Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6B Waterman and Baseline Transformation Plan (Revised)City of San Bernardino Request for Council Action Public Hearing Date: December 19, 2016 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members From: Mark Scott, City Manager By: Mark Persico, AICP, Community Development Director Oliver Mujica, Planning Division Manager Subject: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT .REPORT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO, 2015081086) FOR THE WATERMAN + BASELINE NEIGHBORHOOD TRANSFORMATION SPECIFIC PLAN (SPECIFIC PLAN 15.01), AND ADOPTING THE FINDINGS OF FACT, STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN 15 -01 TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AND ZONING DISTRICTS OF AN AREA CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 710 ACRES TO THE WATERMAN + BASELINE NEIGHBORHOOD TRANSFORMATION SPECIFIC PLAN. (FIRST READING) Recommendation That the City Council: 1. Adopt the Resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2015051086) and adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations and the and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Attachment 1); and 2. Introduce an Ordinance approving the Waterman Baseline Neighborhood Transformation Specific Plan (SP 15 -01) (Attachment 2) Backaround On November 16, 2016, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2016 -059 (Attachment 3) forwarding a recommendation that the Mayor and Common Council: RM I'2. -1Vt -ILL 1. Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report and adopt the Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and 2. Approve Specific Plan 15 -01, based upon the recommended Findings of Fact. There have been no previous City Council actions related to the Specific Plan. Discussion Pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 19.64 (Specific Plans) of the City of San Bernardino Development Code and California Government Code §65450, National Core - the applicant - is seeking approval of Specific Plan 15 -01 (Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Transformation Specific Plan) which proposes to change the existing General Plan Land Use Designations and the existing Zoning Districts of the properties contained within an area comprised of approximately 710 acres. The Specific Plan will establish the land use policies and development standards to facilitate the maximum build out of up to 4,341 residential units (which is an increase of up to 2,395 residential units) and approximately 3,570,448 square feet of non - residential uses (which an increase of up to approximately 1,204,063 square feet), and the future construction of the associated transportation /mobility and infrastructure improvements. Waterman Gardens anchors the Specific Plan, but the Plan covers a much broader area. Specifically, the proposed boundaries are formed by Sierra Way to the west, Tippecanoe Avenue and the flood control channel on the east, 3`d Street to the south, and Highland Avenue to the north. The western boundary is approximately 1.1 miles east of the Interstate 215 (1 -215) freeway and the northern boundary is approximately 0.6 miles south of Foothill Boulevard. _Overview of a Specific Plarr A specific plan is an economic development tool that sets the long -term vision for neighborhood. Through various programs and incentives, a specific plan guides future development of vacant or underutilized properties. Many cities across the State have successfully used Specific Plans to revitalize neighborhoods. Developers also favor Specific Plan due to the clarity of development standards and the fact that individual projects have been "pre- cleared" for environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Analysis: The Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Transformation Specific Plan does not involve the construction of a specific development project at this time. The Specific Plan contains the following mandated chapters: Chapter 1: Introduction Chapter 2: Community Visioning Chapter 3: Planning Districts Chapter 4: Land Use Plan Chapter 5: Design Guidelines Chapter 6: Mobility Plan Chapter 7: Infrastructure Plan Chapter 8: Implementation and Administration Statement of Objectives The following objectives have been established for the Specific Plan and are intended to aid in the review of the project and associated environmental impacts: • Identify desired land uses for districts within the project area, recognizing that districts have diverse needs, opportunities, constraints and assets; • "Attract a mix of quality, compatible residential, commercial, professional office and light industrial development while preserving and enhancing existing established residential neighborhoods; • Augment the area's development capabilities by enhancing the linkages between Downtown and Inland Valley Development Agency reuse and development, focusing on the economic and physical synergies between these two areas; • Encourage the growth of jobs and services, with opportunities and training available to existing and future residents within the neighborhood; • Support existing investment in the area and enhancing existing assets; • Lessen existing land -use conflicts and ensuring avoidance of future conflicts between residential neighborhoods and non - residential uses; • Further the physical and economic revitalization of the Waterman + Baseline neighborhood; • Develop a human capital plan to improve overall quality of life for residents focused on education, healthcare and job development; and • Minimize the potential for displacement of existing residents as new residents are accommodated. Project Description The proposed Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Transformation Specific Plan will establish a land use and development framework, identify needed transportation and infrastructure improvements, and serve as a marketing tool for attracting developers to key sites and for boosting economic development. The Specific Plan is intended to encourage residential and neighborhood- serving commercial establishments on major corridors such as Baseline Avenue and Waterman Avenue, direct the creation of employment generating uses to the southern portion of the project area closer to the Civic Center and Downtown, and protect and enhance the existing residential neighborhoods. The proposed land use plan accommodates an increase in existing residential uses from an estimated 2,049 units to approximately 4,341 units, an increase in commercial uses from approximately 2,366,385 square feet to approximately 31570,448 square feet, and establishes six (6) distinct districts to guide future development of key parcels throughout the project area, as follows: • District 1 - Uptown Professional District This district encompasses approximately 82 acres located in the northern portion of the Specific Plan project area. It includes all of the parcels fronting Waterman Avenue between Highland Avenue and 13th Street. The District is intended to consolidate the medical uses scattered along Waterman Avenue into a focused district that leverages the demand generated by St. Bernardine Medical Center. This district would be zoned entirely as a mixed use district accommodating office uses, neighborhood serving commercial uses and limited residential uses up to 20 dwelling units an acre with a focus on senior housing. The Specific Plan would establish a connection to the Midtown District for its employees, patients, and visitors. • District 2 Westside Neighborhood District This district encompasses approximately 127 acres at the western end of the Specific Plan project area. The boundaries of this district are formed by Sierra Way to the west, Waterman Avenue to the east, and 5th Street on the south. The district also includes the parcels fronting both sides of Baseline Street. The primary intent of this district is to improve and preserve the existing single family neighborhoods to the west of Waterman Avenue. This district would also accommodate mixed use development primarily including neighborhood serving commercial uses along Baseline Street and Waterman Avenue. • District 3 - Midtown Core District Located in the center of the Specific Plan project area, this district encompasses approximately 120 acres and would serve as the center of the neighborhood. The boundaries of the district are Waterman Avenue on the west, 9th Street on the south, with no formal roadway boundaries to the north or east. Pivotal to this district is the redevelopment of Waterman Gardens, a 38 -acre public housing project. The proposed project replaces 252 units of existing public housing with approximately 400 units of mixed income housing, a central park, community center, and other community and recreational resources. Olive Avenue would be re- designed and accommodate a pedestrian- oriented avenue with a variety of housing options, commercial shops and eating establishments along Waterman and Baseline Avenues, all within walking distance to a repurposed public K -12 school campus. Mixed use development would be accommodated including residential uses up to 30 dwelling units an acre. • District 4 - Eastside Neighborhood District This district encompasses approximately 144 acres at the eastern end of the Specific Plan project area adjacent to the Midtown Core District. The boundaries of this district are loosely formed by Tippecanoe Avenue and the flood control channel to the east and south, _the parcels fronting Baseline to the north, with no formal boundary to the west. This district would accommodate mixed use development primarily including neighborhood serving commercial uses along Baseline Avenue that is consistent with the existing single family neighborhoods to the south. Portions of this district located along or adjacent to the flood control channel would be included in a linear park or trail system along the southern and eastern edges of the district. ® District 5 - Gateway District This district encompasses approximately 97 acres located south of 7tn Street, east of Sierra Way, north of 3` Street, and west of Waterman Avenue. This district would introduce streetscape and building design indicating a gateway to the Specific Plan area that would connect and distinguish the neighborhood from the Civic Center /Downtown. This district is intended to promote the identity of San Bernardino through enhanced landscaping and signage as well as mixed -use development at Seccombe Lake. This district accommodates mixed use development along Waterman Avenue, with a small single family enhancement area in the center of the district. The majority of the district, including Seccombe Lake, would allow for higher density residential development up to 30 dwelling units per acre with compatible neighborhood serving commercial uses in the form of vertical or horizontal mixed use. • District 6 - Em to ment District. This district encompasses approximately 140 acres, located south of 6" Street, east of Waterman Avenue, north of 3`d Street, and west of the flood control channel. This district would be an employment generating and flexible business use district. This district would accommodate office, commercial, and business park uses (mix of business and support services) creating new job opportunities in close proximity to new and existing residential development. The Specific Plan project area fronting Waterman Avenue would accommodate the development of mixed use rojects including residential up to 20 dwelling units per acre. The portion between 5 h and 4th Streets would remain as the existing residential neighborhood. Portions of this district located in or adjacent to the flood control channel would be included in a linear park or trail system along the eastern edge of the district. The table below presents information on the existing conditions of each district including the square footage of non - residential uses and the number of residential units, and the proposed build -out of residential units and non - residential square footage allowed by the proposed Specific Plan. Land Use Designations To guide development and encourage revitalization of the neighborhood, the Specific Plan would establish five (5) new land use designations to achieve a mix of residential uses and commercial uses. The five (5) land use designations within the Specific Plan Area are, as follows: specific Plan Build -Out 'ections District Name Area (acres) Existing -Pro Existing Proposed Proposed Residential Commercial Residential Commercial U town Professional 81.7 units 259 units s uare feet 1,244,332 SF units 277 s uare feet Westside Nei hborhood 127.0 397 units 243,519 SF units 808 units 513,363 SF 342,852 SF Midtown Core Mixed Use Eastside Nel hborhood 119.2 344 units 346,981 SF 1,017 units 610,450 SF Gatewa 144.5 657 units 108,527 SF 1,402 units 206,614 SF Mixed Business 97.4 140.9 229 units 136,318 SF 675 units 444,896 SF Total.. 60 units 286,708 SF 162 units 1,452,273 SF 710.7 1,946 units 2,3861385 SF 4,341 units 3,570,448 SF Land Use Designations To guide development and encourage revitalization of the neighborhood, the Specific Plan would establish five (5) new land use designations to achieve a mix of residential uses and commercial uses. The five (5) land use designations within the Specific Plan Area are, as follows: ® Open Space. This land use designation is intended to preserve and create recreational and open space opportunities throughout the Specific Plan Area. New development is not permitted, unless it is tied to recreational uses and /or enhancement of existing facilities, such as a linear trail, ball parks, pocket parks, tot lots, and other similar uses. Neighborhood Residential This land use designation is intended to promote the preservation and enhancement of existing single family neighborhoods while allowing for the development of new residential units, up to 14 dwelling units per acre. This land use designation would buffer existing neighborhoods from higher intensity surrounding uses and provide transitions between residential and non- residential uses. Corridor Mixed Use This land use designation is intended to encourage the development of a mix of neighborhood serving commercial and residential uses along Waterman Avenue and Baseline Street. This land use designation would accommodate both vertical and horizontal mixed use development up to 20 dwelling units per acre and a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.5. Existing businesses and new construction would incorporate streetscape improvements to encourage walkability along these two major corridors. Urban Mixed Use. This land use designation is intended to develop a pedestrian - oriented environment with a variety of housing options, commercial shops and eating establishments. Mixed use development will be encouraged including residential uses up to 30 dwelling units an acre and non - residential uses up to a FAR of 0.75. This land use designation is also intended to create a sense of place and identify the Specific Plan Area as a distinct location within the City. Employment. This land use designation is intended to promote the development of employment generating uses including office, commercial, and business park uses (mix of business and support services) to establish new job opportunities in close proximity to new and existing residential development. This land use designation allows for non - residential uses up to a FAR of 0.75. Opportunity Areas Within each district, two (2) types of opportunity sites have been identified; catalytic sites and redevelopment sites. Catalytic sites are envisioned to be significant development projects that are likely to occur in the near future that will create the momentum for other revitalization projects on adjacent and nearby parcels. There are seven catalytic sites identified as having a high likelihood of being revitalized in the near future. in contrast, revitalization sites are parcels throughout the Specific Plan area that are generally vacant or house underutilized properties and /or older facilities that no longer meet current standards and market conditions, and thus have the most potential for change. They are typically smaller in size and may require additional steps to facilitate revitalization (i.e. lot consolidation, demolition). A large number of parcels throughout the Specific Plan area have been identified as revitalization sites particularly along Waterman Avenue, 5" Street, and Baseline Street Enhancement Areas The Specific Plan includes "Enhancement Areas" that are predominantly residential neighborhoods that lie outside of the "Opportunity Areas." No substantive changes are proposed for these areas. Enhancement Areas include established residential neighborhoods outside the corridors, and some existing office professional and commercial parcels that are already developed with compatible, economically viable and job - generating uses. The Specific Plan intends to retain, enhance, and improve these Enhancement Areas. Land Use Plan and Design Guidelines Chapter 4 includes development standards for the reuse of existing buildings and new infill development within each of the five (5) Districts. It also includes a listing of the permitted uses for each District. While the Specific Plan establishes the development standards and permitted uses within the project area and will serve as the governing policy document for future development and revitalization, it does not automatically create non - conforming uses or developments within the project area. Existing properties will be allowed to continue and modification may be completed as previously allowed by the City's Development Code. Thus, the Specific Plan is intended to serve as the governing document for large scale developments involving the assemblage of properties and /or the revitalization of existing sites. The Design Guidelines, contained in Chapter 5, of the Specific Plan provides recommendations for how buildings and projects should be developed or revitalized to enhance the architectural style of the existing and future neighborhoods. These guidelines ensure that developments are scaled appropriately within the context of the greater neighborhood and intended to direct the reuse of existing buildings and ensure that infill development reflects the values of local residents and stakeholders of the community. Infrastructure Plan Chapter 7 presents the existing and conceptual improvements related to water, sewage, storm water drainage, solid waste disposal, energy and other essential facilities that are necessary to support future development within or adjacent to the Specific Plan project area. The adoption of this Specific Plan does not commit the City to provide funding. The infrastructure improvements will be appropriately conditioned on a project -by- project basis with no funding or improvements to be provided by the City unless as part of the City's Capital Improvements Program. Implementation and Administration Chapter 8 primarily addresses the manner by which future reviewed through the discretionary land use entitlement process the regulations and development standards contained within intended for large -scale developments and /or development assemblage of parcels. Minor modifications to existing buildings developments will be It should be noted that the Specific Plan are projects involving the will be governed by the City's Development Code. It should also be noted that, while the Specific Plan includes development standards and incentives intended to maximize development potential, Development Permit applications and the appropriate application fees will be still required. Chapter 8 of the Specific Plan also introduces the concept of a "Specific Plan Recovery Fee" that would allow the City to develop and impose a fee upon applicants seeking the approval of discretionary land use entitlement applications, which has been included in Appendix D. However, consideration of this matter will be deferred to such time that the City conducts its Fee Study. General Plan Goals and Policies The City of San Bernardino General Plan includes primary goals and policies to guide future development within the City. The proposed Specific Plan provides a detailed explanation of the Specific Plan's relationship to the City's General Plan, including a comparison of goals, objectives and policies. The intent of the comparison is to demonstrate the Specific Plan's consistency with the General Plan and how the Specific Plan implements the General Plan's policies. Appendix C of the Specific Plan provides a side -by -side comparison of the City's General Plan policies and the various elements of the Specific Plan that carry out these policies. California Environmental Quality Act• In accordance with §15082 (Notice of Preparation and Determination of Scope of EIR) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was released on August 31, 2015 for the CEQA- mandated thirty (30) day public review period. The purpose of the NOP was to announce the preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Transformation Specific Plan and to allow the general public and other agencies with the opportunity to submit comments as to the contents of the Draft EIR. Additionally, a, public scoping meeting was conducted on September 10, 2015, pursuant to the requirements of CEQA. The NOP process helps to determine the scope of the environmental issues to be addressed in the Draft EIR. Subsequently, the applicant submitted and the Planning Division accepted the Draft EIR prepared in connection with the Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Transformation Specific Plan. Accordingly, pursuant to §15085 (Notice of Completion) of CEQA, a Notice of Completion was filed with the State of California Office of Planning and Research (State Clearinghouse No. 2015081086) and, pursuant to §15087 (Public Review of Draft EIR) of CEQA, the Draft EIR was released on July 29, 2016 for the CEQA- mandated forty -five (45) day public review period. Again, the purpose of this public review period was to allow the general public and other agencies with the opportunity to submit comments as to the contents and analysis of the Draft EIR. In accordance with §15132 (Contents of Final EIR) of CEQA, the applicant submitted and the Planning Division accepted the Final EIR prepared in connection with the Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Transformation Specific Plan. The Final EIR consists of the following: 1) the revised Draft EIR; 2) responses to comments on the Draft EIR; 3) CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations; and, 4) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report Based upon the comments received during the CEQA- mandated forty -five (45) day public review period, the Draft EIR has been revised to address the comments submitted and to provide additional analysis to substantiate the environmental conclusions of the Draft EIR. Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report During the CEQA- mandated forty -five (45) day public review period, comments on the Draft EIR were submitted by the following: • Blum Collins, LLP (on behalf of SoCal Environmental Justice Alliance) • Caltrans District 8 • California Department of Toxic Substances Control • San Bernardino County Department of Public Works As determined by the Planning Commission, the comments received on the Draft EIR have been adequately addressed. CEQA Findings of Fact Upon the completion of the revised Draft EIR, it was concluded that the implementation of the Specific Plan could create potentially significant adverse impacts, unless adequately mitigated, for the following environmental factors: • Aesthetics • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Geology and Soils • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Hydrology and Water Quality • Land Use and Planning • Mineral Resources • Population and Housing • Public Services • Recreation • Utilities and Services Systems Pursuant to CEQA, the City of San Bernardino is required to make written findings to support the certification of the Final EIR prior to the approval of the Specific Plan. Accordingly, as previously mentioned above, the Final EIR includes the CEQA Findings of Fact for consideration by the City Council CEQA Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOCI Upon the completion of the revised Draft EIR, it was concluded that the implementation of the Specific Plan would create unavoidable adverse impacts that could not be mitigated to an insignificant level, for the following environmental factors: • Air Quality • Greenhouse Gas Emissions ® Noise • Transportation and Traffic Pursuant to CEQA, the City of San Bernardino is required to balance the benefits of the proposed Specific Plan against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining to certify the Final EIR prior to the approval of the Specific Plan. Accordingly, as previously mentioned above, the Final EIR includes the CEQA SOC for consideration by the City Council. In summary, the Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Transformation Specific Plan provides the following benefits: E Economic Growth ® Employment Opportunities O Reduction of Vehicle Miles Traveled ® Sustainability i Provision of Needed Housing Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Transformation Specific Plan will contribute towards providing additional housing at all income levels and establishes the area as a major employment center while improving the physical image of the public realm and complying with regional sustainability regulations and mandates, all of which outweigh the unavoidable environmental impacts. The SOC is included as Exhibit A to Attachment 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the Final EIR includes a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to ensure that the implementation of the proposed Specific Plan will adequately mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The MMRP is included as Exhibit B to Attachment 1. Fiscal Impact There no direct fiscal impacts from adoption of the Specific Plan. However, as individual construction projects are built and occupied property values will increase and the tax base will also increase. Conclusion This Specific Plan will serve as catalysis to transform the area and leverage the public resources being spent on the reconstruction of Waterman Gardens. On November 16, 20160 the Planning Commission determined that the proposed Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Transformation Specific Plan is consistent with the City of San Bernardino General Plan and Development Code and that the application satisfies all Findings of Fact required for approval of Specific Plan 15 -09. Attachments Attachment 1 Resolution Certifying the Final EIR and adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations Exhibit A — Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) Exhibit B — Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) Attachment 2 Ordinance Adopting the Waterman Baseline Neighborhood Transformation Specific Plan Attachment 3 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -059 Attachment 4 Public Hearing Notice Wards: 1 and 2 Synopsis of Previous Council Actions: There is no previous City Council action related to the Specific Plan 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO, 2015081086) FOR THE WATERMAN + BASELINE 'NEIGHBORHOOD TRANSFORMATION SPECIFIC PLAN (SPECIFIC PLAN 15 -01), AND ADOPTING THE FINDINGS OF FACT, STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. WHEREAS, on September 15, 2015, pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 19.64 (Specific Plans) of the City of San Bernardino Development Code and California Government Code §65450, and application for Specific Plan 15 -01 was duly submitted by: Project Applicant: National Core Renaissance 9421 Haven Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 WHEREAS, Specific Plan 15 -01 is a request to allow the change of the General Plan Land Use Designations and the Zoning Districts of the properties contained within an area comprised of approximately 710 acres in order to establish the Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Transformation Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code §21067 of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §21000 et seq.) (CEQA), §15367 of the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, §15000 et seq.) and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, the City of San Bernardino is the lead agency for proposed Specific Plan 15-01; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Division of the Community Development Department of the City of San Bernardino determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should be prepared in order to analyze all potential adverse environmental impacts of proposed Specific Plan 15 -01; and WHEREAS, pursuant to §15082 of CEQA, the Planning Division of the Community development Department of the City of San Bernardino issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) >f a Draft EIR for proposed Specific Plan 15 -01 on August 31, 2015, and circulated the NOP or the CEQA - mandated thirty (30) day public review period and a public scoping meeting vas conducted on September 10, 2015, pursuant to the requirements of CEQA in order to 1 1 I i allow the general public and other agencies with the opportunity to submit comments as to the 211 contents of the Draft EIR; and 3 WHEREAS, pursuant to §15087 of CEQA, the Planning Division of the Community Development Department of the City of San Bernardino released a Notice of Completion of 4 the Draft EIR for proposed Specific Plan 15 -01 on July 29, 2016 for the CEQA- mandated 5 forty -five (45) day public review and comment period; and 6 WHEREAS, pursuant to §15086 of CEQA, the Planning Division of the Community 7 Development Department of the City of San Bernardino consulted with and requested 8 comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory agencies, and other 9 during the CEQA- mandated forty -five (45) day public review and comment period; and 10 WHEREAS, the Planning Division of the Community Development Department of 11 the City of San Bernardino received two (2) comment letters from state agencies, one (1) comment letter from a local agency, and one (1) comment letter from an environmental 12 organization during the CEQA- mandated forty -five (45) day public review and comment 13 period; and 14 WHEREAS, pursuant to §15132 of CEQA, the applicant submitted and the Planning 15 Division of the Community Development Department of the City of San Bernardino accepted 16 the Final EIR for proposed Specific Plan 15 -01, which consists of the following: 1) the 17 revised Draft EIR; 2) responses to comments on the Draft EIR; 3) CEQA Findings of Fact; 4) 18 Statement of Overriding Considerations; and, 5) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting 19 Program; and WHEREAS, on October 27, 2016, pursuant to the requirements of §19.64.040 of the 20 City of San Bernardino Development Code, the Development and Environmental Review 21 Committee reviewed the application and moved the Final EIR and Specific Plan 15 -01 to the 22 Planning Commission for consideration; and 23 WHEREAS, on November 16, 2016, pursuant to the requirements of §19.64.050 of 24 the City of San Bernardino Development Code, the Planning Commission held the duly 25 noticed public hearing at which interested persons had an opportunity to testify in support of, 26 or opposition to the Final EIR submitted by the applicant for Specific Plan 15 -01, and at 27 which meeting the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2016 -059 recommending to 28 Kj 1 the City Council the certification of the Final EIR and the approval of Specific Plan 15 -01; and 2 WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of Chapters 19.64 of the City of San 3 Bernardino Development Code, the City Council has the authority to take action on the Final 4 EIR and Specific Plan 15 -01; and 5 WHEREAS, notice of the December 19, 2016 public hearing for the City Council's 6 consideration of the proposed Resolution was published in The Sun newspaper on December 7 2, 2016, in accordance with Development Code Chapter 19.52. 8 9 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE 10 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS: 11 SECTION 1. The City Council find that the above - stated Recitals are true and 12 hereby adopt and incorporate them herein. 13 SECTION 2. The City Council has independently reviewed, analyzed and exercised 14 judgment in finding that Specific Plan 15 -01 will have significant unavoidable impacts on the 15 environment, however, based upon the CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding 16 considerations, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference, the City Council 17 finds the impacts are acceptable because the benefits of the project outweigh the environmental 18 impacts. The CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations are hereby 19 adopted. The City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated by reference, as a set of conditions under which 20 Specific Plan 15 -01 will be implemented and as legally binding upon the City. The City Council 21 hereby approves and certifies the Final Environmental Impact Report, and incorporates the same 22 herein by this reference, as accepted by the Planning Commission to the effects of Specific Plan 23 15 -01. 24 SECTION 3. Specific Plan 15 -01, as approved by Ordinance, is incorporated herein 25 by reference. 26 SECTION 4. The Planning Division of the Community Development Department is 27 hereby directed to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk of the County of San 3 I Bernardino certifying the City's compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act in 2 certifying the Final EIR. 3 SECTION 5. Severabilitv: If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, or clause or phrase in this Resolution or any part thereof is for any reason held to be 4 unconstitutional, invalid or ineffective by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision 5 shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the remaining portions of this Resolution or any 6 part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted each section 7 irrespective of the fact that any one or.more subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, or 8 phrases be declared unconstitutional, invalid, or ineffective. 9 10 Exhibit A — Statement of Overriding Considerations 11 Exhibit B — Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 rd I RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 211 (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO, 2015081086) FOR THE WATERMAN + BASELINE NEIGHBORHOOD TRANSFORMATION SPECIFIC PLAN (SPECIFIC PLAN 15 -01), 3 AND ADOPTING THE FINDINGS OF FACT, STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING 4 CONSIDERATIONS AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA 5 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. 611 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City 7 Council of the City of San Bernardino at a regular meeting thereof, held on the day 8 of 2016, by the following vote, to wit: 9 Council Members: AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENT 10 MARQUEZ 11 BARRIOS 12 VALDIVIA 13 SHORETT 14 NICKEL 15 RICHARD 16 MULVIHILL 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Georgeann Hanna, CMC, City Clerk The foregoing Resolution is hereby approved this day of Approved as to form: Gary D. Saenz, City Attorney By: 5 R. CAREY DAVIS, Mayor City of San Bernardino 2016. I ORDINANCE NO, 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN 15 -01 TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND 3 USE DESIGNATIONS AND ZONING DISTRICTS OF AN AREA CONTAINING 4 APPROXIMATELY 710 ACRES TO THE WATERMAN + BASELINE NEIGHBORHOOD TRANSFORMATION SPECIFIC PLAN. 5 6 WHEREAS, the current City of San Bernardino Development Code was initially 7 implemented in 1991; and 8 WHEREAS, the current City of San Bernardino General Plan was initially implemented in 2005; and 9 WHEREAS, on November 16, 2016, the Planning Commission of the City of San 10 Bernardino held a noticed public hearing to consider public testimony and the staff report, and 11 adopted Resolution 2016 -059 recommending the certification of the Final Environmental 12 Impact Report and the approval of Specific Plan 15 -01 to the City Council; and 13 WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing for the City Council's consideration of the 14 proposed Ordinance was published in The Sun newspaper on December 9, 2016. 15 NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN 16 BERNARDINO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 17 SECTION 1. The City Council finds that the above - stated Recitals are true and 18 hereby adopt and incorporate them herein. 19 20 SECTION 2. Findines of Fact — Specific Plan 15 -01. 21 Finding No. 1: The proposed plan is consistent with the General Plan. 22 23 Finding of Fact: The Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Transformation Specific Plan 24 proposes to change the General Plan Land Use Designations and the 25 Zoning Districts of the properties contained within an area comprised 26 of approximately 710 acres in order to establish the land use policies 27 and development standards to facilitate the maximum build out of up to 28 1 4,341 residential units and approximately 3,570,448 square feet of non- 2 residential uses, and the future construction of the associated 3 transportation/mobility and infrastructure improvements. The primacy 4 5 purpose of the Specific Plan is to provide a vision and implementation 6 program for the future development of vacant or underutilized 7 properties within Specific Plan boundaries. This Specific Plan also 8 contains a comprehensive set of goals, objectives, strategies and 9 guidelines to be used by the City to support, attract and facilitate new 10 development and revitalization projects. 11 12 The City of San Bernardino General Plan includes primary goals and 13 policies to guide future development within the City. The proposed 14 Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Transformation Specific Plan 15 provides a detailed explanation of the Specific Plan's relationship to the 16 City's General Plan, including a comparison of goals, objectives and 17 18 policies. Through Appendix C of the Specific Plan a side -by -side 19 comparison of the City's General Plan policies and the various elements 20 of the Specific Plan that carry out these policies has been provided to 21 demonstrate a consistency of Specific Plan 15 -01 with the City's 22 General Plan, which includes the following: 23 ✓ Land Use Element 24 25 o Preserve and Enhance San Bernardino's Unique 26 Neighborhoods 27 o Promote Development that Integrates with and 28 Minimizes Impacts on Surrounding Land Uses 2 1 o Create and Enhance Dynamic, Recognizable Places for 2 San Bernardino's Residents, Employees, and Visitors 3 o Enhance the Quality of Life and Economic Vitality in 4 San Bernardino by Strategic Infill of New Development 5 6 and Revitalization of Existing Development 7 o Entrance the Aesthetic Quality of Land Uses and 8 Structures in San Bernardino 9 o Control Development and the Use of Land to Minimize 10 Adverse Impacts on Significant Natural, Historic, 11 12 Habitat, and Hillside Resources 13 o Provide for the Development and Maintenance of Public 14 Infrastructure and Services to Support Existing and 15 Future Residents, Businesses, Recreation, and Other 16 Uses 17 18 o Protect the Life and Property of Residents, Businesses, 19 and Visitors to the City of San Bernardino from Crime 20 and the Hazards of Flood, Fire, Seismic Risk, and 21 Liquefaction 22 o Actively Apply, Enforce, and Utilize the General Plan in 23 the Day -to -Day Activities of the City 24 ✓ 25 Housing Element 26 o Facilitate the Development of a Variety of Types of 27 Housing to Meet the Needs of All Income Levels in the 28 City of San Bernardino 3 I o Conserve and Improve the Condition of the Existing 2 Affordable Housing Stock and Revitalize 3 Neighborhoods Containing a Substantial Percentage of 4 5 Deteriorated Dwelling Units 6 o Assist in the Development of Adequate Housing to Meet 7 the Needs of Low and Moderate - Income Households 8 o Assist the Provision of Housing for Residents with 9 Special Needs 10 o Reduce the Adverse Effects of Governmental Actions on 11 12 the Production, Preservation, and Conservation of 13 Housing, Particularly for Low and Moderate Income 14 Households 15 o Promote Equal Housing Opportunity for All Residents of 16 the City of San Bernardino 17 ✓ Economic Development Element 18 19 o Encourage Economic Activity that Capitalizes upon the 20 Transportation and Locational Strengths of San 21 Bernardino 22 o Retain and Expand the City's Government/Public Office 23 Cluster Uses 24 25 o Continue and Expand the City's Marketing and 26 Promotional Campaigns 27 o Attract Businesses Through an Efficient Improvement 28 Program 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 o Identify and Attract New Employment Types /Land Uses that Complement the Existing Employment Clusters and Foster Long -Team Economic Growth o Establish Employment Sectors that Support Business Growth o Build on the Health Care Clusters to Attract and retain Related Employment o Build on Transportation Clusters to Attract and Retain Dependent Employment Sectors o Prevent Retail Sales Leakage and Recapture Regional Retail Expenditure Through Key Sectors o Ensure Fiscal Viability in Order to Provide a High Level of Services to the Community and Finance Capital Projects o Positively Define and Capitalize on Available Workforce Skill Capabilities to Attract New Employers o Enhance, Maintain, and Develop Recreational, Cultural, Entertainment, and Educational Facilities within the City o Expand on Historic and the Natural Assets to Attract Recreational Visitors ✓ Community Design Element o Attractively Design, Landscape, and Maintain San Bernardino's Major Corridors 3 1 o Recognize Unique Features in Individual Districts and 2 Neighborhoods and Develop a Program to Create 3 Unifying Design Themes to Identify Areas Throughout 4 the City 5 6 o Ensure Individual Projects are Well Designed and 7 Maintained 8 o Develop Attractive, Safe, and Comfortable Single 9 Family Neighborhoods 10 o Ensure that Multi- Family Housing is Attractively 11 12 Designed and Scaled to Contribute to the Neighborhood 13 and Provide Visual Interest Through Varied Architectural 14 Detailing 15 o Develop Attractive and Safe Commercial, Office, and 16 Industrial Projects that are Creatively Designed and 17 Intelligently Sited 18 ✓ 19 Circulation Element 20 o Provide a Well- Maintained Street System 21 o Maintain Efficient traffic Operations on City Streets 22 o Provide a Safe Circulation System 23 o Minimize the Impact of Roadways on Adjacent Land 24 25 Uses and Ensure Compatibility Between Land Uses and 26 Highway Facilities to the Extent Possible 27 28 I o Develop a Transportation System that Reduces Conflicts 2 Between Commercial Trucking, Private /Public 3 Transportation, and Land Uses 4 5 o Promote a Network of Multi -Modal Transportation 6 Facilities that are Safe, Efficient, and Connected to 7 Various Points of the City and the Region 8 o Achieve a Balance Between Parking Supply and 9 Demand 10 ✓ Public Facilities and Services Element 11 12 o Protect the Residents of San Bernardino from Criminal 13 Activity and Reduce the Incidence of Crime 14 o Protect the Residents and Structures of San Bernardino 15 from the Hazards of Fire 16 o Meet the Educational Needs of the City's Residents and 17 Integrate Our Higher Educational Facilities into the 18 19 Fabric of Our Community 20 o Maintain and Enhance the Cultural Quality of Life for 21 the City's Residents 22 ✓ Parks, Recreational and Trails Element 23 o Improve the Quality of Life in San Bernardino by 24 25 Providing Adequate Parks and Recreation Facilities and 26 Services to Meet the Needs of Our Residents 27 o Design and Maintain Our Parks and Recreation Facilities 28 to Maximum Safety, Function, Beauty, and Efficiency 7 1 o Develop a Well- Designed System of Interconnected 2 Multi- Purpose Trails, Bikeways, and Pedestrian Paths 3 o Provide Adequate Funding for Parkland and Trails 4 Acquisition, Improvements, Maintenance, and Programs 5 ✓ 6 Utilities Element 7 o Provide a System of Wastewater Collection and 8 Treatment Facilities that will Adequately Convey and 9 Treat wastewater Generated by Existing and Future 10 Development in the City's Service Area 11 12 o Ensure that all Wastewater Collection and Treatment 13 Facilities are Operated to Maximum Public Safety 14 o Provide Water Supply, Transmission, Distribution, 15 Storage, and Treatment Facilities to Meet Present and 16 Future Water Demands in a Timely and Cost Effective 17 Manner 18 19 o Provide Appropriate Storm Drain and Flood Control 20 Facilities where Necessary 21 o Provide an Adequate and Orderly System for the 22 Collection and Disposal of Solid Waste to Meet the 23 Demands of New and Existing Developments in the City 24 25 o Ensure an Adequate, Safe, and Orderly Supply of 26 Electrical Energy is Available to Support Existing and 27 Future Land Uses within the City on a Project Level 28 0 1 o Ensure an Adequate Supply of Natural Gas is Available 2 to Support Existing and Future Land Uses within the 3 City at a Project Level 4 o Ensure the Operation and Maintenance of 5 6 Telecommunications Systems to Support Existing and 7 Future Land Uses within the City 8 o Ensure that the Costs of Infrastructure Improvements are 9 Borne by those who Benefit 10 ✓ Safety Element 11 o Protect the Environment, Public Health, Safety, and 12 13 Welfare from Hazardous Wastes 14 o Protect Proper Operations of Hazardous Waste Facilities 15 and Ensure Regulations Applicable to these Facilities are 16 Enforced 17 o Minimize the Threat of Surface and Subsurface Water 18 19 Contamination and Promote restoration of Healthful 20 Groundwater Resources 21 o Reduce Urban Run -Off from New and Existing 22 Development 23 o Protect the Lives and Properties of Residents and 24 Visitors of the City from Flood Hazards 25 26 o Protect Life, Essential Lifelines, and Property from 27 Damage Resulting from Seismic Activity W'.' so 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 o Prevent the Loss of Life, Serious Injuries, and Major Disruption Caused by the Collapse of or Sever Damage to Vulnerable Buildings in an Earthquake o Minimize Exposure to and Risks from Geologic Activities o Protect People and Property from Urban and Wildland Fire Hazards o Ensure the Availability and Effective Response of Emergency Services in the Event of a Disaster ✓ Historical And Archaeological Resources Element o Develop a Program to Protect, Preserve, and Restore the Sites, Buildings and Districts that have Architectural, Historical, Archaeological, and/or Cultural Significance o Promote Community Appreciation for Our History and Cultural Resources o Protect and Enhance Our Historic and Cultural Resources o Protect and Enhance Our Archaeological Resources ✓ Natural Resources and Conservation Element o Conserve and Enhance San Bernardino's Biological Resources o Protect Riparian Corridors to Provide Habitat for Fish and Wildlife IS11 1 o Promote Air Quality that is Compatible with the Health, 2 Well- Being, and Enjoyment of Life 3 o Reduce the Amount of Vehicular Emissions in San 4 Bernardino 5 ✓ 6 Energy and Water Conservation Element 7 o Conserve Scarce Energy Resources 8 o Manage and Protect the Quality of the City's Surface 9 Waters and Ground Water Basins 10 ✓ Noise Element 11 12 o Ensure that Residents are Protected from Excessive 13 Noise Through Careful Land Planning 14 o Encourage the Reduction of Noise from Transportation - 15 Related Noise Sources Such as Motor Vehicles, Aircraft 16 Operations, and Railroad Movements 17 18 o Protect Residents from the Negative Effects of "Spill 19 Over" or Nuisance Noise 20 Finding No. 2: The proposed plan would not be detrimental to the public interest, 21 health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. 22 Finding of Fact: The proposed Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Transformation 23 Specific Plan would establish a land use and development framework, 24 25 identify needed transportation and infrastructure improvements, and 26 serve as a marketing tool for attracting developers to key sites and for 27 boosting economic development. The Specific Plan is intended to 28 encourage residential and neighborhood - serving commercial 11 I establishments on major corridors such as Baseline Avenue and 2 Waterman Avenue, direct the creation of employment generating uses to 3 the southern portion of the project area closer to the Civic Center and 4 Downtown, and protect and enhance the existing residential 5 6 neighborhoods. The proposed land use plan accommodates an increase 7 in existing residential uses from an estimated 2,049 units to 8 approximately 4,341 units, an increase in commercial uses from 9 approximately 2,366,385 square feet to approximately 3,570,448 square 10 feet, and establishes six (6) distinct districts to guide future 11 12 development of key parcels throughout the project area. Therefore, the 13 proposed Specific Plan will not be detrimental to the public interest, 14 health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City in that the primary 15 purpose of the Specific Plan is to provide a vision and implementation 16 program for the future development of vacant or under - utilized 17 properties within Specific Plan boundaries and contains a 18 19 comprehensive set of goals, objectives, strategies and guidelines to be 20 used by the City to support, attract and facilitate new development and 21 revitalization projects and will enhance the physical and visual qualities 22 of the project area thereby enhancing the aesthetics of the surrounding 23 neighborhood, while preserving the environmental environs. 24 25 Finding No. 3 The subject properties are physically suitable for the requested land use 26 designations and the anticipated land use developments. 27 Finding of Fact: The proposed Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Transformation 28 Specific Plan allow the change of the General Plan Land Use 12 I Designations and the Zoning Districts of the properties contained 2 within an area comprised of approximately 710 acres in order to 3 establish the new Land Use Districts and Design Guidelines maintains 4 an appropriate balance of land uses by providing for the revitalization 5 6 of existing under - utilized properties. 7 Finding No. 4 The proposed plan shall ensure development of desirable character 8 which will be compatible with existing and proposed development in 9 the surrounding neighborhood. 10 Finding of Fact: The proposed Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Transformation 11 12 Specific Plan is intended to encourage residential and neighborhood - 13 serving commercial establishments on major corridors such as Baseline 14 Avenue and Waterman Avenue, direct the creation of employment 15 generating uses to the southern portion of the project area closer to the 16 Civic Center and Downtown, and protect and enhance the existing 17 residential neighborhoods. The proposed land use plan accommodates 18 19 an increase in existing residential uses from an estimated 2,049 units to 20 approximately 4,341 units, an increase in commercial uses from 21 approximately 2,366,385 square feet to approximately 3,570,448 square 22 feet, and establishes six (6) distinct districts to guide future 23 development of key parcels throughout the project area. 24 25 Finding No. 5: The proposed plan will contribute to a balance of land uses so that local 26 residents may work and shop in the community in which they live. 27 Finding of Fact: The proposed Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Transformation 28 Specific Plan creates employment generating uses to the southern 13 1 1 1 portion of the project area closer to the Civic Center and Downtown, 211 and protects and enhances through the accommodation of increased 3 residential uses from an estimated 2,049 units to approximately 4,341 4 units and increased commercial uses from approximately 2,366,385 5 6 I I square feet to approximately 3,570,448 square feet. SECTION 3. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act 8 1 1 The City Council has independently reviewed, analyzed and exercised judgment in finding that 9 Specific Plan 15 -01 will have significant unavoidable impacts on the environment, however, 10 based upon the CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached 11 hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference, the City Council finds the impacts are 12 13 acceptable because the benefits of the project outweigh the environmental impacts. The CEQA 1411 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations are hereby adopted. The City 15 Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached hereto as 16 Exhibit B and incorporated by reference, as a set of conditions under which Specific Plan 15 -01 17 18 will be implemented and as legally binding upon the City. The City Council hereby approves and 19 certifies the Final Environmental Impact Report, and incorporates the same herein by this 20 reference, as accepted by the Planning Commission to the effects of Specific Plan 15 -01. 21 1 SECTION 4. — Specific Plan 15 -01 changing the General Plan Land Use Designations 22 and Zoning Districts of an area containing approximately 710 acres to the Waterman + 23 Baseline Neighborhood Transformation Specific Plan, is hereby approved and incorporated 24 herein by reference. 25 26 SECTION 5. - Notice of Determination: The Planning Division of the Community 27 Development Department is hereby directed to file a Notice of Determination with the County 14 I Clerk of the Comity of San Bernardino certifying the City's compliance with the California 2 Environmental Quality Act in certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report. 3 SECTION 6. Severability: If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, or clause or phrase in this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be 4 unconstitutional, invalid or ineffective by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision 5 shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or any 6 part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted each section 7 irrespective of the fact that any one or more subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, or 8 phrases be declared unconstitutional, invalid, or ineffective. 9 10 11 /// 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2411/// 25II /// 26 /// 27 28 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN 15 -01 TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AND ZONING DISTRICTS OF AN AREA CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 710 ACRES TO THE WATERMAN + BASELINE NEIGHBORHOOD TRANSFORMATION SPECIFIC PLAN, I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing ordinance was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of San Bernardino at a regular meeting thereof, held on the day of , 2016, by the following vote to wit: Council Members: AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENT MARQUEZ BARRIOS VALDIVIA SHORETT NICKEL RICHARD MULVIHILL Georgeann Hanna, CMC, City Clerk The foregoing Ordinance is hereby adopted this day of 2016. Approved as to form: Gary D. Saenz, City Attorney By: Iro R. CAREY DAVIS, Mayor City of San Bernardino CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE WATERMAN + BASELINE NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIFIC PLAN STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2015081086 Exhibit A BACKGROUND The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires written findings be made by the lead agency to support certification of an environmental impact report (EIR) prior to approval of the project pursuant to Sections 15091 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code. This document provides the findings required by CEQA and the specific reasons for considering the project acceptable even though the project has significant impacts that are infeasible to mitigate. The lead agency is responsible for the adequacy and objectivity of the EIR. The City of San Bernardino (City), as lead agency, has subjected the Draft EIR (DEIR) and Final EIR (FEIR) to rile agency's own review and analysis. A. PROJECT SUMMARY The proposed Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan (proposed project) would establish a land use and development framework, identify needed transportation and infrastructure improvements, and serve as a marketing tool for attracting developers to key sites and for boosting economic development. The Proposed Project is intended to encourage residential and neighborhood - serving commercial establishments on major corridors such as Baseline Street and Waterman Avenue, direct the creation of employment - generating uses to the southern portion of the Specific Plan area closer to the Civic Center and Downtown, and protect and enhance the existing residential neighborhoods. To implement the Proposed Project, the following actions would be required. With the adoption of Specific Plan, the land use designation for the Specific Plan area would become Specific Plan. All of the parcels within Plan area will be designated Specific Plan. The Specific Plan area currently includes a wide range of zoning ranging from Suburban Residential to Light Industrial. A large percentage of the parcels in the Specific Plan area are zoned for low to medium density residential with general commercial uses fronting major corridors. The implementation of the Specific Plan would establish the zoning for the Specific Plan area including the land use districts introduced in Chapter 3, Planning Districts and the Land Use Plan shown in Chapter 4 of the Specific Plan. The land use districts and land use plan, have correlating regulations N Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations _ _ 1 to implement General Plan goals, policies, and objectives and will provide for superior development by allowing a greater degree of design and land use flexibility within the framework of a site - specific development plan. At buildout, the Specific Plan would allow for the redevelopment of existing uses, resulting in approximately 3.5 million square feet of non - residential land use and 4,341 dwelling units. Tbere are currently approximately 23 million square feet of non - residential buildings and 1,946 dwelling units in the Specific Plan area, and the Proposed Project would result in an additional 1.2 trillion square feet of non - residential building area and 2,395 dwelling units in the Specific Plan area. Proposed Amendments Approval will require amendments to the General Plan's text and zoning map. With the adoption of Specific Plan, the land use designation for the Specific Plan area would become Specific Plan. All of the parcels within Plan area will be designated Specific Plan. B. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS In conformance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of San Bernardino CEQA Guidelines, the City of San Bernardino conducted an extensive environmental review of the Proposed Project. ■ The City determined that an EIR would be required for the Proposed Project and issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) on August 31, 2015. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(d) and 15063 that allow leady agency to skip preparation of an Initial Study and begin work directly on the EIR process, a NOP was issued without accompanying Initial Study. The public review period for the NOP extended from August 31, 2015, to September 30, 2015. A seeping meeting was held on September 10, 2015. • The scope of the DEIR was determined based comments received in response to the NOP and comments receiving from the Scoping Meeting. Section 2.2 of the DSEIR describes the issues identified for analysis in the DEIR. • The DEIR eliminated detailed analysis of Agriculture and Forestry Resources topical areas in Chapter 5, Environmental Analysis, of the DEIR, and substantiated in Table 8 -1 of Chapter 8, Impacts Foand Not to be Significant, of the DEIR. • The City prepared a DEIR, which was made available for a 45 -day public review period beginning July 29, 2016, and ending September 12, 2016. • The City prepared a Final EIR (FEIR), including the Responses to Comments to the DEIR, the Findings of Fact, and Statement of Overriding Considerations. The FEIR /Response to Comments contains comments on the DEIR, responses to those continents, revisions to the DEIR, and appended documents. The District also prepared a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the impacts found to be significant and unavoidable (air quality, greenhouse emissions (GHG), noise, and transportation /traffic). Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations _ 2 _ ■ The City held public hearings on the Proposed Project during the regular Planning Commission meeting on November 16, 2016 and City Council meeting on December 5, 2016. C. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings for the proposed project consists of the following documents and other evidence, at a minimum: in The NOP, NOA, and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the proposed project. ■ The DEIR and the FEIR for the proposed project. ® The Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan ■ All written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review comment period on the DEIR. ■ All responses to written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review comment period on the DEIR. • All written and verbal public testimony presented during a noticed public hearing for the proposed project. • The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. • The reports and technical memoranda included or referenced in the in the FEIR. • All documents, studies, EIRs, or other materials incorporated by reference in the DEIR and FEIR. • Staff report and recommendation from the Airport Land Use Commission. • The Resolutions adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council in connection with the proposed project, and all documents incorporated by reference therein, including comments received after the close of the comment period and responses thereto. ■ Matters of common knowledge to the City, including but not limited to federal, state, and local laws and regulations. ■ Any documents expressly cited in these Findings. D. CUSTODIAN AND LOCATION OF RECORDS The documents and other materials that constitute the administrative record for the City's actions related to the Proposed Project are at the City of San Bernardino Community Development Department, 300 N. "D" Street, 3rd Floor San Bernardino, CA 92418. The Community Development Department is the custodian of the administrative record for the project. Copies of these documents, which constitute the record of proceedings, are and at all relevant times have been and will be Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations -3- available upon request at the offices of the Planning Department. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and Guidelines Section 15091(e). II. FINDINGS AND FACTS AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The City of San Bernardino, as lead agency, is required under CEQA to make written findings concerning each alternative and each significant environmental impact identified in the DEIR and FEIR. Specifically, regarding findings, Guidelines Section 15091 provides: (a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of tine rationale for each finding. The possible findings are: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the FEIR. (b) The findings required by subsection (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) The fording in subdivision (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. The finding in subsection (a)(3) shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project alternatives. (d) When making the findings required in subdivision (a)(1), the agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either requited in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects. These measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations -4- (e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which its decision is based. (f) A statement made pursuant to Section 15093 does not substitute for the findings required by this section. The "changes or alterations" referred to in Section 15091(a)(1) may include a wide variety of measures or actions as set forth in Guidelines Section 15370, including: (a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. (b) Mini ing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation. (c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment. (d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. (e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. III. FINDINGS AND FACTS REGARDING IMPACTS A. IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21002.1 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15128, the EIR focused its analysis on potentially signi ficant impacts, with limited discussion of other impacts for which it can be seen with certainty there is no potential for significant adverse environmental impacts. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 does not require specific findings to address environmental effects that an EIR identifies as having "no impact" or a "less than significant" impact. The following impacts were determined in the EIR to be less than significant. 1. Aesthetics Impact 5.1 -1: Implementation of the Proposed Project would alter the visual appearance and character of the Specific Plan area. Impact 5.1 -2: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not alter scenic resources within a state scenic highway. Impact 5.1 -3: Implementation of the Proposed Project would generate additional light and glare Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations -5- 2. Air Quality Impact 5.2 -1: Buildout of the Proposed Project would generate slightly more growth than the existing general plan; therefore, the Proposed Project would be inconsistent with SCAQMD's au quality management plan. Impact 5.2 -6: Industrial land uses associated with the Proposed Project could create objectionable odors. 3. Biological Resources Impact 5.3 -2: There are no sensitive natural communities or riparian habitats in the Specific Plan area, and Specific Plan buildout would not impact such communities or habitats. Impact 5.3 -5: Proposed Project buildout would not impact local ordinances or policies protecting biological resources or habitat conservation plans. 4. Cultural Resources Impact 5.4 -3: The Proposed Project could destroy paleontological resources. Impact 5.44: Grading activities could disturb human remains. Impact 5.4 -5: No tribal cultural resources witliln the Specific Plan area were identified during consultation with Native American tribal representatives. Specific Plan buildout would not impact known tribal cultural resources. 5. Geology and Soils Impact 5.5 -1: Buildout of the Proposed Project would not subject people or structures to substantial hazards from surface rupture of a known active fault. Impact 5.5 -2: Implementation of the Proposed Project could subject people or structures to hazards from strong ground shaking. Impact 5.5 -3: Implementation of the Proposed Project could subject people or structures to substantial hazards from liquefaction or lateral spreading. Impact 5.5 -4: Buildout of the Proposed Project would not cause substantial landslide hazards. Impact 5.5 -5: Implementation of the Proposed Project could cause increased soil erosion. Impact 5.5 -6: Buildout of the Proposed Project would not cause or accelerate substantial ground subsidence. Impact 5.5 -7: Buildout of the Proposed Project would not expose people or structures to substantial hazards from collapsible soils. Impact 5.5 -8: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not cause substantial hazards from expansive soils. Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations -6- Impact 5.5 -9: Buildout of the Proposed Project would not involve development of septic tanks or other alternative waste water disposal systems on soils incapable of adequately supporting such systems. 6. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact 5.6 -2; The Proposed Project would be consistent with plans adopted to reduce GHG emissions. 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact 5.7.1: Project construction and operations would involve the transport, use, and /or disposal of hazardous materials. Impact 5.7 -3: The Specific Plan area is located in the vicinity of the San Bernardino International Airport and within the jurisdiction of the San Bernardino Airport Master Plan and the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Impact 5.7 -4: Project development could affect the implementation of an emergency responder or evacuation plan. Impact 5.7 -5: The Specific Plan area is not in a designated fire hazard severity zone. Project buildout would not expose people or structures to wildland fire hazards. 8. Hydrology and Water Quality Impact 5.8 -1: Development pursuant to the Proposed Project would increase the amount of impervious surfaces and would therefore increase surface water flows into drainage systems within the watershed. Impact 5.8 -2: Development pursuant to the Proposed Project increases the amount of impervious surfaces in the Specific Plan area and would therefore impact opportunities for groundwater recharge. Impact 5.8 -3: Portions of the Specific Plan area proposed for development are not within a 100 -year flood hazard area. Impact 5.84: During the construction phase of the Proposed Project, there is the potential for short -term unquantifiable increases in pollutant concentrations from the Specific Plan area. After Specific Plan development, the quality of storm runoff (sediment, nutrients, metals, pesticides, pathogens, and hydrocarbons) may be altered. Impact 5.8 -5: The southeast quarter of the Specific Plan area, approximately, is within the inundation area of the Seven Oaks Dam. Impact 5.8 -6: The Specific Plan area would not be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 7- 9. Land Use and Planning Impact 5.9 -1: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not divide an established community. Impact 5.9 -2: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not conflict with applicable plans adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an enviromnental effect. Impact 5.9 -3: The Proposed Project would not conflict with an adopted habitat conservation plan. Impact 5.9 -4: The Specific Plan area is not within the Hillside Management Overlay District. Impact 5.9 -5: The Specific Plan area is not located within fire hazard areas identified by the San Bernardino General Plan, Impact 5.9 -6: The Proposed Project would allow development within the airport influence area of San Bernardino International Airport. 10. Mineral Resources Impact 5.10 -1: Buildout of the Proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of a ]mown mineral resource. Impact 5.10 -2: Project implementation would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated in a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. 11. Population and Housing Impact 5.12 -1: The Proposed Project would directly result in population growth in the Specific Plan area. Impact 5.12 -2: Specific Plan buildout would not displace substantial numbers of housing and residents. 12. Public Services Impact 5.13 -1: The Proposed Project would introduce new structures, residents, and workers into the. San Bernardino City Fire Department service boundaries, increasing the requirement for fire protection facilities and personnel. Impact 5.13 -2: Buildout of the Proposed Project would introduce new structures, residents, and workers into the City of San Bernardino Police Department service boundaries, increasing the need for police protection facilities and personnel. Impact 5.13 -3: The Proposed Project would generate new students in the service area of the San Bernardino City Unified School District. Impact 5.13 -4: The Proposed Project would generate additional population, increasing the service needs for local libraries. Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations _ g _ 13. Recreation Impact 5.14 -1: The Proposed Project would generate 8,359 additional residents that would increase the demand for park and recreational facilities. Impact 5.14 -2: Project implementation would generate a need for new and /or expanded recreational facilities. 14. Transportation /Traffic Impact 5.15 -2: The proposed Specific Plan would be subject to tite County of San Bernardino Regional Transportation Development Mitigation Plan Fee Schedule and would not conflict with the San Bernardino County Congestion Management Program. Impact 5.15 -3: Specific Plan buildout would not change air traffic levels in or out of San Bernardino International Airport (SBIA) or require relocation of air traffic patterns to or from SBIA. Impact 5.15 -4: Adequate parking would be provided for the Proposed Project. Impact 5.15 -5: Project circulation improvements have been designed to adequately address potentially hazardous conditions (sharp curves, etc.), potential conflicting uses, and emergency access. Impact 5.15 -6: The Proposed Project would comply with adopted policies, plans, and programs for alternative transportation. 15. Utilities and Service Systems Impact 5.16 -1: Wastewater generated in the Spec Plan area under the Proposed Project could be adequately treated by the San Bernardino Municipal Water Department. Impact 5.16 -2: Water supply and delivery systems are adequate to meet requirements of land uses under the Proposed Project. Impact 5.16 -3: Existing and proposed storm drainage systems are adequate to serve the drainage requirements of the Proposed Project. Impact 5.16 -4: Existing and /or proposed facilities would be able to accommodate solid waste generated by the Proposed Project, and the Proposed Project would comply with applicable solid waste regulations. Impact 5.16 -5: Existing and /or proposed facilities would be able to accommodate utility demands generated by the Proposed Project. B. IMPACTS MITIGATED TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT The following summary describes impacts of the Proposed Project that, without mitigation, would result in significant adverse impacts. Upon implementation of the mitigation measures provided in the EIR, these impacts would be considered less than significant. Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 9- J, Air Quality Impact 5.2-6: Industrial land uses associated with the Proposed Project could create objectionable odors. Implementation of the Proposed Project could generate new sources of odors and place sensitive receptors near existing sources of odors. The Specific Plan designates residential areas and industrial areas to prevent potential Mixing of incompatible land use types. Nuisance odors from land uses in the SoCAB axe regulated under SCAQMD Rule 402, Nuisance. SCAQMD has identified the following facilities as having the potential to generate major sources of odors: wastewater treatment plants, chemical manufacturing facilities, food processing facilities, agricultural operations, and waste facilities (e.g., landfills, transfer stations, compost facilities). SCAQMD Rule 402 requires abatement of any nuisance generating an odor complaint. Typical abatement includes passing air through a drying agent followed by two successive beds of activated carbon to generate odor -free air. Facilities listed in Rule 402 would need to consider measures to reduce odors as part of their CEQA review. Odor impacts could be significant for new industrial projects, like food processing facilities, because they have the Potential to generate odors proximate to sensitive land uses. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure is included on page 5.2 -30 of the DE1R, unchanged by the FEIR, and is applicable to the proposed project: AQ -8 If it is determined during project -level environmental review that a development project has the potential to emit nuisance odors beyond the property line, an odor management plan may be required, subject to City's regulations. Facilities within the Specific Plan that have the potential to generate nuisance odors include but are not limited to food - processing facilities. If an odor management plan is determined to be required through CEQA review, the City of San Bernardino shall require the project applicant to submit the plan prior to approval to ensure compliance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District's Rule 402, for nuisance odors. If applicable, the odor management plan shall identify the best available control technologies for toxics (T- BACTs) that will be utilized to reduce potential odors to acceptable levels, including appropriate enforcement mechanisms. T -BACTs may include, but are not limited to, scrubbers (e.g., air pollution control devices) at the industrial facility. T -BACTs identified in the odor management plan shall be identified as mitigation measures in the environmental document and /or incorporated into the site plan. Finding: The City of San Bernardino finds based on the Final EIR and the whole of the record that Mitigation Measure AQ -8 is feasible and finds that this mitigation measure will reduce the impacts related to air quality to a less than significant level. [Pub. Res. Code §21081(a)(1); Guidelines § 15091(1)] 2, Biological Resources Impact 5.3 -1: Specific Plan buildout could impact burrowing owl, a California Species of Special Concern. Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations _10- Burrowing owl is a state species of special concern with low to moderate potential to occur in nonnative grassland and ruderal communities in the Specific Plan area. The following types of activities have potential to impact the burrowing owl, its nests or eggs, and destroy or degrade its potential habitat in the Specific Plan area: grading, disking, cultivation, earthmoving, burrow blockage, heavy equipment compacting and crushing burrow tunnels, flooding, burning, and mowing. If burrowing owls have been documented to occupy burrows on a project site in the Specific Plan area, or within 500 feet of a project site in the Past three years, the habitat should be considered occupied and mitigation would be required. Therefore, if burrowing owl occupy a project site in the Specific Plan area, or habitat within 500 feet of a project site, construction of the project could have a significant impact on this species. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure is included on page 5.2 -16 of the DEIR, unchanged by the FEIR, and is applicable to the proposed project. BIO -1 Prior to issuance of grading permits for future projects containing nonnative grassland and /or ruderal communities identified on Figure 3 of the biological technical report: A pre- construction, take - avoidance survey shall be conducted in accordance with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012). If there is no sign of burrowing owl occupation ("occupied" is defined in the CDFW Staff Report), no further mitigation would be required. If sign of occupation is present, the following mitigation shall be implemented. Direct impacts to occupied burrowing owl burrows shall be avoided during the breeding period from February 1 through August 31 and during the nonbreeding season as described in the CDFW Staff Report. Mitigation for direct, permanent impacts to nesting, occupied, and satellite burrows and /or burrowing owl habitat shall be required based on the burrowing owl life history information in Appendix A of the CDFW Staff Report, site - specific analysis, and consultation with the CDFW. A Burrowing Owl Mitigation Plan shall be prepared and submitted to the City and CDFW for approval prior to impacts to the burrowing owl and /or its habitat. Finding: The City of San Bernardino finds based on the Final FIR and the whole of the record that Mitigation Measure BIO -1 is feasible and fords that this mitigation measure will reduce the impacts related to biological resources to a less than significant level through avoidance of, or following the CDFW protocol for protecting Burrowing Owls. [Pub. Res. Code 521081(a)(1); Guidelines § 15091(1)] Impact 5.3 -3: Specific Plan buildout would impact an ephemeral streambed in the southeast part of the Specific Plan area that is Waters of die United States and Waters of the State. There are approximately 2.2 acres of ephemeral streambed in the southeast part of the Specific Plan area. The stream originates east of the south end of Preston Street in the east - central part of the Specific Plan area, extends south to between 3rd and 4th streets near the southeast corner of the Specific Plan area, then extends west to Waterman Avenue. The ephemeral streambed is labeled Warm Creek on the San Bernardino County Stormwater Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Facility Mapping Tool. Warm Creek is also the name of the engineered concrete channel forming the southeast site boundary (San Bernardino County 2016). Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure is included on page 5.3 -16 of the DEIR, unchanged by the FEIR, and is applicable to the proposed project: BIO -2 Prior to issuance of grading permits, future project applicants for any project adjacent to the ephemeral streambed shown on Figure 5.3 -1 of this DEIR shall provide evidence from a qualified biologist to the City that nonwedand Waters of the United States and Waters of the State have been avoided to the extent feasible. Where avoidance is not feasible, mitigation will be required in accordance with federal and state regulations. The types of mitigation would include onsite protection, enhancement, and /or restoration. Mitigation is typically required at a 1:1 ratio and in close proximity to the impacts, or at least in the same watershed. The final mitigation requirements and locations for the mitigation, however, are subject to the permit processes with the US Army Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. If avoidance is not feasible, the project applicant shall provide evidence to the City that all required federal and state perrrrits have been obtained prior to issuance of grading permits. Finding: The City of San Bernardino finds based on the Final EIR and the whole of the record that Mitigation Measure BIO -2 is feasible and finds that this mitigation measure will reduce the impacts related to biological resources to a less than significant level because the non - wetland Waters of the United States are either avoided or mitigated at a 1:1 ratio. [Pub. Res. Code 521081(a)(1); Guidelines § 15091(1)] Impact 5.3 -4: Removal of trees and other vegetation by projects developed pursuant to the Specific Plan could impact nesting birds protected under federal and state laws. Five bird species were observed in the Specific Plan area that are protected under the California Fish and Game Code and protected while nesting under the MBTA (the Eurasian collared dove is not protected); it is likely that more protected species are present. Potential impacts to nesting birds could result if vegetation clearing or construction occur during the nesting season (generally February through August; January through August for raptors and owls). Vegetation clearing or construction could cause destruction or abandonment of active nests or death of adults, young, or eggs. Construction of a project during this period could have a significant impact on nesting birds protected by the California Fish and Game Code and the MBTA, and mitigation would be required. If vegetation clearing and construction occurs outside the nesting season(s), no mitigation would be required. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure is included on page 5.3 -16 of the DEIR, unchanged by the FEIR, and is applicable to the proposed project: BIO -3 The mature trees within the Specific Plan area could be used for nesting by migratory birds protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (United States Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific. Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations -12- Code, Title 165 §§ 703 -712). The MBTA prohibits direct impacts to nesting birds and their nests. Also, the California Fish and Game Code (§ 3503.5) prohibits activities that take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bud. Future project applicants are requited to comply with the MBTA. Prior to the start of grading activities between January 15 to September 1 (bird nesting season), future project applicants are required to conduct a site survey for nesting birds by a qualified biologist before commencement of grading activities. If nesting buds are found, the applicant is required to consult with tite US Fish and Wildlife Service regarding means to avoid or minimize impacts to nesting birds in accordance with MBTA requirements. If nests are not observed and the City approves the results of the preconstmction survey, vegetation clearing and tree removal /trimming may proceed. If nests are found, work may proceed provided that activity is: 1) at least 500 feet from raptor /owl nests; 2) at least 300 feet from federal- or state -listed bird species' nests; and 3) at least 100 feet from nonlisted bird species' nests. A qualified biologist shall conspicuously mark the buffer so that vegetation clearing and tree removal/trimming does not encroach into the buffer until the nest is no longer active (i.e., the nestlings fledge, the nest fails, or the nest is abandoned, as determined by a qualified biologist). Finding: The City of San Bernardino finds based on the Final EIR and the whole of the record that Mitigation Measure BIO -3 is feasible and finds that this mitigation measure will reduce the impacts related to biological resources to a less than significant level because surveys for nesting birds will be conducted Prior to grading between January 15 and September 1, and buffers from construction required if nesting birds are found. (Pub. Res. Code §21081(a)(1); Guidelines § 15091 (1)] 3. Cultural Resources Impact 5.4 -1: Development or redevelopment projects pursuant to the Specific Plan could damage historic resources. Ten historical resources in the Specific Plan area were identified in the cultural resources investigation and are described in Table 5.4 -1 on page 5.4 -10 of the DEIR. One of the resources, Waterman Gardens, was evaluated as eligible for listing on both the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historical Resources. Three of the other resources have been designated California Points of Historical Interest: The Home of Eternity Cemetery of Congregation Emanuel, the Martin Adobe, and Baseline Street (now Baseline Street); one of these resources, the Martin Adobe, collapsed, and the debris has been removed from the site. However, very few of the properties onsite have been evaluated for historical significance; a number of those that have been investigated and recorded were determined significant on the federal, state, and /or local level. Others were evaluated as not being historically significant. Future development, redevelopment, and /or adaptive reuse projects pursuant to the Specific Plan could change the historical significance of resources in and near the Specific Plan area in any combination of the following ways: a) Demolition and removal Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations -13- b) Relocation c) Exterior modifications d) Interior modifications e) Modifications to structures required by laws or regulations (e.g., seismic retrofitting or compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act) carried out simultaneously with modifications pursuant to a project conforming with the Specific Plan. Changes to the surroundings of resources that may be historically significant. M vt gafi,o w Meaywve p. The following mitigation measures are included on page 5.4 -19 of the DEIR, unchanged by the FEIR, and are applicable to the proposed project: CUL -1 Future development or redevelopment projects on any of the properties listed in Table 5.4 -1 (Historical Resources Identified within Specific Plan area) of the DEIR shall require that an intensive -level historical evaluation of the property be conducted by the property owner or project applicant /developer; the evaluation shall be conducted in accordance with all applicable federal, state and local guidelines for evaluating historical resources. If based on the evaluation of the property it is determined that the proposed development or redevelopment project will have a substantial adverse effect on a historical resource (i.e. it would reduce its integrity to the point that it would no longer be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources or in the list of San Bernardino Landmarks), then the provisions of Mitigation Measure CUL -2 shall be implemented by the property owner or project applicant /developer to eliminate or reduce the project's impact on historical resources. CUL -2 If based on the intensive -level historical evaluation of a property listed in 5.4 -1 (I- listorical Resources Identified within Specific Plan area) of this DEIR, as required under Mitigation Measure CUL-1, it is determined that the proposed development or redevelopment project will have a substantial adverse effect on a historical resource, the City of San Bernardino shall require the property owner or project applicant /developer to implement the following measures: A. Rehabilitation According to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards 1. If the Proposed Project includes renovation, alteration, or an addition to an historical resource (not including total demolition), then the property owner or project applicant /developer shall first seek to design all proposed renovation, alterations or additions to the historical resource in a manner that is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation (Standards) found at: http: / /www.nps.gov /tp s /standards /rehabihtation /rehab / stand.litm. Plans for rehabilitation shall be created under the supervision of a professional meeting the Department of Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards in Architectural History or Historic Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations -14- Architecture and be designed by a licensed architect with demonstrated historic preservation experience. b. Plans shall be reviewed in the schematic design phase prior to any construction work, as well as in dte 60 and 90 percent construction documents phases for compliance with the Standards by a historic preservation professional meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards with demonstrated experience with the Standards compliance reviews. c. The qualified historic preservation professional reviewing the plans shall create a technical memo at each phase and submit the memo to the City of San Bernardino Community Development Department for concurrence. d. At the discretion of the City, a detailed character- defining features analysis and /or historical resource treatment plan may need to be prepared for select historical resources by a historic preservation Professional meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards if the nature of the project or the significance of the property warrants such detailed analysis. e. A qualified lvstoric preservation professional shall monitor construction activities at key milestones to ensure the work to be conducted complies with tire Standards. The milestones shall be agreed upon in advance by the City and property owner or project applicant /developer. f City staff and the qualified historic preservation professional shall review the finished rehabilitation /renovation in person upon completion. g. In the event that any historical resource(s) are leased to third -party tenants and tenant improvements will be made, all of the terms of this stipulation shall be disclosed in the lease agreements, agreed upon in writing, and mutually enforced by the property owner or project applicant /developer and the City. The tenants shall not be permitted to conduct work that does not comply with the Standards. B. Retention /On -Site Relocation- For Proposed Demolition 1. If the Proposed Project includes total demolition of a historical resource, the property owner or project applicant /developer shall first consider an alternative that retains the historical resource and incorporates it into the overall project development as an adaptive re -use of the building, as determined feasible. 2. If the project site permits, the historical resource should be relocated to another location on the site and the resource should be re- incorporated into the overall project, as determined feasible. Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 15 3. If the City determines that retention /onsite relocation of the Historical resource is not feasible through a credible feasibility study, then the City shall, elect to allow the property owner or project applicant /developer to move forward with the development /redevelopment project; however, all other requirements outlined in this mitigation measure shall apply. C. Third Party Sale If the City determines that retention or onsite relocation of the historical resource is not feasible, then the property owner or project applicant /developer shall offer any historical resources scheduled for demolition to the public for sale and offsite relocation by a third party: a. The historic resource(s) shall be advertised by the property owner or Project applicant /developer at a minimum in the following locations: Project applicant's /developer's website (if applicable); City of San Bernardino website, Los Angeles Times website and print editions; San Bernardino County Sun Newspaper. b. The bidding period shall remain open for 60 days after the date of advertisement to allow adequate response time from interested parties. c. Qualified parties shall meet the following minimum qualifications to be considered a realistic buyer: possess adequate financial resources to relocate and rehabilitate the historical resource(s); possess an available location for the historical resource(s); and provide for a new use for the historical resource(s). d. The City shall approve the qualified buyer. If no such buyer comes forward within the allotted time frame, the City shall elect to issue a demolition permit for the historical resource. However, all other requirements outlined in this mitigation measure shall apply. D. Recordation 1. The property owner of project applicant /developer shall create HABS -like Level II documentation prepared in accordance with die Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Architectural and Engineering Documentation. Information on the Standards and Guidelines is available at the following links: http: / /www.nps.90v /history /local- law /arch _ stnds_6.htm. http://www.nps-gov/Mstoty/bdp/standards/index.htm. Photographs with large- format (4 inches by 5 inches or larger), black and white negatives of the property as a whole shall be provided; photocopies with large format negatives of select existing drawings, site plans, or historic views where available. A minimum of 12 views showing context and relationship of Historical resources to each other shall be provided; aerial views showing the whole property shall also be provided. Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations -1G- b. Written historical descriptive data, index to photographs, and photo key plan shall be provided. c. The above items shall be created by a historic preservation professional meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards with demonstrated experience in creating HABS Level II documentation. d. The above items shall be created prior to any demolition or relocation work. e. The above items shall be distributed to the following repositories for use by future researchers and educators. Before submitting any documents, each of the following repositories shall be contacted to ensure that they are willing and able to accept the items: City of San Bernardino Public Library; City Of San Bernardino Historical and Pioneer Society; California State University, San Bernardino Department of Anthropology; and City of San Bernardino Community Development Department (building files). E. Salvage and Reuse 1. If off"te relocation of the historical resource by a third party is not accomplished, the property owner or project applicant /developer shall create a salvage and reuse plan identifying elements and materials of the resource that can be saved prior to any demolition work. a. The salvage and reuse plan shall be included in bid documents prepared for the site and shall be created by a historic preservation professional meeting the SecrEtary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards with demonstrated experience in creating salvage and reuse plans. b. Elements and materials that may be salvageable include windows; doors; roof tiles; decorative elements; bricks, foundation materials, and /or paving materials; framing members; furniture, lighting; and flooring materials, such as tiles and hardwood. 2. The property owner or project applicant /developer shall identify individuals, organizations, or businesses interested in receiving the salvaged items; these may include Habitat for Humanity Restore; other affordable housing organizations; or salvage yards. The following steps shall be taken by the property owner or project applicant /developer: a. Identification of the individuals, organizations, or businesses interested in receiving the salvaged items shall be completed in consultation with the City. b. Identification of the individuals, organizations, or businesses interested in receiving the salvaged items shall be accomplished by contacting potentially interested parties directly first. Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations c. Items to be salvaged shall be advertised in the following locations for a period of 60 days if none of the contacted parties are able to receive the items: Los Angeles Tunes and San Bernardino County Sun. 3. The property owner or project applicant /developer shall remove salvageable items in the gentlest, least destructive manner possible. I- storic materials and features shall be protected by storing salvaged items in indoor, climate- and weather - controlled conditions until recipients can retrieve them. The removal of salvageable items shall be performed by a licensed contractor with demonstrated experience with implementing salvage and reuse plans. F. Other Optional Interpretive, Commemorative, or Educational Measures The City may also elect to require additional (optional) mitigation measures crafted in response to a specific historical resource's property type or significance, association with a specific historic person, or overall value to the community, as practical, so long as the measure is commensurate with the significance of the property and the level of impact to that resource. Such measures may include educational or interpretive programming; signage, incorporation of historical features into new developments or public art; contribution to a mitigation fund for future historic preservation efforts; written histories or contexts important to the public's understanding of the lost resource (presuming no other extant resource can interpret such significance); etc. The need for these additional measures shall be determined by the City on a case by case basis and incorporated into the conditions of approval for the Project. Some measures may be made available to the public through museum displays, written reports at research repositories or made available through on- or offsite signage or existing online multi-media sites. Finding: The City of San Bernardino finds based on the Final FIR and the whole of the record that Mitigation Measures CUI 1 and CUL -2 are feasible and finds that this mitigation measure will reduce the impacts related to cultural resources to a less than significant level by requiring that any project affecting identified historic resources follow rehabilitate, retain, record or salvage and reuse all or part Of the resource consistent with the Secretary of the Interior standards for historic structures . [Pub. Res. Code §21081(a)(1); Guidelines § 15091 (1)] Impact 5.4 -2: Ground disturbance during construction consistent with the Specific Plan could damage buried archaeological resources. The Specific Plan area is not considered sensitive for prehistoric archaeological resources. Many development and redevelopment projects conforming with the Specific Plan would involve ground disturbance for site clearance, grading, utilities trenching, and /or construction. There is some possibility that such ground disturbance could damage buried archaeological resources. This impact would be significant. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are included on page 5.4 -24 of the DEIR, unchanged by the FEIR, and are applicable to the proposed project: Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations CUL -3 If, at any tune during ground- disturbing activities during the course of Specific Plan buildout, evidence of Native American resources is uncovered, the construction contractor for the affected project shall halt work within 50 feet of the find until a qualified archaeologist assesses the nature and significance of the find. The archaeologist shall notify the City of San Bernardino Planning Division of the discovery immediately. No further disturbance witinin 50 feet of the fund shall occur until the archaeologist has cleared the area. A Native American tribe with traditional tribal territory on or near the Specific Plan area, who agrees to accept such resources without fees, may take possession of such resources after the archaeologist has assessed and recorded them. If no Native American tribe seeks possession of the resources or if multiple tribes cannot agree on disposition of the resources, the resources shall be curated at the facilities of the Western Science Center in Hemet in Riverside County. CUL -4 If, at any time, evidence of Native American resources is uncovered, local representatives of the Serrano and Gabrichfio must be notified widtin 24 hours and, depending on the location and nature of the find, a determination as to the need for an archaeological monitoring program shall be revisited. If an archaeological monitoring program is justified, the archaeological consultant will work with the Native American representatives to ensure adequate coverage and protection of the identified resource(s). Finding: The City of San Bernardino finds based on the Final EIR and the whole of the record that Mitigation Measures CUL -3 and CUL-4 are feasible and finds that these mitigation measures will reduce the impacts related to cultural resources to a less than significant level by establishing a process for the notification of Native American Tribes if resources are discovered during construction, and by establishing a method of curation of resources if found. [Pub. Res. Code §21081(a)(1); Guidelines § 15091 (1)] Impact 5.4 -3: Ground disturbance during the course of Specific Plan buildout could damage buried fossils. Paleontological Resounes The Specific Plan area is not considered sensitive for fossil resources. Many development and redevelopment projects conforming with tine Specific Plan would involve ground disturbance. There is some possibility that such ground disturbance could damage paleontological resources. This impact would be significant. Unigne Geologic Features The Specific Plan area is flat with a nearly uniform southwest slope of about 1 percent grade. The cultural resources investigation mentions some basalt (volcanic rock) outcrops in the Specific Plan area. However, the locations of these outcrops are not identified, and no basalt outcrops are mapped in or next to the Specific Plan area (Dibblee and Minch 2004). There are no unique geological features onsite, and no impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are included on page 5.4 -19 of the DEIR, unchanged by the FEIR, and are applicable to the proposed project: Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations _19- CUL -5 All excavations more than ten feet below ground surface shall be periodically monitored for paleontological resources. Tlvs monitoring should include the preparation of a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Plan (PRIMP) document and adherence to all standard protocols of the San Bernardino County Museum Earth Science Department. a) The paleontological monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or redirect excavation construction efforts if paleontological resources are discovered. b) In tine event of a paleontological discovery, tine monitor shall flag the area and notify the construction crew immediately. No further disturbance in the flagged area shall occur until tite qualified paleontologist has cleared the area. C) The paleontological monitor shall quickly assess the nature and significance of the find. If the specimen is not significant, it shall be quickly removed and the area shall be cleared. d) If the discovery is significant, the qualified paleontologist shall notify the applicant and the City immediately. In consultation with the applicant and the City, the qualified paleontologist shall develop a plan of tr ligation that will likely include salvage excavation and removal of the find, removal of sediment from around the specimen (in the laboratory), research to identify and categorize die find, and preparation of a report summarizing the find. All recovered specimens shall be curated at the San Bernardino County Museum in Redlands. Finding: The City of San Bernardino finds based on the Final EIR and the whole of the record that Mitigation Measure CUL-5 is feasible and finds that this mitigation measure will reduce the impacts related to cultural resources to a less than significant level by establishing a procedure to be followed for the protection and curation of paleontological resources in the unlikely event they are discovered during construction. [Pub. Res. Code §21081(a)(1); Guidelines § 15091(1)] 4. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact 5.7 -2: The Specific Plan area contains multiple hazardous materials sites according to the hazardous materials databases examined for the Proposed Project. Hazardous materials sites within the Specific Plan area and within one mile of it are listed by database in Table 5.7 -1 on page 5.7 -11 of the DEIR. Disturbances of soil or structures by development and redevelopment projects in conformance with the Specific Plan could expose people or the environment to hazardous materials from hazardous materials sites known to regulatory agencies. Contamination in new development or redevelopment sites would be required to be remediated prior to construction activities. Additionally, any unknown contamination discovered during excavation would require halting of all construction activities and remediation. Remediation would be required to occur to the satisfaction of the appropriate responsible agency —DTSC, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, or San Bernardino County Fire Department. Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations -20- Phase I Environmental Site Assessments are required for land purchasers to qualify for the Innocent Landowner Defense under CERCLA, minimize environmental liability under other laws such as RCRA, and as a lender prerequisite to extend a loan for purchase of land. The Phase I would include a literature review, including an environmental database search; review of historical aerial photographs and topographic maps; a site visit; interviews with owners or other persons knowledgeable about current and past uses of the site; and an assessment as to whether recognized environmental conditions (RECs) affecting the site are present. Thus impact would be significant. Mitigation requires Phase I Environmental Site Assessments to determine whether RECs affecting a project site are present. When RECs are identified, sampling and testing must be conducted to determine contaminant concentrations, and human health hazard assessments must be conducted to determine whether such contaminants and concentrations pose substantial human health risks. When such substantial risks are identified, the mitigation measure requires remediation of such contaminants to below regulatory agency action levels. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure is included on page 5.7 -27 of the DEIR, unchanged by the FEIR, and is applicable to the proposed project: HAZ -1 Before issuance of grading permits or building permits by the City of San Bernardino, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment would be required for tite pertinent development or redevelopment site. Where a Phase I Assessment identified one or more recognized environmental conditions potentially affecting a property, a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment would be required, consisting of sampling of soil, soil vapor, and /or groundwater and testing samples for contaminants; and a human health hazard assessment for any contaminants identified. Where a Phase II Assessment identified contaminant concentrations in soil, soil vapor, and /or groundwater that could pose substantial human health hazards, remediation of such contamination to below regulatory action thresholds would be required before disturbance of soil or structures could be permitted on that site Finding: The City of San Bernardino finds based on the Final FIR and the whole of the record that Mitigation Measure HAZ -1 is feasible and finds that this mitigation measure will reduce the impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials to a less than significant level by requiring a Phase I and if necessary Phase II remediation prior to grading. [Pub. Res. Code §21081(a)(1); Guidelines § 15091(1)] S. Noise Impact 5.11 -1: Construction projects conforming with the Specific Plan would cause temporary noise increases in and near the Specific Plan area. Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations -21- Demolition and Construction Noise Construction noise is a short-term impact on ambient noise levels. Noise generated by construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers, and portable generators can reach high levels. Demolition and grading activities have sitnilar noise levels. Examples of construction noise at 50 feet are presented in Table 5.11 -9 on page 5.11 -22 of the DEIR. The maximum noise level for most of the equipment that would be used during construction is 70 to 95 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. Stationary noise typically attenuates by 6 dB for every doubling of distance from the receiver. At 100 feet, the maximum construction noise levels can be expected to range between 64 and 89 dBA Lmax; at 200 feet, the maximum construction noise levels range from 58 to 83 dBA Lmax. Note that these noise levels are based upon worst -case conditions. Typical construction noise levels shown in Table 5.11 -9 were used as the basis for the estimates presented here and represent a worst -case estimate. A summary of the potential construction noise impacts to each proposed district is presented below. It should be noted that municipal code Section 8.54.070 prohibits any person from engaging in or causing any other person to be engaged or employed in any work of construction, erection, alteration, repair, addition, movement, demolition, or improvement to any building or structure except between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM. In addition, Section 8.54.060 exempts noise resulting from construction, repair, or excavation work performed pursuant to a valid written agreement with the City or any of its political subdivisions, which provides for noise mitigation measures from the standards in Section 8.54 of the municipal code: District 11 Uptown Professional District The Uptown Professional District is approximately 82 acres with the purpose of consolidating the medical uses scattered along Waterman Avenue into a focused district to assist the demand generated by St. Bernardine Medical Center. In addition, this mixed -use district would accommodate office uses; neighborhood- serving commercial uses; and limited residential uses focused on senior housing, with up to 20 dwelling units an acre. Existing residential land uses to the east and west of this district as well as those along Waterman Avenue may be subjected to short -term construction noise impacts during the development of this district. As stated above, construction noise may range between 70 to 95 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. Existing medical offices may be subject to short-term construction noise impacts during the development of this district. Dishsct 2, W/eatside Neighborhood District The Westside Neighborhood District encompasses approximately 127 acres. The primary intent of this district is to improve and preserve the existing single- family neighborhoods west of Waterman Avenue. The district would accommodate mixed -use development — mainly neighborhood - serving commercial uses —along Baseline Street and Waterman Avenue. Existing land uses in this district close to Baseline Street, Waterman Avenue, and 9th Street may be subject to short -term construction noise impacts during development of the district. Construction noise may range between 70 to 95 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. Specific noise levels generated by construction would depend on the type of equipment and the proximity of the equipment to sensitive receptors. District 3, Midtown Con District Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations -22- The Midtown Core District is in the center of the Specific Plan area and covers approximately 120 acres. This district would replace 252 units of existing public housing with mixed- income, n xed -use housing; a central park; community center; and other community and recreational resources, with residential densities up to 30 dwelling units an acre. Olive Avenue would be redesigned as a pedestrian - oriented avenue. Since the majority of this district is to be redesigned and existing uses replaced, short -term construction impacts would be minimal. However, existing residential and school uses could be subject to potential noise impacts during the renovation process. Distnct 4, Eastside Neigbborhood District The Eastside Neighborhood District covers approximately 144 acres and would primarily accommodate mixed -use development with neighborhood- serving commercial uses along Baseline Street, consistent with the existing single - family neighborhoods to the south. Portions of this district would be included in a linear park or trail system. Existing s ngle- family detached residences close to Baseline Street may be impacted by short -term noise impacts from the development of this area. Construction noise may range between 70 to 95 dBA at a distance of 50 feet and between 64 and 89 dBA Lmax at a distance of 100 feet. Specific noise levels generated by construction would depend on the type of equipment and the proximity of the equipment to the sensitive receptors. District 5, Gateway District The Gateway District is approximately 97 acres and is intended to promote the identity of Central San Bernardino through enhanced landscaping and signage as well as mixed -use development at Seccombe Lake. This district would accommodate mixed -use development along Waterman Avenue, with a small single - family enhancement area in the center of district. The majority of the district would allow for higher density residential development up to 30 dwelling units per acre with compatible neighborhood - serving commercial uses in vertical or horizontal mixed use. Any existing residential dwelling units close to roadways in this district could be affected by short -term construction noise. Construction noise may range between 70 to 95 dBA at a distance of 50 feet and 89 dBA Lmax at a distance of 100 feet. Specific noise levels generated by construction would depend on the type of equipment and the proximity of the equipment to the sensitive receptors. Distict 61 Embloyment District The Employment District covers approximately 140 acres and has been designed as an employment - generating and flexible business use district accommodating office, commercial, and Business Park uses (mix of business and support services). The portion between 5th and 4th Streets would remain a residential neighborhood. The district would include residential uses at up to 20 dwelling units per acre, and portions of the district are to be included in a linear park or trail system. The existing residences between 5th and 4th Streets may be impacted by short-term noise from development of this area. Construction noise may range between 70 to 95 dBA at a distance of 100 feet and from 58 to 83 dBA Lmax at a distance of 200 feet. Specific noise levels generated by construction would depend on the type of equipment and the proximity of the equipment to the sensitive receptors. Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations -23- Comkuion Construction activities related to the Specific Plan, including pile drilling and other extreme noise- generating construction activities, would temporarily increase noise levels within each of the six land uses districts and near the Specific Plan area boundaries. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure is included on page 5.11 -22 of the DEIR, unchanged by the FOR, and is applicable to the proposed project: N -1 Prior to issuance of demolition, grading, and /or building permits for development Projects accommodated by the Specific Plan, a note shall be provided on development plans indicating that ongoing during grading, demolition, and construction, the property owner /developer shall be responsible for requir ng contractors to implement the following measures to ]knit construction - related noise: • The construction contractor shall limit haul truck deliveries to the same hours specified for construction equipment (7:00 AM to 8:00 PM). • To the extent feasible, haul routes shall not pass sensitive land uses or residential dwellings and should avoid using alleyways adjacent to those uses. • The project contractor shall use power construction equipment with state -of- the -art noise shielding and muffling devices. • During all site excavation and grading onsite, construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers' standards. • The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction - related noise sources and the nearest noise - sensitive receptors during all project construction. • The construction contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from the nearest noise - sensitive receptors. • The use of vibratory equipment shall be avoided or minimived within 25 feet of existing vibration- sensitive land uses. • If vibratory equipment must be used within 25 feet of an existing structure, vibration monitoring shall be conducted, and work shall be halted and reevaluated for vibratory levels near 0.20 PPV, which is the standard established to protect structures. Finding: The City of San Bernardino finds based on the Final EIR and the whole of the record that Mitigation Measure N -1 is feasible and finds that this mitigation measure will reduce the impacts related to noise to a less than significant level by restricting hours of operation, regulating the location of equipment staging areas and establishing standards for vibration. [Pub. Res. Code §21081(a)(1); Guidelines § 15091(1)] Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations -24- Impact 5.11 -2 Traffic noise at land uses along Waterman Avenue, Baseline Street, and 5th Street in the Specific Plan area in future conditions would exceed the 65 dBA CNEL outdoor noise standard for several types of land uses. Operational noise impacts from stationary sources would also be significant. Increased traffic associated with buildout of the Specific Plan would result in increased traffic noise levels along the roadways near the Specific Plan area. This section examines noise impacts from the Proposed Project on surrounding land uses. Specifically, traffic noise increases based on Specific Plan buildout are examvred. Prroject- Generated Traffic Noise Impacts Table 5.11 -10 on page 5.11 -25 of the DEIR shows existing and existing plus project traffic noise levels on affected road segments in tine Specific Plan area. The noise level increases were calculated using forecast traffic volumes provided by Fehr & Peers (2016). The City of San Bernardino does not have published vehhicle /truck mixes or D /E /N splits for use in acoustical studies. Vehicle /truck mixes and D /E /N splits for use in acoustical studies published by the Riverside County Department of Industrial Hygiene were used for noise modeling. FHWA traffic modeling output is presented in the Noise Study Report included as Appendix G of the DEIR. Modeled Existing traffic noise levels range from 62.04 to 78.80 dBA CNEL, and modeled Existing Plus Project traffic noise levels range from 62.04 to 78.95 dBA CNEL at 50 feet from the centerline of the affected road segments. As shown under "Substantial Increase" in Table 5.11 -10, project- generated traffic noise would not result in noise increases of 3 dB or greater along road segments acoustically affected by the Proposed Project. Specific Plan buildout would not result in substantial increases in ambient noise levels due to project - generated vehicle traffic, and impacts would be less than significant. Future Traffic Noise Exposure to the Proposed Project There are several busy arterial roadways in the Specific Plan area that would accommodate most of the vehicle traffic generated by the Proposed Project. As discussed previously, the FHWA Noise Model was used to calculate buildout with- and without- project noise levels from vehicle traffic travelling on roads in the Specific Plan area. The distances from the centerline to the 60, 65, and 70 dBA CNEL contours were calculated for each of the acoustically significant roadways in the Specific Plan area and are shown in Table 5.11 -11 on page 5.11 -26 of the DEIR. Note that the contours do not include the shielding effects of buildings, topography, or sound barriers that would lower the noise levels, and therefore the table represents worst -case estimates. FHWA spreadsheets that calculated the locations of noise contours are included in the noise study report in Appendix G of this DEIR. As shown in Table 5.11 -11, future noise levels are expected to exceed 65 dBA CNEL at the existing and proposed land uses along Waterman Avenue, Baseline Street, and 5th Street. Most of the affected land uses adjacent to Waterman Avenue and Baseline Street are and would be commercial land uses. The existing and proposed land uses adjacent to 5th Street include residential uses as well as commercial uses. Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations -25- As shown in Table 5.11 -6 on page 5.11 -12 of the DEIR, the City has not adopted exterior noise level lints for commercial land uses. Interior noise level standards for commercial land uses range between 45 and 65 dBA CNEL, depending on the Type of cotmnercial use. Residential land uses in the Specific Plan area along Waterman Avenue, Baseline Street, and 5th Street would be exposed to noise levels of up to 70 dBA CNEL and may exceed the 65 dB CNEL exterior noise level lnnit for residential land uses or the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise level lint depending on the distance of the receptor from the roadway. Outdoor use areas (i.e., backyards) should be shielded from vehicle-noise whenever possible. This impact would be significant. This impact would be due partly to project - generated traffic and partly to traffic generated by future regional growth traveling on arterial roadways through or next to the Specific Plan area. Thus, this would be a cumulative impact. Operational Noise Impacts fivm Proposed Land Uses In addition to roadway traffic noise impacts discussed above, on -site activities at existing residential and commercial uses and the proposed uses in the six Specific Plan districts could impact both on- and off-site sensitive receptors — specifically, the activities associated with commercial establishments, such as parking lot noise, air conditioning units, delivery trucks, and loading and unloading. Instantaneous sound events generated by vehicle door slamming, engine start-up, alarm activation, and vehicle pass -bys in parking lots would not be of sufficient volume to exceed community noise standards that are based on a time- averaged scale such as the CNEL scale. Estimates of the maximum noise levels associated with some parking lot activities are presented in Table 5.11 -12 on page 5.11 -12 of the DEIR. These noise levels, which are based on measurements conducted at 50 feet from the source, are the maximum noise levels generated. A range is given to reflect the variability of noise generated by various automobile types and driving styles. The exact locations of all future parking lots within each property are not yet known. For the purposes of determining worst -case noise impacts to residences due to parking - lot - related activities, it will be assumed that a parking lot could be anywhere on a property where parking is required. Truck deliveries, loading dock activities, and air conditioning noise can only generally be assessed at this stage of the Proposed Project. Loading dock noise includes the movement of the goods into a store and possibly forklift operations. Truck delivery noise is generated when a truck drives to or from the loading dock. Formerly, delivery truck drivers could also leave the truck idling during unloading operations. However, trucks are now prohibited from idling in any one location for more than five minutes by South Coast Air Quality Management District regulations. The number of truck deliveries and the time of day that unloading would occur are not known. Nighttime operations can be particularly annoying to residences. However, noise levels could be loud enough that they would be disturbing at the residences during daytime as well. Mechanical equipment noise associated with HVAC systems often accompanies several of the land use types being proposed as part of the Specific Plan. HVAC equipment is Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations -26- sometanes located on the ground and sot mechanical equipment cannot be known walls are often used to control the noise from around HVAC equipment on the groun& could be significant without mitigation. Mitigation Measures: netitnes on the roof. The type, size, and number of at this time. If equipment is on the roof, parapet the equipment. Similarly, sound walls can be built Operational noise impacts from stationary sources The following mitigation measures are included on page 5.11 -33 of the DEIR, unchanged by the FEIR, and are applicable to the proposed project: N -2 Before issuance of any building permits for projects developed pursuant to the Specific Plan, the architects for such projects will add the following specifications to building plans for such projects: New nonresidential development shall be constructed with roof - ceiling assemblies that have a sound transmission class (STC) of at least 50, and exterior windows must have minimum STC of 30 where sound levels at tine property line regularly exceed 65 decibels. It is recommended that buildings with few or no occupants and where occupants are not likely to be affected by exterior noise, as determined by the enforcement authority— such as factories, stadiums, storage, enclosed parking structures, and utility buildings — be exempt from this measure. N -3 Prior to issuance of building permits for residential land uses within a 65 dBA CNEL noise contour as shown in Table 5.11 -11 of the Draft EIR, a detailed noise assessment shall be prepared to show that noise levels in those areas will not exceed the 65 dBA CNEL outdoor and the 45 CNEL indoor noise standards. The noise assessment shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant, document the sources of noise impacting the areas, and describe any measures required to meet the standard. These measures will be incorporated into the project plans. The report shall be completed and approved by the City prior to issuance of building permits. Stationg Noise Sources N -4 Prior to issuance of building permits for nonresidential land uses adjacent to residential land uses, City staff shall require the preparation of a detailed noise study to ensure that these sources do not exceed noise level limits in the City's noise ordinance. The assessment shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer and shall document the noise generation characteristics of the proposed equipment and the projected noise levels at the nearest use. Compliance with these levels shall be demonstrated, and any measures required to comply with the noise ordinance will be included in the project plans. The report shall be completed and approved by the City prior to issuance of building permits. Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations -27- Finding: TiaffieNohe Impacdr al Future Land U er The City of San Bernardino finds based on the Final EIR and the whole of the record that Mitigation Measures N -2 through N -4 are feasible and finds that these mitigat on measures will reduce the impacts related to noise to a less than significant level by establishing STC ratings for windows, proof that future projects meet the City noise standards and modification of projects if necessary to meet noise standards. [Pub. Res. Code §21081(a)(1); Guidelines § 15091(1)] C. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS The following summary describes the unavoidable adverse impacts of tine Proposed Project where either mitigation measures were found to be infeasible, or mitigation would not lessen impacts to less than significant. 1. Air Quality Impact 5.2-2: The Proposed Project would generate short -term emissions that exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District's regional construction significance thresholds and would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the South Coast Air Basin. Construction activities would temporarily increase PM10, PM2.5, VOC, NOX; SOX, and CO regional emissions within the SoCAB. Construction activities associated with buildout of the Proposed Project are anticipated to occur sporadically over approximately 20 years or more. Buildout would comprise multiple smaller projects undertaken by individual developers /project applicants, each having its own construction timeline and activities. Development of multiple properties could occur at the same time; however, there is no defined development schedule for these future projects at this time. The EIR used the maximum daily emissions as a very conservative scenario, where several construction projects throughout the Specific Plan area would occur at the same time and all construction phases would overlap. The amount of construction assumed is consistent with the approximately 20 -year anticipated buildout of the Specific Plan area. An estimate of maximum daily construction emissions is provided in Table 5.2 -9 Estimate of Regional Construction Emissions in the Proposed Project Area, on page 5.2 -20 of the DEIR.. Based on the conservative assumption, construction activities associated with the Proposed Project could potentially exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds for VOC and NOX. The primary source of NOX emissions is exhaust from vehicles and construction equipment. NOX is a precursor to the formation of both 03 and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). VOC is produced by equipment exhaust and off -gas of architectural coatings and paving. VOC is a precursor to the formation of 01 Project - related emissions of VOC and NOX would contribute to the 03, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5 nonattainment designations of the SPCAB. Because cumulative development within the Specific Plan could exceed the regional significance thresholds, construction of the Proposed Project could contribute to an increase in health effects in the basin until such time as the attainment standards are met. Therefore, project- related construction activities would result in significant regional air quality impacts. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure is included on page 5.2 -27 of the DEIR, unchanged by the FEIR, and is applicable to the proposed project: Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations -28- AQ -1 Applicants for new development projects within the Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan area shall require the construction contractor to use equipment that meets the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Tier 4 emissions standards for off -road diesel - poweted construction equipment with more than 50 horsepower, miless it can be demonstrated to the City of San Bernardino that such equipment is not available. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 4 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine, as defined by the California Air Resources Board's regulations. Prior to construction, the project engineer shall ensure that all demolition and grading plans clearly show the requirement for EPA Tier 4 or higher emissions standards for construction equipment over 50 horsepower. During construction, the construction contractor shall maintain a list of all operating equipment in use on the construction site for verification by the City of San Bernardino. The construction equipment list shall state the makes, models, and numbers of construction equipment onsite. Equipment shall be properly serviced and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. Construction contractors shall also ensure that all nonessential idling of construction equipment is restricted to five minutes or less in compliance with California Air Resources Board's Rule 2449. AQ -2 Applicants for new development projects within the Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan shall requite the construction contractor to prepare a dust control plan and implement the following measures during ground- disturbing activities —in addition to the existing requirements for fugitive dust control under South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 —to further reduce PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. The City of San Bernardino shall verify that these measures have been implemented during normal construction site inspections. a) Following all grading activities, the construction contractor shall establish /reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and watering. b) During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall sweep streets with SCAQMD Rule 1186- compliant, PM10- efficient vacuum units on a daily basis if silt is carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling. c) During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall maintain a minimum 24 -inch freeboard on trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials and shall tarp materials with a fabric cover or other cover that achieves the same amount of protection. d) During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall water exposed ground surfaces and disturbed areas a minimum of every three hours on the construction site and a minimum of three times per day. e) During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall limit onsite vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to no more than 15 miles per hour. Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations -29- AQ -3 Applicants for new development projects within the Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan area shall require the construction contractor to use coatings and solvents with a volatile organic compound (VOC) content lower than required under South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1113 (i.e., super compliant paints). The construction contractor shall also use precoated /natural - colored building materials, where feasible. Use of low -VOC paints and spray method shall be included as a note on architectural building plans and verified by the City of San Bernardino during construction. Finding: Construction activities associated with the buildout of the Proposed Project would generate criteria air pollutant emissions that would exceed SCAQMD's regional significance thresholds, contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SoCAB, and contribute to known health effects from poor air quality — including worsening of bronchitis, asthma, and emphysema; a decrease in lung function; premature death of people with heart or lung disease; nonfatal heart attacks; irregular heartbeat, decreased lung function; and increased respiratory symptoms. Mitigation Measures AQ -1 through AQ -3 would reduce criteria air pollutants generated from Project - related construction activities. Construction time frames and equipment for individual site - specific projects are not available now as each property and each project may have a different equipment need. There is a potential for multiple developments to be constructed at any one time, resulting in significant construction - related emissions. Therefore, despite adherence to Mitigation Measures AQ -1 through AQ -3, project -level and cumulative impacts under Impact 5.2 -2 would remain significant and unavoidable, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required. Impact 5.2 -3: The Proposed Project would generate long -term emissions that exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District's regional operational significance thresholds. Buildout of the Proposed Project would result in direct and indirect criteria air pollutant emissions from transportation, energy (natural gas use), and area sources (e.g., natural gas fireplaces, aerosols, landscaping equipment). Transportation sources of criteria air pollutant emission'are based on the traffic impact analysis conducted by Fehr & Peers (see Appendix I of the DEIR). Development from the Proposed Project would generate a net increase of 12,024 weekday average daily trips, resulting in 96,298 additional daily VMT at Specific Plan buildout. The results of the CaIEEMod modeling are included in Table 5.2 -10, Maximum Daily Speeifre Plan Operational Phase Regional Emissions, on page 5.2 -21 of the DEIR. The operation phase of the Proposed Project at buildout would generate air pollutant emissions that exceed SCAQMD's regional significance thresholds for VOC. Construction of residential and nonresidential uses would be based on market demand and would be constructed over the approximately 20 -year Specific Plan buildout; therefore, emissions from construction activities could add to the total emissions during early phases. Table 5.2 -10 shows maximum daily emissions at buildout once construction is complete. Emissions of VOC and NOx that exceed the SCAQMD regional threshold would cumulatively contribute to the 03 nonattainment designation of the SoCAB. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would result in a significant impact because it would significantly contribute to the nonattamment designations of the SoCAB. Because cumulative development within the Specific Plan area would exceed the regional significance thresholds, Operation of the Proposed Project could contribute to an increase in health effects in the basin. Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations -30- Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are includec FEIR, and are applicable to the proposed project: Stationay Soume on page 5.2 -28 of the DEIR, unchanged by the AQ -4 Prior to issuance of building permits for new development projects widen the Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan area, die property owner /developer shall show on the building plans that all major appliances (dishwashers, refrigerators, clothes washers, and dryers) to be provided /installed are Energy Star appliances. Installation of Energy Star appliances shall be verified by the City of San Bernardino prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Tian portation and Motor Vebicles AQ -5 Prior to issuance of building permits for residential development projects within the Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan area the property owner /developer shall indicate on the building plans that the following features have been incorporated into the design of die building(s). Proper installation of these features shall be verified by the City of San Bernardino prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. a) For multifamily dwellings, electric vehicle charging shall be provided as specified in Section A4.106.8.2 (Residential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code. b) Bicycle parking shall be provided as specified in Section A4.106.9 (Residential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code. AQ -6 Prior to issuance of building permits for nonresidential development projects within the Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan area, the property owner /developer shall indicate on the building plans that the following features have been incorporated into the design of the building(s). Proper installation of these features shall be verified by the City of San Bernardino prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. a) For buildings with more than 50 tenant - occupants, changing /shower facilities shall be provided as specified in Section A5.106.4.3 (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code. Alternatively, buildings with more than 50 tenant- occupants can document a memorandum of understanding with an adjacent facility that provides changing /shower facilities that meet those listed in Section A5.2016.4.3 of die CALGreen Code. b) Designated parking for low- emitting, fuel - efficient, and carpool /van vehicles, or combination thereof, shall be provided as specified in Section A5.106.5.1 (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code. c) Facilities shall be installed to support future electric vehicle charging at each nonresidential building with 30 or more parking spaces. Installation shall be consistent with Section A5.106.5.3 (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code. Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 31- Finding: Budd out of the proposed land use plan would generate additional vehicle trips and area sources of criteria air pollutant emissions that exceed SCAQMD's regional significance thresholds and would contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SoCAB and known health effects from poor air quality — including worsening of bronchitis, asthma, and emphysema; a decrease in lung function; premature death of people with heart or lung disease; nonfatal heart attacks; irregular heartbeat; decreased lung function; and increased respiratory symptoms. Incorporation of Mitigation Measures AQ -4 through AQ -6 would reduce operation - related criteria air pollutants generated from stationary and mobile sources. Mitigation Measures AQ -5 and AQ -6 would encourage and accommodate use of alternative- fueled vehicles and nonmotorized transportation. However, despite adherence to Mitigation Measures AQ -4 through AQ -6, project -level and cumulative impacts identified under Impact 5.2 -3 would remain significant and unavoidable due to the magnitude of land use development associated with the Proposed Project, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required. Impact 5.2 -4: Construction activities related to the buildout of the Proposed Project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations NOx, CO, PMto, and PMaS. Table 5.2 -9 on page 5.2 -20 of the DEIR provides an estimate of the magnitude of criteria air pollutant emissions generated by the development allowed by the Proposed Project for each construction subphase. Buldout of the Proposed Project would occur over a period of approximately 20 years, or longer, and would comprise several smaller projects each with their own construction time frames and construction equipment. Concentrations of criteria air pollutants generated by a development project depend on the emissions generated onsite and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. Therefore, an LST analysis can only be conducted at a project level, and quantification of LSTs is not applicable for this program- level environmental analysis. Because potential redevelopment could occur close to existing sensitive receptors, future development that would be accommodated by the Proposed Project has the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Construction equipment exhaust combined with fugitive particulate matter emissions have the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of criteria air pollutant emissions and result in a significant impact. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are included on page 5.2 -27 of the DEIR, unchanged by the FEIR, and are applicable to the proposed project: AQ -1 Applicants for new development projects within the Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan area shall require the construction contractor to use equipment that meets the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Tier 4 emissions standards for off -road diesel - powered construction equipment with more than 50 horsepower, unless it can be demonstrated to the City of San Bernardino that such equipment is not available. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 4 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine, as defined by the California Air Resources Board's regulations. Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations -32- Prior to construction, the project engineer shall ensure that all demolition and grading Plans clearly show the requirement for FPA Tier 4 or higher emissions standards for construction equipment over 50 horsepower. During construction, the construction contractor shall maintain a list of all operating equipment in use on the construction site for verification by the City of San Bernardino. The construction equipment list shall state the makes, models, and numbers of construction equipment onsite. Equipment shall be properly serviced and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. Construction contractors shall also ensure that all nonessential idling of construction equipment is restricted to five minutes Of less in compliance with California Air Resources Board's Rule 2449. AQ -2 Applicants for new development projects within the Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan shall require the construction contractor to prepare a dust control plan and implement the following measures during ground- disturbing activities —in addition to the existing requirements for fugitive dust control under South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 —to further reduce PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. The City of San Bernardino shall verify that these measures have been implemented during normal construction site inspections. a) Following all grading activities, the construction contractor shall establish /reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and watering. b) During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall sweep streets with SCAQMD Rule 1186- compliant, PM10- efficient vacuum units on a daily basis if silt is carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling. c) During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall maintain a minimum 24 -etch freeboard on trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials and shall tarp materials with a fabric cover or other cover that achieves the same amount of protection. d) During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall water exposed ground surfaces and disturbed areas a minimum of every three hours on the construction site and a minimum of three times per day. e) During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall limit onsite vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to no more than 15 miles per hour. Finding: Mitigation Measures AQ -1 and AQ -2 would reduce the Proposed Project's regional construction emissions and therefore also reduce the Proposed Project's localized construction - related criteria air Pollutant emissions to the extent feasible. However, because existing sensitive receptors may be close to project - related construction activities, construction emissions generated by individual development projects have the potential to exceed SCAMQD's LSTs. Because of the scale of development activity associated with buddout of the Proposed Project, for this broad -based Specific Plan it is not possible to determine whether the scale and phasing of individual projects would result in the exceedance of the localized emissions thresholds and contribute to known health effects. Therefore, project -level Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations -33- and cumulative impacts under Impact 5.2 -3 would remain significant and unavoidable, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required. Impact 5.2 -5: Stationary sources of emissions generated by future industrial uses associated with the Proposed Project could generate substantial pollutant concentrations near sensitive land uses. Onsite Stationary and Area Sources Emissions Residential, Connreraal, Retail, Office Operation of residential and nonresidential structures in the Specific Plan area would include occasional use of landscaping equipment, natural gas consumption for heating, and nominal truck idling for vendor deliveries. The Proposed Project would permit residential, commercial, and office land uses and would not involve warehousing or similar uses where substantial truck idling could occur onsite. Onsite emissions from residential and nonresidential uses (natural gas used for cooking and water heating) and other sources (e.g., landscaping fuel, aerosols) would not generate substantial concentrations of emissions or exacerbate existing health risk in the area. Industrial and Other Land Uses Requiring a SCAQMD Pem;it Certain types of land uses have the potential to generate substantial stationary and area sources of emissions, necessitating a permit from SCAQMD. These include industrial land uses, such as chemical processing facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline- dispensing facilities. Operators of certain types of facilities must submit emissions inventories. The Air Toxics Program categorizes each facility as being high, intermediate, or low priority based on the potency, toxicity, quantity, and volume of its emissions. If the risks are above established levels, facilities are required to notify surrounding populations and to develop and implement a risk reduction plan. In addition to stationary/area sources of TACs, warehousing and trucking facilities could generate a substantial amount of diesel particulate matter emissions from off -road equipment use and truck idling. The Employment District within the Specific Plan conditionally permits new light industrial or warehousing. The exact nature of new industrial uses is speculative for this broad -based Specific Plan. Additionally, industrial operations are subject to further CEQA review through the City's discretionary conditional use permit process. Because the Proposed Project could conditionally permit light industrial land uses in the Employment Zone, there is a potential for new industrial uses to generate stationary sources of emissions that could impact nearby sensitive receptors. Stationary sources of emissions would be controlled by SCAQMD through permitting and would be subject to further study and health risk assessment prior to the issuance of any necessary air quality permits under SCAQMD's New Source Review. Because the nature of those emissions cannot be determined at this time and they are subject to further regulation and permitting, they will not be addressed further in this analysis but are considered a potentially significant impact of the Proposed Project. Mobile Source Emissions: CO Hotspots Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create pockets of CO called hotspots. These pockets have the potential to exceed the state one -hour standard of 20 ppm or the eight -hour standard of 9.0 ppm. At the time of the 1993 SCAQMD Handbook, the SoCAB was designated nonattainment under the California AAQS and National AAQS for CO. With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations -34- control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations in the SoCAB and in the state, have steadily declnned. In 2007, the SCAQMD was designated in attaimnent for CO under both the California AAQS and National AAQS. Furthermore, under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour --or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and /or horizontal air does not mix —in order to generate a significant CO impact (BAAQMD 2011). Buildout of the Proposed Project would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO hotspot (Fehr & Peers 2016). Therefore, impacts from CO hotspots are considered less than significant. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure is included on page 5.2 -29 of tine DEIR, unchanged by the FEIR, and is applicable to the proposed project: AQ -7 New industrial land uses that have industrial equipment which requires a perm t to Operate from the South Coast Air Quality Management District or have the potential to generate 40 or more diesel rucks per day and are located within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use (e.g. residential, schools, hospitals, nursing homes), as measured from the property he of the project to the property line of the nearest sensitive use, shall submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City of San Bernardino prior to future discretionary project approval. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the applicable air quality management district. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds ten in one million (10E 06), that particulate matter concentrations would exceed 2.5 pg /m3, or that the appropriate noncancer hazard index exceeds 1.0; the applicant will be required to identify and demonstrate that best available control technologies for toxics (T BACTs) are capable of reducing potential cancer and noncancer risks to an acceptable level, including appropriate enforcement mechanisms. T BACTs may include, but are not limited to, restricting idling onsite, electrifying warehousing docks to reduce diesel particulate matter, and requiring use of newer equipment and /or vehicles. T BACTs identified in the HRA shall be identified as mitigation measures in the environmental document and /or incorporated into the site development plan as a component of the project. Finding: Buildout of the Proposed Project could result in new sources of air pollutant emissions near existing or planned sensitive receptors. Review of projects by SCAQMD for permitted sources of air emissions (e.g., industrial facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline dispensing facilities) would ensure health risks are minimized. Mitigation Measure AQ -7 would ensure that mobile sources of emissions not covered under SCAQMD permits are considered during subsequent project -level environmental review. Development of individual projects would be required to achieve the thresholds established by SCAQMD. However, the Proposed Project is in an area with elevated risk. Therefore, although individual projects may achieve the project -level risk thresholds, they would contribute to the high levels of risk in the SoCAB. Therefore, the Proposed Project's cumulative contribution to health risk is significant and unavoidable, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required. Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations -35- 2. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact 5.6 -1: Buildout of the Proposed Project would generate a substantial increase in GHG em ssions compared to existing conditions and would have a significant impact on the environment. Development under the Proposed Project would contribute to global climate change through direct and indirect emissions of GHG from land uses within the Specific Plan area. As shown in Table 5.6 -7 on page 5.6 -21 of the DEIR, the net increase in GHG emissions of 10,097 MTCO2e annually from operational activities related to the Proposed Project would exceed SCAQMD's draft bright -line screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e for all land use types. The increase in overall land use intensity and associated population and employment growth within the Specific Plan area is the primary factor for the increase in overall GHG emissions. Under the Proposed Project, increase in land use development would result in a 95 percent increase in the total service population. Although the Proposed Project would result in a substantial increase in GHG emissions, it would also result in a 45 percent decrease in GHG emissions per person. As shown in Table 5.6 -7 of the DEIR, the GHG emissions per capita rate would decrease from 12.4 MTCO2e /year /SP to 6.8 MTCO2e /year /SP. However, GHG emissions would still exceed the 2035 target of 2.2 MTCO2e /SP. The improvement in per capita efficiency would be attributable to the overall land use plan and development standards of the proposed Specific Plan. Placement of land uses that complement each other in addition to improvements in access to alternative transportation options contribute to reducing per capita VMT. Aside from the policies and strategies to reduce per capita VMT, new buildings under the proposed Specific Plan would be more energy efficient than existing buildings throughout the Specific Plan area. Likewise, plumbing fixtures and landscaping installed would result in a decrease in water use on a per capita basis. These aspects of the Proposed Project would contribute to the overall reduction of per capita GHG emissions. However, although implementation of the Proposed Project would result in a decrease in GHG emissions per capita, it would not meet the SCAQMD Year 2035 target efficiency metric of 2.2 MTCO2e /year /SP based on the long -term GHG reduction goals of Executive Order S -03 -05 and Executive Order B- 30 -15. Additional state and local actions are necessary to achieve the post -2020 GHG reduction goals for the state. CARB has released the 2014 Scoping Plan Update to identify a path for the date to achieve additional GHG reductions. The new Executive Order B -30 -15 requires CARB to prepare another update to the Scoping Plan to address the 2030 target for the state. However, at this time, no additional GHG reductions programs have been outlined that get the state to the post -2020 targets identified in Executive Order S- 03 -05, which are an 80 percent reduction in 1990 emissions by 2050, or the Executive Order B- 30 -15, which are a 40 percent reduction in 1990 emissions by 2035. As identified by the California Council on Science and Technology, the state cannot meet the 2050 goal without major advances in technology (CCST 2012). Therefore, the Proposed Project's cumulative contribution to the long -term GAG emissions in the state would be considered potentially significant. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are included on page 5.2 -28 of the DEIR, unchanged by the EEIR, and are applicable to the proposed project: Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations -36- Station y Souere AQ -4 Prior to issuance of a building permit for new development projects within the Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan area, the property owner /developer shall show on the building plans that all major appliances (dishwashers, refrigerators, clothes washers, and dryers) to be pxovided /installed are Energy Star appliances. Installation of Energy Star appliances shall be verified by the City of San Bernardino prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Tmn portation and Motor Vehicler AQ -5 Prior to issuance of building permits for residential development projects witirin the Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan area, the property owner /developer shall indicate on the building plans that the following features have been incorporated into the design of the building(s). Proper installation of these features shall be verified by the City of San Bernardino prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. • For multifamily dwellings, electric vehicle charging shall be provided as specified in Section A4.106.8.2 (Residential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code. • Bicycle parking shall be provided as specified in Section A4.106.9 (Residential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code. AQ -6 Prior to issuance of building permits for nonresidential development projects within the Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan area, the property owner /developer shall indicate on the building plans that the following features have been incorporated into the design of the bullding(s). Proper installation of these features shall be verified by the City of San Bernardino prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. • For buildings with more than 50 tenant - occupants, changing/shower facilities shall be provided as specified in Section A5.106.4.3 (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code. Alternatively, buildings with more than 50 tenant - occupants can document a memorandum of understanding with an adjacent facility that provides changing /shower facilities that meet those listed in Section A5.2016.4.3 of the CALGreen Code. Designated parking for low- emitting, fuel- efficient, and carpool /van vehicles, or combination thereof, shall be provided as specified in Section A5.106.5.1 (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code. • Facilities shall be installed to support future electric vehicle charging at each nonresidential building with 30 or more parking spaces. Installation shall be consistent with Section A5.106.5.3 (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code. 3. Finding: Mitigation Measures AQ -4 through AQ -6 encourage and accommodate use of alternative- fueled vehicles and nonmotorized transportation and ensure that GHG emissions from the buildout of the Proposed Project would be minimized. However, additional federal, state, and local measures would Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations -37- be necessary to reduce GHG etnissions under the Proposed Project to meet the long -term GHG reduction goals under Executive Order S -03 -05 and Executive Order B- 30 -15. Based on SCAQMD's 2020 efficiency target, this would equate to 2.2 MTCO2e /SP at the proposed Specific Plan's buildout year. The buildout GHG ernissions inventory for the Proposed Project would generate 6.8 MTCO2e /SP and would exceed the efficiency target of 2.2 MTCO2e /SP. The new Executive Order B -30 -15 requires CARB to prepare another update to the Scoping Plan to address the 2030 target for the state. At this tune, there is no plan past 2020 that achieves the long -term GHG reduction goal established under Executive Order S -03 -05 or the new Executive Order B- 30 -15. As identified by the California Council on Science and Technology, the state cannot meet the 2050 goal without major advancements in technology (CCST 2012). Since no additional statewide measures are currently available, Impact 5.6 -1 would remain significant and unavoidable, and. a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required. 4. Noise Impact 5.11 -2 Traffic noise at land uses along Waterman Avenue, Baseline Street, and 5th Street in the Specific Plan area in future conditions would exceed the 65 dBA CNEL outdoor noise standard for several types of land uses. Operational noise impacts from stationary sources would also be significant. Increased traffic associated with buildout of tite Specific Plan would result in increased traffic noise levels along the roadways near the Specific Plan area, This section examines noise impacts from the Proposed Project on surrounding land uses. Specifically, traffic noise increases based on Specific Plan buildout are examined. Project- Generated TiaffcNoise Impacts Table 5.11 -10 of the DEIR shows existing and existing plus project traffic noise levels on affected road segments in the Specific Plan area. The noise level increases were calculated using forecast traffic volumes provided by Fehr & Peers (2016). The City of San Bernardino does not have published vehicle /truck mixes or D /E /N splits for use in acoustical studies. Vehicle /truck mixes and D /E /N splits for use in acoustical studies published by the Riverside County Department of Industrial Hygiene were used for noise modeling. FHWA traffic modeling output is presented in the Noise Study Report included as Appendix G of the DEIR. Modeled Existing traffic noise levels range from 62.04 to 78.80 dBA CNEL, and modeled Existing Plus Project traffic noise levels range from 62.04 to 78.95 dBA CNEL at 50 feet from the centerline of the affected road segments. As shown under "Substantial Increase" in Table 5.11 -10, project- generated traffic noise would not result in noise increases of 3 dB or greater along road segments acoustically affected by the Proposed Project. Specific Plan buildout would not result in substantial increases in ambient noise levels due to project - generated vehicle traffic, and impacts would be less than significant. Future Traffic Noise Exposxre to the Proposed PiVect Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations _38- There are several busy arterial roadways in die Specific Plan area that would accormnodate most of the vehicle traffic generated by the Proposed Project. As discussed previously, the FHWA Noise Model was used to calculate buildout with- and without - project noise levels from vehicle traffic travelling on roads in the Specific Plan area. The distances from the centerline to the 605 65, and 70 dBA CNEL contours were calculated for each of the acoustically significant roadways in the Specific Plan area and are shown in Table 5.11 -11 on page 5.11 -27 of the DEIR. Note that the contours do not include the shielding effects of buildings, topography, or sound barriers that would lower the noise levels, and therefore the table represents worst -case estimates: FHWA spreadsheets that calculated the locations of noise contours are included in the noise study report in Appendix G of this DEIR. As shown in Table 5.11 -11, future noise levels are expected to exceed 65 dBA CNEL at the existing and proposed land uses along Waterman Avenue, Baseline Street, and 5th Street. Most the affected land uses adjacent to Waterman Avenue and Baseline Street are and would be commercial land uses. The existing and proposed land uses adjacent to 5th Street include residential uses as well as commercial uses. As shown in Table 5.11 -6 on page 5.11 -12 of1the DEIR, the City has not adopted exterior noise level limits for commercial land uses. Interior noise level standards for commercial land uses range between 45 and 65 dBA CNEL, depending on the type of commercial use. Residential land uses in the Specific Plan area along Waterman Avenue, Baseline Street, and 5th Street would be exposed to noise levels of up to 70 dBA CNEL and may exceed the 65 dB CNEL exterior noise level limit for residential land uses or the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise level limit depending on the distance of the receptor from the roadway. Outdoor use areas (i.e, backyards) should be shielded from vehicle noise whenever possible. This impact would be significant. This impact would be due partly to project- generated traffic and partly to traffic generated by future regional growth traveling on arterial roadways through or next to the Specific Plan area. Thus, this would be a cumulative impact. Operational Noise Impacts from Pro posed Land Uses In addition to roadway traffic noise impacts discussed above, on -site activities at existing residential and commercial uses and the proposed uses in the six Specific Plan districts could impact both on- and off -site sensitive receptors — specifically, the activities associated with commercial establishments, such as parking lot noise, air conditioning units, delivery trucks, and loading and unloading. Instantaneous sound events generated by vehicle door slamming, engine start -up, alarm activation, and vehicle pass -bys in parking lots would not be of sufficient volume to exceed community noise standards that are based on a time- averaged scale such as the CNEL scale. Estimates of the maximum noise levels associated with some parking lot activities are presented in Table 5.11 -12 on page 5.9 -29 of the DEIR. These noise levels, which are based on measurements conducted at a distance of 50 feet from the source, are the maximum noise levels generated. A range is given to reflect the variability of noise generated by various automobile types and driving styles. The exact locations of all future parking lots Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations -39- within each property are not yet known. For the purposes of determining worst -case noise impacts to residences due to parking -lot- related activities, it will be assumed that a parking lot could be anywhere on a properly where parking is required. Truck deliveries, loading dock activities, and air conditioning noise can only generally be assessed at this stage of the Proposed Project. Loading dock noise includes the movement of the goods into a store and possibly forklift operations. Truck delivery noise is generated when a truck drives to or from the loading dock. Formerly, delivery truck drivers could also leave the truck idling during unloading operations. However, trucks are now prohibited from idling in any one location for more than five minutes by South Coast Air Quality Management District regulations. The number of truck deliveries and the time of day that unloading would occur are not known. Nighttime operations can be particularly annoying to residences. However, noise levels could be loud enough that they would be disturbing at the residences during daytime as well. Mechanical equipment noise associated with HVAC systems often accompanies several of the land use types being proposed as part of the Specific Plan. HVAC equipment is sometimes located on the ground and sometimes on the roof. The type, size, and number of mechanical equipment are not known at this time. If equipment is on the roof, parapet walls are often used to control the noise from the equipment. Similarly, sound walls can be built around HVAC equipment on the ground. Operational noise impacts from stationary sources could be significant without mitigation. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are included on page 5.11 -33 of the DEIR, unchanged by the FEIR, and are applicable to the proposed project: N -2 Before issuance of any building permits for projects developed pursuant to the Specific Plan, the architects for such projects will add the following specifications to building plans for such projects: New nonresidential development shall be constructed with roof - ceiling assemblies that have a sound transmission class (STC) of at least 50, and exterior windows must have minimum STC of 30 where sound levels at the property line regularly exceed 65 decibels. It is recommended that buildings with few or no occupants and where occupants are not likely to be affected by exterior noise, as determined by the enforcement authority — such as factories, stadiums, storage, enclosed parking structures, and utility buildings — be exempt from this measure. N -3 Prior to issuance of building permits for residential land uses within a 65 dBA CNEL noise contour as shown in Table 5.11 -11 of the Draft EIR, a detailed noise assessment shall be prepared to show that noise levels in those areas will not exceed the 65 dBA CNEL outdoor and the 45 CNEL indoor noise standards. The noise assessment shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant, document the sources of noise impacting the areas, and describe any measures required to meet the standard. These measures will Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan ` CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations -40- be incorporated into the project plans. The report sball be completed and approved by the City prior to issuance of building permits. Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Stationay Noise Soutres N -4 Prior to issuance of building permits for nonresidential land uses adjacent to residential land uses, City staff shall require the preparation of a detailed noise study to ensure that These sources do not exceed noise level limits in the City's noise ordinance. The assessment shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer and shall document the noise generation characteristics of the proposed equipment and the projected noise levels at the nearest use. Compliance with these levels shall be demonstrated, and any measures required to comply with the noise ordinance will be included in the project plans. The report shall be completed and approved by the City prior to issuance of building permits. Finding: As demonstrated above, the Proposed Project's contribution to increases in ambient noise levels and vibration would be less than significant, even when accounting for traffic increases forecast in the San Bernardino Transportation Analysis Model. However, cumulative noise impacts from traffic at land uses along certain arterial roadways in the Specific Plan area in future conditions were found to be significant. It is assumed here that such noise impacts along some arterial roadways in the cities of San Bernardino and Highland outside of the Specific Plan area would also be significant and unavoidable, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required. S. Traffic Impact 5.15 -1: Trip generation by Proposed Project bu ldout would impact levels of service for study area intersections. Intersection levels of service in Existing Plus Project conditions are shown in Table 5.15 -7 on page 5.15 -16 and Table 5.15 -10 on page 5.15 -20 of the DEIR. Specific Plan buildout would result in significant direct impacts to operation of tite following six intersections in the Existing Plus Project condition: 2. Waterman Avenue & SR -210 Eastbound Ramps 16. I -210 Southbound Ramps & 5th Street 17. I -210 Northbound Ramps & 5th Street 20. 20.1 -215 Southbound On -Ramp & 2nd Street 21. 1 -215 Northbound Off -Ramp & 2nd Street 23, Waterman Avenue & I -10 Westbound On -Ramp Specific Plan implementation would result in significant cumulative impacts to operation Of the following 10 intersections in the 2035 Plus Project condition: 1. Waterman Avenue & 30th St 2. Waterman Avenue & SR- 210 Eastbound Ramps Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations -42- 8. Waterman Avenue & Baseline Avenue 10. Waterman Avenue & 9th Street 12, I -215 Northbound Off- Ramp & 5th Street 16. I -210 Southbound Ramps & 5th Street 17. I -210 Northbound Ramps & 5th Street 20. I -215 Southbound On- Ramp & 2nd Sheet 21. I -215 Northbound Off- Ramp & 2nd Street 23. Waterman Avenue & I -10 Westbound On -Ramp Construction Traffic Impacts Construction traffic impacts are expected to be less than significant as construction will involve numerous development and redevelopment projects of various sizes in various areas of the 710 -acre project site and spread over many years. Construction traffic would use various routes to access each site. Construction traffic from the southern and western parts of the Specific Plan area would most likely use Baseline Street and I -215; construction traffic from the northern and eastern parts of the Specific Plan area would probably use the SR -210 via Waterman Avenue and /or Del Rosa Avenue. Baseline Street is assumed to be the route for construction traffic west to the I -215, because 5th Street passes through downtown San Bernardino and may be more congested than Baseline Street. It is also expected that most deliveries of construction equipment and materials, and haul truck trips, would be conducted after the AM peak hour and before the PM peak hour to avoid congestion delays. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are included on page 5.15 -31 of the DEIR, unchanged by the FEIR, and are applicable to the proposed project: T -1 Prior to issuance of the fast building permit, the project applicant shall enter into a mitigation agreement with Caltrans for project - related impacts to Caltrans facilities. The agreement shall identify the project's fair -share contribution to the following traffic improvements that result in improved levels of service at the impacted ramp locations, via an agreement mutually acceptable to Caltrans and the City of San Bernardino: • Intersection of I -210 Southbound Ramps & 5th Street: Optimize signal timing • Intersection of I -215 Southbound Ramps & 2nd Street: Optimize signal tinning • Intersection of I -215 Northbound Ramps & 2nd Street: Optimize signal timing • Intersection of Waterman Avenue & I -10 Westbound On -Ramp: Signalize the intersection with a protected northbound left -turn phase. T -2 Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall enter into a mitigation agreement with Caltrans for project - related impacts to Caltrans facilities. Due Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations -43- to right -of -way constraints at the two affected intersections, listed below, it is unknown whether installation of the specified turn lanes is feasible. The agreement shall identify the project's fair-share contribution to the following traffic improvements, if found to be feasible, that result in improved levels of service at the impacted ramp locations, via an agreement mutually acceptable to Caltrans and the City of San Bernardino: • Waterman Avenue & SR -210 Eastbound Ramps: • Add two exclusive eastbound right -turn lanes • Add one southbound left -turn lane • I -210 Northbound Ramps & 5th Street: • Add one eastbound left -turn lane • Add one exclusive northbound right -turn lane 2035 Plus A ject Conditions (Cumulative Impacts) T -3 Prior to issuance of any building permit after 80 percent buildout of the Specific Plan area, the project applicant shall provide fair share funding for the following improvements as determined by the City. • Waterman Avenue & 30th Street: • Add one westbound left -turn lane • Add one westbound right -turn lane • Add one eastbound right -turn lane with right -turn overlap phase • Add an overlap phase for the northbound right -turn • Modify signal phasing to split phase in the east /west direction. This requires signal pole modifications in the east /west direction to accommodate new split phase vehicle heads on a longer mast arm The eastbound and westbound 30th Street approaches are wide enough for the additional eastbound and westbound turn lanes to be added through restriping of the affected approaches. The estimated cost for the improvements at this intersection is $125,000 to $200,000. The fair share contribution is 24 percent of the total cost, that is, $30,000 to $48,000. • Waterman Avenue & Baseline Street: • Modify the shared through -right lanes to a through lane and an exclusive right -turn lane at the east and west approaches. The eastbound and westbound Baseline Street approaches are wide enough for the lane modifications to be made through restriping of the affected approaches. The estimated cost for the improvement at this intersection is $3,000. The fain share contribution is 57 percent of the total cost, that is, $1,710. Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations -44- • Waterman Avenue & 9th Street: • Modify the shared through -right lanes to a through lane and an exclusive right -turn lane at the north and south approaches. The northbound and southbound Waterman Avenue approaches are wide enough for the lane modifications to be made through restriping of the affected approaches. The estimated cost for the improvement at this intersection is $3,000. The fair share contribution is 50 percent of the total cost, that is, $1,500. T -4 Prior to issuance of any building permit after 80 percent buildout of the Specific Plan area, the project applicant shall enter into a mitigation agreement with Caltrans for project - related impacts to Caltrans facilities. The agreement shall identify the project's fair -share contribution to the following traffic improvements that result in improved levels of service at the impacted ramp locations, via an agreement mutually acceptable to Caltrans and the City of San Bernardino: • I -215 Southbound Ramps & 2nd Street: • Optimize signal timing The fair -share contribution is 4 percent of the total cost. • 1 -215 Northbound Ramp & 2nd Street: • Optimize signal tuning The fair -share contribution is 16 percent of the total cost. • Waterman Ave & I -10 Westbound On -Ramp: • Optimize signal timing • Install a signal with a protected northbound left -turn phase The estimated cost for the improvements at this intersection is $90,000 to $125,000. The fair share contribution is 31 percent of the total cost, that is, $27,900 to $38,750. T -5 Prior to issuance of any building penuit after 80 percent buildout of the Specific Plan area, the project applicant shall enter into a mitigation agreement with Caltrans for project - related impacts to Caltrans facilities. Due to right -of -way constraints at the three affected intersections, it is unknown whether installation of the specified lanes is feasible. The agreement shall identify the project's fair -share contribution to the following traffic improvements, if found to be feasible, that result in improved levels of service at the impacted ramp locations, via an agreement mutually acceptable to Caltrans and the City of San Bernardino: • Waterman Avenue & SR -210 Eastbound Ramps: • Add one exclusive eastbound right -turn lane • Add one eastbound left -turn lane • Add one exclusive northbound right -turn lane Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations -45- • Add one southbound left -turn lane The fair -share contribution for improvements at this intersection is 41 percent. I -215 Northbound Ramps & 5th Street: • Add one exclusive westbound right -turn lane • Add one northbound left -twin lane • Add two exclusive northbound right -turn lanes The fair -share contribution for improvements at this intersection is 35 percent. 1 -210 Southbound Ramps & 5th Street: • Add one eastbound through lane • Add one exclusive southbound right -turn lane • Add two southbound left -turn lanes The fair -share contribution for improvements at this intersection is 34 percent. Finding: Traffic impacts in the Existing Plus Project scenario would be significant and unavoidable for the following reasons: Mitigation Measure T -1: None of the specified improvements would require acquisition of right - of -way. Implementation of the specified improvements would reduce direct impacts at the four intersections to less than significant. However, the intersections are under Caltrans jurisdiction; thus, implementation of the improvements is out of the control of the City of San Bernardino. Therefore, traffic impacts in the Existing Plus Project scenario at the four intersections would be significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure T -2: Implementation of the specified improvements would reduce direct traffic impacts at the two specified intersections to less than significant. However, traffic impacts at those two intersections would be significant and unavoidable for both of the following seasons: 1, The improvements would require right- of-way acquisition and it is unknown whether such acquisition is feasible due to right -of -way constraints; and 2, the intersections are under Caltrans jurisdiction; thus, implementation of the improvements is out of the control of the City of San Bernardino. 2035 With Project Scenario (Cumulative Impacts) Intersections of Vaterman Avenue with 301b Sttret, Baseline Street, and Rib Sheet Traffic impacts at these three intersections would be less than significant after implementation of the improvements specified in Mitigation Measure T -3. These three intersections are under the jurisdiction of the City of San Bernardino, and the affected approaches to the intersections are wide enough for the lane modifications to be made by restriping. Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations -46- Remaining Six brterreetious Cumulative traffic impacts at the remaining six intersections would be significant and unavoidable, because all six intersections are under the jurisdiction of Caltrans and implementation of the improvements is out of the control of the City of San Bernardino. In addition, the Improvements specified in Mitigation Measure T -5 would require right -of -way acquisition, and it is unknown whether such acquisition is feasible due to right -of -way constraints. Therefore, Impact 5.15 -1 would remain significant and unavoidable, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required. IV. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT A. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED DURING THE SCOPING /PROJECT PLANNING PROCESS Alternative Development Areas The adopted 2005 General Plan already allows a significant amount of residential and non - residential development within the Specific Plan area. Since the Specific Plan area is predominantly developed with urban uses, associated impacts to aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology /soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology /water quality and mineral resources will be limited. In reviewing potential alternative sites within and adjacent to the City, the only available undeveloped land is located in the northern portion of the City within foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains. Consistent with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the role of the General Plan in framing CEQA alternatives analysis, and in consideration of the City's adopted General Plan, no alternative sites within the jurisdiction of the City are considered to be feasible alternatives to the Proposed Project, since they would not reduce the environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Project. Additionally, development of an alternative site would not further the physical and economic revitalization of the Waterman + Baseline neighborhood, which is a major objective of the Proposed Project. Furthermore, the proposed Specific Plan is specific to the geography of the neighborhood surrounding the intersection of Waterman Avenue and Baseline Street. Therefore, it is not feasible to consider an alternative site as an alternative site could not feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the Proposed Project while reducing potential environmental impacts, and thus there are no available alternative sites which could accommodate the Proposed Project. Adaptive Reuse Alternative Ten historical resources in the Specific Plan area were identified in the cultural resources investigation and are described in Table 5.4 -1 of the DEIR (see Section 564, Cultural Resources of the DEIR). One of the resources, Waterman Gardens, was evaluated as eligible for listing on both the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historical Resources. Three of the other resources have been designated California Points of Historical Interest: the Home of Eternity Cemetery of Congregation Emanuel, the Martin Adobe, and Baseline Road (now Baseline Street); one of these resources, the Martin Adobe, collapsed, and'the debris has been removed from the site. Adaptive reuse of these structures was considered as a potential alternative; however, it was determined to be infeasible due to the high cost associated with rehabilitation of these structures and the inability to meet the project objectives including the provision of affordable housing. As a result, the Adaptive Reuse Alternative was not considered for further analysis. Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations -47- B. ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS The following alternatives were deteinuined to represent a reasonable range of alternatives with the potential to feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. No Project /Existing General Plan Alternative This alternative, which is required by CEQA, assumes that the existing general plan and zoning designations would remain unchanged. The Specific Plan area currently contains approximately 1,946 dwelling units and 2,366,385 square feet of non - residential land uses. Under this alternative; the Specific Plan area would be developed to approximately 80 percent of the maximum buildout potential under the City's adopted General Plan. Therefore, the No Project /Existing General Plan Alternative assumes that 2,917 DUs (971 additional DUs) and 7,103,782 square feet of non- residential (4,737,397 additional square feet) would be developed within the Specific Plan area. Finding: The City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make the No Project /Existing General Plan Alternative infeasible. [Pub. Res. Code 21081(a)(3); Guidelines §15091(a)(3)) Facts in Support of Finding • This alternative would not meet any of the project objectives. • This alternative is not considered environmentally superior to the Proposed Project. • This alternative would increase impacts related to air quality, GHG emissions, noise, population and housing, land use and planning, and transportation and traffic. Impacts related to aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardobs materials, hydrology and water quality, minerals, recreation, and utilities and service systems would be similar to the Proposed Project. Only impacts to public services would be slightly reduced. Increased Residential Use Alternative Under the Increased Residential Use Alternative, the additional non - residential building area would be reduced by 50 percent and the maximum residential dwelling units would be increased by 100 percent. This would result in 6,736 dwelling units (4,790 additional dwelling units) and 2,968,417 square feet of maximum non - residential uses (additional 602,032 square feet from existing) within the Specific Plan area. Traffic increases associated with this alternative would be slightly reduced from 12,024 to 113966 ,trips per day as compared to the Proposed Project. All other aspects of the Proposed Project would be implemented under this alternative. Finding: The City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make the Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations -48- Increased Residential Use Alternative infeasible. [Pub. Res. Code 21081(a)(3); Guidelines 515091(a)(3)] Facts in Support of Finding • This alternative would meet some of the project objectives. < This alternative would increase impacts related to public services, recreation, utilities and service systems, air quality, GHG emissions, noise, population and housing, land use and planning, and transportation and traffic. Impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, minerals, noise and transportation and traffic would be similar to the Proposed Project. Only impacts to land use and planning and population and housing would be slightly reduced. This alternative is not considered environmentally superior to the Proposed Project. educed Densitv Alternative This alternative would reduce the overall additional development intensity by 30 percent. It would result in a total of 3,622 dwelling units (1,676 additional DUs) and 3,209,229 square feet of non- residential uses (842,844 additional square feet. Project - related traffic increases would be reduced from 12,024 trips per day to 8,417 trips per day. The intent of this alternative is to reduce the air quality, GHG emissions, and traffic impacts associated with implementation of the Specific Plan while achieving the objectives of the Proposed Project. Finding: The City finds that spec economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make the Reduced Density Alternative infeasible. [Pub. Res. Code 21081(a)(3); Guidelines 515091(a)(3)] Facts in Support of Finding • This alternative would meet some of the project objectives, but not to the same degree as the Proposed Project. • This alternative would avoid or substantially lessen significant and unavoidable impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, GHG emissions, noise, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems. • Impacts related to biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, land use and planning, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, and recreation would be similar to the Proposed Project. Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations -49- V. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS CEQA requires decision makers to balance the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whetter to approve the project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be considered "acceptable" (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093[a]). CEQA requires the agency to support, in writing, the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are infeasible to mitigate. Such reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the Final EIR or elsewhere in the administrative record (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 [b]). The agency's statement is referred to as a "Statement of Overriding Considerations." The following sections provide a description of the each of the, project's significant and unavoidable adverse impacts and the justification for adopting a statement of overriding considerations. A. Significant and Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) and Guidelines Section 15093, the City has balanced the benefits of the Proposed Project against the following unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the Proposed Project and has adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to these impacts: (1) Air Quality, (2) Biological Resources, (3) Noise, (4) Transportation /Traffic and (5) Utilities and Service Systems, The City also has examined alternatives to the Proposed Project, none of which both meets the Project objectives to the same extent as the Proposed Project, and is environmentally preferable to the Proposed Project, The City declares that it has adopted mitigation measures to reduce all of the Proposed Project's environmental impacts to an insignificant level, other than the following: Air Ouality Impact 5.2 -2 Mitigation Measures AQ -1 through AQ -3 would reduce criteria air pollutants generated from Project - related construction activities. Buildout of the Proposed Project would occur over a period of approximately 20 years or longer. Construction time frames and equipment for individual site- specific projects are not available at this time. There is a potential for multiple developments to be constructed at any one time, resulting in significant construction - related emissions. Therefore, despite adherence to Mitigation Measures AQ -1 through AQ -3, project -level and cumulative impacts under Impact 5.2 -2 would remain significant and unavoidable. Impact 5.2 -3 Incorporation of Mitigation Measures AQ -4 through AQ -6 would reduce operation- related criteria air pollutants generated from stationary and mobile sources. Mitigation Measures AQ -5 and AQ -6 would encourage and accommodate use of alternative- fueled vehicles and nonmotorized transportation. However, despite adherence to Mitigation Measures AQ -4 through AQ -6, project - level and cumulative impacts identified under Impact 5.2 -3 would remain significant and unavoidable due to the magnitude of land use development associated with the Proposed Project. Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations _50- Impact 5.2 -4 Mitigation Measures AQ -1 and AQ -2 (applied for Impact 5.2 -2) would reduce the Proposed Project's regional construction emissions and therefore also reduce the Proposed Project's localized construction - related criteria air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible. However, because existing sensitive receptors may be close to project - related construction activities, construction emissions generated by individual development projects have the potential to exceed SCAMQD's LSTs. Because of the scale of development activity associated with buildout of the Proposed Project, for this broad -based Specific Plan it is not possible to determine whether the scale and phasing of individual projects would result in the exceedance of the localized emissions thresholds and contribute to known health effects. Therefore, project -level and cumulative impacts under Impact 5.2 -3 would remain significant and unavoidable. Impact 5.2 -5 Mitigation Measure AQ -7 would ensure that mobile sources of emissions not covered under SCAQMD permits are considered during subsequent project -level environmental review. Development of individual projects would be required to achieve the thresholds established by SCAQMD. However, the Proposed Project is in an area with elevated risk. Therefore, although individual projects may achieve the project -level risk thresholds, they would contribute to the high levels of risk in the SoCAB. Therefore, the Proposed Project's cumulative contribution to health risk is significant and unavoidable. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact 5.6 -1 Mitigation Measures AQ -4 through AQ -6 encourage and accommodate use of alternative- fueled vehicles and nonmotorized transportation and ensure that GHG emissions from the buildout of the Proposed Project would be mini tzed. However, additional federal, state, and local measures would be necessary to reduce GHG emissions under the Proposed Project to meet the long -term GHG reduction goals under Executive Order S -03 -05 and Executive Order B- 30 -15. Based on SCAQMD's 2020 efficiency target, this would equate to 2.2 MTCO2e /SP at the proposed Specific Plan's buildout year. The buildout GHG emissions inventory for the Proposed Project would generate 6.8 MTCOze /SP and would exceed the efficiency target of 2.2 MTCO2e /SP. The new Executive Order B -30 -15 requires CARB to prepare another update to the Seeping Plan to address the 2030 target for the state. At this time, there is no plan past 2020 that achieves the long -term GHG reduction goal established under Executive Order S -03 -05 or the new Executive Order B- 30 -15. As identified by the California Council on Science and Technology, the state cannot meet the 2050 goal without major advancements in technology (CCST 2012). Since no additional statewide measures are currently available, Impact 5.6 -1 would remain significant and unavoidable. Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Noise Impact 5.11 -2 Cumulative Impacts Operational Noise The Proposed Project's contribution to increases hi ambient noise levels and vibration would be less than significant, even when accounting for traffic increases forecast in the San Bernardino Transportation Analysis Model. However, cumulative noise impacts from traffic at land uses along certain arterial roadways in the Specific Plan area in future conditions were found to be significant. It is assumed here that such noise impacts along some arterial roadways in the cities of San Bernardino and Highland outside of the Specific Plan area would also be significant and unavoidable. Transportation and Traffic Impact 5.15 -1 Traffic impacts in the Existing Plus Project scenario would be significant and unavoidable for the following reasons: Mitigation Measure T -1: None of the specified improvements would require acquisition of right -of -way. Implementation of the specified improvements would reduce direct impacts at the four intersections to less than significant. However, the intersections are under Caltrans jurisdiction; thus, implementation of the improvements is out of the control of the City of San Bernardino. Therefore, traffic impacts in the Existing Plus Project scenario at the four intersections would be significant and unavoidable. e Mitigation Measure T -2: Implementation of the specified improvements would reduce direct traffic impacts at the two specified intersections to less than significant. However, traffic impacts at those two intersections would be significant and unavoidable for both of the following reasons: 1, The improvements would require sight- of-way acquisition and it is unknown whether such acquisition is feasible due to right -of -way constraints; and 2, the intersections are under Caltrans jurisdiction; thus, implementation of the improvements is out of the control of the City of San Bernardino. 2035 With Project Scenario (Cumulative Impacts) Intersections of Wlatennan Avenue with 30tb Street, Baseline Sheet, and 9th Street Traffic impacts at these three intersections would be less than significant after implementation of the improvements specified in Mitigation Measure T -3. These three intersections are under the jurisdiction of the City of San Bernardino, and the affected approaches to the intersections are wide enough for the lane modifications to be made by restriping. Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations -52- Remaining Six Intei rections Cumulative traffic impacts at the remaining six intersections would be significant and unavoidable, because all six intersections are under the jurisdiction of Caltrans and implementation of the improvements is out of the control of the City of San Bernardino. In addition, the improvements specified in Mitigation Measure T -5 would require right -of -way acquisition, and it is unknown whether such acquisition is feasible due to right -of -way constraints. Therefore, Impact 5.15 -1 would remain significant and unavoidable. B. CONSIDERATIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The following section describes the benefits of the project that outweigh the project's unavoidable adverse effects and provides specific reasons for considering the project acceptable even though the Final EIR has indicated that there will be significant project impacts that are infeasible to mitigate. Economic Growth: The proposed project would drive neighborhood business growth and investment, create new employment . opportunities at living wages; and retain businesses that are compatible with surrounding neighborhoods in the Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan also envisions a means to identify and administer services to support social and economic mobility for children and families, revitalize and create neighborhood serving commercial centers, restore underutilized, vacant, and neglected properties, as well as attract new businesses that promote to economic and environmental health. Therefore, the Proposed Project would promote economic growth in the Specific Plan area. Provides Employment Opportunities: The implementation of the Proposed Project will provide additional employment opportunities-within the City. Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled: The Proposed Project would encourage development within and near existing communities or public transportation infrastructure to reduce vehicle trips and induce pedestrian activity, reducing reliance on automobiles, and therefore, having positive impact on the vehicle miles traveled per capita in compliance with Senate Bill (SB) 375. Sustainability: The Proposed Project would promote city-wide sustainability by encouraging growth in a manner that reduces greenhouse gas emissions and encourages green buildings. The Proposed Project would further market and expand existing programs that incentivizes a diverse spectrum of energy and water systems and services, ranging from the orientation of buildings to allow for better crosswind access in an attempt to reduce energy consumption, guidelines to orient buildings to take advantage of solar gain and implementation of solar panels, more efficient stormwater catchment systems, and water quality improvements. Provision of Needed Housing: The Proposed Project establishes a long term vision for the neighborhood surrounding the intersection of Waterman Avenue and Baseline Street, allowing for a maximum build -out of up to 1,375,000 square feet of employment and industrial space, and up to 2,200,000 square feet of commercial space. Most of the existing residential neighborhoods onsite are within enhancement areas where no substantive land use changes are proposed. The Specific Plan intends to retain, enhance, and improve these areas. Specific Plan buildout would result in development of a net increase of 2,395 housing units that are forecast to house a net increase of Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations -53- i 8,359 residents at. full occupancy. Although Specific Plan implementation could displace a small number of housing units— especially outside of designated enhancement areas —the net increase in housing development pursuant to Specific Plan buildout would be far larger than any number displaced. Implements the Objectives Established for the Project: The following goals have been established for the Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan. 1. 1. Facilitate development and redevelopment of the Project Area consistent with City's General Plan through preparation of a specific plan. 2. Foster development that serves to reduce vehicle miles traveled by promoting alternatives to driving, such as walking, biking, and use of mass transit. 3. Provide for a wide -range of housing types consistent with the City's adopted Housing Element. 4. Improve Neighborhood Safety: • Reduce crime, drug activity, and gang activity throughout the Plan area; • Implement crime seduction activities and CPTED strategies; • Restore underutilized, vacant, and neglected properties; • Improve streetscapes through tree trimming and enhanced lighting; Provide a network of "Complete Streets; • Improve access and connections to surrounding neighborhoods, city, and region; • Revitalize and create neighborhood serving commercial centers; • Create safe and attractive public places fox residents to gather; • Reduce conflicts between neighborhoods and industrial uses; and • Improve lighting and street appearance to deter dumping and blight. • Provide Viable Housing Choices: • Acquire properties to develop and /or rehabilitate homes; • Improve the existing housing stock; • Create new opportunities for home ownership; • Integrate a broad array of resources to support services for children and families into existing and future housing; • Continue to implement the Build San Bernardino housing partnership program; and Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations -54- Pau housing support with financial literacy and other programs to achieve successful home ownership. 5. Promote Neighborhood Investment: Drive neighborhood business growth and investment; Attract new businesses focused offerhrg fair wages ; • Promote infill development on vacant lots; • Support the formation of a business improvement district; • Allow for the implementation of community art projects; • Plan for and prioritize the development of safe, reliable and efficient infrastructure systems to support new development; • Build community efficacy and promote neighborhood pride; and • Ensure adequate parking to attract and support development while encouraging alternative travel modes. 6. Ensure Economic Prosperity: • Attract companies with high- paying, stable employment opportunities; • Retain businesses that are compatible with surrounding neighborhoods; • Promote school readiness through early child development opportunities; • Enhance community partnerships to strengthen student capacity and parent involvement in schools; • Prepare students fora postsecondary education and /or skilled job opportunities; • Expand services to connect residents to critical employment resources; • Establish partnerships with local businesses to prioritize the hiring of qualified residents; • Support youth through mentoring and related programs; and • Identify and administer services to support social and economic mobility for children and families. 7. Plan For a Healthy and Walkable Community: Create a walkable, mixed -use environment that is pedestrian- focused; Improve access for all residents to green spaces and recreational amenities; Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations _55- • Enhance the network of pedestrian and bicycle routes, including a trail along the flood control channel; • Employ "green" building practices; • Increase access to quality physical and mental health services; • Support programs that reduce preventable chronic health problems and financial burdens associated with disease; and • Develop community gardens and access to fresh food. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the implementation of the Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan and the associated project action will contribute toward providing additional housing of all income levels and establishing the Specific Plan area as a major employment center while improving the physical image of the public realm and complying with regional sustainability regulations and mandates, all of which outweigh the unavoidable environmental impacts. Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations -56- This page inlenhonaly left blank. Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations -57 - November 2016 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program State Clearinghouse No. 2015081086 for City of San Bernardino Prepared for Client Contact: Oliver Mujica, Planning Division Manager City of San Bernardino 300 N. "D" Street, 3rd Floor San Bernardino, California 92418 909.384.5057 Prepared by PlaceWorks Contact: William Halligan, Esq., Principal 3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100 Santa Ana, California 92707 714.966.9220 info @placeworks.com www.placeworks.com 1 Introduction 1.1 PURPOSE OF MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM This document is the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR). (SCH #2015081086) An MMRP is required because the Environmental Impact, Report prepared identified significant adverse impacts, and measures have been identified to mitigate those impacts. This MMRP has been prepared pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the California Public Resources Code, which requires public agencies to "adopt a reporting and monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to m tigate or avoid significant effects on the environment" 1.2 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM As the lead agency, the City of San Bernardino will be responsible for all monitoring compliance with all mitigation measures. Different City departments are responsible for various aspects of the project and are identified in Table 1 -1. While a single Department may be responsible, it is expected that one or more departments will coordinate efforts to ensure compliance. The components of the MMRP are described briefly below, • Mitigation Measure: The mitigation measure language is taken from the EIR, and in the same order they appear in the EIR. The numbering matches the EIR and is related to the impact statements of the EIR. If the numbering is not consecutive it is because those sections of the EIR did not have mitigation measures. • Timing: Identifies at which stage of the project the mitigation must be completed. Note that this project will have several subsequent projects and stages and a separate MMRP will be used for each stage. • Monitoring Responsibility: Identifies the department within the City with responsibility for mitigation monitoring. • Verification (Date and Signature): Provides a contact in the City Department with responsibility who reviewed the mitigation measure and the date that the measure is determined to be complete. This page intentionaly left blank. Page 2 n b O N w o ° v 0 m N gym% rn mm a`i m `o 0 `o rn0 U g � U r 9 m m a c 0 2 ° 2 2 5 ° c M m c 8 v rn a: o c � O my� N N N m L O O V U n D N O 6 > a>i v N Q> L C G ° % N '2 C= V 'F NOO N NrIpq\ a co C 2 2 246 «> ° C p m € om N 0 0 b c F Q L c FPO -a0S 08828 d� m�8 05.2 .c-8E."u$_n 98 0'73 U cry o oc cd m✓2w m"wma`> �.`OoE ac <a�i �' N� cc �"a Off.°. '�nccc> Ev no a•_ 7d m L� E'1T�{0J� LN YO 0�"� R�� M L S C C m� N c LO N 10 C W b £1=F,8 v._ 02 88cEa' «m0EE rSi �m:e cm cc mr $ N°� db me do EZ ne°c 'S .�t zc.286 m e 5, E mtE3 LO U Q m o. W z Q. c Q_N M 'S �w�8 ,O Ica °�� d ii F2i.E w ,K 3'Qo m8 to c0. °'uca mU and c� as am 3 «2 �o E of-0 -B Sc 94= 0aN o`o.mW=NU =cm2 3•Z5 m o`��sc =sa j bn fn E m w =LL{{pp EN 8 �.YFEd v .r c E 9 `9 -E c8N €Q 2 c c_��1 a�v�S3� f 'w �yo c B E a3i 1}c 5, 0`ai MC •O O L dL N 8 c L5 2 29 d'0 C 7d�1(: c `T°Ci E F o 02 $ 0 °c a o m � d o v E E E E N — N u .2'W N m L _ B rNa — § E . C N O6 m'« 8 O C m O j w v=gEQmrU9Z a mp _y V N Q 1 � Q n b O N w C ° N 'S 0 �9 a 0 �a ° 3� a� 4a d v 4d W o L Oq O N t+ h E O N C K N !O l0 co E N } A 08 { 8 �'ES OM E 0 82E �= �mdtn 008 m�e o E5�� 9w 415 tw o' =$yggA l N cWD N y N O y0 l0 Fj N Y: N$ 'CJ' N fLJ 10 V 'F. 6 NN C C a S y >>,� c m .'E 'o A> m E low= 5.E S 0 v p C 'O 5 §00 o w N c > g m m `Ev 0 n n y 0 2 c rn y � 2O O G N O 8 p N O 43 Q t 2 y o "2 o Q Y a Ld 5 0 t y d 8 j 0 N C« N 6° lei -Fm � : E '°L 888 0 C O m PLC 8 E � x N � �• 8V� a1 •C W O lB A G C L O F L N y S � 0 0�N I JS W U @. o{$v �'m �nE E a .F 8 O s ci G S f $' u c'g ry 0 �KE � m c m a� h c co 'Z 72 O co EL`w v v c v.� rn rn m U m o] m C C pO Cc S a O S a = C p m > N n •E c `�'S � N � O C C d U p N O � G L L N m E a a v m -Z �� m m"- r m c6 CCw m m E m m D n c `o E o bS y� p E�o� rn Orn >P3 o .mm> v °n °' m.9+c g9 >y p cOC9 o y5a b3 lac 0w !p sc yE;U a�i [n -°$ =!E 0 pip E °a3 R� >'$Soc8 w� tq'm m$ Q Y3��oi Ny�E��O `o��'c 0IC�Q�L�CNm��� ��Sll CO'Ow CC N C > m 0 O v - 7 [�1Q �CBN.SO fl rn LuN f -t-U m c = T ZGTv prNN m tNCZCO0 S g 0 0t 00 yNS EC m Nm N � 0w N �m Q CRL L�to EE2 O '.z' m `d a2 O m '�c' L'S , 6 € m o o o .�!y`oy/ c,^{�1 € �' 8' co o t Z E �Qoj� 'pd d }oyV `C c `oS N N ° N m 0 C -N E'o LVi r= m rn� 0 L m E rn � (9 � L 3 Q''.c 0 - m �U m29 vv�._E C 1/1j. m F3 4C I aW m C 8 O G m y C D C L ( m ym ! .L m O p 'tp0 rpt CC`'8 L Q G N E y 9§ d m �+r'��t n m� �- u�B'�� U R m O L Q. �-0m y C O'pp^ U u°_ 2S C O mSa$ r0 N u°. N N j, V a nmfi5a LIl T n.3 nEa �� a` S.m£5a o . • a ¢ Q a 0. b O N -�o c � c d a N a 9 � o r m> N A E O r � c Z v Eg M N rn C7 91H _m m = C U E' a N m O ¢ U N Z m E = IM n'o m d o t2 y m 0 O O CS CMMN N O r Q Oaw d V 8 `0 N N c a Im/� c �yQ 6 N ti 5 E > 0 0 S_ d w C N m`o N m C, m r _ 0 N 0 L m 0 d w a _ N N O U o O C n N E O E N C O � N mr? `- E O C m £ w mE''QS 'p�� E U�'pL d�OCUL N �G �+ONNO�N �O NtONUO >O¢0¢L20" yUj =0m$rytRcO QL IO .N C- c m T m .... m� ... �¢ 5 a c m OL .3 0a�— m'o nod mt�c 2'w m'O Ca�v `w$ �E�?? w WO m O N_ O $ l0 UI p. C .0 0 5 m V a E S. C N = N O N •0 CAC T �' 0 N 9 m > m °1 `fii a4 EE m c• -`° = ma y¢ a.c .`>-. E%o 2=- E rn a g� c .c E�S'9 ^N'U€ �ECCJ 8i E L5.oa g$�0 E L >° E0p m c c co Q�jt n1= C$uci c :D-5 x o oic Egger m¢•p E='°a° `tiwh� moo NyL8 NO, cN°= N Em =oma'�d .c 2vn m-g .o =o Sao �O rnE N 'S E.�E �, T m 2 1¢ ZE &ma �. LD aEma°";m2 s &E E °c$ �t,� aEioE $. ~o� Z cv mlil 'v o N b tl R R c O ` C o S O N d m o 0 Emsp� $ c 70. N ai m m ti c o pr _v �5 b U � m N ` C E � b � o n o � 'p o c a 10T ={aQ O O U C�M6 2 M -2 C's ry C N c m 2] N j d G C 1p C O N �� p b O_ (0 O E d O L O O !O C .0 C M> LO V O p M C BrNm— ran E °¢ _'fit mF to .E °Y2n'N am m y E Lii�v�m E�aa L� $`��'ri�O `d m�'•P c w,q ' oaco i �m E'S E M E im c E N°E S Ee c.adyEk °m a rn S c n'�a d m d o.S .a3i .EoU V° m•a ¢ E9_ o ,• E m EN QQ n nE .'—E c m a mcCC lO m•C�_ �_ $ U^' Nt � �c a_Q ° O v f a o o o N ,v W i'S E 2 —0 78 V C d ,.Wn' ",C8 a E.2 c •� a 5 'jN G O 3 i 4 U 4 ¢p Z Q 8 N C c k A o 0Sp,, €c E 9')C .E 2 iE. �(J �m .UEE.c $ E 8)= caNN n �. po £ .00 c $ NN yy 'p � E 8a ` � C m > c co c._m m —£od r o`.z "o0 o K o0V'o'v1 ¢ Ih `5Im C E b O N n G N d' C G 0_ _o C6 N $ u c'S _W 0 1P E =0g � q`o � c m rn� rn 0 0 0 a c.5; o E.bm N c Ems'"- N z � m m`m ar m`m��j e rovv q c m ma N= 0 m c -0 v 'c O m— n._ 3 U U S `o m m m L° m o m 012 m E m y n N g g ° o c a a w 8L n Err 2 0 N ¢ � Q N Q N > �= a 0 Q 'm '2 `0 >< mg mLL • w $r � > =.o Rdam m g o o ow.= m u01iK F aE g a i _ . .��ai v v" 0 't Edo Om &M=) E m am > rE $~� vi lo 0404-1 n °• C FN °U 0 w C � m T6 — N 0 m m E rnc.10c € 'fir c �E c nns.E .i3 a=i 5��.c� $•5�� aai yam; n�g�{'t'a 92 m >a y °m FdE ��i SNCq� m obi ar nC+, 'j o'S {y���E` �� c . rL O :c n N N pEp N o N 9 N p lJ a) Y_t m. $ - c f%j W, ° .CL�:P, 5� NFU. d ^avm c Mg O ??a 0 h L` O ie t S C .L9 `r .VV.rr. O :_ 6 L o ° qE O d 1 C O O's T� m>v°i Cg `v."' }� t'aNm mmmm�m:y °�C S{m$!°i amm 0m n(D Z5 =C-� y m o)" vW E .0 L O.p_. TO _S 'OG �y�{ SN y5=o N p,._ E C 2t a� N N E$+ p� GOO2i >'$�.�+`ON4UL�O NV a0; cm t_R cOrw D.MC yLK�L W =LQ�NC tim ''gpp Nr nC mm � NS3 ig i� y._ `..t' 0 CEO �,<c"0 N LIL 6�It orc N N E�m�l�$fjj Cc y °r F.c�mc�oaacFir arS_v_r �y �3Ec € yg ma._m oE�c4 n6 Wr (O g cM d5 5 n�Ernl o:�g °fl °pcp�wa'c C•OY 10 �q0 — y.Lf+�NN S O SEm 6lO 1011.P L N d'O NF C2 f0 ° U N C �'['o O C °Dog g 'S =V$ O. -a $ mU U Q�,o'�,5 aL.. C N o�'9 i. ° pJ •r goE �°-' ° E V' E c'$ ;Saa... y _ c o�oS Kasoyo`� m5 m�� -E ��1 y�°-n o.E a nvi 1Ug9.6 KS nE 'w � wt .�n om ti o£ $ sv ai o m.2 cw F-3 m9a� Z mm c d O m m S a b t tl s b N w 0 z p D — =m8 � o c m �o C O_ O N CO p .y C '> ° E O N m c •y � m p •s 0) O m m c °c' m rn m n 6 N O � 42 je 3� �f2 'o a °o o y a� �Q d 12 5 E n — dU 'o 0 N N N T w m _ E"�.c �'`�XS a m -6 L5 cE �12 m Yy%$•� y C C N w E mod �= E o'p ^.vl. 13 m mt p� c -01p o,� w t CO w n iQ.�m `� E N c o n p� C .pO a 6 N C y ° � � 'QN w M _000 N C N .L i�0 N y 'v� N o .q fn N L'� p E . i0 °1 — .L. �.���� Q g ° c_ pin g' i � a•eaG J N c O N > L C N O L �° F �cn 10 r L T 6> _ C m mQ 03a _ w `-p O— p N mFo N c 6O j 6 W f0 EYo��qb�'{Y1� =aid 8 N AB cy��c o n ,c�c .8iop Em. nm S g•�p 25 �zF c��nE 4 s. .Ro p1 E m �U E. 'mm� a€i o ,Yo_n 0 .NCB yc y C l g� Oy 04 b O 62_ N? °Q O— ry` — N . �a d � W W$ O cm � w. 'Si °� � o ,sp all �. t 5= �° m t c� 'c o° o 0 n >:S E_y✓c�;cEQ'S °mac ����o.ff mnLN_, c�Sy�L�o.mso aZi >:E Bi -5 �Q,cR c•�c c�o oZ>. m. m,'— EcaSv''E._�m25dm rS i m 41 �. T.- -E E_ V N 6 N O m'oc m `o 's .L- O m> e ecEETo eoy —� �:c=.:'$ �.� o co =0�M�o _A � a>i na c m' c � m m pp 3 m° � m 0 a N ° G G'u o o- E E w W e 0 Y'' dm��odcrl,d�!E O°'ac'N c'�a o.E au�im i3`lL 6N.cEOiN - CU�tO��HEO'� t {. J KN1t, 0 U _ tl s b N w 0 z O U1 ty�0 ^ n WAY) to �gsmso o�� Qyvoi �a ��C3o do'yy 6 B O L> N N 0 o c.�� � c•c a o? g 'o z_ c Ao N N G r •rr/� -� l0 C w N y O ya d C.N Oa.� EN Ul N C) v p 20 m- 00 w Er 0o_c 2 oc 9T .D G O •O m '� �J m .t t 6... o m m �mm �qaci °.fi 'a°i Cl 2ari �m 10c 2. c $ E m a�i - 9'? f0 W NNN N 0 0 dry 09 �a `0 0 o t�. N c O N..- C E C 6 t0 y o- � mom`° €,y{m£E m'5; EL u'�od`m�t ao.�°o Y�`� -S `5 °m ��'mm8 ¢•c a U 'O O b0 a 0> aOu�� A L T C d42 L � L.`�p > C L N of m`L' �i E° E s c~ 3 0 m ° o. �r• RN -;Z o. 42m0 aZi IIc > c 2U � ° :e Q2 ov ° C bi$;eo yy(E m• `� a 2.2 � °c y m ov w=T(/J tOy; nd c 'o °" -° •"� dodo C-a, v@ w n Z'� ays c Li co �E nca o'� �a °SSffi8a o'in> 0. °19 g O n 5 rc3 Ev N tg1p m > C Q a$ c � m Qo o2 L B cc °'i N o m 'g y@2 °o O12 c OR —FL m S T = fi n= > c t E .9)V� O p v c 6 O N (O Y N m C T o N L 6 O gg E _y d$ p� N �' v w tE'B>°'..`�- E nS E L d 8 i€ �..c pC , -8 8 ° O VC m 42 c 0 15 p Tit 8 O O mEo ,0 r� o. �c y�{_ o. D�150 5Y °m �X. m.5 Eve ° cn c o E8 `o b L o.a £ m Q E v E U m U n v 0 om c t m D lV m r t�J b O N -o a p b n p C p =r 6N N N✓ Vl� °F p 22 C•y FL 0 jZ -C yw�a _ �° oyE v � °ayiE' s; rn�3 E —oc w2 m is o"god � oc13' aE ..-2Ec m'8n k �r� $olci rUQ d �ma�� ' ca z y m mc'g {;d � d og m mn �d E" o m o y �2L m — 2.1'3 w n m 'W =0 •�0 r n m � $ $m ✓1o$a caT i 2 9!bF , Q£ �am 0 o c mr �.c cs c S n a ' F ac m�.c man �n a =j'u3 =rig m w U"oi'O .'8Cm FL-ME MWMZ f=To � (5 v8. 2' m_n �. $ :EE a wo = E a w a s ° to V • s cM f' (J N n0 W ,_ - ;Eosin s omam Za C �O 0_ 'yn� L N 5 6 N N N Q N y 0�� A N lO E N t > O N V .Eq C L w0 '6 3 41 L '� w N= rg 'S. 12 E{o yyE �p o �WCrnc{L�l�� ca $ f °NO ''-0 y �-. ,..NEyLT p�Y ((oyJ 1'a `o o,Lv N y 10 U U1 a �\ v 10 a So m> C m v ` ms To N m�v an ma"iv� 'O v aiE av ob v� v 5 o c �° i3 ZL°co�B$ ti -9a{v(cv ocLi3y c3 ECiy °�"tiP` :e 2� o '� a '� S dj 5 c gS�a QaLa§ Z`2.' E' ay $ oL" `'o"o 0 0c aco .° ai f n— L via o o tO C rn "' 'v 'sp m 'vi N O N 0I 4 ta0 l` J� O j 1(J N E` y N y O O C yYt MM dd N�.�Uy�N�+ Of% .tiN"CNNE s v c ...vii L O o na'. Q v c� vC�'i im2S F 2 E .& L Ha%G 0 v 0 C7 LL ry a �i v ai O b N -�o a z tl r L, m 4 'mU •E $ n m$ a�oc$' c.o atai Y`q — $'OO E LD m._ E m_o cc _a `ai m�O i` sij m' —a'{. Em mOar ,O mm '2 Ow c ryry o w yw`- Ea EEEQ.8 Z (K��i -`o $' 0,c E y N L C 0 d 0 0' w 2 0_ "' 2 to m p$ O~ 0 a�Sa= c NN 21 ar. `-0 - ?s��mm2 L o Too c m qcq� i °c Es o N 6 C cC c 'E'3r '2 .Q�+'mo o2r m 0 ._$ry Sao >n� cmE $' $sc on0 �3a ca cmact a`r a+m a,2o o'Tm,c_ °g.E o a.�1 d° $+b co m mcs.p� =mono a >_,`o > o �� o Y3 .�.Z9= E a i-,0E m °y2— y Ego yEc m cmcmw o Fd to E i N o w 0 m o o n o arc 3'io 0r•c 0 >'ti �'S5"oman Qr"0 a c�aai ar b' aim@ m�a aEimo n'-:E cm' as $ry 1 =a.�cn inw WSar Ec° o2 ai 0.ym dp� O 2 y aCa- c c S m p er a >q "O m .O F � N ' (V ui V tl a J. N g.) a r c E o e _� Y C_ N L FO C .t-'- J N "t-' i� E c¢ c E' is�5 N° ami :`dpi �9 �� oys'ap Wa°c�vmni�N'E �Z2 Ey9m ` c c Q'rnpm m ` °ooc�°'m gyEm a' ¢ 43 ' s�o ° m . v c a s co m¢° dE w�i E 'm E£ 6> 0•280M c$ 'vim m�°`ma 'gi S'°-9 2 E mg E �.«'w �a a�E._ w 'o :e m'Q aim 2`�' cEi �';c?'O Eo ON B E'�rnE N ¢ m 'C 1 -O m Q 0� N� M t 4r .� N - N ,s o-33 jo.E `°'m= W8"oom i oc od E'ow�c- 5i ., E o'- mo. °' -$ � 0 '44°� ami m o> i `o w LE a'S' m $ 8 a y E - 4N M �o Lmc ^ E m $ rn � o ' N m E m c =* ¢N c� '8V° {wm 8 �° 0 0o d mm c E E = 'i ggc� EJc ; . . a ci (-`EE nS {sdE =UJo mC!i aZi .Y $� 2 208ayya�: LL N a F b O N w a z o m c ° m v �`O U Yoo p R. `o E £ E o je E {jai S V V `Nt N N ~d' S C E v m c y N D v °n�E aE `m tS Eo= `o 1OO � g rn o 'a $ fN U 6 N iS.oa L o o nt°, m m' c 3 o rn� c ° rn o'y U T ENI p R. `o a End E cad y. S V V `Nt N N ~d' S C � c y u y e a m a a `o 1OO � o 'a `o DDc rn m' 3 w rn� J rn c ° U T ENI ° R. c c a 0 a` °� oo m�c 'S' � >'4�'co mz aNi c ,c .`� { p�p cUSa E c E 0. 4m poi �o BE .v 'o-�mBE S y Q$cw E Eac EE 0.L E �.� $ 3 r0 $ m 3'o > s 53 >d 8c7�FB =� 2Z8Q ,E o s �i w N 8 n %—z � 0 E -O Z�2E ° m N Qiy •22om °v aci zmo dw o F302 IS N a Yi ° d ry° a O'S p z—c0 £,.!E «'E oc 3yym 0 5£ E mo'nm d°.w 016 c0 ai2m B tu 0 co 8 q=dl n m J u q U co o 'c c .✓51 a m `mw c m (n m N c ° t0 o ` o rn U m c v h 0 N d O N rn� J � c ° U T ENI R. c c M; E � y. S V V `Nt N N ~d' S C � VO u N 208�a 4 m E c c c c a9 ME Nc N o E m Z a M16 =—c' o c a v iru 8 'o aa02a n N b J � U R. w d .Q .0 O cQ L Gl m n {1� N' Bi u 0 EKE 08 �a `o � c m rn� N v a y O C O C_ O C E � V= ;a m c 6 a�E _ Epg' N m m 0 �0 O d U y GuNm m� O V't'p OONN W.m0 � f w X3 � O0` $ D cmE E 6 a *8 0 m a� > g ' s 'E wcE >�o m U 10 a w 0 a C N O .S' �t my Ec LB N v.E �p dE c y i4 2 End �£°�00 -gym Egm rnm �a�?oc0 a a�pd Em� y c Lt 2�i0 . �5 > E oiryry>E OCR �oyCt'LN ��yi jIOCO Jd v'2 E i �L� �C C6�NS _ Ot C{5V 61 -N�� N10 0 M a tS V N 7+ry�iYJi m n {1� N' � � ! § , ; } �1 \ \ \ \ § \ \ . \ - / \ \ '• \ � \ 4 � \ � - \ ) k , ) f # ) ( 2 w y U A�^ C O N Q- 008 i�O C m q N s G O C O O 'N - c O G E 0 N d c o EDii mom E � mNrn cc O O O m C O O@ G � m m rn c r N � O � UUC C C N Q N @ g O p E o S m n a S3 ° �12 c a no o ao n� no @ae m nE �a Qa E a a c — ° o E v N d G O 6 H .E 1Y H e E 0 c@oc H mE `o cygc� �3 15 "1Opia �aci n ts� scoS t �y 'S m �_ E2 aoi a 1O �y,} �y .c.. (LO a?+` .c.. C= —'@J O .0 cc "L@' V `{ i E wt J L L mcv �aci EE ._ a OEI C ¢ 0 c E n � } H V €rn o c 2 Ln w m y aN> v tE ' °; c m c« O N ry na o O >E� @ m 1 _ 6 ° c 0 Y Ec { - ss� @ owt T Dii • Z N ryry 6 L 'O 2 U C p S (O L N O✓� ry w ap g !3 {Cp y N> PvO L• 'p N� - lmN� $ is N d N ✓�� Q C C r0 E YC: N N N (O yNNN� C 6 N C yy N — Q O 0'6 @ L E C c ,(O CY f c 6` • A yd M Z F Z w A�^ a a m a a 0 m 16�1 ac� c S E€ ql o E =°Eo E���2vEy5Vm'8 Ti my m .4xcwca> B wo yC p� N. N CC @ O c'E w -� d £'ry ��qq la y� N 41 pp�� cc a Tn E x��o' `o „°. .�dp =v m� m w E= x i t 3 0 4 0a'b m a '-yo �a� y6' �i cm� =x omv08€ '�{ E a.EMyE c�5�',A"' A8`o °c .n �.oy �n m ! >? Qd $ooU.�r o cc 6z �°� c oy�Q S.n m. d d'8t w W G �U y�yQQ 6d (LI �O.y mU n�$� a7 ns �3� °c '33{V{1,4j E :�'. � ' E i' F Zhl,�i E Afi'�v� :...d I$ a I I I I, f b O N d 0 z $� u c 0 �SdJ `O c m rn� rn 0 - c c b a `o � m c @ � c o `o U U w� c � � d o � c c E i .c1b y�@a .5 .2 a Q a C Q 8 % d noon C n M,6 y d c � @ F� aj 9 iU O fp1. a d� aE L @ N y s N T E E E m y� o'4 8@ro N `m E 0 b'm E vtm S c O O O ��7 mo.E `i a'ma w °o -Ea E o c ° c o 2o dd o c > IC SS° d•P8€ �5 �mE E �' ono€i ayi ayEJS eU Q m m tp� m ± �cO 'Y I3 @ C O M aj C @ yvWJ yy+ i'C N '€ Tq C 0 20 'S a_c ie 91Mj1 d5 L `, N q v c'o m c. �. c yNy a d c '$>. S8 °c £ E B y C',G:3 0. ° + N a t au C O N Ci pl @ $ ° O UI O C > c n n c BO c aE� y� � y C E2 �' chi 7Q 2'c° d vs m 'QCC 5 o!]Q✓[-. c m N .• 'w ��0 N x N @ _pd ! C O V @ a�w E o o c @@°, ' O ° AS s � c £TA Q yo 12 t Eo5C � � C ' 4 • • • • N H F b O N d 0 z N 0 SCE o �r6�w m 0 > c m m c .N C yO N C O C 0 c E F so � a c � E C � � � � ✓� � m U vN! v+ E ac E� ' £ 2 �i .� W ° o m y ° E o E 3 m v 5 c o `� m S . A �i t my, o E atl �y✓ a 6 C N W m c C IS N C� l0 U�$ -.9 t.E y LN J cN }m � O > 2 . O w Q o o p 0 ° E f5 �o d mmc �O b gE 5 To 3 z a�i t m To C a L (7 m r d n m N O r f`5 0 r c A m E Z-2 .- N 6 m Z6 n N A 0: m� N U O U m o d Q 0. �7 O N � O C O nC O a` V �a @C A L � OE O I .0 L�p,3 O{NVFJ! , � y d O CpU � Ft m 0 t3 43 O _M C 0 Ta C U � O p o. E ° �y °c, aci$� cR E !n 39 L > � £ N o.o c fr333iii QE aU O o B-Eoo uP tl � ,^ n E> mw m w E Bi a E o f .°c 5 F N» 'O0 $ N 9 O ail O O N E � T � .� O V! � � $ N w N Q N m 42 E aci�F� ���0 >E ayo 'tvc r'o� m cFc co =" tR O Z 0 ..1°- ai NOO mS' sgm o° yE8n OaE}w a`v • F . FL- �i • • �w :0c 0 y $'m b O N d F N C N N A C N O N � � O N SJ d ¢ V N � p{ E N C 0 O .0 Lu a V Jq c coTd o E C �°rY1 in d E EE § � ig w 0 10 > C l0 _ o o c5' c m o iA v E m y a ii mE�E T W c E E r, o $ E M 0 E W ` t at! - o ,Q 2. O `Q Nn .o c m i.'F3 w 0 c w>> E .2 > >> P W to $ .5 b cc4c• mg z c -NO C��c cxoxc c�oE 10 �� ,Q �� ''c6 rdi m a10i � y°r s o N N c c o 0 0 0 0 t t 0 0 o o C m cIE 0t S= E �oi N g 12 z u> N 0 H R: 0 a c m 2 t L b O a Z 5. Appendices NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the City of San Bernardino Mayor and Common Council will hold a public hearing on Monday, December 19, 2016 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California 92418, on the following items: SPECIFIC PLAN 15 -01 - A request to allow the change of the General Plan Land Use Designations and the Zoning Districts of the properties contained within an area comprised of approximately 710 acres in order to establish the Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Transformation Specific Plan. The Specific Plan boundaries are generally fonned by Highland Avenue to the north, Tippecanoe Avenue to the east, 3rd Street to the south and Sierra Way to the west. Environmental Determination: Final Environmental Impact Report, pursuant to §15090 of the California Environmental Quality Act Applicant: National Core Renaissance 9421 Haven Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 The Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino welcome your participation in evaluating these items. The Mayor and Common Council will review the proposal and will consider the proposed environmental determination in making its decisions. The public is welcome to speak at the public hearing or to submit written comments prior to the hearing. For more information, please contact the Community Development Department at City Hall, or by phone at (909) 384 -5057. If you challenge the resultant action of the Mayor and Common Council in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Planning Division at, or prior to, the public hearing. Submitted: December 5, 2016 Publish: December 9, 2016 (Display ad) RESOLUTION NO, 2016- 059 -PC A RESOLUTION. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL THE CERTIFICATION OF A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN 15 -01 FOR THE WATERMAN + BASELINE NEIGHBORHOOD TRANSFORMATION SPECIFIC PLAN. WHEREAS, on September 15, 2015, pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 19.64 (Specific Plans) of the City of San Bernardino Development Code and California Government Code §65450, and application for Specific Plan 15 -01 was duly submitted by: Project Applicant: National Core Renaissance 9421 Haven Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 APN: Various Lot Area: 710 acres WHEREAS, Specific Plan 15 -01 is a request to allow the change of the General Plan Land Use Designations and the Zoning Districts of the properties contained within an area comprised of approximately 710 acres in order to establish the Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Transformation Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Division of the Community Development Department has reviewed Specific Plan 15 -01 for consistency with the City of San Bernardino General Plan and compliance with the City of San Bernardino Development Code; and WHEREAS, pursuant to requirements of §15084 of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning Division of the Community Development Department accepted the Draft Environmental Impact Report submitted by the applicant for Specific Plan 15 -01; and WHEREAS, pursuant to §15087 of the California Environmental Quality Act, a Notice of Completion of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for Specific Plan 15 -01 released on July 29, 2016 for the CEQA- mandated forty -five (45) day public review and comment period; and WHEREAS, pursuant to requirements of §15132 of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning Division of the Community Development Department accepted the Final Environmental Impact Report submitted by the applicant for Specific Plan 15 -01; and WHEREAS, on October 27, 2016, pursuant to the requirements of §19.64.020 of the City of San Bernardino Development Code, the Development and Environmental Review Committee reviewed the application and moved the Final Environmental Impact Report and Specific Plan 15 -01 to the Planning Commission for consideration; and WHEREAS, on November 4, 2016, pursuant to the requirements §19.52.020 of the City of San Bernardino Development Code, the City gave public notice by advertising in the San Bernardino Sun, a newspaper of general circulation within the City of San Bernardino of the holding of a public hearing at which the Final Environmental Impact Report and Specific Plan 15 -01 would be considered; and WHEREAS, on November 16, 2016, pursuant to the requirements of §19.64.050 of the City of San Bernardino Development Code, the Planning Commission held the duly noticed public hearing at which interested persons had an opportunity to testify in support of, or Opposition to the Final Environmental Impact Report and Specific Plan 15 -01, and at which meeting the Planning Commission considered the Final Environmental Impact Report and Specific Plan 15 -01; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 19.64 of the City. of San Bernardino Development Code, the Planning Commission has the authority to take action of its recommendation to the Mayor and Common Council on the Final Environmental Impact Report and Specific Plan 15 -01. NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of San Bernardino does hereby resolve, determine, find, and order as follows: SECTION 1, ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: In accordance with §15082 (Notice of Preparation and Determination of Scope of EIR) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was released on August 31, 2015 for the CEQA- mandated thirty (30) day public review period. The purpose of the NOP was to announce the preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Transformation Specific Plan and to allow the general public and other agencies with the opportunity to submit comments as to the contents of the Draft EIR. Additionally, a public scoping meeting was conducted on September 10, 2015, pursuant to the requirements of CEQA. Subsequently, the applicant submitted and the Planning Division accepted the Draft EBt prepared in connection with the Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Transformation Specific Plan. Accordingly, pursuant to §15085 (Notice of Completion) of CEQA, a Notice of Completion was filed with the State of California Office of Planning and Research (State Clearinghouse No. 2015081086) and, pursuant to §15087 (Public Review of Draft EIR) of CEQA, the Draft EIR was released on July 295 2016 for the CEQA - mandated forty -five (45) day public review period. In accordance with §15132 (Contents of Final EIR) of CEQA, the applicant submitted and the Planning Division accepted the Final EIR prepared in connection with the Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Transformation Specific Plan. The Final EIR consists of the following: 1) the revised Draft EIR; 2) responses to comments on the Draft EIR; 3) CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations; and, 4) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 2 In accordance with §15090 of CEQA, on November 16, 2016, during a duly advertised public hearing, the Planning Commission considered the Final EIR consisting of 1) the revised Draft EIR; 2) responses to comments on the Draft EIR; 3) CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations; and, 4) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the recommendation to the Mayor and Common Council for the adoption of the Certification of the Final EIR and approval of Specific Plan 15 -01. SECTION 2, FINDINGS FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 1541: Section 19.64.070 of the City of San Bernardino Development Code requires that Specific Plan applications meet certain findings prior to the approval by the Mayor and Common Council. Accordingly, the following findings are provided in support of the recommendation by the Planning Commission for the approval of Specific Plan 15 -01: Finding No. 1: The proposed plan is consistent with the General Plan. Finding of Fact: The Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Transformation Specific Plan proposes to change the General Plan Land Use Designations and the Zoning Districts of the properties contained within an area comprised of approximately 710 acres in order to establish the land use policies and development standards to facilitate the maximum build out of up to 4,341 residential units and approximately 3,570,448 square feet of non- residential uses, and the future construction of the associated transportation/mobility and infrastructure improvements. The primary purpose of the Specific Plan is to provide a vision and implementation program for the future development of vacant or underutilized properties within Specific Plan boundaries. This Specific Plan also contains a comprehensive set of goals, objectives, strategies and guidelines to be used by the City to support, attract and facilitate new development and revitalization projects. The City of San Bernardino General Plan includes primary goals and policies to guide future development within the City. The proposed Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Transformation Specific Plan provides a detailed explanation of the Specific Plan's relationship to the City's General Plan, including a comparison of goals, objectives and policies. Through Appendix C of the Specific Plan a side -by -side comparison of the City's General Plan policies and the various elements of the Specific Plan that carry out these policies has been provided to demonstrate a consistency of Specific Plan 15 -01 with the City's General Plan, which includes the following: ✓ Land Use Element • Preserve and Enhance San Bernardino's Unique Neighborhoods • Promote Development that Integrates with and Minimizes Impacts on Surrounding Land Uses • Create and Enhance Dynamic, Recognizable Places for San Bernardino's Residents, Employees, and Visitors • Entrance the Quality of Life and Economic Vitality in San Bernardino by Strategic Infill of New Development and Revitalization of Existing Development • Enhance the Aesthetic Quality of Land Uses and Structures in San Bernardino • Control Development and the Use of Land to Minimize Adverse Impacts on Significant Natural, Historic, Habitat, and Hillside Resources • Provide for the Development and Maintenance of Public In$astructure and Services to Support Existing and Future Residents, Businesses, Recreation, and Other Uses • Protect the Life and Properly of Residents, Businesses, and Visitors to the City of Sari Bernardino from Crime and the Hazards of Flood, Fire, Seismic Risk, and Liquefaction • Actively Apply, Enforce, and Utilize the General Plan in the Day - to -Day Activities of the City ✓ Housing Element • Facilitate the Development of a Variety of Types of Housing to Meet the Needs of All Income Levels in the City of San Bernardino • Conserve and Improve the Condition of the Existing Affordable Housing Stock and Revitalize Neighborhoods- Containing a Substantial Percentage of Deteriorated Dwelling Units • Assist in the Development of Adequate Housing to Meet the Needs of Low and Moderate - Income Households • Assist the Provision of Housing for Residents with Special Needs • Reduce the Adverse Effects of Governmental Actions on the Production, Preservation, and Conservation of Housing, Particularly for Low and Moderate Income Households • Promote Equal Housing Opportunity for All Residents of the City of San Bernardino ✓ Economic Development Element • Encourage Economic Activity that Capitalizes upon the Transportation and Locational Strengths of San Bernardino • Retain and Expand the City's Government/Public Office Cluster Uses • Continue and Expand the City's Marketing and Promotional Campaigns • Attract Businesses Through an Efficient Improvement Program • Identify and Attract New Employment Types /Land Uses that Complement the Existing Employment Clusters and Foster Long - Term Economic Growth • Establish Employment Sectors that Support Business Growth • Build on the Health Care Clusters to Attract and retain Related Employment • Build on Transportation Clusters to Attract and Retain Dependent Employment Sectors • Prevent Retail Sales Leakage and Recapture Regional Retail Expenditure Through Key Sectors • Ensure Fiscal Viability in Order to Provide a High Level of Services to the Community and Finance Capital Projects • Positively Define and Capitalize on Available Workforce Skill Capabilities to Attract New Employers • Enhance, Maintain, and Develop Recreational, Cultural, Entertainment, and Educational Facilities within the City • Expand on Historic and the Natural Assets to Attract Recreational Visitors ✓ Community Design Element • Attractively Design, Landscape, and Maintain San Bernardino's Major Corridors • Recognize Unique Features_ in Individual Districts and Neighborhoods and Develop a Program to Create Unifying Design Themes to Identify Areas Throughout the City • Ensure Individual Projects are Well Designed and Maintained • Develop Attractive, Safe, and Comfortable Single Family Neighborhoods • Ensure that Multi - Family Housing is Attractively Designed and Scaled to Contribute to the Neighborhood and Provide Visual Interest Through Varied Architectural Detailing • Develop Attractive and Safe Commercial, Office, and Industrial Projects that are Creatively Designed and Intelligently Sited ✓ Circulation Element • Provide a Well- Maintained Street System • Maintain Efficient traffic Operations on City Streets • Provide a Safe Circulation System • Minimize the Impact of Roadways on Adjacent Land Uses and Ensure Compatibility Between Land Uses and Highway Facilities to the Extent Possible • Develop a Transportation System that Reduces Conflicts Between Commercial Trucking, Private/Public Transportation, and Land Uses • Promote a Network of Multi -Modal Transportation Facilities that are Safe, Efficient, and Connected to Various Points of the City and the Region • Achieve a Balance Between Parking Supply and Demand ✓ Public Facilities and Services Element • Protect the Residents of San Bernardino from Criminal Activity and Reduce the Incidence of Crime • Protect the Residents and Structures of San Bernardino from the Hazards of Fire • Meet the Educational Needs of the City's Residents and Integrate Our Higher Educational Facilities into the Fabric of Our Community • Maintain and Enhance the Cultural Quality of Life for the City's Residents ✓ Parks, Recreational and Trails Element • Improve the Quality of Life in San Bernardino by Providing Adequate Parks and Recreation Facilities and Services to Meet the Needs of Our Residents • Design and Maintain Our Parks and Recreation Facilities to Maximum Safety, Function, Beauty, and Efficiency . • Develop a Well- Designed System of Interconnected Multi - Purpose Trails, Bikeways, and Pedestrian Paths • Provide Adequate Funding for Parkland and Trails Acquisition, Improvements, Maintenance, and Programs ✓ Utilities Element • Provide a System of Wastewater Collection and Treatment Facilities that will Adequately Convey and Treat wastewater Generated by Existing and Future Development in the City's Service Area • Ensure that all Wastewater Collection and Treatment Facilities are Operated to Maximum Public Safety • Provide Water Supply, Transmission, Distribution, Storage, and Treatment Facilities to Meet Present and Future Water Demands in a Timely and Cost Effective Manner • Provide Appropriate Storm Drain and Flood Control Facilities where Necessary • Provide an Adequate and Orderly System for the Collection and Disposal of Solid Waste to Meet the Demands of New and Existing Developments in the City • Ensure an Adequate, Safe, and Orderly Supply of Electrical Energy is Available to Support Existing and Future Land Uses within the City on a Project Level • Ensure an Adequate Supply of Natural Gas is Available to Support Existing and Future Land Uses within the City at a Project Level • Ensure the Operation and Maintenance of Telecommunications Systems to Support Existing and Future Land Uses within the City • Ensure that the Costs of Infrastructure Improvements are Borne by those who Benefit ✓ Safety Element • Protect the Environment, Public Health, Safety, and Welfare from Hazardous Wastes • Protect Proper Operations of Hazardous Waste Facilities and Ensure Regulations Applicable to these Facilities are Enforced • Minimize the Threat of Surface and Subsurface Water Contamination and Promote restoration of Healthful Groundwater Resources • Reduce Urban Run -Off from New and Existing Development • Protect the Lives and Properties of Residents and Visitors of the City from Flood Hazards • Protect Life, .Essential Lifelines, and Property from Damage Resulting from Seismic Activity • Prevent the Loss of Life, Serious Injuries, and Major Disruption Caused by the Collapse of or Sever Damage to Vulnerable Buildings in an Earthquake • Minimize Exposure to and Risks from Geologic Activities • Protect People and Property from Urban and Wildland Fire Hazards • Ensure the Availability and Effective Response of Emergency Services in the Event of a Disaster ✓ Historical And Archaeological Resources Element • Develop a Program to Protect, Preserve, and Restore the Sites, Buildings and Districts that have Architectural, Historical, Archaeological, and/or Cultural Significance • Promote Community Appreciation for Our History and Cultural Resources • Protect and Enhance Our Historic and Cultural Resources • Protect and Enhance Our Archaeological Resources ✓ Natural Resources and Conservation Element • Conserve and Enhance San Bernardino's Biological Resources • Protect Riparian Corridors to Provide Habitat for Fish and Wildlife • Promote Air Quality that is Compatible with the Health, Well - Being, and Enjoyment of Life • Reduce the Amount of Vehicular Emissions in San Bernardino ✓ Energy and Water Conservation Element • Conserve Scarce Energy Resources • Manage and Protect the Quality of the City's Surface Waters and Ground Water Basins ✓ Noise Element • Ensure that Residents are Protected from Excessive Noise Through Careful Land Planning • Encourage the Reduction of Noise from Transportation- Related Noise Sources Such as Motor Vehicles, Aircraft Operations, and Railroad Movements • Protect Residents from the Negative Effects of "Spill Over" or Nuisance Noise Finding No. 2: The proposed plan would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. Finding of Fact: The proposed Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Transformation Specific Plan would establish a land use and development framework, identify needed transportation and infrastructure improvements, and serve as a marketing tool for attracting developers to key sites and for boosting economic development. The Specific Plan is intended to encourage residential and neighborhood- serving commercial establishments on major corridors such as Baseline Avenue and Waterman Avenue, direct the creation of employment generating uses to the southern portion of the project area closer to the Civic Center and Downtown, and protect and enhance the existing residential neighborhoods. The proposed land use plan accommodates an increase in existing residential uses from an estimated 2,049 units to approximately 4,341 units, an increase in commercial uses from approximately 2,366,385 square feet to approximately 3,570,448 square feet, and establishes six (6) distinct districts to guide future development of key parcels throughout the project area. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City in that the primary purpose of the Specific Plan is to provide a vision and implementation program for the future development of vacant or under- utilized properties within Specific Plan boundaries and contains a comprehensive set of goals, objectives, strategies and guidelines to be used by the City to support, attract and facilitate new development and revitalization projects and will enhance the physical and visual qualities of the project area thereby enhancing the aesthetics of the surrounding neighborhood, while preserving the environmental environs. Finding No. 3 The subject properties are physically suitable for the requested land use designations and the anticipated land use developments. Finding of Fact: The proposed Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Transformation Specific Plan allow the change of the General Plan Land Use Designations and the Zoning Districts of the properties contained within an area comprised of approximately 710 acres in order to establish the new Land Use Districts and Design Guidelines maintains an appropriate balance of land uses by providing for the revitalization of existing under - utilized properties. Finding No. 4 The proposed plan shall ensure development of desirable character which will be compatible with existing and proposed development in the surrounding neighborhood. Finding of Fact: The proposed Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Transformation Specific Plan is intended to encourage residential and neighborhood- serving commercial establishments on major corridors such as Baseline Avenue and Waterman Avenue, direct the creation of employment generating uses to the southern portion of the project area closer to the Civic Center and Downtown, and protect and enhance the existing residential neighborhoods. The proposed land use plan accommodates an increase in existing residential uses from an estimated 2,049 units to approximately 4,341 units, an increase in commercial uses from approximately 2,366,385 square feet to approximately 3,570,448 square feet, and establishes six (6) distinct districts to guide future development of key parcels throughout the project area. Finding No. 5 The proposed plan will contribute to a balance of land uses so that local residents may work and shop in the community in which they live. Finding of Fact: The proposed Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Transformation Specific Plan creates employment generating uses to the southern portion of the project area closer to the Civic Center and Downtown, and protects and enhances through the accommodation of increased residential uses from an estimated 2,049 units to approximately 4,341 units and increased F cormnercial uses from approximately 2,366,385 square feet to approximately 3,570,448 square feet. SECTION 3, PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission hereby takes the following action: 1. Adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -059 forwarding a recommendation that the Mayor and Common Council:. a. Certify the Final Environmental hnpact Report for Specific Plan 15 -01 (incorporated herein by reference), in accordance with §15090 (Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report) of the California Environmental Quality Act, and direct the Community Development Director to prepare and file with the Clerk of the County of San Bernardino a Notice of Determination as provided under Public Resources Code §21152(c) and CEQA Guidelines §15094; and b. Approve Specific Plan 15 -01 (incorporated herein by reference) based on the Findings of Fact. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 160' day of November 2016. ATTEST: Mark Persico, Planning Commission Secretary City of San Bernardino, California 0 I Larry Heasley, Chairman San Bernardino Planning Commission CERTIFICATION: I, Stephanie Sanchez, Recording Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of San Bernardino, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution, No. 2016 -059, was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of San Bernardino, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 166 day of November 2016, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Heasley, Quiel, Machen, Eble, Earp and Jones NOES: None ABSENT: Lopez and Gallaher ABSTAIN: None 10 Stephanie Sanchez, Recording Secretary City of San Bernardino, California