Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-03-2017 Agenda BackupCITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AGENDA FOR THE JOINT REGULAR MEETING OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ACTING AS THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ACTING AS THE SUCCESSOR HOUSING AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ACTING AS THE HOUSING AUTHORITY, AND THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ACTING AS THE SAN BERNARDINO JOINT POWERS FINANCING AUTHORITY MONDAY, APRIL 3, 2017 2:00 PM – CLOSED SESSION 4:00 PM – OPEN SESSION COUNCIL CHAMBER • 300 NORTH "D" STREET (LOBBY) • SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92418 • WWW.SBCITY.ORG Virginia Marquez R. Carey Davis James Mulvihill COUNCIL MEMBER, W ARD 1 MAYOR COUNCIL MEMBER, WARD 7 Benito Barrios Mark Scott COUNCIL MEMBER, W ARD 2 CITY MANAGER John Valdivia Gary D. Saenz COUNCIL MEMBER, W ARD 3 CITY ATTORNEY Fred Shorett Georgeann “Gigi” Hanna COUNCIL MEMBER, W ARD 4 CITY CLERK Henry Nickel David Kennedy COUNCIL MEMBER, W ARD 5 CITY TREASURER Bessine L. Richard COUNCIL MEMBER, W ARD 6 Welcome to a meeting of the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino. o Anyone who wishes to speak during public comment or on a particular item will be required to fill out a speaker slip. Speaker slips must be turned in to the City Clerk by 4:30 pm the day of the meeting. o You may email your request to speak to publiccomments@sbcity.org if you cannot turn it in in person prior to 4:30 pm. Each request will cover one speaker. Those who wish to speak must submit their own request to be called on by the Mayor. o Public comments for agenda items that are not public hearings will be limited to three minutes. o There is a 6-minute-per-person time limit for all comments, excluding public hearings. o All who wish to speak, including Council members and staff, need to be recognized by the Mayor or Mayor Pro Tempore before speaking. o Please contact the City Clerk’s Office (384-5002) two working days prior to the meeting for any requests for reasonable accommodation to include interpreters. o All documents for public review are on file with the City Clerk’s Office or may be accessed online by going to www.sbcity.org. o Please turn off or mute your cell phone while the meeting is in session. Joint Regular Meeting Agenda April 3, 2017 Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino Page 2 Printed 3/30/2017 Call to Order Attendee Name Present Absent Late Arrived Council Member, Ward 1 Virginia Marquez    Council Member, Ward 2 Benito Barrios    Council Member, Ward 3 John Valdivia    Council Member, Ward 4 Fred Shorett    Council Member, Ward 5 Henry Nickel    Council Member, Ward 6 Bessine L. Richard    Council Member, Ward 7 James Mulvihill    Mayor R. Carey Davis    City Clerk Georgeann "Gigi" Hanna    City Attorney Gary D. Saenz    City Manager Mark Scott    CLOSED SESSION PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS A three-minute limitation shall apply to each member of the public who wishes to address the Mayor and City Council and the Mayor and City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency. No member of the public shall be permitted to “share” his/her three minutes with any other member of the public. A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) and (d)(1): In re: City of San Bernardino, U.S. Bankruptcy Court Case No. 6:12-bk-28006 MJ Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino v. DMC Investment Holdings, LLC, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC 465755; and Placo San Bernardino, LLC v. City of San Bernardino, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC 468955 B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation – Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2): City of San Bernardino v. City of Grand Terrace CLOSED SESSION REPORT PRESENTATIONS 1. Recognition to the Participants of the Mayor’s Youth Academy Pilot Program 2017 – Mayor R. Carey Davis Joint Regular Meeting Agenda April 3, 2017 Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino Page 3 Printed 3/30/2017 2. Presentation to the Library – Proclaiming April as Library Month – Mayor R. Carey Davis 3. Presentation to the San Bernardino County Children and Family Services – Proclaiming April as Child Abuse Prevention Month – Mayor R. Carey Davis 4. Presentation to the Inland Fair Housing and Mediation Board – Proclaiming April as Fair Housing Month – Mayor R. Carey Davis 5. Announcement for the City of San Bernardino Art Night – April 21 & 22, 2017 – Community Development Director Mark Persico 6. Chamber of Commerce & Local Elected Officials Announcements PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR ITEMS LISTED ON THIS AGENDA A three-minute limitation shall apply to each member of the public who wishes to address the Mayor and City Council on any item on the agenda, excluding public hearings. There is no limit to the number of items that may be discussed within the three-minute time limit. To be called on by the Mayor, please turn in individual speaker slips to the City Clerk by 4:30 p.m. the day of the meeting. If you wish, you may email your speaking request to publiccomments@sbcity.org prior to the beginning of the meeting. Emailed requests to speak will not be accepted from anyone but the person requesting to speak. CONSENT CALENDAR There will be no separate discussion of Consent Calendar items unless a Council member requests that the item be considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. Public comment on Consent Calendar items is limited to three minutes total per person. There is no limit on the items that can be discussed within that time. 7. City Clerk Waive Full Reading of Resolutions and Ordinances Recommendation: Waive full reading of resolutions and ordinances on the agenda dated April 3, 2017. 8. City Clerk City Council Approval of Minutes – March 20, 2017 Recommendation: Approve the minutes of the Mayor and City Council meeting of March 20, 2017 as submitted. Joint Regular Meeting Agenda April 3, 2017 Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino Page 4 Printed 3/30/2017 9. Finance Council Approval of Commercial and Payroll Checks Recommendation: Approve the commercial and payroll checks for March 2017. 10. Parks and Recreation New Hope Summer Work Program Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution of the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California, authorizing the City Manager to execute a volunteer services agreement between the City of San Bernardino and New Hope Missionary Baptist Church for the New Hope Summer Youth Program. 11. Human Resources Housing Division Manager (U) Job Description and Classification Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution of the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California, establishing the classification and job description for the Housing Division Manager (U). 12. Human Resources Maintenance Worker III Job Description and Classification Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution of the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California, establishing the classification and job description for the Maintenance Worker III. 13. Community Development Amendment Number One to Consulting Services Agreement with Mary Blaise Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution of the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California, approving Amendment Number One to increase the contract amount of a Professional Services Agreement with Mary A. Blais in an amount not to exceed $120,000 for planning project management services. Joint Regular Meeting Agenda April 3, 2017 Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino Page 5 Printed 3/30/2017 14. Police Department Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) Local Law Enforcement Grant Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution of the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California, authorizing the acceptance and administration of the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) 2017 Local Law Enforcement Grant in the amount of $55,811.60, amendment of the FY 2016/2017 Adopted Budget, and the issuance of a Purchase Order to Embassy Consulting Services in the amount not to exceed $24,000. 15. Human Resources Establishing a Basic Compensation Plan for Temporary/ Part - Time Officers and/or Employees Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution of the City of San Bernardino, California, establishing hourly rates for Temporary/ Part-Time Officers and/or employees of the City of San Bernardino. PUBLIC HEARING 16. Community Development Rancho Palma Specific Plan – Final Environmental Impact Report, General Plan Amendment 16-01, Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 16-01, and Specific Plan 16-01 Recommendation: 1. Adopt a Resolution of the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California, Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2016031080) for General Plan Amendment 16-01, Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 16-01, Specific Plan 16-01 (Rancho Palma Specific Plan), Subdivision 16-02 (Tentative Parcel Map 19701, and Subdivision 16-03 (Tentative Parcel Map 20006), and Adopting the Findings of Fact and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Pursuant to the Requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act; Joint Regular Meeting Agenda April 3, 2017 Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino Page 6 Printed 3/30/2017 2. Introduce for first reading, an Ordinance of the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California, Approving General Plan Amendment 16- 01, Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 16-01, and Specific Plan 16-01 to Change the General Plan Land Use Designations and Zoning Districts of an Area Containing Approximately 41.6 Acres to the Rancho Palma Specific Plan; 3. Schedule the second reading of the above ordinance to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Mayor and City Council on May 1, 2017; and 4. Refer the Resolution approving the Subdivision 16-02 (Tentative Parcel Map 19701) and Subdivision 16-03 (Tentative Parcel Map 20006) to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission on April 19, 2017 for further consideration and return to the Mayor and City Council at the regularly scheduled meeting of May 1, 2017. STAFF REPORTS 17. City Manager Final Reading and Adoption of Ordinances Related to Charter Implementation Recommendation: 1. Introduce for second reading and adopt an Ordinance amending portions of Chapter 1.08 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code relating to resolutions and ordinances to implement the provisions of the newly adopted Charter; 2. Introduce for second reading and adopt an Ordinance repealing and replacing Chapter 2.02 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code regarding the position of City Manager; 3. Introduce for second reading and adopt an Ordinance repealing and replacing Section 2.01.010 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code regarding the Mayor Pro Tempore to conform to the City's Charter; and 4. Introduce for second reading and adopt an Ordinance repealing and replacing Chapter 2.58 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code regarding meetings. Joint Regular Meeting Agenda April 3, 2017 Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino Page 7 Printed 3/30/2017 18. City Manager Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program Providers - Golden State Finance Authority (GSFA) Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution of the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California, finding that this project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act, and consenting to the inclusion of properties within the territory of the City in the Golden State Finance Authority (GSFA) Ygrene Energy Fund PACE Program, authorizing GSFA to accept applications from property owners, conduct contractual assessment proceedings and levy contractual assessments within the territory of the City and authorizing related actions. 19. City Manager Property Assessed Clean Energy Program Providers - California Statewide Communities Development Authority Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution of the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California, finding that this project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act, and consenting to the inclusion of properties within the territory of the City in the California Statewide Communities Development Authority (CSCDA) Open PACE Program, authorizing CSCDA to accept applications from property owners, conduct contractual assessment proceedings and levy contractual assessments within the territory of the City and authorizing related actions. 20. City Attorney Authorization to execute on behalf of the City Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution of the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California, authorizing the Mayor to execute Unconditional Commitment Letters and a Letter to the President of the United States. 21. City Council Military Banner Committee Update Recommendation: Receive an oral update from Military Banner Ad Hoc Committee Chair, Council Member Virginia Marquez. Joint Regular Meeting Agenda April 3, 2017 Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino Page 8 Printed 3/30/2017 22. Community Development Discussion of options for Developing an Unreinforced Masonry Building Ordinance Recommendation: Review and discuss options for developing an Unreinforced Masonry Building (URM) Ordinance and provide direction to staff. 23. PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA 24. ITEMS TO BE REFERRED TO CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEES 25. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND EXECUTIVE STAFF 26. ADJOURNMENT The next joint regular meeting of the Mayor and City Council and the Mayor and City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency is scheduled for 2:00 p.m., Monday, April 17, 2017, in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 300 North “D” Street, San Bernardino, California. Joint Regular Meeting Agenda April 3, 2017 Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino Page 9 Printed 3/30/2017 NOTICE: Any member of the public may address this meeting of the Mayor and City Council and the Mayor and City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency on any item appearing on the agenda by approaching the microphone in the Council Chamber when the item about which the member desires to speak is called and by asking to be recognized. Any member of the public desiring to speak to the Mayor and City Council and the Mayor and City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency concerning any matter not on the agenda but which is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Mayor and City Council and the Mayor and City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency may address the body at the end of the meeting, during the period reserved for public comments. Said total period for public comments shall not exceed 60 minutes, unless such time limit is extended by the Mayor and City Council and the Mayor and City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency. A three minute limitation shall apply to each member of the public, unless such time limit is extended by the Mayor and City Council and the Mayor and City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency. No member of the public shall be permitted to “share” his/her three minutes with any other member of the public. Speakers who wish to present documents to the governing body may hand the documents to the City Clerk at the time the request to speak is made. The Mayor and City Council and the Mayor and City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency may refer any item raised by the public to staff, or to any commission, board, bureau, or committee for appropriate action or have the item placed on the next agenda of the Mayor and City Council and the Mayor and City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency. However, no other action shall be taken nor discussion held by the Mayor and City Council and the Mayor and City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency on any item which does not appear on the agenda unless the action is otherwise authorized in accordance with the provisions of subdivision (b) of Section 54954.2 of the Government Code. Public comments will not be received on any item on the agenda when a public hearing has been conducted and closed. This page left blank intentionally Consent Calendar City of San Bernardino Request for Council Action \ Date: April 3, 2017 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members From: Gigi Hanna, City Clerk Subject: Waive Full Reading of Resolutions and Ordinances Recommendation Waive full reading of Resolutions and Ordinances on the agenda dated April 3, 2017. 7.a Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: Waive Reading.Report_April 3 (4918 : Waive Reading) This page left blank intentionally Consent Calendar City of San Bernardino Request for Council Action \ Date: April 3, 2017 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members From: Gigi Hanna, City Clerk Subject: Draft Minutes for March 20, 2017 Recommendation Approve the minutes of the Mayor and City Council meetings of March 20, 2017, as submitted. 8.a Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: Minutes_cover_4_3_17 (4919 : City Council Approval of Minutes -- March 20, 2017) City of San Bernardino 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 http://www.sbcity.org MINUTES Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino Page 1 Printed 3/21/2017 JOINT REGULAR MEETING OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ACTING AS THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ACTING AS THE SUCCESSOR HOUSING AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ACTING AS THE SAN BERNARDINO JOINT POWERS FINANCING AUTHORITY AND MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ACTING AS THE HOUSING AUTHORITY MONDAY, MARCH 20, 2017 COUNCIL CHAMBER The Joint Regular Meeting of the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino was called to order by Mayor R. Carey Davis at 2:06 p.m., Monday, March 20, 2017, in the Council Chamber, 300 North "D" Street (Lobby), San Bernardino, CA. Roll Call Attendee Name Title Status Arrived Virginia Marquez Council Member, Ward 1 Absent ---------- Benito J. Barrios Council Member, Ward 2 Present 2:00 p.m. John Valdivia Council Member, Ward 3 Present 2:48 p.m. Fred Shorett Council Member, Ward 4 Present 2:00 p.m. Henry Nickel Council Member, Ward 5 Present 2:00 p.m. Bessine L. Richard Council Member, Ward 6 Present 2:00 p.m. James Mulvihill Council Member, Ward 7 Present 2:00 p.m. R. Carey Davis Mayor Present 2:00 p.m. Georgeann "Gigi" Hanna City Clerk Present 4:00 p.m. Gary D. Saenz City Attorney Present 2:00 p.m. Andrea Miller Assistant City Manager Present 2:00 p.m. Mayor R. Carey Davis Council Members Virginia Marquez Benito Barrios John Valdivia Fred Shorett Henry Nickel Bessine Richard Jim Mulvihill 8.b Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: 3-20-17 Jt. Reg_gh_draft (4919 : City Council Approval of Minutes -- March 20, 2017) Regular Meeting DRAFT Minutes March 20, 2017 Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino Page 2 Printed 3/21/2017 Closed Session B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation – Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2): Three (3) Items C. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Initiation of litigation – Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4): City of San Bernardino v. Wing Ng One (1) Item D. PERSONNEL – Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957(b): City Manager Reading of Resolutions and Ordinances City Clerk Gigi Hanna read into the record the titles of all the resolutions and ordinances on the agenda for March 20, 2017. Invocation/Pledge of Allegiance Pastor Tracy Johnson, of Immanuel Baptist Church, led the invocation. The Pledge of Allegiance was given by Amaranta Banuelos, a 5th grade student at Dr. Mildred Dalton Henry Elementary School. 2. Closed Session Report City Attorney Gary Saenz reported the following actions occurred in Closed Session: Under Agenda Item No. 1B, significant exposure to litigation: The Council gave direction regarding the Brown Act via consensus, with Council Member Marquez absent. Under Agenda Item No. 1C, anticipated litigation, initiation of litigation: In the matter of City v. Wing Ng, Council gave direction by a vote of 6-0, with Council Member Marquez absent. In the matter of One (1) item, Council gave direction by a vote of 5-0, with Council Members Marquez and Valdivia absent. Under Agenda Item No. 1D, Personnel: In the matter of City Manager, the performance evaluation of the City Manager was concluded. Presentations 1. Special Recognition to Mr. Taylor Rohm – Mayor R. Carey Davis 8.b Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: 3-20-17 Jt. Reg_gh_draft (4919 : City Council Approval of Minutes -- March 20, 2017) Regular Meeting DRAFT Minutes March 20, 2017 Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino Page 3 Printed 3/21/2017 Mayor Davis presented a proclamation honoring Mr. Rohm for his professional and personal achievements. Mr. Rohm also received a certificate from Assemblyman Marc Steinorth’s office. 2. Special Recognition to the Quality of Life Team – Winner of the Inland Empire Economic Partnership and JPMorgan Chase’s Turning Red Tape into Red Carpet Award for their Public/Private Partnership Category – Mayor R. Carey Davis Mayor Davis presented proclamations to the Quality of Life team and congratulated them for their recent recognition within the Inland Empire for their efforts to clean up San Bernardino. 3. Certificates of Recognition – SBPD Explorers – Mayor R. Carey Davis Mayor Davis honored the San Bernardino Police Department Explorers for their achievements. 4. Student of the Month – Victor Espinoza-Serrano, Indian Springs High School – Council Member Mulvihill for Council Member Virginia Marquez Council member Mulvihill honored Mr. Espinoza-Serrano for his academic achievements, including his 4.7 grade point average. Mr. Espinoza-Serano also received certificates from Assemblyman Marc Steinorth’s office. 5. Resolution – Annual César Chávez Memorial – Council Member John Valdivia Council Member Valdivia, on behalf of Council Member Marquez, presented a resolution to George and Patricia Aguilar, of the Chicano Latino Caucus, honoring Friday, March 31, 2017, as Cesar Chavez Day. 6. Citizen(s) of the Month: Ollie McDonald Senior Talent Showcase Performers – Council Member Fred Shorett Council Member Shorett, on behalf of Council Member Marquez, presented Citizen of the Month certificates to the Ollie McDonald Senior Talent Showcase performers. 7. Chamber of Commerce & Local Elected Officials Announcements Jack Avakian announced the upcoming Chamber of Commerce events. 8.b Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: 3-20-17 Jt. Reg_gh_draft (4919 : City Council Approval of Minutes -- March 20, 2017) Regular Meeting DRAFT Minutes March 20, 2017 Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino Page 4 Printed 3/21/2017 APPOINTMENTS 8. Appointment of Edgar Motta to the Parks and Recreation Commission – Council Member Richard Approved Motion: Appoint Mr. Motta to the Parks and Recreation Commission RESULT: ADOPTED [6-0] MOVER: John Valdivia, Council Member, Ward 3 SECONDER: Bessine Richard, Council Member, Ward 6 AYES: Barrios, Valdivia, Shorett, Nickel, Richard, Mulvihill ABSENT: Marquez 9. Appointment of Carlos Gomez to the Parks and Recreation Commission – Council Member Jim Mulvihill for Council Member Virginia Marquez Approved Motion: Appoint Mr. Gomez to the Parks and Recreation Commission. RESULT: ADOPTED [6-0] MOVER: Fred Shorett, Council Member, Ward 4 SECONDER: John Valdivia, Council Member, Ward 3 AYES: Barrios, Valdivia, Shorett, Nickel, Richard, Mulvihill ABSENT: Marquez Consent Calendar Council members pulled the following items from Consent Calendar for further discussion: Item 14 (pulled by Richard), Items 15 and 16 (pulled by Nickel). RESULT: ADOPTED [6-0] MOVER: John Valdivia, Council Member, Ward 3 SECONDER: Jim Mulvihill, Council Member, Ward 7 AYES: Barrios, Valdivia, Shorett, Nickel, Richard, Mulvihill ABSENT: Marquez 8.b Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: 3-20-17 Jt. Reg_gh_draft (4919 : City Council Approval of Minutes -- March 20, 2017) Regular Meeting DRAFT Minutes March 20, 2017 Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino Page 5 Printed 3/21/2017 10. City Clerk Waive Full Reading of Resolutions and Ordinances on the agenda dated March 20, 2017. Approved Motion: Waive Full Reading of Resolutions and Ordinances on the agenda dated March 20, 2017. RESULT: ADOPTED [6-0] MOVER: John Valdivia, Council Member, Ward 3 SECONDER: Jim Mulvihill, Council Member, Ward 7 AYES: Barrios, Valdivia, Shorett, Nickel, Richard, Mulvihill ABSENT: Marquez 11. City Clerk Minutes for March 6, 2017 and March 14, 2017 Approved Motion: Approve the minutes of the Mayor and City Council meeting of March 6, 2017, and March 20, 2017, as submitted. RESULT: ADOPTED [6-0] MOVER: John Valdivia, Council Member, Ward 3 SECONDER: Jim Mulvihill, Council Member, Ward 7 AYES: Barrios, Valdivia, Shorett, Nickel, Richard, Mulvihill ABSENT: Marquez 12. Finance Council Approval of Commercial and Payroll Checks Approved Motion: Approve the commercial and payroll checks for March 2017. RESULT: ADOPTED [6-0] MOVER: John Valdivia, Council Member, Ward 3 SECONDER: Jim Mulvihill, Council Member, Ward 7 AYES: Barrios, Valdivia, Shorett, Nickel, Richard, Mulvihill ABSENT: Marquez 8.b Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: 3-20-17 Jt. Reg_gh_draft (4919 : City Council Approval of Minutes -- March 20, 2017) Regular Meeting DRAFT Minutes March 20, 2017 Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino Page 6 Printed 3/21/2017 13. Human Resources Coordinator of Volunteers Job Description and Classification Speaker Shirley Harlan Approved Motion: Adopt the resolution. Reso. 2017-44 Resolution of the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California, establishing the classification and job description for the Coordinator of Volunteers (Grant Funded) and deleting the classifications of Coordinator of Volunteers to the Senior Companion Program (SCP) and deleting the classification of Coordinator of Volunteers to the Retired and Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP). RESULT: ADOPTED [6-0] MOVER: John Valdivia, Council Member, Ward 3 SECONDER: Jim Mulvihill, Council Member, Ward 7 AYES: Barrios, Valdivia, Shorett, Nickel, Richard, Mulvihill ABSENT: Marquez 14. Parks and Recreation Nunez Pool Filtration Replacement Project Approved Motion: Adopt the resolution. Reso. 2017-45 Resolution of the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California, authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract between the City of San Bernardino and California Waters Development Inc. for the Nunez Park Pool Filtration Replacement Project. RESULT: ADOPTED [6-0] MOVER: John Valdivia, Council Member, Ward 3 SECONDER: Jim Mulvihill, Council Member, Ward 7 AYES: Barrios, Valdivia, Shorett, Nickel, Richard, Mulvihill ABSENT: Marquez 8.b Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: 3-20-17 Jt. Reg_gh_draft (4919 : City Council Approval of Minutes -- March 20, 2017) Regular Meeting DRAFT Minutes March 20, 2017 Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino Page 7 Printed 3/21/2017 15. Public Works Measure I (2010-2040) Valley Major Street Program - Five-Year Capital Project Needs Analysis (2017-2022) Speaker Juan Ramirez Approved Motion: Adopt the resolution. Reso. 2017-46 Resolution of the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California, approving the Five- Year Capital Project Needs Analysis (2017-2022) for Measure I 2010-2040 Valley Major Street Program. RESULT: ADOPTED [6-0] MOVER: Henry Nickel, Council Member, Ward 5 SECONDER: John Valdivia, Council Member, Ward 3 AYES: Barrios, Valdivia, Shorett, Nickel, Richard, Mulvihill ABSENT: Marquez 16. Public Works Five-Year Measure I Capital Improvement Program (FY2016-2021)and Expenditure Strategy Speaker Juan Ramirez Approved Motion: Adopt the resolution. Reso. 2017-47 Adopt a Resolution of the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California, adopting the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program (FY 2016- 2021) for Measure I Local Expenditures and Expenditure Strategy. RESULT: ADOPTED [6-0] MOVER: Henry Nickel, Council Member, Ward 5 SECONDER: John Valdivia, Council Member, Ward 3 AYES: Barrios, Valdivia, Shorett, Nickel, Richard, Mulvihill ABSENT: Marquez 8.b Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: 3-20-17 Jt. Reg_gh_draft (4919 : City Council Approval of Minutes -- March 20, 2017) Regular Meeting DRAFT Minutes March 20, 2017 Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino Page 8 Printed 3/21/2017 17. Community Development Professional Services Agreement with Keyser Marston Associates Approved Motion: Adopt the resolution. Reso. 2017-48: Resolution of the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California, Authorizing the Execution of a Professional Services Agreement with Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. for negotiation services in an amount not to exceed $55,000 for the Carousel Mall Project. RESULT: ADOPTED [6-0] MOVER: John Valdivia, Council Member, Ward 3 SECONDER: Jim Mulvihill, Council Member, Ward 7 AYES: Barrios, Valdivia, Shorett, Nickel, Richard, Mulvihill ABSENT: Marquez 18. Police Department Purchase of Bullet Proof Vests for Police Personnel Approved Motion: Adopt the resolution. Reso. 2017-49: Resolution of the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California, Authorizing the increase the FY 2016/17 Purchase Order issued to Adamson Police Products by $150,000 for the Purchase of Ballistic Vests; with Three One-Year Renewal Options. RESULT: ADOPTED [6-0] MOVER: John Valdivia, Council Member, Ward 3 SECONDER: Jim Mulvihill, Council Member, Ward 7 AYES: Barrios, Valdivia, Shorett, Nickel, Richard, Mulvihill ABSENT: Marquez 8.b Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: 3-20-17 Jt. Reg_gh_draft (4919 : City Council Approval of Minutes -- March 20, 2017) Regular Meeting DRAFT Minutes March 20, 2017 Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino Page 9 Printed 3/21/2017 PUBLIC HEARING 19. Public Works Refuse Accounts Liens Approved Motion: Adopt the resolution. Reso. 2017-50: Resolution of the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California, Making Determinations and Confirming Assessments and Proceedings for Unpaid Solid Waste Collection Services. RESULT: ADOPTED [6-0] MOVER: John Valdivia, Council Member, Ward 3 SECONDER: Jim Mulvihill, Council Member, Ward 7 AYES: Barrios, Valdivia, Shorett, Nickel, Richard, Mulvihill ABSENT: Marquez Staff Reports 20. City Manager Reallocation of Community Development Block Grant Public Service Funds Approved Motion: Adopt the resolution. Reso. 2017-51: Resolution of the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California, Reallocating Community Development Block Grant Public Service Funds to Fair Housing and Capital Improvement Activities for a Period of Five Years. RESULT: ADOPTED [6-0] MOVER: John Valdivia, Council Member, Ward 3 SECONDER: Benito Barrios, Council Member, Ward 2 AYES: Barrios, Valdivia, Shorett, Nickel, Richard, Mulvihill ABSENT: Marquez 8.b Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: 3-20-17 Jt. Reg_gh_draft (4919 : City Council Approval of Minutes -- March 20, 2017) Regular Meeting DRAFT Minutes March 20, 2017 Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino Page 10 Printed 3/21/2017 21. City Manager Military Banner Purchase Order Speaker Robert Porter Approved Motion: Adopt the resolution. Reso. 2017-52: Resolution of the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California, Authorizing the Director of Finance to Increase Existing Purchase Order 2017-00000742 to Out of the Box Printing/R81 From the Amount of $5,000 to $10,000 for Military Banners. RESULT: ADOPTED [6-0] MOVER: John Valdivia, Council Member, Ward 3 SECONDER: Henry Nickel, Council Member, Ward 5 AYES: Barrios, Valdivia, Shorett, Nickel, Richard, Mulvihill ABSENT: Marquez 22. City Manager Election of Mayor Pro Tempore Approved Motion: Extend the term of the current Mayor Pro Tempore until the Ordinance concerning this under the new Charter takes effect. RESULT: ADOPTED [6-0] MOVER: Henry Nickel, Council Member, Ward 5 SECONDER: Jim Mulvihill, Council Member, Ward 7 AYES: Barrios, Valdivia, Shorett, Nickel, Richard, Mulvihill ABSENT: Marquez 23. Successor Agency Approved Motion: Adopt the resolutions. Reso. 2017-53 Resolution of the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California, Approving the Purchase and Sale Agreement Between the City of San Bernardino and the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino with Respect to 280 South “E” Street, San 8.b Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: 3-20-17 Jt. Reg_gh_draft (4919 : City Council Approval of Minutes -- March 20, 2017) Regular Meeting DRAFT Minutes March 20, 2017 Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino Page 11 Printed 3/21/2017 (Item 23 Cont.) Bernardino, California (APN 0136-11-26), and Approving Certain Related Actions; and Reso. 2017-54 Resolution of the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino Approving the Purchase and Sale Agreement Between the City of San Bernardino and the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino with Respect to 280 South “E” Street, San Bernardino, California (APN 0136-11-26), and Approving Certain Related Actions. RESULT: ADOPTED [6-0] MOVER: Fred Shorett, Council Member, Ward 4 SECONDER: Jim Mulvihill, Council Member, Ward 7 AYES: Barrios, Valdivia, Shorett, Nickel, Richard, Mulvihill ABSENT: Marquez 24. Successor Agency Council Member Valdivia recused himself, stating he has business with Mr. Friedman. Approved Motion: Adopt the resolution. Reso. 2017-55 Resolution of the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino Approving the Purchase and Sale Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions Between the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino and David Friedman with Respect to the Real Property Located at 385 North “E” Street. San Bernardino, California (APN 0134-241-64), and Approving Certain Related Actions RESULT: ADOPTED [5-0] MOVER: Henry Nickel, Council Member, Ward 5 SECONDER: Jim Mulvihill, Council Member, Ward 7 AYES: Barrios, Shorett, Nickel, Richard, Mulvihill ABSENT: Marquez ABSTAIN: Valdivia 8.b Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: 3-20-17 Jt. Reg_gh_draft (4919 : City Council Approval of Minutes -- March 20, 2017) Regular Meeting DRAFT Minutes March 20, 2017 Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino Page 12 Printed 3/21/2017 25. City Manager After some discussion the Council agreed to take up ordinances pertaining to amending Municipal Code Chapters 1.08 and 2.02, and Section 2.01.010, separately from the one regarding meeting times. Approved Motions: 1. Introduce for first reading an Ordinance amending portions of Chapter 1.08 of the City of San Bernardino Municipal Code relating to ordinances and resolutions to implement the provisions of the newly adopted Charter; 2. Introduce for first reading an Ordinance repealing and replacing Chapter 2.02 regarding the position of City Manager; 3. Introduce for first reading an Ordinance repealing and replacing Section 2.01.010 of the Municipal Code regarding the Mayor Pro Tempore to conform to the City’s Charter; 5. Ratify the appointment of Mark Scott as City Manager pursuant to provisions of the Charter approved by voters on November 8, 2016. RESULT: ADOPTED [6-0] MOVER: Fred Shorett, Council Member, Ward 4 SECONDER: John Valdivia, Council Member, Ward 3 AYES: Barrios, Valdivia, Shorett, Nickel, Richard, Mulvihill ABSENT: Marquez Approved Motion: 4. Introduce for first reading an Ordinance repealing and replacing Municipal Code Chapter 2.58 regarding meetings. The City Council discussed and proposed meeting on the second and fourth Tuesdays of the month, with Closed Session starting at 5:30 p.m. and Open Session at 6:30 p.m. 8.b Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: 3-20-17 Jt. Reg_gh_draft (4919 : City Council Approval of Minutes -- March 20, 2017) Regular Meeting DRAFT Minutes March 20, 2017 Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino Page 13 Printed 3/21/2017 RESULT: ADOPTED [3-3]* MOVER: John Valdivia, Council Member, Ward 3 SECONDER: Henry Nickel, Council Member, Ward 5 AYES: Valdivia, Nickel, Richard, Mayor Davis NAYS: Barrios, Shorett, Mulvihill ABSENT: Marquez * Mayor vetoed the 3-3 tie, and the item passed. 26. Public Comments for Items Not on the Agenda Jason Desjardins, San Bernardino, thanked the City Council for its decision on Item 20. He said he feels vindicated and that the City is going in the right direction. Anthony Fernandez, representing a coalition of citizens who spoke at the last meeting regarding the letter to President Trump, said he was at the meeting to remind the Mayor and City Council of their request for a town hall meeting to discuss solutions to problems addressed in the letter. They are currently proposing Thursday, April 27, from 5:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., but no venue has been chosen. Jay Lindberg, San Bernardino, read a poem about hemp to the Mayor and City Council and spoke about the failed war on drugs. Robert Porter, San Bernardino, said the I Love San Bernardino Facebook page has 40,000 members. 27. Items to be referred to Council Committees No items were referred to Council Committees. 28. Announcements by Mayor, City Council and Executive Staff 29. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 6:26 p.m. The next joint regular meeting of the Mayor and City Council and the Mayor and City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency is scheduled for 2:00 p.m., Monday, April 3, 2017. By: __________________________ Georgeann “Gigi” Hanna, CMC City Clerk 8.b Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: 3-20-17 Jt. Reg_gh_draft (4919 : City Council Approval of Minutes -- March 20, 2017) 9.a Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: Council Approval of Commercial and Payroll Checks.REPORT. (4920 : Council Approval of Commercial and Payroll Checks) 9.a Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: Council Approval of Commercial and Payroll Checks.REPORT. (4920 : Council Approval of Commercial and Payroll Checks) 9.b Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: Council Approval of Commercial and Payroll Checks.ATTACHMENT 1. Register 46 (4920 : Council Approval of Commercial and 9.b Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: Council Approval of Commercial and Payroll Checks.ATTACHMENT 1. Register 46 (4920 : Council Approval of Commercial and 9.b Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: Council Approval of Commercial and Payroll Checks.ATTACHMENT 1. Register 46 (4920 : Council Approval of Commercial and 9.b Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: Council Approval of Commercial and Payroll Checks.ATTACHMENT 1. Register 46 (4920 : Council Approval of Commercial and 9.b Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: Council Approval of Commercial and Payroll Checks.ATTACHMENT 1. Register 46 (4920 : Council Approval of Commercial and 9.b Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: Council Approval of Commercial and Payroll Checks.ATTACHMENT 1. Register 46 (4920 : Council Approval of Commercial and 9.b Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: Council Approval of Commercial and Payroll Checks.ATTACHMENT 1. Register 46 (4920 : Council Approval of Commercial and 9.b Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: Council Approval of Commercial and Payroll Checks.ATTACHMENT 1. Register 46 (4920 : Council Approval of Commercial and 9.b Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: Council Approval of Commercial and Payroll Checks.ATTACHMENT 1. Register 46 (4920 : Council Approval of Commercial and 9.b Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: Council Approval of Commercial and Payroll Checks.ATTACHMENT 1. Register 46 (4920 : Council Approval of Commercial and 9.b Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: Council Approval of Commercial and Payroll Checks.ATTACHMENT 1. Register 46 (4920 : Council Approval of Commercial and 9.b Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: Council Approval of Commercial and Payroll Checks.ATTACHMENT 1. Register 46 (4920 : Council Approval of Commercial and 9.b Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: Council Approval of Commercial and Payroll Checks.ATTACHMENT 1. Register 46 (4920 : Council Approval of Commercial and 9.b Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: Council Approval of Commercial and Payroll Checks.ATTACHMENT 1. Register 46 (4920 : Council Approval of Commercial and 9.b Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: Council Approval of Commercial and Payroll Checks.ATTACHMENT 1. Register 46 (4920 : Council Approval of Commercial and 9.b Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: Council Approval of Commercial and Payroll Checks.ATTACHMENT 1. Register 46 (4920 : Council Approval of Commercial and 9.b Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: Council Approval of Commercial and Payroll Checks.ATTACHMENT 1. Register 46 (4920 : Council Approval of Commercial and 9.b Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: Council Approval of Commercial and Payroll Checks.ATTACHMENT 1. Register 46 (4920 : Council Approval of Commercial and 9.b Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: Council Approval of Commercial and Payroll Checks.ATTACHMENT 1. Register 46 (4920 : Council Approval of Commercial and 9.b Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: Council Approval of Commercial and Payroll Checks.ATTACHMENT 1. Register 46 (4920 : Council Approval of Commercial and 9.b Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: Council Approval of Commercial and Payroll Checks.ATTACHMENT 1. Register 46 (4920 : Council Approval of Commercial and 9.b Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: Council Approval of Commercial and Payroll Checks.ATTACHMENT 1. Register 46 (4920 : Council Approval of Commercial and 9.b Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: Council Approval of Commercial and Payroll Checks.ATTACHMENT 1. Register 46 (4920 : Council Approval of Commercial and 9.b Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: Council Approval of Commercial and Payroll Checks.ATTACHMENT 1. Register 46 (4920 : Council Approval of Commercial and 9.b Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: Council Approval of Commercial and Payroll Checks.ATTACHMENT 1. Register 46 (4920 : Council Approval of Commercial and 9.c Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: Council Approval of Commercial and Payroll Checks.ATTACHMENT 2. Register 47 (4920 : Council Approval of Commercial and 9.c Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: Council Approval of Commercial and Payroll Checks.ATTACHMENT 2. Register 47 (4920 : Council Approval of Commercial and 9.c Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: Council Approval of Commercial and Payroll Checks.ATTACHMENT 2. Register 47 (4920 : Council Approval of Commercial and 9.c Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: Council Approval of Commercial and Payroll Checks.ATTACHMENT 2. Register 47 (4920 : Council Approval of Commercial and 9.c Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: Council Approval of Commercial and Payroll Checks.ATTACHMENT 2. Register 47 (4920 : Council Approval of Commercial and 9.c Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: Council Approval of Commercial and Payroll Checks.ATTACHMENT 2. Register 47 (4920 : Council Approval of Commercial and 9.c Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: Council Approval of Commercial and Payroll Checks.ATTACHMENT 2. Register 47 (4920 : Council Approval of Commercial and 9.c Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: Council Approval of Commercial and Payroll Checks.ATTACHMENT 2. Register 47 (4920 : Council Approval of Commercial and 9.c Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: Council Approval of Commercial and Payroll Checks.ATTACHMENT 2. Register 47 (4920 : Council Approval of Commercial and 9.c Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: Council Approval of Commercial and Payroll Checks.ATTACHMENT 2. Register 47 (4920 : Council Approval of Commercial and 9.c Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: Council Approval of Commercial and Payroll Checks.ATTACHMENT 2. Register 47 (4920 : Council Approval of Commercial and 9.c Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: Council Approval of Commercial and Payroll Checks.ATTACHMENT 2. Register 47 (4920 : Council Approval of Commercial and 9.c Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: Council Approval of Commercial and Payroll Checks.ATTACHMENT 2. Register 47 (4920 : Council Approval of Commercial and 9.c Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: Council Approval of Commercial and Payroll Checks.ATTACHMENT 2. Register 47 (4920 : Council Approval of Commercial and 9.c Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: Council Approval of Commercial and Payroll Checks.ATTACHMENT 2. Register 47 (4920 : Council Approval of Commercial and 9.c Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: Council Approval of Commercial and Payroll Checks.ATTACHMENT 2. Register 47 (4920 : Council Approval of Commercial and 9.c Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: Council Approval of Commercial and Payroll Checks.ATTACHMENT 2. Register 47 (4920 : Council Approval of Commercial and 9.c Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: Council Approval of Commercial and Payroll Checks.ATTACHMENT 2. Register 47 (4920 : Council Approval of Commercial and 9.c Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: Council Approval of Commercial and Payroll Checks.ATTACHMENT 2. Register 47 (4920 : Council Approval of Commercial and 9.c Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: Council Approval of Commercial and Payroll Checks.ATTACHMENT 2. Register 47 (4920 : Council Approval of Commercial and 9.c Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: Council Approval of Commercial and Payroll Checks.ATTACHMENT 2. Register 47 (4920 : Council Approval of Commercial and 9.c Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: Council Approval of Commercial and Payroll Checks.ATTACHMENT 2. Register 47 (4920 : Council Approval of Commercial and 9.c Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: Council Approval of Commercial and Payroll Checks.ATTACHMENT 2. Register 47 (4920 : Council Approval of Commercial and 9.c Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: Council Approval of Commercial and Payroll Checks.ATTACHMENT 2. Register 47 (4920 : Council Approval of Commercial and 9.c Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: Council Approval of Commercial and Payroll Checks.ATTACHMENT 2. Register 47 (4920 : Council Approval of Commercial and 9.d Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: Council Approval of Commercial and Payroll Checks.ATTACHMENT 3. Register 48 (4920 : Council Approval of Commercial and 9.d Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: Council Approval of Commercial and Payroll Checks.ATTACHMENT 3. Register 48 (4920 : Council Approval of Commercial and 9.e Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: Council Approval of Commercial and Payroll Checks.ATTACHMENT 4. Payroll Checks (4920 : Council Approval of Commercial and 9.e Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: Council Approval of Commercial and Payroll Checks.ATTACHMENT 4. Payroll Checks (4920 : Council Approval of Commercial and 10.a Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: New Hope Summer Work Program.REPORT (4921 : New Hope Summer Work Program) 10.a Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: New Hope Summer Work Program.REPORT (4921 : New Hope Summer Work Program) 10.b Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: New Hope Summer Work Program.ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A (4921 : New Hope Summer Work Program) 10.b Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: New Hope Summer Work Program.ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A (4921 : New Hope Summer Work Program) 10.b Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: New Hope Summer Work Program.ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A (4921 : New Hope Summer Work Program) 10.b Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: New Hope Summer Work Program.ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A (4921 : New Hope Summer Work Program) 10.b Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: New Hope Summer Work Program.ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A (4921 : New Hope Summer Work Program) 10.b Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: New Hope Summer Work Program.ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A (4921 : New Hope Summer Work Program) 10.b Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: New Hope Summer Work Program.ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A (4921 : New Hope Summer Work Program) 10.b Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: New Hope Summer Work Program.ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A (4921 : New Hope Summer Work Program) 10.b Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: New Hope Summer Work Program.ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A (4921 : New Hope Summer Work Program) 10.b Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: New Hope Summer Work Program.ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A (4921 : New Hope Summer Work Program) 10.b Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: New Hope Summer Work Program.ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A (4921 : New Hope Summer Work Program) 10.b Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: New Hope Summer Work Program.ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A (4921 : New Hope Summer Work Program) 10.b Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: New Hope Summer Work Program.ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A (4921 : New Hope Summer Work Program) 10.b Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: New Hope Summer Work Program.ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A (4921 : New Hope Summer Work Program) 10.b Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: New Hope Summer Work Program.ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A (4921 : New Hope Summer Work Program) This page left blank intentionally 11.a Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Housing Divison Mgr Job Description.REPORT (4922 : Housing Division Manager (U) Job Description and Classification) 11.a Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Housing Divison Mgr Job Description.REPORT (4922 : Housing Division Manager (U) Job Description and Classification) 11.b Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Housing Divison Mgr Job Description.ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A (4922 : Housing Division Manager (U) Job Description and 11.b Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Housing Divison Mgr Job Description.ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A (4922 : Housing Division Manager (U) Job Description and 11.b Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Housing Divison Mgr Job Description.ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A (4922 : Housing Division Manager (U) Job Description and 11.b Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Housing Divison Mgr Job Description.ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A (4922 : Housing Division Manager (U) Job Description and 11.b Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Housing Divison Mgr Job Description.ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A (4922 : Housing Division Manager (U) Job Description and This page left blank intentionally 12.a Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Maintenance Worker III Job Description and Classification.REPORT (4923 : Maintenance Worker III Job Description and 12.a Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Maintenance Worker III Job Description and Classification.REPORT (4923 : Maintenance Worker III Job Description and 12.b Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Maintenance Worker III Job Description and Classification. ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A (4923 : Maintenance Worker III Job 12.b Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Maintenance Worker III Job Description and Classification. ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A (4923 : Maintenance Worker III Job 12.b Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Maintenance Worker III Job Description and Classification. ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A (4923 : Maintenance Worker III Job 12.b Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Maintenance Worker III Job Description and Classification. ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A (4923 : Maintenance Worker III Job 12.b Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Maintenance Worker III Job Description and Classification. ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A (4923 : Maintenance Worker III Job 12.b Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Maintenance Worker III Job Description and Classification. ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A (4923 : Maintenance Worker III Job 13.a Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Amendment Number One to CSA with Mary A Blais. REPORT (4925 : Amendment Number One to Consulting Services Agreement 13.a Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Amendment Number One to CSA with Mary A Blais. REPORT (4925 : Amendment Number One to Consulting Services Agreement 13.b Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Amendment Number One to CSA with Mary A Blais. ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A (4925 : Amendment Number One to 13.b Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Amendment Number One to CSA with Mary A Blais. ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A (4925 : Amendment Number One to 13.b Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Amendment Number One to CSA with Mary A Blais. ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A (4925 : Amendment Number One to 13.b Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Amendment Number One to CSA with Mary A Blais. ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A (4925 : Amendment Number One to 13.c Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Amendment Number One to CSA with Mary A Blais. ATTACHMENT 2 (4925 : Amendment Number One to Consulting Services 13.c Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Amendment Number One to CSA with Mary A Blais. ATTACHMENT 2 (4925 : Amendment Number One to Consulting Services 13.c Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Amendment Number One to CSA with Mary A Blais. ATTACHMENT 2 (4925 : Amendment Number One to Consulting Services 13.c Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Amendment Number One to CSA with Mary A Blais. ATTACHMENT 2 (4925 : Amendment Number One to Consulting Services 13.c Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Amendment Number One to CSA with Mary A Blais. ATTACHMENT 2 (4925 : Amendment Number One to Consulting Services 13.c Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Amendment Number One to CSA with Mary A Blais. ATTACHMENT 2 (4925 : Amendment Number One to Consulting Services 13.c Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Amendment Number One to CSA with Mary A Blais. ATTACHMENT 2 (4925 : Amendment Number One to Consulting Services 13.c Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Amendment Number One to CSA with Mary A Blais. ATTACHMENT 2 (4925 : Amendment Number One to Consulting Services 13.c Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Amendment Number One to CSA with Mary A Blais. ATTACHMENT 2 (4925 : Amendment Number One to Consulting Services This page left blank intentionally 14.a Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Board of State and Community Corrections Local Law Enforcement.REPORT (4926 : Board of State and Community Corrections 14.a Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Board of State and Community Corrections Local Law Enforcement.REPORT (4926 : Board of State and Community Corrections 14.b Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Board of State and Community Corrections Local Law Enforcement.ATTACHMENT 1 (4926 : Board of State and Community 14.b Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Board of State and Community Corrections Local Law Enforcement.ATTACHMENT 1 (4926 : Board of State and Community 15.a Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Temp-Part Time Employees.REPORT (4924 : Establishing a Basic Compensation Plan for Temporary/ Part - Time Officers And/Or 15.a Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Temp-Part Time Employees.REPORT (4924 : Establishing a Basic Compensation Plan for Temporary/ Part - Time Officers And/Or 15.a Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Temp-Part Time Employees.REPORT (4924 : Establishing a Basic Compensation Plan for Temporary/ Part - Time Officers And/Or 15.a Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Temp-Part Time Employees.REPORT (4924 : Establishing a Basic Compensation Plan for Temporary/ Part - Time Officers And/Or 15.b Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Temp-Part Time Employees. ATTACHMENT 1 (4924 : Establishing a Basic Compensation Plan for Temporary/ Part - Time Officers 15.b Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Temp-Part Time Employees. ATTACHMENT 1 (4924 : Establishing a Basic Compensation Plan for Temporary/ Part - Time Officers 15.b Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Temp-Part Time Employees. ATTACHMENT 1 (4924 : Establishing a Basic Compensation Plan for Temporary/ Part - Time Officers 15.b Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Temp-Part Time Employees. ATTACHMENT 1 (4924 : Establishing a Basic Compensation Plan for Temporary/ Part - Time Officers 16.a Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan. REPORT (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) 16.a Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan. REPORT (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) 16.a Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan. REPORT (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) 16.a Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan. REPORT (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) 16.a Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan. REPORT (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) 16.a Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan. REPORT (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) 16.a Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan. REPORT (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) 16.a Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan. REPORT (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) 16.a Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan. REPORT (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) I RESOLUTION NO. 2 RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL 3 IMPACT REPORT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2016031080) FOR GENERAL 4 PLAN AMENDMENT 16-01, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT (ZONING MAP AMENDMENT) 16-01 AND SPECIFIC PLAN 16-01 (RANCHO PALMA 5 SPECIFIC PLAN), SUBDIVISION 16-02 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 19701) AND SUBDIVISION 16-03 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 20006), AND ADOPTING THE 6 FINDINGS OF FACT AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING 7 PROGRAM PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT 8 WHEREAS, on February 17, 2016 pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 19.50 9 ( General Plan Amendments), Chapter 19.42 (Development Code Amendments), Chapter 10 19.64 (Specific Plans), and Chapter 19.66 (Subdivision Maps) of the City of San Bernardino 11 Development Code and California Government Code §65450, an application for General Plan 12 Amendment 16-01, Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 16-01, 13 Specific Plan 16-01, Subdivision 16-02 (Tentative Parcel Map 19701), and Subdivision 16-03 14 (Tentative Tract Map 20006) was duly submitted by: 15 Project Applicant: Strata Palma, LLC. 16 4370 La Jolla Village Dr., Suite 960 San Diego, CA 92122 17 18 WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment 16-01, Development Code Amendment Zoning Map Amendment) 16-01, Specific Plan 16-01, Subdivision 16-02 (Tentative Parcel 19 Map 19701) and Subdivision 16-03 (Tentative Tract Map 20006) is a request to allow the 20 change of the General Plan Land Use Designations and the Zoning Districts of the properties 21 contained within an area comprised of approximately 41. 6 acres in order to establish the 22 Rancho Palma Specific Plan, for the purpose of establishing two residential zones containing 23 a total of approximately 26.9 acres with a maximum build out of 120 residential units, a 24 commercial zone containing approximately 9.3 acres with a maximum build out of 98,000 25 square feet of commercial retail uses, open space zones containing approximately 5.4 acres 26 dedicated to the establishment of private parks, the expansion of an existing public park, a recreational vehicle parking lot, and the Cable Creek Channel in order to establish the Rancho 27 Palma Specific Plan; and 28 1 16.b Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) 1 WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code §21067 of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §21000 et seq.) (CEQA) and §15367 of 2 the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, §15000 et seq.), the City of 3 San Bernardino is the lead agency for proposed General Plan Amendment 16-01, 4 Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 16- 01, Specific Plan 16-01, 5 Subdivision 16-02 (Tentative Parcel Map 19701) and Subdivision 16-03 (Tentative Tract Map 6 20006); and 7 WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Division of 8 the Community Development Department of the City of San Bernardino determined that an 9 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should be prepared in order to analyze all potential 10 adverse environmental impacts of proposed General Plan Amendment 16- 01, Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 16-01, Specific Plan 16-01, Subdivision 16-02 11 ( Tentative Parcel Map 19701) and Subdivision 16- 03 (Tentative Tract Map 20006); and 12 WHEREAS, pursuant to §15082 of CEQA, the Planning Division of the Community 13 Development Department of the City of San Bernardino issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) 14 of a Draft EIR for proposed General Plan Amendment 16-01, Development Code Amendment 15 (Zoning Map Amendment) 16-01, Specific Plan 16-01, Subdivision 16-02 (Tentative Parcel 16 Map 19701) and Subdivision 16-03 (Tentative Tract Map 20006) on March 28, 2016, and 17 circulated the NOP for the CEQA-mandated thirty (30) day public review period and a public 18 scoping meeting was conducted on April 5, 2016 pursuant to the requirements of CEQA in order to allow the general public and other agencies with the opportunity to submit comments 19 as to the contents of the Draft EIR; and 20 WHEREAS, pursuant to §15087 of CEQA, the Planning Division of the Community 21 Development Department of the City of San Bernardino released a Notice of Completion of 22 the Draft EIR for proposed General Plan Amendment 16-01, Development Code Amendment 23 (Zoning Map Amendment) 16-01, Specific Plan 16-01, Subdivision 16-02 (Tentative Parcel 24 Map 19701) and Subdivision 16-03 (Tentative Tract Map 20006) on July 8, 2016 for the 25 CEQA-mandated forty-five (45) day public review and comment period; and 26 WHEREAS, pursuant to §15086 of CEQA, the Planning Division of the Community Development Department of the City of San Bernardino consulted with and requested 27 28 2 16.b Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) 1 comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory agencies, and other 2 during the CEQA-mandated forty-five (45) day public review and comment period; and WHEREAS, the Planning Division of the Community Development Department of 3 the City of San Bernardino received comment letters from Caltrans District 8, South Coast Air 4 Quality Management District, San Bernardino County Department of Public Works, and 5 SoCal Environmental Justice Alliance during the CEQA-mandated forty-five (45) day public 6 review and comment period; and 7 WHEREAS, pursuant to §15132 of CEQA, the applicant submitted and the Planning 8 Division of the Community Development Department of the City of San Bernardino accepted 9 the Final EIR for proposed General Plan Amendment 16-01, Development Code Amendment 10 ( Zoning Map Amendment) 16-01, Specific Plan 16-01, Subdivision 16-02 (Tentative Parcel Map 19701) and Subdivision 16-03 (Tentative Tract Map 20006), which consists of the 11 following: 1) the Public Review Draft EIR and technical studies, 2) the revised Draft EIR; 3) 12 responses to comments on the Draft EIR (including the comments submitted by SoCal 13 Environmental Justice Alliance, dated August 5, 2016); 4) CEQA Findings of Fact; and 5) the 14 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and 15 WHEREAS, on January 12, 2017 pursuant to the requirements of §19.64.040 of the 16 City of San Bernardino Development Code, the Development and Environmental Review 17 Committee reviewed the application and moved the Final EIR and General Plan Amendment 18 16- 01, Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 16-01, Specific Plan 16- 01, Subdivision 16-02 (Tentative Parcel Map 19701) and Subdivision 16-03 (Tentative Tract 19 Map 20006)to the Planning Commission for consideration; and 20 WHEREAS, on February 15, 2017 pursuant to the requirements of Chapters 19.42 21 (Development Code Amendments), 19.50 (General Plan Amendments), 19.52 (Hearings and 22 Appeals), 19.64 (Specific Plans), 19.66 (Subdivision Maps) and 19.74 (Zoning Map 23 Amendments) of the City of San Bernardino Development Code, the Planning Commission I 24 held the duly noticed public hearing at which interested persons had an opportunity to testify 25 in support of, or opposition to the Final EIR submitted by the applicant for General Plan 26 Amendment 16-01, Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 16-01, Specific Plan 16-01, Subdivision 16-02 (Tentative Parcel Map 19701), and Subdivision 16-03 27 Tentative Tract Map 20006), and 28 3 16.b Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) i I WHEREAS, during said duly noticed public hearing on February 15, 2017 for the Final EIR and General Plan Amendment 16-01, Development Code Amendment(Zoning Map 2 Amendment) 16-01, Specific Plan 16-01, Subdivision 16-02 (Tentative Parcel Map 19701) 3 and Subdivision 16-03 (Tentative Tract Map 20006), a representative of SoCal Environmental 4 Justice Alliance verbally reiterated a portion of the comments in their letter dated August 5, 5 2016; and 6 WHEREAS, the Planning Division of the Community Development Department of 7 the City of San Bernardino informed the Planning Commission that the Final EIR adequately 8 addresses all of the comments received on the Draft EIR (including the comments submitted 9 by the SoCal Environmental Justice Alliance, dated August 5, 2016); and WHEREAS, after closing said public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted 10 Resolution No. 2017-014 recommending to the Mayor and City Council the certification of 11 the Final EIR and the approval of General Plan Amendment 16-01, Development Code 12 Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 16-01, Specific Plan 16-01, Subdivision 16-02 13 (Tentative Parcel Map 19701) and Subdivision 16-03 (Tentative Tract Map 20006); and 14 WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 19.50 (General Plan 15 Amendments), Chapter 19.42 (Development Code Amendments), Chapter 19.64 (Specific 16 Plans), and Chapter 19.66 (Subdivision Maps) of the City of San Bernardino Development 17 Code, the Mayor and City Council have the authority to take action on the Final EIR and 18 General Plan Amendment 16-01, Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 16-01, Specific Plan 16- 01, Subdivision 16-02 (Tentative Parcel Map 19701) and Subdivision 19 16-03 (Tentative Tract Map 20006); and 20 WHEREAS, notice of the April 3, 2017 public hearing for the Mayor and City 21 Council's consideration of the proposed Resolution was published in The Sun newspaper on 22 March 24, 2017, in accordance with Development Code Chapter 19.52. 23 24 NOW THREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY 25 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO,AS FOLLOWS: 26 SECTION 1. The Mayor and City Council find that the above-stated Recitals are 27 true and hereby adopt and incorporate them herein. 28 4 16.b Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) I SECTION 2. The Mayor and City Council having independently reviewed and 2 analyzed the record before it, including the Final Environmental Impact Report and written and oral testimony, and having exercised their independent judgment, find that General Plan 3 Amendment 16-01, Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 16-01, Specific 4 Plan 16-01, Subdivision 16-02 (Tentative Parcel Map 19701), and Subdivision 16-03 (Tentative 5 Tract Map 20006) will have no significant adverse effect on the environment with the adoption 6 of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and find that the Final Environmental 7 Impact Report, as accepted by the Planning Commission as to the effects of the proposed General 8 Plan Amendment 16-01, Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 16-01, 9 Specific Plan 16-01, Subdivision 16-02 (Tentative Parcel Map 19701), and Subdivision 16- 03 10 ( Tentative Tract Map 20006), has been completed in compliance with CEQA and is hereby certified and incorporated herein by reference. 11 SECTION 4. The Mayor and City Council hereby adopt the CEQA Findings of Fact 12 (attached hereto as Exhibit A). 13 SECTION 5. The Mayor and City Council hereby adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and 14 Reporting Program (attached hereto as Exhibit Al). Implementation of the mitigation measures 15 contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is hereby made a condition of 16 approval of General Plan Amendment 16-01, Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map 17 Amendment) 16-01, Specific Plan 16-01, Subdivision 16-02 (Tentative Parcel Map 19701), and 18 Subdivision 16-03 (Tentative Tract Map 20006). In the event of any inconsistencies between the mitigation measures set forth in other documents, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting 19 Program shall control. 20 SECTION 6. General Plan Amendment 16-01, Development Code Amendment 21 (Zoning Map Amendment) 16-01 and Specific Plan 16-01, as may be approved by Ordinance, 22 is incorporated herein by reference. 23 SECTION 7. Subdivision 16-02 (Tentative Parcel Map 19701), and Subdivision 16- 24 03 (Tentative Tract Map 20006), as may be approved by resolution, is incorporated herein by 25 reference. SECTION 8. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings 26 on which this Resolution is based are located at the City of San Bernardino Community 27 28 5 16.b Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) I Development Department, 300 North "D" Street, 3rd Floor, San Bernardino, California, 2 92418. The custodian for these records is the Community Development Department. SECTION 9. The Planning Division of the Community Development Department is 3 hereby directed to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk of the County of San 4 Bernardino and State Clearinghouse within five working days of final project approval 5 certifying the City's compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act in certifying 6 the Final EIR. 7 SECTION 10. Severability: If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, or 8 clause or phrase in this Resolution or any part thereof is for any reason held to be 9 unconstitutional, invalid or ineffective by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision 10 shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the remaining portions of this Resolution or any part thereof. The Mayor and City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted each 11 section irrespective of the fact that any one or more subsections, subdivisions, sentences, 12 clauses, or phrases be declared unconstitutional, invalid, or ineffective. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 16.b Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) 1 RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO CALIFORNIA,CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL 2 IMPACT REPORT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2016031080) FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 16- 01, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT (ZONING 3 MAP AMENDMENT) 16-01 AND SPECIFIC PLAN 16-01 (RANCHO PALMA 4 SPECIFIC PLAN), SUBDIVISION 16-02 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 19701) AND SUBDIVISION 16-03 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 20006), AND ADOPTING THE 5 FINDINGS OF FACT AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA 6 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT 7 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Mayor 8 and City Council of the City of San Bernardino at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 9 day of 2017,by the following vote,to wit: 10 Council Members: AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENT 11 MARQUEZ 12 BARRIOS 13 VALDIVIA 14 SHORETT 15 NICKEL 16 RICHARD 17 MULVIHILL 18 19 Georgeann Hanna, CMC, City Clerk 20 21 The foregoing Resolution is hereby approved this day of 2017. 22 23 R. CAREY DAVIS, Mayor 24 Approved as to form: City of San Bernardino 25 Gary D. Saenz, City Attorney 26 By: 27 28 7 16.b Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) 1 EXHIBIT A CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT 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 8 16.b Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT FOR THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE RANCHO PALMA SPECIFIC PLAN STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2016031080 FINDINGS REGARDING LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS NOT REQUIRING MITIGATION Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21002.1 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15128, the EIR focused its analysis on potentially significant 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. Nevertheless, the City Council hereby finds that the project would have either no impact or a less than significant impact to the following resource areas: A. AESTHETICS 1. Scenic Vista Threshold: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Findiniz: Less than significant impact. (EIR, pp. 3.1-4 through 3.1-5) Explanation: No designated scenic vistas are identified in the City's General Plan or General Plan EIR. Several highways in the City's vicinity are eligible for designation as state scenic highways, thereby indicating that they are of scenic value, and offer the potential for travelers along these routes to experience scenic views. Views are dominated by the San Bernardino Mountains to the north, and the San Bernardino National Forest provides scenic value. However, as indicated in Section 5.1.1, Aesthetics, of the General Plan EIR, future development in the low-lying areas of the valley and foothills adjacent to the mountains would not impact scenic views provided by this backdrop. Additionally, the project as designed (i.e., one- to two-story structures) would result in relatively small-scale structural elements that would not adversely affect or substantially block existing views of these resources as the result of development. The project site is at a distance from the hillsides, is generally flat, and is not subject to the restrictions of the City's Hillside Management Overlay District. Therefore, the project would not adversely affect scenic views of the mountains in this regard and impacts would be less than significant. 2. Scenic Resources Threshold: Would the project substantially damage scenic resources including, but not limited to,trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 3.1-5) 1 16.b Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) Explanation: The General Plan identifies that several eligible state scenic highways occur in the vicinity of San Bernardino. However, no such roadways are officially designated; therefore, the project would not adversely affect any existing views from a designated state scenic highway. Route 66 is not designated as a National Scenic Byway in California. Therefore, although the project site may be visible from portions of this roadway, no adverse effects on a designated scenic resource would occur. Although views of the site may occasionally be afforded to travelers along portions of these roadways, such views would be distant from the site and further obscured by existing mature vegetation along the roadways, as well as by intervening topography (i.e., ridgelines). Further, if experienced, views from these roadways would occur across the valley floor. As such, the proposed development would visually blend in with existing development on surrounding lands, thereby minimizing its visibility in the landscape. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant. 3. Visual Character Threshold: Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR,pp. 3.1-6 through 3.1-8) Explanation: The project site located in an urbanized setting and is highly disturbed. No rock outcroppings are present on the site, and no historic buildings are located on the property or on adjoining lands. The proposed project is intended to allow the development of a mixed-use neighborhood that includes both housing and commercial services within walking distance to the future residents of Rancho Palma, as well as to the larger Verdemont Heights community. The Rancho Palma Specific Plan provides guidance for future development of the proposed project site, with respect for the City's intended vision for the area and as provided in the City's General Plan. It is anticipated that most, if not all, of the existing non-native olive trees that are present along the western property boundary would be removed with project implementation. These trees are not considered scenic resources. However, tree removal resulting from implementation of the proposed project would occur consistent with the City's Development Code (Section 19.28.100, Removal or Destruction of Trees). The project proposes incorporation of landscaping elements to enhance the visual appearance of the Rancho Palma development, as well as to partially screen views into the site from adjacent public roadways. Expansion of Ronald Reagan Park would involve dedication of approximately 0.5 acre of land to the City. Additionally, landscaping enhancements and monument signage are proposed for the entryways into the project site, both for the commercial and residential areas. A variety of wall and fencing designs are proposed for the perimeter and interior of the site. All future development on the site would be required to demonstrate conformance with the Rancho Palma Specific Plan. With compliance with such design measures and demonstrated consistency with the Specific Plan, Tentative Tract Map, and City General Plan and Municipal Code, project impacts would be less than significant. 2 16.b Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) i i 4. Light and Glare Threshold: Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, pp. 3.1-8 through 3.1-9) Explanation: All construction activities would be conducted in compliance with the City's Noise Control Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.54.070), which restricts construction activity to the hours of 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM, thereby limiting the potential need for nighttime lighting in support of construction activities. The proposed development activity would comply with the City ordinance with regard to nighttime lighting restrictions, so no adverse impacts from construction lighting or glare would occur. Light pollution in San Bernardino is regulated by Development Code Section 19.20.030, which specifies regulations for outdoor lighting with which all new development must comply. Conformance with the City's Development Code is enforced when building permit(s) are applied for. Adherence to the City's regulations would require that all exterior lighting is shielded or recessed so that direct glare and reflections are contained within the boundaries of a parcel and that such lighting is directed downward and away from adjoining properties and public rights-of- way. Conformance with the Development Code would ensure that project impacts relative to light and glare would be minimized and/or avoided. Additionally, Sections 4.3. 3, Lighting Design, and 5.6, Lighting, of the Rancho Palma Specific Plan specify lighting design methods for the proposed residential and commercial uses. Further, the Specific Plan encourages the use of low-contrast lighting and the use of low-voltage fixtures and energy-efficient bulbs to reduce the potential for adverse lighting effects. Proposed light fixtures located along the perimeter of the property would be shielded and directed downward to eliminate light pollution or spillover onto adjacent streets or neighboring properties. The Specific Plan also states that light pollution and lighting fixtures that create direct glare will be minimized through the use of low lighting profiles, recessed luminaires, and minimal luminance levels, where street light is cast downward. Lighting for on-premises advertising displays would also be shielded and focused to minimize light spillover into the night sky or onto adjacent properties. Project conformance with the City's Municipal Code and the Rancho Palma Specific Plan would reduce potential project effects with regard to lighting and glare to less than significant. B. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES 1.Farmland, Agricultural Zoning, Forestland Zoning, Loss of Forest Land, and Conversion Threshold: Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? Threshold: Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 3 16.b Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) Threshold: Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production? Threshold: Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Threshold: Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Finding: No impact. (EIR, p. 3.14-1) Explanation: The City of San Bernardino (and therefore, the project site) does not contain any active farmland or forestland, nor does it support trees that could be commercially harvested. These conditions preclude the possibility of the proposed project converting farmland to nonagricultural use or forestland to non-forest use. The project site is zoned CG-1 (Commercial General) and therefore is not zoned for agricultural use, nor is it subject to a Williamson Act contract. The project would have no impact relative to these thresholds. C. AIR QUALITY 1. Applicable Air Quality Plans Threshold: Would construction and/or operation of the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality? Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, pp. 3.2-11 through 3.2-12) Explanation: As part of its enforcement responsibilities, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires each state with nonattainment areas to prepare and submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that demonstrates the means to attain the federal standards. Similarly, under state law, the California Clean Air Act requires an air quality attainment plan to be prepared for areas designated as nonattainment with regard to the federal and state ambient air quality standards. Air quality attainment plans outline emissions limits and control measures to achieve and maintain these standards by the earliest practical date. The project site is located in the South Coast Air Basin, which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAQMD is required, pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act, to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants for which the air basin is in nonattainment. In order to reduce such emissions, the SCAQMD drafted the 2012 Air Quality Management Plan. The 2012 AQMP pollutant control strategies are based on the latest scientific and technical information and planning assumptions, including the 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories, and the Southern California Association of Governments' (SCAG) latest growth forecasts. 4 16.b Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) The determination of consistency with the AQMP is defined by two criteria. The violations to which Consistency Criterion No. I refer are the California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) and the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The project would not exceed construction or operational standards and therefore, would not violate air quality standards. Therefore, the proposed project would comply with Consistency Criterion No. 1. Concerning Consistency Criterion No. 2, the Air Quality Management Plan contains air pollutant reduction strategies based on SCAG's latest growth forecasts. The existing General Plan land use designation for the site is Commercial General (CG-1). This land use category is intended for local- and regional-serving retail, personal service, entertainment, office, and other related commercial uses. With approval of the Rancho Palma Specific Plan, the proposed land uses on the project site would be consistent with the City General Plan. Therefore, the development density and vehicle trip generation associated with the proposed project are not anticipated to be greater than the current assumptions contained in the City General Plan. Therefore,the proposed project would comply with Consistency Criterion No. 2. In summary, because the proposed project satisfies both of the two aforementioned criteria for determining consistency, the project would have less than significant impacts with regard to the applicable air quality plan. 2. Violation of Air Quality Standard Threshold: Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, pp. 3.2-13 through 3.2-16) Explanation: Construction Emissions Construction activities associated with the project will result in emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides Sox), and particulate matter (PMIo, and PM 2.5). Construction-related emissions are expected from site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, architectural coating, and construction workers commuting. Under the assumed scenarios, reactive organic gases (ROG), NO,, CO, SOX, and PM emissions resulting from project construction would not exceed applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance. (See EIR Table 3.2-5 [Emissions Summary of Construction].) Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur during construction activities. Operational Emissions Operational activities associated with the proposed project will result in emissions of ROG, NOX, CO, SOX, PM1o, and PM2.5. Operational emissions would be expected from the following primary sources: area source emissions, energy source emissions, and mobile source emissions. As discussed in the EIR, ROG, NO,, CO, SOX, and PM emissions resulting from 5 16.b Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) project operational activities would not exceed applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance for operational air pollutant emissions. (See EIR Table 3.2-6 [Summary of Peak Operational Emissions]). Therefore, operational air quality impacts would be less than significant. 3.Criteria Pollutants Threshold: Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, pp. 3.2-23 through 3.2-25) Explanation: The project area is designated as an extreme nonattainment area for ozone and a nonattainment area for PM10 and PM2.5. The South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) approach to assessing cumulative impacts is based on the AQMP forecasts of attainment of ambient air quality standards in accordance with the requirements of the federal and California Clean Air Acts. The SCAQMD has published a report on how to address cumulative impacts from air pollution titled White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution. In this report, the SCAQMD states: Projects that exceed the project-specific significance thresholds are considered by the SCAQMD to be cumulatively considerable. This is the reason project-specific and cumulative significance thresholds are the same. Conversely, projects that do not exceed the project-specific thresholds are generally not considered to be cumulatively significant. The project would not result in exceedances of any applicable thresholds which are designed to assist the region in attaining the applicable state and national ambient air quality standards. In addition, the proposed project would be consistent with the Air Quality Management Plan, which is intended to bring the South Coast Air Basin into attainment for all criteria pollutants, since the project-specific evaluation of emissions demonstrates that projected emissions would not exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds. Furthermore, the project would comply with SCAQMD's Rule 403 pertaining to fugitive dust control during construction, as well as with all other adopted AQMP emissions control measures. Per SCAQMD rules and mandates, as well as the CEQA requirement that significant impacts be mitigated to the extent feasible, these same requirements would also be imposed on all projects basin-wide. As such, cumulative impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. (EIR, pp. 3.2- 25 to 3.2-26) 4. Toxic Air Contaminant Concentrations Threshold: Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations? Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR,pp. 3.2-17 through 3.2-19) 6 16.b Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) Explanation: Development projects that involve numerous heavy-duty truck trips on-site create substantial quantities of diesel particulate matter (PM) emissions, and therefore can negatively affect sensitive land uses. In addition, projects that locate sensitive receptors (i.e., residential land uses) in proximity to a major freeway, such as Interstate 215, could result in the substantial exposure of sensitive receptors to diesel PM. The project is a mixed-use development where the proposed commercial land uses could potentially result in numerous heavy-duty delivery truck trips on-site. The proposed residential land uses could be negatively affected by diesel PM emissions from such heavy-duty delivery truck trips as well as traffic on Interstate 215, which is adjacent to the project site. Currently, emissions factors are generated from a series of computer-based programs to produce a composite emission rate for vehicles traveling at various speeds in a defined geographical area or along a discrete roadway segment. To account for the emissions standards imposed on the California fleet, the California Air Resources Board (CARE) developed the EMFAC2014 emission factor model. To produce a representative vehicle fleet distribution, the health risk assessment utilized CARB's San Bernardino County population estimates for the 2020 calendar year as a conservative measure. This approach provides an estimate of vehicle mix associated with operational profiles at the link or intersection level. Based on freeway traffic volumes and population profiles, discrete traffic counts were identified for each roadway segment. As discussed in the Mobile Source Air Toxic Health Risk Assessment completed for the proposed project, diesel vehicles account for 5.12 percent of the on-road mobile fleet. For chronic (long-term) and acute (e.g., 1-hour) exposures, annual average daily traffic values were averaged to produce representative hourly traffic volumes. (See Draft EIR Appendix 3.2- 2). These values will not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds. The project would have a less than significant impact in this regard. 5.Sensitive Receptors Threshold: Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, pp. 3.2-19 through 3.2-21) Explanation: Localized Significance—Construction Activity The analysis made use of methodology included in the SCAQMD Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. The SCAQMD has established that impacts to air quality are significant if there is a potential to contribute or cause localized exceedances of the federal and/or State ambient air quality standards (NAAQS/CAAQS). Collectively, these are referred to as localized significance thresholds (LSTs). LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard at the nearest residence or sensitive receptor. For this project, the appropriate Source Receptor Area (SRA) for the LST is the Central San Bernardino Valley 2 monitoring station (SRA 34). Since the project's maximum daily 7 16.b Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) disturbed acreage is less than five acres per day, the SCAQMD's localized significance threshold look-up tables were used in determining localized impacts. Emissions during construction activity would not exceed the SCAQMD's localized significance thresholds, and construction impacts would be less than significant. (See also EIR Table 3.2- 9). Localized Significance—Long-Term Operational Activity The proposed project involves the construction and operation of 120 single-family detached residential dwelling units and up to 98,000 square feet of commercial retail. According to SCAQMD localized significance threshold methodology, LSTs would apply to the operational phase of a proposed project if the project includes stationary sources or attracts mobile sources that may spend long periods queuing and idling at the site (e.g., warehouse or transfer facilities). The proposed project does not include such uses. Thus, due to the lack of stationary source emissions, no long-term localized significance threshold analysis is required. Impacts on sensitive receptors would be less than significant. 6.Sensitive Receptors—Carbon Monoxide Threshold: Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations—carbon monoxide? Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, pp. 3.2-22 through 3.2-23) Explanation: It has long been recognized that CO exceedances are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when vehicles are idling at intersections. With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations in the project vicinity have steadily declined. The proposed project would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO hot spot. CO hot spots are not an environmental impact of concern for the proposed project. The proposed project would not produce the volume of peak-hour traffic required to generate a CO hot spot. Localized air quality impacts related to mobile-source emissions would therefore be less than significant. 7.Odors Threshold: Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, pp. 3.2-23 through 3.2-25) Explanation: The potential for the project to generate objectionable odors has been considered. The project does not contain any land uses identified by the SCAQMD as typically associated with emissions of objectionable odors. Heavy-duty haul trucks used for commercial- related deliveries would emit odors associated with the burning of diesel fuel. However, such exhaust odors would dissipate quickly and are common in a suburban environment. The residential component of the project would also generate odors. Typical odor-producers in a residential environment include lawn mowers, barbecues, trash cans, and dumpsters. However, such odor sources are also common in a suburban environment and are unlikely to cause complaints. The proposed project would also be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 to 8 16.b Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) prevent occurrences of public nuisances. Rule 402 prohibits the discharge from any source that causes nuisance, annoyance, or discomfort to a considerable number of persons. Odors associated with the proposed project would be less than significant. D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 1. Riparian and Sensitive Habitat Threshold: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Findin : Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 3.3-12) Explanation: Sensitive habitats include (a) areas of special concern to resource agencies; b) areas which provide habitat for rare or endangered species which meet the definition of Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines; (c) areas designated as sensitive natural communities by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW); (d) areas outlined in Fish and Game Code Section 1600; and (e) areas regulated under Clean Water Act Section 404. There are no sensitive habitats within the project area. Project-related activities would not adversely affect riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the CDFW or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). No drainages, stream courses, or other natural water features occur within the boundaries of the project site. The project is anticipated to have a less than significant impact on riparian habitat and sensitive natural communities. 2. Wetlands Threshold: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 3.3-13) Explanation: The proposed project does not result in any substantial adverse effects to jurisdictional features. There are jurisdictional waters within the project site. Much of the northern boundary of the project site abuts the levee of the south side of Cable Creek, and an approximately 475-foot long stretch of Cable Creek is located within the northeastern corner of the project site. Cable Creek is an ephemeral stream tributary to Cajon Wash. The creek stretch is adjacent to and within the project site consists of improved and maintained channel. Cable Creek is a jurisdictional water subject to the Clean Water Act and the Fish and Game Code under the jurisdictions of the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and the CDFW, respectively. The project proposes to make minor modifications, as necessary, to ensure that the flows remain within the banks of Cable Creek; however, no modifications to Cable Creek are proposed as part of the project. Therefore, the 9 16.b Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) proposed project would not result in any substantial adverse effects to jurisdictional features, and impacts would be less than significant. 3. Migratory Fish and Wildlife Threshold: Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 3.3-14) Explanation: The Biological Resources Report prepared for the project did not identify any wildlife corridors within the boundaries of the project site, largely due to the limited size of the site and its location within a highly-urbanized area. Available data on movement corridors and linkages was accessed via the CDFW BIOS 5 Viewer. Therefore, no native resident, migratory fish, or wildlife species or established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors are present on-site or in the project vicinity, nor would the project impede any use of native wildlife nursery sites. Impacts are considered less than significant. 4. Local Policies or Ordinances Threshold: Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, pp. 3.3-14 through 3.3-15) Explanation: The City of San Bernardino Municipal Code includes a requirement for street trees. However, these provisions are intended for new trees to be planted along roadways and in other public places in the City in conformance with the street tree master plan (Municipal Code Section 12.40.030). Development Code Section 19.28.100 (Removal or Destruction of Trees) includes provisions pertaining to the removal of mature trees that require a City permit when five or more trees need to be cut down, uprooted, destroyed, or removed within a 36-month period. An arborist survey and report may be required at the developer's expense to evaluate existing trees prior to the issuance of a tree removal permit, as determined by the Director of Community Development. The project would remove on-site trees. As such, a tree removal permit is required as part of the development package and prior to any ground-breaking construction. Since a tree removal permit is a requirement, impacts related to tree removal are less than significant. 5. Adopted Habitat Conservation Plans Threshold: Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Finding: No impact. (EIR, p. 3.3-15) 10 16.b Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) Explanation: There are no adopted or draft habitat conservation plans or natural community conservations plans for the City of San Bernardino. No other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan applies to the project site or its vicinity. Therefore,the proposed project would result in no conflicts with such plans and would have no impact. E. GEOLOGY AND SOILS 1. Fault Rupture and Ground Shaking Threshold: Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Threshold: Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, pp. 3. 5- 8 through 3.5-9) Explanation: Although no active faults traverse the project site, the project site is situated in between and within proximity (less than 2 miles) to the San Andreas and San Jacinto fault systems, both of which are delineated as Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones. The project site is susceptible to primary and secondary hazards related to seismic activity. All new development and redevelopment is required to comply with the California Building Code (CBC), which includes design criteria for seismic loading and other geologic hazards. Thus, while shaking impacts could be potentially damaging, they would also tend to be reduced in their structural effects due to CBC criteria that recognize this potential. The CBC includes provisions for buildings to structurally survive an earthquake without collapsing and includes measures such as anchoring to the foundation and structural frame design. Additionally, the geotechnical study prepared for the project recommends that building structure and improvements be designed using Site Class D and includes seismic design parameters in accordance with the CBC. Further, the City's General Plan includes policies designed to prevent the loss of life, serious injuries, and major disruption caused by the collapse of or severe damage to vulnerable buildings in an earthquake. Finally, the City codifies the report and application of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Section 15.04.120 of the City of San Bernardino Municipal Code). These requirements, along with adherence to the City's Municipal Code, would reduce impacts to less than significant. 2. Liquefaction Threshold: Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Findiniz: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 3.5-9) 11 16.b Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) Explanation: According to the geotechnical study prepared for the project, and previous geotechnical investigations on the site, groundwater is estimated to be at approximately 200 feet below ground surface; however some alluvial soil layers below the level of the high historic groundwater could be prone to settlement during a seismic event. (See Draft EIR Appendix 3.5-1 Geocon West, 2015].) To minimize potential impacts associated with seismically induced liquefaction, future development would be designed in accordance with CBC requirements. The project applicant will have to demonstrate to planning and engineering staff that the recommendations of the geotechnical study prepared for the project site have been incorporated into project design and that the project complies with all applicable CBC requirements. Adherence to CBC requirements and the incorporation of recommendations outlined in the geotechnical study would reduce impacts to less than significant. 3. Loss of Topsoil Threshold: Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR,pp. 3.5-10 through 3.5-11) Explanation: All construction activities related to the proposed project would be subject to compliance with the California Building Code. Additionally, all allowed development associated with the proposed project would be subject to compliance with the requirements set forth in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water General Construction Permit for construction activities. Compliance with the CBC and the NPDES would minimize effects from erosion and ensure consistency with Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements, which establish water quality standards for the groundwater and surface water of the region. Additionally, as part of the approval process, prior to grading plan approval, the project applicant will be required to comply with San Bernardino Municipal Code Chapter 8.80, Storm Water Drainage System, which establishes requirements for stormwater and non-stormwater quality discharge and control that requires new development or redevelopment projects to control stormwater runoff by implementing appropriate best management practices (BMPs) to prevent deterioration of water quality. The displacement of soil through cut and fill will be controlled by Chapter 33 of the 2013 California Building Code relating to grading and excavation, other applicable building regulations, and standard construction techniques; therefore, there will be no significant impact. 4. Landslides and Unstable Soils Threshold: Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving landslides? Threshold: Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? 12 16.b Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) Threshold: Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR,p. 3.5-11) Explanation: The project site is not at risk for landslide, collapse, or rockfall because of the relatively level terrain of the site and surrounding developed properties. Additionally, as part of future development of Rancho Palma, the project site would be graded and the areas underlying the building pads would be soil engineered in accordance with the recommendations of a design-level geotechnical study and the requirements of the CBC. These practices would ensure that proposed structures are located on stable soils and geologic units and would not be susceptible to settlement or ground failure. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 5. Expansive Soils Threshold: Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR,p. 3.5-12) Explanation: Soils tests on the project site are classified to have very low expansion potential. However, soils used near finish grade may have a different Expansion Index. Therefore, soils with higher expansion potential could be present on the project site. As such, the geotechnical study prepared for the project includes requirements for development consistent with the soil conditions found on the project site and are based on a very low expansion potential for the supporting material as determined by California Building Code (CBC) Chapter 18. The City also requires that site-specific soils reports accompany parcel map and building permit application requirements (Municipal Code § 19.66.120), which ensures that the type of building proposed is consistent with the actual soils present on the proposed building location. Additionally, the City evaluates each foundation plan separately using information from the building permit and the site-specific soils analysis. Based on on-site conditions and development requirements outlined in the CBC and Municipal Code, impacts associated with expansive soils are considered less than significant. 6.Septic Tanks Threshold: Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Findin : Less than significant impact(EIR, pp. 3.13- 18 through 3.13-19) Explanation: The project will construct an 8-inch sewer line within the local streets that will connect to an existing 15-inch sewer line in Little League Drive. The use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems is not required. Impacts associated with soils incapable of adequately supporting such alternative systems would be less than significant. 13 16.b Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) F. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 1. Direct and Indirect Emissions Threshold: Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Findin : Less than significant impact. (EIR,pp. 3.6-9 through 3.6-11) Explanation: The proposed project's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were calculated using CaIEEMod version 2013.2.2, which was developed in coordination with the South Coast Air Quality Management District and is the most current emissions model approved for use in California by various other air districts. The proposed project would result in direct emissions of GHGs from construction. The project is compared with the efficiency-based threshold of 4.8 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) per service population (residents plus employees) per year by the year 2020. In addition, the S CAQMD-recommended threshold of 3.0 metric tons of CO2e per service population per year in 2035 was used to assess the project's impacts to the post-2020 GHG reduction goals in California, identified in Governor's Executive Order B-30-15 (2015) and Executive Order 5-03- 05 (2005). The SCAQMD's approach is to identify the emissions level for which a project would not be expected to substantially conflict with existing California legislation adopted to reduce statewide GHG emissions. For the purposes of this project, the service population for the commercial uses would be the employees, the customers, and the vendors. The proposed commercial uses would generate approximately 6,702 trips per day. In order to provide a conservative analysis, an internal capture value of 505 and pass-by reduction value of 2,107 are subtracted from the commercial trip generation. As such, the proposed commercial uses would generate 4,090 trips per day. The total number of trips per day is divided by two to derive 2,045 employees, customers, and vendors. According to the California Department of Finance, the average people per household in the City of San Bernardino is 3.49; therefore, the proposed project would contain 419 residents (3.49 people/house x 120 houses). Based on these estimates, the proposed project service population would be 2,464 ( 419 residents 2,045 employees). Dividing the GHG emissions for each time period yields a metric ton per service population ratio of 8.3 for year 2020 conditions and 8.0 for year 2035 conditions, thus not surpassing the significance thresholds. The proposed project's contribution to cumulative impacts related to commercial trip generation would be less than cumulatively considerable. EIR, pp. 3.6-9 through 3.6-11) 2.Conflicts with Applicable Plans, Policies, and Regulations Threshold: Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, pp. 3.6-12 through 3.6-16) Explanation: Assembly Bill (AB) 32 requires California to reduce its greenhouse gas GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. CARB identified reduction measures to achieve this 14 16.b Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) goal as set forth in the CARB Scoping Plan. Thus, projects that are consistent with the CARB Scoping Plan are also consistent with the reduction targets required by AB 32. The proposed project will not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of AB 32. Also, the project does not conflict with the stated goals of SCAG's 2016- 2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). For these reasons, the proposed project would not interfere with SCAG's ability to implement the regional strategies outlined in the RTP/SCS. The San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (Partnership's Reduction Plan) was created in accordance with AB 32, which established a GHG limit for California and includes an inventory of GHG emissions and developed reduction measures that are jurisdiction-specific. In the Partnership's Reduction Plan, the City of San Bernardino selected a goal to reduce community GHG emissions 15 percent below the City's 2008 GHG emissions levels by 2020. In order to achieve this goal, the City is in the process of establishing a Sustainability Master Plan (SMP). The draft SMP, prepared in 2012, comprises measures that, when implemented, will enable the City to reduce its GHG emissions from City operations and the community. While the SMP has not yet been finalized or adopted, no aspect of the proposed project would conflict with the draft SMP measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The project represents infill development and consists of a mix of land uses, which reinforces a compact urban form and increases the viability of walking, biking, and transit. For the reasons stated above, the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Impacts would be less than significant. G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 1. Hazardous Emissions near an Existing or Proposed School Threshold: Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Findin : Less than significant impact. (EIR,pp. 3.7-11 through 3.7-12) Explanation: The project site is approximately 0.17 mile from Cesar E. Chavez Middle School, which is located at 6650 North Magnolia Avenue. The project proposes residential and commercial uses, neither of which are incompatible land uses near a school. Limited amounts of hazardous materials may be generated by such uses, but would be typical of standard operational characteristics (i.e. use of pesticides, cleaning supplies, oils and/or fuels from maintenance vehicles and equipment, etc.). Additionally, project-related environmental and development documents have been and will continue to be circulated to the San Bernardino City Unified School District (SBCUSD) for review and comment as required by local ordinance and state law. Communication with the school district, and the fact that the residential and commercial development is not anticipated to emit any hazardous substances ensure that this impact is less than significant. 15 16.b Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) 2. Emergency Plans Threshold: Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 3.7-12) Explanation: City Development Code Section 19.30.200 requires that a tentative tract or parcel map provide for at least two different standard routes for ingress and egress. The proposed project meets this requirement with access via the proposed driveways on (future) Magnolia Avenue and along West Little League Drive. Per the City's subdivision ordinance, all roadway improvements must be constructed prior to occupancy of the site. Little League Drive will be improved as part of the proposed project, which will help with traffic during an emergency. The improvements will widen the pavement to allow for parking and resurfacing of the roadway. The City requires a traffic control plan as part of development plans for all land division. Any blockage of the roadway for construction purposes, such as road reconstruction and pipeline connection or other utilities, will be noticed and advertised to all emergency responders. Once operational, the roadway will be left unimpaired by the development. Through compliance with City regulations, this impact would be less than significant. 3. Wildland Fires Threshold: Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR,p. 3.7-13) Explanation: The proposed project site is located on Urban and Built-Up Land with residential and recreational uses surrounding the project site. However, according to the City of San Bernardino Hazard Mitigation Plan, based on the City's geographical location, topography, terrain, and climate, wildfires are a problem in the City. The proposed project would be subject to compliance with the 2013 California Building Code (or most current version) and 2013 California Fire Code, which would aid in reducing the demand on fire protection service by requiring fire protection detection systems, proper fire flow, and use of appropriate construction materials. In addition, the project design would be required to conform to conditions provided by the local Fire Department to ensure that potential hazards relative to exposure of people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires would be reduced to less than significant. 4. Known Hazardous Materials Sites Threshold: Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 16 16.b Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) Finding: No impact. (EIR, pp. 3.7-8 through 3.7-11) Explanation: As required by Government Code Section 65962.5, CalEPA develops an annual update to the Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) List, which is a planning document providing information about the location of hazardous materials release sites. The DTSC is also responsible for updating information contained in the Cortese List. As search of government hazardous materials databases completed for the project determined that no reported hazardous materials sites are located on the project site. Thus, no impact would occur in this regard. 5.Safety Hazards near Airports Threshold: Would the project, for a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Threshold: For a project in the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Finding: No impact. (EIR, p. 3.14-2) Explanation: San Bernardino International Airport is located at the southeastern edge of the City, approximately 10.6 miles from the project site. No land use compatibility plan currently exists for the airport. Additionally, the proposed project is not located within two miles of a public airport or in the vicinity of a private airport. Therefore, the project would have no impact relative to these thresholds. H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 1. Water Quality Standards Threshold: Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Threshold: Would the project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Threshold: Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, pp. 3.8-9 through 3.8-13) Explanation: Project Construction Construction grading, excavation, and other construction activities associated with the proposed project could impact water quality due to sheet erosion resulting from exposed soils 17 16.b Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) and subsequent deposition of particles and pollutants in drainage areas. The significance of these water quality impacts would vary depending on the level of construction activity, weather conditions, soil conditions, and increased sedimentation of drainage systems in the area. Construction controls to minimize water quality impacts are not necessarily the same measures used for long-term water quality management, since construction-related water quality control measures are temporary in nature and specific to the type of construction. Development would be subject to compliance with the City's Municipal Code, Chapter 8.80, Storm Water Drainage System, and NPDES requirements. These requirements may include practices to stabilize soil, to protect soil in its existing location, preserving existing vegetation, hydroseeding, collection of soil before it leaves the site, street sweeping, fiber rolls, silt fencing, sand bags, watering exposed soils, etc. In addition, construction sites with one acre or greater of soil disturbance or less than one acre, but part of a greater common plan of development, would be required to apply for coverage of discharges under the General Construction Permit (Order No. 2009- 0009-DWQ). As part of its compliance, a Notice of Intent (NOI) would need to be prepared and submitted to the Santa Ana RWQCB providing notification and intent to comply with the General Permit. The Construction General Permit also requires that construction sites be inspected before and after storm events and every 24 hours during extended storm events. With the incorporation of these Best Management Practices, through the City's regulations, and the NPDES, impacts would be less than significant. Project Operation The proposed project would have long-term effects on runoff once development is complete. Runoff from disturbed areas would likely contain silt and debris, resulting in a long- term increase in the sediment load of the storm drain system serving the City. Substances such as oils, fuels, paints, and solvents may be transported to nearby drainages, watersheds, and groundwater in stormwater runoff and wash water. The significance of these water quality impacts would vary depending on weather conditions, soil conditions, and increased sedimentation of drainage systems in the area. The proposed project will install a water line in Little League Drive, which will connect to an existing 24-inch water line located just south of the Magnolia Avenue/Little League Drive intersection, to an existing 16-inch water line located adjacent to the proposed commercial development, north of Palm Avenue. A looped 8-inch water system in the proposed project streets will provide water to the residential units, while another looped water system will provide water to the commercial development. The project's on-site drainage system will direct stormwater from both residential and commercial sources to a storm drainage system that consists of five proposed catch basins and then into one of two infiltration basins. The actual capacity of the basins, as designed, exceeds the anticipated requirements (cubic feet) for accommodating stormwater runoff from the site. Both basins are designed to properly manage and retain on-site flows before those flows are transported off-site into Cable Creek. Runoff from the residential area would ultimately be conveyed into a proposed pipe system offsite in Little League Drive that would carry flows into 18 16.b Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) Cable Creek. The commercial area would direct stormwater runoff through the parking and circulation areas to the southern portion of the project site into a proposed infiltration basin. The collected flows would join the pipe system coming from the residential area and flow into the existing storm drainage line in Little League Drive. The current storm drain line in Little League Drive extends to an outfall at the crossing of Cable Creek by Palm Avenue. Additionally, as part of the proposed project, the existing 36-inch outfall would be increased to accommodate a 48- inch outfall. Additionally, implementation of best management practices identified in the project's water quality management plan and compliance with existing federal, state, and local regulations as discussed above would protect water quality and ensure compliance with applicable water quality standards. Impacts would be less than significant. 2.Groundwater Supplies Threshold: Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level? Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, pp. 3. 8-13 through 3.8-14) Explanation: The project will pave over a site that is likely not a significant recharge feature for the local area. Some of the stormwater runoff will percolate into the soil from the basins, while the rest of it will be guided to the Cable Creek Channel. The channel is unlined and along with downstream water channels, helps with area recharge. The zoning of the site was evaluated in the City's Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and, as a commercial zone, was anticipated to have more pavement and coverage of impervious surfaces than is proposed with the project. As the project will not result in a groundwater well and will provide greater opportunity for recharge than is projected in the UWMP, this impact would be less than significant. 3. Existing Drainage Patterns and Runoff Threshold: Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Threshold: Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off- site? Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, pp. 3.8-14 through 3. 8-15) Explanation: The site will be graded, and parcel and open space improvements will be designed to drain to the existing and proposed streets, flood control channels, storm drains, and catch basins. The proposed drainage on the site would not channel runoff on exposed soils, 19 16.b Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) would not direct flows over unvegetated soils, and would not otherwise increase the erosion or siltation potential of the site or any downstream areas. The proposed project is subject to NPDES requirements and compliance with the water quality management plan. The buildings and parking areas will channel the drainage into underground pipes, leading to retention areas before continuing to the existing drainage course to Little League Drive. The addition of impervious surfaces to the project site would increase flow rates, potentially increasing erosion. However, runoff is proposed to be routed to the infiltration basins and ultimately Cable Creek. This proposed drainage system would slow runoff velocities, allow sediment to settle out of the water, and capture trash and debris collected in the system. Furthermore, the required stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) for the project would include best management practices designed to prevent erosion both during and after construction. While the proposed project will alter the existing drainage pattern, the alterations are specifically designed to meet state and federal water quality standards and designed to ensure that the stormwater flow does not result in flooding, substantial erosion or siltation. Impacts would be less than significant. 4. Housing and Flows in Flood Zones Threshold: Would the project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Threshold: Would the project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, pp. 3.8-15 through 3.8-16) Explanation: According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel 06071C7930H, the project site is designated as Zone X, indicating that the site is in an area identified by FEMA as X Other Flood Areas. The designation estimates a 0.2 percent potential for flooding during a 100-year storm event. The project site is west of the Cable Creek Channel that is provisionally accredited by the US Army Corps of Engineers. The provisional accreditation means that the levee could be "decertified" at a later date, resulting in the area being mapped in a different flood zone. Chapter 19.16 of the City of San Bernardino Municipal Code regulates construction in FIRM flood zones. If the levee were to be decertified, the map would be revised to indicate the appropriate flood zone. The proposed project would construct homes and buildings adjacent to the Cable Creek Channel, but would not result in any in-channel construction that could impede or redirect flood flows. The proposed project is outside of the 100-year flood zone and would not impede any future construction that may be required to ensure flood protection for the site. 5. Flooding,Dams, and Levees Threshold: Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 20 16.b Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) Finding: No impact. (EIR, p. 3. 8-8) Explanation: Dam inundation areas are identified in Draft EIR Figure 3.8-2, which shows the dam inundation areas in the City as a result of failure of the Seven Oaks Dam upstream. The project site is not located within any dam inundation hazard zone. No impact would occur. 6.Seiche, Tsunami, and Mudflow Threshold: Would the project expose people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Finding: No impact. (EIR, p. 3.8-8) Explanation: The project site is not located near any large inland bodies of water or the Pacific Ocean so as to be inundated by seiches or tsunamis, nor is the project site located on or near steep slopes where rapid erosion could trigger mudflows. As such, the potential for inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow is nonexistent. No impact would occur. I.LAND USE AND PLANNING 1.Conflict with Plans Threshold: Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Finding: No impact. (EIR, pp. 3.9-3 through 3.9-5) Explanation: The proposed project would be consistent with key provisions of the City's General Plan Land Use Element, including Policy 2.1.3 and Policy 2.2.1. The proposed project serves to further each of these key policies by providing a compatible balance of different residential and commercial uses, respecting the existing character of the community, and including new commercial uses specifically designed to serve neighboring residential uses. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan upon City approval of the Rancho Palma Specific Plan. Existing zoning for the site is Commercial General (CG-1). Varying commercial land uses are allowed with approval of a Development Permit. Because commercial uses are currently allowed under existing conditions, a zone reclassification to change the underlying land use or zoning from CG-1 is not required or proposed. However, certain commercial uses that are conditionally permitted in the CG-1 zone of the City's Development Code (Chapter 19.06) would require City approval of a conditional use permit (CUP). There are no adopted habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans in San Bernardino. There are also no approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans within the City. Future development on the project site would occur consistent with the Rancho 21 16.b Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) Palma Specific Plan and would therefore not conflict with such a plan adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project. No impact would occur. 2. Habitat Conservation Plans Threshold: Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Finding: No impact. (EIR p. 3.14-2) Explanation: There is no habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan that affects or is adjacent to the project site. Therefore, the project would have no impact. 3. Divide a Community Threshold: Would the project physically divide an established community? Finding: No impact. (EIR p. 3.14-2) Explanation: Because the project site is vacant and is generally surrounded by existing development and will not obstruct traffic or public trails, the proposed project would not physically divide an established community. No impact would occur. J. MINERAL RESOURCES 1. Known and Locally Important Resources Threshold: Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? Threshold: Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site, delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Finding: No impact. (EIR pp. 3.14-2 through 3.14-3) Explanation: The City's General Plan includes goals and policies aimed at the long-term preservation of mineral resources within the City boundaries and the Sphere of Influence. The General Plan also identifies a range of allowed land use types relative to industrial-related employment uses, such as manufacturing, distribution, research and development, office, and mineral extraction, at a range of intensities. The General Plan land use category of Industrial Extractive (IE) allows mineral, sand, and gravel extraction with an approved Mineral Reclamation Plan, in accordance with the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA). This land use does not apply to the subject property or any adjoining lands. The 22 16.b Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) site has not been historically used for mineral resource extraction, nor is it intended for such purposes. Therefore, the project would have no impact relative to these thresholds. K. NOISE 1. Groundborne Vibration and Noise Threshold: Would the project expose people to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, pp. 3.10-26 through 3.10-27) Explanation: Construction A large bulldozer represents the peak source of vibration with a reference level of 87 vibration decibels (VdB) at a distance of 25 feet. At distances ranging from 151 to 878 feet from the project site, construction vibration levels are expected to range from 40.6 to 63.6 VdB. Using the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) construction vibration assessment methods, the project site would not include or require equipment, facilities, or activities that would result in a perceptible human response (annoyance). Project construction is therefore not expected to generate vibration levels exceeding the FTA's maximum acceptable vibration standard of 80 VdB. Further, impacts at the site of the closest sensitive receptor are unlikely to be sustained during the entire construction period, but would rather be limited to times that heavy construction equipment is operating adjacent to the project site boundary. Therefore, the potential for the project to result in exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive groundborne vibration during construction would be less than significant. Operation Although the operation of large delivery vehicles and loading docks, or other similar activities that may occur with the commercial uses, may result in limited vibrations, such occurrences would be sporadic and intermittent. Further, such activities would generally be distanced from residential land uses. The nearest sensitive receptor location is the residential community located approximately 151 feet east of the project site. Although such activities may generate noise, they would not be expected to result in the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Impacts would be less than significant. 2. Ambient Noise Levels—Permanent Threshold: Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, pp. 3.10-27 through 3.10-30) 23 16.b Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) Explanation: To quantify the project's traffic noise impacts on the surrounding areas, the changes in traffic noise levels on 32 roadway segments surrounding the project were calculated based on the changes in the average daily traffic volumes. The noise contours were used to assess the project's incremental traffic-related noise impacts at land uses adjacent to roadways conveying project traffic. The off-site traffic noise analysis shows that the project's noise level contributions would be less than significant under with-project conditions in each of the six time frames: Existing, Existing plus Ambient (2018), Existing plus Ambient (2019), Opening Year Cumulative (2018), Opening Year Cumulative (2019), and Year 2035 conditions. Further, the project's incremental traffic-related noise level at land uses adjacent to roadways conveying project traffic will diminish over time. This decrease occurs as the background traffic on the study area roadway segments increases and the project represents a smaller percentage of the overall traffic volume. Therefore, the project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Impacts would be less than significant. 3. Ambient Noise Levels—Temporary or Periodic Threshold: Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, pp. 3.10-39 through 3.10-40) Explanation: The unmitigated construction noise levels (peak noise level operating at a single point nearest the sensitive receiver location) would range from 54.7 to 70.0 dBA Leq. In conformance with City Municipal Code Section 8.54.070, noise-generating project construction activities would not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. While the City establishes limits on the hours during which construction activity may take place, it does not identify specific limits for construction noise levels. Section 8.54.060(I), Exemptions, of the Noise Control Ordinance indicates that project construction noise levels are considered exempt from the provisions of the ordinance. Therefore, if project construction only occurs during the hours permitted in the Noise Control Ordinance, project construction noise levels will be exempt from the ordinance. Additionally, construction-related noise would tend to diminish as the use of heavy equipment in the early construction stages concludes and would dissipate entirely at the end of construction activities. Given the sporadic and variable nature of project construction and the implementation of noise limits specified in the Municipal Code, noise impacts would be less than significant. However, to further reduce the potential for noise impacts and nuisances, Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would be implemented to incorporate best management practices during construction. Implementation of the measure would ensure that the project would not result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels that exist without the project. Impacts would be reduced less than significant. 24 16.b Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) 4. Public Airports Threshold: Would the project cause for a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Finding: No impact. (EIR, pp. 3.10-40 and 3.14-3) Explanation: The airport nearest to the project site is San Bernardino International Airport, located approximately 10.6 miles from the project site. According to the General Plan EIR, a Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) and Airport Master Plan have not yet been adopted for the airport. As such, the project site is not currently located within the boundaries of an airport land use plan and is not within any noise contours of San Bernardino International Airport. Therefore, the project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. 5. Private Airstrips Threshold: For a project in the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project cause exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Finding: No impact. (EIR, pp. 3.10-41 and 3.14-3) Explanation: The project site is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip, as no private airports are located in or adjacent to the City's boundaries. According to the General Plan EIR, there are five private helipads located in the City's planning area. However, due to the nature of the project setting (urbanized) and the proposed land uses (residential and commercial), the proposed development is not anticipated to result in substantial new levels of noise in the project area. As such, the project would not result in the exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. L. POPULATION AND HOUSING 1. Population Growth Threshold: Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and business) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Findin : Less than significant impact. (EIR,pp. 3.11-3 through 3.11-4) Explanation: The proposed project would include 120 additional single-family dwelling units, which would add approximately 419 people to the City's population (3.49 persons per household x 120 dwelling units). In addition, the proposed project will develop an appropriately sized neighborhood commercial center that provides a mix of retail uses with employment growth and increased sales tax for San Bernardino. 25 16.b Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) The City of San Bernardino General Plan projected the City's total population to be 319,241 at buildout. The increase in population as a result of the proposed project would account for approximately one percent of the population growth under the General Plan. The anticipated growth has been planned for in the General Plan, and the residential land use proposed with the project would be an allowed use under the existing zoning with City approval of the Rancho Palma Specific Plan. The project would therefore not induce substantial population growth, either directly or indirectly. 2. Displacement of Housing and People Threshold: Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Threshold: Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Finding: No impact. (EIR,p. 3.14-3) Explanation: The project site is vacant; therefore, no structures will be removed or any existing residents displaced as a result of project implementation. As such, the project would have no impact related to these thresholds. M. PUBLIC SERVICES 1.Fire Services and Emergency Medical Services Threshold: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protection? Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, pp. 3.13-25 through 3.13-26) Explanation: The San Bernardino City Fire Department provides fire protection and safety services in the City. The future development within the project area is anticipated to result in increased calls and demands for fire protection services, which may create a need for additional fire protection services, personnel, and/or facilities. However, the required Fire Suppression fees overseen by the City Engineering Department and taxes paid by the project applicant would adequately mitigate the expected increase in fire protection and emergency medical service demand. The proposed project would also be subject to compliance with the 2013 California Building Code (or most current version) and 2013 California Fire Code, which would aid in reducing the demand on fire protection service by requiring fire protection detection systems, proper fire flow, and use of appropriate construction materials. Compliance with measures established by federal, state, and local regulations would maintain acceptable service ratios and response times for fire protection services. Accordingly, implementation of the 26 16.b Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) proposed project would not result in the need to construct a new fire station or physically alter an existing station. Therefore, impacts to fire protection services would be less than significant. 2. Police Protection Threshold: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for police protection? Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, pp. 3.13-26 through 3.13-27) Explanation: The San Bernardino Police Department currently includes 312 sworn officers and another 150 civilian support staff, approximately 1.5 sworn officers per 1,000 people and 0.7 civilian support staff per 1,000 people. The department operates under a mutual aid agreement with police agencies in the surrounding cities. As such, if and when law enforcement service needs increase as a result of incremental population increases in the City, and additional patrol hours are deemed necessary, they would be met through the department's mutual aid agreement and possibly an increase in the number of officers. The project proposes 120 single- family residential dwelling units and up to 98,000 square feet in commercial space. The average household size in San Bernardino in 2015 was 3.49 persons. The proposed project would include 120 additional single-family dwelling units, which would add approximately 419 people to the City's population. Considering the Police Department's servicing level, the population increase resulting from the proposed project would require 0.6 additional sworn officers and 0.3 civilian support staff. This increase is not considered sufficient to result in the hiring of additional police department staff and officers or the need for new or physically altered law enforcement facilities. In addition, a standard condition of approval for the proposed project will require the project applicant to pay the standard Law Enforcement development impact fees provided by the Engineering Department. Compliance with these measures would maintain acceptable service ratios and responses times for police protection services. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the need to construct a new police facilities or physically alter an existing facility. Therefore, impacts to police protection services would be less than significant. 3.Schools Threshold: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for schools? Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, pp. 3.13-27 through 3.13-28) 27 16.b Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) Explanation: School-aged children living in Rancho Palma would attend either North Verdemont Elementary School at 3555 West Myers Road, approximately 0.4 mile north of the project site, or Palm Avenue Elementary School at 6565 Palm Avenue, approximately 0. 6 mile northeast of the site. Children in grades 6 through 8 would attend Cesar E. Chavez Middle School at 6650 Magnolia Avenue, approximately 0.2 mile north of the site. Children in grades 9 through 12 would attend Cajon High School at 1200 West Hill Drive, approximately 3.2 miles to the southeast of the site. Based on the San Bernardino City Unified School District's (SBCUSD) student generation rates, the project will generate 40 elementary school students, 20 middle school students, and 23 high school students, for a total of 83 students. The additional 83 students will not exceed district enrollment/average daily attendance in previous academic years. Furthermore, the proposed project will represent an increase in the current SBCUSD enrollment of less than one percent. Current state law requires that impacts to current school facilities be mitigated through mandatory development impact fees. The fees enacted in the SBCUSD of$4.25 per square foot of assessable space for new residential development and $0.54 per square foot for new commercial/industrial development will be collected for the proposed project. Accordingly, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the need to construct new school facility or alter an existing school facility. Therefore, impacts to school services would be less than significant. 4. Parks Threshold: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for parks? Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, pp. 3.13-29 through 3.13-30) Explanation: The Rancho Palma development proposes two planned private parks, a paseo, approximately a half-acre of parkland to be dedicated to Ronald Reagan Park, and a private recreational vehicle storage lot. Provision of these facilities would ensure that the project remains in conformance with the City's service ratios for parks. The total amount of planned parkland is 96,000 square feet, which more than satisfies the development's need of five acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents as outlined in the General Plan. Indirect and direct impacts resulting with development of the park facilities were evaluated in the EIR, and mitigation measures identified, as applicable, to reduce any impacts to less than significant (i.e. biological and cultural resources). As such, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for parks. Impacts would be less than significant. 28 16.b Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) 5.Other Public Facilities Threshold: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for other public facilities? Finding: Less than significant impact. Explanation: The proposed project would include 120 additional single-family dwelling units, which would add approximately 419 people to the City's population. The population increase from the proposed Project would have the potential to increase the demand for other services or facilities, such as public libraries, hospitals, or civic uses. The Howard M. Rowe Branch Library is located approximately 4.4 miles southeast of the project site. Based on the limited new population generated, this library would be adequate to serve the proposed project, and no new or physically altered facilities for the provision of library services are required or proposed with the project. As indicated in the City's General Plan EIR, buildout of the General Plan would not result in a significant impact on library facilities, and no mitigation measures are required. Library services within the City are funded through normal revenue sources and the yearly budgetary process. As growth increases so too will revenues to support the library system. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant. The increase in residents may incrementally increase the number of hospital visitors in the project area. The existing Community Hospital of San Bernardino is located approximately 4.9 miles southeast of the project site. Due to the limited new population generated, the hospital facility is considered adequate to serve the proposed project. Therefore, no new physical facilities associated with hospitals would be required as a result of the project, and no adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or altered hospital facilities would occur. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant. The project has been closely coordinated with area service providers to ensure the availability of services and facilities concurrent with need. Additionally, the Resolution of Approval for the Specific Plan and the implementing permits and maps would be conditioned to ensure the provision of services in a timely, efficient, and economical way to successfully execute the project. As such, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. Impacts would be less than significant. 29 16.b Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) N. RECREATION 1. Existing Facilities Threshold: Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR,pp. 3.13-29 through 3.13-30) Explanation: The Rancho Palma development includes two planned private parks, a paseo, approximately a half-acre of parkland to be dedicated to Ronald Reagan Park, and a private recreational vehicle storage lot. The private neighborhood park would be approximately 1.4 acres and would offer open play turf areas, pathways, picnic nodes, and a playground area. A horseshoe court or other activity may also be provided. The pocket park would be approximately 0.2 acre and would offer opportunities for passive and/or active recreation, which may include bocce ball or similar activities. The proposed project would generate additional residents, who would increase the demand for parks and park usage. The proposed project would result in the addition of 120 dwelling units and approximately 419 persons. Based on the City's parkland ratio of 5 acres per 1,000 residents, the proposed project would result in the need for approximately 91,000 square feet of parkland. The total amount of planned parkland is 96,000 square feet, which more than satisfies this development's need of five acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents as outlined in the General Plan. In addition to the City's standard of five acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents, the General Plan includes a policy to require developers of residential subdivisions to pay fees based on the valuation of the units to fund parkland acquisition and improvements. Dedication of parkland would help to reduce potential impacts of future residential development on parks and recreational facilities. Therefore, recreational impacts would be less than significant. 2. New Recreational Facilities Threshold: Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR,p. 3.13-31) Explanation: Environmental impacts associated with construction of recreation facilities were addressed throughout the EIR under the topics of air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, noise, and paleontological resources. Mitigation was provided in each applicable section of this EIR to reduce potential significant, short-term construction impacts to below a level of significance. Therefore, impacts due to the construction of recreation facilities necessary to serve the project would be less than significant. 30 16.b Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) O. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION 1.Design Feature Hazards Threshold: Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, pp. 3.12-20 through 3.12-22) Explanation: The City of San Bernardino implements development standards designed to ensure standard engineering practices are used for all improvements. The proposed project would be checked for compliance with these standards as part of the review process conducted by the City. The project includes improvements to the transportation and circulation system surrounding the site, and all such improvements would be designed and constructed to local, regional, and federal standards. As such, they would not introduce any hazardous design features. Wherever necessary, roadways adjacent to the project, site access points, and site- adjacent intersections will be constructed to be consistent with or within the recommended roadway classifications and respective cross sections in the City's Circulation Element. On-site traffic signing and striping would be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the project site. As part of the City's review of all development plans, sight distance at each project access point will be reviewed with respect to City of San Bernardino sight distance standards (Chapter 12.30, Sight Distance Requirement) at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape, and street improvement plans. The proposed project does not include any dangerous design features, curves, or intersections; therefore, a less than significant impact would result. 2.Alternative Transportation Threshold: Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Findinp-: Less than significant impact. (EIR, pp. 3.12-23 through 3.12-24) Explanation: The addition of population proposed by the project has the potential to increase the demand for public transit. There is an existing sbX transit station/transfer point on Kendall Drive,just east of Palm Avenue. Additionally, Omnitrans Route 2 runs to just east of the project site, while Route 7 and Route 11 run in proximity of the project site near University Parkway. There are existing bus stop locations, crosswalks, bike lanes, trails, and sidewalks in proximity to the project site. Pedestrian facilities are limited in the western portion of the project site. According to the City of San Bernardino Conceptual Trail System, a regional multipurpose trail is proposed west of Palm Avenue and along Pine Avenue, north of Kendall Drive. Additionally, bicycle routes are proposed along Cajon Boulevard, west of Palm Avenue. 31 16.b Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) The residential component of the proposed project would add approximately 419 people to the City's population, which represents a minimal incremental increase in the City's existing population. Additionally, the commercial component of the proposed project would generate commuters that would have the option to use public transit located in proximity to the project site. However, the performance of these systems is not expected to decrease upon implementation of the proposed project. In fact, the existing and proposed transit options would remain intact and not otherwise be affected by the project. The proposed project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation or the expansion of alternative transportation. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 3. Air Traffic Patterns Threshold: Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Finding: No impact. (EIR, p. 3.12-5) Explanation: The proposed project is outside the San Bernardino International airport influence area as shown in Figure 5.1-2 of the Land Use Element of the City of San Bernardino General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project will not affect air traffic patterns. No impacts will occur. P. UTILITIES 1. Wastewater Threshold: Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Findinsz: Less than significant impact. (EIR, pp. 3.13-15 through 3.13-16) Explanation: Wastewater generated on the project site would be treated at the San Bernardino Water Reclamation Plant. This facility treats residential and industrial wastewater using both primary and secondary treatment processes to meet the discharge standards specified in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit issued to the plant by the RWQCB. Wastewater would then be processed by the Rapid Infiltration and Extraction facility, where secondary treated water undergoes the final filtering and disinfecting process to produce wastewater that is superior or equivalent to that produced by conventional filtration systems and is suitable for recycling into the Santa Ana River. The reclamation plant, including both primary and secondary treatment, has the permitted capacity to process 33 million gallons per day (mgd) and currently processes 28 mgd. Development of the proposed project will result in an increase of 35,974 gpd in wastewater generation. This increase will be a minor impact to the plant's daily capacity. Therefore, the project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, and impacts due to wastewater treatment would be less than significant. 32 16.b Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) 2. New Infrastructure Threshold: Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, pp. 3.13-17 through 3.13-19) Explanation: Water Infrastructure The proposed project would extend the existing water lines from Palm Avenue and W. Little League Drive and extend the existing sewer lines from Palm Avenue. This expansion will not cause significant environmental effects. Furthermore, the anticipated growth has been planned for within the General Plan, and the City has anticipated having sufficient water supplies to meet the projected demand for buildout year 2030. As such, water supplies are anticipated to be adequate to serve the proposed project. With adherence to the General Plan goals and policies, the Water Facilities Master Plan, the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), Senate Bill (SB) 610 and SB 221 requirements, and the City's Municipal Code, implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to water supplies. The focus of the Water Facilities Master Plan and the UWMP is to give highest priority for further development of local supplies, with imported water being used to meet the remaining needs. Moreover, the City adopted Municipal Code Title 13, Public Utilities, Chapter 13.24, Water Supply System, to ensure that the water furnished or supplied by the domestic water supply system under the jurisdiction of the City is at all times pure, wholesome, potable, healthful, and in adequate supply and to provide minimum standards for construction, reconstruction, abandonment, and destruction of wells in order to protect underground water resources and provide safe water to persons within the City. With adherence to the General Plan goals and policies, the Water Facilities Master Plan, the UWMP, and the City's Municipal Code, implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to water infrastructure and facilities. Wastewater Infrastructure The City's Public Works Department will provide wastewater services to the proposed project. The project proposes the installation of an 8-inch system that will tie into the existing 15-inch sewer line in Little League Drive. The commercial development will also tie into this line. The project would not be permitted to exceed the capacity of wastewater conveyance systems or treatment facilities, since adequate capacity must be demonstrated before additional flows can be contributed to the system. Environmental impacts associated with construction have been addressed throughout this EIR under the topics of air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, noise, and paleontological resources. Mitigation has been provided in each applicable section of this EIR to 33 16.b Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) reduce potential significant, short-term construction impacts to below a level of significance. Therefore, impacts due to the construction of wastewater infrastructure would be less than significant. 3.Stormwater Drainage Facilities Threshold: Would the project require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 3.13-19) Explanation: The proposed project includes the installation of two infiltration basins within the project footprint to collect stormwater runoff from both the residential and commercial areas. The project applicant proposes to construct an additional stormwater drainage pipe in Little League Drive. Environmental impacts associated with project construction have been addressed throughout this EIR under the topics of air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, noise, and paleontological resources. Mitigation has been provided in each applicable section of this EIR to reduce potential significant, short-term construction impacts to below a level of significance. Impacts due to the construction of stormwater infrastructure would be less than significant. 4. Water Supply Threshold: Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, pp. 3.13-20 through 3.13-21) Explanation: Implementation of the proposed project would result in the addition of 120 dwelling units (26.9 acres) and 98,000 square feet (9.3 acres) of commercial development. Future development associated with implementation of the proposed project would result in an increased demand for water supplies and infrastructure within the project area. Implementation of the proposed project would result in a demand for water supplies of 111,707 gallons per day gpd). The proposed project would implement water conservation measures through the use of native, drought-tolerant landscaping and "smart" irrigation systems and would promote "green" projects with water-saving measures as defined in Chapter 5 of the Rancho Palma Specific Plan. The San Bernardino Municipal Water Department (SBMWD) website states that the district produces and delivers 47,676 acre-feet of water per year. With estimated water consumption of 133 acre-feet annually, the proposed project will represent an increase in water consumption of approximately 0.26 percent. Considering the current estimations that were determined by utilizing the SBMWD water consumption assumptions, sufficient water supplies are available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, and no new or 34 16.b Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) expanded entitlements are needed. Therefore, impacts to water supply would be less than significant. 5. Adequate Wastewater Capacity Threshold: Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand, in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Findin : Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 3.13-21) Explanation: The proposed project will include connection to the SBMWD wastewater system via an 8-inch sewer pipe in Little League Drive. The Water Reclamation Plant treats water from a population of approximately 185,000, meaning that the current baseline wastewater flow rate is approximately 151 gallons per capita per day. Development of the proposed project will result in an increase of 35,974 gpd in wastewater generation. This increase will be a minor impact to the plant's daily capacity. Because adequate wastewater treatment capacity is available, impacts to wastewater capacity would be less than significant. 6. Landfill Capacity Threshold: Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 3.13-22) Explanation: The proposed project is estimated to result in 419 residents who will generate solid waste that will require disposal and recycling. The California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) provides unofficial estimates of solid waste generation and disposal rates for five land use or business types: commercial, industrial, institutional,residential, and service. The solid waste generated as a result of the proposed project is expected to be sent to the Mid-Valley Landfill or the San Timoteo Landfill. Assuming that each person generates 4.7 pounds of residential waste per day, the residential development will produce 1,969 pounds of waste per day, and the commercial development on the site will produce 2,058 pounds of waste per day, for a total of 4,027 pounds of waste per day for the proposed project, or 734 tons per year. The estimated amount of generated solid waste would not exceed the landfills' permitted disposal. Adequate landfill capacity is available to meet the needs of the proposed project. Therefore, impacts to solid waste facilities would be less than significant. 7. Regulations for Solid Waste Threshold: Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Findiniz: Less than significant impact. (EIR,p. 3.13-23) 35 16.b Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) Explanation: The State of California established 50 percent as the minimum waste reduction rate for all cities. Since 1995, the City has received either a Board Approved or Good Faith Effort in reaching waste diversion goals required by the law. Continuation of the recycling program and education on composting efforts would result in achieving the desired goal of 50 percent waste diversion in compliance with AB 939. The proposed project would not hinder efforts to achieve this requirement, as the City would distribute educational material on reducing waste, recycling, and composting to commercial and residential users. The General Plan Utilities Element includes goals and policies related to an adequate and orderly system for the collection and disposal of solid waste to meet the demands of new and existing development in the City. The proposed project is required to provide adequate storage areas for the storage and collection of trash, recyclables, and green waste materials. Because it is required to comply with City and state regulations which require a minimum of 50 percent waste reduction and General Plan elements, the proposed project will be consistent with federal, state, and local regulations regarding solid waste. Therefore, impacts to solid waste facilities would be less than significant. FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT The City Council hereby finds that feasible mitigation measures have been identified in the EIR and this Resolution that will avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially significant environmental impacts to a less than significant level. The potentially significant impacts, and the mitigation measures that will reduce them to a less than significant level, are as follows: A. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 1.Sensitive Species Threshold: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Finding: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (EIR, pp. 3.3-10 through 3.3-12) Explanation: Construction of the project would regrade the site, remove the existing vegetation, and result in urban improvements for the property west of the Cable Creek Channel. The channel, as well as the 0.50-acre portion of the site east of the channel, would remain largely undisturbed during project construction. The 0.50-acre portion would become part of the existing Ronald Regan Park and would be developed with park features such as grass, trails, trees, etc. While the resulting development would include landscaping, the project site would not have any natural habitat value once fully developed. 36 16.b Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) No special-status plants were observed during a biological field survey of the project site. Further, the project site is characterized as disturbed, and regular disking appears to have occurred on the site. As such, the potential for any sensitive plant species is low, and impacts to special status plants are not anticipated. However, suitable habitat for two sensitive wildlife species were found on site: the burrowing owl, which is a species of special concern, and the California horned lark, which is on the CDFW Watch List, and therefore, significant impacts may occur with project implementation. Focused breeding season protocol-level surveys were conducted for burrowing owl, and no individuals or signs were observed on the project site during the survey. However, because suitable habitat is found onsite, impacts to burrowing owl are potentially significant. California horned lark was observed within the boundaries of the project site during the field survey, therefore impacts are considered potentially significant. To address these potential significant impacts, the following mitigation measures were identified: Mitigation Measures BI0-1 All construction and clearing activities shall be conducted outside of the avian nesting season (January 15 to August 31), when feasible. A migratory nesting bird survey of the project's impact footprint for nesting raptors, special-status resident birds, and other migratory birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within seventeen (17) days prior to initiating vegetation clearing or ground disturbance. If active nests are found during the preconstruction nesting bird surveys, a Nesting Bird Plan (NBP) shall be prepared and implemented. At a minimum, the NBP shall include guidelines for addressing active nests, establishing buffers, monitoring, and reporting. The NBP will include a copy of maps showing the location of all nests and an appropriate buffer zone around each nest sufficient to protect the nest from direct and indirect impacts. The size and location of all buffer zones, if required, shall be determined by the biologist in consultation with the CDFW and shall be based on the nesting species, its sensitivity to disturbance, and expected types of disturbance. The nests and buffer zones shall be field checked weekly by a qualified biological monitor. The approved buffer zone shall be marked in the field with construction fencing, within which no vegetation clearing or ground disturbance shall commence until the qualified biologist has determined that the young birds have successfully fledged and a monitoring report has been submitted to the CDFW for review and approval. Timing/Implementation: Requirements shall be incorporated into all rough and/or precise grading plan documents. The project applicant's construction inspector shall monitor to ensure that measures are implemented during construction. Enforcement/Monitoring: City of San Bernardino Planning Department 37 16.b Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) i I I 13I0-2 A preconstruction burrowing owl survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist at least 30 days prior to construction activities to determine whether there are any active burrowing owl burrows within or adjacent to the impact area. If an active burrow is observed outside the nesting season (September 1 to January 31) and the burrow is within the impact area, a Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan shall be prepared and submitted to the CDFW for approval, outlining standard burrowing owl burrow closing procedures used to exclude burrowing owls (e.g., using passive relocation with one-way doors). The loss of any active burrowing owl burrow/territory shall be mitigated through replacement of habitat and burrows at no less than a 1: 1 ratio. If an active burrow is observed outside the nesting season (i.e., between September 1 and January 31) and the burrow is not within the impact area, construction work shall be restricted within 160 to 1,605 feet of the burrow depending on the time of year and the level of disturbance near the site in accordance with guidelines specified by the CDFW. Timing/Implementation: Prior to any vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities Enforcement/Monitoring: City of San Bernardino Planning and Public Works Departments As indicated above, the project site would not have any natural habitat value once fully developed. The mitigation measures identified would ensure that any direct or indirect effects on sensitive avian species or burrowing owls are avoided during project construction. As such, impacts to any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS, would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation incorporated. B. CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Historical Resources Threshold: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? I Finding: Less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated. (EIR, pp. 3.4-7 through 3.4-8) Explanation: According to the cultural resources assessment prepared for the project site see Draft EIR, Appendix 3.4-1), no historical resources were identified within the project's boundaries. Record search results, combined with surface conditions, failed to indicate sensitivity for buried historic or cultural resources. It was therefore recommended that no additional cultural resource work or monitoring is necessary for any earth-moving activities required on the project site. However, it is possible that project-related ground-disturbing activities could uncover previously unknown historical resources within the project's boundaries. Therefore, unanticipated and accidental historical discoveries made during project construction would have the potential to impact historical resources. 38 16.b Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) To address these potential significant impacts the following mitigation measure was identified: Mitigation Measures CUL-1 If previously undocumented resources are identified on the project site during earth-moving activities, a qualified archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology shall be contacted to assess the nature and significance of the find and to divert construction activities, if necessary. If evidence of archaeological resources (e.g., chipped or ground stone, historical debris, building foundations, or human bone) is identified during excavation, all work within 50 feet of the discovery site shall cease until the project archaeologist can evaluate the significance of the resource. In the event of a new find, salvage excavation and reporting shall be required, in conformance with established regulatory protocols. Timing/Implementation: Prior to ground-disturbing construction activities Enforcement/Monitoring: City of San Bernardino Engineering and Planning Departments Therefore, although no known historical resources were identified within the project boundaries and sensitivity for such resources to occur onsite is low, the proposed mitigation would ensure that any previously unknown historical resources potentially discovered during project-related ground disturbance activities would be properly evaluated and protected, consistent with local and state requirements. Implementation of the proposed mitigation would reduce potential impacts to less than significant. 2. Archaeological Resources Threshold: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? Finding: Less than significant impact with mitigation measures incorporated. (EIR, pp. 3.4-8 through 3.4- 9) Explanation: An archaeological field survey of the subject property was conducted on September 29, 2015. No cultural resources were found during the survey within the project's boundaries. Surface visibility was approximately 60 percent on the property, and ground disturbances were severe, including grading for weed abatement and levee construction. However, it is possible that project-related ground-disturbing activities could uncover previously unknown archaeological resources within the project's boundaries. Unanticipated and accidental archaeological discoveries during project implementation would have the potential to impact archaeological resources. To address this potential significant impact the following mitigation measure was identified: 39 16.b Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) Mitigation Measures CUL-2 If during grading or construction activities, cultural resources are discovered on the project site, work shall be halted immediately within 50 feet of the discovery, and the resources shall be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist (retained by the applicant) and the relevant Native American tribes or bands notified (i.e., Ramona, San Manuel, Soboba, San Fernando, Agua Caliente, Morongo, and Pechanga Bands, and the Serrano Nation), as appropriate. Any unanticipated cultural resources that are discovered shall be evaluated and a final report prepared by the qualified archaeologist. The report shall include a list of the resources discovered, documentation of each site/locality, and interpretation of the resources identified, and the method of preservation and/or recovery for identified resources. In the event the significant resources are recovered and if the qualified archaeologist, the tribe, and/or the band determines the resources to be historic or unique, avoidance and/or mitigation would be required pursuant to and consistent with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4, Public Resources Code Section 21083.2. Timing/Implementation: Prior to ground-disturbing construction activities Enforcement/Monitoring: City of San Bernardino Building and Planning Departments Therefore, although no known cultural resources were identified within the project boundaries, and sensitivity for such resources to occur onsite is low, the proposed mitigation would ensure that any previously unknown cultural resources potentially discovered during project-related ground disturbance activities would be properly evaluated and protected, consistent with local and state requirements. Implementation of the proposed mitigation would reduce potential impacts to less than significant. 3. Human Remains Threshold: Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Finding: Less than significant impact with mitigation measures incorporated. (EIR, pp. 3.4-9 through 3.4-10) Explanation: No human remains have been identified on the project site. However, the proposed project could result in the inadvertent disturbance of currently undiscovered human remains. Any discovery of human remains would trigger state law governing the treatment of human remains. Procedures of conduct following the discovery of human remains on non-federal lands are mandated by Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, by Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, and by CEQA in California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5( e). According to these provisions, should human remains be encountered, all work in the immediate vicinity of the burial must cease, and any necessary steps to ensure the integrity of the immediate area must be taken. Because the project would have the potential to result in the discovery of human remains on the project site, such impacts would be considered potentially significant. 40 16.b Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) To address this potential impact, the following mitigation measure was identified: Mitigation Measures CUL-3a If human remains are encountered, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance occur until the county coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. Further, pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(b), remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made. If the San Bernardino County Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted within a reasonable time frame. Subsequently, the NAHC shall identify the most likely descendant within 24 hours of receiving notification from the coroner. The most likely descendant shall then have 48 hours to make recommendation and engage in consultations concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. Timing/Implementation: During ground-disturbing construction activities Enforcement/Monitoring.• City of San Bernardino Engineering and Planning Departments CUL-3b All cultural materials, with the exception of sacred items, burial goods, and human remains, collected during the grading monitoring program and from any previous archaeological studies and excavations on the project site shall be curated according to the current professional repository standards. The collections and associated records shall be transferred, including title, to the appropriate tribe's curation facility, which meets the standards set forth in 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 79 regulating federal repositories. Timing/Implementation: During ground-disturbing construction activities Enforcement/Monitoring: City of San Bernardino Engineering and Planning Departments CUL-3c All sacred sites, should they be encountered on the project site, shall be avoided and preserved as the preferred mitigation, if feasible, as determined by a qualified professional in consultation with the tribe(s). To the extent that a sacred site cannot be feasibly preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state, mitigation shall be required pursuant to and consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4. Timing/Implementation: During ground-disturbing construction activities Enforcement/Monitoring: City of San Bernardino Engineering and Planning Departments 41 16.b Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) Therefore, although no known human remains or sacred sites were identified within the project boundaries, and sensitivity for such resources to occur onsite is low, the proposed mitigation would ensure that any previously unknown resources potentially discovered during project-related ground disturbance activities would be properly evaluated and protected, consistent with local and state requirements. Implementation of the proposed mitigation would reduce project impacts to less than significant. 4. Tribal Cultural Resources Threshold: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074? Finding: Less than significant impact with mitigation measures incorporated. (EIR, p. 3.4-11) Explanation: No tribal cultural resources have been identified on the project site. The City has conducted consultation activities as required by Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) and Senate Bill 18 (SB 18). The results of the consultation are included as Appendix A of Appendix 3.4-1 of the Draft EIR. A Sacred Lands File Search was requested form the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and a Tribal Consultation List was subsequently provided by the NAHC. The tribes identified were contacted for purposes of consultation. Of the eight tribes contacted, two responses were received from: 1) the Morongo Band of Mission Indians; and, 2) the Sobaba Band of Luseno Indians. The Morongo Band of Mission Indians indicated that the project site is not located within the Tribe's reservation boundaries, but within an area considered to be a traditional use area or one in which the Tribe has cultural ties (i.e. Cahuilla or Serrano Territory). requested that a records search and comprehensive archaeological survey of the site and area of potential effect (APE) be conducted; that a tribal monitor be present during the survey; that the results of the survey be provided to the Tribe; and, that project-related ground disturbance activities be conducted consistent with State requirements for the discovery of unknown cultural resources and human remains (State and Health and Safety Code 7050.5). The Soboba Band of Indians indicated that the project lies outside of the Tribe's existing reservation boundaries, but within the bounds of the Tribe's Tribal Traditional Use Areas. However, the Tribe indicated that it did not have any specific concerns regarding known cultural resources. The Tribe also requested that an approved Native American Monitor(s) be present during any future ground disturbance activities. Although no known tribal resources have been identified by either the records search, site survey, or through required consultation activities, project construction could potentially result in the inadvertent disturbance of undiscovered tribal cultural resources. Any discovery of these resources would trigger state law governing their treatment. Further, any discovery of human remains on the project site would be subject to these procedural requirements. If the resource is a tribal cultural resource of non-human remains, a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted to assess the nature and significance of the find in consultation with relevant Native American tribes or bands (i.e., Ramona, San Manuel, Soboba, San 42 16.b Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) Fernando, Agua Caliente, Morongo, and Pechanga Bands, and the Serrano Nation), as determined appropriate. To address these potential impacts, the following mitigation measures were identified: Mitigation Measures Compliance with Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-3a, CUL-3b, and CUL-3c (text of which is included above). Implementation of the mitigation measures would ensure that, if unknown resources are discovered during project-related ground disturbing activities, standard protocols are undertaken to evaluate the potential resource and, if determined to be of significance, that such resources are protected and/or preserved in perpetuity. Mitigation proposed would also allow evaluation of such resources to ensure that they are properly identified and protected to the satisfaction of the relevant Tribe(s). As a result, project impacts on unknown tribal resources would be reduced to less than significant. C.GEOLOGY AND SOILS 1. Paleontological Resources Threshold: Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Finding: Less than significant impact with mitigation measures incorporated. (EIR, pp. 3.5-12 through 3.5-13) Explanation: A search was performed by the National History Museum of Los Angeles County of the paleontology collection records for locality and specimen data for the proposed project. The records search did not identify any vertebrate fossil localities within the proposed project boundaries. However, localities were found nearby from the same deposits that occur in the proposed project area. The entire project area has exposures of younger Quaternary Alluvium. As impacts to unknown paleontological resources may occur, impacts would be considered potentially significant. To address these potentially significant impacts, the following mitigating measure was identified: Mitigation Measures GEO-1 Prior to ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist to monitor all initial ground-disturbing activities in native soils or sediments. If the paleontologist, upon observing initial earthwork, determines there is low potential for discovery, no further action shall be required and the paleontologist shall submit a memo to the City confirming a finding of low potential. 43 16.b Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) Should any paleontological resources (i.e., fossils) be uncovered during project construction activities, all work within a 100-foot radius of the discovery site shall be halted or diverted to other areas on the site and the City shall be immediately notified. The qualified paleontologist shall evaluate the finds and recommend appropriate next steps to ensure the resource is not substantially adversely impacted, including but not limited to avoidance, preservation in place, excavation, documentation, curation, data recovery, or other appropriate measures. Further ground disturbance shall not resume within a 100-foot radius of the discovery site until an agreement has been reached between the project applicant, the qualified paleontologist, and the City of San Bernardino as to the appropriate preservation or mitigation measures to ensure that the resource is not substantially adversely impacted. Timing/Implementation: Prior to ground-disturbing activities Enforcement/Monitoring: City of San Bernardino Planning Department Therefore, although no known paleontological resources were identified within the project boundaries, the proposed mitigation would ensure that any previously unknown resources potentially discovered during project-related ground disturbance activities would be properly evaluated and protected, as appropriate, consistent with standard local and state requirements. Implementation of the proposed mitigation would reduce project impacts to less than significant. D. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 1. Hazardous Materials Threshold: Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Threshold: Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Findinfz: Less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated. (EIR, pp. 3.7-8 through 3.7-11) Explanation: Short-Term Impacts Project construction activity could result in the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials such as gasoline fuels, asphalt, lubricants, toxic solvents, pesticides, and herbicides. Although care is used to transport, use, and dispose of these materials, there is a possibility that upset or accidental conditions may arise which could release hazardous materials (i.e. petroleum- based fuels or hydraulic fluid used for construction equipment) into the environment. Accidental releases of hazardous materials are those releases that are unforeseen or that result from 44 16.b Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) unforeseen circumstances, while reasonably foreseeable upset conditions are those release or exposure events that can be anticipated and planned for. Incidents that result in an accidental release of hazardous substance into the environment can cause contamination of soil, surface water, and groundwater, in addition to any toxic fumes that might be generated. If not cleaned up immediately and completely, the hazardous substances can migrate into the soil or enter a local stream or channel, causing contamination of soil and water. Human exposure to contaminated soil or water can have potential health effects from a variety of factors, including the nature of the contaminant and the degree of exposure. The level of risk associated with the accidental release of hazardous substances is not considered significant due to the small volume and low concentration of hazardous materials used during construction for the project type proposed. Additionally, the construction contractor would be required to use standard construction controls and safety procedures that would avoid and minimize the potential for accidental release of such substances into the environment. Standard construction practices would be observed such that any materials released are appropriately contained and remediated as required by local, state, and federal law. However, a significant impact may occur if unknown wastes or suspect materials are discovered during construction by the contractor which he/she believes may involve hazardous waste/materials, thereby creating a potential hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions. Therefore, mitigation is required to reduce such impacts to less than significant. Long-Term Impacts The project proposes a mix of residential and commercial development. Commercial or residential development is not generally expected to involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials in significant quantities. Due to the nature of such uses, daily operation of such uses is not anticipated to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Generally, the exposure of persons to hazardous materials could occur through improper handling or use of hazardous materials or hazardous wastes during construction or operation of future developments, particularly by untrained personnel, an accident during transport, environmentally unsound disposal methods, or fire, explosion, or other emergencies. The City's street setback requirements minimize the direct damage that may occur from transportation- related hazardous waste spills. Also, Hazardous Material Release Response Plans and Inventories would be required. The Hazardous Materials Division of the San Bernardino County Fire Department oversees the submittal of Business Emergency Plans, which are intended to mitigate potential release of hazardous substances and minimize potential harm or damage. The proposed project would result in additional residents, and thus, could increase exposure of the public to accidental or reasonably foreseeable releases of hazardous materials off-site. However, there are no hazardous material sites within one mile of the project site. The project site is in proximity to Interstate 215, along which hazardous materials may be transported. Adherence to existing regulations would ensure compliance with safety standards 45 16.b Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) related to the transport, use, and storage of hazardous materials and with the safety procedures mandated by applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations designed to avoid hazardous waste releases. Compliance with these regulations includes filing of storage location, inspection of storage methods, regular updates to handling plans, and providing emergency contact information. Compliance would ensure that risks resulting from the routine transport, use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials or hazardous wastes are minimized and/or handled appropriately if there is an accidental release during transport, use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials. Thus, impacts resulting from project operation would be less than significant. To address any potentially significant impacts that may arise as a result of project construction, the following mitigation measures has been identified: Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 If unknown wastes or suspect materials are discovered during construction by the contractor that are believed to involve hazardous waste or materials, the contractor shall comply with the following: Immediately cease work in the vicinity of the suspected contaminant, and remove workers and the public from the area; Notify the City's Engineer; Secure the area as directed by the Project Engineer; and Notify the implementing agency's Hazardous Waste/Materials Coordinator. The Hazardous Waste/Materials Coordinator shall advise the responsible party of further actions that shall be taken, if required. Timing/Implementation: During construction Enforcement/Monitoring: City of San Bernardino Public Works and Planning Departments Implementation of the proposed mitigation would ensure that, in the event that project construction activities result in discovery of unknown wastes or materials that may be potentially hazardous thereby creating_a potential hazard to the public or the environment such materials would be properly evaluated and disposed of consistent with applicable requirements. Through such mitigation impacts resulting from the discovery of potentially hazardous materials, released through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions would be reduced to less than significant. E. NOISE 1. Noise Level Standards Threshold: Would the project expose people to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in any applicable plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 46 16.b Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) Finding: Less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated. (EIR, pp. 3.10-16 through 3.10-26) Explanation: Construction Construction noise represents a short-term impact on ambient noise levels. Noise generated by construction equipment, including trucks, power tools, concrete mixers, and portable generators, can reach high levels. Project construction is expected to occur in the following five stages: site preparation, grading, building construction, architectural coating, and paving. While the City establishes limits on the hours during which construction activity may take place, it does not identify specific limits for construction noise levels. Section 8.54.060(I), Exemptions, of the Noise Control Ordinance indicates that project construction noise levels are considered exempt from the provisions of the ordinance. Therefore, if project construction only occurs during the hours permitted in the Noise Control Ordinance, project construction noise levels would be exempt from the ordinance. Additionally, construction-related noise would tend to diminish as the use of heavy equipment in the early construction stages concludes and would dissipate entirely at the end of construction activities. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Given the sporadic and variable nature of project construction and the implementation of noise limits specified in the Municipal Code, noise impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level without the incorporation of mitigation measures. Although impacts are already less than significant, in an abundance of caution and to even further reduce the potential for noise impacts and/or nuisances, mitigation would be implemented to incorporate best management practices during construction. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would further minimize impacts from construction noise as it requires construction equipment to be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers and other state-required noise attenuation devices. As a result, noise impacts resulting from project construction activities would be less than significant. Operation It is expected that the primary source of noise impacts to the project site will be traffic noise from Interstate 215, West Little League Drive, and Magnolia Avenue. The project would also experience some background traffic noise impacts from the project's internal streets. However, due to distance, topography, and low traffic volume/speed, traffic noise from these roads will not make a significant contribution to the noise environment. The on-site traffic noise level impacts indicate that the lots facing I-215, West Little League Drive, and Magnolia Avenue will experience unmitigated exterior noise levels ranging from 54.6 to 74.6 dBA CNEL, thereby exceeding the City's 65 dBA CNEL threshold for exterior noise levels Therefore, impacts would be considered significant. To satisfy the City's 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise level standards for residential land use, Mitigation Measures NOI-1 a and NOI-1 b require the construction of a minimum effective 9- 47 16.b Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) foot-high noise barrier for the outdoor living areas (backyards) of lots 47 to 55 and lots 75 to 81 facing I-215 and West Little League Drive. The planned noise barrier is expected to consist of a combination 1-foot-high berm with an 8-foot-high block wall. In addition, the construction of a minimum effective 7-foot-high noise barrier is required for lot 82 facing West Little League Drive. Further, 6-foot-high noise barriers are recommended for all other lots adjacent to Magnolia Avenue and the commercial retail land use on the project site. With the recommended noise barriers, the mitigated future exterior noise levels will range from 48.8 to 65. 0 dBA CNEL, which is below the City's 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise level standards, and this impact would be reduced to less than significant. To ensure that the interior noise levels comply with the City's 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standards, future noise levels were calculated at the first- and second-floor building facades. Because noise levels would exceed the City's interior noise threshold of 45 dBA, impacts would be considered potentially significant. To satisfy the City's 45 dBA CNEL interior noise level criteria, lots facing I-215, West Little League Drive, and Magnolia Avenue will require a noise reduction of up to 29.3 dBA and a windows closed condition requiring a means of mechanical ventilation (e.g., air conditioning). Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2 would satisfy the City's 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standards for residential development and would reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Based on the reference noise levels, project-generated operational stationary source noise levels at each of the sensitive receiver locations were estimated. Hourly noise levels associated with the rooftop air conditioning units, shopping cart corrals, parking lot vehicle movements, and loading dock activities at the commercial retail uses on the project site are expected to range from 18.6 to 50.8 dBA Leq at the sensitive receiver locations. To demonstrate compliance with local noise standards, the project-only operational noise levels were evaluated against the City's 65 dBA Leq exterior noise level standard. As the project would satisfy the City's noise level standards at the nearby sensitive receiver locations, project- related operational noise levels would be less than significant. To describe the project operational noise level contributions, the project's operational noise levels were combined with the existing ambient noise levels measurements for the eight receiver locations potentially impacted by project operational noise sources. Project-related operational noise level contributions would not exceed the significance criteria. As such, project- related operational stationary-source noise levels would not result in a substantial temporary/periodic or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Thus, as described above, the following mitigation measures were identified to reduce impacts to a level of less than significant: 48 16.b Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) Mitigation Measures Construction Noise NOI-1 Prior to commencement of and/or during construction, as appropriate, the project applicant shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City of San Bernardino Planning Department that the project complies with the following: Construction contracts specify that all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers and other state required noise attenuation devices. Property owners and occupants located within 200 feet of the project boundary shall be sent a notice, at least 15 days prior to commencement of construction of each phase, regarding the construction schedule of the proposed project. A sign, legible at a distance of approximately 50 feet shall be posted at the project construction site. All notices and signs shall be reviewed and approved by the City of San Bernardino Planning Department, prior to mailing or posting, and shall indicate the dates and duration of construction activities, as well as provide a contact name and a telephone number where residents can inquire about the construction process and register complaints. The contractor shall provide evidence that a construction staff member will be designated as a Noise Disturbance Coordinator and will be present on-site during all construction activities. The Noise Disturbance Coordinator shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. When a complaint is received, the contractor shall notify the City within 24 hours of the complaint and determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and shall implement reasonable measures to resolve the complaint, as deemed acceptable by the Planning Department. All notices that are sent to residential units immediately surrounding the construction site and all signs posted at the construction site shall include the contact name and the telephone number for the Noise Disturbance Coordinator. Construction noise reduction methods shall be used where feasible. These reduction methods include shutting off idling equipment, installing temporary acoustic barriers around stationary construction noise sources, maximizing the distance between construction equipment staging areas and occupied residential areas, and electric air compressors and similar power tools. Construction haul routes shall be designed to avoid noise sensitive uses (e.g., residences, convalescent homes, schools, churches, etc.), to the extent feasible. During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receptors. 49 16.b Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) Timing/Implementation: Prior to commencement of and during construction Enforcement/Monitoring: City of San Bernardino Planning Department Operational Noise N0I-2A Prior to issuance of a building permit, and prior to final occupancy, the project applicant shall demonstrate that proper sound wall design has been incorporated into the proposed residential and commercial development areas, consistent with Exhibit ES-A of the final approved traffic impact analysis, to reduce potential sound levels to below the City's established noise thresholds. The project design shall include construction of a minimum effective 9-foot-high noise barrier for the outdoor living areas (backyards) of lots 47 to 55 and lots 75 to 81 facing Interstate 215 and West Little League Drive. The planned noise barrier shall consist of a combination 1-foot-high berm with an 8-foot-high block wall. In addition, the construction of a minimum effective 7-foot-high noise barrier shall be constructed for lot 82 facing West Little League Drive. Additionally, 6-foot-high noise barriers shall be constructed for all other lots adjacent to Magnolia Avenue and the commercial retail land use on the project site. All walls shall be constructed on-site consistent with the final improvement plans as approved by the City of San Bernardino. Timing/Implementation: Prior to issuance of building permit and prior to final occupancy Enforcement/Monitoring: City of San Bernardino Planning Department N0I-2B During construction, and prior to final occupancy, the recommended noise control barriers shall be constructed consistent with that shown on the approved Tentative Tract Map so that the top of each wall and/or berm combination extends to the recommended height (as indicated in NOI-2A) above the pad elevation of the lot it is shielding. When the road is elevated above the pad elevation, the barrier shall extend to the recommended height (as indicated in NOI-2A) above the highest point between the residence and the road. The barrier shall provide a weight of at least 4 pounds per square foot of face area with no decorative cutouts or line-of- sight openings between shielded areas and the roadways. The noise barrier shall be constructed using the following materials: Masonry block Stucco veneer over wood framing (or foam core), or 1-inch-thick tongue and groove wood of sufficient weight per square foot Glass (0.25 inch thick) or other transparent material with sufficient weight per square foot Earthen berm Any combination of these construction materials 50 16.b Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) The barrier shall consist of a solid face from top to bottom. Unnecessary openings or decorative cutouts shall not be made. All gaps (except for weep holes) should be filled with grout or caulking. Timing/Implementation: During construction and prior to final occupancy Enforcement/Monitoring: City of San Bernardino Planning Department N0I-3 During construction, and prior to final occupancy, to satisfy the City of San Bernardino's 45 dBA CNEL interior noise level criteria, lots facing Interstate 215, West Little League Drive, and Magnolia Avenue shall require a noise reduction of up to 29.3 dBA and a windows closed condition requiring a means of mechanical ventilation (e.g., air conditioning). To ensure that the City's 45 dBA CNEL interior noise level is met, the following measures shall be implemented: Exterior walls: If wood construction is used, exterior walls shall be furnished on the outside with siding-on-sheathing, stucco, or brick veneer. The interior surface shall be at least 0.5-inch gypsum board. Insulation having a minimum of R-11 shall be placed between the studs. Masonry walls, if used, shall have at least one surface of the wall plastered, painted, or covered with gypsum wallboard or approved materials. At least R-11 insulation shall be placed between the studs. There shall be no direct openings such as mail slots or ventilation units. Windows: o Lots 47 to 55 and lots 75 to 82 facing 1-215 require upgraded second-floor windows with a minimum sound transmission class (STC) rating of 34. o All other windows and sliding glass doors shall be well-fitted, well- weather- stripped assemblies and shall have a minimum STC rating of 27. Doors: All exterior hinged and sliding glass doors to habitable rooms that are directly exposed to transportation noise and are facing the source of the noise shall be a door and edge seal assembly with a minimum STC rating of 27. Roof: Roof sheathing of wood construction shall be well-fitted or caulked plywood of at least 0.5 inch thick. Ceilings shall be well-fitted, well-sealed gypsum board of at least 0.5 inch thick. Insulation with at least a rating of R-19 shall be used in the attic space. Skylights shall have a minimum STC of 34. Attic: Attic ventilation shall be oriented away from Interstate 215. If such an orientation cannot be avoided, an acoustical baffle shall be placed in the attic space behind the vents. Ventilation: A ventilation system shall be provided that will provide at least the minimum air circulation and fresh air supply requirements of the Building Code in each habitable room without opening any window, door, or other opening to the exterior. All concealed ductwork shall be insulated flexible glass fiber ducting that is at least 10 feet long between any two points of 51 16.b Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) connection. Kitchen cooktop vent hoods shall be the non-ducted recirculating type with no ducted connection to the exterior. Wall and ceiling openings: Openings in the shell of the residence that degrade its ability to achieve an interior CNEL rating of 45 dBA or less when all doors and windows are closed are prohibited unless access panels, pet doors, mail delivery drops, air conditioning, or other openings are designed to maintain the 45 dBA CNEL (or less) standard in the room to which they provide access. Timing/Implementation: During construction and prior to final occupancy Enforcement/Monitoring: City of San Bernardino Planning Department F. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION 1. Consistency with Plans and Congestion Management Programs Threshold: Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Threshold: Would the project conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Finding: Less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated. (EIR, pp. 3.12-9 through 3.12-19) Explanation: Existing Plus Project The Existing Plus project scenario includes Existing (2015) traffic volumes plus project traffic. All study area intersections are anticipated to continue to operate at acceptable levels of service with the implementation of the proposed project. A queuing analysis was performed for the off-ramps at the I-215 and Palm Avenue interchange to assess vehicle queues for the off-ramps that may potentially result in deficient peak-hour operations at the ramp-to-arterial intersections and may potentially spill back onto the I-215 mainline. No movements are anticipated to experience queuing issues during the weekday AM or weekday PM peak 95th percentile traffic flows for Existing Plus Project (Phase 1) or Existing Plus Project( Project Buildout)traffic conditions. 52 16.b Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) For the basic freeway segments analyzed in the study, for Existing Plus Project (Phase 1) and Existing Plus Project (Project Buildout), mainline directional volumes for the weekday AM and PM peak hours are anticipated to operate at an acceptable level of service (i.e., level of service [LOS] C or better) during the peak hours, with the addition of Phase 1 project and project buildout traffic. Opening Year Cumulative (2019) With and Without Project The study area intersections will continue to operate at acceptable levels with construction of the proposed project under all project scenarios. The one exception is the intersection 19, University Parkway/Kendall Drive intersection (#19) where the proposed project will worsen the level of service that is projected to be LOS D without the project under the Existing Plus Ambient Growth 2019 scenario. The calculated volume-to-capacity ratio (V/C) for the proposed project at the University Parkway/Kendall Drive intersection is 0.013, which is greater than the threshold of 0.01. Therefore, the impact is considered significant. A queuing analysis was performed for the off-ramps at the I-215 and Palm Avenue interchange to assess vehicle queues for the off-ramps to determine if peak-hour operations at the ramp-to-arterial intersection would remain acceptable. No movements are anticipated to experience queuing issues during the weekday AM or weekday PM peak 95th percentile traffic flows for the 2019 with Project scenario. Ramp merge and diverge operations were evaluated for 2019 with Project Scenario. The freeway ramp merge and diverge areas are anticipated to operate at an acceptable level of service i.e., LOS D or better). The basic freeway segments analyzed in the study, for Existing Plus Ambient Growth 2019 Scenario Impact Summary, remain at acceptable levels of service. The project would provide on-street parking along the proposed interior roadways, as well as at each residential unit (i.e., private driveways and garages). Additionally, it should be noted that attendees of events held at the Platinum Soccer Complex adjacent to the east of the site frequently park along West Little League Drive. Consistent with the project objective to facilitate additional public parking with the improvement of West Little League Drive and Magnolia Avenue," construction of off-site project roadway improvements would not restrict or prohibit the continuation of public parking along West Little League Drive. On-street parking would be provided along both sides of West Little League Drive and (future) Magnolia Avenue with project implementation. Additionally, parking for the proposed commercial uses would be provided on-site consistent with parking ratios established by the City and as addressed in the Rancho Palma Specific Plan. Therefore, the project would not conflict with City Municipal Code requirements for the provision of adequate surface parking within the project area or adversely affect the performance of the circulation system with regard to parking. The study area intersections would continue to operate at acceptable levels with construction of the proposed project. The one exception is intersection #19, University 53 16.b Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) Parkway/Kendall Drive intersection, where the proposed project will worsen the level of service that is projected to be LOS D without the project under the 2019 with Project scenario and also result in an increase in the V/C by 0.013 (exceeding the threshold of 0.01). The impact affects left turn movements from southbound Kendall Drive onto eastbound University Parkway during the PM peak hour. The left turn lane is not long enough to accommodate the proposed project traffic, which could block the through lanes. The installation of a second left turn lane will increase the area where cars can queue to turn left without blocking the through lanes. (See also Draft EIR Table 3.12-16). Project mitigation may include a combination of fee payments to established programs e.g., Development Impact Fees), construction of specific improvements, payment of a fair share contribution toward future improvements, or a combination of these approaches. Improvements constructed by development may be eligible for a fee credit or reimbursement through the program where appropriate (to be determined at the City of San Bernardino's discretion). When off-site improvements are identified with a minor share of responsibility assigned to proposed development,the approving jurisdiction may elect to collect a fair share contribution or require the development to construct improvements. The calculated proportionate share of impact at this intersection from the proposed project is 4. 4 percent. Mitigation Measure TRA-1 requires that the proposed project either construct the additional left turn lane at this intersection or pay proportionate fees toward its construction. Impacts would be reduced to less than significant. The San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) implements the 2011 Congestion Management Plan (CMP) for the County of San Bernardino. The CMP is intended to more directly link land use, transportation, and air quality, thereby prompting reasonable growth management programs that will effectively utilize new transportation funds, alleviate traffic congestion and related impacts, and improve air quality. Ten 10 study area intersections identified as CMP facilities (shown in EIR Table 3.12-1) were evaluated in the EIR. Consistent with the City of San Bernardino level of service threshold of LOS D, and in excess of the CMP stated level of service threshold of LOS E, LOS D was used as the target LOS for freeway ramps, freeway segments, and freeway merge/diverge ramp junctions. As indicated above, the project would impact the intersection of University Parkway/Kendall Drive, which is a CMP facility. Therefore, the project would conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level of service standards. As indicated above, Mitigation Measure TRA-1 would be implemented to reduce project impacts at the University Parkway/Kendall Drive intersection to less than significant, thereby avoiding project conflict with the applicable CMP. Thus, as described above, the following mitigation measures were identified to reduce impacts to a level of less than significant: Mitigation Measures TRA-1 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall be required to construct or pay its fair share to create a second southbound turn lane at the intersection of University Parkway/Kendall Drive (419). 54 16.b Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) Timing/Implementation: Prior to issuance of a building permit Enforcement/Monitoring: City of San Bernardino Planning and Public Works Departments 2. Emergency Access Threshold: Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Finding: Less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated (EIR, pp. 3.12-22 through 3.12-23) Explanation: All of the project roadways proposed meet the City's design standards for access. During construction of improvements associated with the project, roadways may be temporarily blocked or subject to detours and delays, which could temporarily affect emergency access. Project construction will require the export of materials from the site and the import of construction materials to the site. The exported materials will be transported via dump trucks. Each truck will generate one inbound and one outbound trip. In order to minimize the impact of construction truck traffic to the surrounding roadway network, a construction traffic management plan (TMP) will be implemented for the duration of the construction phase. Coordination of the TMP with local and regional emergency personnel is required to ensure consistency. Mitigation Measure TRA-2 establishes the requirement for a traffic management plan and minimizes the effect of construction activity on emergency access. After construction, emergency access throughout the project site will be developed in accordance with applicable ordinances, standard conditions of approval, and permits related to emergency access and reduce this impact to a less than significant level. To address this potentially significant impact, the following mitigation measure was identified: Mitigation Measures TRA-2 The project applicant shall prepare and implement a traffic management plan TMP) to minimize inconveniences during construction. Included among the provisions, the contractor shall coordinate with the City of San Bernardino, the County of San Bernardino, and local police, fire, and emergency medical service providers regarding construction scheduling and any other practical measures to maintain adequate access to properties and response times. The TMP shall also limit construction activity to the extent feasible and limit all soil export activities to occur outside of the typical weekday morning (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM) and weekday evening (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM) peak commute hours. The TMP shall include contact information for members of the general public who may have questions concerning the project and access to their property. Two-way traffic through the construction zone shall be maintained throughout the construction period. 55 16.b Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) Timing/Implementation: Prior to and during construction Enforcement/Monitoring: City of San Bernardino Implementation of the TMP would ensure that project construction activities do not interfere with emergency access to the site or surrounding uses. As temporary lane closures and/or the movement of vehicles and construction workers and materials to and from the site would occur, implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-2 would ensure that the potential effects of such activities on emergency access are minimized and/or avoided. FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT FULLY MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT No impacts were found to be significant and unavoidable through the technical analysis provided in the EIR. A Statement of Overriding Considerations is therefore not required. All significant impacts identified as potentially resulting with project implementation can be reduced to a level of less than significant level with implementation of the mitigation measures proposed. FINDINGS REGARDING CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Consistent with the requirements of CEQA, the EIR for the project includes an analysis of cumulative impacts, which include the impacts of the project plus all other pending or approved projects within the affected area for each resource. Fifty-seven pending and approved projects were identified as cumulative projects for consideration [see EIR, pp. 2-13 to 2-16 Table 2-3, Cumulative Projects)]. The City Council hereby finds as follows: A. AESTHETICS The cumulative impact analysis focuses on whether the proposed project's contribution to regional visual resource impacts would result in a cumulatively considerable environmental impact. The project's impact would be cumulatively considerable if, when considered with other existing, approved, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable development in the region, it would result in substantial alteration of the visual character of the region, significant impacts to scenic vistas, or substantial increases in daytime glare and nighttime lighting. As determined in the discussion of direct project impacts, potential aesthetic impacts would be less than significant. The project site is not located in proximity to a city-, county-, or state-designated scenic highway or designated scenic vista. With conformance to lighting requirements, including the City of San Bernardino Development Code, the project would not adversely affect nighttime views in the area. Other future projects would be required to comply with applicable lighting regulations and to implement mitigation for aesthetic and lighting/glare impacts, as appropriate. Impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. (EIR, pp. 3.1-9 through 3.1-10) 56 16.b Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) l B. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY Given that the project has no impact on agricultural and forestry resources, and because there are no agricultural or forestry resources at the project site or in the vicinity, there would be no cumulatively considerable impact on these resources. (EIR, p. 3.14-1) C. AIR QUALITY The project area is designated as an extreme nonattainment area for ozone and a nonattainment area for PMIo and PM2.5- The SCAQMD's approach to assessing cumulative impacts is based on the AQMP forecasts of attainment of ambient air quality standards in accordance with the requirements of the federal and California Clean Air Acts. The SCAQMD has published a report on how to address cumulative impacts from air pollution titled White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution. In this report, the SCAQMD states: Projects that exceed the project-specific significance thresholds are considered by the SCAQMD to be cumulatively considerable. This is the reason project-specific and cumulative significance thresholds are the same. Conversely, projects that do not exceed the project-specific thresholds are generally not considered to be cumulatively significant. The project would not result in exceedances of any applicable thresholds which are designed to assist the region in attaining the applicable state and national ambient air quality standards. In addition, the proposed project would be consistent with the Air Quality Management Plan, which is intended to bring the South Coast Air Basin into attainment for all criteria pollutants, since the project-specific evaluation of emissions demonstrates that projected emissions would not exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds. Furthermore, the project would comply with SCAQMD's Rule 403 pertaining to fugitive dust control during construction, as well as with all other adopted AQMP emissions control measures. Per SCAQMD rules and mandates, as well as the CEQA requirement that significant impacts be mitigated to the extent feasible, these same requirements would also be imposed on all projects basin-wide. As such, cumulative impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. (EIR, pp. 3.2-25 to 3.2-26) D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Future development in San Bernardino and surrounding cities could result in the loss of biological resources. San Bernardino is an urbanized city surrounded by other urban cities. Similar to other areas of San Bernardino, neighboring properties are developed with homes, Interstate 215, soccer fields, and commercial development. No special-status wildlife species were observed on the project site during a reconnaissance-level survey, and none are likely to be present due to the disturbed nature of the project site and the developed characteristics surrounding lands. Although some special-status species could potentially occur on the project site as transients, direct and indirect project impacts would be precluded by implementing standard avoidance and minimization measures. Given the low quality habitat that exists on the project site, the project will not result in a significant loss of habitat. Therefore, cumulative 1 57 16.b Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) impacts related to biological resources would be reduced to less than cumulatively considerable. EIR, pp. 3.3-15 through 3.3-16) E. CULTURAL RESOURCES The proposed project, along with any foreseeable development in the project vicinity, could result in cumulative impacts to cultural resources (i.e., prehistoric sites, historic sites, and isolated artifacts and features). As mitigated, the direct impacts associated with the proposed project will be reduced to a less than significant level. The proposed project is adjacent to existing development that has disturbed the soil and likely already affected any cultural resources. As a result of surrounding development, mitigation proposed to reduce direct project impacts, and existing federal and state laws that would require project conformance, this impact is considered less than cumulatively considerable. (EIR,pp. 3.4-11 through 3.4-12) F. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Geotechnical impacts are site-specific rather than cumulative in nature. For example, seismic events may damage or destroy a building on the project site, but the construction of a development project on one site would not cause any adjacent parcels to become more susceptible to seismic events, nor can a project affect local geology in such a manner as to increase risks regionally. Soils associated with the project site are similar to other soils in the area. The proposed project will grade parts of the property. However, the resulting project site would not be visually and topographically different from existing development surrounding the proposed project site. The proposed project will be graded to be similar to existing adjacent natural topography to avoid erosion. With compliance with existing codes and standards, including the California Building Code and implementation of the Mitigation Measures GEO-1 through GEO-4, the proposed project's contribution to cumulative impacts related to area geological conditions would be less than cumulatively considerable. (EIR,p. 3.5-14) G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS The proposed project's GHG emissions were calculated using CaIEEMod version 2013.2.2, which was developed in coordination with the South Coast Air Quality Management District and is the most current emissions model approved for use in California by various other air districts. The proposed project would result in direct emissions of GHGs from construction. The project is compared with the efficiency-based threshold of 4.8 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) per service population (residents plus employees) per year by the year 2020. In addition, the SCAQMD-recommended threshold of 3.0 metric tons of CO2e per service population per year in 2035 was used to assess the project's impacts to the post-2020 GHG reduction goals in California, identified in Governor's Executive Order B-30-15 (2015) and Executive Order 5-03-05 (2005). The SCAQMD's approach is to identify the emissions level for which a project would not be expected to substantially conflict with existing California legislation adopted to reduce statewide GHG emissions. For the purposes of this project, the service population for the commercial uses would be the employees, the customers, and the vendors. 58 16.b Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) The proposed commercial uses would generate approximately 6,702 trips per day. In order to provide a conservative analysis, an internal capture value of 505 and pass-by reduction value of 2,107 are subtracted from the commercial trip generation. As such, the proposed commercial uses would generate 4,090 trips per day. The total number of trips per day is divided by two to derive 2,045 employees, customers, and vendors. According to the California Department of Finance, the average people per household in the City of San Bernardino is 3.49; therefore, the proposed project would contain 419 residents (3.49 people/house x 120 houses). Based on these estimates, the proposed project service population would be 2,464 (419 residents 2,045 employees). Dividing the GHG emissions for each time period yields a metric ton per service population ratio of 8.3 for year 2020 conditions and 8.0 for year 2035 conditions, thus not surpassing the significance thresholds. The proposed project's contribution to cumulative impacts related to commercial trip generation would be less than cumulatively considerable. EIR, pp. 3.6-9 through 3.6-11) H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Implementation of the proposed project would result in potential short-term impacts during construction activities associated with exposure to hazards such as potentially contaminated soils. However, hazards and hazardous materials impacts associated with the project would be site-specific and would not contribute to cumulative hazardous impacts. Cumulative development in the region is not anticipated to result in significant hazards or hazardous materials impacts to the project site. In addition, any new development in areas at risk for wildland fire hazards would be required to comply with minimum standards for building materials and material assemblies to provide a reasonable level of exterior wildfire exposure protection for buildings in wildland-urban interface areas as required by the 2013 California Fire Code. The City's standard for streets includes regularly spaced fire hydrants and ensures access for emergency vehicles. These standards would reduce any associated wildfire risks. As such, the proposed project would not combine with any planned growth in the area to form a hazard impact or wildland fire risk greater or more significant than the project impact alone. Therefore, cumulative impacts relative to hazards and hazardous materials and wildland fires are considered less than cumulatively considerable. (EIR, pp. 3.7-13 through 3.7-14) I.HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY The proposed project, when considered in combination with existing, approved, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable development in the Santa Ana River watershed, would alter cumulative drainage conditions, rates, volumes, and water quality, which could result in potential flooding and stormwater quality impacts in the overall watershed. However, the proposed project's storm drain system and implementation of a water quality management plan would reduce the project's contributions to cumulative runoff, water quality, and flooding impacts. As demonstrated by the hydrology and hydraulics report completed for the project, the proposed project is designed to convey stormwater runoff in a safe manner for the post-project condition. As such, the project would not contribute to cumulative hydrology impacts. The proposed project includes drainage basins that both reduce the velocity of runoff and serve to remove debris and contaminants from stormwater runoff. Stormwater can only enter the storm drainage system after passing through these basins. The proposed project's contribution to 59 16.b Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) cumulative water quality, runoff, and flooding impacts is considered to be less than cumulatively considerable. (EIR, pp. 3. 8-16 through 3.8-17) J. LAND USE AND PLANNING The proposed project would result in development on land that is currently vacant. The subject land has been designated for development since adoption of the City's General Plan. The proposed project consists of residential land uses and commercial uses; thus, the proposed land use mix is compatible with the existing and anticipated development in the project vicinity, which generally consists of residential and commercial uses. Because development of the site is consistent with the City's expectations for future development of the area, impacts are considered less than cumulatively considerable. (EIR,p. 3.9-5) K. MINERAL RESOURCES Given that there are no mineral resources at the project site, and no impacts would occur, the project would not have a cumulatively considerable impact. (EIR, pp. 3.14-2 through 3.14-3) L. NOISE The cumulative setting associated with the proposed project with regard to noise impacts includes approved, proposed, planned, and other reasonably foreseeable projects and development in the City of San Bernardino. Developments and planned land uses, including the proposed project, would cumulatively contribute to increased noise levels along roadways in the City. Primarily, the project would have the potential to contribute to cumulative noise impacts as a result of increased traffic on local roadways, in combination with other projects in the vicinity. The project is expected to generate an exterior noise level increase of up to 1.8 dBA CNEL, which would exceed the significance thresholds identified when the existing ambient conditions range from 60 to 65 dBA CNEL on the roadway segment of West Little League Drive west of Palm Avenue. However, existing land use adjacent to this roadway segment is commercial, and not noise-sensitive (i.e., versus residential use types). Therefore, any noise level increase resulting with project buildout is considered to be less than significant for Year 2035 conditions. The proposed project's cumulative contribution to ambient noise levels would be less than cumulatively considerable. Additionally, operational noise from the project would have the potential to contribute to an increase in cumulative noise levels in the area. Operational stationary source noise from the project would be limited to an exterior noise level of 65 dBA for the residential land uses. The project would have the potential to contribute to area noise levels on a cumulative basis. However, operational noise levels for the project would not exceed the City's noise thresholds under a worst-case scenario (with all rooftop air conditioning units, shopping cart corrals, parking lot vehicle movements, and loading dock activities all operating simultaneously), although this condition would typically not occur. Mitigation required to reduce direct noise impacts relative to project-generated traffic (see NOI-IA) would also help to reduce the project's 60 16.b Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) contribution to cumulative operational noise levels experienced by off-site sensitive receptors i.e., residential uses to the northeast). Further, all future development projects in the project area would require evaluation to determine their potential to contribute to an increase in area noise levels on a cumulative basis. Operation of all such future development would be required to demonstrate conformance with the City's noise level thresholds and to provide mitigation to reduce noise levels to the extent feasible, should such thresholds be exceeded. Due to the minor increase in operational noise levels generated by the proposed project, combined with implementation of mitigation required for direct noise impacts, it is not anticipated that the project's cumulative contribution to ambient noise levels would be cumulatively considerable. (EIR,pp. 3.10-41 through 3.10-46) M. POPULATION AND HOUSING Cumulative development in San Bernardino would result in substantial, direct population growth through the construction of new housing units and the creation of new employment opportunities. San Bernardino is anticipated to increase in population, though at a smaller percentage than experienced between 1990 and 2015. Population growth has been planned for in the General Plan, and the proposed project would be consistent with these projected uses. In addition, the proposed project would not alter subregional or regional growth rates projected in the General Plan or by SCAG. As such, the proposed project would not induce growth not already considered in the General Plan and the population forecasts for the City and surrounding area. As such, impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. (EIR, pp. 3.11-4 through 3.11-5) N. PUBLIC SERVICES Fire: Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to create a significant impact on fire protection services. The project applicant will pay fees and taxes that are expected to adequately mitigate the expected increase in fire protection and emergency medical service demand. Compliance with measures established by federal, state, and local regulations would reduce fire protection impacts to less than significant. In addition, adherence to the General Plan goals and policies would further reduce impacts resulting from the proposed project to a less than significant level. As such, implementation of the proposed project would not result in cumulatively considerable fire protection impacts. Police: Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to create a significant impact on police protection services. The proposed project is projected to generate an additional servicing need of 0.6 additional sworn officers and 0.3 civilian support staff. This increase is not considered substantial. As such, implementation of the proposed project would not result in cumulatively considerable police protection impacts. 1 Schools: The proposed project would have the potential to generate an additional 83 school-aged children. An additional 83 students would represent a less than one percent increase in the number of students attending SBCUSD schools. This increase is not considered substantial. Pursuant to SB 50, payment of fees to the appropriate school district is considered full mitigation for project impacts. Therefore, the project applicant would be required to pay the 61 16.b Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) statutory fees, so that space can be constructed, if necessary, at the nearest sites to accommodate the impact of project-generated students. Due to the minor increase in students, implementation of the proposed project would not result in cumulatively considerable school services and facilities impacts. (EIR, pp. 3.13-28 through 3. 13-29) O. RECREATION The proposed project would provide the parkland necessary for the additional residents and will not require the construction of any recreational facilities off-site. As a result of parkland included in the development plan, mitigation proposed, and conformance with existing federal and state laws, impacts are considered less than cumulatively considerable. (EIR, p. 3.13-31) P. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION Explanation: Long-term impacts would typically be considered less than significant because the City reasonably assumes that the improvements would eventually be constructed. However, since the City does not have the authority to implement regional funded roadway improvements (Measure "I") and cannot be certain that the projects listed on page 14 of the TIA will be built and would pay to address the impacts at the intersections in TRA-3. Without certain funding, the City cannot guarantee that the proposed improvements would be constructed as proposed by mitigation measure TRA-3. The intersection analysis for Year 2035 With Project scenario would result in significant impacts at Palm Avenue/Belmont Avenue (Intersection #10); Palm Avenue/Irvington Avenue Intersection #11); Palm Avenue/I-215 Southbound Ramps (Intersection #14); Palm Avenue/Hallmark Parkway (Intersection #15), and; University Parkway/Kendall Drive Intersection #19). The City would collect fees representing the proportionate share of the proposed project's impact at the intersections identified in mitigation measure TRA-3. Therefore, the project's potential contribution to traffic-related impacts at the affected intersections would be reduced, and project-related impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. (EIR, pp. 3.12-24 through 3.12-35) Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Water: The proposed project will create an increase in water consumption of approximately 0.26 percent. Considering the current estimations that were determined by utilizing the SBMWD water consumption assumptions, sufficient water supplies are available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, and no new or expanded entitlements are needed. It is also not foreseen that the proposed project will necessitate the construction of additional water facilities other than those included as part of the project. As such, the project would not contribute to cumulative water impacts. (EIR, p. 3.13-24) Wastewater: Development associated with implementation of the proposed project would result in an increased demand on the existing sewer system from increased sewage flows in the project area. The proposed project will represent an increase in wastewater production of 62 16.b Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) approximately 35,974 gallons per day. This increase will be a minor impact to the Water Reclamation Plant's daily capacity. The wastewater generated by the proposed project will be treated using primary and secondary treatment processes to meet the discharge standards specified in the NPDES permit issued by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, as well as a final filtering and disinfecting process. Because the project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements, cumulative impacts due to wastewater treatment would be less than cumulatively considerable. (EIR, p. 3.13-24) Stormwater: The proposed project, when considered in combination with existing, approved, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable development in the Santa Ana River watershed, would alter cumulative drainage conditions, rates, volumes, and water quality, which could result in potential flooding and stormwater quality impacts in the overall watershed. The proposed project's storm drain system and implementation of a water quality management plan would reduce the project's contributions to cumulative runoff, water quality, and flooding impacts. As demonstrated by the hydrology and hydraulics report completed for the project, the proposed project is designed to convey stormwater runoff in a safe manner for the post-project condition. As such, the project would not contribute to cumulative hydrology impacts. The proposed project includes drainage basins that both reduce the velocity of runoff and serve to remove debris and contaminants from stormwater runoff. Stormwater can only enter the storm drainage system after passing through these basins. The proposed project's contribution to cumulative water quality, runoff, and flooding impacts is considered to be less than cumulatively considerable. (EIR,p. 3.13-24) Solid Waste: The proposed project will represent an increase in solid waste production of 734 tons per year. The project and cumulative projects will be required to comply with City and state regulations and General Plan goals and policies related to solid waste. The contribution of the proposed project to cumulative impacts associated with increased solid waste would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in cumulatively considerable solid waste impacts. (EIR, p. 3.13-25) FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES According to Sections 15126(c) and 15126.2(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines, an EIR is required to address any significant irreversible environmental changes that would occur should the proposed project be implemented. Generally, a project would result in significant irreversible environmental changes if any of the following would occur: The project would involve a large commitment of non-renewable resources; The primary and secondary impacts of the project would generally commit future generations to similar uses The project involves uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents; or The proposed consumption of resources are not justified. 63 16.b Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) Long-term irreversible environmental changes would include a change in the land use and visual character of the site (undeveloped to developed), an increase in local and regional traffic and associated air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions and noise level increases, an increase in the volumes of solid waste and wastewater generated in the area, and an increase in water consumption. Additionally, development of the project site would irretrievably commit building materials and energy to the construction and maintenance of buildings and infrastructure proposed. Nonrenewable and limited resources that would likely be consumed as part of project site development would include but are not limited to oil, natural gas, gasoline, lumber, sand and gravel, asphalt, water, steel, and similar materials. In addition, the project site would result in an increased demand on public services and utilities (e.g., water supplies). The use of natural resources in the form of construction materials and energy resources would not have a substantial, measureable effect on the availability of such resources, including nonrenewable resources such as fossil fuels. Project construction and operation would not involve the use of substantial amounts of nonrenewable energy. Further, the Rancho Palma Specific Plan requires that the project comply with California's Green Building Standards Code CALGreen), which would reduce the amount of energy the proposed commercial and residential land uses would require for building operation, thereby reducing demands on nonrenewable fossil fuels. The project would also be subject to compliance with applicable regulatory requirements implemented by the State of California and the South Coast Air Quality Management District SCAQMD) to reduce the project's demand for energy resources. The Rancho Palma Specific Plan also includes measures to reduce long-term water and energy demands generated by the proposed development. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the proposed project would result in the wasteful consumption of substantial amounts of energy or nonrenewable resources. (EIR, pp. 5-3 through 5-4) Therefore, no significant impacts relating to irreversible changes are anticipated. FINDINGS REGARDING GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS Section 15126.2(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to discuss the ways the proposed project could foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing, directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Growth-inducing impacts include the removal of obstacles to population growth (e.g., the expansion of a wastewater treatment plant allowing more development in a service area) and the development and construction of new service facilities that could significantly affect the environment individually or cumulatively. In addition, growth must not be assumed as beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment. Per the Department of Finance, the average household size in San Bernardino in 2015 was 3.49 persons. The proposed project would include 120 additional single-family dwelling units, which would add 419 people to the City's population (3.39 persons per household x 120 dwelling units). In addition, the project would deliver an appropriately 98,000 square-foot 64 16.b Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) neighborhood commercial center that provides a mix of retail uses with employment growth and increased sales tax for San Bernardino. Project construction and operation would generate new employees and residents that would purchase goods and services within the region. However, any indirect increase in employment associated with meeting such needs for goods and services would be marginal, and accommodated by existing goods and service providers, as well as by the proposed development. Such demands are not likely to result in any new physical impacts to the environment. The City of San Bernardino General Plan (2005a) projects the total population of the City to be 319,241 at buildout. The increase in population as a result of the proposed project would account for approximately one percent of the population growth under the General Plan. The anticipated growth has been planned for in the General Plan, and the residential land use proposed with the project would be an allowed use under the current zoning (Commercial General) with City approval of the Rancho Palma Specific Plan. Furthermore, the General Plan includes goals and policies to reduce potential population growth-related impacts. I It is not anticipated that the proposed project would directly or indirectly induce growth by causing intensification of land uses in the immediate vicinity, and none of the improvements proposed by the project would enable such intensification that could not already occur under present conditions, due to the location of the project in an urbanized area of the City and similar to development on adjacent lands. Development of the project site would result in the improvement and extension of infrastructure facilities located in and/or adjoining the project site. The surrounding area is already developed with similar residential and commercial uses that are currently served by existing infrastructure and adequate public services (e.g., required fire service response times can be met without new or expanded facilities or personnel). As such, the project would not be expected to indirectly induce growth as a result of new infrastructure or services in the area. The project would therefore not substantially induce substantial population growth, either directly or indirectly. (EIR,pp. 5-1 through 5-3.) FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES A. PROJECT OBJECTIVES The objective of the proposed project is to redevelop an underutilized property in San Bernardino in conformance with the land use and zoning designations applied to the property by the City of San Bernardino General Plan and the Rancho Palma Specific Plan. The following is a list of basic objectives sought by the proposed project: A. Establish a mixed-use community for the Verdemont Heights community with a balance of land uses including commercial, single-family housing, and recreation. B. Deliver an appropriately sized neighborhood commercial center that provides a mix of retail uses with employment growth and increased sales tax for San Bernardino. 65 16.b Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) i C. Provide new single-family housing in the Verdemont Heights community with two lot size categories and corresponding home sizes to serve a variety of future residents. D. Increase the Verdemont Heights community's recreation opportunities by expanding the size and/or amenities of Ronald Reagan Park. E. Adopt appropriate standards and design guidelines to implement the development to ensure compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods. F. Promote a sense of community and character by providing neighborhood signage and monumentation. G. Create a pedestrian environment with walkable parks and commercial uses. H. Provide a fiscally sound project that provides for ongoing maintenance and operation of neighborhood parks and streets with the additional sales tax revenues from the commercial uses. 1. Improve circulation in the Verdemont Heights community with improvements of West Little League Drive and Magnolia Avenue adjacent to the project. J. Facilitate additional public parking with the improvement of West Little League Drive and Magnolia Avenue. K. Reduce the need for overnight parking of RV units on the street or driveways with the provision of a RV storage yard. L. Reduce water consumption through the use of native, drought-tolerant landscaping and smart" irrigation systems. M. Promote a "green" project with water- and energy-saving measures as defined in Chapter 5, Sustainable Guidelines, of the Rancho Palma Specific Plan. B. SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS As identified above, the project as proposed would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts after the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures. All project impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant. C. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED DURING THE SCOPING/ PROJECT PLANNING PROCESS I Among the factors that are used to consider project alternatives for detailed consideration in an EIR are whether they would meet most of the basic project objectives, be feasible, and whether they would avoid or substantially reduce the significant environmental impacts of the project(State CEQA Guidelines section 15126(c)). I 66 16.b Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) 1.Off-Site Alternative Description: Off-site alternatives are typically included in an environmental document to avoid, lessen, or eliminate a project's significant impacts by considering the proposed development in a different location. To be feasible, development of off-site locations must be able to fulfill the project purpose and meet most of the project's basic objectives. It is anticipated that locating the proposed project on off-site lands in the surrounding vicinity would generally result in similar development potential and associated environmental impacts, depending on the developed or undeveloped nature of the selected site. However, because San Bernardino is highly urbanized and largely built out, impacts relative to biological resources, cultural resources, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, traffic, etc., are anticipated to be similar to those that would result with the project. Therefore, an off-site alternative may or may not reduce any such impacts as compared to the project as proposed. Further, the subject site is currently under the project applicant's financial ownership (as compared to potential offsite alternatives), and residential and commercial uses allowed on the project site with City approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Existing land uses in the neighborhood (residential and commercial uses) on adjacent or nearby lands also represent similar land uses to those proposed with the project; therefore, development as proposed on the subject site would not introduce a new land use in the local setting or result in conflict with regard to operating characteristics. (EIR, p. 4-2) Finding: The City Council rejects this alternative on the following grounds, each of which provides a full and independent justification for rejection of the alternative: (1) an alternative site would likely result in similar impacts as the project; (2) other off-site properties in the area are not under financial ownership of the project applicant making this alternative infeasible; and, (3) development on other similarly-sized, vacant properties in the vicinity may conflict with existing land use designations or zoning classifications, or result in a land use conflict, making this alternative infeasible. 2. No Development Alternative Description: The No Development Alternative would result in the project site remaining in its current state as undeveloped land. It should be noted that, under existing conditions, the General Plan land use designation and zoning for the site are commercial, thereby indicating that the City anticipates commercial use of the property. As such, development of the site would likely occur in the future. Although this alternative would avoid all of the significant impacts identified as resulting with project implementation, the No Development Alternative would not achieve most of the project objectives. Because the site would remain undeveloped, a mixed-use development offering commercial retail uses, new residential housing opportunities, and/or recreational amenities would not be achieved. No new residential or commercial uses would be included on the site, nor would any economic or employment benefits occur as a result. Further, the public benefit offered by expansion of Ronald Reagan Park would not be achieved. Because the Rancho Palma Specific Plan would not be implemented and no development would be undertaken, the opportunity to provide a development that would respect and contribute to the enhancement of the neighborhood character, supportive of pedestrian needs, would not occur, nor would circulation patterns or available parking in the Verdemont Heights community be improved 67 16.b Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) along West Little League Drive and Magnolia Avenue adjacent to the site. As such, this alternative would not achieve most of the project objectives. (EIR, pp. 4-2 and 4-3) Finding: The City Council rejects this alternative on the following grounds, each of which provides a full and independent justification for rejection of the alternative: (1) the alternative would not achieve the majority of the intended project objectives. 3. Increased Residential Density Alternative Description: The Increased Residential Density Alternative would result in development of the project site in a similar manner to the proposed project with a mixture of residential, commercial, and recreational uses. However, under this alternative, the approximately 28-acre portion of the site (Planning Areas 1 and 2) would be developed with residential land uses at a higher density than that proposed with the project. The project as proposed would allow the future development of a maximum of 120 single-family residential units in Planning Areas 1 and 2. It is assumed that under this alternative, the number of 7,000-square-foot lots would be reduced and the number of 5,000-square-foot lots would be increased to achieve the intended higher density. However, development would still be subject to preparation of a Specific Plan to ensure the density at which the site is developed remains appropriate, with particular respect for surrounding land uses. Additionally, development of Planning Area 3 would be developed with the approximately 98,000 square feet of commercial land uses, similar to the proposed project. The 0.5-acre RV storage lot would also be eliminated to further accommodate the proposed increase in residential density. The neighborhood/linear park, pocket park, and paseo, as well as dedication of the 0.5-acre portion of land to the City for the future expansion of Ronald Reagan Park, would remain as proposed with the project under this alternative for restricted use by Rancho Palma residents only. With increased development, potential impacts relative to air quality, hazards/hazardous materials (increase in the number of people exposed to wildfire danger), noise, and traffic and transportation would increase above that with the project. This alternative would still achieve most of the project objectives, including establishing a mixed-use community for the Verdemont Heights community with a balance of land uses including commercial, single-family housing, and recreation, and providing new single-family housing in the Verdemont Heights community with two lot size categories and corresponding home sizes to serve a variety of future residents. Additionally, this alternative would retain the development's ability to achieve the objective of creating a fiscally sound project that provides for ongoing maintenance and operation of neighborhood parks and streets with the additional sales tax revenues generated from the commercial uses. (EIR, p. 4-3) Finding: The City Council rejects this alternative on the following grounds, each of which provides a full and independent justification for rejection of the alternative: (1) the alternative would result in an increase in potential impacts relative to air quality, hazards/hazardous materials (increase in the number of people exposed to wildfire danger), noise, and traffic and transportation; and, (2) the would not provide an environmental benefit or achieve additional objectives that the proposed project would not already achieve. 68 16.b Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) D. ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR ANALYSIS IN THE EIR The following project alternatives were considered in detail in the EIR. These alternatives are rejected for various reasons as set forth below. 1. No Project Alternative Description: CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e) requires that a No Project Alternative be evaluated in an EIR. The No Project analysis must discuss the circumstance under which the proposed project does not proceed. The comparison is that of the proposed project versus what can reasonably be expected to occur on the property should the proposed project not be approved. The analysis allows decision-makers to compare the impacts of approving the project with the impacts of not approving the project(CEQA Guidelines Section 5126.6(e)(3)(B)). The No Project Alternative does not necessarily mean that a project site would remain in an undeveloped condition. If no action is taken on the proposed project, development with similar or greater impacts may be proposed at some future date. The No Project Alternative assumes that the lead agency would take no action. Under this alternative, the proposed project site would be developed as allowed by the existing General Plan land use designation(CG-1) and zoning (CG-1) that currently apply to the subject site. Per San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 19.06.010, the CG-1 zone is "intended to provide for the continued use, enhancement, and new development of retail, personal service, entertainment, office and related commercial uses along major transportation corridors and intersections to service the needs of the residents; reinforcing existing commercial corridors and centers and establishing new locations as residential growth occurs. Additionally, this zone permits a maximum density of 47 units per net acre for senior citizen and senior congregate care housing." Permitted uses (i.e., those uses not subject to an Administrative or Development Permit, Minor Use Permit, or Conditional Use Permit) in the CG-1 zone are identified in Table 06.01, Commercial Zones List of Permitted, Development Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Uses, in the Municipal Code. The only permitted uses are previously existing single-family residential uses. All other land uses require City approval of either a Development Permit or a Conditional Use Permit. If such approval is sought, the site could be developed at a higher or lower density than the project as proposed (if residential uses are proposed), or at a higher or lower intensity (if commercial uses are proposed). However, it is assumed that even if a mix of commercial and residential uses are proposed with this alternative, development on the site would likely occur at an increased intensity above that which would result with the proposed project due to the nature and intent of the CG-1 zone, which is focused on commercial use types rather than residential development. Uses allowed with City approval of a Development Permit or CUP in the CG-1 zone include but are not limited to administrative and professional offices/services, automotive-related uses, hotels/motels, RV parks, night clubs/bars/lounges, restaurants, auditoriums, banks, medical offices, dry cleaners, day-care facilities, convenience stores, liquor stores, commercial bakeries, funeral parlors, libraries, mixed-use commercial, parking, religious facilities, public utility uses, 69 16.b Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) and veterinary facilities. As indicated in Table LU-2, Land Use Designations, of the General Plan, the CG-1 land use designation allows a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.7. Therefore, the 38 acres available on the site (does not include the 3.5-acre area comprising the Cable Creek Channel) would allow development of a maximum of 1,158,696 square feet of commercial uses if only commercial uses are proposed), or 1,060,696 square feet more than proposed with the project. However, considering the existing land use setting which includes residential uses adjacent to the site, it is anticipated that a lower FAR would likely be applied (i.e. a more appropriate FAR would be 0.25 which would yield development of a maximum of 413,820 square feet of commercial uses (if only commercial uses are proposed) on the 38 acres, or 315,820 square feet more than the proposed project. This alternative would not result in development of the RV storage lot or any of the other proposed private or public parks or open space. Additionally, the proposed improvements along West Little League Drive and Magnolia Avenue would not occur, although other roadway improvements may be required in support of the land uses ultimately proposed. Impacts: Alternative 1, the No Project Alternative would worsen the project's air quality, noise, and traffic and transportation impacts. (EIR, pp. 4-5 through 4-9) The alternative would result in similar impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, and geology and soils impacts as the proposed project. (EIR, pp. 4-6 through 4-7) The alternative would reduce the project's impacts to hazards and hazardous materials. EIR,p. 4-7) Objectives and Feasibility: This alternative would have the potential to meet the project objectives of establishing a mixed-use community for the Verdemont Heights community with a balance of land uses including commercial, single-family housing, and recreation, and providing new single-family housing in the Verdemont Heights community with two lot size categories and corresponding home sizes to serve a variety of future residents. However, this would only be achieved if residential uses were actually proposed. Similarly, the objective of reducing the need for overnight parking of RV units on the street or driveways could only be achieved if an RV storage lot is developed, and the objective of increasing the Verdemont Heights community's recreation opportunities by expanding the size and/or amenities of Ronald Reagan Park could only be achieved if such use of a portion of the site is proposed. Several of the other more general project objectives, including reducing water consumption through the use of native, drought-tolerant landscaping and "smart" irrigation systems, and promoting a "green" project with water- and energy-saving measures, could be achieved whether the site is developed with residential, commercial, or recreational uses. Improvements in parking and/or circulation on area roadways would also be dependent on the type and intensity of future land uses proposed. Finding: The City Council rejects Alternative 1, the No Project Alternative on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1)Alternative 1 fails to meet several of the project objectives; (2) Alternative I would increase impacts relative to air quality, noise, and traffic and transportation given the intensity of development allowed under current land use and zoning; and (3) Alternative 1 is 70 16.b Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) infeasible given that retention of the site in its vacant condition would be inconsistent with the City of San Bernardino General Plan. Therefore, Alternative 1 is eliminated from further consideration. 2. No Commercial Use Alternative Description: The proposed project would develop approximately 9.3 acres of the property Planning Area 3) with 98,000 square feet of commercial development. Under the No Commercial Use Alternative, this acreage would instead be developed with residential uses on 5,000-square-foot lots. Assuming roughly one-third of the 9.3-acre land area would be used to support on-site roadway and landscaping improvements, it is estimated that the remaining acreage (approximately 270,072 square feet) could be developed with up to 54 residential lots of 5,000 square feet each. Development at this density would be reflective of that proposed for the adjacent Planning Area 2 under the proposed project (and that would also occur under this alternative). This alternative would still result in development of the RV storage lot(Planning Area 2), and the proposed public park (0.5 acre), neighborhood/linear park (1.4 acres), and Cable Creek Channel open space (3. 5 acres) would also remain as part of this alternative. This alternative would require approval of a CUP to allow residential uses on-site, and a Specific Plan would be prepared to guide the overall character and appearance of development. All other infrastructure improvements (utilities, roadway improvements, etc.) would remain the same as those which would occur with the project as proposed. Impacts: The No Commercial Use Alternative would worsen the project's hazards and hazardous materials impacts. (EIR, p. 4-11) The alternative would result in similar impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, and geology and soils impacts as the proposed project. (EIR, pp. 4-10 through 4-11) The alternative would reduce the project's impacts to air quality, noise, traffic and transportation. (EIR, pp. 4-10 through 4-12) Objectives and Feasibility: This alternative would achieve several of the project objectives by providing new single-family housing in the Verdemont Heights community with two lot size categories and corresponding home sizes to serve a variety of future residents and would increase the Verdemont Heights community's recreation opportunities by expanding the size and/or amenities of Ronald Reagan Park. Further, through preparation of a Specific Plan, this alternative could achieve the objectives of adopting appropriate standards and design guidelines to implement the development to ensure compatibility to surrounding neighborhoods; promoting a sense of community and character by providing neighborhood signage and monumentation; improving circulation in the Verdemont Heights community with improvements of West Little League Drive and Magnolia Avenue adjacent to the project; facilitating additional public parking with the improvement of West Little League and Magnolia Avenue; and reducing the need for overnight parking of RV units on the street or driveways with the provision of a RV storage yard. Additionally, this alternative would reduce water consumption through the use of 71 16.b Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) i jnative, drought-tolerant landscaping and "smart" irrigation systems, and promote a "green" project with water- and energy-saving measures as defined in the Specific Plan. However, as no commercial uses would be proposed, this alternative would not establish a mixed-use community for the Verdemont Heights community with a balance of land uses including commercial, single-family housing, and recreation; deliver an appropriately sized neighborhood commercial center that provides a mix of retail uses with employment growth and increased sales tax for San Bernardino; create a pedestrian environment with walkable parks and commercial uses; or, provide a fiscally sound project that provides for ongoing maintenance and operation of neighborhood parks and streets with the additional sales tax revenues from the commercial uses. (EIR, pp. 4-12 and 4-13) Finding: The City Council rejects Alternative 2, the No Commercial Use Alternative, on the following grounds, each of which provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) Alternative 2 fails to meet a majority of the project objectives, including providing a mixed-use community with a balance of uses including commercial, single-family housing, and recreation. Therefore, Alternative 2 is eliminated from further consideration. 3. Increased Commercial Use Alternative Description: To allow an increase in on-site commercial uses, the proposed residential development in Planning Area 2 would instead be developed with commercial uses under this alternative. As such, this alternative would remove approximately 11.3 acres from residential use, reducing the overall number of planned residential units to 63 (to be developed in Planning Area 1 under the proposed project and with this alternative). As with the proposed project, the 63 residential units would be developed on 7,000-square-foot lots. The overall commercial area would total approximately 20.6 acres (Planning Areas 2 and 3, 11.3 and 9.3 acres, respectively). As indicated in Table LU-2, Land Use Designations, of the General Plan, the CG-1 land use designation allows a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.7. However, considering the existing land use setting which includes residential uses adjacent to the site, it is anticipated that a lower FAR would likely be applied (i.e.a more appropriate FAR would be 0.25 which would yield development of a maximum of 224,334 square feet of commercial uses (if only commercial uses are proposed) on the 20.6 acres, or 126,334 square feet more than that proposed with the project. With 63 residential units, 1.1 acres of parkland are required per City code; this would include Public Park (0.5 acre) and neighborhood/linear park (0.6 acre). This alternative would not result in development of the RV storage lot; however, Cable Creek Channel open space (3.5 acres) would remain as part of this alternative. This alternative would require approval of a CUP to allow the residential uses on-site, and a Specific Plan would be prepared to guide the overall character and appearance of development. All other infrastructure improvements (utilities, roadway improvements, etc.) would remain the same as those which would occur with the project as proposed. I i 72 16.b Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) rr.r..rrr. Impacts: The Increased Commercial Use Alternative would worsen the project's air quality, noise, and traffic and transportation impacts. (EIR, pp. 4-13 through 4-16) The alternative would result in similar impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, and geology and soils impacts as the proposed project. (EIR, p. 4-14) The alternative would reduce the project's impacts to hazards and hazardous materials. EIR, p. 4-15) Objectives and Feasibility: The Increased Commercial Use Alternative would meet all of the project objectives with the exception of providing new single-family housing in the Verdemont Heights community with two lot size categories and corresponding home sizes to serve a variety of future residents, as only residential lots of 7,000 square feet would be offered. Mainly, development under this alternative would achieve the objective of providing a mixed- use community for the Verdemont Heights community with a balance of land uses including commercial, single-family housing, and recreation. Additionally, this alternative would deliver an appropriately sized neighborhood commercial center that provides a mix of retail uses with employment growth and increased sales tax for San Bernardino, while increasing the Verdemont Heights community's recreation opportunities by expanding the size and/or amenities of Ronald Reagan Park and creating a pedestrian environment with walkable parks and commercial uses. A Specific Plan would be prepared with appropriate standards and design guidelines to ensure the development's compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods and promotion of a sense of community and character by providing neighborhood signage and monumentation. (EIR, p. 4-16) Finding: The City Council rejects Alternative 3, the Increased Commercial Use Alternative on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) the alternative would increase the severity of air quality, noise, and traffic/transportation impacts; (2) the alternative would address area demand for residential housing to a lesser extent than the proposed project; and, (3) the alternative meets the project objectives to a lesser extent than the proposed project. Therefore, Alternative 3 is eliminated from further consideration. E. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 indicates that if the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR must also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. The context of an environmentally superior alternative is based on consideration of several factors, including the proposed project's objectives and the alternative's ability to fulfill the goals while reducing potential impacts to the surrounding environment. The proposed project would result in significant impacts with regard to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, traffic and transportation, and utilities, public services, and recreation. Impacts resulting from the No Project Alternative and the Increased Commercial Use Alternative would be largely similar to or greater than the proposed project. However, the No Commercial Use Alternative 73 16.b Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) i would achieve reduced impacts related to air quality, noise, and traffic and transportation, thereby making it environmentally superior to the proposed project with regard to these issue areas. Therefore, the No Commercial Use Alternative is considered the Environmentally Superior Alternative. However, this alternative would not satisfy the basic project objectives of providing a mixed-use community, including a commercial center, along with residential housing and recreational amenities, or contribute to increased employment growth or increased sales tax revenue. However, as determined above, the City Council rejects the No Commercial Use Alternative on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) the alternative does not meet, or meets to a lesser extent, the project objectives as compared to the proposed project. Therefore, this alternative is eliminated from further consideration. NO OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS REQUIRED No significant and unavoidable impacts were identified through preparation of the EIR. All significant impacts can be reduced to less than significant through implementation of the proposed mitigation measures. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations is not required for the proposed project. ADOPTION OF THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the Mayor and City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. Implementation of the mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is hereby made a condition of approval of the project. In the event of any inconsistencies between the mitigation measures set forth herein and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program shall control. 74 16.b Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) CERTIFICATION OF THE EIR The City Council finds that it has been presented with the EIR, which it has reviewed and considered, and further finds that the EIR is an accurate and objective statement that has been completed in full compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines and that the EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council. The City Council declares that no evidence of new significant impacts as defined by the State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 have been received by the City Council after circulation of the Draft EIR which would require recirculation. Therefore, the City Council hereby certifies the EIR based on the entirety of the record of proceedings. CUSTODIAN OF RECORD The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution has been based are located at the City of San Bernardino Community Development Department, 300 North "E" Street, 3rd Floor, San Bernardino, California, 92418. The custodian for these records is the Community Development Department. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION A Notice of Determination shall be filed with the County of San Bernardino and the State Clearinghouse within 5 (five) working days of final project approval. i 1 75 I 16.b Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) it I I I PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this xx day of 2017. R. Carey Davis Mayor, City of San Bernardino ATTEST: Georgeann Hanna, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney i 76 16.b Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) i i I THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY. I i I i i I I i I i i i i I I f i I j 77 16.b Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) Exhibit A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 78 16.b Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) 1 EXHIBIT B MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 i 25 26 27 28 9 I 16.b Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) L 'E E o o 2 0 2 7 \ 2 £ £G / J 2 5 2@ 2 2 0f E E k0 " c c / c 0 k & 6ƒ A2. , Q O o o 3 R o ® 206 02= 00k/ 0 0 0 76 O E 0 o 3 2 R o 0 f /\ fok D 0j o £ o /) E \@ / o D o L QE E O / _ E o o 2 1)o 0 C)-£ E o [ @ / Ems / 9 7 2 ° 0 C) • ' c p u £ o C) \ 0 .-J 2 / 0 0 Q 6 0 3 E / x E / E 5 E 0 co 0)3 / c 4 E \ /7 ¥0 / DC:0 c &/ g @fk \ f ./ofS J / /0 E 2@ 0 2 7 o O 2 3 _0 2 = '7 / O 6 5 0 § 0 ® z / § o o ® ® ® 3 0 / _o r t / 0 E £ £ > E / $ / 0 § / /0 2 0 LU / / j E 0 2 0 3 / \ / O c b §2 ƒ 0 $ / 0 J 0 & % 2 ©2 \2 E 5@kz >± 0 n 6 E ƒ /K C ) CL k 2 0-0 /_ z £ 0 E / % a 0 b § / 2 / 3 / rgth f /j (D -0 \ { _0 / E u 700 : o 0) C) b 2 u ƒ k D o22£ O r E 0) c ' Eo In \ \ 0 E 2222 b d / k 0 0 9 0 E E o Q /0 / \ oo // 0 5 f - F- Ln kf _ § e 16.b Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) o to o L N O '0 a 0Li 0V r ++m d O lU C C o+' a Ec L i+ c aJ Q c O O v O a c o ami v) 0) o cC Y fB U d L C O) d O aj Y c m 0 •C - c C_ p 0 a 2 O N •C cu VA E F 0 H O N 'D C Nv Y N a1 ! Y - to m C OCY C O N O fl- v Y EQ CU v v EOEuu wY O O '\0 V0 a 0- A a C N D>f6 ai _0 of y c m 0)-o m o a a) v 'a aj ai 'a a L_ c a) v v, a L c6 C L c0 L .0 C Y ` 61 C Y Xz C L Y = O L O y - L . 0) o 3 a, -0 0) E u a) f0 r .v v a,v *' o OC N • -0 Ln C "O •N v = CO O Q YO - c-' ti Q Y— CL O ajQ,N v dCwOcpp0) O O 0 c a1 T Q a a! C to co O > u O (0 Ln a o O E o c O w ° 0)v y o ami _c O .c ^ Yo a, v v 0) N ca Y y u ^ ns ,C C E Y 0 c6 y a ca `L -o ai ° >; c a c Y 0• + v c •`-' Y 3 x o 0 0) a, -0 v, 0 a, L o ca E 0) C Q Y C a) 7 '''' c C V C U 7 L+ "0 w — 3 L N C v aj Y 6. '0 . L C 0, N vi C C of C c6 O 0 m . O_.- >, m c ' z L v o v Q O -0 NLr— L E v N E L >, O fp 0) t6 M Y 3 N C O '01-0 Q -0 ._ — +' M ( IE a1 1N0 v N N L L ',_, a) In N d L c N O C m 7 L 0 m 3:N U y y n -0 O n m o u ' O m m N 0' Y Ol U i C C u O v N •C w o_ d , Z c a) _0 L -0 + v_, `^ -0 aL m O N a' 6 }' v a C C a) m N o c 7 a) 7 N c c 'o t +L•. 0 a) 3 o N m CO L Z c .m O L L C 0 ' D O C C -0 0_— fl- c t0 L '},, — a) H u O u — ''' — _0 a "aj aj C .!Ln0Q)C)m a u a Ov N L L v O ca L L 0 H [ w 0 0 a) O a+ i 0 aL. Q;n aJ v "0 N N •C L N v--aJ N .Q C Q) O Lni caca rnYc o Tv3 oo (; E c °J a) 0 Z — v c o m E .c O o E c c m Y c 0 " 0)- 0 V - O Q Ln EovZ v c'o f Y - o Y .c ' 0 In o 3 0) Y N 0) C c -0 -0 O @ y,, CL cu CLn Y N 0-C M N > W a1 O O 7 0 '-ai '° -o C L O (U " aJ O _^ L Q O v = m w G N Q u r-1 N i E Q Vf 0 d E m N to L C O -0 U N "0 u m U U D•L L C. M 0 o0 m v of ni O O ;w 16.b Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) O O O N O CLOr a+ cm _ L 10 47 Q w Q9y O U c p O C c c on v aC q :2 c c o E c rO+ r-a c U v m C O °O a m of c aina, CQ), to v E oC — .c ' n a, C O c O C m T C T O1 O_ Y m ° c v U a V w v O • E > m V O p a Yca CU Y mN 1 C 0 m - 0 al V 20) O C N p O 0) C m Q O U CL o u 0) ma w w o 0 w au 0) Z -0 . c a) 3 Ln 0 *' d c 3 t 3 c ` C m 0 0 0 a) m y a C a v ' 3 0 ° m 3 a' c __E v y ° .0 v a) c m O -°6 y o a— • m > a`ni v ..o v L >+L m o m C_ -O Q) 7 U N aJ . C N ° c 7 D Y C , n - 0 -0 a) -- 3 °i O -0 `° 3 m _ 0 N Q' 0 •y ' m a) tA m t Om Y t 6 M O N O Y Y Y a) m y '-' O C C Y a O v, ° c c o -- 3 3 m rn '-' ° Ln " c ro s QM) L C 7 m 7 v O , m C aJ ° " 6 C a) N (u '' m O E += v a) 3 s o c m Ln -o x c c 0 -, c c v, N tn (U , v, 0 3 v Y o m -O m v — 3 w m Ln ' 0 a) m C u O m C m m c a o '3 0 E = m p ' Y CU m o ° ° a33omc0 a a) U 0 E p a, c p O E Ln O Y a) m C Q1 V O ^ C O u *' + O V 7 O o o g c Q' Q, fO o °v a'u v a -O (u Q 3 c o w j a a ° = u o °' .c m o o m ami E V p rn c `° 3 0 -0 0 -0 j E C2 N 'E ami v t =i N u E v Ol 0 0 +° p N `° 0 O eo O n E a Y 0' m c m co E 3 a co a m 'Y Of O O cr 3 O C L p Q fl m N C C '' i O v p Ln to ° 4J u r+ al m O co ` n L `n al T Y a) , n m Cl-t m a) C Y .W S V N - C C 01 ` T O a1 }' C a a1.0 m _0) O j t' O C at O E n C C O r Y •Y m m m n .- . C 1. O 3 T u d T m 't- 0 0 Or d O O N Ol u in O` N p1 cc c 0 cu E j C •`n C O u 0) " N ' O Y -0 E c "p O Q_O O C 'n a) -0 0 p C m aJ O O O O -c 30 L E C N ` w .O '.+ u O Q'O o C i _ 7 i N — a Y U c " a' v " m ° 3 m aoi Y Y" v a' Q °u o m Y W V -0 O H 'n _0 O N 3 D O a 3 O m m m a L IA r 4 0 pp M Vtj 16.b Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) O_ b O N CC .. d a = E •O a d a 00 O rn lJ C_ C C C C: cn c a C O m O LA ca +^ o a co co a m C (UWWI v) a) E N CU E oC C a) O O c V m V w 0 0) 0) c c a, a) 01 N '*N .y V V C: COC7 O pO C) U 0) V r-I Q1 Y 01 i w- C C V O O 0 a I a a) m () -a a) -a a) L a a) -a •a L O 0 C u L O t a) L a) 7 L a) L a) L u a) O L a) V C C }' C N a) O nw o ca a -a p n — m c Y E -o o v+ a w a) O m V V V 7 C O C 'V 7 ° OL a) 7 a) p N L C L.L. V) a) X C O 6 f6 a ' O ` 1 C > a• y > C rr1 y a) Q) V a) v 0 O C C v —O O O N to 00 C N O C y U al p > N y L f0 C 7 a) >, N ON _O 7 a>'+ • C •y,,, Y v -6 a) m O L a) O y y N a' 7 C C m a• C O to C C O V u ° 'a .Q C LL m C > _° •N .C- _C .Q 'E Q_• O_ V W O U m N v aJ Y Q c Q °O v 0 7 V Y O oa) f0 V V C a) `1 a) V 'a V 7 a •C C 7 Vl O) In ca C a) °- vi "a L Ut a) a) a) to Oa1COQOca) -a Q' E C a) a) `p 7 v) C) L M CD a) to L •— aj D = %1 aJ > L ^ tp L ,ia v 7 O N `Q Q a) a) t C) — OC d u y Y C a y L p N L1 °-L O 'a O O -p V O ' O C u I i+ 3 Y C 7 O N c L a) T•y L a p to n - Q N O N C o 0) v V Ou c > a N N C O L L C o Q Y O Q ca an C O C N L _7 — " Q O -a •3 a V) "6 Q N ami p v L -p 3 a) •U v d O C p a) T a) .V c0 L L Q--a y E aJ tS3 L 7 l7 a) N V m L C r `J al C _Q) p Q O . 0 a c a ac) — ° o _E C 0 c a) > s c °; y 3 a LU a a u oO cp a) L C in -a v Q C _ u ` L O -a Y i y O C u a' C 'a C In y a) a a E a > o o a F- vv ` c° - p °m L •`-' a v n v `° c01Ya1vcL6a) O _ 'Y C O 'y O C Lon)O C y n a)L E C V 4 c , -p co aJ rn a N a) ca • >, 0 'p i '_ 3 7 L >, Y o d In O O Qi tA -Q O Z Z a O Ln •'= -Q C O O E C d C .Q) -Q L Y OG O+ L y C C +-' c6 N V aJ dJ aJ V1 ' m a N 7 N Y c6 N p C = N 7 ° y >C u N C 4J a) _C `J N m Q) 7 > u v = N .al v L _C O Ln " a E p Y M (O a) L m " M L -' V V1 u a) m i to N c0 Y c0 V r-I M w-y V C 110. a 4 0 N M O ++auo, i o° 16.b Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) i I o N ro 0 0) U C C_ O C O C c c c c ac — V C -0 C c6 Ln cp C O m cm + m 0) Y CO C. C CCOccuCCd G d Vl w E N N E O C O c ftp V u, 0 V w 0) c c 9ui N .a- N •• r. L6 > E Y a j O p O O 01 V 0) U 0 w N 0 c i C Ln O 0 01 Na O a, caj >> c c a, a, C 0 >+ a,a) ate+ L @ N a, m v u Y LA n a E ro Z — , u — C)o L° a' E 0 E 0 M - v V) f0 C LA w r6 Ln 0 N V 0 C L LL Y - -0 C 0 m O O Y E C +'.' r6 aJ O O en - O '0 Y 7 L 0 NVcc m in a) a, Y C N . 'M OV •C >; N m C Ln y Y O v+ m c a, c .z a, a E E V rn -a - o 5 m y a, 3 'v o Y C `••O1 V fp `-. U a, N c L V V 01 OU °-'O C ca 0 Y C ' _ d v -0 a, y 0 -C O j N C m @ tYo +j 7 Ln O ai a) C 0 N N Q' - v 'B C .0 rn v, V ns co cui = E 0).v Y L .0 N o -0 - a Y N '- O N c 0 CL N E v c N E Y ° o ' ;a u L C Y o Q) ou C 0 0 L fp N to i•'' N N a10r m E Q y = L E , °i a 3 o F a, o a o c o Q LA u v L -0 `- a,M 0 a C `n to LA a, '> 'O Z N H E OV N m Ql_O 'O Y N L L 0 C Y O C = L _° Y N O en O C O — o "a , '^ LL `n • m FnNCZU aL- L C > M o)-o N M ° .t0 U V L O)C1— 0CCOJ1Ma, 0 0 C a, > 3 0 .2 ° E L 0 v Q) Q o o c c t a y o O , a rn u o , ,L a; , o, u •'^ O V C C O Y Ln m a, c`p .:: C -0 a C N - 0 +' E d x C 00 cco 0 V cco Q, a)oo N m 0 en FA o Y Q C 0 v '^ _0 -0 v v O rn -^ v ° Y v c c °' o v In .M ami ° o u ' _ t Z ° d rn N ° 7 E > 0 Ln Ern E a, 0 0 0 Y v °' O o v : 3 a, Y o o c o E L a o > ° v o — a; ° n 0 L a, a, o LIl r6 U Q LA N 4- L ._ Ln Q 0- Q cp Y Y L Q SZ Q 0• a E w c c N v.0 u Oc c o E c E C O O # A c p 0 in C o 'c C Y (O V a C vi n Y_ O E Y p V F N 7 C O p O O O c d O m to N O > O Y Y L O L Y O C C O L Y 0 0CfpLL Q Y V U U = E Z Y N In Y Y .Y CdLACM -p 3 a ' E , m O L Q'-Y C 0) L L 7 >N aJ C N D o Y Y O v y -0 6 pV v X O t4 o 3 7 cCp L YO N C O w O ~ Y N 01 v 9 N v ^ Q O N Y N d 3 6 Y Y ' " O N U vY_ i a L O aJ 1 N _ Y >O `.' V in 7 t6 ) L "O O _ aJ C T N U ; O aJ N N > aJ N O V Q O Y 0 L YLCl CO -i V C O a) _ E • Y o u 'p O L N _O C 0 3 Q Q Y @ -0 O (U to r0 in O V -o C C aL.. . N L cp O Y YC Y en V tCp N L v` ^ 0) : NO 0 O S v 0-1 cE cl n a Fa oma a, m c O vu mo tf o O yo '^ vN' a o - d0 o fVoLEOoL O A a iO OLn60a) D a OaOL W N 4 C o ,o Y p °' c o v E x E a afOi > ;; CC ,a o a, m c v Y a to C E Rma, O Y o u . N C O o E . a, y v o U (U N c E 3 • I i O N 0 O U C C C C O v1 m C O m Y m o C. c io c p a+ (A OC c c o . 'c o c c c lJ a a V a c p) o C c o D a, E c j V O E u N .u F : m E P C EV p O p C u u O YO Q)O0 CO aJn rnm p -p i a1 -O a) W aj O) 0) c L "d O cuQ d aJ aJ O L C a! 7 Y L C O C O u p L w Q m v o O O mC .- m N .Y " Y Q) O N Y p m m m V, 7 U m O i i vi C C OCJ 01' v u L C a1 C N N N y y a1 Y m c Ln in O >, W m m '>n O o in 0-- N u E O >, c m C 3 N m L O a) C L V p aJ C m "O '-' u v y v > > a` v c c Y m a, v Q X v io m v O v 9-- O is c o — 0 p O c CU o cn U a m y Y m 7 u Q n a- OCL p L m *' N V) 'u Q > — n w N C O m o ay m O m C Cu OL Q O Ou n= v V d v O 3 CL a a' 3 3 a c a o o o V '> v . O c •p O •Q n a, a L in m O p w U aJ u C -p O m C m 'p1 V U O Q) 'p to i ..p C L 7 N aJ O 3 0 Q) ' E Y w a Y n ° ' ' fD v aOa7 N :° to to n 'C C-. W O _ •" •7 .(u -p o L m mCvpuc > ami ro m Q. v O Y u X 6 a O vu v CY •,,,, -O L O O` 'a•' 7 C L-. C r-+ C ` ` 1 C n u1 t— p j co •`= u U Y Y N o O ..% p y o N O p O ND13 3 + p a) L m m u ,. + c L O 3 0 > a Q Q N a+ N' o c o a N n a v o v +J + J n a, nLn Ln O u O u E p N C O >m m O n 0 6 a O O .L C > Z In m Z >n N m U a1 n o d .4? m u u vA to L • O m , n Ol oLA • nLn o p • I N 0 4 0 Z N O .. rq OZeriZ Oac li i 16.b Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) i I o N L m m V ate+ ++ m d L t0 C C ] O V C L O 'VIC C O O N C1 C E H wO 00 a)O)caa w — c O w v a w a w C c a a N y 3 O ai ' O w N + J Y — a-+ M c in -j c6 — Q) .Q N a>1 tf E — j 7 t o Z N 'u L 0 j n Ln a)v V ` O N C N *' a, Q - v N ( E N v ^ c y fl E O O N QJdn. v . c : a ca a, a s C , cLn Q C v+ O V C O C .` A C 7 ca 41 C N a-. a O a) a N Q O V C 01= vi Q L v 7 N V N O O) u u C d L cu to N to c0 y, d , o m t C to c U v a 3 ., , a. 3 a, a, a c .D -0 a, - tLn Oofu ,. > a :> E y O o O E ;a ca a, u C ^ C yJ +' a) a1 C +-' O - . N N Z L 'n C 3 ° O o n co v E V c ° o aa, > s a, cu o .E .° rn. a u a - y -0 = o c — o aj o v' E ._ . + t E +-J cat c cv a u_ i C ra C '> *' L 6 Y a1 W N O Y N + C V CLn v O p) ++ ra tD O c VO v- c Y C _ a O O Ot ca V c a, c v m v E a c di oc o — E O , o o a °' Q E a .E , 0 cu N t6 L a 0 C u O C C a _ E C C .E Q) E a v1 Ln m O C tV6 Y ` E v Ou N m co aJ Q j v t Q1 tp Q to `n OL LA O L u — O N E a E Y °; c c cn E ' ; 0 4 C C cca O Y p c6 O O O E C 'v a+ O ai av 6 O m O ' Ln N — 7 u N u C1 cL a tv Ou C C C C c`a V C [a G1ADaNa2oY '" u 0) o E a v D O O s o ° c'a O H O . O 3 C o+ ns T a v ca c ^ a 0 o a y Q)•°v o •c0 Q 4 c kn s' _O > u ... a) C O u C 41 C C 2 C ._ ' n C W L V u i 2 cu in vii 'vi ° vYi V L C - o N '.' 'n Y 7 o • 6 04 0 s ' t+a Q s o ° C Ln ( U o s O u Ln o o O O L L O O N •E O C: ,r a s co 3 a F- u Z O 0 u , O C v a u u . u u 3 Ln co C u n w 4 0 o + u Cf C 16.b Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) G C N o w = i oM O U o O C1 a a) L C E c O %A co co r C aj p_ m Qma o c o o d V)Ln p O c c Y N Y N V a V a 0 C Q 0 — 0 o c CC_ O O >, L_ V O V C C V LA 'OC uO N C V O i YO Y Q O) N C C O O u Ql a` n. o p o vrn oa p M Y aJ Y -p to aJ Ql 0)-0 L a! w a) i O C a) "O v a) -O C C p L = N L C C a) Ql L , +J O -t- N L L w O O a) (7 N = Y Y a) > > H 7 Y p Y . 0 _ V1 > +•• > v L O p O E b y ,E_ Y c = , ra c C C m Y .E o Q-p o .= o Q O O L ,v, p Q c- 0 co O > N '^ -O i Y 'O N c0 C O O o0 cu La N N n3 "r "O r9 fo c0 c O O Ou Y fl O t Cl) C v O L i L , O a co Y M u Y LCF—Y V L Ln ' Ap E a' p E o w o o a; c o = _ L M u u cu Q) C: 0pVOuY O CL p L -p O_ L O E L .0 N O O 'O i O 'O C u 'v L O V C n = Q Q C ` m p1 Y p O Y v L E O N O co w v w co O OiovvpccuinuC '^ a) u u a, E (U o Y a, O .>—, D> cd .D pv W 7 O O N O lD — co p O — L L u a) ' c .v to = "O V YO a) L io p L i aJ L V C to d a1 Y O T V N Q C Q O L N j 7 C (o N " O Q N ^ Y L [' y a! ^ 'a V }' L C1mOyu ° Q o = M x ° u p VI Y , L C V = p Y ns 3 Y o N E v w V a, ,c C o v = Y _ ,`, O - p - p 3 C L Ln c o a C 7 Vi O` a) OJ .M +L+ N N — L O O v i C _ m C O ; CL L Y O C L O O` _ C ? >' _>. N m p u 'O O .D c -0V Q C O IC L p Vf N V Q m "0O - C U N N c m 00 V Q 7 a! +•' m u c r Ql E mal vOi >; 7 'v cp Y in L N . L p N 'C V Q U 3 >, _ N ~ 0 CU V OC L w a) O Q Q w L • V E ' al— 01 Q N L C cu ELn Q thcuOOvip0vOa p ca v L O > v O a7 G a 0 a a co Y Y Q a, m c -0 u -0 w Y u n o u F— w 0 a o Z Z C I 16.b Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) o to o N m f0 Eoa O I U I v c= @ E C c 0N N C m N C d Ln 0) oC c o c C Y c6 V a 0 a cco c C o > E U C 7 fB CV CtOUo i F H c c O C O C) O N0) co L N N N N NOJ0 -C C71 q O , O N -O C d Cy v N O m a) L -° O O u 0 :3 Ln O C N o fp V 'A Y Y E N O1 Q w _ N N VI aci CL fu m 0 v N v > : 0 _0 c " -z, 3 0 U c u lJ r, c Q v Q yEa, > O c o o °o Y° o •° o v ° aY, 3 O_ Ln LA u k , C v Y N OJ C N Y OJ C I' ` N "6 uJ Yrp 'O L cp ^ p V Y O N N " O N o M Eo a G 5 v 2 0 U tm c = O c c O O O. ce cn c E v o v Ln LA Ln co Q, — vi O O w co aJ s -o C v O of o w > o a) a) rn 1 c v Y Y c v o ' Y` i C A ai O co L 'O O m o o C Ncu rn Q) ON T O Y . CL E N c t m cc c O m c O > 0 0u n (o @O • a) p c c vii O ° "i C — i t u Ln ° 3 c0 co r0 • 0 N L E c u °) p 00 3 N N C c 3 o M . E o s c a, c C LA [E m 3 a c Q co oC M> N O v a' m s > 6 N rns O o — a o O Y a m Yd00NE ° o 3 3 ns s „ o 0) c t rn ro 0 aai 3 c `6 rn i; 2 = a) o 'o a o • a c a; n C D ca p 0) o c v m c N `° L) cYLa v Ol O N c j 0 t o O Q 3 Y L Y ° c N V L c6 t i+ .LA N O)— co in Y Y — ... 7 X O O H to O •c M Y Ol Chm c E — L I- c ' Q t N O L N t _ N O "O 'N .Q g a 3t v .0 v ai3to 'cm ° 3 Q o Yv E y `n d E ,o a, v c a, co 0 0 6. — a c ; m Q E w n a; C CUa `^ 'A co 3 v > a: 3 t ' E o Q 'm o c . 'c o — u n s w 3 o v3 S a ° E -0 t 0 0 0l t .i ° E o°c 3 rn 3 Q e LU = V N • w 0 a o ovOis c 16.b Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) i o N Q i ro i0 O U O O Ol 0 .0 Y -0 •U YC 0 0. m n m ru a a Ln 0) Q in rn o c c O 'C Y O 'C Y y fo O Y M O u a lJ a rn c co Im 0) c c E V 6 CO v O O O OYY Y O o_ Nr4a`, o aa a` v vrnfu v v -0 c o> >,- Ln a L .L..' 4J O C_ tC0 Q cCo T O p 4J Y L N . *L' *' •N a) 0Y o p -p Q u M C O L v O L O . Q T S O y 3 O L t0 VO O Y Y m C` .L.+ O N "O Y p- to > Q fp Y v 3 V o _ v Y O E O 7 Y V Ln >> N N Y 7 -O Y 3 Y cuGJMN O -r O cp N O — N ' > vi Y co v C N -76 C C 3 C aLV• u ' cu C C;)0O 0 N v N O Y C• _O Y C jL Q Y c C O o a) E •E o v p O m Q_ 'c o ca c o 0 0 d t C Y Z O Q •c - c .C 0 - p Q U -p O O 3 Q co o — O O n ca O > O c N L .. O > O v N t V o v a,, -O U O p '^ tYi tLi V N C OJ N N Q C P. A O O _v L T is C c 41 -0p O v ` L Q Q i -O Y N p Y '-' Y y: Q ''-' O i in C C ,O O m T 0 0 00 -CLn v v t C C t!1 pU L >L O V Y ` "p C ''.' Mc6 O cY L cD V) > V C 7 CQ .> v O O Ol O Y — u J Y m y v 7 L C Q W "O Ov f0 U f'V ' N C Op cd 7 U Z O Q• 0N tp N O O aY•+ • 4+ fd Q V . 0 'L^ U O C O C) L N cu O Y C V +L+ Q d t6 C d a N v Q ' 3 ' C 30 ami 'O Q {A C cp w p 3 `^ ''' Y Y O aL.+ Y V o N E .S to OC v—, O O C C N O o _ fp GJ N a c c 'C O a+ O C YO v . N 0 Q N f6 > Y O V 3 V Y L 3 ! Y O Q U E 0-CL v V O Q N N ` O > O C1 a` cQo iLn H . L V C V a a o I 16.b Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) i I 2 Ln k U A 0 mEE a- f o 0 V) 0 'E \ E Ch p 0 0 2 w » ot = k * ® 0) _0 m / . '\2 % E 6 a k m ° 2 u \ a s o E C')7 \ E u \ E a CL 2 % ° 5 r « u » CL 2 E \ E 6 F / ® u m J § 2 « \ § $ ƒm m 2 E a tG2 / / \ / \ & \3 e 7 \ / g a m E w e .0 = o 2 0 w 0- , W / z . a o &/ m E = § 3 2 E 2 $ E $ w u t § k \ 2 .§ _ E _ Q @ S G ( § o / = ¥ > / %£ c G n » » \ a ) \ } e « E m u c 3 o o E o 2 t f \ e « < @ c = @ Q) % o o & g e c 2 «S ° @ t 7 \ 5 a § \ o a o = 2 ® 0 e 2 0 0 g ® 7cu « § A c E z ± _ _ _ c 2 k E / \ .2 % k % ) S 2 ± \ f 2 G § / \ km \ _ m t E g m % _ _ o e = o @ c 2 ou ± § = a - 2 _ c = £ - Eek E a E $ \ - ® Qj = 0--o \ m k k ) G k k\ \ /-0 k § / 2 \ % k ) \ @ @ @ \ 2 m \ G -Fu 8- ± E R G ) { f o o O I E § ? % 2 2 ± ± ' E 5 ® O . ® . O02a \ au ' w a - a 2 k a o m o th I i . 16.b Packet Pg. 2453A ttachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) 2 q 0 k cak 0 U C A r- a cc Ch e 3 0 3 @ CL E 2 Ecn e q \ \ @ \ @ m @ \ C = M - 2 E 3 % 7 § E 2 2 2 2 2 - / a te \ 0 k / a e 2ta £ / 5 = \ / - = G (U- _ E -o 0 .2 = a 2 — -a = g " § § § 2 § § _ 'E 7 .e k 2 2 2 2 § 2 \ C G \ 7 2@ 7 c \ / 2 2 3: 7 « 7 7 7 j 72 m 2 °{ E§ r'4 E r4 } _ m e m _ k 2 0 \ cI 16.b Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan - Attachment 1 - Resolution (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) 16.c Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan. ATTACHMENT 2 (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) 16.c Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan. ATTACHMENT 2 (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) 16.c Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan. ATTACHMENT 2 (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) 16.c Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan. ATTACHMENT 2 (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) 16.c Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan. ATTACHMENT 2 (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) 16.c Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan. ATTACHMENT 2 (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) 16.c Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan. ATTACHMENT 2 (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) 16.c Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan. ATTACHMENT 2 (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) 16.c Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan. ATTACHMENT 2 (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) 16.c Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan. ATTACHMENT 2 (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) 16.c Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan. ATTACHMENT 2 (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) 16.c Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan. ATTACHMENT 2 (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) 16.d Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan. ATTACHMENT 3.Reso (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) 16.d Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan. ATTACHMENT 3.Reso (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) 16.d Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan. ATTACHMENT 3.Reso (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) 16.d Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan. ATTACHMENT 3.Reso (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) 16.d Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan. ATTACHMENT 3.Reso (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) 16.d Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan. ATTACHMENT 3.Reso (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) 16.d Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan. ATTACHMENT 3.Reso (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) 16.d Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan. ATTACHMENT 3.Reso (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) 16.d Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan. ATTACHMENT 3.Reso (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) 16.d Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan. ATTACHMENT 3.Reso (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) 16.d Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan. ATTACHMENT 3.Reso (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) 16.d Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan. ATTACHMENT 3.Reso (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) 16.d Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan. ATTACHMENT 3.Reso (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) 16.d Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan. ATTACHMENT 3.Reso (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) 16.e Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: Rancho Palma Specific Plan. ATTACHMENT 4.Display Ad (4927 : General Plan Amendment -- Rancho Palma Specific Plan) This page left blank intentionally 17.a Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: Charter Ordinances.REPORT (4928 : Final Reading and Adoption of Ordinances Related to Charter Implementation) 17.a Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: Charter Ordinances.REPORT (4928 : Final Reading and Adoption of Ordinances Related to Charter Implementation) 17.a Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: Charter Ordinances.REPORT (4928 : Final Reading and Adoption of Ordinances Related to Charter Implementation) 17.b Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: Charter Ordinances.ATTACHMENT 1.Ordinance 1.08 (4928 : Final Reading and Adoption of Ordinances Related to Charter 17.b Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: Charter Ordinances.ATTACHMENT 1.Ordinance 1.08 (4928 : Final Reading and Adoption of Ordinances Related to Charter 17.b Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Charter Ordinances.ATTACHMENT 1.Ordinance 1.08 (4928 : Final Reading and Adoption of Ordinances Related to Charter 17.b Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: Charter Ordinances.ATTACHMENT 1.Ordinance 1.08 (4928 : Final Reading and Adoption of Ordinances Related to Charter 17.b Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Charter Ordinances.ATTACHMENT 1.Ordinance 1.08 (4928 : Final Reading and Adoption of Ordinances Related to Charter 17.c Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: Charter Ordinances.ATTACHMENT 2.Ordinance 2.02 (4928 : Final Reading and Adoption of Ordinances Related to Charter 17.c Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Charter Ordinances.ATTACHMENT 2.Ordinance 2.02 (4928 : Final Reading and Adoption of Ordinances Related to Charter 17.c Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: Charter Ordinances.ATTACHMENT 2.Ordinance 2.02 (4928 : Final Reading and Adoption of Ordinances Related to Charter 17.c Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Charter Ordinances.ATTACHMENT 2.Ordinance 2.02 (4928 : Final Reading and Adoption of Ordinances Related to Charter 17.c Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: Charter Ordinances.ATTACHMENT 2.Ordinance 2.02 (4928 : Final Reading and Adoption of Ordinances Related to Charter 17.c Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Charter Ordinances.ATTACHMENT 2.Ordinance 2.02 (4928 : Final Reading and Adoption of Ordinances Related to Charter 17.d Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Charter Ordinances.ATTACHMENT 3.Ordinance 2.01.010 (4928 : Final Reading and Adoption of Ordinances Related to Charter 17.d Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Charter Ordinances.ATTACHMENT 3.Ordinance 2.01.010 (4928 : Final Reading and Adoption of Ordinances Related to Charter 17.d Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Charter Ordinances.ATTACHMENT 3.Ordinance 2.01.010 (4928 : Final Reading and Adoption of Ordinances Related to Charter 17.e Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Charter Ordinances.ATTACHMENT 4.Ordinance 2.58 (4928 : Final Reading and Adoption of Ordinances Related to Charter 17.e Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Charter Ordinances.ATTACHMENT 4.Ordinance 2.58 (4928 : Final Reading and Adoption of Ordinances Related to Charter 17.e Packet Pg. 902 Attachment: Charter Ordinances.ATTACHMENT 4.Ordinance 2.58 (4928 : Final Reading and Adoption of Ordinances Related to Charter 17.e Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: Charter Ordinances.ATTACHMENT 4.Ordinance 2.58 (4928 : Final Reading and Adoption of Ordinances Related to Charter 17.e Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: Charter Ordinances.ATTACHMENT 4.Ordinance 2.58 (4928 : Final Reading and Adoption of Ordinances Related to Charter 17.e Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: Charter Ordinances.ATTACHMENT 4.Ordinance 2.58 (4928 : Final Reading and Adoption of Ordinances Related to Charter 17.e Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: Charter Ordinances.ATTACHMENT 4.Ordinance 2.58 (4928 : Final Reading and Adoption of Ordinances Related to Charter 17.f Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: Charter Ordinances.ATTACHMENT 5.Charter (4928 : Final Reading and Adoption of Ordinances Related to Charter 17.f Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: Charter Ordinances.ATTACHMENT 5.Charter (4928 : Final Reading and Adoption of Ordinances Related to Charter 17.f Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: Charter Ordinances.ATTACHMENT 5.Charter (4928 : Final Reading and Adoption of Ordinances Related to Charter 17.f Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: Charter Ordinances.ATTACHMENT 5.Charter (4928 : Final Reading and Adoption of Ordinances Related to Charter 17.f Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: Charter Ordinances.ATTACHMENT 5.Charter (4928 : Final Reading and Adoption of Ordinances Related to Charter 17.f Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: Charter Ordinances.ATTACHMENT 5.Charter (4928 : Final Reading and Adoption of Ordinances Related to Charter 17.f Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: Charter Ordinances.ATTACHMENT 5.Charter (4928 : Final Reading and Adoption of Ordinances Related to Charter 17.f Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: Charter Ordinances.ATTACHMENT 5.Charter (4928 : Final Reading and Adoption of Ordinances Related to Charter 17.f Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: Charter Ordinances.ATTACHMENT 5.Charter (4928 : Final Reading and Adoption of Ordinances Related to Charter 17.f Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: Charter Ordinances.ATTACHMENT 5.Charter (4928 : Final Reading and Adoption of Ordinances Related to Charter 17.f Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: Charter Ordinances.ATTACHMENT 5.Charter (4928 : Final Reading and Adoption of Ordinances Related to Charter 17.f Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: Charter Ordinances.ATTACHMENT 5.Charter (4928 : Final Reading and Adoption of Ordinances Related to Charter 17.f Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: Charter Ordinances.ATTACHMENT 5.Charter (4928 : Final Reading and Adoption of Ordinances Related to Charter 17.f Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: Charter Ordinances.ATTACHMENT 5.Charter (4928 : Final Reading and Adoption of Ordinances Related to Charter 17.f Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: Charter Ordinances.ATTACHMENT 5.Charter (4928 : Final Reading and Adoption of Ordinances Related to Charter This page left blank intentionally 18.a Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: PACE GSFA.REPORT (4929 : Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program Providers - Golden State Finance Authority 18.a Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: PACE GSFA.REPORT (4929 : Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program Providers - Golden State Finance Authority 18.a Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: PACE GSFA.REPORT (4929 : Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program Providers - Golden State Finance Authority 18.b Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: PACE GSFA.ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A and B (4929 : Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program Providers - Golden 18.b Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: PACE GSFA.ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A and B (4929 : Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program Providers - Golden 18.b Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: PACE GSFA.ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A and B (4929 : Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program Providers - Golden 18.b Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: PACE GSFA.ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A and B (4929 : Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program Providers - Golden 18.b Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: PACE GSFA.ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A and B (4929 : Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program Providers - Golden 18.b Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: PACE GSFA.ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A and B (4929 : Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program Providers - Golden 18.b Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: PACE GSFA.ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A and B (4929 : Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program Providers - Golden 18.b Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: PACE GSFA.ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A and B (4929 : Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program Providers - Golden 18.b Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: PACE GSFA.ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A and B (4929 : Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program Providers - Golden 18.b Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: PACE GSFA.ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A and B (4929 : Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program Providers - Golden 18.b Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: PACE GSFA.ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A and B (4929 : Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program Providers - Golden 18.b Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: PACE GSFA.ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A and B (4929 : Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program Providers - Golden 18.b Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: PACE GSFA.ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A and B (4929 : Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program Providers - Golden 18.b Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: PACE GSFA.ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A and B (4929 : Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program Providers - Golden 18.b Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: PACE GSFA.ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A and B (4929 : Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program Providers - Golden 18.b Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: PACE GSFA.ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A and B (4929 : Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program Providers - Golden 18.b Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: PACE GSFA.ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A and B (4929 : Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program Providers - Golden 18.b Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: PACE GSFA.ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A and B (4929 : Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program Providers - Golden 18.b Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: PACE GSFA.ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A and B (4929 : Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program Providers - Golden 18.b Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: PACE GSFA.ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A and B (4929 : Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program Providers - Golden 18.b Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: PACE GSFA.ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A and B (4929 : Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program Providers - Golden 18.b Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: PACE GSFA.ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A and B (4929 : Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program Providers - Golden 18.b Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: PACE GSFA.ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A and B (4929 : Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program Providers - Golden 18.b Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: PACE GSFA.ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A and B (4929 : Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program Providers - Golden 18.b Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: PACE GSFA.ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A and B (4929 : Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program Providers - Golden 18.c Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: PACE GSFA.ATTACHMENT 2 and EXHIBIT A and B (4929 : Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program Providers - Golden 18.c Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: PACE GSFA.ATTACHMENT 2 and EXHIBIT A and B (4929 : Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program Providers - Golden 18.c Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: PACE GSFA.ATTACHMENT 2 and EXHIBIT A and B (4929 : Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program Providers - Golden 18.c Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: PACE GSFA.ATTACHMENT 2 and EXHIBIT A and B (4929 : Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program Providers - Golden 18.c Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: PACE GSFA.ATTACHMENT 2 and EXHIBIT A and B (4929 : Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program Providers - Golden 18.c Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: PACE GSFA.ATTACHMENT 2 and EXHIBIT A and B (4929 : Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program Providers - Golden 18.c Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: PACE GSFA.ATTACHMENT 2 and EXHIBIT A and B (4929 : Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program Providers - Golden 18.c Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: PACE GSFA.ATTACHMENT 2 and EXHIBIT A and B (4929 : Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program Providers - Golden 18.c Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: PACE GSFA.ATTACHMENT 2 and EXHIBIT A and B (4929 : Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program Providers - Golden 18.c Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: PACE GSFA.ATTACHMENT 2 and EXHIBIT A and B (4929 : Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program Providers - Golden 18.c Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: PACE GSFA.ATTACHMENT 2 and EXHIBIT A and B (4929 : Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program Providers - Golden 18.c Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: PACE GSFA.ATTACHMENT 2 and EXHIBIT A and B (4929 : Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program Providers - Golden 18.c Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: PACE GSFA.ATTACHMENT 2 and EXHIBIT A and B (4929 : Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program Providers - Golden 18.c Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: PACE GSFA.ATTACHMENT 2 and EXHIBIT A and B (4929 : Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program Providers - Golden 18.c Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: PACE GSFA.ATTACHMENT 2 and EXHIBIT A and B (4929 : Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program Providers - Golden 18.c Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: PACE GSFA.ATTACHMENT 2 and EXHIBIT A and B (4929 : Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program Providers - Golden 18.c Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: PACE GSFA.ATTACHMENT 2 and EXHIBIT A and B (4929 : Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program Providers - Golden 18.c Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: PACE GSFA.ATTACHMENT 2 and EXHIBIT A and B (4929 : Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program Providers - Golden 18.c Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: PACE GSFA.ATTACHMENT 2 and EXHIBIT A and B (4929 : Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program Providers - Golden 18.c Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: PACE GSFA.ATTACHMENT 2 and EXHIBIT A and B (4929 : Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program Providers - Golden 18.c Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: PACE GSFA.ATTACHMENT 2 and EXHIBIT A and B (4929 : Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program Providers - Golden 18.c Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: PACE GSFA.ATTACHMENT 2 and EXHIBIT A and B (4929 : Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program Providers - Golden 18.c Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: PACE GSFA.ATTACHMENT 2 and EXHIBIT A and B (4929 : Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program Providers - Golden 18.c Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: PACE GSFA.ATTACHMENT 2 and EXHIBIT A and B (4929 : Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program Providers - Golden 18.c Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: PACE GSFA.ATTACHMENT 2 and EXHIBIT A and B (4929 : Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program Providers - Golden 18.d Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: PACE GSFA.ATTACHMENT 3. Reso15-02 (4929 : Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program Providers - Golden State 18.e Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: PACE GSFA.ATTACHMENT 4. Agreement (4929 : Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program Providers - Golden State 18.e Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: PACE GSFA.ATTACHMENT 4. Agreement (4929 : Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program Providers - Golden State 18.f Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: PACE GSFA.ATTACHMENT 5. Reso15-01 (4929 : Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program Providers - Golden State 18.f Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: PACE GSFA.ATTACHMENT 5. Reso15-01 (4929 : Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program Providers - Golden State 18.f Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: PACE GSFA.ATTACHMENT 5. Reso15-01 (4929 : Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program Providers - Golden State This page left blank intentionally 19.a Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: PACE CSCDA .REPORT (4930 : Property Assessed Clean Energy Program Providers - California Statewide Communities 19.a Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: PACE CSCDA .REPORT (4930 : Property Assessed Clean Energy Program Providers - California Statewide Communities 19.a Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: PACE CSCDA .REPORT (4930 : Property Assessed Clean Energy Program Providers - California Statewide Communities 19.b Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: PACE CSCDA.ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A (4930 : Property Assessed Clean Energy Program Providers - California Statewide 19.b Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: PACE CSCDA.ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A (4930 : Property Assessed Clean Energy Program Providers - California Statewide 19.b Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: PACE CSCDA.ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A (4930 : Property Assessed Clean Energy Program Providers - California Statewide 19.b Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: PACE CSCDA.ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A (4930 : Property Assessed Clean Energy Program Providers - California Statewide 19.b Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: PACE CSCDA.ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A (4930 : Property Assessed Clean Energy Program Providers - California Statewide 19.b Packet Pg. 3891Attachment: PACE CSCDA.ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A (4930 : Property Assessed Clean Energy Program Providers - California Statewide 19.b Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: PACE CSCDA.ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A (4930 : Property Assessed Clean Energy Program Providers - California Statewide 19.b Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: PACE CSCDA.ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A (4930 : Property Assessed Clean Energy Program Providers - California Statewide 19.b Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: PACE CSCDA.ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A (4930 : Property Assessed Clean Energy Program Providers - California Statewide 19.b Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: PACE CSCDA.ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A (4930 : Property Assessed Clean Energy Program Providers - California Statewide 19.b Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: PACE CSCDA.ATTACHMENT 1 and EXHIBIT A (4930 : Property Assessed Clean Energy Program Providers - California Statewide 19.c Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: PACE CSCDA.ATTACHMENT 2.JPA (4930 : Property Assessed Clean Energy Program Providers - California Statewide 19.c Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: PACE CSCDA.ATTACHMENT 2.JPA (4930 : Property Assessed Clean Energy Program Providers - California Statewide 19.c Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: PACE CSCDA.ATTACHMENT 2.JPA (4930 : Property Assessed Clean Energy Program Providers - California Statewide 19.c Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: PACE CSCDA.ATTACHMENT 2.JPA (4930 : Property Assessed Clean Energy Program Providers - California Statewide 19.c Packet Pg. 401 Attachment: PACE CSCDA.ATTACHMENT 2.JPA (4930 : Property Assessed Clean Energy Program Providers - California Statewide 19.c Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: PACE CSCDA.ATTACHMENT 2.JPA (4930 : Property Assessed Clean Energy Program Providers - California Statewide 19.c Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: PACE CSCDA.ATTACHMENT 2.JPA (4930 : Property Assessed Clean Energy Program Providers - California Statewide 19.c Packet Pg. 3404Attachment: PACE CSCDA.ATTACHMENT 2.JPA (4930 : Property Assessed Clean Energy Program Providers - California Statewide 19.c Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: PACE CSCDA.ATTACHMENT 2.JPA (4930 : Property Assessed Clean Energy Program Providers - California Statewide 19.c Packet Pg. 406 Attachment: PACE CSCDA.ATTACHMENT 2.JPA (4930 : Property Assessed Clean Energy Program Providers - California Statewide 19.c Packet Pg. 407 Attachment: PACE CSCDA.ATTACHMENT 2.JPA (4930 : Property Assessed Clean Energy Program Providers - California Statewide 19.c Packet Pg. 408 Attachment: PACE CSCDA.ATTACHMENT 2.JPA (4930 : Property Assessed Clean Energy Program Providers - California Statewide 19.c Packet Pg. 409 Attachment: PACE CSCDA.ATTACHMENT 2.JPA (4930 : Property Assessed Clean Energy Program Providers - California Statewide 19.c Packet Pg. 410 Attachment: PACE CSCDA.ATTACHMENT 2.JPA (4930 : Property Assessed Clean Energy Program Providers - California Statewide 19.c Packet Pg. 411 Attachment: PACE CSCDA.ATTACHMENT 2.JPA (4930 : Property Assessed Clean Energy Program Providers - California Statewide 19.c Packet Pg. 412 Attachment: PACE CSCDA.ATTACHMENT 2.JPA (4930 : Property Assessed Clean Energy Program Providers - California Statewide 19.c Packet Pg. 413 Attachment: PACE CSCDA.ATTACHMENT 2.JPA (4930 : Property Assessed Clean Energy Program Providers - California Statewide 19.c Packet Pg. 414 Attachment: PACE CSCDA.ATTACHMENT 2.JPA (4930 : Property Assessed Clean Energy Program Providers - California Statewide 19.c Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: PACE CSCDA.ATTACHMENT 2.JPA (4930 : Property Assessed Clean Energy Program Providers - California Statewide 19.c Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: PACE CSCDA.ATTACHMENT 2.JPA (4930 : Property Assessed Clean Energy Program Providers - California Statewide 19.c Packet Pg. 417 Attachment: PACE CSCDA.ATTACHMENT 2.JPA (4930 : Property Assessed Clean Energy Program Providers - California Statewide 19.c Packet Pg. 418 Attachment: PACE CSCDA.ATTACHMENT 2.JPA (4930 : Property Assessed Clean Energy Program Providers - California Statewide 19.d Packet Pg. 419 Attachment: PACE CSCDA.ATTACHMENT 3.JPA Signature Page (4930 : Property Assessed Clean Energy Program Providers - California This page left blank intentionally 20.a Packet Pg. 421 Attachment: Authorization to execute corespondence on behalf of City.REPORT (4931 : Authorization to Execute on Behalf of the City) 20.a Packet Pg. 422 Attachment: Authorization to execute corespondence on behalf of City.REPORT (4931 : Authorization to Execute on Behalf of the City) 20.b Packet Pg. 423 Attachment: Authorization to execute corespondence on behalf of City.ATTACHEMENT 1 (4931 : Authorization to Execute on Behalf of the City) 20.b Packet Pg. 424 Attachment: Authorization to execute corespondence on behalf of City.ATTACHEMENT 1 (4931 : Authorization to Execute on Behalf of the City) 20.b Packet Pg. 425 Attachment: Authorization to execute corespondence on behalf of City.ATTACHEMENT 1 (4931 : Authorization to Execute on Behalf of the City) 20.b Packet Pg. 426 Attachment: Authorization to execute corespondence on behalf of City.ATTACHEMENT 1 (4931 : Authorization to Execute on Behalf of the City) 20.b Packet Pg. 427 Attachment: Authorization to execute corespondence on behalf of City.ATTACHEMENT 1 (4931 : Authorization to Execute on Behalf of the City) 20.b Packet Pg. 428 Attachment: Authorization to execute corespondence on behalf of City.ATTACHEMENT 1 (4931 : Authorization to Execute on Behalf of the City) 20.b Packet Pg. 429 Attachment: Authorization to execute corespondence on behalf of City.ATTACHEMENT 1 (4931 : Authorization to Execute on Behalf of the City) This page left blank intentionally 21.a Packet Pg. 431 Attachment: Military Banner Committee Update.REPORT (4932 : Military Banner Committee Update) 21.a Packet Pg. 432 Attachment: Military Banner Committee Update.REPORT (4932 : Military Banner Committee Update) 22.a Packet Pg. 433 Attachment: Discussion for URM.REPORT (4933 : Discussion of Options for Developing an Unreinforced Masonry Building Ordinance) 22.a Packet Pg. 434 Attachment: Discussion for URM.REPORT (4933 : Discussion of Options for Developing an Unreinforced Masonry Building Ordinance) 22.a Packet Pg. 435 Attachment: Discussion for URM.REPORT (4933 : Discussion of Options for Developing an Unreinforced Masonry Building Ordinance) 22.a Packet Pg. 436 Attachment: Discussion for URM.REPORT (4933 : Discussion of Options for Developing an Unreinforced Masonry Building Ordinance) 22.a Packet Pg. 437 Attachment: Discussion for URM.REPORT (4933 : Discussion of Options for Developing an Unreinforced Masonry Building Ordinance) 22.b Packet Pg. 438 Attachment: Discussion for URM. ATTACHMENT 1.List of URM bldgs (4933 : Discussion of Options for Developing an Unreinforced Masonry 22.b Packet Pg. 439 Attachment: Discussion for URM. ATTACHMENT 1.List of URM bldgs (4933 : Discussion of Options for Developing an Unreinforced Masonry 22.b Packet Pg. 440 Attachment: Discussion for URM. ATTACHMENT 1.List of URM bldgs (4933 : Discussion of Options for Developing an Unreinforced Masonry 22.c Packet Pg. 441 Attachment: Discussion for URM. ATTACHMENT 2. Survey (4933 : Discussion of Options for Developing an Unreinforced Masonry Building