HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-422
1
2
3 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE
FACTS, FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS,
4 CERTIFYING THE FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
5 REPORT, ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PLAN, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN AND THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT
6 SPECIFIC PLAN, ADOPTING THE UNIVERSITY HILLS SPECIFIC PLAN
7 AND APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 18969, TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP NO. 186% AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18140.
8
9
10
11
12
13
RESOLUTION NO. 2008-422
SECTION I. RECITALS
(a)
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San
Bernardino ("City") adopted the General Plan for the City, and the University District
Specific Plan, by Resolution No. 2005-362 on November 1, 2005; and
(b)
WHEREAS, Inland Communities Corp. made application for the
14 University Hills Specific Plan and associated Tentative Parcel Map No, 18969, Tentative
15
16
17
Tract Map No. 18696 and Tentative Tract Map No. 18140; and
(c)
WHEREAS, a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report was completed
18 for the project by Michael Brandman Associates; and
19
20
21
(d)
WHEREAS, the University District Specific Plan includes the area
.
proposed for development under the University Hills Specific Plan; and
(e)
WHEREAS, on Apri117, 2008, the Environmental Review
22 Committee determined that the University Hills Specific Plan could have significant
23
24
25
26
27
28
effects on the environment, and thus warranted preparation of a Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA); and
(f)
WHEREAS, the Notice of Preparation, indicating the intent of the City to
prepare a Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report was made known to the
1
.
,.......
2008-422
comments from April 24, 2008 to May 23, 2008; and
(g) WHEREAS, on May 7, 2008, the City held a public scoping meeting to
solicit public comments on the preparation of the Draft Subsequent EIR; and
(h) WHEREAS, the City considered the concerns and comments received
during the Notice of Preparation comment period in the preparation of the Draft
Subsequent ErR, pursuant to CEQA; and
(i) WHEREAS, a Draft Subsequent EIR was distributed for a 45-day public
review period from August 1,2008 to September 15, 2008; and
2
2008-422
3
.....'.
2008-422
Division staff report, and the recommendation of the Planning Commission; and
(r) WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council made no substantial
modifications to the University Hills Specific Plan, Tentative Parcel Map No. 18969,
Tentative Tract Map No. 18696, and Tentative Tract Map No, 18140 which were not
considered by the Planning Commission during its public hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL HEREBY
4
-,.
2008-422
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Initial Study;
Notice of Preparation;
Responses to the Notice of Preparation;
Draft Subsequent EIR;
7.
Notice of Completion;
List of persons, organizations and public agencies commenting on the
Draft Subsequent EIR;
Comments received on the Draft Subsequent EIR during and after the
public review period;
Responses to comments on the Draft Subsequent EIR.
5
.......
2008-422
E. Although the Final SEIR identifies certain significant adverse
environmental effects that would result if the University Hills Specific Plan, Tentative
Parcel Map No. 18969, Tentative Tract Map No. 18696 and Tentative Tract Map No.
18140 are adopted and approved, all significant adverse environmental effects that can
feasibly be avoided or mitigated will be avoided or mitigated by the implementation of
the mitigation measures as set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for
the Final SEIR, The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan is attached to this
Resolution as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by reference,
F, The Final SEIR has described the alternatives to the University Hills
Specific Plan, even though these alternatives may impede the attainment of the objectives
6
'"."'If
2008-422
1 Specific Plan, set forth ill the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding
2
Considerations.
3
I. The Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, the Mitigation
4
5 Monitoring and Reporting Plan, and the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding
6 Considerations reflect the independent review, analysis and judgment of the Mayor and
7 Common Council of the City of San Bernardino.
8 SECTION III. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FINDINGS
9
10
11
12 A. The proposed General Plan Amendment No. 08-03 is consistent with the
13 following General Plan goals and policies:
14 2.2 Promote development that integrates with and minimizes impacts on
15 surrounding land uses.
16 2.2.2 Require new uses to provide mitigation or buffers between existing uses
17 where potential adverse impacts could occur, including, as appropriate,
18 decorative walls, landscape setbacks, restricted vehicular access,
19 enclosure of parking structures to prevent sound transmission, and control
20 of lighting and ambient illumination.
21 2,2.4 Hillside development and development adjacent to natural areas shall be
22 designed and landscaped to reserve natural features and habitat and
23 protect structures from the threats from natural disasters, such as wildfires
24 and floods.
25 The proposed project will cluster residential development, provide more open space than
26 the currently approved Specific Plan, and has integrated a comprehensive fire protection
27 buffer into the document to assure protection of the residents in the future. The plan also
28
Based upon substantial evidence in the record, the Mayor and Common Council
hereby find:
7
,.--"
2008-422
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 the open space area will not be impacted by development, and can also be studied
12 further.
13 B. The proposed amendments will not be detrimental to the public interest,
14 health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. The proposed General Plan
15 Amendment is consistent with General Plan policies, and the projects associated with the
16 Specific Plan will be required to comply with all City requirements for infrastructure
17 development, including sanitary sewer and domestic water. Further, the Specific Plan
18 has been designed to protect the future residents from fire through integration of a fire
19 protection plan; and from geotechnical hazards through restrictions on development in
20 and near earthquake fault zones.
21 C. The proposed amendments will maintain the appropriate balance of land
22 uses within the City. The proposed Amendment is located in an area where open space
23 and residential land uses are proposed in the General Plan and University District
24 Specific Plan currently. General Plan Amendment No. 08-03 proposes an increase in the
25 amount of open space land, and proposes residential densities greater than those
26 currently planned in the Paradise Hills Specific Plan, in order to allow a clustered
27 development plan. The proposed Specific Plan will impact less land and cluster the
28 residential land uses, rather than impacting natural resources in Badger Canyon. Land
uses open space to minimize the hazards associated with flooding and earthquake
faulting on the site,
2.6 Control development and the use of land to minimi7.e adverse impacts on
significant natural, historic, cultural, habitat and hillside resources.
2.6.1 Hillside development and development adjacent to natural areas shall be
designed and sited to maintain the character of the City's significant open
spaces and historic and cultural landmarks.
The proposed Amendment will allow for the preservation of Badger Canyon for
biological and geologic study. In addition, historic resources identified as occurring in
.
8
,.....'.
2008-422
1
use and circulation element amendments proposed by General Plan Amendment No. 08-
2
3 03 apply equally to corresponding elements of the University District Specific Plan,
which was adopted concurrently with the General Plan by Resolution No. 2005-362,
D. Being a case of an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Map, the
subject parcels are physically suitable (including but not limited to, access, provision of
utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and absence of physical constraints) for
the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development. The
proposed project has integrated designs which will minimize slope impacts, provide a
backbone circulation and utility system, and be visually buffered from the surrounding
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 areas.
12
SECTION IV, UNIVERSITY HILLS SPECIFIC PLAN FINDINGS
13
14
15 hereby find:
16 A, The proposed plan is consistent with the General Plan and the University
17 District Specific Plan. The University Hills Specific Plan is located within the University
18 District Specific Plan area, and is consistent with that Plan's Vision, in that it will
19 provide physical connectivity between the Specific Plan area and the University; be a
20 part of the University Town concept by providing an area where faculty housing will be
21 provided within the Plan; participate in transit efforts to connect the Plan area to the
22 University and other parts of the City; and enhance the regional recreational link in the
23 area by extending planned regional trails through the University Hills Specific Plan area.
24 B. The proposed plan will not be detrimental to the public interest, health,
25 safety, convenience or welfare of the City. The Specific Plan includes standards which
26 will protect residents from the San Andreas Fault, and the potential for ground rupture
27 associated with the Fault, through prohibitions on development in those areas. The Plan
28 also incorporates bio-swales into open space and slopes to allow for the filtration of
9
Based upon substantial evidence in the record, the Mayor and Common Council
-..
2008-422
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 are shallow enough to build upon. The site will be terraced to allow for flatter
12 development areas. The intensity of development proposed allows for 234,8 acres to be
13 preserved as permanent open space, which will provide a valuable resource for the
14 project's residents, the University, and the City as a whole,
15 D. The proposed plan will ensure the development of a desirable character
16 which will be compatible with existing and proposed development in the surrounding
17 neighborhood. The site is visually isolated from surrounding neighborhoods, and
18 development of the project will have only minimal impacts on surrounding views, as
19 demonstrated in the Specific Plan and SEIR. The character of the development, although
20 more intense than lands to the south and west, is consistent with the University District
21 Specific Plan concepts of an urban village in association with the University, which is
22 adjacent to the property,
23 E. The proposed plan will contribute to a balance of land uses so that local
24 residents may work and shop in the community in which they live. The Specific Plan
25 will include connections to local transit, and will be within walking distance of the
26 California State University, San Bernardino (CSUSB) campus. The Plan also includes a
27 planning area reserved for University faculty housing, which could generate up to 60
28 units within close proximity to CSUSB. In addition, the project is convenient to local
surface water, which will prevent pollution. The Specific Plan also requires the
clubhouse be constructed to meet LEED requirements, which will reduce potential
impacts on greenhouse gases. The. mitigation measures included in the EIR will also
protect the residents and visitors to the project area from environmental hazards,
C. The subject property is physically suitable for the requested land use
designation(s) and the anticipated land use development. The areas designated for
restricted or prohibited development within the Specific Plan are those where hazards
could occur, The balance of the site where development will be permitted is gently
sloping, and outside the City's Hillside Management Overlay, meaning that the slopes
10
-.
-
2008-422
1
commercial areas, and with the extension of pathways, trails and sidewalks as planned in
2
the Specific Plan, will be easily accessible for shopping and employment.
3
Based upon substantial evidence in the record, the Mayor and Common Council
11
...........
2008-422
D, The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
The tentative parcel map implements the Specific Plan planning areas, which are
designed to accommodate higher densities of residential units in areas suitable for
development, to allow greater open space preservation. The open space land is also
included in the parcel map, and will be restricted as open space in perpetuity upon
recordation of the parcel map,
E. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial
environmental damage, or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their
habitat. The design of the parcel map, and the mitigation measures included in the SEIR
for the project, assure that areas of environmental hazards are restricted or prohibited
12
-....
-.
2008-422
1 parcel map will also provide a connection to Campus Parkway through the University,
2 pursuant to a written agreement between the University and the applicant.
3
4
5
6 hereby find:
7 A. The proposed tentative tract map is consistent with the General Plan, the
8 University Hills Specific Plan and the Development Code, The proposed tract map will
9 create 26 single family residential lots which are consistent with the development
10
standards established in the Specific Plan.
11
B. The design of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General
12
13 Plan. The tract map implements planning area 12 of the Specific Plan, which allows for
14 single family residential units on lots of the size proposed. The tentative tract map is
15 also consistent with the high quality design goals and policies of the General Plan,
16 insofar as it implements a master planned community which will have extensive
17 amenities for its residents,
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SECTION VI. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO, 18696 FINDINGS
Based upon substantial evidence in the record, the Mayor and Common Council
C. The site is physically suitable for the type of proposed development. The
tract map does not occur in areas designated for restricted or prohibited development
within the Specific Plan. The site is gently sloping, and outside the City's Hillside
Management Overlay District, The lots within the tentative tract map will be terraced to
allow for flatter development areas,
D. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
The Tract Map proposes 26 lots on 3,11 acres, consistent with the density of 3.2 to 9.0
units per acre allowed in the Standard Lot Detached (SLD) designation assigned to the
13
""'........
-
2008-422
acre.
14
~_.
2008-422
c.
The site is physically suitable for the type of proposed development. The
15
~"
-
2008-422
1 development areas in the Specific Plan, nor does it occur adjacent to any open space area
2
proposed north of the tract map,
3
F, The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause serious public health
4
5 problems. The tentative tract map is not within a restricted development area, and is not
6 on the San Andreas Fault. The design of the tentative tract, as conditioned, will meet
7 City requirements for sight-lines and street widths for surrounding streets, to allow safe
8 transport through the site.
9 G, The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements do not
10
conflict with any easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of
11
property within the proposed subdivision. The tentative tract map incorporates existing
12
13 easernents without interfering with them, Any easements created through the master
14 parcel map (TPM No. 18969) for the project, will be implemented in the tentative tract
15 map as necessary,
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SECTION VIII. CERTIFICATION OF THE SUBSEOUENT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND AND DETERMINED by the
Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino that the Final Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2007071155) is adequate and complete in that it
addresses the environmental effects of General Plan Amendment No. 08-03, the
University Hills Specific Plan, Tentative Parcel Map No, 18969, Tentative Tract Map No.
18696 and Tentative Tract Map No. 18140, and fully complies with the requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act, the CEQA Gnidelines and the City's
Environmental Review Procedures. The Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
16
-,.
.
2008-422
1 . is hereby certified; the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations are
2
hereby adopted; and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan is hereby adopted.
3
SECTION IX. ADOPTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND
4
5 UNIVERSITY HILLS SPECIFIC PLAN
6 Based upon the above-referenced findings, General Plan Amendment No. 08-03
7 and the University Hills Specific Plan No. 07-01 (attached and incorporated herein as
8 Exhibits D and E, respectively) are hereby adopted.
9 SECTION X. APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 18%9. TENTATIVE
10
TRACT MAP NO. 18696 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18140
11
Based upon the above-referenced findings, Tentative Parcel Map No. 18969, Tentative
12
13 Tract Map No. 18696 and Tentative Tract Map No, 18140 (attached and incorporated
14 herein as Exhibits F, G, and H, respectively) are hereby approved.
15 SECTION XI. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
16
17 hereby directed to file a Notice of Determination with the County of San Bernardino
18
19
20 Environmental Quality Act in preparing and certifying the Final Subsequent
21 Environmental Impact Report and adopting the Facts, Findings and Statement of
22 Overriding Considerations, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, General Plan
23 Amendment No. 08-03, the University Hills Specific Plan, Tentative Parcel Map No.
24
25
26
27
28
In accordance with the provisions of this Resolution, the Planning Division is
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors certifying the City's compliance with the California
18969, Tentative Tract Map No. 18696 and Tentative Tract Map No. 18140. A copy of
the Notice ofDetennination will be forwarded to the State Clearinghouse.
17
--."
2008-422
18
-.
2008-422
1 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE
2 FACTS, FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS,
CERTIFYING THE FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
3 REPORT, ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PLAN, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN AND THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT
4 SPECIFIC PLAN, ADOPTING THE UNIVERSITY HILLS SPECIFIC PLAN
5 AND APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 18969, TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP NO. 18696 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18140.
6
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Mayor and
7 joint .
Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at a regular meeting thereof, held
8
9 on the 17~h day of November
, 2008, by the following vote to wit:
10 Council Members:
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Navs
Abstain
Absent
Aves
ESTRADA
-L
BAXTER
x
BRINKER
x
DERRY
x
KELLEY
x
JOHNSON
-L
x
MC CAMMACK
~k~
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Rachel G. Clark, City Clerk
The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this /~ day ofNoverilber, 2008,
~
PATRICK J. MORRIS, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
By:
J esF.Penman
ity Attorney
19
-.
I' ..
Exhibits to the Resolution of the city of San Bernardino adopting the Facts,
Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, certifying the Final
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, adopting the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Plan, amending the General Plan and the
Univenity District Specific Plan, adopting the Univenity BiOs Specific Plan
and approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 18969, Tentative Tract Map No.
18696 and Tentative Tract Map No. 18140:
Exhibit A 1 - 4 (Bound Document)
1. Initial Study
Z. Notiee of Preparation (NOP)
3. Responses to NOP
4. Draft Subsequent
Environmental Impaet Report
Exhibit A 5: Notiee of Completion
Exhibit A 6 - 8 (Bound Document)
6. List of persons, organizations and
pub1ie agencies commenting on the
Draft Subsequent Environmental
Impaet Report (DSEIR)
7. Comments received on the DSEIR
during and after the public comment
period
8. Responses to comments on the DSEIR
Exhibit B: Environmental Findings of Faet and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (Bound with Exhibit A 6 - 8)
Exhibit D: General Plan Amendment No. 08-03
Exhibit E: University Hills Specific Plan (Bound Doeument)
Exhibit F: Tentative Parcel Map No. 18969 (Large Format Map)
Exhibit G: Tentative Traet Map No. 18696 (Large Format Map)
Exhibit H: Tentative Traet Map No. 18140 (Large Format Map)
'....'.
EXHIBIT A 1- 4
(Bound Document)
DRAFT
Environmental Impact Report
University Hills Specific Plan
City of San Bernardino, California
SCH #2007071155
EXHIBIT A
1. Initial Study
2. Notice of Preparation (NOP)
3. Responses to NOP
4. Draft Subsequent Environmental
Impact Report
\~~'il'
.,~~,. L,
, '
, '
,', ;rl~'
,~
. V
Ii
'.
Prepared by:
Michael Brandman Associates
621 Carnegie Drive, Suite 100
San Bernardino, CA 92408
Contact: Kent Norton, Project Director
l;Jll
\l;ch.ldl1r:mJm,1,} h",.;u.!<'s
Draft EIR
August 1, 2008
,.'.--.'.
I .
. ..
EXHIBIT A 5
I
-
:,'
City of San Bernardino Development Services Department
Notice of Completion and Availability of Draft Subsequent EIR
To:
Responsible and Interested Agencies, Special Interest Groups, Local Residents, and Other
Interested Persons
From:
City of San Bernardino Development Services Department
300 North D Street, San Bernardino, CA 92418
Contact: Terri Rahhal, City Planner
CLERK OF THE BOARD
AUG . 1 7.008
COUNlY OF
SAN BERNARDINO
The City of San Bernardino is the Lead Agency and has released for public review a Draft Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed project. The Draft Subsequent EIR is supported by the
previously certified EIR for the Paradise Hills Specific Plan,
Subject:
University Hills Specific Plan Draft Subsequent EIR
Project Title:
University Hills Specific Plan
Project Location: The Proposed Project is located in the northern portion of the City of San Bernardino
in San Bernardino County, California, It is located just north of the California State
University San Bernardino (CSUSB) campus on 404 acres of vacant land in the
foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains, Access to the project area is proposed
via Campus Parkway offNorthpark Boulevard to the west and from Little Mountain
Road off Northpark Boulevard to the east.
Project Description: The UHSP consists of 404,3 total acres, with 169,5 acres or 42 percent of the site
proposed for residential and related uses, including 10,2 acres of parks and recreational uses, The project
proposes a total of980 units with a gross density of2.4 dwelling units per acre (980 units divided by 404.3
acres) and a net density of 5,8 units per acre, excluding natural open space (980 units divided by 169,5 acres).
Residential densities range from 0,0 to 20 dwelling units per acre, The lowest densities (0-3,1 units per acre)
are located north of the San Andreas Fault and include single-family detached estate homes. Immediately
south of the San Andreas Fault in the West Village area are standard detached lots (3,2-9 units per acre).
Mixed Detached and Attached units (9,1-15 units per acre and 17 units per acre, reSl>ectively) are located in
the interior and perimeter of the site, The highest densities (15.1-20 units per acre) are generally located in
the interior portions of the West Village area around the clubhouse and in the East Village area behind Badger
Hill, Four (4) acres of the highest density area (Planning Area 16) will be dedicated to CSUSB for exclusive
use as faculty housing (approx, 60 units), Three subdivisions are currently proposed: Tentative Parcel Map
No, 18969, Tentative Tract Map 18696 and Tentative Tract Map 18140.
Significant Environmental Effects: The Draft Subsequent EIR identifies significant unavoidable
adverse impacts on air quality, populationlhousing growth inducementlSCAG consistency, and
transportation,
Public Review Period: The Draft Subsequent EIR is available for public review beginning August 1, 2008
and ending September 15, 2008, during which time the public and interested parties are invited to comment
on the Draft Subsequent E1R for the proposed project. Public comments may be sent during this time period
to the following name and address:
City of San Bernardino Development Services Department
300 North D Street, San Bernardino, CA 92418
Contact: John Oquendo, Assistant Planner or
'cn i v er<;i!.Y.biJ I s(i~5hiilW_rg
See Counter Planning Staff
to View Documents
c
~
m
"
-
r-
m
c
Qo
-0
o
en
-I
m
C
1'_.
I .
~ ..
The Draft Subsequent ElR is Available for Public Review at the following locations:
. . City of San Bernardino Development Services Department, 300 N, "D" Street, 3'" Floor, San Bernardino,
CA 92418,
. Feldheym Central Library, 555 W, 6" Street, San Bernardino, CA 92410
. . City of San Bernardino web site, www.sbcitv.on.:
Public Meetings: The City of San Bernardino Planning Commission and the Mayor and Common Council
will consider the University Hills Specific Plan and the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
at noticed public hearings, Agendas for the public meetings of the City of San Bernardino are routinely posted
on the City's web page,
Presence of the Site on Lists Enumerated under Sedion 65962.5 of the Government Code: The proposed
project site is not included on any lists compiled pursuant to Section 65962,5 of the Government Code,
,...-.
'I ,. . "
.
.
,
ill
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXHIBIT A 6 - 8 and EXHIBIT C
-"--'_U_"'~~'-'='~""'''~-'''''~~'~L;.,~~;:it'F:..~~
(Bound Document) ~;l
,%5r~~:..':,~~~;:,~;'_:':W~' :;:?~~:,/;;~~~~~S~f:~?i:~':,;.:: ::f
Final Environmemallmpact Repon
UniversilV Hills Specific Plan CilV of San Bernardino
SGB #2001011155
October 22, 2008
EXHIBIT A
6. Ust of persons, organizations and
public agencies commenting on the
Draft Subsequent Environmental
Impact Report (DSEIR)
7. Comments received on the DSEIR during
and after the public comment period
8. Responses to comments on the DSEIR
EXHIBIT C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Pian
....
'....
:\Iichacl Brandman Associates
621 E. Carnegie Drive, Suite 100
San Bernardino, CA 924118
......'"
I'
...
EXHIBIT B
Environmental Findings of Fact for the
Environmental Impact Report
University Hills Specific Plan
(State Clearinghouse # 2007071155)
Prepared for:
City of San Bernardino
Planning Department
300 N, D Street
San Bemardino, CA 92418
909.384,5080
Contact: Terri Rahhal, City Planner
~.'P.DiJl",...
~ A~,
~~~",J. 4{j
,,' \T .. ,J,......
':~
~t/t, ....(v
~-:.L=t!Ii"-'::
Prepared by:
Michael Brandman Associates
621 E, Carnegie Drive, Suite 100
San Bernardino, CA 92408
909,884,2255
Contact: Kent Norton, AICP, REA,
Director of Environmental Services
....
"...
Draft October 9, 2008
-~
_>.
...
..
EnIl#lonnlMIaI FIndIngs of hct
UrIlvwWIy"'" SpecIfIc""'" EIR
InttDdut:fIon
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SectIon 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................... 2
1,1 - Project Description ................,...........................................................................2
1.2 - Background and Project History .......................................................................,3
1,3 - Statutory and Regulatory Requirements.............,.....................,.....................,,,4
1,4 - Summary of Environmental Findings .................................................................5
Section 2: Finding Regarding Impacts that are Leu Than Significant and, Therefore,
do not Require Mitigation ............................................................................ 7
2,1 - Aesthetics, Light, and Glare......................,..,..........................,.......................... 7
2,2 - Agricultural and Mineral Resources,.......................,.........,.,.....,......................,. 7
2,3 - Recreation"...... '.',....,......,....., ,..,..,.."..,........,....,.. ,.........,..,................, ...." ....,..,8
2,4 - Cumulative Impacts..."."..,..,.............,..,..,............"..".....,......,...............,..,......,8
2,5 - Summary............"....,..,.."..,...,..,....."..,..,.......,...............,.....,..,..........,..........,,16
Section 3: Finding Regarding Potentially Significant Effects that have been Mitigated
to Below a Level of Significance with the Adoption of Mitigation
lI_u.... ....................................................................................................17
3,1 - Biological Resources................,................,...........................,........................, 17
3,2 - Cultural Resources"....,.."..,...,..,..,.."..,.....,..".."..,..,..".,..,...,....,..........,..,..,.... 18
3,3 - Geology and Soils ......,..............,........,................,........................,..,...............20
3,4 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials.........................,..,................................,...., 21
3,5 - Hydrology and WaterQuality..,..................,...........................................,.........22
3,6 - Land use ................"..,..,..,..,......,..,..,..........,.....,...,...........,........,..,..,..,.,..,....., 24
3,7 - Noise..,.., ..., ,.,..,.."..... '.,........" ,.".. ,.. '...,..'.."",.., ,....,.., .......... ....,...,....,..,..,..,.... 25
3,8 - Public Services,..,..,..,........,.."..,......,...,.....,....."..,.,....,....,.."..,.,........,....,..,....,27
3,9 - Utilities,.,...,..,..,..,..,..,.....,.., ......,..,..,... ,........,..",.. ......,..,..,..".., ............,.. ,....,.... 27
3,10 - Cumulative Impacts..............,.....,..,.."..,..,..,..."...."..,........,..,....,............,..,..,28
Section 4: Finding Regarding Impacts not Mitigated to Below a Level of Slgnlflcance30
4,1 - Air Quality,.....,.."....,..,......,.............,..,....,....."."..,......,....".......,............,.."..." 30
4,2 - Population and Housing and SCAG Consistency ..........................,.................32
4.3 - Transportation ..,...,....,..,.....,..,.."....,......,.."..,.."..'...........,'.',........"....,..,..'..,." 33
4.4 - Cumulative, ....,..,.... ........ ,.......",..,.. ,."..,..,.., ,......... ,...."....,.., '.,..,... ....,....,.....,.. 36
Section 5: Finding Regarding Growth Inducing, Unavoidable Adverse, and Irreversible
Impacts .......................................................................................................39
5,1 - Growth Inducing Impacts................................................................................, 39
5.2 -Irreversible Impacts .................,...,..............,...,..".............,..,..,..,.."....,..,..,..,...40
Section 6: Finding Regarding Alternatives to the Propo.ed ProJ8Ct.............................42
6,1 - No ProjectlNo Development Altemative,............,.............................................43
6,2 - No Project - General Plan Development A ltemative.......................,................44
6,3 - Modified Specific Plan Altemative......,..................................,..........................44
6.4 - EducationallnstitutionITechnology Park Altemative ........................................46
6,5 - Alternative Sites ,........,.............."..,.."..,..,..,..,..,..,..,..,..,..,....,....,..,..,..,....,.......46
Section 7: Statement of Overriding Con.lderatlons.......................................................50
,..--..
..
EnvInJnmene./ Fllldlt",. of FfIct
~_SpecHfc"""EIR
/nfJoducIIon
SK'DOit't;>~.. '"""' 'c. '. ",-. - "" "
- ." - . .... .",..", . ,"_.,-..".,." ", L! ., ^ +C....,_.!I.."._._~.,.~.__ ".C-.,-., .'._~.' '. . ,', ,,' ~.'_. _,' '_ ,.,' _,.._'..,."
_ _ ___ __ '. ..,.,'",,_ _ _ :;i .. ',:c,o.. .,,' _: .,". __.: '..'. -_.__ ,',' ''._"__-._,. _ _ ;f~Y;;J\:iL'T~;;:+,O:;:<,'k'Z--_~;;<(,--;i::{-~:ti::Jt'x~__:-'_;.',_-;-::.:',';(,'-,_; -_'",/>_,1';'"
'i'_~fi';i -"~?-g~n~~;,;:;~~~.:- ~~~
This document contains the findings required under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) (Public Resources Code, ~ 21000, et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code
of Regulations, Title 14, fi 15000 et seq.), specifically CEQA Guidelines fi 15091, supporting the
certification of the University Hills Specific Plan (UHSP) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and
approval of the project by the City of San Bernardino (City).
1.1 - Project Description
The University Hills Specific Plan consists of 404.3 total acres, with 169.5 acres or 42 percent of the
site proposed for residential and related uses, including 10,2 acres ofpmts and recreational uses. The
project proposes a total of 980 units with a gross density of 2.4 dwelling units per acre (980 units
divided by 404.3 tota1 acres) and a net density of 5,8 units per acre, excluding natura1 open space (980
units divided by 169.5 acres). A tabular summary of the project components is provided in Table 3-3.
A conceptual land plan for the Proposed Project is shown in Exhibit 3-5 and photographs of the site
are shown in Exhibit 3-6. Residential densities range from 0.0 to 20 dwelling units per acre.
The lowest densities (0-3.1 units per acre) are located north of the San Andreas Fault and include
single-family detached estate homes. Immediately south of the San Andreas Fault in the West
Village area are standard detached lots (3.2-9 units per acre). Mixed Detached and Attached units
(9.1-15 units per acre and 17 units per acre, respectively) are located in the interior and perimeter of
the site. The highest densities (15.1-20 units per acre) are generally located in the interior portions of
the West Village area around the clubhouse and in the East Village area behind Badger Hill. Four (4)
acres of the highest density area (planning Area 16) will be dedicated to CSUSB for exclusive use as
faculty housing (approx. 60 units).
It is estimated the UHSP project will eventually support a population of 3,283 persons based upon the
maximum buildout of980 units times an average of3.35 persons per unit. This household size is
based on 2000 US census data and the latest City demographic factors.
The UHSP contains 10.3 acres ofpmts including a .2.2-acre private clubhouse in the West Village
area which can accommodate a pool and tennis courts and other active amenities, two O.5-acre
recreational facilities in the East Village area, a 5-acre "California Walnut Grove Linear Park" along
Badger Creek, and the 2.1-acre Glider Park (planning Area 1) in the northwest comer of the site
which will provide a safe approach zone for the hang gliders landing at the adjacent Andy Jackson
Airpark. The project has an internal pedestrian/walking trails system that connects to a multi-purpose
trail consistent with the planned regional trail for this area. The Project will preserve 234.8 acres (or
58 percent of the site) as natura1 open space that is proposed to be used by the nearby CSUSB as a
"land laboratory" called the "Akkad Preserve," The land laboratory will have minimal improvements
but may include limited trails, signage, fencing, and various teaching stations, A detailed summary of
the proposed land use plan for the UHSP is provided in Table 3-4, Planning Area Land Uses,
'-~
~
Env#nJnInMIIIII'ItHIIIIp of_
Unlvwslty _ SpecItIc ",." EIR
InfI'DducfIon
1.2. Background and Project History
1.2.1 - Background
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines ~15051, the City of San Bernardino is the lead agency for the
University Hills Specific Plan, with primary land use authority over the Proposed Project. The City
determined that the project may have significant impacts on the environment; therefore, a Draft
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared. The City issued a Notice of
Preparation of a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report between August 28, 2007 through
September 27,2007, inviting comments from responsible agencies, other regu1atory agencies,
organizations and individuals pursuant to CEQA Guidelines ~ 15082, In response to the Notice of
Preparation (NOP), the City received written comments which assisted the City in identifying the
issues and alternatives for analysis in the Draft EIR. The City also held a scoping meeting at City of
San Bernardino City Hall on September 18, 2007 to inform the public and interested agencies about
the project and to solicit public comments on the scope of the environmental issues to be addressed in
the Draft EIR.
Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, the City prepared a Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No.
2007091039) to analyze the project's potential adverse environmental impacts. Upon completion of
the Draft EIR dated May 16, 2008, the City initiated a 45-day public comment period from May 16,
to June 30, 2008, by filing a Notice of Completion (NOC) with the State Clearinghouse for the
Governor's Office of Planning and Research and publishing a Notice of Availability (NOA) for the
Draft EIR in a newspaper of general circulation within the City's jurisdiction (CEQA Guidelines ~
15087).
Copies of the Draft EIR were distributed to state agencies through the State Clearinghouse. The NOA
was sent to public agencies, organizations, and individuals and indicated where copies of the Draft
EIR could be obtained, or available fur review. The City made copies of the Draft EIR available for
local review at the City of San Bernardino Public Library 510 E, Florida Avenue, San Bernardino,
CA 92543; San Bernardino Unified School District 2350 W. IAltl1am Ave, San Bernardino, CA
92545; City of San Bernardino Planning Dept 445 Florida Avenue San Bernardino, CA 92543.
During the public review period for the Draft EIR, the City consulted with and requested comments
from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regu1atol)' agencies and other interested parties
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines ~ 15086,
During the public review period, the City received 303 written comments on the Draft EIR. The City
provided written response to comments received from the commenting agencies/individuals pursuant
to Public Resources Code ~ 21092.5. The response to comments includes the comments received on
the Draft EIR, a list of those commenting, and the City's response to the significant environmental
points raised in the review and consultation process. The Final EIR for the project consists of the
Draft EIR (incorporated by reference), the response to comments, mitigation monitoring report
program (MMRP), and changes to the Draft EIR which clarifY, supplement, or update the information
provided in the Draft EIR, None of the changes or supplemental information in the Final EIR
-.
J.
En__IaI Rnd/nfIS ofFllct
Un'-""Y Hills s"ldflc,.,." SR
In_
constitute significant new information as defined by CEQA Guidelines ~15508,5, Therefore, CEQA
does not require recirculation of the Draft EIR
In summary, the Final EIR includes the Draft EIR, Response to Comments (RTC), corrections and
additions to the Draft EIR, and a Mitigation Monitoring Report Program (MMRP),
1.2.2 - Project HIstory
The project, which was fonner1y known as The Paradise Hills Specific Plan, was submitted to the
City of San Bernardino in 1991 and approved in 1993. The City of San Bernardino General Plan and
Development Code govern land use and zoning on the project site. Both of these plans identify the
project site as governed by the Paradise Hills Specific Plan. Currently, the proposed University Hills
Specific Plan is not consistent with the City of San Bernardino General Plan Land Use. However, the
project proposes to do a General Plan amendment, making the proposed project site consistent with
the General Plan Land Use. If approved, the University Hills Specific Plan (UHSP) would replace the
Paradise Hills Specific Plan relative to land use on the Proposed Project site. The approved Paradise
Hills Specific Plan proposed 504 residential units on approximately 229 acres (56.7 percent) with 175
acres (43.3 percent) to remain as natural open space. The residential units were divided into areas in
the "foothill" development zone (383 units on 110.6 acres or 3.5 units per acre average density) and
areas in the "hillside" development zone (121 units on 117,9 acres or 1 unit per acre average density).
The PHSP has a gross density of 1.25 units per acre (504 units on 404 acres) and a net density of2.2
units per acre (504 units on 229 acres - total size minus open space). Due to economic conditions,
the project was never built.
1.3 - Statutory and Regulatory Requlrementa
These fmdings are based upon the information in the record of proceedings, including, but not limited
to, the Final EIR, staffreports, project applicant's materials, MMRP, and the testimony presented at
public hearings.
Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines precludes the City from approving or carrying out a project
for which a Draft EIR has been certified that identifies any significant environmental effects unless
the City makes one or more of the following written finding(s) for each of those significant effects
accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impact as identified in the Draft
EIR; or
2, Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of a public agency
other than the City, and such changes have been adopted by such other agency, or can and
should be adopted by such other agency; or
3, Specific economic, social, legal, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or project alternatives identified in the Draft EIR.
-,.
is':&~~\iLiZ',':~;,
..
En"""""'**' RndIrIt1s of F8ct
CJnI--"Y ",.. Spec:Hfc ,."", EIR
",-
Sections 15092 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines require that if the project will cause significant
unavoidable adverse impacts, the City must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to
approving the projecL A Statement of Overriding Considerations states that any significant adverse
project effects are acceptable if expected project benefits outweigh unavoidable adverse
environmental impacts,
1.4. Summary of Environmental Findings
As set forth in more detail below, the City of San Bernardino Planning Department bas endeavored in
good faith to set forth the basis for its decision to approve the Proposed Project. All of the findings
made by the City of San Bernardino are based upon its consideration of the Final ElRand the
substantial evidence within the record as a whole. Each of these environmental issues is described in
Section 2 (Introduction) and in Section 1 (Executive Summary) of the Draft EIR.
Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR which the City of San Bernardino finds are less
than significant and do not require mitigation are as follows:
. Aesthetics, Light, and Glare;
. Agricultural and Mineral Resources;
. Mineral Resources; and
. Recreation.
Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant, but which the City of San
Bernardino finds can be mitigated to a less than significant level through the imposition of mitigation
measures and/or conditions set forth herein are as follows:
. Biological Resources;
. Cultural Resources;
. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity;
. Global Climate Change;
. Hazards and Hazardous Materials;
. Hydrology and Water Quality;
. Land Use and Planning;
. Noise;
. Public Services;
. Utilities.
Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant but which the City of San
Bernardino finds cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level despite the imposition of all
feasible mitigation measures are as follows:
. Air Quality;
. Population and housing and SCAG
Consistency; and
. Transportation and Circulation.
Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as cumulative, unavoidable adverse, and
irreversible are described in Section 5 of this document
"-'.
~~ij;'::i'~:';:;:i;
, ..
..
En_tIIIRndI... 01_
Unw..lfy HIlls SpecHfc Plan ElR
1nln>ducll0I/
Environmental impacts identified in the Final ElR as growth-inducing, unavoidable adverse, and
irreversible are described in Section 6 of this document.
Alternatives to the Proposed Project that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts
are described in Section 7 of this document.
Public Resources Code ~ 21081.6 requires the City to prepare and adopt a mitigation monitoring and
reporting program for any project for which mitigation measures have been imposed to assure
compliance with the adopted mitigation measures, Prior to taking action to approve the project, the
City of San Bernardino was presented with, heard, reviewed, and considered all of the infonnation
and data in the administrative record, including, but not limited to, the Final ElR and all oral and
written testimony presented to it during meetings and hearings. The Final ElR reflects the
independent judgment of the City of San Bernardino and is deemed adequate for pwposes of making
decisions on the merits of the project and its related actions. No comments made in the public
hearings conducted by the City of San Bernardino Planning Department or any additional information
submitted to the City have produced any substantial new information requiring recirculation or
additional environmental review of the Draft ElR WIder CEQA because no new significant
environmental impacts were identified, no substantial increase in the severity of any environmental
impacts would occur and no feasible mitigation measures, as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section
15088.5, were rejected,
,.-
,---
_1aI FIndInga of F/Jct
Un'--"Y HIlla SpecIfIc""" EIR
Rn"lJfI "-"*'" Impects Ihat... L_ _ SIfInIIfcant
and, 77I...ro... do""'Requ/I'e~fIo,l
" . 1 ... ~ {... I' ~,,~ 'f 't I j, I '0
~...i1;'W',.2* '".;> -:.t>~~,~. _4~J j.."'i,'f,,'i-"~'lt~' l,,~4.t-l!ist ,$1,' :t'".J>J%::i!;j tI' '
_, I ~ \ i .'" '" ~ . ~ ' -.. \ ~ . ~ '" '" ' ~ ~! I ~ ;
-::'L;~:~~:4;~~~t4
"OIf'
. . _ _ ___J.!
The City of San Bernardino Planning Department finds that the following environmental impacts
identified in the Draft EIR are less than significant, and as a result, mitigation is not required under
CEQA.
2.1 . Aesthetics, Light, and Glare
From the visual simulations, it appears most views of the site would be obstructed by Badger Hill,
especially from existing residences to the southeast, and by the Kendall Hills, which will block views
from the southwest including the 1-215 Freeway. Limited views of the site, especially the upper
portions adjacent to the San Andreas Fault and Badger Canyon, will occur with distance from the site,
including from residences across Northpark Boulevard to the southwest and from the Cal State
University San Bernardino campus. The Specific Plan landscaping guidelines indicate that
manufactured slopes will be replanted, but some of these slopes may be visible vom locations south
and southwest of the site, The upper slopes of the San Bernardino Mountains and Badger Canyon
will remain as permanent open space and views of these areas will not change from present
conditions.
Several policies in the City of San Bernardino General Plan recognize that the project site (as the
PHSP site) will be developed with residential uses. The proposed UHSP land plan increases
development intensity on the alluvial fan areas bnt clusters or concentrates residences south of the
San Andreas Fault and out of Badger Canyon. On balance, the proposed UHSP land plan appears to
be equivalent or superior to the previously approved PHSP in terms of visual impacts,
The project site is not visible from 1-215 or SR-18, and neither of these are designated scenic routes in
the vicinity of the project site. Development of the Proposed Project would not affect views of the
hills from 1-215 because of the intervening Kendall Hills. For these reasons, the Proposed Project
will have a less than significant impact on Aesthetics Light and Glare.
2.2 - Agricultural and Mineral Resources
According to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) maps prepared by the
California Resources Agency, there is no designated Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance on the project site or adjacent areas, In addition, the site does not contain
enough prime agricultural soils or other physical characteristics that would yield a significant LESA
Model score, Furthermore, according to the City of San Bernardino General Plan, the project area is
not designated for agricultural use, and there are no active Williamson Act contracts in place for any
portion of the project area or adjacent areas,
According to the California Department of Conservation's Mineral Land Classification report for the
area, the project site occurs within an area that has been classified as MRZ- 3, These are areas where
"-.
~"/':,"':,:;""
..
En.".""".",. RndInrIs of_
Unlvwslty HIlls SpecIIfc ",." ElR
Rmllng RlJgaIdng Impecfa _... Lea ",." Sl/lnlflcMt
and, ."..,aAn. do not RequIte IIltItIatlv..
the significance of mineral deposits cannot be evaluated from available data. However, it should be
noted that no mineral production currently occurs on or adjacent to the project area. Soil composition,
depth-to-bedrock, and other factors make the site unattractive for sand and gravel operations, These
types of operations are better suited to valley bottoms and arroyo channels, not the mountain foothills
where the project is located, Other valuable mineral resource constituents are not known to occur in
the project area. For these reasons, the Proposed Project will have a less than significant impact on
Agriculture and Mineral Resources,
2.3 - Recreation
The Proposed Project would increase the City's population and have a corresponding increase in park
usage. However, the Proposed Project would provide 10.3 acres of onsite park facilities and the
equivalent of 6.1 acres of in-lieu fee payments to acquire and develop additional parkland to offset its
contribution to increase park usage.
The City's General Plan shows the Foothills Regional Trail goes through the Proposed Project site.
The University Hills Specific Plan proposes a regional trail along the extension of Campus Parkway
through the site in a northwest-southeast direction to provide connections to the future planned
extension of the Foothills Trail to the east and west of the project site.
In addition, the project would provide non-vehicular paths, sidewalks, etc. for project residents to
travel within the project and to the CSUSB campus without using personal vehicles. For these
reasons, the Proposed Project will have a less than significant impact on Recreation.
2.4 - Cumulative Impac1B
2.4.1 - Aesthetics, LIght, and Glare
The analysis area for evaluation of cumulative impacts to aesthetics resources includes views of the
southwestern portion of the San Bernardino Mountains to the north. Views of the site from
surrounding areas are somewhat limited by the Kendall Hills to the southwest and Badger Hill
immediately south of the site. The slopes with elevations above 2,000 feet are readily visible from
downtown San Bernardino and other locations in this portion of the San Bernardino Valley where
views are not blocked to the north. Views of the site from the 1-215 Freeway are effectively blocked
by the low Kendall Hills (along the north side of Kendall Drive west of University Parkway),
Development of the project as proposed will not require grading above 1,900 feet elevation other than
the one reservoir pad, which means no manufactured slopes will be visible at a distance away from
this project. Similarly, planned structures are residential in nature and generally one to three stories
in height, Since views of the site are restricted on an area-wide basis, so too would be glare from
reflections off windows or direct views of night lighting such as streetlights. The project does not
contain any lighted athletic fields so there will be no glare from this potential source. For these
reasons, the project will not have cumulative impacts relative to views or glare,
'.......'"
..,{:~
..
EmIl"""".",., FlndI_ 01_
UnIVW1llly HIlla SpecIIfc _ EIR
FInding RegIIn1Ing",."..". _... Lea _ SIgnIbnt
_ 71terwtoIw. do not".".",. ~I
This area is essentially vacant at present and bounded by national forest land on the north. Nighttime
lighting levels are very low at present, although there is considerable spillover from night lighting at
the CSUSB to the south. If the Proposed Project is built, it will contribute to an overall increase in
ambient nighttime light levels referred to as "sky glow" by the International Dark Sky Association,
the most prominent group that monitors this urban and suburban development impact
(www,darkskies.onz), The development standards of the Specific Plan limit the insta1lation of
lighting fixtures to the degree required for public safety by police and fire personnel. In addition,
lighting levels will be relatively low, in tenns of urban development, since the project is all residential
and will have no commercial or institutional facilities that are lighted at night (e.g., shopping center).
Potential impacts would be reduced further by review of proposed lighting plans during subsequent
development review of the project as specific maps or buildings are proposed.
Cumulative impact analysis is guided by buildout assumptions identified in the Land Use Section of
the San Bernardino General Plan, Within the City and surrounding vacant areas, approved and
additional development would result in additional lighting and surfaces that will create glare. The
General Plan estimates the City will grow by 23,568 units from now until buildout, which will disturb
thousands of acres of land (fable LU-3, City General Plan 2(05), but a relatively small amount of this
planned growth will occur in the foothills and areas surrounding the Proposed Project site,
While the Proposed Project will incrementally contribute to an increase in sky glow, this area is
planned for residential development and its contributions to ambient lighting levels is considered to
be not cumulatively considerable.
2.4.2 - Agricultural and Minerai Resources
The analysis area for evaluation of cumulative impacts to the entire City and this portion of the San
Bernardino Valley.
The project, when combined with other projects anticipated in the General Plan, would not result in
cumulative impacts, Other projects that would occur under Genera1 Plan bui1dout may affect the
availability of existing or historical agricultural land or areas with identified mineral resources.
Future development would also be required to comply with the City of San Bernardino General Plan,
Fulfillment of these requirements would ensure that no significant impacts on these specialized land
uses will occur from other projects that would occur under buildouL
2.4.3 - BIological Resources
The analysis area for evaluation of cumulative impacts to biological resources includes this westem
portion of the San Bernardino Mountains, its foothills along the southern slope of the mountains, as
well as the canyons that drain these slopes, down to Cajon Creek and ultimately to the Santa Ana
River southwest of the project area. The project will develop 160 acres of alluvial fan terrace area
covered by chaparral with vegetation of disturbed grassland and native scrub vegetation. Some of
these lands overlap critical habitat for the Califomia gnatcatcher and San Bernardino kangaroo rat,
However, neither of these species were found on the project site. Conversely, the project would
preserve 235 acres of land comprising the foothills and canyons of middle and upper Badger Canyon,
'_J>.
,;y,;.,t_'''''+ {i:\,--;i;:;&:'
.
En"""""**' RtdtIrIa of Fact
~HI" SpecIfIc""" ElR
Rndng RejJ8nllIIfI""""'" fhat _ t..a -. S/prJfIcIJnt
...d, ~ do_"-quI"~_
which is a major drainage in this portion of the foothills. With mitigation, potential impacts to listed
animal species were reduced to less than significant levels. With the preservation of Badger Creek
and its feeder canyons, potential regional impacts from this project on biological resources are not
considered to be cumulatively considerable,
2.4.4 - Cultural Resources
The analysis area for evaluation of cumulative impacts to cultural resources includes the entire City as
outlined in the San Bernardino General Plan. The project vicinity represents an area with prehistoric
settlement by several Native American groups prior to Spanish and Mexican settlement, and then
American settlement during the mid-nineteenth century, The project site and surrounding areas are
largely vacant at present. The site appears to contain remnants of a small residential "camp" and
homestead but this area will remain in pennanent open space so there are no impacts in this regard.
Development of the project site will contribute to the incremental loss of vacant lands that may
contain cultural artifacts or resources, Potentially significant impacts were found for historic,
archaeological, and paleontological resources, and for human remains, due to the possibility of
encountering an unanticipated find during excavation. Mitigation measures are proposed to reduce
the potentially significant impact to less than significant levels. With implementation of these
mitigation measures, impacts to cultural resources would not be cumulatively considerable.
2.4.5 - Geology, Solis, and Seismicity
The analysis area for evaluation of cumulative impacts to geology, soils, and seismicity includes this
portion of San Bernardino County, due to the presence of several branches of the San Andreas Fault
that cross the site. The various geotechnical investigations evaluated subsurface soil and groundwater
conditions at the project site. The existing documents contained the results of extensive field
explorations, laboratory testing, engineering analyses, and design recommendations for previous
development projects at or near the project site. From these documents, geotechnical conclusions and
preliminary recommendations for planning of the proposed development were developed.
Cumulative impact analysis is guided by buildout assumptions identified in the Land Use Section of
the San Bernardino General Plan, Within the City and surrounding vacant areas, approved and
additional development would result in additional excavation activities and further intensification of
land use that could potentially impact geology, soils, and seismicity in the area. The General Plan
estimates the City will grow by 23,568 units from now until buildout, which will disturb thousands of
acres ofland (Table LU-3, City General Plan 2005).
Potentially significant project-level impacts were found concerning exposure of persons or structures
to seismic hazards due to the presence of several faults onsite. Potentially significant impacts were
also found concerning substantial erosion or loss oftopsoil during site construction, The Proposed
Project would develop 980 residential units in this portion of the City. The General Plan identifies
areas in the City where additional growth will occur that contain various geotechnical constraints,
including faults and soil erosion. However, only a small amount of this growth will occur proximate
to the San Andreas Fault Zone. The City's General Plan, Development Code, development review
,.,-,.
EmIt~ RtIfMn(pI ofF8ct
UnlvwsIty HIlla SpecIfIc Plan EIR
R"'*'lI Regeldllfl""""'" _.. LMa",." SIgnIIIcant
end, TIreI.... do not Requh _.,.,so..
process, and uniform building code all require detailed geotechnical studies for proposed
development which identilY impacts and appropriate mitigation for suspected geotechnical hazards,
similar to the process applied to the USHP project.
Implementation of the UHSP project and future development under the General Plan, consistent with
development guidelines from required geotechnical studies, will help reduce potential earth-related
cumulative impacts to less than significant levels, Therefore, the Proposed Project will not make a
substantial contribution to cumulatively considerable impacts relative to geology, soils, and
seismicity,
2.4.6. Huards and Huardous Materials
The analysis area for evaluation of cumulative impacts to hazards and hazardous materials includes
the University District subarea identified in the San Bernardino General Plan as well as the City as a
whole. Cumulative impact analysis is guided by buildout assumptions identified in the Land Use
Section of the San Bernardino General Plan. Citywide, approved and additional development will
result in additional excavation activities and further intensification of land use that could potentially
impact hazards and hazardous materials in the area. Development of the City is expected to increase
housing by 23,568 units from now until buildout, with some of that land being vacant while other
lands have been developed.
Development of the Proposed Project would result in an increased demand for fire protection
services, resulting in the need for additional fire protection facilities and personnel to cover the
Proposed Project, Potentially significant impacts were not found concerning: (1) location on a site
that would create a potential hazard to the public and the environment; (2) exposure of sensitive
receptors to hazardous emissions, materials, substances, or waste; or (3) impeding the implementation
of or physically interfering with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. The Proposed
Project would develop 980 residential units in an outlying vacant area, but residential development in
general does not generate significant amounts of hazardous materials. Growth of industrial and to a
lesser degree commercial uses in the City would generate more risk and potential impacts relative to
hazardous materials on a cumulative basis, With implementation of best management practices and
by following regulations, the Proposed Project would not make a substantial contribution to a
cumulatively considerable impact relative to hazardous materials.
2.4.7. Hydrology and Water Quality
The analysis area for evaluation of cumulative impacts to hydrology and water quality includes the
University District sub-area, identified in the San Bernardino General Plan as well as the City as a
whole. The project site is currently vacant and does not consume potable water. The Preliminary
Hydrology Report was prepared to present an initial analysis of the Proposed Project's effects on the
local and regional drainage basin and to serve as a background for subsequent reports, such as a
Stormwater Control Plan and a SWPPP, that are required during the development process. These and
other subsequent documents will detail the design recommendations for the control of stormwater for
the project site and be used to meet local and regional regulatory requirements.
,.-.
I' . .
EnvtIOllllHJ/llJll FIntItnp of".",
/JrrNwsIIy Hm. SpecIIIc ,.,." EIR
Flm611f1 ~ Impecta tIrM... L_1IIan S/fInIIIcMf
8IId, TIleI..... do not RwquIrellllle-_
Cumulative impact analysis is guided by buildout assumptions identified in the Land Use Section of
the San Bernardino General Plan. Citywide, approved and additional development will result in
additional excavation activities and further intensification of land use, which could potentially impact
hydrology and water quality in the area. The tota1 residential units are expected to increase from
59,146 at present to 82,714 at buildout, representing an increase of 23,568 units,
Potentially significant impacts were not found concerning the creation of additional impervious
surface coverage and alteration of existing drainage patterns, potentially leading to downs1ream
flooding or substantial erosion or siltation on- or off site. Potentially significant impacts were found
relating to adverse impacts to water quality during construction, adverse impacts to water quality
from land use activities associated with the Proposed Project, substantial depletion of groundwater
supplies or substantial interference with groundwater recharge, and creation of runoff water that could
exceed the capacity of existing or planned stonnwater drainage systems. The Proposed Project would
develop 980 residential units in this University District subarea. When taken into account with all
residential and commercial buildout anticipated in the General Plan, the Proposed Project would
result in a significant cumulative effect. However, the design of the project will incorporate water
retention basins and bio-swales to increase infiltration of water as the new project is built.
The Proposed Project would cause a net increase in potable water demand by almost a million gallons
per day in relation to existing demand on the project site. The City's WSA bas indicated that this
demand is accounted for in their long-tenn water supply planning and would not require the
development of additional supplies. Unfortunately, City staff indicate that reclaimed water is not and
will not be available to the project area at a cost effective rate due to its elevation (i.e., too high), and
there is no infrastructure in place or planned to provide reclaimed water to the project site. Even with
the ongoing uncertainty of imported water for Southern Califomia and the City's General Plan goal of
using recycled water whenever practical, this impact is considered less than significant due to the
design and location of the project relative to water and reclaimed water. Furthermore, with the design
of the project and recommended mitigation measures, the EIR concluded that water-related impacts
of the Proposed Project would be reduced to less than significant levels. Therefore, the project will
not have a cumulatively considerable impact regarding hydrology and water quality,
2.4.8 - Land Use
The analysis area for evaluation of cumulative impacts to land use includes the University District
subarea and the City as a whole, as identified in the San Bernardino General Plan. The project site
and its surroundings are vacant. The General Plan designation for the project site is Residential Low
(RL) in the steeper areas and Residential Suburban (RS) in the flatter portions of the site - these
designations would allow from 750 to 966 residential units to be built on the site, depending on how
units were placed or clustered in hillside areas (see Section 4.8, Land Use, and 4.10, Population and
Housing, for more infonnation on potential bui1dout estimates). In addition, the City approved the
Paradise Hills Specific Plan which would allow 504 units to be built on the site.
'..--.
U.'
I' .
.."
_FfndItI(Jaofl'Kt
IJrI/-wty HII/a SpecHfc""" ElR
Rn"/JfI Rep....1I /mpacIs _... LMa"" Slgnlllcant
and, 171.-, do not RequI,.IIIIIp_
Cumulative impact analysis is guided by buildout assumptions identified in the Land Use Section of
the San Bernardino General Plan, Within the City, approved and additional residential and
commercial development will result in additional excavation activities and further intensification of
land use. Total residential units will increase from 59,146 units at present to 82,714 units at buildout.
The University Hills project would increase the intensity of development on the project site by
95 percent compared to the PHSP (980 vs, 504 units). However, it is estimated that approximately
750 to 966 units could be built on the UHSP project site under the RL and RS designations of the
General Plan, depending on how units were actually clustered in hillside areas. Development under
the UHSP would represent an increase of 1.5 to 31 percent over that allowed under the Genera Plan.
Section 4.10, Population and Housing, of the EIR concluded that the Project would have siguificant
population and housing impacts because it was not consistent with SCAG growth projections,
however, it does not appear the Project would make significant contributions to cumulative land use
impacts related to growth.
The project will intensify the land use designated by the General Plan by up to 31 percent. When
combined with other projects anticipated in the General Plan, it is not anticipated that this potential
amount of change would result in cumulatively considerable land use impacts, Other projects that
would occur under General Plan buildout would not physically divide an established community, and
they would be required to demonstrate compatibility with surrounding land uses and comply with the
City of San Bernardino General Plan and Development Code, Fulfillment of these requirements
would ensure that no significant impacts on land use occur from other projects that would occur under
buildout,
2.4.9 - Noi..
The analysis area for evaluation of cumulative noise impacts encompasses the ambient noise
environment around the project site as well as roadways that would experience increases in traffic
volumes from project-generated trips. The cumulative noise impact analysis is gnided by evaluating
increases in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity relative to existing conditions. Construction
noise would result in temporary increases in ambient noise levels, and mitigation is proposed that
would require implementation of noise control measures during construction activities. Because
construction would be tempormy, ambient noise levels would not experience a pennanent increase
and, therefore, no cumulatively considerable increase would occur. The Proposed Project would
result in construction and operational vibration. Construction and operational vibration would not
exceed significance thresholds at the nearest land uses (the residences south of Planning Areas 18 and
20 off of North I Street) and, therefore, would not be cumulative considerable. Project residential
units would not be exposed to substantial vibration from vehicular activities due to the nature of the
project (i.e., suburban residential), Therefore, project residents would not be exposed to significant
sources of vibration or noise, and impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. Vehicular trips
generated by the Proposed Project would not cause ambient noise levels along any affected roadway
segments to exceed acceptable noise standards under opening year or buildout conditions, Therefore,
the Proposed Project would not have a cumulative considerable impact related to increased ambient
En_,., Flnd/tIf1a of_
UnIvwsIty HIlla SpecIIIc ",." ElR
FlndllIfI Reg/IIdIIfI """"'* _... LMs .... SItP""CIlIJ'
lIIId, 7llerebw, do not RequIre -.,.,,0.1
noise levels on nearby roadways. Onsite noise associated with the Proposed Project would not result
in ambient noise levels increasing to unacceptable levels at any surrounding land uses, Therefore, the
Proposed Project would not have a cumulative considerable impact related to increased ambient noise
levels at surrounding land uses. Onsite noise associated with the Proposed Project may expose
project residents to unacceptable levels. Mitigation is proposed that would require the installation of
various structural noise attenuation measures to ensure that interior residential noise levels are within
acceptable standards to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, the Proposed
Project would not have a cumulative considerable impact related to exposure of project residents to
unacceptable noise levels. In summary, the Proposed Project would not resuh in increases in ambient
noise that would be cumulatively considerable.
According to the City of San Bernardino General Plan Environmental Impact Report (2005 EIR),
noise impacts would be significant after buildout until the San Bernardino Airport Master Plan has
been adopted by the San Bernardino International Airport Authority (SBIAA) and corresponding
noise contours have been established the extent of impact to parkland near the airport cannot be
detennined, Parkland is designated as a sensitive use in the General Plan and should the noise
contour exceed the limitations established by the General Plan no foreseeable mitigation could be
accomplished if the park were to remain in use. Under those circumstances, the impact would be
considered a significant adverse and unavoidable impact. The proposed UHSP is approximately
7.5 miles from the San Bemardino International Airport and is therefore outside the five (5) mile
noise contour and will not impacted be impacted,
2.4.10 - Population and Housing
The analysis area for evaluation of cumulative impacts to population and housing encompasses the
SANBAG area and the entire Southern California region as monitored by SCAG.
Cumulative impact analysis is guided by the population growth assumptions included in the City of
San Bernardino General Plan and SANBAG's projections, The City of San Bernardino General Plan
anticipates significant growth in San Bernardino between 2005 and 2030, The California Department
of Finance estimated San Bernardino's population to be 200,280 in 2005, The General Plan projected
a five-year increment for the City's population; the projected 2007 population for the City is 205,010.
According to SCAG the City's population for the year 2010 will be 207,021. The average annual
increase in the City's population is 1.5 percent. The average annual increasein the City's 2007
population in combination with a 1.5 percent annual increase would make the total population
214,466 by the year 2010, The Proposed Project is anticipated to open in 2010, SCAG anticipates
that the City's population would be 207,021 persons that year, indicating that actual growth has
occurred at a much lower rate than anticipated. The Proposed Project's residential uses would directly
add an estimated 3,283 residents to the City's population over approximately a 5-year period or
through 2015, The Proposed Project would not create substantial new employment opportunities
because this is a residential project.
--
, ~
"II'
ElI_,., I'IndInrIa of_
Unl-.lly Hills Spet:ItIc ,.,." EIR
FIndInrI Regan1Ing /mpIIcfJI- aN Las _ Slfl/lllkMt
_ 17NIw/ln, donotRequh~J
For the purposes of providing a worst-case scenario analysis, it is assumed that all of the 3,283 new
residents of the project would also be new residents to the City, SANBAG's forecast for population
growth in San Bernardino is the same as that contained in the General Plan. Based on the existing
population (205,010) and accounting for expected population growth between 2010 and 2015 (1.5
percent annually) , the City's estimated population in 2010 without the Proposed Project would be
207,021 residents. The addition of the 3,283 new residents associated with the Proposed Project
would bring the population to 210,304, exceeding the City and SCAG's 2010 population projection of
207,021 persons by two (2) percent. With the addition of population growth induced by the Proposed
Project, the City's 2015 population is estimated to be 212,143 persons, which would slightly exceed
the SANBAG's 2015 projection (208,860) by two (2) percent. Although the slight addition of
population from the proposed project is projected to exceed SANBAG's 2010 projections by two (2)
percent, the Proposed Project would not represent a cumulatively considerable growth-inducing
impact relative to population and housing.
2.4.11 . Public Services and Recreation
The analysis area for evaluation of cumulative impacts to public services and recreation includes the
entire City of San Bernardino. The City of San Bernardino Parks and Community Services
Department owns and maintains 52 park sites totaling 540 acres. Of these sites, 10 are dedicated
community parks, 19 are neighborhood parks, 3 are special use parks, and 17 are pocket or mini-
parks.
Cumulative impact analysis is guided by buildout assumptions identified in the Land Use Section of
the San Bernardino General Plan. Within the subareas that constitute the City, approved and
additional residential and commercial development will resuh in a further intensification of land use
and continue to place demands on public services and recreation resources compared with existing
conditions. Within the City, residential development will increase the housing stock from
59,146 units to 82,714 units (+72 percent), and substantial development will also occur in the Sphere
of Influence area (a total of95,664 units at bui1dout [Table LU-3, CSB General Plan 2005]).
Among public services and recreation resources, potentially significant impacts were found only for
fue protection and emergency medical services, and trails. Potentially significant impacts were found
regarding fire protection and emergency medical services that were due to the location of the project
relative to existing police and fue facilities. Other projects that would occur under buildout could
include mixed use projects with multistory buildings and both residential and commercial uses
combined. Therefore, when considered with other projects associated with bui1dout, the Proposed
Project would resuh in cumulative impacts for fue protection and emergency medical services. Since
impacts for these resources are potentially significant for the Proposed Project separately, there would
be a cumulatively considerable impact regarding fue protection and emergency medical services.
However, the same types of mitigations that would reduce these project specific impacts to less than
significant would be developed for other projects associated with buildout (i,e" dedication of sites for
new police and fue facilities). After mitigation, therefore, no cumulatively considerable impacts to
fire protection and emergency medical services would occur. An incremental increase in impacts to
-.
r
En_ FlndInp ofFect
umvw.IIy HI" SpecHIc Plan Ell!
Finding R-e-,.. /mpIJcIs _.. ..... ..... Slgllllfcant
and, 7IJ..lIIIn. do not Requ/Iw-"etlon
local and regional trails was also found associated with increased numbers of residents and trail users
in outlying areas. Other projects that would occur during buildout would also increase numbers of
residents and new employees and create additional use of the Foothill Trail and other trails beyond
that anticipated for the Proposed Project. The project is installing the section of trail within its
boundaries, so the Proposed Project is not expected to result in cumulative impacts to trails.
2.4.12. Utilities
The project, when combined with other projects anticipated in the General Plan, would not result in
cumulative impacts. However, other projects that would occur under General Plan bui1dout may
increase the amount of energy consumed by the City. Other projects in the planning area would be
required to provide adequate assessment of local and regional energy facilities to conclude the future
project would not significantly increase demands on energy consumption. Furthennore, future
development would be required to comply with the City of San Bernardino General Plan. Therefore,
because increased consumption of energy by the Proposed Project and other developments in the City
have to comply with the City's General Plan, or are already anticipated by local or regional energy
facilities, the cumulative energy impacts of the Proposed Project would be less than significant. A
detailed discussion of impacts and mitigation measure can be found in Section 4.14, Utility Systems,
2.5 - Summary
Regional growth may eventually result in a number of cumulatively considerable impacts, including
traffic and air quality. However, the Proposed Project will not make significant contribution to any of
these cumulatively considerable impacts either during construction or from use of the planned
improvements.
-.
~,
En_1III RndllIfIS ofF/lct
~ HIlla SpecIfIc""" E1R
FInd"" /tefIaIdtIfI-lfaIIy SIgnI/IcMt EIIIIcla
_haw /)eM II1II:. I rllv _. UIIeI of S/gIJ/flcence
wIIh llleAdoptJon of~l_
The City of San Bernardino Planning Department finds that the following environmental impacts
identified in the Final EIR are potentially significant but can be mitigated to 8 less than significant
level through the imposition of mitigation measures and/or conditions identified in the Final EIR and
summarized below,
3.1 - Biological Resources
3.1.1 - Potentially Slgnlflcantlmpact
Implementation of the project has the potential to adversely impact Plummer's mariposa lily,
burrowing owl, nesting birds, and jurisdictional land.
3.1.2 - Finding
With consideration of the above infonnation and the implementation of mitigation measures BIO-18
through BIO-lc, and BIO-38, the project's impacts to biological resources are found to be less than
significant.
3.1.3 - Facts In Support of Finding
The project-specific environmental effects will be eliminated or substantially lessened to less than
significant levels by implementation of the following mitigation measures, as identified in the Final
EIR:
MM Blo-1.
MM BlO-1b
Plummer's Marisposa Lily. During the spring prior to grading, the developer shall
retain 8 qualified biologist to conduct a focused survey of the proposed development
areas to detennine if this species is present onsite. The survey shall be conducted
according to the standard protocol established by CDFG. If the species is present, the
developer shall fund relocation of the plants to 8 suitable location within the
permanent open space area.
Burrowing OwL Within 30 days of grading or any ground disturbance activities on
the project site, 8 qualified biologist shall conduct 8 focused survey to detennine if
burrowing owls are present onsite, The survey shall be conducted according to the
standard protocol established by CDFG. If burrowing owls are detennined to be
present on the site, mitigation shall follow the CDFG guidelines including passive
relocation. If vegetation removal or ground disturbance begins within 30 days of the
focused survey, no pre-construction survey would be required. Ifvegetation removal
or ground disturbance activities begin after 30 days of the focused survey, 8
subsequent pre-construction survey would be required.
--
En."""",."., Rodlllga 01 Feet
/JlIIvwsHy HIla SpecIIIc""" SR
RmInfI~ -...ySlflnl/ff:Mlt~
fIrat""". _ -If\.. I r/ II> Below al.ewl oIS/fIIIIIIcMCfI
-",. Adoption 0I11111t,dw. .........
MM BIO-1c NestiDg Birds. If trees or large shrubs (over 4 feet in height) will be removed during
the nesting season (February 1 through August 31), a qualified biologist shall conduct
a nesting bird survey no more than 30 days prior to any disturbance to identifY any
potential nesting activity. If passerine birds are found to be nesting, or there is
evidence of nesting behavior within 250 feet of the impact area, the biologist shall
determine an appropriate buffer that shall be required around the nests, No
vegetation removal or ground disturbance would occur within this buffer, For raptor
species---birds of prey (e.g., hawks and ow1s}-this buffer would generally be 500
feet. A qualified biologist shall monitor the nests closely until it is detennined that
the nests are no longer active, at which time construction activities may commence
within the buffer area, Construction activity may encroach into the buffer area at the
discretion of the biological monitor,
MM-BIO-3a Jurisdictional Laud. Prior to grading, the developer shall obtain a Clean Water Act
Section 404 Pennit from USACE, a Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification from
the RWQCB (Santa Ana Region), and a Streambed Alteration Agreement from
CDFG if jurisdictiona11and will be impacted. Offsite mitigation, if necessary, shall
be provided at a minimum 1: I ratio depending on location and importance of the
jurisdictional land removed, If the project provides onsite mitigation equal or in
excess of its identified impact (i,e., removal of jurisdictiona11and), no permits may be
necessary. This determination shall be made by qualified biologists in consultation
with City Planning, USACE, and CDFG staffbased on the final land plan and value
assigned to the proposed bio-swales and other drainage improvements onsite,
3.2 - Cultural Resources
3.2.1 - Potentially Significant Impact
Implementation of the project has the potential to adversely impact unidentified cultural,
archaeological, paleontological resources,
3.2.2 - Finding
With consideration of the above information and the implementation of mitigation measures CUL-1
through CUL-4, the project's impacts to cultural resources are found to be less than significant
3.2.3. Facts In Support of Finding
The project-specific environmental effects will be eliminated or substantially lessened to less than
significant levels by implementation of the following mitigation measures, as identified in the Final
EIR:
MM CUL-1
The developer shall retain a qualified historian to survey the building remnants
between Planning Areas 18 and 20 to detennine if they have any historical
significance prior to excavation of the site. Due to their condition, they could not be
,.-....
'11 .
__ Rnd1ttg8 oIFect
I.InIvenIty HJIg SpecIfIc ",." SR
Rndlng Regal"'''' PoIL.1IMIy SIgn/fIc8nt ElIlIcts
___IIIUIt-..JlID _. L.wIoISIo.~
with ilia AdoptIon oIl111~"""__
MM CUL-2
MM CUL-3
preserved or protected in place even if it is determined they bad bistorical
significance, If they are determined to be significant, the developer sball retain a
qualified bistorian to document the resource cbaracteristics for arcbival purposes
prior to demolition. The historian will prepare a report and submit it to the
appropriate infonnation center for their records,
The developer sbal1 retain a qualified arcbaeo1ogist to monitor grading to the
satisfaction of the staffs of the County Museum and City Development Services
Department. If potentially significant archaeological or bistoric resources are
encountered during subsurface activities, all construction within a 100-foot radius of
the find sball cease until the monitor determines wbether the resource requires fw1her
study. The developer shall include a standard inadvertent discoveIY clause in every
construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. Any previously
undiscovered resources found during construction sball be recorded on appropriate
DPR forms and evaluated for significance in terms of CEQA criteria by a qualified
archaeologist. Potentially significant culturaI resources consist of, but are not limited
to, glass, ceramics, stone, bone, wood, rock and shell artifacts or features, including
hearths, stroctura1 remains, or pre-bistoric dumpsites, If the resource is determined to
be significant under CEQA, a qualified archaeologist shall prepare and implement a
researcb design and archaeological data recoveIY plan, if necessary. The
archaeologist shall also perform appropriate technical analyses, prepare a full written
report and file it with the appropriate information center, and provide for pennanent
curation of the recovered resources.
Prior to the start of excavation, a qualified paleontological monitor will be retained to
conduct an oosite monitoring program to ensure protection of previously unknown
paleontological specimens, In the event a fossil is discovered during construction of
the Proposed Project when the paleontological monitor is not present, excavation
within 100 feet of the find shall be temporarily baited until the discoveIY is examined
by a qualified paleontologist, in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
standards. The developer shall include a standard inadvertent discoveIY clause in
every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement, Tbe
paleontologist sbal1 notifY the City of the procedures that must be followed before
construction is allowed to resume at the location of the fmd. If the find is determined
to be significant and the Paleontologist determines that avoidance is not feasible, the
paleontologist shall design and carry out a data recoveIY plan consistent with the
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. The plan shall be submitted to the
City for review and approval, Upon approval, the plan shall be incorporated into the
project. The Paleontologist sball also perform appropriate technical analyses, prepare
a full written report and file it with the appropriate information center, and provide
for permanent curation of any recovered resources,
"_.
En"'_ F/tIdInfIS of Feet
UnJvenlty HIlla Spec:IfIc Plett EIR
Rndlng ~"..,.. PDtenIIIIIIy SIgnIffcent EII'ecCs
IIIIIt haw been "',,-"".1110 Below. IAoIeI of ~1IfIcan".
willi 1M Adapffaft of IfIIJs..,.lIoW1 ...........
MM CUL-4
Ifhuman remains are encountered during earth-disturbing activities for the Proposed
Project, all work within 100 feet of the find shan stop immediately and the San
Bernardino County Coroner's office shall be notified, If the Coroner detennines the
remains are Native American in origin, the NAHC will be notified and, in turn, will
notifY the person determined to be the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). The MLD
will provide recommendations for treatment of the remains (CEQA Guidelines
~ 15064.5; Health and Safety Code ~ 7050.5; Public Resources Code ~~ 5097,94 and
5097,98).
3.3 - Geology and Soils
3.3.1 - Potentially Significant Impact
Because the project is located in a seismically active region, the impacts in regard to geology and soil
are considered potentially significant. California has stringent permitting and building design
standards designed to minimize the adverse impacts in the event of an earthquake. However, the
Project may be damaged by seiche flows, soil erosion or topsoil loss, unstable geologic units, and
expansive soils.
3.3.2 - FInding
With consideration of the above infonnation and the implementation of mitigation measure GE0-1a,
GEO-1b, GEO-3a, and GE0-3b, the project's impacts to Geology and Soils are found to be less than
significant.
3.3.3 - Facta in Support of FindIng
The project-specific environmental effects will be eliminated or substantially lessened to less than
significant levels by implementation of the following mitigation measures, as identified in the Final
EIR:
MM GEO-1a Prior to the recordation of any map in the area north of the South Branch of the San
Andreas Fault (planning Area 15), detailed geologic investigations shall be prepared
to detennine slope stability, landslide limits, and specific structura1 and grading
requirements to identifY the most appropriate design and construction requirements
for specific building foundations. This study must demonstrate that any residences to
be built in this area will not be subject to landslides, or that risks associated with any
landslide features or conditions can be alleviated or reduced to a level equivalent to
that of other residential planning areas in the project. This measure shall be
implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planner in consultation with the City
Geologist or qualified geotechnical personnel retained by the City,
MM GEO-1 b Prior to the recordation of any tract map in the area north of the South Branch of the
San Andreas Fault (Planning Area 15), the developer must demonstrate that the
reservoir in Planning Area 22 will have no impact on any homes in Planning Area 15
--.....
,
~ FlndInfIa ofFoJct
um-.IIy HIla SpecIIfc Plan SR
FInding R."enIIng ~ SIooll/lcant ~
_ u". ,..., lIIIJ:.-t..4I1l1_. UveI of SIglIllkM".
_ ... AdGpIIon oflfll%o-.....-
MM GEO-3a
MM GE0-3b
from a seiche event that could occur from strong seismic ground shaking. The
reservoir must be designed to withstand anticipated seismic shaking, and must be
dyked or otherwise protected so as to protect downstream homes from seiche flow
damage.
Prior to the commencement of grading activities, the applicant shall retain a qualified
geotechnical consultant to test any areas planned for development that are underlain
by existing imported fill soils to determine their in situ compaction and suitability for
excavation and reuse as engineered fill. Soil testing can be avoided if the applicant
elects to remove the fill and place it either in areas where it will not support
buildings, be located in paved or landscaped areas, or be disposed of off site, This
measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Geologist.
The developer shall implement the grading recommendations identified in the
GeoMat 2007 and the CHJ 2006 reports, Prior to the commencement of building
construction, the applicant shall retain a qualified engineer to design foundations
adequate to support the Proposed Project's structures where necessary, based on the
recommendations of the GeoMat 2007 study. Settlement analysis shall be performed
once the structural design loads and foundation system geometJy have been defined
for each building,
3.4 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.4.1 - Potentially SIgnificant Impact
The drainage protection and planned improvements of the project do not rely on any USFS facilities
or improvements to protect the site. In addition, a post-disaster recovery plan will be incorporated
into the Specific Plan and the following mitigation measure is being added to address this concern
raised by the City Planning Commission,
3.4.2 - Finding
With consideration of the above information and the implementation of mitigation measure HAZ-1,
the project's impacts to hazards and hazardous material are found to be less than significant.
3.4.3 - Facts In Support of Finding
The project-specific environmental effects will be eliminated or substantially lessened to less than
significant levels by implementation of the following mitigation measures, as identified in the Final
EIR:
MM HAZ-1
Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the developer shall prepare a Post-FirelFlood
Recovery Plan for review and approval by the City. As appropriate, this plan shall
incorporate planning guidelines from the Alluvial Fan Task Force (AFTF)
established by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). The plan will
,-,-..
EnIlllunlnMlW ~ oIFact
UIII-.Hy HIlla $fMdIIc ,.,." ElR
RndIIIfI R.".,..,." ~ SIgnIIIant--
__//eM II/IIf,oIWIo Below. LenI oI~
wIfh the AdoptIon of .1Iit-IM ......"..
identifY the potential risks to project residents from various natural hazards from
being located in the fire-prone foothills and adjacent to a large natural waterway
(Badger Creek). The plan will outline measures to be implemented after major fires
or floods that will help protect future project residents to the degree practical. When
approved, this plan shall be incorporated into the Specific Plan.
3.5 - Hydrology and Water Quality
3.5.1 - Po18ntlally Significant Impact
Implementation of the project has the potential to adversely impact water quality and groundwater.
Mitigation is required to offset any impacts to waters quality and groundwater.
3.5.2 - Finding
With consideration of the above infonnation and the implementation of mitigation measures HYD-1a,
HYD-1 b, HYD-2a, HYD-2b, and HYD-S, the project's impacts to water quality and groundwater are
found to be less than significant after mitigation,
3.5.3 - Facta In Support of Finding
The project-specific environmental effects will be eliminated or substantially lessened to a less than
significant level by implementation of the following mitigation measures, as identified in the Final
EIR:
MM HYD-1a
Prior to the issuance of grading permits for any portion or phase of the project, the
project applicant shall receive City approval SWPPP and Grading Plan to the City of
San Bernardino that identifY specific actions and BMPs to prevent stonnwater
pollution from construction sources. These BMPs shall be consistent with the
Conceptual Water Quality Management Plan prepared for the project by PBS&]
Engineers (see OElR Appendix G). The plans shall identifY a practical sequence for
site restoration, BMP implementation, contingency measures, responsible parties, and
agency contacts. The applicant shall include conditions in construction contracts
requiring the plans to be implemented and shall have the ability to enforce the
requirement through fmes and other penalties. The plans shall incorporate control
measures in the following categories:
. Soil stabilization practices;
. Dewatering practices (if necessary);
. Sediment and runoff control practices;
. Monitoring protocols; and
. Waste management and disposal control practices,
Once approved by the City, the applicant's contractor shall be responsible throughout
the duration of the project for installing, constructing, inspecting, and maintaining the
control measures included in the SWPPP and Grading Plan,
"'-;'"
En"""""-'" RndI,.". 01 FIlet
UnIvwdy HIlla SpecIfIc Plan ElR
FIndItrt1 RIJlMd.IfI "-',.", S/gfI/flcMt E/IlocIs
fINJt haw .....1II1Ipted ID ___. t..v8I 01 SIgnIIIance
_ the AdGp/Ion 0I111f1pf1on .........
MM HYD-1b
MM HYD.2a
Each SWPPP shall identify pollutant sources that could affect the quality of
stonnwater discharges from the construction site. Control practices shall include
those that effectively treat target pollutants in stonnwater discharges anticipated from
project construction sites. To protect receiving water quality, the SWPPP shall
include, but is not limited to, the following elements:
· Temporary erosion control measures (such as fiber rolls, staked straw bales,
detention basins, temporary inlet protection, check dams, geofabric, sandbag
dikes, and temporary revegetation or other ground cover) shall be employed
for disturbed areas,
· No disturbed surfaces will be left without erosion control measures in place
during the winter and spring months (September 30 - March 30),
. Sediment shall be retained onsite by a system of sediment basins, traps, or
other appropriate measures. Of critical importance is the protection of existing
catch basins that eventually drain to Cajon Creek.
. The construction contractor shall prepare Standard Operating Procedures for
the handling of hazardous materials on the construction site to eliminate or
reduce discharge of materials to stonn drains,
· BMPs performance and effectiveness sha1l be determined either by visual
means where applicable (i,e., observation of above-nonnal sediment release),
or by actual water sampling in cases where verification of contaminant
reduction or elimination, (inadvertent petroleum release) is required to
determine adequacy of the measure.
· Native grasses or other appropriate vegetative cover shall be established on the
construction site as soon as possible after disturbance.
Landscaping Maullgement Plan. The developer shall develop and implement a
Landscaping Management Plan (LMP) for landscaped areas with the goal of reducing
potential discharge of herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers, and other contaminants to
local waterways, All contractors involved in project-related landscaping conducted
during the individual pbases of development, as well as maintenance oflandscaping
following project completion, shall complete their work in strict compliance with the
LMP. The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that requirements of the LMP
are provided to and instituted by future project land owners and managers following
project completion. The LMP shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architecture
fmu with experience in methods to reduce or eliminate the use oflandscape
chemicals that could cause adverse effects to the environment. At a minimum, this
LMP shall:
-,
'I
En"""""""'''' RndllIfIS of"-ct
UnIvwsIty Hilla SpecIfIc ",." EIR
RndIng R,pnIng Pofwr1IMIy SIgnII/<:anf EIIKW
that have "-ifill. IW ID __. '-- ofSlgnHlcance
wIfh IIIe Adop/IDn 01111........' .........
] . Require that pesticides and fertilizers not be applied in excessive quantities,
and only applied at times when rain is not expected for at least 2 weeks, in an
effort to minimize leaching and runoff into the stonn drainage system,
2. Encourage the use of organic fertilizers and mulching of landscaped areas to
inhibit weed growth and reduce water demands,
3, Utilize native, perennial, drought-tolerant vegetation to minimize irrigation
needs.
4. Specify the maintenance measures to be used (e.g" mowing) and will specify
an application schedule for all fertilizer amendments and pesticide
applications,
5. Identify a list of preferred herbicides and pesticides and instances in which
their use would be appropriate and the associated application rate.
MM HYD-2b Water QuaUty MalntenaDc:e Reports. The UHSP project shall fonn a Landscaping
and Lighting Maintenance District (LLMD) to monitor water quality and provide
regular reports to the City regarding water quality on the project site. A qualified
professional shall be retained through the LLMD to prepare and provide annual
documentation to the City Engineer that the onsite BMPs (i.e., water quality devices,
improvements, and procedures) are functioning as planned to effectively protect
water quality both onsite and on downstream uses/drainages. This includes the
function and condition of bioswales, street sweeping, etc. These reports shall be
made to the satisfaction of the City Engineer in consultation with the RWQCB if
necessary, If a report indicates water quality objectives are not being met and/or the
RWQCB has expressed concerns in this regard, the LLMD will take appropriate steps
and/or make appropriate improvements to achieve these objectives, to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer,
MM HYD-6 Prior to approval of any final maps, the developer shall submit drainage plans to the
City Public Works Department for review and approval. The City shall review and
approve all storm drain improvement plans prior to issuance of any encroachment or
building pennits that involve flood control facilities,
3.8 - Land use
3.8.1 - Potentially Significant Impact
Planning Area 24, which is the only planning area adjacent to USFS land, is proposed as pennanent
open space that will be a "land laboratory" for the California State University San Bernardino
(CSUSB) campus, The Project developer is requested to work with the City and United States
Forestry Service staff to install signage at appropriate locations clearly identifying the USFS
,..-..
11
Enlllronmenflll FIrKIIngs of F..:t
Unlvwsfty HI" SpecHIc Plan EIR
RtKlng ~ F-.tIaIIy SIg/IHICIJnt EII'ecls
"'III haw ......1IItIir<..d 10 Below. '-- of SiflJrIIIance
with the AdoptIon 01 "'~I __
boundmy adjacent to the Proposed Project site, especially where any fU'e road or trails enter USFS
property from the University Hills site,
3.6.2 - Finding
With consideration of the above infonnation and the implementation of mitigation measure LU-1, the
project's impacts to hazards and hazardous material are found to be less than significant.
3.6.3 - Facts In Support of FindIng
The project-specific environmental effects will be eliminated or substantially lessened to less than
significant levels by implementation of the following mitigation measures, as identified in the Final
EIR:
MM LU-1
Prior to issuance of any occupancy permits, the developer shall coordinate with City,
CSUSB, and USFS staffs to identifY necessary access points and appropriate
locations for such signage to clearly identify the USFS boundmy along the perimeter
of the University Hills property (i.e., Planning Area 24). Such signage will be placed
at strategic locations, including any road or trai1 access points, to the satisfaction of
the City in consultation with CSUSB and USFS staffs.
3.7 - Nol.e
3.7.1 - Potentially Significant Impact
Implementation of the project has the potential to adversely impact sensitive receptors from short-
term construction activities and temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels. Mitigation is
required to offset any impacts to noise and sensitive receptors.
3.7.2 - Finding
With consideration of the above infonnation and the implementation of mitigation measures NOI-1
through NOI-I i, the project's impacts to noise are found to be less than significant.
3.7.3 - Facts in Support of Finding
The project-specific environmental effects will be eliminated or substantially lessened to a less than
significant level by implementation of the following mitigation measures, as identified in the Final
EIR:
MM NOM.
At the time the grading pennit application is submitted, the project applicant shall
submit a Construction Noise Mitigation Plan to the City for review and approval.
The plan shall depict the location of staging areas for construction equipment and
describe how noise would be mitigated for any nearby sensitive receptors..
MM NOI-1b
Stationary noise-generating equipment (such as pumps and generators) will be
located as far as possible from nearby noise-sensitive receptors (i.e., homes south of
,-..
j
Envl,.."".,W RndIt1f18 at Fact
Un~ Hills SpecIIIc Plan E1R
Rndlng RepnI1ng PoIMtIaIIy Slgn/llcMI E/I'ecflI
that """" -1II1lIt,.dW to Below. ~ of SIgn/IIcMa
_ lINJ Adopf/on of 111....._ .........
MM NOl-1e
MM NOI-id
MM NOI-ie
MM NOt-if
MM NOI-ig
MM NOI-ih
MM NOI-il
PA 16-20) and no closer than 200 feet from any existing home within the Proposed
Project site once occupancy has begun.
Noise-generating equipment will be shielded from nearby noise-sensitive receptors
by noise-attenuating buffers such as structures or haul truck trailers,
Onsite noise sources located less than 600 feet from noise-sensitive receptors will be
equipped with noise-reducing engine bousings.
Portable acoustic barriers able to attenuate at least 6 dB will be placed around noise-
generating equipment in the "East Village" portion of the project site,
Water tanks and equipment storage, staging, and warm-up areas will be located as far
from noise-sensitive receptors as possible, and at least 200 feet from any existing
borne within the Proposed Project site once occupancy has begun.
All construction equipment shall utilize noise reduction features (e,g., muftlers and
engine shrouds) that are no less effective than those originally installed by the
manufacturer.
No construction equipment shall be allowed to idle for more than 5 minutes if it is
within 100 feet of an existing house,
Prior to approval of any subsequent tentative tract maps, the developer shall submit
noise studies as appropriate for any residences within the project to assure that
exterior and interior noise levels meet City noise standards based on actual final floor
elevations, actual roadway cross sections and elevations, onsite topography after
grading, etc. Walls or other attenuating improvements shall be installed as needed
based on the results of these studies to assure onsite residences meet the City's noise
regulations,
,........
En."."",."", FIrHI/nt1S of FKt
UnIYwslly HIlls SpecJ1fc ,.,., EIR
R~~_~Slgn/lfcMtEIIKIs
_ haw _11114. !wI III Below. ....., of Sll/llllflCMce
_flJaAdaptIonofJIHI:. ...._
3.8 - Public Services
3.8.1 - Potentially Significant Impact
Implementation of the project has the potential to adversely impact library services, Mitigation is
required to offset any impacts to library services.
3.8.2 - Finding
With consideration of the above information and the implementation of mitigation PSR-4a and PSR-
4b, the project's impacts to libnuy services are found to be less than significant.
3.8.3 - Facts In Support of Finding
The project-specific environmental effects will be eliminated or substantially lessened to a less than
significant level by implementation of the following mitigation measures, as identified in the Final
EIR:
MM PSR....
Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the project, the developer shall
contact the City Library Director in writing and offer to provide up 2,000 square feet
of building space in the clubhouse (plus parking), for a future satellite library facility,
The developer shall provide the City Planning Department with written confirmation
whether or not the Library Director chooses to locate a library facility on the Specific
Plan property, based on the needs of the Department at that time relative to staffing
and facilities.
MM PSR-4b
Prior to issuance of the first building permft for the project, the developer shall demonstrate
that the project can be connected via the internet to City library and other information
technology systems, This may involve wireless or hard-wired connections, dapending on the
City's requirements at the time of hookup,
3.9 - Utilities
3.9.1 - Potentially Significant Impact
Implementation of the project has the potential to adversely impact solid waste capacity. Mitigation
is required to offset any impacts to solid waste capacity.
3.9.2 - Finding
With consideration of the above information and the implementation of mitigation measures US-4a
and US-4b, the project's impacts to solid wast are found to be less than significant
3.9.3 - Facts in Support of Finding
The project-specific environmental effects will be eliminated or substantially lessened to a less than
significant level by implementation of the following mitigation measures, as identified in the Final
EIR:
,.-....
En_fill RndI"fIII ofFect
Un~H/IIa SpecHfc Plan EIR
RndIIIfI Rllllr1fng PoIJtnflally Slgn/ffcllnt ~
___",.....IWIo~. L.w ofStt,.""*_
wIfh fheMopl/otl of~.......
MM US4
Prior to the issuance of building pennits, the applicant shall submit a Construction
Debris Recycling Plan to the City of San Bernardino identifying the procedures by
which construction and demolition would be salvaged and recycled to the maximum
extent feasible. The plan shall include proof that a construction and demolition
debris recycler is under contract to the applicant to perfonn this work, This Plan
shall achieve at least a 50 percent reduction in construction waste, to the satisfaction
of the City Planner,
MM US-4b
Prior to the issuance of occupancy pennits, the developer shall provide the City with
written assurance that all project residents will be provided with infonnation on City
and County waste reduction and disposal activities, This infonnation may be
provided by the developer or home owners association (HOA) as appropriate. This
measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
3.10 - Cumulative Impacts
Potentially Significant Impact
The Proposed Project may have the potential to have cumulative impacts within three (3) miles of the
project site.
Finding
With consideration of the above information, implementation of project specific mitiglltion measures
was found to reduce impacts fiom the cumulative projects to less than significant levels, Therefore,
no additional mitiglltion is needed other than project level mitigation measures,
Facts In Support of Finding
The project-specific environmental effects will be eliminated or substantially lessened to a less than
significant level by implementation of the following mitiglltion measures, as identified in the Final
EIR:
3.10.1 - Global Climate Change
Potentially Significant Impact
The Project may have potential impact to contribute to global green house gasses and global climate
change,
Finding
With consideration of the above information and the implementation of mitigation measure A1R-9a
and A1R-9b, the project's direct or indirect contribution to greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced
to less than significant levels.
--
. ...
Enlll_tIII FItJd/nfIs ofFer:t
Un/vwslly Hilla Spec///c ",." EIR
RndI"II ~ FIoIWI-,. SlQn/llC8nt~
tltathlNebeM.B_ T~fo8elaw.LlWfllot_~
wIfh 1M Adop/IoII of II/IIeIIIIOd ......"..
Fac1B In Support of FindIng
The project-specific environmental effects will be eliminated or substantially lessened to less than
significant levels by implementation of the following mitigation measures, as identified in the Final
EIR:
MM AIR'"
Areas and/or facilities to encourage recycling shall be provided and installed in all
MDA and A (attached) residential areas (planning Areas 5, 6, 8-11, 13, 14, 16, '8,
and 20) and in the clubhouse (planning Area 7) consistent with City requirements.
MM AlR-8b
To increase energy efficiency, the following measures shall be implemented to the
satisfaction of the City of San Bernardino: a) there shall be a minimum 10 percent
reduction in all buildings, combined space heating, cooling, and water heating energy
compared to the current Title 24 Standards; b) the project shall incorporate light roof
colors and cool pavements in the residential driveway areas; c) each appliance (i,e"
washer/dryers, refrigerators, stoves, etc.) provided by the builder must be Energy Star
qualified if an Energy Star designation is applicable for that appliance; d) low-flow
appliances (i.e., toilets, dishwashers, shower heads, washing machines) shall be
installed and; e) solar powered water heaters and photovo1taic cells (solar panels)
shall be offered to homebuyers as an option.
-
..
En"""""."., FlndIn(Ja 01 FIIct
~",.. SpecIIfc Plan EIR
Flnclng RiIgIItcIng Impecfa not
IIIIIgMed III Below. '-- oISi...~
, ';; ~. '\. \ , f';,1' , I
~ ~~t.t"" . ,~i'~t~~~ .-;
vl . . < I; ~ ~
l~--'&""'T~ 11M OW
~,.ny'~'"""'~,'!l!:~ A'
~:~;~~S~,,-(,-:_:-::~, :~'_-;;' ~"-:::':"'~ .,'(:-: :;;.'-?c.~~; ;--;:;:,?t:--Jt'~'_:'-X(:3,;:~S(Y:<:5-;-:-~>'T<':: :::-'.,:. ..::<
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126,2(a)(b) requires an Final EIR to identify and focus on the significant
environmental effects of the Proposed Project, including effects that cannot be avoided if the
Proposed Project were implemented,
This section describes significant impacts, including those that can be mitigated but not reduced to a
less than significant level. Where there are impacts that cannot be alleviated without imposing a
project a1temative, the EIR implications, and the reason why the project is being proposed,
notwithstanding the Final EIR effect, are described. With implementation of the proposed mitigation
measures, the Project will not create any significant environmental impacts.
4.1 - Air Quality
4.1.1 . Potentially Significant Impact
Implementation of the project has the potential to adversely impact air quality and existing emissions
of greenhouse gases. In addition the Proposed Project has the potential to adversely impact PM!o and
PM2.s levels, and may exceed SCAQMD localized daily thresholds. Other potentially significant
impact can occur over the short-term duration of the Proposed Project (i.e., during construction),
4.1.2. Finding
With consideration of the above information and even with the implementation of mitigation
measures AIR-I a through AIR-1g, and AIR-3a through AIR-3d, the project's impacts to air quality
criteria pollutants are found to be significant and unavoidable,
4.1.3. Facts In Support of Finding
After the implementation of the identified mitigation measures, emissions of volatile organic
compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (ND,J, carbon monoxide (CO), su1fiu oxides (SO,.), and
particulate matter 2.5 (PM2.5) will continue to exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management
Plan's (SCAQMD) regional emission significance thresholds during construction and VOC, NOx"
and CO during operations and, thus, are considered significant and unavoidable impacts.
MM A1R-1a
Prior to construction of the proposed improvements, the project proponent will
provide a Fugitive Dust Control Plan (FDCP) that will describe the application of
standard best management practices to control dust during construction. Best
management practices will include:
· Application of water on disturbed soils a minimum of two times per day;
· Using track-out prevention devices at construction site access points;
. Stabilizing construction area exit points;
· Limiting onsite construction traffic to 15 miles per hour on unpaved roads;
· Limiting onsite construction traffic to 25 miles per hour on paved roads;
--...
_l1li FlndInga 0IF8t:t
IJnIvWslly HJb SpecIfIc""" BR
MM AlR-ib
MM AlR-ic
MM AlR-id
MM AIR-i.
MM AIR-if
MM AlR-ig
FlndInt1~~not
II/IJgafed fD Below. '-- 01 Slpdllcence
. Paving or providing a hard surface for onsite roads to reduce fugitive dust;
. Covering dirt haul vehicles; and
. Replanting disturbed areas as soon as practical and other measures, as deemed
appropriate to the site, to control fugitive dust,
The Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall be submitted to the City for review and
approval prior to grading.
Prior to construction of the proposed improvements, a Construction Traffic Control
Plan (CTCP) will be reviewed and approved by the City. The CTCP will describe in
detail safe detours around the project construction site and provide temponuy traffic
control (Le" flag person) during construction related truck hauling activities.
During construction of the proposed improvements, construction equipment shall be
properly maintained at an offsite location, including proper tuning and timing of
engines, Equipment maintenance records and equipment design specification data
sheets shall be kept on-site during construction.
During construction of the proposed improvements, all contractors wiu be advised
not to idle construction equipment on the site for more than five minutes.
During construction of the proposed improvements, onsite electrical hook ups shall
be provided for electric construction tools including saws, drills and compressors, to
eliminate the need for diesel powered electric generators.
Onsite grading equipment will comply with one or more of the following:
. Use of onsite grading and construction equipment equipped with oxidized diesel
catalyst and fueled with aqueous diesel fuel during grading and construction
operations with a reduced equipment fleet or hours of operation totaling a
maximum of 17,000 horsepower hours per day;
. Use of onsite grading and construction equipment equipped with oxidized diesel
catalyst with a reduced equipment fleet or hours of operation totaling a maximum
of 14,000 horsepower hours per day;
. Use of onsite grading and construction equipment fueled with aqueous diesel fuel
during grading and construction operations with a reduced equipment fleet or
hours of operation totaling a maximum of 13,000 horsepower hours per day; and
· Reduce the grading and construction equipment fleet or hours of operation to a
maximum total of 10,000 horsepower hours per day,
Implementation of the Short- Tenn Air Quality Mitigation Measures shall be
documented in an Air Quality Mitigation Implementation Plan, This plan will detail
each mitigation measure and include daily logs documenting implementation of each
,-.."
""
.
En"'''''''''''''''' FIndInga of Feet
~ HIlla SpecHfc Pfen ElR
RndI"II Reg8Id"ll1mpects not
_~ to _.1.fIIIeI ofSlflnIlk:8nce
mitigation measure. Daily logs for each piece of construction equipment will include
the hours per day the equipment ran. A master daily log will document the hours of
operation all equipment ran each day, The master daily log will also document
timing and tuning of equipment, the type of fuel used on construction equipment, and
any add-on emissions reduction equipment used such as oxidized diesel catalysts,
MM A1R-3lI
The project proponent shall install bicycle racks at the clubhouse, MDA and A
(attached) housing areas (Planning Areas 6,8-11, 13, 14, 16, 18, and 20), and all park
sites to encourage non-vehicular trips within the project,
MM A1R-3b
The project design shall include signs posted in visible places in any truck parking
areas that state, ''No Idling,"
MM A1R-3c
The project proponent will coordinate with CSUSB to install improvements that will
support future shuttle transit service for project residents, including bus turnouts, bus
shelterslbenches, street lighting, and safe ingress/egress between the designated bus
stop and adjacent uses. The developer will install identified improvements when the
applicable road is constructed. ,
MM A1R-3d
Provide onsite infonnation for clubhouse employees regarding local car pools, bus
schedules and shuttle services in the area that service the project site, including maps
showing the routes of transit services and employee carpool destinations.
4.2 - Population and Housing and SCAG Conslst8ncy
4.2.1 . Potentially Significant Impact
Implementation of the project has the potential to induce population growth beyond the SCAG local
and regional forecasts,
4.2.2 - Finding
With consideration of the above infonnation, implementation of the Proposed Project will cause the
SCAG Consistency and regional growth to be significant and unavoidable.
4.2.3. Facts In Support of Finding
Although forecasted population growth in San Bernardino for 2010 is projected to exceed the SCAG
projections, the proposed UHSP project would significantly exacerbate this condition by adding an
additional 476 units (980 - 504) or 12 percent of growth. SCAG population numbers are the basis for
other regional plans (e.g., regional housing allocation strategies), and population growth in excess of
the forecast represents a significant growth inducement impact. No mitigation is available to reduce
this impact to a less than significant level; therefore, growth inducement beyond the SCAG local and
regional forecasts is a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project,
Furthennore, the Proposed Project is generally consistent with the policies of the City's general Plan,
except for the provision of employment in a housing rich sub-region. The Draft EIR concluded that
"-".
.
En_,., FIndIngs of FIlet
Un~_ SpecIIfcl'tan EIR
FI".. RegenIng /mpIIcts not
Mlfleal>ed II> Below. UtnJI of S/fInIIINnce
these inconsistencies mean the project will have a significant impact relative to growth inducement
and minor inconsistencies with regional growth policies and there is no feasible mitigation available
to eliminate this impact,
4.3 - Transportation
4.3.1 - Potentially Significant Impact
Implementation of the project has the potential to create operations at intersections to degrade to
unacceptable levels without planned improvements in the opening year, In addition, five intersections
are expected to operate at unacceptable levels of service by 2030. With mitigation measures TRANS-
1, TRANS-2, and TRANS-8, impacts to intersections will be less than significant, However, impacts
to freeway operations are significant and unavoidable,
4.3.2 - Finding
With consideration of the above infonnatiOD, implementation of the Proposed Project will cause
freeway operations to be significant and unavoidable.
4.3.3 - Facts in Support of Finding
MM TRANS-1 Prior to the issuance of the flTSt building permit, the developer shall install or provide
fair share payments to the City to install improvements referred to in Table 5 in the
TIA (KA 2008).). Iffair share payments are not paid prior to issuance of the first
building permits, the UHSP will be required to install improvements, and be
reimbursed by the City upon completion. . Improvements include:
. Traffic signal at Northpark Boulevard and Campus Parkway;
. Cross Street Stop at Little Mountain Drive and Project Access;
. Add two (2) 1eft- turn lanes on northbound leg of University Parkway at
Northpark Boulevard;
. Add two (2) 1eft- turn lane on northbound 1-215 Freeway ramp;
. Add a left-turn lane on the northbound leg of Little Mountain Drive at Project
Access;
. Add a right-turn lane on the northbound leg of Little Mountain Drive at Project
Access;
. Add a left-turn lane on the southbound leg of North park Boulevard at Campus
Parkway;
· Add a through lane to the eastbound leg of Little Mountain Drive at Project
Access;
· Add a right-turn-over1ap to the eastbound leg of University Parkway at
Northpark Boulevard;
· Add a right-turn lane to the eastbound leg of Little Mountain Drive at Project
Access;
-.
,
En_ RndItogs of,..."
UnWwslly Hils SpecIIIc ",." EIR
RndlrtgR,,"'1lfI1g"""""'_
M/tlf1ItIed 10 _. LeIIwI of~
. Add a left-turn lane to the westbound leg of North park boulevard at Campuss
Parkway;
. Ad~ three (3) left-turn lanes to the westbound leg of University Parkway at
Notthpark Boulevard;
. Add a left turn lane to the westbound leg of Little Mounntain Drive at Project
Access;
. Add a through lane to the westbound leg of North park Boulevard and Campus
Parkway; and
. Add a through lane to the westbound leg of Little Mountain Drive atProject
Access;
. Add a right-turn lane to the westbound leg of University Parkway at Northpark
Boulevard.
To implement this measure, a right- turn lane can be striped or unstriped, but to
function as a right- turn lane, there must be sufficient width for right- turn vehicles to
travel outside the through lanes.
The TIA for this project estimated that the fair share cost for these improvements would be just over
$4.1 miIlion as of when the TIA was prepared (July 2, 2008). Exhibit 4.12-3 iIlustrates the proposed
improvements that the project will need to implement. With construction of these improvements,
LOS at local intersections will meet the City's General Plan thresholds.
MM TRAMS-2 Prior to the issuance of the 600111 building pennit, the developer sha11 install or
provide fair share payments to the City for installation of improvements refeJTed to in
Table 8 in the TIA (KA 2008).). If fair share payments are not paid prior to the
issuance of the 600111 building permit, the UHSP wiIl be required to install
improvements, and be reimbursed by the City upon completion. Improvements
include:
. Cross street stop at Campus Parkway at 1-215 Freeway northbound ramp;
. Cross street stop at Campus Parkway at 1-215 Freeway southbound ramp;
. Add a thorough lane on northbound leg of campus Parkway and Kendall
Drive;
. Add a thorough lane on the northbound leg of campus Parkway and at 1-215
Freeway northbound ramp;
. Add a thorough lane onnorthbound leg of campus Parkway and at 1-215
Freeway southbound ramp;
. Add a right-turn lane onnorthbound leg of University Parkway at Kendall
Drive;
. Add a right-turn lane on the northbound leg of University Parkway at 1-215
Freeway southbound ramp;
. Add a left-turn lane on the southbound leg of Campus Parkway at 1-215
Freeway southbound ramp;
-,.
\ '
EnvltDmnental FInd... of Feet
IJnIveIWty HIlla SpecIfIc Plan EIR
Flndllfl R Iii .,p'l1 /mpecIs not
III11pled to 8eIow. L.w of Slf/nlffance
. Add a thorough lane on the southbound leg of Campus Parkway at Kendall
Drive;
. Add a thorough lane on the southbound leg of Campus Parkway at 1-215
Freeway northbound ramp;
. Add a thorough lane on the southbound leg of Campus Parkway at 1-215
Freeway southbound ramp;
. Add a right-turn lane on the southbound leg of University Parkway at 1-215
Freeway northbound ramp;
. Add a right-turn lane on the eastbound leg of University Parkway at 1-215
Freeway northbound ramp;
. Add a left-turn lane on the eastbound leg of Campus Parkway at Kendall
Drive;
. Add a left-turn lane on the eastbound leg of Campus Parkway at 1-215
Freeway northbound ramp;
. Add a right-turn lane on the westbound leg of Campus Parkway at 1-215
Freeway northbound ramp.
To implement this measure, a right- turn lane can be striped or unstriped, but to function as a right-
turn lane, there must be sufficient width for right-turn vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
As shown in Table 4.12-6, all intersections would meet the City's General Plan thresholds with
improvements by 2030 after the implementation of the improvements outlined in Measure MM--
TRAN8-2.
MM T~ Prior to the commencement of construction, the developer shall provide a
Construction Traffic, Staging, and Parking Management Plan to the City of San
Bernardino for review and approval. All construction contracts sha1l include a clause
requiring compliance with the Construction Traffic, Staging, and Parking
Management Plan and the developer shall be able to enforce the provisions of the
plan through penalties, up to and including, termination of the contract. The plan
shall include the following provisions:
. Construction truck traffic shall be limited to the following designated routes:
Campus Parkway from the site and west ofNorthpmk Boulevard to Kendall
Drive, and Kendall Drive from Campus Parkway to Palm Avenue,
Construction truck traffic shall be prohibited on all other roadways, unless
compelling circumstances warrant such movements (e.g., a major traffic
accident).
· Signage shall be installed at construction truck ingress and egress points
alerting motorists to such movements.
· Soil, debris, or other loose materials shall be covered with tarps or other
restraining material during haul movements on roadways
--
, '
En_ FIndInga ofFect
Un/vwwlly Hills SpecIfIc ,.,." EIR
Rn<<ng RIll dltg /mpacIa not
-fIIJCed 10 Below alAll-' of Slgnllfcanca
. On-site and off-site construction staging and parking locations shall be
identified, as weU as any necessary. shuttle service needed to transport workers
from off-site locations, For safety reasons, off-site staging or parking shall not
be allowed west of North park Boulevard or on the CSUSBCal State
San Bernardino campus.
. A pre-construction conference shall be held advising all construction
contractors of the requirements of the Construction Traffic, Staging, and
Parking Management Plan.
4.4 - Cumulative
4.4.1 - PotentiaUy Significant Impact
The Proposed Project may have the potential to create cumulative impacts within three (3) miles of
the project site. Areas that have a cumulative impact by the Proposed Project that are significant and
unavoidable are listed and defined below,
Air Quality
The analysis area for evaluation of cumu1ative impacts to air quality includes the South Coast Air
Basin (SCAB), which is identical to the boundaries of the SCAQMD. The SCAB includes the
counties of Orange, Los Angeles, Imperial, and Ventura, Riverside, and San Bernardino (including
the City of San Bernardino),
Cumulative impact analysis is guided by buildout assumptions identified in the Land Use Section of
the San Bernardino General Plan, Within the project region, and the SCAB, approved and additional
development will result in additional excavation activities and further intensification of land use,
which could potentially lead to impacts to air quality in the area. Within the City of San Bernardino,
the total residential units will increase from 59,146 units at present to 82,714 units at buildout
(+23,568 units or I.S percent average annual growth). Construction and operation of these additional
land uses would emit substantial quantities of criteria pollutants that would likely exceed SCAQMD's
daily significance thresholds.
Potentially significant impacts were not found for exposure of construction workers or the public to
substantial amounts of toxic air pollutants, creation of carbon monoxide bot spots that would exceed
federal or State concentration standards, exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations, or generation of objectionable odors that would affect a substantial number of people,
Significant, unavoidable impacts were found concerning construction and operational emissions that
exceed SCQMD thresholds, inconsistency with the projections contained in the Air Quality
Management Plan, and emissions representing only an incremental contribution of global greenhouse
gases, The Proposed Project would develop 980 residential units in this vacant outlying area of the
City. This represents 4,2 percent of the growth expected in the City from now until buildout.
When taken into account with all residential and commercial buildout anticipated in the General Plan,
the Proposed Project would result in a significant cumulative effect. Therefore, this effect would be
,.-....
EnvlTol_W F/ndInfp ofFect
Un~_ SpecIffc""" EIR
FItJdIIfI~~not
MII1gaIH '" ___. u..I of SIgn/lfcence
cumulatively considerable without mitigation applied, since the effect of this project by itself is a
potentially significant impact. However, according to the City of San Bernardino General Plan
Environmental Impact Report (2005 ElR), air quality would be significant after buildout during long
tenn and short term construction, and contributing to cumulatively considerable net increase of
criteria pollutants for which the project region is in a state of non-attainment. Therefore, project-level
emissions would be cumulatively significant and unavoidable due to the City's significant and
unavoidable buildout projections for regional air quality.
Mitigation in the fonn of extensive air pollution control measures is proposed, but it would not reduce
project construction and operation emissions below SCQMD thresholds; however, it would prevent
project greenhouse gas emissions from being cumulatively considerable.
Transportation
The analysis area for evaluation of cumulative impacts to transportation includes the University
District subarea identified in the San Bernardino General Plan, as well as the City as a whole. The
Traffic Impact Analysis analyzed the traffic impacts of the Proposed Project and looked at traffic
impacts at opening year and at buildout of the project. Project-level traffic impacts are found in
several intersections that would exceed the General Plan threshold of LOS C at peak hour, and, will
therefore have a significant impact. N addition, significant impacts are related to cumulative traffic
and congestion on the 1-215 Freeway in the vicinity of the Proposed Project.
Cumulative impact analysis is guided by buildout assumptions identified in the Land Use Section of
the San Bernardino General Plan. Within the University District subarea, approved and additional
development will result in additional excavation activities and further intensification of land use that
could potentially impact transportation in San Bernardino. Furthermore, the Proposed Project will
contribute to cumulatively considerable traffic impacts even with implementation of all feasible
project specific mitigation.
A number of roadway improvements would be implemented in conjunction with the Proposed Project
that would help reduce cumulative traffic impacts. Potentia11y significant impacts were not found
concerning the creation of inadequate access for emergency services or conflicts with the General
Plan. Potentially significant impacts were found for congestion during peak hours along this portion
of the 1-215 Freeway,
When taken into account with all residential and commercial buildout anticipated in the General Plan,
the Proposed Project would result in a significant cumulative effect on area traffic. Therefore, this
effect would be cumulatively considerable without mitigation applied, since the effect of this project
by itself is a potentially significant impact. Wilh implementation of project mitigation measures MM
TRANS-1 through MM TRANS-8, project impacts will not make substantial contributions to
cumulatively considerable degradation of intersection performance but will contribute to ongoing
freeway congestion.
_..
En"'_1aI FIrodItIp of Feet
lInl...ny HIlla SpecI/fc Plan EIR
RndltI/II ~"''11 /mpecfs-
~ fa Below. L.etfeI of SJspdllcMce
However, according to the City of San Bernardino Environmental Impact Report (2005 EIR), the City
does not cooperate with the regional transportation agencies toward mitigating impacts to regional
transportation facilities, However, potential traffic impacts to the freeway mainline segments and
ramps were evaluated and mitigation measures were suggested to reduce impacts. However, the City
stated that improvements to the freeway system are the responsibility of the existing regional
transportation agencies and not the City of San Bernardino, Without the authority to implement the
mitigation measures, the impact to freeway segments would remain significant and unavoidable
requiring a statement of overriding considerations. Therefore, project-level traffic would be
cumulatively significant and unavoidable due to the City's significant and unavoidable buildout
projections.
"..........
EnI/tnJnmenfJI/ FItItIIttg. of Feet
lJn/YwsIfy HIlla Spedffc Plan SR
Rnclng~rtfI_Io""
I'ropoaC PruJect
5.1 - Growth InducIng Impacts
5.1.1 - Description
There are two types of growth-inducing impacts that a project may have: direct and indirect. To
assess the potential for growth-inducing impacts, the project's characteristics that may encourage and
facilitate activities that individually or cumulatively may affect the environment must be evaluated
(CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2[d]).
5.1.2 - Finding
Direct growth-inducing impacts occur when the development of a project imposes new burdens on a
community by directly inducing population growth, or by leading to the consln1ction of additional
developments in the same area. Also included in this category are projects that remove physical
obstacles to population growth (such as a new road into an undeveloped area or a wastewater
treatment plant with excess capacity that could allow additional development in the service area).
Construction of these types of inftastructure projects cannot be considered iso1ated from the
development they facilitate and serve. Projects that physically remove obstacles to growth or projects
that indirectly induce growth may provide a catalyst for future unre1ated development in an area, such
as a new residential community, that requires additional commercial uses to support residents,
The Proposed Project would result in the development of 980 units on 404 acres in an outlying but
somewhat suburbanizing area (e.g" development to the west along Campus Parkway). The
residential units included in the Proposed Project would be expected to result in direct population
growth of 3,283 new residents. The Proposed Project is expected to create only a few new jobs at the
clubhouse.
Section 4,10 of the Draft EIR examined the project's contributions to local as well as regional
housing and population growth and found it to be in excess of that outlined in the City's General Plan
that was used for estimating growth impacts by SCAG, Although by itself the project would only
incrementally increase growth, it would contribute to an overall cumulative increase that may not
have been anticipated in regional planning efforts. Therefore, the project is considered somewhat
growth inducing. This increase will be offiet somewhat by the fact that the project is in an area that is
not planned for additional suburban development, so its actual influence on area-wide growth will
likely be limited.
The project site is not currently served by infrastructure although roads and utilities are generally
adjacent or nearby to the site. However, the Proposed Project would require the extension of
roadways and utility systems into areas not presently served; therefore, the Proposed Project could be
considered to be removing a barrier to potential growth through the extension of urban infrastructure.
...-.
.J.JL ""
, ,
Envlmnmenlal RndltIfIS of Feet
~ HIlls SpecItIc Plan EJR
R"dIng Repldltfl AIfIenIaIIw8 10 ",.
Prrlpt>>ed Prf1/eCf
The Riverside-Corona Feeder supplies several southern California Counties, including San
Bernardino. The supplier connects to the Santa Ana River watershed and supplies over 400,000 acre-
feet of ground water per year, New wet year water will corne from local runoff, including regulated
releases from Seven Oaks Reservoir and the State Water Project. The R-C Feeder is a multiple benefit
regional water supply project. The water will be stored in San Bernardino Valley and Chino
groundwater basins. Stored water will be delivered to consumers through a new groundwater
pumping capacity. The new pumping and delivery capacity will enable water to be stored safely by
providing the means to control local water tables,
The water supply assessment proposes the UHSP will connect to reservoirs, similar to the Riverside-
Corona Feeder. The reservoirs will include a common inlet/outlet pipe with flexible connections,
isolation valves and an altitude valve to prevent overflow. To improve mixing in the tank, each
inlet/outlet pipeline would have two check valves, forcing water to travel a greater distance from inlet
to outlet in a circular motion. The reservoirs would have separate overflow pipes and drain pipes that
would discharge to a concrete gutter. The gutter would convey stonn flows, reservoir overflows and
drainage along the access road to the downstream development stonn drain.
5.1.3 - Facts in Support of Finding
Because of its size and intensity, as well as its destination potential, the Proposed Project may be a
catalyst for future unrelated projects. This may include new development projects or redevelopment
of existing properties. Note that no such projects have been identified at the time of this writing, and
it would be speculative to identify any potential locations or types of projects,
5.2 - IrreV81'81bl8 Impacts
5.2.1 - Description
Section 15126,2{ c) of the CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of the extent to which a Proposed
Project will commit nonrenewable resources to uses those future generations will probably be unable
to reverse so that such current consumption may be justified,
5.2.2. Finding
The CEQA Guidelines describe three distinct categories of significant irreversible changes; they are
defined as "changes in land use that would commit future generations", "irreversible changes from
environmental actions", "and consumption of non-renewable resources", The Draft EIR has evaluated
the project's commitment to these irreversible changes in the implementation of the project and has
found that the use of such resources is justified by the long-term benefits of the project. However, the
Proposed Project would not be consistent with Air Quality, PopulationIHousinglSCAG Consistency,
and Freeway Transfonnationa1 uses,
5.2.3 - Facts In Support of Finding
The project site will be in long-term used as a residential development. In addition, the new uses will
be utilized as a resource for the City over the long-term, In addition, 10ng-tenn development of the
-
L1J ,"
Env/n)nm..."" FItHIInp of FfM:t
umv..IIy'" SpecIfIc""" E1R
F1....IIfI~~Ia"..
Proposed Project
project wilI be similar to other residential development projects in the City of San Bernardino.
Analyses of all three distinct categories of significant irreversible changes are defined as:
Ch8ngw In Land Use That Would Commit Future Generet/ons
The project proposes to construct 980 residential units. The Proposed Project will consists of 404.3
total acres, with 169.5 acres or 42 percent of the site proposed for residential and related uses,
including 10.2 acres of parks and recreational uses. The project proposes a gross density of2.4
dwelling units per acre (980 units divided by 404.3 tota1 acres) and a net density of 5,8 units per acre,
excluding natural open space (980 units divided by 169.5 acres). Residential densities range from 0.0
to 20 dwelIing units per acre, This change in land use is more compatible with the sUlTOunding area,
therefore, the change in land use would not commit future generations to a significant change in land
use,
Irreversible CIItmges from Environmental Actions
Irreversible changes to the environment could occur ifhazardous substances are released associated
with development of the Project. Compliance with the requirements and mitigation measures would
reduce impact to less than significant. No other sources of irreversible changes from environmental
actions are forecast to occur.
Consumption of Non-Reneweb1e Resources
Consumption of non-renewable resources would be the conversion of agricu1turalland to urban uses,
consumption of energy resources such as electricity and natura1 gas, and the loss of potential mining
resources,
The Draft EIR detennined that development of the project site would not result in a significant impact
on land that is considered suitable for agricu1tura1 use. IN addition, the site is not identified as a
mineral resource site and more suitable locations in the sUlTOunding regions are currently being used
as mineral resource sites. Given the proximity to CSUSB, the site would not be a suitable for mining
of mineral resources in the future.
The project wilI consume non-renewable energy resources during construction and operation such as
petroleum products, construction materials, electricity and natura1 gas. Construction impacts to non-
renewable would be short-term. Operation of the Project is required to comply with mandatoI)'
requirements of Title 24 in regard to energy efficient building design and is required to utilize energy
conservation measures during operations of the facilities within the project.
-
, \
Enlll_taI -1If1lJ of Fact
UnIvw8lly HI/I8 SpedIfc Plan EIR
RndIng~~Io""
~ PrvJet:t
CEQA requires that a Final EIR evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to a project, or to the
location of the project, which: 1) are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant
adverse environmental impact associated with the project; and 2) may be feasibly accomplished in a
successful manner within a reasonable period of time considering the economic, environmental,
social and technological factors involved (CEQA Guidelines ~ 15126,6).
A Final EIR must only evaluate reasonable alternatives to a project which could feasibly attain most
of the project objectives and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives (CEQA Guidelines A
15126.6; Sierra Club 1/. COU1ItyofNapa, 121 Cal. App. 4th 1490 [2004]). In all cases, the
consideration of alternatives is to be judged against a rule of reason (CEQA Guidelines A 15126.6,).
The lead agency is not required to select the environmentally superior alternative identified in the
Final EIR if the alternative does not provide substantial advantages over the Proposed Project and: 1)
through the imposition of mitigation measures the environmental effects of a project can be reduced
to a less than significant level; or 2) there are social, economic, technological or other considerations
which make the alternative infeasible.
The discussion of alternatives is required to include the "No project" alternative. CEQA further
requires that the City identify an environmentally superior alternative. If the "No project" alternative
is the environmentally superior alternative, an environmentally superior alternative must be identified
from among the other a1tematives (CEQA Guidelines, A 15126.6.).
CEQA Guidelines A 15126.6 requires a Final EIR to evaluate an alternative site when an alternative
location would avoid or substantially lessen significant effects. The Final EIR considered five (5)
alternatives that may reduce anticipated impacts to less than significant levels, or will improve the
acceptability or successful implementation of the residential improvements. A swnmary of Project
Alternative Impacts are contained in Table 1.
The objectives for the project as identified in the Final EIR and considered by the City are the
following:
· Include high-quality, high-density housing in a mixed-use setting to increase the diversity of
housing opportunities in San Bernardino and provide housing options that are not currently
available to local residents;
. Use high-quality architecture and landscaping that will maintain and enhance the aesthetic
character of the City of San Bernardino;
,.._-.
Envlnlnm8llW FInd... of Fact
U111wta11y HIlla SpecIIfc ,.,." SR
F/ndInfI Repdfl/l AIIJtmatIvN 10 tile
Propa..d Project
. Provide a "sustainable" community that encompasses construction as well as daily living in
tenns of energy and water conservation, wise choice and use of building materials, reduction of
air pollutants, safety, wa1kability and connectivity to surrounding uses, etc,;
. Provide ample amenities including a community clubhouse and extensive trail system to
encourage healthy and enjoyment of open space,
. Maximize roadway safety through the provision of multiple vehicular ingress and egress
opportunities to the Proposed Project internal roadways and parking facilities and
improvements to the surrounding circulation system;
· Create increased new property and sales taxes annually, in perpetuity, for the City of San
Bernardino, and increased annual property taxes for San Bernardino County and various other
local government agencies; and
. Increase property values in the City of San Bernardino and surrounding unincorporated County
areas.
6.1 - No ProjectlNo Development Alternative
6.1.1 - Description
CEQA requires that a "No Project" a1ternative be evaluated compared to the Proposed Project, The
No Project alternative evaluates existing conditions on the site in the absence of the Proposed Project,
Under this a1ternative, the project site would remain vacant would not be developed into a residential
community, Assuming the project site remains vacant, all significant impacts will be avoided.
However, any benefits of the project related to providing housing opportunities for families as well as
providing infrastructure in an area that is undergoing surrounding residential development would not
be realized.
6.1.2 - Finding
This alternative would eliminate any adverse environmental impacts associated with developing the
project site into a residential community, It would also eliminate the significant impacts associated
with the project (i.e. air quality, population, housing, and SCAG consistency, transportation),
6.1.3 - Facta In Support of Finding
The No Project - No Development Alternative would eliminate the seven significant impacts of the
Proposed Project relative to construction and occupancy of the proposed UHSP. However, it would
result in an indirect impact to future growth of the City. Furthennore, this alternative does not achieve
any of the objectives of the Proposed Project.
-;'"
. .
, I
Envll'OlJlDMI8I Flnd/nfIS of Feet
Unlwtslly HIlls SpecH/c Plan ElR
Flm.ng Rill...... AIIlIrrIlIffws 10 the
1'raposC Pruject
6.2 - No Project - General Plan Development Alternative
6.2.1 - Description
Under this alternative, the site would be developed under the approved PHSP as outlined under the
previous ElR certified in 1993, which allowed 504 residential units.
6.2.2 - Finding
Under this alternative, there would be similar impacts associated with the Proposed Project, as the
land use designation is the similar for the existing General Plan/Specific Plan as the Proposed Project,
Developing the Project area for residential uses could have potential adverse impacts on the adjacent
residential development. It would potentially increase impacts related to Aesthetics, Light, and Glare,
Biological Resources, Cultural Resources Geology, Soils, and Seismicity, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials, and Hydrology and Water Quality,
6.2.3 - Facts In Support of Finding
The No Project - General Plan Development Alternative would have incrementally fewer impacts
related to 10ng-tenn occupancy of the project site since it would allow the development of
approximately half the number of units compared to the Proposed Project (504 vs. 980 or 48.5%)1
However, the UHSP proposes aggressive water and energy conservation measures that would
substantially reduce the differences in these impacts. This alternative would have similar or increased
short-term air quality impacts from grading but reduced construction-related impacts (i.e., fewer
units). Long-tenn air quality impacts under this alternative would be reduced to less than significant
levels, This alternative may have increased impacts on biological and cultural resources, and the
City's water distribution system if development were to occur as outlined in the previously approved
Paradise Hills Specific Plan, This alternative would also create increased risks to project residents and
residences related to wildand fues and geotechnical constraints. Growth inducement and impacts
related to consistency with SCAG growth policies would be reduced to less than significant levels
under this alternative. This alternative does not meet the objectives of the project to the same degree
as the Proposed Project in that the PHSP does not contain CUJTent water or energy conservation
strategies,
6.3 - Modified Specific Plan Alternative
6.3.1 - Description
To reduce air quality and growth inducement impacts, this alternative would be phased and have
more "mixed" uses (i,e., 100,000 square feet of commercial and other non-residential) on the site. It
would also have fewer residential lots (approximately 700 units) but with higher densities than those
allowed under the UHSP to be able to cluster units more effectively. This alternative would likely
require many buildings with 3-4 stories rather than 2-3 story buildings under the current UHSP. The
CUJTent "clubhouse" area would become more of a community center under this alternative, with taller
buildings and approximately 100,000 square feet of a mixture of commercial and professional office
uses, Each residential planning area would be larger overall than under the UHSP, and each would be
,.--,...
En"""'......"" FlndIrIp of F8ct
~ HI" SpecIIIc Plan E1R
FIn...." ~1IfI AJ/IJIn."".1o the
ProposN ProJet:I
built on pads that could be more isolated in tenns of grading. At present, the land plan requires that
the entire development area (approximately 170 acres) be graded at one time to balance earthwork
onsite (i.e" no substantial import of soil onto or export of soil off of the site), Balancing earthwork
within a development area is an important consideration of project design, not only for cost, but to
minimize the import or export of soil from the site, which could significantly increase short-tenn
traffic, noise, and air quality impacts. The only feasible way to accomplish this balancing with
smaller planning areas would be to "pair" two planning areas, one upslope and one downslope, and
use the cut material from the upper area to create a pad for the lower area. This would necessarily
create a more terraced look to the development,
The road system would be similar to that of the proposed UHSP but there would be more open space
between the Planning Areas and the project would be built over a longer period of time to reduce
short-tenn construction impacts,
6.3.2. Finding
Under this alternative, impacts from residential development woud be either equivalent or reduced;
however, the alternative would not reduce environmental impacts in regard to Air Quality and
Transportation,
6.3.3. Facta in Support of Finding
The Modified Specific Plan Alternative would have incrementally fewer impacts related to long-tenn
occupancy of the project site since it would allow the development of fewer residential units
compared to the Proposed Project (700 vs. 980 or 40 percent less), However, the addition of
commercial and office uses under this "mixed use" plan would generate a greater amount of traffic
than the Proposed Project, especially during peak periods. The mixed uses would help reduce the
number and length of vehicular trips off of the project site,
This alternative could reduce short-term (daily) air quality impacts from grading and construction to
less than significant levels, however, it would extend those impacts over a longer period of time if
development phasing were increased (i.e., from 5 to 10 years), Long-term air quality impacts under
this alternative would increased by adding non-residential uses, and would still exceed significance
thresholds.
This alternative would have equivalent impacts on biological and cultural resources, and would likely
create similar risks to project residents and residences (and businesses and employees) related to
wildand fires and geotechnical constraints, Growth inducement and impacts related to consistency
with SCAG growth policies would be reduced to less than significant levels under this alternative.
This alternative would meet some of the objectives of the project,
--
Em/t"""".,.w RIIdtngs of F/Jct
Un,.,.,..", HIls SpecIIIc Plan E1R
Rrdl/fllfeprdllfl-"'Io lite
Propoad ProJect
6.4 - EducationallnatitutlonfTechnology Park Alternative
6.4.1 - Description
The University District Specific Plan identifies the general area for technology park uses, which
would be supported and will benefit from research at the University , To reduce air quality and
growth inducement impacts, this alternative would eliminate residential uses and place an educational
institution and related technology uses in this area to support CSUSB. These uses could be in
conjunction with or in support of the Cal State San Bernardino campus. The proposed alternative
would house approximately 2,75 million square feet of office space, industrial use, and educational
research for information technologies. Based on discussions with the San Bernardino City Unified
School District, this plan does not envision K-12 facilities at this time, The road system would be
similar to that of the proposed UHSP but there might be more open space between various buildings
or uses, and they may be built over a longer period of time to reduce short-term construction impacts.
6.4.2 - Finding
Long-term air quality impacts would not be reduced as the educational institutionltechnology park
uses would generate more vehicular peak hour traffic. However, additional impacts would be similar
or reduced compared to the Proposed Project.
6.4.3. Facts In Support of Finding
The Educational Institutionffechno10gy Park Altemative would produce very different impacts
compared to those from the residential uses of the Proposed Project. It would likely generate more
peak hour traffic, but non-peak hour traffic may be substantially less that that of the Proposed Project.
The addition of educational and institutional uses under this plan would likely not reduce short-term
(daily) air quality impacts from grading and construction to less than significant levels due to the need
to grade the entire area for efficient site planning, Long-term air quality impacts under this
alternative would probably be higher than those produced by residential uses, and would still exceed
significance thresholds.
This alternative would have equivalent impacts on biological and cultural resources, and would likely
create similar risks to project employees and students rather than to project residents and residences in
terms of wildand fires and geotechnical constraints. Growth inducement and impacts related to
consistency with SCAG growth policies would be reduced to less than significant levels under this
alternative. Although the alternative project may meet certain objectives to the same degree as the
Proposed Project, it does not meet all the specific project objectives already outlined in the approved
PHSP.
6.5 - Alternative Sites
6.5.1 - Description
CEQA requires the evaluation of alternative sites if moving the Proposed Project to another site
would eliminate or avoid one or more significant impacts of the Proposed Project. The impacts to
both short-term and long-term air quality would occur regardless of location, The significant impact
"-,.'"
'1' "
, ,
Env#1DIIIJ..IaI FIndInp ofFect
~ HIII8 SpecIlJc Plan EIR
RndhItIIhpIl'''lI~ fa /he
Frvpoeed PrlJject
to freeway traffic might be reduced by a different location, but the 1-215 Freeway experiences similar
levels of congestion from its intersection with the 1-15 four miles to the north down to its intersection
with the 1-10 Freeway six miles to the south
6.5.2. Finding
It is not likely that an aItemative location would eliminate the significant traffic impact of the
Proposed Project. Unless the UHSP project can be buih with mixed uses or adjacent to a transit
center (no sites of this size available near the San Bernardino center), the Proposed Project cannot be
made consistent with the growth projections or policies of SCAG.
6.5.3. Facts In Support of Finding
The ahernative location would not eliminate the significant impacts of the Proposed Project. Based
on discussions with City staff and a survey of the surrounding area, there are no other vacant sites of
this size in the northern portion of San Bernardino. This analysis demonstrates that impacts of
development as proposed under the UHSP on an alternative site would be equivalent to those of the
UHSP developed on this location. Therefore, an ahernative site is not a feasible or viable option for
this project
'"-...
, >
EnwrorJl/flll/al F/ndInf1a of F8ct
UnIvwslty HIlls SpecIlJc Plan EIR
RndhItI "-'*"'~ fa /he
Frvpoeed PrlJject
Table 1: Summary of Project Altematlva 'mpacta
Em.1ror~,nrnt ProtIa.... No,Prvjeot-Ho::.::r::.; IfodIIIM ~U'.IJIIllI ]
at.....;' ProI'i!t ~'" ' · .,.. , SIl.......... 'fTr ...,,....
"'""",...,..... ~ 1III,m..a~.,'..... .~
, Aesthetics, Less than No impact Somewhat i Equivalent but Increased but I...
I Ligb~ and significant i increased i more non- than significant
, Glare' I ---J residential uses ! __J,
I Air Quality ---! SlllDifkut i No impact j'Less Slgnithanll..nt i Less than I " SillDlflcant I
Iii significant
I =:on I S11lD11I..nt : No impact i Slgnifkut i Sl1lD11Icut i
I Biological I Less than 1:0 impact i ~:=~t- I t:i:.., mixed ~+LeSSiIi8D----1
:~E~ r:~:::'~ 'N NoO: ~:-In'~banudtl...--+-~thth:anM: J~Less:-than~-----j
i Geology, Soils, I Less than _...-'
I and Seismic' Significant than si - cant si&1>!f!cant significant __
Hazards and Less than No impact I Reduced but I... I Less than , Significant
i HaDrdous Significant ~ than significant significant ' Inusecreased bam181
i~~ -L
! Hydrology and Less than No impact Increased but less I Less than - -Less tbaD----
I t:-;u~: ~::t No impact ~ ;~fi~f~=~ut leSS I ~~~:~
f-Noise-- I ~::t ----i- No impBCt ~:;;:::"d I... - ~ =~-:I= tIDCfeased bUll...
L Si . cant ~ l than significant _ f ilia.. significant . than significant _
I, Population. Slgnlllcant No impact I Less than ! Less than I Less than
Housing, and Growth Inducing 'I significant I significant i significant
. SCAG 1_& SCAG policies
l_<;:onsistency + f-==: ..
I Public Services Less than No impact Reduced but lesS-~educed but....i- Mixed but I...
1'_ and Recreation Si' cant than si 'cant than significant __I than significant'l
Tnmsportation S....III..nt , No impact Slgnlllcut Slgnlllcut i Slplflcut
I and_~ilwlati:", ~ con~: _I Fwy congestion Local traffic ,& I Local traffic _&
I Agriculture and Less than L No impact -- - -!- Less ttWi------ t-~ :,,~!'!!... . ..~ :.:-on
. Mineral Significant I I, significant I significant . significant
! Resources
! (ftility sYstems I Less thantNo impact i Reduced------j Reduce<t---- + Reduced-- -i
I--MeetSProjecl I ~~ifican!--1--NO -- - ! NoItOsame--+NoltO-_--tNo-----i
IQbiectiv~__ L______ 1 _____..lde~___.ld~____ ! ... _.. _~ ..._..1
.'........
'" ""
. ..
En""""'-'IaI R..,.. of F8ct
~ HIlla SpecItrc Plan EIR
Rndlng RltJ ...... AIflImdtIw fa /he
Frvpoeed PrlJject
6.5.4. Finding
The Final EIR detennined that the Proposed Project would produce significant impacts to Air Quality,
Population, Housing and SCAG Consistency, and Transportation, The Final EIR also determined the
project could potentially contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts to Air Quality and
Transportstion; however, the recommended measures do not reduce impacts under the less than
significant threshold. All five alternatives reduce at least one of the three significant and unavoidable
impacts; however, they create potential land use compatibility conflicts between the alternate uses
and the General Plan. In addition the alternatives would not fully implement the project's objectives
of providing an active residential community with connectivity to the existing residential uses. Since
none of the alternatives are considered environmentsIly superior to the Proposed Project, they are
rejected in favor of the Proposed Project.
6.5.5. Facts In Support of Finding
None of the aItematives achieve the objectives of the project to the same degree as the Proposed
Project. The environmentsI effects of each alternative in relation to the Proposed Project are
summarized in Table 1.
,.,-".
~'~ )
EnIllronmMIaI RIIfI1nt1a of F8ct
~ HIlls SpecIIIc""" ElR
SIlIIlt._t of OvwrIdIng Cona/deI-'
S~'1':fta~_^:,_'-:--"TION8c
.."'....,.." .~ '"'tlii~fi """" V'lf~"'",," ~_"'"
CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 (a) states that:
CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal,
social, technological, or other benefits of a Proposed Project against its unavoidable
environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific
economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a Proposed Project outweigh the
unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be
considered "acceptable."
Where the decision of the public agency allows the occurrence of significant effects which
are identified in the Final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened the agency shall
state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR and/or other
information in the record. This ststement may be necessary if the agency also makes a
fmding under Section I 509 I (a)(2) or 15091 (a)(3).
As identified above, the City of San Bernardino fmds that the project does produce significant and
un-mitigable impacts to Air Quality, Population, Housing and SCAG Consistency, and
Transportation, and, therefore, requires a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The findings have
also analyzed a number of alternatives to determine whether they are reasonable and feasible
alternatives to the proposed action and whether they might reduce or eliminate the significant impacts
of the proposed action. The City of San Bernardino finds that the project will provide specific
economic, social, and other benefits that outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts of
the project, such that those impacts are considered acceptable. Each of the benefits of the Proposed
Project cited is hereby determined to be, in itself and independently of the other project benefits, a
basis for overriding all significant adverse environmental impacts identified in the EIR and in these
fmdings. These benefits are as follows:
I, The Paradise Hills project land plan proposed extensive grading and development within the
middle and upper reaches of Badger Canyon, however, that project was never built. In addition
to the General Plan designating the project site as a Specific Plan, the Land Use Plan in the City's
Land Use Element designates the lower (southern) portion of the site for Residential Suburban
(RS) uses with a density of 4.5 units per acre (7,200 square foot lots), and the northern portion
(i.e" north of the San Andreas Fault and in the middle and upper reaches of Badger Canyon) for
Residential Low (RL) development at 3.1 units per acre. The University Hills Specific plan
addresses the steep slopes surrounding Badger Creek and designated it as Open Space (OS).
2, The northern portions of the site are mitigated with a Hillside Management Overlay as well as a
Foothill Fire Zone Overlay to help to minimize the spread of wildfires, property damage, and
reduce the risk to the public health and safety.
.-.
'"
.. '.l,-- .
En""",."..", FImIIngs of F8ct
1Jn'--"Y HI" SpecIlJc ,.,." EIR
SIlt"-nent ofOvwrldlntl ConBidel-'
3. The University Hills Specific Plan replaces the Paradise Hills Specific Plan and includes a new
land use map, zoning districts, development standards, design guidelines, and infrastructure
requirements for the development of the site. The following elements of the Specific Plan
promote the land use goals of the General Plan:
· Placing housing in close proximity to CSUSB.
· Accommodating up to 60 faculty units, which will create a direct and long-1asting
relationship with CSUSB.
· Orienting the development and clubhouse toward CSUSB.
· Allowing CSUSB to share conference facilities in the clubhouse.
· Dedicating approximately 235 acres of permanent open space to CSUSB as a "land
laboratory."
· Carefully weaving University Hills into its physical surroundings by clustering
development on the lower slopes and away from physical hazards, preserving significant
drainage ways.
4. The Project allows residents the opportunity to live, work, and play in the immediate area. This
reduces the need to use the automobile, which in turn reduces congestion, improves air quality,
fosters walking, and improves overall health and wellness.
5. University Hills is a significant opportunity for the City to achieve many goals described in its
General Plan, such as providing housing types suitable for a variety of lifestyles and incomes.
University Hills accommodates a range of living opportunities including estate, single-family
detached, small-lot detached, cluster court homes, townhomes, and stacked flats, In addition,
University Hills provides fOur acres that will be dedicated to CSUSB and can accommodate up to
60 units for exclusive use as faculty housing.
6. University Hills accommodates 980 residences situated in several neighborllOods, which are
separated by open space corridors, drainage ways, and sloped areas and interconnected by a series
of trails and roadways,
7. Development is focused onto approximately 170 acres, or 42 percent of the totsI site and is
mainly concentrated south of the South Branch of the San Andreas Fault on the lower portions of
the site where the average slopes are generally below 15 percent. North of the South Branch of
the San Andreas Fault, approximately 235 acres, or 58 percent of the site, remains undeveloped
and is designated as permanent open space. It will be dedicated to CSUSB for use as a laboratory
to study the local biology, habitat, and geology. The compact design limits the development
footprint so that open lands are maximized; natural drainage ways are maintained and
__.w
'" '"
.. .. .;
En"',.""".",., FInd/nrIS ofF8ct
~ HI" SpecIlJc,."". EIR
StiI,.,-.tofo..mav.IV ~
incorporated into the design of the project as open space amenities; landscaping and hazards are
avoided or mitigated.
8, The land laboratory contains a variety of native plant species; natural drainages, including Badger
Creek; and the San Andreas Fault system. The proximity of these features to the CSUSB campus
provides unique educational opportunities. It is envisioned that the biology, geology, geography
and environmental studies, and science education departments would be the primary users of the
land laboratory, but it could be used by other disciplines.
9. Uuiversity Hills is designed and programmed to create a long-term and synergistic relationship
with CSUSB. In particular, University Hills directly responds to input from the University
through the provision ofland for faculty housing, the 235-acre land laboratory, pathways, bike
lanes, and the California Walnut Grove Linear Park.
10. University Hills is designed to minimhe the impacts ofIight inlrusion and spillover. CSUSB is
contemp1ating building an observatory on Badger Hill immediately adjacent to University Hills.
To help preserve a dark nighttime sky, this Specific Plan includes strict controls on the type and
design of lighting.
II. Uuiversity Hills is also located within the University District Specific Plan, which was approved
November 1,2005, The University District Specific Plan acts as the umbrella document for a
6,375-acre area, of which University Hills is a part. The intent of the University District Specific
Plan is to "lay a foundation for the integration of the University into the surrounding community."
The University District Specific Plan focuses on creating:
· Pedestrian-oriented developments
· A seamless connection between the community and University
· Integrated cwriculum with CSUSB
· A ''university town"
· Enhanced link to regional recreation
· An efficient vehicular and pedestrian system
· A range of housing types to accommodate a wide range of population, including University
faculty and staff.
· Quality housing
The University District Specific Plan assumed the Paradise Hills Specific Plan in its land use plan
and was amended to reflect the land plan for University Hills in conjunction with this project.
"-'.
'" . "
EXHffiIT D
General Plan Amendment 08-03 consists of the following changes:
1. Amendment of the Land Use Map to change the land use designations within the
project area to:
Large Lot Detached (LLD)
Standard Lot Detached (SLD)
Mixed Detached/Attached Residential (MDA)
Attached Residential (A)
Parks (P)
Clubhouse
Internal Slopes
Open Space
Consistent with Figure 2-9 of the University Hills Specific Plan.
2. Amendment of the University District Specific Plan to change the following:
University District SP Fi2Ure
Chanlle Consistent
With University Hills
Snecific Plan Filrure
Figure 2-9
Figure 3-1
Figure 3-11
Figure 2-6 (Open Space)
Figure 7 Land Use Plan
Figure 8 Vehicular Circulation Plan
Figure 9 Trails Plan
Figure 10 Open Space Plan
I......
'"
Ii
1\
I:
-'--~"-
!wt.,
J
EXHIBIT F
(Large-Format Map)
DEVB.OPER / APPLICANT
INLAND COMMUNITIES CORP,
1801 AVENUE OF THE STARS, SUITE 1205
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
PH: (310) 277-7551
CONTACT: MOHAMAD YOUNES
'ARED UNDER THE SUPrRIASION OF:
. Engineering
. Planning
. Surveying
. Construction Services
"7 !Jl'J$
DAlE'"
Rea D#'. DlJ/.JO,It>>
10370 Hemet sl Suite 200
Riverside. CA 92503
Phone: (951) 358-1433
Fox: (951) 358-1434
MASTER PARCEL MAP NO. 18969
stBJIVISION NO.
PAGE t OF 5
. OWItER
FONTANA CORNERS III
A LIMITED CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP
1801 AVENUE at THE STARS, SUITE 1205
LOS ANGELES,CA 90067
PH: (310) 277-7551
CONTACT: JIM AHMAD
RflfSION
NO. DAlE' ~7ION BY
-.
III
EXHIBIT G
(Large-Format Map)
DEVELOPER / APPLICANT
INLAND COMMUNITIES CORP.
1801 AVENUE OF THE STARS, SUITE 1205
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
PH: (310) 277-7551
CONTACT: MOHAMAD YOUNES
PREPARED IJNDCR THE: SlJl'ERVISION OF':
~,..k/.'.
ABBAS I'AIIlZ
1I.c.E./IIo. H~
PREPARED Bn
'i (n /0/
1MIE'
11m DIP. 1lIJ/.J01l>>
/0310 Hemet st Suite 200
Riverside, CA 92503
Phone: (95/) 358-1433
Fax: (951) 358-1434
J
. Engineering
. Planning
. Surveying
. Construction Services
TENTAnVE TRACT MAP NO. 1B696
SI.E1DMSION NO.
PAGE 1 OF 1
OWlloER
FONTANA CORNERS 11/
A LIMITED CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP
1801 A VENUE OF THE STARS, SUITE 1205
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
PH: (310) 277-7551
CONTACT: JIM AHMAD
RE1AS1ON
NO. 1M IE' 0ESafIPT/ON BY
b.
,.-,.
EXHIBIT H
III
(Large-Format Map)
DEVELOPER / APPLICANT
INLAND COMMUNITIES CORP,
1801 AVENUE OF THE STARS, SUITE 1205
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
PH: (310) 277-7551
CONTACT: MOHAMAD YOUNES
PREPARED UNDER THC StJPER'tfSION OF:
~~
AMUFA
R.CL No. 64]J4
PREPARED B)!
. Engineering
. Planning
. Surveying
. Construction Services
q/l1/of
DAlE'
Rm CXP. t1lf,/.JO/llII
10370 Hemel sl Suile 200
RiverSide, CA 92503
Phone: (951) 358-1433
Fax: (951) 358-1434
TENTATM TRACT MAP NO. 18UO
.SU1DfVISION NO.
PAGE 1 OF 1
NO.
OWllER
FONTANA CORNERS 1/1
A LIMITED CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP
1801 A VENUE OF THE STARS, SUITE 1205
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
PH: (310) 277-7551
CONTACT: JIM AHMAD
RE1IISION
DESCRIPTION
DAlE'
BY
b.
'........