HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-159
I
! . i
1
RESOLUTION NO.
89-159
2 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO CERTIFYING THE
NEW GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; AND ADOPTING
3 FINDINGS, STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND MITIGATION
REPORTING/MONITORING PROGRAM; AND ADOPTING A NEW GENERAL PLAN.
4
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY
5 OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS:
6
SECTION I.
RECITALS.
7
A.
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council adopted the
8 existing General Plan for the City of San Bernardino by
9 Resolution No. 7336 on August 17, 1964; and
10
B.
WHEREAS, the City of San Bernardino, hereinafter
11 "City", initiated a comprehensive update and revision of its
12 existing General Plan in late 1986 and early 1987; and,
13
C.
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council appointed in
14 July 1987, a 35-member Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC),
15 composed of individuals representing a diverse array of interests
16 and residential locations in the City, to assist the City in
17 drafting a new General Plan; and,
18
D.
WHEREAS, the CAC over an almost two year period of
19 time convened in excess of 70 meetings as an entire body and as
20 subcommittees to solicit broad community input for the Draft
21 General Plan; and,
22
E.
WHEREAS, the CAC recommended approval in December
23 1988, of the City of San Bernardino General Plan Fundamental Land
24 Use Issue Policy Statements, a document which identified
25 preferred policy direction on key issues affecting the types,
26 distribution, and intensity of land uses to be permitted by the
27 Draft General Plan; and,
28
HE/dys
May 31, 1989
1
1
F.
WHEREAS, there are between 65,000 and approximately
2 70,000 parcels of land within the City of San Bernardino and the
3 Draft General Plan would affect the permitted uses or intensity
4 of uses for more than 1,000 property owners; and
5
G.
WHEREAS, after giving public notice as required by
6 California Government Code Sections 65353(c) and 65091(a)(3), the
7 City Planning Commission recommended approval of the City of San
8 Bernardino General Plan Fundamental Land Use Issue Policy
9 Statements at a Public Hearing on December 13, 1988; and,
10
H.
WHEREAS, after giving public notice, the Mayor and
11 Common Council approved the City of San Bernardino General Plan
12 Fundamental Land Use Issue Policy Statements, with modifications
13 on January 30, 1989 after Public Hearings held on December 16,
14 1988 and January 30, 1989; and,
15
I.
WHEREAS, the City published in March 1989, a Draft
16 General Plan which included input from CAC, City staff, local
17 neighborhood associations, business organizations and members of
18 the community; and,
19
J.
WHEREAS, the Draft General Plan incorporated by
20 reference the following three research and analysis documents:
21 City of San Bernardino General Plan Update, Technical Background
22 Report, February 1988; City of San Bernardino General Plan
23 Update, Land Use Alternatives Working Paper, March 1988; and City
24 of San Bernardino General Plan Fundamental Land Use Issue Policy
25 Statements, December 1988 and January 1989; and,
26
K.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted noticed
28
27 public hearings on April 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 25, May
HE/dys
May 31, 1989
2
1 22, and 30, 1989 in order to receive public testimony and
2 written and oral comments on the Draft General Plan; and,
3
L.
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council held noticed
4 Public Hearings on April 1 and 26, May 3, 6, 8, 10, 13, 17, 18,
5 20, 22, 23, 24, 31, and June 2, 1989 in order to receive all
6 public testimony and all written and oral comments in response
7 thereto with respect to the Draft General Plan and the
8 modifications recommended by the Planning Commission; and
9
M.
WHEREAS, the Draft General Plan was made available for
10 review to the public, responsible agencies, and other interested
11 persons for their review and comment as required by state law;
12 and
13
N.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after receiving
14 public testimony, adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 89-1
15 recommending adoption of the Draft General Plan as modified by
16 the Planning Commission; and,
17
o.
WHEREAS, the City determined pursuant to California
18 Environmental Quality Act Guidelines ("CEQA Guidelines") Sections
19 15060(c) and 15063(a) that the Draft General Plan may have a
20 significant effect on the environment and thus warranted the
22
21 preparation of an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"); and,
P.
WHEREAS, a Draft EIR was prepared on the Draft General
23 Plan addressing the Draft General Plan's and other alternatives'
24 environmental impacts in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA
25 Guidelines, and the City's Environmental Review Procedures
27
26 specified in Resolution No. 13157 implementing CEQA; and,
28
Q.
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was made available to the
HE/dys
May 31, 1989
3
1 public, responsible agencies and other interested persons for
2 their review and con~ent from March 24, 1989 to May 12, 1989, as
3 required by CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City's
4 Environmental Review Procedures; and,
5
R.
WHEREAS, written comments were received on the Draft
6 EIR; and,
7
S.
WHEREAS, these comments were responded to both orally
8 and in writing as required by CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the
9 City's Environmental Review Procedures; and,
10
T.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held noticed Public
11 Hearings on April 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 25, May 4, 22,
12 and 30, 1989 in order to receive all public testimony and all
13 written and oral comments in response thereto with respect to the
14 Draft EIR and Final EIR; and,
15
u.
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council held noticed
16 Public Hearings on April 1 and 26, May 3, 6, 8, 10, 13, 17, 18,
17 20, 22, 23, 24, 31, and June 2, 1989 in order to receive all
18 public testimony and all written and oral comments in response
19 thereto with respect to the Draft EIR and Final EIR; and,
20
v.
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council made no
21 substantial modifications to the Draft General Plan which were
22 not considered by the Planning Commission during its Public
23 Hearings prior to its adoption of Planning Commission Resolution'
24 No. 89-1 on May 30, 1989; and,
25
W.
WHEREAS, the Final EIR consists of the Initial Study
26 and Supplement to the Checklist, February 1, 1989; the Notice of
27 Preparation, February 1, 1989; the Responses to the Notice of
28
HEjdys
May 31, 1989
4
1 Preparation (various dates); the Draft EIR released March 24,
2 1989; the three research and analyses documents incorporated in
3 the Draft EIR by reference: City of San Bernardino General Plan
4 Update, Technical Background Report, February 1988, City of San
5 Bernardino General Plan Update, Land Use Alternatives Working
6 Paper, March 1988, and City of San Bernardino General Plan
7 Fundamental Land Use Issue Policy Statements, December 19, 1988
8 and January 1989; the comments received on the Draft EIR during
9 and after the public review period; the responses to those
10 comments; the Finalizing Addendum to the Draft EIR and Response
11 to Comments Documents; the minutes of the hearings and the Staff
12 Reports, all documentary evidence, and all testimonial evidence
13 presented at the following Public Hearings of the Planning
14 Commission: April 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 25, May 4, 22,
15 and 30, 1989; Planning Commission Resolution No. 89-1
16 recommending certification of the Final EIR as adequate and
17 complete; the minutes of the hearings and the Staff Reports, all
18 documentary evidence, and all testimonial evidence presented at
19 the following Public Hearings of the Mayor and Common Council:
20 Apr~l 1 and 26, May 3, 6, 8, 10, 13, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 31,
21 and June 2, 1989; this Mayor and Common Council Resolution No.
22 __certifying the Final EIR as adequate and complete; the
23 Statement of Findings and Facts In Support Thereof; and the
24 Summary Statement of Overriding Considerations; and the
25 Mitigation Reporting/Monitoring Program; and,
26
x.
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council has reviewed and
27 considered all material comprising the Draft EIR and the Final
28
HE/dys
May 31, 1989
5
20
.
1 EIR and has found that the Final EIR contains all environmental
2 impacts of the proposed General Plan and is complete and adequate
3 and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA, the CEQA
4 Guidelines, and the City's Environmental Review Procedures;
5 SECTION II.
6 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND AND DETERMINED by the
7 Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino, State of
8 California, in a Public Hearing assembled on June 2, 1989 that:
9
A.
The findings contained in the Statement of Findings
10 and Facts In Support Thereof with respect to the significant
11 impacts identified in the Final EIR to the new General Plan are
12 true and correct, and are based upon substantial evidence in the
13
record, including documents comprising the Final EIR.
The
14 Statement of Findings and Facts In Support Thereof is attached
15 hereto as Exhibit "1" and is incorporated herein by this
16 reference as if set forth in full.
17
B.
The facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding
18 Considerations are true and are supported by substantial evidence
19 in the record, including those documents comprising the Final
EIR.
The statement of Overriding Considerations is attached
21 hereto as Exhibit "2" and is incorporated herein by this
23
22 reference as if fully set forth in full.
C.
The Final EIR has identified all significant
24 environmental effects of the new General Plan and there are no
25 known potentially significant environmental effects not addressed
27
26 in the Final EIR.
28
D.
All significant effects of the new General Plan are
HEjdys
May 31, 1989
6
1 set forth in the statement of Findings and Facts In Support
2 Thereof.
3
Although the Final EIR identifies certain significant
E.
4 environmental effects that would result if the new General Plan
5 is approved, all significant effects that can feasibly be avoided
6 or mitigated will be avoided or mitigated by the implementation
7 of the new General Plan and the implementation of mitigation
8 measures as set forth in the Statement of Findings of Facts In
9 Support Thereof for the Final EIR.
10
F.
Potential mitigation measures and Project
11 alternatives not incorporated into or adopted as part of the new
12 General Plan were rejected as infeasible, based upon specific
13 economic, social or other considerations as set forth in the
14 Statement of Findings of Facts In Support Thereof in the Final
15 EIR.
16
G.
The significant impacts of the new General Plan, as
17 identified in the Statement of Findings and Facts In Support
18 Thereof which will not have been reduced to a level of
19 insignificance will have been substantially reduced in their
21
20 impacts by the implementation of the new General Plan and the
implementation of mitigation measures.
In adopting the new
22 General Plan, the Mayor and Common Council has given great weight
23 to the significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts.
24 The Mayor and Common Council finds that the significant
25 unavoidable adverse impacts are clearly outweighed by the
26 economic, social and other benefits of the new General Plan, as
28
27 set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached
HE/dys
May 31, 1989
7
...-
1 hereto as Exhibit "2".
2
H.
The Final EIR has described the alternatives to the
3 new General Plan, even when those alternatives might impede the
4 attainment of the new General Plan objectives and might be more
5
costly.
The Mayor and Common Council finds that a good faith
6 effort was made to incorporate alternatives in the preparation of
7 the Final EIR and a range of reasonable alternatives were
8 considered in the review process of the Final EIR and the
9 ultimate decision on the new General Plan.
10
I.
A good faith effort has been made to seek out and
11 incorporate all points of view in the preparation of the Final
12 EIR as indicated in the Public Record on the new General Plan.
13
J.
During the Public Hearing process on the new General
14 Plan, the Mayor and Common Council evaluated a range of
15 alternatives, and the new General Plan as recommended for
16 approval by this Resolution is included within that range of
17 alternatives.
18 SECTION III.
19
A.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council
20 of the City of San Bernardino that it does hereby certify that
21 the Final EIR is adequate and complete in that it addresses the
22 environmental effects of the proposed new General Plan and fully
23 complies with the requirements of the California Environmental
24 Quality Act, the CEQA Guidelines and the City's Environmental
25
Review Procedures.
Said Final EIR is composed of the following
26 elements:
27
28
1.
Initial Study and Supplement to the Checklist,
HEjdys
May 31, 1989
8
10
11
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
10.
11.
12.
HE/dys
May 31, 1989
-
" .
February 1, 1989;
2.
The Notice of Preparation, February 1, 1989;
3.
The Responses to the Notice of Preparation (various
dates);
4.
The Draft EIR released March 24, 1989;
5.
City of San Bernardino General Plan Update, Technical
Background Report, February 1988;
6.
City of San Bernardino General Plan Update, Land Use
Alternatives Working Paper, March 1988;
7.
City of San Bernardino General Plan Fundamental Land
Use Issue Policy Statements, December 19, 1988 and
January 1989;
8.
The comments received on the Draft EIR during and
after the public review period;
9.
The responses to those comments; The Finalizing
Addendum to the Draft EIR and Response to Comments
documents;
The minutes of the hearings and the Staff Reports,
all documentary evidence, and all testimonial
evidence presented at the following Public Hearings of
the Planning Commission: April 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15,
17, 18, 25, May 4, 22, and 30, 1989;
Planning Commission Resolution No. 89-1 recommending
certification of the Final EIR as adequate and
complete;
The minutes of the hearings and the Staff Reports, all
documentary evidence, and all testimonial evidence
9
10
12
13
1
presented at the following Public Hearings of the
2
Mayor and Common Council: April 1 and 26, May 3, 6, 8,
3
10, 13, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 31, and June 2, 1989;
4
13.
This Mayor and Common Council Resolution No. gr-/~r
5
certifying the Final EIR as adequate and complete;
6
14.
The statement of Findings and Facts In Support
7
Thereof;
8
15.
The Summary Statement of Overriding Considerations;
9
and
16.
The Mitigation Reporting/Monitoring Program (attached
11
hereto as Exhibit "3" and incorporated herein by this
reference);
B.
The Planning Department is hereby directed to file a
14 Notice of Determination with the County Clerk of the County of
15 San Bernardino showing certification that the Final Environmental
16 Impact Report is available to the public.
17 SECTION IV.
18 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council that
19 it does hereby adopt the new General Plan as modified by the
21
20 Mayor and Common Council. Said new General Plan supersedes the
previous General Plan adopted in 1964.
Said new General Plan,
22 including the Land Use Plan (Map), are those documents entitled
23 "City of San Bernardino General Plan" on file in the office of
24 the City Clerk and attached hereto as Exhibit 4 and incorporated
25 herein by reference.
26 / / / /
27 / / / /
28
HE/dys
May 31, 1989
10
. ..
17
..-J
rRESOi.TJTION_ _ .CERTIFYING THE NEW GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMtNTAL
IMPACT 'REPORT; &~D ADOPTING FINDINGS, STATEMENTS OF OV~RRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS AND MITIGATION REPORTING/MONITORING PROGRAM;
AND ADOPTING A NEW GENERAL PLAN.
1
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly
2
adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San
3
4
Bernardino at an adjourned regularmeeting thereof, held on the 2nd
day of
June
, 1989, by the following vote, to wit:
5
AYES:
Council Members Estrada, Reilly, Floes, Maudsley,
6
7
Minor, Pope-Ludlam, Miller
NAYS:
None
8
ABSENT:
None
9
10
~~~~
Ci~y Clerk
11
12
The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this ~Aof day
13
of
June
, 1989.
14
15
16
Approved as to
18 form and legal content:
20
19 JAMES F. PENMAN,
City Attorney
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
By: (~ 2 f~
,j'
HE/dys
May 31, 1989
11
-- ~~
~-~
{ ,
EXHIBIT 1
.~..~..~
c~,j.""" '
:~F":
~-f~~' '
STATEMENT OF FINDINGS
1,..,AND FACfS IN SUPPORT THEREOF
.
The City Council of the City of San Bernardino (the "Council"), in approving the 1989
General Plan for the City of San Bernardino (hereinafter referred to as "Project") makes
the following findings which are supported by the corresponding facts pursuant to California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines Section 15041.
I. BACKGROUND
A PrQject Description and ReQJlired AWroval
l..&.......... .. .
The City of San Bernardino initiated a comprehensive update and revisiou.of its existing
General Plan in late 1986. This update was needed to-account for the co~Q~r8.ble..passage
of time since the existing Plan's adoption and the addition Of, SUbsequ, ~~~ ,elements .tbati:' ,
not been integrated into a single, unified plan document. - 'The adoption. of. the 1 9
General Plan is the project being considered for approval by the Oty in this instance. , '
City Council is responsible for final adoption of the 1989 General Plan after receiving: a
recommendation from the City Planning Commission. ,.' ,_" .__ .' _ ~_..,~ ~:',..
The City's goals in developing a new General Plan'" are to correct deficiencies in the
existing Plan, to ensure consistency between the various elements of $e Plan, and to
provide a comprehensive long-range plan to guide the City's future development. Approval
of the 1989 General Plan will establish the framework by which the City's physical and
economic resources are to be managed and utilized over the planning period which extends
from adoption through the year 2010. The project also acts to clarify and articulate the
City's intentions with respect to the rights and expectations of the general public, property
owners, and prospective investors and business interests..
The 1989 General Plan contains the seven elements mandated by state law which
include: land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise and safety. Six
permissive elements have been prepared to reflect specific issues and objectives of the City:
urban design, historical resources, economic development, infrastructure futilities, public
services, and parks and recreation. The text and maps contained in the 1989 General Plan
elements are organized as presented in the attached Table 1 abstracted from the General
Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Specific objectives of the 1989 General Plan
have been defined as follows (Page 2-1 of the General Plan EIR):
a. Address legislative planning requirements of the State of California.
b. Integrate into a single plan document an required and permissive elements,
replacing previously adopted elements;
1
'.
,r
- -
c. PrOvide data and analyses regarding conditions and factors influencing the
~in the late 19805 and projected to occur to 2010; and
d. _ Define policies and programs to guide conservation of existing uses, new
development, and resource management which are reflective of community
needs and objectives. .
Full development in conformance with the land use map and the goals; objectives and
policies in the 1989 General Plan could ultimately result in converting approximately 11,123
acres of currently undeveloped, under-developed or recycled land to residential, commercial
and industrial uses (see attached Table 2 from the General Plan EIR for detailed acreage
estimates). Buildout of the General Plan would result in 28,120 additional residences in
the City, an estimated 35.6 million square feet of additional commercial structures, and an
estimated 53.2 million square feet of additional industrial structures", The plAnning area's
population would rise by 70,300 new persons from the present . level of 195,256' to an
estimated 265,556 total residents.
~
The 1989 General Plan addresses a "planning area" which includes approximately is
square miles of land currently within the City's boundary and 9 square miles f!
unincorporated land within the City's Sphere of Influence. A map sbowiBg the location/of
the planning. area is attached to this document. ...,.1
.~
B. The Environmental Documentation
The environmental review process for the 1989 General Plan began on February 1, 1989
when the City released the Initial Study for the document. Based on the findings in the
Initial Study, the City made a determination to prepare an environmental impact report
(EIR) that addresses all of the environmental issues outlined in the Initial Study checklist.
The City released the Initial Study and Notice of Preparation to the public on February 1,
1989. These two documents and the responses to the Notice of Preparation are included
in the Final Environmental Impact Report as appendices A, B and C. 'v
The Draft EIR for the City of San Bernardino General Plan (SCH# 89021308) was
prepared by Envicom, Corporation and released to the public on March 24, 1989.
Comment letters were received and responses to comments have been included in the Final
EIR. The Final EIR for the City of San Bernardino General Plan consists of the following
components:
a. The Initial Study and Supplement to the checklist, February 1, 1989
b. The Notice of Preparation, February 1, 1989
c. Responses to the Notice of Preparation (various dates)
d. The Draft EIR, released March 24, 1989
2
..
e. The comments received on the Draft EIR during the public review process
and the responses to those comments, and
.
f. . The Staff report and Exhibits containing Statement of Findings and Facts in
- Support of Adoption; Summary Statement of Overridirig Considerations; and
Mitigation Reporting/Monitoring Program.
C. Public Hearinis for Comments on the PrQject and EIR
The following public hearings were held at which comments were accepted on the EIR
and proposed project:
~
April 1, 1989
.Reviewini BoQy
City Planning Commission-and
Common Council
. , , ':.. '../v.':t' '1 j..
; T~"~ I...
..:....:.:.'I."\T. ..::~r ~ :":f'...
April 3, 1989
April 6, 1989
April 8, 1989
April 10, 1989
April 13, 1989
April 15, 1989
~:n_ ~ 11989
c..LfV~ I 0'11 q ~
April 25, 1989
April 26, 1989
April 27, 1989
May 3, 1989
May 4, 1989
May 6, 1989
May 8, 1989
May 10, 1989
City Planning Commi~OD~
City Planning Commission
.. I ~ ~.'....~i-;ll :.i.e.;.. '~:-:' ':0i
" . ...,.;:)~..
"'["'<
. .
<.
.... ..
City Planning Comm;~on 0,1~..~ .
-. __:1., ..;
city Planning Commi~t)ion"
City Planning Commi~on
City Planning Commission
City Planning Commission
u ~r ~
City Planning Commission
City Council
.. ..:.i i .'.l. . ..to( -...-' ..", """-A-...,
City Environmental Review Committee
City Council
City Planning Commission
City Council
City Council
City Council
3
May 13, 1989
May 11r1989
,7IIl
. May_18, 1989
May 18, 1989
May 20, 1989
May 22, 1989
May 22, 1989
May 22, 1989
May 23, 1989
May 24, 1989
May 30, 1989
May 31, 1989
June 2, 1989
City Council
City Council
City Environmental Review Committee
City Council
City Council
City Environmental Review Committee
City Planning Commi~ion
Qty Council
City Council
City Council
.., J ,-' ~
" ~...~~
Ft~~
"t', .
'.. ..... '.
Planning Commiqion
t, ~
.
(,'
If'
City. Council
~ :J. ...t:i :
':i . ;
.. . : Ii: ~ : .;. ';. j - ~ -:- '- - r""!' ~
City Council
II. ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126 (d) requires that Ems describe "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, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives."
The General Plan Em presents a comparative evaluation of five project alternatives. These
are:
A No project: buildout of the existing General Plan
B. Alternative ; A: low growth
C. Alternative B: moderate growth
D. Alternative C: high growth
E. Alternative H: draft plan variation
The following findings and facts in support thereof are presented for the above
alternatives:
4
A NoPrQject
",;,;.,:.'- ,
~h':~~~'::""
The -ncjr" alternative is a default alternative required to be included in the
analysis by, ',~ Guidelines Section 15126 (d) (2). Adoption of the no project alternative
woQld result in significantly higher density of development compared to the proposed
General Plan. Specifically, development under the existing General Plan has been
calculated to increase the number of residential units by approximately 3.4 times the
number of units that can be constructed under the proposed plan. Commercial square
footage under the no project alternative would be increased by approximately 68 percent
and industrial square footage would be slightly less than 31 percent greater under the
existing General Plan.
The Council finds that implementation of this alternative would increase all potential
adverse impacts by a significant amount due to the increased development permitted under
the existing General Plan. All direct development impacts will be increased because
development controls are minimal and the intensity of development will not be mitigated
by such features as the Biological Resources Overlay, the Hillside Management Overlay.
District and similar development controls contained in the new General Plan. Further, the
City Council finds that indirect impacts 011 all public utility and ~astructure systems~d.i';'
be increased by more than 350 percent under the no project alternative compared to . e
proposed project alternative. Specific reference to the increased'level of. impact. can '.'
found in Table 29 of the Final EIR (pages 5-4 through 5-1S),which provides a romp "
evaluation of the existing General Plan and the new General Plan. " ~ "::u.-it;_.~s-:-"'-r
The Council finds that the no project alternative is not a feasible alternative because
it was judged by the San Bernardino County Superior Court to be an inadequate General
Plan for guidance of future development within the City. The City further finds that in
addition to being an infeasible alternative, the existing General Plan poses the greatest
potential adverse impact if future development within the City occurs under its'provisions.
Therefore, the Council finds that the no project alternative would prevent the City from
meeting the objectives stated at the begjnning of this document and that the no' project
alternative would cause more significant adverse impacts than the proposed alternative. For
these reasons the no project alternative is rejected.
B. Alternative A: Low Growth
The purpose in evaluating a low growth alternative was to determine whether a less
intensive residential and industrial development alternative land use element could feasibly
reduce the potential significant adverse impacts below that associated with implementing
the proposed General Plan. Alternative A would allow development of approximately two-
thirds of the residential units; approximately 50 percent more commercial/office space; and
about one-third of the industrial space. The build out population under Alternative A is
estimated to be 241,000.
Because Alternative A contains a mix of more intense and less intense uses the
adverse impacts range from less to more significant for specific issues than those identified
5
for the proposed ~ral Plan. For example. traffic generation would increase by
approximately four ~t (page 5-31 of the Final EIR). 'Ibis would result in a more
significant adverse tijj.f6C impact than currently projected. population dependent impacts
would be generally red\lced but have been judged non-significant for the proposed General
Plan as \tell. With the costs of infrastructure system improvements already included within
the proposed Plan's policies, the potential for adverse infrastructure impact is not significant
for either alternative.
Affordable. housing impacts are projected to be approximately the same (in terms
of low income housing units, page 5-5 of the Final EIR) as the proposed project which has
been evaluated as being significant. Alternative A would result in significantly fewer homes
being built and a greater disparity in the number of allowable units versus those identified
in the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Housing Needs
Assessment (RHNA). Thus, Alternative A would result in more significant adverse housing
impacts than the proposed General Plan.
Other issues illustrate similar differences in significance of impacts. Air quality
impacts will be more significant from Alternative A (page 5"3li. of the .Final EIR) due to .
increased mileage under this alternative. On the other hand general biological resources .." "
will incur less impact under Alternative A, butseusitive biological resources couIdbe lost ·
under both alternatives and potential significant adverse impacts are equivalent under both!
alternatives. . l'
.~
Because the absolute increase in traffic due to the greater square footage of commercial
uses under Alternative A contains fewer trucks, noise impacts from the traffic. the primarY
source in the community, will be slightly less, .2dBA, than the proposed General Plan. The
difference of .2dBA average noise 1~1 change is inaudible to hum"nll and the actual
adverse impacts, although significant for both alternatives. is not considered a substantial
reduction in noise. The substantial increase in commercial uses under this alternative in
areas where residential uses exist increases the potential land use conflicts relative to the
proposed General Plan. Reductions in industrial designations do reduce future potential
conflicts, but the City Council concludes that this reduction is less than the impacts that will
occur due to the increased commercial development. Finally, the increased populaoon
exposed to ground shaking impact remains significant under both alternatives, but fewer
residents would be exposed under Alternative A.
On balance. the City Council finds that Alternative A is a feasible alternative that
could reduce impacts for a few environmental resources as outlined above. However, the
Council further finds that the policies designed to protect environmental resources in the
proposed General Plan result in it posing less significant impacts overall than Alternative
A. The Council therefore concludes that Alternative A should be rejected in favor of the
proposed General Plan because it has the potential to cause more severe adverse
environmental impacts.
6
C. Alternative B: Moderate Growth
7-,;.,..,
The. mOa~i'ate growth alternative is similar to the proposed General Plan because
it allows appr~"tely equivalent residential development iJ! most of the community. It
permits inteDSilfed development in hillside areas, downtown commercial areas and in
ecop.omica11y depressed areas. The result is that the proposed General Plan will allow
approximately 1,131 more units to be constructed in the planning area than Alternative B;
sensitive hillside development would be increased; commercial square footage would be
substantially increased by approximately 72 percent; industrial square footage would be
reduced by approximately 37 million square feet; and buildout population would be about
2,828 greater than for the Alternative B. '
When Alternative B is compared to the proposed General Plan all of the
infrastructure impacts are slightly lower (although generally nonsignificant), but the traffic
impacts are increased by 12 percent (page 5-42 in the Final EIR). The impacts due to this
increase in traffic has the potential to create traffic stoppages at many locatioDS' within: the
City, which will operate at an acceptable level under the proposed' General Platr Sffnilarly,'
the air quality impact from Alternative B will be substantially greater than the proposed
General Plan because of increased mobile source emissions. ' . ,:
~i
Natural resource impacts will be substantially increased if the City is devel:e."~~ ..
under Alternative B. Biological resources will incur more adverse 'impacts in 1he loo . .':-.'.."
Erosion and soil losses have the potential to be substantially increased. Visual impacts. ~ '~}'-:
the City's background visual setting would also be substantially increased under AlternatiYe
B (see pages 5-11 through 5-15 of the Final EIR).
Noise impacts would be increased under this alternative due to increased traffic and
land use compatibility would suffer due to greater exposure of commercial and residential
interfaces. The ground shaking impacts would be nearly equivalent with a slightly greater
population being exposed to significant hazards due to the proposed General Plan when
compared to Alternative B.
The City Council finds that Alternative B is a feasible alternative that meets the
project objectives. However, based on the general increase in significant adverse impacts
associated with Alternative B, the Council finds that it will result in more significant adverse
impacts than the proposed General Plan. Therefore, the Council rejects this alternative.
D. Alternative C: Hiih Growth
The high growth alternative provides for more intense development throughout all
of the land use designations compared to the proposed General Plan. Compared to the
proposed General Plan, it would approximately double the number of residences; increase
commercial development by approximately 250 percent; reduce industrial development by
approximately 29 million square feet (about 50 percent); and increase the planning area
population by about 85 percent.
7
The substantial increases in population and development densities posed by
Alternative C would cause more substantial adverse impacts in each environmental
category. For: example, the road system would experience an approximate 47 percent
increase in traffic and the planning area's circulation system would be severely overloaded
Air quality impacts would be more significant and all natural resource impacts would be
sUbftantiaUy increased (see pages 5-50 through 5-57 of the Final EIR). All infrastructure
systems would incur substantially greater (about 100%) impacts.
The City Council finds that Alternative C is a feasible alternative that meets the
project objectives. However, based on the substantial increase in adverse environmental
impacts, the Council finds that this alternative is unacceptable. Therefore, the Council
rejects this alternative on the basis of greater adverse impact.
E. Alternative H: Draft Plan Variation
Alternative H incorporates several changes in the Draft General Plan proposed by
the public. The primary variations between Alternative H and the project are:
approximately 3,854 additional dwelling units; an approximate 49 percent increase in
commercial square footage; an approximate 12 percent reduction in industrial square
footage; and a buildout population forecasted to be approximately 9,635, higbe, r than], '-., , ,"",
proposed General Plan. ':i'
,... ~. ;."r~:.... {'.\.; '~,:_..
As in the previous two instances, Alternative H increases impacts to all reso "'
across the board due to both direct and indirect uses from increased residents and '
commercial uses. An additional 23 percent trips will be generated with substantial increases
in circulation system and air quality impacts. All infrastructure and natural resource
impacts would also be increased. The specific nature of these increases is characterized on
pages 5-4 through 5-15 of the Final EIR.
The City Council finds that Alternative H is a feasible alternative that meets the
project objectives. However, based on the substantial increase in adverse environmental
impacts, the Council finds that this alternative is unacceptable. Therefore, the Council
rejects this alternative on the basis of greater adverse impact.
F. Summaty of the Alternatives Comparison
The Final EIR presents five alternative general plan configurations for comparison
with the proposed General Plan. These alternatives are judged by the Council to represent
a reasonable range of alternative land use plans from which to determine whether
alternatives are available to reduce adverse impacts below a significant level. Of key
concern has been the City's goal to achieve a mix of uses which will result in a balance of
growth in the future. Based on the analysis presented, one alternative, the no project
alternative (retention of the existing General Plan and development under its land use mix
and policies), is rejected because it is both infeasible and would cause the most significant
adverse impacts on the environment. Alternative A, the low growth alternative, would
reduce some impacts below that caused by the proposed General Plan but would not reduce
any significant adverse impacts below a significant level. In fact, this alternative would
8
cause more significant adverse impacts for air quality, the circulation system, land use
Compatibility and housing. Therefore, the Council judged it the second most
environmentally. sensitive plan alternative to the proposed project. Alternative B would also
reduce jmpact._:~~one significant adverse impact, exposure to ground shaking from a major
regional seism,fovent, but all other significant impacts would be increased and one impact
(aesthetics 1 not currently found significant would become significant. All other alternatives
were found to be feasible, but cause more significant impacts than the proposed General
Plan. Therefore, the City Council finds that the proposed project is the most feasible and
least environmentally damaging alternative available for consideration.
- ..
III. CONSIDERATION OF POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQAGuidelines
(Guidelines) promulgated pursuant thereto provide:
(a)
"No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for whicb ~l EIR ha$
been completed which identifies one or more significant environmental effeets
of the project unless the publie agency, makes one or more writtell. findinp -
for each of those significant effects. accompanied by a-briefexplanation: of the
rationale for each finding. !pr~.
1.
-r
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,. the
project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect as identified in the final EIR.
. =-f(-
The possible findings are:
-: ~...~;~:
2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction
of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such
changes have been adopted by such other agency, or. am and should
be adopted by such other agency.
3. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the
mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR
(Section 15091 of the Guidelines
A Issues Found To Have No Potential For Sipiftcant Adverse Impact Based on the
Evaluation in The Final EIR
Based on the Initial Study prepared for the proposed General Plan, the City made
a decision to prepare a full scope evaluation of environmental issues. The Final
Environmental Impact Report (Em) contains evaluations of 23 environmental issues
(impact categories) that present information on potential adverse impacts of future
development under the proposed General Plan. Of these 23 impact categories, seven were
found to have no potential for significant adverse impact and thus required no mitigation
measures (refer to pages S-9 through S-21 and the "Class 3" impact discussion in the final
EIR). None of the comments received from the public on the Draft EIR altered this
9
conclusion (refer to the comment letters and responses in the Response to Comments
document). T11erefore, the Council finds that the following issues have no potential for
significant a.dYetse impact from approval of the proposed General Plan and does not
recommend' 8':'fS"1Ditigation.
:,.~~'; .
. 1. - Water
2. Solid Waste
3. Sewage Disposal
4. Natural Gas
s. Electrical Service and Geothermal Resources
6. Communications
" "~
7. Mineral Resources
B.
Mltlpble Impacts and Mitiption Measures
f
The analysis presented in the Final EIR for the Oty of San Bernardino General Pln
determined that the issues discussed below can be fully mitigated to a level of insignificance
by adopting mitigation measures and/or incorporating"policies into the ptopcJled .Geaeral
Plan. The mitigable impacts, mitigation measures and the Plan policies required to mitigate
them are discussed below. The mitigation measures will be monitored by the Oty through
adoption of a mitigation reporting/monitoring program which is provided as a separate
exhibit to the City Council's resolution. The Plan policies will be monitored and
implemented by the Oty as part of its.ongoing implementation program for the new
General Plan and through its review and approval process for specific projects.
The issues that can be mitigated to a level of insignificance by adopting and
implementing mitigation measures and utilizing policies in the General Plan are as follows:
1. Visual
Significant Effect
The final EIR identifies an overall increase in mass, scale, and intensity of urban form
as a result of development allowed by the proposed General Plan. This will include a loss
of visual open space relative to the existing conditions.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been incorporated into the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the above-referenced significant environmental effect, as identified in
the final EIR and its components.
10
These Plan policies and programs can be carried out by Qty 'staff and: bther agencraj
as appropriate. Therefore, the Council directs staff to implement them at the appropriate
~e in the ~ture to ensure th~t ~e mitigati~n is effective in minimi7.ing potential adve~
unpacts on VISual resources Within the planmng area. ):
2.
Police
.i.:.. 't,
.-
_~L
. ,;".' ...
Significant Effect
The final EIR identifies a demand for additional sworn police' officers and. 'Support
manpower and equipment to maintain and improve existing levels of service at the buildout
population.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been incorporated into the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the above referenced significant environmental effect, as identified in
the final EIR and its components.
Facts in Support of Findings
The proposed General Plan contains a series of policies which will allow City Police
services to meet the projected increase in demand at full bOOdout. Policies 8.1.1-8.1.4 and
8.1.6 and 8.2.1-8.2.4 and implementation programs 18.1-18.2, 18.4-18.6, 18.8-18.10 accomplish
this mitigation by ensuring that law enforcement resources expand as needed over the life
of the Plan.
11
These Plan policies and programs can be carried out by City staff and other agencies
as appropriate.; Therefore, the Council directs staff to implement them at the appropriate
time in the future to ensure that the mitigation is effective in minimizing potential adverse
impacts on police. . services.
3. En.
~
;;.r,~'
"
Significant Effect
The final EIR forecasts the potential for increased fire service response times and for
both general and wildland fire hazards. Oty responsibility for wildland fire suppression and
prevention will also increase with development in the hillside area.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been incorporated into the project. ~~hich.L ~void or
substantially lessen the potential significant fire hazard and service impacts, 81.J~~",tified
in the final EIR and its components. .... ,;;0_- _ .
.., . 't- ,-
Facts in Support of Findings ~
The proposed General Plan contains a series of policies which will allow City de
services to meet the projected increase in demand at full buildout and to. QJitigate tbe
increased fire hazard potential below a significant leveL The pertinent policies include:
8.3.1-8.3.4, 8.4.1-8.4.6, 8.5.1, 8.6.1, 15.1.1 and 15.1.3-15.1.8, and lS.2.1, lS.2.3-15.2.5, 15.2.8-
lS.2.9 and implementation programs 18.10-18.20, and 115.1-llS.I0. These policies and
implementation programs include such items as incorporating landscaping and construction
provisions of the Foothill Communities "Greenbelt" Program. These Plan policies and
programs can be carried out by Oty staff and other agencies as appropriate. Therefore, the
Council directs staff to implement them at the appropriate time in the future to ensure that
the mitigation is effective in minimizing potential adverse impacts on fire services and
increased in fire hazards.
4. Education
Significant Effect
The final EIR indicates that buildout development under the proposed General Plan
will generate 13,319 additional students requiring the equivalent of 1.1 additional high
schools, 2.6 additional jr. high schools, 13.3 additional elementary schools and all their
support personnel.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been incorporated into the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the above referenced significant environmental effect, as identified in
the final EIR and its components.
12
Facts in Support of Findings
Plan policies 8.7.1-8.7.3, and 8.8.1-8.8.6 and implementation programs 18.20-18.28
address City cooperation with the school districts and a City role in tracking future growth
and development as it may impact school facilities. These policies and programs will help
the J school district to meet future education demand without significant adverse impact.
These Plan policies and programs can be carried out by City staff and other agencies as
appropriate. Therefore, the Council directs staff to implement them at the appropriate time
in the future to ensure that mitigation is effective in minimizing potential adverse impacts
on education services. - - -
5. Parks and Recreation
Significant Effect
The final EIR identifies a demand for 807 additional acres of park and recreation space
to meet future demand from the Plan's buildout population. v--;..e 'I!)"-':~ ;.,
-.':~i.
F;Mrl;Mn . ": ., -,. -, ...._~.
, :....:.'tj, , ~', ,., " .~" '- .:
Changes or alterations have been incorporated into the project .which avoid'~
substantially lessen the above referenced significant environmental-effect, as identified"
the finalEIR and its components. : .j I ',,"L . ;-,,_~,
Facts in Support of Findings
The proposed General Plan contains a series of policies which will allow demand for
parks and recreation facilities to be met over the life of the Plan. Plan policies 9.1.1-9.1.14,
9.2.1-9.2.7, 9.3.1-9.3.10, 9.4.1-9.4.8, 9.5.1, and 9.5.2 and implementation programs 19.1-19.9
and 19.11-19.23 address the expanding demand for parks and recreation facilities in the City.
These programs include a future park master plan and acquisition of land to meet future
demand through benefit assessment districts and special taxes. These Plan policies and
programs can be carried out by City staff and other agencies as appropriate. Therefore, the
Council directs staff to implement them at the appropriate time in the future to ensue that
the mitigation is effective in minimizing potential adverse impacts to park and recreation
users within the City.
6. Floodin&
Significant Effect
Development under the proposed General Plan will further encroach on existing flood
plains within the City boundaries. Three areas with 100-year storm flows are not presently
carried in storm drain facilities and land development in the vicinity of these drainages must
be protected. In addition, future construction of storm runoff facilities will have adverse
impacts on site specific environmental resources.
13
Finding
-~l!_-
Changes 01:- alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the potential flood hazard effects, as identified in the final EIR
an<\ its components.
Facts in Support of Findings
The proposed General Plan incorporates policies 7.9.1-7.9.9, 7.10.1-7.10.3, 7.11.1, 7.11.2,
and 16.1.1-16.1.4 and implementation programs 116.1, 116.2, 17.6, 17.20-17.23, 17.41 and 17.8
for controlling potential flood hazard impacts. These policies require construction of new
flood control channel facilities prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy or limitation
of new development in certain areas until flood control facilities are available. Construction
is also prohibited within the 100-year floodplain as mapped by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency unless a special Flood Hazard Permit is obtained pursuant to Section
15.72 of the Municipal Code. Mitigation for specific construction of specific tlood control
facilities is deferred until specific development proposals are presented to the City. These-
Plan policies and programs and mitigation measure can be carried out br -Cty staff and
other agencies as appropriate. Therefore, the Council directs staff to implement ~
policies, programs and mitigation measure at the appropriate time in the future to eD5IfC
that the measures are effective at mitigating flood. hazards -to an iDsW'ificant leveL t;t
- -7- ~~
7. Hazardous Material/Uses
Significant Effect
The land uses allowed under the proposed General Plan will increase use of hazardous
materials, including the storage and transport of such materials. This increase will result
in exposure of a greater population to potential health hazards related to hazardous
materials.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant adverse effects attributable to use of
hazardous materials, as identified in the final EIR and its components.
Facts in Support of Findings
The proposed General Plan contains a series of policies which will allow the City to
control use of hazardous materials so as to reduce potential adverse impact to an
insignificant level. Policies 13.1.1-13.1.3, 13.2.1-13.2.4 and implementation programs 113.1-
113.8,113-28, and 113.29 specify planning and operating criteria to control hazardous waste
disposal, public risk reduction, recycling, waste minimi7.ation and all other management
requirements. Emergency response planning requirements are provided in policies 13.3.1
and 13.3.2 and programs 113.1-113.3. Surface and subsurface contamination issues are
14
addressed in policies 13.4.1-13.4.4 and programs 113.6, 113.47-113.49, 113.50, 113.58, and
113.59. As additional measures, the final EIR recommends that future development in
areas suspected -to have soil contamination shall require detailed soil analysis as part of the
environmenta1:ctreview procedure. This analysis or survey will identify any residual
hazardous matIfIaIs and the necessary mitigation measures. In recognition of the City's
scope of responsibilities sand financial capabilities, the City shall treat contaminated ground
water and surface water using the most effective and best available control technology.
These Plan policies and programs and mitigation measure can be carried out by City staff
and other agencies as appropriate. Therefore, the Council directs staff to implement them
at the appropriate time in the future to ensure that hazardous material handling impacts
are mitigated to an insignificant level.
8. ~
Significant Effect
\ ",,"
The final EIR identifies the potential for future structures in High Wind Areas to be.
exposed to potential wind damage and for potential wind tunnel impacts. to be crated by
larger buildings in the downtown area.
F~~ I
- ,
. ,.'i~~fl;, . . f.~
Changes. or alterations have been incorporated into the project which avoid Or
substantially lessen the potential wind impacts to an insignificant level, as identified. in the
final EIR and its components.
Facts in SUppoTtof F~ings
The proposed General Plan contains a series of policies and programs to reduce
potential wind impacts below a significant level. The policies incorporated in the Plan
include 15.1.1 and 15.1.3-15.1.8 and 15.2.1 and 15.2.3-15.2.5, 15.2.8, and 15.2.9 and the
programs include 115.1-115.10. These policies and programs create and expand building and
development standards to mitigate the impact of wind speeds on structures. The Plan also
includes policies and programs to minimi7,e fire risk from high wind conditions, including
policies 15.2.1 and 15.2.8 and programs 115.1-115.3, 115.5, and 115.6. These Plan policies
and programs can be carried out by City staff and other agencies as appropriate.
Therefore, the Council directs staff to implement them at the appropriate time in the future
to ensure that high wind hazard impacts are mitigated below a significant level.
15
C. Unavoidable Impacts Which Cannot Be Reduced Below A Sipiftcant Level
Despite ~corporation of extensive mitigation measures directly in the Plan as
policies and 'liograms and some additional mitigation measures, eight categories of
environmentatimpacts remain which cannot be mitigated below a significant level. These
environmental categories are: land use, housing, historical/archaeological resources,
cirdUationltraffic, air quality, biological resources, geologic and seismic hazards, and noise.
These impacts and the measures proposed to minimi7.e them to the degree feasible are
discussed below.
1. T Jlnd Use
Significant Effect
Overall increase in development within the planning arca.- There will be a loss of open
space as vacant lands are developed. Potential land use conflicts exist between vario~ land
use designations. Some commercial and light industrial development. in accordance with
the proposed General Plan will result in displacement of. existing. tenants. ~d~ historic
buildings.
~~n c_~.:~
.L""I4oN#16 'ltir~!"'"
1t-
. "..,~ . . "",c
Changes or alternations have been required in,. or incprpQrated into, the project whICh
lessen the above-referenced significant environmental effect, as identified in the final EIR
and its components. However, these changes or alterations cannot reduce. the. identified
significant land use effects of the proposed Plan to a level of insignificance. Specific
economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the additional mitigation necessary
to reduce these land use impacts to a level of insignificance.
Facts in Support of Findings
The proposed land use element establishes many new designations that reduce the
intensity of development throughout the Qty compared to the existing General Plan. In
many instances decisions have been made to establish new uses in noise sensitive areas or
commercial areas that will result in more compatible uses, but may also result in loss of
affordable housing stock. Further, some existing open space areas will be lost to new uses
over the life of the Plan even though these uses will be developed under a better set of
standards contained in the proposed General Plan.
Mitigation of land use impacts is achieved through a number of policies (outlined
below) and three mitigation measures. A total of 348 policies and 23 programs have been
established to guide future development within the City and minimize adverse impacts.
16
Policies 1.10 through 1.19 inclusive provide permitted uses and describe density and height
restrictions for,.:r.esidential and hillside management designations. Policies 1.30 and above
establish ~:-,-and . development guidelines for residential, hillside management,
commercl~~~aIf.Jee industrial park,' industrial and public designations which incorporate
measures to mrmmi7,e potential land use conflicts. Objective 9.1 establishes the requirement
for;m addi&ional 807 acres of parklands to meet the needs of existing and future residents.
In addition, three mitigation measures, identified in 4.1.1.4 of the final Em, identify
measures to mitigate the following: a) housing displacement impacts (Measure 1); b)
conflicts posed by regional serving uses (Measure 2); and c) land use conflicts in "depressed"
commercial corridors (Measure 3).
The City Council finds that these policies and programs and mitigation measures lessen
the adverse impacts to future land uses under the proposed Plan, but they are not capable
of reducing impacts below a significant level. The Council also finds that the loss .of open
space is an unavoidable significant adverse impact of adopting the.. proposed .PlaB... 'I1test
policies and measures can be carried out by - the City,. smtlLand otDu:~ageDciA. D
appropriate. Therefore, Council directs staff to implement them" at the apprtJpriate ~point'
time in the future to ensure that the mitigation is effective- in .minimi~Ilg' tile, poteDti.~ -,
adverse land use impacts. .~ -~ ~-:::1.t.~
"'- . '
The Council further finds that no additional measures are 'known- that 'can furtIIrr
reduce adverse land use impacts for the City for the City without sigJtifi~
substantially interfering with community objectives' for future development. .
2." Housine
Significant Effect
The final Em identified the removal of affordable housing units as areas in the Oty
re'Ycle to new uses and the inability of the City to meet its share of the regional housing
needs as a significant effect which cannot be fully mitigated below a significant level. -. .
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
reduce the identified low income housing shortage, as identified in the final Em and its
components. However, these changes or alterations cannot reduce the identified significant
effects to a level of insignificance. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make
infeasible the additional mitigation necessary to reduce these housing impacts to a level of
insignificance.
Facts in Support of Findings
The proposed General Plan contains policies to provide adequate numbers of new
housing units and to assist in making a portion of these units affordable to low and
moderate income households. Housing growth is accommodated by promoting new housing
17
units on CUI'rently vacant and under-utilized land. Policy 2.1.1 and implementation program
12.1 facilitate the development of new housing units. Policy 2.1.3 and program 12.1 allow
mixed residential/commercial uses in the City's downtown area. The Plan also establishes
policies and ~ for continued financial assistance for housing rehabilitation to eligible
owners of,'rental.units with lower income tenants (policy 2.3.1 and programs 12.10 and
12.11). Eligible low income home buyers are also supported through policy 2.3.3 and
prokram 12:22. Support for nonprofit housing developers of affordable housing is provided
in policies 2.4.2, 2.4.1 and 2.4.3 and programs 12.18, 12.21, 12.28, and 12.32. Similar policies
and programs (2.6.1, 2.6.3, and 2.6.4 and 12.1, 12.8, 12.19, 12.26, 12.28, 12.32 and 12.34,
respectively) have been incorporated into the Plan for large families and senior adults. Two
additional mitigation measures have been identified which can assist wi~ _~~9ucing. hous~g
impacts. These measures require relocation assistance in accordance ,with the .California
Relocation Assistance Act or the Uniform Relocation Assis~ and R~ Pro~rty
Acquisition Policies Act when housing units are displaced by new uses and.monitoring .of
state and federal programs for low and moderate income hou$g assistance. .totak~
advantage of all programs available in the future. , , ~:-r' ('~"'i.i,-.~~~
~-. .~r.r:;':'.-:-."";:.'
The City Council finds that these policies and pr9grams leSsen ,theadve~ ~.ia"'!:-;'-'
future housing resources, but they are not capable of reducing impacts below a significant ~-';
level The Council also finds that the "market" in the community may no long~r pli' .' ',<
housing affordable to lower income groups and that public subsidies might be requm " ,
make housing affordable to these households. The Council further finds that no additio, ' ,.'.'
measures are known that can further reduce adverse housing impacts for the Oty withcij1t"
significantly and substantially interfering with community objectives for future de~elo~nt. -'"
;, . ~, . ~ ,- .I.~-t'~.~1 ......-:. \.
These ,Plan policies and programs and mitigation measures can..be, carried ou~ ,by the
City staff and other agencies as appropriate. Therefore, the Council dir~ staff to
implement them at the appropriate time in the future to ensure that maximum, ho~g
impact mitigation is accomplished in the City.
3. Historical / Archaeoloiical Resources
Significant Effect
The final EIR identifies a potential for loss of significant historical resources as a result
of overriding concerns for public safety. As yet undiscovered archaeological resource may
also be lost during construction for individual projects in the future under the proposed
Plan.
Finding
, .
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
reduce the potential for loss of historical or archaeological resources, as identified in the
final EIR and its components. However, these changes or alterations cannot reduce the
identified significant adverse effects to a level of insignificance. Specific economic, social,
or other considerations make infeasible the additional mitigation necessary to reduce these
housing impacts to a level of insignificance.
18
Facts in Support of Findings
. ",.~.
1be propf;Mid General Plan contains policies to reduce the impact of future
development on historical and archaeological resources in the City. Policies 3.1.1-3.1.14,
32.l:3.2.7, J.3.1-3.3.8, 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 3.5.1-3.5.8, and 3.6.1-3.6.4 minimi7.e future disruption of
prenistoric resources. Implementation programs (13.1, 13.2 and 13.22) have been established
to carry out these policies. Additional policies and programs are designed to preserve
historical resources. These include policies 3.1.4, 3.1.9 and 3.1.10 and programs 13.3, 13.6
and 13.20 which establish a Historic Preservatio~ Oveday Zone to protect historic resources.
Policies 3.3.1-3.3.8 and programs 13.2, 13.12-13.15 and 13.16.13.18 promote community
awareness and involvement in historic preservation. Policies and programs that provide
incentives to revitalize resources while protecting them include polices 3.5.1-3.5.8, 3.4.1, and
3.42 and programs 13.5, 13.7, 13.10-13.12, 13.18-I3.2~ 1323 and 1325-13.26. Two additional
measures have been identified for mitigation. One is to notify owners when significant
resources are identified on their property. The .other is to establish,.a program of..
rehabilitation, preservation, and retrofitting of older homes and structures where it might .
be needed to reduce vibration impacts due to traffic as determined.by guid~, of the
Historic Resources Commission.
- . . H\." -~ ':1~
~.. ~ . : - .. If
The City Council finds that these policies and programs and mitigation measures ~B
the adverse impacts to historical and archaeological resources. The Council also
acknowledges that future circumstances may result in decisions impacting historical
resources or in accidental loss of archaeological resources. The Council further finds that
no additional measures are known that can further reduce adverse historical/archaeological
resource impacts in the City without significantly and substantially interfering with
community objectives for future development.
These Plan policies and programs and mitigation measures can be carried out by the
City staff and other agencies as appropriate. Therefore, the Council directs staff to .
implement them at the appropriate time in the future to ensure that
historical/ archaeological resources are protected to the maximum degree feasible.
4. Circulation/Traffic
Significant Effect
The final EIR identified decreases in Level of Service (LOS) to "E" or IF on 49
roadway segments as a result of development under the proposed General Plan.
19
Finding
Changes C:i.tterations have been required ~ or incorporated into, the project which
reduce the ~flow impacts, as identified in the final EIR and its components. However,
these changes.;r alterations cannot reduce the identified significant adverse traffic effects
to iL level.of insignificance. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make
infeasible the additional mitigation necessary to reduce these traffic impacts to a level of
insignificance. .
Facts in Support of Findings
The proposed General Plan contains policies to substantially increase circulation system
capacity and to maintain acceptable flows along most roadways within the City. Policies
6.1.1-6.1.14 establish procedures to mitigate traffic impacts to the level feasible.
Implementation of policies 6.1.11 and 6.1.14 is not fully implementable by the City Council
because many locations within the City already exceed the LOS "C' standard contained in
these policies. An additional reason is the physical limitation on road widths in many
portions which prevent the City from meeting the LOS "C' standard without causing severe
and unacceptable adverse impacts on adjacent property. In addition to the policies cited
above, implementation programs 16.1-16.22 establish the mechanisms to reduce tra4ic .
impacts to the level feasible. Two mitigation measures have been identified in the fiJt&1
EIR that will require traffic studies and transportation demand systems m9.nS\lement to I>e
implemented for specific projects in the future. The Council finds that these measures shl1l
be implemented as outlined. . ,
The City Council finds that these policies and programs lessen the adverse impacts to
future circulation/traffic systems, but they are not capable of reducing these impacts below
a significant level. Certain locations within the circulation system cannot physically be
improved to allow an acceptable LOS without severe and unacceptable adverse impacts on
adjacent properties. Because of this limitation imposed by existing development and the
existing circulation system, the Council finds that adverse traffic impacts cannot be reduced
to an insignificant level. The Council further finds that no additional measures are known
that can further reduce adverse circulation/traffic impacts for the City without significantly
and substantially interfering with community objectives for future development.
These Plan policies and programs and mitigation measures can be carried out by the City
staff and other agencies as appropriate. Therefore, the Council directs staff to implement
them at the appropriate time in the future to ensure that circulation/traffic impacts are
mitigated to the maximum degree feasible in the City.
5. Air Ouali~
Significant Effect
The final EIR indicates that future development under the proposed General Plan will
generate an additional 211 tons per day (tpd) more carbon monoxide, 36 tpd of nitrogen
oxides, 4.4 tpd of sulfur oxides, 6 tpd of fine particulate matter and 19 tpd of reactive
20
I ..
organic gases relative to 1987 emissions. The increase in emissions is considered to be a
substantial ~~bution to existing air quality violations.
$~'J~c-~-....
E9;...~I;...';.~~:'. . -
c"'-'5~i!". .
~~:-
. Changes or alterations have been incorporated into the project which reduce the air
quality emissions and contribution to air quality violations, as identified in the final EIR and
its components. However, these changes or alterations cannot reduce the significant
adverse effect to a level of insignificance. Specific economic, social, or other considerations
make infe~ble the addition of mitigation necessary to reduce the forecasted air quality
impacts to. a'level of insignificance.
Facts in Support of Findings
The proposed General Plan contains policies to minimi7,e air pollutant emissions and
to reduce the impact on existing violations of ambient air quality standards, both state and
federal. Policies 10.11.1-10.11.13, and 10.11.12 and implementation programs 110.1():'110~18,
110.19, 110.23, 110.24, 110.27-110.29, and 110.31 establish mechani~ms to minimi7.e vehicle
travel and provide for participation in regional programs to reduce emissioDS and improve
air quality. The City Council finds that these policies and programs lessen the adve~
impacts to air quality, however, it is not possible to provide for additional vehicle miles aPd
population growth without incurring air pollutant emissioDS that will contnbute)o
continuing violations of the ambient air quality health standards. Existing teclmology msattes
mitigation of mobile source emissions and related air quality impacts. ~o a. level of
insignificance infeasible. The Council further finds that no additional measur~ are known
that can further reduce air quality impacts for the project without signifi~t1y and
substantially interfering with community objectives for future development.
These Plan policies and programs can be carried out by the City staff and other
agencies as appropriate. Therefore, the Council directs staff to implement them at the
appropriate time in the future to ensure that air quality emissions from future growth and
develop~ent are reduced to the maximum degree feasible in the City.
6. Bioloiical Resources
Significant Effect
Development of vacant land within the City under the new General Plan has the
potential to cause significant loss of sensitive biological resources within the planning area.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the potential adverse biological effects, as identified in the final
EIR and its components.
21
. .
Facts in Support of Findings
The propoSed General Plan contains a series of policies and programs designed to
reduce potentfirfinpacts on biological resources from development under the Plan to the
degree feasibR!~ These include: policy 10.1.1 and program 110.1 which are designed to
aCCVJire and maintain a biological data base . for the planning area; incorporation of
development restrictions and standards in the Development Code (110.2); mitigation and
monitoring, policy 10.2.2 and program 110.2-110.5; acquisition of important biological
resource corridOrs, policy 10.4.1, 110.6, 110.7 and 110:'; preservation and enhancement of
riparian habitats policy 10.5.1, 110.1, 110.2 and 110.8'; protection of federally-endangered
plant species, policies 10.2.1 and 10.6.3 and programs 1.10.2-110.5; and review of projects
located in the BRM by the City's Environmental Reyi~w Qommittee and consulting biologist
or other environmental professionals, policy 10.2.2' and programs 110.2 and 110.3..
The Oty Council finds that these policies and ~ and mitiga~ measure lessen
the adverse impacts to biological resources. The Couacil also acknowlWes that future
ciraunstances may result in land use decisious i~~,..f ,. or resulting
in the accidental loss of biological resource&. The CO .....:~ er fiDdir. .w additional
~e~ are fe~ible ~t this ~~ tha~furth<<t~ :WV~'- .' resour~
lDlpacts m the Oty WIthout Slgnifi~y ~...~tiaiiy- m~e. . '" .' _
objectives for future development. ~ese'~Pfan'~~and, rognmis:"'em~ .'
by Oty staff and other agencies 8s.:._QRiiite----rC;fOr~. .... - ...." ,'.
implement them at the appropria.!.C!JI.,.m _".'. in tlll!;..... .'. t. ~.". . ........
effective in minimizing potentia1;I~ sig1lifi~qf~bJIIo .'. urcei::~'
· · .>~:;;:~df:~:. ~;t. :~;.::: ~,::~,>;~;;;. ,-" ,".. .1". .~..,. ""
7. ~O~QiY ISelSmlc.c ~. ~::~:~;Ec.:~:~f".;j;~~i~<... . ~.-7:1iii1iL~';i}
Szgnificant Effect ... ,. ......~-......... ".c" ."..( . .... ~ . ~"" i;fi . ..' """,,,,,,, ,,~.-. ...
and~:u~::~~o~n::~~~~~~~~~::%_' ..
wind/water erosion hazar~" ~~. significant ground~shaJdnl'1U11I daln~ated
to this impact cannot be:.a~~~~~d to aJL.insignifi~eL ..c' ~~'f':::f:":' .
Finding,_~, ~,;;'.,'I~(': . .,,,} ..... . .,~:.
Changes or alterilti~'Jiave,~peen mcorporated into lhe~. project which avoid or
substantially lessea:.tJie;.:~ retOrenced significant geologic and. seismic11azards, as
identified in the fi.nal'EIR::and its,' components. .-
.,~ .......:." "
Facts Ui,Siipwrt of 'Findings
The proposed General Plan contains a series of policies which will minimi7.e the
exposure of future residents and structures to geologic and seismic hazards. However,
exposure to .significant regional ground shaking and related impacts cannot be avoided.
Fault rupture mitigation is incorporated in policies 12.1.1 and 12.1.2 and implementation
programs 112.1-112.5, 112.10, 112.27, and 112.29. Policy. 12.2.1 and programs 112.1-112.5,
22
112.18, and 112.23-112.29 mitigate potential structural collapse by incorporating programs
that establish seismic performance standards, etc. Liquefaction hazard reduction is
contained in policies 12.3.1-12.3.4 and programs 112.1, I1J.2, 112.5, 112.6, and 112.18-112.20
and 112.22. PGlides and programs for critical facilities are contaiBed 12.4.1-12.4.8 and 112.1-
112.3, 112.5, 112.9-112.11, 112.18, 112.19, 112.23, 112.26, 112.27, 112.34, 112.37, and 112.38.
Impacts Oil existing structures that are hazardous can be mitigated by policies 12.5.1 and
12.5.2 and programs 112.10, 112.11, 112.13-112.14, 11227, 112.43, and 11246. Emergency
preparedness plans are outlined in policies 12.6.1-12.6.3 and programs 112.7 and 112.30-
112.37.
The City Council finds that these policies and programs lessen the adverse impacts from
geologic and seismic hazards. The Council also acknowledges that future seismic events
pose an unavoidable, significant risk for existing and future residents. The. Council further
finds that no additional measures are feasible to further reduce this seismic risk without
significantly and substantially interfering with community objectives for future development.
These Plan policies and programs can be carried out by. the "a~ ~ and other agencies
as appropriate. Therefore, the Council directs staff to implement them at the appropriate.
time in the future to ensure that geology and seismic impacts and hazards are.reducod.40 ~
the lowest level achievable within the City. . '<j. ;e,:"~Jrn'" "'_js;~;!eJ
, ':"'" ,:,~?~r:fi.'.".,..... '......;.~.~.'.\.'.
,.:. ,r~ .',1:"
8.
Noise
Significant Effect
-~.
The final EIR projects an overall 4.4 decibel noise increase due to trafff~ fficreases
alone. Audible noise increases of 5 decibels or more will occur on the following roads: Mill
Street, Mt. Vemon Avenue, Sterling Avenue, University Parkway, Kendall Street, E Street,
Rancho Avenue, 5th Street, Inland Center Drive and Cajon Boulevard. Exposure of
existing residents to such increases is considered an unavoidable significant adverse impact
of future development under the proposed General Plan.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been incorporated into the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the noise effects of this project, as identified in the final EIR and its
components.
Facts in Support of Findings
The proposed General Plan contains a series of policies and programs which can reduce
noise but not to acceptable levels given the City's noise exposure criteria. The policies that
reduce noise levels include 14.1.1, 14.2.1, 14.3.1-14.3.9, 14.4.1, 14.4.2, 14.5.1, 14.5.2, 14.6.1-
14.6.5, 14.7.1-14.7.3, 14.8.1, 14.8.2, 14.9.1, 14.9.2, 14.10.1, and 14.10.2. Noise reduction
programs include 114.1-114.14 and 114.16-114.26. These policies reduce noise generation,
prevent new sensitive uses from being developed in high noise areas, and fail to provide
for noise buffers to reduce noise to acceptable levels along certain existing transportation
routes where development already exists. Mitigation in such areas is not feasible due to the
23
~xpense of noise buffers, the conflict with other goals determined as more important (such
as community d~gn) and physicallimitatioDS which occur along many thoroughfares).
The Oty.. COuncil finds that these policies and programs lessen the adverse noise
impacts within-the community. The Council also acknowledges that future circumstances
wil\ occur where noise objectives cannot be met and where significant noise impacts (many
of which currently exist) will be unavoidable. The Council further finds that no additional
measures can be feasibly implemented to reduce adverse noise impacts at certain locations
in the City without significantly and substantially interfering with community objectives for
future development. These Plan policies and.pro!Vam.4; can be carried out by the Gty staff
and other agencies as appropriate. Therefore, the Council directs staff to implement them
at the appropriate time in the future to ensure that the mitigation is provided to minimi7.e
noise level exposure to the degree feasible.
IV. SUMMARY
'._ t :.1 i ;~.:.. ...u ...i.. ~
The City Council finds that all environmental issues except land use, housing,
historical/archaeological resources, circulation/traffic, air quality, biological resources,-
geologic/seismic hazards, and noise can be and will be mitigated below a significant level
by implementing the policies and implementation programs -and the mitigatiOIlt JDeaSUIeS
identified in the above analysis of environmental issues. The Council concludes that _
Gty can implement all of the measures on: it - OWA.' -lbe Council- also - found that tie
transportation/circulation policies may IlGt be fully implemented in the future. ic,.-!4'
;:...& '
24
-.--
G) () rn
::t- ~ 0
C""(Q C"1
0 ...... - ~"' 0- Q
(00 "'~
O'"-C'l ~ ",0 ~ ..S) ~
~ 1"-_ ..,. ~~ :T"... \n... et
CO
~~ <'1 ~- :r ,.... ,....
<'1 :r
~ ~i I II J i 5 5i
~' ::I
..
.!
: - _..
J eJ 0
c::
c .
t: .s
- ~ LR $ e.o
CJ ~.... colf)
11\,... .5
iter ? -0- ~.. ::r:" }
C'f')~ ~
1 f$ i ~I ! !
...
"
c::
.
<Y,~ 0 .,.:
rC'\ ..9 ~
(ii'o ] C'1 i
~... \0
3" Lti cr- Ln J!
o~ $'..g c-.
c ~ ..Q. ~. "," =-
n:s C""CG) ..a 0-... ~ -
s: ~d 0 . C"\ ~ ~ ::s..~
=C'1 C'f\ \t\ s-'
rt-C") .,
- 1m I 1"1 .2
t: II I
QJ b
c e
QJ I
(.j J!
"=' C.
QJ "p .1.;.
eI)
0- a- .. '!'a- ..
> -~
QJ ,.. b .,.
i IV\ ~ -r
" r;:t ~.. Ii..
QI -" . CW\ -
.c 1m I << 5.! -
- J
... zz
~
-
:: l
0
~ CI
"
'-
.. 0
= c::
-a 0
Nt'-.. CI'\ 88 = ~ \0 -:
QJ ~~ e
- Co- N \,Q CI') = Ln
n:s C'f') ,.. . QQ = N \:
05 o c:: ~~ ..,; a\a\ ~ ~.. U'i' -a
=:J ~ ~ In = 0\ c:
- ~~ N \0 ,.. CI
eI) .5
~ .. an
~ \,Q ~
~ fit
!
.!
\0 ,.. ~ << CI') 0 c
\C) 00 . ~ QO e
~-:. \C ZZ CI') 0\
.. .. ~
Qf""'f ~ ~ >
f""'f ~ '-
0
- C
en CI
- C E
~ ~ 0
~ ~ - Q.
~~ ~ c:r -- .. en 0
- -- ~ ...
eI) 0- _ - eI) '-e QJ ~
- sos c ....... '" c- o. >
_c ell - e eI) - C,I
~ = ~<U -0 ~ ....... c:: ~
d,:! - - e ~ !J
j =~ (I) ~ ~= ~ =
c: c - - '" = -- - ~
co- =: '" 0_ n:s U .. - ::I
u= C = e .... - - ~ fj
-0- '- QJ CI) -
-~ Ci5~ - e o~ - = = .s
~ ~
. ~ - - "l:S a.
u"=' ~ = ~ c:: = 0
==- u ... =- ..
TABLEt
Organization of Draft General Plan Topics
;~th Respect to Required and Optional Elements
~7.:"'-:'~, .
-
San Bernardino
General Plan Topics/Elements
J
Chapter One: Community
Development
1.0 Land Use and Urban Design
2.0 Housing
3.0 Historical Resources
4.0 Economic Development
5.0 Public Space Urban Design
Chapter Two: Infrastructure and
Community Services
6.0 Circulation
7.0 Utilities
8.0 Public Facilities and Services
9.0 Parks and Recreation
Chapter Three: Environmental
Resources
Mandated Element "Permissive" Element
Land Use
Housing
Urban Design
Historical
Economic Development
Urban Design. . '
Circulation
I
..
.f:
~'"''
InfrastructurelUtilities '~,'
Public Services
Parks and Recreation
Public Safety
Open Space
:v-~ .~,..
,.
10.0 Natural Resour~ Conservation
Open Space
11.0 Energy and Water Conservation Conservation
Chapter Four: Hazards
12.0 Geologic and Seismic
13.0 Hazardous Materials and Uses
14.0 Noise
15.0 Wind and Fire
16.0 Flooding
Public Safety
Public Safety
Land Use
Noise
Public Safety
Public Safety
Land Use
C\I
w
a:
::)
Cl
LA:
en
Z
o
i=
o
C
en
cc
::)
~
<
w
a:
<
CJ
~
Z
Z
<
-oJ
Q.
c
0-_
c= CD
~ 0 'E'j g
ftI c: ftI ftI G)
~ :0- E!~
~ :a: .!<c
o ....._
CD CDI"'" (I) t! !
c'" >'~ - 8..!
~.. :.~ c..... .," " · '~'.~ =.. ':, ; .i:: Q.
. =~ ", ~:]8c >-
1:'.... . _
'!F~ ~-' 02.0
,-. [I]
o
c
:0
..
ftI
C
..
G)
CD-
ec
alQ)
(l)E
-1:
Oftl
>-Q.
-G)
00
,. Q
CDe
~c
:Ie
o.
CJ)E
l.
-0
'JZ
~
...--
~
~
(5
(.)
~
~
~
,~
I
I
I
~
, '::I~7"VU
~ <---~
EXHIBIT 2
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
PROJECT BENEFITS
In order to make a decision whether to approve a project that will have an adverse
environmental impact, the benefits of the proposed must be balanced against its
unavoidable, significant adverse environmental impacts. "If the benefits of a proposed
project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse effects may be
considered 'acceptable'" (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093 (a)). Benefits from a
project are defined as those improvements or gains to the community that would not occur
without the proposed project. The benefits from adopting a new General Plan are
preliminary based on the higher quality community environment that will exist as the City
develops under the new Plan. The sections below briefly describe the most important
benefits identified as a result of adopting the General Plan as proposed.
Benefits
1. The General Plan will provide opportunities to continue and strengthen the
City's region-serving role by intensifying existing and introducing new uses that will attract
the clientele and meet the needs of the greater region. These include employee-generating
commercial and industrial, corporate and professional office, visitor and convention-serving,
governmental, educational and cultural uses.
2. The Plan will improve the general quality of development and construction
by mandating extensive use of on-site landscaping and amenities and providing architectural
design guidelines which dispense with undifferentiated "stucco-boxes" and establish a
"pedestrian oriented" character in the ground elevation of commercial structures in key
activity areas of the City.
3. The General Plan requires the preparation of a comprehensive historic
resources survey, a preservation ordinance and an Historic Resources Commission that will
help to preserve historic and archaeological resources. Retention and protection of the
City's early built environment will create a recognizable identity and a source of community
pride.
4. The General Plan provides for the development of a variety of housing types
to meet the needs of all segments of society by establishing programs for the provision of
affordable housing, the preservation and improvement of existing housing, a provision for
the development of shelters for the homeless and the provision of housing for people with
special needs.
1
5. The General Plan provides for the linkage of new development with available
and expanded infrastructure and services including streets, transit, sewers, water, storm
drainage, energy, and communication. The timing of development will be phased with the
provision of necessary infrastructure/service improvements, the cost of which shall be borne
by those deriving the benefit.
6. The Circulation Element of the General Plan provides policies and programs
designed to provide a transportation network with adequate capacity to accommodate
proposed buildout, including mechanisms to monitor and maintain acceptable traffic
conditions.
7. The General Plan will ease the potential effects of traffic-generated noise
through policies that require the installation of mitigation measures such as noise walls or
landscape and inhibits through trips by the use of cul-de-sacs and one-way streets in
residential neighborhoods.
8. The General Plan designates a Geological Hazards Overlay that helps to
reduce the risk to life and property, economic and social dislocation and disruption of vital
services that would result from earthquake damage by increasing setbacks and construction
standards beyond those currently required by law. Design and performance standards, the
prohibition of buildings within 50 feet of either side of an active fault, site specific studies
for proposed projects within areas of liquefaction, and the prohibition of critical facilities
within Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones are some of the requirements.
9. The General Plan contributes to the health and safety of the residents of the
City by providing city-wide programs for disaster preparedness and recovery planning in
the event of a major earthquake, fire flood or other disaster.
10. The plan designates a Biological Resources Management Overlay District in
the foothills and in the foothill drainage courses, which regulates development for increased
protection of significant plant and resources. Development restrictions and standards will
minimize removal of vegetation, minimize erosion, sedimentation and runoff by appropriate
protection or landscape, prevent groundwater depletion or substantial interference with
surface and subsurface flows, and provide for natural vegetation buffers.
11. The General Plan provides programs emphasizing proper management of
hazardous materials, siting of facilities and effectiveness emergency response in order to
protect the residents of San Bernardino and the environment from damages resulting from
improper handling of hazardous materials.
12. The General Plan will provide increased fire protection for foothill areas by
incorporating into the City's Development Code design and development standards from
the "Foothill Communities Protective Greenbelt Program" including fire resistant roofing
and fencing materials, dual access into neighborhoods and subdivisions and management
of vegetation.
2
13. The General Plan will improve the quality of life for the residents of San
Bernardino through implementation of the policies pertaining to upgrading police and fire
services, civic institutions and cultural facilities, education and their interrelationship with
the other elements of the Plan. This City will become a safer and more desirable place for
families to reside and will provide families increased opportunities to further their
participation in civic, cultural and educational events.
14. The General plan establishes a Hillside Management Overlay District to
encourage a sensitive form of development which complements the natural and visual
character of the hillsides and protects the public health, safety and general welfare by
insuring development does not create soil erosion, silting of lower slopes, slide damage,
flood problems and severe cutting or scarring.
II. OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The City Council's findings set forth in the preceding sections have identified all the
adverse impacts and the feasible mitigation measures which reduce those impacts to
insignificant levels (where feasible), and have analyzed the reasonable project alternatives
to determine whether such alternatives might reduce or eliminate significant environmental
effects. Significant environmental effects which cannot be mitigated to insignificant levels
will occur if the proposed General Plan is approved by the Council and future development
is guided by the Plan. CEQA provides that a Lead Agency (the Council in this case) may
approve a project despite the occurrence of significant environmental impacts if it
determines that such impacts are acceptable when balanced against the social, economic,
and other benefits of the proposed project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15093). This section
sets forth the factors considered in the Council's balancing effort.
The Council has evaluated five alternatives to the adoption of the proposed General
Plan. These alternatives are described in Section II of these findings which is hereby
incorporated by reference. The Council has analyzed each of these alternatives to
determine whether and to what extent they minimize or eliminate significant environmental
effects caused by implementation of the proposed General Plan and whether and to what
extent they meet the proposed project objectives. The Council finds that these alternatives
(no project, low growth, moderate growth, high growth, and draft plan variation (Alternative
H)), do not significantly decrease the environmental impacts caused by the implementing
the proposed General Plan and/or do not meet the project objectives for the reasons
specified in Section II of the Findings and Facts in Support Thereof and are therefore
infeasible (CEQA Guidelines Section 15364).
The Council finds that the more intense development alternatives (no project, moderate
growth, high growth and draft plan variation) could meet project objectives but they also
have the potential to cause additional intolerable significant adverse environmental impacts
than the proposed General Plan. The moderate growth alternative would result in about
1,131 fewer residences being constructed than the proposed General Plan, but the only
significant impact that would be reduced when compared to the proposed General Plan is
exposure to ground shaking. All other significant adverse impacts would remain the same
or be increased under this alternative. This occurs because commercial square footage is
3
..
increased substantially in the moderate growth alternative which increases traffic and
related adverse impacts. The Council rejects these alternatives in favor of the proposed
General Plan, which is the environmentally superior alternative.
The Council finds that the low growth alternative can reduce some adverse impacts, but
that it will result in more significant adverse impacts in four of the eight significant impact
categories identified for the proposed General Plan. These were: land use compatibility,
housing, circulation and traffic, and air quality. The reductions in significant impacts from
the low growth alternative includes exposure to regional seismic ground shaking and noise.
The potential impacts to historical and archaeological resources and to biological resources
remain approximately the same for these two alternatives. The Council finds that when
reviewed in total, the low growth alternative produces more significant adverse
environmental impacts than the proposed General Plan. The Council rejects this alternative
in favor of the proposed General Plan, which is considered the overall environmentally
superior alternative.
The Council finds that an alternative location for the project is infeasible since the a
general plan must inherently govern the community for which it has been prepared. Thus,
the Council rejects an alternative location as infeasible and unable to meet project
objectives.
The Council has reviewed the entire record, all public comments and findings for the
certification of the City of San Bernardino 1989 General Plan Final EIR. The Council and
City Planning Commission have held over 20 public meetings and hearings during the past
three months. The Council has identified several (seven) issues where no potential for
significant impact can occur and thus no mitigation is proposed. These issues are addressed
in Section IIA of the Findings and Facts in Support Thereof. The Council has also
identified eight (8) potentially significant environmental effects for which feasible mitigation
measures and alterations incorporated into the proposed General Plan are available to
lessen such effects to a level of insignificance. These effects are described in Section lIB
of the Findings and Facts in Support Thereof. The feasible mitigation measures identified
in Section lIB are hereby adopted by the Board as part of its resolution approving the
proposed General Plan.
The Council has identified eight potentially significant environmental effects that cannot
be substantially mitigated to a level of insignificance. These effects are described in Section
IIC of the Findings and Facts in Support Thereof and are hereby incorporated by reference.
Despite their inability to fully mitigation environmental impacts, the Council adopts the
mitigation measures and alterations incorporated into the proposed General Plan as part
of its resolution approving the Plan. These measures will minimize the identified
environmental effects to the fullest extent feasible.
The Council has identified several social, economic and other benefits which will result
from implementation of the proposed project. These benefits are described in Section I of
this Summary Statement of Overriding Considerations and are hereby incorporated by
reference. The Council has balanced the substantial social, economic and other benefits
from approval and development of the proposed project against the identified significant
4
adverse environmental effects of the proposed General Plan. The Council finds that the
social, economic, environmental and other benefits identified herein override the identified
significant adverse environmental effects.
5
....
~ ..
~// .0- r.)<.../
{7-'V
i...( -~ .;2-
EXHIBIT 3
MITIGATION REPORTING/MONITORING PROGRAM
for the 1989
City of San Bernardino General Plan
Introduction
In compliance with Public Resource Code Section 21081.6 (enacted by passage of AB3180
(Cortese)), public agencies approving projects which cause significant environmental impacts
must monitor the mitigation of those impacts. Implementation of the City of San
Bernardino Draft General Plan may result in significant environmental impacts. This
Mitigation Reporting/Monitoring Program (the "Program"), prepared for the City of San
Bernardino, ensures implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the findings
made by the City Council in adopting the Draft General Plan.
Miti~ation Measures and Reportin~/Monitorine Activities
Land Use Mitigation Measures
1. Relocation assistance shall be provided in accordance with the California Relocation
Assistance Act or the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition
Policies Act.
2. The City shall actively involve the public in the formulation and review of specific
plans for regional serving uses proposed for the "Regional Opportunities Corridor."
3. The City shall monitor economically "depressed" commercial corridors in the
Northwest Redevelopment Project Area, as well as other depressed commercial
corridors, to determine to what extent development is or is not occurring and report
the findings with recommendations to the Mayor and Council every two years.
Land Use Reporting/Monitoring Action
The City Council finds that the three land use mitigation measures can and should be
implemented by the City in its regulatory and legislative authority. The City Council directs
that implementation of these measures be carried out by City staff and that the following
additional measures be accomplished by staff to report or monitor the mitigation action:
1
1. The staff shall document compliance with the State of California Uniform Relocation
Act or the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies
Act by placing the administrative record of each intermediary action into a separate
file that will be summarized and reported to the Council every two years after the
adoption of the General Plan.
2. The staff shall document such public involvement by maintaining a transcript of such
meetings as might be held specifically to develop and review specific plans for the
"Regional Opportunities Corridor."
3. The staff shall gather summary data on each project approved for development in
each of the "depressed commercial corridors" within the Northwest Redevelopment
Project Area, as well as other depressed commercial corridors, and present the data
to the Council in a report format comparing each of the areas. This report shall be
presented to the Council every two years from the date of adoption of the General
Plan.
Housing Mitigation Measures
1. As existing housing units are displaced for higher density or other uses, the City shall
require that relocation assistance is provided in accordance with the California
Uniform Relocation Assistance Act or the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act.
2. The City shall monitor state and federal programs and increase funds, as available,
for assistance in the provision of housing for low and moderate income households.
Housing Reporting/Monitoring Action
The City Council finds that the two housing mItIgation measures can and should be
implemented by the City in its regulatory and legislative authority. The City Council directs
that implementation of these measures be carried out by City staff and that the following
additional measures be accomplished by staff to report or monitor the mitigation action:
1. City staff shall document all assistance provided in accordance with the California
Uniform Relocation Assistance Act or the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act and summarize this information in an annual report
to the City Council.
2. City staff shall itemize in annual financial statements to the Council the annual
change of real state and federal dollars available and spent as assistance in the
provision of housing for low and moderate income households.
Historical and Archaeological Resources Mitigation Measures
1. To more effectively implement the City's program of certifying historic resources,
implementation program 13.4 should be amended to provide for the notification of
2
.~
. .
owners when significant resources are identified on their property, together with
explanation of the benefits and constraints that this condition represents.
2. To reduce vibration impacts due to traffic, establish a program of rehabilitation,
preservation and retrofitting of older homes and structures where it might be needed
as determined by guidelines of the Historic Resources Commission.
Historical and Archaeological Resources Reporting/Monitoring Action
The City Council finds that these historical and archaeological mitigation measures can and
should be i~plemented by the City in its regulatory and legislative authority. The City
Council directs that implementation of these measures be carried out by City staff and that
the following additional measure be accomplished by staff to report or monitor the
mitigation action:
1. City staff shall ImtIate and maintain a correspondence file for property owner
notifications initiated by staff and for resultant correspondence from owners with
staff notations regarding disposition of the resource.
2. Following development of a program to rehabilitate, retrofit, and preserve older
homes and structures consistent with Historic Resources Commission guidelines, the
City staff shall retain a copy of the program in the City files for review by the public.
Circulation and Traffic Mitigation Measures
1. Prior to development, a detailed traffic analysis should be required for projects
expected to produce vehicle trips in excess of a threshold established per
implementation program 16.13 and appropriate mitigation measures identified to
reduce trip generation and/or maintain a LOS of "C" or otherwise acceptable to the
Mayor and Common Council. Studies shall identify specific mitigation measures such
as signalization improvements, driveway location, parking, vanpools, carpools,
preferential parking for carpools, flextime schedules, bike facilities or other suitable
mitigations.
2. If necessary, the City should require the implementation of Transportation Demand
Systems to provide for area-wide transportation management for new projects
identified as having a significant regional impact on the transportation system.
Circulation and Traffic Reporting/Monitoring Action
The City Council finds that the two circulation and traffic mitigation measures can and
should be implemented by the City in its regulatory and legislative authority. The City
Council directs that implementation of these measures be carried out by City staff and that
the following additional measures be accomplished by staff to report or monitor the
mitigation action:
3
-"
. .
1. City staff shall make permanent entry in development files, for projects meeting the
threshold criteria, of the location where the required analysis can be located and of
the disposition of the mitigation measures recommenced by that analysis.
2. City staff shall make permanent entry in development files, for projects meeting the
significant regional criteria, of the implementation particulars of Transportation
Demand Systems as applied to the particular project.
Water Supply Mitigation Measures
1. Mitigation measures for potentially adverse secondary impacts resulting from the
construction of new water facilities would be identified during the environmental
review process for specific development proposals.
Water Supply Reporting/Monitoring Action
The City Council finds that full implementation this mitigation measure is outside of the
responsibility and jurisdiction of the City of San Bernardino however the changes can and
should be adopted by each local agency having such responsibility and jurisdiction. With
regard to the aspects of this mitigation measure within the responsibility and jurisdiction
of the City of San Bernardino the City Council finds this mitigation measure can and should
be implemented by the City in its regulatory and legislative authority. The City Council
directs that implementation of this measure be carried out by City staff and that the
following additional measures be accomplished by staff to report or monitor the mitigation
action:
1. City staff shall maintain a full and complete record of the environmental review
accomplished for each specific water facility development proposal.
Sewage Disposal Mitigation Measures
1. Mitigation Measures for potentially adverse secondary impacts resulting from the
construction of new wastewater facilities will be identified during the environmental
review process for specific development proposals.
Sewage Disposal Reporting/Monitoring Action
The City Council finds this mitigation measure can and should be implemented by the City
in its regulatory and legislative authority. The City Council directs that implementation of
these measures be carried out by City staff and that the following additional measures be
accomplished by staff to report or monitor the mitigation action:
1. City staff shall maintain a full and complete record of the environmental review
accomplished for each specific sewage disposal facility development proposal.
4
\.
, '.
Communications Mitigation Measures
1. Mitigation measures for potentially adverse secondary impacts resulting from the
construction of new communications facilities would be identified during the
environmental review process for specific development proposals.
COI.lmunications Reporting/Monitoring Action
The City Council finds this mitigation measure can and should be implemented by the City
in its regulatory and legislative authority. The City Council directs that implementation of
these measures be carried out by City staff and that the following additional measures be
accomplished by staff to report or monitor the mitigation action:
1. City staff shall maintain a full and complete record of the environmental review
accomplished for each specific communications facility development proposal.
Flooding Mitigation Measures
1. Mitigation measures for potentially adverse secondary impacts resulting from the
construction of new storm drain and flood control facilities would be identified
during the environmental review process for specific development proposals.
Flooding Reporting Monitoring Action
The City Council finds this mitigation measure can and should be implemented by the City
in its regulatory and legislative authority. The City Council directs that implementation of
these measures be carried out by City staff and that the following additional measures be
accomplished by staff to report or monitor the mitigation action:
1. City staff shall maintain a full and complete record of the environmental review
accomplished for each specific storm drain and flood control facility development
proposal.
Hazardous Materials/Uses Mitigation Measures
1. Future development in areas suspected to have soil contamination shall require a
detailed soil analysis as part of the environmental review procedure. This analysis
or survey will identify any residual hazardous materials and necessary mitigation
measures.
2. Recognizing the City's scope of responsibilities and financial capabilities, the City
shall treat contaminated groundwater and surface water using the most effective and
best available control technology.
5
..
.. -'.
Hazardous Materials /V ses Reporting/Monitoring Action
The City Council finds that the two hazardous materials/uses mitigation measures can and
should be implemented by the City in its regulatory and legislative authority. The City
Council directs that implementation of these measures be carried out by City staff and that
the following additional measures be accomplished by staff to report or monitor the
mitigation action:
1. City staff shall make permanent entry in development files, for projects meeting the
previous contamination criteria, of the location where the required analysis can be
located and of the disposition of the mitigation measures recommended by that
analysis.
2. The City shall retain treatment program documents (including the type of treatment
technology utilized) in public files when ground water or surface waters are treated
to remove contaminants.
Biological Resource Mitigation Measure
1. The City shall complete and present the studies identified in implementation
programs 110.6 and 110.8 to the Mayor and City Council within two years of Plan
adoption.
Biological Resource Reporting/Monitoring Action
The City Council finds this mitigation measure can and should be implemented by the City
in its regulatory and legislative authority. The City Council directs that implementation of
this measure be carried out by City staff and that the following additional measure be
accomplished by staff to report or monitor the mitigation action;
1. The City staff shall retain the dated hearing notices to document compliance with
this measure and the studies shall be retained on file for public review.
Conclusion
This Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program shall be retained by the City in the Planning
Department general plan project file. As various mitigation measures are fully implemented
their completion should be documented by appropriate memorandum to that file.
6
Oversized
Map
Attached to
Original
Resolution