HomeMy WebLinkAbout34-Development Services
..
f
c
c
c
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
From: Valerie C. Ross, Director
Subject: Resolution to adopt the General
Plan Update and the Arrowhead Springs
Specific Plan.
Dept: Development Services
Date: September 26, 2006
MCC Date: October 2, 2006
Synopsis of Previous Council Action:
November I, 2005 - The Mayor and Common Council certified the Environmental Impact Report,
adopted the City General Plan update, the University District Specific Plan and the Arrowhead
Springs Specific Plan.
Recommended Motion:
That the hearing be closed and the Resolution be adopted.
J4kiiv U. 7(H4--
Valerie C. Ross
Contact person:
Terri Rahhal, City Planner
Phone:
5057
Supporting data attached: Staff Report & Resolution Ward:
Citywide
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A
Source: (Ace!. No.)
(Ace!. Description)
Finance:
Council Notes:
Agenda Item No.
Jf
14 1~!1J~
.
I
-
\......
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT:
Resolution to adopt the General Plan Update and Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan.
BACKGROUND
The Mayor and Common Council adopted the updated General Plan, the University District Specific
Plan and the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan on November I, 2005. A program Environmental
Impact Report was certified prior to adoption of the General Plan update and specific plans.
Subsequent to that adoption, litigation was filed by the Center For Biological Diversity with the San
Bernardino County Superior Court as case number SCVSS 132463, contesting the propriety of the
adoption insofar as it related to Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan.
On September 6, 2006, trial of the matter was held before the Honorable John Wade, Judge presiding.
At the conclusion of the trial, Judge Wade announced the Court's determination that the adoption of
the General Plan and the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan was defective because the Court was
unable to find evidentiary support for the finding and conclusion that the project was not
economically feasible without the inclusion of a golf course element.
c
The proposed Resolution (Exhibit 1) presents the General Plan and Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan
for re-adoption, based on revised findings offact concerning the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan
(Exhibit 2). Additional information about the economic viability of the Arrowhead Springs
development and the proposed alternatives to the project is attached to the Planning Commission staff
report (Exhibit 3) and will be presented for consideration in support of the findings of fact related to
adoption of the Specific Plan.
The Planning Commission considered this item on September 25, 2006. In addition to the Planning
Commission Staff report, the Planning Commission considered a letter report from Alonzo Pedrin of
Alfred Gobar Associates (Exhibit 4) concerning the importance of providing a golf course as an
integral component of the Arrowhead Springs Resort. The Planning Commission considered the letter
report, heard additional testimony from Mr. Pedrin and voted unanimously to recommend adoption of
the General Plan Update and the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan, subject to the revised findings of
fact, as proposed. Commissioners Enciso, Durr, Heasley, Longville, Mulvihill, Munoz, Rawls and
Saurbrun voted in favor of the staff recommendation. Commissioner Rawls was absent.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A
RECOMMENDATION:
That the hearing be closed and the Resolution be adopted.
Exhibits:
I
2
3
4
5
6
Resolution
Revised Facts, Findings, and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Planning Commission Staff Report
Alfred Gobar Associates Report dated September 25, 2006
Updated General Plan*
Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan*
c
* Distributed in October 2005
1
2
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO SETTING ASIDE
3 PORTIONS OF RESOLUTION 2005-362 ADOPTED ON NOVEMBER 1, 2005,
4 ND ADOPTING THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF
VERRlDING CONSIDERATIONS, AS WELL AS ADOPTING THE UPDATED
5 ENERAL PLAN AND THE ARROWHEAD SPRINGS SPECIFIC PLAN.
6
7
8
SECTION I. RECITALS
(a)
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San
9 Bernardino ("City") adopted the General Plan for the City by Resolution No. 89-159 on
10 une 2, 1989; and
11 (b) WHEREAS, the City initiated an update of its existing General Plan in
12 2001; and
13
(c)
WHEREAS, the City retained The Planning Center to update the General
14
15
16
17 the General Plan Update Program; and
18
19
20
21
22
23
Ian and complete the environmental analysis; and
(d)
WHEREAS, an Economic Conditions and Trends report was prepared for
(e)
WHEREAS, the City held a workshop with representatives of business
and industry in 2001 to elicit input concerning growth in the City; and
(I)
WHEREAS, the City held a series of community workshops in 2001 to
identify Citywide opportunities and constraints, and visions for the future growth of the
City; and
(g)
WHEREAS, staff and the consultant interviewed the Mayor, the
24
25 Councilmembers, and the Planning Commission to seek their input and guidance; and
26
(h)
WHEREAS, The Planning Center prepared an Issues Report that
27 summarized the input received from the workshops and interviews; and
28
/O/tJd./Ob
-41 3 'f
1
2
3
4
5
6 and
7 (k) WHEREAS, the City determined that a Specific Plan for the University
8 District was appropriate to integrate California State University San Bernardino with the
9 rest of the City; and
10 (I) WHEREAS, The University District Specific Plan focuses on aesthetic
11
improvements in public rights-of-way and other programs designed to create an
12
13 identifiable district surrounding the University; and
14 (m) WHEREAS, the Arrowhead Springs area is within the City's sphere of
15 influence and the City determined that a Specific Plan for Arrowhead Springs was
16 appropriate; and
17 (n) WHEREAS, the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan proposes expansion of
18
the historic hotel and spa/resort, an 18-hole public golf course, multi-use recreational
19
amenities, a new hotel and conference center with office space, 1,350 residential units
20
21 and a "village" commercial center on a total of 1,916 acres, of which 1,400 acres will be
22 preserved as open space; and
23 (0) WHEREAS, The Planning Center, on behalf of the City, prepared an
24 Initial Study for the Updated General Plan, University District Specific Plan, and
25
Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan; and
26
(p) WHEREAS, on November 4, 2004, the Environmental Review
27
Committee determined that the Updated General Plan, University District Plan, and
28
Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan could have significant effects on the environment, and
2
(i) WHEREAS, the City determined that large scale changes in land use
patterns and land use designations were not necessary to achieve the City's goals; and
(j) WHEREAS, the City determined that shifts in policy focus, changes in
allowable uses, and emphasis on priorities were necessary to achieve the City's goals;
3
(x) WHEREAS, the Updated General Plan, University District Specific Plan,
and Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan, the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report,
Governments adopted the Congestion Management Program (CMP) pursuant to
California Government Code Section 65809.3(a) which requires the county and cities to
adopt and implement "a program to analyze the impacts of land use decisions, including
an estimate of the costs associated with mitigating these impacts" on the CMP network
(z) WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council adopted a Land
Use/Transportation Analysis Program for the City pursuant to the CMP for the City of
San Bernardino by Resolution No. 93-74 on March 22, 1993; and
(aa) WHEREAS, the City determined that the Arrowhead Springs Specific
Plan met the thresholds in the CMP and thus warranted the preparation of a Traffic
Impact Analysis (TlA) pursuant to the Congestion Management Program; and
(bb) WHEREAS, a Draft TlA was prepared to address the traffic impacts of
the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan on designated CMP roadways and freeways, the
appropriate mitigation measures, and fair share contribution toward CMP roadway and
freeway improvements; and
4
5
1 General Plan, the University District Specific Plan, and the Arrowhead Springs Specific
2
Plan, and certify the Draft TIA; and
3
4
(ii) WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council conducted a noticed public
hearing on November 1, 2005, pursuant to Government Code Section 65353(c) and
5
6
7
8
9
65091(a)(3), and fully reviewed and considered the Final Program EIR, the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Plan, the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding
Considerations, the Updated General Plan, the University District Specific Plan, the
Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan, the Draft TIA, the Planning Division staffreports, and
10
the recommendation of the Planning Commission; and
11
12
13
14
(jj)
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council made no substantial
modifications to the Updated General Plan, the University District Specific Plan, and the
Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan which were not considered by the Planning
15 Commission during its public hearing; and
16 (kk) WHEREAS, on November I, 2005, the Mayor and Common Council
17 adopted Resolution 2005-362, adopting the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding
18
19
20
Considerations, certifying the Final Program Environmental Impact Report, adopting the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, certifying the Traffic Impact Analysis, and
21 adopting the Updated General Plan, the University District Specific Plan, and the
22 Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan; and
23 (II) WHEREAS, on December 1, 2005, the Center for Biological Diversity
24 filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate (San Bernardino County Superior Court Case No.
25
SCVSS 132463, the "Action") against the City of San Bernardino, Common Council of
26
27
the City of San Bernardino, and Judith Valles, Mayor of the City of San Bernardino (in
her prior official capacity), and naming as real party in interest American Development
28
Group, Inc., challenging the approval of Resolution 2005-362 as it relates to the
. 6
1 Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan and alleging violations of the California
2
Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code sections 21000, et seq.), including
3
failure to adequately analyze and mitigate potential impacts in the Environmental Impact
4
5 Report ("EIR"), improper use of a program EIR, and improper rejection of feasible
6 alternatives to the proposed project; and
7 (mm) WHEREAS, the Action did not challenge that portion of Resolution
8 2005-362 related to the approval of the University Specific Plan, that portion of
9 Resolution 2005-362 and the Program EIR as it relates to the University Specific Plan
10
11
12
remains intact; and
(nn) WHEREAS, on September 6, 2006 the court heard the petition for writ of
13 mandate, the Honorable John P. Wade, judge presiding, and orally ruled that the findings
14 made in support of the City's rejection of the environmentally superior "Wetlands
15 A voidance" alternative was not adequately supported by the record: specifically, the
16
17
18
19
Court stated that there was no substantial evidence in the record to support the rejection
of the alternative, which eliminated the golf course, based upon economic infeasibility;
and
20
(00) WHEREAS the Court did not find that the EIR failed to comply with
21 CEQA, but. instead. specifically found said findings made by the City were inadequate,
22 the Court ordered that the approval of the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan, and by
23 reference also those portions of the General Plan as it relates to the Arrowhead Springs
24 Specific Plan, be set aside; and
25
26
27
(pp) WHEREAS, after glvmg public notice as required by California
Government Code Section 65353(c) and 65091(a)(3), the City Planning Commission
28 held a public hearing on September 25, 2006 in order to receive public testimony and
written and oral comments and any other additional materials and/or input on the
':',,!lj I 7
1 Updated General Plan, the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan, and the Facts, Findings and
2
Statement of Overriding Considerations; and
3
(qq) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Development
4
5 Services Department Staff Report on September 25, 2006, which addresses the Updated
6 General Plan, the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan, and the Facts, Findings and
7 Statement of Overriding Considerations; and
8 (rr) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after receiving public testimony,
9 recommended that the Mayor and Common Council adopt the Facts, Findings and
ro .
Statement of Overriding Considerations, adopt the Updated General Plan, and adopt the
11
Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan; and
12
13 (ss) WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council conducted a noticed public
14 hearing on October 3, 2006, pursuant to Government Code Section 65353(c) and
15 65091(a)(3), and fully reviewed and considered the Facts, Findings and Statement of
16 Overriding Considerations, the Updated General Plan, and the Arrowhead Springs
17 Specific Plan, the Planning Division staff reports, and the recommendation of the
18
19
20 (ll) WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council made no substantial
21 modifications to the Updated General Plan, the University District Specific Plan, and the
22 Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan which were not considered by the Planning
23 Commission during its public hearing;
24
25
26
27
28
Planning Commission;
SECTION II. SET ASIDE
NOW, THEREFORE, THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL HEREBY
RESOLVE, FIND, AND DETERMINE THE FOLLOWING:
8
1
2
3
4
5
6 SECTION III. FACTS, FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
7 CONSIDERATIONS
8 NOW, THEREFORE, THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL HEREBY
9 RESOLVE, FIND, AND DETERMINE THE FOLLOWING:
10 A. The facts and information contained in the above Recitals section are true
11
12
13 Impact Report for the Updated General Plan and the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan
14 has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and
15 previously certified on November I, 2005. Attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A, and
16 incorporated herein by reference, is the certified Final Program EIR which consists of the
17 following elements:
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
That the approval of Resolution 2005-362 insofar as it relates to the adoption of
the General Plan. relating to the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan, and the Facts,
Findings, and Statement of Overriding Consideration related thereto, be set aside.
and correct, and are incorporated herein by reference. The Final Program Environmental
9
I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Initial Study;
Notice of Preparation;
Responses to the Notice of Preparation;
Draft Program ErR;
Notice of Completion;
List of persons, organizations and public agencies commenting on the
7.
Draft Program ErR;
Comments received on the Draft Program EIR during and after the public
review period;
Responses to comments on the Draft Program EIR.
c.
The certified Final Program EIR was presented to the Mayor and Common
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 Updated General Plan. Although the certified Final Program EIR identifies unmitigated
8
9
10
11
environmental impacts.
12
13 C. With few exceptions, the Updated General Plan maintains the existing
14 General Plan land use designations. Therefore, the appropriate balance of land uses
15 retlected in the current General Plan is maintained by the proposed Updated General
16 Plan.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 SECTION V. ARROWHEAD SPRINGS SPECIFIC PLAN FINDINGS
24
25
26
27
28
A. All elements of the General Plan have been updated in a coordinated way,
ensuring internal consistency of the General Plan document.
B. The Updated General Plan will not be detrimental to the public interest,
health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. The certified Final Program EIR
contains an analysis of potential significant adverse environmental impacts related to the
significant adverse environmental impacts, the Facts, Findings and Statement of
Overriding Considerations indicate that the potential benefits of the Updated General
Plan and associated specific plans outweigh the unmitigated significant adverse
D. Very few properties are proposed for land use designation changes by the
Updated General Plan. The properties are identified specifically in the Final Program
Environmental Impact Report, which presents the rationale for each proposed change
and discusses the suitability, including physical characteristics of each proposed site for
the proposed land use designation.
Based upon substantial evidence in the record, the Mayor and Common Council
hereby find:
A. The Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan is consistent with goals and policies
of the existing General Plan, as well as revised policies of the proposed General Plan
Update, as follows:
12
Goal 2.2 - Promote development that integrates with and minimizes impacts on
surrounding land uses.
Policy 2.2.4 - Hillside development and development adjacent to natural areas
shall be designed and landscaped to preserve natural features and habitat and
protect structures from threats from natural disasters, such as wildfires and floods.
Goal 4.4 - Enhance, maintain and develop recreational, cultural, entertainment
c.
13
D. The Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan includes a detailed development
plan, development standards and design requirements that will ensure compatibility with
the historic Arrowhead Springs Hotel, as well as the surrounding development and
14
SECTION VII. ADOPTION OF THE UPDATED GENERAL PLAN AND SPECIFIC
PLANS
In accordance with the provisions of this Resolution, the Planning Division is
15
16
1 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE
2 FACTS, FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS,
THE UPDATED GENERAL PLAN AND THE ARROWHEAD SPRINGS
3 SPECIFIC PLAN.
4
5
6
7
8
9
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Mayor and
Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at a
meeting thereof, held
on the
day of
.2005, by the following vote to wit:
Council Members:
Abstain
Absent
Ayes
Nays
ESTRADA
10 LONGVILLE
11 DERRY
12 KELLEY
13 JOHNSON
14
15
16
17
18 The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this
MC' CAMMACK
Rachel G. Clark, City Clerk
day of October, 2006.
19
20
21
Patrick J. Morris. Mayor
City of San Bernardino
22 Approved as to form:
)
( .
",' lA.-V,,--
23 By:
24
25
26
27
28
17
EXHIBIT 2
City of San Bernardino
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001
1580 Metro Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Tel: 714.966.9220. Fax: 714.966.9221
E-mail: costamesa@planningcenter.com
Website: www.planningcenter.com
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND STA TEMENT OF
OVERRIDING
CONSIDERA TIONS
FOR:
GENERAL PLAN
UPDA TE AND
ARROWHEAD
SPRINGS SPECIFIC
PLAN, BASED UPON
CERTIFIED FINAL
PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT
SCH#2004111132
~
prepared for:
CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO
Contact:
Terri Rahha/, Principal
Planner
prepared by:
THE PLANNING
CENTER
Contact:
William Halligan, Esq.,
Director of
Environmental Services
Revised by the City of San Bernardino SEPTEMBER 22, 2006
SBC-15.0
_'r-l':'(,1
Table of Contents
Section
PaQe
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ............................................................................................1
1.1 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSiDERATIONS....................................... .................................... ..............................1
1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS ........................................................................2
1.3 PROJECT SUMMARy..... ..... ...................... ... ................................... ............................... 3
1 .4 DOCUMENT FORMAT..................... .............. ... ....... .... ....................................... ............4
PART A SAN BERNARDINO GENERAL PLAN.....................................................................5
A 1 FINDINGS ON PROJECT ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN THE DRAFT
EIR ...................................................................................................................................5
A 1.1 Alternatives Considered and Rejected During the Scoping/Project
Planning Process.......... ................................................................................... 5
A1.2 Alternatives Selected for Analysis ..................................................................6
A2 FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED
PROJECT IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIRlFEIR...................................................................9
A2.1 Air Quaiity......................................................................................................... 9
A2.2 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................10
A2.3 Noise.............................................................................................................. 12
A2.4 Transportation and Traffic..............................................................................13
A2.5 Utilities and Service Systems ........................................................................16
A3 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS.................................................. 18
A3.1 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ..................................................... 18
A3.2 Considerations in Support of the Statement of Overriding Considerations...... ........ 19
A3.3 Conclusion..................................................................................................... 22
PART B ARROWHEAD SPRINGS SPECIFIC PLAN............................................................23
B1 FINDINGS ON PROJECT ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN THE DRAFT
EIR .................................................................................................................................23
B 11 Alternatives Considered and Rejected During the Scoping/Project
Planning Process..................................................................................... ......23
B1.2 Alternatives Selected for Analysis .................................................................23
B2 FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED
PROJECT IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIRlFEIR.................................................................27
B2.1 Air Quality ............ ................................................................................27
B2.2 Biological Resources..................................................................................... 28
B2.3 Cultural Resources............................................................................ ....... ..... 32
B2.4 Geology and Soils .......................................................................................... 38
B2.5 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................39
B2.6 Hydrology and Water Quality................................ ..........40
B2.7 Noise............... .............................................................................................. 43
B2.8 Public Services.............................................................................................. 45
B2.9 Recreation...................................................................................................... 45
B2.10 Transportation and Traffic..............................................................................46
B2.11 Utilities and Services Systems.......................................................................47
B3 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS..............................................49
B3.1 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts .....................................................49
B3.2 Considerations in Support of the Statement of Overriding
Considerations............................................................................................... 49
B3.3 Conclusion..................................................................................................... 51
General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plan EIR City of San Bernardino. Page i
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Table of Contents
This page intentionally left blank.
Page ii . The Planning Center
September 2006
-
Introduction and Summary
This document presents findings that must be made by the City of San Bernardino prior to approval of the
project pursuant to Sections 15091 and 15093 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines
and Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code. Under CEQA the Lead Agency (City of San Bernardino)
is required to make written findings concerning each aiternative and each significant environmental impact
identified in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR).
The City of San Bernardino may find that:
. changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project to avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the DEIRlFEIR;
. such changes or alterations are within the purview and jurisdictions of another agency and have been
adopted, or can and should be adopted, by that agency; or
. specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasibie the mitigation measures or project
alternatives identified in the DEIRlFEIR
Each of these findings must be supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. Evidence from
the DEIR, FEIR and the mitigation monitoring program (MMP) is used to meet these criteria.
1.1 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STA TEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERA TlONS
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub Resc. Code 99 21000, et seq.) and the State CEQA
Guidelines (Guidelines) (14 Cal. Code Regs 9915000, et seq.) promulgated thereunder, require that the
environmental impacts of a project be examined before a project is approved. Specifically, regarding findings,
Guidelines Section 15091 provides:
(a) No public agency shall approve or cany out a project for which an EIR has been completed which
identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency
makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief
explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects on the environment.
(2) Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency and have been, or can or should be, adopted by that other agency.
(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers,
make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR.
(b) The findings required by subsection (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.
(c) The finding in subsection (a){2) shall not be made if the agency making the finding has
concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified feasible mitigation measures
or alternatives.
(d) When making the findings required in subsection (a){I), the agency shall also adopt a program
for reporting on or monitoring the changes, which it has either required in the project or made a
condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects. These
measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures.
General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plan EIR City of San Bernardino. Page J
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Introduction and Summary
(e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other materials,
which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which its decision is based.
The "changes or alterations" referred to in Section 15091(a)(1) above, that are required in, or incorporated
into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects of the project, may include a wide
variety of measures or actions as set forth in Guidelines Section 15370, including:
(a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action.
(b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation.
(c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment.
(d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during
the life of the action.
(e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.
Regarding a Statement of Overriding Considerations, Guidelines Section 15093 provides:
(a) CEQA requires the decision-maker to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its
unavoidable environmenfal risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits
of a proposal project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse
environmental effects may be considered "acceptable".
(b) Where the decision of the public agency allows the occurrence of significant effects which are
identified in the final EIR but are not at least substantially mitigated, the agency shall state in
writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information
in the record. This statement may be necessary if the agency also makes a finding under Section
15091(a){2) or (a){3).
(c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included
in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination.
Having received, reviewed and considered the Final Environmental Impact Report for the San Bernardino
General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans, State Clearinghouse No. 2004111132 (FEIR), as well
as all other information in the record of proceedings on this maller, the following Findings and Statement of
Overriding Considerations (Findings) are hereby adopted by the City of San Bernardino (City) in its capacity
as the CEQA Lead Agency. These Findings set forth the environmental basis for current and subsequent
discretionary actions to be undertaken by the City and responsible agencies for the implementation of the
General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans (Project).
1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
In conformance with CEQA and the State CEQA GUidelines, the City of San Bemardino conducted an extensive
environmental review of the proposed Project. The environmental review process has included the following:
. Completion of an Initial Study by the City of San Bernardino, which concluded that an EIR should be
prepared, and the Notice of Preparation (NOP) which was released for a 30-day public review period
from November 29, 2004 to December 28, 2004. Section 2,3 of the DEIR describes the issues
identified for analysis in the DEIR through the Initial Study, Notice of Preparation and public scoping
process.
Page 2 . The Planning Cenler
September 2006
Introduction and Summary
. Preparation of a Draft EIR by the City of San Bernardino, which was made available for a 45-day
public review period (July 25, 2005 - September 8, 2005). The Draft EIR consisted of three volumes.
Volume I contains the text of the Draft EIR. Volume II contains the Appendices for the San
Bernardino General Plan update analysis, including the NOP, comments on the NOP, service letters
and supporting data and/or analysis of the following subjects: air quality, noise and traffic. Volume
III contains the Appendices for the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan analysis including the supporting
data and/or analysis for air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geotechnical, hazards
(Phase I Environmental Site Assessment), hydrology/water quality, noise, transportation and
circulation, water supply, facility plan and annexation study. The Notice of Availability/Completion of
the Draft EIR was sent to interested persons and organizations, was noticed in the San Bernardino
County Sun and was posted at the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of San Bernardino County.
. Preparation of a Final EIR, including the Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR.
The Final EIRlResponse to Comments contains the following: comments on the Draft EIR; responses
to those comments; revisions to the Draft EIR and appended documents. The Final EIRlResponse
to Comments was released for a 10-day public review period on September 30, 2005.
. Public hearings on the proposed Project.
1.3 PROJECT SUMMARY
The proposed project consists of three main elements: 1) update of the City's General Plan; which includes
2) the University District Specific Plan; and 3) Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan with associated annexation.
The General Plan update consists of a comprehensive update to the City's General Plan with the exception
of the Housing Element, which was adopted July 2003 and included but simply reformatted to fit the new
document. The proposed General Plan Update reflects the community's view of its future and can be thought
of as the blueprint for the City's growth and development. The general plan projects conditions and needs
into the future as a basis for determining iong-term objectives and policies for day-to-day decision-making.
While the life of the General Plan is generally considered to be 20 years, the General Plan includes policies
and programs that are short term, long term, and ongoing. Some portions of the General Plan, such as the
land use plan, are not linked to any timeline. The land use plan reflects build-out, which will occur through
voluntary methods or redevelopment efforts throughout the life of the City. The general plan is considered
"comprehensive" since it covers the territory within the boundaries of the City and any areas outside of its
boundaries that relate to its planning activities (sphere of influence). The City of San Bernardino's total
planning area is 45,231 acres, or 71 square miles. The General Plan is also comprehensive in that it
addresses a wide variety of issues that characterize a city. These issues range from the physical
development of the jurisdiction, such as general locations, timing, and extent of land uses and supporting
infrastructure, to social concerns such as those identified in the housing element regarding housing
affordability. To address this range of issues, the proposed General Plan is divided into 14 topical sections,
or Elements the same as the existing General Plan: Introduction, Land Use, Housing, Economic
Development, Community Design, Circulation, Public Facilities and Services, Parks, Recreation, and Trails,
utilities, Safety, Historical and Archaeological Resources, Natural Resources and Conservation, Energy and
Water Conservation and Noise. The General Plan is guided by a Vision Statement and Key Strategies, which
describe the basic direction of the policies contained in this Plan and represent the community's view of its
future.
The University District is located in the northwestern portion of the City in the foothills of the San Bernardino
Mountains overlooking the Cajon Creek Wash and the Glen Helen Regional Park. The University District
Specific Plan focuses on the aesthetic treatment of the public rights-of-way and other programs designed to
create an identifiable district surrounding the University. The Specific Plan includes design guidelines
addressing the treatment of landscaping, signage, banners, gateways, and pedestrian/bicycle connections.
General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plan EIR City of San Bernardino. Page 3
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Introduction and Summary
There are no unique land use changes or circulation system changes or developments proposed as a part
of the University District Specific Plan, therefore analysis of the impacts of this Specific Plan were enveloped
in the discussion of the General Plan update impacts.
The Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan provides standards and guidelines for the use and development of
1.916 acres, including 368 acres that are currently located within the incorporated City boundary and the
remaining 1,548 acres that are located in unincorporated County of San Bemardino but within the sphere of
influence of the City. Included as part of this project, is the annexation of the 1,548 acres into the City of San
Bernardino. The Specific Plan calls for a mixed use resorUresidential development centered on the existing
Arrowhead Springs Hotel and ResorUSpa and includes: 1,350 units including 36 single-family detached and
1,314 multi-family units; 1,044,646 square feet of existing and new commercial and office uses; a new 199-
acre, 18-hole public golf course; the reuse of the historic Arrowhead Springs Hotel; a new 300-room hotel;
a new conference center and reuse of the existing conference center and the reuse and expansion of the
historic Arrowhead Springs spa/resort. Of the total non-residential area, 235,996 square feet exist and will
be preserved and enhanced as a part of this plan. These non-residential uses could result in approximately
2,530 new jobs. The deveiopable area is clustered into 506 acres near existing development and is
distributed within 1,400 acres of open space and watershed, which will comprise 73 percent of the site. The
Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan also includes a total of 21.0 acres of parks in the developed area.
1.4 DOCUMENT FORMA T
This document summarizes the significant environmental impacts of the project, describes how these impacts
are to be mitigated, and discusses various alternatives to the proposed project which were developed in an
effort to reduce the remaining significant environmental impacts. All impacts are considered potentially
significant prior to mitigation unless otherwise stated in the findings.
Following this Introduction and Summary section, the document is divided into two major sections: Part A
- San Bernardino General Plan and Part B - Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan, consistent with the format of
the DEIR that separated the impacts into General Plan (including the University District Specific Plan) and
Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan. Each of those major sections contains the following three sub-sections:
. Section (A or B) 1 - Findings on the Project Altematives Considered in the Environmental Impact Report;
. Section (A or B) 2 - Findings on Potentially Signfficant Impacts of the Proposed Project Identified in the DEIRlFEIR;
. Section (A or B) 3 -Statement of Overriding Considerations;
Section A1 or 81, Findings on the Project Alternatives Considered in the Environmental Impact Report,
presents alternatives to the project and evaluates them in relation to the findings set forth in Section
15091 (a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, which allows a public agency to approve a project that would
result in one or more significant environmental effects if the project alternatives are found to be infeasible
because of the specific economic, social, or other considerations.
Section A2 or B2, Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts of the Proposed Project Identified in the
DEIR/FEIR, presents significant impacts of the proposed project that were identified in the FEIR, the
mitigation measures identified in the MMP, the findings for the impacts, and the rationales for the findings.
Section A3 or B3, Statement of Overriding Considerations, presents the overriding considerations for
significant impacts related to the project that cannot be or have not been mitigated or resolved. These
considerations are required under Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines, which require decision
makers to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risk in
determining whether to approve the project.
Page 4 . The Planning Center
September 2006
Part A - San Bernardino General Plan
A1. FINDINGS ON PROJECT ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN THE DRAFT EIR
A 1. 1 Alternatives Considered and Rejected During the Scoping/Project Planning Process
The following describes the alternatives considered throughout this project that were eventually rejected:
A1.1.1
General Plan
As the General Plan was being created. it was clear that large scale changes in land use patterns and
designations were not necessary to achieve the City's goals. which were centered on a desire to improve the
City's image and functionality. Shifts in policy focus, changes in allowable uses. and emphasis on priorities
would suffice. Strategic Policy Areas were created to identify key areas within the City and house focused
policies intended to help achieve the City's goals. The direction for each Strategic Policy area was developed
in consultation with the City. While some of the initial policy recommendations shifted over time, the changes
have been subtle and do not qualify as alternatives.
However. land use alternatives were considered for the Verdemont Heights area. In Verdemont Heights, two
alternatives were considered that were intended to allow a mixed-use village core to develop within a
proposed mixed-use land use designation. The two altematives both included a mixed-use village but varied
in residential intensity. Alternative 1 accommodated 405 residential units. mostly on 3,600-square-foot lots,
and 384,000 square feet of retail and office uses. Alternative 2 accommodated 181 residential units on
12,000-square-foot lots and 384.000 square feet of retail and office uses. These alternatives were rejected
by the City due to concerns about higher residential density and the prevailing. detached residential character
of the area.
A1.1.2
University District Specific Plan
The following three land use alternatives to the proposed plan were developed during a design charrette that
occurred on December 11. 2001. The alternatives were presented at a joint meeting with University and City
staff on August 7, 2002. At this workshop, Alternative 1 was selected as the preferred plan and eventually
included in the University District Specific Plan. For a description of Alternative 1, please see Section 3,
Project Description.
The following alternatives were rejected due to concerns about changing the Master Plan for the University,
concerns about increased residential intensification, and the status of pending projects at the intersection of
University Parkway and Northpark Boulevard, which, subsequent to the review of alternatives. were approved
by the City.
Alternative 2
The focus of Alternative 2 was on the construction of specialized housing (e.g., Sorority Row or Honors
Housing) along the completed Loop Road in the western portion of campus and a new conference center
adjacent to the loop road on the east side of campus. The new conference center would provide facilities to
host activities that are attended by the community and university students, which would further increase the
interaction between the community and the University.
In this alternative, existing traffic levels were maintained on Little Mountain Drive and University Parkway. and
the completion of Campus Parkway would allow traffic into the University to be evenly distributed between
these three access points. New parking structures were proposed adjacent to Coyote Drive and Sierra Drive
to maximize the availability of areas where the University can construct new educational facilities and to
minimize the physical distance separating the University from the community.
General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plan EIR City of San Bernardino. Page 5
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
~6
Part A - San Bernardino General Plan
A1. FINDINGS ON PROJECT ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN THE DRAFT EIR
Alternative 3
Alternative 3 intensified uses and buildings at the intersection of Northpark Boulevard and University
Parkway. Intensified uses concentrate activity and facilitate the pedestrian traffic flow that is desired between
the University and adjacent businesses and residences, promote more intense and lively urban activity,
promote the use of transit, and establish a more efficient use of services and infrastructure than the existing
land uses and building configurations. New buildings were proposed at the four corners of the intersection
of University Parkway and Northpark Boulevard to visually and physically establish this area as the gateway
into the University. The areas within the University's boundaries would serve as the location for the
admissions building or administrative offices and could be easily accessible by prospective students or
administrative staff.
This alternative included a new conference center at the southwest corner of University Parkway and
Northpark Boulevard and specialized student housing (e.g. Sorority Row or Honors Housing) on the northeast
portion of campus, south of the Paradise Hills Specific Plan area and just north of the loop road.
To minimize conflicts between increased pedestrian activity and vehicular traffic, University Parkway was
proposed to serve as a ceremonial entrance with limited traffic volumes and speeds. Campus Parkway and
Little Mountain Drive were envisioned to carry the majority of daily traffic and new parking structures would
provide the parking necessary to serve the University's needs while creating space for the new buildings that
would be proposed as part of the intersection intensification.
Alternative 4
Alternative 4 emphasized development of dense student housing along the Loop Road of the campus. This
intensified hillside development was envisioned to create a compact, village atmosphere that emphasizes
a sense of community and provides additional housing to accommodate increases in student population. The
north side of Loop Road was envisioned to accommodate a golf course, nursery, botanical gardens, and
recreational trails.
In this alternative, the University Stadium was relocated to an area near Northpark Boulevard in order to
concentrate major activity centers of the University and surrounding properties in one area, allow for more
efficient vehicular access, and minimize traffic congestion on Loop Road.
This alternative also included a mixed-use project at the intersection of University Parkway and Northpark
Boulevard. The combination of residential, office and retail uses at the gateway of the University were
envisioned to draw pedestrian activity onto the campus, and link the University to the surrounding community
and conference center proposed just south of Northpark Boulevard. Retail uses within the mixed-use project
would have created a visually interesting entryway and serve as a revenue source for the college.
Since the majority of pedestrian activity would have occurred at the intersection of University Parkway and
Northpark Boulevard, University Parkway was envisioned to serve as the ceremonial entrance with reduced
volumes and speeds of vehicular traffic. Little Mountain Drive and Campus Parkway were envisioned to
handle the majority of the traffic, and new parking structures would allow for the intensification of buildings.
AI.2 Alternatives Selected for Analysis
CEQA states that an EIR must address "a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location
of the project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially
lessen any of the significant effects of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives"
[Guidelines Section 15126.6(a)]. As described in Section 7.0 of this DEtR, two project alternatives for the
General Plan update were identified and analyzed for relative impacts as compared to the proposed project:
Page 6 . The Planning Center
September 2006
Part A - San Bernardino General Plan
A1. FINDINGS ON PROJECT ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN THE DRAFT EIR
. No ProjecUExisting General Plan Alternative
. Reduced Intensity Alternative
These alternatives have been determined to represent a reasonable range of alternatives that have the
potential to feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but may avoid or substantially lessen
any of the significant effects of the project. These alternatives are briefly summarized below.
A1.2.1
No-Project/Existing General Plan Alternative
The No ProjecUExisting Generai Plan Alternative, as. required by the CEQA Guidelines, analyzes the effects
of continued implementation of the City's existing General Plan. This alternative assumes the existing General
Plan remains as the adopted long-range planning policy document for the City. Development would continue
to occur within the City in accordance with the existing General Plan and Specific Plans. Build-out pursuant
to the existing General Plan would allow current development patterns to remain. The existing General Plan
would not allow for the development in the SOl as envisioned in the proposed General Plan Update, which
primarily involves the Martin Ranch on the northern border of the City and Arrowhead Springs. The No
ProjecUExisting General Plan Alternative would provide 99,233 dwelling units, increase population by 156,263
persons over the 2005 SCAG estimate of population, and provide a total of 369,923 jobs within the City at
build-out, as compared to the proposed General Plan Update. The Arrowhead Springs area would not be
developed as a specific plan and would not be annexed into the City.
The No ProjecUExisting General Plan Alternative would be considered the environmentally inferior alternative
with regard to all impact categories except Population and Housing where this alternative would be superior
due to a jobs-to-household ratio that would be more desirable and Mineral Resources, which would be
considered environmentally neutral.
~
Finding: Alternative Less Than Desirable
The San Bernardino City Council finds that the No-ProjecUExisting General Plan Alternative, while feasible,
is less than desirable than the proposed project and rejected this alternative for the following reasons:
. This Alternative would not attain many of the proposed project objectives for the General Plan update
or the University District Specific Plan identified in Section 3.2.1 and 3.2.2, respectively. For the
General Plan, the more critical objective to promote an attitude of entrepreneurship and action
through a new era of collaboration and to develop a distinct personality both at a community wide and
neighborhood level would be difficult to accomplish with the existing General Plan without the vision
and key strategies developed through the General Plan update process.
. This alternative would not reduce or avoid the most significant effects of the proposed project.
. Strategies to enhance and capitalize on the City assets, such as downtown and San Bernardino State
University, would not be realized.
. Comprehensive programs to address the inefficient strip-commercial land use patterns along City
corridors and neighborhood enhancement would not be realized.
. The benefit of having a consistent approach to pianning decisions guided by documented Vision and
Key Strategies wouid not be realized.
General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plan EIR City of San Bernardino. Page 7
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Part A - San Bernardino General Plan
A1. FINDINGS ON PROJECT ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN THE DRAFT EIR
A1.2.2 Reduced Intensity Alternative
The Reduced Intensity Alternative focuses on reducing impacts on traffic and thus the impacts on air quality
and noise by changing the allowable floor area ratio (FAR) of the commercial and industrial land uses to a
range between 1.50 and 0.35 for commercial and between 0.50 and 0.25 for industrial uses thereby
decreasing the number of jobs and the resulting traffic. The proposed General Plan assumes an FAR range
between 3.0 and 0.70 for commercial and 1.00 and 0.70 for industrial uses. Estimated population and housing
units would stay the same as the proposed project but job creation would be reduced to 178.443 from
355,629 in the proposed project. consequently reducing the jobs to household ratio.
The Reduced Intensity Alternative would be considered the environmentally superior alternative as compared
10 the proposed General Plan for Aesthetics. Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services,
Transportation and Traffic and Utilities. The Reduced Intensity Alternative would be considered environ-
mentally neutral for Biological Resources, Geology and Soils, Land Use and Planning and Recreation.
Finding: Alternative Less Than Desirable
The San Bernardino City Council finds that the Reduced Intensity Alternative, while feasible, is less than
desirable than the proposed project and rejected this alternative for the following reasons:
. While this alternative is feasible, it would not meet the objective to "Tap into the Inland Empire's
dynamic economy" or help the City "Deal with new fiscal realities", which are two important objectives
in accomplishing remaining objectives such as "Realize quality housing in safe and attractive
neighborhoods". The City must work toward attracting better quality jobs by creating a positive
development attitude toward new businesses and providing the opportunities for existing businesses
to expand where they are located, This alternative would not accomplish those goals.
. The allowable floor area ratios (FAR) are reduced to a point that they would prevent flexibility for
developments to differ from typical market products.
. The Reduced Intensity Alternative would reduce but not eliminate traffic impacts and the air quality
impacts caused by increased traffic under the proposed project. However the benefit of having a
strong local economy, which would be more difficult to accomplish with this alternative, may help to
discourage long commute trips that contribute to regional air quality problems.
Page 8 . The Planning Center
September 2006
Part A - San Bernardino General Plan
A2. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIR/FEIR
A2 FINDINGS ON POTENT/ALL Y SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIR/FEIR
A2.l Air Quality
GP Impact 5.2-2:
Construction activities associated with the proposed project would generate
short-term emissions while long-term operation of the project would
generate additional vehicle trips and associated emissions in exceedance
of SCAQMD's threshold criteria. [Thresholds AQ.2 and AQ-3]
The proposed project is expected to generate emissions levels that exceed AOMD threshold criteria for CO,
ROG, NOx, and PMlO in the SoCAB, which is classified as a non-attainment area. Goals and Policies
contained in the General Plan would facilitate continued City cooperation with the SCAOMD and SCAG to
achieve regional air quality improvement goals, promotion of energy conservation design and development
techniques, encouragement of alternative transportation modes, and implementation of transportation
demand management strategies. However, additional mitigation measures would be required.
Mitigation Measures:
GP 5.2-2A
Prior to the issuance of grading permits. the property ownerldeveloper shall include a
note on all grading plans which requires the construction contractor to implement
following measures during grading. These measures shall also be discussed at the
pregrade conference.
. Use low emission mobile construction equipment.
~
. Maintain construction equipment engines by keeping them tuned.
. Utilize existing power sources (i.e., power poles) when feasible.
. Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference.
. Minimize obstruction of through-traffic lanes. When feasible, construction should
be planned so that lane closures on existing streets are kept to a minimum.
. Schedule construction operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours to minimize
traffic congestion.
. Develop a traffic plan to minimize traffic flow interference from construction
activities (the plan may include advance public notice of routing, use of public
transportation and satellite parking areas with a shuttle service).
GP 5.2-2B
The City shall promote the use of low or zero vac content architectural coatings for
construction and maintenance activities.
GP 5.2-2C
The City shall reduce vehicle emissions caused by traffic congestion by implementing
transportation systems management techniques that include synchronized traffic signals
and limiting on-street parking.
Gel/eral Plan Update and Associated Specific Plan EIR City of San Bernardino. Page 9
Findings of Fact and Slalement of Overriding Considerations
Part A - San Bernardino General Plan
A2. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIRlFEIR
GP 5.2-20
The City shall consider the feasibility of diverting commercial truck traffic to off-peak
periods to alleviate non-recurrent congestion as a means to improve roadway efficiency.
GP 5.2-2E
The City shall promote the use of fuel efficient vehicles such as fuel hybrids when
purchasing vehicles for the City's vehicle fleet.
Finding: The policies contained in the proposed General Plan update are expected to reduce
emissions associated with future development. However, even after the application of these policies
and the mitigation measures listed above, implementation of the General Plan update when viewed
as a whole project is expected to generate emissions levels in that exceed the AQMD threshold
criteria for CO, ROG, NOx, and PM" in the SoCAB, resulting in a significant unavoidable adverse air
quality impact. A Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted concurrent with project
approval.
GP Impact 5.2-3:
Implementation of the San Bernardino General Plan update would result in
a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the
project region is in a state of non-attainment. [Threshold AQ-3]
Emissions associated with General Plan buildout would result in emissions which exceed the SCAQMO
significance thresholds for construction and operational phases as stated in GP Impact 5.2-2. As such, the
SCAQMO considers these emissions to be significant on a cumulative basis. The construction and operation
through implementation of the General Plan would result in cumulative air quality impacts.
Mitigation Measures:
GP 5.2-3
Implementation of mitigation measures GP 5.2-2A, S, C, 0 and E shall be applied to
reduce cumulative impacts.
Finding: The policies contained in the proposed General Plan update are expected to reduce
cumulative emissions associated with future development. However, even after the application of
these policies and the mitigation measures listed above, implementation of the General Plan update
when viewed as a whole project is expected to generate cumulative emissions levels that exceed the
AQMD threshold criteria for CO, ROG, NOx, and PM,. in the SoCAB, resulting in a significant
unavoidable adverse air quality impact. A Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted
concurrent with project approval.
A2.2 Cultural Resources
GP Impact 5.4-1:
Build-out of the San Bernardino General Plan could result in the loss of
potentially historic structures. [Threshold C-1]
Build-out of the San Bernardino General Plan over the long term would allow development or re-development
to occur In historically sensitive areas which could result in the loss of potentially historic structures.
Mitigation Measures:
GP 5.4-1
In areas of documented or inferred historic resource presence, City staff shall require
applicants for development permits to provide studies to document the
presence/absence of historical resources. On properties where historic structures or
resources are identified, such studies shall provide a detailed mitigation plan, including
Puge /0 . The Planning Center
September 2006
Part A - San Bernardino General Plan
A2. FINDINGS ON POTENT/ALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIR/FEIR
a monitoring program and recovery andlor in situ preservation plan, based on the
recommendations of a qualified historical preservation expert.
Finding: The mitigation measure identified is feasible and will avoid or substantially lessen the
potentially significant impacts associated with historic resources to a level of less than significant
and no unavoidable adverse impacts would occur,
GP Impact 5.4-2:
Build-out of the General Plan could impact sensitive archaeological
resources, paleontological resources, or a unique geologic feature.
[Thresholds C-2 and C-3]
Adoption of the General Plan in itself would not directly affect any archeological or paleontological resources.
However, iong-term implementation of the General Plan land use policies could allow development and
redevelopment, including grading, of sensitive areas, potentially impacting sensitive archeological,
paleontological, and unique geologic resources.
Mitigation Measures:
GP 5.4-2
In areas of documented or inferred archeological andlor paleontological resource
presence, City staff shall require applicants for development permits to provide studies
to document the presencelabsence of such resources. On properties where resources
are identified, such studies shall provide a detailed mitigation plan, including a
monitoring program and recovery andlor in situ preservation plan, based on the
recommendations of a qualified cultural preservation expert.
~
Finding: The mitigation measure identified is feasible and will avoid or substantially lessen the
potentially significant impacts associated with archeological andlor paleontological resources or
unique geologic features to a level of less than significant and no unavoidable adverse impacts would
occur,
GP Impact 5.4-3:
Grading activities could potentially disturb human remains. [Threshold C-4]
Adoption of the General Plan in itself does not involve grading activities and would not directly disturb any
human remains. However, long-term implementation of the General Plan land use policies could allow
development and redevelopment, including grading, of sensitive areas thereby disturbing human remains.
Mitigation Measures:
GP 5.4-3
In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains in any
location other than a dedicated cemetery, the following steps shall be taken:
There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area
reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the San Bernardino
County Coroner is contacted to determine if the remains are prehistoric and that no
investigation of the cause of death is required, If the coroner determines the remains to
be Native American, then the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage
Commission with in 24 hours, and the Native American Heritage Commission shall
identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendent from the
deceased Native American. The most likely descendant may make recommendations
to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating
General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plan EIR City of San Bernardino. Page 11
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Part A - San Bernardino General Plan
A2. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIR/FEIR
or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave
goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98; or
Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his authorized representative
shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with
appropriate dignity either in accordance with the recommendation of the most likely
descendant or on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface
disturbances:
. The Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a most iikely
descendant or the likely descendant failed to make a recommendation within 24
hours after being notified by the commission; or
. The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation; or
. The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of
the descendant, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage
Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.
Finding: The mitigation measure identified is feasible and will avoid or substantially lessen the
potentially significant impacts associated with disturbance of human remains outside of formal
cemeteries to a level of less than significant and no unavoidable adverse impacts would occur.
A2.3 Noise
GP Impact 5.10-1:
Project implementation would result in long-term operation-related noise that
would exceed local standards. [Thresholds N.1 and N-3]
Implementation of the General Plan update would result in long-term operation-related noise caused by
stationary (facilities), roadway, railroad and aircraft sources that would exceed local standards.
Mitigation Measures:
GP 5.10-1
Prior to the issuance of building permits for any project that involves a noise sensitive
use within the 65 dBA CNEL contour along major roadways or freeway, railroads, or the
San Bernardino International Airport, the project property owner/developers shall submit
a final acoustical report prepared to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. The report
shall show that the development will be sound-attenuated against present and projected
noise levels, including roadway, aircraft, helicopter and railroad, to meet City interior and
exterior noise standards.
Finding: The mitigation measure identified is feasible and will avoid or substantially lessen the
potentially significant impacts associated with noise to a level of less than significant and no
unavoidable adverse impacts would occur.
GP Impact 5.10-2:
Buildout of the San Bernardino General Plan would .create short-term and
long-term groundborne vibration and groundborne noise. [Threshold N-2]
Page 12 . The Planning Celller
September 2006
Part A - San Bernardino General Plan
A2. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIR/FEIR
The implementation of the General Plan update could result in ground borne vibration and ground borne noise
from vibration intensive construction activities and increased train travel along railroads that may result in
significant vibration impacts.
Mitigation Measures:
GP 5.10-2
Adherence to Mitigation Measure GP 5.10-1 would result in exteriorlinterior noise levels
within the City noise standards, as a result, vibration created from noise levels that
exceed the City noise standards would also be mitigated.
Finding: The mitigation measure identified is fe'asible and will avoid or substantialty lessen the
potentially significant impacts associated with noise to a level of less than significant and no
unavoidable adverse impacts would occur.
GP Impact 5.10-4:
The San Bernardino International Airport is located within the City of San
Bernardino, resulting in exposure of future residents to airport-related noise.
[Thresholds N-5 and N-6}
The San Bernardino International Airport is located within the City and the use of the airport is changing from
a military operation to commercial aviation. However an Airport Land Use Plan has not been adopted. The
City would be required to amend the General Plan once the Airport Land Use Plan has been adopted. Since
future aircraft use has not been determined, no noise contours are available for the future use of the airport.
In the interim. the City of San Bernardino regulates land uses around the airport through the existing noise
ordinance based on noise contours from the former Norton Air Force Base. Although noise contours for future
uses are not known, some sensitive lands uses (parkland) by City standards are located underneath the
existing flight paths which may not change. This would result in significant noise impacts on these sensitive
uses.
~
Mitigation Measures:
GP 5.10-4
The City of San Bernardino shall incorporate into the General Plan the noise contour map
developed for the SBIAA after completion of the Airport Master Plan.
Finding: Until the Airport Master Plan has been adopted by the SBIAA and corresponding noise
contours have been established, the extent of impact to parkland near the airport cannot be
determined. Parkland is designated as a sensitive use in the General Plan and should the noise
contour exceed the limitations established by the General Plan no foreseeable mitigation could be
accomplished if the park were to remain in use. Under those circumstances the impact would be
considered a significant adverse and unavoidable impact and a Statement of Overriding
Considerations must be adopted by the Common Council.
A2.4 Transportation and Traffic
GP Impact 5.14-1:
Trip generation at build-out of the General Plan would impact levels of service
for the existing area roadway system. [Threshold T-1}
Twelve intersections were determined to function at an unacceptable LOS of E or worse and 4 roadway
segments were determined to function at an unacceptable LOS of D or worse at build-out of the General Plan.
General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plan EIR City of San Bernardino. Page 13
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Part A - San Bernardino General Plan
A2. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIR/FEIR
Mitigation Measures:
GP 5.14-1
Prior to adoption of the General Plan Update the City of San Bernardino shall add the
following recommendations to the Circulation Element of the General Plan update:
. Signalize the intersection of Meridian Avenue @ Rialto Avenue. With
signalization and permitted phasing the intersection will operate at LOS A during
both peak hours.
. Signalize the intersection of Hunts Lane @ E Street. With signalization and
protected phasing. and the addition of one NB left-turn lane the intersection will
operate at LOS Band C during the AM and PM peak hours. respectively.
. Add an additional westbound right-turn lane at the intersection of
Waterman Avenue @ 30th Street. With one additional WB right-turn lane the
intersection will operate at LOS 0 and C during the AM and PM peak hours.
respectively.
. Add an additional northbound right-turn lane at the intersection of
Waterman Avenue @ SR-30 EB Ramps. With one additional NB right-turn
lane and one additional EB left-turn lane the intersection will operate at LOS 0
during both peak hours.
. Signalize the intersection of SR-30 WB Off-ramp @ 30th Street. With
signalization and protected phasing, the intersection will operate at LOS C
during both peak hours.
. . Signalize the intersection of Harrison Street @ 40th Street. With
signalization and permitted phasing the intersection will operate at LOS A and
C during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively.
. Signalize the intersection of Waterman Avenue @ 36th Street. With
signalization and permitted phasing the intersection will operate at LOS A and
B during the AM and PM peak hours. respectively.
. Signalize the intersection of Waterman Avenue @ 34th Street. With
signalization and permitted phasing the intersection will operate at LOS A during
both peak hours.
. Signalize the intersection of Valencia Avenue @ 40th Street. With
signalization and permitted phasing the intersection will operate at LOS A during
both peak periods.
. Add an additional westbound right-turn lane at the intersection of Del
Rosa Avenue @ SR-30 WB Ramps. With one additional WB right-turn lane the
intersection will operate at LOS Band C during AM and PM peak hours.
respectively.
Page 14. The Planning Cellter
September 2006
Part A - San Bernardino General Plan
A2. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIR/FEIR
. Signalize the intersection of Tippecanoe Avenue @ Rialto Avenue. With
signalization and permitted phasing the intersection will operate at LOS A and
B during AM and PM peak hours, respectively.
. Signalize and add one northbound exclusive left-turn lane and one
exclusive northbound right-turn lane at the intersection of Rancho Avenue
@ 5th Street/Foothill Road. With signalization and EIW protective phasing,
N/S split phasing, one NB exclusive left-turn lane and one NB exclusive right-
turn lane the intersection will operate at C and D during AM and PM peak hours,
respectively. .
. Signalize and add one additional through lane in each direction at the
intersection of Mount View Avenue @ San Bernardino Road. With
signalization, protective phasing and one exclusive left, thru and right-turn lane
in each direction and EB right turn overlap phasing the intersection will operate
at LOS C and D during AM and PM peak hours, respectively.
Finding: The mitigation measure identified is feasible and will avoid or substantially lessen the
potentially significant impacts associated with Congestion Management Agency service standards
to a level of less than significant and no unavoidable adverse impacts would occur.
GP Impact 5.14-2:
General Plan related trip generation in combination with existing and
proposed cumulative development would result in designated intersections,
road and/or highways exceeding county congestion management agency
service standards. [Threshold T-2l
~
One CMP intersection and one CMP roadway segment were determined to function at an unacceptable LOS
of F as well as numerous freeway segments. The CMP intersection impacted would be mitigated by
mitigation measure GP 5.14-1 however additional mitigation measures would be needed for roadway
segments.
Mitigation Measures:
GP 5.14-2
The City of San Bernardino shall cooperate with regional transportation agencies toward
mitigating impacts to regional transportation facilities by measures such as securing fair
share contributions from future projects impacting mainline freeway segments. Mitigation
of impacts to regional transportation facilities would require the following freeway
improvements:
. 1-10 EB from Jet. 1-21 to Waterman Avenue, add two lanes.
. 1-10 WB from Jet. 1-21 to Waterman Avenue, add one lane.
. 1-10 EB and WB from Waterman Avenue to Tippecanoe Avenue, add two lanes
each direction.
. 1-10 EB and WB from Tippecanoe to Mountain View, add two lanes each
direction.
General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plan EIR City of San Bernardino. Page 15
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Part A - San Bernardino General Plan
A2. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIR/FEIR
. SR-30 EB from Highland Avenue to Jct. 1-215, add two lanes.
. SR-30 WB from Highland Avenue to Jct. 1-215, add one lane.
. SR-30 EB and WB from Jct. 1-215 to H Street, add one lane each direction.
. SR-30 EB and WB from H Street to SR-259 add one lane each direction.
. SR-30 EB from SR-259 to Waterman Avenue, add one lane.
. 1-215 NB and SB from Jct. 1-10 to Orange Show Road, add one lane.
. 1-215 NB from Jct. SR 66 to Baseline Street, add three lanes.
. 1-215 SB from Jct. SR 66 to Baseline Street, add two lanes.
. 1-215 NB and SB from Jct. SR 66 to University Parkway, add one lane.
Finding: The mitigation measures identified are feasible and would avoid or substantially lessen the
potentially significant impacts associated with traffic and transportation to a level of less than
significant, however improvements to the freeway system are the responsibility of the existing
regional transportation agencies and not the City of San Bernardino, Without the authority to
implement the mitigation measures, the impact to freeway segments would remain a significant
adverse and unavoidable impact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted by
the Common council.
A2.5 Utilities and SeNice Systems
Water
GP Impact 5,15-1:
Upgrades to the existing water supply and delivery systems would be
required to adequately serve future growth in accordance with the proposed
General Plan build-out. [Threshold WS-1 and WS-2]
The General Plan Update contains policies, and programs encouraging water conservation. Although analysis
shows supplies may be adequate for the San Bernardino planning area, cumulative use of water in the
Bunker Hill sub-basin by all surrounding water providers may cause stress on the basin and necessitate
additional importation of water causing a potentially significant impact on water supplies for the region.
Mitigation Measures:
GP 5.15-1
In accordance with the State Water Code (Section 10610-10645), the City shall maintain
an updated Urban Water Management Plan (Water System Management Plan) which
describes and evaluates sources of supply, reasonable and practical efficient uses,
reclamation and demand management activities, necessary to adequately serve future
growth pursuant to the City's General Plan.
Page 16 . The Planning Center
September 2006
Part A - San Bernardino General Plan
A2. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIR/FEIR
Finding: The mitigation measure identified is feasible and will avoid or substantially lessen the
potentially significant impacts associated with water supply and distribution systems to a level of less
than significant and no unavoidable adverse impacts would occur.
Wastewater
GP Impact 5.15-2:
Project-generated wastewater could not be adequately treated by the
wastewater service provider for the project. [Thresholds WW-1, WW-2, and
WW.3]
Existing secondary and tertiary treatment facilities would exceed design capacity with implementation and
build-out of the General Plan Update and wastewater collection systems would experience additional flow
deficiencies.
Mitigation Measures:
GP 5.15-2
The City of San Bernardino shall update the Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
to reflect General Plan Update build-out statistics, review treatment facility capacity
periodically and adjust Sewer Capacity Fees when appropriate in consultation with
participating communities to accommodate construction of new or expanded wastewater
treatment and collection facilities.
Finding: The mitigation measure identified is feasible and will avoid or substantially lessen the
potentially significant impacts associated with wastewater treatment and collection systems to a level
of less than significant and no unavoidable adverse impacts would occur.
~
General Plfln Update and Associated Specific Plan EIR City of San Bernardino. Page 17
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Part A - San Bernardino General Plan
A3. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
A3 STA TEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERA TlONS
CEOA requires the decision-maker to balance the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable
environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the
unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be considered "acceptable" (State CEOA Guidelines Section
15093[a]). However, in this case CEOA requires the agency to support, in writing, the specific reasons for
considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are infeasible to mitigate. Such reasons must be
based on substantial evidence in the FEIR or elsewhere in the administrative record (State CEOA Guidelines
Section 15093 [b]). The agency's statement is referred to as a "Statement of Overriding Considerations."
The City of San Bernardino is proposing to approve the General Plan update and associated specific plans
for the University District and Arrowhead Springs and has prepared and certified a FEIR that satisfies the
requirements of CEOA. The following adverse impacts of the General Plan update combined with the
University District Specific Plan are considered significant and unavoidable based on the DEIR, FEIR, MMP,
and the findings discussed previously in Part A, Section A 1 and A2 of this document. (Adverse impacts of
the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan are discussed in Part B of this document.)
A3.1 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Air Quality
Construction activity associated with buildout of the proposed General Plan update when viewed as a whole
project would cause short term emissions of ROG, NOx, PMlO and CO that would exceed the threshold
standards of the SCAOMD in an area classified as a non-attainment area. Additionally, when operational air
emissions in 2005 are compared to air emissions created using full buildout statistics, the daily SCAOMD
thresholds for ROG, NOx, PMlO and CO are exceeded. Operational emissions would include vehicle
emissions in addition to stationary sources of emissions. Exceeding the SCAOMD emissions thresholds
would be expected because these thresholds were designed for individual projects. As such, specific or
general plans would substantially exceed the SCAOMD thresholds by orders of magnitude because these
plans incorporate the development of multitudes of individual projects. Exceeding the SCAOMD daily
emissions thresholds is considered a significant adverse impact. Application of the mitigation measures
presented in Section A2.1 would reduce the level of impact, however when implementation of the General
Plan update is viewed as a whole project, emission levels would continue to exceed the daily emission
thresholds, resulting in an unavoidable adverse air quality impact. Exceeding the daily thresholds is also
considered a significant cumulative impact by the SCAOMD. Mitigation measures listed would not reduce
cumulative emissions to a level of less than significant resulting in an unavoidable adverse cumulative air
quality impact.
Noise
The City of San Bernardino considers residential and park land uses to be sensitive noise uses and some
selective residential and park land uses may be affected by noise from the future use of the San Bernardino
International Airport. Currently the San Bernardino International Airport Authority is preparing an Airport
Master Plan that will determine the noise contours. Once adopted, the Airport Master Plan will be
incorporated into the General Plan. Without updated noise contours that reflect the future use of the airport,
noise impacts to these selective areas could not be determined and therefore were considered significant
impacts. If future noise contours exceed the limitations set by the General Plan for parks in the area, the
impact cannot be mitigated resulting in an unavoidable adverse noise impact.
Page 18 . The Planning Center
September 2006
Part A - San Bernardino General Plan
A3. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Transportation and Traffic
Buildout of the General Plan update would result impacts to freeway segments that could be mitigated by the
measures indicated in the DEIR that include cooperation with regional transportation agencies to secure fair
share funding contributions from future projects. However, without the authority to implement those mitigation
measures, impact to freeway segments would remain significant unavoidable and adverse impacts.
A3.2 Considerations in Support of the Statement of Overriding Considerations
The City, after balancing the specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the
proposed Project (General Plan Update), has determined that the unavoidable adverse environmental
impacts identified above may be considered "acceptable" due to the following specific considerations, which
outweigh the unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts of the proposed Project. Each of the separate
benefits of the proposed Project, as stated herein, is determined to be, unto itself and independenlof the
other Project benefits, a basis for overriding all unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified in these
Findings.
A significant benefit of the Updated General Plan is that it provides a unifying vision for the next 20 years.
The Vision provides unity to the entire General Plan as well as policy guidance for the City officials and staff.
In the absence of this vision, the General Plan lacks a clear direction. Subsequently, development and
changes would occur on an individual basis and potentially threaten the ability to maximize the potential of
the City. In addition to this fundamental improvement, the General Plan includes the following benefits:
~
Address the Unique Issues of Specific Geographic Locations
San Bernardino has many unique gems that can be enhanced and/or capitalized upon to improve the City.
The General Plan includes a set of policies that are intended to help create, preserve, revitalize, and enhance
selected areas of the City. The Strategic Policy Areas include two basic distinctions: areas where
enhancement is desired but changes in the land use pattern are not anticipated or desired and those areas
where change is desired and merits guidance and/or stimulation. The following Strategic Policy Areas are
provided in the General Plan:
1. San Bernardino Valley College Strategic Area. The San Bernardino Valley College is a major community
feature that can be capitalized upon as a catalyst for growth and improvement in the area, as well as a
positive marketing tool for the City as a whole. The intent this Strategic Area is to interconnect and unify the
district through the use of cohesive design, landscaping, and signage, enhanced pedestrian connections, and
improved parking conditions.
2. Santa Fe Depot Strategic Area. Thecenterpiece of this Strategic Area is the Historic Santa Fe Depot.
The goal of the Strategic Area is to integrate the Depot with the surrounding neighborhood and create an
identifiable district, help the surrounding businesses become more economically viable, and improve the
aesthetics of the area.
3. Redlands Boulevard Strategic Area. The goal of this Strategic Area is to help businesses remain
economically robust, visible, and to attract viable uses that will help strengthen the City's tax base.
4. Tippecanoe Strategic Area. The goal of this Strategic Area is to address the area's infrastructure needs,
to help the area capitalize upon adjacent economic opportunities, such as the San Bernardino International
Airport, improve the area's aesthetics, improve the circulation system, to redevelop vacant and underutilized
lands into their highest potential, and to capitalize upon the presence of the Santa Ana River.
General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plan EIR City of San Bernardino. Page 19
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Consideratiolls
Part A - San Bernardino General Plan
A3. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
5. Eastern Recreation Village Strategic Area. The purpose of this Strategic Area is to enhance and
capitalize upon recreational opportunities in the area. Given the soccer complex, the elementary and high
school, park, and Warm Creek, the goal is develop and market this area as a recreational village. Multi-
purpose trails and pedestrian amenities could be provided to link the village and the major features in the
Strategic Area.
6. Residential Conversion/Restoration Strategic Area. The purpose of this Strategic Area is to promote the
converSion of the remaining four unit apartments to ownership units, as well as reinvestment and stability in
the area.
7. Southeast Industrial Strategic Area. The goal of this Strategic Area is to protect the industrial job base,
help improve residential conditions, and to help mitigate impacts to adjacent residences. The Santa Ana
River, which borders the northern portion of this Strategic Area, is a regional amenity that the City must
enhance and protect and which can be utilized as an asset for local industrial users and residents.
8. Southeast Strategic Area. The purpose of this Strategic Area is to improve the conditions and'
accessibility of residential neighborhoods in the area. Homes in this Strategic Area are in need of
rehabilitation, should be separated from the surrounding Industrial areas with berming and buffers, and should
be connected physically and socially with the rest of the City.
9. San Bernardino International Airport and Trade Center Strategic Area. The San Bernardino International
Airport and Trade Center (SBIA) is one of the City's greatest economic growth opportunities in the region.
The purpose of this Strategic Area is to allow properties surrounding the SBIA to develop with uses that are
related to or can benefit from the proximity of an airport. For instance, business oriented and general aviation
related uses, manufacturing, warehousing, offices, and travel related business such as hotels, could be
attracted by the presence of the Airport.
10. Downtown Strategic Area. The Downtown Strategic Area is the symbolic center as well as the social and
economic heart of San Bernardino, The purpose of this Strategic Area is to facilitate revitalization of
Downtown through an infusion of office and mixed uses, connections to surrounding uses, such as the
Arrowhead Credit Union Park and the National Orange Show, and a unifying aesthetic theme,
11. Community Hospital Strategic Area. The purpose of this Strategic Area is to provide incentives and
programs that capitalize upon the presence of the hospital and surrounding medical offices, which can act
as a catalyst for improvements in the area and to facilitate medically related development in the' future,
Enhancement of San Bernardino's Commercial Corridors
The Mount Vernon, E-Street, Baseline, and Highland corridors are characterized by an inefficient pattern of
strip commercial. Due to a combination of over saturation of commercial floor area and the size and
configuration of the properties along these corridors, many of the commercial properties are vacant,
underutilized, dilapidated, and are defined by uncoordinated aesthetics and signage, In addition, the majority
of lots along the corridors are relatively small with individual ownership. This makes significant
redevelopment more complicated and requires participation from a multitude of individuals to realize change,
Another significant hurdie is the perception that commercial property is more valuable. While this may be true
in certain instances, the existing pattern and quality of strip commercial uses along these corridors is not
proving to be viable and many businesses are vacant or marginally successful.
The Corridor Improvement Program is an optionai package of policy, regulatory, and incentive programs that,
if applied, are intended to stimulate private investment and result in desired development within the Corridor
Strategic Areas. This is accomplished by providing optional incentives, in the form of density bonuses and
Page 20 . The Planning Center
September 2006
Part A - San Bernardino General Plan
A3. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
varied deveiopment standards, to developments that qualify. While the underlying land use designations still
apply, the property owner may request, and the City may choose to apply, aspects of this program to
stimulate desirable development.
Provide a Method to Enhance and Improve Residential Neighborhoods
San Bernardino has a wide variety of residential neighborhoods of various ages and states of
repair/maintenance. The Neighborhood Improvement Program offers a system of incentives that are intended
to stimulate redeveiopment of locai neighborhoods. The Neighborhood Improvement Program provides a
strategy to address each neighborhood based upon its need. Through the combined efforts of the police, fire,
code enforcement, community development, public works, and other departments will help address each
areas unique issues and improve the livability of San Bernardino. The program is based upon the
ciassification of neighborhoods into the following categories:
1. Very sound neighborhood experiencing few, if any, quaiily of life issues. Infrequent requests for Police
or code Enforcement services.
2. Predominantiy stable neighborhoods, but beginning to show signs of decline. Most structures are well
maintained and structurally sound, but some stnuctures may have minor probiems. The City should focus on
these minor issues to maintain the neighborhood and prevent further deterioration.
3. Predominantly unstable neighborhood, with many structures in need of rehabilitation, with some well
cared for and maintained structures. In single-family areas, many houses have transitioned from owner-
occupied to rentals; neighborhoods showing evidence of social, physical and economic problems and
increasing number of calls for police services. Focus is on revitalizing the neighborhood, upgrading the
structures, increasing aesthetics and reducing crime.
~
4. Neighborhood is in severe social, economic and physical decline. Housing structures are severely
deteriorated and the entire neighborhood lacks conditions that contribute to a safe overall neighborhood living
environment.
Provision of Community Facilities
The proposed General Plan Update reflects the City's vision for its development through a 20-year build-out,
and provides goals and policies that will guide future development in the City ensuring the long-term
sustainability of community facilities. In the absence of these goals and policies that guide future growth,
development would occur but would lack vision and could potentially threaten the existing character of the
City. Thus, the General Plan Update provides for future growth in the City in a manner which allows for
allocation of resources to improve, maintain, or create additional community facilities. The City of San
Bernardino General Plan Update provides provisions for community facilities within the City that would meet
the needs of the future population, which include the following:
Parks and Recreation. The General Plan identifies the City's parkland goal of five acres per 1,000 residents.
Based upon this standard, the General Plan identifies that additional park land is necessary to meet the
projected population at build out. Goals and policies are provided to ensure that the necessary parklands are
provided to meet the demands of the future population.
Transportation Improvements. Although traffic increases are associated with the proposed project, traffic
improvements have been identified as part of the City's Circulation Element to mitigate the traffic impacts.
The Circulation Element proposed as part of the General Plan Update reflects changes needed to
General Pltln Update and Associated Specific Plan EJR City of San Bernardino. Page :1 J
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Part A - San Bernardino General Plan
A3. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
accommodate the project population growth. Intersection improvements at key arterial intersections would
allow all intersections to operate at an acceptable level of service.
Public Services. While the General Plan does not directly result in construction of new facilities or the
provision of additional equipment and personnel to the City's fire, police, school and library services, the
General Plan Update includes goals and policies aimed to ensure these community service facilities would
keep pace with the growth in the City. Institutional land uses wduld be maintained through implementation
of the General Plan Update to ensure high quality of future service.
A3.3 Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the City of San Bernardino concludes that the San Bernardino General Plan
Update will result in a beneficial mix of strategies for future growth providing community-wide enhancements
with significant benefits of local and regional significance. which outweigh the unavoidable environmental
impacts. Therefore, the City of San Bernardino has adopted this Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Page 22 . The Planning Center
September 2006
Part B - Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan
B1. FINDINGS ON PROJECT ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN THE DRAFT EIR
81 FINDINGS ON PROJECT AL TERNA TlVES CONSIDERED IN THE DRAFT EIR
81.1 Alternatives Considered and Rejected During the
Scoping/Project Planning Process
The Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan has undergone several iterations; however, no significant alternatives
were developed. The iterations included subtle variations in the acreages of land uses, residential density.
and commercial intensity. The changes occurred in response to input from the City or as more detailed
studies (grading. etc.) were competed and resulted in shifts in land use boundaries or product type. However,
throughout the numerous iterations, the basic concept and location of the land uses remained unchanged.
The various iterations were refined to reflect new direction and information and did not represent true
alternatives for consideration.
81.2 Alternatives Selected for Analysis
This section contains alternatives that have been determined to represent a reasonable range of alternatives
which have the potential to feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan
but which may avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Only those impacts
found significant and unavoidable are used in making the final determination of whether an alternative is
environmentally superior or inferior to the proposed project. Environmental impacts of the Specific Plan
involving air quality and cultural resources, and noise were found to be significant and unavoidable. The
alternatives include the No ProjecUUse of Existing Facilities Alternative, Reduced Intensity Alternative, and
Wetlands Avoidance Alternative.
81.2.1
No-Project/Existing Zoning Alternative
~~
The No Project alternative for the Arrowhead Springs area assumes that the County portion of the property
IS not annexed into the City of San Bernardino and the area is allowed to develop with existing zoning which
would allow residential development with densities anywhere between 4.5 dwelling units per acre and one
(1) dwelling unit per 40 acres. This alternative also assumes that operation of existing facilities for use as a
resort could resume with minor and necessary health and safety repairs.
The No ProjecUExisting Zoning Alternative would be considered the environmentally superior alternative as
compared to the proposed Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan for Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural
Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards, Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise,
Population and Housing, Transportation and Traffic, and Utilities and Service Systems. The No
ProJecUExisting Zoning Alternative would be considered the environmentally inferior for Aesthetics and
environmentally neutral for Land Use and Planning, Public Services, and Recreation.
Finding: Alternative Less Than Desirable
The San Bernardino City Council finds that the No-ProjecUExisting Zoning Alternative, while feasible, is less
than desirable than the proposed project and rejected this alternative for the following reasons:
. Although the number of residential units would nearly be the same as the proposed project, existing
CitylCounty zoning would result in mostly large lot development that could be scattered over the
entire property along with the road infrastructure. Coordinating development between two
jurisdictions may be difficult and not result in development of the entire site that is well thought out.
General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR City of San Bernardino. Page 23
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Part B - Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan
81. FINDINGS ON PROJECT ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN THE DRAFT EIR
. There would be no development standards or design guidelines that would ensure preservation of
as much open space as the proposed project. There would be no encouragement for compact
development that would keep the development of hillsides at a minimum thus preserving the
aesthetic mountainous character of the property.
. Providing services such as fire protection would continue to be difficult and expensive without
compact development or a reliable self contained water infrastructure considering that water service
would have to be extended from the City of San Bernardino.
. The City of San Bernardino would not realize the goal becoming a "gateway" to the San Bernardino
Mountains by establishing a world-class resort, providing jobs and recreational opportunities.
B 1. 2. 2 Reduced Intensity Alternative
Since construction activities are the primary source of air quality and noise impacts and commercial uses
generate the greatest amount of traffic (also contributing to air quality and noise impacts), the reduced
intensity alternative focuses on reducing the amount of commercial and office use, which would reduce the
size of the area to be graded and consequently would also reduce traffic and associated impacts. This
alternative assumes that the Hilllown shops, new hotel, office building, and restaurant are not built and the
Village Walk commercial area is limited to 150,000 square feet for neighborhood commercial. The hotel
complex would be restored and the associated conference facilities and annex built and all residential areas
would be built with this alternative.
The Reduced intensity Alternative would be considered the environmentally superior alternative as compared
to the proposed Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan for Aesthetics, Air Quality, Geology and Soils, Hazards and
Hazardous Materials, Noise, Public Services, Transportation and Traffic and Utilities. The Reduced Intensity
Alternative would be considered the environmentally neutral alternative for Biological Resources, Cultural
Resources, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning. Mineral Resources, Population and
Housing, and Recreation.
Finding: Alternative Less Than Desirable
The San Bernardino City Council finds that the Reduced Intensity Alternative, while feasible, is less than
desirable than the proposed project and rejected this alternative for the following reasons:
. This alternative would not accomplish many of the project goals, most importantly creating an
economically viable mixed-use resort. Historic restoration of the Arrowhead Springs Hotel, because
of the expense, may be jeopardized without the revenue stream and increased property value
derived from commercial development. Revitalization and reuse of this historic hotel is the
cornerstone of the project which is important to the City not only for the tax revenue but also for
accomplishing the goals of the General Plan Update to enhance cultural, recreational and
entertainment opportunities.
. The desirable goal of having a sustainable development would be difficult to accomplish without the
jobs created by the commercial development. The jobs to housing ratio for the proposed project at
1.97, is close to the range preferred by the Southern California Association of Governments. The
proposed project provides for a wide range of housing and with an equally wide range of job
opportunities in close proximity, employees would be able to live close to work, thus reducing
potential traffic.
Page 24 . The Planning Center
October 2005
Part B - Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan
81. FINDINGS ON PROJECT ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN THE DRAFT EIR
81.2.3
Wetlands Avoidance Alternative
The wetlands avoidance alternative assumes that development would not occur in areas of potential
jurisdictional waters and riparian habitat and in particular Waterman Canyon and West Twin Creek. Although
a few holes of the golf course might fit in the non-jurisdictional areas, this alternative would essentially elimi-
nate development of an 18-hole golf course and eliminate some of the residential pad sites along Waterman
Canyon. With only minor adjustment to the development plan near Lake Vonette that could be arranged
without loss of riparian habitat, the remainder of the development would be built.
The Wetlands Avoidance Alternative would be considered the environmentally superior alternative as
compared to the proposed Arrowhead Springs Specific' Plan for Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources,
Geology and Soils, Population and Housing, and Utilities. The Wetlands Avoidance Alternative would be
considered the environmentally neutral alternative when compared to the proposed Arrowhead Springs
Specific Plan for Cultural Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land
Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise, Public Services, Recreation, and Transportation and Traffic.
Finding: Alternative Less Than Desirable
Based upon information supplied to the Planning Commission and the Mayor and Common Council after
September 6, 2006, including, but not limited to the information supplied by Alfred Gobar Associates, the San
Bernardino City Council finds that the Wetlands Avoidance Alternative, is less than desirable than the
proposed project and economically infeasible, and rejected this alternative for the following reasons:
. Eliminating the golf course would not accomplish the goal of creating a "unique" resort community
or the goal of providing both passive and active recreational opportunities. Many world class resorts
provide a variety of recreational opportunities to attract a broad range of consumers. Resorts in
mountain settings 'usually rely on natural features such as a lake or ski slopes to provide a range of
recreational opportunities. Those natural features are not available at Arrowhead Springs but a golf
course can be integrated into Waterman Canyon in such a way tnat the natural beauty of the area
is preserved and additional recreation opportunities are available not only for the resort but for
community as a whole.
~
. While eliminating the golf course potentially preserves a portion of West Twin Creek in Waterman
Canyon, the elimination of the golf course results in a project that is not economically viable, and
therefore infeasible. Research and economic analysis of such re'sort communities in Southern
California show that a natural resort area, by itself, does not attract sufficient patronage to support
a substantial development as is contemplated here. Without the inclusion of the golf course, the
project is unlikely to move forward and is economically infeasible.
Additional factor considered in rejecting this alternative:
. Waterman Canyon is subject to flash flooding and it is anticipated that the design of the golf course
would be engineered to function as overflow basins for flood conditions with potential to reduce peak
flow during these times. (DEIR 5.7-27).
. West Twin Creek in Waterman Canyon has been known for dangerous flooding events that have
resulted in extensive damage to infrastructure and lost lives. The most recent flooding events
scoured the reach through Arrowhead Springs removing riparian vegetation and reducing water
quality by greatiy increasing sediment carried in the creek. The project proposes to improve the
alignment and hydraulics of the stream and create flood overflow basins on fairways as part of the
General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR City of San Bernardino. Page 25
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Part B - Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan
81. FINDINGS ON PROJECT ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN THE DRAFT EIR
development of the golf course. The Wetlands Avoidance Alternative would not provide the valuable
flood protection planned as part of the golf course design. Flooding events would continue
jeopardizing the residential development and infrastructure planned to the community. Riparian
vegetation that may be lost in the process of developing the golf course would be restored in the
same approximate location and opportunities exist to enhance the quality of the riparian vegetation
with the assurance that it will not be destroyed by future flooding events through improvements to
the stream bed.
Page 26 . The Planning Cemer
October 2005
Part B - Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan
82. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIR/FEIR
82 FINDINGS ON POTENT/ALL Y SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
IDENT/FIED IN THE DEIR/FEIR
82.1 Air Quality
AHS Impact 5.2-2:
Construction activities associated with the proposed project would generate
short-term emissions while long-term operation of the project would
generate additional vehicle trips and associated emissions in exceedance
of SCAQMD's threshold criteria. [Thresholds AQ-2 and AQ-3]
The magnitude of development and corresponding generation of air pollutant emissions would exceed the
SCAQMD's construction and operational phase emissions thresholds for CO, ROG, NOx and PM".
Mitigation Measures:
AHS 5.2-2A
The developer or project applicant shall use zero Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)
content architectural coatings during the construction of the project to the maximum
extent feasible which would reduce VOC (ROG) emissions by 95 percent over
convention architectural coatings.
AHS 5.2-2B
Prior to andlor during construction operations, the property ownerldeveloper shall
implement the following measures to further reduce fugitive dust emission to the extent
feasible. To assure compliance, the City shall verify that these measures have been
implemented during normal construction site inspections:
~
. Pave. gravel or apply nontoxic soil stabilizers on-site haul roads with 150 or
more dally trips
. Phase grading to prevent the susceptibility of large areas to erosion over
extended periods of time
. Schedule activities to minimize the amounts of exposed excavated soil during
and after the end of work periods
. Dispose of surplus excavated material in accordance with local ordinances and
use sound engineering practices
. Maintain a minimum of one-foot freeboard ratio on haul trucks or cover payloads
on trucks hauling soli using tarps or other suitable means
. Install adequate storm water control systems to prevent mud deposition onto
paved areas.
. Water active sites at least three times daily.
Finding: The mitigation measures identified above would reduce potential impacts associated with
air quality to the extent feasible. Despite the application of mitigation measures, Impact 5.2-2 would
result in a significant unavoidable adverse air quality impact due to the magnitude of emissions that
would be generated during construction and operation. The proposed project is expected to generate
General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR City of San Bernardino. Page 27
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Part B - Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan
82. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIR/FEIR
emissions levels that exceed the AQMD threshold criteria for CO, ROG, NOx, and PM,. in the SoCAB.
A Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted by the Common Council concurrent with
project approval.
AHS Impact 5.2-3:
The Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan project would delay attainment of the
South Coast AQMP. {Threshold AQ-3J
Emissions associated with the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan would exceed the SCAOMD significance
thresholds during construction and operational phases. As such, the SCAOMD considers these emissions
to be significant on a cumulative basis.
Mitigation Measure:
AHS 5.2-3
Implementation of mitigation measures AHS 5.2-2A and AHS 5.2-2B shall be applied to
reduce cumulative impacts.
Finding: The mitigation measures identified above would reduce potential cumulative impacts
associated with air quality to the extent feasible. Despite the application of mitigation measures
Impact 5.2-3 would result in a significant unavoidable adverse air quality impact due to the magnitude
of emissions that would be generated during construction and operation. The proposed project is
expected to generate emissions levels that exceed AQMD threshold criteria for CO, ROG, NOx, and
PM,. in the SoCA8. A Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted by the Common
Council concurrent with project approval.
..:.'"
B2.2 Biological Resources
AHS Impact 5.3-1:
Development of the project would disturb or remove approximately 420 acres
of plant communities of which approximately 124 acres contain sensitive
vegetation communities, plant and animal species. {Threshold 8-1J
Project implementation, primarily construction in West Twin CreeklWaterman Canyon would result in the
direct removal of sensitive vegetation communities. Impacts would be potentially significant.
Direct impacts to one federal and state-listed plant species (thread leaved brodiaea) known to occur on the
site; and four federal candidate plant species (smooth tarplant, Plummer's mariposa lily, Parry's spineflower,
and many-stemmed dudleya) that were not observed but with a moderate likelihood to occur would result in
a potentially Significant impact.
Direct impacts to one federal threatened and one federal proposed endangered amphibian species, and one
federal candidate wildlife species
Mitigation Measures:
AHS 5.3-'
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified biologist shall conduct detailed
surveys for sensitive vegetation communities, plants, and wildlife that occur within the
final grading footprint and associated construction staging areas for the proposed
development. If listed species are determined to be present, consultation with the
USFWS and CDFG shall be initiated. The applicant shall comply with project-specific
permit conditions and requirements developed through consultation with USFWS and
CDFG. Including:
Page 28 . The Planning Center
October 2005
Part B - Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan
82. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIR/FEIR
. Avoidance and minimization of impacts to listed species through revised project
design.
. Provision of in-kind native habitaUvegetation through onsite revegetation and
restoration at a minimum 2 to 1 ratio or higher ratio as required by USFWS and
CDFG.
. Provision of compensation through acquisition of offsite mitigation areas at a
minimum 2 to 1 ratio or higher ratio as required by USFWS and CDFG.
Finding: The mitigation measure identified is feasible and would avoid or substantially lessen the
potentially significant impacts associated with biological resources to a level of less than significant
and no unavoidable adverse impacts would occur.
AHS Impact 5.3-2:
Development of the project would potentially result in the loss of
approximately 51 acres of riparian habitat. [Threshold B-2)
Approximately 51 acres of riparian habitat would be impacted by construction of the proposed project
primarily along West Twin Creek in Waterman Canyon.
Mitigation Measures:
AHS 5.3-2A
AHS 5.3-2B
Prior to the issuance of grading permits for any project potentially affecting riparian
habitat. jurisdictional waters. andlor weiland habitat, the property ownerldeveloper shall
provide evidence to the that all necessary permits have been obtained from the CDFG
(pursuant to Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code) and the USACE (pursuant to
Section 404 of the CWA) or that no such permits are required, in a manner meeting the
approval of the Director of Development Services for the City of San Bernardino. Section
404 Permits from the USCOE will also require a Section 401 Water Quality Certification
from the California RWQCB Santa Ana. Project applicant shall provide evidence of a
Section 401 Water Quality Certification. If federally listed species are present,
consultation with USFWS shall aiso occur in conjunction with the Section 404 permit.
~
Prior to issuance of a grading permit for any area containing resources subject to the
jurisdiction of USACE and CDFG, USFWS. and RWQCB, a comprehensive
Revegetation and Restoration Pian shall be developed by the applicant in consultation
with the applicable agencies. The plan shall incorporate the applicable permit conditions
and requirements of these agencies including the Section 404 Permit, 401 Water Quality
Certification. and CDFG Section 1600 Streambed Alteration Agreement.
Native vegetation shall be installed at a minimum ratio of 2 to 1 and maintained along
the developedlwildland interface of the golf course and associated residential units,
including local native plant landscaping.
The plan will address the following items:
. Responsibilities and qualifications of the personnel to implement and supervise
the plan: The responsibilities of the landowner, specialists and maintenance
personnel that will supervise and implement the plan will be specified.
General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR City of San Bernardino. Page 29
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Part B - Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan
82. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIR/FEIR
. Site selection: The site for mitigation will be determined in coordination with the
City, USFWS, CDFG, and USFWS. The site will be located within land to be
purchased or preserved offsite within the San Gabriel watershed.
. Restoration and creation of habitat: The plan shall require the creation of
riparian habitat in the amount and of the type required by CDFG and USACE,
provided, however, that, in order to assure no net loss of jurisdictional resources
on an acre-for-acre basis, all impacted USACE and CDFG jurisdictional habitat
shall be compensated by restoration, enhancement or creation at a minimum
of 3:1 ratio.
. Site preparation and planting implementation: The site preparation will include:
1) protection of existing native species, 2) trash and weed removai, 3) native
species saivage and reuse (Le. duff), 4) soH treatments (Le. imprinting,
decompacting), 5) temporary irrigation installation, 6) erosion control measures
(Le. rice or willow wattles), 7) seed mix application, and 8) container species.
. Schedule: A schedule will be developed that includes planting to occur during
the appropriate season.
. Maintenance plan/guidelines: The maintenance plan will include: 1) weed
control, 2) herbivory control, 3) trash removal, 4) irrigation system maintenance,
5) maintenance training, and 6) replacement planting.
. Monitoring plan: The monitoring plan will include: 1) qualitative monitoring (Le.,
photographs and general observation), 2) quantitative monitoring (Le., randomly
placed transects), 3) performance criteria as approved by the resource
agencies, 4) monitoring reports for three to five years, 5) site monitoring as
required by the resource agencies to ensure successful establishment of
riparian habitat within the restored and created area. Successful establishment
is defined per the performance criteria agreed to by the USACE, USFWS,
CDFG, and the City or subsequent project applicant.
. Long-term preservation: Long-term preservation of the site will also be outlined
in the conceptual mitigation plan.
AHS 5.3-2C
The applicant shall ensure that polluted runoff from the golf course will not enter ripanan
habitat and jurisdictional waters, including wetland habitat, through implementation of
Mitigation Measures 5.7-1B, 5.7-1C, 5.7-10, and 5.7-1E (Section 5.7, Hydrology).
Finding: The mitigation measures identified are feasible and would avoid or substantially lessen the
potentially significant impacts associated with biological resources to a level of less than significant
and no unavoidable adverse impacts would occur.
AHS Impact 5.3-3:
The proposed project would impact approximately 58 acres of potential
jurisdictional waters, including wetlands. [Threshold 8-3J
Approximately 58 acres of potential jurisdictional (U.S. Army Corp of Engineers and California Department
of Fish and Game) waters, including wetlands, would be impacted by the proposed project.
Page 30 . The Planning Center
October 2005
Part B - Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan
82. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIR/FEIR
AHS 5.3-3
Mitigation Measures:
Project applicant shall implement mitigation measure 5.3-2 to address impacts to
jurisdictional waters and wetlands.
Finding: The mitigation measure identified is feasible and would avoid or substantiatly lessens the
potentially significant impacts associated with biological resources to a level of less than significant
and no unavoidable adverse impacts would occur.
AHS Impact 5.3-4:
The proposed project would affect wildlife movement in West Twin
Creek/Waterman Canyon. [Threshold 8-4J
The proposed project may potentially affect the movement of resident or migratory wildlife species in West
Twin CreekiWaterman Canyon.
AHS 5.3-4A
Mitigation Measures:
AHS 5.3-4B
Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the golf course construction and creek
realignment, the applicant shall conduct a wildlife corridorlmovement analysis of West
Twin CreekiWaterman Canyon to identify and define the limits of the existing wildlife
corridor. Based on the results of the analysis, and in consultation with a qualified
biologist and a qualified native community restorationist, the landscaping plan for
manufactured slopes along the drainage shall include:
~
. Provision of north-south wildlife movement and linkage opportunities for the
affected species along and adjacent to the realigned creek.
. Planting of a minimum 25-foot buffer zone, within a 50-foot setback, of native
shrubs and trees that provide maximum screening.
. Exterior lighting shall be prohibited within the 50-foot setback zone. Light
sources adjacent to the wildlife corridor shall be directed away from the corridor.
. To allow for the mobility of animals, fencing used in the 50-foot setback zone
shall be limited to open fencing, such as split rail fencing, which does not
exceed 40 inches in height above the finished grade.
If construction activities, including removal of riparian vegetation or construction adjacent
to riparian habitat, is to occur between March 15 and August 30, the project proponent
shall have a biologist conduct a pre-construction, migratory bird and raptor nesting site
check. The biologist must be qualified to determine the status and stage of nesting effort
by all locally breeding raptor species without causing intrusive disturbance. If an active
nesting effort is confirmed very likely by the biologist, no construction activities shall
occur within at least 300 feet of the nesting site until measures to address the constraint
are agreed to by the project proponent and USFWS personnel. This agreement may be
made by conference call, an on-site meeting, or other mutually agreeable means.
Measures available as options to address this constraint are dependent on the species
and any other protections afforded it, details of the nest site. the nest stage, types and
General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans EfR City of San Bernardino. Page 31
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Part B - Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan
82. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIR/FEIR
levels of ongoing disturbances, the relevant project actions, and distances involved.
Specific measures would be determined by the regulating agency (USFWS).
Finding: The mitigation measures identified are feasible and would avoid or substantially lessen the
potentially significant impacts associated with biological resources to a level of less than significant
and no unavoidable adverse impacts would occur.
82.3 Cultural Resources
AHS Impact 5.4-1:
Build-out of the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan would impact an identified
historic resource, [Threshold C-1}
The proposed land use plan would result in the demolition of several buildings which contribute to the
historical significance of the property. The CEQA Guidelines require a project which wili have potentially
adverse impacts on historic resources to conform to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties, in order for the impacts to be mitigated to below significant and adverse
levels. The demolition of an historic property cannot be seen as conforming with the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards. Build-out of the proposed plan would also result in the introduction of land uses in close proximity
to remaining historic features, which would substantially alter the existing historic and natural setting of the
Arrowhead Springs property.
Mitigation Measures:
AHS 54-1A
Prior to issuance of any building, grading or demolition permit for the modification or
destruction of any historic structure, the project applicant shall submit to the Director of
Development Services written recommendations prepared by a qualified architectural
historian of the measures that shall be implemented to protect each historic site eligible
for listing on the NRHP and CRHP. The list includes but is not limited to the following as
shown'in Table 54-1 and iliustrated in Figure 5.4-3.
Hotel/Steam Caves Bunaalaw 10
Paol, Cabanas, Tennis Caurts Mud Baths
Bunaalaw 1 Smith Memarial
Bunaalaw 3 Indian Statue
BUMalaw 4 Reservair
Bunaalaw 5 Snnnns
Bunaalaw 6 Fountains
Bunaalaw 7 Terrace and Tennis Courts
Bunaalaw 8 Landscaae Elements
Bunaalaw 9 Miscellaneous Features
Modification, Appropriate mitigation measures for "historical resources" could include
preservation of the site through avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in
greens pace, parks, or open space, data recovery excavations of the finds, or a
rehabilitation plan in compliance with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating,
Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (1995) prepared by a qualified historic
preservation professional that would be based to the greatest extent feasible on
historical data. A particular focus of the rehabilitation plan should be the hotel building,
including landscaping, interiors, exteriors and furnishings.
Page 32 . The Planning Center
October 2005
AHS 5.4-1 B
Part B - Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan
62. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIR/FEIR
Demolition. To the extent eligible sites are not preserved in place, prior to the issuance
of a demolition permit for the demolition of any Historic Structure eligible for listing on the
NRHP and CRHP, including Bungalows 3,7,8,9,10 and 11, the historian shall conduct
a data recovery program which includes:
Comprehensive Survey. A comprehensive inventory of historic features on the property,
including but not limited to buildings, structures, objects, water features. wall, and'
landscape matenals shall be conducted. To the greatest extent feasible, the preservation
and rehabilitation of historic features on the property shall be incorporated into the
development plan.
Interpretative Plan. The applicant shall be required to produce an historical interpretation
plan for the property. This plan shall include a permanent, on-site display within a public
area which will provide historic information about the founding and history of Arrowhead
Springs. Historic and/or contemporary photographs and other artifacts and materials
should be included within the display. Other indoor or outdoor interpretive displays shall
be produced, as appropriate. The precise content, format, and location and design shall
be determined by a qualified historic preservation professional, and subject to the
approval by the City of San Bernardino.
Documentation. A Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) outline format narrative
description of the property, contemporary and historic photographs, and other relevant
documentation shall be prepared by a historic consultant approved by the City. Prior to
the issuance of a demolition permit for the subject property, the report shall be submitted
for approval to the Director of Community Development and the Director of Community
Services, and an approved original shall be deposited in the City of San Bernardino
Branches of the San Bernardino County Public Library (or other suitable repository as
determined by the Directors of Community Development and Community Services).
The EI R concludes that there are or may be significant historical structures/resources
not currently ascertainable within areas where ground disturbing activity is proposed by
the project. Therefore, prior to issuance of the first preliminary or precise grading permit
for development in the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan area, the landowner or
subsequent project applicant shall provide evidence that an qualified historic
preservation professional has been retained by the landowner or subsequent project
applicant, and has conducted a site survey of the development area at such time as all
ground surfaces are visible after current uses are removed. If any sites are discovered,
the historian shall conduct surveys and/or test level investigations. Testing and
evaluation may consist of surface collection and mapping, limited subsurface
excavations, and the appropriate analyses and research necessary to characterize the
artifacts and deposit from which they originated. Upon completion of the test level
investigations, for sites are determined to be unique a "historical resource" as set forth
in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, the following measures shall be undertaken: the
historian shall submit its recommendations to the landowner or subsequent project
applicant and the Director of Community Development on the measures that shall be
implemented to protect the site. Appropriate measures could include preservation in
place through planning construction to avoid the historical resource, incorporation into
greenspace, parks, or open space, data recovery excavations of the finds or compliance
with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with
Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic
buildings (1995).
General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR City of San Bernardino. Page 33
Fuuling, of Facl and Statelllelll of Overriding Considerations
~
Part B - Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan
82. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIR/FEIR
. Preparation of a research design for those sites determined to the "historical
resources" that cannot be avoided that describes the recommended field
investigations, and makes provisions for adequately recovering the scientifically
consequential information from and about the "historical resource."
. Conducting site excavations in accordance with the research design with an
emphasis on obtaining an adequate sample for analysis within the limits of the
research questions being addressed. Special studies such as pollen analyses, soil
analyses, radiocarbon dating, and obsidian hydration dating should be conducted
as appropriate.
. Monitoring of all field excavations by a Native American representative.
. Preparation of a final report of the Phase 3 data recovery work and submittal of the
research design and final report to the South Central Coastal Information Center
(SCCIC). and other agencies, as appropriate.
. If any Native American archaeological artifacts are recovered, the project applicant
shall contact the City, which shall in turn contact the Morongo Band of Mission
Indians and any other designated Tribe(s)' tribal representative, as determined by
the Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC) to notify them of the discovery.
The applicant shall coordinate with the City of San Bernardino and the designated
Tribe(s) to determine, in good faith, the appropriate disposition Native American
artifacts and the designated Tribe(s) shall be given the opportunity to seek the return
of any Native American artifacts discovered. Any non-Native American
archaeological artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be donated to a
qualified scientific institution approved by the Director of Community Development
where they would be afforded long-term preservation to allow future scientific study.
Finding: Although the mitigation measures listed above would reduce the impacts to historic
resources, demolition of historic structures can not be mitigated in accordance with CEQA
Guidelines. Therefore the impacts to historic resources would remain a significant unavoidable
adverse Impact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted.
AHS Impact 5.4-2:
Build-out of the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan would impact archaeo-
logical resources, paleontological resources, or a unique geologic feature.
[Thresholds C2 and C-3]
Development activities pursuant to the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan, such as grading and establishment
of infrastructure would result in significant impacts to known archaeological resources. Portions of the
Arrowhead Springs area that are proposed for development may contain additional prehistoric sites which
have not been recorded or identified and which may be impacted by site disturbance activities.
Mitigation Measures:
AHS 5.4-2A
Prior to issuance of the first preliminary or precise grading permit, and for any
subsequent permit involving excavation to increased depth, the landowner or
subsequent project applicant shall provide evidence that an archaeologist and/or
paleontologist have been retained by the landowner or subsequent project applicant,
and that the consullant(s) will be present during all grading and other significant ground
Page 34 . The Planning Center
October 2005
Part B - Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan
B2. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIRlFEIR
disturbing activities. These consultants shall be selected from the roll of qualified
archaeologist and paleontologists maintained by the County of San Bernardino. Should
any archeological/paleontological resources be discovered, the monitor is authorized to
stop all grading in the immediate area of the discovery, and shall make recom-
mendations to the Director of Development Services on the measures that shall be
implemented to protect the discovered resources, including but not limited to excavation
of the finds and evaluation of the finds in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEOA
Guidelines. If the resources are determined to be "historic resources" at that term is
defined under Section 15064.5 of the CEOA Guidelines, mitigation measures shall be
identified by the monitor and recommended to the Director of Development Services.
Appropriate mitigation measures for significant resources could include avoidance or
capping, incorporation of the site in greenspace, parks or open space, or data recovery
excavations of the finds. No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until
the Director approves the measures to protect these resources. If any Native American
paleontological or archaeological artifacts are recovered as a result mitigation the City
shall contact the Morongo Band of Mission Indians and any other designated Tribe(s)'
tribal representative, as determined by the Native American Heritage
Commission(NAHC) to notify them of the discovery. The applicant shall coordinate with
the City of San Bernardino and the designated Tribe(s) to determine, in good faith, the
appropriate disposition Native American artifacts and the designated Tribe(s) shall be
given the opportunity to seek the retum of any Native American artifacts discovered. Any
non-Native American paleontological or archaeological artifacts recovered as a result
of mitigation shall be donated to a qualified scientific institution approved by the Director "'~
of Community Development where they would be afforded long-term preservation to -:4(
allow future scientific study. \JU
AHS 5.4-2B
Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the following note shall be placed on the
cover sheet, and discussed at the pre-grade meeting:
a) The paleontologist retained for the project shall immediately evaluate the fossils
which have been discovered to determine if the are significant and, if so, to
develop a plan to collect and study them for the purpose of mitigation.
b) The paleontologic monitor must be empowered to temporarily halt of redirect
excavation equipment of fossils are found to allow evaluation and removal of
them if necessary, the monitor should be equipped to speedily collect
specimens if the are encountered.
c) The monitor, with assistance if necessary, shall collect individual fossils and/or
samples of fossil bearing sediments. If specimens of small animal species are
encountered, the most time and cost efficient method of recovery is to remove
a selected volume of fossil bearing earth from the grading area and screen wish
it off-site.
d) Fossils recovered during the earthmoving or as a result of screen-washing of
sediment samples shall be cleaned and prepared sufficiently to allow
identification. This allows the fossils to be described in a report of findings and
reduces the volume of matrix around specimens prior to storage, thus reducing
storage costs.
General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR City of San Bernardino. Page 35
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Part B - Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan
82. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIR/FEIR
e) A report of findings shall be prepared and submitted to the public agency
responsible for overseeing developments and mitigation of environmental
impacts upon completion of mitigation. This report would minimally include a
statement of the type of paleontological resources found. the methods and
procedures used to recover them, an inventory of the specimens recovered, and
a statement of their scientific significance.
AHS 5.4-2C
The EIR concludes that there are or may be significant archaeological resources within
areas where ground disturbing activity is proposed by the project. Therefore. prior to the
first preliminary or precise grading permit for development in the Arrowhead Springs
Specific Plan area, each prehistoric and historic archeological site (listed below and
described in Table 5.4-3) located within the project grading footprint must be tested and
evaluated. following clearing and scraping activities.
. CA-SBR-2268/H, including the four loci
. CA-SBR-6870H
. CA-SBR-7019H
. CA-SBR-7020H
. CA-SBR-7022H
. CA-SBR-7049H
. P1071-21
. P36-017732
Testing and evaluation may consist of surface collection and mapping, limited subsurface
excavations. and the appropriate analyses and research necessary to characterize the
artifacts and deposit from which they originated. Upon completion of the test level
investigations. for sites are determined to be unique archaeological sites or historical
resources as set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, the following measures
shall be undertaken: the archaeologist shall submit its recommendations to, the
landowner or subsequent project applicant and the Director of Community Development
on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the sites. Appropriate measures
for unique archaeological resources or historical resources could include preservation
in place through planning construction to avoid archaeological sites; incorporation of
sites within parks, greenspace, or other open space; covering the archaeological sites
with a layer of chemically stable soil before building tennis courts, parking lots, or similar
facilities on the site or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. When
data recovery through excavation is the only feasible mitigation, a data recovery plan,
which makes provision for adequately recovering the scientifically consequential
information from and about the historical resource, shall be prepared and adopted prior
to any excavation being undertaken. Such studies shall be deposited with the California
Historical Resources Regional Information Center. Archaeological sites known to contain
human remains shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 7050.5
Health and Safety Code.
. Preparation of a research design for those sites determined to the "historical
resources" that cannot be avoided that describes the recommended field
investigations, and makes provisions for adequately recovering the scientifically
consequential information from and about the "historical resource."
Page 36 . The Planning Center
October 2005
Part B - Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan
82. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIR/FEIR
. Conducting site excavations in accordance with the research design with an
emphasis on obtaining an adequate sample for analysis within the limits of the
research questions being addressed. Special studies such as pollen analyses, soil
anaiyses, radiocarbon dating, and obsidian hydration dating shouid be conducted
as appropriate.
. Monitoring of all field excavations by a Native American representative.
. Preparation of a final report of the Phase 3 data recovery work and submittal of the
research design and final report to the South Central Coastal Information Center
(SCCIC), and other agencies, as appropriate.
. If any Native American archaeological artifacts are recovered, the project applicant
shall contact the City, which shall in turn contact the Morongo Band of Mission
Indians and any other designated Tribe(s)' tribal representative, as determined by
the Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC) to notify them of the discovery.
The applicant shall coordinate with the City of San Bernardino and the designated
Tribe(s) to determine, in good faith, the appropriate disposition Native American
artifacts and the designated Tribe(s) shall be given the opportunity to seek the return
of any Native American artifacts discovered. Any non-Native American
archaeological artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be donated to a
qualified scientific institution approved by the Director of Community Development
where they would be afforded long-term preservation to allow future scientific study.
~
Finding: The mitigation measures identified are feasible and would avoid or substantially lessen the
potentially significant impacts associated with archeological and/or paleontological resources or
unique geologic features to a level of less than significant and no unavoidable adverse impacts would
occur.
AHS Impact 5.4-3:
Grading activities could potentially disturb human remains in the A"owhead
Springs Specific Plan area. [Threshold C-4]
The site does contain the remains of David Nobel Smith at a marked memorial and the area was also known
to be used by Native American tribes, increasing the likelihood that undiscovered human remains may exist.
Site grading and construction activities may result in the discovery of human remains, which would result is
a significant impact.
Mitigation Measures:
AHS 5.4-3A
In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains in any
location other than a dedicated cemetery, the following steps shall be taken:
There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area
reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the San Bernardino
County Coroner is contacted to determine if the remains are prehistoric and that no
investigation of the cause of death is required. If the coroner determines the remains to
be Native American, then the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage
Commission within 24 hours, and the Native American Heritage Commission shall
identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendent from the
deceased Native American. The most likely descendant may make recommendations
General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR City of San Bernardino. Page 37
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Part B - Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan
82. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
IDENTIFIED IN THE OEIR/FEIR
AHS 5:4-3B
AHS 5:4-3C
to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating
or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave
goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98; or
Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his authorized representative
shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with
appropriate dignity either in accordance with the recommendation of the most likely
descendant or on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface
disturbances:
. The Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a most likely
descendant or the likely descendant failed to make a recommendation within 24
hours after being notified by the commission; or
. The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation; or
. The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of
the descendant, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage
Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.
Upon receipt of an application for a project subject to CEOA and within the City's
jurisdiction, the City of San Bernardino's representative shall consult with the relevant
Tribe(s)' tribal representative(s), as determined by the Native American Heritage
Commission, to determine if the proposed project is within a culturally sensitive area to
the tribe. If sufficient evidence is provided to reasonably ascertain that the site is within
a [tribal] culturally sensitive area, then a cultural resources assessment prepared by a
City-certified archaeologist shall be required. The findings of the cultural resources
assessment shall be incorporated into the CEOA documentation. A copy of the report
shall be forwarded to the Tribe(s). If mitigation is recommended in the CEOA document,
the procedure described in MM 5:4-3C shall be followed. .
Prior to the issuance of grading permits for which the CEOA document defines culturai
resource mitigation for potential tribal cultural resources, the project applicant shall
contact the designated Tribe(s)' tribal representative to notify them of the grading,
excavation, and monitoring program. The applicant shall coordinate with the City of San
Bernardino and the tribal representative(s) to negotiate an Agreement that addresses
the designation, responsibilities, and participation of tribal monitors during grading,
excavation, and ground-disturbing activities; scheduling; terms of compensation; and
treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human
remains discovered on the site. The City of San Bernardino shall be the final arbiter of
the conditions included in the Agreement.
Finding: The mitigation measures identified are feasible and would avoid or substantially lessen the
potentially significant impacts associated with disturbance of human remains outside of formal
cemeteries to a level of less than significant and no unavoidable adverse impacts would occur.
82.4 Geology and Soils
AHS Impact 5.5-2:
Unstable geologic unit or soils conditions, including soil erosion, could result
due to build-out of the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan. [Thresholds G-2
and G-3]
October 2005
Page 38 . The Planning Cemer
Part B - Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan
82. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIR/FEIR
Portions of the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan area are located on unstable geological units or have
unstable soil conditions that may result in loss of topsoil or be susceptible to landslides, lateral spreading,
liquefaction, subsidence, and collapse.
Mitigation Measures:
AHS 5.5-2a
AHS 5.5-2b
AHS 5.5-2c
AHS 5.5-2d
All projects within the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan area shall follow all geotechnical
recommendations provided within the Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluations
produced by Soils Southwest Inc.
Site specific geotechnical analysis shall be required for all new developments within the
Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan area to determine existing soils conditions, soil
recommendations for fill material prior to grading, and slope stability. Detailed geologic
and geotechnical evaluations shall be made for construction of structural footings and
slab-on-grade for placement on compacted fill soils.
No fill shall be placed, spread or rolled during unfavorable weather conditions. Where
work is interrupted by heavy rains, fill operations shall not be resumed until moisture
conditions are considered favorable by the soils engineer.
Proposed lev'el structural pad areas shall be carefully evaluated by project geologist to
determine whether these locations can be rendered safe and stable without potentially
affecting offsite improvements. Excavated footings shall be inspected, verified, and
certified by soils engineer prior to steel and concrete placement to ensure their sufficient
embedment and proper bearing. Structural backfill shall be placed under direct
observation and testing.
~~
Finding: The mitigation measures identified are feasible and would avoid or substantially lessen the
potentially significant impacts associated with geology and soils to a level of less than significant and
no unavoidable adverse impacts would occur.
82.5 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
AHS Impact 5.6-1:
Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan operations would involve the transport, use
and/or disposal of hazardous materIals or release of hazardous materials.
[Thresholds H-1. H-2, and H-3]
The Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan area would result in the expansion of the existing deveiopment to
include new commercial and residential uses. The Phase I Site Assessment identified recognized
environmental conditions and historical recognized environmental conditions that may pose a hazard to
people or the environment. Furthermore, naturally occurring emissions from the geothermal activity may also
pose a hazard to people if development were to be concentrated in these areas.
AHS 5.6-1a
Mitigation Measures:
AHS 5.6-1b
Oil impacted materials identified on site shall be properly cleaned and disposed of in
accordance state and local laws.
Soil samples shall be collected in the area surrounding the drying beds at the small
sanitary sewer treatment facility and shall be tested for elevated metal concentrations.
General Plilll Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR City of San Bernardino. Page 39
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Part B - Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan
82. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIR/FEIR
AHS 5.6-1c
Prior to approval of Tentative Tract Maps in the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan area
in the vicinity of the identified geothermal areas, the developer shall initiate a risk
assessment to identify possible risks associated with the development adjacent to the
geothermal activity of Arrowhead Springs. The risk analysis shall include a risk
assessment of radon, methane, propane, and mercury associated with the geothermal
vents, hot springs, and mercury accumulation in the soils where development is to occur.
Ventilation systems shall be designed in accordance with the National Fire Protection
Association guide to ensure that indoor air concentrations of these hazards associated
with the geothermal activity would not result in a hazard for building occupants. If an
active (i.e. mechanically operated) ventilation system is used, the developer would be
required to obtain relevant permits from the AQMD.
Finding: The mitigation measure identified is feasible and would avoid or substantially lessen the
potentially significant impacts associated with hazards and hazardous material to a level of less than
significant and no unavoidable adverse impacts would occur
82.6 Hydrology and Water Quality
AHS Impact 5.7-1:
During the construction phase of the proposed project, there is the potential
for short-term unquantifiable increases in pollutant concentrations from the
site. After project development, the quality of storm water runoff (sediment,
nutrients, metals, pesticides, pathogens, and hydrocarbons) may be altered.
[Thresholds HD-1 and HD-6]
Construction activities could lead to temporary impacts on surface water quarter quality through an increase
In sediment deposited in local streams due to soil erosion and/or the release of other pollutants associated
with construction. Development of the site would urbanize a total of approximately 506 acres, including 199
acres for a golf course, which would result in substantial alteration in the existing site conditions and the
introduction of urban pollutant sources that could impact water quality for surface and ground water
resources.
AHS 5.7-1A
Mitigation Measures:
AHS 5.7-1 B
Prior to the issuance of land disturbing permits, the applicant shall provide the City
Engineer with evidence that a Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed with the State Water
Resources Control Board. Such evidence shall consist of a copy of the NOI stamped by
the State Water Resources Control Board or the Regional Water Quality Control Board,
or a letter from either agency stating that the NOI has been filed a minimum of thirty
days prior to commencing grading operations.
Prior to issuance of land disturbing permits and in compliance with the requirements of
the State General Construction Activity Storm Water Pemnit, the project applicant shall
prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that incorporates measures
or comparable Best Management Practices which describe the site, erosion and
sediment controls, means of waste disposal, implementation of approved local plans,
control of post-construction sediment and erosion control measures and maintenance
responsibilities, and non-storm water management controls. The SWPPP shall also be
submitted to the City of San Bernardino Public Works Department. The applicant shall
require all construction contractors to retain a copy of the approved SWPPP on each
construction site. Additionally, the SWPPP shall ensure that all water discharges are in
October 2005
Page 40 . The Planning Center
AHS 5.7-1C
AHS 5.7-10
AHS 5.7-1E
Part B - Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan
82. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIR/FEIR
compliances with the current requirements of the California Regional Water Quality
Control Board, Santa Ana Region.
Prior to issuance of land disturbing permits and in compliance with City of San
Bernardino Municipal Code Chapter 8.80, the applicant shall prepare a Storm Water
Quality Management Plan (SWQMP). The SWQMP shall implement all applicable
BMPs, as listed in the California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbooks
or the current, San Bernardino County Storm Water Program's Report of Waste
Discharge, to reduce pollutants in storm water and runoff and reduce non-storm water
discharges to the City's storm water drainage system to the maximum extent practicable.
The SWQMP shall demonstrate compliance with California Department of Heallh
Services Section 60310 Use Area Requirements, which state that "no impoundment of
disinfected tertiary recycled water shall occur within 100 feet of any domestic water
supply well," and "no irrigation with, or impoundment of, disinfected secondary or
disinfected secondary recycled water shall take place within 100 feet of any domestic
water supply well."
Prior to the issuance of land disturbing permits for the golf course, a Chemical Application
Management Plan (CHAMP) shall be submitted to and approved by the City of San
Bernardino. The CHAMP or similar management plan shall incorporate but not be limited
to the following:
. A description of chemicals authorized for use and approved by the State of
California, along with guidelines for their application. Guidelines shall include
restrictions on their application and their use near drainage systems. Chemicals
include fertilizers, herbicides, fungicides, insecticides and rodenticides.
Guidelines on the application of fertilizers and soil amendments shall take into
account consideration the physical characteristics and nutrient content of the
soil on the golf course site.
~
. Guidelines for the irrigation of the golf course that take into consideration the
field capacity of soil types and the timing with chemical applications; and
. Chemical storage requirements and chemical spill response and chemical
inventory response plans shall be prepared and implemented.
A water quality monitoring system and program shall be developed and implemented in
conjunction with the CHAMP that provides for sampling of all permanent surface water
features on a quarterly basis and includes an analysis for non-volatile synthetic organic
chemicals, total dissolved solids, chloride, sulfate, total phosphorus, boron, nitrogen as
nitrate, total nitrogen. and iron. This monitoring program shall be implemented with
consideration of the RWQCB water quality objectives.
Finding: The mitigation measures identified are feasible and would avoid or substantially lessen the
potentially significant impacts associated with hydrology and water quality to a level of less than
significant and no unavoidable adverse impacts would occur.
AHS Impact 5.7-2:
Development pursuant to the proposed project would increase the amount
of impervious surfaces on the site and utilize surface waters otherwise
General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR City of San Bernardino. Page 41
Findings ofF act and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Part B - Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan
B2. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIR/FEIR
destined for groundwater recharge reducing opportunities for groundwater
recharge. [Threshold HD-2]
Project implementation would increase the amount of impervious surfaces in the area, thus impacting the
opportunity for groundwater recharge in those areas. Additionally, the proposed project would withdraw water
from the surface water streams for drinking water and irrigation purposes and/or retrieve through wells in the
Basin excess water that would normally reach the percolation ponds, which would reduce the amount of water
available for groundwater recharge in the Basin.
Mitigation Measures:
AHS 5.7 -2A
Prior to approval of the first Tentative Tract Map, evidence shall be provided to the
Development Services Department that appropriate water rights have been granted
including a determination of maximum and minimum withdrawal of water from East and
West Twin Creek watersheds (in conjunction with mitigation measure 5.15-1).
AHS 5.7-2B
Prior to approval of the first Tentative Tract Map, the applicant shall secure a site for the
supplemental water wells in the San Bernardino Basin and obtain a drilling and operation
permit in accordance with Chapter 13.24 (Water Supply System) of the Municipal Code.
Finding: The mitigation measures identified are feasible and will avoid or substantially lessen the
potentially significant impacts associated with hydrology and water quality to a level of less than
significant and no unavoidable adverse impacts would occur.
AHS Impact 5.7-3:
Development pursuant to the proposed project would increase the amount
of impervious surfaces on the site and would therefore increase surface
water flows into drainage systems within the watershed. [Threshold HD-3,
HD-4, and HD-5]
The existing drainage pattern of the site would be substantially altered and development would create an
increase in impervious surfaces causing an increase in the amount and rate of storm water discharge to local
streams.
Mitigation Measures:
AHS 5.7-3A
Prior to issuance of land disturbing permits, the applicant shall submit a Final Drainage
Plan Report to the City of San Bernardino for review and approval in conformance with
the City of San Bernardino requirements that are in effect at the time of submittal. The
report shall be prepared by a qualified registered professional civil engineer and shall,
at a minimum, include the following:
. A written text addressing existing conditions, the effects of projects
improvements, all appropriate calculations, a watershed and hydrology map,
changes in downstream flows and elevations, proposed on and off-site
improvements (catch basins, inlets, vaults, swales, filters, etc. for entrapment
of sediment debris and contaminants), and features to protect downstream uses
and property. The project drainage features shall be designed to ensure no
change in downstream flow conditions that would result in new or increased
severity of flooding.
Page 42 . The Planning Center
October 2005
AHS 5.7-3B
Part B - Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan
82. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIR/FEIR
. The report shall provide evidence of compliance with all required approvals from
the Regional Water Quality Control Board (401 Water Quality Waiver) and with
USCOE 404 permitting for changes to ''waters of the U.S."
Maintenance of the storm drainage facilities shall be the responsibility of the project
applicant until such time as the facilities are turned over to the City as a public
improvement, or included within a Landscape Maintenance District or project home-
owners or maintenance association. Easements shall be created and offered for
dedication to the City for maintenance and access to these facilities as necessary in
anticipation of possible City maintenance.
Finding: The mitigation measures identified are feasible and would avoid or substantially lessen the
potentially significant impacts associated with hydrology and water quality to a level of less than
significant and no unavoidable adverse impacts would occur
AHS Impact 5.7-4:
Portions of the project site proposed for development are located within a
100-year flood hazard area. [Thresholds HD-7 and HD-8]
Porlions of the specific plan area selected for residential development that are adjacent to West Twin Creek
are subject to 1 OO-year flood plain inundation.
Mitigation Measures:
AHS 5.7-4
Prior to issuance of building permits the project applicant shall prepare and file an
application with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a Letter of Map
Revision (LOMR) for Flood Insurance Rate Maps as necessary to reflect changes to the
floodway or flood plain resulting from the development to demonstrate that all habitable
structures are not subject to flooding in a 100-year storm. The Department of Public
Works shall be provided a copy of the LOMR.
~
Finding: The mitigation measure identified is feasible and will avoid or substantially lessen the
potentially significant impacts associated with hydrology and water quality to a level of less than
significant and no unavoidable adverse impacts would occur
82.7 Noise
AHS Impact 5.10-1:
Implementation of the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan would result in long-
term operation-related noise that would exceed local standards. [Thresholds
N-1 and N-3]
Project implementation would result in long-term operation-related noise that would exceed local noise
standards primarily derived from operation of the proposed wastewater treatment plant and traffic on the new
Harrison Parkway and other local roadways studied due to the proximity of residential uses. Cumulative noise
impacts would occur due project and background traffic in the year 2030 at Sterling Avenue south of foothill
Drive.
Mitigation Measures:
A site specific acoustic study shall be conducted to analyze and mitigate noise levels
along the existing Harrison Street from 40th to 30th Street and submitted to the
General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR City of San 'Bernardino . Page 43
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
AHS 5.10-1A
Part B - Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan
82. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIR/FEIR
Development Services Department with plans for road widening of Harrison Street. This
acoustic study shall specify the necessary mitigation to achieve exterior noise level limits
at residential uses proximate to the new Harrison Parkway. Mitigation measures may
include the use of berms or sound walls to attenuate exterior noise levels.
AHS 5.10-16
A site specific acoustic study shall be conducted to evaluate and, if necessary, mitigate
potential noise impacts from the proposed wastewater treatment plan on the golf course
and residences located proximate to the project site. The study shall be submitted to the
Development Services Department with building plans for approval. Mitigation, if
necessary, shall be in compliance with the City's exterior and interior noise limits.
Finding: The mitigation measures identified are feasible and will avoid or substantially lessen the
potentially significant impacts associated with most noise derived from traffic and noise due to
operation of the wastewater treatment plant to a level of less than significant. However cumulative
noise levels from traffic along Sterling Avenue south of Foothill Drive can not be sufficiently mitigated
resulting in a significant unavoidable adverse noise impact and a statement of overriding
consideration must be adopted by the Common Council.
AHS Impact 5.10-2:
Implementation of the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan project would create
short-term and long-term groundborne vibration and groundborne noise.
[Threshold N-2l
The project would create ground borne vibration and ground borne noise that may result in significant vibration
impacts from vibration intensive construction activities. Vibration intensive construction activities may
temporarily lead to significant vibration impacts if vibration sensitive receivers are located proximate to the
construction activities.
Mitigation Measures:
AHS 5.10-2A
Prior to issuance of land disturbing permits for projects that would occur within 25 feet
of sensitive uses, the project applicant shall submit a list of equipment to the
Development Services Department demonstrating compliance with USDOT significance
threshold for vibration annoyance of 72 VdB.
AHS 5.1 0-2B
Prior to issuance of land disturbing permits for projects that would occur within 25 feet
of sensitive uses, the project applicant shall submit a list of equipment to the
Development Services Department demonstrating compliance with USDOT significance
threshold for vibration induced structural damage of 0.20 in/sec.
Finding: The mitigation measures identified are feasible and will avoid or substantially lessen most
of the potentially significant impacts associated with groundborne vibration and groundborne noise.
However, the phasing of development may place sensitive users adjacent to sources of groundborne
vibration and groundborne noise during construction activities such that mitigation measures would
not be effective in reducing impacts, resulting in a significant unavoidable adverse impact and a
statement of overriding considerations must be adopted by the Common Council.
Page 44 . The Planning Center
October 2005
Part B - Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan
82. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIR/FEIR
82.8 Public Services
B2.8.1 Fire Protection
AHS Impact 5.12-1:
Incorporation of the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan area and subsequent
development would introduce new structures, residents, and workers within
the City of San Bernardino Fire Department service boundaries, thereby
increasing the requirement for fire protection facilities and personnel.
[Threshold FP-1}
Incorporation and build-out of the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan area would expand the service boundary
for the San Bernardino City Fire Department in an area that has a high number of emergency response calls
and high fire danger thereby reducing the level of service for the remainder of the City and resulting in an
increased need for addition fire protection facilities and personnel.
Mitigation Measures:
AHS 5.12-1
Prior to approval of any tract map or development application, the project applicant shall
enter into a secured fire protection agreement with the City of San Bernardino to provide
necessary fire fighting facilities, personnel, equipment for fire, and emergency services
delivery. either through construction of fire facilities, funding or a combination of both.
The Agreement shall also address the phasing of required fire facilities.
~
Finding: The mitigation measure identified is feasible and will avoid or substantially lessen the
potentially significant impacts associated with fire protection and emergency services to a level of
less than significant and no unavoidable adverse impacts would occur.
82.9 Recreation
AHS Impact 5.13-2:
Bui/dout of the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan area would result in
environmental impacts to provide new and/or expanded recreational
facilities. [Threshold R-2}
Implementation of the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan would result in new recreation facilities including the
development of a 199-acre public golf course in an area of natural environmental. Development of the golf
course would result in direct environmental impacts to West Twin Creek and its natural biotic community.
Mitigation Measures:
AHS 5.13-2
Project applicant shall adhere to mitigation measures (AHS 5.3-1, AHS 5.3-2A, AHS 5.3-
2B, AHS 5.3-2C, AHS 5.3-4A, AHS 5.3-4B) as detailed in Section 5.3 which are
established to reduce the impact to the biological resources of West Twin Creek.
General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR City of San Bernardino. Page 45
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Part B - Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan
82. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIR/FEIR
Finding: The mitigation measure identified is feasible and will avoid or substantially lessen the
potentially significant impacts associated with recreation to a level of less than significant and no
unavoidable adverse impacts would occur.
82.10
Transportation and Traffic
AHS Impact 5.14-1:
Project-related trip generation would impact levels of service for the existing
area roadway system. [Threshold To1]
Two intersections were determined to be impacted by Phase I traffic and 7 intersections would be impacted
by full build-out of the project or by the year 2030. No roadway segments would be impacted after Phase I
or full build-out of the project.
Mitigation Measures:
AHS 5.14-1A
Prior to issuance of occupancy permits the project applicant shall be required to complete
or bond for the costs of engineering and construction of the following project related
traffic improvements or equivalent for Phase I (as detailed in the traffic study) impacts
of 2007:
. Waterman
phasing.
. Waterman
phasing.
Avenue @ 36th Street. Install signaiization with permitted
Avenue @ 34th Street. Install signaiization with permitted
AHS 5.14-1B
Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase II (as detailed in the traffic study) and
all phases thereafter the project applicant shall be required to complete or bond for the
costs of engineering and construction of the following project related traffic
improvements or equivalent for impacts due to full build-out of the project:
. Waterman Avenue @ 30th Street. Install protected phasing and one additional
WB right-turn lane, and one additional SB right-turn lane, both with overlap right-
turn phasing.
. Harrison Parkway (new) @ 40th Street. Install signalization, permitted phasing
and two NB left-turn lanes, one NB right-turn lane, an exclusive EB right-turn
lane and an exclusive WB left-turn lane
. Waterman Avenue @ 36th Street. Install signalization and permitted phasing.
. 30th Street @ Lynwood Drive. Reconfigure intersection to align with new
Harrison Parkway and install signal.
. Waterman Avenue @ 40th Street. Add an exclusive right-turn lane in each
direction and westbound right-turn overlap phasing.
. Waterman Avenue @ 34th Street. Install signal and permitted phasing.
Page 46 . The Planning Center
October 2005
Part B - Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan
82. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIRlFEIR
. Village Parkway @ 40th Street. Install signal with protected EW phasing and the
intersection configuration of; two SB left-turn lanes, one SB right-turn lane, two
EB thru-Ianes, one EB left-turn lane, two WB thru-Ianes and one WB right-turn
lane.
Finding: The mitigation measures identified are feasible and will avoid or substantially lessen the
potentially significant impacts associated with traffic and transportation to a level of less than
significant and no unavoidable adverse impacts would occur.
82.11
Utilities and SeNices Systems
Water
AHS Impact 5.15-1:
Implementation of the A"owhead Springs Specific Plan would require
construction of a new water system and increase on-site water demand by
approximately 4,035 acre-feet at build-out. [Thresholds WS-1 and WS-2J
The environmental impact of constructing of the water distribution system for the Arrowhead Springs Specific
Plan project has been analyzed throughout DEIR as part of the development as a whole and calculation of
"average" water supply indicates that a sufficient supply is potentially available. However, the water supply
and distribution system has not been permitted by the appropriate agencies and amount of water granted
through existing water rights has not been verified.
Mitigation Measures:
~
AHS 5.15-1
Prior to approvai of the first Tentative Tract Map, evidence shall be provided to Public
Works/Engineering to confirm the availability and quantity of existing water rights
through the State and that the drinking water system has obtained all appropriate
operating and design permits through the California State Department of Heath
Services.
Finding: The mitigation measure identified is feasible and will avoid or substantially lessen the
potentially significant impacts associated with water supply and distribution systems to a level of less
than significant and no unavoidable adverse impacts would occur.
Wastewater
AHS Impact 5.15-2:
Project-generated wastewater could be adequately collected and treated by
the wastewater service provider for the project however some related facility
operations may affect the environment. [Thresholds WW-1, WW-2, and WW-
3J
impacts of the construction of the wastewater collection and treatment facilities for the Arrowhead Springs
Specific Plan project has been analyzed throughout the DEIR where included as part of the grading footpnnt;
however, operational impacts including use of recycled water may affect local water quality.
Mitigation Measures:
AHS 5.15-2
Prior to approval of the first Tentative Tract Map, evidence shall be provided to the Public
Works/Engineering Division that appropriate permits have been obtained from the State
Water Resources Board. the State Department of Health Services, California
General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR City of San Bernardino · Page 47
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Part B - Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan
82. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
IDENTIFIED IN THE DEIR/FEIR
Department of Corporations and the SCAQMD for the operation of the wastewater
treatment plant including disposal of bio-solids and use of recycled water.
Finding: The mitigation measure identified is feasible and will avoid or substantially lessen the
potentially significant impacts associated with wastewater treatment and collection systems to a level
of less than significant and no unavoidable adverse impacts would occur.
Page 48 . The Planning Center
October 2005
Part B - Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan
83. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
83 STA TEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONS/DERA TlONS
CEOA requires the decision-maker to balance the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable
environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the
unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be 'considered "acceptable" (State CEOA Guidelines Section
15093[a]). However, in this case CEOA requires the agency to support, in writing, the specific reasons for
considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are infeasible to mitigate. Such reasons must be
based on substantial evidence in the FEIR or elsewhere in the administrative record (State CEOA Guidelines
Section 15093 [b]). The agency's statement is referred to as a "Statement of Overriding Considerations."
The City of San Bernardino is proposing to approve the General Plan update and associated specific plans
for the University District and Arrowhead Springs and has prepared and certified a FEIR that satisfies the
requirements of CEOA. The following adverse impacts of the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan project are
considered significant and unavoidable based' on the DEIR, FEIR, MMP, and the findings discussed
previously in Part S, Section B1 and B2 of this document.
83.1 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Air Quality
Construction activities of the first phase of development that largely involve grading would cause temporary
pollutant emissions that would exceed the daily emission thresholds for NOx and PM 10 for the SCAQMD.
Over the course of Phase 2 construction of facilities the daily emission thresholds for ROG, and NOx would
be exceeded. Operational emissions largely attributed to mobile (vehicle) sources would also exceed the
daily thresholds for Co, ROG, Nox and PM 10. Emissions that exceed the daily threshold are considered to
be significant on a cumulative basis by the SCAOMD.
~
Cultural Resources
While the Arrowhead Springs Specific Pian calls for the restoration and revitalization of the historic hotel and
many of the historic structures surrounding the hotel that contribute to the historical significance of the area,
several structures considered to have historic significance would also be demolished. In accordance to
CEQA guidelines, destruction of an historic resource can not be mitigated and must be considered a
significant unavoidable adverse impact.
Noise
The traffic from Ihe Arrowhead Springs project would contribute to a small increase in noise from traffic along
a portion of Sterling Avenue that in and of itself would not be considered significant however the increase
causes a cumulative increase in noise that exceeds the threshold for impact. The cumulatively significant
noise impact cannot be mitigated resulting a an unavoidable adverse noise impact.
83.2 Considerations in Support of the Statement of Overriding Considerations
The City, after balancing the specific economic. legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the
proposed Project (Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan), has determined that the unavoidable adverse
environmental impacts identified above may be considered "acceptable" due to the following specific
considerations, which outweigh the unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts of the proposed Project.
Each of the separate benefits of the proposed Project. as stated herein, is determined to be, unto itself and
independent of the other Project benefits, a basis for overriding all unavoidable adverse enVIronmental
impacts identified in these Findings.
General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR City of San Bernardino. Page 49
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Part B - Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan
B3. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The benefits of the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan can best be understood in light of the manner the project
assists the City in attaining its long term goals. To that end, the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan is
consistent with the Updated General Plan and addresses several key City goals, including:
Preserve and enhance San Bernardino's unique neighborhoods and create and enhance dynamic,
recognizable places.
The Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan provides for the preservation and enhancement of a local icon. The
Arrowhead Springs Hotel and ResorVSpa will be improved and surrounded by complementary uses. such
as conference facilities, offices. hotels, a golf course. a village shopping environment. and residential uses.
The mixture of uses. resort nature of the site, and enhancement of historic structures provide an identity to
Arrowhead Springs that is unique to the area.
Promote development that integrates with and minimizes impacts on surrounding land uses.
The Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan concentrates development on 506 acres near existing. on and off site
development and leaves the remaining 1,400 acres in permanent open space. This allows the majority of
Arrowhead Springs to blend with the adjacent National Forest Development while focusing development near
existing roadways and infrastructure. In addition. the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan includes development
standards, design guidelines. grading standards, hillside development standards, fire protection standards,
and resource protection measures that will ensure that new development be of a high quality and blends with
surrounding uses.
Enhance the quality of life and economic vitality in San Bernardino by strategic infill of new
development and revitalization of existing development.
The Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan is the revitalization of an existing hotel and resort that has not been in
operation in years. Development of Arrowhead Springs will result in 1,350 single-family detached and multi-
family units and approximately 2,530 new jobs. Arrowhead Springs will also be a unique resort and historic
icon and attract visitors and tourists to the City.
Enhance the aesthetic quality of land uses and structures in San Bernardino.
The existing historic buildings on site create a benchmark for future development to complement and
enhance. The Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan includes detailed development standards and design
guidelines and clear maintenance requirements to ensure a quality, long-term project.
Provide for the development and maintenance of public infrastructure and services to support
existing and future residents, businesses, recreation and other uses.
The Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan provides for the necessary infrastructure, including domestic and
recycled water, sewer, drainage, utilities, and roadways, to accommodate the buildout of the property.
Arrowhead Springs will provide on-site: domestic water treatment, supply, distribution, and storage systems;
storm water and flood management systems, including untouched natural channels; wastewater treatment;
and solid waste collection and recycling in sufficient size and capacity to support buildout of the plan.
Arrowhead Water & Power, the on-site utility company, will provide these services within Arrowhead Springs.
Ensure that the costs of infrastructure improvements are borne by those who benefit.
Page 50 . The Planning Center
. October 2005
Part B - Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan
83. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The necessary infrastructure to support the buildout of Arrowhead Springs will be installed and financed by
Arrowhead Water & Power or by individual developers. User fees will accommodate the long-term use and
on-going maintenance of the utilities.
Facilitate the development of a variety of types of housing to meet the needs of all income levels in
the City of San Bernardino.
Arrowhead Springs accommodates 1,350 new residential units that provide housing opportunities for multiple
segments of the housing market, from first time buyers, to executive homes, to condominiums and multi-
family units. Arrowhead Springs accommodates 36 custom estates, 34 'urban' flats in Village Walk, 266
condominiums and townhomes adjacent to Village Walk, 150 upscale senior units, 150 non-age restricted
attached units. 429 golf course condominiums, and 285 town homes and condominiums in the unique
Hilltown.
Expand on historic and the natural assets to attract recreational visitors.
Arrowhead Springs represents a significant gateway into the City from the mountain resorts. The
development creates a powerful transitional edge from the City to the US National Forest of the San
Bernardino Mountains. Arrowhead Springs is located immediately below the famous geologic 'arrowhead'
that is imprinted on the mountainside, providing a natural landmark to the property. Arrowhead Springs, with
its unique history and natural resources, will become a regional tourist destination. The creation of up-scale
residential neighborhoods, a unique "village" commercial center, corporate office center, high-end hotels,
convention center, world-class spa/health resort, public golf course, and equestrian trails will create a
mountain resort at a gateway to the City from SR-18.
~
Improve the quality of life in San Bernardino by providing adequate parks and recreation facilities and
services to meet the needs of our residents.
Arrowhead Springs includes 21 acres of Neighborhood/Mini-Parks and 1,400 acres of open space. Above
this, a 199-acre public golf course is also provided in Arrowhead Springs. In the developed area, there is one
14-acre public Botanical Garden and seven Mini-Parks ranging in size from 0.2 acres to 3.0 acres. The Park
Plan for Arrowhead Springs also includes approximately 1,400 acres of Open SpacelWatershed uses. This
designation is intended to establish open space areas serving multiple purposes including active and passive
recreation, such as hiking, as well as watershed control.
Protect people and property from brush urban and wildland fire hazards.
Arrowhead Springs concentrates development on 27% of the site. Surrounding the developed areas of the
site are fuel modification zones that will be planted with vineyards and orchards. These natural buffers will
help protect the people and property from brush fire hazards and enhance the character of the area.
Development in Arrowhead Springs will be required to comply with the requirements of the City's Foothill Fire
Zone and Arrowhead Springs Hillside Development provisions, which address building, grading, and
landscaping standards in high-fire areas.
83.3 Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the City of San Bernardino concludes that the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan
project will result in a beneficial mix of retail, residential, and recreational uses while restoring and reusing
important historical structures providing significant benefits of local and regional significance, which outweigh
the unavoidable environmental impacts. Therefore, the City of San Bernardino has adopted this Statement
of Overriding Considerations.
General Pldn Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR City of San Bernardino. Page 5 J
Findings of Fact and Statelllellt of Overriding Considerations
EXHIBIT 3
SUMMARY
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION
CASE:
AGENDA ITEM:
HEARING DATE:
WARD:
General Plan Update and Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan.
I
September 25, 2006
Citywide
APPLICANT:
Development Services Department
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
909.384.5057
REQUEST/LOCATION:
General Plan Update - an update of the General Plan, a policy and planning document which applies
throughout the City of San Bernardino and the unincorporated sphere of influence.
Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan - a planned development including the historic Arrowhead Springs
HoteL a new hotel and convention center, offices, 1,350 residences, a commercial center, golf course,
parks and 1,400 acres of open space.
CONSTRAINTS/OVERLA YS:
~ All Overlay Districts Included in the General Plan
E:'oiVIRONMENT AL FINDINGS:
o Not Applicable
o Exempt
o No Significant Effects
o Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan
~ Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2004111132) CertIfied 11-1-05
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
~Approval
DConditions
DDenial
DContinuance to:
General Plan Updare
A rrowhead Springs Spec(lic Plan
Hearing Date: 9.25.06
Page 2 of6
BACKGROUND
On November L 2005, with the unanimous recommendation of the Planning Commission, the
Mayor and Common Council adopted the General Plan Update, University District Specific
Plan and the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan. A program Environmental Impact Report
(SCH# 2004111132) was certified prior to adoption of the General Plan and specific plans.
Subsequent to that adoption, litigation was filed by the Center For Biological Diversity with
the San Bernardino County Superior Court as case number SCVSS 132463 contesting the
propriety of the adoption insofar as it related to Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan.
On September 6.2006, trial of the matter was held before the Honorable John Wade, Judge
presiding. At the conclusion of the trial, Judge Wade announced the Court's determination
that the adoption of the General Plan and the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan was defective
because the Court was unable to find evidentiary support for the finding and conclusion that
the project was not economically feasible without the inclusion of a golf course element.
CURRENT REQUEST
Additional information about the economic viability of the Arrowhead Springs development
and the proposed alternatives to the project is available (Attachment A) and will be presented
for consideration in support of the findings for adoption of the Specific Plan. A Draft
Resolution (Attachment B) is proposed to re-adopt the General Plan Update and Arrowhead
Springs Specific Plan, based on a revised Statement of Facts, Findings and Overriding
Considerations (Attachment C). Alfred Gobar and Associates, a firm that specializes in land
use and market feasibility analysis, has compiled the additional data concerning the economic
viability of the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan and the importance of the proposed golf
course to the objectives and feasibility of the project. The additional economic information is
summarized in Attachment A, and has been incorporated in the revised Findings of Fact in
Attachment C. Staff anticipates that Alonzo Pedren of Alfred Gobar and Associates will
attend the Planning Commission meeting to present his analysis .in more detail.
PLANS SUBMITTED FOR ADOPTION
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE:
The General Plan is a policy document required by state law that guides land use and
development within the City over a planning horizon of approximately 20 years. The City
General Plan covers a planning area of approximately 45,231 acres (71 sq. mi.). Policies in
the General Plan Update are organized by topic, in the following chapters, called elements:
Land Use, Housing, Economic Development, Community Design, Circulation, Public
Faciliti'es and Services, Parks, Recreation and Trails, Utilities, Safety, Historical and
Archaeological Resources, Natural Resources and Conservation, Energy and Water
Conservation and Noise.
General Plan Updare
Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan
Hearing Date: 9.25.06
Page 30f6
ARROWHEAD SPRINGS SPECIFIC PLAN:
The Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan is a planned development proposal for the area
surrounding the historic Arrowhead Springs Hotel. This specific plan proposes expansion of
the historic hotel and spa/resort, an IS-hole public golf course, multi-use recreational
amenities, a new hotel and conference center with office space, 1,350 residential units and a
"village" commercial center. The specific plan encompasses a total of 1,916 acres, of which
1.400 acres will be preserved as open space.
FACTS FINDINGS AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The Program Environmental Impact Report concludes that implementation of the General
Plan Update will result in significant and unavoidable adverse impacts with regard to air
quality, noise and cumulative impacts on the State highway system. Implementation of the
Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan will result in significant unavoidable adverse impacts on air
quality, cultural resources and noise levels.
Specific findings regarding the level of significance of all impacts and benefits of the program
that warrant approval despite the significant impacts were adopted on November 1,2005 in a
Statement of Facts, Findings and Overriding Considerations. The following are brief
summaries of the benefits/overriding considerations cited in the original Findings of Fact:
Benefits of the General Plan Update:
. Provides a unifying 20-year vision for the future of the City of San Bernardino
. Provides new strategies for revitalization of commercial corridors and other key locations
. Plans for provision of transportation improvements additional facilities and services
Benefits of the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan:
. Provides for a variety of housing choices in a unique location
. Expands on historic and natural assets to attract visitors from throughout the region
. Provides resort amenities, including a golf course, commercial village and 2,530 jobs
. Provides a net recurring fiscal surplus to the City of over $5 million annually
. Provides infrastructure improvements required to serve the project site that will serve and
enhance the surrounding area as well
Additional facts concerning consideration of project alternatives and supporting the selection
of the preferred alternative are also addressed in the analysis by Alfred Gobar Associates
(Attachment A), noted in the Resolution (Attachment B) and discussed in the revised CEQA
Findings of Fact (Attachment C).
General Plan Update
Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan
Hearing Dale. 9.25.06
Page 4 of6
FINDINGS - GENERAL PLAN UPDATE (AMENDMENT)
1. 1s the proposed amendment illlemally consistent with the General Plan?
Yes, all elements of the General Plan have been updated in a coordinated way,
ensuring internal consistency of the General Plan document.
2. Would the proposed amendment be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety,
convenience, or welfare of the Ci(v?
No, the proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health,
safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. The Program EIR contains an analysis of
potential impacts related to the proposed amendment. Although the Program EIR
identifies significant adverse environmental impacts, the CEQA Findings of Fact
demonstrate that the potential benefits of the General Plan and associated specific
plans outweigh the potential environmental impacts,
3. Would the proposed amendment maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within
the City?
With few exceptions, the General Plan Update maintains pre-existing General Plan
land use designations, Therefore, the appropriate balance ofland uses reflected in the
1989 General Plan is maintained by the General Plan Update.
4. With regard to proposed amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map, are the
subject parcels physically suitable (including but not limited to, access, provision of
utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and absence of physical constraints)
for the requested land use designations and the anticipated land use development?
The General Plan Update contains land use designation changes for only a few
properties, The properties are identified specifically in the Program Environmental
Impact Report, which presents the rationale for each proposed change and discusses
the suitability, including physical characteristics of each proposed site for the
proposed land use designation.
FINDINGS - ARROWHEAD SPRINGS SPECIFIC PLAN
I Is the proposed specific plan consistent with the General Plan?
Yes, the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan is consistent with goals and policies of the
1989 General Plan, as well as revised policies of the General Plan Update, as follows:
Goal 2.2 - Promote development that integrates with and minimizes impacts on
surrounding land uses.
General Plan Update
Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan
Hearing Dare: 9.25.06
Page 5 of6
Policy 1.1.4 - Hillside development and development adjacent to natural areas shall be
designed and landscaped to preserve natural features and habitat and protect structures
from threats from natural disasters, such as wildfires and floods.
Goal 4.4 - Enhance, maintain and develop recreational, cultural, entertainment and
educational facilities within the City.
Goal 11.4 - Protect and enhance our historic and cultural resources.
J
Would the proposed specific plan be detrimental to the public interest. health. safety.
convenience. or welfare of the City?
No, the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan would not be detrimental to the public
interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. The proposed plan would
enhance the balance and variety of commercial and residential land uses in the City, in
the interest of public welfare and convenience. The land use plan and development
standards conform to all applicable and current health and safety standards. Also, in
the interest of the public, the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan respects the natural
environment in the layout of the proposed development plan and the extensive
dedication of natural open space on the project site.
3 Is the subject site physically suitable for the requested land use designations and the
anticipated land use development?
Yes, the site is physically suitable for the land use designations and development plan
proposed by the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan. The land use plan has been
designed to conform to the physical features of the site, beginning with a scale model
of the existing terrain and the existing historic hotel structure. New development
proposed by the specific plan was added to the model to maintain respect for the
prominence of the existing hotel, the natural setting of the existing landform and
sensitive natural resources on the project site and in the surrounding area. The site is
physically suitable for the proposed project because the project was designed
specifically to conform to the existing physical conditions of the site.
4 Would the proposed specific plan ensure development of desirable character which
would be compatible with existing and proposed development in the surrounding
neighborhood?
Yes, the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan includes a detailed development plan,
development standards and design requirements that will ensure compatibility with the
historic Arrowhead Springs Hotel, as well as the surrounding development and
undeveloped open space. The land use plan and development standards of the specific
plan have been designed to ensure the highest quality of development, in a context that
General Plan Update
Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan
Hearing Date: 9.25.06
Page 60f6
would be compatible with the historic use of the property, while maintaining an
appropriate buffer and interface with surrounding open space and wildlands.
5 Would the proposed specific plan contribute to a balance of land uses so that local
residents may work and shop in the community in which they live?
Yes, the hotels, convention center, office spaces and commercial village proposed within
the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan will provide a broad range of employment
opportunities for future residents of the project site, as well as nearby residents in other
areas of the City. The specific plan will improve the balance ofland use within the City,
by providing commercial and office floor space to attract new businesses to the City and
additional shopping and recreational opportunities for City residents and visitors to the
hotels and convention center.
CONCLUSION
All Findings required for approval of the General Plan Update and Arrowhead Springs
Specific Plan can be made.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the Mayor and Common
Council adopt the draft Resolution (Attachment B) to adopt the General Plan Update and the
Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan, based on the revised Findings of Fact (Attachment C) and
the additional findings for approval contained in this staff report.
Respectfully Submitted,
y~
Terri Rahhal
Deputy Director/City Planner
C
D
E
Supplemental Arrowhead Springs Project Information
Draft Resolution for adoption of the General Plan and
Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan
Facts, Findings, and Statement of Overriding Considerations
General Plan*
Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan*
Attachments A
B
*Distributed in October 2005
ALFRED GOBAR ASSOCIATES
September 22, 2006
R_R
.-J.....J:......
--l:..J..::..:J
J.....J/
ATTACHMENT A
Ms. Terri Rahhal, City Planner
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
300 North "D" Street
San Bemardino, CA 92418
Sent Via Mail & Email: rahhaUe@sbcity.org
Subject:
Arrowhead Springs Resort Conference and Meeting Center
Dear Ms. Rahhal:
Alfred Gobar Associates has been asked to evaluate the role of an on-site golf course in
creating a viable meeting and conference experience within a resort-based conference
center. A memo-style report is currently being prepared and will be hand-delivered to
the Planning Commission at the September 25, 2006 scheduled hearing. FOllowing is a
brief outline of the research approach used to evaluate the importance of an on-site golf
course to the competitive attraction of a resort and resort-style meeting and conference
center.
The principal objective of our research is to address the importance of having an on-site
recreation amenity, such as a regulation golf course, in attracting business from meeting
planners (industry professionals that coordinate meeting events) and fulfilling demands
of meeting attendees and their sponsor companies or trade associations.
Our assessment is based on shared experience and knowledge gathered from the
following three areas:
. IndustryfTrade Association Groups - Meeting industry organization responsible
for communicating industry trends and knowledge for the purpose of aiding
industry professionals (meeting planners, conference center venues, hoteVresort
operators, etc.) to better serve the meeting and convention needs of diverse
industry groups and companies.
. Southem California Resort-Based Meeting Facility and Golf Operators - Meeting
facility sales managers, golf reservation specialists, and other professionals at
inland Southern Califomia venues responsible for marketing 10,000 to 50,000
square of meeting space to meeting planners and industry groups.
. Alfred Gobar Associates - In-house experience evaluating market potential for
resorts and meeting facilities throughout the United States and Mexico.
Results of this latest assessment confirm the intuitive notion that access to an on-site
golf experience is integral to a high-quality resort meeting experience. The final write-up
will qualify the extent meeting industry planners and meeting facility operators rely on the
availability of an on-site golf course to schedule and attract meetings and conferences.
300 S Harbor Blvd., Suite 900, Anaheim, CA 92805-3721 (714) 772-8900 FAX (714) 772-8911
ALFRED GOBAR ASSOCIATES
Ms. Terri Rahhal
September 22. 2006
Page 2
We look forward to sharing our findings with the Planning Commission this coming
Monday.
ALFRED GOBAR ASSOCIATES
4-~~
Alonzo Pedri
Principal
(714) 772-8900 x310
AP
cc: John.Nolan@greshamsavage.com
ARROWHEAD SPRINGS PROGRESS MEMO D.22-06.00c
DRAFT
ATTACHMENTB
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO SETTING ASIDE
PORTIONS OF RESOLUTION ADOPTED ON NOVEMBER 1, 2005,
AND ADOPTING THE FINDINGS. OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AS WELL AS ADOPTING THE UPDATED
GENERAL PLAN AND THE ARROWHEAD SPRINGS SPECIFIC PLAN.
SECTION 1. RECITALS
(a) WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San
Bernardino ("City") adopted the General Plan for the City by Resolution No. 89-159 on
June 2, 1989; and
(b) WHEREAS, the City initiated an update of its existing General Plan in
2001; and
(c) WHEREAS, the City retained The Planning Center to update the General
Plan and complete the environmental analysis; and
(d) WHEREAS, an Economic Conditions and Trends report was prepared for
the General Plan Update Program; and
(e) WHEREAS, the City held a workshop with representatives of business
and industry in 2001 to elicit input concerning growth in the City; and
(f) WHEREAS, the City held a series of community workshops in 2001 to
identify Citywide opportunities and constraints, and visions for the future growth of the
City; and
(g) WHEREAS, staff and the consultant interviewed the Mayor, the
Councilmembers, and the Planning Commission to seek their input and guidance; and
(h) WHEREAS, The Planning Center prepared an Issues Report that
summarized the input received from the workshops and interviews; and
!>I:"I
1
(i) WHEREAS, the City determined that large scale changes in land use
patterns and land use designations were not necessary to achieve the City's goals; and
OJ WHEREAS, the City determined that shifts in policy focus, changes in
allowable uses, and emphasis on priorities were necessary to achieve the City's goals;
and
(k) WHEREAS, the City determined that a Specific Plan for the University
District was appropriate to integrate California State University San Bernardino with the
rest of the City; and
(I) WHEREAS, The University District Specific Plan focuses on aesthetic
improvements In public rights-of-way and other programs designed to create an
identifiable district surrounding the University; and
(m) WHEREAS, the Arrowhead Springs area is within the City's sphere of
influence and the City determined that a Specific Plan for Arrowhead Springs was
appropriate; and
(n) WHEREAS, the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan proposes expansion of
the historic hotel and spa/resort, an 18-hole public golf course, multi-use recreational
amenities, a new hotel and conference center with office space, 1,350 residential units
and a "village" commercial center on a total of 1.916 acres, of which 1,400 acres will be
preserved as open space; and
(0) WHEREAS, The Planning Center, on behalf of the City, prepared an
Initial Study for the Updated General Plan, University District Specific Plan, and
Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan; and
(p) WHEREAS, on November 4, 2004, the Environmental Review
Committee detemlined that the Updated General Plan, University District Plan, and
Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan could have significant effects on the environment, and
:::<,!;"I 2
thus warranted preparation of a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) pursuant to
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
(q) WHEREAS, the Notice of Intent of the City to prepare a Draft Program
Environmental Impact Report was made known to the public, responsible agencies and
other interested persons for their concerns and comments from November 29, 2004 to
December 28, 2004; and
(r) WHEREAS, on December 14, 2004, the City held a public scopmg
meeting to solicit public comments on the preparation of the Draft Program EIR; and
(s) WHEREAS, the City considered the concerns and comments received
during the Notice of Intent period in the preparation of the Draft Program EIR, pursuant
to CEQA; and
(I) WHEREAS, a Draft Program EIR was distributed for a 45-day public
review period from July 25, 2005 to September 8, 2005; and
(u) WHEREAS. the City accepted additional comment letters through
September 16,2005; and
(v) WHEREAS, four comment letters were received before the close of the
public review period and three comment letters were received before the end of the
extended public review period and written responses were provided to the commentors
on October 1,2005; and
(w) WHEREAS, on September 29, 2005, the Environmental Review
Committee determined that the Final Program EIR adequately addressed all potential
impacts of the Updated General Plan, University District Specific Plan, and Arrowhead
Springs Specific Plan and recommended certification of the Final Program EIR and
adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan; and
3
(x) WHEREAS, the Updated General Plan, University District Specific Plan,
and Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan, the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report,
the Comments and Responses, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, and the
Draft Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations were made available
to the public at the Development Services public counter, the Feldheym Library, and on
the City's web page; and
(yl WHEREAS, on November 3, 1993 the San Bernardino Associated
Governments adopted the Congestion Management Program (CMP) pursuant to
California Government Code Section 65809.3(a) which requires the county and cities to
adopt and implement "a program to analyze the impacts of land use decisions, including
an estimate of the costs associated with mitigating these impacts" on the CMP network
of roadways; and
(zl WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council adopted a Land
Use/Transportation Analysis Program for the City pursuant to the CMP for the City of
San Bernardino by Resolution No. 93-74 on March 22, 1993; and
(aa) WHEREAS, the City determined that the Arrowhead Springs Specific
Plan met the thresholds in the CMP and thus warranted the preparation of a Traffic
Impact Analysis (TIA) pursuant to the Congestion Management Program; and
(bb) WHEREAS, a Draft TIA was prepared to address the traffic impacts of
the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan on designated CMP roadways and freeways, the
appropriate mitigation measures, and fair share contribution toward CMP roadway and
ffeeway improvements; and
(ccl WHEREAS, the Draft TIA was made available to the various regional
and sub-regional agencies and to the adjacent jurisdictions for their review during a 21-
4
day review period which began on August 3, 2005 and ended on August 24, 2005 as
required by the CMP; and
(dd) WHEREAS, verbal and written comments were received on the Draft
TIA and responded to via changes to the Draft T1A; and
(ee) WHEREAS, with over 70,000 parcels of land within the City of San
Bernardino, the Draft Updated General Plan, including the University District Specific
Plan and Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan, could affect the permitted use or intensity of
uses for more than 1,000 property owners; and
(ff) WHEREAS, after giving public notice as required by California
Government Code Section 65353(c) and 65091(a)(3), the City Planning Commission
held a public hearing on October II, 2005 in order to receive public testimony and
written and oral comments on the Updated General Plan, the University District Specific
Plan, the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan, the Final Program Environmental Impact
Report, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, the Facts, Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations and the Draft T1A; and
(gg) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Development
Services Department Staff Report on October 11, 2005, which addresses the Final
Program EIR, the Updated General Plan, the University District Specific Plan, the
Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, the
Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations and the Draft T1A; and
(hh) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after receiving public testimony,
recommended that the Mayor and Common Council adopt the Facts, Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations, certify the Final Program Environmental
Impact Report, adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, adopt the Updated
5
General Plan, the University District Specific Plan, and the Arrowhead Springs Specific
Plan. and certify the Draft TIA; and
(ii) WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council conducted a noticed public
hearing on November I, 2005, pursuant to Government Code Section 65353(c) and
65091(a)(3), and fully reviewed and considered the Final Program EIR, the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Plan, the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding
Considerations, the Updated General Plan, the University District Specific Plan, the
Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan, the Draft TlA, the Planning Division staffreports, and
the recommendation of the Planning Commission; and
(jj) WHEREAS. the Mayor and Common Council made no substantial
modifications to the Updated General Plan, the University District Specific Plan, and the
Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan which were not considered by the Planning
Commission during its public hearing; and
(kk) WHEREAS, on November I, 2005, the Mayor and Common Council
adopted Resolution 2005-362, adopting the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding
Considerations, certifying the Final Program Environmental Impact Report, adopting the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, certifying the Traffic Impact Analysis, and
adopting the Updated General Plan, the University District Specific Plan, and the
Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan; and
(II) WHEREAS. on December 1,2005, the Center for Biological Diversity
filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate (San Bernardino County Superior Court Case No.
SCVSS 132463, the "Action") against the City of San Bernardino, Common Council of
the City of San Bernardino, and Judith Valles, Mayor of the City of San Bernardino (in
her prior official capacity), and naming as real party in interest American Development
Group, Inc., challenging the approval of Resolution 2005-362 as it relates to the
6
Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan and alleging violations of the California
Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code sections 21000, et seq.), including
failure to adequately analyze and mitigate potential impacts in the Environmental Impact
Report (HEIR"), improper use of a program EIR, and improper rejection of feasible
alternatives to the proposed project; and
(mm) WHEREAS, the Action did not challenge that portion of Resolution
2005-362 related to the approval of the University Specific Plan, that portion of
Resolution 2005-362 and the Program EIR as it relates to the University Specific Plan
remains intact; and
(nn) WHEREAS, on September 6, 2006 the court heard the petition for writ of
mandate, the Honorable John P. Wade, judge presiding, and orally ruled that the findings
made in support of the City's rejection of the environmentally superior "Wetlands
A voidance" alternative was not adequately supported by the record: specifically, the
Court stated that there was no substantial evidence in the record to support the rejection
of the alternative, which eliminated the golf course, based upon economic infeasibility;
and
(00) WHEREAS the Court did not find that the EIR failed to comply with
CEQA, but, instead, specifically found said findings made by the City were inadequate,
the Court ordered that the approval of the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan, and by
reference also those portions of the General Plan as it relates to the Arrowhead Springs
Specific Plan, be set aside; and
(pp) WHEREAS, after glvmg public notice as required by California
Government Code Section 65353(c) and 65091(a)(3), the City Planning Commission
held a public hearing on September 25, 2006 in order to receive public testimony and
written and oral comments and any other additional materials and/or input on the
7
Updated General Plan, the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan, and the Facts, Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations; and
(gg) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Development
Services Department Staff Report on September 25, 2006, which addresses the Updated
General Plan, the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan, and the Facts, Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations; and
(rr) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after receiving public testimony,
recommended that the Mayor and Common Council adopt the Facts, Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations, adopt the Updated General Plan, and adopt the
Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan; and
(ss) WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council conducted a noticed public
hearing on October 3, 2006, pursuant to Goverrunent Code Section 65353(c) and
65091(a)(3), and fully reviewed and considered the Facts, Findings and Statement of
Overriding Considerations, the Updated General Plan, and the Arrowhead Springs
Specific Plan, the Planning Division staff reports, and the recommendation of the
Planning Commission;
(ll) WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council made no substantial
modifications to the Updated General Plan, the University District Specific Plan, and the
.-\rro\\ head Springs Specific Plan which were not considered by the Planning
Commission during its public hearing;
SECTION II. SET ASIDE
NOW, THEREFORE, THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL HEREBY
RESOLVE, FIND, AND DETERMINE THE FOLLOWING:
8
That the approval of Resolution 2005-362 insofar as it relates to the adoption of
the General Plan, relating to the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan, and the Facts,
Findings, and Statement of Overriding Consideration related thereto, be set aside.
SECTION III FACTS, FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERA nONS
NOW, THEREFORE, THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL HEREBY
RESOL VE, FIND, AND DETERMINE THE FOLLOWING:
A. The facts and information contained in the above Recitals section are true
and correct, and are incorporated herein by reference. The Final Program Environmental
Impact Report for the Updated General Plan and the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan
has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and
previously certified on November I, 2005. Attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A, and
incorporated herein by reference, is the certified Final Program EIR which consists of the
following elements:
9
I. Initial Study;
1 Notice of Preparation;
3. Responses to the Notice of Preparation;
4. Draft Program EIR;
5. Notice of Completion;
6. List of persons, organizations and public agencies commenting on the
Draft Program EIR;
7. Comments received on the Draft Program EIR during and after the public
review period;
8. Responses to comments on the Draft Program EIR.
B. The Facts and Findings set forth in the Facts, Findings and Statement of
Overriding Considerations are true and are supported by substantial evidence in the
record, including those documents comprising the certified Final Program EIR. The
Facts. Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations is attached hereto as Exhibit
B. and is incorporated herein by reference.
C. The certified Final Program ErR was presented to the Mayor and Common
Council, who have reviewed and considered the information in the Final Program ErR
prior to adoption of the Updated General Plan and the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan.
D. The certified Final Program ErR has identified all significant adverse
el1\ironmental effects of the Updated General Plan and the Arrowhead Springs Specific
Plan as set forth in the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations.
E. The certified Final Program EIR has described the alternatives to the
Updated General Plan and the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan, even though these
alternatives may impede the attainment of the objectives of the Updated General Plan and
the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan, and may be more costly. The Mayor and Common
10
Council finds that a good faith effort was made to incorporate alternatives in the
preparation of the certified Final Program ErR and a range of reasonable alternatives
were considered in the review process of the certified Final Program ErR and the ultimate
decision on the Updated General Plan and the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan.
F. Other project alternatives not incorporated into or adopted as part of the
certified Final Program EIR are rejected as infeasible, based on specific economic, social,
or other considerations as set forth in the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding
Considerations. The project alternatives not adopted are rejected as economically
infeasible based upon the information considered by the Planning Commission and the
Mayor and Common Council after the trial of case number SCVSS 132463 including, but
not limited to, the information supplied by Alfred Gobar Associates.
G. The Mayor and Common Council have given great weight to the
significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. The Mayor and Common
Council find that the significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts are clearly
outweighed by the economic, social, cultural, and other benefits of the Updated General
Plan and the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan, set forth in the Facts, Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations.
H. The Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations reflect
the independent review, analysis and judgment of the Mayor and Common Council of the
City of San Bernardino.
SECTlO"i IV. GE"iERAL PLAN UPDATE FINDINGS
Based upon substantial evidence in the record, the Mayor and Common Council
hereby find:
11
~
A. All elements of the General Plan have been updated in a coordinated way,
ensuring intemal consistency of the General Plan document.
B. The Updated General Plan will not be detrimental to the public interest,
health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. The certified Final Program ElR
contains an analysis of potential significant adverse environmental impacts related to the
LpJaleJ General Plan. Although the certified Final Program ElR identifies unmitigated
significant adverse environmental impacts, the Facts, Findings and Statement of
Overriding Considerations indicate that the potential benefits of the Updated General
Plan and associated specific plans outweigh the unmitigated significant adverse
emironmental impacts.
C. With few exceptions, the Updated General Plan maintains the existing
General Plan land use designations. Therefore, the appropriate balance of land uses
retlected in the current General Plan is maintained by the proposed Updated General
Plan.
D. Very few properties are proposed for land use designation changes by the
Updated General Plan. The properties are identified specifically in the Final Program
Environmental Impact Report, which presents the rationale for each proposed change
and discusses the suitability, including physical characteristics of each proposed site for
the proposed land use designation.
SECTION V. ARROWHEAD SPRINGS SPECIFIC PLAN FINDINGS
Based upon substantial evidence in the record, the Mayor and Common Council
hereby find:
A. The Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan is consistent with goals and policies
of the existing General Plan, as well as revised policies of the proposed General Plan
Update, as follows:
12
Goal 2.2 - Promote development that integrates with and minimizes impacts on
surrounding land uses.
Policy 2.2.4- Hillside development and development adjacent to natural areas
shall be designed and landscaped to preserve natural features and habitat and
protect structures from threats from natural disasters, such as wildfires and floods.
Goal 4.4 - Enhance, maintain and develop recreational, cultural, entertainment
and educational facilities within the City.
B. The Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan would not be detrimental to the
public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. The proposed plan
would enhance the balance and \'ariety of commercial and residential land uses in the
City, in the interest of public welfare and convenience. The land use plan and
de\ dopmelll standards confoml to all applicable and current health and safety standards.
Also, in the interest of the public, the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan respects the
natural environment in the layout of the proposed development plan and the extensive
dedication of natural open space on the project site.
C. The site is physically suitable for the land use designations and
development plan proposed by the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan. The land use plan
has been designed to conforrn to the physical features of the site, beginning with a scale
model of the existing terrain and the existing historic hotel structure. New development
proposed by the specific plan was added to the model to maintain respect for the
prominence of the existing hotel, the natural setting of the existing landforrn and sensitive
natural resources on the project site and in the surrounding area. The site is physically
suitable for the proposed project because the project was designed specifically to conforrn
to the existing physical conditions of the site.
13
D. The Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan includes a detailed development
plan, development standards and design requirements that will ensure compatibility with
the historic Arrowhead Springs Hotel, as well as the surrounding development and
undeveloped open space. The land use plan and development standards of the specific
plan have been designed to ensure the highest quality of development, in a context that
would be compatible with the historic use of the property, while maintaining an
appropriate buffer and interface with surrounding open space and wildlands.
E. The hotels, convention center, office spaces and commercial village
proposed within the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan will provide a broad range of
employment opportunities for future residents of the project site, as well as nearby residents
in other areas of the City. The specific plan will improve the balance of land use within the
City, by providing commercial and office floor space to attract new businesses to the City
and additional shopping and recreational opportunities for City residents and visitors to the
hote Is and convention center.
14
5ECT10:\ VI. ADOPTION OF THE FACTS, FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND AND DETERMINED by the Mayor
and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino that the Facts, Findings and
Statement of Overriding Consideration fully complies with the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act, the CEQA Guidelines and the City's
Environmental Review Procedures. The Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding
Considerations are hereby adopted.
SECTION VII. ADOPTION OF THE UPDATED GENERAL PLAN AND SPECIFIC
PLANS
Based upon the above-referenced findings, the Updated General Plan aIld the
AITowhead Springs Specific Plan (attached and incorporated herein as Exhibits D and E,
respectively) are hereby adopted.
SECTION VIII. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
In accordance with the provisions of this Resolution, the Planning Division is
hereby directed to file a Notice of Determination with the County of San Bernardino
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors certifying the City's compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act in preparing and adopting the Facts, Findings and Statement
of Overriding Considerations, the Updated General Plan and the Arrowhead Springs
Specific Plan. A copy of the Notice of Determination will be forwarded to the State
Clearinghouse.
15
SECTION IX. EFFECTIVE DATE
The adoption of the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations,
the Updated General Plan and the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan shall be effective
immediately upon adoption of this Resolution.
16
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE
FACTS, FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS,
THE UPDATED GENERU PLAN AND THE ARROWHEAD SPRINGS
SPECIFIC PLAN.
[ HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Mayor and
Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at a
meeting thereof, held
day of
, 2005, by the following vote to wit:
on the
Council Members:
Aves
Navs
Abstain
Absent
ESTRADA
LONGVILLE
MCGINNIS
DERRY
KELLEY
JOHNSON
MC CAMMACK
Rachel G. Clark, City Clerk
The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this
day of November, 2005.
Judith Valles, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
Approved as to form and Legal Content:
By:
James F. Penman
City Attorney
17
EXHIBIT 4
ALFRED GOBAR ASSOCIATES
F=lGiR
-1-.1=
__r.._J....J
J--..J/
September 25, 2006
Ms. Terri Rahhal, City Planner
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Sent Via Mail & Email: rahhaUe@sbcity.org
Subject:
Arrowhead Springs Resort Conference and Meeting Center
Dear Ms. Rahhal:
Alfred Gobar Associates conducted an assessment of resort-based conference and
meeting facilities to determine the relative importance of providing an on-site golf-course
as an integral component of the Arrowhead Springs Resort. This assessment and
related findings reflect professional experience and knowledge gathered from the
following three areas:
. Alfred Gobar Associates-In-house experience evaluating market potential for
resorts and meeting facilities throughout the United States and Mexico.
. Industry/Trade Associations-Meeting industry organizations responsible for
tracking industry trends and aiding industry professionals (meeting planners,
conference center venues, hotel/resort operators, etc.) to better serve the meeting
and convention needs of association and business groups.
. Southern California Resort-Based Meeting Facility and Golf Operators-Meeting
facility sales managers, golf reservation specialists, and other professionals at
inland Southern California venues responsible for marketing meeting facilities
ranging in size from 10,000 to 50,000 square feet.
Distinct knowledge sources are considered in order to provide the City of San
Bernardino with a full-range perspective about the relative importance of providing an
on-site golf recreation amenity in conjunction with meeting functions aimed at furthering
business objectives.
Executive Summary
. The meeting industry contributes more than $122 billion to the U.S. Economy and
resort hotel/conference centers account for roughly 40% of scheduled meeting
budgets controlled by professional meeting planners. Arrowhead Springs and
other resort conference centers are expected to compete most directly for
management, sales, incentive, and education/training meeting activity, which
accounts for 86% of meeting activity reported by meeting planners [Successful
Meetings Magazine-2005 State of the Industry (SM)]. These type meeting
events last an average of 2.3 to 2.6 days compared to conventions meetings,
300 S. Harbor Blvd.. Suite 900. Anaheim, CA 92805-3721 (714) 772-8900 FAX (714) 772-8911
ALFRED GOBAR ASSOCIATES
Ms. Terri Rahhal
September 2S, 2006
Page 2
which last an average of 3.7 days but require substantially larger meeting venues
in general.
. Meeting planners have increased their focus on the overall meeting experience
offered and the marketability of the event when selecting a meeting venue to
schedule events (SM). The availability of on-site amenities that provide for a
broad-based meeting experience is very important to meeting planners. In terms
of an overall scheduling experience, 43% of meeting planners report scheduling a
golf function as an integral part of their annually scheduled meeting events
[Convene Magazine-200S Meetings Market Survey (PCMA)].
. The proposed renovation will include 25,000 square feet of new meeting space in
addition to 11,000 square feet preserved in the historic hotel structure. This size
meeting facility will be one of the larger meeting venues in San Bernardino County
and cannot rely strictly on meeting activity demanded by County-based
organizations. A competitive meeting program will need to draw year-round
support from organizations throughout California and seasonal support from cold-
weather States and Canada. This level of market orientation dictates a high
proportion of multi-day meeting events and focus on providing a broad-based
meeting experience to organizations and attendees.
. The Arrowhead Springs Resort is expected to compete with other inland Southem
California conference resorts offering a broad-based meeting experience. As the
summary in Exhibit A shows, organized play on an on-site golf course is an
integral part of the business experience for 40% to 70% of meeting attendees at a
resort conference center. Meeting facility sales managers identify availability and
access to an on-site golf course. as a very important element in attracting
scheduled meeting activity.
At a minimum, an on-site golf course is pivotal in attracting 33% to 40% of scheduled
meeting events held at resort conference venues. Without a quality on-site golf course,
the Arrowhead Springs Resort conference center will be at a significant competitive
disadvantage to comparable resort conference centers in the inland areas of Southern
California.
Professional Observations of Alfred Gobar Associates
The Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan is very similar to a master plan resort because it
includes a broad mix of residential, commercial, leisure, and recreation activities that
largely exist in a self-contained environment, yet remain accessible to the public. In the
course of our research, we have evaluated similar programs along the Kona Coast in
Hawaii; Coachella Valley in California, Lake Conroe in Texas, Los Cabos Pennisula in
Mexico, and other locations. A fundamental strategy to market and develop such a
large-scale development program is to create a strong site identity. Consequently, it is
necessary to provide a diverse mix of land use that offers the vast majority of activities
that visitors and guests will demand while staying at the property.
The historic hotel renovation and expansion is the core identity of the project-hence the
name Arrowhead Springs Resort. It must be noted, the site is not within a busy
downtown business district, not adjacent to an existing convention center, not adjacent
A,RROWHEAD SPRINGS CONFERENCE CENTER 9.25.06 DOC
ALFRED GOBAR ASSOCIATES
Ms. Terri Rahhal
September 25, 2006
Page 3
to an international airport, and is not within a visitor destination complex (San Diego Gas
Lamp Quarter, Pier 39, Disney Resort, etc.). The hotel was originally built as a remote
getaway retreat and remains relatively isolated. The remoteness of the site dictates a
visitor experience that entails substantially more than just quality sleeping
accommodations in a historic structure. An abundant supply of convenient lodging
options exists throughout the Inland Empire. The market attraction of lodging at the
Arrowhead Springs site is tied to a broader vacation and business experience.
A competitive renovation program cannot be limited to the existing 135-room capacity of
the historic structure. Renovation is costly and drives the need to increase overall
lodging capacity (175+ additional rooms plus new 300-room hotel). To attract sufficient
lodging support for 300 to 600 rooms at the Arrowhead Springs site, it is necessary to
provide a complement of activities to satisfy diverse user requirements. The envisioned
scale of on-site lodging dictates a robust complement of on-site dining, meeting, leisure,
and recreation facilities readily available and integral to the vacation and business
experience offered prospective visitors.
The renovation program will include 25,000 square feet of new meeting and conference
space plus 11.000 square feet of meeting space in the historical hotel. The conference
center will be among the largest in San Bernardino County, outside the Ontario
Convention Center, Orange Show Facility, and a select number of airport hotels. The
Arrowhead Springs Resort Conference Center can be expected to compete most directly
for meeting and conference events versus trade and exhibition events. The geographic
market focus, however, cannot be limited to County-based organizations but must also
include year-round support from organizations throughout California and seasonal
support from cold-weather States and Canada. A competitive meeting program will
involve a high proportion of multi-day events, which increases the need for on-site
leisure and recreation activities, including golf play, as part of an overall business
experience that is comparable to other Southern California conference resort facilities.
Meeting Event Industry Trends
The meeting industry contributes more than $122 billion to the U.S. economy [Meeting
Planners International (MPI)-Future Watch 2006]. Meeting planners provide a key
resource to evaluate industry trends since they are the lead professionals involved in
selecting meeting and exhibit venues on behalf of associations, trade groups,
corporations, and other organizations. According to MPI, resort hotel/conference
centers are a venue of choice among meeting planners and account for nearly 40% of
reported planning budget activity. Other types of venues commonly selected to host
meeting events include convention centers, standalone hotels, and
restaurant/banquet/country club facilities. The Arrowhead Springs site is expected to
compete with other venues for meeting activity as a resort hotel/conference center.
The scale of the Arrowhead Springs Conference Center is expected to compete rnost
directly for management. sales, incentive, and training/education meetings, which
account for 86% of all sCheduled meeting activity reported by meeting planners
[Successful Meetings (SM)-2005 State of the Industry Report]. Conventions account
for 14% of scheduled meeting activity. Based on multi-year reporting data from SM,
ARROWHEAD SPRINGS CONFERENCE CENTER 9-25-06 DOC
ALFRED GOBAR ASSOCIATES
Ms. Terri Rahhal
September 25, 2006
Page 4
average attendance at non-convention meetings ranged from 67 to 165 attendees
compared to 1,422 attendees at convention meetings. Also, non-convention meetings
last an average of 2.3 to 2.6 days, compared to 3.7 days on average for conventions.
The Arrowhead Springs Resort is expected to compete most directly for modest to mid-
size meeting events lasting 2 to 3 days. Targeting multi-day meeting activity dictates the
availability of multiple on-site leisure and recreation options for sponsor organizations
and attendees. According to the Professional Convention Managers Association
(PCMA), individual meeting planners schedule an average of 12 meetings per year and
43% of meeting planners report that 1 or more meetings per year involves a golf function
directly tied to the meeting event. Meeting planners generally represent a single or
select number of meeting groups, while meeting venue operators must interact with
hundreds of meeting planners in a given year.
According to SM [2005 State of the Industry Report], meeting planners are increasingly
focused on the overall meeting experience and marketability of the event. The
availability of on-site amenities is very important to many independent meeting planners,
whether or not attendee use of such amenities is integral to the meeting event. From a
competitive standpoint, the business experience offered at the Arrowhead Springs
Conference Center must be comparable to the experience available at other comparable
Southern California Resort Conference Centers. The Arrowhead Springs site is a
historic location but is not part of a readily recognized destination area, such as the
Coachella Valley or San Diego.
Southern California Resort Conference Center Trends
Meeting space and golf course sales managers at a number of Southern California
Resort Conference Centers were contacted to determine the role of an on-site golf
course in attracting and selling meeting activity at each respective venue. The
information describing those conference resorts contacted is summarized in Exhibit A.
The listed resorts were selected because they are comparable to the planned
Arrowhead Springs Resort Conference Center in terms of their inland Southern
California location, number of hotel rooms available to host meeting attendees, type of
business meeting experience offered to meeting planners, and amount of meeting space
offered. Identified conference centers also describe alternative venues that will compete
with the Arrowhead Springs Resort for scheduled meeting activity.
Exhibit A also identifies the importance of an on-site golf course as indicated by sales
managers responsible for booking meeting events and golf play. Sales managers
estimate that 50% to 90% of resort conference meeting activity involves multi-day
events. The Pacific Palms Resort at Industry Hills indicated the lowest share of multi-
day meeting events due to its proximity to a large industrial complex generating demand
for 1-day training events. Between 40% and 80% of scheduled meetings include
organized golf playas part of the meeting program-either as a group event or
tournament event but excluding individual play not part of the formal meeting function.
Due to the large proportion of 1-day meeting events, the Industry Hills conference resort
reported the lowest incidence of scheduled golf playas part of the meeting event (40%).
Methods used to identify meeting attendee participation in organized golf play vary. The
Industry Hills resort indicates that 45% to 60% of attendees participate when a meeting-
ARROWHEAD SPRINGS CONFERENCE CENTER 9-25-06 DOC
ALFRED GOBAR ASSOCIATES
Ms. Terri Rahhal
September 25, 2006
Page 5
related golf event is organized. The Rancho Bernardo Inn golf manager schedules over
300 meeting-related golf tourneys per year (as distinct from group play) with 24 to 60
meeting attendees participating in each event. Overall, facility managers estimate that
40% to 70% of meeting attendees play at the resort golf course during their stay.
Industry trends indicate that at least 43% of meeting events scheduled in all types of
meeting venues includes organized golf play, while Southern California conference
resort managers suggest meeting-related golf play is integral to a significantly larger
share of scheduled meeting activity. These observations underscore strong preference
by meeting planners for meeting venues that offer an overall meeting experience.
Without a quality on-site golf course, the Arrowhead Springs Resort Conference Center
will be at a significant competitive disadvantage to comparable resort conference centers
in the inland areas of Southern California.
Exhibit A also qualifies the importance of a resort conference center in generating
rounds of play on the resort course. Meeting-related play is estimated to account for
15% to 35% of total rounds of play at conference resort courses. The actual level of play
appears related to the overall size of the resort conference meeting venue and related
schedule activity. Meeting-related play only accounts for 15% or less than 7,000 rounds
of play at the Ojai I nn and Spa, which offers a relatively limited quantity and mix of
meeting space. Southern California conference resorts with at least 20,000 square feet
of indoor meeting space tend to generate a greater share of overall golf play activity
ranging from 30% to 35%, or in excess of 20,000 rounds per year. The Arrowhead
Springs Resort is planned include a new 25,000-square-foot conference center with
another 11,000 square feet of meeting space available in the historic hotel.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide you knowledge and insights gathered from
recognized industry resources and professionals competing in the Southern California
meeting market place. For your benefit, we have attached a brief summary of our
qualifications, including a personal resume.
Sincerely,
ALFRED GOBAR ASSOCIATES
/;;' ,_///7
/ ./;,/ . / ~//'
,,:>.c..r~t1-. ~/<c~_~_
/;-
."
Alonzo Pedrin
Principal
(714) 772-8900 x310
AP
Encl.
cc: John.Nolan@greshamsavage.com
ARROWHEAD SPRINGS CONFERENCE CENTER 9.25.06 DOC
EXHIBIT A
COMPETING INLAND SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RESORT-CONFERENCE CENTERS
ARROWHEAD SPRINGS RESORT, SAN BERNARDINO
Pacific Palms Hyatt Grand The Grand Dei Arrowhead
Conference Rancho Champions Ojai Valley Spa Mar Springs Resort
Facility Descnption Resort Bernardo Inn Resort and Inn (U.C.) (Project)
Resort LocatIon Industy Rancho Indian Wells Ojai Del Mar San
Bernardo Bernardino
Resort Property
Size of Property (Ac) 650 265 235 220 226 263
Miles From Major Airport 33 20 15 60 15 15
Airport Facility LA-Int'I San Diego-lnt'l Palm Spgs-lnt'l LA-Int'I San Dlego-Int'l Ontario-tnt'1
Hotel Lodging
No. of Rooms 292 287 480 308 261 300 - 600
Listed Rates $110-$1,200 $170-$1,400 $110-$4,000 $400-$5,400 n.a. n.a.
Architectural Style Contemp. Spanish-Med Contemp. Historical Spanish-Med Historical
Meeting Facilities
Indoor Space (Sq Ft) 45,000 24,265 40,000 11,000 15,200 25,000
Largest (Sq Ft) 12,700 10,160 20,000 6,000 9,830 n.a.
Function/Meeting Areas 25 10 26 5 6 n.a.
Full-Svc Business Center Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes n.a.
On~Site Recreation Amenities
Golf Course 36-H 18-H 36-H 18-H 18-H 18-H
Tennis Courts 17 -Lighted 12-Lighted 3-Lighted 4-Lighted 2-Lighted n.a.
Spa Facility U.C.-2007 Full-Service Full-Service Full-Service Full-Service Full-Service
Fitness Center Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Specialized EquesUHellport
Resort Meeting Activity and Golf Play
Share of Meeting Activity:
MUltI-Day Events 33% 90% n.a. 80% n.a. n.a.
Events w/Sched. Golf 40% 80% 50% 60% n.a. n.a.
Attendees Playing Golf 50% 60% 40% 70% n.a. n.a.
Meeting-Driven Golf Play
Share of Annual Rounds 35% 30% 30% 15% n.a. n.a.
Total Course Rounds 122,000 58,000 60,000 45,000 n.a. n.a.
Source: Alfred Gobar Associates
So Cal Conference Resons,xlsIResort Summary/9125/2006
STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS
FOR
ALFRED GOBAR ASSOCIATES
RGiR
--.J~_
-3~-.-J
J~./
ALFRED GOBAR ASSOCIATES
300 S. Harbor Boulevard. Suite 900, Anaheim. CA 92805-3721 (714) 772-8900 FAX (714) 772-8911
ALFRED GOBAR ASSOCIATES
Alfred Gobar Associates
Company Background and Qualifications
Alfred Gobar Associates has provided economic, market, and development analysis in
Southern California and throughout the United States for nearly 30 years. We have
extensive experience evaluating development potential for retail, office, industrial, hotel,
residential, and specialized recreation projects. Our clients include private developers,
investors, and businesses generally concerned with project feasibility at a site-specific
location; lending institutions concerned with areawide market conditions and trends; and
pubiic agencies concerned with the influence of market opportunities and constraints on
desired implementation programs and policies. The firm's methodology and analytical
approach focuses on project and land use potential in terms of trade area market
conditions and trends. absorption potential at the site location, supportable land value,
development strategies for exploiting market opportunities and the investment outlook
from the perspective of the client's required rate of return. Our methodology and
approach is often applied to highest and best use studies by evaluating the study
location against alternative markets separately and in combination.
Our work approach is efficient, cost-effective, and entails the use of a small, highly
skilled research staff of less than 10 employees. Our consulting strategy is to maintain a
staff of senior-level analysts with the knowledge and ability to achieve a high level of
work efficiency and respond directly to client needs. The company operating approach
reflects a basic philosophy of the firm: providing accurate and defensible real estate
economic. urban economic, statistical and financial analysis is best achieved with a
cohesive core of experienced analysts.
Alfred Gobar Associates has achieved and continues to maintain the company
philosophy by providing accurate, cost-effective analysis for numerous kinds of study
and client needs. Noted below is the average number of studies we have provided
annually for the past five years requiring different levels of data base, statistical, field
research, and empirical analysis throughout the United States:
General Cate 0
Housing
Office
Industrial
Hotel/Motel
Retail
Recreation
Fiscal
Financial/Economic/Special Purpose
Average Annual
Studies Com leted
61
7
7
1
14
5
9
~
Average Annual Number of Studies
119
Housing Qualifications
ALFRED GOBAR ASSOCIATES
Alfred Gobar Associates has been involved in housing market analyses since 1968 and
has pioneered development of econometric techniques applicable to housing market
analysis. For a number of years, Dr. Gobar was a contributing editor to HousinQ
MaQazine and has since contributed to Builder. Staff members are regular speakers at
local, regional, and national housing industry meetings and conventions. A partial list of
the firm's builder clients include:
Akins
Beazer Homes
Brookfield Homes
Catellus Residential
Centex Homes
Christopher Homes
Citicorp
Communities Southwest
CPH (Capital Pacific Homes)
Del Webb
Diversified Pacific Development Corp.
EA Platt & Company, Inc.
Engle Homes
Fieldstone
Friendswood Development
Greystone Homes
Hans Hagen Homes
Hansen & Horn Group, Inc.
John Kavanagh Company
John Laing HomeslWL Homes
K. Hovnanian Companies
Kaufman and Broad
Larwin
Lennar Homes
Lewis Homes
Lincoln Properties
Manning Homes
Mercedes Homes
Mission Viejo Company/Shea Homes
Pacific Scene
Polygon Development
Ponderosa
Pulte Homes
Rancho Mission Viejo Company
Santa Clara Development
Santa Margarita Company
Shapell
Signal Landmark
Signature Quality Built Homes
Standard Pacific Corporation
Taylor Woodrow Homes
The Eastlake Company
The Irvine Company/Community Dev.
. The KolI Company
The Lusk Companies
The Presley Company
The Valencia Corporation
Trimark Pacific Homes
Unocal
William Lyon Development Company
Financial institutions for which Alfred Gobar Associates has conducted housing-related
studies include: .
Bank of America
First Western Savings and Loan of Las Vegas
Glendale Federal Savings and Loan
Home Savings
Pacific Western National Bank
Wells Fargo Bank
Retail Qualifications
Alfred Gobar Associates (originally Darley-Gobar Associates. Inc.) pioneered the
development of mathematically-based models for retail site selection. preparing
nationwide site selection strategies for a number of chains including A & W International.
2
ALFRED GOBAR ASSOCIATES
Betty Crocker Pie Shops, Burger Chef, Carl Karcher Enterprises, Collins Foods
International, Denny's restaurants, Dunkin' Donuts, Farrell's Ice Cream Parlors, Jack in
the Box, Jolly Roger restaurants, Orange Julius, Pizza Hut, Sir George's Smorgasbord,
etc. Supermarket chains for which Alfred Gobar Associates has prepared development
strategies and individual project feasibility analyses include Albertson's, Arden Mayfair,
Big Bear Markets, Bradshaws, EI Rancho markets, Food Giant, Vons, Stater Bros.,
Hughes, Gelsons, Mothers and others.
The company has also been retained to prepare retail site feasibility analyses for Atlantic
Richfield Company, Exxon, Fotomat, Gulf Oil, Sav-On, Walker Scott department stores,
West Brothers department stores, 7-11, Tic Toc Convenience Markets, and such
shopping center developers as Newman Properties, E.W. Hahn Corporation, Beneficiai
Standard Properties, the Janss Corporation, Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company,
Chevron Land and Development Company, Getty Oil, Huntington Beach Company,
Donahue Schriber Company, SDC, Western Commercial Development Company,
Diversified Shopping Centers, Crossroads Development Company, Trammel Crow,
Homart, and a large number of smaller shopping center development entities.
The company also prepares retail market studies on behalf of Cities and Redevelopment
Agencies seeking to negotiate development agreements, formulate land use policies to
stimulate private investment, or formulate programs that focus on target locations where
strong potential is indicated but existing conditions restrict private-market investment. A
number of local agencies for which we have recently identified site development
potential include City of La Habra, City of Fountain Valley, City of Costa Mesa, City of
Cathedral City, City of Hanford, and City of Lake Forest.
Hotel/Motel Qualifications
Alfred Gobar Associates is not as well known for hotel market feasibility studies as for
retail, office, industrial, and housing studies. We have, however, conducted these types
of studies for over 30 years and have prepared hotel feasibility studies for The Wrather
Corporation, TraveLodge, Royal Inns, DoubleTree Inns, Christopher D. Sickels
Associates. Inc., The Lusk Companies, Vacation Village Hotel, All Seasons Inns, and
many individual investors and operators.
Office and Industrial Qualifications
Our experience in terms of office and industrial market analysis includes application of
statistical and conventional research techniques to separate and mixed-use projects for
such clients as The Irvine Company, Mission Viejo Company, Union Bank, Chevron
Land and Development Company, Huntington Beach Company, Lincoln Properties,
Beneficial Standard Properties, Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company, Christeson
Development Company, Larwin, SDC, Shapell, Transwestern Commercial Services,
Linpro, Catellus, Watson Land Company, The Carson Companies, Overton-Moore
Associates, Edward Properties, CT Capital, Shea Properties, Turner Development, etc.
Financial Qualifications
Staff members at Alfred Gobar Associates have substantial experience and training in
quantitative methods of financial analysis. For nearly 20 years, Dr. Gobar was a
professor of finance in the graduate schools of business at the University of Southern
3
ALFRED GOBAR ASSOCIATES
California and at the California State University campuses in Los Angeles and Fullerton.
A significant part of his teaching load related to courses in quantitative financial analysis
techniques.
Fiscal Qualifications
Alfred Gobar Associates has prepared fiscal impact analyses for numerous site-specific
development projects and for government planning programs evaluating land use
development policy alternatives. In addition, Alfred Gobar Associates has been retained
by County-level governments to evaluate fiscal effects resulting from operation of
government-owned facilities such as golf courses, marinas, museums, etc. A list of
recent clients for which fiscal impact studies have been prepared includes the County of
Riverside, County of Kern, County of Ventura, California State Department of
Transportation (CAL TRANS), County of Orange Environmental Management Agency,
Orange County Flood Control District, Fountain Valley Redevelopment Agency, City of
Escondido, City of Yorba Linda, City of Brea, City of Chula Vista, City of National City,
City of Rialto, City of Placentia, City of West Covina, City of Indio, City of La Habra,
Diversified Shopping Centers, ICI Development, Santa Margarita Company, Irvine
Company, Tejon Ranch, Ranpac Engineering, Standard Pacific, Greystone Homes,
Makar Properties. Charles W. Poss, Sun land Housing Group, Capital Pacific Holdings,
and others.
Recreational Qualifications
Alfred Gobar Associates has conducted many recreational use and facility feasibility
studies in California and the United States on an ongoing basis for over 30 years.
Completed recreationai studies cover a wide spectrum of uses including economic
feasibility studies for Jack Murphy Stadium in San Diego; proposed expansion of Shea
Stadium in New York; Vacation Village Resort Hotel in Mission Bay; Channel Islands
National Monument Visitor Center in Ventura; public softball complex in Santa Maria;
several off-highway vehicle parks throughout the State of California; thoroughbred race
track facility in Coeur D'Alene. Idaho; equestrian center with televised betting and
quarter horse racing in Riverside County; Civic and Cultural Center in Escondido;
expansion of the Mason Regional Park Public Golf Course in Irvine; expansion of the
Orange County Marine Institute in Dana Point; renovation and upgrades to Mayflower
Park in Blythe, California; public zoo and aquarium projects in Edmonton Alberta,
Canada; Fleet Planetarium and IMAX projection system for Balboa Park in San Diego;
and numerous other projects. In addition, Alfred Gobar Associates has done extensive
work in the area of recreational use and facility planning including participation in the
Dana Point Harbor Master Plan Assessment, Ten-Year Master Plan for Riverside
Regional Parks, Casino and recreational use facility studies for the Morongo Indians,
Recreation and Parks Master Plans for the Cities of Corona, Laguna Hills, Diamond Bar,
Murrieta. Rancho Mirage, Temecula, Upland, Mission Viejo, Upland, and others.
Recent Related Projects
Paqeant of the Masters/Festival of Arts-Two independent investigations were
conducted during 2000 and 2001 to assess the economic impact of an ongoing,
seasonal arts festival in Laguna Beach, California. Each investigation attempted to
identify total direct and indirect spending and total indirect audience spending generated
4
ALFRED GOBAR ASSOCIATES
during the 50+ day event. Adjoining beach communities were used as a benchmark to
evaluate "normal" increases/decreases in various revenue categories-transient
occupancy tax, retail sales tax (particularly for eating and drinking establishments}-over
the same operating period to identify revenue increases directly/indirectly tied to
PageanUFestival attendees.
Fullerton Plaza Railwav Museum-A market and development feasibility study for a
40.000-square-foot museum adjacent to the historic Santa Fe Depot in Downtown
Fullerton. The study identified the space requirements, visitor attendance, and operating
performance of a contemporary museum operation. The study approach focused on
precedent operating performance and market penetration describing a number of
analogous museums in Colorado, Washington, and Califomia. Selected factors
evaluated included floor space requirements, functional space allocation, rolling stock
exhibits, admission pricing, geographic distribution of visitor origin, attendance
composition, staffing ratios, volunteer support, and fixed and variable expense
requirements. Alternative operating scenarios were formulated based on conservative
and optimistic interpretations about the level of effective market penetration and key
revenue and operating components. In addition, market support and performance
potential for a meeting facility and specialty retail venue constructed as an integral
component of the museum was also evaluated to determine if synergistic opportunities
to increase the attraction of Fullerton Railway Plaza as a regional destination. Finally, a
series of five-year development and operating pro forma were formulated to determine
the level of operating and construction cost subsidy that may be required to sustain the
overall development program.
Leo Fender Music Museum-A 2001 market feasibility study to determine probable
market support, space requirements, and operating performance of a dedicated music
museum to be operated as an expansion facility of Fullerton Museum Center. The
museum expansion is contemplated to showcase diverse sound innovation by Leo
Fender and the corresponding influence on popular musicians, music culture, and
concurrent events taking place the United States. Study evaluated the operating
performance of several music museum venues throughout the United States in order to
determine precedent limits of market support, operating performance, scope of facilities,
exhibition and education programming, and related operating requirements that should
be realistically anticipated. Special attention directed to range of operating Objectives
(exhibition, education, research) that should be emphasized and corresponding staffing,
volunteer, and revenue support. A series of operating pro forma were prepared based
on a recommended operating objective, corresponding facility and operating
requirements, probable limits of operating support, and projected capital and recurring
funding support required from external sources.
Oranqe Countv Fair and EXDosition Center-A 2002 economic analysis of the Fair and
Exposition Center. The study involved a detailed budget level of analysis with respect to
a full spectrum of existing fair and non-fair programming activity at the 148-acre facility.
Analysis of the existing operation served to identify precedent revenue performance.
expense requirements, and corresponding net benefit to the 32"" Agricultural District.
Net benefit was evaluated with respect to the supply of land dedicated to interim and
year-round activities as well as amount of year-round scheduling capacity utilized and
corresponding event-day benefit generated. In support of a long-range master plan
development effort, a diverse range of alternative programming activities (concert venue,
grandstand arena and speedway, meeting and exhibition facilities, equestrian activity,
5
ALFRED GOSAR ASSOCIATES
interpretive center, etc.) and space utilization scenarios were evaluated in the context of
probable market support, revenue performance limits, and corresponding expense
requirements in order to identify a plan alternative that will increase the level of public
benefit and net operating performance of the Fairground facility.
Las Veoas Performino Arts Center-A 1997 feasibility study on behalf of the Las Vegas
Performing Arts Center Foundation. The foundation, primarily composed of hotel and
casino owners, sought to determine probable attendance support from Las Vegas
visitors and metro area residents for a state of the art performance venue scheduling
Broadway caliber shows. The determination of support potential involved the design,
execution, and analysis of random sample telephone interviews with metro area
residents and face-to-face intercept surveys of visitors at Downtown and Strip location
attractions. Empirical survey studies were supplemented by a secondary analysis of
survey studies prepared by the National Endowment of the Arts, Las Vegas Visitors and
Convention Bureau, and other sources evaluating leisure behavior, leisure participation,
and leisure expenditure. Concurrent with the survey study, cultural performance groups
throughout the Las Vegas metropolitan area were also interviewed with respect to
current programming objectives, facility requirements, scale and nature of scheduled
events, and local base of support. The analysis identified respective levels of probable
support from Las Vegas visitors and residents and the corresponding event-day
schedule warranted for distinct types cultural performance events. The analysis also
identified the increment increase in room-night demand driven by projected event
scheduling and the corresponding implication for a hotel tax financing vehicle to support
identified capital and operating requirements of the performance venue.
Oranoe Countv Natural Historv Museum-A 1993 feasibility study on behalf of the
County of Orange to determine probable limits of market support, facility space
requirements, mission objective, staffing, volunteer support, and other operating
parameters for a prospective natural history museum within Orange County. Over
twelve alternative site locations throughout the County were also evaluated with respect
to complementary activities and land use that would improve the relative attraction and
marketability of this cultural venue. Study involved an extensive investigation of natural
history museum with programming budgets from less than $500,000 per year to more
than $20.0 million per year. Operating component of analysis focused on breadth of
disciplinary sciences represented or emphasized, scale of facilities utilized with respect
to size of collection and visitor activity, functional design of facilities, disciplinary staffing
requirements, location attributes, exhibition programmin9 and scheduling, revenue and
expense budgets, etc. Market component of analysis focused on incidence of support
based on scale of primary trade area served and related operating scope of museum
facility. Study was utilized by Orange County Harbors, Beaches, and Parks to deterrnine
scale of operation warranted based on probable incidence of support by County
residents and probable level of capital facility and ongoing operating support that would
likely be required if the County were to sponsor the development and operation of a
natural history museum.
MCAS Tustin Blimo Hanoar Alternative Use Analvsis-A 1997 analysis of cash flow
requirements associated with ongoing maintenance and repair of one of the Blimp
Hangars (Building 29) according to three re-use alternatives (movie studio, recreation
warehouse, demolition/site conversion). Cost analysis based on extensive architectural
and engineering assessment of hangar facility. Analysis identified annual funding
requirements for unique architectural and engineering components of the hangar based
6
ALFRED GOBAR ASSOCIATES
on alternative program cycles for repair and maintenance (extent and frequency of
repair/maintenance). Repair and maintenance cost structure also evaluated in terms of
the annualized equivalent funding requirement including and excluding a interest-bearing
sinking fund designed to accrue sufficient funding when scheduled repair and
maintenance is due. Directed cost analysis served to synthesize and present disparate
components of a $900,000 hangar re-use study prepared for COMBCAB WEST,
Department of Defense agency involved in evaluating re-use of MCAS Tustin.
Escondido Civic and Cultural Center ComDlex-A market and financial feasibility
analysis used to support design competition, sale of public financing instruments and
construction of a civic center and cultural arts complex serving the Northern San Diego
County inland area (approximately 600,000 population). Market analysis evaluated
trade area support for a wide range of cultural activities including a large performing arts
theatre (2,500+ seats), small performing arts theatre (300 seats max.), museum facility
and assorted community/cultural venues. Analysis included survey of competitive
facilities and event schedules, market performance pricing potential and overview of
macro-economic trends in the museum and performing arts industries. Market analysis
identified facility requirements (scope of improvements and capacity) needed to satisfy
projected market demand. Financial analysis evaluated revenue-generating potential,
operating cost requirements, and residual capacity to finance desired improvements.
7
ALFRED GOBAR ASSOCIATES
Hourly Rate Schedule
I Description Hourly
L- Individual/Title of Res onsibilities Rate
Dr. Aifred Gobar Pnmary Analysis and $250
Principal Presentation
Alonzo Pedrin Project Coordination, Primary 120
Principal Analysis, Presentations, Research
and Product Synthesis
JimWoif Project Coordination, Primary 120
Principal Analysis, Presentations, Research
and Product Synthesis
Christine Coman Project Coordination, Primary 120
Independent Consultant Analysis, Presentations, Research
and Product Synthesis
Coreen Suzukida Data Research, Analysis 80
Senior Research Associate and Data Synthesis
Stacy Ramsey Data Research, Systems Analysis 80
Independent Consultant and Information Technology
Michael Saeedi Data Research, Analysis 80
Senior Research Associate and Synthesis, Systems Operations
David Wood Data Research, Analysis 65
Research Associate and Synthesis, Systems Operations
Ryan Early Data Research, Analysis 65
Research Associate and Synthesis, Systems Operations
Other Field Staff Field Data Collection 50
Administrative Staff Word Processing, Report 55
Preparation
8
ALFRED GOBAR ASSOC IA TES
Alonzo Pedrin
POSITION:
Principal
EDUCATION:
CalifDrnia State Polytechnic University, PDmona, 1980
B.S.-Urban and Regional Planning
Minor-Economics
University of CalifDrnia, Irvine, 1995
Master Df Business Administration
(Emphasis in Real Estate Finance and Marketing)
AREAS OF EXPERTISE AND EXPERIENCE:
Mr. Pedrin is a managing principal of the firm. He has served as project manager and
senior research analyst for numerous private and public sector studies completed by
Alfred Gobar AssDciates since 1986. Project management capabilities include research
design, project scheduling and coordination, client interface, staff-level meetings, and
public presentations. Mr. Pedrin's technical capabilities have been applied extensively
to fiscal impact studies and market feasibility studies directed tD retail, housing, office,
recreational, and specialized land use development. The diversity of specialized studies
in which Mr. Pedrin has served as lead analyst includes highest and best use studies,
financial optimization studies, resort housing studies in the US and Mexico, loft housing,
performing arts theaters, museums, convention and exhibition centers, sports parks,
RV. campgrounds, equestrian centers, off-highway vehicle parks, auto centers, day
care centers, private high schools, outlet centers, power retail centers, and marina
facilities. Finally, Mr. Pedrin serves as the principal in-charge for most public sector
studies requiring economic scrutiny of aevelopment and redevelopment strategies,
general plan policies, recreation ventures, and the fiscal impact Df real estate
development.
Prior to joining Alfred Gobar Associates, Mr. Pedrin worked extensively in the field of
redevelopment. environmental impact analysis and general plan adoption as a project
manager for a private consulting group. Mr. Pedrin also served in the public sector,
working four years in the Community Development Department of the City of Pomona
and City of West Covina. While in public service, Mr. Pedrin coordinated the City's
development review processes, analyzed development applications, and presented
recommendations to the Planning Commission. Mr. Pedrin was also involved in the
formulation of policies related to development standards and land use regulation.
MEMBERSHIPS AND QUALIFICATIONS:
Urban Land Institute-Orange County Chapter
Cal Poly. Pomona-Urban and Regional Planning Alumni Association
University of California, Irvine-Graduate School of Management Alumni Association
STATEMENT OF OuAlIFICA nONS 9-0600c
9