO, ROG, NOx, and PM~o in the SoCAB, resulting in a significant unavoidable adverse air quality impact. A Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted concurrent with project approval. GP Impact 5.2-3: Implementation o/ the San Bernardino General Plan update would result in a cumulatively consldereb/e net increase of criteria pollutants for which the project region is in a state ofnon-attainment. (Threshold AQ-3J Emissions associated with General Plan buildout would result in emissions which exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds for construction and operational phases as stated in GP Impact 5.2-2. As such, the SCAQMD considers these emissions to be sign cant on a cumulative basis. The construction and operation through implementation of the General Plan would result in cumulative air quality impacts. Mitigation Measures: GP 5.2-3 Implementation of mitigation measures GP 5.2-2A, B, C, D and E shall be applied to reduce cumulative impacts. Finding: The policies contained in the proposed General Plan update are expected to reduce cumulative emissions associated with future development. However, even after the application of these policies and the mitigation measures listed above, implementation of the General Plan update when viewed as a whole project Is expected to generate cumulative emissions levels that exceed the AQMD threshold criteria for CO, ROG, NOx, and PM„ in the SoCAB, resulting in a significant unavoidable adverse air quality impact. A Statement of Overciding Considerations must be adopted concurcent with project approval. A2.2 Cultural Resources GP Impact 5.4-1: Build-out of the San Bernardino General Plan could result In the loss of potentially historic structures. (Threshold C-1] Build-out of the San Bernardino General Plan over the long term would allow development or re-development to occur in historically sensitive areas which could result in the loss of potentially historic structures. Mitigation Measures: GP 5.4-t In areas of documented or inferred historic resource presence, City staff shall require applicants for development permits to provide studies to document the presenceQabsence of historical resources. On properties where historic structures or resources are identified, such studies shall provide a detailed mitigation plan, including Page 11 • The Planning Center October 2005 Part A -San Bernardino General Plan A2. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIR/FEIR a monitoring program and recovery and/or in situ preservation plan, based on the recommendations of a qualified historical preservation expert. Finding: The mitigation measure Identified is feasible and will avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant impacts associated with historic resources to a level of less than significant and no unavoidable adverse impacts would occur. GP Impact 5.42: Build-out of the General Plan could Impact sens)tive archaeological resources, paleontological resources, or a unique geologic feature. (Thresholds C-2 and C-3] Adoption of the General Plan in itself would not directly affect any archeological or paleontological resources. However, long-term implementation of the General Plan land use policies could allow development and redevelopment, including grading, of sensitive areas, potentially impacting sensitive archeological, paleontological, and unique geologic resources. Mitigation Measures: GP 5.4-2 In areas of documented or inferred archeological and/or paleontological resource presence, City staff shall require applicants for development permits to provide studies to document the presence/absence of such resources. On properties where resources are identified, such studies shall provide a detailed mitigation plan, including a monitoring program and recovery and/or in situ preservation plan, based on the recommendations of a qualified cultural preservation expert. Finding: The mitigation measure identified is feasible and will avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant Impacts associated with archeological and/or paleontological resources or unique geologic features to a level of less than significant and no unavoidable adverse impacts would occur. GP Impact 5.43: Grading act)v)tles could potentially disturb human remains. (Threshold C-4J Adoption of the General Plan in itself does not involve grading activities and would not directly disturb any human remains. However, long-term implementation of the General Plan land use policies could allow development and redevelopment, including grading, of sensitive areas thereby disturbing human remains. Mitigation Measures: GP 5.4-3 In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, the following steps shall be taken: There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the San Bernardino County Coroner is contacted to determine if the remains are prehistoric and that no investigation of the cause of death is required. If the coroner determines the remains to ~ be Native American, then the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission with in 24 hours, and the Native American Heritage Commission shall ~ identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendent from the deceased Native American. The most likely descendant may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plan EIR City of San Bernardino • Page 13 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Part A -San Bernardino General Plan A2. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIR/FEIR or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98; or Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity either in accordance with the recommendation of the most likely descendant or on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbances: • The Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a most likely descendant or the likely descendant failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the commission; or • The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation; or • The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner. Finding: The mitigation measure identified is feasible and will avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant impacts associated with disturbance of human remains outside of formal cemeteries to a level of less than significant and no unavoidable adverse impacts would occur. A2.3 Noise GP Impact 5.10-1: Project implementation would result inlong-term operation-related noise that would exceed local standards. (Thresholds N-1 and N-3] Implementation of the General Plan update would result in long-term operation-related noise caused by stationary (facilities), roadway, railroad and aircraft sources that would exceed total standards. Mitigation Measures: GP 5.10-1 Prior to the issuance of building permits for any project that involves a noise sensitive use within the 65 dBA CNEL contour along major roadways or freeway, railroads, or the San Bernardino International Airport, the project property owner/developers shall submit a final acoustical report prepared to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. The report shall show that the development will be sound-attenuated against present and projected noise levels, including roadway, aircraft, helicopter and railroad, to meet City interior and exterior noise standards. Finding: The mitigation measure Identified is feasible and will avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant impacts associated with noise to a level of less than significant and no unavoidable adverse impacts would occur. GPlmpact 5.10.2: Buildout of the San Bernardfno General Plan would create shoR-term and long-term groundbome vlbretlon and groundbome noise. Threshold N-2] Page 14 • The Planning Center October 1005 Part A -San Bernardino General Plan A2. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIR/FEIR The implementation of the General Plan update could result in groundbome vibration and groundbome noise from vibration intensive construction activities and increased train travel along railroads that may result in significant vibration impacts. Mitigation Measures: GP 5.10-2 Adherence to Mitigation Measure GP 5.10-1 would result in exterior/interior noise levels within the City noise standards, as a result, vibration created from noise levels that exceed the City noise standards would also be mitigated. Finding: The mitigation measure identified is feasible and will avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant impacts associated with noise to a level of less than significant and no unavoidable adverse impacts would occur. GP Impact 5.10-4: The San Bernardino International Airpo?t is located within the City of San Bernardino, resulting fn exposure of future residents to airport related noise. (Thresholds N-5 and N-6] The San Bernardino International Airport is located within the City and the use of the airport is changing from a military operation to commercial aviation. However an Airport Land Use Plan has not been adopted. The City would be required to amend the General Plan once the Airport Land Use Plan has been adopted. Since future aircraft use has not been determined, no noise contours are available for the future use of the airport. In the interim, the City of San Bernardino regulates land uses around the airport through the existing noise ordinance based on noise contours from the former Norton Air Force Base. Although noise contours for future uses are not known, some sensitive lands uses (parkland) by City standards are located underneath the existing flight paths which may not change. This would result in significant noise impacts on these sensitive uses. Mitigation Measures: GP 5.10-4 The City of San Bernardino shall incorporate into the General Plan the noise contour map developed for the SBIAA after completion of the Airport Master Plan. Finding: Until the Airport Master Plan has been adopted by the SBIAA and corresponding noise contours have been established, the extent of impact to parkland near the airport cannot be determined. Parkland is designated as a sensitive use in the General Plan and should the noise contour exceed the limitations established by the General Plan no foreseeable mitigation could be accomplished if the park were to remain in use. Under those circumstances the impact would be considered a significant adverse and unavoidable Impact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted by the Common Council. A2.4 Transportation and Traffic GP Impact 5.141: Trip generetlon at bufld-out of the General Plan would impact levels of service for the existing area roadway system. (Threshold T-1] Twelve intersections were determined to function at an unacceptable LOS of E or worse and 4 roadway segments were determined to function at an unacceptable LOS of D or worse at build-out of the General Plan. Mitigation Measures: General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plan EIR City of San Bernardino • Page 1 S Findings of Fact and Statement of overriding Considerations Part A -San Bernardino General Plan A2. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIR/FEIR GP 5.14-1 Prior to adoption of the General Plan Update the City of San Bernardino shall add the following recommendations to the Circulation Element of the General Plan update: • Signalize the intersection of Meridian Avenue @ Rialto Avenue. With signalization and permitted phasing the intersection will operate at LOS A during both peak hours. • Signalize the intersection of Hunts Lane E Street. With signalization and protected phasing, and the addition of one NB left-tum lane the intersection will operate at LOS B and C during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. • Add an additional westbound right-turn lane at the intersection of Waterman Avenue ~ 30th Street. With one additional WB right-turn lane the intersection will operate at LOS D and C during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. • Add an additional northbound right-turn lane at the intersection of Waterman Avenue ~ SR30 EB Ramps. With one additional NB right-turn lane and one additional EB left-turn lane the intersection will operate at LOS D during both peak hours. • Signalize the intersection of SR-30 WB Off-ramp ~ 30th Street. With signalization and protected phasing, the intersection will operate at LOS C during both peak hours. • Signalize the intersection of Harrison Street ~ 40th Street. With signalization and permitted phasing the intersection will operate at LOS A and C during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. • Signalize the intersection of Waterman Avenue ~ 36th Street. With signalization and permitted phasing the intersection will operate at LOS A and B during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. • Signalize the Interseetlon of Waterman Avenue ~ 34th Street. With signalization and permitted phasing the intersection will operate at LOS A during both peak hours. • Signalize the intersection of Valencia Avenue ~ 40th Street. With signalization and permitted phasing the intersection will operate at LOS A during both peak periods. • Add an additional westbound right-turn lane at the intersection of Del Rosa Avenue ~ SR-30 WB Ramps. With one additional WB right-tum lane the intersection will operate at LOS B and C during AM and PM peak hours, respectively. • Signalize the intersection of Tippecanoe Avenue Rialto Avenue. With signalization and permitted phasing the intersection will operate at LOS A and B during AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Page 16 • The Planning Center October 2005 Part A -San Bernardino General Plan A2. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIR/FEIR • Signalize and add one northbound exclusive left-turn lane and one exclusive northbound right-tum lane at the intersection of Rancho Avenue ~ 5th Streef/Foothill Road. With signalization and ENV protective phasing, N/S split phasing, one NB exclusive left-turn lane and one NB exclusive right- tum lane the intersection will operate at C and D during AM and PM peak hours, respectively. • Signalize and add one additional through lane In each direction at the Intersection of Mount View Avenue ~ San Bernardino Road. With signalization, protective phasing and one exclusive left, thru and right-turn lane in each direction and EB right tum overlap phasing the intersection will operate at LOS C and D during AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Finding: The mitigation measure identified is feasible and will avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant impacts associated with Congestion Management Agency service standards to a level of less than significant and no unavoidable adverse impacts would occur. GP Impact 5.142: General Plan related trip generation in combination with existing and proposed cumulative development would resuk in designated Intersections, road and/or highways exceeding county congestion management agency service standards. (Threshold T-2] /~ One CMP intersection and one CMP roadway segment were determined to function at an unacceptable LOS l~~d of F as well as numerous freeway segments. The CMP intersection impacted would be mitigated by pv~v1 mitigation measure GP 5.14-1 however additional mitigation measures would be needed for roadway segments. Mitigation Measures: GP 5.14-2 The City of San Bernardino shall cooperate with regional transportation agencies toward mitigating impacts to regional transportation facilities by measures such as securing fair share contributions from future projects impacting mainline freeway segments. Mitigation of impacts to regional transportation facilities would require the following freeway improvements: • I-10 EB from Jct. I-21 to Waterman Avenue, add two lanes. • I-10 WB from Jct. I-21 to Waterman Avenue, add one lane. i • 1-10 EB and W B from Waterman Avenue to Tippecanoe Avenue, add two lanes ~ each direction. i • I-10 EB and WB from Tippecanoe to Mountain View, add two lanes each direction. • SR-30 EB from Highland Avenue to Jct. I-215, add two lanes. • SR-30 WB from Highland Avenue to Jct. I-215, add one lane. ' General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plan EIR City of San Bernardino • Page 17 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Part A -San Bernardino General Plan AZ. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIR/FEIR • SR30 EB and WB from Jct. I-215 to H Street, add one lane each direction. • SR-30 EB and WB from H Street to SR-259 add one lane each direction. • SR-30 EB from SR-259 to Waterman Avenue, add one lane. • I-215 NB and SB from Jct. 1-10 to Orange Show Road, add one lane. • I-215 NB from Jct. SR 66 to Baseline Street, add three lanes. • I-215 SB from Jct. SR 66 to Baseline Street, add two lanes. • I-215 NB and SB from Jct. SR 66 to University Parkway, add one lane. Finding: The mitigation measures identified are feasible and would avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant impacts associated with traffic and transportation to a level of less than significant, however improvements to the freeway system are the responsibility of the existing regional transportation agencies and not the City of San Bernardino. Without the authority to implement the mitigation measures, the impact to freeway segments would remain a significant adverse and unavoidable impact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted by the Common council. A2.5 Utilfties and Service Systems i Water i GP Impact 5.15-1: Upgrades to the existing water supply and delivery systems would 6e required to adequately serve future growth In accorr/ance with the proposed General Plan 6ulld-out (Threshold WS-1 and WS-2] i I The General Plan Update contains policies, and progrems encoureging water conservation. Although analysis shows supplies may be adequate for the San Bernardino planning area, cumulative use of water in the Bunker Hill sub-basin by all surrounding water providers may cause stress on the basin and necessitate additional importation of water causing a potentially significant impact on water supplies for the region. Mitigation Measures: GP 5.15-1 In accordance with the State Water Code (Section 10610-10645), the City shall maintain ' an updated Urban Water Management Plan (Water System Management Plan) which describes and evaluates sources of supply, reasonable and practical efficient uses, reclamation and demand management activities, necessary to adequately serve future growth pursuant to the City's General Plan. i i i I Page 18 • The Planning Center October 2005 Part A -San Bernardino General Plan A2. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIR/FEIR Finding: The mitigation measure Identified is feasible and will avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant impacts associated with water supply and distribution systems to a level of less than significant and no unavoidable adverse impacts would occur. Wastewater GP Impact 5.15-2: Project-generated wastewater could not be adequately treated by the wastewater service provider for the project (Thresholds WW-i, bYW-2, and WW-3] Existing secondary and tertiary treatmen! facilities would exceed design capacity with implementation and build-out of the General Plan Update and wastewater collection systems would experience additional flow deficiencies. Mitigation Measures: GP 5.15-2 The City of San Bernardino shall update the Wastewater Collection System Master Plan to reflect General Plan Update build-out statistics, review treatment facility capacity periodically and adjust Sewer Capacity Fees when appropriate in consultation with participating communities to accommodate construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment and collection facilities. Finding: The mitigation measure identified is feasible and will avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant impacts associated with wastewater treatment and collection systems to a level of less than significant and no unavoidable adverse impacts would occur. General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plan E]R City of San Bernardino • Page ] 9 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Part A -San Bernardino General Plan A3. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS A3 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS CEQA requires the decision-maker to balance the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be considered "acceptable" (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093[a]). However, in this case CEQA requires the agency to support, in writing, the speck reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are infeasible to mitigate. Such reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the FEIR or elsewhere in the administrative record (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 [b]). The agency's statement is referred to as a "Statement of Overriding Considerations ° The City of San Bernardino is proposing to approve the General Plan update and associated specific plans for the University District and Arrowhead Springs and has prepared and certified a FEIR that satisfies the requirements of CEQA. The following adverse impacts of the General Plan update combined with the University District Specific Plan are considered significant and unavoidable based on the DEIR, FEIR, MMP, and the findings discussed previously in Part A, Section Al and A2 of this document. (Adverse impacts of the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan are discussed in Part B of this document.) A3.1 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Air Quality Construction activity associated with buildout of the proposed General Plan update when viewed as a whole project would cause short term emissions of ROG, NOx, PM~o and CO that would exceed the threshold standards of the SCAQMD in an area Gassified as anon-attainment area. Additionally, when operational air emissions in 2005 are compared to air emissions created using full buildout statistics, the daily SCAQMD thresholds for ROG, NOx, PM,o and CO are exceeded. Operational emissions would include vehiGe emissions in addition to stationary sources of emissions. Exceeding the SCAQMD emissions thresholds would be expected because these thresholds were designed for individual projects. As such, specific or general plans would substantially exceed the SCAQMD thresholds by orders of magnitude because these plans incorporate the development of multitudes of individual projects. Exceeding the SCAQMD daily emissions thresholds is considered a significant adverse impact. Application of the mitigation measures in Section A2.1 would reduce the level of im act, however when implementation of the General presented P t emission levels would continue to exceed the dail emission Plan update is viewed as a whole prolec , Y thresholds resultin in an unavoidable adverse air ualit impact. Exceeding the daily thresholds is also q Y 9 would not reduce five im act b the SCAQMD. Miti anon measures listed considered a si nificant cumula p y 9 9 cumulative emissions to a level of less than significant resulting in an unavoidable adverse cumulative air quality impact. Noise The City of San Bernardino considers residential and park land uses to be sensitive noise uses and some selective residential and park land uses may be affected by noise from the future use of the San Bernardino International Airport. Currently the San Bernardino International Airport Authority is preparing an Airport Master Plan that will determine the noise contours. Once adopted, the Airport Master Plan will be incorporated into the General Plan. Without updated noise contours that reflect the future use of the airport, noise impacts to these selective areas could not be determined and therefore were considered significant impacts. If future noise contours exceed the limitations set by the General Plan for parks in the area, the impact cannot be mitigated resulting in an unavoidable adverse noise impact. Page 20 • The Planning Center October 2005 Part A -San Bernardino General Plan A3. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Transportation and Traffic Buildout of the General Plan update would result impacts to freeway segments that could be mitigated by the measures indicated in the DEIR that incude cooperation with regional transportation agencies to secure fair share funding contributions from future projects. However, without the authority to implement those mitigation measures, impact to freeway segments would remain significant unavoidable and adverse impacts. A3.2 Considerations in Support of fhe Statement of Overriding Considerations The City, after balancing the specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the proposed Project (General Plan Update), has determined that the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified above may be considered "acceptable" due to the following specific considerations, which outweigh the unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts of the proposed Project. Each of the separate benefits of the proposed Project, as stated herein, is determined to be, unto itself and independent of the other Project benefits, a basis for overriding all unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified in these Findings. A significant benefit of the Updated General Plan is that it provides a unifying vision for the next 20 years. The Vision provides unity to the entire General Plan as well as policy guidance for the City officials and staff. In the absence of this vision, the General Plan lacks a clear direction. Subsequently, development and changes would occur on an individual basis and potentially threaten the ability to maximize the potential of the City. In addition to this fundamental improvement, the General Plan includes the following benefits: Address the Unique Issues of Specific Geographic Locations San Bernardino has many unique gems that can be enhanced and/or capitalized upon to improve the City. ~~~„// The General Plan incudes a set of policies that are intended to help create, preserve, revitalize, and enhance selected areas of the City. The Strategic Policy Areas include two basic distinctions: areas where enhancement is desired but changes in the land use pattern are not anticipated or desired and those areas where change is desired and merits guidance and/or stimulation. The following Strategic Policy Areas are provided in the General Plan: 1. San Bernardino Valley College Strategic Area. The San Bernardino Valley College is a major community feature that can be capitalized upon as a catalyst for growth and improvement in the area, as well as a positive marketing tool for the City as a whole. The intent this Strategic Area is to interconnect and unify the district through the use of cohesive design, landscaping, and signage, enhanced pedestrian connections, and improved parking conditions. 2. Santa Fe Depot Strategic Area. The centerpiece of this Strategic Area is the Historic Santa Fe Depot. The goal of the Strategic Area is to integrate the Depot with the surrounding neighborhood and create an identifiable district, help the surrounding businesses become more economically viable, and improve the ! aesthetics of the area. 3. Redlands Boulevard Strategic Area. The goal of this Strategic Area is to help businesses remain ! economically robust, visible, and to attract viable uses that will help strengthen the City's tax base. 4. Tippecanoe Strategic Area. The goal of this Strategic Area is to address the area's infrastructure needs, y to help the area capitalize upon adjacent economic opportunities, such as the San Bernardino International Airport, improve the area's aesthetics, improve the circulation system, to redevelop vacant and underutilized lands into their highest potential, and to capitalize upon the presence of the Santa Ana River. General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plan EIR City of San Bernardino • Page 21 Findings of Fact and Statement of overriding Considerations 9 Part A -San Bernardino General Plan A3. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 5. Eastern Recreation Village Strategic Area. The purpose of this Strategic Area is to enhance and capitalize upon recreational opportunities in the area. Given the soccer complex, the elementary and high school, park, and Warm Creek, the goal is develop and market this area as a recreational village. Multi- purpose trails and pedestrian amenities could be provided to link the village and the major features in the Strategic Area. 6. Residential Conversion/Restoration Strategic Area. The purpose of this Strategic Area is to promote the conversion of the remaining four unit apartments to ownership units, as well as reinvestment and stability in the area. 7. Southeast Industrial Strategic Area. The goal of this Strategic Area is to protect the industrial job base, help improve residential conditions, and to help mitigate impacts to adjacent residences. The Santa Ana River, which borders the northern portion of this Strategic Area, is a regional amenity that the City must enhance and protect and which can be utilized as an asset for local industrial users and residents. 8. Southeast Strategic Area. The purpose of this Strategic Area is to improve the conditions and accessibility of residential neighborhoods in the area. Homes in this Strategic Area are in need of rehabilitation, should be separated from the surrounding industrial areas with berming and buffers, and should be connected physically and socially with the rest of the City. 9. San Bemardino International Airport and Trade Center Strategic Area. The San Bernardino International Airport and Trade Center (SBIA) is one of the City's greatest economic growth opportunities in the region. The purpose of this Strategic Area is to allow properties surrounding the SBIA to develop with uses that are related to or can benefit from the proximity of an airport. For instance, business oriented and general aviation related uses, manufacturing, warehousing, offices, and travel related business such as hotels, could be attracted by the presence of the Airport. 10. Downtown Strategic Area. The Downtown Strategic Area is the symbolic center as well as the social and economic heart of San Bemardino. The purpose of this Strategic Area is to facilitate revitalization of Downtown through an infusion of office and mixed uses, connections to surrounding uses, such as the Arrowhead Credit Union Park and the National Orange Show, and a unifying aesthetic theme. 11. Community Hospital Strategic Area. The purpose of this Strategic Area is to provide incentives and programs that capitalize upon the presence of the hospital and surrounding medical offices, which can act as a catalyst for improvements in the area and to facilitate medically related development in the future. Enhancement of San Bernardino's Commercial Corridors The Mcunt Vernon, E-Street, Baseline, and Highland corridors are characterized by an inefficient pattern of strip commercial. Due to a combination of over saturation of commercial floor area and the size and configuration of the properties along these corridors, many of the commercial properties are vacant, underutilized, dilapidated, and are defined by uncoordinated aesthetics and signage. In addition, the majority ~ of lots along the corridors are relatively small with individual ownership. This makes significant ~ redevelopment more complicated and requires participation from a multitude of individuals to realize change. ~, Another sign cant hurdle is the perception that commercial property is more valuable. While this may be true in certain instances, the existing pattern and quality of strip commercial uses along these corridors is not proving to be viable and many businesses are vacant or marginally successful. ~ The Corridor Improvement Program is an optional package of policy, regulatory, and incentive programs that, if applied, are intended to stimulate private investment and result in desired development within the Corridor Strategic Areas. This is accomplished by providing optional incentives, in the form of density bonuses and Page 22 • The Planning Center October 1005 Part A -San Bernardino General Plan A3. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS varied development standards, to developments that qualify. While the underlying land use designations still apply, the property owner may request, and the City may choose to apply, aspects of this program to stimulate desirable development. Provide a Method to Enhance and Improve Residential Neighborhoods San Bernardino has a wide variety of residential neighborhoods of various ages and states of repairlmaintenance. The Neighborhood Improvement Program offers a system of incentives that are intended to stimulate redevelopment of local neighbofioods. The Neighborhood Improvement Program provides a strategy to address each neighbofiood based upon its need. Through the combined efforts of the police, fire, code enforcement, community development, public works, and other departments will help address each areas unique issues and improve the livability of San Bernardino. The program is based upon the classification of neighborhoods into the following categories: 1. Very sound neighborhood experiencing few, if any, quality of life issues. Infrequent requests for Police or code Enforcement services. 2. Predominantly stable neighbofioods, but beginning to show signs of decline. Most structures are well maintained and structurally sound, but some structures may have minor problems. The City should focus on these minor issues to maintain the neighborhood and prevent further deterioration. 3. Predominantly unstable neighborhood, with many structures in need of rehabilitation, with some well /~~ cared for and maintained structures. In single-family areas, many houses have transitioned from owner- Vim/ occupied to rentals; neighborhoods showing evidence of social, physical and economic problems and increasing number of calls for police services. Focus is on revitalizing the neighborhood, upgrading the structures, increasing aesthetics and reducing crime. 4. Neighborhood is in severe social, economic and physical decline. Housing structures are severely deteriorated and the entire neighbofiood lacks conditions that contribute to a safe overall neighborhood living environment. Provision of Community Facilities The proposed General Plan Update reflects the City's vision for its development through a 20-year build-out, and provides goals and policies that will guide future development in the City ensuring the long-term sustainability of community facilities. In the absence of these goals and policies that guide future growth, development would occur but would lack vision and could potentially threaten the existing character of the City. Thus, the General Plan Update provides for future growth in the City in a manner which allows for allocation of resources to improve, maintain, or create additional community facilities. The City of San Bernardino General Plan Update provides provisions for community facilities within the City that would meet the needs of the future population, which include the following: Parks and Recreation. The General Plan identifies the City's parkland goal of five acres per 1,000 residents. Based upon this standard, the General Plan identifies that additional park land is necessary to meet the i projected population at buildout. Goals and policies are provided to ensure that the necessary parklands are provided to meet the demands of the future population. Transportation Improvements. Although traffic increases are associated with the proposed project, traffic improvements have been identified as part of the City's Circulation Element to mitigate the traffic impacts. The Circulation Element proposed as part of the General Plan Update reflects changes needed to I i General Plan Update and Associated Specif c Plan EIR City of San Bernardino • Page 23 ' Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Part A -San Bernardino General Plan A3. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS accommodate the project population growth. Intersection improvements at key arterial intersections would allow all intersections to operate at an acceptable level of service. Pu61ic Services. While the General Plan does not directly result in construction of new facilities or the provision of additional equipment and personnel to the City's fire, police, school and library services, the General Plan Update includes goals and policies aimed to ensure these community service facilities would keep pace with the growth in the City. Institutional land uses would be maintained through implementation of the General Plan Update to ensure high quality of future service. A3.3 Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the City of San Bernardino concludes that the San Bernardino General Plan Update will result in a beneficial mix of sVategies for future growth providing community-wide enhancements with significant benefits of local and regional significance, which outweigh the unavoidable environmental impacts. Therefore, the City of San Bernardino has adopted this Statement of Overriding Considerations. Page 24 • The Planning Center October 2005 Part A -San Bernardino General Plan A3. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS I i i I I General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plan EIR City of San Bernardino • Page 25 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Part B -Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan B7. FINDINGS ON PROJECT ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN THE DRAFT EIR 81 FINDINGS ON PROJECT ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN THE DRAFT E!R B 1.1 Attemafives Considered and Rejecfed During the Scoping/Project Planning Process The Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan has undergone several iterations; however, no significant altematives were developed. The iterations included subtle variations im the acreages of land uses, residential density, and commercial intensity. The changes occurred in response to input from the City or as more detailed studies (grading, etc.) were competed and resulted in shifts in land use boundaries or product type. However, throughout the numerous iterations, the basic concept and location of the land uses remained unchanged. The various iterations were refined to reflect new direction and information and did not represent true alternatives for consideration. 81.2 Alternatives Selected for Analysis This section contains alternatives that have been determined to represent a reasonable range of altematives which have the potential to feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan but which may avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Only those impacts found significant and unavoidable are used in making the final determination of whether an altemative is environmentally superior or inferior to the proposed project. Environmental impacts of the Specific Plan involving air quality and cultural resources, and noise were found to be significant and unavoidable. The altematives include the No Project/Use of Existing Facilities Alternative, Reduced Intensity Alternative, and Wetlands Avoidance Alternative. 81.2.1 No-Projecf/Facisting Zoning Altemative The No Project altemative for the Arrowhead Springs area assumes that the County portion of the property is not annexed into the City of San Bernardino and the area is allowed to develop with existing zoning which would allow residential development with densities anywhere between 4.5 dwelling units per acre and one (1) dwelling unit per 40 acres. This alternative also assumes that operation of existing facilities for use as a resort could resume with minor and necessary health and safety repairs. The No ProjecUExisting Zoning Alternative would be considered the environmentally superior alternative as compared to the proposed Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan for Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards, Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, Population and Housing, Transportation and Traffic, and Utilities and Service Systems. The No Project~Existing Zoning Alternative would be considered the environmentally inferior for Aesthetics and environmentally neutral for Land Use and Planning, Public Services, and Recreation. Finding: Alternative Less Than Desirable The San Bernardino City Council finds that the No-ProjecUExisting Zoning Altemative, while feasible, is less than desirable than the proposed project and rejected this altemative for the following reasons: • Although the number of residential units would nearly be the same as the proposed project, existing City/County zoning would result in mostly large lot development that could be scattered over the entire property along with the road infrastructure. Coordinating development between two jurisdictions may be difficult and not result in development of the entire site that is well thought out. Page 26 • The Planning Center October 2005 Part B -Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan B1. FINDINGS ON PROJECT ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN THE DRAFT EIR • There would be no development standards or design guidelines that would ensure preservation of as much open space as the proposed project. There would be no encouragement for compact development that would keep the development of hillsides at a minimum thus preserving the aesthetic mountainous character of the property. • Providing services such as fire protection would continue to be difficult and expensive without compact development or a reliable self contained water infrastructure considering that water service would have to be extended from the City of San Bernardino. • The City of San Bernardino would not realize the goal becoming a "gateway' to the San Bemardino Mountains by establishing aworld-class resort, providing jobs and recreational opportunities. 81.2.2 ReducedlntensityAltemative Since construction activities are the primary source of air quality and noise impacts and commercial uses generate the greatest amount of traffic (also contributing to air quality and noise impacts), the reduced intensity altemative focuses on reducing the amount of commercial and office use, which would reduce the size of the area to be graded and consequently would also reduce traffic and associated impacts. This alternative assumes that the Hilltown shops, new hotel, office building, and restaurant are not built and the Village Walk commercial area is limited to 150,000 square feet for neighbofiood commercial. The hotel complex would be restored and the associated conference facilities and annex built and all residential areas (/~~~~~Iq~J would be built with this alternative. ??`./ The Reduced intensity Alternative would be considered the environmentally superior altemative as compared to the proposed Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan for Aesthetics, Air Quality, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Noise, Public Services, Transportation and Traffic and Utilities. The Reduced Intensity Alternative would be considered the environmentally neutral alternative for Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, and Recreation. Finding: Alternative Less Than Desirable The San Bernardino City Council finds that the Reduced Intensity Alternative, while feasible, is less than desirable than the proposed project and rejected this altemative for the following reasons: • This alternative would not accomplish many of the project goals, most importantly creating an economically viable mixed-use resort. Historic restoration of the Arrowhead Springs Hotel, because of the expense, may be jeopardized without the revenue stream and increased property value derived from commercial development. Revitalization and reuse of this historic hotel is the cornerstone of the project which is important to the City not only for the tax revenue but also for accomplishing the goals of the General Plan Update to enhance cultural, recreational and entertainment opportunities. • The desirable goal of having a sustainable development would be difficult to accomplish without the jobs created by the commercial development. The jobs to housing ratio for the proposed project at 1.97, is close to the range preferred by the Southern California Association of Governments. The proposed project provides for a wide range of housing and with an equally wide range of job opportunities in close proximity, employees would be able to live close to work, thus reducing potential traffic. General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR City of San Bernardino • Page 27 Findings of Fact and Statement of overriding Considerations Part B -Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan B7. FINDINGS ON PROJECT ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN THE DRAFT EIR 81.2.3 Wetlands Avoidance Alternative The wetlands avoidance alternative assumes that development would not occur in areas of potential jurisdictional waters and riparian habitat and in particular Waterman Canyon and West Twin Creek. Although a few holes of the golf course might fit in the non-jurisdictional areas, this alternative would essentially elimi- nate development of an 18-hole golf course and eliminate some of the residential pad sites along Waterman Canyon. With only minor adjustment to the development plan near Lake Vonette that could be arranged without loss of riparian habitat, the remainder of the development would be built. The Wetlands Avoidance Alternative would be considered the environmentally superior alternative as compared to the proposed Arrowhead Springs Speck Plan for Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Geology and Soils, Population and Housing, and Utilities. The Wetlands Avoidance Alternative would be considered the environmentally neutral alternative when compared to the proposed Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan for Cultural Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise, Public Services, Recreation, and Transportation and Tratfic. Finding: Alternative Less Than Desirable The San Bernardino City Council finds that the Wetlands Avoidance Alternative, while feasible, is less than desirable than the proposed project and rejected this alternative for the following reasons: • West Twin Creek in Waterman Canyon has been known for dangerous flooding events that have resulted in extensive damage to infrastructure and lost lives. The most recent flooding events scoured the reach through Arrowhead Springs removing riparian vegetation and reducing water quality by greatly increasing sediment carried in the creek. The project proposes to improve the alignment and hydraulics of the stream and create flood overflow basins on fairways as part of the development of the golf course. The Wetlands Avoidance Alternative would not provide the valuable flood protection planned as part of the golf course design. Flooding events would continue jeopardizing the residential development and infrastructure planned to the community. Riparian vegetation that may be lost in the process of developing the golf course would be restored in the same approximate location and opportunities exist to enhance the quality of the riparian vegetation with the assurance that it will not be destroyed by future flooding events through improvements to the stream bed. • Eliminating the golf course would not accomplish the goal of creating a "unique" resort community or the goal of providing both passive and active recreational opportunities. Many wodd class resorts provide a variety of recreational opportunities to attract a broad range of consumers. Resorts in mountain settings usually rely on natural features such as a lake or ski slopes to provide a range of recreational opportunities. Those natural features are not available at Arrowhead Springs but a golf course can be integrated into Waterman Canyon in such a way that the natural beauty of the area is preserved and additional recreation opportunities are available not only for the resort but for community as a whole. i Page 28 • The Planning Center October 2005 Part B -Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan B2. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIR/FEIR B2 FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IDENTIFIED /N THE DEIR/FE/R 82.1 Air Quality AHS Impact 5.2-2: Construction activities associated with the proposed project would generate short teen emissions while long-term operation of the project would generate additional vehicle trips and associated emissions in exceedance of SCAQMD's threshold criteria. (!-hresholds AQ-2 and AQ-3] The magnitude of development and corresponding generation of air pollutant emissions would exceed the SCAQMD's construction and operational phase emissions thresholds for CO, ROG, NOx and PM,o. Mitigation Measures: AHS 5.2-2A The developer or project applicant shall use zero Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) content architectural coatings during the construction of the project to the maximum extent feasible which would reduce VOC (ROG) emissions by 95 percent over convention architectural coatings. AHS 5.2-26 Prior to and/or during construction operations, the property owner/developer shall implement the following measures to further reduce fugitive dust emission to the extent feasible. To assure compliance, the City shall verify that these measures have been implemented during normal construction site inspections: • Pave, gravel or apply nontoxic soil stabilizers on-site haul roads with 150 or more daily trips • Phase grading to prevent the susceptibility of large areas to erosion over extended periods of time • Schedule activities to minimize the amounts of exposed excavated soil during and after the end of work periods • Dispose of surplus excavated material in accordance with local ordinances and use sound engineering practices • Maintain a minimum of one-foot freeboard ratio on haul trucks or cover payloads on trucks hauling soil using tarps or other suitable means • Install adequate storm water control systems to prevent mud deposition onto paved areas. • Water active sites at least three times daily. Finding: The mitigation measures identified above would reduce potential impacts associated with air quality to the extent feasible. Despite the application of mitigation measures, Impact 5.2-2 would result in a significant unavoidable adverse air quality impact due to the magnitude of emissions that would be generated during consVuction and operation. The proposed project is expected to generate General Plan Update and Associated Specifec Plans EIR City of San Bernardino • Page 29 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Part B -Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan 62. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIRIFEIR emissions levels that exceed the AQMD threshold criteria for CO, ROG, NOx, and PM,o in the SoCA6. A Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted by the Common Council wncurrent with project approval. AHS Impact 5.2-3: The Arrowhead Springs Speciftc Plan project would delay attainment of the South Coast AQMP. (Threshold AQ-3J Emissions associated with the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan would exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds during construction and operational phases. As such, the SCAQMD considers these emissions to be significant on a cumulative basis. Mitigation Measure: AHS 5.2-3 Implementation of mitigation measures AHS 5.2-2A and AHS 5.2-2B shall be applied to reduce cumulative impacts. Finding: The mitigation measures identified above would reduce potential cumulative impacts associated with air quality to the extent feasible. Despite the application of mitigation measures Impact 5.2-3 would result in a significant unavoidable adverse air quality impact due to the magnitude of emissions that would be generated during construction and operation. The proposed project is expected to generate emissions levels that exceed AQMD threshold criteria for CO, ROG, NOx, and PM~o in the SoCAB. A Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted by the Common Council concurrent with project approval. 82.2 Biological Resources ' AHS Impact 5.3-1: Development of the project would disturb or remove approximatety 420 acres of plant communities of which approxlmatety 124 acres contain sensitive vegetation communities, plant and animal species. (Threshold 8-1] Project implementation, primarily construction in West Twin CreeklWaterman Canyon would result in the direct removal of sensitive vegetation communities. Impacts would be potentially significant. ' Direct impacts to one federal and state-listed plant species (thread leaved brodiaea) known to occur on the ~ site; and four federal candidate plant species (smooth tarplant, Plummer's mariposa lily, Parry's spineflower, and many-stemmed dudleya) that were not observed but with a moderate likelihood to occur would result in a potentially significant impact. Direct impacts to one federal threatened and one federal proposed endangered amphibian species, and one ' federal candidate wildlife species Mitigation Measures: AHS 5.3-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified biologist shall conduct detailed surveys for sensitive vegetation communities, plants, and wildlife that occur within the final grading footprint and associated construction staging areas for the proposed development. If listed species are determined to be present, consultation with the USFWS and CDFG shall be initiated. The applicant shall comply with project-specific permit conditions and requirements developed through consultation with USFWS and CDFG. Including: Page 30 • The Planning Center October 2005 Part B -Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan B2. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY $IGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIRIFEIR • Avoidance and minimization of impacts to listed species through revised project design. • Provision of in-kind native habitat/vegetation through onsite revegetation and restoration at a minimum 2 to 1 ratio w higher ratio as required by USFWS and CDFG. • Provision of compensation through acquisition of offsite mitigation areas at a minimum 2 to 1 ratio or higher ratio as required by USFWS and CDFG. Finding: The mitigation measure Identified is feasible and would avoid or substantially lessen the potentially slgn~cant Impacts associated with biological resources to a level of less than significant and no unavoidable adverse Impacts would occur. AHS Impact 5.3-2: Development of the project would potentially result in the loss of approximately 51 acres of riparian habitat. (Threshold B-2] Approximately 51 acres of riparian habitat would be impacted by construction of the proposed project primarily along West Twin Creek in Waterman Canyon. Mitigation Measures: AHS 5.3-2A Prior to the issuance of grading permits for any project potentially affecting riparian habitat, jurisdictional waters, and/or wetland habitat, the property owner/developer shall provide evidence to the that all necessary permits have been obtained from the CDFG (pursuant to Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code) and the USACE (pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA) or that no such permits are required, in a manner meeting the approval of the Director of Development Services for the City of San Bernardino. Section 404 Permits from the USCOE will also require a Section 401 Water Quality Certfication from the California RWQCB Santa Ana. Project applicant shall provide evidence of a Section 401 Water Quality Certification. If federally listed species are present, consultation with USFWS shall also occur in conjunction with the Section 404 permit. AHS 5.3-28 Prior to issuance of a grading permit for any area containing resources subject to the jurisdiction of USACE and CDFG, USFWS, and RWQCB, a comprehensive Revegetation and Restoration Plan shall be developed by the applicant in consultation with the applicable agencies. The plan shall incorporate the applicable permit conditions and requirements of these agencies including the Section 404 Permit, 401 Water Quality Certification, and CDFG Section 1600 Streambed Alteration Agreement. Native vegetation shall be installed at a minimum ratio of 2 to 1 and maintained along the developed/wildland interface of the golf course and associated residential units, including local native plant landscaping. The plan will address the following items: • Responsibilities and qualifications of the personnel to implement and supervise the plan: The responsibilities of the landowner, specialists and maintenance personnel that will supervise and implement the plan will be specified. General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR City of San Bernardino • Page 31 Findings of Fact and Statement of overriding Considerations Part B -Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan B2. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIRIFEIR • Site selection: The site for mitigation will be determined in coordination with the City, USFWS, CDFG, and USFWS. The site will be located within land to be purchased or preserved offsite within the San Gabriel watershed. • Restoration and creation of habitat: The plan shall require the creation of riparian habitat in the amount and of the type required by CDFG and USACE, provided, however, that, in order to assure no net loss of jurisdictional resources on an acre-for-acre basis, all impacted USACE and CDFG jurisdictional habitat shall be compensated by restoration, enhancement or creation at a minimum of 3:1 ratio. • Site preparation and planting implementation: The site preparation will include: 1) protection of existing native species, 2) trash and weed removal, 3) native species salvage and reuse (i.e. duff), 4) soil treatments (i.e. imprinting, decompacting), 5) temporary irrigation installation, 6) erosion control measures (i.e. rice or willow wattles), 7) seed mix application, and 8) container species. • Schedule: A schedule will be developed that includes planting to occur during the appropriate season. • Maintenance plan/guidelines: The maintenance plan will include: 1) weed control, 2) herbivory control, 3) trash removal, 4) irrigation system maintenance, 5) maintenance training, and 6) replacement planting. • Monitoring plan: The monitoring plan will include: 1) qualitative monitoring (i.e., photographs and general observation), 2) quantitative monitoring (i.e., randomly placed transects), 3) performance criteria as approved by the resource agencies, 4) monitoring reports for three to five years, 5) site monitoring as n i s to ensure successful establishment of required by the resource age c e riparian habitat within the restored and created area. Successful establishment is defined per the performance criteria agreed to by the USACE, USFWS, CDFG, and the City or subsequent project applicant. • Long-term preservation: Long-term preservation of the site will also be outlined ~ in the conceptual mitigation plan. AHS 5.3-2C The applicant shall ensure that polluted runoff from the golf course will not enter riparian habitat and jurisdictional waters, including wetland habitat, through implementation of Mitigation Measures 5.7-1 B, 5.7-1 C, 5.7-1 D, and 5.7-1 E (Section 5.7, Hydrology). Finding: The mitigation measures identified are feasible and would avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant Impacts associated with biological resources to a level of less than significant and no unavoidable adverse impacts would occur. AHS Impact 5.3-3: The proposed project would impact approximately 58 acres of potential jurisdictional waters, including wetlands. ~Thresho/d B-3J Approximately 58 acres of potential jurisdictional (U.S. Army Corp of Engineers and California Department of Fish and Game) waters, including wetlands, would be impacted by the proposed project. Page 32 • The Planning Center October 2005 1 Part B -Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan B2. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIR/FEIR Mitigation Measures: AHS 5.3-3 Project applicant shall implement mitigation measure 5.3-2 to address impacts to jurisdictional waters and wetlands. Finding: The mitigation measure identified is feasible and would avoid or substantially lessens the potentially significant impacts associated with biological resources to a level of less than significant and no unavoidable adverse impacts would occur. AHS Impact 5.3-4: The proposed project would affect wildlife movement in West Twin Cnaek/Watennan Canyon. (Threshold 8-4] The proposed project may potentially affect the movement of resident or migratory wildlife species in West Twin CreeklWaterman Canyon. Mitigation Measures: AHS 5.3-4A Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the golf course construction and creek realignment, the applicant shall conduct a wildlife corridor/movement analysis of West Twin CreeklWaterman Canyon to identify and define the limits of the existing wildlife corridor. Based on the results of the analysis, and in consultation with a qualified biologist and a qualified native community restorationist, the landscaping plan for manufactured slopes along the drainage shall include: • Provision of north-south wildlife movement and linkage opportunities for the affected species along and adjacent to the realigned creek. • Planting of a minimum 25-foot buffer zone, within a 50-foot setback, of native shrubs and trees that provide maximum screening. • Exterior lighting shall be prohibited within the 50-foot setback zone. Light sources adjacent to the wildlife corcidor shall be directed away from the corridor. • To allow for the mobility of animals, fencing used in the 50-foot setback zone shall be limited to open fencing, such as split rail fencing, which does not ~ exceed 40 inches in height above the finished grade. I I AHS 5.3-4B If construction activities, including removal of riparian vegetation or construction adjacent I to riparian habitat, is to occur between March 15 and August 30, the project proponent shall have a biologist conduct apre-construction, migratory bird and raptor nesting site check. The biologist must be qualified to determine the status and stage of nesting effort by all locally breeding raptor species without causing intrusive disturbance. If an active nesting effort is confirmed very likely by the biologist, no construction activities shall occur within at least 300 feet of the nesting site until measures to address the constraint are agreed to by the project proponent and USFWS personnel. This agreement may be made by conference call, an on-site meeting, or other mutually agreeable means. Measures available as options to address this constraint are dependent on the species and any other protections afforded it, details of the nest site, the nest stage, types and Genera[ Plan Update and Associated Specifrc Plans EIR City of San Bernardino • Page 33 Findings of Fact and Statement of overriding Considerations Part B -Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan B2. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIR/FEIR levels of ongoing disturbances, the relevant project actions, and distances involved. Specific measures would be determined by the regulating agency (USFWS). Finding: The mitigation measures identified are feasible and would avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant impacts associated with biological resources to a level of less than significant and no unavoidable adverse impacts would occur. 82.3 Guttural Resources AHS Impact 5.41: Build-out of the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan would impact an identifed historic resource. (Threshold C-1] The proposed land use plan would result in the demolition of several buildings which contribute to the historical sign~cance of the property. The CEQA Guidelines require a project which will have potentially adverse impacts on historic resources to conform to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, in order for the impacts to be mitigated to below significant and adverse levels. The demolition of an historic property cannot be seen as conforming with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. Build-out of the proposed plan would also result in the introduction of land uses in close proximity to remaining historic features, which would substantially alter the existing historic and natural setting of the Arrowhead Springs property. Mitigation Measures: AHS 5.4-1 A Prior to issuance of any building, grading or demolition permit for the modification or destruction of any historic structure, the project applicant shall submit to the Director of Development Services written recommendations prepared by a qualified architectural historian of the measures that shall be implemented to protect each historic site eligible for listing on the NRHP and CRHP. The list includes but is not limited to the following as shown in Table 5.4-1 and illustrated in Figure 5.4-3. HotellSteam Caves Bun aloes 10 Pod, Cabanas, Tennis Coons Mud Baths Bun aloes 1 Smith Menwnal Bun aloes 3 Indian Statue Bun abw 4 Reservoir Bun aloes 5 S do s Bun aloes 6 Fountains Bun aloes 7 Terrace and Tennis Courts Bun aloes 8 Landsce a Elements Bun aloes 9 Miscellaneous Features ~ Modification. Appropriate mitigation measures for "historical resources" could include I preservation of the site through avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in ~, greenspace, parks, or open space, data recovery excavations of the finds, or a rehabilitation plan in compliance with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (1995) prepared by a qualified historic preservation professional that would be based to the greatest extent feasible on historical data. A particular focus of the rehabilitation plan should be the hotel building, including landscaping, interiors, exteriors and furnishings. Page 34 • The Planning Center October 1005 Part B -Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan 62. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIR/FEIR Demolition. To the extent eligible sites are not preserved in place, prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for the demolition of any Historic Structure eligible for listing on the NRHP and CRHP, including Bungalows 3,7,8,9,10 and 11, the historian shall conduct a data recovery program which includes: Comprehensive Survey. A comprehensive inventory of historic features on the property, including but not limited to buildings, structures, objects, water features, wall, and landscape materials shall be conducted. To the greatest extent feasible, the preservation and rehabilitation of historic features on the property shall be incorporated into the development plan. Interpretative Plan. The applicant shall be required to produce an historical interpretation plan for the property. This plan shall include a permanent, on-site display within a public area which will provide historic information about the founding and history of Arrowhead Springs. Historic and/or contemporary photographs and other artifacts and materials should be included within the display. Other indoor or outdoor interpretive displays shall be produced, as appropriate. The precise content, format, and location and design shall be determined by a qualified historic preservation professional, and subject to the approval by the City of San Bemardino. Documentation. A Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) outline format narrative description of the property, contemporary and historic photographs, and other relevant /(~~~~/~~J documentation shall be prepared by a historic consultant approved by the City. Prior to V`/ the issuance of a demolition permit for the subject property, the report shall be submitted for approval to the Director of Community Development and the Director of Community Services, and an approved original shall be deposited in the City of San Bernardino Branches of the San Bernardino County Public Library (or other suitable repository as determined by the Directors of Community Development and Community Services). AHS 5.4-1 B The EIR concludes that there are or may be significant historical structures/resources not currently ascertainable within areas where ground disturbing activity is proposed by the project. Therefore, prior to issuance of the first preliminary or precise grading permit for development in the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan area, the landowner or subsequent project applicant shall provide evidence that an qualified historic preservation professional has been retained by the landowner or subsequent project applicant, and has conducted a site survey of the development area at such time as all ground surfaces are visible after current uses are removed. If any sites are discovered, the historian shall conduct surveys and/or test level investigations. Testing and evaluation may consist of surface collection and mapping, limited subsurface excavations, and the appropriate analyses and research necessary to characterize the artifacts and deposit from which they originated. Upon completion of the test level investigations, for sites are determined to be unique a "historical resource" as set forth in CEf~A Guidelines Section 15064.5, the following measures shall be undertaken: the historian shall submit its recommendations to the landowner or subsequent project applicant and the Director of Community Development on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the site. Appropriate measures could include preservation in place through planning construction to avoid the historical resource, incorporation into greenspace, parks, or open space, data recovery excavations of the finds or compliance with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic buildings (1995). General Plan Update and Associated Specifec Plans EIR Ciry of San Bernardino • Page 35 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Part B -Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan 62. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIR/FEIR • Preparation of a research design for those sites determined to the "historical resources" that cannot be avoided that describes the recommended flieid investigations, and makes provisions for adequately recovering the scientifically consequential information from and about the "historical resource • Conducting site excavations in accordance with the research design with an emphasis on obtaining an adequate sample for analysis within the limits of the research questions being addressed. Special studies such as pollen analyses, soil analyses, radiocarbon dating, and obsidian hydration dating should be conducted as appropriate. • Monitoring of all field excavations by a Native American representative. • Preparation of a final report of the Phase 3 data recovery work and submittal of the research design and final report to the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC}, and other agencies, as appropriate. • If any Native American archaeological artifacts are recovered, the project applicant shall contact the City, which shall in turn contact the Morongo Band of Mission Indians and any other designated Tribe(s)' tribal representative, as determined by the Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC) to notify them of the discovery. The applicant shall coordinate with the City of San Bernardino and the designated Tribe(s) to determine, in good faith, the appropriate disposition Native American artifacts and the designated Tribe(s) shall be given the opportunity to seek the return of any Native American artifacts discovered. Any non-Native American archaeological artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be donated to a qualified scientfic institution approved by the Director of Community Development where they would be afforded long-term preservation to allow future scienffic study. Finding: Although the mitigation measures listed above would reduce the impacts to historic resources, demolition of historic structures can not be mitigated in accordance with CEQA Guidelines. Therefore the impacts to historic resources would remain a significant unavoidable adverse impact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted. AHS Impact 5.4-2: Build-out of the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan would impact archaeo- logical resources, paleontological resources, or a unique geologic feature. (Thresholds C2 and C-3J Development activities pursuant to the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan, such as grading and establishment of infrastructure would result in significant impacts to known archaeological resources. Portions of the Arrowhead Springs area that are proposed for development may contain additional prehistoric sites which have not been recorded or identified and which may be impacted by site disturbance activities. Mitigation Measures: AHS 5.4-2A Prior to issuance of the first preliminary or precise grading permit, and for any subsequent permit involving excavation to increased depth, the landowner or subsequent project applicant shall provide evidence that an archaeologist and/or paleontologist have been retained by the landowner or subsequent project applicant, and that the consultant(s) will be present during all grading and other significant ground Page 36 • The Planning Center October 2005 Part B -Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan 82. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIR/FEIR disturbing activities. These consultants shall be selected from the roll of qualified archaeologist and paleontologists maintained by the County of San Bemardino. Should any archeological/paleontologicel resources be discovered, the monitor is authorized to stop all grading in the immediate area of the discovery, and shall make recom- mendations to the Director of Development Services on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including but not limited to excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CECtA Guidelines. If the resources are determined to be "historic resources" at that term is defined under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, mitigation measures shall be identified by the monitor and recommended to the Director of Development Services. Appropriate mitigation measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in greenspace, parks or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds. No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Director approves the measures to protect these resources. If any Native American paleontological or archaeological artifacts are recovered as a result mitigation the City shall contact the Morongo Band of Mission Indians and any other designated Tribe(s)' tribal representative, as determined by the Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC) to notify them of the discovery. The applicant shall coordinate with the City of San Bernardino and the designated Tribe(s) to determine, in good faith, the appropriate disposition Native American artifacts and the designated Tribe(s) shall be given the opportunity to seek the return of any Native American artifacts discovered. Any non-Native American paleontological or archaeological artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be donated to a qualified scientific institution approved by the Director of Community Development where they would be afforded long-term preservation to allow future scientific study. AHS 5.4-28 Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the following note shall be placed on the cover sheet, and discussed at the pre-grade meeting: a) The paleontologist retained for the project shall immediately evaluate the fossils which have been discovered to determine if the are significant and, if so, to develop a plan to collect and study them for the purpose of mitigation. b) The paleontologic monitor must be empowered to temporarily halt of redirect excavation equipment of fossils are found to allow evaluation and removal of them if necessary, the monitor should be equipped to speedily collect specimens if the are encountered. c) The monitor, with assistance if necessary, shall collect individual fossils andlor samples of fossil bearing sediments. If specimens of small animal species are encountered, the most time and cost efficient method of recovery is to remove a selected volume of fossil bearing earth from the grading area and screen wish it off-site. I~ d) Fossils recovered during the earthmoving or as a result of screen-washing of I sediment samples shall be cleaned and prepared sufficiently to allow ~ identification. This allows the fossils to be described in a report of findings and reduces the volume of matrix around specimens prior to storage, thus reducing storage costs. General Plan Update and Associated Specif c Plans EIR City of San Bernardino • Page 37 Findings of Fact and Statement of overriding Considerations Part B -Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan B2. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIR/FEIR e) A report of findings shall be prepared antl submitted to the public agency responsible for overseeing developments and mitigation of environmental impacts upon completion of mitigation. This report would minimally include a statement of the type of paleontological resources found, the methods and procedures used to recover them, an inventory of the specimens recovered, and a statement of their scientific significance. AHS 5.4-2C The EIR concludes that there are or may be sign cant archaeological resources within areas where ground disturbing activity is proposed by the project. Therefore, prior to the first preliminary or precise grading permit for development in the Arrowhead Springs Specfic Plan area, each prehistoric and historic archeological site (listed below and described in Table 5.4-3) located within the project grading footprint must be tested and evaluated, following clearing and scraping activities. • CA-SBR-2268/H, including the four loci • CA-SBR-6870H • CA-SBR-7019H • CA-SBR-7020H • CA-SBR-7022H • CA-SBR-7049H • P1071-21 • P36-017732 Testing and evaluation may consist of surface collection and mapping, limited subsurface excavations, and the appropriate analyses and research necessary to characterize the artifacts and deposit from which they originated. Upon completion of the test level investigations, for sites are determined to be unique archaeological sites or historical resources as set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, the following measures shall be undertaken: the archaeologist shall submit its recommendations to, the landowner or subsequent project applicant and the Director of Community Development on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the sites. Appropriate measures for unique archaeological resources or historical resources could include preservation in place through planning construction to avoid archaeological sites; incorporation of sites within parks, greenspace, or other open space; covering the archaeological sites with a layer of chemically stable soil before building tennis courts, parking lots, or similar facilities on the site or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. When data recovery through excavation is the only feasible mitigation, a data recovery plan, which makes provision for adequately recovering the scient~cally consequential information from and about the historical resource, shall be prepared and adopted prior to any excavation being undertaken. Such studies shall be deposited with the California Historical Resources Regional Information Center. Archaeological sites known to contain human remains shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 7050.5 Health and Safety Code. • Preparation of a research design for those sites determined to the "historical resources" that cannot be avoided that describes the recommended field investigations, and makes provisions for adequately recovering the scientifically consequential information from and about the "historical resource Page 38 • The Planning Center October 2005 Part B -Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan B2. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIR/FEIR • Conducting site excavations in accordance with the research design with an emphasis on obtaining an adequate sample for analysis within the limits of the research questions being addressed. Special studies such as pollen analyses, soil analyses, radiocarbon dating, and obsidian hydration dating should be conducted as appropriate. • Monitoring of all field excavations by a Native American representative. • Preparation of a final report of the Phase 3 data recovery work and submittal of the research design and final report to the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), and other agencies, as appropriate. • If any Native American archaeological artifacts are recovered, the project applicant shall contact the City, which shall in tum contact the Morongo Band of Mission Indians and any other designated Tribe(s)' tribal representative, as determined by the Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC) to notify them of the discovery. The applicant shall coordinate with the City of San Bernardino and the designated Tribe(s) to determine, in good faith, the appropriate disposition Native American artifacts and the designated Tribe(s) shall be given the opportunity to seek the return of any Native American artifacts discovered. Any non-Native American archaeological artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be donated to a qualified scientific institution approved by the Director of Community Development where they would be afforded long-term preservation to allow future scientific study. Finding: The mitigation measures identified are feasible and would avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant impacts associated with archeological and/or paleontological resources or unique geologic features to a level of less than significant and no unavoidable adverse impacts would occur. AHS Impact 5.4-3: Grading activities could potentially disturi~ human remains in the Arrowhead Springs Specide Plan area. (threshold C-4J The site does contain the remains of David Nobel Smith at a marked memorial and the area was also known to be used by Native American tribes, increasing the likelihood that undiscovered human remains may exist. Site grading and construction activities may result in the discovery of human remains, which would result is a significant impact. Mitigation Measures: AHS 5.4-3A In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, the following steps shall be taken: There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the San Bernardino County Coroner is contacted to determine if the remains are prehistoric and that no investigation of the cause of death is required. If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American, then the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours, and the Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendent from the deceased Native American. The most likely descendant may make recommendations General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR City of San Bernardino • Page 39 Findings of Fact and Statement of overriding Considerations Part B -Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan B2. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIR/FEIR to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98; or Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity either in accordance with the recommendation of the most likely descendant or on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbances: • The Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a mast likely descendant or the likely descendant failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the commission; or • The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation; or • The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner. AHS 5.4-38 Upon receipt of an application for a project subject to CEQA and within the City's jurisdiction, the City of San Bernardino's representative shall consult with the relevant Tribe(s)' tribal representative(s), as determined by the Native American Heritage Commission, to determine if the proposed project is within a culturally sensitive area to the tribe. If sufficient evidence is provided to reasonably ascertain that the site is within a [tribal] culturally sensitive area, then a cultural resources assessment prepared by a City-certified archaeologist shall be required. The findings of the cultural resources assessment shall be incorporated into the CEQA documentation. A copy of the report shall be forwarded to the Tribe(s). If mitigation is recommended in the CEQA document, the procedure described in MM 5.4-3C shall be followed. AHS 5.4-3C Prior to the issuance of grading permits for which the CEQA document defines cultural resource mitigation for potential tribal cultural resources, the project applicant shall 'tribal re resentative to noti them of the radin , contact the desi Hated Tribe(s) p fy 9 9 9 excavation, and monitoring program. The applicant shall coordinate with the City of San Bernardino and the tribal representative(s) to negotiate an Agreement that addresses the desi nation, responsibilities, and participation of tribal monitors during grading, 9 excavation, and round-disturbing activities; scheduling; terms of compensation; and 9 sites and human ources sacred final dis osition of an cultural res treatment and p y remains discovered on the site. The City of San Bernardino shall be the final arbiter of the conditions included in the Agreement. Finding: The mitigation measures identified are feasible and would avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant impacts associated with disturbance of human remains outside of formal cemeteries to a level of less than significant and no unavoidable adverse impacts would occur. 62.4 Geology and Soils AHS Impact 5.5-2: Unstable geologic unit or soils condlt/ons, Including soil erosion, could result due to build-out of the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan. (Thresholds G-2 and G-3] i Page 40 . The Planning Center October 2005 Part B -Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan B2. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIR/FEIR Portions of the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan area are located on unstable geological units or have unstable soil conditions that may result in loss of topsoil or be susceptible to landslides, lateral spreading, liquefaction, subsidence, and collapse. Mitigation Measures: AHS 5.5-2a All projects within the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan area shall follow all geotechnicel recommendations provided within the Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluations produced by Soils Southwest Inc. AHS 5.5-2b Site specific geotechnicel analysis shall be required for all new developments within the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan area to determine existing soils conditions, soil recommendations for fill material prior to grading, and slope stability. Detailed geologic and geotechnical evaluations shall be made for construction of structural footings and slab-on-grade for placement on compacted fill soils. AHS 5.5-2c No fill shall be placed, spread or rolled during unfavorable weather conditions. Where work is interrupted by heavy rains, fill operations shall not be resumed until moisture conditions are considered favorable by the soils engineer. AHS 5.5-2d Proposed level structural pad areas shall be carefully evaluated by project geologist to determine whether these locations can be rendered safe and stable without potentially affecting offsite improvements. Excavated footings shall be inspected, verified, and certfied by soils engineer prior to steel and concrete placement to ensure their sufficient embedment and proper bearing. Structural backfill shall be placed under direct observation and testing. Finding: The mitigation measures Identified are feasible and would avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant Impacts associated with geology and soils to a level of less than significant and no unavoidable adverse Impacts would occur. 82.5 Hazards and Hazardous Materials AHS Impact 5.6-1: Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan operations would Involve the transport, use and/or disposal of hazardous materials or release o/hazardous materials. (fhresho/ds H-1, H-2, and H-3] I' The Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan area would result in the expansion of the existing development to include new commercial and residential uses. The Phase I Site Assessment identified recognized environmental conditions and historical recognized environmental conditions that may pose a hazard to people or the environment. Furthermore, naturally occurring emissions from the geothermal activity may also pose a hazard to people if development were to be concentrated in these areas. Mitigation Measures: AHS 5.6-1a Oil impacted materials identified onsite shall be properly cleaned and disposed of in accordance state and local laws. AHS 5.6-1b Soil samples shall be collected in the area surrounding the drying beds at the small sanitary sewer treatment facility and shall be tested for elevated metal concentrations. General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR City of San Bernardino • Page 41 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Part B -Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan B2. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIR/FEIR AHS 5.6-1 c Prior to approval of Tentative Tract Maps in the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan area in the vicinity of the identified geothermal areas, the developer shall initiate a risk assessment to identify possible risks associated with the development adjacent to the geothermal activity of Arrowhead Springs. The risk analysis shall include a risk assessment of radon, methane, propane, and mercury associated with the geothermal vents, hot springs, and mercury accumulation in the soils where development is to occur. Ventilation systems shall be designed in accordance with the National Fire Protection Association guide to ensure that indoor air concentrations of these hazards associated with the geothermal activity would not result in a hazard for building occupants. If an active (i.e. mechanically operated) ventilation system is used, the developer would be required to obtain relevant permits from the AQMD. Finding: The mitigation measure identified is feasible and would avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant impacts associated with hazards and hazardous material to a level of less than significant and no unavoidable adverse impacts would occur 62.6 Hydrology and Water Quality AHS Impact 5.7-1: During the construcflon phase of the proposed project, there is the potential for short-term unquantfflable Increases in pollutant concentrations from the site. After protect development, the quality of storm water runoff (sediment, nutrients, metals, pestlcldes, pathogens, and hydrocarbons) maybe altered. (Thresholds HD-1 and HD-6] Construction activities could lead to temporary impacts on surface water quarter quality through an increase in sediment deposited in local streams due to soil erosion and/or the release of other pollutants associated with construction. Development of the site would urbanize a total of approximately 506 acres, including 199 acres for a golf course, which would result in substantial alteration in the existing site conditions and the introduction of urban pollutant sources that could impact water quality for surface and ground water resources. Mitigation Measures: AHS 5.7-1A Prior to the issuance of land disturbing permits, the applicant shall provide the City Engineer with evidence that a Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed with the State Water Resources Control Board. Such evidence shall consist of a copy of the NOI stamped by - the State Water Resources Control Board or the Regional Water Quality Control Board, or a letter from either agency stating that the NOI has been filed a minimum of thirty days prior to commencing grading operations. AHS 5.7-1 B Prior to issuance of land disturbing permks and in compliance with the requirements of the State General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit, the project applicant shall prepare a Stone Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that incorporates measures ~ or comparable Best Management Practices which describe the site, erosion and sediment controls, means of waste disposal, implementation of approved local plans, control of post-construction sediment and erosion control measures and maintenance responsibilities, and non-stone water management controls. The SWPPP shall also be submitted to the City of San Bernardino Public Works Department. The applicant shall require all construction contractors to retain a copy of the approved SWPPP on each construction site. Additionally, the SWPPP shall ensure that all water discharges are in Page 42 • The Planning Center October 2005 Part B -Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan B2. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY $IGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIR/FEIR compliances with the current requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. AHS 5.7-1C Prior to issuance of land disturbing permits and in compliance with City of San Bemardino Municipal Code Chapter 8.80, the applicant shall prepare a Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWAMP). The SWAMP shall implement all applicable BMPs, as listed in the California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbooks or the current, San Bernardino County Storm Water Program's Report of Waste Discharge, to reduce pollutants in storm water and runoff and reduce non-storm water discharges to the City's storm water drainage system to the maximum extent practicable. The SWAMP shall demonstrate compliance with California Department of Health Services Section 60310 Use Area Requirements, which state that "no impoundment of disinfected tertiary recycled water shall occur within 100 feet of any domestic water supply well," and "no irrigation with, or impoundment of, disinfected secondary or disinfected secondary recycled water shall take place within 100 feet of any domestic water supply well AHS 5.7-1 D Pror to the issuance of land disturbing permits for the golf course, a Chemical Application Management Plan (CHAMP) shall be submitted to and approved by the City of San Bemardino. The CHAMP or similar management plan shah incorporate but not be limited to the following: {/,~~~ • A description of chemicals authorized for use and approved by the State of `.~./ California, along with guidelines for their application. Guidelines shall include restrictions on their application and their use near drainage systems. Chemicals include fertilizers, herbicides, fungicides, insecticides and rodenticides. Guidelines on the application of fertilizers and soil amendments shall take into account consideration the physical characteristics and nutrient content of the soil on the golf course site. • Guidelines for the irrigation of the golf course that take into consideration the field capacity of soil types and the timing with chemical applications; and • Chemical storage requirements and chemical spill response and chemical inventory response plans shall be prepared and implemented. AHS 5.7-1 E A water quality monitoring system and program shall be developed and implemented in conjunction with the CHAMP that provides for sampling of all permanent surface water features on a quarterly basis and includes an analysis for non-volatile synthetic organic chemicals, total dissolved solids, chloride, sulfate, total phosphorus, boron, nitrogen as nitrate, total nitrogen, and iron. This monitoring program shall be implemented with consideration of the RWQCB water quality objectives. General Plan Update and Associated Specif c Plans EIR City of San Bernardino • Page 43 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Part B -Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan B2. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIR/FEIR Finding: The mitigation measures identified are feasible and would avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant impacts associated with hydrology and water quality to a level of less than significant and no unavoidable adverse impacts would occur. AHS Impact 5.7-2: Development pursuant to the proposed project would increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the site and utilize surface waters otherwise destined forgroundwaterreeha?ge reducing opportunities forgroundwater recharge. (Threshold HD-2] Project implementation would increase the amount of impervious surfaces in the area, thus impacting the opportunity for groundwater recharge in those areas. Additionally, the proposed project would withdraw water from the surface water streams for drinking water and irrigation purposes and/or retrieve through wells in the Basin excess water that would normally reach the percolation ponds, which would reduce the amount of water available for groundwater recharge in the Basin. Mitigation Measures: AHS 5.7-2A Prior to approval of the first Tentative Tract Map, evidence shall be provided to the Development Services Department that appropriate water rights have been granted including a determination of maximum and minimum withdrawal of water from East and West Twin Creek watersheds (in conjunction with mitigation measure 5.15-1). AHS 5.7-2B Prior to approval of the first Tentative Tract Map, the applicant shall secure a site for the supplemental water wells in the San Bemardino Basin and obtain a drilling and operation permit in accordance with Chapter 13.24 (Water Supply System) of the Municipal Code. Finding: The mitigation measures identified are feasible and will avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant Impacts associated with hydrology and water quality to a level of less than significant and no unavoidable adverse impacts would occur. AHS Impact 5.7-3: Development pursuant to the proposed project would increase the amount of Impervious surfaces on the site and would therefore increase surface water flows Jnto drelnage systems within the watershed. (Threshold HD-3, HD-4, and HD-5j The existing drainage pattern of the site would be substantially altered and development would create an increase in impervious surfaces causing an increase in the amount and rate of storm water discharge to local streams. Mitigation Measures: AHS 5.7-3A Prior to issuance of land disturbing permits, the applicant shall submit a Final Drainage Plan Report to the City of San Bemardino for review and approval in conformance with the City of San Bemardino requirements that are in effect at the time of submittal. The report shall be prepared by a qualified registered professional civil engineer and shall, at a minimum, include the following: • A written text addressing existing conditions, the effects of projects improvements, all appropriate calculations, a watershed and hydrology map, changes in downstream flows and elevations, proposed on and off-site Page 44 • The Planning Center October 2005 Part B -Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan 62. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIR/FEIR improvements (catch basins, inlets, vaults, swales, filters, etc. for entrapment of sediment debris and contaminants), and features to protect downstream uses and property. The project drainage features shall be designed to ensure no change in downstream flow conditions that would result in new or increased severity of flooding. • The report shall provide evidence of compliance with all required approvals from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (401 Water Quality Waiver) and with USCOE 404 permitting for changes to'tivaters of the U.S " AHS 5.736 Maintenance of the storm drainage facilities shall be the responsibility of the project applicant until such time as the facilities are turned over to the City as a public improvement, or included within a Landscape Maintenance District or project home- owners or maintenance association. Easements shall be created and offered for dedication to the City for maintenance and access to these facilities as necessary in anticipation of possible City maintenance. Finding: The mitigation measures identified are feasible and would avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant impacts associated with hydrology and water quality to a level of less than significant and no unavoidable adverse impacts would occur AHS Impact 5.7-4: Portions of the project site proposed for development are located within a 100.year flood hazard area. (Thresholds HD-7 and HD-8j Portions of the specific plan area selected for residential development that are adjacent to West Twin Creek are subject to 100-year flood plain inundation. Mitigation Measures: AHS 5.7-4 Prior to issuance of building permits the project applicant shall prepare and file an application with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for Flood Insurance Rate Maps as necessary to reflect changes to the floodway or flood plain resulting from the development to demonstrate that all habitable structures are not subject to flooding in a 100-year storm. The Department of Public Works shall be provided a copy of the LOMR. Finding: The mitigation measure identified is feasible and will avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant impacts associated with hydrology and water quality to a level of less than significant and no unavoidable adverse impacts would occur 82.7 Noise AHS Impact 5.10-1: Implementation of fhe Arrowhead Springs SpeclBc Plan would result In long- term operation-related noise that would exceed local standards. (Thresholds N-1 and N-3] Project implementation would result in long-term operation-related noise that would exceed local noise standards primarily derived from operation of the proposed wastewater treatment plant and traffic on the new Harrison Parkway and other local roadways studied due to the proximity of residential uses. Cumulative noise General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR City of San Bernardino • Page 45 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Part B -Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan 62. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIRIFEIR impacts would occur due project and background traffic in the year 2030 at Sterling Avenue south of Foothill Drive. Mitigation Measures: AHS 5.10-1A A site specific acoustic study shall be conducted to analyze and mitigate noise levels along the existing Harrison Street from 40th to 30th Street and submitted to the Development Services Department with plans for road widening of Harrison Street. This acoustic study shall specify the necessary mitigation to achieve exterior noise level limits at residential uses proximate to the new Harrison Parkway. Mitigation measures may include the use of berms or sound walls to attenuate exterior noise levels. AHS 5.10-1 B A site specific acoustic study shall be conducted to evaluate and, if necessary, mitigate potential noise impacts from the proposed wastewater treatment plan on the golf course and residences located proximate to the project site. The study shall be submitted to the Development Services Department with building plans for approval. Mitigation, if necessary, shall be in compliance with the City's exterior and interior noise limits. Finding: The mitigation measures identified are feasible and will avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant impacts associated with most noise derived from traffic and noise due to operation of the wastewater treatment plant to a level of less than significant. However cumulative noise levels from traffic along Sterling Avenue south of Foothill Drive can not be sufficiently mitigated resulting in a significant unavoidable adverse noise impact and a statement of overriding consideration must be adopted by the Common Council. AHS Impact 5.10-2: Implementation of the Arrowhead Springs Speck Plan project would create short-term and long-term groundbome vibration and groundbome noise. (Threshold N-2] The project would create groundbome vibration and groundbome noise that may result in significant vibration impacts from vibration intensive construction activities. Vibration intensive construction activities may temporarily lead to significant vibration impacts if vibration sensitive receivers are located proximate to the construction activities. Mitigation Measures: AHS 5.10-2A Prior to issuance of land disturbing permits for projects that would occur within 25 feet of sensitive uses, the project applicant shall submit a list of equipment to the Development Services Department demonstrating compliance with USDOT significance threshold for vibration annoyance of 72 VdB. AHS 5.10-2B Prior to issuance of land disturbing permits for projects that would occur within 25 feet of sensitive uses, the project applicant shall submit a list of equipment to the Development Services Department demonstrating compliance with USDOT sign~cence threshold for vibration induced structural damage of 0.20 in/sec. Finding: The mitigation measures identified are feasible and will avoid or substantially lessen most I of the potentially significant impacts associated with groundbome vibration and groundbome noise. II However, the phasing of development may place sensitive users adjacent to sources of groundbome vibration and groundbome noise during construction activities such that mitigation measures would Page 46 • The Planning Center October 2005 Part B -Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan 62. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIR/FEIR not be effective in reducing impacts, resulting in a significant unavoidable adverse impact and a statement of overriding considerations must be adopted by the Common Council. 82.8 Public Services 82.8.1 Fire Protection AHS Impact 5.12-1: Incorporation of the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan area and subsequent development would introduce new structures, residents, and workers within the City of San Bemardlno Fire Department service boundaries, thereby Increasing the requirement for pre protection facilities and personnel. !Threshold FP-1J Incorporation and build-out of the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan area would expand the service boundary for the San Bernardino City Fire Department in an area that has a high number of emergency response calls and high fire danger thereby reducing the level of service for the remainder of the City and resulting in an increased need for addition fire protection facilities and personnel. Mitigation Measures: AHS 5.12-1 Prior to approval of any tract map or development application, the project applicant shall enter into a secured fire protection agreement with the City of San Bernardino to provide necessary fire fighting facilities, personnel, equipment for fire, and emergency services delivery, either through construction of fire facilities, funding or a combination of both. The Agreement shall also address the phasing of required fire facilities. Finding: The mitigation measure identified Is feasible and will avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant impacts associated with fire protection and emergency services to a level of less than significant and no unavoidable adverse impacts would occur. 82.9 Recreation AHS Impact 5.13-2: Buildout of the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan area would result in environmental Impacts to provide new and/or expanded recreational facilities. (Threshold R-2J Implementation of the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan would result in new recreation facilities including the development of a 199-acre public golf course in an area of natural environmental. Development of the golf course would result in direct environmental impacts to West Twin Creek and its natural biotic community. Mitigation Measures: AHS 5.13-2 Project applicant shall adhere to mitigation measures (AHS 5.3-1, AHS 5.3-2A, AHS 5.3- 26, AHS 5.3-2C, AHS 5.3-4A, AHS 5.3-4B) as detailed in Section 5.3 which are established to reduce the impact to the biological resources of West Twin Creek. General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR City of San Bernardino • Page 47 Findings of Fact and Statement of overriding Considerations Part B -Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan B2. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIRIFEIR Finding: The mitigation measure identified is feasible and will avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant impacts associated with recreation to a level of less than significant and no unavoidable adverse impacts would occur. 82.10 transportation and Traffic AHS Impact 5.141: Protect-re/steal trJp generation would impact levels of service for the existing area roadway system. (Threshold T-1] Two intersections were determined to be impacted by Phase I traffic and 7 intersections would be impacted by full build-out of the project or by the year 2030. No roadway segments would be impacted after Phase I or full build-out of the project. Mitigation Measures: AHS 5.14-1 A Prior to issuance of occupancy permits the project applicant shall be required to complete or bond for the costs of engineering and construction of the following project related traffic improvements or equivalent for Phase I (as detailed in the traffic study) impacts of 2007: • Waterman Avenue @ 36th Street. Install signalization with permitted phasing. • Waterman Avenue @ 34th Street. Install signalization with permitted phasing. AHS 5.14-1 B Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase II (as detailed in the traffic study) and all phases thereafter the project applicant shall be required to complete or bond for the costs of engineering and construction of the following project related traffic improvements or equivalent for impacts due to full build-out of the project: • Waterman Avenue @ 30th Street. Install protected phasing and one additional WB right-tum lane, and one additional SB right-tum lane, both with ovedap right- turn phasing. • Harrison Parkway (new) @ 40th Street. Install signalization, permitted phasing and two NB left-tum lanes, one NB right-turn lane, an exclusive EB right-turn lane and an exclusive WB left-turn lane • Waterman Avenue @ 36th Street. Install signalization and permitted phasing. • 30th Street (a3 Lynwood Drive. Reconfigure intersection to align with new Harrison Parkway and install signal. • Waterman Avenue @ 40th Street. Add an exclusive right-tum lane in each direction and westbound right-tum overlap phasing. • Waterman Avenue @ 34th Street. Install signal and permitted phasing. Page 48 • The Planning Center October 2005 Part B -Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan 62. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIR/FEIR • Village Parkway @ 40th SVeet. Install signal with protected EW phasing and the intersection configuration of; two SB left-turn lanes, one SB right-tum lane, two EB thru-lanes, one EB left-turn lane, two WB thru-lanes and one WB right-turn lane. Finding: The mitigation measures identified are feasible and will avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant impacts associated with traffic and transportation to a level of less than significant and no unavoidable adverse impacts would occur. 62.11 Utilities and Services Systems Water AHS Impact 5.15-1: Implementation of the Arrowhead Springs Specltic Plan would require construction of a new water system and increase on-site water demand by approximately 4,035 acre-feet at build--out. (thresholds WS-1 and WS-2] The environmental impact of constructing of the water distribution system for the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan project has been analyzed throughout DEIR as part of the development as a whole and calculation of "average" water supply indicates that a sufficient supply is potentially available. However, the water supply and distribution system has not been permitted by the appropriate agencies and amount of water granted through existing water rights has not been verified. Mitigation Measures: AHS 5.15-1 Prior to approval of the first Tentative Tract Map, evidence shall be provided to Public ~V.?~v./ Works/Engineering to confirm the availability and quantity of existing water rights through the State and that the drinking water system has obtained all appropriate operating and design permits through the California State Department of Heath Services. Finding: The mitigation measure identified is feasible and will avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant impacts associated with water supply and distribution systems to a level of less than significant and no unavoidable adverse impacts would occur. Wastewater AHS Impact 5.15-2: Project-generated wastewater could be adequately collected and treated by the wastewater service provider for the project however some related facility operations may affect the environment. ~7'hresho/ds WW-1, WW-$ and YVW- 3j Impacts of the construction of the wastewater collection and treatment facilities for the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan project has been analyzed throughout the DEIR where included as part of the grading footprint; however, operational impacts including use of recycled water may affect local water quality. Mitigation Measures: AHS 5.15-2 Prior to approval of the first Tentative Tract Map, evidence shall be provided to the Public Works/Engineering Division that appropriate permits have been obtained from the State li Water Resources Board, the State Department of Health Services, California I General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR City of San Bernardino • Page 49 Findings of Fact and Statement of overriding Considerations s Part B -Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan 62. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIR/FEIR Department of Corporations and the SCAQMD for the operation of the wastewater treatment plant including disposal of bio-solids and use of recycled water. Finding: The mitigation measure identified is feasible and will avoid or substantially lessen the potentially sign cant impacts associated with wastewater treatment and collection systems to a level of less than significant and no unavoidable adverse impacts would occur. Page SO • The Planning Center October 2005 Part B -Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan B2. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIR/FEIR This page intentionally left blank. General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR City of San Bernardino • Page 51 Findings of Fact and Statement of overriding Considerations Part B -Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan 63. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS B3 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS CEQA requires the decision-maker to balance the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be considered "acceptable" (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093[a]). However, in this case CEQA requires the agency to support, in writing, the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are infeasible to mitigate. Such reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the FEIR or elsewhere in the adminisVative record (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 [b]). The agency's statement is referred to as a "Statement of Overriding Considerations." The City of San Bernardino is proposing to approve the General Plan update and associated specific plans for the University District and Arrowhead Springs and has prepared and certified a FEIR that satisfies the requirements of CEQA. The following adverse impacts of the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan project are considered significant and unavoidable based on the DEIR, FEIR, MMP, and the findings discussed previously in Part B, Section B1 and 62 of this document. 83.1 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Air Quality Construction activities of the first phase of development that largely involve grading would cause temporary pollutant emissions that would exceed the daily emission thresholds for NOx and PM iu for the SCAQMD. Over the course of Phase 2 construction of facilities the daily emission thresholds for ROG, and NOx would be exceeded. Operational emissions largely attributed to mobile (vehicle) sources would also exceed the daily thresholds for Co, ROG, Nox and PM ,o. Emissions that exceed the daily threshold are considered to be significant on a cumulative basis by the SCAQMD. Cultural Resources While the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan calls for the restoration and revitalization of the historic hotel and many of the historic structures surrounding the hotel that contribute to the historical significance of the area, several structures considered to have historic significance would also be demolished. In accordance to CEQA guidelines, destruction of an historic resource can not be mitigated and must be considered a significant unavoidable adverse impact. Noise The traffic from the Arrowhead Springs project would contribute to a small increase in noise from Vaffic along a portion of Sterling Avenue that in and of itself would not be considered significant however the increase causes a cumulative increase in noise that exceeds the threshold for impact. The cumulatively significant noise impact cannot be mitigated resulting a an unavoidable adverse noise impact. B3.2 Considerations in Support of the Statement of Overriding Considerations The City, after balancing the specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the proposed Project (Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan), has determined that the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified above may be considered "acceptable" due to the following specific considerations, which outweigh the unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts of the proposed Project. Each of the separate benefits of the proposed Project, as stated herein, is determined to be, unto itself and independent of the other Project benefits, a basis for overriding all unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified in these Findings. Page 52 • The Planning Center October 2005 Part B -Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan 63. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The benefits of the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan can best be understood in light of the manner the project assists the City in attaining its long term goals. To that end, the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan is consistent with the Updated General Plan and addresses several key City goals, including: Preserve and enhance San Bernardino's unique neighborhoods and create and enhance dynamic, recognizable places. The Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan provides for the preservation and enhancement of a local icon. The Arrowhead Springs Hotel and Resort/Spa will be improved and surrounded by complementary uses, such as conference facilities, offices, hotels, a golf course, a village shopping environment, and residential uses. The mixture of uses, resort nature of the site, and enhancement of historic structures provide an identity to Arrowhead Springs that is unique to the area. Promote development that integrates with and minimizes impacts on surrounding land uses. The Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan concenVates development on 506 acres near existing, on and off site development and leaves the remaining 1,400 acres in permanent open space. This allows the majority of Arrowhead Springs to blend with the adjacent National Forest Development while focusing development near existing roadways and infrastructure. In addition, the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan includes development standards, design guidelines, grading standards, hillside development standards, fire protection standards, and resource protection measures that will ensure that new development be of a high quality and blends with surrounding uses. Enhance the quality of life and economic vitality in San Bernardino by strategic infill of new development and revitalization of existing development. The Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan is the revitalization of an existing hotel and resort that has not been in operation in years. Development of Arrowhead Springs will result in 1,350 single-family detached and multi- family units and approximately 2,530 new jobs. Arrowhead Springs will also be a unique resort and historic icon and attract visitors and tourists to the City. Enhance the aesthetic quality of land uses and structures in San Bernardino. The existing historic buildings on site create a benchmark for future development to complement and enhance. The Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan includes detailed development standards and design guidelines and clear maintenance requirements to ensure a quality, long-term project. Provide for the development and maintenance of public infrastructure and services to support existing and future residents, businesses, recreation and other uses. The Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan provides for the necessary infrastructure, including domestic and recycled water, sewer, drainage, utilities, and roadways, to accommodate the buildout of the property. Arrowhead Springs will provide on-site: domestic water treatment, supply, distribution, and storage systems; stormwater and flood management systems, including untouched natural channels; wastewater treatment; and solid waste collection and recycling in sufficient size and capacity to support buildout of the plan. Arrowhead Water & Power, the on-site utility company, will provide these services within Arrowhead Springs. Ensure that the costs of infrastructure Improvements are borne by those who benefit. General Plan Update and Associated Specifec Plans EIR City of San Bernardino • Page 53 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Part B -Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan 63. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The necessary infrastructure to support the buildout of Arrowhead Springs will be installed and financed by Arrowhead Water & Power or by individual developers. User fees will accommodate the long-term use and on-going maintenance of the utilities. Facilitate the development of a variety of types of housing to meet the needs of all income levels in the City of San Bernardino. Arrowhead Springs accommodates 1,350 new residential units that provide housing opportunities for multiple segments of the housing market, from first time buyers, to executive homes, to condominiums and multi- family units. Arrowhead Springs accommodates 36 custom estates, 34 'urban' flats in Village Walk, 266 condominiums and townhomes adjacent to Village Walk, 150 upscale senior units, 150 non-age restricted attached units, 429 golf course condominiums, and 285 townhomes and condominiums in the unique Hilltown. Expand on historic and the natural assets to attract recreational visitors. Arrowhead Springs represents a significant gateway into the City from the mountain resorts. The development creates a powerful transitional edge from the City to the US National Forest of the San Bernardino Mountains. Arrowhead Springs is located immediately below the famous geologic arrowhead' that is imprinted on the mountainside, providing a natural landmark to the property. Arrowhead Springs, with its unique history and natural resources, will become a regional tourist destination. The creation of up-scale residential neighborhoods, a unique'Yillage" commercial center, corporate office center, high-end hotels, convention center, world-class spaRiealth resort, public golf course, and equestrian trails will create a mountain resort at a gateway to the City from SR-18. Improve the quality of I'rfe in San Bemardino by providing adequate parks and recreation facilities and services to meet the needs of our residents. Arrowhead Springs includes 21 acres of Neighborhood/Mini-Parks and 1,400 acres of open space. Above this, a 199-acre public golf course is also provided in Arrowhead Springs. in the developed area, there is one 14-acre public Botanical Garden and seven Mini-Parks ranging in size from 0.2 acres to 3.0 acres. The Park Plan for Arrowhead Springs also includes approximately 1,400 acres of Open SpacelWatershed uses. This designation is intended to establish open space areas serving multiple purposes including active and passive recreation, such as hiking, as well as watershed control. Protect people and property from brush urban and wildland fire hazards. Arrowhead Springs concentrates development on 27% of the site. Surrounding the developed areas of the site are fuel modification zones that will be planted with vineyards and orchards. These natural buffers will help protect the people and property from brush fire hazards and enhance the character of the area. Development in Arrowhead Springs will be required to comply with the requirements of the City's Foothill Fire Zone and Arrowhead Springs Hillside Development provisions, which address building, grading, and landscaping standards in high-fire areas. 83.3 Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the City of San Bernardino concludes that the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan project will result in a beneficial mix of retail, residential, and recreational uses while restoring and reusing important historical structures providing significant benefits of local and regional significance, which outweigh the unavoidable environmental impacts. Therefore, the City of San Bernardino has adopted this Statement of Overriding Considerations. Page 54 • The Planning Center October 2005 EXHIBIT C MITIGATION MONITOR?NG PROGRAM FOR: SAN BERNARDINO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE (SAN BERNARDINO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND ASSOCIATED SPECIFIC PLANS EIR) SCH #2004111132 prepared for: CITY OF SAN BERNARD/NO Contact: Terri Rahhal, Principal Planner prepared 6y: THE PLANNING CENTER Contact: William Halligan, Esq., Director of Environmental Services SEPTEMBER 27, 2005 Table of Contents Section Page 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1 1.1 PURPOSE OF MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ............................................1 1.2 DEIR SUMMARY FOR THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND UNIVERSITY DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ..........................................1 1.3 PROJECT LOCATION ..................................................................................................2 1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .......................................................................................2 2. MITIGATION MONITORING PROCESS ...............................................................4 2.1 MITIGATION MONITORING AGREEMENT .................................................................4 2.2 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ORGANIZATION .........................................4 2.3 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT .......................................................................................................4 2.4 MITIGATION MONITORING COMMITTEE ..................................................................4 2.5 RECOGNIZED EXPERTS ............................................................................................5 2.6 ARBITRATION RESOLUTION ......................................................................................5 2.7 ENFORCEMENT ..........................................................................................................6 3. MITIGATION MONITORING REQUIREMENTS ...................................................8 3.1 PRE-MITIGATION MEETING .......................................................................................8 3.2 CATEGORIZED MITIGATION MEASURES/MATRIX ...................................................8 3.3 IN-FIELD MONITORING ...............................................................................................8 3.4 DATABASE MANAGEMENT ........................................................................................8 3.5 COORDINATION WITH CONTRACTORS ...................................................................8 3.6 LONG-TERM MONITORING...:::... ...............................................................................8 4. MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTS .............................................................18 4.1 FIELD CHECK REPORT ............................................................................................18 4.2 IMPLEMENTATION COMPLIANCE REPORT ............................................................18 4.3 ARBITRATION/ENFORCEMENT REPORT ...............................................................18 General Plan Update Mitigation Monitoring Program City of San Bernardino • Page 1 1. Introduction 1.1 PURPOSE OF MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM This Mitigation Monitoring Program has been developed to provide a vehicle by which to monitor mitigation measures and conditions of approval outlined in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), State Clearinghouse No. 2004111132. The Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared in conformance with Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code and City of San Bernardino Mitigation Monitoring Requirements. Section 21081.6 states: (a) When making findings required by paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 21081 or when adopting a mitigated negative declaration pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 21080, the following requirements shall apply: (1) The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. For those changes which have been required or incorporated into the project at the request of a responsible agency or a public agency having jurisdiction bylaw over natural resources affected by the project, that agency shall, if so requested by the lead or responsible agency, prepare and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program. (2) The lead agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is based. This Mitigation Monitoring Program will serve to document compliance with adopted/certified mitigation measures, which were formulated to minimize impacts associated with the General Plan Update. The mitigation measures presented here also encompass the University District Speck Plan, which was included in the impact assessment of the General Plan Update. A separate Mitigation Monitoring Program document has been developed for the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan. 1.2 DEIR SUMMARY FOR THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND UNIVERSITYDISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT The General Plan update consists of a comprehensive update to the City's General Plan with the exception of the Housing Element, which was adopted July 2003 and included but simply reformatted to fit the new document. The proposed General Plan Update reflects the community's view of its future and can be thought of as the blueprint for the City's growth and development. The general plan projects conditions and needs into the future as a basis for determining long-term objectives and policies for day-to-day decision-making. While the life of the General Plan is generally considered to be 20 years, the General Plan inGudes policies and programs that are short term, long term, and ongoing. Some portions of the General Plan, such as the land use plan, are not linked to any timeline. The land use plan reflects build-out, which will occur through voluntary methods or redevelopment efforts throughout the life of the City. The general plan is considered "comprehensive" since it covers the tercitory within the boundaries of the City and any areas outside of its boundaries that relate to its planning activities (sphere of influence). The General Plan is also comprehensive in that it addresses a wide variety of issues that characterize a city. These issues range from the physical development of the jurisdiction, such as general locations, timing, and extent of land uses and supporting infrastructure, to social concerns such as those identified in the housing element regarding housing affordability. To address this range of issues, the proposed General Plan is divided into 14 topical sections, or Elements the same as the existing General Plan: Introduction, Land Use, Housing, Economic General Plan Update Mitigation Monitoring Program City of San Bernardino • Page 1 1. Introduction Development, Community Design, Circulation, Public Facilities and Services, Parks, Recreation, and Trails, utilities, Safety, Historical and Archaeological Resources, Natural Resources and Conservation, Energy and Water Conservation and Noise. The General Plan is guided by a Vision Statement and Key SVategies, which describe the basic direction of the policies contained in this Plan and represent the community's view of its future. The University District is located in the northwestern portion of the City in the foothills of the San Bemardino Mountains overlooking the Cajon Creek Wash and the Glen Helen Regional Park. The University District Specific Plan focuses on the aesthetic treatment of the public rights-of-way and other programs designed to create an identifiable district surrounding the University. The Specific Plan includes design guidelines addressing the treatment of landscaping, signage, banners, gateways, and pedestrianlbicycle connections. There are no unique land use changes or circulation system changes or developments proposed as a part of the University District Specific Plan, therefore analysis of the impacts of this Specfc Plan were enveloped in the discussion of the General Plan update impacts. The Findings of Fact and Overriding Considerations document presents findings that must be made by the City of San Bemardino prior to approval of the project pursuant to Sections 15091 and 15093 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code. Under CEQA the Lead Agency (City of San Bernardino) is required to make written findings concerning each alternative and each significant environmental impact identified in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). 1.3 PROJECT LOCATION The City of San Bernardino is located approximately 60 miles east of the City of Los Angeles in the upper Santa Ana River Valley. This valley is framed by the San Bernardino Mountains on the northeast and east, Blue Mountain and Box Springs Mountain abutting the Cities of Loma Linda and Redlands to the south, and the San Gabriel Mountains and the Jurupa Hills to the northwest and southwest, respectively. San Bernardino is surrounded by the Cities of Rialto to the west, Colton to the southwest, Loma Linda to the south, Redlands to the southeast, Highland to the east, and the San Bemardino National Forest to the north. The City of San Bernardino encompasses an area that stretches from just south of the I-10 Freeway on the south to the Cajon Creek Wash and the San Bernardino Mountains on the north. The City's total planning area is 45,231 acres, or 71 square miles. This includes 38,402 acres, or 60 square miles, of incorporated territory and 6,829 acres, or 11 square miles, of unincorporated lands within the City's Sphere of Influence. 1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Based upon the Initial Study, the City of San Bemardino staff determined that an EIR should be prepared for the proposed project (General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans). The scope of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was determined based upon the City's Initial Study, comments received in response to the NOP, and comments received at scoping meetings conducted by the City. Pursuant to Sections 15126.2 and 15126.4 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the EIR should identify any potentially significant adverse impacts and recommend mitigation that would reduce or eliminate these impacts to levels of insignificance. The information contained in the Project Description establishes the basis for analyzing future project-related environmental impacts. However, further environmental review by the City may be required as more detailed information and plans are submitted on a project by project basis. i Page 2 • The Planning Center October 2005 1. Introduction A DEIR has been prepared to evaluate potentially significant impacts associated with implementation of the proposed General Plan Update. General Plan Goals and Policies, Existing Codes and Regulations and Mitigation Measures have been identified to either reduce or eliminate potentially significant impacts. For purposes of environmental analysis in this DEIR, the focus of the environmental impact analysis is on those areas in which physical changes to the existing environment are proposed that may result in environmental impacts (i.e., areas where land use changes are proposed) and the statistical analysis of future buildout. In addition, the DEiR describes a range of reasonable altematives to the project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project, while substantially avoiding or lessening any of the significant impacts of the proposed project, and evaluates the comparative merits of the alternatives and the proposed project. 1.a.1 IMPACTS CONSIDERED LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT The Initial Study identified various thresholds from the CEQA Guidelines among a number of environmental categories that would not be significantly impacted by the proposed project and therefore, did not warrant further review in the DEIR. Only the environmental category of Agricultural Resources was eliminated entirely from discussion in the DEIR due to impacts that were found to the less than significant. All other environmental categories were analyzed in the DEIR. Please see Section 8 of the DEIR for a complete listing of the individual environmental effects which were found to be less that signfcant in the Initial Study prepared for the project. 1.a.2 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANTADVERSE IMPACTS THAT CAN BE MITIGATED, AVOIDED, OR SUBSTANTIALLY LESSENED Five environmental categories have been identified as having potentially significant impacts if the proposed `A/ project (General Plan Update including the University District Specific Plan) is implemented. The factors are: • Air Quality • Cultural Resources • Noise • Transportation and Traffic • Utilities and Service Systems for Water and Wastewater 1.a.3 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS The DEIR identifies three unavoidable adverse impacts, as defined by CEQA that would result from implementation of the General Plan Update and University District Specific Plan. Unavoidable adverse impacts maybe considered sign'fiicant on a project-spec'rfic basis, cumulatively significant, and/or potentially significant. Potentially sign cant impacts are those that fall within the responsibility of another agency and implementation of the mitigation measures cannot be assured by the City of San Bemardino. If the City of San Bemardino, as the Lead Agency, determines that unavoidable significant adverse impacts will result from the project, the City must prepare a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" before it can approve the project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations states that the decision-making body has balanced the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable significant environmental effects and has determined that the benefits of the project outweigh the adverse effects and, therefore, the adverse effects are considered to be acceptable. The impacts of the General Plan Update that were found in the DEIR to be significant and unavoidable are: • Air Quality • Noise • Transportation and Traffic General Plan Update Mitigation Monitoring Program City of San Bernardino • Page 3 2. Mitigation Monitoring Process 2.1 MITIGATION MONITORING AGREEMENT The Mitigation Monitoring Agreement will be provided through the City conditions of approval process, and reference compliance with this monitoring program where applicable. Provisions are included in the Agreement specifying monitoring and reporting requirements, scheduling, qualifications of mitigation monitors and specialists, agency fees, right of site access, dispute resolution, and penalties. The Agreement will include enforcement provisions and sanctions for more severe infractions, such as stop work orders, loss of further entitlement or restoration. The landowner would agree that the agency has the right to impose these sanctions pursuant to the contract and hold the agency harmless in enforcement of its provisions. The lead agency may also require that Mitigation Monitoring Agreements be executed between the landowner and appropriate responsible or trustee agencies. The use of Mitigation Monitoring Agreements will clarify the assignment of responsibility, and have the added benefit of improving the citizenry's confidence that agencies are committed to take actions to protect their environment. 2.2 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ORGANIZATION Overall mitigation monitoring program management is the responsibility of the City of San Bernardino Development Services Department. The Mitigation Monitoring Committee comprised of the landowner, construction manager, and the environmental monitor, is responsible for program implementation and reporting requirements. The landowner's technical consultants (EIR consultant, geologist/environmental assessor, project engineer, arborist, noise consultant, and traffic consultant) will pertorm related monitoring tasks under the direction of the environmental monitor (if contracted by the City). In the event of disputes regarding matters for which the City is the final authority, an arbitration committee will be formed, consisting of a representative from the City's Development Services Department, Public Works Division, and City Common Council. City of San Bernardino Departments and responsible/trustee agencies will interpret technical matters for the Arbitration Committee in the event of a dispute. 2.3 CITY OF SAN BERNARD/NO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT The City of San Bernardino Development Services Department will serve as the program administrator, responsible for overall program management, mitigation monitoring clearances and coordination of the arbitration committee/responsible agencies, and the mitigation monitoring committee. The Department is responsible for review of all monitoring reports, enforcement actions, and document disposition. 2.4 MITIGATION MONITORING COMMITTEE The mitigation monitoring committee is responsible for the day-to-day monitoring activities and reporting, and includes a representative from the landowner, construction manager, and the mitigation monitor. The monitoring committee holds regularly scheduled meetings to coordinate mitigation measure implementation, review compliance reports, and resolve in-field disputes. Unresolved disputes are forwarded to the arbitration committee. Page 4 • The Planning Center October 2005 2. Mitigation Monitoring Process 2.a.f MITIGATION MONITORING TEAM The mitigation monitoring team, consisting of the environmental monitor manager and technical subconsultants (EIR consultant, geologist/environmental assessor, project engineer, biologist, noise consultant, traffic consultant, and archaeologist), is responsible for monitoring the implementation/ compliance with all adopted mitigation measures and conditions of approval. A major portion of the team's work is in-field monitoring and compliance report preparation. Implementation disputes are brought to the committee for resolution by the monitor, and if required, to the arbitration committee. The following summarizes key positions in the monitoring program and their respective functions: Monitoring Team • Technical Advisors: Responsible for monitoring in respective areas of expertise (EIR consultant, geologist/environmental assessor, project engineer, arborist, noise consultant, and traffic consultant). Directly reports to the environmental monitor. ~ • Monitoring Committee: Responsible for report review, and first phase of dispute resolution. • City Development Services Department: Principal manager of the monitoring program. Responsible for coordination of mitigation monitoring committee, technical consultants, report preparation and dispute resolution. Responsible for overall program administration, participation on arbitration committee and document/report clearinghouse. • City Pu61ic Works Division: Responsible for review of final engineering plans in conformance with the Tentative maps, technical support, and compliance report preparation. ~,/ • City Common Council: Responsible for implementation of corrective action, stop work orders and final arbitrator of disputes. 2.5 RECOGNIZED EXPERTS The use of recognized experts, as a component of the monitoring team and arbitration committee, is required to ensure compliance with scientific and engineering based mitigation measures. While the mitigation monitoring teams recognized experts assess compliance with required mitigation measures, responsible agency recognized experts consult with the arbitration committee regarding disputes. 2.6 ARBITRATION RESOLUTION If the mitigation monitor identifies a mitigation measure, which in the opinion of the monitor, has not been implemented, or has not been implemented correctly, the problem will be brought for resolution before the mitigation monitoring committee for resolution. If the problem cannot be satisfactorily resolved by the committee, it will be brought before the arbitration committee for resolution. The decision of the arbitration committee is final, unless appealed to the Director of Development Services. The arbitration committee, acting through a final vote of the City Common Council, will have the authority to issue stop work orders until the dispute is resolved. In the case of situations involving potential risk of safety or other emergency conditions, the arbitration committee is empowered to issue temporary stop work orders until such time as Planning Commission or City Common Council review of the particular stop work matter becomes final. General Plan Update Mitigation Monitoring Program City of San Bernardino • Page 5 2. Mitigation Monitoring Process 2.7 ENFORCEMENT Public agencies may enforce conditions of approval through their existing police power, using stop work orders, fines, infraction citations, loss of entitlement, refusal to issue building permits or cert~cates of use and occupancy, or, in some cases, notice of violation for tax purposes. Criminal misdemeanor sanctions could be available where the agency has adopted an ordinance requiring compliance with the monitoring program, similar to the provision in many zoning ordinances which state the enforcement power to bring suit against violators of the ordinance's provisions. Additional enforcement provisions could include required posting of a bond or other acceptable security in the amount of the required mitigation measures. In the event of non-compliance, the City could call the bond and complete the required mitigation measures. I I ~, Page 6 • The Planning Center October 2005 2. Mitigation Monitoring Process This page intentionally IeR b/ank. I i 1 i i i i 1 i General Plan Update Mitigation Monitoring Program Ciry of San Bernardino • Page 7 3. Mitigation Monitoring Requirements 3.1 PRE-MITIGATION MEETING A pre-monitoring meeting will be scheduled to review mitigation measures, implementation requirements, schedule conformance, and mitigation monitoring committee responsibilities. Committee rules are established, the entire mitigation monitoring program is presented, and any misunderstandings are resolved. 3.2 CATEGORIZED MITIGATION MEASURES/MATRIX Project-specific mitigation measures have been categorized in matrix format, as shown in Table 3-1. The matrix identifies the environmental factor, specific mitigation measures, schedule, and responsible monitor. The mitigation matrix will serve as the basis for scheduling the implementation of, and compliance with, all mitigation measures. 3.3 IN-FIELD MONITORING Project monitors and technical subconsultants shall exercise caution and professional practices at all times when monitoring implementation of mitigation measures. Protective wear (e.g., hard hat, glasses) shall be worn at all times in construction areas. Injuries shall be immediately reported to the mitigation monitoring committee. 3.4 DATA BASE MANAGEMENT All mitigation monitoring reports, letters, and memos shall be prepared utilizing Microsoft Word software on IBM-compatible PCs. 3.5 COORDINATION WITH CONTRACTORS The construction manager is responsible for coordination of contractors and for contractor completion of required mitigation measures. 3.6 LONG-TERM MONITORING Long-term monitoring related to several mitigation measures will be required, inGuding fire safety inspections. Post-construction fire inspections are conducted on a routine basis by the City of San Bernardino Fire Department. Page 8 • The Planning Center October 2005 3. Mitigation Monitoring Requirements This page intentionally left 61ank. General Plan Update Mitigation Monitoring Program City of San Bernardino ~ Page 9 CL O ~ v m ~ ~ ~ ~ 0.' ~ E ~ ~ o c ~ o ~a a ~ ~ o U y ~ 23 ~ ~ ~ Y3 'g _ 'z ., z yo e ~9'i ~aci ~ oci ~'i aci c°h FF c~ y N e'a c n nd nd E C O p o p o 'C3 p > i > C p~ ~ ~ p C p ~ d d Ci S ~ E d _ a a a e y y y tb N d d ~ O .' O V e ~a _ _ s E_ N C ~ Q ~ G C O'O O~ O ~ O G ~ (7 ° o ~ a` a a a ° c ~ c c m m ~ c a ` ~ ~ E n F~ ~ pn ~ v° ~ o `o `o c y CO C E ~ U U U l0 w ~ ~ ~ ~ d m c O ~j ~ ` N v+ ~ aEi d ~ E 'Q '~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ E ~ d O1 ~ y IE ~ m E 7E c ' v ~ $ ~ y b $ Q~ ~ pid ~ c ~ ,p ui~ c b a ~ U ~ ~ •~..a ~-~ 6 y cd ~' ~ ^-' c `qi E ~c U mw O m ~ a,Q ~ Tom' ° 'o+~o d E a. 3 c u c E ~y a°i m aEi E {t~pJ c cLi nv~ , C~ y Q y ~ E N N~ N Ol b lO j p~ N c y '.°~ T ~ NW ~j CO Fm'j C d C d O b n Y y C N O_ ~ C O C C~ ~ O ~ rnd ~ $~ d o n £t~i b '° o- di c d,ta m'-'.Q Fi ~3 c ~ d d ~ ~ °i~~c8i'~~i ~ 2 li Ua Ea °cc qu~° ~d~c aS ...a g~~a°~pp~Ep c c ~~y~yrO t~O~UC E~ ~m'c° m y~ y {O m y Cp d d Ol ~ L~ O C n U L t`O L C d V L O d E~ d 0 ~ N cCp ~ c d°~{~ d' b N b y~ N ~ Z` N O N y ~ y .t' ~ v ~ c 3 ~ O ,~ V ~ ~.- ZS N~~ c d U d .p ° U=._U mm G~ C d • • • • • d L a~-_, d C~ C L U O O LL''UL •,.., $ g a ~'m c r m m r$ E'v, r e Q~ ~ ~a b 3.p$'~~s hhn^ J ~ • •ry j m U ~ ~ O ~ Q CV (V N ~v '.v ~i ~ x ~ ~ ,~ ,~ ~ d ~ o0 6 ,r; o. a a ~~CC ~ ~ C7 C7 U lr 0., M c ~o ~ o ~ a., „ n o ~ m ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z~ c n U g ~ O ~ ..~.a C ~ h W O N z ? G1 G 'tj ~ ~ ~ ~ a, a N ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ s o ~ ~' ~bU = o ~' g~ ~ ~~~-a ~ ~ GO o p' d ~s~ 6 `OC ~~1.y1 a w n. o m '~GS M ~ c L ~ ° c a dddffi+++ '3 G C N ~K ~ ~ ~ ~ zc~ G ~ a $ „ ~ c7r ~ o 'c7 0 0 F~ ~ mE v V U ~ ~+Go K m Nm ~ ~5~~'~$o $~ BOG .~'~S BaNi o ~ A N O ~p O ~ ~ ~ d ~l' ~ U N ~ t0 ~''6 G .r. Y '~ w @ a, ,~ U 9 ,,, 3v'm m.(j ~3 ~'Y3 msi~d `S. ~c'xg gc C~ N ? +b C Nd o ~=o ~~Gp~~.~s c W m ~ t c~ 4 ~,,, L !Q;' ~ N 7 ~ r ~ 5 ,~ v L~`~icEW 1 a a r 'n ~ J N N U Sri N ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ alt c ~ 'on ~ ~ ~ a; o ° '~-, ~ _ ~ ~, ; ov ~~o 0 ~o ~ ~ r a a d ~ ~ 0 a m m e-_'o> ~_$~ m 8 m fi m ~ r G ~ $~ ~ N ~ ~,~._ ~ ~ ~ ~Sv ~,' Z,c ~ ob~.~ ~m $. '~ ociE ~ ~q ,a~ ~E ~ mQjG°`~, ~'~~ s ~ g~'~i~~' o R~m kicm$'x~°E'tEc- $N~c~`~ Y p c 8 m 3' ~' ~ _e Z S, ~ .g m -_ a~+ u~ ~n+ ~ ~ m `b' .ttlp~ ~ ,~aa }}.~,, ef1~ = O ~ ~ ~~uQQ11 ~ ~ 3qqY~~ ~ge F N ~ fib{ ~~jj N ~S N ~ G v~ f N 44 CL `L" G 4~ Yn ~i N Y Y N r~ Z~ G m .d.. o$' Ca .€,~ G.~s°£gc~i~,`a_£ m_~' ~ ~ii~~^'2o mLaGi~~' r ~ O ss ~i2~6 m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2' ~ E ~4m~i °' m '$i ~ •a'~ ~ -. r 'g 'r • t°J ..,,~ ~ £ .N 3 °c ~ ~ .GO ~ ;tq" U o ~ fl ~ G° £pp+?? c° m ~ Tn .~a'. • pp O ~ o,am ~~y~5•~~j,p~°aS~n N w > Sm~ m~yq~ ~LV~ N ~ SEE ~~LC~~~mag x a O st$ ~ ~ .,.., w C3 '~ •,.~ ~ w o= ~ ~ m cs E 0.' ~ o ~ e ~ ~ ~~c .o~ ~ ae A e O o> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ oU by 5 ~ ~ E3 n '~ r. .Z 'Z _ .?o °Ji m Q ~' a ~' d ~'i aci c .,~, :o 'c E .O a~ n~ n Q n~ O _ o ~' o p Tt ro i > > ~q' C ~ $' O ~ ~ ti 0 ~ 'mil 'V /~/~~ °p~ o Y! ~ 16 d "41 G€ rn A g y e ,~~,a ~a o ~ A ~ ~ o~ o v ~ 3 m "N' cm cm ~ c M m a o_ a` 9cj S d ~ c c c c ., ~ .Q c v v E 2 e ~ ~ aEi E c E O a e m °ad °aa m ~ ~ m m ~' o c ro ~ `c~ ~ n `o `o o `o 0 ~ E ~ ~ D L` U U U U m ~C r y rn C ~ T C ~y 'y N ~ C ~ -p ; C U) ~ eUQ'C1' 0Q1 VJ ~ ~'.C pQ >.~U `V W ZN T~~ C C1 t0 N {YCp~ LQ rr C CSO-'~P L 41 .y- ~yy ~ {dpp~~ nQ ~ ~-~ ~ ~ ~ C ° ~ y Q fn ~ v ~ a p c y C .C O m O O Yi A p C C O~ A C A A~~ a~ni c=a 'Q ~ c ~-ayiU dL`> $E$ ~ mN m m ~ c ~c~nc~~dE ~£hE $~m add o~O ~ov aEE~~ ~'fia:£~cy3~o co~'_sa grnm c=m ~ ~~Q H rn$ mtrm~ c cam' ~$ c o m > c o ~m o ~'~ 'oh~'~+ E~ 1O om tl1 m c=o U' m"~ ~'Sto~°m ,aa~i'ta~,rd$~'L ~'ts c_c_°m~U~°a> X50 g °vC~E oN3".or~m~cm oay~~3 ~?oLL$~o X33 N 0i v ~ C m a y Fa ~ v N 'O N y~~ E O a ~ C d~ ;a_° E3 Ea~s ~`N~N'~E~'uyi£~«`o. .c'a.. ??ccmf~$a~r ~$a~L,.y Z' d 'OO E5~ O N y 0 ~ ~ N ~ C n y~ D A C N ~ Z A L N N Q ~ h E ~R'oo eno 5-£+~ys~°~c ~'3 w.°y_'oQ nww mom O E- yc`oo ° ~_'_ aJay,.-oc °oc erSL' O ~ y ~p .-. C ~i ; d O~ C S N O c p Z c ~ `t ~~E~w° o y Evv~.°c nc c cc`; c ~,y.a DoE m HOC~t N L m m 'n c m c~ g~ c U~- a "' m- • ~ dF n- d L N y ~ .c~oE3 .10cA~T< Tc~ cioE~, caEi~ U O a.c_--mr~'o~i'y~8''mm~a~m~ra8on.mc~ ~ u a ~O w i • N r N ~ ~ ~'~1 Z d d O ~ V 'r o iti ~ ui ~ ~ d b0 a a" d ~ u ~ ~ n ~ o ~ rK~ ~ O X30 ~ ~ c m p U y O r ~c~, C L ~ C3 S C p, 'G tl m a K C N d O C ~E i= H c E ~, ~ y`o, c Mc ~3 ~ _o a ~ $E2 ~ n+ ~ ~d ~1c~ ~"& y. t W y t6 VY m m g ~ ~ 7n m`~x~ Ce ~w o ~ ~$$ E ~ ~ a m c ~ W £ ~ ~a p ~a = °~' ~ ~ ~ rii Wyo. V ~'€ m E ~ a ~ ~tlpi~~ .cromrn cp ~a Z.m~ o~id 'S Govn can °.3 `m oN pm_p~, "- y N ~ ~ a ~ ~ f3 C ~ N L O N_ •~N O_ C N ~ .Q ,C L~ ~/i ~ O _ O Tdil v ~ C °~,' x m " o Q rU ~r p2~~~'~~ ~'{ C ~O C~ G ~.' Br~v+ai~° Ts'c~';,a3;1 ~{~S~S ~p~__t°'y'$'4o~m 7., ~ mcmmm~c3~pd~,S °c°'m~m~~ zw3Yr ~m~ h ~ r ~~O ~ D~W 9~C~~ .my~ ~j ~.C~ ~ m~ c ° ' na m L N Obp O ° i6 _ . ~ •~1 ...m ~N ~a+i ~ G ~ G t0 G t -m ~ oy N 1i tll ~ C ~µc°mye ~~mw a~mc ~°_W +- °c~jM~i~¢N L da A 7'',~rno_p yo ~.c~QQ~~`~$'~.°9..~m°omON~~mry~ti c ~ V O ti > N L i ~ ~ ~ O ~ i' , ,,.,, a a ~ b0 ~ . ~, ~, a w •N M E o n e 00 ~ o. ~ m N ~ g ~ c °~E N ~c°~ 0 0 ~' o ~ ~ ~ ~n ~ ° U a -eo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v - •e ~ ys a ~ ° a. o ~ ..., w b~,o •.., Mi ~ -3 me a3 a 0 n ~'c _ c o~c ~ 0 c X01 L -m C l`Y~~ rm N~a C pCn~ d ~ ~ N Ol L 4 ~ N C m~~~ d W ®15m Yo 7cmcc mE ~axi~tO A~~2oU . g °xsv .w«L m smo.~+~ EQ~ d >s$ E~E-O g~ m•c~l~og,'~ .Er~,•oC~i>~cg~ is a- ~ '~' y T v c 4 v C~ c Q io CO s 7 m io "~~ tS~LCm cm mom-n-'T~~~ q~a°.'x~~''~' 0 1'-P d ~Q-~~u O W O >~cai~ c°ci30 'S .`H°~'~o°~--mom mz^~go~,Le VO 7> JAC Wi °C ~CD Am.~E pR ~ cJ Q''3 ~i o c ~a ro m~iyZ 3i e y pv ~i '. al o om ~o~m~ '7'~'ffi o»aGV~~mm>~rmm°J,g ~ CO Ol c a`i d _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ ~ rS~L° y ~~t c c~'+$~c~ ~i ~a°t~~ani 'E '~ p •m .~'.~ c£_ ; ~ $ m ~ m.°p L" °0 1O ~'o .it :e ~ ~ R 5 ~, ~ r€a''QQ~°}i~~Y,~,Q~ .'~' c.m. iE~,'c16tc~-'`~c w`" ~ c~'i~•~~~a~~cp~v amc~~°~ c~.~maa3av U O v ro E et .- m e a n3~ - ~ c av Ca c~y 'tilK~ W ~ ~ • 0 ~ • ~ • ~ ~ tl ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ..,,--..-' ~ e a~ d ao W ~ ~ .o ~ a ~ ~ .$.~ o ~ o ~ ~ ' ~ o° w m~ ~, ~ a. ~ i~ v ~ m U` P C C ~EE U y C ~ ~ ~ "' ~ 'LO ~"' II ~ N ~ ~ C Q ~ - u R, ~ a s ~ ~ 3 ~ `R_ d ~, ~ ~ V1 '~ ~CC~ NG N ~ ~ _ C r N ~ N ~cc ~ ~ G_ ~.d A Y -~ G ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y S N ~ N ~ d ~ ~ ~c ~ ~ 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s m ~ m O 4 4 S ~ m ~ N ~ ~i p~~ a~ ~ d N t ~ C~ j Q ~i = q~ ' ~ N ~2 ~p Oi ~ ~ t~ 01 ~ NNNN~ ~ ~ C 9~ ~ ~ N e~+ c ~i N ~ CD v `n°nrn ~.°~' ~ '~ 3 ~ 3 '~' F s sg, m m fro? N N Fb o ~~Q~`Q~~~~ N N ~N m,s ~9 m,dW Z'~Z ~ y '~ "~ ~S9 ~u~~~ ~ ~ ~~~i~~ ~ w ~c Qj~gNi[ N~ y ~ N d ,e„a c ~Q d ~ ~ i Q ~ tffj ~ ~ • r~i' ~ ° ~ ~ t~6 • ~ ~1 ~ TS ~a a ~ . N ~' d cm~~&',.~t'ss E O .,,, ~ k -~' i ._..~r~ 'oo ~ ¦.+""""~ r~+~"r O a~ on r01a ~ ~ L 0 ~ • ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ $, o C.7 ~'ac~d c U ~ d ~ ~ ~ ~ y S "' y ~ s ~ ~ s e ~ 3 a ~ ~ O w - ~ a '` g~ d ~ a C7 o •'.. ~ ~ ~ ~ •,~ £ ~ •N M ~ g ~ m ~' ~ °' co o °' `Ui ter' m ~ ca ~ c V ~ ~ ~ £ U ~ d io ~ .o ~ ~ $ S c r ~ ~ ~ m~'~o ~$ r.~ ~ -ppQ ~~~yyp a ~ R ~C.. a (D V C ~~d L tO J p ~ C _ S9~ ~ ~ $ ~ OiY £ u, m m r~ ~ c7jN8~}y, U " maggi~ c"c~,'s ~ Fs+~~E y,. ''~ ~r~ : ~ Z ~i5' m~_ N m V 15 c~ :-~ o d ~ ~:g~g r-~'n w ~Nb J ~ ~ H7 ~j ~~, 3~ 4. Mitigation Monitoring Reports Mitigation monitoring reports are required to document compliance with the Mitigation Monitoring Program and to dispute arbitration enforcement resolution. Specific reports include: • Field Check Report • Implementation Compliance Report • ArbitrationlEnforcement Report 4.1 FIELD CHECK REPORT Field check reports are required to record in-field compliance and conditions. 4.2 IMPLEMENTATION COMPLIANCE REPORT The Implementation Compliance Report (ICR) is prepared to document the implementation of mitigation measures on a phased basis, based on the information in Table 3-1. The report summarizes implementation compliance, including mitigation measures, date completed, and monitor's signature. 4.3 ARBITRATION/ENFORCEMENT REPORT The ArbitrationlEnforcement Report (AER) is prepared to document the outcome of arbitration committee review and becomes a portion of the ICR. Page 18 • The Planning Center October 2005 EXHIBIT C -PART II MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR: ARROWHEAD SPRINGS SPECIFIC PLAN (SAN BERNARD/NO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND ASSOCIATED SPECIFIC PLANS EIR) SCH #2004111132 prepared for.• CITY OF SAN BERNARD/NO Contact: Terri Rahhal, Principal Planner prepared for: THE PLANNING CENTER Contact: William Halligan, Esq., Director of Environmental Services i OCTOBER 4, 2005 ~' Table of Contents Section Paae 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1 1.1 PURPOSE OF MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ............................................1 1.2 DEIR SUMMARY OF ARROWHEAD SPRINGS SPECIFIC PLAN ..............................1 1.3 PROJECT LOCATION ..................................................................................................2 1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .......................................................................................2 2. MITIGATION MONITORING PROCESS ...............................................................5 2.1 MITIGATION MONITORING AGREEMENT .................................................................5 2.2 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ORGANIZATION .........................................5 2.3 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 5 2.4 MITIGATION MONITORING COMMITTEE ..................................................................5 2.5 MITIGATION MONITORING TEAM ..............................................................................6 2.6 RECOGNIZED EXPERTS ............................................................................................6 2.7 ARBITRATION RESOLUTION ......................................................................................6 2.8 ENFORCEMENT ..........................................................................................................7 3. MITIGATION MONITORING REQUIREMENTS ...................................................9 3.1 PRE-MITIGATION MEETING .......................................................................................9 3.2 CATEGORIZED MITIGATION MEASURES/MATRIX ...................................................9 3.3 IN-FIELD MONITORING ...............................................................................................9 3.4 DATA BASE MANAGEMENT ........................................................................................9 3.5 COORDINATION WITH CONTRACTORS ...................................................................9 3.6 LONG-TERM MONITORING ........................................................................................9 4. MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTS .............................................................34 4.1 FIELD CHECK REPORT ............................................................................................34 4.2 IMPLEMENTATION COMPLIANCE REPORT ............................................................34 4.3 ARBITRATION/ENFORCEMENT REPORT ...............................................................34 Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring ProgramCity of San Bernardino • Page 1. Introduction 1.1 PURPOSE OF MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM This Mitigation Monitoring Program has been developed to provide a vehicle by which to monitor mitigation measures and conditions of approval outlined in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), State Clearinghouse No. 2004111132. The Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared in conformance with Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code and City of San Bernardino Mitigation Monitoring Requirements. Section 21081.6 states: (a) When making findings required by paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 21081 or when adopting a mitigated negative declaration pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 21080, the following requirements shall apply: (1) The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the projector condtions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. For those changes which have been required or incorporated into the project at the request of a responsible agency or a public agency having jurisdiction bylaw over natural resources affected by the project, that agency shall, if so requested by the lead or responsible agency, prepare and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program. (2) The lead agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is based. 1.2 DEIR SUMMARY OF ARROWHEAD SPRINGS SPECIFIC PLAN The Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan provides standards and guidelines for the use and development of 1,916 acres that are partially within and partially outside of the City's jurisdictional twundaries. Three hundred sixty-eight (368) acres of the Arrowhead Springs Specffic Plan area are currently located in the incorporated City and the remaining 1,548 acres are located in unincorporated County of San Bernardino but within the sphere of influence of the City. Included as part of this project, is the annexation of the 1,548 acres into the City of San Bernardino. The Specific Plan calls for a mixed use resorUresidential development centered on the existing Arrowhead Springs Hotel and ResorUSpa and includes: 1,350 units including 36 single-family detached and 1,314 multi- familyunits; 1,044,646 square feet of existing and new commercial and office uses; a new 199-acre, 18-hole public golf course; the reuse of the historic Arrowhead Springs Hotel; a new 300-room hotel; a new and reuse of the existing conference center; and the reuse and expansion of the historic Arrowhead Springs spalresort. Arrowhead Springs offers 250,000 square feet of office, the pedestrian oriented Village Walk (200,000 square feet of commercial) and Windy Point restaurant (20,000 square feet). Of the total non-residential area, 235,996 square feet exist and will be preserved and enhanced as a part of this plan. These non-residential uses could result in approximately 2,530 new jobs. The developable area is clustered into 506 acres near existing development and is distributed within 1,400 acres of open space and watershed, which comprise 73 percent of the site. Currently less than 200 acres of es as an historic 1939 hotel/s a resort, steam caves, the property are developed and include such us p residential-style bungalows, an historic swimming pool, tennis courts, outdoor theater, meeting halls and maintenance buildings. These facilities are not generally open to the public at this time. Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring Program City of San Bernardino • Page 1 1. Introduction The Arrowhead Springs Speck Plan includes a total of 21.0 acres of parks in the developed area, consisting of a 13.9-acre public Botanical Garden and 7.1 acres of neighborhood parks of varying sizes. In addition to this, a 199-acre public golf course and approximately 1,400 acres of open space are also provided. The Findings of Fact and Overriding Considerations document presents findings that must be made by the City of San Bemardino prior to approval of the project pursuant to Sections 15091 and 15093 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code. Under CEQA the Lead Agency (City of San Bernardino) is required to make written findings concerning each alternative and each significant environmental impact identified in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). 1.3 PROJECT LOCATION Situated in the Inland Empire and consisting of approximately 1,916 acres, Arrowhead Springs is located at the base of the San Bernardino Mountains along State Route (SR) 18 at the northeast end of the City of San Bernardino. It is approximately 1.5 hours from both Los Angeles and San Diego, 45 minutes from Palm Springs, and 30 minutes from Ontario International Airport. The site is also located within 305 minutes from the mountain resorts of Crestline, Lake Arrowhead, and Big Bear. Arrowhead Springs is currently accessed directly by SR-18 and Waterman Avenue. Waterman Avenue can be accessed from downtown San Bemardino or by SR-30, which connects to I-215 and I-10 to the south, east and west. 1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Based upon the Initial Study, the City of San Bernardino staff determined that an EIR should be prepared for the proposed project (General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans). The scope of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was determined based upon the City's Initial Study, comments received in response to the NOP, and comments received at scoping meetings conducted by the City. Pursuant to Sections 15126.2 and 15126.4 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the EIR should identify any potentially significant adverse impacts and recommend mitigation that would reduce or eliminate these impacts to levels of insignificance. The information contained in the Project Description establishes the basis for analyzing future project-related environmental impacts. However, further environmental review by the City may be required as more detailed information and plans are submitted on a project by project basis. A DEIR (General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans) has been prepared to evaluate potentially significant impacts associated with implementation of the proposed Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan. Development Standards, Existing Codes and Regulations and Mitigation Measures have been identified to either reduce or eliminate potentially significant impacts. For purposes of environmental analysis in this DEIR, the focus of the environmental impact analysis is on those areas in which physical changes to the existing environment are proposed that may result in environmental impacts (i.e., areas where land use changes are proposed). In addition, the DEIR describes a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project, while substantially avoiding or lessening any of the significant impacts of the proposed project, and evaluates the comparative merits of the alternatives and the proposed project. Page 2 • The Planning Center October 2005 1. Introduction 1.4.1 IMPACTS CONSIDERED LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT The Initial Study identified various thresholds from the CEQA Guidelines among a number of environmental categories that would not be significantly impacted by the proposed project and therefore, did not warrant further review in the DEIR. Only the environmental category of agricultural Resources was eliminated entirely from discussion in the DEIR due to impacts that were found to the less than significant. All other environmental categories were analyzed in the DEtR. Please see Section 8 of the DEIR for a complete listing of the individual environmental effects which were found to be less that signfcant in the Initial Study prepared for the project. 1.4.2 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS THAT CAN BE MITIGATED, AVOIDED, OR SUB STANTIALLY LESSENED Eleven environmental categories have been identified as having potentially sign cant impacts if the proposed project (General Plan Update including the University District Specific Plan) is implemented. These factors are: • Air Quality • Biological Resources • Guttural Resources • Geology and Soils • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Hydrology and Water Quality • Noise • Public Services -Fire Protection and Emergency Services; Police Protection • Recreation • Transportation and Traffic • Utilities and Service Systems -Water Supply and Distribution Systems; Wastewater Treatment and Collection 1.4.3 UNAVOIDABLE S/GN/FICANTADVERSE IMPACTS The DEIR identifies three unavoidable adverse impacts, as defined by CEQA that would result from implementation of the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan. Unavoidable adverse impacts may be considered signfficant on aproject-specific basis, cumulativety significant, and/or potentially significant. Potentially significant impacts are those that fall within the responsibility of another agency and implementation of the mitigation measures cannot be assured by the City of San Bernardino. If the City of San Bernardino, as the Lead Agency, determines that unavoidable significant adverse impacts will result from the project, the City must prepare a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" before it can approve the project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations states that the decision-making body has balanced the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable significant environmental effects and has determined that the benefits of the project outweigh the adverse effects and, therefore, the adverse effects are considered to be acceptable. The impacts associated with the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan project that were found in the DEIR to be significant and unavoidable are: • Air Quality • Cultural Resources • Noise Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring ProgramCity of San Bernardino • Page 3 1. Introduction This page left intentionally blank. Page 4 • The Planning Center October 1005 2. Mitigation Monitoring Process 2.1 MITIGATION MONITORING AGREEMENT The Mitigation Monitoring Agreement will be provided through the City conditions of approval process, and reference compliance with this monitoring program where applicable. Provisions are included in the Agreement specifying monitoring and reporting requirements, scheduling, qualifications of mitigation monitors and specialists, agency fees, right of sfte access, dispute resolution, and penalties. The Agreement will include enforcement provisions and sanctions for more severe infractions, such as stop work orders, loss of further entitlement or restoration. The landowner would agree that the agency has the right to impose these sanctions pursuant to the contract and hold the agency harmless in enforcement of its provisions. The lead agency may also require that Mitigation Monitoring Agreements be executed between the landowner and appropriate responsible or trustee agencies. The use of Mitigation Monitoring Agreements will clarify the assignment of responsibility, and have the added benefit of improving the citizenry's confidence that agencies are committed to take actions to protect their environment. 2.2 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ORGANIZATION Overall mitigation monitoring program management is the responsibility of the City of San Bernardino M Development Services Department. The Mitigation Monitoring Committee comprised of the landowner, ~,~1~-1,~~/ construction manager, and the environmental monitor, is responsible for program implementation and reporting requirements. The landowner's technical consultants (EIR consultant, geologisUenvironmental assessor, project engineer, arborist, noise consultant, and traffic consultant) will perform related monitoring tasks under the direction of the environmental monitor (if contracted by the City). In the event of disputes regarding matters for which the City is the final authority, an arbitration committee will be formed, consisting of a representative from the City's Development Services Department, Public Works Division, and City Common Council. City of San Bernardino Departments and responsible/trustee agencies will interpret technical matters for the Arbitration Committee in the event of a dispute. 2.3 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT The City of San Bernardino Development Services Department will serve as the program administrator, responsible for overall program management, mitigation monitoring clearances and coordination of the arbitration committee/responsible agencies, and the mitigation monitoring committee. The Department is responsible for review of all monitoring reports, enforcement actions, and document disposition. 2.4 MITIGATION MONITORING COMMITTEE The mitigation monitoring committee is responsible for the day-to-day monitoring activities and reporting, and includes a representative from the landowner, construction manager, and the mitigation monitor. The monitoring committee holds regularly scheduled meetings to coordinate mitigation measure implementation, review compliance reports, and resolve in-field disputes. Unresolved disputes are forwarded to the arbitration committee. Arrowhead Springs Specifec Plan Mitigation Monitoring ProgramCity of San Bernardino • Page S 2. Mitigation Monitoring Process 2.5 MITIGATION MONITORING TEAM The mitigation monitoring team, consisting of the environmental monitor manager and technical subconsultants (EIR consultant, geologisUenvironmental assessor, project engineer, biologist, noise consultant, traffic consultant, and archaeologist), is responsible for monitoring the implementation/ compliance with all adopted mitigation measures and conditions of approval. A major portion of the team's work is in-field monitoring and compliance report preparation. Implementation disputes are brought to the committee for resolution by the monitor, and if required, to the arbitration committee. The following summarizes key positions in the monitoring program and their respective functions: Monitoring Team • Technical Advisors: Responsible for monitoring in respective areas of expertise (EIR consultant, geologisUenvironmental assessor, project engineer, arborist, noise consultant, and traffic consultant). Directly reports to the environmental monitor. • Monitoring Committee: Responsible for report review, and first phase of dispute resolution. • City Development Services Department: Principal manager of the monitoring program. Responsible for coordination of mitigation monitoring committee, technical consultants, report preparation and dispute resolution. Responsible for overall program administration, participation on arbitration committee and document/report clearinghouse. • City Public Works Division: Responsible for review of final engineering plans in conformance with the Tentative maps, technical support, and compliance report preparation. • City Common Council: Responsible for implementation of corrective action, stop work orders and final arbitrator of disputes. 2.6 RECOGNIZED EXPERTS The use of recognized experts, as a component of the monitoring team and arbitration committee, is required to ensure compliance with scientific and engineering based mitigation measures. While the mitigation monitoring teams recognized experts assess compliance with required mitigation measures, responsible agency recognized experts consult with the arbitration committee regarding disputes. 2.7 ARBITRATION RESOLUTION If the mitigation monitor identifies a mitigation measure, which in the opinion of the monitor, has not been implemented, or has not been implemented correctly, the problem will be brought for resolution before the mitigation monitoring committee for resolution. If the problem cannot be satisfactorily resolved by the committee, it will be brought before the arbiUation committee for resolution. The decision of the arbitration committee is final, unless appealed to the Director of Development Services. The arbitration committee, acting through a final vote of the City Common Council, will have the authority to issue stop work orders until the dispute is resolved. In the case of situations involving potential risk of safety or other emergency conditions, the arbitration committee is empowered to issue temporary stop work orders until such time as Planning Commission or City Common Council review of the particular stop work matter becomes final. Page 6 • The Planning Center October 2005 2. Mitigation Monitoring Process 2.8 ENFORCEMENT Public agencies may enforce conditions of approval through their existing police power, using stop work orders, fines, infraction citations, loss of entitlement, refusal to issue building permits or cert~cates of use and occupancy, or, in some cases, notice of violation for tax purposes. Criminal misdemeanor sanctions could be available where the agency has adopted an ordinance requiring compliance with the monitoring program, similar to the provision in many zoning ordinances which state the enforcement power to bring suit against violators of the ordinance's provisions. Additional enforcement provisions could include required posting of a bond or other acceptable security in the amount of the required mitigation measures. In the event of non-compliance, the City could call the bond and complete the required mitigation measures. Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring ProgramCity of San Bernardino • Page 2. Mitigation Monitoring Process This page intentionally left blank. Page 8 • The Planning Center October 1005 3. Mitigation Monitoring Requirements 3.1 PRE-MITIGATION MEETING A pre-monitoring meeting will be scheduled to review mitigation measures, implementation requirements, schedule conformance, and mitigation monitoring committee responsibilities. Committee rules are established, the entire mitigation monitoring program is presented, and any misunderstandings are resolved. 3.2 CATEGORIZED MITIGATION MEASURES/MATRIX Project-specific mitigation measures have been categorized in matrix format, as shown in Table 3-1. The matrix idenfrfies the environmental factor, specific mitigation measures, schedule, and responsible monitor. The mitigation matrix will serve as the basis for scheduling the implementation of, and compliance with, all mitigation measures. 3.3 IN-FIELD MONITORING Project monitors and technical subconsultants shall exercise caution and professional practices at all times when monitoring implementation of mitigation measures. Protective wear (e.g., hard hat, glasses) shall be wom at all times in construction areas. Injuries shall be immediately reported to the mitigation monitoring committee. 3.4 DATA BASE MANAGEMENT All mitigation monitoring reports, letters, and memos shall be prepared utilizing Microsoft Word software on IBM-compatible PCs. 3.5 COORDINATION WITH CONTRACTORS The construction manager is responsible for coordination of contractors and for contractor completion of required mitigation measures. 3.6 LONG-TERM MONITORING Long-term monitoring related to several mitigation measures will lie required, including fire safety inspections. Post-construction fire inspections are conducted on a routine basis by San Bernardino City Fire Department. Arrowhead Springs Specifec Plan Mitigation Monitoring ProgramCity of San Bernardino • Page 9 3. Mitigation Monitoring Requirements This page intentionally left blank. I I I I I i~ Page 10 • The Planning Center October 2005 I a ~ `one o ~ a v ~ o vi .0 0 ~ ~ ~ V @ 4 ~ <<"j ~ U t0 ~ ~ ~ C ti '~ m$ c v a ~ C ~ O {y ~, ~ bq v ~ ~ b m ~ ~ a ~ ~' 3 ~" o0 ~, $ ~ m ~ • ~ a~ 's., O ae ~ `" w O ~ ~ g' ° N +, -G _ ~y ~ '° `$~ M E i '~ a ~ ~ c•Y~ ~ ~ < N a ~ c ro o $- ~ m ~ mE m ~ N o z ~ ~ ~ N ~ Q O N~ ~ ~ m ~QQ I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~N ~, V zi~ ~j ~ p L O '~ y~~. ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~iy~ ,`~r~~ T `S$ .~i pi ~ suf.{ O D N ~'Sr ~~y ~ ~G ~~Yo ',tai $'p~o $` a~~ r~j~`ig ~ •-~'o£_-r S y N t 1 m { G? 6 N i N N ~N ~ f ~ N S 4 v+ a -~ o ~ ~ ~ '~ o n a~` Y a~ a Inc e y ~ ` a 0 c ~ '~ U m G 2 ~ .QO c ~ ~ "' e'2 ~c m m h ~ O ti O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ rn ~A' a ~ R ea 5 °1 $+ ,~, ~ o ~ ~ ~ a m N $ ~ ° "~ a ~ ~ i Y ~ ~ ~ Y M ~ .p O :Q G4 F~c aE ~ o ~ ~ a~ ~ a s ~ m w ~ ~ r c m~ w m d- yL ~ a.~ ~ S ~ C.YZUL T~ N ~ q C • ti p~ l0 ~ ~" tlIX ~ ^ ~ L ~a5 3 GO G~ ~ DES C G ~ t C LL m £C ~~-~_~ $ £N ~t 'Q $ OO7 m 'C ~O m O(n ~U~ i N ~ ~ 0 2i3 ~,J m'3 m,'3_. ~ f~` a a -- o E v_~ O ~ ~ L ~ ~i tai m °cv rba W t0 ' ~ ~ ~ J J y-J T y ~' G E O N C. ~/ ~ $'yc'a'._ m tOi mL''m£~CCa''E_Sa c~' ~'w tO 'r'm~ "}~1~, to m -3' ~ ~ ~ ~ O M ~ m ~"Y m TU ~ J =a. ~_~E~ E ~mU m~ 33'Ttmi 'C ~~g`~~i.~=mh:.°°'m m 3S t r N •J _ O g5+ w~ c Q _ € ~ m~ m ~' 7 ~ « 3 ~~5 L U'~ '$ c a m tga ~ O m ~ c~ o t3 0 ~ m ~ ° c £ ',~ h a'. ~m~{ oft w£EV ~'~¢ ~1O ~to~~'+,m Q~r ~ m rn~i £4`£ gi ~U ~.a m~3 Fiti~ m£ JS a € d' p ~ E$c3g+~'ao ~oN ~:Ea ~~m O$'s 3 $imv ~'.~m.~~ 'tv O ~m~ ~'mN ;c no~ ~N L~S~mQQ ~¢?i ~~-c.~cm$ b ~ C C y ,t~ y nQ O _n V .J. F ~ ~ C ~ (/] C ~ C l0 ~ l0 ~ ~ a O ~ IL d "~ ~ m ~ C ~ ~ ~ £ ~ T L ~ q ~ C m ~ ~ L ~ ~ ~ O J ~ 1~ _ ~ L Yj Vl ~ fi £ m ~ fL1 4 d L_ O }O, E ~ C W h ~ £ ~' ~ t $ ~ ~ r ~ ;A 4`~~ o tati~ ~ N ~ ~ wo _c ~ ~ yUry ~ r/m~ 3 dY $ ~ p h 7y~~~~O ~r$ v~ s°~nW 41~L QOV ~$ ~,$Xto ~~OO Of O m _ m0 (ae m. it5S 'i~ym O o~9~~+LLp o~ ¢~£~E~~° ~E~ cam oE'~~j ~!F3 ~c'`~-'yt ~ - CYi N ti 8 m~~ c~$ • • • $ c£ m'c v~ o C N N d N wmm 'c m~~ m ~,o` -D . d~£ c Q E U asi h i d ~ m H po U ti cU~ ~ Om ~ N ~ O m "' ~ M ~ N ~ ~ M y ¢ ¢ ¢ hi a ~n y ~ ~ ~ . o ri _ .0 0 ~, ~ 'c° ~ U c~F~ o ~ ~ c`3 00 . ~ c~ zs. ~ ~, ~ Fs ~ ~ a, ~ ~ d ~' F cn .~" G ~ O9 0 ~' ~'~ A. O ~ *n '~ c m 3 4 •4, c bA ~E w.a ~ . w-a ro M E '~ ~3 'p` ~ T M C Qy .C a ~ To ~ ~ „ ~.' p ~o F° ~ zE ~ ~ ~ ~ $ d s~ ~ dd ~ ~ a.- ~ t5 m a ~ ~ Z~' ~ t~ L. ffi _ r- ap ~ ~, arn~ ~Cq~ m~, fi~, ~Tii t'3 ~$ 'QS Flt pj ~j; 6{j >x Q c'!f ~ d C. ~ 9 tU '~ G W E M .N'° ~' ~ ~ ~ tai c7i ~~~'O~ ~ r88E38:~~''~T° o-£ 7 ~ 8i~~'~' ?~YS yes' '' mL E ~ S c ' ~ 'ta < In CO Ti 1 C ~cO N ':E$ Ymu' £' w0 .9 ~r~n ~VjO`~.~ 6 766 2i U ~ m ~ a ~3 m ~ ~ ~ g o4 z ~ ca ~ O ri o ~ _ ~ ~ ~ v 0 0 0 ~ ~, N >ps G G ~ C1 C m ~i v~ '° a bo ~ '~ ~ pG, LL z ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ c ~ ~ .- s o 's a a c E LY `- m a~ M c ~~o a- $~ ~ ~ t6 Yo ~ dL' $ ~ ~ $ N U~ !E ~g~Qyi iE '" Ln yt ~ y o t~ GGrrp~,, ~j ,4~ 2 i - 37 as '$ a- ~ ~ ~ 2 ~ '2 m c 23 ~ ':~ m ,~, ~ Xi ~ $ oc+ bA •zc c~ .c g °c' ~ ~ o~" 3, .rrte~ o ~ c ~ a'~ r~ a ~ ~ m b=: P~ ~L"+ ~B' Xi ~ " p .x-51 `G'_ ,~'~ ~o ~ ~ ~ ~, ~r EEE p333 r~t~ rte. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C, o; r? M `n N N Q S 6 ...a y.a `v ~ O G a „ N ~ 4 0 0 p~j 8~ eon oL°~ ~ ~ ,Z' two °y a' H A o 0 ~ ~ U ~ ,o ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ° s c°h d ,'v a,pC 8 m C rn ~ N ~". e e c ° ,o m ~ c „ y ~ ~~~~E ~ C •hn ~ ~o `o rn E ' C ~~~~E ~p~~~ ~q m d Oda Nin ~ ~ w o vu~ ~~a M m a~~~~ ac E ~ ~ ~ 9 .- ~ ,~ o ~ ~ M ~c ;o~ ~ 0 d o c a -~ J J O T ~ d ~ d _ d d .L.. O N= ~re = N T= N C y O O ~.' C~ N 4! 53'a> €LO,aCC~.~hz~'~~o, _ag5j~ g ;ty/~=z=per d N p ~ p O 7 C C ~ S T~ U C M~ "' NN G (l Nry {~pp Cp N 'Q N C O y ~ a ~' m o E ~ 5~ c O-~ L~ 7 h L ~ ~ ~ w t~f ~ ~ ~ to y N c y ~ ' ~ r~ a ~ c ~ m rn ~ ~ rd c o ~ ~i 3 L E d~ w e ac~ c ~+'N r- N~ $dScam EEa~ $=~t•- ~j _ 'p (p sNy o ~, NO.O jy100'b OOINNCV H°~yL OOO ~j 6=N p mov ~yC7i C~sc,a`~'i ~~°c~' ~Vp~L` ~ 5pco o'S !E o~ ~ ~ 9 ~ 'O ~ L N Gl, a C O) ~ ~ r~~ ~ l0 T ~ € ~ L O ~ ~ C C m $•5E°~ v~ ~mcd~ 2ppi w g~co"~j °' o~c~mc me ~E~ '~ ~~c 3.~ c wa ~ ~ c_m~a q~d ~ ~~gic ~t~°a °~~6 tai' ~E ~~c~~ s°Yp Q=a'rLn E c ?d`p „c 2a~~+, "n~m Ord L°Ez ~i ai L ~ mfi N'{ .Q 1O a+~c E~ ~Nw~ m c ~5 r~ry E'c-~oa£ `o gj~NC3 o~ `$ a J q m r 'm c U O ~~~Bi $rd ~r~+"~$~rdm$~+~°Em 'm ~~' ~ w~~.cv ~=~~"~ E° y~0 o ~ c 2 Ti rn~ E~a~S$~ ~ ~~c `o EEEy U v_i ~ " qi '~ $ o° m ~ ~ s. "v F ~i c ~ < c ~ ~ ~ ~~5 5~~~ ~' ~ E '~ c XXv~ LL O ~ !E ~ E ° a ~$ ? y p~j .gyp C _ • M J < ~ ui V vim N _ ~ 2 ~Y ^CS ~ Q ~ n E a ~ ~ ~m ~ro ~w ~ ° ~ c - 0., i e~ o r ~ ~ ~ o 'p `o h w ~ O o U ~ y a ~ a g ~Y ~R, 00 ~ry C ,~ F= d N a' \ c 7 m ~ r ~' .Q ~ C ~ ~'~ .o Q ~ m "c 0 o ro a ~ ~ E 0 m ~ c m ~' ~ n {p c _ a~~'z ~ ~~~~~d C N ~ N ~ C ~ a> n~ ti d ~ ~ y ~ E~~c c~ c ~ rn _ ti W ~ y 0 N N ~' N y 6 0 ~ _ ~E ' jdtl ~ N ~ ~ C~ C d N a m U ~ ~ ~a ~ Z'£ C LL n.~ _ F Q v Q ~ .2 !L~ ~/'t ~ r C ~ ~ ~ c>> v .n m r~ mW rn~ °~$m~~ ~ N w mBt m m m_ A my w- c c r. N O "m o,s ~d ~,~ ~, as 3's~ 8~ U o ~, a~ mrn mm min m~ m~- m~ m~ ~ N ~ e O ry ~ ~ ~ bw^ W M ti a, ~ -. m n tl ~ v • ti ~ L° Q, ~e° .~W `n o n ~ o 'O .Q` o U ~,c Nti ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ a o U ~C .N y C .r ~~~~CCCI ~ ~4 M m y ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ c tic n~ h .O ~ ~ W c _ca.b ca~ m jw~ O l0 O w C C~ tC 01 ~ C Q y d C~ a L' y H N. C~ N N O w~ O L ~i~ w~ UUi~ `off $+ ~y=SLS~ ~E~~~~EaE .Ti ~ c n76 m ~ a qw y FF gg c uS ,~o~ ~~2Z='uti -~:E-~~' 3~'-H m~~`¢q cab ~°~-'~a~3 q o £ ~ p `~, a q ~~~rb Taj ~~~L a#~~ m~.~'Z'c FB 'gam m~`cu 'b awi~E~ O ~ 'F c C... ~ To ~ ~ c a w aZ~ ~ Q' ct a _rd ro~~~ r~$~~~ 201=~~~~-$s£a~g~'~~.oC Q~~ NN '''pppEQQQ~~~ ai N y~{ ~ v C ~ v '$ > _ N ~n~~ C•~~1~_~ .Z~~~'CL ~~TZO~L ¢~~.cO~Styw ~ ~ O YO ~ w w C ro CA w ~ ~Y _C h p~ c °j ~ ~ -- ~ ~ m D ro FF O n._ QSm VwYnCy c °' c P'a%~ 'coi ~~oi d,p D~ ~ ~L ~ 3 tQ} r C [A ro~ G N C] ~ .C Z N L w V O N ? y O 4. ~ L~ ry g o _ c ~0 n $' ~ ~ E oo W o~$ ~ ~ i o ~ '~° ° ~ ~ N w O O ~ o U .wy- .W ~M~•i C c 4 ~ ~ d ~a by c y rn ~ yR e T o~ O ~ m O_ N "C m a a o~ Y ~ 7 ~- ~' .Q c M ~ ~ O C C G O ~ O ° d a o ~ E ~ m ~ ~ ~ 'tea is ~ ~ggn E ~ a ~ a~ o ,.- n ~~'n~ m ass a~2!S v'i ~- ~0 $a o§ c ~ o a s m m q r6 ~ c= y am c~ N ~ '~ gg m' a~ '~n 2ia~z~ LEE ~.$~Z.~y~~ rB ~Og}'.~ °~K" ~~~(pTo O L~~ N O~? T N C~~ N~ C 4 C~ C~ ~ S~ U D.0 T T2jN C.N ~ Q1 ~ ~ Ol Y ~ N O~ ~ ~ C'~lw t N l0 G N IVV N 41 O N ff~00 'C ~1 O l0 ~ r a C~ d C^ c (O C c£`~E~ nrn tO to 25 rs~~°mul r~,~ N ?'~°'m£ ~ off. ~c~'~'~,mSNio ~cNgfU~ ~ X05 `o c auto y°;"a yU tEY Z,N n'Q~~g''iO~m'~S S.NC~~p~~~N `°m ~ a£Tiy p m m .- m a ~2 y~~ mom Et _~L~~woE ~ ai L a>> ~ ~~g'c ti ~ E EFS ~,~ 39St """•~cm`~ rd ~ui''n£E~ac B:°a g '~i $~m '~ ~ c ~ 3 6 c ~ ~ Q ~ $~ d ~ O a b ,c = N CJ ~i c L' Z`i 6 ~ '$ v~Z`a yyyy;;;; md~ ~v'a~ N~n~i yy2±y2 ~,rd `o °oic'9 BE To ~ y9 ~~~c£ c~y5 o~~r~~~~=gto~~TZo y1 c~t5 ~i°nR mm O y; ~ 'S ' c a`~ •- $ vi a m a '- aaa4SSS EE ,~Zqg~S ~ - 2 d"i '521~ cT~~,rd m~~~-~~0~3f~~•5 '~'N ~u~ma,Q O~iO my a.~c~ °~~~Z}y+~(a~rn~'cy3 c~~ a~ aX~Oa'~°c 3i a5£m.5 "" ~ 'O ~~mw T~ich~~v~m~6 >~n~~rS~o~~L.~~~t 42~ K ~ y.p rv m~>>~ 2~~ > c cdm ~$i=~' ^~hd cr °a~~~oSS ~ac V O mm~'r`mrn°$'iom~'m N'v~$m2m£t6i?~o NS£w aw pQU C Q C • .ti m ~ op ~ ~ w d ~0 crj ¢ Fr 0. o~ o ~ a" d c -~ ~c 3r° ~ ~ o 0 N o~v ~U 5. g A 's •..a m m m b0 ~ y. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;a =d ~ y © a = n, • na Cp cry ~ h O C `~C`yl K a O ~ E Foci ~ s~ ~ b0 ~ ~ ~ ~ a ti ~ c f`I') ~ Q 3 ~ ,Q ~ M c ~ a` ~ ~ m'c 'S ~ c ~ Si E ~ < r "~ c ~ y ~ r ~ m ~ ~~o ~~~~u ~j. rn~ A ~~~N X52 '~ < Ya h 6 4 .N m h ~ r S~ 7~ ~c 'I'o T@` ~~w--~ O ~4' ~ f~~~ ~'~ T3.~ 3ii$ ~Q1YV amp ? ~ U ~ i ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v' ~ ~ R N ~ ,f • ~ ~ • • ~ ~ ~, o~ ~o 'o ~ o0 $ ~ ~ 3 ~ o c:v ~- ~ ° n a, V V ~ y+ C G1 N n~ ~ $.~ ~ ~n ~ o o ~' a c E i= y N ~ ~ ~ ~ •- ~•9 M CC ry~ C t~ m m F o ~ ~ C ~ fi y 2 ~ O .q ~ m SS 5 XS ~o Q m r~ t ia' ~ ~ ~ .~, Z~~~~~ Z~~~~~~~~ ~-~~ i` ~$ O $ i[t _r~~iS' l5 i6'H NO mL .~~'YA 0 ~ ag$ "iY'~~~~ ~ SGK~~~~~222~~.~~~a, mr ~ S g~ r3v~ ~ iL +,y' crass tR~ S~i ~ 'S~ ~ ~~~s ~s ~s ~ ~ ~~~a~D o .,., 00 .,, .'., n__-~-----'-_° a~ d ~c ~ o ~ .g s~~ o 0 '^' ~W° ~U ~ 4~ o a ~ o°o ~ ~ .~, ~ O a~ ~ ~ © m ~ ac' y O ~ y ,ti 'S _ ~ d c ~ 3 ?.a '~ ~ O c M ~ 3 - M c ~ w'c a e o m ti~ co~° ~ c C "' O sg W 3 d ~ To ~ ~ ~' ~ `3 ~ N N y5 ~ ZS L gg++ N ~ j 2S N S ~ N ~ H ~ 'C ~Xt ~C,S p L ~ @ N^~c E c~N mti ~~~eZ £ C ~ ~ A ~ U 'Nq~~ ~ ~ ~{5~ O t3 gg, p C N ~ a~4 a A ttOO' ~'S ~j`p ~cy3m q~1,~"'~'~ 'E ffi ~ ' l~6 gi °d 3. N '~' [3cN .y n ~n t5`~`~' NI~~N ~y~O rO~ s' Q~j c2Yg Ny O OkN Z~ ~ ~°J ~N ~c~s n._ mmm O ~R~j ~OC~ ~ o. ~ ^ ~ d .1J yy ~p ~i N ~j NFL--~S~Y' yLL a ~ ~y `OAS T~.._ N .C. Q N ~ • _ C a ~ C N a y ~ Oq _ ~ Q ~O ~ o~ a ~ r o .~, 0 o ~ ~ U U q O ~ c~ ~ by . w C ~' e v '^ e ~ b0 '~ ~ ~ 4 x C E F c E .- CC ~ ~3 m ~ ~' ~ °-' ~ o a7i m n E o c3 s 'm ~ ~ ~~~' ~ mxs~~~ ~ ~ ~ 41~~~~ Ny '9~~~ 2 .c3~ ~ '~i ~ tam E ~ ~ O ~ ~ `~.- ~ .,~ .s ~ ~ ~.., .,~,, m $o a ~, 0 ~ o^~ o 0 C ~ ~i ^~', a ~ S ~v o ~ ~ q ~~c ao ...,, ~ ~ N W ~" ~ s ~ °' a ono ~ d ';n ~ t~ y ~ r ~ a v .,.., ~ o ~ p ~ c '..a E Y C M E a ~ ~ .s ~ O n ~ n ~ ~ ~ ~ E ~ rq Erb ~ ~ . 0 ~ ~ N N Z Ol ~ i~"aa~ r 4+ .sYN ~ 3 ~ ~ z~ ~~'s~~~ m r~ v o q+ C Ta' i4 r Z m b ~a 'a ~,~ `~Yaa'~ ~`g,'tng_ '~$~yao5~-ram£r~~~ ~cS~ ~ N N ,~~gt, n T 1 ...TTLTTLNNNNNN~.... $ ~ m '$ "' iS ~ `l d S ~ ~ Y' A a ~ ~ -y ~ U1 iii333~E ~ ~ ~ `~'~ ~ 'S -~ .~.§'8 ~ ~ % :$~ ~ rd' ~ e m ~ c r rd+ ~p. 5 d ® E w~~U~ ~'F° ;~~j ~uN1'~i o '~ pN~j .~3 ~2 1ro~c ~ ~aiE C> p1 FS ~p@ ~ ' Xi ~ 5 ~' ~jc~ W N Y'S(~ 33Y~S Z i ~ N L ~ ~ ~1C f]Y~~ LL ~ibT (..l c ~ ~6 • a~ p a a a ~ 0o as o o '~~ a g a p ~ A ~$ +~- ~, ~L' U C ~ c ~ ~ ~ m~ ~ x C = a 5 E c ,~ E ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ o 'S c7 C ~ ~ U ~ O N m _ T > Q ~y ~ o~ @q~$ ~4 Q ~ ~ ~ O~ ~ ~ c~ g o g ~ WN~ ~3 4 x SPZZVV$ #' TZ3a6. of ..~p5~i ~ N N'•$ O~ ,T+' gl D" d c L° u ~aa ~r~~r$.gE~S ~iu~ ~ ;,~g2'.. Z~~~~°L'~Z c~~^°c'~E:~cq,~ V ~-.~ '.zy $.~ °t' ~ s ~' ro5 ~ m i ~ ~ :dE ~ ~' r rte. ~, ~ ~i `ma ~ Ot ~ ~~~~'~~~~~~ m O N ~-~ C w M a~ 00 a ~ ~ a, x $ ci ~ ~ •r `~-, p~j c = ~ ~ 0 ~ $ L° c~ ~ ^ ~ o°o ~$ ~' = a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.a ~ o ° r ~, ~ s~ ~ ~ ~"' ,~ ~ o0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a 2s d -~ a °' rn g ~ '°~'~ _°c' 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ b0 E ~-g ~ ~ C .,.~ ,'a..' y. ~ ~ a rwC.iy o C M 4 CI C ~~~'." .g. Q J a .o n E ~~_' '" c Fmk ~E ~ ~ ~ o ~ ''G O H ~ _ ~ ~ ~ 'JQ 2 ~ N ~ ~ ~ N C N ~ V+ ~~r d N d 111 a4 ~~yy o Hr,~ J ~ ~ N p -c -Z~ c ~~~'S'~cS~.d~N a~.+ ~+$~ .sc ~~yyl!~~~ii..``6 ~ L NUS E 9~~~,~~~~~ ~W ~4~~ ~di ors. `~''g- a ~'~ ~.n~~~-~$ W N b ~ ~y~~ '.C. ~.y3 rG ~ ~6~'C~} ~~~i6 NJ SLVj ~ N ~ ~c aGi Si ~i LY ~p~ U ~~~~~VO '~6~? (Y~ N XS~~r T~ ~r Q N ~ ~ N t7 '~ ~c O ,n .n N F- W ~ N 4 M ~ = 4 ~ 4 N 2 4 d~ o a; i tl O [/j ~ ~ O 3 ~ ~ ~ V e ~ V 6 ~ p'S es c ~ ao N A ~ " w 0., ~ U ~' ~ V O ~ n ~$C ~ ~ d Vim] QS2 m ~ ~ ~ ~ am N G -~ ~ O a G ~ E v y-' e 0 ~" °' ° g a ~ ~ ~ ~ m .3 ~ ~ Q ~ O cc~„~ F~a- = a m ~ :3 _ ~CCpp .Q O~ Y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ L ~ ~ v y ,~ ~ y~ F6~~Q 'u ~ ~~q~ ~ `m~' X y, E- t5 'F8 G~y W Y+ p1'NQ 2~S9m~t(~i5~'°C.~i3~.~ ,3 ~a ~~rnE • ~ to .CS 'O ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ W .m t`~f~~' s~j~ ~ N_ R ~y ~y ~ ~p A ~ N m ~ ~ ~ ~ o _ N~~ _ y $ N Fd ~' 'Orb ~ C1 ~ ~$$~ fir; y O .- _ ~ ~ U ~ D .b a A.n ~ ~'p ~ ~ti N .n ~~..~~yy ~ _ ~ i a _ ~ Q ~ u, = Q 4 Mj o~ a PO o~ Vj 'g ~ ~ O p ?..a L ~'' _3 ± ~ U ~ g a ~~L'c~ e1~. ~ p C ~ ~ ~ mA ~y CS' ey ~ c ~ ~ ~~g a ~, O ' ,~ m ,.., ~ '_ ~ p m o E ~g a ~ ~ ~ O ~ s~ 3 a ~ ~ a ~ g o ~, <C ,,,., ~ o~ m E ~ ~ ` ~ ~ ~ -~ d M R' ~ +a. Q J G a =O n E ~ '~ m E ~ o ~fi£ 3 Y=~ ~ ~ ~ .15 NSA 5 0- ~~~o cm3~ ~ r ~ ~~i ~ ~- ~ ~ ~,~~ ffi s x ~ ~ d• s g d s ~- o _ ~ `~'AS_~~'~3§E"CaO~zb~,;--u~m~OC~ ty3~g~y+~$~d~~i~~~~v=~ ~' < ® ~ S=l¢~~j`~~3gO_§'RQ~~3 tNN~;p 1~ ~~.~-~OrN N~~ ~ ~_~~YS" ~L~O~. g1~9 o~g WTI b."E fo- ~+a.'~,Q N ~ 'fy C 3 ~ U ~6 to ~' V J ~ ~ 40 N 0 ~ ~ § N ~ ~ ~ ; ; y .Y ~ Ol '~ ~ m ~ a `a ~ r rdi ~ p`t~~~ C °' $ v' crn . ~ Yt ~, ~'T g 'S'S ~SW~b~~y+~O~N~~c,N~`~:fi ~q if~'n~Gy}~y~ bz ~g~~im~~~ r $.~ X ~Sm. pp~, ,a NQ tf'$' _6 :c C i~~ ~i'y'.u°Y)-~--5 ~ L~ i3~ ~L'~iU ~i?J S uih ~ ~>pp ~~m 3~~'a i.V yr ~ C O ~ ~m E~% N y1~'sN r C °- ` a r m = r- '4 N e~ a ~o ~a .o ~ u ~ ~ ~ 5 ~ C o U ~o bo a ~ ~ _ a ~e ~ o`ii -;a ~ ~G _ ~ ~ y C ~ ~ ~ ~O ~ y g' ~ ~ a y. d N C .3 a G v ~ ~ Q M q>'C a C £ E" O S ~ E N y ~ A ~ ~ ~- 0 gia $ N ~ '$ .7i ~ ~ Ti ss~SCC,, ~3j ~ F+ mN` N N UI ~T+ ~5~ 'JA~ ~~S V O+ cB ~ Li a N N ~ ~Y~ ~~E~ ,~ N C ~ N ~ T G ~ ~ ~ v ~ a o o ,~ ~ E y.N~Y 1M1 V ~ ~ a .ti .,.., M ~ E o ~ ~ e ~'~ o w p ~ _ ~ ~ ~~E ep°' v ~ NCO ~o~ ~ o ~ oU ~dE d d ry N~ c~ gEct ~ d y N C C~ -~ ~o ~ ~ S' $ ~ h ~ ~ O ~R .ti vv -e, ~ y AE mE ~ E ~ „ ~ m ' ~ 'Cs y o~ o m c H i C ~ ~ o ~ o` a ~ d d n ~ a m ~ m y C n ~ $ p c e a a g ~ V C~ c c c .p C ~ ~ ~ a o zE~ ~ ~ ~ J( LC $ ~y+y C t0 ~ N~ i N L ~ p~ O C v O ~ a t0 ry y~ v w ~ E c .- Y ~ ~ 25 L ~ E ~ ~ ~ A w c c n ` ~ c ~ ~O m C m c m S ~ O $~i~ y ya W g~ o~ ~ S A c~ N H S y~~~ C b tyo ~ '~ 0 pc ~ ~ u' tm0 ~Q~++:4 TT~~~E ~.b~'.~$ £-T° ~ ~ d ~ ° ,q. ~a~ p my a'riC~~ ~`G~~~f° ~S~cE $`q ~$'c ipfrf v~'~ ~ yy~gg~~a ° ~~05 y € ~ ~N~ qy~~pp c'n a~ ~ ui" ib $~ to ~~'~ ~"~w ~~=a`i~° €2`2.UEy ~ ~+${3 ~vCC ~c~Cr53~ Qry~'~mL' ~ ~ ~O ~~"~ d'a ~ G N c ~ 9 > d rv R Ln m ° C' ~ o w ~ c E ~ 5`32 ~ ~ ym2 ~ a fn c A~ rdi ~a c $ pp n ih c ~ N c~ rno`~L~°~ ~10~ma ET~ri~~d3c °~~2~ L~~L ~ ~ i';s m c~ ~d $tO~ E E$mc~~'S" ~~o~ h }2O~S L L E C 1~~>1yy ~ ~ N ~ S {Q¢ ~ ~ ~ L ~ ~(/1 'p~ F3 O 8C1 LL ~ O O f0 O L C ~ t0 O V000 ~ y S ~ ~ LV ~ ~ ~ 1~~0 C (O N O ~ 9££ O L 9 ,5.. ~ O c~i ~c .EC$L ~028Aa~g'ayQ ~3 mo wa a 25c~ r N o'tt>~~~?v °'$ cowls ct~~mv • • ~ ~D a ~i3m3a ~a°OUdm ~a ~m m ~ ~ C Q G • N N n /~v f\1 lA 1A LLl ~ 2 2 Z ~ ¢ ~ a ~ o ~ ~ o ~ Q. ~ e ~ _ ~ ~ ~ p O ~ ~ qC,.) c~ y ~ m ~ ~a ~ :s d ~ a ~ g~r~$ ~ ~ ~ 0. ~g ZS W b0 v OC ~ ~ m C ~ ~ h pc' .S~ Q a "cY c LS ~~-rn w~ ai ~ H ~p ~ i ~ ~9 i.. si ~ ~ a c O ~ y 6- w 6 m M ~ ~ ~ ~ c a d ~ m t~ ,.. a$ F- '2 K E ~ ~ ,~ $ is ~ v c ~ o~ m~~ S~~~a ~ ~m5 ~' N ~i5 ppQQgL ~ u3 ~'~ N d L"S~ N ~~Q ~ ~~iy~ ~TIJ ~p~~~Tf Efy 0~ ~`i g~~+ ~ra ~~~m~~R tQ ~s ~~te O~~Y ~ ~~L"~~ ~~eF `toy y~~. '((yy `3~~yy ~ ~~N~.~.5 ~Jpm~ -au S q W~ ~ ~ ~ 000--- yy ~ ~ ~ `OCC`~R~ ~ ~ ~ ~C?~ r ZZZGSSS N YJ G~ yiy~6~~._ O$'t3 P ~i~ ~T4y~~g~~ ~~b~ ~ o; ~~~g~~Nry-tLLK m =m mg~5`3 ~33E~, ,E~pp YS $, ~4"~cd 'S+ '~° o~"$ by 3~3'~~.~~~`g~~~g~~ ~~~~~~£°~~$'-' ~:Eag,g o d w $,~~"yt5 ~f0~~ffi~ a~m$,F?2 Ed m o`~;°"' oCi a y°, 2 E nE g ~ o Sri o~ 0 L W r N S ~.a O o N ya Fr ~+V z ~ 4 W ti p N ~r.a ~ ~ ~ 2 N ~ N ~ Q S 4 M ,y g o cs ~ ~ ~ w O ~ g` S ~ 4. i ~ two .o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~W o 0 ~ oU ~ E ~ S ~ 8 2i tl .^' .bo O ~,` ~d ~d ~dE ~d ° yS 8' y~ S' y~ S°' y02~' N yO~' p C O O O O O O 0. •.., _ o, ~ +v ~ S u~ m ~ $ o o pp I~ E Jc ~`y N~ N~ yyJ N T N N ~L •~.r O N O c N~ O U°~ O °a "~ ~ a a a O 7 r ~ 3 cti c ~' ~.' s 'a a 'a a ~.c a e ¢ a a a a Im c e 0 ~ = c c c c ~cp ~~cpp ~c~pp c =O C~ J J J J J C N _ y p~ N ~ y O G S O N ~ 3 ~ ~y a 7y>>y5~~ ~ n ui ~ E N c ~ ~ ~ rd ~ ~ c E lp C~ L 'lJ l0 [F y C~ S (/I O C N pN O. :a :a C O N u G d p ~ V S'a~~ac ~~~~'~A ~$ °S~~ 5 5 pO~~ '~"- d ~NN ~ L•'O ~~c~ O¢ ri' N~ N St y~~ i~3. i$O V~ ~S. OIN~C ~ ~1C N N NO~- y~ p N N c?~jo nmoY~a~ E~~~ ~5~~ c ~~=~D C c 2 A p` p~i~ $'S.` n.~ ~ > N ~~'' O 5 ~ C C ~ N ~ LIl (LJ ~ N ~ ~'O lYI L/ N qry C d O OI~U ~NSC ~~C fO Gayy pL~='g O.~CN N N dNSCJ SNN~ TN yEy JppLG NN 'T _U _~l0 JC JC N~~V q O N "O m N O i H - n J~ ~y(j LL O _ C.- C. y- O_ (N yl _~0.~ ~LC L_ L~10C N~~ >f0>(O ~a0..~lO O 7 N ~G N ~ ~ N~ O S d O N N ~O ~~,$ i c~~~$'~ ~x F a'~a w'~ m~ c~ ca'~ E h o ~ oc~~ a`~'S '~Q¢-C ~3 ~'6~ Ea E~m~a ~'S 'o O N yr'~~C g U~N.~~ GNt7C~p'~a ~g,f¢ SAi€Tp3i€NVyg~'~ >ON 0 o i_ N ~d W o~~ ~ ~`a ~ N mi ~ 3 4 3~ F2i ~ 38'.3 0 ~ L'i 2 A C y m a ~ E ro V 'a ~QQ rJ = ~ pE '3 N ym a F- 'd 'J CpNCp .g pp~ • • o J pcp N .O S~~NC~W~d[S.~~C H._o QO~~Q"d ~U ~N d~~0 ~O N 11.I•~L~~11L~ Q K~ Y' Q N J o^ ~ K N aa¢ m ~~" ~ ~ 7CN W.~- K ~ ~ ~ M vi a C iri ~ ui ~- vi vi Q, y ~ ~w rn y pp a virla via via < Fr C ~ O r am ~" a E E~ ~ b0 0.1 gWO '` c o ~ y ~ p O ~ O U ~ y0 ~, '" 'cC A a ~ G c~ R d ~q ~o e tea' i~ ~ m c o a~ E i ,°~' ~ ~ P ~c c a e ~' o o. ~ ~ ~ E 0 io ~ ~3 umi ~ c3 ~ ~ an € p m ai t~ ~i ~ rn d ~ ~~Q~j~ i d vC ri ~miOJ ~ E a 'y C a QL'~ ~ O N ~ p '^' ~Xi~ O a E '° ~G C ~ ~M y ~ ~ Oi m C G~ T Ol N ~B m rd L- N ~ w ~ y c w uZ ~ 2 E~ T c ~ w Q ~ w rn w ~ ~ NEn z. N ~~m~ w _~~yryC ~ g ~c ~ ~ mw @~ ~~~o @~ ~ d-'rt O d m S T d N ~ N T S ~j ~I ~ t m C Oi C Ql '~ ~ C~3f;0 ~N NNJN ~r_ ~ ~y~~~ m ~ d a ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ a ~ m h ,o ~' ~amE ~ cEt6€ t«ta c'`8 Fo~~t~~E ~ N U o ~ =0 ,b0 ~ N 01 ~0 cv~ ~ 4. a~., ~ ~ '~ w p~ ~ 4 ~ _ `-, '~ w O ~ ~ o~U s ~ g ~ o n ~ 3 00 ~' N m ~ a L ~ G d ~' ~ 0 ~E C .,,,,~ N ~ ~5 y ~ ~ a N M ~ ~ ~ ~, g 4 (n C ~ ~ 4 m ~ C c F- C a ~ c ~ .4 ~ ~ , 9~ I ~ c4ig~ c ~~ll T~ IS 6 N . y, ~ ;I ~h mom, '~ R~~~@ ~ ; b Ss U i ~ H ~ ~07+~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ d Ii W Q N j ~ r t 13 ~ qY 3, 4 N ; 4 4. Mitigation Monitoring Reports Mitigation monitoring reports are required to document compliance with the Mitigation Monitoring Program and to dispute arbitration enforcement resolution. Specific reports include: • Field Check Report • Implementation Compliance Report • Arbitration/Enforcement Report 4.1 FIELD CHECK REPORT Field check reports are required to record in-field compliance and conditions. 4.2 IMPLEMENTATION COMPLIANCE REPORT The Implementation Compliance Report (ICR) is prepared to document the implementation of mitigation I'~ measures on a phased basis, based on the information in Table 3-1. The report summarizes implementation ' compliance, including mitigation measures, date completed, and monitor's signature. 4.3 ARBITRATION/ENFORCEMENT REPORT The Arbitration/Enforcement Report {AER} is prepared to document the outcome of arbitration committee review and becomes a portion of the ICR. Page 34 • The Planning Center October 2005